by Michael Dye
Protein is by far the most widely discussed and
publicized nutritional requirement of our body.
With all this information available about protein,
you might assume that people are pretty well informed on the subject.
The average American consumes over 100 grams of
protein a day, three to five times as much as experts now say is
necessary. We all know that protein is an essential nutrient, but
what most of us have not been told is that excessive amounts of
indigestible protein can be hazardous to our health.
The dangers of a high-protein diet are not commonly
known by the general public because we have been fed more misinformation
and propaganda about protein than any other category of nutrition.
A combination of badly outdated animal experiments and self-serving
indoctrination disguised as nutritional education has left most
people badly misinformed about our body's protein needs.
Several generations of school children and doctors
were taught incorrectly that we need meat, dairy, and eggs for protein.
The meat, dairy, and egg industries funded this "nutritional
education" and it became U.S. government policy. Much of the
evidence used to support the claim that animal products are ideal
for meeting human protein needs was based on a now discredited experiment
on rats conducted in 1914.
Experts in the field of nutrition and medical science
have drastically changed their thinking about human protein needs
since that infamous rat study 80 years ago, but this updated knowledge
has been very slow to reach the public if it reaches it at all.
So, in an effort to fill this wide gap of information
as concisely as possible, here is a six-point summary of what we
should know about protein. Every one of these six points will come
as a surprise to the average adult whose knowledge about protein
is limited to what was taught several decades ago in school. [But
remember, what can do you the greatest harm, is what you know, that
isn't so - Don B.]
The medical and nutritional establishment has been
slow to accept evidence contrary to the status quo of self-serving
"nutritional education" promoted by major commercial influences,
especially the meat and dairy industry. But facing the facts has
forced doctors and nutritionists to steer more and more people away
from animal products (cholesterol, saturated fat, mucous-producing,
zero fiber, etc.) and to more fresh fruits and vegetables. It has
been interesting to observe over the years how expert opinions and
official policies have changed, sometimes reluctantly, in the area
of health and nutrition. For example, on the subject of protein:
1) Modern research has shown that most people have
more to be concerned about the medical problems caused by consuming
too much protein, rather than not getting enough. Protein is an
important nutrient, but when we get too much protein, or protein
that we cannot digest, it causes problems. In Your Health, Your
Choice, Dr. Ted Morter, Jr. warns, "In our society, one
of the principle sources of physiological toxins is too much protein."
It may come as quite a shock to people trying to
consume as much protein as possible to read in major medical journals
and scientific reports that excess protein has been found to promote
the growth of cancer cells and can cause liver and kidney disorders,
digestive problems, gout, arthritis, calcium deficiencies (including
osteoporosis) and other harmful mineral imbalances.
It has been known for decades that populations consuming
high-protein, meat-based diets have higher cancer rates and lower
life-spans (averaging as low as 30 to 40 years), compared to cultures
subsisting on low-protein vegetarian diets (with average life-spans
as high as 90 to 100 years).
Numerous studies have found that animals and humans
subjected to high-protein diets have consistently developed higher
rates of cancer. As for humans, T. Colin Campbell, a Professor of
Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University and the senior science
advisor to the American Institute for Cancer Research, says there
is "a strong correlation between dietary protein intake and
cancer of the breast, prostate, pancreas and colon." Likewise,
Myron Winick, director of Columbia University's Institute of Human
Nutrition, has found strong evidence of "a relationship between
high-protein diets and cancer of the colon."
In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Morter writes,
"The paradox of protein is that it is not only essential but
also potentially health-destroying. Adequate amounts are vital to
keeping your cells hale and hearty and on the job; but unrelenting
consumption of excess dietary protein congests your cells and forces
the pH of your life-sustaining fluids down to cell-stifling, disease-producing
levels. Cells overburdened with protein become toxic."
Writing in the Sept. 3, 1982 issue of the New
England Journal of Medicine, researchers Dr. Barry Branner and
Timothy Meyer state that "undigested protein must be eliminated
by the kidneys. This unnecessary work stresses out the kidneys so
much that gradually lesions are developed and tissues begin to harden."
In the colon, this excess protein waste putrefies into toxic substances,
some of which are absorbed into the bloodstream. Dr. Willard Visek,
Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of Illinois Medical
School, warns, "A high protein diet also breaks down the pancreas
and lowers resistance to cancer as well as contributes to the development
Anyone successfully indoctrinated by the meat and
dairy industry's nutritional education would be puzzled by the numerous
studies finding osteoporosis, a condition of calcium imbalance that
results in porous and brittle bones, is very prominent among people
with high consumption of both protein and calcium. For example,
the March 1983 Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that by
age 65, the measurable bone loss of meat-eaters was five to six
times worse than of vegetarians. The Aug. 22, 1984 issue of the
Medical Tribune also found that vegetarians have "significantly
African Bantu women average only 350 mg. of calcium
per day (far below the National Dairy Council recommendation of
1,200 mg.), but seldom break a bone, and osteoporosis is practically
non-existent because they have a low-protein diet. At the other
extreme, Eskimos have the highest calcium intake in the world (more
than 2,000 mg. a day), but they suffer from one of the highest rates
of osteoporosis because their diet is also the highest in protein.
The reason for these findings is that meat consumption
leaves an acidic residue, and a diet of acid-forming foods requires
the body to balance its pH by withdrawing calcium (an alkaline mineral)
from the bones and teeth. So even if we consume sufficient calcium,
a high-protein, meat-based diet will cause calcium to be leached
from our bones. Dr. John McDougall reports on one long-term study
finding that even with calcium intakes as high as 1,400 mgs. a day,
if the subjects consumed 75 grams of protein daily, there was more
calcium lost in their urine than absorbed into their body. These
results show that to avoid a calcium deficiency, it may be more
important to reduce protein intake than to increase calcium consumption.
In his 1976 book, How to Get Well, Dr. Paavo
Airola, Ph.D., N.D., notes we "have been brought to believe
that a high protein diet is a must if you wish to attain a high
level of health and prevent disease. Health writers and 'experts'
who advocated high protein diets were misled by slanted research,
which was financed by dairy and meat industries, or by insufficient
and outdated information. Most recent research, worldwide, both
scientific and empirical, shows more and more convincingly that
our past beliefs in regard to high requirements of protein are outdated
and incorrect, and that the actual daily need for protein in human
nutrition is far below that which has long been considered necessary.
Researchers, working independently in many parts of the world, arrived
at the conclusion that our actual daily need of protein is only
25 to 35 grams (uncooked proteins being utilized far better than
proteins from cooked food)... But what is even more important, the
worldwide research brings almost daily confirmation of the scientific
premise... that proteins, essential and important as they are, CAN
BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL WHEN CONSUMED IN EXCESS OF YOUR ACTUAL NEED."
Dr. Airola continues: "The metabolism of proteins consumed
in excess of the actual need leaves toxic residues of metabolic
waste in tissues, causes autotoxemia, overacidity and nutritional
deficiencies, accumulation of uric acid and purines in the tissues,
intestinal putrefaction, and contributes to the development of many
of our most common and serious diseases, such as arthritis, kidney
damage, pyorrhea, schizophrenia, osteoporosis, arteriosclerosis,
heart disease, and cancer. A high protein diet also causes premature
aging and lowers life expectancy."
2) It is easier to meet our minimum daily protein
requirements than most people would imagine with just fruits and
vegetables. Because much of what experts once believed about protein
has been proven incorrect, U.S. government recommendations on daily
protein consumption have been reduced from 118 grams to 46 to 56
grams in the 1980's to the present level of 25 to 35 grams. Many
nutritionists now feel that 20 grams of protein a day is more than
enough, and warn about the potential dangers of consistently consuming
much more than this amount. The average American consumes a little
over 100 grams of protein per day.
Drastically reduced recommendations for protein
consumption are an obvious indication that official information
about protein taught to everyone from school children to doctors
was incorrect, but there has been no major effort to inform the
public that what we were taught has been proven wrong. So there
are large numbers of people with medical problems caused by eating
more than four or five times as much protein as necessary, yet their
misguided obsession is still to ensure that they get enough protein.
A good way of determining which foods provide sufficient
protein is to consider recommendations on the percentage of our
total calorie intake that should be made up of protein, and then
determine which foods meet these recommendations. These recommendations
range from 2 1/2 to 8 percent. Reports in the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition say we should receive 2 1/2 percent of
our daily calorie intake from protein, and that many populations
have lived in excellent health on that amount. The World Health
Organization established a figure of 4 1/2 percent. The Food and
Nutrition Board recommends 6 percent, while the National Research
Council recommends 8 percent.
The 6 and 8 percent figures are more than what most
people need, and the higher percentages are intended as a margin
of safety. But still, these recommendations are met by most fruits
and greatly exceeded by most vegetables. For example, the percentage
of calories provided by protein in spinach is 49%; broccoli 45%;
cauliflower 40%; lettuce 34%; peas 30%; green beans 26%; cucumbers
24%; celery 21%; potatoes 11%; sweet potatoes 6%; honeydew 10%;
cantaloupe 9%; strawberry 8%; orange 8%; watermelon 8%; peach 6%;
pear 5%; banana 5%; pineapple 3%; and apple 1% [if you eat them
uncooked]. Considering these figures, any nutritionist would have
to agree it is very easy for a vegetarian to get sufficient protein.
Two reasons we have such low protein requirements,
as noted by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond in Fit for Life, are
that, "the human body recycles 70 percent of its proteinaceous
waste," and our body loses only about 23 grams of protein a
3) The need to consume foods or meals containing
"complete protein" is based on an erroneous and outdated
myth. Due to lingering misinformation from a 1914 rat study, many
people still believe they must eat animal products to obtain "complete
protein." And for other people, this fallacy was replaced by
a second inaccurate theory that proper food combining is necessary
to obtain "complete protein" from vegetables. Both of
these theories have been unquestionably disproved, because we now
know people can completely satisfy their protein needs and all other
nutritional requirements from raw fruits and vegetables without
worrying about proper food combining or adding protein supplements
or animal products to their diet.
In fact, the whole theory behind the need to consume
"complete protein" a belief once accepted as fact
by medical and nutritional experts is now disregarded. For
example, Dr. Alfred Harper, Chairman of Nutritional Sciences at
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and of the Food and Nutrition
Board of the National Research Council, states, "One of the
biggest fallacies ever perpetuated is that there is any need for
so-called complete protein."
Protein is composed of amino acids, and these amino
acids are literally the building blocks of our body. There are eight
essential amino acids we need from food for our body to build "complete
protein," and every one of these amino acids can be found in
fruits and vegetables. (There is a total of 23 amino acids we need,
but our body is able to produce 15 of these, leaving eight that
must be obtained from food.) There are many vegetables and some
fruits that contain all eight essential amino acids, including carrots,
brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, corn, cucumbers, eggplant,
kale, okra, peas, potatoes, summer squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes,
But the reason we do not need all eight essential
amino acids from one food or from one meal is that our body stores
amino acids for future use. From the digestion of food and from
recycling of proteinaceous wastes, our body maintains an amino acid
"pool", which is circulated to cells throughout the body
by our blood and lymph systems. These cells and our liver are constantly
making deposits and withdrawals from this pool, based on the supply
and demand of specific amino acids.
The belief that animal protein is superior to vegetable
protein dates back to 1914 when two researchers named Osborn and
Mendel found that rats grew faster on animal protein than plant
protein. From these findings, meat, dairy and eggs were termed as
"Class A" proteins, and vegetable proteins were classified
as an inferior "Class B." In the mid-1940s, researchers
found that ten essential amino acids are required for a rat's diet,
and that meat, dairy and eggs supplied all ten of these amino acids,
whereas wheat, rice and corn did not. The meat, dairy and egg industries
capitalized on both of these findings, with little regard for the
fact that nutritional requirements for rats are very different than
It was discovered in 1952 that humans required only
eight essential amino acids, and that fruits and vegetables are
an excellent source of all of these. Later experiments also found
that although animal protein does speed the growth of rats, animal
protein also leads to a shorter life-span and higher rates of cancer
and other diseases. There are also major differences in the protein
needs of humans and rats. Human breast milk is composed of 5 percent
protein, compared to 49 percent protein in rat milk. To illustrate
how ignorant "experts" can be, during the time that high-protein
diets were thought to be healthy, many experts felt it had to be
a mistake of nature that human females produced breast milk of only
5 percent protein.
The "complete protein" myth was given
another boost in 1971 when Frances Moore Lappe wrote Diet for
a Small Planet. Lappe discouraged meat eating, but promoted
food combining with vegetable proteins, such as beans and rice,
to obtain all eight essential amino acids in one meal. But by 1981,
Lappe conducted additional research and realized that combining
vegetarian foods was not necessary to get proper protein. In her
tenth anniversary edition of Diet for a Small Planet, Lappe
admitted her blunder and acknowledged that food combining is not
necessary to obtain sufficient protein from a vegetarian diet. In
fact, Dr. John McDougall warns that efforts to combine foods for
complete protein are not only unnecessary, but dangerous, because
"one who follows the advice for protein combining can unintentionally
design a diet containing an excessive and therefore harmful amount
4) Protein is an essential part of our (living)
body and there is a difference between protein that has been cooked
and protein in its raw (living) form. We should realize that our
body (which is made of some 100 trillion living cells) is composed
of 15 percent protein, making protein the primary solid element
in our body, and second only to water, which composes 70 percent
of our body. Protein is composed of amino acids, and amino acids
are made up of chains of atoms. These atoms that make up amino acids
that make up protein literally become the building blocks for our
The problem is that cooking denatures or rearranges
the molecular structure of the protein, causing amino acids to become
coagulated, or fused together. In this form, the individual amino
acids can't be separated from each other and made available to the
body for use in making proteins.
You can see protein change its structure immediately
when you drop an egg into a hot frying pan. As soon as it hits the
heat, the clear, runny, jelly-like substance surrounding the egg
yolk turns rubbery and white. Protein is not the same substance
before and after it has been cooked. In The High Energy Diet
video, Dr. Douglas Graham states "protein is destroyed at 150
degrees." At this temperature, the chemical bond and structure
of protein is "denatured," and once this happens, there
is nothing we can do to "un-denature" protein.
The current orthodox medical and nutritional "wisdom"
still says cooked, denatured protein is just as healthy as protein
from raw foods. This is also the current official government policy,
and as you can see, this is a very difficult position to defend.
Perhaps when the evidence is more carefully considered, this position
will change, just as so many other official, orthodox positions
on nutrition have evolved. Evidence of the nutritional superiority
of raw foods has been available for decades, but information that
is contrary to commercial interests is slow to reach the public.
For a summary of this evidence:
* All animals in the wild eat raw food, so wild
animals kept in captivity have provided a good means of comparing
the merits of raw versus cooked food. In the early 1900s, it was
common for zoos, circuses, etc., to save money by feeding captive
animals restaurant scraps. But the mortality of these animals was
high and attempts at breeding them were not very successful. When
their diets were changed to natural, raw foods, the health, life-span
and breeding of the animals improved tremendously. A study of this
type at the Philadelphia Zoo was described in a 1923 book by Dr.
H. Fox titled Disease in Captive Wild Animals and Birds.
* One of the best-known studies of raw versus cooked
foods with animals was a 10-year research project conducted by Dr.
Francis M. Pottenger, using 900 cats. His study was published in
1946 in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery.
Dr. Pottenger fed all 900 cats the same food, with the only difference
being that one group received it raw, while the others received
The results dramatically revealed the advantages
of raw foods over a cooked diet. Cats that were fed raw, living
food produced healthy kittens year after year with no ill health
or premature deaths. But cats fed the same food, only cooked, developed
heart disease, cancer, kidney and thyroid disease, pneumonia, paralysis,
loss of teeth, arthritis, birthing difficulties, diminished sexual
interest, diarrhea, irritability, liver problems and osteoporosis
(the same diseases common in our human cooked-food culture). The
first generation of kittens from cats fed cooked food were sick
and abnormal, the second generation were often born diseased or
dead, and by the third generation, the mothers were sterile. Much
of the same pattern can be shown in humans. In his 1988 book, Improving
on Pritikin, Ross Horne notes, "There is an association
between the cooking and processing of food and the incidence of
cancer, and conversely, it is a fact that cancer patients make the
best recoveries on completely raw vegetarian food... This shows
that when vital organs are at their lowest state of function, only
raw foods make it possible for them to provide the body chemistry
to maintain health. It follows then, that if raw food permits an
otherwise ruined body to restore itself to health, so must raw food
provide the maximum benefit to anybody sick or well."
In his 1980 book, The Health Revolution,
Horne writes, "Cooked protein is difficult to digest, and when
incompletely digested protein enters the colon it putrefies and
ammonia is formed." Horne quotes Dr. Willard Visek, Professor
of Clinical Sciences at the University of Illinois Medical School
as saying, "In the digestion of proteins, we are constantly
exposed to large amounts of ammonia in our intestinal tract. Ammonia
behaves like chemicals that cause cancer or promote its growth.
It kills cells, it increases virus infection, it affects the rate
at which cells divide, and it increases the mass of the lining of
the intestines. What is intriguing is that within the colon, the
incidence of cancer parallels the concentration of ammonia."
Dr. Visek is quoted in The Golden Seven Plus One, by Dr.
C. Samuel West, as saying, "Ammonia, which is produced in great
amounts as a byproduct of meat metabolism, is highly carcinogenic
and can cause cancer development."
* Cooking food also creates many types of mutagens,
particularly with proteins. "Mutagens are chemicals that can
alter the DNA in the nucleus of a living cell so increasing the
risk of the cell becoming cancerous," Horne explains. "Most
mutagens seem to be formed by an effect of cooking on proteins,"
according to Dr. Oliver Alabaster, Associate Professor of Medicine
and Director of Cancer Research at the George Washington University,
in his 1985 book, What You Can Do to Prevent Cancer. Horne
further quotes Alabaster's book as stating, "Broiling hamburgers,
beef, fish, chicken, or any other meat, for that matter, will create
mutagens, so it appears to be an unavoidable consequence of cooking.
Other mutagens are formed by the action of cooking
on carbohydrates. Even an action as innocent as toasting bread
has been shown to create mutagenic chemicals through a process known
as the browning reaction. This reaction also occurs when potatoes
and beef are fried, or when sugars are heated... Fortunately, extracts
of very few fruits and vegetables are mutagenic. In fact, quite
the contrary. Laboratory tests have demonstrated that a number of
substances in fruits and vegetables can actually inhibit the action
of many mutagens."
* And the results of personal experience from the
many people who have switched to a mainly raw foods, vegetarian
diet are even more impressive than scientific laboratory findings.
Since Rev. George Malkmus healed his colon cancer and other ailments
18 years ago by switching to a diet of raw fruits and vegetables,
he has led many others in the same direction. The personal testimonials
and letters of many of these people have appeared in the pages of
this newsletter... people who have recovered from cancer, heart
disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, abdominal
pain and more. All this from something as simple as a change to
a vegetarian diet of mainly raw fruits and vegetables.
So, whether you consider scientific analysis or
real-life experience, there is strong evidence of the superiority
of raw protein over cooked protein. Scientific analysis of the distinction
between the life and death of atoms that become the building blocks
of our body, the denaturing of protein and the mutagens caused by
cooking protein helps to explain personal experiences of the many
medical problems caused by excessive amounts of indigestible, cooked
protein, as well as the great results people have seen by switching
to a raw foods diet.
5) Cooked meat is not a good source of protein.
The reason cooked meat is not a good source of protein for humans
is both because it is cooked and because it is meat. Actually, cooked
meat is not a good source of protein for any animal (as laboratory
tests have shown).
And meat in any form is not good for humans. As
noted by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond in Living Health, we
do not have a digestive system designed to assimilate protein from
flesh: We do not have the teeth of a carnivore nor the saliva. Our
alkaline saliva is designed to digest carbohydrates from plant food,
whereas saliva of a carnivore is so acidic that it can actually
dissolve bones. Humans do not have the ability to deal with the
cholesterol or uric acid from meat. The digestive tracts of carnivores
are short, about three times the length of their torso, allowing
quick elimination of decomposing and putrefying flesh. All herbivores
have long intestines, 8 to 12 times the length of their torso, to
provide a long transit time to digest and extract the nutrients
from plant foods.
And all protein ultimately comes from plants. The
question is whether we get this protein directly from plants, or
whether we try to get it secondhand from animals who have gotten
it from plants.
6) Eating meat or protein in general
does not give you strength, energy or stamina. One of the easiest
ways to dispel the theory that meat is required for strength is
to look at the animal kingdom. It is herbivores such as cattle,
oxen, horses and elephants that have been known for strength and
endurance. What carnivore has ever had the strength or endurance
to be used as a beast of burden? The strongest animal on earth,
for its size, is the silver-back gorilla, which is three times the
size of Man, but has 30 times our strength. These gorillas "eat
nothing but fruit and leaves and can turn your car over if they
want to," the Diamonds note in Living Health. It would
be hard to argue anyone needs meat for strength. [It's like saying
if you want to improve your eyesight, eat eyeballs!]
And protein does not give us energy. Protein is
for building cells. Fuel for providing our cells with energy best
comes from the glucose and carbohydrates of fruits and vegetables.
As pointed out by John Robbins in Diet for a
New America, many studies have shown that protein consumption
is no higher during hard work and exercise than during rest. Robbins
writes, "True, we need protein to replace enzymes, rebuild
blood cells, grow hair, produce antibodies, and to fulfill certain
other specific tasks... (But) study after study has found that protein
combustion is no higher during exercise than under resting conditions.
This is why (vegetarian) Dave Scott can set world records for the
triathlon without consuming lots of protein. And why Sixto Linares
can swim 4.8 miles, cycle 185 miles, and run 52.4 miles in a single
day without meat, dairy products, eggs, or any kind of protein supplement
in his diet. The popular idea that we need extra protein if we are
working hard turns out to be simply another part of the whole mythology
of protein, the 'beef gives us strength' conditioning foisted upon
us by those who profit from our meat habit." To demonstrate
how well-founded this position is in current scientific knowledge,
Robbins quotes the National Academy of Science as saying, "There
is little evidence that muscular activity increases the need for
Protein requires more energy to digest than any
other type of food. In Your Health, Your Choice, Dr. Ted
Morter, Jr. writes: "Protein is a negative energy food. Protein
is credited with being an energy-producer. However, energy is used
to digest it, and energy is needed to neutralize the excess acid
ash it leaves. Protein uses more energy than it generates. It is
a negative energy source."
A 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association warns athletes against taking protein supplements,
noting, "Athletes need the same amount of protein foods as
non-athletes. Protein does not increase strength. Indeed, it often
takes greater energy to digest and metabolize the excess of protein."
Most athletes are not aware of this information
on protein, but there have been attempts to make this warning known.
For example, George Beinhorn wrote in the April 1975 issue of Bike
World, "Excess protein saps energy from working muscles...
It has also been discovered that too much protein is actually toxic.
In layman's terms, it is poisonous... Protein has enjoyed a wonderful
reputation among athletes. Phrases like 'protein power,' 'protein
for energy,' 'protein pills for the training athlete'... are all
false and misleading."
Robbins gives additional evidence for this claim
in Realities for the 90's by naming some of the world's greatest
athletes, all holders of world records in their field, who happen
to be vegetarians: Dave Scott, six-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon
(and the only man to win it more than twice); Sixto Linares, world
record holder in the 24-hour triathlon; Paavo Nurmi, 20 world records
and nine Olympic medals in distance running; Robert Sweetgall, world's
premier ultra-distance walker; Murray Rose, world records in the
400 and 1500-meter freestyle; Estelle Gray and Cheryl Marek, world
record in cross-country tandem cycling; Henry Aaron, all-time major
league home run champion; Stan Price, world record holder in the
bench press; Andreas Cahling, Mr. International body building champion;
Roy Hilligan, Mr. America body building champion; Ridgely Abele,
eight national championships in karate; and Dan Millman, world champion
gymnast... all vegetarians.
That's a list that would surprise the average American,
based on what we have been taught to believe about protein and meat.
In summary, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that practically everything we have been told about protein is wrong.
We don't need as much protein as we have been taught and consuming
too much protein is hazardous to our health. We don't need to eat
"complete protein." Our body needs protein from uncooked
foods, because the building blocks for our living cells need to
be in a form our body can utilize. Cooked protein contains mutagens
that are hazardous to our health, and some nutritional experts say
cooked protein is impossible or very difficult to digest. Cooked
meat is not a good source of protein. And protein has nothing to
do with strength, energy or stamina.
But protein is important. And our best source of
protein is from the same raw fruits and vegetables that provide
all the other nutrients vitamins, minerals, enzymes and carbohydrates
we need. The best way to get all these nutrients, including
protein, is to eat a well-balanced variety of fresh, raw fruits
and vegetables. The percentage of calories made up by protein in
most fruits and vegetables is equal to or surpasses that of human
breast milk, which is designed to meet human protein needs at our
time of fastest growth. So don't let anybody tell you that you can't
get enough protein from fruits and vegetables.
"The news isn't that fruits
and vegetables are good for you. It's that they are so good for
you they could save your life."
David Bjerklie, TIME Magazine, October 20, 2003
or Fiction: "High protein diets are great for losing weight"
to list of Articles