Re: produce vs. animal foods

[Guest guest]

Too much of any good thing can be bad. The fact is humans have omnivorous

teeth and they need a bit of both meats and veggies to obtain adequate

nutrition. However, IMHO, most people overdo the meat and/or veggies. As

for fruits: I honestly have a hard time believing anyone " needs " fruits,

since they're mostly simple sugars and there is very little they offer that

you can't get from vegetables (aside from the additional palatability).

When discussing nutrition, we're really talking about two separate goals:

1) Acquire adequate calories

2) Acquire adequate nutrients

To acquire the majority of your calories from veggies, you would be eating

too much bulk. I can't even fit that much food in my stomach at any one

time - I would literally have to eat all day long. But if you were to

acquire the majority of your calories from meat, you'd be getting far more

protein than you really needed. Unlike carbs and fats, only the liver can

metabolize protein into energy. It is really unfair to your liver to expect

it to do the majority of the work in processing your calories when you have

so many cells that can help out if only you eat the right foods.

IMHO, the best thing to satisfy goal #1 with is fats. It doesn't matter

where they come from as long as you get enough saturated fats (animal

sources would be dairy, lard, liver, etc where vegetable sources would

be palm or coconut oil). I pretty much live on fat and I only eat what

meats and veggies I need to maintain my nutritional needs (or to mop up the

fats I'm using, since they tend to get all melty and then they're difficult

to eat ). You can satisfy goal #2 with very little calories, which is

why fats are absolutely nessicary. The top nutrient-dense foods list covers

a number of fat-rich sources, in addition to a number of easy to digest

vegetables (typically ferments, since that's what makes them easy to

digest).

-Lana

On 3/11/07, <amanda@...> wrote:

>

> I was spurred on to discuss this after

> reading the review of " Fiber Menace " in the winter Wise Traditions.

> Basically the premise is that we were meant to eat mostly animal foods and

> the recent philosophy of getting tons of bulk and fiber in our diets is

> making us worse and screwing up our insides. It even says too much water

> can

> cause problems.

I mentioned something

> to this effect on another list and got reamed by someone who just

> absolutely

> believed we NEEDED fruits and veggies and lots of them. So why do some

> people get so crazy over this issue? Is there a better way to look at it?

>

[Guest guest]

--- <amanda@...> wrote:

> I was spurred on to discuss this after reading the review of " Fiber

> Menace " in the winter Wise Traditions. Basically the premise is that

> we were meant to eat mostly animal foods and the recent philosophy

> of getting tons of bulk and fiber in our diets is making us worse

> and screwing up our insides. It even says too much water can cause

> problems. Raw vegetables and fruits need not be a priority if one is

> consuming pastured animal foods from animals that spend their whole

> lives eating fresh grass etc. I guess there are at least two sides

> to the issue, those who believe that if we don't get fruits and

> veggies we will not be getting valuable nutrients, enzymes and

> minerals, and then those who say that most produce is hard on the

> body unless cooked or fermented in some way and we can get

> everything the body needs from animal products.

,

I would say go with what feels best for you. Eat foods that taste

good and make you feel good. Everyone is different in this respect

and I don't think it's a good idea to force yourself to eat more of

foods that you don't like just because someone says they're " healthy " .

It's obviously better to choose more nutrient-dense foods over

nutrient-deficient foods for health, but choose nutrient-dense foods

that you like. And that's not to say that you shouldn't eat any

nutrient-deficient foods - just don't make them your main source of

calories if you want to be healthy.

I like a wide variety of foods. My problem is that I eat too much

[Guest guest]

On 11 Mar 2007 16:01:15 -0700, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Too much of any good thing can be bad. The fact is humans have omnivorous

> teeth and they need a bit of both meats and veggies to obtain adequate

> nutrition. However, IMHO, most people overdo the meat and/or veggies. As

> for fruits: I honestly have a hard time believing anyone " needs " fruits,

> since they're mostly simple sugars and there is very little they offer that

> you can't get from vegetables (aside from the additional palatability).

Vegetables are primarily simple sugars too. How is that evidence for

or against their essentiality or benefit? Fruits are generally lower

in toxins than vegetables and have higher bioavailability of some

nutrients because of their matrix. There's not much in vegetables you

can't get from animal foods. What's the difference between that

argument and the one that there isn't much in fruits that aren't in

vegetables?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

> I was spurred on to discuss this after

> reading the review of " Fiber Menace " in the winter Wise Traditions.

> Basically the premise is that we were meant to eat mostly animal foods and

> the recent philosophy of getting tons of bulk and fiber in our diets is

> making us worse and screwing up our insides.

In all honesty I think this argument is ridiculous. The only

traditional diets that are very low or devoid of plant foods are ones

that either a) revolve around milk or are at the polar extremes in

climates where it is too cold to grow many plants, both of which are

relatively recent in the scale of human evolution compared to warmer

climates and pre-milk diets. Our plant foods have been bred to have

higher and higher sugar/starch-to-fiber ratios. Our ancestors eating

an equivalent amount of plant foods would be getting much more fiber.

Non-digestible fibers are the only foods for good bacteria in our

colon. If we don't feed good bacteria in our colon, our colonic cells

do not get butyrate to use for fuel and repair, and we have wide open

space vulnerable to infections of parasites or pathogenic bacteria and

yeasts.

> I guess there are at least two sides to the issue,

> those who believe that if we don't get fruits and veggies we will not be

> getting valuable nutrients, enzymes and minerals, and then those who say

> that most produce is hard on the body unless cooked or fermented in some way

> and we can get everything the body needs from animal products.

There aren't any essential nutrients in fruits and vegetables that are

not in animal products. There are fibers, though, that are arguably

beneficial for optimal colon health because they are necessary for a

thriving bacterial population. Raw versus cooked doesn't seem very

pertinent here since cooking does not eliminate fibers.

My understanding is that the traditional Australian Aborigine diet

supplies several hundred grams of fiber a day.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Lana:

Could you help those of us out - like me ;-) who need everything spelled

out so literally. Do you think you could give a hint of what you eat over a

typical three-day spread to meet the adequate calories/adequate nutrients

goals?

Thanks very much.

--

April Streeter

[Guest guest]

There aren't any essential nutrients in fruits and vegetables that are

not in animal products. There are fibers, though, that are arguably

beneficial for optimal colon health because they are necessary for a

thriving bacterial population. Raw versus cooked doesn't seem very

pertinent here since cooking does not eliminate fibers.

My understanding is that the traditional Australian Aborigine diet

supplies several hundred grams of fiber a day.

Chris

Most likely from roots. While back somebody told me of a study they saw where

there was a definite difference in protein digesting enzymes between individuals

that predetermined them to animal or plant protein digestion. I tried a number

of keywords trying to find this study but couldn't.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for earth-friendly autos?

Browse Top Cars by " Green Rating " at Autos' Green Center.

http://autos./green_center/

[Guest guest]

On 12 Mar 2007 05:27:25 -0700, Wanita <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> My understanding is that the traditional Australian Aborigine diet

> supplies several hundred grams of fiber a day.

> Most likely from roots.

Yes, that's why their diet is so high in inulin.

> While back somebody told me of a study they saw

> where there was a definite difference in protein digesting enzymes between

> individuals that predetermined them to animal or plant protein digestion. I

> tried a number of keywords trying to find this study but couldn't.

I think the Australian Aborigines also got their fair share of animal

protein. Like most groups, they ate both plant and animal foods.

I'm not aware of plant protein-specific or animal protein-specific

proteases. Let us know if you find it.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

> Vegetables are primarily simple sugars too. How is that evidence for

> or against their essentiality or benefit?

Simple sugars require more effort for the body to process because they must

be processed immediately. With complex carbs, the body has more of a choice

as to how much to absorb because amalayse is required for their breakdown

into simple sugars. Complex carbs are like a time-release sugar. Simple

sugars in small amounts are not bad, but when the bulk of your vegetable

foods are simple sugars, you can end up causing a nutrient imbalance. If I

recall correctly, it has something to do with chromium and germanium and the

insulin system. I'm not on my home computer right now so I don't have

access to my bookmarks. I may have a printout with me: I'll dig through the

files I brought along.

I didn't realize a good deal of vegetables were simple sugars? Potatos and

other roots, grains, and legumes are all complex carbs. These are the

vegetable foods that I personally equate to health. Just look at the irish

with their oats and the swiss with their rye. Crucifers are great,

especially cabbage, but they don't have nearly the amounts of carbs found in

fruits. If you're consuming full fat milk, cheese, grains, legumes,

meat (preferably shellfish, fish eggs, broth and organ meats), starchy

roots and crucifers, what else would you truly need?

Fruits are generally lower

> in toxins than vegetables and have higher bioavailability of some

> nutrients because of their matrix.

That's a good point, but if you're looking for bioavailability, wouldn't

meats be a better choice?

There's not much in vegetables you

> can't get from animal foods. What's the difference between that

> argument and the one that there isn't much in fruits that aren't in

> vegetables?

That's also a good point. It is all about balance in the end. But simple

sugars in large amounts just arn't good for anyone, so if you want nutrients

available in fruits, you're probably better off with complex carbs or meats,

depending on how bioavailable you need them to be.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

April,

I'm still not perfect at it, but this is what I've been doing recently (any

tips or comments would be appreciated):

Breakfast includes full fat milk or a mix of " whole " milk and half and half

with:

Whole grain oats (usually whole groats, although occasionally rolled so they

cook faster) with a dash of real maple syrup for palatability and additional

manganese content (this is low fat so I usually end up drinking more

milk/cream on these days)

OR Scrambled eggs and cheese with potatos (diced, shredded, or leftover

mashed) and stewed onions (At least one whole onion sliced thin and cooked

in half a stick of butter until it is mush) OR Cream cheese on rye flatbread

Lunch depends on how much time I have. Quick lunches are:

Salty black bean dip with rye flatbread or spelt matzoa

OR Cheese (such as St. Andre) and crackers or spelt matzoa

OR Steamed adzuki bean buns (from the Japanese market)

OR Cream of potato-leek soup (made with leftover mashed or instant potatos

[barbara's Bakery brand is 100% potatos])

OR Chicken salad on flatbread

More involved lunches are:

Rice and adzuki beans in a pilaf (sometimes sauteed with some veggies if I

feel like cutting them up: typically carrots and chives)

OR Lentil soup with onions and garlic (I used to make my lentil soup plain

until reccomended the onions and garlic, WOW what a difference! I

cook the onions and garlic in about a half a stick of butter before pureeing

them and adding them to the soup.)

Dinner includes a low-alcohol (around 3%) mineral rich dark beer, or

two (homebrew if I have it, guiness draught if I don't) with:

Small fatty beef steak (cooked so the fat is soft, not crisp) with large

amounts of broth or gravy

with Mashed potatos made with butter and cream (Usually homemade but

occasionally instant. I'm known to toss at least half a stick of butter in

a servings worth since I like them stiff like butter when they get cold) and

Boiled cabbage

OR 1/2 cornish hen (occasionally chicken or turkey, but I much prefer hen)

with large amounts of broth or gravy with Baked potatos with sour cream and

chives and Brussel Sprouts or some other green veggie (like asparagus, green

beans, etc)

OR Soup/Broth with added cream and grain (rice or barley, usually, but

sometimes pasta - I really like the new Barilla plus which has a blend of

lentils, chickpeas and other things added to the wheat), or flatbread for

dipping

If I'm still hungry after dinner, I drink some cream or half-and-half.

Occasionally I'll have some vanilla ice cream or a milkshake, but I prefer

that homemade since I don't like high fructose corn syrup.

-Lana

On 3/12/07, April Streeter <april.streeter@...> wrote:

>

> Dear Lana:

>

> Could you help those of us out - like me ;-) who need everything spelled

> out so literally. Do you think you could give a hint of what you eat over

> a

> typical three-day spread to meet the adequate calories/adequate nutrients

> goals?

>

> Thanks very much.

>

[Guest guest]

On 12 Mar 2007 07:51:14 -0700, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...>wrote:

> Simple sugars require more effort for the body to process because they must

> be processed immediately.

It is moot, because vegetables and fruits are both predominantly

simple sugars (except starchy vegetables like potatoes). Starch

requires an enormous expenditure of resources for digestion, whereas

the simple sugars in fruits and vegetables do not require any

digestion. Glucose produces a quick rise in blood sugar, but fruit

ranges from half to predominantly fructose, which produces a slow rise

in blood sugar and is about 40% converted to triglycderides before it

ever reaches the blood.

> With complex carbs, the body has more of a choice

> as to how much to absorb because amalayse is required for their breakdown

> into simple sugars.

Which constitutes " processing. "

I'm not sure how you figrue there is much of a choice -- if the body

were really to slow down amylase production in order to prevent

breakdown, the bacteria and yeasts would just get to them faster.

Anyway, fiber slows down release of simple sugars in fruits and

veggies, and fat can slow them additionally, were it required for some

reason.

>Complex carbs are like a time-release sugar. Simple

> sugars in small amounts are not bad, but when the bulk of your vegetable

> foods are simple sugars, you can end up causing a nutrient imbalance.

A typical fruit has something like 10 grams of sugar. You'd have to

eat an awful lot of them to supply your caloric need for the day and

the level of fruit that most people would eat would be a pretty

minimal portion of total calories.

> If I

> recall correctly, it has something to do with chromium and germanium and the

> insulin system. I'm not on my home computer right now so I don't have

> access to my bookmarks. I may have a printout with me: I'll dig through the

> files I brought along.

And you think consuming fruit puts more stress requiring a higher

insulin output than consuming starch? I'd like to see some evidence

of that. I suspect the glycemic index of a potato is higher than that

of a pear.

> I didn't realize a good deal of vegetables were simple sugars? Potatos and

> other roots, grains, and legumes are all complex carbs. These are the

> vegetable foods that I personally equate to health.

Usually when someone says " vegetable " they're talking about leaves and

stalks. Roots are vegetables too, but I would never call a grain or

even a legume a " vegetable. "

> Just look at the irish

> with their oats and the swiss with their rye.

Right. Those are grains, not vegetables. Look at all the African

cattle herding tribes with all of their bananas.

> Crucifers are great,

> especially cabbage, but they don't have nearly the amounts of carbs found in

> fruits.

Great is relative. They are, unlike fruit, high in thyroid-depressing

toxins. They are less carbohydrate-dense per volume of food, but

their carbohydrate contents are roughly equally sugar-based.

> If you're consuming full fat milk, cheese, grains, legumes,

> meat (preferably shellfish, fish eggs, broth and organ meats), starchy

> roots and crucifers, what else would you truly need?

I didn't say you needed fruit, but you don't need crucifers either, so

I'm curious why you are singling out fruit as unncessary.

Milk, by the way, is rich in simple sugars.

> That's a good point, but if you're looking for bioavailability, wouldn't

> meats be a better choice?

I didn't say they wouldn't, but you single out fruits as unnecessary

and negative and gave your full approval to vegetables.

Most people are more willing to eat something like a banana raw than

meat raw, which is important for some nutrients like B6, which rivals

meat in bananas and is much more bioavailable in bananas than

crucifers. Carotenoids are much more bioavailable as vitamin A from

fruits than veggies, and some fruits like pumpkins can be an important

source. Liver is a much better source, but muscle meat is vastly

inferior to pumpkins.

> That's also a good point. It is all about balance in the end. But simple

> sugars in large amounts just arn't good for anyone, so if you want nutrients

> available in fruits, you're probably better off with complex carbs or meats,

> depending on how bioavailable you need them to be.

What is your evidence that too much fruit is harmful for people who

eat diets rich in fruit?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 3/12/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Carotenoids are much more bioavailable as vitamin A from

> fruits than veggies, and some fruits like pumpkins can be an important

> source. Liver is a much better source, but muscle meat is vastly

> inferior to pumpkins.

Actually I should have mentioned palm oil as far and away the best

plant source of provitamin A, which is derived from the fruit of the

oil palm. And of course coconut is a fruit and is by far and away the

best source of lauric acid, animal foods included.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I forgot to mention some of my other favorites, which I don't eat daily, but

often enough to get mentioned:

Boiled or simmered liver smashed and spread on flatbread

Liver and onions

Sauteed yellow squash and zucchini sticks

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Hi Lana,

You wrote:

>

> I forgot to mention some of my other favorites, which I don't eat

daily, but

> often enough to get mentioned:

>

> Boiled or simmered liver

I have some good grassfed beef liver in the freezer, and having never

eaten or prepared liver before, I'm curious how long to simmer it for.

I don't care much for onions but I know they're a traditional

complement for liver, do you think they would make it more palatable,

or that maybe something in onions works synergistically with liver? I

don't mind them cooked, but I have adrenal fatigue and have read that

onions and garlic are not good for people with this problem.

I have a strong distaste for blood - I eat raw ground red meat but

have to force it down because any hint of blood repulses me. I suspect

I may have some heavy metal problems (I have many amalgams), or an

imbalance of zinc/copper/iron (or one or the other) and that that may

be the reason for my distaste, because I want to eat the meat, I don't

object psychologically to it, but my mouth does and I want to listen

to my body and try to understand why I am having such a hard time

eating meat. I have many health problems that could affect this,

including very impaired digestion (for which I take betaine HCL and a

pancreatin/digestive enzyme blend, as well as bromelain) and probable

fatty liver. I don't know if it's protein aversion or what...

I welcome suggestions from anyone about these things, by the way

Anywho, I digress.

I would love to know how to prepare the liver. Also, I don't want to

cook the whole liver at once, because it will just sit in the fridge

and I can't eat that much (and probably won't want to, never having

had it before), but I'm wary of thawing and then refreezing. I'm

planning to thaw just enough to slice off a small bit and then toss

the rest back in the freezer.

Does this seem sensible?

Last time (which was the first time) I ate organ meat it was a whole

beef heart that I overcooked and turned to rubber.

Thank you for any advice you may have!

sincerely,

~Kyra

[Guest guest]

Ok so now fruits are useless? Sometimes I get so perturbed about all

the contradictions! I fully agree that fruits should be eaten

minimally or in moderation but c'mon---fruits are no good? Please!

>

> Too much of any good thing can be bad. The fact is humans have

omnivorous

> teeth and they need a bit of both meats and veggies to obtain

adequate

> nutrition. However, IMHO, most people overdo the meat and/or

veggies. As

> for fruits: I honestly have a hard time believing anyone " needs "

fruits,

> since they're mostly simple sugars and there is very little they

offer that

> you can't get from vegetables (aside from the additional

palatability).

>

[Guest guest]

On what are you basing your claim that vegetables are predominantly

simple sugars? Vegetables are predominantly cellulose/fiber by dry

weight, not sugar. Cellulose is technically a carbohydrate but is only

digestible by certain colon bacteria, and I suspect they work far too

slowly to produce any kind of blood sugar spike.

> A typical fruit has something like 10 grams of sugar. You'd have to

> eat an awful lot of them to supply your caloric need for the day and

> the level of fruit that most people would eat would be a pretty

> minimal portion of total calories.

A large raw banana has about 17g of sugars and about 10g of

polysaccharides/starch. A slightly larger serving of raw broccoli has

3g of sugars and 3g of polysaccharides/starch. I think that's a pretty

typical comparison of a modern fruit to a modern green vegetable. It's

pretty clear to me that fruits overall have much higher CHO content

than non-starchy veggies. In my example it's about fivefold more by

weight.

> > Crucifers are great,

> > especially cabbage, but they don't have nearly the amounts of

carbs found in

> > fruits.

>

> Great is relative. They are, unlike fruit, high in thyroid-depressing

> toxins. They are less carbohydrate-dense per volume of food, but

> their carbohydrate contents are roughly equally sugar-based.

That's why you process some vegetables, in the traditional sense of

the word " process " . Goitrogens in Brassicas such as cabbage can be

eliminated by fermentation (e.g. saurkraut). And again about the

relative carbohydrate content, so what if many veggies have similar

ratios of sugar to total CHO as fruits. What matters most is CHO density.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> On what are you basing your claim that vegetables are predominantly

> simple sugars? Vegetables are predominantly cellulose/fiber by dry

> weight, not sugar. Cellulose is technically a carbohydrate but is only

> digestible by certain colon bacteria, and I suspect they work far too

> slowly to produce any kind of blood sugar spike.

I'm referring to the usable carbohydrate, not the dry weight.

> A large raw banana has about 17g of sugars and about 10g of

> polysaccharides/starch.

Yes, bananas have more sugar than a lot of other fruits.

> > Great is relative. They are, unlike fruit, high in thyroid-depressing

> > toxins. They are less carbohydrate-dense per volume of food, but

> > their carbohydrate contents are roughly equally sugar-based.

> That's why you process some vegetables, in the traditional sense of

> the word " process " . Goitrogens in Brassicas such as cabbage can be

> eliminated by fermentation (e.g. saurkraut).

I'd like to see some evidence of this. The only study I've looked at

so far showed that there was near complete conversion of

glucosinolates to isothiocyanates during sauerkraut fermentation,

which are the active goitrogens (or, rather, liberators of thiocyanate

ion, which is goitrogenic, that must be formed before absorption to

have the goitrogenic effect). In other words, I believe that

sauerkraut is more goitrogenic than raw cabbage.

Cooking can reduce bioavailability of goitrogens to about 30%, though

it depends on individual intestinal flora.

> And again about the

> relative carbohydrate content, so what if many veggies have similar

> ratios of sugar to total CHO as fruits. What matters most is CHO density.

Had Lana said that fruits were more carbohydrate-dense, then

carbohydrate density would matter, but I was responding to her

statement that they were high in simple sugars whereas vegetables were

high in complex carbohydrates.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> That's why you process some vegetables, in the traditional sense of

> the word " process " . Goitrogens in Brassicas such as cabbage can be

> eliminated by fermentation (e.g. saurkraut). And again about the

> relative carbohydrate content, so what if many veggies have similar

> ratios of sugar to total CHO as fruits. What matters most is CHO

density.

That's what I was thinking too. Starches are highly carb dense

(complex or not, they turn to sugar in the body). And there is way

more to vegetables than carbs; like water, vitamins and minerals.

Honestly, fruit isn't such an evil thing imho, eaten seasonally as it

is available in the summer, along with a generous dose of outside

exercise.

More on the importance of brassicas:

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/natural_protection.html

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

Cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, bok

choy, Brussels sprouts and cabbage contain a substance called

indole-3-carbinol (I3C) which is activated and liberated when the

vegetables are crushed in a wet environment, that is, when they are

chewed, chopped or pounded. In the presence of stomach acid, I3C

combines with itself to form DIM (di-indollyl methane). DIM induces

certain P-450 enzymes in the liver to block the production of the

toxic 16-OH estrogens and enhance the production of the beneficial

2-OH forms.

Studies have demonstrated that DIM reduces the incidence of

fibrocystic breast disease, cervical dysplasia, endometriosis and

prostate enlargement. In fact, the 2-OH form is not only benign but

also enhances the process of apoptosis, the spontaneous death of

damaged and cancerous cells. DIM also acts as an active surveillance

for cancer cells. This is very exciting and while there is much to

learn and more to say, I can state with assurance that this

phyto-nutrient may be one of the most important protective substances

of this new century.

It is very important to eat cruciferous vegetables every day for

protection against diseases that may be induced by exposure to

environmental estrogens. As raw cruciferous vegetables contain

goitrogens, it is best to eat them fermented, because fermentation

neutralizes these thyroid-depressing substances. (Cooking also

neutralizes the goitrogens, but also deactivates I3C.) In fact, low

rates of breast cancer in Polish women have been attributed to their

daily consumption of sauerkraut. (Science News 9/23/00)

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

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 13 Mar 2007 06:44:58 -0700, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> That's what I was thinking too. Starches are highly carb dense

> (complex or not, they turn to sugar in the body). And there is way

> more to vegetables than carbs; like water, vitamins and minerals.

The same is true of starches (legumes, roots, tubers, grains) and fruits.

> Honestly, fruit isn't such an evil thing imho, eaten seasonally as it

> is available in the summer, along with a generous dose of outside

> exercise.

Many vegetables are only available seasonally at many latitudes as well.

> It is very important to eat cruciferous vegetables every day for

> protection against diseases that may be induced by exposure to

> environmental estrogens. As raw cruciferous vegetables contain

> goitrogens, it is best to eat them fermented, because fermentation

> neutralizes these thyroid-depressing substances. (Cooking also

> neutralizes the goitrogens, but also deactivates I3C.) In fact, low

> rates of breast cancer in Polish women have been attributed to their

> daily consumption of sauerkraut. (Science News 9/23/00)

Really. Since there's no citation for this, could someone please

provide some evidence for the ubiquitous and ubiquitously unreferenced

claim that fermentation neutralizes the goitrogens?

And is anyone going to admit that the goitrogens and anti-cancer

compounds are essentially the same thing?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Just a note: I hadn't realized squashes were technically fruits, as I've

always regarded them from the accepted culinary perspective of a vegetable,

since they are higher in starch. Apparently anything that grows from a

flower is a fruit, so that would include a number of foods that are

considered vegetables by the culinary standards. In light of the botanical

definition being used in lieu of the culinary, I'd like to revise my

statement to say that I don't personally think simple sugars (from fruits OR

vegetables) should be considered a nessicary component of reaching your

calorie goals. However, I don't see a problem with using them to meet your

nutritional goals, or to increase the palatability of foods you would

otherwise not desire, or to help with food combining. I am not saying fruit

is bad, I am just saying that this new-fangled concept of fruit is an

important part of your calorie intake is bad, especially when there are

other foods that will do the same job nutritionally. Fats should be your

main source of calories, and it doesn't matter where they come from as long

as you get enough saturated fats.

> I'm curious why you are singling out fruit as unncessary.

Not unnessicary, just not preferred for calorie purposes when other foods

are available.

> Usually when someone says " vegetable " they're talking about leaves and

> stalks. Roots are vegetables too, but I would never call a grain or

> even a legume a " vegetable. "

I see your point, I shouldn't have called it a vegetable. In this instance

we are debating plant vs. animal sources, so grains and legumes need to be

included in the debate, otherwise it would be unfairly skewed towards animal

products.

> A typical fruit has something like 10 grams of sugar. You'd have to

> eat an awful lot of them to supply your caloric need for the day and

> the level of fruit that most people would eat would be a pretty

> minimal portion of total calories.

Which is much more than your average vegetable. Fruit is also consumed in a

number of ways where it is concentrated, including prepared fruits such as

jams, sauces and juice. Most people eat large amounts of these foods

daily. Most people also don't stop eating fruit when it is out of season.

If you're eating fruit in the winter and you don't live in a nation that

imports foods, you are usually eating jams and sauces, which are much higher

in sugars due to their concentration. I guess if you avoid all of those

then yes, it would be very difficult to get a lot of calories from fruit

which would be the ideal circumstance.

> Look at all the African cattle herding tribes with all of their bananas.

Bananas were the first grain substitute for Celiacs, since they are

supposedly an equally good source of protein and starch. One cooking banana

has about as many calories as one potato. Bananas never used to be the

sweet things we get in the stores today.

> Most people are more willing to eat something like a banana raw than

> meat raw, which is important for some nutrients like B6, which rivals

> meat in bananas and is much more bioavailable in bananas than

> crucifers.

Just because people are spoilt nowadays doesn't mean that the food is the

issue... But I do see your point. I personally think rare/raw meat tastes

much better, so I've always eaten it that way.

> Anyway, fiber slows down release of simple sugars in fruits and

> veggies, and fat can slow them additionally, were it required for some

> reason.

That is a good point. Good food combining is excellent at compensating for

the shortcomings of any one food. However, the typical person doesn't think

about food combining when they eat.

> Milk, by the way, is rich in simple sugars.

Yes, but back to the food combining idea it is very rich in fats which cause

the simple sugars to absorb more slowly. This would be compromised by the

modern habit of removing part of the fat of the milk, and is one of the

reasons why full fat milk is important.

> I'm not sure how you figrue there is much of a choice -- if the body

> were really to slow down amylase production in order to prevent

> breakdown, the bacteria and yeasts would just get to them faster.

My overall point is that fat is one of the best things to get your calories

from. So in the context of that, there would be less starch than if someone

were relying on starch for calorie content.

This brings back some more references to food combining: there are a number

of anti-fermentative properties in legumes which prevent this issue, thus

making a second reason for the grain/legume pairing, in addition to the

standard cited reason of a whole protein.

Another thing to consider is that you do have to feed your bacteria

something, otherwise they'll all die off and you'll be left hanging. Simple

sugars are absorbed by the intestine before they can contribute to bacterial

growth. This is why the SCD is " effective " in removing intestinal yeasts,

in addition to all the good bacteria.

You need to have a diverse balance of bacteria in your gut, which means you

can't overdo anything without possible reprocussions. For instance, if you

eat too much protein, you may end up with an excess of amine producers in

your gut, which would invite in amine eaters such as E Coli. This occurs

just as easily as an overconsumption of starch which can invite in yeasts

and cause candida flare-ups.

> And you think consuming fruit puts more stress requiring a higher

> insulin output than consuming starch? I'd like to see some evidence

> of that. I suspect the glycemic index of a potato is higher than that

> of a pear.

Glycemic index is only a measure of how fast a food raises blood sugar out

of the " normal " range, not how much it raises it. It is a better indicator

of how fast the food is processed by the digestive tract than of its overall

stress on the blood sugar regulation system. GI can be regulated by

consumption of fiber and/or fat.

Glycemic load, the " correction " to this issue is a little better, being

the glycemic index multiplied by the available carbs, but it still doesn't

accurately reflect how much the blood sugar has risen. IMHO, both

measurements are pretty worthless. If you're that worried about how fast

your sugar is rising, you should be eating more fiber and fat.

What it comes down to is that while some starches will get to your blood

faster (mostly due to a lack of fiber or fat), the majority of their sugar

content is not released all at once. IMHO, the GI people were close - but

it isn't the abrupt rise that is the issue, it is the abruptness (and the

depth of the fall) that occurs after simple sugar consumption. Think of it

like a traffic light. Complex carbs have three phases: green, yellow and

red. Whereas simple carbs have two: green and red. Your brakes would wear

out much faster if there was no yellow light. The more contant the source

of sugar (such as in a complex carb), the less chance of reactive

hypoglycemia (which occurs when the body has too much insulin left over, as

if the brakes on production of it had become worn out). Having reactive

hypoglycemia too often due to excessive insulin production (due to excessive

blood sugar dropping sharply) can easily cause insulin resistance.

> Glucose produces a quick rise in blood sugar, but fruit

> ranges from half to predominantly fructose, which produces a slow rise

> in blood sugar and is about 40% converted to triglycderides before it

> ever reaches the blood.

Fructose is not directly processed by insulin. It must be processed first

by the liver. That's why it takes longer for it to spike blood sugar. But

once again, the issue is how much sugar is risen, not how fast.

" Fructose also chelates <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation> minerals in

the blood. This effect is especially important with micronutrients such as

copper <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper>,

chromium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium>and

zinc <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc>. Since these solutes are normally

present in small quantities, chelation of small numbers of ions may lead to

deficiency diseases, immune

system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system>impairment and even

insulin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin> resistance, a component of

type II diabetes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes> (Higdon).

" The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar, "

says Meira Field, Ph.D., a research chemist at the

USDA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture>,

in the Fall 2001 issue of the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price

Foundation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation>, " but

every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be

metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet

looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. " This

is not entirely true as certain other tissues do use fructose directly,

notably the cells of the intestine, and sperm cells (for which fructose is

the main energy source). " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose)

-Lana

[Guest guest]

>

> April,

>

> I'm still not perfect at it, but this is what I've been doing

recently (any

> tips or comments would be appreciated)...

Lana,

Comment: how delicious it all reads. The beer is an especially nice

touch. I hope you're achieving some desired weight gain and feeling well?

B.

[Guest guest]

On 3/13/07, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Just a note: I hadn't realized squashes were technically fruits, as I've

> always regarded them from the accepted culinary perspective of a vegetable,

> since they are higher in starch.

Bananas are starchy too, especially the pre-19th century banana which

was much more starchy than it was sugary. The definition of a fruit

is basically something fleshy derived from the ovary that contains

seeds.

But then again " it depends whether you are using the biological

definition or the cultural definition of a vegetable " a scientist told

me over the weekend in defense of Reagan's consideration of

ketchup as a vegetable.

> Apparently anything that grows from a

> flower is a fruit, so that would include a number of foods that are

> considered vegetables by the culinary standards. In light of the botanical

> definition being used in lieu of the culinary, I'd like to revise my

> statement to say that I don't personally think simple sugars (from fruits OR

> vegetables) should be considered a nessicary component of reaching your

> calorie goals.

Of course not; neither should starches. Carbohydrates are essentially

unnecessary, which is why some groups like the Inuit have survived on

very low-carb diets.

>However, I don't see a problem with using them to meet your

> nutritional goals, or to increase the palatability of foods you would

> otherwise not desire, or to help with food combining.

I agree.

>I am not saying fruit

> is bad, I am just saying that this new-fangled concept of fruit is an

> important part of your calorie intake is bad, especially when there are

> other foods that will do the same job nutritionally.

New-fangled? Our closest evolutionary relatives eat enormous amounts

of fruit, the environment that formed the context of our evolution has

very high fruit availability, and many of the groups Price studied

used consierable amounts of fruit. The most common plant supplement

to the diets of African cattle-herders, for example, was the banana.

And of course the Africans that used mostly plant foods also used

bananas.

What about the new-fangled concept that one should eat crucifers every

day? Where is the traditional basis for this concept?

> Fats should be your

> main source of calories, and it doesn't matter where they come from as long

> as you get enough saturated fats.

I think fats are a healthy source of calories but I don't see where

there is good evidence that carbohydrates did not form important parts

of many traditional diets. The Swiss that Price studied obtained 50%

of their calories from grains.

The body has no need for dietary saturated fats because it can make

them itself. One could argue that it is better to obtain lauric acid,

which we don't synthesize, but it isn't an essential nutrient.

You don't think it matters whether one eats loads of PUFA so long as

one meets some minimum (supposed) requirement for saturated fats? So

one could live off 50% butter and 50% corn oil for fat? Eating PUFA

is going to affect your SFA:PUFA ratio (something you want to be high)

much more than not eating SFA. If the body gets PUFA, it can't

saturated it. But if the body gets carbs, it can make SFA really

easily. So it seems more critical not to OD on PUFA than to eat SFA,

because whatever PUFA we eat we're stuck with.

> > A typical fruit has something like 10 grams of sugar. You'd have to

> > eat an awful lot of them to supply your caloric need for the day and

> > the level of fruit that most people would eat would be a pretty

> > minimal portion of total calories.

> Which is much more than your average vegetable.

Right, on a per weight and to a lesser extent per calorie basis but I

was meaning on a per usable carbohydrate basis, as you seemed to be

differentiating between simple sugar-rich fruits and complex carb-rich

vegetables.

> Fruit is also consumed in a

> number of ways where it is concentrated, including prepared fruits such as

> jams, sauces and juice.

And people juice vegetables and concentrate them too, but obviously

one can eat both fruits and vegetables as whole foods.

> Most people eat large amounts of these foods

> daily.

All of the surveys continually show that most people do not meet the

government recommendations for " 5 a day, " whatever the merits of those

recommendations.

> Most people also don't stop eating fruit when it is out of season.

Most people do not stop eating vegetables when they are out of season.

> If you're eating fruit in the winter and you don't live in a nation that

> imports foods, you are usually eating jams and sauces, which are much higher

> in sugars due to their concentration.

A nation that doesn't import food? Where is this nation? Where do

these people get jams and sauces if they aren't imported? Which one

of us lives in a nation that imports jams but not whole fruits when

they are out of season?

> I guess if you avoid all of those

> then yes, it would be very difficult to get a lot of calories from fruit

> which would be the ideal circumstance.

I'm sure there are traditional tropical diets that actually do get a

considerable amount of calories from fruit. But are they less healthy

for it? I agree that getting the majority of your calories from jams

and syrups is bad, but why you would critciize this to stick to your

point that " fruit " is unnecessary and potentially dangerous I don't

quite understand.

I mean obviously the person who started this thread, on this list

where we all agree that eating whole foods and traditional foods is

the way to go, whether one should eat jelly or meat. And usually

" produce " refers to fresh fruits and vegetables. If you go tot he

" produce " section of a grocery store, you usually find fresh fruits

and vegetables, and you usually find jams in one of the aisles with

all the other canned, boxed and processed foods.

> > Look at all the African cattle herding tribes with all of their bananas.

> Bananas were the first grain substitute for Celiacs, since they are

> supposedly an equally good source of protein and starch. One cooking banana

> has about as many calories as one potato. Bananas never used to be the

> sweet things we get in the stores today.

That's true, though it's true of virtually all plant foods available

and to a lesser degree animal foods. The original bananas were, of

course, tiny and practically inedible. I'm not thoroughly familiar

with the evolution of the banana but it's been bred since it was first

eaten to have a higher content of starch and sugar and a lower seed

content, as well as a larger flesh. There is no " modern " versus

" traditional " banana, but rather a spectrum from inedible wild bananas

to the modern bananas. The question, I guess, is what the banana of

the healthy Africans Price studied in the 1930s looked like.

Regardless, the modern banana is a good source of a number of

nutrients, most notably, in my opinion, B6, which has excellent

bioavailability in bananas and pathetic bioavailability in crucifers,

and is present in the banana to a degree that rivals meats, and

bananas are most easily consumed raw by most people (B6 is converted

into anti-B6 by cooking). I don't think they're essential to health,

but they could make an important nutritional contribution, and I'm not

sure I see a compelling reason why I should consider 17 grams of sugar

from a banana to be anywhere near as toxic as the thyroid-depressing

toxins in the crucifers you are extolling.

> > Anyway, fiber slows down release of simple sugars in fruits and

> > veggies, and fat can slow them additionally, were it required for some

> > reason.

> That is a good point. Good food combining is excellent at compensating for

> the shortcomings of any one food. However, the typical person doesn't think

> about food combining when they eat.

I don't know if it is necessarily wise anyway, to eat fruit with fat,

which increases teh absorption of salicylates. I guess what I'd want

to see is what the traditional precedent for fruit consumption is.

With or without fat?

> > Milk, by the way, is rich in simple sugars.

> Yes, but back to the food combining idea it is very rich in fats which cause

> the simple sugars to absorb more slowly. This would be compromised by the

> modern habit of removing part of the fat of the milk, and is one of the

> reasons why full fat milk is important.

Maybe, though there are much better reasons why full-fat milk is

important, like the nutritional value of the fat itself and the

fat-soluble vitamins.

> > I'm not sure how you figrue there is much of a choice -- if the body

> > were really to slow down amylase production in order to prevent

> > breakdown, the bacteria and yeasts would just get to them faster.

> My overall point is that fat is one of the best things to get your calories

> from. So in the context of that, there would be less starch than if someone

> were relying on starch for calorie content.

You were comparing starch to simple sugars -- that was the point of

there being a " choice " about how much amylase to produce and how

quickly to absorb the carbohydrate.

> This brings back some more references to food combining: there are a number

> of anti-fermentative properties in legumes which prevent this issue, thus

> making a second reason for the grain/legume pairing, in addition to the

> standard cited reason of a whole protein.

Interesting, though I thought the grain/legume pairing was a modern

idea about how to get complete protein on a vegetarian diet.

> Another thing to consider is that you do have to feed your bacteria

> something, otherwise they'll all die off and you'll be left hanging. Simple

> sugars are absorbed by the intestine before they can contribute to bacterial

> growth. This is why the SCD is " effective " in removing intestinal yeasts,

> in addition to all the good bacteria.

Starches are absorbed in the small intestine as well. Only

non-digestible fibers can contribute to colonic bacterial populations.

The best source being root vegetables I believe. And, of course, fat

does not feed colonic bacteria at all.

> You need to have a diverse balance of bacteria in your gut, which means you

> can't overdo anything without possible reprocussions. For instance, if you

> eat too much protein, you may end up with an excess of amine producers in

> your gut, which would invite in amine eaters such as E Coli.

You should be digesting the protein into amino acids, not amines,

which should be absorbed fairly early in the intestines. I think the

concern would be amine-producers, not amine-consumers, but I still

don't see how eating too much protein per se would cause you to have

an increased amount of amine-formers. It seems like a stretch to me.

> This occurs

> just as easily as an overconsumption of starch which can invite in yeasts

> and cause candida flare-ups.

I question whether consuming too much starch is the actual cause of

yeast overgrowth. Do rural Chinese have this problem like Americans

do? Do the Japanese on their rice-based diet? Do the Australian

Aborigines on their starchy (and inulin-rich) root vegetable-rich

diets?

> > And you think consuming fruit puts more stress requiring a higher

> > insulin output than consuming starch? I'd like to see some evidence

> > of that. I suspect the glycemic index of a potato is higher than that

> > of a pear.

> Glycemic index is only a measure of how fast a food raises blood sugar out

> of the " normal " range, not how much it raises it. It is a better indicator

> of how fast the food is processed by the digestive tract than of its overall

> stress on the blood sugar regulation system. GI can be regulated by

> consumption of fiber and/or fat.

Let me rephrase: I supsect that a potato would cause a much sharper

and quicker rise in blood sugar than a pear, because a pear is mostly

fructose, which does not raise blood sugar quickly, and a potato is

mostly starch, which is digested into glucose, which does raise blood

sugar quickly.

> What it comes down to is that while some starches will get to your blood

> faster (mostly due to a lack of fiber or fat), the majority of their sugar

> content is not released all at once.

None at all of the fructose in fruit is released directly into the

blood stream. It stays in the liver and is partially released as

glucose over a longer time period and about 40% of it is converted

into fat before it ever reaches the blood.

> Complex carbs have three phases: green, yellow and

> red. Whereas simple carbs have two: green and red. Your brakes would wear

> out much faster if there was no yellow light.

Then fruit must have four?

> The more contant the source

> of sugar (such as in a complex carb), the less chance of reactive

> hypoglycemia (which occurs when the body has too much insulin left over, as

> if the brakes on production of it had become worn out). Having reactive

> hypoglycemia too often due to excessive insulin production (due to excessive

> blood sugar dropping sharply) can easily cause insulin resistance.

I don't think the science on this is as clear-cut as you are making it

out to be. My sense is that the general thrust of the research is

towards the idea that there is a deficiency in phase I insulin output,

which is derived from stored insulin, and that this causes an excess

output of phase II insulin, which is made in response to the meal, and

that the inability to properly recuperate insulin stores or store the

insulin that is made for this purpose is the driving force of reactive

hypoglycemia. Either way, I don't think any theory is quite

solidified at this point.

> > Glucose produces a quick rise in blood sugar, but fruit

> > ranges from half to predominantly fructose, which produces a slow rise

> > in blood sugar and is about 40% converted to triglycderides before it

> > ever reaches the blood.

> Fructose is not directly processed by insulin. It must be processed first

> by the liver. That's why it takes longer for it to spike blood sugar. But

> once again, the issue is how much sugar is risen, not how fast.

Then fructose raises blood sugar LESS because only about 60% of it is

converted into glucose.

> " Fructose also chelates <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation> minerals in

> the blood. This effect is especially important with micronutrients such as

> copper <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper>,

> chromium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium>and

> zinc <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc>. Since these solutes are normally

> present in small quantities, chelation of small numbers of ions may lead to

> deficiency diseases, immune

> system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system>impairment and even

> insulin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin> resistance, a component of

> type II diabetes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes> (Higdon).

Do you have any evidence that eating fruit significantly alters blood

fructose levels?

> " The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar, "

> says Meira Field, Ph.D., a research chemist at the

> USDA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture>,

> in the Fall 2001 issue of the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price

> Foundation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation>, " but

> every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be

> metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet

> looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. " This

> is not entirely true as certain other tissues do use fructose directly,

> notably the cells of the intestine, and sperm cells (for which fructose is

> the main energy source). " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose)

And when you eat ketogenically, nearly all of the fat you are fueling

your muscles and brain with is being converted by the liver into

ketones, because the liver is where you make your ketones -- pretty

similar.

Show me a study where rats develop fatty liver from a high-FRUIT diet

and we'll be getting somewhere.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 13 Mar 2007 06:44:58 -0700, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> More on the importance of brassicas:

>

> http://www.westonaprice.org/women/natural_protection.html

> ------------------------

> Cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, bok

> choy, Brussels sprouts and cabbage contain a substance called

> indole-3-carbinol (I3C) which is activated and liberated when the

> vegetables are crushed in a wet environment, that is, when they are

> chewed, chopped or pounded. In the presence of stomach acid, I3C

> combines with itself to form DIM (di-indollyl methane). DIM induces

> certain P-450 enzymes in the liver to block the production of the

> toxic 16-OH estrogens and enhance the production of the beneficial

> 2-OH forms.

[...]

> It is very important to eat cruciferous vegetables every day for

> protection against diseases that may be induced by exposure to

> environmental estrogens.

Submitted in April, 2000, and published in July of 2001, right in the

same timeframe as the article you cite, this is what a comprehensive

review on the biodiversity of glucosinolates in plants published in

the journal Phytochemistry had to say on the subject:

" The isothiocyanates formed from indole glucosinolates are unstable,

and decompose spontaneously to indole-3-carbinol, indole-acetonitrile,

thiocyanate ions and 3,3'-diindolylmethane. Indole-3-carbinol may

then spontaneously condense under the acid conditions of the stoamch

to form compounds that closely resemble

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, or dioxin) in structure,

toxicity and carcinogenicity (Bjeldanes et al., 1991). Despite this

toxicity, indole glucosinolate metabolites, in particular

indole-3-carbinol, have been investigated for thier potential as

cancer chemoprotective agents (e.g. Bradlow et al., 1991; Coll et al.

1997). For more detailed treatment of the potentially carcinogenic

and anticarcinogenic dual nature of these compounds see Kim et al.

(1997) and reviews by Broadbent and Broadbendt (1998 a, , Fenwick et

al. (1983), McDanell et al. (1988), et al. (1997) and Stoewsand

(1995). "

Funny how the author above doesn't seem to mention the other side of the coin.

I wonder if the crucifer-promoters can produce a study showing that it

is safe to eat one or two servings of crucifers everyday without

increasing the risk of thyroid cancer.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

>

> I wonder if the crucifer-promoters can produce a study showing that it

> is safe to eat one or two servings of crucifers everyday without

> increasing the risk of thyroid cancer.

>

I'll bite -- it's spring break here and deathly quiet.

Safety, tolerance, and metabolism of broccoli sprout glucosinolates

and isothiocyanates: A clinical phase I study

NUTRITION AND CANCER-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 55 (1): 53-62 2006

In this clinical trial (rather, what I can glean from the abstract),

they used broccoli sprout extracts to deliver glucosinolate

glucoraphin or isothiocyanate sulforaphane. This is a teeny tiny

study - 3 cohorts, each comprised of 3 test individuals and a control

(placebo). 5-day crucifer-free diet, then 7 days receiving the

extract, every 8 hours (21 doses). Subjects monitored throughout and

then 3 days following the end of the trial. If there were abnormal

results, then they either missed those tests (32 types of hematology/

chemistry tests - before, during and after - to assess liver and

thyroid function) or just didn't report the results. " No significant

or consistent subjective or objective abnormal events (toxicities)

associated with any of the sprout extract ingestions were observed. "

- 7 days is probably too short to demonstrate the activity of

goitrogens (are they cumulative?);

- perhaps the compounds are not in sprouts but rather in mature plants.

This is the only article that appears in ISIKnowledge on a search of

" crucifer and thyroid and cancer " .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16965241 & query_hl=2 & i

tool=pubmed_docsum

-jennifer

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> I'll bite -- it's spring break here and deathly quiet.

> In this clinical trial (rather, what I can glean from the abstract),

I'd encourage you to read the study, since I already have it and it

convinced me that broccoli sprouts are the last thing I'll ever lay my

teeth on.

> they used broccoli sprout extracts to deliver glucosinolate

> glucoraphin or isothiocyanate sulforaphane. This is a teeny tiny

> study - 3 cohorts, each comprised of 3 test individuals and a control

> (placebo). 5-day crucifer-free diet, then 7 days receiving the

> extract, every 8 hours (21 doses). Subjects monitored throughout and

> then 3 days following the end of the trial. If there were abnormal

> results, then they either missed those tests (32 types of hematology/

> chemistry tests - before, during and after - to assess liver and

> thyroid function) or just didn't report the results. " No significant

> or consistent subjective or objective abnormal events (toxicities)

> associated with any of the sprout extract ingestions were observed. "

Actually what they observed was in this extremely short time period 11

out of 12 people had their TSH shot through the roof by these sprouts,

right to the edge bordering clinical hypothyroidism. They are beyond

what Dr. Rind would consider hypothyroid and vastly beyond what Ray

Peat would consider hypothyroid, and the conclusion of this study was

NOT that broccoli sprouts are safe for everyone to eat, but that they

are safe enough that they can ethically conduct long-term trials.

> - 7 days is probably too short to demonstrate the activity of

> goitrogens (are they cumulative?);

> - perhaps the compounds are not in sprouts but rather in mature plants.

You'd think so, until you read this study!

> This is the only article that appears in ISIKnowledge on a search of

> " crucifer and thyroid and cancer " .

I just read a meta-analysis recently of epidemiological studies, and

the pooled results indicated no relationship, but the single study

whose " high consumption " group was eating them daily showed a 56%

increased risk in thyroid cancer with more than 8.5 servings per week.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I will use the common approach for fruits and vegetable segregation:

fruits are sweet and found in the fruit aisle of the farm market.

Veggies are greens, peppers, squashes, nightshades alliums, and all

that other jazz.

> > more to vegetables than carbs; like water, vitamins and minerals.

>

> The same is true of starches (legumes, roots, tubers, grains) and

fruits.

Yes, but the starches are generally way more calorie dense per

nutrient. This might be good for some people, but as age sets in, one

generally needs more nutrients per calorie. And fruits are just fun

vegetables of the summer (in the US anyway), afaic.

> Many vegetables are only available seasonally at many latitudes as well.

Quite true. In my area, vegetables like greens and tomatoes and

things can grow in spring, then again after one hell of a summer in

fall. I don't think even strawberries can do that.

Regardless, native peoples have been preserving vegetables by

fermenting them for ages. However, fruit ferments have a shelf life

of only a month or two due to molds taking hold. Thus, I think it is

safe to say that vegetables are more storage friendly than fruits.

This may be why natives dry/freeze fruits rather than fermenting them

long term.

>

> > It is very important to eat cruciferous vegetables every day for

> > protection against diseases that may be induced by exposure to

> > environmental estrogens. As raw cruciferous vegetables contain

> > goitrogens, it is best to eat them fermented, because fermentation

> > neutralizes these thyroid-depressing substances. (Cooking also

> > neutralizes the goitrogens, but also deactivates I3C.) In fact, low

> > rates of breast cancer in Polish women have been attributed to their

> > daily consumption of sauerkraut. (Science News 9/23/00)

>

> Really. Since there's no citation for this, could someone please

> provide some evidence for the ubiquitous and ubiquitously unreferenced

> claim that fermentation neutralizes the goitrogens?

>

> And is anyone going to admit that the goitrogens and anti-cancer

> compounds are essentially the same thing?

I swear, I read Tom's post, replied to him, then read your post

on references. There is no other easy way to read and write on

's NN website. But besides that, the WAPF website states

fermentation neutralizes goitrogens, ergo it must be true <:-P

But hey, what exactly are the goitrogenic compounds to begin with? I

think that is where the references should start flowing in. IOW, the

burden of proof should rest first on the idea that certain food

compounds are indeed goitrogenic and how they operate to suppress

thyroid function. Once that is firmly established, then we can

proceed to the question of how these alleged compounds might be

inactivated through either iodine supplementation and/or other

processes like fermentation.

Deanna