Metabolic Typing

[Guest guest]

Hi Panamabob:

> did we forget that the Hunzas were later disproved to have any longevity

or

> extra ordinary health? It was discovered that the investigator were led

> astray in their projected enthusiasm and actually prompted indigneous

folks

> to exagerate their claims.

>

>

### Yes, I've heard of people trying to discredit the health and longevity

of the Hunza. The type of thing I've seen are misquotes and things like the

Hunza didn't live that long. Something like the Hunza didn't live to 140 or

160 years old but instead only to 100 or 120 years old. Gee, to have a lot

of 100 year olds running around taking care of themselves is not so bad. We

have people here much younger than that in nursing homes who don't even

recognize their own families.

Also, what about McCarrison's work? Some of his work was based on

the good health and diets of the Hunza, Shiks, and Pathans during his time.

(I can't speak of the current condition of the Hunza. I don't know of any

current work.) So, has McCarrison's work been discredited too? Plus, there

are some who are trying to discredit Price's work. Doesn't mean he's wrong

either.

Marla

[Guest guest]

did we forget that the Hunzas were later disproved to have any longevity or

extra ordinary health? It was discovered that the investigator were led

astray in their projected enthusiasm and actually prompted indigneous folks

to exagerate their claims.

----- Original Message -----

From: " Marla " <talithakumi@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:43 AM

Subject: Re: Metabolic Typing

>

> Hi Chris:

>

> > Aren't the Hunzas the ones we talked about earlier in the phytic acid

> thread

> > who eat most of their grain sprouted? Little or moderate amounts of

> phytic

> > acid in the diet I wouldn't expect to pose health problems, especially

if

> the

> > majority of foods yielding the nutrients that the phytates bind up and

> > prepared properly. Phytic acid binds healthful and unhealthful metals,

so

> if

> > the healthful ones are abundant enough in the diet small amounts of

> phytates

> > might actually be good. But if one consumes a large amount of grains,

and

> > doesn't properly prepare any of them, one risks nutrien deficiencies.

> >

>

> ### I don't think I said " most " of their grains were sprouted, but rather

> that they ate lots of sprouts. (I'll have to look for my old post. . .

> Sorry if I used the wrong wording.) The bread the Hunza are said to have

> eaten were/are called chappati. Banik described them as " ubiquitous. " It

> appeared to be a regular main staple made of either wheat or millet, baked

> or deep-fried, and served with accompanying food. When the grain was

> harvested, it was ground in stone mills and stored for future use in

> containers similar to our round grain bins. I don't know how long they

> stored this. No mention of soaking. Tobe also wrote a book on the

> Hunza where he describes that they just mixed the bread with water and

> cooked it into flat breads. (I should check that book out from the

library

> again to get the details.) Banik wrote that they soaked beans and peas in

> water for one or two days, and then spread the seeds out on wet cloths in

> the sun. They are eaten raw when they begin to sprout. He didn't mention

> wheat sprouts, although I realize that that doesn't mean they didn't

sprout

> them too to eat raw.

>

> I'm not trying to convince you that you should eat wheat, but that I think

> certain things are being ignored about it. I think it's possible that

wheat

> is being demonized more than it should be. Naturally, people who don't

> tolerate it should avoid it, but to say that we weren't designed to eat it

> period seems wrong to me. There is more to health than just what we eat

(or

> not eat), how much we exercise, and the toxins in the environment.

There's

> attitude as well that makes us sick. It has been documented that negative

> emotions (i.e. anger, greed, envy, etc.) also depress the immune system

as

> well as stress. We have lost connection with the soil which is also

healing

> to the body. You may have read about the healing properties of clay and

> sand, etc. Many civilized people don't even like to go out barefooted and

> spend too much time indoors. We pollute our minds with negative things

> every day. We tend to lean too much on one side. Life operates best in

> balance.

>

> Marla

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze,

Thanks for the explanation, of which I was _somewhat_ aware of. I thought

that Marla was just saying that _some_ people could eat wheat, and I thought

she was saying this as opposed to a camp that thought _no one_ should. In

that debate, if it was there :-P , I wouldn't know what to say b/c I haven't

read any of the research on how many people are gluten sensitive, what

percentage of what populations, etc.

Chris

In a message dated 1/17/03 8:56:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----------> like paul, i'm not really interested in debating wheat in

> the context of creationism vs. evolution. but, i do want to mention that

the

> issue with wheat is not the phytates - that's a minor issue as compared to

> the real issue, which is the very difficult to digest gluten proteins,

> particularly alpha gliadin. some folks have enzymes that can digest the

> specific bonds in gluten proteins and some don't. undigested gluten

proteins

> can do quite a bit of damage to intestinal walls, and can leak into the

> bloodstream and cause damage to various organs. gluten sensitivity is

> associated with a long list of diseases, and new research is finding that

> gluten sensitivity is much more widespread than previously thought -

perhaps

> as high as 1 in 3 north americans. and celiac disease (an extreme form of

> gluten sensitivity in which gluten is outright toxic) is higher among

> populations that've been eating wheat for the shortest period of time -

> mainly those from northern climes (northern europeans, icelanders) where

the

> climate is not conducive to growing wheat. it is less prevalent among

> populations where wheat is indigenous and the population has been eating it

> for the longest period of time - middle east, southern europe and some

areas

> of asia. IOW, wheat is not an ancestral food for *everyone.*

>

> this thread started out by discussing ancestral nutrition - that's what

> metabolic typing is about, isn't it? well, if there's any validity to

> ancestral nutrition, then my question is why should people be able to be

> healthy on non-ancestral foods? do we know of any animals that are eat non

> ancestral foods and are healthy? we are the only species that think we can

> just eat *anything* from any corner of the planet and be healthy, whether

or

> not our bodies have had a chance to adapt to it or not.

>

> anyway, we basically debated this issue to death on beyondprice recently.

if

> you're interested in a breakdown and indepth explanations of the issues

with

> wheat, you can find it all in the archives, especially under the thread

> " dangerous grains " (the name of a recently published book).

>

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>>>>I think we more or less agree. You didn't use the word " most " in the

other

thread, but that was the impression I got, if they ate wheat without

sprouting, but ate a variety of other grains/beans sprouted, I just assumed,

perhaps wrongly, that if one plant was not sprouted but numerous others

were,

that they were eating much more sprouts than unsprouted grain.

I haven't researched wheat enough to make any claims for it or against it.

----------> like paul, i'm not really interested in debating wheat in

the context of creationism vs. evolution. but, i do want to mention that the

issue with wheat is not the phytates - that's a minor issue as compared to

the real issue, which is the very difficult to digest gluten proteins,

particularly alpha gliadin. some folks have enzymes that can digest the

specific bonds in gluten proteins and some don't. undigested gluten proteins

can do quite a bit of damage to intestinal walls, and can leak into the

bloodstream and cause damage to various organs. gluten sensitivity is

associated with a long list of diseases, and new research is finding that

gluten sensitivity is much more widespread than previously thought - perhaps

as high as 1 in 3 north americans. and celiac disease (an extreme form of

gluten sensitivity in which gluten is outright toxic) is higher among

populations that've been eating wheat for the shortest period of time -

mainly those from northern climes (northern europeans, icelanders) where the

climate is not conducive to growing wheat. it is less prevalent among

populations where wheat is indigenous and the population has been eating it

for the longest period of time - middle east, southern europe and some areas

of asia. IOW, wheat is not an ancestral food for *everyone.*

this thread started out by discussing ancestral nutrition - that's what

metabolic typing is about, isn't it? well, if there's any validity to

ancestral nutrition, then my question is why should people be able to be

healthy on non-ancestral foods? do we know of any animals that are eat non

ancestral foods and are healthy? we are the only species that think we can

just eat *anything* from any corner of the planet and be healthy, whether or

not our bodies have had a chance to adapt to it or not.

anyway, we basically debated this issue to death on beyondprice recently. if

you're interested in a breakdown and indepth explanations of the issues with

wheat, you can find it all in the archives, especially under the thread

" dangerous grains " (the name of a recently published book).

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

> ----------> like paul, i'm not really interested in debating wheat

in

> the context of creationism vs. evolution.

BTW, I don't really think wheat can be discussed outside the context of

evolution. So I'm not going to put up a fight there :-P

-------->oh, you are too sweet anyways...who would want to 'fight' *you*?

;-0

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

No we, arent saying 100 years, we are saying 60 ish. Nothing phenomenal

although even 60 is good considering the location.

Same deal with the supposed longlived horse-riding Georgians of central

asia (the yogurt boom is acredited to them) After the fact it was discovered

that again 60 and 70's which is still good considering there spryness, but

NOT over 100's like was initially interpreted. The only group that has good

documentation are the okinawans.

Not to say that some of their practices are not potentially good ideas, like

drinking the milky white glacier water high in disolved minerals (as do the

indigenous mountain folks of South America).

Currently the water quality has changed with the Hunza as well as the style

of living, thanks to new roads and " modern techniques " . There are small

qualtities of water that was collected by initial investigators that has

been preserved for study. As mentioned, present conditions are not

duplicating the lifestyle of old, with the detriment in health.

Yea, our western lifestyle is not condusive to a real healthy

state...stress, toxins, bad diagnoses, etc. have curtailed the potential

quality of life that one would expect that a rich and educated society would

generate. Some improvements in sanitation have been taken away by mass

produced foder, negative influences, etc.

Oh well... time to try something new somewhere with the basics.

:-)

> >

> >

> ### Yes, I've heard of people trying to discredit the health and

longevity

> of the Hunza. The type of thing I've seen are misquotes and things like

the

> Hunza didn't live that long. Something like the Hunza didn't live to 140

or

> 160 years old but instead only to 100 or 120 years old. Gee, to have a

lot

> of 100 year olds running around taking care of themselves is not so bad.

We

> have people here much younger than that in nursing homes who don't even

> recognize their own families.

>

> Also, what about McCarrison's work? Some of his work was based on

> the good health and diets of the Hunza, Shiks, and Pathans during his

time.

> (I can't speak of the current condition of the Hunza. I don't know of any

> current work.) So, has McCarrison's work been discredited too? Plus,

there

> are some who are trying to discredit Price's work. Doesn't mean he's

wrong

> either.

>

> Marla

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze:

My point was not what the current problems with wheat are (whether phytates

or gliadin), but whether it was traditionally eaten. That's why the

creation vs. evolution issue came up. We know that people are currently

having problems with wheat. That's not the issue. The discussion was that

we have not adapted to wheat because it wasn't around long enough, etc.as

opposed to our bodies are degenerated and can no longer handle wheat.

Depending on which is right (evolution or creationism), that would determine

whether wheat WAS part of the traditional ancestrial diet or not. That was

my point exactly. We don't " know " that, and that's why I brought up the

fact that there are many people who don't believe in the idea of evolution.

If the premise is wrong (that man has been on earth for 500,000 years or

so), then the conclusion may be wrong too that wheat wasn't part of our

original diet. There are many people who take the Bible literally but don't

want to spent the time debating it (especially on the net). Also, people

who do adhere to the Bible should see that some of the negative claims about

wheat don't seem valid based on other information in the Bible and possibly

other sources. I guess those that get my point, should have gotten it

already, so I'll stop posting about it.

Marla

> >>>>I think we more or less agree. You didn't use the word " most " in the

> other

> thread, but that was the impression I got, if they ate wheat without

> sprouting, but ate a variety of other grains/beans sprouted, I just

assumed,

> perhaps wrongly, that if one plant was not sprouted but numerous others

> were,

> that they were eating much more sprouts than unsprouted grain.

>

> I haven't researched wheat enough to make any claims for it or against it.

>

>

> ----------> like paul, i'm not really interested in debating wheat

in

> the context of creationism vs. evolution. but, i do want to mention that

the

> issue with wheat is not the phytates - that's a minor issue as compared to

> the real issue, which is the very difficult to digest gluten proteins,

> particularly alpha gliadin. some folks have enzymes that can digest the

> specific bonds in gluten proteins and some don't. undigested gluten

proteins

> can do quite a bit of damage to intestinal walls, and can leak into the

> bloodstream and cause damage to various organs. gluten sensitivity is

> associated with a long list of diseases, and new research is finding that

> gluten sensitivity is much more widespread than previously thought -

perhaps

> as high as 1 in 3 north americans. and celiac disease (an extreme form of

> gluten sensitivity in which gluten is outright toxic) is higher among

> populations that've been eating wheat for the shortest period of time -

> mainly those from northern climes (northern europeans, icelanders) where

the

> climate is not conducive to growing wheat. it is less prevalent among

> populations where wheat is indigenous and the population has been eating

it

> for the longest period of time - middle east, southern europe and some

areas

> of asia. IOW, wheat is not an ancestral food for *everyone.*

>

> this thread started out by discussing ancestral nutrition - that's what

> metabolic typing is about, isn't it? well, if there's any validity to

> ancestral nutrition, then my question is why should people be able to be

> healthy on non-ancestral foods? do we know of any animals that are eat non

> ancestral foods and are healthy? we are the only species that think we can

> just eat *anything* from any corner of the planet and be healthy, whether

or

> not our bodies have had a chance to adapt to it or not.

>

> anyway, we basically debated this issue to death on beyondprice recently.

if

> you're interested in a breakdown and indepth explanations of the issues

with

> wheat, you can find it all in the archives, especially under the thread

> " dangerous grains " (the name of a recently published book).

>

[Guest guest]

....seems to be a strange thing about age

People push up their age by quarters (7 & 1/2) up to the age of 16 trying to

get as old as possible, then jump to 21 from 16 years of age (or what ever

the drinking age is) and then are anbigiuos from 22-29 and then from there

lower their ages down to 29 and " holding " after that up till they get to

50's and then start exagerating UP after that to older age...

The older they get the more they add on trying to get to that 100-year

mark... like a badge of pride.

seems to be a common thing :-)

I imagine that's a problem for investigators to learn the truth. So much

bias for age in society. Adding to the confusion is the habit many times of

having children named after parents so there seems to be a continuity of the

same named person. Of course parents would have told children verbal

history, wars, etc. to pass on.

Just imagine how hard it would be for you to repeat stories your parents or

even grandparents told you to a new-coming foreigner, especially one that

seemed to be wanting to hear about really old people. More than likely you

would like the attention and have a little " harmless " fun at the expense of

the investigator. Ive seen it in my native country Panama, in the country

folks. One gentleman I know added three years to each birthday he had.

Unabashly. A boldface LIE, but nobody argued with him. Nobody cared. That

was his ideosyncracity. It was my wife that made me realize how silly the

game was when she was amazed at his supposed age of 101. Actual age was

probly closer to 75, which is still great, but it wasnt 101 as he mentioned.

He embellished with fine anecdotes of the old days. Very entertaining but

hardly based in personal experience.

Juss human nature.

I remember my own youth, comrades would try to impress others, including

adults, with their endeavors of all kinds.

A favorite was consumption of alcohol. A historian from the USA was taking

notes for a thesis about our social niche, and if affidavit was to be

believed, our teens were master studs with harems and consumed enough

alcohol to easily die from poisoning on a daily bases.

Point being that stories from people without documentation (like the

Okinawans have), are questionable at best.

Think about it. How would basic economics work in an area of much older

people? Even in good health, and older person would be hard pressed to

duplicate the work of a young person...so that would mean the over all

productivity of the area would suffer.

If the people were living so long, then that would mean more homes in an

area; after all, how many generations do you think could comfortably live in

one home? Considering a generation every 20 years or, so that would be 5

generations or more in one home. It would be doubtful if the oldest two (or

three) generations could survive food wise etc. on their own. Hence the

sharing of the family home.

Or that would mean that there is a steady geometric growth of homes so that

kids and grandkids could have their own place and each take one of the older

generation into their home for care. After the grandkids each all had a

litter of kids and those had kids, etc.where would it be?

After a few generations the land area would be inundated, wouldn't it?

Think of the concerns insurance companies have and Social security with

older than expected people skewing actuarian tables that were used to

calculate premiums and benefits. And thats today with supposedly greater

productivity (3% of population providing food for the rest).

----- Original Message -----

From: " Marla " <talithakumi@...>

< >

Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:33 AM

Subject: Re: Metabolic Typing

>

> Hi Panamabob:

>

> Hmmm. I'd be interested to know where this is documented. If that's

true,

> than yes, I can see the misrepresentation. I looked into this a while ago

> after reading some things on the net and then checked out a couple of the

> references that they used from the library. And from what I recall, the

> information about length of life WAS taken out of context and the length

of

> life was in fact in the 100s. (But not in the 140's or 160's which was

> being claimed. They were having trouble figuring out how old some of the

> people were because they didn't have birth certificates, but rather knew

> time by certain events like so and so got married during this war and they

> knew that war to be in such and such year. Or families had great great

> grandparents still living, so that was another way people tried to

determine

> age. It was difficult to get a correct age, so possibly that's how the

> length of life may have gotten inflated--if it was really inflated.) This

> was a little while ago when I first started questioning my veganism, so I

> didn't document that info. I would have to hunt for it again. But I do

> distinctly recall thinking that some of the info I found on the net

> regarding the Hunza was not accurate or at least info taken out of

context.

> (Regarding their length of life.)

>

> Now this brings to mind McCarrison's work. I believe people still use his

> work regarding current ideas in diet. If I get a chance, I'd like to see

if

> any claims are made that his work is incorrect. (His experiments

supposedly

> resulted in excellent health of his test animals with the diets of the

> Hunza, Pathans, and Shiks.)

>

> Marla

>

>

>

>

> > No we, arent saying 100 years, we are saying 60 ish. Nothing phenomenal

> > although even 60 is good considering the location.

> >

> > Same deal with the supposed longlived horse-riding Georgians of central

> > asia (the yogurt boom is acredited to them) After the fact it was

> discovered

> > that again 60 and 70's which is still good considering there spryness,

but

> > NOT over 100's like was initially interpreted. The only group that has

> good

> > documentation are the okinawans.

> >

> > Not to say that some of their practices are not potentially good ideas,

> like

> > drinking the milky white glacier water high in disolved minerals (as do

> the

> > indigenous mountain folks of South America).

> >

> > Currently the water quality has changed with the Hunza as well as the

> style

> > of living, thanks to new roads and " modern techniques " . There are small

> > qualtities of water that was collected by initial investigators that has

> > been preserved for study. As mentioned, present conditions are not

> > duplicating the lifestyle of old, with the detriment in health.

> >

> > Yea, our western lifestyle is not condusive to a real healthy

> > state...stress, toxins, bad diagnoses, etc. have curtailed the potential

> > quality of life that one would expect that a rich and educated society

> would

> > generate. Some improvements in sanitation have been taken away by mass

> > produced foder, negative influences, etc.

> >

> > Oh well... time to try something new somewhere with the basics.

> >

> > :-)

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/03 11:19:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> -------->oh, you are too sweet anyways...who would want to 'fight' *you*?

>

> ;-0

aww... *blushes*

chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>>>My point was not what the current problems with wheat are (whether

phytates

or gliadin), but whether it was traditionally eaten.

--------->point taken.

:-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...