Do you look at your "metabolic type"?

[LightLover]

LightLover,

Are you talking about RAW sugary fruits? You may apply whatever I say here but please give credit to the sources that I've given.

As for the sugery fruits, let us know more about your situation and how sugary fruits pertain to it. I'd be a big help to all of us.

Craig

Craig, I am certainly talking about RAW (high) sugary fruits, not for my situation, (altough I find this very interesting and want this to be discussed openly) but in general .

[RawNut]

Craig, I am certainly talking about RAW (high) sugary fruits, not for my situation, (altough I find this very interesting and want this to be discussed openly) but in general .

I have found that eating a lot of bananas helps with cravings, whether the cravings be for fats or sugars. I try to listen to my body as much as I can. Sometimes I'll eat avocado or mix nuts and nutmilk into my smoothies. That doesn't always help. Sometimes it makes me sick but eating bananas or having a banana smoothie with other fruits and greens, helps immensely! I have learned to separate them. When I have fruit, I eat the avocado later and I don't put nutmilk in with the smoothies any more.

Should there be a new thread about this?

Craig

[LightLover]

--
Rawnut, I am still eager to know if the text from you right below can be
applied to a high sugar diet
--
LL


Quote:
I do agree with the all the others that some groups of people have adapted to tolerating some things more than others as a means of survival. I've read that caucasions are less likely to be lactose intolerant than Asians or Africans. I've read similar things about alcohol and wheat. To me, it only means that certain groups of people have inhereted genes that allow them to TOLERATE certain foods or poisons because their survival depended on it. If they couldn't tolerate milk or wheat and that was all there was to eat for a while, they died and did not pass their genes on. It doesn't at all mean that they NEED them in their diets.

I also agree that you can only listen to your body when it's clean. I read something that Storm Tolefero wrote about addictions and how the body wants to balance itself. When the addictive substance is removed, the body craves it in order to maintain the homeostasis it has gotten used to. The body pushes back against the substance and over-corrects when it's removed. Once the body has re-adjusted, the physical craving and "need" will stop - the psychological cravings might persist for a while, however.

[firefaery]

excerpted from: http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Ge.../taxonomy.html

Another quasi-scientific theory is associated with the opportunistic feeder theory. This can be called the biochemical individuality theory which is often seen in far eastern "medicines" such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Ayurvedic systems. This theory suggests that since we are biochemically individual we should all eat individual diets suited to our moods, illnesses and other contrived indicators.

The logic behind biochemical individuality theory is fallacious, for although we are all unique biochemical beings, we are predominantly the same biochemical system, with low level variations. At the molecular level we differ, at the system level we are alike. If anyone imagines they can adjust their diet according to these individual metabolic variations, they are fooling themselves.

By picking only the low level system differences to indicate information about dietary choices, or moods, yin and yang and so forth, and extrapolating to the whole, we produce a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As far as we know, all cattle graze, all lions eat raw flesh, all chimps eat a diet of mainly raw fruit and vegetation and all chickens peck for grubs and grains. No animal on earth, that we know of, cooks its food before eating it, except humans. Only human behaviour breaks the taxonomic definition that that science defines for it. Humans prefer culture and technology over nature, and since our natural role is as a raw food herbivore, and because our bodies are only suited to that role, any significant perversion of it must, and does, lead to ill health. One cannot choose what to eat healthily, based on cultural imperitives since one will most likely present the wrong kind and quantity of precursor molecules, as well as introducing poisons to the body. A healthy human body cannot be operated on the wrong chemical inputs. "Garbage in equals garbage out"!


Don't know. I think metabolic typing is very accurate. I think though, it is only so because the SAD is so far from our biological needs. It may help people to clean their bodies out and transition to a raw vegan diet more painlessly. So in one sense it's fascinating because I think it will hold true for alot of people. In another it's only holding true because most people are so very far from eating the way they were meant to.

[LightLover]

firyfaery, sounds logic. Most foodfacts "tested" are only valid in the "sad world" I suppose. My father told me yesterday about the good effects of red wine and I explained him that al these effects have been measured in the sad world , in a sub-optimal diet. So you compare sub-optimal with a little less than suboptimal. This is not interesting

Really interesting would be measuring these effects in a raw world!
(so one group eats completely raw, the other group does the same, only adding 2 glasses red wine, each day)

Will take a long time before this will happen, but I am already happy with just the idea...


ll

[Shmoopie]

I don't really know anything about it, but it seems like if nothing else, it could at least be a guide. Even if only for those who don't eat well. I had a reams test done once, and seeing the results scared the bageezuz out of me. My metabolic rate was "MB" which means "midline broken". Regardless of what it means to me, I'll never forget it lol.

When I got my test results and had them explained to me, I was under the impression that the whole thing seems to be about one pH. There was so much talk about acidity/alkalinity. It seems like whatever we talked about, it all came back to that. So I don't know. If it takes that for people to understand that they need to not have an acidic environment, then I think it seems ok. I don't know anymore about it, though, other than the reams test. ANd when I got my results, the lady picked out all the problems I'd been having just based on my results, and the things she offered for change really did help. So it might not be a perfect science, or dead-on accurate, but I think there's at least some accuracy to it. At least from the little I know (if anything? lol) and my experience with it.

[LightLover]

Shmoopie, what is a "reams test"?

LL

[Shmoopie]

A reams test is a test done that...well I know it tells you your metabolic type. I *think* that that's entirely what it's made for, but I might be wrong. For the test, you give urine and saliva. They test your pH, your metabolic type, your ability to heal, your digestive function, kidney function, liver function, lung function, etc. THe test was developed by Carey Reams, a doctor, who I believe came up with the metabolic typing. If he didn't come up with it or perfect it, then he contributed something to it. He's written books that you could read if you wanted to know more.

Also, I'm not sure if the test revealed food allergies for me or not, but the diet I was put on as a result of the test did exclude glutens and some other foods. I don't know, like I said, if the test determined I had allergies to those things, or if the practitioner did, based on what she saw in the test results. The metabolic rate itself isn't something I paid attention to, but everything the test showed definitely applied to me and the things I've had troubles with. It all made sense.

That's all I know. Hope that helps.