Bruce Kleisner wrote:
> Howell's books are poorly referenced, sloppy, extremist, vague,
> unscientific. Howell's "research" is as flawed as "Pottenger's
> Cats" and the nonsense peddled by Aajonus. The fact that nobody
> has duplicated any of their research proves it was in error.

Actually, I posted two separate bodies of research, one from
1988 and one from 1989 that duplicated perfectly some of
Dr. Howell's research. I even went to a lot of trouble to dig
up the this research and review it myself.

That some of it hasn't been duplicated does not
automatically equal that his research was invalid, either.
How much research do you know of going on in this area?

> I don't see how that necessarily proves that it is more
> digestible.

Someone that can assess the validity of research just
by glancing over the results could make millions. In fact,
a lot of research could just be stopped all together and
they could just ask you.

> Several books refute the idea that starches
> or disaccharide sugars are digestible at all.

Of course, your books are right, right?

> Animal fat and protein are
> very unlikely to make you fat. They provide the nutrients
> we need with nothing superfluous (fiber & carbohydrate).

Well, I could agree with that and still point out
a vast body of actual research that contradicts
it. Huge bodies of research point to anti-cancer
properties found in fruits and vegetables, both
of which come with that darn superfluous stuff.

>Howell makes claims like this without
> bothering to do any up-to-date research to prove it.

Well, duh, he was born in 1898. If you consider
his age when he was probably doing the bulk of
his work, how up-to-date do you think any of
his research is going to be. He can't very well
quote research from 2001 if he is dead, can
he?

> The assumption that starch becomes more digestible after
> cooking is questionable. Would you say that the lactose
> in milk becomes more digestible after cooking? You might
> find that the opposite is true. Only fermentation allows
> us to easily digest starches and complex sugars.

>There's still
> no proof that we need enzymes to digest our food or that producing
> enzymes puts a burden on the body. Let us not jump to conclusions

Only fermentation? No proof that we need enzymes
to digest our food? Well since you brought it up about milk,
here is up-to-date research that would again confirm something
that Dr. Howell wrote in Enzyme Nutrition:

89 lactose intolerant children are given tablets containing the enzyme
lactase (beta-galactosidase). Those patients given the placebo showed an
increase in hydrogen production, along with abdominal pain (in 89 percent),
bloating (83 percent, diarrhea (61 percent), and flatulence (44 percent).
Those subjects given the lactase-containing tablets before they were given
the lactose showed a reduction in both hydrogen excretion and abdominal
symptoms. -- American Journal of Diseases of Children 1261 (Nov. 1990).

Most nutritionist will say that enzymes do not aid in digestion, but above
was a demonstration that one certainly does aid in digestion. How could that
be when they claim that all enzymes are killed by stomach acid? I have taken
a lactase enzyme before and I can tell you it was not specifically coated to
protect it against the acids in the stomach.

And if you look at the enzymes in milk:

Milk K.G. Weckel 1938 Catalase, galactase, lactase, amylase, oleinase,
peroxidase, dehydrogenase,
phosphatase

You will find that before the enzymes were killed by pasteurization, raw
milk contained the lactase enzyme that aids in digestion of the it.

Now I'm not saying milk, especially cow's milk, is something we should be
drinking, but the research certainly shows an enzyme aiding in digestion.

> No matter how you say it, that sounds like malnutrition
> to me. Why would we want to decrease the amount of food
> we absorb? That just leaves more for microbes and other
> organisms inside us, more for the toilet.

And less wear and tear on the body trying to metabolize
it, which is why calorie restriction has been one of the
few scientifically proven means of extending life.

> Howell makes
> the same mistake as every other diet guru - he assumes
> that we fatten on calories. He believes that the human
> body is merely a bomb calorimeter or blast furnace.

Howell certainly did not think that, which makes me wonder
if you have ever even read his work. He repeatedly points
out supposedly high-caloric foods that do not make
people fat, and had a much better understanding of
fats in the diet than either Audette or Cordain do.

> The references are old, and who knows what slopply methodology was
> used by Rosenthal and Ziegler...

Well, shouldn't be that hard to duplicate. Grab a
glucose meter and find a diabetic, which shouldn't
be that hard, either.

Jay
www.roadtowellsville.com
www.vitaminb17.org