[rawfoodsos.com]

[thepaleodiet.com]

wherein she says she's sorry
says she was wrong
shows study that >60% carbs not assoc with cardiovascular disease
10 or 65% fat both good
and other things

with an interesting and relevant quote here:

"We can’t ignore evidence in order to preserve an ideology.

At least not under the guise of “science.”

When confronted with something that challenges our belief system, the worst possible thing we can do is clamp our hands over our eyes and say, “You do not fit into my understanding of reality; therefore, you do not exist. BE GONE, NON-EXISTING ANOMALY.” Yet that’s what so many of us do—often without even realizing it—when faced with outcomes our chosen philosophy can’t explain. On the flip side of cherry picking, we cherry-throw-out: selectively deleting data that threatens our version of the truth, nipping any cognitive dissonance in the bud before it has a chance to rattle our worldview. It’s easy to be “right” when we’ve shoved all competing evidence into the wood chipper!"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2016 05:12AM by fresh.

Thanks fresh, this is an excellent article.

I grew up in similar environment in Africa.
One important thing to remember is that everything in those societies is manual labor. Even simple rice cooking, you need to pound the rice first.
There was oil where I grew up. Coconut and palm oil yet you could not find a single person overweight or suffering from the negative effects of these oils

It's amusing that organic1 feels some need to say that my particular diet is nutrient deficient in virtually every post.

The RDI is 66% of the RDA and is defined to provide enough nutrients for the average person. The RDA is defined to provide enough for 97% of the population and is based on guesswork, as opposed to other sources which are clinically based.

In addition, entering one's foods into a nutrient calculator is in no way an accurate exercise .

The article was not submitted to justify my diet in any way. It was interesting. In fact it supports suez diet too. Although I disagree with it as a high fat diet is not conducive to sport - and if a diet is not conducive to sport, how good can it be?

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trust you to use a study on a traditional high
> carb/saturated fat rich vegetable based fish diet
> as justification that a strict raw vegan 80/10/10
> diet is healthy.
>

that was not the purpose of the submission on my part.
don't let that stop you from assuming.

> But i thought vegetables were unhealthy foods full
> of toxins according to you fresh ?
>

anything cooked is damaged and a second class food as compared to whole or blended or juiced.
cooked foods can provide some nutrients but I have found that there is always a discernable negative that does not exist with raw foods. I don't find something with an obvious negative to be "healthy" but of course given our own situations some foods are healthier than others and we all make our choices and live our lives.

> Quite a massive difference in nutritional
> composition of the above vegetable based fish
> inclusive diet(10/20/70), than a strict 80/10/10
> raw vegan diet.
>
> Although the above fish vegetable diet
> supplemented with fruit, is probably more in-line
> with your actual real diet anyway.
>

you apparently find some joy in making false statements.
I am glad that I am able to be a foil to provide you with some joy.

> Anyway what the study did find:
>
> "Evaluation of TGs and HDL-C as
> cardiovascular risk factors must thus be
> restricted to the study population, and the
> relationship between
> TG and HDL parameters is a fundamental
> feature of lipoprotein metabolism."
>
> "The absence of overweight subjects and the low
> plasma levels
> of glucose, insulin, leptin and
> plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 activity in
> Kitavans [11 – 14] may explain the fact
> that none of these variables was related to TGs
> or HDL-C in this population and would argue
> against insulin resistance being a key factor
> behind the strong negative relationship between
> TGs and HDL-C in Kitava."
>
> Note that they are only argueing here that insulin
> resistance was not the key factor behind the
> negative correlation of TG's and HDL-c in the
> Kitava population.
>
> Having only had a brief chance to read the study,
> something that must also be pointed out is that
> their reasoning is only "hypothetical", so not
> conclusive at this point and not entirely relevant
> to western populations either, only some as seen
> in Sweden, although interesting.
>
> "A comprehensive hypothetical explanation of
> the correlations, that may be applicable to
> the Kitavans as well as some other populations,
> is the following: The diet is
> relatively high in carbohydrate and in
> saturated fatty acids. The abundance of
> carbohydrates will decrease postprandial
> oxidation of fatty acids, thereby
> increasing their recirculation in very low density
> lipoprotein triglycerides (VLDL-TGs)."
>
> An interesting study none the less, but not
> relevant to the low fat, high carb, vegan 80/10/10
> diet you promote, nor has the study claimed
> anything you've stated so far in this thread
> anyway.
>

Has some relevance as far as I am concerned.

> A vegetable based, fish containing diet,
> supplemented with fruit, leafy greens and other
> foods would likely be nutritionally complete
> without the need for supplements, your 80/10/10
> raw vegan diet will never achieve that, thus will
> never be a HEALTHY diet to follow in the first
> place.

You Really enjoy saying that !

Average fat intake reported in her article was....... 10% for those traditional cultures.



papua new guinea Traditional diet of less than 10% fat intake
and 90% carbohydrates and they were Healthy from a cardiovascular standpoint.
animal foods rarely eaten but it MUST BE the ANIMAL foods that saved them!
has nothing to do with 99% of their diet.

[www.sciencedirect.com]

Staple foods in Papua New Guinea are taro roots, bananas, sweet potatoes and sago (palm).
A variety of leafy vegetables are available. Coconut is used in cooking, for example, taro leaves cooked in coconut cream.
Leaves are also used as wrappings when baking or steaming food.
Fish and other seafood supplement the diet and chickens are kept. A whole pig is roasted for traditional feasts.
Coconuts, guavas, mangoes, papayas, passion fruits, pineapples and watermelons are grown.

Remember now kids, we were told by dietary experts right here on this very board that over 60% carbs is going to cause heart disease. this was not qualified in any way by the type of carbs. just any carbs. Now we must trust the experts, you see, as they are very smart. If you see a study (look above) that says any different, just avert your gaze or come up with some justification for it. and now all you papua new guineans you go away now, shoo.. shoo. all you other healthy cultures too. just be quiet. shhhh

From the study:

The average fasting serum triglyceride level was 140
90% carb intake

has nothing to do with foods eaten as that is not the claim regarding the 60% recommendations.

In conclusion the 60% carbs raises TG is FALSE.

this is not for organic1. It is for other people with a brain.

you are not reading the correct study I would assume.



[www.sciencedirect.com]

HEALTHY individuals

does your brain hurt you on a regular basis?

oh and 25g protein. not possible either from what I understand from nutritional experts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2016 06:04PM by fresh.

[www.youtube.com]

the study link...

"A comprehensive survey of cardiovascular disease was carried out on 779 persons over 15 yr of age. Carbohydrate provided more than 90 per cent of caloric intake and the consumption of protein and salt were about 25 and 1 g daily, respectively. The population was lean, physically fit and in good nutritional state. There was no increase with age in mean blood pressure, serum cholesterol 153, fasting blood glucose or adiposity. Glucose tolerance was high. The average fasting serum triglyceride level was 142. No diabetes or gout were found. There was a low prevalence of diagnosable cardiovascular diseases: hypertension, valvular disease, cardiac decompensation (mostly cor pulmonale) and cerebral and peripheral vascular disease. Ischemic heart disease was rare if not absent as indicated by resting and post-exercise electrocardiograms."


now remember. we must take these facts in and find some way, any way! to wiggle out of any effort to reevaluate the position of those governmental bodies who claim that over 60% carbs is BAD. Do not under any circumstances allow these facts to change your existing opinion. Why? well for one, because organic1 told us so many times. and because you could die. it's possible.
start out with something like..."yeah, but they don't eat a lot of fruit or it's just one study" or something like that.


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.The recommendation by ATP ....

followed by a prescription to reduce fructose and fruit
and that the NEW and improved triglyceride approved level is.... 100!!

eat your meat now.

supporters of the AHA - pfizer, bayer , novartis



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2016 02:23AM by fresh.

>I give up on you fresh.. this is the last post i entertain and the only reason i am, is because you'll manically post about 100 posts all over the forum claiming we're ignoring your "staunch" evidence lol.

>I give up on you RP ...

>What with all his post editing,(like 10 times for each one), and his "I shouldn't be posting here but.." and othe things, sometimes I get the feeling that the temp powerlifer .....

deja vu all over again...

No comments



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2016 02:08PM by RawPracticalist.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ohh a "comprehensive survey" of a massive 779
> people, im sorry fresh forgive me, im going to
> change my diet to 90% sugar over-night all based
> on this quality research you have provided.
>

how predictable

> Its not even the full study by the looks of it, so
> i can't even look at the nitty gritty of what
> their eating.
>
> The study was done on the highland population of
> Tukisenta, New Guinea just for those interested as
> fresh thinks the abnormal results of a few
> individuals from the highland in New Guinea should
> all be applicable to all of us of course lol.
> With absolutely no thought that there could be
> multiple other factors responsible for why these
> people have low rate of cardiovascular diseases
> and disease in general according to other
> studies.

ooh, good one.

>
> Anyway, there was still some prevelence of
> cardiovascular disease anyway, albeit low.
>

desperation

> How about just not getting high triglycerides or
> heart disease in the first place ? Is that so
> difficult for you to comprehend

yes what about it?


, instead of
> spending your every last manic minute trying to
> find any research which suggests 60+% carb intake
> is great for you, despite the bulk of scientific
> research contradicting such weak science you keep
> providing.
>

there is no BULK OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH supporting your position.

it was a meta analysis put out by the AHA

IF YOU THINK THERE IS THEN SHOW IT

and explain the many blood tests of people without high triglycerides on high carb.

you can't just say, well SOME people will get high triglycerides, it needs to be explained why.

I know why. Do you?

do you think carbs are carbs are carbs?

WHY YES YOU DO!! AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE IGNORANT.


> Also your new study never claimed anything again,
> it didn't state that 60%+ carbohyrate intake from
> total calories not to raise triglycerides, which
> is all anyone has claimed so far.

LOL


>
> Nobody has claimed its set in stone that you'll
> develop cardiovascular disease from high
> triglycerides alone, especially given that we've
> pointed out 100 times for you that elevated
> triglycerides are not directly atherogenic, just
> that it is a risk factor, especially coupled with
> other coronary heart disease risk markers......
> BORING, you are the one that forces me to keep
> repeating myself here.
>

it's hard to accept things counter to your cherished beliefs



> I give up on you fresh.. this is the last post i
> entertain and the only reason i am, is because
> you'll manically post about 100 posts all over the
> forum claiming we're ignoring your "staunch"
> evidence lol.
>
> I guess you missed the first line in your own
> study linked in your very first post of this
> thread, which also stated that 50%+ carbohydrate
> diets to cause high triglycerides, but just
> continue to ignore that research eh ? Ignore what
> goes against your belief system and manically
> cling onto anything that remotely sounds
> relevent.
>

SHOW the studies


> I take it the 90% carb diet they used in the study
> was a raw vegan 80/10/10 diet of just fruit and
> romaine lettuce of course ? It did state the
> participants were in a good nutritional state, so
> i think we can assume they weren't even vegan lol.


I already said that you would say something like that and it means nothing.

the issue is carbs. in you unending idiocy you think CARBS ARE CARBS. therefore you are an ignoramus.

there are good and bad carbs AND overeating can cause high triglycerides. those two facts alone explain the differing results from tests.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2016 05:33PM by fresh.

All the study results are based on people eating junk with several risk factors.

An intake of healthy carbs at any level (90% as in the study) results in health while not overeating. can be some cooked included.
That explains the results showing healthy TG levels in people eating high carbs.

but this cannot be accepted since this takes away your ammunition against the raw diet.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even your own study in this very first post
> confirmed diets containing more than 50%
> carbohydrates from total calories to elevate
> triglycerides.
>
> Conviently ignored by you once again of course ?


and do they in every case? hmmmmm?

why not?

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even your own study in this very first post of
> this thread, confirmed diets containing more than
> 50% carbohydrates from total calories to elevate
> triglycerides.
>
> Conviently ignored by you once again of course ?
>
> I can't believe your trying to promote a 90% sugar
> diet lol, clueless..


ah yes, because carbs = SUGAR. there's nothing else in there.
a berry consists of 100% sugar and nothing else.


what does the brain run on again?
ah that's your problem. we have found it.

It's too bad that Denise blamed her diet for "falling apart".
All she had to do is take care of her teeth and b12 and eaten enough and she would have been fine. People don't understand that some people's bodies can tear down, then build up again.
But she panicked and was confused and went paleo.

[www.youtube.com]


critique of minger

[www.youtube.com]

Denise looked so much better as a vegan.



bad news for fat intake

[www.youtube.com]

you do whatever it takes, including eating animal foods if necessary.

based on your ridiculous hypothetical that's no different than i would have ever recommended.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > based on your ridiculous hypothetical that's no
> > different than i would have ever recommended.
>
> So why have you been aggressively busting my balls
> for choosing animal foods such as sardines to
> replete my vitamin b12 deficiency all these years
> ?
>

I have not done so. show me where i have done so.


> I didn't tolerate methyl-cobalamin supplements due
> to a certain MTHFR defect and nor did they replete
> my B12 either.
>

there are other forms. nice try.

> It was my only viable option. But your only an
> open minded guy in hypothetical situations,
> because the real you isn't practical or realistic
> at all, afterall think of all the many other raw
> vegans who developed b12 deficiency who you've
> insulted and written off willy nilly without a
> human thought.


have not insulted. suggested that if they had taken care of b12 they would not be blaming the vegan diet.

and you and i know thats not the only reason you're eating sardines. i don't care whether you eat it or not. i've eaten it myself. but you need to eat many cans a day for b12 depending on assimilation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 06:20PM by fresh.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes cyanocobalamin which is the common cheap form,
> found in most vitamin b12 supplements and
> considered toxic.
>

yes i have heard that but i don't think it is. greger doesn't either.

> There is of course Adenosylcobalamin which is
> fairly new to the supplement market, and like
> methyl-cobalamin is considered an "active"
> co-enzyme form, however there isn't anywhere near
> as much research on this form of B12 from what i
> have seen so far.
>

and there are still other options other than animal foods

> Relying on syntehtic vitamin b12 supplements
> rather than eating animal foods, is no more
> semantic than relying on synthetic vitamin c
> supplements rather than eating fresh fruits and
> vegetables

don't say such mind blowingly stupid things and i won't call you stupid.

-red star vegetarian support formula
- cyano
-kohler had one in a video
-various powders
just off the top of my head



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 06:45PM by fresh.

requirements for b12 2ug per day

amt in can sardines 1ug

absorption 50%

4 cans per day to meet requirements would be my guess assuming no stores

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ohh my you really need some education me old son.
>

ah, I see, you have asked for info so that you could blow off some steam and insult me since you feel insulted by me.

yet i am insulting you only because you are being particularly daft - note that i do not talk to anyone else like that.

> Red star is fortified with synthetic forms and is
> the exactly the same as popping a cyanocobalamin
> B12 supplement.

so what? what's wrong with that?
you using an organic computer? lol

>
> Your 2nd option which is to take cyanocobalamin
> again lol, even though ive told you i don't
> tolerate synthetic b12 supplements well.
>
nonsense. you said it was toxic. it's not.

> Kohler has a video lol, thats great.
>
> Various powders that you can't name, thats great.
>
> Stop wasting my time.

have a good day.

so are you eating 4 cans of sardines each and every day?

no?

where are you getting your b12 then?

must be deficient

amount of cyanide in cyano b12
20ug

lower toxic amt 3000ug daily

so doesn't seem toxic

but of course it's "synthetic" so better to eat cooked food instead?

doubtful

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

> One can of sardines provides over 300% of the
> DRI/DV for vitamin B12.
>
> Oily fish is one of the richest dietary vitamin
> b12 sources known, im not sure there is any food
> that provides more vitamin B12 than oily fish such
> as sardines to be honest.
>

And you find anything wrong with other people diet in this forum if that is what your are eating? It is not even fresh but canned food. Which may have been canned months or years ago? Just to get b12 ???

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

> Im sure as heck getting alot more than you are on
> your fruit and romaine lettuce diet, well on the
> days your not eating fish too of course.


ROFLMAO!

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > so are you eating 4 cans of sardines each and
> > every day?
> >
> > no?
> >
> > where are you getting your b12 then?
> >
> > must be deficient
>
> One can of sardines provides over 300% of the
> DRI/DV for vitamin B12.
>


when I said you must be deficient it was a joke - get it?



> Oily fish is one of the richest dietary vitamin
> b12 sources known, im not sure there is any food
> that provides more vitamin B12 than oily fish such
> as sardines to be honest.

as long as you're being honest for once

>
> [www.whfoods.com]
> &dbid=147
>
> Im sure as heck getting alot more than you are on
> your fruit and romaine lettuce diet, well on the
> days your not eating fish too of course. lol

what is my diet?

and what days would my fish days?



>
> I also don't rely on sardines as my only vitamin
> B12 dietary source, i consume a number of other
> B12 rich animal foods, which i won't state as this
> is still a vegan forum.


too late you already mentioned sardines!

ah there it is, says 8ug per 3oz.

and you are correct. When I looked it up I was looking at a smaller serving than I thought.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2016 01:13AM by fresh.

> your fruit and romaine lettuce diet, well on the

am i on a fruit and lettuce diet?

why do you tell lies then wonder why people call you powerliar?

> days your not eating fish too of course. lol

tell me the days I have eaten fish and not eaten fish in the last 5 years

also tell me why you are so obsessed with my diet