|
|
|
||||||||
|
That is "consumer" the number ONE and dot html
Gordon Watts' Biochemistry II BCH 4054 Class Project: | -INTRODUCTION INDEX- | -ABSTRACT SUMMARY- | -DETAILED DESCRIPTION- | -BIBLIOGRAPHY- | -INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT PAGE(S)- | -OTHER- | Consumer Products Advisory News Flash: Milk implicated in many lactose-intolerance allergies and illnesses! (See below for details.) The Editor replies below with his findings to settle the question.
Table of contents
*********************************************************************************************** #1: Time Magazine headlines of 30 October 2000: "EARLY PUBERTY Why Girls Are Growing Up Faster: "Is it hormones [in food or milk]...How parents and kids are coping" pp. 66-74. #2: "With breast cancer rates continuing to rise in the United States and Europe, researchers have begun to look toward Asia for insights as to why Asian women on the whole have much lower incidence of this devastating disease. Specifically, the age-adjusted death rates due to breast cancer from 1990-1993 were 3.3 times lower for Japanese women than American woman and 4.5 times lower for Chinese women compared to American women. (Parker SL, Tung T, Bolden S, Wingo P: Cancer statistics, 1996. Ca: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1996;46(1):5-27.) according to: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=uclabiolchem/nutritionbytes. #3: "Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries...Dr Christopher Murray, head of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said: "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries."
Source:
The truth is hard to bear, but if you're ready for the truth, READ ON.
I. Why regular table sugar is better than the "diet" sweetener NutraSweet in most cases NutraSweet may break down into harmful substances due to this man made amino acid dipeptide being used in poisonously high levels and without natural co-factors present to help metabolize it. Specifically, it is said that aspartame in diet colas breaks down into FORMALDAHYDE! while the colas are sitting on the shelf. At least, that's what I 've read. ** It is estimated that up to one third (100 Million) of the US population is at least somewhat sensitive to products containing aspartame. Only about 1%, however are truly phenylketonuric. It is an inherited disorder (recessive, I think), and persons affected don't produce the enzyme phenylalanine-4-monooxygenase and thus can't digest phenylalanine. To hear a con argument, you may click on www.dorway.com . For more info, you may click on the following links: http://medicinegarden.com/library/Aspartame.html http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/100.html http://lists.essential.org/1996/dioxin-l/msg00594.html http://www.hsv.com/pub_serv/aspertim http://www.vitawise.com/aspfacts.htm http://www.PRESIDIOTEX.COM/aspartame http://www.ocnsignal.com/nancymarkle.htm II. Why Soy and Rice "Milk Substitutes" are better than Cows' Milk in most cases Milk has been implicated in diabetes, asthma, salmonella poisoning, lactose intolerance allergies, and even cancer! The anti-dairy coalition claims that milk is nature's perfect food for baby cows (not adult humans!). ** Also, some persons are lactose intolerant. Before I give you my findings, let me quote a little section off of: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0945383347/ref=pd_sim_d_b_ftr/002-1233495-9403202 A high-ranking Medical Doctor (MD) at John Hopkins writes that milk is NOT good:
"Don't Drink Your Milk! : New Frightening Medical Facts About the
World's Most Overrated Nutrient
"Editorial Reviews
"About the Author Well, that lays the foundation, but my website is a bit shorter and more to the point for the average Joe. The claims I recall reading about diabetes allege that, in a study done by scientists, when children's immune system began fighting against bovine (cow) proteins in milk, they also attacked the beta cells in the pancreas (which produce insulin), thus causing diabetes. Below is a reference to the group that I think made this claim.
Visit their website at www.notmilk.com
to find out more.
More info: About HOMOGENIZATION to milk...
Two Connecticut cardiologists, Oster and Ross, demonstrated that cow proteins survive digestion. Oster and Ross pointed the finger of blame at the homogenization process. They discovered the presence of an enzyme, bovine xanthene oxidase (XO), which, in theory, should not have survived digestion, but, in actuality, did. The XO Factor was identified as the element that destroyed one-third of the cellular material in atrial cells of 300 heart attack victims during a five-year study. Oster and Ross's observation was subsequently confirmed by a team of scientists at the University of Delaware who hypothesized that small quantities of this enzyme from milk, absorbed over a lifetime, might hold destructive biological significance, which includes, of course, the heart disease mentioned above.
THE SOLUTION TO ONE PROBLEM
The summary of milk problems: Yuk! I do believe that this is the glue that holds bottle labels on. 11. NEW! Energy from milk, meat INEFFICIENT! Yes! It's true. From the discipline of Ecology in Biology, we find that it takes approximately 1,000 calories of grain to produce 100 calories of meat, milk, whatever from the ecosystem right below it! I cite for my reference: [BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 5TH EDITION by KEETON & GOULD: (ISBN: 0-393-96223-7) {William T. Keeton; James L. and Carol Gould} Publishers: W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London. pp. 1156-1158.] "...[O]nly a fraction of the energy at one trophic level can be passed on to the next. This fraction varies from a high of about 35 percent for the most efficient ... to below 0.1 percent..." p.1156; and, "Given the inefficiency of the energy transfer from one trophic level to the next, it might seem that the earth could support more humans if we all stopped being omnivorous, and lived on a wholly vegetable diet instead of the combined animal and vegetable diet..." p.1157 Now, K & G go on to claim that this veggie view has flaws such as the claim that some areas of the world can support only low quality crops, unsuitable for human consumption and the claim that veggie diets "usually require some supplemental animal protein..." p. 1157. They hang themselves: the key word is 'usually.' I agree that it is hard, but you can get yams, greens, rice, grain, and soy products for protein. Usually, a grain and a lentil constitute a "complete" protein, with sufficient types of the amino acids which comprise [make up] the protein. By the same token (likewise), I take issue with the claim that some areas of the world have problems with some crops. They just need to copy the agriculture techniques of the successful areas: That might require not overworking the soil and importing minerals and fertilizers for their crops! On page 1158, it goes on to mention the "Malthusian dilemma" of population and the concern that "Cattle raising...and other ruminants are a major source of methane gas, which may contribute to global warming." On the topic of population, I have myself calculated the 6,000,000,000 or so population of the planet, Earth being able to all fit into France, with a surface area of about one of our (USA) states. Now, every person would only have about 20 or 30 or so feet between each other including filling up the streets & country-side, thus the population problem is not so bad... yet! (You can do the calculations here if you know a little math.) Concerning global warming, I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am a good reporter who brings you the news, and on most issues, I am not only a careful scientist, but also a knowledgeable... but it was hard.
Many ranchers would disagree with such claims that feces are an ingredient in milk, so I will quote a source, who in turn quotes other sources: From the website of: http://www.notmilk.com/guestt.txt (a site of Robert Cohen's anti-dairy coalition), I get this quote: "NOTMILKMAN'S COMMENT: Dear Jim, [this is an excerpt]Crates of milk sit in the hallways, waiting for their little consumers who bring home the gifts of infectious diseases for the entire family. Mom's response: "It's going around." http://medic.med.uth.tmc.edu/path/00001447.htm There have been numerous cases of food poisoning in the United States. Fruits and vegetables do not normally contain feces. Neither does poultry and beef. Milk is another matter. What drips down cow's legs ends up in the milk and that is why filters are mandated, by law. The cream rises to the top and the feces hits the wall like that 120 MPH car. Wouldn't it be interesting for all Americans to see what is collected in that mandatory filter? Brown stuff...NOTDIRT! GOT FECES? Regards, The NOTMILKMAN" OUCH! That hurt! With all due respect for the Anti-Dairy Coalition, the claim that the law requiring milk filters (I will guess that there really is such a law), well, that does not necessarily mean that that it is because of feces. Could be other stuff, but it does give one pause to think. My comments We ALL know that people take dangerous shortcuts to save money. Let me give you just one example that I saw on Bob's site: The website, http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-990207-120536.html claims (and I quote): "Nationwide Milk Recall In Effect 270,000 Cases Of Milk Product Recalled Due To Possible Listeria Contamination
** MILK DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST BONE BREAKS **
"Don't count on milk to beat osteoporosis. In a Harvard study of 78,000
nurses, drinking three or more glasses of milk per day did not reduce
fractures at all. An Australian study showed the same thing.
Still, you do need calcium, and good non-dairy sources include fortified
orange or apple juice, green leafy vegetables, beans and calcium
supplements. The amount you need is less when you reduce sodium and
animal protein in your diet. Exercise and vitamin D (from the sun or a
supplement) are also key."
(PCRM's ad campaign is based upon two studies;
The Harvard Nurse's study - Cumming & Klineberg, published in the
American Journal of Epidemiology, and the Australian study - published
in the American Journal of Public Health. FAX your request for these
studies to: ANTIDAIRY Coalition - 201-871-9304)
THE MOST IMPORTANT STUDY
THE HARVARD NURSES' STUDY
A SHOCKING AND UNEXPECTED REVELATION
THE AUSTRALIAN STUDY
Editor Gordon Watts responds:
While the library here at FSU where I am a student doesn't have the
American Journal of Epidemiology after about 1994 or so, I
"Because there is clinical and experimental evidence that galactose may be
toxic to ovarian germ cells, the authors sought to determine... The
authors found significant correlations among these variables such that
fertility at older ages is lower and the decline in fertility with aging
is steeper in populations with high per capita consumption of milk and
greater ability to digest its lactose component." (Cramer, D.W., H. Xu,
and T. Sahi. Adult Hypolactasia, Milk Consumption, and Age-Specific
Fertility.
They were pretty convincing for me. The two graphs were such that: (1) the
more per capita usage of milk a country had, the faster the women declined
in fertility. And: (2) the more people who were "lactose intolerant"
(couldn't drink milk), the LESS the decline in fertility, thus suggesting
that milk usage was bad & the lack thereof was good.
"Mettlin and Piver (1) recently reported that increased risk for ovarian
cancer associated with [happening together with] milk consumption was
confined to consumers of whole milk, rather than skim milk... [However, we
found that u]se of more than one serving per day of skim (or low fat) milk
was associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer." (Cramer, D. W.
and B.L. Harlow. Commentary: Re: "A Case-Control Study of Milk Drinking
and Ovarian Cancer Risk".
"This was a 12-year prospective study among 77 761 women... In our cohort
[group], women consuming greater amounts of calcium from dairy foods had
modest but significantly increased risks of hip fracture while no increase
in fracture risk was observed for the same levels of calcium from nondairy
sources. ... With a fourfold difference in calcium intake between the 10th
and 90th population percentiles, it seems unlikely that the lack of
association between dairy calcium and fracture risk in our cohort can be
due to insufficient variation in diet. Misclassification of calcium intake
could attenuate [weaken] association, but it would not explain the
positive association observed between dietary calcium and hip fractures."
(Feskanich, D., ScD; W.C. Willert, MD, DrPH; M.J. Stampfer, MD, DrPH; and,
G.A. Colditz, MD, DrPH. Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in
Women: A 12-year Prospective Study.
One other thing here: the chance that both graphs were by chance and thus WRONG is (0.0003) times (0.0001), which equals 0.00000003, or a three (3) in 100 Million (100,000,000) chance. Not likely. What? You say, what is that multiplication math? OK. Here is the situation: let's say that it rains 50% of the days in your city randomly. Now, let's imagine that a certain pizza driver visits your house about one (1) day in every week of seven (7) days -- randomly. So, the chance of a visit is about 14.28%. The chance of rain is 50%. When you multiply (0.1428) times (0.5), you get about (0.0714) or about a 7.14% chance that he will come when it is raining. You can try it out if you don't believe me; this is done by looking at all 14 daily possibilities, seven rainy with a visit & seven clear with a visit. Thus, the chance that both graphs are wrong... well, considering the empirical evidence presented about how humans are not equipped to digest milk... even LESS than the 3 in 100 M chance, by far. Not chance, just truth. Here are a few more graphs: You get the picture by now...
I found some other articles that claimed milk was beneficial for the health but not as convincing nor as numerous as these here that give an opposing view. JUST LIKE the Cigarettes being 'approved' by the FDA and the flat-Earth theories! The truth was out there, but nobody paid attention for a LONG time!
Definitions: Recessive Trait- An
inherited trait that occurs in an organism only when it has inherited both
alleles (variations) of that particular gene. I.e., A person has to
inherit it from both parent to have it. Examples include blue eye
color and colorblindness.
III. New Research on ~~~ STRESS ~~~
Doctors, now-a-days, generally accept that dealing with stress is an important factor in both mental and physical health -- if not the most important factor. I Can't count the number of studies that indicate that STRESSFUL events -- such as being fired from a job, or a divorce or death in the family -- NEGATIVELY influence the health! Different color: Now, we all also recall how good events AND a good outlook on life can **-> HELP <-** one's health, right? In fact, the old Bible people had it right in Proverbs, Chapter 17, Verse 22: "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." Hmmmm... STRESS "A study of 12,338 men ages 35 to 57 found that, with other factors controlled, men who took annual vacations were 21% less likely to die during the 16-year study period than nonvacationers--and 32% less likely to die of coronary heart disease. The findings add to evidence showing that cutting stress is good for you." In Brief.(Personal Time/Your Family - health)(Brief Article) Found In: Time; March 20 2000, v.155, 11, 92 STRESS Title: How stress interferes with team work.(Brief Article) Found In: IIE Solutions; Jan 2000, v.32, 1, 66 "Work teams are often called upon to accomplish complex tasks under crisis conditions. New research shows that groups function less effectively under stress and that stress even may lead to teams in which members barely acknowledge each other." STRESS Investigators examining the link between sudden cardiac death and psychological stress recruited 18 volunteers with implantable defibrillators. Ventricular tachycardia was easier to induce and harder to terminate in stressed volunteers than in relaxed ones, even though the "stress" in the experiment-simple mental arithmetic and some irritating questions--was minimal (Circulation 2000;101:158-64). STRESS "It is observed that four factors are relevant when reducing stress and healing from illnesses: 1. avoiding mistreatment 2. avoiding mistreating others due to the stress from guilt 3. avoiding procrastinating duties/obligations 4. avoiding overload or burnout from too much work on duties/obligations." The Register Friday, 07 July 2000 Also, *exercising* is important to raise the metabolism. Why? Well, consider a dead person: the metabolism is at the EXTREME low end, thus he/she can sleep ALL DAY LONG and STILL not heal up! So, don't have a metabolism on the "dead" end, like a sick person. So, exercise safely, and ingest good food while you are alive and able. Then, when you sleep or rest, you can heal up! Also, a faster metabolism aids in digestion. You'll probably feel better too. Oh, here is a Bible verse that seems to make scientific sense: Ecclesiastes, Chapter 5 and Verse 12: "Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much; but the surfeit [the disgusting excess of riches] of the rich will not let him sleep." I guess the old Bible people knew that we would get good exercise -- and help our health, physical, mental, and Spiritual -- if we worked hard, eh? For an editorial that NotMilk has asked people to print out in flyer format, please click here .
IV. Why eating too many calories can reduce your life span
With permission of Mr. Robert Cohen, the website owner, I quote a little excerpt from his site: http://hungerstrike.vegsource.com/casey.html , where he does a close-up on an expert, Dr. Rai "Rainbow" Casey, M.D., D.D., Renaissance Coaching. Dr. Casey cites this study, which, although I haven't located in the literature yet, I trust is there:
(This is the quote from Robert's site.) In one experiment worms were fed as much as they usually eat, except one worm, which was isolated and alternatively fed and fasted. The isolated worm was alive and energetic after 19 generations of its relatives had lived out their normal lifespan. Prof. C.M. Childs said: "When worms are deprived of food, they do not die of starvation in a few days. They live for months on their own tissues. At such time, they become smaller and may be reduced to a fraction of their original size. then when fed after such a fasting, they show all the physiological traits of young animals. But with continued feeding, they again go through the process of growth and aging (and die). One group of worms was well fed and every three or four months passed through the cycle of aging and reproducing. Another group was given just enough food to maintain the worms at a constant size but not enough to make them grow. These worms remained in good condition without becoming appreciably older as long as the experiment continued, which was three years." The life span extension of these worms was the equivalent of keeping a man alive for 600-700 years.
Rai Casey Editor Gordon Watts: Info found on the net about caloric intake and life-span: (#1.) "These results suggest that total caloric intake may modulate the rates of cell death and proliferation in a direction consistent with a cancer-protective effect in DR mice and a cancer-promoting effect in AL mice." from: http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/Suppl-1/307-312james/abstract.html . (#2.) "9. Weindruch, R. and Sohal, R. S. (1997) Caloric intake and aging. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 986-994." from: http://www.smu.edu/~biology/sohal.html . (#3.) "13.Dhahbi, J.M., Tillman, J.B., Cao, S., Mote, P,L., Walford, R.L., and Spindler, S.R.: Caloric intake alters the efficiency of catalase mRNA translation in the liver of old female mice. J. Gerontol. 53A: B180-185, 1998." from: http://www.walford.com/bio.htm . See also: http://cnas.ucr.edu/~biochem/faculty/spindler.html for this quote. (#4.) "A UCR researcher finds a connection between decreased caloric intake and increased life span." from: http://www.ucr.edu/SubPages/2CurNewsFold/Magazine/April99/eat.html . (#5.) "We have known for many years that reduction of caloric intake by up to 40% over that of the normally fed diet, while also maintaining essential nutrients and avoiding malnutrition, is the only intervention that will extend the maximum life span of animals from many different genera." from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/aging/pugh.htm . (#6.) "Caloric Restriction, or reducing the caloric intake by 30 to 50 percent, has increased both the average and maximum lifespan in rats and mice more than 30 percent. The animals receive enough nutrients but weigh considerably less than their non-restricted counterparts. Studies have also shown that the rodents are healthier, with lower blood pressure and a postponement of age-related declines in muscle mass, immunity and other areas." from: http://www.buffzone.com/extra/last-rights/23future.html . (#7.) "Recent Research Shows Lower Calorie Diets are Associated with Longer Life" from: http://www.clos.net/caloric_restriction.htm . (#8.) "Harman: It was first shown in the mid-1930s that reducing caloric intake would increase both the average and maximum life spans and decrease disease incidence. I believe that this result was due to decreased free radical damage owing to decreased oxygen utilization. Glycosylation may play a minor role in this effect as glucose levels go down when calories are restricted." from: http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/interview.asp?PageType=Interview&ID=175 . V. What the Bible has to say about eating meat and drinking milk
Everybody is right in saying that God allowed the eating of meats (1
Corinthians 6:13=Meats for the belly; 1 Timothy 4:3=and commanding to
abstain from meats is wrong; Genesis 9:3=Every moving thing that liveth
shall be meat for you). In fact, God told the
disciple and apostle, Peter in the 10th Chapter of Acts:
So, do these scriptures mean that it is OK to eat meats? Well, first, the
scripture in Acts is not literal; it is an analogy or parable, in which
the unclean meats refer to people. See verse 28:
However, even if all these scriptures were to be taken literally,
this would still not be justification for all people to eat meats any
time. God made special allowances for the eating of meats as He did
divorce.
God allowed eating of meats...
Likewise, the eating of meats was *not* so in the beginning: Genesis
1:29="And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is
the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Now,
notice: God said "every herb bearing seed" shall be for meat, *not* "Every
moving thing that liveth." (In verse 30, God did give the herb for meat
-- food -- to the animals, but he still did *not* give the animals to for
food to humans!)
NEW STUFF! ---> Some people may question why God told Moses that "...At
even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with
bread..." in EXODUS 16:12. (And, Numbers 11:31-32 & Psalms 105:40 seem to
make the whole QUAIL meat idea OK, right?) Sort of makes you think that
meat and bread are on the same level: both are OK, right? NO! God did this
because of their complaints: read the whole verse, there Hommie: in Exodus
16:12 -- "I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak
unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall
be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." The
result of their complaining and running their mouth against GOD? "And
while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed,
the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote
the people with a very great plague." (NUMBERS 11:33 -- this is the very
next! verse after the Exodus 11:32,32 citation above: hmmm... perhaps, the
meat was more punishment than blessing; and, YOU want to eat that
stuff?!?)
And, what about JESUS, supposedly promoting fish-eating? (Five-Thousand --
5,000 fed with fish & loaves: Mark 6:44 & Luke 9:13 & John 6:10, 26; or
the Four-Thousand --4,000 with fish & loaves: Matthew 15:38; Matthew
16:10; Mark 8:9, 20.) And, didn't JESUS, himself eat fish as it says in
Luke 24:42 "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an
honeycomb."? No! See the next verse: "And he took it, and did eat
before them." Now, notice that it says he took "it," not them. Now, what
do you suppose that could be meaning? He took the BREAD! However, I'll
admit that I don't know why he apparently gave fish to people if it was
bad for their health, yet, I don't see where either the miracle of the
4,000 *or* 5,000 resulted in people EATING fish; it only STARTED with
fish: thus, it can be seen that scripture upholds veganism in the original
plan, however many exceptions have been made for the 'hardness of our
heart'!
"Isn't meat eating allowed by Colossians 2:16: 'Let no man therefore judge
you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:' ?" ANSWER: found in 1 Corinthians 10:23: "All
things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are
lawful for me, but all things edify not." For the dense, this allows
meat-eating, but, since scripture cannot be broken, it also allows that it
may not be healthy. (It is *not* healthy!) Thus, you have your answer.
Let's look at its companion verse: 1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are
lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful
for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Paul won't be
brought under meat's compelling spell. Will you?
Therefore, while eating meats might not get you unsaved (as we don't get
saved by works), being either unsaved and/or foolish might push you to eat
meats and thus put God to a foolish test by unnecessarily tempting Him!
(Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12). Get wisdom: it is the principal thing (Prov. 4:5-7;
Prov. 1:20) as she cries out in the streets. For after all, the scientific
studies that I cite, which say that meats and cow milk are UNHEALTHY! ARE
a Word from the Lord according to James 1:17 and Philippians 4:8 because
they ARE true, honest, and pure, thus a good and perfect gift; therefore,
these words I write/speak *are* from the LORD. Remember: "There is no
wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." (Proverbs 21:30).
So, I am glad that y'all are careful to separate the issues of physical
health from those of Salvation -- and realize some of the dangers of what
we eat. However, sinse our bodies are the temple of the Lord (John 2:21; 1
Corinthians 6:19), it would be wise to *_not_* stop half-way.
So, in closing, remember that there is no counsel (fighting) against the
Lord (scripture above) and that God isn't mocked: What you sow (including
eating habits!) is what you will reap (including health). (Galatians
6:7).
Now, about milk, yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know about Exodus 3:8 (a land
flowing with milk and honey) and Hebrews 5:12 (such as have need of milk),
but go on to the next verse: Hebrews 5:13 says: "For every one that useth
milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." I know
that this look figurative (and it is), but it is also quite
literal. Don't forget that the scientific studies above have been shown to
line up (agree with!) the Holy Word of God, the Holy Bible, thus, again,
you don't want to buck God! I mean, really: can anyone get into a fight
with God and win?!? No way! However, the HOLY BIBLE speaks about RESPECT
for the ANIMALS: Many Christians, Muslims, and Hindus feel that their
scriptures allow for milk consumption. But, ultimately, their scriptures
also ask ALL PEOPLE to respect the life of animals. (For example: PROVERBS
12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast...")
Just as we let pigs eat garbage to clean up, and just as we let many
animals fertilize the ground by dying of natural causes and excreting
dung, so also we should let cows and chickens and goats live in peace and
harmony as we do other animals. Don't bother them for milk, cheese, and
eggs when we have so many better alternatives for food. Let them use their
milk for their calves and baby goats, and their eggs for their own
purposes. Live and let live. Show respect.
FIRST, consuming dairy, milk, cheese, & eggs contradicts known fact: IT IS
BAD for the health. SECOND, it contradicts gut intuition: We know that
this is unfair treatment of the animals and 'just not natural' for us to
consume their products, especially milk in adulthood. THIRD: Many people
contradict THEMSELVES, drinking milk of one animal but not of another,
similar animal. Both are bad, so be consistent in your logic!
Doing nothing to stop these problems is doing something bad!: ALLOWING
PREVENTABLE health problems and other abuses to occur. So, speak up, and
make a change in your (our) world!
Finally, I do not ridicule or wish to offend vegetarians who eat/drink
dairy or milk product, for example the many peaceful Hindus who revere
cows and love the cows' milk. However, these fine citizens would be even
healthier and MORE respectful towards animals if they derived ALL their
food/drink from non-animal (plant) sources!
Now that you have received knowledge of what things are good and what
things are beneficial gifts from the LORD, are you expected to take action
and make changes in your life? Well, I will let the scripture answer my
question:
These red letters are the words of the Man, JESUS. He said that to whom
much is given, much is required. So, understand that this advice about
avoiding bad foods is good, and eat it up!
FINAL COMMENTARY
A friend of mine said that some cultures eat meat because that is their
tradtions and the way they were raised. Do you know what scripture has to
say about that hogwash?
In fact, this 'friend' says that some cultures eat roaches and insects,
and he claims that any food is good in moderation. If that is so, then why
doesn't he eat a few roaches? He says that his family wasn't raised that
way. It looks like he is following the traditions of men when it suits him
(to avoid roach-eating) and adding to or mis-interpreting the Bible when
it suits him (to eat meat in spite of its health problems). I will admit
that it is OK to eat meat if nothing else is available, but in this 'land
of plenty,' that is not the case: we are blessed of the Lord in our
ability to get healthy foods.
So, what is the alternative to this? When I say something like: "Jesus did
this...and Jesus did that," this 'friend' typically says something like:
"Well, you're not Jesus." Isn't that just like the devil? What's God's
answer to this garbage?
Mark Chapter 16
--and--
John Chapter 14
Hmmm...this should keep him thinking for a while. While he is thinking, I
will admit that miracles alone do not show that one is from God:
Exodus 7:11-12
1st Samuel 28:3a,11-12
Matthew 7:21-23
Matthew 24:24
Mark 13:22
2nd Corinthians 11:13-15
Revelation 13:12-14
Revelation 19:20
Well, this has become more of a Bible lesson than a health lesson, but
things just got out of hand, and I figured you all would need a little
info on right logic and direction. Perhaps, later, I will possibly split
this section up into distinct health and religion sections more that it is
currently done, but for now, you will have to do with the headers as is.
At least, there is some table of contents above in this section,...-and
further, the website, itself, is sectioned up into bite-sized chunks
called pages. Perhaps, later, I will readdress this arrangement.
VI. Just What is "Food Combining?"
Food combining refers to eating certain foods together and avoiding other
combinations. Here is a quick overview:
In this practice, ~FOOD~ is divided into several basic groups:
1. Proteins
I won't go into all the details, because they are long, and, in some
cases, I frankly don't know them -- but, here is what I do know:
Meat and Potatoes
Hydrochloric Acid, if exposed to Amylase, becomes diluted. And, Amylase,
if exposed to Hydrochloric Acid, gets torn into pieces. You see,
Hydrochloric Acid is ACIDIC, and Amylase is BASIC (or ALKALINE, another
way to describe the opposite of Acidic). Now, all of us Chemistry majors
remember that Acids and Bases CANCEL one another. And, the problem here is
unavoidable! Why? Because, when we eat starches, our bodies automatically
produce Amylase; and, when we eat proteins, our bodies automatically make
Hydrochloric Acid. It is automatic. And, the title "Meat and Potatoes"
does not imply you should eat meat. That topic is covered elsewhere in
this page.
MELONS
THE OVERVIEW
Proteins<-good combination->Vegetables<-good combination->Starches
Proteins <-- bad combination --> Starches
Melons [Eat them alone -- or leave them alone.]
Acid Fruits<-good combination->SubAcid Fruits<-poor combination->Sweet
Fruits
Acid Fruits <-- bad combination --> Sweet Fruits
Anything in groups 1, 2, or 3 (Proteins, Veggies, or Starches) is a "Bad
Combination" with anything in the remaining groups (any fruits).
The Conclusion of the whole matter is as follows: The COMBINATION of foods
is as important as TYPE of foods you eats.
However...
** Also, I have read that WHEN you eat is as important as WHAT you eat.
That means the "Permutation" is as important as the "Combination," a
definition that will be given below.
It has been suggested that a person eat a light meal of fruits in the
morning because it is easy on the body, which is just waking up. Then, at
lunch, a meal of starches and/or vegetables is recommended. The evening
meal suggested is one of proteins and/or veggies. Additionally, it is
suggested by many smart and healthy people who I know that a one (1) hour
nap be taken about an hour after lunch. Professionals also recommend that
the last meal of the day be a few hours before bed time so the body will
not have difficulty in sleeping. OK, here are those definitions:
Combination: noun, A union or joining of several items in
no particular order.
Permutation: noun, A union or joining together of several
items in a specific order.
Thus, the easy way to remember which is which is this: A "Combination
Lock" of the type that twists with only one knob is really misnamed. It is
a "Permutation Lock" because the order of numbers matters, like, for
example, "1-25-9" might be the combination, but it must be in that order
or else it won't work. The locks in which there are several knobs are
*true* combination locks becasue it doesn't matter about the order. Well,
that about wraps up this subject here.
The final section below is a reprise of the milk section. It is a chart
that shows that we don't need as much calcium as we think that we do. See
below.
Quote 1:
Quote 2:
Quote 3 is a chart:
20. Genetic Predisposition is a very small health risk, but most have good
potential as history shows wide variation in an individual's health is
possible even though the genetic code remains the same throughout the
lifetime
...And the Number One Health-Stressor results in change in... 1. The barometric pressure dropped from about 60 bar to about 30 bar after the Great Flood, as shown by archeological and geological findings, causing the average lifespan to decrease from about eight-hundred (800) years to about seventy-five (75) years per person. Air is more necessary than even water, as one can only survive about five (5) minutes without it. Perhaps Adam and Eve polluted the atmosphere, causing the clouds to seed and rain, as is done by Meteorologists with airplanes and chemicals dumped into clouds -- as it did not rain before the flood, according to Genesis, in the Bible. As the atmosphere expanded outward, the volume increased, causing a decrease in pressure, according to the Perfect Gas Law PV=nRT. BAD STRESSOR! (It may sound weird, strange, or even unusual, but it can not be disproved at the present time -- and does sound rather plausible.) *Gordon's TOP 20 Health Risks* just went "Wham!" Please, correct my list if/when/where it is wrong.
Thanks,
http://www.Members.AOL.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/consumer1.html That is "consumer" the number ONE and dot html
TAKE ME HOME! My other personal page My AOL Page My GeoCities Page My Tripod Page
|
-LINKS DIALOGUE- |
-MEDIA CONTACTS- |
-SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD- | |
