natural antibiotics?

[dave75]

Hi gang, from the link below, i found the following info on "natural antibiotics" - has anyone tried anything like this with any success?

http://www.reikinurse.com/naturalabx.html


While antibiotics are appropriate and effective cures they are outrageously overprescribed. This is unnecessary since there are natural alternatives to treat most conditions. Many types of bacteria have become antibiotic-resistant due to the overprescription.

Antibiotics are only effective against bacteria. They are completely useless against viruses, fungi, worms and parasites. Using these drugs can also cause an overgrowth of candida, yeast, and fungi. Frequent use can even depress your immune system, stimulate allergies, and damage organs such as the liver and kidneys.

Remember that if you are nursing or pregnant to always check with the practitioner of your choice first, since some herbs and supplements, although natural, can have harmful effects on the baby.

Yes, you can have allergic reactions to natural and herbal supplements!!! If you notice any pain or swelling of the throat, hives on the body, nausea, increase in body temperature after taking a supplement, seek medical attention.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbs
Alcohol extracted tinctures of herbs are the most potent medicinal form, they may have a sour or bitter taste that may make you opt for capsule form.

Separate preparations of herbal supplements are preferred to the "combo" ones, so you can optimize the dose and frequency of each.

Sage, Thyme, Oregano, and Parsley are herbs you can add to your food that are considered antimicrobial. Oregano is good for chest, lung, and yeast infections. For throat infections, steep one tablespoon of fresh sage in hot water for half an hour. Strain the mixture, gargle and swallow.

Here is an excellent resource page I found about Medicinal Herb Preparation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Garlic
Family: Amaryllidacae, Genus and Species : Allium sativum
Garlic has a long proven history as an effective antibiotic, antiviral, antiparasitic, and antifungal. It was used in WWI to prevent wound infections and by Albert Schweitzer to treat dysentery in Africa. The Russians used it in WWII when their supply of penicillin was scarce. It's active compound allicin, is as useful an agent against staph and strep as some of the heaviest hitting meds, and has even been shown to kill antibiotic-resistant strains of these bacteria. It is a broad-spectrum anibiotic and has often been called a "wonder drug". Herbalists recommend eating one clove of chopped raw garlic two to three times per day (added to food). Garlic Oil can also be taken internally. Place 20-30 drops in your ear for ear infections, three times a day. Ideally a raw clove is chewed or crushed. It can also be applied directly to the skin. Try taking deodorized garlic capsules three times per day if you are worried about garlic breath.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echinacea
Family : Compositae, Genus and Species : Echinacea angustifolia, E. purpurea
This is an increasingly poplular supplement that fights bacteria, viruses, and microorganisms. It was one of the Native Americans most used healing herbs. It stimulates production of immune-modulating T cells and B cells. Also, it does kill a braod range of disease causing viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa. Like garlic, it is comparible to penicillin. Take one teaspoon of echinacea tincture at the onset of symptoms, and one teaspoon every two hours for the first two days, then drop to one teaspoon three times per day. You can also add two teaspoons of the dried root in one cup of water and boil, then simmer for 15 minutes. Drink up to three cups per day. Do not give to children under the age of 2, and start with lower doses for those over age 65. Do not take echinacea for more than ten consecutive days or you may develop a resistance!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldenseal
Family : Ranunculaceae, Genus and Species : Hydrastis canadensis
This antibiotic and potential immune stimulant was once collected to the point of near extinction. Studies show that berberine, the alkaliod extracted from goldenseal, blocks streptococci from colonizing in the body. It may aid in the treatment of bacterial, fungal, and protozoal infections. It has been used for dysentery and cholera. Indian researchers have found berberine to be more effective against cholera than the powerful antibiotic, Chloromycetin. Take 20-30 drops or three capsules three times per day for a maximum of ten days. Also, you can boil one half to one teaspoon in one cup of water and steep ten minutes. Drink up to two cups per day. Do not take goldenseal if you are pregnant as berberine is a potential uterine stimulant!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Grape Root
Family : Berberidaceae, Genus and Species : B. aquifolium or Mahonia aquifolium
Another berberine containing herb, like goldenseal. It is very closely related to Barberry Root Bark (see below). Do not take Oregon Grape Root if you are pregnant as berberine is a potential uterine stimulant!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barberry Root Bark
Family : Berberidaceae, Genus and Species : Berberis vulgaris
Contains berberine like goldenseal, which explains it's similar antibiotic effect. It was used by ancient Egyptians, American Indians, and India's Ayurvedic healers. It was also an ingredient in the anti-cancer Hoxsey Formula marketed in the 1950's in the U.S. It is an immune stimulant and may shrink tumors. A compress can treat pinkeye - soak a clean cloth in a barbery infusion. The herb's edible berries also make jams and jellies. Studies how it is effective against staph- and streptococci, salmonella, shigella, E. coli and Candida. It is also used to treat dysentary and cholera. Use half a teaspoon boiled in one cup of water for 20-30 minutes. Drink cool and up to one cup per day. Do not give to children under the age of 2, and start with lower doses for those over age 65. Do not take barberry root bark if you are pregnant as berberine is a potential uterine stimulant!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Indigo
This herb is not as well known, however, it is an extremely powerful antibiotic and anti-inflammatory. Its active ingredient, baptitoxine, detoxifies the liver and blood. Herbalists recommend its use for swollen glands, strep or sore throat, mouth sores, tonsilitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and food or blood poisoning. Take five to ten drops of the tincture every three or four hours. Diminish the dose if you feel nauseaus (probably due to detoxification/release of stored toxins into the bloodstream ready for excretion from the body)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eucalyptus
Family : Myrtaceae, Genus and Species: Eucalyptus globulus
This is the sole food source for the cute marsupial, the koala. You've probably used it before in Listerine, Vick's VapoRub, or Dristan. It is a powerful decongestant with a very sharp and distinctly recognizable odor. This is a natural antiseptic that kills bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Russian studies show that it kills the influenza virus. It's used internally to treat tuberculosis and chronic coughs. Externally, it can be rubbed on the chest or back for respiratory infections. It can be used as an inhalant (boil a handful of the dried leaves) or an herbal bath. Use one to two teaspoons of the dried crushed leaves per cup of boiling water. Steep ten minutes. Drink up to two cups a day. You can also substitute one or two drops of the essential oil for the leaves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bee Products
Raw Unfiltered Honey has been used since ancient Egypian times as an effective topical antibiotic to treat cuts, burns, and scrapes, just slap it on!

Rarely, raw honey can become infected with botulism, a dangerous bacteria. Never give honey to children under one year of age!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Castleman, Michael, The Healing Herbs - The Ultimate Guide to the Curative Power of Nature's Medicines, Bantam Books, New York, 1995

Wald, Robin, M.S., Antiobiotic Alternatives - Drug-Free Solutions to Sometime-Destructive Infection-Fighters, Natural Living Today, January/February 2000, p. 39-42

[Yvette]

Thanks Dave. Good information.

Yvette

[dave75]

thanks yvette, i may have to give some of these herbs a go and see what happens. it doesn't look like anyone around here has tried them....

[Yvette]

Hi Dave,

I take a few of these and a host of other supplements. I take some anti-fungal supplements - grapefruit and neem supplement (called UGN), caprylic acid, garlic, oregano, and olive leaf. I pick two and take twice daily for two weeks. Then I'll pick another two and take for two weeks. This is because fungus can learn to adapt over-time if you take the same supplement. They have helped a bit with my breakouts.

Let us know what you try and how it works.

Cheers,

Yvette

[dave75]

cool thanks yvette...sounds like some supplements have been helpfu! I've changed my diet a bit to at least have my lunches be all live food..basically fancy salads...i feel so much better after making the change..i also think it has helped some with my rosacea..but i can't go full on live food every meal...i have cooked food, protein etc for dinner still.

[Yvette]

You're welcome Dave. I'm glad you are seeing some improvement.

By all means, the supplements/antifungals aren't a cure all, nothing is, but I think it's important to tackle this disease from all angles. One thing alone won't give much results, so you have to be pro-active and find a few things that work fairly well to keep the Rosacea more in check. Yeah, I eat a lot of salads and veggies too, but same as you, I eat chicken and other cooked foods. I steer clear of greasy things and cheese products when I can.

Please keep in touch on how things go.

Yvette

[dave75]

yvette, i totally agree - we need to attack rosacea with several tools to really get the job done..i had a rough winter with the rosacea, but i got pissed, did vbeam, popped 200mg minocycline every day for 2 weeks, started eating healthier and now even applying some metro creme lol...oh and now I pop 20mg doxy 2x day cause the oracea runs me $210 per month..but i'm doing much better now! so i hope it continues...

one thing about eating live, raw food...it makes me really notice the difference from cooked food. cooked food saps the energy right out of our bodies like a high pressure vacuum. our body has to manufacture the enzymes to break the crap cooked food down. raw foods already have the enzymes and free our body's energy up to do other things (hopefully heal). we also get the phytonutrients from raw food (which supposedly helps turn on good healing genes to do their job) and is flush with vitamins. cooking food over like 100 degrees or so destroys almost all of these benefits. Now, if I could just do raw food 3 meals per day....not going to happen any time soon with me lol. The raw food diet is pretty restrictive and not always the tastiest. maybe i can slowly add more and more raw food. we'll see if i have the courage. Also, i just like meats now and then, so i'm not going to give that up right away.

[MissD]

What makes you think that antifungals will help with rosacea? Or any of these other supplements for that matter? Have there been actual studies to prove their effectiveness or is it all just placebo?

one thing about eating live, raw food...it makes me really notice the difference from cooked food. cooked food saps the energy right out of our bodies like a high pressure vacuum. our body has to manufacture the enzymes to break the crap cooked food down. raw foods already have the enzymes and free our body's energy up to do other things (hopefully heal). we also get the phytonutrients from raw food (which supposedly helps turn on good healing genes to do their job) and is flush with vitamins. cooking food over like 100 degrees or so destroys almost all of these benefits. Now, if I could just do raw food 3 meals per day....not going to happen any time soon with me lol. The raw food diet is pretty restrictive and not always the tastiest. maybe i can slowly add more and more raw food. we'll see if i have the courage. Also, i just like meats now and then, so i'm not going to give that up right away.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin, nor do I have time.

Magical Enzymes

According to the rawbies, the magic of raw foods lies in the unaltered enzymes they contain. Hold on while I grab my biochem text--

Ah, good, here it is: "An enzyme is a type of protein molecule specifically adapted to catalyze biochemical reactions, such as those occurring in metabolism."

Let me 'splain--no there is too much, let me sum up: many of the chemical reactions that cause us to live and breathe would, in a test tube, take a very, very long time. Enzymes "catalyze", or speed up these reactions. Enzymes are proteins, and each functions in a very narrow range of temperature and pH (acidity). They are adapted for specific functions in specific environments. We sometimes take advantage of these enzymes culinarily, for instance, in meat tenderizers--but they are not magical. They are, though, remarkable. Our body runs like a bloody machine--block certain enzymatic reactions by, for instance, ingesting cyanide--and you die.

So, how do the rawbies define enzyme? Let's see: "Enzymes assist in the digestion of foods. They are known to be the "Life-Force" and or "energy" of food."

Um, not very scientific. Some enzymes do assist in digestion. We make those all by ourselves, and they are adapted to the specific environment in which they operate. They are not "known to be the life-force or energy of food." I don't know what a "life force" is, but I do know what energy is. Energy in food is stored in the building blocks of the food itself...carbohydrates such as sugars are the easiest to work with, but we also obtain energy from the digestion of proteins and fats.

But raw food is more natural, isn't it?

I don't know if it's more natural. Humans harnessed fire a very long time ago. At any rate, is natural better? Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no. If you don't cook your food, you certainly need to be more careful about food poisoning--cooking and pasteurization is what has saved us from much of that. But, a careful shopper and food-preparer can do a pretty good job (but not a perfect job). Salmonella is natural. So is botulism, tape worms, etc. But there is no question that humans can survive on a raw food diet. The question is, do we need to?

I'm confused and I like hamburgers

Consider your confusion at an end. Read some Michael Pollan. Humans are remarkable omnivores. Eat what you wish. We seem to do best on a diet of less meat and more plants, and, especially, fewer calories. You will not suffer any major nutritional deficiencies from cooking most of your food. Salads are great for you, and don't taste very good if you boil them. Eat less, enjoy more, and stay away from food woo.

Brought to you by real doctors (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/eat_it_raw_itsmagic.php).

[Yvette]

Hi -

I'm not taking anti-fungals for my Rosacea, but for my folliculitis. I've read numerous articles and posts on the internet that anti-fungals can help kill fungus that cause candida and potential skin problems. I do many things to tackle my Rosacea, folliculitis, and mild acne: several supplements, good diet, exercise, laser treatments, topicals, and low dose antibiotics. This regimen helps me, one thing alone will not yield good results, and as you know nothing will cure Rosacea, but can only reduce it's symptoms. We each have our own set(s) of triggers and skin types - what works for one may/may not work for another. Many of us have a host of other secondary health issues as well, some are: IBS/GI issues, thyroid, sinusitis, allergies, Reynaud's, etc... There is likely a connection between these and Rosacea and flare-ups.

Yvette

[MissD]

Ah, ok. Apologies! I was going to say... rosacea caused by fungus? shock:

[J-Mill]

What makes you think that antifungals will help with rosacea? Or any of these other supplements for that matter? Have there been actual studies to prove their effectiveness or is it all just placebo?


There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin, nor do I have time.



Brought to you by real doctors (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/eat_it_raw_itsmagic.php).

I am not a huge believer in the whole raw diet thing but I would say that it couldn't do any harm that I can see. Rosacea is a strange disease and certain diets will help people and there doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason to it.

Believing something works may in fact be the best medicine. Where is GJ on this, someone's hopes are being doused!

Seriously have a celery stick for me Dave! If it works do it.

As for anti-fungals another point would be that seb derm overlaps in (at last estimate) 30%+ cases of Rosacea. Many people may not even know they have it, attirbuting the redness and scaling to Rosacea. They may actually improve on anti-fungals. Even without seb derm, many anti-fungals are powerful anti-inflammatories and may help Rosacea that way.

[phlika29]

Many people with rosacea also have other skin conditions and therefore find great benefit from taking antifungals and anti-inflammatory medication. If it helps one condition that in turn tends to help the other. I find that if my seb derm is bad then so is my rosacea.

[phlika29]

Opps I see j-mill already made the point about anti fungals.

[MissD]

I know about the seb derm, but whenever I see the word 'rosacea' it makes me think of just flushing and redness, not any conditions sometimes associated with it. That's what got me a bit confused. blush:

[J-Mill]

Opps I see j-mill already made the point about anti fungals.

carrot:

[valby]

I know about the seb derm, but whenever I see the word 'rosacea' it makes me think of just flushing and redness, not any conditions sometimes associated with it. That's what got me a bit confused. blush:

Huh? But it Rosacea isn't just flushing and redness; it is also papules, pustules and swelling....they are not "associated" they are part of rosacea.

[MissD]

Huh? But it Rosacea isn't just flushing and redness; it is also papules, pustules and swelling....they are not "associated" they are part of rosacea.

Yes, but since I only have the flushing that's what I automatically think when I see the word rosacea. Sorry for all the confusion.

[GJ]

I
Where is GJ on this, someone's hopes are being doused!



It rather depends on whose being doused and whose doing the dousing.

You can tell from Dave's photo that he is an amiable, intelligent and open sort.
Open, certainly, to the closedness of others.

[dave75]

miss D - i'm not sure what you mean by "there are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin, nor do I have time" What is wrong exactly? I'm only spouting off what a supposed expert in the field told me. his name is Dr. Gabriel Cousens - he has written a few books on the subject. It looks like you are referencing an author that promotes cooked meats, which is great. One expert has one opinion, the other has a different one, and the arguing goes in perpetual circles. Unless something has entered into my experience, then I have to admit to myself that I do not know. If I don’t admit that I do not know, the possibility of knowing will not happen. I personally have no real scientific evidence about what foods are best, etc, all I know is that when I eat raw food (fruits and veggies only - I don’t eat raw meat), I don’t get the feeling that I want to pass out, compared to a cooked high protein meal that makes me feel sluggish. I’m just hopeful that raw foods can aid in helping my body fight rosacea a little better that’s all. I’m not really sure what your arguments support exactly. Are you totally against raw foods?

thanks GJ, ya its all good...everyone has their own opinion...I respect that :)

[MissD]

I think it might be safe to say that that author is no expert if that's what you got it from, because everything about that is completely wrong. I don't completely oppose raw foods however, it's just that cooking releases a lot more nutrients from the food. It takes away some, sure, but it's a minuscule amount.

Anyway, sorry about the rather sharp comment. It was cold and windy outside yesterday and all I could do was sit inside - obviously that made me more grouchy than usual. blush:

[dave75]

no worries missd, we just have differing viewpoints....wow ya dr. cousens is very adamant about how cooking degrades vitamins...i think he told me 70%ish of the vitamins go poof. He also talked about how cooked foods and too much cooked protein have been big causes of cancer..It sounds like we have sources with very divergent views. My body is a happy camper on raw foods, but I also still do crave cooked meats now and then...I don't think i could hanldle a purely raw food diet..sugary stuff also gives me the k.o. punch...i have to be careful not to go too bananas with the sugar.

[MissD]

I actually eat raw foods much of the time; I think almost everybody does. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains... and I'm starting to dislike the taste of meat as well, save for seafood. I could never give up that smile: As for cooking and nutrients, you may find this interesting http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071224125524.htm

[Pale-elf]

I think it might be safe to say that that author is no expert if that's what you got it from, because everything about that is completely wrong. I don't completely oppose raw foods however, it's just that cooking releases a lot more nutrients from the food. It takes away some, sure, but it's a minuscule amount.


Let me introduce myself a *not an expert*.

What I do know is that on a 100% raw fruit-veg-and-nuts ONLY diet my rosacea, which is significant along with all the bumps and papules and flaky dry skin and all that jazz, improved to the point where it almost completely disappeared. The only reason I am not on a 100% raw fruits and veggies and nuts diet to this day is because it's incredibly expensive.

I would disagree that cooking "releases" more nutrients from the food, because it's a scientific fact that heat breaks down several types of vitamins. I believe the benefit of cooking is that it makes certain foods (like meat) safer and EASIER to digest, saves you the work of extra chewing, and basically starts the digestive process for you. The difference between a mushy, boiled carrot that is practically a paste, and a raw carrot is obvious. Of course it's going to be more work for your body to break down and digest chunks of raw carrot, and for certain people who's bodies are already being taxed, like when you are sick or elderly or fresh out of surgery, you should actually AVOID raw food.

As far as the amount of nutrients, all you need to do is look at a can of green beans or other veggy and see what percentage of your daily vitamins and minerals it contains, as opposed to a bag of fresh raw veggies of the same type. Much, much higher in the raw food. In fact, eating canned or processed vegetables from a nutritional point of view is practically worthless. These are things I know from experience and also learned about in my college nutrition class as part of my pre-med studies. Again - I'm not an expert, but I have done my research.

As for what is natural, our bodies have been evolving for a very long time, and we were human long before we had fire, before we had agriculture, before we had dairy or bread or twinkies. The most natural diet based on an evolutionary perspective is ripe, raw, fruits, nuts and veggies with occasional meat. Think about what a caveman would or could eat. That is the food our bodies have evolved for, and the recent major changes in our diets due to modern life are completely un-natural.

I also find it amusing that on the article link that you posted two "related article" links were titled "Boiling Broccoli Ruins Its Anti-cancer Properties" and "Cubing Potatoes Before Boiling Can Reduce Mineral Content By 75%." And there is nothing in the article to state that cooking all foods makes them healthier or more nutritious, just that certain types of cooking, depending on the vegetable don't RUIN it's nutritional content, or in the case of broccoli in particular, may release more of ONE type of nutrient. Certainly no one made any across-the-board statements that cooking your vegetables is fabulous and makes them all full of more vitamins then they had to begin with. And considering that most people are going to be adding salt, spices and OIL to the foods they are cooking, that also significantly lowers the "healthy-factor."

[MissD]

Let me introduce myself a *not an expert*.

What I do know is that on a 100% raw fruit-veg-and-nuts ONLY diet my rosacea, which is significant along with all the bumps and papules and flaky dry skin and all that jazz, improved to the point where it almost completely disappeared. The only reason I am not on a 100% raw fruits and veggies and nuts diet to this day is because it's incredibly expensive.

It's wonderful you've got your rosacea under control now, but are you certain it was due to eating raw? Were you taking any medications at the time?

I would disagree that cooking "releases" more nutrients from the food, because it's a scientific fact that heat breaks down several types of vitamins. I believe the benefit of cooking is that it makes certain foods (like meat) safer and EASIER to digest, saves you the work of extra chewing, and basically starts the digestive process for you. The difference between a mushy, boiled carrot that is practically a paste, and a raw carrot is obvious. Of course it's going to be more work for your body to break down and digest chunks of raw carrot, and for certain people who's bodies are already being taxed, like when you are sick or elderly or fresh out of surgery, you should actually AVOID raw food.

It depends on the food you're cooking. Cooking onions, for example, releases antioxidants you would not otherwise get. Yes, heating food does leach some nutrients (and it depends on the cooking method) but it releases others as well, as I've mentioned before. And if you end up with a mushy carrot that's "practically a paste", you're doing it wrong.

As far as the amount of nutrients, all you need to do is look at a can of green beans or other veggy and see what percentage of your daily vitamins and minerals it contains, as opposed to a bag of fresh raw veggies of the same type. Much, much higher in the raw food. In fact, eating canned or processed vegetables from a nutritional point of view is practically worthless. These are things I know from experience and also learned about in my college nutrition class as part of my pre-med studies. Again - I'm not an expert, but I have done my research.

If you've done your research then you should also know that raw vegetables can lose nutrients too depending how fresh they are and how long they've been exposed to light and air.

As for what is natural, our bodies have been evolving for a very long time, and we were human long before we had fire, before we had agriculture, before we had dairy or bread or twinkies. The most natural diet based on an evolutionary perspective is ripe, raw, fruits, nuts and veggies with occasional meat. Think about what a caveman would or could eat. That is the food our bodies have evolved for, and the recent major changes in our diets due to modern life are completely un-natural.

"Cavemen" as you put it also evolved to cook food and we have been doing it for literally thousands of years. Modern vegetables, by the way, are not natural. They've been genetically altered by humans.

I also find it amusing that on the article link that you posted two "related article" links were titled "Boiling Broccoli Ruins Its Anti-cancer Properties" and "Cubing Potatoes Before Boiling Can Reduce Mineral Content By 75%." And there is nothing in the article to state that cooking all foods makes them healthier or more nutritious, just that certain types of cooking, depending on the vegetable don't RUIN it's nutritional content, or in the case of broccoli in particular, may release more of ONE type of nutrient. Certainly no one made any across-the-board statements that cooking your vegetables is fabulous and makes them all full of more vitamins then they had to begin with. And considering that most people are going to be adding salt, spices and OIL to the foods they are cooking, that also significantly lowers the "healthy-factor."

I find it amusing that you apparently didn't even read (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629080409.htm) the articles (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070515102538.htm). The potato one states that you are better off boiling potatoes whole instead of cubing them as the cubing and shredding itself reduces minerals. As for the broccoli:

However the researchers found that storage of fresh vegetables at much lower temperatures such as −85 °C (much higher than for storage in a refrigerator at 4–8 °C) may cause significant loss of glucosinolates up to 33% by fracture of vegetable material during thawing.

The researchers found that preparation of Brassica vegetables had caused only minor reductions in glucosinolate except when they were shredded finely which showed a marked decline of glucosinolate levels with a loss of up to 75% over 6 hours after shredding.

Professor Thornalley said: "If you want to get the maximum benefit from your five portions-a-day vegetable consumption, if you are cooking your vegetables boiling is out. You need to consider stir frying steaming or micro-waving them."

In sum, cooking methods may vary in certain foods but all in all, it's best to get nutrition from a variety of things including both cooked and raw veggies.

[Pale-elf]

It's wonderful you've got your rosacea under control now, but are you certain it was due to eating raw? Were you taking any medications at the time?

Yes I am certain, I changed nothing except my diet.

And it's not under control at the moment because I can't afford to purchase that much fresh organic produce, but when I was on the diet, the rosacea and all it's complications were almost completely gone in less than two weeks time and I'm sure that if I could have kept that diet up for another two weeks you would have never known anything was *ever* wrong with my skin.

Raw food consumption would not have the massive following that it does and success stories for treating all sorts of conditions (from skin problems, to fibromyalgia, migranes, obesity, etc) that you can find all over health forums on the web if it did not significantly impact your body in a positive way.


It depends on the food you're cooking. Cooking onions, for example, releases antioxidants you would not otherwise get. Yes, heating food does leach some nutrients (and it depends on the cooking method) but it releases others as well, as I've mentioned before. And if you end up with a mushy carrot that's "practically a paste", you're doing it wrong.

If it's releasing something you would not otherwise get, then it's not something you naturally need, as our bodies evolved BEFORE we had the ability to steam, fry, microwave and boil our food.

And I never suggested that you should turn your carrots into boiled paste, or that I do, I was making an example. If you were feeding a baby and making babyfood, you would boil the carrots and other things until they were thoroughly done mush - what I'm saying is that its easier to digest cooked food because part of the digestion/break-down process has already been done for you. As babies have weaker digestive systems than adults, their food needs to be very well cooked. My point being is that the benefit of raw food is the higher nutrients and vitamin content and lack of additives, making raw food healthier and more nutritious for you than cooked food. However cooked food is easier to digest, so people with weaker digestive systems, lower immune systems, the elderly, etc should not eat a raw-food diet.



If you've done your research then you should also know that raw vegetables can lose nutrients too depending how fresh they are and how long they've been exposed to light and air.

And of course that is why you should eat RIPE and FRESH vegetables, not to mention organic. But the oldest produce in the produce section is still countless times more healthy and nutritious for you than that same vegetable cooked or processed. Have you looked at the nutritional label on a can of peas lately? Whats the vitamin C content? 2% of your daily value? Can of green beans? Same thing? 0% of your vitamin A? In raw form those vegetables are FULL of vitamins. Processing them turns them into little more than shells of fiber.


"Cavemen" as you put it also evolved to cook food and we have been doing it for literally thousands of years. Modern vegetables, by the way, are not natural. They've been genetically altered by humans.


Thousands of years is nothing in terms of evolutionary genetics. The earliest humans lived over two MILLION years ago. And those humans evolved from other mammals, (our closest biological relative is the chimp, with whom we share 99% of our DNA) and like other primates, early humans relied on fruits, veggies, nuts and meat when it could be found. That is our natural, evolutionary perfect diet. DNA takes a very long time to change - and it's worth noting that the concept of agriculture, and therefore all breads, cereals, pastas, rice, cheese, dairy, etc, and other such processed/artificial/cooked foods, have only been around for a mere 10,000 years. That is why someone who eats mainly fruits, veg, and meat is going to be far healthier, less likely to be obese, diabetic, have heart disease, etc than someone who lives on a diet of cheese, pasta, bread and other processed food.

There is no evidence that cavemen cooked their food. They didn't have electricity, the only potential they had for cooking their food was fire. Even if they wanted to cook their food with fire, fire isn't easy to make out of nothing, nor is it practical for a caveman to cook his every meal. They had no pots and pans for one thing... if they roasted meat on a stick, they certainly didn't saute their vegetables. And what do you think they did during the rainy season? Stop eating because they had to have their food cooked? Or is it more likely that they just ate their food the way all the other primates eat theirs?

Also, SOME modern veg are genetically changed, but not all, and those that are are modified to create more plentiful crops, nothing that changes their nutritional value. Regardless of what is or isn't being done to our crops, that doesn't change the fact that raw fruits, veg and meat is the evolutionary diet of human beings, not twinkies, french fries, cheese, bread, pasta, coca-cola and all the other empty, toxic, sugar-filled, carb-overloaded, processed and loaded-with-chemicals-and-preservatives foods that we've "invented" in the past few thousand years - a mere second on the evolutionary clock.

Think about it, if we INVENTED a food, that does not EXIST in nature, how could our bodies POSSIBLY be designed for it? That's absurd.

[MissD]

Oh boy.

The reason why this raw food fad is abundant is the same reason why cancer-curing diets or pills are - because it sells. It makes people feel good to think they are doing something positive for their health when in fact it is nothing but placebo.

If it's releasing something you would not otherwise get, then it's not something you naturally need, as our bodies evolved BEFORE we had the ability to steam, fry, microwave and boil our food.

I'd like to know where the heck you got this information from because for one thing, we are always evolving. It never stops. My ancestors may have been able to stomach raw meat but that doesn't mean I'm going to do so as well just because that is what we supposedly evolved to consume.

Thousands of years is nothing in terms of evolutionary genetics. The earliest humans lived over two MILLION years ago. And those humans evolved from other mammals, (our closest biological relative is the chimp, with whom we share 99% of our DNA) and like other primates, early humans relied on fruits, veggies, nuts and meat when it could be found. That is our natural, evolutionary perfect diet. DNA takes a very long time to change - and it's worth noting that the concept of agriculture, and therefore all breads, cereals, pastas, rice, cheese, dairy, etc, and other such processed/artificial/cooked foods, have only been around for a mere 10,000 years. That is why someone who eats mainly fruits, veg, and meat is going to be far healthier, less likely to be obese, diabetic, have heart disease, etc than someone who lives on a diet of cheese, pasta, bread and other processed food.

There is no set diet we are "supposed" to eat. Evolution has no goal. Furthermore, there is a reason why our ancestors have died out. Learning how to cook food is what has given humans a huge advantage over other animals.

I eat bread and pasta quite often and let me tell you, I am FAR from obese. We make our own bread so there's no extra crap in it, and whole grain pasta is very good for you. Just because early humans didn't eat grain doesn't automatically make it "bad".

Also, SOME modern veg are genetically changed, but not all, and those that are are modified to create more plentiful crops, nothing that changes their nutritional value.

Actually, modern fruits and vegetables have been altered by humans to increase nutritional value.

Regardless of what is or isn't being done to our crops, that doesn't change the fact that raw fruits, veg and meat is the evolutionary diet of human beings, not twinkies, french fries, cheese, bread, pasta, coca-cola and all the other empty, toxic, sugar-filled, carb-overloaded, processed and loaded-with-chemicals-and-preservatives foods that we've "invented" in the past few thousand years - a mere second on the evolutionary clock.

Twinkies, fries, and soda I can see. That stuff has partially hydrogenated oils and empty calories and I do not eat them. I eat a mostly Mediterranean-based diet that includes nuts, fruit, vegetables (cooked and raw), seafood, grains (including whole grain pasta and bread), dairy, and the occasional poultry. I'm perfectly healthy save for being underweight but that is being worked on.

So, let's establish some things we can agree on. We both think fruits, vegetables and the occasional meat is good for you. We both think processed junk food like candy, fries and soda are bad for you and should be avoided. That's great. Now can we move on to more productive things?

[Melissa W]

Ditto Miss D yes:

[Pale-elf]

Oh boy.

The reason why this raw food fad is abundant is the same reason why cancer-curing diets or pills are - because it sells. It makes people feel good to think they are doing something positive for their health when in fact it is nothing but placebo.

Eating fresh fruits and veg isn't good for you, it's just a fad? That goes against all common sense. Even if you dodn't believe that cooking fruits and vegetables ruins many heat sensitive vitamins, antioxidants, etc, you would have to see through reason that if you limited your diet to fresh fruits, veggies, nuts and meat (cooked) you would be cutting out every potential harmful, inflammatory, chemical, allergy-triggering, preservative, and otherwise bad for you substance because you would be avoiding all dairy, all processing, all gluten, all hydrogenated oils, all artificial sweeteners, etc. The reason I keep saying that raw fruits veg nuts and some meat is the natural diet, is because there is nothing natural about the "foods" that we've invented in the recent past. They don't exist in nature, therefore we are not adapted to process them.

My rosacea was not nearly cured from dietary changes due to "a placebo" effect. My skin was healing because something beneficial was happening. Whether that's because of all the extra vitamins, minerals, and antinflammatory substances I was eating, or just because I had cut out chemicals, hydrogenated oils and other garbage in processed food was what did it, I don't know, but I do know that countless people thrive on raw food, and they're not just imagining it or doing it simply to make themselves feel better.

Not everyone can do a full raw food diet, not everyone even needs to, but that doesn't mean it isn't the healthiest possible kind of diet based on how our bodies have evolved.


I'd like to know where the heck you got this information from because for one thing, we are always evolving. It never stops. My ancestors may have been able to stomach raw meat but that doesn't mean I'm going to do so as well just because that is what we supposedly evolved to consume.

I get my information from scientific facts. Books. School. Carbon dating. Anthropology. Science. Evolution takes an incredibly long time. As I said we still share 99% of our DNA with chimps... the several MILLION years it took for that 1% of our DNA to change is how long we had to have to evolve from the ancestor we have in common with chimps into homus erectus, the modern human.

I'm not sure what you mean by "we are always evolving." We are, but so incredibly slowly that we won't be different from the people we are today for another several million years. We look the same as we did a million years ago. We die from the same diseases we died from a million years ago. And our bodies have the same digestive systems they did a million years ago. No one is saying go out and eat your meat raw - with the way meat is raised these days, I hardly want to eat it at all. But the bottom line is, your body IS designed for certain substances and not for others. You're capable of digesting an apple. You're not capable of digesting metal. People run best on fresh, naturally-occurring foods found in nature. Not on chemicals, additives, preservatives, and processing.



There is no set diet we are "supposed" to eat. Evolution has no goal. Furthermore, there is a reason why our ancestors have died out. Learning how to cook food is what has given humans a huge advantage over other animals.

I eat bread and pasta quite often and let me tell you, I am FAR from obese. We make our own bread so there's no extra crap in it, and whole grain pasta is very good for you. Just because early humans didn't eat grain doesn't automatically make it "bad".[/I]

It's not about evolution having a "goal." It's about the fact that nature evolves organisms that are best adapted to their environment. And our environment before modern civilization, did not have pasta growing on trees, or coca-cola flowing in the rivers. We ate what all the other creatures ate, natural, raw, ripe, fresh food.

I am also far from obese - I weigh a hundred and five and I'm 5'4" and normally I eat anything I can because of my financial circumstances. I eat my fair share of junk, that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. But when I was able to eat an all raw food diet the health changes I noticed in my skin, in my energy level, in my digestion, sleep patterns, mood, etc were incredible and far from a placebo effect.

Grain isn't automatically bad, but it is bad for a lot of people. Grain is a very densely packed carbohydrate that should be eaten in moderation, because large amounts of carbohydrates spike your blood sugar, give you far more calories than you can use through exercise, and contribute almost nothing in terms of vitamins and minerals, especially after being cooked. I would disagree that whole grain pasta is "good" for you. Just because it's better than regular pasta, doesn't make it "good." That whole grain pasta is carbs and fiber and nothing else. Check the label. It contains no vitamin C, no vitamin A, no calcium, no iron, no omega 3's, etc. If you were to substitute that pasta with some fresh broccoli, a tomato or an apple, you'd be getting a full range of vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, still have your fiber and not as many blood-sugar-spiking carbs. If you substituted the pasta with a piece of fresh, lightly cooked fish, you'd be getting all the amino acids and Omega 3's that your body needs. Think about it this way. If ALL you ate was whole grain pasta, you'd waste away with nutritional deficiencies. But if ALL you ate were fresh fruits, veggies, nuts and meat, you wouldn't have a single nutritional deficiency.

So a little pasta may not hurt you. But it certainly does nothing to help you either.


Twinkies, fries, and soda I can see. That stuff has partially hydrogenated oils and empty calories and I do not eat them. I eat a mostly Mediterranean-based diet that includes nuts, fruit, vegetables (cooked and raw), seafood, grains (including whole grain pasta and bread), dairy, and the occasional poultry. I'm perfectly healthy save for being underweight but that is being worked on.

So, let's establish some things we can agree on. We both think fruits, vegetables and the occasional meat is good for you. We both think processed junk food like candy, fries and soda are bad for you and should be avoided. That's great. Now can we move on to more productive things?

It was never my intent to here to criticize your personal diet or anyone elses - I saw that you had stated eating raw foods was nothing but "quackery" and a "placebo effect" which I know makes no sense based on evolutionary and scientific facts.You cut out all the modern junky food and eat only things found in nature, of course you're going to be healthier. Since I have personally seen and experienced the dramatic benefits of a raw food diet, I felt it was important to show another perspective, because a raw fruits nuts veg and meat diet could very well help other rosacea sufferers on these boards.

And on the contrary, I think it has been very productive and informative discussing these issues and viewpoints so that others can read both sides and make an informed decision about their food choices. yes:

[J-Mill]

It was never my intent to here to criticize your personal diet or anyone elses - I saw that you had stated eating raw foods was nothing but "quackery" and a "placebo effect" which I know makes no sense based on evolutionary and scientific facts.You cut out all the modern junky food and eat only things found in nature, of course you're going to be healthier. Since I have personally seen and experienced the dramatic benefits of a raw food diet, I felt it was important to show another perspective, because a raw fruits nuts veg and meat diet could very well help other rosacea sufferers on these boards.

And on the contrary, I think it has been very productive and informative discussing these issues and viewpoints so that others can read both sides and make an informed decision about their food choices. yes:

I think her point was that the scientific evidence does not support that eating food raw versus cooked provides any nutritional benefit, your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. The "quackery" as I understood MissD's point was the opinion that cooking food causes some sort of nutritional net loss or damage.

As for the evolution component of eating cooked food I read this article in Wired not long ago: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/cookinghumans/

According to Richard Wrangham, a harvard professor with a PHD who has spent over 4 decades studying these issues, when we began cooking food 200,000 years ago it essentially transformed the human race, a period of physical evolution unparalleled in our history. He opines that we have actually long since adapted to eating cooked foods. Opinions being equal, I will go with the guy who has studied this for 4 decades, teaches at Harvard and has a PHD.

[Pale-elf]

I think her point was that the scientific evidence does not support that eating food raw versus cooked provides any nutritional benefit, your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. The "quackery" as I understood MissD's point was the opinion that cooking food causes some sort of nutritional net loss or damage.

As for the evolution component of eating cooked food I read this article in Wired not long ago: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/cookinghumans/

According to Richard Wrangham, a harvard professor with a PHD who has spent over 4 decades studying these issues, when we began cooking food 200,000 years ago it essentially transformed the human race, a period of physical evolution unparalleled in our history. He opines that we have actually long since adapted to eating cooked foods. Opinions being equal, I will go with the guy who has studied this for 4 decades, teaches at Harvard and has a PHD.

Many vitamins are destroyed through heat. That's not "quackery" that's scientific fact. That fresh food is good for you is common sense, not some sort of far-out-idea.

You look at any native, tribal culture around the globe, the bushmen in Africa for instance, who do not eat grain or dairy, instead eating a natural, ancestoral diet, and you will not find a single one with skin problems, obesity, diabetes or clogged arteries. What does that tell you? That our "modern" diet has created countless health problems.

Does Richard Wrangham claim that we have evolved to eat preservatives, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners and other horrendous ingredients simply because they're what's now being put into our food? The best way to stay healthy is to eat what you can find in nature. I'm not saying that grains or dairy are absolutely indigestable. I'm saying that given the fact you can only eat so many pounds of food per day, and only need so many calories per day, doesn't it make far more sense to derive those calories from the most nutritionally packed with vitamins and minerals sources that you can find, rather than empty starches (breads, pasta) and hollow fiber shells (processed and canned fruit and veg)?

You're not going to find any antioxidants in pasta. You're not going to get omega three from bread. There are no antinflammatory properties in twinkies, bagels or french fries. Anyone with skin issues should be especially careful to avoid modern processed food - I mean if the entire human race could suddenly tolerate eating plastic but it made you sick, would you eat it because Richard Wrangham said it's okay?

[TheMediumDog]

I think the reasoning behind the caveman diet makes a lot of sense.

The Wrangham article is hedged about with "if's" and contains a good dose of speculation, but even if it was true that cooking spurred the transformation of erectus' brain-size due to increased energy intake (which sounds plausible), that doesn't really bear upon the contention that an almost exclusively cooked diet is nutritionally poorer. Both of these things can be true at the same time.

The only thing I would say is that devotees of the caveman diet tend to get a bit fanatical. Ariaelf, one can kind of hear the disgust dripping off your lips as you pronounce the word "preservative". There are two points. First, we are not, I think, quite so lodged in the evolutionary niche in which we spent most of our time, as you imply. There is quite a bit of leeway. Second, there is this misuse of the word "natural". Just because something has been synthesized or processed, it doesn't mean it is therefore going to be biologically malign.

[phlika29]

It is funny how food is one of the most controversial subjects on this forum. All I will say is that as with any form of rosacea treatment it is just a matter of trial and error. What works for some wont work for others but to ignore the fact that people eat food not just for nutrients and health is a mistake. People eat for many reasons, it is often rationalities, besides health, that drive us and mean we arent able to maintain diets. Raw or not, is it sustainable? set yourself too strict a diet and you are setting yourself up for failure.



You look at any native, tribal culture around the globe, the bushmen in Africa for instance, who do not eat grain or dairy, instead eating a natural, ancestoral diet, and you will not find a single one with skin problems, obesity, diabetes or clogged arteries. What does that tell you? That our "modern" diet has created countless health problems.



Now whilst this type of comment is often brought forward as a case for a healthy diet it oversimplifies the issue. By assuming that is purely diet that has made these differences ignores the many environmental/lifestyle/cultural factors that interact and play a part. Oversimplifying it you could, assuming that bushmen dont have access for televisions, say that a lack of TV is the reason that they don't have skin problems, obesity, etc.

[Melissa W]

Oversimplifying it you could, assuming that bushmen dont have access for televisions, say that a lack of TV is the reason that they don't have skin problems, obesity, etc.

OMG Sarah...I think you have hit upon the answer.
TV and computers = cause of rosacea

Everyone quickly, shut down all your devices!

laugh:

I think it is good to have different opinions about topics as this way we all get to bounce ideas off of each other and hopefully learn in the process. As long as we can do it in a polite and respectful manner. It is interesting how food as Sarah pointed out hits the hot topic button. I guess it is a very sensitive and personal issue to many.

[MissD]

Many vitamins are destroyed through heat. That's not "quackery" that's scientific fact. That fresh food is good for you is common sense, not some sort of far-out-idea.

You look at any native, tribal culture around the globe, the bushmen in Africa for instance, who do not eat grain or dairy, instead eating a natural, ancestoral diet, and you will not find a single one with skin problems, obesity, diabetes or clogged arteries. What does that tell you? That our "modern" diet has created countless health problems.

Does Richard Wrangham claim that we have evolved to eat preservatives, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners and other horrendous ingredients simply because they're what's now being put into our food? The best way to stay healthy is to eat what you can find in nature. I'm not saying that grains or dairy are absolutely indigestable. I'm saying that given the fact you can only eat so many pounds of food per day, and only need so many calories per day, doesn't it make far more sense to derive those calories from the most nutritionally packed with vitamins and minerals sources that you can find, rather than empty starches (breads, pasta) and hollow fiber shells (processed and canned fruit and veg)?

You're not going to find any antioxidants in pasta. You're not going to get omega three from bread. There are no antinflammatory properties in twinkies, bagels or french fries. Anyone with skin issues should be especially careful to avoid modern processed food - I mean if the entire human race could suddenly tolerate eating plastic but it made you sick, would you eat it because Richard Wrangham said it's okay?

The key here is variety. If you stay on a strict diet and exclude everything that isn't "natural", there is a problem. I agree with you a lot on how it's disgusting that so many people eat nutritionally poor foods like fries, twinkies, soda and other junk and I wouldn't touch any of those things with a mile-long pole. Hell, I had some popcorn the other day only to later to find out it had partially hydrogenated oil. Know what I did? I had a fit. You would have thought I just consumed rat poison or something.

Anyway, as for the whole grain pasta - not all carbohydrates are bad. You want the complex kind, which help your body function. Refined carbs on the other hand are what contribute to obesity and other problems. And actually, whole grain products are more than just fiber. They contain many micronutrients such as iron, thiamin, niacin, folate, riboflavin and good fats, they are heart-healthy and they raise HDL cholesterol, the good kind.

It seems the only thing we truly disagree on is raw veg vs. cooked. As I said two or three times already, yes, cooking does leach some nutrients but it releases a lot more depending on the cooking method. I prefer some veggies raw, myself, such as carrots, but the fact remains that you can get plenty of good nutrition out of the cooked variety as well. The only thing bad about modern diet is how so many people treat themselves as garbage disposals without any idea of how it effects their body.

I'm not doubting that you got your rosacea under control by trying a new diet. As J-Mill said, your account is anecdotal so I don't really have anything to go by. I'll eat my hat and start consuming only raw veg if on some day a study arises that says it's beneficial to rosacea and other skin problems but until then, I'm sticking to laser and the hope that Sansrosa will be released soon.

I've enjoyed the discussion as well, and with the issue I think we could agree to disagree. It is strange how food is the controversial topic here and not something about how "[insert deity here] has healed my rosacea". laugh: I don't doubt that some people's rosacea is effected by diet, it's just that something as simple as raw vs cooked seems a bit silly to me. You can get all the nutrients you need from variety. But if it worked for you, then great.

[J-Mill]

Many vitamins are destroyed through heat. That's not "quackery" that's scientific fact. That fresh food is good for you is common sense, not some sort of far-out-idea.

You look at any native, tribal culture around the globe, the bushmen in Africa for instance, who do not eat grain or dairy, instead eating a natural, ancestoral diet, and you will not find a single one with skin problems, obesity, diabetes or clogged arteries. What does that tell you? That our "modern" diet has created countless health problems.

Does Richard Wrangham claim that we have evolved to eat preservatives, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners and other horrendous ingredients simply because they're what's now being put into our food? The best way to stay healthy is to eat what you can find in nature. I'm not saying that grains or dairy are absolutely indigestable. I'm saying that given the fact you can only eat so many pounds of food per day, and only need so many calories per day, doesn't it make far more sense to derive those calories from the most nutritionally packed with vitamins and minerals sources that you can find, rather than empty starches (breads, pasta) and hollow fiber shells (processed and canned fruit and veg)?

You're not going to find any antioxidants in pasta. You're not going to get omega three from bread. There are no antinflammatory properties in twinkies, bagels or french fries. Anyone with skin issues should be especially careful to avoid modern processed food - I mean if the entire human race could suddenly tolerate eating plastic but it made you sick, would you eat it because Richard Wrangham said it's okay?

Excuse the pun, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing us to populations that have a much lower life expectancy, way higher infant mortality rates, they have huge death rates from illnesses that we have an almost zero mortality rate for due to medications etc. etc. Their diet is not keeping them alive longer on average.

The issue of diet and skin is a controversial one but the consensus scientifically is that there is some connection for some people between their diet and skin problems. Iodine rich diets for instance have been found to cause acne in some, people, predominantly females and in less than 10% of those tested. The same presentation I saw on this also pointed out that there was an indigenous tribe that had acne, I will try and find the presentation as I forget the tribe.

If you have scientific data from a reliable source I would be happy to read it. Every study I have seen on cooking food disagrees with your assertion that it causes some vast loss of nutrients. I am aware that some are lost through the cooking method, but the amount is not significant. Steaming vegetables is not going to cause you to become sick through nutrient loss. Again if you have a reliable source of information on this I am happy to look at it.

I am also only addressing the issue of cooking food, not eating crap. Wrangham doesn't say eat crap. He says that cooking food is something we have adapted to via evolution, something you were disputing. He doesn't say therefore eat twinkies. blink:

No one on this board advocates eating junk food as a healthy alternative and this is not what the discussion was about.

[GJ]

Google never fails.


http://www.google.com/trends/images/dot1.gif paleo diet http://www.google.com/trends/images/dot2.gif good science http://www.google.com/trends/images/dot3.gif christian god http://www.google.com/trends/images/dot4.gif monica bellucci
http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=paleo+diet,+good+science,+christian+god,+mon ica+bellucci&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

[TheMediumDog]

But:

Heffalump. Raw food diet.

http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=raw+food+diet,+heffalump&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N