Re: Purines & High Carb diets- help!

[Guest guest]

I wanted to add one more concern of mine-

This high carbohydrate diet is also restrictive of starches and

grains (which I generally agree with), and that 60% carbohydrates is

supposed to come mainly from non-starchy vegetables. It is nearly

impossible to eat enough calories when 60% of them are non-starchy

vegetables (unless you're an older person, I assume). That would also

mean the amount of fat and protein would be *very* low.

Okay, I'm finished, really.

>

> Hello all,

>

> I am new to this group but not to Weston A. Price and Sally Fallon.

> Before changing to this type of diet, I was a vegan for about 5

> years, which was really detrimental to my health.

>

> I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after taking a

> test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

> Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates,

25%

> protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

> avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats

other

> than white fish and chicken/game hen are included. Eggs and dairy

> products are allowed- *low fat* dairy products! (However I can't

> tolerate even raw dairy very well). Basically the diet consists of-

> vegetables, small amounts of fruit and starches, small amounts of

> protein (white meats), and minimal fat of any kind (especially

> animal). This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

>

> Granted, I am not a big fan of meat having been vegan for so long..

> in fact I have quite an aversion to it, but I believe that is

normal

> for a former vegan/vegetarian. As far as I remember, I was never

> a " meat lover " by any means even as a child (unless it was

greasy)..

> but I loved fat, cheese, eggs, etc. I don't know whether the

general

> dislike of meat I have always had has to do with the purines.. but

I

> think I just dislike any " lean " or " dry " foods.

>

> I am confused as to how this diet could give me optimal health when

> none of the high nutrient foods such as grass-fed organ meats

> (especially liver), butter, fish eggs, or anything with fat-soluble

> vitamins are not included. It sounds to me like the AHA

> reccomendations or something.

>

> I should also mention that I have had a problem maintaining my

weight

> as a vegan, and was able to gain a lot of healthy weight by adding

> some animal foods as well as properly prepared grains, cooked

> vegetables, etc. I was eating raw dairy as my main animal food but

> didn't tolerate it well. Now I am only eating raw ghee (I am out of

> eggs) as well as vegan foods... and am completely lost as to what

to

> do. Also, I haven't been menstruating for 3 years (I'm 17) due to

> being underweight. I was hoping that eating such a nourishing diet

> would help me in that area (as no one has been able to so far even

> with homeopathic hormone therapy- I won't take the synthetic stuff -

> unless.. necessary??). I have gained the needed weight and thought

> with some patience and a nutrient rich diet, I may be able to start

> menstruating again. Now I have been given a restricted diet that

> seems to go completely against my instincts. I have always eaten a

> high fat diet- I crave it. Not that that necessarily means it is

> healthy for me. I have looked and felt better than ever eating this

> way (high fat, some animal foods). I'm worried about eating a

> restricted diet because I am still growing (being vegan really

> stunted my growth). This recommended diet *seems* to be deficient..

> where is the healthy fat, vitamin A/D, omega 3s...

>

> I am hesitant to take advice from anyone who advises me to eat

> *pasteurized Low fat* dairy products over RAW dairy products.

>

> I'd throw it out if it wasn't based on " biochemical individuality "

> which makes a lot of sense to me. I am also skeptical of how my

type

> was determined from a test I filled out about half of- this test

was

> the only thing used. ALSO- I forgot to mention that my ND says he

> thinks about 60% of people are Carbohydrate types and need the

> aforementioned diet!

>

> I basically wanted to ask about purines and high carbohydrate diets

> in general, but it turned into a rant/personal story.. I guess I'll

> get better advice, though

>

> Sorry for the LONG and repititious post, but if anyone has any

advice

> whatsoever, I would really appreciate it!

>

> Thank you!!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> . . .

>

> I should also mention that I have had a problem maintaining my

> weight as a vegan, and was able to gain a lot of healthy weight

> by adding some animal foods as well as properly prepared grains,

> cooked vegetables, etc. I was eating raw dairy as my main animal

> food but didn't tolerate it well.

What form was your raw dairy? It should be fermented in some

way. If it wasn't, it's easy to see why you didn't tolerate

it well.

> Now I am only eating raw ghee

There's no such thing as raw ghee. Ghee is made by cooking

butter.

> (I am out of eggs)

It's difficult to understand what you're saying. Do you mean

that you're temporarily out of eggs, that you haven't gone to

buy some more yet, or are you saying that you don't include

eggs in your diet? If it's the latter, I don't understand the

relevance. Just go buy some more eggs!

> as well as vegan foods...

What exactly are " vegan foods " ? If you're including " animal

foods " as you write above, then you are no longer vegan.

Is this your way of referring to fruits, vegetables and

grains, or are they some sort of meat substitutes?

> and am completely lost as to what to do. Also, I haven't been

> menstruating for 3 years (I'm 17) due to being underweight. I

> was hoping that eating such a nourishing diet would help me in

> that area

Well it's difficult to get a clear idea from your message

exactly which diet you're following, what exactly you're

eating, or in what quantities. Are you are truly eating

sufficient amounts of animal protein and fat, Do you eat

meat? Fish? Eggs? Cheese? Yoghurt? Kefir? If so, how

much daily?

> (as no one has been able to so far even with homeopathic hormone

> therapy- I won't take the synthetic stuff - unless.. necessary??).

Maybe you should. The homeopathic stuff if purely placebic

and thus can't address many kinds of problems.

> I have gained the needed weight and thought with some patience

> and a nutrient rich diet, I may be able to start menstruating

> again.

But if you're following this Metabolic Typing Diet, then are

you really on a nutrient rich diet? You seem to believe in

the principles upon which Fallon bases her diet, but yet wish

to follow this other diet which, as far as I know, either

doesn't recognize the validity of those principles, or isn't

even aware of them in the first place. If the diets conflict,

then both can't be right. You have to determine which super-

sedes the other, or if both are wrong, then go on from there.

> Now I have been given a restricted diet that seems to go

> completely against my instincts.

Well who gave you the restricted diet, and if you really think

that it's restricted, why do you feel you have to follow it?

> I'm worried about eating a restricted diet because I am still

growing

> (being vegan really stunted my growth). This recommended diet

> *seems* to be deficient.. where is the healthy fat, vitamin A/D,

omega 3s...

>

> I am hesitant to take advice from anyone who advises me to eat

> *pasteurized Low fat* dairy products over RAW dairy products.

>

> I'd throw it out if it wasn't based on " biochemical individuality "

> which makes a lot of sense to me.

Just because the _concept_ of " biochemical individuality "

makes sense, doesn't mean that the purveyors of this diet

actually know anything about it. If I were trying to push

a diet, among other things, I would claim that it involved

a proper " balance " of foods. Now who would ever say that

a balanced diet wasn't a good thing? However, if I don't

really have any way of knowing just what proportions of the

types of food is good for a person, or even how to properly

divide food into types in the first place, then what good is

my advice, even though I claim to believe in balance?

> I am also skeptical of how my type was determined from a test

> I filled out about half of- this test was the only thing used.

You seem to be skeptical about every aspect of this diet

except its " mission statement " ! Other than believing, as

I'm sure most of us do, that we are all biochemically

individuals, do you have any other reason to believe that

it's an effective diet?

> ALSO- I forgot to mention that my ND says he thinks about 60%

> of people are Carbohydrate types and need the aforementioned

> diet!

What's an " ND " and why should anybody care what he thinks?

[Guest guest]

Welcome ,

in short...

follow your instincts regarding eating and find another ND!

Dedy

Purines & High Carb diets- help!

Hello all,

I am new to this group but not to Weston A. Price and Sally Fallon.

Before changing to this type of diet, I was a vegan for about 5

years, which was really detrimental to my health.

I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after taking a

test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates, 25%

protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats other

than white fish and chicken/game hen are included. Eggs and dairy

products are allowed- *low fat* dairy products! (However I can't

tolerate even raw dairy very well). Basically the diet consists of-

vegetables, small amounts of fruit and starches, small amounts of

protein (white meats), and minimal fat of any kind (especially

animal). This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Granted, I am not a big fan of meat having been vegan for so long..

in fact I have quite an aversion to it, but I believe that is normal

for a former vegan/vegetarian. As far as I remember, I was never

a " meat lover " by any means even as a child (unless it was greasy)..

but I loved fat, cheese, eggs, etc. I don't know whether the general

dislike of meat I have always had has to do with the purines.. but I

think I just dislike any " lean " or " dry " foods.

I am confused as to how this diet could give me optimal health when

none of the high nutrient foods such as grass-fed organ meats

(especially liver), butter, fish eggs, or anything with fat-soluble

vitamins are not included. It sounds to me like the AHA

reccomendations or something.

I should also mention that I have had a problem maintaining my weight

as a vegan, and was able to gain a lot of healthy weight by adding

some animal foods as well as properly prepared grains, cooked

vegetables, etc. I was eating raw dairy as my main animal food but

didn't tolerate it well. Now I am only eating raw ghee (I am out of

eggs) as well as vegan foods... and am completely lost as to what to

do. Also, I haven't been menstruating for 3 years (I'm 17) due to

being underweight. I was hoping that eating such a nourishing diet

would help me in that area (as no one has been able to so far even

with homeopathic hormone therapy- I won't take the synthetic stuff -

unless.. necessary??). I have gained the needed weight and thought

with some patience and a nutrient rich diet, I may be able to start

menstruating again. Now I have been given a restricted diet that

seems to go completely against my instincts. I have always eaten a

high fat diet- I crave it. Not that that necessarily means it is

healthy for me. I have looked and felt better than ever eating this

way (high fat, some animal foods). I'm worried about eating a

restricted diet because I am still growing (being vegan really

stunted my growth). This recommended diet *seems* to be deficient..

where is the healthy fat, vitamin A/D, omega 3s...

I am hesitant to take advice from anyone who advises me to eat

*pasteurized Low fat* dairy products over RAW dairy products.

I'd throw it out if it wasn't based on " biochemical individuality "

which makes a lot of sense to me. I am also skeptical of how my type

was determined from a test I filled out about half of- this test was

the only thing used. ALSO- I forgot to mention that my ND says he

thinks about 60% of people are Carbohydrate types and need the

aforementioned diet!

I basically wanted to ask about purines and high carbohydrate diets

in general, but it turned into a rant/personal story.. I guess I'll

get better advice, though

Sorry for the LONG and repititious post, but if anyone has any advice

whatsoever, I would really appreciate it!

Thank you!!

[Guest guest]

>I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after taking a

>test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

>Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates, 25%

>protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

>avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats other

>than white fish and chicken/game hen are included.

I ABSOLUTELY would not take your food guidelines from a book, even a book I

really like. Every person is an individual. And, it is hard to get good high

carb foods that are also easy to digest, non-allergenic, and healthy. And your

body needs can vary from day to day at that. Also there is a current bias toward

high-carb low-fat diets -- EVERYONE I know who goes to a doc gets recommended

that!

For myself, NT recommends soaked grains and raw milk. Neither one like my body

very much. My fat needs vary -- sometimes I crave it, sometimes not. Raw-er

meats are great, as is fermented food (but there are LOTS of kinds of fermented

foods). So I eat what works for ME. You can start out eating something you

really like, and adding gradually some things you SHOULD eat that aren't too

disgusting to you. And note how your body reacts. After years of undereating,

you may find that some things don't digest well and you may need enzymes. You

also may have food reactions (which can cause people to undereat as they

unconsciously try to avoid the allergen).

If you digest fats ok, then it's an easy way to get calories. My favorite (as

everyone here knows) is hash brows, fried crisp.

But you didn't mention WHY you want to change your diet? As far as hormones,

amenorrhea is often due to gluten intolerance (and vegetarian diets are often

high in gluten) as well as lack of body fat. There might be other intolerances

that cause it too. The Warrior Diet seems to knock hormones back into a better

balance too (as pointed out, and I think I'm feeling that too).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I missed your initial post, but read it quoted in your repsonse to Dedy's

response.

Did you say Dr. Mercola is who you saw? Dr. Mercola is a D.O., not an M.D.

or an N.D. A DO is a doctor of osteopathy, which, unlike NDs, but *like* MDs,

are licensed in all 50 states to practice medicine including prescribing

drugs, and are also licensed to perform practices that MD's are not licensed to

perform.

I think Metabolic Typing has a kernel of truth to it but is largely a load of

crap. I believe this for several reasons:

1) Neither evidence nor explanation are presented for most of the claims in

The Metabolic Typing Diet

2) In the few areas where evidence is offered, it doesn't seem to me to

support the assertion made, which leads be to believe that Metabolic Typing is

lacking in evidence overall, rather than the author just not feeling like

putting

it in print

3)Many of the claims are absurd, as you have already noted.

According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the populations

Price studied had high-purine diets.

While I like Dr. Mercola and think he's a good resource, his unquestioning

embrace of Metabolic Typing, unless he is privvy to some writings where there

are actually explanations and evidence presented for it, makes the adequacy of

his level of skepticism rather questionable.

Do you feel better or worse on this diet? Have you tried it much?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Thank you! Your post was very helpful.

You're welcome.

> Do you believe that every individual has unique dietary needs?

Yes.

Or, do

> you beleive there are general guidelines that everyone should follow?

Yes.

> >According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the

> populations

> >Price studied had high-purine diets.

>

> That is exactly what I needed to know. Even in tropical regions where

> fish and vegetation made up the majority of the diet? (I guess it

> would just be a lower amount of purines? Or did they eat occasional

> high purine foods such as liver which boosted the overall purine

> intake?). I don't remember this aspect of tropical diets- only that

> they were lower in animal foods? Clearly I'm not sure

I'm not sure. The article didn't go too in depth, and I just looked around

for it and couldn't find it. According to Price, the micronutrient breakdowns

of everyone was very similar (though he didn't talk about purines). AFAIK,

all of them ate organ meats. They might not have been eating a bison liver, but

they may have been eating whole small fish, whole frogs like the bantu, etc.

The bantu, the most " vegetarian " out of all of them, probably had a high

purine intake from frogs and insects (they ate them whole.)

> Yes, I was already a bit turned off by the fact that he endorses the

> Blood Type Diet...

He does? I could have sworn I read from him that he thinks its bunk, and

that it only makes sense in terms of certain kinds of beans.

>

>

> >Do you feel better or worse on this diet? Have you tried it much?

>

> I haven't tried this diet. I improved my health so much on my current

> diet (replacing any PUFAs and a great portion of MUFAs with saturated

> fats, adding animal foods, preparing grains properly, etc.), that I

> was hesitant.. hence, coming here for advice. I was also looking

> forward to an even greater improvement with the addition of meats and

> organ meats, when I build up the courage to eat them

Then you should follow your body's desires if they are not junk food

cravings, listen to your body's signals, be careful to change one thing at a

time, pay

close attention to improvements or worsenings in your health, and do what YOU

think is right.

> At this point (thanks to your help), I don't see any reason to try

> out that diet, being that I only have one apparent health problem,

> which will certainly not be helped with a restricted diet. I am

> doubtful that the diet would be helpful even if I did have other

> health problems. I was uncertain because of my lack of knowledge

> about purines and such. If all the populations had a high purine

> diet, this shouldn't be a concern.

That's a lack of menstruation, right? I can't imagine how a low-fat diet

could possibly not make that worse. I think you're on the right track and

should

stay on it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

..

Thanks for the response, though the tone does come across as

condescending...

> What form was your raw dairy? It should be fermented in some

> way. If it wasn't, it's easy to see why you didn't tolerate

> it well.

I only used fermented dairy- I first stuck with goats milk products-

kefir, yogurt, cheese.. and then tried the same type of cows milk

products. I didn't experience any immediate reactions except for

*maybe* a relaxed/sleepy feeling (tryptophan?). The rash developed a

couple of weeks after starting the dairy. I also noticed some skin

problems when I was eating dairy.

> There's no such thing as raw ghee. Ghee is made by cooking

> butter.

Yes there is Raw Ghee. I bought it from Wilderness Family Naturals.

www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com. I see it has been mentioned on this

board when I did a search through the archives. Here is a quote from

the bottle (which proudly states " RAW GHEE " on the front of the

bottle) " Like traditional ghee, this product is a clarified butter

with milk solids and moisture removed. However, raw ghee, unlike

traditional ghee is made with no heat. Instead, a centrifuge is used

to seperate the oil from the milk solids and to remove water. In

addition, this raw ghee is made from cream produced by cows that are

grass fed. ... "

> It's difficult to understand what you're saying. Do you mean

> that you're temporarily out of eggs, that you haven't gone to

> buy some more yet, or are you saying that you don't include

> eggs in your diet? If it's the latter, I don't understand the

> relevance. Just go buy some more eggs!

I am out of eggs.. but I eat raw egg yolks and I choose not to eat

store-bought eggs raw. I purchase free range (no grain) eggs from a

farm that is 2 hours away and I haven't had a chance to buy more. I

will be soon. However the fact that I don't currently have any eggs

doesn't really pertain to what I was asking.

> What exactly are " vegan foods " ? If you're including " animal

> foods " as you write above, then you are no longer vegan.

> Is this your way of referring to fruits, vegetables and

> grains, or are they some sort of meat substitutes?

I only referred to foods I was eating as " vegan " to make it clear

that the only animal food I am eating is raw ghee. I do NOT consider

myself to be vegan.. I know the definition of the word. I do not eat

any processed foods or meat substitutes. I eat whole foods that I

cook myself.

> Well it's difficult to get a clear idea from your message

> exactly which diet you're following, what exactly you're

> eating, or in what quantities. Are you are truly eating

> sufficient amounts of animal protein and fat, Do you eat

> meat? Fish? Eggs? Cheese? Yoghurt? Kefir? If so, how

> much daily?

I eat vegetables, coconut products, fermented grain porridges, some

fruit (really only blueberries), raw ghee, and occasional fish. I

used to eat more dairy products. I do not consider my current diet to

be " ideal " in that I believe it should include more animal products

(but I still am grossed out eating flesh foods except for some fish

once in great while, which I don't enjoy). My question wasn't about

my current diet.. I have been transitioning over to a more " NT " style

diet, eating the animal products that appeal to me, and I figured in

time I would be able to eat foods such as meat, organ meats, roe,

etc. My problem comes in with this new diet which doesn't allow any

of those foods. Also my current diet is very high fat and wouldn't

be " allowed " either.

> Maybe you should. The homeopathic stuff if purely placebic

> and thus can't address many kinds of problems.

You would reccomend synthetic hormones? I have only heard horror

stories about taking estrogen, etc. But I don't have much knowledge

on the subject, so anything you can tell me would be helpful.

> But if you're following this Metabolic Typing Diet, then are

> you really on a nutrient rich diet? You seem to believe in

> the principles upon which Fallon bases her diet, but yet wish

> to follow this other diet which, as far as I know, either

> doesn't recognize the validity of those principles, or isn't

> even aware of them in the first place. If the diets conflict,

> then both can't be right. You have to determine which super-

> sedes the other, or if both are wrong, then go on from there.

I do believe in the principles that Fallon bases her diet on. However

I also believe that everyone has an individual diet that works for

them. I guess you don't believe in " metabolic typing " ? Why is this?

My whole problem is that I am not sure which is healthier for me.

There were some native tribes that ate only small amounts of animal

foods.. though they were also not the healthiest. This is where I

need help. Could I be predisposed to a high carb, low animal food,

low fat diet? I guess no one could really tell me that. I'm asking

here as a last resort.

> Well who gave you the restricted diet, and if you really think

> that it's restricted, why do you feel you have to follow it?

Dr. Mercola... who I believe is pretty knowledgeable on nutrition.

However I also believe that I am pretty knowledgeable on nutrition

and decided I was going to take everything with a grain of salt

Metabolic typing makes sense to me. However the diet given to me

*doesn't*. I also noticed people in this practice not looking very

healthy (to me), and that as well as the fact that they think 60% of

people are carbohydrate types, is what put me off. I just wanted some

outside opinions!

> You seem to be skeptical about every aspect of this diet

> except its " mission statement " ! Other than believing, as

> I'm sure most of us do, that we are all biochemically

> individuals, do you have any other reason to believe that

> it's an effective diet?

Look.. I only went to this doctor because I was having quite a few

health problems when I made the appointment. Now I am feeling a great

deal better except I am still not menstruating. That is my main

concern. No one seems to be able to help me in that area. I just want

to be as healthy as I can, and eat the best diet for me. I have

actually been tested for my type once before and got the same

results. However I really don't understand how that type of diet can

be healthy, and I am confused. I have explained the situation as best

as I can and was hoping someone could give me some advice rather than

assume I have no idea what I'm talking about. My main question was:

Can this type of diet be healthy (in the long term- assuming this

person is not sickly)? And also in my case, having been

undernourished for so long, and not menstruating, I would think a

diet that is not nutrient-dense wouldn't be what I need right now.

> What's an " ND " and why should anybody care what he thinks?

Naturopathic doctor, I guess. He may actually be an MD. I didn't want

to speak down about my experience there which is why I didn't mention

that before. But I guess (who he is) will give you better

understanding of why I gave some credence to his advice? Though that

doesn't mean I don't question it. If I could have found a doctor more

in tune with NT I would have.. but at the time this seemed the best

choice.

> >

> > . . .

> >

> > I should also mention that I have had a problem maintaining my

> > weight as a vegan, and was able to gain a lot of healthy weight

> > by adding some animal foods as well as properly prepared grains,

> > cooked vegetables, etc. I was eating raw dairy as my main animal

> > food but didn't tolerate it well.

>

> What form was your raw dairy? It should be fermented in some

> way. If it wasn't, it's easy to see why you didn't tolerate

> it well.

>

> > Now I am only eating raw ghee

>

> There's no such thing as raw ghee. Ghee is made by cooking

> butter.

>

> > (I am out of eggs)

>

> It's difficult to understand what you're saying. Do you mean

> that you're temporarily out of eggs, that you haven't gone to

> buy some more yet, or are you saying that you don't include

> eggs in your diet? If it's the latter, I don't understand the

> relevance. Just go buy some more eggs!

>

> > as well as vegan foods...

>

> What exactly are " vegan foods " ? If you're including " animal

> foods " as you write above, then you are no longer vegan.

> Is this your way of referring to fruits, vegetables and

> grains, or are they some sort of meat substitutes?

>

> > and am completely lost as to what to do. Also, I haven't been

> > menstruating for 3 years (I'm 17) due to being underweight. I

> > was hoping that eating such a nourishing diet would help me in

> > that area

>

> Well it's difficult to get a clear idea from your message

> exactly which diet you're following, what exactly you're

> eating, or in what quantities. Are you are truly eating

> sufficient amounts of animal protein and fat, Do you eat

> meat? Fish? Eggs? Cheese? Yoghurt? Kefir? If so, how

> much daily?

>

> > (as no one has been able to so far even with homeopathic hormone

> > therapy- I won't take the synthetic stuff - unless..

necessary??).

>

> Maybe you should. The homeopathic stuff if purely placebic

> and thus can't address many kinds of problems.

>

> > I have gained the needed weight and thought with some patience

> > and a nutrient rich diet, I may be able to start menstruating

> > again.

>

> But if you're following this Metabolic Typing Diet, then are

> you really on a nutrient rich diet? You seem to believe in

> the principles upon which Fallon bases her diet, but yet wish

> to follow this other diet which, as far as I know, either

> doesn't recognize the validity of those principles, or isn't

> even aware of them in the first place. If the diets conflict,

> then both can't be right. You have to determine which super-

> sedes the other, or if both are wrong, then go on from there.

>

> > Now I have been given a restricted diet that seems to go

> > completely against my instincts.

>

> Well who gave you the restricted diet, and if you really think

> that it's restricted, why do you feel you have to follow it?

>

> > I'm worried about eating a restricted diet because I am still

> growing

> > (being vegan really stunted my growth). This recommended diet

> > *seems* to be deficient.. where is the healthy fat, vitamin A/D,

> omega 3s...

> >

> > I am hesitant to take advice from anyone who advises me to eat

> > *pasteurized Low fat* dairy products over RAW dairy products.

> >

> > I'd throw it out if it wasn't based on " biochemical

individuality "

> > which makes a lot of sense to me.

>

> Just because the _concept_ of " biochemical individuality "

> makes sense, doesn't mean that the purveyors of this diet

> actually know anything about it. If I were trying to push

> a diet, among other things, I would claim that it involved

> a proper " balance " of foods. Now who would ever say that

> a balanced diet wasn't a good thing? However, if I don't

> really have any way of knowing just what proportions of the

> types of food is good for a person, or even how to properly

> divide food into types in the first place, then what good is

> my advice, even though I claim to believe in balance?

>

> > I am also skeptical of how my type was determined from a test

> > I filled out about half of- this test was the only thing used.

>

> You seem to be skeptical about every aspect of this diet

> except its " mission statement " ! Other than believing, as

> I'm sure most of us do, that we are all biochemically

> individuals, do you have any other reason to believe that

> it's an effective diet?

>

> > ALSO- I forgot to mention that my ND says he thinks about 60%

> > of people are Carbohydrate types and need the aforementioned

> > diet!

>

> What's an " ND " and why should anybody care what he thinks?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dedy!

> Welcome ,

> in short...

> follow your instincts regarding eating and find another ND!

>

> Dedy

>

>

> Purines & High Carb diets- help!

>

>

>

> Hello all,

>

> I am new to this group but not to Weston A. Price and Sally

Fallon.

> Before changing to this type of diet, I was a vegan for about 5

> years, which was really detrimental to my health.

>

> I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after taking

a

> test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

> Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates,

25%

> protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

> avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats

other

> than white fish and chicken/game hen are included. Eggs and dairy

> products are allowed- *low fat* dairy products! (However I can't

> tolerate even raw dairy very well). Basically the diet consists

of-

> vegetables, small amounts of fruit and starches, small amounts of

> protein (white meats), and minimal fat of any kind (especially

> animal). This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

>

> Granted, I am not a big fan of meat having been vegan for so

long..

> in fact I have quite an aversion to it, but I believe that is

normal

> for a former vegan/vegetarian. As far as I remember, I was never

> a " meat lover " by any means even as a child (unless it was

greasy)..

> but I loved fat, cheese, eggs, etc. I don't know whether the

general

> dislike of meat I have always had has to do with the purines..

but I

> think I just dislike any " lean " or " dry " foods.

>

> I am confused as to how this diet could give me optimal health

when

> none of the high nutrient foods such as grass-fed organ meats

> (especially liver), butter, fish eggs, or anything with fat-

soluble

> vitamins are not included. It sounds to me like the AHA

> reccomendations or something.

>

> I should also mention that I have had a problem maintaining my

weight

> as a vegan, and was able to gain a lot of healthy weight by

adding

> some animal foods as well as properly prepared grains, cooked

> vegetables, etc. I was eating raw dairy as my main animal food

but

> didn't tolerate it well. Now I am only eating raw ghee (I am out

of

> eggs) as well as vegan foods... and am completely lost as to what

to

> do. Also, I haven't been menstruating for 3 years (I'm 17) due to

> being underweight. I was hoping that eating such a nourishing

diet

> would help me in that area (as no one has been able to so far

even

> with homeopathic hormone therapy- I won't take the synthetic

stuff -

> unless.. necessary??). I have gained the needed weight and

thought

> with some patience and a nutrient rich diet, I may be able to

start

> menstruating again. Now I have been given a restricted diet that

> seems to go completely against my instincts. I have always eaten

a

> high fat diet- I crave it. Not that that necessarily means it is

> healthy for me. I have looked and felt better than ever eating

this

> way (high fat, some animal foods). I'm worried about eating a

> restricted diet because I am still growing (being vegan really

> stunted my growth). This recommended diet *seems* to be

deficient..

> where is the healthy fat, vitamin A/D, omega 3s...

>

> I am hesitant to take advice from anyone who advises me to eat

> *pasteurized Low fat* dairy products over RAW dairy products.

>

> I'd throw it out if it wasn't based on " biochemical

individuality "

> which makes a lot of sense to me. I am also skeptical of how my

type

> was determined from a test I filled out about half of- this test

was

> the only thing used. ALSO- I forgot to mention that my ND says he

> thinks about 60% of people are Carbohydrate types and need the

> aforementioned diet!

>

> I basically wanted to ask about purines and high carbohydrate

diets

> in general, but it turned into a rant/personal story.. I guess

I'll

> get better advice, though

>

> Sorry for the LONG and repititious post, but if anyone has any

advice

> whatsoever, I would really appreciate it!

>

> Thank you!!

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/03 7:29:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

katielong6@... writes:

> This makes sense. I was asking because the diet I was given sounded,

> if anything, closest to that of a tropical climate. Apparently that

> isn't really so, especially because of the purines.

And how bout the fat? Palm oil? Coconuts?

Also, as far as I

> know, my family on both sides originated in Russia.

Not too tropical! :-)

>

> >He does? I could have sworn I read from him that he thinks its

> bunk, and

> >that it only makes sense in terms of certain kinds of beans.

>

> I did a search on his site- you are right that he emphasizes choosing

> beans based on your blood type. But I did find quite a few other

> blood type references- a few too many to believe that he thinks its

> bunk (though he says he does.. maybe its a credibility thing?)

Weird. I remember him specifially stating that the blood type diet was

largely senseless. hunh.

> Also, in the " metabolic type report " I was given, there was a page

> with " foods to avoid " lists for each blood type.

>

> Quotes from his site:

>

> " Choose your protein based on those recommended for your blood type.

> This can be found in Dr. D'Adamo's book Eat Right For Your Type. "

Wow. Ok, I guess he doesn't think it's bunk! Weird.

>

> " Exercise. Try to get 30 to 60 minutes of walking in four to five

> days a week if the weather permits.

good advice...

.... if you are blood type 0 or B

>

> you can shift to more aggressive exercises. "

eh?

>

> " It is also important to point out that tomatoes are not " lectin-

> compatible " for most blood types, if you believe the Eat For Your

> Blood Type Approach. "

>

> " If one believes D'damo's blood type work, he is a fond advocate of

> using small amounts of soy (one half tsp a few times a day of tofu)

> as a specific lectin supplement to bind breast cancer cells. I

> suspect there may be some validity to his recommendations and I have

> been advising patients of this who have breast cancer. "

> " I have been recently been recommending that my patients consume

> Spirulina and Chlorella as protein alternatives, especially if they

> are blood type A. "

>

still weird...

>

> >Then you should follow your body's desires if they are not junk

> food

> >cravings, listen to your body's signals, be careful to change one

> thing at a time, pay

> >close attention to improvements or worsenings in your health, and

> do what YOU

> >think is right.

>

> This is good advice, and is what I have been doing so far- since

> abandoning veganism, anyway

Me too. :-)

>

>

> >That's a lack of menstruation, right? I can't imagine how a low-

> fat diet

> >could possibly not make that worse. I think you're on the right

> track and should

> >stay on it.

>

> Yes. I couldn't understand how a low fat diet could do anything but

> worsen my health. Thanks for your help, Chris!

Hey, no problem katie! Good luck!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thank you! Your post was very helpful.

> I think Metabolic Typing has a kernel of truth to it but is largely

a load of

> crap.

Do you believe that every individual has unique dietary needs? Or, do

you beleive there are general guidelines that everyone should follow?

> According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the

populations

> Price studied had high-purine diets.

That is exactly what I needed to know. Even in tropical regions where

fish and vegetation made up the majority of the diet? (I guess it

would just be a lower amount of purines? Or did they eat occasional

high purine foods such as liver which boosted the overall purine

intake?). I don't remember this aspect of tropical diets- only that

they were lower in animal foods? Clearly I'm not sure

> While I like Dr. Mercola and think he's a good resource, his

unquestioning

> embrace of Metabolic Typing, unless he is privvy to some writings

where there

> are actually explanations and evidence presented for it, makes the

adequacy of

> his level of skepticism rather questionable.

Yes, I was already a bit turned off by the fact that he endorses the

Blood Type Diet...

> Do you feel better or worse on this diet? Have you tried it much?

I haven't tried this diet. I improved my health so much on my current

diet (replacing any PUFAs and a great portion of MUFAs with saturated

fats, adding animal foods, preparing grains properly, etc.), that I

was hesitant.. hence, coming here for advice. I was also looking

forward to an even greater improvement with the addition of meats and

organ meats, when I build up the courage to eat them

At this point (thanks to your help), I don't see any reason to try

out that diet, being that I only have one apparent health problem,

which will certainly not be helped with a restricted diet. I am

doubtful that the diet would be helpful even if I did have other

health problems. I was uncertain because of my lack of knowledge

about purines and such. If all the populations had a high purine

diet, this shouldn't be a concern.

Thanks again,

> According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the

populations

> Price studied had high-purine diets.

> Hi ,

>

> I missed your initial post, but read it quoted in your repsonse to

Dedy's

> response.

>

> Did you say Dr. Mercola is who you saw? Dr. Mercola is a D.O., not

an M.D.

> or an N.D. A DO is a doctor of osteopathy, which, unlike NDs, but

*like* MDs,

> are licensed in all 50 states to practice medicine including

prescribing

> drugs, and are also licensed to perform practices that MD's are not

licensed to

> perform.

>

> I think Metabolic Typing has a kernel of truth to it but is largely

a load of

> crap. I believe this for several reasons:

>

> 1) Neither evidence nor explanation are presented for most of the

claims in

> The Metabolic Typing Diet

> 2) In the few areas where evidence is offered, it doesn't seem to

me to

> support the assertion made, which leads be to believe that

Metabolic Typing is

> lacking in evidence overall, rather than the author just not

feeling like putting

> it in print

> 3)Many of the claims are absurd, as you have already noted.

>

> According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the

populations

> Price studied had high-purine diets.

>

> While I like Dr. Mercola and think he's a good resource, his

unquestioning

> embrace of Metabolic Typing, unless he is privvy to some writings

where there

> are actually explanations and evidence presented for it, makes the

adequacy of

> his level of skepticism rather questionable.

>

> Do you feel better or worse on this diet? Have you tried it much?

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure. The article didn't go too in depth, and I just

looked around

> for it and couldn't find it. According to Price, the micronutrient

breakdowns

> of everyone was very similar (though he didn't talk about

purines). AFAIK,

> all of them ate organ meats. They might not have been eating a

bison liver, but

> they may have been eating whole small fish, whole frogs like the

bantu, etc.

> The bantu, the most " vegetarian " out of all of them, probably had a

high

> purine intake from frogs and insects (they ate them whole.)

This makes sense. I was asking because the diet I was given sounded,

if anything, closest to that of a tropical climate. Apparently that

isn't really so, especially because of the purines. Also, as far as I

know, my family on both sides originated in Russia.

> He does? I could have sworn I read from him that he thinks its

bunk, and

> that it only makes sense in terms of certain kinds of beans.

I did a search on his site- you are right that he emphasizes choosing

beans based on your blood type. But I did find quite a few other

blood type references- a few too many to believe that he thinks its

bunk (though he says he does.. maybe its a credibility thing?)

Also, in the " metabolic type report " I was given, there was a page

with " foods to avoid " lists for each blood type.

Quotes from his site:

" Choose your protein based on those recommended for your blood type.

This can be found in Dr. D'Adamo's book Eat Right For Your Type. "

" Exercise. Try to get 30 to 60 minutes of walking in four to five

days a week if the weather permits. ... if you are blood type 0 or B

you can shift to more aggressive exercises. "

" It is also important to point out that tomatoes are not " lectin-

compatible " for most blood types, if you believe the Eat For Your

Blood Type Approach. "

" If one believes D'damo's blood type work, he is a fond advocate of

using small amounts of soy (one half tsp a few times a day of tofu)

as a specific lectin supplement to bind breast cancer cells. I

suspect there may be some validity to his recommendations and I have

been advising patients of this who have breast cancer. "

" I have been recently been recommending that my patients consume

Spirulina and Chlorella as protein alternatives, especially if they

are blood type A. "

> Then you should follow your body's desires if they are not junk

food

> cravings, listen to your body's signals, be careful to change one

thing at a time, pay

> close attention to improvements or worsenings in your health, and

do what YOU

> think is right.

This is good advice, and is what I have been doing so far- since

abandoning veganism, anyway

> That's a lack of menstruation, right? I can't imagine how a low-

fat diet

> could possibly not make that worse. I think you're on the right

track and should

> stay on it.

Yes. I couldn't understand how a low fat diet could do anything but

worsen my health. Thanks for your help, Chris!

> Hi ,

>

> > Thank you! Your post was very helpful.

>

> You're welcome.

>

> > Do you believe that every individual has unique dietary needs?

>

> Yes.

>

> Or, do

> > you beleive there are general guidelines that everyone should

follow?

>

> Yes.

>

> > >According to an article in a recent PPNF journal, *all* of the

> > populations

> > >Price studied had high-purine diets.

> >

> > That is exactly what I needed to know. Even in tropical regions

where

> > fish and vegetation made up the majority of the diet? (I guess it

> > would just be a lower amount of purines? Or did they eat

occasional

> > high purine foods such as liver which boosted the overall purine

> > intake?). I don't remember this aspect of tropical diets- only

that

> > they were lower in animal foods? Clearly I'm not sure

>

> I'm not sure. The article didn't go too in depth, and I just

looked around

> for it and couldn't find it. According to Price, the micronutrient

breakdowns

> of everyone was very similar (though he didn't talk about

purines). AFAIK,

> all of them ate organ meats. They might not have been eating a

bison liver, but

> they may have been eating whole small fish, whole frogs like the

bantu, etc.

> The bantu, the most " vegetarian " out of all of them, probably had a

high

> purine intake from frogs and insects (they ate them whole.)

>

> > Yes, I was already a bit turned off by the fact that he endorses

the

> > Blood Type Diet...

>

> He does? I could have sworn I read from him that he thinks its

bunk, and

> that it only makes sense in terms of certain kinds of beans.

>

> >

> >

> > >Do you feel better or worse on this diet? Have you tried it

much?

> >

> > I haven't tried this diet. I improved my health so much on my

current

> > diet (replacing any PUFAs and a great portion of MUFAs with

saturated

> > fats, adding animal foods, preparing grains properly, etc.), that

I

> > was hesitant.. hence, coming here for advice. I was also looking

> > forward to an even greater improvement with the addition of meats

and

> > organ meats, when I build up the courage to eat them

>

> Then you should follow your body's desires if they are not junk

food

> cravings, listen to your body's signals, be careful to change one

thing at a time, pay

> close attention to improvements or worsenings in your health, and

do what YOU

> think is right.

>

> > At this point (thanks to your help), I don't see any reason to

try

> > out that diet, being that I only have one apparent health

problem,

> > which will certainly not be helped with a restricted diet. I am

> > doubtful that the diet would be helpful even if I did have other

> > health problems. I was uncertain because of my lack of knowledge

> > about purines and such. If all the populations had a high purine

> > diet, this shouldn't be a concern.

>

> That's a lack of menstruation, right? I can't imagine how a low-

fat diet

> could possibly not make that worse. I think you're on the right

track and should

> stay on it.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

<snip>

>

> At this point (thanks to your help), I don't see any reason to try

> out that diet, being that I only have one apparent health problem,

> which will certainly not be helped with a restricted diet. I am

> doubtful that the diet would be helpful even if I did have other

> health problems. I was uncertain because of my lack of knowledge

> about purines and such. If all the populations had a high purine

> diet, this shouldn't be a concern.

I'm not responding for but thought I'd throw my 2 cents in

here. I, too, go to Mercola (I live nearby, so it's convenient).

I'm not a big proponent of Metabolic Typing other than I find it

interesting that it correctly identified me and my DH. I'm a strong

protein type (maybe that's why chicken makes my sleepy) and he's a

strong carb type. I guess it makes me feel better knowing that what

I crave also makes sense for my body. Beyond that, I don't know what

else you might get out of it. You really do have to figure out what

works for YOUR body - especially taking specific health issues into

consideration. It takes a lot of listening to the signs/symptoms

that occur - especially after you eat something.

I've noticed that the more saturated fats I eat, the better my

menstrual cycle is (no cramps) - seems to be beneficial to my

hormones in some way. I don't know how this might help you, but if

sat. fats are good for the hormones, I think upping your portions

might be helpful. It can be tough, but I love to add butter to

everything and I love the fat off of roasts.

I'm also taking progest-e (I think this is the one Dr. Marasco sells)

to see if it can balance out my hormones even more. I just started

it so I can't really say if I've noticed any positive changes.

I wish you all the best. Even with your issues, at your age, it's

impressive that you're so involved in your nutrition.

[Guest guest]

> ..

>

> Thanks for the response, though the tone does come across as

> condescending...

I'm sorry, but I think there was some justification.

See more below.

> > There's no such thing as raw ghee. Ghee is made by cooking

> > butter.

>

> Yes there is Raw Ghee. I bought it from Wilderness Family Naturals.

> www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com. I see it has been mentioned on

this

> board when I did a search through the archives. Here is a quote

from

> the bottle (which proudly states " RAW GHEE " on the front of the

> bottle) " Like traditional ghee, this product is a clarified butter

> with milk solids and moisture removed. However, raw ghee, unlike

> traditional ghee is made with no heat. Instead, a centrifuge is

used

> to seperate the oil from the milk solids and to remove water. In

> addition, this raw ghee is made from cream produced by cows that

are

> grass fed. ... "

Ahhh, so then this is actually the " butter oil " referred

to sometimes on this list. They shouldn't be allowed to

call it " ghee " , though. Ghee is a traditional product

always made by cooking butter. This so-called " raw ghee "

should actually be called something like " cold-clarified

butter " . Though of course the word kefir has suffered

even worse abuses.

> I am out of eggs.. but I eat raw egg yolks and I choose not to eat

> store-bought eggs raw. I purchase free range (no grain) eggs from a

> farm that is 2 hours away and I haven't had a chance to buy more. I

> will be soon. However the fact that I don't currently have any eggs

> doesn't really pertain to what I was asking.

I see, but if it were me and I had such health issues,

I would place the priority on getting an adequate amount

of complete protein, not on getting eggs with the proper

pedigree. Why not just buy the best store-bought eggs

available and _cook_ them, until such time as you can

get ahold of something better? The worst protein is

better than none. Nor, if it were me, would I waste

the whites under any circumstance, but especially not

in yours where there is a desperate need for enough

animal protein, but so few acceptable sources. Eggs

gained their reputation as an ideal protein source

based on both the yolk _and_ the white.

> I only referred to foods I was eating as " vegan " to make it clear

> that the only animal food I am eating is raw ghee. I do NOT

consider

> myself to be vegan.. I know the definition of the word.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to imply that you're stupid.

However I've seen people describe themselves with various

terms and then find out that their actual diets had little

to do with what they called themselves. In some cases a

former vegan has realized the necessity of animal foods,

but can't psychologically accept the change in identity.

One such person twisted the meanings of words so as to

call herself a vegan, even though she was eating eggs, kefir

and honey. If there is anybody on this list who was also

on the kefir_making list two years ago, they might remember

the lady to whom I'm referring. Another case was a fellow

with whom I spoke at a salad bar at a 's many years ago.

He proudly declared that he had converted to vegetarianism,

had taken up an excersize routine, and was feeling great.

As he worked his way around the salad bar, adding a little

of this and a little of that, he finally finished the salad

with a heaping pile of diced ham! I was shocked and blurted

out " Pork is meat too " . He replied " Oh I know, but you need

_some_ protein. " To this day I have no idea what " vegetarian "

actually meant to him. Possibly he thought is merely refers

to someone who eats a lot of vegetables!? So you see it never

hurts, especially when there's an apparent inconsistency in

the diet described, as I felt there was in your message, to

confirm just exactly how the terminology is being used.

> I eat vegetables, coconut products, fermented grain porridges,

some

> fruit (really only blueberries), raw ghee, and occasional fish.

Since fish is your only source of complete protein, why

not eat it frequently, rather than occasionally?

> I used to eat more dairy products. I do not consider my current

diet to

> be " ideal " in that I believe it should include more animal products

> (but I still am grossed out eating flesh foods except for some fish

> once in great while, which I don't enjoy).

How much protein do you get a day? I make a point of

eating no less than sixty grams of animal protein a day,

and _you_ might well need much more than that. Until

such time as you are getting adequate protein, and have

been for awhile, I don't think you should expect to

correct your menstrual problem.

> You would reccomend synthetic hormones? I have only heard horror

> stories about taking estrogen, etc. But I don't have much knowledge

> on the subject, so anything you can tell me would be helpful.

I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

since they are purely placebic. Although, I suppose

it's not impossible that your menstrual problem has

a psychological cause, in which case placebos might

actually help.

> I do believe in the principles that Fallon bases her diet on.

However

> I also believe that everyone has an individual diet that works for

> them. I guess you don't believe in " metabolic typing " ? Why is this?

Oh, I definitely do believe that there must be a variety

of metabolic types, but I have no way to determine how

many there are, or what kind of diet would be best for

each type, or how to find out to which type any given

person belongs. Moreover, and this is my real point, I

don't think that the purveyors of this so-called " Metabolic

Typing Diet " do either. As I tried to point out before,

the mere common-sensical observation that there must be

more than one metabolic type, does not mean that the one

making that observation, knows anything else at all about

those types, or how to help them diet-wise. To me it all

sounds little more credible than a diet based on one's

astrological sign.

> I just wanted some outside opinions!

Well if that's all you want, then mine is that the

Metabolic Typing Diet is nonsense.

> Look.. I only went to this doctor because I was having quite a few

> health problems when I made the appointment. Now I am feeling a

great

> deal better except I am still not menstruating. That is my main

> concern. No one seems to be able to help me in that area.

Well, as I've said before, I think that you need more

protein, and that it won't be until a good while after

you been consistently getting enough protein every day,

that you can expect to see any improvement.

> I just want

> to be as healthy as I can, and eat the best diet for me. I have

> actually been tested for my type once before and got the same

> results. However I really don't understand how that type of diet

can

> be healthy, and I am confused.

For one thing, I think you're just going to have to

accept the fact that most of the people giving such

" tests " are frauds and quacks. Once you stop putting

your trust in such people, much of the confusion will

disappear. There is a great need out there for doctors

who can help people with their diet, but there are very

very few people competent to do so. Nevertheless,

wherever there is such a void, that void will be filled.

Who do you think is going to fill that void in lieu of

the individuals so few and far apart who are actually

competent?

> I have explained the situation as best

> as I can and was hoping someone could give me some advice rather

than

> assume I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I don't think that I've assumed any more than you yourself

implied in your message. The asking of a question implies

at least _some_ gap in the asker's knowledge, does it not?

In your words pasted just above, you write " I am confused " .

More importantly though, it seems to me that you already

know that the Metabolic Typing Diet isn't right, and that

you just want reassurance, but I don't want to encourage

that sort of thing. You should no more do, or not do

something because I, or anybody else on this list says

so, than you should because Mercola or the Metabolic

Typing Diet says so. You already seem to know for yourself

that it's not right, so you need to do what _you_ think is

right without waiting for someone else to validate what

you've _already_ decided. You should certainly seek

information, but not permission, from others.

> Naturopathic doctor, I guess. He may actually be an MD. I didn't

want

> to speak down about my experience there which is why I didn't

mention

> that before. But I guess (who he is) will give you better

> understanding of why I gave some credence to his advice?

Certainly I understand, but you don't need to justify

your choice of doctor or diet to me in any case. Though

if you're asking my advice, which you may no longer be

at this point :-) , then I would say run as far away as

you can anytime you hear the word " naturopathic " . I've

yet to meet one that wasn't a quack.

> Though that doesn't mean I don't question it. If I could have found

a doctor more

> in tune with NT I would have.. but at the time this seemed the best

> choice.

If you're still taking advice from me, then I have to

say that I wouldn't even necessarily recommend a N.T.-

informed doctor either. Because though I agree with

the major premise of Fallon's book, it is certainly

not without elements of pseudo-science when examined

in detail. The same must be said of Price's work as

well. So I would consider anybody suspect who claimed

to be scientifically informed, and yet who bought into

'Nourishing Traditions' or Price's theories in their

entirety. Good luck , I think you just need some

solid meals, and to give yourself a little time. :-)

[Guest guest]

>>I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

since they are purely placebic.

,

This is not so.. there are volumes of scholarship devoted to just this

subject. I haven't read them all, for sure, but they're there in the

homeopathic literature. Homeopathy is effective with babies and animals who

are not subject to the placebo effect. But I would agree that relying

totally on homeopathy and not attending to diet is not a good idea.

(I'm not sure the original poster was referring to actual homeopathic

remedies, though).

-

[Guest guest]

,

>Ahhh, so then this is actually the " butter oil " referred

> to sometimes on this list.

No, I don't think so. If anything, it is the opposite of butter oil, i.e. the

other portion of the centrifuge.

They shouldn't be allowed to

> call it " ghee " , though. Ghee is a traditional product

> always made by cooking butter. This so-called " raw ghee "

> should actually be called something like " cold-clarified

> butter " . Though of course the word kefir has suffered

> even worse abuses.

What's the difference? My understanding is ghee *is* clarified butter, no? If

so, saying " raw ghee " would be the exact same thing as saying " cold-clarified

butter. "

> Eggs

> gained their reputation as an ideal protein source

> based on both the yolk _and_ the white.

Does the protein in the yolk lack certain essential amino acids? I'm not aware

of this, but haven't read info either way.

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 10:28 AM 10/16/2003 -0400, you wrote:

>What's the difference? My understanding is ghee *is* clarified butter, no?

True

>If so, saying " raw ghee " would be the exact same thing as saying

> " cold-clarified butter. "

Not true in my book. The high heat used in making ghee / clarified butter

is the critical difference here. I once made " unheated " ghee using the

same ghee-making method except I used a low-temperature 93 degrees to heat

the butter. The taste and effect was very different than standard-made ghee.

Regards,

-=mark=-

[Guest guest]

>What's the difference? My understanding is ghee *is* clarified butter,

>no? If so, saying " raw ghee " would be the exact same thing as saying

> " cold-clarified butter. "

The term ghee means the traditional Indian clarified butter that is cooked.

The medicinal value of ghee comes from the effect of the cooking as well as

the clarifying. So " raw ghee " is kind of an oxymoron.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/03 10:47:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

thetasig@... writes:

> Not true in my book. The high heat used in making ghee / clarified butter

> is the critical difference here. I once made " unheated " ghee using the

> same ghee-making method except I used a low-temperature 93 degrees to heat

> the butter. The taste and effect was very different than standard-made

> ghee.

Ok, but raw milk and pasteurized milk taste very different, and both are

still milk. If you just boil butter for a while, is it ghee? It seems the

clarification is primarily what's operative. I can see a case made for either,

but

to say that one use of the word is " wrong " or " abuse " is preposterous from a

linguistic point of view, and simply from a practical point of view, " raw ghee "

carries the full meaning quite unambiguously.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

In a message dated 10/16/03 11:17:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

karenr@... writes:

> The term ghee means the traditional Indian clarified butter that is cooked.

>

> The medicinal value of ghee comes from the effect of the cooking as well as

> the clarifying. So " raw ghee " is kind of an oxymoron.

Hunh? What positive effect could cooking possibly have on butter?

Thanks,

Chris

p.s., by that logic, " pasteurized milk " is an oxymoron, because it's

medicinal and nutritional value comes in its raw state

[Guest guest]

>> I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

since they are purely placebic. <<

Number one, I don't think she actually meant " homoepathic. " Based on the

context, I think she was, as many do, using that term in lieu of " herbal " or

" holistic. "

Number two, my dogs and cats would be very suprised to find out that homeopathy

relies solely on the placebo effect. How does that work with them, exactly?

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/16/03 5:44:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Well then I've yet to truly understand what this butter oil is,

> but these various descriptions make no sense. Butter is composed

> mainly of butter fat, and then non-fat milk solids and water. If

> butter _oil_ is truly an oil, or fat, then the " other portion of

> the centrifuge " must necessarily be milk solids and water.

Having used a centrifuge before, I don't understand how it works either. But

apparently when you centrifuge cream, you get a concentration of all the

vitamins, with a concentration of UNsaturated fat, as it's a liquid at room

temp.

I've only centrifuged aqueous solutions before, so that might make a

difference. IOW, I don't know the various density of different fatty acids, or

vitamins versus milk solids versus water versus fats, etc. But I do HAVE some

butter oil, so I know that's what happens, if it's right in front of my eyes.

Real

> ghee is also a fat, nearly pure butter fat, as is the so-called

> " raw ghee " . So neither can be from the other portion of the

> centrifuge either. What am I missing? Does the butter oil

> contain only a specific _part_ of the total amount of fat in the

> butter?

Exactly, butter oil is missing most of the fat, and containing most of the

nutrients. For some reason it seems to conentrate the most unsaturated fats--

it contains high CLA e.g., and is also a thin oil at room temp. It's loaded

with vitamin E, etc. Something that's pure fat should be the opposite of this,

since this is a 1:16 concentration of the vitamins. Perhaps the vitamins are

concentrated in the centrifuge, and happen to have an affinity for the most

unaturated fatty acids? I dunno.

> [snip] Similarly, centrifugally extracted butter

> fat is not ghee.

Ok. I've never had ghee and didn't realize the complexity of the definition.

Since the word " raw " is used, it seems fine by me as it distinguishes

between the two, but I suppose " clarified raw butter " would be more accurate.

>

> >Does the protein in the yolk lack certain essential amino acids?

> >I'm not aware of this, but haven't read info either way.

>

> I don't know offhand what the amino-acid profile of either the

> yolk or the white is, but given the very different characters

> of the two components, it's difficult to believe that the

> protein make up of an egg is homogenous throughout. So since

> the supposedly ideal protein is based on an analysis of the

> _whole_ egg, it's also difficult to see how that can be matched

> by either the yolk or the white alone

This seems to me to be a totally unjustified assumption.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I read an article in New Scientist recently that suggested scientists are

getting closer to being able to confirm the science behind homeopathy. I think

this is the link: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993817

Re: Re: Purines & High Carb diets- help!

>> I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

since they are purely placebic. <<

Number one, I don't think she actually meant " homoepathic. " Based on the

context, I think she was, as many do, using that term in lieu of " herbal " or

" holistic. "

Number two, my dogs and cats would be very suprised to find out that

homeopathy relies solely on the placebo effect. How does that work with them,

exactly?

Christie

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> >Ahhh, so then this is actually the " butter oil " referred

> > to sometimes on this list.

>

> No, I don't think so. If anything, it is the opposite of butter

oil, i.e. the other portion

> of the centrifuge.

Well then I've yet to truly understand what this butter oil is,

but these various descriptions make no sense. Butter is composed

mainly of butter fat, and then non-fat milk solids and water. If

butter _oil_ is truly an oil, or fat, then the " other portion of

the centrifuge " must necessarily be milk solids and water. Real

ghee is also a fat, nearly pure butter fat, as is the so-called

" raw ghee " . So neither can be from the other portion of the

centrifuge either. What am I missing? Does the butter oil

contain only a specific _part_ of the total amount of fat in the

butter?

> > They shouldn't be allowed to

> > call it " ghee " , though. Ghee is a traditional product

> > always made by cooking butter. This so-called " raw ghee "

> > should actually be called something like " cold-clarified

> > butter " . Though of course the word kefir has suffered

> > even worse abuses.

>

> What's the difference? My understanding is ghee *is* clarified

> butter, no? If so, saying " raw ghee " would be the exact same

> thing as saying " cold-clarified butter. "

Ghee is a _form_ of clarified butter, but not all clarified

butters meet the definition of " ghee " . The clarified butter

of French and other Western cuisines is traditionally made

by cooking butter only long enough to cause separation, then

a fatty portion is strained or sometimes merely ladled off

the top, which is just free enough from water and milk solids

to be used for higher-temperature frying and shortening.

Traditional ghee is not only usually made from fermented

butter, but more importantly _always_ involves a long, slow

cooking that both caramelizes the milk solids and also drives

off every bit of moisture. This not only gives ghee its

distinctive flavor, but also makes it possible to store it

at room temperature for extended periods. The Arab " samnah " ,

" saman " or " smen " , the Ethiopian " niter kibbeh " , the Persian

" roughan-e kare " or " roughan-e zard " , the Kurdish " rün " , and

the Ossetian " tsarv " are all made in the same way. So just as

we object to the use of the word " kefir " to refer to any and

every semi-liquid yoghurt or buttermilk product with fruit

flavoring, so should we also to the misuse of the word " ghee " .

Remember how the word " tamari " was pressed into use to refer

to authentically brewed soy sauce, even that which contains

wheat, to distinguish it from the fake stuff also legally

entitled to the name, despite the fact that " tamari " only

properly refers to a specific type containing no wheat?

Remember how " sushi " popularly came to mean " raw fish " to

most Americans, even though the proper name for the latter

is " sashimi " , and sushi is actually a cold rice dish _usually_

including raw fish? Similarly, centrifugally extracted butter

fat is not ghee.

> Does the protein in the yolk lack certain essential amino acids?

> I'm not aware of this, but haven't read info either way.

I don't know offhand what the amino-acid profile of either the

yolk or the white is, but given the very different characters

of the two components, it's difficult to believe that the

protein make up of an egg is homogenous throughout. So since

the supposedly ideal protein is based on an analysis of the

_whole_ egg, it's also difficult to see how that can be matched

by either the yolk or the white alone.

[Guest guest]

>

> Number one, I don't think she actually meant " homoepathic. "

> Based on the context, I think she was, as many do, using that

> term in lieu of " herbal " or " holistic. "

That's very possible. Note my comments to her on ambiguous

terminology. There is also the issue too, of many self-

designated Homeopaths using a mixed bag of methods, including

often recommendation of the latest dietary fad, that have

nothing to do with the original principles of homeopathy,

making it difficult to determine if any successes can

actually be attributed to the validity of those principles.

> Number two, my dogs and cats would be very suprised to find

> out that homeopathy relies solely on the placebo effect. How

> does that work with them, exactly?

We dont' know that it _does_ work with them. Your assertion

is purely anecdotal, and based I'm sure on less than scienti-

fically rigorous observation. There is also the fact that

animals and children are not stupid, just non-verbal. They

are effected in those same ways that effect adult humans and

which make double-blind studies necessary. They are in fact,

if anything, _more_ attune to non-verbal clues than adults.

Have you _really_ conducted double-blind studies with your dogs

and cats, with a control group, and with someone administering

the treatments who was unaware of which was the placebo and

which homeopathic?

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Filippa " <filippa91@y...>

wrote:

> I read an article in New Scientist recently that suggested

scientists are getting closer to being able to confirm the science

behind homeopathy. I think this is the link:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993817

Implicit in the statement " scientists are getting closer

to being able to confirm the science " is the admission that

they _can't_confirm it, but merely hope that they someday

shall. Science doesn't allow for one's sincerest belief

that she _shall_ someday prove something true, to stand

in place of actual fact. Something is not proved until

actually proved. Moreover, what is often glossed over, is

that proof alone of some sort of previously unsuspected

impressionability of water, wouldn't prove homeopathy valid

either. Homeopathy has yet to be properly or consistently

demonstrated effective in its own right to justify its use,

regardless of what can be added to its feeble theoretical

underpinnings. So even if it were effective, it demonstrably

could be to no more than an infinitessimally small degree

more than a placebo. Why bother? Why waste one's money?

Will this post anger some people? Of course, placebos are

useless without faith in their effectiveness. So anybody

weakening that faith will incur the hostility of those who

depend upon them. Implicit in such an anger, of course, is

the subconscious realization that the skeptic may be right,

and the fear of that possibility. But until the faith is

finally toppled, the awareness of that possibility remains

subliminal. It's the same reason that while fundamentalist

and intolerant Roman Catholics, Protestants and Muslims hate

one another, they all hate atheists much, much more.