Consequences of High Protein Consumption

[Guest guest]

Consequences of High Protein Consumption

 

 

Excessive amounts of indigestible protein can be hazardous to our

health. Protein is by far the most widely discussed and publicized

nutritional requirement of our body. With all this information available

about protein, you might assume that people are pretty well informed on

the subject.

 

Wrong.

 

The average American consumes over 100 grams of protein a day, three to

five times as much as experts now say is necessary. We all know that

protein is an essential nutrient, but what most of us have not been told

is that excessive amounts of 'indigestible' protein can be hazardous to

our health.

 

The dangers of a high-protein diet are not commonly known by the general

public because we have been fed more misinformation and propaganda about

protein than any other category of nutrition.

 

A combination of badly outdated animal experiments and self-serving

" indoctrination " disguised as nutritional education has left most people

badly misinformed about our body's protein needs.

 

Several generations of school children and doctors were taught

incorrectly that we need meat, dairy and eggs for protein. The meat,

dairy and egg industries funded this " nutritional education " and it

became U.S. government policy.

 

Much of the evidence used to support the claim that animal products are

ideal for meeting human protein needs was based on a now discredited

experiment on rats conducted in 1914.

 

Experts in the field of nutrition and medical science have drastically

changed their thinking about human protein needs since that infamous rat

study 80 years ago, but this updated knowledge has been very slow to

reach the public.

So, in an effort to fill this wide gap of information as concisely as

possible, here is a six-point summary of what we should know about

protein.

 

Every one of these six points will come as a surprise to the average

adult whose knowledge about protein is limited to what was taught

several decades ago in school.

The medical and nutritional establishment has been slow to accept

evidence contrary to the status quo of self-serving " nutritional

education " promoted by major commercial influences, especially the meat

and dairy industry.

 

But facing the facts has forced doctors and nutritionists to steer more

and more people away from animal products

(cholesterol, saturated fat, mucous, zero fiber, etc.) and to more fresh

organic fruits and vegetables.

 

It has been interesting to observe over the years how expert opinions

and official policies have changed, sometimes reluctantly, in the area

of health and nutrition.

 

For example, on the subject of protein:

 

1) Modern research has shown that most people have more to be concerned

about medical problems caused by consuming too much protein, rather than

not getting enough.

 

Protein is an extremely important nutrient, but when we get too much

protein, or protein that we cannot digest, it causes problems.

 

In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Ted Morter, Jr. warns,

" In our society, one of the principle sources of " physiological toxins "

is too much protein. "

 

It may come as quite a shock to people trying to consume as much protein

as possible to read in major medical journals and scientific reports

that excess protein has been found to

!!!promote the growth of cancer cells!!!

and cause liver and kidney disorders,

digestive problems,

gout, arthritis,

calcium deficiencies (including osteoporosis)

and other

harmful mineral imbalances.

 

It has been known for decades that populations consuming high-protein,

meat-based diets have higher cancer rates and lower life-spans

(averaging as low as 30 to 40 years),

 

compared to cultures subsisting on low-protein vegetarian diets

(with average life-spans as high as 90 to 100 years).

 

Numerous studies have found that animals and humans subjected to

high-protein diets have consistently developed higher rates of cancer.

 

As for humans, T. Colin Campbell, a Professor of Nutritional Sciences at

Cornell University and the senior science advisor to the American

Institute for Cancer Research,

 

says there is...

" a strong correlation between dietary protein intake and cancer of the

breast, prostate, pancreas and colon. "

 

Likewise, Myron Winick, director of Columbia University's Institute of

Human Nutrition, has found strong evidence of

" a relationship between high-protein diets and cancer of the colon. "

 

In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Morter writes,

 

" The paradox of protein is that it is not only essential but also

potentially health-destroying.

 

Adequate amounts are vital to keeping your cells hale and hearty and on

the job; but unrelenting consumption of excess dietary protein

" congests " your cells

and forces the pH of your " life-sustaining " fluids down to

cell-stifling, disease-producing levels.

 

Cells overburdened with protein become " toxic " . "

 

Writing in the Sept. 3, 1982 issue of the New England Journal of

Medicine, researchers Dr. Barry Branner and Timothy Meyer state that

 

" undigested protein must be eliminated by the kidneys.

 

This unnecessary work stresses out the kidneys so much that gradually

" lesions " are developed and tissues begin to harden. " In the colon, this

excess protein waste " putrefies " into toxic substances, some of which

are absorbed into the bloodstream.

 

Dr. Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of

Illinois Medical School, warns,

 

" A high protein diet also breaks down the pancreas and lowers

resistance to cancer as well as contributes to the development of

diabetes. "

 

Anyone successfully indoctrinated by the meat and dairy industry's

nutritional education would be puzzled by the numerous studies finding

osteoporosis,

 

a calcium deficiency that makes the bones porous and brittle,

is very prominent among people with high consumption

of both protein and calcium.

 

For example, the March 1983 Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that by

age 65, the measurable bone loss of meat-eaters was five to six times

worse than of vegetarians.

 

The Aug. 22, 1984 issue of the Medical Tribune also found that

vegetarians have " significantly stronger bones. "

 

African Bantu women average only 350 mg. of calcium per day (far below

the National Dairy Council recommendation of 1,200 mg.), but seldom

break a bone,

and osteoporosis is practically non-existent,

because they have a low-protein diet.

 

At the other extreme, Eskimos have the highest calcium intake in the

world (more than 2,000 mg. a day),

but they suffer from one of the highest rates of osteoporosis because

their diet is also the " highest " in protein.

 

The explanation for these findings is that meat consumption leaves an

'acidic' residue, and a diet of acid-forming foods requires the body to

balance its pH by " withdrawing " calcium

(an alkaline mineral)

from the bones and teeth.

 

So even if we consume sufficient calcium, a high-protein, meat-based

diet will cause calcium to be leached from our bones.

 

Dr. John McDougall reports on one long-term study finding that even

with calcium intakes as high as 1,400 mgs. a day, if the subjects

consumed 75 grams of protein daily,

there was more calcium lost in their urine than absorbed into their

body.

These results show that to avoid a calcium deficiency, it may be more

important to reduce protein intake than to increase calcium consumption.

 

 

In his 1976 book, How to Get Well, Dr. Paavo Airola, Ph.D., N.D., notes

we " have been brought to believe that a high protein diet is a must if

you wish to attain a high level of health and prevent disease.

 

Health writers and 'experts' who advocated high protein diets were

" misled " by 'slanted research',which was

" financed " by dairy and meat industries, or by insufficient and outdated

information.

 

Most recent research, worldwide, both scientific and empirical, shows

more and more convincingly that our past beliefs in regard to high

requirements of protein are out-dated and incorrect,

 

and that the actual daily need for protein in human nutrition is far

below that which has long been considered necessary.

 

Researchers, working independently in many parts of the world, arrived

at the conclusion that our actual daily need of protein is only 25 to 35

grams

(raw proteins being utilized twice as well as cooked)...

 

But what is even more important, the worldwide research brings almost

daily confirmation of the scientific premise... that proteins, essential

and important as they are, CAN BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL WHEN CONSUMED IN

EXCESS OF YOUR " ACTUAL NEED " . "

 

Dr. Airola continues:

 

" The metabolism of proteins consumed in excess of the actual need

leaves toxic residues of metabolic waste in tissues,

causes autotoxemia,

overacidity and nutritional deficiencies,

accumulation of " uric acid " and " purines " in the tissues (arthritis,

gout),

intestinal putrefaction,

and contributes to the development of many of our most common, serious

diseases,

such as arthritis, kidney damage,

pyorrhea, schizophrenia,

osteoporosis,

arteriosclerosis,

heart disease, and cancer.

 

A high protein diet also causes premature aging and lowers life

expectancy. "

 

2) It is easier to meet our minimum daily protein requirements than most

people would imagine...

 

with just fruits and vegetables.

 

Because much of what experts once believed about protein has been proven

incorrect, U.S. government recommendations on daily protein consumption

have been reduced from 118 grams to 46 to 56 grams in the 1980's to the

present level of 25 to 35 grams.

 

Many nutritionists now feel that 20 grams of protein a day is more than

enough,

and warn about the potential dangers of consistently consuming much more

than this amount. The average American consumes a little over 100 grams

of protein per day.

 

Drastically reduced recommendations for protein consumption are an

obvious indication that official information about protein taught to

everyone from school children to doctors was incorrect, but there has

been no major effort to inform the public that what we were taught has

been proven wrong.

 

So there are large numbers of people with medical problems caused by

eating more than four or five times as much protein as necessary,

 

yet their " misguided obsession " is still to ensure that they get enough

protein.

 

A good way of determining which foods provide sufficient protein is to

consider recommendations on the percentage of our total calorie intake

that should be made up of protein, and then determine which foods meet

these recommendations.

 

These recommendations range from 2 1/2 to 8 percent.

 

Reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition say we should

receive 2 1/2 percent of our daily calorie intake from protein, and that

many populations have lived in excellent health on that amount.

 

The World Health Organization established a figure of 4 1/2 percent.

The Food and Nutrition Board recommends 6 percent, while the National

Research Council recommends 8 percent.

 

The 6 and 8 percent figures are more than what most people need, and the

higher percentages are intended as a margin of safety.

 

But still, these recommendations are met by most fruits and greatly

exceeded by most vegetables.

 

For example, the percentage of calories provided by protein in spinach

is 49%;

broccoli 45%;

cauliflower 40%;

lettuce 34%;

peas 30%;

green beans 26%;

cucumbers 24%;

celery 21%;

potatoes 11%;

sweet potatoes 6%;

honeydew 10%;

cantaloupe 9%;

strawberry 8%;

orange 8%;

watermelon 8%; peach 6%; pear 5%; banana 5%; pineapple 3%; and apple 1%.

 

 

Considering these figures, any nutritionist would have to agree it is

very easy for a vegetarian to get sufficient protein.

 

Two reasons we have such low protein requirements, as noted by Harvey

and Marilyn Diamond in Fit for Life,

are that,

 

" the human body recycles 70 percent of its " proteinaceous " waste, " and

our body " loses " only about 23 grams of protein a day.

 

3) The need to consume foods or meals containing " complete protein " is

based on an erroneous and out-dated myth.

 

Due to lingering mis-information from a 1914 " rat study " , many people

still believe they must eat 'animal products' to obtain " complete

protein. "

 

And for other people, this fallacy was replaced by a second inaccurate

theory that proper food combining is necessary to obtain

 

" complete protein " from vegetables.

 

Both of these theories have been unquestionably disproved, because we

now know people can completely satisfy their protein needs and all other

nutritional requirements from raw fruits and vegetables without worrying

about proper food combining or adding protein supplements or animal

products to their diet.

 

In fact, the whole theory behind the need to consume " complete protein "

--

a belief once accepted as fact by medical and nutritional experts -- is

now disregarded.

 

For example, Dr. Alfred Harper, Chairman of Nutritional Sciences at the

University of Wisconsin, Madison, and of the Food and Nutrition Board of

the National Research Council, states,

 

" One of the biggest fallacies ever perpetuated is that there is any

need for so-called complete protein. "

 

Protein is composed of amino acids, and these amino acids are literally

the building blocks of our body.

 

There are eight essential amino acids we need from food for our body to

build " complete protein, "

 

and every one of these amino acids can be found in fruits and

vegetables.

 

(There is a total of 23 amino acids we need,

 

but our body is able to produce 15 of these,

leaving eight that must be obtained from food.)

 

There are many vegetables and some fruits that contain all eight

essential amino acids,

including carrots, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cucumbers,

eggplant, kale, okra, peas, potatoes, summer squash, sweet potatoes,

tomatoes and bananas.

 

But the reason we do not need all eight essential amino acids from one

food or from one meal is that our body stores amino acids for future

use.

 

From the digestion of food and from recycling of proteinaceous wastes,

our body maintains an amino acid pool, which is circulated to cells

throughout the body by our blood and lymph systems.

 

These cells and our liver are constantly making deposits and withdrawals

from this pool, based on the supply and demand of specific amino acids.

 

The belief that animal protein is superior to vegetable protein dates

back to 1914 when two researchers named Osborn and Mendel found that

rats grew faster on animal protein than plant protein.

 

From these findings, meat, dairy and eggs were termed as " Class A "

proteins, and vegetable proteins were classified as an inferior " Class

B. "

 

In the mid-1940s, researchers found that ten essential amino acids are

required for a rat's diet, and that meat, dairy and eggs supplied all

ten of these amino acids, whereas wheat, rice and corn did not.

 

The meat, dairy and egg industries capitalized on both of these

findings, with little regard for the fact that nutritional requirements

for rats are very different than for humans.

 

It was discovered in 1952 that humans required only eight essential

amino acids, and that fruits and vegetables are an excellent source of

all of these.

 

Later experiments also found that although animal protein does speed

the growth of rats, animal protein also leads to a shorter life-span and

higher rates of cancer and other diseases.

 

There are also major differences in the protein needs of humans and

rats. Human breast milk is composed of 5 percent protein, compared to 49

percent protein in rat milk.

 

To illustrate how ignorant " experts " can be, during the time that

high-protein diets were thought to be healthy, many experts felt it was

a mistake of nature that human females produced breast milk of only 5

percent protein.

 

The " complete protein " myth was given another boost in 1971 when Frances

Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small Planet.

 

Lappe discouraged meat eating, but promoted food combining with

vegetable proteins, such as beans and rice, to obtain all eight

essential amino acids in one meal.

 

But by 1981, Lappe conducted additional research and realized that

combining vegetarian foods was not necessary to get proper protein.

 

In her tenth anniversary edition of Diet for a Small Planet, Lappe

admitted her blunder

and acknowledged that food combining is not necessary to obtain

sufficient protein from a vegetarian diet.

 

In fact, Dr. John McDougall warns that efforts to combine foods for

complete protein are not only unnecessary, but dangerous, because

 

" one who follows the advice for protein combining can unintentionally

design a diet containing an " excessive " and therefore harmful amount of

protein. "

 

4) Protein is an essential part of our (living) body and there is a

difference between protein that has been cooked and protein in its raw

(living) form.

 

We should realize that our body (which is made of some 100 trillion

living cells) is composed of 15 percent protein, making protein the

primary solid element in our body, and second only to water, which

composes 70 percent of our body.

 

Protein is composed of amino acids, and amino acids are made up of

chains of atoms.

These atoms that make up amino acids that make up protein literally

become the building blocks for our body.

 

The problem is that cooking kills food

and de-natures or re-arranges the molecular structure

of the protein,

 

causing amino acids to become " coagulated " , or fused together.

 

Dr. Norman W. Walker emphasizes there is a difference between atoms that

are alive and atoms that are dead.

 

Dr. Walker says heat from cooking kills and changes the vibration of

the atoms that compose amino acids that compose protein that compose our

body.

 

In a human body, Dr. Walker notes that within six minutes after death,

our atoms change their vibration and are no longer in a live, organic

form.

So the difference between cooked and raw protein is the " difference "

between the life and death of the atoms

that " make up " 15 percent of our body.

 

Dr. Walker writes: " Just as life is dynamic, magnetic, organic, so is

death static, non-magnetic, inorganic.

 

It takes life to beget life, and this applies to the atoms in our food.

 

 

When the atoms in amino acids are live, organic atoms, they can function

efficiently.

 

When they are destroyed by the killing of the animal and the cooking of

the food, the vital factors involving the atoms in the functions of the

amino acids are lost. "

 

You can see protein change its structure immediately when you drop an

organic egg into a hot frying pan.

 

As soon as it hits the heat, the clear, runny, jelly-like substance

surrounding the egg yolk turns rubbery and white.

 

Protein is not the same substance before and after it has been cooked.

In The High Energy Diet video, Dr. Douglas Graham states

 

" protein is destroyed at 150 degrees. "

 

At this temperature, he says the chemical bond and structure of protein

is " denatured, "

and once this happens, there is nothing we can do to " un-de-nature "

protein.

 

But Dr. Graham sends a mixed message on the question of whether our body

can get absolutely no benefit from cooked protein, or whether we can

assimilate only a small amount of the protein in cooked food.

 

He says both. Shortly after saying protein is " denatured " and

" destroyed " by cooking, and that we " can't get any use out of cooked

food " ...

in the same video Dr. Graham states that " only a small portion of that

(cooked) protein is available to human beings. "

 

In Living Health, Harvey and Marilyn Diamond send the same mixed

messages as to whether cooked protein is unusable or difficult to use.

 

They write that, " When cooked, amino acids fuse together, making the

protein unusable. "

 

The book also states,

 

" Amino acids are destroyed or converted to forms that are either

extremely difficult or impossible to digest. "

 

So, we have three options on how we feel about the difference between

raw and cooked protein. We can believe that:

 

our living cells get no benefit whatsoever from the dead atoms and

" denatured " protein of cooked food;

 

surely we must get some small benefit from cooked protein, even if most

of it ends up as undigested protein that causes many medical problems

(and even if we don't understand how dead atoms can become the building

blocks for our living cells);

 

or we can accept orthodox medical and nutritional " wisdom " that still

says cooked, dead and denatured protein is just as healthy as living

protein from raw foods

(and try not to think about the difference between life and death in the

food we put into our bodies).

The first position, which is advocated by Rev. George Malkmus, would be

considered the most radical by the medical and nutritional

establishment.

 

(Remember, these experts are the same folks who -- not so long ago --

said people couldn't get sufficient protein from fruits and vegetables,

and once recommended levels of protein now known to be a health hazard.)

 

 

The second position is a somewhat inconsistent compromise. But the third

position, which is currently official government policy, is actually the

hardest to defend.

 

Perhaps when the evidence is more carefully considered, this position

will change, just as so many other official, orthodox positions on

nutrition have evolved.

 

Evidence of the nutritional superiority of raw foods has been available

for decades, but information that is contrary to commercial interests is

slow to reach the public.

 

For a summary of this evidence:

 

All animals in the wild eat raw food, so wild animals kept in captivity

have provided a good means of comparing the merits of raw versus cooked

food.

 

In the early 1900s, it was common for zoos, circuses, etc., to save

money by feeding captive animals restaurant scraps.

 

But the mortality of these animals was high and attempts at breeding

them were not very successful.

 

When their diets were changed to natural, raw foods, the health,

life-span and breeding of the animals improved tremendously.

 

A study of this type at the Philadelphia Zoo was described in a 1923

book by Dr. H. Fox titled Disease in Captive Wild Animals and Birds.

 

One of the best-known studies of raw versus cooked foods with animals

was a 10-year research project conducted by Dr. Francis M. Pottenger,

using 900 cats.

His study was published in 1946 in the American Journal of Orthodontics

and Oral Surgery.

 

Dr. Pottenger fed all 900 cats the same food, with the only difference

being that one group received it raw, while the others received it

cooked.

 

The results dramatically revealed the advantages of raw foods over a

cooked diet.

 

Cats that were fed raw, living food produced healthy kittens year after

year with no ill health or pre-mature deaths.

 

But cats fed the same food, only cooked, developed heart disease,

cancer, kidney and thyroid disease, pneumonia, paralysis, loss of teeth,

arthritis, birthing difficulties, diminished sexual interest, diarrhea,

irritability, liver problems and osteoporosis (the same diseases common

in our human cooked-food culture).

 

The first generation of kittens from cats fed cooked food were sick and

abnormal, the second generation were often born diseased or dead, and by

the third generation, the mothers were sterile.

 

Much of the same pattern can be shown in humans. In his 1988 book,

Improving on Pritikin, Ross Horne notes,

 

" There is an association between the cooking and processing of food and

the incidence of cancer, and conversely,

 

it is a fact that cancer patients make the best recoveries on

 

completely " raw vegetarian " food...

 

This shows that when vital organs are at their lowest state of function,

only raw foods make it possible for them to provide the body chemistry

to maintain health.

 

It follows then, that if raw food permits an otherwise ruined body to

restore itself to health, so must raw food provide the maximum benefit

to anybody -- sick or well. "

 

In his 1980 book, The Health Revolution, Horne writes, " Cooked protein

is difficult to digest, and when incompletely digested protein enters

the colon it putrefies and ammonia is formed. "

 

Horne quotes Dr. Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the

University of Illinois Medical School as saying,

 

" In the digestion of proteins, we are constantly exposed to large

amounts of ammonia in our intestinal tract.

 

Ammonia behaves like chemicals that cause cancer or promote its growth.

 

It kills cells, it increases virus infection, it affects the rate at

which cells divide, and it increases the mass of the lining of the

intestines.

 

What is intriguing is that within the colon, the incidence of cancer

parallels the concentration of ammonia. " Dr. Visek is quoted in The

Golden Seven Plus One, by Dr. C. Samuel West, as saying,

 

" Ammonia, which is produced in great amounts as a by-product of meat

metabolism, is highly carcinogenic and can cause cancer development. "

 

Cooking food also creates many types of mutagens, particularly with

proteins.

 

" Mutagens " are chemicals that can alter the DNA in the nucleus of a

living cell so increasing the risk of the cell becoming cancerous, "

Horne explains.

 

" Most mutagens seem to be formed by an effect of cooking on proteins, "

according to Dr. Oliver Alabaster,

Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Cancer Research at the

George Washington University,

in his 1985 book, " What You Can Do to Prevent Cancer " .

 

Horne further quotes Alabaster's book as stating,

 

" Broiling hamburgers, beef, fish, chicken, or any other meat, for that

matter, will create mutagens,

so it appears to be an unavoidable consequence of cooking.

 

Other mutagens are formed by the action of cooking on carbohydrates.

 

Even an action as innocent as toasting bread has been shown to create

mutagenic chemicals through a process known as the " browning reaction " .

 

This reaction also occurs when potatoes and beef are fried, or when

sugars are heated...

Fortunately, extracts of very few fruits and vegetables are mutagenic.

 

In fact, quite the contrary.

 

Laboratory tests have demonstrated that a number of substances in foods

(including cabbage, broccoli, green pepper, egg plant, shallots,

pineapple, apples, ginger and mint leaf)

 

can actually " inhibit " the action of many mutagens. "

 

And the results of personal experience from the many people who have

switched to a mainly raw foods, vegetarian diet are even more impressive

than scientific laboratory findings. Since Rev. George Malkmus healed

his colon cancer and other ailments 18 years ago by switching to a diet

of raw fruits and vegetables, he has led many others in the same

direction. The personal testimonials and letters of many of these people

have appeared in the pages of this newsletter... people who have

recovered from cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes,

arthritis, obesity, abdominal pain and more.

 

All this from something as simple as a change to a vegetarian diet of

mainly raw fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on freshly-extracted

vegetable juice.

 

(Juicing is important because nutrients in raw vegetable juice can get

to the cellular level quicker and more efficiently with these nutrients

separated from the pulp, or fiber.

 

This allows the time-consuming and energy-consuming process of

digestion to be avoided.)

But George Malkmus was not the first -- nor will he be the last --

person to get great results from converting people to raw foods. The

results obtained by Malkmus are very consistent with others who have

placed an emphasis on nutrition from raw foods and freshly-extracted

vegetable juice.

 

Dr. Norman Walker was seriously ill in his early 40s, but healed himself

with the juices of raw vegetables, and lived to be over 100 years old,

writing his last book when he had passed the century mark.

 

And since the 1920s, the Gerson Therapy developed by Dr. Max Gerson has

obtained results with fresh vegetable juices that have been unparalleled

by orthodox medical practice.

 

" Incurable " diseases are being healed at the Gerson Clinic, such as

lung cancer, spreading melanoma, lymphoma, bone cancer, colon cancer,

breast cancer, brain cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer, multiple

sclerosis, severe asthma, emphysema, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes,

lupus and more.

 

So, whether you consider scientific analysis or real-life experience,

there is strong evidence of the superiority of raw protein over cooked

protein.

 

Scientific analysis of the distinction between the life and death of

atoms that become the building blocks of our body, the denaturing of

protein and the mutagens caused by cooking protein helps to explain

personal experiences of the many medical problems caused by excessive

amounts of indigestible, cooked protein, as well as the great results

people have seen by switching to a raw foods diet.

 

5) Cooked meat is not a good source of protein. The reason cooked meat

is not a good source of protein for humans is both because it is cooked

and because it is meat.

 

Actually, cooked meat is not a good source of protein for any animal (as

laboratory tests have shown).

 

And meat in any form is not good for humans. As noted by the Diamonds in

Living Health, we do not have a digestive system designed to assimilate

protein from flesh:

We do not have the teeth of a carnivore nor the saliva.

 

Our alkaline saliva is designed to digest complex carbohydrates from

plant food, whereas saliva of a " carnivore " is so 'acidic' that it can

actually dissolve bones.

 

Humans do not have the ability to deal with the cholesterol or uric acid

from meat.

 

The digestive tracts of carnivores are short, about three times the

length of their torso, allowing quick elimination of decomposing and

putrefying flesh.

 

All herbivores have long intestines, 8 to 12 times the length of their

torso, to provide a long transit time to digest and extract the

nutrients from plant foods.

 

And all protein ultimately comes from plants. The question is whether we

get this protein directly from plants, or whether we try to get it

secondhand from animals who have gotten it from plants.

 

6) Eating meat -- or protein in general -- does not give you strength,

energy or stamina.

 

One of the easiest ways to dispel the theory that meat is required for

strength is to look at the animal kingdom.

It is herbivores such as cattle, oxen, horses and elephants that have

been known for strength and endurance.

 

What carnivore has ever had the strength or endurance to be used as a

beast of burden? The strongest animal on earth, for its size, is the

silver-back gorilla, which is three times the size of man, but has 30

times our strength.

 

These gorillas " eat nothing but fruit and bamboo leaves and can turn

your car over if they want to, " the Diamonds note in Living Health.

 

It would be hard to argue anyone needs meat for strength.

 

And protein does not give us energy. Protein is for building cells. Fuel

for providing our cells with energy comes from the glucose and

carbohydrates of fruits and vegetables.

 

As pointed out by John Robbins in Diet for a New America, many studies

have shown that " protein consumption " is no higher during hard work and

exercise than during rest.

 

Robbins writes,

" True, we need protein to replace enzymes, rebuild blood cells, grow

hair, produce antibodies, and to fulfill certain other specific tasks...

 

(But) study after study has found that protein combustion is no higher

during exercise than under resting conditions.

 

This is why (vegetarian) Dave Scott can set world records for the

triathlon without consuming lots of protein.

 

And why Sixto Linares can swim 4.8 miles, cycle 185 miles, and run 52.4

miles in a single day without meat, dairy products or any kind of

protein supplement in his diet.

 

The popular idea that we need extra protein if we are working hard turns

out to be simply another part of the whole mythology of protein, the

'beef gives us strength' conditioning foisted upon us by those who

" profit " from our meat habit. "

 

To demonstrate how well-founded this position is in current scientific

knowledge, Robbins quotes the National Academy of Science as saying,

" There is little evidence that muscular activity increases the need for

protein. "

 

Protein requires more " energy " to digest than any other type of food.

 

In our Health, Your Choice, Dr. Ted Morter, Jr. writes: " Protein is a

negative energy food.

 

Protein is credited with being an energy-producer.

 

However, energy is used to digest it, and energy is needed to

neutralize the excess acid ash it leaves.

 

Protein " uses " more energy than it " generates " .

 

It is a negative energy source. "

 

A 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association warns

athletes against taking protein supplements, noting, " Athletes need the

same amount of protein foods as nonathletes. Protein does not increase

strength.

 

Indeed, it often takes greater energy to " digest " and " metabolize " the

excess of protein. "

 

Most athletes are not aware of this information on protein, but there

have been attempts to make this warning known.

 

For example, George Beinhorn wrote in the April 1975 issue of Bike

World, " Excess protein saps energy from working muscles...

 

It has also been discovered that too much protein is actually toxic.

 

In layman's terms, it is poisonous...

 

Protein has enjoyed a wonderful reputation among athletes. Phrases like

'protein power,' 'protein for energy,' 'protein pills for the training

athlete'... are all false and misleading. "

 

Robbins gives additional evidence for this claim in Realities for the

90's by naming some of the world's greatest athletes, all holders of

world records in their field, who happen to be vegetarians:

 

Dave Scott, six-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon (and the only man

two win it more than twice); Sixto Linares, world record holder in the

24-hour triathlon; Paavo Nurmi, 20 world records and nine Olympic medals

in distance running; Robert Sweetgall, world's premier ultra-distance

walker; Murray Rose, world records in the 400 and 1500-meter freestyle;

Estelle Gray and Cheryl Marek, world record in cross-country tandem

cycling; Henry Aaron, all-time major league home run champion; Stan

Price, world record holder in the bench press; Andreas Cahling, Mr.

International body building champion; Roy Hilligan, Mr. America body

building champion; Ridgely Abele, eight national championships in

karate; and Dan Millman, world champion gymnast...

 

all vegetarians.

 

That's a list that would surprise the average American, based on what we

have been taught to believe about protein and meat.

 

In summary, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that practically

everything we have been told about protein is wrong. We don't need as

much protein as we have been taught and consuming too much protein is

hazardous to our health.

 

We don't need to eat " complete protein. " Our body needs protein from raw

foods, because the building blocks for our living cells need to be

living instead of dead.

 

Cooked protein contains mutagens that are hazardous to our health, and

some nutritional experts say cooked protein is impossible or very

difficult to digest.

 

Cooked meat is not a good source of protein.

 

And protein has nothing to do with strength, energy or stamina.

 

But protein is important.

 

And our best source of protein is from the same raw fruits and

vegetables that provide all the other nutrients -- vitamins, minerals,

enzymes and carbohydrates -- we need.

 

The best way to get all these nutrients, including protein, is to eat a

well-balanced variety of fresh, raw organic fruits and vegetables.

 

The percentage of calories made up by protein in most fruits and

vegetables is equal to or surpasses that of human breast milk, which is

designed to meet human protein needs at our time of fastest growth. So

don't let anybody tell you that you can't get enough protein from fruits

and vegetables.

 

When you consider the health problems caused by consuming too much

indigestible (cooked) protein, it should drive home the point that our

body is a living organism made up of living cells, and protein composes

15 percent of our body, therefore the protein we take in should be

living rather than dead.

 

Consuming a high quantity of dead, cooked protein is similar to taking

mega-doses of synthetic vitamins that we cannot assimilate.

 

We would do better to focus on the quality, rather than quantity, of

nutrients, and ensure that the protein (and other nutrients) we consume

is in a natural, living form that our body can assimilate at the

cellular level and use to build healthy new living cells.

 

http://www.hacres.com/articles.asp?artid=54

 

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.