>Hi to all, especially Deborah and Jean-Louis.
>
Hi Stefan!
>Two pounds of meat, three times a week and for six years! Wow! I am
>thunderstruck! So much! And this together with instinctive nutrition?
>I can't believe it.
>
>Possible reasons:
>- meat of bad quality (see my earlier posts)
>- a pair of two foods of bad quality
I will forward all this along to Zephyr for him to comment on. It's
certainly VERY interesting.
Today we went to the eye doctor for Zephyr to have a checkup. His vision
has deteriorated 30% in the past year. We're not certain how much of
that is (1) due to the trichinosis -- his eyes really bothered him a lot
during that period; (2) permanent. But he got a prescription for both
distance and close lenses, and will be rechecked in a couple of months.
The close lenses will help him do more computer and reading work, which
hurts his eyes a lot now. He has been working for several days on a
really long post about his illness, and has not yet read the new stuff
which I've passed on to him.
>I need a better word here. Grapefruits are a cross-breeding of oranges and
>another fruit whose name I mean. Anybody who knows? In german it is called
>"Pampelmuse". It's very acidy and sour. It was cross-breeded with oranges
>to make it more sweet.
Pomelo?
>Important sign, that RAF (meat, fish, eggs) is not instinctive quality:
>After eating it and having a more or less weak stop you feel thirsty. This
>is a strong sign, that you have eaten too much. If you didn't exceed the stop
>this means that your RAF didn't give a correct stop because it was bad
>quality!
>
Hm. Zephyr is almost always thirsty after meat/fish eating.
>So another question to Deborah and Zephyr is, whether Zephyr in all these
>six years of extremely high meat eating had some other favorite food he was
>permanently attracted to. Or even several other favorites.
Again, better that he answers this than me.
>
>If five billion of us consume as much meat as Zephyr there is no chance
>to get it as instincto quality. His consumption was 2*459*3*52g = 143kg
>per year. This even beats the average intake of german cooked eaters (92kg).
>And it may beat the average SADer?
>
Dunno, but it is indeed a lot. You're good with statistics!
>
>Ok, here are my cholesterol values:
>
> 1. Test 2. Test Recommended range
>TC 210 191 < 200
>TRG 70 133 < 200
>HDL 68 63 > 35
>LDL 128 102 < 155
>VLDL 14 27 < 40
>TC/HDL 3.1 3.0 < 4.5
>GLU 76 71 76 .. 110
>
>Notes: All values in mg per dl.
>TC = Total cholesterol, TRG = triglycerides, HDL = high density lipoprotein,
>LDL = low density lipoprotein, VLDL = very low density lipoprotein,
>TC/HDL = ratio of TC to HDL, GLU = glucose.
>
>First test on 4/18/97 9:30 MEZ, second test on 5/6/97 17:30 MEZ.
>I suppose this avocado meal to be responsible for the considerable shift
>of TRG, LDL and VLDL. But the TC stayed nearly the same. Funny.
Why would you think avocadoes would affect your cholesterol? They have
none.
>The TC of Zephyr of 119 looks good. Would be interesting to see the other
>values if you got them.
>
In fact, just today we got back the values from testing done on 5/5/97:
Cholesterol 140
Triglycerides 106
HDL 42
LDL 77
All his liver enzymes are back well within normal ranges, thank God.
The following are high:
White blood cells 25 (4-11 is normal)
Platelets 565 (150-400 is normal)
Eosinophils 80 (0-5 is normal)
>It means that I try to hear to my inner voice whenever I can. And I pay
>higher attention to my feelings than to rational thoughts how things should
>be.
>Examples:
>- if exposing to the sun I get out as soon as I note a unpleasant feeling.
>- if fast walking seems to be good I do it. If a slow motion feels better
> i will walk slowly.
>- I call my friends if I feel that we should talk again. I don't count when
> I called them the last time or how often.
>- I sleep as much as my body needs not as much I would like to sleep.
>- generally I try to hear to my inner voice and my feelings if making
> decisions.
>- I try to respect nature and other life as much as possible. I have
> definitive n o reluctance to kill animals I need for eating. But I
> won't slaughter one without this need.
This is very beautiful and I admire your orientation.
>I must disappoint you. No new food, no new fun for you. We are too much into-
>xicated from our cooked decades to try this.
Right, that's why I said our grandchildren could do it.
>And really, Deborah: are you
>able to do it? ;-)
No way, but I'm not seeking to return
>as near as possible to the paradisiac conditions of our ancestors
either. :-D
>Anyway: Have fun with your excretions
>but watch out for reintoxification.
Sage advice, which I'll certainly follow.
>
>Best instinctive wishes,
Same to you,
Deborah
|
