Re: Purines & High Carb diets- help!

[Guest guest]

--- In , <karenr@c...>

wrote:

>

> This is not so.. there are volumes of scholarship devoted

> to just this subject.

There are certainly " volumes " , but not of " scholarship " ,

merely pseudoscience.

> I haven't read them all, for sure, but they're there in the

> homeopathic literature.

Exactly, it's " in the _homeopathic_ literature " . What

else is homeopathic literature to say? Most books

written by the Pope are pro-Catholic. (-; It's in the

_scientific_ literature that you need to be looking.

> Homeopathy is effective with babies and animals who are not

> subject to the placebo effect.

It is my understanding that all those experiments that

supposedly gave marginal support to homeopathy were

conducted under less than rigorous conditions, or even

actually suspicious circumstances. Remember that the

homeopathic " medicine " industry is a multi-million dollar

one, with alot to lose if the public realizes that it's

paying hard-earned money for magic water. I also dispute

the idea that babies and animals are immune to the placebo

effect. Both rely _primarily_ on non-verbal signals to

relate to those around them. See my posts #31475 and

#31480 for more on the subject.

> (I'm not sure the original poster was referring to actual

> homeopathic remedies, though).

I agree. See also post #31475 for comments on the same.

[Guest guest]

,

I don't agree with your statements, but I have no interest in debating

homeopathy on this list. I'm here for support with dietary issues to which

we all share a similar fundamental approach. Maybe I shouldn't have begun

discussing homeopathy at all, because I didn't intend to enter into a

debate. Maybe we should get back to the topic of ghee

At 12:48 AM 10/17/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>--- In , <karenr@c...>

>wrote:

> >

> > This is not so.. there are volumes of scholarship devoted

> > to just this subject.

>

>There are certainly " volumes " , but not of " scholarship " ,

>merely pseudoscience.

>

> > I haven't read them all, for sure, but they're there in the

> > homeopathic literature.

>

>Exactly, it's " in the _homeopathic_ literature " . What

>else is homeopathic literature to say? Most books

>written by the Pope are pro-Catholic. (-; It's in the

>_scientific_ literature that you need to be looking.

>

> > Homeopathy is effective with babies and animals who are not

> > subject to the placebo effect.

>

>It is my understanding that all those experiments that

>supposedly gave marginal support to homeopathy were

>conducted under less than rigorous conditions, or even

>actually suspicious circumstances. Remember that the

>homeopathic " medicine " industry is a multi-million dollar

>one, with alot to lose if the public realizes that it's

>paying hard-earned money for magic water. I also dispute

>the idea that babies and animals are immune to the placebo

>effect. Both rely _primarily_ on non-verbal signals to

>relate to those around them. See my posts #31475 and

>#31480 for more on the subject.

>

> > (I'm not sure the original poster was referring to actual

> > homeopathic remedies, though).

>

>I agree. See also post #31475 for comments on the same.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> Have you _really_ conducted double-blind studies with your dogs

and cats, with a control group, and with someone administering

the treatments who was unaware of which was the placebo and

which homeopathic? <<

Of course not. I have, however, treated my dogs and puppies with homeopathy for

severe, life-threatening acute diseases and seen them respond immediately and

curatively. I have also been a medical journalist since the early 1990s,

including 7 years with the Veterinary Information Network and several years

writing for an entirely mainstream market about HIV/AIDS, and am quite familiar

with scientific method.

I don't worship at the altar of double-blind randomized studies, although I

welcome the information they give. What I do believe is that they are very

poorly suited for studying any highly individualized therapy.

It would take a great deal at this point to convince me that homeopathy is

nothing more than placebo, based on the success I've had with it in my many

animals over the last nearly-18 years. To see a dog with a fever of 107 degrees

be given a remedy that matches his symptoms and within 10 minutes have his fever

drop to 101 and have him get up and go to the door to be let out - to see a

fading puppy who has been sent home from the vet to die start nursing for the

first time since birth within minutes of being given a homeopathic remedy

selected according to the principles of homeopathy - to have a litter of pups

get parvovirus (a brutal gastrointesintal virus that often kills puppies) and

see all the ones who got homeopathic treatment recover in one evening while the

ones who didn't lingered at the vet for days - to see these types of things, and

more, not once or twice but consistently, dozens of times, over many years,

tends to let " anecdote " assume a much greater weight with me on this subject.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistic Husbandry Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

[Guest guest]

>

> Of course not. I have, however, treated my dogs and puppies with

homeopathy for severe, life-threatening acute diseases and seen them

respond immediately and curatively. . l. .

I think I'll heed 's advice. (-:

[Guest guest]

>Implicit in the statement " scientists are getting closer

>to being able to confirm the science " is the admission that

>they _can't_confirm it, but merely hope that they someday

>shall. Science doesn't allow for one's sincerest belief

>that she _shall_ someday prove something true, to stand

>in place of actual fact.

:

There is likely some placebo effect in a lot of these

cures, as you say. Homeopathy though, is interesting

as far as science goes. There is evidence that it DOES

work, albeit not according to any known methodology.

I put it in the same bucket as " phage cures " which

were considered hocus pocus until scientists

discovered the actual virus. The fact so many cures

tout themselves as " homeopathic " only confuses

the issues!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 10/16/03 5:44:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> liberty@p... writes:

>

> > Does the butter oil contain only a specific _part_ of the total

> > amount of fat in the butter?

>

> Exactly, butter oil is missing most of the fat, and containing

> most of the nutrients. For some reason it seems to conentrate

> the most unsaturated fats--it contains high CLA e.g., and is

> also a thin oil at room temp.

I see, it _is_ only a selected fraction of the butter. There

must be alot of " stripped " butter left over from the process

as a by-product. It now makes sense, since within a certain

temperature range, ghee also has a liquid layer on top of the

solid fats.

> Ok. I've never had ghee and didn't realize the complexity of

> the definition. Since the word " raw " is used, it seems fine

> by me as it distinguishes between the two, but I suppose

> " clarified raw butter " would be more accurate.

Actually, this could also be taken to mean that one started

with raw butter, but still cooked it to clarify it. That's

why I prefer " cold-clarified butter " or " centrifugally

clarified butter " .

> > I don't know offhand what the amino-acid profile of either the

> > yolk or the white is, but given the very different characters

> > of the two components, it's difficult to believe that the

> > protein make up of an egg is homogenous throughout. So since

> > the supposedly ideal protein is based on an analysis of the

> > _whole_ egg, it's also difficult to see how that can be matched

> > by either the yolk or the white alone

>

> This seems to me to be a totally unjustified assumption.

I don't see why. Could you point out where the logic fails?

The only assumption involved is that an egg yolk and an egg

white probably each have a different proportion of amino acids.

The justification for the assumption is the great degree to

which they differ from one another, and differ in function in

producing a chick. Since the ideal protein profile has been

attributed to whole eggs, those including both a yolk and a

white, and these two components are so dissimilar, how likely

is it that either alone shares an exact profile with a whole

egg? Apply the same analogy to a known such as milk. If X

amount of whole milk can supply adequate dietary protein and

fat for one day, should it then be assumed that X amount of

cream alone can supply the same amount of protein, or that X

amount of skim milk alone can provide the same amount of fat?

[Guest guest]

> I see, but if it were me and I had such health issues,

> I would place the priority on getting an adequate amount

> of complete protein, not on getting eggs with the proper

> pedigree. Why not just buy the best store-bought eggs

> available and _cook_ them, until such time as you can

> get ahold of something better? The worst protein is

> better than none. Nor, if it were me, would I waste

> the whites under any circumstance, but especially not

> in yours where there is a desperate need for enough

> animal protein, but so few acceptable sources. Eggs

> gained their reputation as an ideal protein source

> based on both the yolk _and_ the white.

Well I ended up going to the farm today, so I don't need to

consume " the worst protein " The eggs I can get at the store

aren't terrible.. I can get Organic Valley, Gold Circle Farms, etc..

I just wouldn't want to eat them raw. Maybe that isn't a legitimate

concern..

> I'm sorry. I don't mean to imply that you're stupid.

> However I've seen people describe themselves with various

> terms and then find out that their actual diets had little

> to do with what they called themselves. In some cases a

> former vegan has realized the necessity of animal foods,

> but can't psychologically accept the change in identity.

>So you see it never

> hurts, especially when there's an apparent inconsistency in

> the diet described, as I felt there was in your message, to

> confirm just exactly how the terminology is being used.

Fair enough. I didn't have too much of an identity crisis changing

from vegan to " omni " lol

> Since fish is your only source of complete protein, why

> not eat it frequently, rather than occasionally?

Honestly, I just don't like it. I'm trying though.. I'll find ways to

make it more palatable.

> How much protein do you get a day? I make a point of

> eating no less than sixty grams of animal protein a day,

> and _you_ might well need much more than that. Until

> such time as you are getting adequate protein, and have

> been for awhile, I don't think you should expect to

> correct your menstrual problem.

I don't doubt that I'm not getting enough protein.. but I'm getting

more than I used to and am going to try to incorporate more animal

foods..

For some reason I think of meat (of any kind) as hard to digest; that

it will feel heavy and may constipate me- I think that's one reason I

haven't tried to eat it much. What is the best way to prepare it for

optimum digestion? I don't think this used to be a concern of mine..

it must be all of that vegetarian propoganda I've read

> I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

> something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

> since they are purely placebic. Although, I suppose

> it's not impossible that your menstrual problem has

> a psychological cause, in which case placebos might

> actually help.

I'm not relying on homeopathic remedies.. I tried that in the past

and it didn't work. And yes, it *was* a homeopathic remedy, not an

herbal tincture or anything. I do also know what homeopathy is

I think I did believe it would work.. but unfortunately the placebo

effect wasn't enough to affect my menstruation

> Well if that's all you want, then mine is that the

> Metabolic Typing Diet is nonsense.

That seems to be the consensus on this board

> Well, as I've said before, I think that you need more

> protein, and that it won't be until a good while after

> you been consistently getting enough protein every day,

> that you can expect to see any improvement.

That makes sense. I can definitely feel a big (positive) difference

in my body when I eat more protein than usual.

>There is a great need out there for doctors

> who can help people with their diet, but there are very

> very few people competent to do so.

I am starting to realize this... I was always looking for some guru

to fix all my health problems So far only I have been able to

really improve my own health.

> More importantly though, it seems to me that you already

> know that the Metabolic Typing Diet isn't right, and that

> you just want reassurance, but I don't want to encourage

> that sort of thing. You should no more do, or not do

> something because I, or anybody else on this list says

> so, than you should because Mercola or the Metabolic

> Typing Diet says so. You already seem to know for yourself

> that it's not right, so you need to do what _you_ think is

> right without waiting for someone else to validate what

> you've _already_ decided. You should certainly seek

> information, but not permission, from others.

Actually, I did come here seeking answers for specific questions

which I did not already know the answers to. As I said in my first

post, there were two questions that I wanted to ask, but I had turned

my post into a personal story- which I think *did* help me more than

if I had just asked the questions. Because I didn't know about

purines and how they related to traditional diets, I didn't know

whether they were something to worry about or not. I also thought it

best to get some advice on my menstrual problem. Intuitively I think

that fats and animal products would be very important for me at this

time. And protein, of course However I did want an outside

opinion as this is a pretty serious problem. I'm sure I did want some

reassurance.. however I always listen to my body over all else.. and

in some cases that may not be the best idea! When I was vegan I never

craved any animal products.. yet I was b12 deficient, vitamin D

deficient, omega 3 deficient (i ate a lot of flax, too), protein

deficient, and probably deficient in just about everything.. I

feel so much better now.. and I wouldn't have changed my diet without

outside advice. In any case, I never planned to change to that diet,

bbut I wanted to make sure I had all the bases covered

> If you're still taking advice from me, then I have to

> say that I wouldn't even necessarily recommend a N.T.-

> informed doctor either. Because though I agree with

> the major premise of Fallon's book, it is certainly

> not without elements of pseudo-science when examined

> in detail. The same must be said of Price's work as

> well. So I would consider anybody suspect who claimed

> to be scientifically informed, and yet who bought into

> 'Nourishing Traditions' or Price's theories in their

> entirety.

Which theories do you not agree with?

Good luck , I think you just need some

> solid meals, and to give yourself a little time. :-)

Thanks ..

-

> > ..

> >

> > Thanks for the response, though the tone does come across as

> > condescending...

>

> I'm sorry, but I think there was some justification.

> See more below.

>

> > > There's no such thing as raw ghee. Ghee is made by cooking

> > > butter.

> >

> > Yes there is Raw Ghee. I bought it from Wilderness Family

Naturals.

> > www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com. I see it has been mentioned on

> this

> > board when I did a search through the archives. Here is a quote

> from

> > the bottle (which proudly states " RAW GHEE " on the front of the

> > bottle) " Like traditional ghee, this product is a clarified

butter

> > with milk solids and moisture removed. However, raw ghee, unlike

> > traditional ghee is made with no heat. Instead, a centrifuge is

> used

> > to seperate the oil from the milk solids and to remove water. In

> > addition, this raw ghee is made from cream produced by cows that

> are

> > grass fed. ... "

>

> Ahhh, so then this is actually the " butter oil " referred

> to sometimes on this list. They shouldn't be allowed to

> call it " ghee " , though. Ghee is a traditional product

> always made by cooking butter. This so-called " raw ghee "

> should actually be called something like " cold-clarified

> butter " . Though of course the word kefir has suffered

> even worse abuses.

>

> > I am out of eggs.. but I eat raw egg yolks and I choose not to

eat

> > store-bought eggs raw. I purchase free range (no grain) eggs from

a

> > farm that is 2 hours away and I haven't had a chance to buy more.

I

> > will be soon. However the fact that I don't currently have any

eggs

> > doesn't really pertain to what I was asking.

>

> I see, but if it were me and I had such health issues,

> I would place the priority on getting an adequate amount

> of complete protein, not on getting eggs with the proper

> pedigree. Why not just buy the best store-bought eggs

> available and _cook_ them, until such time as you can

> get ahold of something better? The worst protein is

> better than none. Nor, if it were me, would I waste

> the whites under any circumstance, but especially not

> in yours where there is a desperate need for enough

> animal protein, but so few acceptable sources. Eggs

> gained their reputation as an ideal protein source

> based on both the yolk _and_ the white.

>

> > I only referred to foods I was eating as " vegan " to make it

clear

> > that the only animal food I am eating is raw ghee. I do NOT

> consider

> > myself to be vegan.. I know the definition of the word.

>

> I'm sorry. I don't mean to imply that you're stupid.

> However I've seen people describe themselves with various

> terms and then find out that their actual diets had little

> to do with what they called themselves. In some cases a

> former vegan has realized the necessity of animal foods,

> but can't psychologically accept the change in identity.

> One such person twisted the meanings of words so as to

> call herself a vegan, even though she was eating eggs, kefir

> and honey. If there is anybody on this list who was also

> on the kefir_making list two years ago, they might remember

> the lady to whom I'm referring. Another case was a fellow

> with whom I spoke at a salad bar at a 's many years ago.

> He proudly declared that he had converted to vegetarianism,

> had taken up an excersize routine, and was feeling great.

> As he worked his way around the salad bar, adding a little

> of this and a little of that, he finally finished the salad

> with a heaping pile of diced ham! I was shocked and blurted

> out " Pork is meat too " . He replied " Oh I know, but you need

> _some_ protein. " To this day I have no idea what " vegetarian "

> actually meant to him. Possibly he thought is merely refers

> to someone who eats a lot of vegetables!? So you see it never

> hurts, especially when there's an apparent inconsistency in

> the diet described, as I felt there was in your message, to

> confirm just exactly how the terminology is being used.

>

> > I eat vegetables, coconut products, fermented grain porridges,

> some

> > fruit (really only blueberries), raw ghee, and occasional fish.

>

> Since fish is your only source of complete protein, why

> not eat it frequently, rather than occasionally?

>

> > I used to eat more dairy products. I do not consider my current

> diet to

> > be " ideal " in that I believe it should include more animal

products

> > (but I still am grossed out eating flesh foods except for some

fish

> > once in great while, which I don't enjoy).

>

> How much protein do you get a day? I make a point of

> eating no less than sixty grams of animal protein a day,

> and _you_ might well need much more than that. Until

> such time as you are getting adequate protein, and have

> been for awhile, I don't think you should expect to

> correct your menstrual problem.

>

> > You would reccomend synthetic hormones? I have only heard horror

> > stories about taking estrogen, etc. But I don't have much

knowledge

> > on the subject, so anything you can tell me would be helpful.

>

> I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

> something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

> since they are purely placebic. Although, I suppose

> it's not impossible that your menstrual problem has

> a psychological cause, in which case placebos might

> actually help.

>

> > I do believe in the principles that Fallon bases her diet on.

> However

> > I also believe that everyone has an individual diet that works

for

> > them. I guess you don't believe in " metabolic typing " ? Why is

this?

>

> Oh, I definitely do believe that there must be a variety

> of metabolic types, but I have no way to determine how

> many there are, or what kind of diet would be best for

> each type, or how to find out to which type any given

> person belongs. Moreover, and this is my real point, I

> don't think that the purveyors of this so-called " Metabolic

> Typing Diet " do either. As I tried to point out before,

> the mere common-sensical observation that there must be

> more than one metabolic type, does not mean that the one

> making that observation, knows anything else at all about

> those types, or how to help them diet-wise. To me it all

> sounds little more credible than a diet based on one's

> astrological sign.

>

> > I just wanted some outside opinions!

>

> Well if that's all you want, then mine is that the

> Metabolic Typing Diet is nonsense.

>

> > Look.. I only went to this doctor because I was having quite a

few

> > health problems when I made the appointment. Now I am feeling a

> great

> > deal better except I am still not menstruating. That is my main

> > concern. No one seems to be able to help me in that area.

>

> Well, as I've said before, I think that you need more

> protein, and that it won't be until a good while after

> you been consistently getting enough protein every day,

> that you can expect to see any improvement.

>

> > I just want

> > to be as healthy as I can, and eat the best diet for me. I have

> > actually been tested for my type once before and got the same

> > results. However I really don't understand how that type of diet

> can

> > be healthy, and I am confused.

>

> For one thing, I think you're just going to have to

> accept the fact that most of the people giving such

> " tests " are frauds and quacks. Once you stop putting

> your trust in such people, much of the confusion will

> disappear. There is a great need out there for doctors

> who can help people with their diet, but there are very

> very few people competent to do so. Nevertheless,

> wherever there is such a void, that void will be filled.

> Who do you think is going to fill that void in lieu of

> the individuals so few and far apart who are actually

> competent?

>

> > I have explained the situation as best

> > as I can and was hoping someone could give me some advice rather

> than

> > assume I have no idea what I'm talking about.

>

> I don't think that I've assumed any more than you yourself

> implied in your message. The asking of a question implies

> at least _some_ gap in the asker's knowledge, does it not?

> In your words pasted just above, you write " I am confused " .

> More importantly though, it seems to me that you already

> know that the Metabolic Typing Diet isn't right, and that

> you just want reassurance, but I don't want to encourage

> that sort of thing. You should no more do, or not do

> something because I, or anybody else on this list says

> so, than you should because Mercola or the Metabolic

> Typing Diet says so. You already seem to know for yourself

> that it's not right, so you need to do what _you_ think is

> right without waiting for someone else to validate what

> you've _already_ decided. You should certainly seek

> information, but not permission, from others.

>

> > Naturopathic doctor, I guess. He may actually be an MD. I didn't

> want

> > to speak down about my experience there which is why I didn't

> mention

> > that before. But I guess (who he is) will give you better

> > understanding of why I gave some credence to his advice?

>

> Certainly I understand, but you don't need to justify

> your choice of doctor or diet to me in any case. Though

> if you're asking my advice, which you may no longer be

> at this point :-) , then I would say run as far away as

> you can anytime you hear the word " naturopathic " . I've

> yet to meet one that wasn't a quack.

>

> > Though that doesn't mean I don't question it. If I could have

found

> a doctor more

> > in tune with NT I would have.. but at the time this seemed the

best

> > choice.

>

> If you're still taking advice from me, then I have to

> say that I wouldn't even necessarily recommend a N.T.-

> informed doctor either. Because though I agree with

> the major premise of Fallon's book, it is certainly

> not without elements of pseudo-science when examined

> in detail. The same must be said of Price's work as

> well. So I would consider anybody suspect who claimed

> to be scientifically informed, and yet who bought into

> 'Nourishing Traditions' or Price's theories in their

> entirety. Good luck , I think you just need some

> solid meals, and to give yourself a little time. :-)

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> >I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after taking

a

> >test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

> >Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates,

25%

> >protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

> >avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats

other

> >than white fish and chicken/game hen are included.

>

> I ABSOLUTELY would not take your food guidelines from a book, even

a book I really like. Every person is an individual. And, it is hard

to get good high carb foods that are also easy to digest, non-

allergenic, and healthy. And your body needs can vary from day to day

at that. Also there is a current bias toward high-carb low-fat diets -

- EVERYONE I know who goes to a doc gets recommended that!

>

> For myself, NT recommends soaked grains and raw milk. Neither one

like my body very much. My fat needs vary -- sometimes I crave it,

sometimes not. Raw-er meats are great, as is fermented food (but

there are LOTS of kinds of fermented foods). So I eat what works for

ME. You can start out eating something you really like, and adding

gradually some things you SHOULD eat that aren't too disgusting to

you. And note how your body reacts. After years of undereating, you

may find that some things don't digest well and you may need enzymes.

You also may have food reactions (which can cause people to undereat

as they unconsciously try to avoid the allergen).

>

> If you digest fats ok, then it's an easy way to get calories. My

favorite (as everyone here knows) is hash brows, fried crisp.

>

> But you didn't mention WHY you want to change your diet? As far as

hormones, amenorrhea is often due to gluten intolerance (and

vegetarian diets are often high in gluten) as well as lack of body

fat. There might be other intolerances that cause it too. The Warrior

Diet seems to knock hormones back into a better balance too (as Chris

pointed out, and I think I'm feeling that too).

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>After years of undereating, you may find that some things don't

>digest well and you may need enzymes.

I do use enzymes, as well as probiotics.

> If you digest fats ok, then it's an easy way to get calories. My

favorite (as everyone here knows) is hash brows, fried crisp.

Sounds delicious! In fact, I just bought some grass-fed beef tallow

today- I haven't used it before.. would this be a good use for it?

Would it taste really beef-y?

> But you didn't mention WHY you want to change your diet?

When I made the appointment with the doctor, I was having some health

problems. I was still vegan at that time. I changed to a more NT

style diet, and in the 2 months before my appointment, my health

improved immensely- gained weight, much more energy, better

digestion, etc.

>As far as hormones, amenorrhea is often due to gluten intolerance

>(and vegetarian diets are often high in gluten) as well as lack of

>body fat. There might be other intolerances that cause it too. The

>Warrior Diet seems to knock hormones back into a better balance too

>(as pointed out, and I think I'm feeling that too).

The only gluten I've eaten in 2.5 years is 1 or 2 slices of spelt

sourdough bread about 1.5 months ago, after starting NT. I haven't

had any since. I didn't even eat any grains at all after being vegan

for 6 months- I ate a lot of raw foods. I feel better with properly

prepared grains, though I think my amenorrhea was more of a

weight issue (and maybe deficiencies).. though since it has been so

long it may not be corrected just from weight gain.

Thanks,

> >

> > >I recently came across The Metabolic Typing Diet and after

taking

> a

> > >test was determined by my (new) ND to be a " Classic Carbohydrate

> > >Type " . The diet plan given to me consists of: 60% carbohydrates,

> 25%

> > >protein, 15% fat. There is also a big emphasis on

> > >avoiding " high/moderate purine foods " and as a result, no meats

> other

> > >than white fish and chicken/game hen are included.

> >

> > I ABSOLUTELY would not take your food guidelines from a book,

even

> a book I really like. Every person is an individual. And, it is

hard

> to get good high carb foods that are also easy to digest, non-

> allergenic, and healthy. And your body needs can vary from day to

day

> at that. Also there is a current bias toward high-carb low-fat

diets -

> - EVERYONE I know who goes to a doc gets recommended that!

> >

> > For myself, NT recommends soaked grains and raw milk. Neither one

> like my body very much. My fat needs vary -- sometimes I crave it,

> sometimes not. Raw-er meats are great, as is fermented food (but

> there are LOTS of kinds of fermented foods). So I eat what works

for

> ME. You can start out eating something you really like, and adding

> gradually some things you SHOULD eat that aren't too disgusting to

> you. And note how your body reacts. After years of undereating, you

> may find that some things don't digest well and you may need

enzymes.

> You also may have food reactions (which can cause people to

undereat

> as they unconsciously try to avoid the allergen).

> >

> > If you digest fats ok, then it's an easy way to get calories. My

> favorite (as everyone here knows) is hash brows, fried crisp.

> >

> > But you didn't mention WHY you want to change your diet? As far

as

> hormones, amenorrhea is often due to gluten intolerance (and

> vegetarian diets are often high in gluten) as well as lack of body

> fat. There might be other intolerances that cause it too. The

Warrior

> Diet seems to knock hormones back into a better balance too (as

Chris

> pointed out, and I think I'm feeling that too).

> >

> > -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I meant homeopathic

> >> I wouldn't recommend anything _except_ that you do

> something other than rely on homeopathic remedies,

> since they are purely placebic. <<

>

> Number one, I don't think she actually meant " homoepathic. " Based

on the context, I think she was, as many do, using that term in lieu

of " herbal " or " holistic. "

>

> Number two, my dogs and cats would be very suprised to find out

that homeopathy relies solely on the placebo effect. How does that

work with them, exactly?

>

> Christie

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

I'm glad that the Metabolic Typing has been helpful for you and your

husband. Thing is, the foods I crave are not conducive to a " strong

carb type " diet I don't like many carb foods. It was easy for me

to eat a low carb diet for a long time. I tend to crave fat more than

protein or carbs.

I do eat a lot of saturated fat in the form of coconut and some raw

butter/ " ghee " . I do plan to eat more saturated fats from animal

sources, though. Eating lots of fat is definitely not tough for me...

lol I *love* coconut.. but I think that animal fats may be more

helpful in terms of my period. Dairy was easy for me.. too bad I had

problems with it. Anyway, thanks for your advice. It's easy to be

interested in nutrition when you want to avoid conventional medicine

at all costs

Is this message board addictive or what?

> <snip>

> >

> > At this point (thanks to your help), I don't see any reason to

try

> > out that diet, being that I only have one apparent health

problem,

> > which will certainly not be helped with a restricted diet. I am

> > doubtful that the diet would be helpful even if I did have other

> > health problems. I was uncertain because of my lack of knowledge

> > about purines and such. If all the populations had a high purine

> > diet, this shouldn't be a concern.

>

> I'm not responding for but thought I'd throw my 2 cents in

> here. I, too, go to Mercola (I live nearby, so it's convenient).

> I'm not a big proponent of Metabolic Typing other than I find it

> interesting that it correctly identified me and my DH. I'm a

strong

> protein type (maybe that's why chicken makes my sleepy) and he's a

> strong carb type. I guess it makes me feel better knowing that

what

> I crave also makes sense for my body. Beyond that, I don't know

what

> else you might get out of it. You really do have to figure out

what

> works for YOUR body - especially taking specific health issues into

> consideration. It takes a lot of listening to the signs/symptoms

> that occur - especially after you eat something.

>

> I've noticed that the more saturated fats I eat, the better my

> menstrual cycle is (no cramps) - seems to be beneficial to my

> hormones in some way. I don't know how this might help you, but if

> sat. fats are good for the hormones, I think upping your portions

> might be helpful. It can be tough, but I love to add butter to

> everything and I love the fat off of roasts.

>

> I'm also taking progest-e (I think this is the one Dr. Marasco

sells)

> to see if it can balance out my hormones even more. I just started

> it so I can't really say if I've noticed any positive changes.

>

> I wish you all the best. Even with your issues, at your age, it's

> impressive that you're so involved in your nutrition.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 09:03 PM 10/16/2003, you wrote:

>> If you digest fats ok, then it's an easy way to get calories. My

>favorite (as everyone here knows) is hash brows, fried crisp.

>

>Sounds delicious! In fact, I just bought some grass-fed beef tallow

>today- I haven't used it before.. would this be a good use for it?

>Would it taste really beef-y?

I dunno. Mine are so full of turmeric, cayenne, and some salt

that I can't taste it! Bacon fat is tastier but I don't have

much good bacon.

>> But you didn't mention WHY you want to change your diet?

>

>When I made the appointment with the doctor, I was having some health

>problems. I was still vegan at that time. I changed to a more NT

>style diet, and in the 2 months before my appointment, my health

>improved immensely- gained weight, much more energy, better

>digestion, etc.

Ah. Yeah, if your health improved, I'd stick with what works!

The only gluten I've eaten in 2.5 years is 1 or 2 slices of spelt

>sourdough bread about 1.5 months ago, after starting NT. I haven't

>had any since. I didn't even eat any grains at all after being vegan

>for 6 months- I ate a lot of raw foods. I feel better with properly

>prepared grains, though I think my amenorrhea was more of a

>weight issue (and maybe deficiencies).. though since it has been so

>long it may not be corrected just from weight gain.

Could be. Weight loss does cause amenorrhea. At your age

though I'd guess you'll heal ok. When you were vegan, what

did you use for protein though? My Dad was vegetarian and

never ate bread, but then I found out he was living off 'vegetarian

hot dogs' which are processed gluten. If you were only eating

natural foods then you are probably safe.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- wtsdv <liberty@...> wrote: > --- In

Homeopathy has yet to be properly or

> consistently

> demonstrated effective in its own right to justify

> its use,

> regardless of what can be added to its feeble

> theoretical

> underpinnings. So even if it were effective, it

> demonstrably

> could be to no more than an infinitessimally small

> degree

> more than a placebo.

Why can it be no more than an infinitessimally small

desgree more than a placebo? It may not have been

proven scientifically (yet) that doesn't mean though

you can that the effect HAS to be so small or

insignificant.

Jo

________________________________________________________________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

>

> Why can it be no more than an infinitessimally small

> desgree more than a placebo? It may not have been

> proven scientifically (yet) that doesn't mean though

> you can that the effect HAS to be so small or

> insignificant.

Well I was willing to drop this subject, but not unilaterally.

I state as I do because even in those cases where homeopathy

was supposedly proved to be more effective than (other) placebos,

it was only by a marginal amount. However, now that I stop to

think about it, there's a difference between there being a

_marginally_ greater of number people responding to homeopathics

than to (other) placebos, and being _marginally_ benefitted by

them if one is among those that do. If one _does_ respond to

homeopathics, then they should of course be able to expect more

than just marginal relief. A warning though, for those who are

getting relief from homeopathics, they should stop reading my

posts on the subject or they might find their effectiveness

starting to wane. :-)

[Guest guest]

> A warning though, for those who are

> getting relief from homeopathics, they should stop reading my

> posts on the subject or they might find their effectiveness

> starting to wane. :-)

Nah, I've had people pooh-pooh me for years and they just keep working

whether I believe it or not. To each his own medicine.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

>> A warning though, for those who are

getting relief from homeopathics, they should stop reading my

posts on the subject or they might find their effectiveness

starting to wane. <<

LOL, don't worry, you obviously have no idea some of the things I've heard over

the years. <G>

I mean, you should hear what the folks at the gym say when I tell them I've lost

over 60 pounds since May eating 70 percent of my calories from fat.....

Christie

[Guest guest]

Joanne,

Because it's a valuable tool in acquiring knowledge about how things work in

the natural world. Ancient people had millions of years of trial and error to

do lots of things that usually killed them. Sometimes they didn't, and

wisdom accumulated.

The scientific method can determine the efficacy of homeopathy much quicker

and more efficiently, hence it is more useful. Homeopathy is not ancient but

rather new, and the guessing game could take another million years...

Chris

In a message dated 10/18/03 5:14:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wes@...

writes:

> Since when does the " scientific method " come into it. This list comprises

> of people gathering to discuss ancient food ways. It is folly to imagine

> that hairy, paleolithinc hunter gatherers had a laboratory to study the

> effects of eating substance A or substance B, recording each reaction and

> controlling each variable. I would suggest people from ancient to

> pre-industrial times used other more intuitive and empirical ways to learn

> which foods best suited them. Often I have heard shrill calls for

> scientific proof from the occasional list member and each time I say to

> myself - WHY? What does that have to do with the price of raw eggs?

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

> >> Have you _really_ conducted double-blind studies with your dogs

> and cats, with a control group, and with someone administering

> the treatments who was unaware of which was the placebo and

> which homeopathic? <<

Since when does the " scientific method " come into it. This list comprises

of people gathering to discuss ancient food ways. It is folly to imagine

that hairy, paleolithinc hunter gatherers had a laboratory to study the

effects of eating substance A or substance B, recording each reaction and

controlling each variable. I would suggest people from ancient to

pre-industrial times used other more intuitive and empirical ways to learn

which foods best suited them. Often I have heard shrill calls for

scientific proof from the occasional list member and each time I say to

myself - WHY? What does that have to do with the price of raw eggs?

Joanne

[Guest guest]

> I mean, you should hear what the folks at the gym say when I tell them

> I've lost over 60 pounds since May eating 70 percent of my calories

> from fat.....

My mother-in-law and stepfather-in-law get fatter and fatter trying to

lose weight the " sensible " way, while and I have lost 35 and 12

pounds respectively in less than 3 months. And you should hear her

argue with me!

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

>

> Since when does the " scientific method " come into it. This

> list comprises of people gathering to discuss ancient food

> ways. It is folly to imagine that hairy, paleolithinc hunter

> gatherers had a laboratory to study the effects of eating

> substance A or substance B, recording each reaction and

> controlling each variable.

Without a scientific method, neither your nor I would know

thing one about paleolithic hunter gatherers. Nor, as Chris

already pointed out, is homeopathy a paleolithic practice.

> I would suggest people from ancient to pre-industrial times

> used other more intuitive and empirical ways to learn which

> foods best suited them.

Science is empiricism par excellent.

> Often I have heard shrill calls for scientific proof from

> the occasional list member and each time I say to myself -

> WHY? What does that have to do with the price of raw eggs?

The entire exchange took place via e-mail, thus there was

nothing " shrill " about it, and certainly nothing any more

shrill than your own responses. I also asked the first

time I joined this list what _politics_ had to do with the

list topic, but the politics never went away. Further, I

also expressed willingness to drop this topic, though not

unilaterally, but the posts kept coming. So here we are.

Why, may I ask, are you so offended by the mere suggestion

that you're no less subject to the placebo effect than any

other normal mortal?

[Guest guest]

> I don't know offhand what the amino-acid profile of either the

> yolk or the white is,...

Go to www.nutritiondata.com You can search by individual foods and

they break them down into every possible component. I believe eggs

are on page 3 of the dairy and egg search

Lauri