At 07:41 PM 11/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Lynton!!
>   Well - thanks again for another letter!  Sure is nice to read these!

You write:
><<  I understand that fasting is avoiding foods completely.  And why would
>this be good, if all food is good (and if it was, what is the problem with
>digesting it???  As we know, different foods are better than others, and
>different people have different requirements. So my idea is that it is
>better to eat the foods that are good and "fast" from those that are not.>>>

>I guess I'm thinking that the task of digestion is a task that the body
>would love to have rests from, from time-to-time;

you might think that, but is it true?
- and if so, under what circumstances?
AND I'll provide an answer, but there must be much more to it than this:
At present I believe that problems with digestion _could_ come from one or
more of :
(1) foods that require the body to contribute digestive enzymes
(especially cooked foods).
(2) foods that contain lectins and other things  that react with the immune
system.
(3) lack of a suitable proportion of beneficial gut organisms.
(4) trauma/disease in the gut tissue.
(5) trauma/disease in the digestive organs.

Consequently, if one eats food that is difficult to digest, then I agree
that they would be better off fasting in order to deal with an illness.
(Body enzymes are then used for recovery instead of digestion).
However, fasting is not a long-term solution, is it?  (Long term fasting
is "breatharian" approach, huh?).

By eating foods that are easily absorbed, the body gains enzymes and has
extra energy and resoures to cope with recovery.  Does this make sense to
you?

An example:
 if I eat say a pound of meat raw (having carefully selected it and
prepared it) I notice no digestive effect.  If I make a meal of the same
pound of meat cooked, even lightly then I notice my metabolism is slowed,
thinking duller ( and I could even go to sleep ) plus I notice a sort of
digestive effort in my stomach.
(I notice the same difference between cooked and raw with other beneficial
foods).

Now I happen to know that the meat I eat is good for me (being a type-O).
But there are people who cannot tolerate meat well at all, and are naturally
suited to a vegetarian diet.  (And I'm _not_ suggesting that eating meat is
the solution, its just the example I'm using here).

I am taking the trouble to write this because I sense that you are really
interested in getting well by as natural means as possible - otherwise I
would recommend _most_strongly_ to consult with a good medical practioner.
You have tried fasting many times, and you are worse now than before you
ever fasted.  This is true?
Surely it is time to examine other possibilities?  Yes or No?

I feel that I must make some more comments about fasting:
(1) to lose weight, dieting does not work.  People typically put on more
weight than they had before afterwards.
(Look at your own experience and decide if this is true for you.
(2) the weight lost includes muscle mass, which takes a lot of effort to put
back - the weight regained is mostly non-muscle.
(3) if you continue to eat the foods you ate before, then you will get back
more of the same food-related problems (toxins, etc).
(4) true, fasting does release toxins into the system.  But alot of them may
only be redistributed in the body (in addition to making you feel bad).
Also, the toxin release is at a high rate.

To understand why eating is important to toxin disposal you need to
understand the metabolic pathways involved.  If the body does not have a
supply of the required materials, the toxins cannot be excreted!

>I certainly agree with you that every person is unique, and that it is better
>to eat what's good for you and avoid what's not!!

and how do you know which is which?

>By the way - is Haagen-Das good for you (or me, actually?).

who is Haagen-Das ?

Regards, Lynton