>>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.

(Ric again):

You've got my support on that one!

>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.)

Wasn't aware of it's republication...wonder who did it?

>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.

Wonder how big the differences when you check back earlier than the 70s?

>(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!

I get your drift, but not too sure about the protein question.  Still
inclined to think we're seriously overproteinized...but most
importantly...we're over proteinized with denatured protein foods...mighty
dangerous and toxic "food."  Adele, to my recollection, never got into the
issue of what sort of protein was most useful to our organism.

>(for men:70g/154# vs 56g/154# (1" taller!) Strange statistics aren't they?

The real shocker it to go back to the early part of this century, or the
latter part of the last, and then look at the NAS's recommendations (MDR
Protein).  This helped me realize the dangers in ever taking these sorts of
data sources seriously.  They keep coming up with the "last word", but the
last word is usually changed from what it was at the prior declaration....

>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!

Good points.

I always like to remind myself that most of our daily protein requirements
(approximately 80%?) are quite easily met by our system's recycling
mechanism.  Youngsters and hard working folks clearly need more than the
more sedantary among us, but still honestly believe the big problem over
here (the US) is one of too much, not too little.  Surely there isn't much
obvious protein defficiency manifesting among our poorly fed youngsters.

>At any rate, her commercial ventures aside (a whole lot of doctors, and
>virtually all popular nutrition books are fair to middlingly commercial,
>agreed?)

Yup.

>... 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.

Pat...not too sure we're in harmony on that one.  It's harder than it was
100 years ago to prevent cancer, but not as hard to stop it as we're
popularly led to believe.  Over thirty years of observing the "alternative"
cancer care scene has convinced me that there are all kinds of quite
effective therapies available...just not legally so here in the states.
Burzynski's fabulous work down in Houston, for example:  the state and Feds
are working day and night to shut him down and put him behind bars for the
rest of his life, but this travesty of corrupt "justice" isn't managing to
keep the truth completely hidden.  He's getting great results with all
kinds of really deadly varieties of that horrific disease, especially brain
tumors.  The more successful he is, of course, the harder they push to shut
him down.

Even Henry G. Bieler, MD was bringing various cancer problems under control
back in the WWII years.  Gloria Swanson was one of his more notable and
visible examples of what he did with his protein deprivation management.
Drs Max Gerson and Hoxey weren't slouches, either.  Even Dr. Ann (Wigmore)
had some spectacular case histories to tout.

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.

More agree than disagree with that observation.

>But that, of course, is another story.

And a long one, too!

Ric (Lambart)