Fasting, and my irrefultable results.

Originally posted by gman1972

Hi John, can you give me some links about how all meat is a killer please? Reason I ask is I was a land vegetarian ie only ate fish as an animal protein for years, but recently switched back to eating land meat as I started doing the paleo diet. The paleo diet makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to me, as does fasting for that matter, as thinking about human history the paleo way of eating was how we survived. Mixed in with a fast every once and a while and bam, us humans are back to being who we have been for 99.5 % of our existence. I think that eating hormone soaked, medicated meat is a no brainier to avoid, but grass fed, non medicated meat which I am consuming I have a hard time thinking that is a killer.

Thanks for your thoughts on this

No problem. You might have seen the recent red meat scare as reported in the LA Times with sound bites including:

"So what is it in red meat that might make it unhealthy? No one is sure, exactly"???

"...eating red meat has been linked to the incidence of heart disease. The saturated fat and cholesterol in beef, pork and lamb are believed to play a role in the risk of coronary heart disease. The type of iron found in red meat, known as heme iron, has also been linked to heart attacks and fatal heart disease. Sodium in processed meats may increase blood pressure, which is a risk factor for heart disease. Other chemicals that are used in processed meats may play a role in heart disease as well, by damaging blood vessels.

Red meat has also been linked to increased risks of colorectal and other cancers. Again, heme iron could be a culprit — it is more easily absorbed into the body than other forms of iron, and can cause oxidative damage to cells — as could compounds that are created when meat is cooked at a high temperature. Preservatives used in processed meats also may play a role, scientists have said, because they convert into carcinogenic compounds in the body."

What's strange about this study is that all of this was known decades ago and to the best of my knowledge, we know why these things are harmful to us. They left out the bit about how even fresh meat from your butcher, etc is already embalmed with sodium nitrite

Sodium Nitrite as a Food additive ... serves a dual purpose in the food industry since it both alters the color of preserved fish and meats and also prevents growth of Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria which causes botulism... While this chemical will prevent the growth of bacteria, it can be toxic for mammals... [good thing we're not mammals - oops! JJ] ... A principal concern is the formation of carcinogenic N-nitrosamines by the reaction of sodium nitrite with amino acids in the presence of heat in an acidic environment ... Sodium nitrite has also been linked to triggering migraines. www.fda.gov... ... link between high processed meat consumption and colon cancer, possibly due to preservatives such as sodium nitrite ... a link between frequent ingestion of meats cured with nitrites and the COPD form of lung disease

Have I mentioned osteoporosis? Quote from Osteoporosis: The Key To Aging by Robin Hur

The heavy meat eating Masai males, Eskimos, and Greenlanders apparently develop osteoporosis at very early ages. The Eskimos normally become bent, shrunken and disabled in their late 20s while Greenlanders become decrepit in their 30s. The most interesting case, however, is that of the Masai. The tribe's males spend their formative years roaming with their herds, drinking the animals' blood and milk, and eating only small amounts of plant foods. Then, at the age of 20 or so, they take off to do a two-year stint as warriors, during which time they try to live on flesh alone. Following the warrior stint, and while still in their early 20s, they migrate to the tribes' villages, arriving at the villages with bent backs, diminished heights and debilitated bodies, whereupon they are cared for by the villages' women until they die. Now here's the rub: the tribe's females, who remain in the villages while the males are out subsisting on flesh and making war, raise and eat plant foods, and remain remarkably free of osteoporosis.

How about:
Fish
Mother's milk
Meats (in general)
(Continued)

Originally posted by gman1972

Hi John, can you give me some links about how all meat is a killer please? Reason I ask is I was a land vegetarian ie only ate fish as an animal protein for years, but recently switched back to eating land meat as I started doing the paleo diet. The paleo diet makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to me, as does fasting for that matter, as thinking about human history the paleo way of eating was how we survived. Mixed in with a fast every once and a while and bam, us humans are back to being who we have been for 99.5 % of our existence. I think that eating hormone soaked, medicated meat is a no brainier to avoid, but grass fed, non medicated meat which I am consuming I have a hard time thinking that is a killer.

Thanks for your thoughts on this

(continued from previous reply)

Just to round this off, I agree that in our history, we did survive on something similar to the paleo diet. This was because we lost our natural tropical forest habitat which supplied us with year round fruits for the picking, rounded off probably by green leaves and the odd passing creatures. Although the paleo diet is arguably better than highly processed junk diet of today, it is still only a survival diet and not a thrival diet if I can borrow the term from Spontaneous Evolution or wherever they got it from. A very useful and detailed theory about our ancestral heritage is documented in Left In The Dark which I invite you enjoy at your leisure.

We could discuss how cutting out the middle animal and feeding the animal feed directly to humans (if they will eat it) would feed 30% more people than the combined meat and dairy produced by the industry or turn that around to the number of people suffering and dying because of our desire for meat. We could discuss how the inherent cruelty of the industry belittles us as humans. But that's probably too off topic!

I hope that this helps as I could spend hours posting everything I've read about this subject but must get on with the dishes before the management decides to dock my wages

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
When you can find 1 group of people or culture that doesn't supplement and lives entirely on plant products, I'll entertain your statement. In the mean time, if you'd like, I can provide you with many cultures that live almost entirely on animal products.

Thanks for the offer. I referenced a few meat-eating cultures, namely the Masai males, Eskimos, and Greenlanders, in my response to gman1972. To save space, please review that post.

If you knew anything about nutrition and physiology, you wouldn't say that meat of any kind will kill you. That's a rather incredible statement.

Once again, please review the above post for my supporting evidence.

Can you tell me, please, where we would get our fat calories from if we were to not eat meat?

In the Garden, we would naturally have received fat in the form of easily assimilable fatty acids from nuts especially coconuts, seeds, avocados and any similar type fruits whether still available today or not. What's more, any excess fruit sugars would be stored as fat for later use. I cannot speak for other ancestors but it appears to be reliably established that Homo Erectus, despite having harnessed fire, preferred to eat their meat raw and that included Homo Sapien meat when in season as well as cannibalism. They were allegedly an unhealthy bunch and then they extincted.

Contrast all of that with modern diets where we consume vast quantities of oils and fats that have been processed, heated or just rancid due to oxidation. None of these are easily assimilatable if at all by the body, are difficult to eliminate, interfere with the supply of glucose to the cells and wind up stored in the body in various places to isolate them leading to atherosclerosis.

And, while you're at it, if meat is so terrible, how come our early man hunted animals, such as bison, to the brink of extinction and yet thrived healthily? Did they just hunt for fun?

Have the history books been rewritten since I left school? My vague memory is that certain American Indian tribes nurtured and revered the buffalo in a manner that both Indian and bison could survive together. It was the white hunters who chose to slaughter the bison for sport. Thanks for correcting me on this.

Or are you suggesting that unlike nearly every herbivore on this planet, the "human herbivore" eat plants with the sole purpose of getting fiber, vitamins and minerals but without providing any significant caloric value? Are you suggesting that unlike nearly every other herbivore on the planet, we don't need fat like they do?

The people in white coats (scientists that is) are for the most part very good at discovering facts and reporting them. After that, they go unscientific by formulating opinions based on the facts but for every white coat that says one thing, you can usually find 100 who will scoff at them. Having said that, I've read plenty from the white coats and have come to agree with those who say that we're actually frugivores, animals that eat primarily fruits. Fruits compare very closely to mother's milk in that many are nutritionally complete and provide that nutrition in the correct proportions required. If eating sufficient quantities of a varied assortment of fruits, an average person need not worry about supplementing their diet in any way. Nuts, seeds (part of the fruit family) and avocados are exceptions in that they're not so well balanced but they provide additional protein, fats and minerals to ensure that even the most energetic person's needs are met. Green leafy veg is recommended as insurance that vitamin and mineral needs are met but that seems to be due to the stresses of modern civilization and the difficulty of finding fresh off the tree fruit in quantity.

You may choose to side with the omnivore or herbivore people but remember that the proofs in the pudding. For dessert, try reading/watching The China Study. Very eye opening! The China Study Lecture

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by JohnJasper

High protein diets are a good way to damage your organs and bones/teeth. Excess protein must be eliminated from the body as well as the uric acid waste products from meat digestion, if meat is one of your sources of protein. Unless you're eating large green salads with every meal (and possibly even if your are,) you have a high probability of deplenishing your mineral reserves as they will be used to isolate these waste products.

Sure... that's true if you're eating white meat chicken as your only dietary source.

Sorry DevolutionEvolvd, I'm not sure how your chicken comment applies to what I said previously. I'll repeat my link from a previous post that deals with osteoporosis. There's plenty more on this subject in the links at the bottom of that reference if it helps.

High protein diets are a major contributor to disease in western nations so not really a good idea. Instead of dieting, just start eating properly on raw, organic fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Everything else is contrary to our physiology and will undermine our health to some degree.

And there's not much truth there. I mean, most Americans are consuming a high-carb/low-fat diet. Not many people are eating what you're calling a high-protein diet.

For this, I'll refer you to The China Study and the most helpful lecture by T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D entitled The China Study Lecture. I realise that one comprehensive, multi-cultural study doesn't trump everything else but it certainly supports my statement about the dangers of high-protein diets.

I'm glad to hear that most Americans have forsaken the standard American diet where almost everything is fried in either its own fat or in highly processed vegetable oils, slathered with hydrogenized buttery spreads or actual full-fat butter or garnished with sour cream. Perhaps they've also given up cooked meats where despite much of the fat running off, there's still a high content of fat still left after cooking especially bacon and sausage. Have they also given up drizzling their healthy salads with creams and oils. They will have given up eating real cheese with its high fat content and just be eating the processed cheese-flavored imitations.

I'll leave you with these words from T.C Fry's article: Are We Oil And Fat Eaters

It is well known that most meat eaters trim the fat off meats because they have an aversion to it. This is not without a sound physiological basis.

However we witness millions eating foods fried in oils and fats. Millions eat foods smothered in oils, butter, margarine and other fats. Oils and fats constitute about 40% of the American caloric intake.

For this heavy indulgence Americans pay dearly. Indigestion is an American institution. Pathogenic effects are rife. It is said that 50% of all American meals result in indigestion. Antacids are a multi-billion dollar business. At the door of oils and fats can be placed much of the blame.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Looks like you got some stars for saying eating less does not make you lose weight. Wow.

Are you actually waiting for someone to tell you calorie reduction reverses obesity? That obesity rates are inversely proportional to life expectancy rates? No i won't cite anything for you.

Calorie reduced diets.. ie: an intentional reduction in caloric intake for the purpose of reducing body fat definitely increase likelihood of living longer. Just like not flying reduces your chances of dieing in a plane crash.

Not everything is rocket science. Come on. The fatter you are the more likely you are to die younger.

"Excessive body weight is associated with various diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. As a result, obesity has been found to reduce life expectancy."

Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive food energy intake

So if we took every kind of diet ever conceived... And looked for a common and predominant characteristic of every diet that was linked to life expectancy what do you think it would be? Statistically speaking? Call me a Pagan.. maybe i am "NEW AGEY" for not kneeling to a holy scientific study.. but i am going to go out on limb here and say.... calories have something to do with it. Probably everyone who has purposely lost unhealthy fat can attest to the efficacy of eating less.. or as it's known in the scientific community - "calorie reduction".

Originally posted by CosmicEgg

Originally posted by rwfresh

Not wrong for fat people. It is about calories if you have a high bf and want to reduce it. Plain and simple. The most proven diet/fitness related method for increasing life expectancy is calorie reduction. Look it up. Proven and demonstrated time and time again.

Look around you. Are the sick people primarily high body fat or low? Is lack of vitamins causing their high body fat? show me a reference. I can cite many that demonstrate calorie reduced diet directly increasing life expectancy.

And i am not and never said that micro-nutrients are not important. they are. But treating obesity with micro-nutrients only is akin to fixing an engine with rags and soap. Don't complicate it. It's not scary and dangerous for an overweight person to get an accurate look at how much they eat. It's a healthy and extremely obvious, elementary lesson in basic health. Most need to start with the basics because if they follow the latest magic micro-nutrient or fad diet they will easily become frustrated and nothing will change.

It is wrong for everyone. Obesity is not necessarily the result of over-consumption of food but rather the body's reaction to that food. You cannot say that it's always about calories. There are so many things that can and do happen to a body over any period of time, long or short, that food quantities are almost irrelevant. What is important is how the boy receives that food and its ability to digest it further.

People must develop a relationship with their food and not view it as "fuel", in the first place. It is not. They must learn to eat when they are hungry in the amount their bodies require. A quick lunch will be your demise. Eating slowly - very slowly - is the right and only way to eat. Chewing your food slowly until it is a fine pulp before swallowing is the right way.

Lastly, there is no way any standard diet is going to be good for everyone because none of us are standard. Everyone is unique and their diets, particularly when we are all so out of balance, must be tailored to their needs and re-establishing that balance. Most people haven't known balance since they were infants. That's *most* people.

All you're doing is perpetuating the same bad info that has got us all in this situation.

Read your message. Listen to what you are saying!

YES the amount of calories you eat is DIRECTLY proportional to your body fat %. This goes for EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. The more you eat the fatter you get. PERIOD. Tell me, when you look at pictures of people in prison camps are any of them obese? Fat? Or are they skinny? Do anorexics eat more food than they need or less?

Please. the information i am giving is COMMON SENSE. YOU stop regurgitating this BS misinfo about weight loss. Making it into some kind of confusing conundrum we need science to help us with. When it comes to obesity the information we have available to all of us couldn't be anymore indisputable. I'm not saying it's easy for someone to actually reduce their calories and experience the proven result. But i am guaranteeing anyone in the world.. that if they eat less calories than their body uses they WILL lose weight. GUARANTEED.

I don't care WHEN you eat those calories in a 24 hr period. I don't care WHAT you eat to make up those calories. If the total is LESS than what your body requires you will lose weight. No one would dispute that drinking NO liquids will lead to dehydration. And no one should dispute that eating less will lead to weight loss. So yes, caloric reduction IS the standard diet that when APPLIED guarantees a result.

Stop your BS. There are people here who may actually want to lose weight who have yet to REALLY dial into this elementary bit of info because they have been so brainwashed by the diet industry (supplements, surgery, exercise equipment, food etc. etc).

Less calories than required = weight loss. Eat whatever you want. Determine your BMR www.bmi-calculator.net... . Determine exactly how much food you are eating and eat LESS than your calculated BMR.

If you or anyone does this. With honestly and determination. I guarantee they will lose weight. guaranteed. As sure as jumping off a cliff will result in falling.

reply to post by rwfresh


Thanks for spelling that out. It's basic physics man. Energy in, work out. That's how our body works just like a very efficient machine. But it obeys the laws of physics.

If that were true then everyone would attain comparable results with the same diet, the same exercise program, etc. That is simply not the case. Never has been, never will be.

Our bodies are quite different. What works for one will further damage another. You cannot say what you say as a blanket solution. It's wrong and worse, it's false. Using that formula will harm a great many and start damage in still others. Can you identify those people? No. And neither can your GP unless s/he's a very astute operator indeed.

I guess we should all mind our cholesterol and make sure our diets are modeled after the food pyramid, right? Maybe we should work very hard on hitting that anaerobic phase in exercise for as long as possible, correct?

Ultra-marathoners should inspire us.

Do be sure to have your obit sent to us here. We'll open up a RIP thread for you.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


It's not always as simple as eating low calories. Like you said, it's different strokes for different folks. Some eat low calories, but still gain weight because of thyroid issues or other problems. Here's one thing I've never seen. A fat or obese vegan. If you eat 1000 calories of fruits and vegetables, it won't be nearly the same as eating 1000 calories of saturated fats and candy. The way I see it, if you eat a lot of protein, eat the healthy proteins and fats with omega 3s. If you eat a lot of carbs, try to eat more complex carbs, than simple, although simple can be better first thing in the day. Don't over eat and eat at least 2 hours before you go to sleep. If you eat mostly fruits & veggies, and keep a good exercise regiment going, weight gain will probably never be an issue, but don't be tricked into thinking you can eat whatever you want as long as you keep calories low and exercise. You are what you eat, and if you eat nothing but junk food, it will have long term effects on your body, whether you lose weight or not.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
If that were true then everyone would attain comparable results with the same diet, the same exercise program, etc. That is simply not the case. Never has been, never will be.

Our bodies are quite different. What works for one will further damage another. You cannot say what you say as a blanket solution. It's wrong and worse, it's false. Using that formula will harm a great many and start damage in still others. Can you identify those people? No. And neither can your GP unless s/he's a very astute operator indeed.

I guess we should all mind our cholesterol and make sure our diets are modeled after the food pyramid, right? Maybe we should work very hard on hitting that anaerobic phase in exercise for as long as possible, correct?

Ultra-marathoners should inspire us.

Do be sure to have your obit sent to us here. We'll open up a RIP thread for you.

Not sure who you are talking to.. but if you are saying that eating less calories is sometimes not a good idea for someone that is overweight i will say you are delusional. Go ask a doctor. Go ask anyone in the history of time who has lost weight. Forget exercise. This is so simple. I don't care what you eat. Yes it is a blanket solution.. but it is an actual solution. If you are overweight and it's hurting you, eating less (doesn't matter what you eat) will result in weight loss and improved condition. PERIOD.

Everyone should just stop with the BS. Emotional bull. Is it easy? NO. But the solution is OBVIOUS and proven time and time again. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Personally I follow the "eat stop eat" fasting program, I fast for a 24 hour period once a week, and also the "spartan health regimen".
I have been fasting for about 2 years now and would never look back. I love the dicipline that is required and always feel great after my fast.
If only I could stop drinking the wine.....

I follow Fast-5. Anyone can google it and download the free e-book. I love eating this way, because it has given me freedom to eat what I love in moderation.

The premise of Fast-5 is to eat within a 5 hour window each day. I have chosen 3 pm - 8 pm. It is AMAZING how much energy I have during the day, and how much better I feel than when I ate breakfast and lunch. Now I eat my main meal anytime after 3, and then I eat something else later if I need to. I am slowly losing weight but NOT obsessing about what I eat (in the past, I have tended to obsessively monitor what I eat, and to try to restrict my eating by cutting out carbs, or sugar, or fat, or whatever some diet guru told me I needed to cut out.) Now, I am eating--real food--and I am no longer obsessing. I feel free.

I will eat if there is a special occasion earlier in the day--the key is flexibility AND the ability to live this way. I will never go back to eating all day long.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Intermittent fasting is great.. Really just a fancy way to say - natural eating haha. We've been bombarded with the 5 meals a day myth for the last 10 years.. "NEVER SKIP BREAKFAST".. i never eat breakfast. Eating before sleeping is natural. Generally following this kind of pattern results in a natural calorie reduction because you can only shove so much food in... so there are those benefits as well. Keep doing what works!

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
When you can find 1 group of people or culture that doesn't supplement and lives entirely on plant products, I'll entertain your statement. In the mean time, if you'd like, I can provide you with many cultures that live almost entirely on animal products.

Thanks for the offer. I referenced a few meat-eating cultures, namely the Masai males, Eskimos, and Greenlanders, in my response to gman1972. To save space, please review that post.


Once again, please review the above post for my supporting evidence.


In the Garden, we would naturally have received fat in the form of easily assimilable fatty acids from nuts especially coconuts, seeds, avocados and any similar type fruits whether still available today or not. What's more, any excess fruit sugars would be stored as fat for later use. I cannot speak for other ancestors but it appears to be reliably established that Homo Erectus, despite having harnessed fire, preferred to eat their meat raw and that included Homo Sapien meat when in season as well as cannibalism. They were allegedly an unhealthy bunch and then they extincted.

Have the history books been rewritten since I left school? My vague memory is that certain American Indian tribes nurtured and revered the buffalo in a manner that both Indian and bison could survive together. It was the white hunters who chose to slaughter the bison for sport. Thanks for correcting me on this.


The people in white coats (scientists that is) are for the most part very good at discovering facts and reporting them. After that, they go unscientific by formulating opinions based on the facts but for every white coat that says one thing, you can usually find 100 who will scoff at them. Having said that, I've read plenty from the white coats and have come to agree with those who say that we're actually frugivores, animals that eat primarily fruits. Fruits compare very closely to mother's milk in that many are nutritionally complete and provide that nutrition in the correct proportions required. If eating sufficient quantities of a varied assortment of fruits, an average person need not worry about supplementing their diet in any way. Nuts, seeds (part of the fruit family) and avocados are exceptions in that they're not so well balanced but they provide additional protein, fats and minerals to ensure that even the most energetic person's needs are met. Green leafy veg is recommended as insurance that vitamin and mineral needs are met but that seems to be due to the stresses of modern civilization and the difficulty of finding fresh off the tree fruit in quantity.

Do you know what oxolates are? Many green leafy veg are full of them and they are not good for a lot of people. Zeroing in on one study where a small group of people living under unrelated conditions(to you) develop arthritis is not something to base your entire dietary philosophy on. Inuit and many native peoples HAD zero cancer rates, zero heart conditions etc. etc. before a western/modern diet was introduced. Maybe we aren't reading the same history books but many North American Native people's primary caloric supply came from animal FAT and organ meat and they were some of the longest lived people at the time.. Functionally living without any signs of common disease we see today.

As for fruit and veg.. What about nightshades? A proven link between arthritis and nightshade consumption exists. This is ancient info.

arthritis.about.com...

I'm not saying that veganism is a bad diet. I lived as a strict raw food vegan for 4 years. I felt strong and alive. Worked for me at the time. But if you research the information honestly, you will see that the longest lived people's in the world are not vegans or vegetarians. If you were searching for any commonality in diet it would be moderation. Many smoked, drank, ate chocolate etc.. in moderation.

The China study does not prove Veganism is king. It shows that MODERATION in diet is the healthiest. Chinese people eat meat. But put against an American that eats ONLY processed food, no veg or fruit and lots of meat.. This doesn't mean animal protein is "bad". It means that said diet is bad. Refined food with lots of red meat. bad.

www.care2.com...

reply to post by JohnJasper


more..

Here's a list of the oldest people in the world:

en.wikipedia.org...

Go through the list and check out their diets. Many were smokers. Very few were vegetarians. None were vegans.

Those from Okinawa, the place famous for the long lived EAT AN AVERAGE OF 1200 CALORIES A DAY! That is a HUGE deficit compared to the average American.

Eat what you want in moderation. Try and avoid refined foods. Treat yourself in moderation. Eat clean.

Starting some light detox work before I try my first fast. Day three without caffine and I feel like a zombie. No headaches or anything, just SOOOO incredibly drained, and I can't see straight (eyes are even tired?). Is there anything natural that can help curb this without caffine??

If weening myself off of everything else is going to be THIS hard, it's gonna be a long couple of weeks! O.O

Originally posted by rwfresh
Not sure who you are talking to.. but if you are saying that eating less calories is sometimes not a good idea for someone that is overweight i will say you are delusional. Go ask a doctor. Go ask anyone in the history of time who has lost weight. Forget exercise. This is so simple. I don't care what you eat. Yes it is a blanket solution.. but it is an actual solution. If you are overweight and it's hurting you, eating less (doesn't matter what you eat) will result in weight loss and improved condition. PERIOD.

Everyone should just stop with the BS. Emotional bull. Is it easy? NO. But the solution is OBVIOUS and proven time and time again. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise.

rwfresh, you should try shouting - you know, put the whole message in CAPS because basically your argument is nothing more than "I'm right and if you don't believe me then you're not particularly bright"! Hardly much of an argument.

What is logical is that it really does depend on what you're eating. If you're eating 3000 calories per day of fruit and then start eating only 2500 calories of high-fat, processed food, you will underfuel your system but load up on fat deposits. Whether you actually lose weight or not on those specific amounts will depend on multiple factors not least the speed of your metabolism and your daily energy expenditure. I have no sample cases to prove this but if it will help, I'll shout out IT'S OBVIOUS!

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
I follow Fast-5. Anyone can google it and download the free e-book. I love eating this way, because it has given me freedom to eat what I love in moderation.

The premise of Fast-5 is to eat within a 5 hour window each day. I have chosen 3 pm - 8 pm. It is AMAZING how much energy I have during the day, and how much better I feel than when I ate breakfast and lunch. Now I eat my main meal anytime after 3, and then I eat something else later if I need to. I am slowly losing weight but NOT obsessing about what I eat (in the past, I have tended to obsessively monitor what I eat, and to try to restrict my eating by cutting out carbs, or sugar, or fat, or whatever some diet guru told me I needed to cut out.) Now, I am eating--real food--and I am no longer obsessing. I feel free.

I will eat if there is a special occasion earlier in the day--the key is flexibility AND the ability to live this way. I will never go back to eating all day long.

Good for you, GeorgiaGirl. It goes to show that a lot can be gained by rectifying one or two of the standard dietary mistakes that we learned from society starting at an early age. Choose for yourself how far you want to go with it. The only real judge is your health and longevity and I hope that they are both stay good!

Originally posted by rwfresh

Do you know what oxolates are? Many green leafy veg are full of them and they are not good for a lot of people. Zeroing in on one study where a small group of people living under unrelated conditions(to you) develop arthritis is not something to base your entire dietary philosophy on. Inuit and many native peoples HAD zero cancer rates, zero heart conditions etc. etc. before a western/modern diet was introduced. Maybe we aren't reading the same history books but many North American Native people's primary caloric supply came from animal FAT and organ meat and they were some of the longest lived people at the time.. Functionally living without any signs of common disease we see today.

As for fruit and veg.. What about nightshades? A proven link between arthritis and nightshade consumption exists. This is ancient info.

arthritis.about.com...

I'm not saying that veganism is a bad diet. I lived as a strict raw food vegan for 4 years. I felt strong and alive. Worked for me at the time. But if you research the information honestly, you will see that the longest lived people's in the world are not vegans or vegetarians. If you were searching for any commonality in diet it would be moderation. Many smoked, drank, ate chocolate etc.. in moderation.

The China study does not prove Veganism is king. It shows that MODERATION in diet is the healthiest. Chinese people eat meat. But put against an American that eats ONLY processed food, no veg or fruit and lots of meat.. This doesn't mean animal protein is "bad". It means that said diet is bad. Refined food with lots of red meat. bad.

www.care2.com...

edit on 19-6-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with oxalates and their toxic affect on the body. It is one reason why I have little to do with them but it is true that green leafy veg (lettuce, cabbage, etc) are highly recommended by most diet gurus. I like the way that you imply that I'm basing an entire dietary philosophy on one study and then further imply that the China Study only includes "a small group of people living under unrelated conditions..." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your comment about nightshade family fruit/veg is confusing because your linked reference actually says 'According to the University of Washington website, "No foods have been definitively shown to cause or exacerbate arthritis in most individuals.' Nothing else on the page says anything different. Natural Hygienists have shown that problems with nightshade plants are normally attributable to the other foods eaten in the diet, specifically fatty and starchy foods. When eaten in accordance with our physiological digestive limitations, nightshades pose no threat.

As far as longevity goes, some humans can defy all logic and live to a great age with many vices. My mother-in-law smoked up to her death at 86 but she actually died because she had lost the will to go on. Personally, I'm not interested in producing the odd champion. Instead I'm trying to promote a long-lived, healthy society including those less fortunate individuals who succumb to every disease and condition. That means getting free of life-zapping medicines or better yet, never getting started on them. I'm not interested in forcing a healthy lifestyle on anyone but just spreading the word to those who are interested.

The fact that some people can live to 116 doing what they please doesn't help those people who must be strict in diet to get past their 40s. The rules for achieving ultimate health have already been worked out by the Natural Hygienist and proven in practice over a century. The advances in medicine and environmental pollution have actually made this more complicated but it's still possible for everyone to make great improvements in their health. If you're happy with your lot in life, be thankful but please don't inflict your shortsightedness on others.

Originally posted by starsyren
Starting some light detox work before I try my first fast. Day three without caffine and I feel like a zombie. No headaches or anything, just SOOOO incredibly drained, and I can't see straight (eyes are even tired?). Is there anything natural that can help curb this without caffine??

If weening myself off of everything else is going to be THIS hard, it's gonna be a long couple of weeks! O.O

starsyren, your drained feeling might be the lack of caffeine still or possibly other toxins being released. Have you made any other changes besides just stopping caffeine? I know that this can be difficult but trying to offset this by using a "crutch" is always a bad idea because then you have to deal with the crutch. Bear it another day or two and you should balance out.

If you have reduced your food intake, started drinking more fresh, clean water in place of caffeine drinks, started eating more healthy food, getting more sleep or anything of the sort, you may have kicked off a general detoxification that goes beyond just kicking the caffeine habit. In any event, it's better to grin and bear it if possible than trying to moderate it by making other changes.

Well done for taking up the challenge!

reply to post by JohnJasper


I've been trying to ease into this whole "fasting" idea gradually. Weening myself off of one vice at a time. Starting with the caffine, then sugars, fats and so forth til I can let go of my 5-6 cigarettes a day. Been replacing my coffees and teas with water and low-sugar fruit juices.

It seems to be the morning hours that are the worst...and by morning I mean everything up til noon. The afternoons and evenings arent so bad (this could be because I sit behind a desk and stare at papers and a computer screen for 8hrs/day)

Haven't heard of the Fast-5 thing you mentioned, I may read up on that too....