|
|
Post by Reefs on May 21, 2020 22:38:57 GMT -5
Well, let's see if Dr. Lolly agrees.  I went into this more fully, see post above. Welcome lolly's reply. I think that only applies to people who live on a processed/cooked food diet. If you stay away from processed/cooked food as much as possible then you don't need to concern yourself with all these dietary rules. IMO, the diet business is mostly junk science anyway, based on studying sick instead of healthy people. But that's another topic. Remember what UG said: "The body can live on sawdust and glue. You should shoot all these nutritionists on sight and at sight!" - U.G. Now, of course, you can live (aka survive) on just anything. But living (surviving) usually doesn't equal thriving. So in the same way you give your car the fuel that it is designed for, you should give your body the fuel it is designed for. I think most of us or going to agree here. Where the disagreement usually starts is what that ideal fuel our bodies are designed for actually is. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on May 22, 2020 4:41:04 GMT -5
So, secretly, the desire to help is actually just the desire to share. When the desire to share is accepted as just that. the desire to share just that? Aren't we saying "I've got this thing which is putting me in a better position than you're in, so I'm offering it to you so that you can join me in my better position" It's not starting from a place of "you're perfect just as you are". And I know this is difficult. For me the tension between what's fine as it is and what "needs" to change is the whole of the spiritual life; that's the serenity prayer right there. How much of this helping is "I think you should be like me, to validate my life" ? Join my gang, be part of my herd. When the thing being offered is rejected, it hurts right? But the offering itself is hurtful. It's saying "you're not right, here's how you can be right". Have you (whoever is reading this) come across the dualities of Service to Self (STS, bad, boo), Service to Others (STO, good, yae) ? There's a phrase in that tradition that goes "STS does not become STO by determining the needs of another". STO gives to "all who ask" but the request for help needs to be made first. Otherwise one is "pushing" one's will on the other. I think this is why in the Christian tradition they say "Knock and the door will be opened" You have to ask, to invite that thing into your life. Higher entities know of the danger of transgressing the free will of another uninvited, they wait until they're asked. Which is why this forum is often fractious, because we've a bunch of people acting like teachers, and very rarely does anyone submit themselves into the position of being a student, saying "please help me". |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 22, 2020 5:12:29 GMT -5
it doesn't really matter what way of eating people do. it just depends on what their goal is, be that losing weight, getting strong, having endurance, longevity or other ideal, and ensuring the nutrient balance and activity type/level will enhance the prospects of the goal. individuals have different preferences, tastes, ethics and social settings, and because of the variety of individual lives, there is no diet that will work for all people. Even from the evolutionary perspective, people evolved in different landscapes and climates, so there is no 'natural human diet'. however, the generalities I laid out about calories and nutrient distribution do apply to all people - indeed, all species. The science is well researched, and my own reading is in sports performance, not disease, so i generally deal with metabolism, which involves nutrients and activity. the medicine based research largely overlooks the latter, and as we see in this thread, is mainly concerned with carbs, seems to promote fats, and almost completely overlooks protein. Seeing as the leading cause of disability in old age is directly as well as indirectly correlated with age related degeneration of skeletal muscle tissue, it surprises me that almost no attention is paid to body composition with regards to health. this is probably because medical doctors receive only basic nutrition training, and although very highly trained in anatomy, receive no training in physiology. The only way to think about it constructively is to consider the relationship between food and movement. I deal with all sorts from fat people, to underweight, to strength athletes, endurance athletes, body builders, people who merely want to look good naked, and elderly folk who are just trying not to die, and in every case, without exception, it is about the body composition which is most apt for each individual. The diet gurus, many of whom are doctors, (and the quacks who are usually chiropractors), are all pushing agendas. they well be like vegan, keto, or whatever else, and they will cherry pick from the plethora of research to elevate their own truth. there is no point talking to them because they are too invested in their own crapola about 'the natural human diet' and all the medical findings of this and that. for example, the vegan advocate will say how great it is, but will not point the adverse affects common to that way of eating. the keto people are the same and diet quacks are a dime a dozen. i have to deal with everyone: Indians who won't touch meat and others who will not realistically adhere to a whole food diet, but i lay down the exact same principles to everyone. Sufficient calories. Macronutrient ratios. Micronutrient intake. Nutrient distribution throughout the day. Supplementation if/when necessary. If reefs said he wants only raw food, the exact same principles would apply. If a big Texan wanted steaks and bacon, exactly the same principles. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 22, 2020 9:48:16 GMT -5
I went into this more fully, see post above. Welcome lolly's reply. I think that only applies to people who live on a processed/cooked food diet. If you stay away from processed/cooked food as much as possible then you don't need to concern yourself with all these dietary rules. IMO, the diet business is mostly junk science anyway, based on studying sick instead of healthy people. But that's another topic. Remember what UG said:
"The body can live on sawdust and glue. You should shoot all these nutritionists on sight and at sight!"
- U.G.
Now, of course, you can live (aka survive) on just anything. But living (surviving) usually doesn't equal thriving. So in the same way you give your car the fuel that it is designed for, you should give your body the fuel it is designed for. I think most of us or going to agree here. Where the disagreement usually starts is what that ideal fuel our bodies are designed for actually is. I'm not sure how to take this, if you are serious. Termites can live on sawdust, people can't. The last year of my father's life he did not like to eat protein, meat. Now, you can get all the protein you need from vegetables, but it's more difficult to do. So I tried to give him an image to see how necessary meat is. Every day your body is re-making cells. They say every seven years you have a totally different body. Some cells are replaced more quickly. So you need about 60-80 grams minimum protein every day. So I told my father, picture a brick mason building a wall. If he is not supplied bricks and mortar he can't build the wall, the building comes to a stop. Protein is the bricks and mortar. If the body does not get sufficient protein it begins to break down. I've read a little about people in prison who go on hunger strikes, only water. About 60 days is as long as the body can last without nourishment. The length depends upon how much body fat you begin with. Once you burn your body fat the body begins to consume muscle for energy. If you go much longer than 60 days you simply die, basically organs begin to fail. Now, I have heard about certain individuals who live for years only on Prana, no food. I would suggest not to try that. So, nobody, can survive on anything, for long. Linked article. www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/how-long-can-you-live-without-food#takeaway |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 18:31:22 GMT -5
So, secretly, the desire to help is actually just the desire to share. When the desire to share is accepted as just that. the desire to share just that? Aren't we saying "I've got this thing which is putting me in a better position than you're in, so I'm offering it to you so that you can join me in my better position" Ok, could be. It might be said that the 'better position' is a lonely place and company in it is what is wanted. Rarely, yeah.. once the separating self is involved the other is perceived as separate too. Sharing with those that don't want anything is easy because it's just a mutual exchange of ideas. There is no belief that the other 'needs' what one knows. And therefore no desire to see those ideas enacted in another's life, which is where the emotionality of disappointment lives. From what I understand the serenity prayer is totally in the domain of the individual and not the collective. The collective only changes because it is never static. I hear you. It could also be said that this 'validating my life' is a way to make what I know 'more' real. It makes sense at this point why Ramana sat in silence with people that came to visit him. For those that could hear without words, it was Presence that spoke. And in Him, there could be no offering and therefore no rejection. Yeah, to me, this is why there is an Art to helping. There is a spontaneous and involuntary momentum within it. Combined with a receptivity which feeds both parties and gives a satisfaction that is completely Human. I think a lot of that has changed now.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 22, 2020 18:54:51 GMT -5
I think that only applies to people who live on a processed/cooked food diet. If you stay away from processed/cooked food as much as possible then you don't need to concern yourself with all these dietary rules. IMO, the diet business is mostly junk science anyway, based on studying sick instead of healthy people. But that's another topic. Remember what UG said:
"The body can live on sawdust and glue. You should shoot all these nutritionists on sight and at sight!"
- U.G.
Now, of course, you can live (aka survive) on just anything. But living (surviving) usually doesn't equal thriving. So in the same way you give your car the fuel that it is designed for, you should give your body the fuel it is designed for. I think most of us or going to agree here. Where the disagreement usually starts is what that ideal fuel our bodies are designed for actually is. I'm not sure how to take this, if you are serious. Termites can live on sawdust, people can't. The last year of my father's life he did not like to eat protein, meat. Now, you can get all the protein you need from vegetables, but it's more difficult to do. So I tried to give him an image to see how necessary meat is. Every day your body is re-making cells. They say every seven years you have a totally different body. Some cells are replaced more quickly. So you need about 60-80 grams minimum protein every day. So I told my father, picture a brick mason building a wall. If he is not supplied bricks and mortar he can't build the wall, the building comes to a stop. Protein is the bricks and mortar. If the body does not get sufficient protein it begins to break down. I've read a little about people in prison who go on hunger strikes, only water. About 60 days is as long as the body can last without nourishment. The length depends upon how much body fat you begin with. Once you burn your body fat the body begins to consume muscle for energy. If you go much longer than 60 days you simply die, basically organs begin to fail. Now, I have heard about certain individuals who live for years only on Prana, no food. I would suggest not to try that. So, nobody, can survive on anything, for long. Linked article. www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/how-long-can-you-live-without-food#takeaway The body will use muscle tissue for energy even if a person has a lot of fat. Bodies seem to prefer to keep fat if it can so if a person goes into a calorie deficit the tendency is quite rapid muscle loss along with fat. This leaves people with less muscle tissue, and hence a diminished capacity to burn calories through work, and hence a greater propensity for fat gain, upon which they undertake another weight loss diet. After a few cycles of this they are left with a low muscle mass, and very often, metabolic damage that makes their metabolic rate very low, which translates to a very high tendency for fat gain, at which point they need long term programs for recovery.
I can only repeat the mantra that fat loss is an alteration in body composition. The percentage of lean tissue goes up as the percentage of fat comes down. This is achieved through the nutritional principles i described, and only through those principles, along with resistance exercise. The likelihood of success through other methods such as meal plan diets or other restrictive plans, and plans that omit muscle preserving strategies, are very, very low.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 22, 2020 20:16:06 GMT -5
I recommend to anybody interested in healthy weight-loss the following two sources, I based on my 135 lb weight-loss 18 years ago (see my chart posted above): "8 minutes in the morning" by Jorge Cruise archive.org/details/8minutesinmornin00/mode/2up"The Hacker's Diet - How to lose weight and hair through stress and poor nutrition" By John Walker www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 24, 2020 5:46:16 GMT -5
I think that only applies to people who live on a processed/cooked food diet. If you stay away from processed/cooked food as much as possible then you don't need to concern yourself with all these dietary rules. IMO, the diet business is mostly junk science anyway, based on studying sick instead of healthy people. But that's another topic. Remember what UG said:
"The body can live on sawdust and glue. You should shoot all these nutritionists on sight and at sight!"
- U.G.
Now, of course, you can live (aka survive) on just anything. But living (surviving) usually doesn't equal thriving. So in the same way you give your car the fuel that it is designed for, you should give your body the fuel it is designed for. I think most of us or going to agree here. Where the disagreement usually starts is what that ideal fuel our bodies are designed for actually is. I'm not sure how to take this, if you are serious. Well, you know UG, he likes to exaggerate in order to make a point. I don't think what he said there is meant to be taken literally. I was talking about food, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that you could live on motor oil. ETA: RE: losing weight, what also might help, or at least motivate you more, is showing yourself what carrying this extra weight around does actually look and feel like, how much that actually is in very concrete terms as opposed to a mere mental numbers game. I suddenly realized that last month when I bought two big bottles of water (1.5 liters) one day and had to carry them around in a bag for a while on my way home. These two bottles weighed exactly 3kg, that was about the amount of weight loss over the last 3 months. 3 kg may not sound much at first, but try walking around with 2 big water bottles all day and you'll actually feel the difference and significance when you put it down again. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 24, 2020 11:18:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to take this, if you are serious. Well, you know UG, he likes to exaggerate in order to make a point. I don't think what he said there is meant to be taken literally. I was talking about food, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that you could live on motor oil. ETA: RE: losing weight, what also might help, or at least motivate you more, is showing yourself what carrying this extra weight around does actually look and feel like, how much that actually is in very concrete terms as opposed to a mere mental numbers game. I suddenly realized that last month when I bought two big bottles of water (1.5 liters) one day and had to carry them around in a bag for a while on my way home. These two bottles weighed exactly 3kg, that was about the amount of weight loss over the last 3 months. 3 kg may not sound much at first, but try walking around with 2 big water bottles all day and you'll actually feel the difference and significance when you put it down again. A very good point. My father used to tell me: it is like carrying all day long a backpack weighing all those extra-pounds. As you realized what carrying 3 kg means, I realized one day, when I was carrying down to the basement two bags of water softener salt 40 lb each (~18 kg each), what I was carrying on my back when I was 135 lb overweight (~61 kg)! It felt heartbreaking. This is a link to the quote from UG you offered, for context: books.google.com/books?id=nOI7eT3ewEMC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=The+body+can+live+on+sawdust+and+glue.+You+should+shoot+all+these+nutritionists+on+sight+and+at+sight&source=bl&ots=Am8cFSvJbO&sig=ACfU3U2ja7hcgxjLcvn4DY1bQQtnuNf6fw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfn5Wu78zpAhWCGM0KHQf6DskQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20body%20can%20live%20on%20sawdust%20and%20glue.%20You%20should%20shoot%20all%20these%20nutritionists%20on%20sight%20and%20at%20sight&f=false |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 26, 2020 6:50:10 GMT -5
A very good point. My father used to tell me: it is like carrying all day long a backpack weighing all those extra-pounds. As you realized what carrying 3 kg means, I realized one day, when I was carrying down to the basement two bags of water softener salt 40 lb each (~18 kg each), what I was carrying on my back when I was 135 lb overweight (~61 kg)! It felt heartbreaking. This is a link to the quote from UG you offered, for context: I've never actually been overweight in terms of BMI. So I have no idea how that feels. But wow, 61 kg that's like 40 of those water bottles.  Thanks for the link. There's actually a website that has all the UG books. I'll post that part of the dialog here for reference: I'm still not sure if he actually means it or if he is just trolling the other guy. In case he actually means it, in a larger context, I'd actually agree. But in that larger context, there would be no need for water either. So UG comes across as a tad confused here, IMO. Also, he actually ate a lot of tomatoes. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 26, 2020 22:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2020 7:51:37 GMT -5
Yogananda wrote about such people living without food or water in his Autobiography of a Yogi. And this is not just a phenomenon in India. There's the case of Therese Neumann, mostly known in the context of stigmata, who at some point in her life also stopped eating and drinking. There's also an interesting Tibetan movie, Samsara (2001), which starts with a scene where a group of monks breaks into a cave in order to bring back a monk who has been sitting there for several years in deep samadhi, without food or water, not even breathing. So I'd say, just because such occurrences boggles doctors or scientists minds, this doesn't mean that this isn't possible. Even though I'd admit that his is stretching the rules of the camouflage a bit. But if scientists can't explain that with their current models of reality, then they need better models. The yogis don't seem to find that strange at all. As A-H keep saying, alignment trumps everything. And then there's also the marathon monks who go at least a week without food or water as part of their spiritual training... but to me that sounds more like the opposite of alignment (and enlightenment). |
|
