Conference rocks::weight_control

    Re:  .0
    
    I have recently been doing a lot of reading on the subject of
    vegetarianism, how to become a vegetarian, and so forth.  It seems
    that vegetarians are really touting the merits of macrobiotics lately.
    So, I was extremely surprised to see that the National Cancer Institute
    (was that the right agency? -- the note was hidden so fast I only
    had a chance to read it once) condemns macrobiotics.
    
    Without breaking any of the rules of this conference, can you shed
    some light on WHY macrobiotics is considered dangerous?  Did you
    say something about anemia (or am I confused?)  I am very
    interested in hearing an opposing viewpoint since, to-date, I haven't
    come across one.                                
    
    Heather
    
    P.S.  If you happen to have a photocopy of this article around,
    I'd sure like one.  My mail stop is VRO6-2/C5.  Thanks.

    	I am in the process of re-writing the base note to exclude any
    direct quotations.  When I'm done, I'll resubmit it.
    
    	In the meantime, yes the NCI opposes macrobiotic diets because
    they are, in general, radical in nature and dangerous in practice.
    They use some accepted concepts, such as fiber reduces colon cancer,
    and then extrapolate the results incorrectly. Fiber reduces colon
    cancer because it absorbs water and in doing so, quickens the passage
    of wastethrough the intestines.  Carcinogens in food have less time
    to affect the colon.  It is the water, not the fiber, that reduces
    colon cancer.  The cause/effect relationships are frequently distorted.
    
    	The original macrobiotic diet, by Michio Kushi has come under
    attack for at least 5 deaths and almost 1000 people becoming ill
    as a direct consequnce of the diet.  Note that the original diet
    relied almost exclusively on brown rice.  There is a new macro-
    biotic diet from Mr Kushi, but I don't have the book yet.
    
    	I would be wary of anything this nutritionist claims, and I
    say this based only on his original diet.  It was not well
    thought out, and it was dangerous.  Who needs that kind of diet?
    Not me.
    
    	A macrobiotic diet is a vegetarian (vegan) diet.  A vegetarian
    diet is not necessarily macrobiotic, whether it's ovo-lacto or vegan.
    
    -mike z

    Hi,
    
    It's my impression that macrobiotics advocates eating fish and yogurt,
    for example.  I can't name a source because I've read volumes lately,
    but this would mean that macrobiotics is no longer strictly vegan
    but at least lacto-poisso-vegan, right?
    
    Macrobiotics always impressed me as radical, too.  Thanks for the
    mortality statistics, etc.  This helps confirm that you can't believe
    everything you read and only half of what you see, as the old saying
    goes.
    
    Looking forward to your reposting of the base note.  
    
    Heather

.3>    It's my impression that macrobiotics advocates eating fish and yogurt,
.3>    for example.  I can't name a source because I've read volumes lately,
.3>    but this would mean that macrobiotics is no longer strictly vegan
.3>    but at least lacto-poisso-vegan, right?
    
    	Like I said, the diet has been revised because of the problems
    with it (vitaimn D, B12, protein, and iron deficient).  I'd bet
    these areas have been improved.  The original diet was somewhere
    around 5-10% protein, none of it from animal sources.  Including
    fish and milk would solve some of its shortcomings.
    
.3>    mortality statistics, etc.  This helps confirm that you can't believe
.3>    everything you read and only half of what you see, as the old saying
.3>    goes.

        You absolutely cannot believe everything you read in diet
    books! And it doesn't matter who the author is, or what his/her
    qualifications are.

        
    	This is a small section of .0, paraphrased ...

    	Diet writers are restricted only by self-imposed libel con-
    siderations.  This is a consequence of Freedom of Speech, as
    guarranteed by the Consitution.  The 2 agencies that you would
    expect to be able to control this, the FTC and the FDA, cannot,
    due to lack of jursidiction.
    
    	There are documented cases of people dying from faulty advice
    read in a diet book.  One such case involved the book 'Let's Have
    Healthy Children' which recommended 3gm/day potassium for babies
    with colic [ ed: severe abdominal or intestinal pain ].  A Florida
    woman's child died because of pottasium intoxication, allegedly
    as a direct result of the book's advice.

    -mike z

   	The Feb 15, 1988 edition of US News and World Report has
   an article entitled "The Truth About Designer Diets". It makes
   a good case for following a sensible eating plan that follows
   conventional nutrition concepts, instead of radical, unproven
   ones.
   
    	Diet writers are restricted only by self-imposed libel con-
    siderations.  This is a consequence of Freedom of Speech, as
    guarranteed by the Consitution.  The 2 agencies that you would
    expect to be able to control this, the FTC and the FDA, cannot,
    due to lack of jursidiction.
    
    	There are documented cases of people dying from faulty advice
    read in a diet book.  One such case involved the book 'Let's Have
    Healthy Children' which recommended 3gm/day potassium for babies
    with colic [ ed: severe abdominal or intestinal pain ].  A Florida
    woman's child died because of pottasium intoxication, allegedly
    as a direct result of the book's advice.

      
        The following is a brief summary of the diet books they
   evaluated and a summary of the medical community's reactions. 
   
   The 8 Week Cholesterol Guide
   	o total fat content of 20% is too low for some people
   	o megadoses of niacin, up to 3 gm/day, can damage organs
   
   Stress, Diet, and Your Heart
      	o total fat content of 10% is too low for most people
   	o stress reducing exercises may not halt heart disease
   
   The Living Heart
   	o RECOMMENDED by nutritionists and heart specialists
    
   The American Heart Association Cookbook
   	o RECOMMENDED by nutritionists and heart specialists
   
   The Cancer Prevention Diet
   	o This diet is macrobiotic and inherently dangerous
   	o Author claims cancer benefits, but the National Cancer
	   Institute (NCI) resolutely opposes macrobiotic diets
   	o potential health problems include scurvy, anemia, and
	   protein starvation
   
   Foods That Fight Cancer
   	o close to the NCI's nutrition guidelines
   	o same information is available by calling (800)-4-CANCER
   	   and asking for the NCI's free 39 page booklet "Diet,
	   Nutrition, and Cancer Prevention"
   
   The Pain-Free Tryptophan Diet
   	o Doesn't reduce pain in clinical studies
   
   The Life Extension Companion (sequel to Life Extension)
   	o unproven theories
   	o the dosages of amino acids, vitamins, food supplements,
	   and anti-oxidants are expensive and may be harmful

   The 120-Year Diet
   	o unproven (based on dietary habits of a particularly
	   long-lived group of people in Okinawa)
   	o gerontologists and nutritionists are waiting for more
	   data before deciding on this diet
   	o diet is bland and boring. Article asks : "But how many
	   people would feel like prolonging their lives on this
	   diet?"
   
   Dr. Berger's Immune Power Diet
   	o overestimates food allergies (he says at least 33%,
   	   AMA's allergists say 1-2%)
   	o Author favors cytotoxic testing, now widely discredited
   	
   The Yeast Connection
   	o claims to cure many illnesses (ala snake oil)
      	o American Academy of Allergy and Immunology calls the
	   diet "unproven"
   	o use of antiyeast drugs (nystatin is suggested in this 
	   book) may lead to growth of drug resistant organisms
   
   Eat To Win
	o Dr Robert Haas, the author, is a PhD from Columbia Pacific
	   University, an unaccredited institute in California
   	o 1986 study by Brigham Young University contradicts some
	   of the theories set forth in this book
   	o Too many blood chemistry tests
   	o Author supports use of 'ergogenic aids' like caffeine,
	   lactic acid, phenylalanine
   
   Managing Your Mind and Mood Through Food
   	o Nutrition experts say "the theories are conceivable and
	   almost proven, but the diet isn't"
   	o Conservative approach to nutrition with no 'self-medication'
	   of large doses of vitamins

    -mike z

    
    Thanks, Mike.
    
    The book _Are You Confused?_ by Paavo Airola, Ph.D. is where I got
    *some* of my information on macrobiotics.  I'm sitting here looking
    at the menu for a typical day, trying to figure out how to make
    it general so it won't be hidden.  Hmmm...better contact me personally
    for this one.
    
    I didn't see any mention of fish.  The diet is accompanied
    by 7 basic rules (which I fear to post also). 
    
    OK, I can see eating this stuff.  And I largely choose from these
    types of foods for at least 2 out of 3 meals a day.  But REALLY,
    who would want to life on ONLY this stuff, day in and day out.  How boring!
    How limited.  Sure, there are thousands (?) of different combos of
    grains, nuts, seeds, veggies, sprouts, etc.   Seems like it would
    be pretty easy to get sick of eating raw food all the time.
    
    Personally, I think the book "The New Laurel's Kitchen" outlines
    a much healthy approach to vegetarian eating.  It's not macrobiotic.

    Per your request, here's more on Macrobiotics.
    
    
    P.S.  It may be interesting to note that Airola's book was written
    in 1971.  I have a copy of the 12th printing which was in 1980.
    So, be advised, this may very well be the original macrobiotics.
    
    This art called macrobiotics allows the following foods:
    
    herbal teas
    fresh and dried fruits and fruit juices
    milk, cheese, yogurt, homemade soured milk, cottage cheese, and butter
    sprouts, sprouts, and more sprouts
    raw nuts and seeds and nut-milks
    honey
    any and all available veggies                         
    whole grain breads, esp. sourdough
    any and all sprouted seeds or cereals
          
    THAT'S IT!
    
    You're supposed to eat only living and natural foods because, according
    to the author, foods must be unaltered in order for us to be healthy.
    Natural foods have more vitamins, enzymes, protein, minerals, etc.
    He cites scientific studies where animals were fed a diet of synthetic
    nutrients (including ALL necessary nutrients) and said that, although
    they always appeared healthy, they lost their power to reproduce
    from the second to the third generation.  Their growth was affected
    and eventually the whole strain died.  In our real world, however,
    there is no such thing as a natural food since all foods are affected
    by the environment.
    
    This diet advocates only eating whole foods because they contain
    more nutrients than processed ones.  You're only supposed to eat
    'living' foods because cooking destroys the enzymes 100%.  Also,
    he states that raw, living foods are easier to digest and claims
    they are therapeutic agains many serious diseases, as well as aging.
    
    According to the author, you should only eat poison-free foods that
    are organic.  He relates many 'new' diseases to poison in our food,
    as well as deformities as birth.
    
    Another rule is that you should eat high natural carb-low animal
    protein diet because studies have shown that excess protein causes
    many diseases.
    
    He advocates undereating and periodic fasting.  He cites research
    showing that overeating causes many diseases and undereating is
    important to longevity.  He claims that eating more food than your
    body needs is equivalent to poisoning and putrefying your whole
    system.  He claims that the less you eat, the less hungry you feel
    because you are making better use of the food you are taking in.
    
    Lastly, he claims that foods should only be eaten in certain
    combinations.  This is similar to the Hygienists' view of conscious
    combining.  There are some foods that you shouldn't mix together
    because, according to studies, all foods do not get digested the
    same way. 
    

 > You're supposed to eat only living and natural foods because, according
 > to the author, foods must be unaltered in order for us to be healthy.

    Interesting, my husband and I were talking about this last night.  He
    pointed out that it is not necessarily reasonable to expect any plant
    to want to be eaten.  After all, many plants produce chemicals which
    are intended to kill off insects (that's what caffeine is!); why should
    we not expect some of their toxins to be aimed at us?  Advocating
    eating only processed foods would be just as extreme, but it makes a
    point.  There is a fallacy inherent in the attitude that all natural
    means all good.  Humans aren't all there is to "nature"!

    Beverly