Well, I think going back to the roots is about the best thing one can do. Eat the things we are meant to eat. Go back to a more natural way of living, eating. One can hardly argue about that not being a good starting point...MrPopo wrote:previous post
Does that include red meat with its high cholestrol? I understand vegetation is good but there is good and bad cholestrol and I can't imagine the cholestrol in beef or pork is that good for you.elmagicochrisg wrote:Well, I think going back to the roots is about the best thing one can do. Eat the things we are meant to eat. Go back to a more natural way of living, eating. One can hardly argue about that not being a good starting point...MrPopo wrote:previous post
But hey, quite frankly, and with all due respect, but I don't feel like discussing this anymore with you. Your previous post shows a lot of stubbornness, close-mindedness and arrogance. So why bother I say...
Continue as you were...
Depends on the person who eats it. You can get down to low LDL levels by eating only red meat.AdamGomez1987 wrote:
Does that include red meat with its high cholestrol?
I would like to direct your attention to domesticated pets, which have been shown to live longer than their "natural" counterparts in the wild. Natural is not necessarily the same thing as best.elmagicochrisg wrote:Well, I think going back to the roots is about the best thing one can do. Eat the things we are meant to eat. Go back to a more natural way of living, eating. One can hardly argue about that not being a good starting point...MrPopo wrote:previous post
All I'm asking is for some hard data. A controlled study which demonstrates one way or the other. Anything else is supposition and should not be the basis for making decisions. After all, the world used to be flat, because that's what we believed.But hey, quite frankly, and with all due respect, but I don't feel like discussing this anymore with you. Your previous post shows a lot of stubbornness, close-mindedness and arrogance. So why bother I say...
Continue as you were...
You are stubborn, closed minded, and arrogant. You stubbornly refuse to provide any data to support your assertion. You close mindedly reject the idea that claims about reality should be supported by data. And you arrogantly expect others to accept your assertion without any data.elmagicochrisg wrote: Your previous post shows a lot of stubbornness, close-mindedness and arrogance.
But most of the time they don't! Doctors have pretty much told me in a few cases, "I basically don't know, I'm taking a guess due to your symptoms, here's a script for a drug. Hope it helps, come back if it doesn't." More recently, my father went for a physical. I asked him how everything went and he said he has high blood pressure and had a ton of free sample blood pressure meds the doctor gave him. One blood pressure exam, ONE, and a doctor gives a patient drugs. How is that finding the cause and not just treating the symptom. I know a lot of people that have a little higher blood pressure in a doctors office just because being there stresses them out. But instead of finding out about diet, for example, drugs are thrown at them. And THAT is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with medial doctors right now. You go there, they give you drugs. And it's hard to try and not think this way when every other commercial on TV is "Do you feel [insert pretty common symptoms] then go to you doctor and ask for [insert one of many drugs that companies wanna make millions and millions off of]". Bah, kinda went off on a tangent there. Don't get me wrong, I still go to my medical doctors. I'm not putting blind faith, my health, into one persons hands.MrPopo wrote:Yes, because no doctor actually wants to know why something occurs.
Fair enough. I'm well aware of what the placebo effect is, and I'm quite certain that isn't the case at all. The first time I went to an NRT doctor (and not a very good one) I was skeptical as hell. I know what bullshit it all sounds like, it did to me too, I wasn't expecting it to work. But NRT is scientific, it isn't like the hippie natural healing and holistic doctors we're familiar with. And all the people that'll tell you how great it is... They can't ALL have had the placebo effect, could they? I know there's no way I could possibly explain my personal experience with NRT to you, or the experience of people I know, and have you sold on it.Personal experience is not scientific evidence. The placebo effect is VERY well documented. If you go to "alternative medicine" expecting it to work and it does then there's a decent chance it's just the placebo effect. Show me some double blind studies for NRT and now we're getting somewhere.
Well that's not fair, you kinda messed up what I meant. But I'll take the blame, I don't do a good job explaining myself sometimes. History is full of people hating (mostly fearing) what they don't understand. And like I said, I know it sounds like complete bull shit, so I don't blame the skeptics because I use to be one. Hatta is a perfect example, without even knowing what NRT is he called it bullshit. But what I was trying to say was, let me know if you're gonna have an open mind to it. Otherwise I don't wanna waste my time explaining something you're not even gonna consider it. Frankly, I'm really tired of that. And I'm not talking about NRT, just so many times I've gone on explaining something logically to some one and felt like I was talking to a wall. I don't wanna waste my time if the person listening isn't gonna at least consider what I'm saying. Like the alcohol vs stove top cleaner debates.Just because they don't understand? So if they understood then they'd stop hating on it? Then there should be no reason you wouldn't want to explain it to a skeptic. If you explain it we'd stop hating on it. Or is it that they hate on it because the basis behind it is very hand wavy? So they hate because they DO understand?
You talking about the picture I posted? That wasn't organs, it was depicting how wheat is ruined when it's turned into flour. There was suppose to be text with it, but wasn't attached to the pic. That's why I posted the link.To be clear, until this thread I've never heard of NRT, I haven't clicked any links in the thread (except that cute picture of the organs), and I still haven't googled any information on it. So here's your chance to try and explain how and why it works.
Yeah, I figured, but I think snake oil is actually used to treat joint pains or arthritis or something like that. That was me being kinda a dick. I don't believe my NRT doctor uses snake oil. But it kinda pissed me off that you called it bull shit with out actually knowing anything about it. I'll explain later, but just real quick, he uses mostly whole food supplements grown on an organic farm. It's FOOD, whole food. Food that wasn't stripped of it's nutrients through the process like wheat - which YOU described earlier. So how is whole food supplements snake oil?Hatta wrote:I meant snake oil metaphorically.
That's not a fair comparison. Those animals have no knowledge of medicine. Domesticated pets live longer because (hopefully) their owners do good by them. They provide them with shelter, food, and take them to the vet when they're sick. THAT's why they live longer. I think what he was trying to say is if our diets were more pure like they were 1,000 years ago or whatever, that would be better. But I'm assuming he means in combined with other advancements we've made over the past 1,000 years.MrPopo wrote:I would like to direct your attention to domesticated pets, which have been shown to live longer than their "natural" counterparts in the wild. Natural is not necessarily the same thing as best.
Pure what though? Diet varied hugely depending on region, based on whatever was around. An ancient Mediterranean diet of fish, goat, figs, and olives might be decent. But how about an old greasy highlands diet of sheep, oats, beer, and more sheep? For a modern lifestyle, that's probably worse than what most people are getting fat and sick off of already nowadays. But what the hell, it was healthy for the shepherds and farmers breaking their backs for it back then, so it must be healthy now! ::facepalm::Ziggy587 wrote:I think what he was trying to say is if our diets were more pure like they were 1,000 years ago or whatever, that would be better. But I'm assuming he means in combined with other advancements we've made over the past 1,000 years.
This one I'm going to blame on the general consumer and the nature of ailments. People who go to the doctor have an expectation that when they leave they will either be better or have a script for something that will make them feel better. People respond very negatively to "it'll go away in a few days".Ziggy587 wrote:First off, I would just like to explain a few things. I know it's pretty much impossible to determine the tone and mood of a post on the internet. Please assume that I am very calm. This thread is starting to take a turn for the worst, like it usually does in this type of situation. One person says, "you're being arrogant!" and then it turns into a shit show. I would love to have a conversation about this, and there's no reason we can't without it turning into a train wreck.
But most of the time they don't! Doctors have pretty much told me in a few cases, "I basically don't know, I'm taking a guess due to your symptoms, here's a script for a drug. Hope it helps, come back if it doesn't." More recently, my father went for a physical. I asked him how everything went and he said he has high blood pressure and had a ton of free sample blood pressure meds the doctor gave him. One blood pressure exam, ONE, and a doctor gives a patient drugs. How is that finding the cause and not just treating the symptom. I know a lot of people that have a little higher blood pressure in a doctors office just because being there stresses them out. But instead of finding out about diet, for example, drugs are thrown at them. And THAT is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with medial doctors right now. You go there, they give you drugs. And it's hard to try and not think this way when every other commercial on TV is "Do you feel [insert pretty common symptoms] then go to you doctor and ask for [insert one of many drugs that companies wanna make millions and millions off of]". Bah, kinda went off on a tangent there. Don't get me wrong, I still go to my medical doctors. I'm not putting blind faith, my health, into one persons hands.MrPopo wrote:Yes, because no doctor actually wants to know why something occurs.
Well, you're potentially running in to selection bias there. It's similar to what you'll see at places like the official WoW forums. If you spent 5 minutes perusing the WoW boards you'd be convinced that WoW is a horrible game and everyone hates it. Generally people don't go out of their way to say things like "I tried that new coleslaw diet and it was horrible" but they will go out of their way to say "I tried that new coleslaw diet and I lost 50 lbs in 3 weeks".Fair enough. I'm well aware of what the placebo effect is, and I'm quite certain that isn't the case at all. The first time I went to an NRT doctor (and not a very good one) I was skeptical as hell. I know what bullshit it all sounds like, it did to me too, I wasn't expecting it to work. But NRT is scientific, it isn't like the hippie natural healing and holistic doctors we're familiar with. And all the people that'll tell you how great it is... They can't ALL have had the placebo effect, could they? I know there's no way I could possibly explain my personal experience with NRT to you, or the experience of people I know, and have you sold on it.Personal experience is not scientific evidence. The placebo effect is VERY well documented. If you go to "alternative medicine" expecting it to work and it does then there's a decent chance it's just the placebo effect. Show me some double blind studies for NRT and now we're getting somewhere.
Fair enough. Speaking for myself I care less about the methods and more about results. So if you had a well-run study that compared the efficacy of the NRT method with currently accept wisdom then I would be apt to listen. But if it was just explaining the principles behind it you're probably not going to convince me on it.Well that's not fair, you kinda messed up what I meant. But I'll take the blame, I don't do a good job explaining myself sometimes. History is full of people hating (mostly fearing) what they don't understand. And like I said, I know it sounds like complete bull shit, so I don't blame the skeptics because I use to be one. Hatta is a perfect example, without even knowing what NRT is he called it bullshit. But what I was trying to say was, let me know if you're gonna have an open mind to it. Otherwise I don't wanna waste my time explaining something you're not even gonna consider it. Frankly, I'm really tired of that. And I'm not talking about NRT, just so many times I've gone on explaining something logically to some one and felt like I was talking to a wall. I don't wanna waste my time if the person listening isn't gonna at least consider what I'm saying. Like the alcohol vs stove top cleaner debates.Just because they don't understand? So if they understood then they'd stop hating on it? Then there should be no reason you wouldn't want to explain it to a skeptic. If you explain it we'd stop hating on it. Or is it that they hate on it because the basis behind it is very hand wavy? So they hate because they DO understand?
See, but that's my point. The food we feed them is dramatically different from the food they'd get in the wild. The lack of predation and vets certainly help, but pet owners are constantly reminded that the kibbles are better for them than just giving them raw meat.That's not a fair comparison. Those animals have no knowledge of medicine. Domesticated pets live longer because (hopefully) their owners do good by them. They provide them with shelter, food, and take them to the vet when they're sick. THAT's why they live longer. I think what he was trying to say is if our diets were more pure like they were 1,000 years ago or whatever, that would be better. But I'm assuming he means in combined with other advancements we've made over the past 1,000 years.MrPopo wrote:I would like to direct your attention to domesticated pets, which have been shown to live longer than their "natural" counterparts in the wild. Natural is not necessarily the same thing as best.
And that's exactly why it's no use having a discussion with you. You don't even consider being wrong. Sorry, maybe Ziggy587 can be subtle and patient in these matters, I for one cannot after seeing your stubborn close-minded idiocy. Like Ziggy587 mentioned he doesn't like talking to a brick wall, but that's exactly what he is doing here. Talking to a brick wall without substance. It's clear that the only knowledge you have regarding this topic is that what has been spoonfed to you by the big companies. If you would do the effort of reading more on the subject like I said -both sides of the story- it would be possible to have a discussion with you. But that would take time and effort, two things you do not want to invest in this subject...MrPopo wrote:See, but that's my point. The food we feed them is dramatically different from the food they'd get in the wild. The lack of predation and vets certainly help, but pet owners are constantly reminded that the kibbles are better for them than just giving them raw meat.
