Ward Nicholson wrote:


> I don't have the time or inclination to get dragged into an interminable
> debate here...

Me either---I've got to go to Florida.

>
> ...I think JL's point above [grass-fed beef?] is that there is more to quality
> of a diet
> than the brix of specific *individual" foods in the diet, and that the SAD
> diet is "sad" because of more than just the fact it contains (bad) cow
> meat. Saying bad cow meat = SAD diet in and of itself ignores many other
> factors. Such as that what defines the SAD diet more than any other thing is
> it's a diet based on extremes of imbalance in proportions of foodstuffs (for
> instance, high in refined sugar, low in unprocessed fruits/veggies, high in
> trans-fats, high in salt, for starters), or certain items being in the diet at
> all (soft drinks, french fries, etc.). Such things have nothingto do with
> brix, and would be there, high-brix or low-brix, even if certain things about
> those foods were modified to whatever degree depending on their specific brix
> levels.

First, he brought up grass-fed beef and I responded.  Now, you're telling me
that you know what he really meant.  Are you saying that my notes about
grass-fed beef are bogus?  Second, why not use correct terminology?  The "B"rix
scale is named in honor of Professor A.F.W. Brix of Germany.


> Quality of diet has as much or more to do with the balance or proportions of
> different foodstuffs in the diet as it does with the range of quality levels
> of the specific items in it.

Partially true---more truth is that as the quality is increased, the variety can
be safely minimized.  This has been established the world over so many times
that even those who most dearly love their reductionist studies shy away from
confrontation.

>
> 15-20 years ago I worked in the word processing dept. of a large corporate
> restaurant chain conglomerate, typing up all sorts of interdepartmental
> correspondence. One thing I still remember is that the food-service wonks
> there were very concerned that the brix levels of their soft drinks were
> quality-controlled to the appropriate range.

This irritates me as well as you.  The Brix 'poor', 'average', 'good', and
'excellent' scale is only applicable to the juices and saps of fresh fruits and
vegetables.  It has nothing to do with soda pop or, say, kerosene, each of which
gives a nonsense reading, sorta' like using a thermometer to measure how fast
one is going.


> The problem with brix being
> one's primary measure of quality is that it doesn't distinguish between the
> value of different foodstuffs being in the diet at all, or in what
> proportions/ amounts. Using brix indiscriminately, one could speculate that if
> only people consumed higher-brix cola, french fries, and milkshakes, the
> health problems they have on the SAD diet would go away. Now that's an
> obviously extreme example for the sake of illustrating a point,

I call it nonsense as speculation, nonsense as illustration, and nonsense
overall---but cute.  You know, sort of Alice-in-Wonderland.     :)


> but the same logic applies to the kind of argument you are making about the
> long-term results of raw-food veggie diets and/or fruitarianism.

You're reaching here---do you want to sit on my porch and learn a bit about the
subject?  Right now I'm at a loss as to your charge I made an earlier argument
about anything or long-term anything.  I only keep saying that *quality* must be
part of the picture.  There are people here who have said many times that XYZ is
impossible or XXX is impossible, but they refuse to consider quality.  From my
chair they look dogma-driven.  Pity the livestock if they were running the farm.

>
> High brix is not going to mitigate the fact that fruitarian diets, for
> example, bombard the body with more sugar than most people can handle on a
> long-term basis

SEZ WHO?  Each word you're adding is muddying things more and more.


> or that fruits are going to be (because of inherent
> genetic constraints) extremely low in essential fats, in protein, etc.,
> especially when compared to other foods in the diet such as meats, nuts,

MORE?  Haven't I made it clear that increasing Brix means increasing proteins,
oils, amino acids, hormones, taste factors, and minerals?  Is this the
problem---you think Brix means sugar?  If that's so, just put a few teaspoons of
sugar in the next glass of mediocre orange juice someone offers you and see if
it tastes better.  So now *you* are making my points.  Namely, higher Brix means
a more abundant, and more assimilable array of essentials.  If you're stuck in a
mental 'sugar' fog, there's not much reason to go on.


> etc., that are much better bioavailable sources. Low-brix or high-brix, the
> underlying problem with fruitarian diets is one of an extreme imbalance in
> the overall proportion of foodstuffs in the diet.

Am I seeing an agenda here?  Does Brix, per se, have to be fought tooth and nail
because it might open the door to some proscribed dietary regime?  I could not
care less if somebody wants to hang from a tree and eat fruit.  Similarly, it
matters not to me if someone smashes stoves in a fit of idealistic fury.  All
I'm saying is that when people here make claims that this or that can't possibly
work, they should take quality into the equation.  Otherwise, their arguments
are hollow.  Is that so hard to accept?

>
> I don't think people are ignoring brix here. It's just that it's only one
> aspect of quality, and in the case of fruitarian diets, it's highly
> doubtful it has that much to do with why people fail on it, given the other
> far more overarching problems with such a diet.

The thought that it's being fought with every resource might not be an
overstatement on my part.  Brix = Quality.  Try saying it.

BTW, Ward---can you answer my questions about the plagiarism that Tom so often
condemns?  Further, I'm still baffled by the stoney silence greeting my
observation about post-NFL plagiarism.  Do you have thoughts on that?

Anyway, thanks for your comments.  I apologize for attempting to respond to
almost every word you said, but I felt you really were right in my face.  I
suppose netiquette suggests it's best to just pick out one or two items should
one wish to respond and I normally practice that.

Now I have to go explain to Dave again what I meant by censorship (assuming he
hasn't delisted me).

Regards,
Rex Harrill