<<yesterday in the newspaper there was a big article about how scientists
have
found that a diet rich in animal protein will elevate homocysteine levels,
which they say is the main cause of heart disease. what do any of you think
of this? the article did not mention specific diet types/ lifestyles, such
as eating a lot of meat with a lot of carbohydrates.
it just said a diet high in animal protein.>>

Dear Mary,

  I think there is a danger in accepting most of what mainstream science
finds about nutrition.  They have been wrong on so many occasions, and
cannot yet come to consensus on what constitutes a healthy diet.  I see the
following as factors:

When science examines something, it does so in a vacuum.  It has yet to
recognize the interconnectedness of all.  Some simple illustrative examples
of what happens when there is a lack of balance in all factors, are the
examples of Vit C and E being interdependent for full efficacy, and the
amino acids being interdependent upon each other.

The next problem is that science seldom recognizes a problem in it's early
stages. The damage from free radicals begins almost at birth as we breathe
the polluted air, and later, eat the polluted food.  Our diets have been
laden with those things that promote the formation of, and subsequent damage
by, free radicals.  The deterioration of the vascular system begins here,
long before science "sees" it.   Also, the impact that cigarette smoking has
on the vascular system tell me we cannot ignore the probable impact of other
pollutants in our air.  Finally, again ignoring interconnectedness,
homocysteine levels skyrocket in those who are experiencing stress.  This
was not factored into those studies.

The danger of these studies is that we run the same risk of suffering from
the same blindness as scientists by not being able to see the forests for
the trees.

I have a loosely constructed  framework using the general concepts I 'know'
to be real. It looks something like this:

*My body has been being damaged for years.
*Any food that has been altered by anything except nature, is more than
likely incompatible with my body.
*My body may very well be more sensitive to even the most natural substances
as a result of the damage.
* When I feel healthy and energetic after I eat, this food is compatible
with my system. When these natural things are not compatible (for me it is
the sugars in fruit), what can I supplement that will give me the nutrients
I need that this incompatible food has?
* Applying the latest 'scientific finding' to what I know to be true, how
does it fit?  Were their clinical studies constructed in a way to give me
truly valid information? The answer here for me is usually 'no'.

As I mentioned above, science fails to note the symptoms of future heart
disease.  The simple question - How do I feel? - will tell you a lot.  If
you feel tired, this is not normal.  If you are experiencing retention of
fluid, this is not normal, etc.

I think one of  few things science has almost right at this time are the
basic biological needs of the body, and the primary necessary nutrients.

I do a lot of supplementing with very high quality, always organic,
vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids.  I also utilize organic,
wildcrafted herbs to deal with existing body damage.  By sticking to the
rule of thumb that if it isn't produced by nature in the area in which I and
my ancestors lived, then it is probably incompatible with my system.

You can make yourself crazy trying to get this all exactly right.  There is
no one exactly right way that fits all people.  Don't discount the power of
your intentions.  Intentions produce very powerful energy.  It goes a long
way in compensating for what we don't know.

Another rule of thumb I use is if I don't feel good, something's out of
kilter.  You've got to keep it simple in order to not be overwhelmed by the
complexity, rendering yourself unable to do anything.

Warm blessings,
Siobhan ( a new list member)