[www.fao.org]

60 kg male requires 2.5mg zinc per day.

that would be quite a bit lower than the "RDA"

[www.fao.org]

20/27 ug per day women/men

that would be quite a bit lower than the "RDA"

Fresh inexplicably decided to create new thread. If you would like to see his dogmatic, unsubstantiated views get exposed, visit this thread - [www.rawfoodsupport.com]

That is all.

It's interesting how Fresh seems to support low nutrient diets, but can all people live on a fraction of the current rda's? I would rather play safe and get good vitamin and mineral contents just in case Fresh's sources are wrong.

www.thesproutarian.com

thanks for everything you've shared, sproutarianman. i do understand your position.

as i said though much damage can accrue in the search for higher and higher nutrients through poor food choices.

what we really need is an inexpensive comprehensive test for people that would give them a good sense of their nutrient status. i have not found one.

hence my focus on symptoms of which i have NONE. (certainly i am aware that symptoms are not an infallible guide - i am not the fool that prindl enjoys portraying)

THIS asymptomatic fact is not explainable by those calling for these higher nutrient intakes and food sources.

"as i said though much damage can accrue in the search for higher and higher nutrients through poor food choices."

Obviously you can overdose on anything, but there's a fine line between taking in higher than recommended amounts and taking in toxic amounts. Then of course there's the bioavailability factor - you don't absorb 100% of every nutrient you put into your body.

Here is a small snippet from my file on Zinc…

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: Interesting Topic (anti-raw topic @ NFL board)
Author: Morphosis (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-04-05 14:44

An interesting read about zinc by the WHO...

[whqlibdoc.who.int]

From the text:

A vegan diet not based primarily on unrefined cereal grains or high-extraction-rate flours is determined to have "moderate bioavailability" of zinc.

The RNI levels of zinc based on moderate bioavailability is:

Adult females: 4.9mg/day for a 55kg woman (or .09mg/kg/day)

Adult males: 7.0mg/day for a 65kg man (or .11mg/kg/day)

Also from the link(pg 233), germination of grains reduces phytate content by activating phytase enzymes which allows for an increase in zinc absorption. Fermentation also increases zinc absorption.
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: Interesting Topic (anti-raw topic @ NFL board)
Author: Morphosis (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: 07-04-05 15:18

Sienna,

Here is what I have eaten so far today (without dinner added or evening snack):

Smoothie
1 banana .18 mg
1 orange .11 mg
.5 cup blueberries .12 mg (hey, they are in season and yummy!)
4 strawberries .07 mg

Salad
1 small head romaine 1.44 mg
.25 cup sunflower seeds 1.82 mg
2 tomatoes .11 mg
1 avocado 1.18 mg
.5 cucumber .17 mg
.5 chayote squash .75 mg
1 carrot .15 mg

Total mg of zinc: 6.1 mg

Wow! I won't be worrying about zinc anymore. This was just a smoothie and big salad! I typically eat a lot of sprouts, and more veggies throughout the day.

I can see how the 8-1-1 diet could be low in zinc... unless a person ate a whole lot fruit and a big salad every day.
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: Interesting Topic (anti-raw topic @ NFL board)
Author: Sienna (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: 07-04-05 15:30

Thanks Morphosis. I think I will still start eating the napa cabbage. Only 2 cups of it gives you 8mg of zinc. Can be added to salads or blended drinks. I don't eat seeds everyday. I agree that strict fruitarian only eaters probably get very little. But if breathatarians don't worry about deficiencies and do ok with zero intake, why do we need to?
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

interesting chart of symptoms
not vouching for accuracy.

[www.health-science-spirit.com]

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "as i said though much damage can accrue in the
> search for higher and higher nutrients through
> poor food choices."
>
> Obviously you can overdose on anything, but
> there's a fine line between taking in higher than
> recommended amounts and taking in toxic amounts.
> Then of course there's the bioavailability factor
> - you don't absorb 100% of every nutrient you put
> into your body.

not talking about overdosing. talking about people eating cooked food because they think they can't get enough of nutrient X, because people keep saying we need so much. that can be just as damaging as insufficiency.

fao -> "normative requirement for absorbed zinc .... 1.4 mg/day for men and 1.0 mg/day for women"

-zinc absorption can be as high as 40-50%

-critical to maximize absorption

-zinc depletion occurs very quickly.

so based on the fact that depletion occurs quickly, the only reason for no symptoms long term is because zinc intake Could be as low as 2.8mg per day, yielding 1.4 absorption. today mine was 3.5 but i am going to check over time to verify.


same with selenium, which has a 80-90% absorption rate.

my intake could be as low as 18ug / day, which matches the intake in research of healthy populations, but i am going to measure for a couple weeks.

yes i totally understand why some people wish to have insurance.
relax.

Quote

hence my focus on symptoms of which i have NONE. (certainly i am aware that symptoms are not an infallible guide - i am not the fool that prindl enjoys portraying)

THIS asymptomatic fact is not explainable by those calling for these higher nutrient intakes and food sources.

It is explainable in that everyone is different and has different requirements. You sound like you are doing quite well on your diet and lower levels of nutrient intake, which is awesome. Some people do not do so well. That doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean jtprindl is wrong, but instead it seems that you are both right in the context of your own needs.

From my experiences and observations I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people require a relatively high intake of nutrients, while a minority of people do very well with a much lower intake. From that point of view it seems like the prudent thing to do to advocate a higher nutrient diet and mention the potential problems of lower nutrient diets for some people. The people who fail on the one type of diet should be aware of the other and vice versa...I just want people to have options and not be sucked into the dogma of "one size fits all" or "my way or the highway." The trend in the raw food movement seems to be to promote diets like 80-10-10 and fruitarian to the exclusion of other types of diets, so I see myself as trying to balance that by presenting some other options. I don't try to convert people to sproutarianism or any specific way of eating, I just mention pros and cons as I see them and let people know that there is more than one way to do the raw vegan diet.

There is plenty of evidence of people failing on the 80-10-10 or natural hygiene diet, so I'm sure you're aware that low nutrient diets do not work for everyone. It's about letting people know that they have choices and that if one thing doesn't work for them, they can try another instead of just quitting.

>There is plenty of evidence of people failing on the 80-10-10 or natural hygiene diet,

on any diet

>so I'm sure you're aware that low nutrient diets do not work for everyone.

i don't consider it low nutrient diet - more like high rda

Living Food--"There is plenty of evidence of people failing on the 80-10-10 or natural hygiene diet.."


Just curious. Is there a diet that people aren't failing from?

Fresh:

Quote

on any diet

Yes. See below

Anon 102:

Quote

Just curious. Is there a diet that people aren't failing from?

Probably not. This is why I say that everyone is different and no one diet fits all, because not everyone will thrive on any particular diet. This is why it is so important to talk about different types of diets and alternatives to the main one being promoted in raw veganism (hclf), because not everyone will do well on that type of diet and if they think that's all there is, they will likely go back to cooked food.

Diets like 80-10-10 and natural hygiene type diets seem quite inflexible to me because of the emphasis in fruit to the exclusion of much else, and because of all the food groups natural hygeine forbids. Sproutarianism is much more flexible imo because you can alter the macronutrients ratios to individual requirements, so one person may eat more seeds if they require more fat, another may eat more grains/legumes or fruit for carbs, etc. The key isn't that everyone should go sproutarian (many wouldn't be ready for the potent foods and hard work of growing all your own food...it's a very strict lifestyle), the key is that people should know that there is another way that might work for them. So if someone fails off 80-10-10 or natural hygiene, they could give sproutarianism a go and they might succeed. If someone is concerned about toxins or mucus-forming qualities of sprouts, or worried about eating "heavy" foods, they can give 80-10-10 or natural hygiene a go. Personally I believe that the majority of people would do quite well on a sproutarian diet because of the freshness and the high nutrients and electromagnetic vibration that comes with it, and the majority of people would not fare so well on a hclf fruit-based diet, but it doesn't matter what I think...everyone's diet is their own personal decision and responsibility. I just like to give people things to think about which they may not have been aware of.

When some people are becoming severely malnourished on a diet and restore their health when they go back to eating cooked food, you know that this is something which can be quite dangerous for some people. I'm not saying you should stop eating a diet that works for you, I'm just advocating caution (particularly to newcomers). If your diet works for you, great! If it ain't broke don't fix it.

sproutarianism is calorically deficient and intensive with respect to modifications needed.


>Diets like 80-10-10 and natural hygiene type diets seem quite inflexible to me because of the emphasis in fruit to the exclusion of much else, and because of all the food groups natural hygeine forbids.

NH diet is incredibly flexible. hundreds of fruits and veggies in any combination that you want. the emphasis on fruit is simply a caloric imperative if you want to eat whole foods. any other diet will require low calories or juicing or cooked or whatever.

natural hygiene does not forbid anything, really. NH merely says that in order to be healthy is it best to pay attention to your own tastebuds that have been synergistically developed with food soures over millenia. your own tastebuds are doing the forbidding, not NH, per se.

Quote

sproutarianism is calorically deficient

I'm not sure how you came by that conclusion - a meal of sprouted seeds is hundreds of calories just by itself. If you're eating predominantly fruit then you need to eat a huge volume of food to get enough calories, but you could get the same calories from sproutarianism with 1 or 2 cups of seeds. Could you explain your reasoning?

Then there are other factors with the sproutarian diet that could greatly reduce your need for calories, but now is likely not the place to be discussing such things.

Quote

intensive with respect to modifications needed

No argument there, it certainly is a lot of hard work. I see that as a plus, however.

Quote

NH diet is incredibly flexible. hundreds of fruits and veggies in any combination that you want. the emphasis on fruit is simply a caloric imperative if you want to eat whole foods. any other diet will require low calories or juicing or cooked or whatever.

Again, are you taking nuts and seeds into consideration? What about grains/pseudograins/legumes? There are plenty of ways to get calories without eating pounds of fruit.

When I said the diet was inflexible I meant in terms of macronutrient ratios. Eating predominantly fruit works for some but is a complete disaster for others. Many people seem to do better on higher fat moderate carb diets.

Quote

natural hygiene does not forbid anything, really. NH merely says that in order to be healthy is it best to pay attention to your own tastebuds that have been synergistically developed with food soures over millenia. your own tastebuds are doing the forbidding, not NH, per se.

I was under the impression that the NH diet forbid grains, legumes, and various other food groups as "mucus forming," "acidic" or something similar.

I think that depending on your taste buds as your guide is very iffy and not a good idea at all. Your taste buds lead you to food that tastes good, but not necessarily food that is good for you. The two are not the same by a long shot. If you're going by the standards of what tastes good, you would be eating all sorts of unhealthy cooked foods loaded with salt, refined sugar, and grease.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2015 07:39PM by Living Food.

Living Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sproutarianism is calorically deficient
>
> I'm not sure how you came by that conclusion - a
> meal of sprouted seeds is hundreds of calories
> just by itself. If you're eating predominantly
> fruit then you need to eat a huge volume of food
> to get enough calories, but you could get the same
> calories from sproutarianism with 1 or 2 cups of
> seeds. Could you explain your reasoning?
>

no you don't need to eat a huge volume of food to get enough calories.
bananas 100 cal each.


> Then there are other factors with the sproutarian
> diet that could greatly reduce your need for
> calories, but now is likely not the place to be
> discussing such things.
>
> intensive with respect to modifications needed
>
> No argument there, it certainly is a lot of hard
> work. I see that as a plus, however.
>
> NH diet is incredibly flexible. hundreds of fruits
> and veggies in any combination that you want. the
> emphasis on fruit is simply a caloric imperative
> if you want to eat whole foods. any other diet
> will require low calories or juicing or cooked or
> whatever.
>
> Again, are you taking nuts and seeds into
> consideration? What about
> grains/pseudograins/legumes? There are plenty of
> ways to get calories without eating pounds of
> fruit.

yes there are ways. just not as simply.
and there are associated problems with those foods including low water content, nutrient issues and mineral blocking.
>
> When I said the diet was inflexible I meant in
> terms of macronutrient ratios. Eating
> predominantly fruit works for some but is a
> complete disaster for others. Many people seem to
> do better on higher fat moderate carb diets.
>
this is a rather old, contentious topic.
anway...
it's a disaster because people don't know what they are doing, don't clean out, pay too much attention to nutrients, pay too much attention to test results during transition, are addicts, etc

> natural hygiene does not forbid anything, really.
> NH merely says that in order to be healthy is it
> best to pay attention to your own tastebuds that
> have been synergistically developed with food
> soures over millenia. your own tastebuds are doing
> the forbidding, not NH, per se.
>
> I was under the impression that the NH diet forbid
> grains, legumes, and various other food groups as
> "mucus forming," "acidic" or something similar.
>

it's only "forbidden" because NH people are asked what to eat.
when asked what to eat, they try to explain the reasons.
but it is not necessary to ask anyone what to eat.
it's only necessary to unlearn what you think you should eat.

> I think that depending on your taste buds as your
> guide is very iffy and not a good idea at all.
> Your taste buds lead you to food that tastes good,
> but not necessarily food that is good for you. The
> two are not the same by a long shot. If you're
> going by the standards of what tastes good, you
> would be eating all sorts of unhealthy cooked
> foods loaded with salt, refined sugar, and grease.

every time i say that, someone says what you just said.

the caveat is that it must be raw food, not cooked.

and of course it's not just tastebuds, it's chewability, etc

Thanks for your answers.

"i see that as a plus"

what do you mean by that?

The long answer would be a very very long answer lol, but the short answer is that it is good for people to be dedicated and work hard growing their own fresh food with love.

I do not believe in laziness or in wasting time on cheap entertainment, and I would much rather spend my spare time tending to sprouts than watching television or reading the newspaper etc.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Morphosis. I think I will still start
> eating the napa cabbage. Only 2 cups of it gives
> you 8mg of zinc. Can be added to salads or
> blended drinks. I don't eat seeds everyday. I
> agree that strict fruitarian only eaters probably
> get very little. But if breathatarians don't
> worry about deficiencies and do ok with zero
> intake, why do we need to?
> [www.rawfoodsupport.com]
> 3&t=91897

The problem is that I have never seen a breatharian, and I am not sure if they do really exists.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2015 02:55PM by RawPracticalist.

RawPracticalist wrote:

<<<John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Morphosis. I think I will still start
... But if breathatarians don't worry about deficiencies and do ok with zero intake, why do we need to?>

The problem is that I have never seen a breatharian, and I am not sure if they do really exists.>>>

I DID NOT WRITE THAT - SIENNA WROTE IT AND I RE-POSTED IT!!!

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: Interesting Topic (anti-raw topic @ NFL board)
Author: Sienna (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: 07-04-05 15:30

Thanks Morphosis. I think I will still start eating the napa cabbage. Only 2 cups of it gives you 8mg of zinc. Can be added to salads or blended drinks. I don't eat seeds everyday. I agree that strict fruitarian only eaters probably get very little. But if breathatarians don't worry about deficiencies and do ok with zero intake, why do we need to?
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2015 03:42PM by John Rose.