Robert McFerran's Diets Archives

Heart and Atkinson Diet (Gout?)

[ Robert McFerran's Diets Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

Hello. I have been a non-dairy vegetarian for quite some time and have recently managed to cause
some dietary changes in my father, who is a big meat eater and has HIGH cholesterol and blood
pressure.

He's not doing too well and feels horrible.. flushed, increased blood pressure. I think his body is
trumatized at the amount of fruit and veggies he is ingesting, as well as the morning regiment of
cereal he has which contains a mixure of lots of different grains/oats, etc.. The only thing I noticed
after talking to him that might cause some discomfort was the fact that he hasn't been following the
fruit rules.. but even eating fruit with other food has never caused feverish flushing and an
increased blood pressure.. (?)

This all resulted from me exploding on him (in immature fashion) after he went on the Atkinson diet,
full of meat, eggs and protein. The most bizarre aspect, though, is the fact that the last time he
went on Atkinsons, he felt great and his cholesterol dropped from near 300 to 220!! Does anyone
know how this is possible or have more information on what this diet is all about? Although I will be
a raw foodist/ macrobiotic boy until I die, I at least feel the need to understand.. because some of
the results of this diet threw me for a loop. And, he was abslutely honest about the whole thing
because we are an honest loving family. Any responses can be posted here or to me directly.

Thanks in advance!

Peace from within,

Brian




Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Bob?)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 18, 1999 at 13:16:04:

In Reply to: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

Dear Brian,

I know this must sound like a broken record but at least have him learn about SR. Practicing it regularly (in the long run) will do him more good than any other single thing and would magnify the benefits of anything else he tries.

I hope Bob will see this & respond.

Walt



This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
trish on March 18, 1999 at 13:19:17:

In Reply to: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

Hi, Brian!

Well, I think you came to the right place to learnabout different diets. I am what is known as a hunter-gatherer. Apparently your dad is, too. Ineed to eat a LOT of meat, eggs and protein to feel good. I had a very interesting (though not good)experience when I tried to be a vegetarian for around six months. I ended up hauling my sorry, bloated exhausted fat body in to the doctor, only to be told, "Eat more meat!"

Well, I did, along with discovering and taking care of a candida problem, and low and behold, I lost the weight, got my energy back and my bloodwork (including cholesterol) got better, too!

What it all boils down to is this; we're all different. No one diet is great for everyone, Brian. You father's body needs different things to be healthy than your body needs.

Robert McFerran is our resident "diet dude." He is a wealth of information on the subject of metabolic diet and I have a feeling he will be interested in your note. He will suggest some books to help you understand that each of our personal metabolisms need a specific type of diet for us to thrive.

It will be good for you to learn about this, too, so you can be comfortable encouraging your father to eat what is good for HIM, and what will keep HIM healthy and happy.

I would feel horrible if I started to eat a lot of fruit, too. For me, following the "fruit rules" is not to eat more than one serving per day. It simply isn't good for me.

I am curious, too, why would you have him change from a diet that was apparently working for him?

Hope you will find some answers!
be well,
trish



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 14:43:13:

In Reply to: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

Brian,

Here is an exerpt from my book that discusses diet, anthropology and blood work. Let me know if you have any questions.

Bob


At the time of conception we receive genetic programming that decides external features such as the color of eyes, hair and skin. At the same moment less obvious internal features are also set. Prominent among these is the biochemistry required to metabolize and convert food to energy.

Striking is the fact that while we all have similar biochemical pathways in place for metabolizing foods there is considerable variance from individual to individual in which pathways are most heavily used. During the last 100,000 years skin colors changed as humans migrated to different parts of the planet. Variations in skin color were an adaptive response to new climates. Similar adaptive changes took place in the pathways responsible for metabolizing food. Internal metabolic biochemistry would adjust to take advantage of new food sources. These adaptive changes occurred very slowly, each requiring several thousand years to take place.

Anthropologists recently made a stunning discovery establishing that we are all genetically linked to a single individual who lived in Central Africa some 4 ½ million years ago. Anthropologists dubbed this individual ‘Ancestral Eve’ since she was the genetic point of origin for the entire human race. Her genetic information has been passed down (in some form) to each and every one of us. Salient to our discussion is the fact that Ancestral Eve possessed the metabolic biochemical pathways needed to convert carbohydrate, as well as protein and fat into energy. This gave humans flexibility and a distinct advantage in what they could utilize as a food source. Fortunately we have retained this same metabolic ability to this day.

Ancestral Eve was a ‘Hunter-gatherer’ whose primary food source happened to be the flesh of other animals. As a result she possessed a metabolism that was generally optimized for converting relatively large quantities of fat and protein and smaller amounts of carbohydrate (derived from plant sources) into energy.

All of Ancestral Eve’s descendants would consume a similar diet until the beginnings of agriculture emerged some 25,000 years ago in what is now the Middle East. As game became sparse the people in that area slowly began displacing animal flesh with agricultural products. It would take some 15,000 years to complete their conversion to a cereal intensive ‘Agriculturist’ diet. Along the way their metabolic biochemistry would change to one optimized for carbohydrate rather than the fat and protein of their predecessors.

Human metabolic biochemistry would be challenged once again as individuals well adapted to the Agriculturist diet began to migrate to less temperate areas some 5,000 years ago. Faced with shorter growing seasons they increased their consumption of animal flesh and especially the animal by-products provided from animal husbandry. This marked the emergence of a somewhat ‘Mixed’ third metabolic subset. The important point here is that are all three of these metabolic types are present today -- and your physiology has been pre-programmed since birth to operate at it’s best using one of them.

Concrete examples of these three major dietary and metabolic subsets are not relics of some prehistoric past. Dr. Weston Price found groups of people representing each of these three metabolic subsets in pristine condition as late as the turn of the century. Isolated from civilization they were eating essentially the same diets consumed by their ancestors thousands of years ago. All of these isolated peoples had exceptional health that rapidly deteriorated as new, ‘civilized’ foods were introduced into their diets. In each instance small alterations in diet precipitated huge declines in health.

Dr. Weston Price described the hunter-gatherer diet of the Scottish inhabitants of the Outer Hebrides (circa 1900). This group was secluded from civilization by the unnavigable seas lining it’s coast. The combination of cool weather and poor soil made an agricultural subsistence impossible. Instead these people thrived on an animal based diet. Crab and fish from the sea as well as meat from domesticated sheep were the dietary staples. Some plants, primarily root vegetables, were cultivated but little if any grains were available. The local soil was too high in lime content to sustain it’s growth.

Hunter-gatherer foods would be most commonly found in cold or arid environments. The diet is relatively high in fat and especially high in purines from organ meats and other sweetbreads. There was reason organ meats were called sweetbreads. They were the most prized and the first thing eaten after the slaughter of an animal since minimal butchering was required to obtain these meats. Animals provided their major source of nutrition. Conversely carbohydrate consumption was limited. No fresh fruit or vegetables were available during long winters or drought-like desert summers. Think about it. In fact many of these ancestor never saw a single piece of fruit. Even small amounts of carbohydrate would strongly signal the pancreas to produce insulin. Too much would result in stimulating an overproduction of insulin from the pancreas (hyper-insulinism). The release of too much insulin would subsequently create a precipitous drop in blood sugar commonly known as hypoglycemia.

Classic examples are the American Indians of the western plains. They would follow buffalo and caribou further north. Salmon and seals in the northwest. Vegetation would be stored in animal fat. Tubers and other root vegetables were major sources of carbohydrate. Cereals and other grains were rarely or sparingly used. Horticulture rather than agriculture was employed. The combination of weather and quality of the ground made agriculture difficult. Animal husbandry was important. Salting, drying and other curing techniques were employed.

Australian Aborigines provide another example of hunter-gatherers but in this case living in a much different environment. Separated from civilization by an unforgiving desert environment Aborigines were unaware of the concept of agriculture until late in the 1800’s. They relied almost exclusively on animals for their nutritional needs. Only sparse vegetation was available in their arid environment.

Prominent examples of the agriculturist diet are found at present in Middle and Far Eastern cultures. They continue to use grains as their primary nutritional source much the way their ancestors did. Their cereal intensive diet is intermittently supplemented with small amounts of fish and meat.

Agriculturist foods occupy the other far extreme of the metabolic spectrum. These foods are found in temperate climates where vegetation was much more abundant year round. The combination of moderate temperatures and fertile soil made agriculture possible and with it the intensive use of cereals and other carbohydrate rich foods. Animal sources were eaten infrequently usually divided after a catch and distributed in much smaller quantities among the group. Purine and fat content was very low. Salt was used sparingly. Large amounts of carbohydrate were needed to spur insulin production. Too much purine and fat would squelch insulin production resulting in a diabetic curve.


Dr. Price also found excellent examples of a mixed diet. He observed groups of people that cultivated and were well adapted to some types of grains yet relied primarily on the products of animal husbandry as their major food source. One such group was isolated high in the Lowenthal Valley of the Swiss Alps. The climate in this area was decidedly cooler yet with very fertile soil. Price describes their successful cultivation of oats and barley used for breads and cereals along with their large consumption of milk and cheese. Herded animals (primarily cattle) would be slaughtered and divided on a weekly basis among the families in the community. This served as their primary source of meat.

It should be noted that foods in the Mixed diet are not located at in the middle of the metabolic spectrum. Rather they are skewed toward the ‘heavy’ diet consumed by the hunter-gatherer metabolism. The Mixed metabolism requires moderate intake of purines and fat with a good dose of carbohydrate.

So how can you tell what metabolism that you have inherited? The best way is to test all three of the different metabolic diets. The diet to which you are metabolically best adapted will give you the most energy.

Dr. Wiley found that approximately 75% of men and 50% of women in America possess an Agriculturist metabolism. More precisely 50% of women will have an Agriculturist metabolism at least during some part of their menstrual cycle. The metabolic nuances of metabolism in women will be discussed later in greater detail.

In many instances a 5 hour glucose tolerance test will reveal your metabolic identity. The test consists of a period of fasting (usually overnight) and then testing for a blood sugar level (or fasting blood sugar level) in the morning. The patient then drinks a sweet, glucose laden, ‘test meal’. Glucose readings are then checked at 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 ½ hours, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours and finally 5 hours after consumption of the test meal.

A sharp rise in glucose levels followed by an abrupt drop indicates hyper-insulinism (better known as hypo-gylcemia). All individuals with this type of blood glucose curve posses a Hunter-gatherer metabolism. Many physicians will suggest that this type of blood sugar curve is abnormal and that the patient has some sort of carbohydrate intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the 5 hour glucose tolerance reveals is a metabolic identity.

(INSERT NORMAL AND HYPOGLYCEMIC CURVE)

The Hunter-gatherer that is eating a diet mismatched to their inherited metabolism will experience wild ups and downs in their blood sugar levels. This sort of roller coaster ride exerts a tremendous stress on our physiology. The dramatic drop in blood sugar levels creates hunger, fatigue, loss of strength and mental fog or confusion. Many patients will complain of feeling cold (even when it’s warm) and experience urinary immediacy. In the most severe cases blood sugar can drop to dangerously low levels leading to unconsciousness. Left unattended this condition can lead to a variety of chronic illnesses, including arthritis.

The usual prescription for individuals possessing a hypoglycemic blood sugar curve has been to eat several (5-8) small meals throughout the day. Doctors suggested that these meals consist primarily of foods high in complex carbohydrates. Sugar of any kind should be avoided. The hope was that by eating meals every 2 hours or so that the blood sugar levels of the individual could be buoyed throughout the day. Recently physicians have found that relatively high protein and low complex carbohydrate diets provide more stability to the hypoglycemics blood sugar levels.

Other individuals will show an elevated fasting blood sugar that rises well above normal levels after eating. These higher levels tends to stay elevated over time. This is called a hyper-glycemic or diabetic blood sugar curve. Normally, blood sugar levels begin to drop as the pancreas releases insulin in response to carbohydrate consumption. Physicians believe that this is caused by damage to the insulin producing cells of the pancreas. This is not always the case. Elimination of individual food allergens and the proper metabolic diet will significantly reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental insulin.

95% of all type II diabetics in America will possess an extreme Agriculturist metabolism. The remaining 5% were previously hypoglycemic (and therefore had inherited a Hunter-gather metabolism). The long term stress of repeated hypoglycemic swings can ultimately results in pancreatic exhaustion and a diabetic blood sugar curve.

I can’t emphasize enough that these dispositions toward a hypoglycemic or diabetic blood curve are more indicative of metabolic identity rather than abnormal carbohydrate metabolism. If diet is more properly matched to the inherited metabolic predisposition of the individual and major food allergens removed, the prominent hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic swings will not be seen. Of course if diet continues to be mismatched to inherited metabolism a disease process will ultimately ensue.

Other common blood work values can reveal a bit of a metabolic ‘fingerprint’ as to what type of metabolism that you’ve inherited. Cholesterol values give a broad indication of metabolic predisposition. In general Agriculturists tend to have higher total cholesterol and lower HDL cholesterol values than their Hunter-gatherer counterparts.

There is a bit of a paradox with cholesterol values in those that have inherited a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer metabolism. Most individuals with this type of metabolism have a low (less than 165 mg./dl) total cholesterol. Their ratio of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol is also relatively low. HDL is sometimes referred to as ‘good’ cholesterol. Physicians now know that high levels of HDL (greater than 50 mg/dl) implies a lower risk of coronary disease. A low cholesterol/HDL ratio is much more indicative of risk factor for coronary disease than simple total cholesterol levels.

Some individuals with a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer metabolism will have very high cholesterol levels with relatively low levels of HDL cholesterol. These individuals are often eating a diet that is very low in fat and cholesterol. So where is the cholesterol coming from?

The liver pumps out cholesterol (more than you could ever eat) as a response to stress. If you have inherited a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer metabolism and you are eating a low fat, low cholesterol diet you are placing a huge amount of stress on your physiology. The result is high levels of cholesterol in your bloodstream. Once you begin eating the higher fat, higher cholesterol diet appropriate for your inherited metabolic type your cholesterol values will normalize. In other words those with too low cholesterol will see a rise while those with high levels will see a reduction. Good HDL cholesterol will increase for both. Coronary risk will improve.

Uric acid levels also give some indication of metabolic type. Hunter-gatherers tend to have low uric acid levels where their Agriculturist counterparts test relatively high. Physicians routinely see elevated uric acid levels in gout patients. Crystals of uric acid form if uric acid levels rise too high. These crystals tend to deposit themselves in the large joint of the big toe. Once there they produce inflammation and pain.

Before the advent of modern drugs the only way to treat gout was with a low purine diet. Purines are a type of protein found in a variety of vegetables and meats. Dark colored fish and meat (especially organ meats like liver) are dense in this specific type of protein. Since purines are converted into uric acid, patients with gout are frequently prescribed a diet that excludes these purine rich foods.

Those that have inherited a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer metabolism will show relatively low uric acid values. These types of metabolism actually use purines as a required intermediate in the production of energy. Mixed and Hunter-gatherer metabolisms ‘burn’ the great majority of purines that they consume and excrete the rest as uric acid. Agriculturists are metabolically built so that they can only utilize very small amounts of purines. They must excrete the rest in the form of uric acid.

Your personal reaction to caffeine is another indication of inherited metabolic type. Consider what would happen if you sat down in the mid-morning and had several cups of caffeinated coffee (or other caffeinated beverage) without eating any food. Agriculturists would find that the caffeine energized them and they felt quite well. To EXTREME Agriculturists caffeine is like a magical elixir. It’s impact is such that they wonder why everyone doesn’t drink it. Hunter-gatherers and individuals with a Mixed metabolism have a different reaction. Two to three cups of caffeinated coffee without food usually leaves them feeling nervous, anxious or jittery.

Caffeine signals the liver to release glycogen which is immediately converted into glucose in the bloodstream. The pancreas then releases insulin so that the glucose in the bloodstream can be utilized by muscles and the brain.

This chain of events assists the Agriculturist metabolism. As you might recall from above the blood sugar levels of the Agriculturist tend to stay elevated. The net effect from consuming a caffeinated drink is the release of a bit more insulin. This extra insulin helps to lower the elevated blood sugar levels making the energy in it available to the brain and muscles.

Hunter-gatherers and Mixed individuals will also find that caffeine gives them a lift. Unfortunately it will be short lived. The release of glycogen from the liver and the subsequent conversion into glucose creates a temporary rise in blood sugar. The pancreas responds by releasing an overly large amount of insulin. This creates the worst possible scenario for these metabolic types with already hypoglycemic (hyper-insulin) tendencies. As their blood sugar levels drop very low they feel hungry, fatigued or jittery.

Of course I routinely see folks that have inherited a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer metabolism that consume caffeinated drinks. The difference here is that they usually drink them shortly before, during or shortly after eating. They simply cannot tolerate several cups without food as can their Agriculturist counterparts.

Your eating patterns also give an indication of inherited metabolism. Agriculturists can have a small breakfast and then go without any food until late in the afternoon. Of course they may have several cups of coffee or other caffeinated drinks to help sustain them along the way. In many cases Agriculturists report feeling better with the less they eat.

Hunter-gatherers on the other hand will usually find themselves hungry and in need of food within 2-3 hours after eating breakfast. They might also find themselves in the same situation within 3 hours after lunch and then again just before bedtime. If Hunter-gatherers don’t eat breakfast they may find that they can go without food well into the morning hours. If they forgo eating breakfast no insulin is released and blood sugar levels will remain relatively stable.

Many folks will get their clearest indication of inherited metabolism during the Elimination Diet phase. Agriculturists find that they feel completely satisfied only eating vegetables and a bit of fruit for breakfast and lunch. Dinner is the only meal where they might feel they need the addition of fish.

Hunter-gatherers on the other hand will feel almost immediately hungry if they don’t eat some fish with every meal. They might also find that they need to eat 4-5 meals consisting of the fish, vegetables and a little fruit to sustain themselves throughout the day. The reason for this phenomenon is that Hunter-gatherers require the purines and fat found in the fish to deliver the energy that they need.



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Lincoln on March 18, 1999 at 15:34:03:

In Reply to: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

>... he went on the Atkinson diet, full of meat, eggs and protein. The most bizarre aspect, though, is the fact that the last time he went on Atkinsons, he felt great and his cholesterol dropped from near 300 to 220!! <

Not unusual. I have a buddy who eat all the porterhouse steaks he can, plus eggs, bacon, you name it. His cholesterol also went down to well below 200. The key, he claims, is the low percentage of carbohydrates in his diet. He consumes 10 to 20 grams a day of carbs.

I also eat a lot of meat, eggs, bacon, plus 'fatty' foods like nuts and olive oil. I've cut back on carbs, especially refined carbs. My cholesterol level is something like 178.



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
mike kramer on March 18, 1999 at 18:46:58:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 14:43:13:

Bob:

Thanks so much for the new excerpts. I was excited especially to read the anthopology stuff at the beginning. I would welcome you posting comments giving anthropological evidence of peoples whose diets conflict with the ER4YT blood type recommendations.

I would strongly encourage anyone reading this to give Bob's regimens a test. For years I was trying to eat little meat, low fat and lots of carbo. I would stuff my face with food constantly (I have always been thin). I could eat a whole meal an hour after dinner. I used to go to bed thinking about what I'd eat for breakfast.

I discovered through painful trial and error (it took many years) that if I ate mostly meat I would not be thinking about breakfast when I went to bed. I would go many months eating mostly meat. But I always felt that there was something wrong and unhealthy about that. I believed that if eating meat was good for me, I would get better, and then I would be able to eat low-fat veggies predominantly.

Bob's work has given me some kind of theoretical framework to understand myself. The Atkins diet did too, but Bob shows why Atkins is so bad for some. That was what I couldn't understand before. It is clear as day that eating lots of fat and meat is death to many people.

Well, now for a question. I thought that I was reacting to HG supplements since I was getting a lot of stomach upset. I am not sure now. I will reintroduce some that I stopped taking. But I wonder if being too heavy with the sea salt could have been my problem. I normally eat no salt on anything. But I have been using sea salt since that is recommended for HG. Could too much salt act to loosen the stools by drawing water into the gut? Or could there be some other mechanism? Could the high sea salt intake be responsible for the muscle cramping that some of us have experienced?

Hunting happily and gathering with gusto,
Mike



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 20:48:47:

In Reply to: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by trish on March 18, 1999 at 13:19:17:

Thanks for the response. I would have him change his diet because it is not working for him. His cholesterol is well above 300 and has been for years. He has high blood pressure and stomach and bowel problems.

I found Bob's words interesting but I would have to do much more research before I would blindly believe them, especially since they contradict my own personal research over the past 10 years. I have researched those on the planet that are the most healthy, live the longest and have the least cases of heart disease, cancer, high cholesterol, OSTEOPOROSIS, etc.. and they are all, without exception, vegetarians whose diets contain 75+% water based foods. (fruits and veggies)

I have also researched the animals on the planet who are carnivores and their related enzymes, digestive tract lengths, teeth, jaw movement, colon design, etc.. and the animals who are vegetarians (like silverback gorillas and apes who are our closest ancestors) and their related enzymes, digestive tract lengths, etc..etc.. and I have found that we have everything in common with the vegetarians and nothing in common with the meat eaters.

I'm happy that some people can function on a meat based diet high in saturated fats and not develop as much artery plaque as many others, but the fact is, meat and other perishable dairy products rot within our bodies due to the length of our intestinal tracts and shape of our colons and this is directly related to colon cancer, prostate cancer, intestinal and stomach problems, etc..

I have been fortunate enough to meet numerous muscial Indian friends (India) who have been vegan since birth and not one of them has high cholesterol or any of the other digestive problems which seem common in the US. Not only that but some of my friends have informed me that cancer and heart disease is unheard of in their land and among their ancestors.

I find Bob's words very interesting and they have offered me some new information, but, to be honest, if he can show me one example on the planet of a vegan with high cholesterol or colon cancer, I'll buy him a new house! :)

Peace and Love from Within,

Brian



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 21:29:23:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 14:43:13:

Hello Bob. Thanks for the info. I find your words very interesting but must admit that most of the conclusions contradict my own personal research over the past 10 years. My research is of a different vein, though. After reading such text as 'Diet for a New America' and 'Fit For Life', I became interested in researching the worlds people and how their diets correlate to longevity, heart disease, cancer, etc.. as well as the world's animals and how their biology relates to their diet.. ie- intestinal tract length, colon shape, enzymes, teeth shape, jaw movements, etc..etc.. and I discovered (this is my opinion from research) that we have everything in common with the vegetarians and very little in common with the meat eaters.

I see many of the influencing dietary factors in the US as having to do more with the USDA and money than anything else. Certain things like drinking cow's milk are completely ridiculous to me, especially because most of us don't even have the enzymes to digest HUMAN milk after the age of around 3, and cow's milk has 300 times more Casein in it than human milk, which is why cow's have four stomachs so they can digest that nasty white glue and many milk and dairy ingesting americans insides are coated with this goo.. damn strong stuff, which is why is is the chief componant of certain types of wood glue. Any adult animal drinking milk is ridiculous to me... and an adult animal drinking the milk of another creature is even more silly! :)

The cultures of the planet who live to be the oldest and have non existenct incidence of heart disease and cancer are vegetarian without exception. Some if the most interesting research that I have conducted has been that which was conducted during the korean and vietnam war and how 18 year old american kids were already showing signs of heart disease(artery plaque) and how their asian vegetarian counterparts were not.. or the studies done in japan before and after WWII where a dietary shift toward meat eating took place and heart disease and cancer increased.. and womanly mensus dropped significantly due to the increased amount of animal fat in the diet and growth hormones in meat, etc.. There seem to be a large abundance of scientific dietary studies at places where meat and dairy ran over cultures like the Crusades.. ;)

There have also been studies done on caucasions who had a high protein meat based diet and those that were vegan and vegetarian and the only conclusion that I could come to is that saturated fats in the diet collect on the arteries as plaque and eventually clog up the coronary arteries which feed the heart blood and kill us.. Tigers, on the other hand, have an enzyme that allows them to have gigantic amounts of cholesterol in their blood without artery plaque resulting. They also have a short intestinal tract and colon with smooth sides which allows meat to be absorbed and removed from the body before the rotting and nastiness occurs... and nothing gets stuck in the colon and turns into cancer 10 years later.

I know I'm very opinionated about all of this, but I also consider myself to have an open mind about new information which is why I appreciate your submission! I will research your words and attempt to locate the scientific research that influenced your opinions. My favorite books are those that include foot notes every paragraph or two referencing real research. Those that don't I usually consider fiction, but your statements are so profound that I have decided to actually look into them. Sometimes the most profound words are the most true!

Peace and Love from Within,

Brian T




Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 21:50:26:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by mike kramer on March 18, 1999 at 18:46:58:

Mike,

I don't know if you use calcium hydroxyapetite for your supplemental calcium/phosphorous needs. If not you should consider using it since I believe that H-G's are best adapted to this product (essentially extracted lamb bone marrow).

Having said that, I've found that some folks will have problems supplementing at the rather high level suggested by Dr. Wiley in BioBalance. Try eliminating the calcium/phosphorous for a week and see what happens. If this seems to be the problem I'd add the calcium/phosphorous at 1/4th what Dr. Wiley suggests.

I think there are several groups of folks that are Hunter-gatherers that were indigenous and had type A blood. Most notably some groups of North American Indians. I'm not in the business of trying to de-bunk Dr. D'Adamo's theories -- instead incorporate some of his observations of the importance of some lectin containing foods into my dietary protocol.

The reality is that I can't swing a dead cat without hitting an Agriculturist with blood type O or a H-G with blood type A. They are everywhere.

Bob



Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length

Posted by
Aaron Wieland on March 18, 1999 at 21:53:51:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 20:48:47:

This topic is covered in an update to the interviews with Ward Nicholson.  Here's an excerpt:

Vegetarian philosophy has traditionally relied on observing that the ratio of intestinal length to body trunk length parallels that of the other primates as an indication the human diet should also parallel their more frugivorous/vegetarian diet. However, this observation is based on the oversimplification that gut length is the relevant factor, when in fact both cell types and intestinal surface area are the more important operative factors, the latter of which can vary greatly depending on the density of villi lining the intestinal walls. In these respects, the human gut shares characteristics common to both omnivores and carnivores.

Also, see the article "Human are Omnivores," in The Vegan Handbook(!). An excerpt was posted to the Paleofood list.

The existence of healthy vegetarians is often cited as proof that meat-eating is not healthy, but this perspective is lopsided. John Lame Deer reported that many of the Sioux warriors who fought at Little Bighorn survived to their 90's or 100's; even at such an advanced age, they continued to ride horses and enjoy tough meat. Lame Deer lamented that Indians no longer ate healthy foods, such as raw kidney and liver.

This topic is covered in an update to the interviews with Ward Nicholson.  Here's an excerpt:

Vegetarian philosophy has traditionally relied on observing that the ratio of intestinal length to body trunk length parallels that of the other primates as an indication the human diet should also parallel their more frugivorous/vegetarian diet. However, this observation is based on the oversimplification that gut length is the relevant factor, when in fact both cell types and intestinal surface area are the more important operative factors, the latter of which can vary greatly depending on the density of villi lining the intestinal walls. In these respects, the human gut shares characteristics common to both omnivores and carnivores.

Also, see the article "Human are Omnivores," in The Vegan Handbook(!). An excerpt was posted to the Paleofood list.

The existence of healthy vegetarians is often cited as proof that meat-eating is not healthy, but this perspective is lopsided. John Lame Deer reported that many of the Sioux warriors who fought at Little Bighorn survived to their 90's or 100's; even at such an advanced age, they continued to ride horses and enjoy tough meat. Lame Deer lamented that Indians no longer ate healthy foods, such as raw kidney and liver. Regarding general health, I'm still staggered by some of the feats of endurance demonstrated by hunter-gatherers.

The relationship between meat consumption and osteoporosis is much more ambiguous than vegetarian advocates have led us to believe. An extremely detailed post to the Paleodiet list summarizes and interprets various studies.

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Re: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length (ACK! READ THIS POST INSTEAD OF THE ONE ABOVE)

Posted by
Aaron Wieland on March 18, 1999 at 21:57:16:

In Reply to: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length posted by Aaron Wieland on March 18, 1999 at 21:53:51:

This topic is covered in an update to the interviews with Ward Nicholson.  Here's an excerpt:

Vegetarian philosophy has traditionally relied on observing that the ratio of intestinal length to body trunk length parallels that of the other primates as an indication the human diet should also parallel their more frugivorous/vegetarian diet. However, this observation is based on the oversimplification that gut length is the relevant factor, when in fact both cell types and intestinal surface area are the more important operative factors, the latter of which can vary greatly depending on the density of villi lining the intestinal walls. In these respects, the human gut shares characteristics common to both omnivores and carnivores.

Also, see the article "Human are Omnivores," in The Vegan Handbook(!). An excerpt was posted to the Paleofood list.

The existence of healthy vegetarians is often cited as proof that meat-eating is not healthy, but this perspective is lopsided. John Lame Deer reported that many of the Sioux warriors who fought at Little Bighorn survived to their 90's or 100's; even at such an advanced age, they continued to ride horses and enjoy tough meat. Lame Deer lamented that Indians no longer ate healthy foods, such as raw kidney and liver. Regarding general health, I'm still staggered by some of the feats of endurance demonstrated by hunter-gatherers.

The relationship between meat consumption and osteoporosis is much more ambiguous than vegetarian advocates have led us to believe. An extremely detailed post to the Paleodiet list summarizes and interprets various studies.

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Re: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length (ACK! READ THIS POST INSTEAD OF THE ONE ABOVE)

Posted by
Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 23:16:15:

In Reply to: Re: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length (ACK! READ THIS POST INSTEAD OF THE ONE ABOVE) posted by Aaron Wieland on March 18, 1999 at 21:57:16:

Thanks for the information! I have found the Osteoporosis debate intriguing as well. The research to which I have attached the most value are those by physicians and organizations not affiliated with the USDA and US Government, as they certainly aren't going to make a strong case against a subsidized government industry as gigantic as meat and dairy.

I have yet to encounter a vegetarian or vegan region with high rates if Osteo and if others are aware of such groups I would love for then to relay the information. My belief is that, when reviewing the role calcium plays in the body of reducing acidity.. high protein causes calcium leaching as if shifts the pH of the body to the acidic side of the spectrum which must be neutralized. The Eskimos are an interesting group to analyze, as they are among the highest of all in cases of osteoporosis.. as well as consumption of protein, due to their diet high in fish and whale, etc.. but they also ingest huge amounts of calcium, due to shells and bones and stuff but it doesn't seem to have any effect on the disease. It's obvious to most that menopausal women lose a bit of skeletal mass but Osteo is a term designated to those whom have lost 50-75% of their skeletal mass. I wonder if anyone actually believes that nature has been set up for women to lose half of their skeletal mass when they stop ovulating...

Go to the NIH website on Osteo and you won't find one reference to the research concerning the protein link. Interesting...

For anyone believing in the Atkinson and Zone mentality of nutrition and diet, here is a great link!

http://www.drmcdougall.com/debate.html

Thanks again. I'll have to delve into the Sioux warriors now. Perhaps their mighty hearts and vessals pumped through the sludge with more endurance than those of weaker disposition. ;) haha.

Peace

Brian



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 23:28:00:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 20:48:47:

Brian,

You HAVE been brainwashed.

Have you realized that all your examples of folks that have thrived on vegan diets (like India) are because their ancestors lived in temperate areas where they were well adapted to a plant based Agriculturist diet?

Tell me what plant based foods were available to people living in very arid or very cold climates? Aborigines, North American Indians and Northern Europeans COULD NOT sustain themselves on plants. Instead they not only survived but THRIVED AND MIGRATED TREMENDOUS DISTANCES under the harshest of conditions while eating flesh based diets.

Silverback gorillas have not had much luck migrating beyond their temperate homes so they have little in common with humans who have been human for over 4 1/2 million years and who were able to migrate from Central Africa to cover almost every area of the world.

If you really, sincerely want to understand what is going on you need to read a book that was written around 1920. There were no politically correct dietary axes to grind. The name of the book is NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL DEGENERATION by Dr. Weston Price.

The fact that you might have inherited an Agriculturist metabolism will make it VERY hard for you to open your mind wide enough to make room for a new paradigm. You will find that the fact that your dietary choice has given you health was more based on luck than any scientific fact.

Unfortunately that may not work for your father. In fact he can be punished tremendously by the WRONG choice. I don't know what end of the metabolic spectrum that your father occupies -- but there are ways of finding that out.

I meet vegans with high cholesterol ALL THE TIME right here in my own town. It's almost an ongoing joke with some of my friends who say "let's go to the health food store and see some sick vegans.......". It's not funny, but it is the truth. I could stand at the door and count the folks (especially women) who are chronically ill that are eating vegan diets when their inherited metabolism demands something else.

I've been looking at a nice house down on the river....... thanks for your offer.

Bob




Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 23:39:58:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 21:29:23:

Hi Brian,

Ohhhhh nooooooo -- Diet for a New America -- the biggest piece of propagana ever written!

I just posted a note to your reply to Trish so I won't go back over old turf BUT whenever you see a study you need to consider the metabolic make-up of the group that was studied. The Japanese obviously fall into the Agriculturist category so 16 oz. steaks would be expected to cause them problems since they are not well adapted to it.

How well you are adapted to certain types of food is directly related to how many thousands of years your ancestors have been eating it. Not long ago someone was suggesting on this BB that soy was a 'super-food'. He used a number of Japanese studies to 'prove' his point. I know that soy is a major food allergen (on the heels of wheat, corn and milk) for caucasians in America. It's because they are NOT well adapted to it.

How can Eskimos routinely eat their native diet of carribou and seal with some root vegetables (what other types of vegetation can survive that cold?) and routinely have total cholesterols in the 300's and NEVER have coronary disease?

Bob




Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Brian T on March 19, 1999 at 02:29:25:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 23:28:00:

Thanks for the response. I will read the book you mentioned and will gladly take a look at any other specific research you site. I'm very interested in learning as much about nutrition as possible and am especially intrigued by your words but I am very science minded, despite what you may think.. and would love to analyze any specific scientific studies with which you are familiar.

As far as the different groups of people and animals on the planet, of course they don't all exist in climates supporting a vegetarian lifestyle... I don't feel there is anything profound about that. I'm not suggesting meat and dairy eaters cannot thrive and prosper.. but I am very much interested in how specific diet relates to longevity and disease. After all, theoretically a tribe could have a very impressive existence and miraculously migrate through harsh conditions and the elders could all die of clogged arteries when they are in their 40's. Because a group of people existing on a diet high in dairy and meat become sick when they migrate to a predominantly grain based area doesn;t necessarily mean that the former is better for their health, just that their bodies are more used to that particular diet. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will all live to be old and grey free of disease on the former diet either.. Modern health and the scientific analysis of diet is a relatively new phenomenon in the whole scheme of things.. (IMO) A good example id the Eskimos once again. They eat what they have to eat just like everyone else but they have one of the highest incidences of oseoporosis on the planet. ( A bad example, I guess, If you don't agree that there is often a protein link to osteoporosis)

Your original response is a very interesting anthropolgical analysis of many different diets on the earth and the blood sugar curve data sounds impressive. I would love to learn more about it, but my primary nutritional interests concern the prevention of the two diseases that kill almost all americans, heart disease and cancer. I don't consider these afflictions to be natural in any way and view them as completely influenced by diet 99% of the time.

So, you are suggesting that due to dietary metabolism certain groups of people are predisposed to higher blood cholesterol and a higher incidence of artery plaque? You have encountered lifelong vegans with very little unsaturated fat and zero saturated fat in their diet with high cholesterol readings? How is this possible?

I would love to review the data collected that supports the opinions you express here. I am very capable of coming to a nutritional compromise with you or anyone else who has valid research to offer. :) My dream is that people, vegetarian or not, become more intelligent about their dietary habits and live to be old and grey while walking tall with their skeletal mass intact.

Peace

Brian




Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Brian T on March 19, 1999 at 02:43:47:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Robert McFerran on March 18, 1999 at 23:39:58:

Okay.. now we are getting somewhere.. ;) I just responded to your other post as well. I wasn't aware of that about the eskimos, but there does seem to be some strong evidence and numerous studies concerning calcium leaching from the bones of those with a high protein intake. Does your metabolism data come to any conclusions about that or is the neutralization of bodily acidity a static function unaffected by metabolism? It is my understanding that the human body operates within a small pH range and when the range shifts to the acidic side of the spectrum, calcium must be used to reduce this acidity and often gets leached from the bones. Do you know of instances of Osteo among cultures on a low protein diet? Do you know of high instances of cancer and heart disease among cultures on a non meat based diet?

What specific actions could my father take to prolong his life? A blood curve test? It's hard for me to imagine anyone not feeling completely wonderful who followed my diet and nutritional beliefs, but since a life is at stake, I will consider any advice you can offer and try to keep an open mind. Book and research references are what I consider to be of most value.

Thanks in Advance,

Brian



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 19, 1999 at 09:44:34:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 19, 1999 at 02:29:25:

Brian,

Once again the studies that you look at must be kept in proper context. You simply cannot fight the adaptive nature of evolution.

Let's take your example of the humans that migrated into the colder climates of northern Europe during the last 100,000 years (by the way it was MUCH colder in northern Europe 100,000 years ago as we were emerging from the last ice age). Some of those folks established themselves in northern Scotland and lived completely isolated from the rest of the world until about 200 years ago. So there in Northern Scotland from 100,000 years ago until 200 years ago my ancestors ate pretty much the same thing -- lots of meat and fish, no fruit and relatively little in the way of vegetation. As Dr. Price details in his book -- their teeth had an incidence of 0.6 of ONE percent! Their oral cavities were beautifully formed. They lived long lives and didn't suffer things like osteoporosis. They were in almost perfect harmony with the foods they ate. The last 100,000 years of adaptation gave them this harmony and with it their health.

When these folks altered their diet all hell broke loose. Dental decay rates sky-rocketed above 60% as did incidence of diseases like pneumonia. A similar scenario played out with the Plains Indians that Aaron described.

There is no one dietary absolute and reductionism suggesting that everyone is optimized by eating so much fat, carbohydrate or protein is absurd.

Health is tied to adaptation -- and adaptation is dependent on time. If your ancestors ate a certain way for several thousands of years and you suddenly change there is no time for adaptation and your health will suffer.

If there were any 'studies' that were devoted to looking at the significance of dietary adaptation we would be on the right track.

Bob



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 19, 1999 at 09:56:01:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 19, 1999 at 02:43:47:

Brian,

It's not as simple as getting a blood test run. I wish it were but it isn't. Adaptation is dependent on more than just carbohydrate/protein/fat ratios. It is dependent on the actual food and how long our ancestors have been eating that food.

We can generally lock onto the basic metabolic subset which your father falls but the impact of specific foods (which will yield a hyper-acute response) will have an equally significant effect on his health (and blood work values).

Bob



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
trish on March 19, 1999 at 10:14:25:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 20:48:47:

Brian,

When I asked why you'd have him change his diet, I was referring to your statements, "This all resulted from me exploding on him (in immature fashion) after he went on the Atkinson diet, full of meat, eggs and protein. The most bizarre aspect, though, is the fact that the last time he
went on Atkinsons, he felt great and his cholesterol dropped from near 300 to 220!!" Apparently, the Atkinson diet did him a lot of good.

I'm only offering what personal knowledge I have. I can tell you that I have a lot more problems with grains and carbs "rotting" in my gut than any of the proteins I eat! I have learned to pay attention to my body, Brian, and I know what's good for me. I am only suggesting that your father may benefit from a diet like mine more than from one like yours, as evidenced by his experience with Atkins.

Also of possible interest, both of my parents are Agriculturalists, and do much better on more vegetarian diets. My father's many problems improved vastly when he cut out beef and pork.

Anyway, glad to hear you're open to new ideas - best of luck, and I hope your dad gets better!
trish



Re: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 19, 1999 at 11:33:20:

In Reply to: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length posted by Aaron Wieland on March 18, 1999 at 21:53:51:

How about THIS quote from a teenager who sent this in response to an article about vegetarianism in "The New Yorker":

"If we are not supposed to eat animals; how come they are all made out of meat?"

GRIN! Walt



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 19, 1999 at 12:17:13:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Robert McFerran on March 19, 1999 at 09:56:01:

Hi, Brian, Bob, et.al.

Can anyone imagine the average doc trying to understand all this well enough to actually counsel a patient when they can make $300,000 a year by just treating the symptoms????

Besides, if they start teaching their patients about nutrition, they will be labled as quacks and lose their licenses.

Walt



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Lincoln on March 19, 1999 at 12:47:47:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 18, 1999 at 21:29:23:

>The cultures of the planet who live to be the oldest and have non existenct incidence of heart disease and cancer are vegetarian without exception. <

What native diets are totally vegetarian? I can only think of 'modern' societies that have examples of vegan diets. All other diets, like ancestral diets, have at least small amounts of meats, eggs, milk, insects, etc. I think vegan diets are an artifice of 'modern' ne0-moralistic thinking, not natural eating habits. The health benefits are the results of a backlash (whiplash) against the stunning rise of total fat intake that has occurred in diets over only the last 100 years. Vegan diets are an extreme reaction. That's just my opinion, mind you.



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Kyra on March 19, 1999 at 22:11:06:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Robert McFerran on March 19, 1999 at 09:44:34:


Dear Brian,

Just a thought, not offered with any holier than thouness. When some posts back you mentioned Indian friends, my ears picked up. You see, my particular spiritual paradigm falls within the Hindu tradition, and I follow a Guru. Within that context I've experienced enormous pressure to become a vegetarian/vegan as the only spiritually correct way of eating. I actually know a guy who divorced his wife and left his infant son allegedly because the wife was not a vegetarian. So here I am, sandalwood paste on forehead and seeking enlightenment, lamb chop in hand, even though I'd much prefer to be chowing down on masala dosa. I'm one of those extreme blood type A Hunter-Gatherers described by Bob. Whether I like it or not, my metabolism says "eat meat, meat and more meat." My cholesterol is 165; far lower than the 190 it was when I was trying to be a vegetarian and always feeling hungry and sick, along with intense sugar cravings. A meat-heavy diet has brought me to optimal health.

I'm the product of a type O mother and an AB father. My mother, like me, is an obligate meat eater. My father does best as a vegetarian. Go figure.

All the best to you, and happy researching!
Kyra



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?)

Posted by
Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 00:36:32:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) posted by Walt Stoll on March 19, 1999 at 12:17:13:

I have an idea! Just have them read 'Fit For Life' and adhere to the natural body cycles and follow the diet and if they feel horrible after a few months it means their ancestors must all be meat eaters. haha. but regardless, they still won't be able to metabolize uric acid and, because, like all other humans, only have enough uricase enzyme to handle the miniscule amounts in some vegetables... so they will feel great until the arthritis sets in, and the Osteo from the calcium leaching because the pH of their body is constantly on the acidic side of the spectrum. Even the Eskimos aren;t safe from that biochemical reality.. Too bad certain ancestors who are biologically designed to eat fruits and veggies lived in those meat areas for so damn long, huh? ;)

Peace to you. This is a very interesting place of discussion!

Brian

Purines? Uric acid? Humans aren't carnivores and have very little ability to
metabolize uric acid. Probably just enough uricase enzyme to handle the
miniscule amounts in some vegetables.



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?)

Posted by
Peggy on March 20, 1999 at 03:47:25:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 00:36:32:

Yes, it is interesting here on this BB! ... and, no one gets mad and gives you a tongue lashing when you disagree with them. This is the best BB I've come across yet.





Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) (Microcosm)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 20, 1999 at 10:04:50:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) posted by Peggy on March 20, 1999 at 03:47:25:

Thanks, Peggy, for your kind words.

I hope you got to read the note about the "allopathic problem" (see link beolw). This BB is a microcosm of what it COULD be like in the macrocosm of the world-----and eventually MUST be.

Walt



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?)

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 20, 1999 at 10:22:23:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 00:36:32:

Brian,

Purines are the metabolic precursors to uric acid.

Some folks will have high uric acid levels (quantified via blood work) even while eating a low purine (vegetarian) diet. I (a Hunter-gatherer metabolism) can eat muscle meat and organ meats (highest in purine levels) at every meal and I will have a lower uric acid than you.

Why?

Individuals that have inherited a Hunter-gatherer metabolism have become adapted (through tens of thousands of years of meat eating) to utilize purines efficiently as an energy source in their energy cycles. In fact without adequate purine intake their energy production will be hamstrung.

Lots of humans have inherited relatively carnivorous metabolisms right here in the 20th century. Anthropological analysis of Saxon bones only 500 years ago confirmed that their diet was more carnivorous than wolves.

At the same time the folks that cannot tolerate much in the way of purines are genetically programmed as you said. The Agriculturist metabolism lacks the proper amount of the enzyme that allows them to utilize purines to create energy. Instead they must excrete it -- thus the high uric acid levels.

In a nutshell folks that have inherited a H-G metabolism 'burn' purines while those that have inherited an Agriculturist metabolism must excrete them.

A little bit more biochemistry and a LOT more truth than is allowed in FIT FOR LIFE.

Bob

p.s. -- You might find that you feel even better if you EXCLUDE some of the purine rich foods in your vegetarian diet. Sometimes vegetarians eat way too much in the way of purine rich beans and lentils for an EXTREME Agriculturist metabolism to handle.



Meatarian/Vegetarian Humour

Posted by
Aaron Wieland on March 20, 1999 at 15:10:25:

In Reply to: Re: Vegetarianism and Intestinal Length posted by Walt Stoll on March 19, 1999 at 11:33:20:

Thank you for the amusing quote, Walt. It motivated me to track down the website where I had first read it. The Boulder Vegetable Rights Association Homepage is truly hilarious (to my twisted mind, anyway). I especially like the "BVRA Interview for weird book" link.

While searching for the BVRA site, I stumbled across the article, "Waiter, there's a carrot in my soup!", which is another wonderful bit of satire.

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Kyra on March 19, 1999 at 22:11:06:

Hi Kyra. :) I wish you the best in your Hindu path. I am still up in the air concerning Bob's theory, as I have not properly researched it or been referenced to any hard data. We seem to be within a period of many different theories concerning nutrition, many of which contradict each other even though they appear to have been properly researched and published in scientific fashion.

Since you are in the midst of Indian vegetarians, I assume that you went about your vegan quest in an intelligent way. I had a period of ill health when I first became vegetarian but it was mostly due to dietary ignorance on my behalf and my treatment of vegetarianism exactly as I had treated meatism..ie- nothing more than 3 meals a day, etc, etc.. I eat 3 or more meals a day now but I am also a heavy 'grazer'.

Based on what I know of my heritage, it is hard to believe that my ancesters have eaten anything but meat for the past thousand years, but regardless, converting to a vegetarian diet had an amazing effect of my body, after an initial period of ill health due to little more than bodily trauma from 'change' and the continuing need for sugar and all the other crap I was addicted to.. (that's how it went for me, everyone is different)

Soon after I felt wonderful. I never felt bloated or sluggish after meals. I had much more energy and my mind was more alert as it seemed to be getting more nourishment (glucose?) and any type of indigestion or stomach ailment was gone forever.. I can honestly say that in the past 7 years I have never had any type of stomach or digestive discomfort at all and my bowel movements are beautiful and emit very little odor. ;) I work with a bunch of meat eaters and after they use the bathroom, you have to wait 3 or 4 hours to go in there! Nasty!! ;) Thank God for Glade Country Vanilla air freshener. haha.

I also don't get sick anymore.. like colds and flu bugs and such. When the last flu bug hit, I had a teensy little throat thing for a day and a half and all of my friends were laid out. My theory about this aspect (which has been touched on by many authors and 'Guru's') is that there is a finite amount of energy within our being to take care of things such as digestion, healing, etc.. and, as you must know, proteins are the most difficult food (require the most evergy) to digest.. and since I eat mostly fruit, which slide right into the intestines because they are ready to be digested in their natural form, and veggies, which when eaten raw or lightly steamed, have all of their enzymes intact and essentially break down themselves and require very little digestive bodily energy, I have an abundance of healing energy available. I'm also a TM'er and meditate twice a day religiously but this was all happening years before I dedicated myself to meditation. Well.. I also don't drink or do drugs or smoke or any of that nasty stuff which also lowers the immune system. And cow's milk...god. I supose Bob would find fault somewhere in the data concerning high dairy diets and ear infections(among children) allergies, asthma, congestion, etc.. yuck! ;)

If there is any truth to Bob's theory, my only recommendation would be for people to not have too much protein in their diet for many reasons, eat veggies, drink lots of water, have enough fiber in the diet so there is a lot of movement through the colon and intestines, etc.. and LOSE WEIGHT, if they are obese.

Even if you decide to never try again, you should take a look at Fit For Life and experiment with the mentioned 'natural body cycles' and their rules for fruit consumption. For instance, it is their theory that the body is still within its 'elimination' mode in the morning and that having giant breakfasts causes energy to be devoted to digestion when it serves us best for energy to be solely devoted to the elimination of toxins. IMO, the rules about never eating fruit unless the stomach is empty and the 'body cycles' info is the most valuable part of the book. They had some profound effects on me and I was already vegetarian and feeling wonderful! I now only eat organic fruit in the morning, up until noon, and I feel wonderful.. Tons of energy, no bloating or discomfort, mentally alert. Don't get me wrong though.. I eat A LOT of fruit. On average I'd say, 2 apples, 2 oranges, 6-8 strawberries, 2 or 3 kiwis, a few bananas, an exotic here and there, etc..etc.. Yummy Yum!

My opinion is, whatever people decide to eat or feel their body is telling them they 'should' eat, rules need to be followed that can prolong their life and reduce the risks of the nasty unnatural effects of bad diet, like heart disease, cancer, arthritis, kidney stones, etc..etc.. Make sure that pee is always clear!!! And free range, no chemical, beef, poultry and eggs. Much of the mass produced poultry in the US is diseased. Organic fruits and veggies!! My cholesterol is 130, a little bit more than 100 + my age.. so I got you beat. :D I wish you the best. Do you like tofu??

Peace and Love to You!

Brian

"God made us angels of energy, encased in solids- currents of life dazzling through a material bulb of flesh"

-Paramahansa Yogananda



Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers?

Posted by
Aaron Wieland on March 20, 1999 at 22:46:35:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

Brian,

I hope you don't mind if I respond to your post, even though it wasn't addressed to me.

I'm glad that you mentioned the "Fit for Life" recommendations, because they are perfectly wrong for Hunter-Gatherers. ;-) For a H-G, the need for protein, fat, and purines, and intolerance of carbohydrates, is most acute in the morning; Exhibit A is the traditional English breakfast. ;-) As the day progresses, his or her needs become less extreme. Eating nothing but fruit first thing in the morning is about the worst thing I could do. I realize this is difficult for an Agriculturalist to believe; I would be skeptical myself if I hadn't experienced the effects I describe firsthand.

Bob certainly isn't a proponent of dairy, and neither am I (we're both strongly allergic to milk). Keep in mind that your meat-eating friends probably eat diets that are very different than those of the H-Gs who frequent this board. My diet is more restricted now than when I was a vegan (which is annoying, but that's how it turned out). Speaking of which, my cholesterol was 116 when I was a vegan, which was much too low in my opinion.

I find raw fruit and vegetables to be very hard on my digestive system, but you certainly aren't the first person who has reported otherwise. As always, I find it interesting how people can differ.

I agree that the methods used to produce most of our food are abominable. That's one of the reasons why I like to eat New Zealand lamb (Canadian lamb is pale and gross in comparison).

Tofu is okay, but it isn't very satisfying by itself (it lacks fat, and its purine content is much lower than that of dark meat), and I may have developed a mild allergy to soy (not an uncommon problem, unfortunately).

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Kyra on March 21, 1999 at 00:42:25:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:


Dear Brian,

Hi back :)! I enjoyed your thoughtful post and Yogananda quote. You sound like a true healthy, happy Agriculturalist, doing it the right way. Congratulations! To answer your questions, I tried the Fit for Life way of eating several years ago. On paper what the Diamonds said made perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, my body didn't like it to the tune of extreme hypoglycemia apparently elicited by the AM to noon fruit. I had horrible headaches, was shaky and irritable, and from the first bite of fruit violently craved processed sweets. This severity of response could be evoked by something as seemingly harmless as a banana plus an orange for breakfast. These days I eschew fruit entirely. Even at the point of health I've blossomed to, a taste of fruit can still provoke sugar cravings. For some reason I'll have a periodic craving for citrus fruit which screams at me "eat citrus! You need it!" This happens every four months or so. Then I eat a couple of oranges a day for a day or two and all is well. Can't say I need citrus to prevent scurvy, since I already take 10-15 grams of esterifid vitamin C daily. Do I like tofu? Yes, I love the stuff. Sadly I'm also quite allergic to it and all soy products, along with all grains and al, dairy except for heavy cream (why heavy cream is ok I'm clueless.) I also don't digest beam\ns of any kind well, even sprouted ones. So what the heck does this died in the wool caveman gene expresser consume? Eggs, meat, fish, green vegies of all kinds but in moderation, parsnips to satiety, squash in moderation, onions, the occasional carrot, green salad from time to time, a bit of heavy cream in my morning Bengali spice tea, lots of water, olive oil, flax seed oil, psyllium husks, and that's about it. If I'm having a wild night on the town I'll have some bleu cheese dressing on salad. Gotta live wildly sometimes, ya know... I wish it could be different for me, but I've learned through a lot of empirical self-testing and guidance from Walt and Bob that a raving H-G I am. Yeah, you've got me beat on cholesterol levels...cholesterol wars...I can see the space epic in my mind as I write, humans vs. aliens on their respective starcraft, hurling great yellow gobs of the stuff at each other in the silence of space. I wonder if cholesterol explodes well when hit by photon torpedoes?

Speaking of Indian vegetarians, something I've noticed among the majority of South Indians I know is that in general their diet is very oil-, starch- and white sugar-heavy, and that diabetes and kidney problems are common. Among North Indian, meat-eating friends sugar consumption is also rife, and again, diabetes and kidney woes. This is in no way a putdown of vegetarianism; simply an observation that acquired maladaptive cultural tastes may have gotten in the way of healthy vegetarian eating habits among a metabolic group that SHOULD be vegetarian or vegan.

Peace to you too!
Kyra



Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers?

Posted by
Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 03:01:52:

In Reply to: Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers? posted by Aaron Wieland on March 20, 1999 at 22:46:35:

Hi Aaron. Thanks for the response. It's not that I don't believe the proclamations, it's just that I don't allow myself to blindly believe things unless I research them or more importantly, EXPERIENCE them. I'm very much into expriential belief and not blind faith whether it has to do with nutrition or even something like spirituality. And to be honest, I didn't even know who the heck Bob or Dr. Stoll were before coming to this board.. and I only came because someone sent me an e-mail response to a question I posted at another board suggesting I check this place out. So, all this information is quite new to me and people referring to themselves as hunter-gatherers is honestly a bit bizarre to me since WE WERE ALL HUNTER GATHERERS FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS!! ;)

The closest I could come to compromising with Bob's theories at this point would be to proclaim that, although we all evolved into vegetarians, some of us moved to places where that wasn't possible and biologically adapted to a different diet. If you believe you are truly a carnivore, then go out and kill a deer with your hands (as if you could) and eat it raw and let me know how you feel afterwords.. or perhaps ovens are part of our biological evolution?? ;)

But seriously, I would have to be pretty ignorant to suggest that a person who has tried the fit for life plan with an intelligent honest effort and then remained fatigued and in ill health after the normal detox/sickness shock to the system should have ended, remain on that diet. The honest effort part is the catcher as many people simply embrace whatever philosophy justifies their lifestyle.. but the two of you are obviously intelligent people who value health and the welfare of your body, and have extensively researched and experimented, so your words are very meaningful to me! :) But I also can't help but wonder what side of the argument I would be on if i never gave up meat due to animal rights and nutritional reasons... I never felt all that bad eating meat, just about a million times better not eating it. ya dig?

So thanks for the info, and if you know of any books or organizations where I can verify some of this research please let me know! Also.. do you have any suggestions for a meat eater with high cholesterol and blood pressure?

Peace

Brian



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 03:16:09:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Kyra on March 21, 1999 at 00:42:25:

Hi Kyra. Thanks for the added information. Sounds like you gave it an honest effort and it didn;t work. I'm capable of believing all of this but I would have to review all of the research first. Do you know of any books or organizations where some of this info is published scientifically?

When you are meditating, try to send healing light to your colon okay? And pray that the uric acid gets metabolized! ;) hahaha. I'm just kidding. I wish you the best. I actually just gave aaron a rather long winded response that was directed toward you as well. Take care! :)

Peace from Within,

Brian



Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!!

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 07:56:21:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

Brian,

If your total cholesterol is 130 you are probably heading toward some problems.

The AMA has recently recognized that TOTAL cholesterol isn't really a very good indicator of risk for coronary disease -- rather the ratio of HDL/LDL cholesterol.

Recent geriatric studies are revealing a surprise that folks with cholesterols UNDER 180 develop more chronic illnesses (including Altzheimers) than their higher cholesterol counterparts. The study showed that the optimal range for cholesterol was 190-220.

I, like you, used to brag about my low cholesterol (it was 89). Within the decade you'll start hearing than any total cholesterol under 165 is a sign of metabolic problems -- and that LOW cholesterol is indeed a risk factor for a myriad of chronic diseases.

Remember, you heard it here first.

When my rheumatologist looked at my blood work (shortly after my diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis) he commented on my very low cholesterol AND uric acid levels by saying "Well, one thing's for sure. You'll never die of coronary disease or have any problems with gout!"

Brian, I'm not suggesting that you abandon your eating habits completely since you undoubtably have inherited an Agriculturist metabolism. You may want to re-think the EXTREME variation that you've put on those eating habits as you cholesterol points to the fact that you're metabolism is a bit LESS extreme.

Not having coronary disease is great but living to an old age with early onset of things like Altzheimers or arthritis can rob you of quality of life during those years.

Bob



Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers?

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 08:51:51:

In Reply to: Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers? posted by Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 03:01:52:

Hi Bryan,

I really am not responding to change your mind on this topic but every time that you throw out some over-simplified vegetarian propaganda that unsuspecting folk migh read I'm compelled to set you straight :)

You are correct about the statement that humans began as Hunter-gatherers BUT it wasn't for just thousands of years, rather it was MILLIONS of years (4.5 million to be more exact).

The move away from animal intensive Hunter-gatherer diets has only taken place in the last 20,000 years.

You might be surprised to find that within the field of Anthropology that there is a sub-specialty of folks that call themselves Nutrition Anthropolgists. They devote their life to the study of the microcosm of what we are talking about here. There are 5 Nutritional Anthropologists in the U.S. and I've been fortunate to have communications with 3 of them (a special note of gratitude to the one at the University of Kentucky who helped guide me through the literature in this field).

All of these Nutritional Anthropologists agree on one point -- that it requires a minimum of 5,000 years for any group of people to make an adaptive alterations to significant changes in diet. This is why H-G's exist right up to this very moment and why it is important that they not embrace a vegetarian diet. They simply haven't had the time to adapt to something that is MUCH different from what their recent ancestors ate.

Just because some of your genetic make-up was from European roots doesn't mean that you cannot be an Agriculturist. As groups of Agriculturists migrated north into Europe around 10,000 years ago they settled into 'geographical pockets' where the land was more amenable to farming. One of these pockets was no doubt what is now Germany. I've found that many American males that pull heavily from their Germanic genes are Agriculturists.

Now on to the point about Aaron's ability to kill a deer.

There are many misconceptions about the ability of our ancestors to bring down game -- especially big game. The perception is that our ancestors were chasing around these huge animals with sharpened stick and clubs. Most people are surprised to find that the key hunting invention used by our most primitive ancestors was something as simple as a net.

Hunter-gatherers would stalk prey like deer by forming small hunting parties. A couple of members of the party would make noise that would slowly move the animal in the direction of area where the rest of the party was in hiding with their net(s). When the time was right the game would be chased and the nets suddenly pulled up to entangle their prey. That's when the clubs and sharpened sticks came into play to finish the job.

Hunter-gatherer 'ovens' looked very much like what you would see today at a good old fashioned pig roast. Anybody that has ever been to a pig roast knows that the first thing that you need to do is to dig a pit. Prior to skillets, kettles and crockpots our ancestors did the same. A pit would be dug, the animal placed in it, a little fire, a little time and bon apetit!

Bob



Re: Finite Energy

Posted by
RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 08:56:52:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

I'd like to comment on just a part of what Brian T said.

"My theory about this aspect (which has been touched on by many authors and 'Guru's') is that there is a finite amount of energy within our being to take care of things such as digestion, healing, etc.. and, as you must know, proteins are the most difficult food (require the most evergy) to digest.. and since I eat mostly fruit, which slide right into the intestines because they are ready to be digested in their natural form, and veggies, which when eaten raw or lightly steamed, have all of their enzymes intact and essentially break down themselves and require very little digestive bodily energy, I have an abundance of healing energy available."

As has been discussed here recently, I think that it takes a a disproportionate share of a person's energy allotment to deal with un-whole-foods, especially refined carbohydrates. So if a person eliminated them, they would probably immediately do much better health-wise, regardless of their metabolic type, or other factors.

It also takes a disproportionate share of a person's energy to deal with a diet dramatically different from their inherited metabolic type. That's why almost everyone's diet book works for *some* people, but no diet book seems to work for everyone.

I don't personally think that any specific (whole) food is inherently "bad" for everyone. But it may be wrong for an individual, due to either their metabolic type or their specific food allergies.

If a religious or a moral prohibition keeps a person away from some food that their metabolic type "requires", then that religion or system morals seems to me to be a significant stressor and consumes the individual's "energy" rather than being a benefit to that individual.

The same goes for any outside "should" influences, including well-wishing "friends" and Mother's in Law! :-) We need to pay attention to our own body reaction to foods, events, etc. and learn to cope according to what works best for us. We ought not blindly follow anyone's suggestions, much less a specific fixed diet plan. My $.02.

RocketHealer Jim++



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 09:01:09:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

About the part: "proteins are the most difficult food (require the most evergy) to digest..", I'd like to hear from Walt or Robert or someone if is this is indeed true. I don't particularly buy it. Seems to me that refined carbohydrates would require much more "stuff" supplied from the rest of the body to digest, since they lack not only the digestive enzymes, but the related nutrients. But putting it (meat) in terms of energy, I don't quite see it. And about flatulance, how about them beans, folks? And I get really gassy when I eat too many of any sort of carbohydrates. My body is talking to me, and now I'm listening.



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 12:35:54:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 09:01:09:

Jim,

Bryan wants 'scientific' proof to support the fact that some folks continue to be best adapted to an animal intensive diet. Next he writes:

"as you must know, proteins are the most difficult food (require the most evergy) to digest.. and since I eat mostly fruit, which slide right into the intestines because they are ready to be digested in their natural form, and veggies, which when eaten raw or lightly steamed, have all of their enzymes intact and essentially break down themselves and require very little digestive bodily energy,".

This is the most absurd vegetarian propaganda that is, by the way, very dated. There is no science to support this much less any common sense. The foods to which we are best adapted are the ones that our most recent genetic ancestors ate during the last 5,000 years. If your recent ancestors possessed physiologies that were 'designed' to digest meat they you will do so with minimal physiological effort -- the same is true for folks with physiologies 'designed' primarily for plant based digestion.

Please note that while there is a 'spectrum' of different metabolisms that DOESN'T mean that folks should be able to eat EVERYTHING (i.e. - the smorgasboard approach that you seem to suggest in another post).

Whole foods are recognized as being easier to cope with than doritos -- BUT there is a DECIDED subset of whole foods that each individual physiology will best work.

Bob




Re: This looks like a job for .....(See the end of Brian's note.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 21, 1999 at 14:48:03:

In Reply to: Re: This looks like a job for .....ROBERT MCFERRAN!!! posted by Brian T on March 20, 1999 at 21:58:32:

Thanks, Brian.

How did Paramahansa KNOW that? ALL modern, technological research is proving that what he said is where it is at!

Namaste` Walt



Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale

Posted by
RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 18:31:58:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 12:35:54:

Glad to have you clear it up, at least for the rest of us. It made no common sense to me, as originally written.

I doubt that anything you or we would say or provide would change the opinion of the writer. For him, it IS true. Just not necessarily true for other individuals with a different metabolic history. There's the trap we must avoid, generalizing that what works for us is RIGHT for all others.

Thanks also for making the point about the error in assuming a smorgasbord approach is OK. I was not aware that I was coming across so smorgasbord-like. My point (I think :-) was that I feel strongly that whole foods (vs refined foods) would/should make a big difference to a person's general nutritional health, more or less independent from other H/G vs AG considerations/choices. I.E. if all could switch away from refined carbs, etc. and toward whole foods, a big health difference would probably be noted my most people. My opinion. Not yet backed up with personal experience, sad to say.

Remember, do what I SAY! not what I DO!



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 20:35:21:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 12:35:54:

I am capable of embracing parts of your theory, but I would need to review the science behind it. And also.. if I may ask a few questions:

1) What is your educational background and profession?

2) If you are a MD or PHD, what have you had published and when? If you are a PHD, are you activiely publishing or milking the university?

3) What is the title of your book and who published it?

4) Where can I review the aforementioned nutritional anthropology data?


Because, although your metabolism theory is intriguing, without science behind it, it seems to have a lot of holes within it. IMO, if a person who has been eating the same meat based (and sometimes very unhealthy) diet for much of their life becomes sick and develops problems when they attempt dietary changes, many different factors could be to blame. Although 'change' can be a wonderful experience, it always contains a 'loss' of some kind, and for a person who has eaten a high protein diet for 30 years, I imagine it can all be quite traumatic. I knew someone who was laid off from a wonderful job after 20+ years and it was as traumatizing to him as losing a loved one.. The 'loss' manifested in many ways, some of which were biological. It nearly destroyed him. Food and diet are gigantic parts of our life as well, and the associated loss can be HUGE. So, for people to write that they have experiemented with new diets and became ill, etc.. and conclude that it must be because of their inhereted 'hunter-gatherer' or 'agricultural' metabolism is ridiculous in my mind. I assume they all have reviewed your data and not just blindly believed your words.. BRAINWASHING is not allowed here, right? ;)

Imagine this... let's say someone has been doing Heroin for 30 years straight and suddenly cleans up but then becomes deathly ill for a year straight. There is all sorts of biological craziness within their body.. immune system, blood levels, appetite, etc.. And then they do heroin again and feel wonderful. It changes their life, they are no longer sick. According to all the testing, their body is back in working order again.

I admit this example is a far cry from the metabolism/blood research that allegedly supports your theory, but to assume that this person is supposed to do heroin or is better off on heroin or that their body was meant to do heroin because not doing heroin makes them deathly ill would be RIDICULOUS. It would be horrible science. Of course heroin is an addictive drug and their illness and biological disaster is a result of withdrawl, but in my experience, similar 'withdrawls' and biological disasters can result from drastically altering ones diet. It happened to me and it has happened to friends of mine.. some of them for a very long period of time. But even so, try to forget that we even know that heroin is an addictive drug, what conclusion would you come to then? Hopefully no conclusion until you studied the hell out of it scientifically. But then again, you were pretty quick to assume that I have an 'agriculturalist metabolism' even though you know virtually nothing about me or my heritage, so maybe hard science isn't your style.

But like I said, I'm capabable of buying aspects of your theory as long as there is real data behind it. If there isn't then it is simply a guess, and a weak one at that. (IMHO) Judging from the amount of time you spend here and the amount of effort you put into answering the many posted questions, I would never assume that this place is simply about selling the books the two of you have written... so please direct me toward your research! If it holds water I will tell everyone about it. I know a lot of people. I'll gladly buy your book, but if there aren't references to respectable studies, I will become quite sad.

Peace and Love to You,

Brian



Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale

Posted by
Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 20:59:03:

In Reply to: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 18:31:58:


"I doubt that anything you or we would say or provide would change the opinion of the writer. For him, it IS true"


A pretty bold statement considering you know very little about me. Actually, I am quite capable of altering EVERY ONE of my beliefs, but not from information presented in the form of an OPINION. There seems to be a lot of that at this site.. I have yet to encounter anything properly referenced.. I have already asked Robert and anyone else to point me in the direction of some hard data numerous times and have yet to receive any response. If you can, please feel free.

I'm curious, what scientific evidence did he actually present to you which 'cleared that up'? Did his opinionated answer just make you 'feel good'? Is it simply because you consider him a reputable authority on nutritional information? I guess that would make a little bit of sense, but I still consider it a pretty weak reason to (blindly) believe someone. I'm not attacking you, just curious. Are you always that easily swayed? ;)

Peace to You,

Brian

"A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions" -The Journal of the American Medical Association, 'Diet and Stress in Vascular Disease' vol 176, no 9.



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 21:13:38:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 20:35:21:

Hi Brian,

I'm in the process of writing a book on arthritis (not diet) so don't worry, I'm not trying to sell anything.

I'm not putting myself in the position of attempting to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE anything to, or should I say FOR, you. That will be YOUR responsibility my friend.

You've seen a different 'take' on things here that MIGHT de-conflict some of the phenomenon that you've seen with your father. Continue to seek and Ye shall find..........

If you don't want to find don't bother me.

Might I suggest you read Eat Right for Your Type by Dr. Peter D'Adamo and hang out at Dr. D's website at www.dadamo.com

You can engage in endless conversations on diet there. You'll find vegetarians and meat-eaters on his BB that are living, posting and communicating in perfect harmony. It's the way the world should be :)

I think that you'll also find that Dr. D'Adamo is a font of info when it comes to providing reams and reams of scientific studies and data on diet.

Bob



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 22:43:48:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 21:13:38:

Hi. I didn't mean to give you the impression I wanted you to prove anything to me.. just point me in the direction of some of the research that has influenced these opinions. I have been giving it an honest effort and have found nothing. I was also curious about your credentials since you seem to be the main responder to all of these posts, but I don't think you have any obligation to comment on any of that unless you want to.

Thanks for the book reference. I checked out his site but his BBS is down for a while, I guess.

Have you found any correlation between uric acid and arthritis? Sounds like an interesting book. I guess I accidentally got the impression that you already had some material in print. Sorry.

Take it easy

B



Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale

Posted by Peggy on March 22, 1999 at 01:30:38:

In Reply to: Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale posted by Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 20:59:03:

Brian,

How come on this BB you insist on scientific data, but, over on the Raw Board you're rejoicing with others about how you all just "listen to your own bodies" to decide what works? Is it because over there "listening to your own body" means: on a raw vegan diet only? The people here following a metabolic diet are practicing the same idea as you -- listening to their bodies -- and they're getting results. Why can't you accept that? We are simply not all the same.



Re: Intuition rules

Posted by
Kyra on March 22, 1999 at 01:38:19:

In Reply to: Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale posted by Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 20:59:03:


Dear Brian,

The old verifiable study argument...skewable by whatever statistical tool has been applied to the study. Fisher's T test? ANOVA? The holy statistical mean has been held up as the Almighty Grail for too long, in my opinion. The best studies are frequently empirical, again IMHO, although science does its best to disavow that. No, we must be robust and rigorous, in research as well as in health. For me, the most verifiable study I've encountered has been my own ongoing one-subject nutritional study on myself. I KNOW when I find something that works right for me, and I don't care how many reams have been written to support or refute my intuition about myself and my wellbeing needs. In the end, intuition may be the truest science :)

Peace again,
Kyra




Narrow view

Posted by Peggy on March 22, 1999 at 02:01:45:

In Reply to: Re: Fit for Life = Fit for Hunter-Gatherers? posted by Brian T on March 21, 1999 at 03:01:52:

Brian,

You know, it's very simple and narrow of you to reference "meat-eater" and "high cholesterol/blood pressure" in the same sentence. I mean really, meat is at the root of all illnesses? I don't think so. I think it would be more important to look at WHAT ELSE that person is eating. Probably a large percentage of PROCESSED FOODS. That always seems to be ignored and only the meat is targeted.

But, even MORE important than all that, when evaluating an unhealthy person let's see how else they live: what they do, how they feel, how they think ... These things far outweigh diet.



Re: Intuition rules

Posted by Jim H on March 22, 1999 at 06:09:57:

In Reply to: Re: Intuition rules posted by Kyra on March 22, 1999 at 01:38:19:

Amen, Kyra,

Besides the statistical tool, there’s the funding of the study to consider. Who backed the effort, and why? Who really thinks the AMA is interested in having us healthy? What they want us is symptom free on their pharmaceutical regimen. Then when the next symptom occurs, we can go on the next pill (as their study shows), instead of using the respite from symptoms to begin a self directed healing effort. What the AMA needs is office visits.

One must also regard the eyeballs and sensibility of the researchers. I remember how profoundly disturbed I was after meeting the director of a piece of educational research with which I was familiar. Yeow!! That confirmed doubts I had.

Mostly we cite research if it fits our perspective and find fault with it if it does not. Research is all too often chanted by Pharisees seeking profit or self glorification, and by proponents of both sides of an argument!! To them, IMHO means in my HOLY opinion.

In an odd way, for me, research has gone the way of Santa Claus. It has potential in spirit, but I don’t put out cookies and milk anymore.

Yes, viva la intuition and personal experience, not as a substitute for, but as a companion to critical thinking.

Namastissimo'
(I salute the great variety with which our sameness manifests itself)!!

Jim
Sharing the peace of the wee hours with you.



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 22, 1999 at 09:48:57:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on March 21, 1999 at 09:01:09:

Hi, RocketHealer Jim.

Good question.

The answer lies in your knowing the difference between digestion & metabolism. First you digest, then you absorb, then you metabolize.

Walt



Could you please elaborate on "Processing" Proteins/Meat

Posted by
RocketHealer Jim++ on March 22, 1999 at 14:22:42:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Walt Stoll on March 22, 1999 at 09:48:57:

Point, I think, but I'm left unsatisfied by your answer. Might you please elaborate just a little.

For example, let's compare eating 1 ounce of cooked steak with one ounce of raw cabbage.

Digest, True or False?
Absorb, True or False?
Metabolize, True or False?

Eliminate, True or False?

Or is this the wrong question to be asking?

Thanks,
RocketHealer Jim++



Re: Intuition rules

Posted by Brian T on March 23, 1999 at 01:32:50:

In Reply to: Re: Intuition rules posted by Kyra on March 22, 1999 at 01:38:19:

I agree with you. I have encounteres so many different nutritional theories lately that contradict one another and yet are all backed by a good amount of real, reputable scientific data. It's frustrating! I'm a student of quantum physics and have often become confused at how some of the most brilliant minds on the planet can be the most stubborn and resistant to changing their rigid perceptions of reality.. especially concerning such things as 'non-local activity' They tend to either ignore many of the experimentation or develop some far fetched theory which keeps their Cartesian/Newtonian sacrad beliefs intact.. heh. ( Makes me think of the Jungian view that we often develop our intellect at the sacrifice of our emotional side
and vice versa)

The whole experience has led me to consider science(or anything in reality) as completely subjective. I consider science to be a subjective analysis of information to prove intuitive feelings about particular subjects..

There are people who consider D'Adamo brilliant and others who feel that he's writing fiction, and both groups have an impressive arsenal of 'scientific' documentation in their corner. I think his book is very interesting (just bought it) but it certainly isn't going to cause me and my type 'O' blood to begin eating meat again. Everyone is different and i tend to think the whole equation is a little more difficult. I actually fit more into the type 'A' disposition. Maybe the Red Cross has been lying to be all these years! :)

Best of Luck! I think the only way to go at this point in the game is to experiment and feel what is right for ourseles individually, as you've already stated.

:D

Brian

"Our idealized image of objectivity (especially in sciience) receives its most severe challenge from neither mystics nor psychics, but from the growing critical literature within the philosophy and sociology of science itself. For an overview, I recommend Michael J. Mahoney's book, SCIENTIST AS SUBJECT: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE. Dr. Mahoney persuasively argues that the 'storybook image' of the scientist- to which most scientists apparantly subscribe-is, in fact, continually contradicted by the impirical evidence. The *actual* behavir of scientists suggests an image that, in practice, overlaps much more with occultism- in both positive and negative senses in which this might be taken"

Jeffrey Mishlove "Roots of Consciousness: The Classic Encyclopedia of Conciousness Studies Revised and Expanded



Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale

Posted by
Brian T on March 23, 1999 at 01:51:20:

In Reply to: Re: Thanks, Robert for clearing up that Old Vegetarian's Tale posted by Peggy on March 22, 1999 at 01:30:38:

I agree with you. Neither Fit For Life nor D'Adamo is going to work for everyone. Feeling what'r right for your own body is the way to go IMO. :)

One more thing, though.. I have never painted myself to be an authority or the one who answers medical inquiries here or anywhere else. I think I have every right to question the credentials of the people who are at least percieved as the authorities, especially if I perceive their views as far fetched.

If someone presents information to me with a holier than thou attitude, I am going to ask them how they came to believe such a thing.. especially when it contradicts some of my own beliefs. My motives aren;t self righteous. though.. I would LOVE to embrace any new information whether it is in line with what I choose to believe or not.. but when it is presented in nothing more than the form of an opinion, I am skeptical.

PS- you may want to read some of my older threads at the raw food site, as I have done the same thing over there numerous times.

Peace and Love to You,

Brian



Re: Narrow view

Posted by
Brian T on March 23, 1999 at 02:00:15:

In Reply to: Narrow view posted by Peggy on March 22, 1999 at 02:01:45:

I apologize for that. I shouldn't assume that every one who eats meat is doing it in an unhealthy fashion or consuming the mass produced fat injected, antibiotic and chemical/pesticide laden crap (oh..I forgot disease infested, especially poultry). Those that ingest the lean organic free range variety in addition to other healthy things could arguably be in better health than many vegetarians. I have met many a vegetarian that has a ridiculously unhealthy diet! :(

In my experience, people like you who actually take care of themseves and research nutrition are a minority. Most of the meat eating people I have met (in the US) eat horribly and are overweight. But it is unfair for me to categorize all meat eaters as having the same attributes.. especially in this environment. SORRY EVERYONE!

brian



Re: Intuition rules

Posted by
RocketHealer Jim++ on March 23, 1999 at 11:06:59:

In Reply to: Re: Intuition rules posted by Brian T on March 23, 1999 at 01:32:50:

Brian T said: I have encountered so many different nutritional theories lately that contradict one another and yet are all backed by a good amount of real, reputable scientific data.

A small point here that Walt made a while back. It is often useful to consider ONLY the data, the observations that make up a study and to accept them as what they are, as data, as observations (as incomplete and likely biased as they are). Then usually it is best to throw out the conclusions that were made in the study (clearly incomplete and biased :-).

I.E. Accept the observations, but don't get hung up on the study conclusions. Formulate your own conclusions, valid for you, with what you know at this time. And be ready to revise those conclusions later when additional observations come in. Or when another conclusion appears which makes more "sense" to you and which fits the majority of the observations you already have on hand.

Sorry, Walt, if I misquoted your observations/conclusions suggestions.

Also, I believe/understand there are really two different kinds of Truth. Sorry that I get left brain and right brain mixed up, so I cannot quote which is which here, but it really does not matter.

There is logical, rational, "Scientific" Truth which goes with one side of your brain.

Then there is another Truth in which you "just know" whether that is True or not, that involves the other side of your brain.

Sometimes we treat these two different "Truths" as if they ought to match. Often they relate do different things (material/spiritual) and they don't appear to match.

Take Chakras, for instance. Science does not believe in them. Despite my training in healint, I cannot "see" or "feel" them. Yet I now know deep inside me that they are real and True (whether or not I can manipulate or use them to specific advantage).

RocketHealer Jim++



Re: Could you please elaborate on "Processing" Proteins/Meat (NUTRITIONIST vs DIETITIAN)

Posted by Walt Stoll on March 23, 1999 at 11:58:32:

In Reply to: Could you please elaborate on "Processing" Proteins/Meat posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on March 22, 1999 at 14:22:42:

Hi, RocketHealer Jim.

Wrong questions.

All foods basically go through the same steps from the grocery store to the inside of the cell where it has to get before becoming part of the person:

People learn what is good for them (hopefully).
They go to the store to get the food. Then the foods:
They ride home in the car.
They get stored till needed.
They are prepared for eating.
They are chewed and swallowed.
They are digested (broken down to a safe level)in the stomach & small intestine.
They are absorbed through the intestinal wall.
They are carried to the liver (via the blood stream ) where the first stages of metabolism are accomplished.
They then are excreted from the liver cells back into the blood stream.
The blood takes them to the cells.
The partially metabolized material is then transported through the cell wall.
The final metabolism is accomplished inside the cell.

This is the real difference between "Nutrition" (which I have just described) and diet (which is only what is eaten) which is what a dietition is concerned with.

A Nutritionist is concerned with the entire process and the dietitian is concerned with the first step.

I hope this helps.

Walt



Re: Intuition rules

Posted by
Kyra on March 23, 1999 at 12:46:18:

In Reply to: Re: Intuition rules posted by Jim H on March 22, 1999 at 06:09:57:


Ola, wise One who is still learning,

Have a good one! Great post!

Kyra, also still learning



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
john jankow on June 09, 1999 at 13:11:39:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Robert McFerran on March 21, 1999 at 21:13:38:

I was wondering where the different aminos go breaking down in the body????????????



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by
Robert McFerran on June 09, 1999 at 17:52:26:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by john jankow on June 09, 1999 at 13:11:39:

John,

I'm not sure if I understand the context of your question.

Proteins are primarily cleaved by acid and enzyme activity of the stomach and small intestines. They are transported across the mucosa of the small intestines and into the bloodstream.

Bob



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true?

Posted by Walt Stoll on June 10, 1999 at 11:05:53:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by john jankow on June 09, 1999 at 13:11:39:

Hi, John.

Amino acids are the basic building blocks of tissue repair. Under normal circumstances our body takes these blocks & builds them into human proteins. Under starvation circumstances, we CAN break them down & use them for energy via the carbohdrate cycle.

This is when people notice "muscle wasting" noted with starvation. The extra nitrogen is excreted in the urine & is what is described as a negative nitrogen balance in the hospital when the patient is starving (a pretty common problem)---more nitrogen is going out than is coming in. Proteins are, after all, just carbohydrates with nitrogen atoms attached.

Is this what you wanted to know?

Walt



Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? NUGGET for RHJ?

Posted by Walt Stoll on June 11, 1999 at 10:49:31:

In Reply to: Re: Digesting Proteins/Meat - is this true? posted by Walt Stoll on June 10, 1999 at 11:05:53:

See note to which this is a reply.



Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson...

Posted by
Diana on June 14, 1999 at 13:49:44:

In Reply to: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Brian T on March 17, 1999 at 23:14:10:

Does anyone know a website where I can find the Atkinson diet? Please forward if you do.



Purine filled food!

Posted by
Chance on June 26, 1999 at 19:24:23:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... (Quacks!?) posted by Robert McFerran on March 20, 1999 at 10:22:23:

Could you please email me a list of foods not to eat if you have gout. I would really apreceate it.

Thank you



Re: Purine filled food!

Posted by
Robert McFerran on June 26, 1999 at 20:55:29:

In Reply to: Purine filled food! posted by Chance on June 26, 1999 at 19:24:23:

Hi Chance,

Follow the link to the Agriculturist diet listed below. It will serve you even BETTER than just eliminating purine rich foods since it will tell you what you SHOULD be eating rather than suggesting just what to avoid.

Bob



Re: Gout & Purine filled food! (allopurinal)

Posted by Walt Stoll on June 27, 1999 at 11:30:41:

In Reply to: Purine filled food! posted by Chance on June 26, 1999 at 19:24:23:

Hi, Chance.

Although it is a good idea to avoid purine filled foods when one has Gout, it is MY opinion that everyone with Gout should be taking 300 milligrams of allopurinal (Zyloprim) once a day. This substitutes for the enzyme normal people have that is missing in Gout people.

Walt



more about the diet

Posted by
Pamela on August 09, 1999 at 19:34:46:

In Reply to: Re: My Father's Heart and Atkinson... posted by Lincoln on March 18, 1999 at 15:34:03:

please post the Atkinson diet on the net. I met a man in the store today and he told me he was on it and had lost 20 pounds. He was buying a slab of ribs!!! I want to learn how it works. Thank you pam



Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?)

Posted by Walt Stoll on August 12, 1999 at 11:10:43:

In Reply to: more about the diet posted by Pamela on August 09, 1999 at 19:34:46:

Hi, Pam.

Do you mean the Atkins Diet?

If so, I know that his book would do a better job of that than anyone on this BB. Also, I would be really surprised if he did not have a website about this. Have you tried a yahoo search? I have not heard of the Atkinson Diet.

Let us know how this works for you. In MY experience it is MUCH too simplistic to work for a very large % of the people who try it. You would likely get a larger % benefit by becoming a student of the broader view of nutrition that has been discussed on this BB for years.

Walt



Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?)

Posted by chloe on August 30, 1999 at 20:38:43:

In Reply to: Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?) posted by Walt Stoll on August 12, 1999 at 11:10:43:

I too, want to know more about the Atkinson's diet...can't someone please post it on this site!!?? I know of three people who have tried it and have lost many pounds...please post!!!



Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?)

Posted by
Robert McFerran on August 30, 1999 at 22:04:11:

In Reply to: Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?) posted by chloe on August 30, 1999 at 20:38:43:

Chloe,

Go to any Internet search engine and enter ATKINS DIET and you will find all sorts of web sites that discuss this diet.

Bob



Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?)

Posted by Linda J on August 31, 1999 at 08:52:28:

In Reply to: Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?) posted by chloe on August 30, 1999 at 20:38:43:

Chloe

The book is in paperback and you can get it at Wal-Mart for $5.00. There are some awesome receipes in the back.

Linda J



Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?)

Posted by
teri jenks on September 08, 1999 at 20:04:06:

In Reply to: Re: more about the diet (Atkinson?) posted by chloe on August 30, 1999 at 20:38:43:

i would like more information about this diet.



[ Robert McFerran's Diets Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!