Lu Norton

Organic Foods

162 posts in this topic

I do agree with the view that some common "food", e.g., high fructose corn syrup, is a bad thing and should be avoided.

This got my attention. For as long as I can remember, I had suffered from severe, dibilitating indigestion until I eliminated this additive from my diet (a hard thing to do because it is in just about every kind of food product imaginable - from breads to processed meats).

I've brought this up with my personal physician, and he was not very receptive to my conclusion that corn syrup was the culprit. I told him that I had severe reactions to products such as Prego and Ragu, which contain corn syrup, and he said it was probably due to the tomatoes as they were very acidic. He had no response when I told him that I had no problems with fresh tomatoes or Classico tomato sauce, which has no corn syrup, other than there "was no literature on this."

I have tested many products, taking note of the active ingrediants, and there is no doubt in my mind that ingesting any form of corn syrup is a problem for me. I had concluded that this was unique to me as allergic reactions to such things as peanuts are to others. So, I wondered why you said "high fructose corn syrup is a bad thing." Could you elaborate on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with the view that some common "food", e.g., high fructose corn syrup, is a bad thing and should be avoided.
Could you elaborate on this?

HFCS is now believed to be a major cause of obesity and the causal mechanisms are well-understood. This article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (link) sums up the findings:

Obesity is a major epidemic, but its causes are still unclear. In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group. HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with the view that some common "food", e.g., high fructose corn syrup, is a bad thing and should be avoided.
Could you elaborate on this?

HFCS is now believed to be a major cause of obesity and the causal mechanisms are well-understood. This article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (link) sums up the findings:

Obesity is a major epidemic, but its causes are still unclear. In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group. HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity. The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose. Hepatic metabolism of fructose favors de novo lipogenesis. In addition, unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain. Furthermore, calorically sweetened beverages may enhance caloric overconsumption. Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.

This does not sound like they have concluded much of anything as of yet. From the studies I have seen, along with my own clients, I think it is much more important to control the totality of calories more than where they come from. As a matter of fact, in one of the last studies I read the main cause of the weight gain shown in the study was because of overfeeding of carbohydtrates in which they "massively exceeded" daily recommended amounts of total calories. And in the same study when the calories were kept within prescribed limits the study showed no gain in fat no matter what type of sugars they were. Humans can gain fat from eating to much of any macronutrient, carbohydrates, proteins or fat. And as a matter of fact, a lot of the diabetics and fat people that I meet, eat almost all protein.

Now, I am not saying that we should be shoveling down HFCS in an irrational way or at all if you do not like them. I am just stating that man is omnivorous and we can enjoy almost anything within rational proportions. If people want to stay away from obesity and diabetes they would do much better by eating small meals often, keeping those meals to less than 500 calories and around 300 would produce even better results and finally drink water throughout the whole day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the truth is there if you will just run scientific experiments with your body:

If you carefully track your food intake, strength/athleticism, weight and how much fat you are carrying (a snapshot of your tummy region every month or two works) you will find that you explode just about every supposed truth in the realm of diet and nutrition.

Example: Ever since late August I have been eating pretty much nothing but McDonald's burgers and children's cereal (Cocoa Pebbles), yet during that time I've actually trimmed off some fat, because I've consistently held my food intake at about 400 calories/meal. Conversely I have noticeably gained fat during time periods when I was eating larger, "healthier" home-cooked meals!

The strongest I have ever been was during a time period when I completely abandoned even monitoring my protein intake, and some days I was probably only eating 40-50grams/day (when the standard for my size is 60-70g, and bodybuilders will say I should eat 100-200g/day!). Conversely, not once over the last 3 years has the supplementation of protein boosted my strength in any measurable way, and if anything it just made me fatter.

After carefully watching my health and fitness the only thing I've found is that carbs, fats and protein should be eaten within proper proportions in a given meal with respect to each other, and that it is how much you eat and not what you eat that determines what kind of physical shape you are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...carbs, fats and protein should be eaten within proper proportions in a given meal with respect to each other...

For an example of this, I noticed that I could eat a 400 calorie meal of this high fiber breakfast cereal, but then be hungry in as little as 2 hours afterwards. What I noticed was that the cereal had very little fat in it, and combined with a low fat milk it meant I was getting a meal that consisted mostly of carbs and protein, with little fat comparatively. By reducing the size of the cereal and adding in some peanut butter on the side (something rich in fat) I found I would go longer without getting hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Example: Ever since late August I have been eating pretty much nothing but McDonald's burgers and children's cereal (Cocoa Pebbles), yet during that time I've actually trimmed off some fat, because I've consistently held my food intake at about 400 calories/meal. Conversely I have noticeably gained fat during time periods when I was eating larger, "healthier" home-cooked meals!

I've also found calorie intake to be the key to managing weight, but weight isn't a sufficient indicator of health. I'd have to have evidence that it made no difference to your general health whether you ate McDonald's burgers or more nutritious foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Example: Ever since late August I have been eating pretty much nothing but McDonald's burgers and children's cereal (Cocoa Pebbles), yet during that time I've actually trimmed off some fat, because I've consistently held my food intake at about 400 calories/meal. Conversely I have noticeably gained fat during time periods when I was eating larger, "healthier" home-cooked meals!

I've also found calorie intake to be the key to managing weight, but weight isn't a sufficient indicator of health. I'd have to have evidence that it made no difference to your general health whether you ate McDonald's burgers or more nutritious foods.

Does not over 15 years of eating what ever it is that I enjoy give you a sufficient indicator of health, which is longer than most studies. At 40, I average a total cholesterol level of 146, I have an average blood pressure of 100/60, my average pulse rate is 50 and my blood sugar level averages 80. I also have had hundreds of clients, which includes my wife, over the last 8+ years that have all moved toward what most would consider healthy numbers in the fields that I mentioned while eating and exercising in accordance to the principles I mention. These same clients have gained bone mineral density, gained muscle/lean body tissue and increased their flexibility and their ability to funciton.

Like Jordan, I have had times in my past (from 17-21) where I have gained fat from eating almost all protein. As a matter of fact, if someone takes a look at the picture of me on my website they will see me at my heaviest of 225 pounds. I balloned up to that weight while taking in about 85% protein, mostly tuna fish and egg whites. I now eat what ever I enjoy, I do eat in accordance to the 3 fundamentals that I have mentioned multiple times before, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.

In my experience and in agreement with what some of you have said, the only way to determine what works for my individual health and well-being is empirical testing.

On an approximately 1,250-calorie per day omnivorous diet, I was satisfied and lost weight but was unhealthy. Though stress had a lot to do with it, I've found that certain foods act as stressors on me as much as stressful situations do.

Years ago, I eliminated wheat and stopped having some fairly serious health problems. Now when I eat some wheat, I know what will happen. Three hours later I'll be asleep and the next day I'll feel like I'm coming out of anesthesia. I do eat sugar- and wheat-based treats once in a while but with the knowledge that I'll have a reaction.

Then I eliminated dairy and my feeling of well-being soared. The downside is that ice cream now tastes like lard. Chocolate, which I used to love, usually tastes like greasy ashes and the thought of eating a candy bar is nauseating.

Recently I tried eliminating all grain and most legumes. Again, my well-being and energy increased. I do use some soy milk in my tea because I can't get used to having it black, but it's only a habit--the soy milk itself tastes pretty bad. When I was eating legumes regularly, it tasted okay.

That doesn't seem to leave me much to eat, does it? If what I eat for the rest of my life is mostly meat, fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and nuts, to me that's a fair trade-off because my health is so much better.

I've learned that that combination of foods is called the paleo diet, but I'm not advocating that or any type of specialized diet. This is what works for me now.

A few months ago, my lab results were excellent except for rather high cholesterol, which I attribute partly to continuing stress, to which I seem to be particularly sensitive physically. I'm interested in what will happen to the cholesterol now that I'm off grain and legumes.

If I notice negative health changes while I'm eating like this, I'll start tinkering again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few months ago, my lab results were excellent except for rather high cholesterol, which I attribute partly to continuing stress, to which I seem to be particularly sensitive physically. I'm interested in what will happen to the cholesterol now that I'm off grain and legumes.

A study done on stress and cholesterol level increases within one profession found some interesting results. Certified Public Accountants were tracked for months that included tax season. During the months of tax season the researchers found that the CPA's cholesterol levels constantly increased even though they had no change to their "normal" daily intake of food and calories. When the stress of tax season was gone the CPA's cholesterol levels once again went back down to what was considered normal.

I once had a client that was a mortgage broker who had excessively demanding days during the last week of every month. While trying to buy a new insurance policy she had to take a physical and although she had gotten into great shape her cholesterol level came back high. She came in the following week and told me of the situation which was the beginning of the next month. I told her why this happens and suggested she get retested the following week, her score was outstanding and the insurance policy was cheaper. Do not underestimate what strees can do to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Ray, thanks, I'm familiar with these findings.

I work in publications and have at least one April 15th per month. With that and my personal projects, I'm pretty much staring at a computer screen all day under time constraints, probably much the same as a lot of people do.

My Absolute is that great deity, Deadline. Maybe I need to become more Zen. :angry2:

Seriously, I do experience the lack of movement as a stressor and exercise helps me relax. We have a little gym in the house and I love the Bowflex but lately, instead of taking a block of time, I've been doing up to a couple of hundred Hindu squats a couple of times a week in bursts of 25 to 50, with a smaller number done on other days. They really energize me.

Scan a page, do squats. Wait for the kettle to boil, do squats.

Are you familiar with that exercise? Do you think it's useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you familiar with that exercise? Do you think it's useful?

I guess it matters what you are doing it for. Physically, it does the body very little good to do activities that are well within our resources if what we want is to stimulate an adaptation. Mentally, it might allow you to take your mind off of that which is stressing you, although I would advise choosing something else that is much more relaxing. Doing things that are well within our resources to do will never be of a high enough intensity to cause a physical adaptation. If it is intense enough to stiimulate a change it would, by it's very nature, have to be short in duration and infrequent, to allow for the change to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Example: Ever since late August I have been eating pretty much nothing but McDonald's burgers and children's cereal (Cocoa Pebbles), yet during that time I've actually trimmed off some fat, because I've consistently held my food intake at about 400 calories/meal.
You're not the only one with a similar experience. For about four weeks this fall, I ate virtually nothing but a supersized McDonald's meal every evening. They had a promotion here in which they gave you a nice colored Coca-Cola glass for every supersized meal you bought. I just moved into a new apartment and I needed glasses, so I went for it. I always ate the McDonald's meal with a big appetite, but I wasn't hungry the rest of the day, so I didn't eat much else. Four weeks later, I had dozens of beautiful glasses ... but I needed to buy new clothes, because all my old ones were too big!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you carefully track your food intake, strength/athleticism, weight and how much fat you are carrying (a snapshot of your tummy region every month or two works) you will find that you explode just about every supposed truth in the realm of diet and nutrition.

From what i've gathered the supposed truths I think you are reffering to are just bad, and sometimes even dishonest, interpretations of scientific research. In many cases when you read nutritional advice the studies presented to support that are picked just to support the authors thesis, and often times when you look at the actual studies you'll notice they are misinterpreted. Then there are also some studies that are just horribly bad, I have for example seen several studies where the results contradict the conclusion.

The most fundamental truth here though is the relationship between energy intake and energy expenditure. If you spend more energy than you take in you are going to loose weight. So it's possible to loose weight eating any kind of food, just not any amount of that food. The of course there are some foods, or combination of foods, that will make it easier and healthier than others. I would for example not consider McDonald's food ideal because it's not very nutritious and you easily get alot of calories from it(my meals are usually around 3000-4000 calories there, and that's almost double my preferred daily intake).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would for example not consider McDonald's food ideal because it's not very nutritious
What is the difference between the bread, pickles, cheese and ground meat that goes into a McDonald's hamburger as compared to the very same ingredients that would go into a "healthy" home-cooked meal?
and you easily get alot of calories from it(my meals are usually around 3000-4000 calories there, and that's almost double my preferred daily intake).
A burger, medium cola, and fries would probably be 1000-2000 calories. Why not just eat the burger and drink a water, or split a burger and fries between a friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would for example not consider McDonald's food ideal because it's not very nutritious
What is the difference between the bread, pickles, cheese and ground meat that goes into a McDonald's hamburger as compared to the very same ingredients that would go into a "healthy" home-cooked meal?

The difference between that and my own home-cooked meals is that I don't eat white bread, I have more vegetables, and generally just more unprocessed foods. Of course the ingredients themselves are not bad because they happen to be in a McDonald's burger. Then i'm sure you can have more veggies there if you like, so McDonald's food is of course not intrinsically evil.

Why not just eat the burger and drink a water, or split a burger and fries between a friend?

I only drink diet Coke. But to answer your question; because that would only make me more hungry. I realise of course that it's not a problem for everyone, the point is though that it's easy to overeat on foods that are high in fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would for example not consider McDonald's food ideal because it's not very nutritious
What is the difference between the bread, pickles, cheese and ground meat that goes into a McDonald's hamburger as compared to the very same ingredients that would go into a "healthy" home-cooked meal?

The difference between that and my own home-cooked meals is that I don't eat white bread, I have more vegetables, and generally just more unprocessed foods. Of course the ingredients themselves are not bad because they happen to be in a McDonald's burger. Then i'm sure you can have more veggies there if you like, so McDonald's food is of course not intrinsically evil.

Granted there could likely be a difference between white and wheat bread, but most people who eat home cooked meals won't eat whole grain carbs anyways.

Why is more veggies good? What is it about vegetables that are so healthy? What exactly is processed vs unprocessed foods, and why is it bad?

Why not just eat the burger and drink a water, or split a burger and fries between a friend?

I only drink diet Coke. But to answer your question; because that would only make me more hungry. I realise of course that it's not a problem for everyone, the point is though that it's easy to overeat on foods that are high in fat.

I don't follow you on this one I guess. I just eat a 300-400 calorie meal every 3-5 hours or when I get hungry. By eating smaller meals I do need to eat more often than if I ate one giant meal, but counter-intuitively you will lose weight by eating this way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would for example not consider McDonald's food ideal because it's not very nutritious
What is the difference between the bread, pickles, cheese and ground meat that goes into a McDonald's hamburger as compared to the very same ingredients that would go into a "healthy" home-cooked meal?

The difference between that and my own home-cooked meals is that I don't eat white bread, I have more vegetables, and generally just more unprocessed foods. Of course the ingredients themselves are not bad because they happen to be in a McDonald's burger. Then i'm sure you can have more veggies there if you like, so McDonald's food is of course not intrinsically evil.

Granted there could likely be a difference between white and wheat bread, but most people who eat home cooked meals won't eat whole grain carbs anyways.

Why is more veggies good? What is it about vegetables that are so healthy? What exactly is processed vs unprocessed foods, and why is it bad?

That's true, what most people cook is not necessarily any better than McDonald's.

Veggies are good for nutrients and anti-oxidants, and they have a low energy density. The term unprocessed foods is a bit vague, what i'm mostly reffering to are whole grain products and foods without too much added sugar(for example I prefer making my own orange juice). The point is to have food that is rich in nutrients but without any unecessary calories.

I don't follow you on this one I guess. I just eat a 300-400 calorie meal every 3-5 hours or when I get hungry. By eating smaller meals I do need to eat more often than if I ate one giant meal, but counter-intuitively you will lose weight by eating this way!

I also prefer smaller meals. Regarding McDonald's food though, atleast the more typical meals, it seem to have a low satiety index and there's a lot of fat, so it's easy to eat too much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too enjoy having smaller meals more often. The main difficulty is that this is contrary to the way most people eat, so it's not the way food is prepared. If you're not cooking the food yourself (and believe it or not, I don't really enjoy cooking), this limits your options to eating parts of meals. That's what I find less satisfying. I enjoy eating just a hamburger less than eating a hamburger and fries. So if given the option I will go for the smaller sandwich, just so it's not the only thing on my plate.

By the way, I don't share the conviction that it matters what you eat - I just don't have a conviction that it doesn't matter. I know that the dietary advice you usually hear is pretty silly. I remember reading that if you do go out and get a burger, make sure it's got lettuce and a tomato on it. Um, is that supposed to negate the fat content of the burger?? And frankly, I don't care for veggies, I never did. But I'm healthier than most people (get sick less often and less seriously) despite not eating them (for the most part). What it comes down to is, I am very skeptical of any dietary advice that I have not personally been able to confirm, because I think a lot of it out there is just pompous garbage. I would rather just eat whatever I like.

However, not knowing what is truth from fiction I try to select foods I like that are "healthier" as advertised. Such as, I will get English Muffins that are whole grain, or watch sodium content (which in the very least, I know makes me retain water), and limit fat. So on the flip side, I am hesitant to just say - not being a nutritionist or having the background to seriously evaluate the claims of nutritionists - "the hell with it" and completely ignore their advice. It depends on the tradeoff. If it's a food I will like, and they say it's healthy, I'll eat it. If it's a food I don't like, healthy or not, you won't find it on my plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Veggies are good for nutrients and anti-oxidants, and they have a low energy density. The term unprocessed foods is a bit vague, what i'm mostly reffering to are whole grain products and foods without too much added sugar(for example I prefer making my own orange juice). The point is to have food that is rich in nutrients but without any unecessary calories.

Is there any evidence though that a nutrient/anti-oxidant rich diet will actually yield better health? I've dug around on the internet and I've never found a single convincing study that increasing your anti-oxidant intake actually improves your health or reduces your chance of bad health. The most I've ever ever found were vague studies where a correlation was discovered between healthier people and the consumption of anti-oxidants, but it was completely unclear as to whether the anti-oxidants were actually causing the good health, or if it is simply that the kind of people who focus on getting their anti-oxidants already live a healthy lifestyle in general. And in fact, I've even read studies where increased consumption of Vitamin E was associated with a higher risk of death and health problems! :angry2:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think it is necessarily the case that we even have to focus on maximizing our nutrient intake to begin with, and I would need to see some seriously convincing studies to make me consider otherwise. (Perhaps if you lived on a diet of entirely white rice and lettuce I could see the need for taking a multivitamin or something though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading that if you do go out and get a burger, make sure it's got lettuce and a tomato on it. Um, is that supposed to negate the fat content of the burger??

:angry2:

I've noticed that many people seem to approach diet in this accountant attitude where all that matters is all the positives and negatives add up to as near zero as possible. "Well, I'm drinking a large chocolate milk-shake, but it's made with soy! I'm eating a burger, but I'm having a salad as an appetizer. I'm also eating a roll, but it's made with flax seed..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding McDonald's food though, atleast the more typical meals, it seem to have a low satiety index and there's a lot of fat, so it's easy to eat too much of it.

But satiety is a function of fat content. That's what makes it hard to overeat on foods with a lot of fat. This was the whole argument behind the Atkins Diet* and has been part of the explanation for the fact that the French remain fit even though they consume amounts of fat per bite that are unthinkable to most Americans .

*Many people I know have followed this diet properly (forget the common perception of this diet as it's based on the guidelines for the first two weeks.) They've lost a lot of weight, show healthier blood numbers, feel more energetic with far less mood and energy-level swings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any evidence though that a nutrient/anti-oxidant rich diet will actually yield better health? I've dug around on the internet and I've never found a single convincing study that increasing your anti-oxidant intake actually improves your health or reduces your chance of bad health. The most I've ever ever found were vague studies where a correlation was discovered between healthier people and the consumption of anti-oxidants, but it was completely unclear as to whether the anti-oxidants were actually causing the good health, or if it is simply that the kind of people who focus on getting their anti-oxidants already live a healthy lifestyle in general. And in fact, I've even read studies where increased consumption of Vitamin E was associated with a higher risk of death and health problems! :angry2:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think it is necessarily the case that we even have to focus on maximizing our nutrient intake to begin with, and I would need to see some seriously convincing studies to make me consider otherwise. (Perhaps if you lived on a diet of entirely white rice and lettuce I could see the need for taking a multivitamin or something though)

Well, there's no study more convincing than the testimony of actual people. Apart from my own experience, my girlfriend's, and the experience of several other people who've taken the ETL approach seriously, there are hundreds of people in the member section of DrFuhrman.com who are improving their health in leaps and bounds.

Here are four stories from the "Success Stories" section. I chose these because they come with pictures.

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=32

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=226

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=60

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=34

I think Burgess Laughlin has also written lengthy accounts of his own success with a nutrient-based approach. I'm surprised your digging didn't come up with his post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any evidence though that a nutrient/anti-oxidant rich diet will actually yield better health? I've dug around on the internet and I've never found a single convincing study that increasing your anti-oxidant intake actually improves your health or reduces your chance of bad health. The most I've ever ever found were vague studies where a correlation was discovered between healthier people and the consumption of anti-oxidants, but it was completely unclear as to whether the anti-oxidants were actually causing the good health, or if it is simply that the kind of people who focus on getting their anti-oxidants already live a healthy lifestyle in general. And in fact, I've even read studies where increased consumption of Vitamin E was associated with a higher risk of death and health problems! :angry2:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think it is necessarily the case that we even have to focus on maximizing our nutrient intake to begin with, and I would need to see some seriously convincing studies to make me consider otherwise. (Perhaps if you lived on a diet of entirely white rice and lettuce I could see the need for taking a multivitamin or something though)

Well, there's no study more convincing than the testimony of actual people. Apart from my own experience, my girlfriend's, and the experience of several other people who've taken the ETL approach seriously, there are hundreds of people in the member section of DrFuhrman.com who are improving their health in leaps and bounds.

Here are four stories from the "Success Stories" section. I chose these because they come with pictures.

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=32

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=226

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=60

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=34

I think Burgess Laughlin has also written lengthy accounts of his own success with a nutrient-based approach. I'm surprised your digging didn't come up with his post.

What about the hundreds of thousands of years worth of our ancestors that lived without large amounts of nutrients? What, might you ask, would have caused man to evolve to the point where he needs large amounts of nutrients to survive when he never recevied them in the past? How, by your standard, is man the only living being that has gotten less efficient and not more?

Does man need nutrients? Yes, but not massive amounts of them and if he did we would have never gotten to this point that we are at now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any evidence though that a nutrient/anti-oxidant rich diet will actually yield better health? I've dug around on the internet and I've never found a single convincing study that increasing your anti-oxidant intake actually improves your health or reduces your chance of bad health. The most I've ever ever found were vague studies where a correlation was discovered between healthier people and the consumption of anti-oxidants, but it was completely unclear as to whether the anti-oxidants were actually causing the good health, or if it is simply that the kind of people who focus on getting their anti-oxidants already live a healthy lifestyle in general. And in fact, I've even read studies where increased consumption of Vitamin E was associated with a higher risk of death and health problems! :angry2:

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think it is necessarily the case that we even have to focus on maximizing our nutrient intake to begin with, and I would need to see some seriously convincing studies to make me consider otherwise. (Perhaps if you lived on a diet of entirely white rice and lettuce I could see the need for taking a multivitamin or something though)

Well, there's no study more convincing than the testimony of actual people. Apart from my own experience, my girlfriend's, and the experience of several other people who've taken the ETL approach seriously, there are hundreds of people in the member section of DrFuhrman.com who are improving their health in leaps and bounds.

Here are four stories from the "Success Stories" section. I chose these because they come with pictures.

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=32

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=226

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=60

https://www.drfuhrman.com/success/SuccessStory.aspx?id=34

I think Burgess Laughlin has also written lengthy accounts of his own success with a nutrient-based approach. I'm surprised your digging didn't come up with his post.

The impression I get from reading the testimonials is that these people used to eat too much. Now they eat less and exercise, and are astounded that they have lost weight and feel better...

If Eat to Live encourages you to

a)eat foods with high nutrient density

b)reduce your calorie intake

c)exercise

and Ray's system encourages you to

a)reduce your calorie intake (per meal)

b)exercise

and both produce great or equal results, what conclusion should we draw from this?

Eat to Live encourages you to consume hefty portions of vegetables and other foods that are nutrient rich, and to eat less of things like dairy or meat. Considering that a bowl of vegetables will have much fewer calories than a bowl of meat or cheese, it really isn't a profound thing if people have lost weight by eating vegetables or other "nutrient rich" foods instead of shoveling equal or greater quantities of calorie rich foods down their throat every day. The bottom line is that their calorie intake per meal and per day was reduced, and that coupled with a more active lifestyle led to higher energy levels, weight loss, and a general boost to health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites