Medical Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy (FoodMatters)

[Greg Bernhardt]

I've been watching the documentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001B3XZAW/?tag=pfamazon01-20. It seems like quackery to me! It makes the very suspicious claim that eating a proper diet will not only prevent all illness but can cure all current illness. A proper diet is defined as: raw, organic, low sugar, low sodium, vegetarian.

Certainly it seems as a obvious statement that an improved diet will result in improved health, but their claim seems to go a bit overboard. They claimed to have cured cancer with http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/" alone (100g of vitamin C). Also claimed to cure a persons depression with 11g of Niacin a day.

They also state that doctors receive almost no training in nutrition.

One of the main speakers is Charlotte Gerson from the http://www.gerson.org/". A well known institution with a gray reputation.

Are we too dependent on medications? Could we be doing more with food and supplements? What are your thoughts on the Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy?

 

[Evo]

It's quackery. The human body cannot break down the cells in many raw foods, therefor humans cannot absorb the nutrients.

There is so much that is wrong, I don't know where to start.

His book, A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases, first published shortly after his death, is the acknowledged "bible" of the Gerson Therapy. The fifth edition of the book in cludes the following statements.

"In man, there are electrical potentials outstanding in the life of the cells. They are especially accumulated in the nervous system, which is ultimately our `spiritual organ'." (p. 12)
"In the nutritional field, observations for centuries have shown that people who live according to natural methods in which plants, animals and human beings are only fragments of the eternal cycle of Nature do not get cancer." (p. 14)
"[N]ot one factor alone or a combination of single factors is [therapeutically] decisive, but what is decisive is how they influence the whole body, mind and soul in their entirety." (p. 18)
"Above all we must realize that there is nothing in heaven or on Earth that does not exist in man himself. We can say, therefore, that the system which governs the human being itself is `Great Nature.'" (p. 49)
"In order to deal with the harmful things which we have to use to our disadvantage, the Lord gave us an alchemist (stomach) not to absorb the poisons that we eat together with the good nourishing food, but to separate it from the favorable substances." (p. 49)
"For the things that one does for the prolongation of one's life are ordained by Great Nature." (p. 49)

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/dictionary/mdfg.html

Between 1980 and 1986 at least 13 patients treated with Gerson therapy were admitted to San Diego area hospitals with Campylobacter fetus sepsis attributable to the liver injections [18]. None of the patients was cancer-free, and one died of his malignancy within a week. Five were comatose due to low serum sodium levels, presumably as a result of the "no sodium" Gerson dietary regimen. As a result, Gerson personnel modified their techniques for handling raw liver products and biologicals. However, the Gerson approach still has considerable potential for harm. Deaths also have been attributed to the coffee enemas administered at the Tijuana clinic.

Charlotte Gerson claims that treatment at the clinic has produced high cure rates for many cancers. In 1986, however, investigators learned that patients were not monitored after they left the facility [19]. Although clinic personnel later said they would follow their patients systematically, there is no published evidence that they have done so. A naturopath who visited the Gerson Clinic in 1983 was able to track 21 patients over a 5-year period (or until death) through annual letters or phone calls. At the 5-year mark, only one was still alive (but not cancer-free); the rest had succumbed to their cancer [20].

see Gerson Method http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html

 

[Evo]

More...

Controversy about the efficacy of the Gerson therapy continued throughout Gerson’s life. In 1946 and 1949, two articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that the treatment was of no value.[9,10] The National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed Gerson’s data from ten case histories in 1947 and 50 case histories in 1959. NCI concluded that in most cases, basic criteria for evaluating clinical benefit were not met. NCI concluded that the data demonstrated no benefit.[2] In 1972, the American Cancer Society (ACS) published a statement summarizing the negative assessments of Gerson’s treatment.[11] Another statement published by ACS in 1991 concerned various “ metabolic therapies” (defined as treatments that depend on changing metabolism through diet, enemas, and supplements given at clinics in Tijuana, Mexico) and reemphasized the lack of scientific evidence on the efficacy of the Gerson regimen.[12]

Gerson died in 1959, leaving behind no systematic way to continue offering his treatment. His malpractice insurance had been canceled in 1953, and in 1958 he was suspended for 2 years from the New York County Medical Society.[11] In 1977, his daughter, Charlotte Gerson Straus, who had continued to lecture widely about the Gerson therapy, cofounded the Gerson Institute with Norman Fritz. Located in San Diego, the Gerson Institute does not own or operate treatment facilities but maintains a licensing program for treatment centers such as the Centro Hospitalario Internacional Pacifico and Mexico’s Center for Integrative Medicine and the Gerson Hospital (CHIPSA) in Baja California, Mexico. CHIPSA refers to Max Gerson as the founder of “immunonutrition,” their term for Gerson’s idea of cleansing the body while building up the immune system through diet and supplementation.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/HealthProfessional/page3

 

[bobze]

I've been watching the documentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001B3XZAW/?tag=pfamazon01-20. It seems like quackery to me! It makes the very suspicious claim that eating a proper diet will not only prevent all illness but can cure all current illness. A proper diet is defined as: raw, organic, low sugar, low sodium, vegetarian.

Certainly it seems as a obvious statement that an improved diet will result in improved health, but their claim seems to go a bit overboard. They claimed to have cured cancer with http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/" alone (100g of vitamin C). Also claimed to cure a persons depression with 11g of Niacin a day.

They also state that doctors receive almost no training in nutrition.

One of the main speakers is Charlotte Gerson from the http://www.gerson.org/". A well known institution with a gray reputation.

Are we too dependent on medications? Could we be doing more with food and supplements? What are your thoughts on the Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy?

I know the medical school I attend has had a full class devoted to nutrition since 1995. I know from talking to friends at other medical schools they get nutrition covered between biochemistry and their clinical reasoning/skills type classes. Most medical schools also offer elective rotations during 3rd or 4th year 2-4 weeks through nutritional medicine.

I think it was really recognized back in the 90's that physicians needed more nutrition as part of their core learning and this has been a curriculum requirement for medical school certification since. Regardless it seems, people are still oft to repeat the cliche that "physicians don't get enough nutrition".

As to the claims? Sure a healthier diet certainly leads to better physical and mental health, curing cancer though? No, just more of this "naturo/homeopathic" bunk that seems to be permeating our culture at a cost to the patient.

 

[Proton Soup]

I've been watching the documentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001B3XZAW/?tag=pfamazon01-20. It seems like quackery to me! It makes the very suspicious claim that eating a proper diet will not only prevent all illness but can cure all current illness. A proper diet is defined as: raw, organic, low sugar, low sodium, vegetarian.

Certainly it seems as a obvious statement that an improved diet will result in improved health, but their claim seems to go a bit overboard. They claimed to have cured cancer with http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/" alone (100g of vitamin C). Also claimed to cure a persons depression with 11g of Niacin a day.

They also state that doctors receive almost no training in nutrition.

One of the main speakers is Charlotte Gerson from the http://www.gerson.org/". A well known institution with a gray reputation.

Are we too dependent on medications? Could we be doing more with food and supplements? What are your thoughts on the Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy?

you can't take 100g of vitamin C without s*!tting yourself. just won't happen, diarrhea takes over and washes it out. some people have injected it, tho. i think it was Linus Pauling himself that started the vitamin C nuttery. but no, it's never been proven to work.

not sure about the niacin thing. but there are a few metabolic diseases where specific nutrients may make a difference. a few people seem to get better remission from epilepsy with B-6 for example. and a very specific form of folate (5-MTHF) may help with some people that have resistant depression. there are even some supplements that may help with liver damage. but, except for treating deficiencies, i think most results are pretty modest. for example, fish oil doesn't cure depression, but it tends to improve scores.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I know the medical school I attend has had a full class devoted to nutrition since 1995.

Good to know! I think we can safely call this movie bunk! I wish NetFlix would drop it from their library. We'll keep this thread open for it's exposure.

you can't take 100g of vitamin C without s*!tting yourself. just won't happen, diarrhea takes over and washes it out. some people have injected it, tho. i think it was Linus Pauling himself that started the vitamin C nuttery. but no, it's never been proven to work.

Yeah I believe they were talking about injections and claimed no side effects.

for example, fish oil doesn't cure depression, but it tends to improve scores.

Speaking of fish oil. I take several capsules after a hard workout to battle inflammation instead of ibuprofen. Seems to help.

 

[Proton Soup]

Speaking of fish oil. I take several capsules after a hard workout to battle inflammation instead of ibuprofen. Seems to help.

after is good. just keep in mind that some inflammation is key to generating an adaptive response to exercise, so avoid taking anti-inflammatories before your workout. same for anti-oxidants.

i have taken fish oil for treating inflammation before, but the results i was getting came from using quite a lot (3 TBSP). perhaps too much. also, the fish oil activates a prostaglandin pathway that is supposed to be healthier than the ones typically activated by NSAIDS.

 

[ETOPS]

This is quackery, but complementary medicine is something for which I am very much a proponent. Eating well, controlling stress, exercising, and other unconventional means to wellness are well-researched and do not take the place of, but rather complement, real medical care. If people did eat better and exercise, maybe the United States of America wouldn't suffer from such an epidemic of cancer, type-2 diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Doctors today do not teach prevention. It is not enough to avoid smoking and occasionally get off the couch.

A plant-based, low-glycemic diet can certainly prevent cancer and other diseases. Researchers are experimenting with a tertiary class of nutrients: those several thousand phytonutrients which are naturally contained in fruits, vegetables, herbs/spices, and tea. This goes far beyond simple calorie management and believing everything is about gluttony which leads to obesity which heightens risk for the common diseases Americans face. Avoiding the bad (trans fat, processed sugar, cigarette smoke, red meat, alcohol, toxins, unsafe food additives) is an excellent measure, but it is also about what you do for prevention and well-being throughout your entire life.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is quackery, but complementary medicine is something for which I am very much a proponent. Eating well, controlling stress, exercising, and other unconventional means to wellness are well-researched and do not take the place of, but rather complement, real medical care. If people did eat better and exercise, maybe the United States of America wouldn't suffer from such an epidemic of cancer, type-2 diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Doctors today do not teach prevention. It is not enough to avoid smoking and occasionally get off the couch.

A plant-based, low-glycemic diet can certainly prevent cancer and other diseases. Researchers are experimenting with a tertiary class of nutrients: those several thousand phytonutrients which are naturally contained in fruits, vegetables, herbs/spices, and tea. This goes far beyond simple calorie management and believing everything is about gluttony which leads to obesity which heightens risk for the common diseases Americans face. Avoiding the bad (trans fat, processed sugar, cigarette smoke, red meat, alcohol, toxins, unsafe food additives) is an excellent measure, but it is also about what you do for prevention and well-being throughout your entire life.

You start off so skeptical, then end with such certainty. Tell me, which plants are most beneficial, and which are balanced by carcinogens? Any studies to share?...

Sorry, this is quackery and the usual snake-oil sales, but of an IP instead of a bottle of laudanum. You should eat and exercise in a manner that properly influences your CBC & Lipid Count... no other measure for you unless you fall back on fancy.

 

[berkeman]

A plant-based, low-glycemic diet can certainly prevent cancer and other diseases. Researchers are experimenting with a tertiary class of nutrients: those several thousand phytonutrients which are naturally contained in fruits, vegetables, herbs/spices, and tea. This goes far beyond simple calorie management and believing everything is about gluttony which leads to obesity which heightens risk for the common diseases Americans face. Avoiding the bad (trans fat, processed sugar, cigarette smoke, red meat, alcohol, toxins, unsafe food additives) is an excellent measure, but it is also about what you do for prevention and well-being throughout your entire life.

Per the forum rules, you need to provide some links to peer-reviewed mainstream articles that support the claims you are making.

 

[ETOPS]

You start off so skeptical, then end with such certainty. Tell me, which plants are most beneficial, and which are balanced by carcinogens? Any studies to share?...

Sorry, this is quackery and the usual snake-oil sales, but of an IP instead of a bottle of laudanum. You should eat and exercise in a manner that properly influences your CBC & Lipid Count... no other measure for you unless you fall back on fancy.

I began by stating my disapproval of alternative "therapies" like the subject of this discussion, the Gerson Method. I then proceeded with a statement of endorsement for complementary measures, namely proper nutrition, exercise, stress management, toxin avoidance, etc. You must be a speed-reader. Alternative therapies take the place of proper medical attention. They are unscientific, potentially-lethal diversions for skeptics of medicine and people who know no better. Complementary medicine is a field that combines conventional medical care with nutrition, exercise, acupuncture, meditation, and anything else that doesn't fall under conventional medicine's domain or menu of services.

Those of you calling for evidence first need an understanding of physiology and pathology. If you cannot define inflammation, insulin, angiogenesis, or neoplasm, go educate yourself by reading reliable sources. The understanding that lifestyle choices determine cancer risk necessarily follows if you have a solid understanding of the aforementioned concepts.

Now, instead of citing the thousands of studies that affirm my statements, I will present only one comprehensive one and let you do as much additional digging as you like:

• World Cancer Research Fund, Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective (London: World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Research on Cancer, 2007). [500,000 studies were screened down to a mere 7,000 meeting strict criteria - 10 recommendations were published for reducing the risk of cancer. Let's see if they support or refute my statements. Read the Wikipedia page or visit the report's http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/" for further information.]

For those of you who are still wedded to the grand theory of genetic predestination, here are some studies proving that your environment, not your genes, determines ~85% of your disease risk:

• Sorensen, T.I.A., G.G. Nielsen, P.K. Andersen, et. al., "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Premature Death in Adult Adoptees," New England Journal of Medicine 318 (1988): 727-32.
• Lichtenstein, P.N.V Holm, P.K. Verkasalo, et al. "Environmental and Heritable Factors in the Causation of Cancer - Analyses of Cohorts of Twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland," New England Journal of Medicine 343, no. 2 (2000): 78-85.

I'd love to stay and educate, but I have to go prepare a cauliflower soup with curry and other spices. I regularly eat Brassica family vegetables for their indole-3-carbinol and cauliflower goes great with curry powder, containing turmeric (active component curcumin), one of the most potent anti-inflammatories that can be consumed. For those of you in denial, so be it. My mission is not to combat nutritional myths. I just thought I'd make some of you aware of the benefits of taking care of your body. Who could've conjectured that fruits and vegetables are good for us?

 

[ETOPS]

nismaratwork, your jargon makes no sense. Which vegetables are balanced by carcinogens? Are you asking which vegetables contain the most carcinogens? I'd avoid genus Agaricus mushrooms, aka the common white or button mushrooms, which contain a carcinogenic hydrazine-derivative called agaritine. Which plants are most nutritious? As I stated above, I like the Brassica family for several reason. It's important, however, to vary your diet and eat across the color spectrum. Red meat (red), potatoes (white), diet Coke (brown), and french fries (yellow) don't count. I'm talking about natural colors, like the cyanidins in beets and blueberries, or the carotenoids in carrots, sweet potatoes, etc.

Oh, and nismaratwork, http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/648737.html" . You may want to tag some broccoli along with your triple-patty burger.

 

[ETOPS]

I know the medical school I attend has had a full class devoted to nutrition since 1995. I know from talking to friends at other medical schools they get nutrition covered between biochemistry and their clinical reasoning/skills type classes. Most medical schools also offer elective rotations during 3rd or 4th year 2-4 weeks through nutritional medicine.

I think it was really recognized back in the 90's that physicians needed more nutrition as part of their core learning and this has been a curriculum requirement for medical school certification since. Regardless it seems, people are still oft to repeat the cliche that "physicians don't get enough nutrition".

As to the claims? Sure a healthier diet certainly leads to better physical and mental health, curing cancer though? No, just more of this "naturo/homeopathic" bunk that seems to be permeating our culture at a cost to the patient.

Those who say physicians don't learn nutrition are foolish. MD and DO students do, but certainly not much. They come out knowing what a thiamine deficiency is called, or what signs of rickets are, but they usually eat like every other soda-chugging American. Prevention is cheaper than midnight cardiac catheterizations at the level I trauma center. I'd say it's about time doctors lead by example and take up healthy lifestyles themselves.

 

[Physics-Learner]

I've been watching the documentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001B3XZAW/?tag=pfamazon01-20. It seems like quackery to me! It makes the very suspicious claim that eating a proper diet will not only prevent all illness but can cure all current illness. A proper diet is defined as: raw, organic, low sugar, low sodium, vegetarian.

Certainly it seems as a obvious statement that an improved diet will result in improved health, but their claim seems to go a bit overboard. They claimed to have cured cancer with http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/" alone (100g of vitamin C). Also claimed to cure a persons depression with 11g of Niacin a day.

They also state that doctors receive almost no training in nutrition.

One of the main speakers is Charlotte Gerson from the http://www.gerson.org/". A well known institution with a gray reputation.

Are we too dependent on medications? Could we be doing more with food and supplements? What are your thoughts on the Gerson Method and Nutrition Therapy?

hi greg,

i haven't seen the film, so i will just make comments about your description.

it is my opinion that our environment has much more to do with our health than our genetics, so i agree with the statement that etops made, in this regard.

we have not discovered how to live forever, so our bodies do degenerate. but we have a lot of control regarding the speed at which this happens.

as a general rule, our bodies are quite sophisticated, and will heal ourselves whenever possible. in order for our bodies to do what they are designed to do, they need the proper ingredients.

i think many illnesses are curable, but there are also instances in which our bodies have degenerated too much for us to cure. there are also some things that we may not know how to cure, such as ridding ourselves of various viruses.

regarding cancer - most people are not aware that we create cancerous cells within our body as a natural part of living. our immune system gets rid of them.

cancer is actually a grouping of cancer cells that have grown together, and now can act as one unit. so as a general statement, we should never get cancer if we are doing what our bodies want us to do.

this is true of diabetes, and most of the diseases that are prevalent in the first world countries, where our problems are based on excesses - as opposed to third world countries, whose health problems have to do mainly with deficiencies.

while doctors may receive some education on nutrition, the medical community, like most other communities is first about making money. pharmacies can't sell you sweet potatoes. they sell you drugs. and still the most common methods that physicians use is prescribing medicines for you to take.

just look at a person's medicine cabinet, and you get a good idea of his age. most older people are taking all sorts of various medicines to "cure" problems. unfortunately, most of it actually accomplishes the "temporary deletion of symptoms", until new problems occur, which causes the doctor to prescribe more medicines.

these symptoms are what the body uses to tell us it is unhappy with us, and these medicines remove the only method our body has of letting us know. to really cure these problems requires us to give the body what it wants.

we know to put gas in our gas tank, oil in our oil tank, water in our radiator, brake fluid in its reservoir, etc. why do we do this ? because this is how our car is designed to work.

likewise, we need to supply our body with what it was designed with, to work efficiently. proper food intake, exercise, sleep, etc.

the secret to good health is not so much about the knowledge of what to do, BUT RATHER THE DISCIPLINE TO DO IT.

 

[nismaratwork]

nismaratwork, your jargon makes no sense. Which vegetables are balanced by carcinogens? Are you asking which vegetables contain the most carcinogens? I'd avoid genus Agaricus mushrooms, aka the common white or button mushrooms, which contain a carcinogenic hydrazine-derivative called agaritine. Which plants are most nutritious? As I stated above, I like the Brassica family for several reason. It's important, however, to vary your diet and eat across the color spectrum. Red meat (red), potatoes (white), diet Coke (brown), and french fries (yellow) don't count. I'm talking about natural colors, like the cyanidins in beets and blueberries, or the carotenoids in carrots, sweet potatoes, etc.

Oh, and nismaratwork, http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/648737.html" . You may want to tag some broccoli along with your triple-patty burger.

Triple patty burger? Tell me, did you say that because you think I'm Indian-Hindu, and therefore cows would be sacred, or was it merely a silly assumption made without any knowledge? Beyond that, I can't believe you actually asked which plants are NOT nutrititious... TONS OF THEM!... for humans.

Then again, if you'd like to eat a holly bush, any number of grasses, or a fistful of poison sumac, be my guest. I'm not seeing anything in your posts that isn't an attempt at bluster, and again, you've slid back into pseudoscience with your offer of studies... or rather, the absolute conclusions you draw.

@Physics-Learner: How to separate "health and genetics"?! Science has made it abundantly clear that it's nature AND nurture, not one or the other.

 

[ETOPS]

It's quackery. The human body cannot break down the cells in many raw foods, therefor humans cannot absorb the nutrients.

Many is fuzzy language. Some foods are better digested raw and some are better digested cooked. Heating meat, for example, decreases protein digestibility. Conversely, raw rice is not as digestible as cooked rice because heating will disrupt the cellulose. It all depends on the food. Raw is a great state for some vegetables in a salad. Cooking something until it's mush will deplete nutritional value. Cooking tomatoes, though, will make them bright red and more lycopene bioavailable.

 

[nismaratwork]

Many is fuzzy language. Some foods are better digested raw and some are better digested cooked. Heating meat, for example, decreases protein digestibility. Conversely, raw rice is not as digestible as cooked rice because heating will disrupt the cellulose. It all depends on the food. Raw is a great state for some vegetables in a salad. Cooking something until it's mush will deplete nutritional value. Cooking tomatoes, though, will make them bright red and more lycopene bioavailable.

Citations... Studies... please cite. For instance, cooking mustard greens to death is obviously destroying valuable phytosterols, and other delightful compounds. On the other hand, cooking method and the item being cooked can in fact allow us to more efficiently extract nutrition. Without specifics, you've made a meanignless statement. Please read the S&D guidelines.

edit: I would add, the consumption of raw products is also a matter of sanitation, which varies greatly by region; you need to see a greater benefit from raw consumption than the potential risks. In addition, cooking tomatoes does what you say, but is best achieved through a slow process without exceeding a given temperature.

 

[ETOPS]

"nismaratwork", I'd like you to selectively quote where I asked which plants are not nutritious for humans.

As for the rest of your remarks, you're clearly not someone worth debating. For one, you have trouble understanding my posts. Secondly, you have presented nothing factual to counter anything I have said. Pseudoscience isn't backed by thousands of studies, especially after they've been filtered through over a six-year period and then reviewed by twenty-one experts. Maybe you should review the findings of the http://epic.iarc.fr/" if you can speak French (doubtful). If you're Hindu, maybe you should look into the health benefits of turmeric, something abundant in the diet of Indians. Do yourself a favor and learn something about disease prevention. Read carefully!

 

[nismaratwork]

"nismaratwork", I'd like you to selectively quote where I asked which plants are not nutritious for humans.

As for the rest of your remarks, you're clearly not someone worth debating. For one, you have trouble understanding my posts. Secondly, you have presented nothing factual to counter anything I have said. Pseudoscience isn't backed by thousands of studies, especially after they've been filtered through over a six-year period and then reviewed by twenty-one experts. Maybe you should review the findings of the http://epic.iarc.fr/" if you can speak French (doubtful). If you're Hindu, maybe you should look into the health benefits of turmeric, something abundant in the diet of Indians. Do yourself a favor and learn something about disease prevention. Read carefully!

You want me to do your job for you? No thank you, and no amount of arguing will change that.

edit: Hmmm... it just occurred to me that you might be genuinely confused. Do you understand the difference between nutritional recommendations based on current best practices and knowledge, and scientific peer-reviewed studies? If so, you may want to look at the recent divide on Vit D supplementation, between one recommending body of experts, and another. I don't think you're confused, just dogmatic and very testy, but I feel that I should at least give you this chance.

 

[ETOPS]

edit: Hmmm... it just occurred to me that you might be genuinely confused. Do you understand the difference between nutritional recommendations based on current best practices and knowledge, and scientific peer-reviewed studies? If so, you may want to look at the recent divide on Vit D supplementation, between one recommending body of experts, and another. I don't think you're confused, just dogmatic and very testy, but I feel that I should at least give you this chance.

Recommendations made by governments and research agencies are based on the thousands of studies that demonstrate the preventive efficacy of a plant-based diet against the first-world chronic afflictions, namely cancer (which I have spoken most about). Scientific bodies do not publish recommendations without evidence for them. The studies I have provided inductively prove the benefit of several dietary behaviors and lifestyle habits. Individual foods, even, are particularly protective. If you search PubMed, you can find research ongoing or completed on the matter of phytochemical inhibition of tumors, whether in vitro or in vivo. If you have any interest at all, I highly recommend Anticancer by David Servan-Schreiber, MD, PhD.

Vitamin D is being discovered to be increasingly important. There isn't really a divide on the matter. People should maintain adequate 25(OH)D levels and expose themselves to the sun for 15 minutes daily, or orally supplement with cholecalciferol (D3) or ergocalciferol (D2). People do believe Vitamin D deficiency is responsible for winter flu season. The point is that people believe a lot of things.

 

[berkeman]

I need to close this thread temporarily to get caught up on some of the references being posted. I hope to be able to re-open it by Monday. Thanks for your patience.

 

[berkeman]

Okay, I think I can re-open this now. Please take care not to use any insults in the discussion, and please keep the discussion focused on nutrition and health.

I do find the study posted by ETOPS interesting and credible. Certainly better nutrition has many benefits, including helping to prevent disease. Here is the wikipedia article that he referred to (the website he posted requires registration to view the study, and wikipedia does not):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_...he_Prevention_of_Cancer:_a_Global_Perspective

In debating the efficacy of a particular food or vitamin, please be sure to link to credible references. And it may be true that there is still enough of a debate that there are studies supporting both sides. That is fine.

I'm also moving this thread back to Medical Sciences, where it originated. I'd moved it to S&D based on the first few responses to the OP pointing out the "quackery" in the original study. But the thread has progressed on to discussing nutrition and health in general, and that needs to be a discussion in Medical Sciences.

 

[Physics-Learner]

@Physics-Learner: How to separate "health and genetics"?! Science has made it abundantly clear that it's nature AND nurture, not one or the other.

i think what i said was that i think that "nurture" (our environment) plays a much stronger role than does "nature" (our genetics) on our overall health. at least that is what i meant to convey.

you asked how i separate the two ? 56 years of living. health and fitness has and does play a very central role in my life.

jack lalanne would be an excellent example of the result that nurture can have on our bodies.

 

[nismaratwork]

i think what i said was that i think that "nurture" (our environment) plays a much stronger role than does "nature" (our genetics) on our overall health. at least that is what i meant to convey.

you asked how i separate the two ? 56 years of living. health and fitness has and does play a very central role in my life.

jack lalanne would be an excellent example of the result that nurture can have on our bodies.

Or he was genetically gifted; this is why we use studies and not anecdotes.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i am afraid that jack just rolled over in his grave after hearing your comment - LOL.

do you honestly think that it was because he was genetically gifted that allowed him to live his life the way he did ?

he worked out almost every day. after his childhood of sugar addiction, he had a very disciplined life of the proper type of nutrition.

 

[nismaratwork]

i am afraid that jack just rolled over in his grave after hearing your comment - LOL.

do you honestly think that it was because he was genetically gifted that allowed him to live his life the way he did ?

he worked out almost every day. after his childhood of sugar addiction, he had a very disciplined life of the proper type of nutrition.

Which may have had an incredibly positive effect, but that doesn't make it a valid study or sample. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it.

 

[Physics-Learner]

every one comes from a different perspective. i see in my life, and others around me, the extremely positive effect that nurture has.

since i don't know you, i have no idea what your perspective revolves around.

 

[Physics-Learner]

and just as importanly, the extremely negative effect a lack of nurture has.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Which may have had an incredibly positive effect, but that doesn't make it a valid study or sample. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it.

it would have been very interesting to me to see how long his body could live. he did not die because of "old age".

by that, i mean that his body was not falling apart as is customary when it really does reach the end of its lifeline.

jack died rather suddenly because he was unable to fight of a pneumonia virus.

i personally hope to make it between 120-140. but more importantly, i hope i can demonstrate yet another "anecdote" of how nurture plays an important role.

but that gives me still another 70 years or so - LOL.

 

[nismaratwork]

it would have been very interesting to me to see how long his body could live. he did not die because of "old age".

by that, i mean that his body was not falling apart as is customary when it really does reach the end of its lifeline.

How on Earth do you come to that conclusion, and what evidence do you have?

jack died rather suddenly because he was unable to fight of a pneumonia virus.

A common killer of the elderly.

i personally hope to make it between 120-140. but more importantly, i hope i can demonstrate yet another "anecdote" of how nurture plays an important role.

but that gives me still another 70 years or so - LOL.

Good luck with that, in the meantime this is now in the medicine forum, so please add some kind of... SOMETHING to back these claims.

 

[nismaratwork]

every one comes from a different perspective. i see in my life, and others around me, the extremely positive effect that nurture has.

since i don't know you, i have no idea what your perspective revolves around.

My perspective is essentially DanP's, and ironically, very close to ETOPS; that has nothing to do with this discussion. This isn't about our personal views, or wagers in life, but about medicine, approached as scientifically as possible.

 

[Physics-Learner]

perhaps you did not follow jack's life ?

he was not sickly. still working out, etc. in other words, his body was not yet out of gas.

i will exit now, if you want to compare study "a" with study "b".

 

[nismaratwork]

perhaps you did not follow jack's life ?

he was not sickly. still working out, etc. in other words, his body was not yet out of gas.

i will exit now, if you want to compare study "a" with study "b".

What do you think this is about?! And how on Earth does your immunse sytstem crapping out not = "running out of gas"?

Come on man, just read the guidelines... please? This is not the way to conduct yourself here... maybe not enough for infractions, but in terrible faith. I may disagree and frankly dislike ETOPS, but at least he provided enough evidence to satisfy mentors, if not me.

 

[nismaratwork]

Back to the topic, I would consider the source, and motivation here.

http://www.gerson.org/

Gerson Institute / Cancer Curing Society
The Gerson Institute is a non-profit organization located in San Diego, California, dedicated to providing education and training in the alternative, non-toxic treatment of cancer and other disease, using the Gerson Therapy.

The Gerson Therapy is a safe, natural treatment developed by Dr. Max Gerson in the 1920’s that uses organic foods, juicing, coffee enemas, detoxification and natural supplements to activate the body’s ability to heal itself. Over the past 60 years, thousands of people have used the Gerson Therapy to recover from so-called “incurable” diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.

Founded by Charlotte Gerson (Dr. Gerson’s daughter) in 1977, we are the true source of information on the original, unmodified, proven Gerson Therapy. We refer people to licensed Gerson clinics and treatment centers, practitioners and caregivers. We also train health professionals, patients and others who want to learn this natural therapy. Visit our STORE for a wide selection of educational books, audio and video tapes.

You have the power to heal yourself. We can give you the tools and show you how!

Cure. Not prevent, not help... CURE. Good thing they have that STORE.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

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.

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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...

 

[berkeman]

Please tone it down guys. This should not be a personal debate. And I am in favor of comparing studies, where appropriate.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

 

[DanP]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

 

[DanP]

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.