One of the concepts discussed by Dr. D'Adamo at the conference was hormesis.

I was trying to figure out how I could establish what would be the appropriate hormetic dose level for various foods.

---

Issue 1

Let's say I know what dose of a food will present an immediate adverse but short term affect (say headache, hives, digestive distress).

A) Is this the level I want. I positively know that I have stressed the body. I am will to endure short term pain for increasing my overall health and longevity.

B) Do I want to try to scale the dose back off of this to:
--The most I can eat just short of inducing sickness.
--One tenth of dose that produces short term observable effects
--One hundredth of dose that produces short term observable effects
--One Thousandth of dose that produces short term observable effects
--Some other dose level

---

Issue two:

Could I just include a few inorganic foods in my diet and assume that my body is sufficiently stressed that I do not need to eat foods rated as toxins/avoids?

---

Issue three:

If I currently have enough allergens (mold, pollen, dust, chemicals in air) to stress my body, should I assume that is enough stress, and not try to include any efforts including foods for hormesis?

Wait- what on earth does hormesis have to do with intentionally ingesting toxins?

I thought hormesis was the idea that everything is good, in the right amount. Too much exercise stresses the body, lack of exercise is bad for you, but "just right" exercise is strenghtening. Too much sun causes sunburn, heat stroke, and skin cancer, too little sun causes vitamin D deficiency and depression, just the right amount is beneficial. The trace amount of arsenic and lead in my sea salt are "just the right amount" for those trace minerals, etc etc.

If you get sick eating a certain food, then you shouldn't eat it. Or, if it's creating a "healing crisis" then it's probably best to eat it in a small enough "dose" that it doesn't cause any unpleasant symptoms. That might be half the portion size for some foods, 3/4 the portion size for another, 1/10th of another. There isn't "one right answer" that works across the board, for all foods and all  bodies.

I don't think Dr. D'Adamo meant to use lectins as a means for hormetics.

I still miss the psychosomatic aspects...

Quoted from Tom Martens

I don't think Dr. D'Adamo meant to use lectins as a means for hormetics.

May want to look at slide 144 in "The Two-Fold Aspect of Everything"
This slide is headed "Low Lectin Diet" vs "No-Lectin diet" vs "I Don't Know Lectin Diet"

The graph on the slide includes a Hormetic Zone for lectins.

(For those without the slides-The graph resembles a single cycle of a sine wave. No dose at extreme left--doses increasing to the right. Hormetic Zone is on the right where the curve is positive. As dose increases the wave goes negative.)

sometimes lectins are beneficial in small amounts(hormetic) especially for polyps or colon health like mushrooms and fava beans

Since I don't know what you are talking about, I'd like to understand the topic better.  

Are you saying that certain foods that might bring about illness in larger (or more consistent) amounts, might be used in smaller controlled portions as a way to stimulate a healing or health-promoting effect?

Hormetics sounds like homeopathy.  Titrate something down to almost nothing and it can cure.
ie Belladona...which in a large dose is poison.

Quoted from Victoria

Are you saying that certain foods that might bring about illness in larger (or more consistent) amounts, might be used in smaller controlled portions as a way to stimulate a healing or health-promoting effect?

Yes, but to apply the concept one needs to know the quantity that is health promoting versus being harmful.

So I am asking how to calculate the dose that is health promoting.

A later slide suggests one can use can use targeted hormesis to prevent dementia, osteoporosis, cancer ...

I kind of would like to prevent dementia, but without some knowledge of an appropriate dose I am not able to adjust my diet to get the benefits of hormesis.

Quoted Text

May want to look at slide 144 in "The Two-Fold Aspect of Everything"
This slide is headed "Low Lectin Diet" vs "No-Lectin diet" vs "I Don't Know Lectin Diet"

I saw that slide and was curious as to what Dr. D. would say about it but it was one that was not addressed. (there were many slides and only so much time!) Very interesting topic and I was wondering how it would relate to the diet.

Quoted from Chloe

Hormetics sounds like homeopathy.  Titrate something down to almost nothing and it can cure.
ie Belladona...which in a large dose is poison.

Hormetics has an inverse amount as compared to homeopathy.  As in you are actually getting something but in a low dose, short duration type treatment.

Quoted from C_sharp

May want to look at slide 144 in "The Two-Fold Aspect of Everything"
This slide is headed "Low Lectin Diet" vs "No-Lectin diet" vs "I Don't Know Lectin Diet"

The graph on the slide includes a Hormetic Zone for lectins.

(For those without the slides-The graph resembles a single cycle of a sine wave. No dose at extreme left--doses increasing to the right. Hormetic Zone is on the right where the curve is positive. As dose increases the wave goes negative.)

I think it's the 80% compliant that will give the hermetic effect.  Lectins don't seem to be the low dose, short term "dose" that would be needed for the intended effect.

I second the fava beans. Hate beans though..

This is a thread that I could think on for a few days. Betting the newbies are scratching their heads for sure.

Advice to newbies: don't get caught up in this.

C#, your brain intrigues me. So great to meet you.

C_sharp, I missed you at the conference!

Wanted to say hello to the guy who always has sound advice.

Angela, I am also scratching my head!

C#

It was a great pleasure to have met you in person at the Conference..

About "beneficial" hormetic amounts of otherwise harmful/lethal substances, I believe there's the "individuality" here, it could be quite possible that we may all have different thresholds

My two cents

Cheers,
Yaman

Hormetics are included in our personalized swamies .....
I believe certain foods I do get back home already create that effect, depending
I have no easy access to pure organic food choices

Quoted from Lola

Hormetics are included in our personalized swamies .....

Are these the black dots???

perhaps those, too
and also, some people can t possibly find all organic, so there too lies a possibility......
we don t live in an organic bubble so that is taken into consideration as well.....
it is a balancing act, no?

Would this mean that people like my friend are correct when they say we should eat a few toxin/avoids every day to keep our bodies in balance?  

Quoted from Victoria

Would this mean that people like my friend are correct when they say we should eat a few toxin/avoids every day to keep our bodies in balance?  

I'm not worried about not getting enough toxins in my diet. Without trying to add more.

Without having been there to hear the lecture I would take away that targeted hormetics have value.

The key being targeted.  

Quoted from Victoria

Would this mean that people like my friend are correct when they say we should eat a few toxin/avoids every day to keep our bodies in balance?  

Not every day

Once a week or month in small amouts would be reasonable.

Quoted from Lloyd

I'm not worried about not getting enough toxins in my diet. Without trying to add more.

Do you mean Genotype Toxins, or environmental toxins?  'Cause I have not eaten any toxins or avoids on my food list for close to 10 years.  

Quoted from Tom Martens

Not every day

Once a week or month in small amouts would be reasonable.

Tom, by "reasonable", do you mean desirable?  Maybe most people eat some avoids occasionally, but I never do.  Since this is the first I've heard of this, I'm very confused.  I'm wondering what the implications are for someone like myself who does not ever eat toxins from the food list.  Are we hurting ourselves in some way?

Quoted from Victoria

Since this is the first I've heard of this, I'm very confused.

The concepts are not fully worked out.

Dr. D'Adamo has not published any dietary guidelines based on the hormesis concepts that he discussed at the conference.

I do not expect to see any written dietary guidelines based on hormetic concepts for at least two years.

But he clearly indicated that these are the concepts that he is thinking about now.  If you want to be intellectually engaged you may want to start thinking about hormesis as well.

If you want to know more about about hormesis just google it.

There is no reason for anyone to change their diets based on the fact that I posted a thread based on presentations at the IfHI conference.

Quoted from AKArtlover

This is a thread that I could think on for a few days. Betting the newbies are scratching their heads for sure.

Advice to newbies: don't get caught up in this.

C#, your brain intrigues me. So great to meet you.

I was drooling at the concept after the 5th post...

Would the dose/response graph be scaled down for Explorers since they are so sensitive?  Does homeopathy work well prinicply with Explorers and others with taxed immune systems?

My theory is that hormetics are something that will be used to treat specific medical issues, not as "part of a healthy diet." One of the links on the topic mentioned how eating a toxin ONCE cleared up a chronic issue, and then it never returned (the details are now fuzzy.)

I could see it being listed as part of the protocols, or in addition to the protocols, but I doubt it's going to be included in SWAMI on the regular food lists. I imagine something like this: You have chronic acne? OK, eat 1/2 cup of this specific "avoid" food once, your acne should flare up and then after a week it will calm down and go away. If this doesn't work completely, repeat it in 3 or 6 months. Maybe do it once a year for maintenance, if needed.

Quoted from Victoria

Do you mean Genotype Toxins, or environmental toxins?  'Cause I have not eaten any toxins or avoids on my food list for close to 10 years.  

Both.

I'm sure that since your food lists have changed over ten years some of what you were eating, while not considered avoids at the time, were in fact toxins. Since SWAMI is not perfect I highly doubt that what you are currently following is toxin-free.

Quoted from Lloyd

Both.

I'm sure that since your food lists have changed over ten years some of what you were eating, while not considered avoids at the time, were in fact toxins. Since SWAMI is not perfect I highly doubt that what you are currently following is toxin-free.

hmmmm . . I think I have to let this one go.  It is too much for my wee brain to navigate right now.  

Dr. D said that good results from from 80%-85% compliance.

Victoria, have some birthday cake a few times a year

Just a quick flavor--
he was exploring the concept in healthy people as well as how it could be applied to undesirable states.

This was an IFHI more about ideas than application.  

Homeopathics were discussed. The idea of a body presenting illness in triggering one thing, using the homeopathic concept (small doses) to get the body to reset and return to a different pattern.

Sometimes triggering a response to an entirely different thing, may cause the body to make changes to heal the targeted symptom. Fascinating stuff. An entirely different model than, "Someone is having more symptomology, I need to up the dosage."

In the beginning of the diet, eating more of the things that were making you ill, IMO is not a good idea. This could be how you got there in the first place. (Probably the concept with the black dots.)

Variety is valuable.

Dr. D did say that in the end, people that are 85-95%? compliant with these diets seem to get the best results and had a quote at a different point in the lecture to the effect that too much of a good thing is no good. He has also said elsewhere on this board that the healthiest people have the least reaction to avoids. He has also said previously that you get well by what you are eating, not what you are avoiding.

There is a part of me that wonders about the mental component of mindset. 100% compliance if tied with a rigid (guilt) model, may impede healing, whereas a bit of flexibility and trust in the body to adapt may be useful. Just my ramblings....

I believe I found myself in the state I was in because of a lack of variety and a high lectin/avoid diet before I was aware of what I was eating. I wrecked my gut. From the 2003 CD's I now understand that the immature cells were being forced forward before they were ready and then I was again bombarding them with more harmful lectins. The mature intestinal lining is much less reactive.

My analysis, maybe after the initial healing, being too rigid with yourself is detrimental. However, how long your pattern is-- an individual thing. Elsewhere I think someone alluded to him referring to a certain number of years of healing per year of illness. Anyone? Individual though.  

Also, it is an individual thing as to whether the body produced longer term responses. This conference raised more questions than having applied answers. If something triggered a change in an antibody that creates a response when exposed to something, what might trigger the body to reset the original pattern of the antibody creation (assuming that the pattern is still available in the genetic pattern for reawakening)? Again, humble brain, I hope this is a correct understanding of the concept.  

Hormesis is probably the method in which sauna is helpful moreso than sweating toxins. The concept of not overwhelming-- 30% of maximum capacity. Staying in a sauna until exhausted is not useful.

The resetting process itself may trigger epigentic changes that are healthful beyond a simple cause/effect relationship.

The relationships in the body are complex. Complicated, he said, is a word we use when we don't understand something. Basically, in the body, simple things are interacting in complex relationships in a logical, elegant way. Keying into the patterns and network relationships may be the most effective means of intervention or influencing outcomes. Bioinformatics in this model will use computers to help us understand data in a way far beyond the individual power of one human brain analyzing the data. (In a different application, he has used group (genotype) information and food data in SWAMI to program intellegence so that he doesn't have to sit down with each patient and think through their food list. The more data SWAMI processes, the more refined the list.)

Most of the mainstream (and even a good portion of naturopathic medicine) is looking at simple cause/effect relationships. This is a reductionist way of thinking. http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/index.php/2010/09/15/reductionism-and-complexity?blog=24

Looking forward to more.  

CD's should be about a month, Martha indicated.

PC, I think you will really enjoy them.  

I hope this is clear and I am understanding everything as presented. It is never my intention to misrepresent anyone.

As I said, just a flavor.

Quoted from Victoria

Tom, by "reasonable", do you mean desirable?  Maybe most people eat some avoids occasionally, but I never do.  Since this is the first I've heard of this, I'm very confused.  I'm wondering what the implications are for someone like myself who does not ever eat toxins from the food list.  Are we hurting ourselves in some way?

Reasonable meaning amount and frequency.
If you have severe reactions to certain food avoids then the stress of hermetics would be too great.
The idea behind hermetics is to stress your body with a small amount of "X" for a short duration.  This causes enough "damage" that cells that are "iffy" but unrecognizable now have more than enough wrong with them to be noticed as "non-self."

"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger"

This type of "therapy" is not for everyone, but in theory it makes sense.

Interesting, I just remembered Dr. D saying at IFHI mini about how most of the food issues people have are intolerances that can change-- not true allergies.

He's got me fucosylating (as Lola likes to use the term)!  

It's becoming a bit clearer -- interesting thoughts and ideas!

It seems that controlled and short-term selective use is what this is about, not the regular, daily use of eating foods that are avoids.  This brings to mind a couple of things that may or may not be related:

1.  Sometimes I'll deal with a chronic situation that keeps popping up on a somewhat regular basis, month after month, such as the symptoms of a bad cold, sinus infection or flu that I beat back through the use of elderberry, Yin Chaio and other supplements.  I don't get sick, but never seem to really defeat it.  
Finally, either because I get too tired or too stressed, or eat something that is hard to digest -- I'll come down with a very intense cold or flu.  It may only last a couple of days, but after it's done, I'll feel absolutely wonderful and may go for months before even a sniffle bothers me.

The key seems to be how to know which things to temporarily add to the diet in order to trigger this hormetic reaction.  If very specific foods are appropriate for very specific conditions, or will any old avoid do the trick.  And there are some foods that cause such violent or dangerous reactions that they should be avoided no matter what, such as birthday cake for someone who is gluten intolerant.  

2.  I was reading this morning on Dr D's Facebook page, a link someone provided about how certain chronic staph, which lies dormant and resurfaces from time to time, may be successfully dealt with by adding sugar to the antibiotic.  This "wakes up" the infection enough that it is vulnerable to the medicine and can finally be killed.

Quoted from AKArtlover

Just a quick flavor--
he was exploring the concept in healthy people as well as how it could be applied to undesirable states.

Would that be undesirable pathological states, since an immune response would not often alter the expression of genetics?  Is tanning a hormetic epigenetic event?  A little tan is protective, but a burn is damage that increases the risk of melanoma,especially childhood sunburns.

Quoted from AKArtlover

He has also said elsewhere on this board that the healthiest people have the least reaction to avoids. He has also said previously that you get well by what you are eating, not what you are avoiding.

I have had a reduced reaction to avoid foods this spring.

Quoted from AKArtlover

PC, I think you will really enjoy them.  

I wish I could have attended this year's Conference.  Getting material from this and past conferences is going to be easier.  

Ah, hormesis.  A great way to justify eating out