<<I've read a lot of people reporting their diets using CRON-O-METER an many come short on Zinc and have high levels of copper in their diet causing a very significant imbalance. Copper and Zinc compete at the same absorption sites in the gut. High level of copper with a low intake or even normal RDI will result in secondary zinc deficiency>>

hi matt
i saw that in the 80 10 10 thread, you wrote the above

i do sesame seeds ( grind them into a paste) and use it in my salad dressins
to get my zinc

but sadly, it has more copper than zinc

what do YOU do to have a greater ratio of zinc

seems like all foods that have zinc also have more copper

plus i don't sprout much...

so any easy tips?

>many come short on Zinc

show me the proof that the zinc rda is valid as a target.

huge variation in nutrient content of food and needs of people due to health status and diet.

"There is a margin of safety built into the RDAs. The average, healthy person can consume at least 67% of their RDA and still be adequately nourished."

and the rda's are guesswork as it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2014 06:43AM by fresh.

How much zinc and copper do you normally get in total each day?

Well, I do include beans in my diet which does add quite a bit of zinc and usually gets me over the RDA. I normally meet all my RDAs by around 1600 k/cal. I talked about how you can improve the absorption of zinc in my post here if you're interested: [www.crvitality.com] (I do CR and eat approx 70% raw)

To be honest, if the ratio is way out, but your diet is otherwise solid, there's no problem in taking a zinc supplement. I supplement only a few micronutrients: Magnesium, Zinc, B12. It's really not a big deal if you have to supplement the odd thing - in fact, that's how CR animals reach 100% of their RDI because they have their calories restricted by 30-40% and they need to make up for the nutrient loss. And they live far longer.


@fresh
You're talking about the Estimated Absorption Rate, which is lower than the RDA. (RDA meets the needs of 97% of people). The RDA is at least 110-120% the EAR.

Although you are wrong to say there is not good evidence behind the RDA - there's very good data backing up the required amount for every vitamin and mineral. The RDA just takes into account the differences in diet and absorption - which in raw foodists case would be worse as copper intake is far higher than the average person's. Couple that with intakes that is below the RDA... that's going to cause detrimental changes in your biochemistry. As shown in the report below:

Please take your time to read through the report on Zinc
[www.nal.usda.gov]

I recommend you read it all; but if you can't, look at P.471 onwards


You can find other links for the rest of the reports here. It's a lot to read, but very good stuff!
[ods.od.nih.gov]

Enjoy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2014 05:52PM by mattscr.

To put simply: Raw foodists have completely different dietary patterns. SAD have high intakes of zinc and relatively low intake of copper due to a poor intake of fruit and vegetables. People on a raw food diet have the opposite pattern: High intake of fruits and vegetables which are high in copper and no meat - so is often a zinc-deficient diet. Since copper and zinc compete for the same absorption sites and ligands, the effect of a minor deficiency may be exacerbated.

When a person is losing weight, they are also losing even more Zinc. There was a study on non-obese healthy men which showed that during weight loss, zinc excretion via urine was 3 times higher and continued to rise even after refeeding.

And for people who are training, the situation might be even worse:


Zinc status of highly trained women runners and untrained women.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Some indications of zinc deficiency can be vague. Maybe poor wound healing, irritability, rough skin or scaling of the hands or feet. Decreased sense of smell or taste. Feeling full quickly and not having a good appetite.

I've done this for over 10 years and have seen people report improvements in many things since supplementing zinc.

Be careful. Many people probably fail at a raw food diet simply because they aren't paying close enough attention to things like this.

-------------------------------------------
My blog: [www.crvitality.com]

mattscr--copper and zinc compete for the same absorption sites


BS. BS+1 actually.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mattscr--copper and zinc compete for the same
> absorption sites
>
>
> BS. BS+1 actually.

"Copper and Zinc Absorption In The Rat: Mechanism Of Mutual Antagonism"

[jn.nutrition.org]

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> High
> intake of fruits and vegetables which are high in
> copper and no meat - so is often a zinc-deficient
> diet. Since copper and zinc compete for the same
> absorption sites and ligands, the effect of a
> minor deficiency may be exacerbated.


Yes! People see the RDA's being achieved and think everything will be good, but when ratios are out and low in regards to zinc and iron the problems of excess copper can be enhanced which can lead to a host of deficiencies and problems. .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 05:16AM by The Sproutarian Man.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anon 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mattscr--copper and zinc compete for the same
> > absorption sites
> >
> >
> > BS. BS+1 actually.
>
> "Copper and Zinc Absorption In The Rat: Mechanism
> Of Mutual Antagonism"
>
> [jn.nutrition.org]
> f



I didn't read your link. Don't waste your time trying to convince me. I place little faith in nutritional science. Show these studies to people who would believe them.

Common sense says that two things competing for one doorway and the stronger would always win no matter how much of the weaker you eat. Therefore you're never going to get one nutrient. If you eat the same amounts of both then none would pass thru. Doesn't make sense but don't let that stop you from believing the studies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 08:35AM by Anon 102.

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anon 102 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > mattscr--copper and zinc compete for the same
> > > absorption sites
> > >
> > >
> > > BS. BS+1 actually.
> >
> > "Copper and Zinc Absorption In The Rat:
> Mechanism
> > Of Mutual Antagonism"
> >
> >
> [jn.nutrition.org]



> I didn't read your link.


Well, it seems neither did anyone else as for some reason it was broken.



Don't waste your time
> trying to convince me.


Convince you of what? There was nothing I was trying to convince anyone of in the link. It was just explaining the mechanism for those who don't know how things work.

I should have made it a freestanding post I guess, instead of linking it to mattscr's and your exchange to avoid confusion in people who didn't read the link - which, since it didn't appear, seems to be everyone.


I place little faith in ...


> I don't either - too many variables and people with agendas paying for them to be written. Nevertheless, there is much that can be learned from them - just not always what the funders would prefer to be the taken away.



Show these studies to people
> who would believe them.


I'll show them to whoever the hell I want to but I'll try to remember not to link them to your snark posts in threads, to save myself typing time, in the future.



> Common sense says that two things competing for
> one doorway and the stronger would always win no
> matter how much of the weaker you eat.


You've accidentally hit on a, or I should say THE, most important issue - these days most croplands, our organs and tissues, air and water, etc., have been poisoned with competitors that are far stronger than the nutrients in the battle for absorption sites - but never mind that you've made up your mind and are a true believer of your beliefs. So be it.



Therefore
> you're never going to get one nutrient. If you eat
> the same amounts of both then none would pass
> thru. Doesn't make sense but don't let that stop
> you from believing the studies.


I forgive you. I know you just can't help yourself and already believe everything you are going to believe, Although you fancy yourself reasonable it seem, to me, you are quite impervious to reason.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 12:59PM by SueZ.

Looks like suzie q od'd on copper. lol

Anon 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like suzie q od'd on copper. lol


I don't have any idea what your problem is but it certainly seems to be organic.

>Although you are wrong to say there is not good evidence behind the RDA - there's very good data backing up the required amount for every vitamin and mineral.


Thanks for the link. There is SCIENCE, but not GOOD science.


The problem with your interpretation is that zinc assimilation is impacted by a myriad of factors, not simply copper.

Note: The Zinc and Copper intake is not too high, and not too low in a proper raw food diet. I do not know why people repeatedly state that copper is too high. It's not too high on any of my food intakes entered. And zinc is perfectly adequate, even taking into account absorption rates, because the zinc requirement is too high for the RDA based on flawed science.


And here is the key that you conveniently ignored.

ALL of those negative impacts are REDUCED on a proper raw diet, phytic acid, protein, folate, copper, iron all are in a more advantageous amount on a proper raw food diet.

The KEY issue here that you also ignore is that the RDA science in the link depends heavily on the following:

All of those charts and data depend on the analysis of intake and losses of a typical human being. A typical human being is NOT a raw eater. ALL of the problems pertaining to zinc absorption are MUCH WORSE in the typical unhealthy human as they are eating grains and beans, higher protein, etc.

So the science is not even close to being Good.

I have stated that the WHO science is better, because it often shows data independent upon nutrient intake of the typical ill individual. It shows clinical symptoms unrelated to dietary intake.



So for you to say below that raw foodists absorption is WORSE is absolute rubbish.


>>>> The RDA just takes into account the differences in diet and absorption - which in raw foodists case would be worse as copper intake is far higher than the average person's. Couple that with intakes that is below the RDA... that's going to cause detrimental changes in your biochemistry. As shown in the report below

Now I know not to waste my time responding to Anon. If you don't read the studies, what's the point? :p

You should not have such an emotional attachment to any diet. It's in the best interest of everyone to be honest and take into account the actual evidence so people can practice this diet properly and safely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 03:14PM by mattscr.

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now I know not to waste my time responding to
> Anon. If you don't read the studies, what's the
> point? :p
>
> You should not have such an emotional attachment
> to any diet. It's in the best interest of everyone
> to be honest and take into account the actual
> evidence so people can practice this diet properly
> and safely.

Well the beauty of responding to these weasels' posts is in having the info fly around and over their heads to those of us who are grateful. THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTS!!!

Matt,

I am honestly interested in your response to my post above.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matt,
>
> I am honestly interested in your response to my
> post above.

I would be interested too, because none of it makes any sense to me. Who's been telling you all this stuff, the WHO science?. Is it also a mixture of Fresh's science?

Fresh...l have never heard of such talk before. Again...where is all this talk coming from?...who has been telling you all of these things?

Regards Fresh...remember to eat Fresh and not post harvest produce, because post harvest produce is not Fresh. Remember Fresh, we don't want the nutrient police (me and Dr Clement) turning up at your door saying "you are not getting enough nutrients sir, time to come with us and go to Dr Clement's sprout school to learn to eat Fresh and sprout highly nutritious bioavailable nutrient dinners".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 02:27AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh...l have never heard of such talk before.
> Again...where is all this talk coming from?...who
> has been telling you all of these things?


He seems to be getting it from "the finger", doug graham, aka DG on VegSource.com. At that place, where fresh calls himself dg, he asks DG goofy questions and DG gives him goofier answers.

Yesterday big DG told little dg that if the body didn't get enough carbs the human body could convert fat to carbs. No - I'm not kidding.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Matt,
> >
> > I am honestly interested in your response to my
> > post above.
>
> I would be interested too, because none of it
> makes any sense to me. Who's been telling you all
> this stuff, the WHO science?. Is it also a mixture
> of Fresh's science?
>
> Fresh...l have never heard of such talk before.
> Again...where is all this talk coming from?...who
> has been telling you all of these things?
>
> Regards Fresh...remember to eat Fresh and not post
> harvest produce, because post harvest produce is
> not Fresh. Remember Fresh, we don't want the
> nutrient police (me and Dr Clement) turning up at
> your door saying "you are not getting enough
> nutrients sir, time to come with us and go to Dr
> Clement's sprout school to learn to eat Fresh and
> sprout highly nutritious bioavailable nutrient
> dinners".


this is puzzling.

aren't you eating post harvest mushrooms, seed paste, ferments, algae, seaweed?

ketogenic diet

from what I understand the body runs on ketone bodies instead of glucose, very interesting adaptation.

I knew a bodybuilder who ate more fat than sue, sticks of butter and the like.

he looked good, like stephanie person, but not sure about the internal health effects.

amazing how adaptable the body is though.

but not sure I would want to risk the negatives and reliance upon cooked and nonwhole foods.

Adverse effects

The ketogenic diet is not a benign, holistic or natural treatment for epilepsy; as with any serious medical therapy, there may be complications. These are generally less severe and less frequent than with anticonvulsant medication or surgery.[28] Common but easily treatable short-term side effects include constipation, low-grade acidosis and hypoglycaemia if there is an initial fast. Raised levels of lipids in the blood affect up to 60% of children[36] and cholesterol levels may increase by around 30%.[28] This can be treated by changes to the fat content of the diet, such as from saturated fats towards polyunsaturated fats, and, if persistent, by lowering the ketogenic ratio.[36] Supplements are necessary to counter the dietary deficiency of many micronutrients.[5]

Long-term use of the ketogenic diet in children increases the risk of slowed or stunted growth, bone fractures and kidney stones.[5] The diet reduces levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is important for childhood growth. Like many anticonvulsant drugs, the ketogenic diet has an adverse effect on bone health. Many factors may be involved such as acidosis and suppressed growth hormone.[36] About 1 in 20 children on the ketogenic diet will develop kidney stones (compared with one in several thousand for the general population). A class of anticonvulsants known as carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (topiramate, zonisamide) are known to increase the risk of kidney stones, but the combination of these anticonvulsants and the ketogenic diet does not appear to elevate the risk above that of the diet alone.[37] The stones are treatable and do not justify discontinuation of the diet.[37] Johns Hopkins Hospital now gives oral potassium citrate supplements to all ketogenic diet patients, resulting in a sevenfold decrease in the incidence of kidney stones.[38] However, this empiric usage has not been tested in a prospective controlled trial.[8] Kidney stone formation (nephrolithiasis) is associated with the diet for four reasons:[37]

Excess calcium in the urine (hypercalciuria) occurs due to increased bone demineralisation with acidosis. Bones are mainly composed of calcium phosphate. The phosphate reacts with the acid, and the calcium is excreted by the kidneys.[37]
Hypocitraturia: the urine has an abnormally low concentration of citrate, which normally helps to dissolve free calcium.[37]
The urine has a low pH, which stops uric acid from dissolving, leading to crystals that act as a nidus for calcium stone formation.[37]
Many institutions traditionally restricted the water intake of patients on the diet to 80% of normal daily needs;[37] this practice is no longer encouraged.[5]

In adults, common side effects include weight loss, constipation, raised cholesterol levels and, in women, menstrual irregularities including amenorrhoea.[39]

of course this is only during ketosis.

My point in addition to the above is , why do people complain about the high sugar content of the fruit diet, yet eating a higher fat diet for example, the body undergoes gluconeogenesis as john stated in a recent post, whereby glucose is produced anyway, only through a more costly process?

Hey fresh, no comment on this absolutely bat @#$%& crazy little exchange which went unquestioned yesterday on vegsource.com? Were you just talking to yourself DG/dg style or do you both just not have any idea what you're talking about?




" Yesterday big DG told little dg that if the body didn't get enough carbs the human body could convert fat to carbs. No - I'm not kidding."

<<<Yesterday big DG told little dg that if the body didn't get enough carbs the human body could convert fat to carbs. No - I'm not kidding.>>>

This is what DG actually said:

[www.vegsource.com]
From: Dr. Doug Graham (DrGraham.vegsource.com)
Subject: Re: glucose
Date: June 25, 2014 at 2:43 am PST

In Reply to: Re: glucose posted by dg on June 24, 2014 at 8:12 pm:

Glucose requirements vary with activity levels, muscularity, body size, and many other factors.

Yes, if you do not eat sufficient carbs from your food, your body will convert protein and fat into carbs.
[www.vegsource.com]

So DG is NOT Wrong because the Glycerol part Fat can be used for Gluconeogenesis.

However, 7 years ago DG did say, ”If you do not have carbohydrates available, fat will be converted to sugar to be used as fuel.” and then, had the arrogance to say that someone else’s comment “reflects a basic lack of understanding of human physiology”:

[www.vegsource.com]
From: Dr. Doug Graham (DrGraham.vegsource.com)
Subject: Re: Dr. Graham : burning fat or burning sugars...
Date: May 24, 2007 at 7:12 am PST

In Reply to: Re: Dr. Graham : burning fat or burning sugars... posted by Raymond Liljeros on May 24, 2007 at 3:45 am:

Raymond,

It is a good question, one that reflects a basic lack of understanding of human physiology.

The cells use sugar for their primary fuel. End of story.

If you have carbohydrates available, it is utilized, as sugar, to fuel muscular activity. Also, fat will be converted to sugar, to also be used.

This is a fairly "clean," low-effort process for the body to caryy out.

If you do not have carbohydrates available, fat will be converted to sugar to be used as fuel. However, in the absence of carbohydrates, burning fat for fuel is "messy," that is, it is comparatively inefficient, resulting in excess waste products, including ketones, which can accumulate to dangerously high levels in the body.

Does this help, or do you need more info?

Dr D

[JR Insert: Doug does not have a clue on how Gluconeogenesis works.]
[www.vegsource.com]

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 03:33PM by John Rose.