Re: The Schwarzbein Principle

August 9, 2001

I haven't read the book.

I've read in Men's Health recently and just heard on the news the

other night that high carb diets are killing people and many of them

don't even know it. Also, they warned that just because you are not

overweight does not mean you aren't at risk. Some guy that was

trying to gain weight by consuming a lot of carbs ending up being

diabetic. The high insulin levels turned out to be the problem.

Also said they many men that are dying of heart attacks happened as a

result of their diabetes which they didn't even know that they had.

I think I would agree that probably the high carbs can be just as bad

for your health as high saturated fat. I'm not convinced that

saturated fat isn't bad for you.

I don't know the optimal level. I'm not a nurtitionist. I have a

feeling that it depends on a person's level of activity. I would

agree that people that aren't doing Body for Life are probably

consuming too many carbs for optimal health.

Andyman

> I was wondering if any members in this group have read The

> Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Weight Loss, Health and

Aging

> by Schwarzbein. I just finished reading this book, and I

would

> like to have some feedback on some of the information from the

book.

> Schwarzbein believes that that low-fat, low-protein, high

> carbohydrate diet that is very popular today is the cause of weight

> problems and many other degenrative diseases. She recommends

> " balancing your diet " by adding more fat and protein. Her diet has

> very few restrictions on the amount of fat and protein that one

should

> include in his or her diet, except that it recommends not eating

> " damaged " fats. Her diet is basically a low-carb plan. She

> recommends eating protein, fat, carbohydrates, and nonstarchy

> vegetbables at each meal. She supports her theories with case

studies

> of some of her patients who were miserable on low-fat, high-carbo

> diets who achieved optimum health by " balancing " their diets with

more

> protein and fat.

> I have a few questions/ comments regarding this style of

> eating. First off, from personal experience and from reading this

> book, I have come to the conclusion that a high-carbohydrate, low

fat

> diet is not the best for optimum health. I believe that such a

diet

> can lead to insulin resistance and other degenerative diseases.

> I believe that there are many similarities between the

theories

> outlined in this book and the Body for Life method. Both plans

> recommend eating often (Schwarzbein recommends eating 5 times a

day).

> Both plans recommend that you do not eat carbohydrates alone. Both

> plans recommend that you drink lots of water.

> To some degree, both plans distinguish between good and bad

> fat. Both plans focus on making sure that enough essential fatty

> acids, especially omega-3 fatty acids, are included in your diet.

I

> believe that both plans recommend not eating damaged fats, such as

> hydrogenated fats, oxidized fats, and trans-fatty acids. The plans

> differ in regards to saturated fats. BFL instructs one to limit

> saturated fat, while " The Principle " does not. In fact, The

Principle

> includes a short article entitiled " The Myth of Saturated Fat "

which

> I would like to type here: " There are many studies that vilify

> saturated fats. However, while conducting and analyzing the

results

> of these studies, researchers totally ignored the fact that their

> subjects were eating desserts, too many carbohydrates, ingesting

> stimulants, not exercising enough, smoking, drinking alcohol,

taking

> drugs and engaging in all other facts that cause prolong insulin

> levels. Because insulin directs all the biochemical processes that

> lead to plaque formation in arteries, these subjects had higher

rates

> of heart disease. However, my clinical experience with thousands

of

> people has shown that eating saturated fat is not the culprit! On

the

> contrary, the patients who I have followed, who have increased

their

> consumption of saturated fats (as well as all other good fats),

have

> improved their cholesterol profiles, decreased blood pressure and

lost

> body fat, thereby reducing their risk for heart disease. Eating

> saturated fat should be part of your balanced diet while, at the

same

> time, your focus should be on reduding all the factors that

increase

> insulin levels. "

> As you can tell, does not believe that eating fat,

even

> saturated fat, makes you fat. Instead, she believes that high

insulin

> levels is the main culprit. Would anyway on this board like to

> comment on this article?

> The Principle is designed to improve a person's metabolism,

> just as the BFL program is. Both programs believe that building

> muscle is the best way to do so. Both programs believe that yo-yo

and

> extremely restricted diets both can damage a person's

metabolism.

> Both programs believe in keeping a person's insulin under

control;

> however, I believe that doing so is stressed more on The

Princliple.

> The Principle is more extreme in advocating a low-carb regimen. As

I

> said before, it puts no limits on the amount of fat and protein

that

> one can consume. BFL puts no limits on protein (to a certain

point),

> but does put limits on fat. To put it simply, The Principle

advocates

> getting many of the calories that you normally get from carbs from

> fat instead. This is seen as a way to control a person's insulin

> levels. Does anyone have any comments on this way of eating?

> By keeping a notebook, in which I write down the foods that

I

> eat during a given day, I can compute the percentage of calories

that

> I get from each macronutrient. I find that I often get only about

10%

> of my calories from fat, and that I get about 65% from

carbohydrates

> and the rest from protein. I often try to add olive oil and salmon

to

> my diet to unsure that I am geting enough fat. What do you

personally

> think is the righ macronutrient breakdown for optimum health and

for

> weight loss?

August 9, 2001

Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only person in this world who has gotten the "diet" thing right. Although, I'm very impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to follow the Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I think you can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on everything in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask yourself, before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago would have had access to the food that you're eating. Yes, they could have made yogurt, but not artificial sweeteners. They had chicken, but not chicken enhanced with hormones. The farmer's market quickly becomes your friend. Also, find a butcher that can provide you with free-range chicken. Unfortunately, Foreman Grills cook at temperatures that are way too high for Schwarzbein cooking. I guess our sacrifices are small in exchange for longer, healthier lives.

-----Original Message-----From: Matt Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:43 PMTo: bodyforlife Subject: The Schwarzbein Principle I was wondering if any members in this group have read The Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Weight Loss, Health and Aging by Schwarzbein. I just finished reading this book, and I would like to have some feedback on some of the information from the book. Schwarzbein believes that that low-fat, low-protein, high carbohydrate diet that is very popular today is the cause of weight problems and many other degenrative diseases. She recommends "balancing your diet" by adding more fat and protein. Her diet has very few restrictions on the amount of fat and protein that one should include in his or her diet, except that it recommends not eating "damaged" fats. Her diet is basically a low-carb plan. She recommends eating protein, fat, carbohydrates, and nonstarchy vegetbables at each meal. She supports her theories with case studies of some of her patients who were miserable on low-fat, high-carbo diets who achieved optimum health by "balancing" their diets with more protein and fat. I have a few questions/ comments regarding this style of eating. First off, from personal experience and from reading this book, I have come to the conclusion that a high-carbohydrate, low fat diet is not the best for optimum health. I believe that such a diet can lead to insulin resistance and other degenerative diseases. I believe that there are many similarities between the theories outlined in this book and the Body for Life method. Both plans recommend eating often (Schwarzbein recommends eating 5 times a day). Both plans recommend that you do not eat carbohydrates alone. Both plans recommend that you drink lots of water. To some degree, both plans distinguish between good and bad fat. Both plans focus on making sure that enough essential fatty acids, especially omega-3 fatty acids, are included in your diet. I believe that both plans recommend not eating damaged fats, such as hydrogenated fats, oxidized fats, and trans-fatty acids. The plans differ in regards to saturated fats. BFL instructs one to limit saturated fat, while "The Principle" does not. In fact, The Principle includes a short article entitiled "The Myth of Saturated Fat" which I would like to type here: "There are many studies that vilify saturated fats. However, while conducting and analyzing the results of these studies, researchers totally ignored the fact that their subjects were eating desserts, too many carbohydrates, ingesting stimulants, not exercising enough, smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and engaging in all other facts that cause prolong insulin levels. Because insulin directs all the biochemical processes that lead to plaque formation in arteries, these subjects had higher rates of heart disease. However, my clinical experience with thousands of people has shown that eating saturated fat is not the culprit! On the contrary, the patients who I have followed, who have increased their consumption of saturated fats (as well as all other good fats), have improved their cholesterol profiles, decreased blood pressure and lost body fat, thereby reducing their risk for heart disease. Eating saturated fat should be part of your balanced diet while, at the same time, your focus should be on reduding all the factors that increase insulin levels." As you can tell, does not believe that eating fat, even saturated fat, makes you fat. Instead, she believes that high insulin levels is the main culprit. Would anyway on this board like to comment on this article? The Principle is designed to improve a person's metabolism, just as the BFL program is. Both programs believe that building muscle is the best way to do so. Both programs believe that yo-yo and extremely restricted diets both can damage a person's metabolism. Both programs believe in keeping a person's insulin under control; however, I believe that doing so is stressed more on The Princliple. The Principle is more extreme in advocating a low-carb regimen. As I said before, it puts no limits on the amount of fat and protein that one can consume. BFL puts no limits on protein (to a certain point), but does put limits on fat. To put it simply, The Principle advocates getting many of the calories that you normally get from carbs from fat instead. This is seen as a way to control a person's insulin levels. Does anyone have any comments on this way of eating? By keeping a notebook, in which I write down the foods that I eat during a given day, I can compute the percentage of calories that I get from each macronutrient. I find that I often get only about 10% of my calories from fat, and that I get about 65% from carbohydrates and the rest from protein. I often try to add olive oil and salmon to my diet to unsure that I am geting enough fat. What do you personally think is the righ macronutrient breakdown for optimum health and for weight loss?

August 10, 2001

Matt,

I haven't read Dr. S, However:

I, for one, am so grateful for the message from researchers like Dr

Schwarzbein, Bill , Rob Faigin, Barry Sears (The Zone), Joyce & Gene

Daoust (40-30-30 Fat Burning Nutrition)....any of the people out there who

have gone against the grain to advocate a more balanced intake of carbs,

protein and fat. (Even Dr. Atkins, who has a bad reptuation for his carb

restriction, BUT what people don't realize is that if you continue the

program to the Maintenance level, it's similar to BFL and other higher

protein ways of eating). I've read the theory you mention in all of these

people's writing for several years, and personally believe it to be true. I

for one, when following the government's guidelines for higher carb and

lower fat, continually gained weight for years, and couldn't understand why,

when I was doing everything 'right' still continued to get fatter. It has

only been since I discovered research like Dr. S and others that I began to

'get a grip' on my weight problem.

You might like to read " Fats that Heal, Fats That Kill " by Udo

Erasmus....it's terribly boring, but he has researched the good and bad

about fats and you might find it enlightening reading. More ammunition for

the 'eat more naturally' argument. Aside from his contention that high

carbs are killing us, he goes further in saying that our consumption of

altered fats is killing us too, contributing to cancers, high BP, insulin

resistance, all sorts of chronic diseases.....and that without the presence

of hydrogenated/partially hydrogenated/trans-fatty and other unnatural fats

in our diets, saturated fats are not the 'bad boys' they're made out to be

in this fat-phobic nation of ours. Low-fat/ no-fat doesn't necessarily =

'healthy' , unless it's low-fat/no-fat fruits and veggies, etc. It's also

scary what he has to say about what we consider to be 'healthy' fats, like

canola oil, etc.and how they are manufactured.....

Don't know what the ideal breakdown is....40/30/30 (carb/protein/fat) is

advocated in the Zone diet....Natural Hormone Enhancement (NHE by Rob

Faigin)(don't anyone shoot me for mentioning this!!!) is lower on carb,

higher on fat and protein.....maybe, as we are all individuals with our own

metabolic shortcomings/ differences, we have to experiment to see what is

individually right for ourselves, but I believe wholeheartedly with the

concept that the high carb/high unnatural fat diet that most Americans

consume is a direct cause of the ever-increasing incidence of chronic

diseases in our nation.

My humble opinion,

Alyson

The Schwarzbein Principle

> I was wondering if any members in this group have read The

> Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Weight Loss, Health and Aging

> by Schwarzbein.

August 10, 2001

The government guidelines are a conspiracy. They want us to be fat

and in a daze so that they can control our minds. Seriously, why do

we need government guidelines for nutrition anyway? It seems to me

that people should look to the free market for guidelines (Dr.

Schwarzbein, Bill , Rob Faigin, Barry Sears (The Zone), Joyce

& Gene Daoust, etc.). Look at their research and decide for

yourself. The government should not be promoting one way of eating

over another. It is wrong to do that in a republic.

The government can't even balance their own checkbook or do anything

right so I don't understand how anyone could believe that they know

best to tell us what to eat. Next thing you know, we will be

arrested for not eating by government guidelines! I don't even want

to think about it.

Andyman

> Matt,

> I haven't read Dr. S, However:

> I, for one, am so grateful for the message from researchers like Dr

> Schwarzbein, Bill , Rob Faigin, Barry Sears (The Zone),

Joyce & Gene

> Daoust (40-30-30 Fat Burning Nutrition)....any of the people out

there who

> have gone against the grain to advocate a more balanced intake of

carbs,

> protein and fat. (Even Dr. Atkins, who has a bad reptuation for

his carb

> restriction, BUT what people don't realize is that if you continue

the

> program to the Maintenance level, it's similar to BFL and other

higher

> protein ways of eating). I've read the theory you mention in all

of these

> people's writing for several years, and personally believe it to be

true. I

> for one, when following the government's guidelines for higher carb

and

> lower fat, continually gained weight for years, and couldn't

understand why,

> when I was doing everything 'right' still continued to get fatter.

It has

> only been since I discovered research like Dr. S and others that I

began to

> 'get a grip' on my weight problem.

> You might like to read " Fats that Heal, Fats That Kill " by Udo

> Erasmus....it's terribly boring, but he has researched the good and

bad

> about fats and you might find it enlightening reading. More

ammunition for

> the 'eat more naturally' argument. Aside from his contention that

high

> carbs are killing us, he goes further in saying that our

consumption of

> altered fats is killing us too, contributing to cancers, high BP,

insulin

> resistance, all sorts of chronic diseases.....and that without the

presence

> of hydrogenated/partially hydrogenated/trans-fatty and other

unnatural fats

> in our diets, saturated fats are not the 'bad boys' they're made

out to be

> in this fat-phobic nation of ours. Low-fat/ no-fat doesn't

necessarily =

> 'healthy' , unless it's low-fat/no-fat fruits and veggies, etc.

It's also

> scary what he has to say about what we consider to be 'healthy'

fats, like

> canola oil, etc.and how they are manufactured.....

> Don't know what the ideal breakdown is....40/30/30

(carb/protein/fat) is

> advocated in the Zone diet....Natural Hormone Enhancement (NHE by

Rob

> Faigin)(don't anyone shoot me for mentioning this!!!) is lower on

carb,

> higher on fat and protein.....maybe, as we are all individuals with

our own

> metabolic shortcomings/ differences, we have to experiment to see

what is

> individually right for ourselves, but I believe wholeheartedly with

the

> concept that the high carb/high unnatural fat diet that most

Americans

> consume is a direct cause of the ever-increasing incidence of

chronic

> diseases in our nation.

> My humble opinion,

> Alyson

>

> The Schwarzbein Principle

>

> > I was wondering if any members in this group have read The

> > Schwarzbein Principle: The Truth About Weight Loss, Health and

Aging

> > by Schwarzbein.

August 10, 2001

Matt and ,

I am not too up on the Schwarzbein principal. But here is my

take 'were going to eat all natural and just like they did 100 years

ago? " If that is the case (I like all natural) but wasn't the length

of the average person like 40 years less than it is now? That makes

me nervous. The reason we live longer now is because of better

nutrition.

Ever heard of the God diet? If it isn't made naturally by the earth

(hence God) then don't eat it. So if it is man made,or artificial

don't eat it.

I am not trying to start WWIII, just commenting.

-- In bodyforlife@y..., " Monroe " <michellemonroe@b...> wrote:

> Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only

person in

> this world who has gotten the " diet " thing right. Although, I'm

very

> impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to

follow the

> Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I

think you

> can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on

everything

> in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and

> hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask

yourself,

> before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago

would have

August 10, 2001

Matt and ,

I am not too up on the Schwarzbein principal. But here is my

take 'were going to eat all natural and just like they did 100 years

ago? " If that is the case (I like all natural) but wasn't the length

of the average person like 40 years less than it is now? That makes

me nervous. The reason we live longer now is because of better

nutrition.

Ever heard of the God diet? If it isn't made naturally by the earth

(hence God) then don't eat it. So if it is man made,or artificial

don't eat it.

I am not trying to start WWIII, just commenting.

-- In bodyforlife@y..., " Monroe " <michellemonroe@b...> wrote:

> Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only

person in

> this world who has gotten the " diet " thing right. Although, I'm

very

> impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to

follow the

> Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I

think you

> can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on

everything

> in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and

> hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask

yourself,

> before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago

would have

August 10, 2001

Matt and ,

I am not too up on the Schwarzbein principal. But here is my

take 'were going to eat all natural and just like they did 100 years

ago? " If that is the case (I like all natural) but wasn't the length

of the average person like 40 years less than it is now? That makes

me nervous. The reason we live longer now is because of better

nutrition.

Ever heard of the God diet? If it isn't made naturally by the earth

(hence God) then don't eat it. So if it is man made,or artificial

don't eat it.

I am not trying to start WWIII, just commenting.

-- In bodyforlife@y..., " Monroe " <michellemonroe@b...> wrote:

> Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only

person in

> this world who has gotten the " diet " thing right. Although, I'm

very

> impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to

follow the

> Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I

think you

> can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on

everything

> in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and

> hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask

yourself,

> before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago

would have

August 10, 2001

Matt and ,

I am not too up on the Schwarzbein principal. But here is my

take 'were going to eat all natural and just like they did 100 years

ago? " If that is the case (I like all natural) but wasn't the length

of the average person like 40 years less than it is now? That makes

me nervous. The reason we live longer now is because of better

nutrition.

Ever heard of the God diet? If it isn't made naturally by the earth

(hence God) then don't eat it. So if it is man made,or artificial

don't eat it.

I am not trying to start WWIII, just commenting.

-- In bodyforlife@y..., " Monroe " <michellemonroe@b...> wrote:

> Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only

person in

> this world who has gotten the " diet " thing right. Although, I'm

very

> impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to

follow the

> Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I

think you

> can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on

everything

> in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and

> hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask

yourself,

> before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago

would have

August 10, 2001

Matt and ,

I am not too up on the Schwarzbein principal. But here is my

take 'were going to eat all natural and just like they did 100 years

ago? " If that is the case (I like all natural) but wasn't the length

of the average person like 40 years less than it is now? That makes

me nervous. The reason we live longer now is because of better

nutrition.

Ever heard of the God diet? If it isn't made naturally by the earth

(hence God) then don't eat it. So if it is man made,or artificial

don't eat it.

I am not trying to start WWIII, just commenting.

-- In bodyforlife@y..., " Monroe " <michellemonroe@b...> wrote:

> Matt, Schwarzbein's books are my bibles. I think she's the only

person in

> this world who has gotten the " diet " thing right. Although, I'm

very

> impressed with BFL, I knew from the beginning that I would try to

follow the

> Schwarzbein way of eating as much as I could while doing BFL. I

think you

> can do both. It seems the BFL and Schwarzbein are both based on

everything

> in moderation. Schwarzbein simply puts more emphasis on organic and

> hormone-free foods. An easier way to follow Schwarzbein is to ask

yourself,

> before you eat, if your ancestors several hundreds of years ago

would have

August 10, 2001

>> Next thing you know, we will be arrested for not eating by government guidelines!

Andy, I think you confused your paranoia powder with your protein powder this morning.

Todd

August 10, 2001

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this. We live longer now because we aren't working so hard to survive. Yes the average age was a lot less 100 hundred years ago but that was because people had to work much harder to care and provide for their family. They were healthy because they didn't eat processed food and very little sugar.

I do agree that we should eat food that is natural and that processed foods and sugar have lead to a very obese America.

I just finished reading 'Potatoes not Prozac" by Kathleen DesMaisons which is about sugar sensitivity. She talks a lot about "white foods" vs. "brown foods". I was trying to look for the exact quote, but I can't find it but she states that whole unprocessed foods aren't promoted much in our government because they don't have a large lobby group behind them able to make money if more people eat whole unprocessed foods.

Jill

The reason we live longer now is because of better nutrition.

August 10, 2001

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this. We live longer now because we aren't working so hard to survive. Yes the average age was a lot less 100 hundred years ago but that was because people had to work much harder to care and provide for their family. They were healthy because they didn't eat processed food and very little sugar.

I do agree that we should eat food that is natural and that processed foods and sugar have lead to a very obese America.

I just finished reading 'Potatoes not Prozac" by Kathleen DesMaisons which is about sugar sensitivity. She talks a lot about "white foods" vs. "brown foods". I was trying to look for the exact quote, but I can't find it but she states that whole unprocessed foods aren't promoted much in our government because they don't have a large lobby group behind them able to make money if more people eat whole unprocessed foods.

Jill

The reason we live longer now is because of better nutrition.

August 10, 2001

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this. We live longer now because we aren't working so hard to survive. Yes the average age was a lot less 100 hundred years ago but that was because people had to work much harder to care and provide for their family. They were healthy because they didn't eat processed food and very little sugar.

I do agree that we should eat food that is natural and that processed foods and sugar have lead to a very obese America.

I just finished reading 'Potatoes not Prozac" by Kathleen DesMaisons which is about sugar sensitivity. She talks a lot about "white foods" vs. "brown foods". I was trying to look for the exact quote, but I can't find it but she states that whole unprocessed foods aren't promoted much in our government because they don't have a large lobby group behind them able to make money if more people eat whole unprocessed foods.

Jill

The reason we live longer now is because of better nutrition.

August 10, 2001

You are exactly right. It all comes down to who can buy off the

government to promote their agenda.

Andyman

I was trying to look for the exact quote, but I can't find it but she

states that whole unprocessed foods aren't promoted much in our

government because they don't have a large lobby group behind them

able to make money if more people eat whole unprocessed foods.

>

> Jill

> The reason we live longer now is because of better

> nutrition.

>

August 10, 2001

A quick " my 2 cents " on the living longer principle here - I agree

that life expectancy is longer because we don't have as much daily-

living stress, better medical advances now, etc. But one thing to

keep in mind is that life expectancy stats are compiled from *all*

people's life-length (from children all the way up to grandparents,

great-grandparents) and infant mortality rates and childbirth-related

deaths were extremely high 100-150 years ago compared to now. This

sorta skews the numbers downward on the whole life-expectancy stats.

The people that survived infancy and childhood disease-free actually

lived very long lives, it's just that a whole lot less people

actually survived into adulthood. I also agree that it's the refined

processed foods that are the evil components of the average American

diet in this day and age. Okay, that wasn't " quick " but then I never

am. LOL

Jen B.

> I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this. We live longer

now because we aren't working so hard to survive. Yes the average

age was a lot less 100 hundred years ago but that was because people

had to work much harder to care and provide for their family. They

were healthy because they didn't eat processed food and very little

sugar.

>

> I do agree that we should eat food that is natural and that

processed foods and sugar have lead to a very obese America.

>

> I just finished reading 'Potatoes not Prozac " by Kathleen

DesMaisons which is about sugar sensitivity. She talks a lot

about " white foods " vs. " brown foods " . I was trying to look for the

exact quote, but I can't find it but she states that whole

unprocessed foods aren't promoted much in our government because

they don't have a large lobby group behind them able to make money if

more people eat whole unprocessed foods.

>

> Jill

> The reason we live longer now is because of better

> nutrition.

>

August 10, 2001

Jen,

Man o live where do you work? I want your job. I gotta hand it to

you I probably have more than the average persons stress. Ugh

The air con. broke in the bakery, right when we have 100 degree

heat! Can it be fixed? No we need a replacement. At $5,000. (landlord

pays this) Then my pool co, foaled up some work they did. And.. well

you get my point. I wanna swich.

Okay next week I am in the Adirondacks! And they have a gym and I

am making my wonderful dear husband work out with me. YIPPIE.. I am

gonna kick his booty..I can feel the stress melting away!

> - I agree

> that life expectancy is longer because we don't have as much daily-

> living stress, better medical advances now, etc.

August 11, 2001

" Those modern day 'plaques' didn't occur in man

until after grains and sugars became a staple in the diet "

I believe grains have always been a big part of our ancestors diets.

They have always ate seeds and grains of all sorts. They also

consumed sugar but in the form of maple syrup, honey or other

unprocessed forms, and in very small amounts compared to today.

It wasn't until the late 1800's when they began processing the grains

differently, removing the bran and germ, which produced " white "

flour. At first only the wealthy could afford this " luxury " of white

flour and white sugar but once it became more affordable to the

general public, these " plagues " began to surface.

Again, I really think it is the processing and additives in our foods

that is causing the trouble.

just my 2cents,

Donna H.

August 11, 2001