Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Give us your bored, your trolls, your huddled aspies yearning to go crazy. TR guarantees they will.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RAFH

5351
I posted this link earlier but I'll post it again. It is the first result of a single Google search because effort, but it does a reasonable job of outlining the main idea.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/27/why-is-nutritional-science-so/

From your link:

Quote
Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate.

That is NOT the only way that "science is done", and in public health and epidemiology it is NOT the way science is even usually done.

Systems science is still science, and to characterise science as being about isolating individual variables is to narrow the definition of science absurdly, IMO.
I agree. But the idea that we can isolate the effects of individual components in food on the quality of homeostasis is faulty. The factors cannot be disentangled. So, it is possible to conduct generalized studies -for example on the generalized trends of a fast food lifestyle - but it is impossible to determine what it is about fast food that 'causes' that effect. The combinatory feedback effects cannot be accounted for in any meaningful way. The role of too much salt in a diet can only be tested by giving people pure salt. Same with fats and any specific compound or element.  But that is not what happens and in fact thee ethical issues involved make it effectively impossible to ever conduct most of such studies.

I'm giving the topic far too broad of a brush but I think the point is clear.

The points I'm getting are we are unwilling to conduct the experimentation to resolve various issues and it's not currently possible to do otherwise. Not very good arguments in the long term.
5352
That is not borealis's point.  Complex inventions can simplify life.  Nobody disputes this.

What you seem to want to be simple is this:

Natural = good for us
Not natural = bad for us.

That is what is false.
It's hard to understand the cognitive dissonance that enables someone to type this out, yet in the same discussion agree about the evils of processed foods.

That's because you aren't very good at understanding.

Many natural things (foxgloves for instance) are bad for us.
Some unnatural things (bicycles for instance) are good for us.
And in the right doses and under the right circumstances foxgloves can be good for us. Although I'd rather have a carefully calibrated dose of purified digitalin which would likely be artificially synthesised over a bit of mashed up foxglove leaf.

See how even this "simple" example turns out to be complex when you look into it Dave?

And people have been killed riding bicycles.

Yup, mostly because of the drivers of cars, trucks and buses.
5353
Helpful reminder ...
Quote
What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential foods--only essential nutrients. And humans can get those nutrients from diverse and eye-opening sources. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
That does not help you.
They still have CVD.

Especially after 40 to 50 years of age. Which a lot of the earlier studies ignored.

Prior to contact with the Western civilization, the northern peoples of North America lived fairly rigorous lives. Just to stay alive they had to burn enormous amounts of energy, energy most efficiently supplied by fats. Which, not coincidentally, were plentiful in the game they hunted. Not coincidentally because a lot of that same game lived in the same cold environment which required lots of energy to stay at a temperature just to stay alive. And there was a lot of intense physical effort involved in hunting that game and staying alive in that environment above and beyond the basic requirements of metabolism.
5354
There are good fats. And there are bad fats. Any questions?
Sure. Why are you eating so much bad fat? Aren't you concerned about your health?
Lol worthy.

Well you are the idiot eating bad fats because they are not the worst fats, they are bad fats but there are worse ones.
And why do you make distinctions this time when other times you do not?

Bluffy's not eating them because they are good or bad or better or worse. Frankly, he couldn't care less and he's made that abundantly clear. Not only does he not care to know, he's not the least bit interested in finding out anything about the subject.

Bluffy's diet is completely a result of his paradigm, a mixture of ecology, permaculture, pop-science, Savory, his obsession with crank and woo, his envy of real science and scientists, his current personal situation, his need to be a maverick savior/hero and his personal laziness.
5355
I'm talking about FOODS.

Not bicycles.

OK, well define what you mean by a "natural" vs a not "natural" food.

Is cassava natural?

I wonder if Bluffy considers acorns to be natural and therefor good for you right off the tree or the ground beneath it? After all, acorns were a major constituent of the diet of a large number of Central Coastal California Natives prior to the coming of the Spanish. Indeed, acorns have been a significant human food source for many locations around the world for as long as their have been humans to eat them.

However, I don't recommend just gathering them, cracking them open and eating them. Even though they are completely natural.

And when properly processed, quite nutritious.
5356
He doesn't even seem to know that he doesn't know his own position.

Unless he does and he's not telling us.
He's a bog-standard YEC.

He reacts without consideration of what he said yesterday or what he'll say tomorrow.  Just like "consilience", "consistency" is completely foreign to him.
Ah, a corollary of the Fifth and Sixth Laws.

5357
He doesn't even seem to know that he doesn't know his own position.

Unless he does and he's not telling us.

A possible invocation of a corollary of the Third Law. 
5358
Dave, you're just being dishonest and libellous again, throwing false accusations at 'scientists' as if they were some kind of Satanic cabal. Most of us personally know lots of scientists - in my case, many of them are marine biologists - and they are dedicated people deeply passionate about their field.

Your insults are like me saying all ministers, priests and pastors are liars, thieves, and murderers.

Borealis, you know all ministers, priests and pastors are not liars, thieves and murderers, but many of them are child molesters.
 
5359
For example, I think you would agree that naturally raised eggs (natural) would be a better breakfast than Little Debbies (not natural)
I wouldn't, necessarily, not given knowing nothing about who the breakfast was for. Nor how many eggs were included in that breakfast nor how often that breakfast was consumed.

In any case, using your reasoning, I'd say a breakfast of Little Debbies (not natural) was far better health wise than a breakfast consisting of a similar amount of arsenic (completely natural) or tar from the La Brea Tar Pits (completely natural) or just a random selection of rocks (completely natural) or amanita mushrooms (completely natural).

This is exactly what Borealis was talking about.

What a bluffoon.
5360
Dave is driven by a strong desire for simplicity, I think. He wants his diet simple, his lifestyle simple, the environment to be simple, and science to be simple. Unfortunately for Dave, few things are ever simple.
This is completely false.  And the older I get the more I realize how utterly false it is.

LIFE.

CAN BE.

VERY SIMPLE.

But only if we properly utilize the fantastically "not simple" biological systems around us.

My 90-year-old mother cannot simplify her banking life as the result of the fantastic "non-simplicity" of iPhones and the Internet because she doesn't know how to properly use these tools.  Thus her banking life remains complex.

She doesn't know how to use and keep a check book or savings pass book?

And has no one tried to teach her how to use a smart phone? It's pretty simple. Turn it on, click on the bank icon. If it's been set up properly, the bank website should come up, though perhaps some prefer to not have their log-on and passwords stored on the phone, in case it's lost or stolen. Then one just navigates using the touch screen or buttons. Pretty simple.


5361
Dave, you might want to be aware of the difference between "fat" - which usually refers to tissue composed of fat cells, and "fats" or "fatty acids" or "lipids".

"Fat" is a tissue type.
"Fats" are chemical compounds.

The brain contains no fat in the sense that there is no "fatty tissue" i.e. fat cells in the brain.

However it does consist of "fats", which is why sometimes people say things like: "The human brain is nearly 60 percent fat".

So when you "skim for nuggets" you should be aware of just how the term is being used in the context from which you extracted your nuggets.

One important reason why there are such things as "essential fatty acids" is that the brain needs those fatty acids in order to develop and function.  The human body cannot synthesis them.  The two essential fatty acids are alpha-linolenic acid (an omega-3 fatty acid), the one I spelled wrong because it it sounds similar to the other one, linoleic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid).

And these can indeed be obtained from a wide range of foods.  Unfortunately many of these foods have them in a proportion that is unhealthy for humans (too much omega-6) and also in combination with other fats that are probably quite bad for us in excess (the saturated fats, for instance).

You have provided NO evidence that somehow the excess saturated fats you get from your "wild" goat milk is magically good for you than it would be if your goat milk was not wild.

NOTHING you have c&p'd from any website supports this claim of yours.

It is ignorant, arrogant, squid ink.

He's also completely ignored the issue raised by Mike B and myself, as to the emboldenized term "excess". As I have noted, water is an essential nutrient, without it you will die. And too much of it and you will have serious medical problems and may well die.

For just about anything, the dosage is crucial. Too little or too much are just as problematic. A diet of which 2/3rds of the calories are obtained from fat, saturated or not, is very likely going to result in health problems for nearly all adult or even adolescent humans.
5362
Saturated fat.  IS.  Saturated fat.
It would be pretty hard to argue that it is not, wouldn't it?
For you maybe.
But not for me because I take the time to read the articles I post.

Quote
Specifically, "saturated fat" covers several different types of fatty acids, like stearic acid, lauric acid (that's the one in coconut oil), and myristic acid. All of these different fatty acids have different effects, and foods that contain "saturated fat" contain different combinations of them. So just studying "saturated fat" is so imprecise it's almost useless.http://paleoleap.com/saturated-fat-revisited/

But all saturated fats are still saturated fats.

You are, in essence, arguing that not all humans are humans, because there are different sorts of humans: tall ones, short ones, hairy ones, ones with blue eyes, strong ones, female ones, ones that bleed easily, old ones, skinny ones, ones with brown eyes, freckled ones, etc. And while it's obliviously true there are many different sorts of humans, they are all still humans.

One could say the same about rocks, there are big rocks, hard rocks, heavy rocks, sharp rocks, round rocks, porous rocks, hot rocks, dense rocks, abrasive rocks, fragile rocks, valuable rocks, strong rocks, red rocks, striped rocks, igneous rocks, old rocks, grainy rocks, etc. But they are all rocks, despite their differences.
5363

What?

Are you saying there isn't a Wild Chemistry and a Domesticated Chemistry when it comes to molecule formation? I bet it's magic then. Supernatural magic even.

Wild Magic. Which is much better.

Roll a d20 to see what happens.

Note to self: Construct a Hawkins Wild Magic Table, Encounter Table, and Crazy-Ass Arguments Table.

Also need to incorporate The Laws.
First Law: All evidences for mainstream science are speculative. All speculations for woo are evidential.

Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.

Third Law: Any objection to any point one has raised, it's already addressed. No, it is not necessary to tell where.

Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.

Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument one is presently making.

Sixth Law: Any claim one posts in a new venue invalidates the refutations of the same claim one has already seen and acknowledged in previous venues.

Seventh Law: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.

Eighth Law: Any thread where one is getting their ass handed to them on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.

Ninth Law: A 'troll' is anyone who makes persistent challenges to any of ones claims.

Law 9(a): A 'blatant troll with a history' is anyone who's been successful at it over the long term.

Tenth Law: It's only a quote-mine if one doesn't use the exact words of the writer, not if one just reads his mind and states what he really meant.

Law 10(b): It is not a quote mine if one is merely quoting someone else's quote mine.
5364
And ...
Quote
Saturated fat, a critical component of life
Is it any wonder that the fat that composes our own bone marrow and most of our brain, saturated fat, should also be the fat that we consume? Saturated fat has been demonized mainly because most sources are also high in cholesterol. Cholesterol is one of the most important constituents of life. Your body produces it and can regulate its levels whether it's synthesizing its own cholesterol or cholesterol from dietary sources. Every cell needs it, the brain contains large amounts and cholesterol is the precursor to many of the most important hormones. In fact, a high saturated fat intake has been shown to reduce what we call the bad cholesterol, small particle LDL, and raise what's called the good cholesterol, HDL. LDL and HDL are not cholesterol; they are transport lipoproteins, but the function of cholesterol and the way it works in the body, as well as what causes arterial plaque is misunderstood.
For folks that go on about there's many different saturated fats and talking about saturated fat is far to vague to be of any value, you and your paleopals sure do use the term "saturated fat" a lot in a very inclusive way.
5365
So Lizzie... Do you now understand that all saturated fats are not created equally?  Has that sunk in yet?
What a stupid remark.
Not all saturated fats are chemically identical.
Duh.
That's why we call them "saturated fats", rather than "saturated fat".

But those chemical differences (specifically, the chain lengths of the fatty acids - because that's the only difference from one saturated fat to another) have nothing to do with wild (or "wild", as the case may be) vs. factory farmed, or anything else relevant to this discussion.

What?

Are you saying there isn't a Wild Chemistry and a Domesticated Chemistry when it comes to molecule formation? I bet it's magic then. Supernatural magic even.

Wild Magic. Which is much better.
5366
"You have not explained why the "wild"-ness or otherwise of the animal affects the properties of the fats."

 I may never understand why, which is why I may never explain it.

 And that's OK.

 In the same way that it's OK that I cannot explain how touchscreen subroutines work on iPhones.

As usual, your analogy fails. You are not trying to convince others that some touchscreen routines are better than others. Or that you have the best touchscreen routine. Or that the touchscreen subroutines you advocate will "Save Electronics" thereby "Saving the Earth". You are trying to convince (or at least claim in support of your "Saving the Earth" campaign) the agricultural routines you advocate are better than any other agricultural routines, indeed, the only ones that can "Save Agriculture" thereby "Saving the Earth".






5367
I refuse to waste my time on this idiocy.

I will wait until I see a sane response.

Dave
there are lots of things in full fat milk.
Just because overall it is good does not mean that everything in it is good.

You have a good sales gig, right?
You have to spend money on gas, right?
Does that mean spending money on gas is profitable?
If so, then why not do a lot extra driving around?

Consider what if the saturated fats in full fat milk is not good for you but all the rest of the full fat milk makes up for that?

I'd like to point out that regardless of the goodness or badness of full fat milk or any of its constituents, there's the whole question of quantity. Water is undoubtedly good for you, in reasonable amounts, too little you will die, too much and you may also die. Ditto with many substances. A bit of alcohol is not all that bad for one, possibly even helpful, too much can be bad for you and way too much can kill you. Vitamin A is necessary, but too much is bad for you.

Bluffy's diet, such as it is, has way too much milk. Especially raw whole full fat milk. It apparently makes up 2/3rds of his caloric intake. And currently, since his rabbits aren't producing and I don't believe he's gotten going with his chickens yet, he's eating a lot of junk food as well.


I wonder if he has even taken his blood pressure recently.

Not to mention Blood Sugar, triglycerides, cholesterol levels, etc.
5368
A colleague of mine took his 9- and 11-year old kids to Istanbul. In their first night he took them to see the Bosphorus bridge at night, and he told me it was a wonderful sight with all the lights and the market signs in the distance and illuminated cruise ships sailing by. Plus there was a band playing tadtitional songs in the street, and people were actually dancing.
His kids barely looked at it all, They were completely lost in their phones and iPads, browsing or playing facebook games.

So yeah. I'm not buying my daughter anything until she's a teenager.

Is your daughter the same as those two kids? Should she be judged by their behavior?

Would those two kids have paid more attention if they hadn't had the phones and ipads?

If the father was disappointed, why didn't he suggest (or more strongly encourage) the kids pay attention?

My grandkids, girl 10 and boy 7, I don't know, not that I'll have any significant say in the matter. The girl, I think she'd be responsible with a smart phone. She's just that way. The boy, I'm not so sure, and he's just that way. They're both smart, they both do good in school, but she's more responsible, perhaps it's her extra three years, and he's more easily distracted. They play on their parents' phones all the time but with limits set by their parents. Ditto for the ipad tablet and the laptops. And the same goes for TV time.

I dunno, glad it's not my decision, though if asked for my opinion, I'd go with the girl having one in a year or two, and the boy as well when he's 11 or 12. But with clear and specific limits on their usage and sanctions if their grades degrade or their behavior becomes obnoxious.


5369
I refuse to waste my time on this idiocy.

I will wait until I see a sane response.

Dave
there are lots of things in full fat milk.
Just because overall it is good does not mean that everything in it is good.

You have a good sales gig, right?
You have to spend money on gas, right?
Does that mean spending money on gas is profitable?
If so, then why not do a lot extra driving around?

Consider what if the saturated fats in full fat milk is not good for you but all the rest of the full fat milk makes up for that?

I'd like to point out that regardless of the goodness or badness of full fat milk or any of its constituents, there's the whole question of quantity. Water is undoubtedly good for you, in reasonable amounts, too little you will die, too much and you may also die. Ditto with many substances. A bit of alcohol is not all that bad for one, possibly even helpful, too much can be bad for you and way too much can kill you. Vitamin A is necessary, but too much is bad for you.

Bluffy's diet, such as it is, has way too much milk. Especially raw whole full fat milk. It apparently makes up 2/3rds of his caloric intake. And currently, since his rabbits aren't producing and I don't believe he's gotten going with his chickens yet, he's eating a lot of junk food as well.
5370
Presumably, however, you can pontificate on the advantages of smart phones vs. flip phones .... No?
Presumably you have been told how thoroughly you suck at analogies.
Whatever point you thought you were making is long since completely lost.

Bottom line: you know nothing about the science of nutrition, so your opinions on the subject are of zero value.
It may be true that I don't know much about the science of nutrition depending on what you mean exactly.  For example I certainly do not know the exact influence of vitamin C on various parts of the body.  So if that's the sort of thing you mean, then you're right.

On the other hand, in the same way that I know that smart phones are more powerful than flip phones, I also know that the diets of indigenous cultures that Price studied were more powerful for maintaining good health and good teeth than the "civilized" diets of Price's day.  Hopefully you now understand the analogy.
More powerful in what regard? In regards to making a telephone call, not really. Is a Tesla S more powerful than my old Odyssey? In top speed and acceleration that's true, then again I can carry 4 adults and 3 kids plus their luggage in good comfort for 400 miles without stopping, the Tesla can't.
5371
I'd think it would depend a lot on the kid and on the environment and subject to significant parental monitoring.

A smart phone can be a great resource a well as a safety item, but it can also be a major distraction and a serious annoyance.

I don't think one can set an age and that's it for all kids in all circumstances.
5372
Drinking raw goat's milk is the same as eating a salad with 30 different kinds of plants in it, and therefore is "balanced", having "complete nutrition". How could it not be so?

Stuff is stuff, same-sies. Dave told us so.
Milk. -  the ultimate processed food!
5373
Corn and soybeans are not complete nutrition. I'm only interested in systems which provide complete nutrition. Walter Haugen's is the best I've  found for a Plant Foods System.
Neither is a regimen of mostly goat milk, some rabbit meat and eggs. Indeed, so far your experiment is only producing goat milk and only while using twice the acreage your "plan" is based on. 
What a bluffoon. 
5374
Dave do you have rabbits?  I forget whether you said so or not...

Yes, he got a breeding pair and then realised they were Adam & Steve.  So he ate at least one (and gave the still beating heart to his daughter I understand).  He really does his home-work this fella.
Bad assumption, my friend. It wasn't a matter of not doing my homework. It was a matter of being encouraging to a young girl who was trying hard.  It was a sweet little 10-year-old farm girl that raised the "females" and I made the conscious decision to trust her in picking out which ones were females.  She picked wrong. So what? Mission accomplished in encouraging young farmers!
To be wrong, great idea. Perfectly in tune with the Bluffoonic Ideal.

Didn't you think to check for yourself?

Your rerembering of events to try and make it seem you were heroic even if you did fuck up is another example of conforming to the Bluffonic Ideal.
5375
I think it's pretty clear that the bulk of what this argument is about is Dave's rhetoric about
A) saving the world - scaling issues
B) An agricultural lifestyle involving very little labor
C) His ideas that this grandiose vision would require no inputs: the boundaries of systems being permeable, it isn't exactly clear what this would even mean.

Dave's actual activities include an effort to do something with a decent motivation, living as cheaply as possible in a way that meets some minimal standards of quality of life, or maybe a search for a mode of simplicity that offers peace of mind, all while trying to reduce his environmental impact especially regarding the worst abuses of big ag.

His own personal character quirks and his bizarre mix of hero worship and Walter Mitty-esque assessment of his own capacity to understand despite having no information or very limited information about the systems he believes he understands creates the arguments which keep these threads running but his actual efforts are both interesting and continually intersect with more generalized topics that interest most of the people who participate in these threads.

All that said, it seems pointless to argue whether his efforts can scale since scaling is almost never a result of planning anyway. Same too with the idea that he will feed the whole world this way. We do that from a mixed process now as we always have and, by sheer necessity, always will. Same too  with the amount of labor. It is clear that he is proposing a lifestyle which would preclude most human endeavors. Same too with no inputs since the system isn't closed.

What we are really looking at is how to structure as small a plot as possible to provide a means of living both happily and sustainably. And, of course, whether keeping goats in a tiny cage is a good way to keep goats.

"What we are really looking at is how to structure as small a plot as possible to provide a means of living both happily and sustainably. "

Yes.  And if I can achieve this, then it will be duplicatable and I will move from solving the "1 plot" challenges to solving "1 subdivision" problems then "1 county" problems and so on from there.  If I can get this model to dominate in Johnson Co. Missouri, that will be a great accomplishment.

It's already been conclusively shown what you propose in Johnson County will not, can not, work, there's simply not enough woodlands, even with converting the largest State Park in the County, which isn't going to happen. Beyond which you haven't yet shown your Bluffoonila is something the general public wants. Nor even that it actually works, so far you are still working entirely on bought inputs, bought lactating goats, bought non-productive rabbits and no chickens, though those will be bought as well. Your roof is non-sustainable and structurally inadequate, your walls unfinished, you Windows and doors inefficient and non-sustainable and your sanitation crude and potentially unsafe. Nor do you have any source of funding to start the whole thing up. In other words, it's all grandiose dreams with you as the heroic leader.
Oh, forgot to mention that your "experiment" is 1 person on 2 acres, which blows all your numbers to hell and beyond. 
What a bluffoon.