You should read the book Green for Life by Victoria Boutenko

[www.rawfamily.com]


Why Vegan?
Because I have the most love and admiration for all animals of the earth!!!
a rawvegan hopeful, rawdev4life!!!

Forgive me. I made an assumption and I appreciate the correction. I was somewhat upset at first, but the feeling was not based on logical thinking and passed rather quickly. My frustration in posting was only indirectly linked to what you wrote.. However, I realize that what I wrote may have been interpreted in a way that seemed rather defensive, when I was really trying to say that I shouldn't have bothered to say anything because I really didn't know what to say that would have proven useful.

Having said all of that, I have read reports of people who have been raw for many years who have not suffered a protein deficiency of any kind (and I have heard that such a thing is quite difficult to acquire, on most diets, including SAD).

I have also read "Green For Life" and found it to be an interesting read, and would recommend it to anyone interested.

Thomas,

No problem

as for the reports you mention, well, that's what people say, but....

I'm going to refer to a secondhand anecdote here, but I happen to trust the
source. My b/f used to frequent a local health food store in the '70's, and
several of the employees of that store were 100% raw fooders. He noticed that
over time, they started to speak much more slowly and deliberately, as if it
took more for them to form their thoughts. He said it got worse and worse, to
the point he almost couldn't stand speaking to them. It wasn't just one person; it was several. This could be some evidence of not getting enough protein, you know? The brain is a protein hog, and it is possible that the cooking of food allowed the human brain to develop to the extent it has. Yes, we've been cooking food for a very long time, even way before we became homo sapiens.

I'm not against raw food, I just have doubts about going 100%.

My b/f also pointed out to me that raw fooders are probably very sensitive because
of having an alternative diet, and that's probably a part of why that "raw food guru" was so illogical and borderline, but I suspect it might also be because her brain was not getting enough protein either. It could also be because she has some ego investment in her lecture circuit and book sale thing. <shrug>

hey kohlrabi-croce

that's some interesting anthropological reflections you put forth

you say that:

"we've been cooking food for a very long time, even way before we became homo sapiens"

since you're using no uncertainty markers i assume you must be referring to some studies or other?

if that's the case, i'd appreciate it if you could point me towards them (they sound interesting)

how long do anthropologists think we've been cooking for?

i saw a program about evolution on the discovery channel ages ago
in this program they attributed the development of the human brain to meat consumption
as i recall cooking wasn't part of it
just the meat

hey fruitgirl

are you the fruity girl that used to hang out on singinraw's green party thread?

how's it goin with your mean green regime?

it's good to see ya back again!

The requisite protein doesn't necessarily need to be in your food when you eat it. Vegetarian animals rely on symbiotic microorganisms to help in digestion and in some cases to even synthesize protein. Protein is just hydrocarbons with some nitrogen thrown in; and the air is 80% nitrogen. A special part of the digestive system is the appendix. It stores the culturing microorganisms to innoculate the next batch of food entering the large intestine.

In a book on the bonobo I read, the researchers found that the small group they studied ate 90% fruit and 10% leaves, shoots, and pith. None of the troup ate any animal protein whatsoever. The researcher even left eggs and various young animals tied in the bonobo's path to see what their inclination was. The eggs and animals were ignored. Only with microbial nitrogen fixation in their digestive tract could they be getting the protein they need.

You need a clean healthy digestive system with the right microorganisms present. It's probably random chance now to get all the right microflora. Rejuvalac and other cultured foods would help.

deeds ya sweetiepie girl?

yep same uncooked kook me. gives me smiles that you remember
me and the good ol green party days. and i be still loving the
green slushy dinner. all year round.

how about you? gee i sure can start a party here huh? its all good.

i love the way you think and cyber.

sorry i've been out of the loop here. how's your grand-father?
i think of him. his wisdom and his inspiring life. he's my protein.

deeders, got any new pics?
i'd love to post one now that
i had a birthday........
yay 50
and still a wild teenager
only now with a crazy poodle friend
who is mostly raw
thanks to the holistic hound store
helped me save her life

anyway do you know how to post pics?

oh yeah, to be clear, I was getting a little off my own point
with what I said about cooked food - that's my opinion about it
for me. My main point is still that it's really important to
be really well informed about this protein thing.

to deeds:

OK I will but give some time....I just started working graveyard
shift this week at the NAB convention.

The anecdote featured above about people talking more slowly could be for many reasons; it is kind of ridiculous to assume that how quickly people talked and how well your boyfriend liked talking to them is any scientific indicator of health or defiency. You don't know anything about someone's physiology unless you study their blood under a microscope or can talk to someone who did. These people may have gotten into zen, and spent a great amount of time meditating, thus changing the way they acted or related with others; they may also have simply not liked your boyfriend and were attempting to give him hints to go away by their behavior, which, ultiamtely, worked. Green For Life and The China Study, I feel, conclusively solve the protien issue.

to dream earth:

Those people were nto into Zen, and they did not dislike my b/f. Also,
I stated right out that it was merely an anecdote, and you expect science?
Wow, you really went to town on your incorrect assumption.

Now, I don't have those books, but I took a look at "Green for Life" on Amazon.
ON page 33, the author provides a comparison chart of the nutritional value
of beets and beet greens. You know what, she did not even mention anywhere
how much of the eight essential amino acids are contained in those vegetables.
The same thing happens on page 34 and 35 with other vegetables. So why is that
more acceptable to you, than my calculations I just did on broccoli?

I took more of a look around the book, and frankly, she writes with the tone
of a housewife turned raw food guru, complete with money-making lecture circuit.
She does not write like a serious researcher.

T. Colin Campbell does write like a serious researcher, but he's not promoting
a 100% raw food diet is he? It's my understanding he promotes a more conventional
vegan diet.

I have Green For Life, and there are charts in the book that cover amino acids.

Ok, I found a page in there that had the amino acid content of Kale
and compared it to the RDA for adults. Her numbers for the Kale amino acids
were correct, but for the RDA....I don't know where she gets these figures.
Most notable is is the one for leucine, which she has at 980 mg per day.
The RDA that I found is more like 3.230 grams per day.

There are other problems. On page 45, she mentions that glutamine, histamine, and tyrosine are all essential amino acids. They are not. The only one she got right
was tryptophan. Does she know what an essential amino acid is?

ok, on page 46 she compares "one serving" of chicken to one head of endive. She says that the chicken had 222 mg. of tyrosine and 261 grams of phenylaline, and the endive had 205 mg. of tyrosine and 272 mg. of phenylaline. Her numbers on the
endive were correct, but I have to question what she thinks one serving of chicken is. Here's why:

size of average serving of chicken breast
[www.weightlossforall.com]

It's about 150 grams

Now, here's the amino acid content of 140 grams of chicken:
[www.nutritiondata.com]

The chicken actually had 1466 mg. of tyrosine (which is not an essential amino acid) and 1724 mg. of phenylalanine per 140 gram serving. So the chicken actually does have way more than the endive even in a much smaller portion, and she underestimates the RDA to make the kale look better than it really is, in terms of protein.

I find Victoria Boutenko to be a highly suspect source. Now I have reached my limit on searching in that book on amazon.

An iron pipe has 100% iron. (This is actually probably not entirely true, but it's funny)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2006 07:23AM by ThomasLantern.

LOL !!!!!

ahahahahaha!!

hey fruitgirl

it WAS you -

YAY!!!!!!

i think we need to get singinraw to start a new greens thread sooon

i need somewhere to discuss the wonderfulness of heavy green consumption soon!

i do have pictures... and will post some of the more kooky ones soon

i have to admit that i've forgotten how to post them though...

blush...

but i think it's outlined in bryan's sticky post at the top of the page

"grandpa is my protein"

aha ha ha ha

i like that

me too


kohlrabi: graveyard huh? hope you manage to get a squint of sunshine.


kisses xxxXX

what do you mean by graveyard?

I LUUUUV this question... it always make me laugh.

Do you think all the herbivors on this planet worry about getting enough protein from their vegetarian diets? Do they measure their food and worry if the percentage of nutrients is correct?

No... they just eat what their bodies tell them. And they meet death usually from old age or they are killed by another animal.

Every animal in nature eats its food raw... and we should do the same. And I believe we (humans) should eat a variety of vegetarian raw foods... and not worry too much about what vitamins and minerals we are getting, and if they are in the right balance... Nature takes care of that.

If we are HEALTHY on the diet we are eating - then we are getting sufficient nutrients.

This society is OBSESSED with eating enough protein... and of course, I don't need to tell you all that the meat and dairy industry purposely created this frenzy to market more of their products.

Has anyone on this board ever heard of someone in the developed world having a protein deficiency? I haven't.

Thanks so much for starting this thread... it's fun.

Love and light to you all

Jane

errrr kohlrabi...

maybe i should ask you that question

- cos you wrote it! in one of the above posts:

"to deeds:

"OK I will but give some time....I just started working graveyard
"shift this week at the NAB convention."

see?

i thought you meant night shifts

and i know they're tough

so... there you are!

oh yeah and YES

i get sufficient protein!

:p

cherrylove,

you are not an herbivore. The reason I wnet to such lengths to go over the numbers
in Victoria Boutenko's book is that she is massaging the numbers so that she
can sell more books. When people's health are involved, I find that to be an evil thing.

I think this society is more obssessed with other things than protein, and just because the govt. wants to promote the meat and dairy industry does not mean that
geting enough protein is not a valid concern.

I brought up that anecdote to show that maybe all is not perfectly hunky dory
in raw food land, and perhaps studies _should_ be done. But are there any
serious scientists that give it any atttention? No.

to deeds: oh, right, I said that. Thanks, I'm geting some sunshine now .

I agree that, unless one knows perfectly how much protein one should get, that "not getting enough protein" should be a concern, just like I believe in the possibility of "getting too much protein".

I did enjoy Victoria Boutenko's book. I have also read, elsewhere, that the RDA doubles their recommended numbers, just to be safe. Also, I wonder if those numbers are more appropriate for people who aren't raw foodists. A non-raw foodist might require more energy, because they spend a lot more energy on digestion and eliminating waste (as an example).

Thomas,

But doesn't it bother you that she doesn't even know what an esesntial
amino acid is? I don't know, if it was me, I wouldn't take advice
about whether or not greens provide enough protein from somebody that
uninformed.

Also, where did you read that, about the RDA being doubled? btw, um,
the RDA can't double the recommend numbers. Maybe the FDA can, but (ahem)
the RDA is not an entity that makes such decisions

As for the idea that raw foodist need less because it's raw, well,
is there a scientific basis for that?

If waste elimination requires energy
and If digestion requires energy
and If raw foodists generate less waste and require less energy to digest food
Then it seems reasonable that one *might* need less than recommended by the RDA


The average person requires such and such amounts of calories/nutrients/etc... but the "average" person, based on my best guess, is probably not a raw foodist and is probably living a much more inefficient lifestyle

Is there a scientific basis for that?

"Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) is the daily dietary intake level of a nutrient that is considered sufficient to meet the requirements of nearly all (97-98%) healthy individuals in each life-stage and gender group."

How would one determine RDA? They would have to look at all observational material (studies) regarding correlation between how much of a given nutrient/mineral/vitamin one consumes (based on the kinds of food eaten), and the kinds of diseases that arise as a consequence.

Based on these studies, those that crunch the numbers for the RDA might notice, for example, that people who live past the age of 85, and die of what seem to be "natural causes" (ie. not any specific illness that has been approved/endorsed by the medical community), are getting the ideal nutrients. And then, they can base their RDA on these seemingly healthy people... and of course, on the flip-side, they have probably made some reasonable assumptions about those who do not get enough of a given vitamin/mineral/whatever, like "not getting enough Vitamin C leads to scurvy", etc

Of course, that is all well and good... if living to about 85, or 90, or maybe 95 (if we're lucky), is the best we can expect. I have read reports, however, about peoples who, on average, live into their nineties and early hundreds, not to mention reports of people who live to be over one hundred and twenty, and so at least it seems possible that I might be able to better than 80, or 90, and so on.

The common link I have noticed of these long-lived people is the general lack of cooked food, and animal products, including dairy.

I would guess that age before death would be one of the best factors for determining "good health", since we generally mean "more likely to survive longer" when we say "healthy".

I don't specifically trust the RDA, because it it based on studies based on assumptions about the way humans should live... not that it could be any other way, but they happen to be very wrong assumptions, as best as I can tell (and I admit that is an assumption that I am currently making).

To summarize, what I have read suggests that

1) There is a correlation between those that are not cooking much or any food, as well as not eating animal products, and longevity. They seem to be "not meeting the RDA requirements", since they are essentially raw foodists, yet they live longer than everyone else, on average..

2) Those that formulate the RDA assume that the four food groups is correct, or perhaps even ideal.

>>>>>>As for the idea that raw foodist need less because it's raw, well,
is there a scientific basis for that?<<<<<

kohlrabi, i actually came across a paper recently that relates to this question. basically, when you heat proteinaceous foods to high temperatures the proteins become altered in such a way that makes them "more resistant to heat and digestion by gastrointestinal enzymes". the alteration is due to mailard reactions, which occur during cooking and to a much lesser degree as foods spoil. im sure there is more detailed info on this if you do some searches but this paper has satisfied my curiosity for the time being. below is an exerpt from the abstract (btw, IgE is a type of human antibody associated with allergies):

[RESULTS: Here we report that roasted peanuts from two different sources bound IgE from patients with peanut allergy at approximately 90-fold higher levels than the raw peanuts from the same peanut cultivars. The purified major allergens Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 were subjected to the Maillard reaction in vitro and compared with corresponding unreacted samples for allergenic properties. Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 bound higher levels of IgE and were more resistant to heat and digestion by gastrointestinal enzymes once they had undergone the Maillard reaction.]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

regarding quality protein... you might have a look at buckwheat groat sprouts, which are not related to wheat and are neither a grain nor a legume. ive read that buckwheat is considered a fruit (i've also seen it referred to as a seed). buckwheat supposedly contains all 8 essential amino acids and the protein is very high quality. and sprouting increases the protein content (and may also change the aa profile), and increases digestibility.

here's a bit of info on buckwheat sprouts:

[ift.confex.com]

just for the record, i've never read a raw food book, or met any raw food guru. actually the only raw people i know are the mysterious creatures i interact with on this messageboard.

kohlrabi,

Wow. I have read this email stream and am floored. Even as people throughout history have used religion as justification for character assasination, torture, and even mass genocide, so do many today hide behind "science" as a justification to make erroneous presumptions. Is there room for compassion, understanding, and intuition in your formula for happiness?

Have you met Victoria Boutenko? Have you taken the time to read the entire book?
Have you tried the green smoothies for some time to see if they work for you? Do you realize that in that book Victoria does not demand that anyone go 100% raw, but rather to supplement your existing diet and see how it works for you?

So she may have gotten a few scientific facts incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt. Does that give you, or anyone else on the planet the license to publicly drag her name through the mud? It is suprising that you, with an obviously keen intellect, did not do your own homework. And I do not mean reading a few pages and then taking it completely out of context to make your own cruel personal attacks. Victoria does not live in a mansion, far from it. She has dedicated her life toward providing a better way of being for all of us.

For one who obviously has an inquisitive mind and a desire for the the truth, has it occurred to you that perhaps there is more at play here than mere science? Heck, There is really no valid scientific basis, even today, for how electricity works. I'd be willing to bet that you use electricity in your life, perhaps every day. If you want to spend your life attacking others for the sake of the greater good, then go out there and challenge electricity. But don't do it publicly, because you might look a little silly. Why? Everybody now knows it works because it works for them! You know that it works for you!

What else works for you? If you don't know, then do not become a crusader for all that you think is innaccurate. Rather, why don't you channel your amazing potential towards being the one who actually discovers why some of the wonders work the way they do. For example, I have incoporated green smoothies into my life and am discovering amazing results. My god, grey hair is becoming brown again. Is that a miracle? Is it science? Who the heck cares. Maybe a person with a discerning mind like yours can discover why that's happening and then channel it into a means of extending life span for everyone.

In the end, what matters is what works for you. And history has demonstrated, repeatedly, that like begets like. Turn your energy towards how you can help, rather than what's wrong with another person, and it will be a vastly better world for all of us.

I've been making green smoothies for myself at work since January. Besides the remarkable physical results I've observed, there is now a huge demand. It is so intuitively (not scientifically) obvious to people that this works, that I am now preparing daily smoothies for four others in the office. It is rocking our world. We are not scientists and we are not a cult (most of them don't know Victoria from Adam). But we are healthier and happier.

I wish the same for you.

Sincerely,

Mark

I love that question too, I always reply with:

"Broccoli is 47% protein."

What a great discussion, really enjoyed reading it!

To Rischott, I disagree that you need to eat meat and/or eggs to feed your brain (and by the way, the brain IS part of the body). At 55, after almost 20 years 100% vegan, I'm healthier and have more energy than all my meat-eating friends. I do the fastest sudokus too.

And have you heard of the research that suggests a link between high cholesterol consumption and Alzheimer's?

But even if you really believe you're depriving your brain on a vegan diet, hey, we're all going to die sometime, why not practice ahimsa (nonviolence) while we're here?. But of course that's just the conclusion reached by my own little vegan pea brain. (smile)