June 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Greetings,Speaking solely of spirituality though, picture a rather unhealthy fellow sitting in McDonalds eating a burger and fries. Jesus looks down on him, unseen, and knows that this man has a heart of gold. Another man across the road is in A-1 tip top condition, and is tucking into raw sprouts and lean vegetables, plucked fresh that morning from an organic farm and flown in straight to market. But this man is spiritually lost, despite his great physical health. He is somewhat spiritually lacking, as far as God is concerned. Who is the more spirtual man? That's something that struck me about the purity of food, and its spiritual limitations.
The foods thing is interesting. In my playing around with this, I've noticed that the heathiest foods can make you feel bad, nervous, and so on. I think this might be because things that are have been suppressed are allowed to come into consciousness. Precisely what happens when giving up smokes, for example. Hang in there. The best food is what you grow in your backyard. If you want tomatos in the U.S. this year, it had better be grown in your backyard. It might be a trend. Last I checked, land in eastern Ky. still goes for less than $1000/acre. Make a farmer out of yourself. Let's be hippies together. Peace out.
Well, one that's not sugar, for example? ;) Sugar cube delivery system should have been the first clue. But I'm sure you've heard "...helps the medicine go down" always sung with a British accent. Was a hip delivery system though. I'm sure it made the cover of Life at least once, though it wasn't p.v. being delivered.
The only drawback of being an urban farmer is it’s addictive and can take away a lot of my violin time. Great intonation and a lush weed-free vegetable garden don’t co-exist very well. Life is tough!
Thank you for an interesting blog. I went for my yearly physical last week and the doctor told me the exactly the same thing about foods as you're saying. Oh by the way the doctor added cup of noodles and rice crackers to the list of tamasic foods. I wonder if that has anything to do we the sucide rate which is now over 30,000 in Japan?
Cheers,
Craig
Yes, food is important to life and playing, but it varies among people. One cannot simplify it to one method. Individuals vary. Many things lead to diabetes or other problems, but the source of the problem depends on the person.
Curiously, I have found the multi-faceted approach of Dr. James D'Adamo in his theory on bloodtype and diet to have widespread applications in the sense that many people naturally gravited towards recommandations he makes without being aware of the existence of his works. I recommend the reading. Has certainly helped me to face long term problems with diet, digestion and other matters.
Cheers!
P.S. The concept of vegeterian diets, though noble is not for one and all. Many societies lived well for long periods of time on a hunter/gatherer based diet and the introduction of grains caused serious metabolism problems (for example in many American Indian tribes). Therefore, I find that one has to find the approach that suits him/her, though a vegeterian approach is the solution for many, but not all.
Not sure exactly what you mean by lived well. Certainly they would have hadmany of the health probelms of eating meat. Not all because a) the emat was free range and organic which is vastly different from today`s tortured , medicine packed carcasses and b) they had to spent a lot of time running after the damn things which would help to compensate.
However, if you consider the nature of the socitie sthemselves you can see they correlate with the predictions of the ayuervedic description.
>and the introduction of grains caused serious metabolism problems (for example in many American Indian tribes).
Too true. Eating primarily an inferior grain in the way many ancient cultures did would be extremely unhealthy. That is very far from an ideal diet indeed. Mucus forming and lacking in many nutrients and enzymes.
> Therefore, I find that one has to find the approach that suits him/her, though a vegeterian approach is the solution for many, but not all.
Hmmm. I knew i was going to end up proselytyzing about vegetarianism if I started this thread;) Don`t want to bore you but actually although this rings true on the surface it doesn`t make sense with a closer look. There are a few extreme cases where a small quanttiy of meat or dairy is recommended for healing but otherwise the overwhelming scientifi evidence is taht eating meat and dairy is bad for you. Aside form the problems of excess protein, fat and calories the extent meat, poultry and fish is seriously contaminated by manmade poisons is so well documented there is no longer any logical justification for saying any of these are good for your health. There is nothing found in these things that cannot be easily and safely found in appropriate quantity and form in a live food diet.
Incidentally, fruit and vegatbles that are picked arenot dying.
The age we live to and the health we enjy is determined by the quantity and condition of enzymes in the gut.
The whole point about the diet described above using bioactive foods such as sprouted beans and seeds, nuts, raw vegetables, and grain is that they provide their own enzymes leaving the body free to use its own limited supply for maintainign superior health. This is true of all human beings. It is only within this general one size fits all concept that individual variety actually occurs.
Cheers,
Buri
That being said, I'm a still pesce-vegetarian, although I don't follow any of the books of the Bible rejected by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. :)
What an odd comment. The food doesn`t kill poeple and there is little or no extant research or argument to support the idea that organic foods are dangerous whereas if you read soemthing like Diet for a healthy planet or Cousens `Conscious Eating` then actual real research is cited from reputable sources about the pesticides, hormones, heavy metals and the like which we are now all absorbing and their appalling effetcdts.
>I actually got sick being a vegetarian because I didn't know enought about vegetarian nutrition.
Yep. That is the problem. It isn`t just a question of giving up meat dairy.
>My vitamin D levels shot down to basically nothing over two years. Being too exhausted to practice is no fun.
Primary source is sunlight so it doesn`t really cocnern this diet. A healthy person has to spend time outside.
Cheers,
Buri
In 1938, milk-borne outbreaks constituted 25% of all disease outbreaks from contaminated food and water. Today that figure is 1%, in part because of pasteurization, says Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. Food safety officials say raw milk has sickened hundreds of people with salmonella, E. coli and other bacteria. According to the (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,000 people fell ill from raw milk between 1998 and 2005. Two died.
Here are some articles about the raw milk debate, from which these statistics came:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-06-raw-milk-usat_x.htm
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyCpKo_s8_ke7SIiljsBfnenBSlAD9181PGO4
There is some debate about whether organic food is more susceptible to dangerous E. coli.
The Organic Trade Association Says
http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html
A University of Minnesota study concerning fecal E. coli in fresh picked produce by Mukherjee et al, published in the Journal of Food Protection (Vo. 67, No. 5, 2004), found that the percentage of E. coli prevalence in certified organic produce was similar to that in conventional samples. However, it did find a marked difference in the prevalence of E. coli between the samples from certified and non-certified organic farms. “Ours is the first study that suggests a potential association between organic certification and reduced E. coli prevalence,” the authors wrote. They noted that the results of the study “do not support allegations that organic produce poses a substantially greater risk of pathogen contamination than does conventional produce.”
I enjoyed your response to my comments very much. Yes, I see your points on many things. Personally, I eat a fruit and vegetable based diet with small amounts of meat or fish, grains and dairy (mostly cultured, which for me is easier to digest). I find that without meat or fish at one meal of the day, my metabolism does not function as well. However, I need to point out that the meat I consume is free-range lamb or game, which is easily available here in the province of Québec. In time I have developed certain habits. I tend to follow an old rule used by many of my European friends in never eating meat or grains in the same meal. Like many people, I don't digest regular wheat well, but like to eat other grains like spelt or rice.
Back to overall rules though, I will take several examples. I have many friends/colleagues who switched to vegetarian or rather meatless diet and felt great. When asked for fun, all said they were bloodtype A. I have others who enjoyed great weightloss believe it or not on Atkins after years of problems on a diet that resembled the macrobiotic diet. All were bloodtype O. Two of them were borderline diabetics and managed to get problems of weight, blood sugar and skin under control only when they stopped consuming grains on a daily basis. Now, the incidence is strange.
All that said, I find much truth in the idea that a diet based mostly on fruits and vegetables is the best for all. But on the topic of grains vs meats (by this I mean meat, poultry, game and fish), I am witness to too many varients in people around me (but consistent on certain groups of individuals) to find an overall all-inclusive result.
Cheers!
P.S. I agree though that most food is unnecessarily manipulated and loaded with poisonous crap. When people need to do this is beyond me. Like an old American Indian friend used to say about his culture vs most Western culture: "You work against nature while we prefer to cooperate with it."
All that said, I am glad that you brought up this interesting and fascinating topic that has been a long-time interest to me, and would like to thank you for it!
Cheers!
Role models from the stone age, coming up next!
Actually I do becaue it was so sweeping and unsopprted. Read like propaganda for the pesticide industry. The example you quote is interesting and at least supported by data. However, I can@t say I fidn it particlalry germane sicne I don`t include any kind of dairy as aprt of a helathy diet ;)
>In 1938, milk-borne outbreaks constituted 25% of all disease outbreaks from contaminated food and water. Today that figure is 1%, in part because of pasteurization, says Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C.
I think this statistic is extremely weak. Of course the percentage dropped. The increase in food posining from factory farmed meat has increased top the point where the figurre is insignificant The contetx is diffenret from 1938. In 1990 the indicence of bacterial salmonella was 2 and a half mioolin cases per year including an rstimated one and half million hospitralizations and 9000 deaths (see 1990 Pacific Sun-Project Censored Rating).
>According to the (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,000 people fell ill from raw milk between 1998 and 2005. Two died.
This statistic is also absolutley minimal although I hate to dimisnh peoples suffering.
Then ther eis the problem of premature sexual development due to eating hr\ormone rich produicts. (Saenz-Journal of the Puerto Rico Medical Association 1982) . Or try Robbins reaerach on the subject of British Schoolgirls in Diet for a New America. Also studies of transfer of Leukemia to primates from cows (cancer Journal for Clinicians-Kin Shim) . Twenty percnet of Danish cows have leukemia and stides have show a positve correlation between this and childhood leukemia.
Food safety officials say raw milk has sickened hundreds of people with salmonella, E. coli and other bacteria.
>There is some debate about whether organic food is more susceptible to dangerous E. coli.
Actually the debate is irrelevent. the obnly useful infomrtaion here would be a well controlled massive long term study of whether people eating organic food were sickebned from e coli to a gretae rextent than a simlialr group etc etc. No such study exists. And the original sweeping statement that more people died from organic food is weird since organic food eater sare stll in a minority and the fiood would have to be pretty lethal in general, not just in terms of e coli to prove that organic food is a killer.
>by Mukherjee et al, published in the “do not support allegations that organic produce poses a substantially greater risk of pathogen contamination than does conventional produce.”
Right.
But one could go on from ther.As you know, pesticides, herbicide sand additives in our food have bene luinked to cancer, weakened immune system, allerfies, neurotoxicity, hyperactivity in children and brain allergies.
In 1985 1000 people were posiened by the peticide Temik in watermelon. Do the still births count as deaths I wonder? Next it wa sAlar. In 1987 the National Academuy of Sciences conclude dthat iin our lifetime pesticides in American food causes more tahn one million additonal cases of cancer. I think that counts as death! NRDC in the Amicus Journal reoprts that 2.6 bilion pounds of pesticides are used each year in the usA and that nearly all Americans have resues of DDT, Chlrdane, heptachlor, aldrin and dieldrin in their bodies. Dieldrin is five times more poten than DDT and in 1975 the council on Environment stated that diledrin was founfd in 99.5% of Americans, 96% of all meat, fish and poultry and in 85% of dairy products. It is one of the most potent carcinogen known to man.The most potwent is Dioxin of which millions of pounds have bene spread on American soiland the Epa has officially acknowledged taht it is stored by animals that we eat. It is perhaps worth pondering the fatc thaqt deaths fronm cancer in the US hacve risen from less than 1 percent at the beginning of the 19th century to one in four today.
The sweeping statement about pesticides also ignores a much bigger and sadder glaobal picture. The so called green revolution resultes in loss of biodiversity, the deadly trap of harvesting monocrops, traditional and efficent farming methods, widespread poverty starvation and yes death from malnitrition and all its implicatiosn while locking the poor in a vicious cycle of ex@ploitation by the pesticide industry which is one of the most ruthless and profiteering instituitions on the planet.
For an in depth study of this Susan George`s `The Green Revolution` is very scary. That is a hell of a lot of death and suffering compared to an
unsubstantied sideswipe at helathy farming.
And it still doesn`t have much to do with te link between the flow of divine light within one facilitted by eating accoridng to genuine scientific principles which are indeed a gift from the divinity.
Cheers,
Buri
The main systems identified by Wolcott are:
1) autonomic
2) oxidative
3) dosha (from ayurvedic)
4) acid /alkaline (cf macrobiotics)
5) endocrine gland (which is dominant)
6) lipo oxidative
7) blood type.
It’s interesting you mention blood type. Cousens has done a great deal of informal research on this question and has found no correlation with meat versus vegetarianism although there is actually a popular theory that type os do well on high protein-flesh diet. Personally I’m an o and that would kill me in a week.. The significance of blood is that certain types of foods that e consider super healthy are extremely harmful to certain blood types because of their lectin content. Wheat germ, for example, can be very dangerous to type M, salmon type B, sunflower seeds type 0 and so on.
So what I think happens is that when we try following standard vegetarian guidelines the result is often poor because we are actually doing something rather bad for our body that looks good on paper and much o\f the problem is within the protein/crab ratios. So if you change to a vegetarian diet but don’t have any protein then it is quite logical to find that you are actually much healthier eating something like you describe your diet which keeps this balance fairly well. Plus you are avoiding the lectins or grains that really mess you up.
Nonetheless, it is not an optimal diet by any means because the food is lacking fundamental energy and needs to be digested in the lower gut thereby using up precious enzymes that could better be employed keeping your repertoire ticking over.
So the whole thing becomes so complex at times its no wonder so many people just give up and go back to what is considered normal or healthy only within the context of traditions that have never truly been examined or do not reflect the changing global conditions (which are now so fundamental fractured its mind blowing)
However, you might be interested in a simple technique for helping evaluate the effect of food on your body. You probably heard of the ring test. As an example, take a wide selection of fruit. First do a baseline test by squeezing your thumb and forefinger together and having someone try to prize them apart. Like me, you are probably strong at this) Now hold something like a automatic car door opener or cordless phone in your left hand and have you r friend try to open the right hand. Its easy. Now experiment with the various fruit. You body will indicate quite clearly what you should and should not eat. I can eat avocados but am cautious with oranges…
You can do this with any food. It’s a very reliable test。You can also use it to diagnose the condition of most organs in the body by placing your left hand on that organ. I am not sure if one can use it to select a good violin;)
Cheers,
Buri
should read
don`t have enough or have too much protein...
This entry has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine