Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Response to Gene and Kathy. In a message dated 12/15/03 2:41:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, implode7@... writes: > Yes - Goatein is certainly more expensive, but I trust the company a > lot more, and given the vague and misleading advertising by Designer > Whey, I trust them even less. I have been using protein supplements a > lot less that I did formerly, and I am noticing absolutely no > difference at all in strength gains and muscle gains, though > admittedly, I am not trying per se to add muscle. The relative trust I have for Garden of Life over DW is astronomical; the money I have is less. I think many others are in the same position. I don't know to what degree we can fairly say " Janet " represents the company, but whether or not they are making claims they can't back up, it still seems like the best product at an affordable price, I'm not aware of any reason *not* to consume it, so far, and the reason I use it is not dependent on this " secret " study. Now that I've been disillusioned as to the protein content of fermented whey, DW's become even more appealing, the comapany's character notwithstanding. I suggest perhaps you don't notice a difference because you aren't using the protein on an empty stomach before and after the workout with carbs after the workout. It would be silly, in my opinion, for anyone who wasn't interested in putting on bulk, to use the product, or any other protein powder, rather than eating meat. It would be doubly silly for anyone to put a protein powder in muffins, as DW suggests (and Barry Sears!). ________ Kathy wrote: ><<Well you can't get more " NT " than butter oil, since Price invented it>> >Really? He invented it?? I was in the impression that he found it (x factor) Hi Kathy, Found it where? Sitting in the bottom of his centrifuge tube? ;-) I said he invented the centrifuged butter oil, not the x factor (nor vitamin E, nor CLA, nor any other nutrient found *in* the butter oil.) >but what i read is how it is best to get the " deep yellow butter " made in >the spring as that is when most x factor is found. Sure. There's about 8 times more of it in the same amount of butter oil though. <<My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about " processing. " The idea that foods should be " unprocessed " is more of a poetic notion than a scientific one,>> >That is not what you said and i didn't get that as being your point. You did >say that the whey protein drink was NT. I didn't say it was NT-- Judith had said that processing was destructive, and I pointed out that NT was founded on processing of all sorts of foods, on the assumption that all of us on the list share the " NT " perspective. I didn't mean that NT advocates protein drinks, and in fact Sally opposes even Goat-Tein, I was just pointing out that " processing " per se is not problematic. << kind of similar to equating " natural " with good and " unnatural " with bad. The fact is that more foods need processing than don't, and many require quite extreme processing of all kinds, including virtually all plant foods. Raw plant foods are loaded with irritants across the board, not to mention antinutrients that need to be neturalized by rather laborious methods.>> >Your changing the topic. There was no discussion on natural/unnatural just >whether protein powder is NT or not. Then I think you may have misunderstood my reply to Judith. I meant what I rewrote above, whether that was communicated well or not. I never said protein powder was NT, but rather responded to Judith's claim that all processing destroys nutrients by saying " NT is founded on the principle that... " > Processing such as turning milk to >yogurt or butter or sprouting seeds is hardly the same as a highly processed >whey powder. One that is as its name implies is a designer product that they >spent years formulating. Why do you keep calling it " highly " processed? If you know something about the processing that I don't, I'd be greatful if you could share it, because I don't want to use a product harmful to my health. If you don't, then could you please explain what is so " highly processed " about low-temperature dehydration and hydrolysis by the addition of enzymes? <processing. I don't know what you mean by a " commercial " product, but there is no " commercial processing " as distinct from " personal processing. " For example, when Manna sprouts their rye kernels, it is commercial processing because they are a commercial entity selling the product for a profit. But it is a nutritionally superior product, and thoroughly " NT. " >> >Again your rambling off citing other food items as comparison. The original >question was about calling Designer whey protein powder as an NT food. I don't think that was ever the question. >The > " commercial product " was referring to whey protein powder. You made the general differentiation between NT processing and commercial processing when you wrote: " NT certainly does use sprouting, soaking etc but it is used in a different context than a highly processed commercially prepared product. " > After looking at >the ingredient list and the ads about how it has been scientifically >researched, upgraded and reformulated i call it a " commercial processed " >product. However to use your example we can all make bread at home. OTOH i >have no idea how to make designer whey protein powder at home. I couldn't make most cheeses either. If I had the right enzymes, starter cultures, and instructions, I could. If I had the same, minus the cultures, for the whey hydrolysis, I could do that. I could do low-temp dehydrating with a dehydrator. The only thing I don't know how to do is separate the lactose from the final product. I'm going to look for more information on that, but afaik, Goat-Tein has sugars removed as well (might be wrong on this). DW has some amino acids added to it, and some generally accepted flavors and colors, such as stevia, but essentially the product is a minimally processed, food-derived supplement, as far as I can tell. More importantly, if you are looking at this from a health perspective, the question shouldn't be whether you can make it at home, but whether there are fundamental differences in the processing that change the health value from what you make at home. For example, high-temperature powdering can cross-link proteins, unlike the dehydration you could do at home (which you do with a rather high-tech machine). Solvent extraction of oils can leave harmful hexane residues in the oil, unlike jumping in a tub of olives with your bare feet. But low-temperature dehydration does no such thing. Hydrolysis does nothing other than what you do in your own stomach. So where is there processing that fundamentally changes the health value of the product? >I am curious though why you feel that bread made by Manna would be more >nutritious than bread made at home in the kitchen. It would depend on how you make your bread. But the product is commercially processed, and I suspect they have refined their sprouting process in some ways to make it more reliable and systematic than what either of us would do in our kitchens. <<I to processing. But more importantly, the idea that somehow one should eat the " whole food " has no basis in either empirical evidence or traditional cuisine but is pure poetics. >> >Really? According to who or should that be whom?? " Whom, " because it is a prepositional phrase. My understanding is that " whom " is used as an object, though I hear people use it otherwise often, but it seems incorrect to me. > I used butter as a >reference as to natural processing. Seemed natural and logical enough to >me. You wrote: " If, for example, you take the whey and use it separately in another food item chances are high that you (generic you) are using the rest of the product too. If i make raw yogurt and separate the whey i still come out with cream cheese. I end up eating the whole product. " This suggests to me that you believe that there is some value in eating the " whole food " as if nature has designed the food for the purpose of eating and has perfectly arranged the correct ratio of nutrients, etc. If you don't believe this, there are many who do, and the above paragraph is strikingly similar to said view. I am suggesting that when you eat butter, and the skim milk is thrown to the pigs, you are not eating the " whole food, " in the way that you describe above. <<thrown to the pigs, so the whole food was not consumed. Did not some cultures eat organ meats and leave the muscles to the dogs? Did not Price recommend not only butter, but centrifuged butter oil and cod liver oil (rather than the whole fish)?>> > your rambling. I can't imagine that many people ate only the organ >meats and tossed the rest to the dogs Price described this, didn't he? >and i don't see how it compares at all >to processed whey powder. But you haven't said anything specific about whey powder. Recall that I'm not selling the whey powder, I only brought it up because I was asking if anyone on the list knows any specific problems with its processing. If you were to offer me information about the processing that I'm not aware of that somehow makes it unhealthy to consume, I'd be very grateful. But so far your approach has been philosophical. You say the " whole food " should be consumed, and you say the food should not be " commercially processed, " but you aren't differentiating between any specific processing and any other. IOW, pointing out that the processing is more refined to the extent that it carries out a precision you cannot carry out in your kitchen is not differentiating it in respect to its health value, and note that a modern dehydrator, used often in NT recipes and by people on this list, is a method of dehydration refined for greater precision, that someone who only had an oven in their kitchen could not perform. So what I'm saying in respect to traditional cultures not eating " whole foods " has, as you point out, nothing to do with whey powder. Rather, refutes the philosophical idea that foods should be " whole. " > Prices work was several decades ago and i have no >idea where people would get centrifuged butter oil or even why they would >bother. Price centrifuged the butter oil with a centrifuge. The people " bothered " because Price fed it to them. > Butter would be what people ate and it would have the butter oil/ x >factor in it. But centrifuged butter oil was what Price's patients ate, not butter. He fed them, iirc, butter oil, cod liver oil, two glasses of whole raw milk, wheat gruel, and a meat and veggie stew with bone stock, and some cooked fruit, usually apples I think. > CLO has its uses but its not something that i would normally >eat No, but it's certainly NT, like butter oil, since Sally/WAPF/NT recommend both. > but then it has nothing to do with protein powder either. No it doesn't, but it is very, clearly, relevant to your philosophical objection to unwhole and processed foods. Btw, do you know how to make cod liver oil in your kitchen? I don't. << suppose whatever Sally thinks determines what is NT, since she wrote the book, and she's against protein powders. I'm not really concerned with what Sally things as much as whether it is harmful or beneficial to my health. But I don't see any significant difference between DW's processing and the processing we do with NT stuff as noted above.>> >Perhaps Sally knows more than most of us, but then i never said anything >about Sally at all so save your sarcasm . I'm not being sarcastic. Sally wrote NT. Is it not reasonable to say that her opinion is the standard that determines what is " NT " or not? > Nor am i concerned about it being >healthy or not. That was not especially the point. Designer whey protein >powder is a scientifically formulated and prepared product that bares no >resemblance to NT. So how is NT defined? I can see two reasonable ways to define it: 1) whatever is written in NT, and by extension, whatever else the author (Sally) has written outside of NT, or 2) whatever is written in NT, and by extension, whatever fits the general approach that is somewhat unique to NT and associated authors. By definition 1, as I have already said numerous times, protein powders are inherently non-NT because Sally opposes them. However, Sally's sole reason for opposing them, that I'm aware of, is that they deplete vitamin A, which as I pointed out earlier I don't find reasonable as a sweeping generalization. By definition 2, which you seem to be focusing on, it seems reasonable that it could at least be considered borderline NT or mostly NT. Note that NT recommends all kinds of food-derived supplements that are not the whole food. Butter oil, CLO, acerola powder, etc. Acerola powder is extracted and not just crushed up acerola berries. So by what clear standard is whey powder, assuming it is processed in a way that does not alter its health value in a negative direction, different from these other supplements? It is a food derived-supplement, and in some cases, is processed in a way that avoids the damaging of proteins. Although again, I never meant to say it was NT when I was responding to Judith. Chris _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Chris- The mere fact of double-blindedness is no protection at all, for two reasons. First, bias can be introduced into the design of the study, and second, bias can be introduced into the reporting of the results, peer review notwithstanding. It happens all the time. >In a double blind study, there's >no way for anyone to introduce bias, because neither the patients nor those >administering the independent variable or measuring the dependent variables >know who is getting what. If the study were not double blind, I would >certainly >be more suspicious of a study the company funded itself, or worse, conducted >itself. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Chris- There's also Immunocal (very expensive) and the Life Extension Foundation's whey powders (quite a bit more affordable). >and very few of the protein powders currently >available use low-temp processing, and the other one I know of, Goat-Tein, is >10 times as expensive as DW. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.