Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 Do you have any scientific evidence for these claims about distilled water? There is lots of marketing hype, both pro and con, but I've never seen any hard proof one way or the other. There is no doubt that distilled water is slightly acidic as measured by pH. Spring water doesn't contain minerals per se. Only mineral water does. For example, Perrier has a pH of approximately 13 which is extremely alkaline. Spring waters appear to be slightly acidic to neutral, being devoid of any significant minerals. As to parasites, it is standard practice in South Korea for the entire family to be treated for parasites once a year, a very smart practice which should be adopted in the rest of the West. This is one area where a pharmaceutical drug is clearly superior to natural remedies. Once a year, I would suggest chewing mebendazole: 2 pills a day, for 3 days. The pills aren't cheap, but it's safe, effective and easy to do. Logan > First of all, if your bones are de-mineralizing you should not drink > anything with distilled water. Distilled water has no mineral > > all, don't eat raw fish. You can get parasitic infections. Your > lung problems could be related to that. The life cycles of many > parasites consist of perforating the intestinal walls and traveling > via the bloostream to the lungs. Doctors seldom check for parasitic > infections, therefore they are seldom diagnosed in " developed " > countries. Often the larvae of the parasites can end up in the > heart or in the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 Hi All, Yes, I currently weigh below my 100+ target. The nutrients numbers that I posted were somewhat dated, and with my current supplemental oil intake, I am more zone-like. I now take small amounts of other protein source-foods. Cheers, Al Pater. > > Al, > > > I hope that you mistyped your weight gains and losses and that you > have not been yo-yo-ing between 100 and 197 pounds! I am assuming 97 > pounds for the lower weight. > > Looking at what you eat it does not surprise me that your health is > deteriorating. [snip} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted December 19, 2004 Hi Al I am new here. Acccording to Walford a lightly build person must have a target of 10% below setpoint practising CRON. Your setpoint was 110 pounds in the past? merlin. --- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Yes, I currently weigh below my 100+ target. > > The nutrients numbers that I posted were somewhat dated, and with my > current supplemental oil intake, I am more zone-like. I now take > small amounts of other protein source-foods. > > Cheers, Al Pater. > > --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...> wrote: > > > > Al, > > > > > > I hope that you mistyped your weight gains and losses and that you > > have not been yo-yo-ing between 100 and 197 pounds! I am assuming > 97 > > pounds for the lower weight. > > > > Looking at what you eat it does not surprise me that your health is > > deteriorating. > > [snip} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Hi Merlin and All, My target is not my set point weight. I weighed 155 at age 20 years. Cheers, Al Pater. > > > > > > Al, > > > > > > > > > I hope that you mistyped your weight gains and losses and that you > > > have not been yo-yo-ing between 100 and 197 pounds! I am > assuming > > 97 > > > pounds for the lower weight. > > > > > > Looking at what you eat it does not surprise me that your health > is > > > deteriorating. > > > > [snip} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 hi Al Sorry, maybe stupid to ask ,but you don´t have a criterium for your weight? the amount of calories you eat is your criterium? When 155 pounds was your average weight during several years I suppose that´s setpoint. Take 25% off because you have heavy bones. So according to Walford your target should be 116. You don´t take this Walford rule? merlin > > > > > > > > Al, > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that you mistyped your weight gains and losses and that > you > > > > have not been yo-yo-ing between 100 and 197 pounds! I am > > assuming > > > 97 > > > > pounds for the lower weight. > > > > > > > > Looking at what you eat it does not surprise me that your > health > > is > > > > deteriorating. > > > > > > [snip} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.