Friday, December 22, 2006

Carrots & Apples and Notes On Juicing

I have been juicing, off and on, since about 1990, and wish I had spent more time on than off because I believe juicing to be highly beneficial.

One thing I see a lot of is the recommendation not to juice carrots and beets because they contain too much sugar. I have found evidence to the contrary:

According to one PhD, who is a diabetic, and who has compiled extensive glycemic content tables for foods of all kinds, carrot and beet juice do not cause insulin-spike problems. Dr. Joel Robbins agrees, saying the sugar in them is metabolized differently by the liver than the sugar from fruits. Dr. Norman W. Walker, the "father" of juicing, says carrot juice tops the list of the very best things a person with degenerative dis-ease can drink, and he says to drink LOTS of it. He says it's a good thing if one's skin turns yellow-orange from drinking so much carrot juice because it means the body is ridding itself of built-up garbage in the liver. He says the yellow-orange color will disappear sooner or later, when the liver has finished cleansing itself.

Aside from that, if one eliminates carrots,(and beets), and also apple, from one's juicing recipe, the resulting juice---IF one is putting in the very necessary green leafies and other green stuff--- will be unpalatable to most people. Certainly it is unpalatable to me. Because of all the carrot and the sufficient amount of apple I put in my juice, I can add to it celery, cucumber, broccoli, green pepper, kale, spinach, parsley, cilantro, radish, garlic, ginger and jalapeno, and still end up with a very tasty juice. If I did not add the carrot and apple, I would end up with such a nasty-tasting brew I would have to pour it down the sink!

Dr. Mercola, a very popular alternative internet personality, says not to dispose of the vegetable pulp,(I use it as mulch in my garden), but rather to eat it. First of all, if you're going to do that, you had better be using very clean, organic vegetables, because Dr. Walker found that most of the pesticides and contaminants in non-organic vegetables stay with the pulp. Second, a major reason for juicing is so that the nutrients from the juice will be readily absorbed, without interference from food solids. Obviously, eating the pulp defeats that purpose. Third, the pulp is just plain yucky---not something I want to "eat with a spoon," as Dr. Mercola recommends. Finally, no matter how I look at it, juicing is a bit of a chore, and having to eat the leftover pulp would make it so much of a chore that I might just give up juicing altogether, which would not be good, since I do agree with Dr. Mercola's title for his primer page on juicing: "Your Key To Radiant Health."

The idea behind Dr. Mercola's suggestion to eat the pulp very much appears to be about colon health, as in avoiding constipation, as in moving one's bowels at least once a day. I can in that regard say without reservation that even though I do not eat the pulp from my juice, I have, during the periods when I have been juicing, been having 2 to 4 bowel movements daily. I have accomplished that by drinking at least 5 cups of fresh vegetable juice daily, mixed with at least 3 heaping tablespoons of Barley Green. I also take chlorella, spirulina and alfalfa tablets. I eat plenty of raw, soaked-then-dehydrated nuts, raw vegetables and some dried and fresh fruit. I also eat a cottage cheese/flax oil/berry/curcumin mixture daily and I drink plenty of pure water. I also get plenty of exercise in on my rebounder. I even occasionally manage a little beef, chicken, fish and cheese, and I even "cheat" every once in a while, and I still never have any problems with constipation. What is more, and I trust I will not offend anyone with this, since we are talking frankly about health issues---my stools are nearly always green-colored and well-formed---a good sign that I'm eating a healthful, "alkaline," high bulk, low calorie diet.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The "C" in Cancer Stands for Change!

The other day I heard someone on the radio quip, "The only human being I know of who likes change is a baby with a dirty diaper." I'm not even sure that's true, as I have seen stinky babies looking perfectly content until their mom or dad begins changing them, and then they begin to raise a fuss!

Hard as it may be, there are times in our lives when making changes becomes absolutely necessary. I'm here to tell you that unless you're a hundred-and-twenty years old, one such time is when you're diagnosed with cancer. When you are diagnosed with cancer, it's time to pull over to the side of the road, turn off your engine and think---think about what has been happening in your life, spiritually, emotionally, psychologically and physically---that has resulted in such a diagnosis.

If such an idea is nonsensical or repulsive to you, then please ask yourself these questions: "Just what is my idea of why someone develops cancer? Does it just "happen" for no reason at all? And if that's the case, am I just a defenseless bag of skin containing brain, bones, organs and blood?Was it "luck" alone that up until now kept me from being diagnosed with cancer?"

In fact, there are many real reasons people develop cancer, including spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical ones, and there is a legitimate science dedicated to learning about all those reasons that is called "psychoneuroimmunology."

But you do not have to become a psychoneuroimmunologist to begin healing from a diagnosis of cancer. All you have to do is what the author of the book, "The Cancer Conqueror" did: turn the noun, "cancer," into a verb, "cancering." That is, instead of saying to yourself, "I have developed cancer," say, "I am cancering." When you say that---when you believe that---you no longer see cancer as a static, unapproachable, fearful, confusing phenomenon, but rather as a condition you have caused, both consciously and unconsciously, that you can rectify through self-examination and through changes you make according to what that self-examination reveals.

If you do not like that last sentence---if you believe it is counter-productive because it will instill guilt and blame---then allow me please to suggest to you that it is entirely possible to go through the process of figuring out why one is "cancering," and to learn how to stop "cancering," without feeling the least bit guilty. If you lose your glasses or your car keys, do you decide not to try to find them because, if you do so, you'll feel guilty and beat yourself up for misplacing them? No, you simply set about the process of finding them. That is the very same attitude one takes when investigating why one has been diagnosed with cancer. It is not at all about blame, or about beating oneself up; it's about looking for, and finding healing---about turning the dis-ease, or "lack of ease," back into a healthful "easiness." It is not so easy as looking for your glasses, finding them and putting them on---it requires a good deal more than that; but it is the same kind of thing, and can be done in the same objective, guilt-free way.

The great majority of surgeons, oncologists and radiologists are of the opinion that aside from surgery, chemotherapy or radiation, it doesn't much matter what a person diagnosed with cancer does. They believe mainstream treatment is 99.9% of what is going to make the difference as to whether the person lives or dies, and that any changes he makes, be they spiritual, emotional, psychological or physical, will have no significant bearing on his prognosis.

Naturopaths and other kinds of medical practitioners take a very different approach. They know, as do the mainstream doctors, that cancer is a degenerative dis-ease. But unlike those mainstream doctors who view the human body as incapable of fighting off and recovering from cancer without very significant outside intervention, they believe the body is wonderfully capable of healing itself, and that a person can make gentle, body-supportive changes that will aid the body in healing itself.

Does it not make sense that if the body has a serious degenerative dis-ease from which it is having difficulty recovering, the proper thing to do is to aid the body in its regenerative efforts? Does it not make sense that if the body is manifesting a degenerative dis-ease, degenerative changes may have taken place which need to be counteracted through regenerative changes?

Regenerative changes are not at all necessarily just physical; it's not just a matter of not eating this and starting to eat that, or of taking various supplements, though diet and supplements do play a significant part in healing from cancer and other degenerative dis-ease. The kinds of regenerative changes I'm talking about also include changes in attitude, in relationships and in the kinds of activities in which one engages.

In my experience, those people who investigate most thoroughly why they are cancering, and who do the most to make the changes necessary to stop cancering, are the people who stand the best chance of recovery, and who, during treatment, also stand the best chance of having the best quality of life, a factor, by the way, that mainstream doctors often care far too little about.