How Much Protein Do We Really Need?

[Guest guest]

How Much Protein Do We Really Need?JoAnn GuestJul 25, 2004 20:53 PDT [This is a very long article but merits reading in full - Jagannath] The following article was writtenby Monique N. Gilbert, a Health AdvocateProtein is a vital nutrient, essential to your health.In its purest form, protein consists of chains of amino acids.Thereare 22 amino acids that combine to form different proteins, and 8 ofthese must come from the foods we eat. Our body uses these aminoacids to create muscles, blood, skin, hair, nails and internalorgans.Proteins help form new tissue, transports oxygen and nutrients inour blood and cells, regulates the balance of water and acids,and is needed to make antibodies.However, too much of a good thing may not be so good for you. Manypeople are putting their health at risk by eating to

muchprotein.Excessive protein consumption, particularly animal protein, canresult in cardiovascular disease, stroke, osteoporosis, arthritisand kidney stones.As important as protein is for our body, there are manymisconceptions about how much we really need in our diet, and thebest way to obtain it.The average American eats about twice as much protein than what isactually required. Some people,in the pursuit of weightloss, aregoing on high-protein diets and are eating up to four times the amount of protein thattheir body needs.Protein deficiency is certainly not a problem in America.So exactly how much protein does your body really need?Much less than you think.According to the American Heart Association and the NationalInstitutes of Health, as little as 50-60 grams of protein is enoughfor most adults. This breaks down to about 10-12% of total calories.Your body only needs

..36 grams of protein per pound of body weight.To calculate the exact amount you need, multiply your ideal weightby .36. This will give you your optimum daily protein requirement ingrams.Since the amount of protein needed depends on the amount of leanbody mass and not fat, ideal weight is used instead of actual weight.Infants, children,pregnant and nursing women require more.People on high-protein diets are consuming up to 34% of their totalcalories in the form of protein and up to 53% of total calories fromfat.Most of these people are unaware of the amount of protein and fatthat is contained in the foods they eat. For instance,a typical 3-ouncebeef hamburger, which is small by American standards-- contains about 22 grams of protein and 20 grams of fat.You achieve quick weight loss on these diets because of this highfat content. High fat foods give you the sensation of feeling full,faster, so

you end up eating fewer total calories.However,this type of protein and fat combination is not thehealthiest.Animal protein is loaded with cholesterol and saturated fat.Many people on these diets also experience an elevation in their LDL(the bad) cholesterol when they remain on this diet for long periodsof time. High levels of LDL cholesterol in the blood clog arteries andis the chief culprit in heart disease, particularly heart attack andstroke.So while you may lose weight in the short-run, you are putting yourcardiovascular health in jeopardy in the long-run.Another reason weight loss is achieved on these high-protein diets,at least temporarily, is actually due to water loss.The increase in the amount of protein consumed, especially from meatand dairy products, raises the levels of *uric acid* and 'urea' inthe blood.These are *toxic* by-products of protein "breakdown" and

metabolism.The body eliminates this *uric acid* and urea by pumping lots ofwater into the kidneys and urinary tract to help it flush out.However, a detrimental side effect of this "diuretic" response--is the 'loss' of numerous *essential* 'minerals' from the body,including calcium and magnesium.The extremely high intake of protein leads to an "acidic" statewhich leaches calcium from the bones, leading to bone lossor "osteoporosis". Medical evidence shows that the body LOSES an average of 1.75milligrams of calcium in the *urine* for every *1 gram* 'increase' in animalprotein ingested.Additionally, as calcium and other minerals are leached from ourbones, they are deposited in the kidneys--and can form into painful kidney stones.If a kidney stone becomes large enough to cause a blockage,it stops the flow of urine from the kidney and must beremoved by surgery or other methods.Plant-based

protein, like that found in organic soy, legumes,lentils and beans, lowers LDL cholesterol and raises HDL (the good)cholesterol. This prevents the build up of arterial plaque which leads toatherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and heart disease, thusreducing the risk heart attack and stroke.The amount and type of protein in your diet also has an importantimpact on calcium 'absorption' and 'excretion'.Vegetable-protein diets enhance calcium "retention"in the body and results in less "excretion" of calcium in the urine.This reduces the risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, and kidneyproblems.Interestingly, kidney disease is far less common in people who eat avegetable-based diet than it is in people who eat an animal-baseddiet.By replacing animal protein with vegetable protein and replacingsaturated fat with unsaturated fat, like that found in extra virginolive oil, sesame oil and alaskan

salmon,--you can avoid the pitfalls of the typical high-protein diet.You will be able to improve your health and regulate your weightwhile enjoying a vast array of delicious,nutritionally dense, highfiber foods.Also, the only healthy way to achieve permanent weight lossis to *burn* more calories than you take in.Anything else is just a gimmick.Author Bio: Monique N. Gilbert holds a Bachelor of Science degree,is a Certified PersonalTrainer/Fitness Counselor and health advocate.She began a low-fat, whole-grain, vegetable-rich diet inthe mid-1970's.This introduced her to a healthier way of eating and became thefoundation of her dietary choices as an adult.She became a full-fledged vegetarian on Earth Day 1990. Over theyears she has ncreased her knowledge and understanding about healthand fitness, and the important role diet plays in a person'sstrength, vitality and

longevity.Monique feels it is her mission to educate and enlighteneveryone about the benefits of healthy eating and living.E-mail: mo-@c...Internet sites:http://www.virtuesofsoy.comhttp://www.vegweb.com/cgi/comments.cgi?articles/37http://www.vegweb.com/cgi/comments.cgi?write/articles/---Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:41 pmThe Dire Consequences of High Protein Consumption--Excessive amounts of indigestible protein can be hazardous to ourhealth. Protein is by far the most widely discussed and publicizednutritional

requirement of our body.With all this information available about protein, you might assumethat people are pretty well informed on the subject.Wrong.http://www.hacres.com/articles.asp?artid=54 (this link is not working anymore, therefore I am reproducing the entire article - Jagannath)The average American consumes over 100 grams of protein a day, threeto five times as much as experts now say is necessary. We all know thatprotein is an essential nutrient, but what most of us have not beentold is that excessive amounts of indigestible protein can be hazardousto our health.The dangers of a high-protein diet are not commonly known by thegeneral public because we have been fed more misinformation and propagandaabout protein than any other category of nutrition. A combination of badlyoutdated animal experiments

and self-serving indoctrinationdisguised as nutritional education has left most people badly misinformed aboutour body's protein needs.Several generations of school children and doctors were taughtincorrectly that we need meat, dairy and eggs for protein. The meat,dairy and egg industries funded this "nutritional education" and itbecame U.S. government policy.Much of the evidence used to support the claim that animal productsare ideal for meeting human protein needs was based on a now discreditedexperiment on rats conducted in 1914.Experts in the field of nutrition and medical science havedrastically changed their thinking about human protein needs since that infamousrat study 80 years ago, but this updated knowledge has been very slow to reach the public.So, in an effort to fill this wide gap of information as conciselyas possible, here is a six-point summary of what we should know aboutprotein.

Every one of these six points will come as a surprise tothe average adult whose knowledge about protein is limited to what wastaught several decades ago in school.The medical and nutritional establishment has been slow to acceptevidence contrary to the status quo of self-serving "nutritionaleducation" promoted by major commercial influences, especially themeat and dairy industry.But facing the facts has forced doctors and nutritionists to steermore and more people away from animal products (cholesterol, saturatedfat, mucous, zero fiber, etc.) and to more fresh fruits and vegetables.It has been interesting to observe over the years how expertopinions and official policies have changed, sometimes reluctantly, in thearea of health and nutrition. For example, on the subject of protein:1) Modern research has shown that most people have more to beconcerned about medical problems caused by consuming too much

protein, ratherthan not getting enough. Protein is an extremely important nutrient, butwhen we get too much protein, or protein that we cannot digest, it causesproblems.In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Ted Morter, Jr. warns, "In oursociety, one of the principle sources of physiological toxins is too muchprotein." It may come as quite a shock to people trying to consume as muchprotein as possible to read in major medical journals and scientific reportsthat excess protein has been found to promote the growth of cancercells and can cause liver and kidney disorders, digestive problems, gout,arthritis, calcium deficiencies (including osteoporosis) and otherharmful mineral imbalances.It has been known for decades that populations consuming high-protein, meat-based diets have higher cancer rates and lower life-spans(averaging as low as 30 to 40 years), compared to cultures subsisting on low-protein vegetarian diets

(with average life-spans as high as 90 to 100 years).Numerous studies have found that animals and humans subjected tohigh-protein diets have consistently developed higher rates ofcancer. As for humans, T. Colin Campbell, a Professor of NutritionalSciences at Cornell University and the senior science advisor to the AmericanInstitute for Cancer Research, says there is "a strong correlationbetween dietary protein intake and cancer of the breast, prostate,pancreas and colon."Likewise, Myron Winick, director of Columbia University's Instituteof Human Nutrition, has found strong evidence of "a relationshipbetween high-protein diets and cancer of the colon."In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Morter writes, "The paradox ofprotein is that it is not only essential but also potentially health-destroying.Adequate amounts are vital to keeping your cells hale and hearty andon the job; but unrelenting consumption

of excess dietary proteincongests your cells and forces the pH of your life-sustaining fluids down tocell-stifling, disease-producing levels.Cells overburdened with protein become toxic."Writing in the Sept. 3, 1982 issue of the New England Journal ofMedicine, researchers Dr. Barry Branner and Timothy Meyer state that"undigested protein must be eliminated by the kidneys. This unnecessary work stresses out the kidneys so much that graduallylesions are developed and tissues begin to harden." In the colon,this excess protein waste putrefies into toxic substances, some of whichare absorbed into the bloodstream.Dr. Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the Universityof Illinois Medical School, warns, "A high protein diet also breaksdown the pancreas and lowers resistance to cancer as well as contributesto the development of diabetes."Anyone successfully indoctrinated by the meat and dairy

industry'snutritional education would be puzzled by the numerous studiesfinding osteoporosis, a calcium deficiency that makes the bones porous andbrittle, is very prominent among people with high consumption ofboth protein and calcium.For example, the March 1983 Journal of Clinical Nutrition found thatby age 65, the measurable bone loss of meat-eaters was five to sixtimes worse than of vegetarians. The Aug. 22, 1984 issue of the MedicalTribune also found that vegetarians have "significantly strongerbones."African Bantu women average only 350 mg. of calcium per day (farbelow the National Dairy Council recommendation of 1,200 mg.), but seldombreak a bone, and osteoporosis is practically non-existent, becausethey have a low-protein diet.At the other extreme, Eskimos have the highest calcium intake in theworld (more than 2,000 mg. a day), but they suffer from one of thehighest rates of osteoporosis

because their diet is also the highestin protein.The explanation for these findings is that meat consumption leavesan acidic residue, and a diet of acid-forming foods requires the bodyto balance its pH by withdrawing calcium (an alkaline mineral) from thebones and teeth.So even if we consume sufficient calcium, a high-protein, meat-baseddiet will cause calcium to be leached from our bones. Dr. JohnMcDougall reports on one long-term study finding that even with calciumintakes as high as 1,400 mgs. a day, if the subjects consumed 75 grams ofprotein daily, there was more calcium lost in their urine than absorbed intotheir body.These results show that to avoid a calcium deficiency, it may bemore important to reduce protein intake than to increase calciumconsumption.In his 1976 book, How to Get Well, Dr. Paavo Airola, Ph.D., N.D.,notes we "have been brought to believe that a high protein diet is a

mustif you wish to attain a high level of health and prevent disease.Health writers and 'experts' who advocated high protein diets were misledby slanted research, which was financed by dairy and meat industries,or by insufficient and outdated information.Most recent research, worldwide, both scientific and empirical,shows more and more convincingly that our past beliefs in regard to highrequirements of protein are out-dated and incorrect, and that theactual daily need for protein in human nutrition is far below that whichhas long been considered necessary.Researchers, working independently in many parts of the world,arrived at the conclusion that our actual daily need of protein is only 25to 35 grams (raw proteins being utilized twice as well as cooked)... Butwhat is even more important, the worldwide research brings almost dailyconfirmation of the scientific premise... that proteins, essentialand

important as they are, CAN BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL WHEN CONSUMED INEXCESS OF YOUR ACTUAL NEED."Dr. Airola continues: "The metabolism of proteins consumed in excessof the actual need leaves toxic residues of metabolic waste in tissues,causes autotoxemia, overacidity and nutritional deficiencies,accumulation of uric acid and purines in the tissues, intestinalputrefaction, and contributes to the development of many of our mostcommon and serious diseases, such as arthritis, kidney damage,pyorrhea, schizophrenia, osteoporosis, arteriosclerosis, heart disease, andcancer.A high protein diet also causes premature aging and lowers lifeexpectancy."2) It is easier to meet our minimum daily protein requirements thanmost people would imagine... with just fruits and vegetables. Becausemuch of what experts once believed about protein has been proven incorrect,U.S.government recommendations on daily protein consumption

have beenreduced from 118 grams to 46 to 56 grams in the 1980's to thepresent level of 25 to 35 grams.Many nutritionists now feel that 20 grams of protein a day is morethan enough, and warn about the potential dangers of consistentlyconsuming much more than this amount. The average American consumes a littleover 100 grams of protein per day.Drastically reduced recommendations for protein consumption are anobvious indication that official information about protein taught toeveryone from school children to doctors was incorrect, but therehas been no major effort to inform the public that what we were taughthas been proven wrong.So there are large numbers of people with medical problems caused byeating more than four or five times as much protein as necessary,yet their misguided obsession is still to ensure that they get enoughprotein.A good way of determining which foods provide sufficient

protein isto consider recommendations on the percentage of our total calorieintake that should be made up of protein, and then determine which foodsmeet these recommendations. These recommendations range from 2 1/2 to 8percent.Reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition say we shouldreceive 2 1/2 percent of our daily calorie intake from protein, andthat many populations have lived in excellent health on that amount. TheWorld Health Organization established a figure of 4 1/2 percent. TheFood and Nutrition Board recommends 6 percent, while the NationalResearch Council recommends 8 percent.The 6 and 8 percent figures are more than what most people need, andthe higher percentages are intended as a margin of safety. But still,these recommendations are met by most fruits and greatly exceeded by mostvegetables.For example, the percentage of calories provided by protein inspinach is 49%; broccoli

45%; cauliflower 40%; lettuce 34%; peas 30%; greenbeans 26%; cucumbers 24%; celery 21%; potatoes 11%; sweet potatoes6%; honeydew 10%; cantaloupe 9%; strawberry 8%; orange 8%; watermelon8%;peach 6%; pear 5%; banana 5%; pineapple 3%; and apple 1%.Considering these figures, any nutritionist would have to agree it is very easyfor a vegetarian to get sufficient protein.Two reasons we have such low protein requirements, as noted byHarvey and Marilyn Diamond in Fit for Life, are that, "the human bodyrecycles 70 percent of its proteinaceous waste," and our body loses onlyabout 23 grams of protein a day.3) The need to consume foods or meals containing "complete protein"is based on an erroneous and out-dated myth. Due to lingeringmis-information from a 1914 rat study, many people still believethey must eat animal products to obtain "complete protein."And for other people, this fallacy was replaced by a

secondinaccurate theory that proper food combining is necessary to obtain "completeprotein" from vegetables.Both of these theories have been unquestionably disproved, becausewe now know people can completely satisfy their protein needs and allother nutritional requirements from raw fruits and vegetables withoutworrying about proper food combining or adding protein supplements or animalproducts to their diet.In fact, the whole theory behind the need to consume "completeprotein" -- a belief once accepted as fact by medical and nutritionalexperts -- is now disregarded.For example, Dr. Alfred Harper, Chairman of Nutritional Sciences atthe University of Wisconsin, Madison, and of the Food and NutritionBoard of the National Research Council, states, "One of the biggest fallaciesever perpetuated is that there is any need for so-called completeprotein."Protein is composed of amino acids, and these

amino acids areliterally the building blocks of our body. There are eight essential aminoacids we need from food for our body to build "complete protein," andevery one of these amino acids can be found in fruits and vegetables.(There is a total of 23 amino acids we need, but our body is able toproduce 15 of these, leaving eight that must be obtained from food.)There are many vegetables and some fruits that contain all eightessential amino acids, including carrots, brussels sprouts, cabbage,cauliflower, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, kale, okra, peas, potatoes,summer squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and bananas.But the reason we do not need all eight essential amino acids fromone food or from one meal is that our body stores amino acids for futureuse.From the digestion of food and from recycling of proteinaceouswastes, our body maintains an amino acid pool, which is circulated to cellsthroughout the

body by our blood and lymph systems.These cells and our liver are constantly making deposits andwithdrawals from this pool, based on the supply and demand of specific aminoacids.The belief that animal protein is superior to vegetable proteindates back to 1914 when two researchers named Osborn and Mendel found thatrats grew faster on animal protein than plant protein.From these findings, meat, dairy and eggs were termed as "Class A"proteins, and vegetable proteins were classified as aninferior "Class B."In the mid-1940s, researchers found that ten essential amino acidsare required for a rat's diet, and that meat, dairy and eggs suppliedall ten of these amino acids, whereas wheat, rice and corn did not.The meat, dairy and egg industries capitalized on both of thesefindings, with little regard for the fact that nutritionalrequirements for rats are very different than for humans.It was

discovered in 1952 that humans required only eight essentialamino acids, and that fruits and vegetables are an excellent sourceof all of these. Later experiments also found that although animalprotein does speed the growth of rats, animal protein also leads to ashorter life-span and higher rates of cancer and other diseases.There are also major differences in the protein needs of humans andrats. Human breast milk is composed of 5 percent protein, comparedto 49 percent protein in rat milk. To illustrate how ignorant "experts"can be, during the time that high-protein diets were thought to behealthy, many experts felt it was a mistake of nature that human femalesproduced breast milk of only 5 percent protein.The "complete protein" myth was given another boost in 1971 whenFrances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for a Small Planet. Lappe discouraged meateating, but promoted food combining with vegetable proteins, such

asbeans and rice, to obtain all eight essential amino acids in onemeal.But by 1981, Lappe conducted additional research and realized thatcombining vegetarian foods was not necessary to get proper protein.In her tenth anniversary edition of Diet for a Small Planet, Lappeadmitted her blunder and acknowledged that food combining is not necessary toobtain sufficient protein from a vegetarian diet.In fact, Dr. John McDougall warns that efforts to combine foods forcomplete protein are not only unnecessary, but dangerous,because "one who follows the advice for protein combining can unintentionallydesign a diet containing an excessive and therefore harmful amount ofprotein."4) Protein is an essential part of our (living) body and there is adifference between protein that has been cooked and protein in itsraw (living) form.We should realize that our body (which is made of some 100 trillionliving

cells) is composed of 15 percent protein, making protein theprimary solid element in our body, and second only to water, whichcomposes 70 percent of our body.Protein is composed of amino acids, and amino acids are made up ofchains of atoms. These atoms that make up amino acids that make upprotein literally become the building blocks for our body.The problem is that cooking kills food and de-natures or re-arrangesthe molecular structure of the protein, causing amino acids to becomecoagulated, or fused together.Dr. Norman W. Walker emphasizes there is a difference between atomsthat are alive and atoms that are dead. Dr. Walker says heat from cookingkills and changes the vibration of the atoms that compose aminoacids that compose protein that compose our body.In a human body, Dr. Walker notes that within six minutes afterdeath, our atoms change their vibration and are no longer in a live,organic

form.So the difference between cooked and raw protein is the differencebetween the life and death of the atoms that make up 15 percent ofour body.Dr. Walker writes: "Just as life is dynamic, magnetic, organic, sois death static, non-magnetic, inorganic. It takes life to beget life,and this applies to the atoms in our food.When the atoms in amino acids are live, organic atoms, they canfunction efficiently. When they are destroyed by the killing of the animaland the cooking of the food, the vital factors involving the atoms inthe functions of the amino acids are lost."You can see protein change its structure immediately when you dropan egg into a hot frying pan. As soon as it hits the heat, the clear,runny, jelly-like substance surrounding the egg yolk turns rubberyand white. Protein is not the same substance before and after it hasbeen cooked. In The High Energy Diet video, Dr. Douglas Graham

states"protein is destroyed at 150 degrees." At this temperature, he saysthe chemical bond and structure of protein is "denatured," and once thishappens, there is nothing we can do to "un-de-nature" protein.But Dr. Graham sends a mixed message on the question of whether ourbody can get absolutely no benefit from cooked protein, or whether we canassimilate only a small amount of the protein in cooked food.He says both. Shortly after saying protein is "denatured" and"destroyed" by cooking, and that we "can't get any use out of cookedfood"... in the same video Dr. Graham states that "only a smallportion of that (cooked) protein is available to human beings."In Living Health, Harvey and Marilyn Diamond send the same mixedmessages as to whether cooked protein is unusable or difficult touse.They write that, "When cooked, amino acids fuse together, making theprotein unusable." The book also states, "Amino

acids are destroyedor converted to forms that are either extremely difficult or impossibleto digest."So, we have three options on how we feel about the differencebetween raw and cooked protein. We can believe that:our living cells get no benefit whatsoever from the dead atoms anddenatured protein of cooked food;surely we must get some small benefit from cooked protein, even ifmost of it ends up as undigested protein that causes many medicalproblems (and even if we don't understand how dead atoms can become thebuilding blocks for our living cells);or we can accept orthodox medical and nutritional "wisdom" thatstill says cooked, dead and denatured protein is just as healthy as livingprotein from raw foods (and try not to think about the differencebetween life and death in the food we put into our bodies).The first position, which is advocated by Rev. George Malkmus, wouldbe considered the

most radical by the medical and nutritionalestablishment. (Remember, these experts are the same folks who --not so long ago -- said people couldn't get sufficient protein from fruitsand vegetables, and once recommended levels of protein now known to be ahealth hazard.)The second position is a somewhat inconsistent compromise. But thethird position, which is currently official government policy, is actuallythe hardest to defend. Perhaps when the evidence is more carefullyconsidered, this position will change, just as so many otherofficial, orthodox positions on nutrition have evolved.Evidence of the nutritional superiority of raw foods has beenavailable for decades, but information that is contrary to commercialinterests is slow to reach the public. For a summary of this evidence:All animals in the wild eat raw food, so wild animals kept incaptivity have provided a good means of comparing the merits of raw

versuscooked food. In the early 1900s, it was common for zoos, circuses, etc., tosave money by feeding captive animals restaurant scraps. But themortality of these animals was high and attempts at breeding themwere not very successful.When their diets were changed to natural, raw foods, the health,life-span and breeding of the animals improved tremendously. A studyof this type at the Philadelphia Zoo was described in a 1923 book byDr. H.Fox titled Disease in Captive Wild Animals and Birds.One of the best-known studies of raw versus cooked foods withanimals was a 10-year research project conducted by Dr. Francis M.Pottenger, using 900 cats. His study was published in 1946 in the AmericanJournal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery. Dr. Pottenger fed all 900 cats thesame food, with the only difference being that one group received itraw, while the others received it cooked.The results dramatically revealed

the advantages of raw foods over acooked diet.Cats that were fed raw, living food produced healthy kittens yearafter year with no ill health or pre-mature deaths. But cats fed the samefood, only cooked, developed heart disease, cancer, kidney andthyroid disease, pneumonia, paralysis, loss of teeth, arthritis, birthingdifficulties, diminished sexual interest, diarrhea, irritability,liver problems and osteoporosis (the same diseases common in our humancooked-food culture).The first generation of kittens from cats fed cooked food were sickand abnormal, the second generation were often born diseased or dead,and by the third generation, the mothers were sterile.Much of the same pattern can be shown in humans. In his 1988 book,Improving on Pritikin, Ross Horne notes, "There is an associationbetween the cooking and processing of food and the incidence ofcancer, and conversely, it is a fact that cancer

patients make the bestrecoveries on completely raw vegetarian food...This shows that when vital organs are at their lowest state offunction, only raw foods make it possible for them to provide the bodychemistry to maintain health. It follows then, that if raw food permits anotherwise ruined body to restore itself to health, so must raw foodprovide the maximum benefit to anybody -- sick or well."In his 1980 book, The Health Revolution, Horne writes, "Cookedprotein is difficult to digest, and when incompletely digested proteinenters the colon it putrefies and ammonia is formed." Horne quotes Dr.Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of IllinoisMedical School as saying, "In the digestion of proteins, we areconstantly exposed to large amounts of ammonia in our intestinaltract.Ammonia behaves like chemicals that cause cancer or promote itsgrowth. It kills cells, it increases virus

infection, it affects the rate atwhich cells divide, and it increases the mass of the lining of theintestines. What is intriguing is that within the colon, theincidence of cancer parallels the concentration of ammonia." Dr. Visek isquoted in The Golden Seven Plus One, by Dr. C. Samuel West, as saying,"Ammonia, which is produced in great amounts as a by-product of meatmetabolism, is highly carcinogenic and can cause cancerdevelopment."Cooking food also creates many types of mutagens, particularly withproteins. "Mutagens are chemicals that can alter the DNA in thenucleus of a living cell so increasing the risk of the cell becomingcancerous," Horne explains."Most mutagens seem to be formed by an effect of cooking onproteins," according to Dr. Oliver Alabaster, Associate Professor of Medicineand Director of Cancer Research at the George Washington University, inhis 1985 book, What You Can Do to Prevent

Cancer.Horne further quotes Alabaster's book as stating, "Broilinghamburgers, beef, fish, chicken, or any other meat, for that matter, will createmutagens, so it appears to be an unavoidable consequence of cooking.Other mutagens are formed by the action of cooking on carbohydrates.Even an action as innocent as toasting bread has been shown tocreate mutagenic chemicals through a process known as the browningreaction.This reaction also occurs when potatoes and beef are fried, or whensugars are heated... Fortunately, extracts of very few fruits andvegetables are mutagenic. In fact, quite the contrary.Laboratory tests have demonstrated that a number of substances infoods (including cabbage, broccoli, green pepper, egg plant, shallots,pineapple, apples, ginger and mint leaf) can actually inhibit theaction of many mutagens."And the results of personal experience from the many people who

haveswitched to a mainly raw foods, vegetarian diet are even moreimpressive than scientific laboratory findings. Since Rev. George Malkmushealed his colon cancer and other ailments 18 years ago by switching to adiet of raw fruits and vegetables, he has led many others in the samedirection. The personal testimonials and letters of many of thesepeople have appeared in the pages of this newsletter... people who haverecovered from cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes,arthritis, obesity, abdominal pain and more.All this from something as simple as a change to a vegetarian dietof mainly raw fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on freshly-extracted vegetable juice. (Juicing is important because nutrients in rawvegetable juice can get to the cellular level quicker and moreefficiently with these nutrients separated from the pulp, or fiber.This allows the time-consuming and energy-consuming process of

digestionto be avoided.)But George Malkmus was not the first -- nor will he be the last --person to get great results from converting people to raw foods. Theresults obtained by Rev. Malkmus and Hallelujah Acres are veryconsistent with others who have placed an emphasis on nutrition fromraw foods and freshly-extracted vegetable juice.Dr. Norman Walker was seriously ill in his early 40s, but healedhimself with the juices of raw vegetables, and lived to be over 100 yearsold, writing his last book when he had passed the century mark.And since the 1920s, the Gerson Therapy developed by Dr. Max Gersonhas obtained results with fresh vegetable juices that have beenunparalleled by orthodox medical practice. "Incurable" diseases are being healedat the Gerson Clinic, such as lung cancer, spreading melanoma,lymphoma, bone cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, brain cancer, livercancer, prostate cancer, multiple

sclerosis, severe asthma, emphysema,rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus and more.So, whether you consider scientific analysis or real-lifeexperience, there is strong evidence of the superiority of raw protein overcooked protein.Scientific analysis of the distinction between the life and death ofatoms that become the building blocks of our body, the denaturing ofprotein and the mutagens caused by cooking protein helps to explainpersonal experiences of the many medical problems caused byexcessive amounts of indigestible, cooked protein, as well as the greatresults people have seen by switching to a raw foods diet.5) Cooked meat is not a good source of protein. The reason cookedmeat is not a good source of protein for humans is both because it iscooked and because it is meat.Actually, cooked meat is not a good source of protein for any animal(as laboratory tests have shown).And meat in any

form is not good for humans. As noted by theDiamonds in Living Health, we do not have a digestive system designed toassimilate protein from flesh: We do not have the teeth of a carnivore nor thesaliva. Our alkaline saliva is designed to digest complexcarbohydrates from plant food, whereas saliva of a carnivore is so acidic that itcan actually dissolve bones.Humans do not have the ability to deal with the cholesterol or uricacid from meat. The digestive tracts of carnivores are short, about threetimes the length of their torso, allowing quick elimination ofdecomposing and putrefying flesh.All herbivores have long intestines, 8 to 12 times the length oftheir torso, to provide a long transit time to digest and extract thenutrients from plant foods.And all protein ultimately comes from plants. The question iswhether we get this protein directly from plants, or whether we try to get itsecondhand from

animals who have gotten it from plants.6) Eating meat -- or protein in general -- does not give youstrength, energy or stamina. One of the easiest ways to dispel the theory thatmeat is required for strength is to look at the animal kingdom. Itis herbivores such as cattle, oxen, horses and elephants that have beenknown for strength and endurance.What carnivore has ever had the strength or endurance to be used asa beast of burden? The strongest animal on earth, for its size, is thesilver-back gorilla, which is three times the size of man, but has30 times our strength.These gorillas "eat nothing but fruit and bamboo leaves and can turnyour car over if they want to," the Diamonds note in Living Health.It would be hard to argue anyone needs meat for strength.And protein does not give us energy. Protein is for building cells.Fuel for providing our cells with energy comes from the glucose andcarbohydrates

of fruits and vegetables.As pointed out by John Robbins in Diet for a New America, manystudies have shown that protein consumption is no higher during hard workand exercise than during rest.Robbins writes, "True, we need protein to replace enzymes, rebuildblood cells, grow hair, produce antibodies, and to fulfill certain otherspecific tasks... (But) study after study has found that proteincombustion is no higher during exercise than under restingconditions.This is why (vegetarian) Dave Scott can set world records for thetriathlon without consuming lots of protein. And why Sixto Linarescan swim 4.8 miles, cycle 185 miles, and run 52.4 miles in a single daywithout meat, dairy products, eggs, or any kind of proteinsupplement in his diet.The popular idea that we need extra protein if we are working hardturns out to be simply another part of the whole mythology of protein, the'beef gives us

strength' conditioning foisted upon us by those whoprofit from our meat habit."To demonstrate how well-founded this position is in currentscientific knowledge, Robbins quotes the National Academy of Science as saying,"There is little evidence that muscular activity increases the needfor protein."Protein requires more energy to digest than any other type of food.In our Health, Your Choice, Dr. Ted Morter, Jr. writes: "Protein is anegative energy food.Protein is credited with being an energy-producer. However, energyis used to digest it, and energy is needed to neutralize the excessacid ash it leaves.Protein uses more energy than it generates. It is a negative energysource." A 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Associationwarns athletes against taking protein supplements, noting, "Athletes needthe same amount of protein foods as nonathletes. Protein does notincrease

strength.Indeed, it often takes greater energy to digest and metabolize theexcess of protein."Most athletes are not aware of this information on protein, butthere have been attempts to make this warning known.For example, George Beinhorn wrote in the April 1975 issue of BikeWorld, "Excess protein saps energy from working muscles... It hasalso been discovered that too much protein is actually toxic.In layman's terms, it is poisonous... Protein has enjoyed awonderful reputation among athletes. Phrases like 'protein power,' 'proteinfor energy,' 'protein pills for the training athlete'... are all falseand misleading."Robbins gives additional evidence for this claim in Realities forthe 90's by naming some of the world's greatest athletes, all holders ofworld records in their field, who happen to be vegetarians: DaveScott, six-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon (and the only man two winit more than

twice); Sixto Linares, world record holder in the 24-hourtriathlon; Paavo Nurmi, 20 world records and nine Olympic medals indistance running; Robert Sweetgall, world's premier ultra-distancewalker; Murray Rose, world records in the 400 and 1500-meterfreestyle; Estelle Gray and Cheryl Marek, world record in cross-country tandemcycling; Henry Aaron, all-time major league home run champion; StanPrice, world record holder in the bench press; Andreas Cahling, Mr.International body building champion; Roy Hilligan, Mr. America bodybuilding champion; Ridgely Abele, eight national championships inkarate; and Dan Millman, world champion gymnast... all vegetarians.That's a list that would surprise the average American, based onwhat we have been taught to believe about protein and meat.In summary, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that practicallyeverything we have been told about protein is wrong. We don't needas

much protein as we have been taught and consuming too much proteinis hazardous to our health. We don't need to eat "complete protein."Our body needs protein from raw foods, because the building blocksfor our living cells need to be living instead of dead.Cooked protein contains mutagens that are hazardous to our health,and some nutritional experts say cooked protein is impossible or verydifficult to digest.Cooked meat is not a good source of protein. And protein has nothingto do with strength, energy or stamina.But protein is important. And our best source of protein is from thesame raw fruits and vegetables that provide all the other nutrients --vitamins, minerals, enzymes and carbohydrates -- we need. The bestway to get all these nutrients, including protein, is to eat a well-balanced variety of fresh, raw fruits and vegetables. The percentage ofcalories made up by protein in most fruits and

vegetables is equal to orsurpasses that of human breast milk, which is designed to meet humanprotein needs at our time of fastest growth. So don't let anybodytell you that you can't get enough protein from fruits and vegetables.When you consider the health problems caused by consuming too muchindigestible (cooked) protein, it should drive home the point thatour body is a living organism made up of living cells, and proteincomposes 15 percent of our body, therefore the protein we take in should beliving rather than dead.Consuming a high quantity of dead, cooked protein is similar totaking mega-doses of synthetic vitamins that we cannot assimilate.We would do better to focus on the quality, rather than quantity, ofnutrients, and ensure that the protein (and other nutrients) weconsume is in a natural, living form that our body can assimilate atthe cellular level and use to build healthy new living

cells._________________JoAnn Guestmrsjo-http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.