Green's reading of my last post reinforces by belief that he focuses on a twig and ignores the forest. His belief that I was focusing on rice PROVES that his reading is very selective. Is he intentional in this which would be a very malignant response, or is it ignorance?

Green, I'm sorry I was not clear. I am objecting to your whole premise, your purpose of intent, of creating this thread, of making one's diet a criterion for others to follow.


I disagree, but there's more important things...

Now that's a statement that is either absolutely true or absolutely false!

It is not an opinion, that a twisting of information can be attempted, to make one's desire of food choices as a criteria for others. But that statement is either true or false.

Notice the statement does not say certain brands of rice are fortified with more protein. This is about the process of turning brown rice into white. Logic seems to suggest, that if you have something, take away part of it, you will not have more of what makes it up. But there is a possibility that in the process of taking away something, the rest is concentrated. So that potential possibility could possibly exist. Of which, such facts can either be shown or not shown.

So before I finalize my judgment, could you please give evidence of the facts supporting that "white rice also provides more protein than brown rice"?

A much more relevant news story than Green's vegan stories.



Transcript: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking

Only about one in 10,000 people make it to be 100 years old. What’s their secret?  Well, in 1993, a major breakthrough in longevity research was published: a single genetic mutation that doubled the lifespan of a tiny roundworm. Instead of all being dead by 30 days, the mutants lived 60 days or longer. This lifespan extension was the largest yet reported in any organism.

This Methuselah worm medical marvel is the equivalent of producing a healthy 200-year-old human—all because of a single mutation? That shouldn’t happen; I mean, presumably, aging is caused by multiple processes, many genes. How could just knocking out one gene double the lifespan?

What is this aging gene, anyway? This gene that so speeds up aging that if it’s knocked out, the animals live twice as long? It’s been called the Grim Reaper gene. What is it? It’s the worm equivalent of the human IGF-1 receptor. And mutations of that same receptor in humans may help explain why some people live to be a hundred, and other people don’t.

So, is it just the luck of the draw whether we got good genes or bad? No, we can turn on and off the expression of these genes, depending on what we eat. Three years ago, I profiled a remarkable series of experiments about IGF-1—insulin-like growth factor 1—this cancer-promoting growth hormone, released in excess amounts by our liver when we eat animal protein. So, men and women who don’t eat meat, egg whites, or dairy proteins have significantly lower levels circulating within their bodies.

Switching people to a plant-based diet can significantly lower IGF-1 levels within just 11 days, markedly improving the ability of women’s bloodstreams to suppress breast cancer growth, and then kill breast cancer cells off.

Similarly, the blood serum of men on plant-based diets suppresses prostate cancer cell growth about eight times better than before they changed their diet. This dramatic improvement in cancer defenses is, however, abolished if you add back just the amount of IGF-1 banished from their systems because they were eating and living healthier.

This is one way to explain the low rates of cancer among plant-based populations: the drop in animal protein intake leads to a drop in IGF-1, which leads to a drop in cancer growth. An effect so powerful, Dr. Dean Ornish and colleagues appeared to be able to reverse the progression of prostate cancer without chemo, surgery, or radiation—just a plant-based diet, and other healthy lifestyle changes.

Now, when we’re kids, we need growth hormones to grow. There’s a rare genetic defect that causes severe IGF-1 deficiency, leading to a type of dwarfism—but also apparently makes you effectively cancer-proof. Not a single death from cancer in about 100 individuals with IGF-1 deficiency. How about 200 individuals? None developed cancer. See, most malignant tumors are covered in IGF-1 receptors. But if there’s no IGF-1 around, then they may not be able to grow and spread.

This may help explain why those eating low-carb diets appear to cut their lives short. But not just any low-carb diet—specifically those based on animal sources, whereas vegetable-based low-carb diets were associated with a lower risk of death.

But look, low-carb diets are high in animal fat, as well as animal protein. So, how do we know it wasn’t the saturated animal fat that was killing people off, and it had nothing to do with the protein? What we need is a study that just follows a few thousand people and their protein intakes for 20 years or so, and just see who lives longest, who gets cancer, who doesn’t. But, there’s never been a study like that—until now.

6,000 men and women over age 50 from across the U.S. were followed for 18 years, and those under age 65 with high protein intakes had a 75% increase in overall mortality, and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying from cancer. But not all proteins; these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived. This all makes sense, given the higher IGF-1 levels among those eating lots of protein.

 The sponsoring university sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette,” explaining that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer than someone with a low-protein diet—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking cigarettes. And when they say low-protein diet, what they actually mean is just getting the recommended amount of protein.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancerous cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” said one of the lead researchers. That may depend on what we eat.

“The question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well in the short term,” one of the researchers noted. “But can it help you survive to be 100?” It wasn’t just more deaths from cancer; middle-aged people who eat lots of protein from animal sources were found to be more susceptible to early death in general. Crucially, the same did not apply to plant proteins, like beans. And it wasn’t the fat, but the animal protein that appeared to be the culprit.

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? Well, one nutrition scientist replied that it was potentially dangerous. It could damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. A smoker might think, “Why bother quitting smoking if my ham and cheese sandwich is just as bad for me?'”

It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities.  So, breathe deep. 

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

"It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities. So, breathe deep.

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods."

Excellent observation. There is just too much science to ignore the health risks of meat and meat by-products.

I've been quite busy lately, and am just now seeing a lot of activity here, as well as that I was evidently planning to post more on the protein issue but it appears not to have been posted. I've had some browser glitches that have lost some of my posts--perhaps that occurred here. In any case, it's been awhile since I looked at the journal article I had found online upon which I based that statement. But it stands to reason that the bran of the grain is not high in protein so much as in fiber. The fiber would offset the ratio. Even such nutrients as B-vitamins, present in the bran, are not protein, nor is the arsenic which comes in at much higher levels in that bran.

Have you ever eaten rice bran? I have. It's nearly intolerable. I was at the time attempting to supply myself with some missing nutrient, hoping to overcome the general weakness I had been feeling. The bran didn't work, unfortunately, and looking back it probably aggravated my problems, because I was later diagnosed with high levels of arsenic. I know now what I did not know then--the bran contains a disproportionate amount of the arsenic in rice.

Arsenic weakens the digestive system in general, which in turn can cause general weakness. At that time, when I ate a bowl of beans I would afterward feel so weak that I could hardly stand up. The arsenic had weakened me, and had caused my digestion to be so weak as to have trouble with high-protein meals. This may be one of the causes for white rice promoting better protein absorption than brown rice.

Looking for this information on protein again, I found this.


That is the abstract for an article that can be found online. More information about it. . .


Honestly, as one who eats rice far more regularly than perhaps any other member on this forum, have some respect. I have personal acquaintance with the rice diet. It has its advantages and disadvantages, just as any dietary might. There are advantages to brown rice. I happen to see the disadvantages outweighing the advantages, given the complementary compounding factors of the Asian dietary.

More information on some of the dangers of brown rice can be found here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/487110-brown-rice-dangers/

I remember reading somewhere that white rice also stores better, with fewer risks of toxins from molds, etc. that might develop over time, especially in the moist conditions of Southeast Asia. I guess I would rather sacrifice some nutrients, if need be, to eliminate the risk of mold poisoning. I have known fellow missionaries who have become nearly incapacitated on account of the molds. This is an important area of health in which many people have little knowledge. Mrs. White warns of the dangers of molds, but most doctors do not know how to treat patients who have lost their strength on account of them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Were we talking about "And white rice also provides more protein than brown rice. " or something else?


What is it about "whole foods" do you not understand? Why are you kicking against the pricks? Why are you resisting counsel? Do you not suppose that if you extract the arsenic out of lettuce and consume that, it would be harmful?

Grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables constitute the diet chosen for us by our Creator. These foods, prepared in as simple and natural a manner as possible, are the most healthful and nourishing. They impart a strength, a power of endurance, and a vigor of intellect that are not afforded by a more complex and stimulating diet. 376 {CCh 222.1}

Nothing here about extracting anything.

Nothing in your links address anything of the sort relating to
It could be your brain has been so damaged by your choice of an impoverished diet that you do not understand that your statement is not in anyway supported by your links, nor are the links even addressing what you are suggesting.

I do notice:
While this process eliminates much of the nutritional benefits of eating brown rice,

Over time, the moist, nutrient-rich environment of brown rice can serve as a breeding ground


Do you understand that your link is saying brown rice has more nutrients? It does suggest, that included along with the nutrients, are elements which can cause food allergies. Why do you suppose people are allergic to "soy, gluten and nuts," and such? Do you suppose there could be at least the slightest possibility it's because they make their diet one of refined foods?



As a side note, if "the molds, bacteria and fungi" cannot get enough nutrients to grow on white rice, can you?

kland,

The white rice is the staple of the world for its calories, not for its having a full spectrum of essential vitamins and minerals. It does not. The vitamins come with the vegetables, eggs, meat, etc. that people add to the rice (of course, no meat for me). I have a challenge for you, however. You appear very interested in brown rice. Would you please try consuming brown rice as your primary carbohydrate source for every meal, every day, for one week? After this, perhaps you might indulge in white rice every day, every meal, for the next week for the sake of experiment. Tell us how your digestive tract handled the two separate dietaries.

You seem to have purposely missed the facts presented in the abstract I posted. Did you read it? I guess I should not be surprised.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, what I was objecting to was that statement of yours there.

You have not supported it. You now seem to be attempting to change the conversation.

Am I understanding correctly you no longer wish to talk of that statement? Shall we consider that you accept it as an incorrect statement which you cannot support?

Kland,

I no longer wish to converse with someone who misconstrues everything I say, who either cannot or will not read, and who closes his eyes to the facts in order to maintain a preconceived opinion.

Enjoy your opinion. You have the wonderful right to be wrong, and to believe you are right at the same time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.