Salt: It does a body no good (continued); Retracing; Deficiencies

[Guest guest]

rawfood [ <rawfood >

rawfood ]

On Behalf Of Cindy

Monday, August 14, 2006 9:07 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Salt: It does a body no good (WAS: Unrefined sea salt v.

refined

 

Hi Elchanan,

 

I don't agree with your 'logic' with regard to something being toxic no matter

what it's

concentration. If you followed your theory through to it's logical conclusion

most compounds in

the human body are doing it harm????? Hydrochloric acid is a harmful substance

but without it we

cannot digest food. Too large a dose of potassium is fatal but so to is too

little. Large doses

of sodium chloride acidify the body but too little leads to metabolic alkalosis,

low fluid

volume and urinary potassium loss. Just because a substance is toxic in a

certain dosage dose

not follow that it is toxic in all doses - infact the very same substance could

very well be

therapeutic in a certain dose.

I also do not understand your reasoning that an ionic bond in of itself is a

'bad' thing. (I do

have a chemistry back ground and am married to a Chemistry Professor). Obviously

sodium chloride

is an ionic bond and this occurs naturally within our bodies when the chloride

anion and the

sodium cation join and is vital for our metabolic function (and therefore

survival). How is this

a 'bad' or undesirable thing? How do you suppose you would make a mineral salt

if not by ionic

bonding????

Cindy

______________

 

Greetings Cindy, and thanks so very much for responding to my post. I

enthusiastically welcome

your input, and I hope that together, we might turn this dialog into a nice

learning experience.

First I'll respond on several specific points you've raised, then I'll make a

request to

continue the conversation. I hope you'll choose to participate!!

 

You write: " I don't agree with your 'logic' with regard to something being toxic

no matter what

it's concentration.... Just because a substance is toxic in a certain dosage

dose not follow

that it is toxic in all doses... " As a generalization, I agree completely, and

if I have given

the impression otherwise, then I have communicated unclearly.

 

You continue: " ...in fact the very same substance could very well be therapeutic

in a certain

dose. " Here I sense that we hold different perspectives. I believe in Nature's

design, that is,

I believe the body monitors, cleanses, and restores itself. Except in cases of

trauma (and a few

other very rare circumstances), I do not use nor recommend treatments of any

kind; these only

serve to block the body's own, natural processes.

 

We may observe evidence that this is so, for example, when people experience

" retracing " of old

symptoms. This term was first used, to my knowledge, by Samuel Hahnemann,

originator of

homeopathic. Basically, whenever the body has begun a cleansing / restoration

process, and that

process is blocked from completion (whether by trauma, therapeutic intervention,

poor diet and

lifestyle), then eventually, given the opportunity, the body may reproduce the

original

symptoms, to a degree, as it completes the restoration process.

 

Almost all reported deficiencies in western societies are a myth. For it is not

from a dietary

deficiency, but rather from endless leaching out of valuable material faster

than the body can

ever possibly replace that material, that causes what are perceived as

" deficiencies " . The term

" deficiency " implies that the solution lies in " taking something " . But if we

understand that the

process is really one of excessive loss, and not one of insufficient gain, then

we may take

steps to remove the cause of the loss. In general, this means that we must stop

ingesting

something, or change some aspect of our behavior to reduce stressors in our

lives, etc.

 

Such a shift occurs, for example, when people switch from eating largely cooked

to largely raw

foods, and particularly if they choose foods that are highly alkalizing to the

body and

well-matched to its digestive capacities. These include primarily fruits and

greens, which are

high in water and therefore oxygen, high in fuel (simple sugars), high in

vitamins and minerals,

etc. AND low in proteins, fats, and hard indigestible fiber.

 

Anyway, my point here is simply that I do not seek nor recommend anything for

its " therapeutic "

properties; I believe that all such interventions (except in cases of trauma, as

I stated above,

and occasionally with the exception of certain energetic modalities), are

directly

counterproductive.

 

Returning to the salt topic ... you write: " Obviously sodium chloride is an

ionic bond and this

occurs naturally within our bodies when the chloride anion and the sodium cation

join and is

vital for our metabolic function (and therefore survival. " Are you suggesting

here that our

bodies create sodium chloride internally? If so, then I'd surely love to know

where in the body

this occurs, and under what circumstances, and I'd be truly grateful if you

would share that

information.

 

All of which leads me to my request: Would you be willing to share exactly where

in the body,

and by what process, sodium chloride is broken apart, such that the sodium ion

and the chloride

ion become permanently separated and indecently available? For if I am

incorrect, then I would

truly love to know!

 

Thanks,

Elchanan