>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