so many theories!

March 7, 2004

so many theories... so little time!

It's like Victoria discusses, if we listen to everyone's instructions

then we would not be able to eat anything. I believe it's best to

listen to everyone, read lots, and then listen to our own bodies and,

more importantly, listen to our intuition. In the mean time I suggest

it's not worth worrying about. We should just do our best to maximize

our health (having fun at the same time is a plus), listening to our

bodies and intuition as we go, and share our experiences.

With so many different theories, I'm feeling I should just go

breatharian (then againlll that would probably kick off a lot of

varrying opinions on what, when, where, and how to breath)

Jeff

And now a word from our brilliant sponsors...

March 7, 2004

Yea, rah, Jeff! Well said.

Martha

who enjoys salt

March 7, 2004

Hi Jeff,

That's the problem with listening to all the convoluted effluvia that

is forthcoming from alternative medicine. A good example of why people

are so confused is illustrated by the study on water, where assumptions

and huge leaps of logic are made. The people who did this study

apparently have some stake in our belief that inorganic calcium is good

for us, so they didn't even consider that there are chemicals in soft

water that are not present in hard water that might account for the soft

water group having bad teeth. Other factors could come into play, as

well, which aren't considered because the researchers are so intent on

proving their theory about calcium. Actually, it was probably the case

that both study groups had bad teeth (just about everyone does in our

culture), but the soft groups' were just *really* bad. The same goes for

all the " research " that is supposed to prove one theory or another:

garbage in, garbage out.

Yes, it is correct to listen to our " intuition " , but that's another

way of saying our senses can tell us what to eat, if we listen. The

eating of salt might be confused with a healthy practice because it gives

us pleasure when we eat it (or at least something we mistake for

pleasure), but the real test is " can you make a meal of it? " . If the

answer is " no " , we shouldn't eat it. So far I haven't found any

exceptions to this rule, and following it has served me well in reaching

my health goals.

Nora

Jeff Rogers wrote:

> so many theories... so little time!

>

> It's like Victoria discusses, if we listen to everyone's instructions

> then we would not be able to eat anything. I believe it's best to

> listen to everyone, read lots, and then listen to our own bodies and,

> more importantly, listen to our intuition. In the mean time I suggest

> it's not worth worrying about. We should just do our best to maximize

> our health (having fun at the same time is a plus), listening to our

> bodies and intuition as we go, and share our experiences.

>

> With so many different theories, I'm feeling I should just go

> breatharian (then againlll that would probably kick off a lot of

> varrying opinions on what, when, where, and how to breath)

>

> Jeff

>

> And now a word from our brilliant sponsors...

>

March 8, 2004

Yes! It's fascinating, isn't it, that in a country that has one of

the highest per capita consumptions of calcium (fortified foods and

supplementation included), it also has one of the highest rates of

osteoporosis. But doctors keep prescribing calcium and in the same

breath may say that they can keep eating whatever they are eating.

It's amazing that the medical profession does not seem to wonder

about that. Why is it vegetarians have far less bone loss than those

on standard American diets? I'd be interested to see a comparison to

raw foodists, including a group on raw organic mono vegan diet. It

baffles me.

The " bowl " theory is a good barometer for eating. I suspect, in an

ideal natural setting, there may be times when we are drawn to

chewing on some herbs. We may not eat a bowl of it, but we may still

eat it by itself. I've certainly learned from experience that eating

foods by themselves, per meal, leaves me feeling better. I just

haven't gotten there full time.

Thanks for the post!

Jeff

March 8, 2004

Hi Jeff, sweetie,

Hey, I'm just here visiting Nora, and I thought I'd drop a few thoughts

here in the discussion about herbs. Here goes:

To the unperverted palate, herbs are unpleasant in taste. A person may get

a bit of a buzz from eating a herb, but that only points out the harmfulness

of the herb. Herbs are generally bitter, hot or somehow irritating in

flavour, indicating their undesirability as a food. Should a person be

walking along in the woods and pick up a herb to eat, and if the herb had a

pleasant flavour, the person would then be able to make a meal out of it,

and the herb could be classed as an appropriate food to eat. It'd be much

like eating lettuce. But a healthy person with an unjaded appetite would

find a herb unpleasant in taste from the start and then would refrain from

eating the herb. If the person continued eating the herb, and neglected the

messages sent by the senses, that person would then experience a greater

degree of unpleasantness proportionate to the quantity of herb eaten. It's

the poisonous substances in herbs that do us harm, and it is for that reason

that most people of today eat herbs -- for the drug effects that the herbs

create, much like the stimulation that the poison called coffee causes. Many

others who are not optimally healthy search for magic pills to get healthy

instead of eliminating some of their less than healthy habits. So people go

to herbs.

Again, herbs are like drugs and are used for the same reason that drugs

are used -- for their drugging effect. Herbs force the body to devote its

energies on removing the herb, which is often experienced as an energy high

as the body goes into extra high gear to eliminate the herbal poison. Were a

person to study a poison manual to see what types of symptoms were due to

poisoning, that person would find all the symptoms that herb usage brings

about. A person who takes herbs to relieve themselves of symptoms is only

spreading an increased eliminative load onto other more healthy parts of

his/her body. This creates an excited emergency state in the body, which

many people mistake as feeling better due to the high levels of hormones such

as adrenaline running around the body. The situation has only been made

worse, since the body has been forced to work harder where it was already

tired out, as evidenced by the original symptoms. Disease symptoms are

merely signs that the body is having trouble operating in its normal manner,

due to excessive loads put upon it by the owner of the body. When a body

gets overloaded in work, it's own metabolic wastes naturally start to build

up too high. An overloaded body is a tired body and a tired body has

difficulty removing even its own normally generated wastes, let alone poisons

eaten in the form of herbs. With the heightened level of wastes within the

body comes the adjustment in bodily behaviour we experience as " symptoms " .

If a person leaves the symptoms alone and gets rest, or otherwise follows

health maintaining practices, the symptoms will end and normal body operation

will return. There is no need to stop symptoms since they ARE the means by

which the body is setting things right again. The only need the person has

is to stop indulging in the practices that overburdened the body in the first

place. The use of herbs is one of these practices that overburden the body

because herbs have toxic elements within them. Our senses tell us that when

we first eat them. Those that listen to their senses listen to their

" intuition " .

The wind blows icy cold from the north, up here in igloo land, so I'm

sorry if I sounded a little heavy handed there. A fella has got to wear

pretty think mittens up here. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

Jeff Rogers wrote:

> Yes! It's fascinating, isn't it, that in a country that has one of

> the highest per capita consumptions of calcium (fortified foods and

> supplementation included), it also has one of the highest rates of

> osteoporosis. But doctors keep prescribing calcium and in the same

> breath may say that they can keep eating whatever they are eating.

> It's amazing that the medical profession does not seem to wonder

> about that. Why is it vegetarians have far less bone loss than those

> on standard American diets? I'd be interested to see a comparison to

> raw foodists, including a group on raw organic mono vegan diet. It

> baffles me.

>

> The " bowl " theory is a good barometer for eating. I suspect, in an

> ideal natural setting, there may be times when we are drawn to

> chewing on some herbs. We may not eat a bowl of it, but we may still

> eat it by itself. I've certainly learned from experience that eating

> foods by themselves, per meal, leaves me feeling better. I just

> haven't gotten there full time.

>

> Thanks for the post!

>

> Jeff

>

March 8, 2004

Hi jeff, again,

I think I forgot to sign that last note. It's me Robert!!