Visning av honnrposter for Coincidence theorist
Sider:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 16  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: Dempe sukkersuget? 08. november 2009, 05:08
    hver gang du føler sukkersuget så spis noe saltete istedenfor, det gjelper svært godt...
    Honnr gitt av : Daeemon, 11. november 2009, 13:33
    17  Generelt / Åpent forum / Sv: Svineinfluensaen gir store inntekter 09. november 2009, 23:59
    ok, dette vet forfatteren alt om, han er egentlig jens stoltenberg men skriver dårlige konspirasjonsbøker under pseudonym, av og til lurer jeg på hvordan idioter som deg klarer å koble sammen alt dette pisset, men rett skal være rett, håper du dør av svineinfluensaen Smiley

    sorry as, jeg er for basisk til å blir syk av denne såkalte svineinfluensa Smiley Husker ikke sist jeg var syk, er frisk hele tiden.  

    som Hippocrates sa

    “Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food “


    DET HAR JEG TENKT Å FØLGE FOR ALT...  


    Dedikerer denne videoen til deg, sjekk an ut mr... ikke bli for hjernevasket av regjeringen din... Ikke si BS før du har evaluert begge sider av en sak. Ikke avfei noe bare fordi det er for vanskelig for deg å forstå i første omgang... Gå i dybden.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgkCw8_rIVw

    Honnr gitt av : Iceberg, 10. november 2009, 09:07
    18  Generelt / Åpent forum / Sv: Svineinfluensaen gir store inntekter 09. november 2009, 00:20
    Twenty reasons why vitamin D is better than a swine flu vaccine

    http://www.naturalnews.com/027385_Vitamin_D_swine_flu_vaccine.html  biggrin
    Honnr gitt av : Iceberg, 09. november 2009, 16:52
    19  Generelt / Åpent forum / Sv: Svineinfluensaen gir store inntekter 01. november 2009, 03:05
    Veldig bra av dagbladet å ha denne som hovedoverskrift. Ignorerte kreftfare i 20 år. Stoffet formaldehyd gjorde Frode Olsgard uhelbredelig kreftsyk.. Hva er det inaktive viruset i h1n1 vaksinen drept av. Formaldehyd.. Altså det er formaldehyd i vaksinen...

    http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/10/29/nyheter/helse/innenriks/sykdom/kreft/8784065/
    Honnr gitt av : bjørn`, 03. november 2009, 09:15
    20  Generelt / Åpent forum / SVINEINFLUENSA tråden !!!! 31. juli 2009, 22:45
    Denne svineinfluensaen er en stor propaganda og et forsøk på å massevaksinere millionervis av mennesker. Samme historie skjedde i 1976, da media og eliten prøvde og klarte å skremme mennesker til å vaksineres.
    Resultatet var storsalg for legemiddelindustrien/famasiene, som tjente utrolig mye penger på dette, mens tusenvis av mennesker som tok vaksinen fikk nevrologiske skader, samt døde av denne vaksinen. Sjekk det opp selv. 60 minutes gjorde et innslag om dette som kan sees på youtube. 

    SWINE FLU 1976 PROPAGANDA - PART I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro1WL5ketWg

    SWINE FLU 1976 PROPAGANDA - PART II

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0aIoa97X5k
    Honnr gitt av : Mr T76, 02. august 2009, 09:53
    21  Generelt / Åpent forum / SVINEINFLUENSA tråden !!!! 31. juli 2009, 22:45
    Denne svineinfluensaen er en stor propaganda og et forsøk på å massevaksinere millionervis av mennesker. Samme historie skjedde i 1976, da media og eliten prøvde og klarte å skremme mennesker til å vaksineres.
    Resultatet var storsalg for legemiddelindustrien/famasiene, som tjente utrolig mye penger på dette, mens tusenvis av mennesker som tok vaksinen fikk nevrologiske skader, samt døde av denne vaksinen. Sjekk det opp selv. 60 minutes gjorde et innslag om dette som kan sees på youtube. 

    SWINE FLU 1976 PROPAGANDA - PART I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro1WL5ketWg

    SWINE FLU 1976 PROPAGANDA - PART II

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0aIoa97X5k
    Honnr gitt av : Treningsvitenskap, 02. august 2009, 08:48
    22  Generelt / Åpent forum / Sv: SVINEINFLUENSA tråden !!!! 31. juli 2009, 23:50
    jeg begynner å lure på om du virkelig forstår det du copy paster og har kompetanse til å bedømme kildene(søppelet du kommer med.)

    Det er åpentbart at du ikke forstår noe, hva snakker du om liksom.??
    Forklar deg, kommentarene dine er hva vi kaller søppel.
    Honnr gitt av : xXUnknownXx, 01. august 2009, 11:35
    23  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: Robert O Young og den nye biologien 12. februar 2009, 16:12
    Her begynner det :
    (del 2 virker ikke lengre)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhaGOiknQQ0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCRoCZVvRgk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2dpquLTJA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-GC3XyAfo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CTviPn4BvE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afa0_y3GUFE
    Honnr gitt av : Eneres, 09. juli 2009, 15:25
    24  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: Protein-myten 06. juli 2009, 02:05
    Men kan du gi noen eksempler på mat som vi som trener kan spise for å erstatte proteiner da? "Enzymrik mat", jeg vet ikke om det finnes engang. Eller er de i alle grønnsaker?

    Hvis det allerede er besvart, beklager jeg Smiley

    Trenger ikke erstatte proteiner, men heller velge andre kilder for protein enn de kildene som de fleste ignorante menneskene tror protein bare finnes i. som er kjøtt kjøtt og litt mer kjøtt.

    Bønner, nøtter, grønnsaker, frukt som advocado for eks, Advocado inneholder lutein, vitamin A, b-kompleks,  C, E, H, K, fosfor, mineraler som magnesium, kopper,jern, kalsium, kalium,
    I tillegg så inneholder avocado også protein, og de essensielle fettsyrene.
    Proteinet i en avocado er mye mer tilgjengelig og lettere for opptak enn proteinet i feks en steak
    så her får du protein av høy kvalitet.

    En avocado inneholder mer kalium enn en banan også.

    Folk i vesten trenger ikke bekymre seg for å få for lite protein, men heller at de får i seg FOR MYE, som ikke er noe bra.

    Ellers er Hemp protein en utrolig bra kilde for protein som tilskudd, og er mye mer tilgjengelig for opptak enn whey osv..




    Honnr gitt av : henrikhardcoar, 06. juli 2009, 13:47
    25  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: Protein-myten 01. juli 2009, 17:00
    Når det gjelder livsstilen og leve på rå mat. Så er det for det meste dem som er interessert i helsegevinstene framfor muskelbygging, som vender om til den (jeg synser kanskje litt her, men jeg snakker bare ut i fra mitt personlige valg, samt venner/bekjente som har endret kosthold) Og rå mat, er da så mangt mer enn bare salat og tomat. Det igjen bekrefter bare hvor lite vedkommede vet om denne livsstilen.

    Men hvis noen går rundt og tror at det er sunt å spise mengder kjøtt og beabeid mat, med den vitenskapen forskning/ stuider som vises i dag, så vil jeg kalle det bra naivt. Vi blir bombadert daglig med slike rapporter og studier, - det er så iøyefallende, at det går inn an å unngå å se dem. - Wake up and smell the coffee!  Thumbsup


    http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/meat-and-colon-cancer-link.html


    Colon cancer is one of the world's top killers, but if you're a vegetarian, you have reason to breathe a sigh of relief. Meat-eaters, take note. The recent study by the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study chillingly confirms what previous smaller studies have shown for years: Consumption of animal products are likely to cause colorectal (colon and rectal) cancer.

    The massive EPIC study is the biggest ever into diet and cancer. It involved 406,323 people from nine countries over a period of 15 years. The results of the study were presented recently in Lyon, France, at the European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer.

    The study cited preserved meats, such as cured ham, hot dogs, bacon and salami, as major culprits for colorectal cancer, and indicated that red meat was also a high risk factor. People who consumed preserved meats were found to have a 50 percent greater chance of developing colorectal cancer than those who ate no preserved meats. Red meat produced the same harmful bacteria in the colon as is found in tobacco.

    But don't head out for chicken wings yet. Previous studies have also linked consumption of chicken, dairy and eggs to the development of colorectal cancer. A 1990 survey and 1991 follow-up study in the Spanish Island of Majorca found that consumption of chicken, red meat, dairy and eggs increased the risk of developing colorectal cancer.

    Another 1991 Swedish study indicated an association between meat consumption and colorectal cancer, and a 1992 study in northeast Italy found that "frequent consumption of refined starchy foods, eggs and fat-rich foods such as cheese and red meat is a risk factor for colorectal cancer." All studies were published in the International Journal of Cancer.

    Researchers at Harvard Medical School and at the Harvard School of Public Health in 1990 found a clear association between animal fat intake and colon cancer rates. The authors of the study also reported that in the Nurse's Health Study of 121,700 female registered nurses 30 to 55 years of age found that, women who consumed beef, lamb, or pork as a main dish at least once a day were 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with colon cancer than women who consumed meat as a main dish less than once a month.

    The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that "a diet mostly from animal sources" is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people choose foods from plant sources and limit their intake of high-fat foods, particularly from animal sources.

    The National Cancer Institute in the United States also says that "colorectal cancer seems to be associated with diets that are high in fat and calories and low in fiber" and that "eating vegetables and fruits is associated with a decreased risk of cancers of the ... colon [and] rectum..."



    Stored Protein Diseases:
    http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/stored-protein-diseases.html



    Akkurat før og under tiden til slaktning, foregår det store biokjemiske forandringer i dyret. Giftige biprodukter blir tvunget inn i kroppen, og derved gi gift-smerter til hele besetningen.
    Ifølge Encyclopedia Brittanica vil kroppsgifter, som inkluderer urinsyre og andre giftige slaggprodukter som viser seg i blod og celler.
    Protein, som kommer fra nøtter, lentiles, erter, korn og meieriprodukter sies det er langt renere enn kjøtt som inneholder ca. 56% urent vann. Akkurat som dyr, blir vi gjennom intens frykt og redsel offer for biokjemiske forandringer i farlige situasjoner. Hormonnivået i dyrets blod, spesielt adrenalinet forandres radikalt når de ser andre dyr slite for livet og friheten. Dette hormonet forblir i kjøttet og overføres som gift til mennesket som spiser det. Ifølge et næringsstoff-institutt i America: Dyrets kjøtt er fult av giftig blod og andre avfalls-bi-produkter.


    * Kreft
    En nylig undersøkelse blant 50.000 vegetarianere (adventister) ga resultater som sjokkerte en hel verden som studerer kreft. Studiet viste tydelig at denne gruppen hadde forbausende lite tilfeller av kreft, sammenlignet med tilsvarende gruppe av alder og kjønn. Resultatet viste samtidig at levealderen til adventistene var lengre enn sammenlignbare grupper. En nylig undersøkelse blant mormoner viste også at de hadde under 50% av krefttilfeller til normale grupper. Mormoner spiser som kjent meget lite kjøtt.
    Hvorfor får kjøtt-etere mer kreft? En grunn kan være at kjøtt, som ligger lenge før det blir konsumert, får en grå-grønn farve. Køttindustrien prøver å rette på dette ved å tilføre nitrat, og andre presseringsstoffer. Dette gjør at kjøttet ser mer rødt ut, men i de senere år har man funnet ut at dette har vist seg å være kreftproduserende.
    Som dr. William Lijinsky, en kreft-spesialt ved Oak Ridge National Laboratory sier: ”Jeg gir ikke nitratfarget mat til min katt en gang.”
    Britiske og Amerikanske forskere, som har studert tarm-bakterier i kjøtt-etere og vegetarianere, har funnet store forskjeller. Bakteriene i kjøtt-eternes tarmer reagerer spesielt på saftene, som viser seg å være kreftfremkallende. Dette kan være grunnen til at det er langt mer kreft i maver i områder som Nord-Amerika og Vest-Europa i forhold til det vegetariske India. I USA er for eks. mavekreft den nest mest forekommende kreftårsak. Bare slått av lungekreft. Mennesker i Scotland, som spiser 20% mer kjøtt enn englenderne, er et av de land i verden med høyest andel av mavekreft.


    * Kjemisk mat
    Det å spise kjøtt er ofte kalt for: ”Det å spise toppen av matkjeden.” I naturen er det en lang kjede av konsumenter: Planter, som spiser sollys, luft og vann. Dyr spiser planter, store dyr og mennesker spiser mindre dyr. Over hele verden har de behandlet jorden med gift (gjødsel og pesticider). Denne giften er blitt lagret i kroppen til de dyr som spiser planter og gress. F. eks. har de sprayet med innsektsdrepende middel, som DDT, et meget giftig stoff som vitenskapen har funnet, som kan gi kreft, sterilitet og leversykdommer. DDT er nå heldigvis blitt forbudt.
    Det viser seg at de som står øverst på denne matkjeden, mennesket, vil absorbere mest av de skadelige stoffene, som ikke kan brytes ned. De har funnet ut at kjøtt inneholder 13 ganger mer DDT enn grønnsaker, frukt og gress. Iowa State Universitet kunne via eksperimenter finne ut at DDT, som ble funnet i mennesket kom fra kjøtt.
    Men giftpåvirkning av kjøtt, stopper ikke her. Våre dyr som vi skal spise blir behandlet med kjemiske midler for å øke vekten på dyrene, for å få dem fete, og for å få den riktige farven etc. For å få det riktige kjøttet på en mest mulig økonomisk måte blir dyrene tvangsforet, sprøytet med hormoner, for å hjelpe vekstøkning, de får antibiotika, beroligende stoffer og kjemiske blandinger. The New York Times skriver: ”Men av langt større betydning av potensielle skadevirkninger for forbrukernes helse, er de skulte smittestoffene, bakterielignende, som salmonella og rester av pesticider, nitrater, nitriter, hormoner, antibiotika og andre kjemikalier” (18. juli 1971) Mange av disse stoffene er blitt bekreftet gir kreft, og det er også vist at mange dyr omkommer selv, før de rekker å komme til slakteriet.
    Nå som bondegårder er blitt omgjort til kjøttfabrikker, så mister dyrene muligheten til å se dagslys – og mange dyr må leve under grusomme forhold inntil de skal møte en grusom død. Spesielt gjelder dette for de stakkars hønene, som skal verpe egg eller gi kylling-kjøtt.
    Chicago Tribune kom med en artikkel hvor de skriver at eggene er klekket ut på toppen, og hvor kyllingene blir stimulert, dopet, og tvangsforet, de spiser i deres knøttsmå bur, hvor de ikke får fysisk trening eller frisk luft. Etter som de vokser flyttes de nedover, en etasje ad gangen, inntil de kommer helt ned til slaktning. En slik unaturlig livsform skaper ikke bare en kjemisk ubalanse, men dessverre også ondartede kreft-tilfeller og andre unødige misdannelser.


    * Dyre-sykdommer
    Et annet farlig problem med kjøtt-etere er at dyr er ofte skadet med farlige uoppdagede sykdommer eller rett og slett unngått av kjøttprodusentene og inspektørene. Ofte, når et dyr har en ondartet svulst eller kreft, så vil ofte den skadde delen bli skjært bort og resten solgt som kjøtt. Eller enda verre, det skadde kjøttet kan bli malt opp sammen med annet kjøtt, og gjort om til pølser eller karbonadekjøtt. Et sted i USA, hvor det er rutinemessige kontroller av kjøtt, ble det oppdaget at 25.000 kuer med øyekreft hadde blitt solgt som vanlig kjøtt. Vitenskapen har også funnet ut at dersom lever er infisert med en sykdom, og det blir gitt som for til fisk, vil fisken få kreft.
    En kjent vegetarisk doktor, dr. J. H. Kellogg uttalte engang da han spiste sin vegetarmat: ”Det er godt og kunne spise din man uten å bekymre seg om hvordan maten har avgått med døden.

    * Hjerte-sykdom;
    Kanskje det største og greieste argumentet for ikke å spise kjøtt, er den klare og vel-dokumenterte sammenhengen mellom det å spise kjøtt og hjerte-sykdommer.
    I Amerika, det landet i verden hvor det spises mest kjøtt, vil hver annen person, som spiser kjøtt enten dø av hjerte-sykdom eller av blodproblemer, samtidig, som disse sykdommene nesten er fraværende, hos mennesker som spiser minimalt med kjøtt.
    The Journal of the American Medical Assosiation, rapporterte i 1961 at ”en vegetariansk diett kan forhindre 90 – 97% av hjerte-sykdomer (Thromboembolic disease and coronary occlusions).
    Hva er det som er så skadelig for hjerte-systemet? Det dyriske fettet, sånn som kolesterål, kan ikke s bra nedbrytes i menneskekroppen. Dette fettet begynner å legge seg inne i blodåreveggene.
    Ved gjenttatt avlagring på denne måten, vil åpningen i blodbanen bli mindre og mindre, for år som går, ’og det vil igjen slippe mindre og mindre blod igjennom. Denne farlige tilstanden blir kalt atherosclerose. Dette medvirker en stor påkjenning på hjertet, som stadig må pumpe hardere og hardere for å få blodet rundt gjennom fortettede blodårer. Som et resultat kan man få høy blodtrykk, slag, og hjerte-attack. Nylig har også nå forskere og vitenskapsmenn på Harvard funnet ut at blodtrykket hos vegetarianere, er betydelig lavere enn hos en sammenlignbar gruppe av kjøtt-spisere. Under Korea-krigen, ble 200 amerikanske soldater med en gjennomsnittsalder på 22 år undersøkt etter deres død. Omtrent 80% hadde hardere blodårer tettet med rester fra kjøtt-spising. Koreanske soldater i samme alder, ble også undersøkt, og der fant de ikke slike problemer med blodårene. Koreanerne var i det vesentlige vegetarianere.

    Det er nå erkjent at Den Amerikanske Nasjonens nr. 1 dødsårsak, er hjerte-sykdom, og den har nådd til epidemiske proporsjoner. Flere og flere leger (inkl. the American Hearth Assosiation) oppfordrer sine pasienter med hjerteproblemer til en sterk reduksjon av kjøtt-mat, ja ofte til og med oppfordrer til totalt avhold. Vitenskapen har nå erkjent at tøffheten og fibrene til en vegetarkost, reduserer kolesterolnivået.
    Dr. U. D. Register, formann i the Department of Nutrition ved Loma Linda Universitet i California, beskriver erfaringer, hvor et kosthold med bønner, erter, etc. reduserer kolesterolnivået, selv med store mengder av smør.


    * Putrefaction - forråtnelse
    Så fort et dyr er drept, begynner roteiner i kroppen å koagulere, og selvdestruerende enzymer blir frigjort (i motsetning til planter, som har rigide cellevegger, og et enklere sirkulasjonssystem).
    Snart vil det utvikle et denaturerende stoff, som kalles ptomain. På grunn av disse ptomainene som blir frigjort rett etter døden, vil dyrekjøtt, fisk, egg ha en felles prosess – en ekstremt rask
    dekompostering og forråtnelse. I løpet av den tiden det tar fra dyret er slaktet, plassert i et fryselager, ”eldet”, transportert til slakteren, kjøpt, brakt hjem, preparert og spist, kan man tenke seg hvordan forråtnelsesprosessen har kommet i gang i ens middag. Kjøttet går meget langsomt gjennom menneskets fordøyelsessystem, som vi har sett ikke er laget til å fordøye det. Det tar kjøttet omtrent opptil 5 dager å få det ut av kroppen sammenlignet med vegetarkost, som tar omtrent 1,5 dg, og i denne tiden har kjøttet konstant kontakt med fordøyelsesorganene. Den vanen som er gjort av mennesket ved å spise kjøtt i sin komposteringsprosess produserer gifter til tarmsystemet og sliter ut tarmtrakten altfor tidlig. Rått kjøtt, som hele tiden er i en forråtnelsesprosess kan smitte kokkens hender og alt han kommer i berøring med. En engelsk offiser innen helsesystemet advarte husmødre, etter at de hadde funnet giftige bakterier, og ba dem behandle kjøttet som om det skulle være ekskrementer. Ofte er kjøtt, selv om det er kokt giftig, spesielt om det er rått, barbekjuet, ristet eller stekt på spyd, ikke bra å konsumere. Dette er stadige kilder til infeksjoner.

    * Nyre-sykdom, gikt, leddsmerter og revmatisme;
    Noe av det verste en kropp blir infisert med via kjøtt-spising er urin og urinsyre (deler av nitrogen). En biffsteak inneholder f. eks. omtrent 14 gram urinsyre pr. pund. En amerikansk doktor undersøkte kjøtt-etere, for å finne ut forholdet med urinsyre, og fant at kjøtt-etere måtte bruke 3 ganger så lang tid på å bli kvitt giften i binyrene enn en vegetarianer. Så lenge menneskene er unge, har de ikke så store problemer med dette, og binyrene klarer å motstå skader og sykdommer, men jo eldre binyrene blir jo vanskeligere blir det å rydde opp, og sykdommer forekommer ofte. Når binyrene ikke lenger klarer å takle de ekstraordinære problemene med syren, blir den deponert rundt omkring i kroppen. Så blir det absorbert av muskler, som en svamp og urinen vil bli hardere og til slutt krystallisere seg. Når dette skjer i leddene, vil smerter oppstå og det utvikles gikt, arthrites (leddsmerter) og revmatisme. Når dette samler seg opp i nervebaner vil andre problemer dukke opp, som neuritis og sciatica.. Nå når flere og flere doktorer opplever dette vil de be pasienten om å slutte med å spise kjøtt. Helt eller i alle fall å redusere det så mye som mulig.

    * Dårlig eliminering
    Siden vår kropp ikke er laget for å fordøye kjøtt, blir dårlig eliminasjon et naturlig resultat, og det er med på å lage et stressende mageproblem. Kjøtt, som er ekstremt fattig på fiber, har den store svakhet at det bidrar til en langsom prosess (4 ganger så sent som en vegetativ kost) og fører ofte til forstoppelse.


    Dette var bra Hege Smiley honnør

    So the question is: are humans supposed to eat meat? And is our ideal diet high in fat or high in carbohydrates?

    First, let’s start with the Eskimos. Although prior to the arrival of western civilizations they were living in pretty robust health, the Eskimos are not reputed to have a very high life expectancy.

    The lowest figure I have heard was 35 years. The highest was not much higher than our current life expectancy.

    On the other hand, the three, longest-lived cultures in the world known in the last 100 years have been:

    The Vilcambaba in Ecuador, the Abkhasia in Russian, and the Hunzas in Pakistan.

    All of these cultures, without exception, have lived on a low-fat diet with limited supply of meat and animal products.

    Har merket at det er en del folk som liker å nevne eskimoene når de skal prøve å overbevise at det er 100% trygt å spise kjøtt, men eskimoene er ikke akkurat kjent for å ha en lang forventet levealder, og hvis folk vil diskutere at dette er pga av at leveforholdene deres og klimaet osv er så dårlig så kan jo vi se på folkene som lever i vest. Så kan du sammenligne vesten med Hunza folkene som lever i pakistan, som lever til de er langt over 100 år, 120 år ++.. Og de spiser svært lite kjøtt annet enn litt fisk av og til.

    Også kan vi snakke om Japan og sammenligne dem med vesten, så ser vi mye mindre sykdommer og en lengre forventet levealder.

    I tillegg har vi The Vilcambaba in Ecuador og the Abkhasia in Russian.

    Litt om dem :

    The people of the Vilcabamba Valley have been poked and prodded by scientists since the mid-1950s. Members of their community have appeared in Ripley's Believe It or Not and have been featured in National Geographic, Reader's Digest and other popular press outlets. The researchers have documented very little chronic illness even for the oldest of the Vilcabamba people.

    How Do They Stay Healthy in Old Age?:
    An international conference in 1978 concluded that the Vilcabamba remain healthy throughout life due to their:

    leanness
    diet
    low cholesterol
    high activity level

    What Do They Eat?:

    Vegetables picked fresh from the garden, eaten the same day. They also eat fruits right off the trees. Whole grains, seeds and nuts are also part of the Vilcabamba diet. There are almost no animal products to be found in their diet and no packaged or preprepared food.

    Do They Exercise?:
    There is nothing like exercise as we know it in the Vilcabamba culture -- their daily lives are filled with hiking up the slopes to harvest foods, cleaning, cultivating vegetables and picking fruits. There is no such thing as formal exercise, but rather a life full of activity.



    Honnr gitt av : Eneres, 05. juli 2009, 23:07
    26  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: Protein-myten 01. juli 2009, 16:34
    Mennesker ble ikke født med kniv og gaffel, så skjønner ikke hvorfor du nevner det. Det er redskaper vi har lagd selv. Når vi sammenligner oss selv og anatomien med kjøttetere og planteetere, så er vi mer lik planteetere enn kjøttetere.


    The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
     
    by Milton R. Mills, M.D.

    Dr. Mills breaks down our body organ by organ and shows why the body of humans is better equipped for a vegetarian diet. He compares our organs to Carnivores, Herbivores, and Omnivores and shows us which we are most like

    http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/comparative.html
    Honnr gitt av : Hege, 01. juli 2009, 16:42
    27  Kosthold / Kosttilskudd / Sv: hvilket proteinpulver er best å bruke?? 25. juni 2009, 11:43
    Ser ut som en halvkilo koster rundt 160 kroner. Jeg trodde det kom til å koste mer:

    http://www.reidarsson.se/proteinpulver.html

    EDIT: Det står det bare er 50% proteiner, så det blir visst litt dyrt.

    Ja, det er riktig rundt 50% protein, men man trenger mye mindre av hemp protein enn whey protein. Feks 10 gram hemp protein tilsvarer 50 gram whey protein.
    Hemp protein blir tatt mye bedre opp, og er mer tilgjengelig for opptak.

     " You might also notice how many grams of protein hemp has. On the surface it looks like hemp has less protein than whey. But, you’ve really got to change your beliefs about protein. What you need to consider is how many amino acids are actually getting into your muscles. For example, 10 grams of hemp protein is far more anabolic and shuttles more aminos to your muscles than 50 grams of whey.

    If you want proof, just look at Bill Pearl. Perhaps no other bodybuilder in history built such an impressive physique without relying on drugs. Bill Pearl was 242 pounds, three decades ago. He won four Mr. Universe’s, and Bill Pearl was so impressive that...

    Joe Weider Stopped Arnold From
    Competing Against Him.

    You can read that story for yourself in Bill's book "Keys To The Inner Universe". What was Bill Pearl’s secret to becoming so big? I believe it was having an alkaline, enzyme-rich, amino-loaded body.

    He explains in his book “The Keys to the Inner Universe” that the concept of needing hundreds and hundreds of grams of protein is a myth. Bill is living proof that you do not need hundreds of grams of protein to grow.

    What you do need is electrically available, raw, organic foods. These are the foods that are electrically charged, so your body can digest and assimilate them. "

    Her er noen nettsider som selger hemp protein :

    http://www.globalhempstore.com/hemp-food/nutiva-hemp-protein-powder.html

    http://www.detoxyourworld.com/acatalog/hemp_protein.html

    http://www.urtesenteret.no/index.php?productID=1419  (norsk side, men midlertidig utsolgt)

    Honnr gitt av : henrikhardcoar, 25. juni 2009, 12:05
    28  Kosthold / Kosttilskudd / Sv: hvilket proteinpulver er best å bruke?? 25. juni 2009, 00:21
    Er hentet fra en artikkel på iform.no

    http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1432


    Her kan du lese mer om hemp protein vs whey protein osv.
    Hvorfor hemp protein er i en klasse for seg selv, og er mye bedre.
    Hvorfor andre proteinpulver ikke er like bra, og er skadelig for kroppen vår.

    http://www.proteinbreakthrough.com/

    Og her er referansene fra det som står på den siden :

    References:
    Blood: The River of Life , Jake Page; Dr. Robert A. Good, Dr. Lawrence S. Lessin, Dr. Kenneth C. Robbins, consultants. U.S. News Books 1981.
    Enzyme Nutrition, Dr. Edward Howell, Avery books, 1985
    Fats and Oils: The Complete Guide to Fats and Oils in Health and Nutrition , Udo Erasmus. Alive Books 1986. Hemp Hemp Seed: The most nutritionally complete food source in the world part 1 & 2, Hemp Line Journal , July-August 1992, pp. 14-15, Vol. I No. 1 & Hemp Line Journal , pp. 12-13,21 Vol. I No. 2.
    Keys to The Inner Universe, Bill Pearl, Bill Pearl Enterprises, March 2001 (reprint edition).
    Life and Energy: An Exploration of the Physical and Chemical Basis of Modern Biology , Isaac Asimov. Avon Books 1962.
    Organic Chemistry , R. T. Morrison. 1960
    Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology , Kimber, Gray, Stackpole. 1943
    Textbook of Medical Physiology , Arthur C. Guyton, MD. W. B. Sunders Company 1971.
    Textbook of Organic Chemistry , E. Wertheim. The Blakiston Company 1945.References:
    Fats and Oils: The Complete Guide to Fats and Oils in Health and Nutrition Udo Erasmus, Alive Books 1986.
    Life and Energy: An Exploration of the Physical and Chemical Basis of Modern Biology . Isaac Asimov, Avon Books 1962.
    The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication , Marshall Editions (editorial group); Dr. John J. Caronna, Dr. Samuel J. Potolicchio, consultants, Torstar Books Inc. 1985.
    Textbook of Medical Physiology , Arthur C. Guyton, MD., W. B. Saunders Company 1971.
    Textbook of Organic Chemistry , E. Wertheim, The Blakiston Company 1945.
    The Wild Physique, Vince Gironda, Sterling Publishing, 1984
    Honnr gitt av : henrikhardcoar, 25. juni 2009, 00:27
    29  Kosthold / Kosthold og Ernæring / Sv: En grønnsaks "drikke" ? Trenger tips. 09. april 2009, 21:50
    hei

    Jeg mixer en del grønnsaks og frukt shakes selv.
    Noen ingridienser jeg bruker er gulerot, selleri, agurk, advocado, broccoli, spinat, kål
    også blåbær, banan, hvetegress, druer, mango..

    Du må bare være kreativ og sette sammen noe.
    Green shakes er veldig bra, da blander du bare grønne grønnsaker sammen og kan tilsette noen druer også for bedre smak etter behov--   Prøv denne : selleri, agurk, advocado, broccoli, kål og grønne druer..
    Grønne shakes er veldig næringsrikt og du får lett opptakelig vitaminer, mineraler, phytochemicals, klorofyll, antioksidanter osv...  Er bare å teste ut selv, ellers kan du finne masse gode kombinasjoner på nettet. biggrin
    Honnr gitt av : nilster, 10. april 2009, 00:27
    30  Generelt / Diskutèr artikler / Sv: Det du ikke visste om melk 13. februar 2009, 01:36
    Tror dette skrivet vil svare på ALLE spørsmålene angående melk, hehe (litt langt, men verdt å lese)
    Her får du full oppklaring vil jeg si :

    "MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a
    nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question
    it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated
    their effort.

    The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is
    surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was
    our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our
    mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the
    only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's
    milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or
    water buffalo milk.

    Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us.
    Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged.
    We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and
    add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese,
    butter, and yogurt.

    Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring
    images of healthy, beautiful people on our television
    screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good
    for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to
    have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School
    lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal
    will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our
    nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up
    an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that
    colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other
    essential nutrients were made available at no cost for
    schools. Cow's milk became "normal."

    You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings
    that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's
    milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it
    makes them ill.

    There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive
    of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the
    March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

    If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join
    the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy
    products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds
    radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic
    food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the
    mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally
    Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

    Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our
    answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust
    any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are
    they simply repeating what their professors learned years
    ago? What about the new voices urging caution?

    I believe that there are three reliable sources of
    information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of
    nature. The second is to study the history of our own
    species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific
    literature on the subject of milk.

    Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to
    1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk
    recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of
    theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is
    no lack of scientific information on this subject. I
    reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles
    that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and
    inconclusive studies.

    How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly
    less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors
    spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side
    effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to
    believe by the industry. The main focus of the published
    reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal
    irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions
    in infants and children as well as infections such as
    salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with
    bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as
    concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by
    blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of
    chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among
    children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar
    infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic
    and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed
    centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy,
    sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia,
    lymphoma and cancer.

    I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration
    of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living
    mammals and what happens with human groups living in close
    to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.

    Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and
    interesting group to study. Here we are limited to
    speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains
    available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt
    whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength,
    muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this),
    and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel
    that these people are not important for us to study,
    consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in
    almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to
    100,000 years ago.

    WHAT IS MILK?

    Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term
    nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk
    for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the
    time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced
    to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar
    example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for
    just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and
    teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature
    only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not
    possible for animals living in a natural state to continue
    with the drinking of milk after weaning.

    IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

    Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have
    settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size,
    and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems
    'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our
    customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of
    another species of mammal?

    Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk
    of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps
    the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly
    some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm
    not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is
    for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for
    calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly,
    this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good
    judgement on this one.

    Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal
    is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of
    that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in
    protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has
    five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is
    markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to
    human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as
    much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid.
    (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It
    simply is not designed for humans.

    Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not
    only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative
    composition that is critical for the very best in health and
    growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical
    doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the
    crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop
    its unique specializations.

    Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological
    development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not
    have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle
    groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the
    demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's
    hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material
    for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

    Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it
    can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992
    (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly
    placed premature infants into two groups. One group received
    a proper formula, the other group received human breast
    milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children
    were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing,
    the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well,
    why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the
    rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

    In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph
    Holman described an infant who developed profound
    neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous
    fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid -
    just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha
    linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the
    neurological disorders cleared.

    In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and
    Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem
    in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

    In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found
    that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency
    syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s
    pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas
    without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research,
    the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem.
    Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is
    markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

    WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE

    Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000
    pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000
    pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics,
    hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding;
    that's how.

    The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine
    growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is
    supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to
    Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the
    milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn,
    Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there
    have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on
    the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned
    BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with
    adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules
    usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but
    I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth
    hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked
    increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then,
    requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the
    antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is
    uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt
    that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk.
    A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed
    to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling
    would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is
    awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can
    consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer
    burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any
    surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support
    price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757
    million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on
    average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer
    Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

    Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This
    includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones.
    Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are
    simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be
    horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from
    one to one and a half million white blood cells per
    millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't
    already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to
    describe white cells where they don't belong would be to
    call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is
    it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally,
    will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The
    United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that
    the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the
    public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only
    4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

    As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman
    claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still
    think that milk is the safest product we have."

    Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the
    following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were
    contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This
    from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The
    Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in
    Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate
    (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

    What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found
    few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When
    they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent
    of the milk samples showed drug traces.

    Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our
    understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a
    disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so
    drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the
    relatively high level. A more powerful test called the
    'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per
    billion.

    One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are
    forever getting infections around the udder that require
    ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us
    that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears
    in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the
    University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk',
    milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis
    of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow
    cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff.
    Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has
    mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the
    study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages
    containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.

    IT GETS WORSE

    Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge
    study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had
    contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the
    sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it--
    dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are
    concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of
    interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had
    only half the levels of contamination).

    A recent report showed an increased concentration of
    pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer
    when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic
    disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature
    describe problems. Just scan these titles:

    1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed
    Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced
    Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
    3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in
    Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

    There are many others. There are dozens of studies
    describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in
    children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk
    allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are
    transmitted to the infant.

    A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of
    Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in
    infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to
    provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used
    before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its
    use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre
    Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation,
    cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in
    infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-
    borne infections and contaminants, and said:

    Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of
    uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole
    bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole
    milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't
    it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human
    nutrition to come to an end?

    In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

    It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the
    infant in the first year of life because of its association
    with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron
    that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a
    day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal
    bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.

    I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be
    consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose
    intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of
    atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

    In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known
    pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he
    articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for
    the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:

    I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from
    the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk
    is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence
    of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous
    and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a
    study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it
    will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or
    economic profit involved.

    OTHER PROBLEMS

    Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination.
    Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be
    traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major
    problem and some folks want to go back to those times by
    insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This
    is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of
    all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983
    were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old
    brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More
    about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is
    still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne
    diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association
    (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections
    caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk.
    This is despite safety precautions.

    All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A
    Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical
    Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive
    correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein
    and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data
    from various countries. Conversely a possible negative
    relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3
    months and diabetes risk.".

    Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had
    higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes
    Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from
    this study:

    We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption
    is altered in children who will have insulin dependent
    diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to
    proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of
    their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than
    normal.

    The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating
    study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile
    insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have
    migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times
    greater in the English group compared to children remaining
    in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase?
    The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great
    Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the
    availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan
    as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the
    same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe
    that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about
    adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is
    strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic
    predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all
    in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered
    to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant
    are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the
    last article concluded that the cooler climate in England
    altered viruses and caused the very real increase in
    diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top
    admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to
    do with the disease.

    The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England
    Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported
    in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital
    for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers.
    In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy
    product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin
    dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children
    out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per
    1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against
    the milk protein during the first year of life, the
    researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas
    in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in
    people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142
    Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found
    that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies
    against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear
    evidence that the children had a raging auto immune
    disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400
    children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will
    receive no dairy products during the first nine months of
    life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a
    definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of
    the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the
    breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or
    the results will be confounded by the transmission of the
    cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what
    was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very
    interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the
    association says: "It does not mean that children should
    stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should
    withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good
    protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein"
    that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy
    industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association
    in the past?

    LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!

    I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is
    found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United
    States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds.
    Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large
    percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95
    per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation--
    if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk
    is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples
    the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I
    sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully
    monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981;
    213:1014).

    This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany
    deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of
    keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of
    the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and
    Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from
    their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader
    in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We
    are the worst in the world with the former exception of
    Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist
    who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a
    Master's degree in Public Health.

    As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by
    pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl
    like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in
    April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an
    accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized
    milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed,
    killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the
    question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this:
    "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they
    were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully
    active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be
    fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases
    blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports
    of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in
    the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern
    California.

    What happens to other species of mammals when they are
    exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question
    and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals
    exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep,
    goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and
    chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion
    (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in
    milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts
    to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human
    cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody
    formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing.
    How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to
    humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured
    particles?

    If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we
    could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to
    have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so?
    Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska,
    South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically
    higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In
    Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine
    leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human
    leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher
    rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers
    have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research
    shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains
    access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the
    intestinal wall.

    An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana
    from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance
    of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the
    economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they
    noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows
    with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia
    produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis
    (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off.
    They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of
    bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does
    this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can
    keep it under control? You can get the details on this
    business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb.
    1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university
    department feels that this is an economic and not a human
    health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of
    Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the
    political pressures are too great. You're on you own.

    What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of
    producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it
    can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related
    cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

    1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and
    Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112
    (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a
    Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the
    Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A
    Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal
    Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

    In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half
    years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had
    3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs.
    British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

    One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from
    Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the
    Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is
    entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many
    people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham
    agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption
    in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956.,
    in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were
    highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by
    Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest
    and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New
    Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold
    difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a
    startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in
    Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this,
    confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in
    migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of
    lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to
    the USA)!

    An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built
    at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the
    spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human
    consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift
    from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the
    idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

    Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation
    between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion
    in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his
    article follow:

    The average intake of protein in many countries is far in
    excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive
    consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the
    causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner.
    Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of
    antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous
    membrane.

    This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to
    which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological
    stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is
    believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The
    gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier
    to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating
    antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent
    lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce
    generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and
    profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively
    estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released
    by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production
    of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized,
    killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause
    disease.

    Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was
    reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
    March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
    and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
    between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
    there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
    glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
    the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
    less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

    There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be
    aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by
    the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man.
    The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the
    second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first
    of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and
    causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been
    known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to
    have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep
    parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your
    good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat
    meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine
    spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept
    Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the
    unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date,
    over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in
    keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are
    reported as infected each month. The British public is
    concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per
    cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to
    children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease
    syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-
    Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that
    transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."

    The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the
    feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced
    at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected
    sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle
    and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the
    disease does not exist in the United States. However, there
    may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at
    auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated,
    dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to
    walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to
    electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to
    dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they
    are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death
    is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein
    food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that
    have been fed this protein have developed a fatal
    encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire
    colonies of minks have been lost in this manner,
    particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective
    agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the
    ill "downer cows."

    The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically
    entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-
    30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known
    to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce
    contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered
    the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They
    say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the
    incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

    The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United
    States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely
    related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do
    not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the
    sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the
    virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The
    USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if
    antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no
    plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of
    humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day
    we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with
    these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the
    products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare)
    strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle
    E. coli deaths of 1993.

    A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research,
    October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the
    Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They
    report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to
    a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this
    disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the
    presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia
    virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica
    Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these
    developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to
    assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in
    the animal kingdom.

    OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?

    Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty
    tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at
    Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York.
    Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent
    daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users.
    They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce
    the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by
    numerous investigators.

    Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical
    School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the
    1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed
    between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption.
    These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk
    is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is
    facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the
    lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis,
    but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the
    American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989.
    These articles come from two of the country's leading
    institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

    Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion?
    The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569
    controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the
    International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons
    drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold
    increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never
    drinking whole milk.

    For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates
    for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or
    European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in
    this research area feel that the total fat intake is the
    difference.

    There are not many reports studying an association between
    milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though
    was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park
    Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12,
    1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer
    patients and comparable control subjects:

    Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole
    milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who
    reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the
    evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is
    related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
    cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and
    is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

    WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

    Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to
    drink cows' milk?

    It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other
    than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion,
    these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and
    it's a source of amino acids (proteins).

    Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all
    about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones
    and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it,
    milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source
    for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive
    amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium
    absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk
    provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H
    egsted in England has been writing for years about the
    geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the
    countries with the highest intake of dairy products are
    invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He
    feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be
    given below.

    Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium
    ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no
    effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most
    important such article appeared recently in the British
    Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry
    can't reach. Another study in the United States actually
    showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal
    women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day.
    (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of
    hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in
    particular protein intake, are critically important. Another
    observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note
    the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium
    among people living on a natural diet without milk.

    For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at
    calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting
    groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake
    estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a
    high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is
    among the worst in the world. The other instructive group
    are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent
    protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350
    mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women
    have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more
    children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When
    African women immigrate to the United States, do they
    develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are
    much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic
    difference that is modified by diet.

    To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your
    calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the
    cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the
    ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants
    and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by
    eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals
    also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all
    of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with
    their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans
    living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

    If animal references do not convince you, think of the
    several billion humans on this earth who have never seen
    cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be
    prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest
    this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
    less than that seen in the countries where dairy products
    are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper,
    but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are
    grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing
    on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play
    a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a
    deterrent to good bone health.

    THE PROTEIN MYTH

    Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to
    "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the
    nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course
    milk is fitted right in.

    As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein-
    -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily
    what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty.
    Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

    For this information we rely on the most authoritative
    source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth,
    1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary
    Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of
    interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr.
    Richard Havel of the University of California in San
    Francisco.

    First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been
    steadily revised downward in successive editions. The
    current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19
    through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day
    for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know
    that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by
    .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large
    safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add
    some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams
    a day if necessary!

    Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an
    ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not
    have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical
    for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly
    less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated
    belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to
    avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.)
    Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and
    European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has
    serious consequences when maintained over decades. The
    problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis,
    atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence
    that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are
    related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent
    renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the
    dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers
    of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you
    should know that the protein content of human milk is amount
    the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

    IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

    Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal
    carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-
    borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose,
    but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

    What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems
    that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed
    into the blood stream without first being broken down into
    monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires
    the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes
    to break down the galactose into glucose.

    Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the
    ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts
    off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us
    something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact
    that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the
    tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not
    needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are
    lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent
    introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow"
    milk from another group of mammals that the survival
    advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us
    to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be
    advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the
    human beings in the history of the world did. And further,
    why was it just the white or light skinned humans who
    retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to
    lose it?

    Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly
    recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000
    years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration
    of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins
    and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the
    production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does
    dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to
    sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide
    the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources
    were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant
    calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to
    humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only
    logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high
    degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned
    people.

    How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely
    blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults.
    Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are
    midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and
    abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake
    in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk.
    The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays
    intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A
    lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of
    $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

    What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy
    products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is
    largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy
    your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar
    in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed
    this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the
    composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

    One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of
    fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to
    constipation and bowel disorders.

    The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding
    in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from
    its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the
    intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with
    articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding,
    increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and
    vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a
    double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency
    of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of
    childhood allergy.

    LOW FAT

    One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common
    and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't
    it?"

    The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low
    fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the
    public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as
    calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to
    weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87%
    water!

    "Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat
    milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern
    is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little
    or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein
    and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more
    of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose
    and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to
    boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live
    in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we
    need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys,
    and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry
    cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond
    milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned
    about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same
    calcium concentration as milk.

    SUMMARY

    To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk
    or use milk products. That is just because we simply want
    to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of
    our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste
    and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our
    throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for
    us and provided milk in our earliest training and
    conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably
    the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described
    "to die for".

    I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious
    vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didnÂ’t eat meat, his
    diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting
    one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice
    cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration
    for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart -
    and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice
    cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good
    health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had
    a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and
    helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several
    years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation
    unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s.

    So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight
    of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body
    good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's
    nutritional value and safety.

    Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully
    without cows' milk. You can too.

    It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since
    childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food."
    I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health
    and it won't cost anything. What can you lose?

    Honnr gitt av : HHHH, 13. februar 2009, 14:39
    Sider:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Disse kosttilskuddene er glemt for mange, men som alle bør ta.

    5 digge middager med cottage cheese

    Kosthold09.08.2021270

    Cottage cheese er blitt en svært populær matvare!
    Det er en risiko forbundet med treningen og løftene man utfører
    Det finnes så mange gode varianter av middagskaker enn bare karbonadekaker.

    5 fordeler med stående leggpress

    Trening28.06.202153

    Det er mange fordeler med å trene leggene dine. Se her!