Re: how much calcium do we really need?

[Guest guest]

,

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

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

> perhaps not optimal.

You're assuming that the centennarian's nutrient requirement is the

same or similar to the average person's nutrient requirement, when, in

fact, the centennarian eating average food may be a centennarian

simply because her or his nutrient requirements are much lower than

the average person.

> > > 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.

And if insulin can be kept low by a certain nutritional threshold in

the absence of fasting or caloric restriction OR by fasting OR by

caloric restriction, then the presence of people with very low fasting

insulin (measured by the proxy of people with very long life spans)

does not by itself indicate that they or anyone are meeting that

threshold level of nutrition.

Your argument was that the presence of centennarians shows that it is

possible to get ideal nutrition, but it does not show this unless it

is shown that nutrition was the specific influence on the life span,

rather than fasting, caloric restriction, or genetics.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> > 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.

I actually thought in NAPD he made the comparison to both their

particular post modern diets and to the diets found in America which

caused him to embark on his journey in the first place.

> > 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.

If you are right then " we " are wrong, but again I thought he made the

comparison to both.

> > > 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?

The ancient Egyptians.

> What and who are you referring to?

The process they used for refining flour (and oils although that was different)

> Is this Biblical information or

> from elsehwere?

As far as I know there is no Biblical information regarding exactly

what the Egyptians were doing as far as processing their food. Of

course there is the well known passage where the Hebrews are told none

of the diseases of the Egyptians would come upon them if they followed

God's law, which included the dietary laws.

Exodus 15:26

and said, " If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD

thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give

ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of

these diseases upon thee which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for

I am the LORD that healeth thee. "

Regardless of what that passage means, it is interesting that the

archaeological record on the face of it, seems to reflect just that.

The Egyptians had very " modern " diseases and the Hebrews were notably

lacking in these same diseases.

I got this info back in the days when I was into such stuff. I still

like archeology but...well..you can't do everything.

IIRC, we had a thread on this list or one of the related lists about

the Egyptians, their food processing, and their diseases.

--

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

Luther

[Guest guest]

,

> I actually thought in NAPD he made the comparison to both their

> particular post modern diets and to the diets found in America which

> caused him to embark on his journey in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean. He embarked on his journey to find

peoples free of degenerative diseases to use as " controls " in his

analysis of cause, as no such control patients were available in

modernized America, but he did not embark on the journey because of a

comparison of nutrient intakes, which he could not have had access to

if he had not visited the primitive groups yet. While he made some

vague references to American nutrient intakes, his direct quantitative

comparisons are all using the modernized diet of the particular group

as the reference point. On page 275, etc. So " ten times the

fat-soluble vitamins " and " four times the minerals " is comparing

before and after for a given group, not comparing pritive diets of

those groups to American diets.

> As far as I know there is no Biblical information regarding exactly

> what the Egyptians were doing as far as processing their food. Of

> course there is the well known passage where the Hebrews are told none

> of the diseases of the Egyptians would come upon them if they followed

> God's law, which included the dietary laws.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure what you mean. He embarked on his journey to find

> peoples free of degenerative diseases to use as " controls " in his

> analysis of cause, as no such control patients were available in

> modernized America, but he did not embark on the journey because of a

> comparison of nutrient intakes, which he could not have had access to

> if he had not visited the primitive groups yet.

Lets see if I can clarify. I thought Weston Price made a comparison

*after the fact* regarding primitive diets and American diets, as well

as comparisons between pre and post native diets.

> While he made some

> vague references to American nutrient intakes, his direct quantitative

> comparisons are all using the modernized diet of the particular group

> as the reference point. On page 275, etc. So " ten times the

> fat-soluble vitamins " and " four times the minerals " is comparing

> before and after for a given group, not comparing pritive diets of

> those groups to American diets.

Then as I said, " we " are wrong.

> > As far as I know there is no Biblical information regarding exactly

> > what the Egyptians were doing as far as processing their food. Of

> > course there is the well known passage where the Hebrews are told none

> > of the diseases of the Egyptians would come upon them if they followed

> > God's law, which included the dietary laws.

>

> I see. Thank you for the clarification.

Glad to be of help. The material was quite fascinating. I will have to

track it down again. I may even ask Heidi who I seem to recall threw

some tidbits into that thread. Now whether or not she has a source....

--

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

Luther

[Guest guest]

,

> 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,

I guess where we are disagreeing is that the current USDA

recommendations are sufficient to confer immunity from disease. For

example if you compare the current recommendations for calcium versus

what Price's groups consumed there is a huge discrepancy.

> 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.

True, but exposure to toxins can also increase life span and help

confer immunity to disease. All depends.

> 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.

Now that is the most honest appraisal of organic foods I have read in awhile.

> 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.

That is correct. But what was lacking from that discussion (because at

the time I couldn't keep up with the thread) is sometimes the

nutrients which are increased are a reflection of produce being grown

on poor soil, which brings other issues into play regarding the

nutrient status of the particular foodstuff! So it doesn't necessarily

follow that a few increased nutrients means you are eating a more

nutritious food.

> 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.

Actually there is evidence that suggests otherwise. There was a lot

more trade going on in the ancient world than most people realize. But

yes I agree that a wide supply would vary depending on time and place,

but I don't believe that was categorically always the case.

> 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.

Unless you live in *extreme* poverty, which is almost non-existent in

North America, a wide variety of foods are potentially available.

I remember once reading some statistics put out by comedian/civil

rights activist Dick (you should be old enough to remember

him...hehe) on how much money was spent on food in American ghettos (a

lot of it junk food). It was an extraordinary amount. The point he was

trying to make was the ghettos weren't suffering from a lack of money

(of which the amount spent on food was just one example) but from how

they actually used the money (of which bad food was just one example).

> > 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!

Maybe, depends on what other factors are at play

> 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

What?! You mean the white man and the advance of civilization is not

responsible for ruining everything? :-)

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

> recreational drugs like alcohol or nicotine.

I consider alcohol a food not a drug. And I think tobacco judiciously

used can have a net benefit as well. Not for everyone for sure but not

automatically a detriment either.

> 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!

I wish I were. I have seen several posts over the years touting people

who did this very thing. No thank you.

> > You're guessing :-)

>

> And you're not?

No :-)

> > > 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!

LOL!

>

> > > 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.

Yes but if fasting and caloric restriction do so *independent* of

diet, then you can't automatically attribute low insulin levels to

diet. Which means you can't automatically assume someone who reached

100 by virtue of low insulin levels did so because of diet.

> > 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.

It is if you can't get it from diet (and yes some supplements are

better than others). Suze is more than capable of speaking for

herself, and I could be wrong, but my experience with Suze is that she

would have to eat a lot more food to reach some of the levels Price's

groups achieved, or a have a more nutrient dense diet, which is what

we have been talking about all along, eh? :-)

--

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

Luther

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> You're assuming that the centennarian's nutrient requirement is the

> same or similar to the average person's nutrient requirement, when,

> in fact, the centennarian eating average food may be a centennarian

> simply because her or his nutrient requirements are much lower than

> the average person.

that's a good point. I would expect some variation in nutrient

needs both over time for one individual and between different

individuals. But we can certainly say that at least some people have

obtained sufficient nutrients over the last 100 years to become

centenarians. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the

population has this potential. I suspect it is a large percentage,

but because of poor diet and/or other lifestyle factors, many people

do no realize this potential.

> > Yes, but diet is also likely to play a role in keeping insulin

> > low.

>

> And if insulin can be kept low by a certain nutritional threshold in

> the absence of fasting or caloric restriction OR by fasting OR by

> caloric restriction, then the presence of people with very low

> fasting insulin (measured by the proxy of people with very long life

> spans) does not by itself indicate that they or anyone are meeting

> that threshold level of nutrition.

Insulin should serve as a constraint on possible diets and/or

lifestyles. Only those diets and lifestyles that promote low fasting

insulin levels have the potential for centenarian longevity.

> Your argument was that the presence of centenarians shows that it is

> possible to get ideal nutrition, but it does not show this unless it

> is shown that nutrition was the specific influence on the life span,

> rather than fasting, caloric restriction, or genetics.

I don't think I would use the word " ideal " , but rather " sufficient " or

" adequate " nutrition. And yes, because of confounding factors that

makes it more difficult to assess what is " adequate " .

I have been trying to find information about centenarian studies on

the internet to look into these aspects. I found some limited

information about an Okinawa study and a University of Georgia study.

One discussion I saw of the Okinawa study was touting how their

diets are low in fat and red meat and high in vegetables, soy, and

fish. But I wonder how much of that is from recent changes.

Ann , a professor in the foods and nutrition department at

the University of Georgia said: " When we started this project, we

thought we would identify foods and nutrients that might contribute to

longevity. In particular, we thought the centenarians might eat more

fish, yogurt and fruits and vegetables. What we found is that,

compared with our control groups of elderly in their 60s and 80s,

centenarians consume more red meat, more whole milk and more coffee.

They eat less yogurt, less fish and fewer salads. "

http://www.uga.edu/columns/042197/camp6.html

That appears to be in direct conflict with the Okinawa study

interpretation. Here's a brief summary of " selected " findings from

the Georgia study:

http://www.geron.uga.edu/pdfs/CentStudyBooklet.pdf

" ...few smoked, were obese, or consumed excessive alcohol. They

remained active throughout life and ate breakfast on a regular basis.

Compared to cohorts in their 60s and 80s, centenarians tended to

escape contracting chronic diseases during their lifetime. "

Don't skimp on breakfast

[Guest guest]

I don't disagree with these statements, but I was very happy to see the story

last week about the 10 yr study proving organic tomatoes have more Vitamin C and

flavanoids than non-organic!

> > 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.

>

> Now that is the most honest appraisal of organic foods I have read in awhile.

[Guest guest]

Someone in this group answered my question on this with the information

that the microbes in the soil get the nutrients into the plant and that

the pesticides and fertilizers kill them and thus their chances of

being nutrient dense.

I just joined the Brix group in order to discover how to measure such

things. You get a cheap Brix meter on eBay and put the juices of

veggies in it to measure sugar content. The higher the reading the more

nutrient dense you can expect it to be.

On Jul 18, 2007, at 3:37 PM, wrote:

> 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.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

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

[Guest guest]

so the WAPF website is wrong?

http://www.westonaprice.org/membership/infoarmy.html

" Dr. Price's research also shows us how healthy people eat. He studied their

diets and

found that the foods they ate were very rich in vitamins and minerals. In fact,

their foods

had four times the minerals that were in the typical American diet of his day.

That's partly

because these people didn't eat any empty foods, like sugar and white flour. But

it's also

because they ate foods that were naturally rich in minerals--either seafood from

mineral-

rich waters or meats and vegetables from animals and plants that were nourished

by

mineral-rich soil. "

--- In , " Masterjohn "

<chrismasterjohn@...> >

I'm

not sure what you mean. He embarked on his journey to find

> peoples free of degenerative diseases to use as " controls " in his

> analysis of cause, as no such control patients were available in

> modernized America, but he did not embark on the journey because of a

> comparison of nutrient intakes, which he could not have had access to

> if he had not visited the primitive groups yet. While he made some

> vague references to American nutrient intakes, his direct quantitative

> comparisons are all using the modernized diet of the particular group

> as the reference point. On page 275, etc. So " ten times the

> fat-soluble vitamins " and " four times the minerals " is comparing

> before and after for a given group, not comparing pritive diets of

> those groups to American diets.