Molliegee's Page
molliegee's Groups
-
Losing Weight/Healing Illness with Raw Food!
(116 members)
-
80/10/10
(201 members)
-
Raw Humour
(293 members)
-
RAW TESTIMONIES
(194 members)
-
Raw Writers
(50 members)
molliegee's discussions
Master Cleanser Support
Added a reply Jun 30
Foods I don't see on the raw list often-- just curious
Added a reply Jun 30
100% V. 99%
5 Replies
Started this discussion. Last reply by Emma May 23.
Latest Activity
Jun 15
May 25
May 24
May 24
May 23
May 23
Profile
- About Me:
- Will share later.
- What type of friends are you looking to make here?
- Not sure.
- Relationship Status:
- Married
- Favorite Raw Food or Dish:
- Canteloupe, Peaches, Raspberries
- Interests (outside of Raw Food):
- Reading, Studying, Writing, Cooking, T.V.!
- Favorite Books:
- Anything by Hemingway or Camus
- Favorite Quote:
- "If a man has reported to you that a certain person speaks ill off you, do not make any defense, but reply: The man did not know the rest of my faults, for he would not have mentioned these only." (Epictetus, The Enchiridion)
AD
Latest Activity
51 seconds ago 
4 minutes ago 
30 minutes ago 
37 minutes ago 
40 minutes ago 
1 hour ago 
1 hour ago
1 hour ago 
1 hour ago 
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
1 hour ago Community by:
© 2008 Created by Dhrumil
Comment Wall (10 comments)
You need to be a member of Give it to me Raw to add comments!
Join this network
_____
As a general rule, diagnoses misdirect our attention, prompting us to take our focus away from that which serves us best.
----------------------
From: Erin
Sent: Tue Jul 3, 2007 3:46 am
Nevertheless, when people have either tested or found through nutrition analysis that their diet is low in a certain nutrient about which we do have knowledge, it is advisable to learn which foods might help. You'll notice I made lists of vegetables, so I'm not suggesting anything unhealthy to obtain them.
______
Erin,
I understand this idea. I recognize that this idea is widely held. And if one is going to engage in treatment based upon some diagnosis, then far better to use foods than anything else.
My issue with this approach lies not in the details, but in the whole way of thinking. Here are a few notes as to why:
1. The most healthful way to eat is by consuming whole foods. Whole foods contain thousands ... tens of thousands ... of nutrients. It is quite impossible to eat for individual nutrients. Whenever we try to use our conscious mind to distort our intake of one nutrient, we distort our intake of untold other nutrients at the same time.
2. All "nutrition analysis" is predicated upon norms determined through studies on sick people. Modern medicine has the wrong norms for the most basic of measures ... body temperature, pulse/heart rate, blood pressure, respiration ... why would we pay much attention to their norms for anything else?
3. If a person is genuinely deficient in one nutrient, then that person is concurrently deficient in other nutrients ... probably thousands of nutrients. The idea that we can be deficient in one nutrient arises from the limited nature of testing technology and economics. It has nothing to do with, and is counterproductive to, health. And any solution arising from a singular focus upon one nutrient can only alleviate symptoms, at the very best. More likely, that solution will merely replace one imbalance with another.
4. If a person is feeling symptoms, the understanding of the symptoms almost never lies in any diagnostic process. I have worked with many, many people, and when they finish telling me about their "diagnoses", we usually move on and never refer to that information again. (There are a few exceptions.) A study was done a number of years ago, looking for correlations that would explain why different doctors arrived at the diagnoses they chose. The #1 correlation was the medical school they attended. In other words, what they were diagnosing was primarily a product of what they had studied and had relatively little to do with anything about their patients!!!
Where does this lead us? ... Away from the entire world of diagnosis. When we go shopping for diagnoses ("go to the doctor"), we relinquish--at least to a degree--responsibility for our own well-being and self-care. Many people claim to listen to their bodies, but then when their symptoms become even mildly uncomfortable, they abandon all such listening and run to a priest (practitioner). This process is absolutely no different than running to a medicine man ... and at least the medicine man is likely to do less harm.
The real solution lies in coming face to face with ourselves. We must learn to notice, and then to comprehend, the messages our subconscious mind sends almost continually to inform our conscious awareness. And almost all attempts to substitute the process of diagnosis in place of the process of self-awareness lead us away from ourselves, back into our self-defeating habits, and away from healthful living.
Stop going to practitioners for explanations of physical conditions. They will almost invariably "diagnose" and "treat" you based upon what they have learned, not based upon you. IF they thought and practiced from a genuinely holistic place, then this might work well, at least some of the time. But almost invariably, even those who claim to be "holistic practitioners" cannot even correctly define the word. (The term arises in physics, and it has a meaning.)
Please see also an extra post following this one, a repost of PathOfHealth post #6736, entitled "Shopping for diagnoses, medical model".
Best,
Elchanan
________
Post# 6736:
Greetings everyone,
Many of us have been taught, from the earliest age, that whenever we experience a challenging symptom, we "should" visit a doctor. In effect, we have been taught to go shopping for a diagnosis, hoping somehow to benefit from such a label.
Medical-model thinking in general, and our American "health care" system in particular, train us all to seek out a diagnosis whenever we experience something "wrong". We are taught that obtaining a diagnosis is far preferable to letting Nature run its course.
In America, seeking a diagnosis has been elevated to a full-blown shopping experience. We can buy second and even third "opinions", we can visit "specialists", we can choose from an almost endless array of "tests". We can seek out "complementary" and "alternative" and "holistic" practitioners, and we can even visit "healers" of every conceivable variety. In fact, we can occupy a significant portion of our total waking hours sitting at medical and "nonmedical" offices and facilities, filling out forms, and living in fear in response to the "information" we have purchased.
All of which might lead us to ask, "What is a diagnosis, in a modern medical context?"
Diagnosis means to learn (gnosis) apart (dia), hence, a distinguishing or discerning. In medicine, to diagnose is to recognize and name the exact character of a disease or a problem, by conducting an examination. In other words, we examine something, we "recognize" its nature or defining characteristic(s), and we assign it a name.
All well and good. But in modern medical practice, how are diagnoses actually used? As far as I can tell, diagnoses serve two specific purposes, both interrelated:
- A diagnosis triggers a specific regimen of treatment (drugs, surgery, etc.). That is, a diagnosis indicates what treatment is "appropriate".
- Having determined what treatment is "appropriate", the diagnosis "determines" what insurers and government will (and will not) pay for.
In other words, diagnoses are used to meter and regulate the flow of treatments (and including drugs and procedures) and funds throughout the medical industry.
Ergo, unless we plan to pursue some course of treatment and/or to seek insurance or government money to help us respond to a "condition", then shopping for a diagnosis may serve no constructive purpose at all, and in fact may engender fear within us and lead us to misdirect our valuable energy and other resources.
____________________________________
If you wish to learn more about this topic, I invite you to participate in our Getting Started on the Path of Health teleconferences, and in particular in the second TC in the series, entitled "Messages from Within: Exploring Symptoms and Senses" (February 7).
Best to all,
Elchanan
__________________
High Fives,
Robby
Available to you is the opportunity to get in touch with true hunger and true satiation. True hunger is experienced in the throat, not the stomach. True satiation is experienced on the tongue, when the food doesn't taste the way it tasted when your first started the meal.
I encourage people to become more self-aware in all areas of their life. Not just food, but being aware of their feelings and needs in every present moment. You may have some emotional issues surrounding food. You may enjoy the following teleconference titled Do I Have Two Minds Or What?
http://www.pathofhealth.org/Programs&Events/DynamicSelf-Discovery/DoIHaveTwoMindsOrWhat!!--Feb.17.2007CE--PathOfHealth.mp3
High Fives,
Robby
Publisher Comments:
Marvelously funny, bittersweet, and beautifully evocative, the original publication of A Short History of a Small Place announced the arrival of one of our great Southern voices. Although T. R. Pearson's Neely, North Carolina, doesn't appear on any map of the state, it has already earned a secure place on the literary landscape of the South. In this introduction to Neely, the young narrator, Louis Benfield, recounts the tragic last days of Miss Myra Angelique Pettigrew, a local spinster and former town belle who, after years of total seclusion, returns flamboyantly to public view-with her pet monkey, Mr. Britches. Here is a teeming human comedy inhabited by some of the most eccentric and endearing characters ever encountered in literature.
I think you'd thoroughly enjoy the story : )
If it is OK with you, I would like to respond to your post one bit at a time.
I'm hearing that you have had issues feeling full with a wide variety of diets and you are still having these issues with your current diet?
Did I hear that correctly?
Yep, I guarantee you will be shocked how such a small amount of nuts can drastically change your calornutirent ratio. Are you willing to find out? I'll teach you how to use nutridiary and make screen shots if you need any help.
"What is the advantage of lowering the fat percentages?"
I HIGHLY HIGHLY suggest you read the book, but for now the following quote from my Teacher, Elchanan, should suffice. Please note, the fact that a high percentage of fat is detrimental is accepted by virtually the entire world of nutritionist. Quote begins below:
"Thank you kindly, Dr. S.S. Dhillon, for sharing:
___
As you know, all fruits are not the same. For example, some fruits are high in fiber, especially soluble fiber such as pectin which is good. Others are high in sugar, which is not good.
___
Sigh ... there is SO much misinformation in the world. All fruits, other than high-fat fruits (e.g., avocado) and "veggie-fruits" (e.g., zucchini, cucumber) are high in soluble fiber and high in sugar ... when they are ripe. The veggie fruits are also high in soluble fiber, just not in sugar.
Sugar is NEVER an issue until we mix it with lots of fat. Excessive dietary fat (generally in excess of 10% of total calories consumed) causes all the so-called blood-sugar problems. This is the same whether cooked or raw. There is overwhelming evidence for this, which is why Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Ornish, Dr. Fuhrman, Dr. Campbell, Dr. McDougall, and many more ... all cooked fooders ... ALL recommend a dietary in which fats contribute no more than about 10% of calories. The only difference here is that we are choosing a raw diet.
The implication is quite straightforward. We get most of our calories ... most of our fuel for creating thermomechanical energy ... from some combination of carbohydrates and fats. The SAD usually clocks in at 35-40% of calories from fat, varying slightly from year to year, and generally decreasing over the last couple of decades as consumption of carbohydrates has soared and many people have transformed themselves from humans into bipedal bovines.
In contrast, most raw fooders consume 50-80% of their calories from fat, and most published RF recipes trend toward the high end of that range. Eventually this does not work, which is why so many who pursue such a course end up on stimulants (cacao, maca, etc.)
The vast majority of nutrients we require ... whether measured as number of different nutrients, quantity of each nutrient, percent of total nutrients, or any other way I have ever seen ... travel in water, not in fat. So when we switch to a low-fat program, we FINALLY begin to ingest the nutrient mix on which we are designed to thrive. At the same time, when we cut the fat, our bodies can finally clean house to a greater degree than ever before, and all our blood-sugar management issues (and many other issues and challenges) simply vanish, often within days to a few weeks. For example, in those who have "high blood pressure", blood pressure sometimes normalizes overnight ... within a single 24-hour period.
So all the talk about this fruit vs. that fruit and don't eat too much fruit and the like is truly nonsense ... in the sense that the exact opposite is correct.
Hope this makes sense.
Best to all,
Elchanan"
High Fives,
Robby
Do you know what percent of your daily calorie intake is coming from fat?
Have you ever used Nutridiary.com?
You can see my screen shots here:
http://HealthyOptimist.smugmug.com/gallery/4511805_JnirR/1/265615506_4NuP5
High Fives,
Robby
Welcome to the community!
Have you read The 80/10/10 Diet yet?
High Fives,
Robby