For those of you who think I am hassling suez, consider that she is constantly accusing me of endangering people, yet refuses to say HOW or what she thinks my views are.

She refuses to back up her false claims about me that I call her out on, other than to hurl another insult.

She does this because if she doesn't actually post anything except for insults, she cannot be held accountable for anything that has any factual basis.

So the purpose of this post is for Anyone to find the answer that I have asked for repeatedly here and only got one response.

That response was "I don't know".
And if we see multiple examples contradicting a proposition that we hold, we can't just say, "I don't know" and continue to hold that proposition. We should question the proposition.

The question involves criticizing the high carb diet or the high carb low fat diet, or a high fruit diet whatever you want to call it, because a particular person didn't do well on it. If others with seemingly similar bodies do fine on a diet that Suez, for example, claims caused her to be pre-diabetic, then what is the cause of the different outcome?

possible answers

1- diet is flawed
2- everyone is different
3-diet was done wrong


regarding 1, it's contradicted by others good lipid panels on similar diet. blaming the diet is illogical.

regarding 2, if people have physical differences that cause one person to have good lipid panels and another to not , then that proves the point that it is not the diet and also those differences may be temporary.

regarding 3, it is easy to do the diet wrong and has been shown many times

If one cannot explain the different outcomes then one should not be criticizing the diet, one should be looking at how the diet was done, or physical issues at the time the diet was done.

4-Human Life and health is about much more than food...

What is the question I will answer!

Your #2 is correct, for sure.

Some people - okay, most of us - have medical issues we aren't even aware of that need to be dealt with by methods other than diet. Then we will probably see that raw is easier to follow. For example, what the nature doctors/TCM doctors call "liver stagnation". That's just for starters.

Horsea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your #2 is correct, for sure.
>
> Some people - okay, most of us - have medical
> issues we aren't even aware of that need to be
> dealt with by methods other than diet. Then we
> will probably see that raw is easier to follow.
> For example, what the nature doctors/TCM doctors
> call "liver stagnation". That's just for
> starters.


So when you say "everyone is different" does that mean that one person who goes prediabetic on what they call a hclf diet (since it appears that others do not go prediabetic) is logical in claiming that the diet was "at fault" or the diet is " dangerous" or "fruit *caused* the problem"?



suvine, the question is

" what is the cause of the different outcomes?"

> Your #2 is correct, for sure.
>
> Some people - okay, most of us - have medical
> issues we aren't even aware of that need to be
> dealt with by methods other than diet. Then we
> will probably see that raw is easier to follow.
> For example, what the nature doctors/TCM doctors
> call "liver stagnation". That's just for
> starters.


So when you say "everyone is different" does that mean that one person who goes prediabetic on what they call a hclf diet (since it appears that others do not go prediabetic) is logical in claiming that the diet was "at fault" or the diet is " dangerous" or "fruit *caused* the problem"?

* In my opinion, it means that this particular diet is not suitable for this particular person. Fruit in large quantities would not be suitable for this person.

* I don't think that any one diet is dangerous for all people all of the time. And no one diet is suitable for all people all of the time.

* Personally, I consider the hclf way of eating to be a healing diet. That means: after you become well on this diet, you may wish to broaden it. I consumed a high carb/low fat diet including cooked food a couple of decades ago. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven, I felt that good for a few years. Slowly, I began to notice I craved fat really bad. I found an excuse to bake a pie for Thanksgiving. I lost control of myself while making the crust and dipped my hand into the saturated fat, consuming fistfuls of it. I didn't take me long to figure things out! LOL

* Maybe the day will come when high-tech medicine will be able to take your blood sample and tell you what you should eat and what you should not eat. And then you can get retested every year.

* In my opinion, it means that this particular diet is not suitable for this particular person. Fruit in large quantities would not be suitable for this person.

right, but why?

the person who eats large quantities and doesn't get high triglycerides, is that person ill? Is the person somehow avoiding the negative effects of the diet which is inherently unhealthy as people claim?

the person who eats large quantities (that others eat with no problem )and gets high triglycerides, is that person in perfect health?

what is more likely that
the FRUIT is poisonous in one instance and NOT poisonous in another instance?
or
that there is a bodily difference, a weakness, or a mistake in how the diet is being done by the person who gets prediabetic?

triglycerides and overeating

- if one says they ate the same number of calories on one diet compared to another that doesn't implicate the foods that were eaten that seemingly caused higher triglycerides.

-when different foods are eaten or different macro nutrient ratios are eaten, the calories Assimilated may be different which impacts the potential for triglycerides raising. A person may need to eat Less food when eating foods that are assimilated at a higher rate. We can't just go by calorie content, it's calories assimilated.

...or that there is a bodily difference, a weakness, or a mistake in how the diet is being done by the person who gets prediabetic?

I'd just call it a "bodily difference". This is also known as "heredity". It may be a throwback to grandparents or something went wrong during gestation. It doesn't matter; let us just eat in a way that is suited to our present condition, then if we develop ongoing cravings, to investigate and make necessary changes.

No one is born perfect; we are not born a blank slate. We all inherit something or other that isn't 100%. Maybe not an actual disease, but a tendency, shall we say, to develop this or that condition. Life consists of trying to find our own personal weaknesses and see how we can deal with them.

Best to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2015 10:26PM by Horsea.

Fresh,

#1 and 2 are correct.

1. If all the centenarians in the world nowadays eat cooked food and some '' junk processed food '', what does that prove? The fact that a few people succeed on any type of diet is not proof that the same diet will work for everyone when most of the people are not doing well on that diet. If you are going to proffer your specific diet as the universal diet then you need an 95%+ success rate, not a .05% success which your current offering is showing. It's great that high fruit works for you, and be glad about it, but don't confuse a handful of people with what is happening to the majority of the population who try it and have issues. The majority of junk and processed food eaters don't live to 100+.

2. This is the real issue. We are all different. This is a point I have brought up before - genetics.

In the animal kingdom you have the survival of the fittest, the strongest and the healthiest, and sometimes the luckiest. If you aren't healthy, fit and strong and can't climb trees, walk for hours and be on your feet and can't get your own source of food you will die. Nobody feeds animals after the stop weaning. Only the healthy and fit breed in the animal kingdom hence they are strong, healthy, fit and have great uniform genetics.

Now we come to the human race as we are now. Who breeds in the human race? Anyone and everyone. There is no such thing any more as the survival of the fittest, healthiest or the strongest. We don't need to climb trees, be on our feet for eight hours a day, be out in the fields farming for daylight to dusk. We don't have to row our canoes from island to island. WE trot up to the shop and buy our commercially grown food from poor soil.

We have healthy people with good genetics breeding. We have fat people breeding. We have people with moderate and poor genetics breeding. Some people have great genetics, good digestion and a great metabolism and are moderate sensible eaters. Most of these people don't bother with going on any extreme diets, whether it's 100% raw, 100% vegan or even 100% healthy because they don't have to. They are healthy and happy and go about their lives without being consumed by food. In a previous post Suvine asked ' why don't the elite eat 100% raw ''. The answer is simple - they don't have to. If I had had great genetics, great metabolism, perfect digestion and no physical problems I wouldn't have bothered going to all the extremes I have been through in my life - and probably the same for most of the other genuine health seekers.

Most of the people going to extreme diets ( like most of us here ) don't necessarily have great genetics, great digestion and fantastic metabolism, and some might even have internal physical issues which aren't life threatening, but still is a problem.

Perhaps Fresh in your case ( and JR's ) you have great genetics, great digestion and a great metabolism and no internal physical issues so in your case you are able to cope with your high fruit diet, but to tell other people who don't have your genetics, etc that they are doing it wrong is simply closing your mind to the reality of the situation.

Fresh, you are looking at the world through your own eyes and your own body. You don't know how other peoples bodies feel. Unlike the animal kingdom where the whole race is uniform, we have long ceased to be that way. It doesn't mean we should eat junk food, but we need to deal with reality as it is, not what is happening the animal kingdom. People need to find what works for them, as opposed to what supposedly has worked for someone else.

Horsea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...or that there is a bodily difference, a
> weakness, or a mistake in how the diet is being
> done by the person who gets prediabetic?
>
> I'd just call it a "bodily difference". This is
> also known as "heredity". It may be a throwback
> to grandparents or something went wrong during
> gestation. It doesn't matter; let us just eat in
> a way that is suited to our present condition,
> then if we develop ongoing cravings, to
> investigate and make necessary changes.
>
> No one is born perfect; we are not born a blank
> slate. We all inherit something or other that
> isn't 100%. Maybe not an actual disease, but a
> tendency, shall we say, to develop this or that
> condition. Life consists of trying to find our own
> personal weaknesses and see how we can deal with
> them.
>
> Best to you.


I understand that. the question how does it follow from that for so many people to claim that X diet is bad because THEY didn't do well on it when clearly others are

BJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh,
>
> #1 and 2 are correct.
>
> 1. If all the centenarians in the world nowadays
> eat cooked food and some '' junk processed food
> '', what does that prove? The fact that a few
> people succeed on any type of diet is not proof
> that the same diet will work for everyone when
> most of the people are not doing well on that
> diet. If you are going to proffer your specific
> diet as the universal diet then you need an 95%+
> success rate, not a .05% success which your
> current offering is showing. It's great that high
> fruit works for you, and be glad about it, but
> don't confuse a handful of people with what is
> happening to the majority of the population who
> try it and have issues. The majority of junk and
> processed food eaters don't live to 100+.
>

I am not claiming universal diet in a strict sense.

I am claiming that there is a diet for the vast majority that consists of raw fruits/veg/nuts/seeds . I am not saying X amount of fruit. I would only say that most are not going to thrive on high amounts of nuts/seeds and veg is low calorie, so fruit needs to predominate.

I am saying that those who don't do well have no basis to generalize and bash something that THEY did, not acknowledging that the fault may not lie in the diet, but in them.


> 2. This is the real issue. We are all different.
> This is a point I have brought up before -
> genetics.
>
> In the animal kingdom you have the survival of the
> fittest, the strongest and the healthiest, and
> sometimes the luckiest. If you aren't healthy, fit
> and strong and can't climb trees, walk for hours
> and be on your feet and can't get your own source
> of food you will die. Nobody feeds animals after
> the stop weaning. Only the healthy and fit breed
> in the animal kingdom hence they are strong,
> healthy, fit and have great uniform genetics.
>
> Now we come to the human race as we are now. Who
> breeds in the human race? Anyone and everyone.
> There is no such thing any more as the survival of
> the fittest, healthiest or the strongest. We don't
> need to climb trees, be on our feet for eight
> hours a day, be out in the fields farming for
> daylight to dusk. We don't have to row our canoes
> from island to island. WE trot up to the shop and
> buy our commercially grown food from poor soil.
>
> We have healthy people with good genetics
> breeding. We have fat people breeding. We have
> people with moderate and poor genetics breeding.
> Some people have great genetics, good digestion
> and a great metabolism and are moderate sensible
> eaters. Most of these people don't bother with
> going on any extreme diets, whether it's 100% raw,
> 100% vegan or even 100% healthy because they don't
> have to. They are healthy and happy and go about
> their lives without being consumed by food. In a
> previous post Suvine asked ' why don't the elite
> eat 100% raw ''. The answer is simple - they
> don't have to. If I had had great genetics, great
> metabolism, perfect digestion and no physical
> problems I wouldn't have bothered going to all the
> extremes I have been through in my life - and
> probably the same for most of the other genuine
> health seekers.
>
> Most of the people going to extreme diets ( like
> most of us here ) don't necessarily have great
> genetics, great digestion and fantastic
> metabolism, and some might even have internal
> physical issues which aren't life threatening, but
> still is a problem.
>


> Perhaps Fresh in your case ( and JR's ) you have
> great genetics, great digestion and a great
> metabolism and no internal physical issues so in
> your case you are able to cope with your high
> fruit diet, but to tell other people who don't
> have your genetics, etc that they are doing it
> wrong is simply closing your mind to the reality
> of the situation.

the reason I don't think so is because of so many, over and over again that I have examined who really didn't do what they claimed, or were confused about what to do, or were not healthy or not doing it long enough , or were low in b12 but didn't blame the b12 problem, or say I had X result on test and abandoned diet.


>
> Fresh, you are looking at the world through your
> own eyes and your own body. You don't know how
> other peoples bodies feel. Unlike the animal
> kingdom where the whole race is uniform, we have
> long ceased to be that way. It doesn't mean we
> should eat junk food, but we need to deal with
> reality as it is, not what is happening the animal
> kingdom. People need to find what works for them,
> as opposed to what supposedly has worked for
> someone else.

I understand what you're saying and thanks for posting, but I think I am more objective than you may think I am. I wouldn't go on a sprout diet , fail to thrive, then claim the sprout diet is dangerous if others seemed to be thriving on it. I wouldn't get sick on eggfruit and claim that eggfruit is bad for all .

BJ

>1. If all the centenarians in the world nowadays eat cooked food and some '' junk processed food '', what does that prove? The fact that a few people succeed on any type of diet is not proof that the same diet will work for everyone when most of the people are not doing well on that diet.

1. I don't have stats on how many are doing well.
2. It's a hard thing to do in this world. that is not evidence that it is not valid for those committed.


since you say the diet is flawed,
Why don't you tell me what the flaws are in a diet that can consist of b12, fruit, veg, nuts, seeds. you can even use a blender, a juicer, seaweed..

I'm not saying any diet is flawed. I'm saying that people who offer their diet as the one that works for everyone, and if it's not working for them then they are applying it is wrong, that is where the irrationality and flaw comes in.

If someone tries the above diet and it doesn't satisfy them, doesn't provide them with enough energy, then they need to keep looking ( what about the sea salt ). No one can tell anyone what works for them as I explained in my previous post.

You didn't spend time with me, Tom Billings, TSM, Temp, Suez or any of the other genuine health seekers, so to say we didn't do it right is having the same mindset as Doug Graham. Even DG doesn't believe in the 100% fruit diet, and look where it got the poster boy for high fruit Harley - dentures and 4 pizzas plus bowls of cereals with white sugar. If excessive amounts of fruit was that great then Harleys teeth should have been remineralised.

When things work the diet gets all the credit. When things don't go so well then the excuses come up:, you didn't do it right, pre-existing conditions. We've heard all the excuses before.

I'm not against eating fruit, just the handful of people still pushing the notion that getting 80 - 90% of their calories from fruit is the ideal, and if it's not working for you then you are doing it wrong.

I'm done. These days Fresh you're the last person standing pushing Dougs failed 80 /10 / 10.

you're missing the point of my post, but i will comment on your misdirection.


BJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not saying any diet is flawed.

you said the diet was flawed above

I'm saying that
> people who offer their diet as the one that works
> for everyone, and if it's not working for them
> then they are applying it is wrong, that is where
> the irrationality and flaw comes in.
>

and yet nobody can explain why a mix of fruits/veg/nuts/seeds won't work, whatever the level of fruit needs to be at some point in time, and it may change.

Fruit is blamed for high triglycerides. illogical when evidence counter to it exists all over the place.

> If someone tries the above diet and it doesn't
> satisfy them, doesn't provide them with enough
> energy, then they need to keep looking ( what
> about the sea salt ). No one can tell anyone what
> works for them as I explained in my previous
> post.
>
> You didn't spend time with me, Tom Billings, TSM,
> Temp, Suez or any of the other genuine health
> seekers, so to say we didn't do it right

there are many flaws already identified by laurie forti in what tom did, and many flaws seen in the practices of TSM and Temp.

who knows what suez did. she doesn't say. what I can say is that for someone who claims that kristina's blood tests were bad clearly has no clue what they are talking about and since she claims she was "prediabetic" and had horrible test results based on this false interpretation, this type of claim is has no justification.



is having
> the same mindset as Doug Graham. Even DG doesn't
> believe in the 100% fruit diet, and look where it
> got the poster boy for high fruit Harley -
> dentures and 4 pizzas plus bowls of cereals with
> white sugar. If excessive amounts of fruit was
> that great then Harleys teeth should have been
> remineralised.
>


not talking about 100%. and what you're talking about above is not relevant.

> When things work the diet gets all the credit.
> When things don't go so well then the excuses come
> up:, you didn't do it right, pre-existing
> conditions. We've heard all the excuses before.
>
> I'm not against eating fruit, just the handful of
> people still pushing the notion that getting 80 -
> 90% of their calories from fruit is the ideal, and
> if it's not working for you then you are doing it
> wrong.
>
> I'm done. These days Fresh you're the last person
> standing pushing Dougs failed 80 /10 / 10.

I'm not even talking about 80/10/10.

very very clear mistakes have been identified over and over. I don't have an agenda - if I saw a lot of people failing who were doing it right, I would have no case. Even the multitude of "ex vegans" when you look at what they do, are just clueless.

the point of the post again is the false generalization made about the "dangers" of high carb diet. any diet can be done wrong. any diet should be done carefully. I'm not here saying, "don't worry about b12, iodine, vitamin d" with my eyes closed..." And even if I did, we are all responsible for our own actions. trying to police everything anyone says is childish and pointless.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2015 02:57AM by fresh.

> last person standing pushing Dougs failed 80 /10 / 10.

how is it failed?

what are all those hundreds of people eating at the woodstock fruit festival?

and how did your chosen raw diet fail you and what are you doing differently today?

Un-frigging-believable! fresh just posted, in another thread, this to support his notion of proof of the success of his true believer dietary beliefs ...


"jericho sunfire shrunk down and was weak over a long period when he started raw, then built it back up again, all on low fat."

For those who are unfamiliar with this Message Board, we have 2 extremely disturbed lost souls on this Message Board and one of them is organic1 formerly known as temp formerly known as burtreynolds formerly known as anon103 formerly known as powerLIAR formerly known as chris the LYING MAN and the LYING MAN was formerly known by ALL of those names because this sad excuse for a human being has been banned over and over and over and over again and he is so SICK that he keeps coming back!

And then, the other SICK pathetic excuse for a human being that comes to a place where NO one wants them to be, except for other SICK people, is the one and only SueZ formerly known as ZeuS formerly known as ZeuS (The T___U___R___D) formerly known as ZeuS the third (T u_r_d) formerly known as just the "T__U___R___D" formerly known as Hera formerly known as Sue Schadenfreude and there’s a very good reason why this SICK pathetic excuse for a human being has been given all of these very deserving names and that’s because Lois knew what she was saying when she wrote:

SueZ has insulted almost everyone on the board at one time or another this year -

A partial list of the victims -

UtopianLife
banana who
LaVeronique
Panchito
Fresh
NuNativis
TSM
CommonSenseRaw
RawPracticalist
Bryan

There are others.

That's practically everyone who posts on the board.

In just the last two threads (Love on a Plate and LOL--Harley), four people were chastised or ridiculed - Panchito, RawPracticalist, TSM and bananawho.

What's interesting is that some of the guys - after she humiliated them, they ended up becoming her loyal followers - "LOL"

[www.merriam-webster.com]
T_u_r_d - usually vulgar : a contemptible person
[www.merriam-webster.com]

So why do these SICK pathetic excuses for a human beings come to this message board when they don’t support our Way of Life?

Is it because they're ???

For those who are new to this site - be aware that john rose, and several of the brown shirt bunker buddies in his posse, are not happy that some of us do not agree with many of his insane thoughts and fractured fairy tales he expresses in his various threads such as the one about Hitler being a good guy who didn't eat meat.

Also be aware john rose is famous around here for using out of context quotes selectively - for him the ends always justify the means.

He has even stooped so low as to post a photo he got from the web of an old sick woman and tell everyone here it was me. He also, without ever seeing me told everyone here that I am skinny-fat. He lies, in other words, whenever he feels like it. For him the ends justify the means.

rose has said that most of his "clients" are women around 55 years old - around my age. Apparently they have never discovered rose's presence at this site and looked much into his threads or they'd smartly be long gone from that guy's reach.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have reported your post to the moderators John
> Rose.
>
> I see Zhil got banned, so if equal and fair
> moderation is to be handed out, then your
> uncontrollable and abusive behavior that is
> CLEARLY against the forums rules has to also be
> curbed.
>
> So for once instead of playing into your
> pathology, im going to report your post and
> encourage others to do the same.
>
> You have to realize you can't treat people like
> you do simply because they have a different
> opinion on diet than you.
>
> Either reply to the topics we are discussing or
> for once gracefully shut up.

I would be surprised if Prana does anything. He didn't do anything when john rose called me a cunt.

organic1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Its the fact that he derails every single
> discussion we have on here by spamming his abusive
> crap, the same copy and pastes insults OVER and
> over and over again, yet never once anyone steps
> in and says look a normal human being doesn't act
> this way, calm down bro.

Being somewhat juiced on steroids could explain a few things about john rose, couldn't it? Maybe it's roid rage. His behavior certainly could pass for it and who would know?

I'm not saying any diet is flawed. I'm saying that people who offer their diet as the one that works for everyone, and if it's not working for them then they are applying it is wrong, that is where the irrationality and flaw comes in. - BJ.

I can't see why anyone would disagree with the above statement.

Nothing wrong with anyone getting his/her mineral and other nutrient levels tested. Why would anyone feel threatened by such a suggestion. That way you KNOW for sure what your problem is instead of guessing (and getting into unnecessary arguments).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2015 05:33PM by Horsea.

fresh said

"who knows what suez did. she doesn't say."

Too bad about your selective and foggy memory. I've talked about it several times.

I ate like Kristina does because that looked like the most appealing way to do it from the other youtubers I sample watched for the project.

It was a serious experiment and I took keeping track of things very seriously. I spent a lot of time charting, weighing, and getting lab tests. The food alone was not an insignificant investment for a Northerner without access to a wholesaler or co-op. All told - just for the food alone - it cost me over $10K.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh said
>
> "who knows what suez did. she doesn't say."
>
> Too bad about your selective and foggy memory.
> I've talked about it several times.
>
> I ate like Kristina does because that looked like
> the most appealing way to do it from the other
> youtubers I sample watched for the project.
>
> It was a serious experiment and I took keeping
> track of things very seriously. I spent a lot of
> time charting, weighing, and getting lab tests.
> The food alone was not an insignificant investment
> for a Northerner without access to a wholesaler or
> co-op. All told - just for the food alone - it
> cost me over $10K.


ok.

So John Rose is on steroids?

btw when I said I didn't know what you did, that means I don't remember you saying you ate "like kristina". first time i've heard that. and also your lipid numbers I don't remember you saying what they were.

but I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to elevate your ego with a
nice "Too bad about your selective and foggy memory."

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> btw when I said I didn't know what you did, that
> means I don't remember you saying you ate "like
> kristina".

Of course it didn't mean you remembered what happened to your latest (self admitted liar) shining example of toothless success, etc., etc., etc., ...

Just continue jabbering away gibberish like a little telemarketing drone in a cubical trying to convince the world all day to buy a line of shite if your goal is to be the last knight standing of a dying diet at the end of it's 15 minutes. You're almost to your goal already and there's a sucker born everyday.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > btw when I said I didn't know what you did,
> that
> > means I don't remember you saying you ate "like
> > kristina".
>
> Of course it didn't mean you remembered what
> happened to your latest (self admitted liar)
> shining example of toothless success, etc., etc.,
> etc., ...
>

I have no idea what you're talking about.

> Just continue jabbering away gibberish like a
> little telemarketing drone in a cubical trying to
> convince the world all day to buy a line of shite
> if your goal is to be the last knight standing of
> a dying diet at the end of it's 15 minutes. You're
> almost to your goal already and there's a sucker
> born everyday.

??? Did you go to the woodstock fruit festival?

most importantly you of course did not post your lipid panels.
which was the purpose of the above I suppose, some kind of distraction for the masses.

"I have no idea what you're talking about."

Wow your short term memory is really shot - it was just a few days ago!


"??? Did you go to the woodstock fruit festival?"

May it R.I.P.



"most importantly you of course did not post your lipid panels"

I PMed my personal results to several members here who I viewed as serious. I also posted both sets of my lab results publically at a few private paid raw vegan forums. One guy who said he was a coach and worked with a lot of athletes who got lab work done all the time said my lab work results after my 11 months on hclf were horrible. No one else thought they were fine either. It also was obvious, to even those who didn't know much at all about lab work, that my results after being on lchf for a year had no more of the *'s or were flagged in other ways as they were in the first set of tests.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I have no idea what you're talking about."
>
> Wow your short term memory is really shot - it
> was just a few days ago!
>
>
> "??? Did you go to the woodstock fruit
> festival?"
>
> May it R.I.P.
>
>
>
> "most importantly you of course did not post your
> lipid panels"
>
> I PMed my personal results to several members here
> who I viewed as serious. I also posted both sets
> of my lab results publically at a few private paid
> raw vegan forums. One guy who said he was a coach
> and worked with a lot of athletes who got lab work
> done all the time said my lab work results after
> my 11 months on hclf were horrible. No one else
> thought they were fine either. It also was
> obvious, to even those who didn't know much at all
> about lab work, that my results after being on
> lchf for a year had no more of the *'s or were
> flagged in other ways as they were in the first
> set of tests.


so no results then. must be top secret stuff.
I will go get my security clearance and get back to you.

Hey fresh,

I started to post the very answer you are looking for back in February of 2014 and decided to start a new Thread entitled "Sue Schadenfreude is making 3 Main Mistakes..."

I'll go ahead and include that Post here along with a link for those who might be interested in NOT making the same type of Mistake as Sue Schadenfreude aka the T__U__R__D below.

Remember, the definition of a T__U__R__D is "a vulgar, contemptible person" which describes this old bitter woman to a tee.

Here is that link and Post...

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Sue Schadenfreude is making 3 Main Mistakes...
Posted by: John Rose
Date: December 10, 2015 11:50AM

Here is the draft for a Post I started back in February of 2014, but never got around to Posting it and it is response to fresh's Thread "Question for others since Suez won't answer" :

...Sue Schadenfreude is making 3 Main Mistakes...

The 1st Main Mistake has to do with what I call the Science of Healing where we have to Satisfy all of our Essential Needs and EXERCISE is 1 of our Essential Needs and so is having a Positive, Loving, Caring Mental Attitude! Of course, there’s no telling what other basic Needs she’s NOT Satisfying, but here are at least 2 of them.

So Sue Schadenfreude was NOT following 801010 because 801010 is NOT all about Diet - it's about Satisfying all of our Essential Needs.

The 3rd Main Mistake Sue Schadenfreude is making is the same Mistake Doug makes where she doesn't understand the Ripple Effect and this is where we have Damaged our Body and our Environment because of the Mistakes we and our ancestors have made and now we have 2 Additional Temporary Needs that are going to Change as the Conditions Change and I call this the Art of Healing.

I've explained this ad nauseum to PowerLIAR because he doesn't understand that we have 2 Groups of Needs we must Satisfy and he uses the Art to discount the Science. In other words, PL uses the 2nd Group of Needs based on the Damage that we've done to our Body and our Environment as an excuse NOT to Satisfy the 1st Group of Needs based on our Anatomy given to us at birth which includes our Species Specific Diet.

According to Sue Schadenfreude, “I am an old sedentary lady who has had many health accidents and set backs over the years.”

So Sue Schadenfreude ADMITS that she does NOT Exercise and since she “has had many health accidents and set backs over the years,” it’s obvious that her Body has been Damaged because she has NOT been Eating Food that she is Biologically Adapted to Eat and as a result, she has trouble processing Carbohydrates and is blaming her Blood Sugar Levels on the Carbohydrates instead of blaming the Damage that she’s done to her Body by NOT Eating Food that she is Biologically Adapted to Eat and by NOT Satisfying all of her Essential Needs, especially by NOT Exercising and by NOT having a Positive, Loving, Caring Mental Attitude!

Indeed, as long as Sue Schadenfreude is filled with so much HATRED for the Human Race, she will always suffer because HATRED begets SICKNESS and SICKNESS begets SICKNESS!!!

Having said all of this in my original draft, I'm not suggesting that Sue Schadenfreude's current approach might not be a viable option on a Temporary basis since her Body is OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED and this is what I refer to, once again, as the Art of Healing.

However, a much better approach would be to do a long, extended, properly conducted Juice Feast for the appropriate length of time so that she might be able to repair some of the DAMAGE she has done, hoping that the DAMAGE is NOT Permanent, and, most importantly, Sue Schadenfreude has to get off her LAZY Ass and start Exercising and STOP blaming the only Food that wants us to Eat IT as the PROBLEM when it's the Prior MISTAKES Sue Schadenfreude has made that IS the PROBLEM!!!

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line and it could even have been at birth, Sue Schadenfreude’s Frontal Lobe has been DAMAGED and she is a Certifiable Psychopath, which means she will ALWAYS be SICK and will continue to create CHAOS wherever she goes.

Remember the words from Dr. Robert Pennington, “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.”