Re: Hi-jacking :) was: POLITICS In Support of Organic and Social Justice Values

[Guest guest]

,

> , I would guess that the body should do a better job of

> detoxing when it had a good supply of vital nutrients as with the milk

> cure, than when it is forced to feed on itself as with the water fast.

Yes that seems logical but it really doesn't work that way. The less

nutrients taken in the more aggressive the detox. That is one reason

why I think juice fasting has become the preferred method of fasting

because detoxing can be brutal, especially for someone who is detoxing

a number of things at once, and nutrient intake slows it down.

Your body will feed on and break down all kinds of foreign masses,

tumors, funny proteins, excess fats, toxic material, etc. If active

your body will do a remarkable job of sparing protein. When your body

starts to feed on itself, i.e. essential lean body mass, then it is

time to break the fast. You get hungry, and that hunger never goes

away, unlike while you are fasting.

There are lots of things we apparently don't know about fasting, but

awhile ago I found a treasure trove of studies on the issue, but now I

can't find them. They weren't online, but the article was outlining

what they were and many go back a long way and many are from Europe of

course. Nonetheless, it has been an on again off again project of mine

to bring this material together. Today there is a lot being studied

with IF fasting, but I'm talking about material for the longer type

fast.

>> If you were sensitive to those things, yes, otherwise meat, raw or

>> cooked, older or fresh would be fine. We have Stefansson's Bellevue

>> Study as an excellent reference.

>

> I'm not familiar with the Bellevue Study. Did they include organ

> meats and how long did the meat fast run?

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/87/3/651.pdf

They included organ meats and it lasted for one year. Originally it

was only lean meat and Stefansson warned them it wouldn't work. A few

plates of fried brains though and he and were good to go :-).

The study was designed to replicate what Stefansson, who lived on a

nearly exclusive meat diet for nine years, and his men actually ate

during their explorations. They survived and thrived quite well on an

all meat diet.

Remember this is how the Eskimos ate for a good chunk of the year. And

don't forget the info I posted on pemmican in another thread. It was

more than enough for long term survival. I really prefer to call the

meat diet an elimination diet in this context because you can go on

for life. While it is a possibility with milk, you clearly can't live

on water or juice alone for life.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Yes that seems logical but it really doesn't work that way. The less

> nutrients taken in the more aggressive the detox. That is one reason

> why I think juice fasting has become the preferred method of fasting

> because detoxing can be brutal, especially for someone who is

> detoxing a number of things at once, and nutrient intake slows it

> down.

, I'd be curious if anyone has taken a scientific look at detox

- by actually measuring the quantities of toxic chemicals emitted by

the body under various conditions of diet and fasting. I can see how

that would be difficult because you'd have to somehow measure expected

toxic chemicals in all bodily discharges, including sweat and sloughed

skin, as well as breath, urine, and feces, to be thorough. Otherwise,

you're limited to anecdotal evidence.

> Your body will feed on and break down all kinds of foreign masses,

> tumors, funny proteins, excess fats, toxic material, etc. If active

> your body will do a remarkable job of sparing protein. When your

> body starts to feed on itself, i.e. essential lean body mass, then

> it is time to break the fast. You get hungry, and that hunger never

> goes away, unlike while you are fasting.

If it's true that fasting breaks down tumors, you'd think it would be

a more popular cancer treatment, but I've never heard of it in that

regard. It certainly would be an inexpensive cancer cure

[Guest guest]

> If it's true that fasting breaks down tumors,

> you'd think it would be

> a more popular cancer treatment, but I've never heard of it in that

> regard. It certainly would be an inexpensive cancer cure

>

In the group Soilandhealth, there's a PDF from an Italian

doctor who heals cancer by fasting from amino acids and sugar, and

giving the patient plants.

post

http://tech./group/soilandhealth/message/9152

Dr Nacci

himself maintains that " he treats cancers by stimulating the immune

response,

thus avoiding Chemotherapy " . His metabolic therapy uses vitamins and

makes

patients follow a correct diet. Proposing this kind of therapy, Dr

Nacci made

" Mille Piante per guarire dal Cancro senza Chemio " available on the

Internet.

The essay was also translated into English in the USA with the

title " Thousand

Plants against Cancer without Chemo-Therapy "

>

[Guest guest]

Some cancers/tumors respond well to fasting but some get worse. I

don't know how to tell which is which but even fasting advocates say

not to use it for some types of cancer.

It does make sense tho because during a fast you can go into ketosis -

especially a water fast where you derive all your energy from

burning fat. That seems like it would starve the tumor which is very

sugar-dependant, right??

I think the amino issue is not really that you need to deprive

yourself of aminos as much as that you need to spare the protease to

clean up the body instead of using it up for digesting food. So free

aminos may not be as much of a problem as eating amino-containing

foods that need to be broken down.

>

> > If it's true that fasting breaks down tumors,

> > you'd think it would be

> > a more popular cancer treatment, but I've never heard of it in

that

> > regard. It certainly would be an inexpensive cancer cure

> >

>

> In the group Soilandhealth, there's a PDF from an Italian

> doctor who heals cancer by fasting from amino acids and sugar, and

> giving the patient plants.

>

> post

> http://tech./group/soilandhealth/message/9152

>

> Dr Nacci

> himself maintains that " he treats cancers by stimulating the immune

> response,

> thus avoiding Chemotherapy " . His metabolic therapy uses vitamins

and

> makes

> patients follow a correct diet. Proposing this kind of therapy, Dr

> Nacci made

> " Mille Piante per guarire dal Cancro senza Chemio " available on the

> Internet.

> The essay was also translated into English in the USA with the

> title " Thousand

> Plants against Cancer without Chemo-Therapy "

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

>> Yes that seems logical but it really doesn't work that way. The less

>> nutrients taken in the more aggressive the detox. That is one reason

>> why I think juice fasting has become the preferred method of fasting

>> because detoxing can be brutal, especially for someone who is

>> detoxing a number of things at once, and nutrient intake slows it

>> down.

>

> , I'd be curious if anyone has taken a scientific look at detox

> - by actually measuring the quantities of toxic chemicals emitted by

> the body under various conditions of diet and fasting. I can see how

> that would be difficult because you'd have to somehow measure expected

> toxic chemicals in all bodily discharges, including sweat and sloughed

> skin, as well as breath, urine, and feces, to be thorough. Otherwise,

> you're limited to anecdotal evidence.

I don't think anyone has measured fasting in that manner, but there is

lots of clinical evidence on the impact of fasting on various diseases

going back for quite some time. I have lots of info in storage

although a lot of original studies remain inaccessible at this point,

but as more and more stuff gets online we may see (I'm hoping) an

explosion of renewed study in this area, especially because of the IF

circle that is growing (although being in favor of IF does not mean

that one favors longer fasting).

Nor would I want to necessarily define detox in such a narrow manner,

although that is a good avenue of inquiry, but I don't think it is all

that controversial, for example, that when a former drug addict fasts,

that the drugs which have stored in the fat are released, and the drug

addict may experience a new " trip " until the body clears (i.e.

detoxes) the responsible substances. I had that happen to a friend

once (which is why you need to know a person's health/disease

background before suggesting a longer term fast). The same would

happen, I think, for any toxin being held in fat storage, but, while

helpful, I don't think that is the primary physical benefit of long

term fasting, but rather a pleasant consequence of the bodily healing

that takes place.

I have a lot on my plate at the moment but I am working on digging up

and making available of a lot of good and powerful info and I'm sure

there are still lots of books available on the subject of uneven

soundness but still a good intro. It is a lot like the milk cure,

there is stuff out there but you have to dig deep.

One place you might start is the Swedish Fast Marches of 1954 and

1964, but there is more, much more out of Europe in terms of clinical

trials.

>> Your body will feed on and break down all kinds of foreign masses,

>> tumors, funny proteins, excess fats, toxic material, etc. If active

>> your body will do a remarkable job of sparing protein. When your

>> body starts to feed on itself, i.e. essential lean body mass, then

>> it is time to break the fast. You get hungry, and that hunger never

>> goes away, unlike while you are fasting.

>

> If it's true that fasting breaks down tumors, you'd think it would be

> a more popular cancer treatment, but I've never heard of it in that

> regard. It certainly would be an inexpensive cancer cure

Popular with whom? Certainly not the medical establishment, at least

not on this side of the pond. But yes you can find lots of stories,

some verified and some not, of people using fasting as part of the

means for beating cancer. And yes compared to traditional cancer

treatment fasting would be quite inexpensive.

My general impression is that many people in the US are scared of

fasting, and the idea of missing a few meals, even on an intermittent

basis, is downright frightening. Unless you have been exposed to the

vegan/vegetarian crowd, or been a part of certain elements of the

alternative health movement, or participate in a spiritual tradition

where some type of fasting is the norm, or grew up somewhere in the

east (or Europe to some extent), the idea of longer term fasting

doesn't normally sit well.

My sister asked me the other day for some advice on losing weight, and

I mentioned fasting once or twice a week (Eat Stop Eat), and she darn

near had a heart attack. That response in my circles at least is not

unusual.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

--- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> In the group Soilandhealth, there's a PDF from an Italian

> doctor who heals cancer by fasting from amino acids and sugar, and

> giving the patient plants.

> http://tech./group/soilandhealth/message/9152

>

> Dr Nacci himself maintains that " he treats cancers by stimulating

> the immune response, thus avoiding Chemotherapy " . His metabolic

> therapy uses vitamins and makes patients follow a correct diet.

Connie, I would think you'd have to use non-starchy plants to achieve

something close to ketosis to help starve the cancer. It might be

that the natural plant toxins, combined with low blood sugar levels

would work against many cancers. I don't think this is an optimal

diet for healthy people, but for those with cancer it sounds

intriguing. Maybe couple that with some IF. I wouldn't be surprised

this approach including IF would be more effective than conventional

poison therapy ... err chemotherapy. It wouldn't even have to be all

that effective to beat chemo.

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> Dr Nacci

> himself maintains that " he treats cancers by stimulating the immune

> response,

> thus avoiding Chemotherapy " .

Yes which is one reason why high potency echinacea is useful against

cancer because it stimulates the immune response.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

,

> Maybe couple that with some IF. I wouldn't be surprised

> this approach including IF would be more effective than conventional

> poison therapy ... err chemotherapy. It wouldn't even have to be all

> that effective to beat chemo.

Dr. Schulze in his incurables programs starts everyone off with 30

days of fasting. You can read an interesting interview with him on

juice fasting here:

http://www.nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/index.php?topic=8.msg9#new

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Some cancers/tumors respond well to fasting but some get worse. I

> don't know how to tell which is which but even fasting advocates say

> not to use it for some types of cancer.

Liver cancer immediately comes to mind but I'm not sure this is

written in stone.

> It does make sense tho because during a fast you can go into ketosis -

> especially a water fast where you derive all your energy from

> burning fat. That seems like it would starve the tumor which is very

> sugar-dependant, right??

Glucose dependent to be precise. Any process that is anti-angiogenesis

would theoretically be great against cancer. Red clover has a long

history in beating cancer, and if I had cancer I would fast drinking a

lot of super high potency red clover tincture, and echinacea tincture

and maybe even gingko biloba.

> I think the amino issue is not really that you need to deprive

> yourself of aminos as much as that you need to spare the protease to

> clean up the body instead of using it up for digesting food. So free

> aminos may not be as much of a problem as eating amino-containing

> foods that need to be broken down.

Ahh yes - excellent insight. When the body is allowed to rest from

digestion, the process of healing speeds up, sometimes dramatically

so.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

> The same would

> happen, I think, for any toxin being held in fat storage, but, while

> helpful, I don't think that is the primary physical benefit of long

> term fasting, but rather a pleasant consequence of the bodily healing

> that takes place.

>

>

not just toxins, but anything stored in fat cells including hormones.

when I eliminated dairy during nursing (~ 1 yr postpartum), I lost a

lot of weight really fast (by accident) and re-experienced the pains

of excess elastin and relaxin (that is, my rehabilitated joints

relapsed in a bad way).

-jennifer