"do you have gout?
I don't.
why is that?"

Do all cigarette smokers have lung cancer? No. Why is that?

"not the same thing."

Fructose is fructose.

"If you were paying attention, I provided a link that showed the micrograms
of iodine in samples of greens, when extrapolated to the sample diet I gave, it met the rda."

Again, the RDA of 150 micrograms is far below optimal levels.

"Studies of ALA metabolism in healthy young men indicate that approximately 8% of dietary ALA is converted to EPA and 0-4% is converted to DHA (7). In healthy young women, approximately 21% of dietary ALA is converted to EPA and 9% is converted to DHA (8)"

Thank you for repeating a study I previously posted which proves my point. Men have 0-4% conversion rates of ALA to DHA and women have much higher rates.

"liver functioning fine."

Good for you (if it's true), however, you're not that old and as you age you may start to experience the detrimental effects heavy fructose intake has on your liver.

"but of course that is not the issue. the issue is adequate intake."

From the link - 'The AI (acceptable intake) values are expected to protect against essential fatty acid deficiency whereas the higher SDT (suggested dietary target) values for men and women are for reducing chronic disease risk.'.. The SDT is 610mg/day. So even if we want to ignore multiple other sources regarding recommended daily intake which are much higher than 160 mg, using this as the standard still only protects against deficiency and doesn't come with the major health benefits of higher amounts of DHA. This is still a dietary disadvantage compared with a balanced raw vegan diet.

"Suez, I don't need any diet advice from anyone unless I ask for it. I have tons of experiences in this life, enough to safely guide me until I die, and one of which I've found over and over to be true is that the answer is almost always within me. That's why I would never follow the advice of these Black Holes like Spouter and the Pringle."

There are a few signs which show your diet isn't working out for you mentally. Constant insults and name-calling and the fact that you recently stated you only care about materialistic wealth. These are abnormal human behaviors. Happy, content people don't go around insulting people all the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 06:04PM by jtprindl.

Sgt Pringle, Nutrient Police, brings out the dreaded Gout studies. I hope he reads us our Miranda rights. Did he? I didn't hear him.

You care about material wealth too, Sgt Pringle, otherwise you would pay for our spectracell results that YOU so badly want to see.

JR wrote:

"If I do not consume at least 300 grams of sugar every day from the FOOD that we are Biologically DESIGNED to Eat, I'll risk losing some of my Lean Body Mass."

jt wrote:

“What is this based off of? What evidence do you have that we need those quantities of sugar each day?”

Answer the 9 Questions below and you will have the Answer to the 2 Questions above.

How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

Now that you know how many Calories you burn a day based on these 3 different Activity Levels, how many of those Calories are from Fat and how many of those Calories are from SUGAR?

Once again, Answer the 9 Questions below and you will have the Answer to the 2 Questions above.

#1) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#2) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#3) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#4) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#5) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#6) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#7) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#8) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#9) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

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

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "do you have gout?
> I don't.
> why is that?"
>
> Do all cigarette smokers have lung cancer? No. Why
> is that?
>

why do you constantly bring up irrelevancies.
you said risk of gout.
I do not have gout.
I am not concerned about "risk percentage"
and they probably do have early stage cancer


> "not the same thing."
>
> Fructose is fructose.
>

good one.

now try this.

fruit is not fructose

I could pull up the dangerous impact of any number of the individual elements of the food that you eat, you know, those antinutrients and the like that TSM is always having to defend against and ameliorate?



> "If you were paying attention, I provided a link
> that showed the micrograms
> of iodine in samples of greens, when extrapolated
> to the sample diet I gave, it met the rda."
>
> Again, the RDA of 150 micrograms is far below
> optimal levels.

they should call the RDA's, PRINDL's apparently.

I said 150 +, since I only counted the greens - more in the rest of the food.

>
> "Studies of ALA metabolism in healthy young men
> indicate that approximately 8% of dietary ALA is
> converted to EPA and 0-4% is converted to DHA (7).
> In healthy young women, approximately 21% of
> dietary ALA is converted to EPA and 9% is
> converted to DHA (8)"
>
> Thank you for repeating a study I previously
> posted which proves my point. Men have 0-4%
> conversion rates of ALA to DHA and women have much
> higher rates.

I posted that for the 8% and 21% which is higher than you have been claiming

>
> "liver functioning fine."
>
> Good for you (if it's true), however, you're not
> that old and as you age you may start to
> experience the detrimental effects heavy fructose
> intake has on your liver.
>

as you wish

> "but of course that is not the issue. the issue is
> adequate intake."
>
> From the link - 'The AI (acceptable intake) values
> are expected to protect against essential fatty
> acid deficiency whereas the higher SDT (suggested
> dietary target) values for men and women are for
> reducing chronic disease risk.'.. The SDT is
> 610mg/day. So even if we want to ignore multiple
> other sources regarding recommended daily intake
> which are much higher than 160 mg, using this as
> the standard still only protects against
> deficiency and doesn't come with the major health
> benefits of higher amounts of DHA. This is still a
> dietary disadvantage compared with a balanced raw
> vegan diet.

I don't need "protection"

If you need protection, go for it.

Balanced. hilarious.


what is the fructose level at which it is dangerous? I didn't see that answer from the Nutrient Oracle.

could it be because you have no idea?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 07:58PM by fresh.

This woman is 46 and her intake of carbs is 20 grams a day. She does no cardio.

[www.youtube.com]

I was wrong jtprindl. You HAVE admitted that at least one of your claims was wrong.

Originally it was, you can't get enough zinc, iron, etc.

Now it's, ok, you can get enough zinc and iron, but with too much sugar.

which of course is an assertion without evidence.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only person l know that teaches and thinks in
> terms of noise reduction in vegan diets is Tavis
> Bradley.


You might want to watch Dr. Cassar's videos. His tonics are very similar to Tavis' but, unlike Tavis, he's into the whole fermenting thing that you would probably miss if you haven't yet gone through the parasite terrain modification process.

You could always add Tavis' tonics to your diet. For me they are absolutely essential due to the high fat. You might at least try adding Shilajit and/or fulvic acid for better nutrient absorption of yur foods. A couple of drops of fulvic acid in nut and seed soak water helps to neutralizes their anti-nutrients according to Dr. Cassar.

"why do you constantly bring up irrelevancies.
you said risk of gout.
I do not have gout."

And just because you do not have gout doesn't mean you are not increasing your risk of getting gout due to large amounts of fructose. Just like someone who smokes cigarettes (take 122 year old Jeanne Calment for example) may not have lung cancer but they increase their risk by smoking. YOU not having gout as of right now doesn't make the study irrelevant.

"fruit is not fructose"

Nope, but many fruits contain lots of it.

"I posted that for the 8% and 21% which is higher than you have been claiming"

The 8% is for EPA not DHA and the 21% is for women, which I have repeatedly agreed women have higher conversion rates.

"I don't need "protection""

Careful what you wish for. Either way, when compared to a balanced diet, minimal levels of DHA are a disadvantage.

"what is the fructose level at which it is dangerous?"

Likely depends on the individual, but it's been shown that high levels of fructose have lots of degrading effects on the body, including fruit as shown in the gout study.

"Now it's, ok, you can get enough zinc and iron, but with too much sugar."

Actually, this is what I originally said in response to your statement about watermelons containing iron. By the way, on your chronometer you never mentioned iron levels. Again, this doesn't even account for low bioavailability.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 08:59PM by jtprindl.

iron levels were 300% from what I recall .

Lying again jtprindl?

jtprindl's nutrients assertion (which was just denied) absent "sugar":

"And yes, if you eat mainly fruit and are claiming to have sufficient levels of all nutrients, you are lying. Which fruits are you eating that are providing you with iron, zinc, EPA/DHA, iodine, and B12? "

the answer, as shown by the numbers that I provided with the dietary example, is ALL of the fruits and veggies eaten contain iron and zinc and iodine in abundant amounts and epa/dha is converted from the abundant ala.

Fat deficient Symptoms anyone? NO! meaningless!!!

I can't believe you think that gout study implicates fruit.

researcher states that fruit is associated with higher risk, with a P value of <.05
ooh, I'm scared. what a joke.

everything is justified in jtprindl's world. phytates in sprouts? no problem! they're good for you!
any negative aspect of jtprindl's perfect diet is actually Good!
Excrement? Good! hilarious.

"the answer, as shown by the numbers that I provided with the dietary example, is ALL of the fruits and veggies eaten contain iron and zinc and iodine in abundant amounts and epa/dha is converted from the abundant ala."

You like to ignore significant bits of information and cherry pick data, don't you? ONCE AGAIN, iodine RDA's are VERY LOW, enough to prevent goiter and hypothyroidism but not enough to provide its optimal benefits. With zinc and iron, plant-based foods provide very POOR bioavailability and again you are burdening your liver with fructose. I've shown three different studies and an excerpt from Harvard University demonstrating the harmful effects fructose has on the human body, including accelerated aging, free radical damage, uric acid, and increased blood pressure. I don't see too many fruitarians who are of old age.

Moving onto DHA, it's funny how you like to cherry pick sources of information for RDA's. For some nutrients we'll use one source and for others we'll just keep searching for another one until it finally justifies our miniscule levels of DHA, even though many of the health benefits of DHA don't kick in until far higher levels of DHA are obtained. Even with a 160 mg RDA for DHA, you'd need 4 grams of ALA with a 4% conversion rate. Think that's going to happen on a diet of bananas, dates, and figs? Think again.

"ooh, I'm scared. what a joke."

These words mean nothing, the scientific data is out there... and I'm sure I could find even more.

""If I do not consume at least 300 grams of sugar every day from the FOOD that we are Biologically DESIGNED to Eat, I'll risk losing some of my Lean Body Mass.""

So John, how do you explain individuals with a healthy weight who are on high-fat, no/low-fruit diets? Shouldn't they be emaciated or have no energy?

Where do you get off saying fruit is what we were biologically designed to eat? The "natural" diet of people in the tropics is much different than the "natural" diet of those living in the arctic. Also, the fruit we eat today is much different than what we used to eat.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2014 11:44PM by jtprindl.

<<<So John, how do you explain individuals with a healthy weight who are on high-fat, no/low-fruit diets?>>>

Up to 58% of Excess Dietary Protein can be used for Gluconeogenesis, as opposed to using our Lean Body Mass and most people eat 3 to 4 times as much Protein as they need. A lot of people, like SueZ Shill, are what's known as Skinny Fats. They may appear to have a "healthy weight" but they're nothing but Bones and Fat with NO Muscle. My guess is that SueZ probably has over 30% Body Fat. When she lost and gained back her BUTT, it wasn’t Muscle - it was FAT!!!

By the way, don’t miss out on an opportunity for you to learn something by Answering my 9 Questions. If you are unable to Answer my 9 Questions, then that PROVES that you have NO idea how much SUGAR is “EXCESS SUGAR” and explains why you have NEVER been able to define what you mean by “EXCESS SUGAR”!!!

Once again, don’t miss out on this Opportunity - Answer my 9 Questions!!!

#1) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#2) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#3) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#4) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#5) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#6) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#7) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#8) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#9) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

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

<<<Where do you get off saying fruit is what we were biologically designed to eat? The "natural" diet of people in the tropics is much different than the "natural" diet of those living in the arctic.>>>

Humans are Tropical Creatures. We did not start our Journey off as a Species in the Arctic and we still have the Anatomy to prove it!!!

So are you going to Answer my 9 Questions or is your SILENCE admission of Ignorance?

Once again, don’t miss out on this Opportunity - Answer my 9 Questions!!!

#1) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#2) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#3) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#4) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#5) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#6) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#7) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#8) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#9) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

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





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 12:12AM by John Rose.

"Up to 58% of Excess Dietary Protein can be used for Gluconeogenesis"

Prove what is "excess" protein.

"They may appear to have a "healthy weight" but they're nothing but Bones and Fat with NO Muscle. My guess is that SueZ probably has over 30% Body Fat. When she lost and gained back her BUTT, it wasn’t Muscle - it was FAT!!!"

Oh, so are many of the ketogenic bodybuilders out there also all fat and no muscle?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBc__-UGrk

"Once again, don’t miss out on this Opportunity - Answer my 9 Questions!!!"

Those are all dependent on the individual.

"explains why you have NEVER been able to define what you mean by “EXCESS SUGAR”!!!"

Also dependent on the individual.

"Humans are Tropical Creatures. We did not start our Journey off as a Species in the Arctic and we still have the Anatomy to prove it!!!"

Where is the evidence that our species evolved on mostly fruit?

Why can’t YOU have an honest discussion?

I asked you 9 very simple questions about how many Total Calories, Fat Calories and Carbohydrates Calories YOU burn on 3 different Activity Levels and what was your response?

“Those are all dependent on the individual.”

YOU are the Individual in Question!!!

The reason why you haven’t Answered my 9 Questions is because YOU don’t Know the Answer and, therefore, you cannot define what you mean by “EXCESS SUGAR”!!!

<<<Prove what is "excess" protein.>>>

Once again, why can’t YOU have an honest discussion?

It’s just as easy to guesstimate the amount of Excess Protein as it is to guesstimate the amount of “EXCESS SUGAR”!!!

Once again, don’t miss out on this Opportunity to learn - Answer my 9 Questions!!!

#1) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#2) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#3) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Inactive?

#4) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#5) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#6) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Moderately Active?

#7) How many Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#8) How many Fat Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

#9) How many Carbohydrate Calories do you burn a day when you are Most Active?

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

"It’s just as easy to guesstimate the amount of Excess Protein as it is to guesstimate the amount of “EXCESS SUGAR”!!!"

The reason I have never defined what "excess" sugar is, is because it is dependent on the individual. You specifically stated that up to 58% of excess dietary protein can be used for gluconeogenesis, where is the evidence of this percentage and evidence of what exactly "excess" protein is? Because in order to make a statement like "58%", you have to have a distinct definition of what "excess" is in the first place.

"YOU are the Individual in Question!!!"

Why would I have measured all of that on myself? I don't have any health problems or weight issues that would provoke me to look into this, nor is this of any relevance to the discussion. It sounds a lot like some bogus information you "teach" to your "students".

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Humans are Tropical Creatures. We did not start
> our Journey off as a Species in the Arctic and we
> still have the Anatomy to prove it!!!"
>
> Where is the evidence that our species evolved on
> mostly fruit?

The "evidence" of all these psycho ramblings is right next to the moldy yellowed files on how hitler is a nice guy in the bean counter turned @#$%& counter's fortified bunker.

Do you want to look like this when you are not even 60 bunkered down writing the 666th version of a book that will never see the light of day? Note, too, the strong booming voice of legend which can only be approximated by all cap postings and you will know, once and for all, that brains need far more fat than carbs...

[www.youtube.com]

<<<The reason I have never defined what "excess" sugar is, is because it is dependent on the individual.>>>

UNBELIEVABLE, YOU are the one who keeps claiming that people who eat a lot of Fruit are consuming “EXCESS SUGAR” and if it’s dependent on the individual, as we all know it is, then how do you know that anyone is consuming “EXCESS SUGAR”?

First, YOU claim that that people who eat a lot of Fruit are consuming “EXCESS SUGAR” and then, when asked to define “EXCESS SUGAR,” you claim that you can’t define what “EXCESS SUGAR” is because it’s dependent on the individual.

If YOU can’t even figure out how much SUGAR you need, how do you know if someone else is consuming “EXCESS SUGAR” especially when you don’t even know any of the Specifics that are needed in order to determine the EXCESS?

<<<You specifically stated that up to 58% of excess dietary protein can be used for gluconeogenesis, where is the evidence of this percentage and evidence of what exactly "excess" protein is? Because in order to make a statement like "58%", you have to have a distinct definition of what "excess" is in the first place.>>>

The 58% number came from my research over 24 years ago and if I really thought for a moment that you were genuine and sincere, I would actually go to the trouble and dig that information up for you.

<<<Why would I have measured all of that on myself? I don't have any health problems or weight issues that would provoke me to look into this, nor is this of any relevance to the discussion.>>>

How can you say that my Questions have no relevance?

Let’s recap…

JR wrote:

"If I do not consume at least 300 grams of sugar every day from the FOOD that we are Biologically DESIGNED to Eat, I'll risk losing some of my Lean Body Mass."

jt wrote:

“What is this based off of? What evidence do you have that we need those quantities of sugar each day?”

As you can see, YOU asked me for Evidence and it’s obvious to me that it’s almost impossible for some people to learn anything unless they figure it out for themselves and once again, I wanted to give you an opportunity to learn because you seem to be one of these types of people who cannot learn anything unless they figure it out for themselves.

Here are a couple more Questions for you…

Let’s just assume that YOU are buring 2,500 Calories a day.

How many of these Calories are from Fat and how many of these Calories are from Carbohydrates?

Now let’s assume that YOU are buring 3,000 Calories a day.

How many of these Calories are from Fat and how many of these from Calories are from Carbohydrates?

In case you cannot figure out what I’m trying to get you to understand, how many grams of Carbohydrates/SUGAR are in 1,000 Calories, how many grams of Carbohydrates/SUGAR are in 1,200 Calories, how many grams of Carbohydrates/SUGAR are in 1,250 Calories and how many grams of Carbohydrates/SUGAR are in 1,500 Calories?

Once you realize how many Calories of Carbohydrates/SUGAR you are burning every day, you’ll then realize that Fruit is the best way to replenish those Calories.

<<<Fructose is fructose.>>>

It boggles my mind that you could say something so ILLOICAL!!!

The very first study you used to try to prove that Fructose Damages the Liver had to do with Fatty Liver Disease and High Fructose Corn Syrup. And then, you make an absurd comment that Fructose is Fructose!

Do you actually expect any of us to think that you are so Clueless that you think that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Fructose in Fruit and the Fructose in High Fructose Corn Syrup?

I’m really having a hard time believing that anyone that knows anything about Nutrition could be that Clueless.

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

"Do you actually expect any of us to think that you are so Clueless that you think that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Fructose in Fruit and the Fructose in High Fructose Corn Syrup?"

That's not what I meant and no I don't believe HFCS is the same as fructose found in fruit. One of the studies was using pure fructose, glucose, and sucrose and it was demonstrated that fructose accelerated aging. The point was that fructose from fruit can still cause harm.

"UNBELIEVABLE, YOU are the one who keeps claiming that people who eat a lot of Fruit are consuming “EXCESS SUGAR” and if it’s dependent on the individual, as we all know it is, then how do you know that anyone is consuming “EXCESS SUGAR”?"

Because many people have problems on high-fruit diets caused by eating too much sugar. Sugar isn't the only problem on predominantly fruit diets, though.

"The 58% number came from my research over 24 years ago and if I really thought for a moment that you were genuine and sincere, I would actually go to the trouble and dig that information up for you."

It doesn't really matter what you think about me, but the burden of proof is still on you.

"Once you realize how many Calories of Carbohydrates/SUGAR you are burning every day, you’ll then realize that Fruit is the best way to replenish those Calories."

Once again, this brings me back to my original question... explain how people are doing very well on ketogenic diets. Are all of these body-builders on high-fat, low-carb diets all fat and no muscle?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 02:35AM by jtprindl.

"The very first study you used to try to prove that Fructose Damages the Liver had to do with Fatty Liver Disease and High Fructose Corn Syrup. And then, you make an absurd comment that Fructose is Fructose!"

It did not state that the negative health effects of fructose were from HFCS, it said FRUCTOSE.


"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."

Fructose is metabolized differently than glucose, all the burden is on the liver.

By the way I just want to say thanks for the debate, one thing I will take from this discussion is that fructose probably isn't as harmful as I previously thought, but it still comes with its dangers and I'd still advise against a diet that revolves primarily around fruit, for the POSSIBILITY of excess sugar based on the individual, the nutritional inadequacies (including poor bioavailability of critical nutrients), and the low-quality store-bought fruit that MAY be unripe and subject to post-harvest damage. I am not anti-fruit, I just don't think it's a wise idea to base the vast majority of your diet on fruit, especially if you aren't physically active.

I'm always open for change and I'd have no hesitation acknowledging any scientific studies that prove that MEN have high conversion rates of ALA to DHA just as women do, although the current research doesn't suggest this is the case. Same goes for iodine content and bioavailability of iron/zinc. One thing I've learned throughout the years with debating is that you learn the most when you challenge the beliefs of others because they tend to get very defensive and pull out the "heavy artillery", giving you access to valuable information you can learn from. So again, thanks to everyone who participated in this thread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 03:53AM by jtprindl.

>You like to ignore significant bits of information and cherry pick data, don't you? ONCE AGAIN, iodine RDA's are VERY LOW, enough to prevent goiter and hypothyroidism but not enough to provide its optimal benefits.


You're constantly asking people to prove things, but you can't prove any of the above.

we only need 67% of the rda

there are no "benefits" of excess iodine, or anything else, imo.


>With zinc and iron, plant-based foods provide very POOR bioavailability and again you are burdening your liver with fructose.

It is sufficient.

I eat fruit - I do not eat fructose, and it is not a burden to my liver.

>I've shown three different studies and an excerpt from Harvard University demonstrating the harmful effects fructose has on the human body, including accelerated aging, free radical damage, uric acid, and increased blood pressure. I don't see too many fruitarians who are of old age.


Are they just as unimpressive as your gout study? do you even know how much noise and uncontrolled variables there are in studies such as those?


> Moving onto DHA, it's funny how you like to cherry pick sources of information for RDA's. For some nutrients we'll use one source and for others we'll just keep searching for another one until it finally justifies our miniscule levels of DHA


Merely finding out where the various limits lie, from different sources. The high ones are not necessarily more correct than the lower ones.


>, even though many of the health benefits of DHA don't kick in until far higher levels of DHA are obtained.

More jtprindl nonsense.


>Even with a 160 mg RDA for DHA, you'd need 4 grams of ALA with a 4% conversion rate. Think that's going to happen on a diet of bananas, dates, and figs? Think again.

No symptoms. puzzling.

No alleged extra benefits needed here.

If you think you're getting benefits from excess, then go for it.

But don't expect anyone to believe your royal pronouncements based on bogus studies and unsupported opinion.

"You're constantly asking people to prove things, but you can't prove any of the above.

we only need 67% of the rda"

What is your source for us only needing 67% of the RDA?

There's a lot of considerable information regarding iodine recommendations being way too low:

[wellbeinggps.com]
[www.lef.org]
[drlwilson.com]

"It is sufficient."

I mean, you can say that but that's not what the research indicates.

[europepmc.org] - "Approximately half of the iron in meat, fish, and poultry is heme iron. Depending on an individual's iron stores, 15% to 35% of heme iron is absorbed. Food contains more nonheme iron and, thus, it makes the larger contribution to the body's iron pool despite its lower absorption rate of 2% to 20%."

[ods.od.nih.gov] - "The RDAs for vegetarians are 1.8 times higher than for people who eat meat. This is because heme iron from meat is more bioavailable than nonheme iron from plant-based"

You also have to take into account the levels of oxalic acid, phytic acid, and polyphenols, all of which block iron absorption.

[ods.od.nih.gov] - "The bioavailability of zinc from vegetarian diets is lower than from non-vegetarian diets because vegetarians do not eat meat, which is high in bioavailable zinc and may enhance zinc absorption.... Vegetarians sometimes require as much as 50% more of the RDA for zinc than non-vegetarians"

"No symptoms. puzzling."

Again, no deficiency symptoms doesn't equal no deficiency and it certainly doesn't mean optimal levels. Using basic math we can understand that if maximum absorption of ALA to DHA in men is around 4%, you'd need a minimum of 4,000 mg (4 grams) of ALA daily for 160 mg of DHA. That's not going to happen on a mostly fruitarian diet.

Regarding higher intakes and more benefits:

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "Twenty-four week supplementation with 900 mg/d DHA improved learning and memory function in ARCD and is a beneficial supplement that supports cognitive health with aging."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "At doses >3 g/d, EPA plus DHA can improve cardiovascular disease risk factors, including decreasing plasma triacylglycerols, blood pressure, platelet aggregation, and inflammation, while improving vascular reactivity."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - Healthy adults (n = 176; age range: 18-45 y; nonsmoking and with a low intake of DHA) completed a 6-mo randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention in which they consumed 1.16 g DHA/d or a placebo... DHA supplementation improved memory and the RT of memory in healthy, young adults whose habitual diets were low in DHA."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "A total of fifty people aged >65 years with MCI were allocated to receive a supplement rich in EPA (1·67 g EPA + 0·16 g DHA/d; n 17), DHA (1·55 g DHA + 0·40 g EPA/d; n 18) or the n-6 PUFA linoleic acid (LA; 2·2 g/d; n 15)... "Improved self-reported physical health was associated with increased DHA. There were no treatment effects on other cognitive or QOL parameters. Increased intakes of DHA and EPA benefited mental health in older people with MCI. Increasing n-3 PUFA intakes may reduce depressive symptoms and the risk of progressing to dementia."

I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone from their diet, I'm just pointing out the potentially significant nutrient deficiencies that can come along with mostly fruit diets. If you were to get a SpectraCell test and everything was sufficient, by all means, keep doing what you're doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 05:13AM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You're constantly asking people to prove things,
> but you can't prove any of the above.
>
> we only need 67% of the rda"
>
> What is your source for us only needing 67% of the
> RDA?

[www.dietitian.com]



I don't know if this is accurate
There is also a less expensive, easier way to test your need for Iodine at home. Go to the drug store and get yourself a little bottle of Iodine liquid. Paint on your forearm a square patch of the Iodine liquid. This should be a brownish/orange color. Your body will absorb the Iodine that you just painted on slowly over time. If the “patch” is still there after 24 hours, then your body is showing you that you have plenty of Iodine. But, as will happen with most people, if that patch disappears more quickly, that indicates that your body is in a deficiency state.


>
> [www.lef.org]
> lent-Epidemic-of-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

no symptoms...
Too little thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism) results in just the opposite set of symptoms: a slower than normal heart rate,29 a chronic feeling of being cold, constipation, unexplained weight gain, dry skin, hair loss or coarse dry hair, weakness, muscle aches, depression, and fatigue.30,31 In extreme cases, people with low thyroid function experience cognitive decline,32 and babies born to mothers with inadequate iodine levels are at high risk for a unique form of mental retardation known as cretinism. Cognitive impairment caused by low thyroid function is reversible with iodine or thyroid hormone supplementation.32,33


>
> I mean, you can say that but that's not what the
> research indicates.
>

right , some put more emphasis on research and others on symptoms

> [europepmc.org] -
> "Approximately half of the iron in meat, fish, and
> poultry is heme iron. Depending on an individual's
> iron stores, 15% to 35% of heme iron is absorbed.
> Food contains more nonheme iron and, thus, it
> makes the larger contribution to the body's iron
> pool despite its lower absorption rate of 2% to
> 20%."
>

no symptoms.
amazing.

I understand your diligence and concern for all these nutrients, but it is curious, what with the "low" absorption rates that so many are fine.


> [ods.od.nih.gov]
> sional/ - "The RDAs for vegetarians are 1.8 times
> higher than for people who eat meat. This is
> because heme iron from meat is more bioavailable
> than nonheme iron from plant-based"
>
> You also have to take into account the levels of
> oxalic acid, phytic acid, and polyphenols, all of
> which block iron absorption.
>

one benefit of fruit and greens diet.



studies of sick people who can benefit from these things.
that does not relate to people seeking optimal health on raw diet
for the most part.


> I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone from
> their diet, I'm just pointing out the potentially
> significant nutrient deficiencies that can come
> along with mostly fruit diets. If you were to get
> a SpectraCell test and everything was sufficient,
> by all means, keep doing what you're doing.

not sure about the accuracy of SC, plus I'm waiting for your check in the mail for that.

>SueZ
>I have found out for myself that you sure have got that right.
>Luckily I switched from a hclf raw vegan diet to a hflc raw vegan
>diet a little over a year ago and not only am I starting to look
>better I am also physically stronger with more >muscle mass
>even though there has been no change in my exercise routine
>over the past few years.
>I average 67.7% of my diet in lipids each day.
>My intake of carbs >averages 90.3 grams a day
> - 22.3 grams of sugar.

Good that you saw some sense and got off the very high carbohydrate diet. My fat intake is about 35-40% of calories at the moment. About 10-12% is usually from protein; and then carbs for the rest (mostly vegetables and some fruit).

If you're interested in how sugar affects ageing and lifespan, you ought to look up a researcher called "Cynthia Kenyon" - she identified genes involved in ageing that affect ageing from tiny organisms like C.elegans, dogs, and even humans.

You should take a look at David who is 55 in this video:

[www.youtube.com]

He's 57 now and still looks amazing for his age. He focuses more on vegetables and only eats some fruit, not a huge amount.

Also, I wrote a review of a couple studies not long ago - and it does pertain to this discussion as each study had different designs: one study was high sugar and the other very low.
[www.crvitality.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 12:51PM by mattscr.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way I just want to say thanks for the
> debate, one thing I will take from this discussion
> is that fructose probably isn't as harmful as I
> previously thought, but it still comes with its
> dangers and I'd still advise against a diet that
> revolves primarily around fruit, for the
> POSSIBILITY of excess sugar based on the
> individual, the nutritional inadequaciesu
> (including poor bioavailability of critical
> nutrients), and the low-quality store-bought fruit
> that MAY be unripe and subject to post-harvest
> damage. I am not anti-fruit, I just don't think
> it's a wise idea to base the vast majority of your
> diet on fruit, especially if you aren't physically
> active.
>
> I'm always open for change and I'd have no
> hesitation acknowledging any scientific studies
> that prove that MEN have high conversion rates of
> ALA to DHA just as women do, although the current
> research doesn't suggest this is the case. Same
> goes for iodine content and bioavailability of
> iron/zinc. One thing I've learned throughout the
> years with debating is that you learn the most
> when you challenge the beliefs of others because
> they tend to get very defensive and pull out the
> "heavy artillery", giving you access to valuable
> information you can learn from. So again, thanks
> to everyone who participated in this thread


Well said. My issue is with lack of quantification plus drawing conclusions from studies when it is not warranted

There was a time when 80/10/10 people were accused of finding faults with all other raw diets and holding themselves up as better raw foodists.

Now that holier than thou role has gone to the Nutrient cops of the Sprout PD,