>>That Kristinas has elevated triglycerides and a number of other abnormal blood test results ?


there was nothing abnormal in her blood test.

she did not fast which is why her triglycerides were higher

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >>That Kristinas has elevated triglycerides and
> a
> > number of other abnormal blood test results ?
> >
> >
> > there was nothing abnormal in her blood test.
> >
> > she did not fast which is why her triglycerides
> > were higher
>
> Higher ? Her triglycerides are off the charts
> fresh, similar to some junk food SAD dieter. If
> this was a paleo dieter, you would be slaughtering
> those abnormal blood test results.
>

nah

> Just eating fruit does not raise triglycerides to
> the levels shown in her test. Fruit DOES NOT
> cause elevated triglycerides in healthy quantities
> either. Also her response never claims that she
> didn't fast for the test. Her response was:
>
> For those who are asking, my triglycerides are OK.
> They show high but that's because eating any carbs
> (especially fruits after you have gone some hours
> without eating) makes triglycerides go up. Given
> my perfect cholesterol levels it is nothing to
> worry about. Any food that had carbs will mobilize
> fat. Vegans often will test high in TG but have
> far less risk of heart disease. - Kristina
>
> The real reason why Kristina and many other
> 80/10/10ers typically have high triglycerides is
> because she is consuming excessive sugar.
>

you don't understand triglycerides


> "Evidence from a statement released by the
> National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, panel on
> Detection, Evaluation, and treatment of High Blood
> Cholesterol in Adults (ATP III), suggests that
> very high intakes of carbohydrates (CHO) (greater
> than 60 percent of total calories) are accompanied
> by a rise in triglycerides."
>

you didn't provide the evidence that I requested, from a raw eater.
the above is not it.

> "The recommendation by ATP III regarding dietary
> “Carbohydrate intakes should be limited to 60
> percent of total calories. Lower intakes (e.g., 50
> percent of calories) should be considered for
> persons with metabolic syndrome who have elevated
> triglycerides or low HDL cholesterol (the good
> cholesterol). - (Kristina has both abnormal
> results on her tests(high trigs, low HDL and a
> high VLDL level), her excessive carbohydrate, low
> fat raw vegan based diet is already flagging
> potential metabolic health problems)."
>
> Anyway elevated triglycerides wasn't Kristina's
> only abnormal result, she has low HDL(good
> cholesterol) and high VLDL, are you going to tell
> me those are good things too ?

they are not a problem. i see that you think so.

>
> Coupled with the elevated triglycerides, is a
> combo of abnormal markers which significantly
> raises risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
>
>

we will see. stick around.

> Again like i say if Kristina's diet was healthy,
> she wouldn't be having any abnormal results on a
> basic lipid/cholesterol test.

Organic1 wrote

Totally out of line saying what ?

Your going to end up killing Kristina with your dangerous dietary advice and your only concern is with how little raw food i ate 4 years ago, which shows that you are beyond deluded at this point John.

Tai:
I am talking about the above statement. That is not fair for you to say and it's also not appropriate to exaggerate. Kristina is her own person. SHe may have learned the ropes from JOhn and Doug, but she is in charge of her life.

I don't want to sweep anything under the rug. I like the truth. But to get to the truth, you cannot afford to exaggerate. If you really think she is in trouble, say it in a professional way, not with mudslinging and without personal attacks.

210 is not a big deal for trig, chris.




>You can't just simply put your fingers in your ears and say nah to everything fresh without reasoning.

I said nah to your statement about what I would say to a non raw fooder.


>I did provide evidence as to why her triglycerides were elevated also, which is because Kristina derives 80-90% of her calories from sugar/carbohydrates, anything above 60% of total calories has been shown to elevate triglycerides.

you don't know that at all.
she doesn't eat sugar. she eats fruits and veggies.
the food you eat turns to sugar too.
can be caused by overeating.
may not be a problem at all
it's not independently associated with anything - you can't separate it out from other factors.




>I don't understand triglycerides ? Seems none of you guys understand the proven potential health risks of having high triglycerides.

see above.


>You and John Rose are two of the few people who believe having high triglycerides is a good thing for a raw vegan, which is just crazy talk, when high triglycerides are a known predictor of increased heart disease risk, again like i say especially coupled with low HDL and high VLDL levels, which can also indicate insulin resistance.

see above



>But we'll ignore all those abnormal results with no reasoning either i guess ?


just like you have ignored Tai's asking you to be tactful


>Also your notion that the above research is invalid because it wasn't done on raw food is actually invalid. Carbohydrates and sugars don't tend to differentiate between raw or cooked food states, a simple sugar will always be a simple sugar, regardless if its raw bananas or cooked bananas that you are consuming.

health depends on multiple factors.

>You really don't get it in any simpler words fresh, you have been asking for years for someone to define and quantify just exactly what is an "excessive sugar diet" and there you finally have it.

I don't see it that way. I understand and accept that you do.


>Carbohydrate intakes that exceed 50-60% of total calories are considered excessive, high and will lead to increased potential risk of developing metabolic and cardiovascular disorders.

excessive by whom? you can believe who you wish to.

you keep on appealing to who you think are experts. it's a fallacy to do so.

cut down on your raw food, i hear it's dangerous. ;-)

Here are some examples of FLAWED thinking based on a Lack of Knowledge and an Unwillingness and perhaps an Inability to think Outside of the Box…

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
“A VLCARB is almost always relatively high in protein. …Although more long-term studies are needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn, it appears, from most literature studied, that a VLCARB is, if anything, protective against muscle protein catabolism during energy restriction, provided that it contains adequate amounts of protein.”
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

So according to this article, “relatively high in protein” = “adequate amounts of protein”!

Everyone knows that High Protein Ketogenic Diets are UNSAFE, which is why children with Epilepsy are taken off Ketogenic Diets as soon as possible!!!

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
“These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level.”
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

This study was done in 1983 before we understood that 90% of our calories after 1 hour of Aerobic Exercise come from Fat. So if a well-trained cyclist biked for 4 hours and burned 2,400 Calories, ~1871 of those Calories or ~78% of those Calories would be Fat Calories, so of course, a Low Fat Diet would NOT affect their endurance, especially with all of that extra PROTEIN!!!

<<<Carbohydrate intakes that exceed 50-60% of total calories are considered excessive, high and will lead to increased potential risk of developing metabolic and cardiovascular disorders.>>>

60% of the Calories we burn at rest are Fat, so the other 40% are Carbohydrates. Once we start moving around, we are supposed to be using Carbohydrates, as long as we’ve got them, but if we keep doing the same activity, like walking or biking, we start burning Fat at 20 minutes, at 30 minutes we are burning 50% Fat and at an hour we’re burning 90% Fat.

Now let’s take a look at some different scenarios…

Scenario #1:
2,000 Calories at rest
1,200 Calories of Fat______________60%
__800 Calories of Carbohydrates___40%

Scenario #2:
2,000 Calories at rest
__500 Calories of non-aerobic activity
2,500 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________48%
1,300 Calories of Carbohydrates___52%

Scenario #3:
2,000 Calories at rest
1,000 Calories of non-aerobic activity
3,000 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________40%
1,800 Calories of Carbohydrates___60%

Scenario #4:
2,000 Calories at rest
2,000 Calories of non-aerobic activity
4,000 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________30%
2,800 Calories of Carbohydrates___70%

Scenario #5:
2,000 Calories at rest
2,400 Calories of 4 hours of continuous aerobic activity
4,400 Total Calories
3,071 Calories of Fat______________70%
1,329 Calories of Carbohydrates___30%

As you can see, if you guys don’t do the Calculations, you’ll NEVER make any sense out of all of this!!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2015 09:42AM by John Rose.

"This scientific statement reviews the pivotal role of triglycerides in lipid metabolism and reaffirms that triglyceride is not directly atherogenic but represents an important biomarker of CVD risk because of its association with atherogenic remnant particles and apo CIII."

As this statement clearly points out..."triglyceride is not directly atherogenic but represents an important biomarker of CVD risk"!

In other words, Triglyceride Levels are only a problem when they are associated with Metabolic Syndrome, which is impossible on a relatively Low Fat Raw Vegan Diet.

<<<Yes triglycerides are not directly atherogenic, however elevated triglycerides represent an important biomarker for predicting increased cardiovascular disease risk.>>>

Here's a much better indicator for Cardiovascular Disease...

Unrefined Plant Food VS The Killer Diseases


One of the very first things I show my students is a graph on page 51 in Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book “Eat to Live,” which when written in 2003, was and may still be the most scientifically referenced health and weight loss book ever written as there are more than 1500 medical references. Dr. Fuhrman has reviewed more than two thousand nutritional research papers in preparation for this book and many more in prior years, and there is not much conflicting evidence.

I love this graph because at one end of the graph we have countries, like Hungary and the United States, that are Consuming ~90% of their Calories from Processed Foods and Animal Products or they are only Consuming ~10% of their Calories from Unrefined Plant Foods and they have a 90% chance of dying from Heart Disease and Cancer. In contrast, at the other end of the graph we have countries, like Laos, that are only Consuming ~5% of their Calories from Processed Foods and Animal Products or they are Consuming ~95% of their Calories from Unrefined Plant Food and they only have a 5% chance of dying from Heart Disease and Cancer.

Imagine playing Russian Roulette where you have a gun with 10 chambers and 9 of them are full or playing Russian Roulette where you have a gun with 20 chambers and 1 of them are full.

As everyone can see, this graph is almost completely symmetrical clearly indicating that we can DRASTICALLY reduce our odds from these Killer Diseases simply by Eating a Whole Foods Plant based Diet.

Once again, let’s take a look at some different scenarios, but this time let’s see what happens when we don’t eat enough Calories as if we are trying to lose weight…

Scenario #1:
2,000 Calories at rest
1,200 Calories of Fat______________60%
__800 Calories of Carbohydrates___40%

Scenario #2:
2,000 Calories at rest
__500 Calories of non-aerobic activity
2,500 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________48%
1,300 Calories of Carbohydrates___52%

Scenario #3:
2,000 Calories at rest
1,000 Calories of non-aerobic activity
3,000 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________40%
1,800 Calories of Carbohydrates___60%

Scenario #4:
2,000 Calories at rest
2,000 Calories of non-aerobic activity
4,000 Total Calories
1,200 Calories of Fat______________30%
2,800 Calories of Carbohydrates___70%

Scenario #5:
2,000 Calories at rest
2,400 Calories of 4 hours of continuous aerobic activity
4,400 Total Calories
3,071 Calories of Fat______________70%
1,329 Calories of Carbohydrates___30%

In Scenario #1 above, if we want to lose 2 pounds of Fat a week, we have to reduce our Caloric Intake to 1,000 Calories, which means that we have to Consume ~80% of our Calories from Carbohydrates in order to Protect our Lean Body Mass.

In Scenario #2 above, if we want to lose 2 pounds of Fat a week, we have to reduce our Caloric Intake to 1,500 Calories, which means that we have to Consume ~87% of our Calories from Carbohydrates in order to Protect our Lean Body Mass.

In Scenario #3 above, if we want to lose 2 pounds of Fat a week, we have to reduce our Caloric Intake to 2,000 Calories, which means that we have to Consume ~90% of our Calories from Carbohydrates in order to Protect our Lean Body Mass.

In Scenario #4 above, if we want to lose 2 pounds of Fat a week, we have to reduce our Caloric Intake to 3,000 Calories, which means that we have to Consume ~93% of our Calories from Carbohydrates in order to Protect our Lean Body Mass.

In Scenario #5 above, if we want to lose 2 pounds of Fat a week, we have to reduce our Caloric Intake to 3,400 Calories, which means that we have to Consume ~39% of our Calories from Carbohydrates in order to Protect our Lean Body Mass.

As I have pointed out in a previous Post…

“However, if someone is trying to lose weight, especially excess Fat, by Eating Less Calories, they have to reduce their Fat Intake to ensure they don't lose any Lean Body Mass. In fact, there is an inverse ratio as to how much Fat they can Eat and how much Fat they can SAFELY lose! The only other way to protect their Lean Body Mass is to Consume Excess Protein and Consuming Excess Protein is NOT Safe!!!”

In other words, there are only 2 Ways to Protect our Lean Body Mass whenever we are Eating Less Calories than we burn. The 1st Way is to reduce our Fat Intake to Prevent Gluconeogenesis and the 2nd Way is to Consume Excess Protein and Consuming Excess Protein is NOT Safe!!!

<<<This is exactly why i don't believe you have been eating this high sugar, low fat raw vegan diet for 20+ years strictly as you claim John>>>

I don’t Eat Low Fat and I have NEVER said that I do!!!

But I do Eat Lots of Fruit because I am still very active and I don’t want to Eat Dead Food!!!

“Whatever deceives men seems to produce a magical enchantment.” -Plato

Indeed, Cooked Food produces a magical enchantment as most people seem to be under its Spell.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2015 02:46PM by John Rose.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes triglycerides are not directly atherogenic,
> however elevated triglycerides represent an
> important biomarker for predicting increased
> cardiovascular disease risk.
>
> So that is very important in itself for preventing
> cardiovascular disease.
>
> And anyway someone following a majority plant
> based diet shouldn't be exhibiting any of these
> abnormal results that Kristina and many others are
> showing. That alone should show you that your
> 80/10/10 raw vegan high sugar diet is very
> dangerous.
>
> Especially when you also have high VLDL levels
> like Kristina does also, which is directly
> atherogenic. - "High levels of VLDL cholesterol
> have been associated with the development of
> plaque deposits on artery walls, which narrow the
> passage and restrict blood flow, increasing risk
> of heart attack and stroke."


The reason I quit hclf was because my lipid panel results were as bad as Kristina's after never having those bad results previous to spending 11 months on that diet. I did not, as I recall, have low HDL but I did have the high triglycerides and high LVDL cholesterol flagged.



> According to your protege blood tests its not
> impossible at all. Why was a fasting glucose test
> not done for someone with all those other abnormal
> lipid/cholesterol markers ?



Something is REALLY wrong with that picture. What M.D. orders a lipid panel without ordering the VERY routine fasting blood sugar test at the same time?! What above even D- level doctor sends his relatively famous raw vegan public figure YouTuber to get her lab tests without making sure she knows the protocols to follow to insure the expensive tests will not be invalidated - such as not eating before having them preformed?!! It's crazy. It's incredible.


> Ridiculous.. The doctor in her video is equally to
> blame here, so im not saying this is all or any of
> your fault, just pointing it out. I blame him
> more to be honest because i guess he's meant to be
> a real qualified MD here and clearly shows that he
> knows nothing on the basics of heart disease.
>
> Especially for him to suggest that Kristina is
> "heart attack proof" based simply on her total
> cholesterol levels being in range. It would be
> laughably basic if Kristina didn't have so many
> other abnormal results indicating increased heart
> disease risk staring the "doctor" right in the
> face.


His words and deeds sure shouldn't inspire any confidence in his abilities, IMO. Is he being given an exceedingly rare (for M.D.'s) "good guy" pass in this community simply because he's a vegan? It sure seems so.


> And now we have legions of Kristina's followers
> going about youtube saying she has "perfect" blood
> test results, which really couldn't be further
> from the truth.

I wasn't aware of that but why should it surprise me since everything else about the scenario is so highly, and ridiculously obviously, selective.


I'm far more concerned, though, about these hclf vegan's like Kristina's and Freelee's very young and inexperienced marks ruining their health, (and very possibly their future ability to conceive), by following these self appointed "expert" vegan gurus who are, in essence, qualified mainly in YouTube exhibitionism and salesmanship.

<<<So Johns response to his pupils lipid/cholesterol blood tests being so poor, is a bunch of hypothetical calorie scenarios regarding fat intake ???? which doesn't even relate to Kristina.>>>

My Post that you're referring to doesn't relate to Kristina BECAUSE it was NOT intended to relate to Kristina.

My Post was in reference to an earlier Post I made in response to jt and if you read this Thread in its entirety, you'll know why I posted it.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh, i could provide the most robust scientific
> study in the world, in which Kristina was even a
> participant and it conclude that her 80/10/10 was
> the exact cause of her elevated triglycerides and
> you'd still find some completely unmeasurable
> criteria to add so that it would discredit the
> findings.
>

nope

> Its not a fallacy, its called cognitive bias.
>

is it possible that you have cognitive bias


> Its called believing in science, but only when it
> suits your agenda and own belief system.
>


possible that you do that

> And yes elevated triglycerides have independatly
> been proven as a solid predictor of increased
> heart disease risk. Do some research, before you
> discredit everything automatically.
>

nope


> Also 210 is considered high, Current designations
> are as follows: 150 to 199 mg/dL, borderline high;
> 200 to 499 mg/dL, high; and >500 mg/dL, very
> high.
>

1. her numbers are fine, mercola had 500 before quitting diet
2. many recommendations are incorrect, for example the calcium recommendations, same scenario here.



> "This scientific statement reviews the pivotal
> role of triglycerides in lipid metabolism and
> reaffirms that triglyceride is not directly
> atherogenic but represents an important biomarker
> of CVD risk because of its association with
> atherogenic remnant particles and apo CIII."
>
> [circ.ahajournals.org]
> ll

proves my point.

how long would you say it would take for someone with triglycerides at her level to develop problems?

And

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

this is the kind of study you are talking about above.

what you refuse to consider is that all factors together impact health.
they are picking out hdl/trig ratio based on the study subjects and coming out with a soundbite that says "the strongest predictor of "
but those subjects are unhealthy overall.
strongest predictor does not mean causative as the statement ignores other factors such as cholesterol level and many other factors that you and they do not consider in your zeal to malign a diet that you didn't do well on.

tell me when robert lockhart is going to have a heart attack. how many decades can one have alleged high triglycerides (since it's inevitable according to you) before something happens? he's already gone 4 decades. what about jr? not old enough yet? seems to me your dire predictions should happen sooner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2015 07:00PM by fresh.

"important biomarker of cvd risk" is not a firm isolated causative link.

keep ignoring robert lockhart. and JR. maybe a couple more decades.

You think u have all the answers.
Could just as well be that she has no inflammation on raw diet and study members do yet this variable is hidden and is the real cause.

Just one example.

But if it makes u feel better to think you know in the absence of real negative outcomes in the subject person or any other raw person that's cool

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> organic1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes triglycerides are not directly atherogenic,
> > however elevated triglycerides represent an
> > important biomarker for predicting increased
> > cardiovascular disease risk.
> >
> > So that is very important in itself for
> preventing
> > cardiovascular disease.
> >
> > And anyway someone following a majority plant
> > based diet shouldn't be exhibiting any of these
> > abnormal results that Kristina and many others
> are
> > showing. That alone should show you that your
> > 80/10/10 raw vegan high sugar diet is very
> > dangerous.
> >
> > Especially when you also have high VLDL levels
> > like Kristina does also, which is directly
> > atherogenic. - "High levels of VLDL cholesterol
> > have been associated with the development of
> > plaque deposits on artery walls, which narrow
> the
> > passage and restrict blood flow, increasing
> risk
> > of heart attack and stroke."
>
>
> The reason I quit hclf was because my lipid panel
> results were as bad as Kristina's after never
> having those bad results previous to spending 11
> months on that diet. I did not, as I recall, have
> low HDL but I did have the high triglycerides and
> high LVDL cholesterol flagged.
>
>
>
> > According to your protege blood tests its not
> > impossible at all. Why was a fasting glucose
> test
> > not done for someone with all those other
> abnormal
> > lipid/cholesterol markers ?
>
>
>
> Something is REALLY wrong with that picture. What
> M.D. orders a lipid panel without ordering the
> VERY routine fasting blood sugar test at the same
> time?! What above even D- level doctor sends his
> relatively famous raw vegan public figure YouTuber
> to get her lab tests without making sure she knows
> the protocols to follow to insure the expensive
> tests will not be invalidated - such as not eating
> before having them preformed?!! It's crazy. It's
> incredible.
>
>
> > Ridiculous.. The doctor in her video is equally
> to
> > blame here, so im not saying this is all or any
> of
> > your fault, just pointing it out. I blame him
> > more to be honest because i guess he's meant to
> be
> > a real qualified MD here and clearly shows that
> he
> > knows nothing on the basics of heart disease.
> >
> > Especially for him to suggest that Kristina is
> > "heart attack proof" based simply on her total
> > cholesterol levels being in range. It would be
> > laughably basic if Kristina didn't have so many
> > other abnormal results indicating increased
> heart
> > disease risk staring the "doctor" right in the
> > face.
>
>
> His words and deeds sure shouldn't inspire any
> confidence in his abilities, IMO. Is he being
> given an exceedingly rare (for M.D.'s) "good guy"
> pass in this community simply because he's a
> vegan? It sure seems so.
>
>
> > And now we have legions of Kristina's followers
> > going about youtube saying she has "perfect"
> blood
> > test results, which really couldn't be further
> > from the truth.
>
> I wasn't aware of that but why should it surprise
> me since everything else about the scenario is so
> highly, and ridiculously obviously, selective.
>
>
> I'm far more concerned, though, about these hclf
> vegan's like Kristina's and Freelee's very young
> and inexperienced marks ruining their health, (and
> very possibly their future ability to conceive),
> by following these self appointed "expert" vegan
> gurus who are, in essence, qualified mainly in
> YouTube exhibitionism and salesmanship.

And by the way, (for new member, as as I've said it several times here already), even though it's been around at least a year since I finally got my blood sugar consistently back into normal range on hflc I still, to this day, have high FBS the day after I've tested my safe upper limit of less than 100 grams of carbs. I still am hoping the damage hclf did to my system is not permanent.

>>You are right, she may not have inflammation(true cause of heart disease) due to the high amount of antioxidants and anti-inflammatory nutrients she consumes through plant foods.

I am just going to note here that you said "you are right" which in itself was quite amazing to me.

If I may just say that you are diverting from my point by questioning your trust of JR or whoever else. my point is that JR and others eat high fruit for decades yet no overt heart problems. it needs to be explained I would think,altho it's possible that we all have heart problems, it's unlikely.

however there were two who had problems, rev malkmus and there was another raw guy that was interviewed by Jkohler recently but I am not sure of their diets.

and no I really don't see her numbers as a problem. the trig is near borderline and many factors need to be in place to cause an issue imo. plus I really don't know her diet, regarding oils and such and as I said I thought she didn't really fast prior to the test.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2015 12:48AM by fresh.

What is this "hclf"

high carb low fat diet

regarding the oranges I was kind of kidding and exaggerating - I wouldn't eat them I would juice them and add celery

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[www.vegsource.com]
From: gary (71.41.49.242)
Subject: kristina's test results

Date: October 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm PST

there is nothing wrong with her blood test results, as her doctor said.

triglycerides need to be tested in a fasting state. she was not in a fasting state.

so that part of the test is not relevant.
[www.vegsource.com]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[www.vegsource.com]
From: gary (71.41.49.242)
Subject: more rubbish from the anti fruit crew
Date: October 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm PST

In Reply to: kristina's test results posted by gary on October 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm:

I really cannot believe the BS people spout here about those test results. sproutarian, temp [aka organic1], all of you naysayers have no clue what you're talking about.

"studies say....X" studies say, blah blah.

my lord, what junk.

ALL of her numbers were good.

I'm on the same diet as her and my results are good and my health good, and I'm older than her, so those scaremongering tactics how she is in big trouble, from you anti fruit idiots is such a joke.

and put your blood test results up or be quiet.
[www.vegsource.com]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Same Old Song And Dance...

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Tom Billings Syndrome…





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2015 03:23PM by John Rose.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If I may just say that you are diverting from
> my
> > point by questioning your trust of JR or
> whoever
> > else. my point is that JR and others eat high
> > fruit for decades yet no overt heart problems.
> it
> > needs to be explained I would think,altho it's
> > possible that we all have heart problems, it's
> > unlikely.
> >
> > however there were two who had problems, rev
> > malkmus and there was another raw guy that was
> > interviewed by Jkohler recently but I am not
> sure
> > of their diets.
> >
> > and no I really don't see her numbers as a
> > problem. the trig is near borderline and many
> > factors need to be in place to cause an issue
> imo.
> > plus I really don't know her diet, regarding
> oils
> > and such and as I said I thought she didn't
> really
> > fast prior to the test.
>
>
> Kristina's triglycerides were 10 points over
> borderline HIGH, not borderline normal. So again
> that is incorrect.
>
> Fact is, its not healthy to have
> hypertriglyceridemia period.
>
> Also nobody claiming to follow a healthy diet
> should be developing hypertriglyceridemia either.
>
>
> It is all the evidence we need that Kristina's
> high sugar, low fat 80/10/10 style diet is not
> healthy. And elevated triglycerides were by far
> not her only abnormal lipid or cholesterol marker.
> It is worrying, especially because her so called
> "mentor or teacher" John Rose doesn't even seem in
> the slighest bit bothered for Kristina's health.
>
> Kristina follows 80/10/10, so she doesn't consume
> oils or much overt fats at all. So you won't be
> able to blame minute factors like her teaspoon of
> nuts she consumes in some recipes. Most of her
> recipes seem to be nut and seed free also,
> excessive sugar, no fats lol.
>
> Kristina's diet seems to be more 90/5/5 which is
> exactly up your street, eliminate the few healthy
> fat foods such as nuts and seeds that raw vegans
> do have access too, that not only provide healthy
> fats, but many vitamins/minerals not provided by a
> fruit and vegetable based diet.
>
> I hate to say it fresh, but you, John Rose and
> Kristina are all too brainwashed by your high
> sugar raw 80/10/10 dietary dogma, to be able to
> see these abnormal and potentially dangerous blood
> test results.
>
> If Kristina wants to prevent heart disease anyway
> she will really need to take action soon, because
> even in her 20's she looks fast on her way to
> developing cardiovascular disease according to her
> blood tests a year back.
>
> I believe Kristina has also just released a new
> book on how to be successfully raw vegan, i bet
> none of these abnormal results will be mentioned
> however.

Looks like Kristina may be following rose's advise in one area - business. While everyone else makes sure to have their products ready for Christmas time sales Kristina's ewey gooey recipe book won't be released until January ...

Sue Schadenfreude wrote:

When I was a little girl, my mother told me that I was different and that I would NOT be able to find Pleasure in things that other people found Pleasure in, but that I would find Pleasure in making other people Miserable and that I would be good at It and that our entire family is good at It because we are a family of Psychopaths who can only find Pleasure in things that make other people Miserable.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2015 04:23PM by John Rose.

Kristina, though, seems to have learned one thing from rose's resounding failed raw vegan goals. At least she managed to squeeze a book out in less that sixty something years.

Sue Schadenfreude wrote:

When I was a little girl, my mother told me that I was different and that I would NOT be able to find Pleasure in things that other people found Pleasure in, but that I would find Pleasure in making other people Miserable and that I would be good at It and that our entire family is good at It because we are a family of Psychopaths who can only find Pleasure in things that make other people Miserable!!!

Here's a prelude to my book once I can think of a clever title and approach for it...

[www.youtube.com]
The Ultimate Solution - Playlist

In this Video Series, John Rose gives the Definitive Answer to 3 of the most important Questions that we face as a Species. John also shares his special Teaching Tool that uses Knowledge in a way that has never been seen before.

In Part 1, John gives his overall perspective based on 25 years of extensive research and analysis.

In Part 2, John goes into more detail about his special Teaching Tool that uses Knowledge in a way that has never been seen before.

In Part 3, John goes into more detail with the Definitive Answer to these 3 Questions by adding 2 Preliminary Questions for the 1st Question and 1 Follow Up Question for the 2nd Question. John also explains that there are many Levels in Plato’s Cave and most people who think they’re out of this Cave of Ignorance are still in the Cave!

In Part 4, John goes into even more detail with the Definitive Answer to these 3 Questions by looking at 12 Sources of False Knowledge and 7 Willingness Factors or 19 Main Obstacles or 19 main reasons why we have 2 forms of Ignorance where we don’t know we don’t know.

In Part 5, John goes into more detail about the 2 Groups of Needs we must Satisfy to Solve Problems that are 100% Within our Control and the 3 Waves of Heroes and the 2 types of Hypo-Heliosis.

In Part 6, John goes into more detail about the 2 Additional Temporary Needs that are based on the Anatomical Limitations from making Mistakes that have Damaged Ourselves, Society and the Environment. John also explains that all of our Problems that are 100% Within our Control begin in childhood and that it only takes one generation to get us back on the Right Path if we can just stop teaching our children the same Mistakes that were taught to us.

In Part 7, John goes into more detail about the 5 things we mastered and the 11 Main Events that drastically Changed the Fate of Mankind.

In Part 8, John goes into more detail about the 3 Ways to Correct 5 Main Mistakes and the 2 forms of Consequences, which are Pieces 41-43 and 44-45, respectively.

In Part 9, John goes into more detail about the 5 False Beliefs about the 5 things we mastered, which are Pieces 46-50.

In Part 10, John takes a closer look at Pieces 51-60 and a brief look at Pieces 61-120. John also explains the 4 Worm Holes that represent False Interpretations, Pieces 115, 116, 119 and 120. As a special treat, John also provides a Mathematical Equation, the Performance Equation, to Solve Problems that are 100% Within our Control!

In Part 11, John goes into more detail about the 5 Stages on the Hero’s Journey - The Call, The Option, The Gathering of Allies, The Obstacles, and The Return. John also explains how too much “Junk in the Trunk” aka “Hyper-Colonic-Tension” leads to most of our Diseases, especially Type 2 Diabetes, and how John’s 1st Step activates a Retrograde Flow that causes the system to dump all of the toxins throughout the body into the colon and then, out of the body. John also explains that there are 3 main things we want to accomplish by doing John’s 1st Step and by doing so; we will have successfully completed the 2nd Stage on the Hero’s Journey and that the Ultimate Solution for any Problem that’s 100% Within our Control is the Ultimate Solution for all of our Problems that are 100% Within our Control.

In The Ultimate Schematic, John Rose gives a quick overview of Rose’s 12 Stories and goes into more detail about his special Teaching Tool that uses Knowledge in a way that has never been seen before.

"Here's a prelude to my book once I can think of a clever title and approach for it ... " ...

Why is rose spamming so many threads until they are carpet bombed with his ads for himself, his multiple reposted posts, and his large selfies?

We get it chris, you think she is at risk. Not sure what you think you are going to gain by repeating it ad nauseum.

I don't think she is at risk and have explained why.

you still have not explained why many other high fruit people have not had heart attacks yet.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You need to define "high fruit" also, are you
> talking about most flakey wannabe raw vegans who
> are more like raw till 4 i.e fruit through the
> day, then a cooked meal for dinner, often
> containing animal foods too.
>

Your classification is for higher than X simple carbs and that it is dangerous.

I know many who fit that and they have not had heart attacks or apparent heart disease.

the fact is you can't explain it.

that doesn't mean that you're wrong, but some of these people are in their 70's as I've said.

> require supplementation otherwise.

a vegan diet is complete with b12 but let's not go down that road.

>
> If you are referring to 80/10/10 high fruit
> individuals, then i can't really think of any
> credible long-term examples to be honest, all the
> previous guru's you used to recommend me like DR,
> doug, chris randell etc are back eating cooked
> food or you no longer agree with them either.
>
> There must be only about 2 people left that you
> could still use as high fruit examples which are
> robert lockhart and ann osborne, and really if you
> think im going to change my diet because it
> seemingly works for 2 people for the past 5-10
> years maximum, when it has failed everyone else
> who has diligently given it a try, then i don't
> really know what to say anymore fresh.

not saying you should change your diet.

I'm just saying that there is no obvious heart disease in people that I know fit your classification.

your classification in this instance RELATIVE to heart disease is over X amount of simple carbs causing high triglycerides. It has NOTHING to do with someone being a perfect raw vegan.

What I will say is that if I were kristina (from what I recall all my numbers were within range when I had my tests done) I would have another test and insure it was fasting since it's not clear that it was. And I'm not saying that there is NO concern with her test results, I'm just saying that everything considered, it may not be a problem at all. but time will tell.

I am also saying that even though I have not been 100% raw and 100% vegan for 30 years, I do fit your classification that you say SHOULD cause high triglycerides and my test results didn't show that.

and we really don't know WHAT she eats so please don't claim that you do know.

It really could be a problem of excessive oils in the context of a high fruit diet, or simple overeating , or simply having not fasted as she did imply that in her post. or it could be that you are right, but really there is no clear evidence either way to me.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> And what we do know from scientific research is
> that diets that exceed 50-60% of total calories
> from carbohydrates to cause elevated
> triglycerides.

your statement above is a generalization.

you fail to be specific, therefore the statement is false for this instance.

"diets" is not a raw vegan diet

"diets" is not kristina's diet


A proven predictor of increased
> cardiovascular disease risk. Simply put, 80% of
> total calories from carbs/simple sugars, is too
> much carbohydrates in the diet.

I don't see any evidence of that. You cannot quote cooked studies to make that statement true. I know you think it doesn't matter but it matters to me.

secondly, we need calories. you will get blood sugar from complex carbs as well. complex carbs are not better. it's only a problem with excess, constantly elevated blood sugar.


>
> But we have been through all of this already, what
> is defined as excessive sugar and so on, i don't
> want to bore anyone by keeping repeating myself
> here.
>
> I don't need to keep reminding you either that
> hypertriglyceridemia, is not the only abnormal CHD
> risk marker flagged on Kristina's tests. There
> are multiple others. Please think about that.
>




> Also how can it possibly be the result of
> excessive oils for Kristina, when she doesn't
> consume oils or barely even overt fats such as
> nuts ? She consumes less than 10% of her calories
> from fat, so as ive already said to John, this is
> not an excess fat issue.

neither you nor I know what she eats. could be candy bars for all I know.


>
> You are continuing to ignore excess carbohydrate
> intake though, which ironically is the cause of
> all of these poor metabolic/lipid and cholesterol
> markers.

yes excess could cause problems but that has not been established.

you are continuing to ignore that complex carbs are not better and the only other place is fats to get calories.

thank you for your time. all conversations increase my knowledge due to facts shared or through further investigation on my part.

yes I know what the recommendation is and I don't agree with it.

do you agree with all of the "recommendations" from the authorities?

seriously?