what about us endos?

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Originally posted by G.E.SUPERHUMAN

    hey scotty and others before u start calling people ignorant and ass for stating information that is out there...why dont u all post ur pics so we can see how all this knowledge u supposedly have is working for u...
    its like one of them small skinny personal trainers at every gym trying to tell the big ass powerlifter the proper weight training techniques
    LMAO size doesnt equal knowledge, BUT I can tell you that scotty is well over 200 pounds. Unlike yourself, under 200 thats a damn shame Hell, I dont even know why Im responding to this thread, they make me laugh so hard. Just bored I guess.



  2. Originally posted by Bone

    LMAO size doesnt equal knowledge, BUT I can tell you that scotty is well over 200 pounds. Unlike yourself, under 200 thats a damn shame Hell, I dont even know why Im responding to this thread, they make me laugh so hard. Just bored I guess.


    ...refridgerator perry was over 200 also...

    "Understanding Normal and Clinical Nutrition" by: Eleanor N. Whitney, Corinne Balog Cataldo, Sharon Rady Rolfes

  3. Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics? Get your head out of your ass, cease posting fantasy and read a book.

  4. Originally posted by G.E.SUPERHUMAN

    100-200 is moderate, it become harmfull when ur going like 18g carbs a day daily

    Tell me why and prove it.

    Duke Health Briefs: Low-Carb Diet Effective In Research Study
    DURHAM, N.C. – The high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet popularized by Dr. Robert Atkins has been the subject of heated debate in medical circles for three decades. Now, preliminary research findings at Duke University Medical Center show that a low-carbohydrate diet can indeed lead to significant and sustained weight loss.

    There has recently been a resurgence of diets promoting low carbohydrate intake, but the scientific evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of these diets is limited. This is the first published scientific study of the popular low-carbohydrate Atkins diet in two decades, and research is continuing.

    The study appears in the July 2002 issue of the American Journal of Medicine and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine.

    “Study participants were put on a very low carbohydrate diet of 25 grams per day for six months,” said Eric Westman, M.D., associate professor of medicine at Duke and principal investigator of the study. “They could eat an unlimited amount of meat and eggs, as well as two cups of salad and one cup of low-carbohydrate vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower a day.”
    Researchers found that 80 percent of the 50 enrolled patients adhered to the diet program for the duration of the study and lost an average of 10 percent of their original body weight. The average amount of weight lost per person was approximately 20 pounds.

    “While we’re impressed with the weight loss of this diet, we still are not sure about the safety of it,” Westman said. “More studies need to be done in order to be confident about the long-term safety of this type of diet.”

    For example, all participants developed ketonuria, the presence of measurable ketones in urine. The level seen in this study translates to roughly that of a non-dieting person if they didn’t eat for a couple of days, said Westman. “This is a finding that we need to learn more about. The level of ketones present was not terribly high, but we don’t know if this is safe or harmful to one’s health over a long period of time.”

    The study further showed that patients’ cholesterol levels improved by the end of six months -- a finding that was unexpected, according to Westman.

    “We were somewhat surprised to find that patients’ blood lipid profiles improved, even though there was much more fat in the diet,” he said. “We had thought the fat in the diet would increase the cholesterol."

    Cholesterol is a fat-like substance that circulates in the blood stream and can accumulate to the point of blocking blood vessels and arteries. Having a high level of blood cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.
    Although exercise was recommended, it was not a requirement for the study. Half of the subjects didn't exercise at all and still lost weight, according to the researchers.

    Because of the intensity of this type of diet program, Westman cautions that “if someone has a medical problem or is taking medications, they should only do this diet under the supervision of a health care provider."


    Am J Med 2002 Jul;113(1):30-6 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

    Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.

    Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.

    Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ewestman~duke.edu

    To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters. Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects. Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (+/- SD) body weight decreased 10.3% +/- 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 +/- 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2)). mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% +/- 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 +/- 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 +/- 4 mg/dL (P <0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 +/- 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 +/- 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 +/- 45 mg/dL (P <0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 +/- 8 mg/dL (P <0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 +/- 0.6 units (P <0.001). There were no serious adverse effects , but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period .[/b]Other controlled research is warranted[/b]

    Your right its warranted. So I will give you more!

    Effects of a Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diet

    Program Compared With a Low-Fat, Low-

    Cholesterol, Reduced-Calorie Diet (NASSO

    Young Investigator Award Finalist)

    W. S. Yancy Jr., R. Bakst, W. Bryson, K. F. Tomlin,

    C. E. Perkins, E. C. Westman, Duke University

    Medical Center, Durham, NC

    The Effect of a High Protein Weight Loss Diet

    in Overweight Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes

    P. Clifton, M. Noakes, CSIRO, Adelaide, Australia;

    B. Parker, Department of Medicine, Adelaide

    University, Adelaide, Australia

    The Effect of Protein Intake on Bone

    Mineralisation: A Randomised Controlled 6-

    months Trial in Overweight Subjects

    A. Astrup, A. R. Skov, N. Haulrik, S. Toubro, C.

    Mølgaard, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural

    University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark

    Low Carbohydrate Diet Reduces BMI and

    Fasting Insulin Level in Obese Children

    D. Preud'homme, A. Stolfi, Wright State University

    SOM and Children's Medical Center, Dayton, OH;

    T. Taylor, Children's Medical Center, Dayton, OH

    L. Zarzaur, C. D. Johnson, University of Tennessee,

    Memphis, TN; G. Sacks, K. A. Kudsk, University of

    Wisconsin, Madison, WI

    These represent randomized controlled trial comparing the Atkins Diet with a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate plan that restricted daily caloric intake to 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal for men.[10] The study included 63 obese (BMI 33.8 ± 3.4 kg/m2 ) males and females who were randomized to 1 of the 2 diets. Subjects received an initial session with a dietitian to explain the assigned diet program. At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%) compared with that of the conventional program (30%). In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ± 3.7%) compared with the conventional group (3.7 ± 4.0%). In terms of serum lipids, the Atkins group demonstrated slight increases in total cholesterol (TC; 2.2 ± 16.6%) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (6.6 ± 20.7%), whereas the conventional group showed significant decreases in these measures (TC -8.2 ± 11.5%; LDL -11.1 ± 19.4%). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol significantly increased in the Atkins group (11.5 ± 20.6%) but did not change in the conventional group, whereas triglycerides showed a significant decrease for the Atkins group (-21.7 ± 27.9%) and no change in the conventional group. At 26 weeks, these changes persisted in both groups even though the sample size was smaller. The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol.

    A similar randomized-controlled trial from Duke University was also presented at the conference.[11] The researchers in this study also compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet with a low-fat, low-calorie (LF) program. This study included 120 obese (mean BMI 34 kg/m2) males and females, who all received group treatment for their respective diet programs. At 6 months, both groups had similar rates of attrition, but the LC group lost considerably more weight (13.3 ± 4.6%) compared with the LF group (8.6 ± 5.9%). In addition, the LC group lost significantly more fat mass than the LF group (-9.7 kg for the LC group and -6.4 kg for the LF group). Both groups showed decreases in triglycerides, with the LF group also showing a significant decrease in total cholesterol (-13.5 mg/dL). The LC group showed significant increases in HDL and a significant decrease in Chol/HDL ratio. This pattern of results was similar to those of the 3-center study described above. Longer-term studies are needed to more fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of these popular diet approaches.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  5. High-Protein Diet Enhances Weight Loss

    Laurie Barclay, MD

    Feb. 12, 2003 — A relatively high-protein diet improves body composition, enhances weight loss, and improves glucose and insulin homeostasis, according to two reports from the same study group which appear in the February issue of the &lt;I&gt;Journal of Nutrition&lt;/I&gt;.

    "Amino acids interact with glucose metabolism both as carbon substrates and by recycling glucose carbon via alanine and glutamine; however, the effect of protein intake on glucose homeostasis during weight loss remains unknown," write Donald K. Layman and colleagues from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    In this study, 24 adult women who were more than 15% above ideal body weight were assigned to either a predominantly protein diet or a predominantly carbohydrate diet. The protein diet included 1.6 g/kg/day protein, with less than 40% of energy coming from carbohydrate, while the carbohydrate diet included 0.8 g/kg/day protein, with more than 55% of energy coming from carbohydrate. Both diets were equal in calories (7100 kJ/day) and in fat (50 g/day).

    After 10 weeks, weight loss was 7.53 ± 1.44 kg in the protein group and 6.96 ± 1.36 kg in the carbohydrate group. Subjects in the carbohydrate group had lower fasting (4.34 ± 0.10 vs. 4.89 ± 0.11 mmol/L) and postprandial blood glucose (3.77 ± 0.14 vs. 4.33 ± 0.15 mmol/L) and an elevated insulin response to meals (207 ± 21 vs. 75 ± 18 pmol/L).

    "This study demonstrates that consumption of a diet with increased protein and a reduced carbohydrate/protein ratio stabilizes blood glucose during nonabsorptive periods and reduces the postprandial insulin response," the authors write.

    According to a second report from the same study group, "claims about the merits or risks of carbohydrate vs. protein for weight loss diets are extensive, yet the ideal ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein for adult health and weight management remains unknown."

    In this study, 24 women were assigned to either a predominantly carbohydrate diet containing 68 g/day protein with a carbohydrate/protein ratio of 3.5, or to a predominantly protein diet containing 125 g/day protein with a ratio of 1.4. Each diet provided 7100 kJ/day and approximately 50 g/day of fat. Age range was 45 to 56 years and body mass indices were greater than 26 kg/m&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;.

    After 10 weeks, weight loss was 6.96 ± 1.36 kg in the carbohydrate group and 7.53 ± 1.44 kg in the protein group. Compared with the carbohydrate group, weight loss in the protein group had an increased ratio of fat to muscle loss (6.3 ± 1.2 g/g vs. 3.8 ± 0.9 g/g). Serum cholesterol reduction was approximately 10% in both groups, but only the protein group had significant reductions in triacylglycerols (TAG; 21%) and in the ratio of TAG to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (23%).

    "This study demonstrates that increasing the proportion of protein to carbohydrate in the diet of adult women has positive effects on body composition, blood lipids, glucose homeostasis and satiety during weight loss," the authors write. "Although it is unlikely that any one diet will be ideal for all individuals, these results indicate that changes in the ratio of protein to carbohydrate toward a higher protein diet can be effective in the control of body weight with parallel improvements in blood lipids."

    The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Kraft Foods helped support this study.

    J Nutr. 2003;133:405-410, 411-417


  6. “While we’re impressed with the weight loss of this diet, we still are not sure about the safety of it,” Westman said. “More studies need to be done in order to be confident about the long-term safety of this type of diet.”

    For example, all participants developed ketonuria, the presence of measurable ketones in urine. The level seen in this study translates to roughly that of a non-dieting person if they didn’t eat for a couple of days, said Westman. “This is a finding that we need to learn more about. The level of ketones present was not terribly high, but we don’t know if this is safe or harmful to one’s health over a long period of time.”

    an all protien diet is obviously not the best thing for ur kidneys

  7. Originally posted by G.E.SUPERHUMAN
    an all protien diet is obviously not the best thing for ur kidneys [/B]
    Where the **** did you read this, this diet is not an all protein diet.

  8. Bad for the kidneys? Let me guess. You studied Nutrition in College where they still teach those age old decrepit myths.

    Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP


    This paper is a response to “High-Protein Diets--Are You Losing More Than Weight?” by Monique Gilbert. The article appeared in the American Naturopathic Medical Association’s quarterly publication MONITOR (vol.5, #4, 2001) and is posted at http://www.anma.com.

    In the December issue of the Monitor, there was an unreferenced article by a self-styled “health advocate” named Monique Gilbert that deserves considerable comment for the large amount of errors and misinformation it contained. “High-Protein Diets--Are You Losing More Than Weight?” is little more than a vegan and soy propaganda piece. If the propaganda were accurate, one could forgive Ms. Gilbert for her zeal. In this case, however, it is not and inaccuracies cost lives.

    Clinically, I have used low-carbohydrate, high fat and protein diets to very good effect, especially with those conditions that are worsened by excessive carbohydrate intake, e.g., diabetes, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and heart disease. When properly practiced, low-carb diets are not harmful. Furthermore, if one were to follow Ms. Gilbert’s dubious nutritional advice as given in her article, one would actually increase one’s chances of contracting a number of debilitating diseases such as cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and diabetes.

    Gilbert begins her piece by rightly pointing out the vital need for protein in the human diet. Unfortunately, the errors begin creeping in shortly thereafter. She states that, “Excessive protein consumption, particularly animal protein, can result in heart disease, stroke, osteoporosis, and kidney stones.” Though she does not list it, Gilbert would no doubt include cancer as a disease caused by animal protein intake. As I stated at the beginning, the article is unreferenced so these claims have no backing. I have no idea where Gilbert got her “facts” from, but it is certainly not from the scientific literature.

    It is excessive carbohydrate intake, not protein or animal protein intake, that can result in heart disease and cancer (1). Readers should note that the type of diet Gilbert advocates in her article is a high carbohydrate one because that is exactly what diets that are low in protein and fat are. Furthermore, the idea that animal products, specifically protein, cholesterol, and saturated fatty acids, somehow factor in causing atherosclerosis, stroke, and/or heart disease is a popular idea that is not supported by available data, including the field of lipid biochemistry (2).

    The claim that animal protein intake causes calcium loss from the bones is another popular nutritional myth that has no backing in nutritional science. The studies that supposedly showed protein to cause calcium loss in the urine were NOT done with real, whole foods, but with isolated amino acids and fractionated protein powders (3). When studies were done with people eating meat with its fat, NO calcium loss was detected in the urine, even over a long period of time (3). Other studies have confirmed that meat eating does not affect calcium balance (4) and that protein promotes stronger bones (5). Furthermore, the saturated fats that Gilbert thinks are so evil are actually required for proper calcium deposition in the bones (6).

    The reason why the amino acids and fat-free protein powders caused calcium loss while the meat/fat did not is because protein, calcium, and minerals, require the fat-soluble vitamins A and D for their assimilation and utilization by the body. When protein is consumed without these factors, it upsets the normal biochemistry of the body and mineral loss results (7). True vitamin A and full-complex vitamin D are only found in animal fats.

    If the protein-causes-osteoporosis theory teaches us anything, it is to avoid fractionated foods (like soy protein isolate, something Gilbert would no doubt encourage readers to consume given her zeal for soy) and isolated amino acids, and to eat meat with its fat. New evidence shows that men and women who ate the most animal protein had better bone mass compared to those who avoided it (8) and that vegan diets (most likely also advocated by Gilbert) place women at a greater risk for osteoporosis (9).

    The claim that protein intake leads to kidney stones is another popular myth that is not supported by the facts. Although protein restricted diets are helpful for people who have kidney disease, eating meat does not cause kidney problems (10). Furthermore, the fat-soluble vitamins and saturated fatty acids found in animal foods are pivotal for properly functioning kidneys (11).

    Gilbert’s explanation as to how meat supposedly “acidifies” the blood, leading to greater mineral loss in the urine is also incorrect. Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorus in meat can form an acid when placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually, meat provides complete proteins and vitamin D (if the fat or skin is eaten), both of which are needed to maintain proper acid-alkaline balance in the body. Furthermore, in a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6 and restricts simple sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones (12). Animal foods like pork, beef, lamb, and fish are good sources of both nutrients as any food and nutrient content table will show. It also goes without saying that high protein/fat and low-carbohydrate diets are devoid of sugar.

    Gilbert’s contention that the weight loss on high-protein diets is mostly from water loss is strange given that low-carb proponents like Robert Atkins, MD, tell their devotees to drink lots of water while on the diet. Initially, there is a water loss (as with any diet), but the high water intake afterwards would certainly offset any more drastic “water losses.”

    She further claims that weight loss occurs on high protein/fat diets because the person eats less food because he or she gets fuller faster on fat. Given that fat has more than twice as many calories than either protein or carbohydrate, this explanation is far from satisfactory. In other words, you may not eat as many carbohydrates as you did before you went on the high protein diet, but because you’re ingesting more fat, which has over twice as many calories as carbohydrate, your actual caloric intake is likely to stay the same or be higher than it was before.

    Gilbert’s claim that , “Plant-based proteins, like that [sic] found in soy, lowers [sic] LDL cholesterol and raises HDL (good) cholesterol. This prevents the build up of arterial plaque which leads to atherosclerosis . . . and heart disease, thus reducing the risk [of] heart attack and stroke,” is yet another nutritional fantasy in her article that, although popular, is not true. The HDL/LDL theory has been thoroughly debunked by a number of prominent researchers (13) and LDL serves many useful functions in the body--there is nothing “bad” about it (14). Cholesterol is actually used by the body as an antioxidant (15); vegetarian diets do not protect against atherosclerosis or heart disease (16); and female vegans have higher rates of death from heart disease than female meat eaters (17).

    Gilbert’s contention that, “Vegetable-protein diets enhance calcium retention in the body,” is simply wrong as “vegetable proteins” do not contain the fat-soluble vitamins A and D which are needed to assimilate calcium (and protein and other minerals). Furthermore, numerous plant compounds like oxalates and phytates inhibit calcium absorption. Unfermented soy products, in particular, are noted for their high phytic acid content and phytates block mineral absorption (18). Soybeans and soy food products are also noted for their high oxalic acid content as a recent study showed (19). The authors of this study concluded that soybeans and soy foods (as well as some other legumes like lentils) should not be eaten by people with a history of oxalate kidney stones.

    Gilbert’s recommendation for us to replace vegetable protein for animal protein and unsaturated fats “like olive and canola oils” for saturated fats, is dubious at best and dangerous at worst. A number of recent and prior studies catalog the veritable witches brew of toxins found in processed soy products (20) and canola oil has caused vitamin E deficiencies in lab animals (21). Canola oil is also quite susceptible to rancidity due to its high level of alpha-linolenic acid; in the deodorization process used with canola oil, harmful trans-fatty acids are created (22). Are Gilbert’s recommendations sound or sane for health-conscious people?

    Lastly, studies have not borne out the claims that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than the general population. A large study on vegetarian California 7th Day Adventists showed that, while the Adventists had slightly lower rates for some cancers, their rates of malignant melanoma; Hodgkin’s disease; and uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and brain cancers were higher than the general population, some quite significantly. In the paper, the authors wrote that,

    Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a
    higher [cancer] risk.

    And that,

    No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption of animal fats or animal products in general was noted. (23)

    Indeed, Dr. Emmanuel Cheraskin’s survey of 1040 dentists and their wives showed that those with the fewest health problems as measured by the Cornell Medical Index had the MOST protein in their diets (24).

    The facts are that high-protein diets, when consumed in balance with enough water, fat and fat-soluble vitamins, and nutritional factors from non-starchy vegetables, ARE healthy. They are not guilty of the things Gilbert blames on them. Minimally processed animal foods like beef and lamb are healthy foods that are rich in a number of nutrients that protect and enhance several body systems: taurine; carnitine; creatine; glutathione; vitamins A; D; several of the B-complex, including B6 and B12; minerals like chromium, magnesium, sulphur, iron, zinc, and phosphorus; complete proteins; and coenzyme Q10, needed for a healthy heart.

    If readers want to get an accurate assessment of lower-carbohydrate diets, they should check out reliable books on the subject (25) and not fatuous articles about them by misinformed individuals like Monique Gilbert.

    For more reading on low-carbohydrate diets, click here!


    1. F. Jeppesen and others. Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in post-menopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr, 1997; 65:1027-1033. Mensink and Katan. Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 27 trials. Arterio Thromb, 1992, 12:911-9; I. Zavaroni and others. Risk factors for coronary artery disease in healthy persons with hyperinsulinemia and normal glucose tolerance. New Eng J Med, 1989, Mar 16, 320702-6; J. Witte and others. Diet and premenopausal bilateral breast cancer: a case control study. Breast Canc Res & Treat, 1997, 42:243-251; S. Francheschi and others. Intake of macronutrients and risk for breast cancer. Lancet, 1996, 347:1351-6; S. Francheschi and others. Food groups and risk of colo-rectal cancer in Italy. Inter J Canc, 1997, 72:56-61; Seely, and others. Diet Related Diseases--The Modern Epidemic (AVI Publishing; CT), 1985, 190-200; WJ Lutz. The colonisation of Europe and our Western diseases. Med Hypoth 1995, 45:115-120; D. Forman. Meat and cancer: a relation in search of a mechanism. The Lancet. 1999;353:686-7

    2. Uffe Ravnskov. The Cholesterol Myths (New Trends Publishing; Washington, D.C.), 2000; Mary Enig. Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer on Fats and Cholesterol (Bethesda Press; Maryland), 2000, 76-81; Russell Smith and Edward Pinckney. Diet, Blood Cholesterol, and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature (Vector Enterprises; California), 1991; The Cholesterol Conspiracy (Warren Greene, Inc.; USA), 1991; Stephen Byrnes. Diet and Heart Disease: Its NOT What You Think, (Whitman Books; 2001), 25-52; George V. Mann, ed. Coronary Heart Disease: The Dietary Sense and Nonsense, (Veritas Society; London), 1993.

    3. H. Spencer and L. Kramer. Factors contributing to osteoporosis. J of Nutr, 1986, 116:316-319; Further studies of the effect of a high protein diet as meat on calcium metabolism. Amer J Clin Nutr., 1983, 37:6: 924-9.

    4. J. Hunt and others. High-versus low meat diets: Effects on zinc absorption, iron status, and calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc balance in postmenopausal women. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1995, 62:621-32; Spencer, Osis, and Kramer, Do protein and phosphorus cause calcium loss? J Nutr 1988 Jun;118(6):657-60.

    5. C. Cooper, and others. Dietary protein and bone mass in women. Calcif Tiss. Int., 1996, 58:320-5.

    6. BA Watkins and others. Importance of vitamin E in bone formation and in chondrocyte function. American Oil Chemists Society Proceedings, 1996, at Purdue University; “Food Lipids and Bone Health” in Food Lipids and Health, McDonald and Min, Editors, (Marcel Dekker Co.; NY), 1996.

    7. S. Fallon and M. Enig. Dem bones--do high protein diets cause osteoporosis? Wise Traditions, 2000, 1:4:38-41. Also posted at http://www.westonaprice.org

    8. RG Munger and others. Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69:1:147-52; MT Hannan and others. Effect of dietary protein on bone loss in elderly men and women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study. J Bone & Min Res, 2000, 15:2504-2512.

    9. Chiu JF; Lan SJ; Yang CY, and others. Long-term vegetarian diet and bone mineral density in postmenopausal Taiwanese women. Calcif Tissue Int, 1997; 60: 245-9; EM Lau, T Kwok, J Woo, and others. Bone mineral density in Chinese elderly female vegetarians, vegans, lacto-vegetarians and omnivores. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52:60-4.

    10. J. Dwyer and others. Diet, indicators of kidney disease, and late mortality among older persons in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Amer J of Pub Health, 1994, 848): 1299-1303.

    11. M. Enig. Saturated fats and the kidneys. Wise Traditions, 2000, 1:3:49. Posted at http://www.westonaprice.org.

    12. V. Rattan and others. Effect of combined supplementation of magnesium oxide and pyrodoxine in calcium-oxalate stone formers. Urol Res, 1994, 22(3):161-5; NJ Blacklock. Sucrose and idiopathic renal stone. Nutr Health, 1987, 5(1): 9-17. ++++++++

    13. See references for note number two.

    14. M. Enig. Know Your Fats, 258.

    15. E. Cranton and JP Frackelton. J of Holistic Med, 1984, Spring/Summer, 6-37.

    16. Russell Smith, op cit.; L. Corr and M. Oliver. The low-fat/cholesterol diet is ineffective. Eur Heart J, 1997, 18:18-22; F. McGill and others. Results of the International Atherosclerosis Project. Clin Lab Invest, 1968, 185):498; Herrmann, Schorr, Purschwitz, Rassoul, Richter. Total homocysteine, vitamin B (12), and total antioxidant status in vegetarians. Clin Chem 2001 Jun;47(6):1094-101; EA Enas. Coronary artery disease epidemic in Indians: a cause for alarm and call for action. J Indian Med Assoc 2000 Nov;98(11):694-5, 697-702.

    17. Ellis, Path, Montegriffo. Veganism: Clinical findings and investigations. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1970, 32:249-255.

    18. HH Sandstead. Fiber, phytates, and mineral nutrition. Nutr Rev, 1992, 50:30-1; AH Tiney. Proximate composition and mineral and phytate contents of legumes grown in Sudan. J Food Comp and Analy, 1989, 2:67-68; see also S. Fallon and M. Enig, “The Ploy of Soy,” posted at http://www.westonaprice.org.

    19. LK Massey and others. Oxalate content of soybean seeds, soy foods, and other edible legumes. J Agric Food Chem, 2001, Sep. 49:9:4262-6.

    20. See research abstracts posted at http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.

    21. FD Sauer and others. Additional Vitamin E required in milk replacer diets that contain canola oil. Nutr Res., 1997, 17: 259-262.

    22. M. Enig, Know Your Fats, 120-1,195-6.

    23. Mills, Beeson, Phillips, and Fraser. Cancer-incidence among California Seventh-day Adventists, 1976-1982. Am J Clin Nutr, 1994, 59 (suppl):1136S-42S.

    24. E. Cheraskin, and others. J of Orthom Psych, 1978, 7:150-155.

    25. Diana Schwarzbein and Nancy Deville. The Schwarzbein Principle (HCI Publications; Florida), 1999; Robert C. Atkins. Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. (Avon Books; NY), 2002; Wolfgang Lutz. Life Without Bread (NTC/Contemporary Publishing; IL), 1999.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  9. GE, you're striking out, brother..

  10. Should I continue?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  11. I will not post more nutritional myths based on biased opinions. I will actually read what others post before cuttting and pasting articles from the WHO and AHA who have actually gone back on their original opinions and have concluded that low carb diets are beneficial.

  12. Thank you. You are actually making progress.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


Similar Forum Threads

  1. Super Human Radio Show SHR # 757 - Enough About Us.. What
    By triceptor in forum SHR Show Archives
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2014, 02:07 PM
  2. Super Human Radio Show SHR # 740 - Enough About Us.. What
    By triceptor in forum SHR Show Archives
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2014, 02:07 PM
  3. Super Human Radio Show SHR # 757 - Enough About Us.. What
    By triceptor in forum SHR Show Archives
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2014, 02:00 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2012, 11:28 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2012, 11:28 AM
Log in
Log in