please tell me this article is a bad source....

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

 

i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if you

have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

 

 

another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that the

majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

[Guest guest]

So I guess all of those chinese buddhists who been veggies for 4000 years

have had some serious brain abnormalities...

 

I bet that study was funded by the cattle association...jerks

 

Blessings,

Ebony

 

Check out my Ebay Auctions!

This week: Medela Mini-Electric Pump

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem & category=20406 & item=2307937616

 

 

another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that the

majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't have a lot of scientific evdence to the contrary but I can say this. I

have been vegetarian for 18 years now and vegan for over 10 and I feel great. I

have had my iron and B12 checked once a year and all has come out fine every

time. My cholesterol is very low and my blood pressure runs about 80/50. I feel

pretty good about that. I take NO supplements. I have nursed three children and

none of them appear to have any brain abnormalities. I have two boys with a

sensory integration disorder but this runs in the family. My husband has it also

and was raised completely omnivorous!

You can always find frightening information about ANY diet you choose. I think

there comes a time when you just have to tune it all out and go with what feels

good, what feels right, to you. I think what it comes down to is that we humans

are really essentially terribly ignorant, there is so much we don't understand

about our bodies and exactly how they work!! (and heck, don't even bother trying

to explain our souls!!)

Take care

-Laurie

-

Tasha <igors_groove

Sunday, February 16, 2003 2:24 AM

please tell me this article is a bad source....

 

 

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

 

i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if you

have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

 

 

another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that the

majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

 

 

[Guest guest]

This article made me so angry... but i'll try to explain the flaws in an

impartial way (i learned to review papers in Uni)...

 

1) what the author is essentially writing is a review of the previous

research which supports his opinion. You can write an article supporting

literally anything if you have enough research on it... and with the amount

of research that goes on this isn't hard.

 

2) The author states that his paper wasn't sponsored by the meat or dairy

industry... that doesn't mean that the articles that he quoted weren't! For

all we know anything up to 100% of the articles he used may have been paid

for by the meat industry!

 

3) In a review of evidence such as this it is impossible to know the

reliability or validity of the articles being used. Without reading each

reference ourselves and searching for floors, it is impossible to know

whether the methodology used in these articles would stand up to testing, eg

can we trust them? who knows... but i suspect not. Also not all the

articles are necessarily research based, some like this one are just opinion

(with references, reliable or not!).

 

4) Quoting all these articles doesn't mean that they are all against the

vegetarian diet... for most it is probably just a quote from a whole

article. It might be the only negative thing stated in the article. We all

know how things can be misinterprretted if they're taken out of context.

 

5) When reviewing literature like this it is important to use the most up to

date papers, in science, if they are a few years old they are out of date,

yet the author of this article has used papers dating back to as far as 1970

and i couldn't find a single paper since 1999, something a good researcher

or scientist should not do. These studies were carried out when public

opinion was vastly against vegetarianism and so it is likely that the

researchers were against it and setting out to disprove it (then again we

come back to the reliability of the studies).

 

6) The author has started with an anecdote which is intended to add an

element of realism and help you to try to relate to this poor woman. The

truth is, it is irresponsible of him to put her health problems, including

her unfortunate miscarriage down to a vegetarian diet. There could be a

million and one reasons why she miscarried and it requires a proper

investigation, not just a change in diet. I have health problems myself,

all of which started before i was a veggie, and most of which have got

better since i became veggie, although not necessarily because i became

one). However, if my doctor tried to suggest that my health problems were

as a result of my diet i'd be pretty angry and feel i wasn't being taken

seriously.

Incidentally, her health problems could be due to her diet but not because

she was a veggie, but more that she was eating a poor diet, or not consuming

enough food.

 

7) Why is he writing the article? I'm guessing to sell his books, which he

lists, along with the fact they can be bought at amazon, underneath the

article. I think that this article isn't really supposed to be aimed at

veggies, but at meat eaters. Everyone likes to be told its ok to enjoy

their " vices " . If someone is being told by everyone that they need to cut

down on red meat, eat less fat, eat margerine instead of butter etc, and

this doctor comes along saying " no you don't, its ok to eat these things! "

then of course this person, who is possibly experiencing cardiac and/or

respiratory problems, is going to go " Yes! someone who supports my

lifestyle " ... then go buy all his books to go show his own GP.

 

Anyway, needless to say i think the paper can be ignored!

I apologise for the rant and i tried to be as unbiased as possible when i

was commenting on it but these type of articles really irritate me. They're

presented as if they are reliable when most are not and if you haven't been

taught how to critically appraise an article you wouldn't know otherwise.

Some people like this doctor tend to take advantage of that fact, and his

target audience are the general public who would trust the source as he's a

doctor. The truth is that a real scientist/reviewer/researcher would

dismiss it.

 

If anyone wants any guidelines or advice etc on things to look out for in

articles like this i can post them, or as they're a little off topic, i can

send them off list,

 

Hope this helps,

 

Laura

 

_______________

Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail & pgmarket=en-gb & XAPID=32 & DI=1059

[Guest guest]

The majority of that article is idiotic at best.. its

a verbal dance around main issues, using specific

points to defeat general statements and general

statements to counter specific points- the write

obviously had an agenda beyond promoting good health,

and thus his intentions can't be considered valid.

 

From a strictly editorial sense, quashing the

ignorance he's espousing isn't hard, but it's a fairly

long articly and its 730 am here- i'll take another

look at it later today. Don't worry about it.

 

Anyone who says 'don't compain about cows drinking the

earth's fresh water, they would have drank it anyways'

isn't someone you can take seriously. He omits, for

example, the massive over abundance of, say, cows,

completely out of sync with normal population level

for our biosphere, as if having (im exagerating) 5000

times the normal population of cows on the planet is

completely healthy and such. The article is sophomoric

at best and I feel written more from a point of dogma

than anything else.

 

I'm sure that somewhere along the line he's got an

interest in promoting something he's not mentioning.

 

If you like, later I willl go through the article and

debunk it- there are tons of jerks like him, it's not

hard.

 

K

--- " Tasha <igors_groove "

<igors_groove wrote:

>

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

>

> i just read this article... and feel pretty highly

> alarmed... if you

> have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

>

>

> another concern is a study that a friend told me of

> showing that the

> majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed

> brain

> abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand

> unfortunately.)

>

>

 

 

=====

 

Where is this beauty?

 

I search and search and then find,

 

We are the lotus.

 

 

 

Om Mani Padme Hum

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

Dr. Mercola is no friend of the veggie community. He's quite popular for

the massive info he puts out, but his bias seems to be for the producers of

" free range " beef and a couple of other niches. As a long time veggie

myself, I read thru his Vegetarian Myths series and his debates with veggie

advocates. What a crock!!

 

The problem here is that most research studies have both positive and

negative findings. It's as easy to persuade with the negative as with the

positive. For me that's often a clue to what kind of bias I'm about to

encounter in reading an article or an email post.

 

I asked one of my non veggie physician friends to read the article. About

thirty seconds into the article, she stopped, laughed, and asked, " This is a

joke, right? " Need I say more?

 

DaveO

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tasha <igors_groove [igors_groove]

 

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

 

i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if you

have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

 

another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that the

majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

[Guest guest]

thanks for this testimony... very helpful and sound advice. i've

eaten little meat for like ten years... and been a lacto-ovo

vegetarian (though i eat little dairy.eggs since i live with all

vegans) for about two years... and i just get worried when i read

articles like that.

 

 

, " Laura Letizia "

<lletizia@m...> wrote:

> I don't have a lot of scientific evdence to the contrary but I can

say this. I have been vegetarian for 18 years now and vegan for over

10 and I feel great. I have had my iron and B12 checked once a year

and all has come out fine every time. My cholesterol is very low and

my blood pressure runs about 80/50. I feel pretty good about that. I

take NO supplements. I have nursed three children and none of them

appear to have any brain abnormalities. I have two boys with a

sensory integration disorder but this runs in the family. My husband

has it also and was raised completely omnivorous!

> You can always find frightening information about ANY diet you

choose. I think there comes a time when you just have to tune it all

out and go with what feels good, what feels right, to you. I think

what it comes down to is that we humans are really essentially

terribly ignorant, there is so much we don't understand about our

bodies and exactly how they work!! (and heck, don't even bother

trying to explain our souls!!)

> Take care

> -Laurie

> -

> Tasha <igors_groove@h...>

>

> Sunday, February 16, 2003 2:24 AM

> please tell me this article is a

bad source....

>

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

>

> i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if

you

> have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

>

>

> another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that

the

> majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

> abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

thanks much for your logical and informative (and reassuring!) reply

laura

 

, " Laura Moore "

<child_of_the_80s@h...> wrote:

>

> This article made me so angry... but i'll try to explain the flaws

in an

> impartial way (i learned to review papers in Uni)...

>

> 1) what the author is essentially writing is a review of the

previous

> research which supports his opinion. You can write an article

supporting

> literally anything if you have enough research on it... and with

the amount

> of research that goes on this isn't hard.

>

> 2) The author states that his paper wasn't sponsored by the meat

or dairy

> industry... that doesn't mean that the articles that he quoted

weren't! For

> all we know anything up to 100% of the articles he used may have

been paid

> for by the meat industry!

>

> 3) In a review of evidence such as this it is impossible to know

the

> reliability or validity of the articles being used. Without

reading each

> reference ourselves and searching for floors, it is impossible to

know

> whether the methodology used in these articles would stand up to

testing, eg

> can we trust them? who knows... but i suspect not. Also not all

the

> articles are necessarily research based, some like this one are

just opinion

> (with references, reliable or not!).

>

> 4) Quoting all these articles doesn't mean that they are all

against the

> vegetarian diet... for most it is probably just a quote from a

whole

> article. It might be the only negative thing stated in the

article. We all

> know how things can be misinterprretted if they're taken out of

context.

>

> 5) When reviewing literature like this it is important to use the

most up to

> date papers, in science, if they are a few years old they are out

of date,

> yet the author of this article has used papers dating back to as

far as 1970

> and i couldn't find a single paper since 1999, something a good

researcher

> or scientist should not do. These studies were carried out when

public

> opinion was vastly against vegetarianism and so it is likely that

the

> researchers were against it and setting out to disprove it (then

again we

> come back to the reliability of the studies).

>

> 6) The author has started with an anecdote which is intended to

add an

> element of realism and help you to try to relate to this poor

woman. The

> truth is, it is irresponsible of him to put her health problems,

including

> her unfortunate miscarriage down to a vegetarian diet. There

could be a

> million and one reasons why she miscarried and it requires a

proper

> investigation, not just a change in diet. I have health problems

myself,

> all of which started before i was a veggie, and most of which have

got

> better since i became veggie, although not necessarily because i

became

> one). However, if my doctor tried to suggest that my health

problems were

> as a result of my diet i'd be pretty angry and feel i wasn't being

taken

> seriously.

> Incidentally, her health problems could be due to her diet but not

because

> she was a veggie, but more that she was eating a poor diet, or not

consuming

> enough food.

>

> 7) Why is he writing the article? I'm guessing to sell his books,

which he

> lists, along with the fact they can be bought at amazon,

underneath the

> article. I think that this article isn't really supposed to be

aimed at

> veggies, but at meat eaters. Everyone likes to be told its ok to

enjoy

> their " vices " . If someone is being told by everyone that they

need to cut

> down on red meat, eat less fat, eat margerine instead of butter

etc, and

> this doctor comes along saying " no you don't, its ok to eat these

things! "

> then of course this person, who is possibly experiencing cardiac

and/or

> respiratory problems, is going to go " Yes! someone who supports my

> lifestyle " ... then go buy all his books to go show his own GP.

>

> Anyway, needless to say i think the paper can be ignored!

> I apologise for the rant and i tried to be as unbiased as possible

when i

> was commenting on it but these type of articles really irritate

me. They're

> presented as if they are reliable when most are not and if you

haven't been

> taught how to critically appraise an article you wouldn't know

otherwise.

> Some people like this doctor tend to take advantage of that fact,

and his

> target audience are the general public who would trust the source

as he's a

> doctor. The truth is that a real scientist/reviewer/researcher

would

> dismiss it.

>

> If anyone wants any guidelines or advice etc on things to look out

for in

> articles like this i can post them, or as they're a little off

topic, i can

> send them off list,

>

> Hope this helps,

>

> Laura

>

> _______________

> Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail & pgmarket=en-

gb & XAPID=32 & DI=1059

[Guest guest]

this was pretty much how i felt... BUT he says such ALARMING things

that i thought i'd have y'all look at this. thanks so much for

takign the time to have your friend look at that

 

, " daveo " <daveo@m...>

wrote:

> I asked one of my non veggie physician friends to read the

article. About

> thirty seconds into the article, she stopped, laughed, and

asked, " This is a

> joke, right? " Need I say more?

>

> DaveO

>

>

> Tasha <igors_groove@h...> [igors_groove@h...]

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

>

> i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if

you

> have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

>

> another concern is a study that a friend told me of showing that

the

> majority of babies nursed by vegan mothers showed brain

> abnormalities.. (i do not have the study on hand unfortunately.)

[Guest guest]

As a veggie community, we all know the veggie diet works quite well, and

each of us is living proof of that simple fact.

 

All of the many twists and turns along the veggie path also work just as

well because long before our paleo ancesters hunted animals to fill their

stomach, it was already full of plants. No flames please. This is just my

2 cents.

 

DaveO

 

 

 

 

Tasha <igors_groove [igors_groove]

 

this was pretty much how i felt... BUT he says such ALARMING things

that i thought i'd have y'all look at this. thanks so much for

takign the time to have your friend look at that

 

, " daveo " wrote:

> I asked one of my non veggie physician friends to read

> the article. About thirty seconds into the article,

> she stopped, laughed, and asked, " This is a joke,

> right? " Need I say more?

>

> DaveO

[Guest guest]

>Tasha wrote:

>

>http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

>

>i just read this article... and feel pretty highly alarmed... if you

>have any rebuttals i am very interested to hear.

 

The opening scene screams propaganda. He diagnoses her problem as a

diet too low in fat and then gives her a prescription to eat meat.

Excuse me. She didn't have a problem with low protein, but with low

*fat* according to his own story. Why didn't he tell her to eat more

nuts and olive oil?

 

I have known extremely uninformed former vegetarians who apparently

lived on lettuce (iceberg) and white rice. They eventually got sick

and unhappy and dropped out. I have been told by more than one person

that they just couldn't deal with such a low-protein diet. I say " why

didn't you eat beans? " " I don't like beans. " " Then why didn't you eat

TVP? " " What's that? " " What about nuts, seeds--peanut butter, for

heaven's sake! " " Is peanut butter vegetarian? It's not a vegetable! "

The girl in this story sounds like she could have had this

conversation with me.

 

His material on Vitamin A is especially egregious. He says that

butter is a rich source--true. He says that A must be eaten with fat

to be absorbed and plant-based A doesn't come with fat around it.

True. But so what? If a meal rich in betacarotene also has a standard

30% fat content you'll be fine, so why is Myth #4 mentioned at all?

It stinks of propaganda.

 

His material on soy is also stinky. He says that soy doesn't have A

or D. So what? Neither A nor D is found in meat. D is *added* to

dairy. Also highly processed soy is higher in protein than

less-processed. All of his other info in this section I have never

seen anywhere else. This section seems to be based on this article:

Fallon, Sally and Enig, Mary, " Soy Products for Dairy Products? Not

So Fast, " Health Freedom News, September 1995. Sally Fallon runs a

non-profit nutrition foundation that appears to get the majority of

its funding from independent farmers.

 

I won't go through it all, but I think it can be safely ignored. Many

of his myths are not held by any but the most clueless and certainly

not by vegetarians.

 

Susan

--

---------

Please visit my website:

http://members.cox.net/sbcogan

 

Also, check out an excerpt of " Jubilee, " which will be released April 17:

http://members.cox.net/sbcogan/writing.html

[Guest guest]

I love this stuff. Great line, Susan!!

 

 

 

 

Susan Cogan [susan-brassfield]

 

>http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

 

>>...Many of his myths are not held by any but the most

clueless and certainly not by vegetarians.<<

[Guest guest]

>I love this stuff. Great line, Susan!!

>

 

thank you :-) rhetorical flourishes r us!

 

Susan

 

>

>

>Susan Cogan [susan-brassfield]

>

>>http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

>

>>>...Many of his myths are not held by any but the most

>clueless and certainly not by vegetarians.<<

>

--

---------

Please visit my website:

http://members.cox.net/sbcogan

 

Also, check out an excerpt of " Jubilee, " which will be released April 17:

http://members.cox.net/sbcogan/writing.html

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Susan Cogan wrote:

 

> I have known extremely uninformed former vegetarians who apparently

> lived on lettuce (iceberg) and white rice. They eventually got sick

> and unhappy and dropped out. I have been told by more than one person

> that they just couldn't deal with such a low-protein diet. I say " why

> didn't you eat beans? " " I don't like beans. " " Then why didn't you eat

> TVP? " " What's that? " " What about nuts, seeds--peanut butter, for

> heaven's sake! " " Is peanut butter vegetarian? It's not a vegetable! "

> The girl in this story sounds like she could have had this

> conversation with me.

 

Gee I thought it was silly when a meat-eating friend of mine thought I

couldn't eat peanut butter because it had the word " butter " in the label &

vegans don't eat butter. But not eating it becuase you didn't think

peanuts were a plant food is a little crazy.

 

Sometimes being veg makes me realise that there are alot of uneducated

people out there.

 

Regards to the fish,

LisA

ICQ#: 15562604

*** www.gu.uwa.edu.au/clubs/vegies ***

 

" I think---therefore I'm single... "

-Lizz Winstead

[Guest guest]

part of the misunderstanding can come from the fact

that peanuts are considered part of the meat category

on old school nutrition charts....

 

peanut butter and bread are a complete protein- milk

and cereal also are, as well as rice and beans. the

human body can process one gram of complete protein

per pound of body weight per day, or so im told.

 

k

--- Lisa Green <moonbug wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Susan Cogan wrote:

>

> > I have known extremely uninformed former

> vegetarians who apparently

> > lived on lettuce (iceberg) and white rice. They

> eventually got sick

> > and unhappy and dropped out. I have been told by

> more than one person

> > that they just couldn't deal with such a

> low-protein diet. I say " why

> > didn't you eat beans? " " I don't like beans. " " Then

> why didn't you eat

> > TVP? " " What's that? " " What about nuts,

> seeds--peanut butter, for

> > heaven's sake! " " Is peanut butter vegetarian? It's

> not a vegetable! "

> > The girl in this story sounds like she could have

> had this

> > conversation with me.

>

> Gee I thought it was silly when a meat-eating friend

> of mine thought I

> couldn't eat peanut butter because it had the word

> " butter " in the label &

> vegans don't eat butter. But not eating it becuase

> you didn't think

> peanuts were a plant food is a little crazy.

>

> Sometimes being veg makes me realise that there are

> alot of uneducated

> people out there.

>

> Regards to the fish,

> LisA

> ICQ#: 15562604

> *** www.gu.uwa.edu.au/clubs/vegies ***

>

> " I think---therefore I'm single... "

> -Lizz Winstead

>

>

>

 

 

=====

 

Where is this beauty?

 

I search and search and then find,

 

We are the lotus.

 

 

 

Om Mani Padme Hum

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

--- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> part of the misunderstanding can come from the fact

> that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> category

> on old school nutrition charts....

>

in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

experience) this food group has now been renamed " the

protein group "

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

FYI, the US Gov nutrition chart (see link) even now refers to the " Meat,

Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts " GROUP. Meat is one " category " in

the group. Nuts are another.

 

http://www.nal.usda.gov:8001/py/pmap.htm

 

DaveO

 

 

 

 

 

~michelle~ [goldfish_cracker_addict]

 

--- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> part of the misunderstanding can come from the fact

> that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> category on old school nutrition charts....

>

in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

experience) this food group has now been renamed " the

protein group "

 

_

[Guest guest]

if you weren't so incredibly anal and insecure,

looking for any attempt to sound more intelligent than

the last poster, you would have read my post, which

said 'old school charts' as in 'not the charts they

use anymore, but used to'

 

FYI

please dont respond to my posts anymore, i find you

extremely offensive.

 

--- daveo <daveo wrote:

>

> FYI, the US Gov nutrition chart (see link) even now

> refers to the " Meat,

> Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts " GROUP.

> Meat is one " category " in

> the group. Nuts are another.

>

> http://www.nal.usda.gov:8001/py/pmap.htm

>

> DaveO

>

>

>

>

>

> ~michelle~

> [goldfish_cracker_addict]

>

> --- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> > part of the misunderstanding can come from the

> fact

> > that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> > category on old school nutrition charts....

> >

> in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

> experience) this food group has now been renamed

> " the

> protein group "

>

> _

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

 

Where is this beauty?

 

I search and search and then find,

 

We are the lotus.

 

 

 

Om Mani Padme Hum

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

[Guest guest]

Get a grip, Keith!! Not every post in this group is about you!!

 

I made no personal attack on you unlike your " incredibly anal and insecure "

accusation directed at me. I didn't even challenge your idea, I simple

posted " current " info which related directly to what Michelle posted.

 

Basically, I considered your posting to be more misinformation which looks

much like what Michelle was also trying to say only she said it nicer.

 

DaveO

 

 

 

 

 

Mr.Graves [sleepingtao]

 

if you weren't so incredibly anal and insecure,

looking for any attempt to sound more intelligent than

the last poster, you would have read my post, which

said 'old school charts' as in 'not the charts they

use anymore, but used to'

 

FYI

please dont respond to my posts anymore, i find you

extremely offensive.

 

--- daveo <daveo wrote:

>

> FYI, the US Gov nutrition chart (see link) even now

> refers to the " Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs,

> and Nuts " GROUP. Meat is one " category " in

> the group. Nuts are another.

>

> http://www.nal.usda.gov:8001/py/pmap.htm

>

> DaveO

>

>

> ~michelle~

> [goldfish_cracker_addict]

>

> --- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> > part of the misunderstanding can come from the

> fact

> > that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> > category on old school nutrition charts....

> >

> in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

> experience) this food group has now been renamed

> " the protein group "

>

> _

>

[Guest guest]

~Michelle~, what's your favorite flavor? Pizza, cheddar, white cheddar,

pretzel???

 

Just curious,

Shawn

 

 

 

" I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I hoped it could be. "

Peter Gibbons - Office Space

 

" It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. "

Peter Gibbons - Office Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

~michelle~ <goldfish_cracker_addict

 

 

Re: please tell me this article is a bad

source....

Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:17:51 -0800 (PST)

 

 

--- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> part of the misunderstanding can come from the fact

> that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> category

> on old school nutrition charts....

>

in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

experience) this food group has now been renamed " the

protein group "

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

 

 

_______________

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

haha.. well the cheddar ones although since i've

been trying to stay on more of a live foods diet i've

not been eating too many

 

--- _- MatrixenO -_ <matrixeno wrote:

> ~Michelle~, what's your favorite flavor? Pizza,

> cheddar, white cheddar,

> pretzel???

>

> Just curious,

> Shawn

>

>

>

> " I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything

> that I hoped it could be. "

> Peter Gibbons - Office Space

>

> " It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't

> care. "

> Peter Gibbons - Office Space

>

----Original Message Follows----

> ~michelle~ <goldfish_cracker_addict

>

>

> Re: please tell me

> this article is a bad

> source....

> Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:17:51 -0800 (PST)

>

>

> --- " Mr.Graves " <sleepingtao wrote:

> > part of the misunderstanding can come from the

> fact

> > that peanuts are considered part of the meat

> > category

> > on old school nutrition charts....

> >

> in most health classes nowadays (at least from my

> experience) this food group has now been renamed

> " the

> protein group "

>

>

>

> Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

>

>

>

>

_______________

> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months

> FREE*

> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>

>

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day