Q.
All other things being equal, what
role does exercise play in health? - P. J., Sonoma, CA.
A.
A most decisive role! There can
be no health without exercise. It may
shock many of my readers when I say
that I consider exercise to be even
more important in the maintenance of
health than nutrition. Coming from a
nutritionist, this is a shocking statement, indeed.
I see so many people who will go to
any lengths to secure organic foods,
who never miss a health lecture, read
all the books, and spend a fortune on
expensive health foods and supplements, and are still not enjoying
very good health. Many are, in fact,
very sick. And, wondering why!? All
the exercise they get is walking to the car to drive to the health food store,
car to drive to the health food store,
or at the best, doing a few calisthenics or yoga stretches in front of the
TV set. Please, don't misunderstand
me. Yoga and calisthenics are good
and beneficial, but they definitely do
not compensate for or replace real
exercise. When I say exercise, I
mean strenuous physical exertion to
the point of perspiration. Walking,
jogging, swimming, playing tennis or
ball, hard physical work these are
the exercises we need every day in
order to stay healthy. All the people
known for their exceptional health
Hunzas, Russians, Scandinavians,
etc. engage in lots of physical
exertion throughout their lives.
Health is absolutely impossible without plentiful exercise. Now, listen to
this, and listen carefully, because I
don't want to be misunderstood or
misquoted: It would be better to eat
junk foods and exercise a lot, than to
eat health foods and not exercise at
all! With a great amount of physical
exercise and sweating, even inferior
diets will not do great harm, but you
can eat the best health foods in the
world and take all the vitamins you
can afford, but if you do not exercise
at all, you will not achieve or maintain good health. We have too many
Madison Avenue type "scientific"
experts who sit in their air-conditioned offices,
resting on their cellulite and trying to figure out what kind of pill will make you healthy (and
them rich!) . We need more of the Paul
Bragg type of health educators who
have a wholistic view of a man and
recognize all the vital factors necessary for optimum health including
exercise.
Q.
I've been taking 100 mg. of B1, 100
mg. of B6, and 200 mg. of pantothenic
acid for a long time. Now I understand from your lecture that you are
against synthetic vitamins. Are the
vitamins I have been taking in these
potencies synthetic or natural? Could
they be harmful? - Mrs. K.L., San
Diego, CA.
A.
I am again either misunderstood
or misquoted. Your "understanding"
that I am "against" synthetic vitamins is incorrect.
Although in principle I prefer natural vitamins to
synthetic, synthetic vitamins do have
important therapeutic uses. Every
doctor who uses vitamins therapeutically knows that large doses of
isolated B-vitamins are often required in the treatment of specific
illnesses or severe deficiency conditions. For example, megavitamin
therapy for schizophrenia includes
niacinamide (B3) in doses of up to
10-25 grams a day. Some doctors use
pantothenic acid (B5) in doses of up
to 1,000-1,500 mg. a day in the treatment of hypoglycemia, or B6 in doses
of several hundreds of milligrams
daily in treatment of some conditions.
To obtain such amounts of those isolated B-complex vitamins in natural
form, the patients would have to consume brewer's yeast powder by the
bushel. To get 5,000-10,000 mg. of
Vitamin C, which is often used by biologically oriented doctors to treat
severe cases of acute poisoning or
severe colds and infection, again the
patient would have to consume many
pounds of rosehips. And, what about
intravenous injections of vitamins?
You cannot very well use brewer's
yeast power or rosehips extract for
this purpose!
When we deal with the science of
nutrition, we must not be fanatics
and try to put everything in terms of
black and white! Common sense is the
most important quality a responsible
nutritionist or nutrition-oriented doctor
must possess. 100% natural vitamins are definitely best when used
for general or prophylactic purposes.
But when large doses of certain vitamins are required, synthetic vitamins
must be used. Fortunately, most vitamins, even in large doses, can be
obtained from 100% natural sources.
Vitamins A, D, and E are such vitamins. B-complex vitamins cannot
be concentrated in strong potencies
from natural sources, however.
Every time you see a bottle of
B-complex vitamins with the stated
potency of more than 10 mg. of B1,
B2, B3, or B6 per tablet, you can be
sure that they are synthetic even if
the label does not mention that fact.
Please, also keep in mind that
every time you take large doses of one
or more of the available B-vitamins
(as you are doing), it may result in
severe imbalances and deficiencies
in your body of other B-complex
vitamins. Therefore, when isolated B
vitamins are used for some specific
condition, they should always be
accompanied by the whole B-vitamin
complex, with two or three tablespoonfuls of
brewer's yeast - a concentrated source of natural B vitamins.
Q.
I have been eating everything raw
and natural for over a year. I am convinced that cooked foods are dead
foods, and will produce nothing but
disease and death. In your book,
you said that "cooked food is dead
food - only living foods can build
healthy bodies." I was shocked,
therefore, to hear you say at a
recent lecture that 80% of food
should be eaten raw. Why not
100%? Have you changed your
mind? Why eat cooked food at all? - Mr. M.S., Los Angeles, CA.
A.
No, I haven't changed my mind. I
still advocate eating most foods in
their natural, raw state. Raw foods
are generally more healthful than
cooked foods. Cooking destroys many
vitamins, leeches out some minerals,
and changes the biochemical nature
of proteins and fats, making them less
assimilable or less biologically active.
All fruits, nuts, seeds, and most
vegetables can be and should be
eaten raw for the best nutritional
value. Many grains, some seeds, and
some beans can be sprouted: alfalfa
seeds, mung beans, soybeans, wheat,
buckwheat, and sunflower seeds can
be sprouted and eaten raw. Most
grains and beans, however, should
never be eaten raw. They are, in
fact, better cooked.
There are two
reasons: 1) Minerals and trace elements in them are chemically bound
with phytic acid and the human
digestive system cannot break it
down and make these minerals available for assimilation unless these
grains are cooked or sprouted. This is
the reason I recommend cooking such
grains as rye, millet, buckwheat,
rice, and corn; 2) Some foods contain toxins and enzyme inhibitors
which must be destroyed by cooking
before they can be eaten. Raw
legumes fall into this category. Most
legumes contain a substance called
"toxalbumins", which is toxic in the
raw state. Other toxic and harmful
substances in many legumes are the
trypsin inhibitors, so-called because
of their ability to inhibit the action of the enzyme trypsin, found
in the digestive tract of men and animals
(according to Dr. Irvin Liener of the
University of Minnesota). It was established in actual studies almost 50
years ago by Osborne and Mendell
(JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, 32, 369, 1917) that the
proteins in soybeans, for example,
unless the beans are cooked for
several hours, would not be absorbed
by the body. The mechanics of this
are simple. Trypsin, normally present in the digestive tract, helps in the
absorption of protein. The trypsin inhibitor interferes with the action of
trypsin. The result: proteins are not
digested or assimilated properly.
Trypsin inhibitors are not the only
dangerous elements in legumes. They
also contain a goiterogenic factor,
which blocks the uptake of iodine by
the thyroid gland and may lead to the
development of goiter. Legumes also
contain chemical substances called
hemagglutinins, which interfere with
intestinal absorption of nutrients by
combining with the cells lining the intestinal wall. Raw sweet peas, for
example, contain both hemagglutinin
and a trypsin inhibitor. Raw lima
beans contain a complex glucoside
that releases hydrocyanic acid, a
deadly poison. Raw fava beans are
toxic too, and if eaten in large quantity may lead to the development of
hemolytic anemia, a characteristic of
favism, which is quite common in
some of the Mediterranean countries.
Even some vegetables contain toxic
and undesirable factors. Spinach and
rhubarb contain an excess of oxalic
acid, which is very toxic. Oxalic acid
blocks the absorption of calcium and
can cause severe kidney damage.
Such common foods as cabbage,
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and kale contain factors that
can contribute to the development of
goiter.
Most of these toxic and undesirable
factors in grains, legumes, and
vegetables are removed or destroyed
by appropriate methods of cooking.
In leafy green vegetables, it is often
sufficient to discard the cooking
water after short cooking. Most
beans must be cooked for several
hours before the toxic factors are
destroyed.
The reason I decided to give an
in-depth answer on this issue is
because there are so many sincere
health seekers today who are easily
swayed from the truth by some raw
food advocates whose arguments are
more emotional than scientific. Use
your common sense! Of course, most
foods are better eaten raw. But down
through the ages, man has learned
(by instinct and experimentation) to
extend his diet, including many
plants previously inedible, by detoxifying them.
Cooking is one of the detoxifying methods man has developed.
Since, in forming my conclusions,
I depend heavily on empirical evidence (the eating habits of people
known for their superior health,
rather than laboratory or animal
studies); it is significant to me that
the diets of all people known for their exceptional health and long-life, such
exceptional health and long-life, such
as the Hunzas, Russians, Abkhasians, Bulgarians, and Yucatan
Indians, contain large amounts of
cooked foods. The staple food in the
Hunza diet is chapati, a cooked
wheat pancake, which they eat
several times a day. The staples of
Yucatan Indians and the Vilcabamba
inhabitants of Ecuador are tortillas
and beans. Bread, vegetable soups,
and buckwheat and millet cereals are
staple foods of Russians and Bulgarians.
You must admit that all these
"dead" foods haven't damaged the
health of these people, who are
known for their super stamina, long
life, and absence of disease.
There are obvious advantages in
eating most foods raw. But there
seem to be exceptions to every rule
and the raw food rule is no exception.
We must avoid fanaticism in every
phase of our lives, including nutrition. Common sense and moderation
are the key words which will help you
to stay on the right track.
Q.
The more I read about fasting the
more convinced I become that one
day I will muster up enough courage
to try it. I have read several books on
fasting, but I am still confused on the
need for enemas. Some writers say
that enemas are not needed during
fasting, referring to the fact that most
animals instinctively fast when sick,
but do not take enemas. In your
fasting book, you insist on an enema
every day. Since the very thought of
enemas turns me off, do I really need them? Would it be harmful to fast
them? Would it be harmful to fast
without enemas? Somehow, taking
enemas doesn't seem very natural to
me. - Ms. P.F., Santa Monica, Calif.
A.
When you "muster up enough
courage" and finally undertake your
first fast, I sincerely hope that you will do it with enemas. Fasting
without enemas is definitely undesirable and will do you more harm than
good. During fasting a huge amount
of morbid matter, dead cells, and
diseased tissues are burned; and the
toxic wastes which have been accumulated in the tissues for years,
causing disease and premature aging, are loosened and expelled from
the system.These wastes are eliminated from the system by way of kidneys,
bowels, skin and lungs. But the alimentary canal, the bowels, is the
main road by which these toxins are
thrown out of the body. Since, during fasting, the natural bowel movements
cease to take place, the toxic wastes would have no way of leaving the
system, except with the help of
enemas. If you fast without enemas,
these toxins remain in your colon and
are re-absorbed into the system,
poisoning your whole body. Your
body will try to get them out through
other eliminative organs, particularly
through the kidneys, which, as a
result, will often be overloaded and
even damaged.
This is why enemas during fasting
are an absolute must. Enemas during
fasting will assist the body in its
cleansing and detoxifying effort by
washing out all the toxic wastes from
the alimentary canal.
Enemas should be taken at least
once, but preferably twice a day: the
first thing in the morning and the last
thing before going to bed. One pint to
one quart of lukewarm water is
sufficient. Enema bags are available
in any drugstore.
Enemas are easy to take, just
follow the explicit directions in my
fasting book.
Regarding animals which do not
take enemas, I don't think this is a
sufficiently valid scientific reason for
us to follow their example. Animals
also do not go to concerts, nor read
books (nor write them!), nor do they
violate knowingly so many health
laws as the more enlightened, civilized human beings do. Fasting is an
extremely effective healing modality,
and has been used as such by doctors
for centuries. At present, Germany
and Russia are two countries where
therapeutic fasting is used scientifically by many
doctors and hospitals. Throughout the years, these
fasting experts have developed the
most effective ways of fasting: fasting with the quickest and most effective
therapeutic results, with the least
amount of stress on the patient. All
these experts agree that enemas
during prolonged therapeutic fasting
minimize the stress of fasting, and
enhance its healing effect. Consequently, enemas during fasting are
an improvement over the original,
primitive form of fasting without
enemas, which is practiced by
animals.
Q.
I know that you believe eggs are
not necessary in the Optimum Diet.
But I do like eggs, and since I now do
not eat meat at all, I like to have eggs
occasionally. Are they harmful? And
if not, what is the best way to eat
eggs? - R.P., St. Paul, Minnesota
A.
The diet with the greatest potential for optimum health, long life, and
prevention of disease is based on
three basic food groups (in this order
of importance):
Complete high quality nutrition
with adequate amounts of proteins,
fats, and carbohydrates, can be
obtained from these three basic food
groups, provided you eat all your
food whole, unprocessed, and organically grown. This diet can be
supplemented with milk or milk
products, preferably in soured form,
such as yogurt, kefir, buttermilk, or
clabbered milk, and cheeses, preferably homemade cottage cheese. Since
our soils are depleted, and we now
live in a very toxic environment, with
polluted air and water, I recommend
supplementing this diet with vitamins
and minerals and special food supplements such as brewer's yeast,
kelp, rose hips, bone meal tablets,
fish liver oil, lecithin, etc. If you wish, you may add some other animal
proteins to this basic diet, such as
meat, fish, or eggs, as long as you do
not overdo, keeping in mind that
excess of protein in the diet is
definitely harmful. Two eggs, two or
three times a week, would be
acceptable. Here is the best way,
from the nutritional standpoint, to eat
eggs: separate egg yolk from white,
and poach only the egg white. Slightly
cool the poached egg white, then mix
with the raw egg yolk. It will taste
like regular soft boiled egg. The egg
white must always be cooked, as it
contains avidin, a chemical substance that interferes with biotin (a
B-vitamin) synthesis in the intestines.
Use only fertile eggs from organically-fed, free-range chickens, as
they are safer and more nutritious (sold in health food stores).
Q.
I am 22 years old and have been eating health foods for several
years. I've been through many diet regimes, such as macrobiotic,
Ehret's system, Natural Hygiene, and others, and mixtures of them.
I've begun reading your books and they make a lot of sense. But
there is one thing that I can't quite accept: vitamin pills. Does
one really need supplements if one is eating a raw and sprouted
organic diet? I can see it if someone is old or sick, but a healthy,
young person should, it would seem to me, do fine on a diet like
mine. Pills seem unnatural. - B.G., Anaheim, Calif.
A.
Although you
would need less vitamins, minerals, and other supplements than
someone who is older and in worse condition than you, still you
must supplement your diet if you wish to remain healthy. Why? Because
our modern lifestyle is not very natural and we are subject to
environmental toxins which undermine even
apparent health. Although you may be in good condition now,
sooner or later this stress will take its toll.
Keep these facts in mind:
Exercise
Synthetic Vitamins
Raw Foods and Common Sense
Fasting and Enema
Eggs
Do we need supplements?
To counteract all the above mentioned negative influences of your environment,
you must take vitamins and supplements.
They will help to protect your health and prevent disease.
As mentioned in a special chapter on environmental pollution in
my book, How To Get Well, many
vitamins and minerals possess specific protective and
detoxifying properties against our many environmental
poisons in food, air, and water.
Although your idea of getting all the
vitamins and minerals you need from
the foods you eat seems logical,
indeed - and would have been correct and sensible 100 or even 50
years ago - today, vitamins and supplements in a "pill" form can be
life-saving, even at your age.