coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bingo. If it's something an enema can wash out it
> sure isn't what you've been told mucoid plaque is
> all about! It's like that gall bladder flush, you
> aren't passing stones, it's the oil and salt
> you've been drinking as part of the "cleanse" that
> come out of you.

yeah i agree, in many cases such as the liver/olive oil flush and the bog standard colon cleanses which are usually based around nothing more than large doses of Psyllium husks.

Arnold Ehret, with his advice to eliminate mucus forming foods, found that the foods that alkaline forming were healthier than the foods that were acid forming, and that acid forming and mucus forming were nearly one and the same.

If you look at the list of acidic foods on the youtube of Dr Young, the animal products and grains etc, these are indeed unhealthy foods.

That being said, taking products to neutralize your acidic condition, or drinking alkaline water, say like the kangen water, is not dealing with the cause of the acidity, but providing a bandaid to make a person feel better. Not removing the cause of the problem will never result in great health.

Given Dr Young anti fruit stance, I am not a big fan of his. However, it is generally recognized that cancers grow in an acidic condition in the body. And as most of us have found out, the more alkaline our bodies became because of dietary changes we made, the healthier we became.

So while I'm not a fan of Dr Young or his dietary recommendation, there is some truth that eating foods that are alkalizing produce a healthier body than eating the foods that are acidifying.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 01:36AM by Prana.

But how do we know that That is the aspect of those foods that is most healthy or unhealthy and therefore healing or disease causing? To my mind it seems that is only one shared factor.
An alkaline body may be a healthier body but that can't be the only reason that it is healthier...

It is definitely not the only factor. I think the toxin content of foods is also important, as well as freshness, ripeness, wholeness, and rawness. But one thing is for sure, if we are acidic, our body will start dissolving our bones and teeth to neutralize that acidity.

Eww...

Madinah im not saying Dr. Walker and Bernard Jensen were wrong , i was simply correcting you, regarding the tongue being smooth muscle tissues .. its not , and that comparing the digestive system and the circulatory system being the same .. its not.

i dont know what walker and jensen saw with their own eyes ! i wasnt there ! but i have yet to see them produce any pictures of the inside of a colon showing the mucoid plague IN there .. only the OUTSIDE results defecated via colon cleansing

Workoutman , a colonoscopy can only reach the ileocecal valve ... beyond that the valve is a one way valve (except in certain circumstances when its not working properly ) any further searching beyond the valve requires some sort of invasive surgery

Tam is correct .. the colon is cleansed via a fleet enema prior to the colonoscopy

a colonoscopy is different than a colon cleanse and or instestinal cleansing

veg is correct the cleansing products possibly produce the desired affects of showing a bunch of matter coming out .. (matter in .. matter out that makes more sense to me )

i dont doubt that plaque is formed .. but i think the extreme amounts of salt have alot to do with forming mucous

so sorry i dont beleive what you beleive in , but ive put at least a 100 hours into paid study of anatomy and physiology and what they are suggesting doesnt make sense to me

ive been eating all day as im sure you have too .. run your tonque around the inside of your cheeck ..that is smooth muscle tissue .. do you feel food all stuck to it ? its the same smooth tissue running thru your entire digestive track!

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

This is what another guy used to say on another form, that if you were acidic you would eventually dissolve to nothing, ive never heard something so crazy in my life and nor has it ever been documented.

also i have never read any research that contributes acidity to cancer, much like the myth of low oxygen caused cancer and how they take otto warburgs quotes right out of context.

powerlifer,

I am wondering where you come by the opinion that active cancer isn't oxygen related; having discussed Otto Warburg with old timer oncologists, I can tell you they'd disagree with your inference that cancer isn't, at least in part, a condition of oxygen depletion. This isn't hooey; this is basic college biology.

Good points Jgunn I think Prana explanation on why these cooked starchy acidic foods are bad was clear.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> powerlifer,
>
> I am wondering where you come by the opinion that
> active cancer isn't oxygen related; having
> discussed Otto Warburg with old timer oncologists,
> I can tell you they'd disagree with your inference
> that cancer isn't, at least in part, a condition
> of oxygen depletion. This isn't hooey; this is
> basic college biology.

I found this post which explains easier than i can:

Warburg has to be one of the most misquoted people in history. Someone misinterpreted what he really said and this misquote has been repeated over and over. I even heard it expanded on with the claim that Warburg claimed that all disease was caused by a lack of oxygen.

Warburg never claimed that cancer was caused from a lack of oxygen. What he said is that cancer cells are anaerobic, and will continue to ferment REGARDLESS of whether oxygen is present or not.

powerlifer,

I've read Dr. Warburg's works

So have i tamukha, and i have to say i fully agree with what the guy says regarding his Ottos findings.

"Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture "
[en.wikipedia.org]

fwiw

Paul

Many other excerpts go into detail further that although cancer cells are anaerobic they will continue to ferment regardless if oxygen is present, if i remember its known as aerobic glycolysis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2011 09:55PM by powerlifer.

Chris,

I can't claim the expertise that you and Tamara have regarding Warburg. But the little I've read from just the Wikipedia seems to indicate that oxygen or it's lack may be a factor not only from processing sugar but also the ph environment. Low oxygen is acidic, high oxygen is alkaline. A bit of an oversimplification, nonetheless.

"Warburg also wrote about oxygen's relationship to the pH of cancer cells internal environment. Since fermentation was a major metabolic pathway of cancer cells, Warburg reported that cancer cells maintain a lower pH, as low as 6.0, due to lactic acid production and elevated CO2. He firmly believed that there was a direct relationship between pH and oxygen. Higher pH means higher concentration of oxygen molecules while lower pH means lower concentrations of oxygen. [en.wikipedia.org]. My immediate reaction on ph and oxygen is well "duh" until I realize my 11th grade chemistry was 1977 and ph taught as a ratio of hydrogen vs. hydroxyl ions (h vs. oh) may not have been accepted science in Warburg's time. Dunno. I'm putting in for a Nobel for a Homer Simpson molecule, deuterium hydroxide or d'oh! I'm not budgeting for a trip to Norway!!

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris,
>
> I can't claim the expertise that you and Tamara
> have regarding Warburg. But the little I've read
> from just the Wikipedia seems to indicate that
> oxygen or it's lack may be a factor not only from
> processing sugar but also the ph environment. Low
> oxygen is acidic, high oxygen is alkaline. A bit
> of an oversimplification, nonetheless.
>
> "Warburg also wrote about oxygen's relationship to
> the pH of cancer cells internal environment. Since
> fermentation was a major metabolic pathway of
> cancer cells, Warburg reported that cancer cells
> maintain a lower pH, as low as 6.0, due to lactic
> acid production and elevated CO2. He firmly
> believed that there was a direct relationship
> between pH and oxygen. Higher pH means higher
> concentration of oxygen molecules while lower pH
> means lower concentrations of oxygen.
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> . My immediate reaction on ph and oxygen is well
> "duh" until I realize my 11th grade chemistry was
> 1977 and ph taught as a ratio of hydrogen vs.
> hydroxyl ions (h vs. oh) may not have been
> accepted science in Warburg's time. Dunno. I'm
> putting in for a Nobel for a Homer Simpson
> molecule, deuterium hydroxide or d'oh! I'm not
> budgeting for a trip to Norway!!
>
> Paul

sorry, the ph scale is based on the concentration of hydrogen ions which means as you get more acidic, there is less oxygen by definition, [staff.jccc.net]. no matter. best.

thanks Madinah im glad we can respect each others difference in beliefs

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 04:53AM by Jgunn.

I remember that Prof Arnold Erhet's 'mucusless diet healing system' was an alkaline diet. I believe that all aminal products are acid, and most fruit and vegies are alkaline. It's interesting that human milk is slightly alkaline, which imo sets a precedent for future dietry food types.

I'm about 80-90 percent raw and alkaline, and have never in my life had so much energy or been so fit. When I began, I lost all excess fat without trying.

Cheers, geo

I will preface my coming statement by saying, that I do not want to, nor do I think i ever will want to, drink human milk... However, I believe if humans wanna drink milk, that is the milk they should drink... im sure its far healthier than drinking the milk meant for another animals baby...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

But where will one find good human milk, some female humans are smokers, on drugs, at least we know what we feed cows or goats but humans who knows

Adult humans should not be drinking any sort of milk, we generally lose the ability to digest it after the age of 5 (sometimes 6 or 7).
Please remember this is a vegan site, cow and goat milk consumption are not promoted here.

I agree, that stuff is bad for us, its primarily the lactose that adults cannot digest properly, lots of stuff about animal milk is bad for our health besides just the lactose... I would not advocate the drinking of any milk, even human, for anything other than survival purposes only.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

We are not promoting milk, just responding to the if statement but actually 90+ percent vegan is still vegan as 90+ percent fruits is fruitarian.

Agreed, although there are vegan milks which are fine, soya, hemp, various nut and seed milks etc.

But are these vegan milks 5 percent protein as human milk?

oh, I used to call the nut milks nut juice, till a female friend pointed out that it sounded REALLY bad, and that I should have at least bought her dinner first be4 offering it to her...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

madinah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But are these vegan milks 5 percent protein as
> human milk?

Does it matter for a healthy adult?, it would only matter if it was being fed as a substitute as a child and for factors more important than the 5 percent protein as its a taurine source which is an essential amino acid for a growing child and cant be supplied on a vegan diet.

madinah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
but actually 90+ percent vegan is
> still vegan as 90+ percent fruits is fruitarian.

90% Vegan is not vegan at all if that 10% includes the use of animal products.
A vegan is a vegetarian who omits all animal products from diet and lifestyle. People may consume and utilize whatever they wish but they are not vegan if they do not follow the principles of veganism. The term cannot be molded to fit each lifestyle, it does have a set and solid meaning.

To quote Donald Watson who coined the term in 1944;
"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."

By this defintion I am not personally a Vegan as I don't abstain entirely from all those groups. That's fine by me though, I have never found wearing any label to be comfortable .

I wonder what those early vegans wore for shoes?

This proves that we do not need animal protein because if a growing baby needs only 5 percent protein from mother milk, then as adults we can get enough from fruits and vegetables.

madinah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This proves that we do not need animal protein
> because if a growing baby needs only 5 percent
> protein from mother milk, then as adults we can
> get enough from fruits and vegetables.

Yes because as a growing adult are needs for pretty much every nutrient dont increase do they lol?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 08:06PM by powerlifer.