In a message dated 97-08-09 03:15:29 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Lynton Blair)
writes:
<<
I stayed up late reading more of "Instinctive Nutrition" (am I really only
being influenced by suggestion, that its just a mind-game: is Tom right and
am I just a fruitcake pretending to be human?;). Maybe all the info is in
the archives, but they take a bit of going thru. This book I can reccommend
if you are interested in knowing the most about RF possibilities. It covers
a lot of ground and is easy to read ( I don't get any reward from book sales
).
The part I read last night hit home (although I had heard this many times in
different ways, I suddenly realised what it meant - experience is a great
teacher !), I quote:
"Anopsotherapy is based on the discovery that when a human being eats
any food
_in_its_original_state_,_its_taste_changes_at_some_point_from_pleasant_to_un
pleasant_. This means that when the organism has filled its need for that
particular food, it no longer wants any more (even though it may still be
hungry). However, this mechanism functions only with foods that have not
been denatured in any way, and only when eaten in isolation, ie unmixed with
others, unseasoned. The phenomenon does not occur with foods that have been
frozen, cooked, chopped, ground, etc, or with extracts such as juices or
oils. In nature, what an animal _wants_ is one and the same as what it
_needs_. Consequently, when dealing with foods whose structure evolved
concurrently over millions of years with our own, our genetically determined
senses of smell and taste should tell us not only _what_ we need, but also
_how_much_. And indeed it is so. "
- emphasis as expressed by the author.
Oh, I found the Anopso info web site address( for those that don't already
have it):
http://www.umontreal.ca/~gaumondp/anopsology/
If it were not for my taste-change experiences, I would still be considering
Anopso as a bit crackpot.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the crackpot ;>) But actually, if Anopso
is as good as its claimed to be, I look forward to an improvement in health
to at least an order of magnitude.
Am I being realistic?
Bob: Completely! Welcome aboard! :-)
(Oh, BTW, Tom - your post has enabled me to redefine my goal: now I would
be satisfied with 99.9%Raw, "perfection is unattainable" or "to be imperfect
is perfectly satisfactory". With the 0.1% I feel that I need to choose my
cooked _very_carefully_ so that I can get the most benefit from it (whether
enjoyment or nourishment, social acceptance, etc). Right at the moment I
can't think of anything that attracts me cooked...
>>
Bob:
Me neither -- & it's been so for several years, 'tho Lou's gourmet
concoctions still smell GREAT to me, as does quality restaurant food --
designed to mimic delacies of nature?). & Yes, striving for perfection is a
neurosis taught to us in dental school. VERY unhealthful. I learned about
15 years ago that striving for EXCELLENCE is good enough ... & we can attain
that with great regularity & enjoy the rewards!! :-)
LOTS more from Bob: My THIRD attempt to post this info & the third time it's
been bounced back 'cause it happened to be my sixth post in a day.
Irritating. What's the point of the restrictions?
Bob:
My apologies to anyone whose sense of life or orderliness or archivability is
offended by my grouping responses in one reply; the 5 max is preventing
appropriate response.
Bob
Jean-Louis: [Instinctos don't eat "anything", they eat whatever smells and
tastes good. Using smell is difficult because it's unusual for us, but very
rewarding.
A fruit generally tastes good, thanks to the sugar in it. But if in
addition it really smells good, then the pleasure in eating it can be
incredible. On the other hand, if you eat by habit, without using your
smell, you will end up being unhappy and frustrated (IMO).]
Bob:
I found that reminder inspiring enough to include in the October NH M2M, with
your permission. Thank you!
> *When a rat recognizes a food (raw or cooked/processed) that proved
toxic in the past, it defecates on it, so that no other members of
the herd eats that food.
Bob:
Now, if we could only learn to treat our many odious laws, lawyers &
politicians with the same instinctive common sense .... ;-)
>[Any pleasure in eating raw vegetables?-- The only vegetables (non-fruit
ones)
I really like are: celery sticks, lettuce, artichoke. A few others are OK,
and many (kale, mustard greens) almost inedible. I find convenient to eat
sprouts every day. Sprouts are rich in many vitamins and minerals. They
don't replace leafy greens completely (I find that, even on a high %
of sprouts, I still need lettuce), but they are easy to eat and will
bring most of the nutrients you need.]
Bob:
In addition to those veggies you folks have mentioned, I find that at times,
my body immensely enjoys (therefore "needs"?) Jewel yams --sometimes in HUGE
quantities, several pounds/day -- delicious --at those times!), jicama,
peanuts (raw, 2-3 day "sprouted), kohlrabi (sp?), MANY sprouts (buckwheat,
lentils, sunflower seeds, mung, garbanzo, rye, barley, winter wheat, and of
course the nuts, seeds, avocadoes, coconuts, & the fruit-like veggies. I've
not found the problem of liking enough veggies, BTW, of all the lettuces, my
favorite for many rears remains Romaine--often eat two heads as big as my own
at a meal -- yeah I.N. inspires delightful overeating!! :-)
Denis Peyrat: [Wilfully and unwilfully the heirs of Pasteur have ruined
the cause of Hippocratic medicine in order to be able to impose to impose
their own interventionist conception of health. It is their fault if
hygienism is nowadays relegated to small circles of "weirdos" without
decent representation in official Faculties]
Bob:
Yes, seems Pasteur & group (& the US "Civil" War between the States) set back
the cause of health for a century. Unfortunate. :-(
> We have not evolved with eggshells as a regular part of our diet
but eggshells can be excellent when needed (supposedly strong deficiency in
calcium...)
Bob:
Why would not have eggshells been a part of our ancestors food intake.
Aren't they available wherever eggs are available?
Dariusz:
>Instinctive eating is a rather simplistic solution to one's dietary
problems.
Bob:
Yes, I think it is, too & I appreciate simple solutions to problems & have
wondered for years why most folks refuse to consider a simple solution to ANY
problem based on the fact that it's simple? Government, authoritarian
propaganda? Love of mental masturbation? Genetic defect? ;-)
>.RAF aren't really a substitute for veggies, IMO.
Bob:
tho when I eat lots of sprouts, jewel yams, my "need" for RAF drops to near
zero for several days & when I eat RAF, the attraction top (need of?) The
starchy veggies drops for a similar period. Anyone else note similar stuff?
Kirt:
>Did you happen to try a pitahaya while you were in Columbia?
A pitahaya is the fruit of a cactus which has the same general shape as the
common "cactus fruit" (or "prickly pear" or "tuna") but is not covered with
needles but instead covered with large overlapping scales, kind of. Inside
is melting white pulp with hundreds of small black edible seeds. Very
sucrosey flavor. And I was on the toilet an hour later--whoosh ;)
Bob:
We arrived 2 days early in Athens several years ago prior to a week of
cycling around Crete & we drove around southern Greece, stopping at an
abandoned & overgrown fortress (Cartagena?) & found what I THOUGHT was
pitahaya (probably the cactus fruit you mentioned). I ate quite a bit of it,
cutting the kiwi-sized fruit in quarters & removing the fruit by pressing it
against my upper teeth with my tongue. Within minutes, my tongue was coated
with hundreds of painful spines, which I allowed to ruin my next three days,
trying to buy depilatory agents in Greek pharmacies, considering pouring hot
wax on my tongue to attempt removal of the spines, etc. (They finally fell
out of my tongue after 3 days of unplanned fasting, much to the pleasure of
my companions, who quickly tired of my trend to ruin THEIR days as well.) :-(
Denis:
>Respecting natural laws has never been a favorite amongst anarchists and
leftists (there are exceptions, though), since their prognosis and cure
of human alienation rests entirely on economical grounds.
Stefan:
>Personally I considered him to be a vegan zealot.
Bob:
Hey, kids, have we ever agreed on a definition for "zealot"? I suspect a
search of Tom's posts would reveal it second in frequency to perhaps "the".
;-) is a zealot "someone with a strong belief system differing from mine".
Am I perceived as a zealot by those majority of y'all who disagree with my
individualist view of philosophy or libertarian view of politics?
Tom:
Yes, the body heals. The key question is whether herbs contain substances
(or energies) that assist healing. I say the answer is yes; the "ONLY self-
healing" crowd says no. One can argue that anything put in the body has
properties and effects, and a substance can harm (toxin), sustain (food),
or assist healing (herb=medicine). If herbs assist healing, it is not
100% self-healing.
Bob:
OK, so what's the difference between herbs & foods? Could herbs be
considered "micro-nutrients & foods as "macro-nutrients" & the proper use of
herbs is same as other foods, smell/taste test em & eat em (un cooked,
unprocessed, etc.) When/if they smell/taste delicious? Anyone had experience
in this area? Any research? (ho ho ho)
'ealth, appiness & freedom to y'all!
Bob
My apologies to anyone whose sense of life or orderliness or archivability is
offended by my grouping responses in one reply; the 5 max is preventing
appropriate response.
Bob
Jean-Louis: [Instinctos don't eat "anything", they eat whatever smells and
tastes good. Using smell is difficult because it's unusual for us, but very
rewarding.
A fruit generally tastes good, thanks to the sugar in it. But if in
addition it really smells good, then the pleasure in eating it can be
incredible. On the other hand, if you eat by habit, without using your
smell, you will end up being unhappy and frustrated (IMO).]
Bob:
I found that reminder inspiring enough to include in the October NH M2M, with
your permission. Thank you!
> *When a rat recognizes a food (raw or cooked/processed) that proved
toxic in the past, it defecates on it, so that no other members of
the herd eats that food.
Bob:
Now, if we could only learn to treat our many odious laws, lawyers &
politicians with the same instinctive common sense .... ;-)
>[Any pleasure in eating raw vegetables?-- The only vegetables (non-fruit
ones)
I really like are: celery sticks, lettuce, artichoke. A few others are OK,
and many (kale, mustard greens) almost inedible. I find convenient to eat
sprouts every day. Sprouts are rich in many vitamins and minerals. They
don't replace leafy greens completely (I find that, even on a high %
of sprouts, I still need lettuce), but they are easy to eat and will
bring most of the nutrients you need.]
Bob:
In addition to those veggies you folks have mentioned, I find that at times,
my body immensely enjoys (therefore "needs"?) Jewel yams --sometimes in HUGE
quantities, several pounds/day -- delicious --at those times!), jicama,
peanuts (raw, 2-3 day "sprouted), kohlrabi (sp?), MANY sprouts (buckwheat,
lentils, sunflower seeds, mung, garbanzo, rye, barley, winter wheat, and of
course the nuts, seeds, avocadoes, coconuts, & the fruit-like veggies. I've
not found the problem of liking enough veggies, BTW, of all the lettuces, my
favorite for many rears remains Romaine--often eat two heads as big as my own
at a meal -- yeah I.N. inspires delightful overeating!! :-)
Denis Peyrat: [Wilfully and unwilfully the heirs of Pasteur have ruined
the cause of Hippocratic medicine in order to be able to impose to impose
their own interventionist conception of health. It is their fault if
hygienism is nowadays relegated to small circles of "weirdos" without
decent representation in official Faculties]
Bob:
Yes, seems Pasteur & group (& the US "Civil" War between the States) set back
the cause of health for a century. Unfortunate. :-(
> We have not evolved with eggshells as a regular part of our diet
but eggshells can be excellent when needed (supposedly strong deficiency in
calcium...)
Bob:
Why would not have eggshells been a part of our ancestors food intake.
Aren't they available wherever eggs are available?
Dariusz:
>Instinctive eating is a rather simplistic solution to one's dietary
problems.
Bob:
Yes, I think it is, too & I appreciate simple solutions to problems & have
wondered for years why most folks refuse to consider a simple solution to ANY
problem based on the fact that it's simple? Government, authoritarian
propaganda? Love of mental masturbation? Genetic defect? ;-)
>.RAF aren't really a substitute for veggies, IMO.
Bob:
tho when I eat lots of sprouts, jewel yams, my "need" for RAF drops to near
zero for several days & when I eat RAF, the attraction top (need of?) The
starchy veggies drops for a similar period. Anyone else note similar stuff?
Kirt:
>Did you happen to try a pitahaya while you were in Columbia?
A pitahaya is the fruit of a cactus which has the same general shape as the
common "cactus fruit" (or "prickly pear" or "tuna") but is not covered with
needles but instead covered with large overlapping scales, kind of. Inside
is melting white pulp with hundreds of small black edible seeds. Very
sucrosey flavor. And I was on the toilet an hour later--whoosh ;)
Bob:
We arrived 2 days early in Athens several years ago prior to a week of
cycling around Crete & we drove around southern Greece, stopping at an
abandoned & overgrown fortress (Cartagena?) & found what I THOUGHT was
pitahaya (probably the cactus fruit you mentioned). I ate quite a bit of it,
cutting the kiwi-sized fruit in quarters & removing the fruit by pressing it
against my upper teeth with my tongue. Within minutes, my tongue was coated
with hundreds of painful spines, which I allowed to ruin my next three days,
trying to buy depilatory agents in Greek pharmacies, considering pouring hot
wax on my tongue to attempt removal of the spines, etc. (They finally fell
out of my tongue after 3 days of unplanned fasting, much to the pleasure of
my companions, who quickly tired of my trend to ruin THEIR days as well.) :-(
Denis:
>Respecting natural laws has never been a favorite amongst anarchists and
leftists (there are exceptions, though), since their prognosis and cure
of human alienation rests entirely on economical grounds.
Stefan:
>Personally I considered him to be a vegan zealot.
Bob:
Hey, kids, have we ever agreed on a definition for "zealot"? I suspect a
search of Tom's posts would reveal it second in frequency to perhaps "the".
;-) is a zealot "someone with a strong belief system differing from mine".
Am I perceived as a zealot by those majority of y'all who disagree with my
individualist view of philosophy or libertarian view of politics?
Tom:
Yes, the body heals. The key question is whether herbs contain substances
(or energies) that assist healing. I say the answer is yes; the "ONLY self-
healing" crowd says no. One can argue that anything put in the body has
properties and effects, and a substance can harm (toxin), sustain (food),
or assist healing (herb=medicine). If herbs assist healing, it is not
100% self-healing.
Bob:
OK, so what's the difference between herbs & foods? Could herbs be
considered "micro-nutrients & foods as "macro-nutrients" & the proper use of
herbs is same as other foods, smell/taste test em & eat em (un cooked,
unprocessed, etc.) When/if they smell/taste delicious? Anyone had experience
in this area? Any research? (ho ho ho)
Hey, kids, I gotta question:
What's the point of restricting our posts to 5/day? How 'bout 30/week
instead. I probably post 10-15 times per week & it's NOT convenient to
read/answer E-mail much more than once a week & then stuff is bounced back
due to exceeding 5-day. What are we accomplishing with this restriction?
So, in order to answer my mail, I'm adding a bunch of misc. stuff to this
letter, as Peter as requested we not do.:
ELLIE ROTUNNO--Ellie, I sure appreciate your time/effort/knowledge &
willingness to communicate! You're a breath of fresh air! Biomagnetics is
not my field of expertise, I'm a very recent student of the fascinating field
& am mostly just using my mind/body as experimental material 'cause it's
interesting, amusing, makes sense to me & offers the possibility of advancing
my journey toward optimum health with (IMO) minimal negative risks. I've
answered your biomagnetic questions (some of 'em, anyway) in my M2M format:
brackets around your statements, my reply following two dashes:
[Nerve energy is chemically transferred, and not increased by any outside
force like electrical input from magnets ...]--Is it true that the astrocytes
in our nervous system "produce" nerve energy? If yes, is it true that the
body uses the earth's magnetic field to supplement this nerve energy? Is it
true that the astrocytes (the other cells of the body) function better in a 4
gauss field than in the present 0.45 gauss field? Dr. Bonlie sez yes to
these, quoting "Cross Currents", Robert O. Becker, MD, 1990, "Magnetic Field
Reversals", Allen Cox, Scientific American, 2/67, "Secular Variation of the
Earth's magnetic Field", David Gubbins, Nature, vol 317, 10/31/85,
"Fundamentals of Electricity & Magnetism", Kip, 1969, "Intense Magnetic
Field", Henry H. Kolm, Scientific American, April, '65, "Magnetic Field
Deficiency Syndrome", Kyoichi Nagagawa, MD, Japanese Medical Journal,
12/4/76, "Earth in Upheaval", Immanuel Velikovsky.
[How about sleeping until you get a stop, i.e. when you wake up, read, rest
or surf the Net]--Yes, I'm sure willing to delegate deciding when to sleep to
my instincts & have been doing so AMAP since living NH in '90. :-)
[I'm all for therapy if you know it's therapy and need to suppress symptoms
to function. I had to do that for years. I am only concerned with that faint
glimmer of hope I hear from you that maybe it's not therapy.]--Yeah, mebbe
it's not! :-)
[What is the mechanism by which electricity from outside sources--like
artificially induced magnetic fields--keeps human cells healthy if in fact it
does?]--I don't know. If/when it becomes important enough for me to know
that, I'll find out & report -- or perhaps someone who does know will solve
this one for us.
[Magnetic changes in the earth's environment are a part of Nature. Don't you
think the magnificent human body is capable of adapting to this?]--Yes &
adaptation is expensive. We can "adapt" to caffeine, cooked fudes, crack,
etc.
[So even if the earth's magnetic field drops to zero in 800 years our nervous
systems may
have evolved to such a point that we use the biochemically transmitted nerve
energy exclusively. Remember you agreed that nerve energy is God. Does God
need your artificially placed magnets to do his/her/its job of running your
body?]--Oops, you caught me with my definitions down! I probably don't have
a concise definition of my concept of "god", probably something along the
lines of the pantheism you spoke of in the M2M, where "god" is simply
everything in nature (with man as a definite part of nature), including
energy (then if everything in nature is forms of energy, then "god is
nature"). Then we'd need a definition for "need" in this context. Can "god"
or "nature" "energy" really "need" anything? For what purpose? Running my
body? NH teaches that bodies run best when they're provided with the
conditions for optimum health (air, sleep, food, activity, etc.) & I'm still
considering the possibility that an optimum level of extrinsic magnetic
energy, as supplied by the earth's magnetic field may be one of those
requisites for optimum health & mebbe when we're living in a 0.45 gauss field
as we apparently are now, we're needing to pay a price to "adapt" that our
ancestors didn't have to pay living in a 4 gauss field 4,000 years ago.
[Are your instincts telling you that you need magnets?]--They've thus far in
the experiment remained silent. Erik's instincts ARE telling him that. In
the last few months, every time he leaves his home & magnetic sleep system,
his CFS symptoms return with a vengeance (evidence that his body is reacting
to the artificial magnetic energy by suppressing his symptoms?) AND, when he
is home, he feels he's periodically "drawn to the magnetic field, like it's
calling me" (could be instincts? could be lots of other possibilities --
interesting.
Stefan:
[What does "negative magnetic field" mean here? Is it the south pole of the
magnetic pad turned to you to be meant "negative" or is it the north pole?
Please explain!]--A compass needle is a magnet balanced so it can freely
point at the magnetic north pole of the earth. The earth's north pole is
NEGATIVE, the compass magnet's north pole (really "north-SEEKING pole) is
POSITIVE, so whichever end of a magnet a compass needle points to is
NEGATIVE.
[Also: wouldn't humans living on the northern hemisphere of the globe
experience the opposite polarity of magnetic field, than those, living on the
southern hemisphere??? So should one change the polarity of the pads (by
simply turning them to the other side) if changing the hemisphere you are
living in?]--Yes, that's my understanding
can be fun! :-) favorite carry-in addition to the usual wimpy restaurant
salads. :Instincto can be fun :-)
a message dated 97-07-21 05:45:57 EDT, you write:
<<
since the circle has closed, I'd like to continue to discuss the still
missing definitions etc. via private email. Agreed?
>>
Life's full, but fire away, we'll see what time's available!
Bob
'ealth, appiness & freedom to y'all!
Bob
|
