Biblical Theology Behind a Plant-Based Diet

For those who don't know, I'm a Christian. So some may ask, "what do you think the Bible says about eating meat vs. plant-based?"

Good question. I know some people, who are Christians, believe the Bible says eating meat is alright. After all, you have several times when meat is not merely allowed, but commanded that people eat of it. So what's the scoop?

First, it must be kept in mind three (really four if you count Christ's birth, but that isn't relevant to this discussion) major divisions in human Biblical history. One is the prefallen state. This is what was said to be the ideal state, the state God created us in. Then there is the post-fallen state. This is an imperfect period of man, where certain practices were prescribed to aid man in dealing with the fallen condition. Then there is the post-flood era, which continues to this day, when fallen man is allowed greater leeway.

It is also important to know that the term "meat" was used loosely to refer to anything that was the main meal and sustenance.  You'll see this in the KJV version of the first text we will go through. So often you'll see statements that they sat down to meat and divided the bread among them, as is stated at the Last Supper.

So, God is busy creating everything, and on the sixth day he creates man. Then He makes the following statement:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 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. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Gen 1:28-30)

Note, no where in this does God tell man that he has given them everything that moves on the earth as food. He gives man dominion over them. Then note the last part where it abruptly says "And to every beasts . . . I have given every green herb for meat."

So to man as well as all the animals, God gave us all plants to eat for food, for meat. This is what I was talking about above about meat being a generic term for the food that we eat that gives us sustenance. Our sustenance, as we were created, was ideally to be derived from plants.

That was prefallen condition. Note, that even after the fall, all that is said of man is that he will from then on till the ground, working by the sweat of his brow. That is a key indication that they were still, in their fallen state, still expected to eat, primarily, plants for food. However, there was a key change in their post-fallen condition, in that God killed animals in order to cloth them. This is the basis of the sacrificial system that was later developed. Their sin required the death of an animal in order to cloth them.

But then, notice the big change after the flood, with Noah's sons:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Gen 9:1-4)

In this section, God adds animals as meat, even as he had given them the "green herbs". Now meat, included for the first time, animal flesh as well as herbs. Why?

Of course, the Bible doesn't suggest why, but you'll notice after the fall that the length of their years start to gradually decrease. While there are many theories as to why this happened at this time, one of the most likely being that the water in the sky in the form of vapor protected man from the sunlight, then being gone due to the flood, now the sun's UV rays began to age them faster. Another may be in this fact, that they now began to eat more meat. The animal protein would accelerate the aging process due to the acid in the protein. Or it could have been a combination of both types of accelerated aging.

So, why would God want people to die sooner rather than after several hundred years? He hasn't revealed that bit of info, but if I had to guess, I would suggest that it is due to his promise never to subject the world to that kind of flood again. God felt a need to reign in mankind by giving them shorter lives. Giving them permission to eat meat accomplished two things. One, it was another piece of the puzzle to the sacrificial system He would put into place. Two, it reduced the amount of time for man to sin and cause problems for God and himself.

Also, you'll note this follows the same reasoning when at the tower of Babel, God makes it so they can't understand each other, in order to further limit man from accomplishing too much and getting a "big head."

This understanding also says that while we are allowed to eat mean, that is, it isn't a sin to eat meat, it is not the most beneficial diet for us. That would be a plant-based diet. While we are omnivores, we were designed primarily to be plantivores. Specifically, starchivores. Notice that we are to eat the seeds and the fruit, as well as herbs and such. The seeds of any plant contains starches, stored energy that the new plant will need to germinate. Grains, beans, etc. are seeds. As stated in Genesis, that is specifically what we were given to eat. That is what our optimum diet, according to the Bible, that we were designed to, created to eat. Only after the flood, were we allowed to eat animal meat. And throughout history, even Biblical history, bread became the mainstay of food. So much so, it is often called meat in the KJV.

This is illustrated in Daniel, chapter 1. There, Daniel along with the three other Hebrews, who were chosen to serve the king, we given the king's meat and wine to eat and drink. However, Daniel and those with him didn't want to "defile" themselves with the King's food. So they made a deal with the king that they would avoid all meat and eat porridge, a starch-based food, for ten days. And at the end of ten days, they would come before the king to be evaluated. If the king at that time decided they weren't doing so well, they would eat the kings meat. If they were doing great, they would be allowed to eat the porridge in peace. At the end of ten days, they appeared healthier and heartier than all the other of the servants of the king who had eaten his meat.

Now, when I first heard this story, I thought it was a miracle of God that they were so strong. No, it was the normal course of events. It's just that Daniel and the others knew what kind of diet God had ordained as the healthiest diet for humans, because he had created them. They were playing against the kings ignorance on the subject, just like many are deceived about this today.

"But what about Jesus? He ate meat." Yes He did, but not as a normal part of his meal. He ate what most of the people in his day ate, save for the rich and well to do (who, incidentally, had more disease and such, according to archaeological records): bread from wheat and rye and barley. Everyone made bread, every day. They ate it constantly. That is why you have Jesus making statements like the following:

But he answered and said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt. 4:4)

The assumption there is that many did actually live on bread alone. Especially the poor. Not possible, you suggest? What about when the Isrealites were fed on manna for over forty years? The only time they got sick was after eating bird meat. Hum. Yet, they survived on bread alone for forty years.

As a matter of fact, bread was such a sustaining staple in their diet that Jesus equates Himself as the "bread of life" as the manna was with Moses, and at the Last Supper, He says upon handing out bread, "This is my body . . ."

Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:32-33)

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)

Yes, God and the Bible does allow you to eat animal flesh. It is not a sin (as long as you don't eat/drink its blood as well) to eat animal meat. It is, however, part of our fallen condition. That doesn't mean that eating meat is healthy. All we can say is we were designed by God to eat seeds, not animal flesh. We shorten our life when we decide to eat meat and its products. And, as it has been throughout human history, major civilizations were grown and based on starch-based, plant-based diets of food. The Bible confirms for us this fact, whether we are looking at Genesis, or Jesus's day. Bread was life to people. Most of them only rarely ate animals. Those that did, lived shorter lives.

That, my friend, is what the Bible says on the subject.

What is a Healthy Plant-based diet?

This is probably a good point to define some terms. You'll hear vegetarian, vegan, plant-based, and starch-based diets used interchangeably in conversations and even on some blogs and other sites, even among those who know there are differences. Vegan has become a catch all term for anyone who doesn't eat meat or their products, like dairy and eggs. However, in reality, it is a bit more complicated than that.

So, what is the difference between a vegan and a vegetarian? As far as food consumption goes, vegetarians will eat dairy and egg products. Vegans will not. Both avoid all meat. However, often for different reasons.

That's because vegetarians are eating their diet for primarily health reasons. True, some are doing it for ethical and other reasons, but primarily they are doing it because they believe it is a healthier diet. Vegans, on the other hand, avoid all animal products our of ethical concerns for animal rights and such. For that reason, they avoid even eating eggs and dairy.

A plant-based diet is focused on eating plants primarily for health reasons. As far as to avoiding all animal products including eggs and diary, they are nearly identical to a vegan diet. At least in what is and isn't allowed to be eaten. However, because often vegans don't avoid meat for health reasons, many of them, not all, are not that concerned about eating healthy and are more prone to many of the chronic diseases that meat eaters are.

A starch-based diet is a subset of plant-based, which focuses more on eating foods containing starch. Fruits and other non-starchy vegetables are eaten because of the added nutrients that have, but they are not the focus or the primary part of the diet.

Plant-based and starch-based are "focused" upon eating plants and starches. In theory, that allows for some meat to be eaten and some dairy, more as an exception to the situation than as a standard practice. That said, some people in transitioning to a plant-based diet will eat some meat, gradually weaning themselves off of meat as a regular part of their meal.

So, with those terms defined, what is a healthy plant-based diet? After all, a vegan is able, and they often do, eat Oreo cookies. There is no meat or meat products in an Oreo cookie. So, to satisfy that sweet tooth, they will eat them. But most health conscious people would agree, that a diet of Oreos is not healthy for someone. Maybe as an occasional treat at best, once a week or less. There are many products like this that one could technically partake of that are vegan, but not good for you health-wise.

Likewise, if someone ate salads all the time, and feasted upon broccoli and cauliflower on a regular bases as your meal focus, you would soon find yourself with less energy and starving. Why? Because those vegetables, by themselves, have very few carbs that will sustain a person. As we discussed last time, you either burn carbs or fat. In some cases, protein when your body gets desperate enough.

That is the principle of starch-based diet. That people are designed to live on starches. We can eat meat, but we are designed as starch-based eaters. Proof, you ask? The obvious answer is to look at what our tongues are designed to taste and seek out. On the tip of our tongue is sweet and salty taste buds. Toward the back is bitter and sour taste buds. But there are no taste buds that seek out protein.

A cat has them. A cat can taste protein and seek it out, but not humans. A can gets its energy primarily from protein. We would die if all we ate was meat. That's because if all we ate was meat, we would waste away. Why? Because, as I said before, we are designed to operate on starch, on carbs, and there is no carbs at all in meat. Very little even in dairy and eggs. We do need protein, which is found in abundance in starches and other plants, which is sufficient for our needs, but we do not derive our energy, normally, from protein.

Now, we need to define what a starch is. I've been told that certain vegetables were not starchy vegetables, like winter squashes. But that was under an arbitrary definition of what a starch is. What starch is, is a complex chain of  glucose molecules. They are broken down with certain chemicals that our body makes, which allows the glucose to be used for our cells' energy. Winter squashes do contain those starches, whether one says they have them or not. That is part of their chemical composition.

Not all animals have the ability to utilize starches for their energy. Apes, for instance, are able to break down simple sugars of around three to five chains of glucose molecules, but not the long chains we call starch. That is why they are confined to climates along the equator where their food, fruit, grows. They can get energy from a banana, but not a potato.

As a matter of fact, it is our ability to use starches for energy that has allowed us to expand beyond that area of the world. But you may be wondering by now, "I thought sugar was something to be avoided? I thought eating sugar was bad for you? Everyone knows starches turn into sugar."

There is truth that starches break down into sugar. And that eating a lot of table sugar isn't good for you. So what gives? Why is eating starch okay?

Well, truth is that sugar is the primary energy source for our bodies. The problem with sugar as opposed to starch is that it has been extracted from its whole-food source, absent any other nutrients or fiber, into a concentrate compound. So while it is true that eating table sugar will give you energy, that is all it will give you. Meanwhile, starch is sustained energy. It takes a while longer for your body to break down starches into sugar, and it uses calories to do so. Plus, generally, a starchy vegetable will contain fiber, vitamins, and minerals that when combined with the sugars, provides a whole package. If you eat a tablespoon of table sugar, all your doing is getting the energy.

Also, table sugar has the affect of raising one's triglyceride levels. It is due to the sudden spike, all at one time, of calories. It spikes one's blood sugar, which in turn can spike one's fat cell count. This fat is then stored as energy to be used in times of starvation. Most of the triglycerides we get are directly from butter, meat, and other such sources of fat. However, the body can, if called upon due to excess calorie intake, process those sugar calories into fat to store. That is a complicated process, however, and your body would prefer to burn those sugar calories as heat or nervous energy.

Consequently, while eating sugar to excess is bad for you, it has been made out to be the big boggie man in this regard when actually your body needs sources of glucose to run on. Obviously the refined sugars that have no nutrients other than the carbs they provide isn't a good thing to eat too much of. But it generally does not increase one's weight if eaten in low amounts. Indeed, it does provide the same calories as starch does.

It isn't sugar that causes diabetes, but fat. It isn't sugar that causes cancer, but fat. It isn't sugar that causes weight gain, but fat. Once you realize that, you can put the blame for our chronic diseases where it should fall: on fat. You won't find fat in potatoes. You won't find fat in wheat, or barley. What you will find is plenty of carbs, fiber, protein, and other nutrients. However, what you will find in meat and its products, is plenty of fat, cholesterol, and protein. The engine of chronic diseases like diabetes, heart failure, cancer to name the top three. The cause of most all weight gain.

So, I'm following a starch-based diet. That is a diet centered in starchy vegetables such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, grains, rice, and legumes. Those will make up around 90% of my food. They will provide me with 99.9% of all nutrients I need to not only survive, but thrive!

In case you want to hear more about this, I would suggest you watch the following video from Dr. McDougall:

Keto Diet vs. Plant-Based Diet

As I mentioned previously, I did a Keto diet for seven months in 2017. I used to think it was a fairly healthy diet, and there may be some unique situations for which it could help. After all, it was originally developed as a treatment for epilepsy. It is used today for treatment when nothing else will work, mostly in younger kids.

It may be helpful to describe what a ketogenic diet is, so we are all on the same page. There are two predominate types of fuel your body can run on: glucose and fat. Your body's default "gas" is glucose. A simple sugar. That fuels the engine of your body as it is designed to operate by default. However, when ever the glucose runs out, your body can start to use the energy stored in your fat cells. The one catch is that your brain can only run on either glucose, or what are known as "ketones". Ketones are converted by your liver from fat, and used throughout your body as energy. They are able to pass the blood brain barrier to fuel the brain.

Therefore, to get that energy, you essentially have to starve your body of its default energy, glucose. So, the traditional breakdown you need for most people to get into what is known as ketosis--the state of producing ketones--is around 75% fat, 20% protein, and 5% carbs. To trick your body into thinking it is in starvation mode, you are required to track the food you eat to attain that breakdown of those variables, because there is the danger of going into ketoacidosis. That is when your carbs are so low that too much ketones are made, turning your blood acidic. It is a life-threatening condition.

To ensure we were in ketosis, and not going into ketoacidosis, we would generally test our ketones in our body using urine strips, which can easily be bought at the grocery store. Later, we bought a breath machine that we could blow into and it would tell us how much into ketosis we were.

Now, the "evil" of those who follow a ketogenic diet is carbs. You have to avoid most all carbs except for those essential, but no more than about 5 to 10% of your food. Obviously, if you want to run on ketones, you have to make your body think you can't get carbs. Only in that way, can you make your body think that it needs to start processing fat to make ketones.

However, for some reason, those who follow the ketogenic diet have begun to demonize carbs. Carbs are not simply something to avoid to get into ketosis, but that ketones are so far superior as a fuel that carbs are made out to be evil. It is a mindset where carbs began to not be seen as simply an alternate form of fuel, but an evil alternate form of fuel.

When one first starts a keto diet, they will tell you that initially you'll go through a stage of low energy until you start producing ketones. Then everything will be fine. The reason for this is it takes a few days until your stores of carb energy become depleted, and for the ketones to kick in. If you've ever done a period of fasting, you know this. For a few days, you really feel the hunger, Then when your body starts converting over to using ketones, your fat, you feel great for a while.

That is, until you start to run out of fat stores. Then it starts to burn protein, that is, muscle. That is why one also has to watch their protein levels to make sure they don't get too high as well. If you did, your body could start burning protein instead of fat.

So, what are the problems with a keto diet? One of the problems I wondered about right away was if ketosis was such an ideal state to be in, why did it require all these gymnastics to get there? If carbs were so bad, why did my body default to burning carbs? Why did I have to trick my body into starvation mode to burn this "ideal" energy? This made no sense biologically.

Another issue involved history. As a Christian, were God and Jesus so wrong when they said, "Man cannot live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." and "I am the bread of life"? Those statements reflected the reality that bread, carbs, were the staple of everyone's life back in Jesus' day. That people literally lived on bread. In other words, there were not a bunch of people going into ketosis back then, not unless they were actually starving.

Throughout history, carbs have been the enablers of civilized society, as Dr. McDougall points out. Historically, man has lived on carbohydrates, not fat or protein. Yes, there is need for some fat and protein, but not nearly the amounts that people think they need of either. When was the last time you heard of anyone having a protein or fat deficiency?

That was my main concern with the diet, that it was so unnatural of a process to burn ketones. When one looks at it objectively, why would starvation be the route to a superior way to burn fuel for your body?

After all, it can and does overtax your liver, which has to turn all that fat into ketones. So this isn't good for someone with a weak liver or with liver disease. And being that it is designed to be a temporary state, it isn't good for long-term energy supply. That's probably why we've seen unhealthy people, like Atkin's himself, die of problems associated with too much fat.

Now, most of the concern of people who are against keto diets center around all the saturated and other fats you are getting. Dr. McDougall calls them "empty calories." Well, they obviously aren't empty since people can and do live on them. And I believe that the reason my blood pressure became so good despite all the saturated fat I was eating at the time was because I was burning it all off. It didn't have time to go running around in my system, causing havoc. That is also because I was so active. I went to they gym at the time. I did Zumba 4x a week, Aqua Zumba once a week, Body Pump once a week, Body Step once a week, and I played pickle ball for around 3 hours for 3 days a week. I was burning a lot of calories, around 3000 a day. So I ate a lot of fat during that time.

There have been studies done showing that people on the keto diet were not as healthy. I wondered how they knew whether those people were all in ketosis and if they were, did they make sure their oil/calorie intake was the same as what they were burning in a day? My wife, who did the diet with me, did it to lose weight. And she did lose weight, one of her most successful methods to date. Mainly, as she says, she didn't cheat on it because staying in ketosis was so important . . . she didn't want to lose what she had fought so hard to obtain. But because she was losing weight, it was apparent that she was burning all the fat calories she was taking in.

However, it would be easy for someone who claims to be on a keto diet to not be in ketosis. Or to be taking in more calories than they could burn, which in either case they would have excess fat floating around in their blood stream, gumming up the works and causing heart disease and cancer that is evident with anyone who takes in saturated and other fats to excess.

But that all points to the dangers of the keto diet. You have to really pay attention for it to work as planned. You have to ensure you're in ketosis every day through constant testing and ensuring you are eating the right ratio of carbs/protein/fat. You have to make sure you are burning all the fat you take in because you don't want excess fat floating around in your system. In other words, you always have to make sure you stay in a delicate balance to make the Keto diet work as advertised. If you don't, it will have serious consequences in developing either chronic conditions and/or ketoacidosis.

Compare that to burning carbs as your primary fuel. Because that is what your body naturally operates on, you don't have to do all that analysis of what you eat and testing to make sure you are not being harmed by it. You know that if you eat starches, that you are safe and that you are getting all the fuel your body needs, without worrying about getting too much. Plants provide more than enough protein and fat for your needs, if you eat the right ones.

Which is what I'll come back to talk about, next time.

The Vitamin B12 Myth

I thought I should expand on my statement last time that B12 isn't that big an issue for those eating plant-based.

I do recognize the problem of some plant-based eaters in not getting enough B12 is a concern. Such a deficiency is problematic when it does happen. Most plant-based advocates recommend taking a B12 supplement or eating grains fortified with B12 to compensate.

However, it is a myth that only "vegans" and vegetarians should be concerned with this problem. It is noted that that the feed that livestock and chickens are fed get "90% of the B12 supplement" in the world today, because the conditions of livestock kills off the B12 the cows get naturally from their feed, due to the amount of antibiotics they inject into each cow.

What? You mean you thought B12 originated and was only found in livestock like cows, pigs, chickens and other forms of meat? Guess what, it doesn't. Cows cannot make B12 anymore than humans can. All B12 comes from microbes in the ground. Animals eat it by ingesting dirty plants and drinking dirty water, just like our ancestors did. Yep, that's right. Our "cavemen" got their B12 from eating fruit, vegetables, and other plants that were not as washed and treated as our produce today. So much for the "how could they have been vegans" myth based on the B12 being sourced only from meat.

Another issue with meat-based B12 is the bio-availability of B12 to the body. This such a problem that there is recognition by authorities that there is more B12 deficiency among meat eaters than there are among plant-based eaters. This is due to the lower amounts of B12 in meat now days, and its absorption into the body by the small intestines.

So once someone has come to the conclusion that meat and dairy products are the primary drivers of the Western world's heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, just to list the top three, why on earth would you want to risk eating meat to avoid B12 deficiency when 1. there is no evidence that one will avoid it by eating meat, and 2. subject yourself to a heart-stopping, cancer causing, diabetes double-downing rates of risk in order to avoid the very slight risk of B12 deficiency? How many people do you know who have had Vit. B12 deficiency compared to heart disease and cancer? I know of no one who has suffered from the former, but I need at least two hands or more to count the number of people I know who have suffered a heart attack or cancer, even in my own family alone! Not to mention friends and more distant relatives. You might as well suggest that I avoid Parkinson's Disease by smoking cigarettes all my life. Yeah, it might help me avoid Parkinson's (if I didn't already have it), but at what cost to my health?

Not when there is a safer, more humane way to obtain B12 through supplements or food fortified with it. After all, all one really needs is around 5 mcg per day according to authorities. That's not much. Especially when one considers that it is estimated that it would take more than 6 years for a person to run out of it who was chronically deficient, because excess is stored in the body.

So no, there is nothing one can get from meat and dairy which cannot be derived by safer means, including B12.

"So Rick, what is your source for this information?" Good question. I'm using a complied source which has all the information I've shared here and links to studies to check it out: https://eatingourfuture.wordpress.com/science-studies-vegan-vegetarian-health-diets-reports-less-chronic-disease-illness/vitamin-b12-deficiency-in-meat-eaters-vegetarians-vegans/

Now, one can clearly see that the myth of the B12 problem for plant-based eaters does not prove that cavemen were primarily meat eaters. Sure, they ate some. But was it the bulk of their food? Couldn't be. That's because meat doesn't have the vitamins needed to sustain life. Plants, on the other hand do. Just look at the nutritional information to see what I'm talking about:

(These are taken from Google searches.)

For 3 oz of beef:

Calories 213

% Daily Value*
Total Fat 13 g	20%
Saturated fat 5 g	25%
Polyunsaturated fat 0.4 g
Monounsaturated fat 6 g
Trans fat 0.9 g
Cholesterol 77 mg	25%
Sodium 61 mg	2%
Potassium 270 mg	7%
Total Carbohydrate 0 g	0%
Dietary fiber 0 g	0%
Sugar 0 g
Protein 22 g	44%

Vitamin A	0%	Vitamin C	0%
Calcium	1%	Iron	12%
Vitamin D	1%	Vitamin B-6	15%
Cobalamin	36%	Magnesium	4%

Notice the lack of Vitamin C, calcium, and vit D (which really only comes from getting enough sunshine, not through your food. Notice too the lack of any carbs, you know, the stuff your body runs on and naturally burns? Yeah, that stuff. Meat provides one no energy to operate at all. Only if you go into starvation mode would your body start to burn fat or protein. And that fat primarily saturated fat, is the guilty party in causing heart attacks and cancer in people.

Now let's look at a potato:

Calories 163

% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0.2 g	0%
Saturated fat 0.1 g	0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g
Monounsaturated fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg	0%
Sodium 13 mg	0%
Potassium 897 mg	25%
Total Carbohydrate 37 g	12%
Dietary fiber 4.7 g	18%
Sugar 1.7 g
Protein 4.3 g	8%

Vitamin A	0%	Vitamin C	70%
Calcium	2%	Iron	9%
Vitamin D	0%	Vitamin B-6	30%
Cobalamin	0%	Magnesium	12%

Notice this one medium potato has zero cholesterol, another major heart attack ingredient only found in meat, has practically no fat to speak of, plenty of Vitamins C, B6, Iron, and Magnesium. And even a percentage more calcium than meat, though neither has a lot of it. If you want some Vitamin A, throw in some broccoli or kale. I'm not even sure why Vitamin D is listed since there is no food source for it, it will always be zero. Cobalamin is B12, which you see is zero here, but is at 36% in meat, generally speaking.

But the big thing to notice is all the carbs a potato has. 37% Wow! Meat had zero. That was the one issue I had with the keto diet, but I'll touch upon that more next time. Here, I only wanted to point out that one could live on potatoes. People during history have indeed done just that, for years at a time. However, no one can live on meat. Not without going into starvation mode and burning fat and then muscle to survive. And they would have no way to avoid diseases caused by vitamin deficiencies like scurvy. Meanwhile, the lowly potato is packed with vitamin C. Surprise!

New Direction for this Blog

Hi everyone. As you may be aware, it has been some time since I've posted anything to this blog. A lot has happened in the past months. Aside from our move to Denver, CO we're also no longer focusing on either Melaluca or Norwex products, though we are still in both companies. It isn't that we no longer believe in them, but more an issue of we have other priorities that have sucked away our time.

So, in deciding what to do with this blog, I've decided to move it in a direction that we've been going on for over nine months now, a plant-based diet. And I'm becoming more and more convinced that specific plants need to make up the bulk of our diet, that is, starch. But before we get to that, allow me to give you a little of our journey over the past year.

As some may know, prior to September of 2017, we were on the Keto diet from about Feb 2017 through August 2017. How did that work? Well, okay for the seven months I was on it. Okay in that I was able to keep my weight up (somewhat, some may contest that I dropped too low) and maintained my energy levels on it, and appeared to stay in ketososis for a decent period of time. By all outward appearances, I was healthy.

Then I went in for my physical. The doctor didn't find anything bad on the blood test, though he didn't do a cholesterol test, strangely enough. I had a clean bill of health from him. The only problem he had with me was my Keto diet. He pointed me to a website and recommended that I do a search on "Parkinson's" and watch whatever videos it pulled up. For him, saturated fats were the deathnell of existence, especially the amount I was getting eating four eggs cooked in coconut oil for lunch every day. Due to my weight and activity level, I had to have around 3000 calories a day, and on the keto diet, it had to mostly be fat.

Due to being in a clinical trial, I had an online list of my blood pressure that I could review. From December of 2016, through August of 2017, my blood pressure level dropped from borderline too high, to what the site the doctor referred me to as very good shape, around 117/58. That was in the previous month. So I figured the good doctor and the site he had pointed me to just didn't take into account that I was burning all that oil right out of my system, so it wasn't there to do all the bad things they said it could. And in my case, I could have been right. If I had eaten less, my weight would have dropped more.

However, I wasn't on the Keto diet to reduce weight, obviously. I wasn't on it necessarily because I thought it might be the healthiest diet in the world, though I had convinced myself that it was healthy enough. No, I was doing it for one primary reason: because there was some clinical evidence that it could help one who has Parkinson's mitigate their symptoms. In my seven months doing that diet, I had noticed no changes in my symptoms, one way or the other. At least, due to my diet. I did notice an increase in my symptoms when I came off the Amantadine that the clinical trial was for. So it would be hard to attribute that to the diet, or that it would have been worse or better if I wasn't on the ketogenic diet.

So at that point, I wasn't married to it aside from it had become a habit during that time and I believed it to overall be healthy at least for me. So I was open to new input. As I started to watch those videos, while I wasn't immediately hooked, I could see the logic of his arguments, which were all based on the scientific evidence over the last 50+ years. The more I researched it, the more I became convinced that a plant-based diet was key to good health. The more I looked at the evidence, the more I began to believe that the cause of our major diseases were meat and their byproducts.

By now I can hear you yelling, "What is that website!" Okay, here it is already! https://nutritionfacts.org/

The thing I like about his site is he backs up his conclusions almost exclusively from scientific studies. Now, I know what many of you are thinking. It was "science" that has said a balanced diet included meat and milk and eggs. Is this just some cherry-picked studies he's using? How can we trust his science anymore than we can trust the past science that has come to different conclusions?

I know, because that was my first thought. I'd grown distrustful of any science because so much of it appeared to be biased toward telling me I couldn't eat what I wanted to eat. Or shouldn't eat. Only to be shown in a few years that it was wrong and the opposite was true. Was this just another scientific fad?

As I looked into it, what he showed is that these were the conclusions that science had come to over 50 years ago, and that every major study showed to be true down till today. No, this wasn't something that would change, because this was how we were designed to eat. It is shown all through history that starch-based, plant diets were what civilization was founded and sustained upon.

When you look at the nutritional value of any meat, it makes logical sense that one could not live on meat alone. Aside from some protein (which your body doesn't run on except in the severest of starvation situations) and some other vitamins, there is no nutritional value to meat. The one thing it is high in is saturated fat, and lots of it. But you cannot live on a meat only diet. You'd get scurvy and other diseases if you did, because there is little vitamins in meat.

However, you can live on potatoes alone. It is one of the most complete packages of food, including protein and vitamin C. You can live on rice or beans, supplemented with some broccoli. There are a lot of vegetables that contain protein and all the vitamins you'd need to survive. There is no meat which could do that.

"But," I can hear someone suggest, "no one has claimed meat could do that (for a good reason, I might add) but that it should be part of a balanced diet. After all, it is a well known fact that there is no plant-based source of vitamin b12."

True. Just as there is no animal source of b12 either. "What?" That's because b12 doesn't come from cows, but from bacteria in the soil. It is only that cows and other animals eat unclean food that they have b12 in their muscle. Same was for us before sanitation came along in the last 100-150 years or so. We derived our B12 from eating not fully cleaned vegetables and drinking water from streams and rivers.

Since no one is recommending that we go back to eating our vegetables with dirt on them or drinking from dirty streams and rivers, since that was also a source of other diseases which tended to cut life short, that leaves either eating food that contains b12 naturally or artificially, or eating a b12 supplement. While generally I would recommend the more whole food route, I'm not in favor of eating things like meat products that are shown to have much worse conditions than b12 deficiency, to get my b12 from. I mean, when is the last time you heard that b12 deficiency was one of our top 15 killers? Like, never. Why would I smoke (eat) a cigarette for the benefit of tobacco's helping me with Parkinson's symptoms? Or worse yet, to eat something that has been shown throughout history to result in our nation's number one killer, heart attacks, and the basis of many other diseases, just to avoid being vitamin B12 deficient? That's just stupid. No, I'll take the safer supplement, thank you.

So, that's what I've been doing for the past year, starting in January. And I can report, it has appeared to have helped my Parkinson's symptoms. It's been minor at this point. But neither have I noticed any progression in my symptoms either. Note: I know some of the progress I've had this year has been healing from my DBS surgery last September. However, I have noticed more steadiness in the last few months in my right hand. The only time it has gone "wild" has been after the few time's I've eaten meat. We'll see how it goes this Thanksgiving next week. But that is progress.

That said, even if I hadn't noticed any betterment of my symptoms, I plan on staying on this diet. For two reasons. One, because the last thing I need to add to my life now is another chronic disease. While there is evidence that a plant-based diet could help prevent Parkinson's, there is nothing showing it can reverse it. There is evidence, however, very strong, that it can prevent several other number of diseases, like coronary disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and several others like MS and reverse them. I don't want to add those diseases to my list because I wasn't willing to change my source of caloric intake.

Two, because whether it slows down the progression of my symptoms, or stops them, or even if it miraculously reverses my symptoms (I'd get a lot of medical attention for sure if that happened!), or does nothing, my best bet is to eat food that is healthy. That is, to gain the best chance for a healthy life otherwise than what I already have to deal with. The best chance I have to survive this disease is to eat and live as healthy as possible.

To sum up this section by saying there are two types of conclusions people will likely come to, other than the one I have. One, you could disagree with the science, or that it doesn't accurately reflect the science, and refuse to stop eating so much meat and dairy, believing that is the safer route. That is certainly where the meat and dairy lobby wants you to be.

Or, you might agree with the science I've presented, but due to your addiction to meat and dairy, don't want to give it up, much like the smoker in times past who knew it would likely give them lung cancer but enjoyed it too much to stop, and so you won't stop eating it. Perhaps you'd say to yourself, "Hey, everyone is going to die, why shouldn't I eat what I enjoy eating while I am alive?"

Fine, as long as you remember this when you have a heart attack and happen to survive it at age 30, when you threaten to leave your wife or husband to raise your kids themselves (hey, I know someone this actually happened to), you'll recall this information and come back to it once faced with your own mortality. Unlike Parkinson's, this diet has been shown to actually reverse heart disease. And cancer. And diabetes. And several others. So you'll still have a chance, if you survive the first round.

As far as the first group, I only ask that you remain open to the evidence. When you have a doctor who has seen everyone he's worked on, without exception, get better under this diet (Dr. McDougall), that he has cured hundreds of people on his diet from the above conditions, who go on to live full lives, and other doctors who can attest to the same thing, you know this isn't some passing science fad we're talking about here. Once you come to that conclusion, I hope you'll be ready to also join me on this journey into health.

So, that's where this blog is now headed. It still fits the direction of this club, to be a wellness club. I plan on promoting wellness through my journey into a starch-based, plant-based diet. More articles will be forthcoming. Arms and legs should be kept in the cart at all times. Hang on, here we go!

NEWS FLASH: New Soruce of Healthy Living Products!

One of the main reasons we're in Melaleuca is because they offer quality products that avoid harsh chemicals and are good for you. I've recently discussed their quality vitamins that are clinically proven to be effective thanks to the Oligo® system of mineral absorption which no other vitamin can claim. In fact, because other vitamins don't have something like Oligo®, they mostly don't get metabolized and go in the toilet.

We still have a lot more of their products to review for you based on our experience. But that is why we use and promote the use of the Melaleuca products: because they promote a healthy living space.

This weekend, we happened upon another company with the same goals and dedication to their products, in as far as we could discern. Enough so, that we've signed up to be consultants in that company and can sell directly to you and others, unlike Melaleuca which all we can do is point and help you join the discount club.

What is this new venture and what does it mean for our participation in Melaleuca?

The name of the company is Norwex®. Their main products involve a specialized microfiber cleaning systems that mostly eliminate the need for a cleaner at all, that's right, you can use water alone to clean your house (aside from some really stubborn stains) and yet will get it cleaner than using harsh chemicals while killing 99% of the bacteria as well. They also promote the replacement of cleaning with harsh chemicals, not by substituting them with safer plant-based solutions as Melaleuca does, but by getting rid of needing them all together!

We'll have more about this company and their products in the very near future. Meanwhile, you can already visit our online site ( http://lenitacopple.norwez.biz ) where you can learn more about their products, buy from us, and/or contact us about holding a party either in your house (if you live reasonably close to Marble Falls, TX) or on Facebook.

Does Norwex® having competing products that you can buy from Melaleuca? Yes they do. For example, they have a bathroom cleaner similar to Melaleuca's Tub n' Tile®. Which one is better? We have yet to find out. But you can expect some comparisons in the near future as Lenita test them out in the real world of her cleaning business. Stay tuned for that.

Despite the overlap, we love and trust Melaleuca's products. Norwex® has a high bar to reach for us to declare their equivalents as good as or better than Melaleuca's. Which ever way it turns out, you'll know we are recommending products we feel confident about.

Likewise, there are plenty of products Norwex® sells which Melaleuca doesn't (as well as Melaleuca has some Norwez® doesn't) that will also contribute to a healthier living space and life. Enough so, we feel good about offering both company's resources as means to that goal.

So you should start to see some updates to our website here to reflect that reality in the near future. We encourage you to contact us about how you can obtain their products and/or become a part of their exciting organizations. You won't regret it!

Are Your Vitamins Doing the Job?

Ideally, we'd get all our vitamins, minerals, antioxidants,  and other nutritional needs from our diet. However, there are few who can manage their meals in order to accomplish that goal. The usual solution is to take multi-vitamins, however, how do we know whether they are effective in supplying what we need? How do we know whether the bioavailability is adequate to take advantage of the nutrition in those pills?

One of Melaleuca's high quality products is its vitamins. There are three main reasons why you'll be hard-pressed to find better vitamins anywhere else.

1. High quality vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements that are effective.

Of course for vitamins and supplements to improve one's health, the ingredients in them need to pure, top quality, and in sufficient quantities. Anyone who is familiar with Melaleuca products knows the consistent quality and value they diligently infuse into everything they do. It would be no surprise that their vitamins and supplements follow this same company-wide commitment to excellence.

Of course, there are many unfamiliar with Melaleuca's products, and anyone can claim that their products are unbeaten among the competition. Every company is going to say their product is top quality, whether it really is or not.

That's why Melaleuca goes a step further. After all, you'll be putting this stuff into your body. How can you know it is not only effective, but safe? That's why . . .

2. Melaleuca verified their vitamins and supplements' effectiveness through two clinical trials.

I don't know of any other vitamin brand who substantiates its product by scientific clinical trials. All you'll find to support other brand's claims are testimonials harvested from customers. Even if you were able to factor out those who over exaggerated their experience or outright lied, it would still be easy enough to find testimonies of "it works!" among those susceptible to the placebo effect to prove any product does what it claims. While testimonies can offer support for scientific facts, alone they mean nothing.

If the vitamins you are taking are only supported by testimonies, maybe you should give some consideration as to why that is the case? Support from clinical trials means you can have confidence that the effectiveness of Melaleuca vitamins and supplements is real, and not fake.

That is how you know the claim in point 1 is true. Cheap ingredients would not have produced positive results in those trials. Which, incidentally, is why most of the other brands don't do a clinical trial--they'd fail.

3. Real scientist developed a formula to increase bioavailability called Oligo®.

Oligo® itself has been scientifically studied. "In a study at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, Canada, irrefutable scientific data confirmed that Oligo delivers an unparalleled level of actual absorption through the intestinal wall. In fact, the study showed that Oligo provides up to four times greater absorption than other mineral forms." (Finally, U.S. Doctors And Researchers Agree With Melaleuca Scientists! … Our Competitor’s vitamin supplements are essentially worthless!)

In short, you can trust a large percentage of the Melalueca's vitamins, minerals, and herbs to enter your body than you would from most any other brand. It is highly likely much of what you take now gets flushed down the toilet. Now that is an expensive vitamin!

Personal Experience

As I stated, personal testimonies are not bad. However, they can't prove the effectiveness of any product for the majority of people. In part because of the placebo effect, in part because there frequently isn't a clear cause-effect relationship established. They may make it seem that way, but due to the uncontrolled method, the sense of "feeling more alert" could just as likely be a result of drinking an energy drink, eating a healthy breakfast, or getting a good night's sleep than due to taking a particular product.

At best, a personal testimony can only say, "This worked for me. Maybe you'll find similar results. Maybe you won't." But when backed by scientific studies, it becomes illustrative and supportive of the conclusions reached by a study. Even then, any particular individual may not respond like most do in a study.

With that disclaimer aside, what you want to know is whether I have personal experience with them or not and what do I honestly think about them?

First, a little background on my health. I was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 2013. First symptoms occurred in 2012. The disease has progressed since then, and so far medication has kept me functional and independent. If you know anything about the five stages of Parkinson's, I'm in stage 2. I think I've stayed in stage 2 this long (since 2014) because the last two years I've been exercising a lot.

To be clear, Melaleuca nor I am touting their vitamins as a treatment for Parkinson's symptoms. While there are proven health benefits shown by the studies, no one is making any claims that these vitamins treat any disease.

I've been on Melaleuca's Peak Performance Pack for Brain Health for over a month now. It might help to tell you how this fits into Melaleuca's vitamin product line.

The core base is their multi-vitamin: Vitality. There are three formulas of it: men, women, and 50+. Next step up is adding a Calcium dosage to the vitamins, which is called the Vitality Pack. The next one in line is the Vitality Essential Nutrition Pack, which pairs the vitamins up with some antioxidants, cardiovascular support, and digestive and immunity support. This combination forms the core for the rest of the packs. Throw in vascular support and fighting inflammation from exertion, and you have the Peak Performance Nutrition Pack. Using that pack as a base, Melaleuca adds a combination of supplements to create four specialized packs: brain health, bone and joint health, metabolic health, and heart health. The Peak Performance Brain Pack is the one I use. Then for the person who says, "I need all of that!" There is the Peak Performance Total Health Pack. It contains all of the vitamins and supplements mentioned. *(Product links don't go to the products on mobile phones.)

On the subjective side, I do feel it is helping my energy levels, improved sexual functioning, and my body is doing as well as can be expected, given how much I workout and play Pickle Ball. Brain focus seems to have improved, as well as the sight in my left eye. I say this is the subjective side because improvements tend to be gradual and I can't guarantee that they aren't due to other factors.

I should note that Melaleuca encourages one to go 90 days on one of the Peak Performance Packs before noting improvements. I'm into the second month taking these. I'll try to give an update at the 90 day mark as to the final notes on what is different.

However, there was one definitive improvement I noticed within the first week. One of the "gifts" Parkinson's has given me is constipation. It became bad for quite some time, but I found it could be controlled with magnesium and fiber decently well. Wasn't the perfect solution, but overall it worked.

So when I contemplated switching from the supplement list I was taking to this vitamin pack, I noticed that the combined total magnesium in the pack was less than what I had been taking. So when I started taking these, I braced myself for the return of constipation.

However, the exact opposite happened. My bowel movements became near-perfect regular, even better than pre-Parkinson's. It has stayed that way the entire time I've been on them. My guess is the probiotic has something to do with it. I was taking a probiotic before, but apparently it wasn't nearly as effective as Melaleuca's.

I should also add that my wife had been taking a competitor's vitamins to help her with pain due to cleaning houses all day. They were helping, but they were also costly and didn't include some of the benefits Melaleuca's did without adding them in, making it even more expensive. So my wife gave one of Melaleuca's packs a try. She reported it did just as good as the competitor's, if not better. She's still in month one of taking them.

I also like the pre-packed packets. Each 30 day set has an AM and a PM packet containing all the supplements to take. Convenient and easy to take on trips.

So far, I'm impressed. Look for a future update when I've been taking them for 90 days.

Bottom line: Melaleuca's vitamins can't be beat for proven health benefits both scientific and testimonial based. There's a vitamin combo for most any budget, ranging from $16 to $119 at prefered customer discounts as of this date.

You can't go wrong. To get these vitamins and supplements, as well as many other high-quality but affordable products, submit a request for more information about how to join the club on our contact page.

Do it now before you forget!