Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: You make me feel like a natural-ly health woman! (Alternative medicine thread)
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Our Bodies, Our Hells
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
pepper
Nope, there are definately transfats in meat and dairy.

This from wiki

The US National Dairy Council has asserted that the trans fats present in animal foods are of a different type than those in partially hydrogenated oils, and do not appear to exhibit the same negative effects.[37] While a recent scientific review agrees with the conclusion (stating that "the sum of the current evidence suggests that the Public health implications of consuming trans fats from ruminant products are relatively limited") it cautions that this may be due to the low consumption of trans fats from animal sources compared to artificial ones.[4]

I've been googling and asking around but I can't find any research to back up the claim that these naturally occuring transfats are, in fact, harmless. I'm wondering too about the effect of heat on transfats in animal products. We're vegetarian but I'm not adverse to cutting out all animal products altogether. I don't agree with factory farming and can't afford free range organic and don't feel it neccessary to eat anyhow. Eggs and cheese can be tasty but I can easily do without.
ketto
Oh interesting. I just tried googling too and didn't come up with much. Where's chacha when you need her, I bet she knows. tongue.gif
stargazer
Pepper, maybe trying cross posting your quiry in the Veggie Tales thread to get some more feedback.
pepper
Thanks, x-posted!

This is such a terrific article. I know there are a ton of links to stuff about the flu vaccine but this one is the best I've read so far. It will really open your eyes, it's that terrific. No hype, just the top medical researchers weighing in on a weighty issue...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

“Tom Jefferson has taken a lot of heat just for saying, ‘Here’s the evidence: it’s not very good,’” says Majumdar. “The reaction has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you’d think he was advocating stealing babies.” Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.
koffeewitch
The great link on vaccines made me think of something just now: For decades, alternative health practitioners have been saying that antibiotics cause permanent health problems when given to small children (asthma and allergies). A few years ago I heard a story on NPR that focused on a Journal of Medicine article concurring with this research. It seems even one or two rounds of antibiotics can cause problems with small children. When I look at my friends kids, among the families that chronically use antibioics for colds, minor ear infections, etc. EVERY one of them seems to have atleast one child diagnosed with asthma, allergies or both. I can also see the correlation between cows milk and chronic ear infections. I know families who use day cares are naturally going to have more sick days and this explains SOME of the ear infections...but it doesn't explain why families who don't use dairy almost never have problems with ear infections unless they have a kid with an unusally short ear canal or other physical anomale. I can't believe our peds are still over-prescribing antibiotics when the consequences are so severe... Personally, I tell my pediatrician that I do not want antibiotics given to my kids unless it is absolutely necessary.
Has anyone else read "Having Healthy Kids In Spite of Your Doctor" (title probably not exactly right)?? I love that book...
angie_21
Thanks pepper! I just posted that article to facebook and emailed it to my friends.

Does anyone know ant good websites or books for dealing with PCOS/irregular menstrual cycles naturally? I'm thinking of going to see a naturopath but I don't know what's involved or how much it will cost so I'm hoping to be informed first. Thanks!

That's interesting koffee.. I know I was on antibiotics a couple times as a child and I definitely have neither athsma nor allergies... I also grew up a few km away from one of the largest oil refining centres in alberta, so maybe I was just lucky to be born with really healthy lungs to begin with!
koffeewitch
OMG. My father-in-law (who already thinks I am a nutcase) was just over here asking if he could drive me and my kids over to the Dept of Health to get a H1N1 shot. I declined the invitation. I have the idea he's on the phone to his other son (my brother in law) who is a Doctor so they can discuss my paranoid mistrust of vaccines. Rob is a doctor so EVERYTHING he says/thinks is correct, don't ya know?
koffeewitch
Hey Busties: I posted a suggestion to start a breast-feeding thread in the Community Forum and am trying to reach out to the Busties who may be interested. IF you are interested in a breast-feeding thread, please stop by the community forum and leave a reply.
chachaheels
Late, as always.

There has definitely been an active, deliberate abuse of some standard scientific terms when talking about fats. It's shocking, I know, but the food industry has been known to jump on a bandwagon to curtail consumers' growing awareness, all without lifting a finger to change what they do when they "produce" their food "products". When their products yell out "no trans fats!" you can be sure they've legally changed the definition of trans fats so that their particular brand of cheap deodorized, bleached, and hexaned margarine/corn oil doesn't fall into the definition.

"Trans" fats is a term that refers to fats that have been stabilized through hydrogenation. Rancid fats are also highly dangerous, and they are often used "in place" of "trans fats" now because the new definition of trans fat seems to be "any fat that is solid at room temperature". It's inaccurate.

There are "cis" fats--naturally occuring fats on which hydrogen atoms are bound in the molecule to carbon atoms on one side only--this makes the molecule "bend" (these fats are also known as "curly" fats). Their shape is of maximum importance--they can't really be "stacked" because they're all curly, but they store enzymes, nutrients, etc in that structure so that we can access them for full nourishment absorption and for proper tissue function. Without this, our organs simply do not work optimally.

"Trans" fats are something else entirely. The hydrogen atoms randomly attach to carbon atoms in the molecular chain on both sides--so the fat molecule's shape is not curved, but straight. This allows the fat to appear "solid" (because the molecules can be packed into a "crystal" formation--solid at room temperature). There are rare instances when these fats occur naturally--very rare. As a food for our bodies, it's pretty useless as the straight molecules cannot do the same job as the curly ones--so imagine that if the cis fats our bodies use and store for use are replaced by trans fats--our organs (and consequently, we) are starved of all the enzymes and nutrients they need to function properly.

So, I've essentially said what Ketto said. Dr. Mary Enig is perhaps the most learned and focused lipid expert in the world, she's studied the effects of fat in the diet for more than a quarter of a century and has challenged the "accepted" thought of the medical industry and diet industry on nutrition all that time as well. She's posted all kinds of detailed and not so detailed information on the subject in various places on the web (you can google her name and find all kinds of articles and publications and studies). Dr. Enig was also the first to point out how deadly hydrogenated vegetable fats are--as well as pointing out that the fats in meat and dairy--natural animal fats, in other words--do not have the same deadly effects in the body whatsoever, as long as they are consumed as they were meant to be consumed (in other words--don't pasteurize or homogenize that milk or cheese or yogurt; don't pasteurize the cream to make that butter; don't process that meat other than to make sausage or jerky or cook it)--and also, raise those animals well, with the best foods for their own health too. Don't feed herbivores grain or other meat; don't force chickens to live in crowded conditions under full force artificial light so that all they do is lay eggs, year round. Since so much of "factory farming/agribusiness" alters these foods to such a great extent, you can see how even animal fats have become far less nutrient rich, and far more "empty" foods.

Doesn't make them trans fats, just fats that are a whole lot less useful for us.

Wikipedia's fun, but I've read some Wiki pages that are so full of misinformation and outright nonsense (god, ask someone who's had a Wiki page written about them, just for starters). You don't have to be accurate or precise or truthful to write a Wiki page--it's all open to whomever wishes to create one, whatever their intentions are. I might like to read what a wikipedia page has to say just for fun, but for references, I'd go to some sources with solid credentials instead.
nickclick
i recently had a physical and was found to have a pretty high triglyceride number - 284. my other cholesterol numbers were OK as well as my sugar and thyroid. i've vowed to cut down on white carbs and added ground flax seed to my breakfasts. i can't do fish/fish oil - *barf*. but i'm still confused about the saturated/nonsaturated/trans fats in relation to this number. maybe Dr. Enig has some insight? i'll Google as you suggested, chacha, thank you.
koffeewitch
.
koffeewitch
Omega 3s are thought to reduce blood triglycerides (fats). In some studies omega3s seem to help with blood pressure and irregular heart beat (but in some studies omega 3s seem to worsen irregular heartbeat).

Because all of your other numbers were good, I wonder if your trigyceride level was only high for that particular day of your physical.
Anyway, saturation of fats refers to the amount of hydrogen attached to the fatty acid. When all the possible sites for attachement are filled, the fatty acid is fully saturated. Saturated fatty acids seem more difficult for the body to handle and may increase the risk for cancer/heart disease. Fats that are unsaturated are liquid at room temperature and do not nead heat to melt. A highly polyunsaturated fat (like safflower oil) is liquid even when refrigerated (unlike something highly saturated like beef fat or butter).
When choosing fatty acids on the basis of their saturation level you want monounsaturated fats mostly, then polyunsaturated fats. Saturated fats should be your last choice. HOWEVER, it is even more complicated than that. ALL fats are mixtures of monounsaturated, saturated and polysaturated! THis is all too complicated for me, personally. I just try to eat as much whole, natural foods as possible and stay away from anything but the produce aisle in the grocery store. smile.gif
Agree that lowering your intake of white/denatured carbs is always a great idea. I've always found I gain weight when I start taking in too much of any refined, chemie-laden foods.
chachaheels
Mary Enig has some fantastic insight on the question of triglycerides, and WHY our bodies need to produce more of them, what purpose they serve (reparative). They are definitely a sign of something going on in our bodies, but not what conventional medicine thinks they signify.

Every one of our cells creates cholesterol, ALL of it is good. When we have what conventional medicine calls "Bad Cholesterol", it is being produced because the body needs to repair its tissues, somewhere in the organism. This is why good, healthy, real fats are so necessary: if you're eating a bunch of rancid oils, or nutritionless oil such as the kind found in processed foots (margarines) then you will run into problems when the body can't source the nutrients from real fats to heal itself.

My suggestion would be to stop worrying about "good" and "bad" cholesterol because there has never once been evidence that changing those test results one way or the other actually makes you healthier (people have had fatal heart attacks after being told to "bring down their cholesterol levels", which they've done "successfully" and kept low for years: it happens all the time). Instead, think about the kinds of fats that make up your nutrient intake in your diet and eliminate all the bad ones--margarines, hydrogenated, all the trans fats, and all the rancid/bleached/stablized/hexane treated/genetically modified source fats. Although commercial butter is not the kind of butter human beings have been thriving on for centuries, it is at least real--stop using margarines of any kind (they are ALL trans fats) and substitute the butter instead. It's not optimal, but it is at least more nutrient rich and far more easily recognized and digested by our bodies. If butter's not your thing, then really pure, expeller extracted fats from sources such as nuts or seeds can be consumed in their raw states (or directly from the nuts or seeds). You'll have to supplement to make up for what you're not getting from butter (the A vitamins, for example, to name but one thing) but you can still get the fats you need without resorting to the deadly processed fats like margarines and shortenings.

"Saturated fats bad, Unsaturated or monounsaturated good" isn't necessarily correct. Some forms of saturated fats are our bodies' preferred nutrient rich food--real butter, for example, or the fat from offal--liver, kidneys, heart, stuff we don't eat enough of anymore (but, if you look hard, are absolutely essential in the diet. That "epidemic" in diabetes we're seeing world wide in aboriginal populations has a great deal to do with them no longer having access to their animal-fat rich/sugar poor traditional foods).

Omega 3 fatty acids are great IF they are well sourced: fish oil from very fatty cold water fish is the absolute preferred source. Fats made from fish liver are the highest quality--Cod Liver Oil, for example, is one of the best animal fats for supplementation. That being said, they need to be taken ALONG WITH specific omega 6 and even omega 9 fats (they are not all the same) in order to complete the nutritional needs for correct and whole prostaglandin production. They are necessary for cholesterol production in the body--because that is what makes all our organs work properly, heart included.
koffeewitch
BTW, it is the easiest thing in the world to make your own butter. If you can whip cream, then you can make butter. Basically the same process, but with cream that is warmer. If you can get fresh, unhomogenized milk and skim the cream from the top, all the better.

chacha, while I certainly understand that of course fats and cholesterol are important and necessary, what about the fact that we eat too much of them? And high amounts of saturated fats seem to lead to higher cholesterol levels than high-cholesterol foods... I always tended to view diabetes in aboriginal populations not as a lack of tradtional animal-fat laden foods (hunted meat is usually very lean, anyway) but as a tendency toward white flours and sugars along with a lack of tradional legumes and grains...I'm certainly open to other research, however. I tend to favor Marion Nestle for nutritional info...I'll have to check out Mary Enig.
ketto
koffee, you should actually check out this documentary My Big, Fat Diet.

QUOTE
The study diet is based on the traditional diet (wild salmon, oolichan grease) but also includes modern market foods, (bacon, eggs). i.e. foods that have protein and fat but no starch or sugar.
food
Vegetables, meat and some fats were allowed on Dr. Wortman's diet.

Permitted foods include; beef, pork, chicken, fish or seafood, cauliflower, broccoli, all the salad greens, eggs, cream, but not milk. Milk contains lactose, which is sugar.

Not permitted are starches like pasta, rice, potatoes, bread and sugar. Dr. Jay Wortman believes that it was the introduction of these by Europeans over a hundred and fifty years ago that caused the rise of diabetes and obesity.

And so the key to this diet is the avoidance of starch and sugar because those were not common components of a traditional diet.

An interesting component is oolichan grease. It's a very healthy fat and in the fact it was a big part of the diet in the past, was one of the reasons it was such a healthy diet.


Most people who took part (except for a few who dropped out near the beginning) lost weight and improved their health a great deal on this diet. It's a pretty interesting documentary.
http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/bigfatdiet/Poster.pdf
issy
QUOTE(nickclick @ Nov 18 2009, 03:07 AM) *
i recently had a physical and was found to have a pretty high triglyceride number - 284. my other cholesterol numbers were OK as well as my sugar and thyroid. i've vowed to cut down on white carbs and added ground flax seed to my breakfasts. i can't do fish/fish oil - *barf*. but i'm still confused about the saturated/nonsaturated/trans fats in relation to this number. maybe Dr. Enig has some insight? i'll Google as you suggested, chacha, thank you.



Have you tried fish oil capsules? I got mine at Whole Foods, aside from some gross burping they taste like nothing at all going down. They even have little $1 try-out bottles with 10 caps in them so you don't have to take a gamble with your finances. And codliver oil, as HORRIBLE as it sounds, has actually a very mild, minty, limey taste, not fishy at all.
chachaheels
Koffeewitch, what you say is partly true: hunted meats or game meats are very lean--and that is why organ meats from those animals were always considered the most valuable food sources. In cultures which still eat these foods (there are many european nations, for example, that do) the offal is still considered the most nutrient rich and the most valued. It's only here in North America where our meat has been grown and butchered for profit only that we turn our noses up on the organ meats. I know Dr. Weston Price did 13 years of research on all kinds of cultures all over the world, studying what they ate traditionally and why: overwhelmingly, each culture which ate meat, hunted or cultivated, knew that the muscle meat alone could fill you up in terms of food quantity, but if you only ate that you would be dangerously malnourished.
I believe we're seeing that all over the place in our population--heart disease, diabetes, cancers, blood diseases--all due in big part to this fact.

For Eskimo and Inuit peoples especially--the eye, liver, heart, and especially the fat of the hunted animals on which they depended were absolutely necessary, not just for the high fat concentration (these people need up to 80% fat, and all of it animal fat, to be healthy) but for the extremely high nutrient concentration and conveyance contained in the fat. The eye of the seal, for example, contains a very high concentration of vitamin A and it is almost all fat. That vitamin A source kept these populations sighted, especially difficult to do as there is so little sunlight available in those climes, and what there is is mostly reflected sunlight. The oils/fats from the liver of marine animals were prized for the high concentration of vitamin D, for the same reason--there is not enough direct sunlight available to them so that they can synthesize vitamin D in their own bodies. They need a natural source vitamin D rich fat in order to maintain their health--and here especially, that fat deficiency is a direct line to type 2 diabetes.

As for making cream into butter--yes, all you have to do is churn it. However, you need to be picky about the cream. Almost all the cream sold in North America is mixed with carageenan, a seaweed that "thickens" the cream so that it "feels" rich--it's not listed as an ingredient but it is there. Furthermore, real butter made from the cream from real unpasteurized milk, will have a much greater concentration of nutrients including a vital nutrient called the "X" factor--something about it's particular chain of fatty acids which boosts nutrient absorption in the body. This is the cream from cows raised in pastures where particular herbs and grasses grow--they are fed nothing else. As well, the butter made from the milk taken during the spring, after the meadow's first growth, is particularly rich in nutrients--as is the one made from milk taken in late summer. Countries which specialize in artisanal cheeses make them with this in mind, too--the parmigiano reggiano made from the milk from a spring meadow's first growth is worth considerably more, dollar wise (and nutrient wise) than cheese made at other times during the season--and a season with more sunlight will produce a more valuable cheese as well.

So, there again, it's not just any cream that does the trick--it's got to be the kind that 900 years of healthy human beings depended on (in Northern European cultures, where they focused so much of their food attention to preserving milk and cream). The kind of cream we've got here is from cows raised in massive milking barns and fed grain, for one thing--a food they are not metabolically able to digest, and don't forget that grain is usually GMO; then the milk is pasteurized, killing off its enzymes so that it is no longer digestible for us to eat; and then it's usually homogenized, so that any fat in the milk has been altered to make it stable. It's nutrition free, and its fats are questionable.

One last caution: I just saw a CBC story about how some Clinical nutritionists have decided to declare fish oil supplements as a way to deplete fish stocks (nonsense, the well sourced ones are harvested responsibly), and they are now plugging Omega 3 fatty acids "from a plant source"--but really what they plan to promote to their patients is a genetically modified soy sourced omega 3.

If you really must find a plant source for these kinds of fats, flax seed oil and hemp oil have long been used for omega 3 fatty acids so there is no need to make one out of Monsanto's patented frankenseed product. Buyer beware: make sure your fish oil or plant sourced omega 3 oil comes from a non genetically modified source, or from fish such as tuna, salmon, herring, sardines, or krill. And really, be very picky about all your fats, it really pays off.
koffeewitch
chacha: do you come from the school that attributes cancers, various disease to the imbalance of fatty acids (i.e. keeping the proper ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 and 9)?

I've always come from the other side of the argument (picking fats that have a higher monounsaturated to saturated levels to avoid heart disease, etc.). But I'm practically vegan, so of course, I focus on vegetable fat sources.

Agreed on the issue of GMOs. I'm still furious that Obama would put Monsanto on a committee to oversee U.S. agriculture policy. One thing veggies and omnivores can agree on is we do not need anymore Frankenfood. Or McFood either, for that matter.

Oh, and sorry guys. I know I am in the minority, here. But I think Wortman is a quack. I don't eat meat for ethical reasons, not health reasons, BTW and all practitoners who have a "magic diet" that divides food into good and bad categories is suspect. I'm all for WHOLE foods, not refined, processed or genetically modified. But people have been eating whole grains for thousands of years.
chachaheels
I'm a homeopathic doctor, so I studied and trained in classical Hahnemannian homeopathic medicine. I studied and practice whole food nutrition as well. But I am not of any "school" which associates foods (or the lack of those foods) with any particular diseases one way or the other. Illness and disease and health are far more complex that just what you eat.

Homeopathic medicine is an energy medicine, and dis-ease is understood as a mistunement of the vital energy or force of the body, pure and simple. I've often found that good food choices provide excellent support for full health, but there are a multitude of reasons why certain foods cannot be processed in the body or metabolized properly or create sensitivies that have absolutely nothing to do with choice or the foods themselves. Disease depends on susceptibility: our own individual susceptibility will be unique, no one else's will be exactly as our own is. Factors affecting that include heredity, congenital inheritance (not really like "genetic predisposition", but that's how conventional medicine tries to understand it), and your own resilience. Our food choices are often not made consciously anyway: even that is dictated by our vitality. There are physiological reasons for even the most bizarre or predictable craving. So food choices, for me, are often just another useful piece of the puzzle of symptoms I examine in a case.

I routinely find that food "issues" disappear when homeopathic medicines are used. I've had numerous patients with food allergies ranging from severe and universal to mild--change in diet never helped except temporarily. However, the correctly chosen remedy for each of those patients eliminated the food allergies permanently and quickly.

So my take on this is food should be whole, fresh, real, highest quality (truly organically raised, or, even better, biodynamically raised), and where at all possible, as traditional as possible. I find that research that has been done by private funding (individual donors, not food or pharmaceutical conglomerates) and contains long term, empirical data in its findings is the only reliable science behind nutrition. Anything else is usually created by a vested interest, and is useless. If the food research doesn't involve data on control groups that span generations, I certainly won't use it. I don't think Morton is a "quack" because I know where his research sources come from--and he's well grounded.

Why? Because when we have this kind of food we can maintain good health--symmetrical facial structure; solid skeletal structure; wider faces; well sized noses and appropriately sized nostrils; excellent, strong, straight white teeth that don't decay or fall out or grow in crooked or impacted; an unimpeded and predictable (and therefore controllable) reproductive cycle; and the ability to become ill and then become well again with resilience, and to create greater resistance to disease as a result. People ate this way for thousands of years for one universal reason: because they wanted to have perfect babies--not sickly ones, who wouldn't survive or would be chronically ill. They wanted to have healthy and strong, long lived populations in their cultural group, and they learned, over time, how to accomplish this with what they ate.

I think we ignore that knowledge at our peril. Our bodies are not meant to die slowly from chronic disease, they're meant to just not wake up one day, when we're well advanced in our years. Food is something you have to choose carefully to maintain good health not just in yourself, but from one generation to the next. And yes, I believe that the traditional diets accomplished this for millennia when food was accessible to all in any particular culture. Our diet fails us miserably in all areas of nutrition, even if we are completely healthy.

I also understand the vegan/vegetarian for "ethical" reasons decision, but unfortunately it's not the healthiest way to eat (so much supplementation is required, and that's a whole other ball of stinky wax) and so much of vegetarianism/veganism has been co-opted by Big Food, so the "ethics" just don't apply anymore. Your food sources come from Monsanto and Cargill just as meat eater food sources do too (which also means people in poorer countries are being forced to grow these genetically modified soy and grain and pulses and canola crops to "feed" the vegan/vegetarian market here, despite the fact that these are not foods people have eaten traditionally or will ever want to eat in their region or culture--so they increase hunger in the world, too). To top it off, you're being denied real nutrients because of all the faux foods being marketed to you. There are many ethical means of sourcing real foods now--many more than existed when I was a vegetarian about seven years ago (I was vegetarian for 13 years but needed to go back to eating meat for health reasons). I think ethics would be far better served if people all over the place opted out of supporting the big food conglomerates and went back to eating real foods, including meat foods, raised by local, organic and biodynamic farmers wherever they are. Really, the "divide" shouldn't be between veg's and omnivores anymore, as we've all been abused by food production practices all over the world. We'd go a lot further to change those practices if we worked together instead of against each other.
koffeewitch



The issue of real, whole foods IS the crux of the matter and the biggest battle for the 21st century. (I'll bring this in for the last time, I promise. If you'd like to sign a petition to protest the WHitehouse nomination of the Monsanto boys to an ag-oversight committee go to Food&waterwatch.org). Fortunately I am able to grow a good deal of my own food and buy local organic for the things I can't grow...I also make as many of my own personal care and cleaning products as possible. But I still feel defeated by the Big Foods, Inc. Let me just re-iterate that. I feel defeated, and I make most everything from scratch and use foods from a known source whenever humanly possible. Especially now that the small businesses have been bought out by Big Organics. But, I still have a different take on it globally...peoples in developing nations are more likely to grow GMO soy for the consumption of the cattle or for frozen "TV Dinners" or the filling for canned-prosessed whatever. There is not a separate section for the soy that becomes tofu (which the Asians have been eating for centuries) and the soybeans used for other foods. The vegan market here is probably a percent or two of the total U.S. population...let's not claim this is done for the veg. market. I also don't buy the theory that ancient peoples chose to eat in a way to develop health for themselves and their babies...ancient people ate what they could get. In the very beginning, early hominids even ate carrion. People still eat carrion when necessary. Some peoples had long life spans and some (several) died by age 40. (And what helped keep their babies healthy was extended breastfeeding, another thing people don't do anymore). I don't think it's about what they ate, but what they DIDN"T eat. They didn't eat re-fined, de-natured grains and sugars. Or pesticides, added-hormones etc. Their food didn't go through processes to kill beneficial pro-biotics. I definitely agree the battle is not omnivore VS. herbivore (I was in no way trying to imply that it was). We have lost this battle (at least those of us in the United States). We can grow our own (my preferred method) and buy local and organic until Big Ag forces the last remnant of the small farmers out of business. I would love to think that there is a growing awareness, but I think it's too little, too late. (I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise; so please argue this point, ladies).

(And ChaCHa, I would love to know about Morton's funding sources. I've wondered for a while. THe first question I always have on any health study is "who funded it".
ALso: DO you know about homeopathic treatments for cats? My cat has granuloma complex (allergies of a supposedly idiopathic nature. Many holistic vets recommend fish oil for granuloma (a good source with Vitamin E). Can you recommend anything?
chachaheels
I'm going to have to agree to disagree about your information about food. I've never met anyone who has studied nutrition to any degree significant degree who's ever agreed with a peer, so arguing about it is just a waste of time. I use my knowledge in my work and it helps my patients stay very well. That's what matters to me.

As for petitioning to get rid of Monsanto in the White House, I don't have a lot of faith in that. Monsanto and many other food/pharma/oil corporations bought the White House (and the House of Parliament here, and also the EU with their codex alimentarus garbage, so I'm not going to stop with the US) a long time ago.

The best thing to do is grow your own if you can, or buy from people who raise their own animals and plant foods biodynamically or organically (and beware that this label has now been co opted too. This is really growing, Slow Food has been gaining momentum for over 20 years now and the idea of real, whole foods being restored to the diet is becoming one we will have to continue to develop as oil becomes both more scarce and more expensive.


If you're looking for homeopathic treatment for your pets, I would tell you what I tell everyone else looking for homeopathic treatment of any kind: first learn the difference between homeopathy and other forms of holistic medicine, learn the basics about it, then go on to a regulatory body's website to look for a referral.

The North American Society of Homeopaths will list a number of practitioners who are qualified as homeopaths and also qualified vets. You can look up NASH for information and referrals at www.homeopathy.org. Then, take your cat to a homeopathic vet for a full consultation and case management. Good luck!
koffeewitch
Actually, I think we're mostly in agreement about what we want as the end result. Good, unrefined, whole, biodynamic food sources. And you're right, nutritionists never agree. I think that makes a statement about how much we actually know about nutrition.

Anyway, we have a new bill from Diane Feinstein that would bring more irradiation to our food to keep us "safer" from the results of factory farming. (The bill doesn't mention factory farming, that's just my take on it , of course). I was a little surprised that Feinstein sponsored this one. And Beware everybody: Ohio just passed this terrible constitutional amendment to create a Livestock Standards Board that is really just the Big Ag farmers getting to oversee themselves and create their own standards for humane treatment of farm animals. They used a clever deceptive campaign and had the public eating out of their hand. Your states may be next.

Has anyone seen this "meat" that was grown in a laboratory? Frankenfood to the extreme. And fucking PETA supports the idea, the morons.
chachaheels
Again, if you know the farmer raising the animals and crops and know how she raises them, give her your money for the food, not some bloody frankenfood supplier.

PETA is far from knowledgeable about anything. My opinion, and I'm sticking by it.
Lunalu
Wow! This threat has been quiet for a long time!
I'm starting a new cranio sacral therapy. I don't know much about it, but my new naturapath suggested I try. Is there anyone here who's tried it or knows anything about it other than what's on the internet? I kind of would like to hear 1st hand experience. I'm excited to try it, but I would like to know what to expect before and after.
ketto
Lunalu, I have bad TMJ and it's been suggested to me that I try it. I went for a massage once specific to my jaw where they did a little bit of cranio sacral therapy but it wasn't the focus. Let me know how you find it!
Lunalu
I tried my first session this week, and I will continue for a few weeks since I've been told it's not like it makes your pain go right away, but it gradually *apparently treats the condition.
Personally, I found it very relaxing, kind of like acupuncture feeling but without the needles. Or my therapist was very skilled, or it's just the fact that there was this very mellow relaxing music playing on the background, and i was dead tired when i arrived, so anything gentle would probably make me relaxed! so i did like the massage part, but the next day and the following two days, I still had headache sad.gif
Also my therapist did say that he could feel my muscles not wanting to let go...and that there is an obvious stiffness, but i'm still not sure how he could actually feel that without literal massaging, since this is essentially all about touching lightly.. we'll see next time.


QUOTE(ketto @ Oct 14 2010, 11:12 AM) *
Lunalu, I have bad TMJ and it's been suggested to me that I try it. I went for a massage once specific to my jaw where they did a little bit of cranio sacral therapy but it wasn't the focus. Let me know how you find it!

aphelendra
luna,

I started craniosacral therapy about a year ago, to help treat some vicious migraines that would last for weeks . . . . I did the therapy in conjunction with seeing a chiropractor and having regular massages. It wasn't immediate, but within six months I had almost complete relief, or at the least my headaches were infrequent, short, and not nearly as intense. At the eight week mark I had noticed about a 50% improvement.

I'm not sure if the cranio would have been enough without the chiropractic work, as it turned out that I had some chronic whiplash issues that needed correcting, but I'm confident it played a big role. As for the 'muscles not letting go', eventually you will actually be able to feel them release.

I hope you find some relief soon . . . . and I'm happy to answer any queries you may have in the meantime.

Luck from one achey bustie to another!
Lunalu
interesting! My recent headaches are also associated with neck pain! I've had migraines for a long time, but this is definitely not migraine, it comes from the lower back of my head and upper neck. In July, I ended up in the ER due to unbearable neck pain, and was sent home with some muscle relaxant drugs, and was told it was cervicalgia.
Interesting because now I wonder if it could be a whiplash? I did have some extensive, long hours of air traveling just before these complaints started.
I should probably bring this up at my next appointment.
Good news is that I thought about checking in with a chirop. and made an appointment with someone for this friday, i wonder what a chiropractor would say.
I also talked with a heavy migraine sufferer who tried CST, and she said she didn't see any benefit (her situation might be extreme though, since she's considering surgery for her migraines!), but now that there is someone else, like you, who actually did benefit from this form of therapy, I will continue.
Plus, omg, I've got this great crush on my therapist, and i should probably move that topic to another thread biggrin.gif
Thanks for sharing your experience!
lapis
Hi, I don't know if this is the best place for me to post this query, but I wonder if anyone has suggestions for natural deodorant or antiperspirant that works? The real stuff gives me cysts and most of the hippie stuff Ive used (Tom's liquid rock, That Crystal, Earthscience, etc.) either works for a few weeks or really does nothing. I don't think I'm abnormally stinky, but I'd appreciate any good ideas. I'm currently using Avalon organics spray coupled with Thai crystal, and it's working ok, but I don't think it would do so well in the heat or an interview. Sometimes I feel like there's something that actually works out there and I just have to ask the right magical person...thanks
epinephrine
After hearing much hype about its health benefits from tons of people here in China, I've switched from my regular jasmine tea to drinking Pu'er tea every day. It's supposed to improve metabolic function or something, lowering cholesterol and facilitating weight loss. Apparently this has been supported in studies. It's only been a week, and although I have no idea what I weigh these days, I imagine anyone experiencing the effects I've had would end up losing some weight. It seems to be affecting my digestion. Without getting too graphic...let's just say this stuff could be aptly renamed to "poo-er tea." This past week it seems there's been more going out than in. I should weigh myself and see.

Oh, and Lapis, I wish I had the answer to your question. I've been having that problem myself. I don't think I'm an abnormally smelly person, either, but I do seem to have a stubborn constitution that's resistant to deodorants. So annoying. Sometimes I could swear they make it worse.
auralpoison
QUOTE(lapis @ Nov 6 2010, 10:16 PM) *
Hi, I don't know if this is the best place for me to post this query, but I wonder if anyone has suggestions for natural deodorant or antiperspirant that works? The real stuff gives me cysts and most of the hippie stuff Ive used (Tom's liquid rock, That Crystal, Earthscience, etc.) either works for a few weeks or really does nothing. I don't think I'm abnormally stinky, but I'd appreciate any good ideas. I'm currently using Avalon organics spray coupled with Thai crystal, and it's working ok, but I don't think it would do so well in the heat or an interview. Sometimes I feel like there's something that actually works out there and I just have to ask the right magical person...thanks


I realize I am MAD late on this, but I use MyBeautyAddiction.com's "Vegan" deoderant. It stops any pit stench, but it isn't an antiperspirant so you will still sweat. I like Swimm Nekkid which is a dupe of Lush's Skinny Dip. It's a nice spicy clove scent.

Michaelbarri
I am Michaelbarri, real name C P Michael barri, live in East Hartford, I am a researcher doctor, recently i join in this forum, I think helpful to me in this forum, i stay enjoy, share discussion with all member, I work in a training natural medicine Institute. Anyone interested to my site follow link...naturopath college join now and make future.
bauer5152
QUOTE(Michaelbarri @ Jun 9 2011, 11:39 AM) *
I am Michaelbarri, real name C P Michael barri, live in East Hartford, I am a researcher doctor, recently i join in this forum, I think helpful to me in this forum, i stay enjoy, share discussion with all member, I work in a training natural medicine Institute. Anyone interested to my site follow link...naturopath college join now and make future.


I also think so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.