EAT A FEW PEANUTS FOR A HEALTHY HEART



D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
A bit of fat is good for your heart: Study

ANI Friday, January 30, 2004

Washington - A new study conducted at Penn State has found that although low-fat diets are
recommended for a healthy heart, a moderate-fat weight loss diet reduced dieters' cardiovascular
risk better than a low-fat diet.

The moderate-fat diet, in which half the fat was monounsaturated fat from peanuts and peanut oil,
produced a 14 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease risk. The low fat group experienced a nine
percent improvement.

Both the moderate and low fat diets were controlled so that all participants lost about the same
amount of weight - approximately 2.4 to 2.7 pound a week on average.

"While the low-fat diet successfully reduced risk factors during the weight loss phase of the study,
those factors rebounded during the maintenance phase," Dr. Penny Kris- Etherton, distinguished
professor of nutrition, said.

Fifty-three overweight or obese men and women participated in the study. All of the participants had
total cholesterol levels elevated above 200 at the start of the dieting. They ate either a low-fat
or moderate-fat diet designed to produce weight loss for six weeks and then similar diets designed
for maintenance for four weeks.

The foods were all provided by the researchers and provided 18 percent of calories from fat in the
low-fat diet or 33 percent of calories from fat in the moderate fat diet. Over the course of the
study, the low-fat diet group experienced a 12 percent decrease in HDL ("good") cholesterol but the
moderate-fat diet group had no change. This indicates that a moderate-fat diet blunts the decrease
in HDL ("good") cholesterol during weight loss.

In addition, after falling during the weight loss phase, triglycerides rose significantly during the
maintenance phase for those on the low fat diet but not for those on the moderate fat diet. Elevated
triglycerides are a cardiovascular risk factor.

"The findings of this current study are significant because they demonstrate that markedly lowering
total fat intakes may have adverse consequences on reductions in the risk of CVD, even in response
to weight loss," the authors concluded.

More at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/455585.cms

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti

Panchaang for 9 Maagh 5104, Friday, January 30, 2004:

Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksha RitauRitau Makar Mase Shukl Pakshe Shukr Vasara Yuktayam
Krittik Nakshatr Shukl-Brahm Yog Kaulav-Taitil Karan Navami-Dashami Yam Tithau

Hindu Holocaust Museum http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy http://www.hindu.org http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and
open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not
necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it
will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information
and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster.
 
M

Mark Thorson

Guest
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:

> A bit of fat is good for your heart: Study

Here's an interesting table from http://www.who.int/pcs/training_material/module4/section6.1.htm

Note that conditions which present multiple risks are called out separately -- for example, the risk
from black lung disease and the risk of an accident are listed separately for the condition of
living in a coal mine. Although the benzopyrene risk is cited for charcoal broiled steaks, the risk
from polyaromatic hydrocarbons and polyamines from the same steaks is not included in the table.

Note where eating peanut butter is in this list. Frankly, I'd rather eat the charcoal-broiled steak.

Table 12. Risks which increase chance of death by 0.000001

Smoking 1.4 cigarettes -- Cancer, heart disease Drinking ½ litre of wine -- Cirrhosis of the liver
Spending 1 hour in a coal mine -- Black lung disease Spending 3 hours in a coal mine -- Accident
Living 2 days in New York or Boston -- Air pollution Travelling 5 minutes by canoe -- Accident
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle -- Accident Travelling 300 miles by car -- Accident Flying 1000 miles
by jet -- Accident Flying 6000 miles by jet -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation Living 2 months in
Denver on vacation from New York -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation Living 2 months in average
stone or brick building -- Cancer caused by natural radioactivity One chest X-ray taken in a good
hospital -- Cancer caused by radiation Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker -- Cancer, heart
disease Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter -- Liver cancer caused by aflatoxin B Drinking Miami
drinking-water for 1 year -- Cancer caused by chloroform Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of diet soda --
Cancer caused by saccharin Living 5 years at site boundary of a typical nuclear power plant in the
open -- Cancer caused by radiation Drinking 1000 24 oz. soft drinks from recently banned plastic
bottles -- Cancer from acrylonitrile monomer Living 20 years near PVC plant -- Cancer caused by
vinyl chloride (1976 standard) Living 150 years within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant -- Cancer
caused by radiation Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks -- Cancer from benzopyrene Risk of accident
by living within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor for 50 years -- Cancer caused by radiation
 
M

Mark Thorson

Guest
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:

> A bit of fat is good for your heart: Study

In this study, 10 out of 36 participants were found to be positive for the Thomsen-Friedenreich
antigen, which causes the cells of their rectum to divide rapidly (possible risk factor for
colorectal cancer) when they eat peanuts.

Gastroenterology 1998 Jan;114(1):44-9 Peanut ingestion increases rectal proliferation in individuals
with mucosal expression of peanut lectin receptor. Ryder SD, Jacyna MR, Levi AJ, Rizzi PM, Rhodes
JM. Department of Gastroenterology, Northwick Park Hospital,

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Thomsen-Friedenreich blood group antigen (galactose beta 1,3-N-acetyl
galactosamine alpha-) acts as an oncofetal antigen in the colonic epithelium, with low expression in
normal adult epithelia but increasing to fetal levels of expression in hyperplasia or malignancy.
Peanut lectin is one of the commonest dietary lectins that binds this antigen. The aim of this study
was to determine whether peanut ingestion can alter rectal epithelial proliferation.

METHODS: Thirty-six patients with normal colonic mucosa consumed 100 g of peanuts each day for 5
days. Rectal mitotic index was measured before and after ingestion, and changes in proliferation
were correlated with immunohistochemical detection of lectin receptor expression by colonocytes and
fecal lectin activity as measured by hemagglutination assay.

RESULTS: Peanut ingestion caused a 41% increase in rectal mucosal proliferation in individuals with
macroscopically normal mucosa who express TF antigen in their rectal mucosae (10 of 36 patients
studied). The proliferative response correlated with fecal hemagglutinating activity, and peanut
lectin could be shown immunohistochemically within the rectal mucosa.

CONCLUSIONS: The common expression of galactose beta 1,3-N-acetyl galactosamine alpha- by
hyperplastic and neoplastic epithelia may therefore be functionally important because it allows
interaction with mitogenic dietary lectins. This could be an important mechanism for the association
between diet and colorectal cancer.
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Thorson <[email protected]> posted:
> . . . Frankly, I'd rather eat the charcoal-broiled steak. . . .

THE BEEF DIET: Prescription for Disaster

By Neal D. Barnard President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine http://www.pcrm.org
Washington, DC, USA

Imagine if two jumbo jets collided over a major city and, in the resulting fireball, 4,000 people
died -- it would be a national tragedy -- one of the worst accidents ever. People would demand
that airlines and the government made sure nothing like that could ever happen again.

A tragedy of this proportion happened the day before yesterday. It happened yesterday, too. It
will happen again today and tomorrow. Every single day in the United States, 4,000 lives are
taken by heart attacks and almost nothing is being done about it.

For years now, we have known of the role diet plays in health, yet unhealthy diets are still
promoted by the government, livestock industries, advertisers, and even doctors. Healthy diets
must be presented and encouraged by these groups if America's health care crisis is going to
be solved.

Dietary changes are worth making. Two of the three leading killers of Americans are heart disease
and stroke. Both are linked to "hardening of the arteries" -- arteriosclerosis -- which, in turn,
is largely caused by high-fat, cholesterol-laden diets. As we all know, animal flesh, and beef in
particular, is a major source of cholesterol and saturated fat.

The enormous toll of these diseases is taken one patient at a time, as doctors finally give up
trying to resuscitate yet another heart that is damaged beyond hope. The toll is also felt in the
national pocketbook. Coronary bypasses and expensive diagnostic tests are now the budget-breaking
routine in every city in America.

Many other diseases also have their roots in our daily meals. Breast cancer, which has reached
epidemic proportions, killing one woman every twelve minutes, is clearly related to diet. The
same connections have been drawn between diet and cancers of the colon and prostate. In fact,
according to the National Cancer Institute, some 80 percent of cancer deaths are attributable to
smoking, diet, and other identifiable and controllable factors. Foods rich in fat and oils
increase our cancer risk. About 40 percent of all the calories we eat comes from the fat in
meats, poultry, fish, dairy products, fried foods and vegetable oils. These fats stimulate the
over-production of hormones which encourage cancer and promote the development of carcinogens in
the digestive tract.

Not only are beef and other meats high in cholesterol and saturated fats, but they are also low
in some vital vitamins and minerals, and they contain zero fiber. Recently there has been
enormous scientific attention given to the role beta-carotene and other vitamins and minerals
play in blocking cancer growth. Whole grains, fruits, legumes, and vegetables are full of
vitamins and minerals. And plant foods have fiber -- a substance completely lacking in beef and
other meats. We have long known that fiber helps eliminate many common gastrointestinal problems
such as constipation; however, evidence shows that it also is protective against a wide variety
of diseases ranging from colon cancer to diabetes, and from gallstones to appendicitis. It also
binds with carcinogenic substances, bile, and excess hormones which would otherwise rest in the
digestive tract, and moves them out of the body.

As one studies the diets of people around the world, one thing becomes clear: as people give up
traditional diets that are low in fats, high in fiber, and predominantly plant-based in favor of
beef and other meats, the incidence of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and
kidney disease rises. At the same time, life expectancy and quality of life decline. In recent
years, Japan has been the target of American beef and tobacco promotional campaigns that seem to
be some sort of Pearl Harbor revenge program. Members of the higher socioeconomic strata, who are
adopting Westernized diets, have much higher rates of breast, colon, and prostate cancer and
heart disease than their counterparts who eat less (or no) meat.

The Beyond Beef campaign is encouraging people to make this simple change -- to step away from
beef. It is a move that is good for you, for others, for animals, and for the environment. So
live a little; try some new cuisine; experiment with traditional and ethnic foods. It could well
help you live a lot healthier longer.

==================================================================
Dr. Neal Barnard is President of The Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine, a
nationwide group of physicians that promotes preventive medicine and addresses
controversies in modern medicine. In April 1991, he and three other doctors unveiled a
proposal to replace the old Four Food Groups concept initiated in 1956. In his book, "The
Power of Your Plate," Dr. Barnard documents the scientific evidence supporting a low-fat,
vegetarian diet as the most potent regimen to reduce risk of heart disease, cancer, weight
problems and food-borne illness. Aside from serving as a practicing physician on the
faculty of the George Washington School of Medicine, he is also an Associate Director for
Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention.
Ds. Barnard is a director of Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention at
George Washington University.
==================================================================

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
F

Fedup

Guest
So- what is the bottom line DOCTOR ?
peanuts- or NOT?
Get to the point!
"Mark Thorson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote:
>
> > A bit of fat is good for your heart: Study
>
> In this study, 10 out of 36 participants were found to be positive for the Thomsen-Friedenreich
> antigen, which causes the cells of their rectum to divide rapidly (possible risk factor for
> colorectal cancer) when they eat peanuts.
>
> Gastroenterology 1998 Jan;114(1):44-9 Peanut ingestion increases rectal proliferation in
> individuals with mucosal expression of peanut lectin receptor. Ryder SD, Jacyna MR, Levi AJ, Rizzi
> PM, Rhodes JM. Department of Gastroenterology, Northwick Park Hospital,

>
> BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Thomsen-Friedenreich blood group antigen (galactose beta 1,3-N-acetyl
> galactosamine alpha-) acts as an oncofetal antigen in the colonic epithelium, with low expression
> in normal adult epithelia but increasing to fetal levels of expression in hyperplasia or
> malignancy. Peanut lectin is one of the commonest dietary lectins that binds this antigen. The aim
> of this study was to determine whether peanut ingestion can alter rectal epithelial proliferation.
>
> METHODS: Thirty-six patients with normal colonic mucosa consumed 100 g of peanuts each day for 5
> days. Rectal mitotic index was measured before and after ingestion, and changes in proliferation
> were correlated with immunohistochemical detection of lectin receptor expression by colonocytes
> and fecal lectin activity as measured by hemagglutination assay.
>
> RESULTS: Peanut ingestion caused a 41% increase in rectal mucosal proliferation in individuals
> with macroscopically normal mucosa who express TF antigen in their rectal mucosae (10 of 36
> patients studied). The proliferative response correlated with fecal hemagglutinating activity, and
> peanut lectin could be shown immunohistochemically within the rectal mucosa.
>
> CONCLUSIONS: The common expression of galactose beta 1,3-N-acetyl galactosamine alpha- by
> hyperplastic and neoplastic epithelia may therefore be functionally important because it allows
> interaction with mitogenic dietary lectins. This could be an important mechanism for the
> association between diet and colorectal cancer.
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[ Path: ... cyclone.austin.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!
[ cyclone.kc.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!
[ twister.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
[ From: Jojo <[email protected]>
[ Subject: Re: EAT A FEW PEANUTS FOR A HEALTHY HEART
[ User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!)
[ Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:15:51 GMT
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.26.58.28 - CPE-65-26-58-28.kc.rr.com
[ X-Trace: twister.rdc-kc.rr.com 1075598151 65.26.58.28
[ (Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:15:51 CST)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:15:51 CST
[ Organization: RoadRunner
Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
> If I want to ride on a plane and crash it in the ocean, that should not be illegal. . . . .

Is the Department of Homeland Security aware of the state of your mind?

> If I want to eat nothing but steaks and die of a heart attack, who are you to stop me?

Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is
everyone's business:

MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS

o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
consumption. Meat- eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Producing least-efficient plant- based food is 10 times more efficient than producing most-
efficient animal- based food. Meat-eaters adversely affect everyone.

o A Vegetarian diet will cut oil imports by over 60% and supply of renewable energy will increase
120- 150%. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Meat-eaters have higher blood pressure, are more hypertensive and violent. Public funds are used
for research and treatment. Everyone is forced to pay the price of violence and crime. Meat-eaters
hurt themselves, their families and others.

o There is overwhelming evidence that the meat-eating habit causes stroke and heart diseases.
Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families
and others.

o Red meat causes colon cancer, #2 cause of cancer in the U.S. Meat- eaters are 2-1/2 times more
likely to get it. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves,
their families and others.

o The meat-eating habit kills rain forests, 38% of all rain forests destroyed in Brazil because of
it. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The meat habit kills our supply of medicines, about a fourth of them come from tropical rain
forests. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The beef diet causes excess carbon dioxide and global warming as forests are burned for the U.S.
meat habit. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Meat-eaters have double the bone loss; vegetarians have significantly stronger bones. Public
funds are used for research and treatment of arthritis, osteoporosis and other bone-related
diseases. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o The meat diet's excess protein causes calcium loss which causes painful kidney stones in meat-
eaters. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Animal foods are the major source of pesticides. Of all, 95-99% are in meat, fish, eggs and dairy
items. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o The production of meat, eggs, dairy items accounts for 33% of all raw materials. Plant-based
foods will use 5%. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The meat-eating habit dumps twice the pollutants as released by all U.S. industrial sources. 1
billion tons a year. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Cancer-causing, deadly toxaphene is used for dipping cattle. Toxaphene is retained in animal
flesh. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Hormones added to animals increase profits but cause cancer, impotence, infertility and other
illnesses. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o One acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes but less than 165 pounds of beef. Meat-eaters
hurt everyone.

o The meat, including poultry, sold today is grossly infected with both coliform bacteria and
salmonella. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Fruits and vegetables are great medicines by themselves, unlike animal-based foods. Meat-eaters
cause public funds to be used for medical research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves,
their families and others.

o Meat-eating causes obesity, a significant co-factor in all crippling degenerative diseases.
Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families
and others.

o U.S. livestock consumes enough grain and soy beans to feed over 5 times the entire U.S. human
population. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Diet-style changes would not only halt the process of deforestation, they would actually reverse
it. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Women's risk of breast cancer rises dramatically with their intake of meat. Public funds are used
for research and treatment. Meat-eating women hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Most effective way of minimizing pesticide intake is to eliminate meats, fish, dairy products and
eggs. This is the way to eliminate the terrorism meat-eaters perpetrate on themselves, their
families and society.

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
J

Jojo

Guest
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:19:42 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> If I want to ride on a plane and crash it in the ocean, that should not be illegal. . . . .
>
> Is the Department of Homeland Security aware of the state of your mind?

Hey, just following the analogy provided.

>> If I want to eat nothing but steaks and die of a heart attack, who are you to stop me?
>
> Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is everyone's
> business:
>
> MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS
>
> o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
> consumption.

[snip rest]

First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven, most sound like rehashed
(and unproven) PETA claims.

Second, if "public funds" are being used to provide "research and treatment" for meat-related
problems, then the solution is to stop providing this money, not to claim that meat hurts others
because the funds exist.

Third, it's a bit simple-minded to think that if people stopped eating meat all the resources used
for meat production would automatically be used for less damaging pursuits. I'm betting things like
SUVs, cars, single family houses, air travel, and other "non essential" items and their production
use more natural resources and cause more pollution than meat production.

As for the health issues, I can be totally vegetarian and still eat extremely unhealthily. A diet of
palm oil, avacados, refined wheat, potatos, white rice, and corn chips ought to put my cholesterol
through the roof. Hell, a simple 5000 calorie vegetarian diet would be bad, and bad for my friends,
family, and others.

I have never seen a single study which shows that eating "moderate" amounts of meat (a few servings
a week for example) is harmful compared to a vegetarian diet. As I mentioned earlier, I am a
vegetarian. I am making a bet that a vegetarian diet is beneficial for me and my health, but I don't
pretend there is a much science backing that notion.
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:19:42 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
> >>
> >> If I want to ride on a plane and crash it in the ocean, that should not be illegal. . . . .
> >
> > Is the Department of Homeland Security aware of the state of your mind?

> Hey, just following the analogy provided.

Tell that to the guard at GITMO.

>>> If I want to eat nothing but steaks and die of a heart attack, who are you to stop me?

>> Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is everyone's
>> business:
>>
> > MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS
>>
>> o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
>> consumption.

> [snip rest]

Why -- can't handle the truth?

> First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven . . .

Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
S

Snoopy

Guest
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishithead" Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:19:42 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>
>
>>>Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is everyone's
>>>business:
>>>
>>>MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS
>>>
>>> o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
>>> consumption.
>
>
>
>>[snip rest]
>
>
> Why -- can't handle the truth?

If the truth were a mile-high edifice blocking the sunlight from the mouth of your snakepit, Johnny
boya, you wouldn't recognize it. You have established a solid reputation as a liar par excellence,
and for being someone with no morals, scruples or decency. Fanatics and terrorists like you will
always manipulate information to your benefit, and suppress what hurts your agenda.

Now treat yourself to your favorite New York strip steak, and when you visit your _other_ buddy in
Houston,, go for a nice long ride in his leather-equipped Lexus. You hypocrite maggot!

>>First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven . . .
>
>
> Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.

Then provide links to the "scientific studies", maggot!
 
J

Jojo

Guest
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:32:18 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:19:42 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>> Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is everyone's
>>> business:
>>>
>> > MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS
>>>
>>> o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
>>> consumption.
>
>> [snip rest]
>
> Why -- can't handle the truth?

What an odd thing to say. What would I have to lose if you were right?

>> First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven . . .
>
> Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.

And an Atkin's dieter can probably provide just as many health "facts" which are also based on
scientific studies. Just like many of yours probably are, they are only single, non-replicated
studies. And, until I see the math, the "resource" ones are just someone's guess. For that matter, I
see no references for any of the "facts".
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Jojo <[email protected]> posted:

> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:19:42 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >>> Please read about how the loss and damage caused by corpse eaters (nonvegetarians) is
> >>> everyone's business:
> >>>
> >> > MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS
> >>>
> >>> o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
> >>> consumption.
> >
> >> [snip rest]

> > Why -- can't handle the truth?

> What an odd thing to say. What would I have to lose if you were right?

Corpse-eating fanaticism, that's what.

>>> First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven . .

>> Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.

["Jojo' failed to provide any specific objections.]

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Jojo <[email protected]> posted:

> I stated multiple times that I am a vegetarian. I have no reason to want your statements to be
> false. I simply don't see, and you haven't provided, any reason why I should consider your
> statements to be true.

For starters, visit

http://www.pcrm.org

and study the articles offered there.

>>>>> First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven .

>>
>>>> Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.

>> ["Jojo' failed to provide any specific objections.]

> It's your job to back up your asserions before I can provide specific objections. . . .

I already posted them. Why didn't you read them? Here they are again -- study my FACT CITY posts --
already provided -- at Google for the substantiation:

MEAT-EATERS HURT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHERS

o The raw materials needed for food production from livestock exceed all oil, gas and coal
consumption. Meat- eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Producing least-efficient plant- based food is 10 times more efficient than producing most-
efficient animal- based food. Meat-eaters adversely affect everyone.

o A Vegetarian diet will cut oil imports by over 60% and supply of renewable energy will increase
120- 150%. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Meat-eaters have higher blood pressure, are more hypertensive and violent. Public funds are used
for research and treatment. Everyone is forced to pay the price of violence and crime. Meat-eaters
hurt themselves, their families and others.

o There is overwhelming evidence that the meat-eating habit causes stroke and heart diseases.
Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families
and others.

o Red meat causes colon cancer, #2 cause of cancer in the U.S. Meat- eaters are 2-1/2 times more
likely to get it. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves,
their families and others.

o The meat-eating habit kills rain forests, 38% of all rain forests destroyed in Brazil because of
it. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The meat habit kills our supply of medicines, about a fourth of them come from tropical rain
forests. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The beef diet causes excess carbon dioxide and global warming as forests are burned for the U.S.
meat habit. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Meat-eaters have double the bone loss; vegetarians have significantly stronger bones. Public
funds are used for research and treatment of arthritis, osteoporosis and other bone-related
diseases. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families and others.

o The meat diet's excess protein causes calcium loss which causes painful kidney stones in meat-
eaters. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Animal foods are the major source of pesticides. Of all, 95-99% are in meat, fish, eggs and dairy
items. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o The production of meat, eggs, dairy items accounts for 33% of all raw materials. Plant-based
foods will use 5%. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o The meat-eating habit dumps twice the pollutants as released by all U.S. industrial sources. 1
billion tons a year. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Cancer-causing, deadly toxaphene is used for dipping cattle. Toxaphene is retained in animal
flesh. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Hormones added to animals increase profits but cause cancer, impotence, infertility and other
illnesses. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o One acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes but less than 165 pounds of beef. Meat-eaters
hurt everyone.

o The meat, including poultry, sold today is grossly infected with both coliform bacteria and
salmonella. Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their
families and others.

o Fruits and vegetables are great medicines by themselves, unlike animal-based foods. Meat-eaters
cause public funds to be used for medical research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves,
their families and others.

o Meat-eating causes obesity, a significant co-factor in all crippling degenerative diseases.
Public funds are used for research and treatment. Meat-eaters hurt themselves, their families
and others.

o U.S. livestock consumes enough grain and soy beans to feed over 5 times the entire U.S. human
population. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Diet-style changes would not only halt the process of deforestation, they would actually reverse
it. Meat-eaters hurt everyone.

o Women's risk of breast cancer rises dramatically with their intake of meat. Public funds are used
for research and treatment. Meat-eating women hurt themselves, their families and others.

o Most effective way of minimizing pesticide intake is to eliminate meats, fish, dairy products and
eggs. This is the way to eliminate the terrorism meat-eaters perpetrate on themselves, their
families and society.

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
J

Jojo

Guest
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:16:48 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
>> I stated multiple times that I am a vegetarian. I have no reason to want your statements to be
>> false. I simply don't see, and you haven't provided, any reason why I should consider your
>> statements to be true.
>
> For starters, visit
>
> http://www.pcrm.org
>
> and study the articles offered there.

Interesting site, I've bookmarked the recipe secion. But it's short on the scientific studies which
show that meat eating is the cause of any of the problems you listed.

The closest is: http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/index.html

Which does contain references to actual scientific studies. Most seem to be saying what we already
know: that the "standard american diet" is bad. This is different from "eating any meat is bad".
There are many leaps like this: from small a specific statement to a generalized conclusion.

There are a few good references in among the propaganda though, I will study them further.

>>>>>> First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven .
>>>>> Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.
>
>>> ["Jojo' failed to provide any specific objections.]
>
>> It's your job to back up your asserions before I can provide specific objections. . . .
>
> I already posted them. Why didn't you read them?

I did read them. They are the assertions which you failed to back up. The link to the vegan site
above is a start, but it seems to fail (though I am still reading) at showing moderate meat
consumption leads to the problems you say are facts for "meat consumption" in general. Again, simply
listing 4 pages of assertions will not work.

Since I see no end to this in the near future, I'll state what I really think. Spreading this
obvious propaganda as "scientific fact" is not helping spread vegetarianism. Any real information on
the benefits of vegetarianism is lost in the flood of your extremist ideology. It's embarrassing to
have to explain people like you and the claims you make to non-vegetarians. It's like "everyday"
Christians to Pat Robertson.

Much of the "alternative medicine" world is the same. There *may* be beneficial practices in the
"alt" world, but stating up front that they are facts and everything else is wrong or part of a
conspiracy does not help the scientific question. You may grab a few fellow extremeists or trendy
people (who will be gone when the next "alternative fact" comes around), but you are not actually
making any headways in really promoting your view.

No doubt you disagree with this.
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:16:48 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
> >
> >> I stated multiple times that I am a vegetarian. I have no reason to want your statements to be
> >> false. I simply don't see, and you haven't provided, any reason why I should consider your
> >> statements to be true.
> >
> > For starters, visit
> >
> > http://www.pcrm.org
> >
> > and study the articles offered there.
>
> Interesting site, I've bookmarked the recipe secion. But it's short on the scientific studies
> which show that meat eating is the cause of any of the problems you listed.
>
> The closest is: http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/index.html
>
> Which does contain references to actual scientific studies. . . .

Now, locate the research and study it. Hundreds of more scientific sources in Robbins' "Diet for A
New America".

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
S

Snoopy

Guest
Johnny Judas Jay "the bonehead asstrolloger" Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
>
>
>>>>First, many of the "facts" provided are far from scientifically proven . .
>
>
>>>Which ones do you fail to comprehend? The facts are the result of scientific studies.
>
>
> ["Jojo' failed to provide any specific objections.]

_You_ failed to cite any specific studies, Johnny boya!
 
S

Snoopy

Guest
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishithead" Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
>
>>I stated multiple times that I am a vegetarian. I have no reason to want your statements to be
>>false. I simply don't see, and you haven't provided, any reason why I should consider your
>>statements to be true.
>
>
> For starters, visit
>
> http://www.pcrm.org
>
> and study the articles offered there.

About PCRM:

PCRM's four food group plan was discredited by the American Dietetic Association and the American
Medical Association which refers to PCRM as a "pseudo-physicians group" because less than 0.5% of
physicians are members. In reference to PCRM's four food group plan, the AMA said:

The AMA finds the recommendations of PCRM *irresponsible* and potentially *dangerous* to the health
and welfare of Americans. The AMA charges that PCRM is "blatantly *misleading* Americans on a health
matter and concealing its true purpose as an animal 'rights' organization.

In June 1990, the AMA formally requested PCRM to terminate the inappropriate and unethical tactics
used to manipulate public opinion against the use of animals in biomedical research. The AMA's James
S. Todd, MD, urged PCRM to immediately change its tactics and join the medical and scientific
communities in efforts to protect and preserve human welfare. More at http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-
r/pcrm.html
 
D

Dr. Jai Maharaj

Guest
U.S. PHYSICIANS SAY MEAT NOT NECESSARY, ACTUALLY HARMFUL

Recent Nutritional Research Affirms Superiority of the Vegetarian Diet for Humans

Thirty-five years ago the US Department of Agriculture said we should daily eat from four food
groups: 1. meat, fish and poultry; 2. grains; 3. dairy products; and 4. fruits and vegetables.

On April 9, 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a prestigious non-profit
organization active in health and research policy and based in Washington, D.C., said basing
our diet on those groups not only will not ensure adequate nutrition, consumption of meat,
fish, poultry and dairy products actually causes disease.

Instead PCRM recommends a "New Four Food Groups." They are: 1. fruits; 2. grains; 3.
vegetables; and 4. legumes.

This is a very significant development for vegetarians whose traditional vegetarian diet --
which easily fulfills the requirements of the "new" groups -- has been under attack in many
countries by physicians sharing the common ignorance of modern medicine toward diet.

For example, numerous physicians have insisted that mothers feed their children meat -- "A real
mistake," says Dr. Neal Barnard, leading to all sorts of diseases such as colic, juvenile
diabetes, diarrhea and later problems such as cancer of the colon. Dr. Devananda Tandavan
points out that the average doctor in America has had almost no training whatsoever in
nutrition by the time he has finished medical school and may remain ignorant for the rest of
his professional life on the importance of diet for good health.

Though others have made similar recommendations to revise the American diet, none have done so
with quite the authority of the 4,000-plus member PCRM. The committee's president, Dr. Neal D.
Barnard -- himself a vegetarian -- is a director of Behavioral Studies at the Institute for
Disease Prevention at George Washington University.

PCRM members instrumental in formulating the new food groups include Dr. T. Colin Campbell,
Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Director of the massive China
Health Project. Collaborator Dr. Oliver Alabaster is Director of the Institute for Disease
Prevention at the George Washington University.

How did we end up with such a poor choice of food groups 35 years ago? Inadequate nutritional
research for one thing. But more insidiously, since food guides were first established in 1916,
there has been a tendency to give animal products a "preferred" designation. "This element of
food guides has persisted until the present time, due in part to the intensive lobbying efforts
of the food industry, and despite evidence of the adverse health effects of such foods, " says
the PCRM report.

The situation is similar to the tobacco industry's continual denial of the harmful effects of
smoking. In response to the four new food groups, a former US Secretary of Agriculture, John R.
Block (president of the National American Wholesale Grocers' Association and a pig farmer in
Illinois) denounced the committee's recommendations as the "height of irresponsibility."

Other reactions focused more on the difficulty of altering the food habits of the steak- and
hamburger- eating American public than on the scientific validity of the new diet.

PCRM attacks the old, traditional four food groups on three major fronts. First, they say, "The
old food groups fail to assure nutritional adequacy." The four food groups were established
according to the understanding of nutritional needs in 1953. Since that time, the required
daily allowances (RDA's) for protein, vitamins, minerals, etc. have been extensively revised
and expanded. A 1978 study showed that only 9 of the 17 RDA's were met by the typical diet
based on the old groups.

The second problem is that "The old four food groups fail to adequately address the current
dietary problems of our population." Specifically, the the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey indicates that Americans who eat diets based on the four food groups consume an
excessive amount of fat."

Studies show that dietary fat and associated consumption of excess protein is related to breast
cancer, heart disease, obesity, kidney disease and osteoporosis, to name a few.

Third, states the PCRM, "The old four food groups serve to misinform consumers about some
aspects of nutrition. Two of the four food groups -- meats and dairy products -- are clearly
not necessary for health and, in fact, may be detrimental to health.... Populations with the
lowest rates of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, and obesity consume very little meat or
no meat at all."

The PCRM concludes that "The average adult can meet nutrient needs by consuming five servings
of grains, three servings of legumes, three servings of vegetables and three servings of fruits
each day."

The New Four Food Groups

Whole Grains This group includes rice, bread, pasta, hot or cold cereal, corn, millet, barley,
bulgur, buckwheat groats and tortillas. Build each of your meals around a hearty grain dish. Grains
are rich in fiber and other complex carbohydrates, as well as proteins, B vitamins and zinc.

Vegetables Vegetables are packed with nutrients; they provide vitamin C, beta-carotene, riboflavin
and other vitamins, iron, calcium and fiber. Dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli,
collards, kale, mustard and turnip greens, chicory or bok choy are especially good ources of of
these important nutrients. Dark yellow and orange vegetables such as carrots, winter squash, sweet
potatoes and pumpkin provide extra beta-carotene. Include generous portions or a variety of
vegetables in your diet.

Legumes Legumes, which is another name for beans, peas and lentils, are all good sources of fiber,
protein, iron, calcium, zinc and B vitamins. This group also includes the daals in Indian cuisine,
pulses, chickpeas, baked and refried beans, soy milk, tofu, and texturized vegetable protein.

Fruit Fruits are rich in fiber, vitamin C and beta- carotene. Be sure to include at least one
serving each day of fruits that are high in vitamin C -- citrus fruits, melons and strawberries are
all good choices. Choose whole fruit over fruit juices, which don't contain as much healthy fiber.

| Number of |
Food Group | Servings | Typical Items and Serving Size
- - - - - - | - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Whole Grains | 5 or more | 1/2
cup hot cereal + 1 ounce dry cereal
| | + 1 slice of bread
- - - - - - | - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vegetables | 3 or more | 1 cup
raw + 1/2 cup cooked
- - - - - - | - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Legumes | 2 to 3 | 1/2 cup cooked
beans + 4 ounces tofu or
| | tempeh
- - - - - - | - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fruits | 3 or more | 1 medium
piece of fruit + 1/2 cup cooked
| | fruit

Be sure to include a good source of vitamin B-12, such as fortified cereals and vitamin supplements.

Based on a 1991 article in Hinduism Today

Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
 
S

Snoopy

Guest
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishithead" Maharaj wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:16:48 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jojo <[email protected]> posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I stated multiple times that I am a vegetarian. I have no reason to want your statements to be
>>>>false. I simply don't see, and you haven't provided, any reason why I should consider your
>>>>statements to be true.
>>>
>>>For starters, visit
>>>
>>>http://www.pcrm.org
>>>
>>>and study the articles offered there.
>>
>>Interesting site, I've bookmarked the recipe secion. But it's short on the scientific studies
>>which show that meat eating is the cause of any of the problems you listed.
>>
>>The closest is: http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/index.html
>>
>>Which does contain references to actual scientific studies. . . .
>
>
> Now, locate the research and study it. Hundreds of more scientific sources in Robbins' "Diet for A
> New America".

About PCRM:

PCRM's four food group plan was discredited by the American Dietetic Association and the American
Medical Association which refers to PCRM as a "pseudo-physicians group" because less than 0.5% of
physicians are members. In reference to PCRM's four food group plan, the AMA said:

The AMA finds the recommendations of PCRM *irresponsible* and potentially *dangerous* to the health
and welfare of Americans. The AMA charges that PCRM is "blatantly *misleading* Americans on a health
matter and concealing its true purpose as an animal 'rights' organization.

In June 1990, the AMA formally requested PCRM to terminate the inappropriate and unethical tactics
used to manipulate public opinion against the use of animals in biomedical research. The AMA's James
S. Todd, MD, urged PCRM to immediately change its tactics and join the medical and scientific
communities in efforts to protect and preserve human welfare. More at http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-
r/pcrm.html