Hi Loren,


On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:34:38 EST, Loren Lockman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 >Yes, of course all juices are mostly water.   But green juices contain
 >excessive concentrations of protein.   They would be up to 45% protein if
 >they were whole foods, but by removing the fiber, the percentage of
protein
 >is even higher in the juice.


I'll give you some examples of the actual protein content of leafy
greens. I've chosen kale and romaine lettuce.

By mass, kale is listed as being 84.46% water, and 3.3% protein. That's
3.3 grams of protein per 100 grams of kale. By mass, romaine lettuce is
listed as being 94.91% water, and 1.62% protein. Thus, 1.62 grams of
protein per 100 grams of lettuce.

Neither of the above qualifies as an "excessive concentration of
protein". If anything, they are high water content, low protein foods.


 >When we grow the fastest and need the most protein, the first year of
life,
 >breast milk, at about 2.5% is our ideal and only food.   Consuming any
 >quantity of something which is 45% protein is excessive.


Did you know that natural (wild, non-cultivated) fruits (such as what
chimpanzees eat) are much higher in protein than the cultivated,
hybridized fruits that most people eat? I find that intriguing.


 >That protein is a stimulant isn't my experience, it's a pretty-well
accepted
 >fact.   What I hear over and over from green juice drinkers is that
they feel
 >energized after drinking it, just as people do after eating pond
scum.   In
 >both cases, this is the effect of excessive amounts of protein.


I already mentioned what my experience was with the effect of consuming
green juices. It wasn't stimulation. I'm very aware of what the symptoms
of stimulation are. All indications were that I felt sedated, following
ingesting green juices. (Hypothesis: it's been claimed that high
concentrations of alkaline minerals, including calcium, can have a
sedating effect on the consumer.)  I experimented with a quart or more
per day of green juices (various kinds), over an approximate 40 day
period of time, in October/November 2000. I learned much from that
experience. One of the things that I learned is that I prefer, and do
best with, eating my greens whole, rather than juiced (plus, it's a lot
more convenient).

Do you eat nuts and/or seeds at all? I recall your mentioning on this
forum (a few years ago) that you do, on occasion. Do you, or have you
experienced stimulation in relation to that? Nuts and seeds are far more
concentrated in protein than leafy greens. And speaking of greens, you
eat them, correct? So, if you say they are high protein foods, I'm
wondering if you have experienced stimulation after eating them?

By the way, some people have said that fruit can be a stimulant, too
(the sugar content). Some have also said that concentrated fats
(avocados included) can be a stimulant.


 >There are several other good reasons to avoid juices, some of which I
beleive
 >I touched on before.   In study after study, research has shown that whole
 >foods are always superior sources of nutrients.   There is nothing that
 >compares.


I'm not arguing in favor of juices. I never did argue in favor of juices
on this forum. I've even made some of the same arguments against juices
in the past (not on this forum, but elsewhere). However, I must mention
here that Norman Walker somehow made it to 118 years of age, and he
drank copious amounts of fresh & raw juices, daily. He was a big
advocate of juicing, and wrote a book about it, titled "Fresh Vegetable
and Fruit Juices". He was a raw foodist. Perhaps you're familiar with
some of his writings. He is the originator of the "Norwalk" juicer,
which is claimed to be the best (and most expensive) juicer on the market.

Many people have benefited from drinking fresh juices, including many
long-term raw foodists, which includes vegans. Not everyone agrees with
your view on the subject. Many others have given counter-arguments which
sound just as logical.


 >By juicing, you are tearing up the food into thousands of tiny pieces, and
 >exposing the nutrients to oxygen.   This a large loss of nutrients very
 >quickly.


The nutrients aren't immediately oxidized. It takes some time. If drunk
fresh, the oxidation is minimal. The slower-operating juicers such as
the Green Life juicer (which is what I used for my aforementioned
experiment) create very little oxidation.

Furthermore, one of the arguments in favor of juicing is that one will
get a higher rate of nutrient extraction and assimilation, and with less
digestive energy needed to be expended, by drinking the juice, and not
needing to deal with all that fiber.


 >Additionally, while whole foods are always well-balanced and
 >provide properly proportioned combinations of nutrients, juicing can help
 >create imbalances for two reasons:


Some of my associates keep telling me that most of our food supply,
including organically grown, is quite depleted in its quality, due to
low quality, mineral & trace element-depleted soils. It's questionable
that "whole foods are always well-balanced and provide properly
proportioned combinations of nutrients". But I do agree that eating
whole foods is the way to go, rather than eating fractionated, isolated
nutrients. Although, even some of those can have their time and place
with some people. Not everything is black & white with nutrition and health.


 >First, because nutrients oxidize at different rates, there may be a great
 >loss of one nutrient, and a much lesser loss of another.


I suspect that the same thing can happen within the body. And if the
food is truly well-balanced and provides properly proportioned
combinations of nutrients, then one could live on just one food, and get
all one's nutrients, and not cause imbalances. Such as: live on only
cultivated hybridized fruit, long-term, and thrive. That isn't the
reality of the situation, however. Doing that would result in both
deficiencies and imbalances, and consequent impaired health.


 >Second, because some nutrients are inevitably bound up with the fiber,
they are discarded
 >with it and never consumed.


So how much of that aforementioned protein might be bound up and discarded?

Anyway, the best juicers (such as the Green Life and Norwalk) are very
efficient, and result in extremely little nutrients being bound up in
the fiber, unlike what happens with cheaper, lower quality juicers. The
juicing advocates contend that one will get a much higher absorption of
nutrients from a juice as compared to eating the fiber-rich food. How
much of the nutrients get bound up to the fiber in the digestive system?


 >My experience with many clients over ten years is that people
inevitably do
 >much better eating a good diet, and when they do, no supplementation -- of
 >juices or anything else -- is either necessary or beneficial.


Not every long-term raw foodist agrees with you on this one.


 >Our society seems to beleive that if something is good for us, more is
 >better.   This is simply not the case.   Our bodies must process
everything
 >we consume.   The ideal situation is to consume exactly what we need,
and no
 >more or less.   Though this ideal may never be realized, we can come much
 >closer by eating an ideal diet, and learning how to pay attention to, and
 >properly interpret the body's signals.


I agree wholeheartedly.


 >Consuming more than we need simply means the body must work harder to
process
 >out all the excess stuff.   No benefit in creating additional work with no
 >added payout.


Agreed.

Now, consider: you could apply that argument to whole greens, for
example. What I'm referring to is the fiber. One of the pro-juicing
arguments is that it could be beneficial for the body to have to process
less fiber. One could get "more bang for the buck", so to speak; i.e.
get the nutrients, with less energy expended in so doing. Greater
efficiency.


 >Of the people I have worked with, the ones who invariably do the best
are the
 >ones who eat a good frugivorous, raw vegan diet, with no juices, no
 >supplements.   Eating this way allows people to eventually become far more
 >efficient and consume fewer calories, working the body even less.


As I've mentioned previously on this forum, I am familiar with many
examples to the contrary of what you state here. Not everyone does best
as vegan. And many of the people who do thrive as raw vegans, are not
eating small amounts of food or calories per day. Are you familiar with
Doug Graham? He eats (as you put it), "a good frugivorous, raw vegan
diet, with no juices, no supplements."  He claims to have done so for
more than two decades. But, he says he eats (on average) about 3,000
calories of food (mostly fruit) per day. He also claims to have done a
lot of fasting (he has also supervised a lot of fasts). And he's only
one example I'm giving you here. I know of many more. I have learned
that not everyone does best as vegan, and not everyone does best with
small quantities of food or calories.


 >That's certainly been my experience over 11.5 years of being raw.


Not everyone has had the same experience as you. I addressed the concept
of biochemical individuality, among other relevant things, in a previous
message.

Also, I thought I'd mention that the wild anthropoid primates that
you've referred to, are also known to eat large quantities of food and
calories, daily. Much of their time is spent eating, and also looking
for food to eat. Does this mean that I'm advocating that we do the same?
No, but what I am stating is that none of those animals is restricting
how much they eat, and apparently, none of them has developed the
ability or need for only small quantities of food. So if we're going to
compare ourselves to them, and our diets to theirs, then we should look
at it as it really is.

Regards,

Wes