jts

lecture about fasting by Dr. Alan Goldhamer

Recommended Posts

The "Doctor" at True North ... is a DC. Doctor of Chiropractic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The "Doctor" at True North ... is a DC. Doctor of Chiropractic.

What is your point? Do you have a point?

Can you tell me the name of someone who has more knowledge about fasting and more experience in fasting than Alan Goldhamer?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The "Doctor" at True North ... is a DC. Doctor of Chiropractic.

Oh yes? I did not lknow Chiros were licensed to treat terminal patients  dying of all known causes let alone bring them back to life!  Think what a burden they must all be on the health care system.  This must be looked into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fasting cure cancer breakthrough in chiropractic whoopee ...

 

On 7/15/2018 at 5:36 PM, jts said:
On 7/15/2018 at 4:55 PM, william.scherk said:

The "Doctor" at True North ... is a DC. Doctor of Chiropractic.

What is your point? Do you have a point?

It is a point of information, for readers. 

At his clinic, he says that all of his fasts are 'medically supervised,' which is great.  He himself is trained solely as a chiropractor.  There are several MDs advertised as being affiliated with or on his staff at his business, along with what one might expect -- naturopaths, osteopaths, massage therapists and so on.  Here is an excerpt from his website on 'informed consent. Emphases in the original.

First, TrueNorth Health is not a hospital or medical care facility with a staff of doctors, nurses, etc. It is a health education program, where participants can reside for a short period of time while participating in its programs. TrueNorth Health has independent doctors of chiropractic, two medical doctors, and a psychologist who assist in its programs. (For more information on TrueNorth Health and its affiliated healthcare providers, please see our website or brochure.) Please be clear that if you have any problems with the fact that TrueNorth Health is not a hospital or a medical care facility, then you should not undergo a water-only fast at TrueNorth.

TrueNorth Health also compiles medical data obtained from its participants, analyzes this data, and publishes articles regarding this data and research in scientific journals. These articles do not reveal the identities of any of the participants, but rather only identifies, summarizes and analyzes the medical data. If, for some reason, you have any problem with the fact that TrueNorth Health compiles data based upon your medical information, and publishes that data in scientific journals, then you should not undergo a water-only fast at TrueNorth Health.

Next, you should be clear that chiropractors will be assisting you during your fast. These doctors of chiropractic are not medical doctors. There is a medical doctor who is affiliated with TrueNorth, but you will probably be seeing chiropractors much more than this medical doctor. These chiropractors will have access to your medical records, and the medical doctor will be discussing your case with them. If you have any problems with the fact that chiropractors will be assisting you throughout the majority of your water fast, then you should not undergo a water-only fast at TrueNorth.

-- of course "publishes that data in scientific journals" is enticing. Which ones?  And who publishes?  Actually, not him.  One of the MDs associated with him has published at least one review article in a medical journal (Cell) which is pretty interesting, but comes nowhere near to supporting the claims made by, say, the video at the top.

Quote

Can you tell me the name of someone who has more knowledge about fasting and more experience in fasting than Alan Goldhamer?

Sure, the guy who fled to Central America. Whatsisname?  Loren Lockman.

Jerry, fasting is not a panacea, nor -- within reason -- is it terminal, deadly.  I object to valorizing a chiropractor -- especially one who overlards the goose.

I wish I could do something to help you past your obsession with fixing your body by supernatural natural means. Your condition (the inoperable mass on your spinal column) has to be a burden on you, and for that you have my fellow-feeling.

Edited by william.scherk
Spellink errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jts said:

What is your point? Do you have a point?

Can you tell me the name of someone who has more knowledge about fasting and more experience in fasting than Alan Goldhamer?

 

Probably he could, starting with John the Baptist and Jesus and ending up with concentration camp inmates and up-to=the minute anorexics  like Lily-Rose Depp and Angelina Jolie, but I am pre-empting him because he has been toting the weary load of trying to speak to you reasonably and needs a respite, he is a friend of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Oh yes? I did not lknow Chiros were licensed to treat terminal patients  dying of all known causes let alone bring them back to life!  Think what a burden they must all lbe on the heallth care syste.  This must be lookeed into.

I don't evaluate doctors by government approved credentials.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jts said:

I don't evaluate doctors by government approved credentials.

 

Doctors everywhere are grateful that you have no status to evaluate them at all.

Doctors of chiropractic, philosophy,dentistry, law and many others will all rema8n happy to take your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

Jerry, fasting is not a panacea, nor -- within reason -- is it terminal, deadly.  I object to valorizing a chiropractor -- especially one who overlards the goose.

I wish I could do something to help you past your obsession with fixing your body by supernatural natural means. Your condition (the inoperable mass on your spinal column) has to be a burden on you, and for that you have my fellow-feeling.

Nobody said fasting is a panacea. I don't know where that idea came from.

You assume without evidence that Alan Goldhamer knows ONLY chiropractic. Alan Goldhamer probably knows more about fasting than anyone else on the planet. (Loren Lockman might disagree.)

Supervising fasts is a specialization. So far as I know there is no government recognised qualification to be a fasting supervisor. Having an MD is not a qualification to supervise fasts. Most MDs know little or nothing about fasting. Typically they do not study fasting in medical school, and typically they have no experience with fasting. To be qualified to supervise fasts, they must go thru internship.

One example of how ignorant an MD can be about fasting is one wrote that the body can't tell the difference between voluntary and involuntary, and he used this to debunk fasting. The difference between fasting and starving has nothing to do with voluntary. The body certainly can tell the difference between burning fat and burning muscle.

Do not use examples of starvation to debunk fasting. That is gross ignorance. I am not impressed by that kind of ignorance. With a little effort you can learn the difference between fasting and starving. At the risk of oversimplification, the difference is the difference between burning fat and burning muscle. They are very different and they feel different. Usually when the body is in fat burning mode, there is no hunger. When the fat runs low and there is danger of burning muscle, hunger comes back.

About Loren Lockman. Do not confuse between him and Alan Goldhamer. They are 2 different individuals. They have disagreements between them about how to supervise fasts. Do not judge one by the other. Loren Lockman is a risk taker. He says symptoms are ALWAYS either healing or detox, which I don't believe. That attitude would scare me. There is a story from Steve Solomon about a man went into signs of mineral deficiency as early as the 10th day. So Dr. Moser and Steve Solomon immediately took him off the fast and fed him the greenest veggies in Steve Solomon's garden. (The greener the veggy the richer it is in minerals.) If Loren Lockman had been on that case, he would have regarded the symptoms as either healing or detox and would have continued the fast and the result would have been a disaster. Symptoms are -usually- healing or detox, but not always. One of the duties of the fasting supervisor to be be alert to real problems. Some people have health problems that can show up during a fast. I don't think Loren Lockman does it right.

Every fast I ever did was without supervision and I always had a rule for myself, if anything goes wrong I terminate the fast.

Fasting is not supernatural and I don't know where this stupid idea came from. Perhaps it came from Franklin Hall. You can look him up. Franklin Hall was a religious leader who thought fasting gives you a better telephone connection with God. But I don't believe in God and I have no use for religion.

Fasting is simply total rest. There is nothing supernatural about total rest. It is almost a law of physiology that when 2 major physiological processes are happening at the same time, there is a trade-off between them. Each is at the expense of the other. Fasting, properly done, merely puts the body in full healing mode. Sometimes things happen that seem almost supernatural but it is not. There is a story about a blind man  who got back his sight during a fast. When all of the body's energy is used for healing, sometimes unusual things happen. But it is not supernatural; it is physiology.

About my spinal cord tumor. I'm learning all the time. I made some very serious mistakes in years past; but I'm no longer making them. The fat lady is not singing yet. If I beat the tumor, I will have bragging rights because the medical profession says it can't be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:

Doctors everywhere are grateful that you have no status to evaluate them at all.

Doctors of chiropractic, philosophy,dentistry, law and many others will all rema8n happy to take your money.

I evaluate doctors for myself, not for others. I don't need status. This is the Objectivist virtue of intellectual independence. I do not let government evaluate doctors for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jts said:

I evaluate doctors for myself, not for others. I don't need status. This is the Objectivist virtue of intellectual independence. I do not let government evaluate doctors for me.

 

I understand your stance.  The restaurant owner two doors up did not trust the government to evaluate electrcians for her, hired her talented student nephew using her own best judgment to wire the place.,and she is still in the hospital.

True story! Just an anecdotal aside but true. No universalizing going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forrest Gump did not fast, and he got real big. There may be hazards to fasting. When I do it I get hungry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Peter said:

Forrest Gump did not fast, and he got real big. There may be hazards to fasting. When I do it I get hungry. 

There are hazards to fasting. Hunger is not a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jts quoted me saying, “Forrest Gump did not fast, and he got real big.

Oops. Tom Hank’s was the character, Josh Baskin in “Big.” And Chuck Noland in “Castaway,” Allen Bauer in “Splash,” Sam Baldwin in “Sleepless in Seattle,”  Captain John H. Miller in “Saving Private Ryan,” Joe Fox in “You’ve Got Mail,” Viktor Navorski in “The Terminal,”  Professor Robert Langdon in “The Da Vinci Code,” and of course “Forrest Gump.”

I can remember the character’s name Forrest of course, because the name is also the title, but the only other character’s name I remember is Professor Langdon in “The Da Vinci Code.” What a bio, Tom Hanks has: those titles are some of my favorite all-time movies. He is my favorite actor, of all time.

Peter

Big is a 1988 American fantasy comedy film directed by Penny Marshall, and stars Tom Hanks as Josh Baskin, a young boy who makes a wish "to be big" and is then aged to adulthood overnight. The film also stars Elizabeth Perkins, David Moscow as small Josh, John Heard, and Robert Loggia, and was written by Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg.

Cast Away is a 2000 American epic survival film directed and co-produced by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks, Helen Hunt, and Nick Searcy. The film depicts a FedEx employee marooned on an uninhabited island after his plane crashes in the South Pacific and his attempts to survive on the island using remnants of his plane's cargo. The film was released on December 22, 2000. It was a critical and commercial success, grossing $429 million worldwide, with Hanks being nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role at the 73rd Academy Awards. Plot: In December 1995, Chuck Noland is a time-obsessed systems engineer, who travels worldwide resolving productivity problems at FedEx depots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jts wrote: There are hazards to fasting. Hunger is not a problem.

I suppose, because people have gotten hungry throughout history. Most of us get hungry every day, so we eat. In olden times people spent a lot of time looking for food. Who’s happy when they are hungry? A person “able” to diet as needed, perhaps?

If I were a castaway, I would probably eat ANYTHING edible, and that is disgusting. Bugs? Squishy salt water denizens? Seaweed? It is an evolutionary advantage being a omnivore. What a brilliant idea! Instead of a "fat ranch" someone creates a "Castaway" fat shedding island in the Caribbean.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Jts wrote: There are hazards to fasting. Hunger is not a problem.

Perhaps you misunderstand the statement that hunger is not a problem during a fast.

At TrueNorth they supervised 15,000 fasts, last count, hunger is not a problem. Shelton supervised 40,000 fasts, hunger never comes up as a problem in his books. Loren Lockman supervised thousands of fasts, hunger never comes up as a problem in his youtube videos. Jack Goldstein wrote a book about his 42 day fast supervised by Robert Gross, hunger was not a problem.

As soon as the body transitions from eating mode to fasting mode, hunger is gone. This takes an average of about 3 days, not long enough to be a problem. With me it's usually gone the 2nd day and it is brief and mild the 1st day. Hunger is not a problem during a fast. Anyone who thinks hunger is a problem during a fast is not speaking from experience.

This is not saying there are no problems with fasting, only that hunger is not one of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not get past the hunger, to get to the fasting. I do "cut back" on calories from time to time, usually based upon the fact that my pants are feeling tight. My solution is to have vegetables on hand and especially salad ingredients. I still get the "Paul Neuman's Own" dressings and Kraft "Catalina." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

I could not get past the hunger, to get to the fasting. I do "cut back" on calories from time to time, usually based upon the fact that my pants are feeling tight. My solution is to have vegetables on hand and especially salad ingredients. I still get the "Paul Neuman's Own" dressings and Kraft "Catalina." 

Some people think the purpose of fasting is to lose lard. In order to lose lard and keep it off, you want to change your eating habits. If you just lose lard and don't change your eating habits, you will put the lard back on. This is true even if you lose the lard by fasting. The focus should be on changing your eating habits, not on losing lard. You can lose lard and keep it off without fasting.

Altho lard control is not my main interest, I picked up a few methods of lard control. I will merely list them and will leave the questions of proof and evidence to whoever wants to investigate further.

Starch based diet:  Dr. John McDougall says 80-90% of our calories should come from starch. And he is thumbs down on all animal source foods. You can eat all the greens you want and even some fruits. If you do this, you are suppose to lose an average of 2 pounds a week without trying and continue until you get to your correct weight and then the weight loss stops.

Nutritarian diet:  Dr. Joel Fuhrman promotes a high nutrients over calories ratio, which means greens. This is supposed to produce hunger satisfaction so you don't want to overeat.

Avoiding the pleasure trap:  Dr. Alan Goldhamer says there are certain substances that work on the brain in such a way as to induce overeating. These are sugar, salt, oil, flour, dairy. That is 5. I believe monosodium glutamate (under dozens of names) and aspartame (under multiple names) should be added to the list, bringing it to 7. Sensitiveness to these substances varies from person to person. Avoid them and lose 2 pounds a week without trying.

500 calories per pound rule:  This is from Jeff Nelson. The theory is to eat meals of the correct calorie density. If the calorie density is too high, by the time you feel like you have had enough to eat, you have eaten too much. If the calories density is too low, you will have difficulty getting enough calories. 500 calories per pound works for most people but the number can be adjusted according to your caloric requirement. Physically active people can raise the number; sedentary people can lower the number. That's the first rule, calories per pound of food. The second rule is if you are eating a meal consisting of a high calorie food and a low calories food, you eat the low calorie food first; this cuts down on the chance of overeating on the high calorie food.

You can combine probably all 4 methods.

How to cut down on hunger, real or false:  I have noticed many times that sleep has an anti-hunger effect. It seems to support and speed up the transition from eating mode to fasting mode.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jts wrote: How to cut down on hunger, real or false:  I have noticed many times that sleep has an anti-hunger effect. It seems to support and speed up the transition from eating mode to fasting mode. end quote

Thanks for the tips. I will read them over and decide what I will try. I might even dip into a family members left over box of Nutrisystem prepared foods.

Sleep has some effect on me. When I wake up I drink two cups of brewed coffee with 2 percent milk but no sugar. Then I may walk 2 miles. Sometimes I will drink a glass of orange Citracil. I am rarely hungry after that until around 4 in the afternoon, but I don’t indulge. I eat supper between 5 and 7 depending on what my wife wants to do. But then if I am not careful I will eat another snack before I go to bed. My modest goal is to lose five pounds and then another five pounds, etc. The subject of fad diets had come up before as the following letters attest. Peter

From: "William Dwyer" Reply-To: Starship Subject: Life Extension Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:43:48 -0700

Mary Ann, Thanks for broaching the subject of life extension.  You have a sympathetic ear.  Did I mention on this list that I have been doing something like the Pritikin diet since 1985?  Roy Walford (if you're into life extension, you know who he is) says that the Pritikin diet is very close to a life extension diet.  The fact that it's very low-fat tends to limit the calories, even though there's no limit on the quantity of food you can eat.

When I first went on it, I was craving fat like there was no tomorrow and losing weight like there was no tomorrow.  I was already pretty lean, so I became painfully thin fairly quickly.  I've since adapted to the diet -- it's been 17 years, after all -- and have gained some of the weight back, even though I don't eat nearly as much as I used to.

While I was on the diet, I worked in a lab, and was able to get blood work done as often as I wanted free of charge.  My serum cholesterol dropped from 185 to 115 in one and half months after going on the diet. But I found I could raise it significantly simply by going off the diet. What I discovered by getting tested repeatedly over a span of many years is that serum cholesterol is strictly dependent on diet and can be altered dramatically by dietary alterations.

Don't let any doctors tell you otherwise.  The only cases in which this is not true are those involving people with hypercholesterolemia due to heredity (in which there are very few cholesterol receptors in the liver, so the cholesterol builds up in the blood), and these folks make up a very small percentage of the population.

But you have to alter the dietary fat significantly to gain any significant change in your blood values.  Altering it slightly, which is what most doctors tell you to do, doesn't help.  You can't drop the fat from 40% of total calories to 30% and expect to gain much of a benefit. You have to reduce it to 10% (or, at the most, 15%) of total calories, to have any appreciable effect.

If you can get your LDL cholesterol below 100 or total cholesterol below 150 (which will normally would bring the LDL to below 100, if your HDL isn't too low), and keep it there for several years, you can actually ~reverse~ the process of arteriosclerosis that everyone develops on the standard American diet. Unfortunately, most doctors won't advise their cardiac patients to go on the Pritikin diet, because they think it's too difficult to follow.

Calorie restriction without malnutrition is really the only proven way to significantly extend maximum (versus mean) lifespan.  But if you're on a calorie restricted diet, it is important to take supplements to ensure you get all the essential nutrients.  Moreover, calorie restriction is best done gradually.  I didn't do it that way, and I lost too much weight too quickly, although I've since adapted, but it's best to cut down in small increments over many years.  That's difficult to do, however, from a practical (and motivational) standpoint, so you may have to jump in and just do it, and then find your comfort level.

The best results were obtained by dropping total calories by 1/3 over a period of five to seven years (in human terms).  You shouldn't lose more than 1/2 pound a month, but, of course, that's very difficult to do, unless you're very precise and scientific about it, and absolutely disciplined in every way.  For most people, it's just not practical, which is why I recommend the Pritikin diet; it's the next best thing to the kind of calorie restriction that was so successful with the laboratory animals.

If you're an older person, the dietary restriction should be more modest.  If it's too severe, it can actually shorten lifespan, but it has to be pretty severe to do that!  The best results for life extension are obtained by starting on a calorie restricted diet very early in life.  The earlier you start, the longer you'll live.  But people can still gain significant benefits, if they begin in their middle-aged years. (To be continued.) Bill

From: "Technotranscendence" Reply-To: Starship_Forum Subject: Re: Life Extension Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:18:24 -0400

On Saturday, May 18, 2002 5:46 PM Bill Wells yahoo-nospam@twwells.com

wrote:  >> There seems to be good evidence that caloric restriction may extend life... "Dogged Dieting", _Science News_, May 11, 2002: "...even though the calorie-restricted retrievers lived longer on average, no individual dog had a significantly longer lifespan than the longest-lived dogs in the fully fed group." On the strength of the study, one would conclude that diet restriction doesn't extend life. Rather, it eliminates certain obstacles to living one's "natural" lifespan.

Caloric restriction (with full nutrition) [CR] is not a way to extend life span per se, but would probably "square the curve" -- meaning more people would make it to the maximum human life span (which is probably about 150; admittedly a guess, but probably a good one*) in decent health along the way.  The point here is not to accept 150 and then the grave, but to live longer in hopes that future therapies will improve on this.

Also, I wouldn't base my whole view of this on one study -- any more than I would use one study of purely negative results to make me run out and stop doing something.:)

That said, CR has been tested since, I believe, the 1960s in everything from spiders to primates, IIRC.  There seems to be a solid case for it, though, again, it's hard to carry out long term CR studies in humans. (An interesting thing to note is that one thing a lot of labs have to be sure of is that any life extension results they get aren't from a hidden CR cause.  What do I mean here?  If you put substance X in the lab rats' feed and they don't like the taste, they might eat less -- going on a sort of CR -- and you might assume substance X is making them live longer when it's really a CR artifact.  Substance X might even have no or a negative effect on longevity, but the bad taste is enough to trigger CR.  Add to this, different animals have differing senses of smell and taste.)  Some research being funded now is on trying to understand exactly what CR does so that some other easier to apply therapy can take its place.

Cheers! Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now