Re: The Anti-Fat Pill and the Bushmen

[Guest guest]

Correct--I apologize for that. I'm argueing most of this from a

hypothetical perspective as I have no clue if hoodia even exists or if

works as promised.

-

> -

>

> Well, no offense, but if you're just making an assumption, then you

> shouldn't phrase it as a declarative statement of fact.

>

> >I'm assuming that's the case.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

The food industry is going to be transformed by the upcoming petrochemical

drought whether it wants to or not, but more to the point, low-carbing is

transforming the industry (to a degree, anyway) despite the fact that the

industry doesn't want to be transformed.

>If I honestly believed you could transform the entire food industry,

>I'd definitely agree that hoodia doesn't serve much purpose. But that

>is not the case yet (for reasons you mention).

-

[Guest guest]

-

You seem to have a habit of making claims like this without offering

supporting information. On CR, I have in the past made specific

comments. Where were your retorts then?

>You need to read up on the literature. It makes you look ignorant to

>defiantly bash CR without any facts.

-

[Guest guest]

> " Cutting down calories by taking

>> a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long

>> term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person

>> can gain weight off tiny amounts of food. "

>

>You can take this pill indefinitely. I made a point about taking a

>smart pill everday, which I think is quite analogous. You're point

>would only be correct if people planned on using hoodia and then

>stopping, which would be relatively pointless.

We're probably getting two points mixed here. You talked about

CR folks, and about fat folks. Two different things. Fat folks usually

do NOT want to be on a poll forever. The pill is currently marketed

at fat folks because you can eat " 1,000 fewer calories a day " . This in

itself is pointless. Cutting out 1,000 calories doesn't help long term,

if that is all you do. Folks have been doing that for the last

40 years.

If you want to take hoodia forever for CR, I guess you could. But there is

no info on this. Most studies don't go for more than a few months.

Are the longterm studies on folks on hoodia for years?

> " It's not true though.

>> SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think most

>> snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had

>all the

>> food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer

>> perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will overeat

>> regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease,

>> the appestat SHOULD work. "

>

>You're assuming that because people are thin they are consuming

>optimal amounts of calories.

Again, this is confusing the " you should take hoodia because people are SOOO

overweight " and the CR " people should eat an optimal amount of calories " . People

in the US are horridly overweight, people in France and Japan are generally not.

Neither group is starved.

But just eating a low-cal diet does NOT necessarily mean good health. Like I

said, I did it for about a year -- I felt better in some ways, but I certainly

didn't feel as good as I do know on the WD. Low cal diets have been tried for

40 years or so, mostly with not much long-term success and often with long-term

metabolic damage. In general, low-cal diets cause weight loss in younger people,

but the more you use them, the less they work for losing weight.

But for long life, who knows? No one knows for sure what the " optimal calories "

are for humans. The folks who live to be 120 or so do not, AFAIK, report being

hungry all their lives or working on eating less. The French and Japanese do

live longer than Americans, at this point (at least the Japanese do, I'm not

sure about the French).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I'm relatively new to this board. To claim that CR is based on nothing

but faith and ignores science, is, wrong, whether or not you made

points addressing CR. I suppose you could disagree with the science,

but that's about it.

-

> -

>

> You seem to have a habit of making claims like this without offering

> supporting information. On CR, I have in the past made specific

> comments. Where were your retorts then?

>

> >You need to read up on the literature. It makes you look ignorant to

> >defiantly bash CR without any facts.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

You're right...I (and many people) will have to wait till the verdict

it truly out on this product. Unless I manage to reach the eating

'comfort zone', you, and Mike have all achieved in your own way

I'll have no qualms about using that product if it helps.

I see it as helping a lot of obese people, but as you and others point

out, there are better ways to achieve this (I wish they would happen

instead, trust me).

As for people on CR using it, I think that would definitely be

helpful. Assuming that CR and/or fasting is truly validated as a means

of lengthening lifespan then I don't see why everyone wouldn't take

this pill everyday (CR is probably too difficult for most, myself

included, atm).

-

>

> > " Cutting down calories by taking

> >> a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long

> >> term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person

> >> can gain weight off tiny amounts of food. "

> >

> >You can take this pill indefinitely. I made a point about taking a

> >smart pill everday, which I think is quite analogous. You're point

> >would only be correct if people planned on using hoodia and then

> >stopping, which would be relatively pointless.

>

> We're probably getting two points mixed here. You talked about

> CR folks, and about fat folks. Two different things. Fat folks usually

> do NOT want to be on a poll forever. The pill is currently marketed

> at fat folks because you can eat " 1,000 fewer calories a day " . This in

> itself is pointless. Cutting out 1,000 calories doesn't help long term,

> if that is all you do. Folks have been doing that for the last

> 40 years.

>

> If you want to take hoodia forever for CR, I guess you could. But

there is

> no info on this. Most studies don't go for more than a few months.

> Are the longterm studies on folks on hoodia for years?

>

>

> > " It's not true though.

> >> SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think

most

> >> snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had

> >all the

> >> food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer

> >> perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will

overeat

> >> regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease,

> >> the appestat SHOULD work. "

> >

> >You're assuming that because people are thin they are consuming

> >optimal amounts of calories.

>

> Again, this is confusing the " you should take hoodia because people

are SOOO overweight " and the CR " people should eat an optimal amount

of calories " . People in the US are horridly overweight, people in

France and Japan are generally not. Neither group is starved.

>

> But just eating a low-cal diet does NOT necessarily mean good

health. Like I said, I did it for about a year -- I felt better in

some ways, but I certainly didn't feel as good as I do know on the WD.

Low cal diets have been tried for 40 years or so, mostly with not

much long-term success and often with long-term metabolic damage. In

general, low-cal diets cause weight loss in younger people, but the

more you use them, the less they work for losing weight.

>

> But for long life, who knows? No one knows for sure what the

" optimal calories " are for humans. The folks who live to be 120 or so

do not, AFAIK, report being hungry all their lives or working on

eating less. The French and Japanese do live longer than Americans,

at this point (at least the Japanese do, I'm not sure about the French).

>

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

The " science " , as you call it, is extraordinarily preliminary. It's

extremely dangerous to generalize from other species to humans, for one,

and the phenomenon is poorly understood anyway. For example, a lot of

evidence suggests that (a) the life-extending effect is simply the result

of lowering insulin production, and ( the life-extended organisms are

merely attaining their normal lifespans, whereas their shorter-lived

laboratory counterparts are living stunted lives compared to their wild

relatives. (By lowering insulin production, BTW, I mean normalizing

it. Kibble, like the SAD, tends to cause excessive insulin

production.) The problem is that people have jumped on some extremely

sketchy evidence and announced all kinds of grandiose and unwarranted

conclusions. You don't have to rely on WAPF for a reality check,

though. Try Mercola or Red Flags.

>To claim that CR is based on nothing

>but faith and ignores science, is, wrong, whether or not you made

>points addressing CR. I suppose you could disagree with the science,

>but that's about it.

-

[Guest guest]

Somewhat along the lines of what is saying here regarding

the " science " involved in CR.

Bottom line is that NOBODY is extending their life on high levels of

cortisol and insulin.

ADEQUATE calorie consumption is MANDATORY for these two players to be

at proper levels. THIS science is WELL established.

The problem with the CR school is there is virtually ZERO research

that has been done regarding what " adequate " actually is. Not on a

species wide basis nor on an individual basis. This doesn't make the

notion of CR wrong, it simply makes its application experimental at

best. So while some calorie restriction may in fact have merit the

science is certainly somewhat soft and the science as to HOW TO APPLY

CR is softer than the doughboy's belly.

DMM

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

wrote:

> -

>

> The " science " , as you call it, is extraordinarily preliminary.

It's

> extremely dangerous to generalize from other species to humans, for

one,

> and the phenomenon is poorly understood anyway. For example, a lot

of

> evidence suggests that (a) the life-extending effect is simply the

result

> of lowering insulin production, and ( the life-extended organisms

are

> merely attaining their normal lifespans, whereas their shorter-

lived

> laboratory counterparts are living stunted lives compared to their

wild

> relatives. (By lowering insulin production, BTW, I mean

normalizing

> it. Kibble, like the SAD, tends to cause excessive insulin

> production.) The problem is that people have jumped on some

extremely

> sketchy evidence and announced all kinds of grandiose and

unwarranted

> conclusions. You don't have to rely on WAPF for a reality check,

> though. Try Mercola or Red Flags.

>

> >To claim that CR is based on nothing

> >but faith and ignores science, is, wrong, whether or not you made

> >points addressing CR. I suppose you could disagree with the

science,

> >but that's about it.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 6:51:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> As for people on CR using it, I think that would definitely be

> helpful. Assuming that CR and/or fasting is truly validated as a means

> of lengthening lifespan then I don't see why everyone wouldn't take

> this pill everyday (CR is probably too difficult for most, myself

> included, atm).

I wouldn't even consider it unless CR is shown to be a *unique* way of

lengthening life, and still probably wouldn't do it. I already believe CR

probably

does lengthen life, at least as compared to standard SAD eating. But CR and

muscle growth are completely unreconcilable, and I'm very happy with the 20

pounds I've gained over the last 9 or 10 months, and I'm very glad to see that

after a plateau, or maybe loss of fat, or whatever, I'm entering another growth

spurt and have gained a few pounds in the last few weeks.

I was so skinny before I started working out, I've been assuming that yeah, I

look big to people who've known me, but that's just compared to what I used

to look like. But the new doc at my doctor's office who I hadn't met until

yesterday said in conversation " You obviously work out, cause you've got some

muscles on you, " which made me feel good.

While I'd rather live a long life than a short one, it's more important to me

that I be happy and successful NOW, rather than still alive when all my

friends and family are dead.

To continue in the muscle-building vein, I think all of society benefits from

having good-looking people in it, and I think it makes people happy to look

at people who look good. I don't mean just muscles or slimness, but also a

positive attitude, smile, energy, dynamism. But muscles too, and other

characteristics of sexiness. I like looking at people who look good and I like

it when

people smile at me when I talk to them, etc.

I also like that it's easy for me to open the doors at school that are hard

to open for most people, I like walking up the stairs and not getting tired, I

like being able to carry a giant cooler full of milk and cream in glass

bottles and not think it's heavy, and when I get to test my theory about

squatting

helping one to have sex standing up, I'm sure I'll like, say, having sex in the

shower.

Most of this would eliminated with CR. If you have lots of muscle, you can

probably maintain it on CR if you truly have optimal nutrition, but if you

don't, you can't gain it, period. There are more important things in life than

living long (like ejaculating ;-) ), and folks who are so focused on an obscure

possibility lying some 80 years in the future need to chill out and drink some

beer. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 5:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> not to burst your bubble but you won't be gaining mass or

> strength for the next 30 years (in any healthy way). You'll slowing

> start gaining less and less and it'll eventually come to a screeching

> halt. If you're extremely lucky you'll gain for the next decade (which

> I doubt since your genetics don't appear superb--no offence of course,

> very great progress can still be achieved).

,

I'm aware that progress will slow down significantly and theoretically it

will stop. However, it hasn't yet, and the key to that has been to eat lots and

lots of food.

But there's more to power than size and there's more to physical perfection

than muscle mass as well, and attaining physical perfection is a life-long art.

If you lose your lust, you're probably doing it wrong. There are plenty of

people who've worked at it for decades and have a lot to show for it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I-

Have you read Walford? I haven't, but I feel I need to postpone

judgment until I've read his works. If you have read him, could you

give me a glimpse into why you disagree with him>

What you mention about insulin is very probable. That doesn't make CR

wrong, though. Although, personally, I'd much prefer go an a

low-insulin diet than a low calorie diet for the rest of my life

(unless hoodia works!).

Could you elaborate on part b.)? Interesting, I've often thought that

myself, ie: maybe these critters are living longer because they're

consuming less junk.

- (T)

> -

>

> The " science " , as you call it, is extraordinarily preliminary. It's

> extremely dangerous to generalize from other species to humans, for

one,

> and the phenomenon is poorly understood anyway. For example, a lot of

> evidence suggests that (a) the life-extending effect is simply the

result

> of lowering insulin production, and ( the life-extended organisms are

> merely attaining their normal lifespans, whereas their shorter-lived

> laboratory counterparts are living stunted lives compared to their wild

> relatives. (By lowering insulin production, BTW, I mean normalizing

> it. Kibble, like the SAD, tends to cause excessive insulin

> production.) The problem is that people have jumped on some extremely

> sketchy evidence and announced all kinds of grandiose and unwarranted

> conclusions. You don't have to rely on WAPF for a reality check,

> though. Try Mercola or Red Flags.

>

> >To claim that CR is based on nothing

> >but faith and ignores science, is, wrong, whether or not you made

> >points addressing CR. I suppose you could disagree with the science,

> >but that's about it.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/03 7:33:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Striving for physical perfection is equally as shallow to me as

> seeking a lengthened lifespan. Beyond a certain point it's nothing but

> obsessive narcissism (JMHO, of course).

I don't think either are shallow. Both lead to an enhanced life, the former

to a greater extent IMO. Other things that lead to an enhanced life include

love, spirituality, music, fun, intellectual pursuits, drunkenness. Some

people choose to go without one or more of these or emphasize one or more

according

to their choosing, but they all seem like worthwhile pursuits to me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

not to burst your bubble but you won't be gaining mass or

strength for the next 30 years (in any healthy way). You'll slowing

start gaining less and less and it'll eventually come to a screeching

halt. If you're extremely lucky you'll gain for the next decade (which

I doubt since your genetics don't appear superb--no offence of course,

very great progress can still be achieved).

So while you may be enthused with your lifting progress, trust me, the

lust for it tapers off, especially when gains stop or really slow down.

So, what you could do is gain mass for the next 10 years, then

maintain it on CR, there's really no contradiction there.

BTW, I do agree with your general sentiment. If I tackle calorie

restriction it's not to add empty years to my life on this planet.

It's because I love life...and I want to live more of it. If this

comes at the price of happiness in anyway, then screw it!

-

> In a message dated 10/28/03 6:51:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > As for people on CR using it, I think that would definitely be

> > helpful. Assuming that CR and/or fasting is truly validated as a means

> > of lengthening lifespan then I don't see why everyone wouldn't take

> > this pill everyday (CR is probably too difficult for most, myself

> > included, atm).

>

> I wouldn't even consider it unless CR is shown to be a *unique* way of

> lengthening life, and still probably wouldn't do it. I already

believe CR probably

> does lengthen life, at least as compared to standard SAD eating. But

CR and

> muscle growth are completely unreconcilable, and I'm very happy with

the 20

> pounds I've gained over the last 9 or 10 months, and I'm very glad

to see that

> after a plateau, or maybe loss of fat, or whatever, I'm entering

another growth

> spurt and have gained a few pounds in the last few weeks.

>

> I was so skinny before I started working out, I've been assuming

that yeah, I

> look big to people who've known me, but that's just compared to what

I used

> to look like. But the new doc at my doctor's office who I hadn't

met until

> yesterday said in conversation " You obviously work out, cause you've

got some

> muscles on you, " which made me feel good.

>

> While I'd rather live a long life than a short one, it's more

important to me

> that I be happy and successful NOW, rather than still alive when all my

> friends and family are dead.

>

> To continue in the muscle-building vein, I think all of society

benefits from

> having good-looking people in it, and I think it makes people happy

to look

> at people who look good. I don't mean just muscles or slimness, but

also a

> positive attitude, smile, energy, dynamism. But muscles too, and other

> characteristics of sexiness. I like looking at people who look good

and I like it when

> people smile at me when I talk to them, etc.

>

> I also like that it's easy for me to open the doors at school that

are hard

> to open for most people, I like walking up the stairs and not

getting tired, I

> like being able to carry a giant cooler full of milk and cream in glass

> bottles and not think it's heavy, and when I get to test my theory

about squatting

> helping one to have sex standing up, I'm sure I'll like, say, having

sex in the

> shower.

>

> Most of this would eliminated with CR. If you have lots of muscle,

you can

> probably maintain it on CR if you truly have optimal nutrition, but

if you

> don't, you can't gain it, period. There are more important things

in life than

> living long (like ejaculating ;-) ), and folks who are so focused on

an obscure

> possibility lying some 80 years in the future need to chill out and

drink some

> beer. :-)

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I for one think there's more to life than lifting

Striving for physical perfection is equally as shallow to me as

seeking a lengthened lifespan. Beyond a certain point it's nothing but

obsessive narcissism (JMHO, of course).

-

> In a message dated 10/28/03 5:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > not to burst your bubble but you won't be gaining mass or

> > strength for the next 30 years (in any healthy way). You'll slowing

> > start gaining less and less and it'll eventually come to a screeching

> > halt. If you're extremely lucky you'll gain for the next decade (which

> > I doubt since your genetics don't appear superb--no offence of course,

> > very great progress can still be achieved).

>

> ,

>

> I'm aware that progress will slow down significantly and

theoretically it

> will stop. However, it hasn't yet, and the key to that has been to

eat lots and

> lots of food.

>

> But there's more to power than size and there's more to physical

perfection

> than muscle mass as well, and attaining physical perfection is a

life-long art.

> If you lose your lust, you're probably doing it wrong. There are

plenty of

> people who've worked at it for decades and have a lot to show for it.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quoting paultheo2000 <paultheo2000@...>:

> Striving for physical perfection is equally as shallow to me as

> seeking a lengthened lifespan.

I, for one, find this position--that is, that the desire to live longer is

somehow shallow, foolish, or ignoble--thoroughly mind-boggling. Why would

you want to die at all, much less any sooner than absolutely necessary?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Quoting Berg <bberg@...>:

> Quoting paultheo2000 <paultheo2000@...>:

>

> > Striving for physical perfection is equally as shallow to me as

> > seeking a lengthened lifespan.

>

> I, for one, find this position--that is, that the desire to live longer

> is

> somehow shallow, foolish, or ignoble--thoroughly mind-boggling. Why would

> you want to die at all, much less any sooner than absolutely necessary?

That's what I get for reading the messages backwards, I guess. Still, the

sentiment that I thought was expressing is disturbingly common.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> I was so skinny before I started working out, I've been assuming that

> yeah, I look big to people who've known me, but that's just compared

> to what I used to look like. But the new doc at my doctor's office

> who I hadn't met until yesterday said in conversation " You obviously

> work out, cause you've got some muscles on you, " which made me feel

> good.

Just out of curiosity, how tall/heavy are you?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

> . . .

>

> To continue in the muscle-building vein, I think all of society

> benefits from having good-looking people in it, and I think it

> makes people happy to look at people who look good. I don't mean

> just muscles or slimness, but also a positive attitude, smile,

> energy, dynamism. But muscles too, and other characteristics of

> sexiness. I like looking at people who look good and I like it

> when people smile at me when I talk to them, etc.

Amen baby! Though again, I'm going to have to ask you to

post some pictures. Posting tantalizing descriptions like

this without pictures is like describing your donuts without

giving a recipe! Don't worry, _most_ of us looking at them

will be women. The girls on the list are just too shy to

ask! ;-)

[Guest guest]

>> To continue in the muscle-building vein, I think all of society

>> benefits from having good-looking people in it, and I think it

>> makes people happy to look at people who look good. I don't mean

>> just muscles or slimness, but also a positive attitude, smile,

>> energy, dynamism. But muscles too, and other characteristics of

>> sexiness. I like looking at people who look good and I like it

>> when people smile at me when I talk to them, etc.

This has very little to do with the current discussion, but

I'm currently at a conference. One conference room is full

of programmers. Most of them are very heavy and flabby, but

nice. The other is full of police people, who are amazingly fit

(albeit not likely NT). It is very nice to look at the police folks!

I don't know what they do to keep in shape, but it does look good.

About half are women, and you can tell they are full of muscle

and self confidence, and also basically nice.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> I, for one, find this position--that is, that the desire to live

> longer is somehow shallow, foolish, or ignoble--thoroughly mind-

> boggling. Why would you want to die at all, much less any sooner

> than absolutely necessary?

Speaking as one who hopes to live a long, healthy life, I also think

there's much to be said for not fearing or fighting death.

Death is part of life. I think living life to its fullness means

embracing it on its terms -- which includes death. It also means

embracing the curve balls life can throw you, i.e., we're not in

complete control as much as we'd like to be. (This aspect has been

more difficult for me.)

If life is lived with the constant fear or hatred of death, that

diminishes the quality of life. Constant fear, or knowledge that

you're in a losing battle (you will die), would take a lot of joy out

of life.

How one does that without a belief in God and the afterlife, I have

no idea!

For those who do believe, I read a great quote from angelo

once (and this is a *loose* paraphrase): " If I'm amazed by the

beauty of the world/life that surrounds me, how can I not trust the

Creator of that world to create something equally amazing and

beautiful for the life that comes after death? "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/2003 11:59:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Amen baby! Though again, I'm going to have to ask you to

> post some pictures. Posting tantalizing descriptions like

> this without pictures is like describing your donuts

> without

> giving a recipe! Don't worry, _most_ of us looking at them

> will be women. The girls on the list are just too shy to

> ask! ;-)

I'm not claiming to be the sexiest stud on earth by any means! That said, my

body looks considerably better and meatier than it did even 4-6 months ago, so

I'm moving closer to whatever my own potential is, and granted that is in a

comparative sense, and, moreoever, the comparison is with the twig I used to be.

Nevertheless, I'll post some pictures; however, the only e-pictures I have of

recent I'm fully clothed, though I can take one with a slim t-shirt on or

something and when I master my abs than I can do a no-shirt frontal.

Gay guys can look at me all they want. Straight ones too. I don't care. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/28/2003 10:06:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> Just out of curiosity, how tall/heavy are you?

I'm somewhere between 5'7 " and 5'8 " and I way 152.5 I weighed 134 when I

started working out, had several bouts with diet-induced and diarrhea-induced

weight loss, about 5 pounds each, and ended up at 151 a couple months ago. Then

I lost some weight which I believe was due to fat loss, since my six pack is

starting to show, and then in the last couple weeks have gained a few more

pounds up to 152.5, either because the fat loss stopped or because when I

started colostrum again it produced faster muscle gain.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Re: The Anti-Fat Pill and the Bushmen

>

>

> > I, for one, find this position--that is, that the desire to live

> > longer is somehow shallow, foolish, or ignoble--thoroughly mind-

> > boggling. Why would you want to die at all, much less any sooner

> > than absolutely necessary?

>

> Speaking as one who hopes to live a long, healthy life, I also think

> there's much to be said for not fearing or fighting death.

A hundred years ago, even fifty, that might have been sound advice.

Fighting aging and death then would have been futile. This is no longer

the case. Complete victory over all diseases, even aging, is within our

grasp, perhaps as soon as twenty or thirty years from now. It is no

longer a question of technological feasibility, but one of politics,

which is why I consider this attitude to be not only disturbing, but

dangerous. At this very moment, there are people conspiring to ensure

that every man, woman, and child on this planet dies--not right now, but

soon. I suspect that this would not be tolerated if people were aware

that they had a choice.

> If life is lived with the constant fear or hatred of death, that

> diminishes the quality of life. Constant fear, or knowledge that

> you're in a losing battle (you will die), would take a lot of joy out

> of life.

I do not fear death--I consider it an unnecessary evil, and something to

be fought as if my life depended on it. Just like taxes.

[Guest guest]

kili94 wrote -

<<How one does that without a belief in God and the afterlife, I have no idea!>>

check out Taoism

Dedy

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Could you please tell me which garden of life protocol did you follow?

I have the book " patient heal thyself " in which there are many healing

protocols, one of which is for addiction.........I have been thinking about

that one!!!!

Most of the time I eat the NT way. Then.........into binging again. I want

to get out FOREVER from this devastating loop.

Looks that you made it. Could you help me? Thank you so much.

marghe

Re: The Anti-Fat Pill and the Bushmen

Most obese people feel hungry yet clearly

> don't need any more food. I guess there is some truth to what

you're

> saying...but I've yet to discover how to figure out what exactly.

----------the reason obese people are so hungry is because they

DO need to eat more... of the healing foods in NT! Obesity is not

caused by overeating, per se. I've known people who put on

weight eating miniscule amounts of food. Their bodies are out

of whack because of SAD and the resulting hormonal problems

it brings. I always ate way more than my friends with weight

problems! (Granted, some obese people DO overeat, because

their nutrient starved bodies are insatiable.)

I certainly don't think we should just eat according to impulses,

but a healthy body eating healthy food should have healthy

cravings. I believe cravings and hunger are the bodies natural

response to a deficiency. (Thus people eating themselves to

obesity and still being hungry!)

Case in point: I used to be a binge eater. I would eat low-carb

for months, and then lose it and eat bags of candy and chips. I

have been a total sugar addict my whole life, so much so that

Iwould hide and steal candy as a kid. Since I adopted NT, and

did the Garden of Life protocol, the desire for candy has all but

disappeared. I actually looked at a bowl of candies the other day

and remembered what it was like to want them, but didn't

actually want them! This is a miracle for me! And I do eat carbs

now, but in the form of raw honey and creamcheese on a

banana fried in cococut oil. NT has actually freed me to enjoy the

occasional healthy sweet, without the attendant hypoglycemia

and onrush of cravings.

So I still believe that if you're eating a healthy NT diet, and are

having cravings and hunger, that your body wants something it's

not getting. Either more food, or you are maybe not assimilating

something you're eating due to a digestive track not completely

healed or food allergies. Even the unhealthy cravings of an

obese person are messages from the body. Even if we don't

give into the impulses, we should listen to the message of need.

Respectfully,