Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justin!
>
> I read the info on the link to fibermenace.com.
> Then I read about the author(can you say, Soviet
> civil servant?). Then I did some research on his
> writings and theories. I now think of him as "Dr.
> Dostoevsky Diet." Though I may make myself some
> beet kvass shortly(good idea!), I am certainly not
> going to start eating "bone soup" and butter by
> the bucket-full. He's advocating the diet he was
> raised on as a Ukrainian, minus good rye bread
> perhaps--how could he have developed any digestive
> problems on it? This makes no sense. Maybe his
> theories do apply to some peoples' disorders; he
> has glowing reviews on Amazon. Why this sort of
> diet would be generally beneficial, I don't know.
> But I do know this: I'd LOVE to get Konstantin
> Monastyrsky in a room with Victoria Boutenko and
> see who wins!


---......i have not thought about the author, the meaning of his message is relevant and compatible to my own experience, that what matter to me...

---nice to hear there are a few more Ukrainians involved in health movement...

---i like and agree with Victoria Boutenko's "dry" fasting between the meals idea which i practice myself for many years now..., however, eating and mixing plants(=vegetables) is out of my repertoire, i only prefer fruits and some nuts... (- i have now tried the inshell brazil nuts, and they are really a great complement to fruits...)..., then, i am not sure of Boutenkos eating schedule either, as she places her meals early in the morning and during high sun/day time..., during that time i rather prefer to learn and practice sustaining on air, sun and prana...

---well, i think that fibermenace article is what our world need to read and hear more of, to break all these old misconceptions and false-beliefs, at least offer some good counter balance to our often "one-sided", financed by corporate business, overwhelming propaganda... just think of who will benefit most from people believing in necessity of fibers...? - who will profit from that...?
maybe we need more of these brains coming from old "sovjet", who have learned to see upon the world with different more "sensitive" eyes...? and have better ability to process, question and evaluate the information, and draw "more" logical conclusions...?

---the "whole-foods" idea should not be taken to its extreme..., for example, from a plant, i eat only one tiny part of it, - the part what plant will not mind to give away - the plant's fruit..., - i will take or spit out the grave fiber, i will peel the fruit from its skin and i will pick out the seeds..., but i know that many people eat the WHOLE fruit, including fruits peel, seeds, and even a leaf...

---Tamukha, what is "Dr.Dostoevsky Diet"...? - can you elaborate...? I like Dostoevsky, maybe he had something interesting to say about foods too...?...

Justin,

What I mean is, Mr. Monastyrsky seems to advocate a well-off kulak diet from the time of the writer Dostoevsky(whose work I also like)--lots of animal protein, cultured dairy products and "napoï;" these are home-made fermented beverages, very little plant food. The only deviation from this old diet seems to be the lack of brown bread, which as you know, is an Eastern European staple. He seems to not distinguish carbohydrate from starch. His basic theory holds that fiber from vegetables and fruits(plain carbohydrate) is as bad as fiber from breads(starchy carbohydrate). All plant foods contain fiber, including the edible flesh, Justin, so a raw vegan diet is not what Monastyrsky would recommend at all. He's more a Weston Price-ist.

I agree that it is important to hear of other dietary modes, or one's thinking may become undynamic. And Mr. Monastyrsky seems to have gone through a lot of trouble to formulate his hypotheses. But there is a tendency to zealotry in people like that that is disturbing. Maybe a high animal protein diet is beneficial to some people, but what if that encourages other disorders? They simply don't take that into account. I am thinking of buying his book, just to learn the intricacies of his hypothesis firsthand.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Justin,
>
> What I mean is, Mr. Monastyrsky seems to advocate
> a well-off kulak diet from the time of the writer
> Dostoevsky(whose work I also like)--lots of animal
> protein, cultured dairy products and "napoï;"
> these are home-made fermented beverages, very
> little plant food. The only deviation from this
> old diet seems to be the lack of brown bread,
> which as you know, is an Eastern European staple.
> He seems to not distinguish carbohydrate from
> starch. His basic theory holds that fiber from
> vegetables and fruits(plain carbohydrate) is as
> bad as fiber from breads(starchy carbohydrate).
> All plant foods contain fiber, including the
> edible flesh, Justin, so a raw vegan diet is not
> what Monastyrsky would recommend at all. He's
> more a Weston Price-ist.
>
> I agree that it is important to hear of other
> dietary modes, or one's thinking may become
> undynamic. And Mr. Monastyrsky seems to have
> gone through a lot of trouble to formulate his
> hypotheses. But there is a tendency to zealotry
> in people like that that is disturbing. Maybe a
> high animal protein diet is beneficial to some
> people, but what if that encourages other
> disorders? They simply don't take that into
> account. I am thinking of buying his book, just
> to learn the intricacies of his hypothesis
> firsthand.


---yes, i "know" or think i know, the difference between "bad" (unnatural?) and "good" (natural?) fibers, or maybe not...

---i have been on a raw-food mostly fruit diet for so long, i forgot the taste and effects from fibers originating from SAD...

---however, i experience, that even "good" fibers from sun-ripe fruits ARE not too easy going on digestive-elimination system..., specially I feel the impact during the periods followed fasting..., when my senses and perceptions are at high, purified and alert...

---therefore, i think, Mr. Monastyrsky in his fiber-article has very much insight to offer, and should not be disregarded lightly at all..., what he says just make much sense to me, but of course according to my own subjective experience..., and other people might have the opposite experience...

---at least more than one side is presented here to listen from...?

Justin,

"---however, i experience, that even "good" fibers from sun-ripe fruits ARE not too easy going on digestive-elimination system..., specially I feel the impact during the periods followed fasting..., when my senses and perceptions are at high, purified and alert..."

Do you mean that following a fast, your body does not tolerate even fruit fiber well? This is my problem with hypotheses like Weston Price's and Konstantin Monastyrsky's--they'd say the only direction you should go from there is back to saturated fats and proteins from animal flesh. I suppose one other direction might be to just drink water until you starve to death! That's why I advocate juicing, and by that, I mean blending. The fiber in the fruit or veg is sort of "pre-chewed" by the blender, which presumably would make it easier to digest, and by digest, I mean eliminate. I do eat whole fruits and vegetables, though. It's confusing. So many raw foodists go on rejuventaing long-term juice "feasts," there must be something beneficial about regular juicing. Maybe that was what the OP wanted to know . . .

QUOTE

Posted by: debbietook (IP Logged) Date: January 18, 2009 02:11AM
....I made it clear in my post that I was talking about 'added fibre' rather than naturally occurring fibre. ....Secondly, I talked later of the 'pulp' (from juice), which is a different thing from 'fibre' alone. Now, for example, pulp from the juiced flesh of an orange will contain the pith, which contains calcium, and in fact most of the calcium present in an orange I believe.

UNQUOTE

Yes debbietook another subtle point when juicing is how dry the pulp is. Or how efficient the extraction is. When making carrot, beet, celery juice i use a Wells hydraulic press after the regular juicer, has done stage one. This extracts even more juice from the pulp which when removed from the press holds together like a board and almost has the consistency of sawdust. It is no longer something one would want to save for a "recipe", I give it to my compost worms.
Unfortunately I don't juice enough citrus to make pressing it worthwhile, and the fibers are of a nature that gums up the pressing cloth anyway.
Many fruits are already practically mostly prepackaged juice anyway, in which case I suppose juicing makes sense only if they aren't organic...otherwise why bother? unless one wants a treat...YUMMMMM

happyway Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..........another subtle point when juicing
> is how dry the pulp is. Or how efficient the
> extraction is. When making carrot, beet, celery
> juice i use a Wells hydraulic press after the
> regular juicer, has done stage one.
That sure is a lot of trouble just for a little
extra juice. I'd be interested in what Juicer you use for
Stage One. I use an Omega 4000, and the pulp comes out dry
enough for me. I use the pulp in my garden........WY

Wheatgrass Yogi Wrote:
That sure is a lot of trouble just for a little
extra juice. I'd be interested in what Juicer you use for
Stage One. I use an Omega 4000, and the pulp comes out dry
enough for me. I use the pulp in my garden........WYe the pulp in my
> garden........WY

Yes the Juicer does makes a difference too.
My champion makes a much wetter pulp than my twin gear Angel I got back in 1998.
The press cleans up quickly. The Angel is much more time intensive for cleanup.
The pressing itself is straight forward, warp the pulp in a cloth (that feels like nylon but has the texture of canvas), put the pulp package (about the size of 2-3 slices of bread) in tray, close valve,and pump (removable) jack handle from time to time. When I make about a quart and half of juice (stage 1)I seem to frequently get another cup of juice from the press.

I find Arugula's post to be refreshing! So many others are mired in superstition and ignorance.

I am not afraid of science.

Lee_123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find Arugula's post to be refreshing! So many
> others are mired in superstition and ignorance.
>
> I am not afraid of science.

What science understands (or misunderstands) is but a fraction of the truth of the human body.

Here's one example:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

Omega

Quote

Here's one example: [news.bbc.co.uk]

Interesting article.

When it's all said and done, let's look at nature. Does nature present us with just juice??? Is our digestive system designed to take just juice or just fibre???

Seems to me nature gives us 'whole' foods with a combo of juice and fibre....Think I'll stick to what nature tells me.

geo

Lee_123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find Arugula's post to be refreshing! So many
> others are mired in superstition and ignorance.
>
> I am not afraid of science.


Did you actually read the article?

What impressed you about this scientific study?

Omega Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What science understands (or misunderstands) is but a fraction of the truth of the human body.
Here's one example:
[news.bbc.co.uk]


---thanks Omega for sharing this article!