What kind of diet do you follow?

Discussion in 'Health Nutrition and Supplements' started by Beastt, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biochem guy, I love your work. You seem to actually be familiar with this stuff, so I'll leave it to you.

    It's not just logic. You need evidence for the propositions you advance.
     


  2. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a THEORY that the UNTHINKING USE of CAPITALS and other types of NON-CONVENTIONAL formatting and LAYOUT reveals AN INABILITY TO develop a COHERENT ARGUMENT.

    Hemingway once said that an exclamation mark should be used less than once every 10,000 pages. Ah... Hemingway!
     
  3. Beastt

    Beastt New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with Roadie_Scum's assessment of BiochemGuy's knowlege. He is forever impressing me with, not only the breadth of his knowledge but the depth as well. Having said that with all sincerity, there is a dynamic that everyone must recognize; each of us knows what we've read, experienced and been taught. That means that each of us holds a mixture of fact, fiction, anecdotal information and misconception all stirred together in our minds. Even BiochemGuy has been taught a few things that will, at some point be found to have been incorrect. We all have a lot to learn and each of us holds valuable information that others may benefit from.

    Some will gravitate toward the main-stream while others will prefer to explore outside the commonly accepted information. We've all seen the results of at least a few studies and could probably bat the results back and forth for months without arriving at any solid conclusions. The fact remains and probably always will remain that for almost every issue, there are studies which provide certain conclusions and other studies which will directly oppose those conclusions. It makes it very difficult for anyone, even one with the knowledge possessed by BiochemGuy, to be able to accurately sort out the diamonds from the dung heap. The reasons for the disparate findings are many - some innocent and some less so.

    There certainly is a body of evidence suggesting that the consumption of cow's milk by humans is detrimental to health. There also exists a body of evidence which strongly suggests otherwise. Personally, I choose to look to nature and physiology, to the best of my understanding, (lacking as it may be), to try to come to the best conclusion I can. As carcajou already pointed out, humans are really the only mammal which seeks out the milk of another species when well beyond the point of development at which other mammals are weaned from milk. The human body also tends to drastically reduce production of lactase at about 18-months of age, which might be taken as an indication that milk is no longer a natural part of the diet beyond this age. Most people in predominantly white, developed areas may be unaware that lactose intolerance is not considered to be a disorder in many parts of the world. In fact, the ability to digest lactose is actually a rarity in some areas. Among the population of African blacks, as much as 95% of the people are lactose intolerant. But then why is it that western caucasians can tolerate lactose? I have no answers for that. It does seem an oddity and perhaps it serves a function.

    There does seem to be an issue with bone density as well as calcium balance in developed western cultures and some data seems to suggest that it is far more pronounced than in lesser developed cultures where calcium intake is substantially lower. BiochemGuy makes some very compelling arguments. But I think it's safe to say that not all of the data is in. It may be a very long time before any infalible information is readily available. I chose to eliminate dairy from my diet around 12-13 years ago. I find I suffer fewer colds, seem to produce less mucus and feel at least as strong and healthy as ever - all anecdotal mucking about and worth very little within proper analytical methods. I now find it hard to believe that I ever thought a cow's teat to be a normal place for humans to obtain nourishment. Perhaps it's because it seems to work well for me that I'm attracted to the lesser accepted information regarding the detrimental effects of milk than the more commonly accepted views regarding it as beneficial to health. If that is so, then perhaps it is also so that those who still consume and prefer to consume milk, will naturally be more attracted to the body of information which suggests that it is a healthful part of a normal human diet. As people, we tend to form our bias first and then seek the information to support it. It's a poor way to find truth but I suspect it is nearly universal. We all have our knowledge to share and our egos to shelter.
     
  4. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree on a basic level with everything you've said here, but I think it is important to note that it is possible to develop skills of factual analysis, breadth of knowledge, logical reasoning, etc. That doesn't mean anyone is definitely right all the time, but that someone with experience and knowledge in a particular field will tend to be right more often than someone with less experience and knowledge of that field. This means Biochem Guy's opinions on biochemistry are worth more than mine. It means it is possible for an expert to sort out the diamonds from the dung heap (or that when they do, it is worth at least something). It doesn't mean they are always right, but it drastically increases the probability they will be. Finally, it means the whole process of learning isn't ultimately futile. (At least I hope it's not - someone told me it was once in a philosophy class and it has taken me years to recover).
     
  5. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately I won't get a vote at the next US elections (i'm not from there). What I can say is that extremist conspiracy theorist types like yourself polarise political debate, meaning candidates are chosen for the ideology they represent, dialogue is impossible, and policy goes from bad to worse. If Bush gets re-elected it will be as much the fault of loud, irrational anti-corporates like yourself as those who get sucker-punched by the man's swagger and actually vote for him.

    Big rich companies do some terrible things. So do small poor people. It's human nature and it's part of the job of governments to regulate human behaviour in a way that is not overly restrictive. If there were no companies, it is very likely standard of living would be much, much lower worldwide. You seem to reason that corporates (a legal fiction) are somehow less moral than the people that make up their manifestation in the real world. I'll tell you now, some people in companies are fantastic human beings, some are shysters and some are plain evil. Just like everywhere else. A company, like a government, is as good or bad as the people that compose it. The failure of personal integrity, courage and morality is probably the biggest risk factor for worldwide prosperity. Corporatisation multiplies out the good effects and the bad. Sometimes market mechanisms allocate resources well, sometimes they don't. A premise like 'all companies lie' or 'corporatisation breeds immoral behaviour' has little rational support. You gotta see both sides of the coin.

    Every western democracy is crying out for a rational policy platform. I'm still hoping...
     
  6. carcajou

    carcajou New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a THEORY that those who CAN'T UNDERSTAND something, BLINDLY characterize it as UNTHINKING while it was actually a method of emphasizing certain aspects of a statement which the author deemed TOO COMPLEX for the INTERPRETTING PARTY to comprehend as a whole without such EMPHASIS.

    ...it's just a theory but the only test being run on it to date seems CONCLUSIVE in support of the above statement.

    Party on Mark Twain.
     
  7. Beastt

    Beastt New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize if I left anyone with the impression that I felt that the process of learning was less than one of the most important things that a person, (or a people, for that matter), can do. Few things rank as highly in importance. I also did not intent to promote the idea that those with greater knowledge don't stand a much greater chance of being correct. Obviously, the more a person knows about a certain subject, the more often they will be correct in any specific detail which falls under that subject. That's why we seek out a doctor when we break a bone rather than going to a knowledgeable florist, for example.

    My point was simply that even Einstein, whom I admire greatly, (though feel somehwat unworthy of offering admiration because I can't even begin to understand the vast majority of his ideas), has been proven wrong on a number of areas. The man was truly a freak in many intellectual fields, most predominantly, physics. But as incredible as he was, he was not infallible. The same goes for Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton. These men not only learned a great deal from others but sought to gain information not yet touched by humans and were successful to a tremendous degree. I'm certain that within their times, there were many who looked upon their ideas as radical, extremist ramblings. Some of their ideas are still seen as such, despite the lack of overwhelming, conclusive knowledge to the contrary.

    Today it is far less possible for an individual to push the envelope of human knowledge without substantial financial backing and a vast degree of formal education, (which Einstein had), as a foundation from which to work. The human race, as a whole, has gained enough knowledge to make the seeking of still greater knowledge a more difficult and more costly undertaking. So most of us simply strive to understand a fraction of what is already known.

    As with any topic, there is a majority conclusion and a minority still seeking alternate information. Often those not flowing with the stream of the majority will find they've been misled or have seen only a small part of the body of evidence in existance and will thus be incorrect in their opinions. But there is a danger to flowing with the majority as well since most will simply accept whatever is offered and not utilize their own ability to reason in an attempt to assess the information. Perhaps this is what Samuel Clemons meant when he said, "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." So this is where the logic mentioned by Roadie_Scum comes into play. The only danger being that one man's logic is sometimes another man's lunacy. Speaking only for myself, I'm far more comfortable having truly explored any concept, to the best of my ability, than to simply grasp what is offered me and commit it to memory as factual. It's the difference between reasoning and regurgitating.

    I don't find that I recoil, as apparently I'm supposed to, in the face of terms such as "extreme" or "radical". Whenever anyone wishes to quickly dismiss an idea because it is outside the majority of opinion, it's simply and quickly labeled as being "extreme" or "radical" and therefore dismissed without further exploration. Many ideas of the past were extreme or radical for their day such as the concept of a round world, a heliocentric universe or humans actually taking to the air and flying about. The doctor most often credited with the concept of germs - tiny unseen creatures - actually causing infection and death was completely discredited for his belief and for requiring that his staff wash their hands to rid them of these unseen hobgoblins.

    Human history is riddled with examples of inhumane or counter-social treatment being extended to those who follow extreme or radical ideas. Yet not terribly infrequently, these ideas have emerged as the proven facts while other ideas, formerly held by the majority, have fallen to the onslaught of scientific research. Of course even scientific research falls to more advanced scientific research. Grasping onto any idea too tightly might well be contrary to allowing ourselves to learn and progress.

    It's best if we expose ourselves to the miriad of ideas, reason each one out to the best of our individual ability and then select that which we find to make the most sense. But in doing so, as with any other method of selecting what we hold as fact, we must realize that we may one day need to release what we have assigned as factual and be prepared to grasp ideas we once thought too radical to be credible, for even radical and extreme ideas aren't always without merit. And sometimes they find their way to the top of the heap and become labeled as fact even to the majority.

    I find it probable that everyone, no matter how objective they may wish to be, will be influenced by current majority practice or current individual belief whenever assessing new or contrary information. It's nearly impossible to assess anything without applying what is already believed as this is a part of reasoning. If one believes that man is too heavy to fly, the concept of a reduction in air pressure as it flows the long way across the top of a wing, providing enough lift to put a man in the air seems unlikely. If we apply the concepts experienced in our Newtonian world, the idea of a partical moving from point-A to point-B and having done so across two distinctly different paths at the same time, seems incredulous. If we live in a society which consumes the milk of bovine species and has long held the belief that such practice is healthful, we may quickly dismiss any research leading to contrary findings. We would do so no more hesitantly than those who live in a societies repulsed by the very suggestion of drinking the milk of another species would reject the findings of research showing it to be healthy.

    The truth lies somewhere in the findings of scientific research and to this point, there is evidence to support both sides. With all due credit given to BiochemGuy, Roadie_Scum and Carcajou, I personaly find it unlikely that greater health can be obtained from milk if for no other reason than the way our toxic environment tends to concentrate itself within biological tissues, having the greatest affinity to the fatty tissues of animals and the fats of the fluids they produce. There are, of course, other reasons and other reasons to believe to the contrary but you won't find a cow teat in my mouth any time soon.
     
  8. carcajou

    carcajou New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biochemguy is indeed a very intelligent person who has clearly been well educated. He also sems to be a person who is interested in the truth and research in general and someone for whom I have great respect. I would have to say that any negative comments that I have made about him (and others) during the course of this debate were not true asessments of how I view them but merely 'pysche 101 confrontation tools'.

    I should also add that Beastt has shown himself to be a profound thinker and a person whom I have great respect for.

    Indeed...since I gave up milk my health, although good to begin with, has catapulted into the realm of 'super health'.
    My energy is absolutely through the roof...my immune system is above just about everybody I know...I did go to the hospital once about 3-4 years ago and was quite ill-the doctor looking at my lung x-ray noticed nothing but after I called the next day with no improvement. The day after that he was able to look at my x-rays again and noticed something which he deemed to be pneumonia but i informed him that I weas already feeling a lot better so he advised me that if I was already improving to 'just keep doing what you are doing'. I beat pneumonia without medication in 4 days. That is pretty incredible. Moreover, none of my friends or nobody I know practice a vegan diet like I do and no one can keep up to me.

    Further on this...I had my cholesterol done today at my workplace and the medical staff which was on site was stunned at the numbers. The representative who consulted with me as my results came through asked me what I did because the numbers were extraordinary.
    Most of the world uses these numbers:
    3.65 total cholesterol
    The U.S.A. numbers look like this:
    142.35 total cholesterol
    Blood pressure was 109/73
    Pulse was 66

    This right after I worked my 11pm to 7am shift.
     
  9. closesupport

    closesupport Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. Beastt

    Beastt New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm guilty of having used similar "tools" on a number of occassions and in debates on a number of topics. I must admit, however, that it's more likely that these "tools" are used more to shield one's own ego than to provide greater authority to our points.

    I appreciate the compliment. Perhaps it's of no great shock to you that I receive substantially more comments to the contrary. ;)

    This is all well and good. I can provide similar anecdotal "evidence" to support my beliefs on this topic. I used to get the normal 2 to 3 colds per year. Since giving up dairy and eggs I've had two or three colds. The last was just 3 weeks ago and it suprised me as I hadn't had a cold for at least 7 years. But... (and this is a big "but")... I also started riding regularly and intensely, (for me), about 8 years ago. I've had a change in residency as I ended up living alone several years ago, (her choice), and have had a variety of other potential factors arise in that time period. I'm not attempting to discredit your information but as with my own, it's not possible to fully isolate what it was that has resulted in the changes. I suspect that it's the cumulative effect of several things, among which may well be just getting older. Even with the other factors excluded from the analysis, the worth of anecdotal information is less significant than we might wish it to be. Only when a very substantial number of such stories can be relayed along with some degree of medical backing, (as you've provided), and a true and reasonably complete understanding of the extact reasons why diet-A leads to health-B, can we offer substantial argument to mitigate our beliefs. I believe there is enough for me and perhaps enough for many others to concur, but I have to recognize that there is also a worthy body of evidence to the contrary and can't fault, (though I'd like to), those who take the opposing side of the issue.

    As an aside, I'm also a vegan (for about 12-years, vegetarian before that), also showed lower than average, (healthy 110/60) blood pressure, pulse etc. on my last medical check-up, (years ago), and I'm working an 11pm to 7am shift tonight.
    ;)
     
  11. Beastt

    Beastt New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..."the best stuff", for cows -- baby cows, who have four stomachs, will double their weight in 47-days and weigh 300 pounds within a year. Note that even adult cows don't drink cow's milk.

    Cow's milk does provide 15% of its calories as protein and a study in 1914 performed by Osborn and Mendel found that rats grew faster on animal protein than on plant protein. So perhaps we should be drinking rat's milk which provides 49% of its calories as protein?

    Whole milk, (cow's milk), is listed by the Dairy Council as 3.5% fat. This is calculated by weight, since milk is mostly water. It stands to reason that they don't tell you that whole milk provides 50% of its calories from fat.

    I think it still prudent to proclaim that there are two credible sides to the issue.
    ;)
     
  12. carcajou

    carcajou New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely understand your point but I really do it because I find it amusing though banal and completely unnecessary.:D


    Oh yes...substantially more...just remember..."the workld is FLAT...FLAT I SAY!! You'll be burned at the stake if you continue with such nonsense as your blasphemer's 'sphere' theory!!"

    Remember that training hard supresses the immune system. It only recovers when you take a break from training...it acts like strength during training using the old 'stress-rest' principle. Any stress in regular every day life can also have an affect.

    An interesting note about having lower than average cholesterol...

    William Castelli, M.D., Director of the Framiham Health Study said
    "We've never had a heart attack in Framingham in 35 years in anyone who had a cholesterol under 150."
     
  13. carcajou

    carcajou New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've always thought that it should be badger's milk..or cat's milk like in Meet The Parents!!
     
  14. cdaleguy

    cdaleguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    0
    I eat whatever I want, don't exercise...and have a 1.84% bodyfat. Ha ha, I beat the 1.85%.
     
  15. Roadie_scum

    Roadie_scum New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure. Measured how?
     
  16. ric_stern/RST

    ric_stern/RST New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    1
    i think he's posting from beyond the grave. a sure sign that the internet has spread everywhere :D
     
  17. Wolfzazi

    Wolfzazi New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last time i checked i was 5.5% body fat, that is when i ate 4 mcchickens (105g fat, 2000 cals) nearly everyday LITERALLY on top of breakfast/lunch/snacks. Today i ate small breakfast, 18" sub (1 and a half), 4 McChickens, and another dinner. I'm another one who if i don't eat that much, i might go down to 123lbs from 140lb at 5'7. If it wasn't for those damn McChickens i'd be healthy as a goat!
     
  18. Beastt

    Beastt New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you suppose there is any way that 123 pounds is a healthy weight for you? Some Height/Weight charts are based almost as much on averages as health, (note the wide range if you examine several of them). And some health and longevity studies have suggested that those slightly below what most would consider a healthy weight may actually be healthier and live longer.
     
  19. FitChick

    FitChick New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone heard of Acai? It's a super dooper high rubbish. Check it out!
     
  20. JAPANic

    JAPANic New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    One post and pushing sales. No credability..... sorry.

    Acai tastes like SPAM!
     
Loading...
Loading...