Show #40 - Nora Gedgaudas Interview: Beyond Paleo - Primal Ice Age Diet

[GregP507]

Not sure that I'd agree that the paleolithic diet was the healthy ideal for human kind. I believe that analyses of bone and teeth from that time often reveal various types of malnutrition. I'd say we are adapted to utilize a wide variety of food sources to be able to survive on whatever is available, but I wouldn't expect that our diet was at most times in the stone age, ideal. According to Malthus, natural populations are governed by the availability of food resources which are often scarce, as part of the population dynamic.

Many nutritionists believe that the Mediterranean diet is nearest the ideal, which consists of a balance of fruits, vegetables, moderate amounts of red and white meats, and foods made from cereal grains. This evolved after the agricultural revolution, which gave us a greater degree of choice in our foods. Since that time, we have learned much about our own dietary requirements and have augmented our diets with many types of supplements, such as foods with vitamin C to eliminate scurvy.

You may want to read the Life Without Bread and Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation? threads. Also do a search on SOTT for the problems with grains and dairy and carbohydrates in general. You'll see just how much REAL data there is for grain and dairy free, low carb, high animal fat diet being the best. Even those hunter-gatherer societies that survived (not too many left now, as they've been systematically eliminated for thousands of years by the agricultural, hierarchical societies) have been studied extensively, and all the non-corrupted science (not influenced by Big Agra, Big Pharma, and food industry corporations) shows the same thing. Check out the story of Weston A. Price, too. And you should look into the fossil record of hunter-gathers from the Paleolithic period compared to the settled agriculturalists of the Neolithic and see what happened to bones, teeth, general health, stature, brain size, "the diseases of civilization," etc., in just a few generations. And that's not even controversial. Any good "bone specialist" will tell you from looking at the teeth first and bones generally if the remains are from hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists.

Since the government recommendations of high carb, high grain, low fat diets with vegetable and seed oils encouraged and animal fat discouraged, every "disease of civilization" skyrocketed and so did the "obesity epidemic." There are also very good books recommended in the two threads (including Nora Gedgaudas' Primal Body, Primal Mind) and elsewhere on the forum. It is a huge amount of material to read, but if you really want to understand the real science and not the corrupt mass media promulgated propaganda, it's really worth it.

Of course, many of the modern foods and their processing have their share of problems, but that doesn't make everything unmodern automatically better. That's the general implication I was challenging. As our knowledge evolves, we are turning back to more natural foods, but that doesn't make a purely stone age diet the perfect ideal.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Not sure that I'd agree that the paleolithic diet was the healthy ideal for human kind. I believe that analyses of bone and teeth from that time often reveal various types of malnutrition. I'd say we are adapted to utilize a wide variety of food sources to be able to survive on whatever is available, but I wouldn't expect that our diet was at most times in the stone age, ideal. According to Malthus, natural populations are governed by the availability of food resources which are often scarce, as part of the population dynamic.

Many nutritionists believe that the Mediterranean diet is nearest the ideal, which consists of a balance of fruits, vegetables, moderate amounts of red and white meats, and foods made from cereal grains. This evolved after the agricultural revolution, which gave us a greater degree of choice in our foods. Since that time, we have learned much about our own dietary requirements and have augmented our diets with many types of supplements, such as foods with vitamin C to eliminate scurvy.

You may want to read the Life Without Bread and Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation? threads. Also do a search on SOTT for the problems with grains and dairy and carbohydrates in general. You'll see just how much REAL data there is for grain and dairy free, low carb, high animal fat diet being the best. Even those hunter-gatherer societies that survived (not too many left now, as they've been systematically eliminated for thousands of years by the agricultural, hierarchical societies) have been studied extensively, and all the non-corrupted science (not influenced by Big Agra, Big Pharma, and food industry corporations) shows the same thing. Check out the story of Weston A. Price, too. And you should look into the fossil record of hunter-gathers from the Paleolithic period compared to the settled agriculturalists of the Neolithic and see what happened to bones, teeth, general health, stature, brain size, "the diseases of civilization," etc., in just a few generations. And that's not even controversial. Any good "bone specialist" will tell you from looking at the teeth first and bones generally if the remains are from hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists.

Since the government recommendations of high carb, high grain, low fat diets with vegetable and seed oils encouraged and animal fat discouraged, every "disease of civilization" skyrocketed and so did the "obesity epidemic." There are also very good books recommended in the two threads (including Nora Gedgaudas' Primal Body, Primal Mind) and elsewhere on the forum. It is a huge amount of material to read, but if you really want to understand the real science and not the corrupt mass media promulgated propaganda, it's really worth it.

Of course, many of the modern foods and their processing have their share of problems, but that doesn't make everything unmodern automatically better. That's the general implication I was challenging. As our knowledge evolves, we are turning back to more natural foods, but that doesn't make a purely stone age diet the perfect ideal.

The point of my post was to actually look at the data (there's LOTS) and experiences of people who eliminated the foods that came with the "Agricultural Revolution" and seen all sorts of health issues evaporate (there's LOTS). For example, your mentioning of foods with vitamin C to eliminate scurvy as an example of what we've learned about dietary requirements, is one thing that actually looking at the real science will clarify that when one consumes very low to no carbs, your need for vitamin C goes WAY down. And that organ meats contain all the vitamin C one would need on a ketogenic diet in a form much more bio-available and efficiently utilized.

As far as I know, scurvy was discovered centuries ago when people sailing across the ocean didn't have fresh fruits and vegetables for weeks, but still ate high carbs and lots of grains and beans. They could not meet the 50 to 90 mg of minimum vitamin C to keep from manifesting acute scurvy (basically the blood vessels and connective tissue falling apart and leading to internal bleeding and teeth loosening up, etc.). But the recommended daily allowance for vitamin C is just enough to prevent ACUTE scurvy but not enough to prevent chronic sub-clinical scurvy because of the atrociously mismatched diet, evolutionarily speaking, that is so common. The high carbs, lectins and anti-nutrients present in the widespread diet create so much free radicals leading to a great deal of chronic inflammation that to get any real benefit from vitamin C, those on such diets need doses MANY orders of magnitude higher than what people normally get from their diet or supplements.

When I was still eating a modern diet, I used to supplement with 3000 to 4000 mg of ascorbic acid a day and never caught colds or flus for over a decade. When I went on a Paleo, and then a year later ketogenic diet (now going on 3 years), I reduced and then eliminated vitamin C and all other supplements, and still never get sick. There are volumes written about the benefits, the why's and the how's of it all. That's the whole point. The brainwashing campaign of the mainstream media about what is healthy and what is not pretty much speaks for itself. Look at the state of human health. The real science and experience of many thousands of people around the world applying that science clearly shows that what is passed off as healthy (grains, carbohydrates as the lion's share of daily energy, etc.) are the exact opposite - associated with every "disease of civilization" known.

 

[GregP507]

Not sure that I'd agree that the paleolithic diet was the healthy ideal for human kind. I believe that analyses of bone and teeth from that time often reveal various types of malnutrition. I'd say we are adapted to utilize a wide variety of food sources to be able to survive on whatever is available, but I wouldn't expect that our diet was at most times in the stone age, ideal. According to Malthus, natural populations are governed by the availability of food resources which are often scarce, as part of the population dynamic.

Many nutritionists believe that the Mediterranean diet is nearest the ideal, which consists of a balance of fruits, vegetables, moderate amounts of red and white meats, and foods made from cereal grains. This evolved after the agricultural revolution, which gave us a greater degree of choice in our foods. Since that time, we have learned much about our own dietary requirements and have augmented our diets with many types of supplements, such as foods with vitamin C to eliminate scurvy.

You may want to read the Life Without Bread and Ketogenic Diet - Path To Transformation? threads. Also do a search on SOTT for the problems with grains and dairy and carbohydrates in general. You'll see just how much REAL data there is for grain and dairy free, low carb, high animal fat diet being the best. Even those hunter-gatherer societies that survived (not too many left now, as they've been systematically eliminated for thousands of years by the agricultural, hierarchical societies) have been studied extensively, and all the non-corrupted science (not influenced by Big Agra, Big Pharma, and food industry corporations) shows the same thing. Check out the story of Weston A. Price, too. And you should look into the fossil record of hunter-gathers from the Paleolithic period compared to the settled agriculturalists of the Neolithic and see what happened to bones, teeth, general health, stature, brain size, "the diseases of civilization," etc., in just a few generations. And that's not even controversial. Any good "bone specialist" will tell you from looking at the teeth first and bones generally if the remains are from hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists.

Since the government recommendations of high carb, high grain, low fat diets with vegetable and seed oils encouraged and animal fat discouraged, every "disease of civilization" skyrocketed and so did the "obesity epidemic." There are also very good books recommended in the two threads (including Nora Gedgaudas' Primal Body, Primal Mind) and elsewhere on the forum. It is a huge amount of material to read, but if you really want to understand the real science and not the corrupt mass media promulgated propaganda, it's really worth it.

Of course, many of the modern foods and their processing have their share of problems, but that doesn't make everything unmodern automatically better. That's the general implication I was challenging. As our knowledge evolves, we are turning back to more natural foods, but that doesn't make a purely stone age diet the perfect ideal.

The point of my post was to actually look at the data (there's LOTS) and experiences of people who eliminated the foods that came with the "Agricultural Revolution" and seen all sorts of health issues evaporate (there's LOTS). For example, your mentioning of foods with vitamin C to eliminate scurvy as an example of what we've learned about dietary requirements, is one thing that actually looking at the real science will clarify that when one consumes very low to no carbs, your need for vitamin C goes WAY down. And that organ meats contain all the vitamin C one would need on a ketogenic diet in a form much more bio-available and efficiently utilized.

As far as I know, scurvy was discovered centuries ago when people sailing across the ocean didn't have fresh fruits and vegetables for weeks, but still ate high carbs and lots of grains and beans. They could not meet the 50 to 90 mg of minimum vitamin C to keep from manifesting acute scurvy (basically the blood vessels and connective tissue falling apart and leading to internal bleeding and teeth loosening up, etc.). But the recommended daily allowance for vitamin C is just enough to prevent ACUTE scurvy but not enough to prevent chronic sub-clinical scurvy because of the atrociously mismatched diet, evolutionarily speaking, that is so common. The high carbs, lectins and anti-nutrients present in the widespread diet create so much free radicals leading to a great deal of chronic inflammation that to get any real benefit from vitamin C, those on such diets need doses MANY orders of magnitude higher than what people normally get from their diet or supplements.

When I was still eating a modern diet, I used to supplement with 3000 to 4000 mg of ascorbic acid a day and never caught colds or flus for over a decade. When I went on a Paleo, and then a year later ketogenic diet (now going on 3 years), I reduced and then eliminated vitamin C and all other supplements, and still never get sick. There are volumes written about the benefits, the why's and the how's of it all. That's the whole point. The brainwashing campaign of the mainstream media about what is healthy and what is not pretty much speaks for itself. Look at the state of human health. The real science and experience of many thousands of people around the world applying that science clearly shows that what is passed off as healthy (grains, carbohydrates as the lion's share of daily energy, etc.) are the exact opposite - associated with every "disease of civilization" known.

I was mainly drawing attention to a possible variation of the naturalistic fallacy being implied in the posting. That is the assumption that if something is natural, it must somehow be better. This may be true in part, but not necessarily as a whole. For example, one "natural herb" is tobacco, and we all know by this point that it is certainly not good for us.

 

[theos]

I was mainly drawing attention to a possible variation of the naturalistic fallacy being implied in the posting. That is the assumption that if something is natural, it must somehow be better. This may be true in part, but not necessarily as a whole. For example, one "natural herb" is tobacco, and we all know by this point that it is certainly not good for us.

Quite the contrary, Greg. Smoking natural tobacco (not commercial cigarettes) can be good for some people. There are numerous articles on SOTT and loads of information on this forum on the benefits of natural tobacco.

For a start:
http://www.sott.net/article/139304-World-No-Tobacco-Day-Lets-All-Light-Up

http://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,84.0/topicseen.html

Though it is easy to spout the party line on smoking --I used to be guilty of it myself --, it's much more fun to research and separate fact from fiction.

 

[Turgon]

I was mainly drawing attention to a possible variation of the naturalistic fallacy being implied in the posting. That is the assumption that if something is natural, it must somehow be better. This may be true in part, but not necessarily as a whole. For example, one "natural herb" is tobacco, and we all know by this point that it is certainly not good for us.

Quite the contrary, Greg. Smoking natural tobacco (not commercial cigarettes) can be good for some people. There are numerous articles on SOTT and loads of information on this forum on the benefits of natural tobacco.

For a start:
http://www.sott.net/article/139304-World-No-Tobacco-Day-Lets-All-Light-Up

http://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,84.0/topicseen.html

Though it is easy to spout the party line on smoking --I used to be guilty of it myself --, it's much more fun to research and separate fact from fiction.

Another thing to consider is whether or not this knowing is based on facts and critical thinking or mass media campaigns and propaganda that have been drilled into you for years. The same holds true for saturated fats. You hear so much about it in the media being bad that most people have taken on that message internally without every trying to verify if it's true or not. Which it certainly isn't for both!

 

[SeekinTruth]

I was mainly drawing attention to a possible variation of the naturalistic fallacy being implied in the posting. That is the assumption that if something is natural, it must somehow be better. This may be true in part, but not necessarily as a whole. For example, one "natural herb" is tobacco, and we all know by this point that it is certainly not good for us.

Quite the contrary, Greg. Smoking natural tobacco (not commercial cigarettes) can be good for some people. There are numerous articles on SOTT and loads of information on this forum on the benefits of natural tobacco.

For a start:
http://www.sott.net/article/139304-World-No-Tobacco-Day-Lets-All-Light-Up

http://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,84.0/topicseen.html

Though it is easy to spout the party line on smoking --I used to be guilty of it myself --, it's much more fun to research and separate fact from fiction.

Another thing to consider is whether or not this knowing is based on facts and critical thinking or mass media campaigns and propaganda that have been drilled into you for years. The same holds true for saturated fats. You hear so much about it in the media being bad that most people have taken on that message internally without every trying to verify if it's true or not. Which it certainly isn't for both!

Greg, can you tell me how "we all know tobacco isn't good for us?" What is your definition of knowing. What you say CAN'T be based on any data, because even in the mainstream data bases, there's a whole lot more evidence from research about the benefits from tobacco smoking than the harm. These include benefits of cognitive function and increase of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, benefits for those who are suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and much more.

On the other hand, the claims about the harmfulness of smoking tobacco have as much evidential support as the false claims about cholesterol, saturated fats, etc. And, I repeat, these are actually published in mainstream medical databases anyone can read such as PubMed. Just like cholesterol actually being protective and beneficial to health, so is smoking tobacco. This is really remarkable considering that there isn't exactly large amounts of funding to really get so much data from well-designed studies on these issues. And yet, there's much more data accumulated showing their benefits and no credible data about their harmfulness.

Without doing the research and applying the knowledge gained to your own experiences, you will continue to propagate the dominant propaganda as "what we know." Let me put the question another way. Do you really think that governments and prominent institutions really care about the well being of humanity and base policy on improving that well being based on knowledge? How do you explain the state of the world? The legislators that make anti-smoking laws care more for the health of the general population than their own health? Because the only public workplaces that smoking is still allowed in western countries is the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. If "we knew" the harmfulness of smoking, how likely do you think it would be that these politicians would allow themselves to smoke in their own "legislative chambers" or to smoke at all.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Greg, read this and see how we've all been brainwashed re: tobacco!
http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

I know it was shocking for me to learn that eating fats are better. I was the kid who loved to eat only vegetables and fruits. But even though I had a lot of vitamin C etc, I was sick a lot!

Sometimes things aren't as they seem... like Alice down the Rabbit hole :)

 

[Bluefyre]

I've just had my third neurofeedback session this morning and wanted to update.

The therapist has been attaching three electrodes on my head to stabilize my physical body and help me feel more calm and at peace. She said next week she will attach a fourth and start to work on the emotional elements. I am doing the minimum, one session a week as that's all my budget can manage and I also think that because my body is so sensitive I couldn't handle more change than this at a time.

The first change that I'm really noticing that when writing this post it's the first time that I feel excitement at sharing the information rather than the usual anxiety.

It feels like the prison that I have lived in, the clamp on my brain that has kept me from access and expressing thoughts and ideas is loosening in amazing ways. I notice that when I read, I am reading faster and comprehending more. I was continually punished physically and psychologically in childhood for showing or expressing intelligence, curiosity and creativity. I just finished reading Character Disturbance and it is connecting so many dots for me. I'm seeing connections in an exponential way, in many area.

After reading Ark's article in SOTT and mentioning the movie Limitless, I watched it over New Years and feel like I am experiencing just a tiny bit of what those pills did for the main character. The prison for my mind as Morpheus called it in the Matrix is losing its grip on my mind. And this is early stages. I don't remember feeling this wonder and excitement at Life and the possibilities. It's early days and 20 sessions are recommended. Next to Laura's books, the forum and reading list, this is the most amazing discovery of my life. I am feeling such hope for coming out of the shadow self, almost the ghost of a life that I have been living and really becoming something useful to DCM. Perhaps that sounds over the top and very emotional but the only way I can put it in a picture is that my brain/mind has been a rusty, seized-up old wreck and it's getting well oiled and working, I keep seeing ball bearings that just move around smoothly and function effortlessly.

Maybe I interpret the absence of deep chronic anxiety as exuberance. Like one huge bolder I have been draggin around has been lifted from my back and instead of plodding along, getting through the day, I entertain the possibility of gliding or even (dare I imagine!) taking wing and flying!

I've often thought of the gratitude I feel for the gift of my life, the opportunity to be on the Great Mother and learn my lessons and I feel it so deeply now. I truly feel that I am in a different reality than I was a month ago.

 

[Bluefyre]

The other thing I forgot to mention is that I realized today, and it's been so gradual I didn't notice at first, that the hypervigilant self-monitoring, I could say obsessiveness has lessened considerably, keeping track of things like how many cigarettes I smoke, is one example that comes to mind. And when I hear the predator's mind criticizing, trying to trigger self-hating or belittling thoughts, I notice much more quickly and easily and catch myself responding verbally, out loud as I change the direction. The feeling of being hunted/stalked seems to have almost disappeared, and I say almost because I don't want to delude myself and continue to observe myself, my thoughts. And in three weeks I haven't experienced the backlash Peter Levine talks about and that I mentioned in a previous post that has always occurred to shut down any thoughts or ideas of a creative nature. Perhaps the changes are being made so gradually and subtly that trauma-based circuitry kicking in is being circumvented?

 

[Bluefyre]

An update after my 4th neurofeedback session.

Yesterday a couple of new sites were added during the therapy. We're starting to work on the emotional centres of the brain. And I can certainly attest to that! Journaling is the only way I can sort things out right now. The aftermath of this session is very intense and not very pleasant.

The therapist gives me two sheets after each session, one ongoing week by week to mark changes and the other is for 24-48 hours after the session. I became conscious today of just how much of a struggle I still have to just write down what is going on with me, that she wants as much detail as I can provide, that someone is actually interested in what is going on so that she can provide me with the most effective treatment.

Laura mentioned in the Anna Salter interview that she struggled for 10 years to wrap her head around the nature of these predators/pedophiles/psychopaths. I think I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum, struggling to wrap my head and heart around that there actually are people who do care about who I am, who offer help and information freely. (That's rather an inadequate way of expressing how I experience this forum and the people on it, but the best I can do at the moment). I watched the documentary on Kinsey's pedophiles last night after finding the link on the thread on Robert Kirkcannon's book.

What disturbed me the most was that associate of Kinsey's, sitting there smiling, looking like a Kris Kringle, justifying Kinsey's "collecting data" with such callous disregard for the suffering of the children who were used like lab rats to collect it. I know that callous disregard in my bones. A mother who left me starting at 13 or 14 for days at a time, and then weeks at a time, to look after my sisters while she disappeared with the pedophile to wherever they went. There was no warning. I'd come home from school and she would be gone and we never knew when she would be back and if there would be enough food until she DID come back. Talk about imprinting us about just how much we did not matter - another poor expression of the impact.

I bring this up to demonstrate the fact that there is nothing in these people that a normal, caring, empathic human being possesses. And the uselessness and loneliness of wasting energy trying to wake people up to the reality, like the director of the Kinsey Institute rationalizing and protecting the monsters. It really does a number on the mind, as designed, obfuscating the ability to see objective reality. I've actually had more than one person say "Didn't the guy who molested you go to jail?" The followers who want someone else to take care of things like that, and leave them alone in their comfortable little bubbles. That used to cause me incredible pain, another dose of "nobody cares about you enough to do anything about it" and by gathering more knowledge and seeing the scope on a planetary scale is helping me to be more objective while I process my own subjective experience.

 

[GregP507]

I was mainly drawing attention to a possible variation of the naturalistic fallacy being implied in the posting. That is the assumption that if something is natural, it must somehow be better. This may be true in part, but not necessarily as a whole. For example, one "natural herb" is tobacco, and we all know by this point that it is certainly not good for us.

Quite the contrary, Greg. Smoking natural tobacco (not commercial cigarettes) can be good for some people. There are numerous articles on SOTT and loads of information on this forum on the benefits of natural tobacco.

For a start:
http://www.sott.net/article/139304-World-No-Tobacco-Day-Lets-All-Light-Up

http://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,84.0/topicseen.html

Though it is easy to spout the party line on smoking --I used to be guilty of it myself --, it's much more fun to research and separate fact from fiction.

Another thing to consider is whether or not this knowing is based on facts and critical thinking or mass media campaigns and propaganda that have been drilled into you for years. The same holds true for saturated fats. You hear so much about it in the media being bad that most people have taken on that message internally without every trying to verify if it's true or not. Which it certainly isn't for both!

Greg, can you tell me how "we all know tobacco isn't good for us?" What is your definition of knowing. What you say CAN'T be based on any data, because even in the mainstream data bases, there's a whole lot more evidence from research about the benefits from tobacco smoking than the harm. These include benefits of cognitive function and increase of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, benefits for those who are suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and much more.

On the other hand, the claims about the harmfulness of smoking tobacco have as much evidential support as the false claims about cholesterol, saturated fats, etc. And, I repeat, these are actually published in mainstream medical databases anyone can read such as PubMed. Just like cholesterol actually being protective and beneficial to health, so is smoking tobacco. This is really remarkable considering that there isn't exactly large amounts of funding to really get so much data from well-designed studies on these issues. And yet, there's much more data accumulated showing their benefits and no credible data about their harmfulness.

Without doing the research and applying the knowledge gained to your own experiences, you will continue to propagate the dominant propaganda as "what we know." Let me put the question another way. Do you really think that governments and prominent institutions really care about the well being of humanity and base policy on improving that well being based on knowledge? How do you explain the state of the world? The legislators that make anti-smoking laws care more for the health of the general population than their own health? Because the only public workplaces that smoking is still allowed in western countries is the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. If "we knew" the harmfulness of smoking, how likely do you think it would be that these politicians would allow themselves to smoke in their own "legislative chambers" or to smoke at all.

That's quite a lot to swallow. Our lungs are not adapted to inhale smoke. The best we can do is tolerate it to varying degrees, but it always leads to negative health effects, not positive.

 

[HowToBe]

That's quite a lot to swallow. Our lungs are not adapted to inhale smoke. The best we can do is tolerate it to varying degrees, but it always leads to negative health effects, not positive.

Well no one's telling you to believe it based on what we say - science shows our lungs (or rather the lungs of some if not most people) can handle the smoke of this particular plant, and that it does not always lead to negative health effects. The others have given you links where you can find references to the scientific studies. Belief is easy, and facing the facts is a bit more difficult, especially if our "common sense" comes into question. But isn't that life?

About the naturalistic fallacy, we are well aware of that here. Arsenic is a 100% natural substance, for example, as are many other poisons. And we don't have to get started on so-called "all natural" foods! Grains and vegetables are "natural", but the research conducted on this forum has shown that they are far from good for us! A truly natural human diet must maximize health and minimize harm, and a paleolithic ketogenic diet has been powerfully shown to do just that when understood and applied.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Greg have you seen my post above? It contains an interesting link on how autopsies cannot usually distinguish smokers from non smokers. It also explains how those horrible images you see were doctored, literally, with carcinogens injected into pigs lungs.

So again, as I asked, do you really trust our medical research establishment? They still say that vaccines are safe, even those with mercury (thimerosol).

Anyway, to add from memory that popped up, the studies that were done on dogs regarding smoking causing cancer didn't prove fruitful. They tried rats and got SOME to get cancer, but to get the equivalent in a normal sized human it would have been around 200 cigarettes. I wish I could find the link that analyzed the research data, but I've since then formatted my computer and lost links (this is before I starting doing regular backups)

 

[Bluefyre]

I completed my sixth session of neurofeedback yesterday and want to post my experience so far.

Over the weeks I've felt a continuing improvement in and awareness of lessening of chronic anxiety and stress responses. Until this week at work, dealing with a difficult personality, the perfectionism and shame spokes were triggered. The anxiety came tumbling in again and it was interesting (to say the least, learning is fun!) how intense it felt subjectively, even though objectively, it was much less intense than the way I used to experience it. I realized the next day that I felt blank in terms of all of the knowledge I have acquired from the forum, reading the books. Any self-observation just flew out the window. It wasn't until I sat down and started journaling the next day that I started to put the pieces together, realizing that the spoke led me to my abyss, that I am inappropriate and it's wrong that I exist. Journalling and pipe breathing calmed my body for a while and then within hours the anxiety was back.

The therapist added a new site yesterday, on the left side (for the first time) for balancing the emotional parts of my brain. Within minutes of starting the session my body and mind felt calm. It is truly amazing. She said it's natural for the brain to push back and want to revert to the way it's been operating my whole life.

Last night I became aware of how part of the anxiety is caused by anticipating triggers and my bodily response to them. I felt such a powerlessness, totally lost the ability to just observe the anxiety. I think I'm more aware of the wanting to control because I HAVE had some periods, even days of feeling comfortable in my skin, feeling like my brain is functioning better. So it's kind of two steps forward, one step back. And also this wishful thinking that this therapy will just solve all of the issues. It was a shock to me to observe how completely my awareness shut down when the P and S programs started running.

I also became aware of the negative thoughts that doing this is just a crutch, and "you should be able to figure it out yourself", rather than the assistance that is available to me, as the forum/network is, to help me in working on myself. I couldn't see this until after the session, when my brain was more in balance. It also got me thinking about them chemistry of our brains, how trauma programs them in such a deeply-rutted way. There is so much here, and I think (although it may be wishful thinking again) that I am actually going a little deeper in my own process of discovery.

I am also in the process of setting up an appointment with Patrick Rodriguez and looking forward to his interview tomorrow.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thanks for the updates, Bluefyre. Very interesting reading about your experiences and processes. And all this IS a process, so it's kinda expected that working out the bugs in our machine, so to speak, is often two steps forward, one step back. Good luck with the Patrick Rodriguez session.