>Pat, you said:
>>I have a copy of Adele Davis's "Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit", 1970, so much
>>easier to understand than a biochem tome--all that same knowledge with a
>>spoonful of sugar. :).
Ric,
Thanks much for the illumination on Adele Davis. I knew some of it, her
early demise from stomach cancer, and her hyperbole in miraculous "cures"
smacked of commercialism in book selling, but her basics were sound and she
gave a positive slant on the role of nutrition. I felt that one of the best
results of her work was to de-God the medical profession, and focus more on
the role of nutrition, excercise, and the individual's responsibilty for
their own health. She at least made info accessible, and was au current at
the time; and not that far off the mark on current thought, either.
Agreement for her thinking can still be found---her basics, the role of
nutrients in the body, the best food sources for each, and her view of the
actual "dosages" and such are not so different from some current thinking,
do you think? The USDA is still dragging their feet behind modern thinking;
for instance, their school lunch program is not a joke, it's actionable.
At the time, she was actually encouraging me to be free of some government
recommendations for vitamins and minerals. I found a USDA book at the Fulton
county library (in downtown Atlanta) which had the nutrients in (almost) all
food categories,including many processed foods. It was a reference book,
tho, and 25 miles from home. When I tried to track it down within the
government walls behind their moat of self protection, I found, after many,
many abortive attempts that the book was out of print. (This was early
'70's, the book was not revised and reprinted until until 1981.) You have
encouraged me to compare the chart in Adele's book with the recommendation
in the revised book (both are figures from the National Academy of Science)
and the RDA's are very similar, for all nutrients except protein (some
variations in age span), but you are right---in 1970 the RDA for protein for
middle aged women was 58g/128#weight, and in 1981, it was 44g/120# weight,
for the same height. (With the increasing obesity, the fatting of America
we've had in the past 20 years, it wouldn't shock me to find the need for
protein has risen back up again because of the work required to carry it
around....I may not be kidding, either!
(for men:70g/154# vs 56g/154# (1" taller!) Strange statistics aren't they?
But as to protein, do you suppose NAS is considering that U.S. adults and
children have become chair bound, one does not see bikers and joggers here
as in Europe, and don't require the protein the past generation needed?
Those old timers used to expend a lot of calories, you know!
At any rate, her commercial ventures aside (a whole lot of doctors, and
virtually all popular nutrition books are fair to middlingly commercial,
agreed?) she still beats reading headlines and Veggie Life and Veg. Times
and listening to Oprah and her guests pontificate. We can't all run get a
refresher course in biochemistry, so its any port in a storm. Adele's
credentials in biochemistry were impeccable, even if she had an extra side
helping of avariciousness (Rx:take two anti-personality Type-A gel tabs, and
do an extra 15 min.yoga, plus 30 min.meditation on charity).
It is tough to prevent or stop cancer in DDT land, no matter how good the
nutrition, no matter how good the medicine. I believe our frantic search for
health is because of the deep knowledge that the primary duties of
government, the health and safety of the people, were sold out to the
chemical and automobile industries, and we let it happen, and are still
turning our heads away.
But that, of course, is another story.
Pat
|
