How Much Protein Do We Really Need?

[Guest guest]

How Much Protein Do We Really Need?

JoAnn Guest

Jul 25, 2004 20:53 PDT

 

The following article was written

by Monique N. Gilbert, a Health Advocate

 

Protein is a vital nutrient, essential to your health.

In its purest form, protein consists of chains of amino acids.There

are 22 amino acids that combine to form different proteins, and 8 of

these must come from the foods we eat. Our body uses these amino

acids to create muscles, blood, skin, hair, nails and internal

organs.

 

Proteins help form new tissue, transports oxygen and nutrients in

our blood and cells, regulates the balance of water and acids,

and is needed to make antibodies.

 

However, too much of a good thing may not be so good for you. Many

people are putting their health at risk by eating to much

protein.

 

Excessive protein consumption, particularly animal protein, can

result in cardiovascular disease, stroke, osteoporosis, arthritis

and kidney stones.

 

As important as protein is for our body, there are many

misconceptions about how much we really need in our diet, and the

best way to obtain it.

 

The average American eats about twice as much protein than what is

actually required. Some people,in the pursuit of weightloss, are

going

on high-protein

diets and are eating up to four times the amount of protein that

their

body needs.

 

Protein deficiency is certainly not a problem in America.

So exactly how much protein does your body really need?

 

Much less than you think.

 

According to the American Heart Association and the National

Institutes of Health, as little as 50-60 grams of protein is enough

for

most adults. This breaks down to about 10-12% of total calories.

 

Your body only needs .36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.

To calculate the exact amount you need, multiply your ideal weight

by

..36. This will give you your optimum daily protein requirement in

grams.

 

 

Since the amount of protein needed depends on the amount of lean

body

mass and not fat, ideal weight is used instead of actual weight.

Infants, children,pregnant and nursing women require more.

 

People on high-protein diets are consuming up to 34% of their total

calories in the form of protein and up to 53% of total calories from

fat.

 

Most of these people are unaware of the amount of protein and fat

that

is contained in the foods they eat. For instance,a typical 3-ounce

beef

hamburger, which is small by

American standards-- contains about 22 grams of protein

and 20 grams of fat.

 

You achieve quick weight loss on these diets because of this high

fat content. High fat foods give you the sensation of feeling full,

faster, so you end up eating fewer total calories.

 

However,this type of protein and fat combination is not the

healthiest.

 

Animal protein is loaded with cholesterol and saturated fat.

Many people on these diets also experience an elevation in their LDL

(the bad) cholesterol when they remain on this diet for long periods

of

time. High levels of LDL cholesterol in the blood clog arteries and

is

the chief culprit in heart disease, particularly heart attack and

stroke.

 

So while you may lose weight in the short-run, you are putting your

cardiovascular health in jeopardy in the long-run.

 

Another reason weight loss is achieved on these high-protein diets,

at

least temporarily, is actually due to water loss.

 

The increase in the amount of protein consumed, especially from meat

and dairy products, raises the levels of *uric acid* and 'urea' in

the

blood.

 

These are *toxic* by-products of protein " breakdown " and metabolism.

 

The body eliminates this *uric acid* and urea by pumping lots of

water

into the kidneys and urinary tract to help it flush out.

 

However, a detrimental side effect of this " diuretic " response--

 

is the 'loss' of numerous *essential* 'minerals' from the body,

including calcium and magnesium.

 

The extremely high intake of protein leads to an " acidic " state

which

leaches calcium from the bones, leading to bone loss

or " osteoporosis " .

Medical evidence shows that the body LOSES an average of 1.75

milligrams

of calcium in the *urine* for every *1 gram* 'increase' in animal

protein ingested.

 

Additionally, as calcium and other minerals are leached from our

bones,

they are deposited in the kidneys--

 

and can form into painful kidney stones.

 

If a kidney stone becomes large enough to cause a blockage,

it stops the flow of urine from the kidney and must be

removed by surgery or other methods.

 

Plant-based protein, like that found in organic soy, legumes,

lentils

and beans, lowers LDL cholesterol and raises HDL (the good)

cholesterol.

This prevents the build up of arterial plaque which leads to

atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and heart disease, thus

reducing the risk heart attack and stroke.

 

The amount and type of protein in your diet also has an important

impact on calcium 'absorption' and 'excretion'.

 

Vegetable-protein diets enhance calcium " retention "

in the body and results in less " excretion " of calcium in the urine.

 

This reduces the risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, and kidney

problems.

Interestingly, kidney disease is far less common in people who eat a

vegetable-based diet than it is in people who eat an animal-based

diet.

 

By replacing animal protein with vegetable protein and replacing

saturated fat with unsaturated fat, like that found in extra virgin

olive oil, sesame oil and alaskan salmon,--

you can avoid the pitfalls of the typical high-protein diet.

 

You will be able to improve your health and regulate your weight

while enjoying a vast array of delicious,nutritionally dense, high

fiber

foods.

 

Also, the only healthy way to achieve permanent weight loss

is to *burn* more calories than you take in.

 

Anything else is just a gimmick.

 

 

Author Bio: Monique N. Gilbert holds a Bachelor of Science degree,

is

a Certified PersonalTrainer/Fitness Counselor and health advocate.

She began a low-fat, whole-grain, vegetable-rich diet in

the mid-1970's.

This introduced her to a healthier way of eating and became the

foundation of her dietary choices as an adult.

 

She became a full-fledged vegetarian on Earth Day 1990. Over the

years she has ncreased her knowledge and understanding about health

and fitness, and the important role diet plays in a person's

strength,

vitality and longevity.

 

Monique feels it is her mission to educate and enlighten

everyone about the benefits of healthy eating and living.

 

E-mail: mo-@c...

Internet sites:

 

http://www.virtuesofsoy.com

http://www.vegweb.com/cgi/comments.cgi?articles/37

http://www.vegweb.com/cgi/comments.cgi?write/articles/

 

---

 

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:41 pm

The Dire 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.

 

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

 

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 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 can 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. T

 

his 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, intestinal

putrefaction, and contributes to the development of many of our most

common and 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, corn, 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

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 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 Rev. Malkmus and Hallelujah Acres 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, eggs, 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 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.

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest