Re: More Hofmekler nonsense

[Guest guest]

> LOL! Oops! That's " . . . boasts Pavel as a Warrior Dieter. "

I'm not sure about that one. I said several senior KB guys I know,

not Pavel himself. I'll ask.

B.

[Guest guest]

Re: More Hofmekler nonsense

> I understand. I was bringing it up because I don't see how they

would have the expertise one way or the other. in other words, I don't

think that by itself this is particularly damning of the Warrior diet

(which, personally, sounds like a fad diet that holds no interest for

me anyway).

" Gene,

Well, these guys--and girls--are lifestyle athletes. So they do read

all the books and check out all the supplements and even if they're

off on some things, they do take the nutrition/diet aspects very

seriously.

B. "

I'm not saying that they don't take nutrition seriously. But I used to read,

for instance, the DD nutrition forum, and I didn't think that there was any

great insight into nutrition/health. But some of that was due to

jerks/bullies like Garm, and some other people there. But the emphasis with

all these people does seem to be, what will give me the best athletic

performance, rather than, what will give me the best health, and let my

athletic performance come out of that. And I think that this is a very

different way of looking at things. I just can't imagine that it is really

good for you, in the long term, to take tons of supplements, for instance,

like Steve Maxwell does, even though any particular one may (or may not)

have an effect that may be good for one focused area, or even overall.

But, I should confess that I am a bit biased against the DD thing. I don't

post there anymore, and only read it occasionally. But it is a very

militaristic and patriotic (in the shallow, knee jerk, bad kind of way)

list, and used to be ruled by neanderthals like Andy70 (or whatever his name

is now), Jack whatever, and Garm. Pavel plays into this atmosphere heartily.

When I criticised a militaristic post by Pavel a couple of years ago, I was

absolutely dragged through the mud and ridiculed. I actually had the

unmitigated gall to post a couple of times and question the bloodthirsty,

militaristic sentiments being voiced there, and, really, not one single

person (other than a couple of very meek lurkers) ever came to my defense at

all.

I really, really, don't like the Dragondoor schtick, and I think that Pavel

is very responsible for creating it. However, I do think that kettlebells

are a very valuable tool.

[Guest guest]

> I'm not saying that they don't take nutrition seriously. But I used

to read,

> for instance, the DD nutrition forum, and I didn't think that there

was any

> great insight into nutrition/health. But some of that was due to

> jerks/bullies like Garm, and some other people there. But the

emphasis with

> all these people does seem to be, what will give me the best athletic

> performance, rather than, what will give me the best health, and let my

> athletic performance come out of that. And I think that this is a very

> different way of looking at things. I just can't imagine that it is

really

> good for you, in the long term, to take tons of supplements, for

instance,

> like Steve Maxwell does, even though any particular one may (or may not)

> have an effect that may be good for one focused area, or even overall.

>

> But, I should confess that I am a bit biased against the DD thing. I

don't

> post there anymore, and only read it occasionally. But it is a very

> militaristic and patriotic (in the shallow, knee jerk, bad kind of way)

> list, and used to be ruled by neanderthals like Andy70 (or whatever

his name

> is now), Jack whatever, and Garm. Pavel plays into this atmosphere

heartily.

> When I criticised a militaristic post by Pavel a couple of years

ago, I was

> absolutely dragged through the mud and ridiculed. I actually had the

> unmitigated gall to post a couple of times and question the

bloodthirsty,

> militaristic sentiments being voiced there, and, really, not one single

> person (other than a couple of very meek lurkers) ever came to my

defense at

> all.

>

> I really, really, don't like the Dragondoor schtick, and I think

that Pavel

> is very responsible for creating it. However, I do think that

kettlebells

> are a very valuable tool.

Gene,

That's too bad about your experience on the DD forum, because they

lost out for sure when you left. I have only read it sporadically in

the last year, so I don't know the overall tone. It seems quite

incoherant between n00bs and people with wildly divergent maps for

success, and levels of aggression--from all over the world with

variable abilities in English--whereas the folks at NN are at least in

agreement re: whole foods, if different schedules of feeding.

I have read some good posts there enough times to make me come back

more often lately--maybe things have improved since you were there?

There are a number of people posting to eat butter/eggs/meats and make

things from scratch. I just picked up a link to an interview with

Greg Ellis this morning:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler11.htm

And does Steve Maxwell take so many supps? He seemed very laissez

faire on the subject last Sunday--certainly gave me the impression

that he takes far less than the average person on NN, for example.

Says he just picks up what he needs at GNC of all places. He may be

lying, though he seemed real. He was emphatic about meat, egg yolks

and fat with the students.

I haven't seen Pavel being " militaristic " on the forum, but, like I

said, I haven't read it so much and he's probably busier now with

other projects andnot much time to post there. I don't doubt he tries

to create competition or whatever in the interest of building the

persona and driving sales, and perhaps people take him too seriously

and imitate him. When he's not " on " , he is so not like that, it

appears to me a complete alter ego used to promote the branding. I

don't know what he does in his management meetings or anything, but he

is absolutely gracious and modest in person.

If I saw you posted there and were getting a bad time--I would stick

up for you. What a bunch of hamheads.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/21/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> But the emphasis with

> all these people does seem to be, what will give me the best athletic

> performance, rather than, what will give me the best health, and let my

> athletic performance come out of that. And I think that this is a very

> different way of looking at things.

I agree. I wonder how many people's digestive systems can actually

tolerate the amount of food it takes for major muscle growth. My

point of view might be biased because my digestive system was already

screwed up before undertaking muscle-building, but I think I really

did damage by the sheer quantity of food I was overpowering my system

with.

If you're going to eat for growth, and going to expect to continually

increase your food another step beyond what your body is designed to

handle, it seems to me that your intestinal villi and microvilli are

going to need to increase their surface area proportionally in order

to be able to handle this quantity of food. And your pancrease and

liver and adrenals are going to have to work harder to make more

enzymes, bile, HCl, bicarbonate, etc. I don't think nourishing all

these different kinds of growth and output increases all require the

same thing. The diet that might be best for the fastest muscle growth

might produce little growth in the intestinal villi, or be the *least*

likely diet to support increased glandular output. In that case your

eventually going to burnout all of those systems.

I suspect that someone who ate in the way that was easiest on their

digestive system, and designed to best support the growth,

replenishment, and increased output of all the digestive/glandular

systems mentioned above (and whatever other ones are required), would

experience and much slower growth curve in the beginning and even

intermediate term. But over the long-haul, they could go most of

their life without burning out, whereas the one who maximizes

short-term gains will probably burn out in a matter of years.

> But, I should confess that I am a bit biased against the DD thing. I don't

> post there anymore, and only read it occasionally. But it is a very

> militaristic and patriotic (in the shallow, knee jerk, bad kind of way)

> list, and used to be ruled by neanderthals like Andy70 (or whatever his

> name

> is now), Jack whatever, and Garm. Pavel plays into this atmosphere

> heartily.

Do you think he " plays into it " or actually believes it?

Blood-thirsty patriotic ferver is not uncommon, and Pavel does do

training for the military so is probably wrapped up in that type of

atmosphere often, no?

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > I'm not saying that they don't take nutrition seriously. But I used

> to read,

> > for instance, the DD nutrition forum, and I didn't think that there

> was any

> > great insight into nutrition/health. But some of that was due to

> > jerks/bullies like Garm, and some other people there. But the

> emphasis with

> > all these people does seem to be, what will give me the best athletic

> > performance, rather than, what will give me the best health, and let my

> > athletic performance come out of that. And I think that this is a very

> > different way of looking at things. I just can't imagine that it is

> really

> > good for you, in the long term, to take tons of supplements, for

> instance,

> > like Steve Maxwell does, even though any particular one may (or may not)

> > have an effect that may be good for one focused area, or even overall.

> >

> > But, I should confess that I am a bit biased against the DD thing. I

> don't

> > post there anymore, and only read it occasionally. But it is a very

> > militaristic and patriotic (in the shallow, knee jerk, bad kind of way)

> > list, and used to be ruled by neanderthals like Andy70 (or whatever

> his name

> > is now), Jack whatever, and Garm. Pavel plays into this atmosphere

> heartily.

> > When I criticised a militaristic post by Pavel a couple of years

> ago, I was

> > absolutely dragged through the mud and ridiculed. I actually had the

> > unmitigated gall to post a couple of times and question the

> bloodthirsty,

> > militaristic sentiments being voiced there, and, really, not one single

> > person (other than a couple of very meek lurkers) ever came to my

> defense at

> > all.

> >

> > I really, really, don't like the Dragondoor schtick, and I think

> that Pavel

> > is very responsible for creating it. However, I do think that

> kettlebells

> > are a very valuable tool.

>

> Gene,

> That's too bad about your experience on the DD forum, because they

> lost out for sure when you left. I have only read it sporadically in

> the last year, so I don't know the overall tone. It seems quite

> incoherant between n00bs and people with wildly divergent maps for

> success, and levels of aggression--from all over the world with

> variable abilities in English--whereas the folks at NN are at least in

> agreement re: whole foods, if different schedules of feeding.

>

> I have read some good posts there enough times to make me come back

> more often lately--maybe things have improved since you were there?

> There are a number of people posting to eat butter/eggs/meats and make

> things from scratch. I just picked up a link to an interview with

> Greg Ellis this morning:

Greg Ellis. He's definitely into the low carb thing, and is one of the world's

great egotists. While admittedly, I haven't studied Atkins, I found that Ellis

seemed to greatly overestimate the difference between his diet theories and

Atkins' theories. Ellis, btw, argues strenuously that the only thing that

matters is calories in/calories out, which differs with the orthodoxy on this

list. Ellis' book is dedicated to himself, basically. I can't take him seriously

because the egotism is just so much a part of his work.

He also doesn't think much of kettlebells, and argues for more bodybuilding

style workouts.

>

> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler11.htm

>

> And does Steve Maxwell take so many supps? He seemed very laissez

> faire on the subject last Sunday--certainly gave me the impression

> that he takes far less than the average person on NN, for example.

> Says he just picks up what he needs at GNC of all places. He may be

> lying, though he seemed real. He was emphatic about meat, egg yolks

> and fat with the students.

>

There were posts on DD a couple of years ago where he even listed what he takes.

A huge amount, in my opinion. Perhaps he's changed his tune. I also recall that

he mentioned other sources than GNC.

> I haven't seen Pavel being " militaristic " on the forum, but, like I

> said, I haven't read it so much and he's probably busier now with

> other projects andnot much time to post there. I don't doubt he tries

> to create competition or whatever in the interest of building the

> persona and driving sales, and perhaps people take him too seriously

> and imitate him. When he's not " on " , he is so not like that, it

> appears to me a complete alter ego used to promote the branding. I

> don't know what he does in his management meetings or anything, but he

> is absolutely gracious and modest in person.

>

That might be, but (and I don't remember whether this was pre or post 9/11, as

if that really matters) I remember this absolutely offensive (in my opinion)

pro-U.S. reactionary thing by some general or something that he posted to DD. It

was this that I objected to, and was viciously shot down for. And while, in

person, he may be different, I think that he is responsible for what he promotes

and how he promotes it.

> If I saw you posted there and were getting a bad time--I would stick

> up for you. What a bunch of hamheads.

> B.

>

Well, I do think that some of them are gone. But I think that that Jack Reape

(sp?) guy is still there.

[Guest guest]

> On 9/21/05, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > But the emphasis with

> > all these people does seem to be, what will give me the best athletic

> > performance, rather than, what will give me the best health, and let my

> > athletic performance come out of that. And I think that this is a very

> > different way of looking at things.

>

> I agree. I wonder how many people's digestive systems can actually

> tolerate the amount of food it takes for major muscle growth. My

> point of view might be biased because my digestive system was already

> screwed up before undertaking muscle-building, but I think I really

> did damage by the sheer quantity of food I was overpowering my system

> with.

>

> If you're going to eat for growth, and going to expect to continually

> increase your food another step beyond what your body is designed to

> handle, it seems to me that your intestinal villi and microvilli are

> going to need to increase their surface area proportionally in order

> to be able to handle this quantity of food. And your pancrease and

> liver and adrenals are going to have to work harder to make more

> enzymes, bile, HCl, bicarbonate, etc. I don't think nourishing all

> these different kinds of growth and output increases all require the

> same thing. The diet that might be best for the fastest muscle growth

> might produce little growth in the intestinal villi, or be the *least*

> likely diet to support increased glandular output. In that case your

> eventually going to burnout all of those systems.

>

> I suspect that someone who ate in the way that was easiest on their

> digestive system, and designed to best support the growth,

> replenishment, and increased output of all the digestive/glandular

> systems mentioned above (and whatever other ones are required), would

> experience and much slower growth curve in the beginning and even

> intermediate term. But over the long-haul, they could go most of

> their life without burning out, whereas the one who maximizes

> short-term gains will probably burn out in a matter of years.

>

>

> > But, I should confess that I am a bit biased against the DD thing. I don't

> > post there anymore, and only read it occasionally. But it is a very

> > militaristic and patriotic (in the shallow, knee jerk, bad kind of way)

> > list, and used to be ruled by neanderthals like Andy70 (or whatever his

> > name

> > is now), Jack whatever, and Garm. Pavel plays into this atmosphere

> > heartily.

>

> Do you think he " plays into it " or actually believes it?

> Blood-thirsty patriotic ferver is not uncommon, and Pavel does do

> training for the military so is probably wrapped up in that type of

> atmosphere often, no?

>

> Chris

What is belief? Is it simply an inclination to answer a certain way when you're

asked a question?

Which is worse - 'playing into' something that is destructive, even though, in

some way of thinking about belief, you don't believe it, or being sincere?

I choose not to differentiate. I do not like the atmosphere that he promotes. He

does it perhaps to make money, but lots of people corrupt their values to make

money, and ultimately I don't think that you can discern exactly what their

beliefs are except by their actions.

[Guest guest]

>

> Do you think he " plays into it " or actually believes it?

> Blood-thirsty patriotic ferver is not uncommon, and Pavel does do

> training for the military so is probably wrapped up in that type of

> atmosphere often, no?

>

> Chris

I read DD sometimes too. I think the militaristic types are attracted

by the basic premise as I see it from Pavel, of, " all armor, all the

time. " Stiffen up, add strength, get tough, do it again.

Me I prefer the RMAX (a competitor) style of, appropriate tension at

appropriate times. For that you need to study both poles - when is

high tension high armor good, and when is high relaxation/recovery

good. There's a bunch of stuff in the RMAX forum about the strengths

and weaknesses of the all-armor approach for LEO and military types

too.

Connie

[Guest guest]

,

> I'm not sure about Pavel; I'll ask. That man glows. I wonder if

> it's from old-country nutrition.

Betcha it's energy. Would be cool if it was food, too.

You've managed to connect yourself to some very competent people.

Excellent!

Ron

[Guest guest]

> His tongue is a very healthy pink (and doesn't yet show signs of B-12

> deficiency, now that I think of it, so maybe there goes that theory)

> but a tongue like that and high enzyme activity is to be expected in

> someone with his level of ambition. Someone like that can eat a lot of

> crap and burn it off.

Aaacckk.

Energy trumps nutrition.

Ron

[Guest guest]

,

> Yeah, it was mentioned not to load it, just add some in. I dislike

> supplements, but I might be just vain enough to try it. Ron? Gene?

> Any opinion?

Taking creatine makes no sense unless there is a health benefit. Getting a

little additional pump or making yourself a little stronger doesn't seem to

be worth the risk of taking something that is not a food. To me, at least.

Perhaps if you are competing. Why take it otherwise? Just doesn't compute.

And that was true even back in my " must gain mass at all costs " days. Back

then it was just me, heavy weight and chicken breast.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

> > His tongue is a very healthy pink (and doesn't yet show signs of B-12

> > deficiency, now that I think of it, so maybe there goes that theory)

> > but a tongue like that and high enzyme activity is to be expected in

> > someone with his level of ambition. Someone like that can eat a lot of

> > crap and burn it off.

>

>Aaacckk.

>

>Energy trumps nutrition.

How do you know he's doing anything with " energy " ? And what will your

explanation be when the inevitable catches up with him?

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> > > His tongue is a very healthy pink (and doesn't yet show

> signs of B-12

> > > deficiency, now that I think of it, so maybe there goes

> that theory)

> > > but a tongue like that and high enzyme activity is to be

> expected in

> > > someone with his level of ambition. Someone like that can

> eat a lot of

> > > crap and burn it off.

> >

> >Aaacckk.

> >

> >Energy trumps nutrition.

>

> How do you know he's doing anything with " energy " ? And what

> will your

> explanation be when the inevitable catches up with him?

He's creating his life with his thoughts. He runs his energy with his

ambition as calls it. This seems to very common among successful

people -- they eat poorly and yet go on for years with few health problems.

The rest of us walk past a Twinkie and end up in bed for a couple of days.

And the inevitable will catch up with him eventually. In fact, it probably

already has to some degree in Mike's case. I'm sure his diet has caused his

autoimmune dysfunction. And yet he goes on feeling strong, his body grows

very, very well, he's creating the world that he wants and his life surely

is much more accomplished than that of most other people I know.

I think that thoughts drive energy and energy runs the body. Nutrition is

important but secondary in the short term. The question then becomes how

long is the short term? It's been around 30 very vigorous years for Mike I

think.

Ron

[Guest guest]

On 9/21/05, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> I read DD sometimes too. I think the militaristic types are attracted

> by the basic premise as I see it from Pavel, of, " all armor, all the

> time. " Stiffen up, add strength, get tough, do it again.

>

> Me I prefer the RMAX (a competitor) style of, appropriate tension at

> appropriate times. For that you need to study both poles - when is

> high tension high armor good, and when is high relaxation/recovery

> good. There's a bunch of stuff in the RMAX forum about the strengths

> and weaknesses of the all-armor approach for LEO and military types

> too.

Your reading of Pavel on this is totally contrary to mine. I'm pretty

sure I've read articles in the DD newsletter about the importance of

relaxation in sports, and about how to maximize relaxation inbetween

tension, and in fact I know I have simply because until you mentioned

it DD is the only place I've encountered this concept. And what of

all Pavel's books on stretching, like _Relax Into Stretch_?

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/21/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

>Betcha it's energy. Would be cool if it was food, too.

> Aaacckk.

> Energy trumps nutrition.

Ron,

These statements are all nonsense to me. First, there's no evidence

whatsoever from the anecdotes provided that there is something

trumping nutrition; second, your concept of " energy " is too vaguely

defined to assume it excludes food or is independent of food.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/21/05, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> > Your reading of Pavel on this is totally contrary to mine. I'm pretty

> > sure I've read articles in the DD newsletter about the importance of

> > relaxation in sports, and about how to maximize relaxation inbetween

> > tension, and in fact I know I have simply because until you mentioned

> > it DD is the only place I've encountered this concept. And what of

> > all Pavel's books on stretching, like _Relax Into Stretch_?

>

> I was speaking more of the high tension techniques at a micro level

> within an exercise, for example bracing and power breathing for

> kettlebell snatches. Not about whole different sessions of work versus

> sessions of stretching.

Oh I know, forgive me for mentioning two different things. Maybe it's

just that I don't know the method you're speaking of, but I'm saying

that the DD newsletter-- don't know if it was Pavel or not-- is where

I've encountered the notion that one must know how to fully relax as

well as utilize tension in a given exercise.

Chris

-

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> Oh I know, forgive me for mentioning two different things. Maybe

it's

> just that I don't know the method you're speaking of, but I'm saying

> that the DD newsletter-- don't know if it was Pavel or not-- is where

> I've encountered the notion that one must know how to fully relax as

> well as utilize tension in a given exercise.

>

> Chris

yes I know what you mean about that notion. Where were our PE teachers

when I really wanted to learn how the body works? The two methods are

about holding tension with respect to breathing and if you search DD

on " power breathing " and " performance breathing " sometimes they get

into it. Same thing on the RMAX forum from the opposite point of view.

It's pretty interesting I think.

connie

[Guest guest]

Hi

> >Betcha it's energy. Would be cool if it was food, too.

>

> > Aaacckk.

>

> > Energy trumps nutrition.

>

> Ron,

>

> These statements are all nonsense to me.

Yes. I understand. It's not part of your model of the world. Nor was it

mine as recently as 3 years ago. But, truth be told, when I look back I

already had some unconscious awareness of it.

> First, there's no evidence

> whatsoever from the anecdotes provided that there is something

> trumping nutrition;

No time for a big debate but simply if you look at Mike Mahler as one

example he's doing just about everything wrong that you can do according to

your ideas about how to eat. He's been doing those wrong things for at

least 12 years, more than long enough for the terrible effects of his diet

plan to begin to show up if you are correct. The only thing that we can see

that is a health problem for him is his skin discoloration. On the other

hand his body packs on muscle and strength consistently beyond the range of

what most other humans experience. He has tremendous energy of the

conventional kind. We have some feedback that his tongue looks very healthy

-- a concept you have accepted as having some validity based on your past

comments to this list. And said that bloodwork recently showed all

of his hormone levels to be good. How many people here on this list can say

the same?

So how do you explain this inconsistency? If we use Occam it may be that

the simplest model is that he " thinks " himself healthy by directing his

energy towards what he wants rather than directing it to avoidance of what

he doesn't want. So you have " energy " and thoughts being more important

than nutrition. Of course it's not entirely that simple as nutrition plays

some role and he's obviously not eating poison -- although by your standards

he was for many years with his consumption of soy.

I have no delusions that I'm right. But this pattern seems to be pretty

consistent. Find successful people and you see the same behavior. Why is

that?

Final Mike Mahler note -- I just got the below text in his newsletter this

morning. How many of us can say the same? How many of us have the kind of

available vitality to live the way he is living? Why not?

" My friend and top strength coach Steve Maxwell and I recently did a great

seminar this past weekend in Marina Del Rey. We both had a lot of fun and

I had several moments in which I smiled to myself as it is still hard for

me to believe sometimes that I get paid to do what I do. I do not just get

by either, I make a great living and recently passed what I used to make

when I was a Business Development manager in the dotcom world. The best

part about what I do is that I feel like I am making a positive difference

in the lives of others every day. "

> second, your concept of " energy " is too vaguely

> defined to assume it excludes food or is independent of food.

Yes it is. My thoughts are not fully formed on the subject yet. And I

don't think that it is completely independent of food but that it is

probably more important than food if you can find the way in to access it.

That's the hard, unreliable part -- what techniques and what teachers enable

you to make the kinds of changes you need to make to allow your energy to

clean you up? And, if you choose to eat properly you are only adding to

your capabilities, so why not do that anyway?

Off to the airport.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>So how do you explain this inconsistency? If we use Occam it may be that

>the simplest model is that he " thinks " himself healthy by directing his

>energy towards what he wants rather than directing it to avoidance of what

>he doesn't want.

Your interpretation of Occam would hold that the entire universe is a

dream, or something like that.

The fact is that the body is an enormously complex system, with tens or

hundreds of thousands or even millions of discrete elements. (Obviously

the number depends partially on how granular your definition of an element

is, but I don't want to get into that.) And you're completely ignoring the

ancestor factor. What his parents ate and even what his grandparents ate,

and how he and his parents and grandparents (mainly the women) were fed as

infants and tots has an ENORMOUS impact on his constitution. People who

start out with a fantastic foundation can abuse their bodies much more and

for much longer than people who start out with much less to begin with.

Look at NAPD. Plenty of healthy natives could eat the worst kind of crap

for quite awhile without obvious symptoms. Their children, though,

couldn't do nearly as well. And so on down the line.

The fact is that we know very little about what went into making Mike

Mahler. And since we _do_ know that physiological states have a lot to do

with drive and energy and motivation, and that changes thereto affect all

of them, there's no reason to invent a magical force to explain it.

Not that I'm denying the power of positive thinking, or whatever you want

to call it, but here's my metaphor for the roles " energy " (i.e. thought

etc.) and nutrition play: when you're constructing a house, food is the

material and " energy " is the skill with which you use it. A really skilled

contractor/architect/craftsman can get much more out of crappy materials

than Joe Schmo, but all the skill in the world isn't going to turn

crumbling balsa wood into a durable house -- it'll just postpone the

inevitable to some degree.

And as far as all these people who eat crap and still work around the clock

due to their incredible drive, surely you've come across people who used to

do this and then burned out, generally suddenly, sometimes more

gradually. They were burning the candle at both ends, redlining their

engines -- whatever metaphor you'd like. A common explanation is that they

maxxed out their adrenals for years and then burned them out. Many (though

far from all) people are physically capable of making that sort of

compromise, though I wouldn't say it's generally a voluntary matter. That

doesn't mean that they're magically creating their own reality by the power

of thought alone. Reality is always there, and their compromises will come

back to bite them.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/22/05, RBJR <rbjr@...> wrote:

> Hi

>

> > >Betcha it's energy. Would be cool if it was food, too.

> >

> > > Aaacckk.

> >

> > > Energy trumps nutrition.

> >

> > Ron,

> >

> > These statements are all nonsense to me.

>

> Yes. I understand. It's not part of your model of the world. Nor was it

> mine as recently as 3 years ago. But, truth be told, when I look back I

> already had some unconscious awareness of it.

That's not quite it. What seems like nonsense is that you are taking

a very vaguely defined-- whether you accept the model or not-- model

and assuming things about it, such as that it is divorced from food,

and secondly that you are assuming that this energy is " trumping "

nutrition in an example that doesn't warrant ANY particular conclusion

about what is trumping what.

[snip]

> So how do you explain this inconsistency? If we use Occam it may be that

> the simplest model is that he " thinks " himself healthy by directing his

> energy towards what he wants rather than directing it to avoidance of what

> he doesn't want. So you have " energy " and thoughts being more important

> than nutrition. Of course it's not entirely that simple as nutrition plays

> some role and he's obviously not eating poison -- although by your

> standards he was for many years with his consumption of soy.

I strongly object to your teasing out " thoughts " as an independent and

original source of energetic effects. My experience and that of many

others is that thoughts are largely caused by or at least integrated

into nutrition. By eating well when I was trying to fix my teeth,

somehow my phobias, obsessions, compulsions, and the general content

of my anxiety just disappeared. I tried for years to approach this

from various cognitive, spiritual, etc approaches, not only with no

success but with a dramatic worsening.

So a model that more accurately reflects the sum of experiences would

be that thoughts and food are both inputs into this energetic system,

or, better, that they are not independent inputs but there is some

sort of complex circular feed.

I suppose if you wanted to get creative you could posit some

collective " thought energy " of the society that was an input into the

soil-- since paradigms about the purpose of food, the purpose of life,

our relationship with the environment, our place in the universe, etc,

all impact how we treat our soil-- and so on, which then determines

the food input, which then impacts the individual " thought energy. "

You could extend this further to look at how food impacts societal

structure, which ultimately is an input into the previously mentioned

soil-impacting paradigms. For example, agriculture and the long-terms

storage of food allows for the devleopment of stratified societies,

different types of war, etc.

> I have no delusions that I'm right. But this pattern seems to be pretty

> consistent. Find successful people and you see the same behavior. Why is

> that?

I don't know exactly, but you are jumping to conclusions with your

energy model, aside from offering a model that is flawed in my view

for the reasons stated above.

The fact that Mike Mahler is a vegetarian for 12 years is less

relevant than the fact of his age upon embarking on his vegetarian

oddysey. The Price paradigm puts special emphasis on pre-natal, in

utero, and developmental stages as the most important of all. So to

say that something is trumping nutrition from a WAP perspective, one

has to look at Mike Mahlers diet as a child and infant, and the health

of his parents, how far he was spaced from a previous birthing if

there was one, and the diet of his parents preceding his birth. These

are all considered much more relevant from the WAP paradigm than his

diet as an adult.

Same with T. Colin . Claims he's healthier than ever as a

vegan. But he went vegan in his 40s or around there, and he grew up

on a farm and milked cows himself through his college years. His son

looks ok, but was in late childhood or maybe teens before they went

vegan.

[snip]

> > second, your concept of " energy " is too vaguely

> > defined to assume it excludes food or is independent of food.

>

> Yes it is. My thoughts are not fully formed on the subject yet. And I

> don't think that it is completely independent of food but that it is

> probably more important than food if you can find the way in to access it.

> That's the hard, unreliable part -- what techniques and what teachers

> enable you to make the kinds of changes you need to make to allow your energy

> to clean you up? And, if you choose to eat properly you are only adding to

> your capabilities, so why not do that anyway?

Well I think you're integrating a bias into your analysis when you do

not account for the expected variation in responses to nutrition based

on different nutrient requirements, metabolisms, genetic tendencies,

and different overall constitutions determined by early nutrition and

even pre-natal nutrition.

I would also advocate, as noted above, that food be more prominently

integrated into this " energy " concept. I would also advocate

attempting to reconciling it to what we can observe rather than making

the assumption that it is unobservable and therefore independent of

everything else we know.

> Off to the airport.

Have fun.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I strongly object to your teasing out " thoughts " as an independent and

>original source of energetic effects. My experience and that of many

>others is that thoughts are largely caused by or at least integrated

>into nutrition. By eating well when I was trying to fix my teeth,

>somehow my phobias, obsessions, compulsions, and the general content

>of my anxiety just disappeared. I tried for years to approach this

>from various cognitive, spiritual, etc approaches, not only with no

>success but with a dramatic worsening.

I didn't try so many cognitive, spiritual, " energetic " and whatnot

approaches, but my experience resembles yours. I used to have anxiety

problems and I fell asleep all the time. Adding digestive supplements and

changing my diet eliminated the anxiety problems entirely and made a huge

dent in my fatigue.

>The Price paradigm puts special emphasis on pre-natal, in

>utero, and developmental stages as the most important of all. So to

>say that something is trumping nutrition from a WAP perspective, one

>has to look at Mike Mahlers diet as a child and infant, and the health

>of his parents, how far he was spaced from a previous birthing if

>there was one, and the diet of his parents preceding his birth. These

>are all considered much more relevant from the WAP paradigm than his

>diet as an adult.

Exactly.

-