|
[ Whole Foods Diet Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I read the article on the whole foods diet, and it did seem to speak of the immunological benefits of eating a whole foods diet. However, my question is, what conditions, specifically, is a whole foods diet best for? I know it's good for general health, but I was just curious as to what conditions it is most effective in making a difference.
Thanks
In Reply to: Point of Whole Foods Diet? posted by Just Wondering on April 06, 2002 at 22:28:52:
I think the answer here is similar to that of chiropractic. In chiropractic, the doctor optimizes the nervous system so that the body can function better. Once the body has the CAPABILITY of optimal function, certain conditions may improve but it WON'T be the same for everyone. Same for the WFD. Once your body has the nutrition it needs, it will be equiped to handle disease states. So, the WFD might help your arthritis but it may also help someone elses intestinal problems. I just don't think one can say "whole foods diet helps X more than Y. There are so many factors I couldn't even list them all. Surfice it to say the the WFD will ALLOW you to handle YOUR INDIVIDUAL needs. If anyone has a better answer, feel free.
-hY
In Reply to: Point of Whole Foods Diet? posted by Just Wondering on April 06, 2002 at 22:28:52:
Hi, Just.
It has just been discovered how micronutrients are messengers to our genes that tell them how to express their effects in our phenome.
No one yet knows how many things this will affect. MY guess is EVERYTHING.
Since hundreds of essential nutrients are still being discovered every month, there is NO supplement that has them all. The only possible way we can get those we have not yet discovered is by only eating the highest quality, organic and whole foods possible.
There are reliable companies who are producing "concentrated whole food supplements" that just might resolve this in the meantime.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Point of Whole Foods Diet? (Archive in PWFD.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 07, 2002 at 08:38:57:
The powdered cereal humanitarian groups deliver to impoverished 3rd world countries is heavily refined. Walt, what do you think is the best bet for the starving folks in those countries so they can be healthy?
In Reply to: Whole Foods and the Impoverished posted by Concerned on April 08, 2002 at 01:40:37:
I'm not Walt, but I found this to be a curious question... :-)
In general, for people who are starving, not dying is a priority, forget about actual health!
From another standpoint, it would be impossible to send fresh stuff out to the middle of a dessert.
Actually, their best bet is to learn to feed themselves.
To look at it yet another way, most Americans eat heavily refined foods all the time.
~~~8>
In Reply to: Whole Foods and the Impoverished posted by Concerned on April 08, 2002 at 01:40:37:
I believe that the same foods that keep us healthy, namely vegetables and animal protein, would keep them healthy. However, this senerio is not likely. It would be extremely difficult for the whole world to eat this way. We have irreversibly changed the diet of humans with the advent of agriculture. 2/3's of the world relies HEAVILY on grains as their major food source. Humans can live on a diet comprised of mostly grains, however, optimal health will never be reached.
-HY
In Reply to: Whole Foods and the Impoverished posted by Concerned on April 08, 2002 at 01:40:37:
Hi, Concerned.
Listen to HY & LabRat.
Starving people are reduced to caloric and protein survival!
Foods have traditionally been refined because no self- respecting fungus, bacterium or pest will eat it. SO, it can be stored for long periods without spoilage.
If the rich countries of the world did not insist upon eating lots of meat, there would be more than enough vegetable matter produced for nearly perfect health for the world. Even the populations of the rich countries would be a lot healthier at the same time. The same goes for the world spending so much of it's wealth buying weapons.
The solutions to this quandary include changing human nature. Good luck!
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 09, 2002 at 08:10:02:
Walt,
So are you saying that it is healthier for the rich countries to go without eating meat and become vegetarian? Please clarify this? I thought meat was meant to be healthy for you.
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 09, 2002 at 08:10:02:
I was looking for ideas on possible solutions. To clarify my question, let me explain. It is established that the stricken live in areas where there was once enough food for them. It is historically verifiable that while crop failure is often the triggering event that brings dearth, it brings it only because of a prior theft of rights of the stricken-- rights to migrate, to the land or to its use. I read a doctor's report that the reason many stricken have swollen bellies is because of gas and stored fat from the heavily refined cereal they are reduced to eating-- those absent catalysts reduce their ability to use the refined starch as fuel. (Sorry, lost the source to that.) If this is true, it at least establishes that those who stole rights from the stricken are allowing them to receive aid in the form of the cereal. In addition to have such an extreme reaction they've been eating nothing but for a very long time.
Where does the refined cereal (that they are made to eat) come from? Is it surplus left laying around-- a little of this and a little of that? Or is it (as I suspect) manufactured specifically for this purpose? Because if it is manufactured, who bears the cost of the very manufacture that does away with those catalysts? How far in advance is it being manufactured, is it short-term like most of the market? Without all the facts it seems like, at least during the harvest season (when open market whole grain is available), someone is paying more up front to starve them than that someone would to buy the fresh grain on the open market.
I wondered about the benefit of flax seed to those relying on refined cereal. I researched the difficulty of delivering flax seed. In the US the commercial price of seed is high-- 7x costlier than wheat flour per pound (this is affected by the very low US demand for the product.) But the stricken would need to consume much less seed than refined cereal for decent benefit. The areas of the world where flax grows well are widely dispersed, so blockade aside it would be possible to buy seed from areas not far from the point of crop failure. I definitely don't have all the facts, but it seems like barriers to production and delivery are not insurmountable. I wonder if the same can be said for soybeans or other sources of protein. I wonder if anyone else has looked into this, and what they came up with. (Most of the big organizations looking into this have a web presence that tries to "dumb down" the problem or preaches like a one-sided brochure.)
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Miss X To Walt Stoll on April 09, 2002 at 08:46:04:
Hi, Miss X.
That is exactly what I am saying.
ALL statistics show that, in the industrialized countries, vegetarians live much longer and have many less degenerative diseases than those who like their meat products. It may even be that the so called "diseases of civilization" may be mostly due to eating higher on the food chain.
This reminds me of the famous quote by Gandhi when the British Press cornered him coming out of the parliament, in London, where he had just given an address. He was asked what he thought of Western Civilization. He hesitated for just a moment and said "I think it would be a good idea."
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 10, 2002 at 09:36:09:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Miss X to Meat Promoters(Have a Look at Walts Post here, please) nmi on April 10, 2002 at 10:05:06:
Well, maybe YOU can. Doesn't work for everyone else.
Lightwalking,
Gregory
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished posted by Concerned on April 09, 2002 at 16:05:11:
Thanks, Concerned.
The "big bellies" are caused by protein deficiency.
The refined carbohydrates (white rice, white flour and the like) are mostly surplus from the developed countries and the stuff is refined to prevent spoilage during shipment.
Since the simpler forms of life cannot live on it, it is no wonder that humans have less than optimal health consuming it. It is meant for emergency use only but it frequently turns out to be permanent.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 10, 2002 at 09:36:09:
So, Walt, are you a vegetarian then if you believe that it is healthier?
In Reply to: You can't apply generalities to specifics posted by Gregory on April 10, 2002 at 11:38:13:
Could YOU be more specific?
In Reply to: Re: You can't apply generalities to specifics posted by Miss X on April 10, 2002 at 12:48:21:
"...ALL statistics show that, in the industrialized countries, vegetarians live much longer and have many less degenerative diseases than those who like their meat products....
This is an example of a general statement applied to specifics.
The population of any given country is made up of individuals who may or may not respond
.Therefor the statement is false as evidenced by the the number of people who respond favorably to the
No country has ever tried large scale and total vegetarianism. It is just
favorably by adding meat to their diet,
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 10, 2002 at 09:36:09:
Walt, what about all those northern peoples whose mainstay has been meat for so many generations? Surely those people would NOT thrive on a vegetarian.
As you may recall, I myself tried to eat a vegetarian diet and that's what ended up putting me over the edge with LGS, CFS, CRS, Hives and Rosacea... There is simpy NO WAY I can be healthy without meat in my diet. I have to wonder if that research is flawed somehow.
~~~8>
In Reply to: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? posted by labrat on April 10, 2002 at 21:23:09:
Seems to me any research on optimum diet MUST take into account one critical variable: refined foods.
It's been a while since I read the book by John Robbins (title escapes me) - where he argues for the economics of world vegetarianism and presents all his research showing how sickly meat eaters are... But I feel safe in asserting that most meat-eaters in such research ARE refined-food eaters. Meat-eating correlates quite closely with the prosperity of the industrialized world... Whole-foods meat-eating is quite rare!
When you factor out the refined food (as in the research of Weston Price) then meat eating appears quite healthy and even mandatory for at least some if not all people.
In short I gotta agree...
In Reply to: Re: You can't apply generalities to specifics posted by Gregory on April 10, 2002 at 14:11:08:
Thanks, Gregory.
I hope we have a miscommunication.
ALL demographic statistical research is done this way. Only by surveying large numbers of people if similar backgrounds, EXCEPT that one group is composed of meateaters and the other composed of vegetarians, can such tentative conclusions be drawn. Who knows if they are correct and how else can we find out? For example: this is the exact way they found out that high cholesterol was related to coronary artery disease (Framingham Study).
Since these same kind of statistics suggest that refined carbohydrate diets cause ALL chronic conditions to exist at a higher rate, than those who do not eat such a diet, do you not think that prudence would demand some respect of the suggestion?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Miss X to Walt on April 10, 2002 at 12:19:08:
Hi, Miss X.
Yep. At least I consider myself thus except that I occasionally eat fresh caught fish my neighbor likes to catch. I do live in Florida, after all :>)
My oldest son, Bill, the webmaster of this site, has been a strict vegetarian for years.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 09:18:26:
Thanks for that, Walt. When you say Bill is a strict vegetarian, do you mean a vegan? So neither of you have had a problem following a vegetarian diet. Such as fatigue, lack of energy etc? I too was a vegetarian for many years, even a vegan for a year too.
I have gone back to eating meat. My blood type is AB+, and that is suited to a vegetarian diet. But I never felt quite up to par, or had enough energy. I am starting to feel better now though, more energy which I directly attribute to meat. Of course I am only eating organic meat.
Anyway give me your take on it as far as how much you felt better reverting to a vegetarian diet. Seems to be a lot of board members here propounding the benefits of including meat in my diet, not sure what to follow anymore.
You are one lucky soul to live in sunny Florida. I loved it whilst out there on holiday a few years back, but could never live there full time due to all the bugs and huge ones at that! ;-)
Thanks for your input, Sir Walt
In Reply to: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? posted by labrat on April 10, 2002 at 21:23:09:
Hi, labrat.
If I have done ANYTHING consistantly on this BB, it has been to continue to insist that everyone use their own personal laboratory (bodymind) to determine what is best for THEM.
ALL of this specific diet stuff is very new to the scene and there is lots more to be learned in the next few years.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? posted by Jan on April 10, 2002 at 21:54:49:
Thanks, Jan.
RIGHT ON!
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 10:13:41:
Yes I understand we are all different- that was why I posted. Generally, you do suggest we try things and remind us that we are all different. But Walt, when you make a statement like you did:
"ALL statistics show that, in the industrialized countries, vegetarians live much longer and have many less degenerative diseases than those who like their meat products. It may even be that the so called "diseases of civilization" may be mostly due to eating higher on the food chain."
It really seems like you are saying that eating meat is unhealthy...it confused me as to your take on things.
~~~8>
In Reply to: Re: You can't apply generalities to specifics (NO?) posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 08:51:40:
Here is what I know of statistics, and this firsthand from my cousin, a professional statistician:
Statistics can be used to "prove" or "disprove" any hypothesis.
I didn't believe her until she showed me how it was done.
I then had a rather extended course in business & marketing. It was an eye-opener
Targeting this group or that one that have the characteristics that the seller is looking for.
It breaks down on the specifics, which is to say that groups do not behave as individuals,
The problem is by filtering out information in order to get "significant data" a profile
You and the other medicos are forever tell us that we are all different. What works for one
You can't have it both ways Walt, either we are individuals and an dietary and nutritional
Personally, based on my own experience I think the former.
Lightwalking,
In Reply to: Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.) posted by Miss X to Walt Bill on April 11, 2002 at 09:32:17:
Thanks, Miss X.
Remember the large bugs have a lot of protein in them :>)
I think everyone is different and have to use their own personal laboratory (their bodymind--Does it work for you?) to figure out what is best for that individual.
There are people ( a very small minority) who do very well just eating fruit (Fructarians). Go figure.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? posted by labrat on April 11, 2002 at 10:40:05:
Thanks, Labrat.
There is little doubt that--ON THE AVERAGE--eating meat shortens life and causes many chronic illnesses.
This means very little for the individual.
In 20 years we will be able to predict which person should eat which diet (from the Human Genome Project) but right now, for the individual, all we have is statistics and how we feel when we are on any specific diet.
Walt
to a vegetarian diet favorably.
addition of meat to their diet, as well as being an unproven and unprovable generality.
conjecture, by people who ought to know better.
Lightwalking,
Gregory
Follow Ups:
What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer???
Posted by labrat on April 10, 2002 at 21:23:09:
Follow Ups:
Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer???
Posted by Jan on April 10, 2002 at 21:54:49:
Follow Ups:
Re: You can't apply generalities to specifics (NO?)
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 08:51:40:
Follow Ups:
Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 09:18:26:
Follow Ups:
Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.)
Posted by Miss X to Walt Bill on April 11, 2002 at 09:32:17:
Follow Ups:
Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer???
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 10:13:41:
Follow Ups:
Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer???
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 11, 2002 at 10:17:08:
Follow Ups:
Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer???
Posted by labrat on April 11, 2002 at 10:40:05:
Follow Ups:
Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics.
Posted by Gregory on April 11, 2002 at 18:24:02:
in that it gave me background in "practical statistics."
and vice versa.
is built that does not correspond to a real person. This artificial person then represents
a group with assumptions being
made about that group, what they
eat, dietary habits, the consequences
of those habits and so on. This is all based on someone's idea of what is important as far as a
profile is concerned, and not on an actual person. Mind you if you had an actual person
then that is all you have. One person. You cannot "extrapolate" based on
the one person.
person may not work for another. Indeed, the board is rife with this principle in post and practice.
program takes that into account, or we're all the same and the statement made is true.
Gregory
Follow Ups:
Re: Whole Foods and the Impoverished (Archive.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 12, 2002 at 17:29:25:
Follow Ups:
Re: What does this mean to me, a hunter-gatherer??? (Archive in diet.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on April 12, 2002 at 17:40:52:
Follow Ups:
[ Whole Foods Diet Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!