The Health Thread
+9
Blackbird
rainyday
SunoftheMourning
hrblsh
KapitanScarlet
Flames
quicksilvercrescendo
seraphim
tgII
13 posters
Page 5 of 22
Page 5 of 22 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22
Re: The Health Thread
tgII Fri 18 Jun 2010, 04:20
Weight training is out, Flames, it's for Neanderthals on steroids and
men with self-control problems (really big narcissistic jerks) thanks to
Arnold; Arnold presses!!!
Bridges are the way to go and know very few body builders, or anyone
for that matter who can do them consistently. Believe it or not, doing
bridges actually strengthens the back especially the lower back.
Keep cold compresses on your back; heat intensifies the pain. The
Japanese have these nifty little stick on type large pads that are
chemically treated with some kind of mentholatum; really work well
for sores and light injuries.
Observe animals in the wild, the cheetah for instance, sudden bursts
of incredible speed and agility. Now, mark off one-hundred yards and
start sprinting, but no more than seven to ten minutes, or however
many sprints you can do with short breaks between sprinting that
one-hundred yards. Then quit, go home and take a nap like the
cheetah does, unless of course its prey isn't heisted by a pack of
hyenas.
Watch a monkey at the zoo and then imitate what a monkey is
capable of doing, unimaginable feats of strength by being able to
develop strength to completely and with great dexterity climb around
trees without falling. I know very few weight lifters that can even
come close to imitating that strength. Try it at a public park
where bars are available. A friend of mine and I bought a thick hemp
rope and tied it to a branch about 6 meters off the ground. All we do
is climb up and down that rope using ONLY arm strength. The point is
to build your strength sufficient to control your own body weight.
Weight lifters can't do that kind of strength exercise.
Personally, I am at the point now where I can go up and down that
rope minimum of eight times before serious pressure starts building
in the muscle to release. A body builder can't do that.
Now the bridge, is is by far the best strength, endurance and flexibility
exercise you could possibly do. Start by walking down a wall and if you
can't do these at first use a large rubber ball until you get use to bending
in the opposite direction you are normally used to.
Got that cold compress on your neck?
If you decide to continue lifting weights this injury is only a
precursor, there are more to come; first, get over this idea
that weight lifting is some sort of 'personal discipline' to
overcome your hangups. It's not, it is dangerous and not
normal for the human body to treat it so traumatically.
men with self-control problems (really big narcissistic jerks) thanks to
Arnold; Arnold presses!!!
Bridges are the way to go and know very few body builders, or anyone
for that matter who can do them consistently. Believe it or not, doing
bridges actually strengthens the back especially the lower back.
Keep cold compresses on your back; heat intensifies the pain. The
Japanese have these nifty little stick on type large pads that are
chemically treated with some kind of mentholatum; really work well
for sores and light injuries.
Observe animals in the wild, the cheetah for instance, sudden bursts
of incredible speed and agility. Now, mark off one-hundred yards and
start sprinting, but no more than seven to ten minutes, or however
many sprints you can do with short breaks between sprinting that
one-hundred yards. Then quit, go home and take a nap like the
cheetah does, unless of course its prey isn't heisted by a pack of
hyenas.
Watch a monkey at the zoo and then imitate what a monkey is
capable of doing, unimaginable feats of strength by being able to
develop strength to completely and with great dexterity climb around
trees without falling. I know very few weight lifters that can even
come close to imitating that strength. Try it at a public park
where bars are available. A friend of mine and I bought a thick hemp
rope and tied it to a branch about 6 meters off the ground. All we do
is climb up and down that rope using ONLY arm strength. The point is
to build your strength sufficient to control your own body weight.
Weight lifters can't do that kind of strength exercise.
Personally, I am at the point now where I can go up and down that
rope minimum of eight times before serious pressure starts building
in the muscle to release. A body builder can't do that.
Now the bridge, is is by far the best strength, endurance and flexibility
exercise you could possibly do. Start by walking down a wall and if you
can't do these at first use a large rubber ball until you get use to bending
in the opposite direction you are normally used to.
Got that cold compress on your neck?
The bridge against a wall; note: DO NOT
DO THESE UNTIL YOU LEARN THE CORRECT
MOVEMENT AND POSTURE.
If you decide to continue lifting weights this injury is only a
precursor, there are more to come; first, get over this idea
that weight lifting is some sort of 'personal discipline' to
overcome your hangups. It's not, it is dangerous and not
normal for the human body to treat it so traumatically.
tgII- Posts : 2431
Join date : 2009-11-17
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Fri 18 Jun 2010, 04:41
Sorry to hear that Flames. It sounds that because of the tension and not stretching the muscles first you pulled one or more near a nerve. Yoga might be good for you then. Flexing here and there everyday prevents and also helps keep those muscles from being pulled.
As for what happened, could a past injury have caused it also?
You'll really enjoy the professional massage I'm sure, maybe they can use some peppermint oil or something similar that cools for the pain and which work well on the nerves too, unless you don't like those oils or have sensitive skin or allergy. A good home remedy is herbal muscle relaxants in the tincture, great for the muscles and excellent for sleep.
If it is nerve damage, maybe not likely in your case, then acupuncture is great for that.
Have you ever got muscle spasms or charlie horses? It's caused by a mineral imbalance. Having the muscles go out of whack like that and then later lifting weights might cause a major pull as well.
Good luck with everything.
tgII, you are so right on. When I was growing up that's all I did were all the things you mentioned. And even if I fell or got hurt it didn't phase me and never got injured because of being an acrobat or moving like that.
p.s. Flexibility guys, absolutely that is so important.
As for what happened, could a past injury have caused it also?
You'll really enjoy the professional massage I'm sure, maybe they can use some peppermint oil or something similar that cools for the pain and which work well on the nerves too, unless you don't like those oils or have sensitive skin or allergy. A good home remedy is herbal muscle relaxants in the tincture, great for the muscles and excellent for sleep.
If it is nerve damage, maybe not likely in your case, then acupuncture is great for that.
Have you ever got muscle spasms or charlie horses? It's caused by a mineral imbalance. Having the muscles go out of whack like that and then later lifting weights might cause a major pull as well.
Good luck with everything.
tgII, you are so right on. When I was growing up that's all I did were all the things you mentioned. And even if I fell or got hurt it didn't phase me and never got injured because of being an acrobat or moving like that.
p.s. Flexibility guys, absolutely that is so important.
Last edited by seraphim on Fri 18 Jun 2010, 05:03; edited 2 times in total
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Fri 18 Jun 2010, 04:59
TG is most correct.
The heat applied using the hot shower method will not be a negative, but don't use any other form of heat until the Chiropractor says so.
And do not do any exercises, including the bridging, until the Chiropractor gives you the okay.
And TG is also most correct about lifting weights. Most weight training is designed or derived from the sports of power lifting and bodybuilding. They are not for genetically average non-athletes
And this is why the two books I recommended to you are so good. They are specifically designed to be the most conservative of instructions with a firm emphasis on proper exercise selection, technique and, most important, avoidance of short or long term injury.
It is for these reasons that I recommend these books. He wrecked himself pursuing his bodybuilding goals and is passing on the wisdom learned from his mistakes...this is the whole context of his delivery.
The genetically average, non-athlete who does not use performance enhancing drugs needs a whole different approach to redefine what using resistance is all about.
The force acting upon the body joints is tremendous with weights which is why the author's exercise selection, technique and training programs are revolutionary and outright rejected by most gym goers. His abbreviated training philosophy is also quite accurate.
By doing less, you...in the long run...will actually get more out of it...and without injury.
You trainer was correct in having you do shoulder presses while standing. As this takes load off the spine when seated. But you will find in the book I recommended how to correctly do a dumbbell shoulder press...and I have never seen anyone use this neutral arm position to do a shoulder press in any gym.
For instance I would never use the Leg Press machine unless it was made by one of potentially three manufacturers. If it isn't made in a certain style of design it should be avoided. In his books the squat and deadlift are heavily analyzed and scrutinized. Alternative methods of doing these exercises are given.
The heat applied using the hot shower method will not be a negative, but don't use any other form of heat until the Chiropractor says so.
And do not do any exercises, including the bridging, until the Chiropractor gives you the okay.
And TG is also most correct about lifting weights. Most weight training is designed or derived from the sports of power lifting and bodybuilding. They are not for genetically average non-athletes
And this is why the two books I recommended to you are so good. They are specifically designed to be the most conservative of instructions with a firm emphasis on proper exercise selection, technique and, most important, avoidance of short or long term injury.
It is for these reasons that I recommend these books. He wrecked himself pursuing his bodybuilding goals and is passing on the wisdom learned from his mistakes...this is the whole context of his delivery.
The genetically average, non-athlete who does not use performance enhancing drugs needs a whole different approach to redefine what using resistance is all about.
The force acting upon the body joints is tremendous with weights which is why the author's exercise selection, technique and training programs are revolutionary and outright rejected by most gym goers. His abbreviated training philosophy is also quite accurate.
By doing less, you...in the long run...will actually get more out of it...and without injury.
You trainer was correct in having you do shoulder presses while standing. As this takes load off the spine when seated. But you will find in the book I recommended how to correctly do a dumbbell shoulder press...and I have never seen anyone use this neutral arm position to do a shoulder press in any gym.
For instance I would never use the Leg Press machine unless it was made by one of potentially three manufacturers. If it isn't made in a certain style of design it should be avoided. In his books the squat and deadlift are heavily analyzed and scrutinized. Alternative methods of doing these exercises are given.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Fri 18 Jun 2010, 05:05
Mental stress can be just as bad on the muscles and other things just like a physical injury. Mental stress goes straight to the muscles. So you get both benefits doing yoga or something like that.As you can probably guess, I'm not a very calm and relaxed individual. All of this exercise has done wonders for my emotional release, and battle with depression, but the physical demands are becoming unreasonable at this point. I am going to take at least a week off, and find out if anything is wrong.
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Fri 18 Jun 2010, 05:19
You are so lucky quicksilvercresendo, when I first drank raw milk I got a wallop full of tryptophan and still do to this day. And I'm not worried at all about turning into more beast because I eat or drink dairy from them. LOL
When I first started out eating like that, I always wondered how a person can be a complete vegan and function. I talked to alot of people in the middle east who are big on homeopathic medicine and not eating animals. So I asked them one day how they do it and they said cows milk. So that was how they are able to make it.
Forget about this and that and what food to eat, folks have got to have some part of an animal to be healthy, there is no getting around that for now. Not just that but since we have a beast body we need beast nutrients, if a mother doesn't eat high dense nutrient food, such as animal products, the child will not be as healthy even if they may look so on the outside.
Unless we have the magical manna or spirit food maybe.....hmmmmmm.....
Kapis, oh no geez.... you will have to try the raw chocolate milk then, it's an out of body experience and one of the top three superfoods out there!
When I first started out eating like that, I always wondered how a person can be a complete vegan and function. I talked to alot of people in the middle east who are big on homeopathic medicine and not eating animals. So I asked them one day how they do it and they said cows milk. So that was how they are able to make it.
Forget about this and that and what food to eat, folks have got to have some part of an animal to be healthy, there is no getting around that for now. Not just that but since we have a beast body we need beast nutrients, if a mother doesn't eat high dense nutrient food, such as animal products, the child will not be as healthy even if they may look so on the outside.
Unless we have the magical manna or spirit food maybe.....hmmmmmm.....
Kapis, oh no geez.... you will have to try the raw chocolate milk then, it's an out of body experience and one of the top three superfoods out there!
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Fri 18 Jun 2010, 10:36
It is for this reason that I type all of my longer posts in windows notepad first and then copy them to post a reply.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Fri 25 Jun 2010, 20:35
starting at this part here from Doctor Jewel Pootrum
This is an older video but still very interesting human corporeal re-engineering, is not happening publicly just yet for a few reasons. She said that the science of human corporeal re engineering is all about the money, taking out people's organs and then charging them for a newly engineered one.
People go missing all for research, they take your organs after death and take more blood than needed for tests in the vials, when so much less is needed because the rest goes to research. All done without permission, or with some consent forms that are blurry.
While they use stem cells only, what she said is that all cells are stem cells, the most potent is the blood, and that it can regenerate the body.
Fat cells are stem cells, which begin the regenerative process, de differentiating themselves back to red blood cells to repair damaged areas.
All tissue comes from red blood cells, the mother stem cells.
Tissue not impressed with history of past events of injury or trauma are not in the stem cell clusters and why they are used because they can regenerate without the past history.
But we are not told that the the stem cell or the library is available via our consciousness.
So why is stem cell research so political. Why can the scientistis grow any of your body parts, but why no transplanting going on. The real reason why not? Because then we would learn that we can regenerate ourselves without their petri dish.
Dr. Shisima? said the japanese found out how to regenerate themselves after the radiation from the bombs. The key is the red blood cells.
There are three different sources of renewing tissues by making red blood cells, from the maternal blood, from the placenta and from the digestion of food substances. As for the last one, it is concerning of all those taking tums and eating wrong foods. Why fermented foods have always been important in older cultures.
She also says scientists back them were finding genes that carry the personality and behavior traits so they can create how their child will be like.
Here is the neat part.
The brain functinons by the command of thought. And it can create any chemical. Thoughts turn into chemicals go into the blood stream and then cells respond and then you move etc.
If there are traumatic thoughts it doesn't regenerate new tissue!!!! So if anyone in an accident etc., if they want to regain access to tissue again they have to undergo a mental, neurological, hematological cleansing and then the body can regenerate. But doctors just do surgery and it does nothing. People are made sick and diseased and the blood becomes very impure.
(Our closest biological relatives crave blood the most and are allowed to consume it, except for humans it is forbidden. But older cultures had blood dishes, not just in Africa, not just the blood dish talked about earlier. In the Phillipines they
have a blood stew, not made with water.)
The solution is to remove trauma from the blood.
Or use expensive cell stems the scientists want to use to make money, but a person can remove the trauma neurochemistry, the chemistry of the blood interferes with the activation of the segmentations of DNA.
That's why doctors don't address anything psychologically at all with you, it's give you a pill and you are done. Plus they just care about the money.
It's about what you are thinking that is causing your tissues to act a certain way.
This is an older video but still very interesting human corporeal re-engineering, is not happening publicly just yet for a few reasons. She said that the science of human corporeal re engineering is all about the money, taking out people's organs and then charging them for a newly engineered one.
People go missing all for research, they take your organs after death and take more blood than needed for tests in the vials, when so much less is needed because the rest goes to research. All done without permission, or with some consent forms that are blurry.
While they use stem cells only, what she said is that all cells are stem cells, the most potent is the blood, and that it can regenerate the body.
Fat cells are stem cells, which begin the regenerative process, de differentiating themselves back to red blood cells to repair damaged areas.
All tissue comes from red blood cells, the mother stem cells.
Tissue not impressed with history of past events of injury or trauma are not in the stem cell clusters and why they are used because they can regenerate without the past history.
But we are not told that the the stem cell or the library is available via our consciousness.
So why is stem cell research so political. Why can the scientistis grow any of your body parts, but why no transplanting going on. The real reason why not? Because then we would learn that we can regenerate ourselves without their petri dish.
Dr. Shisima? said the japanese found out how to regenerate themselves after the radiation from the bombs. The key is the red blood cells.
There are three different sources of renewing tissues by making red blood cells, from the maternal blood, from the placenta and from the digestion of food substances. As for the last one, it is concerning of all those taking tums and eating wrong foods. Why fermented foods have always been important in older cultures.
She also says scientists back them were finding genes that carry the personality and behavior traits so they can create how their child will be like.
Here is the neat part.
The brain functinons by the command of thought. And it can create any chemical. Thoughts turn into chemicals go into the blood stream and then cells respond and then you move etc.
If there are traumatic thoughts it doesn't regenerate new tissue!!!! So if anyone in an accident etc., if they want to regain access to tissue again they have to undergo a mental, neurological, hematological cleansing and then the body can regenerate. But doctors just do surgery and it does nothing. People are made sick and diseased and the blood becomes very impure.
(Our closest biological relatives crave blood the most and are allowed to consume it, except for humans it is forbidden. But older cultures had blood dishes, not just in Africa, not just the blood dish talked about earlier. In the Phillipines they
have a blood stew, not made with water.)
The solution is to remove trauma from the blood.
Or use expensive cell stems the scientists want to use to make money, but a person can remove the trauma neurochemistry, the chemistry of the blood interferes with the activation of the segmentations of DNA.
That's why doctors don't address anything psychologically at all with you, it's give you a pill and you are done. Plus they just care about the money.
It's about what you are thinking that is causing your tissues to act a certain way.
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 03 Jul 2010, 10:18
I saw this article a couple days ago and it happens to be one of the most obscene things I have ever heard about concerning food and diet.
But there is some truth in it as to the fact that the food industry, particularly the health and organic food industry, does perpetuate a fear into the populace about food. One should not be stressed or in turmoil about their food and choices. But this uneasiness and resultant obsession creates profits.
You can look up on google..."Whole Foods Market Criticisms" and see how one of the largest "health" food chains in the U.S. operates and that it isn't all good.
But there is a war being waged against the human organism when you walk into a typical grocery store, and even health food stores, so it is natural to be "defensive" in one's attitudes concerning choices. But it just shouldn't be that difficult, but easy. Organic food should not cost three times more than "conventional" grown food. It should be the other way around. And "conventional food" by definition should mean "organic food". Non-organic factory food should be labeled..."cheaper and less-healthy food".
75% of the shit sold in most stores isn't really good, nor is it good for you.
And the quality of the 25% of the real and good food has gone down in recent times. This real food should be pristine and valued like gold. It should come to market under the most strict and superb standards of purity and nutritive content minus toxins.
Tsarion had posted this video recently on his website. It does contain a lot of truths in its context, but needs tremendous amounts of consideration and elaboration to really makes sense of it. The video concerns milk and it concerns the air of worry and fear that the presentation instill in the viewer. I shall return later to elaborate on this video regarding milk consumption.
But there is some truth in it as to the fact that the food industry, particularly the health and organic food industry, does perpetuate a fear into the populace about food. One should not be stressed or in turmoil about their food and choices. But this uneasiness and resultant obsession creates profits.
You can look up on google..."Whole Foods Market Criticisms" and see how one of the largest "health" food chains in the U.S. operates and that it isn't all good.
But there is a war being waged against the human organism when you walk into a typical grocery store, and even health food stores, so it is natural to be "defensive" in one's attitudes concerning choices. But it just shouldn't be that difficult, but easy. Organic food should not cost three times more than "conventional" grown food. It should be the other way around. And "conventional food" by definition should mean "organic food". Non-organic factory food should be labeled..."cheaper and less-healthy food".
75% of the shit sold in most stores isn't really good, nor is it good for you.
And the quality of the 25% of the real and good food has gone down in recent times. This real food should be pristine and valued like gold. It should come to market under the most strict and superb standards of purity and nutritive content minus toxins.
Tsarion had posted this video recently on his website. It does contain a lot of truths in its context, but needs tremendous amounts of consideration and elaboration to really makes sense of it. The video concerns milk and it concerns the air of worry and fear that the presentation instill in the viewer. I shall return later to elaborate on this video regarding milk consumption.
Last edited by quicksilvercrescendo on Sat 03 Jul 2010, 11:26; edited 1 time in total
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
KapitanScarlet Sat 03 Jul 2010, 11:19
If someone were to focus intently on healthy eating , then it could only be described as a form of "Order"(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.
Wheres the disorder ?
KapitanScarlet- Admin
- Posts : 3293
Join date : 2009-11-16 -
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 03 Jul 2010, 11:25
Here is my commentary on the subject of milk for food.
Food itself is a matter of taking something external and foreign to yourself to nourish your cells and body.
The very nature of food to sustain us is a concept that is rife with potential positives and negatives no matter what you eat.
Although people have similarities in their constitutions, every individual is different than another individual when it comes to food and diet.
Which is why there never will be a perfect "one type" of diet that is healthy for all. Diet, by the very nature of human beings, should be individual and customizable to an individual. What is good for a group of people can be generalize and certain guidelines also considered, but nothing is set in stone.
Science does not understand but a fraction of how the body uses food and creates or maintains itself. It doesn't really know how a carrot you eat becomes an eyeball. Examining nature and reality dictates what a diet should be and how it should be eaten. Technology has muddied these truths and the scientific perspective has occluded or complicated simple truths.
One thing can be said about diet. Good, clean water is a necessity for all. It is the natural beverage found on earth for humans to consume.
What is interesting is how little good, clean and drinkable water actually exists to supply the earth's population. We can have Doritos, Twinkies and Nutrasweet products from scientific "food" technologies, but we can't even offer all the world's populations with potable water? Something is amiss here at the most basic level and with one of the most fundamental substances needed to sustain life.
Next to water, what other beverages flows on the earth in abundance for us to drink? Coffee? Soda? Milk? Juice?
One must get simplistic and primitive in the initial analysis and take it from there towards more complicated considerations.
No. Nothing other than water exists in nature as a beverage for humans. Water is paramount to health.
What is interesting is that if you don't have adequate hydration of your body cells, eating foods that would normally be good for you may not do so much for you because you don't have adequate hydration of cells to get the most out of food.
If you use a cellular-hydration deficient populace to consider what health or unhealthy foods may be for the diet, your results are already tainted from the very beginning of the experiment. It is easy to consider that, at least, 30-40% of the population, even if they drink a lot of water, do not have proper hydration of their cells. It isn't just a matter of how much water you drink, which is very important, but how much water the cells take in that really counts.
So the hunter-gatherer and early agricultural peoples would have a dire necessity for good water. And good hydration is essential to determine which foods can adequately sustain you. Many allergic reactions to foods happen when people are chronically and cellularly dehydrated. Mechanisms break down, whereas if properly hydrated, many allergic reactions would not occur. This is a major consideration when it comes to food selection.
Food selection is a natural instinct found in children. Studies have shown that when presented with a variety of food choices and no external influences, that children, with less diet conditioned behaviors, will naturally select the foods that provide them with the nutrients they are most deficient in. A child who needs vitamin A will choose liver over rice. But the modernity of food and diet with the addiction of external conditions dulls natural food selection in humans. But nature and reality can still give us basic guidelines of logic to take from. How does the child know to take liver over rice? He doesn't have a book on diet and nutrition or experts telling him what is good or bad. No one is saying eating animals is evil. The child may not ever even had liver before and has no memory to base the choice upon. No knowledge of food chemistry of that liver even has vitamin A. I feel this intuitive knowing has an electro-magnetic field aspect to the food and the person eating it. But this system is easily interrupted and removed from one's intuition due to modernity and external conditioning.
Absent electricity, refrigeration, shipping all the modern technologies there is very little chance that humans could have ever survived without the use of animal foods in their diet. I have yet to see an argument that can prove otherwise.
The original vegetarians were the Hindus and their vegetarianism is actually founded more in their religious beliefs. Religion departs greatly from what nature and physical reality dictates, as religion concerns spiritual matters. And diet is a consideration with spiritual matters in many ways, which I will later consider and mention. But to say that vegetarianism is the natural and best diet for mankind, in my opinion, totally rejects nature and logic. Face it, survival for man and many organisms if based upon killing and a parasitical existence of the earth and nature. One must shed the loftiness and arrogance of "spiritual" or "ethical" eating over the basic of physical concerns. To say that animal food is not ideal for humans denies physical realities and, in essence, spits in the eye of Nature and the earth. The two must be considered with equal fairness rather than with the "superiority and inferiority" dialectic influenced so greatly by the Hindu vegetarian model and its caste system.
There are people that try to live...just on air. Are they crazy or wrong? Not necessarily, nor is the person downing a rack of BBQ pork ribs either.
I will post again regarding food leading into animal food and milk for food.
Food itself is a matter of taking something external and foreign to yourself to nourish your cells and body.
The very nature of food to sustain us is a concept that is rife with potential positives and negatives no matter what you eat.
Although people have similarities in their constitutions, every individual is different than another individual when it comes to food and diet.
Which is why there never will be a perfect "one type" of diet that is healthy for all. Diet, by the very nature of human beings, should be individual and customizable to an individual. What is good for a group of people can be generalize and certain guidelines also considered, but nothing is set in stone.
Science does not understand but a fraction of how the body uses food and creates or maintains itself. It doesn't really know how a carrot you eat becomes an eyeball. Examining nature and reality dictates what a diet should be and how it should be eaten. Technology has muddied these truths and the scientific perspective has occluded or complicated simple truths.
One thing can be said about diet. Good, clean water is a necessity for all. It is the natural beverage found on earth for humans to consume.
What is interesting is how little good, clean and drinkable water actually exists to supply the earth's population. We can have Doritos, Twinkies and Nutrasweet products from scientific "food" technologies, but we can't even offer all the world's populations with potable water? Something is amiss here at the most basic level and with one of the most fundamental substances needed to sustain life.
Next to water, what other beverages flows on the earth in abundance for us to drink? Coffee? Soda? Milk? Juice?
One must get simplistic and primitive in the initial analysis and take it from there towards more complicated considerations.
No. Nothing other than water exists in nature as a beverage for humans. Water is paramount to health.
What is interesting is that if you don't have adequate hydration of your body cells, eating foods that would normally be good for you may not do so much for you because you don't have adequate hydration of cells to get the most out of food.
If you use a cellular-hydration deficient populace to consider what health or unhealthy foods may be for the diet, your results are already tainted from the very beginning of the experiment. It is easy to consider that, at least, 30-40% of the population, even if they drink a lot of water, do not have proper hydration of their cells. It isn't just a matter of how much water you drink, which is very important, but how much water the cells take in that really counts.
So the hunter-gatherer and early agricultural peoples would have a dire necessity for good water. And good hydration is essential to determine which foods can adequately sustain you. Many allergic reactions to foods happen when people are chronically and cellularly dehydrated. Mechanisms break down, whereas if properly hydrated, many allergic reactions would not occur. This is a major consideration when it comes to food selection.
Food selection is a natural instinct found in children. Studies have shown that when presented with a variety of food choices and no external influences, that children, with less diet conditioned behaviors, will naturally select the foods that provide them with the nutrients they are most deficient in. A child who needs vitamin A will choose liver over rice. But the modernity of food and diet with the addiction of external conditions dulls natural food selection in humans. But nature and reality can still give us basic guidelines of logic to take from. How does the child know to take liver over rice? He doesn't have a book on diet and nutrition or experts telling him what is good or bad. No one is saying eating animals is evil. The child may not ever even had liver before and has no memory to base the choice upon. No knowledge of food chemistry of that liver even has vitamin A. I feel this intuitive knowing has an electro-magnetic field aspect to the food and the person eating it. But this system is easily interrupted and removed from one's intuition due to modernity and external conditioning.
Absent electricity, refrigeration, shipping all the modern technologies there is very little chance that humans could have ever survived without the use of animal foods in their diet. I have yet to see an argument that can prove otherwise.
The original vegetarians were the Hindus and their vegetarianism is actually founded more in their religious beliefs. Religion departs greatly from what nature and physical reality dictates, as religion concerns spiritual matters. And diet is a consideration with spiritual matters in many ways, which I will later consider and mention. But to say that vegetarianism is the natural and best diet for mankind, in my opinion, totally rejects nature and logic. Face it, survival for man and many organisms if based upon killing and a parasitical existence of the earth and nature. One must shed the loftiness and arrogance of "spiritual" or "ethical" eating over the basic of physical concerns. To say that animal food is not ideal for humans denies physical realities and, in essence, spits in the eye of Nature and the earth. The two must be considered with equal fairness rather than with the "superiority and inferiority" dialectic influenced so greatly by the Hindu vegetarian model and its caste system.
There are people that try to live...just on air. Are they crazy or wrong? Not necessarily, nor is the person downing a rack of BBQ pork ribs either.
I will post again regarding food leading into animal food and milk for food.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 03 Jul 2010, 13:25
There was an interesting lecture given by Lloyd Pye, an alternative researcher into bigfoot type creatures and owner of the Starchild Skull.
In this lecture he commented on how grains, in their natural state were not able to be eaten by humans. The had to be "domesticated" through several generations of selected breeding to make them bio-available.
Thing is...the amount of time generations of plants could be conditioned to be ideal for food would take hundreds of years with then unknown scientific techniques.
Mankind, particularly primitive mankind, would have to know the results of their efforts hundreds of years in advance to know the outcome of their present efforts of altering a certain plant to make it ideal for food.. This type of foreknowledge is just not possible, unless you have a teacher. This is where the Sumerian "Gods" come in with the teaching of agriculture.
Early species of grains were not suitable for mankind to eat. They contained chemicals that were poisons to defend themselves from being eaten by animals or were too course to be digestible. They had to be bred over a long period of time to yield something that could be used as food.
How natural are grains to the diet according to nature one must then ask? Or any food for that matter.
Considering availability in its natural form without having to modify it for consumption, I would say that things growing on trees and bushes such as fruits and vegetables would have been the first thing and the most available for mankind to eat. Root vegetables would have been harder to recognize as food because they are underground and would have to be discovered by uncovering them from the earth. Animals may have also been our teachers in these matters as we learned through observing them.
Animals and animal foods would have been recognized as food because they roam on the surface of the earth and could be eaten in their present form once hunted and prepared. Eggs would have also been found in nests of wild birds and foul...then leading to their domestication for ease of acquisition.
Grain and all foods made from grain would not have or have had a very low priority or possibility until mankind altered it for his needs.
But now look at the consumption of grain and its products in the typical diet. A very large proportion indeed. And not necessarily a healthy one.
This leads one into the philosophies of the hunter-gatherer paleolithic type of diet. And this makes a lot of basic sense when eating in alignment with nature and what it has to offer.
Absent refrigeration, all foods would have to be eaten quite fresh or preserved. This is key to food...its preservation and the techniques to do so. Fermentation and the use of symbiotic organisms in the diet. A practice which is almost absent from most modern and western diets.
Animal milk would only last a day as a fresh beverage in a warm to hot climate. After that it would sour and go bad. But its usefulness as a food source is just beginning with its fermentation. Fermentation makes a lot of foods, like grain, which are not ideal for consumption to now be useful as food. Even fruits and vegetables could be preserved and made more nutritious and bio-available with these methods.
This diet would taste a lot different than the flavor enhanced food that is sold in stores today.
There was a study done on the cereal called Corn Flakes.
Rats that ate just corn flakes degenerated physically and behaviorly until eventually dead.
Rats that were fed just the actual cardboard box the corn flakes came in fared much better than the rats that ate the corn flakes.
So something called food or derived from food can actually be an anutrient and less healthy than cardboard.
In this lecture he commented on how grains, in their natural state were not able to be eaten by humans. The had to be "domesticated" through several generations of selected breeding to make them bio-available.
Thing is...the amount of time generations of plants could be conditioned to be ideal for food would take hundreds of years with then unknown scientific techniques.
Mankind, particularly primitive mankind, would have to know the results of their efforts hundreds of years in advance to know the outcome of their present efforts of altering a certain plant to make it ideal for food.. This type of foreknowledge is just not possible, unless you have a teacher. This is where the Sumerian "Gods" come in with the teaching of agriculture.
Early species of grains were not suitable for mankind to eat. They contained chemicals that were poisons to defend themselves from being eaten by animals or were too course to be digestible. They had to be bred over a long period of time to yield something that could be used as food.
How natural are grains to the diet according to nature one must then ask? Or any food for that matter.
Considering availability in its natural form without having to modify it for consumption, I would say that things growing on trees and bushes such as fruits and vegetables would have been the first thing and the most available for mankind to eat. Root vegetables would have been harder to recognize as food because they are underground and would have to be discovered by uncovering them from the earth. Animals may have also been our teachers in these matters as we learned through observing them.
Animals and animal foods would have been recognized as food because they roam on the surface of the earth and could be eaten in their present form once hunted and prepared. Eggs would have also been found in nests of wild birds and foul...then leading to their domestication for ease of acquisition.
Grain and all foods made from grain would not have or have had a very low priority or possibility until mankind altered it for his needs.
But now look at the consumption of grain and its products in the typical diet. A very large proportion indeed. And not necessarily a healthy one.
This leads one into the philosophies of the hunter-gatherer paleolithic type of diet. And this makes a lot of basic sense when eating in alignment with nature and what it has to offer.
Absent refrigeration, all foods would have to be eaten quite fresh or preserved. This is key to food...its preservation and the techniques to do so. Fermentation and the use of symbiotic organisms in the diet. A practice which is almost absent from most modern and western diets.
Animal milk would only last a day as a fresh beverage in a warm to hot climate. After that it would sour and go bad. But its usefulness as a food source is just beginning with its fermentation. Fermentation makes a lot of foods, like grain, which are not ideal for consumption to now be useful as food. Even fruits and vegetables could be preserved and made more nutritious and bio-available with these methods.
This diet would taste a lot different than the flavor enhanced food that is sold in stores today.
There was a study done on the cereal called Corn Flakes.
Rats that ate just corn flakes degenerated physically and behaviorly until eventually dead.
Rats that were fed just the actual cardboard box the corn flakes came in fared much better than the rats that ate the corn flakes.
So something called food or derived from food can actually be an anutrient and less healthy than cardboard.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 03 Jul 2010, 14:38
Anyway...these are the numerous ponderings that go on in my mind on a daily and continuous basis until I decide to shut my mind down.
But taking these few things into consideration concerning food, I will now address the above video and the idea of milk (other than human mothers' milk) as a health food source.
First of all, the health of the animal. If a cow is raised properly and fed a diet suitable for it, monitored with regular testing for diseases and treated humanely, the milk of the animal will be free of rBGH and other man-introduced chemicals.
This is simplicity. The fact that industry does otherwise does not negate the health benefits of milk as food. Just the milk that they produce and market.
The cow should be raised on grass. And in the spring and summer, the milk of these animals will be full of nutrients.
Commercial milk that has been homogenized and pasteurized is nothing like clean raw milk from the cow. The are totally different in so many ways. One is an anutrient and the other is a nutrient source.
As far as calcium, it is true that cow's milk contains proportions of calcium and phosphorus which could upset the balance of bone building minerals in the human body. But that depends on how much you drink. And I don't recommend the common four glasses a day, 365 days a year recommendation. I would never suggest one drink milk as a calcium source in the first place. It has way too many other benefits that are far greater than calcium content.
Protein. Yes, it is true that too much protein can affect calcium levels negatively. But that is if you are eating other dense proteins and perhaps exceeding 30-35 grams of protein a day for the average individual. If you drink a couple glasses of milk, then consider that as a draw on your protein needs and perhaps you won't need to eat that 27oz. steak for dinner on top of it. Most westerners overeat and most of their diet is refined carbs, sugars and high protein. Sugar affects calcium far greater than milk's proportion of nutrients. Unless you have a western population who isn't overeating sugar and refined carbs, you cannot tell, if at all, just how much of an impact cow's milk has on calcium levels in the human body. Moderation is key.
As far as casein in milk, the issue of souring and fermentation tackles this and leaves the debate about casein flat. Again, without refrigeration in natural conditions, milk would not be eaten fresh all the time. Fermentation breaks down these proteins and pre-digests them. And this is where lactose intolerant people will also not have allergies to milk, when natural organisms break down the sugars as well. The fermentation process actually leaves milk to be a even more bio-available, digestible, agreeable and nutritious substance than when it came straight from the cow.
As far as protein, this guy in the video needs to get his Jew head on straight.
Whey from milk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whey
The most bioavailable form of protein in existence....whey...from milk.
Cholesterol and fat. All of the medical advice since the fifties concerning cholesterol and fat is wrong. The need for these two substance cannot be stressed enough and they would require posts of their own to explain why they are necessary. The reducing of these substances from the diet is one of the greatest mistakes ever in the modern diet. Heart disease and blood vessels diseases kill more people than anything, but smoking, alcohol, drugs and a refined food diet is what is most responsible for this. Not healthy fat and cholesterol from healthy animal foods in moderation.
When they examine the plaque from clogged arteries, the find that it is made up of 80% vegetable fats. Probably from hydrogenated and inferior fats in refined foods and non-nutritious items that people consume all their lives. Saturated animal fat from milk consumption hardly contributes to this problem. Also, the homogenizing of milk is said to irritate the lining of the arteries and can begin the process of accumulating arterial plaques. Which is why processing milk this way is best avoided.
There are cultures that have traditional milk products that westerners never even heard of that are extremely healthy...
The French only make cheeses from raw milk. Their saying goes, "Dead milk equals dead cheese." They don't use pasteurized for their best authentic cheeses.
My Somali friend says that the milk of the camel is highly valued where he is from. And his people select foods based upon how much energy the feel in return from eating it and how much it keeps their digestion regular and moving. Another prized high energy food is the fat hump off the back of the camel...cooked down and reared.
But taking these few things into consideration concerning food, I will now address the above video and the idea of milk (other than human mothers' milk) as a health food source.
First of all, the health of the animal. If a cow is raised properly and fed a diet suitable for it, monitored with regular testing for diseases and treated humanely, the milk of the animal will be free of rBGH and other man-introduced chemicals.
This is simplicity. The fact that industry does otherwise does not negate the health benefits of milk as food. Just the milk that they produce and market.
The cow should be raised on grass. And in the spring and summer, the milk of these animals will be full of nutrients.
Commercial milk that has been homogenized and pasteurized is nothing like clean raw milk from the cow. The are totally different in so many ways. One is an anutrient and the other is a nutrient source.
As far as calcium, it is true that cow's milk contains proportions of calcium and phosphorus which could upset the balance of bone building minerals in the human body. But that depends on how much you drink. And I don't recommend the common four glasses a day, 365 days a year recommendation. I would never suggest one drink milk as a calcium source in the first place. It has way too many other benefits that are far greater than calcium content.
Protein. Yes, it is true that too much protein can affect calcium levels negatively. But that is if you are eating other dense proteins and perhaps exceeding 30-35 grams of protein a day for the average individual. If you drink a couple glasses of milk, then consider that as a draw on your protein needs and perhaps you won't need to eat that 27oz. steak for dinner on top of it. Most westerners overeat and most of their diet is refined carbs, sugars and high protein. Sugar affects calcium far greater than milk's proportion of nutrients. Unless you have a western population who isn't overeating sugar and refined carbs, you cannot tell, if at all, just how much of an impact cow's milk has on calcium levels in the human body. Moderation is key.
As far as casein in milk, the issue of souring and fermentation tackles this and leaves the debate about casein flat. Again, without refrigeration in natural conditions, milk would not be eaten fresh all the time. Fermentation breaks down these proteins and pre-digests them. And this is where lactose intolerant people will also not have allergies to milk, when natural organisms break down the sugars as well. The fermentation process actually leaves milk to be a even more bio-available, digestible, agreeable and nutritious substance than when it came straight from the cow.
As far as protein, this guy in the video needs to get his Jew head on straight.
Whey from milk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whey
Liquid whey contains lactose, vitamins, protein and minerals along with traces of fat. Researchers at Lund University in Sweden discovered that whey appears to stimulate insulin release.[5] Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they also discovered that whey supplements can help regulate and reduce spikes in blood sugar levels among people with type 2 diabetes by increasing insulin secretion. The presence of whey in processed foods can be particularly surprising because it is commonly added to products that do not normally contain cheese derivatives when made at home.
Whey protein has an even higher bioavailability than egg white protein (BV = 98), which is considered the "gold standard" of protein, and has a bioavailability rating of 100. Bioavailability refers to how efficiently a substance will be digested and absorbed through the villi in the small intestine into the blood stream while maintaining its original form. Because of this high bioavailabliity, amino acids from whey protein are thought to enter the blood stream faster than other protein sources.
The most bioavailable form of protein in existence....whey...from milk.
Cholesterol and fat. All of the medical advice since the fifties concerning cholesterol and fat is wrong. The need for these two substance cannot be stressed enough and they would require posts of their own to explain why they are necessary. The reducing of these substances from the diet is one of the greatest mistakes ever in the modern diet. Heart disease and blood vessels diseases kill more people than anything, but smoking, alcohol, drugs and a refined food diet is what is most responsible for this. Not healthy fat and cholesterol from healthy animal foods in moderation.
When they examine the plaque from clogged arteries, the find that it is made up of 80% vegetable fats. Probably from hydrogenated and inferior fats in refined foods and non-nutritious items that people consume all their lives. Saturated animal fat from milk consumption hardly contributes to this problem. Also, the homogenizing of milk is said to irritate the lining of the arteries and can begin the process of accumulating arterial plaques. Which is why processing milk this way is best avoided.
There are cultures that have traditional milk products that westerners never even heard of that are extremely healthy...
Xynotyri is an unpasteurized whey cheese from Greece made from sheep's milk or goats milk, with a hard and flaky consistency, a pungent aroma and a yogurt-like sweet and sour taste. "Xynotyri" means "sour cheese" in Greek. Traditionally the cheese is drained and cured in reed baskets or allowed to mature in bags made of animal skin. Cow milk is not utilized in the production.
Xynotyri cheese can be consumed either as fresh cheese or after being ripened with the use of naturally dominating microflora during a 3-month month maturing period.[1] The Lactobacillus strains in Xynotyri have antibacterial effects that kill Salmonella pathogens, a finding that is of special interest for producers of health-giving cheeses according to researchers at the French Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM).
The French only make cheeses from raw milk. Their saying goes, "Dead milk equals dead cheese." They don't use pasteurized for their best authentic cheeses.
My Somali friend says that the milk of the camel is highly valued where he is from. And his people select foods based upon how much energy the feel in return from eating it and how much it keeps their digestion regular and moving. Another prized high energy food is the fat hump off the back of the camel...cooked down and reared.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 03 Jul 2010, 15:17
Lactose intolerance may exist for some.
Milk allergies may exist for some.
Some may just not do well with milk for whatever reason.
This can be common with any food. And can be common when populations are not used to getting pure milk or consuming it in a beneficial way. Or other aspects of their health are making milk not agreeable to their system.
Should milk not agree with someone due to allergy, then it is probably not a good idea to drink it.
But to make claims that it is a killer are just not accurate.
Smoking, alcohol and drugs, refined sugars and carbohydrates, inferior fats and denatured foods are the culprits.
You cannot demonize potentially healthy natural foods sources in a population until you eliminate the scourges of mankind first.
And then begin to test your theories. The impact of other behaviors is just to great to lay it all at the feet of milk or animal foods.
Milk allergies may exist for some.
Some may just not do well with milk for whatever reason.
This can be common with any food. And can be common when populations are not used to getting pure milk or consuming it in a beneficial way. Or other aspects of their health are making milk not agreeable to their system.
Should milk not agree with someone due to allergy, then it is probably not a good idea to drink it.
But to make claims that it is a killer are just not accurate.
Smoking, alcohol and drugs, refined sugars and carbohydrates, inferior fats and denatured foods are the culprits.
You cannot demonize potentially healthy natural foods sources in a population until you eliminate the scourges of mankind first.
And then begin to test your theories. The impact of other behaviors is just to great to lay it all at the feet of milk or animal foods.
Two recent studies in respected scientific journals found a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of raw milk and asthma and allergies.[13][14] That is, the more raw milk a person eats the less likely one is to suffer from allergies and asthma.
Cheesemakers hold that cheeses produced from raw milk have distinctive complexity and depth of flavor absent from pasteurized-milk cheeses.[15] Ultra-pasteurized and UHT-treated milk is nearly impossible to use for cheesemaking.[16]
A slide by slide rebuttal to the FDA Power Point presentation, shows that of 15 outbreaks cited by the FDA, not a single one demonstrates that pasteurization would have fixed the problem, that 93% lacked either a valid statistical correlation with raw milk or a positive sample, and half lacked both. Even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was cited as being no less dangerous than deli meats.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
KapitanScarlet Sun 04 Jul 2010, 02:15
There was a study done on the cereal called Corn Flakes.
Rats that ate just corn flakes degenerated physically and behaviorly until eventually dead.
Rats that were fed just the actual cardboard box the corn flakes came in fared much better than the rats that ate the corn flakes.
So something called food or derived from food can actually be an anutrient and less healthy than cardboard.
theres something inately sinister about how they compare rats with humans
KapitanScarlet- Admin
- Posts : 3293
Join date : 2009-11-16 -
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Wed 07 Jul 2010, 06:52
exactly here's a great example......]The original vegetarians were the Hindus and their vegetarianism is actually founded more in their religious beliefs.
Religion departs greatly from what nature and physical reality dictates, as religion concerns spiritual matters.
I was wondering how they can function like that, using mind or actually spirit power? I asked them how they survive without animal products and they said they drink milk! Raw of course. It is a religious belief,
they don't believe drinking milk is considered from an animal perhaps, because the cow is holy to them. So in their minds they believe they are vegetarians, but not quite, according to science. Astonishing how the mind works!
Children will instinctually go for meat. They are cannibals and sensual little creatures, evil!!
And so the oppression starts......sadly......when one can learn so much from children. One has to nourish the animal. The body sustains itself best with what it's physically made out of...........meat or animal products.
Hands down the most biocompatible and most nutritious foods for humans is animal products.How natural are grains to the diet according to nature one must then ask? Or any food for that matter.
I would have to say that fruit or berries were also a large part of the diet, probably just as much or more than grains. Especially if meat was in the diet.Animals and animal foods would have been recognized as food because they roam on the surface of the earth and could be eaten in their present form once hunted and prepared. Eggs would have also been found in nests of wild birds and foul...then leading to their domestication for ease of acquisition.
Grain and all foods made from grain would not have or have had a very low priority or possibility until mankind altered it for his needs.
Yes to get most of the nutrients.Absent refrigeration, all foods would have to be eaten quite fresh or preserved. This is key to food...its preservation and the techniques to do so. Fermentation and the use of symbiotic organisms in the diet. A practice which is almost absent from most modern and western diets.
But that's not true for the protein part of meat and fish. You almost get a complete food with the meat and it doesn't need refrigeration or kept in some kind of delicate preservation state and that's meat and fish. The Natives and some cultures all over the world are pros at making pemiccan and jerky and such. Of course you might lose some enzymes, but the majority of nutrients and perhaps a little dip in perishable vitamins butare still intact.
Dr. Cowan on Raw Milk
http://fourfoldhealing.com/2010/06/08/raw-milk/
LOLtheres something inately sinister about how they compare rats with humans
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
seraphim Wed 07 Jul 2010, 07:02
Hi there Rainyday, for you ladies.......
Uterine fibroid cleanse recommendation for every female. Due to all the estrogens in the environment, toxins etc put so many gals at high risk. It boils down to keeping the detox organ, the liver in good condition. And that goes for any pre or post menopausal symptom. I've heard first hand of menopausal women feeling much better after a liver cleanse or even just taking milk thistle, a regenerative plant for it.
Dr. Tori Hudson
http://natural-fertility-info.com/the-best-natural-remedies-for-fibroids.html
Uterine fibroid cleanse recommendation for every female. Due to all the estrogens in the environment, toxins etc put so many gals at high risk. It boils down to keeping the detox organ, the liver in good condition. And that goes for any pre or post menopausal symptom. I've heard first hand of menopausal women feeling much better after a liver cleanse or even just taking milk thistle, a regenerative plant for it.
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/fibroiddemarco.htmlDr. DeMarco
THE LIVER — Fresh juices such as beet, carrot, garlic and parsley are beneficial to the liver, and a daily lemon juice is a very effective way to help the liver. When you have your first glass of water in the morning, squeeze lemon juice in it. Bitter greens like endive, raddichio, dandelion greens, stinging nettles, etc. stimulate the liver. If you don’t have enough bitter greens in your diet, you can get Swedish Bitters at health stores. Bitters promote liver and bile function and aid digestion. Other liver herbs like dandelion root, milk thistle, burdock, artichoke, turmeric are also recommended.
Take liver herbs regularly for up to three months to decrease the burden on your body caused by the excess estrogen. Then stop for awhile. Pesticides in food, cosmetics and environment contribute to estrogen excess in our bodies. Liver support is absolutely critical. These estrogen-like compounds go to the estrogen receptors and mimic estrogen, so there is a constant influx of estrogen and not enough progesterone. Most of the pesticides are concentrated in the fat of meat and dairy, so try to use only organic products. I do support butter over margarine as a fairly healthy product, and olive oil.
So cleansing and nourishing your liver can help your menopausal symptoms, especially if they are really out of control. When the liver is no longer able to detoxify, a second liver is created in the form of a cyst, fibroid, or arthritic inflammation where the toxins are stored. The cyst or fibroid plays a role in maintaining the organism’s equilibrium, actually doing us a favour by walling off the toxins. So if you detoxify, and you have any of these conditions (ovarian cysts, cystic breasts, fibroids, arthritis, etc.) you have to detoxify very slowly because the body is trying to protect you from those toxins.
Dr. Tori Hudson
http://natural-fertility-info.com/the-best-natural-remedies-for-fibroids.html
seraphim- Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18
Re: The Health Thread
KapitanScarlet Wed 07 Jul 2010, 22:06
Enjoy your eggs and is "cholestrol fear" which is on a par with "high blood pressure fear " mania in the uk another money spinning angle for the pharma-scamdogs
how does this guys report stand up
how does this guys report stand up
Are Whole Eggs or Egg Whites Better for You?
by Mike Geary, Certified Nutrition Specialist, Certified Personal Trainer
Author - The Truth About 6-Pack Abs
I was on a weekend trip with some friends recently and one of my friends was cooking breakfast for the whole group. I went over to see what he was cooking and saw he was getting ready to make a big batch of eggs.
Well, to my shock and horror, I noticed that he was cracking the eggs open and screening the egg whites into a bowl and throwing out the egg yolks. I asked him why the heck he was throwing out the egg yolks, and he replied something like this...
"because I thought the egg yolks were terrible for you...that's where all the nasty fat and cholesterol is".
And I replied, "you mean that's where all of the nutrition is!"
This is a perfect example of how confused most people are about nutrition. In a world full of misinformation about nutrition, somehow most people now mistakenly think that the egg yolk is the worst part of the egg, when in fact, the YOLK IS THE HEALTHIEST PART OF THE EGG!
By throwing out the yolk and only eating egg whites, you're essentially throwing out the most nutrient dense, antioxidant-rich, vitamin and mineral loaded portion of the egg. The yolks contain so many B-vitamins, trace minerals, vitamin A, folate, choline, lutein, and other powerful nutrients... it's not even worth trying to list them all.
In fact, the egg whites are almost devoid of nutrition compared to the yolks.
Even the protein in egg whites isn't as powerful without the yolks to balance out the amino acid profile and make the protein more bio-available. Not to even mention that the egg yolks from free range chickens are loaded with healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
Yolks contain more than 90% of the calcium, iron, phosphorus, zinc, thiamin, B6, folate, and B12, and panthothenic acid of the egg. In addition, the yolks contain ALL of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K in the egg, as well as ALL of the essential fatty acids (EFAs).
And now the common objection I get all the time when I say that the yolks are the most nutritious part of the egg...
"But I heard that whole eggs will skyrocket my cholesterol through the roof"
No, this is FALSE!
First of all, when you eat a food that contains a high amount of dietary cholesterol such as eggs, your body down-regulates it's internal production of cholesterol to balance things out.
On the other hand, if you don't eat enough cholesterol, your body simply produces more since cholesterol has dozens of important vital functions in the body.
And here's where it gets even more interesting...
There have been plenty of studies lately that indicate that eating whole eggs actually raises your good HDL cholesterol to a higher degree than LDL cholesterol, thereby improving your overall cholesterol ratio and blood chemistry.
And 3rd... high cholesterol is NOT a disease! Heart disease is a disease...but high cholesterol is NOT. Cholesterol is actually a VERY important substance in your body and has vitally important functions... it is DEAD WRONG to try to "lower your cholesterol" just because of pharmaceutical companies propaganda that everyone on the planet should be on statin drugs.
If you're interested in this topic of cholesterol specifically, I have another article listed at the bottom of this page about why trying to attack cholesterol is a mistake, and what the REAL deadly risk factors actually are.
In addition, the yolks contain the antioxidant lutein as well as other antioxidants which can help protect you from inflammation within your body (the REAL culprit in heart disease, not dietary cholesterol!), giving yet another reason why the yolks are actually GOOD for you, and not detrimental.
To help bring even more proof that whole eggs are better for you than egg whites, I recently read a University of Connecticut study that showed that a group of men in the study that ate 3 eggs per day for 12 weeks while on a reduced carb, higher fat diet increased their HDL good cholesterol by 20%, while their LDL bad cholesterol stayed the same during the study. However, the group that ate egg substitutes (egg whites) saw no change in either and did not see the improvement in good cholesterol (remember that higher HDL levels are associated with lower risk of heart disease) that the whole egg eaters did.
So I hope we've established that whole eggs are not some evil food that will wreck your body... instead whole eggs are FAR superior to egg whites.
But what about the extra calories in the yolks?
This is actually a non-issue and here's why... even though egg yolks contain more calories than just eating the egg whites, the yolks have such a high micro-nutrient density in those calories, that it increases your overall nutrient density per calorie you consume. Essentially, what this does is help to regulate your appetite for the remainder of the day, so you end up eating less calories overall. In addition, the healthy fats in the egg yolks help to maintain a good level of fat-burning hormones in your body.
Overall, this means that the extra fats (healthy fats) and calories from the yolk are so nutrient-dense that they actually HELP you to burn off body fat!
Also, your normal supermarket eggs coming from mass factory farming just don't compare nutritionally with organic free range eggs from healthy chickens that are allowed to roam freely and eat a more natural diet. Your typical cheap grocery store eggs will have lower nutrient levels and a higher omega-6 level and lower omega-3 level. On the other hand, the cage-free organic eggs from healthier chickens allowed to eat more natural feed and roam freely will have much higher vitamin and mineral levels and a more balanced healthier omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio.
I recently compared eggs I bought at the grocery store with a batch of eggs I got at a farm stand where the chickens were free roaming and healthy.
Most people don't realize that there's a major difference because they've never bought real eggs from healthy chickens... The eggs from the grocery store had pale yellow yolks and thin weak shells. On the other hand, the healthier free range eggs from the local farm had strong thick shells and deep orange colored yolks indicating much higher nutrition levels and carotenoids... and just a healthier egg in general.
This is due to the fact that a free-roaming hen allowed to roam on plenty of land will eat a variety of greens, insects, worms, etc transferring MUCH higher levels of nutrients to the eggs compared to an unhealthy hen that is trapped inside a dark factory farm hen house in horrible conditions and fed nothing but piles of corn and soy. It's a DRASTIC difference in the nutrition that you get from the egg.
So next time a health or fitness professional tells you that egg whites are superior (because of their "fat-phobic" mentality towards dietary fats), you can quietly ignore their advice knowing that you now understand the REAL deal about egg yolks.
And can we all please STOP with this sillyness about eating an omelete with 4-5 egg whites and only 1 egg yolk... If you want real taste and real health benefits, we'd all be better off eating ALL of our eggs with the yolks.
After all, do you REALLY think that our ancestors thousands of years ago threw out the yolks and only ate the egg whites? NOT A CHANCE! They intuitively knew that all of the nutrition was found in the yolks. But our modern society has been brainwashed with misinformation about fats and cholesterol.
Another interesting study about eggs...
I read a study recently that compared groups of people that ate egg breakfasts vs groups of people that ate cereal or bagel-based breakfasts. The results of the study showed that the egg eaters lost or maintained a healthier bodyweight, while the cereal/bagel eaters gained weight.
It was hypothesized that the egg eaters actually ate less calories during the remainder of the day because their appetite was more satisfied compared to the cereal/bagel eaters who would have been more prone to wild blood sugar swings and food cravings.
Oh, one last thing I almost forgot... I personally eat 4 whole eggs almost every day with breakfast, and I maintain single-digit bodyfat most of the year.
KapitanScarlet- Admin
- Posts : 3293
Join date : 2009-11-16 -
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Sat 17 Jul 2010, 23:17
Myth: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
Myth: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in humans.
Myth: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.
The Value of Vegetarianism
Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (122). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.
First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. Further, Dr. Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with that of the dog, a carnivore, and a sheep, a herbivore, clearly shows that we are closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep. (123)
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee who all have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates (124).
Myth: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in humans.
Some authorities on vegetarian diet, such as Dr Ralph Ballantine (125), claim that the fear and terror (if any, see myth #15) an animal experiences at death is somehow "transferred" into its flesh and organs and "becomes" a part of the person who eats it.
In addition to the fact that no scientific studies exist to support such a theory, these thinkers would do well to remember the fact that a tendency to irrational anger is a symptom of low vitamin B12 levels which, as we have seen, are common in vegans and vegetarians. Furthermore, in his travels, Dr Price always noted the extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the peoples he encountered, all of whom were meat-eaters.
Myth: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.
It is often claimed that those who eat meat or animal products are somehow less "spiritually evolved" than those who do not. Though this is not a nutritional or academic issue, those who do include animal products in their diet are often made to feel inferior in some way. This issue, therefore, is worth addressing.
Several world religions place no restrictions on animal consumption; and nor did their founders. The Jews eat lamb at their most holy festival, the Passover. Muslims also celebrate Ramadan with lamb before entering into their fast. Jesus Christ, like other Jews, partook of meat at the Last Supper (according to the canonical Gospels). It is true that some forms of Buddhism do place strictures on meat consumption, but dairy products are always allowed. Similar tenets are found in Hinduism. As part of the Samhain celebration, Celtic pagans would slaughter the weaker animals of the herds and cure their meat for the oncoming winter. It is not true, therefore, that eating animal foods is always connected with "spiritual inferiority".
Nevertheless, it is often claimed that, since eating meat involves the taking of a life, it is somehow tantamount to murder. Leaving aside the religious philosophies that often permeate this issue, what appears to be at hand is a misunderstanding of the life force and how it works. Modern peoples (vegetarian and non-vegetarian) have lost touch with what it takes to survive in our world--something native peoples never lose sight of. We do not necessarily hunt or clean our meats: we purchase steaks and chops at the supermarket. We do not necessarily toil in rice paddies: we buy bags of brown rice; and so forth, and so on.
When Native Americans killed a game animal for food, they would routinely offer a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit for giving its life so that they could live. In our world, life feeds off life. Destruction is always balanced with generation. This is a good thing: unchecked, the life force becomes cancerous. If animal food consumption is viewed in this manner, it is hardly murder, but sacrifice. Modern peoples would do well to remember this.
The Value of Vegetarianism
As a cleansing diet, vegetarianism is sometimes a good choice. Several health conditions (e.g., gout) can often be ameliorated by a temporary reduction in animal products with an increase of plant foods. But such measures must not be continuous throughout life: there are vital nutrients found only in animal foods that we must ingest for optimal health. Furthermore, there is no one diet that will work for every person. Some vegetarians and vegans, in their zeal to get converts, are blind to this biochemical fact.
"Biochemical individuality" is a subject worth clarifying. Coined by nutritional biochemist Roger Williams, PhD, the term refers to the fact that different people require different nutrients based on their unique genetic make-up. Ethnic and racial background figure in this concept as well. A diet that works for one may not work as well for someone else. As a practitioner, I've seen several clients following a vegetarian diet with severe health problems: obesity, candidiasis, hypothyroidism, cancer, diabetes, leaky gut syndrome, anemia and chronic fatigue. Because of the widespread rhetoric that a vegetarian diet is "always healthier" than a diet that includes meat or animal products, these people saw no reason to change their diet, even though that was the cause of their problems. What these people actually needed for optimal health was more animal foods and fats and fewer carbohydrates.
Further, due to peculiarities in genetics and individual biochemistry, some people simply cannot do a vegetarian diet because of such things as lectin intolerance and desaturating enzyme deficiencies. Lectins present in legumes, a prominent feature of vegetarian diets, are not tolerated by many people. Others have grain sensitivities, especially to gluten, or to grain proteins in general. Again, since grains are a major feature of vegetarian diets, such people cannot thrive on them. (134)
Desaturase enzyme deficiencies are usually present in those people of Innuit, Scandinavian, Northern European, and sea coast ancestry. They lack the ability to convert alpha-linolenic acid into EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids intimately involved in the function of the immune and nervous systems. The reason for this is because these people's ancestors got an abundance of EPA and DHA from the large amounts of cold-water fish they ate. Over time, because of non-use, they lost the ability to manufacture the necessary enzymes to create EPA and DHA in their bodies. For these people, vegetarianism is simply not possible. They MUST get their EPA and DHA from food and EPA is only found in animal foods. DHA is present in some algae, but the amounts are much lower than in fish oils. (135)
It is also apparent that vegan diets are not suitable for all people due to inadequate cholesterol production in the liver and cholesterol is only found in animal foods. It is often said that the body makes enough cholesterol to get by and that there is no reason to consume foods that contain it (animal foods). Recent research, however, has shown otherwise. Singer's work at the University of California, Berkeley, has shown that the cholesterol in eggs improves memory in older people (136). In other words, these elderly people's own cholesterol was insufficient to improve their memory, but added dietary cholesterol from eggs was.
Though it appears that some people do well on little or no meat and remain healthy as lacto-vegetarians or lacto-ovo-vegetarians, the reason for this is because these diets are healthier for those people, not because they're healthier in general. However, a total absence of animal products, whether meat, fish, insects, eggs, butter or dairy, is to be avoided. Though it may take years, problems will eventually ensue under such dietary regimes and they will certainly show in future generations. Dr. Price's seminal research unequivocally demonstrated this. The reason for this is simple evolution: humanity evolved eating animal foods and fats as part of its diet, and our bodies are suited and accustomed to them. One cannot change evolution in a few years.
Dr. Abrams said it well when he wrote:
Humans have always been meat-eaters. The fact that no human society is entirely vegetarian, and those that are almost entirely vegetarian suffer from debilitated conditions of health, seems unequivocally to prove that a plant diet must be supplemented with at least a minimum amount of animal protein to sustain health. Humans are meat-eaters and always have been. Humans are also vegetable eaters and always have been, but plant foods must be supplemented by an ample amount of animal protein to maintain optimal health.(137)
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Re: The Health Thread
KapitanScarlet Thu 29 Jul 2010, 20:14
Wondered if any Tea-Connoisseurs out there had tried this rare brand
Wu-Longs Oolong Tea
Here is the promised miracle effects at the expected high price
http://www.wulongforlife.com/special-offer/one.php?a_aid=zthfitness
And here is an article on tea processing which opposes any miracle effects
http://www.teamuse.com/article_060601.html
Wu-Longs Oolong Tea
Here is the promised miracle effects at the expected high price
http://www.wulongforlife.com/special-offer/one.php?a_aid=zthfitness
And here is an article on tea processing which opposes any miracle effects
http://www.teamuse.com/article_060601.html
KapitanScarlet- Admin
- Posts : 3293
Join date : 2009-11-16 -
Re: The Health Thread
quicksilvercrescendo Thu 29 Jul 2010, 20:38
This tea you mention, green and white tea all come from the same plant.
The link to the ad you posted looks highly commercial and propagandized with the weight loss slant.
The quality of these teas is dependent on the quality of its genetic strain, soil, growing and cultivation of the plant. Followed by its processing and its methods of preservation.
The Taoists of the temple and my best chi instructors advised me on white tea first and foremost, then green tea for energy and chi development and health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tea
The superior white I cannot even get my hands on. But buy organic whenever possible. Best to drink these teas, not hot, but warm after they have cooled a bit and after exercise or chi gong practice.
The processing and oxidation processing of oolong makes it the lesser of a choice for me. In fact, I don't drink it. Not that it is bad, but I prefer to just put my resources into the green and white. Fresh grated ginger root steeped in the tea, a teaspoon of pure raw honey and a squeeze of lemon just adds to its medicinal properties.
White teas should be prepared with 80°C (180°F) water (not boiling) and steeped for 2 to 3 minutes. Many tea graders, however, choose to brew this tea for much longer, as long as 10 minutes on the first infusion, to allow the delicate aromas to develop. Finer teas expose more flavor and complexity with no bitterness. Lower grade teas do not always stand this test well and develop bitter flavors or tannins. On successive brews (white teas produce three very good brews and a fourth that is passable), extend the time by several minutes per brewing. The third brew may require as long as 15 minutes to develop well. Temperature is crucial: if it is too hot, the brew will be bitter and the finer flavors will be overpowered.
The link to the ad you posted looks highly commercial and propagandized with the weight loss slant.
The quality of these teas is dependent on the quality of its genetic strain, soil, growing and cultivation of the plant. Followed by its processing and its methods of preservation.
The Taoists of the temple and my best chi instructors advised me on white tea first and foremost, then green tea for energy and chi development and health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tea
The superior white I cannot even get my hands on. But buy organic whenever possible. Best to drink these teas, not hot, but warm after they have cooled a bit and after exercise or chi gong practice.
The processing and oxidation processing of oolong makes it the lesser of a choice for me. In fact, I don't drink it. Not that it is bad, but I prefer to just put my resources into the green and white. Fresh grated ginger root steeped in the tea, a teaspoon of pure raw honey and a squeeze of lemon just adds to its medicinal properties.
White teas should be prepared with 80°C (180°F) water (not boiling) and steeped for 2 to 3 minutes. Many tea graders, however, choose to brew this tea for much longer, as long as 10 minutes on the first infusion, to allow the delicate aromas to develop. Finer teas expose more flavor and complexity with no bitterness. Lower grade teas do not always stand this test well and develop bitter flavors or tannins. On successive brews (white teas produce three very good brews and a fourth that is passable), extend the time by several minutes per brewing. The third brew may require as long as 15 minutes to develop well. Temperature is crucial: if it is too hot, the brew will be bitter and the finer flavors will be overpowered.
quicksilvercrescendo- Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now
Page 5 of 22 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22
Similar topics» The connection between Health and Dentistry
» The Co2 Thread - I love Co2
» The Talmud Thread
» The Pyramid Thread
» The Anger Thread
» The Co2 Thread - I love Co2
» The Talmud Thread
» The Pyramid Thread
» The Anger Thread
Page 5 of 22
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum