raw university study

[Guest guest]

Raw foods university study worth reading IMHO.

 

Maureen

 

http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/4971.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The comparison group eating the American Diet was matched to raw food

group " according to age, sex and socioeconomic status " according to

this article. They should have also matched by " weight " .

 

I saw another report recently on this same finding which pointed out

that the raw food group weighed less than the SAD group.

 

Less weight equates to less bone mass. The body adjusts the bone mass

according to the weight it must support. When the astronauts return

from a long trip in the weightlessness of space they lose bone mass.

When body builders lift weights they increase their bone mass. The

bone mass is relative to the stress placed on the bones.

 

I think this article missed that relationship and is struggling to

find another answer.

 

Orionsdad

 

rawfood , maureen smith

<maureensgardengrotto> wrote:

>

> Raw foods university study worth reading IMHO.

>

> Maureen

>

> http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/4971.html

[Guest guest]

Good point!

 

This quote from the article suggests to my mind that

many " health professionals " do not actually know what

health or healthiness is. Ergo, their premises and

biases contaminate their present specious conclusions.

 

" I think over the long term, a strict raw food vegan

diet could pose some health problems, " he says. " But

it's not my role to tell them to eat differently. I'm

simply interested in learning about the positive

and/or detrimental health effects of this diet. "

 

 

--- orionsdad <no_reply > wrote:

 

> I think this article missed that relationship and is

> struggling to

> find another answer.

>

> Orionsdad

 

 

[...there'll be love and laughter,

and peace ever after,

just you wait and see...

---Vera Lynn]

 

 

 

 

 

Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.

http://personals.