Are your bones too dense and strong? Adopt a Raw Food Vege Diet!

Originally posted by TV_Nation

Originally posted by angelx666

raw vendges are good - enzymes

meat is bad - acidic

enzymes is better to have in the body than acidic waste

Meat is packed with high amounts of proteins and other nutrients I would hardly call it bad.

First, protein is not a vitamin, and it is not essential that we need it. I was wondering what nutrients you could elaborate on that cooked meat provides?

Originally posted by switch182

Originally posted by TV_Nation

Originally posted by angelx666

raw vendges are good - enzymes

meat is bad - acidic

enzymes is better to have in the body than acidic waste

Meat is packed with high amounts of proteins and other nutrients I would hardly call it bad.

First, protein is not a vitamin, and it is not essential that we need it. I was wondering what nutrients you could elaborate on that cooked meat provides?

First, where did I say that Protein is a vitamin? O yea, I never said that you just came up with that somehow. (BTW Protein is a Macro-Nutrient if you didn't know...)

And yes I will elaborate on nutrients that cooked meat provides.

Iron

Red meat, in particular, is very high in iron. Iron helps carry oxygen to the organs, tissues, and blood. Individuals who do not receive enough iron through their diet may suffer from anemia. Anemia may cause weakness, lowered immunity, fatigue, and general feelings of illness. Though it is possible to get iron from supplements, the best sources will come from the diet.

Amino Acids

Meat contains essential amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein. They build cells, repair tissues, and form antibodies that can combat viruses. Amino acids are a vital part of the health of organs, muscles, ligaments. The health of your hair and the strength of your nails may also have a great deal to do with the presence of amino acids.


The vitamins and other nutrients that subsist in your steak, pork, or chicken include:

Vitamin A ( good for the eyes, bones, teeth, and strength)
Vitamin B (which helps to support the central nervous system and may enhance emotional health).
Vitamin D (which is also essential to emotional health, and benefits the bones).


Also Protein is necessary for the building and repair of body tissues.
It produces enzymes, hormones, and other substances the body uses.
It regulates body processes, such as water balancing, transporting nutrients, and making muscles contract. Protein keeps the body healthy by resisting diseases that are common to malnourished people. Prevents one from becoming easily fatigued by producing stamina and energy.

If you think a diet low in protein is a good thing you are sadly mistaken.

There ya go!







[edit on 15-4-2010 by TV_Nation]

When it comes to nutrition, it is about quality not quantity.

And when it comes to studies, you need both. The quality of this study is great, but the quantity isn't there.

Speaking of quantity, the OP cut his quote of the abstract a bit short.. (I bolded the bit he "overlooked" :@@

Conclusion A RF vegetarian diet is associated with low bone mass at clinically important skeletal regions but is without evidence of increased bone turnover or impaired vitamin D status.

Do not discount this study, but keep in mind this study is small, and may not be representative.

Raw Food Group:We performed a cross-sectional study on 18 volunteers
Their mean age was 54.2 ± 11.5 years (age range, 33-85 years).

Control Group: individuals eating a typical American diet (what is a typical American Diet?)

Here is the "meat" of the study..

Although low bone mass is a risk factor for fracture, bone quality also plays a role.13 It is therefore possible that RF vegetarians with a low bone mass may not have an increased incidence of fractures because of good bone quality. Clearly, it will be necessary to follow up a large number of RF vegetarians for a sufficiently long period to determine whether they have an increased risk of developing fractures.

Evidence that bone quality plays an important role in determining fracture risk is provided by the finding that persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus with a high BMI have increased bone fracture risk, despite a high bone mass.

hemp can replace meat.

20 amino acids including all 9 essential amino's you need to live (no other plant can say that)

and it has a very high protein content.

id say the only thing plant proteins are missing that meat has is creatine.

all to the best of my knowledge..

well first off I think it's hard to be a vegan especially raw in this society. The society is dominated by meat eaters and so hardly any real research and development goes into the vegan diets, ie to make better alternatives to meat eating and prove that one can be a healthy vegan, even if we use technology. Technology is not bad, we used technology to make tofu. Tofu can be made by field peas not just soy beans. Biotechnology (not the frankenfoods kind) can help. Natural biotechnology. Sprouts are awesome too. If 75 percent or more of your diet is raw, then you are considered a raw foodist, so it doesn't have to be all raw. And mostly the idea is to just get more raw food into your diet. There's a percentage (I forgot which) of raw food you should eat to be able to counteract all the toxin buildup of cooked food one might intake.

And they overcharge for good and healthy organic "exotic" veggies. Only because they're just not common in an area where meat is mostly eaten. Same with the availability of these foods locally and organically, as well.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Originally posted by LurkerMan
eating meat is only unhealthy if your a lazy ass

Sadly, the vast majority of our society is exactly that. Most Americans walk less than 50 yards a day. They stand upright less than an hour a day. Remarkably, they're able to squeeze in 6 - 8 hours of TV though. They work out a lot though, I mean, it's hard work lifting 300lbs every time they get off the couch to get another Diet (lol) Coke to wash down their deep fried Twinkies wrapped in bacon and smothered in Ranch.

Like most here, I get tired of hearing people tell other people their diet is going to kill them. Here's the thing. If you're physically active, and only eat when your body tells you it's time to eat, and have the tiny amount of will power required to stay within the bounds of your own metabolism, you can pretty much eat whatever you want. Humans are incredibly adaptive in terms of their fuel sources.

reply to post by LurkerMan


Hemp is great. If you haven't seen this thread, you should check it out: Omega-3: Fishy claims...

I learned there is an Omega 3 known as DHA that is obtainable from fish oil or algae. Some soy milk is fortified with algae derived DHA.
DHA can be synthesized in the body from other Omega 3s, but there are studies that suggest this doesn't happen at levels high enough to prevent DHA deficiency.

reply to post by The Quiet Storm

I've been eating vegan for a little over a year now, and it hasn't been as hard as I expected. But I'm blessed enough to live in what some call the nations most vegetarian friendly city so your mileage may vary
If you are interested in learning more about the science, this convention called Northwest Veg Fest taught me a lot. Their website has some good info. www.nwveg.org

Originally posted by Unit541


Like most here, I get tired of hearing people tell other people their diet is going to kill them. Here's the thing. If you're physically active, and only eat when your body tells you it's time to eat, and have the tiny amount of will power required to stay within the bounds of your own metabolism, you can pretty much eat whatever you want. Humans are incredibly adaptive in terms of their fuel sources.

And I get tired posts like this. I mean, I felt the same way when I first started working out at 19.

It's easy to use your personal anecdotes as validation for your claims. It's not, however, very logical.

The best way, observationally speaking, to determine the effects of a diet on humans is to examine a group of individuals that experience a significant dietary change without changing geographical location.

And example of this: The Pima are a group of American Indians living in the southwest. This small group has the highest prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the world, but it wasn't always this way. They used to hunt wild game and gather/grow vegetables. They were very active, especially the men, and they ate voraciously. There was literally an over abundance of food for this very healthy group of indians.

And then...the white man comes along and kills off the wild game and essentially derail their entire economic system. They became poor and were given government rations to survive and went from over abundance to nearly starving. Despite their high activity level and low caloric intake, they became overweight and began developing diabetes at an alarming rate. I believe 1 of 2 Pima women are obese by age 20.

I laugh at the thought that these people are killing themselves because they're lazy.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent years with Alaskin Inuits and examined their behaviour and diet and health (he also participated in a study by eating the native diet and having researchers evaluate it's effects on his health). One thing he noted was how robust and muscular the men were and how lean the women were, despite the women being relatively sedentary. Females literally sat around all day making clothing while the men would go out and spend days hunting. This amazing group of individuals suffered from almost no chronic disease. Their only true enemy was infection (they had very little access to western medicine).

So, Unit541, you can see why I'm tired of people spouting off about things they don't understand. If working out allows you to eat what you want and still be healthy, good for you. There's always exceptions to rules.

-Dev

[edit on 22-5-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

The study is fundamentally flawed from the very beginning. I won't even get into the previous studies that showed pretty much the opposite. This study has enough flaws to kill it.

First of all, they only had 36 people in the study - 18 on the raw food diet, 18 with a typical American diet. That is a horrible start. To get a statistically significant result, you need a starting sample in the HUNDREDS, for both groups. This is simply because even among specific dietary regiments, specific foods eaten, and general lifestyle can greatly affect the results.

Second of all, the ultimate results were a difference of just 4% between the two groups.

So we have 18 raw fooders, with 4% less density in a couple places in their body. This study is utter ***t, sorry to be so blunt.

Meat and dairy are bad for you, period. I'm not advocating a raw food lifestyle, but I would absolutely advocate a vegan lifestyle. Why?

Because the science proves it. I'm not talking about a sample case of 36 people. I'm talking about sample cases of FIFTY THOUSAND.

The largest epidemiological study ever done on human nutrition is called The China Study. It firmly concluded that meat and dairy are directly associated with an increase in a huge variety of long-term ailments, including cancer and diabetes. Across the board, health was seen to decrease, as the proportion of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to meat and dairy decreased.

The study looked primarily at the minorities in China, of which there are dozens, maybe hundreds. They tend to keep their villages separate from each other, and have maintained a consistent diet and lifestyle for hundreds of years. Yet they are genetically more similar to each other than on average, so in effect, any study done on them will have a reduced error margin for genetic variability. This makes them ideal for studies of this kind.

There's a book called The China Study, which is written by the doctor who conducted the actual study with the same name. It's taken considerable flak from people who don't want it to be true, some doctors included. But the actual science is abundantly clear on this topic, a vegan diet is the most healthy.

PS - B12 supplements are considered important, though many vegans seem to function perfectly fine without them, the author of the study included.

Well heres my two cents.

The article is speaking of raw vegan, not vegetarians or vegans. Vegans who are not necessarily raw have problems with B12 and thats really about it. It would be interesting to see how they correspond (bone mass and B12).

My husband and I go raw vegan for up to a month (depending on whats going on in our lives at the moment) every few months as a cleanse. We started this about a year ago and it has changed our lives. We are very big into yoga and working out and sports AND we have a toddler so I can tell you that our energy levels are at their highest when raw vegan.

We do not do it for ethical reasons really only for health reasons. Believe me we love a nice thick Ribeye...rare. But our body is a machine and as we are not disciplined enough to follow it all the time I would think that the time we do is contributing to our health and longevity.

Many people like to "hate" on vegans or vegetarians or cleanses and I think it is a matter of personal choice. You know what your health FEELS like and do whatever you need to obtain and maintain it.

Very important to point out that those doing the "hating" are those who have never TRIED this themselves. Perhaps their opinions would change.....

I was just saying the other day that my bones are far too hard and dense from eating a balanced diet all of my life! A meatless diet is one option but I'm also looking into drilling holes in my bones with a rusty drill as a safer, healthier alternative to going without meat.

I call them veggie holes! Look into it my friend.

reply to post by Son of Will


Yeah....I know. It's not really conclusive evidence, huh?

reply to post by Son of Will

Meat and dairy are bad for you, period. I'm not advocating a raw food lifestyle, but I would absolutely advocate a vegan lifestyle. Why?

Because the science proves it. I'm not talking about a sample case of 36 people. I'm talking about sample cases of FIFTY THOUSAND.

I've seen no proof. I've seen weak correlations and shotty associations, but let's not forget that epidemiological/observational evidence does not determine cause. It's a logical fallacy to asign causation from observations alone.

The largest epidemiological study ever done on human nutrition is called The China Study....

There's a book called The China Study, which is written by the doctor who conducted the actual study with the same name.

Ah, yes. The China Project. Have you read research? Not the popular book written by Campbell, but the actual study itself. Are you aware of the seemingly purposeful exclusion of anything about SUGAR in the study?

The original monogram contains data that paints a completely different story than Campbell would have you believe. Here....I'll give some info:

Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the
China Study

Total Protein +12%
Animal Protein +3%
Fish Protein +7%
Plant Protein +12%
Total Lipids -6%


Carbohydrates +23%
Total Calories +16%
Fat % Calories -17%
Fiber +21%
Fat (questionnaire) -29%

Most of these are not statistically significant; however, a few things are quite clear. Fat intake was negatively associated with all cancer mortality. Carbohydrates and Fiber had stronger associations that animal protein. Weird huh?

You're referencing a man who said:

Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy

....a man who serves on the advisory board for the PCRM, a group of doctors with strong ties to PETA, the terrorist group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and other animal rights groups.

In his book, The China Study, he devotes an entire chapter to Auto Immune disease and Casein protein, yet he never mentions the auto immune problems caused by wheat gluten.

Only a few paragraphs are dedicated to the discussion of refined carbs.

He quickly points out the difference between casein and plant proteins, and yet generalizes casein to animapl protein.

The China Study book? No thanks. The China Project? The data speaks for itself.....if you actually see the data. And Campbell? The guy's a joke.

Sources: aje.oxfordjournals.org...