http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

On Aug 15, 6:13*pm, Manda Ruby > wrote:
> http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

He knows about health about as much as my dog does...which is nothing.

In article
>,
Manda Ruby > wrote:

>
>
> http://www.fredericpatenuade.com/art...orstfoods.html

To save other peoples' time, I'll mention that that author
is a raw food guru. The "dangerous foods?" The first
one is *cheese*. Because it "makes all the food in your
system ferment, so foods eaten don't benefit the body."

Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.

Mike Beede

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:

> Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.

Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:

"Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"

....is total bullshit. And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
she can't see through these simple scam artists?

It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
it from some other kook source. So you have to give him some credit.

-sw

Agreed. All opinion, no research.

On Aug 15, 6:35*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
> > Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.
>
> Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:
>
> "Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"
>
> ...is total bullshit. *And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
> she can't see through these simple scam artists?
>
> It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
> it from some other kook source. *So you have to give him some credit.
>
> -sw

Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
comment? Spice food is not good for everybody. he had that correctly.

"Manda Ruby" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:92f83fe4-5b25-4dff-
> http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

I know you are joking. No scientist could possibly adhere to any of that
foolishness.

I just hit "RESOURCES" hoping to see some research on the matter. Looks like more a matter of faith to me. Go ahead and crunch away, Fred. I prefer to enjoy more than raw stuff.

Now, if we could just make it legal to make the "living" cheeses they eat in Europe. Those softies are dang good.

This just looks like another pencil neck trying to make money through the "be like me" approach. No science? Fahgitabahtit!!!!

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Manda Ruby wrote:

> On Aug 15, 6:35*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
>>> Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.
>>
>> Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:
>>
>> "Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"
>>
>> ...is total bullshit. *And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
>> she can't see through these simple scam artists?
>>
>> It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
>> it from some other kook source. *So you have to give him some credit.
>
> Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
> comment?

As someone else pointed out, you demand that we comment on it, yet all you
do it post a link without your comments.

It's called spam. And kook spam at that. And I gave you my comments.

-sw

On Aug 15, 11:10*pm, Manda Ruby > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 6:35*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
> > > Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.
>
> > Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:
>
> > "Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"
>
> > ...is total bullshit. *And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
> > she can't see through these simple scam artists?
>
> > It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
> > it from some other kook source. *So you have to give him some credit.
>
> > -sw
>
> Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
> comment? Spice food is not good for everybody. he had that correctly.

Nor is it bad for everybody.

The website is bullshit, pandering to fearful, gullible fools.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Manda Ruby
> wrote:

>Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
>comment? Spice food is not good for everybody. he had that correctly.

Well, how about his comment that fish has more protein than meat?

While there are some minor differences among species (fe: turkey has a
little less protein per ounce than chicken) meat animals average right
at 7 grams/ounce. Fish, on the other hand, has much more, at 7 grams.
Wait a minute...... say what?

How about all spices are bad for you because they cause the stomach
lining to exude protective fluids and prevent food from being
absorbed? That irritant thing is called the carminative effect, and
the juices being exuded in the stomach contain digestive enzymes. It
has been a wide-spread custom to serve something spicy to prepare the
stomach to receive food. Think aperitif here. Digestion may begin in
the stomach, which is a storage organ, but most absorption in in the
small intestine. More digestive enzymes, more exudate of bile from the
gall bladder = better absorption of nutrients, not less.

BTW: Food doesn't rot in the digestive system. That chestnut was
debunked during the 1800's.

Milk products continue to ferment in the digestive tract and are
poisonous? Puh-leeze! That doesn't even bear comment.

To his credit, he did *not* comment that his recomended diet would
balance(!) or detoxify(!) the blood, or purge the gut of impurities(!)
or restore "natural harmony" by emphasizing the "natural frequencies"
that the digestive system responds to. He might not know that Cis Fat
and Trans Fat are *not* IndoChinese cousins of the Bobbsey twins.

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, etc.

Pure Barbara Streisand!

Alex

Giusi wrote:
> "Manda Ruby" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:92f83fe4-5b25-4dff-
>> http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html
>
> I know you are joking. No scientist could possibly adhere to any of that
> foolishness.
>
>

Yes, it';s nonsense. If true, I would have been dead 30 years ago.

gloria p

On Aug 15, 8:13*pm, Manda Ruby > wrote:
> http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

So, what's YOUR question or comment or reason for posting this?

Hasn't it occurred to you yet that many people don't have the time or
inclination to just investigate links all day?

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> "Manda Ruby" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:92f83fe4-5b25-4dff-
> > http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html
>
> I know you are joking. No scientist could possibly adhere to any of that
> foolishness.

Sorry, I don't agree. Some scientists, even the most famous, forget
everything they ever learned once they start in on food, nutrition,
health and medicine. Look at Linus Pauling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_P...ne_and_medical
_research

He took 3g a day of vitamin C. Recommended dose (which is already way
more than most people need) is .06g (60mg vs 3000mg). Scientific
studies were done. Some seemed to show that these megadoses did help,
but then flaws were found in the studies. Most studies showed no
effect. Pauling didn't care. He *believed*.

Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize in chemistry. He was one of the most
famous chemists in the world.

AmandaF (using her old id as Manda Ruby in this post) claims to have
enough advanced science degrees to paper her whole apartment with the
diplomas. Well, I can claim to have 17 Phd degrees in hard sciences,
all earned before I entered kindergarden.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:31:01 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> "Manda Ruby" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:92f83fe4-5b25-4dff-
>> > http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

>> I know you are joking. No scientist could possibly adhere to any of that
>> foolishness.
>
>Sorry, I don't agree. Some scientists, even the most famous, forget
>everything they ever learned once they start in on food, nutrition,
>health and medicine. Look at Linus Pauling:

Truly, he speaks the sooth.

Linus Pauling was noted for his ground-breaking work "The Nature of
the Chemical Bond", which I found myself reading as an honors freshman
at Tulane. The man was a genius as a theoretical chemist. In his later
years, he morphed himself into a nutritional physiologist/biochemist,
in the philosophical manner of a Bertrand Russell. You know the Brit
group of the time: Holistic medicine, "Ban the Bomb" unilateral
disarmament, the so-called "Peace" symbol (adapted from a graphic
representing ICBMs), anti-pesticides, the works.

It was as if the author of "n-Dimensional Vector Spaces" suddenly woke
up and started selling copper bracelets.

A sad end to a great mind.

Alex

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:21:06 -0500, Alex Corvinus wrote:

> How about all spices are bad for you because they cause the stomach
> lining to exude protective fluids and prevent food from being
> absorbed? That irritant thing is called the carminative effect, and
> the juices being exuded in the stomach contain digestive enzymes. It
> has been a wide-spread custom to serve something spicy to prepare the
> stomach to receive food. Think aperitif here. Digestion may begin in
> the stomach, which is a storage organ, but most absorption in in the
> small intestine. More digestive enzymes, more exudate of bile from the
> gall bladder = better absorption of nutrients, not less.
>
> BTW: Food doesn't rot in the digestive system. That chestnut was
> debunked during the 1800's.

Does this mean I don't have 5lbs of undigested meat in my intestines? I
learned that from the movie, "Beverly Hills Cop". And I was kinda counting
on having that available during the next stock market crash.

-sw

On Aug 16, 5:01*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Manda Ruby wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 6:35*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
> >>> Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.
>
> >> Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:
>
> >> "Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"
>
> >> ...is total bullshit. *And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
> >> she can't see through these simple scam artists?
>
> >> It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
> >> it from some other kook source. *So you have to give him some credit..
>
> > Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
> > comment?
>
> As someone else pointed out, you demand that we comment on it,
> yet all you do it post a link without your comments.

I wasthe one asking for comment aftre someone I know saying that spciy
food is BAD for digestive track. Why do I need to give my comment.
>
> It's called spam. *And kook spam at that. *And I gave you my comments..

Since your comment was not constructive, it is not considered
comment.

On Aug 16, 6:21*am, Alex Corvinus > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Manda Ruby
>
> > wrote:
> >Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
> >comment? Spice food is not good for everybody. he had that correctly.
>
> Well, how about his comment that fish has more protein than meat?

True. I saw that but I was thinking mainly about the spicy food. I
should have made clear that my interest was on teh spciy food. Sorry
about that.
>
> While there are some minor differences among species (fe: turkey has a
> little less protein per ounce than chicken) meat animals average right
> at 7 grams/ounce. Fish, on the other hand, has much more, at 7 grams.
> Wait a minute...... say what?
>
> How about all spices are bad for you because they cause the stomach
> lining to exude protective fluids and prevent food from being
> absorbed? That irritant thing is called the carminative effect, and
> the juices being exuded in the stomach contain digestive enzymes. It
> has been a wide-spread custom to serve something spicy to prepare the
> stomach to receive food. Think aperitif here. Digestion may begin in
> the stomach, which is a storage organ, but most absorption in in the
> small intestine. More digestive enzymes, more exudate of bile from the
> gall bladder = better absorption of nutrients, not less.
>
> BTW: Food doesn't rot in the digestive system. That chestnut was
> debunked during the 1800's.

I didn't think so either. But I noticed that I ma having a hard time
eating spicy food these days - I learned how to make Indian style
chickepeas. Feel heart burn a little but no pain in stomach. Makes me
wonder why cus I am used to spice though not all that variety that
Indian dishes use..
>
> Milk products continue to ferment in the digestive tract and are
> poisonous? Puh-leeze! That doesn't even bear comment.

Agreed.
>
> To his credit, he did *not* comment that his recomended diet would
> balance(!) or detoxify(!) the blood, or purge the gut of impurities(!)
> or restore "natural harmony" by emphasizing the "natural frequencies"
> that the digestive system responds to. He might not know that Cis Fat
> and Trans Fat are *not* IndoChinese cousins of the Bobbsey twins.
>
> If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, etc.
>
> Pure Barbara Streisand!
>
> Alex

In article
>,
Manda Ruby > wrote:

> On Aug 15, 6:35*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:12:49 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:
> > > Apparently Spam is not one of the dangerous foods.
> >
> > Anything that starts off with scare tactics and phrases like:
> >
> > "Receive these FREE reports just for subscribing"
> >
> > ...is total bullshit. *And here Amanda wanted us to think she was smart yet
> > she can't see through these simple scam artists?
> >
> > It at least appears he makes up all this stuff himself rather than stealing
> > it from some other kook source. *So you have to give him some credit.
>
> Instead of beingn abitch, why can't you make some constructive
> comment?

That is a constructive comment.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:13:08 -0700 (PDT), Manda Ruby
> wrote:

>
>
>http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/art...orstfoods.html

Maybe I can humanely put this thing to death.

There have been "nutritional antropologists" (for lack of a better
word) who have speculated that man evolved over meny eons as a
hunter/gatherer, emphasis on gatherer. According to their reasoning,
man (and proto-man) existed on roots and berries, and occasionally
each other. All was copesthetic.

Then, some idiot discovered edible grasses/seeds and invented
agriculture. Nutritionally speaking, things went downhill from there
because man's digestive apparatus was simply not designed to handle
that kind of stuff. Later he continued looking for new things to eat
and discovered, meat, milk, Jello, Pizza, Brie and Brioche.

Now we suffer from various illnesses and discomforts, from bunions ro
colon cancer, all because of our departure from our natural diet,
which was fruit. Voila - fruitarians.

All this would be well and good, but is just about impossible to
prove. Hence, those who are determined to sell the idea must postulate
specific diseases, illnesses, discomforts, and other ill consequences
that derive from our nutritional transgression, complete with posited
mechanisms that "prove" the Revealed Truth about fruitarianism.

This is where the advocate stops preaching and gets to meddling, as
does this guy Mandy posted. Reminds me of some Harvard grad student's
saying, within the last year (when the Weather Center at East Anglia
University was called to task for falsifying data), that sometimes one
must exaggerate the dangers before the ignorant will take action on
the obvious. (Read: *lie* to get a desired result).

Thus I, and, I suspect, many others reject this person as a charlatan
who, incidentally, just happens to have a pecuniary interest in
providing a solution to what he perceives/presents as a problem.

Sorry, Charlie. No cigar.

HTH

Alex

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 05:18:31 -0500, Alex Corvinus
> wrote:

>
>Thus I, and, I suspect, many others reject this person as a charlatan
>who, incidentally, just happens to have a pecuniary interest in
>providing a solution to what he perceives/presents as a problem.

It's the American Way. Find a solution and invent a problem for
marketing purposes.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Alex Corvinus wrote:
>
> There have been "nutritional antropologists" (for lack of a better
> word) who have speculated that man evolved over meny eons as a
> hunter/gatherer, emphasis on gatherer. According to their reasoning,
> man (and proto-man) existed on roots and berries, and occasionally
> each other. All was copesthetic.
>
> Then, some idiot discovered edible grasses/seeds and invented
> agriculture. Nutritionally speaking, things went downhill from there
> because man's digestive apparatus was simply not designed to handle
> that kind of stuff. Later he continued looking for new things to eat
> and discovered, meat, milk, Jello, Pizza, Brie and Brioche.
>
> Now we suffer from various illnesses and discomforts, from bunions ro
> colon cancer, all because of our departure from our natural diet,
> which was fruit. Voila - fruitarians.

Some of these ideas are in the Food for Life and Fit for Life programs.
The programs are based on food combining and their theory of digestion
is much less extreme than in that write-up. It works for some people.

There are people who are intolerant of the proteins in cow milk. It's
why goat milk is available in stores and why soy based baby formula has
been tried. It's a few percent of the population. If you have dairy
almost every day in your diet you don't actually know if you are in that
percentage. Try going dairy free for a week or two then add it back to
find out. Lactose intolerance is even more common and a separate issue.

There are people who are intolerant of specific types of grain or
classes of grain. It's a few percent of the population. If you eat
bread almost every day in your diet you don't actually know if you are
in that percentage. I only learned of my wheat intolerance when I went
on Atkins.

> Thus I, and, I suspect, many others reject this person as a charlatan
> who, incidentally, just happens to have a pecuniary interest in
> providing a solution to what he perceives/presents as a problem.

Some small percentage of the population have problems with one of the
foods mentioned. That's a very different thing from stating that
everyone should avoid all of them.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:28:14 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 05:18:31 -0500, Alex Corvinus
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Thus I, and, I suspect, many others reject this person as a charlatan
>>who, incidentally, just happens to have a pecuniary interest in
>>providing a solution to what he perceives/presents as a problem.
>
> It's the American Way. Find a solution and invent a problem for
> marketing purposes.

also known as 'create a need and fill it.'

your pal,
blake