TrueNorthHEALTH

Human beings, and other living things, often have been characterized as living “machines.” In fact, the concept of human beings as being sophisticated machines dates back as far as the mid-eighteenth century, to the French physician-philosopher Julien La Mettrie.

Early physician-scholars such as La Mettrie could not help but be impressed by the intricacy of our many survival mechanisms that are obvious to the trained eye. Our eyes, ears, heart, lungs, and many other physical features are marvelous mechanical devices, meticulously designed by nature to aid in our survival and/or reproduction.

More impressive still is the fact that these mechanisms work together, in an orchestrated fashion. When we start to jog, our heart increases its pumping action, and our lungs work harder—in exquisite coordination with the heart. The parts work together for the “common good,” which is our survival or reproductive potential. Biologists have a word for these parts—these components of our natural design. They are called adaptations.

Modern health professionals are astounded when they discover what the American Hygienic physician-philosopher Herbert Shelton described decades ago: that water-only fasting is an adaptation—and is one of the most powerful healing adaptations of the human design!
 
Examples of adaptations

A living creature, such as a human being, can be thought of as a large, intricate machine, comprised of many “mini-machines”—each of which is themselves an adaptation. For example, our tongue is clearly an adaptation, in that it is an intricate machine, designed by nature, to assist our survival prospects.

Actually, the tongue is not a single entity, but is itself composed of many distinct parts, each of which is a component of the fabulous “tongue-machine.” Each part—a taste bud, for example—is an important component of the overall design. Our ability to taste sweet things, for example, was part of nature’s design in order to encourage our ancestors to eat ripe fruit and other sweet-tasting foods. Our ability to taste bitter things is part of nature’s way of discouraging our consumption of substances that might be poisonous. Working together, the many “mini-machines” within our taste preference system (which includes the tongue and our sense of smell) assist in guiding our behavior toward survival-successful ends.

We are built of literally thousands of these mini-machines—adaptations—which are the mechanisms that aid our survival or reproduction. This idea is not new to health professionals, as they clearly recognize that our eyes, ears, heart, and lungs are part of the overall “survival machine”—our body.

However, few health professionals recognize that in addition to observable parts, adaptations also come in an altogether different form. Adaptations do not have to be physical structures, such as eyes or ears. They also can be in the form of behavioral tendencies—coded into our nervous systems, as part of our natural design. Such behavioral adaptations are every bit as crucial to our survival as are our eyes, heart, and lungs.

Behavioral adaptations

Consider your behavioral inclination toward a pesky mosquito drilling into your skin. Probably, you slap at the pest. Slapping at mosquitoes is an example of a behavioral adaptation. It is an exquisitely coordinated movement of muscles and sensory feedback, made possible by our natural design. Nature punishes us with unpleasant feelings if we can’t or won’t slap at the mosquito, and rewards us with a small feeling of relief when we do. This is not a learned, or taught, tendency. It is a genetically-mediated feature of the circuitry in our brains. All children, the world over, slap at mosquitoes automatically—a telltale sign of a naturally designed behavioral tendency. In other words, slapping at mosquitoes is an “adaptation.”

Many behavioral characteristics and bodily responses are components of our natural design. Coughing, sneezing, vomiting, fever, and inflammation—while they may not be pleasant—are adaptations. They are sophisticated responses of the body, designed into our nature, in order to assist our health and healing. The artificial suppression of such adaptive mechanisms, such as suppressing a cough or a fever with medication or other means, is almost always a step away from health.

It is now well known that fever, inflammation, coughing, and vomiting are health-promoting adaptations that require judicious management. Among better-educated health professionals, it is understood that artificial suppression of these adaptive responses may provide pain relief—but at the potential compromise of overall health. The wise professional will attempt to understand what is causing these adaptations to be activated, and to remove such causes—rather than merely attempting to suppress symptoms. But while fever, inflammation, and other symptoms are finally becoming recognized as adaptive processes, the importance of the loss of appetite, characteristic of many disease processes, is largely unappreciated.
 
A multi-faceted adaptation

As Herbert Shelton noted in his long out-of-print 1928 book Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws, “Fasting has its origins in the dim uncertainties of the long forgotten past when the first wounded animal found that it had no desire for food.” In other words, fasting is an ancient adaptation. It is also a multi-faceted one, because it involves both physical and psychological adaptations.

Few health professionals are aware of the many, truly astonishing, physical adaptations that result from water-only fasting. Most believe that water-only fasting is simply “starving,” and that little or no benefits result from such an experience.

In reality, water-only fasting is dynamic, complex, and involves many health-promoting processes. For example, studies have indicated that immune function is significantly enhanced during water-only fasting, an effect that few would suspect. There is also an enhanced mobilization and elimination of toxic products, including poisons such as PCP, dioxins, pesticide residues, and other pollutants. The evolutionary reasons for this benefit are uncertain. Probably, in the dim uncertainties of the long-forgotten past, life-threatening infections and exposure to naturally-occurring environmental toxins were serious threats to the survival of our ancestors. These threats may have resulted in the development of health-promoting adaptations—one of which was water-only fasting.

In addition to many documented physical adaptations associated with water-only fasting, there is also an obvious psychological one as well. Often when we are ill, we lose our appetite. Like many other animals, we don’t feel much like eating when we get sick—and this is hardly an accident. It is clearly a component of our natural design—the psychological component of the fasting “machine.” Like our tongues, the fasting process is multi-faceted—a “packet” of adaptations all working together. The natural adaptation of water-only fasting starts with a desire to refrain from eating, and results in many health-promoting automated processes. Few health professionals ever have considered that the lack of appetite that accompanies illness is actually a component of such a complex adaptive mechanism. As a result, honoring this adaptive tendency is rarely encouraged. In fact, it is often actively discouraged.

An understandable error

When an unwell animal fasts, it is quietly fighting for its life. The lack of appetite is a component of a finely coordinated strategy of the body to restore health as quickly as possible. Rest is an additional—and integral—component of this strategy. Not only do sick animals often fast, they also rest while doing so. Fasting and resting help to assist the healing process. However, once an animal begins to recover, two marked behavioral changes occur. First, the animal becomes more active. Second, the hunger drive returns, and the animal begins to seek food and eat. Activity and eating are the visible signs of a creature returning to health.

It is hardly surprising, then, that humans have confused the connection between eating and the regaining of health. Observing that increased appetite and health go hand-in-hand after illness, many people have mistakenly assumed that an increase in food intake causes the regaining of health. In reality, they have it backwards. It is the increase in health that results in the reappearance of hunger! Sadly, this connection has been missed by most health professionals. This is not surprising, as other adaptations also have been misconstrued and mismanaged throughout history—including fever, inflammation, and vomiting. The natural desire to refrain from eating when ill is simply another example of a misunderstood adaptation.

A voluntary adaptation        

If the natural desire for water-only fasting when ill were to become better respected, this would be a positive step. Instead of being force-fed chicken soup, people with a condition resulting in the need to fast would be managed quite differently. However, water-only fasting is an unusual adaptation in that it does not require the loss of appetite associated with acute illness. Fasting also can be undertaken voluntarily.

Unlike other health-promoting adaptations—such as fever or inflammation—a water-only fasting process can be started with merely a behavioral decision. As such, it is possible to invoke this multi-faceted healing process without the loss of desire for food. As you might imagine, few health professionals have ever considered this possibility—and they rarely have the slightest clue about the positive effects of such a strategy. Unless one suspected that fasting was a complex, multi-faceted healing adaptation, one would never choose to fast without a crisis involving a naturally-reduced hunger drive. However, this ancient mechanism, designed by nature to assist healing processes during crises, also works well when we are not in a crisis.
 
Overcoming excesses

It is now recognized that, in the industrialized world, most diseases are due to dietary excesses—especially of animal products and processed foods (such as oils and refined sugar). It turns out that voluntary, water-only fasting is often magnificent in its ability to assist the body in healing from the consequences of these excesses.

Fasting results in weight loss, elimination of excess cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid, as well as accumulated environmental toxins. Often, growths and tumors associated with dietary excesses, such as fibroids and cysts, are reabsorbed. Inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis, colitis, asthma, and hepatitis, often are greatly improved or resolved. Many enzymatic functions of the liver and other organs, including the insulin-resistance characteristic of diabetes, can rapidly normalize. For most adult-onset diabetes patients, medications become unnecessary.   

Hypertension, the leading cause of doctor visits and of prescription medication use in America, is almost always rapidly resolved during supervised water-only fasting. In over 250 cases of hypertension seen at the TrueNorth  Health Center over the past 16 years, almost all were able to achieve a blood pressure level after fasting that eliminated the need for medication. Our ongoing research is beginning to provide explanations for these spectacular results.

Fasting also assists in an extremely important normalizing process—a process we call taste neuroadaptation. Many modern foods are not the normal foods of our species—they are foods that have been altered to create unnaturally intense taste responses. As a result, most of our modern foods are high in processed sugar, fat, and salt. Our taste buds adapt to these abnormal-but-appealing foodstuffs, making the consumption of whole natural foods less palatable by comparison. Water-only fasting helps to rapidly re-sensitize the palate, so that healthful foods can be fully enjoyed again. Of the many benefits of water-only fasting, this is, for many people, one of the most important.

Proper supervision vital

Supervision is an important component of a water-only fasting experience. During a fast, many powerful adaptive processes are put into motion—some with potentially unpleasant and/or disturbing characteristics. Clinical experience and laboratory data often are needed to distinguish between a positive healing process being generated by the body, and a possible physiological compromise. For this reason, it is recommended that fasting only be undertaken under the supervision of a physician with appropriate training.

Hygienic physicians certified in fasting supervision by the International Association of Hygienic Physicians must hold a valid license as a primary care physician (M.D., D.C., D.O., or N.D.) and complete a six-month residency in fasting supervision at an approved facility. With appropriate training, a supervising physician can help ensure a safe and effective fasting experience.

Fasting, as defined by Hygienic physicians, is the complete abstinence from all substances except pure water in an environment of complete rest. The “complete rest” component of fasting is important because even moderate activity can double caloric usage and reduce the effectiveness of the fast. Clinical research has indicated that the detoxification process, as well as other important healing processes made possible by fasting, may be significantly compromised by excess activity. Resting is a critical component in ensuring that a fast is both a safe and effective experience.

The lost adaptation

At the TrueNorth Health Center, we describe water-only fasting as “the lost adaptation.” While creatures all over the Earth routinely make use of this powerful healing strategy, they often must do so because they are so ill that they cannot successfully obtain food. Modern humans, in contrast, are rarely faced with this situation. Today, no matter how sick we get—even if we are lying in a hospital bed—food is brought by others up to our very mouths. And it is usually highly-stimulating food. The idea of fasting, even if we are inclined to do so, is strongly resisted. Well-meaning (but misguided) friends, relatives, and health professionals urge us to eat—so we can “get better.”

Similarly, when we are not acutely ill, the idea of water — only fasting seems absurd. It goes against our ancient, natural programming, which encourages us to make sure we get plenty to eat now—because in our natural, ancestral environment there might not have been any food available again soon. Most people fear that if they fast for a few days, dire things will occur, or they believe that the average person can fast only a few days, perhaps a week. The concept of fasting for a week or two—or longer—for health benefits seems ridiculous to them. It also seems ridiculous to the typical health professional—unless they understand that fasting is an adaptation. It is amazing that such a powerful and useful adaptation is virtually unknown—as amazing as if we collectively decided to refrain from slapping mosquitoes. An adaptation that facilitated the survival prospects of a great many of our ancestors has been very nearly “lost.”

But times are changing. With the publication of Dr. Joel Fuhrman’s recent book, Fasting and Eating for Health, a modern and thorough review of the benefits of fasting has been articulated. And at the TrueNorth Health Center in California, our nine staff doctors (with assistance from Cornell University scientists) have worked together to generate and publish scientifically credible research that documents the benefits of fasting.

It is our hope that our efforts will result in a greater awareness and appreciation of this remarkable process. The utility of fasting may then be widely “found”—both by health professionals and by the patients who will ultimately reap the benefits.

In the late 1800s, a young Scottish physician was experiencing difficulty in establishing his medical practice. With extra time on his hands, the young man turned his remarkable mind to the telling of mysteries and their solutions. In contrast to his struggling practice, his writing would be an immediate and astounding success. The young doctor’s name was Arthur Conan Doyle and his literary creation, Sherlock Holmes, would become synonymous with deductive genius for generations to come.

Though a fine storyteller with a flair for both humor and drama, perhaps Doyle’s greatest talent was his penetrating vision into the nature of human problem solving. In particular, Doyle had an uncanny sense for spotting human problem-solving blind spots and mental biases to which he made sure that the great Holmes was immune. Indeed, a crucial component of Holmes’s timeless appeal is his ability to make sense out of what less gifted observers might view as insufficient or contradictory evidence.

Holmes’s special talent is his ability to appreciate the importance of clues that others fail to notice, although their importance is obvious once seen from the proper perspective. Often, this perspective requires Holmes to look at the evidence from a viewpoint that is precisely opposite from one that seems naturally right. In one classic Holmes mystery, a murder had apparently taken place at a remote country estate, with the evidence indicating that the culprit was an intruder. Holmes determined otherwise, with his characteristic flair.

The case of Silver Blaze

In the Sherlock Holmes mystery entitled Silver Blaze, the victim, a resident of the estate, was found one morning on the grounds, having been felled by a blow to the head on the previous evening. The evidence strongly suggested that the culprit was a peculiar stranger who had been observed on the estate’s grounds earlier that day. The police had already apprehended the suspect, and they were intending to charge him with the crime. Holmes intervened, insisting to the police that they had made a mistake.

The estate housed many people, horses, and an alert stable dog. The case turned on an obscure, but key point: After questioning witnesses, Holmes recognized a critical fact that others had missed. Ultimately this discovery exonerated the chief suspect. The great Holmes explained to his astounded listeners that the key to the case was the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.  Before he could continue, a listener objected, insisting that the dog did nothing in the nighttime.

That was the curious incident, replied Holmes. He later explained that the absence of barking suggested to him that the culprit was well known to the manor’s hound. This indicated a need to re-examine the evidence from a fresh perspective. With this new viewpoint, Holmes solved the mystery, because of his brilliant awareness that the absence of something is often just as important as its presence. Though clearly true, this point is often difficult for most of us to grasp.

This difficulty is the result of a natural human problem-solving blind spot, an innate limitation of our psychology. It is precisely this type of human limitation that Holmes was so adept at noticing. And it is this type of limitation that results in the majority of our society remaining blind to the key facts regarding their health, although the facts are overwhelming once seen from the proper perspective.

Health mysteries

Millions of people in our country are suffering and dying from a handful of devastating conditions, including heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and cancer. These conditions alone account for more than 75 percent of our nation’s premature deaths and the majority of our collective chronic disability. Yet, the culprits in these tragedies have been difficult for most people to accurately identify.

The evidence, to many, appears to be contradictory and confusing. Like a Sherlock Holmes mystery, people are puzzled about finding the causes of their health problems and what to do about them. They look to experts in books, television, and the Internet, and to their doctors. More than 10 million people search the Internet each week seeking health-related information, making health information-seeking one of our population’s primary intellectual pursuits. This is quite appropriate, as our health problems are of epidemic proportions.

Unfortunately, most of the “expert” information dispensed is erroneous and misleading. For example, patients often are led to believe that the real culprits in their health problems are their genes. This misconception can lead them to assume that any solution to their problems will require medical intervention, because their particular body simply doesn’t work properly, that it is “defective” by nature. If they have high cholesterol, they are told to ingest cholesterol-lowering drugs. If they have high blood pressure, they are encouraged to ingest blood pressure-lowering medications. And, if they have Type II diabetes (about 95 percent of all diabetes cases), they are told that their health requires that they ingest or inject insulin.

In the alternative health arena, the “expert” suggestions are somewhat different. Herbal remedies, concentrated foodstuffs in the form of pills, vitamin supplements, and other treatments are the standard fare. Similar to conventional thought, such alternative approaches seem to confirm the same unspoken conclusion: The body of a person with a health problem cannot be expected to achieve and sustain a healthy state without adding something! Either by virtue of genetic flaw or because of dietary deficiency, the notion once again is that something is missing. The recommendation to “take something for it” makes intuitive sense to the majority of people, often encouraging them to continue down a path of self-destruction. Meanwhile, the real culprits are ignored and continue to do their damage, unchecked.

The real culprits

The real culprits in most modern-day health problems are excesses, not deficiencies. It is the subtraction (i.e., reduction or elimination) of these excesses that will solve most health problems, not the addition of medications or supplements. Although it may come as a surprise to most people, the subtraction of excess is nearly always far more effective at causing the restoration of health than is the addition of anything.

In atherosclerosis, for example, excess dietary cholesterol, fat, and protein (mostly in the form of animal products) leads to deposits of fatty substances within the cardiovascular system. These deposits clog up the system and often result in heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure, events that are responsible for about 50 percent of the deaths in our country each day. Exquisite research has shown that the subtraction of these dietary excesses is the most effective way to manage the problem. In the ground breaking Lifestyle Health Trial, Dean Ornish and his colleagues at the University of California have conclusively demonstrated that by dramatically reducing the amount of animal products in the diet, and by reducing fat intake from about 40 percent to about 10 percent of calories consumed, the body will soon begin to reverse the atherosclerosis. Neither medication nor nutritional supplement additive has shown equivalent success.

Not elementary

Sherlock Holmes was fond of explaining to his sidekick, Dr. Watson, that the connections he made were “elementary.” Of course, nothing could have been further from the truth. Although obvious once viewed from the proper perspective, the achievement of mental clarity in a Sherlock Holmes mystery is an exciting moment for the reader, as Holmes brilliantly maneuvers those present into seeing the facts in a clear and accurate new light. Not uncommonly, this mental reorganization begins with a startling conceptual leap.

Grasping that the major key to health is mostly about subtraction, and not addition, is itself a major conceptual leap. Although seemingly simple, this connection is perhaps the most profound and most difficult principle in modern health science. Once seen from the proper perspective, it is simple. But achieving this perspective is a remarkably challenging mental task. After many years of experience at patient education, we have come to believe that there is a powerful and fundamental force that is responsible for this difficulty.

There must be a compelling reason why humans continue to be so gullible about believing that adding things, such as vitamin pills, medication, aspirin, and even wine, is useful for the pursuit of health. There must be a reason why such solutions seem much more plausible than the truth. The truth is that we need to subtract meat, fish, fowl, eggs, dairy products, and tobacco. Although we might speculate that the human pleasure-seeking drive might be motivating patient resistance to the truth, we don’t think that this is the core of the problem. And, although massive misinformation campaigns by commercial interests do help to lead the unwary down a false trail, our experience suggests that a more fundamental factor is at work.

We strongly suspect that the human brain is literally biased against grasping the concept that dietary excesses are the roots of most health problems, in spite of the enormous magnitude of the supportive scientific evidence. Conversely, the idea that some sort of deficiency may be responsible continues to be popular. This is probably because such a concept has tremendous natural intuitive appeal.

Brains and biases

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle unwittingly anticipated one of the great discoveries of modern psychology. As he clearly suspected, human brains are not impartial judges of the facts. Brains come into being with hard-wired biases, with tendencies to see some connections much more readily than others. Brains of humans (and other animals) are much more likely to see connections that they expect to see. The connections they expect to see are often those that were important to notice throughout the development of the species.

In the natural world, human beings rarely, if ever, faced problems resulting from dietary excesses, because the natural landscape was simply not replete with excessive animal proteins and fats in the form of cheese, ice cream, and butter. The natural world contained no processed oils, refined sugar and flours, or excessive sodium. And, since problems of dietary excess were not a factor in our evolutionary history, modern-day humans are not well equipped to discern that health problems might be the result of these excesses.

Dietary deficiencies, on the other hand, were often a very serious problem for our ancestors. Getting enough to eat has always been one of the major problems of human life. People walking the Earth today, then, must all be the descendants of those who maintained heightened vigilance about the problem of getting enough, and not descendants of those who spent much time worrying about getting too much. As such, the neurological circuits that make up the current human mind are much more likely to be naturally concerned with deficiency than with excess! This bias makes it difficult to grasp the concept that dietary excesses are the roots of our modern health problems. Difficulty in grasping this principle persists despite the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting this interpretation of the facts.

Pecking the right key

Neurological biases now are being discovered throughout the animal kingdom, but until the concept of biased brains was itself recognized, many important facts were ignored. For example, psychologists such as B.F. Skinner, who were attempting to uncover the laws of learning, performed a great many experiments attempting to train pigeons. In attempting to teach pigeons to do new things, these psychologists would routinely reward the birds by lighting a key for them to peck, which when pecked would then result in a food reward. This method was used for decades without question. One day, a psychologist wondered if the pigeons could be trained equally effectively by having a continuously lighted key go dark in order to signal the pigeons to peck. He decided to put this question to the test.

To the surprise of animal psychologists worldwide, his results showed that pigeons couldn’t be trained to seek reward by pecking a lighted key that suddenly goes dark! In principle such an event is precisely as informative as having a darkened key suddenly become lighted, but it is a connection that a pigeon simply cannot make. And while we might think that the pigeon is just “stupid,” such a judgment would miss the key point: That, similarly, people will not normally grasp the importance of a dog not barking in the night.

Subtraction for health

In the last two decades, a great deal of psychological research has shown that people have many biases, problem-solving “blind spots.” People appear to have a natural bias against seeing dietary excess as a problem. But when viewed from an enlightened perspective, the problems resulting from dietary excess can become obvious. Once we grasp what the scientific evidence is telling us, no matter how counterintuitive these findings may seem, we can begin to see the evidence everywhere. Wherever we look, we cannot help but see people struggling with obesity, the ultimate evidence of dietary excess. Once we begin to carefully observe what people in our society actually eat, the connection between dietary excess and health compromise begins to achieve clarity.

If we then follow the evidence and the logic, it begins to become reasonable to assume that the solution is to subtract foods of excess from our daily fare. And as we subtract the majority of meat, fish, fowl, eggs, dairy products, oil, salt, sugar, and refined carbohydrates from our diet, what remains are foods that are health-promoting. Fresh fruits and vegetables, tubers, whole grains, legumes, and nuts and seeds fill the void after the necessary subtraction has taken place. In response, the previously overburdened body begins to experience a restoration of health.

Doyle would approve

We have argued that one of the most potent methods for the restoration of health involves doing precisely the opposite of what most people, and most health “experts,” would ever suspect. If most health problems are indeed caused by dietary excesses (and research strongly suggests they are), then it makes sense that the subtraction of such excesses is likely to be a very effective treatment strategy. Landmark investigations by Drs. Ornish, McDougall, Esselstein, and others have confirmed that this is the case. But if we follow our new perspective toward its natural conclusion, we can see that the ultimate act of dietary subtraction might be more than just dietary improvement. The most powerful treatment strategy, in some cases, might be to eat absolutely nothing for a period of time ­- a voluntary period of supervised water ­­- only fasting.

Although such an experience might be seen as dangerous or bizarre, from the proper perspective it makes good sense. The results of a recent scientific investigation conducted at our facility indicate that a period of supervised water-only fasting is the most effective known treatment for high blood pressure, the leading associated cause of death and disability within industrialized societies. [See “Telling the Truth About High Blood Pressure,” Health Science, July/August 2000.] Our results have, not surprisingly, astonished many of our colleagues, most of whom have not yet discovered an enlightened perspective.

The health-promoting results achieved by our patients after the removal of dietary excesses through dietary modification and fasting are often spectacular, by conventional standards. The power of the body’s ability to recover its health is remarkable, once the true culprits have been identified and effectively eliminated. And although most modern “experts” of both conventional and alternative persuasions are resistant to considering this perspective, we are confident that the evidence will eventually make the truth appear obvious.

In the meantime, we also are confident that at least one 19th-century Scottish physician would have had no trouble grasping this critical, and highly counterintuitive, principle of health. As Sherlock Holmes would have elegantly revealed, once seen from the proper perspective, the crucial importance of eliminating dietary excesses is, in fact, “Elementary, my dear Watson...”
 

There's more to Hygiene than cleanliness and
sanitation. And society is getting the message.

Hygiene is defined in the dictionary as the science of health and its preservation. But just what does that mean?

Science, the dictionary tells us, is the systematic observation of natural phenomena for the purpose of discovering laws governing those phenomena. In other words, science is the process we use to figure out how things work.

Health is defined as a state of optimum physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease. Natural hygiene is a broad term, which encompasses the techniques that man has developed to learn about the natural laws that determine health. The more you learn about these laws, the better prepared you are to make the choices that will determine to a large extent both the quantity and the quality of your life.

Over 100 years ago a few disenchanted medical doctors began to publicly challenge the medical approach to health care that included in its therapeutic arsenal leeches, bleeding, withholding of water from patients, etc. These early natural hygienic pioneers criticized the use of drugs in the treatment of disease and advocated fresh air and sunshine, good diet, and the avoidance of social poisons such as tobacco, alcohol, and coffee. Since the mid-1900s, natural hygienists have tried to convince a resistant world that health is a state of vitality and that health is self-generated by the human organism when it is provided with the prerequisites of health and is put under no more stress than is within its inherent and developmental capacities.

Here are some quotations. After reading them, we can decide together whether or not natural hygienists have been successful in influencing America's attitudes about health.

"Most Americans choose the way they will die. How you live, hour by hour, day by day, more than anything will determine what will kill you and when."

"For the most part, unnoticed bad living habits - not germs - are the big killers in industrialized society."

"Over the past 50 years our unhealthy living habits have grown into a gigantic new disease that kills 7 of each 10 people. The biggest killers today-heart disease, cancer, and stroke, along with cirrhosis of the liver, bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma - kill 76 percent of the 2 million Americans who die each year. There are no vaccines to prevent such threats to life. Cleaning up our life-styles is the cure. Ironically, rather than improving, lifestyles are getting worse."

"Changes in diet, smoking, exercise, and alcohol consumption, and a reduction in physical and psychological stresses of our environment would do more to improve health than doubling outlays in medical care."

Before I give you any more quotations, perhaps I should reveal the source of this information. The American Natural Hygiene Society? A chiropractic brochure? A book from a health food store?

No. All of these quotations come from a booklet put out by none other than one of the largest insurers of medical care in the country, Blue Cross.

Now let me provide you with a few more quotations from this Blue Cross booklet.

"The next major advances in the health of American people will come from the assumption of individual responsibility for one's own health and a necessary change in the lifestyle," according to Dr. John H. Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation.

"It has become clear that only by preventing disease, rather than treating it later, can we hope to achieve any major improvement in the nation's health," according to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

"By switching from a bad lifestyle to a healthier one, a person can figure on adding about 14 years to his life," said Dr. Lester Breslow, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Benjamin Lipson, an insurance consultant, said, "Bad lifestyles are such a threat to health that the so-called average healthy American with a self-indulgent living pattern is a far worse insurance risk than a mild adult diabetic who watches his diet."

Health experts are beginning to realize that crisis medicine has become a bottomless pit. No matter how much money is put into it, it has not improved the health of the people. H. Robert Cathcart, chairman of the board of trustees of the American Hospital Association, has said. "In the last few years we have come to recognize that the demand for our services is infinite. We can begin now to act on the lifestyle issue and join others in helping individuals to modify their lifestyles, to lead healthier lives, and thus to reduce the use of the expensive services that we offer."

Natural Hygiene

Have natural hygienists been successful in obtaining recognition of their philosophy? I believe the answer is a resounding Yes. The public, government, and even the medical establishment are opening their eyes. It's true that there is still much education that needs to be done, but never before have more people had more information available about how to get and stay healthy. Concepts relating to prerequisites of health have been well accepted.

Natural hygienists have long stated that the prerequisites of health include good diet and environment, appropriate activity-including rest, work and play-a sound psychology and functional homeostasis, or balance. As for diet, they recommend that the diet should be a vegetarian-oriented diet emphasizing fresh raw fruits and vegetables. They advocate regular exercise and rest as well as productive activity, and they emphasize the importance of the environment, not only in broad terms of air and water quality but also in terms of work conditions and aesthetic beauty.

Natural hygienists have long recognized that a sound psychology is predicated on self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-responsibility. These components are becoming accepted, mainstream, popular. This is good-and about time.

But there are still some concepts that have not gained widespread understanding or acceptance. Natural hygiene offers a unique view of the very nature of health and disease. Currently the average person's concepts of health and disease have been manipulated by the economic interests of the food industry, the drug industry, and, perhaps most of all, by the pseudoscientific proclamations of the medical industry, abetted by the popular media.

Modern Medicine

The modern medical establishment would have you believe that the 300-plus billion dollars a year that are spent on so-called health care is buying an ever-increasing standard of health. In recent years there has been an outcry even from individuals within the scientific and medical community.

Rick Carlson, in his book, The End of Medicine, states that current medical practice has very little to do with health. Although the medical establishment attempts to take credit for decreased incidence of specific disease processes and claims responsibility for an increase in life expectancy, Rene Dubos, an eminent bacteriologist and holder of a chair at the Rockefeller Foundation, published a book entitled Mirage of Health in which he states that modern medicine's purported achievements are not all they are cracked up to be. He points out that it was the social reformers-that is, the early natural hygienists who campaigned for purer water, better sewage disposal, and improved living standards-who were chiefly responsible for the reduction in mortality from so-called infectious disease.

As for increased life expectancy, Thomas McKeown, in his book, The Role of Medicine, explains that the statistics purporting to show a great increase in life expectancy have been misleading. The increase has largely been the consequence of higher living standards and a decrease in infant mortality. Life expectancy for those who have reached adulthood is little higher today than it was at the beginning of the century. Ivan Illich, in his book, Medical Nemesis, says that the medical profession concentrates almost all of its resources on treatments for which they get paid-rather than on prevention, which, if effective, would reduce their income and status.

In The Diseases of Civilization, Brian Inglis quotes Halfdan Mahler, director of the World Health Organization, who states that there has been a mystification in medical care, which has continued, almost unchecked.         

Absorbed in its own preoccupations, the medical profession has allowed the gap between health care and medical care to continue to widen. At the same time it has exploited its monopolistic position to create an unnecessary dependency of the population upon the holders of these mysteries.

Inglis also reminds us how adept the medical profession is at abusing statistics to try to prove its case. Hardin Jones, a professor of Medical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, bluntly told his colleagues that patients whose cancers were inoperable were being used by surgeons as the controls or comparisons in trials, giving the false impression that those patients who were being treated for cancer with surgery and radiation were benefiting. Correcting the statistics to allow for this bias, Jones calculated that the life expectancy of untreated cancer patients was longer than those receiving treatment.

Patients are often told by medical practitioners: "Learn to live with it"... "What do you expect at your age?"... "There is nothing that can be done." If patients question their doctors about alternative approaches, they are often told: "We don't know what causes your problem. We don't know what will help you. We are not trained in natural therapeutics-but they couldn't possibly be of help." And if you are a woman and your test results come back negative, you may be told that "It's just your hormones"... or "It's all in your head."

When patients who have recovered their health through natural means go back to the medical practitioner who made the original diagnosis, patients are often greeted with hostility for daring to go outside what Robert Mendelson, M.D., describes as the church of modern medicine.

In his book, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Dr. Mendelson states, "I believe that despite all the super technology and elite bedside manner that is supposed to make you feel about as well as an astronaut on the way to the moon, the greatest danger to your health is the doctor who practices Modern Medicine." He contends that the treatments for diseases are seldom effective and that they are often more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to treat.

What Is Health?

The single most important problem with the modern medical profession is its misconception about the very nature of health and disease. Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines health as the absence of signs and symptoms-that is, the absence of any evidence to the doctor or patient. In fact, even if there are symptoms, if they are not much worse than the symptoms of the other patients seen by the doctor, he may still pronounce you healthy. This is a kind of health by default. But health is not merely the absence of symptoms. It is a state of vitality where the human organism has the capacity to successfully adapt to the stresses of its environment.

What about disease? Disease is defined in the medical dictionary as a definite morbid process having a characteristic train of symptoms. If you look up morbid, you'll find it defined as having to do with disease. That's what you might call a circular definition.

Modern medicine has defined disease as both the degeneration and death of the cells that are the building blocks of tissue, as well as the processes that precede this degeneration. In other words, they believe that the reactive processes of the body-such as fever, inflammation, vomiting, diarrhea, etc.-and the death or degeneration of cells are bad. Those who study health realize that this is a serious misconception. While we all agree that the degeneration and death of the body's tissue is a bad thing that must be prevented, we strongly disagree with the concept that the self-healing mechanisms of the body-such as fever, inflammation, etc.-are negative. We recognize that not only are these "disease" processes natural, but they are essential if the body is to restore balance and prevent damage.

It is absolutely essential to understand that the body generates disease processes in an attempt to restore normality. Fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and inflammation all have very important functions in the recovery of health, if these processes are interfered with through the indiscriminate use of drugs, surgery, even "natural" therapeutics, this interference with the body's self-healing mechanisms may prevent it from making a complete recovery. The invasion treatment may be successful in eliminating the symptoms, but it may actually make the individual less healthy.

For example, fever is the word we use to describe an increase in the body's temperature. If the organism needs to increase its metabolism to fight off the effects of unfriendly microorganisms, one of the many responses of the body is to increase its basal metabolism. This increases the rate that chemical reactions take place in the body. This increased metabolism helps the body regain balance. It has also been noted that many microorganisms have difficulty synthesizing certain essential nutrients at increased temperatures and that the fever of acute illness is important in giving the body the upper hand.

The increase in temperature also creates some side effects, such as increased perspiration, headache, etc. A doctor practicing modern medicine may see fever as an enemy, since it makes the patient uncomfortable, and the doctor may proceed to "attack" the fever by poisoning the body with a variety of toxic substances.

If the doctor is "successful," the patient may feel more comfortable for a while. Unfortunately, the cause that created the need for the fever has not been addressed, and the symptoms often return at a later date, occasionally in a different form. Instead of working against the body's natural healing mechanisms, we must learn to support the body and allow it to restore its natural balance.

Fortunately, medical doctors are becoming aware of the tremendous damage they have inflicted on too trusting patients, and they are now beginning to avoid the indiscriminate interference with fever.

Care of the Sick

Natural hygienists do not claim that the body is always successful or always capable of overcoming each and every obstacle. Neither do they claim that there is never a role for drugs or surgery. Their recommendation is to avoid the causes of disease and, in cases where intervention becomes necessary, that conservative techniques should be used whenever possible, and that every attempt should be made to support the body's inherent healing mechanisms. The human organism is very well designed. And when the body is provided with the prerequisites of health and is not stressed beyond its inherent capacities, it is self-healing, self-regulating, and self-directing.

The critical issue is: What is the best way to avoid damage to the body? Obviously, the first choice is prevention. But once an injury or problem develops, what is the best way to resolve it?

Modern medicine generally takes an overly invasive, aggressive approach that often poses more risk than the process being addressed.

Drugs and surgery are often directed at the symptoms of problems rather than the actual problems. The important question to always consider is: What factor or set of factors is responsible for this set of symptoms? What can be done to remove the causes? What can be done to support the body's healing mechanisms?

Most of us realize that the symptom-oriented quick-fix promises of modern medicine are on the way out. But what will replace them? Recently "natural" therapies have come into vogue. However, most of these are nothing more than allopathic medical practices minus the toxic (drug) substances, or with less toxic ones. The philosophy is still the same. Although therapists may talk a lot about natural healing, it is, in fact, merely a game of words. The ancient concept that a special substance, vitamin, potion, or treatment is needed to allow the body to be healed is still being promoted. Instead of the potent pharmaceutical drugs of modern medicine, the "natural" therapists utilize milder herbs, homeopathics, and other exogenous agents.

Nothing but the body can heal. All healing is generated by the body. The body requires the prerequisites of life and the opportunity to heal. No drug, herb, or treatment can speed up, increase, or allow healing except in that it provides the body with a needed raw material or removes an interfacing factor.

In order to heal itself the body often generates such processes as fever, inflammation, etc. It is important to understand the role of these healing crises. When the various stress factors of life-physical, chemical, emotional, etc.-exceed the body's ability to maintain optimum health, the body will attempt to restore its natural healthful balance. It may generate what can be called a healing crisis. This is not to say that healing crises are desirable. In fact, we want to learn to live so that the need for a crisis is eliminated. But when one is required, we should support the body and not interfere with its efforts.

For example, if a toxic substance is introduced into the intestinal tract-whether it is from food, microorganisms, or any other source-the body will attempt to eliminate the poison before it can be absorbed. Vomiting and diarrhea may ensue. Attempts to interfere with these may actually increase the amount of toxin absorbed. If the body is unable to keep all of the poison from being absorbed, it may increase its metabolism (fever) and mobilize its defense mechanisms (white blood cells, etc.) to isolate and remove these poisons. These processes of the body, though uncomfortable, are both natural and necessary for our health. They would collectively be termed a healing crisis.

Choosing Health

Health is the optimum state of well being. Disease processes are attempts by the body to heal itself. Degeneration is the alteration of tissues that takes place when the body is unable to overcome stressors. Avoid the indiscriminate use of the practices of modern medicine that interfere with the natural mechanisms of the body. Support the body by providing it with the appropriate quantity and quality of the prerequisites of health and by limiting the stress factors of life within your control. It is important that everyone understands how health can be regained and maintained. Each of us must be allowed the opportunity to construct a rational model of health that is consistent with reality.

You now have this opportunity. The question is: What will you do with this information? You have a choice. And that choice will determine to a large extent the quantity and quality of your life.

Techniques to help you overcome the social roadblocks to health

Hygiene - the science of health-provides us with powerful principles that help us understand how to live healthfully and happily. But, remarkably, even though many people have an intellectual grasp of these principles, they do not put them into practice consistently. This is true even among those who have recovered from serious illness through Hygiene, and among those who have observed this inspiring drama in someone else's life.

As a psychologist, I feel this inconsistency demands an explanation.
 
Difficulties we face

There are several reasons why people who understand Hygiene may not consistently live their lives healthfully. Each situation is unique. However, in my practice at the TrueNorth Health Center, I have the opportunity to conduct the Healthy Habits groups, which are therapy sessions directed at helping people sustain positive changes. In these groups, members share their difficulties and successes in their efforts towards healthful living.

Group participants report that three types of problems account for most of the obstacles to healthful living: (1) cravings for the excitement and novelty of processed foods, (2) the convenience of "fast" foods, and (3) the social pressures from friends, family, and others about this "unusual" way of eating.

While cravings and convenience issues are important obstacles in their own right, my focus here is on the problem of adverse social pressure. For many people, social pressure is the most difficult of these three formidable obstacles to healthful living.

Need to be accepted

The crux of the social pressure issue is that we care what others think. Why should this be?   Experiments by social psychologists over the past 40 years have pointed to the answer: Our natural history is one of small-group living; thus, our natural psychology is to "get along" with others. We become concerned when others are upset or alarmed, particularly in response to our behavior. And people naturally get upset whenever we stray from the socially-accepted norm.

Any significant deviation from "normal" is generally enough to cause concern, comment, and social pressure to "conform." Something as trivial as a woman choosing to wear tennis shoes with an evening gown, for example, would be considered "unthinkable" by many people. If she tried to defend her choice by saying, "But these shoes are more comfortable than my high heels," her explanation would fall on deaf, and possibly angry, ears. She may be labeled as a "nut" and will be socially punished as long as she continues to dress in an "unacceptable" way-and probably for some time afterwards, as well.

We care about what others think because in our natural history, our ancestors relied on small-group support systems for sharing resources and trading specialized talents. These small groups needed social harmony to stay together, survive, and thrive, so internal group conflict was (and is) viewed as a serious problem. Such conflict can disrupt important life-enhancing exchange and cooperation. Little wonder, then, that groups didn't (and don't) easily tolerate unusual ways of doing things.

Reducing social pressure

A key strategy for reducing social pressure is to help others increase their tolerance for how we do things. Unfortunately, trying to do this directly often leads to failure. Consider the following interchange:

Flesh-eater: "Where do you get your protein? A person can't survive eating the way you do-it's unhealthy. You'll get sick and die. You're a nut."

Hygienist: "Why don't you leave me alone and be tolerant of our differences? I won't say another word about your clogged arteries and your overly ample proportions, and you can quit calling me a 'nut.' How about it?"

Flesh-eater: "You're a nut."

An approach that works

This direct approach tends not to work. More often than not, it is better to take an indirect approach when trying to reduce the social pressure from others to conform. We cannot expect tolerance from others. But we can make what we think and do seem less bizarre, outrageous, or threatening to them. We can accomplish this by answering questions with tentative responses, rather than definitive ones. Here is an example of an approach I frequently suggest to members in our Healthy Habits groups:

Flesh-eater: "Where do you get your protein from? A person can't survive eating the way you do-it's unhealthy. You're going to get sick and die. You're a nut."

Hygienist: "Well, my diet might not be right for everyone, but it seems to be working for me. My doctor says it seems to make sense. And if it doesn't work out, I can always go back to how I was eating before."

Husband now supportive

The effectiveness of the indirect approach was demonstrated by the experience of a woman who came to the Center earlier this year. She was suffering from some rather serious health problems, and chose to undertake a therapeutic fast and to make subsequent health-promoting dietary and lifestyle changes in order to recover her health. She was under considerable stress, however, when contemplating returning to her family and trying to maintain healthy habits. Her husband was disturbed by her visit to the Center, and was openly hostile about this approach to health recovery.

In our group work, we coached her to use an indirect approach with her husband. It was most gratifying to hear from her a few weeks later. She reported her success with great pleasure. She had recently overheard her husband on the phone with one of his friends, saying how "good his wife looked," and that "the reason was probably her new diet." The new diet was "unusual," he was explaining, but that "it seemed to make sense."

Planning for success

Health results from healthful living. But sometimes this knowledge alone is not enough. Learning to overcome the social roadblocks to health can make the difference between success and failure when it comes to health and happiness.