In regards to eating meat

[Ankh]

Humm, this is quite the thread.

This is the initiation thread. Whether you are a vegetarian or a meat-eater, newbie or an old member, if you get yourself understood by the "other side" - dude, congratulations! You graduated by the third density rules at Bring4th!

[Monica]

Today in the Huffington Post:

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

...the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically. Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that... "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

... "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores). In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating." ...Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
...
Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with. But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

[Patrick]

Ok then. Here is some background about me and food.

- I lost 110 lb within a year (without counting calories) mostly on all-meat (low-carbs) diets. PLEASE! Don't shoot me yet!

- I studied for 2 years, at about 30 to 60 hours a week, human metabolism and advanced nutrition (as a hobby, not in a university). Reading research papers directly first hand. Simply because I found that the (dis)information out there on these subjects, in other words the science of nutrition and human metabolism, is the most flimsy field of science. This gets quite clear when you take the time to learn it all from the sources. I have been very active on all kinds of forums related to these subjects. Of course, all of this was before my spiritual awakening. Now I know that everything is subjective.

- I regained 50 pounds before stabilizing. This requires constant control and I know that control is not the way I want to solve this.

- Overeating is currently what seems to be my last great challenge (catalyst) in this incarnation.

- I am now ABSOLUTELY beyond any shadow of a doubt CONVINCED that this catalyst is metaphysical (a pre-incarnational bias I chose for this life) and is currently being energized by negative entities. It's pretty much the only buttons they can still push. The problem is that I still have not found what needs acceptance and balancing in this case. :-/

- I am still eating meat, but not low-carbing anymore.



SO now I am ready to join the discussions in this thread ! Let's see if you'll get me off of meat.

Looks like a fun place.

[BrownEye]

You may have answered your own question.

[Monica]

- I lost 110 lb within a year (without counting calories) mostly on all-meat (low-carbs) diets. PLEASE! Don't shoot me yet!

I'll shoot only a hug!

Many people do indeed lose weight on a low-carb diet.

When I first became a vegetarian, and did a lot of cleansing, I got very thin. (I wasn't overweight to begin with, except maybe 5-10 pounds at most.)

Years later, when I was having health problems and tried eating meat again for a couple of years, I did the low-carb diet for 3 weeks. I lost 12 lbs. but my digestion got plugged up and I started having arthritis! Then I craved carbs on the rebound and gained it back.

Many people lose weight on the low-carb, high-meat diet, but I question the health effects long-term.

People lose weight on the vegetarian diet too, especially raw vegan. Apparently there are different mechanisms for affecting weight loss and metabolism.

- I studied for 2 years, at about 30 to 60 hours a week, human metabolism and advanced nutrition (as a hobby, not in a university). Reading research papers directly first hand. Simply because I found that the (dis)information out there on these subjects, in other words the science of nutrition and human metabolism, is the most flimsy field of science. This gets quite clear when you take the time to learn it all from the sources.

There is a mountain of research and opinions by so-called 'experts' and much of it conflicts. Experts don't all agree, and it gets even more complicated because there are so many other factors in the equation, such as spiritual and emotional states, genetic predispositions, environment, etc.

In my understanding, the most comprehensive study regarding meat consumption is The China Study, the one mentioned the above Huffington Post article. It was a huge study and of course factored in all those other issues, leaving a very clear result.

- Overeating is currently what seems to be my last great challenge (catalyst) in this incarnation.

Hmmm...This is just an idea, but have you ever considered "overeating" rich, decadent raw vegan desserts?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h...F474AWZIeA (in case this link doesn't work, I just went to google.com/images and did a search for rich decadent raw vegan dessert.)

Reportedly, many people who've had overeating challenges, have learned to enjoy food again, and eat freely, as much as they want to, and still not only lose weight, but enjoy a state of health more vibrant than they've ever imagined, by going raw vegan. Supposedly the pounds just melt off, very rapidly, and they can eat as much as they want. It just has to do with what they eat. (Just passing on the idea.)

I've experienced a taste of this, and I know Pickle and his wife live it. I'm making progress in that direction, but I'm not quite there yet. For me, it seems to be a matter of finding that balance between choice and flow. Choice directs flow!

- I am now ABSOLUTELY beyond any shadow of a doubt CONVINCED that this catalyst is metaphysical (a pre-incarnational bias I chose for this life) and is currently being energized by negative entities. It's pretty much the only buttons they can still push. The problem is that I still have not found what needs acceptance and balancing in this case. :-/

Yeah, I can relate!

SO now I am ready to join the discussions in this thread !

OK cool! Welcome to the party!

Let's see if you'll get me off of meat.

Is that an invitation or a challenge?

Looks like a fun place.

Depends on whom you ask! :-/

[Meerie]

- Overeating is currently what seems to be my last great challenge (catalyst) in this incarnation.

- I am now ABSOLUTELY beyond any shadow of a doubt CONVINCED that this catalyst is metaphysical (a pre-incarnational bias I chose for this life) and is currently being energized by negative entities. It's pretty much the only buttons they can still push. The problem is that I still have not found what needs acceptance and balancing in this case. :-/

Valtor, have you ever considered doing a past-life regression? In Dolores Cannons books, quite a few people have naturally solved their weight issues by simply getting back to the lifetime where they were starving, for example. these subconscious programming can still linger in the body and no matter how much "control" you are going to exercice the body wants to make sure this doesn't happen again and puts on weight.
Especially since you already think this may be metaphysical - preincarnational bias.
sorry for the off-topic

[Patrick]

- I lost 110 lb within a year (without counting calories) mostly on all-meat (low-carbs) diets. PLEASE! Don't shoot me yet!

I'll shoot only a hug!

Many people do indeed lose weight on a low-carb diet.

When I first became a vegetarian, and did a lot of cleansing, I got very thin. (I wasn't overweight to begin with, except maybe 5-10 pounds at most.)

Years later, when I was having health problems and tried eating meat again for a couple of years, I did the low-carb diet for 3 weeks. I lost 12 lbs. but my digestion got plugged up and I started having arthritis! Then I craved carbs on the rebound and gained it back.

Many people lose weight on the low-carb, high-meat diet, but I question the health effects long-term.

People lose weight on the vegetarian diet too, especially raw vegan. Apparently there are different mechanisms for affecting weight loss and metabolism.

From all the research I read on nutrition, there is one thing that came to be very clear to me. It's that what is "healthy" food greatly depends on the individual metabolism.

In other words, the science of nutrition trying to devise one set of advice for the whole population is not only unrealizable but is close to intentional misleading (by the Elites of course). The best researchers in the field are fully aware of this and some MDs well learned of this will always do their best to provide advice based on the metabolism of the patient, as a case by case. This is unfortunately the big minority.

Also, the media will publish, as evidence for causation, any epidemiological study they can find. But the great public is not aware that epidemiology can never ever serve as evidence of causation (pointing the arrow of cause to effect) and can only show correlations.

These correlations can then be used to formulate hypotheses and then experiments to tests them. These very important steps are most often bypassed and we use the epidemiological study as evidence.

This is so poor "science" that it can barely be called science at all.

SO regarding meat, the media likes to use this effect a lot. i.e. they'll show correlation in between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. BUT every time experiments are devised to test that eating meat causes said cancer, they fail to show causation.

If they would acknowledge that humans' metabolisms are different enough from one person to another, they would be able to get more precise results.

In fact regarding cancer, the experiential evidence are pointing more toward sugar being a problem than meat. And not just sucrose (table sugar) per se, but fructose specifically. Sucrose being half glucose and half fructose is indeed a good source of fructose. Fructose can only mostly be metabolized by the liver, just like alcohol, and so can lead to fatty liver, type 2 diabetes. It's actually the byproducts of fructose metabolism that can exacerbate cancer growth.

- I studied for 2 years, at about 30 to 60 hours a week, human metabolism and advanced nutrition (as a hobby, not in a university). Reading research papers directly first hand. Simply because I found that the (dis)information out there on these subjects, in other words the science of nutrition and human metabolism, is the most flimsy field of science. This gets quite clear when you take the time to learn it all from the sources.

There is a mountain of research and opinions by so-called 'experts' and much of it conflicts. Experts don't all agree, and it gets even more complicated because there are so many other factors in the equation, such as spiritual and emotional states, genetic predispositions, environment, etc.

In my understanding, the most comprehensive study regarding meat consumption is The China Study, the one mentioned the above Huffington Post article. It was a huge study and of course factored in all those other issues, leaving a very clear result.

The China Study. Here we go!

This was written by someone who eats the Raw Vegan way.

I hope you are in the mood for some reading, because you may find this VERY enlightening.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-c...onse-html/

It's a long read, but quite interesting and thorough and written by someone without a pro meat bias.

- Overeating is currently what seems to be my last great challenge (catalyst) in this incarnation.

Hmmm...This is just an idea, but have you ever considered "overeating" rich, decadent raw vegan desserts?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h...F474AWZIeA (in case this link doesn't work, I just went to google.com/images and did a search for rich decadent raw vegan dessert.)

Reportedly, many people who've had overeating challenges, have learned to enjoy food again, and eat freely, as much as they want to, and still not only lose weight, but enjoy a state of health more vibrant than they've ever imagined, by going raw vegan. Supposedly the pounds just melt off, very rapidly, and they can eat as much as they want. It just has to do with what they eat. (Just passing on the idea.)

I've experienced a taste of this, and I know Pickle and his wife live it. I'm making progress in that direction, but I'm not quite there yet. For me, it seems to be a matter of finding that balance between choice and flow. Choice directs flow!

Yeah, I tried that. I tried pretty much everything! hehe.

I went as far as taking all sorts of prescription and non-prescription drugs. Bromocriptine (to control hunger), Cytomel (T3 hormone, to raise metabolism), The ECA stack (Ephedrine HCL, Caffeine and Aspirin, to control hunger and raise metabolism), etc... including all sorts of "natural" stuff.

My body temperature in the morning is about 95 degrees, that's close to hypothermia. But my blood tests always says that my thyroid is ok and no metabolism issues.

I'm telling you my friends. This is paranormal (metaphysical) in my case.

It's a big catalyst that is leading me somewhere and I think that you guys will be able to really help me.

Let's see if you'll get me off of meat.

Is that an invitation or a challenge?

Both !

[βαθμιαίος]

Hmmm...This is just an idea, but have you ever considered "overeating" rich, decadent raw vegan desserts?

I had a similar thought. While you are working on balancing, maybe you could direct your hunger towards eating foods that will not cause you to gain weight -- carrot sticks, celery stalks, etc.

It would mean controlling the urge to some extent, but instead of repressing it you'd be working with it and pointing it in a new direction.

[Patrick]

Valtor, have you ever considered doing a past-life regression? In Dolores Cannons books, quite a few people have naturally solved their weight issues by simply getting back to the lifetime where they were starving, for example. these subconscious programming can still linger in the body and no matter how much "control" you are going to exercice the body wants to make sure this doesn't happen again and puts on weight.
Especially since you already think this may be metaphysical - preincarnational bias.
sorry for the off-topic

Never done that no. My awakening is fairly recent.

I would not even know where to begin.

[Monica]

From all the research I read on nutrition, there is one thing that came to be very clear to me. It's that what is "healthy" food greatly depends on the individual metabolism.

To a degree, yes. Ra did say animal products to the extent necessary for individual metabolism. But there still are principles that apply to most people. For example, fresh fruits and veggies being healthy and junk food being unhealthy. There isn't a single person on the planet who would be healthier long-term by consuming nothing but junk food, never eating any veggies, and smoking cigarettes. They might manage to avoid disease because of their strong genetics or strong mental outlook, but it could not be said that they are healthier because of eating junk foods. (this is just an example.)

In other words, the science of nutrition trying to devise one set of advice for the whole population is not only unrealizable but is close to intentional misleading (by the Elites of course). The best researchers in the field are fully aware of this and some MDs well learned of this will always do their best to provide advice based on the metabolism of the patient, as a case by case. This is unfortunately the big minority.

I agree, regarding specifics. There is no 'one size fits all' in terms of detailed diet plans. But, there are general guidelines that do work for the most part.

Also, the media will publish, as evidence for causation, any epidemiological study they can find. But the great public is not aware that epidemiology can never ever serve as evidence of causation (pointing the arrow of cause to effect) and can only show correlations.

I don't think it really matters, in the case of meat. The China Study proved that the more meat consumed, the higher the risk of cancer. Common sense dictates that there's a connection there.

I'm familiar with the critiques of The China Study. They critique the proposed explanations of the results of the study. For example, the proposed explanation that the reason meat is cancer-causing is because of the cholesterol, or because of the protein.

Yes, it's true that there are holes in the logic presented, regarding the reasons meat consumption increases cancer risk.

But that's irrelevant, because it does not take away from the fact that the risk does indeed increase with meat consumption.

In other words, just because Campbell may have gotten it wrong on the WHY meat increases cancer risk, doesn't change the fact that it DOES.

In fact regarding cancer, the experiential evidence are pointing more toward sugar being a problem than meat. And not just sucrose (table sugar) per se, but fructose specifically. Sucrose being half glucose and half fructose is indeed a good source of fructose. Fructose can only mostly be metabolized by the liver, just like alcohol, and so can lead to fatty liver, type 2 diabetes. It's actually the byproducts of fructose metabolism that can exacerbate cancer growth.

Sugar is a problem too, no doubt about it. And it might be true that it's 'more' of a problem than meat. Perhaps. But there being a stronger poison out there doesn't negate the lesser poison, if in fact it's true that sugar's a stronger poison.

If I'm given a choice between Poison A and Poison B, and Poison B is stronger than Poison A, I still wouldn't want either of them.

Yeah, I tried that. I tried pretty much everything! hehe.

You tried what? Do you mean you tried some vegan desserts instead of regular desserts?

What I meant was, have you ever tried a 100% raw vegan diet?

I'm telling you my friends. This is paranormal (metaphysical) in my case.

OK, I believe you. My experience has been that, whenever I resolve the metaphysical cause of something, I then find a physical approach that works. I see it as resetting the metaphysical blueprint first, and then physical remedies work.

Physical remedies won't work alone; the metaphysical cause must be resolved first. But then physical remedies are often necessary too. They work together.

It's a big catalyst that is leading me somewhere and I think that you guys will be able to really help me.

Well that would be cool! Have you read the thread? There's a huge amount of info here that you might find useful.

Both !

Haha, ok then, I will offer an invitation and a friendly challenge: Read the thread!

[Patrick]

Hmmm...This is just an idea, but have you ever considered "overeating" rich, decadent raw vegan desserts?

I had a similar thought. While you are working on balancing, maybe you could direct your hunger towards eating foods that will not cause you to gain weight -- carrot sticks, celery stalks, etc.

It would mean controlling the urge to some extent, but instead of repressing it you'd be working with it and pointing it in a new direction.

I wish this would work. But it only gives me cramps from eating too much celery stalks, so much that I can't digest it all ! And I'm still hungry after ! It's crazy !

[βαθμιαίος]

LOL. I can imagine! How about something like yogurt/kefir?

When you overeat, what do you eat? Is it snacks or at meals?

[Patrick]

...The China Study proved that the more meat consumed, the higher the risk of cancer. Common sense dictates that there's a connection there.

The China Study is purely epidemiological. The connection or correlations it shows cannot prove anything.

I'm familiar with the critiques of The China Study.

Are you familiar with a Raw Vegan critique of The China Study ?

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-c...onse-html/

If both whole-food vegan diets and non-Westernized omnivorous diets yield similar health benefits, this is a strong indication that the results achieved by McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, et al are not due to the avoidance of animal products but to the elimination of other health-harming items...

You should really read this whole paper. Her conclusions are based on using the same data from the The China Study and showing stronger correlations for ill health than the correlation pointing toward eating meat per se.

It's a must read for anyone wanting to argue or event support The China Study.

Sugar is a problem too, no doubt about it. And it might be true that it's 'more' of a problem than meat. Perhaps. But there being a stronger poison out there doesn't negate the lesser poison, if in fact it's true that sugar's a stronger poison.

The poison is in the dose my friend. Water can be a poison to your metabolism if the dose is too high.

You tried what? Do you mean you tried some vegan desserts instead of regular desserts?

What I meant was, have you ever tried a 100% raw vegan diet?

Yeah I tried raw food vegan. You wouldn't believe everything I tried.

OK, I believe you. My experience has been that, whenever I resolve the metaphysical cause of something, I then find a physical approach that works. I see it as resetting the metaphysical blueprint first, and then physical remedies work.

Physical remedies won't work alone; the metaphysical cause must be resolved first. But then physical remedies are often necessary too. They work together.

It's probably the case for all catalysts.

[norral]

i think its also the acidity of stuff we eat. if u eat acid forming foods its good to mix them with alkaline foods like cucumbers, veggies etc. some of the most alkaline foods is soy lecithin , wheat grass and barley grass. after i eat an acidic meal i take cascara sagrada and psyllium and slippery elm to hasten its passageway thru my system.

[Monica]

The China Study is purely epidemiological. The connection or correlations it shows cannot prove anything.

I think you've missed my point, which is that it proves there's a correlation, and that's enough.

Are you familiar with a Raw Vegan critique of The China Study ?

I just read it. Respectfully, I don't think a 24-year-old, self-taught person is qualified to offer a legitimate critique of the China Study.

I approach the field of nutrition like learning a new language: total immersion-style. You didn’t learn your native tongue by sitting in a classroom following grammar lessons; you learned it by jumping into an initially confusing world and feeling your way around until it all started making sense. Every day, I make a conscious effort to surround myself with learning opportunities. I read everything I can get my hands on—from statistics textbooks to scientific papers. I find curricula posted on university websites, copy the lesson plans that look relevant, and acquire the reading material from the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for classroom instruction. If I can’t grasp something on my own, I email or call smart people and ask them to help me.

That's all very nice but the bottom line is, that she isn't even remotely qualified to analyze the data.

It's a must read for anyone wanting to argue or event support The China Study.

Well if we're going to hold up such a standard - that anyone who ever recommends any book or other resource must have read not only the book, but all critiques of the book, then none of us could ever recommend anything.

y67u
The poison is in the dose my friend. Water can be a poison to your metabolism if the dose is too high.

Yes, and most people in our society overdose on junk foods, no question about it. That was taken into consideration in the China Study. Other factors were eliminated. This is the whole point of the study.

Yeah I tried raw food vegan.

Since I'm presently embarking on a raw vegan diet myself, I'm interested in what you experienced, if you care to share. What type of raw vegan diet did you do? (low-fat, high fruit, high in the healthy fats like nuts, seeds and avocados, etc.) Was it 'mostly' raw vegan, or 100%? If not 100%, what else was included? And for how long? I'm just curious because, as I said, I'm really investigating it so I'm interested in people's experiences, so I can avoid any pitfalls they may have encountered.

You wouldn't believe everything I tried.

Heh, yeah I would because I'm one of those people too, who has tried nearly everything! Every diet, every supplement, every therapy...over the years. I have quite a collection! So I can relate.

---

i think its also the acidity of stuff we eat. if u eat acid forming foods its good to mix them with alkaline foods like cucumbers, veggies etc.

Yes, very good point, norral! Dr. Otto Warburg proved back in 1931 that cancer can only thrive in an acidic environment. He won the Nobel Prize for his discovery, and has never been refuted.

Many alternative doctors have gotten incredible success working with advanced stage cancer patients, by getting them alkaline.

It's much easier to get the body alkaline on a vegetarian diet, and even easier on a raw vegan diet. The patients who did the raw vegan got results much faster, according to those doctors.

It is, of course, quite possible to still be very acidic, even when vegetarian, if the person eats a lot of dairy, fried foods, sodas, etc. all of which are very acidifying.

[Monica]

Related post about pink slime in meat, and spiritual activism:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...7#pid83437

[BrownEye]

Dr. Otto Warburg proved back in 1931 that cancer can only thrive in an acidic environment. He won the Nobel Prize for his discovery, and has never been refuted.

A high meat diet dumps weight because of high acid, which will also dump a lot of your calcium. I may have to look at "acid" and see just what it is connected to in reality.

[βαθμιαίος]

It is, of course, quite possible to still be very acidic, even when vegetarian, if the person eats a lot of dairy, fried foods, sodas, etc. all of which are very acidifying.

This surprised me because I thought milk was alkalinizing, so I did some googling. There are different opinions out there. This is how the ARE (Edgar Cayce) website categorizes dairy foods:

ALKALINE DAIRY
Acidophilus milk
Buttermilk
Milk (raw only -- human, cow, or goat)
Whey
Yogurt

ACID DAIRY
Butter
Cheese (all)
Cottage cheese
Cream
Custards
Margarine
Milk (boiled, cooked, malted, dried, canned)

http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/holistic_h...diet3.html

[Monica]

A high meat diet dumps weight because of high acid, which will also dump a lot of your calcium.

I remember when I did Adkins (yes, I actually did Adkins!! shudder) there was something about forcing the body into ketosis, whatever that means. I remember using some sort of testing strip, but it wasn't a pH strip.

Yes the body dumps fat, but at what cost?

I may have to look at "acid" and see just what it is connected to in reality.

That would be interesting. For starters, I find it very interesting that the pH scale matches the chakra colors!

Check this out:

Extremely acid shows red using the pH activator drops.
Very acid=orange
Slightly acid=yellow
Neutral=green
Alkaline=blue
Very alkaline=indigo purple
Highly alkaline=violet

I do these pH tests on our water all the time, and continue to marvel each time I see it. Is that cool or what??

---

This surprised me because I thought milk was alkalinizing, so I did some googling. There are different opinions out there. This is how the ARE (Edgar Cayce) website categorizes dairy foods:

ALKALINE DAIRY
Acidophilus milk
Buttermilk
Milk (raw only -- human, cow, or goat)
Whey
Yogurt

ACID DAIRY
Butter
Cheese (all)
Cottage cheese
Cream
Custards
Margarine
Milk (boiled, cooked, malted, dried, canned)

This is accurate. Raw and Cultured milk products are alkalizing, whereas pasteurized milk products are acidifying.

It's not the pH of the food itself, but its effect on the body.

For example, lemons are very acidic, but they have a chemical reaction in the stomach and produce an alkalizing effect on the body.

It's a common misconception that milk neutralizes acid, because doctors tell people to drink milk when they have acid reflux.

But alternative doctors will tell you that acid reflux is caused by the body overall being too acidic, which makes the organs that are supposed to be acidic (stomach and, in women, vagina) to be too alkaline. The stomach is supposed to be acidic, and when it's too alkaline, it doesn't do its job and the inefficient stomach acid backs up into the throat; hence acid reflux.

This is why alkalizing the body usually results in relief from acid reflux.

This is easily tested. (It's what I do for a living.)

Here is what I suggest to my customers:

Test your pH using pH strips (put in urine stream and it will change color) first thing in the morning, before embarking on any dietary changes. Notate the reading. (Most people initially test acidic - 6 something or even 5 something. Extremely ill people may even test as low as 4.5) It's a logarithmic scale, so 5 is 10 times more acidic than 6, and 100 times more acidic than 7. So a person with a urine pH of 5 is 100 times more acidic than they're supposed to be (according to this school of thought of course).

Drink alkaline water, and/or get on an alkalizing diet, and retest in a week or so.

Keep working on improving the diet and water, until the goal is reached (between 7 and 7.5).

Then drink a soda, or eat some fried chicken or a cheese pizza, and see what happens!

[Patrick]

The China Study is purely epidemiological. The connection or correlations it shows cannot prove anything.

I think you've missed my point, which is that it proves there's a correlation, and that's enough.

Are you familiar with a Raw Vegan critique of The China Study ?

I just read it, and was stunned, but not in the way you may have thought I would be. I was stunned that this blog by a 24-year-old, self-taught woman would be offered as a legitimate critique of the China Study.

I approach the field of nutrition like learning a new language: total immersion-style. You didn’t learn your native tongue by sitting in a classroom following grammar lessons; you learned it by jumping into an initially confusing world and feeling your way around until it all started making sense. Every day, I make a conscious effort to surround myself with learning opportunities. I read everything I can get my hands on—from statistics textbooks to scientific papers. I find curricula posted on university websites, copy the lesson plans that look relevant, and acquire the reading material from the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for classroom instruction. If I can’t grasp something on my own, I email or call smart people and ask them to help me.

That's all very nice but the bottom line is, that she isn't even remotely qualified to analyze the data.

It's a must read for anyone wanting to argue or event support The China Study.

Well if we're going to hold up such a standard - that anyone who ever recommends any book or other resource must have read not only the book, but all critiques of the book, then none of us could ever recommend anything.

I can see that we do not have the same perception of what science is. So if I want to continue discussing scientific matters I will have to first clear up what science is to me.

I subscribe to Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method. Which incidentally is also the most widely accepted definition by scientists.

- Science does not prove anything ever.

- The scientific method can only disprove an hypothesis, but never prove it.

- As long as an hypothesis is not disproved, it remains a valid explanation of observed phenomena.

- It is understood that ALL theories (which are simply sets of valid hypotheses) will always eventually be disproved. That is to say invalidated.

- Anyone making use of the scientific method is a scientist.

In this context and from what you have said, I believe that a metaphysical and/or philosophical discussion would probably be more useful regarding meat eating.

The poison is in the dose my friend. Water can be a poison to your metabolism if the dose is too high.

Yes, and most people in our society overdose on junk foods, no question about it. That was taken into consideration in the China Study. Other factors were eliminated. This is the whole point of the study.

Yeah I tried raw food vegan.

Since I'm presently embarking on a raw vegan diet myself, I'm interested in what you experienced, if you care to share. What type of raw vegan diet did you do? Was it 'mostly' raw vegan, or 100%? If not 100%, what else was included? And for how long? I'm just curious because, as I said, I'm really investigating it so I'm interested in people's experiences, so I can avoid any pitfalls they may have encountered.

I ate raw vegetables and beans exclusively for a few weeks. Including salads with olive oil and other "good" fats. I experienced clearer thinking and more energy. But I was unbelievably hungry the whole time. No matter how much of it I ate.

That is actually what gave me a nudge toward my awakening. Because I thought that what was happening to me was very improbable, if not impossible, from a scientific point of view.

You wouldn't believe everything I tried.

Heh, yeah I would because I'm one of those people too, who has tried nearly everything! Every diet, every supplement, every therapy...over the years. I have quite a collection! So I can relate.

I feel understood.

[Monica]

- Anyone making use of the scientific method is a scientist.

Yet, scientists frequently disagree with one another. And a single person interpreting data, might not consider all the data. In addition, the way the data is presented, can skew the interpretation.

For example, the drug industry shows a graph of the decline in infectious diseases after vaccines were introduced, to 'prove' that vaccines were effective. BUT, they are only showing part of the graph. If one stands back and looks at the whole graph, they will see that the diseases like polio were already declining before vaccines were introduced! so the decline meant nothing; it was just a continuation of what had already been happening.

This is just a simple example of how, just because one appears to be using the scientific method, does not mean their interpretations are accurate.

In addition, even if she is using the scientific method, she might not have access to all the data. Also, just being a raw vegan doesn't negate the possibility that she may be biased. A good example of that is Fred Patanaude, a popular raw vegan 'guru' who fancies himself qualified to analyze scientific studies. I can't tell you how many times I've been incredulous at how he conveniently cherry-picks bits of data, to drive home his biased point, then ends the discussion as soon as anyone points out his error.

It is itself a bias, to trust a source just because they seem to be on our 'side' of the debate.

I don't begrudge her being self-taught. I am self-taught too, but I would never claim to be qualified to analyze a study of such magnitude. I also contend that there are flaws in her logic, so I didn't find her speculations compelling at all.

In this context and from what you have said, I believe that a metaphysical and/or philosophical discussion would probably be more useful regarding meat eating.

If you're saying you don't want to debate The China Study, that's fine with me! I don't want to debate it either. But I will continue to recommend it, as something worthy of investigation, to anyone who is interested in that sort of thing. They can then research it on their own and decide for themselves. It doesn't matter to me, since I don't need any scientific study to tell me anything about meat eating.

I ate raw vegetables and beans exclusively for a few weeks. Including salads with olive oil and other "good" fats. I experienced clearer thinking and more energy. But I was unbelievably hungry the whole time. No matter how much of it I ate.

Oh, no wonder! Sounds like you weren't getting nearly enough calories! To be healthy, raw vegans actually eat a LOT of food, including lots of fruits, nuts and seeds.

Were you eating sprouted beans? Since they aren't edible raw...

New raw vegans are often shocked at how much food they eat. Raw foods digest very rapidly - think of it as jet fuel - so raw vegans actually eat a lot more volume of food.

So a very common reason people quit is that they were too hungry, because they just weren't eating enough.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbEUHCU_G...re=related

That is actually what gave me a nudge toward my awakening. Because I thought that what was happening to me was very improbable, if not impossible, from a scientific point of view.

Cool! But what was impossible/improbable? Your awakening?

I feel understood.

[BrownEye]

Check this out:

Extremely acid shows red using the pH activator drops.
Very acid=orange
Slightly acid=yellow
Neutral=green
Alkaline=blue
Very alkaline=indigo purple
Highly alkaline=violet

That's awesome LMAO! I will get into it when i get off work. But i think we have another blatant sign post in the public domain.

[Patrick]

...It doesn't matter to me, since I don't need any scientific study to tell me anything about meat eating...

Exactly! That's what it comes down to in the end anyway. It's not that I am shying away from debating the scientific point of view. It's just that I have debated the science of nutrition (including the China Study) for countless hours already. And in my experience, nothing positive ever came out of it. I mean, the whole point would be to try to convince the other party and from a spiritual standpoint such an exercise is not only futile but IMHO even counter productive.

I am shying away from trying to make my other selves understand my point of view. I prefer trying to understand the point of view of my other selves instead.

Oh, no wonder! Sounds like you weren't getting nearly enough calories!

Well, that was the point at the time. Trying to lose extra fat.

To be healthy, raw vegans actually eat a LOT of food, including lots of fruits, nuts and seeds.

Were you eating sprouted beans? Since they aren't edible raw...

New raw vegans are often shocked at how much food they eat. Raw foods digest very rapidly - think of it as jet fuel - so raw vegans actually eat a lot more volume of food.

So a very common reason people quit is that they were too hungry, because they just weren't eating enough.

"Were you eating sprouted beans?" Nope.

I was eating a lot in terms of bulk but not in terms of calories and the bulk is what's suppose to make you feel full on this diet.

That is actually what gave me a nudge toward my awakening. Because I thought that what was happening to me was very improbable, if not impossible, from a scientific point of view.

Cool! But what was impossible/improbable? Your awakening?

No, I meant the fact that I am always hungry no matter what I do. The only exception is when using the ECA stack, which is unsustainable.

I'm convinced that facing this as the catalyst that it is and looking into the metaphysical side of the issue, I will finally resolve it.

[Monica]

Exactly! That's what it comes down to in the end anyway. It's not that I am shying away from debating the scientific point of view. It's just that I have debated the science of nutrition (including the China Study) for countless hours already. And in my experience, nothing positive ever came out of it. I mean, the whole point would be to try to convince the other party and from a spiritual standpoint such an exercise is not only futile but IMHO even counter productive.

Whew! That's a relief! for a minute there I thought you wanted to debate science, which I'm not qualified to do. I agree 100%! In fact, I think all of us can and do find evidence to support whatever we want to believe, or whatever we're ready and willing to believe.

Therefore, whenever I offer any info as 'evidence' it's only an offering to consider; never proof because the idea of 'proof' is kinda meaningless.

I am shying away from trying to make my other selves understand my point of view. I prefer trying to understand the point of view of my other selves instead.

Trying to 'make' someone understand is controlling. Whereas, trying to be very clear in one's choice of words, and doing one's best to facilitate understanding, but without attachment to whether the other person agrees or not, is entirely different.

Conversely, to knowingly allow a misunderstanding, when it might be cleared up with a little effort at better communication, is irresponsible. (NOT directed at you...just speaking in generalities here.)

So I don't think it need be an 'either/or' proposition as in, either try to make the other person understand OR seek to understand the other person.

I prefer to think of it as simultaneously striving to be as clear as one can be, to reduce misunderstanding and misinterpretation, while also seeking to understand the other person, keeping in mind that they might not be as diligent in choosing their words carefully to minimize misunderstanding.

While being unattached to outcome...because ultimately, no matter how clear we are, we all have our biases and they will filter whatever is said.

But, sometimes it really does pay off, because the other person might just be on the verge of opening their mind to some new understanding, and we might just be the vehicle for delivering that message to them. Or it might be the other way around, so it would behoove us to always be receptive to having our minds opened when we least expect.

Well, that was the point at the time. Trying to lose extra fat.

I found that too few calories, ie. not eating enough, can actually slow down metabolism, because the body thinks it's in a famine and hangs on to every calorie. Some people are overweight because they eat too much, but others are overweight because they have sluggish metabolisms from not eating enough.

"Were you eating sprouted beans?" Nope.

Ah, so cooked beans then?

By 100% raw vegan, I was referring to only raw foods; meaning nothing cooked at all.

I found this woman's story very inspiring. What impressed me was that she had already been a vegan for many years, but was still overweight. When she 100% eliminated all cooked foods, the weight just dropped off, even though she was eating a lot of food.

http://rawfoods.purejeevan.com/wendi-dee...oodist.php

No, I meant the fact that I am always hungry no matter what I do. The only exception is when using the ECA stack, which is unsustainable.

What's that? A medication?

I'm convinced that facing this as the catalyst that it is and looking into the metaphysical side of the issue, I will finally resolve it.

I agree that the metaphysical aspect must always be resolved first. I think physical things can then do their part afterwards.

Good luck!

[indolering]

.

America's Mad Cow Crisis

by JOHN STAUBER
Americans might remember that when the first mad cow was confirmed in the United States in December, 2003, it was major news. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been petitioned for years by lawyers from farm and consumer groups I worked with to stop the cannibal feeding practices that transmit this horrible, always fatal, human and animal dementia. When the first cow was found in Washington state, the government said it would stop such feeding, and the media went away. But once the cameras were off and the reporters were gone nothing substantial changed.

In the United States, dairy calves are still taken from their mothers and fed the blood and fat of dead cattle. This is no doubt a way to infect them with the mad cow disease that has now been incubating here for decades, spread through such animal feeding practices. No one knows how the latest dairy cow was infected, the fourth confirmed in the United States. Maybe it was nursed on cow’s blood. Perhaps it was fed feed containing cattle fat with traces of cattle protein. Or perhaps there is a mad cow disease in pigs in the United States, which simply has not been found yet, because pigs are not tested for it at all, even though pigs are fed both pig and cattle byproducts, and then the blood, fat and other waste parts of these pigs are fed to cattle.

All these U.S. cattle feeding methods are long banned and illegal in other countries that suffered through but eventually dealt properly with mad cow disease. Here, rather than stopping the transmission of the disease by stopping the cannibal feeding, mad cow is simply covered up with inadequate testing and very adequate public relations. US cattle are still fed mammalian blood, fat and protein, risking human deaths and threatening the long term safety of human blood products, simply to provide the U.S. livestock industry with a cheap protein source and a cheap way to get rid of dead animal waste.

more: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/26/a...ow-crisis/

[Monica]

Hey check this out!!! We've manifested some companies now offering 'humanely raised' and antibiotic-free meats used in pet foods!!!

As fresh and healthy as the barley fields shown on our bag, Natural Balance Organic Formulas Dog Food are GMO free and never sprayed with pesticides. Natural Balance Organic Formulas Dog Food uses only free-range, humanely treated, antibiotic and hormone free chicken. Every ingredient that goes into this organic dog food formula is of the highest standard in nutrition for your dog.

Organic Formula Dry Dog Food
By Natural Balance

I found it at http://www.petflow.com/

[norral]

thats wonderful monica. i am very happy to hear that. indolering i would say my friend that if we actually were to see and observe everything that goes on with the animals we are fed a lot more people would become vegans. its just like in the civil rights movement when the cameras started showing what was going on how people were being treated it became kind of intolerable to continue those practices. so i guess our animal brothers need and deserve a civil rights movement. imagine if they could speak and as they were about to shoot a bolt into a cows brain it cried out "dont do it dont do it in the name of god in the name of all that is holy dont do it " and imagine seeing that on the 6 oclock news . hmm that would have an effect i would think . animals at this time anyway cant speak but they most certainly can feel . many animals partner for life , gee thats better than a lot of us humans do. but then again we tolerate the bombing of children in other countries like it is no big deal . i have a big big problem with seeing little children anywhere getting their arms and legs blown off. it bothers me because i think if that happened to my 6 year old grand kid or my 2 year old grand kid or any of my 7 other grand kids i would probably kill myself or i would be so consumed with hatred that i would become lets see a suicide bomber . because at that point my life would be meaningless to me there would be no point to it anymore. the corporations purposely hide these things for us for in reality what we are doing to animals is monstrous, what we are doing to children in other lands is monstrous, and were supposed to be the good guys. honestly i so wish i had been born in canada or europe. at least they dont go around blowing peoples children up not saying they are perfect but this country the good old usa, to me its policies are totally totally insane. either the policies of the usa are insane or i am one or the other . its so so painful living here and i am an empath i cant shut out the pain i see as much as i would like to sometimes i cant do it.

norral

[Patrick]

Trying to 'make' someone understand is controlling. Whereas, trying to be very clear in one's choice of words, and doing one's best to facilitate understanding, but without attachment to whether the other person agrees or not, is entirely different.

I agree.

Conversely, to knowingly allow a misunderstanding, when it might be cleared up with a little effort at better communication, is irresponsible. (NOT directed at you...just speaking in generalities here.)

So I don't think it need be an 'either/or' proposition as in, either try to make the other person understand OR seek to understand the other person.

I prefer to think of it as simultaneously striving to be as clear as one can be, to reduce misunderstanding and misinterpretation, while also seeking to understand the other person, keeping in mind that they might not be as diligent in choosing their words carefully to minimize misunderstanding.

While being unattached to outcome...because ultimately, no matter how clear we are, we all have our biases and they will filter whatever is said.

But, sometimes it really does pay off, because the other person might just be on the verge of opening their mind to some new understanding, and we might just be the vehicle for delivering that message to them. Or it might be the other way around, so it would behoove us to always be receptive to having our minds opened when we least expect.

I think I understand your meaning. I was under the impression that letting some misunderstandings creep in was a compassionate act. I will do my best in the future to not let misunderstandings unresolved.

Well, that was the point at the time. Trying to lose extra fat.

I found that too few calories, ie. not eating enough, can actually slow down metabolism, because the body thinks it's in a famine and hangs on to every calorie. Some people are overweight because they eat too much, but others are overweight because they have sluggish metabolisms from not eating enough.

This is mostly unavoidable when loosing a lot of weight. But you are right that doing it more slowly helps in making this effect less perverse.

"Were you eating sprouted beans?" Nope.

Ah, so cooked beans then?

By 100% raw vegan, I was referring to only raw foods; meaning nothing cooked at all.

I found this woman's story very inspiring. What impressed me was that she had already been a vegan for many years, but was still overweight. When she 100% eliminated all cooked foods, the weight just dropped off, even though she was eating a lot of food.

http://rawfoods.purejeevan.com/wendi-dee...oodist.php

I was eating bean salads using canned beans. Are these cooked?

No, I meant the fact that I am always hungry no matter what I do. The only exception is when using the ECA stack, which is unsustainable.

What's that? A medication?

Yes. It's the Ephedrine HCL, Caffeine and Aspirin stack. Very potent
hunger suppression and it also speeds up your metabolism.

I'm convinced that facing this as the catalyst that it is and looking into the metaphysical side of the issue, I will finally resolve it.

I agree that the metaphysical aspect must always be resolved first. I think physical things can then do their part afterwards.

Good luck!

Thanks !

[Monica]

This is mostly unavoidable when loosing a lot of weight. But you are right that doing it more slowly helps in making this effect less perverse.

With 'normal' diets yes, but with a raw vegan diet, counting calories becomes a thing of the past.

I was eating bean salads using canned beans. Are these cooked?

Yes. Beans aren't edible raw, so they must be either cooked or sprouted, and not all beans are edible sprouted.

Nothing wrong with cooked beans per se. They're just not raw.

[βαθμιαίος]

Article from the NY Times about the ethical implications of eating peas, given that they can communicate with each other:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...t-them/?hp

If Peas Can Talk, Should We Eat Them?

Imagine a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own. Given this brief description, most of us will think of a human person, some will associate it with an animal, and virtually no one’s imagination will conjure up a plant.

Since Nov. 2, however, one possible answer to the riddle is Pisumsativum, a species colloquially known as the common pea. On that day, a team of scientists from the Blaustein Institute for Desert Research at Ben-Gurion University in Israel published the results of its peer-reviewed research, revealing that a pea plant subjected to drought conditions communicated its stress to other such plants, with which it shared its soil. In other words, through the roots, it relayed to its neighbors the biochemical message about the onset of drought, prompting them to react as though they, too, were in a similar predicament.

Curiously, having received the signal, plants not directly affected by this particular environmental stress factor were better able to withstand adverse conditions when they actually occurred. This means that the recipients of biochemical communication could draw on their “memories” — information stored at the cellular level — to activate appropriate defenses and adaptive responses when the need arose.

<snip>

Should their swift response to stress leave us coldly indifferent, while animal suffering provokes intense feelings of pity and compassion?

<snip>

(Rest at link.)