DETOX: what are the toxins *exactly* that we are to rid ourselves of? (was - HI JIM / Raw food)

[Guest guest]

>>

> For instance, to continue with our allergy discussion - I believe that

> allergies are caused when the body is confused. Clear up the confusion, then

> the allergies naturally go away. In essence, raw foods did not cure me of my

> allergies. Instead, raw foods allowed the confusion in my body to clear up

> and that cured my allergies. (Which were so debilitating, by the way, there

> were days I could not get out of bed. I have many allergy horror stories)

>

<<

interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is

that the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

I always believed that the body knows EXACTLY what it's supposed to do, and

adapts in adverse environments or changing environments. the changing

environments can be over a period of time. What makes our bodies different

from each other, I believe, is our individual thresholds, or more

specifically, our genetic thresholds. Just my hypothesis about health and

disease:

1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into;

2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

What this means to me is that the disease (symptoms of genetic weakness at

threshold) begin when the body becomes imbalanced. imbalance can begin well

before symptoms manifest visibly (by instrumental measure or visual

observation). At the point of our genetic threshold (our max tolerance for

imbalance of toxin and/or nutrients lacking or excess thereof), symptoms

begin to show. There are a variety of diseases that occur that can be more

a domino effect than a one-to-one ratio cause/effect. For example, I have

been tested that I am allergic to a particular tree pollen. Let's just

assume this is a basic cause/effect relationship and not an effect of

several effects (manifestations of other imbalances from other components in

my physical body). Therefore, the " simple cure " for my skin rash to that

specific tree pollen is to avoid it so that my sensitive (low threshold)

tolerance for that tree pollen will not be imbalanced by that perceived

toxin to my skin. my symptoms (skin rash) of genetic weakness (tolerance

for level of exposure to " toxin " ) manifests at threshold (becomes apparent

as a skin rash when exposed beyond what my skin can tolerate - an

imbalance).

What I wonder is that more complex disease (i.e., cancer?) can be the effect

of multiple effects from a series of elements which have reached threshold,

and in a domino effect over a prolonged period of time, transformed

(mutated) into a major overreaction to the imbalance in an attempt to manage

the imbalance. What if these types of complex disease are the result of an

extreme symptom (result) from a series of genetic weaknesses of specific

components in the body that have reached threshold over an extended period

of time, and the body's response... the life force - the urge to thrive,

live... the response is to transform itself (mutate) to thrive in its once

imbalanced environment. Because the body had been in imbalance and several

components in the body had far exceeded what it could tolerate (were

imbalanced) for so long that the shift (mutation) was to respond by adapting

to it's new environment. What was once considered a major imbalance over an

extended period of time for many body parts that have had lower tolerance

than other parts of the body has now become the " new balance. "

I wish I had the medical background and capacity to understand and further

analyze this hypothesis. From my limited understanding, I am left to say

that complex disease can be brought to ORIGINAL balance by immersing the

body in an extreme environment (the original HEALTHY environment that the

body was meant to exist in - where thresholds were not exceeded) for a long

enough period that another transformation can occur to revert to function as

was meant to be in the first place.

the challenge in this " therapy " assuming my hypothesis is in the ballpark of

how optimal health operates is that the person would have to exercise great

consistency and diligence to maintain the " healthy lifestyle " over an

extended period of time to " undo " the many years of imbalance that may have

led to the current condition.

Remember my first point:

1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period of

time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

fundamentals:

1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation (mental

aspect - the head game)

assuming one leads a healthy life from start to finish, one still cannot

escape the inevitable effects of age - aging is only the process of the body

becoming less efficient over time. when the body becomes less efficient in

metabolizing, elminating, processing, circulating, etc., imbalance

inevitably occurs. which leads to my second point:

2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

the " weakness " basically refers to the genetic limitation/tolerance of a

cell. and finally... threshold is eventually reached - thanks to the

process of aging.

This is my VERY ROUGH guesstimation (a hypothesis... " my take " ) on health

and disease.

hope it all made sense for the most part!

thots?

Kelvin

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Arlyn wrote:

> Good questions, Kelvin.

>

> My opinion:

>

> Detox is a word to describe a broad range of " stuff. " The bottom line, you

> cannot target what the body will choose to detox first. The body will detox

> what it needs to in the order it chooses to gain better health.

>

> The body is infinitely wiser about what it needs than our hopes and wishes

> think we need.

>

> We are detoxing whatever it is that doesn't need to be there. OR, we are

> allowing the body to reset itself back to its proper design.

>

> For instance, to continue with our allergy discussion - I believe that

> allergies are caused when the body is confused. Clear up the confusion, then

> the allergies naturally go away. In essence, raw foods did not cure me of my

> allergies. Instead, raw foods allowed the confusion in my body to clear up

> and that cured my allergies. (Which were so debilitating, by the way, there

> were days I could not get out of bed. I have many allergy horror stories)

>

[Guest guest]

The Body may always know what to do, however, it can sometimes do the wrong

thing while thinking it is doing the right thing. Now, I am not giving the

body powers, such as 'thinking' it doesn't have rather I'm using it for

discussion purposes.

For example when stung by a bee, for instance, the body's protective device is

swelling and probably using heat in the area of the swelling. On an arm it is

nothing. On your tongue it might kill you by causing a swelling that chokes

off your air intake. There are people whose bodies react violently to stings

and bites. So, here we have an 'all knowing' body not really knowing.

Then there are the auto-immune diseases where, perhaps because of some improper

function somewhere, the immune system attacks the body. Pretty confusing no?

Ooops, there's that 'confusing' word again. By and large, that thing we live

in (body) does one heck of a job keeping us alive while we and those darned

insects attack it decade after decade.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

> Then there are the auto-immune diseases where, perhaps because of some

improper function somewhere, the immune system attacks the body. Pretty

confusing no? Ooops, there's that 'confusing' word again. By and large, that

thing we live in (body) does one heck of a job keeping us alive while we and

those darned insects attack it decade after decade.

>

> Joe C.

Between us and the insects, I'm not sure how we all survive...

Autoimmune diseases tend to get much, much better on a veggie raw food diet. I

certainly wouldn't say the dies will " cure " the disease as it will come back

once the human goes back to his/her original diet. I look at autoimmune

diseases as just a really big allergy. Yes, I know I'm broadly generalizing

this. But, clear up the confusion, and the body will do its best to heal

itself.

On a side note, I must take this opportunity to laugh at my sister. She is

suffering from horrible heartburn - has been for years. She lives on Maalox,

etc. We all know that taking those things actually makes the problem worse, but

the mainstream public really doesn't get that. The other day, I suggested that

she just stop eating the foods that were causing the situation. She looked at

me like I was from Mars and said, " But I like those foods. " I mean, what can

you say to that?

My IBS is gone. I haven't had heartburn in a decade. I can eat wonderful spicy

foods. Heck, I developed an ulcer while in high school - so I am no stranger to

digestive problems. But no more trouble and all I had to do was give up meat

and junk food. Sounds like the perfect trade off for me.

ar

[Guest guest]

Hi Kelvin,

I think you are far more intelligent than I am, so I'm going to try to

understand your points.

> interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is that

the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

No, not change. Actual confusion. Along the way, the body began to

misunderstand its function, or its process. Something got side tracked.

(Hence, cancer)

> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into;

> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

I also believe in balance. I am horrified by the idea that to treat hormone

positive breast cancer, we are supposed to completely shut down the hormone that

is causing the problem. And then treat all the other problems that come up

because we no longer have a much needed hormone in our bodies. Um, yeah...how

about BALANCING the hormones so the body is properly functioning.

Though, about that genetic weakness...Perhaps you are correct? I'm not sure.

Women who carry the BRCA genes now develop aggressive and deadly breast cancer

while in their 20s. Every decade, the age of onset seems to get younger and

younger. What is triggering the genes in these women? Many of us believe it is

environmental conditions. We are (or our mothers were) hit with endocrine

disruptors, etc. By the way, for an interesting cancer study, check out the

YSC. This organization is for young women with breast cancer. Many of these

women were amazingly healthy prior to their diagnosis. Many of these women have

never had mammograms. And many of these women, didn't wear underwire bras.

Basically, when I read theories of what causes cancer by the people in this

group, I can head over to the YSC and see countless examples of how the theories

don't hold up in a young population. This is why I get testy by the all knowing

statements over here.

> the challenge in this " therapy " assuming my hypothesis is in the ballpark of

> how optimal health operates is that the person would have to exercise great

> consistency and diligence to maintain the " healthy lifestyle " over an

> extended period of time to " undo " the many years of imbalance that may have

> led to the current condition.

This is true. And remember, no matter how healthy they are, or how " perfect "

their diet, today's world contains many pitfalls. I have begun to believe that

there is no way to prevent cancer.

> Remember my first point:

> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

I do not think that children are being born into optimal health any longer. I

believe that our world today is too poluted for this to be true. Young women

without BRCA genes are developing breast cancer, why? Because their mothers may

have been exposed to something that set off a chain of events in the developing

fetus. I believe we are being born into a health deficit.

> Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period of

> time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

> fundamentals:

> 1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation (mental

> aspect - the head game)

You forgot number 5 - hope for the best.

ar

[Guest guest]

I agree with Joe. The thing to consider is that the body's default mechanism

is often to OVER-react, OVER-compensate and OVER-produce just in case. Think

about the amazing numbers of sperm it produces to fertilise one egg, or as

in Joe's example the bordering-on-anaphylaxis reaction you sometimes get

when the body pumps out massive amounts of histamine and other inflammatory

chemcials in response to a sting or bite; think again about the inflammation

you get when you do something as simple as spraining an ankle. It seems like

there are some parts of the body that don't always seem to " know " that what

they're doing could kill you.

Simon.

> The Body may always know what to do, however, it can sometimes do the

> wrong thing while thinking it is doing the right thing. Now, I am not

> giving the body powers, such as 'thinking' it doesn't have rather I'm

> using it for discussion purposes.

>

> For example when stung by a bee, for instance, the body's protective

> device is swelling and probably using heat in the area of the swelling.

> On an arm it is nothing. On your tongue it might kill you by causing a

> swelling that chokes off your air intake. There are people whose

> bodies react violently to stings and bites. So, here we have an 'all

> knowing' body not really knowing.

>

> Then there are the auto-immune diseases where, perhaps because of some

> improper function somewhere, the immune system attacks the body. Pretty

> confusing no? Ooops, there's that 'confusing' word again. By and large,

> that thing we live in (body) does one heck of a job keeping us alive

> while we and those darned insects attack it decade after decade.

>

> Joe C.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Arlyn! I'm so behind in forum emails! Remember this thread?

>>

>

> My IBS is gone. I haven't had heartburn in a decade. I can eat wonderful

> spicy foods. Heck, I developed an ulcer while in high school - so I am no

> stranger to digestive problems. But no more trouble and all I had to do was

> give up meat and junk food. Sounds like the perfect trade off for me.

>

<<

I'm curious. Would you still have IBS symptoms if you ate organic

grass fed (fancy, health) beef or chicken or any meat that's organic

AND/OR kosher??

Kelvin

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Arlyn<arlynsg@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>> Then there are the auto-immune diseases where, perhaps because of some

>> improper function somewhere, the immune system attacks the body. Pretty

>> confusing no? Ooops, there's that 'confusing' word again. By and large, that

>> thing we live in (body) does one heck of a job keeping us alive while we and

>> those darned insects attack it decade after decade.

>>

>> Joe C.

>

> Between us and the insects, I'm not sure how we all survive...

>

> Autoimmune diseases tend to get much, much better on a veggie raw food diet.

> I certainly wouldn't say the dies will " cure " the disease as it will come

> back once the human goes back to his/her original diet. I look at autoimmune

> diseases as just a really big allergy. Yes, I know I'm broadly generalizing

> this. But, clear up the confusion, and the body will do its best to heal

> itself.

>

> On a side note, I must take this opportunity to laugh at my sister. She is

> suffering from horrible heartburn - has been for years. She lives on Maalox,

> etc. We all know that taking those things actually makes the problem worse,

> but the mainstream public really doesn't get that. The other day, I

> suggested that she just stop eating the foods that were causing the

> situation. She looked at me like I was from Mars and said, " But I like those

> foods. " I mean, what can you say to that?

>

> My IBS is gone. I haven't had heartburn in a decade. I can eat wonderful

> spicy foods. Heck, I developed an ulcer while in high school - so I am no

> stranger to digestive problems. But no more trouble and all I had to do was

> give up meat and junk food. Sounds like the perfect trade off for me.

>

> ar

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon & Joe!

Point taken. I never thought about how the body would react in those

terms. The body certainly knows what to do with the nutrients we feed

it tho, right? Or are there examples that may show otherwise? I

figure IF there were, they'd be more because the body's in a state of

imbalance and not functioning properly - hence improper digestion or

assimilation of nutrients. Otherwise, in a balanced body, the body

does its thing " automagically. "

It's been awhile since I wrote/read this thread. I believe I was

originally talking about reaching threshold and the body's reaction to

that by showing symptoms of tipping point (i.e., allergic swelling,

self-defeating autoimmune system, etc.)...

Kelvin

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Simon <otherwize@...> wrote:

>

>

> I agree with Joe. The thing to consider is that the body's default mechanism

> is often to OVER-react, OVER-compensate and OVER-produce just in case. Think

> about the amazing numbers of sperm it produces to fertilise one egg, or as

> in Joe's example the bordering-on-anaphylaxis reaction you sometimes get

> when the body pumps out massive amounts of histamine and other inflammatory

> chemcials in response to a sting or bite; think again about the inflammation

> you get when you do something as simple as spraining an ankle. It seems like

> there are some parts of the body that don't always seem to " know " that what

> they're doing could kill you.

>

> Simon.

>

>> The Body may always know what to do, however, it can sometimes do the

>> wrong thing while thinking it is doing the right thing. Now, I am not

>> giving the body powers, such as 'thinking' it doesn't have rather I'm

>> using it for discussion purposes.

>>

>> For example when stung by a bee, for instance, the body's protective

>> device is swelling and probably using heat in the area of the swelling.

>> On an arm it is nothing. On your tongue it might kill you by causing a

>> swelling that chokes off your air intake. There are people whose

>> bodies react violently to stings and bites. So, here we have an 'all

>> knowing' body not really knowing.

>>

>> Then there are the auto-immune diseases where, perhaps because of some

>> improper function somewhere, the immune system attacks the body. Pretty

>> confusing no? Ooops, there's that 'confusing' word again. By and large,

>> that thing we live in (body) does one heck of a job keeping us alive

>> while we and those darned insects attack it decade after decade.

>>

>> Joe C.

[Guest guest]

People overcome Ulcers and heartburn all the time without giving up meat, eating

raw, or giving up junk food.

Of course I recommend nobody eat junk-food and, of course, that depends upon

what one means by junk food.

Typically the only time I experienced heartburn would be when desert was

consumed at the end of a meal

I developed Ulcers at about 20, while in the Air Force and had them on and off

for another 15-20 years and got rid of them without any natural changes in my

lifestyle except for 'taking' something that is considered today to be cutting

edge for ulcer treatments.

Lifestyle changes for the better are highly recommended for everyone but it is

obvious giving up meat isn't going to be universal, at least not for the

immediate future. One can still greatly improve their diet and yes, giving up

what we all know as junk-food.

[Guest guest]

KELVIN WROTE:

>> interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is

>> that the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

ARLYN WROTE:

> No, not change. Actual confusion. Along the way, the body began to

> misunderstand its function, or its process. Something got side tracked.

> (Hence, cancer)

I think I'm assuming the body (at the cellular level w/all the details and

interplay of hormones, genetics, etc) has a clear set of instructions it

follows based on its innate instructions (via dna) - i'm not technical nor

of the field, so this is just very lay-terms perspective. I am assuming

that these instructions are carried out throughout and as long as there is

no change in state (i.e., environment), whether temporary or permanent

(mutation?). My thoughts are that the body changes b/c the instructions

change (b/c the conditions changed) and during the time of " confusion, "

results are different than expected (what's considered normal) b/c of the

domino effect - where one area of change (i'd call, " imbalance " ) begins to

affect the other parts of the body (the domino effect). Therefore, the

state of confusion is confusing to us, since we are expecting predictable

interactions/outcomes from what the cells typically do, BUT b/c of

something(s) changed in the environment beyond the range of what the body

can/will tolerate (the threshold i speak of), things start to go ... " funky "

(i know... a very technical term )...

so when i said:

KELVIN WROTE:

>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

This takes into consideration that different people have different ranges of

tolerance. These ranges of tolerance are defined by our genetic makeup. I

am guessing/wondering that what makes us different from one another is our

DNA ... and that is the only (small but very profound) thing that makes us

different from one another. After all, we as a species require the same

type of nutrients, digest the same way, are anatomically the same (two eyes,

two legs, two lungs, etc.), eliminate the same way, require oxygen and

water, etc. etc. But what makes us all different from one another is the

DNA - and the implicit thresholds that each will tolerate for a variety of

factors in our environment. If we are functionally different, it would be

considered an " abnormality " but at the same time... the " normal " for that

person does not compare at the same level among the group species, and we

would seek to create a baseline of " normal " for that situation.

>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

symptoms begin to show at the " tipping point " of what we can genetically

(predetermined to) tolerate. the bigger health issues may only be a

manifestation of a breach of threshold in several areas over a period of

time. If we were to apply this idea to cancer. Could it be that the

uncontrolled growth of cells in a specific area is an extreme " over

reaction " of several symptoms (and not even symptoms that we are physically

aware of at the surface/conscious level) over an extended period of time

that manifests to what we know as " cancer? " Whether it's cancer or some

other debilitating disease, my 2 points focus on the question of balance.

ARLYN WROTE:

> Though, about that genetic weakness...Perhaps you are correct? I'm not

sure.

> Women who carry the BRCA genes now develop aggressive and deadly breast

> cancer while in their 20s. Every decade, the age of onset seems to get

> younger and younger. What is triggering the genes in these women? Many of

us

> believe it is environmental conditions. We are (or our mothers were) hit

> with endocrine disruptors, etc.

Yes, environmental conditions. Unfortunately, this can mean a variety of

things at a variety of levels. For instance, some external factors: air

quality, water quality, food quality... then (a possible internal factor) if

there is a threshold reached by some part of the body that affects the

balance the body needs to stay health, disease free, and there's an

over/under production of hormones, fat, chemicals, etc. etc. and this can

be the beginning or part of a domino effect... compounded over time, who

knows what we will end up having? As to the question posed in what you

wrote: " What is triggering the genes in these women? " If we had some way to

know the state of health or type of genes of a group of women back in a time

where the environment was different than today's, we could probably do a

fair comparison to give us a better idea of environmental factors. But I

may just be oversimplifying all this!

KELVIN WROTE:

>> Remember my first point:

>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

ARLYN WROTE:

>

> I do not think that children are being born into optimal health any

longer.

> I believe that our world today is too poluted for this to be true. Young

> women without BRCA genes are developing breast cancer, why? Because their

> mothers may have been exposed to something that set off a chain of events

in

> the developing fetus. I believe we are being born into a health deficit.

True. To be more specific, I meant the state in which we are SUPPOSED to be

born into, ASSUMING that the parents are healthy and we are born into

" normal " conditions (2 eyes, 1 nose, digest lactose, gluten, etc.).

KELVIN WROTE:

>> Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period

of

>> time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

>> fundamentals:

>> 1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation

(mental

>> aspect - the head game)

ARLYN WROTE:

>

> You forgot number 5 - hope for the best.

No. I didn't forget. Your " 5 " is part of my #4. mental aspect/head

game is the person's attitude, mood, feelings, state. Hope is very much a

part of a healthy lifestyle and definitely considered in the equation of the

fundamentals of Optimal Health!

thanks for your time in responding! I appreciate it.

Kelvin

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Arlyn<arlynsg@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi Kelvin,

>

> I think you are far more intelligent than I am, so I'm going to try to

> understand your points.

>

>> interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is

>> that the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

>

> No, not change. Actual confusion. Along the way, the body began to

> misunderstand its function, or its process. Something got side tracked.

> (Hence, cancer)

>

>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into;

>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

>

> I also believe in balance. I am horrified by the idea that to treat

hormone

> positive breast cancer, we are supposed to completely shut down the

hormone

> that is causing the problem. And then treat all the other problems that

come

> up because we no longer have a much needed hormone in our bodies. Um,

> yeah...how about BALANCING the hormones so the body is properly

functioning.

>

> Though, about that genetic weakness...Perhaps you are correct? I'm not

sure.

> Women who carry the BRCA genes now develop aggressive and deadly breast

> cancer while in their 20s. Every decade, the age of onset seems to get

> younger and younger. What is triggering the genes in these women? Many of

us

> believe it is environmental conditions. We are (or our mothers were) hit

> with endocrine disruptors, etc. By the way, for an interesting cancer

study,

> check out the YSC. This organization is for young women with breast

cancer.

> Many of these women were amazingly healthy prior to their diagnosis. Many

of

> these women have never had mammograms. And many of these women, didn't

wear

> underwire bras. Basically, when I read theories of what causes cancer by

the

> people in this group, I can head over to the YSC and see countless

examples

> of how the theories don't hold up in a young population. This is why I get

> testy by the all knowing statements over here.

>

>> the challenge in this " therapy " assuming my hypothesis is in the ballpark

>> of

>> how optimal health operates is that the person would have to exercise

>> great

>> consistency and diligence to maintain the " healthy lifestyle " over an

>> extended period of time to " undo " the many years of imbalance that may

>> have

>> led to the current condition.

>

> This is true. And remember, no matter how healthy they are, or how

" perfect "

> their diet, today's world contains many pitfalls. I have begun to believe

> that there is no way to prevent cancer.

>

>> Remember my first point:

>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

>

> I do not think that children are being born into optimal health any

longer.

> I believe that our world today is too poluted for this to be true. Young

> women without BRCA genes are developing breast cancer, why? Because their

> mothers may have been exposed to something that set off a chain of events

in

> the developing fetus. I believe we are being born into a health deficit.

>

>> Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period

of

>> time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

>> fundamentals:

>> 1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation

(mental

>> aspect - the head game)

>

> You forgot number 5 - hope for the best.

>

> ar

>

>

[Guest guest]

WHAT IF...

the cure to any ongoing disease is bringing back the body to balance

from its original state it was born into?

what if getting back to that state meant a consistent regiment and

high doses of nutrition dense whole foods over a period of time to

help the body repair and " undo " the breaches in thresholds?

assuming we all thrive on the same needs/nutrients: oxygen, water,

vitamins, minerals, fats, etc. would exposing ourselves to high volume

of nutrition, exercised religiously, rested/relaxed regularly, avoided

known toxins (radiation to processed foods and sugars, gluten, etc.),

even taking therapies like recently discussed about alkalinity in a

thread started by Bret in this forum... over an extended period of

time help bring our bodies back to balance?

Why not? <-- genuine question (and not necessarily rhetorical)

Kelvin

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kelvin<kelvin.internet@...> wrote:

> KELVIN WROTE:

>>> interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is

>>> that the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

> ARLYN WROTE:

>> No, not change. Actual confusion. Along the way, the body began to

>> misunderstand its function, or its process. Something got side tracked.

>> (Hence, cancer)

>

> I think I'm assuming the body (at the cellular level w/all the details and

> interplay of hormones, genetics, etc) has a clear set of instructions it

> follows based on its innate instructions (via dna) - i'm not technical nor

> of the field, so this is just very lay-terms perspective.  I am assuming

> that these instructions are carried out throughout and as long as there is

> no change in state (i.e., environment), whether temporary or permanent

> (mutation?).  My thoughts are that the body changes b/c the instructions

> change (b/c the conditions changed) and during the time of " confusion, "

> results are different than expected (what's considered normal) b/c of the

> domino effect - where one area of change (i'd call, " imbalance " ) begins to

> affect the other parts of the body (the domino effect).  Therefore, the

> state of confusion is confusing to us, since we are expecting predictable

> interactions/outcomes from what the cells typically do, BUT b/c of

> something(s) changed in the environment beyond the range of what the body

> can/will tolerate (the threshold i speak of), things start to go ... " funky "

> (i know... a very technical term )...

>

> so when i said:

> KELVIN WROTE:

>>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

>

> This takes into consideration that different people have different ranges of

> tolerance.  These ranges of tolerance are defined by our genetic makeup.  I

> am guessing/wondering that what makes us different from one another is our

> DNA ... and that is the only (small but very profound) thing that makes us

> different from one another.  After all, we as a species require the same

> type of nutrients, digest the same way, are anatomically the same (two eyes,

> two legs, two lungs, etc.), eliminate the same way, require oxygen and

> water, etc. etc.  But what makes us all different from one another is the

> DNA - and the implicit thresholds that each will tolerate for a variety of

> factors in our environment.  If we are functionally different, it would be

> considered an " abnormality " but at the same time... the " normal " for that

> person does not compare at the same level among the group species, and we

> would seek to create a baseline of " normal " for that situation.

>

>>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

>

> symptoms begin to show at the " tipping point " of what we can genetically

> (predetermined to) tolerate.  the bigger health issues may only be a

> manifestation of a breach of threshold in several areas over a period of

> time.  If we were to apply this idea to cancer.  Could it be that the

> uncontrolled growth of cells in a specific area is an extreme " over

> reaction " of several symptoms (and not even symptoms that we are physically

> aware of at the surface/conscious level) over an extended period of time

> that manifests to what we know as " cancer? "   Whether it's cancer or some

> other debilitating disease, my 2 points focus on the question of balance.

>

> ARLYN WROTE:

>> Though, about that genetic weakness...Perhaps you are correct? I'm not

>> sure.

>> Women who carry the BRCA genes now develop aggressive and deadly breast

>> cancer while in their 20s. Every decade, the age of onset seems to get

>> younger and younger. What is triggering the genes in these women? Many of

>> us

>> believe it is environmental conditions. We are (or our mothers were) hit

>> with endocrine disruptors, etc.

>

> Yes, environmental conditions.  Unfortunately, this can mean a variety of

> things at a variety of levels.  For instance, some external factors: air

> quality, water quality, food quality... then (a possible internal factor) if

> there is a threshold reached by some part of the body that affects the

> balance the body needs to stay health, disease free, and there's an

> over/under production of hormones, fat, chemicals, etc. etc.  and this can

> be the beginning or part of a domino effect... compounded over time, who

> knows what we will end up having?  As to the question posed in what you

> wrote: " What is triggering the genes in these women? "   If we had some way to

> know the state of health or type of genes of a group of women back in a time

> where the environment was different than today's, we could probably do a

> fair comparison to give us a better idea of environmental factors.  But I

> may just be oversimplifying all this!

>

>

> KELVIN WROTE:

>>> Remember my first point:

>>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

> ARLYN WROTE:

>>

>> I do not think that children are being born into optimal health any

>> longer.

>> I believe that our world today is too poluted for this to be true. Young

>> women without BRCA genes are developing breast cancer, why? Because their

>> mothers may have been exposed to something that set off a chain of events

>> in

>> the developing fetus. I believe we are being born into a health deficit.

>

> True.  To be more specific, I meant the state in which we are SUPPOSED to be

> born into, ASSUMING that the parents are healthy and we are born into

> " normal " conditions (2 eyes, 1 nose, digest lactose, gluten, etc.).

>

> KELVIN WROTE:

>>> Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period

>>> of

>>> time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

>>> fundamentals:

>>> 1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation

>>> (mental

>>> aspect - the head game)

> ARLYN WROTE:

>>

>> You forgot number 5 - hope for the best.

>

> No.  I didn't forget.  Your " 5 " is part of my #4.  mental aspect/head

> game is the person's attitude, mood, feelings, state.  Hope is very much a

> part of a healthy lifestyle and definitely considered in the equation of the

> fundamentals of Optimal Health!

>

> thanks for your time in responding!  I appreciate it.

> Kelvin

>

>

>

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Arlyn<arlynsg@...> wrote:

>>

>>

>> Hi Kelvin,

>>

>> I think you are far more intelligent than I am, so I'm going to try to

>> understand your points.

>>

>>> interesting... I suppose another way to describe what you are saying is

>>> that the body is in a state of change (aka: " confusion " as you say).

>>

>> No, not change. Actual confusion. Along the way, the body began to

>> misunderstand its function, or its process. Something got side tracked.

>> (Hence, cancer)

>>

>>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into;

>>> 2. Symptoms of genetic weakness is manifested at threshold.

>>

>> I also believe in balance. I am horrified by the idea that to treat

>> hormone

>> positive breast cancer, we are supposed to completely shut down the

>> hormone

>> that is causing the problem. And then treat all the other problems that

>> come

>> up because we no longer have a much needed hormone in our bodies. Um,

>> yeah...how about BALANCING the hormones so the body is properly

>> functioning.

>>

>> Though, about that genetic weakness...Perhaps you are correct? I'm not

>> sure.

>> Women who carry the BRCA genes now develop aggressive and deadly breast

>> cancer while in their 20s. Every decade, the age of onset seems to get

>> younger and younger. What is triggering the genes in these women? Many of

>> us

>> believe it is environmental conditions. We are (or our mothers were) hit

>> with endocrine disruptors, etc. By the way, for an interesting cancer

>> study,

>> check out the YSC. This organization is for young women with breast

>> cancer.

>> Many of these women were amazingly healthy prior to their diagnosis. Many

>> of

>> these women have never had mammograms. And many of these women, didn't

>> wear

>> underwire bras. Basically, when I read theories of what causes cancer by

>> the

>> people in this group, I can head over to the YSC and see countless

>> examples

>> of how the theories don't hold up in a young population. This is why I get

>> testy by the all knowing statements over here.

>>

>>> the challenge in this " therapy " assuming my hypothesis is in the ballpark

>>> of

>>> how optimal health operates is that the person would have to exercise

>>> great

>>> consistency and diligence to maintain the " healthy lifestyle " over an

>>> extended period of time to " undo " the many years of imbalance that may

>>> have

>>> led to the current condition.

>>

>> This is true. And remember, no matter how healthy they are, or how

>> " perfect "

>> their diet, today's world contains many pitfalls. I have begun to believe

>> that there is no way to prevent cancer.

>>

>>> Remember my first point:

>>> 1. Optimal health is the state of balance from which we are born into

>>

>> I do not think that children are being born into optimal health any

>> longer.

>> I believe that our world today is too poluted for this to be true. Young

>> women without BRCA genes are developing breast cancer, why? Because their

>> mothers may have been exposed to something that set off a chain of events

>> in

>> the developing fetus. I believe we are being born into a health deficit.

>>

>>> Age is only a function of the body growing out of balance over a period

>>> of

>>> time. the only way to delay the inevitable is to practice the 4

>>> fundamentals:

>>> 1. diet/hydration; 2. elimination; 3. exercise; 4. rest/relaxation

>>> (mental

>>> aspect - the head game)

>>

>> You forgot number 5 - hope for the best.

>>

>> ar

>>

>>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I'm curious. Would you still have IBS symptoms if you ate organic

> grass fed (fancy, health) beef or chicken or any meat that's organic

> AND/OR kosher??

>

>

> Kelvin

I don't know. And I don't care since I will never go back to eating meat.

I'm actually allergic to chicken, turkey, fish, and shellfish, so my meat

choices are pretty slim.

ar

[Guest guest]

The body doesn't 'automagically' (I like that word) know what to do with things

it cannot use or are excesses such as an over abundance of sugar and/or

additives........what have you.

What isn't usable might become part of the toxins already building up because of

poor elimination. Then we get Toxin Over-load not exactly a

medical/alternative usage of words, but it just seemed to fit.

I suppose I'm saying the body does not automatically (the other word) adapt to

foods and exposures it encounters that are not usable. We really are going

astray now and all of a sudden we're getting into personal beliefs and my lack

of credentials doesn't justify my mouthing them except I can assure you these

are not my conjured up beliefs but rather those of old-time respected

practitioners. Yes, we are going astray now and this kind of talk is better

suited privately.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

actually the context of " automagic " (glad you like the word!) I intended was

more about the body utilizing nutrients, moving waste, etc. in a balanced

system (a " healthy state " ). I agree that an excess of sugar and/or

additives would not be well managed by the body (creating an imbalance).

JOE WROTE:

>>

What isn't usable might become part of the toxins already building up

because of poor elimination. Then we get Toxin Over-load not exactly a

medical/alternative usage of words, but it just seemed to fit.

<<

Now (considering what I wrote above AND Joe's comment), this leads me to

wonder about excess of nutrients. I would imagine there's also a threshold

for nutrients as well as for " junk " (i.e., sugars, additives, etc.)... and

by that assumption, anything beyond threshold creates imbalance - a

deviation from health, in which the body will react (manifestation of

symptoms) to bring the body back to balance (health).

Your mention of " toxin over-load " is basically a breach of the body's range

of threshold of what it can handle, which effectively leads to imbalance.

JOE WROTE:

>>

We really are going astray now and all of a sudden we're getting into

personal beliefs and my lack of credentials doesn't justify my mouthing them

except I can assure you these are not my conjured up beliefs but rather

those of old-time respected practitioners.

<<

hmm... I think this discussion is more a synthesis of facts/knowledge of

what we know about the body, health, and nutrition. To remain in the realm

of fact shuffling cannot provide any insight from the current body of

" facts. " Is it really just opinion, or common sense in action that anyone

can arrive at with some thought about the interaction of body and

stimuli/environment/input? Of course, what is lacking is the biological

technical details to support these assumptions. Hmmm... I suppose this is

personal belief. But technically, it's a hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

So, my hypotheses per the wikipedia example would be:

1. If the body's threshold is breached (at a cellular and/or systemic

level), symptoms of abnormal function/results manifest.

2. If the body at the cellular or systemic level deteriorates in efficiency,

then this measurable decrease in efficiency observed is a symptom or

progression of aging (regardless of whether the observer determines it to be

premature or natural progression).

Kelvin

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:57 PM, JCastron1 <jcastron1@...> wrote:

>

>

> The body doesn't 'automagically' (I like that word) know what to do with

> things it cannot use or are excesses such as an over abundance of sugar

> and/or additives........what have you.

>

> What isn't usable might become part of the toxins already building up

> because of poor elimination. Then we get Toxin Over-load not exactly a

> medical/alternative usage of words, but it just seemed to fit.

>

> I suppose I'm saying the body does not automatically (the other word) adapt

> to foods and exposures it encounters that are not usable. We really are

> going astray now and all of a sudden we're getting into personal beliefs and

> my lack of credentials doesn't justify my mouthing them except I can assure

> you these are not my conjured up beliefs but rather those of old-time

> respected practitioners. Yes, we are going astray now and this kind of talk

> is better suited privately.

>

>

> Joe C.

>