why do you keep linking to studies of people who are eating poison?

it's irrelevant, and it's no different from what temp used to do.

"why do you keep linking to studies of people who are eating poison?"

That doesn't make any sense. Any study going against your current beliefs is irrelevant.

Has nothing to do with my beliefs. poor diets including cooked food will result in poor assimilation and conversion. that is why we are here. The raw food board.


According to an article in Nutrition Reviews (Vol. 66, pp. 326-332), between eight and 20 per cent of ALA is converted to EPA in humans, and between 0.5 and nine percent of ALA is converted to DHA.

I can't get to the article.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has nothing to do with my beliefs. poor diets
> including cooked food will result in poor
> assimilation and conversion. that is why we are
> here. The raw food board.
>
>
> According to an article in Nutrition Reviews (Vol.
> 66, pp. 326-332), between eight and 20 per cent of
> ALA is converted to EPA in humans, and between 0.5
> and nine percent of ALA is converted to DHA.
>
> I can't get to the article.


It says...

"Much attention has been paid to the conversion of ALA to the longer chain EPA, with many stating that this conversion is very small. According to an article in Nutrition Reviews (Vol. 66, pp. 326-332), between eight and 20% of ALA is converted to EPA in humans, and between 0.5% and 9% of ALA is converted to DHA. In addition, the gender plays an important role with women of reproductive age reportedly converting ALA to EPA at a 2.5-fold greater rate than healthy men"

1.) Even with 9% conversion rates, you'd have to get over 3.3 grams of ALA per day, still unlikely on a predominantly fruit-based diet.

2.) If women are converting at a 2.5-fold greater rate, the conversion rate in men is obviously going to be much lower than 9%.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 03:17AM by jtprindl.

Pringle, When are you going to show us your spectracell results?

Spouter, When are you going to show us your spectracell results?



Also, since both you and the Pringle want us to follow your diet then I'd like to see pics of both of you to see how well your diet is doing for you.

If you won't show your pics then get the eff away from me!

Got like 340% copper yesterday from mangos. yummm!

I'm trying to get to 500% today. Copper rocks, whoo!


If the US beat Portugal today I might even go to 1000%. Yeah baby! Where's the fun in zinc? Copper's where it's at!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 02:50PM by Anon 102.

WHO recommendations are as low as 200-250mg EPA/DHA

you are left to explain lack of symptoms, not me.
dismissing health indicators is a cop out.

my point is not to state conclusively that nutrients are sufficient on all fruit eaters diets.
my point is that your statements are unsupported.

your statements that you will make regarding "too much sugar", or that "nobody eats like that" or WHATEVER, about the following diet example will also be invalid.

you have a rationalization for everything because you do not wish to believe .

lettuce , bananas, figs , dates, celery, spinach, avocado, brazil nut. 2500 calories.
could be adjusted in any number of different ways as far as foods or calories.

There is nothing that is concerning at all below to me.

As I said, there are safety factors added in for no good reason, and 67% was a quoted figure based on statistical analysis for percent of the RDA that is required for most people. The RDA's are merely beccause they need to satisfy a certain statistical percentage of people allegedly covered, like 98%. I could just as well adjust the RDA's down to 67%
Even so, I will go with the RDA as is.

fat 151%
omega 3 140%
omega 6 44%
protein - all aminos above 100%
all B vits, folate, vit A all way above 100%
vit E 92%
calcium copper iron magnesium, all above 100%
manganese phosphorous, potassium all above 100%
selenium 200%
zinc 89%

as far as iodine it's hard to say (even though that doesn't seem to stop the nutrient police from whining "where do you get your iodine", but according to this

[wholefoodcatalog.info]

the sample diet above contains at least 150ug


and the requirements are150ug

>>>>1.) Even with 9% conversion rates, you'd have to get over 3.3 grams of ALA per day, still unlikely on a predominantly fruit-based diet.


I wasn't even trying to tweak the above diet and it has 2.5g of ALA, and it's low calorie for many people.

so a person who cared about such things would have no trouble, in fact it would be "likely" to have enough, and we still don't really have any idea of a firm conversion rate., and as the study said, the conversion rates were quite a bit higher the lower the intake..and there is also no firm requirement known for dpa/epa, just guesswork.

that does not preclude someone from thinking they don't get enough and taking steps, but it does not support the statements like "where do you get XXX" as if the nutrients are nonexistent or the amounts available are "irrelevant" on a fruit based diet..

"WHO recommendations are as low as 200-250mg EPA/DHA"

Link?

"my point is that your statements are unsupported."

What statements? I'm the one providing studies regarding my claims.

"the sample diet above contains at least 150ug"

There is no sample diet in that link.

"As I said, there are safety factors added in for no good reason, and 67% was a quoted figure based on statistical analysis for percent of the RDA that is required for most people."

Evidence?

"fat 151%
omega 3 140%
omega 6 44%
protein - all aminos above 100%
all B vits, folate, vit A all way above 100%
vit E 92%
calcium copper iron magnesium, all above 100%
manganese phosphorous, potassium all above 100%
selenium 200%
zinc 89%"

These are simply percentages you made up based off nothing and doesn't explain the nutritional inadequacies of predominantly fruit-based diets.

Anyways, this is getting old. If you want to eat mostly fruit, go right ahead

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "WHO recommendations are as low as 200-250mg
> EPA/DHA"
>
> Link?

what is the point of providing you with a link? you are not the slightest bit interested in changing your position.

it was a WHO document.

>
> "my point is that your statements are
> unsupported."
>
> What statements? I'm the one providing studies
> regarding my claims.
>

stick with me here ok as I have stated this repeatedly.

you made statements about certain nutrients being unavailable, in irrelevant amounts, on a fruit based diet.etc

yeah,, those statements.


> "the sample diet above contains at least 150ug"
>
> There is no sample diet in that link.
>

the sample diet that I listed above , showing the foods that I put into cronometer at 2500 calories, with reference to "that link" showing iodine amounts in various greens.


> "As I said, there are safety factors added in for
> no good reason, and 67% was a quoted figure based
> on statistical analysis for percent of the RDA
> that is required for most people."
>
> Evidence?
>


Evidence that the RDA's are required for health?



> "fat 151%
> omega 3 140%
> omega 6 44%
> protein - all aminos above 100%
> all B vits, folate, vit A all way above 100%
> vit E 92%
> calcium copper iron magnesium, all above 100%
> manganese phosphorous, potassium all above 100%
> selenium 200%
> zinc 89%"
>
> These are simply percentages you made up based off
> nothing and doesn't explain the nutritional
> inadequacies of predominantly fruit-based diets.

Based off nothing? Has your corpus collosum been severed?

I put the foods I listed into cronometer and those were the percentages.
200 cal lettuuce
1000 cal bananas
900 cal figs
27 cal dates
30 cal celery
80 cal spinach
220 cal avos
30 cal brazil nut


>
> Anyways, this is getting old. If you want to eat
> mostly fruit, go right ahead

Of course it's getting old, it's approaching the point where your head explodes as you gaze upon the percentages easily achievable by a fruit based diet without gorging on calories.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 05:36PM by fresh.

"what is the point of providing you with a link? you are not the slightest bit interested in changing your position."

To prove your point, which it seems like you cannot.

"you made statements about certain nutrients being unavailable, in irrelevant amounts, on a fruit based diet.etc"

Yes, and I have provided studies for them all (iodine, zinc, iron, DHA). This doesn't even include B12.

"I put the foods I listed into cronometer and those were the percentages.
200 cal lettuuce
1000 cal bananas
900 cal figs
27 cal dates
30 cal celery
80 cal spinach
220 cal avos
30 cal brazil nut"

10 bananas (1000 calories) would give you around 150-170 grams of sugar and 900 calories of figs would give you around 180 grams of sugar. That's over 300 grams of sugar in a day not even counting the dates. Like I said before, you wouldn't be able to reach sufficient levels without eating enormous amounts of sugar. Besides, the omega-3 percentages do not account for poor conversion rates of ALA to DHA.

"Evidence that the RDA's are required for health?"

No, for this statement... "there are safety factors added in for no good reason"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 05:56PM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "what is the point of providing you with a link?
> you are not the slightest bit interested in
> changing your position."
>
> To prove your point, which it seems like you
> cannot.
>
> "you made statements about certain nutrients being
> unavailable, in irrelevant amounts, on a fruit
> based diet.etc"
>
> Yes, and I have provided studies for them all
> (iodine, zinc, iron, DHA). This doesn't even
> include B12.
>

I am pretty sure I have noted b12 several times, so you bringing it up when I have already conceded the point is desperate diversion.



> "I put the foods I listed into cronometer and
> those were the percentages.
> 200 cal lettuuce
> 1000 cal bananas
> 900 cal figs
> 27 cal dates
> 30 cal celery
> 80 cal spinach
> 220 cal avos
> 30 cal brazil nut"
>
> 10 bananas (1000 calories) would give you around
> 150-170 grams of sugar and 900 calories of figs
> would give you around 180 grams of sugar. That's
> over 300 grams of sugar in a day not even counting
> the dates. Like I said before, you wouldn't be
> able to reach sufficient levels without eating
> enormous amounts of sugar. Besides, the omega-3
> percentages do not account for poor conversion
> rates of ALA to DHA.
>

NOPE. What you said is the nutrients are not available or are in trivial amounts.

Now where in this post did you retract your statement ?

And what you consider enormous is irrelevant.

the brain uses 120 g glucose per day and the body the rest.

Do you have any evidence that fruit eaters are subject to diabetes or any other issues?

Or, in fact have some HEALED their diabetes?

what's next? too much sugar and free radicals? glycolysis? Doesn't matter. the issue is nutrient intake and it's sufficiency, of which you are incorrect.

Unless you are prepared to provide support for your statement about X amount of sugar, on a raw diet being a problem.



> "Evidence that the RDA's are required for
> health?"
>
> No, for this statement... "there are safety
> factors added in for no good reason"

No good reason means that they cover a percentage of the population that I do not consider it necessary to cover. Did you ever take a statistics course? I have.

Finally regarding conversion rates.

10% is not unreasonable and may be higher.

which would potentially provide 200-300 mg epa/dha

which leaves us with b12. get a test or take pills or whatever makes sense. big deal.

"NOPE. What you said is the nutrients are not available or are in trivial amounts."

Iodine, DHA, and B12... with zinc and iron still coming in at low levels and even to get to those lower levels you need to eat an enormous amount of sugar. Not to mention the low bioavailability of iron and zinc.

"No good reason means that they cover a percentage of the population that I do not consider it necessary to cover. Did you ever take a statistics course? I have."

No, prove that there are safety factors added...

"the brain uses 120 g glucose per day and the body the rest."

Dates, figs, and bananas are all extremely rich in FRUCTOSE, which puts a lot of stress on the liver when it comes to metabolism, and creates toxins and uric acid.

[www.health.harvard.edu]

"The breakdown of fructose in the liver does more than lead to the buildup of fat. It also:

-elevates triglycerides
-increases harmful LDL (so-called bad cholesterol)
-promotes the buildup of fat around organs (visceral fat)
-increases blood pressure
-makes tissues insulin-resistant, a precursor to diabetes
-increases the production of free radicals, energetic compounds that can damage DNA and cells."

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally regarding conversion rates.
>
> 10% is not unreasonable and may be higher.
>
> which would potentially provide 200-300 mg
> epa/dha
>
> which leaves us with b12. get a test or take
> pills or whatever makes sense. big deal.


Except for one thing, that's false according to MULTIPLE studies. And you still haven't provided the evidence where WHO recommends as low as 200 mg DHA per day.

You're correct, B12 deficiency is a big deal.

jtprindl, the article you linked does not say what you say. Improve your reading skills.

Quote

Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dates, figs, and bananas are all extremely rich in
> FRUCTOSE, which puts a lot of stress on the liver
> when it comes to metabolism, and creates toxins
> and uric acid.
>
> [www.health.harvard.edu]
> Heart_Letter/2011/September/abundance-of-fructose-
> not-good-for-the-liver-heart
>
> "The breakdown of fructose in the liver does more
> than lead to the buildup of fat. It also:
>
> -elevates triglycerides
> -increases harmful LDL (so-called bad
> cholesterol)
> -promotes the buildup of fat around organs
> (visceral fat)
> -increases blood pressure
> -makes tissues insulin-resistant, a precursor to
> diabetes
> -increases the production of free radicals,
> energetic compounds that can damage DNA and
> cells."

Dates, figs, and bananas have more glucose than fructose (not considering the buffering fiber)

[voluntocracy.org]

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dates, figs, and bananas are all extremely rich in
> FRUCTOSE, which puts a lot of stress on the liver
> when it comes to metabolism, and creates toxins
> and uric acid.

"jtprindl, the article you linked does not say what you say. Improve your reading skills."

Actually, I did.

"Still, it's worth cutting back on fructose. But don't do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup."

I'm not against cutting fruit out of the diet, just not predominantly relying on fruit. Notice how it says "most people"... most people don't only strictly eat fruit or mostly fruit for their dietary intake. Eating a diet loaded in figs, bananas, and dates is a high-fructose diet, especially when the majority of your calories are from these foods.

"Dates, figs, and bananas have more glucose than fructose (not considering the buffering fiber)"

Never said they didn't, but they are still rich sources of fructose nonetheless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 08:21PM by jtprindl.

Fructose and aging:

[jn.nutrition.org] - "In conclusion, this study presents evidence for the first time that long-term fructose consumption negatively affects the normal aging process."

thanks for the exercise, jtprindl.

well done, panchito and John Rose. thank you.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pringle, When are you going to show us your
> spectracell results?



Conveniently unanswered I see.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fructose and aging:
>
> [jn.nutrition.org] -
> "In conclusion, this study presents evidence for
> the first time that long-term fructose consumption
> negatively affects the normal aging process."


It's useless. They will not listen. These guys are reminding me of the famous "Black Knight". Probably before your time. Here he is in all his glory...

[www.youtube.com]

You are exagerating what the article says. This is what they fed the rats:

Quote

Concurrent advances in refining, isomerization, separation and crystallization technologies in the 1960s made possible the production of crystalline fructose and high fructose syrup (HFS),5 derived primarily from corn, and with sweetness equivalent to sucrose (Hanover and White 1993). HFS and crystalline fructose are used extensively as sweeteners in pharmaceuticals and in mainstream food application such as carbonated beverages, baked goods, canned fruits, jams, jellies and dairy products.

If they fed the rats fruits, then maybe they would get younger.

Quote

Furthermore, the reducing free carbonyl group of fructose, as in the case of glucose, may react nonenzymatically with amino groups of biological molecules in a process known as fructation (glycation for glucose). This process is more familiar by its general name, the Maillard reaction (Monnier 1989). Monnier (1989) suggested that the basic aging process might be mediated by the Maillard reaction.

Maillard reaction only occurs on cooked products when temperature goes from like +150F to 400F or so. Thus, the article you linked does not apply to fruit.

I already grown hairs on my fingers repeating that fats in food have the highest AGEs. While the metabolism of sugars produce AGEs, these are handled by body naturally.

For Suez, olive oil, what your diet is based on, is one of the highest sources of AGEs next to broiled stakes, etc. I can prove it here. You seen it many times but you ignore it.


jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fructose and aging:
>
> [jn.nutrition.org] -
> "In conclusion, this study presents evidence for
> the first time that long-term fructose consumption
> negatively affects the normal aging process."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 12:55AM by Panchito.

"Maillard reaction only occurs on cooked products when temperature goes from like +150F to 400F or so. Thus, the article you linked does not apply to fruit."

No, it also occurs in the human body, and fructose initiates this process - "In vitro studies suggest that fructose, compared with glucose, is a much more potent initiator of the Maillard reaction (Bunn and Higgins 1981, McPherson et al. 1988). Because the Maillard reaction may be involved in the aging process (Monnier 1989), there are several main reasons why we expect that fructose, through nonenzymatic fructozylation (fructation), may have a vital effect on the health of normal and diabetic subjects. First, in some organs, such as ocular lens, kidney and peripheral nerves, fructose is synthesized from sorbitol through the polyol pathway (Gabbay 1973). Second, although in healthy subjects extracellular concentrations of fructose are lower than that of glucose, its high reactivity suggests that fructose is a strong candidate for fructation in vivo."

"For Suez, olive oil, what your diet is based on, is one of the highest sources of AGEs next to broiled stakes, etc. I can prove it here. You seen it many times but you ignore it."

Jeanne Calment, who lived to be 122 years old and smoked for 97 years of her life, credited her longevity to consuming lots of olive oil. You seem to be under the impression that AGE's are a direct indicator of longevity.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it also occurs in the human body, and fructose
> initiates this process -

as I said, sugars do produce some AGEs when metabolized. These are handle by the body naturally (like with Taurine). They did not say they gave fruit to the rats. The rats ate synthetic powders aka HFCS. Do you want to see the real study showing that fats have the highest AGEs and fruits have the lowest?

> "For Suez, olive oil, what your diet is based on,
> is one of the highest sources of AGEs next to
> broiled stakes, etc. I can prove it here. You seen
> it many times but you ignore it."

> Jeanne Calment, who lived to be 122 years old and
> smoked for 97 years of her life, credited her
> longevity to consuming lots of olive oil. You seem
> to be under the impression that AGE's are a direct
> indicator of longevity.

then, why don't you say that smoking makes you live longer? If she had not been eating so much olive oil, as far as I know she would have lived longer. The longevity of the mediterranean diet is due to fruits and vegetables not because of the oil. The people in Okinawa did not have access to olive oil.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 01:41AM by Panchito.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Maillard reaction only occurs on cooked products
> when temperature goes from like +150F to 400F or
> so. Thus, the article you linked does not apply to
> fruit."
>
> No, it also occurs in the human body, and fructose
> initiates this process - "In vitro studies suggest
> that fructose, compared with glucose, is a much
> more potent initiator of the Maillard reaction
> (Bunn and Higgins 1981, McPherson et al. 1988).
> Because the Maillard reaction may be involved in
> the aging process (Monnier 1989), there are
> several main reasons why we expect that fructose,
> through nonenzymatic fructozylation (fructation),
> may have a vital effect on the health of normal
> and diabetic subjects. First, in some organs, such
> as ocular lens, kidney and peripheral nerves,
> fructose is synthesized from sorbitol through the
> polyol pathway (Gabbay 1973). Second, although in
> healthy subjects extracellular concentrations of
> fructose are lower than that of glucose, its high
> reactivity suggests that fructose is a strong
> candidate for fructation in vivo."


It's also what turns soils dark...

[acs.confex.com]


For what it's worth I don't consume hardly any olive oil and what I do have of it is stone ground raw - unlike any studies have studied.

"stone ground raw" is the same as regular olive oil health wise. There is no mystic magic hidden behind those words. See if you believe this. A "stone ground apple" is 1000% healthier than a bitten apple.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "stone ground raw" is the same as regular olive
> oil health wise. There is no mystic magic hidden
> behind those words. See if you believe this. A
> "stone ground apple" is 1000% healthier than a
> bitten apple.


Are you stupid or something? If that's how you think why do you bother being some percentage or other of raw vegan? You might as well eat the whole 100% of your food cooked if you imagine cooked and raw are the same healthwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 02:26AM by SueZ.