Hello Laurie and Tom,


>> Sent to veg-raw by "Thomas E. Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
> Any credible references? I seem to remember that different organs turn
> themselves over at different rates: important ones like the heart, blood, and
> liver do so quickly, and the bones a lot slower.

> Does anyone have the figures for different organs?

I don't, but I tend to agree with the general idea. It seems clear that skin is
replaced rapidly. I was also said by a doctor that the inner layer of cells of
the intestine is replaced every 48 hours (?). Also, neurons cells are probably
replaced at a very slow rate but axons formation may require more proteins (at
what rate?). And so on.

> No it doesn't, a major portion of protein, about 70%, is recycled internally.

> "It has been estimated from isotopic tracer experiments that in a 70kg man on
> an average diet about 400g of protein turns over each day. Up to 1/4 of this
> amount undergoes oxidative degradation or conversion into glucose and is
> replaced daily from exogenous intake; the remaining 3/4 is recycled."
> [Lehninger, Biochemistry]

This study seems to assume that the average protein intake is about 100gr, that
is 100/70 = 1.42gr/kg, which is far more than the 0.9gr/kg RDA recommendation
or 0.43, 0.48, 0.5 gr/kg we found in previous messages.

Why about 1/4 of protein is degraded or converted?

a) proteins can't be stored in "large" amounts like fat. The body must then
convert it into something that can be stored, use it (as energy), or eliminate
it (note that protens must normally be degraded before being eliminated by the
kidneys).

b) if large amounts of proteins and small amounts of carbohydrates are eaten,
the body will tend to take energy from proteins by degrading them.

c) if some proteins are damaged (for any reason), the immune system may not
recognnize them and will destroy them (considered as "alien" proteins).

d) any other reasons?

Another poit, assuming the protein intake of a person is about 0.5gr/kg, what
percentage of protein will be recycled?

Further, let's assume someone is taking about 0.5gr/kg of protein and large
amounts of carbohydrates (enough to satisfy his energy needs). Then, let's
lower slowly his protein intake. What might happen to his % of protein
recycling and degradation. I wll assume the person is healthy and well detox,
and of course, has a good raw food diet.

>> The numerous healthy raw fooders who consume substantial amounts of sprouted
>> grains, seeds, nuts appear to verify that said (high protein) foods are
>> appropriate and are not as harmful as one might think from reading your
>> post.

Despite what I have said about uric acid in a previous message, the humann body
can tolerate a certain "excess" of protein. It is able to eliminate the toxin
as long as this "excess" remains below a certain level. My guess is that this
level is somewhere between 0.5gr/kg and 1.0gr/kg. Any idea?

> I'd think that what you are referring to would be transitional raw fooders,
> those in the initial stages, which might last years, of detox. For instance,
> in my first two meatless years, I ate lots of nutbutters and almonds and was
> oblivious to the mucus they were creating because I was so clogged up with
> the previous 29 years of slime I had due to the SAD. It was only after a very
> long period of a raw diet that I began noticing the problems associated with
> eating nuts/seeds. Hippocrates Health Institute paid lip service to these
> digestive difficulties with an even more absurd approach: "seed cheese"

Could you tell more about mucus? Is it the body that produces it to help detox
or is it formed by the foods themselves? Or what else?

>> I do agree that some high protein foods, such as sprouted legumes, can be
>> difficult to digest. Because of that one must exercise discretion in
>> consuming them.

> My point, exactly: IF the sprouts are difficult, the unsprouted ones would be
> even worse. Most people eat them unsprouted _and_ cooked. My experience and
> claim is that it is the concentrated protein that is the major problem.

Beans, sprouted or not, are probably the hardest foods to digest because:

a) they contain some enzymes that inhibit protein digestion and this cause
putrefaction;

b) they contain about 1/3 protein, 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbohydrates (roughly), so
they constitute in themselves a bad food combination.

>> Also, milk has very little sugar, mostly in the form of lactose (slow to
>> digest), while fruit is loaded with fructose, glucose, other sugars, all of
>> which are digested very rapidly and can produce a glucose spike with
>> associated sugar rush.

> Interesting speculation, however, I have known a 'hypoglycemic' addicted to
> CocaCola who, after some initial detox and stabilization on a raw diet, could
> live on a pure fruit diet for weeks with no hypoglycemic rollercoaster. I
> have also known other people who would fall asleep after a little commercial
> sugar while having absolutely no problems with a fruit diet. All sugars
> aren't equal.

About sugars and hypoglycemia:

a) refined sugar is by far assimilated more rapidly than fruit sugars that are
often linked with minerals, peptides, etc. reducing assimilation rate.

b) a question: is that true that fructose is not or less easily detected by the
brain and won't cause large insulin discharge that would otherwise cause
hypoglycemia reaction?

--
Pierre Gaumond.       <[log in to unmask]>