Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
mbajin

What to eat? What to drink? What to do????

I'm sure anyone who has acne would like nothing more than to know the causes of their acne- and consequently, how to remove those causes.

With that in mind, I'd like to share what I've gone through and where am I today:

For over 5 years, I've dealth with acne (12-17), and it's not been fun. Up until last year, I tried every conventional method and nothing worked. Then I took accutane- clear. Hallelujah! Now I'm off accutane, and I get very mild acne. Dan's regimen keeps that under control. I don't get more than 3-4 breakouts per week. Hallelujah #2!

However, I strongly believe that accutane and Dan's regimen are not the main characters that keep me acne-free. Taking accutane forced me to make choices about my life-style. They have been drastic. They have worked.

Acne is an indication of either A) Having less-than perfect genes, or B) Being unhealthy. For me, it was both.

We can't change our genetic makeup, but we can make smart every-day choices that keep us healthy.

Would it hurt to exercise and eat well? You say: I know so many people who don't do those things, but are clear. I say- blame their/your genes. Take responsibility and counteract the effects of your genes by making conscious decisions. I find there are three components to making sure you are an healthy individual.

1: DIET: You can't survive without food. Acne has no evolutionary benefit. Having acne does not improve out chances of survival and replication. This means that it only evolved due to humanly causes. Nature does not favor acne. Human activites do. What this means is that as long as the stuff entering your body is natural (as in found in nature), you stand a better chance against your genes. For example, french fries do not occur in nature. There are no french-fry trees. There aren't any rivers flowing with coke or sprite. Don't look at nuritional values. Ask yourself: "Is this food industrialized? Can you find this food and its components in nature?" If you answer "No," then don't eat it. (This also applies to cooked food. Cooking is not unnatural. Fire is found in nature. Deep-frying is not.)

2: EXERCISE: Now this can mean a lot of things. 40,000 years ago, people hunted for food (diet). Hunting meant running after prey. It meants swimming to catch fish. Climbing trees for fruits. Hunting/Gathering = exercise. You can't sit around all day. You can't lock yourself indoors. Encorporate yourself with nature. Always opt for outdoors sports. If you are in harmony with nature, your genes don't stand a chance.

3: ATTITUDE: Mind over body. Mind over body. Repeat that. How do you think a 5 year old kid could lift a 2-ton car to save his mother who was stuck under the rubble? (It's true story) Was he a genetic anomaly? No. Mind over body. Western science refuses to accept what can't be proven with experimental data. Same with acne and attitude. If you can't prove with data that acne is related to attitude, it's false! No. What this means is that if you believe your acne is more powerful than you are, it will be. This concept applies to everythingin your life. Mind over body. You can choose to be powerful, or you can choose to succumb to your physical obstacles. How do you think ugly people are able to attract gorgeous people? How do you think underdogs become victorious? Mind over body. Your acne does not control you.

Long post, but I wanted to share.

-- Mehmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where to start? What foods "occur in nature"? Let's get it straight: you took accutane, you manage your acne free skin by using benzoyl peroxide twice a day, and yet you're suggesting, what, that the rest of us should beat our acne by foraging around for berries and leaves? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where to start? What foods "occur in nature"? Let's get it straight: you took accutane, you manage your acne free skin by using benzoyl peroxide twice a day, and yet you're suggesting, what, that the rest of us should beat our acne by foraging around for berries and leaves? Wow.

First, to answer your questions:

"Where to start? What foods "occur in nature"?"

-- I'll give you an example. Peanuts are found in nature. They grow as plants. Farmers collect them, and sell them without altering them. That's an example of food that is found in nature. In the same context, peanut butter is a human invention. Before humans, there was no such thing as peanut butter. It is up to you do decide whether you want a human-invented food product to enter your body or not.

Second, from what I can piece together, the message boards are a way of sharing your ideas. If you read the description on the main page, it says "Discuss diet and other healthy lifestyle choiceshere." There are individuals who do not have access to accutane, or even Dan's regimen products. I was in that situation myself. I am just sharing my ideas. It is up to you whether or not to accept any of them.

Third, I strongly believe being healthy should not be advocated for just because it helps acne. Being healthy is a good thing regardless. I share my ideas with everyone I know. My conception of being healthy differs from yours, and that's to be expected- we are different individuals. I respect that; doesn't seem as if you do, considering the angry and condescending subtext of your post that could only be backed by the fact that you have tried out these ideas and have not seen any beneficial results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your ideas. However, I do think Andrew makes a good point. It is impossible to tell whether it is your diet, exercise, attitude or the Benzoyl peroxide plus previous Accutane course that it keeping you clear ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(This also applies to cooked food. Cooking is not unnatural. Fire is found in nature. Deep-frying is not.)"

So applying heat to food is "natural" but applying heat to food with an improved conductor is not? Of course I'm assuming that by "cooking" you refer to either baking, grilling or roasting.

Half-baked theories based on assertions drawn from the general assumption that fried food is unhealthy thus any negative annotation one wishes may be applied to it are unnatural and should not be digested. They can cause brain damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(This also applies to cooked food. Cooking is not unnatural. Fire is found in nature. Deep-frying is not.)"

So applying heat to food is "natural" but applying heat to food with an improved conductor is not? Of course I'm assuming that by "cooking" you refer to either baking, grilling or roasting.

Half-baked theories based on assertions drawn from the general assumption that fried food is unhealthy thus any negative annotation one wishes may be applied to it are unnatural and should not be digested. They can cause brain damage.

Melek, there's a difference between deep-frying and regular frying. He didn't say regular frying is bad; regular frying is fine in the context of a stable, saturated oil such as coconut oil. In the presence of a unstable, PUFA oil like the soybean oil that's used everywhere, you get a gross excess of free radicals. Deep frying is also notorious for causing things like acrylamides in large quantities, which are toxic for you and a burden to your liver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I got half an answer. If I find wild peanuts I'm allowed to eat them, maybe even to set them on fire (if there's a convenient volcano nearby). Since sheep, cattle, pigs and chickens are not "natural" (presumably) my meat intake will comprise whatever insects, birds and rats are indigenous to this part of the city. Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a gene for cynical black&white thought

Its's absolutely incredible how cynic-black&white-thought people all have the same arrogant attitude, use the same words and buzzwords and take advantage of the same narrow concepts ...

Even if one may be 1000 miles away from the other they seem to come from the same matrix and you may think they're clones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a gene for cynical black&white thought

Its's absolutely incredible how cynic-black&white-thought people all have the same arrogant attitude, use the same words and buzzwords and take advantage of the same narrow concepts ...

Even if one may be 1000 miles away from the other they seem to come from the same matrix and you may think they're clones

Or touché as we say en Anglais.

Play the ball please.

Ironic that my attitude (amongst that jumble of pronouns I presume it was me you were referring to) should be accused of being "black&white", when the entire point of my objection was precisely to breakdown that kind of naive dualistic thinking; my aim was to show how utterly ridiculous the "natural = good" versus "unnatural = bad" divide is. A simple point, and one which the abusive tone of your outburst suggests was rather well made. :dance:

Mbajin: I await the list of natural foodstuffs I may forage in the wilds of England's second city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it once, I'll say it again: You don't have to accept what I have to say. Yet I don't understand why you're attacking me with such determination. Clearly you have your ideas that are contrary to mine, and they must work for you. Whatever they are, perhaps you could share them with the rest of us and allow us to benefit from your wisdom as opposed to just dropping a bombshell on everything I have to say.

I can understand how one person can refuse to accept something; I can't understand why he would advertise it to everyone with such enthusiasm. Why don't you explain that to me Andrew?

I don't know why some of you are mocking me when I say naturally occuring. I thought it was clear enough, meaning anything that would be around if you took humans out of this planet. Think about it, without humans, there wouldn't be ice cream, peanut butter, or fruit juice, or so many more things.

You say "If I find wild peanuts, I'm allowed to eat them." Where did I ever say what you are allowed or not allowed to eat? I'm not your boss. I'm just sharing my opinion. Seems as if you intentionally misunderstand what I post and use it against me. I said Peanuts are natural. They are sold by the people who grow them agriculturally. I suppose I should've specied who they were sold to. In this case it would be food distributors such as supermarkets. I thought that was a given. When did I argue that cattle were unnatural? Are you saying they were invented by humans?

And what I have to say is obviously half-baked, since I am not a scientist nor do I have mass data to back this up except for my personal experience. Next time any of you wishes to discuss the invalidity of what I have to say, do so with private messages, please. Otherwise, start your own topic in the forums discussing your own theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address the issue about whether it is accutane, Dan's Regimen, or healthy lifestyle choices that keep me acne-free, here's what I have to say:

Before starting on Accutane, I did not live the way I described in my very first post. I figured that accutane was the only solution, so I did not spend any efforts on anything else. Taking accutane forced me to adopt healthy lifestyle choices. My cholesterol was extremely high, and I started not spending all my time on a computer desk anymore. I stopped eating foods that contribute to high cholesterol; foods that should not exist on this planet in the first place. And so on.

After my accutane course, I was clear. Now the question became, "What do I do if my acne returns?" That was over three months ago. At the time, I strongly believed that diet and acne were unrelated. So I just kept cleansing and moisturizing as I had done during my accutane course.

A month after stopping accutane, my acne returned. It was very mild. Then I started college. I think you can understand how college food can be, and how little time it allows for activities such as having fun or exercising. Within a few weeks, my acne worsened. I bought Dan's regimen. It helped me control my acne.

Now I live as I described in my very first post, with the added benefit of using Dan's regimen. Eating healthy, exercising, and having a good attitude hasn't just helped my acne. I look better overall. I feel better. Consequently, I perform better in college, acedemically and socially. Sounds cheesy, but it's true for me.

You can take what you can from what I have to say, or you can completely refuse to do so. Either way, the choice is yours to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a gene for cynical black&white thought

Its's absolutely incredible how cynic-black&white-thought people all have the same arrogant attitude, use the same words and buzzwords and take advantage of the same narrow concepts ...

Even if one may be 1000 miles away from the other they seem to come from the same matrix and you may think they're clones

Or touché as we say en Anglais.

Play the ball please.

Ironic that my attitude (amongst that jumble of pronouns I presume it was me you were referring to) should be accused of being "black&white", when the entire point of my objection was precisely to breakdown that kind of naive dualistic thinking; my aim was to show how utterly ridiculous the "natural = good" versus "unnatural = bad" divide is.

Too bad that because of your arrogant tone the message received is an as much dialistic "unnatural = good" and "natural = bad"

I agree with you that the point is to observe the shades, consider each circumstance as unique and never extrapolate and make sweeping generalizations about groups of things or people but as important as what you say is HOW you say it. If you keep indulging in arrogant and presumptuous attitude and tone your good points will be missed ... and now that I think about it it's strange how you're now the oppositor of fascist dichotomies when just few days ago you indulged in making broad offensive judgments about vegetarians, diet followers and the people writing in this subforum (all complex, non-dualistic living beings you don't even know) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great post, mbajin..! healthy living should be taken up by EVERYONE, acne or not. its just hard to stick by in this fast-food, sedementary society of ours. congrats on clearing up. i think everyone reacts differently, to different extents, to treatments. in your case, the combination of accutane/bp + healthy lifestyle has maximized your results.

i think its important to note that some ppl may clear up with just diet change, just exercise change, or both together, or just with topicals, or with accutane, or with a decrease in stress, or more sleep, or supplements only.... or COMBINATION of any of the above. just gotta see where you body is lacking and making up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, my acne breakouts are 90% linked to SUGAR, especially sugar in sweets. I rarely now have problems in conjunction with benzaclin twice a day. Absolutely no sodas, no candy bars and lots of water. Exercise helps, too. My large cystic acne can be traced back to sugar. This past weekend I had some chocolate cake and now I have a huge eyesore on the side of my nose. I gambled with sugar and lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad that because of your arrogant tone the message received is an as much dialistic "unnatural = good" and "natural = bad"

I agree with you that the point is to observe the shades, consider each circumstance as unique and never extrapolate and make sweeping generalizations about groups of things or people but as important as what you say is HOW you say it. If you keep indulging in arrogant and presumptuous attitude and tone your good points will be missed ... and now that I think about it it's strange how you're now the oppositor of fascist dichotomies when just few days ago you indulged in making broad offensive judgments about vegetarians, diet followers and the people writing in this subforum (all complex, non-dualistic living beings you don't even know) ...

Fascism rear's its head. And I was merely asking the original poster to elaborate upon his claims in order that I could maybe adopt his revolutionary approach to sourcing food. It is unfortunate that rather than engage with the substantive questions -- and perhaps help the initial poster to refine and clarify his own thinking in the process -- you took it upon yourself instead to make strange attacks on my character.

Rather than ask you to show me where I have made "broad offensive judgments about...people writing in this subforum" [something I have not done] and having to watch another tangential climbdown, I will leave you instead with the following thought:

Godwin's Law.

Fascistic you say?

( :dance: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acne has no evolutionary benefit. Having acne does not improve out chances of survival and replication. This means that it only evolved due to humanly causes. Nature does not favor acne.

Just for the sake of argument - you don't know this to be true. For years they thought that sickle cell anemia was an inherited trait that had no value and so should not have propogated as it did. It turns out that being heterozygous for sickle cell imparts a resistance to malaria - carriers gain an evolutionary advantage. The acne itself probably has a neutral value from a natural selection point of view, but it may still impart some trait which does have positive value, assuming that it's a genetic trait subject to natural selection in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than ask you to show me where I have made "broad offensive judgments about...people writing in this subforum" [something I have not done] and having to watch another tangential climbdown, I will leave you instead with the following thought:

Godwin's Law.

Fascistic you say?

( :dance: )

just take a look at the pious, vegan, evian-sucking hippy types over on the hokum "Diet and Hollistic" forum.

Anyway althought politically alleys fascism and nazism are different.

Fascism from "fascio" (group of grass) as the word suggest was based on accepting sweeping generalizations about all the people belonging theoretically to a group because of certain affinity because of one exponent of the group itself. You have done that already with the people writing in this subforum, the vegan and vegetarian

You're right that an argument should be judged indipendently from the person promoting it but my fault it's very irritanting to read your arrogant attitude in replying to us evian-sucking hippies with your full-of-yourself sarcasm. The problem with your kind of sarcasm where you extrapolate just one side of the topic and bring it to the extreme to suggest that the original poster meant that so you can say "wow" or "so you're suggesting ..." is that it just hides the greatest lack of respect for the intelligente of people, it's like you want to show yourself how everyone is necessarily stupidier than you and not worth your respect by re-writing their own ideas so they suit your thesis about your superiority and the ignorance of everyone you scoff even before having a chance to know them or what they really have to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"(This also applies to cooked food. Cooking is not unnatural. Fire is found in nature. Deep-frying is not.)"

So applying heat to food is "natural" but applying heat to food with an improved conductor is not? Of course I'm assuming that by "cooking" you refer to either baking, grilling or roasting.

Half-baked theories based on assertions drawn from the general assumption that fried food is unhealthy thus any negative annotation one wishes may be applied to it are unnatural and should not be digested. They can cause brain damage.

Melek, there's a difference between deep-frying and regular frying. He didn't say regular frying is bad; regular frying is fine in the context of a stable, saturated oil such as coconut oil. In the presence of a unstable, PUFA oil like the soybean oil that's used everywhere, you get a gross excess of free radicals. Deep frying is also notorious for causing things like acrylamides in large quantities, which are toxic for you and a burden to your liver.

Deep frying is regular frying. Heat meets oil meets food. Not any complex voodoo going on here. Also your pulling arguements from thin air. He didnt make any distinctions about the type of oil used. That's entirely your own invention. Also, with a smoke point about equal to butter, you're in for some fun the next time you try to fry in coconut oil. Another note: Canola is used exclusively as the deep fryer oil in every single kitchen I've ever been in. So no, soybean oil isn't used everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's cool, the kitchens I've been in have used soybean oil, and this is a handful of cheap as well as more expensive places... But I don't doubt they use canola too.

You do have a point about me creating arguments of my own, my bad on that.

I fry exclusively with coconut oil, what's your point? Higher smoking point = less oxidation of the oil.

I believe deep frying constitutes submerging food completely in oil as you would in water with a boil, so it's not exactly the same as oil on the bottom surface of a pan.

Abusing the frying oil by overheating, excessive use or undue exposure to air while hot leads to formation of oxidation products, polymers and other deleterious or even toxic compounds such as acrylamide (in starchy foods). "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much hostility here. Can't we all just get along? I mean- why are you all so eager to prove yourself right over someone else?

This is a place for sharing ideas, not attacking or defending them with all your firepower. Why can't you just acknowledge something and either say 'Yea, that's interesting.' or 'No way, I'm not having anything to do with that.' As opposed to advocating it or shutting it down?

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything here. I could care less about what you do with your life. I just thought I could perhaps get someone to see something in a new way- regardless of whether they adopt that point of view or not. For all I care, you can eat McDonald's 3 meals a day, and drink leftover deep-fry oil to wash it down.

Sheesh- do you guys just go around trying to expose all the holes in what people post here so you can feel better about yourselves?

And about the whole deep-fry, cook with oil debate that's going on: I only cited deep-frying as an example. You guys sure used it as a means of expressing your extreme opinions. I did not say "Deep-frying is bad." or "Regular frying is good." I only pointed out that deep-frying is a human invention- just as regular frying is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to every thread that gets over two pages. Anyone remember bryan's long debates about simple vs. complex carbs?

Yes, it's true, we all want to accomplish the same thing. The means to get there is what is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mbajin, for the personal message:

Don't you have a life that's fullfilling enough so that you don't have to spend effort/time putting down people on the internet with your witty yet arrogant remarks? Or am I just being too presumptious?

<3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you meant by "natural" foods? What are they and where can I find them?

What is the definitive characteristic of a "natural" food versus an "unnatural" food?

What do these natural foods have in common that makes them "good"?

I think that the best definition of natural is "with the least human refination possible"

That doesn't make everything slighltly refined always bad but many foods undergo a process while refined that make them problematic, either by adding toxic additives like bleaching substances or colorants or by removing half of their nutrients or by altering their structure and modifying the way it is metabolized in the body

To be honest every thing humans do with a food is refination, even cooking, that's why I said "the least refination possible"

Refinations that change the availability of a food without altering the structure are not problematic per se: canned cooked tomatoes, unshelled nuts, decorticated seeds, frozen vegetables, powdered berries

I wouldn't call "unnatural" a food that isn't "naturally" available in the country you live in as better forms of transportations have made more food available in whatever corner of the planet, that just increases the variety of food we have.

Then one could calll every form of excessive refination (turning potatoes into french fries) "natural" because humans are "natural" and have been using compounds coming from "nature"

But that's just a semantic game. Let's consider natural as "as originally found in nature" and unnatural as "drastically changed from its original state so as to be metabolized as a different food from what it is when found in nature". This doesn't apply to a milk refination as making sauce out of tomatoes but applies to making french fries out of potatoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×