dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) (08/13/85)
I just subscribed to this newsgroup and walked in in the middle of the
discussion of sugar, etc. This discussion is interesting to me because I
recently took a room in a house where the other three residents all, to one
degree or another, subscribe to the "anti non-natural food and medicine" school
of thought. I hadn't particularly been exposed to these ideas before (no, this
is not going to be a testimonial -- read on) and I've been asking questions
and observing what I can, and even investigating some of the stuff first-hand.
It's been a lot of fun.
From what I've seen, there seems to be a large and widespread body of belief
that is composed of old ideas (like from Middle Ages and Greek science) passed
down through time, mystical/pagan/shamanistic ideas about nature, and
misunderstood modern scientific ideas. All these notions are combined to make
a model of the world that is fairly coherent (if you don't question it *too*
closely).
On the wall of our kitchen there is a big, laminated poster on food combining.
It gives good illustrations of the mixture of ideas, spiced with a sprinkling
of errors in fact. For those readers who are not familiar with food combining,
it is a set of guidelines governing what foods can be eaten in combination with
each other. Eating foods that don't combine well is supposed to be a major
cause of physical and mental problems. The guidelines are based on some
interesting ideas and reasoning...
On eating proteins and starches together:
"Take for example, the hamburger -- the meat is a protein and the
bread is a starch. It takes a series of ACID digestive juices to
digest the protein (pepsin, hydrochloric acid, etc.) and a series
of ALKALINE digestive juices to digest the starch (ptyalin, maltase,
etc.). Remember in chemistry class when you burned yourself with
some acid, you were told to put an alkaline such as lemon or
vinegar, etc., to neutralize the acid! Well, the same result
happens when you eat a protein and a starch together. They
neutralize themselves and absolutely NO DIGESTION IS THE RESULT.
Then, as we have learned, when your food doesn't digest, it ROTS."
Note the major error in simple, commonly known, fact that 'most everyone
reading this should have caught -- calling lemon and vinegar alkaline.
This mistake is, of course, not central to the issue of whether there's
anything to food combining, but it casts doubt on the writer's credibility
in general. There is the possibility that it's a typo (that's what my
housemate who put up the poster said when I pointed it out), but if you
read on you will see still more mistakes of similar nature. I am also
told by someone who has studied digestion that the digestive process described
in this paragraph is apparently based on medical descriptions, but only loosely.
In another part of the poster there are some tables which classify foods as
either acid or alkaline, and some of the citrus fruits, like lemon, are
classified as alkaline. I'm thinking that this may be the reason for calling
lemon alkaline in the previous example. I asked my housemate what was the
reason behind calling a citrus fruit alkaline. The response was that it starts
out acid but when it hits the digestive juices they turn it into an alkaline.
Is there some fact, like perhaps a relation between lemons and blood pH or
something, that this could be based on? I'd appreciate it if some one out
there (who really knows) could answer this.
On eating food with salt in it:
"And to show you how toxic salt is, chemically broken down (SODIUM
CHLORIDE) it's a lethal poison."
I haven't been able to make much sense out of this sentence, in context or
out, but it could be saying that since sodium and chlorine are by themselves
poisonous then salt must be poisonous, too. This is the logical conclusion
to the idea that food is broken down into its components during digestion,
generalized to included salt.
On sunbathing:
"Don't overdo your sunbathing as it WILL be harmful -- DO NOT sunbathe
between 11AM & 2PM. The HOT infra-red burning rays are too strong
and you can't tan then.
...lay at least 1/3 of your time with your head lower than your feet.
This way your blood nourishes the Brain & takes wastes from the legs
& feet to the heart for purification."
My understanding is that it's the ultraviolet rays that both tan and burn,
and I'm not aware of infrared having any inhibiting effect on tanning. The
idea that the heart purifies the blood sounds like it might be an old theory
-- like straight out of the middle ages -- that hasn't quite died.
As a last example: after looking at the poster a while I noticed that honey
is mentioned nowhere. Listening to the housemate who posted it gives me the
impression that honey is taken to be sort of an ultimate food, as close to
perfect as any food can be, so it seems that honey should be mentioned
prominently. This brought to mind the following question, which I asked my
housemate: Honey is supposed to be very healthful to people, but it doesn't
spoil. This means it's not healthful to bacteria. Why not? Is it a
selective poison, or what?
This question has been asked and answered on the net. Bacteria that fall into
the honey get all the water sucked out of them by osmosis. Some bacteria
(like the one that causes salmonella) form spores and do survive to be
rejuvenated in the body of the unlucky eater. My housemate's answer was
substantially different: honey is concentrated life force so the decay process
just doesn't work on it.
I can easily envision reasonable ways that scientific notions and results
could be at the root of many of these ideas -- the idea that warmer bodies
generate more infrared light becomes the idea that infrared rays carry heat
yields the idea that sunburn must be caused by strong infrared given off
by the sun. It makes sense in a layman's sort of way. Perhaps this is
what you get when you mix science and people without a strong background
in scientific thought.
--
-- CAUTION: WET FLOOR <== Is this a warning or a command? --
Danny Sharpe
School of ICS
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dtsslb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (08/14/85)
>Danny Sharpe writes: > >This discussion [sugar and etc.] is interesting to me because I >recently took a room in a house where the other three residents all, to one >degree or another, subscribe to the "anti non-natural food and medicine" school >of thought. > >From what I've seen, there seems to be a large and widespread body of belief >that is composed of old ideas (like from Middle Ages and Greek science) passed >down through time, mystical/pagan/shamanistic ideas about nature, and >misunderstood modern scientific ideas. > This posting was interesting because it was from having roommates who were much the same (my ex-husband and his girlfriend--it's a long story) that I developed my distaste for such quackery. It was not the stupid things that they did to their bodies so much (like long fasts to "purify the blood" for instance) or even the poor science on which they based it that really turned me off--although that was part of it. What really bothered me was the effect of all this stuff on their minds. There were several parts to this: 1. GUILT. The whole thing seemed to be based on guilt. The diets they would set for themselves were so difficult that there was no way they could really follow them. At some point, they would break down and have a potato chip or something and then mentally flagellate themselves for days. In addition, if you got sick, it must be something you had eaten or not eaten that caused it. If you got a virus, then it was only because you had failed to do something properly and "lowered your resistance." Guilt. It was always your fault. It reminded me of the Puritans, who believed that you got sick as punishment for sins. 2. PARANOIA. There weren't really any good guidelines, anyway. Some said milk was poison, some that you needed it--and so on. There was always another book with another opinion. Everything you put in your mouth might kill you. There was always death lurking around the corner. There so much emphasis on avoiding death that there was little enjoyment of life. 3. SENSE OF SUPERIORITY. In addition, they were always pushing that guilt off on others. They attempted to make me feel guilty for eating normally. They questioned everything that I fed the children. This pushing guilt on other people was because they considered themselves to be better because they ate "right". I don't know how many times I heard them comment on how "disgusting" a person was because they were overweight-- even though I knew that that person was a more balanced, contributing member of society than they were. They tended to judge a person on what they ate, rather than what they were. 4. SELF-DECEPTION. I saw my husband's girlfriend once when she was going through a month-long fast. She kept telling me how wonderful it was, and how you have to do it properly--tapering off to juice, then to nothing for 2 weeks, then back on juice, and so on. She kept telling me how great she felt, how the "poisons are leaving my body." Hell, she couldn't lift the garbage can to take it out! She was amazed that I could (it weighed all of 20 pounds--I used one hand). The woman was sick and convincing herself that she was well. That showed me what personal testimonials are worth. They got sick a lot more than I did--but were always telling me how much healthier they were. After some exposure to this, I managed to pull out of the guilt they imposed on me, and decided that I would never live like that. If that's what it takes to live forever, then death sounds good. I think you can eat a balanced diet, use some common sense, and to hell with guilt and worry. By the way, some folks that I have known who do some of the same things for religious reasons do not seem to have the same mental problems. I know some religious vegetarians and people who fast for religious reasons who do not show the guilt or self-deception. They will readily admit that they are probably missing something, but it is for a higher purpose. It is all in the spirit of the thing, I guess. If you concentrate on your body too much it seems to warp something in the mind. Flame away. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/15/85)
In article <651@gitpyr.UUCP> dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) writes: > >From what I've seen, there seems to be a large and widespread body of belief >that is composed of old ideas (like from Middle Ages and Greek science) passed >down through time, mystical/pagan/shamanistic ideas about nature, and >misunderstood modern scientific ideas. All these notions are combined to make >a model of the world that is fairly coherent (if you don't question it *too* >closely). Good analysis! > > On eating proteins and starches together: > > "Take for example, the hamburger -- the meat is a protein and the > bread is a starch. It takes a series of ACID digestive juices to > digest the protein (pepsin, hydrochloric acid, etc.) and a series > of ALKALINE digestive juices to digest the starch (ptyalin, maltase, > etc.). Remember in chemistry class when you burned yourself with > some acid, you were told to put an alkaline such as lemon or > vinegar, etc., to neutralize the acid! Well, the same result > happens when you eat a protein and a starch together. They > neutralize themselves and absolutely NO DIGESTION IS THE RESULT. > Then, as we have learned, when your food doesn't digest, it ROTS." > > Well, if I remember my old reading on digestion correctly, the acidic digestion occurs in the stomach, and the alkaline in the intestines, so ther is *no* possibility of neutralization. > > On sunbathing: > > "Don't overdo your sunbathing as it WILL be harmful -- DO NOT sunbathe > between 11AM & 2PM. The HOT infra-red burning rays are too strong > and you can't tan then. > Hmm, well at least half right. Too much sun-bathing *is* dangerous, it can cause skin cancer! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (08/16/85)
[] In article <158@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: [responding to a posting on food faddism] >This posting was interesting because it was from having roommates who >were much the same (my ex-husband and his girlfriend--it's a long story) >that I developed my distaste for such quackery. > >It was not the stupid things that they did to their bodies so much (like >long fasts to "purify the blood" for instance) or even the poor science >on which they based it that really turned me off--although that was >part of it. What really bothered me was the effect of all this stuff >on their minds. There were several parts to this: > >1. GUILT. The whole thing seemed to be based on guilt. > ... > It reminded me of the > Puritans, who believed that you got sick as punishment for sins. > I think this is exactly the origin of a lot of food fads. If someone is brought up in a religious & puritanical way, (s)he may lose the religion and keep the puritanical personality... which then roams around looking for something to be fanatical about. The outcry against sugar seems to be based more on the fact that people like sweet tastes than on the genuine bad consequences (obesity, caries) of eating too much sugar. ... >3. SENSE OF SUPERIORITY. > ... they considered themselves to be better > because they ate "right". > They tended to judge a person on > what they ate, rather than what they were. > Hmm, yes; some people use their religion that way, instead of their diet. ... >I think you can eat a balanced diet, use some common sense, and to hell >with guilt and worry. Chimpanzees do it. ... >By the way, some folks that I have known who do some of the same things >for religious reasons do not seem to have the same mental problems. I >know some religious vegetarians and people who fast for religious reasons >who do not show the guilt or self-deception. For further discussion in net.flame & net.religion, I offer this suggestion: a viable religion that includes fasting or dietary laws also includes something to keep them in due proportion. (E. g. faith in a God who is "slow to anger and quick to forgive.") Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (08/16/85)
> >By the way, some folks that I have known who do some of the same things > >for religious reasons do not seem to have the same mental problems. I > >know some religious vegetarians and people who fast for religious reasons > >who do not show the guilt or self-deception. > For further discussion in net.flame & net.religion, I offer > this suggestion: > a viable religion that includes fasting or dietary > laws also includes something to keep them in due > proportion. (E. g. faith in a God who is "slow to > anger and quick to forgive.") > Regards, > Chris > Most religions (that I am familiar with) also provide for feasts. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Janet Smuga I've had a great many troubles in my time, mtuxo!smuga and most of them never happened. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -