http://ecologos.org/times.htm

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

On Jul 11, 2:53*pm, Laurie > wrote:
> http://ecologos.org/times.htm
>
> * * * * Laurie
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science



crap, again.



rating your own postings i see.

white, fat and fugly wrote:

> crap, again.
Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
concept?
Their most popular "debating" techniques are lying, insults,
name-calling, and
generally expressing their profound lack of any education.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

> "white, fat and fugly"
..., you forgot terminally stupid.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

On Jul 15, 7:42*am, Laurie > wrote:
> white, fat and fugly wrote:
>
> > crap, *again.
>
> * * * * Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
> not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
> concept?
> * * * * Their most popular "debating" techniques are lying, insults,
> name-calling, and
> generally expressing their profound lack of any education.
> * * * *http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
>
> *> "white, fat and fugly"
> * * * * ..., you forgot terminally stupid.
>
> * * * * Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science




nice excuse... but since you're too ****in' stupid to realize i'm a
vegan.....



that comes from inept potential that you were born with.


why is that?


oh, that's the ****tarded syndrom. nice try on the meat
excuse... but you fail again.

On Jul 11, 2:53 pm, Laurie > wrote:
> http://ecologos.org/times.htm
>
> Laurie
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science

Thanks for sharing another good addition Laurie. It's worth reading
more than once.

The main idea of Amanda’s Web site is to eat popular “lip smackingly
good meals” like “sardines thrown on a barbecue and eaten with hot
crunchy bread” and “forget the things you shouldn't eat” yet
“reconnect with real food and start concentrating on things that you
actually enjoy.” “Just savour every mouthful.” “Always choose foods
you like.” “..have a good time.”

Amanda is a digestive system-cheerleader between feedings.

I don’t know why English people need a nutritionist to be encouraged
to eat more cows. “How about a succulent steak cooked to perfection”
http://www.amandaursell.com/html/philosophy.html

At “Amanda Ursell's Feel good” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n14528443
she suggested vitamins for vegetarian children to obtain iron but blew
an opportunity to advise high vitamin C food to DIGEST iron even after
stating, “iron from plant foods is not well ABSORBED.” Any mention of
disease risks associated with heme iron wouldn’t “feel good.” If I
were trying to dissuade people from a veg diet, I don’t know how I
would do it differently. She goes on to suggest eggs, anchovies for
pizza, poultry, etc.-as if to enlist children into her cravings team.
No wonder she has “a habit of attracting calamity.”
http://www.amandaursell.com/shop/pro...b705e71c7481a5

“she obviously is not the slightest bit familiar with plant-based
diets” –Laurie
Amanda stepped up to provide examples of a salt exclusion diet
http://www.amandaursell.com/html/salt.html but otherwise writes as
though she were under the influence of galanin & advertising pressure.

I think the formula Amanda tries to use for calculating nutrients is:
“our innate understanding of what is good for us to eat.”

Chris

On Jul 15, 7:42 am, Laurie > wrote:
> white, fat and fugly wrote:
>
> > crap, again.
>
> Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
> not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
> concept?

They just make noise. Thus, please continue posting the much
appreciated, accurate analysis & relevant research..

With fruit,
Chris

white, fat and fugly wrote:

>>> crap, again.
> nice excuse... but since you're too ****in' stupid to realize
> i'm a vegan.....

I am not a mind reader, neither are you.
Regardless of your diet still do not have the ability to write a
coherent sentence; you have retained your meatarian ignorance,
arrogance, and compulsive vulgarity.
But, you are a great example of the fact that a vegan diet does NOT
FORCE one to be educated, rational, polite, or civil.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

> On Jul 15, 7:42 am, Laurie > wrote:
>> white, fat and fugly wrote:
>>
>>> crap, again.
>> Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists
>> do not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that
>> expresses any concept?

crisology wrote:
> They just make noise.
Actually, they ARE providing a useful and vital contrast to
intelligent folks who would like to educate themselves, and share
ideas and experiences. Their idiotic beliefs and brutish behavior
provide, at least me, 'talking points' to be easily refuted; this, in
the distinct advantage to those who would like to clarify their
understanding of the science of human nutrition.
So, I use these pathetic psychopaths for =my= purposes; and, they are
too stupid to recognize that I am in control of them.
Thanks, psychopaths; I could not do all this without you.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

crisology wrote:

> Amanda’s Web site ...
Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.
I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.
Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?
Again, thanks for your continuing support.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, Laurie > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > Amanda’s Web site ...
>
> Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.

I just read it carefully. Excellent additions! And thank you for
clearly contrasting those pork & sardine examples of "educational
darkness" with "eating in harmony with our genetic programming." Each
page you add brings healthy/natural diet into better perspective.

> I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
> a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.

Almost as we speak (last month),
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4095920.ece
Amanda still advises iron from meat without mention of health risks or
vitamin C which may help absorb heme iron & does help digest natural
iron in plants.

> Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?

Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers' estimates
of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false body image.
http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html

Amanda has some unturned boulders on that page and a chance to defend/
promote her philosophy & books. But the chances Amanda ambushes, mauls
& ingests raw calves are greater than the likelihood anybody explains
how such cattle tissue supplements are healthier or more natural than
fruit. Amanda hasn't explained how "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
nutrients" neither has anybody else. Until then omnivarians continue
to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
life promoting phytochemicals.

Chris

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, Laurie > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>>> Amanda’s Web site ...
>> Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.
>
> I just read it carefully. Excellent additions! And thank you for
> clearly contrasting those pork & sardine examples of "educational
> darkness" with "eating in harmony with our genetic programming." Each
> page you add brings healthy/natural diet into better perspective.

Larry's and apparently your slant on diet and health would be far better
served in my view if the perspective were presented in a much more
neutral, informative, professional manner. All the insulting rhetoric,
mudslinging and conspiratorial innuendo just makes him look like another
garden variety loon.


>> I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
>> a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.
>
> Almost as we speak (last month),
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4095920.ece
> Amanda still advises iron from meat without mention of health risks or
> vitamin C which may help absorb heme iron & does help digest natural
> iron in plants.
>
>> Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?
>
> Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
> Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers' estimates
> of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false body image.
> http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html
>
> Amanda has some unturned boulders on that page and a chance to defend/
> promote her philosophy & books. But the chances Amanda ambushes, mauls
> & ingests raw calves are greater than the likelihood anybody explains
> how such cattle tissue supplements are healthier or more natural than
> fruit. Amanda hasn't explained how "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
> nutrients" neither has anybody else.

All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
understand?

Until then omnivarians continue
> to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
> life promoting phytochemicals.

It's not about replacing plants with meat, it's about a healthy balance.

There's a lot of equivocation going on here and precious little
objectivity. "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
from a health perspective, is often used to represent all meat,
including fish and foul. Diets which consume far too much fatty meat,
processed foods, salt, refined sugar and trans-fats are used to
represent all omnivorous diets, including those largely plant-centric
with relatively small amounts of healthier meats. Those diets are
actually close to many chimp diets, not evolutionary sidesteps at all.

On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> Larry's and apparently your slant on diet and health would be far better
> served in my view if the perspective were presented in a much more
> neutral, informative, professional manner.

Like referencing scientific studies?

> All the insulting rhetoric,

The first word of your post is a slight toward Laurie as he doesn't go
by the name of Larry. It seems you are only here searching for
conflict. You're bringing baggage here with no intention of exchanging
information about nutrition or adaptation (parataxic distortion).

> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
> > dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
> > nutrients" neither has anybody else.
>
> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
> understand?

Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
All the nutrients (especially protein, iron) are easily obtained in
natural food without the health risks of those food compromises. So
your "loss" is a gain when some nutrients are excessive & instead of
overdosing on protein/iron/fat- food compromises, you would be missing
out on the phytochemicals.

> Until then omnivarians continue
>
> > to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
> > life promoting phytochemicals.
>
> It's not about replacing plants with meat, it's about a healthy balance.

When you say "balanced" do you mean HDL balance w/LDL? Do you mean ph
balance? Bacterial flora? Energy ratios? Or balance in terms of
variety of species in diet? Meat of course is excessive in some
nutrients & creates deficiencies in other ways, while fruit naturally
reverses diseases associated with meat and there is no need to try to
"balance" or remedy fruit w/high fiber. The sufficient amount is
already in fruit. Trying to balance LDL w/HDL is not an issue with a
natural diet since the body naturally produces the necessary
cholesterol. In a natural diet you don't need to try to compensate or
take treatments for other food consumed. Food is not naturally disease
producing. When you try to substitute real food with meat you are
asking for deficiencies/overdoses.. Without numbers we can't talk
about balance. As Laurie says "balance" really doesn't exist in the
topic of health since the body is not static.


> There's a lot of equivocation going on here and precious little
> objectivity

Exactly. The most "objectivity" I'm seeing from those eating meat is,
"I like the way it tastes."

> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family

Meat family?

Desirable??

There you go.. Talking about what you are conditioned to "desire." Of
course this doesn't stimulate objectivity. Yet a lot of science is
available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.

But let's try..

"women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html

Your response?

> from a health perspective

Yes not from an insulting perspective..

> is often used to represent all meat,

Example? I can't debate "often." You're bringing in baggage/nothing
specific to debate.

> including fish and foul. Diets which consume far too much fatty meat,

Any meat is too much as it is a dietary compromise.

> processed foods, salt, refined sugar and trans-fats are used to
> represent all omnivorous diets, including those largely plant-centric
> with relatively small amounts of healthier meats. Those diets are
> actually close to many chimp diets, not evolutionary sidesteps at all.

??

C.

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> Larry's and apparently your slant on diet and health would be far better
>> served in my view if the perspective were presented in a much more
>> neutral, informative, professional manner.
>
> Like referencing scientific studies?

Like presenting information in a neutral tone instead of the hysterical
conspiratorial tone the site has presently.
>
>> All the insulting rhetoric,
>
> The first word of your post is a slight toward Laurie as he doesn't go
> by the name of Larry.

It's hardly an insult to use a person's real name. Moreover given the
overall disparaging tenor of the entire website, that is hardly relevant.

> It seems you are only here searching for
> conflict.

I made what I thought was a constructive criticism. If the goal is to
have people read the information and consider it then peppering the site
with insults and personal attacks is hardly the way to achieve that.

> You're bringing baggage here with no intention of exchanging
> information about nutrition or adaptation (parataxic distortion).

I have a point of view, if that's what you mean. I gained that point of
view by a long life of taking in information from a wide variety of
sources. I am not easily swayed by the kind of condescending,
manipulative rhetoric Larry, er "Laurie" employs.

>> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
>>> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
>>> nutrients" neither has anybody else.
>> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
>> understand?
>
> Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.

There are literally thousands.

> All the nutrients (especially protein, iron) are easily obtained in
> natural food without the health risks of those food compromises. So
> your "loss" is a gain when some nutrients are excessive & instead of
> overdosing on protein/iron/fat- food compromises, you would be missing
> out on the phytochemicals.

Your verbiage is cluttered with prejudicial assumptions.

>
>> Until then omnivarians continue
>>
>>> to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
>>> life promoting phytochemicals.
>> It's not about replacing plants with meat, it's about a healthy balance.
>
> When you say "balanced" do you mean HDL balance w/LDL? Do you mean ph
> balance? Bacterial flora? Energy ratios? Or balance in terms of
> variety of species in diet?

By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.

Meat of course is excessive in some
> nutrients & creates deficiencies in other ways, while fruit naturally
> reverses diseases associated with meat and there is no need to try to
> "balance" or remedy fruit w/high fiber. The sufficient amount is
> already in fruit. Trying to balance LDL w/HDL is not an issue with a
> natural diet since the body naturally produces the necessary
> cholesterol. In a natural diet you don't need to try to compensate or
> take treatments for other food consumed. Food is not naturally disease
> producing. When you try to substitute real food with meat you are
> asking for deficiencies/overdoses.. Without numbers we can't talk
> about balance. As Laurie says "balance" really doesn't exist in the
> topic of health since the body is not static.

Balance does not imply a static state.

>
>
>> There's a lot of equivocation going on here and precious little
>> objectivity
>
> Exactly. The most "objectivity" I'm seeing from those eating meat is,
> "I like the way it tastes."

I didn't say that, although it's true. Enjoyment of food is an important
factor in nutrition.

>
>> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
>
> Meat family?
>
> Desirable??

Am I speaking a foreign language?

> There you go.. Talking about what you are conditioned to "desire."

I wasn't talking about being conditioned to desire anything. The comment
was obviously about the health profile of meat. Red meats have the
highest negative factors of the meats.

Of
> course this doesn't stimulate objectivity. Yet a lot of science is
> available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.

A lot of science shows that meat is highly nutritious in the context of
a balanced diet. It depends on your pre-conceptions. You're cherry-picking.

>
> But let's try..
>
> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
>
> Your response?

That is exactly what I was talking about before. "Red meat" is presented
as representative of all meat by anti-meat extremists, when in fact a
beef steak is a completely different food than a halibut steak.

>> from a health perspective
>
> Yes not from an insulting perspective..

What?

>
>> is often used to represent all meat,
>
> Example? I can't debate "often." You're bringing in baggage/nothing
> specific to debate.

You provided the example right above.

>
>> including fish and foul. Diets which consume far too much fatty meat,
>
> Any meat is too much as it is a dietary compromise.

That's an opinion not supported by the bulk of dietary research. Which
meat? Which type exactly? In what amount? In what context?

>
>> processed foods, salt, refined sugar and trans-fats are used to
>> represent all omnivorous diets, including those largely plant-centric
>> with relatively small amounts of healthier meats. Those diets are
>> actually close to many chimp diets, not evolutionary sidesteps at all.
>
> ??

What don't you understand about that?
>
> C.
>

On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> >> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
> >>> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
> >>> nutrients" neither has anybody else.
> >> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
> >> understand?
>
> > Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
>
> There are literally thousands.

So neither of you are able to name just 1 of the nutritional losses by
excluding fallback food with available fruit.

> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.

So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
different types of meat? where are your numbers? Most great apes &
larger primates eat over 100 different species of fruit/yr plus other
vegetation. Fruit is the preferred food (digested most easily) among
all apes when available. As a human with available fruit, what is your
food species count? Just trying to survive with meat is not adding
variety of species to a diet- it prevents variety.
Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
them. Among plant species there are vast differences in antioxidants,
nutrient profiles.You are only getting as much variety in xenobiotics
as you are nutrients in meat.

> Balance does not imply a static state.

Then show some numbers for any of the categories of balance you are
alluding to and how you obtain that balance using meat as opposed to
fruit.

> >> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
>
> > Meat family?
>
> > Desirable??
>
> Am I speaking a foreign language?

I understand you have cravings..I did too.

> > science is
> > available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.
>
> A lot of science shows that meat is highly nutritious in the context of
> a balanced diet. It depends on your pre-conceptions.

Meat is carcinogenic regardless of your preconceptions.You haven't
defined the mysterious "context" "of a balanced diet."

> > But let's try..
>
> > "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
> > double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
> > women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
> > info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
>
> > Your response?
>
> That is exactly what I was talking about before. "Red meat" is presented
> as representative of all meat

So you will not defend red meat and admit.red meat is unhealthy. We
agree on that much?

> beef steak is a completely different food than a halibut steak.

You said, "meat is highly nutritious in the context of a balanced
diet." You use no numbers when talking about balance so that's a non-
issue and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
the non-falsifiable balance cravings. The only context I'm aware of is
if you have no food available, then resort to eating meat, otherwise
it's a nutritional compromise. to available natural food.

C

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>>> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
>>>>> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
>>>>> nutrients" neither has anybody else.
>>>> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
>>>> understand?
>>> Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
>> There are literally thousands.
>
> So neither of you are able to name just 1 of the nutritional losses by
> excluding fallback food with available fruit.

You changed the question, you asked which nutrients would be lost by
excluding meat, not which could not be replaced with other foods. The
one that comes to mind immediately is B-12. If fruit is our natural food
it is odd that an essential nutrient cannot be obtained from it.

http://www.explorevitamins.co.uk/Vitamins-and-Meat.html
If you love eating meat you’ll be glad to hear that you may well find it
easier to eat plenty of B vitamins than your vegetarian friends. That’s
because, unlike many other vitamins, the B vitamins are not always
easily found in plant-based foods. So this is one area where eating meat
now and again is likely to help you get your recommended daily
allowance, or RDA, of many essential nutrients. Here’s exactly which B
vitamins you’ll find in your favourite meat dishes.
Vitamin B1, which is good for your heart and nervous system, is found in
a wide variety of meats so you shouldn’t have any trouble getting enough
of this one.
Vitamin B2, which is good for growing bodies and essential in helping
your body release energy from food, is in liver and liver products like
paté. Eating liver seems to have gone out of ‘fashion’ in recent years,
but adding some to your diet now and then can be a healthy choice.
Also found in liver is essential nutrient vitamin B3, which is important
for building the structure of the skin.
Vitamin B5 is a key element in the production of red bloods cells in
your body and you can find it in both chicken and beef. So it’s no old
wives’ tale that if you’re unhealthily pale, a hearty meal of steak or
beef might help put some colour back in your cheeks.
Vitamin B6 is necessary for a healthy nervous system and blood function.
You’ll be eating up plenty when you go for chicken or fish. So if you
are usually a red meat eater, try alternating with these lighter
alternatives now and again. Fish is particularly easy to cook and there
are so many varieties to try. You’re sure to find something you love.
Vitamin B12 helps you release energy from food and is important for the
production of red bloods cells. It’s in meat, fish and dairy products.
Once again, if you enjoy eating meat, you should have few problems
making sure you get enough vitamin B12.
Other Vitamins and Meat
Vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E and vitamin K are not so readily
available in meat or meat products, although you can get vitamin D from
oily fish. So you will need to serve plenty of vegetables, grains and
fruits with your favourite roast or grilled dish, to ensure you get the
little bit of everything you need for maximum health.

Striking a Healthy Balance... etc

The site author, John Rowlinson is a bio-physicist.

>> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.
>
> So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
> different types of meat? where are your numbers?

You can look them up for yourself.

Most great apes &
> larger primates eat over 100 different species of fruit/yr plus other
> vegetation. Fruit is the preferred food (digested most easily) among
> all apes when available. As a human with available fruit, what is your
> food species count? Just trying to survive with meat is not adding
> variety of species to a diet- it prevents variety.

Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"

> Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
> them.

That is not true. Oily fish such as salmon are very rich in Vitamin D
and Omega 3 fatty acids


> Among plant species there are vast differences in antioxidants,
> nutrient profiles.You are only getting as much variety in xenobiotics
> as you are nutrients in meat.
>
>> Balance does not imply a static state.
>
> Then show some numbers for any of the categories of balance you are
> alluding to and how you obtain that balance using meat as opposed to
> fruit.
>
>>>> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
>>> Meat family?
>>> Desirable??
>> Am I speaking a foreign language?
>
> I understand you have cravings..I did too.

I was not referring to cravings, the context of my remarks should have
made that clear. By "desirable" I meant "nutritionally desirable". The
kind of desirability you are referring to is totally subjective
therefore it could not have been what I meant.
>
>>> science is
>>> available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.
>> A lot of science shows that meat is highly nutritious in the context of
>> a balanced diet. It depends on your pre-conceptions.
>
> Meat is carcinogenic regardless of your preconceptions.You haven't
> defined the mysterious "context" "of a balanced diet."

A balanced diet is a diet which contains a wide variety of foods which
contain different groups of nutrients, so that what may be lacking in
one can be obtained in others.

>
>>> But let's try..
>>> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
>>> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
>>> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
>>> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
>>> Your response?
>> That is exactly what I was talking about before. "Red meat" is presented
>> as representative of all meat
>
> So you will not defend red meat and admit.red meat is unhealthy. We
> agree on that much?

No, red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
do. Water can be poisonous if you drink too much. You could probably
overdose on potassium if you ate nothing but bananas. An occasional
small organic steak is perfectly healthy.

>> beef steak is a completely different food than a halibut steak.
>
> You said, "meat is highly nutritious in the context of a balanced
> diet." You use no numbers when talking about balance so that's a non-
> issue

People don't "eat by numbers".

and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
> the non-falsifiable balance cravings.

The context is a diet which is focused on fruit, vegetables, healthy
grains, dairy and selected meat products.

The only context I'm aware of is
> if you have no food available, then resort to eating meat, otherwise
> it's a nutritional compromise. to available natural food.

Your language reveals your dietary extremism. There's no such thing as
"natural foods".

On Jul 23, 1:52 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> crisology wrote:
> >>> On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
> >>>> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
> >>>>> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
> >>>>> nutrients" neither has anybody else.
> >>>> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
> >>>> understand?
> >>> Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
> >> There are literally thousands.
>
> > So neither of you are able to name just 1 of the nutritional losses by
> > excluding fallback food with available fruit.
>
> one that comes to mind immediately is B-12.

B12 is a bacteria naturally found on plants & has been reintroduced in
commercial food to compensate for pollution from agribusiness, meat
industry, etc. So no "loss" of nutrients there. Next?

> Striking a Healthy Balance... etc
>
> >> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.
>
> > So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
> > different types of meat? where are your numbers?
>
> You can look them up for yourself.

So there is no defined "variety of foods" for your "balance"
concept..And you refer to no context in particular.


> Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"
>
> > Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
> > them.
>
> That is not true. Oily fish"

So u agree red meat is not healthy? We can get to fish later.. u are
switching the subject.



> A balanced diet is a diet which contains a wide variety of foods which
> contain different groups of nutrients, so that what may be lacking in
> one can be obtained in others.

How many is "wide?"

> >>> let's try..
> >>> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
> >>> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
> >>> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
> >>> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
> >>> Your response?

> red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
> do"

How much is too much? Red meat has heme iron, uric acid, natural
carcinogens, exceeds protein requirements, acidifies stomach, recoils
intestines, etc. All nutrients in red meat are easily obtained
otherwise in life promoting foods w/phytochemicals. Meat is a known
nutritional compromise. Plenty of epidemiology & lab studies
demonstrate unhealthy consequences from meat.


> People don't "eat by numbers".

Yet they stress undefined "balance"

> and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
>
> > the non-falsifiable balance cravings.
>
> The context is a diet which is focused on fruit, vegetables, healthy
> grains, dairy and selected meat products

That's not a "focused" diet. That's a scavenger diet & the "balance"
effort is just a euphemism for treatment. So high fiber in grains is a
TX effort for excess chol/protein it seems.You're trying to do a
balancing act w/dairy while ignoring the related disease risks that
are well documented if you do a Pubmed search.

I guess most apes eat more species of food.

> There's no such thing as
> "natural foods".

Food that provides nutrition WITHOUT known disease risk is natural.
Processed food potentially would not be so unnatural if the necessary
processing doesn't reduce nutritional quality and/or increases disease
risk.

C

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:52 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>>> On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> crisology wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
>>>>>>> dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
>>>>>>> nutrients" neither has anybody else.
>>>>>> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
>>>>>> understand?
>>>>> Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
>>>> There are literally thousands.
>>> So neither of you are able to name just 1 of the nutritional losses by
>>> excluding fallback food with available fruit.
>> one that comes to mind immediately is B-12.
>
> B12 is a bacteria naturally found on plants & has been reintroduced in
> commercial food to compensate for pollution from agribusiness, meat
> industry, etc. So no "loss" of nutrients there. Next?

That was an inadequate response. B12 is not naturally found in plants,
nor on them if they are clean.

>> Striking a Healthy Balance... etc
>>
>>>> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.
>>> So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
>>> different types of meat? where are your numbers?
>> You can look them up for yourself.
>
> So there is no defined "variety of foods" for your "balance"
> concept..And you refer to no context in particular.

The variety of foods in a balanced diet has been well known for many
decades. I'm not planning to spoon feed basic nutrition theory to you.

>
>
>> Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"

No response, strawman confirmed.

>>
>>> Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
>>> them.
>> That is not true. Oily fish"
>
> So u agree red meat is not healthy?

I answered this question.

> We can get to fish later..

Fish is meat, so is chicken.

u are
> switching the subject.

You claimed incorrectly that "meat is meat". Are you now abandoning that
claim?

>> A balanced diet is a diet which contains a wide variety of foods which
>> contain different groups of nutrients, so that what may be lacking in
>> one can be obtained in others.
>
> How many is "wide?"

I'm not going to get into a hair-splitting exercise with you.

>
>>>>> let's try..
>>>>> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
>>>>> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
>>>>> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
>>>>> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
>>>>> Your response?
>
>> red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
>> do"
>
> How much is too much?

Use your common sense.

> Red meat has heme iron, uric acid, natural
> carcinogens, exceeds protein requirements, acidifies stomach, recoils
> intestines, etc. All nutrients in red meat are easily obtained
> otherwise in life promoting foods w/phytochemicals. Meat is a known
> nutritional compromise. Plenty of epidemiology & lab studies
> demonstrate unhealthy consequences from meat.

Again, red meat being presented as representative of all meat.

Nonetheless, plenty of studies show red meat to be a healthful food in
moderation.

>
>> People don't "eat by numbers".
>
> Yet they stress undefined "balance"

Correct, balance of healthy foods, which any intelligent adult can
determine if they so choose.

>> and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
>>
>>> the non-falsifiable balance cravings.
>> The context is a diet which is focused on fruit, vegetables, healthy
>> grains, dairy and selected meat products
>
> That's not a "focused" diet. That's a scavenger diet & the "balance"
> effort is just a euphemism for treatment. So high fiber in grains is a
> TX effort for excess chol/protein it seems.You're trying to do a
> balancing act w/dairy while ignoring the related disease risks that
> are well documented if you do a Pubmed search.
>
> I guess most apes eat more species of food.
>
>> There's no such thing as
>> "natural foods".
>
> Food that provides nutrition WITHOUT known disease risk is natural.

That's healthy food, not "natural". "Natural" is just a buzzword.

> Processed food potentially would not be so unnatural if the necessary
> processing doesn't reduce nutritional quality and/or increases disease
> risk.

Most processed food is lacking in positive nutritional values. We may
have hit on something we can agree on.

crisology wrote:

I just noticed that you deftly removed the cite I had included from the
bio-physicist John Rowlinson. heh.. nice work, considering that your
buddy Laurie never stops ranting about how unscientific other people's
ideas about diets are. Do either of you have any degrees in bio-physics
or the equivalent?

On Jul 23, 5:32 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> > B12 is a bacteria naturally found on plants & has been reintroduced in
> > commercial food to compensate for pollution from agribusiness, meat
> > industry, etc. So no "loss" of nutrients there. Next?
>
> That was an inadequate response. B12 is not naturally found in plants,

I never said they were.. You're arguing with yourself and losing.

> nor on them if they are clean.

Plants in the wild are not clean though. Your purified supplemented
water was not always available for that modern luxury so ancestors
adapted to dirty plants.


> >>>> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.
> >>> So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
> >>> different types of meat? where are your numbers?
> >> You can look them up for yourself.
>
> > So there is no defined "variety of foods" for your "balance"
> > concept..And you refer to no context in particular.

So balance remains undefined..
>
> >> Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"
>
You didn't. But that's exactly what meat was used for during the ice
age.

>
> >>> Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
> >>> them.
> >> That is not true. Oily fish"
>
> > So u agree red meat is not healthy?
>
> I answered this question.
>

You sort of admitted red meat was unhealthy yet you continue to push
it, just in smaller doses. Knowing it is a nutritional compromise &
contributes to diseases, which is why you have dodged the study I
brought to your attention regarding red meat.


> > How many is "wide?"
>
> I'm not going to get into a hair-splitting exercise with you.
>
I ask for numbers or at least a range to clarify your misused/cliché -
"balanced diet" It's not hair splitting considering how u base your
entire unnatural/unhealthy diet on "balance" Well of course you'll
always be looking for balance as long as you eat unnaturally.

>
> >>>>> let's try..
> >>>>> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
> >>>>> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
> >>>>> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
> >>>>> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
> >>>>> Your response?

Your response?

>
> >> red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
> >> do"
>
> > How much is too much?
>
> Use your common sense.

To get common diseases use "common sense" or use Pubmed to discover
what is uncommonly known about meat/dairy and disease.
>
> > Red meat has heme iron, uric acid, natural
> > carcinogens, exceeds protein requirements, acidifies stomach, recoils
> > intestines, etc. All nutrients in red meat are easily obtained
> > otherwise in life promoting foods w/phytochemicals. Meat is a known
> > nutritional compromise. Plenty of epidemiology & lab studies
> > demonstrate unhealthy consequences from meat.
>
> Again, red meat being presented as representative of all meat.

Fish has all of the above too. Whenever I inform you of diseases
related to red meat, you just say there is other meat. Then later you
go back and claim it is healthy to consume some red meat? Why choose
the least healthy meat if you're going to eat meat at all? There is
nothing logical about eating red meat in particular. Even you can
realize red meat is a known compromise even to fish.

>
> Nonetheless, plenty of studies show red meat to be a healthful food in
> moderation.

If you have to have it in moderation that should tell you something.
Fish is less unhealthy than red meat. If you are going to eat meat it
should also be raw of course.

"Whilst a single exposure to a carcinogen is unlikely to be
problematical, carcinogens are most dangerous through repeated
exposure even at very low levels"

> >> People don't "eat by numbers".
>
> > Yet they stress undefined "balance"


> >> and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
>
> >>> the non-falsifiable balance cravings.
> >> The context is a diet which is focused on fruit, vegetables, healthy
> >> grains, dairy and selected meat products
>
> > That's not a "focused" diet. That's a scavenger diet & the "balance"
> > effort is just a euphemism for treatment. So high fiber in grains is a
> > TX effort for excess chol/protein it seems.You're trying to do a
> > balancing act w/dairy while ignoring the related disease risks that
> > are well documented if you do a Pubmed search.
>
> > I guess most apes eat more species of food.
>
> >> There's no such thing as
> >> "natural foods".
>
> > Food that provides nutrition WITHOUT known disease risk is natural.
>
> That's healthy food, not "natural". "Natural" is just a buzzword.

Both natural and healthy are just buzzwords for you. Natural may be an
overused word, which is why I added "healthy" too. And I defined my
terms.

C.

On Jul 23, 7:51 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
>
> I just noticed that you deftly removed the cite I had included from the
> bio-physicist John Rowlinson. heh.. nice work, considering that your
> buddy Laurie never stops ranting about how unscientific other people's
> ideas about diets are. Do either of you have any degrees in bio-physics
> or the equivalent?

Because the lengthy quote did not list 1 nutrient that isn't easily
obtained in a natural diet without meat. I don't even know why you
included it.

C.

General note:

The invocation of the title of astrophysicists, contortionists, yogis
or what have you is entirely immaterial in discussing facts and
drawing one's own conclusions in regards to dietary (or any) matters.
While a background in the natural sciences, at least on the
fundamental level, is desirable and often a good indication of mental
wherewithall, there are a great many doctors, scientists, engineers,
etc, who haven't the foggiest when it comes to politics, diet, art,
and so on.

Sincerely,
Vic

Victor wrote:
> General note:
>
> The invocation of the title of astrophysicists, contortionists, yogis
> or what have you is entirely immaterial in discussing facts and
> drawing one's own conclusions in regards to dietary (or any) matters.
> While a background in the natural sciences, at least on the
> fundamental level, is desirable and often a good indication of mental
> wherewithall, there are a great many doctors, scientists, engineers,
> etc, who haven't the foggiest when it comes to politics, diet, art,
> and so on.
>
> Sincerely,
> Vic

Well Vic, Laurie et al seem to place a lot of stock in taking a
scientific approach to diet, who better than a scientist who happens to
be an authority on nutrition?

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:32 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>> B12 is a bacteria naturally found on plants & has been reintroduced in
>>> commercial food to compensate for pollution from agribusiness, meat
>>> industry, etc. So no "loss" of nutrients there. Next?
>> That was an inadequate response. B12 is not naturally found in plants,
>
> I never said they were..

I didn't say you did, but the fact that it is absent should be a clue.

>> nor on them if they are clean.
>
> Plants in the wild are not clean though. Your purified supplemented
> water was not always available for that modern luxury so ancestors
> adapted to dirty plants.

Ancestors, like most apes, also ate meat, including shellfish, insects
whatever was available.

>>>>>> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.
>>>>> So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
>>>>> different types of meat? where are your numbers?
>>>> You can look them up for yourself.
>>> So there is no defined "variety of foods" for your "balance"
>>> concept..And you refer to no context in particular.
>
> So balance remains undefined..

Balance is a simple word. Look it up.

>>>> Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"
> You didn't. But that's exactly what meat was used for during the ice
> age.

It has been a part of the hominid diet for eons.

>
>>>>> Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
>>>>> them.
>>>> That is not true. Oily fish"
>>> So u agree red meat is not healthy?
>> I answered this question.
>>
>
> You sort of admitted red meat was unhealthy yet you continue to push
> it, just in smaller doses. Knowing it is a nutritional compromise &
> contributes to diseases, which is why you have dodged the study I
> brought to your attention regarding red meat.

As I said, a lot of substances are beneficial in small amounts and toxic
in larger amounts.


>>> How many is "wide?"
>> I'm not going to get into a hair-splitting exercise with you.
>>
> I ask for numbers or at least a range to clarify your misused/cliché -
> "balanced diet" It's not hair splitting considering how u base your
> entire unnatural/unhealthy diet on "balance" Well of course you'll
> always be looking for balance as long as you eat unnaturally.

I know when I am dealing with a rigid ideologue, I won't waste any more
time trying to talk sense to you. My point was simply constructive
criticism about the impression the website gives. The website comes
across as cheesy and unprofessional, done by internet boobs, Laurie,
you, have no qualifications or business treating the scientific
nutritional community with such disrespect. But carry on, it's probably
better if you keep doing what you;re doing.

Diet extremism is nothing new.

>
>>>>>>> let's try..
>>>>>>> "women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
>>>>>>> double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
>>>>>>> women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
>>>>>>> info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html
>>>>>>> Your response?
>
> Your response?

It's *A* study. So what? You're obviously unfamiliar with science.


>
>>>> red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
>>>> do"
>>> How much is too much?
>> Use your common sense.
>
> To get common diseases use "common sense" or use Pubmed to discover
> what is uncommonly known about meat/dairy and disease.

Like this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
The main dietary sources of micronutrients are animal source foods,
fruits, vegetables and legumes. Animal source foods are the only source
of some micronutrients and the main dietary source of others.
Micronutrient status and child development are improved by animal source
food interventions in populations that habitually consume low amounts.
Of particular concern is the high global prevalence of vitamin B12
depletion, which is associated with low animal source food intake. Some
fruits and vegetables can supply vitamin A requirements even with the
lower amounts of fat typically consumed in many countries. However,
plant source foods are unlikely to supply enough iron, zinc and vitamin
B12, even if strategies such as consuming ascorbic-acid rich foods to
increase iron absorption are adopted. Identification of mineral-rich
varieties of cereals and legumes may improve the future situation.

>>> Red meat has heme iron, uric acid, natural
>>> carcinogens, exceeds protein requirements, acidifies stomach, recoils
>>> intestines, etc. All nutrients in red meat are easily obtained
>>> otherwise in life promoting foods w/phytochemicals. Meat is a known
>>> nutritional compromise. Plenty of epidemiology & lab studies
>>> demonstrate unhealthy consequences from meat.
>> Again, red meat being presented as representative of all meat.
>
> Fish has all of the above too. Whenever I inform you of diseases
> related to red meat, you just say there is other meat. Then later you
> go back and claim it is healthy to consume some red meat? Why choose
> the least healthy meat if you're going to eat meat at all? There is
> nothing logical about eating red meat in particular. Even you can
> realize red meat is a known compromise even to fish.
>
>> Nonetheless, plenty of studies show red meat to be a healthful food in
>> moderation.
>
> If you have to have it in moderation that should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me to eat it in moderation as part of a balanced diet,
just as REAL experts on nutrition advise, not internet diet extremists.

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:51 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> crisology wrote:
>>
>> I just noticed that you deftly removed the cite I had included from the
>> bio-physicist John Rowlinson. heh.. nice work, considering that your
>> buddy Laurie never stops ranting about how unscientific other people's
>> ideas about diets are. Do either of you have any degrees in bio-physics
>> or the equivalent?
>
> Because the lengthy quote

It wasn't that long for anyone genuinely interested in information on
vitamins.

did not list 1 nutrient that isn't easily
> obtained in a natural diet without meat.

That's funny, bio-physicist and well-known expert on nutrition John
Rowlinson says, "unlike many other vitamins, the B vitamins are not
always easily found in plant-based foods". What's your authority for
denying that claim?

> I don't even know why you
> included it.

My inclusions are not restricted to sources which confirm your bias.

I happen to believe by the way that vegetarian diets can be very
healthy, I was a vegetarian myself for 18 years. What extremists like
you lose sight of is the principle of moderation. Just because too much
of a substance is bad for your health does not mean that a moderate
amount is. Studies have shown that a small amount of red wine is
beneficial to health, beyond that ideal amount it is detrimental.

On Jul 24, 4:14 am, Dutch > wrote:

> > To get common diseases use "common sense" or use Pubmed to discover
> > what is uncommonly known about meat/dairy and disease.
>
> Like this?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...24&itool=Entre...
> The main dietary sources of micronutrients are animal source foods,
> fruits, vegetables and legumes...

No..

(USDA, ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, 430 West Health
Sciences Drive, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
)

The USDA is part business and part politics. Instead of switching the
subject from strictly nutrition to trying to feed the masses a
diluted, tax subsidized diet (the ultimate job of the USDA.
http://williamcalvin.com/BHM/ch2.htm ) with the silly concept of food
pyramid, 4 food groups, etc, just try to refute the random study I
presented to you first. But if you're going to cling to the inherited
diet of red meat & avoid admitting red meat is a compromise, at least
try something more objective.I don't want to discourage you from
trying to research but not every study on Pubmed is scientific.And
because of your cravings, you'll manage to pick 1 from a bias source.
The first line would alert a health conscious person that something
isn't right with the source of this info (trying to treat such
different food sources as being equal or part of an undefined
balance).

Chris

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:14 am, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>> To get common diseases use "common sense" or use Pubmed to discover
>>> what is uncommonly known about meat/dairy and disease.
>> Like this?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...24&itool=Entre...
>> The main dietary sources of micronutrients are animal source foods,
>> fruits, vegetables and legumes...
>
> No..
>
> (USDA, ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, 430 West Health
> Sciences Drive, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
> )
>
> The USDA is part business and part politics. Instead of switching the
> subject from strictly nutrition to trying to feed the masses a
> diluted, tax subsidized diet (the ultimate job of the USDA.
> http://williamcalvin.com/BHM/ch2.htm ) with the silly concept of food
> pyramid, 4 food groups, etc, just try to refute the random study I
> presented to you first. But if you're going to cling to the inherited
> diet of red meat & avoid admitting red meat is a compromise, at least
> try something more objective.I don't want to discourage you from
> trying to research but not every study on Pubmed is scientific.And
> because of your cravings, you'll manage to pick 1 from a bias source.
> The first line would alert a health conscious person that something
> isn't right with the source of this info (trying to treat such
> different food sources as being equal or part of an undefined
> balance).

According to whom? What credentials do you have that I should ignore the
opinions of scientists and recognized authorities on nutrition?

crisology wrote:

> Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
> Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers'
> estimates of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false
> body image.
> http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html
I am not going to read pages of microfont crap; could you quote the
gems for me?

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

On Aug 22, 9:59 am, Laurie > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
> > Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers'
> > estimates of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false
> > body image.
> >http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html
>
> could you quote the
> gems for me?

Laurie, there wasn't a lot at that particular link- no comments in
response to her article are posted. I submitted a comment/question
last month at that site asking why she didn't recommend Vitamin C for
the iron problems she was talking about. She was just promoting the
hair product and more meat. Here is the article in response to a lady
who is busy w/hair falling out:

AU: Stress can certainly play a big role in hair loss and so
addressing this part of your life is crucial. Lemon balm and camomile
teas are both very soothing, with the latter working on anti-anxiety
centres in our brains to help to calm us down. They are certainly
worth sipping throughout the day and at night to improve the chances
of a good sleep.

Also, take a look at your iron intake. Iron is a mineral that we get
from lean red meat, oily fish and eggs as well as some pulses,
fortified breakfast cereals and dark green vegetables, such as
spinach. The problem is that around 40 per cent of women in the UK are
just not getting enough and one sign of long-term poor iron intake is
thinning hair. Try to have at least one iron-rich food a day and top
up with a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement that gives you
around 14mg of iron that is close to the recommended daily intake. I
would not recommend iron alone unless prescribed by your doctor
because it can unbalance the absorption of other minerals.

I have seen some impressive results for hair thinning with another
specific hair supplement formulation called Nourkrin. It is a blend of
soluble silica and vitamin C, plus a protein compound of marine
extracts. I am usually rather nervous of “beauty” supplements but this
one has undergone clinical testing and over a period of six months has
been shown to have good effects on hair gain, comparing favourably
with hair restoring drugs such as finasteride.

The advantage of this supplement is that it is side-effect free. While
scientists are not quite able to pinpoint how it works, they predict
it could be down to improvements in the production of a hormone called
dyhydrotesterone in the hair follicle. It is quite pricey though (you
can buy it from high street chemists and health food stores at £49.95
for a month's supply) and you do need to give it six months to see any
effects, which means a significant investment.

Talking of the hair follicle, it is important to get enough iodine in
your diet by regularly eating foods such as fish (iodised salt gives
us this mineral, too). Iodine is essential for a healthy thyroid gland
which, when underactive, reduces activity of hair follicles and slows
the rate of hair growth."

I found some small gold mines around though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/raiseyour...a_ursell.shtml

"RYG: what kind of things could they take to make the lunch
interesting and healthy?

AU: With packed lunches it's important to keep variety, so you're not
having the same old thing every day. There are so many types of bread
these days. You can have white, brown or granary bread. If you get fed
up with sandwiches you can try white or brown pitta bread. You can
have tortilla wraps and put your favourite filling inside. You can
have things like a pasta salad as well.

There are so many different types of basic carbohydrates you can have
to form the foundation of your packed lunch. Then you can have
protein, like meat, fish or eggs to go with it. Then have some veggies
like tomatoes or cucumbers. To make a packed lunch balanced you need
some fruit. Have an apple, a banana, or a satsuma.

Eat food that you enjoy, because if you don't like it you're going to
bring it home again, or swap it for something else. For a drink have
some fruit juice, or just some water. It's good to have something with
milk in it - maybe a yoghurt or fromage frais, because it's good for
your bones. That way you get a good balance.

..What's important in the long run is that you make sure you have
enough of the mineral called iron in your diet. Again studies have
shown that a lack of iron can cause poor concentration, and can
actually affect GSCE performance. You find iron in things like red
meat, eggs, some nuts and seeds and dark green vegetables. It's very
important that you get enough of this nutrient..

..AU: If you're still growing, you shouldn't go on a strict diet.
Sometimes you grow into your weight. If you're obviously carrying a
lot of extra weight, perhaps it's time to think carefully about
dealing with it. It's very important not to go on a crash diet. You
should never cut out food groups and suddenly say 'I'm not having
dairy foods anymore, I'm not having meat anymore.' It's important to
keep your intake balanced.."

"If you're not a veggie lover and you don't like those, don't bother
trying because some people genetically just don't like them. There's
no need to force yourself."

"Base your diet around healthy food, like porridge, pasta, bread,
things like that. Have lots of fruit and vegetables, and have a bit of
protein, such as meat, fish, eggs and milk. If you want something
sugary or fatty, only have it once a day"

"AU: If you come in from school and you haven't got time to make a big
meal, I would say beans on toast are brilliant. Things like boiled
eggs with a slice of toast, or peanut butter on toast"

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/may...lth/he-ursell6
Not All Dairy Is Taboo for Lactose Intolerant

By Amanda Ursell
May 06, 2002 in print edition S-3

The life of the lactose-intolerant person is also made easier by the
virtually lactose-free and reduced-lactose brands of milks; lactase
enzymes, available in drop or tablet form, that can be added to milk
before drinking; and lactase supplements, taken before a lactose-rich
meal.

The key to coping with lactose intolerance is to remember that for
most people it does not mean a life without milk. After some initial
trial and error, it is a relatively straightforward food intolerance
to manage successfully."

Here is part of her cleansing diet.. I'd hate to see the non-cleansing
version..

"Lethargic and bloated? Then try our three-day, no-pain cleansing diet
devised by Amanda Ursell. And to put a real spring in your step, carry
on for seven days after that.
Amanda Ursell

DINNER

DAY ONE

Roasted chicken thighs with new potatoes and roasted beetroot

DAY TWO

Cod fillet

DAY THREE

Rice and almond salad

Ok, just 1 more.. But there seems to be no limit..

"Too much healthy eating is as bad for children as too much junk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...Submitted=true

Amanda Ursell

But a significant proportion of our nation's children are worryingly
chubby and heading for potential obesity problems in later life, it
seems that others are suffering from “muesli belt malnutrition”: the
overzealous application of “healthy eating” rules imposed on their
daily food intake. A recent study warns us that too much fibre and too
little fat can lead to vitamin deficiencies and stunts growth in the
under-fives.
This means that young children who have wholemeal bread, brown pasta
and piles of fruit imposed on them are getting too full too quickly
and do not have room for enough foods such as dairy products, meat,
eggs and fish, which have vital nutrients for growth and development.
So how do we strike a balance? Children thrive on a good variety of
foods, which includes grains and potatoes such as bread, pasta,
noodles, rice and all varieties of potatoes; calcium-rich foods such
as milk, yoghurt, fish canned with edible bones such as pilchards;
protein-rich foods such as eggs, chicken and turkey, red meat and
Quorn products; plus a variety of different fruit and vegetables. The
million-dollar question is how much should they have of each"



"I don't know where fruit got this great reputation" -dr atkins

Chris

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
cris--
Let me introduce "Dutch " to you; he, unfortunately (or
intentionally??) "forgot" the introduction.
So, let's ask noBalls, the late Jon-a-thug noBalls, now masquerading
as Rudy Canoza, misogynistic asshole.
Take it, noBalls.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

crisology wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:

cris
PLEASE do not crosspoint any exchange with this fool to a.f.v.s.
I'd suggest that you not waste ANY time; he is nothing but a
meatrarian propagandist.

Laurie
--

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE.
ALL other issues are OFF TOPIC here.
Please cooperate.

NO SPAMMING.
NO NONSENSE ABOUT "ANIMAL RIGHTS"
NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Laurie Forti, Moderator

alt.food.vegan.science

Laurie wrote:
> crisology wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
> cris
> PLEASE do not crosspoint any exchange with this fool to a.f.v.s.
> I'd suggest that you not waste ANY time; he is nothing but a
> meatrarian propagandist.
>
> Laurie

Bite me, fruit.

On Sep 7, 5:37*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> >> * * PLEASE do not crosspoint any exchange with this fool to a.f.v.s.
> >> * * I'd suggest that you not waste ANY time; he is nothing but a
> >> meatrarian propagandist.
>
> >> * * Laurie
>
> > Bite me, fruit.
>
> larry forti certainly is a fruit. *Nothing could be more obvious.

You know what they say: you are what you eat. I'd prefer being an
animal instead of being a fruit, nut or a vegetable.

>> ... B12 is not naturally found in plants,
Actually, it is: see:
Mozafar, A.
Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with application of organic
fertilizers.
Plant and Soil 167:305-311, 1994.

http://www.ecologos.org/B-12.htm

Chemical agriculture killed all the microorganisms in the soil;
that's why nothing ever can be grown healthily in commercial
agriculture plots.
Both the minerals and microorganisms HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
before anything healthy CAN BE GROWN; plants OR people.

We ARE what we EAT, there has been severe mineral shortages known for
decades and the government have done NOTHING about it.
http://www.tjclark.com.au/colloidal-...-depletion.htm

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

" Chemical agriculture killed all the microorganisms in the soil;
that's why nothing ever can be grown healthily in commercial
agriculture plots.
Both the minerals and microorganisms HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
before anything healthy CAN BE GROWN; plants OR people."

This is with a stretch only partially accurate. Posted recently to many
of these newsgroups was a study where organic and non-organic farming
was compared as to production of vitamins and minerals in the crops
grown on them. In turn the crops were fed to animals. The short
version is there was no difference in mineral content or vitamin
production in the crops nor in the measured levels of same in the
animals fed them.

Repeated overuse of soil can lead to mineral depletion, but that is a
different matter.

> wrote in message ...
> " Chemical agriculture killed all the microorganisms in the soil;
> that's why nothing ever can be grown healthily in commercial
> agriculture plots.
> Both the minerals and microorganisms HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
> before anything healthy CAN BE GROWN; plants OR people."
>
> This is with a stretch only partially accurate. Posted recently to many
> of these newsgroups was a study where organic and non-organic farming
> was compared as to production of vitamins and minerals in the crops
> grown on them. In turn the crops were fed to animals. The short
> version is there was no difference in mineral content or vitamin
> production in the crops nor in the measured levels of same in the
> animals fed them.
>
> Repeated overuse of soil can lead to mineral depletion, but that is a
> different matter.

'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content.
An understanding of nutritional balance, physical and
biophysical soil composition underpins a successful organic
farming system.
...'
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional
difference between organic and regular produce since heavy
use of fertilizer inhibits absorption of some minerals, which
are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that
have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack
of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low
in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems
including osteoporosis.
...'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html

'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has
declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron
content has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992.
...
A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45,
#1, 1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food
versus organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago
area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content
of the supermarket food.
...'
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/or...griculture.htm

'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than
conventional
...
As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat
plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found
that the organic plants had increases of up to 74 percent in
nutrient content over conventionally grown plants, suggesting an
answer to the perennial question, "Is organic better?"
...'
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml

'chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown
fruits - even though they were only about half the size.
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603071017.htm

'"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional
food quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil
Association food quality report, "this research, by
nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked specifically
at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing
a similar collection of scientific studies.

"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic
produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C,
iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small
differences in nutrients can mean the difference between
getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to."

All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html

'While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical
experience and recorded observations have suggested similar
benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery
from illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940)
from the consumption of organically produced food.
... '
http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...520quality.pdf

'Organic food IS more nutritious, especially if fresh, and eating
it is vital to good health; let those who claim otherwise try to
prove their case! I still see articles in reputable magazines stating
that there is no nutritional difference between organic produce
and regular supermarket food. I've even repeatedly received this
erroneous information from Agricultural Extension offices and
Professors of Agriculture at "reputable" State Universities...
although one Professor, probably safely tenured, told me in
hushed tones that "of course, most of our funding comes from
chemical companies."
...'
http://www.living-foods.com/articles...utritious.html

.........

> " Chemical agriculture killed all the microorganisms in the
soil;
> that's why nothing ever can be grown healthily in commercial
> agriculture plots.
> Both the minerals and microorganisms HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
> before anything healthy CAN BE GROWN; plants OR people."
>
> This is with a stretch only partially accurate. Posted recently to
many
> of these newsgroups was a study where organic and non-organic farming
> was compared as to production of vitamins and minerals in the crops
> grown on them. In turn the crops were fed to animals. The short
> version is there was no difference in mineral content or vitamin
> production in the crops nor in the measured levels of same in the
> animals fed them.
>
> Repeated overuse of soil can lead to mineral depletion, but that is a
> different matter.

"'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content."

It might be, but how do you then account for the results as mentioned
above. This was a controlled experiment from start to end to control
all factors with the only difference being level of organic methods
used. This control extended from the planting of the plants to the end
product in animals fed the plants.

The examples you mention are bits of information from here and there
with no corrensponding controls for factors as above. Perhaps you can
find a study of equal quality that is different in results then that
above.

"Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with application of organic
fertilizers."

From the above:

" B12 are found in animal manure, a commonly used organic fertilizer.
This study looked at whether plants, specifically soybeans, barley,
and spinach, grown on soils amended with pure B12 or B12 in manure
would have a higher B12 content than plants grown with inorganic
fertilizers."

In other words the source of the vit b12 was manure which contained vit
b12 produced from bacteria in the animals large gut.

There is a cycle of animal gut to manure to soil to animal again.
Humans get their vit b12 by tapping into this cycle at some point unless
taking supplemints.

> wrote in message u...
> > " Chemical agriculture killed all the microorganisms in the
> soil;
> > that's why nothing ever can be grown healthily in commercial
> > agriculture plots.
> > Both the minerals and microorganisms HAVE TO BE REESTABLISHED
> > before anything healthy CAN BE GROWN; plants OR people."
> >
> > This is with a stretch only partially accurate. Posted recently to
> many
> > of these newsgroups was a study where organic and non-organic farming
> > was compared as to production of vitamins and minerals in the crops
> > grown on them. In turn the crops were fed to animals. The short
> > version is there was no difference in mineral content or vitamin
> > production in the crops nor in the measured levels of same in the
> > animals fed them.
> >
> > Repeated overuse of soil can lead to mineral depletion, but that is a
> > different matter.
>
> "'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
> primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content."
>
> It might be,

So not only is the Australian Gov. trying to mislead everyone,
but logic, indeed all rational thought, has just left the building.

> but how do you then account for the results as mentioned
> above. This was a controlled experiment from start to end to control
> all factors with the only difference being level of organic methods
> used. This control extended from the planting of the plants to the end
> product in animals fed the plants.

Look at the input levels.. they're tipped in favour of the ag-chem'...

'The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on
soil which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no
pesticides except for one organically approved product on kale only.

The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using
animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed
by regulation.

Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of
nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.

The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields
at the same time and so experienced the same weather conditions.
All were harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the
organically grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic
soil.

After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the
levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown
using the three different methods.
...'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-net080708.php

And sure enough, looking at the source ... oh dear ... wait for it...

"New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry's
(SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is
no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than
food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals."

ROTFLOL!! Now grok 'funded by chemical companies', harikari.

> The examples you mention are bits of information from here and there
> with no corrensponding controls for factors as above.

You can say that again!

> Perhaps you can
> find a study of equal quality that is different in results then that
> above.

I posted references to legitimate research. Try showing otherwise.

> "'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
> primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content."
>
> It might be,

"So not only is the Australian Gov. trying to mislead everyone,
but logic, indeed all rational thought, has just left the building."

Huh, what is this in reference to? Nothing was said about being
misleading and logic has yet to be shown regarding anything.

> but how do you then account for the results as mentioned
> above. This was a controlled experiment from start to end to control
> all factors with the only difference being level of organic methods
> used. This control extended from the planting of the plants to the
end
> product in animals fed the plants.

How so? Not at all, they used very good scientific methodology.
Keeping all factors except organic methods as constant as possible they
varied the degree of organic method. It was in one case all organic, one
mixed and one not organic at all. If the organic method level was a
vital factor then one would predict that the outcomes would vary as the
degree of organic method varied. It did not and results were constant
across all cases. It would be hard to think of a methodology that would
be better then that."Look at the input levels.. they're tipped in favour
of the ag-chem'..."

"'The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on
soil which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no
pesticides except for one organically approved product on kale only.

The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using
animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed
by regulation.

Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of
nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.

The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields
at the same time and so experienced the same weather conditions.
All were harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the
organically grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic
soil.

After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the
levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown
using the three different methods."
...'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-net080708.php

"And sure enough, looking at the source ... oh dear ... wait for it...

"New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry's
(SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is
no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than
food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals."

ROTFLOL!! Now grok 'funded by chemical companies', harikari."

Would be happy to see evidence of that in the specific case in question.
Why should it matter if they fully disclose the methods used and the
results and all are up to par and published in an accepted scientific
journal who is asking the questions? Unless specific fraud can be shown
then this is a red herring. Should we only consider studies from the
organic ag industry?

> The examples you mention are bits of information from here and there
> with no corrensponding controls for factors as above.

"You can say that again!"

Ok, but what is your point?

> The examples you mention are bits of information from here and there
> with no corrensponding controls for factors as above.

> Perhaps you can
> find a study of equal quality that is different in results then that
> above.

"I posted references to legitimate research. Try showing otherwise."

Who said it was otherwise? When compared to the above very well done
integrated study where all factors were tightly controlled, pitching
fragmental information from this and that study from many unequal and
unbalanced contexts and research methods is second best.

Therein lies the request for you to find a study of equal quality
without all the problems of the mish mash you presented, regardless of
the validity of each unrelated fragment it presented.

> wrote in message u...

> > "'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the
> > primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content."
> >
> > It might be,
>
> "So not only is the Australian Gov. trying to mislead everyone,
> but logic, indeed all rational thought, has just left the building."
>
> Huh, what is this in reference to? Nothing was said about being
> misleading

Your sleazy little demotion of their **statement of fact** to:

'might
...
Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than
may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
...'
http://www.answers.com/might&r=67

> and logic has yet to be shown regarding anything.

Not by you at any rate. And that's another statement of fact.

> > but how do you then account for the results as mentioned
> > above. This was a controlled experiment from start to end to control
> > all factors with the only difference being level of organic methods
> > used. This control extended from the planting of the plants to the
> end
> > product in animals fed the plants.
>
> How so?

Huh? Can't you even recognise your own pro-chem'crap crap?

> Not at all, they used very good scientific methodology.
> Keeping all factors except organic methods as constant as possible they
> varied the degree of organic method. It was in one case all organic, one
> mixed and one not organic at all. If the organic method level was a
> vital factor then one would predict that the outcomes would vary as the
> degree of organic method varied.

Both organic and organic+pesticides were fertilized the same way.

> It did not and results were constant
> across all cases. It would be hard to think of a methodology that would
> be better then that."Look at the input levels.. they're tipped in favour
> of the ag-chem'..."

....

> "'The first cultivation method consisted of growing the vegetables on
> soil which had a low input of nutrients using animal manure and no
> pesticides except for one organically approved product on kale only.
>
> The second method involved applying a low input of nutrients using
> animal manure, combined with use of pesticides, as much as allowed
> by regulation.
>
> Finally, the third method comprised a combination of a high input of
> nutrients through mineral fertilisers and pesticides as legally allowed.
>
> The crops were grown on the same or similar soil on adjacent fields
> at the same time and so experienced the same weather conditions.
> All were harvested and treated at the same time. In the case of the
> organically grown vegetables, all were grown on established organic
> soil.
>
> After harvest, results showed that there were no differences in the
> levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown
> using the three different methods."
> ..'
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-net080708.php
>
> "And sure enough, looking at the source ... oh dear ... wait for it...
>
> "New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry's
> (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is
> no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than
> food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals."
>
> ROTFLOL!! Now grok 'funded by chemical companies', harikari."
>
> Would be happy to see evidence of that in the specific case in question.

They can't be serious... If discrepancy in inputs wasn't enough.....

'New Study Reinforces Need to Critically Assess Research Design

A study just out in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture is
entitled "Effect of plant cultivation methods on content of major and trace
elements in foodstuffs and retention in rats."The Danish research team
compared the retention of nutrients in rats fed a diet composed of organic
and conventional dried fruits and vegetables. Only trace mineral levels
were compared; no results were reported on vitamins, polyphenols, and
antioxidants (nutrients that routinely are present at higher concentrations
in organic food). No differences were found in nutrient levels, leading the
authors to suggest that such findings might dampen consumer demand
for organic food.

Some media outlets have picked up this finding, and have dramatically
broadened it to support headlines and statements like "Organic food no more
nutritious than conventional." A review of the study's experimental design,
however, raises serious questions about whether this study's results actually
support the more narrow conclusions stated by the authors. The team grew
the fruits and vegetables in both the "conventional" and organic plots on soils
that were previously managed organically. Accordingly, the conventional
crops enjoyed all the nutrient-enhancing and plant-health benefits of
heightened soil quality from prior organic soil management. Given the series
of studies published in the U.S. in the last three years pointing to soil quality
enhancement in organic systems as the major cause, or explanation of
observed differences in nutritional quality, it is not surprising that this Danish
study found no statistically significant difference in mineral levels in the
organic and "conventional" crops that were harvested and fed to the rats.
In addition, the organic plots were grown under limited nitrogen, whereas the
conventional crop was not. On the basis of the criteria the Center developed
to judge the scientific validity of comparison studies, and used in completing
our March 2008 report on the nutrient content of organic food,
http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126
this Danish study is clearly "invalid" for purposes of comparing the nutrient
content of conventional and organic foods.

The study was carefully conducted and valid for testing the impacts of the
production conditions embedded in its experimental design, but by virtue
of this design, little weight should be placed on its findings in terms of the
differences in conventional and organic management on crop nutritional
quality.

Source: Mette Kristensen, Lars Ostengaard, Ulrich Halekoh, Henry Jorgensen,
Charlotte Lauridsen, Kirsten Brandt, and Suzanne Bugel. "Effect of plant
cultivation methods on content of major and trace elements in foodstuffs and
retention in rats," Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2008

http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_14091.cfm

Happy? .