Healthy Diets, Variety, and Vice

[Jonathan Browne]

In responding to the post about dr. oz I wrote a reply that actually generated insights and clarity I had previously been unprivy of. I decided it would be more productive to create a new thread about it.

Here's what I posted:

After years of studying the issue of diet, i've come to the conclusion that studies are only indicative of what you should do, they can't provide a prescription.

I've come to the conclusion that the most important thing for health is not avoidance. The most important thing for health is variety.

You have to eat a wide variety of foods to get optimal nutrients. This includes meat, vegetables, fruits, and grains.

I actually am starting to think you should also expose yourself to moderate amounts of things that are debated as being unhealthy, or perhaps are even scientifically known to be poisons. Many medicinal herbs are actually poisons at improper dosages. They act medicinally at small dosages.

I've noticed that people who try to embark on "pure" diets for instance eating only raw foods, perhaps even limiting their consumption within the context of raw foods, develop a large amount of sensitivity to foods and the environment.

It's much like strength training. Your body develops increased strength by being put through the proper level of stress and as a result grows stronger and develops resistance. Following that logic, the standard american diet is the equivalant of overtraining your body. Basically, you are exposing your body continuously to excessive levels of toxins and never allowing it to fully recover, leading to progressive degeneration.

Even worse, most people eating the "standard american diet" eat a very narrow range of foods, many times a more limited range than people on raw food diets, vegetarian diets etc. They eat foods primarily based on familiarity and taste. Many people worldwide actually survive primarily from eating at a few different fast food restaurants and drinking the same drinks repeatedly, with the only difference being flavoring (soft drinks). I believe this is the real reason behind epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer and so on. It's actually kind of funny if you think about it that we blame certain food groups for disease and so many people are on the camp of a specific food group like it's a political party or something.

Back to the weight training analogy. What people are doing is the equivalent of working out one body part way beyond the point of failure everyday. If you were to do arm exercises 3 times a day everyday you would become progressively weaker and eventually you would actually get injured, perhaps even snap tendon (the equivalent of disease). In the meantime, because your body has to devote so many resources to trying to save the muscle groups you are progressively destroying, the rest of your body would also become progressively weaker.

With food, every food you eat requires your body to do a certain amount of "heavy lifting" (digestion, usage of finite enzymes, as well as transportation of vitamins and minerals and filtering of waste). In a sense, every food on the planet is "toxic" otherwise you would never have to go to the bathroom. When you consistently eat foods that require more energy for the body to use and filter, you are overtraining your body. In the meantime, your making the rest of your body weaker because your not providing a wide enough variety of nutrients and also making the processes in your body weaker because each type of food provides a different sort of chemical stimulation, a different process of digestion, and on levels we only have a limited scientific understand of, different electrical and subtle energies.

So what I actually think we'll end up finding is that its actually beneficial to "cheat" a little and that someone who eats an incredible variety of foods including lots of cooked foods, deserts, coffee, wine, perhaps even smokes, will be more healthy than someone whos trying to live off juice salad and some fruit.

The french are a great example of this.

I know, very unorthodox stuff isn't it.

Discuss.

[Jonathan Browne]

Does no one have any comments on this?

This is an extremely powerful idea.

[hamworld05]

Metabolic typing dictates some people can live off of juice salad and fruit. Those people are called carb types. Not many foods are universally bad.

[Jonathan Browne]

I truly believe that metabolic typing is BS and i'm currently doing extensive research to prove it.

Dr. Mercola writes a lot of good content (and yes, I know he didn't create metabolic typing but it's integral to his business model), however because his business model is dependent on metabolic typing he's locked into it as a model.

If you'll notice, a lot of what he talks about actually contradicts metabolic typing. For instance he now recommends to eat mostly raw live foods.

What i've heard is that dr. Mercolas company grosses 40 million dollars a year. He's hardly going to come out and say metabolic typing is useless.

Ask yourself this question. If we all have the same body systems as in the same organs, cells, etc. why would we have vastly different metabolic types.

Now some peoples metabolisms have different settings, but this is a function of past diet and physical activity.

Also there are different body types in the sense that some people have more bone mass, bigger and skinnier bodies. But we all utilize the same nutrients and we all utilize protein fat and carbohydrates each of which have specific and vital roles in the optimal functioning of our bodies.

[hamworld05]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

I truly believe that metabolic typing is BS and i'm currently doing extensive research to prove it.

Dr. Mercola writes a lot of good content (and yes, I know he didn't create metabolic typing but it's integral to his business model), however because his business model is dependent on metabolic typing he's locked into it as a model.

If you'll notice, a lot of what he talks about actually contradicts metabolic typing. For instance he now recommends to eat mostly raw live foods.

What i've heard is that dr. Mercolas company grosses 40 million dollars a year. He's hardly going to come out and say metabolic typing is useless.

Ask yourself this question. If we all have the same body systems as in the same organs, cells, etc. why would we have vastly different metabolic types.

Now some peoples metabolisms have different settings, but this is a function of past diet and physical activity.

Also there are different body types in the sense that some people have more bone mass, bigger and skinnier bodies. But we all utilize the same nutrients and we all utilize protein fat and carbohydrates each of which have specific and vital roles in the optimal functioning of our bodies.

Oh hell no wigga(is kidding) you did not just say that. I went through this with Buford already. I'm gonna break it down for ya. What our ancestors dictate our metabolic types.

[Jonathan Browne]

Break it down. This obsession with looking at what our ancestors did is kind of insane though.

None of actually know what our ancient ancestors ate as they did not keep records.

So we're pretty much guessing. Which isn't a very scientific approach, if you ask me.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I believe a diet of raw, unprocessed foods in variety is the best diet for you. And some meat. I know what you are saying here, that your body needs to get stronger by fighting off "bad" foods, but if you look at hunter/gatherer tribes of thousands of years ago, what bad foods did they consume? All their food was organic, no drugs, just what the land gave them. There was no cigarettes, although I'm sure they smoked sometimes for ceremonial purposes, but it was organic tobacco or marijuana, or whatever was in the wild. These people were strong and lived in what we would consider a harsh environment. It had to be their environment that made them strong, not the foods they ate, because there were virtually no free radicals in anything they ate, unless they cooked them, which was rare. I'm sure if one of them tried a McDonald's hamburger, they would get sick immediately, but they would be strong enough to fight it off. Although their resistance to disease would be very low due to the lack of exposure. That was truly their only weakness.

The key is to eat well and you will live well. Variety is important, but not variety in the sense of smoking cigarettes or doing things that are the exact opposite of health. I just can't see how that would make you stronger in the long run.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

I've come to the conclusion that the most important thing for health is not avoidance. The most important thing for health is variety.

Stating this and BOLD facing it does not make it true no matter how much you might wish it so.

A variety of herbs, drugs, grains, sugars in ANY quantity are detrimental to health. Feel free to imbibe hemlock in your diet and see how well including that in your variety of things you eat. If one thing like a simple plant like hemlock can poison you so can other foods poison you over time.

Your hypothesis needs no testing since it can not hold up to simple logic. This is a failed hypothesis.

[Jonathan Browne]

In ancient times they ate mostly wild foods, many of which are loaded with chemicals that have psychoactive properties.

I would bet that they also ate small amounts of things that are poisons for medicinal reasons.

Check this out botanical.com "Hemlock ---Medicinal Action and Uses---As a medicine, Conium is sedative and antispasmodic, and in sufficient doses acts as a paralyser to the centres of motion. In its action it is, therefore, directly antagonistic to that of Strychnine, and hence it has been recommended as an antidote to Strychnine poisoning, and in other poisons of the same class, and in tetanus, hydrophobia, etc. (In mediaeval days, Hemlock mixed with betony and fennel seed was considered a cure for the bite of a mad dog.)

On account of its peculiar sedative action on the motor centres, Hemlock juice (Succus conii) is prescribed as a remedy in cases of undue nervous motor excitability, such as teething in children, epilepsy from dentition. cramp, in the early stages of paralysis agitans, in spasms of the larynx and gullet, in acute mania, etc. As an inhalation it is said to relieve cough in bronchitis, whooping-cough, asthma, etc.

The drug has to be administered with care, as narcotic poisoning may result from internal use, and overdoses produce paralysis. In poisonous doses it produces complete paralysis with loss of speech, the respiratory function is at first depressed and ultimately ceases altogether and death results from asphyxia. The mind remains unaffected to the last. In the account of the death of Socrates, reference is made to loss of sensation as one of the prominent symptoms of his poisoning, but the dominant action is on the motor system. It is placed in Table II of the Poison Schedule.

Hemlock was formerly believed to exercise an alterative effect in scrofulous disorders. Both the Greek and Arabian physicians were in the practice of using it for the cure of indolent tumours, swellings and pains of the joints, as well as for affections of the skin. Among the moderns Baron Storch was the first to call the attention of medical men to its use, both externally and internally, for the cure of cancerous and other ulcers, and in the form of a poultice or ointment it has been found a very valuable application to relieve pain in these cases.

In the case of poisoning by Hemlock, the antidotes are tannic acid, stimulants and coffee, emetics of zinc, or mustard and castor oil, and, if necessary, artificial respiration. It is essential to keep up the temperature of the body.

Like many other poisonous plants, when cut and dried, Hemlock loses much of its poisonous properties, which are volatile and easily dissipated. Cooking destroys it. "

[Jonathan Browne]

OH and btw

I'm not trying to say cigarettes will make you any healthier although I will say that tobacco actually is one of the most powerful medicines in the world it is an EXTREMELY potent antifungal/antiparisitic medicine. In it's smoked form it's only real benefit is that it makes you mentally sharper because nicotine is what vitamin b3 is made from. This is why a lot of writers smoke and can't imagine quitting.

Watch this podcast by david wolfe on tobacco

If your going to smoke though, you have to get american spirits or some other type of tobacco with no additives, and if you can find it get the american spirits organic brand which is made with an organic farm cooperative.

There are 7000+ highly carcinogenic chemical additives in the other brands.

[Jonathan Browne]

Also, keep in mind that the longest living documented person in the world, a woman named Jeanne Calment, ate about one kilo of chocolate a week and smoked cigarettes.

Chocolate is one of those foods commonly regarded as unhealthy but is actually one of the healthiest foods in existence

She smoked until she was 117, and only quit because she couldn't see well enough to light her cigarettes!

[hamworld05]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

Break it down. This obsession with looking at what our ancestors did is kind of insane though.

None of actually know what our ancient ancestors ate as they did not keep records.

So we're pretty much guessing. Which isn't a very scientific approach, if you ask me.

We're not guessing here. We're testing metabolic types first. If a person's metabolic type is a protein type, guess what? Their ancestors ate lots of meat. It's a beautiful relationship.