9nines

Do you know what toxins and how long it takes? No, sorry. I have read many studies and reports stating it is a very usntable oil and breaks-down quickly (and the good brands, Spectrum etc. are shipped cold, for that reason.)

What game? I do /played on online games that I had played and get answers like 59 days, 23 hours and 15 minutes played.

Right now, yes. I am trying to cut a little body fat (as I said - this whole debate stemmed from my advice on how to lose), so I am maintaining a calorie deficit. When I am not doing this, I maintain at around 2000 calories a day. Actually, I eat 1700 calories about 5 days a week and then another 2 days I bump it up to around 2100 calories. This keeps my metabolism from dropping. Trust me, I am not currently working out that hard. I lift heavy.. about 3 days a week and I do a little cardio sprinkled in (maybe an additional 60 minutes a week). I sit on my butt all day at work. ~ Adrienne You seem to analyze your diet, maybe you can help me. Something that would help me very much: how does one determine his caloric needs? My hunger is satisfied at around 2200 to 2400 calories a day but I make myself eat more to get an extra 300-700 calories a day. I have body fat (I have not had it tested in a while but my guess is my body fat percentage is 12 to 14% ), so I am wondering if I really need to add the extra calories (again I do not eat the extra to satisfy hunger; it is merely to add more calories thinking my activity level needs it.) I am really wondering now because I have had good muscle growth the last two months, as I have increased the intensity of my weigh lifting but my total weight has not change much. Shirts etc. fit tighter, I can tell my muscles are larger but I only weight about 1 to 2 pounds more than I did two months ago and my body fat does not seem to have change (although I guess it had to go down, if I maintain weight with muscle growth.) Is it just experimenting, or are there any good methods to determine your optimal caloric needs?

http://www.thln.org/ I want to share this with other people in Texas. Texas Humane Legislation Network. It is a non-profit grass roots organization (since 1975) that advocates legislation to protect animals in Texas. I attended a presentation Saturday about it. They are looking for people that will be part (anything you can do is valued by them) of the network. Bills can come before the Texas House or Senate with just a 24 hours warning. When that happens, they send our email blasts asking you to contact your representative or senator to advocate voting "for" or "against" a particular bill. It seems like a valuable organization.

You mean humans. Maybe we should look to our cousins for moral guidance Below is a passage from the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, written by Drs. Sagan and Druyan, about an experiment performed on macaque monkeys. "In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others. "If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves - suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others-our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others - even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques - who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson - seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm. "If the circumstances were reversed, and captive humans were offered the same deal by macaque scientists, would we do as well? (Especially when there is an authority figure urging us to administer the electric shocks, we humans are disturbingly willing to cause pain - and for a reward much more paltry than food is for a starving macaque [cf. Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Overview].) In human history there are a precious few whose memory we revere because they knowingly sacrificed themselves for others. For each of them, there are multitudes who did nothing." Discussing the macaque monkeys who chose to starve rather than inflict pain on another, Drs. Sagan and Druyan conclude, "Might we have a more optimistic view of the human future if we were sure our ethics were up to their standards?"

I know it has less sulfur. It is probably less acidic, since beans, as whole food are alkaline (meats and diary are acidic) but I think all proteins are acidic to some degree.

Are you eating 1700 calories daily? Your website states you weigh 135 pounds, as I recall. A kilogram equals 2.2 pounds. So 1.7 grams per kilograms would be .77 (1.7 divided by 2.2) grams per pound. For 135 pounds that would be around 105 grams of protein. 4 calories per gram would mean 420 calories from protein. If that is 25% of your total calories that would mean that your total calories are1680. Based on your physique. you must entertain hardcore workouts. Can you really maintain energy and your physique at 1700 calories?

I can do chin-ups - no where near what you can do - but I can only do 7 pull ups (wide grip - palms down.) My lats are in poor shape.

Fake fur even bothers me because it is implying that the person wants to flaunt a dead animal around. I would likely not hold back, if someone sat by me on a bus, etc. and was wearing fur. I really would have a hard time not looking at the person and saying, " does it make you proud that you have a dead animal's remain wrapped around you.

I quite over a year ago, and thinking back I still can not believe it. I read about the acid level and insulin affect and quit, in one day. I still missed it, with certain foods, until a few months ago, when I found a good substitute - mineral water. The carbonated fizz of mineral water completely made me forget sodas. So that might be worth a try. Now you might want to not go overboard. Since mineral water is very alkaline, I am concerned that too much with a meal might dilute my stomach acid (humans, being closer to herbivores have weak acid - hehe) retarding my foods digestion.

First, thanks for that study, I enjoyed it and learned many things. Sorry to sound arrogant but I found your study actually supports my postion (if eating enough calories, for fuel need, a 10% of calories as protein meets total protein needs.) . (Note: the higher end of the range you cited was shown for more cardiovascular leaning exercisers, versus body builders - For example, see Figure 1, of that study.) Highlights, from your article, that are in agreement with my position: 1) The study states, "Although strength athletes can increase muscle growth with supplemental protein, this effect seems to attain a plateau at protein intakes (1.4 g/kg) far below intakes typical of experienced bodybuilders (Fig. 8 [26])." It does add that creatine might increase that plateau but that is opinion not study findings. So your study is indicating the same my study showed. 1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight helps muscle gain but above that is marginal. My study showed .8 grams to 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, so its upper range is above your study's. The 1.4 grams per kilograms equates to .65 grams per pound. My 10% protein and 3000 calories intake, gives me at least 75 grams of protein (and on workout days I get 110, as my calories are 50% more), which is close (workout days exceeds) what your study requirement would be. So a 10 to 12% protein, as total calories, and meeting your energy needs (total calories consume) will keep you in the range of both studies. 2) The report emphasizes carbohydrate intake for fuel. I am in total agreement with that. That is one of my arguments against increasing protein intake to the 20 to 30% range because to do that you are likely cutting back carbohydrates by the same amount caloric amount and robbing yourself of that more efficient fuel. It reads: "Carbohydrate availability to exercising muscle is critical for intense muscle contraction, as it is a more efficient fuel (produces more adenosine triphosphate per unit of oxygen) than both fat and protein. In combination with the fact that the total carbohydrate stores in the body can be depleted in a single exercise bout, this makes carbohydrate the single most important exercise fuel. As a result, carbohydrate has been studied to a much greater extent than either protein or fat. However, inadequate carbohydrate for muscle contraction is also critical because its availability is inversely related to the rate of exercise protein catabolism (Fig. 2 [17]). Therefore, daily carbohydrate intake is of great significance for physically active individuals. Moreover, physically active individuals need to be much less concerned about excess dietary carbohydrate intake resulting in surplus body fat storage (and associated adverse health effects) compared to their sedentary counterparts because this substrate is used to replenish carbohydrates stores depleted by exercise training/competition sessions. In fact, rather than over-consuming carbohydrate, athletes typically have great difficulty replenishing carbohydrate stores following exercise." 3) As added commentary to 2) the article states: Fig. 2. Nitrogen excretion increases with prolonged, moderately intense exercise and especially so when carbohydrate stores are low. (Adapted from [17].) That is in agreement with my position on carbohydrates. If you cut them below your fuel needs, your body is going to cannibalize its own muscle, after it depletes its carbohydrate stores. This hits on my idea that high protein intake might actually be detrimental to muscle development. What I project: You work out harder, you consume recent dietary carbohydrates then deplete your body's carbohydrate stores and then go into a mini ketosis burning your muscle for fuel. Some added interesting points from the study you posted: A) On overall energy needs, it states that body builders have the same requirements as the ones prescribed for sedentary people. See its Figure 1. It had weightlifters (I assume this means lighter weights, more repetitions) at 40% more, cross country skiers at almost double, From that trend, I assume it is stating that higher cardiovascular exercise demands more food intake than anaerobic ones (body building.) B) The article states, Exercise Intensity, Duration and Type Increasing exercise intensity and duration, at least with aerobic (endurance) exercise, causes increased use of protein, presumably as an auxiliary fuel [18–21]. Based primarily on nitrogen balance experiments, this results in an increased daily protein need of about 50% to 75% (1.2–1.4 vs. 0.8 g/kg) when compared to inactive individuals I am in agreement with this. That is why high heart rate cardiovascular exercise is detrimental to muscle gain - runners, etc. are burning muscle. So body builders should watch their heart rates, when doing cardiovascular exercise and keep them fairly low (120-130 range), in comparison to runners hitting 150+. This might be concern for body builders engaging in HIT exercise.

I would imagine the infant, growing at its rate, would need more protein per body mass than an adult body building. So I agree with your assessment but you miss my point about percentage. From your post, you agree the baby is getting by with 7% protein, yet you advocated 20% to 30%, in cases where I would imagine the protein need would be less - body building where the adult is growing but no where near the rate of the infant. My main point was the percentage of calories as protein not the isolated amount of protein. If you need more protein, you probably need more fuel (protein is the third used macronutrient for fuel - the body will first use carbohydrates, then fat then protein, as its fuel - Diets like Atkins reverse this by causing ketosis - which also leads to the body eating own muscle more efficiently than it does in a normal state - just a guess but some body builders may be doing this to themselves from their high protein intakes), so just eat more and increase your grams of protein, as you increase calories, versus increasing the percentage of calories as protein, is my point. For example, if I usually get 10% of my diet as protein and get around 75 grams on a 3000 calorie diet, I can increase my protein intake by 50% by eating 50% more. On my heavy workout days, I probably do that (eat 4500 calories), as I eat about 50% more food. My protein intake then automatically jumps to around 110 grams. Again, my arguement was against the percentage (% of total calories as protein) not the isolated measurement of protein (intake of grams of protein.) Sorry, if I was not clear on that, earlier.

Based on your table, my protein requirement [(155 pounds/176 pounds) * 63 ] would be 55 grams. Take the RDA safety buffer out so 67% of that would give me a 37 grams requirement. I would never eat under that. I eat 2700 to 3000 calories a day. My diet is about 10% protein. So my range is naturally going to be 67 to 75 grams, on average. About three days a week, I eat soy yogurt, peanut butter, fruit and hemp protein shakes (again I admit the dogma is hard to break - I also love the taste of those shakes and they are a convenient way to get calories - I load with simple carbohydrates before weight lifting and end recovery with the shake and I like the quick dense calories it provides.) for another 25 to 30 grams, so my range is bumped on average another 12 grams a day but I would not considered that the same level of supplements I see advocated. It does help my peace of mind, in case I am wrong (I am opened minded and I want to know - so again please share athlete studies - were cause and affect are shown such as in the one I posted)) but it does not present the dangers that I feel are present in the high protein range (the 20 to 30% range.) In other words, some days of a 50% (10% increased to 15% total calories as protein) to me are prudent, as safety in case I am wrong but a 100% to 300% (10 to 20 or 30) would scare me (cancer, kidney problems, calcium etching due to the high acid)) and as I wrote before, hurt the vegan stereotype by implying the vegan diet can not supply enough protein on its own (no protein supplementing.)

Actually by the admission of the setting organization that is wrong. The chief reason for setting RDAs is to guard against those diseases, in the majority of people. They are requirements for average (not chronically sick people) people to avoid malnutrition diseases. Also, most RDA are almost doubled for safety; they are not bare minimums. I can not find a link now but the RDA setting organizations even states that the methodology I described above is what they do. I goggled it quick and found this dietician site to state: http://www.dietitian.com/rda.html Summary: The Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) were established to cover the nutritional needs of all normal, healthy persons living in the United States. Canada and some foreign countries each have their own RDAs. Canada has a Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI). The Food and Nutrition Board of National Academy of Sciences set the values for the RDA's based on human and animal research. They usually meet every five years to review current research on nutrients. A Recommended Dietary Allowance is established for protein, vitamin A, D, E, K and B6, B12, C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folacin, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, iodine and selenium. The recommended amount is set to cover 98% of all normal healthy persons in the United States. It does not cover the nutritional needs of people with illness or chronic disease. There is a margin of safety built into the RDAs. The average, healthy person can consume at least 67% of their RDA and still be adequately nourished.

Those are good points; cell repair and growth are important. In that regard, let's look at a case that I think would be more special than the athlete one: the human infant. A normal human infant doubles its mass in six months. Now look at an infant's prescribed food, human milk. Human milk has less than 7% of its calories as protein. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c201X.html 1 cup has 172 calories and 3 grams of protein (3X4)/172 < 7%. How do infants double their mass, which includes much cell growth and repair (the bones, organs, skin - everything is doubling in six months) on 7% of its calories being protein, while an adult athlete needs 20 to 30%? Maybe my view is wrong, but I just do not see how the physical stress of weight lifting is going to make a an adult body builder's body have more cell repair than an infant, doubling all its mass, has. By your asterisks on general, I assume you mean it is not to be questioned. This is what I meant by my earlier comment that truth is truth - it is not democratic ( a lot of people believing something does not mean it is true - it is either is or is not on its own facts - I desire to know those facts.) Many times conventional wisdom is correct. Maybe this is one of them and you are completely right and I am wrong. If that is the case, I would like to know. So, please share any studies that show that athlete needs 20 to 30% protein intake. Again, I would be very interested in study them because I want to gain the knowledge. Note: Do not take my arguments personally. You are confident in your position, so I am questioning you because I want to learn.

Actually, my memory failed me, in my earlier post. I re-read the study yesterday and it states in the preface that it is not based on nitrogen measurements, as that is an indirect measurement. The study is simply based on whether weightlifters gained muscle mass or not and it showed they do gain muscle mass with much less protein requirement than is proverbially opined. Added note: The study hits on what you wrote. More protein is needed for initial body builders because they are gaining more rapid mass than a long-time weight lifter who experiences less gain as his muscle are already well developed. Back on the protein requirements: from the studies, for advanced body builders the protein needs where found at 1.05grams per kilogram of body weight. That is about .48 grams per pound of body weight. That would put an advanced body builder weighing 180 pounds at an around 90 grams of daily protein requirement. A concluding study put the range at .8 to 1.5 grams per kilogram of body weigh (.36 grams to .68 grams per pound of body weight.) Even the upper end is far less than the 20 to 30% of calories from protein that is so prevalent, in the body building community. Here is the paper (collection of studies): http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2003issue4/vj2003issue4weight.htm Now this is important for two main reasons: First health: Of the three macronutrients, protein is used least and less efficiently by the body for energy (carbohydrates first, fats second and protein last) so you will have less overall energy from a high protein diet as your body utilizes more energy (than it would for carbohydrate and fat conversion) to convert the protein to energy. Also, the acid level of protein causes our bodies to work hard to bring the acid level down, if protein is digested in high amounts. Also, the kidneys get a large work-out from filtering the high protein. One of the first things a doctor will do if you have kidney problems or lose a kidney is advice restricting your protein intake. Second: Representing vegans Statistically (less than 1%), you and I do not exist. Even diary and egg vegetarians (2 to 3%) are so rare that many people will never know one. For most people that know you, you are probably the only vegan they know; so by lack of number, you represent vegans. You are either going to reinforce or help break the vegan stereotypes (pale, sickly, weak - all because of low protein.) Having an athletic and muscular body, it will be easy to help break the stereotype but I think that if you then tell the person, "I have to eat all kinds of protein supplements to get enough protein", you will still likely reinforce the vegan myths. People will likely take from that situation: vegans can get enough protein but they have to eat all kinds of cumbersome supplements and pay close attention to their diets - no thanks I won't go to that trouble. Instead explore protein requirements. That way you can sincerely say, "I get enough protein from my diet - no special care or analyzing is needed." That situation is more likely going to help break the vegan myth. And it would be easy for each of you to prove it to yourself - just try it and see. I am sure to get over the 10% protein intake, many here take supplements (protein shakes, bars etc.) so cutting back your protein intake would be easy. For example, instead of a protein bar with 40%+ of its 300 calories from protein, eat two bananas (about 8% protein) for the same calories. Se how easy it would be to try. So, try it for a few weeks and see if anything in the muscle mass and exercise area changes. From my own experiences (I analyze my diet and my protein intake ranges from 8 to 12% daily and I have no problem developing muscle mass), I know you will not have trouble. Bigwii is another example here. He has many pictures posted here and one can see he has no trouble developing muscle mass and based on his diet posts, his protein intake ranges from 8 (if only fruit) to 12% (if more nuts.) So why not try and see what happens too? I know it is hard to break proverbial wisdom. I catch myself thinking about protein(do I need more?) too. The protein-is-king idea is engrained into our society but truth is truth and is not democratic (just because a lot of people think something does not make it so.)

I posted a study here a months or so ago. It showed based on nitrogen measurement that even competitive body builders do not need the protein amounts you are advocating. It should be here somewhere. I have to go. I will check for it tomorrow.

Sorry to make a rebuttal and I do not want to debate it here (and you sounded the same) but I responded because you imply his diet as on par with Dr. Atkins, which it is not. Atkins causes starvation symptoms (ketosis) in the body and water loss and increases diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc. while Dr. McDougall's diet has helped many people cure those diseases to conditions where they no longer had to take drugs to treat them. Again, Atkins has the opposite track record when it comes to those diseases. Note: I do not follow his diet because I eat more fat and fruit than he would recommend but I never had a weight problem (in fact many days, I have to hunt more calories to eat -and those extra choices are usually dense calorie food -peanut butter etc.) is the main reason I do not follow it.

Actually it is not low in protein. Protein estimate: The oatmeal would have had about 8 grams. SoyMilk " 5 grams Banana " 2 grams Banana/date/chocolate balls " 5 Avocado " 5 Tofu+soybean+spinach salad " 15 Halva "4 Builder Bar " 20 (The above are low estimates.) That would be 64 grams of protein. 4 calories per gram. So 256 calories were protein. That is 256/1650, or 15.5% of your diet is protein. Again, I made low estimates; it is probably closer to 20%. That is not a low protein diet. A no actvie person only needs about 7%. Active body builder 15 to 20%. If you need more protein (not higher percentage of your diet being protein) then you need more food. Just eat the same but more. .

Dr. McDougall (promoets a high starch vegan diet) actually centers his diet around starches (potatoes, rice etc.) and recommends against any added fat and keeping fat intake below 20% of your total calories (studies showing fat is easily stored as fat, whereas the body does not store carbohydrates as well and normally raise metabolism and burns them instead.) His program has a very effective and stable weight loss record. Again there are many studies showing starches lead to increased metabolisms (body does not store carbohydrates as it digest them as well as it does fat, so instead it just burns them - i.e. increased metabolism.) His newsletter has highlighted many of those studies. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ Here is a link to message board about his diet: http://www.vegsource.com/mcdougall/ Newsletter archive: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/articleindex.htm Here is one article on this subject: High Carbohydrate* Diet Causes Effortless Weight Loss Effects of an Ad Libitum (without restriction on amount) Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight, Body Composition, and Fat Distribution in Older Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial by Nicholas P. Hays in the January 26, 2004 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine found when older men and women consumed as much as they wanted of high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods they lost weight without “dieting.” Over 12-weeks, participants on the recommended diet lost about 7 pounds without cutting calories and without exercising – and almost 11 pounds with 45 minutes of stationary bike-riding, four times weekly. The control group lost no weight. The experimental diet was 63% carbohydrate and 18% fat – the McDougall diet is even more effective because it is 80% carbohydrate and 7% fat. This article is an excellent review of the principles discussed in my book, the McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, first published in 1994 (just to point out, not much has happened in 10 years for better nutrition). The authors provide many recent scientific references establishing why a high carbohydrate diet effortlessly and effectively results in weight loss without hunger in overweight people, and provides a lifetime of trim body weight maintenance. The scientific explanations for why a diet of starches, vegetables and fruits is the real solution for obesity in the Western world are found in this article. These are the three main principles: 1) High carbohydrate foods are very low in calorie density – very bulky, so they fill the stomach with fewer calories than the Western (American) diet. 2) The fat you eat is the fat you wear – fat is effortlessly stored – excess carbohydrates are not turned into fat under normal living conditions – excess carbohydrate is simply burned off. 3) Carbohydrates satisfy your hunger drive – fats leave you unsatisfied and looking for food (carbohydrate). You act like an “Obsessive Compulsive Overeater” – like you have some kind of emotional-mental disorder, and all you really are is hungry for carbohydrates. This article would be well worth a trip to your local library (hospital, university, or community) for a copy to help you explain to family and friends why they are on the wrong track. This article may also be purchased for $12 (US) over the Internet at: http://archinte.ama-assn.org. Nicholas P. Hays; Raymond D. Starling; Xiaolan Liu; Dennis H. Sullivan; Todd A. Trappe; James D. Fluckey; William J. Evans. Effects of an Ad Libitum Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight, Body Composition, and Fat Distribution in Older Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:210-217. * Please understand that when I write about carbohydrates I mean starches, vegetables, and fruits – not donuts, cookies, cake, potato chips, and French fries.

I do not miss any food but what I do miss, and I am surprised I am the only to mention it (could I really be the only one that misses this), is the convenience offered by restaurants. What a luxury it must be to be able to order carefree at a fast-food or sit-down restaurant. Although, on the other hand that missed convenience allows good things: not exposed to (1) wasting money on restaurant food and (2) eating the unhealthful food of restaurants.

Did you find any? Does the place that made it still have them? I would like something athletic with "Vegan" on it. I got one of the Polos, that SeaSiren recommended, and the medium fits great.

First, sorry if this offends any women. Second, before today, I admit I knew nothing about her before visiting her website. My first thought: Based on: (1) some aspects of her website indicating an aggressive theme (her "bully" shirt, fighter pose, strong arm crossing, etc.) and (2) bodybuilding likely being viewed as a predominantly "male" sport by society, I think she is trying to cultivate an aggressive ("male") persona and I think she added that vegetarian bashing, in her FAQ, as a way to promote that she is a big, tough "guy." Also, please do not read into this that I feel bodybuilding is a male sport; I do not. I just think that that is the general impression of society and based on what I saw on her website, I think she feels that way and tries hard to make herself be "macho" to prove that she belongs. In summary, she is an act.

This is a site (good logical arguements etc.), authored by someone at my vegan Meetup: http://ar.vegnews.org/

USDA will significantly curtail testing. This will lessen the risk that mad cows are discovered; the problem (bad press - possible slump in sales) is solved. http://www.localnewsleader.com/kindred/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=157828 Government to Scale Back Mad Cow Testing Staff and agencies 14 March, 2006 By LIBBY QUAID, 2 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Despite the confirmation of a third case of mad cow disease, the government intends to scale back testing for the brain-wasting disorder blamed for the deaths of more than 150 people in Europe. The testing program detected an infected cow in Alabama last week, and further analysis confirmed Monday that the animal had mad cow disease. "As we approach the conclusion of our enhanced surveillance program, let me offer a few thoughts," Clifford said, explaining that the U.S. will follow international standards for testing. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns pointed out testing is not a food safety measure. Rather, it‘s a way to find out the prevalence of the disease. Higher testing levels were intended to be temporary when they were announced two years ago. "This would be a tenth of a percent of all animals slaughtered," Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, said Tuesday. "This starts to be so small that in our opinion, it approaches a policy of don‘t look, don‘t find." "USDA ought to continue a sound surveillance testing program to demonstrate that U.S. beef is indeed safe and that anti- BSE safeguards are, in fact, working," said Harkin, senior Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee. "It‘s not cost-effective; it‘s not necessary," Weber said. "The consumers we‘ve done focus groups with are comfortable that this is a very rare disease and we‘ve got safeguards in place." "All those things add up to safety," he said. Tests are done on brain tissue from cows, so animals must be killed before they can be tested. There is no test for the disease in a live animal. Since June 2004, the department has tested 652,697 cows for the disease. The nation has about 95 million cattle. The medical name for mad cow disease is bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In humans, eating meat contaminated with BSE is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a rare and deadly nerve disease. An outbreak in the United Kingdom killed more than 180,000 cows and was blamed for more than 150 human deaths. It began in 1986 and spread throughout Europe, peaking in 1993. The first American case appeared 10 years later in Washington state in a Canadian-born cow. The disease was found again last June in a Texas cow.