Prunes

[eye_of_the_storm]

That Bama, China video is pretty sweet too

 

These people say they don't know what it is to be ill

 

I have been healthy every day for 6 odd years now (minus a few instances of excessive alcohol ).

Edited December 2, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Taomeow]

1 Billion... I am thinking before the "Great Deluge"

 

Or some other global catastrophic event (maybe like the ice age? //)

 

Not sure about the evolution theory / I don't give it much weight

 

I am thinking a lot sooner though, for there to be written records of it.

 

Especially considering texts both from the East + the West correlating such

 

Though that isn't overly important // the text themselves refer to a specific way of living in order to attain...? legendary traits / mythical

 

I don't believe in "evolution" at all -- but I do believe in sequential unfolding, the taoist "timeliness" of events, entities and processes. You have to have first things first. You have to have mammals before you have humans (doesn't follow that humans "evolve" from any particular mammalian species of course -- as they put it in Rome, post hoc sed non propter hoc). You have to have multicellular organisms before you can have mammals. You have to have eucaryotes before you can have multicellular organisms. They do not evolve anymore than you evolve from age 5 hours to age 5 months to age 5 to age 50. They are all part of the process of unfolding, of which no stage is "higher" than the previous one but every one is "different and the same." We share DNA with absolutely everything that lives. And yet a ladybug is not an evolutionary step toward the First Lady. "(Qi) blows on ten thousand things in ten thousand different ways so each can be itself." -- Zhuangzi

 

So, sequentially it does not compute that we had a Golden Age in the past 200,000 years, and we don't seem to have been here at all before that. (No evolution involved -- just like when you were 5, the 15-year-old you wasn't there. They don't share the same spot of the space-time continuum.) Ice Ages are likely to be real, information cross-references from all manner of disciplines, though who knows -- our sciences having anything to do with life (rather than tech) have been edited so heavily, sometimes I understand the ulterior motives behind adulterating the information we get, but sometimes the purposes of the lies are only known to the lying party all the way to the top and regular scientists and their students can't possibly begin to guess. But if the Ice Age is not another dud, then we are supposed to eat 40% animal protein, 45% animal fat, 15% roots, small tart berries, occasional vegetables. Because that's the only diet that was available to us when we unfolded into our modern anatomical shape. It's not perfect compared to the mythological Golden Age -- but then, when did reality ever match the dream?..

[eye_of_the_storm]

I was going to say apparent ice age haha... seems you may have come across similar information yourself.

 

It is ... difficult to ascertain the truth haha.

 

I didn't really want to get into it

 

I guess you have a linear view of time?

 

I suppose I have a more cyclic view of time.

 

Hmm maybe both linear and cyclic and non existent hahaha

 

Anyhow

[Celestial]

Taomeow, scroll up and read my response. I'm curious to get your opinion on what I posted.

 

Thank you.

[gatito]

[gatito]

[Protector]

BACK TO PRUNES!!!

 

Many people in the world live in a loop of going to work, going back home and watching TV, sleeping and going back to work again. Eventually they might want to get a new hobby like playing the guitar or reaching immortality through super powers. Before they can do anything, they need to get ready their whole life for it.

They already have a schedule with other things that they do and now they added one more thing to it, but since they don't have all the time in the world, they loose the TV time. With no TV time they have the time to do anything they want to do, all that is left is do it. Leaving some time for it is not enough though, what is needed is the complete destruction of personality. Everything that is holding down the process must be destroyed and replaced with new stuff.

Before building something, you need to destroy. DATS EST DA POWAR OF DA ROOT CHAKRA!!!

 

Now all together, let's do a simple exercise that helps with it or in some severe cases make you poop yourselves.

Stand with your feet at shoulder length and toes pointing directly forward. Legs straight and the back straight. Bend forward at a breath in and try to touch your toes as you hold your breath and hold it for a minute.

[gatito]

Prunes are a favourite choice of many vegetarians

 

Killing and eating animals is not

 

Perhaps a change of diet would help some people to be less destructive?

[Taomeow]

Taomeow, scroll up and read my response. I'm curious to get your opinion on what I posted.

 

Thank you.

 

Sure.

 

 

I went from eating mainly processed foods and drinking sodas to purely organic whole foods and strictly water. The organic foods include vegetables (kale, carrots, red radish, baby spinach), fruit (wild blueberries, pears, apples), chicken, wild sockeye salmon, and on occasion I eat grass-fed organic beef. No farm raised crap nor corn fed anything. Very little grains. I'm allergic to wheat, gluten, and dairy.

 

Edit: I eat brazil nuts, walnuts, and kidney/black beans. All RAW and organic of course, not salted. For my salads I don't drench them in ranch dressing, instead I use organic extra virgin olive oil. Oh and I blend (not juice where you lose the fiber) all my vegetables with a tablespoon of extra virgin coconut oil.

 

If I do add salt on something, I use Himalayan salt.

(...)

So tell me, am I doing something wrong? Am I not following the "way"?

 

This is a good diet, and compared to what many fad diets and mainstream sources alike advocate, you eat way better than an average person in this culture. Here's a few modifications I would suggest since you asked for my opinion:

 

1. If you are allergic to wheat/gluten, eating "very little" is still too much. Gluten does not cause simple allergies, where the removal of the allergen is all that is required for the allergy to not manifest. Instead it causes immune conflicts known as "intolerance" -- meaning that exposure provokes inflammatory, degenerative, and cross-sensitivity events that reverberate through the system long after the offending agent is removed. How long? Up to 8 months after a single ingestion. So I would be extra vigilant if your symptoms are explicit (they are present in all people but hidden in many or misattributed to other causes -- a medical investigation is not undertaken unless there's full blast celiac, only diagnosable by current methods after 75 to 90 percent of the intestinal lining has been completely destroyed. Some researchers believe only 1% of the actual cases of gluten intolerance ever get diagnosed.) Keep in mind that selective breeding and genetic manipulations have resulted in modern wheat containing 24% gluten. Natural wheat's gluten content is 2% to 4%. So what used to be cavalry attacks on our immune systems throughout our agricultural history has turned into a nuclear war.

 

2. You mention nuts and beans in the same sentence followed by the assertion you eat them raw. I hope you meant you eat the nuts raw (not ideal, because most are high in antinutrients -- enzyme inhibitors and phytic acid that binds to nutrients in your food and makes them bio-unavailable -- so most nuts are healthier to eat slightly toasted, since this removes enzyme inhibitors and degrades phytic acid.) I do hope you didn't mean you eat the beans raw too. All legumes contain very harmful lectins, which are natural pesticides plants use to fight off herbivores, removed by soaking (a minimum of 8 hours, and cooking alone doesn't remove them at all, however cooking in combo with particular mutually neutralizing lectins from other sources, e.g. pork, does -- which is the rationale behind the use of this specific combination -- all cuisines that use pork and beans have a pork-and-beans classic.) And enzyme inhibitors, goitrogens (thyroid function suppressors) and the infamous phytic acid abound -- cooking remedies some of that (though not all -- e.g. unfermented soy beans are so goitrogenic that one can virtually guarantee hypothyroidism to any and all vegetarians who fall for the tofu-as-substitute-for-meat scam and consume it in massive amounts.)

 

3. I don't see enough animal fats in your diet -- in fact, I don't see any. My current understanding calls for a lot of these, but if you won't eat a lot, make sure there's at least a little. That's butyrates (the most powerful preventers of chronic degenerative and inflammatory disease), fat-soluble vitamins (A, D -- and the legend that beta-carotene available from plants gets converted to vitamin A is a bit of urban medical myth -- yes, a small percentage does, in people with stellar enzymatic capabilities... mostly it just doesn't), hormonal health (most hormones are fat-based), prostaglandins (ditto -- the immediate first-line responders to stress, don't we all need them) and on and on. And no, it doesn't clog your arteries -- peroxidized monounsaturates do, hydrogenated abominations do, and toxins in farm-factory-raised animal fat, in combination with glycating diets -- glycation is the binding of fats and proteins to sugars in the bloodstream, to be avoided at all costs. And no, you don't gain weight if you eat a high animal fat, low carb, moderate protein diet... you just don't.

 

4. There's more tweaking that can be done, but basically you're on the right track. Is it the Way?.. Compared to how we ate before "it all," probably not. Compared to what's lying in wait for those who just buy into what they're sold, whether mainstream or a "rebellious" but ideologically, scientifically, and above all nutritionally unsound alternative to same -- compared to that, yes, absolutely.

[madMUHHH]

I don't believe in "evolution" at all -- but I do believe in sequential unfolding, the taoist "timeliness" of events, entities and processes. You have to have first things first. You have to have mammals before you have humans (doesn't follow that humans "evolve" from any particular mammalian species of course -- as they put it in Rome, post hoc sed non propter hoc). You have to have multicellular organisms before you can have mammals. You have to have eucaryotes before you can have multicellular organisms. They do not evolve anymore than you evolve from age 5 hours to age 5 months to age 5 to age 50. They are all part of the process of unfolding, of which no stage is "higher" than the previous one but every one is "different and the same." We share DNA with absolutely everything that lives. And yet a ladybug is not an evolutionary step toward the First Lady. "(Qi) blows on ten thousand things in ten thousand different ways so each can be itself." -- Zhuangzi

 

Hi there, I have got two questions about this, to help me better understand the concept you are talking about:

 

1.) So does this sequential unfolding still involve a gradual change from one species into another, as the standard theory of evolution suggests. And if yes, what exactly makes it so different from the "evolving" that is commonly assumed to take place?

 

2.) So does this imply a teleological process, as in that life developed specifically in the direction it did develop (and will develop) as opposed to chance being the main driver of development, as it is assumed in the standard theory?

 

Edit: Oh and yes, prunes rule! I guess.

Edited December 2, 2012 by madMUHHH

[Eskrimador]

Prunes are plums in cans.

Peunes are neopets.

http://www.neopets.com/~Peunes

[Eskrimador]

 

 

Hi there, I have got two questions about this, to help me better understand the concept you are talking about:

 

1.) So does this sequential unfolding still involve a gradual change from one species into another, as the standard theory of evolution suggests. And if yes, what exactly makes it so different from the "evolving" that is commonly assumed to take place?

 

2.) So does this imply a teleological process, as in that life developed specifically in the direction it did develop (and will develop) as opposed to chance being the main driver of development, as it is assumed in the standard theory?

 

Edit: Oh and yes, prunes rule! I guess.

......

You need get out more madmuhh, come to Cebu, have good times.

[madMUHHH]

......

You need get out more madmuhh, come to Cebu, have good times.

 

Yeah, I guess so. You pay for the flight and I'll be right there.

[Eskrimador]

Come on ship make some money to spend.

[Antares]

This guy here does not seem eating prunes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMbMJ9JFaY

[eye_of_the_storm]

• the human stomach needs half as much hydrochloric acid to digest plant protein as it needs to digest animal protein. Even using half as much hydrochloric acid the human stomach digests plant protein in half the time. [1] This may explain why newly-converted vegetarians often note less discomfort digesting a vegetarian meal, and feeling less sleepy than after eating an omnivore meal
  
• Humans are unlikely to have been naturally omnivorous. Most animals eat a narrow range of food when that food is abundant, only eating outside that range if it becomes scarce. This suggests that omnivore diets are more of a fall-back position than the norm
  
• From around 24 million to 5 million years ago fruit appears to have been the main (possibly the only) ingredient in the human diet. Humans appear to have begun to include small amounts of (raw) meat around 4.5 million years ago [2] When an ice age and drought turned humans from gatherers to hunter-gatherers during the Pliocene period (3.5 million years ago), the raw meat content of the human diet likely increased
  
• However, as meat is almost universally cooked in order to make it more palatable and easier to digest, it is unlikely that a great deal of meat was eaten before humans learned how to light and control fire (around 500,000 years ago)
   
  http://www.greenheal...fruitarian.html
   
  Humans are primarily frugivores?
  

Edited December 2, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Celestial]

Sure.

 

 

 

This is a good diet, and compared to what many fad diets and mainstream sources alike advocate, you eat way better than an average person in this culture. Here's a few modifications I would suggest since you asked for my opinion:

 

1. If you are allergic to wheat/gluten, eating "very little" is still too much. Gluten does not cause simple allergies, where the removal of the allergen is all that is required for the allergy to not manifest. Instead it causes immune conflicts known as "intolerance" -- meaning that exposure provokes inflammatory, degenerative, and cross-sensitivity events that reverberate through the system long after the offending agent is removed. How long? Up to 8 months after a single ingestion. So I would be extra vigilant if your symptoms are explicit (they are present in all people but hidden in many or misattributed to other causes -- a medical investigation is not undertaken unless there's full blast celiac, only diagnosable by current methods after 75 to 90 percent of the intestinal lining has been completely destroyed. Some researchers believe only 1% of the actual cases of gluten intolerance ever get diagnosed.) Keep in mind that selective breeding and genetic manipulations have resulted in modern wheat containing 24% gluten. Natural wheat's gluten content is 2% to 4%. So what used to be cavalry attacks on our immune systems throughout our agricultural history has turned into a nuclear war.

 

2. You mention nuts and beans in the same sentence followed by the assertion you eat them raw. I hope you meant you eat the nuts raw (not ideal, because most are high in antinutrients -- enzyme inhibitors and phytic acid that binds to nutrients in your food and makes them bio-unavailable -- so most nuts are healthier to eat slightly toasted, since this removes enzyme inhibitors and degrades phytic acid.) I do hope you didn't mean you eat the beans raw too. All legumes contain very harmful lectins, which are natural pesticides plants use to fight off herbivores, removed by soaking (a minimum of 8 hours, and cooking alone doesn't remove them at all, however cooking in combo with particular mutually neutralizing lectins from other sources, e.g. pork, does -- which is the rationale behind the use of this specific combination -- all cuisines that use pork and beans have a pork-and-beans classic.) And enzyme inhibitors, goitrogens (thyroid function suppressors) and the infamous phytic acid abound -- cooking remedies some of that (though not all -- e.g. unfermented soy beans are so goitrogenic that one can virtually guarantee hypothyroidism to any and all vegetarians who fall for the tofu-as-substitute-for-meat scam and consume it in massive amounts.)

 

3. I don't see enough animal fats in your diet -- in fact, I don't see any. My current understanding calls for a lot of these, but if you won't eat a lot, make sure there's at least a little. That's butyrates (the most powerful preventers of chronic degenerative and inflammatory disease), fat-soluble vitamins (A, D -- and the legend that beta-carotene available from plants gets converted to vitamin A is a bit of urban medical myth -- yes, a small percentage does, in people with stellar enzymatic capabilities... mostly it just doesn't), hormonal health (most hormones are fat-based), prostaglandins (ditto -- the immediate first-line responders to stress, don't we all need them) and on and on. And no, it doesn't clog your arteries -- peroxidized monounsaturates do, hydrogenated abominations do, and toxins in farm-factory-raised animal fat, in combination with glycating diets -- glycation is the binding of fats and proteins to sugars in the bloodstream, to be avoided at all costs. And no, you don't gain weight if you eat a high animal fat, low carb, moderate protein diet... you just don't.

 

4. There's more tweaking that can be done, but basically you're on the right track. Is it the Way?.. Compared to how we ate before "it all," probably not. Compared to what's lying in wait for those who just buy into what they're sold, whether mainstream or a "rebellious" but ideologically, scientifically, and above all nutritionally unsound alternative to same -- compared to that, yes, absolutely.

 

Fantastic response. Let me address each point:

 

1. I live by the 90/10 rule. 90% of the time I eat like this everyday and the other 10% of the time I cheat. A cheat day as they call it. I go out and have a nice meal with the wife. Sometimes this includes those allergies I listed above. As far as eating it regularly in my diet? Not at all. Before, I was eating eggs, cheese, wheat bread, etc all the time (almost every day) -- which was causing all that pain. I had to cut it all out. The 90/10 rule however helps keep my sanity. I love to eat good food at good restaurants.

 

2. I didn't know that about the nuts. Any suggestions for toasting them? I don't eat the beans raw. Lol. Sorry for the confusion.

 

3. I am fully aware of the myths surrounding animal fats. I don't know if you caught the part where I said I eat grass-fed beef once a month. That may not be enough according to you though. Any suggestions? Venison?

 

4. Yeah, I don't really know what the right diet is for being on the way, and I don't believe anyone else knows either. However, I feel much better now after changing my lifestyle to a healthy one. To me this is more important than anything else.

 

Edit: I also take a multivitamin, fish oil, and iodine supplements. All natural; no binders, fillers, etc.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Celestial

[Antares]

the human stomach needs half as much hydrochloric acid to digest plant protein as it needs to digest animal protein. Even using half as much hydrochloric acid the human stomach digests plant protein in half the time. [1] This may explain why newly-converted vegetarians often note less discomfort digesting a vegetarian meal, and feeling less sleepy than after eating an omnivore meal

 

I eat RAW fish and me myself and my stomach feel HAPPY after meal. Cooked animal protein is harmful yes but raw is another story. It is dissolved in stomach acid very very good

[gatito]

[Eskrimador]

Fish makes you smart.

[gatito]

[Antares]

I don't see any kind of problem eating raw OCEAN fish. Cooking it is just a habbit and kills all useful ingridients in it and not good for your body. We need animal protein anyway. I eat it only sometime. Normally eggs or yogurt. Try raw salmon and you will love it

[Protector]

Yeah, it's like Gollum has two brains in his head or something, also worms

[gatito]

[Protector]

Well there you go, wormfish for everyone!!!!!!!!!!