Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • So "3 tits" is something evolution cannot do?  Why not?

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 131415 times) previous topic - next topic

VoxRat, Saunt Taunga, Wally, vivisectus, Dave Hawkins, JonF, superhoop and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27725
"No, that's not always the problem. Sometime it's not a question of a "LACK" of something, but of too much of something, and the imbalances it creates in the body."

And why should I believe you? Have you done exhaustive nutrition research too? Like Price has done?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27726
"20 to 1"

We've had this discussion before. I'm talking about the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27727
"No, that's not always the problem. Sometime it's not a question of a "LACK" of something, but of too much of something, and the imbalances it creates in the body."

And why should I believe you? Have you done exhaustive nutrition research too? Like Price has done?
Oh brother.

Dave, what kind of "extensive research" did Price do on, say, the pathophysiological causes of diabetes?

Because medical science in general HAS done extensive research on that, and many types of illness besides.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27728
"20 to 1"

We've had this discussion before. I'm talking about the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio.
And how does this ratio affect the problems arising from a high intake of trans fats?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27729
"20 to 1"

We've had this discussion before. I'm talking about the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio.
And how does this ratio affect the problems arising from a high intake of trans fats?


'
Quote
    Format: Abstract

Send to
Biomed Pharmacother. 2002 Oct;56(8):365-79.
The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids.
Simopoulos AP1.
Author information
Abstract

Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolved on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratio may vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent with the fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial. Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3 fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resulting from the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27730
... what I believe to be the key aspects...
and therein lies your problem.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27731
So nothing about high intakes of trans fats?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27732

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
[citation needed]
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27733

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
[citation needed]
There's no "citation" available you moron. This is MY conclusion after studying the work of many researchers.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27734
IOW the usual bullshit anally extracted.

What researchers (note plural) works have you studied?  What in their works led you to this conclusion?

No answer will be forthcoming.  As usual.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27735

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
[citation needed]
There's no "citation" available you moron. This is MY conclusion after studying the work of many researchers.
If it were a "conclusion after studying the work of many researchers" - there would be PLENTY of "citations" available.

Moron.

In fact, it's just the same old same old: What Dave Hawkins wants to believe, stated as if it were fact so thoroughly established even the suggestion that it needs any kind of support is "moronic".

This, once again, is how you suck at science.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27736
Dave, your confirmation bias is showing.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27737
THIS PAPER says that perfect teeth is an EARLY INDICATOR of future long term wrt systemic CNDCs.
The phrase "perfect teeth" does not occur in that paper.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27738

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.
did you notice the title of the Hujoel paper you quoted (for about the 6th time)?
Quote
Dietary Carbohydrates and Dental-Systemic Diseases
Notice - it's not "LACK of this that or the other and Dental-Systemic Diseases"

Hujoel's thesis is, in fact, EXACTLY what you say it ISN'T:
i.e. that high intake of fermentable sugar IS "POISON".

This is a fairly mainstream idea these days.
  • Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 08:09:04 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27739
Yes it's easy money.  But hold on ... If I quit, won't somebody else just take my job?  They will.  Sears is not going to say "oh crap, Dave Hawkins quit and he quit because he doesn't want to emit carbon, so maybe we should just leave his position unfilled so that we as a company will emit less carbon."  Sears is not going to say that.  No... Instead, they will just hire someone else. And they will try to hire someone better than me if they can. That will be difficult, but it could happen. :-)
So?
Exactly.  Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy, or convenient.  If I was a ecologically driven brilliant former millionaire, I don't think I would be satisfied working a menial dead end job, polluting the air by driving all over creation.
I wouldn't be satisfied with a pair of pet goats and a string of dead and escaped animals.  
Make a difference, or stop deluding yourself.  There are ways to change the world,  but two years of pissing around in a field, reinventing the wheel in incredibly broken ways is not how it's done.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27740
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27741

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
[citation needed]
There's no "citation" available you moron. This is MY conclusion after studying the work of many researchers.

Then cite them.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27742

CNDCs - both dental and systemic - are the result of a LACK of something ... not the result of a POISON (if you will) such as sugar or Wonder bread.  The problem is that if too high a % of your diet is Wonder bread then your appetite will be satiated BEFORE you have ingested sufficient body building materials to stay healthy and disease free.
[citation needed]
There's no "citation" available you moron. This is MY conclusion after studying the work of many researchers.

Then cite them.

1. Dave's random and willful misinterpretations of good research.
2. Crackpot research and charlatan websites.
3. Dave's rectally extracted ravings and conspiracy theories.

Does that help?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27743
Yes it's easy money.  But hold on ... If I quit, won't somebody else just take my job?  They will.  Sears is not going to say "oh crap, Dave Hawkins quit and he quit because he doesn't want to emit carbon, so maybe we should just leave his position unfilled so that we as a company will emit less carbon."  Sears is not going to say that.  No... Instead, they will just hire someone else. And they will try to hire someone better than me if they can. That will be difficult, but it could happen. :-)
So?
Exactly.  Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy, or convenient.  If I was a ecologically driven brilliant former millionaire, I don't think I would be satisfied working a menial dead end job, polluting the air by driving all over creation.
I wouldn't be satisfied with a pair of pet goats and a string of dead and escaped animals. 
Make a difference, or stop deluding yourself.  There are ways to change the world,  but two years of pissing around in a field, reinventing the wheel in incredibly broken ways is not how it's done.

Applause

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27744
Pingu ...  I think you missed the question I had for you earlier this morning.  i'll ask it again... It appears that you subscribe to some form of "Keys hypothesis"  mentioned by Hujoel.

 I ask this because of your statements regarding the Inuit people. I have stated many times that in Stefansson's day they were very healthy on a 100% meat diet and you always counter with the assertion that they have cardiovascular disease.

  so help me understand your view here. Do you subscribe to the "keys hypothesis"? And if so is that the reason you believe this assertion of yours that the Inuit people have  hi incidence of cardiovascular disease?  or is it some other reason you believe this?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27745
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27746
Here's the link we've shown you repeatedly, dave:

http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/
Worthless with respect to Inuit because nothing about the diet of the groups studied is stated.  probably had been significantly westernized by the time of the study.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27747
Pingu ...  I think you missed the question I had for you earlier this morning.  i'll ask it again... It appears that you subscribe to some form of "Keys hypothesis"  mentioned by Hujoel.

 I ask this because of your statements regarding the Inuit people. I have stated many times that in Stefansson's day they were very healthy on a 100% meat diet and you always counter with the assertion that they have cardiovascular disease.

  so help me understand your view here. Do you subscribe to the "keys hypothesis"? And if so is that the reason you believe this assertion of yours that the Inuit people have  hi incidence of cardiovascular disease?  or is it some other reason you believe this?
non-sequitur as an art form!  :golfclap:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27748
... in Stefansson's day they were very healthy on a 100% meat diet
[citation needed]
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #27749
Pingu ...  I think you missed the question I had for you earlier this morning.  i'll ask it again... It appears that you subscribe to some form of "Keys hypothesis"  mentioned by Hujoel.

 I ask this because of your statements regarding the Inuit people. I have stated many times

Stating something many times does not make the thing true.

that in Stefansson's day they were very healthy on a 100% meat diet

Their diet was not 100% meat

and you always counter with the assertion that they have cardiovascular disease.

Some do.

  so help me understand your view here.

then check out the evidence.

Do you subscribe to the "keys hypothesis"? And if so is that the reason you believe this assertion of yours that the Inuit people have  hi incidence of cardiovascular disease?  or is it some other reason you believe this?

It is because of evidence I have read.  In science we do not "believe" "assertions" at all.  Nor do we "believe" hypotheses.  We test them against evidence.

Some of it is reviewed here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/961471

Quote
Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?

Bjerregaard P1, Young TK, Hegele RA.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The notion that the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is low among the Inuit subsisting on a traditional marine diet has attained axiomatic status. The scientific evidence for this is weak and rests on early clinical evidence and uncertain mortality statistics.
METHODS:
We reviewed the literature and performed new analyses of the mortality statistics from Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.
FINDINGS:
The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence.
INTERPRETATION:
The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations. If the mortality from IHD is low, it seems not to be associated with a low prevalence of general atherosclerosis. A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population.


Also this one:

Quote
Use and nutrient composition of traditional baffin inuit foods

https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-1575(92)90026-GGet rights and content
Abstract
Foods indigenous to one community of Baffin Island, Northwest Territories, Canada, are reported for their frequency of use by Inuit families and for their composition for moisture, protein, fat, ash, computed carbohydrate and energy, retinol, and the mineral elements Ca, P, Na, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mg, and Mn. Summary data are also reported for the contents of Sr, Ba, Ti, Mo, Cr, Co, Ni, and Sn. This is the first comprehensive report of this spectrum of nutrients in the major foods of the traditional Inuit food system, and it is the first report for many nutrients in several of the foods. In particular, new nutrient information is presented for the sea mammal, land animal, and fish blubbers, fats, and skins. The species of most frequent use reported upon here are ringed seal (Phoca hispida), narwhal (Monodon monoceros), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus, ssp groenlandicus), Arctic char (Salvelinus naresi), kelp (Laminaria sp., Rhodymenia sp.), berries (Empetrum nigrum, Vaccinium uliginosum), and tundra greens (Oxyria digyna, Salix reticulata). Data on several other animal species are also presented.


So, lots of fish oil, which may be partly protective, and NOT 100% meat.  And yet their rates of ICD seem neither to be lower nor higher than comparison groups.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.