This is from the latest McDougall newsletter. If you follow the links, you'll see the references and McDougall comments. He does not recommend the raw food diet because it is so high in fat. I guess he doesn't know about 80/10/10, or if he does, perhaps he realizes that the percentage or raw foodists doing 80/10/10 is relatively low.

-----------------------

Raw Food Vegetarian Diet Protects Us from Cancer

Long-term low-protein, low-calorie diet and endurance exercise modulate metabolic factors associated with cancer risk by Luigi Fontana published in the December 2006 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a low-protein, low-calorie diet and exercise lower hormones and growth factors that increase a person’s risk of developing and dying from cancer.1 This research compared three groups, each consisting of 21 people. The first group selected from members of the St. Louis Vegetarian Society ate uncooked and unprocessed plant foods; the second group selected from local running clubs ate the Western diet but ran an average of 48 miles a week; the third group was made up of sedentary people who ate the Western diet. The lowest levels of the very powerful cancer-promoting growth hormone, Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) were found in the raw food group. These same healthy eaters had low levels of C-reactive protein, insulin and cancer-promoting sex hormone activity.

Yes, i have always known that.. it's more than cancer, it's everything..

I have posted previously (probably on the old lost forum) about Arthur Robinson's study on dietary variation and squamous cell carcinoma.

He exposed mice to ultraviolet radiation and tested them with a variety of diets.

One of the diets he tested was Ann Wigmore's (apples, pears, wheatgrass, tomatoes, carrots, sunflower seeds). The mice that did the best by a wide margin regarding tumor development (both size and number) were the ones on the raw food diet with added vitamin C. He gave them so much vitamin C that their food probably tasted bad and they probably didn't eat so much, so a lot of the benefit might have been due to plain old calorie restriction, which in itself provides powerful cancer protection.

The mice that got the Ann Wigmore diet without the supplemental C still did pretty well.

But.

He also tested a group of Ann Wigmore mice with added peanuts and sunflower seeds. The ones on the Ann Wigmore diet with high fat and high protein totally lost all protective effects from diet. They did no better than the mice on standard lab chow.

So I am guessing that there is probably an extra advantage to low fat as well as low or moderately low protein. And also that the benefits of raw are not so great as they could be when the diet is higher in fat and protein. But this remains speculation. It hasn't been proven without a doubt.

Fontana is very reticent about his work. He says he doesn't really know what all low IGF-1 means. It might mean some bad things as well as good things. He thinks it's too soon to tell everyone to be a raw vegan. He is probably mostly raw and largely plant-based himself but he does eat a little fish.

To add to the previous post, it should be noted that there is a link between elevated homocysteine levels and breast cancer. The relative risks are pretty high.

One can undo some very beautiful aspects of a raw vegan diet by failing to keep homocysteine in check. In the raw vegan diet this is overwhelmingly due to failure to maintain an adequate B12 source.

arugula,

I doubt anyone contracted breast cancer from eating a raw vegan diet. If you have heard even a hint of this, I would love to know the source.

No, I don't think so, either. But I tend not to rely solely on my intuition. There are a few things to keep in mind.

-cancer has a long latency period. One study found the influence of fat and animal protein were 20-32 years and 19-31 years respectively for Japanese women with breast cancer. (PMID: 17215198). This is a concern because most of us previously did eat more SAD-like before we wised up.

-the number of long-term raw foodists is very small at this point. Less than 1.8% of the USA population is even cooked vegetarian.

-long-term raw foodists tend not to supplement with B12 to provide more insurance for a healthy status

-they also tend to avoid MDs and are not likely to get their homocysteine levels checked.

-I think, just from what I see on these boards, that most people are overding it with the raw fats. I am not as certain as to adverse health impact as you are on this problem but I suspect it is not all that good.

We will have to wait at least 10 years, maybe 20-30 though, to know with more certainty.

Bryan:

TY again.

You cannot imagine how true this is. I see it every day with clients. And raw foods diets protect as CC said, from everything.

Given that C rates are projected to be 1 in 2 of every American and 1 of 3 women for BC, we all should be all over any board we can get to spreading THE WORD. So very critical to contribute as much as we are able.

Blissed be, Annie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2007 05:13AM by Bryan.

Cancer and raw diet - believe it or not, living in Santa Fe, NM I have encountered a few women who developed BC EVEN WHILE 80% raw. Our environment is too toxic. Read "The Hundred Year Lie," "Our Stolen Future," and "Hormonal Chaos" to see why everyone is at risk, no matter the healthy lifestyle.

Estrogen dominance is RAMPANT and affecting each and everyone of us. Raw or not. Raw protects for certain, but how many people have been raw for 20-30 years of their life? Not many. Cancer has a life development cycle of at least that - YOUR BODY MAKES CANCER CELLS DAILY, because its just what it does when it encounters toxins that cause DNA mutation.

Blissed be, Annie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2007 05:13AM by Bryan.

Arugula:

Finally we agree!

Blissed be, Annie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2007 05:13AM by Bryan.

Mice have rights too

coconutcream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mice have rights too

Yes, they do.

Some of us feel that we already know the answers without the mice. I say: we think we know. We have intuition and some limited experimental support but not hard facts.

I hope that medicine finds a way to extrapolate short-term results in humans, finds a way to determine everything that people really eat (as opposed to what they say they eat) and quits torturing mice so that the western epidemiology studies might be worth something (instead of their current worth, which is essentially zero--unlike mice, people cheat).

I suspect that mouse torturing will be phased out within the next 2-3 decades.

Bryan:

Question: where is that sight where you can input certain data and get nutritional balance, need, requirement information?

I recall seeing it here - and since you know almost everything I can imagine one knowing, I ask you.

Mice have rights....we all do CC. Every living being has rights.

Blissed be, Annie

Nutritiondata gives very detailed information about nutrients. Nutritiondata gives the fatty acid information. It also has a tool to search for foods based on a particular nutrient (vitamin, mineral, etc).

Fitday is easy to use, and gives excellent nutrition reports. Fitday also takes into account exercise.

A lot of people like nutridiary, and I've used it on occasions, but I haven't been able to figure out how the get the nutrition reports I see on the other 2 websites. But I've heard that the nutrition tables in nutridiary are more up to date than fitday.

They all seem to give percentage of RDA. Anyway, each one is an investment in time to become proficient. I have not become sufficiently proficient at nutritiondata or nutridiary, because fitday was the first one I learned.

Truly, you are the man!

TY again!

Blissed be, Annie

Nutritiondata.com is not difficult. You add foods to your pantry, select the amounts for your recipe (could be foods for the whole day), name the recipe in the text box, and hit the analyze button. Then you can add this "recipe" to your pantry for future reference. It's better than fitday because it provides individual sugars, fatty acids, and amino acids.

This one is also great, easier to use, free, commercial-free, and faster. Also, you can use it offline.

[spaz.ca]

but it needs Java to work, which you can download here:

[java.com]

The cron-o-meter doesn't provide individual sugar data (fructose, glucose, etc.) like nutritiondata.com does. But, unlike nutritiondata.com, it does distinguish between cysteine and methionine. Methinone restriction is another important and powerful tool for cancer protection. See pubmed for details, some of the papers are free.

Arugula,

That CRON-o-Meter is great! They had a version that was ready to run for the Macintosh, so I downloaded it and tried it. I guess that's the great thing about Java, being able to run on more than just Windows. On Macintosh, Java is already on the platform, so I didn't need to download it.

Thank you for the referral.