Protein requirement from the 19th Century to today 
Period   Protein RDA (g) 
19th Century  118g 
1974   56g 
1993   30g 

If you suffer from joint pains, lower back pain, cervical or arthritic pains, perhaps in the small joints of the hands, try to change your diet for 1 month, progressively cutting down your protein intake to 30g per day (to include the proteins contained in vegetables). In fact, vegetables too supply light proteins and, more importantly, without dangerous side effects for the body, compared to animal-derived proteins. 
Your main sources of nourishment, accounting for 75-80% of daily intake, should be: vegetables (if possible fresh) and fruit. The latter to be preferably taken in isolation, i.e. far from mealtimes, perhaps as small mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks.     

Recommendations for young mothers 
A recommendation for young mums: go easy with your children as regards food choices, especially not forcing them to swallow down animal-derived items, and if they do not like them, leave it for them to choose. Be surprised at how much wisdom can be found in the “young recruits” if you would only learn to respect their tastes and gastronomic instincts.  
This certainly does not mean that if a child asks his mum for a jar of Nutella that she would have to provide it at every turn - gratuitous calories and for the most part toxic - but simply that if your children are naturally vegetarian, it would be wiser to let them eat whatever rather swells up their health! 
Believe me, all of this is of no little account, especially in an age when to survive ecologically is only possible if all of us decide to live in a manner that is a little more... orthomolecular. 
Due elucidations made, it is important now to contrast some incontrovertible scientific evidence (McDougall, 1983) that confirms the high nuritional significance of vegetable proteins, that are better assimilated and without collateral effects compared to animal protein, and that provide around 2.5Kcal per gram as against the 4Kcal for meats. 
 Also worth considering is that animal meat, at the time of consumption, is completely deprived of fiber,- a rather serious deficiency.  
Fiber, even if without any energetic or nutritional value, forms mass in the large intestine, stimulating peristalsis, to be then evacuated without having been eliminated. A low proportion of dietary fiber has long been known to be statistically correlatable to the onset of intestinal carcinoma.  

Meat  toxins  kill  
The undeniable link between diets with a low fiber content and colonic tumors, correlatable to prolonged periods of digestive system “gridlock” caused by the fiber shortage, and the consequent build-up of toxins, cancerogenic substances in the viscera, provoke profound reflections: 
Following a meat-based meal the degradation toxins deriving from the catabolism of the animal proteins remain in circulation for at least 142 hours, i.e. a week. 
This should not amaze us so much if we take into account that our digestive system, similarly to that of the truly vegetarian animals, is about 12 meters longer than that of the classic carnivores.  
The biochemical (putrescine, cadaverine, indole, methylindol, ammonium, etc.) and vibrational information, contained in decomposing tissues, is information about death that reaches our DNA, electrically interfering negatively with its capacity to replicate and therefore easily exposing us to aberrations in the biosynthesis of the structural proteins destined for the formation of hormones, enzymes, organ tissues, etc.  
To have a clearer idea of this death information carried by the offal of these poor animals, that many still partake of, it is enough to shift our attention to the rearing procedures or, we would have to say, forced reclusion, employed by today's zootechnical industry. The food producers are “playing” with the life and health of the population. The “mad cow” dossier is probably just the tip of the iceberg.      
  
“Fast  Food”  
Have you ever asked yourself what you are introducing into your body when you eat, especially during those workday lunch breaks? Where do the steaks, chicken breasts and hamburgers in the fast food outlets actually come from?  
Did you know that these animals that nourish us with their parts are forced to spend 4-5 months, 24 hours a day, ingesting corn, soya, fishmeal, slaughter-house scraps of other animal species, vitamin additives, mega-doses of estrogenic hormones (controlled release of diethylstilbestrol, applied via bandages to the depilated ears) and antibiotics, all in huge quantities? 
Did you know that their abdomens accumulate a sort of fatty cushion, removed after slaughter, valuable because of its low cost and the fact that it can be well combined (up to 30%) with the lean meat of steers raised in the natural state, to obtain basically a lot of final hybrid product, but very economically, and identifiable in hamburger meat?  
And this is not the whole story, because it leads to the blending of meats from different animals and often to combining pork fat with lean beef, adding toxic monosodium glutamate to enhance the flavour.  
A fine mechanism, one has to say, and one hand looks after the other because, if someone eats a beef steak it automatically creates the proposal of excess fat, that will no doubt be utilized to prepare inviting, “ever-red”. Even in the 24 hours before slaughtering, the condemned steers and pigs begin to cry because they already seem to sense the imminent and unjust fate that awaits them.  
They often refuse to be loaded onto the trains or trucks and when they are then conveyed to their gallows, they release enormous amounts of adrenalin (the “death” hormone) that will subsequently be present in that fateful steaming steak served to our table.... 
With poultry, things are actually better! 
These animals are an excellent investment for food producers. They can convert corn feed into meat with 5 times greater efficiency than is the case with cattle or swine. To achieve this, the poultry farmers have had to overcome some technical problems consisting in the need to administer, for precautionary purposes, huge doses of antibiotics to head off possible epidemics that could see their investment in chicken legs run off. It matters little if the poor consumers have to gratuitously put up with their daily dose of second-hand (or, more cynically, second-leg) cephalosporin.  
Most of these animals never see the light of day and are only exposed to artificial light, for 22 hours a day.  
The zootechnical breeders work things in such a way that these chicks never stop feeding and administer large doses of arsenic salts to stimulate growth, to the extent that they reach mature poultry status in just 47 days, which would otherwise have taken at least 3 months. All this effort is rewarded with...”a fine death”, fast and probably painless, since the most fortunate chickens, i.e. from the better-known poultry concerns, are killed, plucked, eviscerated, refrigerated below zero degrees centigrade and packaged  in the record time of a maximum 1.5 seconds.  
Well done! Absolutely nothing like the mad cow situation.  
Unfortunately, in such a brief lapse of time, no human being is able to die “properly”. Hence, when these animals are wrapped up and labelled, they are still alive (!!!), in spite of having been refrigerated in order to avoid movements within the packaging in the state of rigor mortis.  
At this point, the question: “What good is animal protection?” spontaneously arises, if it lets such crimes, committed against these poor defenceless beings, remain unpunished. 
What kind of information will be able to avoid ever conveying such pitiful remains to within our bodies, if not that of their unjust death, even though it is because of us, since we are all responsible for this state of affairs.  
A needed cold shower for our Western, post-war culture that has always considered meat and dairy products as a status symbol of wellbeing.  

Health  means  being  alkaline 
Health is one of life's collateral effects. It is certainly not an option that we can enjoy simply by being in the world; rather, we have to conquer it for ourselves, fighting tooth and nail, respecting a series of “rules” that we will find on and between the lines in this article.  
To make it to the year 2000 (in good health), we have to basically pay attention to: 
1) what we drink 
2) what we eat 
3) what we breathe 
4) what we think 
and not necessarily in that order! 
Excessive dietary protein is the source of considerable stress for the human being in that it acidifies the organism too much, synthesizing strong acids (sulphuric, nitric and phosphoric acids) that should be neutralized and eliminated. 
The neutralization processes call for ample supplies of sodium and calcium that make up the so-called “alkaline reserve” (AR). It is vitally important that this AR be maintained, through a diet principally composed of fruit and vegetables.  

A diet that is too rich in protein, i.e. that exceeds a total daily intake of 30g (what a small hamburger contains), will therefore lead to excessive acidification that will have to be buffered by initially withdrawing sodium from the AR.  
Once the stores of sodium are exhausted, the body turns to another mineral that is priceless and indespensable for its metabolism, calcium. This is retrieved from the skeleton, demineralizing the bone and predisposing the onset of osteoporosis and worsening its course in the elderly.  
In short, all the body's various buffer systems come into play and as soon as the protein content in the diet increases, one can detect cellular congestion and an intense intestinal putrefaction (due to the prolonged intestinal sojourn required for the digestion of meat, milk and its derivatives).  
This encourages the onset of chronic degenerative disorders and the production of oxalic acid responsible, like uric acid, for the onset of rheumatism and joint pains.  

Chronological scheme for the toxicity  
in Man of excess protein 
Excess dietary protein 
Acidification of the organism 
Sodium supplies diminish 
Intraosseous calcium diminishes 
Cellular congestion 
Immune system impairment 
Chronic and degenerative disorders 

Proteins and all the other nutrients necessary for our daily needs can equally be supplied from fruit and vegetables, with minimal additions of meat, poultry or fish. Eating less animal protein, the body will not be constrained to neutralize excessive quantities of acids. The introduction of greater amounts of fruit and vegetables provides for fast and efficacious replenishment of the alkaline reserve, thereby safeguarding the immune system. 
With these simple precautions, sodium will be able to be reintegrated into cells and calcium will not be depleted from the bones (which will not have to be involved in buffering, sacrificing this noble structural element for detoxifying purposes), restoring the health of the cell and the individual and impeding the onset of chronic and degenerative diseases.  

THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  CALCIUM AND  OSTEOPOROSIS 
Ironically, lower than normal calcium levels are only rarely to be found in osteoporosis. The body is programmed to maintain its calcemia levels between 9 and 10mg/dl as a priority function, from the moment that the calcium ion is indespensable for muscular activity, blood coaguation and many other vital tasks.  
Osteoporosis is also found with normal calcium levels. Thus: 
a) the blood calcium level is not the determining factor in the onset of osteoporosis; 
b) circulating blood calcium is not utilizable for the prevention of osteoporosis. 
Starting from the orthomolecular premise that the body never makes mistakes, it is possible to conclude that the calcium consumed through dairy products is not utilizable by the body. If it were in fact the case, on the other hand, there would no longer be the condition of calcium deficiency. The quality of the calcium present in the serum cannot be suitable for replenishing the bone matrix but adequate, however, for pursuing other ends, such as in blood coagulation. 
Even though the organism is unable to use the dairy-derived calcium, contrary to what is proclaimed in some of that sector's advertising slogans that astound with their false and tendentious statements, a shortage of dietary calcium is not the cause of osteoporosis. 
It might be useful to quote McDougall on this: 
“Vegetables contain sufficient amounts of calcium to satisfy both the needs of adults and of those still growing. Currently, calcium deficiency due to an insufficient food supply is nosocologically unheard of, even though most people do not drink milk after weaning”. 
So, if calcium is not lacking in the daily diet, it becomes obvious that other factors are involved in the onset of osteoporosis: too much protein, or foods that form an excess of acidic ash that overloads the natural capabilities to neutralize and dispose of the acids.  
Where there is a sodium shortage, the body will be constrained to withdraw calcium from the bones in order to buffer the excessive acidity. The slogan: “Milk is the best source of calcium” must be shattered; indeed, further studies demonstrate that it is not necessarily true for adults.The incidence of osteoporosis is higher in populations that consume ample quantities of milk compared to those where milk is not routinely present at every meal.  
Calcium deriving from cheese and other dairy products can enter the blood circulation, normalizing the biochemical reading of the serum, but without providing the quality of calcium useful both for the buffering effect and for supplying the bones. 
On the other hand, it is not possible to provide enough calcium and other substances to prevent osteoporosis if the protein consumption is too high.  
Dairy products, green-leaf vegetables, calcium-based supplements and strongly mineralized water will not be able to provide usable calcium, nor counterbalance the devastating effects of excessive dietary protein.  
Milk, a “taboo” from the dietetic point of view, once considered the “perfect food” and the panacea for all ills, seems to be heading towards the sunset. In fact it was back in 1965 that some colleagues at the John Hopkins Medical School discovered that many of the patients who presented with gastroduodenal and colitic disturbances could not tolerate milk, or rather, were not able to metabolize lactose, a complex sugar precisely found in the white nectar. The mucosa of the small intestine is unable to absorb the large lactose molecules and therefore has to transform them into monosaccharides, or simple sugars, glucose and galactose, to then break them down and convert them into energy through the indespensable chemical action of an enzyme called lactase.  
However, this enzyme can be deficient in 75% of negroes and 20% of caucasians, and “lazy” in the majority of humanity. In practice, if individuals with a serious deficiency drink a glass of milk, eat an ice-cream, a milk-based dessert, or even have the “sacrosanct” morning cappuccino, then not being able to metabolize the lactose, they will accumulate abnormal amounts in the intestines, provoking fermentation, metabolism and flatulence.  
The consequence of this discomfort will be further bloating and edema of the intestine which, to get rid of the “unwelcome guest” (lactose), will evacuate the feces in a liquid or diarrhoeic form.  
In people generally, the capability of dealing with lactose gradually declines after the weaning period. Suffice to think that only 5% of oriental folk can tolerate this polysaccharide.  
The provision of milk is physiological in the earliest phase of an individual's life. Body weight is doubled in about 6 months, after which the mother's production of milk spontaneously declines.  
From this moment on, milk (or rather, the capacity to digest lactose) begins to be “forgotten about” by the intestinal cells, based on the biologically imperative phylogenetic law that decrees “it is the function that developes the organ”. To this we should add that if the organ, in this case the intestine, is spontaneously no longer able to adequately perform lactose absorption, this would mean that it is then time to stop giving milk and its derivatives (especially cheese) to our children or, even worse, to our elderly relations.  

Only humans  drink  milk beyond the  weaning  period 
In conclusion, if you think about it, it's like this: “we are the only species in Nature that continues to consume milk after weaning” or, we might say, “to steal” milk from other suckling mammals, something that is only possible if these are particularly available and domesticated.  
Since humankind survived for millions of years before our progenitor was able to tame and then to draw milk from the early female cattle, it is more than probable that the unrelenting natural selection process would not particularly favour the survival of individuals able to metabolize lactose even after weaning and childhood.  
At this point the question naturally arises: “if populations had needed to drink large quantities of milk for their survival, would the biology of the human species have sustained, from the reproductive point of view, precisely those individuals characterized by “lactase sufficiency” and, on the other hand, inhibited at the reproductive competition level, subjects provided with “lactase insufficiency”? 
The figures and statistics are clear on this, but even more eloquent is the answer provided by the evolutive phylogenesis of the human race that de facto, after weaning, loses the ability to utilize milk, or rather, lactose. 
The saying: “mums must drink milk to be able to make milk” must also be refuted. Does  the cow, that naturally provides much more industrial quantities of milk than other mammals, itself receive milk in its feeding? Certainly not, seeing that cattle are ruminants....and rightly chew only on grass!           

Adolfo Panfili 
Medico Chirurgo 
Specialista Medicina Ortomolecolare