Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy (FoodMatters)

In summary, the documentary "Food Matters" makes the bold claim that a proper diet consisting of raw, organic, low sugar, low sodium, and vegetarian foods can not only prevent all illness but also cure current illnesses. However, this claim seems highly suspicious and unsupported by scientific evidence. The main speaker, Charlotte Gerson from the Gerson Institute, has a questionable reputation and the Gerson Method has faced criticism for its lack of scientific evidence and potential for harm. Ultimately, it is important to consult with a medical professional and rely on evidence-based treatments for illness rather than solely relying on dietary changes.
  • #36
Physics-Learner said:
i already told you that i would exit if your desire was to compare studies. so i don't quite understand your second paragraph.

as for your first question, the pneumonia virus is often very serious amongst people of all ages.

True, and it primarily kills the elderly, and the young.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6058395

You should know this already.

Physics-Learner said:
a person whose body has run out of gas is not working out at the gym. look at his life. it did not end the way the average person dies due to the body simply stopping.

What is, "run out of gas"? Congestive heart failure? HIV? Cancer?... Lowered Immune System. Your view of "stopping" is largely fanciful and in this forum, you HAVE to back it up, or retract it. You literally cannot choose to just shmooze; we're not in S&D anymore.

Physics-Learner said:
perhaps you have not had much experience with older people and the process that they typically have, as they grow old and feeble ?

If you'd read the "worst way to die" thread, you'd already know that's not true. I know what you're talking about, but you're grossly oversimplifying... do that on a different site.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #37
running out of gas is a term i am using to describe the process in which the body starts falling apart as a person becomes old and feeble.

dying from the pneumonia virus is not a good way of determining the overall health of a body. as i have stated twice, it is not customary to find a person who is old and feeble and falling apart, to be capable of working out at the gym.

i don't read many threads on the entire forum. there must be tens of thousands of them. so no, i did not read the "worst way to die" thread.
 
  • #38
Physics-Learner said:
running out of gas is a term i am using to describe the process in which the body starts falling apart as a person becomes old and feeble.

dying from the pneumonia virus is not a good way of determining the overall health of a body. as i have stated twice, it is not customary to find a person who is old and feeble and falling apart, to be capable of working out at the gym.

i don't read many threads on the entire forum. there must be tens of thousands of them. so no, i did not read the "worst way to die" thread.

I have plenty of experience with death, young and old, nor is being feeble a medical term, or fitness a measure of overall health. You can be fit on the outside and drop dead from an arrythmia, enlarged heart, or stroke. You can be decripit due to a number of factors, but have a quick mind and live to be quite old.

This is the medical forum, not the "throw stuff until it sticks" forum.

All of this in the context of a sham of a "cure" for cancer. Here... have some Laetrile...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Please tone it down guys. This should not be a personal debate. And I am in favor of comparing studies, where appropriate.
 
  • #40
nis,

i am speaking of percentages. you won't find many people in their last stages who are still consistently working out at the gym.

i don't think you will find anyone else agreeing with you, regarding jack lalanne, and his health level versus the typical person who is falling apart.
 
  • #41
berkeman said:
And I am in favor of comparing studies, where appropriate.

hi berkeman,

i made my original post (#14) when i found it in the s&d forum. my only goal was to offer some helpful advice to anyone who might benefit from it.

after the rule change in the philosophy forum, i no longer post there.

two points for information sake, if you are interested.

1) jack lalanne was considered a kook by the entire medical community in the '50s. and a dangerous one at that. at the time, it was thought that the heart had only so many beats, etc. and that basically it was best to "save yourself" so that your body would last longer. the community felt that jack was promoting something that would have people keeling over before their time. for those that don't know this, the stance by the entire medical community almost sounds ridiculous by today's standards. but it was believed by most at that time.

jack went against the entire community single-handedly. we now know who won that argument.

2) many forums, including this one, tend to gravitate towards my study supporting my viewpoint versus your study supporting your viewpoint.

so many studies are biased. studies cost money, and whoever pays for said study will make sure he benefits from it, should there be a benefit to it. i have been extremely actively involved in health for 35 years. i can tell you that the field of nutrition is one of the worst biased fields i have come across.

incorrect conclusions are commonly drawn from studies.

as a general rule, regarding most any topic that i want to know about - i will start off doing research, be it studies or opinions. that is a "starting point". i then use my experience and the experience of others to add to my knowledge base. after 35 years, going back to a study is like me returning to kindergarten. i have zero use for that.

now there may be some nutritional sub-topics of which i am unfamiliar, and where studies once again present an interesting place to start.

but once i am somewhat knowledgeable, i think it is way better to talk to someone "in the know" about a topic that i am interested in.

as an example, if i want to know about exercises for the back, i want to talk to someone, perhaps a personal trainer, who specializes in back exercises.

if i want to do yoga, i would talk to several yoga teachers who have been doing that for 10 years or so, as opposed to some scientific study about it.

i know that i am just a bunch of words on a computer screen, and you have no way to verify anything about me. if you saw me in person, what i can do, and then found out my age, you would probably be ASTONISHED.

i say that not to boast. but it is a lifelong goal of mine to someday help the masses with their health. and doing so by not asking them to believe something that is written down, but someone who has actually accomplished something himself.

i tend to gravitate towards those that can do, not those that can teach. i once went to a doctor as a kid ( i was a bit chubby). he told me it would be healthier if i lost 5-10 pounds. while he was correct, it was a bit hard to take him seriously when he had a huge gut and was 100 pounds overweight - LOL.

anyways, just some food for thought. i still plan to enjoy those forums in which i am not breaking any rules by not quoting studies of sorts. it appears as if this forum is for scientific studies only, so i won't post here any more either. i do believe in obeying rules. it is your forum, and therefore it is your choice to place whatever rules to them that you find appropriate.
 
  • #42
Physics-Learner said:
i know that i am just a bunch of words on a computer screen, and you have no way to verify anything about me. if you saw me in person, what i can do, and then found out my age, you would probably be ASTONISHED.

Too bad I can't be astonished by your knowledge as well. Your goal is noble, though. This doesn't change you are just full of fallacies and things which you think are true, but they may well not be. Personal experiences are hardly a qualifier to talk about nutrition.

You are as hard to take seriously as the fat MD when you talk about nutrition. Just at opposite side of the scale. One has knowledge and is fat, the other looks good and is full of fallacies.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
DanP said:
Too bad I can't be astonished by your knowledge as well. Your goal is noble, though. This doesn't change you are just full of fallacies and things which you think are true, but they may well not be. Personal experiences are hardly a qualifier to talk about nutrition.

You are as hard to take seriously as the fat MD when you talk about nutrition. Just at opposite side of the scale. One has knowledge and is fat, the other looks good and is full of fallacies.

Seconded.

Physics-Learner, anecdotal evidence as nismar has pointed out isn't valid.

You said you don't go to science for answers, but to those who practice the subject. This is not a good thing. When faced with the choice of "what does science say" or "what does the teacher say" it should always tend to the one that requires evidence to backup its points and not anecdotal evidence.

You may disagree with this, but it is a fact that humans are not particularly good judges of things like this - something proven by the fact homeopathy is still around. If you speak to people practising in homeopathic remedies and those taking them you'll note they give you a lot of positive feedback from them, but when you look at a scientific study which looks at the evidence collected from a number of people over time you see that they are simply exploiting the placebo effect.

You clearly have something against science and its method that I think is completely unjustified.

So far you've put one name on the table to back up your points - a name that has no support behind it outside of your own beliefs in what he did.

Now whether you like it or not, comparing studies is how things are done. You weigh up evidence not stories. This is not philosophy where pretty word arguments rage.

So unless you can follow the rules of the site and provide some acceptable evidence I don't see what there is to add on the matter.
 
  • #44
Physics-Learner said:
nis,

i am speaking of percentages. you won't find many people in their last stages who are still consistently working out at the gym.

i don't think you will find anyone else agreeing with you, regarding jack lalanne, and his health level versus the typical person who is falling apart.

Ahhh, now we agree, but again, there are people like that distributed across a bell curve, with someone like Serena Williams having a pulmonary embolism, vs. an old man living well. Nutrition is a complex interaction that is hardly a closed book; exercise on the other hand, is very clear: no move, no more move.

Jack did a lot of things, but which caused him to live so well, to such a ripe old age? You see now, why you're sharing a meaningless anecdote? Should I pull up the guy who ate bread fried in fatback, and drank thunderbird 20/20 into his 90's, also in perfect health? That would ALSO be meaningless, just one random datapoint.
 
  • #45
DanP said:
Too bad I can't be astonished by your knowledge as well. Your goal is noble, though. This doesn't change you are just full of fallacies and things which you think are true, but they may well not be. Personal experiences are hardly a qualifier to talk about nutrition.

You are as hard to take seriously as the fat MD when you talk about nutrition. Just at opposite side of the scale. One has knowledge and is fat, the other looks good and is full of fallacies.

It's not a good sign when people tell you that they're astonishing...

Otherwise, I agree with you completely
 
  • #46
so many comments.

first, about me being astonishing. that was a bit of a turn-around of words. i said that a person would be astonished at what i can do and my age. that is a bit different then me saying that i am astonishing. but i will simply say that at 56, i haven't started to go downhill. my endurance and quickness are ever bit as good today, as it was at 16. assuming you take that as a true statement, i would think those results would be worth evaluating - in terms of what is it that is helping me perform at that level ?

but i have had to do corrections. there have been times in my life where my performance started to drop. upon finally making some right changes, my performance came right back. my personal experience certainly plays a big part regarding my opinions on nurture and nature. i think we have a lot of control over our own health destinies. but my personal experience has also been directed due to the experiences of countless other people with whom i have shared ideas, etc. along the way. so in a way, my personal experience is a rather large test of ideas shared with probably thousands of different people.

jack lalanne was a sugar addict as a young boy, and was sickly because of it. his change of nurture habits had everything to do with his ability to stay tremendously active thru a very old age. and even if he did not live a lot longer, he certainly did not have to suffer thru years of unhealthfulness.

second, the comment about me not being for scientific method. that is completely false. re-read what i said. do not confuse "studies" with scientific method. to know that the study is really scientific, one must be a part of giving of that study. most of us don't know a hoot nor a holler about the study, other than what it says. we weren't there to validate anything.

what i said was that most studies are biased. which means they aint scientific at all. nutritional studies are highly biased. did i say HIGHLY BIASED ?

there are literally millions of phyto-chemicals in the foods that we eat. the health food industry will come out with a couple "lycopenes" each year, packaged with scientific studies at how they do such and such, and of course 100 pills for $20 to go along with it. the field of nutrition has so many conflicting "scientific" studies, it is almost baffling.

any time a study produces results that have the ability to influence people to do something helpful to someone else, simple beware of its authenticity.

we are putting so much confidence in these studies, and yet they have differing results. does that not give us a clue that we are being misled ?

when i talk to a personal trainer, or a physical therapist, for example - i am much closer to the scene. i am talking to someone about his experiences with quite a few people. now live 35 years. there is an awful lot of people to talk to about "qualified" experiences.

if i recall, the scientific method is theory, test that theory, take a look at the results, reformulate the theory to better approximate the results that one got. i talk to qualified people, formulate what seems to be a workable theory, test it on my own, talk to more people about the results that i got, reformulate my thoughts to see if i can get better results, test it again, etc.

to nis regarding jack - sure you could probably find someone who lived a long time without necessarily doing what was best for him. i am not convinced that jack had great genetics. which has a lot to do with why i wish i would have seen him die by having his body fall apart, rather than succumb to a virus.

i think jack got 96 years mainly because of nurture. he may have gotten many more if he really had great genetics. but that will probably now always remain unprovable.

nurture has a tremendous influence for all of us, regarding our health. so i will encourage each and every one of you to put forth the effort to keep healthy. the quantity of years is one thing. the quality of those years is even more important.

the way i say it is that nature provides us with an optimum. nurture is a way of getting there. i do believe we all have varying optimal results to some degree. but if you put gas in your radiator, and water in your gas tank, you aint going to last very long, no matter if you are the best built car in the world. NURTURE PLAYS A HUMONGOUS ROLE.

BEST OF HEALTH TO EVERYONE.
 
  • #47
Im with you in the sense that everyone should exercise and try to health healthy. It's captain Obvious :P

No matter with what genetics you are born with, its better to help nature. Don't smoke, keep reasonable levels of physical condition and so on. It can only help. I also never recommend humans to do more than recreational levels of physical preparation. More than that, is more daunting then helping for most of them.

Thing is, is everyone would just eat what the government recommend, the world would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better. You do not need to go on any idiotic diet, the latest rage in pop-nutrition-silver bullet crowd . The gov. sanctioned nutrition is very sensible. Some ppl in clinical cases may need further adjustments. This is where nutritionists and MDs come into play.

About personal trainers: most have no idea what they are talking about. Easily influenced by marketing and their favorite exercise guru, they will readily fall into any trap. The fact that they lifted some weights in their life didn't made them immune to this. Most are just full of fallacies.

About studies: there are many studies on nutrition out there. Many are done by very reasonable scientists, and it's pretty paranoid to believe that there is a conspiration around every corner. They don't deal with products, they deal with cold biochemical facts. And if you are not able to understand the studies, and what they actually say, there is a lot of work done by others in this direction. They have gone trhough tohusand of studies in their career, review just about everything and came to conclusions which are used at the top of
the athletics for example.

This is a good book for anyone which wants to learn facts about nutrition , not the opinion of some PTs who are living in a fantasy world:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0070277206/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
DanP said:
Im with you in the sense that everyone should exercise and try to health healthy. It's captain Obvious :P

No matter with what genetics you are born with, its better to help nature. Don't smoke, keep reasonable levels of physical condition and so on. It can only help. I also never recommend humans to do more than recreational levels of physical preparation. More than that, is more daunting then helping for most of them.

Now this is what I'd consider to be meaningful advice, and direction. Atheletics comes at a cost (worth paying), and while it's something that is not ridiculous, it's still a cost.

DanP said:
Thing is, is everyone would just eat what the government recommend, the world would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better. You do not need to go on any idiotic diet, the latest rage in pop-nutrition-silver bullet crowd . The gov. sanctioned nutrition is very sensible. Some ppl in clinical cases may need further adjustments. This is where nutritionists and MDs come into play.

I used to be very fit, then I got fat, and now I'm losing that and getting fit again. I speak from personal experience: you're right. Lifestyle, not diet, and we all tend to know on a pretty basic level when we're eating well ro not. Check the old lipid levels and do a CBC now and then to be sure, but yeah, I'm with you.

DanP said:
About personal trainers: most have no idea what they are talking about. Easily influenced by marketing and their favorite exercise guru, they will readily fall into any trap. The fact that they lifted some weights in their life didn't made them immune to this. Most are just full of fallacies.

I've known three who were truly good, and they all were normal build, but atheletes. They could talk anatomy with me, they had... awareness above all. They were (or are) all certified, and spend a lot of time learning their trade, not learning how to walk on coals, juice, or look great. If they can't boil everything down to the actual medicine, to me, they're frauds and hurt the profession.


DanP said:
About studies: there are many studies on nutrition out there. Many are done by very reasonable scientists, and it's pretty paranoid to believe that there is a conspiration around every corner. They don't deal with products, they deal with cold biochemical facts. And if you are not able to understand the studies, and what they actually say, there is a lot of work done by others in this direction. They have gone trhough tohusand of studies in their career, review just about everything and came to conclusions which are used at the top of
the athletics for example.

The downside is that some studies are well-meant, and well done, but they're taken out of context by the public. Wine may help your heart, but hurt your liver, for one very basic example. Vitamin D is another: one group looks at the "petri dish" type of study and another at human trials. This is the borderland of science, medicine, and art... it's why true expertise such as yours is invaluable.


DanP said:
This is a good book for anyone which wants to learn facts about nutrition , not the opinion of some PTs who are living in a fantasy world:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0070277206/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'd add... Gray's Anatomy... it's not fancy, but it's a classic. I don't think anyone can go wrrong with that, for sports, for self defense, for medicine, and general knowledge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
hi dan,

regarding personal trainers - i gave that example as someone who has experience. but i am SELECTIVE. many trainers at the gym are simply trained by the gym, and get certified. and i am not knocking them. they can still help many newbies get going. but i would not be going to them for advice about anything. i am talking about someone with experience. and i don't look to them for nutritional advice, just exercise. at my gym, there is only one trainer that i consider experienced enough that i have an interest in what he says.

i don't recall if i mentioned it or not, but of course physical therapists can be a wonderful source of advice regarding exercise and various ailments.

at this point, i really don't seek any sort of nutritional advice from anyone. i am not on a fad diet, but some of the things that i eat are not typical. but i am trying to accomplish getting very close to my optimum. i am curious as to what that is. it is my belief that our optimums range from 100-140. in other words, that is what nature limits us, assuming we give ourselves perfect nurture.

there are quite a few who do make it into the 100s. but i think very few of them get to the 110 mark.

i recall in the old days when protein amount was all over the scale, regarding the amount that you should eat. many were down to as low as 20-30 grams a day. i think that 1 gram per pound of body weight is now more typical of a standard.

my basic nutritional advice is get enough protein, omega3, omega6, and omega9. and then eat as much fresh produce as possible. and get as much of your food as possible from natural sources, because there are all sorts of chemicals in foods that have evolved with all the rest of life on the planet.

one nutritional book that i thought was great when i read it a long time ago is "prescription for nutritional healing" by balch. if the average person took that to heart, i think it would benefit him greatly.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1583330771/?tag=pfamazon01-20

anyways, nice to share ideas with you guys. i do not want to fight with anyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Physics-Learner said:
hi dan,

regarding personal trainers - i gave that example as someone who has experience. but i am SELECTIVE. many trainers at the gym are simply trained by the gym, and get certified. and i am not knocking them. they can still help many newbies get going. but i would not be going to them for advice about anything. i am talking about someone with experience. and i don't look to them for nutritional advice, just exercise. at my gym, there is only one trainer that i consider experienced enough that i have an interest in what he says.

i don't recall if i mentioned it or not, but of course physical therapists can be a wonderful source of advice regarding exercise and various ailments.

at this point, i really don't seek any sort of nutritional advice from anyone. i am not on a fad diet, but some of the things that i eat are not typical. but i am trying to accomplish getting very close to my optimum. i am curious as to what that is. it is my belief that our optimums range from 100-140. in other words, that is what nature limits us, assuming we give ourselves perfect nurture.

there are quite a few who do make it into the 100s. but i think very few of them get to the 110 mark.

i recall in the old days when protein amount was all over the scale, regarding the amount that you should eat. many were down to as low as 20-30 grams a day. i think that 1 gram per pound of body weight is now more typical of a standard.

my basic nutritional advice is get enough protein, omega3, omega6, and omega9. and then eat as much fresh produce as possible. and get as much of your food as possible from natural sources, because there are all sorts of chemicals in foods that have evolved with all the rest of life on the planet.

one nutritional book that i thought was great when i read it a long time ago is "prescription for nutritional healing" by balch. if the average person took that to heart, i think it would benefit him greatly.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1583330771/?tag=pfamazon01-20

anyways, nice to share ideas with you guys. i do not want to fight with anyone.

Just remember: at the end of the day, Check your BP, HR, and check in with your Lipid count and a CBC that covers liver function. If you're good there, you're good... just avoid raw beets; too much Oxalic acid is not your friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
i also talk to lots of people at the gym. many, if not most, of them have had injuries in the past, such that they have been through physical therapy of sorts.

they are interesting sources of information. knees, followed by shoulders, are 2 areas that literally dozens of people at the gym have their own stories to tell. and exercises that they needed to do, etc.
 
  • #52
Physics-Learner said:
i also talk to lots of people at the gym. many, if not most, of them have had injuries in the past, such that they have been through physical therapy of sorts.

they are interesting sources of information. knees, followed by shoulders, are 2 areas that literally dozens of people at the gym have their own stories to tell. and exercises that they needed to do, etc.

Sounds like you're taking the advice as advice, and not over or underestimating your sources. That's what matters ultimately IMO.
 
  • #53
beets is just one thing that make my taste buds pucker - LOL.
 
  • #54
Physics-Learner said:
beets is just one thing that make my taste buds pucker - LOL.

Heh... well, I enjoy them roasted with some olive oil, salt and pepper, but raw it's horrific!
 
  • #55
nis,

i try to get lots of opinions on any particular problem. and then if something seems interesting enough to me, i try it out. i have literally gotten hundreds of good ideas thru the years on various issues.

and i have also made my share of mistakes. but then hopefully i have learned from most of them.
 
  • #56
Physics-Learner said:
nis,

i try to get lots of opinions on any particular problem. and then if something seems interesting enough to me, i try it out. i have literally gotten hundreds of good ideas thru the years on various issues.

and i have also made my share of mistakes. but then hopefully i have learned from most of them.

I think that's the best any of us can hope for in our lives.
 
  • #57
i don't know if any of you have heard of body rolling. i have been doing it for the past 2-3 years. but before that, i had never heard of it.

i consider it to be life-changing. and it just makes me think what other sorts of things are out there that i still have no knowledge about ?
 
  • #58
Physics-Learner said:
i don't know if any of you have heard of body rolling. i have been doing it for the past 2-3 years. but before that, i had never heard of it.

i consider it to be life-changing. and it just makes me think what other sorts of things are out there that i still have no knowledge about ?

Is that the use of a foam 'rod', or a ball? I don't know that I'm familiar with this.


Anyway, it seems to me that DanP's reading list is a great place to start learning. I know of no better way than to read, and then ask questions of experts.
 
  • #59
yes, i now roll exclusively on pvc pipes.

i ran across an excellent picture on the net a long time ago, of how our tendons, muscle tissue and fascia tissue all interact together, but the last time i looked for it, i could not find it. it was a perfect example of a picture being worth a thousand words.
 
  • #60
Physics-Learner said:
yes, i now roll exclusively on pvc pipes.

i ran across an excellent picture on the net a long time ago, of how our tendons, muscle tissue and fascia tissue all interact together, but the last time i looked for it, i could not find it. it was a perfect example of a picture being worth a thousand words.

That's quite good for you, unless you have some issue with a spinus process... which is unlikely. This is why I always recommend Gray's Anatomy; you learn all of this in a systematic way, with some of the best illustrations out there.
 
  • #62

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top