Re: How much meat (in ounces or grams) is safe to eat in a day?

[Guest guest]

That's what I'm talking about.

Ken

-- RE: How much meat (in ounces or grams) is safe to eat

in a day?

this is insane...meat is exactly what causes colon

cancer...aside form that, are you a barbarian? can you

as a human being justify slaughtering animals for

" food " ? either way you slice it, meat is not for

humans.

[Guest guest]

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

>From: candidiasis [mailto:candidiasis ]On

>Behalf Of Evie Maddox

>>

>

> " Meat does not " rot " in our intestines, but is rather digested just like

>other foods. Our digestive systems are built to digest it after all. "

>

>

>

>**Some, who believe they are just as " right " as you believe you are, would

>say that carnivores have short intestines, so that before the meat has a

>chance to rot in them, the meat has been eliminated. Humans do NOT have

>short intestines.

What do you base that on? According to one study of autopsied humans, the

difference in intestinal length between study subjects was *30* fold! (This

study was references in " Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years from Eden " by

Heizer Wharton. I can dig up the reference if you want it.) That's why I'm

always curious as to what claims of short or long intestinal length is based

on. Clearly, there is quite a bit of variance in this area. But I was not

referring to intestinal length, but rather many aspects of human digestion

from incisors, to acidic stomach acid pH (typically 2.0 during digestion -

same as dogs, for instance), pepsin, mono gastrism, lack of

cellulase-digesting enzymes (although I've been told that some humans have

recently been found to have these, but it's certainly not the norm), etc,

etc. When this is meshed with what we know of the evolutionary diet of

humans (and this is NOT controversial in the scientific community), plus,

and very importantly, what we know of the " primitive " pre-industrialized

groups Weston Price studied, *plus* what we know of both essential nutrients

as well as conditionally essential nutrients (several of which are only

found in animal foods or are most abundant in, or absorbable from, animal

sources), the picture becomes very clear that humans are designed to digest

animal foods. But again, to bring this back to dealing with candida, I'm not

clear on why meat would only be recommended once per week for a candida

sufferer, when that effectively means that their diet would have to be high

in fats (which is fine - and often *optimal* for some folks) and *carbs*,

which is the last thing a candida sufferer needs since this is the substrate

for candida. I don't recall who posted that once per week meat

recommendation (was that you?), but I'd be very interested to know what this

recommendation is based on.

>

> " While

>the optimal amount of meat will vary from person to person, there are many

>folks who do better with a diet based primarily on meat and fat (myself

>included). Most of the nutrition information you will read on the internet

>and in books is pure crap, frankly. So, be warned not to believe everything

>in print. "

>

>

>

>**You say that " many folks " do better eating meat/fat, but what about

>everyone else?

Each person is unique in what amounts of macro nutrients they do best on.

The optimal amounts for a particular person may also vary over time due to

illness, stress, exercise, etc. That's why I would never say everyone should

eat an " Eskimo diet " (approx. 80% fat, the rest protein). That would be as

illogical as saying that no one should eat meat, or we should all eat meat

" x " number of times per week. We all have individual needs based on our

unique biochemistry within_certain_parameters.

" Many folks " have also followed the WPF diet and have gotten

>terribly sick.

There is no " WPF diet " . So I'd be interested to know what these people were

actually eating. The diets of the primitive groups WAP studied varied

*significantly*. However, they shared some overarching common

characteristics. Here's a list of those common characteristics:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html

Aside from the fact that there is no WAP diet, as there is a paleo diet,

Atkins diet or South Beach diet, etc, it's important to note that it's

nearly impossible to find food that matches the *quality* of the food that

WAP's groups enjoyed, largely due our drastically reduced soil fertility in

industrialized nations, and our reliance on factory farmed animal foods and

monocropped, toxin-laden, hybrid and GMO crops. The quality of their foods,

and the fact that they did include *some* animal foods in their diets

whether small or large amounts (the reasons why this is important is

explained on the WAPF site) was a determining factor in their extraordinary

health. These foods are a completely different animal (pun intended) than

the animals raised on high quality pastures and crops grown on high

fertility soil that WAP's groups consumed. In essence, modern folks are not

consuming WAP quality foods, although there ARE some who are working on

building their soil and pasture fertility, so there is some hope.

Just as we cannot say that everyone should eat

>certain foods,

>we cannot believe everything will fit for us, no matter how many

>civilizations it worked for.

I agree, to a degree. Within_certain_parameters, we all require somewhat

different macro nutrient ratios, as well as differing amounts and ratios of

various nutrients. However, it would be illogical to argue that one species

can thrive on the diet of another rather than on their *own* evolutionary

diet. Not that you are doing this, but I'm attempting to explain what I mean

by " within certain parameters " . For instance, I'm sure no one would argue

that a cow should be fed the evolutionary diet of a cat rather than the

evolutionary diet of a cow. How do you suppose a cow would digest an all

mouse diet, for instance? Would it thrive on such a diet? More likely it

would die very quickly! Livestock keepers are well aware of this fact of

life. They know that cows thrive on their natural diet of pasture

grasses/plants. That's why, when they move them onto the feedlot and stuff

them full of corn, the cows' digestion is drastically disturbed - their

digestive system gets very acidic and often overgrown with virulent

pathogenic bacteria (that are essential non-existent on their natural diet),

and why they then feed them bicarbonate of soda to reduce the acidity caused

by an unnatural diet of corn! Once an animal is taken off their natural

diet, compensatory measures are required to prevent them from getting sick.

The same goes for humans. While there is much variation in our ancestors'

regional diets, as Price found, there ARE still some common characteristics

in the very diverse diets of the healthy populations he studied. IOW, humans

as a species do seem to have *some* universal dietary needs. For example,

it's universally agreed that we require vitamin B12 in order to survive.

This is not a unique requirement of just *some* civilizations. But all. Same

goes for vitamin A, calcium, magnesium, etc, etc. So, that's why I say

within certain parameters, we have unique dietary needs.

I think this principle extends to health issues like candida infections.

Some protocols work well for some folks but not for others. But all of the

protocols that do work, fall within certain parameters. For instance, as a

general rule of thumb, simple sugars and perhaps just carbs in general, feed

the yeast, so it's probably a universally good idea to kept these substances

to a minimum when fighting candida. Anti-fungals are universally understood

to be an effective part of any anti-candida protocol. And, importantly,

supporting the immune system and all bodily functions will help the body be

stronger and more resistant to the effects of a candida infection. For that,

we must be well nourished with all the proper body building and repairing

materials in order to maintain strong, disease- and infection-resistant

bodies. I think where you and I diverge (well, at least ONE place we

diverge) is on what is required to maintain health and vitality.

Why do some people have flat incisors? Hmmm. I

>agree, you cannot believe everything you read. Remember that the

>door swings

>both ways.

It most certainly does. And it's taken me several years to become a

consistently deeply critical consumer of information. I've come to

understand that most of the nutrition and health information published, is

in fact, mis- or dis-information. I think you (?) and many others on this

list might agree. Especially as many fight with their doctors to simply

recognize the fact that something like candidiasis even exists! But we are

all at different points on our own paths and it's just par for the course

that some of us subscribe to different paradigms of nutrition and healing.

> " Lots of us modern folks eat raw meat and feel MUCH

>better as a result. I do. I find it easier to digest than cooked

>meat (as do

>many others), and of course the enzymes are not destroyed as with cooking,

>and vit. B6 and other heat-labile vitamins are not destroyed as they are in

>cooked. "

>

>

>

>**And this is the first time that YOU have quantified " meat. " Perhaps.meat

>was never meant to be cooked and the people that DO eat cooked meat have

>colon cancer-causing, rotting meat in their slow moving intestines?

" Quantified " ? You mean " qualified " , right? That's a fair point. I probably

did not qualify it in my previous posts. Definitely an oversight on my part.

As for whether it was meant to be cooked or not, I don't think that's a

reasonable proposition. All of WAP's groups ate some of their animal foods

raw (whether meat or dairy products) but, AFAIK, all also ate some of it

cooked. And since they didn't suffer from colon cancer, that pretty much

rules out the notion that meat *per se* causes colon cancer. Slow digestion

is definitely a problem though - I certainly agree with you there.

>

> " One especially needs the foods that build and maintain physical health and

>vitality which means highly digestible proteins and fats. We have

>no dietary

>requirement for carbohydrates. Obviously, there's a reason for that. "

>

>

>

>**MANY people would disagree with that, and I have to say it's just not

>true.

Well then you'd essentially be disagreeing with the entire scientific

community. Can you name a single carbohydrate that is essential for human

life? There are none, or to be fair, none have been identified. However,

there are 8 amino acids that are required for human life which cannot be

synthesized from other compounds but MUST be consumed in the diet. There are

two fatty acid groups that are also essential to human life which cannot be

produced by our own bodies but must be consumed in the diet - the omega 3s

and 6s. Further, there are several other amino acids and, AFAIK, fatty acids

that are conditionally essential, or at minimum, vitally important to our

health, which we cannot produce endogenously (in our bodies). No such

carbohydrates have been found to be essential to human life. And many human

societies living in northern climates live on diets that are almost

exclusively protein and fat, since these environments are inhospitable to

plants that humans could consume. So, " many " people can disagree with that,

but many people can also disagree that the earth is round, but that doesn't

make their disagreement correct.

That's like saying we need no fruits and vegetables, which is one of

>the biggest problems I have with WPF.

Based on this statement, I gather that you are not very familiar with the

WAPF (?) since this is an inaccurate representation of their dietary

guidelines. Nowhere does the WAPF (Weston A. Price Foundation) say that

people shouldn't eat fruits and vegetables. On the contrary, fruits and

vegetables are including in their dietary guidelines:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/dietguidelines.html

" Eat fresh fruits and vegetables, preferably organic, in salads and soups,

or lightly steamed. "

It isn't all about eating

>meat, raw or

>not, all day long. The point is pushed so hard, that eating fruits and

>vegetables are mostly overlooked.

Again, this is not an accurate representation of the WAPF dietary

guidelines. The WAPF does NOT recommend eating meat all day long by any

stretch of the imagination. I refer you to the URL above for clarification

on their dietary guidelines.

>

> " So many vegetarians become ill from

>lack of essential amino acids and fatty acids due to the vegetarian diet,

>their digestive system gets all out of whack with candida or some

>other form

>of dysbiosis, but many recover from their health issues with the foods that

>repair the digestive system and other organs - proteins and fats. "

>

>

>

>**And MOST vegetarians go on to live a long and healthy life.

First, I respectfully ask that you provide *some* evidence of the statements

you make. You've made several broad claims without any supporting evidence,

or even any supporting details. This makes it hard for me to know exactly

what it is you're basing your claims on, so I can't judge the merits of your

evidence for myself.

Second, re your statement above about " MOST " vegetarians living long lives -

iIt's important that we both qualify what we mean by " vegetarians " here. I

admit again that I should've done this from the beginning. The term

" Vegetarian " is used so loosely these days that it requires qualification in

order for us to understand what the other is talking about. For instance, I

know a guy who identifies himself as a

lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-insecto-carno-vegetarian <g>. I've been referring to

vegans during this discussion - strict vegetarians who avoid all animal

products. This is a qualitatively different diet than a lacto-ovo

" vegetarian " diet, for instance. One contains animal foods, one does not.

The one that does, will provide several essential and/or vital nutrients

that the other one does not. So, when you say " MOST vegetarians go on to

live a long and healthy life " , I'd ask a) what do YOU mean when you say

" vegetarian " and how could you know the quality and length of life of

most vegetarians? Any references?

Thirdly, I think that vegetarians who include SOME animal products in their

diet (it can be high quality eggs or dairy products) can be healthy. So I

won't disagree on that point, if that's what you are saying.

If you cross

>on over to the other side for a while, you will find an entirely different

>group of people who are just as healthy as you and your WPF

>believe you are.

Well see, I *started out* on the other side! But that's the time when I lost

my health - when my candida problems started up and I began looking for

answers. I was not eating red meat at that time and trying to eat as little

chicken and fish as I could. I ate a lot of soy (didn't know about the dark

side of soy at the time). I had already done a previous 7 year stint as a

semi-vegetarian (again no red meat!) from age 15-22, but when I was deathly

ill with salmonella poisoning and typhoid fever while studying in Nepal, my

doctor told me the only way I'd recover is if I ate some red meat! So I did.

And regained my strength and health. Previously, I could barely walk. Then I

stopped again several years ago, for humane reasons. I finally started up

again after my health had taken a dive again and I was trying to get better.

>

>

>

>

> " Soy is a really crappy food on many levels, from being

>mostly GMO (which poses several dangers) to containing several ant-nutrient

>and anti-digestion compounds to being estrogenic to being highly

>allergenic,

>etc, etc. "

>

>**Again, this is opinion.

On what basis do you make that statement? Do you have some evidence that

refutes that over 80% of the soy sold in the U.S. is GMO? Have you seen the

recent study in which there was over a 55% mortality rate in rats whose

mothers were fed GMO soy?

(http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=292) Or do

you have evidence to refute that soy contains high levels of phytoestrogens

(which can lead to endocrine disruption and suppress thyroid function),

phytic acid (which blocks mineral absorption), trypsin inhibitors (which

which interfere with protein digestion), and vitamin B12 analogs with

interfere with the binding of true b12 to receptor sites? Or that modern

processed soy contains high levels of aluminum or lysinoalanine, or

nitrosamines (which are carcinogenic)? I'm happy to provide references for

all this. But I think I've already made it clear that this is

evidentiary-based rather than opinion. I'll cite the WAPF here, although

there are several other sources that cite the same research.

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Most of the negative information

>available on soy is regurgitation of Sally Fallon, not additional research

>to support her claim.

Actually, the WAPF's soy information is based on several hundred studies on

soy. Additionally, it's important to note that Sally does not argue that all

soy is bad, on the contrary, she says that traditionally fermented non-GMO

soy foods are fine in moderation. This is based on the traditional

consumption of soy. The very long fermentation process that was

traditionally used (sometimes up to several years!) deactives many of the

anti-nutrient compounds such as phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, etc. The

WAPFs argument is against *modern* soy products and the amounts of these

products consumed which in no way resemble traditional soy consumption.

The whole idea that soy is a miracle food is largely the creation of the

multi-million dollar soy industry, IMO. But so it goes.

(http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/05soypolitics.htm)

There are TONS of people who consume soy

>daily and are

>VERY healthy

Do you personally know these " TONS " of people? And if so, what parameters

are you using to define " VERY " healthy? Or is this based on something you

read? If so, what?

> and lots of scientific evidence to support it.

Lots of scientific evidence conducted by the soy industry and their

rent-a-researchers, unfortunately. Like all foods, some folks will be able

to tolerate higher amounts of soy than others. There are also many people

who's health went down the drain after consuming lots of soy (see the WAPF

site for several testimonials). But some do OK on it, at least in the short

term. Of course it depends on so many variables - the person's health,

biochemical individuality, the quality of the soy product, whether it's GMO

or not, whether it's fermented or not, etc.

No, I don't

>believe in scientific studies.

Why not?

I believe in results- just like Weston Price

>did.

Weston Price obviously believed in studies too though, since he conducted so

many of them himself! Once he recorded the results of his field observations

of the healthy " primitive " groups, he took samples of their foods back to

his laboratory and studied the foods for their nutrient composition. The

results of these studies showed that these groups consumed very high levels

of some vitamins and minerals - much higher than the Americans of his day

(and by extension, of our day). For instance they consumed TEN times the

fat-soluble vitamins (vitamin A, vitamin D and the Price Factor)! Which came

from animal fat, btw. Plus he conducted several studies on dental health. So

Price clearly believed in scientific studies.

Personally, I think that results and science both are important in

determining a nutritious diet, as well as how to recover one's health. Of

course, it goes without saying that we have to be very careful to look at

studies critically these days due to financial and political influences as

well as plain 'ol sloppy work.

Your very strong opinions do not mesh with your comments that " many "

>people can eat tons of meat, admitting that there are others who cannot.

>Just as " many " people can eat soy, some cannot.

I don't recall saying that many people can eat " tons " of meat. I did say

though that many do well on a diet based primarily on fat and protein. How

does this conflict with saying that others cannot?

>Have a blessed day!

Well thanks! You too :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

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

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

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

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

> What do you base that on? According to one study of autopsied humans, the

> difference in intestinal length between study subjects was *30* fold!

**Then that supports the idea that some are meant to eat meat, while others

are not. )

> Each person is unique in what amounts of macro nutrients they do best on.

> The optimal amounts for a particular person may also vary over time due to

> illness, stress, exercise, etc.

**This is the point that gets lost when meat is pushed so hard. This is not

necessarily about eating meat or not; but how much meat is dependent on each

person.

> There is no " WPF diet " . So I'd be interested to know what these people

were

> actually eating.

**It is common knowledge that Sally Fallon's book Native Nutrition is

considered the Bible for the WAP/WPF " diet. " People have followed this and

have gotten sick. I don't know if the book starts with " This way of eating

may not be for everyone. " but you have to agree that not everyone should eat

the amount of meat that others can eat. Having been in groups with these

people, I can tell you that it focuses ONLY on meat, making things with

meat, and of course raw milk which I totally support. The balance is lost.

> Well then you'd essentially be disagreeing with the entire scientific

> community. Can you name a single carbohydrate that is essential for human

> life?

**Fruits, vegetables. These ARE carbs. You have just disagreed with the

entire proposition that oxidation causes degenerative disease, which MANY

scientists agree with and have proven. Did you mean processed carbs?

Antioxidants are very important, especially living in our horrible

environment.

> Based on this statement, I gather that you are not very familiar with the

> WAPF (?) since this is an inaccurate representation of their dietary

> guidelines.

**I addressed this above. I have read the guidelines. But people like to

overlook the fruits and vegetables part. They use the WAPF as an excuse to

avoid them. I know this is not the foundations " fault " but they push one

thing so hard, which is to dispel all the myths on trans fats, eating meat,

raw milk, etc. that the other information is totally lost. And that comes

off in their followers as well. And then there's the soy thing.

> Second, re your statement above about " MOST " vegetarians living long lives

-

> iIt's important that we both qualify what we mean by " vegetarians " here. I

> admit again that I should've done this from the beginning. >

> Thirdly, I think that vegetarians who include SOME animal products in

their

> diet (it can be high quality eggs or dairy products) can be healthy. So I

> won't disagree on that point, if that's what you are saying.

**I did mean vegetarian, not vegan. Although I'm sure there are vegans who

are just as healthy. I was probably much healthier as a vegetarian than I am

now. Mainly because my diet consisted of more vegetables than it does now. I

weigh 114 lbs- I can only get so much food into my diet each day and eating

meat knocks out a lot of other options. I do know at least one vegan who is

super healthy and he has been so for 15 years. Did he get cancer? Yes, and

fixed it naturally. One of the points of vegans is that they are not getting

all of the junk in the mainstream meat, which I know you would agree with.

But they are not avoiding all of the other toxins in the environment and are

still susceptible to cancer, just like the rest of us. Remember that GOOD

meat and raw milk are not widely available nor affordable for most people in

this country.

> Well see, I *started out* on the other side! But that's the time when I

lost

> my health - when my candida problems started up and I began looking for

> answers.

**Since you have agreed that everyone is different, I would assume you agree

that this would not work for everyone as it did you. There are other people

who do perfectly fine on the same diet you were on. It not working for you

does not mean that everyone should eat red meat. Is that a fair statement?

> On what basis do you make that statement? Do you have some evidence that

> refutes that over 80% of the soy sold in the U.S. is GMO? Have you seen

the

> recent study in which there was over a 55% mortality rate in rats whose

> mothers were fed GMO soy?

**It's not just soy that is GMO. And I'm not a rat! These are the types of

studies I don't believe in much.

> Actually, the WAPF's soy information is based on several hundred studies

on

> soy. Additionally, it's important to note that Sally does not argue that

all

> soy is bad, on the contrary, she says that traditionally fermented non-GMO

> soy foods are fine in moderation.

**That is the problem. People have taken her work and they leave out the

other stuff, and focus on the dangers of soy. They don't qualify it at all.

For all of the studies that agree with Sally, there are tons of others that

disagree. Soy dangers are perpetuated on the internet based solely on

Sally's statements. People cite " facts " that are just repeats of what Sally

has said. I could put the same info on my site, but it doesn't make it

anymore true just because I have reprinted it. Perhaps the studies are done

by people who have a vested interest in soy production. Perhaps some aren't.

> There are TONS of people who consume soy

> >daily and are

> >VERY healthy

>

> Do you personally know these " TONS " of people? And if so, what parameters

> are you using to define " VERY " healthy? Or is this based on something you

> read?

**Yes, I know them. They are not sick. They do not get sick. Of course, they

don't live on soy alone. It is a part of a well-balanced diet along with

high quality nutritional supplements. The soy products are manufactured by a

very well known team of scientists who use the best raw ingredients on the

market. Of course, anyone can argue that, but you don't need scientists or

scientific research to show you that people who consume soy products can be

very healthy.

> No, I don't

> >believe in scientific studies.

>

> Why not?

**For the same reason you don't believe in scientific experiments produced

by companies associated with the soy industry. Everyone has a price, and all

scientists are paid by someone. I trust very few, and overall don't believe

in them. Drugs are on the market today, killing people in the name of money.

That is not news to all of us.

> Weston Price obviously believed in studies too though, since he conducted

so

> many of them himself!

**There is a difference in case studies and scientific experiments. For

instance, case studies tell what the results of a natural process are.

Experiments throw together an unnatural process and spit out information

that we are to relate to other areas. For instance, feeding rats an ungodly

amount of soy to see what happens. Then saying that soy causes this or that

in humans. Here is one that REALLY kills me. Most cancer patients are told

not to use nutritional supplements during chemotherapy treatments,

especially not antioxidants. Do you know why? Because logically, doctors

" believe " that since chemotherapy is an oxidizing agent, the antioxidants

will work against the chemotherapy. There is no study that proves this, but

they tell their patients this as if it were fact. In reality, case studies

show that not only do antioxidants help keep chemotherapy patients alive,

they also help to attack the tumor. Back to the rats. If I want to prove

that soy is harmful, I am going to feed the rats way more soy than any human

can possibly live off of (just like anything else out there that will cause

harm if given in large amounts). But humans do not do that. They eat other

foods, they eat in moderation, and if they eat too much of anything, yes,

they are going to get sick.

We don't disagree on much, believe it or not. I do agree with the WAPF

recommendations to a degree, but like anything else people can go overboard

with it. But that is with anything (don't get me started on Weight

Watchers.) I guess I can comically relate WAPF " followers " to LLL leaders

who are militant about breastfeeding. Getting too passionate about anything

can turn a lot of people off, and I know this very well, believe me.

Have a blessed day!

Evie Maddox

<http://www.thediaperlady.com> http://www.thediaperlady.com

<http://maddox.usana.com> http://maddox.usana.com

<http://www.prevent-sids.org> http://www.prevent-sids.org

[Guest guest]

Ken, you made me laugh!!

>That's what I'm talking about.

>Ken

>

>-- RE: How much meat (in ounces or grams) is safe to

>eat

>in a day?

>

>There is a great group for people who don't like to eat meat, its called

>Green-group, check it out, they will not argue the meat eating point.

[Guest guest]

On 12/3/05, Jaern Skaalhammar <smoergaasman@...> wrote:

> this is insane...meat is exactly what causes colon

> cancer...aside form that, are you a barbarian? can you

> as a human being justify slaughtering animals for

> " food " ? either way you slice it, meat is not for

> humans.

You may want to take a look at some of the research showing that meat

has connections with cancer depending on how it is cooked. This link:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The_Cholesterol_Times-Issue-7.html#Cancer

.... has my review of a more recent study on pancreatic cancer, but in

it, I convey some of the discussion, in which studies are cited

showing that even red meat has no associations with pancreatic cancer

unless it is barbecued or grilled.

Unfortunately that does not address colon cancer specifically, but it

is strongly suggestive.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 12/3/05, Liz J <lizj279@...> wrote:

> On another level, for the girls that get recurrent vaginitis, apparently this

>happens because you release an inflammatory substance called >prostaglandin E2

in response to relasing histamine (which you release in >response to the candida

itself). This prostaglandin E2 is said to disable your >immune system against

recurrent outbreaks so you are in a viscious cycle. >A diet rich in red

meat/dairy is thought to only further induce prostaglandin >release. On the

other hand, the omega 3s and 6s inhibit it.

Hi Liz,

All prostaglandin precursors are either omega-3 or omega-6. Both

animal and plant products contain both. The omega-3 to omega-6 ratio

of red meat and dairy products is dependent on what the animal is

eating. Grass-fed contains much more omega-3s in proportion to

omega-6s, whereas the opposite is true with grain-fed, relative to one

another.

It is the omega-6 fatty acid, arachidonic acid, that is the precursor

to series 2 prostaglandins.

Theoretically the release of it should be controlled enzymatically.

Perhaps spontaneous generation could result when levels of oxidative

stress are too high; I don't know.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

I know that this is a big issue, with many pros and cons; and we'll probably

never get it all sorted out regardless of how hard we try.

However, from my own experience, I was a Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian from early

1985 up to December, 1999, when I was forced to give it up for health

reasons. Honestly, it broke my heart to give up something that meant so

much to me. I truly do love all animals.

But, I did feel better afterward ... and a year and a half later, too, I

developed Hypoglycemia. Now the only way I can keep my blood sugar

reasonably stable is by eating a certain amount of meat protein in each of

my meals; and by adding a certain amount of fat to each meal, to slow down

absorbtion of any starches I happen to eat.

All-protein cheeses (which I absolutely love, BTW) don't even compare to the

results I get by eating meat. In other words, my blood sugar levels will

drop much faster if I don't eat a certain amount of meat at each meal.

At one time, too, I was on an all-protein diet, after I was diagnosed with

chemical overload syndrome/multiple chemical sensitivity. That was a

temporary condition based on overusage of Lamisil for treating the candida

overgrowth that I had at the time (and still do, I've learned just

recently). In any case, during the time (an entire month, at least) when I

was eating nothing but protein (eggs, fish, and later on I added red meat,

pork and chicken), I had no candida 'brain fog' reactions at all to food,

because I wasn't eating anything that the candida particularly enjoyed.

Cecilia

:+)

================================================================================\

=============

[Guest guest]

is right. Any food will contain benzyopyrenes, a known carcinogen

if it is cooked by a direct, open flame. This includes grills and even

toasters(with tungsten filaments along the sides). Roasted marshmallows are

a perfect example of a benzopyrene containing food. The toxin is not

present until created by the rapid heat process from the direct flame. As

long as there is a pan between the food and the heat source, no benzopyrenes

will be created. You can burn it black and still no benzopyrenes.

Ken

-- Re: How much meat (in ounces or grams) is safe to eat

in a day?

On 12/3/05, Jaern Skaalhammar <smoergaasman@...> wrote:

> this is insane...meat is exactly what causes colon

> cancer...aside form that, are you a barbarian? can you

> as a human being justify slaughtering animals for

> " food " ? either way you slice it, meat is not for

> humans.

You may want to take a look at some of the research showing that meat

has connections with cancer depending on how it is cooked. This link:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The_Cholesterol_Times-Issue-7

html#Cancer

..... has my review of a more recent study on pancreatic cancer, but in

it, I convey some of the discussion, in which studies are cited

showing that even red meat has no associations with pancreatic cancer

unless it is barbecued or grilled.

Unfortunately that does not address colon cancer specifically, but it

is strongly suggestive.

Chris