Re: produce vs. animal foods

[Guest guest]

> 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.

Damn, you're good! The jury is still out though, it seems on those

compounds. I agree that the WAPF better cite what articles they

peddle, else I won't renew my membership like a zombie every year!

And it is THAT time of year after all. Sheesh, the piece I quoted was

written by som MD too.

Deanna

PS. You go after those cruciferous vegetables like they crucified

Somebody! I would agree that they are probably overblown in American

culture, but then, so are boobs bwaa haaa!

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> 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.

Fair enough. And I will admit that coconut is technically a seed, not a fruit:

http://www.thaifoodandtravel.com/features/coconutis.html

> > > 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.

Certainly vegetables and fruits and starches have different

functionality in this respect and one should use them in proportions

that satisfy one's needs for calories and nutrients appropriately.

But the underlying principle, that the foods contain water, vitamins

and minerals, is true of all of them.

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

> 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.

The Inuit preserved berries in seal oil, and people in the tropics --

close to home for the species -- have year-round fruit availability.

> Thus, I think it is

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

Not all vegetables are stored though, and fermented vegetables are

generally not eaten in the same quantity as fresh ones.

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

> long term.

There's two more ways of preserving fruits.

> 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

Unfortunately as far as I can tell it is not.

> 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.

" Glucosinolate enzymic breakdown products known to be goitrogenic to

varying degrees, include OZT, isothiocyanates, and thiocyanate ion

(derived from indole glucosinolates). The goitrogenicity of the

latter is contingent on a low iodine status and the effect is

ameliorated by dietary iodine supplementation. The goitrogenic

effects of OZT and nitriles are irreversible and may be characterized

by decreased iodine trapping by the thyroid gland, increased thyroid

weight and reduced levels of circulating thyroid hormones. "

, et al., Glucosinolates in Crop Plants. Horticultural Reviews,

1997; 19: 165.

" The formation of plant-derived biomolecules during sauerkraut

fermentation was studied. . . . Glucosinolates were totally decomposed

in both fermentations during two weeks, and different types of

breakdown products were formed. Isothiocyanates, indole-3-carbinol,

goitrin, allyl cyanide, and nitriles were determined in the fermented

cabbage. Isothiocyanates and allyl cyanide were the predominant

breakdown products in both fermentations. Sulforaphane nitrile and

goitrin were found only in small quantities in the end products. "

Tolonen, et al. Plant-derived biomolecules in fermented cabbage.

Jounral of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 2002; 50(23): 6798-803.

The glucosinolates are the goitrogen precursors. What they break down

into depends on the specific glucosinolate, as well as the pH and

other factors. If you chew raw cabbage, the natural enzymes in the

plant will free isothiocyanate and other breakdown products from the

glucosinolates. If you cook the cabbage, you destroy the enzyme, but

not the glucosinolates, so a substantial portion of isothiocyanate and

other goitrogens is freed by intestinal flora. However, in sauerkraut

you basically free all of the potential isothiocyanate by

fermentation, leading to more or less full activation of the

goitrogenic potential, such that even cooking the sauerkraut couldn't

neutralize the goitrogens.

I have read conflicting information about whether isothiocyanate's

effect is dependent on iodine status or whether it is independently

goitrogenic. Apparently according to one article at low

concentrations it just competitively inhibits iodine uptake into the

thyroid and mammary gland, such that a corresponding increase in

iodine would counteract the effect, so it just increases your need for

iodine (although they get into your milk if you're breastfeeding,

increasing your baby's need for iodine too, despite lowering the

concentration of iodine in your miilk, which is why before the days of

iodized salt people got goiter where the cows were eating crucifers),

but at higher concentrations it has a secondary effect of decreasing

uptake of iodine into the thyroid. I'm still researching this so I

have a bit to learn and straighten out the different effects of the

different compounds and their concentrations.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> I agree that the WAPF better cite what articles they

> peddle, else I won't renew my membership like a zombie every year!

Do you think you might take more time in your busy day to properly

compose a sentence? You meant to say that the WAPF should only

publish referenced works on their site, like the ones Mr. Masterjohn

produces, such as:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-d-safety.html

and unlike those emotional anecdotal drivels on breastfeeding that the

current president still saggingly displays, such as:

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/saga.html

Big difference in the quality and quantity of useful information, imho.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> snip quote from:

> , et al., Glucosinolates in Crop Plants. Horticultural Reviews,

> 1997; 19: 165.

>

> Snip quote from:

> Tolonen, et al. Plant-derived biomolecules in fermented cabbage.

> Jounral of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 2002; 50(23): 6798-803.

>

> The glucosinolates are the goitrogen precursors. What they break down

> into depends on the specific glucosinolate, as well as the pH and

> other factors. If you chew raw cabbage, the natural enzymes in the

> plant will free isothiocyanate and other breakdown products from the

> glucosinolates. If you cook the cabbage, you destroy the enzyme, but

> not the glucosinolates, so a substantial portion of isothiocyanate and

> other goitrogens is freed by intestinal flora. However, in sauerkraut

> you basically free all of the potential isothiocyanate by

> fermentation, leading to more or less full activation of the

> goitrogenic potential, such that even cooking the sauerkraut couldn't

> neutralize the goitrogens.

Thanks for the lowdown. So big sauerkraut eaters should have big

necks? Where is the evidence of it though in populations eating a

scoop a day and more of fermented brassicas?

> I have read conflicting information about whether isothiocyanate's

> effect is dependent on iodine status or whether it is independently

> goitrogenic. Apparently according to one article at low

> concentrations it just competitively inhibits iodine uptake into the

> thyroid and mammary gland, such that a corresponding increase in

> iodine would counteract the effect, so it just increases your need for

> iodine (although they get into your milk if you're breastfeeding,

> increasing your baby's need for iodine too, despite lowering the

> concentration of iodine in your miilk, which is why before the days of

> iodized salt people got goiter where the cows were eating crucifers),

> but at higher concentrations it has a secondary effect of decreasing

> uptake of iodine into the thyroid. I'm still researching this so I

> have a bit to learn and straighten out the different effects of the

> different compounds and their concentrations.

Yeah, that's why we in the know eat mucho seaweed eh? Maybe it is

iodine as well as efa's which the people Dr. Price studied always

sought from seafoods. I have been looking into fermented seaweed

(maybe I will end up make it goitrogenic though? Gosh, I have no clue

as to sea plant species!). I made pickled kombu, but I don't think it

is at all tradtional, as it was not fermented. It was cooked and I

added honey, ginger, vinegar and tamari ... and did I tell you I

cooked it good? I will ask my Grandmaster on the morrow about the

fermentation of seaweed in his experience. I have eaten pickled

wakami in restaurants, but was it really pickled? And really who

cares if it is nutrient dense and anti-nutrient sparse?

Now we come back to the the big picture. This kind of exchange is why

I love you so much. You are passionate enough about these subjects

that you are willing to do the ground work and form some sound

conclusions that we might all learn from... WITHOUT, I might add,

claiming omniscience and becoming a subsequent nutrition guru (as

happens to many people whether or not they want such status). True

Blue Baby.

Thanks,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 13 Mar 2007 19:09:01 -0700, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the lowdown. So big sauerkraut eaters should have big

> necks?

That's the problem with the word " goitrogen. " I think the chance of

an American getting goiter from sauerkraut is pretty minimal, because

most of us have reasonable iodine intakes and few of us actually gorge

on high amounts of sauerkraut.

But I'm not concerned about *goiter.* I'm concerned about

hypothyroidism. I'm concerned about compensating for suboptimal

thyroid status with adrenal hormones, and subsequent adrenal

exhaustion. I'm concerned about the compound effects of mild

hypothyroidism and estrogen dominance. I'm concerned about mild

reductions in metabolism leading to significant reductions in

detoxification.

> Where is the evidence of it though in populations eating a

> scoop a day and more of fermented brassicas?

I have only begun researching so I'm not entirely sure what evidence

is out there. There is evidence that eating brassicas every day might

be associated with thyroid cancer as I already mentioned. There is

definitely epidemiological evidence linking goiter with

isothiocyanates from crucifers and cassava, but it's generally in

conjunction with low iodine intakes. I don't know of any studies (yet

anyway) where they've actually correlated TSH levels

(thyroid-stimulating hormone, an indicator of hypothyroidism) with

brassica intake or fermented brassica intake.

Of course my main beef here is not with sauerkraut but with the people

who falsely claim that fermenting cabbage into sauerkraut eliminates

the goitrogens.

By the way, NT says fermented veggies should be used as condiments

rather than main vegetable dishes.

> Yeah, that's why we in the know eat mucho seaweed eh? Maybe it is

> iodine as well as efa's which the people Dr. Price studied always

> sought from seafoods.

More like the iodine and many other trace minerals. Shellfish were

most prized, which are pretty low in fat.

> I have been looking into fermented seaweed

> (maybe I will end up make it goitrogenic though? Gosh, I have no clue

> as to sea plant species!).

I don't know whether they are goitrogenic or not.

> I made pickled kombu, but I don't think it

> is at all tradtional, as it was not fermented.

Seaweed has traditionally been fermented? Universally? Where did you

read that? (I didn't know one way or the other.)

> Now we come back to the the big picture. This kind of exchange is why

> I love you so much.

Thanks :-)

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

I was wondering the same thing as I steam these things and thought I

was helping to keep cancer at bay.

The last thing about goitrogens and anti-cancer compounds being the

same; It may have come from Dr. Lee's book " What Your Doctor May Not

Have Told You About Breast Cancer " . In it he pushes broccoli etc.

saying also that it is the woman who eats a lot of vegetables who

survives breast cancer.

So I ate huge amounts of raw goitrogens before I knew to steam them to

get rid of that stuff but read somewhere that cooking doesn't get rid

of all of it

I still eat them steamed about 3 times a week. Used to put them on top

of my rice or potatoes before discovered the stuff isn't gone but drips

down into the food below it, thus the purchase of a two part steamer.

I wish I knew the truth about things.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

>> 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?

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

Just in time. I was listening to Jerry Burnetti's tape about how he

beat cancer and IC3 was said to be good so I was going to start

fermenting cabbage again to get it.

Unclear as to whether the cancer causing agent is the same when just

cooked as opposed to fermented.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Despite this

> toxicity, indole glucosinolate metabolites, in particular

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

> cancer chemoprotective agents

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

Ok this is what I thought that cooking/fermenting a Brassicas veg

like cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower, etc would eliminate the

harmful effects of the goitrogens on the thyroid. I have mild issues

w/ my thyroid and I love broccoli and sauerkraut . I hope I'm not

doing more harm? Should I cut these foods out?

TIA

--- In , " Tom Jeanne " <tjeanne@...>

wrote:

>

> 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]

Oh my goodness, I was just about to start my broccoli sprouting again

because of what Jerry Burnetti said about them being so good. I'm so

confused.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> 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.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

I agree and it's too bad because I love broccoli sprouts....this may be why

I'm so low on iodine...

My favorite veggies are all bad: broccolli, cabbage, radishes, etc

I hope they don't find out salads are bad too.

> Oh my goodness, I was just about to start my broccoli sprouting again

> because of what Jerry Burnetti said about them being so good. I'm so

> confused.

>

> On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

>

>> 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.

> Parashis

> artpages@...

> zine:

> artpagesonline.com

>

> portfolio:

> http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

>

[Guest guest]

Don't even think it!

On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:51 AM, CHRISTINE TAYLOR wrote:

> I hope they don't find out salads are bad too.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks for asking. I'm up 17 lbs and going strong. Got my hair test back

and I'm pretty toxic, so I finally have a reason for being so ill. I'll be

seeing a new doc in April that specializes so I hope to be fit as a fiddle

in a few more months.

-Lana

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]

This is getting long - I'm going to reply to some parts in another post.

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.

Yes, because they were high-fat diets which supplied saturated fat in its

pure form instead of generating it from carbs.

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.

Yes, they used high-starch foods as a dietary suppliment, not a primary

calorie source.

I didn't see much about fruit at all in NAPD (at least not compared to

grains and shellfish) - is there somewhere else I should be reading?

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

> day? Where is the traditional basis for this concept?

I didn't say you should eat them daily, so I wouldn't know what to say to

argue a point I didn't make in the first place. I end up eating them about

once a week, if that, which is more than acceptable for goigotrogenic

worries.

> 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.

I didn't say carbs didn't form important parts of many traditional diets.

My main issue is that " carbs " are too often simple nowadays, instead of the

traditional complex carbs from grains and beans. 50% calories from fat, 50%

calories from grains and beans should meet your protein needs, so there is

really no need to eat for protein other than the occasional serving of meat

to get more BCAAs. I see people eating meat at each meal, when

traditionally, it was only eaten a few times a week.

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.

Ew, corn oil. No, I don't suggest anyone eats refined oils. Unlike some of

the WAP people, I don't believe oils isolated from their sources are good

for you. I believe in eating whole foods: dairy, fresh whole grains to

ensure the germ still has the appropriate fats, meats (like cornish hens

or marbled beef) and the occasional nuts and seeds.

It is difficult to over-eat PUFA if you're aiming for a high SFA. However,

avoidance of PUFA would do essentially the same thing, although you would

have to pay attention to your stearic:oleic ratio if you're not eating

specifically for SFA.

> 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.

I am differentiating between simple sugars and complex carbs in terms of how

much they contribute to overall calories. What is your logic in using a per

useable carb model for this comparison?

>

> 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.

A serving of fresh strawberries has far less fruit in it than a serving of

jam, yet they're both considered " one serving " . If it takes 3-4 servings of

strawberries to make 1 serving of jam, why isn't that serving of jam counted

as 3-4 servings of fruit? Tomato sauce is another good example. I

harvested well over 4 dozen tomatos from my garden last year and once they

were sauce, I only had two jars of tomato sauce. That makes somewhere near

6 tomatoes per " serving " of sauce. If we counted by what went into the

concentrated foods, people would easily meet/exceed the government

reccomendations.

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?

LOL! What an amusing inference: that jams must be imported too! They would

of course be homemade, by preserving the extra fruits that are available in

season, as was the tradition before importing everything. Sometimes these

foods are fermented instead of heat preserved, which solves the issue of

large amounts of simple sugars since you're feeding them to the microbes.

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.

Yes, but just because I buy them fresh doesn't mean I'm going to eat them

fresh. The entire concept of culinary " science " is to increase

palatability. I guess if you're a raw foodist you'd eat everything just

like you bought it in the produce department... But if you're saying just

because someone buys fresh fruit from the produce section they must be

eating it fresh - that makes no sense. Why wouldn't they cook it into

something more palatable?

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

> considerable amount of calories from fruit.

Which cultures, specifically? And are you counting coconut as a fruit or a

nut?

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.

Where did I say fruit was potentially dangerous? Last I checked, when one

thing is preferable to another doesn't make the first dangerous, bad, evil,

or in any way not edible.

My issue is with the simple sugar content of culinary fruits when they are

used to meet calorie goals. I'm not saying culinary fruit is dangerous,

just that the amount of sugar in it can be excessive, IF AND ONLY IF it is

used to satisfy calorie requirements. You pointed out that fruit isn't that

bad because it has fructose and I pointed out that fructose has its flaws

too. I don't understand why you are continuing to argue since you state

that you are not eating culinary fruit/simple sugars for the calories, and

as a result you would never consume enough fructose to cause an issue so the

data I posted doesn't apply. If for some reason someone thinks that

they need that much fruit for nutritional (not caloric reasons): fermenting

can take care of the sugar issue quite easily.

> 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.

My original statement which you are having such trouble with is: " 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). " and I

later added " or meats " .

Here's an example of what I mean: a single average banana has only

90 calories. A banana a day wouldn't cause an issue, and I never said it

would. However, if you were eating bananas instead of potatos to meet your

potassium requirement, it would matter, since you'd be eating something like

8-10 bananas a day (136-170 g of sugar) opposed to 3-5 potatos (with

skins). If you still wanted the fruit (or need it since your example is

someone who refuses to eat rare/raw meat), you could eat 3 potatos and 2

bananas and that reduces your sugar intake while allowing you to consume the

RDA of both B6 and potassium. The 3 potato/2 banana instance is preferable

to the 8-10 banana instance in terms of the amount of calories being

obtained from simple sugars. Just because you don't " need " to eat bananas

for potassium doesn't mean fruits are " unnessicary " , it just means that

potatos are preferable to bananas for that task. Does that make sense now?

Maybe it would make more sense if I rephraise it to: Where possible, get

your nutrients and calories from foods that are low in sugars.

Extolling crucifers? I think you're confusing me with someone else. I

didn't say " eat crucifers daily " . Actually, I put them at the end of my

list, which was ordered by importance. I include them for a few reasons,

including their sulfur content and their vitamin C content. I am in no way

saying " eat crucifers daily " . I placed roots above them which would include

other sulfur sources such as onions and garlic (which are technially " bulbs "

but they are roots of plants so I put them in the roots catagory).

> 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?

I'd like to see statistics for fiber, since there used to be more fiber in

fruits which may have been the natural protection against this issue.

Modern breeding practices are making it difficult to get foods that are

whole in the traditional sense since they're always changing them for larger

yields, sweeter products, etc.

Another thing to note is that bananas, one of the fruits in native

diets, are naturally low salicylate.

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.

Yes, and you pointed out about bacteria and yeasts. Their activity is

diminished in a number of ways - fat intake, fiber intake, etc. Thus why I

referenced food combining with beans (for fiber and other properties) to

prevent this issue.

> 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.

Grain/legume pairing has been happening traditionally for years. Just

because we have figured out modern reasons for it doesn't make it any less

traditional. When you look at the traditional combinations of rice and

lentils, rice and adzuki beans, corn and black beans, corn and lima beans,

etc it is obvious that there are a number of things the natives know about

food combining which we haven't put into science yet.

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.

No, fat does not, but it does have a cleansing effect which helps pull

toxins out of the intestines.

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?

The first two cultures are known to consume beans with their starches, so

they arn't a good example. As for the dynamics of starch and inulin, I

wouldn't be surprised if they skew the same way as beans and starch. What

is in question is the modern idea of consuming starch without beans or roots

and whether or not that causes gut issues. Even if it does, what is to say

it is the starch at fault and not modern food combining practices (or lack

of)?

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.

This statement still assumes that it is the speed in which blood sugar is

raised that is the problem. I have issue with that entire concept since the

amount the blood sugar is raised is just as important, if not more important

than the speed at which the sugar is raised.

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.

No, nothing is solidified. However, there is also no proof that says

reducing the speed in which blood sugar spikes is any healthier for a

diabetic than reducing the amount which the blood sugar spikes.

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.

Yes, but that is assuming that someone on a high-fat diet must also be on a

low-carb diet. I know most people reccomending a high fat diet do indeed

reccomend a low-carb and resultantly high-protein diet, but I don't believe

that much meat/protein is good for you. My belief is that a high-fat,

high-carb diet with as little protein as nessicary to meet your needs is

ideal - the best example of it is dairy and grains as seen in a good

number of Price's natives.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

>>I'd like to see statistics for fiber, since there used to be more

fiber in

fruits which may have been the natural protection against this issue.

Modern breeding practices are making it difficult to get foods that are

whole in the traditional sense since they're always changing them for

larger

yields, sweeter products, etc.

apples can't be bred in the usual sense; sweeter varieties have been

propagated and migrated to for thousands of years, and while it's true

that we've selected sports, like the wretched so-called delicious

varieties, for sweetness, the fiber contents are similar (for

same-sized fruit) between nonsweet varieties and sweet varieties; the

range of traditionally used bananas/plantains goes from mostly starch

to absurdly sugary with the usual american market type less sweet than

many; figs, dates, mangoes, papayas, pineapples and other

semi-tropical/tropical fruit haven't changed much (changes tend to be

in size and the ability of the fruit to ripen after picking, whereas

traditionally they are eaten tree-ripened at the peak of sweetness);

elderberries, currants, damson plums etc. haven't changed in thousands

of years; wild berries of various types are readily available frozen,

with blackberries and raspberries, both high-fiber, usually available

fresh. of the major market fruits only a few types of citrus and stone

fruit, as well as some types of blueberries, have undergone

significant breeding-induced increases in sweetness/decreases in fiber.

[Guest guest]

i have no hope of reading this entire thread, and have only one

question anyway:

how often can we safely eat yummy mashed cauliflower with garlic, raw

butter and cream?

i'd eat crucifers even if they were bad for me (like chocolate),

because for whatever reason they make me feel fantastic.

plus, i'm irish; it's a distinct possibility that daily consumption is

appropriate.

[Guest guest]

Please can anyone answer? I have asked a few questions and nobody ever

answers me. I was wondering about the sauerkraut. It says on the WAPF

site that fermenting the cabbage would eliminate the goitrogens, but a

few of you have sid that is NOT true. If it is not true then can we

get a correction to the WAPF site via Sally? I wanted to know b/c

currently I am eating sauerkraut but I have mild thyroid problems and

do not want to continue if I am doing harm? What about cooked

cauli/broccoli?

Thank you

<obsessively worrying>

--- In , " noelimama " <senerchia@...>

wrote:

>

> i have no hope of reading this entire thread, and have only one

> question anyway:

>

> how often can we safely eat yummy mashed cauliflower with garlic, raw

> butter and cream?

>

>

> i'd eat crucifers even if they were bad for me (like chocolate),

> because for whatever reason they make me feel fantastic.

>

> plus, i'm irish; it's a distinct possibility that daily consumption

is

> appropriate.

>

[Guest guest]

--- <horse4146@...> wrote:

> I was wondering about the sauerkraut. It says on

> the WAPF site that fermenting the cabbage would eliminate the

> goitrogens, but a few of you have sid that is NOT true. If it is not

> true then can we get a correction to the WAPF site via Sally? I

> wanted to know b/c currently I am eating sauerkraut but I have mild

> thyroid problems and do not want to continue if I am doing harm?

> What about cooked cauli/broccoli?

,

From what I've gathered reading this thread, it's probably not a good

idea to eat brassicas every day, but several times a week should be OK

for most people, as long as they are getting adequate iodine.

I'm in big trouble though. I ate sauerkraut and broccoli tonight

And I just had broccoli last night too. There goes my quota for the

week. But I just bought a jar of live sauerkraut at the farmers

market last Saturday to try, so I have to eat some more. One week of

over-doing it won't kill me hopefully

I looked for some kelp flakes at WF last week but couldn't find any in

bottles. They did have kelp " granules " in bins where you scoop your

own. I'm going to try some the next time I go.

WHF says " keep a container of kelp flakes on the dinner table and use

instead of table salt for seasoning foods " :

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice & dbid=135

Just googling kelp flakes turned up over 100,000 entries. This was

the top one:

http://www.shopnatural.com/html/11682.htm

It says: " Natural glutamates in kelp will enhance flavors and

tenderize high protein foods like beans. " I wonder if this is free

glumate, as in MSG?

Oh well, it's not good to eat too much kelp anyway, because a 1/3 cup

serving has 2114% of the RDA for iodine.

<nothing is perfect, or is that nirvana?>

[Guest guest]

Primitive people eat whatever they can to survive. And just like you and me they

have their preferences. And I think that humans in a natural state will chose

meat over most other foods for the bulk of their calories, if it's available.

Like Stefansson says in FOTL, " Carl Lumholtz reports,for instance, that when he

was with the tropical forest-dwelling natives of northern Australia they lived

mainly on animal food, and never ate anything of vegetal nature if flesh foods

were available. "

Stefansson also wrote of the Eskimos he studied that while they could have eaten

indigenous vegetables, they didn't consider it proper food. So I don't think

it's so much where they lived as much as the availability of animal food.

Diamond writes about this in Guns, Germs and Steel. His theory is that the

particular circumstances on a geographic region had an significant impact on how

a group progressed. The people of the middle east where lucky enough to have the

right combination of plants, animals and climate to produce energy dense foods.

They ushered in the Neolithic age. Where as the people of Africa, South America

and New Guinea didn't have the same resources and weren't as successful.

>

> > 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

>