fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
>
> > "our bodies require nutrients. not exogenous
> > enzymes.
> > we possess endogenous enzymes."
> >
> > Yes, our bodies require nutrients, but we also
> > require enzymes. Just because we create our own
> > enzymes (metabolic enzymes) doesn't mean food
> > enzymes aren't of great benefit.
> >
> > "not true."
> >
> > Great counter-argument again. Unless you can
> > provide evidence that food doesn't heal in
> > response to the thousands of studies that prove
> > certain foods have therapeutic/curative effects
> on
> > the human body, you're saying nothing.
> >
> > If the body can heal itself and food has no
> > curative effects, why do people die from
> disease?
> >
> > "foods do not heal. foods are taken in and
> broken
> > down by the body and go into the blood. the
> body
> > takes that nutrient rich blood and the
> undergoes
> > the processes of assimilation and repair using
> > those nutrients."
> >
> > You just contradicted yourself completely.
> Foods
> > don't heal but the body needs them in order to
> get
> > the nutrients from which they would use to
> repair
> > and assimilate? You don't even make sense.
>
>
> You got a hint when I showed you the study that
> showed healing in the fasting state.
>
> but your mind is unable to conceive of another
> view as you rejected that data and instead
> redirected into me needing to show you a human
> study, many of which are available in the fasting
> literature, hence no incoming nutrients.
>
> now try not to accuse me of recommending fasting
> as that is not the point.
>
>
> there is no info that I could show you that would
> impact your view as you are wedded to that view
> due to your acceptance of meaningless studies.
>
> I have dissected many studies here, showing that
> they prove not what they claim to.
>
> ask yourself what is it that you are trying to
> heal
>
> Then ask what is it that caused that disease.
>
> Removing the cause allows the body to heal
>
> not removing the cause will diasallow healing
>
> Trying to prescribe nutrients and phytos for
> disease ignores the cause.
>
> but this is all gibberish to you.
>
> carry on.


I got a hint of how delusional you are, sure, but sadly no hint of reality. It's kind of sad how you resort to saying nonsensical things like this entire post because you simply cannot provide evidence for what you are saying. It's like you live under a rock and reject anything that goes against what you previously thought you knew. Sign of ignorance and arrogance. If "Removing the cause allows the body to heal"... are you saying that all someone who got lung cancer from smoking cigarettes needs to do is quit smoking cigarettes and the cancer will go away? ANSWER the question I've asked three times along with the one I just asked... If the body can heal itself and food has no curative effects, why do people die from disease? You have also never given one example of a human being who has cured cancer from fasting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2014 11:41PM by jtprindl.

John,

I knew you were lurking around here....

put it this way, here's an example....

I just read that tim trader was sued in court years ago because a woman with diabetes died after following his advise to cease all drugs and fast.

very bad idea with diabetes obviously. dietary changes should be accompanied by careful reduction in drugs if possible. not cessation. like robby barbaro has done for his diabetes, type 1, reduced amount but not stopped it.

so I am not a dogmatic person with respect to NH, as some are. I was speaking in general, as a counterpoint to jtprindl's concepts as presented.


>In other words, Removing the Primary Causes is NOT always enough because we cannot change everything overnight.

I was speaking generally. Of course there are exceptions.



> For example, our Livers might be impaired and are no longer able to make any Cholesterol. Now we have another Group of Needs that we must Satisfy because of the Damage that we’ve done to our Liver. In this case, Removing the Primary Causes is NOT enough!

no different from diabetes. there are exceptions. if the body is unable to handle the current condition and is not responding to improvement in circumstances with respect to diet and other health promoters, of course steps can be taken.

My point is that USUALLY these things are not necessary to concern oneself with.

And the other viewpoint as presented by jtprindl is to consciously seek out and ingest all kinds of alleged defenses and "healing" agents.


>Yes, the body can do amazing things by recycling what we already have, but we no longer live in an ideal world and Water Fasting is no longer safe to do for most of us unless we first prepare ourselves for the Fast.

every time I mention a fast as an example to make a point, someone says something about fasting being dangerous. let's be clear. I DO NOT recommend fasting. I recommend dietary improvement, rest and movement. period.

> For example, the Liver needs Glutathione to complete a 2 Phase Process to neutralize and eliminate all of the Environmental Toxins that most of us have and since we do NOT receive any Glutathione on a Water Fast, we can actually do a lot of Harm unless we remove those Environmental Toxins prior to the Fast.

if there is L-cysteine, L-glutamic acid, and glycine in the body, it will be synthesized.


Why do we always end up talking about cancer during these discussions?


>Here is a snippet from my file on Iodine…
Now this is what happens when you give iodine to cells, like this is an oat cell carcinoma [oat cell carcinoma is a dated term for a type of lung cancer] that has had the ability to up the cells (to enhance) to absorb iodine. Look at what happens over a 10 day time period if you can get the cells to absorb iodine - that versus that in 10 days. Iodine induces apoptosis [programmed cell death] and iodine will take away cancer. Iodine induces apoptosis - iodine takes away the immortality of the cancer cells and it goes to these cancer cells and says, it’s time to die, go out there and do it because it’s your turn. But cancer cells think of themselves as being immortal and iodine takes away that immortality.


There is no agent that targets cancer cells. iodine is no different from any other of the agents in all the curative studies. For example, the study that touted chaga as a curative agent. When in fact it killed normal cells too, just like a hundred other chemicals can do. It only killed more cancer cells because they are weaker than a normal cell. Big deal.


>Here is a snippet from my file on Phytochemicals…

I have never seen a good phytochemical study.
They are just as bad as the chaga studies.

>This question is a lot like asking if the Bleach I add to my laundry is whitening my clothes or am I whitening my clothes since I am the one using the Bleach. The Bleach cannot do anything unless I use it, but obviously, I am NOT the one who is whitening my clothes - it’s the Bleach!

bad example. the clothes are not alive.



>Gun can make its own Ammunition, but NOT always, especially if it is impaired!!!


I have never disputed that.

thanks for sharing.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<>>
>
>

John, do you eat nuts and seeds?

>If "Removing the cause allows the body to heal"... are you saying that all someone who got lung cancer from smoking cigarettes needs to do is quit smoking cigarettes and the cancer will go away?

IF it is not too late, the body will heal.
The body always attempts to heal given its energy state.


>If the body can heal itself and food has no curative effects, why do people die from disease?


too general.. make your question more specific. what kind of disease?
give an example.


and try to write a post without being condescending, and without calling me delusional, nonsensical, live under a rock, ignorance ,arrogance


I bet you can't do it - Your ego (at age 20-something?) is just too huge.

Chaga:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Goji Berry:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Mangosteen:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Blueberries:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Noni:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Reishi:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Tell me more about how food doesn't have curative effects.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jtprindl Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> >
> > > "our bodies require nutrients. not exogenous
> > > enzymes.
> > > we possess endogenous enzymes."
> > >
> > > Yes, our bodies require nutrients, but we
> also
> > > require enzymes. Just because we create our
> own
> > > enzymes (metabolic enzymes) doesn't mean food
> > > enzymes aren't of great benefit.
> > >
> > > "not true."
> > >
> > > Great counter-argument again. Unless you can
> > > provide evidence that food doesn't heal in
> > > response to the thousands of studies that
> prove
> > > certain foods have therapeutic/curative
> effects
> > on
> > > the human body, you're saying nothing.
> > >
> > > If the body can heal itself and food has no
> > > curative effects, why do people die from
> > disease?
> > >
> > > "foods do not heal. foods are taken in and
> > broken
> > > down by the body and go into the blood. the
> > body
> > > takes that nutrient rich blood and the
> > undergoes
> > > the processes of assimilation and repair
> using
> > > those nutrients."
> > >
> > > You just contradicted yourself completely.
> > Foods
> > > don't heal but the body needs them in order
> to
> > get
> > > the nutrients from which they would use to
> > repair
> > > and assimilate? You don't even make sense.
> >
> >
> > You got a hint when I showed you the study that
> > showed healing in the fasting state.
> >
> > but your mind is unable to conceive of another
> > view as you rejected that data and instead
> > redirected into me needing to show you a human
> > study, many of which are available in the
> fasting
> > literature, hence no incoming nutrients.
> >
> > now try not to accuse me of recommending
> fasting
> > as that is not the point.
> >
> >
> > there is no info that I could show you that
> would
> > impact your view as you are wedded to that view
> > due to your acceptance of meaningless studies.
> >
> > I have dissected many studies here, showing
> that
> > they prove not what they claim to.
> >
> > ask yourself what is it that you are trying to
> > heal
> >
> > Then ask what is it that caused that disease.
> >
> > Removing the cause allows the body to heal
> >
> > not removing the cause will diasallow healing
> >
> > Trying to prescribe nutrients and phytos for
> > disease ignores the cause.
> >
> > but this is all gibberish to you.
> >
> > carry on.
>
>
> I got a hint of how delusional you are, sure, but
> sadly no hint of reality. It's kind of sad how you
> resort to saying nonsensical things like this
> entire post because you simply cannot provide
> evidence for what you are saying. It's like you
> live under a rock and reject anything that goes
> against what you previously thought you knew. Sign
> of ignorance and arrogance. If "Removing the cause
> allows the body to heal"... are you saying that
> all someone who got lung cancer from smoking
> cigarettes needs to do is quit smoking cigarettes
> and the cancer will go away? ANSWER the question
> I've asked three times along with the one I just
> asked... If the body can heal itself and food has
> no curative effects, why do people die from
> disease?


Many fine folks live under rocks, so be it. Best to leave them to think what they want to think because that is their right. I just try to read the literiture and use common sense, and whether people say it is wrong doesn't matter to me....l am only here to present findings so people can make up their own mind.

Fine folks can say phytonutrients and food enzymes are unimportant, but imo they are very very important. Why? Because of the literiture on phytonutrients and personal experience with enzymes. If people dissagree, so be it....they have their opinion and l have mine. I am certainly not going to waste time arguing with these folks because it only goes around in circles and drains energy and achieves nothing.

I look at the failure of the N.H diet on most people, look at the nutritional science of the N.H diet and the freshness and other post harvest issues of the N.H and have made up my mind. Obviously some folks think a skint diet prone to post harvest issues is still sufficent, they are entitled to that opinion and l hope they continue to succeed on such a diet.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >If "Removing the cause allows the body to
> heal"... are you saying that all someone who got
> lung cancer from smoking cigarettes needs to do is
> quit smoking cigarettes and the cancer will go
> away?
>
> IF it is not too late, the body will heal.
> The body always attempts to heal given its energy
> state.
>
>
> >If the body can heal itself and food has no
> curative effects, why do people die from disease?
>
>
> too general.. make your question more specific.
> what kind of disease?
> give an example.
>
>
> and try to write a post without being
> condescending, and without calling me delusional,
> nonsensical, live under a rock, ignorance
> ,arrogance
>
>
> I bet you can't do it - Your ego (at age
> 20-something?) is just too huge.


All you're doing is speaking nonsense, YOU give ME an example of any human being curing a disease by fasting. Has it been done? I'm sure it has, but it's not the solution for all diseases, all the time, which is what you imply. Why do people suffer and/or die from some of the following diseases: cancer, diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and heart disease if the body can heal itself without external factors?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2014 12:03AM by jtprindl.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fresh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > jtprindl Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > "our bodies require nutrients. not
> exogenous
> > > > enzymes.
> > > > we possess endogenous enzymes."
> > > >
> > > > Yes, our bodies require nutrients, but we
> > also
> > > > require enzymes. Just because we create our
> > own
> > > > enzymes (metabolic enzymes) doesn't mean
> food
> > > > enzymes aren't of great benefit.
> > > >
> > > > "not true."
> > > >
> > > > Great counter-argument again. Unless you
> can
> > > > provide evidence that food doesn't heal in
> > > > response to the thousands of studies that
> > prove
> > > > certain foods have therapeutic/curative
> > effects
> > > on
> > > > the human body, you're saying nothing.
> > > >
> > > > If the body can heal itself and food has no
> > > > curative effects, why do people die from
> > > disease?
> > > >
> > > > "foods do not heal. foods are taken in and
> > > broken
> > > > down by the body and go into the blood. the
> > > body
> > > > takes that nutrient rich blood and the
> > > undergoes
> > > > the processes of assimilation and repair
> > using
> > > > those nutrients."
> > > >
> > > > You just contradicted yourself completely.
> > > Foods
> > > > don't heal but the body needs them in order
> > to
> > > get
> > > > the nutrients from which they would use to
> > > repair
> > > > and assimilate? You don't even make sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > You got a hint when I showed you the study
> that
> > > showed healing in the fasting state.
> > >
> > > but your mind is unable to conceive of
> another
> > > view as you rejected that data and instead
> > > redirected into me needing to show you a
> human
> > > study, many of which are available in the
> > fasting
> > > literature, hence no incoming nutrients.
> > >
> > > now try not to accuse me of recommending
> > fasting
> > > as that is not the point.
> > >
> > >
> > > there is no info that I could show you that
> > would
> > > impact your view as you are wedded to that
> view
> > > due to your acceptance of meaningless
> studies.
> > >
> > > I have dissected many studies here, showing
> > that
> > > they prove not what they claim to.
> > >
> > > ask yourself what is it that you are trying
> to
> > > heal
> > >
> > > Then ask what is it that caused that disease.
> > >
> > > Removing the cause allows the body to heal
> > >
> > > not removing the cause will diasallow healing
> > >
> > > Trying to prescribe nutrients and phytos for
> > > disease ignores the cause.
> > >
> > > but this is all gibberish to you.
> > >
> > > carry on.
> >
> >
> > I got a hint of how delusional you are, sure,
> but
> > sadly no hint of reality. It's kind of sad how
> you
> > resort to saying nonsensical things like this
> > entire post because you simply cannot provide
> > evidence for what you are saying. It's like you
> > live under a rock and reject anything that goes
> > against what you previously thought you knew.
> Sign
> > of ignorance and arrogance. If "Removing the
> cause
> > allows the body to heal"... are you saying that
> > all someone who got lung cancer from smoking
> > cigarettes needs to do is quit smoking
> cigarettes
> > and the cancer will go away? ANSWER the
> question
> > I've asked three times along with the one I
> just
> > asked... If the body can heal itself and food
> has
> > no curative effects, why do people die from
> > disease?
>
>
> Many fine folks live under rocks, so be it. Best
> to leave them to think what they want to think
> because that is their right. I just try to read
> the literiture and use common sense, and whether
> people say it is wrong doesn't matter to me....l
> am only here to present findings so people can
> make up their own mind.
>
> Fine folks can say phytonutrients and food enzymes
> are unimportant, but imo they are very very
> important. Why? Because of the literiture on
> phytonutrients and personal experience with
> enzymes. If people dissagree, so be it....they
> have their opinion and l have mine. I am
> certainly not going to waste time arguing with
> these folks because it only goes around in circles
> and drains energy and achieves nothing.
>
> I look at the failure of the N.H diet on most
> people, look at the nutritional science of the N.H
> diet and the freshness and other post harvest
> issues of the N.H and have made up my mind.
> Obviously some folks think a skint diet prone to
> post harvest issues is still sufficent, they are
> entitled to that opinion and l hope they continue
> to succeed on such a diet.


I agree, I guess I'm just trying to grasp the logic around the way some people think. At the end of the day, you're right they can believe whatever they want to believe.

There is only so much I can take of this. For God's sake, TSM, it's spelled l-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2014 12:14AM by SueZ.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is only so much I can take of this. For
> God's sake, TSM, it's spelled l-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e.

Thanks for the correction, my spelling is not what it used to be. I should get my act togeather and make an effort to spell better, but l am very busy and have neglected it at the expense of other things. I will try to make a note to spell it right in future.

I know bad spelling can be vexing at times, but l try not to place too much emotional emphasis on reading bad spelling because it is such a common occurance for many people and it is not worth the emotional vexation. There is no excape from this ubiquitious spelling problem online so l have decided to deal with the vexation by not worrying about reading bad spelling from human beings.

I could look up various words l am not sure of, but this takes time and effort and on many occasions it will interupt the flow of the message l intended to post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2014 12:41AM by The Sproutarian Man.

so let me understand this,jtprindl.

I have shown several studies posted here that do not show what they claim.

and you think that I am going to keep going through studies with someone
who thinks that the title of the study is proof of something?

and then when I blow up those studies, you will post more studies?

sure.


> All you're doing is speaking nonsense, YOU give ME
> an example of any human being curing a disease by
> fasting. Has it been done? I'm sure it has, but
> it's not the solution for all diseases, all the
> time, which is what you imply. Why do people
> suffer and/or die from some of the following
> diseases: cancer, diabetes, arthritis, multiple
> sclerosis, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome,
> and heart disease if the body can heal itself
> without external factors?

why are we still talking about fasting?
didn't you see where i mentioned the purpose of me noting that issue?

then above,you say, has it been done?

then you say,I'm sure it has?

are you a bit confused?

and fasting is not the cure for all diseases. maybe you should read my response to JR.


so now we finally get a detailed question.

my answer is that they eat garbage and engage in all kinds of other nonsense,
and get a disease...

the different names of diseases are simply the specific weaknesses of that individual

when they stop doing what they're doing they heal. happens all the time.

"and you think that I am going to keep going through studies with someone
who thinks that the title of the study is proof of something?

and then when I blow up those studies, you will post more studies?"

Lol dude I don't know what kind of fantasy island you live on where you think you are exposing all of these scientific studies, but it's quite entertaining. You can choose to put the blinders on and refuse to be a man by not looking at the evidence and blindly stating the equivalent to "I'm right you're wrong blah blah blah", but you're only doing yourself an injustice.




"my answer is that they eat garbage and engage in all kinds of other nonsense,
and get a disease..."

How do you completely contradict yourself (I mean 100%) and not even notice it? So people get diseases from eating "garbage" but when they eat healthy food, the food isn't playing a factor in not being diseased?

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is only so much I can take of this. For
> > God's sake, TSM, it's spelled
> l-i-t-e-r-a-t-u-r-e.
>
> Thanks for the correction, my spelling is not what
> it used to be. I should get my act togeather and
> make an effort to spell better, but l am very busy
> and have neglected it at the expense of other
> things. I will try to make a note to spell it
> right in future.
>
> I know bad spelling can be vexing at times, but l
> try not to place too much emotional emphasis on
> reading bad spelling because it is such a common
> occurance for many people and it is not worth the
> emotional vexation. There is no excape from this
> ubiquitious spelling problem online so l have
> decided to deal with the vexation by not worrying
> about reading bad spelling from human beings.
>
> I could look up various words l am not sure of,
> but this takes time and effort and on many
> occasions it will interupt the flow of the message
> l intended to post.

Actually you shouldn't have a spelling problem here. This site has a spelling correction feature for what is written in messages. You'd have to spend more time correcting it's corrections trying not to spell such common words correctly than any other waste of spelling time.

Are you first typing your posts somewhere else, for posterity or something, and then transferring them here rotten spelling and all? If you are then your problem would be easily solved by typing your messages here directly.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Actually you shouldn't have a spelling problem
> here. This site has a spelling correction feature
> for what is written in messages.



I wasn't aware of that. I typed in literiture and it didn't correct my word automatically. Is there a spelling function on this forum that l could activate?

>
> Are you first typing your posts somewhere else,


Sometimes l do (write on a word document) because I have lost various longer messages due to forum bugs, so l might pre-prepare an answer (it also saves time when l am busy). Other times l just type straight on the forum without prior writing on the word document.

I am not very good with technology, but l have just noticed my `word' program has a spell check.

Typing very fast doesn't help either. I notice many of my words are spelled badly, but by the time l get back to reading my post the edit function no longer enables correction. I wonder why editing time is so limited...makes it hard.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2014 01:35AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Actually you shouldn't have a spelling
> problem
> > here. This site has a spelling correction
> feature
> > for what is written in messages.
>
>
>
> I wasn't aware of that. I typed in literiture and
> it didn't correct my word automatically. Is there
> a spelling function on this forum that l could
> activate?


Hmm. I know less about computers than you do so I don't know why my messages correct automatically and yours don't. If it's my computer correcting my spelling and not this site doing it I guess I'm just lucky for some reason I don't understand, lol.

>How do you completely contradict yourself (I mean 100%) and not even notice it? So people get diseases from eating "garbage" but when they eat healthy food, the food isn't playing a factor in not being diseased?


oh......my.......god......

you keep thinking you're getting me on contradictions !

you are hilarious.

YES!

people get sick from eating poor diets.

and then

they STOP eating those things that CAUSED the illness.

The improvement in health is CAUSED by the stopping of the eating of cooked junk.

it doesn't matter what you eat as long as it is an improvement,
which is why PEOPLE HEAL on all kinds of diets!

see? no, actually you don't see. spare me your reply. it's incredibly boring and incredibly blind.


like I put oil in my gas tank and it doesn't run well.

i stop putting oil and put gas instead.

and the car runs.

did the gas HEAL THE CAR?

no, the gas provided the NORMAL requirements of the car.

NO HEALING involved!

does that mean that the gas (or food) had NOTHING TO DO WITH the change in health of the car or the body? NO. but it did not HEAL THE BODY OR THE CAR.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >How do you completely contradict yourself (I mean
> 100%) and not even notice it? So people get
> diseases from eating "garbage" but when they eat
> healthy food, the food isn't playing a factor in
> not being diseased?
>
>
> oh......my.......god......
>
> you keep thinking you're getting me on
> contradictions !
>
> you are hilarious.
>
> YES!
>
> people get sick from eating poor diets.
>
> and then
>
> they STOP eating those things that CAUSED the
> illness.
>
> The improvement in health is CAUSED by the
> stopping of the eating of cooked junk.
>
> it doesn't matter what you eat as long as it is an
> improvement,
> which is why PEOPLE HEAL on all kinds of diets!
>
> see? no, actually you don't see. spare me your
> reply. it's incredibly boring and incredibly
> blind.
>
>
> like I put oil in my gas tank and it doesn't run
> well.
>
> i stop putting oil and put gas instead.
>
> and the car runs.
>
> did the gas HEAL THE CAR?
>
> no, the gas provided the NORMAL requirements of
> the car.
>
> NO HEALING involved!
>
> does that mean that the gas (or food) had NOTHING
> TO DO WITH the change in health of the car or the
> body? NO. but it did not HEAL THE BODY OR THE
> CAR.


If the body needs food to function properly, including preventing and curing disease, then food is healing. There's also thousands of studies which prove the therapeutic and curative effects of phytochemicals, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, etc. It doesn't matter how many times you convince yourself you exposed them or proved them wrong (denial and delusion), these FACTS still remain. All health food is not equal in allowing the body to recover from any disease, as has been proven countless times... tons of certain foods cure and prevent specific diseases. That's why something like cannabis oil is extremely successful at reversing and curing skin cancer while many other things fail to do so. That's why coconut oil and turmeric have been proven to reverse Alzheimer's and many other things fail to do so. You're insulting nature when you claim it doesn't have medicinal value.

Herbert Shelton, "The SCIENCE and FINE ART of FOOD and NUTRITION, pp. 144-152

Nuts
CHAPTER X

Nuts are seeds of certain trees. Unlike the seed of the peach and plum, they possess no edible capsule. The peach, once a bitter almond, has developed, under cultivation, a delicious edible capsule. The peach seed, has a taste like that of the almond. The capsules of the pecan, walnut, chestnut, cocoanut, almond, hazelnut, hickory nut, etc., are not edible. They are tough, fibrous materials containing tannic acid and other foul tasting substances that protect the seed from being eaten until it is matured. Botanically, nuts are classed as fruits, as they develop from pollinated flowers. Because the nut is the seed of the tree and is not the edible pulp that surrounds the seed, as is the edible portion of the peach or plum, nuts are discussed in a separate chapter and are not considered in the chapter on fruits.

Paleontologists tell us that primitive man was a nut eater. All over the face of the earth man has used nuts as food from time immemorial. There are many kinds of nuts and these have all proven excellent sources of food, not alone for man, but for the lower primates and many other animals, including many birds. They are rich in food values, delightfully flavored and keep for extended periods so that man, as well as the squirrel, may store them for future use. Many animals besides squirrels eat large quantities of nuts. Many of the birds make use of the nut as an article of food. Horses will consume great quantities of acorns. While they will eat fruit from the trees, they eat acorns off the ground after they have fallen. Hogs eat so many hickory nuts that in certain parts of the country they are called pig-nuts. Horses are also fond of pecans.

The nut tree, like the fruit tree, strikes its roots deep into the earth, where they take up the precious minerals, and sends its limbs high into the space above, where, from air and sun, they take in the carbon, that enable the majestic tree to produce its wonderfully nutritious seed.

Day after day, through spring, summer and autumn, the great sun drives the river mists before it and sends down through the softly whispering foliage a thousand shafts of burnished gold that drain the nectarous dew-drop from its chalice and kiss the nut until its youthful, mineral-laden sap changes to delightful food beneath their passionate caresses.

It takes months of sunshine to perfect the nut and when it is completed it is a veritable store house of mineral sand high-grade protein, emulsified oil and health-imparting vitamins. Packed in a nature-made, water-proof and air-tight shell, the nut-meat comes to us clean and wholesome. Hermetically sealed the nut does not become contaminated and spoiled as does meat, for example. Nuts are free from waste products, are aseptic and do not readily decay, either in the body or outside of it. They are not infested with parasites (trachinae, tape-worm, etc.), as are meats.

Nuts, particularly the pecan, produce more food per acre than any other product and no one need eat animal products so long as these delightful foods are to be had. They are not to be considered as a "meat substitute." The meat is the "substitute," as Prof. Sherman, of Columbia University, says.

Kellogg says that "nuts are the choisest of all substances capable of sustaining life," and that in "nutritive value the nut far exceeds all other food substances." Also, "The nut is the choisest aggregation of the materials essential for the building of sound human tissues, done up in a hermetically sealed package, ready to be delivered by the gracious hand of Nature to those who are fortunate enough to appreciate the value of this finest of earth's bounties."

Nuts are rich in minerals, particularly iron and lime. Pecans are rich in potassium, magnesium and phosphorus. Almonds, pecans, walnuts, chestnuts and hazelnuts contain an average percentage of iron of about two and a half times that of fruit, three times that of vegetables, greater than that of cereals and more than average meats. The almond is rich in iron and lime. One pound of almonds contains as much calcium as twenty-five pounds of beef, or eleven pounds of bread and potatoes. The almond is twice as rich in blood-building elements as meat and is very rich in bone-building elements, in which meat is sadly lacking.

Most nuts are abundant in vitamins A and B. The researches of Cajori demonstrated the abundant presence of growth-promoting vitamins in pecans, English walnuts, chestnuts, almonds, pine nuts, filberts, and hickory nuts.

Most nuts are rich in oils. The fats (oils) of nuts are the most easily digested and assimilated of all forms of fat. Kellogg says: "The fat of nuts exists in a finely divided state and in the chewing of nuts a fine emulsion is produced so that the nuts enter the stomach in a form adapted for prompt digestion."

Nuts are fairly rich in starch and sugar, and are three to four times richer in vitally important salts than animal flesh, even richer than milk in these vital substances. Nut albumen is easily assimilated and does not form uric acid. Nuts are rich in fat, which, like that of milk, is in a state of emulsion--that is, ready-made, prepared, or pre-digested, as it were--for circulation through the lymphatic system.

Measured in calories, most nuts rank high. One example must suffice. Measured in calories, two ounces of shelled pecans contain as much food as a pound of lean beef.

Everything that can be had from flesh foods can be gotten in better condition and more usable form from other sources, and especially from nuts. Nuts are not only cleaner than meat, they come in hermetically sealed shells that prevent contamination.

Nut proteins are of the highest order, most nut proteins being complete. Kellogg maintains that nut proteins are the best of all sources upon which the body may draw for its supplies of tissue building substances and that the proteins of nuts are superior to those of ordinary vegetables or meat. "Nuts furnish perfect proteins." Nut proteins are superior to those of cereals and are claimed to be more complete than those of eggs. Indeed, Kellogg says: "The special method of research adopted by Dr. Hoobler of the Detroit Women's Hospital and Infant's Home, provides a most delicate biological test for the nutriment value of food. The test shows the nut to be superior to meat, milk or eggs or all these foods together in producing the highest degree of nutritive efficiency. Nut protein is the best of all sources upon which the body may draw for its supplies of tissue-building material."

Carque says: "Investigations made at Yale University have proven that all nuts furnish a relatively high amount of basic amino-acids, and that the nut proteins are of high biological value, fully adequate to maintain life and growth and for the elaboration of mother's milk. Professor Cajori found in his experiments, conducted at the Sheffield laboratory, that the protein and fat of nuts were generally absorbed to a large extent."

Studies of the proteins of nuts by Osborn and Harris, Van Slyke, Johns and Cajori demonstrated that the proteins of nuts are at least equal to those of meat. This was shown to be true of the almond, black and English walnuts, butternut, pecan, filbert, Brazil nut, pine nut, chestnut, hickory nut and cocoanut. Observations have shown that, in general, the proteins of oily seeds are complete proteins. Johns, Finks and Paul found that the globulin of the cocoanut is an adequate growth-factor in rats and that cocoanuts are almost completely sufficient as the sole source of protein in human beings. Para nuts have also been shown to be rich in superior protein. Not all workers are agreed about hickory nuts, many maintaining that these possess a low-grade protein. The others named are rich in high-grade proteins, promoting growth, development, reproduction, lactation, and the rearing of the young, not alone in animals, but also in man.

Nuts are acid-ash foods, as are all proteins, but they are not so much so as are animal proteins. The comparative degrees of acidity of the proteins run walnuts, 8; oysters, 15.3; veal 13.5; eggs, 12; chicken, 11.2; beef, 9.8; etc. Nuts contain less acid minerals than meat.

A brief consideration of a few of the nuts best known in this country will help us to appreciate their great value and, perhaps, cause us to encourage the production of more nuts. It would be difficult to overestimate the tremendous gain that would accrue to the people of our country if the millions of acres now devoted to grain-raising were devoted to nut and fruit culture. Let us look at the nuts in alphabetical order:

Acorn: A farinaceous nut produced by the oak tree. It was used to a great extent by the ancient Greeks and by the early inhabitants of the British Isles. It is still used extensively as food in certain parts of Turkey. When the white man first visited California he found 300,000 Indians thriving on a diet in which acorns were staple. They had thrived for hundreds of years on the acorn diet.

Almond: This is one of the finest of nuts, being higher in its phosphorus content than any other product of the vegetable kingdom. It also possesses considerable calcium. It is low in potassium. Contrary to popular teaching, the almond is not a base-forming food. It is definitely acid-forming, as are practically all nuts, Its skin should be removed before eating the almond as it contains a strong astringent. Avoid the sulphur-treated almonds sold in the market. An average analysis presents: water, 6.0; protein, 24.00; fats, 54.33; carbohydrates (no starch), 10; cellulose, 3; organic salts, 3.3.

Brazil nut: In our younger days we knew this nut as the "nigger-toe." It is one of the most important of the nuts. It is high in fat and rich in calcium and magnesium. Like the almond, its skin should be removed before eating it. An average analysis reveals: Water, 4.8; protein, 17.2; fat 66; carbohydrates (mostly sugar), 5.7; cellulose, or fibre, 3; organic salts, 3.3.

Cashew: Technically, this is not a nut, but the seed of the cashew apple. Unlike other seeds of fruit, it grows on the outside of the apple, at its lower end. It cannot be eaten in its natural raw state and the "raw" cashews sold in the market have been treated with low heat to dissipate the cardol and anacardic acids in them which acids burn the mouth and throat. The skins have also been removed.

Chestnut: Though having all the appearance of a nut, its shell is thinner than that of most nuts, the chestnut, in composition, is more closely related to the starchy grains. Almost as many people the world over live on bread made from chestnut-flour as upon that made from any kind of grain. It is superior to cereal flour as a food. An average analysis of the chestnut shows the following: Water, 6; protein, 10; fats, 8; carbohydrates (mostly starch), 70; cellulose, 3; minerals, 2.4.

Cocoanut: This is a very popular nut which, unfortunately, is usually consumed in horribly incompatible mixtures. Both its meat and its milk are fine foods and in some tropical places it makes up almost the whole bill-of-fare. An average analysis of the cocoa-nut gives the following figures: water, 3.5; protein, 6.3; fat, 57.4; carbohydrate, sugar and fiber, 31.5; organic salts, 1.3. Its minerals are chiefly phosphorus and potassium with small amounts of iron, sodium and manganese. It should be eaten with green vegetables or, like melons, taken alone.

The cocoanut is a remarkable sugar food. Its meat is an excellent and tasty food, its juice is a delicious and nutritious "drink." In its unripe or custard-like state it forms an almost perfect food for those who live in the tropics. When sprouted the "milk" of the cocoanut is transformed into a snow-white, sponge-like ball that is very sweet and very much in demand in countries where the nut is grown. Its oil, an emulsified fat, is employed as butter, and not used solely for soap-making.

Hickory-nut: Like the pecan, the hickory is strictly an American nut and many of us can recall the days we spent gathering them and eating them before the fire in the winter. The Indians stored these nuts in great abundance for winter use. Unfortunately, like the black walnut, it has a thick hard shell that prevents it from becoming popular with our effete people of today. An average analysis of the seventeen varieties of this nut that grow in America shows: water, 3.7; protein, 15.15; carbohydrates (almost all sugar), 12; organic salts, 2. The protein of this nut is of a high order, but it is claimed to be inadequate as a sole source of protein.

Pecan: This is the king of nuts and is a native of America. It was first used by the Indians who planted it all over large sections of our country. Dr. G. E. Harter of the Defensive Diet League of America, says that "one can live a full life, amply nourished, upon an exclusive diet of pecans and fruits." Members of the League demonstrated this fact. He says: "The fatty elements of this nut are more easily assimilated by the human body than any other obtainable." Here is an average analysis: water, 3.5; protein, 13; fat, 70.8; carbohydrates (mostly sugar), 8.5; cellulose (fiber), 3.7; organic salts, 1.5. The pecan is lower than most nuts in protein, but contains an ample quantity; it is highest of all nuts in a delicious and easily digested oil.

The pecan is not only rich in food value but possesses great appeal to the sense of taste. The pecan is a low protein food. Its fat is the easiest to digest of the nut oils. Pecans are easily digested. If well-chewed and properly combined they may be digested by all save the weakest digestions. Many chronically underweight persons pick up weight at once, when, in the pecan season, they consume pecans in great quantities. Pecans are not constipating, as is asserted in some quarters. On the contrary, due no doubt to the large quantity of oil they contain, they tend to be mildly laxative.

Pignolia or Pine nut: This is not really a member of the true nut family. There are many varieties of pignolias and they are highly esteemed. This nut possesses the highest percentage of protein of any natural food, a small portion of them supplying all the protein needs of the body. They are also rich in an easily digested oil. Well-chewed, as all nuts should be, they are easily digested. An average of a number of analyses shows the following composition: water, 6.4; protein, 33.9; fat, 49.4; carbohydrates (simple sugar), 6.9; organic salts, 3.4. Its mineral content is made up largely of calcium, magnesium and iron.

Pistachio: These nuts are greenish in color and the greener they are the better nuts they are. Although high in protein, this nut has been found to be non-acid, inclining to be alkaline-forming when digested. Its oil is very easily digested. It contains no indigestible cellulose, but is all food. Broadly the pistachio contains: water, 4.2; protein, 22.5; fat, 54.5; carbohydrates (largely simple sugar), 16; organic salts, 3.

Walnuts: Under this head it is customary to include, along with the English walnut, which came originally from France and Italy, and the black walnut, which is a native American nut, the Butternut. Each of these three nuts are excellent and tasty foods. For taste, the author's preference is the black walnut, but it has a thick, hard shell that renders it difficult to get at. Unfortunately, most present-day Americans know the black walnut only as a source of fine and beautiful wood out of which some of our most beautiful furniture is made. Compared with the black walnut, the English walnut is flat and stale. The following table of comparative analyses of these three nuts will tell you nothing of the flavors of each of them:

Black English Butternut
Water 2.5 2.5 4.5
Protein 27.5 18.5 27.9
Fats 56.3 64.5 61.2
Carbohydrates 11.7 12.5 3.4
Cellulose 1.7 1.4 none
Minerals 1.9 1.7 3.0

In addition to the above listed nuts with which we are acquainted in this country, there are many other varieties of nuts. Some of these are very good nuts, others are not so good. The Castanopis or California chestnut is considered a link between the oak and the chestnut. It is eaten chiefly by birds and squirrels. The Chufa, known also as the earth-chestnut, is not really a nut. It grows underground like the peanut and when slightly parched has a flavor resembling the nut. The Queensland nut, grown only in Eastern Australia, resembles the Brazil nut, but has a superior flavor. The Pilinut or Javanese almond grown in the Philippines, East Indies and Asia, is seen in the U. S. only when brought here by immigrants. The Sapucaia or Paradise nut, is little known in this country outside our seaboard cities. The Suari or tropical butternut is a native of British Guiana and is seldom seen in this country.

Peanuts are not nuts, but legumes. They are also known as ground-peas, ground-nut, goober, etc. In England they are called monkey nuts. The peanut grows underground, but does not grow on the roots of the pea vine. Ranked high in biological value because of its high protein content, its protein being of high quality, the peanut is a very much overrated food. Harter declares it to be the most dangerous of the bean family. It is high in protein; its mineral content is made up largely of phosphoric acid and it contains a high percentage of starch. The combination of these three substances makes it highly acid-forming and, when eaten with anything but green vegetables, very difficult to digest, if, indeed, it is digestible at all in other combinations. It is a great favorite of the candy-makers and this is certainly a vicious use of the peanut. The composition of the many varieties of the peanut depends upon soil, climate, etc. Its protein composition ranges from 25 to 35 percent, its fat content from 40 to 55 percent. The average of over two thousand analyses shows the following: water, 7.9; protein, 30; fat, 50; starch and cellulose taken together because inseparable by present methods, about 12; minerals, 2.9. I do not share Harter's view that eating peanuts is "literally playing with fire," but I know from experience how much trouble they can cause when not eaten correctly. Roasted peanuts are almost indigestible. Peanut butters are commonly roasted, salted and have hog lard added. At its best, raw peanut butter is oxidized to some extent and not equal to the peanut.

Nuts are commonly thought to be difficult of digestion. This thought seems to have its basis in the common habit of eating nuts as a last course in a several course dinner. The nuts are blamed for the discomfort that results from such eating. Biochemists assert that they have shown that nut proteins are not as digestible as flesh proteins. Even if this were true, it would not place flesh proteins above nut proteins. But this is not true. Their tests are not worth anything inasmuch as they were not properly carried out. The ability to digest nuts may be very low in one who is not accustomed to eating nuts; whereas, the same person, perhaps habitually eating flesh, will have marked ability to digest flesh. If he begins the daily use of nuts his ability to digest these foods will increase day by day until maximum ability is reached, after which it levels off and remains at this maximum level, providing, of course, that he continues to eat nuts. To ignore this fact in determining the digestibility of any food, is to make tests that are of no practical value.

Finely ground and emulsified nuts have proven to be the very best substitutes for milk, when the mother's milk fails and the child is sensitive to cow's milk. There are many children who are sensitive to cow's milk and to the prepared milk foods on the market. Many children have been killed by milk whose lives might have been saved by nuts. Nut-butters are not to be recommended for this purpose. These are cooked, contain considerable "free" fatty acids, are usually salted, and often have other denatured oils added to them. Only the raw or unfired nuts are to be used.

Being concentrated foods, nuts must be eaten moderately and require to be thoroughly masticated. Combined with green vegetables, eaten as a regular part of the meal, and not at the end of a hearty meal, as is the usual practice, and thoroughly and slowly chewed, they are not difficult to digest and may be eaten by everyone. Their delightful flavours make them palatable to all save the most depraved appetites.

Good post John. Interesting about the chestnuts. It is true too, they are alittle like bread...very low fat and very low protein. Not a great amount of minerals either, but good B vitamin levels.

Agree with the brazil nut being important. Interesting that it has a reasonable amount of saturated fat.

The hazel nut is very important too.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cool post by John. I didn't know pecans were so
> 'great', I like them because they seem to be the
> highest oleic acid source of the nuts.
>
> Also if its true that walnuts create new brain
> connections that is something I missed. I always
> thought I could get the same benefits from walnuts
> in other foods. I tend to avoid them because they
> can easily upset the balance of omega 3 to 6.


They have the best balance of omega 3 to 6 of all nuts.

regarding jtprindl and the studies presented above>>>>


there was something interesting in the studies you posted.
So thank you, this is the first time I have learned something from one of your posts.


Regarding cancer, many items can have an effect on cancer cells.
they all kill normal cells too.
there is nothing curative there - it is simply hoping that more cancer cells are killed than normal cells. there are other, better ways of strengthening the body and allowing the body the best chance of using its inherent self/other cell recognition to heal itself, as well as avoiding cancer in the first place.

More interesting was the study on goji and eye issues.
This is the one that I thank you for as it was very interesting.

However, You consider this "healing", "curative".
I do not consider this healing or curative.
Just the same as I do not consider someone who has zero intake of vitamin C cured of disease by ingesting citrus. What I do consider that is fulfilling the normal needs of the body, which includes vitamin C , as we do not synthesize it, as opposed to some other animals who do.

Now with respects to the goji extract, including zeaxanthin and lutein, it would appear that ingestion of those substances has a positive impact, as shown by the study. This is because the body does not produce those substances.


A degradation of these chemicals in the eye over a human lifespan in addition to insufficient intake can cause problems apparently.

So zeaxanthin is one of the chemicals that animals need, in addition to vitamins and minerals.

Another point is that there always seems to be a focus on things like goji , because it has a high amount of zeax. This focus on goji is misleading and incorrect. There are in fact a wide variety of fruit and leaves/veggies that contain this widespread chemical. there is no need to appeal to "superfoods", or supplements unless regular fruit and veg are not available.

this does not mean that we need to TREAT with these chemicals, it means that we need to have an intelligent raw diet. (of course many people who eat poorly and are unhealthy can benefit from supplements, but they would also benefit from dietary improvement)

again, you consider this curing. curing to me, is being assaulted by something that you cannot defend yourself from using your own inherent abilities and require external assistance. In this case, once again, it's not a cure, but it's supplying the body with something that it requires for normal functioning.

It may be a matter of terminology.



some facts below

plenty of foods contain zexanthin and lutein. chart shown at link
-----------------------------------


Lutein (LOO-teen) and zeaxanthin are important nutrients found in green leafy vegetables as well as other foods such as eggs. Many studies have shown that lutein and zeaxanthin reduce the risk of chronic eye diseases, including age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataracts.

Lutein and zeaxanthin are carotenoids that filter harmful high-energy blue wavelengths of light and act as antioxidants in the eye, helping protect and maintain healthy cells. Of the 600 carotenoids found in nature, only two are deposited in high quantities in the retina (macula) of the eye: lutein and zeaxanthin.

Unfortunately, the human body does not synthesize the lutein and zeaxanthin it needs, which is the reason why green vegetables are essential to good nutrition. Daily intake of lutein and zeaxanthin through diet, nutritional supplements, or fortified foods and beverages is important for the maintenance of good eye health.



[www.aoa.org]

"Regarding cancer, many items can have an effect on cancer cells.
they all kill normal cells too.
there is nothing curative there - it is simply hoping that more cancer cells are killed than normal cells. there are other, better ways of strengthening the body and allowing the body the best chance of using its inherent self/other cell recognition to heal itself, as well as avoiding cancer in the first place."

Show evidence that any of the studies I posted which show foods destroying cancer cells also destroy normal cells.

"Another point is that there always seems to be a focus on things like goji , because it has a high amount of zeax. This focus on goji is misleading and incorrect. There are in fact a wide variety of fruit and leaves/veggies that contain this widespread chemical. there is no need to appeal to "superfoods", or supplements unless regular fruit and veg are not available."

Goji berries are super foods for much more than zeaxanthin.

Whether food directly heals or stimulates healing in the human body (it can do both), that would mean it is curative. Again, that is why cannabis oil is very successful at reversing and curing skin cancer while many other things fail. It's why coconut oil and turmeric can prevent and reverse Alzheimer's. Specific foods can target specific diseases and conditions.

"again, you consider this curing. curing to me, is being assaulted by something that you cannot defend yourself from using your own inherent abilities and require external assistance."

Human beings do require external assistance... food. Our bodies cannot produce all of the nutrients we need to function properly without food.

Essentially you think everything cures and I think nothing cures.

of course we need food for health long term . You cant seem to answer my hypotheticals . Does vitamin c cure scurvy. U can say it does. I say it merely is a requirement that was not being satisfied. Just like all these other socalled cures.

I have already shown the amazing chaga study as cancer preventative to be false and normal cells killed.

the noni study above does not even mention normal cells. Thats how bad the study is.

you show a study that shows targeted cell death.

and stop posting abstracts. The full study is required and I needed to search for them. Have you ever read anything other than abstracts?

"of course we need food for health long term . You cant seem to answer my hypotheticals . Does vitamin c cure scurvy. U can say it does. I say it merely is a requirement that was not being satisfied. Just like all these other socalled cures."

It's a requirement not being satisfied... by foods containing vitamin C. If the body can just heal itself, why would it need vitamin C from food? I mean, we can go back and forth about the FACT that phytochemicals and enzymes have curative and other beneficial effects, all backed by heavy scientific research, but why would you believe studies regarding vitamins and minerals but not on phytochemicals and enzymes?

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "Of note is the fact that it produced low or no toxicity in tested normal cells"... so you get massive doses of therapeutic nutrition and POTENTIALLY a very minor negative effect, which could be compared to the likes of eating fresh greens and getting a little bit of oxalic acid or sprouted nuts/seeds and getting a little phytic acid. The benefits far outweigh any miniscule negative effects.


Phytochemicals:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Camu Camu:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Chlorella:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Mucuna:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Reishi:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Ashwagandha:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Berries:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

>It's a requirement not being satisfied... by foods containing vitamin C. If the body can just heal itself, why would it need vitamin C from food?

We were originally talking about CURES. and my statement was that there are no cures. the body instead heals itself, either by removing toxins or using exogenous nutrients that it requires for the processes of life. A cure is something that we TAKE and think that it heals the body like antibiotics or superfoods. A superfood that merely provides a nutrient that the body needs, like zeaxanthin, from goji, or leaves, or fruit, is not a CURE, it merely provides the normal nutritional requirements of the body. will the body heal, certainly, if it requires that nutrient and if it is able to use that nutrient. i have never stated otherwise.


when those people in gabriel cousins study had their diabetes improved during his 30 day period, was that a cure? what inputs do you claim HEALED those people?

the problem with diabetes is insulin resistance caused by high fat diets, etc

the healing took place as a result of overall dietary improvement, and a resulting heightened insulin sensitivity due to improved blood profile.

so what do you prescribe for diabetes? what miracle superfood do you promote?

regarding goji, and notably you do not comment on those points that I make that refute your statements, you just let them drop, and continue your diatribe......
the whole point of studies like goji (which is presented by you and by others as a specific, unique item that should be eaten to CURE something), is to imply that unique, specialness.

And your repeated response when I show you that there is nothing special about goji, it contains nutrients that other common plants contain is that THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON THAT GOJI IS A SUPERFOOD. that is another one of your copouts, just as you copped out regarding the chelation issue, implying that a specific item should be taken for chelation of metals, when in fact chlorophyll, or calcium are the agents, no superfoods required.


And my point is that zeaxanthin is available in a wide range of plants, hence THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL OR UNIQUE about goji, except for some specious claim that it is HIGH in certain nutrients.


So you were UNABLE TO support your statement that your cancer treatment of choice targets cancer cells only - with your attempt below? If you look at the actual study, instead of the abstract, you will see that their claims are false (low or no toxicity). AS I ALREADY stated in my dissection of that study a while back.


I am quite aware, by the way, that the food we eat is not 100% beneficial. We maximize the benefits and minimize the antinutrients. This is not relevant to your statement below.


regarding coconut oil and alzheimers:

you and your ilk are misguided in PRESCRIBING . the proper way to health is to eat properly, get rest and movement, etc, etc. The improper way is to eat garbage, get ill, then seek out miracle cures like adding coconut oil, which may or may not have an effect, and may or may not provide nutrient support for the brain, but it is not the right way to go about health.

[www.snopes.com]


[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "Of note is the fact that it produced low or no toxicity in tested normal cells"... so you get massive doses of therapeutic nutrition and POTENTIALLY a very minor negative effect, which could be compared to the likes of eating fresh greens and getting a little bit of oxalic acid or sprouted nuts/seeds and getting a little phytic acid. The benefits far outweigh any miniscule negative effects.



This is my final post to you.

"And your repeated response when I show you that there is nothing special about goji, it contains nutrients that other common plants contain is that THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON THAT GOJI IS A SUPERFOOD. that is another one of your copouts, just as you copped out regarding the chelation issue, implying that a specific item should be taken for chelation of metals, when in fact chlorophyll, or calcium are the agents, no superfoods required."

Copouts? More like factual statements that you don't want to accept. There are actually a lot of things special about goji berries as you'll see posted below, which you'll probably deny because it is clear you aren't in tact with reality. I never said one specific item should be taken to remove heavy metals from the body, but there are certain foods, like chlorella and spirulina, that are far superior to other foods at doing so.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.naturalnews.com]

"you and your ilk are misguided in PRESCRIBING . the proper way to health is to eat properly, get rest and movement, etc, etc. The improper way is to eat garbage, get ill, then seek out miracle cures like adding coconut oil, which may or may not have an effect, and may or may not provide nutrient support for the brain, but it is not the right way to go about health."

That does NOTHING for people who have already developed disease and THIS is what a copout looks like, since you like to falsely accuse others of the same thing. Everyone knows eating a healthy diet and exercising are vital to maintaining good health, you aren't telling anyone anything they don't know. The FACT still remains that certain foods target specific diseases, thus they are CURATIVE.

"the problem with diabetes is insulin resistance caused by high fat diets, etc"

Could be caused by specific types of fat rather than fat in general.

[www.dietcure.com]

"when those people in gabriel cousins study had their diabetes improved during his 30 day period, was that a cure? what inputs do you claim HEALED those people?"

Obviously improving the diet is going to go great lengths in reversing and curing diseases (vitamins, minerals, enzymes, phytochemicals, antioxidants, etc), but it's not always that simple. Specific foods may be needed to target specific diseases, not all diseases go away from simply eating raw foods. I'll ask again... why would you believe studies regarding vitamins and minerals but not on phytochemicals and enzymes?

By the way, things like camu camu, chlorella/spirulina, goji, maqui, chaga, ashwagandha and many more "super foods" are very beneficial for diabetes.

Also, no response to this? (you realized your argument was irrelevant?)... "Of note is the fact that it produced low or no toxicity in tested normal cells"... so you get massive doses of therapeutic nutrition and POTENTIALLY a very minor negative effect, which could be compared to the likes of eating fresh greens and getting a little bit of oxalic acid or sprouted nuts/seeds and getting a little phytic acid. The benefits far outweigh any miniscule negative effects.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2014 06:28PM by jtprindl.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hm.. walnuts have the highest known amount of
> polyunsaturated fats (omega 3s and 6s).


Yeah, I think there's more to fat and it's effect on health than what is typically discussed amongst the raw food community. I think source and type of fat plays a big role and you cannot categorize all "high-fat" diets as unhealthy. Perhaps it's just saturated fat that causes all these detrimental effects? I don't disagree that they MAY be unhealthy, I just want to see some evidence regarding a high-fat, raw, plant-based diet.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Even looking at The Sproutarian Man's diet, I'm
> sure he is keto-adapted. He says he would have no
> more than 6 tblsp of legumes at a time, and that
> is just one meal.

Roughly 5 tablespoons of lentil or some of mung/adzuki, but then l will do sprouted grains. It is more a calorie booster. I would rather cut the grains and legumes out if l could, but l don't want to get too extreme.

Dr Brian says to try and have nuts/seeds between 11am and 1 pm because that's when the body's hydrochloric acid levels are at their peak.


Brian Clement Hippocrates Health DVD 11 Food Combining
[www.youtube.com]

And no more than 5 pieces of fruit per week tops. Read a study stating that fructose was an independant risk factor for kidney stones. Various things like B6 and magnesium help with a raw diet, but it is still a risk factor.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2014 02:13AM by The Sproutarian Man.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Also TSM, I forgot you dont have access to sesame
> seeds like we do. I eat them everyday now.

I have tried absolutely everything to try and get them. 11 years of trying everything to secure a steady supply and have failed.


* Tried getting farmers to grow them.
* Tried tapping into a secret supply market offering to go under a contract.
* Tried various secret sources to get them imported.

Looked into importing 100 pounds myself. Would be charged customs broker fees, import duties, import inspection fees, GST taxes, cartage, currency conversion costs etc. Would cost $3,000 (maybe more) and it still might get irradiated after all that money paid out because there could be some bugs or something. Far to cost prohibitive for something that could end up in failure.

Can get local poppy seeds, but they irradiate everything. Not getting sesame or poppy in my diet leaves a big hole that is very hard to fix. I am very very dissapointed.

Dr Brian has 6 sprouted seeds on his salad every day.

* sprouted poppy
* sprouted flax
* sprouted sesame
* sprouted chia
* sprouted sunflower
* sprouted hemp seed powder

I am going to try and get a job at Hippocrates so l can have 6 different sprouted seeds on my salad every day too.

It would be nice to work there - exercise each day in a good gym, eat a wide variety of foods, meditate, and have lots of digestive enzymes. Wouldn't need to work as hard growing my own food because l could have many of my meals at the institute and drink all their green drinks. Would be a great life.

I am trying to do a deal with a local sprouting company. If it works out l could have access to 28 different sprouting seeds. l could boost it to 32, but some of the sprouts would cost too much to buy. None-the-less, 28 different sprouts is pretty good.

Radish sprouts are pretty amazing, but one of the very best sprouts is canola sprouts (non GM)...very very nutritious with an excellent zinc-copper ratio from memory. And if you are prepared to do the work, weed seed sprouts are excellent too. Even carrot sprouts are good, far better than the carrot. Spinach sprouts, nettle sprouts..all good. Orange and apple seed sprouts are said to be good also in a salad.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2014 08:58AM by The Sproutarian Man.