Hi Alan,
You will notice that the post that you answered did not mention your name.
I was commenting on the comments in a particular post. Anyhow, to clarify
(or attempt to, anyway)...
>> >> > What they fail to tell you is that almost every cow is treated with
antibiotics,
>> Where do you get this information?
>>
>You've obviously never milked cows. The cream which is applied to
>the teats contains antibiotics ...
Ok, I admit it, I never have! But I think it's reasonable to assume that an
organic farmer would apply non-antibiotic cream to the cow's teats? - I was
assuming the treatment you referred to was by feed or injection anyway. (
now I see the word 'almost' every cow, so what exceptions did you have in
mind?).
>> Milk with pus would be rejected by the milk authority.
>> Organic farmers seperate their ill animals from the herd until they are well
>> again.
> If a farmer can sell his milk to consumers, where is the inspection by the
milk authority.
Are you telling me that farmers sell their milk to consumers directly from
the farm? They do their own pasturization, homogenisation, etc? Not in New
Zealand they don't (not that I know about).
Well, I do know of a raw organic goat milk I could buy locally.
>> >> Paleo people had manners, too.
>I didn't say this (I believe these were your words)
not yours, not mine
>> >Humans get their calories from carbohydrate foods in the first
>> >instance (i.e. foods containing simple sugars). Meat (i.e. the
>> >saturated fat in meat) is neither healthy for the human system
>> >and nor is it a good source of energy.
Well I do disagree, though I could be wrong. Here is what I think I know -
correct me if I'm wrong:
Calories come from carbohydrates, fats and proteins, and in fact
fats are more calorie-dense than the others.
There are two energy pathways, Glucose (uses carbohydrates) and
Glycogen (uses fats and proteins). The body is either in the mode for one
or the other at any point in time.
The breakdown of carbohydrates to glucose depends on the particular
carbohydrate, ie there are many more steps using say the starch in grain
than in using a simple sugar ( I don't know the details off the top of my head).
The body is said to be in ketosis when it is burning fats/proteins
for fuel. Perhaps someone can supply the details...
The brain does have a need for glucose, and I'm not sure to what
extent the body might make it from fats ?
Incidentally - and probably of some importance - and depending on one's
particular body - the glycemic value of a carbohydrate indicates the rate of
absorbtion by the body, so a food with a high value would place a large
demand on the sugar metabolism, thus possibly provoking a bigger insulin
response problems.
>> >As to malnourished people...a two week fast
>> It is relatively easy to adjust one's diet in a healthy direction.
>If it is relatively easy, then why are over 50% of U.S. Americans obese?
I refer to people who are motivated to change their diet to be healthier.
Many people 'want' to give up smoking, but keep the habit. A person that is
motivated to give up is generally more likely to be successful.
And when the diet change _in_fact_ produces positive gains) then of course
its relatively easy to adjust.
> But a healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see. Perhaps you
>could explain to me (us) the nutritional advantages of cooking anything.
Well I can't pretend to be the expert here: what I can say from my own
experience is that for me eating raw fruitarian or raw vegan or even raw
omni (including RAF) was not sufficient to maintain any semblance of health,
including losing about 1 to 2 lbs per week, losing strength and energy, no
matter how much I ate. Comparing those with cooked foods supposedly
beneficial for my blood type, produced a definite improvement: in weight,
strength and energy as well as skin condition, thinking ability, emotional
stability, sexual performance...
What I do notice is that when I include a bit of raw veg (corgette) there is
another degree of well-being that comes over me, so I am sure that while
eating cooked broccoli suits me better than raw, its worthwhile to find
veges that appeal and are suitable to eat raw.
>The only advantage that I know of is that cooking often
>neutralises toxins in foods which we probably shouldn't be eating
>anyway.
Well broccoli comes into that category: some thyroid inhibitor or other that
is destroyed by heat. But it has lots of good stuff, including being a good
source of Calcium; besides, it tastes so good !
And kale is good too (doesn't taste so good tho). I am wondering if there
is anything in kale when its raw that is bad?
As for cooking grains, it makes them reasonably digestible. Meat: the main
problem would seem to me to be parasites. (Although this is a potential
problem with any raw food really).
So IMO it all depends on what you have available to start with.
According to a book I've just had a look at, "Enzymes and Enzyme Therapy" by
Anthony J Chichoke, DC, within a section discussing pancreatic enzymes,
suggests the following generalisations about the ability of a body to
process foods:
Carbohydrate: up to 300 grams daily
Fat: up to 175 grams per hour
Protein: up to 300 grams per hour
If this is a true indicator of the ability of the body to absorb the
macronutrients, (and I have reservations about accepting this without some
corroboration), then it is clear that a person could eat vastly more protein
than carbohydrate, and also that fat intake could exceed carbohydrate by a
large factor.
It is obvious that many people do eat vast quantities of carbohydrate; ( in
fact it is the experience of at least some that eating some carbohydrate
creates a feeling to eat more, while this does not appear to happen with
fats and proteins in general) so I ask what happens to the excess
carbohydrate? Maybe the body adapts to digesting more? And remember, that
when the carbs hit the blood-stream, insulin is needed and many people get
problems in this area.
As for the healthiness of the saturated fat in meat, I would agree that it
is unhealthy for some blood-types (according to D'Adamo). But remember the
Eskimo, who was observed to eat vast quantities (10 pounds I seem to
remember) per day of raw animal blubber.
It might be important that it was raw, for raw fats do have considerable
quantities of enzymes.
And I remember Ellie posted about a year ago I think that she had normalised
her chloresterol counts by upping her raw fat intake. If you're there,
Ellie, could you give us an update?
There are some problems when discussing diets, some I have mentioned before:
people are different, have different strengths, weaknesses and
makeup as to their ability to eat various foods.
using general labels instead of being specific ultimately means lots
of words and little meaning. ie, to say raw vs cooked, fruit vs vegan vs
omni, carbohydrates vs fats.
For example, every now and then pops up an advocate for fruit-ism. They
seldom if ever give a typical recipe that they would claim would be healthy
(even for themselves specifically). If you read what they say, all you have
to do is eat all-fruit to be healthy. They seldom give warnings about what
eating acid fruits such as citrus will do to your teeth ( and this is
serious !!!). And they are often just echoing their new guru. Some people
even "believe" that its possible to be healthy as a fruit-*** without being
able to say that they are living proof.
got to go now...
Lynton
|
