Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nutrition

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by deja_ale View Post
    Random thought here and more devil's advocate.

    If nutrition plays an important role in growing new skin, how are people who overeat with unhealthy diets and lack of exercise so good at growing more skin?
    BECAUSE THEY ARE INFLATING THEMSELVES LIKE A BALLOON...PRESSURE!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by wtaddington View Post

      I am not going to debate nutrition and restoration as there is probably no research in the area to back up anything said. I would said that anything good for the skin in general will not hurt the process. I apply lotion at night. Maybe it helps? Technically the skin should not be streching but growing. But I do it anyway.

      I will say that drinking 1 gallon of juice of any kind is bad for you. Letstake apple juice. 1 gallon contains 1825 calories. 448g of sugar and half of that is fructose. It is the same as eating 448g of sucrose(table sugar 2 1/3 cups)or HF Cornsyrup(2 cups) as both of those contain 50% fructose. While eating glucose in excess all day will not hurt you, unless diabetic, because it can be metabolizes anywhere in the body. Eating that much fructose all day will lead to all kinds of medabolic disease. Fructose is all processed solely in the liver and because you are overloading the system it is converted to several bad things.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=dBnniua6-oM
      Hi wtaddington,

      Although you quoted this part, you missed a very important part:

      * fresh (drink the juice within 12 hours)
      * cold-pressed (never heated, not even pasteurized of any kind)
      * ripe fruits (as ripe as possible before going bad)

      Notice "not even pasteurized". Heating ("processing") a raw juice DRASTICALLY changes its chemistry. Plus, 1 gallon of non-heated apple juice is a much, much different than having HF cornsyrup or sucrose. Please don't sputter this disinformation, as you are dishonestly scaring others away from an awesome solution.

      Btw, fructose has a zero insulin response because the body does not need insulin--GLUT5 transporters on the cell walls do this automatically to assimilate. Sooooo, fructose has zero effect on a diabetic. Fructose isn't processed in the liver. In fact, it's not even "processed" at all by the body because of how easy it absorbs. Your cell anatomy basically was built to assimilate these things without the other organs, why do you think it's possible for people to live for years in a coma?

      So your science is basically pseudoscience, and it doesn't back jack up. I have a complex understanding of biochemistry, organic chemistry, health, western medicine, eastern medicine... and earned my Pharm. D. and practiced as a pharmacist for many years. So unless you were one of my many college professors, it's not even worth debating this with you, because you're simply wrong and need to research more and stop pretending to understand these things to the point of being able to utilize them to see rapid changes in the body.

      I agree with drinking a gallon of water, as long as it's not too soft or badly structured...because then you're just going to pee most of it out and it'll be a complete waste

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by z726 View Post

        No, there isn't a huge difference. For all intents and purposes, fructose IS sugar.

        There is a stunning amount of inaccurate, incorrect. and just plain fraudulent nutritional advice floating around on the internet. I would recommend against creating a section for it on this site.
        Um, yes, there is a huge difference. Especially a huge difference on how they affect your body. Use this as your starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sugars

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by deja_ale View Post
          Not to play devil's advocate, but if you are going to make claims about what is good, and share new information you believe to be correct, why not provide scientific evidence so people can decide for themselves what to believe. It is a much better way to approach the situation than he said/she said arguments, and will lead to a more intellectual conversation of the topic.
          Btw, this is a great point Here's why not: you cannot condense this information into a 5 minute pocket book. Or a quick 2-minute read. It's far too conditional. I've seen YouTube talks where a Dr had communicated well, but these are surely beyond the attention span of forum posts. With that said, you still have a good point.

          So for anyone wanting to learn, one good place to start to understand this is to look into "Juice Feasting". And more importantly, do one yourself. You're going to learn much more from others who have experienced it directly AND from you experiencing it directly. You'll learn far more than you'll read online...I don't know if there's a single source of info that I can suggest other than your own experience or the direct experience of others. And btw, I speak from my own formal education, obsessive PERSONAL research, and constant direct experience for myself and people I coach.

          Originally posted by deja_ale View Post
          Random thought here and more devil's advocate.

          If nutrition plays an important role in growing new skin, how are people who overeat with unhealthy diets and lack of exercise so good at growing more skin?
          I thought this was also a good point that I wanted to highlight. Deja_ale, you're very reasonable I won't claim to know the answer here, and really I'd just like to point out that "unhealthy" and "healthy" REALLY need a strong definition before addressing this Ironically, nutrition does not equal "health". Just because someone is overweight, it does not mean that their diet is "unhealthy"--it could also mean that their diet is in excess, which it is the EXCESS (not the diet) that is unhealthy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by sorefkin View Post

            I thought this was also a good point that I wanted to highlight. Deja_ale, you're very reasonable I won't claim to know the answer here, and really I'd just like to point out that "unhealthy" and "healthy" REALLY need a strong definition before addressing this Ironically, nutrition does not equal "health". Just because someone is overweight, it does not mean that their diet is "unhealthy"--it could also mean that their diet is in excess, which it is the EXCESS (not the diet) that is unhealthy.
            Yes the definition of healthy would be beneficial. Also diet would need to be defined as well. So saying "healthy diet" or "unhealthy diet" can mean different things to different people. I would argue that eating to excess is a part of the diet, and that makes it unhealthy. Here is one definition of diet from merriam-webster:the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason. The key part being that they define amount of consumption as part of a diet.

            I made that comment under the assumption that if someone is eating to excess, to the point that they gain lots of weight, they probably don't prioritize a healthy diet. I am sure there are exceptions, but I think the majority of cases would fall under that category.

            Comment

            Working...
            X