Radiant Health of Des Moines

F.A.Q.

Question: Will taking the Foundation of Radiant Health nutritional supplements help with any and every problem I may have?

A: The effects of the Foundation of Radiant Health are far-reaching. Many people are very surprised at the number and degree of improvements over and beyond the changes in appetite.

Question: What about the 40/30/30 carbohydrate, protein, fat diet I hear about? Is it any good?

A: The 40/30/30 diet program means getting 40-percent of calories from carbohydrate, 30-percent from fat, and 30-percent from protein. With the 40/30/30 diet, you must calculate numbers every time you eat. You learned that, structurally, we don't require any carbohydrate - our body makes glucose as long as it gets the essential nutrients it was designed to receive every day. Forty percent carbohydrate is certainly better than the 80-percent or 60-percent carbohydrate-based diets that have contributed to the epidemic in obesity and diabetes. Nothing will take the place of solving a nutritional deficiency except eliminating the deficiency. That’s what the Foundation of Radiant Health does. Special diets are not needed.

Question: What other nutritional product would you recommend for use with basic essence?

A: An Essiac-concept detoxifying tonic is required for optimum health. We also need to supplement the nine minerals that are no longer in the soil in sufficient quantities for human nutrition. Taking a moderate vitamin supplement makes good Life-Systems Engineering sense. Some nutritional supplements have a long history of established effectiveness like co-enzyme Q10 and Ginkgo. What’s most important is that you may find that the efficiency of many nutritional supplements increases with the addition of the Foundation of Radiant Health.

Question: How long must I wait to see results, especially the appetite reduction and cellulite reduction?

A: This depends on your personal condition. For many users, appetite reduction appears within 90 days. Others may find it takes longer, because they are so deficient and their body is more unbalanced. A threshold level must be reached before improvements will be noticed. The hills-and-valleys of cellulite are often visibly reduced within 90 days and virtually disappear within one year. A good analogy is boiling water. We have to keep adding heat to the water until a critical level is reached. Only then do we notice steam and the water beginning to boil. Allow basic essence and the Foundation of Radiant Health program at least 90 days to start to work for you.

Question: How long will it take before I stop overeating?

A: That answer will depend on many of your personal Life-Systems factors. Many of us are eating too often out of habit. Such behavior will take time to change. The Foundation works on the physical, first. Then, with time, the emotional component often takes care of itself. Women typically take longer than men because women were much more diligent in following the "great carbohydrate eating experiment." Therefore, their body takes longer to "believe" it is getting the required nutrients. Be patient.

Question: Why could it take a while for the results to be seen? If we are so lacking in EFAs, shouldn’t the results appear quickly?

A: Your body is very smart. We postulate that, after years of deficiency, once a few EFAs arrive, your body doesn’t immediately respond as if you’ll keep getting EFAs continually. After a time, the body’s "wisdom" signals the appestat that it can count on a continued supply. It doesn’t count on this until after it gets the EFAs regularly for a period of time. Further, your body will only use a limited amount of any nutrient, regardless how much is taken. For example, if you have a deficiency of iron and take several times the RDAs of iron tablets, most of it will be eliminated, and it will still take significant time to correct the deficiency.

Question: I’ve noticed that my diastolic pressure (the second blood-pressure number) has gone down slightly after about 6 months of the Foundation of Radiant Health. Is this normal?

A: Yes. Basic essence makes your arteries more elastic. So, the diastolic (resting between beats) pressure may decrease a bit. If your arteries were rigid like a straw, then your diastolic pressure would be almost equal to the higher systolic (the top number) pressure. The more flexible the arteries are, the lower the diastolic number will be. This is healthy. We want flexible arteries.

Question: I recently saw on ABC News with Peter Jennings that fiber (like bran) doesn’t protect against colon cancer. Cancer protection was the #1 reason I ate so many carbohydrates during the past 10 years. The physicians interviewed agreed they were wrong, but they still didn’t change their recommendations to eat lots of fiber (carbohydrates). The next day a newspaper article reported that the American Cancer Society says fiber "protects against ‘other’ cancers." Are they wrong, too? Also, will the "preventative breast removal theory" prove wrong 10 years from now? I’m outraged over the pattern of guesses by the nutritional community that are later shown to be wrong, and I may never believe another "recommendation" based on words like "some evidence," "possibly," "probably," "postulated," "believe," "likely," "tends," or "may help." Why do these mistakes keep happening?

A: Despite the best intentions, recommendations to "eat plenty of fiber" from grains, fruits, and vegetables were not based on science. Rather, like the majority of "popular nutrition wisdom," this was based entirely on mistaken opinion (or flawed conclusions). I call it "fiber-fiction." The New York Times (January 21,1999, page A1) reported: the colon cancer rate didn’t change: regardless of type of fiber consumed, regardless of how much fatty meat or lean tofu was eaten, regardless of whether any exercise was performed, and regardless of smoking. In fact, those who ate the most vegetables got the most colon cancer! Life-Systems Engineers warned us of the diabetes epidemic and other diseases tied to eating access carbohydrates for fiber. The article you referred to was on page 1 of USA Today (January 21,1999). A Life-Systems Engineering analysis of this story and the Times leads us to 3 misleading points:

The USA story quoted one expert who implied that, somehow, cereal provides better fiber than fiber from fruits and vegetables, or meat. He claimed that the 88,000 people in the study didn’t eat enough cereal. This is scientifically unfounded. Fiber is fiber.

The study’s author stated: "Folic acid probably protects against colon cancer." If this were true, none of the fiber-eaters in the study would have gotten colon cancer, because they would have been eating leafy vegetables containing folic acid as part of their life-style diet. Some of the study’s participants ate a whopping 25 grams of fiber per day — still no improvement! Therefore, this finding should have been challenged. "Probably" isn’t good enough for science — certainly not a sound basis for recommendations.

The author was also noted as stating that a "high fiber diet clearly cuts heart disease risk." The study according to these articles, does not support this recommendation. Ten years from now will we be told this incorrect conclusion, too, was based on mistaken opinion? As you learned in Beyond The Zone, cause/effect relationships require vigorous testing to prove and can’t be made up so casually. Unfortunately, it appears that defenders of the great 20-year carbohydrate eating experiment will do anything to defend the theory that carbohydrates are wonderful, even when the facts soundly disprove it. Once again, you see that the science of Life-Systems Engineering was right, and virtually all the popular opinions were wrong.

Question: I still find it almost unbelievable that so much of what we read and hear about nutrition is wrong. Can you explain why this happens?

A: In Chapter 1, I thank Professor William Siebert for warning me that most of what is published is wrong. This is nothing new.

When Noble Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was ready to publish his new mathematical theory, he found that it didn’t agree with experimental results that were already published. He withdrew his theory from publication, but he later discovered that each publication had been blindly copied from the same original experiment — which had been reported incorrectly! (see pages 362-363). Feynman’s theory was consistent with the original data (not with the researchers’ conclusion). Feynman went on to say that he would never blindly accept anyone else’s results. He would only rely on the original data, then interpret it for himself.

In section 43-5 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman derives a complicated result and states that "…the arguments have a subtlety which can be appreciated only by a careful and detailed study. We shall make over the argument which led to the proper equation in a reasonable but erroneous way (and the [incorrect] way found in many text books!)." Feynman was proposing to show the audience how the correct argument could be distorted, or "made over," and to one that seems similar but is wrong. Even textbooks can have incorrect results. The reader must be able to analyze them.

The distinguished biochemist Barry Sears writes in The Anti-Aging Zone how puzzled he is that, even after so many years, the majority of nutritionists and physicians still consider cholesterol and fat as the causes of heart disease, when the cause is so clearly tied to sugar (carbohydrates) and insulin.

Many nutrition writers are guilty of blindly copying from one publication to another. They don’t posses sufficient statistical background. Too often, nutrition researchers publish misinterpretations (half-truths) that mislead us. Bad advice associated with credible sources gets transformed into "popular wisdom.".Mistakes are published in all scientific fields, but, after reading Beyond The Zone, you’ll agree that no scientific field (psychology isn’t included) has more inconsistencies than the "science" of nutrition. The nutrition field suffers from the same lack of critical analysis that Professor Feynman warns us against. To bring this critical analysis and accountability of results into nutrition is one of the main reasons the new field of Life-Systems Engineering was developed.

Question: You dispelled the myth of "increasing the metabolism" as the solution to burning more fat, because the body is not a heat engine, but a chemical engine. I now agree the "heat engine" analogy is correct. Can you give me some insight why it is said that "fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate"? This implies that I need lots of carbohydrates to burn fat. I repeatedly hear this comment from nutritionists promoting "low-fat."

A: The statement is misleading. Acetyl CoA in the citric acid cycle requires oxaloacetate. Oxaloacetate normally comes from pyruvate (made from sugar). What you weren’t told is that pyruvate also comes from amino acids (protein). See Stryer’s Biochemistry-4th addition, pages 612, 638.

Question: After so many years of misinformation and misleading advertising, is it possible to bring the truth about nutrition to most people?

A: No. Either they will not believe it, or they still defend their (incorrect) opinions. Whenever I get coffee, I tell the person in front of me "the truth" that "half & half" or cream is less fattening and healthier than milk-and it tastes better in their coffee, too. The reply is either, "I know," or "it probably is." What do they order? Coffee with nonfat milk. After hundreds of times offering "the truth," I have yet to have just one of them ask me, "why do you say that?" Yes, it is very frustrating but if I can help just one more person to understand how their body really works, I am very pleased.

Question: Does the Foundation of Radiant Health help with hot flashes (during menopause)?

A: Yes. Recall that basic essence is the building block of sexual hormones.

Question: Did I hear correctly that bagels, rice, pasta, bread and juice are not any better than common table sugar?

A: Correct ! There is little difference, biochemically, as far as your body is concerned.

Question: I’ve been consistently using the Foundation of Radiant Health for about 90 days. As a test, I ate a big piece of cake before going to bed. I didn’t sleep well at all that night, and my stomach felt terrible when I woke up. Why?

A: You’ve proven to yourself how toxic processed carbohydrates are!

Question: Why haven’t taking vitamins and minerals helped us more?

A: Vitamin efficiency is often compromised by a mineral shortage. Few of us have been told this fact. What is the bioavailability (absorption) of the minerals? Many products have questionable or poor absorption rates. More importantly, if you don’t have basic essence in your diet, vitamins and minerals have little to work with. Vitamins and minerals work on the basic building blocks: essential amino acids and essential healthy oils (basic essence EFAs). Picture a car with no headlights or windshield wipers. Basic essence can be thought of as the car; minerals as the headlights, and vitamins as the windshield wipers. The car works better with the windshield wipers and headlights, but the wipers and headlights are worthless without the car.

Question: I must say that Life-Systems Engineers understanding of cause-and-effect with the foods we eat is far beyond anything I have seen published! Does any other science start with how the human machine is designed by Mother Nature?

A: No, they typically don’t. Their mistakes are usually caused by the same fundamental problem. The facts are there, but they are applied incorrectly. Misunderstanding of cause-and-effect continues despite the real-life evidence.

Question: In your opinion, what is the fundamental reason why the high-carbohydrate idea became so prevalent?

A: In this case, nutritionists looked at marathon athletes for whom carbo-loading 24 hours before their event is appropriate. There’s a physiologically valid reason for these particular athletes to do this. But a high carbohydrate diet was apparently applied to everyone, even though it’s completely inappropriate for non-athletes and anyone motivated to lose excess body fat. Athletes want to win a physical event. They aren’t concerned at all with fat loss during the event.

Question: I find it almost unbelievable that protein and fat don’t go to fat (adipose tissue), and that carbohydrates are the sole culprit making us fat. Is this really true?

A: Yes. It was demonstrated back in the late 1800s and again in the 1940s, but complete biochemical understanding was lacking. Basic Medical Biochemistry, published in 1996 (page 510), states: "Adipose tissue lacks glycerol kinase and can produce glycerol 3-phosphate only from glucose (carbohydrate). Thus, adipose tissue (body fat) can store fatty acids only when glycolysis is activated, by eating (carbohydrates). Fatty acid degeneration (use) is also coupled to the need for ATP (energy). Stryer's Biochemistry -- 4th edition, the gold standard of medical biochemistry textbooks (page 772) further confirms it. Adipose (fat) cells need glucose (sugar) for the synthesis of triacylglycerols (adipose body fat). Page 660 states: Following the ingestion of a high protein meal, the gut and liver utilize most of the absorbed amino acids (for their own energy) and very little (protein) enters the portal vein. Biochemistry (page 629) states: Amino acids (from protein) can’t be stored, in contrast with fatty acids and glucose, nor are they excreted. Life-Systems Engineering, translation: your body can’t make more body fat without eating carbohydrates. The leading biochemistry textbooks are quite clear. So much for the great 20-year carbohydrate eating experiment being best for us!

Question: Isn’t a more sedentary life-style the cause of our nation’s obesity and ill-health epidemics?

A: Yes and no. If everyone did lots of physical work throughout the day, then we could eat more carbohydrates with fewer ill-effects. But most of us don’t do much physical work anymore. Plus, more exercise can’t overcome a nutritional deficiency. Life-Systems Engineering was developed to understand how to produce desired results based on how the body works. We have discovered how to stay lean for life and achieve peak performance and radiant health, with just moderate exercise.

Question: How come nearly every clinical study and nutritional article hedges the effectiveness of the item in question by using phrases like, "possibly assists," "appears to help," or "may be effective." Something should either work or not work, shouldn’t it?

A: We agree. The Never Get Suckered Again: Becoming STAT-SMART chapter discusses this in detail. The results of any clinical study should be stated in this style: There is a 95-percent probability that the item has this effect, and I have 95-percent confidence in my conclusion. Articles usually do not present information in this fashion. We consumers have little idea how effective anything really is. We suggest caution before jumping on anyone’s bandwagon. We are not using this format in this book, because it is entirely based on established medical research not clinical studies.

Question: My appetite is greatly reduced since I started on the Foundation of Radiant Health, but I am often forced to eat late at night because I must work such long hours. Some say the digestion rate stays the same throughout the day; others say it decreases at night and that I shouldn’t eat so late. Who is correct?

A: Virtually all bodily processes slow down in the evening. Lying down slows the digestive process. We could test a diabetic after he or she eats a late dinner at 11 P.M. compared with an early dinner at 7 P.M. The blood sugar level measured at 7 A.M. the next morning is significantly lower after the early dinner. Late-night eating is not ideal, but processed carbohydrates late at night aggravate the situation, because that causes blood sugar levels to remain elevated while sleeping.

Question: I’m a woman, and I get slightly depressed once a month; will the Foundation of Radiant Health help?

A: PMS symptoms and related symptoms including, depression, are often reduced by a dramatic degree.

Question: The Essiac tonic discussed seems impressive. Is it as effective as the basic essence?

A: Yes, it is. The tonic works by minimizing the negative effects of food additives, pesticides, and so on. Basic essence adds a positive: "parent" EFAs. Their mechanisms are different, yet complementary. Both products together should be the foundation of your nutritional program, along with an amino acid-chelated mineral supplement.

Question: Can I still enjoy fast-foods, cakes and desserts?

A: Sure. Eat them if you still desire them. Over time, your desire for these treats should naturally decrease with basic essence and chelated minerals. An Essiac-concept tonic reduces the negative effects of food processing and food additives in such foods.

Question: Are you suggesting that I can eat all the fatty foods I desire and not suffer adverse effects? New studies say it’s the harmful transfats we need to avoid; natural fats are fine.

A: Remember, that animal fat may contain stored toxins, and vegetable oils may contain pesticide residues. So, unless you are consuming a detoxifier, such as Essiac-concept tonic, you’ll take in and accumulate more of these toxins. Basic essence supplies the proper levels of essential healthy oils. If the Foundation of Radiant Health is used, eating natural fat is fine. Just stay away from processed fats such as margarines, processed vegetable oils, and fat substitutes. The conclusion that natural fats, in and of themselves, aren’t harmful, is based on known medical physiology. It was demonstrated a hundred years ago, and is simply being confirmed again. With the Foundation of Radiant Health, you can begin to trust your taste.