VIEW THE MOBILE VERSION of www.difficult.ca Informational Site Network Informational
Privacy

Diet and Nutrition






From: How and When to Be Your Own Doctor

From The Hygienic Dictionary

Food. [1] Life is a tragedy of nutrition. In food lies 99.99% of the
causes of all diseases and imperfect health of any kind. _Prof.
Arnold Ehret, Mucusless Diet Healing System._ [2] But elimination
will never heal perfectly just so long as you fail to discontinue
the supply of inside waste caused by eating and "wrong" eating. You
may clean and continue to clean indefinitely, but never with
complete results up to a perfect cleanliness, as long as the intake
of wrong or even too much right foods, is not stopped._ Prof. Arnold
Ehret, Mucusless Diet Healing System._ [3] Cooked food favors
bacterial, or organized, ferment preponderance, because cooking
kills the unorganized and organized ferments, and both are needed to
carry on the body's digestion. Raw foods--fruits and vegetables--favor
unorganized ferment digestion, because these foods carry vitamins,
which are unorganized ferments--enzymes. _Dr. John. H. Tilden,
Impaired Health: Its Cause and Cure, 1921._

Recently, my younger (adult) daughter asked my advice choosing
between a root canal or having a bridge made. This led to a
discussion of her eating habits in general. Defending her currently
less-than-optimum diet against my gentle criticism, she threw me a
tough riposte. "Why," she asked, when I was raised so perfectly as a
child, "when I ate only Organic food until I was ten and old enough
to make you send me to public school where I could eat those lousy
school lunches" (her unfeeling, heartless mother home-schooled her),
"why even at that young age, (before she spent her adolescent
rebellion eating junk food) why at that point did I still have a
mouthful of cavities?" And she did. At age ten my daughter needed
about ten fillings.

This beautiful daughter of a practicing naturopath had received
what, at the time, I considered virtually perfect nutrition. She
suckled hugely at her mother's abundant breast until age two. During
this time her mother ate a natural foods diet. After weaning my
daughter got only whole grains, a little fresh goat's milk from my
goat, fruits and lots of Organic vegetables. I started my spa when
my daughter was about five years old and from that point she was,
like it or not, a raw fooder. And all that raw food was Organic and
much of it from Great Oaks School's huge vegetable garden.

For my daughter to develop cavities on this diet is reminiscent of
Woody Allen's joke in his movie "Sleeper." Do you recall this one,
made about 1973? The plot is a take off on Rip Van Winkle. Woody
goes into the hospital for minor surgery. Unexpectedly he expires on
the operating table and his body is frozen in hopes that someday he
can be revived. One hundred and fifty years later he is revived.

The priceless scene I always think of takes place in his hospital
room immediately after he comes to consciousness. The doctor in
charge of his case is explaining to Woody what has happened. Woody
refuses to believe he died and was frozen, asserting that the whole
story is a put on. Woody insists that the 'doctor' is clearly an
actor hired by his friends! It absolutely can't be the year 2123.
'Oh, but it really is 2123,' insists the doctor. 'And it is no put
on by his friends; all his friends are long dead; Woody knows no one
at all in 2123 and had better prepare himself to start a new life.'

Woody still insists it is a put on. "I had a healthfood store," he
says, "and all my friends ate brown rice. They can't be dead!"

And my perfectly nourished daughter couldn't have developed
cavities! But she did. And if she cheated on her perfect diet, bad
food could not have amounted to more than two percent of her total
caloric intake from birth to age ten. I was a responsible mom and I
made sure she ate right! Now my daughter was demanding to know why
she had tooth decay. Fortunately, I now know the answer. The answer
is rather complex, but I can give a simplified explanation.

The Confusions About Diets and Foods

Like my daughter, many people of all ages are muddled about the
relationship between health and diet. Their confusions have created
a profitable market for health-related information. And equally,
their confusions have been created by books, magazine articles, and
TV news features. This avalanche of data is highly contradictory. In
fact, one reason I found it hard to make myself write my own book is
that I wondered if my book too would become just another part of the
confusion.

Few people are willing to tolerate very much uncertainty. Rather
than live with the discomfort of not knowing why, they will create
an explanation or find some answer, any answer, and then ever after,
assert its rightness like a shipwrecked person clings to a floating
spar in a storm. This is how I explain the genesis of many
contemporary food religions.

Appropriately new agey and spiritual, Macrobiotics teaches the way
to perfect health is to eat like a Japanese whole foods
vegetarian--the endless staple being brown rice, some cooked
vegetables and seaweeds, meanwhile balancing the "yin" and "yang" of
the foods. And Macrobiotics works great for a lot of people. But not
all people. Because there's next to nothing raw in the Macrobiotic
diet and some people are allergic to rice, or can get allergic to
rice on that diet.

Linda Clark's Diet for a Small Planet also has hundreds of thousands
of dedicated followers. This system balances the proportions of
essential amino acids at every, single meal and is vegetarian. This
diet also works and really helps some people, but not as well as
Macrobiotics in my opinion because obsessed with protein, Clark's
diet contains too many hard-to-digest soy products and makes poor
food combinations from the point of digestive capacity.

Then there are the raw fooders. Most of them are raw, Organic
fooders who go so far as to eat only unfired, unground cereals that
have been soaked in warm water (at less than 115 degrees or you'll
kill the enzymes) for many hours to soften the seeds up and start
them sprouting. This diet works and really helps a lot of people.
Raw organic foodism is especially good for "holy joes," a sort of
better-than-everyone-else person who enjoys great self-righteousness
by owning this system. But raw fooding does not help all people nor
solve all diseases because raw food irritates the digestive tracts
of some people and in northern climates it is hard to maintain body
heat on this diet because it is difficult to consume enough
concentrated vegetable food in a raw state. And some raw fooders eat
far too much fruit. I've seen them lose their teeth because of
fruit's low mineral content, high sugar level and constant fruit
acids in their mouths.

Then there are vegetarians of various varieties including vegans
(vegetarians that will not eat dairy products and eggs), and then,
there are their exact opposites, Atkins dieters focusing on protein
and eating lots of meat. There's the Adelle Davis school, people
eating whole grains, handfuls of vitamins, lots of dairy and brewers
yeast and wheat germ, and even raw liver. Then there's the Organic
school. These folks will eat anything in any combination, just so
long as it is organically produced, including organically raised
beef, chicken, lamb, eggs, rabbit, wild meats, milk and diary
products, natural sea salt in large quantities and of course,
organically grown fruits, vegetables grains and nuts. And what is
"Organic?" The word means food raised in compliance with a set of
rules contrived by a certification bureaucracy. When carefully
analyzed, the somewhat illogical rules are not all that different in
spirit than the rules of kashsruth or kosher. And the Organic
certification bureaucrats aren't all that different than the rabbis
who certify food as being kosher, either.

There are now millions of frightened Americans who, following the
advice of mainstream Authority, have eliminated red meat from their
diets and greatly reduced what they (mistakenly) understand as
high-cholesterol foods.

All these diets work too--or some--and all demonstrate some of the
truth.

The only area concerning health that contains more confusion and
contradictory data than diet is vitamins. What a rats nest that is!

The Fundamental Principle

If you are a true believer in any of the above food religions, I
expect that you will find my views unsettling. But what I consider
"good diet" results from my clinical work with thousands of cases.
It is what has worked with those cases. My eclectic views
incorporate bits and pieces of all the above. In my own case, I
started out by following the Organic school, and I was once a raw
food vegetarian who ate nothing but raw food for six years. I also
ate Macrobiotic for about one year until I became violently allergic
to rice.

I have arrived at a point where I understand that each person's
biochemistry is unique and each must work out their own diet to suit
their life goals, life style, genetic predisposition and current
state of health. There is no single, one, all-encompassing, correct
diet. But, there is a single, basic, underlying Principle of
Nutrition that is universally true. In its most simplified form, the
basic equation of human health goes: Health = Nutrition / Calories.
The equation falls far short of explaining the origin of each
individuals diseases or how to cure diseases but Health = Nutrition
/ Calories does show the general path toward healthful eating and
proper medicine.

All animals have the exact same dietary problem: finding enough
nutrition to build and maintain their bodies within the limits of
their digestive capacity. Rarely in nature (except for predatory
carnivores) is there any significant restriction on the number of
calories or serious limitation of the amount of low-nutrition foods
available to eat. There's rarely any shortage of natural junk food
on Earth. Except for domesticated house pets, animals are sensible
enough to prefer the most nutritional fare available and tend to
shun empty calories unless they are starving.

But humans are perverse, not sensible. Deciding on the basis of
artificially-created flavors, preferring incipid textures, we seem
to prefer junk food and become slaves to our food addictions. For
example, in tropical countries there is a widely grown root crop,
called in various places: tapioca, tavioca, manioc, or yuca. This
interesting plant produces the greatest tonnage of edible,
digestible, pleasant-tasting calories per acre compared to any other
food crop I know. Manioc might seem the answer to human starvation
because it will grow abundantly on tropical soils so infertile
and/or so droughty that no other food crop will succeed there.
Manioc will do this because it needs virtually nothing from the soil
to construct itself with. And consequently, manioc puts next to
nothing nourishing into its edible parts. The bland-tasting root is
virtually pure starch, a simple carbohydrate not much different than
pure corn starch. Plants construct starches from carbon dioxide gas
obtained the air and hydrogen obtained from water. There is no
shortage ever of carbon from CO2 in the air and rarely a shortage of
hydrogen from water. When the highly digestible starch in manioc is
chewed, digestive enzymes readily convert it into sugar.
Nutritionally there is virtually no difference between eating manioc
and eating white sugar. Both are entirely empty calories.

If you made a scale from ideal to worst regarding the ratio of
nutrition to calories, white sugar, manioc and most fats are at the
extreme undesirable end. Frankly I don't know which single food
might lie at the extreme positive end of the scale. Close to perfect
might be certain leafy green vegetables that can be eaten raw. When
they are grown on extremely fertile soil, some greens develop 20 or
more percent completely digestible balanced protein with ideal
ratios of all the essential amino acids, lots of vitamins, tons of
minerals, all sorts of enzymes and other nutritional elements--and
very few calories. You could continually fill your stomach to
bursting with raw leafy greens and still have a hard time sustaining
your body weight if that was all you ate. Maybe Popeye the Sailorman
was right about eating spinach.

For the moment, lets ignore individual genetic inabilities to digest
specific foods and also ignore the effects stress and enervation can
have on our ability to extract nutrition out of the food we are
eating. Without those factors to consider, it is correct to say
that, to the extent one's diet contains the maximum potential amount
of nutrition relative to the number of calories you are eating, to
that extent a person will be healthy. To the extent the diet is
degraded from that ideal, to that extent, disease will develop.
Think about it!

Lessons From Nutritional Anthropology

The next logical pair of questions are: how healthy could good
nutrition make people be, and, how much deviation from ideal
nutrition could we allow ourselves before serious disease appears?
Luckily, earlier in this century we could observe living answers to
those questions (before the evidence disappeared). The answers are:
we could be amazingly healthy, and, if we wish to enjoy excellent
health we can afford to cut ourselves surprisingly little slack.

Prior to the Second World War there were several dozen sizable
groups of extraordinarily healthy humans remaining on Earth. Today,
their descendants are still in the same remote places, are speaking
the same languages and possess more or less the same cultures. Only
today they're watching satellite TV. wearing jeans, drinking
colas--and their superior health has evaporated.

During the early part of this century, at the same era vitamins and
other basic aspects of nutrition were being discovered, a few
farsighted medical explorers sought out these hard-to-reach places
with their legendarily healthy peoples to see what caused the
legendary well-being they'd heard of. Enough evidence was collected
and analyzed to derive some very valid principles.

First lets dismiss some apparently logical but incorrect
explanations for the unusually good health of these isolated
peoples. It wasn't racial, genetic superiority. There were
extraordinarily healthy blacks, browns, Orientals, Amerinds,
Caucasians. It wasn't living at high altitude; some lived at sea
level. It wasn't temperate climates, some lived in the tropics, some
in the tropics at sea level, a type of location generally thought to
be quite unhealthful. It wasn't a small collection of genetically
superior individuals, because when these peoples left their isolated
locale and moved to the city, they rapidly began to lose their
health. And it wasn't genetics because when a young couple from the
isolated healthy village moved to town, their children born in town
were as unhealthy as all the other kids.

And what do I mean by genuinely healthy? Well, imagine a remote
village or a mountain valley or a far island settlement very
difficult to get to, where there lived a thousand or perhaps ten
thousand people. Rarely fewer, rarely more. Among that small
population there were no medical doctors and no dentists, no drugs,
no vaccinations, no antibiotics. Usually the isolation carried with
it illiteracy and precluded contact with or awareness of modern
science, so there was little or no notion of public hygiene. And
this was before the era of antibiotics. Yet these unprotected,
undoctored, unvaccinated peoples did not suffer and die from
bacterial infections; and the women did not have to give birth to 13
children to get 2.4 to survive to breeding age--almost all the
children made it through the gauntlet of childhood diseases. There
was also virtually no degenerative disease like heart attacks,
hardening of the arteries, senility, cancer, arthritis. There were
few if any birth defects. In fact, there probably weren't any
aspirin in the entire place. Oh, and there was very little mortality
during childbirth, as little or less than we have today with all our
hospitals. And the people uniformly had virtually perfect teeth and
kept them all till death, but did not have toothbrushes nor any
notion of dental hygiene. Nor did they have dentists or physicians.
(Price, 1970)

And in those fortunate places the most common causes of death were
accident (trauma) and old age. The typical life span was long into
the 70s and in some places quite a bit longer. One fabled place,
Hunza, was renowned for having an extraordinarily high percentage of
vigorous and active people over 100 years old.

I hope I've made you curious. "How could this be?" you're asking.
Well, here's why. First, everyone of those groups lived in places so
entirely remote, so inaccessible that they were of necessity,
virtually self-sufficient. They hardly traded at all with the
outside world, and certainly they did not trade for bulky,
hard-to-transport bulk foodstuffs. Virtually everything they ate was
produced by themselves. If they were an agricultural people,
naturally, everything they ate was natural: organic, whole,
unsprayed and fertilized with what ever local materials seemed to
produce enhanced plant growth. And, if they were agricultural, they
lived on a soil body that possessed highly superior natural
fertility. If not an agricultural people they lived by the sea and
made a large portion of their diets sea foods. If their soil had not
been extraordinarily fertile, these groups would not have enjoyed
superior health and would have conformed to the currently
widely-believed notion that before the modern era, people's lives
were brutish, unhealthful, and short.

What is common between meat-eating Eskimos, isolated highland Swiss
living on rye bread, milk and cheese; isolated Scottish island Celts
with a dietary of oat porridge, kale and sea foods; highland central
Africans (Malawi) eating sorghum, millet tropical root crops and all
sorts of garden vegetables, plus a little meat and dairy; Fijians
living on small islands in the humid tropics at sea level eating sea
foods and garden vegetables. What they had in common was that their
foods were all were at the extreme positive end of the Health =
Nutrition / Calories scale. The agriculturists were on very fertile
soil that grew extraordinarily nutrient-rich food, the sea food
gatherers were obtaining their tucker from the place where all the
fertility that ever was in the soil had washed out of the land had
been transported--sea foods are also extraordinarily nutrient rich.

The group with the very best soil and consequently, the best health
of all were, by lucky accident, the Hunza. I say "lucky" and
"accident" because the Hunza and their resource base unknowingly
developed an agricultural system that produced the most nutritious
food that is possible to grow. The Hunza lived on what has been
called super food. There are a lot of interesting books about the
Hunza, some deserving of careful study. (Wrench, 1938; Rodale, 1949)

Finding Your Ideal Dietary

Anyone that is genuinely interested in having the best possible
health should make their own study of the titles listed in the
bibliography in the back of this book. After you do, award yourself
a BS nutrition. I draw certain conclusions from this body of data. I
think they help a person sort out the massive confusion that exists
today about proper diet.

First principle: Homo Sapiens clearly can posses extreme health
while eating very different dietary regimens. There is no one right
diet for humans.

Before the industrial era almost everyone on Earth ate what was
produced locally. Their dietary choices were pretty much restricted
to those foods that were well adapted and productive in their
region. Some places grew rye, others wheat, others millet, others
rice. Some places supported cows, others goats, others had few on no
domesticated animals. Some places produced a lot of fruits and
vegetables. Others, did not. Whatever the local dietary, during
thousands of years of eating that dietary natural selection
prevailed; most babies that were allergic to or not able to thrive
on the available dietary, died quickly. Probably of childhood
bacterial infections. The result of this weeding out process was a
population closely adapted to the available dietary of a particular
locale.

This has interesting implications for Americans, most of whose
ancestors immigrated from somewhere else; many of our ancestors also
"hybridized" or crossed with immigrants from elsewhere. Trying to
discover what dietary substances your particular genetic endowment
is adapted to can be difficult and confusing. If both your parents
were Italian and they were more or less pure Italian going way back,
you might start out trying to eat wheat, olives, garlic, fava beans,
grapes, figs, cow dairy. If pure German, try rye bread, cow dairy,
apples, cabbage family vegetables. If Scottish, try oats, mutton,
fish, sheep dairy and cabbage family vegetables. If Jewish, try goat
dairy, wheat, olives and citrus. And certainly all the above ethnic
derivations will thrive on many kinds of vegetables. Afro-Americans,
especially dark-complexioned ones little mixed with Europeans, might
do well to avoid wheat and instead, try sorghum, millet or tropical
root crops like sweet potatoes, yams and taro.

Making it even more difficult for an individual to discover their
optimum diet is the existence of genetic-based allergies and worse,
developed allergies. Later in this chapter I will explain how a body
can develop an allergy to a food that is probably irreversible. A
weakened organ can also prevent digestion of a food or food group.

One more thing about adaptation to dietaries. Pre-industrial humans
could only be extraordinarily healthy on the dietary they were
adapted to if and only if that dietary also was extraordinarily high
in nutrients. Few places on earth have naturally rich soil. Food
grown on poor soil is poor in nutrition; that grown on rich soil is
high in nutrition. People do not realize that the charts and tables
in the backs of health books like Adelle Davis's Lets Cook It Right,
are not really true. They are statistics. It is vital to keep in
mind the old saying, "there are lies, there are damned lies, and
then there are statistics. The best way to lie is with statistics."

Statistical tables of the nutrient content of foods were developed
by averaging numerous samples of food from various soils and
regions. These tables basically lie because they do not show the
range of possibility between the different samples. A chart may
state authoritatively that 100 grams of broccoli contains so many
milligrams of calcium. What it does not say is that some broccoli
samples contain only half that amount or even less, while other
broccoli contains two or three times that amount. Since calcium is a
vital nutrient hard to come by in digestible form, the high calcium
broccoli is far better food than the low calcium sample. But both
samples of broccoli appear and taste more or less alike. Both could
even be organically grown. Yet one sample has a very positive ratio
of nutrition to calories, the other is lousy food. (Schuphan, 1965)
Here's another example I hope will really dent the certainties the
Linda Clarkites. Potatoes can range in protein from eight to eleven
percent, depending on the soil that produced them and if they were
or were not irrigated. Grown dry (very low yielding) on semiarid
soils, potatoes can be a high-protein staff of life. Heavily
irrigated and fertilized so as to produce bulk yield instead of
nutrition, they'll produce two or three times the tonnage, but at 8
percent protein instead of 11 percent. Not only does the protein
content drop just as much as yield is boosted, the amino acid ratios
change markedly, the content of scarce nutritional minerals drops
massively, and the caloric content increases. In short, subsisting
on irrigated commercially-grown potatoes, or on those grown on
relatively infertile soils receiving abundant rainfall will make you
fat and sick. They're a lot like manioc.

Here's another. Wheat can range from 7 to 19 percent protein. Before
the industrial era ruined most wheat by turning it into white flour,
wheat-eating peoples from regions where the cereal naturally
contains abundant protein tended to be tall, healthy and long-lived.
Wheat-eating humans from regions that produce low protein grain
tended to be small, sickly and short-lived. (McCarrison, 1921, 1936,
1982; Albrecht, 1975)

Even cows have to pay attention to where their grass is coming from.
Some green grass is over 15 percent protein and contains lots of
calcium, phosphorus and magnesium to build strong bodies. Other
equally or even better looking green grass contains only six or
seven percent protein and contains little calcium, phosphorus or
magnesium. Cows forced to eat only this poor type of grass can
literally starve to death with full bellies. And they have a hard
time breeding successfully. The reason for the difference: different
soil fertility profiles. (Albrecht, 1975)

When people ate local, those living on fertile soils or getting a
significant portion of their diet from the sea and who because of
physical isolation from industrial foods did not make a practice of
eating empty calories tended to live a long time and be very
healthy. But those unfortunates on poor soils or with unwise
cultural life-styles tended to be short-lived, diseased, small,
weak, have bad teeth, and etc. The lesson here is that Homo Sapiens
can adapt to many different dietaries, but like any other animal,
the one thing we can't adapt to is a dietary deficient in nutrition.

So here's another "statistic" to reconsider. Most people believe
that due to modern medical wonders, we live longer than we used to.
Actually, that depends. Compared to badly nourished populations of a
century ago, yes! We do. Chemical medicine keeps sickly, poorly
nourished people going a lot longer (though one wonders about the
quality of their dreary existences.) I hypothesize that before the
time most farmers purchased and baked with white flour and sold
their whole, unground wheat, many rural Americans (the ones on good
soil, not all parts of North America have rich soil) eating from
their own self-sufficient farms, lived as long or even longer than
we do today. You also have to wonder who benefits from promulgating
this mistaken belief about longevity. Who gets rich when we are
sick? And what huge economic interests are getting rich helping make
us sick?

The Human Comedy

I know most of my readers have been heavily indoctrinated about food
and think they already know the truth about dietetics. I also know
that so much information (and misinformation) is coming out about
diet that most of my readers are massively confused about the
subject. These are two powerful reasons many readers will look with
disbelief at what this chapter has to say and take no action on my
data, even to prove me wrong.

Let me warn you. There is a deep-seated human tendency to put off
taking responsibilities, beautifully demonstrated by this old joke.

A 14 year old boy was discovered masturbating by his father, who
said, "son, you shouldn't do that! If you keep it up you'll
eventually go blind!"

"But father," came the boy's quick reply. "It feels good. How about
if I don't quit until I need to wear glasses?"

The Organic Versus Chemical Feud

Now, regrettably, and at great personal risk to my reputation, I
must try to puncture the very favorite belief of food religionists,
the doctrine that organically grown food is as nutritious as food
can possibly be, Like Woody Allen's brown-rice-eating friends,
people think if you eat Organic foods, you will inevitably live a
very long time and be very healthy. Actually, the Organic vs.
chemical feud is in many ways false. Many (not all) samples of
organically grown food are as low or lower in nutrition as foods
raised with chemical fertilizers. Conversely, wisely using chemical
fertilizers (not pesticides) can greatly increase the nutritional
value of food. Judiciously used Organic fertilizing substances can
also do that as well or better. And in either case, using chemical
fertilizers or so-called organic fertilizers, to maximize nutrition
the humus content of the soil must be maintained. But, raising soil
organic matter levels too high can result in a massive reduction in
the nutritional content of the food being grown--a very frequent
mistake on the part of Organic devotees. In other words, growing
nutrition is a science, and is not a matter of religion.

The food I fed to my daughter in childhood, though Organic according
to Rodale and the certification bureaucrats, though providing this
organic food to my family and clients gave me a feeling of
self-righteousness, was not grown with an understanding of the
nutritional consequences of electing to use one particular Organic
fertilizing substance over another. So we and a lot of regional
Organic market gardeners near us that we bought from, were raising
food that was far from ideally nutritious. At least though, our food
was free of pesticide residues.

The real dichotomy in food is not "chemical" fertilizer versus
"Organic," It is between industrial food and quality food. What I
mean by industrial food is that which is raised with the intention
of maximizing profit or yield. There is no contradiction between
raising food that the "rabbis" running Organic certification
bureaucracies would deem perfectly "kosher" and raising that same
food to make the most possible money or the biggest harvest. When a
farmer grows for money, they want to produce the largest number of
bushels, crates, tons, bales per acre. Their criteria for success is
primarily unit volume. Many gardeners think the same way. To
maximize bulk yield they build soil fertility in a certain direction
(organically or chemically) and choose varieties that produce
greater bulk. However, nature is ironic in this respect. The most
nutritious food is always lower yielding. The very soil management
practices that maximize production simultaneously reduce nutrition.

The real problem we are having about our health is not that there
are residues of pesticides in our food. The real problem is that
there are only residues of nutrition left in our foods. Until our
culture comes to understand this and realizes that the health costs
of accepting less than optimum food far exceeds the profits made by
growing bulk, it will not be possible to frequently find the
ultimate of food quality in the marketplace, organically grown or
not. It will not be possible to find food that is labeled or
identified according to its real nutritional value. The best I can
say about Organic food these days is that it probably is no less
nutritious than chemically-grown food while at least it is free of
pesticide residues.

The Poor Start

For this reason it makes sense to take vitamins and food
supplements, to be discussed in the next chapter. And because our
food supply, Organic or "conventional," is far from optimum, if a
person wants to be and remain healthy and have a life span that
approaches their genetic potential (and that potential, it seems,
approaches or exceeds a century), it is essential that empty
calories are rigorously avoided.

An accurate and quick-to-respond indicator of how well we are doing
in terms of getting enough nutrition is the state of our teeth. One
famous dentally-oriented nutritional doctor, Melvin Page, suggested
that as long as overall nutrition was at least 75 percent of
perfection, the body chemistry could support healthy teeth and gums
until death. By healthy here Page means free of cavities, no bone
loss around the teeth (no wobblers), no long-in-the-teeth mouths
from receding gums, no gum diseases at all. But when empty calories
or devitalized foods or misdigestion cuts our nutrient intake we
begin experiencing tooth decay, gum disease and bone loss in the
jaw. How are your teeth?

I suppose you could say that I have a food religion, but mine is to
eat so that the equation Nutrition = Health / Calories is strongly
in my favor.

Back to my daughter's teeth. Yes, I innocently fed her less than
ideally nutritious food, but at that time I couldn't buy ideal food
even had I known what I wanted, nor did I have any scientific idea
of how to produce ideal food, nor actually, could I have done so on
the impoverished, leached-out clay soil at Great Oaks School even
had I known how. The Organic doctrine says that you can build a
Garden of 'Eatin with large quantities of compost until any old clay
pit or gravel heap produces highly nutritious food. This idea is not
really true. Sadly, what is true about organic matter in soil is
that when it is increased very much above the natural level one
finds in untilled soil in the climate you're working with, the
nutritional content of the food begins to drop markedly. I know this
assertion is shocking and perhaps threatening to those who believe
in the Organic system; I am sorry.

But there is another reason my daughter's teeth were not perfect,
probably could not have been perfect no matter what we fed her, and
why she will probably have at least some health problems as she ages
no matter how perfectly she may choose to eat from here on. My
daughters had what Dr. G.T. Wrench called "a poor start." Not as
poor as it could have been by any means, but certainly less than
ideal.

You see, the father has very little to do with the health of the
child, unless he happens to carry some particularly undesirable
gene. It is the mother who has the job of constructing the fetus out
of prepartum nourishment and her own body's nutritional reserves.
The female body knows from trillenia of instinctual experience that
adequate nutrition from the current food supply during pregnancy can
not always be assured, so the female body stores up very large
quantities of minerals and vitamins and enzymes against that very
possibility. When forming a fetus these reserves are drawn down and
depleted. It is virtually impossible during the pregnancy itself for
a mother to extract sufficient nutrition from current food to build
a totally healthy fetus, no matter how nourishing the food she is
eating may be. Thus a mother-to-be needs to be spending her entire
childhood and her adolescence (and have adequate time between
babies), building and rebuilding her reserves.

A mother-to-be also started out at her own birth with a vitally
important stock of nutritional reserves, reserves put there during
her own fetal development. If that "start" was less than ideal, the
mother-to-be (as fetus) got "pinched" and nutritionally shortchanged
in certain, predictable ways. Even minor mineral fetal deficiencies
degrade the bone structure: the fetus knows it needs nutritional
reserves more than it needs to have a full-sized jaw bone or a wide
pelvic girdle, and when deprived of maximum fetal nourishment, these
non-vital bones become somewhat smaller. Permanently. If mineral
deficiencies continue into infancy and childhood, these same bones
continue to be shortchanged, and the child ends up with a very
narrow face, a jaw bone far too small to hold all the teeth, and in
women, a small oven that may have trouble baking babies. More
importantly, those nutrient reserves earmarked especially for making
babies are also deficient. So a deficient mother not only shows
certain structural evidence of physiological degeneration, but she
makes deficient babies. A deficient female baby at birth is unlikely
to completely overcome her bad start before she herself has
children.

So with females, the quality of a whole lifetime's nutrition, and
the life-nutrition of her mother (and of her mother's mother as
well) has a great deal to do with the outcome of a pregnancy. The
sins of the mother can really be visited unto the third and fourth
generation.

This reality was powerfully demonstrated in the 1920s by a medical
doctor, Francis Pottenger. He was not gifted with a good bedside
manner. Rather than struggling with an unsuccessful clinical
practice, Dr. Pottenger decided to make his living running a medical
testing laboratory in Pasadena, California. Dr. Pottenger earned his
daily bread performing a rather simple task, assaying the potency of
adrenal hormone extracts. At that time, adrenaline, a useful drug to
temporarily rescue people close to death, was extracted from the
adrenal glands of animals. However, the potency of these crude
extracts varied greatly. Being a very powerful drug, it was
essential to measure exactly how strong your extract was so its
dosage could be controlled.

Quantitative organic chemistry was rather crude in those days.
Instead of assaying in a test tube, Dr. Pottenger kept several big
cages full of cats that he had adrenalectomized. Without their own
adrenals, the cats could not live more than a short time By finding
out how much extract was required to keep the cats from failing, he
could measure the strength of the particular batch.

Dr. Pottenger's cats were economically valuable so he made every
effort to keep them healthy, something that proved to be
disappointingly difficult. He kept his cats clean, in airy, bright
quarters, fed them to the very best of his ability on pasteurized
whole milk, slaughterhouse meat and organs (cats in the wild eat
organ meats first and there are valuable vitamins and other
substances in organ meats that don't exist in muscle tissue). The
meat was carefully cooked to eliminate any parasites, and the diet
was supplemented with cod liver oil. However, try as he might,
Pottenger's cats were sickly, lived short and had to be frequently
replaced. Usually they bred poorly and died young of bacterial
infections, there being no antibiotics in the 1920s. I imagine Dr.
Pottenger was constantly visiting the animal shelter and perhaps
even paid quarters out the back door to a steady stream of young
boys who brought him cats in burlap sacks from who knows where, no
questions asked.

Dr. Pottenger's assays must have been accurate, for his business
grew and grew. Eventually he needed more cats than he had cages to
house, so he built a big, roofed, on-the-ground pen outdoors.
Because he was overworked, he was less careful about the feeding of
these extra animals. They got the same pasteurized milk and
cod-liver oil, but he did not bother to cook their slaughterhouse
meat. Then, a small miracle happened. This poorly cared for cage of
cats fed on uncooked meat became much healthier than the others,
suffering far fewer bacterial infections or other health problems.
Then another miracle happened. Dr. Pottenger began to meditate on
the first miracle.

It occurred to him that cats in the wild did not cook their food;
perhaps cats had a digestive system that couldn't process or
assimilate much out of cooked food. Perhaps the problem he had been
having was not because the cats were without adrenal glands but
because they were without sustenance, suffering a sort of slow
starvation in the midst of plenty. So Dr. Pottenger set up some cat
feeding experiments.

There were four possible combinations of his regimen: raw meat and
unpasteurized milk; raw meat and pasteurized milk; cooked meat and
raw milk; cooked meat and pasteurized milk, this last one being what
he had been feeding all along. So he divided his cats into four
groups and fed each group differently. The first results of
Pottenger's experiments were revealed quickly though the most
valuable results took longer to see. The cats on raw meat and raw
milk did best. The ones on raw meat and pasteurized milk did okay
but not as well. The ones on cooked meat and raw milk did even less
well and those on all cooked food continued to do as poorly as ever.

Clearly, cats can't digest cooked food; all animals do better fed on
what they can digest. A lot of people have taken Pottenger's data
and mistakenly concluded that humans also should eat only raw food.
This idea is debatable. However, the most important result of the
cat experiments took years to reveal itself and is not paid much
attention to, probably because its implications are very depressing.
Dr. Pottenger continued his experiments for several generations. It
was the transgenerational changes that showed the most valuable
lesson. Over several generations, the cats on all raw foods began to
alter their appearance. Their faces got wider, their pelvic girdles
broader, bones solider, teeth better. They began to breed very
successfully.

After quite a few generations, the healthiest group, the one on all
raw foods, seemed to have improved as much as it could. So Dr.
Pottenger took some of these cats and began feeding them only cooked
food to study the process of nutritional degeneration. After three
"de"generations on cooked fodder the group had deteriorated so much
that the animals could barely breed. Their faces had become narrow,
their teeth crooked, their pelvic girdles narrow, their bones and
body structure very small, and their dispositions poor. Mothers
wouldn't nurse their young and sometimes became cannibalistic. They
no longer lived very long.

Before the degenerating group completely lost the ability to breed,
Pottenger began to again feed them all raw food. It took four
generations on a perfect, raw food diet before some perfect
appearing individuals showed up in the group. It takes longer to
repair the damage than it does to cause it and it takes generations
of unflagging persistence.

I think much the same process has happened to humans in this
century. With the invention of the roller mill and the consequent
degradation of our daily bread to white flour; with the birth of
industrial farming and the generalized lowering of the nutritional
content of all of our crops; our overall ratio of nutrition to
calories worsened. Then it worsened again because we began to have
industrial food manufacturing and national brand prepared food
marketing systems; we began subsisting on devitalized, processed
foods. The result has been an even greater worsening of our ratio of
nutrition to calories.

And just like Pottenger's cats, we civilized humans in so-called
advanced countries are losing the ability to breed, our willingness
(or the energy) to mother our young; we're losing our good humor in
the same way Pottenger's degenerated cats became bad tempered. As a
group we feel so poorly that we desperately need to feel better
fast, and what better way to do that than with drugs. Is it any
wonder that the United States, the country furthest down the road of
industrial food degeneration, spends 14 percent of its gross
domestic product on medical services. Any wonder that so many babies
are born by Cesarean, any wonder that so many of our children have
crooked teeth needing an orthodontist? The most depressing aspect of
this comes into view when considering that Pottenger's cats took
four generations on perfect food to repair most of the nutritional
damage.

In the specific case of my daughter, I know somethings about the
nutritional history of her maternal ancestors. My daughter's
grandmother grew up on a Saskatchewan farm. Though they certainly
grew their own rich wheat on virgin semi-arid prairie soil, I'm sure
the family bought white flour at the store for daily use. Still,
there was a garden and a cow producing raw milk and free-range
fertile eggs and chicken and other animals. There probably were lots
of canned vegetables in winter, canned but still highly nutritious
because of the fertility of their prairie garden. My mother
consequently had perfect teeth until the Great Depression forced her
to live for too many years on lard and white bread.

During this time of severe malnutrition she had her three babies.
The first one got the best of her nutritional reserves. The second,
born after the worst of the malnutrition, was very small and weak
and had a hard time growing up. Fortunately for me, for a few years
before I (the last child) was born, the worst of the economic times
had past and the family had been living on a farm. There were
vegetables and fresh raw milk and fruit. My mother had two good
years to rebuild her nutritional reserves. But "Grannybell" did not
managed to replace enough. Shortly after I was born my mother lost
every one of her teeth all at once. The bone just disappeared around
them.

Thus, I was born deficient. And my childhood and adolescent
nutrition was poor too: soda crackers, pasteurized processed
artificial cheese, evaporated milk from cans, hotdogs and canned
beans, hotdogs and cabbage. It wasn't until I was pregnant with my
first baby that I started to straighten up my diet. I continued
eating very well after my first daughter, so my youngest daughter
had another three years of good diet to draw on. Thus both my own
daughters got a somewhat better start than I had had.

My teeth were not as good as my mother's had been before those years
of malnutrition took them all. Instead of perfect straight undecayed
teeth like a healthy farm girl should have, mine were somewhat
crowded, with numerous cavities. My jaw bone had not received enough
minerals to develop to its full size. My pelvic girdle also was
smaller than my mother's was. I had had a poor start.

My daughters did better. The older one (the first child typically
gets the best of the nutritional reserves) has such a wide jaw that
there are small spaces between her teeth. My second daughter has
only one crooked tooth, she has wider, more solid hips, stronger
bones and a broader face than I do. If my younger daughter will but
from this point in her life, eat perfectly and choose her food
wisely to responsibly avoid empty calories and maximize her ratio of
nutrition to calories, her daughter (if she gives us granddaughters
as her older sister already has done) may exhibit the perfect
physiology that her genes carry.

Along the lines of helping you avoid empty calories I will give you
some information about various common foods that most people don't
know and that most books about food and health don't tell, or
misunderstand.

Butter, Margarine and Fats in General.

Recently, enormous propaganda has been generated against eating
butter. Its been smeared in the health magazines as a saturated
animal fat, one containing that evil substance, cholesterol. Many
people are now avoiding it and instead, using margarine.

Composition of Oils

Saturated Monosaturated Unsaturated
Butter 66% 30% 4%
Coconut Oil 87% 6% 2%
Cottonseed Oil 26% 18% 52%
Olive Oil 13% 74% 8%
Palm Oil 49% 37% 9%
Soybean Oil 14% 24% 58%
Sunflower Oil 4% 8% 83%
Safflower Oil 3% 5% 87%
Sesame Oil 5% 9% 80%
Peanut Oil 6% 12% 76%
Corn Oil 3% 7% 84%

This is a major and serious misunderstanding. First of all,
margarine is almost indigestible, chemically very much like
shortening--an artificially saturated or hydrogenated vegetable fat.
Hydrogenated fats can't be properly broken down by the body's
digestive enzymes, adding to the body's toxic load. Margarine, being
a chemically-treated vegetable oil with artificial yellow color and
artificial flavorings to make it seem like butter, also releases
free radicals in the body that accelerate aging. So, to avoid the
dangers of eating cholesterol-containing butter, people eat
something far worse for them!

There are severe inconsistencies with the entire
"cholesterol-is-evil" theory. Ethnic groups like the Danes, who eat
enormous quantities of cholesterol-containing foods, have little
circulatory disease. Actually, the liver itself produces
cholesterol; it's presence in the blood is an important part of the
body chemistry. Cholesterol only becomes a problem because of
deranged body chemistry due to the kind of overall malnutrition
Americans usually experience on their junk food diets. Avoiding
cholesterol in foods does little good, but eating a low-fat,
low-sugar, complex-carbohydrate (whole foods) diet high in minerals
does lower blood cholesterol enormously.

Actually, high quality fresh (not rancid) butter in moderate
quantities is about the finest fat a person could eat. But high
quality butter is almost unobtainable. First of all, it has to be
raw, made from unpasteurized cream. Second, butter can contain very
high levels of fat-soluble vitamins, but doesn't have to.
Vitamin-rich butter's color is naturally bright yellow, almost
orange. This color does not come from a test tube. Pale yellow
butter as is found in the commercial trade was probably almost white
before it was artificially tinted. Butter from grass-pastured cows
naturally changes from yellow-orange to white and back again through
the year as the seasons change. Spring grass, growing in the most
intense sunlight of the year contains very high levels of
chlorophyll and vitamins. Cows eating this grass put high levels of
vitamins A and D into their cream, evidenced by the orange color of
vitamin A. By July, natural butter has degraded to medium-yellow in
color. By August, it is pale yellow. Industrial dairy cows fed
exclusively on hay or artificial, processed feeds (lacking in these
vitamins), produce butterfat that is almost white.

I prefer to obtain my butter from a neighbor who has several dairy
cows grazing on fertile bottom land pasture. We always freeze a
year's supply in late spring when butter is at its best.
Interestingly, that is also the time of year when my neighbor gets
the most production from her cows and is most willing to part with
25 pounds of extra butter.

In general, fats are poor foods that should be avoided. Their ratio
of nutrition to calories is absolutely the worst of all food types,
except perhaps for pure white sugar, which is all calories and
absolutely no nutrition (this is also true for other forms of sugar.
Honey, too, contains almost no nutrition.). Gram for gram, fats
contain many more calories than do sugars or starches. Yet gram for
gram, fats contain virtually no nutrition except for small
quantities of essential fatty acids.

The perverse reason people like to eat fats is that they are very
hard to digest and greatly slow the digestive action of the stomach.
Another way of saying that is that they have a very high satiety
value. Fats make a person feel full for a long time because their
presence in the stomach makes it churn and churn and churn. Fats
coat proteins and starches and delay their digestion, often causing
them to begin fermenting (starches) or putrefying (proteins) in the
digestive tract.

The best fats contain high levels of monosaturated vegetable oils
that have never been exposed to heat or chemicals--like virgin olive
oil. Use small quantities of olive oil for salad dressing.
Monosaturated fats also have far less tendency to go rancid than any
other type. Vegetable oils with high proportions of unsaturated
fats, the kind that all the authorities push because they contain no
cholesterol, go rancid rapidly upon very brief exposure to air. The
danger here is that rancidity in vegetable oil is virtually
unnoticeable. Rancid animal fat on the other hand, smells "off."
Eating rancid oil is a sure-fire way to accelerate aging, invite
degenerative conditions in general, and enhance the likelihood of
cancer. I recommend that you use only high-quality virgin olive oil,
the only generally-available fat that is largely monosaturated.
(Pearson and Shaw, 1983)

When you buy vegetable oil, even olive oil, get small bottles so you
use them up before the oil has much time being exposed to air (as
you use the oil air fills the bottle) or, if you buy olive oil in a
large can to save money, immediately upon opening it, transfer the
oil to pint jars filled to the very brim to exclude virtually all
air, and seal the jars securely. In either case, keep now-opened,
in-use small bottles of oil in the refrigerator because rancidity is
simply the combination of oil with oxygen from the air and this
chemical reaction is accelerated at warmer temperatures and slowed
greatly at cold ones.

Chemical reactions typically double in speed with every 10 degrees
C. increase in temperature. So oil goes rancid about six times
faster at normal room temperature than it does in the fridge. If
you'll think about the implications of this data you'll see there
are two powerful reasons not to fry food. One, the food is coated
with oil and gains in satiety value at the expense of becoming
relatively indigestible and productive of toxemia. Secondly, if
frying occurs at 150 degrees Centigrade and normal room temperature
is 20 degrees Centigrade, then oil goes rancid 2 to the 13th power
faster in the frying pan, or about 8,200 times faster. Heating oil
for only ten minutes in a hot skillet induces as much rancidity as
about 6 weeks of sitting open and exposed to air at room
temperature. Think about that the next time you're tempted to eat
something from a fast food restaurant where the hot fat in the deep
fryer has been reacting with oxygen all day, or even for several
days.

Back to butter, where we started. If you must have something
traditionally northern European on your bread, you are far better
off to use butter, not margarine. However, Mediterranean peoples
traditionally dip their bread in high-quality extra-virgin olive oil
that smells and tastes like olives. Its delicious, why not try it.
But best yet, put low-sugar fruit preserves on your toast or develop
a taste for dry toast. Probably the finest use for butter is melted
over steamed vegetables. This way only small quantities are needed
and the fat goes on something that is otherwise very easy to digest
so its presence will not produce as many toxins in the digestive
tract.

Milk, Meat, And Other Protein Foods

Speaking of butter, how about milk? The dairy lobby is very powerful
in North America. Its political clout and campaign contributions
have the governments of both the United States and especially that
of Canada eating out of its hand (literally), providing the dairy
industry with price supports. Because of these price supports, in
Canada cheese costs half again more than it does in the United
States. The dairy lobby is also very cozy with the medical
profession so licensed nutritionists constantly bombard us with
"drink milk" and "cheese is good for you" propaganda.

And people naturally like dairy foods. They taste good and are
fat-rich with a high satiety value. Dairy makes you feel full for a
long time. Dairy is also high in protein; protein is hard to digest
and this too keeps one feeling full for a long time. But many
people, especially those from cultures who traditionally
(genetically) didn't have dairy cows, particularly Africans, Asians
and Jews, just do not produce the enzymes necessary to digest cows
milk. Some individuals belonging to these groups can digest goats
milk. Some can't digest any kind except human breast milk. And some
can digest fermented milk products like yogurt and kiefer. Whenever
one eats a protein food that is not fully digestible, it putrefies
in the digestive tract, with all the bad consequences previously
described.

But no one, absolutely no one can fully digest pasteurized cows
milk, which is what most people use because they have been made to
fear cow-transmitted diseases and/or they are forced to use
pasteurized dairy products by health authorities. I suspect drinking
pasteurized milk or eating cheese made from pasteurized milk is one
of the reasons so many people develop allergic reactions to milk.
Yet many states do not allow unpasteurized dairy to be sold, even
privately between neighbors. To explain all this, I first have to
explain a bit more about protein digestion in general and then talk
about allergies and how they can be created.

Proteins are long, complex molecules, intricate chains whose
individual links are amino acids. Proteins are the very stuff of
life. All living protoplasm, animal or plant, is largely composed of
proteins. There are virtually an infinite number of different
proteins but all are composed of the same few dozen amino acids
hooked together in highly variable patterns. Amino acids themselves
are highly complex organic molecules too. The human body
custom-assembles all its proteins from amino acids derived from
digesting protein foods, and can also manufacture small quantities
of certain of its own amino acids to order, but there are eight
amino acids it cannot make and these are for that reason called
essential amino acids. Essential amino acids must be contained in
the food we eat. .

Few proteins are water soluble. When we eat proteins the digestive
apparatus must first break them down into their water-soluble
components, amino acids, so these can pass into the blood and then
be reassembled into the various proteins the body uses. The body has
an interesting mechanism to digest proteins; it uses enzymes. An
enzyme is like the key for a lock. It is a complex molecule that
latches to a protein molecule and then breaks it apart into amino
acids. Then the enzyme finds yet another protein molecule to free.
Enzymes are efficient, reusable many many times.

Enzymes that digest proteins are effective only in the very acid
environment of the stomach, are manufactured by the pancreas and are
released when protein foods are present. The stomach then releases
hydrochloric acid and churns away like a washing machine, mixing the
enzymes and the acid with the proteins until everything has
digested.

So far so good. That's how its supposed to be. But. Dr. Henry
Bieler, who wrote Food Is Your Best Medicine, came up with the
finest metaphor I know of to explain how protein digestion goes
wrong. He compared all proteins to the white of an egg (which is
actually a form of protein). When raw and liquid, the long chains of
albumen (egg white) proteins are in their natural form. However,
cook the egg and the egg white both solidifies and becomes smaller.
What has happened is that the protein chains have shriveled and
literally tied themselves into knots. Once this happens, pancreatic
enzymes no longer fit and cannot separate all the amino acids.
Cooked proteins may churn and churn and churn in the presence of
acid and pancreatic enzymes but they will not digest completely.
Part becomes water soluble; part does not.

But, indigestible protein is still subject to an undesirable form of
consumption in the gut. Various bacteria make their home in our
airless, warm intestines. Some of these live on protein. In the
process of consuming undigested proteins, they release highly toxic
substances. They poison us.

What is true of the white of an egg is also true of flesh foods and
dairy. Raw meat and raw fish are actually easily digestible foods
and if not wrongly combined will not produce toxemia in a person
that still has a strong pancreas. However, eating raw meat and fish
can be a dicey proposition, both for reasons of cultural sensibility
(people think it is disgusting) and because there may be living
parasites in uncooked flesh that can attack, sicken and even kill
people. It has been argued that a healthy stomach containing its
proper degree of acidity provides an impenetrable barrier to
parasites. Perhaps. But how many of us are that healthy these days?
Cooked flesh and fish seems more delicious to our refined, civilized
sensibilities, but are a poor food.

In my household we have no moral objection to eating meat. We do
have an ethical objection in that meat eating does not contribute to
our health. But still, we do eat it. A few times a year, for
traditional celebrations we may invite the children over and cook a
turkey. A few times for Thanksgiving when the children were going
through their holier-than-thou vegetarian stage, I purchased the
largest, thickest porterhouse steak I could find at the natural meat
store and ate it medium-rare, with relish. It was delicious. It made
me feel full for hours and hours and hours. I stayed flat on the
couch and groggily worked on digesting it all evening. After that
I'd had enough of meat to last for six months.

When milk is pasteurized, the proteins in it are also altered in
structure. Not so severely as egg white is altered by cooking
because pasteurization happens at a lower temperature. But altered
none the less. And made less digestible. Pasteurizing also makes
milk calcium far less assimilable. That's ironic because so many
people are drinking milk because they fear they need more calcium to
avoid osteoporosis and to give their children good teeth. What
pasteurized milk actually does to their children is make them
calcium deficient and makes the children toxic, provoking many
colds, ear infections, sinusitis, inflammations of the tonsils and
lung infections, and, induces an allergy to milk in the children.

The Development Of Allergies

There are three ways a body can become allergic. (1) It can have a
genetic predisposition for a specific allergy to start with. (2) It
can be repeatedly exposed to an irritating substance such as pollen
when, at the same time, the body's mechanism for dealing with
irritations is weakened. Generally weak adrenals causes this because
the adrenal's job is to produce hormones that reduce inflammation.
Once the irritating substance succeeds at producing a significant
inflammation, a secondary reaction may be set up, called an allergy.
Once established, an allergy is very hard to get rid of.

(3) in a way very similar to the second, but instead of being
irritated by an external substance, it is irritated by repeatedly
failing to properly, fully digest something. Pasteurized milk for
example, basically impossible to completely digest even in its
low-fat form, often sets up an allergy that applies to other forms
of cows milk, even raw, unpasteurized cows milk or yogurt. Eating
too much white flour can eventually set off a wheat allergy. My
husband developed a severe allergy to barley after drinking too much
home-brewed beer; he also became highly intolerant to alcohol. Now
he has allergic reactions to both alcohol and barley. And gets far
sicker from drinking beer (two separate allergies) than from wheat
beer, hard liquor or wine (only one allergy).

Eating too much of any single food, or repeatedly eating too much of
an otherwise very good food at one time, can eventually overwhelm
the body's ability to digest it fully. Then, the finest whole food
products may set up an allergic reaction. Worse, this allergic
reaction itself subsequently prevents proper digestion even when
only moderate quantities are eaten.

An allergy may not be recognized as an allergy because it may not
manifest as the instant skin rash or stuffy nose or swollen glands
or sticky eyes. that people usually think of when they think
"allergic reaction." Food allergies can cause many kinds of
symptoms, from sinusitis to psychosis, from asthma to arthritis,
from hyperactivity to depression, insomnia to narcolepsy--and
commonly the symptoms don't manifest immediately after eating.
Frequently, allergic reactions are so low grade as to be
unnoticeable and may not produce an observable condition until many
years of their grinding down the vital force has passed. When the
condition finally appears it is hard to associate it with some food
that has been consumed for years, apparently with impunity.

Thus it is that many North Americans have developed allergies to
wheat, dairy, soy products (because many soy foods are very hard to
digest), corn and eggs. These are such common, widespread,
frequently found allergies that anyone considering a dietary cause
of their complaints might just cut all these foods out of the diet
for a few weeks just to see what happens. And individuals may be
allergic to anything from broccoli to bacon, strawberries to bean
sprouts. Unraveling food allergies sometimes requires the deductions
of a Sherlock Holmes.

However, food allergies are very easy to cure if you can get the
suffered to take the medicine. Inevitably, allergic reactions vanish
in about five days of abstinence. Anyone with sufficient
self-discipline to water fast for five days can cure themselves of
all food allergies at one step. Then, by a controlled, gradual
reintroduction of foods, they can discover which individual items
cause troub





Next: Vitamins and Other Food Supplements

Previous: Colon Cleansing



Add to del.icio.us Add to Reddit Add to Digg Add to Del.icio.us Add to Google Add to Twitter Add to Stumble Upon
Add to Informational Site Network
Report
Privacy
SHAREADD TO EBOOK


Viewed: 2408