That is "consumer" the number ONE and dot html

LINKS OF IMPORTANCE: TAKE ME HOME! * My other personal page *
MORE scary referecnes from the scientific literature about human dairy consumption: ||| MoreReferences.html (MAIN) ||| MoreReferences.html (Alt. 1) ||| MoreReferences.html (Alt. 2) |||

Consumer Products Advisory News Flash: Milk implicated in many lactose-intolerance allergies and illnesses! (See below for details.) The Editor replies below with his findings to settle the question.

Table of contents
I. Why regular table sugar is better than the "diet" sweetener * NutraSweet * in most cases
II. Why Soy and Rice "Milk Substitutes" are better than * Cows' Milk * in most cases
III. New Research on * ~~~ STRESS ~~~ * ~*~
IV. Why eating * too many calories * can reduce your life span
Two studies: reducing caloric intake caused rats & mice to live at least 30% longer than usual and worms to live about nineteen! (yes, 19 !!!) times as long as usual. Details below.
V. What the * Holy Bible * has to say about eating meat and drinking milk
VI. What is Food Combining?
VII. My guess at the * Top 20 * HEALTH Risks (things to avoid)

Before we get going- THREE things to put things in perspective:

#1: Time Magazine headlines of 30 October 2000: "EARLY PUBERTY Why Girls Are Growing Up Faster: "Is it hormones [in food or milk]...How parents and kids are coping" pp. 66-74.

#2: "With breast cancer rates continuing to rise in the United States and Europe, researchers have begun to look toward Asia for insights as to why Asian women on the whole have much lower incidence of this devastating disease. Specifically, the age-adjusted death rates due to breast cancer from 1990-1993 were 3.3 times lower for Japanese women than American woman and 4.5 times lower for Chinese women compared to American women. (Parker SL, Tung T, Bolden S, Wingo P: Cancer statistics, 1996. Ca: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1996;46(1):5-27.) according to:

#3: "Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries...Dr Christopher Murray, head of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said: "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries."

* "US tumbles down the world ratings list for life expectancy," The Guardian, Monday August 13, 2007 -
* "US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings: US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings; Other Nations Improving Health Care, Nutrition," By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON, August 12, 2007 (AP) -
* "US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings," By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, The Associated Press, Sunday, August 12, 2007; 5:02 AM -
* "U.S. life span shorter," By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer | August 11, 2007 -

The truth is hard to bear, but if you're ready for the truth, READ ON.

     Did you know that a growing number of people describe aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) as "a Pandora's box of chameleon-like toxins and tumor agents that have 92 FDA acknowledged ways to ruin your life, death being one of them"?   For better health... check it out!

I. Why regular table sugar is better than the "diet" sweetener NutraSweet in most cases

NutraSweet may break down into harmful substances due to this man made amino acid dipeptide being used in poisonously high levels and without natural co-factors present to help metabolize it. Specifically, it is said that aspartame in diet colas breaks down into FORMALDAHYDE! while the colas are sitting on the shelf. At least, that's what I 've read. ** It is estimated that up to one third (100 Million) of the US population is at least somewhat sensitive to products containing aspartame. Only about 1%, however are truly phenylketonuric. It is an inherited disorder (recessive, I think), and persons affected don't produce the enzyme phenylalanine-4-monooxygenase and thus can't digest phenylalanine. To hear a con argument, you may click on . For more info, you may click on the following links:


II. Why Soy and Rice "Milk Substitutes" are better than Cows' Milk in most cases

Milk has been implicated in diabetes, asthma, salmonella poisoning, lactose intolerance allergies, and even cancer! The anti-dairy coalition claims that milk is nature's perfect food for baby cows (not adult humans!). ** Also, some persons are lactose intolerant.

Before I give you my findings, let me quote a little section off of:

A high-ranking Medical Doctor (MD) at John Hopkins writes that milk is NOT good:

"Don't Drink Your Milk! : New Frightening Medical Facts About the World's Most Overrated Nutrient
by Frank A. Oski"

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description

New Medical Facts About the World's Most Overrated Nutrient covering such subjects as why milk is not a natural, lactose intolerance, bottle feeding vs. breast feeding, the link between milk and over 20 common health disorders."

"About the Author
Born in 1932, Dr. Oski is a graduate of Swathmore College and received his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1958. Most recently, in 1985 he assumed the position of Director, Department of Pediatrics, John Hopkins University School of Medicine and Physician-in-Chief, the John Hopkins Children's Center."

Well, that lays the foundation, but my website is a bit shorter and more to the point for the average Joe.

The claims I recall reading about diabetes allege that, in a study done by scientists, when children's immune system began fighting against bovine (cow) proteins in milk, they also attacked the beta cells in the pancreas (which produce insulin), thus causing diabetes. Below is a reference to the group that I think made this claim.

Visit their website at to find out more.
Also, I've read that besides that, cows are given hormones to make them give more beef & muscle and also more milk. The beef & milk may be contaminated.

More info: About HOMOGENIZATION to milk...
HOMOGENIZATION is when milk is passed through a filter at high pressures. The fat globules (liposomes) are made smaller and become evenly dispersed within the milk so that, eventually, there is no visible cream separation in the milk. ** SO? ** WHAT HAPPENS? ** By virtue of their small size, these milk fat molecules bypass digestive processes. Proteins would normally be digested in the stomach or gut. By homogenizing milk, these proteins are not broken down and are absorbed into the bloodstream, intact. The MILK HORMONES are thus PROTECTED BY Homogenization. After cows are treated with BST, levels of another hormone in milk, IGF-I, increase. IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor) is identical between humans and cows, and has been called the key factor in the growth of human cancer by more than one cancer researcher.

Two Connecticut cardiologists, Oster and Ross, demonstrated that cow proteins survive digestion. Oster and Ross pointed the finger of blame at the homogenization process. They discovered the presence of an enzyme, bovine xanthene oxidase (XO), which, in theory, should not have survived digestion, but, in actuality, did. The XO Factor was identified as the element that destroyed one-third of the cellular material in atrial cells of 300 heart attack victims during a five-year study. Oster and Ross's observation was subsequently confirmed by a team of scientists at the University of Delaware who hypothesized that small quantities of this enzyme from milk, absorbed over a lifetime, might hold destructive biological significance, which includes, of course, the heart disease mentioned above.

By returning to the days when cream once again rises to the top of the bottle, dairymen would eliminate the artificial mechanism by which milk proteins survive in such great quantity. Many scientists have considered innumerable factors in explaining increased rates of cancers and heart disease. Homogenization has not been given the blame, nor the attention that it merits. (Editors note: some of this material was copied verbatim from a recent Anti-Dairy Coalition E-mail newsletter. No Plagiarism. Credit Given for use in this non-profit web paper. Thank you.)

The summary of milk problems:
1. Cow's milk DOES NOT taste as good as the Rice or Soy drinks! Why? Because the Rice/.or./Soy Drinks make better Chocolate "Milk!"
2. Cow milk is for cows. We're humans.
3. Milk is for babies. We're adults (most of us, anyhow!).
4. Cows are given hormones to increase milk production. It may get past FDA inspectors and into milk and, thus, into us.
5. Cows are given hormones to increase BEEF production. (Hint: these things can get into our beef AND our milk!) ...and, thus, into us.
6. Now, the milk fat is chopped up. Just like LDL (low-density lipoproteins) are 'bad' fat, so is this type of LDL. (This 'LDL' stands for low-density liposomes, not l. d. lipoproteins, but the same phenomenon is going on here: the small little buggers weasel their way into small area of our bodies and get stuck, clogging up important biological pathways and blood capillaries and so on.)
7. It is imposing on the cows, an argument a lot of vegetarians use. The vegans (who also don't drink milk) use this same argument. Appears to hold some merit.
8. Milk's proteins leach the calcium from the body, and it is then excreted in the urine! (For justification of this claim, see below.)
9. Sanitary conditions are said to be poor due to farmers crowding many cows into a small, unsanitary place. However, there still may be some MAD COW DISEASE running rampant! There are also allegations of feces dripping down to the cows' udders and such (and mixing in with the milk), but I ** can not ** either verify not deny such claims. (See below for a discussion of this.) What I do think is certain is this: the cows are asked to produce LARGE quantities of milk -- and this may cause them to be in poor health, thus reducing the quality of the milk! Still, let's not forget the ~~MAD COW DISEASE~~. Also, don't forget that Talk Show Hostess, Oprah Winfrey and Cattle Rancher, Howard Lyman were sued by Texas cattle ranchers who didn't want the truth to get out. Now, that makes me think they're trying to hide something. And, you? Perhaps, what they were trying to hide is number ten, below!
10. I didn't believe it until I saw it: scientific studies show that milk does not do the body good, especially with casein in it.
Definition from WordNet 1.6: casein n 1: a milk protein used in making e.g. plastics and adhesives 2: a water-base paint made with casein (which is a protein precipitated from milk) [syn: {casein paint}].
Definition from Hypertext Webster Gateway: Casein \Ca"se*in\, n. [Cf. F. cas['e]ine, fr. L. caseur cheese. Cf. {Cheese}.] (Physiol. Chem.) A proteid substance present in both the animal and the vegetable kingdom. In the animal kingdom it is chiefly found in milk, and constitutes the main part of the curd separated by rennet; in the vegetable kingdom it is found more or less abundantly in the seeds of leguminous plants. Its reactions resemble those of alkali albumin. [Written also {caseine}.]

Yuk! I do believe that this is the glue that holds bottle labels on.

11. NEW! Energy from milk, meat INEFFICIENT!

Yes! It's true. From the discipline of Ecology in Biology, we find that it takes approximately 1,000 calories of grain to produce 100 calories of meat, milk, whatever from the ecosystem right below it! I cite for my reference: [BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 5TH EDITION by KEETON & GOULD: (ISBN: 0-393-96223-7) {William T. Keeton; James L. and Carol Gould} Publishers: W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London. pp. 1156-1158.]

"...[O]nly a fraction of the energy at one trophic level can be passed on to the next. This fraction varies from a high of about 35 percent for the most efficient ... to below 0.1 percent..." p.1156; and,

"Given the inefficiency of the energy transfer from one trophic level to the next, it might seem that the earth could support more humans if we all stopped being omnivorous, and lived on a wholly vegetable diet instead of the combined animal and vegetable diet..." p.1157

Now, K & G go on to claim that this veggie view has flaws such as the claim that some areas of the world can support only low quality crops, unsuitable for human consumption and the claim that veggie diets "usually require some supplemental animal protein..." p. 1157. They hang themselves: the key word is 'usually.' I agree that it is hard, but you can get yams, greens, rice, grain, and soy products for protein. Usually, a grain and a lentil constitute a "complete" protein, with sufficient types of the amino acids which comprise [make up] the protein. By the same token (likewise), I take issue with the claim that some areas of the world have problems with some crops. They just need to copy the agriculture techniques of the successful areas: That might require not overworking the soil and importing minerals and fertilizers for their crops!

On page 1158, it goes on to mention the "Malthusian dilemma" of population and the concern that "Cattle raising...and other ruminants are a major source of methane gas, which may contribute to global warming."

On the topic of population, I have myself calculated the 6,000,000,000 or so population of the planet, Earth being able to all fit into France, with a surface area of about one of our (USA) states. Now, every person would only have about 20 or 30 or so feet between each other including filling up the streets & country-side, thus the population problem is not so bad... yet! (You can do the calculations here if you know a little math.)

Concerning global warming, I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am a good reporter who brings you the news, and on most issues, I am not only a careful scientist, but also a knowledgeable... but it was hard.

That 'Discussion' I promised.

Many ranchers would disagree with such claims that feces are an ingredient in milk, so I will quote a source, who in turn quotes other sources:

From the website of: (a site of Robert Cohen's anti-dairy coalition), I get this quote:


Dear Jim,

[this is an excerpt]Crates of milk sit in the hallways, waiting for their little consumers who bring home the gifts of infectious diseases for the entire family. Mom's response: "It's going around."

There have been numerous cases of food poisoning in the United States. Fruits and vegetables do not normally contain feces. Neither does poultry and beef. Milk is another matter. What drips down cow's legs ends up in the milk and that is why filters are mandated, by law. The cream rises to the top and the feces hits the wall like that 120 MPH car. Wouldn't it be interesting for all Americans to see what is collected in that mandatory filter? Brown stuff...NOTDIRT!




OUCH! That hurt!

With all due respect for the Anti-Dairy Coalition, the claim that the law requiring milk filters (I will guess that there really is such a law), well, that does not necessarily mean that that it is because of feces. Could be other stuff, but it does give one pause to think.

My comments

We ALL know that people take dangerous shortcuts to save money.

Let me give you just one example that I saw on Bob's site: The website,

claims (and I quote):

"Nationwide Milk Recall In Effect

270,000 Cases Of Milk Product Recalled Due To Possible Listeria Contamination

List Of Recalled Products..."
Humans are humans. But, I am not making any accusations here, just reporting the news. "Now, you kids, please learn to get along," I say. HOWEVER!!! The scientific evidence of Humans' problems with metabolizing milk and the testimonials -- anecdotal and scientifically, statistically analyzed -- tell the story. Have a nice day. -- Gordon (PS: Keep reading to enlighten you mind on the glow of powerful knowledge...)

The Anti-Dairy Coalition quotes the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM):

"Don't count on milk to beat osteoporosis. In a Harvard study of 78,000 nurses, drinking three or more glasses of milk per day did not reduce fractures at all. An Australian study showed the same thing. Still, you do need calcium, and good non-dairy sources include fortified orange or apple juice, green leafy vegetables, beans and calcium supplements. The amount you need is less when you reduce sodium and animal protein in your diet. Exercise and vitamin D (from the sun or a supplement) are also key."

(PCRM's ad campaign is based upon two studies; The Harvard Nurse's study - Cumming & Klineberg, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, and the Australian study - published in the American Journal of Public Health. FAX your request for these studies to: ANTIDAIRY Coalition - 201-871-9304)

(and the worst news in dairy industry history)

PCRM bases their ad campaign on the most complete and well-respected scientific study in American history; ongoing at Harvard University. Hundreds of publications in scientific journals have resulted from data gleaned from interviews and questionnaires completed by the study's participants. Diet records and health records are rigorously analyzed; obtained from 121,000+ female registered nurses in eleven states between the ages of 30 and 55. Nearly 78,000 nurses participated in the 12-year milk and bone fracture study. MILK, DIETARY CALCIUM AND BONE FRACTURES
The study found "no significant association" between teenaged milk consumption and the risk of adult fractures. Data from the study indicate that frequent milk consumption and higher dietary calcium intakes in middle aged women do not provide protection against hip or forearm fractures.

In the Harvard study, women consuming greater amounts of calcium from dairy foods had significantly INCREASED risks of hip fractures, while no increase in fracture risk was observed for the same levels of calcium from nondairy sources.

Two hundred thousand hip fractures occur in America every year. The Journal of Epidemiology published a case-controlled study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly. This study concludes: "Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, were associated with an increased risk of hip fractures." The Australian study provides the mechanism for such a high correlation. The authors explain that the metabolism of dietary protein causes increased urinary excretion of calcium.

Editor Gordon Watts responds:
I was personally disturbed by these allegations concerning milk. {In fact, I admit that I was not totally convinced about this. But I admit that I was probably wrong in assuming that milk, eggs, meat, and other animal products were needed for the diet or more healthy for people. But, about the only good thing I can think about milk for human is the hormones that will 'pump you up.' Stronger, yes, but more healthy? Probably not, just as with steroids!}

While the library here at FSU where I am a student doesn't have the American Journal of Epidemiology after about 1994 or so, I was able to find some relevant data in the scientific literature. Some allegations made by the Anti-Dairy Coalition above have not been verified by me, but see below for selected quotes and their references.

"Because there is clinical and experimental evidence that galactose may be toxic to ovarian germ cells, the authors sought to determine... The authors found significant correlations among these variables such that fertility at older ages is lower and the decline in fertility with aging is steeper in populations with high per capita consumption of milk and greater ability to digest its lactose component." (Cramer, D.W., H. Xu, and T. Sahi. Adult Hypolactasia, Milk Consumption, and Age-Specific Fertility. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994. Vol. 139. No. 3 p.282, Abstract near top of page.) Translation: They found that the more milk a country drunk, the more infertility problems its women had. I saw the two graphs. {OK: finally some new info: scroll down a little bit to see these graphs.}

They were pretty convincing for me. The two graphs were such that: (1) the more per capita usage of milk a country had, the faster the women declined in fertility. And: (2) the more people who were "lactose intolerant" (couldn't drink milk), the LESS the decline in fertility, thus suggesting that milk usage was bad & the lack thereof was good.

"Mettlin and Piver (1) recently reported that increased risk for ovarian cancer associated with [happening together with] milk consumption was confined to consumers of whole milk, rather than skim milk... [However, we found that u]se of more than one serving per day of skim (or low fat) milk was associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer." (Cramer, D. W. and B.L. Harlow. Commentary: Re: "A Case-Control Study of Milk Drinking and Ovarian Cancer Risk". American Journal of Epidemiology 1991. Vol. 134. No. 5 p. 454, quotes from first two paragraphs.) Translation: They both found links between milk use and ovarian cancer; they disagreed, however, as to which type of milk was the problem.

"This was a 12-year prospective study among 77 761 women... In our cohort [group], women consuming greater amounts of calcium from dairy foods had modest but significantly increased risks of hip fracture while no increase in fracture risk was observed for the same levels of calcium from nondairy sources. ... With a fourfold difference in calcium intake between the 10th and 90th population percentiles, it seems unlikely that the lack of association between dairy calcium and fracture risk in our cohort can be due to insufficient variation in diet. Misclassification of calcium intake could attenuate [weaken] association, but it would not explain the positive association observed between dietary calcium and hip fractures." (Feskanich, D., ScD; W.C. Willert, MD, DrPH; M.J. Stampfer, MD, DrPH; and, G.A. Colditz, MD, DrPH. Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in Women: A 12-year Prospective Study. American Journal of Public Health June 1997. Vol. 87 No. 6 p. 992 Abstract Methods and p. 996: 6th and 7th paragraphs, respectively.) Translation: The problem was so obvious that even reporting errors by those who filled out questionnaires would not worry these scientists.

The graphs

First Graph
Here we notice from page 285 of the first scientific paper cited above that the more a country drank milk, the more fertility problems (decline) its women had. That proves nothing. Perhaps, they both had a common cause -- like a poor country could neither afford milk nor expensive pesticide chemicals for crops -- but unlikely. Milk is cheap: a poor country can get some. Perhaps, the fertility problems caused women to crave milk... No: This is absurd and unlikely! Perhaps the fact that the higher milk-drinking countries had more health problems in its women was random chance -- coincidence, caused by other things. Not likely: first of all, the other health risks are generally cancelled by other health benefits. Besides, p=0.0003, well below the 0.05 criteria set by modern science to call it just chance. Huh? You say, "What is 'p'?" Well, in plain English, if p=0.05, then the chance it was just "chance" that made that pattern is 5.0%. Yet, this p indicates that there was a 0.03% chance that this pattern was random. Thus, it was probably NOT. Well, maybe the milk consumption caused the health problems (look again at the graph).

Second Graph
Here we see from page 286 of that paper (a scientific paper, not a biased news paper or 'popular' supermarket magazine) -- anyway, we see from this second graph that the higher percentage of people in a country who were allergic to milk, the lower the percentage of health problems. Did they have a common cause? I think not: what would both cause intolerance to milk -- an allergy -- AND also help health at the same time? Probably nothing. Then, did the decreased health problems cause a genetic or environmental immune change in the people to make them allergic -- without even as much exposure as milk as "thirstier" countries? I guess not. How about random chance? p=0.0001 for the negative slope indicated by R= -0.68. So, the probability it was random is 0.01%, 1 in 1,000. Perhaps, the countries allergic to milk drunk less and thus encountered less health problems.

One other thing here: the chance that both graphs were by chance and thus WRONG is (0.0003) times (0.0001), which equals 0.00000003, or a three (3) in 100 Million (100,000,000) chance. Not likely. What? You say, what is that multiplication math? OK. Here is the situation: let's say that it rains 50% of the days in your city randomly. Now, let's imagine that a certain pizza driver visits your house about one (1) day in every week of seven (7) days -- randomly. So, the chance of a visit is about 14.28%. The chance of rain is 50%. When you multiply (0.1428) times (0.5), you get about (0.0714) or about a 7.14% chance that he will come when it is raining. You can try it out if you don't believe me; this is done by looking at all 14 daily possibilities, seven rainy with a visit & seven clear with a visit. Thus, the chance that both graphs are wrong... well, considering the empirical evidence presented about how humans are not equipped to digest milk... even LESS than the 3 in 100 M chance, by far. Not chance, just truth.

Here are a few more graphs: You get the picture by now...

Scary Cancer Graphs!
Editor's Note: I added in some in-color comments above to let the reader know that these two graphs are different from one another. You can see the paint-brush of Adobe Photoshop 5.5 in the graph images above, no doubt. Source: The VEGSOURCE WEBSITE: William Harris, M.D., The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism: . Further source citation data: William Harris, M.D., Medical Director, Kaiser-Permanente Vegan Lifestyle Clinic (VLC) 1010 Pensacola Street Honolulu, HI 96814 Phone: (808) 597-2100 (W) PS: We hope you don't mind us using your data. You know, we should 'get the word out' -- and, I am doing this for non-profit criticism and educational purposes as the laws allow on our Legal Notice page.

I found some other articles that claimed milk was beneficial for the health but not as convincing nor as numerous as these here that give an opposing view. JUST LIKE the Cigarettes being 'approved' by the FDA and the flat-Earth theories! The truth was out there, but nobody paid attention for a LONG time!

Definitions: Recessive Trait- An inherited trait that occurs in an organism only when it has inherited both alleles (variations) of that particular gene. I.e., A person has to inherit it from both parent to have it. Examples include blue eye color and colorblindness.
Dominant Trait- Same except an organism (e.g., person for example) only need to inherit it from one parent. Examples include brown eye color and achondroplastic dwarfism.

III. New Research on ~~~ STRESS ~~~

** Stress ** Alert! **
*** I forgot to mention one major thing in my quest to offer a top rate product, and that is this: besides food, exercise, and rest, important to health even more is *stress*, or more accurately the way we handle it.

Doctors, now-a-days, generally accept that dealing with stress is an important factor in both mental and physical health -- if not the most important factor. I Can't count the number of studies that indicate that STRESSFUL events -- such as being fired from a job, or a divorce or death in the family -- NEGATIVELY influence the health! Different color: Now, we all also recall how good events AND a good outlook on life can **-> HELP <-** one's health, right? In fact, the old Bible people had it right in Proverbs, Chapter 17, Verse 22: "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." Hmmmm...

STRESS "A study of 12,338 men ages 35 to 57 found that, with other factors controlled, men who took annual vacations were 21% less likely to die during the 16-year study period than nonvacationers--and 32% less likely to die of coronary heart disease. The findings add to evidence showing that cutting stress is good for you." In Brief.(Personal Time/Your Family - health)(Brief Article) Found In: Time; March 20 2000, v.155, 11, 92

STRESS Title: How stress interferes with team work.(Brief Article) Found In: IIE Solutions; Jan 2000, v.32, 1, 66 "Work teams are often called upon to accomplish complex tasks under crisis conditions. New research shows that groups function less effectively under stress and that stress even may lead to teams in which members barely acknowledge each other."

STRESS Investigators examining the link between sudden cardiac death and psychological stress recruited 18 volunteers with implantable defibrillators. Ventricular tachycardia was easier to induce and harder to terminate in stressed volunteers than in relaxed ones, even though the "stress" in the experiment-simple mental arithmetic and some irritating questions--was minimal (Circulation 2000;101:158-64).

STRESS "It is observed that four factors are relevant when reducing stress and healing from illnesses: 1. avoiding mistreatment 2. avoiding mistreating others due to the stress from guilt 3. avoiding procrastinating duties/obligations 4. avoiding overload or burnout from too much work on duties/obligations." The Register Friday, 07 July 2000

Also, *exercising* is important to raise the metabolism. Why? Well, consider a dead person: the metabolism is at the EXTREME low end, thus he/she can sleep ALL DAY LONG and STILL not heal up! So, don't have a metabolism on the "dead" end, like a sick person. So, exercise safely, and ingest good food while you are alive and able. Then, when you sleep or rest, you can heal up! Also, a faster metabolism aids in digestion. You'll probably feel better too. Oh, here is a Bible verse that seems to make scientific sense:

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 5 and Verse 12: "Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much; but the surfeit [the disgusting excess of riches] of the rich will not let him sleep." I guess the old Bible people knew that we would get good exercise -- and help our health, physical, mental, and Spiritual -- if we worked hard, eh?

For an editorial that NotMilk has asked people to print out in flyer format, please click here .

IV. Why eating too many calories can reduce your life span

With permission of Mr. Robert Cohen, the website owner, I quote a little excerpt from his site: , where he does a close-up on an expert, Dr. Rai "Rainbow" Casey, M.D., D.D., Renaissance Coaching. Dr. Casey cites this study, which, although I haven't located in the literature yet, I trust is there:

(This is the quote from Robert's site.)
The Fasting Worms
Experimental tests conducted in the 1930's at the Zoology Dept of the U. of Chicago showed that worms, when well-fed, grew old, but by fasting them they were made young again.

In one experiment worms were fed as much as they usually eat, except one worm, which was isolated and alternatively fed and fasted. The isolated worm was alive and energetic after 19 generations of its relatives had lived out their normal lifespan.

Prof. C.M. Childs said: "When worms are deprived of food, they do not die of starvation in a few days. They live for months on their own tissues. At such time, they become smaller and may be reduced to a fraction of their original size. then when fed after such a fasting, they show all the physiological traits of young animals. But with continued feeding, they again go through the process of growth and aging (and die).

One group of worms was well fed and every three or four months passed through the cycle of aging and reproducing. Another group was given just enough food to maintain the worms at a constant size but not enough to make them grow.

These worms remained in good condition without becoming appreciably older as long as the experiment continued, which was three years."

The life span extension of these worms was the equivalent of keeping a man alive for 600-700 years.

Rai Casey
(This is the end of the quote from Robert's site.)

Editor Gordon Watts: Info found on the net about caloric intake and life-span:

(#1.) "These results suggest that total caloric intake may modulate the rates of cell death and proliferation in a direction consistent with a cancer-protective effect in DR mice and a cancer-promoting effect in AL mice." from: .

(#2.) "9. Weindruch, R. and Sohal, R. S. (1997) Caloric intake and aging. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 986-994." from: .

(#3.) "13.Dhahbi, J.M., Tillman, J.B., Cao, S., Mote, P,L., Walford, R.L., and Spindler, S.R.: Caloric intake alters the efficiency of catalase mRNA translation in the liver of old female mice. J. Gerontol. 53A: B180-185, 1998." from: . See also: for this quote.

(#4.) "A UCR researcher finds a connection between decreased caloric intake and increased life span." from: .

(#5.) "We have known for many years that reduction of caloric intake by up to 40% over that of the normally fed diet, while also maintaining essential nutrients and avoiding malnutrition, is the only intervention that will extend the maximum life span of animals from many different genera." from: .

(#6.) "Caloric Restriction, or reducing the caloric intake by 30 to 50 percent, has increased both the average and maximum lifespan in rats and mice more than 30 percent. The animals receive enough nutrients but weigh considerably less than their non-restricted counterparts. Studies have also shown that the rodents are healthier, with lower blood pressure and a postponement of age-related declines in muscle mass, immunity and other areas." from: .

(#7.) "Recent Research Shows Lower Calorie Diets are Associated with Longer Life" from: .

(#8.) "Harman: It was first shown in the mid-1930s that reducing caloric intake would increase both the average and maximum life spans and decrease disease incidence. I believe that this result was due to decreased free radical damage owing to decreased oxygen utilization. Glycosylation may play a minor role in this effect as glucose levels go down when calories are restricted." from: .

(#9) Researcher, Gordon Wayne Watts, BS Biological and Chemical Sciences (FSU, 2000) thinks that the reason reducing caloric intake helps increase life span is quite simple: When the human body is not overloaded with food, it can more easily get rid of bodily waste products –and thus, we have the body’s cells able to reproduce and heal in a cleaner chemical environment.

V. What the Bible has to say about eating meat and drinking milk

Everybody is right in saying that God allowed the eating of meats (1 Corinthians 6:13=Meats for the belly; 1 Timothy 4:3=and commanding to abstain from meats is wrong; Genesis 9:3=Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you). In fact, God told the disciple and apostle, Peter in the 10th Chapter of Acts:
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

So, do these scriptures mean that it is OK to eat meats? Well, first, the scripture in Acts is not literal; it is an analogy or parable, in which the unclean meats refer to people. See verse 28:
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

However, even if all these scriptures were to be taken literally, this would still not be justification for all people to eat meats any time. God made special allowances for the eating of meats as He did divorce.

God allowed eating of meats...
But, He also allowed Divorce! for the hardness of the hearts of the people! (Cf.: Deuteronomy 24:1-3="write her a bill of divorcement" ; Nehemiah 13:23,30="In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab...Thus cleansed them I from all the strangers,"). We know where JESUS stood on *that* issue: Matthew 19:8="He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Likewise, the eating of meats was *not* so in the beginning: Genesis 1:29="And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Now, notice: God said "every herb bearing seed" shall be for meat, *not* "Every moving thing that liveth." (In verse 30, God did give the herb for meat -- food -- to the animals, but he still did *not* give the animals to for food to humans!)

NEW STUFF! ---> Some people may question why God told Moses that "...At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread..." in EXODUS 16:12. (And, Numbers 11:31-32 & Psalms 105:40 seem to make the whole QUAIL meat idea OK, right?) Sort of makes you think that meat and bread are on the same level: both are OK, right? NO! God did this because of their complaints: read the whole verse, there Hommie: in Exodus 16:12 -- "I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." The result of their complaining and running their mouth against GOD? "And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague." (NUMBERS 11:33 -- this is the very next! verse after the Exodus 11:32,32 citation above: hmmm... perhaps, the meat was more punishment than blessing; and, YOU want to eat that stuff?!?)

And, what about JESUS, supposedly promoting fish-eating? (Five-Thousand -- 5,000 fed with fish & loaves: Mark 6:44 & Luke 9:13 & John 6:10, 26; or the Four-Thousand --4,000 with fish & loaves: Matthew 15:38; Matthew 16:10; Mark 8:9, 20.) And, didn't JESUS, himself eat fish as it says in Luke 24:42 "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb."? No! See the next verse: "And he took it, and did eat before them." Now, notice that it says he took "it," not them. Now, what do you suppose that could be meaning? He took the BREAD! However, I'll admit that I don't know why he apparently gave fish to people if it was bad for their health, yet, I don't see where either the miracle of the 4,000 *or* 5,000 resulted in people EATING fish; it only STARTED with fish: thus, it can be seen that scripture upholds veganism in the original plan, however many exceptions have been made for the 'hardness of our heart'!

"Isn't meat eating allowed by Colossians 2:16: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:' ?" ANSWER: found in 1 Corinthians 10:23: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." For the dense, this allows meat-eating, but, since scripture cannot be broken, it also allows that it may not be healthy. (It is *not* healthy!) Thus, you have your answer. Let's look at its companion verse: 1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Paul won't be brought under meat's compelling spell. Will you?

Therefore, while eating meats might not get you unsaved (as we don't get saved by works), being either unsaved and/or foolish might push you to eat meats and thus put God to a foolish test by unnecessarily tempting Him! (Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12). Get wisdom: it is the principal thing (Prov. 4:5-7; Prov. 1:20) as she cries out in the streets. For after all, the scientific studies that I cite, which say that meats and cow milk are UNHEALTHY! ARE a Word from the Lord according to James 1:17 and Philippians 4:8 because they ARE true, honest, and pure, thus a good and perfect gift; therefore, these words I write/speak *are* from the LORD. Remember: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." (Proverbs 21:30). So, I am glad that y'all are careful to separate the issues of physical health from those of Salvation -- and realize some of the dangers of what we eat. However, sinse our bodies are the temple of the Lord (John 2:21; 1 Corinthians 6:19), it would be wise to *_not_* stop half-way.

So, in closing, remember that there is no counsel (fighting) against the Lord (scripture above) and that God isn't mocked: What you sow (including eating habits!) is what you will reap (including health). (Galatians 6:7).

Now, about milk, yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know about Exodus 3:8 (a land flowing with milk and honey) and Hebrews 5:12 (such as have need of milk), but go on to the next verse: Hebrews 5:13 says: "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." I know that this look figurative (and it is), but it is also quite literal. Don't forget that the scientific studies above have been shown to line up (agree with!) the Holy Word of God, the Holy Bible, thus, again, you don't want to buck God! I mean, really: can anyone get into a fight with God and win?!? No way! However, the HOLY BIBLE speaks about RESPECT for the ANIMALS: Many Christians, Muslims, and Hindus feel that their scriptures allow for milk consumption. But, ultimately, their scriptures also ask ALL PEOPLE to respect the life of animals. (For example: PROVERBS 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast...")

Just as we let pigs eat garbage to clean up, and just as we let many animals fertilize the ground by dying of natural causes and excreting dung, so also we should let cows and chickens and goats live in peace and harmony as we do other animals. Don't bother them for milk, cheese, and eggs when we have so many better alternatives for food. Let them use their milk for their calves and baby goats, and their eggs for their own purposes. Live and let live. Show respect.

FIRST, consuming dairy, milk, cheese, & eggs contradicts known fact: IT IS BAD for the health. SECOND, it contradicts gut intuition: We know that this is unfair treatment of the animals and 'just not natural' for us to consume their products, especially milk in adulthood. THIRD: Many people contradict THEMSELVES, drinking milk of one animal but not of another, similar animal. Both are bad, so be consistent in your logic!

Doing nothing to stop these problems is doing something bad!: ALLOWING PREVENTABLE health problems and other abuses to occur. So, speak up, and make a change in your (our) world!

Finally, I do not ridicule or wish to offend vegetarians who eat/drink dairy or milk product, for example the many peaceful Hindus who revere cows and love the cows' milk. However, these fine citizens would be even healthier and MORE respectful towards animals if they derived ALL their food/drink from non-animal (plant) sources!

Now that you have received knowledge of what things are good and what things are beneficial gifts from the LORD, are you expected to take action and make changes in your life? Well, I will let the scripture answer my question:
HOLY BIBLE, Gospel According to Luke:
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

These red letters are the words of the Man, JESUS. He said that to whom much is given, much is required. So, understand that this advice about avoiding bad foods is good, and eat it up!


A friend of mine said that some cultures eat meat because that is their tradtions and the way they were raised. Do you know what scripture has to say about that hogwash? Colossians Chapter 2
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

In fact, this 'friend' says that some cultures eat roaches and insects, and he claims that any food is good in moderation. If that is so, then why doesn't he eat a few roaches? He says that his family wasn't raised that way. It looks like he is following the traditions of men when it suits him (to avoid roach-eating) and adding to or mis-interpreting the Bible when it suits him (to eat meat in spite of its health problems). I will admit that it is OK to eat meat if nothing else is available, but in this 'land of plenty,' that is not the case: we are blessed of the Lord in our ability to get healthy foods.

So, what is the alternative to this? When I say something like: "Jesus did this...and Jesus did that," this 'friend' typically says something like: "Well, you're not Jesus." Isn't that just like the devil? What's God's answer to this garbage?

Mark Chapter 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


John Chapter 14
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Hmmm...this should keep him thinking for a while. While he is thinking, I will admit that miracles alone do not show that one is from God:

Exodus 7:11-12
   * 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
   * 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

1st Samuel 28:3a,11-12
   * 3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him…
   * 11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
   * 12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.

Matthew 7:21-23
   * 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
   * 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
   * 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 24:24
   * 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mark 13:22
   * 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

2nd Corinthians 11:13-15
   * 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
   * 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
   * 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Revelation 13:12-14
   * 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
   * 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
   * 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Revelation 19:20
   * 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Well, this has become more of a Bible lesson than a health lesson, but things just got out of hand, and I figured you all would need a little info on right logic and direction. Perhaps, later, I will possibly split this section up into distinct health and religion sections more that it is currently done, but for now, you will have to do with the headers as is. At least, there is some table of contents above in this section,...-and further, the website, itself, is sectioned up into bite-sized chunks called pages. Perhaps, later, I will readdress this arrangement.

VI. Just What is "Food Combining?"

...and why is it practiced???

Food combining refers to eating certain foods together and avoiding other combinations. Here is a quick overview:

In this practice, ~FOOD~ is divided into several basic groups:

1. Proteins
2. Vegetables
3. Starches
4. Melons
5. Acid Fruits
6. Sub-Acid Fruits
7. Sweet Fruits

I won't go into all the details, because they are long, and, in some cases, I frankly don't know them -- but, here is what I do know:

Meat and Potatoes
It is NOT a good idea to eat a lot of proteins and starches at the same meal. Yes, I know... a lot of you are saying: "Meat and potatoes are a staple meal..." (And, I'll admit that I didn't know any better before I was educated and enlightened.) However, it is a scientific fact that proteins, such as meat or beans, require HCl (Hydrochloric Acid), the stomach's digestive acid. Yet, starches require an enzyme called "Amylase" (the old name is: "Ptyalin") to begin the breakdown of starches. Potatoes appear particularly resistant to regular acidic breakdown, thus requiring a bit of initial Amylase... But, therin lies the problem:

Hydrochloric Acid, if exposed to Amylase, becomes diluted. And, Amylase, if exposed to Hydrochloric Acid, gets torn into pieces. You see, Hydrochloric Acid is ACIDIC, and Amylase is BASIC (or ALKALINE, another way to describe the opposite of Acidic). Now, all of us Chemistry majors remember that Acids and Bases CANCEL one another. And, the problem here is unavoidable! Why? Because, when we eat starches, our bodies automatically produce Amylase; and, when we eat proteins, our bodies automatically make Hydrochloric Acid. It is automatic. And, the title "Meat and Potatoes" does not imply you should eat meat. That topic is covered elsewhere in this page.

Another bad combination is to eat melons with something besides melons. Melons digest so fast that you can see the fermentation if you set one into the sunlight for just a little bit. Thus, if you eat melons with, say, other fruits, vegetables, proteins, or starches, then they will be slowed down. Then, the fermentation to alcohols and vinagers can have enough time to take place. So, the saying often associated with melons is: "Eat them alone, or LEAVE them alone!"

In conclusion, I have laid the groundwork for this theory. I will admit that I occasionally eat a soy burger with protein (soy patty) and starch (bread), but this is done in small meals so the effect will be minimized. The general rules I have seen are as follows:

Proteins<-good combination->Vegetables<-good combination->Starches

Proteins <-- bad combination --> Starches

Melons [Eat them alone -- or leave them alone.]

Acid Fruits<-good combination->SubAcid Fruits<-poor combination->Sweet Fruits

Acid Fruits <-- bad combination --> Sweet Fruits

Anything in groups 1, 2, or 3 (Proteins, Veggies, or Starches) is a "Bad Combination" with anything in the remaining groups (any fruits). The Conclusion of the whole matter is as follows: The COMBINATION of foods is as important as TYPE of foods you eats.


** Also, I have read that WHEN you eat is as important as WHAT you eat. That means the "Permutation" is as important as the "Combination," a definition that will be given below.

It has been suggested that a person eat a light meal of fruits in the morning because it is easy on the body, which is just waking up. Then, at lunch, a meal of starches and/or vegetables is recommended. The evening meal suggested is one of proteins and/or veggies. Additionally, it is suggested by many smart and healthy people who I know that a one (1) hour nap be taken about an hour after lunch. Professionals also recommend that the last meal of the day be a few hours before bed time so the body will not have difficulty in sleeping. OK, here are those definitions:

Combination: noun, A union or joining of several items in no particular order.

Permutation: noun, A union or joining together of several items in a specific order.

Thus, the easy way to remember which is which is this: A "Combination Lock" of the type that twists with only one knob is really misnamed. It is a "Permutation Lock" because the order of numbers matters, like, for example, "1-25-9" might be the combination, but it must be in that order or else it won't work. The locks in which there are several knobs are *true* combination locks becasue it doesn't matter about the order. Well, that about wraps up this subject here.

The final section below is a reprise of the milk section. It is a chart that shows that we don't need as much calcium as we think that we do. See below.

Why the calcium in cow's milk is hard to absorb and dangerous:
Here are three direct quote from a recent (09/20/98) web post from the website:

Quote 1:
"In order to absorb calcium, the body needs comparable amounts of another mineral element, magnesium. Milk and dairy products contain only small amounts of magnesium. Without the presence of magnesium, the body only absorbs 25 percent of the available dairy calcium content. The remainder of the calcium spells trouble. Without magnesium, excess calcium is utilized by the body in injurious ways. The body uses calcium to build the mortar on arterial walls which becomes atherosclerotic plaques. Excess calcium is converted by the kidneys into painful stones which grow in size like pearls in oysters, blocking our urinary tracts. Excess calcium contributes to arthritis; painful calcium buildup often is manifested as gout. The USDA has formulated a chart of recommended daily intakes of vitamins and minerals. The term that FDA uses is Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA). The RDA for calcium is 1500 mg. The RDA for magnesium is 750 mg."

Quote 2:
"Society stresses the importance of calcium, but rarely magnesium. Yet, magnesium is vital to enzymatic activity. In addition to insuring proper absorption of calcium, magnesium is critical to proper neural and muscular function and to maintaining proper pH balance in the body. Magnesium, along with vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), helps to dissolve calcium phosphate stones which often accumulate from excesses of dairy intake. Good sources of magnesium include beans, green leafy vegetables like kale and collards, whole grains and orange juice. Non-dairy sources of calcium include green leafy vegetables, almonds, asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, oats, beans, parsley, sesame seeds and tofu."

Quote 3 is a chart:
  1. Human Breast Milk

  2. Almonds
  3. Amaranth
  4. Apricots (dried)
  5. Artichokes

  6. Beans (can: pinto, black)
  7. Beet greens (cooked)
  8. Blackeye peas
  9. Bran
  10. Broccoli (raw)

  11. Brussel Sprouts
  12. Buckwheat
  13. Cabbage (raw)
  14. Carrot (raw)
  15. Cashew nuts

  16. Cauliflower (cooked)
  17. Swiss Chard (raw)
  18. Chickpeas (garbanzos)
  19. Collards (raw leaves)
  20. Cress (raw)

  21. Dandelion greens
  22. Endive
  23. Escarole
  24. Figs (dried)
  25. Filberts (Hazelnuts)

  26. Kale (raw leaves)
  27. Kale (cooked leaves)
  28. Leeks
  29. Lettuce (lt. green)
  30. Lettuce (dark green)

  31. Molasses (dark-213 cal.)
  32. Mustard Green (raw)
  33. Mustard Green (cooked)
  34. Okra (raw or cooked)
  35. Olives

  36. Orange (Florida)
  37. Parsley
  38. Peanuts (roasted & salted)
  39. Peas (boiled)
  40. Pistachio nuts

  41. Potato Chips
  42. Raisins
  43. Rhubarb (cooked)
  44. Sauerkraut
  45. Sesame Seeds

  46. Squash (Butternut
  47. Soybeans
  48. Sugar (Brown)
  49. Tofu
  50. Spinach (raw)

  51. Sunflower seeds
  52. Sweet Potatoes (baked)
  53. Turnips (cooked)
  54. Turnip Greens (raw)
  55. Turnip Greens (boiled)
  56. Water Cress
    33 (lowest!)

    234 mg
    267 mg
    67 mg
    51 mg

    135 mg
    99 mg
    55 mg
    70 mg
    103 mg

    36 mg
    114 mg
    49 mg
    37 mg
    38 mg

    42 mg
    88 mg
    150 mg
    250 mg
    81 mg

    187 mg
    81 mg
    81 mg
    126 mg
    209 mg

    249 mg
    187 mg
    52 mg
    35 mg
    68 mg

    684 mg
    183 mg
    138 mg
    92 mg
    61 mg

    43 mg
    203 mg
    74 mg
    56 mg
    131 mg

    40 mg
    62 mg
    78 mg
    36 mg
    1160 mg

    40 mg
    60 mg
    85 mg
    128 mg
    93 mg

    120 mg
    40 mg
    35 mg
    246 mg
    184 mg
    151 mg "

VII. My guess at the * Top 20 * HEALTH Risks (things to avoid)

I rate MILK and NUTRASWEET along with the other health risks (guessing, but hopefully with a more "calibrated" intuition here). My estimation is below, but I want your opinions!!! Gordo's TOP 20 LIST

20. Genetic Predisposition is a very small health risk, but most have good potential as history shows wide variation in an individual's health is possible even though the genetic code remains the same throughout the lifetime
19. Environment can bring STRESSORS, but most of our stress is internal, as indicated by health swings up and down and up again as one ages
18. Excess sunshine is overrated as a health risk A body should be able to heal up from a suntan
17. Salt: It is over-rated
16. Lack of Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, and Fibers in Diet
15. Sugar: It is over-rated
14. Depletion of soil by overworking it & growing the same crop successive seasons -- instead of rotating crops & allowing a "Sabbath" rest for the soil
13. Food Processing depletes vitamins, minerals in flour, sugar, etc.
12. Intake of Saturated (Hydrogenated) & Low Density Liposome (LDL) "Bad Fat" and Cholesterol, which clog arteries (Milk Homogenization, which chops up fat molecules and fully-hydrogenated Oils, etc.)
11. Chemical Vices Smoking and Drinking and Drugs in Moderation
10. Chemicals; Additives; and, Contamination (dioxins, PCB's, chlorine, fluorine, NutraSweet, preservatives, E-coli, mad cow disease, salmonella, ring worms, malaria, viruses, bacteria, and prions AND ALSO: POWERFUL GROWTH HORMONES; CHOLESTEROL; SYNTHETIC FAT; VARIOUS ALLERGENIC ANIMAL PROTEINS; PROCESSED SUGARS AND CARBOHYDRATES; PESTICIDES; INSECTICIDES; HERBICIDES; ANTIBIOTICS; PUS; ANIMAL EXCRETIONS/WASTES; CASEIN AND OTHER CASEINATE DERIVATIVES; HEAVY METALS, etc.)
9. Meat of all types
8. Milk intake in all parts of the world from cows not treated with chemicals, and the milk not pasteurized nor homogenized
7. Working seven (7) days instead of 6 on + 1 off for rest & healing
6. Lack of Exercise promotes slow metabolic rate of healing, regeneration, cleansing
5. rBGH/rBST - treated bovine (cow) milk, here in the States, the milk pasteurized and homogenized
4. EXCESS of Chemical Vices Smoking and Drinking and Drugs
3. Excess caloric intake///major physical Stressor decreasing life span Big Time
2. Un-defrayed (Internal) stress, the major current health risk///mental Stressor ...BY (.a.) Meeting our responsibilities and (.b.) being kind to our neighbor... even though both are difficult in the short run ... both are a must, because, these are good investments in the long run, which help reduce stress!! Also, by not worrying when it is not needed. ** That is, do worry when it is needed; don't worry when it won't do any good.

...And the Number One Health-Stressor results in change in...
AVERAGE AGE of Human Population: Decrease in Average Life Span!

1. The barometric pressure dropped from about 60 bar to about 30 bar after the Great Flood, as shown by archeological and geological findings, causing the average lifespan to decrease from about eight-hundred (800) years to about seventy-five (75) years per person. Air is more necessary than even water, as one can only survive about five (5) minutes without it. Perhaps Adam and Eve polluted the atmosphere, causing the clouds to seed and rain, as is done by Meteorologists with airplanes and chemicals dumped into clouds -- as it did not rain before the flood, according to Genesis, in the Bible. As the atmosphere expanded outward, the volume increased, causing a decrease in pressure, according to the Perfect Gas Law PV=nRT. BAD STRESSOR! (It may sound weird, strange, or even unusual, but it can not be disproved at the present time -- and does sound rather plausible.)

*Gordon's TOP 20 Health Risks* just went "Wham!" Please, correct my list if/when/where it is wrong.

Gordon W. Watts

That is "consumer" the number ONE and dot html

My other personal page