Re: how much calcium do we really need?

[Guest guest]

If it is true that Ca neutralizes acids, then wouldn't calcium deficiency

contribute to / comppund your dd's intolerance of ferments? When I tried

to stop my calcium supplement, I ended up with a twitch below my eye, but

I was nursing a baby and a toddler at the time.

Desh

[Guest guest]

If the food is heavy for its size, it's usually higher in minerals,

relatively.

mike

[Guest guest]

Berardi's article is at

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/bases.htm

you probably won't be interested in the discussion of individual foods,

and comparing to earlier population groups, but he does talk about

research with a chronic low-grade acidosis for what it's worth.

As to the primitives and not many veg - there's the mineral issue and

didn't I read here somewhere that people cooked in a brackish water

(alkaline) and then of course the fermentation issue.

Connie

> > Have you read Berardi's " covering nutritional bases " ? It's got

> newer

> > research (2003, 2002)

>

>

> No...do you happen to have a link?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > I don't know but I don't think compatibility is the issue. I would

> > imagine the techniques Price used aren't practical for most of us (or

> > most people then). His techniques were probably " high end " and today's

> > techniques are probably " high end " as well and not practical for most

> > of us.

>

> They aren't practical for consumers to use, but they are essential to

> testing the hypothesis that nutrient quality has declined. Simply

> looking at today's databases and databases from Price's time is an

> almost meaningless comparison becuase different techniques are being

> used. We can't use today's methods on food in Price's time, but we

> can still use the methods from Price's time on today's foods.

>

> I'm sure that there is an average decline in nutrient density. But,

> comparing databases from now and then does not sufficiently

> demonstrate this, nor does it tell us how much of the observed gap is

> true decline.

I guess it depends on what methods we are talking about. Albrecht

demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt in his voluminous wok the

decline in nutrient density. Since he wrote the _Food is Fabricated

Soil Fertility_ chapter in NAPD it is reasonable to conclude that

Price used at least some of his methods and for sure approved of the

concept the title screams at us, i.e. the nutrient density of food is

simply going to be reflective of the quality of the soil.

If that thesis is true, and there has been a true decline in soil

quality (and there has), then it should logically follow there is

going to be a true decline in nutrient density. As the soil goes so

goes our food.

The Albrecht tests are still in use today, though, for what should be

obvious reasons, are not a part the mainstream in agriculture.

Nonetheless it is possible to compare data from then till now because

the same tools are still in use. I don't think that is really up for

grabs at the empirical level, although many in the establishment

" choke' on Albrecht.

Same goes for Reams. We have the charts from then and the same tools

in use today. When the brix charts say 15 and my farmer is getting 2

then that data is quite useful. And in the case of brix *we* can adopt

that for our own personal use.

However you are probably referring to my comment about the FDA values.

I don't know what they did then and now. ly I don't really

consider them a player as far as the remnant is concerned and think it

is not very helpful at all to depend on their data. Three WAPF

conventions ago Jerry Brunnetti had a fabulous chart in his

presentation quoting the intentions of I believe the first FDA

commissioner. It had *nothing* to do with health. Too much baggage to

sort through when it comes to the FDA. Too many political issues come

into play. The FDA was born out of politics and there is no reason to

think much has changed since then. The FDA needs to be abolished:

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

It would be much better if we had something for food that mirrors what

Underwriters Laboratories is for a myriad of products.

What Keeps Us Safe

http://tinyurl.com/npntk

Nevertheless, I do know that the values appear to be about 30% of what

they were when the FDA first started doing this kind of thing. I buy

that not because of the FDA, but because it mirrors the trends that

Albrecht, Reams, and others whose political agendas aren't much in

question have found in our food supply.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

>

> If it is true that Ca neutralizes acids, then wouldn't calcium

deficiency

> contribute to / comppund your dd's intolerance of ferments? When I

tried

> to stop my calcium supplement, I ended up with a twitch below my

eye, but

> I was nursing a baby and a toddler at the time.

>

> Desh

>

I don't see how--it's not the acidity of ferments that bothers her,

it's the amines.

[Guest guest]

,

> --- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> > Yes I realize that. I am wondering on what basis can you make such a

> > statement? I know what some folks are trying to do and say they are

> > doing but it doesn't seem to measure up, no matter the rhetoric.

> > Nutrient dense food is few and far between, even among those who

> > seek to optimize nutrition. The organic movement has been at it for

> > nearly 50 years, and even if you allow for modest increases in some

> > nutrients, it is nowhere near optimizing nutrition in food, although

> > you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric (or the price).

>

> ,

>

> I guess I have to believe that foods nowadays are at least adequate in

> nutrition on average,

Okay I will bite. Adequate in nutrition for what? Conferring immunity

from disease? Producing a high quality enjoyable life? Building

muscle? Increasing libido? If so what is the use of a list like this?

And why all the effort people seem to be making both regarding soil

and selection of foods?

> or how else could some people still live to be

> over 100?

Because nutrition isn't the only key to life extension. Not to mention

this isn't really the question at hand, nor really speaks to the issue

unless you have some data showing today's adequate nutrition regularly

produces centenarians.

> If today's foods are so much worse, than 100 years ago, I

> would think no one could live more than 60 or 70 years. That is

> obviously not the case.

It is a conundrum if you believe nutrition is the only key to life

extension. IMO, I do not think such is true. I also think life

extension and life quality can be separated out from each other. There

are many reasons a person living on less than an optimal diet might

live to a ripe old age. I think the issue is not so much what a

particular individual can do, but what happens in the aggregate. Such

data is far more useful to us in determining how we might eat and live

if we want to maximize our life spans and the quality of those life

spans. On the other hand, I see some life extensions principles that

are entirely at odds with the quality of life I want to live. I simply

do not want to live to 100+ if adhering to some of these principles is

the cost of doing so, and I think many people on this list would

agree. So in the end, even with " optimal nutrition " we still must make

some trade offs.

At any rate I think the effects of bad food can be mitigated by a

number of things ranging from hygiene to spirituality, and any number

of stops in between.

> And I don't believe that people who make it

> to 100 are just " lucky " or just have " good genetics " .

Some do actually. One reason I don't put much stock in junk fooder

arguments about people they know who lived to 100 or subsisting on

potato chips and twinkies, and then using that as a reason to eat

whatever they want, is precisely because of the issue of genetics.

Some people have stronger constitutions than others, and can withstand

more abuse than others. So age per se doesn't tell why they lived a

long life. Maybe with adequate nutrition grandpa would have lived even

longer, but then again maybe not.

Plus there are other factors outside of nutrition that may lead to

longer lifespans. Also I don't think the issue of lifespans among

Price's primitives has been adequately answered. I think it is a

" weak " point in his work and will have to be answered through other

sources, unless there is some hidden gems sitting in the archives in

California that have yet to see the light of day.

> While luck and

> genetics certainly do play a role, I suspect it is only a minor role.

> And I think people are reaching 100+ years these days DESPITE " modern

> medicine " , which is probably taking many years off of most people's lives.

Why this age 100 emphasis? It seems to have come out of nowhere. In

North America are there a lot of centenarians relative to the

population at large? Most of the centenarians I have read about smoke

and drink scotch or some other kind of liquor. Surely such activities

can't contribute to a healthy lifestyle.

> > > The brix technique does sound like a quick but possibly dirty way

> > > to make this kind of assessment, but most of us can't afford

> > > extremely expensive nutrient measurements.

> >

> > You probably mean using a refractometer. And yes it is a way for the

> > average person to assess something that they would have no other way

> > to determine. What makes you think measuring such is expensive? $40

> > and you are in business.

>

> I guess I didn't word that very well. I meant to say that the brix

> measurement by refractometer is very cheap, though much less

> informative, than very expensive detailed nutrient meausurements.

How so? If you understand the concept of high brix foods, and what

that means in terms of a particular food's mineral profile, and how

that reflects its overall nutrient profile, then it is very

informative. You stated in this thread that we couldn't avail

ourselves of expensive nutrient analysis, now I have pointed out to

you how that isn't necessary for determining nutrient density

accurately enough for everyday use, then you turn around and are

trying to say it is not informative enough.

On the contrary, it is informative enough to allow us to recognize

nutrient dense food when we find it, and for putting together a diet

that is a part of optimizing health. Is it exhaustive? No. Does it

point to a high presence of the other nutrient factors? Yes.

Exhaustive info would be a part of the conversation was talking

about, but at a practical level, given what brix indicates, it is not.

" We recognize, of course, that mineral composition is not the only

component of nutrition to be found in plants. It is the cheapest to

analyze and is the foundation of all the other nutritional components

of plants such as vitamins, amino acid profile, enzymes, sterols, and

essential oils among many others. Since all these components

contribute to the total dissolved solids we use the brix readings as

the general indicator of quality and the mineral composition as the

specific indicators of quality. "

: The Quest for Nutrient Density,

http://www.highbrixgardens.com/foods/quest.html

> wonder if it might be possible to shine a broad spectrum light on a

> food and measure the reflected intensity at key wavelengths to

> determine the some of the chemical composition?

I think you should head over and hang out on the brixtalk list for

awhile and maybe one of the Albrecht lists as well. No sense

reinventing the wheel and as Dr. Reams was fond of saying, " why guess

when you can know? "

> > > And as far as refined supplements are concerned, I think they

> > > should only be used for treating specific health problems when

> > > dietary changes do not seem to help.

> >

> > I'm sympathetic to what you are saying and I went back and forth on

> > the whole supplement issue for years *until* I started studying soil

> > fertility. While one might argue as to how to supplement, the state

> > of the food supply, at least in North America, is such that a person

> > who does not supplement in one way or another might need to hire a

> > different chef.

>

> I suspect there are plenty of centenarians who have never taken a

> supplement.

I suspect that is true as well but the more pertinent question is what

happens in the aggregate. By the way, I never mentioned anything about

refined supplements. That would carry this discussion in a different

direction. I don't even know what kind of supplement is/was

taking. I'm simply talking about supplementation in general.

> That's not to say that there might not be some benefit in

> some situations, but I don't think they are necessary routinely.

They are if your food is sub-optimal, whether or not you are sick *if*

optimizing your health is something you aspire too.

> The

> only exception I might make is high vitamin CLO, which I view as a

> nutrient dense food, but some may consider it to be a supplement.

Right, which is one reason I avoided entering into a debate on what

kind of supplements but rather just acknowledged the need for

supplementation given the inadequacy of our food supply, at least for

most of us.

/whose smoke and scotch comment above was very tongue-in-cheek :-)

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster> wrote:

> > I guess I have to believe that foods nowadays are at least

> > adequate in nutrition on average,

>

--- <slethnobotanist@...

> Adequate in nutrition for what?

> Conferring immunity from disease?

> Producing a high quality enjoyable life?

> Building muscle? Increasing libido?

Yes to all of these.

> If so what is the use of a list like this?

We still need to find the right foods, prepared them the right way,

and eat them in the right combination to optimize nutrition and

immunity, and to promote an active, enjoyable, and long life.

> And why all the effort people seem to be making both regarding soil

> and selection of foods?

Some of us want good foods from good soils - certainly everyone on

this list. However, unfortunately, the vast majority of people just

don't seem to care. Perhaps many of these people believe they can

take their supplements as insurance and not have to worry about having

an optimum diet. I now believe that is a poor choice, even though

this is what I used to do for many years

> > or how else could some people still live to be over 100?

>

> Because nutrition isn't the only key to life extension.

Certainly not. But it is a minimum requirement. You aren't likely to

live to 100 on poor nutrition I don't think. And even if by some

miracle you do, you probably won't have a very enjoyable life along

the way with poor nutrition.

> Not to mention this isn't really the question at hand, nor really

> speaks to the issue unless you have some data showing today's

> adequate nutrition regularly produces centenarians.

Now you could legitimately argue that someone reaching 100 today was

born in 1907 and lived over half of their life before 1957, during

which time soils MAY not have been as depleted. On the other hand,

they have also lived half of their life since 1957, during which time

soils are supposedly more depleted.

My guess is that depleted soil is relative to how long the soil has

been used for agriculture and to the agricultural practices that have

been used on that soil. In some parts of the world, agriculture has

been in place for thousands of years - in the same fields. Is it only

in the last 50 years all of a sudden that we have soil depletion?

I agree factory farming has led to widespread reduction in soil

quality, but where better farming methods have been used for hundreds

or even thousands of years and are still being used, the soil quality

may still be good. And there should be ways to rectify damaged soil

from factory farming as well.

> > If today's foods are so much worse, than 100 years ago, I

> > would think no one could live more than 60 or 70 years. That is

> > obviously not the case.

>

> It is a conundrum if you believe nutrition is the only key to life

> extension. IMO, I do not think such is true.

I very much agree that nutrition is not the only key to longevity, but

I believe it is likely to be a prerequisite. Do you have any evidence

that people have lived to be 100 on nutritionally poor diets?

> I also think life extension and life quality can be separated out

> from each other.

I agree here as well.

> There are many reasons a person living on less than an optimal diet

> might live to a ripe old age.

I disagree here. Diet has to have good enough nutrition to help

someone live to a " ripe old age " . Unless you believe in miracles?

I'm going to be healthy and happy to 100 on faith alone?

Then there certainly would be no need for this list

I think this gets to the root of what an optimal diet is.

To me, an optimal diet is one that promotes well-being and longevity.

I expect that there is no single optimal diet for everyone.

More likely there are many optimal diets.

I do agree that there may be a diet that does not necessarily promote

well-being, but is adequate to survive to age 100. And many diets can

offer short-term well-being. It's the long-term well-being that is

more of a challenge.

> I think the issue is not so much what a particular individual can

> do, but what happens in the aggregate. Such data is far more useful

> to us in determining how we might eat and live if we want to

> maximize our life spans and the quality of those life spans.

> On the other hand, I see some life extensions principles that

> are entirely at odds with the quality of life I want to live. I

> simply do not want to live to 100+ if adhering to some of these

> principles is the cost of doing so, and I think many people on this

> list would agree. So in the end, even with " optimal nutrition " we

> still must make some trade offs.

Live fast, die young. I used to hear that a lot when I was young.

Funny how not many people my age ever say that much any more

I guess the ones who did are gone now.

> At any rate I think the effects of bad food can be mitigated by a

> number of things ranging from hygiene to spirituality, and any

> number of stops in between.

If we're talking adequate nutrition to reach a " ripe old age " , I

don't think the best hygiene or spirituality will make up for

inadequate nutrition. Humans can't live to a ripe old age on bread

and water alone. Granted, you might live longer on bread and water

with good hygiene and a good attitude, but I think it would be

difficult to subsist on such a meager diet for more than 20 or 30

years tops.

> > And I don't believe that people who make it

> > to 100 are just " lucky " or just have " good genetics " .

>

> Some do actually. One reason I don't put much stock in junk fooder

> arguments about people they know who lived to 100 or subsisting on

> potato chips and twinkies, and then using that as a reason to eat

> whatever they want, is precisely because of the issue of genetics.

> Some people have stronger constitutions than others, and can

> withstand more abuse than others. So age per se doesn't tell why

> they lived a long life. Maybe with adequate nutrition grandpa would

> have lived even longer, but then again maybe not.

That's quite true. But grandpa had ADEQUATE nutrition to reach the

age he reached. If it was INADEQUATE to live to that age, he wouldn't

have lived that long.

> Plus there are other factors outside of nutrition that may lead to

> longer lifespans.

I definitely agree with that - exercise, attitude, handling stress,

and just pure luck do play important roles in addition to nutrition.

> Also I don't think the issue of lifespans among

> Price's primitives has been adequately answered. I think it is a

> " weak " point in his work and will have to be answered through other

> sources, unless there is some hidden gems sitting in the archives in

> California that have yet to see the light of day.

Yes, I agree.

> Why this age 100 emphasis?

Because I hit 55 in a month and 70 is not a very appealing target

> In North America are there a lot of centenarians relative to the

> population at large?

Looking at the percentage of centenarians in a given population may

not tell us much unless immigration, birth rates, murder, suicide, and

war deaths are constant over time and from one geographical area to

another - which is obviously not likely to be the case. It might be

more meaningful to track the people born before a selected date in a

selected geographical area to see what percentage of those who did not

die from murder, suicide, or war reached a given age. And of greater

interest would be to have reliable information about diet, lifestyles,

and well-being of those people so that we can determine which of these

factors offer the best quality of life and longevity.

Aren't I the dreamer

> Most of the centenarians I have read about smoke and drink scotch or

> some other kind of liquor. Surely such activities can't contribute

> to a healthy lifestyle.

Yes, I remember a discussion about Burns

But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show that

they all have low fasting levels of insulin. I did a search today to

see if I could find such a study and here is the only one I found -

and it does confirm Dr Rosedale's assertion:

http://www.jpp.krakow.pl/journal/archive/1106_s6/pdf/55_1106_s6_article.pdf

And back to the original topic of how much calcium do we really need,

Dr Rosedale said this about calcium in his famous 1999 seminar about

insulin and it's metabolic effects:

" You take a bunch of calcium. The medical profession just assumes that

it has a homing device and it knows to go into your bone. What happens

if you have high levels of insulin and you take a bunch of calcium?

Number one, most of it is just going to go out in your urine. You

would be lucky if that were the case because that part that doesn't

does not have the instructions to go to your bone because the anabolic

hormones aren't working. "

http://www.joyfullivingservices.com/insulinanddisease.pdf

> If you understand the concept of high brix foods, and what

> that means in terms of a particular food's mineral profile, and how

> that reflects its overall nutrient profile, then it is very

> informative.

According to wikipedia:

" Degrees Brix (Bx) is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved

sucrose to water in a liquid. It is measured with a saccharimeter that

measures specific gravity of a liquid or more easily with a

refractometer. A 25 Bx solution is 25% (w/w), with 25 grams of sucrose

sugar per 100 grams of liquid. Or, to put it another way, there are 25

grams of sucrose sugar and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of

solution. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brix

From this definition, degrees brix by refractometer doesn't sound very

useful for determining nutrient status in a food, unless there is a

lot of scientific evidence to indicate a clear correlation. If there

is such, no one has put it in wikipedia yet.

<you could be the first>

Here's what wiki has to say about refractometer:

" A refractometer is an optical instrument that is used to determine

the refractive index of a substance or some physical property of a

substance that is directly related to its refractive index. Certain

types of refractometers can be used for measuring gases, liquids such

as oils or water-based, and even transparent or translucent solids

such as gemstones. A refractometer can be used to determine the

identity of an unknown substance based on its refractive index, to

assess the purity of a particular substance, or to determine the

concentration of one substance dissolved in another. Most commonly,

refractometers are used for measuring fluid concentrations such as the

sugar content (Brix level) or blood protein concentration, salinity &

specific gravity of urine in the medicine. For measuring sugar content

of carbonated beverages, fruits, juices, and or vegetables, etc.

Refractometers are also used for measuring fluid concentrations for

commercial liquids such as antifreeze, cutting fluid, and industrial

fluids. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractometer

I see nothing here about general nutrient status either. Are there

some scientific studies relating refractometer measurements to

nutrient status of various foods?

My guess is that taste may be a better guide.

But you may have to calibrate your taste buds first

[Guest guest]

The tape on iodine (one of 4 and don't remember which one) said Calcium

supps is a fast way to deplete iodine. Here's the url.

http://curezone.com/ig/f.asp?f=1723 This is main url for 4 audio mp3s

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=21728 Dr Blaylock

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=21730 Dr Flechas one hour

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=21726 Dr Flechas two hours

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=21729 Dr two hours

On Jul 12, 2007, at 11:35 AM, tarinya2 wrote:

> I'm debating about whether to continue my calcium supplement--I can't

> do any dairy other than ghee, and am pretty restricted in what foods I

> can eat in general due to my nursing toddler's food intolerances, so

> I'm not getting nearly the RDA of calcium in my diet. But...how

> accurate is the RDA, anyway? Do we really need as much calcium as is

> recommended? I get roughly 300-400 mg/day through diet--is that

> enough, or do I really need a calcium supplement?

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

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

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/07, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Price thought it was wrong, although I am to lazy at the moment to

> look it up, although I have quoted him on the issue several times.

If you are referring to acid/alkaline, his article is here:

http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/Acid_base_bal.htm

> Nonetheless, one really needs to define what they are talking about

> because there are very different conceptions as to what this issue is

> all about.

Quite a good point.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/07, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Same goes for Reams. We have the charts from then and the same tools

> in use today. When the brix charts say 15 and my farmer is getting 2

> then that data is quite useful. And in the case of brix *we* can adopt

> that for our own personal use.

That's true, but some articles compare government measurements of

specific nutrients, which is an at least partly flawed comparison.

> Nevertheless, I do know that the values appear to be about 30% of what

> they were when the FDA first started doing this kind of thing. I buy

> that not because of the FDA, but because it mirrors the trends that

> Albrecht, Reams, and others whose political agendas aren't much in

> question have found in our food supply.

Part of the change could be attributable to changing definitions of

the edible portion of the sample as well as changing techniques in the

case of the FDA. The issue can be addressed quite simply by using the

same methods for the originals as for the current samples. But, yes,

if people are independently using particular methods then and now,

that difference would obviate this complication.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show that

> they all have low fasting levels of insulin.

You are inadvertently hitting the nail on the head. While overt

nutritional deficiencies may wreck insulin metabolism, there are a

number of non-nutritional ways to reduce fasting insulin in the face

of what is presumably suboptimal nutrition. The most well studied is

fasting and caloric restriction. And these both reduce nutrition!

Chris

[Guest guest]

How about intermittent fasting like the Fast-5 Diet where you eat all your

calories within a

5 hour period? There is no calorie restriction so you would not be reducing

nutrition. This

is similar to the Warrior Diet but with Fast-5, you don't eat anything for 19

hours and then

eat for 5. here's a pdf about Fast-5:

http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

There are some regarding this type of fasting.

--- In , " Masterjohn "

<chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

>

> ,

>

> > But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show that

> > they all have low fasting levels of insulin.

>

> You are inadvertently hitting the nail on the head. While overt

> nutritional deficiencies may wreck insulin metabolism, there are a

> number of non-nutritional ways to reduce fasting insulin in the face

> of what is presumably suboptimal nutrition. The most well studied is

> fasting and caloric restriction. And these both reduce nutrition!

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

,

> > > I guess I have to believe that foods nowadays are at least

> > > adequate in nutrition on average,

> >

> --- <slethnobotanist@...

> > Adequate in nutrition for what?

> > Conferring immunity from disease?

> > Producing a high quality enjoyable life?

> > Building muscle? Increasing libido?

>

> Yes to all of these.

Then I must have been living in a cocoon all my adult life, especially

in regards to conferring immunity from disease. Here is what the WAPF

on Price says:

" When Dr. Price analyzed the foods used by isolated primitive peoples

he found that they provided at least four times the water soluble

vitamins, calcium and other minerals, and at least TEN times the fat

soluble vitamins from animal foods such as butter, fish eggs,

shellfish and organ meats. "

With the exception of seafood, does organics do that? Does it do it

within the framework of an average diet committed to organic foods?

I'm presuming you are not referring to conventionally grown foods as

being " adequate " but please correct me if I am wrong.

Now my understanding of what you are saying is that all one needs to

do is start eating these foods and the nutrition will be adequate to

confer immunity from disease, etc. no matter that it is from animals

feeding on low nutrient feed, water farmed or what have you as long as

they meet the USDA recommended nutrient levels..

Heck, one wonders why Price even bothered with the _Food is Fabricated

Soil Fertility_ chapter :-)

I'm starting to feel like Rip Van Winkle, except I fell asleep

sometime during the late twentieth century, only to wake up in the

21st century and wander into a seminar led by and Lana,

headlined " Price Was Wrong " , LOL!

> > If so what is the use of a list like this?

>

> We still need to find the right foods,

I thought they were already found and are adequate?

> prepared them the right way,

> and eat them in the right combination to optimize nutrition

what combo (s) is that?

> and

> immunity, and to promote an active, enjoyable, and long life.

Yes the right foods but that is where we differ. I think Jon

says it well at the end of his article I posted in another thread,

" The quest for nutrient density starts by asking the right question.

And that, in my

opinion, is " How much nutrition should produce contain in order to

confer the greatest benefit to those who consume it? "

I don't think most of what we find falls into the category of

conferring the greatest benefit, or even an adequate one, although the

human body has an amazing ability to adapt and survive. If the food

was adequate for conferring immunity as you affirm, it should also

presumably be adequate for restoring immunity, as it did for Price's

primitives, and many folks struggling with their health on this list

and others probably would be well by now.

> > And why all the effort people seem to be making both regarding soil

> > and selection of foods?

>

> Some of us want good foods from good soils - certainly everyone on

> this list. However, unfortunately, the vast majority of people just

> don't seem to care. Perhaps many of these people believe they can

> take their supplements as insurance and not have to worry about having

> an optimum diet. I now believe that is a poor choice, even though

> this is what I used to do for many years

It was just a rhetorical question, related to the question " adequate

nutrition for what? "

> > > or how else could some people still live to be over 100?

> >

> > Because nutrition isn't the only key to life extension.

>

> Certainly not. But it is a minimum requirement. You aren't likely to

> live to 100 on poor nutrition I don't think.

You are guessing here. If any number of things can mitigate the

effects of bad food, which do provide *some* nutrition, then you may

very likely be able to live a long life with less than optimal

nutrition.

> And even if by some

> miracle you do, you probably won't have a very enjoyable life along

> the way with poor nutrition.

You are guessing again. On a personal level, I have known and

currently know a number of people who, up until this conversation with

you, looked to me as if they were eating poorly, who are enjoying

their lives quite well.

> > Not to mention this isn't really the question at hand, nor really

> > speaks to the issue unless you have some data showing today's

> > adequate nutrition regularly produces centenarians.

>

> Now you could legitimately argue that someone reaching 100 today was

> born in 1907 and lived over half of their life before 1957, during

> which time soils MAY not have been as depleted. On the other hand,

> they have also lived half of their life since 1957, during which time

> soils are supposedly more depleted.

I could argue that but you can't do so legitimately since you have

already said that today's foods are adequate. In order for you to make

that argument you have to adopt my premises, which you have already

denied.

> My guess is that depleted soil is relative to how long the soil has

> been used for agriculture and to the agricultural practices that have

> been used on that soil.

Well yes of course that is one way the soils have been depleted,

especially in the US, but it is not the only way, and not all ways

are man made.

> In some parts of the world, agriculture has

> been in place for thousands of years - in the same fields. Is it only

> in the last 50 years all of a sudden that we have soil depletion?

No. There has been soil depletion in the past just like refined flours

and oils have been with us since at least the ancient Egyptians.

But yes industrialized agriculture has done a number on our soils here

in North America since its rise to prominence.

> I agree factory farming has led to widespread reduction in soil

> quality, but where better farming methods have been used for hundreds

> or even thousands of years and are still being used, the soil quality

> may still be good.

And where might that be? And do we have ready access to such food?

> And there should be ways to rectify damaged soil

> from factory farming as well.

Yes. I've given you several links devoted to that end.

> > > If today's foods are so much worse, than 100 years ago, I

> > > would think no one could live more than 60 or 70 years. That is

> > > obviously not the case.

> >

> > It is a conundrum if you believe nutrition is the only key to life

> > extension. IMO, I do not think such is true.

>

> I very much agree that nutrition is not the only key to longevity, but

> I believe it is likely to be a prerequisite.

In the sense we need some food, of course, but that doesn't answer the

question of how good or adequate the nutrition must be when viewed in

the light of other factors, at least as it pertains to longevity.

> Do you have any evidence

> that people have lived to be 100 on nutritionally poor diets?

What you seem to believe is adequate, I consider less than optimal. So

the answer is yes. Nevertheless, it is not my burden to show that. I

have deliberately left out any mention of age. Living to 100 is

something you injected into this discussion.

<snip>

> > There are many reasons a person living on less than an optimal diet

> > might live to a ripe old age.

>

> I disagree here. Diet has to have good enough nutrition to help

> someone live to a " ripe old age "

Yes but good enough doesn't mean optimal. It may not even mean

adequate. All food, even bad food, provides some nutrition, and we do

have examples of people living to ripe old ages on food that up till

this post I thought was poor.

..> Unless you believe in miracles?

I do, but that is not in play here :-)

> I'm going to be healthy and happy to 100 on faith alone?

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

> Then there certainly would be no need for this list

>

> I think this gets to the root of what an optimal diet is.

> To me, an optimal diet is one that promotes well-being and longevity.

> I expect that there is no single optimal diet for everyone.

> More likely there are many optimal diets.

Okay and who on this list would disagree with that? And how does this

advance our discussion?

> I do agree that there may be a diet that does not necessarily promote

> well-being, but is adequate to survive to age 100. And many diets can

> offer short-term well-being. It's the long-term well-being that is

> more of a challenge.

You sure you aren't Lana in disguise :-) You seem to be throwing a lot

of stuff at me that

1. I agree with

2. doesn't advance your argument

3. contradicts or at least doesn't really follow from something you said earlier

4. I agree with...wait, I already said that.

> > I think the issue is not so much what a particular individual can

> > do, but what happens in the aggregate. Such data is far more useful

> > to us in determining how we might eat and live if we want to

> > maximize our life spans and the quality of those life spans.

> > On the other hand, I see some life extensions principles that

> > are entirely at odds with the quality of life I want to live. I

> > simply do not want to live to 100+ if adhering to some of these

> > principles is the cost of doing so, and I think many people on this

> > list would agree. So in the end, even with " optimal nutrition " we

> > still must make some trade offs.

>

> Live fast, die young. I used to hear that a lot when I was young.

> Funny how not many people my age ever say that much any more

I'm not talking about living fast and dying young at all. I'm talking

about people who live to 130 living off dirt and termites, in a hut

out in the forest somewhere. Or someone whose diet is so exclusive

they can't enjoy the fellowship of family and friends. Or restrictive

diets that are never enjoyed, or always keep you hungry, or what have

you. It has got nothing to do with " live fast, die young. "

It is more like " live full since no matter what you do you are going

to die anyway. " Living full doesn't mean living stupidly or anything

like that, nor, IMO, does it mean taking extraordinary measures simply

for the purpose of extending your life a few years, relatively

speaking, and robbing those years of much enjoyment because of those

measures.

I first got serious about nutrition because I thought I was too young

and too athletic and had too much to live for to be having the

problems I was having. I didn't want my calling in life to be

undermined at the point of a fork. As much as I enjoy food that seemed

so mundane, so silly, so unnecessary.

Since I slowed down my participation on the lists, I have come to

conclude that I spend way too much time on the subject on a personal

level. Oh I want to read and write about it, teach others and learn

more myself but personally I don't want to always be caught up in it.

So I have really focused on developing my nutritional lifestyle in

such a way that it is no longer much of a big deal in my life. I do

what I need to do, enjoy my food and meals, and then get on with other

things.

I don't want every meal to suffer from paralysis by analysis. Nor do I

want to feel like the world is going to come to an end because last

night at Sister Sue's I ate something that doesn't quite fit into my

paradigm. Now if I *must* avoid a food at all costs for medical

reasons that is one thing. But otherwise that is not how I define a

quality life, *for me*. Others may see it differently.

<snip>

> > At any rate I think the effects of bad food can be mitigated by a

> > number of things ranging from hygiene to spirituality, and any

> > number of stops in between.

>

> If we're talking adequate nutrition to reach a " ripe old age " , I

> don't think the best hygiene or spirituality will make up for

> inadequate nutrition.

You're guessing :-)

> Humans can't live to a ripe old age on bread

> and water alone.

Depends on the bread :-)

And you are creating a straw man and we know how easy they are to tear down.

> Granted, you might live longer on bread and water

> with good hygiene and a good attitude, but I think it would be

> difficult to subsist on such a meager diet for more than 20 or 30

> years tops.

You are guessing again especially since I never mentioned such a diet.

On the other hand a bread made with coconut products and a host of

fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, etc., might do the trick depending on how

its prepared and put together.

And don't underestimate the value of hygiene to extend life spans

independent of diet. That has been demonstrated over and over again.

In my lifetime alone, and I'm younger than you, doctors just started

washing their hands when they went from patient to patient. When that

occurred, death rates in hospitals went down dramatically. Same for

the handling of refuse, for contagious diseases, etc. - a change in

how we have handled these things has extended lifespans relatively

recently. And this is not new, anymore than white flour is new, having

been written about as far back as the time of the ancient Hebrews.

IMO, life, health and longevity are more than the sum total of what

shows up on our plate.

> > Some do actually. One reason I don't put much stock in junk fooder

> > arguments about people they know who lived to 100 or subsisting on

> > potato chips and twinkies, and then using that as a reason to eat

> > whatever they want, is precisely because of the issue of genetics.

> > Some people have stronger constitutions than others, and can

> > withstand more abuse than others. So age per se doesn't tell why

> > they lived a long life. Maybe with adequate nutrition grandpa would

> > have lived even longer, but then again maybe not.

>

> That's quite true. But grandpa had ADEQUATE nutrition to reach the

> age he reached.

Somehow I don't think twinkies and potato chips count as adequate nutrition.

> If it was INADEQUATE to live to that age, he wouldn't

> have lived that long.

You are begging the question.

>

> > Plus there are other factors outside of nutrition that may lead to

> > longer lifespans.

>

> I definitely agree with that - exercise, attitude, handling stress,

> and just pure luck do play important roles in addition to nutrition.

Some have argued they play an even greater role. And IMO it is a

mistake not to take into account the entire lifestyle of the groups

Price studied.

<snip>

> But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show that

> they all have low fasting levels of insulin. I did a search today to

> see if I could find such a study and here is the only one I found -

> and it does confirm Dr Rosedale's assertion:

> http://www.jpp.krakow.pl/journal/archive/1106_s6/pdf/55_1106_s6_article.pdf

Well there you go. You just proved my point. I can think of two

activities that lower fasting levels of insulin, fasting and caloric

restriction. Both of them confer benefits even for folks on a SAD or

sub-optimal diet and now apparently life extension is another.

<snip>

> > If you understand the concept of high brix foods, and what

> > that means in terms of a particular food's mineral profile, and how

> > that reflects its overall nutrient profile, then it is very

> > informative.

>

> According to wikipedia:

> " Degrees Brix (Bx) is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved

> sucrose to water in a liquid.

<snip>

> From this definition, degrees brix by refractometer doesn't sound very

> useful for determining nutrient status in a food,

Well then, that settles it. I guess you will just have to be content

with your USDA determined adequate nutrition.

> unless there is a

> lot of scientific evidence to indicate a clear correlation. If there

> is such, no one has put it in wikipedia yet.

> <you could be the first>

If there was it would already be in Wikipedia, right?

Wikipedia on butter:

" According to USDA figures, one tablespoon of butter (14 grams)

contains 100 calories, all from fat, 11 grams of fat, of which 7 grams

are saturated fat, and 30 milligrams of cholesterol.[23] In other

words, butter consists mostly of saturated fat and is a significant

source of dietary cholesterol. For these reasons, butter has been

generally considered to be a contributor to health problems,

especially heart disease. "

Hmmmm....

> Here's what wiki has to say about refractometer:

<snip>

> I see nothing here about general nutrient status either.

And???

There is brix and apparent brix, but you will have to venture outside

of Wiki to discover that. Brix also has legitimate applications

depending on what it is being used for.

There is an easy way to tell what refractometers are measuring when

*agronomists* refer to brix. Measure sugar water and notice the

reading. Then measure plant sap and notice the reading. A test like

that makes it abundantly clear the difference between measuring just

sugar (which gives you a sharp line) and total dissolved solids, which

gives you a fuzzy line.

> Are there

> some scientific studies relating refractometer measurements to

> nutrient status of various foods?

As far as I know, not outside of the Reams camp (and by that I mean

those who follow his principles of agronomy), since he made the

correlation while running his own nutritional analysis lab or rather

agricultural engineering lab for nearly 40 years. What really startled

him and got the whole ball rolling on the agricultural side is that he

would see nutritional differences in the same food of 300% or more but

from different soils.

A basic of soil fertility which bears repeating: " An increase in brix is an

increase in carbohydrates and mineral density while a decrease in brix

is a decrease in carbohydrates and mineral density. "

Or when the sugar content of a plant rises, its uptake of calcium

rises, and with that the uptake of various other minerals rises.

This is true whether or not you think the brix theory has value for

human health. I heard Jerry Brunetti say this very thing (sugar

increases mineral status) at a WAPF conference then later on deny that

he believed in the brix theory as regards human health.

But if Brix measures carbohydrates (among other things), and an

increase in carbohydrates brings an increase in mineral density

(which it does), which then leads to an increase in other important

nutrients (which it does), then it would seem to follow that an

increase in brix would usually reflect an increase in a plant's

nutrient status.

As for actual soil studies, I can only refer you to Dan Skow's

Mainland Farming for the 21st Century

http://tinyurl.com/2w8uyh

and the Albrecht Papers, keeping in mind that Reams is different than

Albrecht, although IMO they are both necessary. Reams and his

followers anticipated and answered a number of (excellent) objections

that are made about Albrecht's work. You might even check out

Brunetti's website since he is presumably anti-brix but pro soil

fertility and a regular speaker at WAPF conventions. He even has an

interesting tape called Crop Sugars and Animal Health, or something

like that. Arden , a soil scientist and a doctor, may have

some good references as well.

> My guess is that taste may be a better guide.

> But you may have to calibrate your taste buds first

Well you inadvertently got it right. Once you taste high brix foods

then your tongue can be a good reference point. As is the weight of

the food for determining mineral density and some other factors.

This is one of those areas where I think the " Heidi principle " is

quite appropriate (named after someone who is no longer a part of this

list) meaning that is is pretty easy to test and judge for yourself.

You don't need to wait around until scientific studies somewhere take

up the gauntlet.

It is how the warrior diet thread got started on this list, one of the

longest running we ever had. I mentioned it in passing, Heidi tried

it, it worked for her, and away we went. Despite all the back and

forth on the list as to the validity of its principles, it was easy

enough to try and see if it worked for *you*. For many it did, for

others it didn't. Granted Brix would be more an objective thing, but I

think you get my point.

Anyway in answer to your original point way back when, I don't Suze is

cheating at all, LOL!

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

Yup, its a good way without a brixmeter to help determine the best in

a particular batch.

On 7/13/07, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> If the food is heavy for its size, it's usually higher in minerals,

> relatively.

>

> mike

[Guest guest]

> If you are referring to acid/alkaline, his article is here:

>

> http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/Acid_base_bal.htm

Thanks for the link. I was referring to some material from NAPD but

this is even better.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> > But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show that

> > they all have low fasting levels of insulin.

>

> You are inadvertently hitting the nail on the head. While overt

> nutritional deficiencies may wreck insulin metabolism, there are a

> number of non-nutritional ways to reduce fasting insulin in the face

> of what is presumably suboptimal nutrition. The most well studied is

> fasting and caloric restriction. And these both reduce nutrition!

Ah well. You stole my thunder :-(

Just kidding :-)

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 7/16/07, carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

> How about intermittent fasting like the Fast-5 Diet where you eat all your

calories within a

> 5 hour period?

I didn't read the second book from Ori Hoffmekler, author of the

Warrior Diet, but apparently the answer is yes. I presume you are

referring to insulin reduction.

> There is no calorie restriction so you would not be reducing nutrition.

The author says you end up eating less, which means unless you

judiciously adjust your choices there would be less nutrition assuming

you were eating the same foods.

In my own experience, I have found that even when I eat WD style these

days, I eat much less food.

Not always the case, for a while there when WD'ing I

was...oink...oink...porking away some *serious* food.

> This

> is similar to the Warrior Diet but with Fast-5, you don't eat anything for 19

hours and then

> eat for 5. here's a pdf about Fast-5:

> http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

Very similar. So much so that one might be forgiven for being cynical

if one thought the tweaks, which are key, were just enough to pass it

off as something different :-)

This diet fits well within the WD parameters, but in general Ori

doesn't recommend going all day just on liquids. I like it. His book

is very clear. It is how I do the warrior diet.

It seems though he is attributing the weight loss to a reduction in

calories which is different from the WD. But I didn't read the entire

book.

> There are some regarding this type of fasting.

Regarding this diet or intermittent fasting in general?

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 7/16/07, carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

> How about intermittent fasting like the Fast-5 Diet where you eat all your

calories within a

> 5 hour period?

The link you posted answers your question. For both insulin and

leptin, the levels drop to baseline and stay there well within the 19

hour period of not eating. It is faster for insulin than for leptin

but real nonethless.

> There is no calorie restriction so you would not be reducing nutrition.

This approach definitely supports caloric restriction, just not in a

forced manner. Ori emphasizes overeating, the good doctor definitely

does not!

Still though, me likes it. A lot.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

>

> > How about intermittent fasting like the Fast-5 Diet where you eat

all your calories within a

> > 5 hour period?

>

> The link you posted answers your question. For both insulin and

> leptin, the levels drop to baseline and stay there well within the 19

> hour period of not eating. It is faster for insulin than for leptin

> but real nonethless.

>

So something like this might be beneficial for healing without going

to lengths of doing a full (albeit with juices or coconut oil in my

cast) fast?

[Guest guest]

>

> Since I slowed down my participation on the lists, I have come to

> conclude that I spend way too much time on the subject on a

personal

> level. Oh I want to read and write about it, teach others and learn

> more myself but personally I don't want to always be caught up in

it.

> So I have really focused on developing my nutritional lifestyle in

> such a way that it is no longer much of a big deal in my life. I do

> what I need to do, enjoy my food and meals, and then get on with

other

> things.

>

> I don't want every meal to suffer from paralysis by analysis. Nor

do I

> want to feel like the world is going to come to an end because last

> night at Sister Sue's I ate something that doesn't quite fit into

my

> paradigm. Now if I *must* avoid a food at all costs for medical

> reasons that is one thing. But otherwise that is not how I define a

> quality life, *for me*. Others may see it differently.

I'm coming to this conclusion as well, or trying to. I've spent the

past year focusing on what foods/what diet (within the TF framework)

to eat to heal myself and my DD, and at some point I'm just going to

have to stop focusing on this, accept well enough, and live with the

minor health problems. I'm not sure it's worth obsessing over--

there's more to life than perfect physical health.

[Guest guest]

,

> " When Dr. Price analyzed the foods used by isolated primitive peoples

> he found that they provided at least four times the water soluble

> vitamins, calcium and other minerals, and at least TEN times the fat

> soluble vitamins from animal foods such as butter, fish eggs,

> shellfish and organ meats. "

> With the exception of seafood, does organics do that? Does it do it

> within the framework of an average diet committed to organic foods?

> I'm presuming you are not referring to conventionally grown foods as

> being " adequate " but please correct me if I am wrong.

Hewas comparing the minerals and vitamins to the diets of those same

groups after they modernized, which were based around vegetable oil,

refined flours and syrups. I don't think this has been quite captured

correctly by WAPF or PPNF literature on the subject. NAPD is

ambiguous but if you trace back the references it's clear that's what

he means. So the question has a faulty premise. He isn't saying for

a given food, their minerals were four times higher; he's saying the

minerals of their pre-modernization diet verusus their

post-modernization diet, which had qualitatively different foods.

That's not to discount the role of soil, but a huge portion of the

difference comes from foodstuff selection.

>And this is not new, anymore than white flour is new, having

> been written about as far back as the time of the ancient Hebrews.

> IMO, life, health and longevity are more than the sum total of what

> shows up on our plate.

I doubt, however (correct me if I'm wrong), that refined flour 3,000

years ago was anything like today's refined flour. They were refining

flour in America but the turn of the 19th century, but it was only

with the technology in the mid-19th century and then further

developments in the coming decades that was able to achieve a type of

refinement that even approached what we know today as white flour.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > " When Dr. Price analyzed the foods used by isolated primitive peoples

> > he found that they provided at least four times the water soluble

> > vitamins, calcium and other minerals, and at least TEN times the fat

> > soluble vitamins from animal foods such as butter, fish eggs,

> > shellfish and organ meats. "

>

> > With the exception of seafood, does organics do that? Does it do it

> > within the framework of an average diet committed to organic foods?

> > I'm presuming you are not referring to conventionally grown foods as

> > being " adequate " but please correct me if I am wrong.

>

> Hewas comparing the minerals and vitamins to the diets of those same

> groups after they modernized, which were based around vegetable oil,

> refined flours and syrups. I don't think this has been quite captured

> correctly by WAPF or PPNF literature on the subject. NAPD is

> ambiguous but if you trace back the references it's clear that's what

> he means. So the question has a faulty premise. He isn't saying for

> a given food, their minerals were four times higher; he's saying the

> minerals of their pre-modernization diet verusus their

> post-modernization diet, which had qualitatively different foods.

> That's not to discount the role of soil, but a huge portion of the

> difference comes from foodstuff selection.

Actually that is what I am referencing when I say " Does it do it

within the framework of an average diet committed to organic foods? " I

don't have any particular foodstuffs in mind just one overall diet

versus another.

Your comment is interesting. Do WAPF and PPNF really think of this in

terms of a particular item? I always took it as the overall diet,

regardless of how achieved but would probably include butter, organs,

etc.

> >And this is not new, anymore than white flour is new, having

> > been written about as far back as the time of the ancient Hebrews.

> > IMO, life, health and longevity are more than the sum total of what

> > shows up on our plate.

>

> I doubt, however (correct me if I'm wrong), that refined flour 3,000

> years ago was anything like today's refined flour. They were refining

> flour in America but the turn of the 19th century, but it was only

> with the technology in the mid-19th century and then further

> developments in the coming decades that was able to achieve a type of

> refinement that even approached what we know today as white flour.

If my information (and recall) is correct, they were refining flour

that involved seven stages and produced a refined product that even we

today don't have, which sounds as if its worse. Certainly produced the

same degenerative diseases we have today which were notably absent

among the Hebrews.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Now my understanding of what you are saying is that all one needs to

> do is start eating these foods and the nutrition will be adequate to

> confer immunity from disease, etc. no matter that it is from animals

> feeding on low nutrient feed, water farmed or what have you as long

> as they meet the USDA recommended nutrient levels.

,

From what I see of average nutrient measurements in typical

conventional foods, there does appear to be enough in the way of

nutrients to meet or exceed the currently recommended daily intakes if

careful food choices are made. From what I have read, most people

don't eat enough of the right kinds of foods to achieve many of the

recommended nutrient intakes. I believe inadequate nutrient intake

long-term is likely to increase the incidence of disease, although as

you have pointed out, there can be other mitigating lifestyle factors

that work against that increase. But there are also other factors

like exposure to toxins in food and environment that can further

accelerate that increase in disease.

I prefer to buy organic foods as much as possible, but I don't expect

that they are that much better for most nutrients that conventional

foods. However, I do hope that they at least are less contaminated

with toxic pesticides and antibiotics on average than conventional

foods, even though I don't believe this is a major health factor.

There were discussions on this list not long ago about the differences

in nutrient content between organic and conventional foods, and from

what I recall, the differences were not generally more than about 20

to 30 percent higher for organic foods for a few nutrients on average.

> Heck, one wonders why Price even bothered with the _Food is

> Fabricated Soil Fertility_ chapter :-)

Don't get me wrong, as I have said before, I would like to see a lot

more effort directed at sustainable agriculture, rather than the

dominant paradigm of artificial fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides,

and GMO's with emphasis on quantity and not quality.

> " The quest for nutrient density starts by asking the right

> question. " And that, in my opinion, is " How much nutrition should

> produce contain in order to confer the greatest benefit to those who

> consume it? "

>

> I don't think most of what we find falls into the category of

> conferring the greatest benefit, or even an adequate one, although

> the human body has an amazing ability to adapt and survive. If the

> food was adequate for conferring immunity as you affirm, it should

> also presumably be adequate for restoring immunity, as it did for

> Price's primitives, and many folks struggling with their health on

> this list and others probably would be well by now.

I agree that most foods that we can easily obtain probably do not fall

into the category of conferring the greatest benefit. I do believe

these foods exist, such as the strawberries that raved about not

long ago, but they are difficult to find consistently. But I also

doubt that our ancestors always had an abundant supply of foods in

this category either. We now have much more variety available than

our ancestors ever had and this may be one of those mitigating

factors. We can eat food year-round that our ancestors only had

seasonally. And unless you are living in poverty, most of us on this

list can choose from a huge variety of foods - way more than what was

typically available even 100 years ago.

> > You aren't likely to live to 100 on poor nutrition I don't think.

>

> You are guessing here. If any number of things can mitigate the

> effects of bad food, which do provide *some* nutrition, then you may

> very likely be able to live a long life with less than optimal

> nutrition.

Apparently *some* nutrition is all it takes. Maybe the nutrient

guidelines are too high, since most people don't meet them and I

suspect that includes most centenarians.

> On a personal level, I have known and currently know a number of

> people who, up until this conversation with you, looked to me as if

> they were eating poorly, who are enjoying their lives quite well.

That was me, when I was in college

But eating poorly will eventually catch up to you!

> > My guess is that depleted soil is relative to how long the soil

> > has been used for agriculture and to the agricultural practices

> > that have been used on that soil.

>

> Well yes of course that is one way the soils have been depleted,

> especially in the US, but it is not the only way, and not all ways

> are man made.

Yes I agree. I'm sure there were huge variations in soil quality from

one area to another even before there were any humans to be concerned

about it

> > I very much agree that nutrition is not the only key to longevity,

> > but I believe it is likely to be a prerequisite.

>

> In the sense we need some food, of course, but that doesn't answer

> the question of how good or adequate the nutrition must be when

> viewed in the light of other factors, at least as it pertains to

> longevity.

Yes, but if most centenarians don't meet the recommended nutrient

intakes, then meeting them should be more than adequate, thought

perhaps not optimal.

> > Live fast, die young. I used to hear that a lot when I was young.

> > Funny how not many people my age ever say that much any more

>

> I'm not talking about living fast and dying young at all. I'm

> talking about people who live to 130 living off dirt and termites,

> in a hut out in the forest somewhere. Or someone whose diet is so

> exclusive they can't enjoy the fellowship of family and friends. Or

> restrictive diets that are never enjoyed, or always keep you hungry,

> or what have you.

Oh ... I thought you were referring to your preference to use

recreational drugs like alcohol or nicotine. I've never heard of

people eating only dirt and termites and much less to do that and live

130 years. You like to exaggerate, don't you!

> It is more like " live full since no matter what you do you are going

> to die anyway. " Living full doesn't mean living stupidly or anything

> like that, nor, IMO, does it mean taking extraordinary measures

> simply for the purpose of extending your life a few years,

> relatively speaking, and robbing those years of much enjoyment

> because of those measures.

Sounds good to me. I have nothing against this approach.

> I don't want every meal to suffer from paralysis by analysis. Nor do

> I want to feel like the world is going to come to an end because

> last night at Sister Sue's I ate something that doesn't quite fit

> into my paradigm. Now if I *must* avoid a food at all costs for

> medical reasons that is one thing. But otherwise that is not how I

> define a quality life, *for me*. Others may see it differently.

This is good, I try to do the same.

> > > At any rate I think the effects of bad food can be mitigated by

> > > a number of things ranging from hygiene to spirituality, and any

> > > number of stops in between.

> >

> > If we're talking adequate nutrition to reach a " ripe old age " , I

> > don't think the best hygiene or spirituality will make up for

> > inadequate nutrition.

>

> You're guessing :-)

And you're not?

> And don't underestimate the value of hygiene to extend life spans

> independent of diet. That has been demonstrated over and over again.

Yes, I believe you're right about this.

> > But grandpa had ADEQUATE nutrition to reach the age he reached.

>

> Somehow I don't think twinkies and potato chips count as adequate

> nutrition.

Potato chips and twinkies don't count for much nutrition, but I doubt

that's all he ate. And don't forget, Lana would remind us that

potatoes are high in potassium!

> > But according to Dr Ron Rosedale, studies of centenarians show

> > that they all have low fasting levels of insulin.

>

> Well there you go. You just proved my point. I can think of two

> activities that lower fasting levels of insulin, fasting and caloric

> restriction. Both of them confer benefits even for folks on a SAD or

> sub-optimal diet and now apparently life extension is another.

Yes, but diet is also likely to play a role in keeping insulin low.

> Anyway in answer to your original point way back when, I don't think

> Suze is cheating at all, LOL!

I don't really think she's cheating either, but I'm not convinced that

taking a calcium supplement is better than getting calcium by diet.

[Guest guest]

> > This

> > is similar to the Warrior Diet but with Fast-5, you don't eat anything for

19 hours and

then

> > eat for 5. here's a pdf about Fast-5:

> > http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

>

> Very similar. So much so that one might be forgiven for being cynical

> if one thought the tweaks, which are key, were just enough to pass it

> off as something different :-)

>

> This diet fits well within the WD parameters, but in general Ori

> doesn't recommend going all day just on liquids. I like it. His book

> is very clear. It is how I do the warrior diet.

>

> It seems though he is attributing the weight loss to a reduction in

> calories which is different from the WD. But I didn't read the entire

> book.

>

> > There are some regarding this type of fasting.

>

> Regarding this diet or intermittent fasting in general?

Both.

Here's a study on intermittent fasting without calorie restriction

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/10/6216

and an article

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030607/food.asp

Carolyn

[Guest guest]

,

> Actually that is what I am referencing when I say " Does it do it

> within the framework of an average diet committed to organic foods? " I

> don't have any particular foodstuffs in mind just one overall diet

> versus another.

But what is your point of comparison? Price's was the post-modern

diets of these particular groups. I don't see how one can answer the

question without finding out the precise nutrient values of the

post-modern diets between these particular groups.

> Your comment is interesting. Do WAPF and PPNF really think of this in

> terms of a particular item? I always took it as the overall diet,

> regardless of how achieved but would probably include butter, organs,

> etc.

That's not what I meant. In the all of the literature including the

commentary in the PPNF publication of NAPD, he is taken to mean that

the point of comparison was the average American diet, and in a bit of

this literature there is sometimes the conflation of the average

American diet with the average American diet now, or even the current

government nutritional recommendations, when his actual point of

comparison had nothing to do with American diets and was the

post-modernization diets of these specific groups. So, for example,

the post-modernization Inuit diet was 10 times higher in vitamin A

than the prmiitive Inuit diet. Americans and America are not part of

the comparison.

> > I doubt, however (correct me if I'm wrong), that refined flour 3,000

> > years ago was anything like today's refined flour. They were refining

> > flour in America but the turn of the 19th century, but it was only

> > with the technology in the mid-19th century and then further

> > developments in the coming decades that was able to achieve a type of

> > refinement that even approached what we know today as white flour.

>

> If my information (and recall) is correct, they were refining flour

> that involved seven stages and produced a refined product that even we

> today don't have, which sounds as if its worse. Certainly produced the

> same degenerative diseases we have today which were notably absent

> among the Hebrews.

I thought you were saying the ancient Hebrews were using the process?

What and who are you referring to? Is this Biblical information or

from elsehwere?

Chris