You did not answer the question - must we all take mannatech products in order to have good health?

googled your article by John Rollins - - every one came from Mannatech or an associate. No, neutral 3rd party. Very interesting indeed.

I will go with Mannatech's own statements on its products: There - their own statement!

I have no doubt that you will find hundreds, maybe thousands of personal claims. If you "think" you are taking a wonder drug, many will feel wonderful. The mind exerts a powerful influence over the body, and even the mind itself.

Because we just know?


A couple of problems. Similar to those supporting global warming. 1995? Not that long ago. What about before that? Seems to me at some point before that, they didn't recommend hardly any fruit and vegies, that meat and milk was what they recommended. I don't think you can get many to believe that the government believed that few fruit and vegetables were needed in the past, but lots of meat and milk, but now we need more fruit and vegetables and less meat.

Another problem is, "recommended". By whom? Was the recommendation correct in the past? Is it correct now? Are government recommendations related to what we need? Or are the related to lobbying, sellers of product? Can recommendations be changed which are in no way related to the content of the original sources?

For example, they didn't recommend 30 minutes of exercise in the past but they do now. Should we conclude that the earth is getting farther from the sun resulting in less gravity pull on our muscles requiring further exercise of them?

Sounds logical, but that's what I'm asking: Can you show me a factual report on that?

Non relevant.

Non relevant.

Non relevant.

Yes, that's what I'm asking: Can you show me evidence for your belief?

You are so right. No light has been shown to support the topic.

But maybe there is a discrepancy regarding the terms evidence and facts as hinted by


But you just said we don't need scientific reports and have offered none.


Error alert.
Stating an opinion, and then requiring others to prove it's not true is invalid.


Non relevant.

Originally Posted By: geoffm
I don't think we need scientific reports (facts) to tell us something is wrong with the food chain.
Because we just know?
Just as I don't need a scientific report to tell me that the road is more slippery when wet. There would be nothing wrong with the scientific report, it's just that I would not need it to aquaint me with the facts that I had already experienced.

Quote:

But here is an interesting one that has just come to my notice.

In 1995 the recommended daily allowance for fruit and vegies was
5-7 serves.
Today, the figure is 7-13 serves.

A couple of problems. Similar to those supporting global warming. 1995? Not that long ago. What about before that? Seems to me at some point before that, they didn't recommend hardly any fruit and vegies, that meat and milk was what they recommended. I don't think you can get many to believe that the government believed that few fruit and vegetables were needed in the past, but lots of meat and milk, but now we need more fruit and vegetables and less meat.

Good point and I agree wholeheartedly. There may be other reasons for the change in recommendations. But the fact that government reports show a decline in nutrient levels means that at least one of the reasons is that we need to eat more serves to get the same amount of nutrients.

Another problem is, "recommended". By whom? Was the recommendation correct in the past? Is it correct now? Are government recommendations related to what we need? Or are the related to lobbying, sellers of product? Can recommendations be changed which are in no way related to the content of the original sources?

I understood the recommendations were made by the FDA.

For example, they didn't recommend 30 minutes of exercise in the past but they do now. Should we conclude that the earth is getting farther from the sun resulting in less gravity pull on our muscles requiring further exercise of them?

Quote:

Why should we have to consume nearly twice as many serves of fruit and vegies if their nutrient level is unchanged?
Sounds logical, but that's what I'm asking: Can you show me a factual report on that?

"A Perspective on Nutrient decline Op-ed by Dr. Don davis, University of Texas, Austin." one of many reports available on the internet.

Quote:

I did quote one factual report, but it was quite old, but why should we think things have got better instead of worse since then?
I remember one farmer telling me...
Non relevant.

Factual report not relevant. Farmer who actually produces the food not relevant? Who would know better than they?

As originator of this topic, I would like to call us back to the central focus of veganism. Mannatech is a tangential topic which you may like to explore further in another thread.

As relates to veganism versus other dietary regimens, soil nutrients will affect them somewhat equally. After all, where do cows get their corn? (So much for both the milk and the meat of the animals, right?) If nutrient levels are dropping, all dietaries should be affected, with perhaps the vegan diet catching the first waves of change.

Personally, I do believe that the soil composition has been changing. But the only solution I see is to either do your own farming, in which you can choose your own soil amendments, or else supplement your diet with extra nutrients and vitamins to make up the lack. Even then, the proper balance will be hard to find.

Vegans get exposed to many sprays and chemicals on their fruits, vegetables, and grains. But so do the animals get exposed through their foods. Things tend to concentrate up the food chain. The interesting thing is that the high sulfur content in the animal foods help to counteract the poisons. The net result can be that meat eaters have a lower body burden of toxins than their vegan counterparts. Does this have anything to do with the differences in longevity?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Quote:
that there is no doubt in our minds as to where the truth is. Is your belief based on evidence, or an assumed understanding.
Yes, that's what I'm asking: Can you show me evidence for your belief?
Here are just a few of the 4 million articles on the topic available on the internet.
"According to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data, calcium content of broccoli which averaged 12.9 mg per gm of dry weight in 1950, had declined to only 4.4mg per gm of dry weight in 2003." Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

"A report in the Journal of Complimentary Medicine in 2001 pointed out that US and UK Government statistics show a decline in trace minerals of up to 76% in vegetables and fruit over the period 1940 to 1991." Maurice McKeown, BDS, PhD. New Zealand.

"In 2003 News Canada reported that today's fruit and vegetables contain far fewer nutrients than they did 50 years ago."

"The UK Publication, Food Magazine, early this year published an analysis of food quality changes in the UK over the period 1940-2002... In an analysis of milk it was concluded that the iron content had fallen 62%, magnesium was down 21% and the copper content had disappeared completely."

Quote:
I am just a little concerned that the topic has come to a point where it is not throwing any light on the question as to why veganism causes premature death.
You are so right. No light has been shown to support the topic.

But maybe there is a discrepancy regarding the terms evidence and facts as hinted by
Quote:
I don't think we need scientific reports (facts) to tell us something is wrong with the food chain.

I guess it depends on how close you have lived to the source of our food over the period.


Quote:
To this point my earlier remarks, at least to me, do seem to offer a plausible explanation. I am not saying that is the only possible explanation, or that it is necessarily correct, only that in the light of recent science, it does make some sense.
But you just said we don't need scientific reports and have offered none.
Please do not mis-quote me, I said I did not need scientific reports to tell me our food was not as good as it used to be.
I had already seen that first hand. The scientific reports only confirmed what I had seen evidence of. I did not say there was nothing to be learned from science, it could quantify what we see evidence of in general. And newer science is showing that there are other factors which used to be in food, but some of which are now missing. I could deduct from theevidence that something was missing, but it would take science to tell me what it was.


Quote:
Have you found any evidence yet, to repudiate the notion that nutrient levels in our food have decreased significantly in the last 100 years?
Error alert.
Stating an opinion, and then requiring others to prove it's not true is invalid.

No, it is not stating an opinion, but a fact supported by government report and other researchers. If you have a different
view, isn't it reasonable to ask on what basis or evidence you
hold to such a view?

Thank you Green Cochoa. I had already mentioned my misgivings as to getting off topic. You are right, whether food nutrients have declined or not, all people should be affected more or less the same, and so would not add anything as to why vegans did not have better cancer stats than meat eaters.
As to the sulphur factor, I can see some possibility there, but it raises the question, why don't the meat eaters then have the same longevity as the vegetarians?

The vegans I know tend to be considerably more restrictive in their use of sugar than the vegetarians I know. This could make it more difficult for their bodies to engineer the missing sugars
and so account for their poorer results when it comes to cancer.
I recently listened to a Dr. Dan Fouts, a doctor of chiropractic with a PhD in biology, who has devoted his life to educating the health care professionals as to the whys and hows of adding the missing sugars in a plant based form, because of the results he has seen.
[deleted unauthorized quote]

Geoff,

If our body can manufacture the "missing sugars" from "sugar," then our body can also get the "missing sugars" from starch, which is what breaks down into sugar. We get starches in virtually everything we eat, from fruits, to grains, to vegetables, to nuts. On this point, I have to say that I see no benefit to using "sugars" in the diet, i.e. refined ones. One of the chief problems with corn syrup, for example, is that in the refining process it has become contaminated with mercury. Mercury is a toxin of extreme proportions in the body, and one which not even sulfur will counteract much.

Going back to toxins...eggs have a high amount of sulfur. Sulfur can help the body rid itself of the water soluble toxins such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, beryllium, etc. These toxins, taken together, have a multiplicative effect upon each other such that their influence in the body grows exponentially as their levels increase. Keeping the toxic burden down can be done in more than one way, with the chiefest of them being 1) reduce exposure and/or intake of them in the first place; 2) maintain sufficient levels of the nutrient elements such as zinc, selenium, magnesium, and calcium that will help to flush out the toxins; and 3) through medical intervention such as chelation therapy.

Looking at #2 above, if the soil levels of critical nutrients such as zinc and selenium are low, the body's ability to flush out their counterpart toxins will also be low, and said toxins will remain in the body or increase in their levels. This is exactly the dilemma facing many today, resulting in a host of ills such as ADHD, epilepsy, tics, tumors and cancers, allergies, environmental disorders, bone disease, and too many more to name.

Vegans deprive themselves of the high-sulfur foods that could help to flush these toxins out. And it's not as though one could go and eat sulfured foods like dried apricots in order to get their sulfur "fix." The sulfur is not then in an organic form where it can be readily used in the body. If all one needed was to get sulfur in any form, drinking water from certain hot springs might suffice. But this is simply not the case.

Whatever the reasons, God inspired Mrs. White to tell us that eggs have properties that counteract certain poisons. She made no mention of sulfur, so one might assume that she did not know about sulfur, or that the properties in eggs go beyond the sulfur itself. It may well be that we do not fully understand what those properties are. But one thing is certain: toxins are increasing in quantity upon this aging planet.

Steve Wohlberg has recently put out a new booklet about surviving "Toxic Terrorism." I would recommend it highly.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa,
Can you please delete my quote from Dr. John Rollins. I just noticed a copyright sign at the bottom of the page stating that no reproduction of any portion of the reprint may be made. Thank you.

If it was simple and easy for our bodies to manufacture the missing sugars from starch or sugar, why would the clinical trials show such dramatic results when the missing sugars were added? And why would thousands of people (including my wife) around the world experience such remarkable health benefits?

At the bottom of each page is a list of one or more names following "Forum Moderator." I am not a moderator in this thread, so I don't have the ability to edit your post. Arnold is the moderator, and of course Daryl and Rosangela can access anything on the forum.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.