John:
<< since the "rules" of this particular diet aim to keep out foods that the
body isn't evolved to handle, they might be a bit more important than with the
average diet. >>

Liza:
Maybe ........ but then again maybe we don't know who has evolved to handle
what.  Have Eskimos evolved to handle dairy products and grains?  Have Indians
and Japanese evolved to handle a predominance of raw fruits and vegetables?
Have Hispanics evolved to handle cow's milk?  Have Type AB blood types evolved
to handle things that Type O types cannot handle?

So far I haven't found any diet that exists that is right for every person,
each with his or her own unique genetic heritage, ethnic and cultural
background, metabolism, and individual strengths and weaknesses.  And as far
as the Paleo diet goes - there remain questions about whether or not our
metabolic pathways are linked to this time in our evolutionary history. There
are just so many factors influencing the determination of what foods work well
for each person, that any set of dietary rules is, in my opinion, just made to
be experimented with, anyway.  "Right Diet" is an ongoing process of
refinement.

John:
<< As far as "drugs", I think maybe I see the issue here.  I'm guessing that
you think "drugs" are morally wrong.>>

Liza:
No, I don't have any ideas about the morality of it at all (in fact I'm glad
you mentioned that and gave me an opportunity to clarify).  To me this is not
a question of morals at all - its just simple health  ----  of the body, mind
and spirit.  I do not believe that intoxicants (alcohol, drugs, herbs,
whatever - anything that intoxicates and affects the central nervous system)
are healthy.  They are not nutrients, and so are therefore 'seen' by the body
as toxic substances, causing an unnecessary burden of elimination, in addition
to their other deleterious affects.

John:
<<  I probably have a different definition of "drugs" than you do.  In my
mind, a drug is a pharmaceutical chemical made by a company or a refined
product made from a natural substance to be used for either health care or
intoxication purposes. >>

Yes we do have differentt definitions.  My definition includes any substance
which intoxicates - meaning all the so-called 'natural' drugs (like peyote or
marijuana or valerian) as well as the processed ones.  'Natural' toxins are
just as dangerous as synthetic ones.  To the body, they are all poisonous.

The requirements for cellular metabolism are simple - minimal nutrients for
energy production and tissue repair, air, and water. That's it!!! ;-) Anything
else is regarded by the body as a toxin to be eliminated as soon as possible.

If one needs to use a drug to alter consciousness for some reason, maybe the
question to ask is, why would I want to distort the unbelievably powerful
ability of my mind to be aware and intelligent?  Is it because I just don't
believe that my mind is capable of vast intelligence and awareness, and needs
changing and unbalancing somehow? Why am I not able to use my mind's infinite
intelligence and capacity for awesome perception to its maximum potential?

John:
<< I feel fairly strongly about both of these.  I do not use either. >>

Good! I'm glad to hear that!! ;-))  I was starting to wonder whether I've
gotten onto a drug list here!!  ;-))

John:
<< As far as natural, as in "available back then" options, I do not feel that
there is anything wrong with the occasional use of these >>

Liza:
I made some comments in my post to Charlie about my experience with people
trying to employ 'moderation' when it comes to addictive substances.

I would make another point - and that is that the body is capable of
withstanding ENORMOUS amounts of dietary abuse (as well as mental and physical
torment).  So, you could very easily eat Snickers Bars and a Coke for lunch
every day of your life, and not notice anything in particular.  The same thing
goes for alcohol, cocaine, peyote, marijuana, penicillin, nicotine, Dimetapp,
valerian, DHEA, Crisco, St. John's Wort, or LSD. You could very easily live a
great and healthy life, still using these things. But, do you want to? Even in
'moderation'?
John:
<<  I never saw a "burnout" who started as a Rhoads (sp?) scholar. >>

Liza:
You haven't??????  Wow!!!  You're lucky!!!!  I sure have!!!!  Take a visit to
a homeless shelter, and start listening to stories there - its a real eye
opener.  Or visit a drug or alcohol rehab center or halfway house.  I think
you'll change your mind in a hurry!!  Those places are FILLED with people
'fallen from grace'.

John:
<<  As far as what our ancient ancestors did and didn't do, the fact remains
that for the most part they were far more healthy than we and they probably
didn't have the "let's save us from ourselves" moral dilemna on this issue.>>

Liza:
Yes, as a group they certainly were healthier. Was it because of their diet?
Who knows!! Was it because they didn't breathe smog? Or work indoors sitting
down? Maybe they were paid enough on their job, unlike most of us.  Maybe they
were in love, and had a community they lived among (two factors shared by the
world's longest lived peoples). Maybe they took naps, and got 10 hours of
sleep every night.  Maybe it was because they got vigorous outdoor excercise
every day. Who knows why they were healthier? Healthy is affected equally by
all those factors I've mentioned, and more.

As far as a moral dilemma and saving ourselves - I don't quite follow you on
this.  What moral dilemma do you mean? Do you mean saving ourselves from drug
deaths? I don't understand this comment.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments!!

Love, Liza

[log in to unmask] (Liza May)