Anyone here familiar with functional blood chemistry ranges?

By Datis Kharrazian:
There are two main types of ranges in the field of blood chemistry analysis: a pathological range and a functional range. The pathological range is used to diagnose disease; the functional range is used to asses risk for disease before disease develops. The references that are provided with laboratory tests results are referred to as the "the pathological range" because if the test results are out of range, it usually indicates potential for pathology or disease.
end quote

So the functional range for blood sugar is 85-100 but the pathological range may be 65-110 mg/dl

On this board, there are people who avoid fruit and some that seem to get a lot of their calories from dates and sweet fruit (hence wide ranges of blood sugar). Could you please share your understanding of blood sugar from any perspective.

SueZ just shared that she wants a FBS of 75 and so now I wonder what you all think of functional ranges? If someone does not exhibit symptoms of low blood sugar, then is it okay for them as an individual to have lower blood sugar compared to standard ranges?

(Symptoms of low blood sugar might include irritability, mood changes, headaches, fatigue, trouble thinking clearly, cravings, problems sleeping, etc)

SueZ just shared that she wants a FBS of 75 and so now I wonder what you all think of functional ranges? If someone does not exhibit symptoms of low blood sugar, then is it okay for them as an individual to have lower blood sugar compared to standard ranges?

(Symptoms of low blood sugar might include irritability, mood changes, headaches, fatigue, trouble thinking clearly, cravings, problems sleeping, etc)

That explains a lot.

SueZ just shared that she wants a FBS of 75 and so now I wonder what you all think of functional ranges? If someone does not exhibit symptoms of low blood sugar, then is it okay for them as an individual to have lower blood sugar compared to standard ranges?

(Symptoms of low blood sugar might include irritability, mood changes, headaches, fatigue, trouble thinking clearly, cravings, problems sleeping, etc)

That explains a lot.

Are you saying suez has an excuse for being a @#$%&?

<<<Could you please share your understanding of blood sugar from any perspective.>>>

Here is a very interesting article on Blood Sugar...

HYPOGLYCEMIA-NEW NAME FOR OLD SYMPTOMS
by Vivian V. Vetrano, D.C., hM.D., M.D.

Miss A. N. looked at me with wide, frightened eyes, her nostrils flaring like a racing horse's, while she told me the following story. "I'm hypoglycemic," she explained. 'I could go into a coma any minute, if I don't get food every three hours. You must understand that I would be in grave danger of death if I ever fasted. In the middle of the night I might go into a coma and no one would know it, and I’d be dead by morning. I've nearly gone into a coma three times already." Then she told me all her symptoms, which ranged all the way from headaches to sore toes, most of them having nothing to do with hypoglycemia.

This woman's fear had turned into a terror that haunted her like some evil thing. It permeated her whole being, warping all her thoughts, until she could -no longer think rationally. I said to myself, "It can't be true that she is always on the brink of disaster if she doesn't eat."

Somebody had been telling her ghost stories. Hygienic practitioners have been fasting people with these same symptoms for years, and no one ever went into a hypoglycemic coma. In all likelihood, the added factor that is changing the picture are the ghost stories told by the physicians. Extrapolating from the Hypoglycemia produced by an overdose of insulin, these physicians assume that the severe states of true low blood sugar not brought on by insulin will produce exactly the same symptoms of poisoning and coma that an overdose of insulin does. Hence the fear implanted in the minds of these sufferers adds to their problem, and makes them more nervous and more hypoglycemic than ever and is indeed a criminal act. Hypoglycemia is just a new clinical finding magnified and enlarged into a new disease, for the same neuropsychiatric symptoms brought on by toxemia and enervation that have existed many years prior to the discovery of low blood sugar.

Numerous cases have fasted at the Health School without going into a coma. Why should they be so subject to comas today? Nothing has changed, merely because by means of clinical diagnosis we have become aware of the fact that many nervous individuals have low blood sugar. I told Miss A. N. to relax and I put her to bed. Because of her extreme fear, I did not fast her immediately. I fed her the regular Hygienic diet, omitting only the sweetest of fruits. Voluntarily, she stopped taking her drugs. The diet itself was a big change for her, as she had been eating every three hours on the dot for over a year. We fed her only three times a day, and she suffered no ill effects from this radical change in diet. This encouraged her and she agreed to take a short fast. She fasted for three days but was too fearful to fast longer, and I didn't push her because her fear would not permit relaxation and she kept herself awake at night so as not to go into a coma. She couldn't believe that she wouldn't go into a coma in her sleep. She stayed at the Health School only a few more days and left, having not achieved the weight loss she desired. Despite the fact that she had fasted three days without untoward symptoms, and without having any of the prodromal symptoms of coma her fear was so great that she was sure if she fasted one more day, she would die. “It's just a matter of time,” she assured me. So completely had the physicians' ghost stories taken hold of her being, she left unconvinced that she could get well. She was a wealthy woman. "I've been under the care of the best physicians in the world. They deal with hypoglycemia all the time. They know what they are talking about" she exclaimed.

At that exclamation, I wondered how she ever condescended to enter the Health School in the first place. Had she not gained so much weight the past year, on the six meals a day plan, she probably would not have sought a place to reduce. Ghost stories that physicians tell their patients have them so terrorized that they do not dare do a thing towards recovery of health without the okay from their physicians. Seeing is supposed to be believing, yet some of these people are so mesmerized that even seeing does not convince them. They may never learn, but if they do, too much pathology may have evolved, and it may be too late to regain full health, even with Natural Hygiene as an ally. Every age has its bugbears and fads in medicine. In this modern melodrama, Hypoglycemia is the mustached villains surreptitiously sneaking around, slipping in and catching unwary victims.

This villain has three names; hyperinsulinism, hypoglycemia and hypoglycosis. Hyperinsulinism implies an overproduction of insulin or an excessive action of insulin. This comes about by the administration of more insulin than required by a diabetic, or because the pancreas is producing more insulin than required. Hyperinsulinism causes a state of low blood sugar or hypoglycemia. But one can have hypoglycemia without having hyperinsulinism. The picture is very complicated. The villain seems to delight in mystery. One can be tested, and have a truly low blood sugar and yet not manifest symptoms at all. It seems that hypoglycemia is normal for some individuals. Another thing which staggers the modern scientific audience, is that many people have symptoms identical with those associated with hypoglycemia yet they show no abnormal depression of the blood sugar level. In fact, these same symptoms have been strong, when the blood sugar level was high. Therefore the term hypoglycemia is not supposed to be used to indicate any pathologic condition or clinical picture. Stated succinctly hypoglycemia is only a lab report. Symptoms may or may not accompany low blood sugar, and the symptoms may exist with normal blood sugar levels. This is a strikingly familiar picture, with hypoglycemia as the etiological agent instead of a malignant germ or virus. The fact is, that hypoglycemia is not a cause, it is a state of the body and tissues, brought on by enervation and toxemia as are all other diseases.

Hypoglycosis is the term that Frank N. Allan, M.D. prefers to use for the clinical symptoms that result from, "abnormal decrease in the sugar content of the blood or body tissues." Because there are so many people with hypoglycemia and no symptoms, the term hypoglycosis is used to designate those people in which symptoms accompany the low blood sugar. Allan has the idea that symptoms relieved by the ingestion of sugar are truly due to hypoglycemia. This is not always true as many symptoms not related to hypoglycemia at all can be relieved by eating.

Allan classifies the clinical picture, as hypoglycosis when the symptoms are relieved by sugar ingestion regardless of the blood sugar level. A -diagnosis of hyperinsulinism, which is usually due to benign or malignant beta cell tumors or hyperplasia of the Isles of Langerhans, cannot be made with certainty without surgical examination of the pancreas or necropsy. It is a damaging procedure to section the living pancreas at various areas in an effort to find a tumor and this type of surgery can almost destroy the pancreas as a functioning organ.

Mild hypoglycemia supposedly causes faintness, nervousness, palpitation, excessive perspiration, and headache, whereas a severe hypoglycemia is supposed to cause mental ion, loss of consciousness, convulsions, and other neuropsychiatric manifestations. It was the use of insulin that first brought these symptoms to light, when by accident an overdose of insulin was administered. It must be remembered that these symptoms are due to drugging. Seldom does anyone have all of the above symptoms and most of the time only one or two of the symptoms are in evidence. It must also be remembered that in this disease like any other disease the whole organism is ill and not just the pancreas. There is impaired function in many organs besides the pancreas and normal function must be' restored instead of palliating symptoms with tranquilizers and food.

Many symptoms of other troubles besides hypoglycemia abate when one eats, yet, this is the criterion by which physicians diagnose hypoglycemia. In the Cyclopedia of Medicine, Vol. VI, page 908, Allan states: "The variability and diversity of the symptoms make the clinical picture appear complex but recognition of the disorder is simplified by a common characteristic which deserves emphasis-the symptoms tend to occur when the stomach is empty and subside after eating, particularly when food and drink rich in sugar is consumed." For proof that the symptoms are due to hypoglycemia, "it must actually be demonstrated that the sugar is low when the symptoms are present and that they subside when the blood sugar rises." Glucose tolerance tests are not accurate and cannot be depended upon. "Coin found that the type of curve could be completely changed by varying the type of feeding given beforehand."

Contrary to popular opinion hyperinsulinism is very rare. At the close of 1942 only twenty ­four cases due to islet cell tumors were on record, and the total number of cases up to 1946 was under 200. It is thought that hypoglycemia without proven evidence of pancreatic pathology represents purely functional troubles.

Textbooks of medicine still usually state that it is abnormal for the blood sugar to be below 80 mg. per 100 cc., and is certainly abnormal when below 70 mg. per 100 cc. However, in 1928, 22,808 individuals were studied by John proving that symptoms did not necessarily accompany states of low blood sugar. "In an analysis of 22,808 blood sugar determinations made in no diabetic cases, he found the figure eighty or less in over fifteen per cent and seventy or less in approximately four per cent. Eleven readings were forty or under, the lowest was thirty. These low values were apparently normal for the individual; there were no complaints in the cases especially investigated. These observations were confirmed later by Hart and Lisa . . ."

"Rector and Jennings found that hypoglycemia without symptoms was even commoner in children. Among 572 children under twelve years admitted to hospitals for conditions unrelated to hypoglycemia, the blood sugar was from sixty-nine down to fifty in forty-three cases. An incidence of symptom less hypoglycemia of 7.5 per cent. Miller and Ross found that the blood sugar of newborn infants in the first forty eight hours of life was frequently below forty without symptoms. Tests made in the case of infants of diabetic mothers averaged lower but Miller and Ross concluded that the blood sugar does not seem important, in relation to symptoms."

The hypoglycemia occasioned by an overdose of insulin is dangerous, especially if repeated many times. Although a considerable overdose is usually not fatal, and the patient will usually come out of a coma without treatment, necropsy has disclosed many small scattered brain hemorrhages with death of nerve cells in those who have had insulin shock treatments. In itself a large dose of insulin is highly toxic, and has been to "cause death in spite of treatment," or any sugar administration or any elevation of blood sugar (Allan, Fazekas). Many diabetic specialists stress the dangers of repeated hypoglycemic reactions.

This more strongly emphasizes that drugs, such as insulin and other drugs which damage vital organs, play an ever-increasing role in producing the symptoms of hypoglycosis, and that one must care for the tout ensemble and not one organ at a time. The preservatives, coloring agents, and the various food additives in general, have damaging effects on various parts of the body. The pancreas takes part in the general deterioration that inevitably occurs from' constant bombardment of toxic substances from the outside.

Alloxan is an organic compound first synthesized by ' Wohler and Liebig in 1838. It was discovered that by the injection of Alloxan a profound hypoglycemia will be produced in laboratory animals which is sometimes accompanied by convulsions and other symptoms. Perhaps many other modern drugs do the same. These symptoms can be relieved by administration of glucose. "In 1943, Dunn, Sheehan, and Mc-Letchie independently confirmed Jacob's findings and extended them to show that a single injection of Alloxan may cause complete necrosis of the islet cells of the pancreas. When death due to hypoglycemia is prevented by the administration of glucose, the animal passes into a stage of hyperglycemia which closely resembles diabetes."

Because Alloxan selectively destroys the islet cells it has been used in the treatment of hyperinsulinism. On one occasion good results were reported for several months, but this treatment would seem to make medical sense only if the case were true hyperinsulinism (due to tumors or hyperplasia), and still there is the possibility of producing diabetes. Most cases of hypoglycosis are not hyperinsulinism at all, but organic functional troubles arising out of enervation and toxemia. Frank Allan, M.D. severely criticizes treatment with Alloxan by saying, "The patient who had metastatic islet tumor was partially relieved, but the benefit was only temporary. Furthermore severe toxic reactions occurred. In a case treated with Oman by another physician death is known to have followed. In view of the danger and uncertainty concerned with the use of Alloxan it should not be employed except as a last resort. Surgical exploration of the pancreas should certainly be undertaken first in the hope of discovery and removal of a tumor which may be malignant or potentially malignant."

Like most other diseases the medical profession has only harmful or palliative treatments. Allan starter, "To relieve the symptoms by eating sugar or other food at the time they are present is the obvious palliative treatment." Another physician, Frederick Allen also reveals that diet is only a temporary measure in the following words: "The best palliative treatment is probably a moderate mixed diet, divided into lunches at short enough intervals to prevent attacks, but with avoidance of high carbohydrate at any time which would stimulate discharge of insulin. The severest cases are not thus controlled. Also Alloxan or other chemotherapy has failed. The cure consists in finding and removing any discoverable tumor, or, in doubtful cases, respecting the greater part of the pancreas."

What a dismal outlook for hypoglycemic patients under medical carol. All that is offered is a suppression of symptoms by diet, or mutilation of the pancreas by surgery, or destruction of this vital gland with Alloxan.

Physicians must be at their wits' end. They have even gone so far as to administer insulin in states of hypoglycosis. With small amounts of insulin in the blood stream, it was thought that this would prevent an excess of insulin from being secreted by the pancreas after meals. In some cases this was found to be effective. Injection of other endocrine gland preparations did not prove useful, except adrenalin which is used to arouse an individual from a hypoglycemic coma. This situation arises more often be over dosage of insulin, and seldom because hypoglycosis not related to diabetes. Adrenalin is not necessary, for even without treatment the comatose individual will come out of his stupor. Frederick M. Allen, M.D., states that, "A severe insulin attack appears so alarming that patients and families need to be assured of the comparative lack of danger. Even a considerable overdose is ordinarily non-fatal, and without any treatment the patient comes out of unconsciousness without lasting harm." People do come out of drug comas, but whether or not they are lastingly damaged from this is a debatable point.

From the foregoing it is obvious that medical treatment, is dangerous, even lethal, and that at best the suppression of symptoms with diet is the same as taking another cup of coffee for the headache which was caused by coffee in the first place. Permitting the patient to eat anytime he or she has a symptom is the same as permitting the patient to drug himself when he has some type of illness. Orthobionomists (practicing Hygienists) do not permit eating between meals, and we have found that hypoglycemics can fast, and they do not go into coma. They do get well, and they do not have to eat all day long, to suppress symptoms after the fast. How much better to solve the problem by caring for the tout ensemble instead of part by part. Whether it is a benign tumor, or hyperplasia, or functional hypoglycosis, the living organism alone can remedy the situation. It is well known that while fasting the body absorbs tumors. A tumor in the pancreas would be no exception to the rule. It is well known that hyperplasia in any organ is reduced by fasting. It is common knowledge that all the body functions and body fluids are normalized while fasting. There is no exception in the case of a functional hypoglycosis. The body's endocrine secretions are minutely balanced, each one influencing the other, and when one functions abnormally, it affects many other glands, and vice versa. When the malfunction of one organ is corrected, then all the other glands will begin to function more normally. After a fast, which permitted the body to right what ever the cause of the neuropsychiatric symptoms, then under Hygienic care, the invalid is fed a wholesome diet of fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts.

Fruits, which are man's normal diet, need not be feared when taken in moderation. Much of the sugar in fruit is fructose. Since fructose is absorbed more slowly than glucose it probably does not occasion the rapid secretion of insulin that foods which contain mainly glucose do. Furthermore, it has been shown that fructose can be utilized by the liver and other cells with out insulin. This leads us to question whether or not fructose occasions a great increase of insulin as the other sugars do. At any rate, hypoglycemics, even without having first fasted have been able to eat fruit at the Health School.

Fear not you hypoglycemics. Your destiny is not so bleak. There is a way out, but it can't be done by diet alone or surgery or drugs. Something more basic, more radical and more lasting is necessary. Hygienic living can bring about the necessary basic changes in the organism to permit the recovery of genuine health.

Wow, thanks Tai for starting yet another thread for my clueless haters to enjoy.

<<<Wow, thanks Tai for starting yet another thread for my clueless haters to enjoy.>>>

WOW, talk about CLUELESS!!!

You INSULT almost everybody on this Message Board and when anyone points out your Psychopathic Behavior, you label them as a hater.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Can you say DENIAL?!?!?!

This is so ridiculous for people to take cheap shots. This thread is not for haters. I asked for people to comment if they understand functional ranges, because I took a lot of classes with Datis Kharrazian to learn to interpret from this perspective. My point is that if someone is not exhibiting symptoms, then is it okay to have out of range numbers. You, SueZ, said you felt fine.

This thread is for me to try to understand physiology.

THere is so much confusion in the raw movement with high and low carb, especially considering Esselstyn's perspective. I am trying to make sense of everything.

Can people please stick to science, if everyone cares about helping their fellow man? I mean some people link high blood sugar to messing with hormones and tooth decay.

Obviously, SueZ has a lot to educate about blood sugar and cortisol and I thought people could have a real discussion.

the wiki looks pretty good on hypoglycemia

mental deterioration below 65 was one statement in there.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Fresh cited wikipedia, so I read down:
Obvious impairment may not occur until the glucose falls below 40 mg/dL (2.2 mM), and many healthy people may occasionally have glucose levels below 65 in the morning without apparent effects. Since the brain effects of hypoglycemia, termed neuroglycopenia, determine whether a given low glucose is a "problem" for that person, most doctors use the term hypoglycemia only when a moderately low glucose level is accompanied by symptoms or brain effects.

So, here it says that without brain effects or symptoms, then lower glucose level may be okay.

I just wanted a genuine and sincere discussion. Any clinicians out there?

<<<I just wanted a genuine and sincere discussion.>>>

Hey Tai,

Why no comments on Dr. Vetrano's article?

How about Fuhrman?

“Delaying a meal brings about symptoms most people call “hunger.” These symptoms include abdominal cramping, weakness, and feeling ill -- the same as during drug withdrawal.

This is not hunger. Our dietary habits, especially eating animal-protein-rich foods three times a day, are so stressful to the detoxification system in our liver and kidneys that we start to get withdrawal, or detoxification, symptoms the minute we aren’t busy processing such food.” Joel Fuhrman, “Eat To Live” p. 165

“In medical school my classmates and I learned from a researcher that animal protein places a detoxification stress on the liver and that the nitrogenous wastes generated are toxic. These metabolic toxins (about fourteen of them) rise in the bloodstream and accompany the rise in uric acid after a meal rich in animal protein. Withdrawal from these toxins can cause uncomfortable symptoms in susceptible individuals, symptoms that many call hypoglycemia.” Joel Fuhrman, “Eat To Live” p. 166

“Most people have lost touch with the ability to detect true hunger; they are driven to eat way before hunger appears, because they are addicted to their unhealthy diets and feel uncomfortable if they don’t overeat or eat too often.” Joel Fuhrman, “Eat To Live” p. 167

John Rose wrote:
Furthermore, it has been shown that fructose can be utilized by the liver and other cells with out insulin

Tai:
Can anyone corroborate this? RObert MOrse used to say things like this about fructose. Is that true?

John Rose wrote:
Why no comments on Dr. Vetrano's article?

Tai:
First of all, i thank you for allowing me to understand the NH philosophy about blood sugar and fasting. It is not a realm that I have studied or know much about. But reading her article doesn't help me to understand how standard blood chemistry ranges are false, given that some diabetics have died on water fasting. Not many, but you hear about them occasionally. But reading the article explains why, say Robert Lockhart would recommend fasting, if raw vegan food was not available. IT shows that NH people don't accept the standard view of blood sugar. I want to be informed, so thanks for that.

JOhn Rose wrote (pasted from Fuhrman)
“Delaying a meal brings about symptoms most people call “hunger.” These symptoms include abdominal cramping, weakness, and feeling ill -- the same as during drug withdrawal.

Tai:
THis is tricky, because if someone is detoxing, then yes, ill feelings are okay. But some people can hurt their bodies by ignoring basic signals. I have a dear friend whom I love, and he ignored his body's signals too long and caused severe malnutrition. Some people actually do ignore their hunger and suffer unhealthy weight loss. THe subtle difference is when we are talking about a vegan eating whole foods, not a SAD eater. I find it strange for a whole foods vegan to ignore their hunger.

Most people have NEVER experienced True Hunger!

“Instead of being eaten when we are physically hungry, food is now consumed to satisfy artificial cravings generated by a brain that isn’t working right and whose receptor sites beg for synthetic stimulation from chemicals. We eat, but we’re never satisfied. We’re full, but aren’t contented.” -Carol Simontacchi - “The Crazy Makers”

"Another common reason for lack of adherence to a raw food diet is hunger. This becomes an issue when insufficient quantities of fruit are consumed. The human stomach is designed with elastic qualities enabling it to expand and accommodate large quantities of high water content foods at a meal. Due to the lifelong habit of eating concentrated foods that are very low in water content, most people's stomachs have lost their elasticity. This results in them only being able to consume a small quantity of fruit at any one time, leaving them hungry soon afterwards. Part of the transition to a raw food diet includes putting the stomach on a flexibility training programme to regain the full extent of its natural elasticity! Gradually increase the quantity of fruit consumed at each sitting until you can proudly, and comfortably, boast an expanded tummy after each meal." -Rozalind Gruben

“The truth is that hunger is a normal, not an abnormal, sensation and all normal sensations are pleasant. It is an error to think of hunger in the terms of symptoms of disease, just as it would be to think of thirst, or any other of the body’s normal desires, as painful or uncomfortable. Normal hunger is indicated by a general bodily condition--a universal call for food--which is localized, so far as localization takes place, in the mouth, nose and throat, just as is the sense of thirst. There is no “hunger pangs” associated with genuine hunger; there is only a pleasant sensation in the nose, mouth and throat and a watering of the mouth. The hungry person is conscious of a desire for food, not of pain or irritation.

It is a false appetite that manifests itself by morbid irritation, gnawing in the stomach, pain, the feeling of weakness, and various emotionally rooted discomforts. The dissimilarities between such irritations and a true sense of hunger are quite sharp, the average person tied to the habit of eating at all hours of the day and night rarely permits himself to become hungry and consequently mistakes these morbid sensations for a valid call for food. As eating commonly relieves symptoms of distress, the individual becomes convinced that food was just the thing needed. Often it is a kind of eating binge; the individual eats to cover up psychological miseries, as the drunkard drinks to drown his.” Herbert Shelton, “Fasting Can Save Your Life” p. 32

“The statement sometimes heard that hunger ceases on the third day of the fast implies that true hunger is present during the first two days of the fast. This is usually not true. It is gastric irritation that ceases on the second, third or fourth day of the fast.” Herbert Shelton, “Fasting Can Save Your Life” p. 32

“The presence of normal hunger is regarded as one of the signs of health, while its absence is a symptom of disease. For us to accept this as a reliable criterion of the state of the body, however, it is necessary for us to recognize that there may be present, in disease, a fictional desire for food that is commonly mistaken for hunger. Herbert Shelton, “Fasting For Renewal of Life” p. 86

In our present consideration of hunger we shall discuss:
1. Normal demand for food, genuine hunger.
2. Fictional desire for food, a morbid craving.
3. Absence of desire for food, absence of hunger. “FFROL” p. 87

...when the well man goes without food he gets hungry before he gets weak; when the sick man goes without food, he gets weak before he gets hungry.” “FFROL” p. 87

One way to determine real from fictional hunger is to think of the time that has elapsed since the last meal. It is not possible to be “hungry all the time.” If one desires to eat while the stomach is still busy digesting the last meal, one is certainly not hungry. If the last meal was a heavy one, one is not likely to be genuinely hungry for several hours. “FFROL” pp. 87-88

The most important feature of genuine hunger is comfort. The hungry man has no pain, no gnawing feeling in his stomach, he suffers no “hunger pangs,” he is not weak and he has no headache. If any of these symptoms are present, one should suspect that the hunger is spurious. If he does not get to eat at once, he does not become weak. If weakness follows upon delay in eating, this is a sure sign that “addiction” and not hunger is troubling him. If the weakness is relieved by eating, this is but added evidence that it is addiction.

An individual with normal nutrition can omit a meal or more at any time without ill-feeling or loss of strength. If discomfort follows missing a meal, this is the surest evidence that the individual is in need of a fast and a change of eating practices. Genuine hunger (a normal demand for food) is never accompanied by any disagreeable feelings whatever. There is no pain, no distress, no weakness--real or stimulated--no gnawing in the stomach. The demand for food is not felt in the stomach, and we are not aware that we have a stomach. an awareness of organs is a sure sign of disease. “FFROL” p. 88

There are great numbers of people who will assure you that they are hungry before every meal and that if a meal is delayed for a single hour they will grow faint and languid. They often describe pains and discomforts in the abdominal region and some of them say that they suffer with headache. Even physiologists have accepted the popular notion that hunger is a disagreeable sensation, one verging on actual suffering. These symptoms are strikingly like those manifested when a drug addict misses his accustomed dose to which indications has been given the name, withdrawal symptoms. Dr. Page called these “hunger symptoms” a species of “poison-hunger,” thus identifying them with addiction.

Observations reveal that these “poison-hunger” symptoms are most marked in heavy eaters of highly seasoned viands. The more one is addicted to salt, condiments, coffee, tea, etc., the more severe are these symptoms. The man who eats simple fare escapes them entirely. We also know that these sensations are likely to be most severe in the diseased.

Dr. Susanna W. Dodds insisted that “The sense of all-goneness in these cases is not from a lack of nutrient material, but owing to the absence of the habitual stimulus.” “No person,” wrote Dr. Chas E. Page, “feels faint upon passing a meal, or has a gnawing stomach, except it be occasioned by an irritated and unduly congested state of that organ. It is a sure proof of dyspepsia. Strictly speaking, the term is a synonym for indigestion.” Dr. Page well says, “A craving appetite should be treated as a morbid symptom, and should weigh in favor of abstinence.” “FFROL” p. 89

The “hunger” of the poorly nourished person is seldom genuine. It is more often of the same nature as those symptoms of the drug addict who is deprived of his drug that are erroneously called withdrawal symptoms. They are such symptoms as gastric distress, pains in the stomach region, a gnawing in the stomach, weakness, headache, etc. “Hunger pangs” would seem to be cramps and these are certainly abnormal. Normal muscular contractions, even if vigorous, are not painful. On the contrary they tend to be pleasurable. Hunger is not a pathological state and is not manifested by symptoms of disease. “FFROL” p. 90

We now know that hunger is felt in the mouth, throat and nose, and to some exrent, in the whole body. “FFROL” p. 91

The depraved stomach, he (Graham) held, its integrity impaired by previous abuse, may give rise to sensations that are mistaken for hunger, but which are, in reality, demands for irritation or stimulation. “FFROL” p. 91

This alleged demand for food is more properly termed a “perverted appetite.” ...The food addict is in the same boat with the drug addict and suffers similar “withdrawal symptoms” when he does not receive his accustomed meal.

Much of this supposed demand for food is a craving for coffee, salt, pepper, or other irritant and poison to which the stomach has become accustomed. Much of it is simply irritation of the digestive tract resulting from overeating, wrong eating and eating of stimulating foods. A toxic state of the digestive tract, resulting from indigestion, can set up symptoms galore that are mistaken for hunger. Although true hunger is never manifest in the stomach, always in the nose, mouth and throat, it is common to mistake distress in the region of the stomach for hunger.

What I have just said should be interpreted to mean that the morbid symptoms that are commonly mistaken for hunger are symptoms of food poisoning. “FFROL” p. 92

While it is true that the presence of a desire for food is not always a sign of health (this is so, because the demand for food is not genuine) it is true that when hunger is lacking for any great length of time, this manifests a lack of health. One of the first symptoms of acute disease is a suspension of the demand for food. It is a signal that rest of the digestive machinery is needed, a warning that no food is wanted and that, if taken, the nutriment will not be digested and assimilated. ...

If the acutely ill person, the person with severe inflammation, severe pain anywhere in the body, discomfort in the abdomen, etc., eats, the food decomposes in the digestive tract. If it is not thrown out by vomiting or hurried away by diarrhea, it remains in the stomach and intestine to poison and irritate the invalid, increasing both his discomfort and his danger. Feeding should not be resumed in these cases until at least twenty-four hours after all acute symptoms have subsided.

In chronic disease there is a frequent complaint: “I have lost my appetite.” It is complained that “nothing tastes good,” “I have to force myself to eat.” What a lot of suffering these people could avoid if they refrain from eating until they get hungry! This rule is also good for the chronic sufferer who is “hungry all the time.” “FFROL” p. 93

Indeed, genuine hunger is such a delightful sensation that it is worth going on a fast merely for the pleasure of experiencing it. Herbert Shelton, "Fasting For Renewal of Life" p.95

It is a spurious hunger, the only appeal for food a great number of people have ever known, since overfeeding, frequent feeding by the clock, and between-meal eating were started in infancy and continued throughout their lives. They are deceived by it and are honest in believing they are hungry. They remember a certain pleasure of taste and the sense of appropriating food to themselves and call it hunger, eat until food palls upon the taste, and in the course of two to six hours, whether agreeably occupied or not, begin to think of the pleasures of eating again, and consider themselves hungry.” Herbert Shelton, “Fasting For Renewal of Life” p. 96

THE CONCEPT OF “TOXIC HUNGER”

“Losing your ability to sense true hunger sets the foundation for obesity. By feeding them so much caloric-rich food so frequently we have trained our children to disconnect eating from hunger. After enough time goes by continually consuming more calories than they need, they will feel discomfort when they do not have food constantly in their stomach. They must keep their digestive tract going all the time, because the minute it empties, they feel uncomfortable. By the time they become an overweight adult, they are true food addicts.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., "Disease-Proof Your Child" pp. 137-138

“When food addictions drive intake via toxic hunger, we are never satisfied with an empty stomach, because it feels too uncomfortable, so we eat more and more and invariably become overweight. The more unhealthy the diet is, the more toxic hunger drives the person to overeat and put on additional pounds.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., "Disease-Proof Your Child" p. 139





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2015 01:45AM by John Rose.

I don't think there are any severe physiological consequences to staying in the low end of normal most of the time, but there are external dangers.

Suppose you are distracted for whatever reason--late to work, or to pick somebody up, and you are in a rush and forget to eat and get in the car and drive. If you faint, you could get in a wreck and kill not only yourself but others, too.

So I don't think it's a good idea to aim for this but it is a question best discussed with a specialist MD who has access to the full medical history and understands the motivations for this objective as well. IMHO.

I would be totally cranky if I were always at the low end of normal.

There are days in the week where I have no break and work continuously from 7AM to 3PM leaving me unable to take time to eat, and there are evenings when I am solving problems and preparing for work where I get so engrossed that I forget to eat, but at least those are times when driving is not necessary.

Tai: I think that in some cases people can have lower than standard blood sugar levels and be fine, but in other cases it could cause problems. It depends on the health of the individual and likely other circumstances.

Quote

HYPOGLYCEMIA-NEW NAME FOR OLD SYMPTOMS

...

Hypoglycemia can be a real problem for some, specifically reactive hypoglycemia which many people seem to have today due to suboptimal diets and organs working at less than peak capacity. Greens, fat and protein, and certain minerals seem to be good for balancing blood sugar levels, and I imagine some people could do well on a predominantly fruit diet too, but they are likely in the minority imo.

i don't know much about blood sugar, but i wouldn't trust what a bunch of people promoting specific diets say with regards to the psychological and physiological aspects of hunger, especially when one tries to reduce it to some sort of impulse in the brain. such as:


"“Delaying a meal brings about symptoms most people call “hunger.” These symptoms include abdominal cramping, weakness, and feeling ill -- the same as during drug withdrawal.

This is not hunger. Our dietary habits, especially eating animal-protein-rich foods three times a day, are so stressful to the detoxification system in our liver and kidneys that we start to get withdrawal, or detoxification, symptoms the minute we aren’t busy processing such food.” Joel Fuhrman, “Eat To Live” p. 165"


“Instead of being eaten when we are physically hungry, food is now consumed to satisfy artificial cravings generated by a brain that isn’t working right and whose receptor sites beg for synthetic stimulation from chemicals. We eat, but we’re never satisfied. We’re full, but aren’t contented"


sounds a bit dubious to me. if everything were so simply traced back to receptor sites in the brain, then why doesn't pumping someone full of serotonin ease symptoms of depression associated with lack of serotonin? as humans we are more than receptor sites in the brain. you can't cut open a skull and point to where hunger is located. consciousness is much more complicated than this, and i doubt any of these people understand it in the slightest, especially someone like joel furhman who is so busy writing books, appearing in movies and public access television that i hardly believe he has the time to read the latest information in neuro science or neuro biology, in my opinion.

tezcal Wrote:

> especially someone like joel furhman who is so
> busy writing books, appearing in movies and public
> access television that i hardly believe he has the
> time to read the latest information in neuro
> science or neuro biology, in my opinion.

The man has some good ideas but he is also a
shyster. He wanted recognition badly in the
established medical community so he asked
Dr. Campbell to co-author a study with him--
he needed Campbell's respectability.

But he falsified data and Dr. Campbell wrote
a letter to the journal to distance himself
from the Fuhrman and the paper.

thank you,arugula, interesting, I hadn't heard that.

Fresh, I admit I was disappointed. Such a beautiful
diet and such a bad character behind it as is often the case.

He does have good ideas but he is too restrictive for most
people. Also he sells all these supplements for ridiculous
prices.

Andrew Perlot does an impressive job here critiquing him:
[www.youtube.com]

<<<Andrew Perlot does an impressive job here critiquing him:>>>

Hey arugula,

Have you read Fuhrman's rebuttal and if so, what do you think of it?

All comments (97)

Dr. Fuhrman
6 months ago

It is okay with me if you disagree with me, but at least disagree with the facts and not false stories and misrepresentations of my teachings.

First of all, you stated my citations were inaccurate. I have written 8 books, I have reviewed more than 20,000 studies on human nutrition and referenced more than 2000 scientific studies in my books. I would like you to find one scientific study, which I misrepresented. I may occasionally make an error, but I think I am exceptionally careful and accurate in depicting what the studies say. I also comprehensively review studies on both sides of every issue in a comprehensive fashion before coming to a conclusion. Many scientific researchers have reviewed my books for scientific accuracy and found them to be of the highest degree of integrity.

Then incredibly, you claimed I falsified data in a study that was performed on my patients. A study was done many years ago, which took 100 of my patient’s charts and then picked about half of them to consider for evaluation regarding the weight loss benefits, because those charts identified weight as being one of their problems. There was no Eat To Live book or website support available then; they were on their own after their visits. Nonetheless, they still did very well. Dr. Campbell was asked to add his name to the study and to review it and aid in its submission to a medical journal. I was not involved with the calculations or conclusion of the study; I merely supplied the charts. An error in calculation was found in the results of the study, many years later, and the head researcher issued a correction to the journal in which it was published. However, it made the total weight loss of the people who remained on the program still substantial, but not as impressive. Remember I did not review the charts or calculate the findings; a research team from LA did that, so I had nothing to do with the error. Note that this attack on me absolves Dr. Campbell of accepting any blame for not reviewing the data, as he should have done, he just choose to promote the idea that the error in the study was done intentionally. You perpetuating and publicizing this is perpetuating a lie.

Your next attack against me claims I made false statements about the study. My claim was not false at that time. Remember, before the error was found bringing the average down to 37, I thought the study showed a mean of 54 pounds of weight loss in those who were followed for two years. Even with the correction there has never been a study that follows a unified diet program for two years, with a greater mean weight loss. Furthermore, I never said that 100 people were followed for the two-year period, only in one interview mentioned that the researchers took 100 of my patient charts, they then narrowed down the participants to further investigate. I did err in one radio interview and said 64 instead of 54 were investigated, but that was a verbal slip, not intentional. I do not think I deserve you calling me a liar and that I falsify data for this one verbal error.

Lets move on to the disagreements of science and your belittling my recommendations of certain supplements. Your argument was not logical. Just because SAD eaters may have more Parkinson’s, depression and dementia than vegans or any other group, does not mean that some people aren’t getting demented or depressed needlessly on an unsupplemented vegan diet. When you can show me zero people getting demented and depressed as a result of their diet, then I will agree that there is no need for any fixing of deficiencies or sub-optimal intakes with any supplements. I knew Dr. Shelton and Dr. Vetrano well, (and Dr. Cinque is a friend of mine) and corresponded with Shelton, and he was not a frequent user of dairy products. Still that is not the issue whether he did or he did not. The issue is that Shelton ate a very healthy natural food diet with minimal animal products, no fish and therefore had no DHA source. I drew blood tests to evaluate the DHA levels on Max, a vegan natural hygienist and leader in the Natural Food movement as well as other vegans and near vegans who developed Parkinson’s and many more who developed dementia and found those who did have neurologic problems were those whose DHA levels were very low and sometimes even undetectable. Max’s level was zero. I have evaluated these blood tests on hundreds of vegans and it is only a minority who have levels very low. Nevertheless, I want to make sure nobody following my advice gets demented or depressed. This is not the place for me to write a scientific paper about this here. But I do present and will present these findings in scientific meetings and professional journals. The exclusion of walnuts and seeds, fearful of their fat content, may exacerbate these potential deficiencies for some following a vegan diet. Because I hold a differing viewpoint, character assassination has taken the place of reason and scientific discussion.

Many vegan promoters do not want to give the impression that a total vegan diet can be sub-optimal in anything, except B12. They frequently do not consider individual differences in absorption and nutrient conversion. I have 25 years of clinical experience treating over 15,000 patients from this community of health seekers, who came to me with difficulties and problems to solve in spite of their efforts to eat healthfully. I have seen plenty of these serious issues and once you get demented it is too late to think you can supplement then to fix it. I want nobody to suffer needlessly from errors of nutritional opinion. It is my objectivity and desire to protect all people that follow my dietary advice and make sure even a small percentage do not become demented or depressed needlessly. We must err on the side of caution, but there are scores of studies that support this conservative position. Plus, I tell people regularly that they can get tested if they do not want to supplement. You also misrepresented what I do recommend, why, and the cost. Next time you post an attack video or write an article maybe you should check your facts with the source. So you don’t just parrot misinformation, you should review my position and recommendations in my latest book, The End of Dieting, or come to my website and question me yourself.

Lastly, your evaluation of the drawbacks of my dietary recommendations was also incorrect. What you consider drawbacks are actually well-documented lifespan enhancers. More beans and greens and less fruit and starchy grains accordingly, is lifespan promoting and has documented anti-cancer benefits. That does not mean I do not recommend fruit and starches, just that most vegans do not eat enough greens and beans. However, I do not believe in a one diet for everyone approach and regularly adjust dietary programs to meet the individual digestive needs and requirements to assure people thrive. That means for sure there are some rare individuals who have to limit beans, just as there are those that need to limit fructose from fruit or the arginine in nuts, or avoid the oxalic acid in spinach. I would not critique your fruit-heavy diet just because it is not appropriate for some fructose-sensitive individuals. Occasionally, any diet-style could need tweaking to meet individual digestive idiosyncrasies even though uncommon. Your criticisms were unfounded and simplistic.

I am glad you are doing well now, and living in a manner that works best for you, but you have limited clinical experience, and I deserve an apology from you for the demeaning and distorted attack against my character.

John Rose wrote:

“Are you saying suez has an excuse for being a @#$%&?”

[www.merriam-webster.com]
@#$%& - usually vulgar : a contemptible person
[www.merriam-webster.com]

Tai wrote:

<<<This is so ridiculous for people to take cheap shots.>>>

[www.thefreedictionary.com]
cheap shot

An unfair or unsporting verbal attack on a vulnerable target.

1. (in sports) a blow, shove, or tackle maliciously directed against an opponent who is defenseless or off guard.
2. any mean or unsportsmanlike remark or action, esp. one directed at a defenseless or vulnerable person.
[www.thefreedictionary.com]

Suez by every definition is a @#$%& and a Psychopath and is far from being vulnerable!

So asking whether or not suez is a @#$%& is Not a Cheap Shot because that’s suez’s job to be a @#$%&.

Suez’s job is to be a @#$%& and she does her job well.

Suez probably gets bonuses every time someone accuses her of being a @#$%& - job well done suez - you’re being the @#$%& you’re hired to be.

In reality, asking whether suez is a @#$%& should serve as a reminder to let everyone know that suez has been a @#$%& and will always be a @#$%&. Suez cannot change her spots. Psychopaths simply don’t know how to act - that’s why she’s perfect for this job - she has No Empathy - she has No Feeling of Remorse - she loves to create Chaos and Disharmony everywhere she goes and this would be obvious for anyone who would actually pay attention to what she’s doing and what people like her are supposed to do.

Suez is doing what she’s supposed to do as an Internet Shill. If you were suez’s boss, you would say, well done suez - you’re creating Disharmony and Chaos, you’re attacking all of the leaders and you’re promoting the least likely Raw Food Diet that will be successful so that it doesn’t do any good if anyone says, oh, look at what suez is doing any more than look at what the Sproutarian is doing.

Yes, by definition suez is a @#$%& and calling a @#$%& a @#$%& is NOT a Cheap Shot when everyone knows suez is a @#$%&.

John Rose--"Suez’s job is to be a @#$%& and she does her job well."


ha ha ha. That made me lol

John Rose wrote:
Suez is doing what she’s supposed to do as an Internet Shill. If you were suez’s boss, you would say, well done suez - you’re creating Disharmony and Chaos, you’re attacking all of the leaders and you’re promoting the least likely Raw Food Diet that will be successfu

Tai:
I don't believe that SueZ is an internet schill. As she said, she is trying to balance her body from a diet that didn't work for her and she is wary of raw vegan gurus, because she aged really fast in just one year on that diet. She is protecting herself, which is very normal. She is not buying into anyone's authority, in order not to make another mistake. Why is that so hard to understand? I am not excusing the tone she takes, but just saying that her skepticism seems on par with the level of physical harm she said she experienced, including a hernia and age spots. I have a ton of compassion for her, because I, too, am nursing someone who wrecked himself on a raw vegan diet that didn't work.

BUT even if you do meet an internet schill, John Rose, why don't you try compassion and benevolence to help them understand, rather than name calling? You can define that T word anyway you want, but that word is unfit to be used in referencing a human being. I am not trying to end your conflict or tell you what to do, but it would be nice to keep this forum PG rated.

Thanks for posting Fuhrman's response. That was helpful. I have a book of his lying around and I never read it. Now I will.

thank you very much JR for that rebuttal.

<<<BUT even if you do meet an internet schill, John Rose, why don't you try compassion and benevolence to help them understand, rather than name calling?>>>

I have already explained before that ~4% of the population are Psychopaths and I have NO RESPECT for Psychopaths!!!

Maybe you believe suez's cover story, but I do NOT!!!

Everything about suez reeks of an Internet Shill!!!

I pay close attention whenever anyone comes here and creates Chaos and once you study Psychopaths and Internet Shills, they are very easy to spot.

So why can't you see the obvious?

Have you watched Defense Against the Psychopath or have you read I Was a Paid Internet Shill?

Once you read and watch the above and then, pay attention to what suez does, it's more than obvious that she has an Agenda!!!

On a final note, I also believe in what Confucius said about the Golden Rule:

“Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.”

But he did not believe in returning good for evil. For if you reward the man who hurts you with kindness, he reasoned, what do you have left to give the man who is kind to you?

Once again, ~4% of the population are Psychopaths and I have NO RESPECT for Psychopaths!!!

John Rose wrote:
On a final note, I also believe in what Confucius said about the Golden Rule:

“Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.”

But he did not believe in returning good for evil. For if you reward the man who hurts you with kindness, he reasoned, what do you have left to give the man who is kind to you?

Once again, ~4% of the population are Psychopaths and I have NO RESPECT for Psychopaths!!!

Tai:
1) A christian/catholic/jew who goes to heaven and does not have to reincarnate, is like a mini god (John 10:34 King James 2000 Bible. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?"
2) A buddhist who succeeds to transcend reincarnation and goes above the arhat level is a Buddha.
3) A daoist who succeeds to transcend the reincarnation cycle and becomes a wandering immortal is called a Dao

Lao Tzu succeeded as a Dao. Confucius did not succeed as a Dao, therefore it is your handicap to quote Confucius.

In the H-pylori thread, I inserted a video of a girl who experienced a miracle and had her blindness healed. You did not respond, although you brought up the subject of blindness and miracles. (This is what you wrote: "However, being blinded from an injury and then being healed would be a different story and I would have to see this to believe it and even then, it would be a tough pill for me to swallow.)

One reason those kinds of miracles RARELY take place is not to disturb natural laws, but to make people consider the truth of the moral principles the spiritual teacher is trying to express. For example, Jesus said to forgive your sister 70 times 7. He also said to have loving kindness and compassion and to turn the other cheek. John, true amazing loving kindness with boundless compassion can melt the heart of a paid spy, an assassin, a thief, a criminal, an addict, etc. John, you think 4% of the population can't change? Is it because you don't believe in miracles? I have seen the most unlikely people change through the amazing grace that I am talking about. (this transcends religion.) The compassion was beyond human, because humans love to retaliate and protect their ego. Yes, I have been brought to my knees at seeing this compassion and seeing the changes it can do.

In summary, the true miracles are sometimes displayed to point people in a certain moral direction. It is not only limited to western spirituality but also eastern, as well.

<<<John, you think 4% of the population can't change? Is it because you don't believe in miracles?>>>

I actually have a theory as to why some people are Psychopaths and based on my theory, yes, some of them can change, maybe.

In the meantime, it helps to know "What Not To Do" when it comes to dealing with Psychopaths...

[www.youtube.com]
Defense Against the Psychopath (Full length Version)
37:37 Minute Video

...

30:05 MM
Defense Against The Psychopath

1) Facing Evil

...

2) Recognition

...

3) What Not To Do

What is vital to understand is that Empathy cannot defeat the Psychopath. You cannot change them. You cannot reform them. You cannot find the Goodness inside of them. You cannot show them the way to God. And you cannot teach them about Love. All of these approaches are doomed to failure since Psychopaths can never understand nor can they care about these concepts. While they may lead you to believe that you are getting through to them, in reality, your Empathy infuriates them and far from admiring your compassion, they despise you even more. One must develop a cold exterior to them and view them from a distance. Do Not Pity them, Feel Sorry for them or sympathize with them.

...

[www.youtube.com]

Quote

One reason those kinds of miracles RARELY take place is not to disturb natural laws, but to make people consider the truth of the moral principles the spiritual teacher is trying to express. For example, Jesus said to forgive your sister 70 times 7. He also said to have loving kindness and compassion and to turn the other cheek. John, true amazing loving kindness with boundless compassion can melt the heart of a paid spy, an assassin, a thief, a criminal, an addict, etc. John, you think 4% of the population can't change? Is it because you don't believe in miracles? I have seen the most unlikely people change through the amazing grace that I am talking about. (this transcends religion.) The compassion was beyond human, because humans love to retaliate and protect their ego. Yes, I have been brought to my knees at seeing this compassion and seeing the changes it can do.

Beautiful post.

Quote

But he did not believe in returning good for evil. For if you reward the man who hurts you with kindness, he reasoned, what do you have left to give the man who is kind to you?

Even greater levels of kindness and love. It is easy to be kind to someone who is kind to you (for most people), but it is much more difficult to be kind and compassionate to someone who tries to hurt you. Because it is so much more difficult, practicing kindness and love towards those who only do ill towards you will help you to evolve much faster and you will experience greater and greater levels of kindness and compassion that you can share with everyone, those who are kind to you as well as those who are anything but.

Most people only have conditional love, but that will not get you anywhere fast. Unconditional love is a truly beautiful thing and miracles will happen when it becomes your way of life.

Quote

3) What Not To Do

What is vital to understand is that Empathy cannot defeat the Psychopath. You cannot change them. You cannot reform them. You cannot find the Goodness inside of them. You cannot show them the way to God. And you cannot teach them about Love. All of these approaches are doomed to failure since Psychopaths can never understand nor can they care about these concepts. While they may lead you to believe that you are getting through to them, in reality, your Empathy infuriates them and far from admiring your compassion, they despise you even more. One must develop a cold exterior to them and view them from a distance. Do Not Pity them, Feel Sorry for them or sympathize with them.

Of course they are redeemable John...everyone has the spark of God in them, we are all divine beings of light and have infinite love inside of us. Some people may be very very unlikely to be redeemed in this lifetime (due to the veils of karma), but that doesn't mean we give up on people or judge people. Judge not lest you be judged, and you are not a saint either (not an insult, almost nobody in this planet is, and I'm certainly not either).

Besides...even if you can't extend compassion to these people you see as psychopaths for their sake, do it for your own sake.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2015 09:34PM by Living Food.

One of my favorite quotes is by Philo of Alexandria, “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.”

I ALWAYS give people the benefit of the doubt when I first see them being unkind because I believe that “People will not be unkind to you unless they are hurting." and that “All communication is either a loving response or a cry for help.”

So whenever I see anyone being unkind, the first thing I do is send them my love and since it's the last thing they expect, it usually overwhelms them and they break into tears. That is, of course, if they are NOT a Psychopath, in which case, I soon realize who I'm dealing with and now I understand why my Empathy infuriates them even more.

To Recap:

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.” -Philo of Alexandria

“All communication is either a loving response or a cry for help.” -“A Course In Miracles”

“People will not be unkind to you unless they are hurting. It is not appropriate to catch their disease. If people are being unkind, they are displaying a symptom. Remember, it’s a symptom, they are diseased. Their disease is contagious, don’t catch it. Be a healer, heal yourself and heal others. Don’t catch the disease.” -Dr. Robert Pennington

Quote

So whenever I see anyone being unkind, the first thing I do is send them my love and since it's the last thing they expect, it usually overwhelms them and they break into tears. That is, of course, if they are NOT a Psychopath, in which case, I soon realize who I'm dealing with and now I understand why my Empathy infuriates them even more.

That's a wonderful way to live, but excluding "psychopaths" from your kindness is not. That's like refusing to treat a leper because you believe them to be incurable.

Why do I put the word "psychopaths" in quotes? Scientists talk about psychopaths as having physical abnormalities in their brains and say they are hopeless cases, but the problem is they are focusing on the physical. I look at things from a spiritual viewpoint so I have a different view on things.

Even if you are right and there is absolutely nothing you can do to help psychopaths, why not treat them with love and kindness anyway because of the benefits that you will get out of that? Responding to people with the same harshness and rudeness they use on you just brings you down to their level.

You posted some really good quotes above. Here's another one:

"By taking revenge, a man is even with his enemy; but in passing over it, he is superior."
- Francis Bacon

You may say you aren't "taking revenge," but I'm just using the quote to say that it is better to taker the higher road than the lower, and that you need not respond in kind to malice or harshness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2015 10:00PM by Living Food.