--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:
> I don't simmer meats more than one hour. I doubt that meat
> is damaged much by cooking in water, even if cooked well
> done, because of the low heat, and the reduced availability
> of oxygen from the water molecule. If you don't use enough
> water, however, and the meat is exposed to the open air, it
> will generate more toxins. If you're worried, cut the meat off
> the bones after 15-30 minutes, then let the bones continue
> to cook down into gelatin-rich broth. I think cooked meat is
> easier to digest with the fresh broth. Pottenger did a lot of
> studies revealing many benefits to broth.
> http://westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/broth.html
> http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/digestive-fire.html

Do you flavor the soup with anything or is it just water/broth + meat
simmered together?

Sen

"mlcondiff0328" wrote:
> Does such a thing even exist? Low-fat dairy is not natural and
> fattening. Skinless chicken seems to be mostly PUFAs and has too many
> toxins. Egg whites also have too many anti-nutrients that are hard to
> remove even with cooking. Lean fish has mercury so it would probably
> not be wise to eat as an everyday food.

Skinless whole chicken has as much PUFAs as 70/30 ground beef.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/poultry-products/650/2
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/8004/1

How do you know that low-fat dairy is fattening? Two doctors used
raw skim milk to cure disease. They found it often worked better to
reverse disease than raw whole milk. One of them said that non-fat
dry milk worked in some conditions, if eaten with orange juice and
other acidic fruits. They often had to reduce the fat in whole milk or
the people couldn't digest it nearly as well.
http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter1/chapter1.html
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/Porter.pdf
http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter3/chapter3.html

Some fish are low in mercury. According to Mercola, these fish
are safe: Catfish (farmed), Blue Crab (mid-Atlantic), Croaker,
Flounder (summer), Haddock, Trout (farmed), Salmon (wild
Pacific), and Shrimp. Other types of fish: pollock, cod, squid,
octopus, crab, scallops, eel, and so forth are probably safe. I
wouldn't eat farmed fish, red fish (salmon/tuna), or fresh water
fish, as they're high in PUFAs and toxins.

> Right now my diet is tubers, fruit, centrifuged coconut oil, and im
> juggling between egg yolks (has too many PUFAs for my liking), lean
> fish, and 85% ground beef. I'm trying to find a consistent source of
> low fat protein, but it seems that they all have their faults. Has
> anyone tried Baker's Yeast? It seems to be a nice protein supplement,
> but are their any downsides?

Lean fish are probably a good choice, but lean beef is higher
in iron than fatty beef. The iron is proportional to protein, so it
is best not to eat too much lean meat. 85% is pretty lean, like
a chicken or turkey (15% fat by weight).

> I was high fat for awhile, but it seems that I feel better on high
> carb, moderate saturated fat, and low complete protein. I'm trying to
> find the best source of low fat complete protein.

Do you eat fresh fish or frozen fish? You can get better deals
on frozen cod, haddock, pollock, scrod, etc. Most people are
only interested in the fatty fish from thousands of miles away,
like Alaska or Siberia. Lean fish are usually cheaper. But I'd
focus on wild caught and white (raw) fish. Not the fatty or red
fish or large predatory species. Modern nutrition dogma has
people eating fatty fish almost exclusively, often daily. This is
absurd, esp in a warm or moderate climate.

Bruce

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:

> How do you know that low-fat dairy is fattening? Two doctors used
> raw skim milk to cure disease. They found it often worked better to
> reverse disease than raw whole milk. One of them said that non-fat
> dry milk worked in some conditions, if eaten with orange juice and
> other acidic fruits. They often had to reduce the fat in whole milk
or
> the people couldn't digest it nearly as well.
> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter1/chapter1.html
> http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/Porter.pdf
> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter3/chapter3.html

Well I couldn't prove it, but most of my overweight friends seem to
love low-fat dairy and they think I used to be crazy for eating whole
milk dairy. It also seems to be a choice of bodybuilders. Whenever I
eat it, the taste seems off or like its missing something. This isn't
proof its fattening or anything, but I don't think its as healthy as
whole milk dairy.

> Some fish are low in mercury. According to Mercola, these fish
> are safe: Catfish (farmed), Blue Crab (mid-Atlantic), Croaker,
> Flounder (summer), Haddock, Trout (farmed), Salmon (wild
> Pacific), and Shrimp. Other types of fish: pollock, cod, squid,
> octopus, crab, scallops, eel, and so forth are probably safe. I
> wouldn't eat farmed fish, red fish (salmon/tuna), or fresh water
> fish, as they're high in PUFAs and toxins.
>

I realize there are fish that are low mercury I can eat, but wouldn't
eating fish everyday be a bad choice, because of mercury accumulation.

> How bad is the pain? If you are highly
> sensitive to salicylates, you might be sensitive to amines
> in aged meat or meat that's too old.

The pain was bad, I am getting better-I figured I had this before so I
will get better.
I am sensitive to salicylates so it could be amines
I guess this is one of those times I should seek a doctor

Thanks

What do you think about these studies? They seem better than most, in
terms of using real saturated fats.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024778.html

"Domingo" wrote:
> I live in the North East part of the USA in New Jersey, a temperate
> zone. I have no desire to live in a cave (but I've though about building
> a little log cabin for myself) or to stay away from sun light, quite the
> opposite... I try to adapt to my environment  as much as possible...
> this means changing with the seasons. As far as being able to sleep more
> peacefully with the lights on, I know what you mean... I used to feel
> the same, but fortunately I have no need for these types of security
> blankets any more... I trust that Tao!

It has nothing to do with needing security blankets or with being
afraid of the dark. Everything is a trade-off. Mercola's idea that
we must sleep in total darkness is no more natural than saying
to sleep with candles or fires burning. Wild animals don't sleep
in darkness, nor did primitive humans. Being afraid of the dark
(or other irrational things) is the product of unhealthy diet, IMO.
I overcame those fears a long time ago!

Bruce


> Bruce K wrote:
>>
>> "Domingo" wrote:
>> > There is a vast difference between Electromagnetic Radiation(Light)
>> > emanating from the stars(the Moon only reflects light coming from the
>> > Sun, which is a star) and light coming from man made sources!
>>
>> But moon light is often regarded as being unhealthy and yet
>> primitives were exposed to it. They didn't sleep in darkness.
>> They slept under moon, stars, fires, etc.
>>
>> > My point
>> > is/was that the human body adapts to periods of light and darkness, just
>> > like any other life on this planet and that to subvert that cycle by
>> > having an artificial light in your bedroom on (like some people do by
>> > leaving their TVs on all night) is as you would say... "rubbish".
>>
>> It's not rubbish if we feel better with light than we do sleeping
>> in rooms with black-out drapes like Mercola. We're not using
>> night lights or leaving the TV on. Plus, the issue is which light
>> frequencies offer benefits, as Jeff Wissler noted months ago
>> when we discussed this. Some colors of light subvert health.
>> Others enhance it. It depends on the person.
>>
>> > But
>> > to each its own... I am definitely keeping my room as dark and free of
>> > electromagnetic radiation as possible (yes, including night alarm
>> > clocks, fans, etc., etc.)... and yes, I will sleep with my eyelids in
>> > the down position, even if my bones turn to dust! LOL No, but
>> > seriously, I completely disagree with the assertions made here... sleep
>> > is just as important as food and it should be of high quality to allow
>> > the breakdown and rebuilding, the maintenance work that takes place
>> > during that time!
>>
>> If it's dark for more hours than it's light, you'll be breaking down
>> more than you are building up. Long nights are stressful in the
>> Arctic. It might be one factor in why the Eskimos aged so fast,
>> along with their high omega-3 intake. Most people are already
>> over-stressed. They need more light, but of the right kind. Go
>> live in a cave for six months and see what happens. Go to the
>> Pacific Northwest where it's dull and rainy most of the year to
>> see if your health improves or declines.
>>
>> Bruce

Bruce, I am not sure what Mercola recommends  to his patients(I am not a
patient of his and have never bought anything from his site), I imagine
that he would treat each person individually... his website is a kind of
commercial business, so he has to be more generalized in what he  posts
there. I agree with a lot of his health views, just like you agree with
Peats, but I am not a Mercola addict... I follow my own conclusions and
IMO, after a short period of adjustments, a person get a more restful
sleep in total darkness... try it and let me know how it works out for you.

Bruce K wrote:
>
> "Domingo" wrote:
> > I live in the North East part of the USA in New Jersey, a temperate
> > zone. I have no desire to live in a cave (but I've though about
> building
> > a little log cabin for myself) or to stay away from sun light, quite
> the
> > opposite... I try to adapt to my environment as much as possible...
> > this means changing with the seasons. As far as being able to sleep
> more
> > peacefully with the lights on, I know what you mean... I used to feel
> > the same, but fortunately I have no need for these types of security
> > blankets any more... I trust that Tao!
>
> It has nothing to do with needing security blankets or with being
> afraid of the dark. Everything is a trade-off. Mercola's idea that
> we must sleep in total darkness is no more natural than saying
> to sleep with candles or fires burning. Wild animals don't sleep
> in darkness, nor did primitive humans. Being afraid of the dark
> (or other irrational things) is the product of unhealthy diet, IMO.
> I overcame those fears a long time ago!
>
> Bruce
>
> > Bruce K wrote:
> >>
> >> "Domingo" wrote:
> >> > There is a vast difference between Electromagnetic Radiation(Light)
> >> > emanating from the stars(the Moon only reflects light coming from the
> >> > Sun, which is a star) and light coming from man made sources!
> >>
> >> But moon light is often regarded as being unhealthy and yet
> >> primitives were exposed to it. They didn't sleep in darkness.
> >> They slept under moon, stars, fires, etc.
> >>
> >> > My point
> >> > is/was that the human body adapts to periods of light and
> darkness, just
> >> > like any other life on this planet and that to subvert that cycle by
> >> > having an artificial light in your bedroom on (like some people do by
> >> > leaving their TVs on all night) is as you would say... "rubbish".
> >>
> >> It's not rubbish if we feel better with light than we do sleeping
> >> in rooms with black-out drapes like Mercola. We're not using
> >> night lights or leaving the TV on. Plus, the issue is which light
> >> frequencies offer benefits, as Jeff Wissler noted months ago
> >> when we discussed this. Some colors of light subvert health.
> >> Others enhance it. It depends on the person.
> >>
> >> > But
> >> > to each its own... I am definitely keeping my room as dark and
> free of
> >> > electromagnetic radiation as possible (yes, including night alarm
> >> > clocks, fans, etc., etc.)... and yes, I will sleep with my eyelids in
> >> > the down position, even if my bones turn to dust! LOL No, but
> >> > seriously, I completely disagree with the assertions made here...
> sleep
> >> > is just as important as food and it should be of high quality to
> allow
> >> > the breakdown and rebuilding, the maintenance work that takes place
> >> > during that time!
> >>
> >> If it's dark for more hours than it's light, you'll be breaking down
> >> more than you are building up. Long nights are stressful in the
> >> Arctic. It might be one factor in why the Eskimos aged so fast,
> >> along with their high omega-3 intake. Most people are already
> >> over-stressed. They need more light, but of the right kind. Go
> >> live in a cave for six months and see what happens. Go to the
> >> Pacific Northwest where it's dull and rainy most of the year to
> >> see if your health improves or declines.
> >>
> >> Bruce
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"iamsirphilipsidney" wrote:
> What do you think about these studies? They seem better than most, in
> terms of using real saturated fats.
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/024778.html

"In the first study, conducted by researchers from the Medical University of
South Carolina and Arizona Statue University, and published in the Journal
of Alzheimer's Disease, researchers fed rats a diet high in cholesterol (2
percent) and saturated trans fats (10 percent hydrogenated coconut oil)."

There's the first problem. They used hydrogenated coconut oil, rather
than a more natural coconut oil. Another problem with these studies is
that they feed animals refined carbs and then call the diets "high-fat."
They don't say what the actual percentage was by calories. I think the
10% figure above is talking about weight. Also, the cholesterol they
fed the animals is problematic, because this implies they were using
purified cholesterol, rather than whole foods. They also don't mention
how much carbs were fed by calories or what type of carbs or what
type of protein. Most of these studies use casein, a processed form
of milk protein that has been proven toxic over and over again. The
diets they feed these animals are all garbage.

"These rats were found to have significantly higher levels of triglycerides
and cholesterol when compared with rats fed a calorically similar diet that
was lower in saturated fat (12 percent soybean oil). Rats in both groups
gained approximately the same amount of weight while on the diets."

This is just looking at markers. Who cares what their cholesterol or
triglycerides were? PUFAs suppress cholesterol and triglycerides
by damaging the liver and other organs. It's a toxic effect. Soybean
oil is definitely a lot worse than coconut oil. I wouldn't eat one drop
of soybean oil unless you paid me $100,000.

"The rats in the high cholesterol, high-saturated fat group also
performed worse on a radial arm maze test, signifying a worse
working memory than the rats that had eaten soybean oil. They
were found to have higher levels of inflammation in their brains,
as well as damage to the integrity of their nerve cells."

This may have been caused caused by oxidized cholesterol in
the "cholesterol" they fed the animals, or heavy metals used as
a catalyst in hydrogenated oils or heavily oxidized fats oils that
were left in the coconut oil afterwards. This study doesn't prove
anything, because they fed the animals purified cholesterol and
hydrogenated coconut oil, not real food.

"In the second study, published in the journal Nutrition Research,
researchers from the Baycrest Health Center in Toronto fed adult
humans with Type 2 diabetes either a control meal of drinking
water; a high-fat meal of cheddar cheese, yogurt and whipped
cream; or the same high fat meal with supplements of 1,000
milligrams of vitamin C and 800 IU of Vitamin E. Starting 15
minutes after their meal, the participants were given a 90
minute test on their ability to remember information from
something they had read."

This study sounds more reasonable, but whipped cream is
usually ultra-pasteurized and contains carrageenan, gums,
or other additives. Yogurt contains lactose usually, so they
should isolate their variables by feeding cheddar cheese,
with butter, not milk or yogurt or cream. We also have no
idea what else was in the diet. Most of these studies use
refined sugar, corn starch, or flour as the source of carbs.
Those are problematic in many ways. All we  know is that
the overall diet was bad, but we don't know if it was from
one particular food or a combination.

"Those given the high-fat diet performed 25 percent worse
than the control group or those who had eaten a high-fat
diet plus vitamins."

Sounds like the diet was deficient in some way, but there
is no reason to blame fat without knowing what else they
fed the people. Plus, if you take people who are used to
eating carbs and give them a low-carb meal, they might
indeed perform worse in the short term. But that doesn't
mean that the diet is worse long-term.

Bruce

"Jim Barleycorn" wrote:
>> The WAPF suggests virgin red palm oil because of its
>> high Vitamin [E] content (tocopherols and tocotrienols).
>> But it has a strong taste and many don't like it. [...]
>
> Hey Bruce, any thoughts on palm kernel oil (as opposed to the red palm
> oil which is from the fleshy fruit)? From what I can find it has a
> similar composition to coconut oil, with a high percentage of MCT's,
> but with a higher melting point, and it is naturally mild in taste.

Most palm kernel oil is chemically refined, that's why it has
a mild taste. Traditional coconut oil is usually refined with a
natural process using fuller's earth to remove the taste and
smell (along with the salicylates probably).  Palm kernel oil
usu. costs more, and is more processed. I don't see much
point in using it. I guess it would be OK if you were getting
a food that contains it occasionally.

Bruce

"Domingo" wrote:
> <snip> I agree with a lot of his health views, just like you agree with
> Peats, but I am not a Mercola addict... I follow my own conclusions and
> IMO, after a short period of adjustments, a person get a more restful
> sleep in total darkness... try it and let me know how it works out for you.

I have tried it and told you how it works for me, so did Peter.
I think it causes an unnatural stress reaction, which wouldn't
be seen in nature even on a moonless night. I don't think all
people slept in caves, as the popular myth of the cave-men
would have us believe. Dr. John Ott has written extensively
about the effects of light on health. He did experiments (on
plants and animals) with many types of light, colors, and so
forth. There's always more to learn about health and things
don't begin and end with any diet guru.

Bruce


> Bruce K wrote:
>>
>> "Domingo" wrote:
>> > I live in the North East part of the USA in New Jersey, a temperate
>> > zone. I have no desire to live in a cave (but I've though about building
>> > a little log cabin for myself) or to stay away from sun light, quite the
>> > opposite... I try to adapt to my environment as much as possible...
>> > this means changing with the seasons. As far as being able to sleep more
>> > peacefully with the lights on, I know what you mean... I used to feel
>> > the same, but fortunately I have no need for these types of security
>> > blankets any more... I trust that Tao!
>>
>> It has nothing to do with needing security blankets or with being
>> afraid of the dark. Everything is a trade-off. Mercola's idea that
>> we must sleep in total darkness is no more natural than saying
>> to sleep with candles or fires burning. Wild animals don't sleep
>> in darkness, nor did primitive humans. Being afraid of the dark
>> (or other irrational things) is the product of unhealthy diet, IMO.
>> I overcame those fears a long time ago!
>>
>> Bruce

>> Bruce
> "mlcondiff0328"

>> How do you know that low-fat dairy is fattening? Two doctors used
>> raw skim milk to cure disease. They found it often worked better to
>> reverse disease than raw whole milk. One of them said that non-fat
>> dry milk worked in some conditions, if eaten with orange juice and
>> other acidic fruits. They often had to reduce the fat in whole milk or
>> the people couldn't digest it nearly as well.
>> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter1/chapter1.html
>> http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/Porter.pdf
>> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter3/chapter3.html
>
> Well I couldn't prove it, but most of my overweight friends seem to
> love low-fat dairy and they think I used to be crazy for eating whole
> milk dairy. It also seems to be a choice of bodybuilders. Whenever I
> eat it, the taste seems off or like its missing something. This isn't
> proof its fattening or anything, but I don't think its as healthy as
> whole milk dairy.

Most people eat skim milk with cereals, refined sugar, and other
garbage. So there's no way to know if the milk would make them
fat by itself. I agree it's not as healthy, but AV also says that skim
milk is fattening, and I don't believe that. Certainly, raw skim milk
would be healthier than pasteurized, since two doctors used raw
skim milk to cure various diseases (including obesity), and said
it was often better than whole milk. Most people are eating a lot
of different foods, so there's no way to know that one food is to
blame for obesity. I've seen a lot of thin people drinking regular
soft drinks and a lot of obese people drinking (or buying) "diet"
sodas. The diet sodas didn't make them fat, but I think they do
cause hunger and over-eating other foods.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=4271246&page=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/health/webmd/main701408.shtml
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87080
.
>> Some fish are low in mercury. According to Mercola, these fish
>> are safe: Catfish (farmed), Blue Crab (mid-Atlantic), Croaker,
>> Flounder (summer), Haddock, Trout (farmed), Salmon (wild
>> Pacific), and Shrimp. Other types of fish: pollock, cod, squid,
>> octopus, crab, scallops, eel, and so forth are probably safe. I
>> wouldn't eat farmed fish, red fish (salmon/tuna), or fresh water
>> fish, as they're high in PUFAs and toxins.
>
> I realize there are fish that are low mercury I can eat, but wouldn't
> eating fish everyday be a bad choice, because of mercury accumulation.

I don't think the mercury would be dangerous unless you were
eating a diet high in PUFAs, refined sugar, white flour, etc. In
these tropical areas like Kitava and the Seychelles, they have
been found to have high mercury levels in their bodies, but do
not suffer any of the effects blamed on it. I think fish are fine if
you feel good on them. Others do better with more red meat,
fowl, or pork. Some do better with just dairy and eggs. A few
might even be able to thrive on a vegan diet. Don't be afraid
of mercury. There are other factors here.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030516082905.htm
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

Bruce

> I think anti-oxidants are over-rated. If you avoid foods that
> oxidize (like PUFAs), then you can get by with very little in
> the way of anti-oxidants. The Eskimo diet had vastly more
> anti-oxidants than foods we can obtain. Supposedly, seal
> blubber was very high in Vitamins A, D, and E, as well as
> selenium, compared to fatty fish like salmon. You need a
> lot of vitamins and minerals on a PUFA-rich diet, and the
> needs go down on a low-PUFA diet. Also, honey is high
> in anti-oxidants, esp the unheated kind. I've seen a lot of
> studies on the benefits of honey, even heated honey, for
> reducing the levels of oxidative stress.
>
> Bruce
>

I would agree somewhat. I believe people think they need to take tons
of antioxidants as that is the newest big magic bullet of mainstream
dietary wisdom, but it seems to me that at least while going through
the period where PUFAs are being removed in large amounts (the two
years or however long it takes when on a very low PUFA diet) eating a
diet with at least some antioxidants would be beneficial in
minimizing the damage the PUFAs will be causing while they are being
released. Maybe saturated fat is enough, I dont know. I agree that
eating a low oxidative stress diet (low PUFAs, etc) is what is needed
long term, after the period where PUFAs are being removed.

Can you post those studies on honey and reducing oxidative stress? I
havent been eating much in the way of honey lately. No particular
reason. But I may increase it a bit if that is that case.

-Drew

http://yoursacredself.blogspot.com/2008/11/fump-day-5.html

Here's another debate with Charles Washington, for those who
want to read it. Scroll down to the comments. This time, he's a
bit more civil, but still making all kinds of ridiculous statements
and assumptions about me, like saying I'm "not athletic" and I
eat a diet of "monkey food." lol. Charles seems like a dietary
racist. If you don't eat zero-carb, you're eating "monkey food."
He really knows how to warm up a crowd.

Bruce

>> Bruce
> Drew

>> I think anti-oxidants are over-rated. If you avoid foods that
>> oxidize (like PUFAs), then you can get by with very little in
>> the way of anti-oxidants. The Eskimo diet had vastly more
>> anti-oxidants than foods we can obtain. Supposedly, seal
>> blubber was very high in Vitamins A, D, and E, as well as
>> selenium, compared to fatty fish like salmon. You need a
>> lot of vitamins and minerals on a PUFA-rich diet, and the
>> needs go down on a low-PUFA diet. Also, honey is high
>> in anti-oxidants, esp the unheated kind. I've seen a lot of
>> studies on the benefits of honey, even heated honey, for
>> reducing the levels of oxidative stress.
>
> I would agree somewhat. I believe people think they need to take tons
> of antioxidants as that is the newest big magic bullet of mainstream
> dietary wisdom, but it seems to me that at least while going through
> the period where PUFAs are being removed in large amounts (the two
> years or however long it takes when on a very low PUFA diet) eating a
> diet with at least some antioxidants would be beneficial in
> minimizing the damage the PUFAs will be causing while they are being
> released. Maybe saturated fat is enough, I dont know. I agree that
> eating a low oxidative stress diet (low PUFAs, etc) is what is needed
> long term, after the period where PUFAs are being removed.

The body produces anti-oxidants like superoxide dismutase,
peroxidase, catalase, etc. Cholesterol and CoQ10 are also
potent anti-oxidants. There is also the theory that reductive
stress is causing disease. Eating too many anti-oxidants in
combination a non-oxidative diet may be as bad as eating
too few anti-oxidants on a high-oxidation diet. Supplements
may back-fire. For example, giving isolated beta carotene
to smokers increases lung cancer rates.

> Can you post those studies on honey and reducing oxidative stress? I
> havent been eating much in the way of honey lately. No particular
> reason. But I may increase it a bit if that is that case.

Here are 3 studies I've pointed out before comparing honey
to various other sugars and showing its superiority. They're
probably using heated honey, though..
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00286.x
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00592.x
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2394949

Here's a study about unheated honey accelerating healing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9673575

Here's a study where honey prevented oxidation of meat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194051

Bruce

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:

> As you said, people are different. The advice to sleep in total
> darkness is nonsense from a historical perspective. There is
> no total darkness in nature, even when the moon is obscured
> there is light from the stars.

I would just like to say that I always sleep with the curtains open,
there are some nights when it is pitch black, can't see your hand in
front of you, kinda dark. We erected solar lights outside as my hubby
who worked at night sometimes had nights where he had to feel for his
truck!

I live pretty much half way between the equator and the south pole, I
don't know, maybe you have a lot more stars in the northern hemisphere
or maybe no clouds.....

Jewel

Are you Brazilian too? Or from South Africa maybe?

jeweltoo2002 wrote:
>
> --- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:AV-Skeptics%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:
>
> > As you said, people are different. The advice to sleep in total
> > darkness is nonsense from a historical perspective. There is
> > no total darkness in nature, even when the moon is obscured
> > there is light from the stars.
>
> I would just like to say that I always sleep with the curtains open,
> there are some nights when it is pitch black, can't see your hand in
> front of you, kinda dark. We erected solar lights outside as my hubby
> who worked at night sometimes had nights where he had to feel for his
> truck!
>
> I live pretty much half way between the equator and the south pole, I
> don't know, maybe you have a lot more stars in the northern hemisphere
> or maybe no clouds.....
>
> Jewel
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Drew" wrote:
> Can you post those studies on honey and reducing oxidative stress? I
> havent been eating much in the way of honey lately. No particular
> reason. But I may increase it a bit if that is that case.

Here are some studies about honey and inflammation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18814487
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16963460
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12824009

This is a really good one: Substituting Honey for Refined
Carbohydrates Protects Rats from Hyper-triglyceridemic
and Pro-oxidative Effects of Fructose. Most studies use
heated honey, so raw honey would probably be far more
protective. I think honey lowers triglycerides, C-Reactive
Protein, and LDL, while raising HDL. There are dozens
of studies showing these effects. I'm sure I've spoken of
several other studies in the archives.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/11/3379

Bruce

Does anyone know if there are any possibilities of long term damage
from using a lasercomb in your hair? It's supposed to help regrow and
thicken hair.
My hair has been fairly thin since high school and it's still not
getting thicker after eliminating my other health problems and eating
only healthy foods for years.
Hairmax laser comb is "clinically proven" to thicken hair.  I'm
thinking about buying one to at least use it for a few months.

http://www.lasercomb.net/SuccessStories/BeforeandAfterImages.aspx

$350 bucks though, I'd get it on ebay..

-Jon

Pennington and Anchell believed their approved carbohydrates worked
because they were low pyruvic acid formers. Anyone know of any data to
support this? Searching for it generally brings up pyruvate which seems to
help weight loss if anything.

I noticed William Duffy mentions pyruvic acid in Sugar Blues, too:

"Dr. Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals.

What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot
utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins,
vitamins and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each
plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
*Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system and
the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells.* These toxic metabolites
interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient
oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die.
This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the
beginning of degenerative disease."

--
Thanks,
Daniel R. Lurie

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <trickster98444@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if there are any possibilities of long term damage
> from using a lasercomb in your hair? It's supposed to help regrow
and
> thicken hair.
> My hair has been fairly thin since high school and it's still not
> getting thicker after eliminating my other health problems and
eating
> only healthy foods for years.
> Hairmax laser comb is "clinically proven" to thicken hair.  I'm
> thinking about buying one to at least use it for a few months.
>
> http://www.lasercomb.net/SuccessStories/BeforeandAfterImages.aspx
>
> $350 bucks though, I'd get it on ebay..
>
> -Jon
>

No,there is no long term damage from using laser light at least when
you`re talking about the 650nm range (red light).When you`re getting
too much exposure then it has an inhibitory effect,and too little
will cause nothing.I wouldn`t recommend one of these lasercombs since
they`re not very powerful.By powerful I mean the amount of lasers
  ,you will need at least 80-100 Lasers.You can get one diode for 3-4$
,thus you will get far more diodes if you save your money on the comb
and buy some diodes.I`ve build my own device and as far as I can say
it works,but you have to wait a few months for the results.If you
want to know more let me know.


Peter.

That's an interesting statement (Bruce's) about fear. I know depression
and maybe other psychological ailments can be cured with a proper diet,
but I am not so sure about fear. Anyway, according to Traditional
Chinese Medicine the kidneys (Domingo, correct me, if I am wrong) are
the seat of fear. So, if your kidneys aren't working properly, maybe you
would experience more fear than usual.

Is all fear irrational? I don't think fear is necessarily to be
overcome. Some fears never seem to go away. You just put them on the
backburner and do what must be done. I am very much afraid of flying,
but I will fly if I have to. I don't think I will ever overcome that
fear. Maybe in fact I am simply afraid of dying...

And Domingo again, what do you mean "I trust that Tao"?

Cheers, JC


--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:
   I trust that Tao!


...

   Being afraid of the dark
> (or other irrational things) is the product of unhealthy diet, IMO.
> I overcame those fears a long time ago!
>
> Bruce

If she lives half way between the Equator and the South Pole, that means
she lives on parallel 45, more or less. She could be a Brazilian, but
she couldn't be living in Brazil, because Brazil doesn't reach that
parallel, you know. I am living near parallel 30, and that's about the
southernmost part of Brazil. She probably lives in New Zealand, Chile or
Argentina. If not on a lost island in the middle of the ocean... That
would be the best option, maybe.


--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, Domingo <dpichardo3@...> wrote:
>
> Are you Brazilian too? Or from South Africa maybe?
>
> jeweltoo2002 wrote:
> >
> > --- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:AV-Skeptics%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bruce K" rensielk@ wrote:
> >
> > > As you said, people are different. The advice to sleep in total
> > > darkness is nonsense from a historical perspective. There is
> > > no total darkness in nature, even when the moon is obscured
> > > there is light from the stars.
> >
> > I would just like to say that I always sleep with the curtains open,
> > there are some nights when it is pitch black, can't see your hand in
> > front of you, kinda dark. We erected solar lights outside as my
hubby
> > who worked at night sometimes had nights where he had to feel for
his
> > truck!
> >
> > I live pretty much half way between the equator and the south pole,
I
> > don't know, maybe you have a lot more stars in the northern
hemisphere
> > or maybe no clouds.....
> >
> > Jewel
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com, José-Carlos Martins Barbosa
<jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:
>
>
> If she lives half way between the Equator and the South Pole, that
means
> she lives on parallel 45, more or less. She could be a Brazilian,
but
> she couldn't be living in Brazil, because Brazil doesn't reach that
> parallel, you know. I am living near parallel 30, and that's about
the
> southernmost part of Brazil. She probably lives in New Zealand,
Chile or
> Argentina. If not on a lost island in the middle of the ocean...
That
> would be the best option, maybe.
>
  emm... her mail address begins with nz, so I guess she´s talking from
New Zealand. About the stars thing and lights at night, here in
Argentina you have to be on a very high place (> 1500m asl) to really
see many stars. Otherwise it´s pretty pitch black in a moonless night,
and outside a city.

Over the issue of light/no light while sleeping, I somewhat agree with
both Bruce and Domingo. I´ve experienced that when it´s extremely dark
(when you can´t even notice your hand in front of you, as Jewell said)
it can be too stressing and I don´t sleep well. Some light seems to
correct it, but it needs to be a very dim light, not something
disturbing or that your eyes need to adapt to look at it.

BR,
Gabriel

For mercury or other metals = zeolites.



From: AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bruce K
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:08 PM
To: AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AV-Skeptics] Re: Best Low-Fat High Protein Food?



>> Bruce
> "mlcondiff0328"

>> How do you know that low-fat dairy is fattening? Two doctors used
>> raw skim milk to cure disease. They found it often worked better to
>> reverse disease than raw whole milk. One of them said that non-fat
>> dry milk worked in some conditions, if eaten with orange juice and
>> other acidic fruits. They often had to reduce the fat in whole milk or
>> the people couldn't digest it nearly as well.
>> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter1/chapter1.html
>> http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/Porter.pdf
>> http://www.milk-diet.com/classics/macfadden/chapter3/chapter3.html
>
> Well I couldn't prove it, but most of my overweight friends seem to
> love low-fat dairy and they think I used to be crazy for eating whole
> milk dairy. It also seems to be a choice of bodybuilders. Whenever I
> eat it, the taste seems off or like its missing something. This isn't
> proof its fattening or anything, but I don't think its as healthy as
> whole milk dairy.

Most people eat skim milk with cereals, refined sugar, and other
garbage. So there's no way to know if the milk would make them
fat by itself. I agree it's not as healthy, but AV also says that skim
milk is fattening, and I don't believe that. Certainly, raw skim milk
would be healthier than pasteurized, since two doctors used raw
skim milk to cure various diseases (including obesity), and said
it was often better than whole milk. Most people are eating a lot
of different foods, so there's no way to know that one food is to
blame for obesity. I've seen a lot of thin people drinking regular
soft drinks and a lot of obese people drinking (or buying) "diet"
sodas. The diet sodas didn't make them fat, but I think they do
cause hunger and over-eating other foods.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=4271246
<http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=4271246&page=1> &page=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/health/webmd/main701408.shtml
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87080
.
>> Some fish are low in mercury. According to Mercola, these fish
>> are safe: Catfish (farmed), Blue Crab (mid-Atlantic), Croaker,
>> Flounder (summer), Haddock, Trout (farmed), Salmon (wild
>> Pacific), and Shrimp. Other types of fish: pollock, cod, squid,
>> octopus, crab, scallops, eel, and so forth are probably safe. I
>> wouldn't eat farmed fish, red fish (salmon/tuna), or fresh water
>> fish, as they're high in PUFAs and toxins.
>
> I realize there are fish that are low mercury I can eat, but wouldn't
> eating fish everyday be a bad choice, because of mercury accumulation.

I don't think the mercury would be dangerous unless you were
eating a diet high in PUFAs, refined sugar, white flour, etc. In
these tropical areas like Kitava and the Seychelles, they have
been found to have high mercury levels in their bodies, but do
not suffer any of the effects blamed on it. I think fish are fine if
you feel good on them. Others do better with more red meat,
fowl, or pork. Some do better with just dairy and eggs. A few
might even be able to thrive on a vegan diet. Don't be afraid
of mercury. There are other factors here.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030516082905.htm
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

Bruce





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JC, the kidneys in TCM represents more than just the Urinary Canal it is
a whole complex of functions that include what we normally refer to as
the kidneys! I am not sure about any one organ being the "seat" of an
emotion as if somehow it resided there, but chronic, habitual emotions
or sudden extreme emotions are said to be deleterious in general to the
body.  Anger/resentment is associated with qi imbalances in the
liver/stomach/spleen; worry/fear with the spleen/lung/kidneys;
love/sadness  with the heart/lung... a sudden loud noise or mental shock
is said to disrupt Shen(the spirit) in the heart/kidney etc.... so the
kidneys(lower burner), being the seat of regenerative essence is
affected by a lot of emotions not just fear! Mind and body are
intricately interconnected  as demonstrated by the placebo effect in the
Western medical model... a lot of what goes on on this board is mental
conditioning aimed at eliciting a  therapeutic response through social
validation/consensus... much like a shaman blowing smoke on someone's
face to exorcise evil spirits! LOL  But this is true of all medical
practices East and West, so enjoy!

Cheers,
Domingo

P. S. What did I mean by "trusting the Tao"? Letting go of self!

José-Carlos Martins Barbosa wrote:
>
>
> That's an interesting statement (Bruce's) about fear. I know depression
> and maybe other psychological ailments can be cured with a proper diet,
> but I am not so sure about fear. Anyway, according to Traditional
> Chinese Medicine the kidneys (Domingo, correct me, if I am wrong) are
> the seat of fear. So, if your kidneys aren't working properly, maybe you
> would experience more fear than usual.
>
> Is all fear irrational? I don't think fear is necessarily to be
> overcome. Some fears never seem to go away. You just put them on the
> backburner and do what must be done. I am very much afraid of flying,
> but I will fly if I have to. I don't think I will ever overcome that
> fear. Maybe in fact I am simply afraid of dying...
>
> And Domingo again, what do you mean "I trust that Tao"?
>
> Cheers, JC
>
> --- In AV-Skeptics@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:AV-Skeptics%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bruce K" <rensielk@...> wrote:
> I trust that Tao!
>
> ...
>
> Being afraid of the dark
> > (or other irrational things) is the product of unhealthy diet, IMO.
> > I overcame those fears a long time ago!
> >
> > Bruce
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ken wrote:
> For mercury or other metals = zeolites.

What do you mean? Not all mercury in fish is natural,
from volcanoes and so forth. Some is from pollution.
And eating lots of fish, esp the fatty types, might not
be a good idea unless you're eating like an Eskimo,
i.e. the whole animal, head to tail. And even then it's
silly to eat Alaskan salmon while living in California
or Florida or even Illinois. The Eskimos also let fish
decompose for months as a delicacy. Eating fresh,
frozen, or canned fish is very different.

Bruce

>> Bruce
> Jim Barleycorn

>> Seal, penguins, or whales are probably lower in PUFAs than fatty
>> fish.
>
> Not to nitpick, but penguins couldn't be part of the traditional Inuit
> diet, as they are only found in the Southern Hemisphere.

I didn't say penguins were part of the traditional Inuit diet, but
they are lower in PUFAs and higher in MUFAs than fatty fish.
The Antarctic explorers ate penguins. I don't get how the Inuit
survived on just fish sometimes. I would think that fish are too
lean, even fatty fish would cause rabbit starvation probably. I
wonder if they saved up fat from other animals to eat with the
leaner fish. Stefansson also lived on a fish diet. If you did that
in a warm area, you would probably age very fast if you didn't
get rabbit starvation from excess protein.

> But I do get your point. Any warm-blooded animal will be lower in PUFA
> than a fatty fish, except maybe the blubber that lies near the skin
> surface. That would at least be high in MUFA because high SFA would be
> too hard and stiff in the freezing water they swim in.

The mainstream nutrition dogma has people eating fatty fish
exclusively, even daily. It's absurd. It makes a lot more sense
to eat local foods or tropical oils that match our warm bodies
than eating fat from cold-blooded fish.

Bruce

"I follow my own conclusions and IMO, after a short period of
adjustments, a person get a more restful sleep in total darkness... try
it and let me know how it works out for you"

I love sleeping in total darkness in Iowa as I have a more peaceful and
deeper sleep.  I have very light skin sensitivity so I figured total
darkness will work well for me.  I have noticed numerous of times if I
leave my bedside lamp on at night by mistake then I always wake up in
about two or three hours later - never can get thru the night with the
lamp on.  In total darkness, I sleep deeply and straight thru.

In the same token, if I walk down the very bright-litted light fixture
isle at Home Depot or Lowes my mood instantly brightens and I feel
extremely energized.  Does this mean anything?  Am I lacking something
in my body?  I'm just amazed how my body responds to bright light, not
that it is a bad thing but it seems weird I need bright light to
enhance my mood.

> Does such a thing even exist?

The very best low-fat high protein I have found is sun warrior
fermented brown rice protein... fermentation greatly improves the
protein quality and completeness... find out more at www.sunwarrior.com

Jasper

P.S. The natural flavor has no Carageenan so go with that and add your
own flavors.

JAsper