Re: Using Brix Readings

[Guest guest]

On 9/28/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >Extremely cool. But this is an upscale grocery store that is very

> >responsive to its customers. High brix fruits, kobe beef, books by

> >Sally Fallon, cigars <g> etc.

>

> What on earth grocery store is this?

Metropolitan Market in Seattle. They also carry a very nice selection

of raw cheeses and will special order any cheese you ask for, even

from a very small producer. They have a great wine and beer selection

(including a nice selection of half-bottle wines) and it is a

physically beautiful plant.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

On 10/1/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Unless your respoding affirmatively that bread and dairy

> provides most of the nutrients I listed, wasn't intended to imply they

> provide sufficient amounts for each individual to maintain health. Which is

> how it read to me, but ya know, I may have misunderstood your intent.

Nope I wasn't implying that it was sufficient for *every* individual

but only disagreeing with the idea that is wasn't sufficient *per se*.

It might in fact be enough for some and not nearly enough for others.

All depends on a plethora of factors. One thing is for certain, low

brix milk/bread dominated diets *and* low brix meat dominated diets do

not provide sufficient nutrients for any of us.

So I would agree with you and that it is basically theorectical

at this point, but I would apply that to ALL the approaches to diet we

take on this list, including meat dominated diets.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of

>

>

>On 10/1/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

>> Unless your respoding affirmatively that bread and dairy

>> provides most of the nutrients I listed, wasn't intended to imply they

>> provide sufficient amounts for each individual to maintain

>health. Which is

>> how it read to me, but ya know, I may have misunderstood your intent.

>

>Nope I wasn't implying that it was sufficient for *every* individual

>but only disagreeing with the idea that is wasn't sufficient *per se*.

>It might in fact be enough for some and not nearly enough for others.

>All depends on a plethora of factors.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

>So I would agree with you and that it is basically theorectical

>at this point, but I would apply that to ALL the approaches to diet we

>take on this list, including meat dominated diets.

I guess this is where we differ. I find sufficient evidence in other species

(dogs, cattle, cats, etc) as well as ours to operate on the theory that a

species does best, healthwise, on a species-typical diet. And by

species-typical diet, I mean the one the species has adapted to over many

thousands or perhaps even millions of years. Each species' physiology as

well as its pyschology, seems to function optimally on its species-typical

diet. And as such, I believe that many *more* human beings would function

better on a high meat diet as opposed to a high milk/bread combo diet for

the simple reason that our species has thrived on the meat-dominated diet

for hundreds of thousands of years, IIRC, before milk and bread were

recently introduced into the human diet (not counting breast milk, of

course!). I just think more of us are better adapted to eating animals than

to drinking their milk or eating grains, especially gluten grains. So, to

me, it's less theoretical that a given person could thrive on a meat-based

diet better than a bread and milk-based diet.Although, I do believe, with

all the right elements in place, that there ARE some folks who could adapt

well to the milk and bread diet like the Swiss villagers. I just think they

are fewer, perhaps much fewer, than those who could thrive on a

meat/organ/bone-based diet.

I also find it interesting that the Swiss villagers were the ONLY group out

of 14 that Price found thriving on a milk/bread-based diet. All the others

relied on meat/organs/bone for their extraordinary health, aside from the

Masai and other herding tribes who relied on both milk AND meat. This

doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting side note.

So ultimately, I think quality AND composition are important in reaching and

maintaining optimal health, and that optimal composition has a lot to do

with our ancestral diet going back further than the past 10,000 years or so,

just as it has proven to be so with cows and other grazing animals who

thrive best on pasture. And I think many of the dogs fed a species-typical

diet focused on raw meat/organ/bone are a further testament to this

paradigm. Ditto for cats, and many, many other species.

I'm well aware that humans are different in that we can use technology to

alter formerly indigestible foods into digestable foods, but that doesn't

mean our phsyiological needs have caught up with our technological advances.

Even if I know how to ferment most of the gluten out of wheat bread doesn't

mean my body has as quickly shifted from requiring a certain amount of

carnitine in meat for optimal function, for instance, to some nutrient in

wheat bread.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

On 10/2/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> I'm well aware that humans are different in that we can use technology to

> alter formerly indigestible foods into digestable foods, but that doesn't

> mean our phsyiological needs have caught up with our technological

> advances.

> Even if I know how to ferment most of the gluten out of wheat bread doesn't

> mean my body has as quickly shifted from requiring a certain amount of

> carnitine in meat for optimal function, for instance, to some nutrient in

> wheat bread.

There are also probably certain things that we could NEVER adapt to.

Take the analogy Sally likes to use of buiding a house with a

blueprint, where the blueprint is our genes and the materials are our

food/nutrients. If you have less of them, your body deviates from the

blueprint to cut corners and make the best it can, so we still have

dental arches, but they aren't formed as well, we still have cheeks,

but they aren't as broad, etc.

BUT, no matter how clever the contractor is (adaptation), there are

certain things she will just never be able to do, like make a house

out of Jello.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 10/2/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >> Unless your respoding affirmatively that bread and dairy

> >> provides most of the nutrients I listed, wasn't intended to imply they

> >> provide sufficient amounts for each individual to maintain

> >health. Which is

> >> how it read to me, but ya know, I may have misunderstood your intent.

> >

> >Nope I wasn't implying that it was sufficient for *every* individual

> >but only disagreeing with the idea that is wasn't sufficient *per se*.

> >It might in fact be enough for some and not nearly enough for others.

> >All depends on a plethora of factors.

>

> Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

I thought I was fairly clear about that from the beginning. My

apologies for not being clear enough.

> >So I would agree with you and that it is basically theorectical

> >at this point, but I would apply that to ALL the approaches to diet we

> >take on this list, including meat dominated diets.

>

>

> I guess this is where we differ.

Yup. But by theoretical I mean that no diet today, including a

so-called species specific diet, is able to provide all the nutrients

we need without some supplemental help. Your initial line of reasoning

seemed to suggest that the dairy/bread dominated diet can't be done

*today*, if at all, and my whole point is why not? It should be able

to be done today just as surely as a meat based diet can be done

today. People can only *thrive* on a meat based diet *today* because

the diet is supplemented. I see no evidence to suggest that people can

not do so on dairy/bread based diet *today* if it is also

supplemented.

In my opinion, the species specific approach as used with animals is

not applicable because in fact ALL of us alter our diets by technology

(and animals don't) and we use that alteration to *improve* our diets,

and most of us are committed to supplementing that diet in various

ways.

> I find sufficient evidence in other species

> (dogs, cattle, cats, etc) as well as ours to operate on the theory that a

> species does best, healthwise, on a species-typical diet.

I don't think there is a species specific *human* diet. Or if there

is, I don't think for all practical purposes that it really matters.

More about that below.

> And by

> species-typical diet, I mean the one the species has adapted to over many

> thousands or perhaps even millions of years. Each species' physiology as

> well as its pyschology, seems to function optimally on its species-typical

> diet. And as such, I believe that many *more* human beings would function

> better on a high meat diet as opposed to a high milk/bread combo diet for

> the simple reason that our species has thrived on the meat-dominated diet

> for hundreds of thousands of years, IIRC, before milk and bread were

> recently introduced into the human diet (not counting breast milk, of

> course!).

The " recent " introduction of dairy into the diet is controversial, as

the dates keep changing and going back farther and farther. And IMO

this is the problem with all the species specific/evolutionary

approaches to understanding diet. In the end we really don't know what

we did way back when. We end up speculating about how we think

something may have evolved, but in the end we really don't know. From

what I can see such an approach allows many *unscientific* factors to

come into play regarding " conclusions " based on species specific

theory.

But in the end what does it matter? If I can alter the food stuff in

such a way that it gives me great benefit, even thrive on it, who

cares if it initially wasn't species specific?

The ability to alter and manipulate the environment around me, to

derivatively create after the imaging of the ultimate creator, is part

of the glory of being human. But I digress.

> I just think more of us are better adapted to eating animals than

> to drinking their milk or eating grains, especially gluten grains. So, to

> me, it's less theoretical that a given person could thrive on a meat-based

> diet better than a bread and milk-based diet.Although, I do believe, with

> all the right elements in place, that there ARE some folks who could adapt

> well to the milk and bread diet like the Swiss villagers. I just think they

> are fewer, perhaps much fewer, than those who could thrive on a

> meat/organ/bone-based diet.

My point was and remains that *nobody* is thriving on a

meat/organ/bone-based diet *without* supplemental help, and certainly

not on this list. And that approach is just as legitimate for a

milk/bread based diet. The fact that you think there are fewer,

perhaps much fewer, who could survive on a low meat high dairy diet is

only valid if your assumptions about specie specific human diets is

correct. And if I am reading Weston Price right, he didn't seem to

think it mattered what food stuff we ate, as long as the proper

bodybuilding nutrients were available.

> I also find it interesting that the Swiss villagers were the ONLY group out

> of 14 that Price found thriving on a milk/bread-based diet. All the others

> relied on meat/organs/bone for their extraordinary health, aside from the

> Masai and other herding tribes who relied on both milk AND meat. This

> doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting side note.

It is an interesting side note although I'm not sure of its

pertinancy. The Swiss Villagers had meat and milk in their diet as

well, just in different proportions. The difference was they had less

meat and added grain, technologically altered grain by the way, and

yet they thrived.

So I guess another way to look at it is that the Masai were

supplementing their diet with milk (if you can call a half gallon of

milk a day a supplement) and the Swiss were supplementing their diet

with meat.

And the Samburu, who you didn't specifically mention, consumed more

milk than both the Swiss and the Masai, up to nearly 2 gallons in one

sitting and in times of abundance would do that twice a day!

So I'm not sure your emphasis means all that much other than their

particular lifestyles conditioned their food choices. In fact with the

Masai when the milk supply was low they didn't increase their meat

consumption, but rather stretched the milk by adding blood. Clearly

dairy held a very high place for the Masai (who would immediately

ferment their milk - technology again).

> So ultimately, I think quality AND composition are important in reaching and

> maintaining optimal health,

The composition argument is in direct opposition to the conclusions

that Price drew, although he could definitely be wrong.

> and that optimal composition has a lot to do

> with our ancestral diet going back further than the past 10,000 years or so,

If the Swiss Villagers were specifically adapted to grains/dairy and

if the Masai were specifically adapted to dairy, then presumably they

would not have had to alter them, unless you want to argue they only

did that for taste/storage purposes.

As for what was occurring way back whenever, see above.

> just as it has proven to be so with cows and other grazing animals who

> thrive best on pasture.

I don't think this analogy works on a number of levels.

> And I think many of the dogs fed a species-typical

> diet focused on raw meat/organ/bone are a further testament to this

> paradigm. Ditto for cats, and many, many other species.

>

> I'm well aware that humans are different in that we can use technology to

> alter formerly indigestible foods into digestable foods, but that doesn't

> mean our phsyiological needs have caught up with our technological advances.

One of the reasons for using technology regarding food, ancient or

modern, is so that we can gain the benefits of that food without

compromising our physiological makeup. Thus the food stuff becomes

beneficial to us even though in its unaltered state it might be

harmful or a compromise.

I don't think you can't shunt the issue of technology aside as a minor

point. It is, IMO, the preeminent point when it comes to human

beings. We alter meat, dairy, vegetables, and even fruit so that we

might better utilize them as foodstuffs. We alter them so that they

taste better. We manipulate inputs so that we might have a better

output. We do all kinds of things to food that makes me very leery of

applying specie specific theories to humans.

The fact that the Swiss altered their foods, as did the Masai and

*every* group Price studied, really undermines, IMO, at least at a

practical level, the whole species specific approach when it comes to

humans.

And I guess I'm not clear on what needs to be caught up on. If I alter

gluten grains in such a way that they no longer effect me negatively,

what technology has my body not caught up to?

> Even if I know how to ferment most of the gluten out of wheat bread doesn't

> mean my body has as quickly shifted from requiring a certain amount of

> carnitine in meat for optimal function, for instance, to some nutrient in

> wheat bread.

You are positing meat versus grain in the above example. But I'm not

advocating a meat versus grain diet. The more pertinent analogy, it

seems to me, would be meat versus milk, and milk *contains* carnitine.

And even that is a somewhat dubious analogy because the Swiss also had

meat in their diet.

Whatever value they were getting from grains it wasn't because somehow

they had adapted to get some nutrient from grains that is usually only

available in animal foods, and since most of us lack that adaptation,

we couldn't survive on such fare. That is not an accurate depiction of

what they were doing nor am I arguing such a thing.

Again, a diet which includes meat but has milk and bread as its

dominant staples is not necessarily lacking in carnitine or any other

nutrient for that matter, species specific or no.

And we still have the evidence, at least according to Weston Price,

that the superior diet, such as he observed, was one whose primary

staples were seafood *and* grains.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I guess this is where we differ. I find sufficient evidence in other species

>(dogs, cattle, cats, etc) as well as ours to operate on the theory that a

>species does best, healthwise, on a species-typical diet. And by

>species-typical diet, I mean the one the species has adapted to over many

>thousands or perhaps even millions of years. Each species' physiology as

>well as its pyschology, seems to function optimally on its species-typical

>diet. And as such, I believe that many *more* human beings would function

>better on a high meat diet as opposed to a high milk/bread combo diet for

>the simple reason that our species has thrived on the meat-dominated diet

>for hundreds of thousands of years, IIRC, before milk and bread were

>recently introduced into the human diet (not counting breast milk, of

>course!). I just think more of us are better adapted to eating animals than

>to drinking their milk or eating grains, especially gluten grains.

I agree completely, though since dairy in many ways resembles flesh foods

(particularly when fermented) I think most people are much more likely to

do well on dairy than they are on grains, which are extremely recent

inventions.

>I also find it interesting that the Swiss villagers were the ONLY group out

>of 14 that Price found thriving on a milk/bread-based diet. All the others

>relied on meat/organs/bone for their extraordinary health, aside from the

>Masai and other herding tribes who relied on both milk AND meat. This

>doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting side note.

It's certainly suggestive.

I also don't see any possible justification for the assertion that bread

could possibly be the nutritional equal of, say, liver, all else being

equal or even close to equal/

-

[Guest guest]

---

Are you guys talking about wonder bread or another specific bread

you found in references somewhere in the last " millions of years " ?

In ,

>

> I also don't see any possible justification for the assertion that

bread

> could possibly be the nutritional equal of, say, liver, all else

being

> equal or even close to equal/

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Dennis-

>Are you guys talking about wonder bread or another specific bread

>you found in references somewhere in the last " millions of years " ?

I was talking about the best possible bread. Not sure what you mean about

millions of years, though.

-

[Guest guest]

--- I am wondering whether you're including breads from long ago.

In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote:

> Dennis-

>

> >Are you guys talking about wonder bread or another specific bread

> >you found in references somewhere in the last " millions of years " ?

>

> I was talking about the best possible bread. Not sure what you

mean about

> millions of years, though.

>

>

>

>

> -