MachineGhost wrote:I consider it a fantastical notion to be able to get all of the RDI for vitamins and minerals from food (I've only seen it done on the "extreme" Pritikin Diet). It's also fantastical to expect nature to have concentrated enough of the vital bio-agents beyond vitamins and minerals in food to promote optimal health. It is what it is.
That's pretty much false — though if you're taking 35 supplements a day, I'm guessing you've bought into all the supplement marketing, which would certainly try to argue that.
The reality is that raw milk has lots of vitamins/minerals/enzymes...
Other example... 100g of Angelfish liver has 4,400 IUs of Vitamin D. 100g of beef liver has 53,400 IUs of Vitamin A and 380.0 mg of Potassium. A single gram of oysters has almost 100mg of Zinc (the recommended amount is 15mg). 100g of chicken hearts has about 13mg of CoQ10. There are many more examples.
Lacto-fermentation naturally considerably increases vitamin and mineral levels in foods and enhances their digestibility — along with providing important microbial diversity.
The natural forms of vitamins are way more easily absorbed into the body than synthetic supplements — not to mention the naturally occurring co-factors which assist and balance their assimilation in the body. It may not be easy to acquire ideal versions of these foods in our modern world, but it's false to suggest that the ideal amounts of vitamins and cofactors are inaccessible in nature. Though, I admit that it's not easy to eat all of these things every day, or every week!
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Personally I like organ meats and have enjoyed cows liver with onions on several occasions, but I haven't eaten it in the last 10 years or so due to fears about factory farms and the chemicals they use in the cattle feed ending up in the organs, since the liver is responsible for cleaning the body of much of the nasty stuff in our environment.
Gumby, what do you recommend for someone that wants to eat organ meats, yet wants to avoid contamination with chemicals in the food chain? I haven't run across grass fed cow's liver before at my whole foods. Perhaps a local farmer?
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Storm wrote:
what do you recommend for someone that wants to eat organ meats, yet wants to avoid contamination with chemicals in the food chain? I haven't run across grass fed cow's liver before at my whole foods. Perhaps a local farmer?
Not sure where you live but examine eatwild.com. That is a great directory for sourcing grassfed/pastured livestock. We found a local farmer to pick up freezer beef from. Our family of three goes through a half side of freezer beef every 6 months. You can usually have it processed how you want - we get liver, heart, and a lot of marrow bones and soup bones. We pay $3.60/lb hanging weight- about half as much as whole foods price for non premium cuts
Gumby wrote:
The natural forms of vitamins are way more easily absorbed into the body than synthetic supplements — not to mention the naturally occurring co-factors which assist and balance their assimilation in the body. It may not be easy to acquire ideal versions of these foods in our modern world, but it's false to suggest that the ideal amounts of vitamins and cofactors are inaccessible in nature. Though, I admit that it's not easy to eat all of these things every day, or every week!
You must have a different definition of "a lot" or "ideal" than I do. Getting 8% of the RDA/RDI of a nutrient is not "a lot" or "ideal" to me. Other than fat-concentrated nutrients like choline, vitamin A, D (not sure about K quantities), etc. or Calcium & Phosphorous, there's really not a substantial overall amount of nutrition in meat sources (come on, eating organ meats is neither practical, safe nor politically correct!) or other foods. If you're still skeptical, then do what I do, and track your intake for a week or two with CRON-O-METER and see how easy or difficult it is to get the minimum RDA/RDI for everything from your diet. Watch out for the potassium hole!
You won't get any arguments from me about the superiority of food-based nutrition vs synthetic. But its a mistake to assume that all supplements are automatically synthetic, or that you can ever get the therapeutic levels of key nutrients or bio-agents from unconcentrated food (i.e. you can't drink 250 glasses of red wine or 90 pounds of raspberries). For over a decade, I used to religiously avoid anything synthetic until I realized that I wasn't even meeting the RDA/RDI from the superfood-based powders. While it has changed for the better several years back with food-source multivitamin and mineral supplements being introduced that do reach the RDA/RDI (by using fermentation & probiotics along with yeast to concentrate the levels of key nutrients), science has long blown past those meager quantities for optimal health purposes.
One of the reasons I take a relatively large amount of supplements each day is because multi-ingredient supplements, such as multivitamins as a blase example, are usually nothing more than "fairy dust", the nefarious industry practice of sprinkling a token pinch of a nutrient into the vat to be able to slap it on the label and charge more. Nutrients and minerals are bulky and you just cannot pack therapeutic amounts of key nutrients into just a few pills. There are also other considerations to worry about like absorption, bioavailability and retention. It is far superior to pick and choose from "best of breed" nutrients than to be forced into buying a cornucopia of "fairy dust" and its accompanying security theatre.
Since most here seem to take fish oil, I'd like to share these two resources which highlight the ridiculous complexity of selecting a proper fish oil supplement (fortunately, this is in a league of its own):
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Storm wrote:Gumby, what do you recommend for someone that wants to eat organ meats, yet wants to avoid contamination with chemicals in the food chain? I haven't run across grass fed cow's liver before at my whole foods. Perhaps a local farmer?
I'm a newbie at all this. The diet I've recently started to follow is one that Smurff has been doing for a few years now. I believe he lives near Amish country, so he has local sources for quality meats. But, maybe he can shed some perspective on what types of organ meats are safest/best and good resources for obtaining them. For instance...
One of the roles of the liver is to neutralize toxins (such as drugs, chemical agents and poisons); but the liver does not store toxins. Poisonous compounds that the body cannot neutralize and eliminate are likely to lodge in the fatty tissues and the nervous system. The liver is not a storage organ for toxins but it is a storage organ for many important nutrients (vitamins A, D, E, K, B12 and folic acid, and minerals such as copper and iron). These nutrients provide the body with some of the tools it needs to get rid of toxins.
Of course, we should consume liver from healthy animals--cattle, lamb, buffalo, hogs, chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese. The best choice is liver from animals that spend their lives outdoors and on pasture. If such a premier food is not available, the next choice is organic chicken, beef and calves liver. If supermarket liver is your only option, the best choice is calves liver, as in the U.S. beef cattle do spend their first months on pasture. Beef liver is more problematical as beef cattle are finished in feed lots. Livers from conventionally raised chicken and hogs are not recommended.
Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/liver-files
Local farms and farmer's markets are always a great source of food, since you can actually talk to the people who tend to the animals.
krigare wrote:Not sure where you live but examine eatwild.com. That is a great directory for sourcing grassfed/pastured livestock. We found a local farmer to pick up freezer beef from. Our family of three goes through a half side of freezer beef every 6 months. You can usually have it processed how you want - we get liver, heart, and a lot of marrow bones and soup bones. We pay $3.60/lb hanging weight- about half as much as whole foods price for non premium cuts.
Great tip. I've heard another good source of pastured beef/organ meat is grasslandbeef.com, but I haven't ordered from them yet, so I can't vouch for them.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby wrote:
One of the roles of the liver is to neutralize toxins (such as drugs, chemical agents and poisons); but the liver does not store toxins. Poisonous compounds that the body cannot neutralize and eliminate are likely to lodge in the fatty tissues and the nervous system. The liver is not a storage organ for toxins but it is a storage organ for many important nutrients (vitamins A, D, E, K, B12 and folic acid, and minerals such as copper and iron). These nutrients provide the body with some of the tools it needs to get rid of toxins.
I suspect that is typical Price propaganda. If the liver didn't really store toxins, then people would never have liver problems or diseases, liver flushes or liver restoring bio-agents wouldn't work, no one would ever get gallstones (which are essentially pearls of toxins) and if the liver really did not store toxins, it would all be stored in the fat! So damned either way as far as eating factory farmed meat.
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
Excuse me while I go barf.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MG... you are being deceptive and misleading. You are showing photos of gallstones in the gallbladder. Those are not photos of liver. Gallstones are usually comprised of hardened cholesterol and, to my knowledge, have nothing to do with toxins.
No one is advocating eating gall bladder. And no one is advocating eating factory-farmed meat. No one is even suggesting that toxins can't ever exist in the liver. If toxins exist in the liver of an animal, then every ounce of meat in that animal is also likely toxic. It's generally very safe to eat the organs of young, pastured, organic animals from local farms that treat their animals well.
A more reasonable look into the matter can be found here:
Anyway, I'm all for getting vitamins, but I'm not sure you suddenly become a high-risk patient for not getting enough potassium (for example). I doubt it's worth stressing over that much. I believe potassium is important, but many people don't get enough potassium, and still live long and healthy lives.
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
I doubt that I am going to change anyone's sentiments about supplements, but here are a few more thoughts, for whatever it is worth:
1. A lot of posts seem to imply that supplements are benign, especially if natural.
There is increasing evidence that many nutrients have a "u-shaped" dose toxicity curve. There is a sweet spot which is ideal, and morbidity/mortality increases with doses too low (nutritional deficiency) and also with doses too high (toxicity). For example, I believe that many "antioxidants" actually become pro oxidant at higher levels, perhaps explaining the higher rate of malignancy in smokers taking megadoses of the antioxidant beta-catotene. And I believe that there is mounting evidence that negative effects of vitamin D begin to outweigh the positive effects for the average person taking more than 600-800 IU. So, when ingesting anything out of moderation, whether from a bottle or a pile of fish livers, you are taking a statistical chance of pushing beyond the sweet spot on the curve.
2. A lot of posts suggest that there is sound evidence as to what is ideal.
This is incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and difficult/impossible to sort out conclusively, and we just do not know what the ideal doses are for most nutrients. There are good guesses for the common nutrients, but even these recommendations are in a constant state of evolution. Many are based on flawed data, as some of you have pointed out. I look at most nutritional recommendations/hypotheses with a 60/40 probability. There is about a 60% probability of a recommendation being close to correct, and about a 40% probability of it being dead wrong.
3. A lot of posts suggest that we do not get the right nutrients from modern foods. Very true, I am sure. But does not have to be the way that it is. We are so spoiled as a culture, when you think about it, and our laziness is sending market signals to the food industry to do what is does. My grandparents spent fully 80+% of their day raising/growing, storing and preparing food. Yet, I seem overburdened when I have to spend more than 10% by doing such things as growing a garden, buying from local farms, or cooking with raw ingredients. This is incredibly hard for me, but I still feel that it is more balanced and safe to strive for a diet closer to that which I evolved (nuts, berries, leaves, tubers, and an occasional fish or antelope, all of it) rather than play Russian roulette with supplements (although I still do it).
4. A lot of you have put a lot of time into this, and I am constantly amazed how smart you folks are. I appreciate the discussions, just as I do for the financial ones, and I continue to modify my behavior based on them. For example, I am going to switch some of my salt to unprocessed sea salt and I am going to eat more cultured and fermented food such as sourkraught, kimchee, and kefir.
I've tried various supplements purporting to do various things over the years and I can recall only one that ever delivered any of the promised benefit whatsoever. My overall conclusion is that it would have been more beneficial (to me any way) keeping my money.
With the advent of Google, it is now very easy to determine if there is any real science backing up the claims and almost always there is NOT.
The one supplement I do take and which does have some science behind it is krill oil. In addition to the well publicized omega-3 cardiovascular benefits it is also reported to be beneficial for arthritis and that is where I do notice it. It isn't dramatic but I do notice the difference when I stop taking it.
And, as others have mentioned, I also make sure I get my daily dose of alcohol. (And also lots of coffee which I'm hearing more and more about the benefits).
Last edited by jackely on Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BearBones wrote:
I believe that there is mounting evidence that negative effects of vitamin D begin to outweigh the positive effects for the average person taking more than 600-800 IU.
Please post ANY evidence of that. That was the general position a long time ago, but I don't know any reliable source that currently believes that. Your suggested doses of Vitamin D would leave many/most people (absent sun exposure) with lab values below 30 i.e. deficient by the normal values labs currently use.
Your point about the U shaped curve may be correct in general, but it would not surprise me if the exact value differed from person to person.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
for thoughts on a healthy diet, but most agree that a healthy diet includes LOTs of plants e.g. broccoli, carrots, onion, garlic, parsley, berries/cherries, etc. I am NOT advocating a vegetarian diet and still eat 6 oz animal protein with each meal.
3. I have taken more supplements than machine ghost at times, but have cut back a lot.
4. There are certain substances that it is not possible/practical to get daliy from diet and supplements
make this possible e.g. Fish oil (EPA/DHA), vitamin D, coenzyme Q-10, lipoic acid. There are others (e.g. resveratrol)
but those are the ones I am most certain are beneficial for many/most.
5. Other substances may be "better" obtained as a food, but if you wish to consume them daily
supplements are helpful on days you can't/don't want to consume them e.g. cherries, lycopene (cooked
tomato products), curcumin (from tumeric/curries--this may really belong in 4 since it may be better
absorbed in supplement form). I take 1-2 heaping tbsp of pure cocoa powder (mixed in water--warning it is bitter) daily as well
as 1-2 tbsp 0live oil and 1 tbsp coconut oil.
6. I can believe that organ meats might contain healthful substances, but does anyone know what they are?
7. There are now a number of studies showing that taking supplemental calcium might not be a great idea. This is one of these not proven, but worrisome (to me).
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Benko wrote:
Please post ANY evidence of that. That was the general position a long time ago, but I don't know any reliable source that currently believes that. Your suggested doses of Vitamin D would leave many/most people (absent sun exposure) with lab values below 30 i.e. deficient by the normal values labs currently use.
Just did search, and you are correct, Benko. So I am very glad you clarified, both for me and others. Turns out what I was vaguely (and carelessly) recalling was a series of papers showing a possible association between calcium supplementation (with or without Vit D) and an increase risk of cardiovascular events. Here's one of the latest: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2040.pdf%2Bhtml.
With Vit D supplementation alone, looks like the majority of studies show a LOWERING of CV risk (but I believe still inconclusive).
In looking around on Pubmed, I found this article, apparently "highly quoted" in other scientific papers. Probably not without its own bias, but it may convince me to dump my multivitamins. What do others think?
BearBones wrote:
I doubt that I am going to change anyone's sentiments about supplements, but here are a few more thoughts, for whatever it is worth:
1. A lot of posts seem to imply that supplements are benign, especially if natural.
There is increasing evidence that many nutrients have a "u-shaped" dose toxicity curve. There is a sweet spot which is ideal, and morbidity/mortality increases with doses too low (nutritional deficiency) and also with doses too high (toxicity). For example, I believe that many "antioxidants" actually become pro oxidant at higher levels, perhaps explaining the higher rate of malignancy in smokers taking megadoses of the antioxidant beta-catotene. And I believe that there is mounting evidence that negative effects of vitamin D begin to outweigh the positive effects for the average person taking more than 600-800 IU. So, when ingesting anything out of moderation, whether from a bottle or a pile of fish livers, you are taking a statistical chance of pushing beyond the sweet spot on the curve.
2. A lot of posts suggest that there is sound evidence as to what is ideal.
This is incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and difficult/impossible to sort out conclusively, and we just do not know what the ideal doses are for most nutrients. There are good guesses for the common nutrients, but even these recommendations are in a constant state of evolution. Many are based on flawed data, as some of you have pointed out. I look at most nutritional recommendations/hypotheses with a 60/40 probability. There is about a 60% probability of a recommendation being close to correct, and about a 40% probability of it being dead wrong.
3. A lot of posts suggest that we do not get the right nutrients from modern foods. Very true, I am sure. But does not have to be the way that it is. We are so spoiled as a culture, when you think about it, and our laziness is sending market signals to the food industry to do what is does. My grandparents spent fully 80+% of their day raising/growing, storing and preparing food. Yet, I seem overburdened when I have to spend more than 10% by doing such things as growing a garden, buying from local farms, or cooking with raw ingredients. This is incredibly hard for me, but I still feel that it is more balanced and safe to strive for a diet closer to that which I evolved (nuts, berries, leaves, tubers, and an occasional fish or antelope, all of it) rather than play Russian roulette with supplements (although I still do it).
4. A lot of you have put a lot of time into this, and I am constantly amazed how smart you folks are. I appreciate the discussions, just as I do for the financial ones, and I continue to modify my behavior based on them. For example, I am going to switch some of my salt to unprocessed sea salt and I am going to eat more cultured and fermented food such as sourkraught, kimchee, and kefir.
Thanks to all!
Great Post! I agree. Just think of water, it seems harmless, but drink too much of it and it will deplete the electrolytes in the body, potentially resulting in death, (water intoxication).
I also used to take a multivitamin containing 100% RDI of iron, little did I know that males do not need extra iron, and should rather strive to reduce their iron intake -- males don't bleed very often. This reminds me that I should donate blood soon...
The body has millions of years of evolution built into it...my mind and modern nutritional science have less than a few decades (depending on when you want to place the start date of modern nutritional science). I believe we have barely scratched the surface of the complexity of the human body/mind.
Last edited by Gosso on Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gumby wrote:
MG... you are being deceptive and misleading. You are showing photos of gallstones in the gallbladder. Those are not photos of liver. Gallstones are usually comprised of hardened cholesterol and, to my knowledge, have nothing to do with toxins.
LOL! My bad. I thought it would be obvious that the gallbladder processes the stored toxins from the liver...
No one is advocating eating gall bladder. And no one is advocating eating factory-farmed meat. No one is even suggesting that toxins can't ever exist in the liver. If toxins exist in the liver of an animal, then every ounce of meat in that animal is also likely toxic. It's generally very safe to eat the organs of young, pastured, organic animals from local farms that treat their animals well.
Pastured being the operative word here.
A more reasonable look into the matter can be found here:
That was definitely much better than Price's propaganda!
Anyway, I'm all for getting vitamins, but I'm not sure you suddenly become a high-risk patient for not getting enough potassium (for example). I doubt it's worth stressing over that much. I believe potassium is important, but many people don't get enough potassium, and still live long and healthy lives.
I disagree with your definition of "long and healthy" lives. The evidence is overwhelming negative. All the old farts of the Greatest Generation are on a wide array of drugs via Medicare to control high blood pressure which is highly correlated to potassium defenciency (magnesium also) as well as dehydration. Suppose there are still old timers that are drug-free and still eating a pastured, organic, high saturated fat diet while chomping on organs. If they look like and act like Jack LaLanne did, I'll think about chopping off my left testicle and eating it.
There is a doctor (still practicing) in Japan who is 103 or so years old. For breakfast, he drinks a glass of orange juice with a tablespoon of olive oil (i.e. a minor liver flush). For lunch, he eats milk and cookies. For dinner, he eats vegetables and fish. What does he know that everyone else doesn't? He restricts his calories. To paraphase what he said, there are no fat and really old people.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
BearBones wrote:
1. A lot of posts seem to imply that supplements are benign, especially if natural.
There is increasing evidence that many nutrients have a "u-shaped" dose toxicity curve. There is a sweet spot which is ideal, and morbidity/mortality increases with doses too low (nutritional deficiency) and also with doses too high (toxicity). For example, I believe that many "antioxidants" actually become pro oxidant at higher levels, perhaps explaining the higher rate of malignancy in smokers taking megadoses of the antioxidant beta-catotene. And I believe that there is mounting evidence that negative effects of vitamin D begin to outweigh the positive effects for the average person taking more than 600-800 IU. So, when ingesting anything out of moderation, whether from a bottle or a pile of fish livers, you are taking a statistical chance of pushing beyond the sweet spot on the curve.
I always find it interesting that when it comes to supplements, they're always compared to nutritionally-minamal food and those relatively few studies showing a positive correlation to some higher risk of disease are trumped up as iron-clad evidence against the supposed dangers. Yet, if you look at drugs, it makes supplements look like a walk in the park as far as killing people and side effects. The only difference is greed and its institutionalization with drugs.
All antioxidants are more or less free radical generators (I believe pro-oxidant is technically related to iron (rust), so I'm avoiding using that term). They act to compel the body to rev up its endogenous antioxidants which are a magnitude of orders much more powerful than any exogenous antioxidants. Most exogenous antioxidants are essentially -cides in nature, defense against critters.
For Vitamin D, which is actually a prohormone not a vitamin, the correlation of an increased risk of death is with blood levels at or greater than 160ng/dl which is extreme even by cave man standards. In general, each 1000IU of vitamin D will raise blood levels by 10ng/dl. There is currently an epidemic of insufficient and inadequate intake, as well as suboptimal. I would say it will be about 5-10 years before run-of-the-mill mainstream doctors catch up with the science.
That infamous study showing that smokers had a higher rate of whatever, had been taking synthetic forms of beta-carotene as well as synthetic alpha-tocopherol. Nowadays, there are naturally-derived beta-carotenes as well as natural-derived, high gamma mixed tocopherols (high alpha displaces gamma, which is very bad) or natural mixed tocotrienols. No one truly health conscious in their right mind would take synthetic supplements. Most supplement are actually not synthetic at all, with the exception of all those cheap multivitamins made from coal tar, activated sewage and petroleum.
There is mounting evidence that the synthetic folic acid being fortified in practically everything is increasing the risk of cancer from overdosing. I forgot the specifics, but I think an excess tweaks off one of the many cancer defense pathways. Natural forms of folate do not have the same effect.
2. A lot of posts suggest that there is sound evidence as to what is ideal.
This is incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and difficult/impossible to sort out conclusively, and we just do not know what the ideal doses are for most nutrients. There are good guesses for the common nutrients, but even these recommendations are in a constant state of evolution. Many are based on flawed data, as some of you have pointed out. I look at most nutritional recommendations/hypotheses with a 60/40 probability. There is about a 60% probability of a recommendation being close to correct, and about a 40% probability of it being dead wrong.
I see there is a lot more evidence from the literature to derive the optimal intake for various nutrients than evidence proving synthetic, single-molecule drugs -- with its 40% placebo failure rate -- actually work as intended. If you go by the IOM's current nutrient recommendation, then I would agree with you that there is a 40% probability of their recommendations being dead wrong -- to the downside. They are clearly wrong on Vitamin C and Vitamin D, so what else...
which I evolved (nuts, berries, leaves, tubers, and an occasional fish or antelope, all of it) rather than play Russian roulette with supplements (although I still do it).
That's a ridiculous choice of words and is perjury. Aspirin, of all things, literally kills 3,000 people a year. How many people do supplements kill every year?
4. A lot of you have put a lot of time into this, and I am constantly amazed how smart you folks are. I appreciate the discussions, just as I do for the financial ones, and I continue to modify my behavior based on them. For example, I am going to switch some of my salt to unprocessed sea salt and I am going to eat more cultured and fermented food such as sourkraught, kimchee, and kefir.
It only takes one man to make a difference and soon you have an pandemic.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Storm wrote:Gumby, what do you recommend for someone that wants to eat organ meats, yet wants to avoid contamination with chemicals in the food chain? I haven't run across grass fed cow's liver before at my whole foods. Perhaps a local farmer?
Gumby wrote:
I'm a newbie at all this. The diet I've recently started to follow is one that Smurff has been doing for a few years now. I believe he lives near Amish country, so he has local sources for quality meats. But, maybe he can shed some perspective on what types of organ meats are safest/best and good resources for obtaining them. For instance...
You're right, Gumby, Pennsylvania Amish farms are about 2 to 3 hours away from the NYC Metro area, but I also live not far from Hudson Valley (New York) and Vermont farms. And there are so many farmers markets in this area it's amazing. Every town, hamlet, borough, neighborhood has their own farmers markets. And as you said, local farms and farmer's markets are always a great source of food, and you can actually visit the farm and talk to the people who raise the animals.
There are Amish and Mennonite farms in more than half the states in the USA, and they raise their animals on pastureland and grow fruits and vegetables in traditional fashion, without added antibiotics, soy, hydrocarbon pesticides, etc. They also use heritage breeds (like Dutch Belted dairy cattle) rather than industrial breeds (like Holstein dairy cattle), so the resulting meat, eggs, and milk have a discernible quality. In contemporary times, they have been organic farmers before the term was fashionable, and when the PTB destroy the meaning of "organic" (by allowing GMOs to be considered organic if they're raised without pesticides--something they're actually proposing), the Amish will still be doing it the original way. Some of them have their farms certified as organic; others don't bother with these formalities.
www.eatwild.com -lists sources of pastured meats by state and province for the USA and Canada, also
www.grasslandbeef.com -is where you can order these products online, but it can be pricey--more expensive than even Whole Foods.
http://www.pickyourown.org/ -is a state-by-state guide for finding farms where you can pick your own fruits and vegetables, as well as farms with stands (where you don't pick your own). Not all of them are organic; those that are, or that use organic practices, are indicated. There are also canning/preservation recipes and instructions.
jackh wrote:
With the advent of Google, it is now very easy to determine if there is any real science backing up the claims and almost always there is NOT.
The one supplement I do take and which does have some science behind it is krill oil. In addition to the well publicized omega-3 cardiovascular benefits it is also reported to be beneficial for arthritis and that is where I do notice it. It isn't dramatic but I do notice the difference when I stop taking it.
The evidence for krill oil -- which I also take - is slim. As in only a few studies all funded by the manufacturer in question. Krill oil doesn't even work the same way in the body as fish oil does. It has an affinity for the joints and has no effect on general inflammation as fish oil does.
I could roll off a huge list of actual scientific evidence for many other supplements that would make your eyes pop. Krill oil would not make that list. So I don't know how you can state theres a lack of science for many supplements yet be impressed by the paucity of science for krill oil.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Benko wrote:
6. I can believe that organ meats might contain healthful substances, but does anyone know what they are?
I don't think its proven or anyone is actually doing the research, but I suspect stem cells. Theres too much history of using organ extracts to support organs for there not to be something going on.
7. There are now a number of studies showing that taking supplemental calcium might not be a great idea. This is one of these not proven, but worrisome (to me).
It's just Vitamin K2 defenciency. The vast majority of grad students and researchers have not caught on yet.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
smurff wrote:
You're right, Gumby, Pennsylvania Amish farms are about 2 to 3 hours away from the NYC Metro area, but I also live not far from Hudson Valley (New York) and Vermont farms. And there are so many farmers markets in this area it's amazing. Every town, hamlet, borough, neighborhood has their own farmers markets. And as you said, local farms and farmer's markets are always a great source of food, and you can actually visit the farm and talk to the people who raise the animals.
With such a fantastic bounty right outside your door that makes me envious, why do you think the vast majority in your area are so obese and sickly?
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MachineGhost wrote:
I could roll off a huge list of actual scientific evidence for many other supplements that would make your eyes pop.
MG, you seem very confident in your comments, and you may be right indeed. Food may be "nutritionally minimal," all negative effects attributed to supplements may come from flawed studies, and the supplement industry may be be exempt from the nefarious tendencies which you attribute to the pharmaceutical industry. It may also be true that naturally derived vitamins behave entirely different than synthetic, and this explains the conspiracy surrounding negative data. Good vitamins may indeed be benign. You may be the definitive authority.
Having said this, I am skeptical, as you might guess. Hence my comment, which you find ridiculous and perjurious, that I feel like I am playing Russian roulette with supplements. You have clearly done a lot of reading on this, and I find your posts helpful. However, to think that any one person on this forum has THE answer is dangerous, IMO. It is mainly dangerous for you, just as my strong and well supported opinion that I should prepare for a severe inflationary event has been dangerous for me in my investments. There are people in the world a lot smarter than me who have advanced degrees and who study these things for a living who have drawn opposite conclusions. That's why I try to confine my speculation to my VP, and I try to keep my dabbling in supplements to a minimum. I will continue to prefer food from my garden any day.
Just my opinion, of course. Don't expect to change yours.
MachineGhost wrote:LOL! My bad. I thought it would be obvious that the gallbladder processes the stored toxins from the liver...
I'm not aware of a known correlation between toxins and gallstones. If you know of any, please let us know. My (limited) understanding is that they are caused by nutritional deficiencies/problems.
MachineGhost wrote:That was definitely much better than Price's propaganda!
As opposed to supplement marketing propaganda? What you call "propaganda" is nothing more than getting people to eat traditional foods. What's so wrong with that? Heart disease was rare during the 19th Century and earlier. And heart attacks were rare before 1920, despite the fact the most adults lived well into their 60s and 70s before 1900 (not including infant mortality or early accidental/preventable deaths) . Supposedly the first recoded myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the United States didn't occur until the early 1920s. This is not to say that heart attacks did not happen before 1920, but they were rare. Oddly enough, congestive heart failure is near the all-time high right now (possibly due to statins).
MachineGhost wrote:Suppose there are still old timers that are drug-free and still eating a pastured, organic, high saturated fat diet while chomping on organs. If they look like and act like Jack LaLanne did, I'll think about chopping off my left testicle and eating it.
Many bodybuilders eat Pemmican (a 50/50 combination of nutrient-dense beef fat and beef jerky)
MachineGhost wrote:There is a doctor (still practicing) in Japan who is 103 or so years old. For breakfast, he drinks a glass of orange juice with a tablespoon of olive oil (i.e. a minor liver flush). For lunch, he eats milk and cookies. For dinner, he eats vegetables and fish. What does he know that everyone else doesn't? He restricts his calories. To paraphase what he said, there are no fat and really old people.
That doctor also eats meat twice a week, which is extremely expensive in Japan (due to not having enough real estate for pastures).
Are you under the impression that eating fatty foods makes you fat? It's a myth. They don't. I've personally lost 7 pounds since increasing my saturated fat intake last month (pastured eggs, raw milk, kefir, grass-fed animal foods) along with transitioning to traditionally prepared carbs. And that's with moderate to light exercise. I was already a skinny guy before I transitioned to those foods. Currently I'm 6'1" and 155 lbs.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
MachineGhost wrote:
Watch out for the potassium hole!
MG, what potassium guidelines do you follow? I love both bananas and kale (and eat a relatively high calorie diet during most parts of the year) but even the RDA minimums can be quite high. This is particularly true when leaning out.
MachineGhost wrote:
There is a doctor (still practicing) in Japan who is 103 or so years old. For breakfast, he drinks a glass of orange juice with a tablespoon of olive oil (i.e. a minor liver flush). For lunch, he eats milk and cookies. For dinner, he eats vegetables and fish. What does he know that everyone else doesn't? He restricts his calories. To paraphase what he said, there are no fat and really old people.
One thing that I have noticed about asian cultures that tend to live much longer, healthier lives than us is that they really have a different way of thinking about food. Foods are either hot or cold, and not temperature. It is all about balance, not eating too much "hot" food or "cold" food. This all sounds ridiculous in the beginning, but it is wisdom that has been passed down for centuries.
Another thing I wanted to mention is the inherent medicinal properties in their food:
1. Ginger root - many dishes are cooked daily with ginger root. Soups, noodles, etc, all usually have diced ginger root in them. Ginger is a potent anti-inflammatory. Since many western diseases are caused by inflammation eating ginger daily seems like a very simple way to avoid a lot of health problems.
2. Ginseng - increases circulation.
3. Green tea - a highly potent anti-oxidant.
There are really a lot of medicinal foods and soups that asian cultures use. They have very much been practicing "let food be your medicine and medicine be your food" for millienia.
Personally, I tend to think some of it is ridiculous - not wanting to drink ice water because it creates too much "cold energy" in your body - however, I think we can't argue with the results. People live longer and healthier lives with less access to health care.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
There are 19 pathological factors involved in disease and aging. To my way of thinking, I want to take the least amount of quality supplements, at the least expense, that will cover all of those 19 factors. Fortunately, many nutrients cover more than one factor, so 19 separate supplements is not necessary. The old 1950's vision of getting everything you need in just one pill for perfect health is still a fantasy.
The list of 19 factors are bone density loss, calcification, circulatory deficit, DNA mutation, digestive enzyme deficit, enzyme imbalance, excitotoxicity, fatty acid imbalance, hormone imbalance, immune dysfunction, inflammation, insulin resistance, glycation, membrane disintegrity, methylation, mitochondrial dysfunction, mitochondrial loss, oxidative stress and youthful epigenetic loss.
I prefer scientific evidence, so I have crunched all the data to arrive at a core regime to ameliorate all of the 19 factors:
Activated B Vitamins (7 factors): Enzyme Imbalance, Excitoxicity, Glycation, Insulin Resistance, Methylation, Mitochondrial Decay, Oxidative Stress. Activated B Vitamins have superior bioavailability and do not need to be first conjugated by the liver. This list includes benfotiamine (B1), riboflavin 5-phosphate (B2), inositol hexanicotinate (B3/Inositol), Quatrefolic (Folate), Pantethine (B5), pyridoxal 5-phosphate (B6) and methylcobalamin (B12). I recommend a complex containing all of the foregoing.
Vitamin D3 (6 factors): Calcification, Hormone Imbalance, Immune Dysfunction, Inflammation, Insulin Resistance, Youthful Epigenetic Loss. As a rough rule of thumb, 1000 IU equates to approximately a 10ng/dl increase in blood, but it is not a consistent linear increase. There are also "fat tail" outliers whom respond dramatically more or less than that, so blood testing is vital after supplementing. Optimal blood levels are between 70-80ng/dl with over 100ng/dl contraindicated.
Fish Oil (4 factors): Circulatory Deficit, Fatty Acid Imbalance, Inflammation, Membrane Disintegrity. Selecting a proper fish oil supplement is a complex issue given the extreme processing of most commercial fish oil supplements which is hardly all that different from the extreme processing of refined vegetable oils. Even though studies showing a benefit almost always use the toxic form of ethyl esters that is also poorly absorbed, there are safer and natural forms available: triglycerides and re-triglycerides. The catch is they will not have have high concentrations (such as 90%) of EFA's per capsule as ethyl esthers will, but there is a sweet spot where the superior bioavailabilty of triglycerides wins out versus increased concentration of ethyl esters. Krill oil, which has the best bioavailability due to being phospholipids, does not have the same systemic anti-inflammatory effects as fish oil, so they complement each other. I suggest giving up one "horse pill" fish oil capsule for one krill oil capsule and take both together. There's also liquid forms, but palatability is an issue. Currently, you can only expect to find a 60% concentrated triglyceride-based fish oil -- inexpensively, that is.
Ubiquinol (4 factors): Inflammation, Mitochondrial Decay, Mitochondrial Loss, Oxidative Stress. This is a highly bioavailable and vastly superior form of CoQ10 (ubiquinone). 200mg of ubiquinol is about equivalent to 1600mg of ubiquinone. It is so potent, I can only take a wee 50mg in the morning or I will get insomina. Keep an eye on pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) which is a true mitochondrial biogenesis bio-agent, but the efficacious dose has yet to be established.
DHEA (3 factors): Hormone Imbalance, Immune Dysfunction, Inflammation. As with prohormone Vitamin D, testing is vital after supplementing with DHEA. Hormone imbalance is the one factor that really should be dealt with by competent specialists. Operative words being forward-thinking, experienced and up-to-date. There are many ratios of various sexual hormones that all need to be in balance to each other, neither too high nor too low, or the pro-carcinogenic net effect of age-onset hormone imbalance will not be resolved. Hormones should never, ever be orally ingested as the liver will conjugate them. Sublingual DHEA is available, but a transdermal cream has the best bioavailability. Several other nutrients are also needed to prevent or correct pro-carcinogenic hormone imbalances: iodine (kelp), I3C/DIM (curciferous veggies), methyl donors (SAMe, L-methylfolate, methylcobalamin, etc.). Men also need to worry about [increased] testosterone being aromatized into estrogen. I would also recommend reading up on the potential side-effect of DHEA since that tends to get glossed over by purveyors. Not a do-it-yourself project unless you're really determined and know exactly what you're doing.
Magnesium (3 factors): Bone Density Loss, Insulin Resistance, Oxidative Stress. I recommend magnesium L-threonate, which is a highly bioavailable form of magnesium developed by Harvard scientists that will increase magnesium levels in the brain and nervous system, unlike all other forms. It's currently expensive, so I suggest taking one capsule along with a regular serving of magnesium glycinate (Albion). Minerals need to be chelated correctly to be bioavailable. Most companies just mix inorganic rocks with some kind of acid buffer and call that mixture a "chelate"; Albion replicates the process plants perform in nature.
Curcumin (2 factors): DNA Mutation, Inflammation. Curcumin from/in tumeric is very poorly absorbed. I recommend a superior bioavailable version using phytosomes, Meriva. Bioperine doesn't cut it.
Digestive Enzymes (2 factors): Digestive Enzyme Deficit. Pancreatin would be the best to use as it has the ability to dissolve the tough outer coating of cancer cells and is thusly used in alternative cancer therapy. Each activity USP unit for the protease and amylase equates to breaking down 1 gram of said food, i.e. 50 USP units of amylase would be able to digest 50 grams of carbohydrates. I would suggest avoid using with carb heavy meals (>25% of a total meal calories) though!
Trans-Resveratrol (2 factors): Mitochondrial Loss, Youthful Epigenetic Loss. Will replicate 75% of the genetic expressions of calorie restriction. Metformin, a safe glucose-lowering drug derived from the French lilac flower, replicates 71%. Keep an eye on pterostilbene which is a complementary sibling to trans-resveratrol, but the genetic expressions have not been determined yet.
Vitamin K (2 factors): Bone Density Loss, Calcification. Should contain both K1 and both forms of K2 (MK4 and MK7). K1 directs calcium to the bone, K2 prevents it from depositing into the organs and arteries. Sadly, calcification of the aortic valve is what did Jack LaLanne in, despite his otherwise relatively healthy diet and lifestyle.
GliSODin (1 factor): Oxidative Stress. One of the only bioavailable forms of Superoxide Dismutase, one of the body's most powerful endogenous antioxidants.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
