This is topic Nutrition and Health: Explaining the works of Dr. Price in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=046356

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I have started this thread as a direct result of steven's repeated topics about Dr. Price, and Bob_S's offer to discuss the scientific method as it relates to Dr. Price's works from the 1930's.


Talk amongst yourselves. [Wink]
 
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
 
The Price is right! Or is he?
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Gah! I saw this thread and my first thought was "Oh no! Not another one!" Then I remembered...
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
LOL....you asked for it. [Smile]
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
I, for one, am very interested in hearing what steven has to say about Dr. Price's research. I vaguely remember something about microclusters of trace elements found in the central nervous system, but I can't recall the specifics.

Steven? Help me out with this?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
here's how I think we should do it, if we do it. One paragraph at a time will be posted from somewhere in Dr. Price's book. Anyone can post, but no more than 2-3 paragraphs should be up for discussion at any one time, else it will get messy. I will comment. Others may comment. the only rule is that no more than 2-3 paragraphs may be up for discussion at once.

these are my thoughts on it, currently. Post a paragraph if you will.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Steven, do you promise that you won't drop out of the conversation before it's done?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I don't know why you think you need me to learn about nutrition. I am very likely to drop out if the discussion turns to Ormus. Otherwise, I'll cheerfully participate.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I am very likely to drop out if the discussion turns to Ormus.
I have no idea what this means.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
My plan is that, assuming we all get on the same page re: Price, we may, at that point, have the option to move on to the "whys" of his work. Not that I would be very into the "whys". Ormus/m-state/microcluster elements is a candidate for the "whys". I am not willing to discuss it further yet, if at all.

Did that answer your query, porter?
 
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
 
Well, I am just as confused as I was before you clarified. (I was wondering as well)


Why are you hesitant to discuss the "whys"?
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
I assume that it means something along the lines of this:

1) Steven is willing to discuss the validity of the results from following Dr. Price's work

2) At this point he is not willing to delve into philosophical/scientific theories of why he believes these results happen. After doing a quick google search of Ormus, I can understand why he'd be hesitant to open that can of worms.

Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting you steven.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I can see that as reasonable. There have to be some constraints on the topic of what will be discussed, or the tangents will be enormous.

There seems (to me) to be enough to discuss with just how the conclusions are drawn, regardless of the proposed mechanism explaining them.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
That's what I was trying to get at CT. [Smile]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
OK. I was thinking it was off-limits to ask "Why did Dr. P make this conclusion."
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
steven,

1) Do you have any alt screen names?

2) I hate to be a pain, but I don't actually see anywhere where you've put down a definitive statement promising to stick to the discussion through to the end, or, failing that, to promise never to bring up Dr. Price again here at Hatrack. I don't really care about the "why" stuff. I'm only interested in a discussion of his methods and whether or not his conclusions are supported by a sound methodology and solid data.

3) I'm a little concerned about the "paragraph at a time" idea. They main problems I have had with past presentations of Dr. Price's work have been with the methodology. I suspect that if someone posts a paragraph from the beginning of Chapter ___, it will just have some sort of observation that, without reading the guy's methods section (or whatever passes for an exposition of his methods) I personally will have very little to say beyond "well...there's really no data here."

That's going to get old awfully fast.

Is there any way we could go through the chapters just looking for (or trying to develop) a sense of his method?

When I read scientific works, I head straight for the methods section, because unless the methods are sound, reading the rest of it is kind of waste of time.


Anyone have a suggestion on how to deal with this?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
One problem with this is that you're going to have a rather short discussion, since the comrade Doctor doesn't actually have a methods section, as such.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yeah, I figured that had to be the case. But we could, I assume, figure out what his methods were from the information he DOES provide. It might take some careful reading, but would you say it's possible or not possible to figure out a method from what text is there?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh, sure, that can be done. I thought you'd want a formal section on methods.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Of course, that may not be the kind of discussion steven had in mind. To be fair, I'm not interested in a page-by-page review of the book -- I'm only interested in his methods, then, if they look valid, his observations and conclusions...in that order.

I gather steven really wants us all to read the book and be convinced. Having read enough observational studies in the past, I already know that I won't be able to slog through the pages of "oh look, they do this" kind of stuff unless I have already determined that the guy followed sound scientific methods.

I'd love to go through it all and see what we can use to describe his methods, but, again, I'm not sure we can put steven through what, for him, would be just plain torture.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oh, sure, that can be done. I thought you'd want a formal section on methods.

No, I'm familiar with amateur "scientific reports." There's bound to be little hints here and there of what he did, and how meticulous his records were, etc. etc.

Frankly, in that era (continuing through WWII) medical people in general didn't have much grounding in actual scientific methods. Single-patient case studies were considered just as valid as well-controlled experiments.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yep, plenty of those, at least in the later chapters. In the early ones, as mentioned, he does do what looks like reasonably wide data-gathering, although with the strong possibility of researcher bias.

One problem: I dont think these books are public domain yet, won't there be copyright difficulties in posting large extracts?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
steven,
While I am ready and able (if I said willing I would be overstating the case) to read this book, I doubt I would have a huge amount of interest in going through a detailed chapter-by-chapter critique of it.


If you want to post like that feel free, but I think that general criticisms of his methods and data gathering would be just as important and the specific case studies he mentions.


How about we do it chapter by chapter? Perhaps start with an overview or introduction, explaining the general ideas and concepts that Dr. Price believed, as you understand it.


I for one am less interested in nutrition as I am about your beliefs in Dr. Price. Most of the little bit I HAVE read of him seem to draw some pretty unsubstanciated claims, and fly in the face of modern medical knowledge. I have not done a complete review by any means, though, so I would really like to start from the beginning.


Also, there are a lot of people here on Hatrack that may not have been around for your previous attempts at discussing this, so it would be nice for them to get an overview as well. [Smile]


Keep in mind that this thread will probably be archived, so if this topic ever comes up again it will be linked to in the new thread.


Everyone play nice! [Wink]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
let's confine our investigations to the 5 chapter section mini-book of chapters 15-19. Is everyone agreeable to that? It's pretty manageable.

Bob, I wish I could easily distill the whole thing. Price's conclusions were drawn from 4 sources, which are well-documented, but kind of hard to dig out and summarize from the 500+ pages he wrote:

1. Animal studies that he himself did on rats

2. Animal studies that other people did on rats, cats, cows, and pigs.

3. Human studies that other people did, both observational and controlled.

4. His trips to dozens of remote locations to study human groups that were transitioning to Western diets, or refusing to transition, or had no access to Westernized foods, etc.

Basically, he found that

1. In the animal studies, birth defects, skeletal and tooth problems, including crooked teeth, and general shorter life spans and poorer health were easily correlated with specific, controlled, intentionally-produced vitamin deficiencies. Vitamin A, vitamin D, what have you.

2. He found that people eating Westernized diets tended to have the exact same types of problems that animals in controlled studies like Dr. Pottenger's and others showed, including much higher rates of cancer, skeletal defects, etc.

3. He also found much lower amounts of the macro-and micro-nutrients like calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, etc. in the westernized foods.

4. The groups he studied were living side-by-side, drinking the same water, breathing the same air, wearing the same types of clothes, living in the same types of houses, etc. In other words, Family A eating a Western diet has rampant cavities and children with birth defects. Family B, next door, eats their traditional diet, has great teeth and beautiful, healthy kids.


Take a look at chapter 15 for his nutritional analyses of the Western vs. primitive diets. It, to my mind, begs the question to disagree with him in light of the simple lack of minerals in a Western diet. How can you build bones without sufficient calcium and phosphorus? Where will you get it from?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
The groups he studied were living side-by-side, drinking the same water, breathing the same air, wearing the same types of clothes, living in the same types of houses, etc. In other words, Family A eating a Western diet has rampant cavities and children with birth defects. Family B, next door, eats their traditional diet, has great teeth and beautiful, healthy kids.
Steven, what you've just described sends up all kinds of danger signs to me that scream "bad study!" Do you know why?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Boy! That was cruel and uncalled for. Sure makes me want to participate in this discussion.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
yeah tom, you win. Whatever point you are making, you win. All 300 pounds of you.

Steven, this is absolutely, unequivocally not okay. I've whistled your post.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I didn't quote him on the offchance he would change his mind and Tom would be spared the insult.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I seem to remember being called and accused of a lot of things back last year re: Dr. price's work. I managed to swallow my pride and show back up and discuss it calmly.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
If I had seen a similar comment directed at you'd I'd still have thought it was rude and would have pointed it out. That's been done in your case now and what you choose to do at this point says a lot about your character.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Can we all get back on the topic at hand? I apologize for being out of line.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
*is suddenly very glad steven's not the thread starter*

Okay, fine. Perhaps you could answer Tom's question?

edit: If you don't know the answer, I'll give you a hint. Just a jumping off point.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
JT, 100% of the animals in all of the animal experiments on nutritional deficiency get sick in exactly the same way within a species. Does that answer your question?
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
It wasn't my question. But, no.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
How doesn't it?
 
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Can we all get back on the topic at hand? I apologize for being out of line.

So edit your post. I have no interest in "getting back to the topic at hand" if that kind of name-calling is your modus operandi.

And I have no knowledge of your previous threads on this topic, so I'm not prejudiced against you.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Aaaaaaaaaaand.....I've deleted it. Can we get back to the topic at hand? As in, if the same vitamin deficiency within a given animal species produces the same problem every time in controlled experiments, why can't we generalize that humans who have similar defects as the animals in the experiments are also suffering from some kind of malnutrition?

I'm waiting.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Because there can be more than one cause. This is elementary logic: If A implies B, it does not follow that B implies A. In any case, you did not answer Tom's question. In fact, you showed all the question-evading skills of a hardened fundie.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
If you overfeed a thousand rats, and all 1000 of them get fat, does that mean that all humans who appear "fat" are so because of overeating?

If you could make 1000 rats smoke a pack a day and all 1000 get lung cancer, does that mean that all cases of human lung cancer are caused by smoking?

(And thank you for deleting your earlier post.)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Dr. Price clearly states that he finds dental abnormalities in all but the absolute healthiest groups. He's talking about groups that are living literally as cavemen, with no tools other than bows and arrows and wooden spears, etc. They still had crooked teeth, but to a lesser degree.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I don't see how crooked teet means poor health, necessarily.

-pH
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hey, seriously, steven has a point: I would be the wrong person to approach for nutritional advice. Luckily, I'm not offering any. And I DO have the physical profile of a congenital skeptic.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I was shortening my answers to save time, pH. Price found that the groups with the best teeth also had the best overall skeletal development. Not only were the facial bones large enough to accomodate all the teeth, but the entire skeleton was both more heavy and dense.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
steven, let's get back to the original discussion. I'll withdraw so that you're not distracted, because I'd really like to see you concentrate on analyzing, with Bob, Dr. Price's methodology.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'll say it even more plainly, pH. Dr Price, as well as other researchers, found that a narrow ribcage and pelvis was always associated with poor nutrition. In particular, normal childbirth is impossible without a sufficiently wide pelvis. As well, tuberculosis seems to be more likely among those with a narrower ribcage, according to both Price and others.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
steven, did Price control for age in assessing the groups?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'll say it even more plainly, pH---the diet that gives you straight teeth not only gives you better teeth, it gives you a better skeleton. There's no separating the two.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
What does age have to do with crooked teeth? Your teeth are crooked, or they aren't.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Age does affect bone density and so the skelaton.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
If it gives straight teeth, it gives dense bones.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Age does affect bone density and so the skeleton.
So you're claiming that it halts the aging process?
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I still don't understand how teeth have anything to do with this. Some people are born without wisdom teeth. Some people are born without certain adult teeth.

-pH
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I'm one of them. Never cut wisdom teeth and I have one other adult tooth that never formed.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Might I point out that few people are born with teeth and that adult teeth form later?

Not siding with steven, it just seems rediculous to be talking about being born with teeth.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hey, seriously, steven has a point: I would be the wrong person to approach for nutritional advice. Luckily, I'm not offering any. And I DO have the physical profile of a congenital skeptic.

While I really, really respect your gracious response to steven after his unbelievably rude comment, I don't think that steven had a valid point. If you have the knowledge, then there's no reason not to approach you for nutritional advice. For example, the fact that Bob chooses to use a more inherently unsafe mode of transportation (a motorcycle) is not a sufficient reason to disregard his comments on traffic safety.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Bob, are we done yet? Clearly we've strayed from the main topic.

As far as the teeth thing goes, Price noted, as well as Pottenger, that a better diet tended to cause bone structure to be more similar among members of the same race/family.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Primal Curve:
Might I point out that few people are born with teeth and that adult teeth form later?

Not siding with steven, it just seems rediculous to be talking about being born with teeth.

Well technically while we are not "born with teeth" we are born with the buds from which they form. (Or not, depending on the tooth in question.)
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
If it gives straight teeth, it gives dense bones.

I knew I should have gotten braces!

[Wink]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
steven, there are reasons to consider whether or not age was factored into the analysis. Price notes conclusions about such things as tooth decay, arthritis, and straightness of stature.

The rates of all these diseases/"disorders" are each affected by age. For example, it is developmentally appropriate for children of one age group to be bow-legged (that is, they are supposed to be), another to be straight-legged, and another age range to be knock-kneed before they straighten out again.

I did read some exerpts from Price's writings -- although not the full text -- and I did not see good variable control for age. Is it documented elsewhere in his work, or did he not control for age?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Price found crookedness of teeth and narrowed ribcages among people of all ages, and his pictures prove it. What else are you looking for? Crooked teeth are abnormal at any age.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
That's not the question asked. The question is, did he control for age when he wrote down his statistics? The answer is, no he didn't, he considered only the two categories of primitive-eaters and modern-eaters. No other variables were looked at, and he was pretty binary even in that one - you were either a primitive-eater or not.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Price found crookedness of teeth and narrowed ribcages among people of all ages, and his pictures prove it. What else are you looking for? Crooked teeth are abnormal at any age.

When comparing two groups to test whether a given variable (here, "diet") is responsible for a given effect (here, "bone changes"), you need to have the groups otherwise matched for all likely confounders. Otherwise, selection bias can make it look like there was a difference when there was not.

So, I take it that you, steven, do not hold that he controlled for age as a confounding variable? (just checking)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
OK, CT, WHICH AGE is it that my TEETH are supposed to be CROOKED?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Everyone, can we let this go back to Bob and steven? I don't want to overwhelm steven with questions in a volume he can't possibly answer.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
steven, please don't yell. Instead, please answer the simple question.

In answer to your question, I am not talking just about crooked teeth, but about other things as well. Regardless, teeth are often "crooked" when there are not other surrounding teeth to hold them in alignment. This happens naturally when someone is just getting in a new crop of teeth or when other teeth have been lost (again, both are age-related). Thumb-sucking (also age-related) is another reason. Other reasons, such as heredity, may or may not be age-related.

Now, your turn. And please don't go for the all-caps yell again -- it isn't necessary.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Fair enough, Tom. I'm happy to defer my question about age as a confounder until such a time as it is appropriate for non-Bob-initiated questions. [Smile]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Maybe we can get back to Bob. CT's cogent point is derailing steven from Bob's questions.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?

Oh hoo so now you want us to argue for you?

Steven I think you have indeed been given so many questions that it would be daunting to answer them all.

Are you suggesting that as we eat according to Dr Price, "Better" that our teeth will then grow straighter?

Ill let this thread go back to Bob and Steve.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
The reason that it's utter crap is simply this:

Teeth are crooked because the bones of the lower and mid-face are underdeveloped or distorted in some way.

Dr. Price's book has dozens of pictures of people of all ages with these distortions.

The usual pattern is flattened cheekbones, an undersized jaw, and general narrowing of the skull, skeletorn, and face, as well as a narrowed nose.

That said, you can have crooked teeth with or without these patterns. The point being....ta daaa....distortions are clearly a result of nutritional deficiencies. The proof of this is that you can produce the same patterns in animals by restricting their vitamin and mineral intake.

It's so good to speak with you again, kat.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Just a reminder, or for those who don't know -- Bob can't post on Hatrack during business hours. So anything from him will come before or after work.

Also, steven, I think he asked for a couple of assurances from you in his post yesterday, before he would begin discussing the matter. Maybe you could re-read that and post if you agree, so that when he gets back here he can start addressing your points?
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(steven, we can discuss whether age can be a confounder at another time. I will set aside my response until then -- it can wait until an appropriate time, if it comes. Meanwhile, back to Bob. After business hours. [Smile] )
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Well technically while we are not "born with teeth" we are born with the buds from which they form. (Or not, depending on the tooth in question.)
I know a girl who was born with a tooth already in. They had to remove it since she kept rubbing her tongue raw with it.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
You all realize, I hope, that nothing good can come of this.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KarlEd:
I'm one of them. Never cut wisdom teeth and I have one other adult tooth that never formed.

Hey! Me, too. I still have one "baby" tooth. A premolar on the top right. And my wisdom teeth are still dormant.

Maybe we are related!
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
There's the other side where I had a perfectly fine dental bite as a child until my adolescent molars started crowding my mouth. Although I don't know where Dr. Price would place my facial features on his scheme, I could be undernourished and all.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?

Steven, Age can indeed be a confounding factor which must be controlled for in any medical study. The parameters you refer to, straight teeth, bone density, narrow rib cage and pelvis etc, vary dramatically within any population with out reguard to diet. If Price found a perfect correlation between straight teeth and bone density then I can assure you that his results are a load of crap.

Assuming that his research has any integretty at all, he would have to have a statistically significant number of subject to rule out the possibility that his results occurred by random chance. In addition, it would have to be shown that the populations in each study group were essentially identical in all ways except diet. That means that he would have to have controlled for age.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
steven,

1) are you ready to make the promise?

2) what are your alternate screen names -- other than c.t.t.n., of course?

3) Your synopsis of Price's methods is not sufficient, as you well know from past exchanges here. Nobody with any grounding in scientific methodology is going to make the leap from nutritionally deprived animals in an experimental setting to observations of humans. There are just too many holes. I suspect that Price was more careful than what you make him out to be, so, rather than rely on further "explanations" from you, I think it would be most fair for me (or maybe someone else -- KoM has already read this stuff and could no doubt do a decent job), to read the relevant passages and come back here with an explanation of the methods used by Dr. Price and then, separately, a critique thereof.

Not having read the book yet, I can only say that the idea of going a chapter at a time, starting with 15 or wherever you prefer, is going to be the best bet for an accurate portrayal that doesn't involve use of Hatrack webspace for wholesale copying of the material from the book.

So,

A) do you agree we can just start with a chapter in its entirety -- you pick which one.

and

B) will you agree to stay to discuss this even when (as I feel is practically inevitable), I point to serious flaws in the methodology that make it impossible for Price to have drawn at least SOME of the conclusions you have presented to us as his?

In other words...will you listen and interact respectfully? Will you make an honest effort to accept it when I (and others) point to serious flaws in Price's work, and will you, at the very least, take that as an indication that further defense of those particular conclusions is not supported by the research presented in the book?


For my part, I promise to be very careful in my critique to say when I know something is flawed methodologically and distinguish those cases from other points where I either can't draw a conclusion or conclude that the method is in fact, sound.

My intention, then, is to point to the things that we can all agree are done well, and upon which conclusions may be drawn, and what those conclusions might be.

Then, for everything else, I'll point out the flaws in methods and conclusions and give at least one alternative explanation that is both simpler, and supported by the data.


Is this going to work for you?

If so...all you need to do to start the process is do #1 above -- state your promise in clear declarative sentences.


I would prefer that you also list your alternate screen names, but I'm not going to make that a pre-condition for my spending more time on this.

It's worth it if you'll simply come here each day with an open mind and a willingness to follow the logic of my critique. If you find flaws in the logic, you should feel free to correct them, or ask questions about stuff that is unclear.

What I really DON'T want is for you to fall back on your prior tactic of simply reasserting the stuff that's already been discussed and judged invalid. If you disagree that I've pointed to a fatal flaw in the methods, it is up to you to explain WHY you think that flaw is not a flaw afterall. No good just saying "but what about the cats?" or "look at the observations!" like you have so many times in the past. Once I critique it, you either have to refute my critique or otherwise state why you disagree with it. I promise to be thorough and answer every one of your questions in as much detail as I can in order to aid in a mutual understanding of terms and what each of my critiques really means.


Okay?


Does this work for you?


NOTE: I do not come to Hatrack during working hours, so my involvement here is taking away from leisure time that would be better spent with my family. If you really aren't able to do agree to these conditions, it's really not worth me bothering.

I will, however, point to this thread every time you come back to hatrack trying to get people to listen to you about Dr. Price. Ay the very least, the purpose of having a more permanent record of this issue will be served.

So...

promise and we shall commence.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
There's the other side where I had a perfectly fine dental bite as a child until my adolescent molars started crowding my mouth. Although I don't know where Dr. Price would place my facial features on his scheme, I could be undernourished and all.

See, my teeth grew in crooked because the adult teeth grew in BEHIND the baby teeth, not under. So I had to pull out the baby teeth on my own, and then the adult teeth got to race to the front.

I got braces though. So I guess my bone density is cool.

-pH
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
There's the other side where I had a perfectly fine dental bite as a child until my adolescent molars started crowding my mouth. Although I don't know where Dr. Price would place my facial features on his scheme, I could be undernourished and all.

I have no idea whether Dr. Price would place me based on facial features but I do know that I am undernourished (or at least was). I suffer from a maladsorption disorder (Celiac/Sprue). Until I was diagnosed in my mid thirties, I was unable to properly adsorb iron, calcium and other important minerals and nutrients from my diet. I was chronically anemic, had low bone density and was extremely thin. Nevertheless, I have natually straight teeth.

If Dr. Price is claiming that diet is the only factor, which I sincerely doubth, then I clearly disprove his results. If he admits that other factors are involved, then he must control for those factors.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by KarlEd:
I'm one of them. Never cut wisdom teeth and I have one other adult tooth that never formed.

Hey! Me, too. I still have one "baby" tooth. A premolar on the top right. And my wisdom teeth are still dormant.

Maybe we are related!

Hey, my other missing tooth was a molar on the top left! I had a root canal on an adjacent tooth when I was 14 and the x-ray showed I still had a baby pre-molar next to it with no adult tooth at all above it. They pulled it and I've had a space ever since.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
I had to get braces for crooked teeth because, according to my orthodontist, I was swallowing incorrectly.

Apparently, when most people swallow, they push their tongues to the roofs of their mouths. I, on the other hand, was pushing my tongue against the back of front teeth. One way to test for this is whether or not the top and bottom rear molars are touching when you swallow. If they're not, it could be because you're swallowing incorrectly.

Most young kids do this, I was told, but develop the correct behavior by the age of six or so. I didn't, and by the time I was in middle school, my front teeth were bucked out, and the resulting space allowed my other teeth to grow as they saw fit. I had a hell of a time trying to retrain the way I swallowed, but it was that or a retainer for the rest of my life.

FWIW.
 
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
 
Interesting, Juxtapose. I have never heard that before, but I guess you can add me to the list of people who swallow incorrectly.

That would also probably explain why the gap between my front teeth has a tendency to reappear if I neglect to wear my retainer for a few nights, despite the fact that my braces were removed almost eight years ago. [Frown]
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
There are exercises you can do to fix the problem, aside from just thinking about how you swallow every time you eat a meal, which is what I did. I have some very diligent parents.

I couldn't find any programs with a quick Google search, but your dentist could probably point you in the right direction.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
steven....do you think I started this thread to pick on you? To slam or insult you?


I started it to allow you the chance that you always CLAIMED to want...a fair chance to present your views and answer questions.


Not for a slam fest. You really don't want to go there.


Trust me.


CT is a doctor, BTW. If she comments on reasonable controls for medical research, she MAY have a little more experience with it that you. I worked in a bio-hazard lab setting (in the safety office though) for 3 years at USAMRIID, and I founded the MRVS's council. I also helped draft the MRVS's ethical statement and compensation rules that were presented to the Congressional Oversight Committee, and the suggestions we presented were adopted wholesale right after I left the Army. The MRVS program is world renowned as THE model for informed consent medical experimentation with Humans.


We are all taking time out to discuss medical issues with you, and to listen to what you have to say...and you are doing nothing so far but bitch about getting "off-topic" and make insulting comments.


As a prime example of why age is a primary variable that should not be ignored.....consider osteoporosis. As women age they lose bone density automatically. The amount each woman loses varies, of course, but after menopause women usually have to be very careful and watch their diets to prevent dangerous bone loss.

This was not well known at in in 1939, and therefore could not have been factored in by Dr. Price. However it is a true fact, proved many times over by modern science and testing. If Dr. Price didn't factor it in, it would without a doubt skew his results.


It may or may not ruin his study....we don't know yet. But it does increase the chance of error in his findings.

[ December 06, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I've been interested in Price's work for a few years, I've read his book and got a digital version from an Australian public domain online library (I can look up the location later). But I've never had the oppurtunity to really analyze it in the manner that Bob laid out in this thread. I'd love to see this thread go on civilly, or at least the links to the old threads when this was discussed. A big part of my motivation for going into Price's methods, is my on unfamiliarity with science in general and--after reading the book--some serious qualms I had with the conclusions the Sally Fallon and the WAPF (weston a price foundation) made from his research. Also I think some of Steven's generalizations are slightly inaccurate, but I'll have to get home before I can post the excerpts that say why.

I think I also have some digital copies of some of his peer reviewed published studies from before the book was published, I'll have to pull those out as well.

I don't know if this counts as controlling for age in the modern sense, but in his study of the Swiss Loetschental Valley he presents multiple data sets for children of varying ages and adults in the valley.

quote:
In answer to your question, I am not talking just about crooked teeth, but about other things as well. Regardless, teeth are often "crooked" when there are not other surrounding teeth to hold them in alignment. This happens naturally when someone is just getting in a new crop of teeth or when other teeth have been lost (again, both are age-related). Thumb-sucking (also age-related) is another reason. Other reasons, such as heredity, may or may not be age-related.
what I would say is that Price's research suggests the possibility that heredity has very small impact, and the possibility that poor nutrition is a reason the jaw and teeth might grow in a non-ideal fashion, causing the mis-alignment, crookedness or too narrow a palate (to hold all teeth).

Adam
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
EDIT: cut this done when I saw how long it appeared on the actual page (I got carried away last night)

Here's the first two paragraphs of chapter fifteen of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. relatively easy to tear apart with modern approaches to data collection I imagine. Bear in mind that the assumptions he's making in these opening paragraphs are based on the presentation of thirteen chapters of detailed comparative data. The first chapter laid out his hypothesis and this chapter is where he restates it clearly:

quote:
IF PRIMITIVE races have been more efficient than modernized groups in the matter of preventing degenerative processes, physical, mental and moral, it is only because they have been more efficient in complying with Nature's laws. We have two procedures that we can use for evaluating their programs: first, the interpretation of their data in terms of our modern knowledge; and second, the clinical application of their procedures to our modern social problems. Specifically, since the greater success of the primitives in meeting Nature's laws has been based primarily on dietary procedures, it becomes desirable first, to evaluatetheir dietary programs on the basis of known biologic requirements for comparison with the foods of our modern civilization; and second, to test their primitive nutritional programs by applying their equivalents to our modern families.

The advance in our knowledge of body-building and body-repairing materials from a biochemical standpoint makes it possible even with our limited knowledge of organic catalysts, to draw comparisons between the primitive and modernized dietaries. If we use the generally accepted minimal and optimal quantities of the various minerals and vitamins required, as indicated by Sherman, (1) we shall have at once a yardstick for evaluating the primitive dietaries.

From later in the chapter, Price's understanding of how diet and nutrition operate:

quote:
... In planning an adequate diet, a proper ratio between body building and energy units must be maintained. It is important to keep in mind that while the amount of body-building and repairing material required is similar for different individuals of the same age and weight, it is markedly different for two individuals, one of whom is leading a sedentary, and the other, an active life. Similarly, there is a great difference between the amount of body-building and repairing material required by a growing child or an expectant mother and an average adult.

There are certain characteristics of the various dietaries of the primitive races, which are universally present when that dietary program is associated with a high immunity to disease and freedom from deformities. In general, these are the foods that provide adequate sources of body-building and body-repairing material. The use by primitives, of foods relatively low in calories has resulted in forcing them to eat large quantities of these foods, in order to provide the heat and energy requirements of the body. The primitives have obtained, often with great difficulty, foods that are scarce but rich in certain elements. In these rare foods were elements which the body requires in small quantities, including minerals such as iodine, copper, manganese and special vitamins.



[ December 07, 2006, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Adam_S ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Bob, might I suggest that since steven is extremely emotionally attached to the conclusion that Price is correct that you very carefully point out that just because you may expose faults in Price's scientific method that that doesn't necessarily mean that you are proving him wrong? He could've reached the correct conclusion by flipping a coin. (To give an extreme example.)

I remember when reading the book myself noting that the research could not be done today because that time was a sort of "golden era" where world-wide travel had become much more feasible while there were yet many groups of people that ate their traditional diet untained by the refined foods so ubiquitous today. The window opened and closed before we were born and Price was there to step into it. There is no revisiting this now, we can only examine the evidence that he found. And I personally find much of the evidence compelling.

As I have said before on this board, it was reading his studies that started me on an odessy of sorts and could be stated to be a large part of the reason why I now find myself on 6 acres in Oregon preparing to raise animals for grass-fed meat, eggs, and dairy products. I am a bit emotionally invested myself. [Smile] And I think it is a mistake to remove that human passion and become cold, calculated, machine like beings. So I like to approach things a bit more delicately.

I suggest that one of the reasons why no one has been able to successfully have this conversation with steven is because he gets defensive whenever he feels that people are out to prove his *hypothesis* wrong. All *I* see people trying to do is explain why *they* are unconvinced by Price's less-than-thourough methods and why the bar of skepticism is so high. But he isn't going to see that, not being as emotionally invested as he is, and being (ahem) a tad bit illogical in his thought processes to begin with.

Also, now and in the past, I see too many people asking steven if he does not see the flaws for himself and that he must find them for himself. Don't you see that he does not *want* to find flaws? Getting him to reach that conclusion on his own just ain't gonna happen. Certainly not when he perceives you as hostile! If you want this to be a productive discussion, you have got to find a way to keep steven *off* of the defensive.

<---is very interested in this discussion being productive
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
beverly,

I think you've really hit on some fundamental facts. I have regretted for months the stronger tones I took with steven in earlier threads over the past couple of years.

My offers to help him understand the scientific method, and why his entreaties for us to simply read Price's book and we'd all be believers weren't realistic.

I am willing to participate in this conversation not out of an interest in Price's work, but to make up for past bad behavior of mine when it comes to steven. I was brusque and dismissive.


steven, you may not trust me. That's fine. Someone else here can do just as good a job, no doubt. If you'd prefer that I not be the one to go through this I'll back down. Others have not asked for any promises from you. That's just between you and me.


Adam_S:

As I said above, I'm not really interested in a general discussion of Price's works. And I'm not participating in this thread unless steven is, and under certain conditions that I proposed to him.

Others may be interested, but I'd ask you to at least let steven start the ball rolling by making a decision as to whether or not he wants my participation.

Also, please be careful of copyright restrictions urged on us by our host. quotations including long passages from published work still under copyright protection is a violation of the Terms of Service here at Hatrack.

In order to engage in this discussion, we'll probably have to refer to passages of documents that are available "elsewhere." I personally don't want to be involved in reading pirated copies of something, so whatever we end up reviewing it'll either have to be a free-use copy or I'll have to find a way to purchase my own legit copy.

By the way...out of print does not cancel a copyright. It just makes the stuff more difficult to obtain.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
gotcha Bob, longtime lurker and I definitely respect your posts. Editing the post down just to the first two paragraphs. fwiw, the book is public domain in australia, where I got my copy, it's not pirated, it was freely available for download through a library.

like Beverly, from a modern perspective I see flaws in Price's method, and some of his conclusions. However from my memory of reading the book, Price himself often expresses skepticism as well as frustration at the limitations of knowledge, and how he tried to overcome this with controls, analysis and experimentation. It's the WAPF that have transformed his research into something iconoclastic.
I must say that simply as an anthropological text the book has been an invaluable resource to building a mileau I've been working on off and on for years.


Adam
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Bob, if you lecture me again on copyright issues.....


You might want to read the chapters in this order: chapters 18, then 15, then 17, then 19, then 16.

Please say no more on this thread until you've done that reading.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
steven,
Bob was not talking to you about copyright issues, he was very clearly and rightfully talking to Adam_S...

secondly how many times does the issue need to be raised that Bob would like some sort of assurances from you as to your respecfulness etc in this discussion. He has listed the terms a number of times now very clearly and fairly and you continue to ignore his conditions.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?
quote:
Kwea, do you actually think I don't know about age-related osteoporosis? Wow.
It seems clear that people would have reason to believe you didn't, or at least didn't take it into account in your first quote above. Now, you may have taken that into account, and a little thought in your post could have made that clear by actually addressing the substance of the objection rather than dismissing it out of hand. As it is, I'm inclined to believe you didn't take it into account because you still haven't answered it as an objection but again simply dismissed it (or ignored it).
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
steven, your tone is really annoying in the context of this thread, as others have said, tone it down and turn on the respect, people are trying to be respectful of you, plese reciprocate. I'd like to see this topic continue.

quote:
Price is right, or he's wrong.
Not really, there are variations in between, degrees of correct conclusions. Price was working with severely limited (by comparison to today) understandings of biochemistry and he was working on the cutting edge of that field in some respects (no one ever really followed up on some of his investigations into what he called Activator X for instance). anyone working at the limits of knowledge is not going to always come to right conclusions, but we can still look at Price's data and try to understand where his scientific investigations took logical, empiracally verifiable turns and where he made leaps and hypothesis because the limitations of knowledge forced him too. Sometimes he may have jumped to the right conclusion, sometimes he may have been way off base.

But you can't say he was definitively right about 100% of the conclusions he presents in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, even he revised some of his conclusions in later editions, if my understanding is correct. Price made some unique contributions to science and we all need to have an open mind about his contributions if this discussion succeeds.

Adam
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Karl, the idea that anyone here has anything to teach me about nutrition is laughable.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
[ROFL] [Laugh] [ROFL]

Okay, I laughed. If you feel that way, what exactly is your purpose in having this conversation?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Karl, the idea that anyone here has anything to teach me about nutrition is laughable.

Then go away and find a nice little echo chamber. I'm sure there are plenty of places you will get virtual standing ovations for describing the poor duped souls who populate the less enlightened areas of the Internet and how miserably they treated you when you attempted to share this great truth with them.

If you honestly think the idea that you could learn something about nutrition here is laughable, then you clearly have no interest in discussing anything.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
nevermind. already said better

does anyone know the titles of the old threads? I'm very curious to read Bob's past critiques.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Steven said:
quote:
Karl, the idea that anyone here has anything to teach me about nutrition is laughable.
So you really know everything there is to know about nutrition???

Woah.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Adam, I may be mistaken, but I believe that steven deleted them when they didn't go the way he'd hoped.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
No, Banna, more than any hatracker. I suppose I could be wrong.

Noemon, you are correct, at least in most cases.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Whoops. I left one thread.

www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=036674;p=1&r=nfx
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven what experience and credentials do you have in the field of nutrition beyond Dr. Price's book? (Honestly curious) Are you a registered dietician, or a nutritional researcher yourself? If so, where have you published your research?

Do you believe in ongoing animal testing for nutritional purposes?

AJ
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Adam_S, here's one of the surviving threads:

One more time, Weston Price

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
No, Banna, more than any hatracker. I suppose I could be wrong.

Although you almost certainly are wrong about that, the fact that you think "knowing the most about something" means it would be laughable that you could learn from such people is very sad.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
lol, that's a productive way to win a debate.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Adam, why don't you read page 3 of that thread that I linked? Dagonee's behavior is just a sample of how Bob and others also acted in other threads.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, I've studied nutrition and herbology for years, both Chinese and western. mainly Chinese, but I also am fairly widely read on nutrition.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Which is why his name isn't under "Topic Starter" on this one. Though it is a good idea to save his posts if you want to read them at any point in the future, I'd say.

edit -- whoops, this was in response to Adam's question about the previous threads. Stupid work distractions.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*honestly intrigued*

It's kind of wierd. I grew up in the health-nut culture of Southern CA. Where I didn't even know I'd actually absorbed any of it. However here in Chicago, when I say something like chammomile tea being good for digestive issues because it has an effect on smooth muscle tissue, everyone here looks at me like I came from Mars.

Have you heard about the BARF diet in animals?

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'm not a health nut. I'm a....health coconut.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'm very BARF-friendly. Pottenger's cats and all that.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
age is not a confounder. This is utter crap. Would someone tell her this?
I'm not telling her anything. Mostly because I know she is a medical doctor who has quite recently been doing massive amounts of research and helping to write, you know, papers and stuff. (I think the most recent was about nutrition and juvenile diabetes, but I don't trust my memory to be quite as accurate as it once was.)

Very entertaining thread, though. Kudos!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
So in other words, Olive, you don't have the time to read the book.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Do you actually feed your own animals (if you have any) a BARF diet?

I'm certainly not against them but personally can't invest the time or money required to give my animals BARF. Heck I would admit my own diet at this stage of my life is pretty abominable. On the other hand I'm likely not going to change it either.

AJ
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I see nothing on that thread to convince me you have a basic understanding of the science or the relatively simple intricacies of Price's research. You've grabbed a few headlines, so to speak, mashed them up together and made some utterly astonishing leaps to conclusions I can't follow after spending a lot of time trying to figure out how you got there.

and I'm saying this as respectfully as I can, maybe you should try reading Price again yourself. Because, from what I can tell, you don't understand him at all except for his conclusion about fat soluble vitamins.

And you really need to look into the scientific method and try to understand that while Price made some terrifically fascinating observations on his journies, his conclusions aren't scientific. His anecdotal supporting evidence is an interesting curiosity but again, not scientifically conclusive.

And the pictures aren't as compelling as you claim. Take away the captions and an unbiased, uninformed person in a blind study would be unable to see what Price claims in the pictures because the variations are so slight--you see what you want to see. Reading the captions and looking with an objective eye I was often thinking "what the heck is Price talking about?"

So far everything I read in three pages of that thread (and it took a long time) only served to convince me to lower my interest in Price significantly, mostly because of you, Steven.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Yeah, and I eat babies, too, adam.

Seriously, what about the pictures of the kid with Down's Syndrome in Chapter 19? What about the x-rays of that boy's palate? You don't have to be informed to see big differences in those pics.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I read the book.

Then I ate it. Gave me gas. [Smile]

ETA: I'm not saying you're wrong, dear. I'm saying you're being condescending to the wrong people. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
So now you're down to pointing out specific instances where pictures corroborate Price's claims?

Do you really not understand the difference between correlation and causation, and why's it Not Okay to go from the specific to the general?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
My dog eats what I eat, Banna. Unless she kills something outside. then we do not share.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I'm saying you're being condescending to the wrong people.
You're referring to me as the right people, arent you? [Cry]
 
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
*lights a match near Olivet*

[Wink]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
No, JT. Don't read chapter 19. Most especially, don't look at the before and after pics of the boy with Down's syndrome and the x-rays of his face. It's the second boy with Down's. There are x-rays and before and after pics.


Olive, Sara told me I should take up the piccolo last year on a Dr. Price thread. It's on page 4 of the thread that Dag and I both linked at the top of this page. She thought i wasn't smart enough for dicussing medical issues intelligently.

She thought the piccolo was more my speed.

She also made a much more insulting version of the same post, then edited it, but not before I read the more insulting version. Not that I shouldn't take the high road here, anyway. But still.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
quote:
My dog eats what I eat, Banna. Unless she kills something outside. then we do not share.
*Grin* see it's posts like these that make me like you.

So you feel your personal diet is nutritionally complete enough for a carnivore even though humans are omnivores?

AJ
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
Okay, setting aside the latter chapter pictures of archeaological remains and clinical subjects, I'm referring mainly to the vast majority of the pictures in the first fifteen chapters, not the obvious ones that disply full sets of teeth versus rotten mouths but the ones that supposedly talk about differences in palates and bone structure.

and in terms of the latter chapters, a figure in chapter fifteen is pretty indicative of Price's bias in selecting, captioning and using the pictures. the figure is a set of four pictures, three are of a boy, these pictures demonstrate nothing on their own. then a fourth picture below these is of the deformed skeleton of a monkey fed sweets.

very unbiased. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, my dog doesn't get to eat what she kills. that's all mine.

I don't give plant foods to the dog very much if at all. I'm not the only one who feeds her. Other folks in my family do feed her.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
*is enveloped in flame* Edit: This was directed at Megan. [Wave]

No mph. No.no. I don't want to be seen as approving of even the most targeted condescension. It's just that, while taking a superior tone is not mannerly under the best of circumstances, under certain circumstances it makes one look more foolish than it would otherwise.

Oh. You weren't serious, were you? *blush*
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
How does your family react to your eating philosophies? I've known many vegetarians whose families weren't and heard the stories of the accompaining difficulties it can bring.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*sends Olivet wenchish love*
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Oh. You weren't serious, were you? *blush*
Absolutely not. [Smile]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
How about the fact that Price only found perfectly straight teeth in a few groups?

The Maori in New Zealand were known as the most powerful warriors in the South Pacific. They also were known to have best physiques and teeth. Price examined over 60 skulls of maori ancestors. Not one skull had a single misaligned tooth, or was missing the wisdom teeth. After the arrival of Westernized foods, the Maori had the same rate of cavities and crooked teeth as any other Westernized group.

Price never said a native diet caused straight teeth. He noted clearly that most groups he studied had a few crooked teeth, or a cavity or two. His point was that the native dietary wisdom was far superior.

it's not like these groups ate nothing but organ meats, fish eggs, and shellfish. those were simply foods prized by basically every group he found, for exactly the same stated reasons in each group: to ensure good reproduction, healthy children, and good health. They all mentioned these foods, and all gave the same reasons why. that's worth noting.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
That was to Adam. This is to Banna.

My family has to live with me. Don't pity me, pity THEM.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Incidentally I hate fish and shelfish. The smell of fish cooking literally nauseates me. If I could figure out a way to make it so I wasn't nauseated at the smell of fish I would. I grew up next to the ocean, and around seafood. I don't know what is wrong with me in that regard.

AJ
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
60 whole Maori skulls? really? dude, you totally win. wow.

so why did Price only selectively mention the Maori skulls? Why not all thirteen cultures instead of two or three?
Probably because he didn't have the data, probably because of cultural taboo.

Can you understand that a better way to study this scientifically would include more data? That a better method wouldn't specifically look for only one data point (cavities) and would have a much larger sample size?

Can you understand that Price's statistic isn't proof of anything?

Price made a small anecdotal observation that related to what he was researching. You're treating that like it's a definitive piece of scientific proof.

Banna -- food poisoning from seafood as a child? I have a friend who got food poisoning from mushrooms when she was tiny and she's uncontrollably nauseated by them.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Adam, have you ever heard of Dr. Francis Pottenger? I also take it you didn't bother to note the studies on farm animals, particularly the ones on hogs, that Price summarizes, albeit briefly.

Here is the basic thrust: Hogs without access to sufficient feed were able to reproduce, but their offspring were clearly defective, or even born dead. All offspring, pretty much the same. The same goes for other animal studies, including Price's own work with rats. The differences in different people's bone structure quality and crookedness of teeth on the same diet is not as great as you think it is. Plenty of animal studies indicate differently.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
nope they couldn't make me eat fish as a baby...

The only thing remotely fishlike that I would touch was fishsticks.

AJ (I have lots of weird food issues, including an actual allergy to capcasin at fairly low concentrations)
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Pottenger's cat study was all about taurine deficiencies though. And it was his work that led them to figure it out. Once the taurine thing was straightened out the two feeding groups became essentially the same.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, fish eggs were also prized.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
steven, I'm not saying that insults against your intelligence are warrented or accepable, but the reason it comes to statements like that is that you continue (even now) to ignore all the well-thought-out comments/concerns various other posters have with Dr. Price's mis-use/lack-of-use of the scientific method (which can tend to look like lack of intelligence).

Few, if any, here are flat out saying that Price was wrong. Most are simply saying that many of his claims are not solidly founded (even if they are correct) and that his studies cannot be used as the be-all-end-all of nutrition discussions.

In fact, few of us are trying to teach you anything about nutrition as well, though we are trying to teach you about the scientific method and proper use of statistical data.

For humorous examples see:
http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=046392;p=0&r=nfx
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
What does taurine have to do with the rat, rabbit, or hog studies?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Grimace....I have nothing to say. Thanks for making a thread devoted to me. Scottneb was real good about that as well.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
that it could be simply one or two amino acids that were deficient from the diet that caused the problems, rather than anything else.

Yes, most native diets generally had some way to provide humans with all the essential amino acids. But beyond that, I don't know that you can say much. People got scurvy on boats because no one knew what amino acids were then either.

AJ

(and caviar smells nasty and fishy too... all it is is eating baby fish)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Yeah, and native americans knew how to prevent scurvy by eating stomach linings and the adrenals from the top of the kidney.

Banna, do you think it's wise to ignore native dietary wisdom in the hopes that every single nutritional factor will be isolated within your lifetime?
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I know of Pottenger, yes, not as much as Price, but I'm familiar with the cat studies. I remember the anecdote about the hog study. It's remarkable that malnutrition results in health problems, it was brilliant of Pottenger to confirm that with yet another study.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Do you really hate organ meat, too, Banna?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I think that we have mostly figured out what was good about the native diets and lifestyles.

Lots of excercise all the essential amino acids, lowfat (or if it was higher fat there were normally exercise compensations) and high fiber.

AJ

so yeah I think we have basically figured it out and I think Pottinger's studies helped us do so.

As for as organ meat, I don't generally like it either if you mean liver and the like. I do take a daily vitamin supplement however, eat salads, fresh fruits (and organic fruit drinks) and watch my calorie content.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
High fiber, maybe. It depends. Some groups ate nothing but meat, milk, and blood. Some ate mostly plants. The strict meat-eaters, i.e., the Eskimo and Masai, had excellent teeth and health, compared to the mostly vegetarian groups.

Low-fat, no. The eskimos got probably 70% of their calories from fat.

Read chapters 15-19.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Blech. I wish I weren't so organ-phobic. Our whole society is organ-phobic, and I have been wondering why that is. We associate organs with disease and violence?

Steven, I've been wondering, did any of Price's studies suggest that organ meat is still very much worth eating lightly cooked, or is raw eating essential to get the benefits? While I might learn to stomach cooked organ meat, I just don't know if I could ever get used to raw organ meat. *shudder* Steven, do you eat raw organ meat?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
(incidentally I tend to go for the more expensive "organic" fruit drinks because I think they taste better than the sweetened stuff and no truly overriding nutritional concern, other than that I do intake fruit servings daily)

AJ
 
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:
*is enveloped in flame* Edit: This was directed at Megan. [Wave]

[Big Grin]

I figured.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I have grown to enjoy raw liver. It took quite a few months.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
please note the "if there was higher fat there were excercise compensations" specifically with regards to the Eskimos. The amount of engergy expended in daily metabolism in a cold climate is staggering.

AJ
(and refining what I said previously slightly, I'd prioritize all the amino acids, adequate calorie content, and excercise higher than the fat and fiber bit... although I have wondered if Eskimos were chronically constipated)
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If I slaughter my own animals for meat, I have been thinking about what I will do with the organ meat. I don't know yet. Anyone know if organ meat is what sausage and the like is made out of?
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I've sampled raw calf liver (I was cooking some and my Italian roomate suggested I try it since he liked it and it was a treat for him when he was growing up (in NYC fwiw)) and it's much milder than cooked liver, with a very almost creamy texture. I liked it my first taste but I've really no desire to eat it often. but that's the only raw organ meat I've tried.

I only have a desire to eat liver about once every month or two months, other than that I try to limit my flour and sugar intake where I can but I don't obsess about diet. I'm healthy, perfect teeth and lots of energy.

I think we have an organ phobia because we associate eating meat with the texture of muscle fiber, organs like liver and kidneys and sweetbreads have textures way different from your expectations (or at least mine the first time I tried liver). And because the most eaten organs, the liver and kidneys, are filters for toxins, so they are more likely to sicken you if the animal itself was ill. My grandpa would always carefully examine the liver of any wild game and if he found anything out of sorts he would discard the entire animal. He also refused to eat liver from wild game but would relish it from the chickens and cattle he raised himself.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
beverly, if it's cattle grind the heart up into the hamburger, you'll probably be making enough hamburger that no one will ever notice the difference.

For what its worth, none of the groups price met were exclusively raw eaters, all cooked their food some of the time iirc. And that applies to fruits, vegetables, grains, nutes, legumes and proteins. Only wacky raw foodies of today try to eat everything raw all the time.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Yeah, and I eat babies, too, adam.

Seriously, what about the pictures of the kid with Down's Syndrome in Chapter 19? What about the x-rays of that boy's palate? You don't have to be informed to see big differences in those pics.

Well, what about 'em? One data point proves nothing except the ability of Price to draw conclusions from way too little data.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Anyone know if organ meat is what sausage and the like is made out of?

They can be. Sausages can be made from virtually any cut, especially if you add enough spices and other ingredients.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
KoM, you can forget about having that question answered. Unless you'll accept, "Ch. 19, blah blah blah. . . Pottenger, blah blah blah" as an answer.

steven, I bet you're a heckuva dodgeball player. And I gotta say that I love CT all the more for the piccolo comment, whether or not that's a true story.
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
So, how many pages before we all realize that steven is never going to commit to a reasonable discussion on this issue since he is simply too emotionally attached to do so? He is apparently unable to apply analytic thought to this matter and it seems like his best answer to every point made by anyone is essentially [Taunt] , [Cry] or [Mad] .

I think we should all take a page from Bob's book and refuse to engage further until steven agrees to some basic ground rules - including promising to respond respectfully instead of like a jerk.

but that's just the $.02 of a pseudo-lurker who is interested in this topic but just feels like [Wall Bash] trying to read this thread.
 
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
If I slaughter my own animals for meat, I have been thinking about what I will do with the organ meat. I don't know yet. Anyone know if organ meat is what sausage and the like is made out of?

I'm pretty certain that you can use anything edible other than the liver in making stock, so that's an option if want to get some of the nutrients from the organs without actually eating them. The liver will give the stock an off flavor, so don't use it there. If there are crayfish in your area, the organs make excellent bait in a crayfish trap. Cats and dogs would likely enjoy eating some of it. You can clean the intestines out to use for sausage casings, as long as you have a meat grinder/sausage stuffer. And of course, you can bury it to help improve your land.

--Mel
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
steven, pardon me if I like to offer respect to people I am discussing things with.


I would have read that book, and would have looking forward to it.

listened to you talk about your nutritional values had you any social skills at all. Since you don't, I won't bother.

Too bad....believe it or not I was actually looking forward to it.


If I have to choose straight teeth and a working brain, I choose a working brain every time. The funny thing is according to the "rigorous" methods utilized by Dr. Price, I could now claim that eating raw liver causes mental decay and loss of social skills, and you would be my test subject. Since I would be allowed to disregard any and all confounding factors that conflict with my working hypothesis ( that steven is a moron, and can't be trusted), and I am allowed to cherry pick my subjects/topics, I have it made.


Not that I needed to do either.....I haven't FOUND anything that conflicts with my theory, or found any data to refute it.

(Despite actually looking for it, something that Price didn't bother to do.)


My final contribution, at least for now, will be to quote everything steven says from this point on, so when we link back to this conversation in the future (and you know we will, because steven can't help brining this crap up again, being mentally deficient and all [Wink] ) we will still have his actual comments here.


Man, I MAY be wrong in my conclusions...you probably were an idiot all along regardless of diet.... Who else is stupid enough to think people wouldn't use the quotes on their comments when the entire stated purpose of this thread was to prevent continued thread deletion?

[Dont Know]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Bob, are we done yet? Clearly we've strayed from the main topic.

As far as the teeth thing goes, Price noted, as well as Pottenger, that a better diet tended to cause bone structure to be more similar among members of the same race/family.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Price found crookedness of teeth and narrowed ribcages among people of all ages, and his pictures prove it. What else are you looking for? Crooked teeth are abnormal at any age.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
OK, CT, WHICH AGE is it that my TEETH are supposed to be CROOKED?


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Bob, if you lecture me again on copyright issues.....


You might want to read the chapters in this order: chapters 18, then 15, then 17, then 19, then 16.

Please say no more on this thread until you've done that reading.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Karl, the idea that anyone here has anything to teach me about nutrition is laughable.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
No, Banna, more than any hatracker. I suppose I could be wrong.

Noemon, you are correct, at least in most cases.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Adam, why don't you read page 3 of that thread that I linked? Dagonee's behavior is just a sample of how Bob and others also acted in other threads.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Banna, I've studied nutrition and herbology for years, both Chinese and western. mainly Chinese, but I also am fairly widely read on nutrition.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
So in other words, Olive, you don't have the time to read the book.


 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Um, Kwea?

Whatcha doin'?
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:


My final contribution, at least for now, will be to quote everything steven says from this point on, so when we link back to this conversation in the future (and you know we will, because steven can't help brining this crap up again, being mentally deficient and all [Wink] ) we will still have his actual comments here.



 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*blink* How did I miss that?

Thanks, oh immolated one.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
What I said I was doing....making sure we have copies of statements that would probably otherwise be deleted. [Smile]


( I was making a point, but wanted to make sure even he got it.)

[Wink]
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
You are welcome, oh,

...um

...Jewish one?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*snerk*

Just rivka is fine. [Wink]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
*snerk*

Just rivka is fine. [Wink]

But it seems so inadequate following "O immolated one".

What if we used "O ensnaring one".
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I do want the piccolo issue in context, though I'm fine with dropping it afterward. There is plenty of conversation moving right along without me, but given that this has been mentioned more than once now, I'll crosspost from elsewhere.

I haven't ever cross-posted before that I recall, and I don't expect to again.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
A post on steven, before I reread the long-ago thread (with the piccolo comment), but after I read that steven had brought it up again:

---------------

The thing is, I like steven and respect him for making what was to me a very clear and forthright attempt to respond to jabs at the beginning of a recent thread in a way that was calm, non-provocative, and decidedly more clear-headed than I would have. Really, he was being goaded and eventually gave in, but that was after a lot of goading.

I also respect his passion and his expressed (and clearly heartfelt) desire to impart good into the world, to have something to share with others. I think he ended up deleting the post which brought this home to me -- that he was passionate about having something important and meaningful to share.

My encouragement to him to find something to share (be it music, writing, what have you) was in direct response to that. I did not say, "Gee, you loser, why don't you just go play a piccolo?" Instead, I had asked him about his other passions and talents and suggested that since the medical thing wasn't working out (people back then, as now, were generally hostile to him), that a different passion might be his way to shine.

I don't, won't, and can't condone or encourage inaccurate or misleading science, especially not where medicine is concerned. It would be like an engineer saying, "oh, well, they might have gotten that bridge built right just on chance. It could happen." There are reasons why good science and good evidence-based practices are crucial to the practice of medicine, not the least of which because very well-meaning and well-intentioned people who had seen a lot of cases still got it wrong -- for example, most professionals were sure that hormone replacement therapy would lower cardiovascular risk. They had good reason to believe so. In fact, it does, when looked at over a long period of time. The problem is that early on, the risk of heart attack and stroke is greatly elevated -- and that is not something that could be determined without a large, well-controlled trial to assess the relative risks.

Thousands of individual cases seen by any given practitioner, well-documented and addressed with consideration and thoughtfulness. But because it was not done in a systematic way, they did not see the problem. The eyes of those that think they know can be the most blind. Thus, the null hypothesis.

Reality must be allowed to resist our preconceptions. The scientific method sets up the hypothesis to encourage refutation in order to give the real world that explicit opportunity to sit up, grab us by the throat, and set us straight. But when you don't set things up to find what you don't expect to find, then you will only see what you expect to see. That's what Price may have seen, and that is certainly what many others have done.

That's dangerous. That isn't a problem when you aren't talking about life and death, health-related issues, but it is an insumountable problem when you are making recommendations to other people that carry the veneer of science but do not hold to its stringent requirements, especially in the field of medicine. It is immoral to do that, regardless of how much we may want to give something valuable to other people. There are other things of value to give if one is unwilling or unable to do science. Just don't call it science.

It is worse to look like science but not be science than to look like faith, or hope, or inspiration, or any of a tone of other wonderful and admirable things, which are not science but are still valuable. In fact, to call upon the veneer of scientific respectability when it does not apply speaks ill of the topic's ability to stand on its own. It also speaks (to me) of a willingness to risk things that should not be risked in order for a different agenda. That isn't something I can in good conscience ignore, not when it involves medical issues.

---

Edited to add: So, given exhaustive rounds of multiple people trying to get across what the scientific method is, why it was important, and why the lack of it was a problem for claiming that Price had established anything conclusions that were meaningful from a scientific standpoint -- and given a very sincere and gut-wrenching post about his desire to share something valuable with others, a post that still resonates with me, even if long-ago deleted -- I started asking steven about other passions and talents. Other things he was good at, that he (and not I -- goodness knows, both my talents and training are highly limited, and the range of what I have to offer is quite paltry) might find more success in sharing with people at this place, Hatrack, which he kept being drawn back to.

It wasn't a slight. It was an attempt to get to know him and, as I would for any friend, make his and my world better. I can certainly understand that it did feel like a brush-off, and I can see why. I'm sorry for that.
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
*claps*
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Reality must be allowed to resist our preconceptions.
I love this line. [Smile]

[Kiss]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
And then after reading the thread in question, a reaction with the recap:

-----------------

My first post on the topic was brusque and blunt. I don't think I meant it that way, but it wasn't until the later posts that I got across what I was thinking. That's unfortunate -- it should have been better done.
quote:

Originally posted by me:
quote:

[near the end of one of many long threads about Price]
Originally posted by steven:
www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html
mentions the unusual recovery abilities of Native Americans on their traditional diet. It's not just a thicker skull that's at issue here.
There are plenty of anecdotal cases in Price's work that talk about how people healed from cavities, diabetes, and scores of other diseases when they went back to their traditional diets.

Regarding the regression in diabetes upon return to a more traditional diet, my understanding is that this is thought by physicians specializing in this area to be secondary to issues of change in glycemic loading, not trace minerals.

Why should I accept Price's noted correlation as a causation, even were I to buy that such a correlation exists? A better argument for a different factor (glycemic load) can and has been made, and a more convincing mechanism has been posed.


----------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: steven, I admire your passion. I just don't think the information Price presents is convincing at all.

Had you thought about specializing in information on something you could be an expert on? Medical information is tricky, and there are many physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals here. It makes for a tough audience.

In contrast, you could become the Hatrack expert on the piccolo, or the collection of fishing net weights, or on a particular esoteric language, or the history of the Spanish-American war.

[snipped out interventing chatter with multiple people]
quote:

Originally posted by steven:
I'm done with this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by me:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I only say it because of three things:

1. White powder/microcluster rhodium and iridium are the two elements left when everything else has been removed from brain matter.

This is true of anything in the brain. For example, take away everything else but water, and only water is left behind. That is sort of like a tautology, and it doesn't establish anything.
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
My understanding is that they are the only two microcluster elements present in brain tissue.

Why do you accept this claim, in particular? On what convincing documentation do you base your belief that these are "the only two microcluster elements present in brain tissue?"
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
2. The ancient alchemists were making compounds that assay as microcluster minerals, mainly rhodium, iridium, and gold. They claimed that the conpounds they made lengthened life and improved health.

And why do you accept this claim, in particular? On what convincing documentation do you base your belief that "the ancient alchemists were making compounds that assay as microcluster minerals, mainly rhodium, iridium, and gold?"
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Brain-to-body size ratio is the best indicator of aging in mammals.

What reason do you have to believe this? (Honest question.)
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
All three of those things together say to me that the most important component of food is the microcluster rhodium and iridium, followed by other trace minerals.

I don't see the link. The steps of this reasoning
are not obvious, even if one were to accept the premises.

steven, I have no desire to harry you here. I want you to enjoy Hatrack, and I think you have been very passionate and respectful in trying to discuss this. (That is so cool.)

I just don't think claims about truths of medical matters are going to be a pleasant way to spend your time here. The audience is too tough, and the consequences of disseminating misinformation can be too dire -- thus, people will push you when you say something that they believe is wrong and harmful.

Do you have other interests, other areas of expertise? Anything besides medical matters (raw foods, shellfish and organ tissue, etc) tickle your fancy? History, music, other arts, sports, literature?

quote:
Originally posted by me:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I'm done with this thread.

I respect that. My last post above was written before I read this.

steven, I hope you find a ton of fun and interesting stuff to talk about here. I would hate to lose you as a Hatracker.

Take care.

So I did suggest becoming the Hatrack expert on the piccolo as one of a series of possibilities. Not because being a musician isn't hard work, or doesn't require smarts, or anything of the sort, but because it didn't require using the scientific method and -- although we had drummers and flute players and guitarists and pianists -- it could be his area of specialty alone. Or a certain element of history, or literature, or a given craft, or something else that was not science. Especially not medicine, where being unscientific is (I think, and I think for good reason) is irresponsible and dangerous.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:
Reality must be allowed to resist our preconceptions.
I love this line. [Smile]

[Kiss]

[Smile]

My spouse's line, and one which resonates with me, too.

(Thanks, Kwea and FToaS.)
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
It is worse to look like science but not be science than to look like faith, or hope, or inspiration, or any of a tone of other wonderful and admirable things, which are not science but are still valuable. In fact, to call upon the veneer of scientific respectability when it does not apply speaks ill of the topic's ability to stand on its own. It also speaks (to me) of a willingness to risk things that should not be risked in order for a different agenda. That isn't something I can in good conscience ignore, not when it involves medical issues.
[Hail]

My only addition would be to say that this is equally relevant to any issue that influences human well being and not just medicine.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
/Joins in the applause for CT while happily dining on some applesauce
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheGrimace:
/Joins in the applause for CT while happily dining on some applesauce

[ROFL]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Wait, thanks. I really do appreciate it.

But this thread isn't and shouldn't be about me (lovely though the praise is, coming few and far between in my life these days [Wink] ), and I'm afraid that would be inflammatory.

I just wanted to put it into context, then let it go. I wish I'd said things differently, but I wish a lot of things that just aren't so. I didn't -- and do not -- think that steven is not sharp, bright, highly motivated, passionate, and sincere.

Enough. [Smile]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
He can be passionate.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I'm disappointed that this thread failed in its intent, and that it took 4 pages for it to do so.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It failed on the first, but I am stubborn. [Wink]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Adam, have you ever heard of Dr. Francis Pottenger? I also take it you didn't bother to note the studies on farm animals, particularly the ones on hogs, that Price summarizes, albeit briefly.

Here is the basic thrust: Hogs without access to sufficient feed were able to reproduce, but their offspring were clearly defective, or even born dead. All offspring, pretty much the same. The same goes for other animal studies, including Price's own work with rats. The differences in different people's bone structure quality and crookedness of teeth on the same diet is not as great as you think it is. Plenty of animal studies indicate differently.


 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
RERAILING THIS THREAD IN 3....2.....1......


::beep::


OK, other than steven, who can't delete THIS thread, who would like to discuss this? If I can get a few people who would we can try it again, without steven and his attitude.


I think I might read this book DESPITE him, not because of its current scientific value, but as a case study of how science has evolved. I like things like that. [Smile]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Just rivka is fine. [Wink]

But it seems so inadequate following "O immolated one".

What if we used "O ensnaring one".

Then you would get one of these: O_o

Because I failed to get the reference. Wikipedia helped . . . except I don't believe it is correct. While I have heard many attempts to translate the name (and my preference is for "beautiful," natch [Wink] ), I have yet to come across any which made much sense. There simply is no "root" which corresponds to רבק.

And hey, I'm not the one who chose a multi-word SN which begs for elaborate short versions. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
*wonders who rivka is talking about*
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I would identify said poster, but "FToaS" lacks all je ne sais quoi, and other appellations have been objected to. [Wink]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Here's kind of a random thought relating to Price's studies: I remember when reading the book that I thought it odd that the straightness of teeth could be strongly correlated to health. It was a new idea, and I tend to approach new ideas with skepticism.

One of the things that made me more sympathetic to Price's reports was the idea that he started out to prove a hypothesis that he was emotionally attached to: that the diet of these more primitive people was inferior, and was "converted" by what he found. I guess those kinds of conversion stories tend to catch my attention. [Smile]

The concept that whole, unprocessed food is better for you than refined foods is not a new claim and has been scientifically supported. The idea that raw food is better for you than cooked food, IIRC, is scientifically supported as well. Honestly, I don't remember enough and don't really understand if Price ever said what exactly it was that would be the link between diet and straight teeth. Was it calcium absorption? I dunno. Maybe he never figured that out and it was all a correlation thing with causality never being shown.

Recently with this topic being brought back up, I began thinking how the things we tend to find beautiful are things that tend to be signs of good health, youth, and vigor. In otherwords, there seem to be practical explainations for much of what we find asthetically pleasing in human appearance. Well, teeth seem to be a very important part of beauty, enough so that straightening them is an extremely common cosmetic proceedure, and not cheap either. Most of us believe that clear skin is a sign of good health and that a good diet can clear up our complexion even if we don't know exactly what parts of "eating right" will do it. Why would it be such a leap for straight teeth to be a sign of eating right as well?

So, in otherwords, I think it is within the realm of possibility. I do not know if it is true, and it is not a particularly important part of what changed my attitudes towards food. But I found it compelling nonetheless.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I guess those kinds of conversion stories tend to catch my attention.
You know what's funny? They always make me incredibly suspicious. Whenever I hear that someone has "converted" to one way of thinking after setting out to prove the opposite, I always discover that they were lazy or incomplete in their original attempt.

BTW, I have almost perfectly straight teeth. Do I eat right?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
The idea that raw food is better for you than cooked food, IIRC, is scientifically supported as well.

For fruits and vegetables, perhaps. (And for some specific vegetables, like eggplant, definitely not.) For meat, eggs, and other frequently bacterially-contaminated items? I don't think so. Not unless we are comparing "raw" with "cooked so long it has turned to mush."
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I believe it also has more to do with the cooking method than the fact that something's cooked. If you boil vegetables in water and throw away the water, a lot of the nutrients leach out into the water and get tossed. If you steam the vegetables or lightly saute them in a little of a "healthy" oil, I don't believe there's much nutritional difference between cooked and raw. If you char something, it can introduce possible carcinogens. But cooking some things (I believe tomatos is one) allows your body to more easily absorb the nutrients, and process them more efficiently.

Since cooking used to involve a lot of boiling and frying, yes, raw is usually a better choice. But I don't believe it's been shown that it's because it's raw so much as because it doesn't add (fat from frying) or subtract things from the food.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
For meat, eggs, and other frequently bacterially-contaminated items? I don't think so.
Cooking kills the harmful microbes, but it also destroys beneficial microbes and nutrients. (Many nutrients are quite delicate, making freshness important as well.) This is part of why I believe in drinking unpasteurized milk and drinking kefir. Of course, the source from which the milk comes (healthy, grass-fed cow) is important. And there is always going to be risk involved. The recent spinach e coli tragedy comes to mind. We all take a risk whenever we eat *any* raw food.

Honest question, I've always wondered why it is commonly considered OK to eat sushi and rare steak, but raw meat in general is shunned?

Oh, and I used to always feel guilty that I snitched cookie dough with raw egg in it. I don't anymore. [Smile]

quote:
But cooking some things (I believe tomatos is one) allows your body to more easily absorb the nutrients, and process them more efficiently.
I have heard this as well. I was thinking of that just the other day when I cooked my broccoli to *perfection.* It was just soft, and so bright green! The color is even brighter than when it is raw. Go past that point, though, and the color goes dark. I don't know for sure if color is an indicator of nutrient content, but it sure seems to be.

But IIRC, there is still ample evidence of even mild heat harming the nutrition of food. Vitamin C comes to mind as an easy one.

[ December 08, 2006, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
my understanding is that "blue" is a steak beyond rare. Sushi I know depends on having very fresh fish. I believe most resturaunts that will acutally serve a true "rare" or "blue" usually get their raw meat irradiated, in one of several ways (often UV based) before cooking.

AJ

Also, were you aware that many fruit juices are pastuerized also?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I believe most resturaunts that will acutally serve a true "rare" or "blue" usually get their raw meat irradiated, in one of several ways (often UV based) before cooking.
Huh.

quote:


Also, were you aware that many fruit juices are pastuerized also?

Makes sense. I don't drink much fruit juice, though. Too processed, and I don't enjoy it enough to be worth it. Christmas shortbreads on the other hand... Mmmmmm. I blame my food sins on my move-related stress. [Razz]
 
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
 
Many raw vegetables are not as bioavailable in nutrients as the cooked (or otherwise processed) version. Not cooked to mush, but cell wall change at least. For example, those that use corn as a main food source without processing it will be deficient in Vitamin B12 and will develop pellegra*** (with hallmarks of diarrhea, dementia, dermatitis, and death: the "4 Ds of pellegra"). Lycopene is more bioavailable in tomatoes that have been processed, and beta-carotene is made more available as well. These are the most commonly cited. There are others.

Mind you, I believe the diet steven recommends would be high in bioavailable forms of Vitamin B12, for example -- organ meats should be stellar sources of this. And, also, the fact that many important nutrients are more available in processed vegetables does not mean that all processing is good, or that some nutrients may be more accessable in raw foods, or that there might not be other (maybe even more important, arguably) reasons to eat less-processed or unprocessed foods.

It just means that the claim that raw foods are better for you isn't true, not a a categorical statement. The details of when and where it does or does not hold is complicated, messy, and not nearly as aesthetically appealling.

---

***Edited to add: Which is why the Mayans processed corn with ashes (lye), and why the Europeans who first started using (unprocessed) corn as a staple after discovering the "New World" were then stricken with a rampage of pellegra. Alton Brown covers this well, along with his favorite nutritional anthropologist. [Smile]

[ December 08, 2006, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: ssasse ]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
PS: That's me ("ssasse"). I logged in using an old login here, more relevant to my given name and which is a current email moniker. Still having migraine issues. [Smile] Didn't mean to be confusing.

FWIW, any and all of my names here are either ClaudiaTherese ("CT") or some version of my given name ("Sara Sasse"). Other play throw-aside names aren't in use. I try to just be CT here, as it is what I am most well-known by.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
The details of when and where it does or does not hold is complicated, messy, and not nearly as aesthetically appealing.
Details are like that. [Wink]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
The details of when and where it does or does not hold is complicated, messy, and not nearly as aesthetically appealing.
Details are like that. [Wink]
Yeah. It makes trying to figure out what does and what doesn't work in any particular area much less fun when you get down & dirty with it than it would look from the outside.

Same, I would suspect, for raising kids, farming, or making a living as a musician.

---------

PS: And yet my personal food philosophy is to eat foods as minimally processed as possible. A good general rule (I think) is to eat fruits & vegetables as close to off the vine as possible. Given that I eat a lot of processed (canned, frozen, otherwise prepared) f&v too, though, I don't fuss about the details. There is enough overlap and redundancy in that system.

But I worry about making the transition to a more restricted diet, such as raw-foodism, without doing a lot of careful preparation and research in advance. Same for any severe food restriction -- often it can be done, just has to be done with a lot of planning (and then may well be quite an improvement, depending on the details.)

It sounds so good, though! There are many, many ways in which the categorical appeals (here particularly as well as generally). But, again, it can lead one quite astray.

[ December 08, 2006, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
The human digestive tract can't break down cellulose, the material those oh-so-sturdy plant cell walls are made of, so a little cooking of the veggies can help you get to the goodness locked away inside the cells.

I'm going to have a big ol' rare steak for lunch tomorrow. I guess I was wrong, good things are coming along in this thread. [Smile]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
It just means that the claim that raw foods are better for you isn't true, not a a categorical statement.
Makes sense.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I still bias my diet toward unprocessed. In general, there is plenty of evidence to support this, and from many perspectives. Not the least of which -- fiber! Raw fruit as opposed to juice, much better (in general) for sure.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Same, I would suspect, for raising kids, farming, or making a living as a musician.

Or teaching, or writing, or being a friend. [Smile]

The devil, as they say, is in the details. [Big Grin]

And I am also a fan of raw and unprocessed, mostly for fiber and vitamins. But no steak tartare for me.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
As I understand it, there are very stringent requirements for sushi-grade fish and the equivalent for beef. I rarely trust an unknown source for eating these things raw -- big city, obvious good nearby source (no landlocked sushi for me, as a rule), and a restaurant with both a stellar and long-standing reputation as well as the prices to support the additional work to maintain it accurately forms my list of minimal requirements.

If it isn't dealt with very carefully, meat is a horribly easily-contaminated food. And shellfish? Uncooked and unfrozen shrimp have to be kept on ice, not near it or just in the cold. The results of doing otherwise can be quite spectacular for your partyroom full of guests. [Smile]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I remember dining out with a set of professional academics in my undergraduate years. It was a department dinner for a visiting lecturer. These were not un-smart folk in the typical meaning.

However, one of the women ordered steak tartare, and after being razzed about it, claimed quite seriously that it "was shaved so thin that any worms or bad stuff couldn't survive." (Bacteria are microscopic, as are the ova of meat parasites.)

It isn't a matter of general intelligence, but of information. And if you don't have the information, you just don't. Mind you, this woman had chosen a perfectly acceptable (by my standards) place to eat steak tartare. It was just that her comment revealed that she wouldn't have known how to accurately distinguish a safe place from a not-safe place -- if it was shaved really really thin, she thought she was covered. Not so. Not a dumb person, just not fully informed.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Generally, restaurants need a special OK from health authorities, called a variance, to serve food which might be considered dangerous, such as sushi or uncooked meat. This isn't to say that it's always safe to eat sushi or blue steak, but that it is regulated. Eating anything is a risk, although usually less so than eating nothing.
 
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
In my Lebanese family, the eating of raw meat is common. Trust me, the utmost care must be taken. When my grandmother prepares kibbeh(a wonderful combination of ground raw meat and bulgur wheat) she takes it out of the freezer and grinds it. To prevent the meat from thawing, she grinds it with ice chips. She serves it still cold. I have eaten raw meat before, and not gotten sick.

However, when me and my family were eating at a restaurant, I was given a piece of chicken that was slightly undercooked. I was throwing up for hours.

So, yeah, umm, what CT said.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
You eat kibbeh RAW?!? [Dont Know]

How odd. I've always had them as a fried dish.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Freezing meat doesn't kill most dangerous microorganisms, nor does it protect from any harmful byproducts they may produce. It does retard the growth of bacteria, so it is important to store, prepare, and serve meat properly.

Unfortunately, the greatest possibility of contamination or mishandling of raw meat comes between the time it's still alive and when you buy it, so while safe handling at home is important, knowing and trusting the supplier of your meat is really the key, if you plan to serve it raw or undercooked.

Of course, people in countries with poor sanitation and no real health regulations manage to survive.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Of course, people in countries with poor sanitation and no real health regulations manage to survive.
Well, at least a large enough breeding population do. [Wink]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*nods

It's good to have specific regulation (variance) for particularly challenging food storage. Although things can work out overall otherwise, the difference in sanitary regulation (both food and water) is a big reason behind a large gap in morbidity and mortality rates between developing and more developed countries. The primary cause of death worldwide for children is diarrhea, for example -- but not for children in the US or Canada, or other more developed regions. It just isn't as much of a problem, and sanitation is a large part of that.

I also worry more about ground beef than blue steak. The really high concentrations of bacteria would be on the outside of the hunks of meat, and grinding it (regardless of later freezing, as MightyCow notes) "seeds" the inside, where -- especially when later the inside is only partway dethawed or warmed -- the bacteria can find a nice, anaeorbic/aerobic mixed place to multiply.

That's why the cases of E. coli outbreaks in restaurants come from fast food chains that use prefrozen hamburgers. It's ground meat that may not be fully cooked through but which was not treated as meat that may end up being served without thorough cooking. Blue steak gets at least a light sear on the outside, and the bacteria wouldn't have seeded the inside through grinding. Regardless, if a restaurant serves blue steak, they should (again, as Mighty Cow notes) be under a controlled variance for food safety as well.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
We eat kibbeh raw, too, rivka, at a restaurant we trust. In fact, we took CT there at dkw's henna party.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
On the subject of meat being so very corruptable, does anyone here know about the practice of aging a meat carcass and can you explain it to me? I have only heard of it in passing. It is not something that I understand at all. I have heard people talk about hanging a carcass and letting it age for days, and cutting off the mold that grows on the ends of it, but how that mold is in no way harmful to those who would eat the meat.

The whole concept kinda freaks me out, but I figure if there weren't something to it, it wouldn't be a common practice.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Just rivka is fine. [Wink]

But it seems so inadequate following "O immolated one".

What if we used "O ensnaring one".

Then you would get one of these: O_o

Because I failed to get the reference. Wikipedia helped . . . except I don't believe it is correct. While I have heard many attempts to translate the name (and my preference is for "beautiful," natch [Wink] ), I have yet to come across any which made much sense. There simply is no "root" which corresponds to רבק.

And hey, I'm not the one who chose a multi-word SN which begs for elaborate short versions. [Big Grin]

I think I'd prefer "captivating" over "beautiful" and its definitely better than "ensnaring" although technically equivalent.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I slaughtered this horse last Tuesday. I think it's startin' to turn.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I also have had digestive problems from undercooked chicken, back when I ate more cooked food.

Sara--Dr. price very much controlled for age. Sorry I didn't make that clear sooner. He specifically mentions at least a couple dozen situations where the older children in a family, born b4 Western foods arrived, had much better health, teeth, and general skeletal structure than their younger brothers and sisters who were born to a mother eating the Western foods and were also raised on those foods. he also has pictures of at least 6 or 8 of these families.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
steven, that isn't the same as "controlling for age" (it's a technical term of analysis, although one might easily think the definition is less precise when using the words in ordinary language), but I suspect that you and I aren't going to get much out of that particular discussion. Shall we agree to disagree? *smile

---

Edited to add: If anyone is interested, there is a more technical explanation of the topic (although in different language) in the Encyclopedia of Public Health section on analysis of variance. Unfortunately, the reasons why being precise matter are themselves a complicated matter. (As noted at the bottom of the excerpt below.) I'm including it for completeness, just in case someone wants more of the language to parse through the meaning for him- or herself.

quote:
One-way ANOVA evaluates the effect of a single factor on a single response variable. For example, a clinician may be interested in determining whether there are differences in the age distribution of patients enrolled in two different study groups. Using ANOVA to make this comparison requires that several assumptions be satisfied. Specifically, the patients must be selected randomly from each of the population groups, a value for the response variable is recorded for each sampled patient, the distribution of the response variable is normally distributed in each population, and the variance of the response variable is the same in each population. In the above example, age would represent the response variable, while the treatment group represents the independent variable, or factor, of interest. [other variables would be "controlled for," i.e., folded into the analysis in a way that lessens the likelihood of them acting as as confounders]

...
In public health, agriculture, engineering, and other disciplines, there are numerous study designs whereby ANOVA procedures can be used to describe collected data. Subtle differences in these study designs require different analytic strategies. For example, selecting an appropriate ANOVA model is dependent on whether repeated measurements were taken on the same patient, whether the same number of samples were taken in each population, and whether the independent variables are considered as fixed or random variables. A description of these caveats is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia, and the reader is referred to the bibliography for more comprehensive coverage of this material. However, several of the more commonly used ANOVA models include the randomized block, the split-plot, and factorial designs.



[ December 08, 2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
splitting hairs much?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
splitting hairs much?

No, she's trying to inform you that "controlling for age" has a fairly specific meaning and that what you described does not fall within that meaning.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
splitting hairs much?

Oblivious much?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I think I asked Sara, not Dagonee.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*mildly

It looks like splitting hairs unless you are familiar with how and why things go wrong when this isn't taken into account. Then, it looks like heaving aside boulders with a heavy-duty crane.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I think I asked Sara, not Dagonee.
I, on the other hand, am sure that you asked CT, not me. However, you chose to do so in public on a discussion forum, and therefore implicitly invited response from others.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'd say Price's work satisfies the definition. chapters 15-19 covers it pretty completely.

Here's that link again:

www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
steven, is it that you think people have not seen the link, or that restating your assertion repeatedly will make it true?

If Price's research so clearly controlled for age (which does NOT mean simply noting the difference between older and younger members of the same family or group, but actually accounting for it as an additional variable), please cite specific pages.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
back to beverly's question, I've been curious about the same for a while on 2 fronts:

1) "aging" of meat, i.e. a very nice steakhouse I went to in DC prided itself on well-aged steaks, which were quite good I must say. Is this referring to just slaughtering the cattle at the best age, or marinating etc...?

2) smoking and the like. I'm vaguely aware that the smoking process takes on the order of weeks at low temps, how does this not invite a bacteria-fest?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
see below for edit. I didn't think it posted. Oh well.

[ December 08, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The question is, what about confounding variables, such as age, genetic variation, etc.? If those are not accounted for (and I see no reason to think they were, and many reasons to believe they were not), then the studies do not show a link -- because they are too many OTHER factors that could account for every difference.

Repeating your assertion that there is a link simply doesn't make it so.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
The question is were the sampling and statistical methods accurate. Because if they aren't, then it's only a nice sounding fairy tale, and unfortunately you've been hornswoggled.

AJ
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
When a study controls for age, it says so. And, somewhere, it demonstrates how this is done. Just link to that page to answer rivka's question.

Nothing in your three points demonstrates anything about controlling for any variable. All we are told about is the independent variable - diet - and the dependent variable - health.

That's not enough.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
please note "Study design" and "sample size information" at this link.
http://www.socr.ucla.edu/Applets.dir/ChoiceOfTest.html#SampleSizes
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Unfortunately, the link does not have page numbers, only chapters.

Here's the main thrust of my argument:

1. Numerous animal studies showed very similar a. types of degeneration, and b. degrees of degeneration, when given the exact same deficient diet. You can see this in Chapter 18. Pottenger's cats also are an excellent example of this.

2. Whenever Price found a group in transition, it was easy to find the ones who ate the Western foods, even if they had just started. They came right out and told him. They were invariably extremely proud of their new diet, and looked down on their traditional-eating neighbors for eating and living the traditional way.

3. Price found huge differences in the groups he studied, even between neighbors, in some cases. People with excellent health, straight teeth, and no cavities, living right beside people with awful teeth and terrible health.


Given all three points, what's the question? If you think I'm lying, read chapters 15-19. If you do that, but think Price was lying....I would invite anyone to go to rural Costa Rica or Brazil, etc. and study some of the people who live there and eat their traditional diets. I lived in Costa Rica for a while, and had an excellent chance to study up close the physiques and teeth of the Indians who lived so far back in the jungle that you had to hike 3 hours through mountainous virgin rain forest just to get to the reservation. They had no access to Western foods, but man did they have wide ribcages and straight teeth. They were all beautifully built.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
another interesting link on statistics....
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/usestats/index.htm
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Given all three points, what's the question?
The question is "how did he control for age and other possible confounding variables"?

So far, it seems as if you are telling us he didn't.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
here's an even better one....

Medical statistics for the non-statistician
Part 1
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7104/364
Part 2
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7105/422

Part 3
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7102/243
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
My point is, animals and humans being as similar as they are, if you see four groups:

1. a bunch of sick animals, on a deficient diet,

2. a bunch of healthy animals, on a good diet,

3. A bunch of sick humans, eating a Western diet, living next door to

4. A bunch of healthy humans who are very closely related, genetically, to the sick humans, eating their traditional diet,

I don't know, it seems obvious.


Sample size is not an issue. Pottenger's cats prove that.

Genetics has almost nothing to do with it. Price's whole reason for the trip was this:

1. Everybody in the late 1800/early 1900s noticed the rise in crookedness of teeth, whether or not they were dentists.

2. They all blamed it on "race-mixing".

Price realized this was crap, because

a. he lived in Cleveland, where very few blacks/natives lived.

b. his adult patients ALL had straight teeth, but their children, of pure European stock, ALL had crooked teeth.

He says all this in the book.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Steven if every apple you see is red, does that mean all apples are red?

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I think we need to begin by explaining confounding variables to steven.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
"A bunch" is not a particularly useful sample. How can you know that the two groups of people were in any way comparable, aside from their diet?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
In fact someone could go through their entire life seeing only red apples. Does that really mean all apples are red?
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:

b. his adult patients ALL had straight teeth, but their children, of pure European stock, ALL had crooked teeth.

steven, I have straight teeth. I grew up on a Western diet. I've never had any corrective orthadontics, and have had more than one dentist tell me that my teeth are beautiful, and perfectly arranged.

I know plenty of other people who have straight teeth, too. I find it difficult to believe that ALL of Dr. Price's patients of a certain age had crooked teeth while their parents ALL had straight teeth.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
quote:
Unfortunately, the link does not have page numbers, only chapters.

Here's the main thrust of my argument:

1. Numerous animal studies showed very similar a. types of degeneration, and b. degrees of degeneration, when given the exact same deficient diet. You can see this in Chapter 18. Pottenger's cats also are an excellent example of this.

2. Whenever Price found a group in transition, it was easy to find the ones who ate the Western foods, even if they had just started. They came right out and told him. They were invariably extremely proud of their new diet, and looked down on their traditional-eating neighbors for eating and living the traditional way.

3. Price found huge differences in the groups he studied, even between neighbors, in some cases. People with excellent health, straight teeth, and no cavities, living right beside people with awful teeth and terrible health.


Given all three points, what's the question? If you think I'm lying, read chapters 15-19. If you do that, but think Price was lying....I would invite anyone to go to rural Costa Rica or Brazil, etc. and study some of the people who live there and eat their traditional diets. I lived in Costa Rica for a while, and had an excellent chance to study up close the physiques and teeth of the Indians who lived so far back in the jungle that you had to hike 3 hours through mountainous virgin rain forest just to get to the reservation. They had no access to Western foods, but man did they have wide ribcages and straight teeth. They were all beautifully built.

Here's another bit. What was the infant survival rate of the people in Cleveland compared to the people in Costa Rica?

What if the infants with straight teeth were actually healthier, and more likely to live without medical care than the ones with crooked teeth?
Then in a society where there was adequate medical care for weaker babies to live past their 1st birthday you'd have more people with crooked teeth, becuase in the society with straight teeth they simply would have died long before Price could have counted them.

AJ
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
BTW, I have almost perfectly straight teeth. Do I eat right?
Tom, you are asking the wrong question. I'm not sure anyone here (with the possible exclusion of steven) has made the claim that eating right==straight teeth. I certainly haven't. Not only is correlation not causality, it is even farther removed from equivalency.

quote:
Whenever I hear that someone has "converted" to one way of thinking after setting out to prove the opposite, I always discover that they were lazy or incomplete in their original attempt.
While your own anecdotal life experience may have taught you this, it doesn't follow logic for me. People are far more likely to be lazy or incomplete when they already believe something. When someone is convinced of the opposite of what they believe, there is a lot of initial friction to overcome, higher bar of skepticism and all that.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
My point is, animals and humans being as similar as they are, if you see four groups:

1. a bunch of sick animals, on a deficient diet,

2. a bunch of healthy animals, on a good diet,

3. A bunch of sick humans, eating a Western diet, living next door to

4. A bunch of healthy humans who are very closely related, genetically, to the sick humans, eating their traditional diet,

I don't know, it seems obvious.

Which is exactly why we have methods to control for confounding factors.

Just in your description, for example, we have one possible confounding factor: "healthy humans who are very closely related, genetically, to the sick humans."

If, for example, the effect one's diet has on one's health is related to genetics,* then a study of closely-related groups might not control for the effect genetics can have on how food affects health. And this is only one possible confounding factor.

Were the people with access to western diets more prosperous? Did this prosperity lead to other behavioral differences?

*And we know this to be true - lactose intolerance is much more common in Asian than European people. Scandinavians relied on a dairy-centric diet for at least a thousand years. Lactose intolerant people had a much harder time surviving in Scandinavian cultures. (This is from memory, so I could be off on specifics.)
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I just got my first cavity. And believe me, when I was little, I did NOT brush twice a day or floss. And I ate a Western diet.

-pH
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
random examples of other variables that can very easily discount these studies:
-Family 1 is on average X years older/younger than Family 2
-Family 1 has a bunch of household idols around that are made of lead and happen to be giving them lead poisoning, Family 2's are made of wood
-In addition to modern food Family 2 is exposed to alcohol, tobacco, snuff...
-The modern diets that they are now exposed to are in no way nutritionally balanced, not because the modern food is inherently worse, but because they don't have the experience/knowledge to know what proportions to eat... i.e. if I start feeding an aborigonee a diet of twinkies and he gets sick it doesn't prove that processed food is bad so much as it proves that you can't survive on just twinkies.

Example of "science" that I find similar to all of this is the fact that I think heroin (could have been cocaine) used to be thought a wonder drug that helped the complexion, the digestive system etc etc before it was also proven to be a highly addictive drug with many horrendous side-effects.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I believe there is also a connection in what good bacterial fauna get passed from the mother to the infant too.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
About aging meat.

It's not unsafe. Also, see the link at the bottom for more info on safety and mold.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Given all three points, what's the question?
The question is were his studies properly statistically designed and analyzed. In my perusual of the chapters you suggest reading, what I see is anecdotal evidence which could easily be the result of sampling bias or simple anonmalies in the population. The plural of anecdotes isn't good statistics. Does Price ever do stastical analysis of his results? What statistical tests does he use? Does he describe the demographics of the populations he studies? Does he present any histograms that might show the age distribution, economic status, societal status, gender distribution of the populations he studied?

With regard to the animal studies, have the animals studied been validated as a reasonable model of humans? Most animals have digestive systems that are radically different from the human digestive system. Additionally, their are differences in their biochemistry which result in dramatic differences in dietary requirements. Koalas are quite healthy living on a strict diet of eucalyptus leaves. Cows are quite healthy living on a strict diet of wild grasses. Humans would starve to death on either diet. Furthermore, were the animals studies properly statistically designed. What quantitative measures were made? What controls were used? What statistical test were performed rule out the possibility that differences observed were the result of random chance or confounding factors?
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
Dag, you put me in place linking me back to my own alma mater [Smile]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag: Thanks for the link!

Huh. I have thought before about using our enourmous outbuilding as a slaughethouse. Part of it was sectioned off and insulated for the purpose of refrigeration.

I now understand all the visual references I have seen in the media of carcasses hanging in a cold room.

I wonder why contamination is not a problem? People would be coming and going in the room, introducing new airborne microorganisms all the time. We all have been taught that meat that isn't fresh isn't safe. This link doesn't explain *why* dry aging can be safe in a controlled environment.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Here's an example of information with at least reasonable statistical analysis and reporting of sample size etc.

I happen to be on this antibiotic right now, and was reading the patient info and thought I'd pass it on.
http://www.rxabbott.com/pdf/biapi.PDF

Reading those kind of things will give you a better (although not complete) view of what statistical analysis should entail.

AJ
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm not sure, bev, but it's the standard practice. So the common knowledge that we've taught non-fresh meat isn't safe already takes this aging into account when determining "freshness."

I do know most bacterial growth is very slow at those temperatures. Also, there is less surface area exposed per volume of meat. I suspect both of those factors help.

I would assume there are standards on entry and what people wear in there.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, you might want to read the book. Price notes in several places that infant mortality and birth complications were much lower among those on a traditional diet. I read a book in college about a Haida woman who had 11 kids, and delivered all 11 by herself at home, with no medical help. This was the norm among the Eskimos. Read this passsage from the book:

"A similar impressive comment was made to me by Dr. Romig, the superintendent of the government hospital for Eskimos and Indians at Anchorage, Alaska. He stated that in his thirty-six years among the Eskimos, he had never been able to arrive in time to see a normal birth by a primitive Eskimo woman. But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days. One Eskimo woman who had married twice, her last husband being a white man, reported to Dr. Romig and myself that she had given birth to twentysix children and that several of them had been born during the night and that she had not bothered to waken her husband, but had introduced him to the new baby in the morning."

that's from Chapter 18.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
but that isn't NUMBERS steven, that is anecdotal evidence. Maybe educated anecdotal evidence but it doesn't prove anything.

He's got to have population numbers and actual *data* on infant mortality or it proves nothing.

It's the same scenario as the apples. Just because all I ever see is red apples in my entire life, doesn't mean green apples don't exist.

Now if rather than an "impressive comment" by Dr. Romig, he'd said, the government hospital and birth certificate records from the year 1930 state that X number of children were born at home and Y children were born in the hospital, we'd only just be beginning. First we'd need to show year-by-year trends of home births vs hospital births then we'd need to check to see if distance to the hospital had anything to do with it.

We *don't* have actual documentation in raw nubers on the true number of hours these women were actually in labor. It's all just hearsay.

AJ
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
How does any of that have any relevance to diet at all? And what is it showing? That Eskimo women have quiet births?

-pH
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Price notes in several places that infant mortality and birht complications were much lower among those on a traditional diet.
Does he have statistics to back this up? Can you refer me to the pages where the statistics are shown.

Your Eskimo story is also anecdotal. That doesn't mean its wrong, just that one cannot draw sweeping conclusions from it.

The Empress Maria Theresa who ruled Austria from 1740 to 1780 gave birth to 16 children in 19 years without complications and managed to rule the Austro-Hungarian empire at the same time all while eating a western diet.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I haven't read Dagonee's link on aging meat, although I suspect it is quite thorough. [Smile]

My understanding of aging meat is that it should be done on whole slabs, not on ground meat (for the "seeding" reason mentioned previously). It needs to be done in an environment that minimizes bacterial growth. I think Alton Brown has a good section on one of his episodes, too.

Sometimes there is, for example, a deliberate production (or allowance) of mold to grow -- such as (I think) for Virginia smoked hams -- because microorganisms can competetively inhibit one another. That is to say, the presence of certain kinds of mold may change the microbial environment to make it unfriendly to the growth of "bad" bacteria (changes in pH, levels of glucose or various proteins, dryness, etc). people who do this for a living do it very very carefully in order to do it well. I think it is likely one of the older apprenticeship models of training -- you learn at your Gradpappy's knee, traditionally, and you listen carefully to the instructions and caveats he mutters from deep in his jowls. [Smile]

----

The following is a bit detailed on TMI type issues for women. Fair warning.

Competitive microbial inhibition is one of the reasons why a well-balanced vaginal microbial flora helps prevent yeast infections. The right sort of bacteria there inhibit the growth of yeast. Now, there are a variety of ways to muck around with this and get into trouble, if you don't know what you are doing.

Someone overly (and incorrectly) obsessed with "cleanliness" may use an antibacterial douche, this wiping out the normal (healthy, protective) bacteria and leaving it wide open for yeast colonization. Someone else might douche with vinegar, raising the pH level to promote the growth of the acid-loving lactobacilli, and that would probably be okay. Not necessary, but no great harm.

Someone else might be taken with the "natural is good" philosophy -- and be a big fan of Brewer's yeast -- and rub in a bunch of Brewer's yeast powder. Good when taken internally (for Vitamin B), not so good for the vagina (this is over-simplified, but the gist is correct).

Someone else might be taken with the "natural is good" philosophy and be more microbiologically savvy, deciding to rub in yogurt instead. Acidic, full of lactobacilli (the "good" vaginal bacteria), and probably either a good thing or at least not a problem. (The lactobacilli in yogurt may or may not be the ones that can survive at body temperature -- i.e., it's more complicated than it looks -- but again, the gist is there.)

---

[/end of potentially squicky female topics]

So, I'd bet that the various time-tested techniques of aging meat carefully combine a balance of minimizing contamination, maximizing an unfriendly environment to "bad" bacteria (likely through temperature and/or savvy competitive microbial inhibition), and ensuring that the meat itself is double-checked for known warning signs.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
How does any of that have any relevance to diet at all? And what is it showing? That Eskimo women have quiet births?

-pH

So do space-alien women. 'cause you know, in space no one can hear you scream.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
"...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."

So....now people come to hospitals to have their children? And this is bad why?

-pH
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
OK, let's just make clear once again---usually, when people in these groups switched to Western food, they switched ALL the way. It was a point of pride/status to them. According to Price, anyway. I had the same type of bias against whole grain bread, growing up.

I'm not saying one bite of white bread, and you're sick for life. That's idiotic. But why is this stuff still sold?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
"...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."

Could there be some selection bias in this anecdote because previously they simply didn't take the hard labor cases to the hospital?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Sigh... Which part of 'anecdotal' did you not understand? In fact, this isn't just anecdotal, it's also appeal to authority, another weakness comrade Price tends a bit to. Especially the first chapter is full of references to this, that, and the next doctor in a government position or chief of a large hospital.

Maybe the Price debate needs a battle cry, like 'vaaaarves' for the young-Earth thing. How about 'Daaataaaa!'
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
How does any of that have any relevance to diet at all? And what is it showing? That Eskimo women have quiet births?

-pH

So do space-alien women. 'cause you know, in space no one can hear you scream.
So the Eskimos are aliens? Scientologists have quiet births too...it all makes sense now...

-pH
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Steven, there should be a footnote at the end of that paragraph with a study reference, as to where the numerical recorded data is about this phenomenon.

Otherwise there's no proof.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
KoM--how about we change the deal and you take my $25 to shut up?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Send me $25 and I'll never post in this thread again! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
KoM--how about we change the deal and you take my $25 to shup up?

This is yet another example of the unwarranted hostility that keeps giving you a bad name here, as well as your continued tactic of ignoring everyone's legitimate and well-thought-out concerns about Price's methods.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
If you're paying off everyone who has a problem with you yammering on endlessly about bad science, I surely hope you have an excellent source of income.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Except that KoM cashed my check 6 months ago.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
"...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."

Its still anecdotal. To be more than that, we would need the historical fertility rates and the number of complications associated with pregnancy before and after the introduction of a western diet. Even then, numerous factors besides changes in diet could be involved including changes in physical activity, changes in childhood diseases, changes in fraction of children who live to adulthood and so on.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
The University of Minnesota has what looks to be a pretty thorough article on Aging Beef.

beverly, the Cooperative Extension Service at your state's university probably has a lot of experience and information about this sort of topic. Cooperative Extensions are funded by the universities (often as part of a land grant deal; i.e., the state will yield this land to the university as part of a deal where the members of the state benefit directly from the university's presence) as outreach programs to disseminate information.

They are excellent resources for agricultural-based questions as well as other topics. Great starting point for detailed, reliable, accurate information.

Oregon State University Extension Service

You can start browsing around for answers to many frequently asked questions on the site, or just give them a call if you can't find what you need. They are usually very eager to be helpful and are good at helping you figure out just what you need to know to answer a given question.

[ December 08, 2006, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Rabbit, the numerous animal studies that show similar rates and types of disease on the same diet make all that unnecessary.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Yeah! We don't have to be all scientific about human studies because we have these animals studies, and animals are people, too.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Olive, it's only logical that, if you can produce predictable results in animals using different diets, ranging from stillborn to deformed to very healthy, that the same effects in humans could also be produced using some kind of deficient diet. Isn't it?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Sometimes there is, for example, a deliberate production (or allowance) of mold to grow -- such as (I think) for Virginia smoked hams -- because microorganisms can competetively inhibit one another.
Ahhh, probiotics! [Smile]

quote:
people who do this for a living do it very very carefully in order to do it well. I think it is likely one of the older apprenticeship models of training -- you learn at your Gradpappy's knee, traditionally, and you listen carefully to the instructions and caveats he mutters from deep in his jowls. [Smile]
Yeah, well maybe. [Smile] But it was this kind of thinking that discouraged me from believing all growing up that I could run a farm. I intend to learn more about this. It may turn out to be too complicated to be worth it, but we'll see.

Edit: Thanks for the links, Sara! I will definitely want to contact the local Extension Services. I have sooo many questions! I hope they can help me out.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
it is logical, and it is possible and perhaps even probable, however it is certainly not definitive proof. As others have mentioned, there are significant differences between animals and humans (of all types) which can easily have important impacts on this kind of research.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The University of Minnesota has what looks to be a pretty thorough article on Aging Beef
That would be "the link at the bottom for more info on safety and mold" I mentioned. [Smile]

quote:
Olive, it's only logical that, if you can produce predictable results in animals using different diets, ranging from stillborn to deformed to very healthy, that the same effects in humans could also be produced using some kind of deficient diet. Isn't it?
Yes, it's logical to think it might happen. It's not scientific to say it does until one performs controlled experiments to confirm it.

It was logical to think that giving extra oxygen to premature babies (whose undeveloped lungs represent one of the biggest threats to their survival) would be a good thing. An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness).
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Rabbit, the numerous animal studies that show similar rates and types of disease on the same diet make all that unnecessary.
OK... let's look at those.

1) What studies - be specific and tell me who performed them when and where.

2) How exactly were the studies performed - methods, controls, conditions etc.

3) What studies have been done to show that biologically the subject animals are similar enough to humans in the areas the studies are testing that the results can be extrapolated to me.

Thanks
-me
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness).
You are right -- it's blindness.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
A pdf file on curing pork at home from the Virginia Cooperative Extension. Although it is specific to pork, the explanantion of history and why/how may be useful to help you understand more about the process in general.

beverly, if you haven't been familiar with Cooperative Extensions before this move, I have a feeling you are going to fall in love. *grin

Detailed and specific information, lots of old fogies with years of real-world experience on the frontlines, and people on the other end of the phone just salivating at the thought of talking to someone who is interested in the same things that they are.

Heck, five years from now I predict you'll be volunteering there sometimes yourself, dispensing your own real-world experience and all you've learned from your research.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
You can find similarities and differences, Grim.

Notably, however, every species studied could be mapped easily in terms of which vitamin deficiency would cause which problem. It's very predictable.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
hey just_me---Chapter 18, plus "pottenger's cats." It's all there, I swear.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know, I've heard the Extension Services mentioned again and again, here on Hatrack, in books I've read. But I haven't had *any* first-hand experience as of yet.

I have a feeling this is going to be like when Porter and I urged new Cub Scout leaders, "Just *go* to Round Table. You'll be *so* glad you did." ^_^

These people may be just the resource I'm looking for. For example, I want to know who in my immediate area raises dairy goats. Rather than drive every country road visually scouring the landscape for goats (which I have not yet seen here) it sounds like the ES could know just that, or know who knows....
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Yes, it's logical to think it might happen. It's not scientific to say it does until one performs controlled experiments to confirm it.

It was logical to think that giving extra oxygen to premature babies (whose undeveloped lungs represent one of the biggest threats to their survival) would be a good thing. An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness).

Exactly. And as mph noted, it is blindness -- specifically, Retinopathy of Prematurity.
quote:
An ROP epidemic occurred in the 1940s and early 1950s when hospital nurseries began using excessively high levels of oxygen in incubators to save the lives of premature infants. During this time, ROP was the leading cause of blindness in children in the US. In 1954, scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health determined that the relatively high levels of oxygen routinely given to premature infants at that time were an important risk factor, and that reducing the level of oxygen given to premature babies reduced the incidence of ROP. With newer technology and methods to monitor the oxygen levels of infants, oxygen use as a risk factor has diminished in importance.

 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:

I have a feeling this is going to be like when Porter and I urged new Cub Scout leaders, "Just *go* to Round Table. You'll be *so* glad you did." ^_^

[Big Grin]

Let us know if they measure up.

---

Edited to add: link to OSU's Extension Mission and Vision Statement
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
King of Men, did you read the whole book? What did you think?
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

beverly ... OSU Extension on "small farms" topic:

quote:
Small Farms

The activities of this group will include large audience, multi-topic workshops; small narrow topic workshops; development of a small farm resource handbook; develop linkages with experiment stations for hands on skill building; provide newsletter articles; and publish bulletins as needed.

Coordinator:

Garry Stephenson, Extension Agent
Benton County Extension
1849 NW 9th St., Suite 8
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-766-6750; FAX 541-754-1603
garry.stephenson@oregonstate.edu


 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Since we're talking about nutrition... I would like to hear what you guys think about this:

http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/6/B211

Calorie restrictive diets appear to have a very fervent fanbase, too, and the Biosphere study made the news recently.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Concerning calorie restrictive diets: They talked about that on NPR's Science Friday about six months ago. Pretty interesting stuff, which I hope turns out to be completely false because I don't want it to be true. [Smile]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Olivet, I have heard that this research was done quite well, and that the conclusions have merit. I haven't kept up on it or read it in detail, but word on the street in my neck of the woods (for what it's worth) is that a calorie-restricted diet, when done well (not overboard, appropriate levels, good balance of healthy foods) probably does have a substantial effect on lengthening lifespan.

More research needs to be done, of course. [Smile] Follow-up studies with refined initial set-ups over long periods of time, well-controlled, etc. But looks promising.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/eutheriasy.html
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
You eat kibbeh RAW?!? [Dont Know]

How odd. I've always had them as a fried dish.

Raw kibbeh is awesome. [Big Grin]

I haven't had it in years, though, cause I am more leery of raw meat than I used to be.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(Cool link, BannaOj)
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Fascinating! But I am confused. Why is it called the "Calorie Restrictive" diet when (to me) the most important trait is that it is full of nutrient-dense foods? 1700-2100 calories is *not* that restrictive. Honestly. Many people try to lose weight by keeping calories below 1200 a day.

Edit: Sara, I really need to get some kind of long distance on our landline phone....
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Wikipedia on calorie restriction, FWIW (traditional grain of salt applies)
quote:
In CR, energy intake is minimized, but sufficient quantities of vitamins, minerals and other important nutrients must be eaten. To emphasize the difference between CR and mere "FR" (food restriction), CR is often referred to by a plethora of other names such as CRON or CRAN (calorie restriction with optimal/adequate nutrition), or the "high-low diet" (high in all nutrients aside from calories, in which it is "low"). Other names for the diet emphasize the goal of the diet, such as CRL (calorie restriction for longevity), or simply The Longevity Diet, as in a recently published book by that name.
I believe the "restriction" is in reference to the standard calorie recommendations based on basal metabolic requirements, which may or may not need to be revised. That is to say, it is "restricted" with respect to the current standard recommended average.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Malignant disease, in this case, refers to cancerous tumors:

"Among the many items of information of great interest furnished by Dr. Romig were facts that fitted well into the modern picture of association of modern degenerative processes with modernization. He stated that in his thirty-six years of contact with these people he had never seen a case of malignant disease among the truly primitive Eskimos and Indians, although it frequently occurs when they become modernized. He found similarly that the acute surgical problems requiring operation on internal organs such as the gall bladder, kidney, stomach, and appendix do not tend to occur among the primitive, but are very common problems among the modernized Eskimos and Indians. Growing out of his experience, in which he had seen large numbers of the modernized Eskimos and Indians attacked with tuberculosis, which tended to be progressive and ultimately fatal as long as the patients stayed under modernized living conditions, he now sends them back when possible to primitive conditions and to a primitive diet, under which the death rate is very much lower than under modernized conditions. Indeed, he reported that a great majority of the afflicted recover under the primitive type of living and nutrition."--from chapter 6

" In their native state they have exceedingly little disease. Dr. J. R. Nimmo, the government physician in charge of the supervision of this group, told me in his thirteen years with them he had not seen a single case of malignancy, and had seen only one that he had suspected might be malignancy among the entire four thousand native population. He stated that during this same period he had operated several dozen malignancies for the white population, which numbers about three hundred. He reported that among the primitive stock other affections requiring surgical interference were rare."---from chapter 11


"Dr. Anderson who is in charge of a splendid government hospital in Kenya, assured me that in several years of service among the primitive people of that district he had observed that they did not suffer from appendicitis, gall bladder trouble, cystitis and duodenal ulcer. Malignancy was also very rare among the primitives."---from chapter 9
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Rabbit, thank you for reminding me how much Empress Maria Theresa rocks. She and her children were also influential patrons of famous musicians too. (I think Mozart but my memory may be faulty)

She's up there with Eleanor of Acquitane and Queen Elizabeth I in my book.

AJ
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
hey just_me---Chapter 18, plus "pottenger's cats." It's all there, I swear.

Wow, I'm so suprised that I didn't think to read chapter 18... you never mentioned that before and of course it'll all be there [Roll Eyes]

How about providing something substantative besides "read chapter 18". All I see in chapter 18 is some choice quotes from other work - no indication of methods or application to human beings.

By the way, pottenger's cat doesn't prove anything. he made no attempt to correlate his findings to humans. He pretty much stated that it there are "obvious" parallels but there is no scientific merit or backing to theat claim. In other words stop trating pottenger's cat as a the holy grail of your argument because it's a cracked foundation on which to try and build an argument.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
As mentioned before the only thing Pottenger's cats proved is that one of the essential feline amino acids is Taurine (even though they didn't know what Taurine was at the time)

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
well, just_me--you could also take into account that the shellfish, fish, organ meats, and fish eggs diet showed up nearly everywhere on the planet. Also, the explanation was the same in every place--to ensure good reproduction and healthy children. What's your grand explanation for that? Mass delusion?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
What did the ancient Egyptians eat?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
What did the ancient Egyptians eat?

Shellfish and raw organ meat, of course. I can't back up that statement, but let me tell you to read chapters 15-19 of Price's book.

Look at the PICTURES!
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
well, just_me--you could also take into account that the shellfish, fish, organ meats, and fish eggs diet showed up nearly everywhere on the planet. Also, the explanation was the same in every place--to ensure good reproduction and healthy children. What's your grand explanation for that? Mass delusion?

That's it... you got it in one, mass delusion.

Must be similar to the delusion that we're all under that you might be capable of discussing this issue like a reasonable adult...

Thanks for setting me straight... I'm going to take my own advice from a couple pages ago and not bother trying to actually discuss this with you until you commit to actually discussing it.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Fine with me.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
steven, you are being very restrained. I wanted you to know that I noticed and I appreciate the effort it must take.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
quote:
Malignant disease, in this case, refers to cancerous tumors:

"Among the many items of information of great interest furnished by Dr. Romig were facts that fitted well into the modern picture of association of modern degenerative processes with modernization. He stated that in his thirty-six years of contact with these people he had never seen a case of malignant disease among the truly primitive Eskimos and Indians, although it frequently occurs when they become modernized. He found similarly that the acute surgical problems requiring operation on internal organs such as the gall bladder, kidney, stomach, and appendix do not tend to occur among the primitive, but are very common problems among the modernized Eskimos and Indians. Growing out of his experience, in which he had seen large numbers of the modernized Eskimos and Indians attacked with tuberculosis, which tended to be progressive and ultimately fatal as long as the patients stayed under modernized living conditions, he now sends them back when possible to primitive conditions and to a primitive diet, under which the death rate is very much lower than under modernized conditions. Indeed, he reported that a great majority of the afflicted recover under the primitive type of living and nutrition."--from chapter 6

" In their native state they have exceedingly little disease. Dr. J. R. Nimmo, the government physician in charge of the supervision of this group, told me in his thirteen years with them he had not seen a single case of malignancy, and had seen only one that he had suspected might be malignancy among the entire four thousand native population. He stated that during this same period he had operated several dozen malignancies for the white population, which numbers about three hundred. He reported that among the primitive stock other affections requiring surgical interference were rare."---from chapter 11


"Dr. Anderson who is in charge of a splendid government hospital in Kenya, assured me that in several years of service among the primitive people of that district he had observed that they did not suffer from appendicitis, gall bladder trouble, cystitis and duodenal ulcer. Malignancy was also very rare among the primitives."---from chapter 9

Don't you understand how darwinian natural selection could cause this, and the instant you become "humanitarian" and allow weaker physical specimiens to live and reproduce, you end up getting more and more physical complications.

Heck I would have been dead long ago and it has nothing to do with my diet but the fact I'm the klutziest person in my family.

AJ
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
steven, do you really not understand the difference between Dr. Price's quoting another doctor about how he's pretty sure that he didn't see any cancerous "primitives" in his practice and data showing lower rates of cancer among people on a specific diet?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Excellent point Banna. read this quote from the first paragraph, though:

"...He found similarly that the acute surgical problems requiring operation on internal organs such as the gall bladder, kidney, stomach, and appendix do not tend to occur among the primitive, but are very common problems among the modernized Eskimos and Indians...."

Check that last phrase:

"...but are very common problems among the MODERNIZED Eskimos and Indians...."

Once more "...MODERNIZED Eskimos..."
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Tom....I can't help you.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Once more: "do not tend to occur" and "are very common problems."

What does that mean? How often do these things happen in each population? What other variables might affect the incidence of these things? How is he measuring a given Eskimo's level of modernity?

Steven, really, do you see why it's exactly that sort of sentence which points out the unsuitability of the book?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Level of Modernity? Price mentions specifically how proud the "modernized" eskimos were of their new diet. They rejected the old ways thoroughly and thought that getting food anywhere but the store was "uncivilized", or what have you.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
steven, do you really not understand the difference between Dr. Price's quoting another doctor about how he's pretty sure that he didn't see any cancerous "primitives" in his practice and data showing lower rates of cancer among people on a specific diet?
Do you really not understand how condescending and unproductive this is? What are you trying to gain?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
The first time I read a post by TomD, 6 years ago, I thought he was about 40 years old. That's when he was 25.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Fascinating! But I am confused. Why is it called the "Calorie Restrictive" diet when (to me) the most important trait is that it is full of nutrient-dense foods? 1700-2100 calories is *not* that restrictive. Honestly. Many people try to lose weight by keeping calories below 1200 a day.

That may be why many people are unsuccessful in losing weight: 1200 is most likely such a low caloric intake for any given adult that after a short period of time the body tends to lower its energy expenditures. It's too restrictive and can cause the body to go into 'starvation mode.' Most people can lose weight by eating about 500 calories below their daily maintanance level. There's a ton of calculators out there to find out what that is, but for a rough estimate, take 15 times your body weight in lbs and subtract 500. So with moderate exercise, a 175 lb female could actually lose weight on a 2100 calorie diet consisting of complex carbohydrates, lean proteins, and healthy fats.

You're right, 1700-2100 is not that restrictive. Heck, if you eat healthy (brown rice, oatmeal, chicken breasts, etc), then 2000 calories a day is a LOT of food.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Tom....I can't help you.

Translation:
Tom....I can't engage you in an adult conversation.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
steven, I had no idea you were 'round here before I was. [Smile]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
But steven there are no numbers. There are no statistical data with error bars. It doesn't sound like Price is referencing anything statistically. This is my problem. I'm an engineer, without numbers it's meaningless. I don't want Dr. Price's book I want the reference he used that had the numbers and to be able to look them up for myself.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
You can order "Pottenger's cats" in book form at Amazon.com. As far as the rest of them go, there's a list of references for each study mentioned at the end of each chapter.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
You can order "Pottenger's cats" in book form at Amazon.com. As far as the rest of them go, there's a list of references for each study mentioned at the end of each chapter.

Translation: I have no idea what you just said, so... um, read the book!
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Can you give me a few of the original source references?

(I'd rather spend my time looking at the orignal sources rather than reading Price's book)

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Here are some results from the end of ch. 18. I deleted most of the ones that were not animal studies, but you see the rest right there, at the end of ch. 18. I posted the link a page or two ago, but here it is again.

www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html


-MASON, K. E. Foetal death, prolonged gestation and difficult parturition in the rat as a result of vitamin A deficiency. Am. J. Anat., 57:303, 1935.
-MEIGS, E. B. and CONVERSE, H. T. Some effects of different kinds of hay in the ration on the performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 16:317, 1933.
-BARRIE, M. M. Nutrition anterior pituitary deficiency. Biochem. J. In press.
-BACHARACH, A. L., ALLEHORNE, E., GLYNN, H. E. Investigations into the method of estimating vitamin E. 1. Influence of vitamin E deficiency on implantation. Biochem. J., 21:2287, 1937.
-SHERMAN and MACLEOD. The relation of vitamin A to growth, reproduction and longevity. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 47:1658, 1925.
-HUGHES, AUBEL and LIENHARDT. Importance of vitamins A and C in the ration for swine, concerning especially their effect on growth and reproduction. Kansas Agric. Sta. Tech. Bull., No. 23, 1928.
-HART and GILBERT. Vitamin A deficiency as related to reproduction in range cattle. Univ. of Calif. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull., No. 560, 1933.
-HUGHES, E. H. Effects of vitamin A deficient diet of sows. J. Agric. Res., 49:943, 1934.
-SURE, B. Dietary requirements for fertility and lactation; dietary sterility associated with vitamin A deficiency. J. Agric. Res., 37:87, 1928.
-HALE, F. The relation of maternal vitamin A deficiency to microphthalmia in pigs. Texas S. J. Med., 33:228, 1937.
-WILLIAMS, W. L. The problem of teratology in clinical veterinary medicine. Cornell Veterinarian, 26:1, 1936.
-SUTTON, T. S., SETTERFIELD, H. E. and KRAUSS, W. E. Nerve degeneration associated with avitaminosis A in the white rat. Ohio Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull., No. 545, 1934.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
with this, I must depart until tomorrow. Parting is such...sweet...sorrow.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Thank you very much. I'll look into these more later.

I find it fascinating that the majority of the studies are related to specific vitamin deficiencies.

This implies to me that Price's sources are concentrating far more on the Vitamin content in the food than whether "natural" or "unnatural"

(Vitamin originally = essential amino acid although the layman's definition has broadened it a bit)

AJ
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
King of Men, did you read the whole book? What did you think?

Nah, I'm kind of stuck at chapter 16, it's been an extremely busy week at work. I can't really say anything about the Most Holy Chapter XVIII (tm) yet.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Will you start a thread when you do finish? I'm interested in your opinion.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I just read chapter 18 from the link steven posted above. It isn't that long.

I can't believe I'm saying this this, but I'm going to reiterate what steven said, read the chapter for yourself.

I'm not thrilled about the facial feature stuff, I think it has some of the eugenics bias that was not uncommon in medicine at the time.

However I do not think that that chapter as it stands alone is saying what steven says it is saying.

What I took from it, is that a balanced diet provides all essential nutrients. At the time, they couldn't isolate those nutrients in commercial feeds, or enrich them like they can today.

Based on this chapter alone (and I admit I haven't read the rest) I think Dr. Price today would *not* be a proponent of the back-to-nature, because of the virtue of the unsullied diets from primitive cultures.

Rather, I think he'd be advocating taking a well-balanced vitamin supplement daily, and probably be doing research in how to create better baby forumulas, to get closest to actual breast milk.

JMHO,

AJ
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks, AnnaJo, for the synopsis and thoughts. Much appreciated.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Based on my first impression of chapter 19, I think Price subscribed to a fair bit of eugenics and phrenology quackery, granted it wasn't viewed as quackery at the time. He's trying to correlate facial features (cleft palates particularly) with lowered I.Q. and criminal behavior.

He's also trying to make all sorts of correlation with "mongolism" with facial deformities, and has a case study that is highly amusing and is a classic "correllation is not cause" blunder. Although for the 1930s it could have been far, far worse.

steven, you are aware that mongolism, as Price is referring to it, means children with Downs syndrome, and that Downs syndrome is associated with a specific chromosomal anomaly right?

Anyway the case study describes a 16 year old pre-pubescent boy with Downs syndrome, who they operated on to improve his sinuses and jaw structure and he suddenly "miraculously" hit puberty *because* of the operation, and was also able to function more independently than he had before. Perhaps the kid just had slow puberty... I think that's pretty normal in people with Downs's?

The passage also indicates however that Dr. Price spent a lot of one-on-one time interacting with the kid, and it doesn't appear that the kid may have been given the *opportunities* to learn anything before because no one tried to teach him!
quote:
A most remarkable event happened in connection with this procedure {the operation}. He lived in another city, and so, while with me, stayed in a boarding house at a little distance from my office in order that he might have frequent, and almost constant attention. On his return to his home town, his efficiency had increased to such an extent that his mother could send him with the money to the grocery store with the order for the day's groceries, and he could bring back the right change and could tell when it was correct. He could also come alone to me ninety miles by railroad and make two changes of trains and the various transfers on the street cars of the city with accuracy and safety.

Ya think?! The poor guy just needed attention and interaction.

I can't fault Price for trying to find a cause and or cure for Down's Syndrome. He was actually trying to improve the kid's life. Some of the information he states, like Down's occuring more frequently in the pregnancies of older women is right on.

Watson and Crick didn't figure out the structure of DNA until the 1950s. If Price had known about DNA and understood modern chromosomal inheritance principles, he would have interpreted his observations entirely differently. But he didn't have the information at the time, and a lot of people looked at a lot more crackpot theories, before DNA was actually identified as the basis for inheritance and isolated.

AJ

Even on the eugenics stuff, it doesn't seem as insidious as other eugenics theories that were going around at the time. He was trying to find cure's to society's social ills as well. While it seems pretty condesceding from my modern perspective, it appears that he was trying to reduce birth defects and improve I.Q. by improving nutrition in women. He wasn't blaming criminal behavior on genetics or race, but rather poor nutrition in ithe womb, and was trying to fix it in people he thought *were* poorly nourished to see if it would improve their outlook on life.

AJ

[ December 08, 2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Rabbit, the numerous animal studies that show similar rates and types of disease on the same diet make all that unnecessary.

No they don't.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven one of the bigges flaws in saying that "numerous animal studies" when referring to Price's work, is that the body of animmal study data they were working from in the 1930s has increased by several orders of magnitude since then, we are in 2006... almost 2007. We have sooooo much more information avialable to us today than Price had back then. In some ways it's amazing they got anything right at all, when they didn't know about DNA.

Since then, further studies have been continually narrowing down the broad observations of the early studies to quantify *exactly* what the real variables were with more and more controlled studies.

With the advent of the Industrial Age, people *were* poorly nourished and unable to eat balanced diets in many cases, they stayd alive because industrialization also enabled for greater food production, with modern farm equipment, but the poor factory worker wasn't going to have the money to buy fresh foods and veggies. It's the same with a college student on a macNcheese diet. Carbs in pasta provide easily accesible calories, but *don't* give you the vitamins you get in fresh brocolli. Yet your stomach will feel full and you won't feel hungry even if you might not have gotten all the vitamins you need... if you could only afford bread and rice, that was it.

However with the exact same diet and a daily vitamin pill their physical conditions would have been greatly improved. Of course it is always generally better to get your vitamins from food rather than pills(though many of our foods today are vitamin enriched, with the exact same stuff that's in the pill form.)

AJ
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Except that KoM cashed my check 6 months ago.

This isn't YOUR thread. KoM is welcome to post here, at least while on-topic. [Wink]


You, on the other hand......
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Somehow in all of the hububub until steven posted the references, I had no idea that this was based on 1930s research.... I mean by that that Dr. Price was actually a 1930s researcher. I thought he was a modern bloke who was using 1930s research and trying to hornswoggle people into subscribing to his dietary principles, like every other fad diet book out there.


I'm far more forgiving of Dr. Price now than I was when I thought he was some modern nutritional quack. Unfortunately it appears the modern nutritional quacks, don't realize that Price was actually trying to get at scientifically based conclusions. If Price was around today, would be jumping up and down, at many of the modern biological discoveries, thinking they were marvelous answers to the questions he was asking.

(although he'd be dissipointed that we still haven't cured all societal ills with medicine, and have also realized that medicine is not the vehicle by which social ills *should* be cured.)

His work definitely needs to be viewed in historical perspective with the Great Depression and since disproven eugenics theory. In some ways he was an anti-eugenicist compared to the eugenic philospophies that WWII made infamous.

Some of his things on crime rising in the population and the worry about the decline of civilization As They Knew it can be directly attributed to the Great Depression, but he didn't have the historical perspective to understand that.

He seems like an intensely curious man, probably a Progressive at the time, remaining open-minded to newer ideas, that could explain the "whys" of life.

AJ
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
disproven eugenics theory
What is this theory that you're saying has been disproven?

As I understand it, eugenics would work just fine in humans like it does with other mammals. That is, if we selectively bred humans for certain traits and "culled the herd" to remove undesirable traits, the human population, over time, would become more like what we were trying to make it.

Of course, most people consider this evil, but that doesn't make it ineffective nor disproven.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Squicky, come now, do you still hold to the theory that intelligence is linked to race and one race is inherently supperior to others?

Or that someone with a cleft palate is dumber because of their physical deformity?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
CT probably has more insight into eugenics as it affects both medical and social ethics issues, than I do.

AJ
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
(I'm not Squicky)

At least in my limited understanding, what you said about race and cleft palate are not unseparably tied with eugenics theory any more than the idea that we are descended from neanderthals is an essential part of the theory of evolution.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
In the modern view of eugenics they are not neccesarily tied together.

In the 1930s world, some people were convinced they were connected.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Not all eugenics theory has been disproven.

False eugenics theory = the parts of eugenics theory that have now been proven false. Those parts have been proven so false in many instances that they are no longer considered "eugenics" in the modern view, but they may have been deeply held beliefs inseperable from "eugenics" at an earlier time in history.

AJ

My apologies mph, for mixing you and squicky, it was my mistake and I would have reacted differently if I had realized it was you, because I know I need to interpret you very literally, rather than what it feels like is being insinuated to me. I've realized that in your case you are almost never mean what my brain interprets your intentions and meaning to be.

AJ
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
It's only logical that, if you can produce predictable results in animals using different diets, ranging from stillborn to deformed to very healthy, that the same effects in humans could also be produced using some kind of deficient diet. Isn't it?

Not if you understand the biochemical differences between humans and other mammalian species. I am unaware of any animals that have evolved eating the same diet as humans. As I pointed out earlier, koalas and ruminants are obviously very poor models for the nutritional needs of humans. But even if you look at other primates, none of them have similar diets to primative humans. Different animals have differences in their ability to synthesize amino acids, fatty acids and numerous co-enzymes. Animals that lack certain synthetic pathways for a fatty acid for example, must get that fatty acid in their food. Other animals are able to sythesize these same fatty acids and so don't need to eat them. There are also major digestive differences. The ruminant digestive system for example is designed to foster the growth of bacteria that can break down cellulose. These animals can therefore get nutrients from cellulosic plant matter which are inaccessible to humans. Humans are able to get nutrients from plants where are inaccessible to strict carnivors.

Even among different human racial groups there are significant differences in nutritional needs. The most obvious example is that humans in Europe and South Asia who have been eating cow, sheep and goats milk for thousands of years, retain the ability to digest lactose into adulthood. Whereas humans who lived in North America and part of Africa and Asia where dairy products have only recently been introduced are unable to digest lactose after childhood.

Its also clear that pacific islanders have a much greater sensitivity to certain foods with a high glycemic index than other racial groups. Eskimos have a much higher demand for vitamin D in their diets than other Northern peoples.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Thank you. That makes sense.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
The oft mentioned Dr. Price still held to the view that cleft palates and specific facial structures, directly correllated with lower intelligence. This wasn't an uncommon belief in the 1930s, and they thought they were gathering data to prove it. In fact, many times in gathering the data, they so skewed their population sample towards their assumptions as to make it useless.

This is an example of "false eugenics theory".

Price may actually have had a bit of very, very general insight on proper nutrition and those in the state pen. At the time of the great depression, particularly, I'm sure a disproportionate number of criminals were poor and malnourished, and many lower income families today suffer from poor nutrition also. (and yes correlation is not cause, but in modern times poverty has been pretty directly correllated with both criminal behavior *and* nutritionally poor diets.)

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Here's another example of how he was influenced by "false eugenics theory".
quote:
On the presumption that all mentally crippled individuals will be in danger of transmitting these qualities to their offspring there is a strong movement continually in operation toward segregating such individuals or incapacitating them by sterilization. Several primitive racial stocks have produced large populations without criminals and defectives by means of an adequate nutritional program which provided normal development and function. May it not be that even our defectives, when they have resulted from poisoning of germ cells or interference with an adequate normal intrauterine environment, may be able to build a society with a high incidence of perfection, that will progressively return toward Nature's ideal of human beings with normal physical, mental and moral qualities? Because of its interpretation of the individual's responsibility for his mental and moral qualities, society has not only undertaken to protect itself from the acts of so-called unsocial individuals but has proceeded to treat them as though they were responsible for the injury that society has done to them. Does it not seem inevitable that this apparently false attitude will change if it be demonstrated that they are the result of a program of inadequate nutrition for the parents.
Even while arguing against the eugenics of the time, some arguements he is using against it, are still steeped in the unconcious eugenics paradigm of the time he lived in.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Oh man... this post is going to get me in trouble but here goes...

I submit that the educational system has miserably failed our friend steven. In this case specifically science education, although we can include logic and reasoning into the bundle to appease Irami's moral fiber.

When reading a piece of scientific literature from a different era, he completely lacks the critical reasoning skills and scientific knowledge to separate between the actual scientific discoveries and the incorrect baggage of the era from which Dr. Price lived.

In fact he has almost entirely embraced all of the incorrect ideas in the book, rather than the valuable theories proposed that have subsequently been proven by modern science, like prenatal vitamins for pregnant mothers.

AJ
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:


It was logical to think that giving extra oxygen to premature babies (whose undeveloped lungs represent one of the biggest threats to their survival) would be a good thing. An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness). [/QB]

It is blindness, and at times mental retardation. I had a friend named Kevin while I was growing up who had that happen. He was blind, and had been in an incubator when born because he was so premature. He also never developed mentally past that of a 8-9 year old.

He was a good kid though, and a Cub Scout with me. [Smile]


His parents did nothing wrong, and followed the recommendations of their doctors....and as a direct result their child was irreparably harmed.


[Frown]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
AJ, you bring up a good point.....and it was this point in particular that I wanted to discuss when I got involved in this thread.


That a lot of the surface points Price makes are NOT contrary to current medical beliefs. I don't hear people spouting off that our diets today are so much better than they "non-modern" ones, or that no one needs to be concerned with nutrition. We all accept these things as givens, really....that many things are wrong with the modern diets most of us follow, and that nutrition is key to maintaining health.


But they didn't back when Price was writing.


I find it very interesting to hear what people used to think, and then compare it to what we know today. I love to see how things have evolved over time, and since the body of scientific work has grown so much over the past 100 years science is a great subject to study for examples of how thoughts/beliefs evolve.


For the most part this has remained a great thread. Thank you to all who continue to participate in good faith. [Smile]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
yes, Price has elements of what are now seperate disciplines in his writing. It genuinely appears he tried to do the best he could with the statistics of the day, but he's mixing medicine, sociology, and a dash of political science together in areas which we now understand are distinct. (although sometimes still related)

AJ

Price's work would probably make a fabulous assigned text for a History of Science class.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
As far as steven is concerned, he appears to have managed to drink Price's bathwater as if it were champagne, and committed infanticide with the baby by throwing it off the Empire State building.

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
THis is an interesting snapshot of life during the great depression... it was almost worse than a concentration camp!

quote:
A report just received from the Bureau of Home Economics, Department of Agriculture, Washington, presents figures for the average amount of the various foods used in different income groups in different parts of the United States. These showed that in general about one-third of the income up to $2500 was spent for food per family; further, that the total flour equivalent ranged from 0.39 to 0.50 pound per capita per day. These quantities will furnish about 829 to 1063 calories per day, per capita. It will be seen at once that this provides a large number of the calories required for growing children and sedentary adults per day. With this number of calories derived from refined flour products there is no adequate provision for a normal amount of such body-building materials as minerals and vitamins. These have been removed, largely, in the milling process, and are largely denied to our modern civilization insofar as the cereal foods are concerned. This includes vitamin E, so essential for the functioning of the pituitary gland, the master governor of the body.

 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
and now.... all kid's cereals are vitamin enriched for a "Complete Breakfast"

I think that's exactly what Dr. Price wanted accomplished and that Price would be very happy to read the nutrition information on the back of a cereal box today. (although I doubt he'd entirely approve of Cap'n Crunch)

AJ
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
His parents did nothing wrong, and followed the recommendations of their doctors....and as a direct result their child was irreparably harmed.
[Frown]

It's likely that the doctors didn't do anything wrong, either. If I remember your age correctly, they had the results of this study and it's quite likely that the choice was risk blindness or let the boy die. It's also possible that they were incorrect in their risk assessment, but I find it hard to fault them for that without knowing something more.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
A couple of quotes from Price, re: nutritional supplements:

"There are two programs now available for meeting the dental caries problem. One is to know first in detail all the physical and chemical factors involved and then proceed. The other is to know how to prevent the disease as the primitives have shown and then proceed. The former is largely the practice of the moderns. The latter is the program suggested by these investigations ... " (emphasis mine).---chapter 16.


" Dr. Wayne Brehm who is associated with two Columbus, Ohio, hospitals has recently published the results (5) of a study of the effect of the treatment received in 540 obstetrical cases divided into six groups of ninety individuals each, on the basis on which their nutrition was reinforced in order to study the comparative effects of the different treatments. The reinforcement of the diet consisted in Group 1 of taking calcium and synthetic vitamin D as viosterol; Group 2, calcium alone; Group 3, viosterol alone; Group 4, calcium and cod liver oil; Group 5, cod liver oil alone and Group 6, no reinforcement. For those receiving the calcium and viosterol there was extensive calcification in the placentae, marked closure of the fontanelle (the normal opening in the top of the infant skull) and marked calcification in the kidneys. For those receiving calcium alone there was no placental calcification, slight closure of the fontanelle and no calcification of the kidneys. Group 3 receiving viosterol had moderate to marked placental calcification, moderate closure of the fontanelle and no calcification of the kidneys. Those receiving cod liver oil alone had very slight placental calcification, slight fontanelle closure and no calcification in the kidneys. Those receiving no reinforcement had very slight placental calcification, normal fontanelle closures and no calcification of the kidneys. The effect on the mother was a prolonging of labor in Group 1 and at birth the fetal heads were less moulded not being able to adjust their shape to the shape of the birth tube. These infants had a general appearance of ossification or postmaturity. This strongly emphasizes the great desirability of using Nature's natural foods instead of modern synthetic substitutes." (emphasis mine).---Chapter 21.


As far as the link between diet and behavior goes....Does anyone here seriously believe that kids fed junk food behave as well as kids fed a better diet?

Pottenger notes several times in his work that the cats that were fed a deficient diet in his study were harder to handle, more prone to biting and scratching, and showed perverted sexual desire or no sex drive at all. ---if you want a word for word quote, that's fine. Ask.

I've also read that most child molesters tend to eat a really awful diet. I can also link you to a story about John Wayne Gacy that says that he was completely addicted to M&Ms, and could not get them in prison. The author of the essay would bring Gacy candy in exchange for Gacy's paintings of clowns, etc., and he said that Gacy would devour the entire bag quickly as soon as they were handed to him.

Are these behaviors, in some cases, to some degree, a result of diet? What do you think?


Oh boy, here comes the crapstorm.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Does anyone here seriously believe that kids fed junk food behave as well as kids fed a better diet?
This question demonstrates how badly you are misinterpreting the nature of the objections to your claims.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Dag, here are the possible answers, to my mind:

a. No, kids misbehave because of what they are taught/see others do.

My response is: I respectfully disagree.

b. Yes, but.....

c. Yes. What else is new?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I must leave now. I shall return monday.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
His parents did nothing wrong, and followed the recommendations of their doctors....and as a direct result their child was irreparably harmed.
[Frown]

It's likely that the doctors didn't do anything wrong, either. If I remember your age correctly, they had the results of this study and it's quite likely that the choice was risk blindness or let the boy die. It's also possible that they were incorrect in their risk assessment, but I find it hard to fault them for that without knowing something more.

I wasn't trying to say that the doctors had done anything wrong. They acted in good faith, trying to save a child's life, providing the best care they could at the time.


My point was that even the best meaning person can cause serious, irreparable harm to others...all because they did what "seemed" logical at the time. The problem was with the data and the methodology or the research at that time period, not with the doctors who treated him.


Not that that made his parents feel any better.


That is why I resent people claiming pseudo-science as fact. It can cause so much harm, and is done with so little thought.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Dag, here are the possible answers, to my mind:

a. No, kids misbehave because of what they are taught/see others do.

My response is: I respectfully disagree.

b. Yes, but.....

c. Yes. What else is new?

There IS a third way the conversation could go....most of us would probably say that it is a combination of factors, with diet being a very strong, important factor in behavior.


steven, I really don't have an issue with some of the findings. I do question the methodology though, and the further you go into this research the more the errors in methodology matter.

Dr. Price never said that modern supplements are bad, because he never had the chance to see them. They came along well after his death. We have no real way of measuring how well different things were absorbed and utilized by the people in his studies, because he didn't have any way of doing that back then. It wasn't his fault....but that doesn't change the fact that his results are far harder to verify due to the lack of such data.


Do you know why cats AREN'T used in modern medical research, at least not for things that will be used on humans? Because their physical composition is so different from humans that a lot of things don't extrapolate well. They can (and are) used in some very early preliminary studies, of course, because some basic factors are the same, but there are far too many confounding variables to ever be sure WHY something happens in an experiment for the data to be trusted. At least not without more testing.


Even studies in monkeys and chimps, the best, most similar animals we know of, are not completely effective in transferring data to human studies. It is far better to test on them than not to test of them, of course, but the results are often different between the groups. Even if something happens in three different types of animals, it doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing would happen in primates, marine animals....or humans.


Cat studies may have been the best they knew of back in the 1920's and 1930's, but compared to the body of medical knowledge we have these days any study that completely rely on cat data is completely flawed, and not a good model for comparisons.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
One of Porter's favorite facts is that the human male is more genetically similar to a chimpanzee male than to a human female. [Smile] [/randomtangent]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
[Smile]


Explains a lot, doesn't it? [Wink]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Yeah. Can I bring this up in the adjusting to living with someone thread? [Wink]
 
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
One of Porter's favorite facts is that the human male is more genetically similar to a chimpanzee male than to a human female. [Smile] [/randomtangent]

I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I've read that we're somewhere from 98% to 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees.

But males and females have an entire chromosome which is completely different.
 
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I've read that we're somewhere from 98% to 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees.

But males and females have an entire chromosome which is completely different.

A ha! Indisputable science.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It's actually 96%. [Correction: 97% Or is it 95%?]

And the X and Y chromosomes are not 100% different. Even if they were, that would only amount to about 2%.

IOW, sounds good, but just isn't true.

Oh, and chimps have a different number of chromosomes from humans as well.

[ December 10, 2006, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Shhh. I don't want to hear that.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Parents who allow their children to eat only junk food are likely to be parents who allow their children to misbehave.

You now have another, equally possible connection between junkfood and poor behavior, in which there is no direct causation. Whether or not it's true is up for debate, but the fact that it makes as much sense as the idea that the junkfood is a causal agent in poor behavior is of high importance to this discussion.

Of course, we've been over this before. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
It is still good to point out. Most things, particularily when it comes to human behavior, is not black and white , one thing or another. Trying to cast the issues like that is not science, and probably won't answer anything.


Now, in measuring physical characteristics, or applying science to a specific issue once confounding variables have been accounted for properly...then it becomes a yes or no type of thing.


Sometimes. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
One of the things that separates scientific from unscientific modes of explanation is what happens when we reach the limits of the data. A scientist will generally say "needs further study" or make some sort of educated guess laden with a series of caveats (such as...this hasn't been found in humans, but...). The unscientific person (and in this case pseudo-scientific) becomes more strident, repeats the already stated elements, and acts as if the case is proven. In broader terms, the unscientific person will earnestly try to substitute logic (and logic alone) to fill the gaps in the data. Scientists use logic to point to possibiliites. The unscientific person discussing "science" uses logic to as a substitute for further study. I suspect this arises out of the desire to have issues "settled," but I haven't actually studied the psychology of unscientific reasoning in science, so I'll just throw that out there as a provisional hypothesis.

I am probably one of the few people on this BB who has read eugenics "research" monographs in the original. Granted, I was limited to only those publishing in the English language, but they often cited other sources' "data." There are good reasons that the word "eugenics" has such a bad reputation. It's not that they were always wrong, it is that they were led down the garden path by substituting logic where data were lacking. And they came to some conclusions that were driven more by the goodness of fit with pre-established cultural biases than they were driven by the data. The racial determinants of intelligence were only the most easily refutable of these. And if you read it, the logical arguments go something like this:

The "northern European 'type,' by virtue of having to survive in a harsher climate, became both hardier and more cooperative. Interpersonal cooperation required the development of bigger brains to deal with more complex language..."

and so on.

These people weren't bad logicians. They could spin a "just so" story as good as the rest of us. They actually knew their genetics (from a Mendelian and Darwinian viewpoint) and were drawing logical conclusions from the observations of the state of the world at that time. Everywhere where the races came into contact, the white/northern races prevailed. They had better technology as evidence of their greater intelligence. It was just the natural order of things expressing itself in a grand sorting out of the world as it must be.

The idea of an African genesis of the human species was actually quite a shock to some, but even that could be fit into the eugenics model -- as, indeed can almost ANY result given enough time to think creatively about it. Humans evolved in Africa and the more adventurous ones -- the more curious ones, migrated away. Not the weaker ones being pushed out, but the ones that had the most curiousity... See where this is going?


So anyway, what I want to say about eugenicists is that they weren't stupid, nor were they acting in a particularly scientific manner. They had a bigger agenda -- explaining the "manifest" superiority of their own kind over all other humans. It was used to justify a lot of horrid stuff, but it was all supposedly very cut and dried "science."

Sadly, one thing they didn't have is the kinds of peer review we have today. Nor was science more or less the exclusive province of academia (where, all other things aside, it meant that there could be some management of the field). Amateur "scientists" wrote all kinds of stuff after reading and synposizing (usually incorrectly) the work of others.

Just as there were people earnestly trying to do these things in the name of furthering mankind (or some other equally high-minded goal) there were people hoping to make a buck. The pseudoscience of phrenology is just a expression of the lower end of this continuum. People could cobble together a systematic viewpoint that had all the trappings of science, except the rigorous restrictions on only drawing conclusions supported by actual data.

But hey, even the real scientists don't always restrict themselves so closely...so why require this of amateurs?

Why indeed?

What I find particuarly irksome in the hucksterism of the Price-Pottenger institute, and the people who continue to urge that we draw our conclusions from their 70 year old data is that AT BEST they are like the eugenecists -- substituting logic for missing data. AT WORST, they are hucksters and I label them so. Because they aren't committed to use of modern data. No no! They say instead that human nutritional research took a wrong turn somewhere soon after Dr. Price published and there's some sort of medical conspiracy to block us all from learning THE TRUTH! What we really need to do is ignore 70 years of research and pick up where Dr. Price left off. Oh, and by the way...buy our books and materials.

As has been amply pointed out here:

1) Price was an amateur. Not bad for his day, but seriously lacking in some areas simply because he couldn't have known about discoveries that were not yet discovered. Not his fault. But surely anyone coming along after him might want to be familiar with those 70 years of nutritional research.

2) studies in animals have no direct bearing on studies in humans. They can in some cases point to possible things to try when dealing with human ailments, but you can't just leap from cats to humans and consider the matter settled.

3) In correlational studies, there are ALWAYS confounding variables that need to be considered. And the furhter away you get from relatively simple things like metabolic effects to talk about effects on whole systems, whole humans, and then nebulous concepts like "intelligence" the more confounding variables you need to consider. And the more likely that your correlation has no causal link at all.

A case in point on "simple" intelligence. Research done on flies going through a maze. With each successive generation you pick the flies that solve the maze in the least amount of time and let the "winners" breed. In a few generations, you have superior maze-flying fly. The G-10 flies are so much better than the G-1 flies that you almost want to call them a new species. So...try them out in a new type of maze. Guess what... Turns out you bread flies that had a specific behavior (like a bias for flying in straight lines, or never landing on the lower part of a wall) and they only looked more intelligent because the test was one they would excel in.

Rats are smarter than humans. If your only test is spatial memory. They can "remember" places in a sequence much, much better than the average human. Therefore...smarter.


The point is that you have to be careful and check...You should not be unscientific and just jump to conclusions that because you were breeding for intelligence, that the flies and their chromosomes were with the program.


4) Price was working with a then-current scientific method. I totally refute this. At the same time that Price was doing his work, and the eugencists were doing their work, there were people making genuine discoveries in science and proving their conclusions to be correct. It wasn't that the scientific method wasn't well known, it was that people felt more free to ignore it when it would've potentially taken too long, or spoiled their beautiful theory. Price, for all I know, only wanted to point out that better nutrition was important (as AJ has said). And, as I have said, he was a well-intentioned amateur who didn't really do all the work necessary to prove his point.

At the same time he was doing his work, we had people developing detailed theories of associative learning and memory -- a notorioulsy tough area to work in, that have stood up well for a good long time. We had people developing clear understanding of disease and treatment that have helped save countless lives since then. It wasn't impossible to do good science. It was just more difficult.

And again, maybe I shouldn't really blame Price, the dentist/amateur scientist, but those who have misappropriated his name and deliberately misunderstood and misapplied his work.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
By the way...Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA...not it's existence. People new about chromosomes and mapping of traits to chromosomes back when Price did his work. It wasn't a secret that there were genetic bases to traits. People might've been a little less sure of how it all worked than we think we are today, but it wasn't like a switch was thrown. People educated in biology had a pretty decent model for how things worked from a genotype => phenotype point of view.

That's one reason why we don't make excuses for the eugenics movement. They showed sufficient logical abilities to cobble together some remarkable "explanations" based on their understanding of genetics. They just didn't bother to see if their model was really valid. And while they were spouting some outrageously biased and harmful stuff, the data were clearly available that should've given them at least a sense of unease with their conclusions. They just didn't see it.


I have recommended it before, but if you are interested in this stuff you owe it to yourself to read The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. It covers IQ testing, eugenics, the brain-case measurement movement and lots more stuff. It has excellent examples of real scientists succumbing to investigator bias. It's a fascinating read.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks, Bob. I'm glad this won't be erased.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Bob, I looked at that book and thought it was very, very interesting. I think I will have to pick that up now.

I have been thinking I need to start reading more non-fiction for years, but this years NYR is to actually do it. I started last year, and read about 7-8 of them, but considering that I go through about 3-4 books a week at times that really wasn't much change.


I have wanted to read Isaac's Storm since I saw Mr. Larson talk about it on BookTV, of all things. I just bought In the Heart of the Sea this month, and will probably start that soon. The Mismeasure of Man looks wonderful, and that will probably be the first non-fiction book of 2007 for me. [Smile]

[ December 10, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Thanks CT. I think your posts in this thread have been remarkable!


Kwea, I'm so glad. That book is among my favorite non-fiction of all time. Stephen Jay Gould was such a brilliant science writer. I enjoyed his column in Natural History magazine for years. He was my favorite essayist doing popular presentations of Biology in the 20th century. I hope you enjoy it.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Bob...what did you think of "The Bell Curve"? I know that Gould re-released MMM and updated it to respond to the authors, and that one of my favorite boos, GG&S was written partly to refute some of their claims as well. I still find that it sparked a huge discussion about these issues, and probably will add that book to my list as well.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I would probably have to re-read The Bell Curve to recall enough of it to give an opinion.

I enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel, but have had some problems with Jared Diamond's writing in the past. That one was awesome, though.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
A lot of the things people seem to complain about when discussing "The Bell Curve" are things the authors themselves didn't say or try to imply. People read all sorts of things into it, of course, and the authors knew they were messing with nolitile issues.

I plan on reading that as well, and probably will post on it once I have finished. [Smile]


God, my NF reading list is huge now. [Wink]
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I ate Krispy Kremes and started feeling better from the flu the next day.

Therefore, Krispy Kremes are the cure for the flu.

-pH
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
I ate Krispy Kremes and started feeling better from the flu the next day.

Therefore, Krispy Kremes are the cure for the flu.

They actually work for just about evertything...except cavities, of course.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Example of how intensely genetics can affect how diet interacts with health:

quote:
The principal mutation [lactose tolerance], found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff's group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago ... Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created 'one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,' the researchers write.
(Emphasis added. I linked the /. blurb - you can view the whole article from there. I haven't done that myself, yet.)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
This is entertaining. Bob, every time you start talking down to me like you're my uncle, I laugh harder and harder. And harder. Keep it up. Your well-meaning cluelessness brightens my day.

As far as behavior and food goes, no one has satisfactorily explained away the fact that cats on a deficient diet behaved much differently that cats on a better diet, down to the fact of very different sexual behavior.


Bob, it sounds like you're saying there's no connection between food and health. It also sounds like you're saying that there's no connection between bone structure, including both bone density bone and size, and diet. Pottenger and others proved that bone structure is extremely dependent on diet in every animal species studied. You can find straight-toothed, healthy natives in backwaters all over the globe.

Think about from my point of view, Bob. I go to Costa Rica and find perfectly straight teeth among all the jungle-raised Indianos I meet. I grew up in the US, so I have seen plenty of crooked teeth. How is it shocking that I would conclude, after reading both Price and Pottenger and thinking about my own personal observations, that crooked teeth and poor health are mainly diet-related?

I definitely admit that moderate physical activity is part of it too. There's no question that exercise increases bone density.

It however, is purely fanciful to assume that exercise can completely counteract a steady diet of junk food in forming bones and teeth. I don't think exercise can get rid of your cavities.

Finally, I personally have noted that when I eat better, I have more energy, and therefore am more likely to exercise. I also have noted that I have a lot more stamina for exercise when I eat better.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
This is entertaining. Bob, every time you start talking down to me like you're my uncle, I laugh harder and harder. And harder. Keep it up. Your well-meaning cluelessness brightens my day.

As far as behavior and food goes, no one has satisfactorily explained away the fact that cats on a deficient diet behaved much differently that cats on a better diet, down to the fact of very different sexual behavior.


Bob, it sounds like you're saying there's no connection between food and health. It also sounds like you're saying that there's no connection between bone structure, including both bone density bone and size, and diet. Pottenger and others proved that bone structure is extremely dependent on diet in every animal species studied. You can find straight-toothed, healthy natives in backwaters all over the globe.

Think about from my point of view, Bob. I go to Costa Rica and find perfectly straight teeth among all the jungle-raised Indianos I meet. I grew up in the US, so I have seen plenty of crooked teeth. How is it shocking that I would conclude, after reading both Price and Pottenger and thinking about my own personal observations, that crooked teeth and poor health are mainly diet-related?

I definitely admit that moderate physical activity is part of it too. There's no question that exercise increases bone density.

It however, is purely fanciful to assume that exercise can completely counteract a steady diet of junk food in forming bones and teeth. I don't think exercise can get rid of your cavities.

Finally, I personally have noted that when I eat better, I have more energy, and therefore am more likely to exercise. I also have noted that I have a lot more stamina for exercise when I eat better.

Translated: I didn't read your post, so let me re-hash what I've already said and toss in a personal attack to spice things up!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
As if personal attacks are in short supply in my detractors' posts.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
More importantly, steven, is the apparent fact that you either a) haven't read this thread or b) don't understand what has been posted on this thread.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
As if personal attacks are in short supply in my detractors' posts.
Could you point out the personal attacks in Bob's posts that you just responded to?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
As if personal attacks are in short supply in my detractors' posts.

Translated: I'm feeling threatened by other people's superior debate skills, so I will fall back on my superiority complex to comfort myself.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It's what's being implied, Dag, not what I'm actually being called. It's also not Bob, mainly, but Kwea, who called me an arrogant ass over on sakeriver when he knew I was reading that forum.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
It's what's being implied, Dag, not what I'm actually being called. It's also not Bob, mainly, but Kwea, who called me an arrogant ass over on sakeriver when he knew I was reading that forum.

Translated: I can't remember when Bob's been a meanie mean head to me, so I'll ignore your point and talk about somebody else.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It's also not Bob, mainly, but Kwea
So what do Kwea's personal attacks have to do with you attacking Bob in that manner?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Bob has already admitted several times that he regrets the tone he took with me last year on this same issue.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Which is, given the question, no more relevant than a claim that some cats regret it. [Smile]
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Bob has already admitted several times that he regrets the tone he took with me last year on this same issue.

Translated: I can't admit to myself that Bob is being nice, so I'll talk about another time when he may or may not have been mean. I can't remember, so I'll just ignore you so that I can keep padding these feelings of persecution.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Primal, I'd consider your mockery a page or two ago to count as a personal attack. Does that count in your book, too?

Let me say it another way--my ego's on the line here, to some extent. When you cheat in a fight against someone who's ego is on the line....and I do call comparing giving oxygen to premature babies to eating a diet that has proven itself over tens of thousands of years to be cheating. One of those two things had 50-200 years of partially theory and partially observation behind it. The other has at least some science behind it, and thousands of years of practice behind it.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
It's what's being implied, Dag, not what I'm actually being called. It's also not Bob, mainly, but Kwea, who called me an arrogant ass over on sakeriver when he knew I was reading that forum.
Well, think about it from Kwea's perspective. He grows up on the internet, where there's no shortage of arrogant asses. Then, he spends some time around steven, who's also grown up on the internet. Do you really blame him for drawing the inevitable conclusion that steven is an arrogant ass? I mean, the facts are all there, right? Plus, there's not denying the conclusion that (1) cats tend to be arrogant asses, and (2) cats == humans in all ways.

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if you're functionally illiterate. That's not a slam -- I'd honestly like to see some test results. I can't fathom how someone could so badly, repeatedly, unerringly misinterpret so many crystal clear sentences.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Primal, I'd consider your mockery a page or two ago to count as a personal attack. Does that count in your book, too?

Let me say it another way--my ego's on the line here, to some extent. When you cheat in a fight against someone who's ego is on the line....and I do call comparing giving oxygen to premature babies to eating a diet that has proven itself over tens of thousands of years to be cheating. One of those two things had 50-200 years of partially theory and partially observation behind it. The other has at least some science behind it, and thousands of years of practice behind it.

Translated: I don't understand this "humor" you speak of- especially Irony. That one always confuses me.

Second Paragraph Translated: I'm trying to confuse Primal Curve by being completely unintelligible. Try "translating" this, you son of a sweaty person!
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Speaking strickly from a cat's perspective, (and having been the servant of several cats in my lifetime), cats do not "equal humans in all ways". Cats are demonstrably superior to humans in all ways. [Razz]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I do call comparing giving oxygen to premature babies to eating a diet that has proven itself over tens of thousands of years to be cheating.
That's one way to avoid actually addressing the issue.

I note that you still have not grasped what the purpose of that comparison was, nor bothered to address why the example is relevant.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I didn't start the whole "ohh, he's being a meany" thing. I don't actually give a flaming rip what I get called by most of you here or on Sake. IIRC, Primal started it. Call me what you want. I understand how hard it is to have you dietary ignorance shoved in your face. It took me years to accept these conclusions. I grew up on probably the same diet the rest of you did. Changing your assumptions can be hard.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I didn't start the whole "ohh, he's being a meany" thing. I don't actually give a flaming rip what I get called by most of you here or on Sake. IIRC, Primal started it. Call me what you want. I understand how hard it is to have you dietary ignorance shoved in your face. It took me years to accept these conclusions. I grew up on probably the same diet the rest of you did. Changing your assumptions can be hard.

Translated: Moooooooom! Primal started it! He and his friends won't take my assertions at face value! They keeps wanting to question the underlying assumptions of my arguments! It's not fair!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
OK, here's more support. Bob sent me an article on folic acid deficiency and neural tube defects. The article clearly showed a link between that particular vitamin deficiency and neural tube defects in human infants. Dr. Price quotes at least a dozen or more studies that show clear links between single-vitamin-deficient-diets in animals and specific, predictable birth defects.

Price readly admitted that certain deficiencies produce different results between species, but always the same result within a given species.

native americans knew how to prevent scurvy by eating certain adrenal glands and the inner walls of animals' stomachs. Dr. Price tested the vitamin C content of these foods and found it to be extremely high.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I totally read "Mooooooom" as onomatopoetic. Then I just guessed it was the sound a flaming rip might make.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
If we really take seriously the subject of our consideration, then we will care more about the information itself being right than ourselves being right. Unfortunately, often when people get backed into a corner in a public discussion, saving face becomes much more important than being accurate.

---

Edited to add: This happens all the time. I think everyone feels that pull. I respect (and trust) most those who resist it.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Somebody left some weird newspaper on my windshield last night. I read one sentence of it about how we're hurting our bodies with "our Western diets" and burst out laughing. I will have to go get it from my car and quote some of it here.

-pH
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
So steven. In order to get my folic acid, is it ok for me to take a vitamin supplement that contains folic acid, and eat grean leafy veggies, rather than eating adreanal glands and stomach linings? (which I have to admit sounds distasteful)

How do you implement this information in your own diet on a day-to-day basis?

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
official weirdest google link below the page...

http://turtlesale.com/home.html
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Scurvy is a vitamin C deficiency, not folate.

Both vitamin B-12 and vitamin C do share one thing, though. They are destroyed by cooking.

Raw liver has a fair amount of vitamin C and B-12. I know I don't have to tell you that citrus fruits and strawberries have lots of vitamin C.

Raw animal products of most any kind have sufficient b-12 in them. Raw dairy, raw fish, raw liver especially. If you are worried about parasites, supplement with coconut or coconut oil, hydrogen peroxide, crushed papaya seeds, crushed squash or pumpkin seeds, or other anti-parasitics.

I myself use a lot of hydrogen peroxide internally, as well as coconut oil.

I enjoy a lot of raw shrimp with the heads on, raw liver, raw fish eggs, raw dairy in season, raw oysters, clams, coconut oil, dulse, as well as plenty of raw fruits.

Some of the weston price crowd thinks I'm unusually hardcore.

If you're going to eat raw oysters, fine, but I don't recommend it unless you have some way to deal with the food poisoning. I've gotten pretty sick twice from raw oysters.


I drink 1-3 quarts of water a day. That's been true for years now. I try not to eat within 3 hours of bedtime. I also drink most of my water early in the day, before I eat.

Truly unrefined sea salt is very useful for the digestion. I recommend it highly for all chronic digestion problems.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
official weirdest google link below the page...

http://turtlesale.com/home.html

Oooh, they have wholesale pricing!!!

TURTLE ARMY, GO
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I myself use a lot of hydrogen peroxide internally

I hope this is fairly dilute?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Yah, Rivka.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
I completely understand that very dilute H2O2 is very useful for medical purposes (though this is the first I've heard of it ingested) I have to always laugh because my first thought of the stuff is always as rocket fuel [Smile] but that's just the Rocket Scientist in me

[edit] that being said, German and Russian soldiers were known to drink real rocket fuel undiluted, so I shouldn't be that suprised/amused
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
H2Os is quite useful for detox of heavy metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I'm curious, how does sea salt aid in digestion, and how does H2O2, when taken internally, detox the body of heavy metals?

I'm not asking to pick a fight, which I feel is a necessary point to make in this thread, but simply because it's been years since my biology classes, and I'm unsure what specific effects these might have.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
OK, here's more support. Bob sent me an article on folic acid deficiency and neural tube defects. The article clearly showed a link between that particular vitamin deficiency and neural tube defects in human infants. Dr. Price quotes at least a dozen or more studies that show clear links between single-vitamin-deficient-diets in animals and specific, predictable birth defects.

Price readly admitted that certain deficiencies produce different results between species, but always the same result within a given species.

native americans knew how to prevent scurvy by eating certain adrenal glands and the inner walls of animals' stomachs. Dr. Price tested the vitamin C content of these foods and found it to be extremely high.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Scurvy is a vitamin C deficiency, not folate.

Both vitamin B-12 and vitamin C do share one thing, though. They are destroyed by cooking.

Raw liver has a fair amount of vitamin C and B-12. I know I don't have to tell you that citrus fruits and strawberries have lots of vitamin C.

Raw animal products of most any kind have sufficient b-12 in them. Raw dairy, raw fish, raw liver especially. If you are worried about parasites, supplement with coconut or coconut oil, hydrogen peroxide, crushed papaya seeds, crushed squash or pumpkin seeds, or other anti-parasitics.

I myself use a lot of hydrogen peroxide internally, as well as coconut oil.

I enjoy a lot of raw shrimp with the heads on, raw liver, raw fish eggs, raw dairy in season, raw oysters, clams, coconut oil, dulse, as well as plenty of raw fruits.

Some of the weston price crowd thinks I'm unusually hardcore.

If you're going to eat raw oysters, fine, but I don't recommend it unless you have some way to deal with the food poisoning. I've gotten pretty sick twice from raw oysters.


I drink 1-3 quarts of water a day. That's been true for years now. I try not to eat within 3 hours of bedtime. I also drink most of my water early in the day, before I eat.

Truly unrefined sea salt is very useful for the digestion. I recommend it highly for all chronic digestion problems.

Translated: She blinded me with pseudo-science!


quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Yah, Rivka.

Translated

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
H2Os is quite useful for detox of heavy metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium.

Translated: Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Sea salt increases digestive secretions of all types, particularly HydroChloric acid in the stomach. More acid=more total breakdown of the food.

Peroxide worked for a guy I know of who used to work in the mining industry. He had 4 times the lethal limit of lead and cadmium in his body, and was told by his doctor that he had two weeks to live. He was sleeping 22 hours a day, and had other very unpleasant symptoms. He started taking peroxide, and 3 days later his symptoms started showing noticeable improvement. After 18 months of peroxide taken internally, his heavy metal numbers had dropped by half. He was and is still free of the problems he had from the heavy metals. This was back in the early 90s. He's still around today.

Peroxide is generally known for this property among the health-food-store crowd.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Both vitamin B-12 and vitamin C do share one thing, though. They are destroyed by cooking.

Raw liver has a fair amount of vitamin C and B-12. I know I don't have to tell you that citrus fruits and strawberries have lots of vitamin C.

Raw animal products of most any kind have sufficient b-12 in them. Raw dairy, raw fish, raw liver especially. If you are worried about parasites, supplement with coconut or coconut oil, hydrogen peroxide, crushed papaya seeds, crushed squash or pumpkin seeds, or other anti-parasitics.

If eating raw animals were the only way to get B-12, quite a sizable portion of the population would get B-12 deficiency, which has serious neurological consequences. So there must be other ways to get B-12 besides eating raw meat.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I feel the need to point out that while dilute H2O2 has legitimate external uses, taking it internally (especially if insufficiently diluted) is potentially quite dangerous.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
I feel the need to point out that while dilute H2O2 has legitimate external uses, taking it internally (especially if insufficiently diluted) is potentially quite dangerous.

My stomach is acting up just thinking about it!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
A sizable portion of the elderly do indeed get a B-12 deficiency, resulting in dementia and anemia.


From the Wiki on B-12:

"B12 deficiency is the cause of several forms of anemia. The treatment for this disease was first devised by William Murphy who bled dogs to make them anemic and then fed them various substances to see what (if anything) would make them healthy again. He discovered that ingesting large amounts of liver seemed to cure the disease. George Minot and George Whipple then set about to chemically isolate the curative substance and ultimately were able to isolate vitamin B12 from the liver. For this, all three shared the 1934 Nobel Prize in Medicine."

Told ya. And B-12 is very heat-sensitive. Over-cook it, and it denatures.


The wiki claims that b-12 is present in fortified breakfast cereals. However, common sense will tell us that, until further scientific testing is available, the smart money is on getting it from naturally-occurring sources.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Oh, and steven? I resent the implication that we are all dietarily ignorant because we don't agree with your particular view on diet. Many of us have strong backgrounds in health and science and have quite a bit of knowledge about diet and its relationship to health.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
A sizable portion of the elderly do indeed get a B-12 deficiency, resulting in dementia and anemia.


From the Wiki on B-12:

"B12 deficiency is the cause of several forms of anemia. The treatment for this disease was first devised by William Murphy who bled dogs to make them anemic and then fed them various substances to see what (if anything) would make them healthy again. He discovered that ingesting large amounts of liver seemed to cure the disease. George Minot and George Whipple then set about to chemically isolate the curative substance and ultimately were able to isolate vitamin B12 from the liver. For this, all three shared the 1934 Nobel Prize in Medicine."

Told ya. And B-12 is very heat-sensitive. Over-cook it, and it denatures.


The wiki claims that b-12 is present in fortified breakfast cereals. However, common sense will tell us that, until further scientific testing is available, the smart money is on getting it from naturally-occurring sources.

The elderly get B-12 deficiency because of absorption problems, not because they don't eat raw meat. Even if they ate raw meat, they might have B-12 deficiency.

Your response does not address the vast majority of the population that is clearly not walking around with B-12 deficiency.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Sometimes I hate the Internet. I tried researching the effects of salt in the digestive process, and every link I found was a page selling some kind of specialty salt, going on and on about how awesome it is, or a page by salt-haters talking about how you wouldn't drink chlorine from the swimming pool, but you eat salt, which is the SAME THING!!!!!!!

I think people should be required to pass a basic test on whatever they're making a website about, and if they don't understand the basics of what they're talking about, they should be required to learn.

Time to look up the effects of ingested H2O2 on heavy metal concentrations. Wish me luck.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven do you understand the chemical reaction mechanism by which hydrogen peroxide works?

Have you ever heard of oxidation-reduction reactions?

AJ
(and god please, please tell me that you're using H2O2 at less than 3% concentration, cause concentrated hydrogen peroxide can cause serious damage to mucous membranes)
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, thousands of people use peroxide both internally and as a mouth rinse daily. I've been doing so myself for months, and the people I know who suggest it have been doing so for years. If it weren't safe, I'd know.

If you must know, I use about 8-10 drops of the food-grade 35% in a quart of water.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Well, that's certainly less than 3%.

(Homeopathic-concentration H2O2. What's next?)
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
I feel the need to point out that while dilute H2O2 has legitimate external uses, taking it internally (especially if insufficiently diluted) is potentially quite dangerous.

quote:
Hydrogen peroxide, if spilled on clothing (or other flammable materials), will preferentially evaporate water until the concentration reaches sufficient strength, then clothing will spontaneously ignite. Leather generally contains metal ions from the tanning process and will often catch fire almost immediately.
Cool! Yet another "Hey honey! Watch THIS!" moment I need to experience!
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Um.... Hydrogen peroxide comes in lots of concentrations. The stuff you buy over the counter is normally about 3%.

Stuff like this is going to knock your socks off:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIAL/316989

and none of the "hydrogen peroxide" you are going to buy anywhere could be considered "natural" it's all made from chemical synthesis.

AJ
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I'm having similar luck with Hydrogen Peroxide as a treatment. I've found a couple warnings that high concentration H2O2 is dangerous, and several quack pages about the magic of Oxygen, which use lots of completely incorrect science to describe how H2O2 will cure you of everything and make your house turn into gold.

Anyone familiar with any medical studies on H2O2 as an internal heavy metal treatment? I had no luck searching the NiH database or various other health websites.

It's tough to find good information.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven I repeat... regardless of whether it is safe or not...do you understand the chemical reaction mechanism by which hydrogen peroxide works?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, do you understand how little I care?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Banna, do you understand how little I care?

Translated: I love to huff paint.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It takes one to know one, Primal.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
why wouldn't you care? OR why don't you care? If it improves your health don't you care about how it works?

Hydrogen peroxide is chemically structured as

H-O-O-H each oxygen molecule has a -1 electric charge and each hydrogen molecule has a +1 electric charge.

The way hydrogen peroxide works, is that it is called an "oxidizing agent" It grabs electrons from its surroundings and breaks apart so that each oxygen will have a -2 electric charge rather than a -1 electric charge.

You don't think that's cool? It kills germs by stealing their electrons.

AJ
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
It takes one to know one, Primal.

Translated: My witty repartee is lacking, so I take all my material from 3rd grade recess.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
...and it can incinerate my entire wardrobe by "stealing their electrons," too! How cool is that?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
again, Primal, it takes one....who even huffs paint? it wasn't until I got out into the world that I discovered that people did such idiotic things.
 
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Come on, folks.... You're better than this.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Janitor:
Come on, folks.... You're better than this.

Translated: Primal, you knew I'd come in here sooner or later. Don't make me put you back in "the box."
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I still think electron stealing molecules are cool.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
I still think electron stealing molecules are cool.

They're like the Hamburglers of the microscopic world.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
The Hamburgler is by boy! So, by relation H2O2 is also my boy, which I fully support because I can use it to disinfect my scrapes and it can fuel my rocket engines [Smile]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Both vitamin B-12 and vitamin C do share one thing, though. They are destroyed by cooking.
Not true. Vitamin C breaks down rapidly at temperatures greater than 100°C but B12 does not.

B12 is only available from animal and bacterial sources. It is not accessable in common plant foods unless they have been fermented.

Vitamin C is widely available in a large variety of plants include most fruits an vegetables. The best sources for vitamin C are raw fruits. Although it breaks down rapidly at high temperatures, it is reasonably well preserved in dried fruits.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
Peroxide worked for a guy I know of who used to work in the mining industry. He had 4 times the lethal limit of lead and cadmium in his body, and was told by his doctor that he had two weeks to live. He was sleeping 22 hours a day, and had other very unpleasant symptoms. He started taking peroxide, and 3 days later his symptoms started showing noticeable improvement.
I don't think an intervention that saved someone from imminent death is necessarily a good preventive measure.

Rivka and I had an extensive discussion on oxygenated water and carbonated drinks and their effects on the blood one time. I'm having a hard time imagining what peroxide would do.

Anyway, I found out I suffered form orthorexia nervosa a few years ago. It's not really an official diagnosis yet, but I think it might be good to look into. Cutting stuff out of one's diet because of symptoms other people are experiencing, well... how do I say this... I'm glad I don't do that anymore.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
whoops, folate is heat-labile. B-12 is not.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
why wouldn't you care? OR why don't you care? If it improves your health don't you care about how it works?

Hydrogen peroxide is chemically structured as

H-O-O-H each oxygen molecule has a -1 electric charge and each hydrogen molecule has a +1 electric charge.

The way hydrogen peroxide works, is that it is called an "oxidizing agent" It grabs electrons from its surroundings and breaks apart so that each oxygen will have a -2 electric charge rather than a -1 electric charge.

You don't think that's cool? It kills germs by stealing their electrons.

AJ

Hydrogen peroxide is even weirder than that. It can act as either a reducing agent or an oxidizing agent depending on the pH. Under acidic conditions, it will oxidize inorganic species but at high pH it will reduce the same species. When it acts as a reducing agent, Oxygen gas is released.

The bubbling that people commonly associate with hydrogen peroxide can be caused either by a reduction reaction of thermal decomposition. Where as bacterial killing is usually the result of oxidation. So if the H2O2 is bubbling, you probably aren't killing anything.

Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (~>30%) is very unstable at room temperature. Unless you are storing it in a refrigerator it will break down in less than 24 hours leaving you with very dilute hydrogen peroxide.

As an antisceptic, hydrogen peroxide is relatively ineffective. It is basically useless against plaque. Gargling with dilute hydrogen peroxide has no demonstrable effect on plaque or other common oral microbiota.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
H2Os is quite useful for detox of heavy metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium.

This is very unlikely. You'd be better off using a chelating agent than peroxide.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Rabbit I was trying to keep it in very non-technical terms. H2O2 is darn cool.

But, I'm pretty sure even in its reducing mode it does kill things, even if it is just cellular tissue, which means it's as likely to kill a good cell as a bad cell but I wasn't going to go there.

(And yes, we have concentrated H2O2 that we keep in our lab fridge, and I have to routinely work with a 10% solution diluted down from the refrigerated concentrate and that stuff is soo nasty...)

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I have other reasons for thinking peroxide is very good at removing heavy metals from the body.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Peroxide is like a group of miners in your body- ready to remove them metals.

Now, as to heavy metals, those can only be removed by a large, conservative lobbying group.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
AJ, In the studies I'm familiar with on peroxide action on bacteria and bacterial biofilms, it does not kill bacterial under reducing conditions. Its been about 5 years since I've looked at this literature but I'll see if I can still find the references if you are interested.
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
The thing is, it's unlikely the H2O2 will actually get to any heavy metals to have the desired effect. There are too many peroxide scavangers floating around, and peroxide is too reactive and unspecific. There's a reason chelating agents are always used in heavy metal poisonings.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
sorry, I said it backwards... my bad. The peroxide is an oxidizing agent, therefore it is being reduced and gaining electrons itself.... we are on the same page...

AJ
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
While folate is heat label, the rate of break down is very slow. The exact break down rate is influenced by the medium its in. It breaks down more rapidly in vegetables than it does in meats. Even though the folate levels are reduced by cooking, they also become more accessable to humans when foods are cooked. Cooked beans, lentils, dark leafy vegetables and broccolli all contain significant amounts of folate after they have been cooked. A single serving of cooked lentils will provide you with 89.5% of your daily folate. A single serving of braised calf's liver will provide you with over 200% of your daily require folate.

I will note the the role of folate deficiency in birth defects is widely accepted as is the importance of folate for a variety of other factors. In this, Price is correct. My objection to your arguments is that folate is only available from eating raw organs. This is verifiably untrue.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Bob the lawyer, can you point me to studies? I have heard all kinds of things about chelation, good and bad.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven what are these "other reasons" you have for thinking peroxide is useful? Can it be explained in a chemical reaction? Why or why not?

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Rabbit, I was pointing out the very real problem of varying rates of absorption. Different people absorb and use different nutrients at very different rates.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, do you have access to metallic mercury in your lab? Pour about a half cc of that into about 4-6 ounces of H2O2, about 15-20% concentration. Watch what happens to the mercury.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I leave now. Tomorrow I shall return.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Rabbit, I was pointing out the very real problem of varying rates of absorption. Different people absorb and use different nutrients at very different rates.

Recent studies have showns that nearly all people adsorb nutrients at very nearly the same rates. The big exception being the ~ 1/3% of the population (of which I am one) who suffer from maladsorption diseases.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Do you think something similar happens in your body, stephen?
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Insofar as chelation studies go, they aren't ideal for treatments either, because they tend to bind metals you don't want them to bind (although that's better than reacting with everything in site a la peroxide). Sadly, I no longer work in biochemistry so I don't have handy data at my fingertips any more, but look at the treatments for any heavy metal overload condition, you won't see peroxide mentioned anywhere.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Banna, do you have access to metallic mercury in your lab? Pour about a half cc of that into about 4-6 ounces of H2O2, about 15-20% concentration. Watch what happens to the mercury.

steven, Metallic mercury is so toxic that almost no one has it in their lab any more. I know, and I'm sure BannaJ also knows that metallic mercury will react with hydrogen peroxide. That isn't the issue. The issue are:

1. Hydrogen peroxide is so reactive that it will never make it to sites in the central nervous system or your connective tissues which are likely to bind mercury. It will all react very quickly in your mouth and stomach so no peroxide is going to be absorbed.

2. Mercury that is bound to your central nervous system or connective tissues isn't metallic mercury. It is far less likely to react with peroxide that metallic mercury.

3. What you need to remove heavy metals is something that those heavy metals will bind to more tightly than they bind to your body (i.e. a chelating agent). That something also needs to be water soluble and readily removed in your kidneys. Peroxide just doesn't do that.

[ December 11, 2006, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
sorry, I said it backwards... my bad. The peroxide is an oxidizing agent, therefore it is being reduced and gaining electrons itself.... we are on the same page...

AJ

No AJ, peroxide is an oxidizing agent under some conditions and a reducing agent under other conditions. It is moderately effective at killing bacteria under conditions where it is an oxidizing agent but ineffective at killing bacteria under conditions where it acts as a reducing agent.

Even under the best conditions, it just isn't that good for sterilizing things. In the oral cavity (i.e. mouth, throat etc.) its probably not harmful but also at best has negligible effect on killing oral bacteria.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Peroxide may kill bacteria where it is an oxidizing agent.

Whether or not it kills bacteria... it *will* bleach and kill skin cells.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/vhp_factsheet.htm#bkmrk1

Interesting stuff although this is in a more concentrated form.

AJ

Also:
http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/6/2123
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Oh yeah... what Rabbit said about the Mercury. I'd never ever do anything like that with Mercury. I'd probably do riskier things with other chemicals but mercury is one of those things you simply don't mess with, if at all possible. I have no desire to die mad as a hatter.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Yeah, I used concentrated (30%) hydrogen peroxide in parts of my PhD research. If you get it on your fingers, it kills the outer layer of cells are turns them white. Its sort of curious because it doesn't really burn your fingers. It doesn't hurt at all. The effect seems to be limited to the outmost layer of cells which are dead anyway and the what patch slough off in about a day leaving no evidence behind.

This doesn't happen with more dilute hydrogen peroxide.

I used to titrate the peroxide with permanganate to verify the concentration but I could always tell very quickly if the stuff was still good by putting small drop on my hand and seeing if my skin turned white. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but not nearly as dangerous as drinking the stuff.

BTW, If you buy food grade 35% hydrogen peroxide at a health store and its not refrigerated, your wasting your money on water. If it doesn't leave white spots when it contacts your skin, it ain't concentration hydrogen peroxide.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
A former student of mine called last week from Italy, where she is currently in school. She took HS biology and chemistry with me, but was not the best student. Very interested, but entirely too distractible.

She was telling me about a mercury spill they had a few days before (why on earth does anyone still keep a mercury thermometer around for daily use?), and was all excited . . . because she had known to keep everyone away from the mercury (good) until after she disinfected it with rubbing alcohol (oy vey).

We had a little chat about the differences between a pathogen and a poison . . .
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
A former student of mine called last week from Italy, where she is currently in school. She took HS biology and chemistry with me, but was not the best student. Very interested, but entirely too distractible.

She . . . was all excited . . . because she had known to keep everyone away from the mercury (good) until after she disinfected it with rubbing alcohol (oy vey).

Yikes!! Not exactly the kind of call that teachers like to get.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Actually, the call was about something else, and I was happy to get it. But yeah, disinfecting mercury with alcohol . . . *wince*
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
If I splash the 10% H2O2 I get white on me... and for me it does tingle a bit about 5 minutes after it happens... about the time the white shows up.

AJ
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
I doubt this will make a difference to steven, but the FDA has issued a warning against taking hydrogen peroxide internally:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01420.html
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
If I splash the 10% H2O2 I get white on me... and for me it does tingle a bit about 5 minutes after it happens... about the time the white shows up.

AJ

If I remember correctly, 10% hydrogen peroxide is actually somewhat more reactive than the more concentrated stuff.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ela:
I doubt this will make a difference to steven, but the FDA has issued a warning against taking hydrogen peroxide internally:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01420.html

Well, to be fair, that warning is about "high strength" (billed as 35%) hydrogen peroxide.

They don't really say that lower concentrations are bad for you. Maybe if you use 34% you'll be just fine?

I personally tend to avoid swallowing things that say "for external use only."
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
It's what's being implied, Dag, not what I'm actually being called. It's also not Bob, mainly, but Kwea, who called me an arrogant ass over on sakeriver when he knew I was reading that forum.

You are. I didn't say anything over there I am ashamed of, or that I haven't said here, in this very thread. I may have used different language because of which forum I was using, and the rules on each, but I think I have been fairly clear about what I think about your behavior in this thread.


You see, steven, unlike you I don't pretend to be 3 or 4 different people, here or elsewhere. I don't delete threads because someone called me a name. I don't delete my own posts just because I have made an ass of myself, or said something completely indefensible. (God knows I have done both at times.)

You are guilty of all of the above. Multiple times.


I notice you don't quote any of the good stuff I said, in this thread or on Sakeriver. I started this thread for a number of reasons....not the least of which was to give you a chance to prove that you could converse on this topic intelligently, politely, and coherently. You have failed, miserably, on all counts so far.


PC didn't start with the insults, you idiot...YOU did, with a VERY personal attack on TomD. And that was just the first of them from you.


I have the quote saved, since you deleted it....do you need a refresher on what YOU have said to directly insult others here so far?

I started this thread at least in part to let you have a chance, a chance you claimed we had unfairly denied you in the past, and you have done nothing but whine, insult, and complain the whole time. I have addressed the very few coherent thoughts you have presented respectfully, despite your complete lack of credentials, experience, and general knowledge of the scientific method.


None of which has stopped you from acting like the rest of us know nothing, or stopped you from talking down to us.


I have not seen ONE person in this thread, myself included, deny a very strong relation between behavior and over all health with diet. Not one....but your "counter posts" show one of two things.

You either are not reading the responses you are getting, or you do not understand the points being made.


Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it is a scientific truth. People have been breathing oxygen for how long, steven? [Roll Eyes] But too much oxygen can kill, or cause serious medical conditions. A lot of things are good in moderation, but in excess can kill you. But up to the point of actual experimentation, how would anyone KNOW that?


Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean that further tests/experiments are unnecessary!

Just because everyone in Ohio (that you met, or admit to meeting anyway) had good teeth AND kissed their cousins doesn't mean that if everyone kissed their cousins their teeth would all become perfect.


At least you admit that SOME physical activity MIGHT improve your health as well. THAT has been SCIENTIFICALLY proved over and over again for years. There is a reason why astronauts exercise in space, and it is not just because of the muscle strength they lose up there. They lose bone density as well, and that can't be easily remedied once the bone loss has begin.


I don't think most people here care what you eat, steven. What we DO care about is your false sense of superiority, and your false scientific claims.

If someone observes something to be true 10 times, or 100 time, it doesn't mean that it is always true, or even usually true. There is a difference between personal belief and science, steven, that you just don't seem to get. Nor do you seem to want to get it.


Best of luck with you future cases of food poisoning, and thank you for once again proving that listening to you is the height of foolishness. I just hope you don't seriously injure yourself due to your "Scientifically proven " eating habits. [Frown]

[ December 11, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
Hydrogen peroxide is even weirder than that. It can act as either a reducing agent or an oxidizing agent depending on the pH. Under acidic conditions, it will oxidize inorganic species but at high pH it will reduce the same species. When it acts as a reducing agent, Oxygen gas is released.
Oh, that is interesting in the context of hemogloblin interacting with o2 and co2 according to pH . I think what it might mean, in accordance with my first statement, is that the peroxide would act as a reducer in oxygen depleted conditions and as an oxidizer in oxygen rich conditions. Granted, everything I know on this topic was gleaned from a series of wiki links, so take it with a grain of sea salt.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
hemoglobin is a lot more complicated than that. The shape of the molecule actually changes with pH so that the receptor sites also change to grab o2 or co2, and take them whichever direction they need to go in the bloodstream (correct me medicos if I've oversimplified too much)

AJ
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Molbio/MolStudents/spring2005/Heiner/hemoglobin.html
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
That's a little over my head, to be honest. I know what you are saying, but am not able to comment on how accurate it is. [Wink]


ME EMT-B. Airway, Breathing, Control Bleeding....TRANSPORT! STAT!


UGH.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:

Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it is a scientific truth.

This is an issue.

Some claim may be convincing to a given person because it is based on generally convincing reasons, or because that person is just easily convinced.

---

Edited to add: In matters of claims about health, I think it is good to keep the bar raised on what one considers to be convincing.

Additionally, it's an area (I think) we should especially strive to get the details straight. Makes a difference, and it matters.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I could be wrong, but I think Dr. Price acknowledges often that whole grains ought to be cooked for best absorption.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:

Some claim may be convincing to a given person because it is based on generally convincing reasons, or because that person is just easily convinced.

Then whenever there is evidence to the contrary, it should be openly taught and investigated, absolutely! People will still believe what they want to believe.

If there is no scientific evidence against it, then I don't see a problem. It isn't science, but what is the harm in doing what seems right to you?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
But there is quite a bit of scientific evidence against many of steven's recommendations. Much of which has been cited in this thread and others like it in the past.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
And I am perfectly fine with that information being posted where it can be seen often and never deleted. Beyond that, what is needed?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
You asked:
quote:
If there is no scientific evidence against it, then I don't see a problem. It isn't science, but what is the harm in doing what seems right to you?
I answered.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Note the "if".
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
An "if" which is not true for many (possibly most) of steven's recommendations.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The quantity mattereth not.

My point is, what is required beyond: steven, that practice is unsafe because of X, Y, and Z, and here are the sources to back it up. I really am curious about all the discussion I missed out on and how much of it consisted of that.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Quite a bit.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Beyond that, beverly, is that many times what is being talked about is not practice A being unsafe because of X, Y, and Z. What is being talked about is the scientific method, with the conclusions made about practice A and the manner in which those conclusions are arrived at being used to focus that discussion. Steven has made implicit statements about the scientific method in his defense of his claims - statements that are generally inaccurate.

He has also consistently mischaracterized people's posts, ridiculed them for not accepting his "obvious" truths, and made numerous threads extolling his superiority as compared to that of hatrack in general. I'd link them, but he's deleted most of them - usually after someone has taken the time to present a post demonstrating the extent of steven's mischaracterizations of others' posts.

He posted a thread on an alt whose sole purpose was to ridicule Hatrack because some people here are creationists.

This is why more is needed than merely correcting factual statements about practices A, B, and C. This isn't - and never has been - about specific practices or even convincing steven. It has been about attempting to correct massive and popular misperceptions about what science is why it matters that its authority not be misused.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
The quantity mattereth not.

But it does. If someone gave you stock tips (or recipes, or parenting advice, or driving route suggestions, or whatever) which were more often bad than good, you would stop relying on them, right?

If the majority of someone's health tips are things that are either proven wrong, or have strong negative contraindications, I would think one might stop giving any of their claims on related topics much weight.
 
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
 
Here are two examples:
quote:
steven wrote: That said, you can have crooked teeth with or without these patterns. The point being....ta daaa....distortions are clearly a result of nutritional deficiencies. The proof of this is that you can produce the same patterns in animals by restricting their vitamin and mineral intake.
As stated, such a result proves no such thing. This is not to argue that there is not a connection between nutrition and health, or between diet and specific health problems. But it's nearly impossible -- okay, impossible -- to have a useful, insightful discussion on two sides of an issue when one side continually asserts their points are 'proven' while clearly harboring deep, abiding, and obstinate misunderstandings about what actually constitutes 'proof.'
quote:
steven wrote: Karl, the idea that anyone here has anything to teach me about nutrition is laughable.
At some point Steven was a bright, observant young man with an interest in nutrition. He eagerly read source materials, monitored his own diet, tried out different foods with his pets, observed the eating habits, physique, and evident general health of those around him, etc. During this time, I think one could say he felt that the world in general had plenty to teach him about nutrition.

Unfortunately, it seems likely to me that he never felt anyone had anything to teach him about science and scientific practice -- so ironically, just when he has arrived at what he apparently considers the final oracle of all nutritional wisdom, it is based on faulty reasoning.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Cool link, Banna. I'm always glad to know a bit more about how hemogolin behaves. It's amazing to me that you can have blood going to a part of the body, but if that part is warm or alkaline, it will not oxygenate it, but "save" the oxygen for a part of the body that needs it more. The body is amazing, and anyone who thinks they know everything about it is a fool.

Though I'll grant there are varying qualities of foolery. [Smile]
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
beverly, I also think many of us here view it as a general moral imperitive to both try to inform steven of his misunderstandings as well as clearly inform others that his statements are likely suspect. If he were allowed to continue posting all this bad science as if it were absolute truth (without others knowledgably pointing out fallacies) then there is a greater chance that someone might harm themselves by following bad advice and/or further the use of bad science on other issues.

steven is effectively running around yelling "fire" without any evidence that there is one. in some cases he may be right, but in many others the rest of us deem it best for public safety to point out that his reasoning for yelling fire is generally faulty and that many times we can clearly point out there is no fire. But if others start believing him problems can ensue.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:
Originally posted by Ela:
I doubt this will make a difference to steven, but the FDA has issued a warning against taking hydrogen peroxide internally:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01420.html

Well, to be fair, that warning is about "high strength" (billed as 35%) hydrogen peroxide.

They don't really say that lower concentrations are bad for you. Maybe if you use 34% you'll be just fine?

I personally tend to avoid swallowing things that say "for external use only."

I know steven isn't taking hydrogen peroxide at full strength. I was looking more at these statements from the link:
quote:
FDA is working to stop companies selling high-strength hydrogen peroxide from making illegal medical claims about their products. These claims are illegal because these products do not have FDA approval and are therefore being sold illegally for medical indications without any proven clinical value.
quote:
"No one has presented any evidence that hydrogen peroxide taken internally has any medical value.

 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
As far food poisoning goes, plenty of native groups in south america and africa used certain types of clay to prevent it. AFAIK, those clays are still in use today. I assume, although I don't know for sure, that those same clays would work against the food poisoning that people occasionally get from raw oysters and problematic meats.

Kwea, you started this thread. if you don't like my posts, delete the thread.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I fully realize that my claims may seem, to SOME degree, from certain perspectives, unproven. However, I have studied these issues for years, from different perspectives, and experimented for years. I don't mean to talk down to anyone, but I feel like the audience I am speaking to really doesn't understand that food has a huge influence on health, and that corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable. It's like asking the tobacco companies to conduct a study on the health effects of smoking.

What you geniuses don't realize is that, in some cases, anecdotal evidence is all there is. I really doubt anyone has ever done a controlled, double-blind study on food poisoning and healing clay. However, the fact that native groups use certain clays to control food poisoning is pretty persuasive to me. Particularly persuasive is the fact that groups on different continents recommend similar remedies for the same thing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I feel like the audience I am speaking to really doesn't understand that food has a huge influence on health, and that corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable.
Dude, you realize my wife IS an agricultural scientist, right? I'd love to see some of that corporate funding....

quote:
I really doubt anyone has ever done a controlled, double-blind study on food poisoning and healing clay.
And why haven't they? Is there something about homeopathy that prevents its proponents from doing good science?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
While there is a fair bit of evidence that geophagy has some use as a source of minerals, tests on its ability to prevent food poisoning have indicate that it does not do so.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I feel like the audience I am speaking to really doesn't understand that food has a huge influence on health
Which is exactly why many of us think you either aren't reading our posts or aren't understanding them.

quote:
and that corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable.
And what, exactly, is preventing someone from running a study outside their "control." I've seen the rationalizations people concoct to support not having to conduct clinical trials for homeopathic medicine, for aloe-vera/coffee enema treatments for cancer, and for a whole host of clinical supplements. I haven't even seen the rationale for not having studies done to confirm your diet recomendations.

quote:
It's like asking the tobacco companies to conduct a study on the health effects of smoking.
And yet, somehow, we know have scientific studies about the harms caused by smoking.

quote:
What you geniuses
Finally, some acknowledgment of your audience. [Wink]

quote:
in some cases, anecdotal evidence is all there is.
Which is fine. Just don't try to say the conclusions for which only anecdotal evidence exists have been proven.


quote:
However, the fact that native groups use certain clays to control food poisoning is pretty persuasive to me. Particularly persuasive is the fact that groups on different continents recommend similar remedies for the same thing.
There are numerous traditional remedies that have developed independently on different continents that are, quite simply, bunk. There's no reason not to do a double-blind study.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I really doubt anyone has ever done a controlled, double-blind study on food poisoning and healing clay.
And why haven't they? Is there something about homeopathy that prevents its proponents from doing good science?
It's not homeopathy, Tom. And there are significant ethical issues, of course.

Double-blind there aren't (IIRC), but there ARE studies. The book I have on ancient remedies and scientific studies of them is at home, but I'll try to find it tonight.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
And why haven't they? Is there something about homeopathy that prevents its proponents from doing good science?
Healing clay, strictly speaking, is not homepoathy. Homeopathy is a specific type of natural "remedies" that, for some stupid reason, has an almost totally unique exemption from the FDA regulation.
 
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
 
quote:
I fully realize that my claims may seem, to SOME degree, from certain perspectives, unproven.
What you don't seem to realize is that there is ONE perspective from which scientific matters may be considered 'proven,' not many. If you take any other perspective but that of rigorous science, you are only entitled to use expressions such as 'I find this convincing,' 'this has worked in my experience,' 'I believe this warrants further study,' 'I feel the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming,' 'these studies may not have been peer-reviewed or replicated by contemporary standards, but don't you think they are interesting,' and so forth.

Not, 'these reports prove themselves to be true beyond doubt, and brook no contradiction.'
quote:
However, I have studied these issues for years, from different perspectives, and experimented for years. I don't mean to talk down to anyone, but I feel like the audience I am speaking to really doesn't understand that food has a huge influence on health, and that corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable. ...
This makes a great deal of sense. There are multitudes of areas in modern life where 'western,' 'industrial,' 'popular,' or 'technological' solutions seem to have swept aside everything from folk wisdom to spirituality to common sense.

But just because that may be so in the field of nutrition, does not by itself endorse, let alone prove, any given revolutionary alternative.
quote:
What you geniuses don't realize is that, in some cases, anecdotal evidence is all there is.
I think we genii realized that back on page one -- we were trying to determine if YOU realized it [Smile]

Now to understand the limits of anecdotal evidence.

I feel we're getting somewhere!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Regarding the cooking of grains: Grains are a whole other issue. The only grain that I have heare of that can be eaten raw and digested would be whole oats. Most grains require repeated soaking and fermenting, then cooking. I was a fruitarian for a long time, and I'm pretty used to picking up fruit at the market or off wild trees and bushes. It doesn't seem like much of a hassle to me to grab a few bananas at the grocery store on the way home from work, because I've been doing it for years. Soaking grains irritates me because I'm not used to it.

The real issue, beyond any of this, is food quality. Dr. price points out plenty of animal studies that show the effects of poor-quality feed over good-quality. He specifically mentions the fact that you can map soil quality by simply looking at the number of birth complications and other illnesses of the cows eating the pasture.

This is one area where Big Ag and Big Pharma are not your friend.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
steven, how old are you?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
btw, you can find controlled double blind studies on the use of acupuncture.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6320400&dopt=Abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/1242
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It gets really ugly when it comes to Big Ag and Big Pharma.

How, you say?

I'll tell you how.

1. N-P-K fertilizer is the main fertilizer used in agriculture. N-P-K stands for "nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium", which are all 3 important for plant health.

2. Calcium is the most important mineral in plant health. A plant with sufficient calcium is more likely to resist pests, disease, drought, and extreme cold. A plant with sufficient calcium is also healthier for you or me to eat.

3. N-P-K fertilizer is usually made from apatite. The main mineral in apatite is calcium. The calcium is removed prior to sale to farmers or you and me.

4. In many cases, the companies that sell N-P-K fertilizer also make pesticides and herbicides. When plants have enough calcium, they are much less likely to need pesticides and herbicides.

Any questions?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
What are your opinions on hydroponics? And the fact that all micronutrients can actually be supplied to a plant by chemical means?
http://www.genhydro.com/genhydro_US/nutrient_buffers.html
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Are you aware of the global nitrogen cycle, and how it is influenced by the global carbon and water cycles?

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Io soy treinte-uno.

The acupuncture meridians, Banna, are actually areas of increased skin conductance. The points on those meridians are areas of increased skin conductance. You can map this 1 or 2 ways, by measuring skin conductance directly, or with a SuperConducting quantum Interference Device, which shows the slightly stronger EMF created by the body at these points and meridians.

I have seen several acupuncture models produced by a German firm that actually used a S.Q.U.I.D. to map the points and meridians, and then created the rubber model.

Interestingly, there are a number of points that don't exist on any meridian. These points do not show up on traditional Chinese acupuncuture charts. AFAIK, they were not discovered until recently.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
My god, you think I didn't already know that when I brought acupuncture up??? (I mean I was highly amused that you thought most of your audience wouldn't know what N-P-K was, especially when I knew what they were by about the age of 7) oh yeah and that Potassium was Kalium and that Sodium was Natrium and Iron was Ferrite and Gold was Arum and Silver was Argentum

I know exactly what it does and have been avidly following the use of polyethylene glycol treatments for back problems in animals, although the same treatments probably won't work in humans due to differences in the neural relays for locomotion.

AJ

and there are statistically valid DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES for acupuncture treatments. If it's not that hard to get them there, why not everywhere else???
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I think aquaponics may be more useful that hydroponics. In aquaponics, fish waste directly feeds plants. All you add is light, minerals, and a temperature-controlled environment.

www.progressivegardens.com

That's my friend Evan Folds' page.

The issue with hydroponics is that fruiting plants need certain organic forms of the minerals. They form a symbiotic relationship with the mycorhizzal fungi in the soil The fruiting plant gives the fungi sugar, and the fungi searches out a certain micronutrient and delivers it directly to the plant in a plant-digestible form. With non-fruiting plants, this is not as big an issue.

I also like aquaponics because you can grow all your own seafood at home, in your basement or backyard.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
all your so-called "organics" that your fruiting plants need, can be completely synthizised from non-organic sources and the plants aint gonna know the difference.

AJ
Heck your man Evan even agrees with me on the chemistry of it.
http://www.progressivegardens.com/growers_guide/hydroponics.html
quote:
there is absolutely no difference in the final ion product with respect to synthetic nutrients and organic based nutrients. An ion is an ion. It is simply a different way of delivering the food to the plant. As has been stated, plants “eat” ions in an inorganic form in the end anyway. In other words, plants do not eat guano ions, or kelp ions; they eat the inorganic constituents of these materials after they have been broken down or dissolved in water.

 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
when you can get the same Brix and E.C. reading on a hydroponic tomato as on the best soil grown tomato, you let me know.

Evan is also working on mass-producing a system that allows the use of organics in a hydroponic setting. I am also the dude who told him about Brix and E.C. for determining plant health and food quality.
 
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
As far food poisoning goes, plenty of native groups in south america and africa used certain types of clay to prevent it. AFAIK, those clays are still in use today. I assume, although I don't know for sure, that those same clays would work against the food poisoning that people occasionally get from raw oysters and problematic meats.

Kwea, you started this thread. if you don't like my posts, delete the thread.

I DO like them. They prove me right....about you, about your attitude, and about your lack of scientific proof. Even if you HAD proved me wrong I wouldn't delete it.


I am NOT you.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Steven, what is a good way to get calcium into soil?

quote:
all your so-called "organics" that your fruiting plants need, can be completely synthizised from non-organic sources and the plants aint gonna know the difference.
I'm not convinced that this is true. Any one else read The Omnivore's Dilemma? (I am in the middle of it.) I would love to discuss the book with anyone who has read it.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Kaopectate is a refined suspension of kaolin = clay. It is semi-effective in treating intestinal malaise and might be considered useful in cases of food poisoning.

Rats (a species notably lacking in the ability to vomit) will engage in geophagy when poisoned.

Women throughout the rural areas of America did, until very recently, eat laundry starch. It has been hypothesized that this was a reaction to vitamin deficiencies.

Luckily, I live in a community where I can:
1) Usually avoid food poisoning by staying away from tainted products.
2) Get treated at a local hospital far more effectively than I could if I just ate dirt.
3) Get further treatment if I was so stupid as to actually eat dirt from anywhere that is accessible to me (I live in a city of 50,000 people and where the likelihood of finding untainted soil is practically nil.
4) Buy vitamin supplements if, for some inexplicable reason, the completely random diet I ingest were to be sorely lacking in a particular nutrient. One pill a day, costing mere pennies, completely removes any worry of my ever suffering from a detectable vitamin or mineral deficiency. They even have old-persons versions of them so that when I survive to a ripe old age, I can switch to ones that meet my changing needs. How cool is that?


Seriously, in the time it would take me to find untainted soil to eat, I could be at my choice of at least 3 major medical centers or two local hospitals getting a far more effective treatment.

The amount of time and money I would have to spend researching which soils are beneficial, and then locating them, and keeping a rotating stock on hand just seems to be completely not worth it. I have medical insurance, so I really don't even need to worry about how much the doctor will cost if I do have to drag myself in for treatment. It's a co-pay, plus a percentage if there are hospital or non-covered expenses. It's not a perfect system, but it sure works better than having to hunt down reliable advice on which dirt to ingest.

My gosh, I've probably saved so much money over the years by NOT eating dirt that I could afford to go on vacation somewhere to see how other cultures handle their health. I might, for example, head east and see people who travel for days just to visit the Mayo Clinic! Those easterners really must be on to something, seeing as how so many of them go there.

I might head to Europe and watch as people make appointments, go to physicians, and get various treatments that have a known success rate. Who am I to argue with the wisdom of the "mother country?"

Then, heck, just for grins, I could go to the Mediterranean and then on to the Middle East, the places where written language, philosophy, mathematics and heck, so many amazing things first flowered. I could watch the people there as they pick up the phone, make appointments, use a modern transportation system to arrive on time, and obtain treatments from trained medical professionals and, wow! they get better too!

Call me foolish, but faced with all that evidence from so many millions of people, I just put aside my skepticism and say "who am I to argue with success?"

So I look around and notice THEY buy food in stores. THEY cook it. THEY do all these things. And they live longer than humans have ever lived in the history of our species (barring certain patriarchs who had special dispensation direct from God). Man oh man!

And then, darned if those people don't start trotting out the data and overwhelming with studies that are published in journals, but only after other qualified people have reviewed them and made comments or suggested corrections. And the studies are done with great care, all over the globe, to a nearly uniform set of standards for methods and treatment of human or animal subjects. Gah! I mean, sure, it's all just scientific evidence, but I find myself just compelled to believe it. Those people seem so sincere. And, then, of course, when I take my pills and/or follow my doctor's advice, exactly what the doctor says will happen actually DOES happen.

And I've heard of other people, like this lady down the block, who went to a doctor and got well.

And my grandmother, who suffered from a heart malady and was able to live a long/productive life with the aid of a few treatments. It's just personal experience, sure, but it made a believer out of me!

Ah well. What can I say. I'm just a fool for hundreds of years of track record of success. And that proof stuff really just reels me in every time.
 
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
 
steven....how many "natural" grown tomatoes have the reasfings of the "best"? Most don't I'd bet.


Setting the bar pretty hight, aren't we?


I could introduce you to some people at Disney who are working with NASA on hydroponic growing techniques if you would like. Although they might not want to bother....they use actual science as a basis for their work. [Wink]


The Behind the Seeds tour was great, and I learned a lot, but I learned even more by just talking to them about their work every time I go in to Disney.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Any one else read The Omnivore's Dilemma? (I am in the middle of it.) I would love to discuss the book with anyone who has read it.

I've read it. What would you like to discuss.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Well, there are two ways, IMO.

1. Crushed calcium-rich minerals, including oyster shell, apatite, or fish bones. You can buy these pretty easily.

2. Liquid minerals. I have never bought any. I have made my own from oyster shell and fish bone powder. I dissolve it in hydrochloric acid, then reprecipitate it using food-grade lye. You don't want to try this procedure without talking to me first. You can also buy Cal-mag supplements pretty easily for hydroponics settings.

I also recommend the use of a good seawater precipitate.

www.c-gro.com

is the site of one guy in Washington state. There are several companies selling it.

www.sea-crop.com

is another.

The sea minerals activate the microbes and fungi in the soil, making the calcium more available.

You will want to use a good-quality composted manure, as well as some perlite to loosen it all up, if you are talking about making a soil mix for gardening. If you are talking about pasturage, manure and perlite may not be necessary.

take a look over at

www.crossroads.ws

at the "Brix Book". It's a good starting point. the rest of the site is largely weird.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Hey Jenni, where is all this coming from?

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about fruiting plants. I grew an 11-brix cherry tomato this last year, and it was pretty good. I have heard of 15-brix tomatoes, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of an 18-brix. I never said it can't be done hydroponically, but it hasn't been done yet.

I had to explain Brix to my friend Evan, who owns a hydroponics shop, and has a degree in plant biology. From what I've heard, most hydroponics people are totally clueless about Brix.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable. It's like asking the tobacco companies to conduct a study on the health effects of smoking.

How then do you explain the over 50,000 articles I found through google scholar which identify nutritional benefits to grass fed meat, eggs and dairy when compared to grain fed animals? These findings are clearly not in the best interest of corporate industrial agriculture and yet there is mounting scholarly work in the area.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
corporate interests have largely coopted food and agriculture science, rendering most large-scale studies of anything related to these areas unreliable. It's like asking the tobacco companies to conduct a study on the health effects of smoking.

How then do you explain the over 50,000 articles I found through google scholar which identify nutritional benefits to grass fed meat, eggs and dairy when compared to grain fed animals? These findings are clearly not in the best interest of corporate industrial agriculture and yet there is mounting scholarly work in the area.
The cows hired Jack Abramoff?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Rabbit, I trust you are far well versed than I in scientific matters. What is your overall opinion of the correctness of what is there?

I was intrigued with what it said about science only being able to control for limited variables and the complicated nature of life and how science falls short of being able to understand what is really going on, the tendancy to think we know all the answers once something has been proven. The idea that feeding the soil with synthesized chemicals may be woefully incomplete as well as being an unsustainable practice.

The idea that a carrot in Florida may be more nutritious than a carrot in Wisconsin, but such studies are problematic for the carrots from Florida, so they stop running such studies. The idea that nutrition is far more complex than we keep thinking. We thought we knew it all when we discovered vitamins. But new substances are being found again and again in food that are important to heath and how what we put into the soil effects these things in far more complicated ways than just N-P-K.

I was intrigued with the idea that often we don't *need* to know why something works in nature to successfully immitate it and get good results, and that dismantling the natural process, becoming further removed from it until we are almost completely out of touch with it is not wise. What really bothers me is how much the system keeps us from knowing the source of our food. What we don't know won't hurt us? I don't trust it myself.

The general unsustainability of our current food-system concerns me a great deal. That is a large part of why I want to live off of the land and provide for those around me. I want to provide an alternative to my local people than the food that burns thousands of gallons of oil to transport to the grocery stores.

I could go on, but at some point I need to pause for breath and a response. [Smile]
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
that brix site is a crock of hooey and appears to be one of the biggest mis-uses and abuses of a refractometer ever.

AJ
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
If you're interested in getting more calcium from plant sources, bev, I believe it is one of the minerals that is more accessible to humans from cooked vegetables than raw. There was a blurb in my local paper today (not a full article, so I doubt I can find a link, and it wasn't sourced, anyway.) that said that you get twice as much calcium from cooked broccoli than raw, for instance.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I usually like to eat my broccoli cooked until bright green and just-soft. Most of my raw veggies come in the form of leafy salad. [Smile]

Steven, don't you think it would be more accurate to say that calcium is one of the most important nutrients to plants overlooked by the NPK generalization? To say it is *the* most important, is a bit of an exaggeration. [Wink]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
No, Beverly. Plants need 2:1 calcium to magnesium, animals need the opposite, roughly speaking.

According to my sources, calcium really is the number one mineral for plants. Both my hydroponics friend Evan and the Brix people on the Brix yahoo group all agree calcium is it.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
How then do you explain the over 50,000 articles I found through google scholar which identify nutritional benefits to grass fed meat, eggs and dairy when compared to grain fed animals?
The sad fact is, while this is true, I don't ever see industialized agriculture getting into it. Yields go down too much, you have to spread out on the land, etc, etc.

I thought it was interesting what the Omnivore's Dilemma mentioned about industrialized organic companies trying to give people what they want without actually having to follow through with the implications, e.g.: the chickens who are called "free range" but the door to go outside never opens until 2 weeks before they are slaughtered and the hope is that by then they will have no desire to go outside. Apparently they don't.

There just isn't enough accountability when it is not a life-or-death issue like disease. When it is just quality-of-living level nutrition, it isn't enough of a motivator.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
This is from a "healing clay" yahoo group, by a poster who lives in France, and whose English is not all that wonderful:

"In France, you can get top quality clay, proven for centuries, proven uncontaminated (test lab certificates, regulated by the health ministry), for less than $10 for 5lbs pack (approx $2 per lbs), in any local pharmacy around the country, and with no shipping cost, available within 6 hours if not in stock. Ready to use packets of 7grammes of clay (Smecta brand is the most popular) are in stock IN ALL PHARMACIES for a ridiculous price, and most doctors across France would prescribe it in priority for all sorts of tummy ache; BRANDS ARE 100% FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT HEALTH SYSTEM..." ---(emphasis mine)

anyone from France here who could tell us a little more?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I shall return tomorrow.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Homeopathy is a specific type of natural "remedies" that, for some stupid reason, has an almost totally unique exemption from the FDA regulation.

Sadly untrue. The law in question exempts ALL "natural food additives." That means homeopathy (aka, how much can you get a bunch of suckers to pay for tinctures so dilute they cannot be measured), but it also means most herbals, and vitamin and mineral supplements.
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
Kaopectate is a refined suspension of kaolin = clay. It is semi-effective in treating intestinal malaise and might be considered useful in cases of food poisoning.

It certainly is a modern example of geophagy. (Discussed in some detail in that book I have at home.) However, while it does treat symptoms of gastrointestinal distress (from food poisoning or anything else), it does not actually ameliorate the poisons. It just soothes your tummy.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Sadly untrue. The law in question exempts ALL "natural food additives." That means homeopathy (aka, how much can you get a bunch of suckers to pay for tinctures so dilute they cannot be measured), but it also means most herbals, and vitamin and mineral supplements.
Ah, you're right - in this respect they are like natural supplements.

The exemption I was speaking of (but didn't say, unfortunately) was one that allows claims of treating specific conditions with no requirement that either safety or efficacy be proved.

Supplements can put health claims on th ebottle, but have to say the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. I don't think (but am not sure) that they can claim to treat a disease).
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was just reading in the Omnivore's Dilemma about poly phenols in plants, a the next "deeper" level of scientifically discovered nutrition found in fruits and veggies just within the last few years. Apparently, plants make more of them when they have to fight off pests. Just one way in which organic produce may be superior in nutrition to pesticide-treated produce. We didn't even know about it till just a bit ago.

Now, I don't know how backed-up the sources of The Omnivore's Dilemma are, but the author was interviewed about this book on NPR, if that adds any credibility.

This is why I disagreed with what Banna said above (that the plants wouldn't know the difference). It isn't exactly what she is talking about, but if human nutrition is so complex, logic states that plant nutrition cannot be so simple as N-P-K or even synthesized nutrients alone.

Granted, this has a lot more convincing power when it has been backed by scientific study, but for me poly phenols is just another in a long line of reasons why science should not be seen as having all the answers. It is arrogant to think we have them all now.

Steven has been preaching the virtue of "time-tested methods" and there is some credibility to this. I wouldn't call it scientific, just logical. If something complex and biological has been working well for thousands of years, hey, there might actually be something to it.

Doesn't mean I agree with his conclusions per se, just the line of reasoning that anecdotes and "things that work" have some weight and shouldn't be altogether dismissed. Where the facts are wrong, they should be corrected. Just remember and acknowledge that there may be truth in the anecdote. Of course, they should always be taken with a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

I agree with the consensus, it would be nice if steven would stop speaking of his beliefs as scientifically proven facts. [Smile]

To bring this back to the N-P-K simplification, I think we can all agree that composting works. It is what nature has been doing for ages. Is it not arrogant to think that N-P-K is *all* that is needed for plants to be their most nutritious, that that is all the value that such a complex concoction as compost offers? Does science say otherwise? I don't know that it does at this point. Logic says otherwise. What is put on our grocery store produce? I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it were N-P-K alone.

Am I doing any harm by assuming that compost is probably better than N-P-K? I can't imagine how. This is one area where I choose logic over scientific proof. Lots of probable benefits, probably no downside.

[ December 12, 2006, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Hey Jenni, where is all this coming from?


Dammit....my wife never logged out. [Mad]


I won't delete those posts because it wasn't an "alt" thing; my wife never logs off, and after a 12 hour day working in retail I forgot to check to see if I was still logged in.


Sorry about that. [Wink]


BTW, my wife read that and laughed. She said we were perfect for each other because that was pretty much what she would have said anyway. [Smile]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Bob, did you read my last post about clay?


A full summary of Dr. Price's findings:

1. He found crooked teeth in nearly every group he studied, but far fewer in groups that were not eating a Westernized, white flour/sugar/canned foods diet. He also found higher incidences of tuberculosis, birth defects, birth complications, and other health problems in people not eating a traditional diet.

2. He found identical types of problems among animals fed a deficient diet in experiments, including Pottenger's.

3. He found that his older patients, raised on local, fresh, unrefined foods, had straight teeth, and their crooked-toothed offspring were not raised on this kind of diet. He was a dentist for over 30 years, and he had plenty of chances to see this.

4. All the groups he studied valued organ meats, shellfish, fish eggs, and fish for the exact same reasons--to improve reproduction and health. These foods also happen to be extremely high in vitamins and minerals, much more so than muscle meat or most fruits and vegetables.


Any questions? I'd like to hear from Beverly now on fast-growing grass and raw dairy nutrient content.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I'd like to hear from Beverly now on fast-growing grass and raw dairy nutrient content.
What were you wanting to hear?
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
A full summary of Dr. Price's findings:

That's just a bunch of observed correlations. He then formulated a hypothesis to explain those correlations. So far, so good -- that's how the scientific method works. Observed phenomenon -> hypothetical explanation -> ...

Unfortunately, he didn't follow it up by going on to the next step: testing his hypothesis. Instead, he continued observing correlations in uncontrolled groups, and took these correlations as sufficient evidence to conclude that his hypothesis was correct. His observations aren't meaningless, but they are also not conclusive.

Added:

quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
...just another in a long line of reasons why science should not be seen as having all the answers. It is arrogant to think we have them all now.

That's exactly the point. Science is about developing and testing explanations for observed phenomena. Science never has all the answers because it's perpetually looking to explain new phenomena and to refine its explanations of existing phenomena.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Instead, he continued observing correlations in uncontrolled groups, and took these correlations as sufficient evidence to conclude that his hypothesis was correct. His observations aren't meaningless, but they are also not conclusive.
Foruntately, others have gone on to study some of the things he touched on following proper science methods, green-feed-leading-to-more-nutritious-milk being one of them.

You will find that generally the findings of Price that I am most convinced by are the ones that other research since then has supported.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
Step 1: Steal underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!

steven/Dr. Price have graduated with masters degrees from Underpants Gnomes University!
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
Instead, he continued observing correlations in uncontrolled groups, and took these correlations as sufficient evidence to conclude that his hypothesis was correct. His observations aren't meaningless, but they are also not conclusive.
Foruntately, others have gone on to study some of the things he touched on following proper science methods, green-feed-leading-to-more-nutritious-milk being one of them.

You will find that generally the findings of Price that I am most convinced by are the ones that other research since then has supported.

What I'm suggesting, basically, is that this should not be taken as indicative of the correctness of his other hypotheses.

In other words, why take the set "Price's hypotheses" as a basis, when you could take the much larger set, "research-supported hypotheses," as your basis? There's no need to bring Price into it at all, then.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
But back to my point about finding anecdotal evidence compelling, my current beliefs about nutrition are definitely influenced by Price's research. While it may not hold up to the rigorous requirements of science, it should not be completely dismissed either. Where further research can be done, great. But it seems to me a lot more could be done.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
While it may not hold up to the rigorous requirements of science, it should not be completely dismissed either.
If I may ask, why not? He proposed a hypothesis that does not hold up to experimentation, so why keep holding on to it? His methods are not conclusive.

I can imagine there might be reasons. If you actually like the diet, that's one reason. Maybe there's a community that comes from that diet. Maybe there are religious reasons. Maybe someone likes having interesting anecdotes to bring up at parties. Some people love sushi and my dad has a thing for salt on watermelon, so I don't see anything wrong with it, but none of the above reasons are more than personal preferences.

Are there are reasons beyond personal preference to disregard hypotheses that do not stand up to scrutiny?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It doesn't hold up because it hasn't been throughoughly tested, not because it has been proved wrong.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
It doesn't hold up because it hasn't been throughoughly tested, not because it has been proved wrong.
Are you contending that the reason Price has not been verified is because no one has tried hard enough? His theories do not withstand scrutiny because the studies did not look closely enough?

Why do you believe that his hypotheses would be verified?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Are you contending that the reason Price has not been verified is because no one has tried hard enough? His theories do not withstand scrutiny because the studies did not look closely enough?
No, because a lot of the data he gathered no longer exists or because many of the things he's studied have not been followed up on.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It's quite easy to find plenty of primitive groups still eating their traditional diets. If anything, it's a little easier than in Price's day, because air travel is more common, cheaper, easier, safer, and can get you to more locations faster.

I can get on a plane Saturday morning, and be talking to Guaymi Indians in the jungles of Costa Rica in person by Sunday evening. South and Central America have plenty of groups still living the old ways, like some groups of the Machiguenga, the Yanomamo, some isolated Mayans, etc. Africa still has plenty of places where the traditional foods are used. It goes without saying that plenty of places in Asia and especially western China have no access to modern foods.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Let me put this a different way.

It has been noted that Mediterranian peoples tend to be healthier and thinner than Americans while eating the very food that Americans have assumed makes you fat and unhealthy. There have been studies done, but even with our wonderful science, we have not as-of-yet been able to find out *for sure* what is going on here.

Sure, there are plenty of theories. But none of them is scientifically proven to be fact. I have my own beliefs on the subject based on factual knowledge I've gained and logic, and they effect the food choices I make. But I wouldn't come out and say that my conclusions are fact or scientific.

Make sense?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes, that's fine. And that makes sense that you would govern your own diet with your conclusions - we all do that.

However, what reason would there be for, say, me to govern my diet with your theories? Why should I give your theories any credance?

That's what you are doing with Price. He has come up with unproven theories, and we are being asked to take them seriously. Why? What reason should anyone beyond a personal liking for them?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I don't think anyone will disagree with the following two facts:

1. You can find straighter teeth and better health among people eating a traditional diet than a typical Standard American Diet.

2. You can produce all the same problems in animals by feeding them a deficient diet as you see in humans. Plenty of experiments that Dr. Price references, incluing Dr. Pottenger's work, make this a given.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But Steven, if you compare people eating a Standard American Diet to people eating a traditional diet, the people eating the Standard American Diet will, on average, live a great deal longer and have fewer health problems.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
However, what reason would there be for, say, me to govern my diet with your theories? Why should I give your theories any credance?

That's what you are doing with Price. He has come up with unproven theories, and we are being asked to take them seriously. Why? What reason should anyone beyond a personal liking for them?

I am not trying to convince anyone to eat the way I do. I am trying to find some middle ground between steven's posts being thought of as overly outlandish, and people's misunderstood efforts at trying to teach basic scientific principles to steven.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Statistics can lie. OTOH, 40+ groups of natives living on 4 continents all said the same foods are good for reproduction and health...

Do you really believe, Dag, that the Standard American diet will produce the same tooth and bone quality that a traditional diet will? I'm not saying exercise doesn't have something to do with it. Breastfeeding definitely doesn't hurt, as Bob pointed out on Sake River.

However, children still build bone long after breastfeeding stops, and eating a crap diet doesn't give you the energy to do enough exercise to build bone. Get around that.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
While it may not hold up to the rigorous requirements of science, it should not be completely dismissed either.

There is a huge difference between not discounting untested claims and basing your diet on untested claims. The gulf is even wider when you start suggesting that other people should base their diets on these untested claims, which is what steven has been doing.

"I find it compelling" isn't sufficient, especially when we are dealing with issues related to health. Even more care is needed in this context than in the context of many other scientific endeavours. Taking it to an absurd degree, I think people who eschew chemotherapy because they would rather rely on faith healing to cure their cancer are being extremely unwise.

quote:
Originally posted by steven:
It's quite easy to find plenty of primitive groups still eating their traditional diets.

That would just be more anecdotal correlations. Dagonee's point is apt, and it's one that I was about to make myself. Those natives, on average, will die before the crooked-toothed Westerner who you're saying is so unhealthy.

That's because the comparison, just like your comparison of diet, ignores important confounding factors. Notably, in Dagonee's analogy: sanitation, clean drinking water, and antibiotics.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Perhaps I can address this directly?

quote:
1. You can find straighter teeth and better health among people eating a traditional diet than a typical Standard American Diet.
Just because evidence has been shown for this, and I might even believe that it is true, doesn't make it a fact. Sorry. Evidence alone does not elevate an observation to fact-level.

quote:
2. You can produce all the same problems in animals by feeding them a deficient diet as you see in humans. Plenty of experiments that Dr. Price references, incluing Dr. Pottenger's work, make this a given.
I'm afraid the first sentance is too vague for me to be certain of the point. I think we all can agree that any human that eats better will be healthier than if they were malnourished. How about that?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
steven, I am convinced you have a learning disability of some kind. There's no way you could be presented with the information, wisdom and patience that you have in this thread and not have some wiring mixed up in your head.

Seriously, you're just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong on almost every count. Your arguments are weak. You are incoherent at best... you lost a long time ago.

Just give it up an don't ever bring it up again.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
But Steven, if you compare people eating a Standard American Diet to people eating a traditional diet, the people eating the Standard American Diet will, on average, live a great deal longer and have fewer health problems.
I'm not so sure that is a given. I don't know that it is fact or not, but the suggestion was made in The Omnivore's Dilemma that this generation may be the first in a long while that will live a shorter life span, on average, than their parents.

We have great medical care, but I am not convinced that the problems we associate with the primitive are not connected to things like lack of sanitation, which is different than diet. I don't have a hard time believing at all that primitive diets are better for you than what the average American eats.

I am not convinced, however, that the primitive diet is superior to an American doing their best to eat healthy based on our current understanding of nutrition.

My point is, most people know they should eat better than they do, but we are so surrounded by things that are bad for us, we give in to temptation.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
I am trying to find some middle ground between steven's posts being thought of as overly outlandish, and people's misunderstood efforts at trying to teach basic scientific principles to steven.
Exactly. You're still arguing the wrong thing. The vast majority of people I've seen disagree with steven have no interest in his conclusions, beyond them being convenient example fodder. The problem I've seen (my read on what everyone is objecting to is, obviously, my opinion) with steven is his continued insistence on labelling his diet as scientifically superior. Emphasis on the word 'scientifically'. I think steven has made it abundantly clear that no one should take his word on what is and isn't good science.

You seem to want to take up the torch on behalf of steven and Dr. Price, when I'm not sure that most people here materially disagree with the principles. What I disagree (and what it seems others do as well) with is them being presented as incontrovertible when they're far from it. Which steven continues to do.

As I said elsewhere, I could care less about the nutrional advantages that a raw foods diet may or may not offer. I care very much that it not be presented as fact (something you, bev, have not tried to do).

If I've missed something or misinterpreted something, I apologize, beverly. But I've seen you seem to take offense because you do believe in certain aspects of Price's work, and thus have an emotional investment in not wanting to see those aspects discredited. Which is understandable.

edit: There it is again. You're refuting Dag's post, whose only goal was to get steven to see the exact point that you (rightly) made -- there are stronger influences on overall health and lifespan than just diet, and to not take those factors into consideration is to operate in the dark.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
However, children still build bone long after breastfeeding stops, and eating a crap diet doesn't give you the energy to do enough exercise to build bone. Get around that.
Yes, yes, steven. We all know we should eat better than we do. Children *should* drink their milk, take their vitamins, eat plenty of friuts and veggies and whole grains. But how many actually do eat this and nothing else? Here in lies the problem, my friend. We don't need to mimick the primitive diet exactly to gain the same benefits.

Remember, the Native Americans eat very differntly from the Eskimoes and the Swiss! Different foods can acheive the same gains!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?

If you accept that, I don't see how it's so incredibly difficult to see that malnutrition can cause poor bone formation after birth as well, during the years when the skeleton is being built, i.e., childhood.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Statistics can lie.

I was hoping to spur you on to recognize confounding factors when you don't have your own conclusion on the line. Alas.

Statistics don't actually lie. Rather, people use them in a false manner to support incorrect conclusions. When done purposely, such people are lying. But the statistics aren't.

quote:
OTOH, 40+ groups of natives living on 4 continents all said the same foods are good for reproduction and health...
And yet, they don't live as long. Is it possible they don't have perfect knowledge about what's good for reproduction and health?

quote:
Do you really believe, Dag, that the Standard American diet will produce the same tooth and bone quality that a traditional diet will? I'm not saying exercise doesn't have something to do with it. Breastfeeding definitely doesn't hurt, as Bob pointed out on Sake River.

However, children still build bone long after breastfeeding stops, and eating a crap diet doesn't give you the energy to do enough exercise to build bone. Get around that.

Get around what? Did you think I stated a conclusion? I did not state that a Standard American Diet is healthier or that it causes one to live longer. I said that the same people who eat it also tend to live longer.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
That's because the comparison, just like your comparison of diet, ignores important confounding factors. Notably, in Dagonee's analogy: sanitation, clean drinking water, and antibiotics.
Twinky, if we offer these primitives all these advantages and they continue to eat their primitive diets, is it conceivable that we would find them to be far more healthy, on average, than we tend to be? I think so. I can't prove it, but I think so.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
The vast majority of people I've seen disagree with steven have no interest in his conclusions, beyond them being convenient example fodder.
Which may be why they've failed. I do care. [Smile] Maybe he just wants someone to care.

quote:
when I'm not sure that most people here materially disagree with the principles.
Yeah, yeah, *I* get that, but steven doesn't. Too defensive. Too emotional. That's why I'm trying a different tactic.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Okay, then. That's all I wanted to know.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Here's the jist, if I agree that he's right where he's right but remain firm that it still isn't science, maybe the "ah-ha!" moment will happen.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Dag, I am well aware of the general concept of confounding factors. Are you aware that the Standard American Diet has less than half of the minerals of the average primitive diet?

I don't have to think as scientifically as most of you need to on diet. I have forgotten more about nutrition than most of you have ever learned. The leaps that I make are based on years of study that none of you except me have done. Does anyone think MDs get lots of nutritional training? Not in most med schools.

I argue this way because it makes people worry that they don't know as much as I do. Then they are more likely to engage me and/or the subject at hand.

I used to do it indiscriminately when I was younger. Now I realize that it's pointlessly destructive unless it's focused. I can argue logically, but people don't always respond to that.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?
No! And the sooner you get that through your skull, the easier this conversation will be.

quote:
If you accept that, I don't see how it's so incredibly difficult to see that malnutrition can cause poor bone formation after birth as well, during the years when the skeleton is being built, i.e., childhood.
No one here doesn't accept that malnutrition during the building phase of the skeleton can cause poor bone formation.

If you can hold this thought in your mind at the same time as "that doesn't mean Price's work is scientifically valid" we'll be getting somewhere.

quote:
We have great medical care, but I am not convinced that the problems we associate with the primitive are not connected to things like lack of sanitation, which is different than diet. I don't have a hard time believing at all that primitive diets are better for you than what the average American eats.
Exactly, Bev. You've made my point for me by listing several confounding factors off the top of your head. There are others that exist. An epidemiological study can control for those factors (to some extent). Until that's been done - and with more than a binary distinction between diet types and healthy/unhealthy - these are hypotheses.

Edited to add the "No!"

[ December 13, 2006, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dag, I am well aware of the general concept of confounding factors.
You have yet to demonstrate that in any context concerning Price's work.

quote:
Are you aware that the Standard American Diet has less than half of the minerals of the average primitive diet?
So? Are you aware that I've made no statements about which diet is better?

quote:
I don't have to think as scientifically as most of you need to on diet. I have forgotten more about nutrition than most of you have ever learned.
How on earth is the first statement related to the second?

quote:
I argue this way because it makes people worry that they don't know as much as I do.
What people?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I argue this way because it makes people worry that they don't know as much as I do. Then they are more likely to engage me and/or the subject at hand.
I imagine that is very effective with some people. Not so effective here. People here need actual science to be convinced of something. Logic or "making sense" alone isn't enough. Granted, there are plenty of people here who believe things that are not scientifically based, but they *usually* do not try to call them scientifically based either.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag, Kwea, JT, others, you have tried to discourage steven by withholding validation. I am trying to teach steven by giving validation freely where ever it is due. Some people function better that way. I know for a fact that I do.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I use science and logic. They are not holy, or ends in and of themselves. The end, when it comes to diet, is effectiveness.

I don't feel that the Western diet has met the burden of proof necessary to say that it is as effective as a traditional-style diet.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Again, why the false dichotomy between the two?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the sooner you get that through your skull, the easier this conversation will be."

It sounds like you're saying that malnutrition is not a major cause of birth defects. Is that what you are saying, Dag?
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Wow.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I don't feel that the Western diet has met the burden of proof necessary to say that it is as effective as a traditional-style diet.
That is a perfectly fair assessment, IMHO. I'm not sure it has either.

The big problem, I see, is that real science takes time and money, resources that are in limited supply. So there is a certain heirarchy of priorities. There are so many things that have not been thouroughly studied because they aren't deemed sufficiently important.

I imagine if you had all the time and money at your disposal that you could possibly want, you would commission all kinds of studies about primitive nutrition, and in the interest of truly convincing others, make sure that all the proper steps were taken to ensure that they could not be called into question.

But right now what you have is mountains and mountains of anecdotal evidence, much of it first-hand. Plenty to convince you, but perhaps not enough to convince others.

quote:
The end, when it comes to diet, is effectiveness.
There is truth to this. I am of the personal belief that biology is far more complicated than we currently comprehend, and will not fully understand it in my lifetime or my children's, etc. If something works, great. We may never know why.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
It sounds like you're saying that malnutrition is not a major cause of birth defects. Is that what you are saying, Dag?
I actually wasn't sure exactly what Dag was saying either.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Is that what you are saying, Dag?
No. I left off a word somehow. Here it is:

quote:
No! And the sooner you get that through your skull, the easier this conversation will be.

 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks, Dag. I thought that might have been the case.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Look at the bones!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"No. I left off a word somehow".

I sort of had a feeling you did.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I shall return tomorrow.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You could have asked him to clarify instead of attributing something so lame to him.

[ December 13, 2006, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
I don't feel that the Western diet has met the burden of proof necessary to say that it is as effective as a traditional-style diet.
That is a perfectly fair assessment, IMHO. I'm not sure it has either.
I think few people here would be willing to claim that our modern diet is unequivocably better than the example primitive diets (though perhaps in certain specific areas we could)

quote:

But right now what you have is mountains and mountains of anecdotal evidence, much of it first-hand. Plenty to convince you, but perhaps not enough to convince others.

quote:
The end, when it comes to diet, is effectiveness.
There is truth to this. I am of the personal belief that biology is far more complicated than we currently comprehend, and will not fully understand it in my lifetime or my children's, etc. If something works, great. We may never know why.
Beverly, I agree that we don't currently have a complete understanding of nutrition (far from it I'd estimate) and I'm sure there are many cases that have yet to be discovered where certain aspects of nutrition are heavily coupled, and not easily separated into "if you have enough vitamin x you're fine" But this is all the more reason that whenever we can we should be looking to thourough scientific data rather than anecdotal "evidence" which may or may not be showing us what we think it does.

Obviously we have to base many/most of our decisions in life on incomplete understanding of the situation, but to actively deny that our understanding is incomplete and still try to push your conclusions (as steven is doing) is frankly both silly and unethical.

I personally don't necessarily disagree with Dr. Price on any particular conclusion being valid, just that the research to back it up is sufficient to make those conclusions. (and as mentioned more eloquently by others, neither does anyone else here as far as I know).
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
The first thing that needs to be defined is what is meant by "a western diet" or the "typical american diet."

Do we mean the kind of western diet that a typical American farm family ate in the 1930's when Price was doing his research?

If that is the case, based on families in my regions, a western diet consists of homemade bread baked daily, large amounts of dairy products, including raw milk, eggs from true free range chickens, smaller amounts of beef, lamb, chicken and pork raised locally, an assortment of fruits and vegetables raised in the family garden during the summer months and home canned fruits and vegetables during the winter months.

Or do we mean the diet typically eaten by an Italian immigrant family living in detroit and working for ford motor company in the 1930s. Which would have been alot heavier in pasta, preserved foods and commercially processed meats than the diet eaten on the typical farm.

Or do we mean the diet typically eaten by poor families in Ireland during the late 19th and early twentieth centuries which consisted predominantly of potatoes?

Or do we mean the diet typically eaten in the US today which consists of alot of meat, saturated fats and heavily processed foods?

Or are we talking about the kind of western foods that were brought to the Native Americans when they were forced onto reservations. Those foods were pretty much limited to flour, sugar, lard, baking soda, coffee and alcohol.

If people living in the Pacific Islands who had been eating a diversity of fresh local foods suddenly replaced them with a diet consisting primarly of white bread, sugar, coffee and alcohol then of course they became malnurished. But that is far different from the western diet my grandparents were eating at that same time and very different from the typical american diet today.

So lets start by clearly defining terms. What did Price mean by "a western diet"?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Did Price mention that the women's diet in much of Polynesia was dramatically different from the men's diet. Many of the key foods Price mentions were forbidden (Taboo or Kapu) for women. In the Hawaiian islands for example it was forbidden for women to eat pork, chicken, coconuts, banana's and many other things. Women ate primarily fish and taro where as the men had a much more varied diet. Additionally, many of the foods Price mentions were restricted to royalty and it was forbidden for commoners to eat them.

If Price doesn't mention these things, it makes his conclusions that all primative cultures valued certain foods for the same reasons highly suspect.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
But this is all the more reason that whenever we can we should be looking to thourough scientific data rather than anecdotal "evidence" which may or may not be showing us what we think it does.
Very good point. [Smile] I agree with you. Where we do have scientific proof, it trumps anecdotal evidence.

quote:
but to actively deny that our understanding is incomplete and still try to push your conclusions (as steven is doing) is frankly both silly and unethical.
You know, I've never really been clear what, exactly, steven is trying to do with his conclusions. Prove? Convince? Just have someone take him seriously? I intend to find out, in good time.

I am most interested in people communicating effectively and understanding one another. I also happen to be passionate about nutrition and am somewhat mistrustful of widespread nutritional wisdom--not because the facts are wrong, but because it is too easy to assume we *really* understand biology.

For example, omega 3s are scientifically proven to be important and beneficial. But I wouldn't say they have made it into widespread nutritional wisdom yet. Since I feel strongly that our understanding is incomplete and that nutrition is important, I am a bit more quick to listen to cutting-edge studies than the average American. Human nature is to stick with what we've grown up believing, whether nutrition or otherwise, even if the newest science has been updated.

Just a side example, I have heard a lot of hullaballoo here and there about "canola is bad!" But when I try to read up on it, I hear people saying stupid, idiotic things like, "It's really rapeseed oil! How can anything with "rape" in it's name be good?" Or "Rapeseed is a weed!" [Roll Eyes]

Obviously my response is just that, to roll my eyes. Some people in seeing that would be far less likely to ever believe anyone who says canola is bad. But a part of me says, where there's smoke there may be fire, so I go take a closer look. What is *really* going on here? I've actually been wanting to ask the collective mind of Hatrack if there is any genuine information out there on canola being a less-than-healthy oil.

Am I going to die because I use canola? Probably not. Am I going to die because I decide not to use canola? I really don't think so. So, this isn't exactly a crucial decision. But I *care* enough that it might be harmful to my health to find out more.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
If that is the case, based on families in my regions, a western diet consists of homemade bread baked daily, large amounts of dairy products, including raw milk, eggs from true free range chickens, smaller amounts of beef, lamb, chicken and pork raised locally, an assortment of fruits and vegetables raised in the family garden during the summer months and home canned fruits and vegetables during the winter months.
Sounds like what I aim to be eaten' here at my homestead. [Smile] I imagine this diet probably did them well. I imagine it's not all that far off from what the Swiss group Price studied ate. (Some of the "good guys" [Wink] )
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
beverly, I think you have a very healthy take on the situation in general. I wish I could help you out with the canola thing.

My comparison though is that, to me, steven is that guy using the "rape" argument that is in fact discouraging me to consider his point of view because he's being rediculous (even if his conclusions are correct). Basically steven is doing a great job, in my mind, to discredit Dr. Price even in areas where he doesn't deserve to be discredited.

Though it's nice to see the more objective views such as yours and BannaOj's in reviewing the work as it actually is (with it's positives and negatives both honestly aired)
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
[QUOTE] I imagine this diet probably did them well. I imagine it's not all that far off from what the Swiss group Price studied ate. (Some of the "good guys" [Wink] )

Actually, it differs quite substantially. You can look at the chapter on the Swiss your self. Price reports that their diet consists of primarily whole Rye bread and dairy products with meat eaten about once a week. This diet is far less varied than the diet eaten on American farms during the same time period.

Nowhere in this chapter did I find reference to the swiss eating organ meats even though price later insists that it was common to all primative diets.

His major emphasis in the chapter is on the lack of tooth decay among the children when compared to Swiss children that had a diet higher in refined sugar. An unsurprising finding although his conclusion that this was the result primarily of trace minerals rather than the absense of sweets is unconvincing.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
In the absence of conclusive experimental evidence, one is, of course, free to choose to believe just about anything.

What one should not do is take personal experience as general proof of the underlying hypothesis.

beverly, you keep using phrases that seem to be indicative of a negative attitude toward science. Is this intentional or are you simply trying to drive home the point that "science doesn't know everything."

If it is the latter, I'd just want to reassure you that there isn't a scientist on the planet who would disagree with you. That fact would not stop most scientists from recoiling in disgust from the kinds of claims that are often made about nutrition and health by people who are blatantly misusing and abusing the language of science.

I don't think you're doing that. You are being very careful. But I think any negative attitude toward "science" is really kind of misdirected. There might be infinite reasons that science hasn't addressed Price's ideas. It could even be that "science" has done a thorough refutation of Price's ideas, but that work was done back in the 1930's and didn't end up causing an institute to be formed around it. Nutritional scientists might have looked upon a lot of Prices ideas as untestable (at least in humans). Or...someone might've done some studies and found that the research suggested by Price and done in cats by Pottenger simply doesn't work in humans, and that was that.

Without a Ph.D. in nutritional science posting on the board, I suspect we could easily miss research performed any time before 1980, even if someone here did a thorough search of available databases.

And really, if anything of Prices was "confirmed" I suspect that the research probably was either already going on at the same time that Price was being so ground-breaking (at least in postulating which nutrients were "important" -- not the stuff about eating raw organ meats), or, the more modern research has done a much better job of figuring out the precise things that work best, and why.


steven:
I read your last post about clay. So what?

Also, a repetition of your synopsis of Price's main points/observations seems to come almost as a non-sequitor at this point. What possible purpose (other than you feeling the compulsion to toss the same list back at us, yet again) could there be in posting it? The logic hasn't changed any since the last time you posted it. OR the time before that, or the time before that, or the time before that...ad nauseum.

Get a grip. You've finally admitted that the stuff is unscientific. You should revel in your newfound insights. You feel like eating a non-Western diet -- good for you. Enjoy! Hope it works out for you. If you'd like to tell us your favorite recipes or speculate as to whether something you changed dietarily had an impact on your health, go for it. There are obviously people here who will listen and consider it.

Just so long as you avoid implying that it proves anything, we can probably have a wonderful discussion.


rivka
thanks for the clarification on kaolin. I was confused because in rats, it actually does serve to detox them from some poisons. I didn't want to go out on a limb and say that it'd only be useful as a treatment of symptoms and that the underlying food poisoning would be unaffected by ingesting kaolin, because I know that at least in some cases, kaolin CAN absorb toxins in the gut and help to render them less harmful.


ela

I totally misread the USDA site you linked to. They were actually trying to warn people that even diluting 35% H2O2 and ingesting it was considered dangerous. Drinking it at that concentration would be fatal...apparently -- even the wacko nutrition pseudo-science sites say that. So it MUST be true.

I apologize for misconstruing your intent and not fully reading the info at the site you linked to.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Here's an interesting article. Exerpt:
quote:
Much of "holistic dentistry" is rooted in the activities of Weston A. Price, D.D.S. (1870-1948), a dentist who maintained that sugar causes not only tooth decay but physical, mental, moral, and social decay as well. Price made a whirlwind tour of primitive areas, examined the natives superficially, and jumped to simplistic conclusions. While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition. While praising their diets for not producing cavities, he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities.
And another:
quote:
While other scientists have spent a lifetime studying just one diet, Price easily found what he had expected to see in over a dozen different primitive cultures. And, documented his efforts with thousand of photographs taken of happy looking people and others who were not so beautiful. Price obviously never conducted in depth statistical based epidemiological studies of these cultures. Nor, did he ever take into account their longevity, infant mortality, endemic diseases, or any other factors. Price simply saw a persons teeth as a window into their personal health. And, subjectively collected data that supported his beliefs. Later having milled over his findings, he developed his notoriously high fat diet recommendations.
A little blurb here.:
quote:
Cecil in Baltimore: Doc, a guy I work with used to be kinda sickly, but in the last year he's turned into some kinda health nut. He looks ten years younger! He told me about a book he read by some guy named Weston Price. Have you heard of this guy Price? He was a doctor who traveled around the world back in the '30s. He discovered that primitive people who stopped eating traditional foods and switched to modern foods got bad teeth afterward. They also got sick more often and their kids were totally screwed up. I'm talking worse tooth decay than my cousin Larry who used to work in the Hershey plant. What about this guy?

Dr. Kluless: Cecil, Price is really just a footnote in history and he was a dentist. He wasn't very scientific in his methods and he's been discredited. Next question.

Some more here and this is a good one here:
quote:
Their philosophy is based on the findings of Weston Price, a dentist in Cleveland who in the 1930s observed that a large number of his patients were suffering poor dental health. Dentist Price then traveled the distant corners of the world and found that remote native cultures had healthier teeth than his urban Ohio patients. Because these developing world people did not have access to processed foods or modern medicines, Price decided ipso facto that this must be the cause for their good dental health! Unfortunately if you check the literature, Dentist Price's findings and conclusions fail the reality test. According to a World Health Organization sponsored report, Africans (who lack access to modern health care, have no fluoridated water, and who consume mostly organic foods because they cannot afford modern food production inputs) have disproportionately bad oral and dental health. WHO reports that dental and oral health is a bigger (not smaller) problem for people in these poor remote corners of the world than for people living in the wealthy west.
Most of the websites I found were saying things like "Dr. Price is the greatest dentist/medical scientist the world has ever known! Oh, and would you buy our schill?"
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
(edit: I didn't see PC's post (that covers some of the same topics) until after I posted this.)

steven

I recall seeing some sad statistics regarding the health of primitive tribal peoples around the world. Have you looked at things like:

- infant mortality
- percent of live births surviving to adulthood
- incidence of parasitic diseases
- average lifespan


I think it's worth considering a few such factors when deciding whether or not to emulate the lifestyle of any particular group of people. Sometimes you find that individuals in a given setting will incredibly long lives (there are records of tribal folks in Mongolia, Siberia, Alaska, and a few other places where one or two people live well beyond 100 years). But looking at the data for the entire tribe or looking regionally, the folks who get their medicine from shamans do rather poorly in comparison to those living in the Western world. People with access to a balanced diet in the West do better than poor people anywhere in the world if you look at all these other factors.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't heed the research that says that some aspects of Western diets are bad, and that hormones in our foodstuffs are responsible for some bad things, and so on. But realistically, choosing to emulate practices of people who die at a mean age below 50 years, and who suffer double-digit infant mortality seems really bizarre to me.

I suppose one might say something like "I'm taking the best from their culture and combining it with the access to Western medicine and technology and thus I have the best of both worlds." I think that's perhaps admirable, but deciding which things are "best" in each culture is a question that could be decided in any number of ways. I think where there is scientific data to back up a choice, that's your best bet.

As I said in the prior post, if there isn't any scientific data, and you still feel compelled to decide, then logic might see you through to some good choices. Or...it might not. It depends on what you decide is "logical." In such cases, a thorough knowledge of biology might help. Up-to-date knowledge of nutrition science might help you to at least make educated guesses as to which options seem most likely to have a benefit.

And, sure, if you feel like experimenting on yourself, what the heck...as long as you aren't operating heavy machinery at the time, I say go for it.

Again, just remember that proof is different from you personally having a good (or even not fatal) outcome. Pain that went away just after you eat a cow from the inside out might've gone away all on its own. You will never know because you only have one choice and you can't be both the experimental subject and the control.

(Okay, there are certain sequential techniques that you could potentially use to become both the experiment and the control subject, but they have weaknesses with respect to causal inference as well -- best to just leave it alone).
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
My comparison though is that, to me, steven is that guy using the "rape" argument that is in fact discouraging me to consider his point of view because he's being rediculous (even if his conclusions are correct). Basically steven is doing a great job, in my mind, to discredit Dr. Price even in areas where he doesn't deserve to be discredited.
Yes, I can totally understand that. Which is why I feel I must add my own two cents.

quote:
Though it's nice to see the more objective views such as yours and BannaOj's in reviewing the work as it actually is (with it's positives and negatives both honestly aired)
I think this is very much what steven wanted. This is why he so desperately was trying to get people to actually read Price (to the point of paying them!), because I think he knows he is not able to get the ideas across effectively on his own.

Price's findings really are some interesting anecdotal stuff.

quote:
Actually, it differs quite substantially. You can look at the chapter on the Swiss your self. Price reports that their diet consists of primarily whole Rye bread and dairy products with meat eaten about once a week. This diet is far less varied than the diet eaten on American farms during the same time period.
OK. I had thought that it was more than dental health that he found in the Swiss, but I'm not seeing anything specific in that chapter. He mentions lower morbidity in the first paragraph, but I am uncertain if it applies to this group of people.

quote:
Nowhere in this chapter did I find reference to the swiss eating organ meats even though price later insists that it was common to all primative diets.
Yup. Which is certainly part of why I personally don't feel the need to eat organ meats to get my full nutrition, thankyewverymuch. [Wink]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
But I think any negative attitude toward "science" is really kind of misdirected.
I like the point you make here. Noted. [Smile]

It is rather the misuse and manipulation of science by people I don't trust. For example, I don't implicitly trust the USDA. I wish they would come down far more strongly than they do on the myriad of processed foods that are no good for us.

Just an interesting little side story, The Omnivore's Dilemma suggests that the reason America is so "snacky" is because of the mountains of surplus corn we produce. That corn has to be used/consumed somehow, and this is just one of the manifestations of that. Many of the weird chemical ingredients in processed food come from corn. I have heard that many people from other countries are baffled by she sheer size and variety in our snack-isles. It appears that we are the world-leaders in snacking on processed foods.

Transfats are required to show up now to some extent. But I have seen for myself plenty of packaging that exclaims, "No Transfats!" on the front, but hyrogenized oils are in the list of ingredients.

The fact is, I think that while the USDA cares about stuff that is really dangerous, they don't care enough about our quality-of-life eating. Some suggest it is because of greed and big-money. Some suggest it is just a general lack-of-caring. I honestly don't know. I have no scientific proof. [Wink]

I can see why some of these negative feelings of mine may appear to be pointed at science, but I don't really think that is the case.

quote:
Price easily found what he had expected to see in over a dozen different primitive cultures.
Actually, he did *not* expect to see it. He was converted to it by what he found. That doesn't mean it is definitely true, but the above quoted statement probably isn't true either.

quote:
While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition.
Just FYI, I am not convinced this is true either.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Just FYI, I am not convinced this is true either.
Why? Is there any written indication in Price's book that he took the short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality and general morbidity into account?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?

If you accept that, I don't see how it's so incredibly difficult to see that malnutrition can cause poor bone formation after birth as well, during the years when the skeleton is being built, i.e., childhood.

Yes. It CAN cause them, which is a completely different statement than you just made.

Malnutrition can contribute to some forms of birth defects, but it does not cause all of them. There are PROVEN genetic factors that cause most of them, although none of them are helped by lack of proper nutrition.

Just because some forms of bone density/formation problems can be attributed to malnutrition doesn't mean that ALL of them are caused by it. Also, there is a very large difference between general malnutrition and having a steady diet that in lacking in some nutrients.

Yet another factor you seem to miss, time and time again.


It is that sort of shoddy logic, masquerading as "science", that we are really arguing against in this thread. We don't disagree with out that nutrition is a very important factor in over all development, nor do we think that a modern diet is always health. The fact that you continue to claim we do (not me specifically, of course, but those of us who doubt you....geniuses you called us [Smile] ) proves beyond that you either don't care what we are saying, or you can't read well enough to understand it.

[ December 13, 2006, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Is there any written indication in Price's book that he took the short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality and general morbidity into account?
IIRC, Price reported that there were not high morbidity rates, infant or otherwise amongst these groups. I have not personally seen studies to support or refute this. Bob says that he has, and that is the extent of my personal knowledge on the subject.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kwea, if I may say so, steven did not say they were the only source.

quote:
you moron,
Why are you insulting him? I realize he has been insulting in return, but there is a certain, cumulative dogpiling effect that must be taken into account here.

I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.
That's not fair beverly. While I agree that Kwea's insult was not in the spirit of this community, it wasn't all she said. She responded in some very specific ways to comments made by steven which indicate that she is listening.

From what I've seen, steven keeps making the same points over and over again. People raise questions and rather than addressing those questions, steven repeats what he said before or insults the questioner.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
It's also not fair because Kwea's comment isn't a reflection on everyone else in the thread.

(Rabbit, Kwea's a he.)
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Kwea, if I may say so, steven did not say they were the only source.

quote:
you moron,
Why are you insulting him? I realize he has been insulting in return, but there is a certain, cumulative dogpiling effect that must be taken into account here.

I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.

Bev, I edited it out before you posted. [Smile]


But I HAVE been listening. To you, to AJ, to Bob, to Dag, to CT.....none of the above have insulted my intelligence, my personal beliefs, my eating habits, or my education level. steven has, more than once.


I am sick of rehashing this every single time he think we need to be "educated"? He is patronizing, ignorant, and hostile, and I have had enough of it. I tried, but in this very thread he started in again. I had not insulted him before, nor done anything other than start this very thread to give him a forum for his thoughts, a chance to defend his beliefs.


You want to take issue with how I am discussing this with him now? That is fine. I am tired of allowing HIM to be confrontational, but not allowing anyone to take umbrage at his slanted, ignorant, limiting views.


Please keep in mind that I have been nothing but respectful of others in this thread, even when they disagreed with me. I offer respect to anyone who offers it to me. I think a lot of what you have said in this tread makes a lot of sense, and I am glad this thread exists because of some of the things I have heard in here.


But to have someone keep telling me over and over how smart HE is, and how stupid I am....well, since this is just a repeat of the other 5 threads, I decided to fight back this time.

If he wasn't such a coward, you would be able to see all of the other threads. Perhaps you would understand why I am so frustrated at this point.


But when someone doesn't deserve respect, and you give it to them anyway, you only encourage their poor behavior.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
How is it not fair? I know that steven isn't listening. But Kwea wasn't listening either. I pointed that out. I've seen others do the same.

In fact, everyone keeps saying that steven is trying to claim things, and when I listen to what he is actually saying, I'm not sure he is trying to do that.

In short, I don't think people are listening to him *either.*
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.
That's not fair beverly. While I agree that Kwea's insult was not in the spirit of this community, it wasn't all she said.
I am a He. [Wink]

I feel I have been MORE than fair, MORE than one time, for MORE time than is reasonable to steven.

I also tried editing it, but things move fast here. It came out a lot more harsh than I intended. It was meant as a reference to all of his "genusis" remarks, to be honest.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
But Kwea wasn't listening either.
But he was listening. He was also insulting - which he corrected - but he WAS listening. His response took into account what steven said.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Sorry Kwea, I'm not sure why I made that error. I've known you were a he for some time.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Bob, did you read my last post about clay?


A full summary of Dr. Price's findings:

1. He found crooked teeth in nearly every group he studied, but far fewer in groups that were not eating a Westernized, white flour/sugar/canned foods diet. He also found higher incidences of tuberculosis, birth defects, birth complications, and other health problems in people not eating a traditional diet.

2. He found identical types of problems among animals fed a deficient diet in experiments, including Pottenger's.

3. He found that his older patients, raised on local, fresh, unrefined foods, had straight teeth, and their crooked-toothed offspring were not raised on this kind of diet. He was a dentist for over 30 years, and he had plenty of chances to see this.

4. All the groups he studied valued organ meats, shellfish, fish eggs, and fish for the exact same reasons--to improve reproduction and health. These foods also happen to be extremely high in vitamins and minerals, much more so than muscle meat or most fruits and vegetables.


Any questions? I'd like to hear from Beverly now on fast-growing grass and raw dairy nutrient content.

beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
But when someone doesn't deserve respect, and you give it to them anyway, you only encourage their poor behavior.
I very much disagree. I have found that when people are repeatedly treated with disrespect, they become more and more defensive and disrespectful of others. It is far, far worse when they feel dogpiled.

I know that steven has reacted poorly. But I honestly expect more of Hatrack. I'm sorry that the general patience has been worn down. But I haven't been convinced yet that steven would behave better if he were treated better from the start. I wasn't here for what happened in the middle, but I saw what happened at the start, and it wasn't pretty.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
He believes that they are right, and you know what? That is OK. I don't have any issues with that. Honestly.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
His response took into account what steven said.
:bristling:

OK, now I feel like I'm not being listened to.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Somethings I think we can agree on.


1. Malnutrition causes a wide variety of problems in humans including birth defects, beri-beri, scurvy, ricket and a host of other problems. It is a likely source for developmental abnormalities in children.

2. A diet which consists primarily of white flour and refined sugar will not result in proper nutrition.

3. There are likely important nutrients which have not yet been identified by science.

4. The proper dose for any nutrient is critically important. All known nutrients cause health problems when consumed in too large a quantity and most also cause health problems when consumed in too small a quantity.

5. Many aspects of the 21st century American diet are not ideal and result in significant health problems for many people.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
His response took into account what steven said.
:bristling:

OK, now I feel like I'm not being listened to.

You cited Kwea's insult as the reason you could rest your case that we weren't listening to Steven. I pointed out that the two were not incompatible - that is, Kwea could be insulting AND still be listening to steven.
I don't see why you think that means people aren't listening to you. The response demonstrates that the poster listened and disagreed.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Sorry Kwea, I'm not sure why I made that error. I've known you were a he for some time.

I know, it's not a big deal. Besides, I keep posting as JenniK, so I guess I am a little confused....


Not like that, silly! [Wink]


Bev, read his posts again. We have talked about confounding variables over and over again, but steven keeps speaking in declaritive statements, insisting we either agree with his personal beliefs or admit we are morons.

He keeps calling us morons sideways, using passive-aggressive behavior, without actually using the word moron.


The problem, bev, is that you haven't heard steven speak of regrowing teeth, or heard him call modern dentistry a bunch of quacks out to hurt their patients. You have seen him dismiss YEARS of specialize training by insinuating that they and their whole profession don't care about the welfare of their patients, and imply that the entire western medical proffession does more harm than good.


I hate it when doctors talk down to me, assuming that I couldn't possibly know anything about medicine. After all, I "just" work in retail. They don't know (and perhaps you don't, as I don't know how much of my personal history you know) that I spent 3 years working at USAMRIID, one of the best research facilities in the entire world. I have personally participated in over 12 medical studies, and have participated in numerous biological confrences with some of the worlds leading microbiologists and pathologists in attendance.


I am not a doctor, but I know a lot more about medical research than steven ever will.


But I have still taken the time to attempt to engage him in meaningful discussions 5 times now.
I didn't insult him, I listened to his points, such as they were, and tried to be understanding of his views. I didn't care if he ever changed his mind, I just wanted to let him know why Price isn't the worlds leading authority on anything.


I refuse to treat him as an equal any more, at least as far as science and medicine is concerned. He is a member of this community, to be sure, but his opinions are not medically sound, nor is his logic convincing.


I am tied of being fair-minded to someone who behaves badly every single time you try to engage him in conversation.


Take that as you will. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag, please reread what I said first in that post. Read what steven said. Read the issue Kwea took with it. Note that steven did not say what Kwea says he said.

quote:
but steven keeps speaking in declaritive statements
Kwea, did you notice he used the word "can" in his post? I thought what he said was quite reasonable. This is *why* I said you were not listening to him. I understand you are frustrated, and that can toy with our judgement.

Perhaps it is easier for me to take his words at face-value because I haven't been through what you have been through. Maybe he really is beginning to come around and y'all haven't realized it yet.

Kwea, perhaps I am blind, but where did steven say that all birth defects are caused by malnutrition?

quote:
by insinuating that they and their whole profession don't care about the welfare of their patients
While this would be a gross mischaracterization of doctors, I have felt for years now that doctors are biased towards serious maladies and are less caring about quality-of-life issues in general. Maybe that is unfair of me to say, but I can kinda see where steven is coming from, though I think he has taken an extreme point of view.

[ December 13, 2006, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by steven:
[qb] Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?


Where is the word "can"?


In MY post. Not his. He is espousing a wonder-diet that cures ALL ills.....without considering any number of confounding variables.

Including genetics.

Bob posted some other things that could have caused bone defects...and steven called him a moron, along with all the rest of us. Bob never said malnutrition didn't contribute to bone defects....have you heard ANYONE here say that to him?


Bev...he makes these types of statements all the time. He says that poor teeth are caused by poor nutrition, and discounts all other variables. He says teeth are the only indicator of good health, and ignores confounding variables and other possible explanations. He claims that almost ALL of society ills are cause by diet, and ignores the many other possible explanations for most of the problems he cites.

I don't think I was too far off thinking that this was another of his all-inclusive, blanket statements.


I can go pull quotes from at least 6 other post in this very thread that prove his tendency to do so.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
beverly, There is a context to stevens comment that you are missing. steven repeatedly said that Price's photos of children with a good diet and straight teeth and good bone structure along with the photos Price shows of children with a bad diet, crooked teeth and poor bone structure were proof that bad diet caused crooked teeth and poor bone structure. Many of us pointed out that this did not constitute proof and why? Eventually in this discussion steven threw out his comment.

Kwea's response was not solely to steven's comment but to the entire discussion. Having read a good portion of that discussion I presume that Kwea was indicating that our objections to steven's claim that Price's photos proved a causal link between diet and straight teeth was not because we did not believe that poor diet could result in skeletal deformities but because confounding factors which also cause skeletal deformities had not been controlled for in Price's experiments.

Within this entire context, Kwea's response to steven argument was entirely appropriate. No steven never said that malnutrition was the only cause of bad bones. But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
beverly, There is a context to stevens comment that you are missing. steven repeatedly said that Price's photos of children with a good diet and straight teeth and good bone structure along with the photos Price shows of children with a bad diet, crooked teeth and poor bone structure were proof that bad diet caused crooked teeth and poor bone structure. Many of us pointed out that this did not constitute proof and why? Eventually in this discussion steven threw out his comment.

Kwea's response was not solely to steven's comment but to the entire discussion. Having read a good portion of that discussion I presume that Kwea was indicating that our objections to steven's claim that Price's photos proved a causal link between diet and straight teeth was not because we did not believe that poor diet could result in skeletal deformities but because confounding factors which also cause skeletal deformities had not been controlled for in Price's experiments.

Within this entire context, Kwea's response to steven argument was entirely appropriate. No steven never said that malnutrition was the only cause of bad bones. But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.

Exactally. Every time we bring up a possible confounding variable, even if we are not completely refuting his point, steven sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "NEENER NEENER NEENER...PRICE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE STUPID!!!"


He never allows for any other possibility. His entire belief system is based on how Price's theory is the ONLY reason these types of defects could have happened. NO other possibility is allowed to be offered.

Ever.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
If you accept that, I don't see how it's so incredibly difficult to see that malnutrition can cause poor bone formation after birth as well, during the years when the skeleton is being built, i.e., childhood.
He didn't use the word "all" either. That was in your post.

quote:
Bob posted some other things that could have caused bone defects...and steven called him a moron, along with all the rest of us. Bob never said malnutrition didn't contribute to bone defects....have you heard ANYONE here say that to him?
Seems to me he's missed that Bob doesn't disagree with him, he is just providing an alternative cause. People do this when they are defensive.

quote:
He says that poor teeth are caused by poor nutrition, and discounts all other variables.
And maybe they are--in part. I was reading in a children's educational book on our home bookshelf (so take with a grain of salt, please) that animals in the wild don't get cavities but animals fed human food do. They don't brush their teeth. We have to brush our teeth to avoid cavities and then often get them anyway. That might not be a nutrition issue so much as a damaged-by-diet issue. But what he's saying really isn't that crazy, IMO. It seems logical that one could eat a diet in which one would almost never eat cavities without any medical assistance.

When you want to communicate with someone, you *must* show them respect or they stop listening to you. You must find middle ground and meet them halfway. You must give them kudos for being "close" so that they know you are hearing them. But if all you do is correct them and never give them any sort of credit even when they say something close to being correct, they will think you are not listening to them. I think that you will find that when you respect someone, even if they say something outrageous, you do these things instictively.

Your refusal to even try to treat him well anymore will only make things worse. I don't know what you hope to gain by it.

I really think things got off onto the wrong foot. Now they are broken, way broken, perhaps beyond repair. There is too much bad blood on both sides.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
He believes that they are right, and you know what? That is OK. I don't have any issues with that. Honestly.
Of course he believes that they are right. I don't have any issues with that, either. (I don't agree, but I don't have issues with him believing it.) But your post said "In fact, everyone keeps saying that steven is trying to claim things, and when I listen to what he is actually saying, I'm not sure he is trying to do that." That's what I was responding to. How do you read the post of steven's that I quoted so that you can say you're not sure he's trying to claim something?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
This thread was an attempt at a middle ground, Bev. He didn't do much to keep to it, and was never anything less than ignorant to others.


I at least lasted to page 12 before I lost it. Actually, more like page 34 if you include the deleted threads.

I agree....a lot of what we eat these days IS damaging to our teeth, and a general health. But that isn't all steven says. I don't think you can find me disagreeing with that anywhere in here, either.


The fact that you don't see where I tried, even here, to treat him batter than he deserves saddens me. He doesn't even deserve the amount of time I have already spent on this.


All of this doesn't even address the multiple alts, the deleted threads, the deleted posts, or the repeated aborted discussions. You are seeing 1/5 of the discussion, but still feel I and treating him badly.

[Dont Know]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
bev, You completely ignored my post. steven's post was part of a discussion. If you take it out of context, then you can argue that Kwea wasn't listening but if you look at the whole context you see a different picture. steven had built a strawman for the objections that many have found in Price's work. Kwea was explaining what was wrong with steven's strawman.

We all agree that Kwea shouldn't have stooped to steven's level and called steven a moron. The point is that Kwea clearly had been listening to steven and not just in that single post which you have ripped from its context but through the larger discussion. You are being unfair to Kwea by insisting that he wasn't listening to steven.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.
But he didn't give him a chance to get that far. Granted, I haven't seen past discussions, but when steven lays down his steps of logic begining with true statements, how often do you just say, "yes, I agree with that," and leave it there? I am noticing a lack of this sort of thing in this particular thread, and if this is indicative of past interaction, I can understand steven feeling defensive.

When I am talking with an irrational, unreasonable person, sometimes it is just best to agree with what they said was correct and restate what they said incorrectly to be correct. This minimizes bad feelings and defensiveness. The person feels listened to and respected. You hold off on any attacks or rebuttals until the defensiveness dies down. They will open up and allow for the possibility of being wrong.

When you approach a conversation meekly, the other person is far more likely to be meek in return. If the other person feels that admitting they wrong will result in you exulting over them, they won't want to admit anything.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
[QUOTE]

When you approach a conversation meekly, the other person is far more likely to be meek in return.

I have found the opposite to be true my entire life.


Not that I claim to know about "all" conversations, just the ones I have been in. [Wink]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
ElJay, I'm not sure exactly what steven is trying to claim. Is he claiming that he believes it? Is he claiming everyone believes it? Is he claiming it is true? Is he claiming it is fact? Is he claiming that it is scientifically proven? I'm just saying that when I read that post, I am not sure what exactly he is trying to claim. I am trying to understand that better.

For example, I think there is a subtle but meaningful difference between claiming something is true and claiming something is fact.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kwea, I'm sorry. I had a really visceral reaction when I saw you call him a moron in response to a true statement. I didn't care what the context was. That just seemed wrong to me.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
.

We all agree that Kwea shouldn't have stooped to steven's level and called steven a moron.

Hell, even I agree, and changed my post (before noticing others had commented on it) to reflect that.


As I said, it was meant as a direct reference to steven's comments earlier in this thread, and came off a lot stronger than intended.


Regardless of how I feel about his level of knowledge, I was rude. And slow. Had I been a faster typist no one would have known but me. [Wink]


I doubt I will respond to steven again. He has shown no inclination to discuss this reasonably. That doesn't mean the thread has been a waste though. [Razz]


Bev, it is all good. I did disagree with your belief of how I treated steven...I really DID try to listen.....but I have just had enough.


Look at the first few pages of this thread. I said play nice. I said don't start a name calling contest. I tried to be respectful even when I disagreed.


Once word, 10 (or 34) pages later, doesn't invalidate what my original intent was starting this thread, or the attempts I have made in previous threads. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
To be fair, I have no idea which primitive peoples Price studied and my recollection of "tribal" health indicators is fuzzy at best. It could be drawn from completely different populations.

I suspect that health data on truly primitive (i.e., isolate and xenophobic) peoples would be extremely difficult to obtain. That makes me doubt anything that Price might've put in his book since, from what I've been told here, he didn't spend all that much time with each tribe. But expecting there to be corresponding data from all tribes is probably too much to ask. We'd need someone better versed in anthropology to really nail this down.

Of course, one might assume that before a person decided to adopt the practices of ANY culture, that person might look into whether those people tend to die young, lose a lot of kids (and women) in child birth, or have a lot of children who fail to reach adulthood.

I'm just saying, before I start feeding off the blood of an emaciated cow as part of my morning routine, I'd at least see how many people who are already doing that live past the age of 40.

Otherwise, it's just "live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse" (with nice bone structure, of course.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
there is a subtle but meaningful difference claiming something is true and claiming something is fact.
Depends on the subject. When it is something like nutrition, I don't there is something that isn't actually fact but is still True, as if it lived up the Platonic ideal of effective but didn't actually have any measurable effect.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
beverly, interesting you should say that about the USDA (and others, really).

A group of (I didn't hear how many) scientists has signed a letter complaining about the intrusion of politics into science and are especially upset about the increasing misuse of science under the Bush Administration. I heard this on NPR, so I haven't actually seen the letter. It sounded like they were citing things like pressure to report (or not report) certain types of data, deliberate misapplication of data, and a few other things.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
thanks for the clarification on kaolin. I was confused because in rats, it actually does serve to detox them from some poisons. I didn't want to go out on a limb and say that it'd only be useful as a treatment of symptoms and that the underlying food poisoning would be unaffected by ingesting kaolin, because I know that at least in some cases, kaolin CAN absorb toxins in the gut and help to render them less harmful.

I have to check the book (sorry, I forgot last night), but I think there were multiple studies, and most indicated little or no effect. (As I know you know, but your average American seems not to, a single study doesn't prove much.)
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
But I haven't been convinced yet that steven would behave better if he were treated better from the start. I wasn't here for what happened in the middle, but I saw what happened at the start, and it wasn't pretty.

You joined Hatrack after I did, and steven (under another SN) was posting on this topic BEFORE I JOINED.

IOW, this has been going on for about 4 years or more.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I suspect that health data on truly primitive (i.e., isolate and xenophobic) peoples would be extremely difficult to obtain. That makes me doubt anything that Price might've put in his book since, from what I've been told here, he didn't spend all that much time with each tribe. But expecting there to be corresponding data from all tribes is probably too much to ask. We'd need someone better versed in anthropology to really nail this down.
I agree that there is probably no way to find any reliable data here. Which is why I give Price's conclusions the benefit of the doubt. Saying I believe them might be a bit strong, but I am closer to believing than disbelieving.

Example: Let's say that Price wasn't with any tribe long enough to get a real feel for life expectancy or infant mortality rates. But perhaps everyone in each group he visited was in far better health than in any given similar sized groups amongst his own people.

He might have marveled at that. He might have been floored. And maybe they really were very, very healthy people. Maybe it is what they ate. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It is a romantic idea, no? And it *might* even be true. But there is no way to know for sure.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
When it is something like nutrition, I don't there is something that isn't actually fact but is still True
To me, fact implies "proven to the extent that all must believe." True can be true without being known by a single soul.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
But I haven't been convinced yet that steven would behave better if he were treated better from the start.

[QUOTE]rivka: I wasn't here for what happened in the middle, but I saw what happened at the start, and it wasn't pretty.

You joined Hatrack after I did, and steven (under another SN) was posting on this topic BEFORE I JOINED.

IOW, this has been going on for about 4 years or more.

At least 4 years.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
A group of (I didn't hear how many) scientists has signed a letter complaining about the intrusion of politics into science and are especially upset about the increasing misuse of science under the Bush Administration. I heard this on NPR, so I haven't actually seen the letter. It sounded like they were citing things like pressure to report (or not report) certain types of data, deliberate misapplication of data, and a few other things.
Huh. And I thought *I* was sounding all conspiracy theorist. Maybe I'm actually right!
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Saying I believe them might be a bit strong, but I am closer to believing than disbelieving.

Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him? This is a very serious question. Is it Price himself, that field, because you like what he says, what? Does it extend to everyone who advances hypotheses without setting up reliable studies?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
You joined Hatrack after I did, and steven (under another SN) was posting on this topic BEFORE I JOINED.

IOW, this has been going on for about 4 years or more.

Noted. I guess I didn't see the begining I thought I did. [Razz]

But IIRC, no one knew he'd been here before or remembered him posting on the subject before. As far as they knew, it was the first time.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
When it is something like nutrition, I don't there is something that isn't actually fact but is still True
To me, fact implies "proven to the extent that all must believe." True can be true without being known by a single soul.
So, fact is only fact when it is both true and has been proven beyond doubt.

That is not a definition of fact that I have encountered before or recognize.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
But IIRC, no one knew he'd been here before or remembered him posting on the subject before. As far as they knew, it was the first time.

Nope.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him?
For the same reasons steven provides, acutally. Logic and long-time existance. Darwinism. The idea that when life is hard and you have little technology to protect you against the difficulties of living on this planet, you will develop what works well over time in what you eat.

Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them? The relationship animals have with their food has developed over time and works because the animals are still here. We see this in evolution in all kinds of ways. The way things have been for thousands of years are usually that way because they work well.

If you provide the animal higher calorie food alternatives, sure they will take it. But quite often at the cost of the nutrition they need and the food that best suits their physiology. Cows eating corn comes to mind.

Here. Let me illustrate this further. Let's suppose that maybe one of the reasons small tribal groups didn't have larger populations is that food was so hard to acquire. When the technology came along to produce larger amounts of food, there were more calories to go around. But how nutritous those calories were, I personally question.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him?
For the same reasons steven provides, actually. Logic and long-time existence. Darwinism. The idea that when life is hard and you have little technology to protect you against the difficulties of living on this planet, you will develop what works well over time in what you eat.

Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them? The relationship animals have with their food has developed over time and works because the animals are still here. We see this in evolution in all kinds of ways. The way things have been for thousands of years are usually that way because they work well.

If you provide the animal higher calorie food alternatives, sure they will take it. But quite often at the cost of the nutrition they need and the food that best suits their physiology. Cows eating corn comes to mind.

It works the other way around, usually. Animals adapt to what is available in nature, and over time can become dependent on a specific type of food, like kola bears are.


Who knows how many generations died before we came along because the diet wasn't best for the animal at first? It was the only thing available.


I have seen too many animals eat themselves to death on foods that they weren't suppose to eat (or amounts of something as simple as water) to believe that natural=right. At least as a consistent factor.


I don't think you are completely wrong, but that there are other considerations that have to be taken into account.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them?

Yes. Birds will happily feast on fermented berries, even though this makes them drunk and sometimes kills them. Deer have been known to munch on toxic foliage.

There are many other examples.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That's fine, Kwea. I still believe my version is more likely. I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
There are many other examples.
Of course there are. But keep in mind that animals that eat the wrong thing are less likely to pass on their genes.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
[Smile] Good. I am more than OK with you not agreeing with me .


Wait....did I just ruin my image as a disgruntled poster?


Shucks! [Wink]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
There are many other examples.
Of course there are. But keep in mind that animals that eat the wrong thing are less likely to pass on their genes.
Not necessarily. I mean, if they die, then yes (obviously). And if it causes them to be less attractive to potential mates, be less fertile, or die within their reproductive years.

Moreover, evolution takes a long time to make any significant changes.

You cannot say, "This is the diet they would naturally eat, so it's probably healthier than another diet." It just doesn't work that way.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
beverly, I like you, so please don't take this as another one of my jokes or my proddings or anything like that. I have a real question for you:

Do you want to believe that Price's work is true?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Do you want to believe that Price's work is true?
My default setting is usually to trust that people are telling the truth. I believe that Price believed that his work is true, that he is not trying to deceive others. Other than that, I don't have a lot of emotion on the matter one way or the other. Not that I am aware of.

It may be that I am predisposed to believe some of his works based on my other experiences and perceptions.

Now, you do realize that a lot of what steven says is not equivalent to Price's conclusions? And you do realize that I am not a Price-disciple, and that some of Price's conclusions are neither disproven nor debunked?

I've given you a real answer to your question, but are you sure your real question wasn't, "How could the beverly I know possibly even come close to believing this bunch of hooey?"
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
I don't know you well enough to draw those kinds of conclusions.

The question is as I asked it.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
"This is the diet they would naturally eat, so it's probably healthier than another diet."
Just because it isn't always true doesn't mean it isn't often true.

We decided to feed cows primarily grain when their natural diet is grass. It raised the acidity in their stomachs, made their rumens not work properly, made them sick, made us have to give them antibiotics, made the E. coli in their system have to evolve to resist a higher pH in order to survive, which made them better able to survive in our digestive tract and kill us.

What about all the BARF believers? I don't know enough about BARF, so I don't know how much science is behind it.

I am not saying it is always true, but I believe it is often true, perhaps even usually true.

I am often surprised at the subtleties of what has evolved in animals for survival. It really adds to my belief in intelligent design. But you don't have to believe in a creator to marvel at the complexity of how well food and life match each other. I am surprised at the amount of skepticism I am encountering on this, honestly.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
Children *should* drink their milk

Dairy industry propaganda. [Wink]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
Example: Let's say that Price wasn't with any tribe long enough to get a real feel for life expectancy or infant mortality rates. But perhaps everyone in each group he visited was in far better health than in any given similar sized groups amongst his own people.
steven actually mentioned this in an earlier thread. The problem is that in harsher environments, relatively weak individuals die young. If Price shows up for two weeks and sees a bunch of healthy natives eating organ meats and shellfish, he draws the conclusion that they have uncovered the best diet for humans. What they have probably discovered, over countless generations, is a diet that keeps a few more individuals alive than would be otherwise possible in their environment. The ones who survive are healthy because it doesn't take much ill-health to kill them entirely.

In more developed countries, we have a range of people surviving to adulthood. The ones with poor eyesight, the ones with less sense than God gave a turnip, the brilliant, the health-conscious, the aggressively stupid, and the vast run of the mill. Compared to the surviving population in a tribal environment, of course we'd seem on average "sicker." Our sick people tend to survive, theirs don't.

Even in the 1930's with rampant poverty in the US, this was still true.

If you visited a tribe today, you'd find the same thing, relatively small numbers of healthy individuals. There aren't any sick ones because the sick ones died before you got there.

Visit any city in a developed country today and you'll find much what Price did: A small number of truly healthy people, a large number of moderately ill people (suffering from various malaise), and some critically ill people.

The companion hypothesis to Price's one about healthy diets is harsh and UNhealthy environments. He only saw healthy natives because an unhealthy native is a dead native.


It does not logically follow, however, that the diet of the few surviving natives is the best one for humans. That is a logical leap that misses some key steps along the way. We don't know what opportunities the people have to secure nutrients in other ways, first off. Suppose that the reason people are willing to travel hundreds of miles to get shellfish is because the shellfish have an essential nutrient. Great! Does that mean we should all eat more shellfish? Maybe, maybe not. What it could mean is that those tribes lived in an area where they had zero access to an essential nutrient and the nearest possible source was shellfish from hundreds of miles away. The next tribe over doesn't have to do that because their local flora and fauna give them that nutrient without shellfish.

Same deal with organ meats.

If someone dropped a case of One-A-Day chewables on these people, we'd probably see a huge change for the better in the number of them that survive to be photographed by the next Dr. Price who came along. And then what? We'd conclude that the REAL secret to health is having aid drop out of the sky once per generation.


quote:
Now, you do realize that a lot of what steven says is not equivalent to Price's conclusions? And you do realize that I am not a Price-disciple, and that some of Price's conclusions are neither disproven nor debunked?
I have no idea which of Price's conclusions have been disproven/debunked and which have not. 70 years (give or take) have passed since the man collected his observations and drew his conclusions. I'm not up on the past 70 years of actual experimentation in this field. But I'd be hesitant to say that medical scientists should be poring over Price's book to find nuggets of potential wisdom...or using it as a guide for some poor grad student to do a dissertation on:
"Here kid, go debunk this."

I suspect that some of it is more laughable than even I have portrayed it. I only know that methodologically, Price wasted his time and money. He could have drawn more defensible conclusions sitting at home thinking about it all than he ever could've taking photos of various healthy tribal members and quizzing them about what they like to eat.

It's not like a group of scientists ever got together, went through Price's book point by point and decided which ideas of his to study and which to ignore. The man was a dentist. He had several wacky notions, and he didn't use anything like a solid scientific methodology. He was probably ignored from the get-go.

That's why there has to be an "institute" dedicated to promoting his ideas -- the scientific community ignored it and keeps on ignoring it. It's not due to a conspiracy, though. It's due to common sense and a superior knowledge of what it takes to have something be valid and reliable.

I wonder how many times a month someone from the PPNF calls the head of the USDA or the FDA and recites the list of 4 key observations from Price's monograph. I'm betting it's at least more than twice a month.

"PPNF on line 2...again"

"Tell them I'm at lunch."


I mean really...it's not a conspiracy. It's just that real scientists aren't going to waste time on something like this unless there's a compelling reason to do so.

And...guess what...buried in Price's book, there's probably a shrewd guess or two that will turn out to be absolutely true and ground-breaking in retrospect. I would not bet MY health on my ability to figure out which one or two of his conclusions is really wonderful and would enrich the lives of all the world. I don't know enough about it.

some people claim they DO know enough to be able to tell. For me, it is entirely diagnostic that they DO NOT know enough if they believe that Price actually was doing something scientific. That tells me that they don't know the difference between a well-constructed study and one that couldn't possibly answer the question in the first place.


But back to figuring out which of Price's conclusions might be "the winner." Short of actually running the necessary experiments (the ideal case) the only possible way to do that would be guessing. If you know a lot about nutrition, you might make more educated guesses than the next person, but they'd still be guesses (or hunches).

Most of the people I would trust to make these determinations FOR me would be the very people who I'd seek out for nutritional advice in the first place and who, if they've even heard of Dr. Price, probably just dismiss him as a historical footnote.

Really...why bring forward this guy? Because somebody on an internet forum likes his book? Because someone back 50 years ago started an institute in his name? Those don't seem very good reasons to me.

There was probably another dentist 2 doors down from Dr. Price who was not only a better dentist but gave even BETTER advice to his patients about nutrition. Where's HIS institute? How come HE doesn't have adherents. HIS work has never been debunked either! There's no justice!

...

sorry to get sarcastic there. It's late.


The point is that we don't have an anti-Price institute out there dedicated to debunking his stuff mainly because he was dismissed and consigned to the dusty alcoves of history a long, long time ago. If he gets enough modern attention because of the actions of the PPNF and people on web boards, maybe someone will do something MODERN to debunk him. But, really, a lack of readily available stuff specifically debunking Price's work is most readily explained by the fact that few people involved in the science of nutrition ever have or ever will take him seriously.

[ December 14, 2006, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
NOTE TO ADD:

beverly, I really don't mean to be picking on you. I know you aren't saying that Price was at all scientific in his approach.

I don't think "benefit of the doubt" works in science.

In fact, just the opposite is true.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I agree strongly with Bob's last couple of posts.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
If you visited a tribe today, you'd find the same thing, relatively small numbers of healthy individuals. There aren't any sick ones because the sick ones died before you got there.
Maybe, maybe not. Do you know this for a fact? I don't. I agree that it is the general assumption of most people. And even if it were true, how much of it would be a diet issue, how much a sanitation issue, etc. The science simply hasn't been done. We assume because it makes sense to us and we don't have proof.

quote:
It does not logically follow, however, that the diet of the few surviving natives is the best one for humans. That is a logical leap that misses some key steps along the way.
I am not arguing that it is the best. I am arguing that primitive, native diets may be very, very good, and are probably superior to what the average American eats. I am not comparing what a primitive human eats to what an American knows they should eat. Do you see the key difference?

I am also arguing that there may be some definite truth to the idea that our industrially produced produce may be significantly less nutritious than produce grown in harmony with nature due to the N-P-K simplification vs. the bio-complexity of compost and allowing plants to fight off natural pathogens which have been scientifically shown to produce more poly phenols, crucial nutrients to the human body.

Why is this not widely known information? Because it is not deemed important enough, or it is threatening to someone? I do not know, but it is not widely known information. It is not surprising that you and others would come to wrong conclusions.

quote:
He could have drawn more defensible conclusions sitting at home thinking about it all than he ever could've taking photos of various healthy tribal members and quizzing them about what they like to eat.
Perhaps his methods were not scientifically effective, but I honestly sympathize with his story. He goes out into the world believing one thing, spends years with a variety of tribal people's and has his paradigm turned on it's ear. There are all kinds of books about people who have had similar experiences. The paradigm might be social, political, spiritual, whatever. They are not science, but they are indeed fascinating and have worth. You take from it what you will, but I wouldn't call it wasted time. I think his pursuit had great value for him and others.

quote:
He had several wacky notions, and he didn't use anything like a solid scientific methodology. He was probably ignored from the get-go.
If he was ignored, it probably didn't have to do with his bad science, since bad science was far more common then than today. I can come up with many plausible reasons that he would not have been popular. Many people, though were moved by his story and observations and still are today.

quote:
Most of the people I would trust to make these determinations FOR me would be the very people who I'd seek out for nutritional advice in the first place and who, if they've even heard of Dr. Price, probably just dismiss him as a historical footnote.
That's fine. Why do people think I am asking them to trust Dr. Price's nutritional advice? All I'm asking for is benefit of the doubt rather than knee-jerk skepticism. All I am asking for is an open mind.

quote:
Really...why bring forward this guy? Because somebody on an internet forum likes his book? Because someone back 50 years ago started an institute in his name? Those don't seem very good reasons to me.
I read the book on the recommendation of a friend I knew and trusted. She had changed her eating habits as a result of the book and had reaped many benefits. It was the personal anecdotal information that moved me. She wasn't eating raw organ meat. The changes she made in her diet are well supported by scientific nutrition and are as follows:

Meat from grass-fed animals without hormones or antibiotics

Fish rich in omega 3s

Raw milk

Whole grains

Fresh veggies and fruits

Sprouts

Little or no refined flour or sugars

See? Is that really so radical? It is possible to read Price and come away with the above, sound nutritional advice already recommended by today's leading nutritionists. But the inspiration for the permanent life-long diet change came from Price's story not from his science. It is an emotional, spiritual conversion.

She had lost weight, her skin and hair had a sheen I had never seen before, she didn't get sick like the people around her did. Anecdotal information that led me to read the book. I changed the way I eat, and now I have enjoyed better health as well. I exercise too, because I understand the crucial importance of it.

I didn't buy any special products, heck, I didn't even buy a book.

What do I care if Price was a quack-scientist? I think he was an honest man, not a deceiver, who wanted to improve the lives of others. I am better for having read the book. Maybe Price wouldn't have that effect on another person. That's fine. *I* am glad I know about Price's story, OK?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Why is this not widely known information? Because it is not deemed important enough, or it is threatening to someone?
See, THIS I dispute. I believe this IS widely-known information, but most people simply don't care.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
He goes out into the world believing one thing, spends years with a variety of tribal people's and has his paradigm turned on it's ear.
Maybe you could tell us what the one thing he believed was? You told Bob that he was incorrect, but never offered the correct version.

I'd like to hear it.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
But the inspiration for the permanent life-long diet change came from Price's story not from his science. It is an emotional, spiritual conversion.
I think that's the key to it - it requires an emotional, spiritual conversion to take Price seriously.

Promoting Price isn't promoting science or nutrition or anything like that, because there have been 70 years of research and there are infinitely better resources from which to do it. Adhering to Price is instead making decisions about diet based on who has the most compelling biography.

That's fine - people buy cars because they like the bud vase. However, no one claims that based on how the bud vase makes them feel, they believe VW bug is a more environmentally-efficient car.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
IIRC, he believed that the Western diet was superior and intended to bring the blessings of it to those that didn't have it. He was filled with the mental sense of superiority that has historically been the hallmark of Western society.

Only, when he got there, he didn't find what he was expecting to find. He resisted this at first, but over time found more and more evidence that he was wrong. This fascinated him, and thus he spent lots of time and money trying to learn what the reasons might be.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I believe this IS widely-known information, but most people simply don't care.
If it is widely known, why were well educated people in this thread claiming otherwise?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So it can be a compelling story - that's fine. It could make a great movie. That doesn't mean it is good science or that he gets any special recognition. We don't hand out scientific credibility based on personality.
quote:
Meat from grass-fed animals without hormones or antibiotics

Fish rich in omega 3s

Raw milk

Whole grains

Fresh veggies and fruits

Sprouts

Little or no refined flour or sugars

The only thing from this list that isn't in the most basic of every guide to healthy eating is the raw milk part of it. This isn't something that Price has an exclusive insight into, and I suspect from steven's enthusiasm for organ meats that it leaves off a considerable amount of his recommendations. So, Price's recommendations that make the list are the ones taught in every beginning nutrition class.

[ December 14, 2006, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
I believe this IS widely-known information, but most people simply don't care.
If it is widely known, why were well educated people in this thread claiming otherwise?
Who and were? (*honestly puzzled)

Could you point us to the posts?
---

Edited to add: Not trying to make a point or put you on the spot, just not something I saw at all.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
and now.... all kid's cereals are vitamin enriched for a "Complete Breakfast"

I think that's exactly what Dr. Price wanted accomplished and that Price would be very happy to read the nutrition information on the back of a cereal box today.

This is an example of something I take issue with. We fortify our cereals, and while on the one hand that is good and gets certain vital nutrients to people that wouldn't otherwise have it, logic compells me to believe (and I think science to some extent supports) the idea that nutrients found in their natural form are superior to synthesized nutrients.

This is an example of a society that is concerned about the major stuff, but is willing to gloss over the details that make a significant difference in overall health.

And what about the preservatives and other bizarre chemicals found in breakfast cereal? Is it worth the fortified nutrients to be taking that in?

I take a multivitamin to "cover my bases" and because I don't think it harms me in any way. But I feel strongly that I ought to try my best to get nutrition from whole food sources when possible.

(I am still trying to find the conversation in this thread about steven saying organically grown produce is superior and being refuted in that, but it's a really, big thread, you know.)

Anyway, Tom's right. People don't care. And the way I see it, that's a problem. I'd go so far as to say it is killing us.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
steven....how many "natural" grown tomatoes have the reasfings of the "best"? Most don't I'd bet.
Here ya go, from page 11. I am guessing that it is supposed to say "readings", but I am not sure.

Banna said something about all the nutrients a plant needs can be synthesized and that the plants wouldn't know the difference. I haven't found it yet, though.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
[Frown] Bev, are you even reading my posts? You aren't responding to them at all.

quote:
This is an example of a society that is concerned about the major stuff, but is willing to gloss over the details that make a significant difference in overall health.

How do you define a signifigant difference?

quote:
I'd go so far as to say it is killing us.
Why? Based on what?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, I haven't had anything to say to your posts that are statements, because you aren't saying anything I particularly disagree with. In fact, I feel you are not listening to what I am saying and are misunderstanding my point. I have answered your questions, though.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
How do you define a signifigant difference?
I don't. [Smile] I figure it is too subjective to define. I think it is significant, another might not.

quote:
Why? Based on what?
Because of the record rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. which leads to even deadlier health problems. I think the way we are eating is a large part of that and that science supports this. Maybe it doesn't, maybe I'm *just* going on my own silly logic here. Do you disagree?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The post I can't find was made by Banna. I even responded to it in this thread. I still can't find it though. [Frown]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Because of the record rates of obesity, diabetes, etc. which leads to even deadlier health problems. I think the way we are eating is a large part of that and that science supports this. Maybe it doesn't, maybe I'm *just* going on my own silly logic here. Do you disagree
I think that that if there is merit here, it has come from studies other Price.

I disagree with many if not most of the logical leaps you have taken.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I disagree with many if not most of the logical leaps you have taken.
Could you name specifics?

quote:
I think that that if there is merit here, it has come from studies other Price.
Sure. But if Price was key in converting me to a healthier style of eating, shouldn't he get *some* credit for that? Not as a scientist, but as an individual with the potential to inspire others?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
[QUOTE]Meat from grass-fed animals without hormones or antibiotics

Fish rich in omega 3s

Raw milk

Whole grains

Fresh veggies and fruits

Sprouts

Little or no refined flour or sugars

To the extent that this is what Price found, then with the exception of raw milk, these all backed by modern scientific nutritional studies.

I have seen absolutley no controversy in scientific studies over whether whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables are essential good nutrition.

Sprouts probably aren't essential but do provide important nutrients especially during seasons where fresh fruits and vegetables are less available.

There is still controversy of whether grass fed animal products are more nutritious than grain fed. Numerous scientific studies support these claims but would be difficult to claim these reports are conclusive and that it is proven they result in real differences in human health.

There is even more controversy over hormones and antibiotics but I believe much of this controversy is stirred by industrial desires to continue using these profit increasing drugs. I suspect representatives of the pharm and Ag industries would claim the opposite -- that the controversy is stirred by anti-industry health food nuts. Hopefully this won't end up being another Tobacco industry case.

Raw milk is another issue. It is entirely unclear that the minor nutritional losses incurred when pasteurizing milk out way the infectious disease risks associated with raw dairy products. I do think its very unfortunate that FDA regulations make it nearly impossible to get raw milk unless you own your own cow or goats. Its even more unfortunate that they make it impossible to get unpasteurized cheeses. I love some of the unpasteurized cheeses I'm able to buy in Europe and Europeans don't seem to have a problem with cheese born disease. I think unpasteurized is an option that should be available to people who seek it even if the health benefits are not clear. If the FDA would regulate solely for bacteria count in the milk rather than requiring pasteurization, it would allow consciencious small dairy farms to sell quality raw dairy products.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I would add here that my family drank raw milk we bought from a neighborhood retired dairy farmer when I was a child. He eventually gave up his cow under pressure from the board of health even though no one who bought his milk ever got sick from it. (He had one cow and sold milk to only 2 or 3 families. We knew all of them so I feel safe in making that claim).

I will note that this farmer was extremely careful with his cow and the milk he sold us. We visited him regularly, saw his barn and milking operation. We knew that everything he used was kept clean and sterile and knew that if ever the cow wasn't 100% healthy he wouldn't sell us the milk.

I wouldn't consume raw milk from a farmer I didn't know personally and whose practices I didn't trust.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
It is entirely unclear that the minor nutritional losses incurred when pasteurizing milk out way the infectious disease risks associated with raw dairy products.
That's fair. I'm not an evangelist on this matter because it is too inconclusive to be convincing to "just anyone". I'm convinced enough, and that's good enough for me.

quote:
I do think its very unfortunate that FDA regulations make it nearly impossible to get raw milk unless you own your own cow or goats.
I agree. And this I do get evangelistic about. This is an unnecessary infringement on our freedom and makes us more dependant on industrialized agriculture with all its faults and weaknesses.

They already require a warning to be placed on any raw milk bought straight off the dairy (at least in Utah, and several other states). I don't see why this wouldn't be sufficient to cover anyone's ass in the matter.

We sell tobacco products, are they safe for consumption? We just put a warning label on them and trust people to use their best judgement. The biggest difference I see is that tobacco has lots of money/demand behind it and raw milk doesn't.

quote:
If the FDA would regulate solely for bacteria count in the milk rather than requiring pasteurization, it would allow consciencious small dairy farms to sell quality raw dairy products.
I sincerely hope this happens. I am not overly optomistic, though.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
thanks for the clarification on kaolin. I was confused because in rats, it actually does serve to detox them from some poisons. I didn't want to go out on a limb and say that it'd only be useful as a treatment of symptoms and that the underlying food poisoning would be unaffected by ingesting kaolin, because I know that at least in some cases, kaolin CAN absorb toxins in the gut and help to render them less harmful.

I have to check the book (sorry, I forgot last night), but I think there were multiple studies, and most indicated little or no effect. (As I know you know, but your average American seems not to, a single study doesn't prove much.)
Ok, I found my copy of Honey, Mud, Maggots & Other Medical Marvels. It is, as I recalled, very well-written and a fascinating read. However, it does not actually contain much in the way of scientific studies (as I thought I remembered) -- just summaries of modern thought on various topics. I must have looked up studies on kaolin clays when I read it.

[Dont Know]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The biggest leap I do not agree with is equating a personally-compelling story with scientific credibility unless proven otherwise.

It's one thing to be charismatic and tell a good story and be motivational. That makes someone a good motivator. That doesn't mean that that his conclusions are valid or deserving, though. Those are two very, very different areas of expertise.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
The biggest leap I do not agree with is equating a personally-compelling story with scientific credibility unless proven otherwise
Please show me where I did this. Does something have to be scientific for you to believe it? And where did I say I believed Price's conclusions? All I said is that it moved me and changed how I ate.

Can you see why I feel that you are not listening to what I am saying?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Does something have to be scientific for you to believe it?
Depends on the subject. Relgious feeling? Social observations? Aesthetic judgements? None of those have to be scientific. I also eat all sorts of things without having any particular scientific justification for them.

However, when it is actually connected to a scientific concern and the proponent attempts to put a scientific sheen on whatever theory they are proposing, then it does have to scientific before I believe it.

You said that you feel Price should be listened to and considered seriously because his story has affected you and someone whose story has the power to affect deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't agree with that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

If it is widely known, why were well educated people in this thread claiming otherwise?

I haven't seen a single well-educated person on this forum claiming that diet isn't important, or that elements of some modern diets are less than ideal. Have you?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
You said that you feel Price should be listened to and considered seriously because his story has affected you and someone whose story has the power to affect deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't agree with that.
I generally think *everything* should be given the benefit of the doubt, not just Price, and not just because of my experience. It's a part of not approaching things with preconceived notions.

quote:
I haven't seen a single well-educated person on this forum claiming that diet isn't important, or that elements of some modern diets are less than ideal. Have you?
I fail to see the relevance of this question. I already gave examples of what I was talking about.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
However, when it is actually connected to a scientific concern and the proponent attempts to put a scientific sheen on whatever theory they are proposing, then it does have to scientific before I believe it.
Is food connected to scientific concern more than, say, choice of shampoo, or lotion? Do you accept anecdotal evidence when choosing your beauty products? I am that way with food. [Smile] If there is science available, I accept it. Where it is not available, or is inconclusive, I make the best choice I can with what I have.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Is food connected to scientific concern more than, say, choice of shampoo, or lotion? Do you accept anecdotal evidence when choosing your beauty products?
Food undergoes a more rigorous process than beauty products. Not to say that I don't eat unhealthy food when the whim strikes - I just don't consider myself to be doing something particularly great for me when it's advocated by untrustworthy sources.

And no, I don't accept anecdotal evidence for beauty products. While I accept recommendations and will try something out based on one, the difference there is that there is usually a very visible and immediate effect. Without that, no, I don't put stock in it. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen in the beauty industry.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
It's a part of not approaching things with preconceived notions.

That's interesting. I'm skeptical by nature, and I actually view skepticism as an important part of not approaching things with pre-conceived notions. [Added: Because otherwise I would be more inclined to accept appealing statements on face value simply because I like how they sound. I find it's a good way of keeping my generally trusting nature in check.]

I think skepticism is very healthy. [Smile]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
And no, I don't accept anecdotal evidence for beauty products. While I accept recommendations and will try something out based on one, the difference there is that there is usually a very visible and immediate effect. Without that, no, I don't put stock in it. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen in the beauty industry.
Accepting a recommendation *is* accepting anecdotal evidence, since a recommendation is just that. I'm not talking about believing based on it, I'm talking about being influenced by it and giving it a chance. There are different definitions of "accepting."

Then you try it. And if it works for you, then you are more likely to believe it. How is this any different than what I (and perhaps steven as well) am doing with food? You don't have to believe something to try it out.

Steven believes a lot of what he does because he has lived it, and I give him credit for that. Doesn't necessarily mean I believe it or would try it myself, but I'm not going to knock him for trying stuff out (and believing it) based on what he's learned.

Sometimes people are so convinced by something, they forget that they can't always convince others. They end up frustrated, get emotional, exaggerate, and become inaccurate. When dogpiled, they get defensive and even insulting. That's what it looks like has been happening here, to me.

quote:
I think skepticism is very healthy.
Twinky, if you read what I say very carefully, you'll see that I am not speaking against skepticism.

Keep in mind, a lot of what I was saying was in response to Bob's statement that Price wasted his time and money, implying that his story is without value. I disagree.

Mocking is a step beyond skepticism, and implies preconceived notions. I felt that some of Bob's and other's comments have crossed that line.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
if you read what I say very carefully, you'll see that I am not speaking against skepticism.

I read it carefully, and it seems like you're trying to be open-minded, trusting, scientifically-rigorous, and skeptical all at the same time. You're welcome to try, but I wouldn't surprised to discover that others are skeptical of you being all at once.
quote:
How is this any different than what I (and perhaps steven as well) am doing with food?
I would not "go so far as to say it is killing" those who do otherwise. I also do not suggest that those who do not use the same things I have stumbled across as useful are actually part of a large conspiracy to keep that knowledge from people.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I would not "go so far as to say it is killing" those who do otherwise.
You might if beauty products were scientifically linked with life-threatening conditions and disease.

I apologize if the statement was offensive, it was not intended to be. It expresses why I think health is important. If I might say, I think we all think health is important, we just approach it in different ways.

quote:
I also do not suggest that those who do not use the same things I have stumbled across as useful are actually part of a large conspiracy to keep that knowledge from people.
Where have I done this?

quote:
I read it carefully, and it seems like you're trying to be open-minded, trusting, scientifically-rigorous, and skeptical all at the same time. You're welcome to try, but I wouldn't surprised to discover that others are skeptical of you being all at once.
Actually, I think it is human nature to bounce back and forth between these mindsets. Just as twinky said, he tries to be skeptical to offset his trusting nature. Is he trying to be all at once? I don't think so. Both he, and I, and anyone else are trying to find our very own balance.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Why is this not widely known information? Because it is not deemed important enough, or it is threatening to someone?

 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, I think I asked a good question. Notice I provided two reasonable possibilities and made no statement of my own belief.

Example: The food pyramid was recently revised. My kids are being educated on a different food pyramid today than the one I grew up with. I imagine this education costs money. I applaud that they are teaching it. It is important.

Education costs money. Granted, the new food pyramid is higher on the priority list than teaching that organically grown food is healthier than industrially grown food. But I think the Powers That Be have a moral responsibility to teach it. Are they? Can you show me evidence where they are putting the information out there anywhere near as much as they are with the new food pyramid? Is it in a place where people are likely to look for it? Why should they have to look for it, since the average person isn't likely to care?

I also think The Powers That Be have a responsibility to openly teach children that soft drinks and french fries are harmful to their health--especially considering how much money goes into enticing children and others into buying them. Some is being done, but not enough IMHO.

Why is that? Either one of my two suggestions might be possible answers. If that is somehow unreasonable, care to suggest another?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There are many, many more than the two options you presented. You presented it as being not widely known, and the options for this being either it is not deemed important (but it's our food - clearly it is) or else it is deliberately not promulgated because it is threatening someone. I think using language like "the Powers That Be" and "threatening to someone" is remarkable similar to the language of conspiracy theorists.

Many people have suggested other options, including that it IS widely known and therefor an unnecessary question, and that Price specific shellfish advice had been considered and rejected so early in the process that we don't see the weighing of it.

I have a theory. [Smile] I think that books like Price's are appealing because they take a subject that is important and make it accessible. Perhaps a lot of the real scientific data is not easily understood (for a variety of reasons, from poor writers to a lack of definite consensus to it simply being complex), and therefore putting eating recommendations an inspiring narrative with illustrations and graphs that have the form if not the function of rigorous science is appealing. It gives sweeping recommendations and the reader a sense of ownership over their diets which had seemingly been co-opted by agribusiness. That's why it's inspiring - it's empowering.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The information IS available, through multiple routes, to anyone who cares to look for it.

As for this:
quote:
Why should they have to look for it, since the average person isn't likely to care?
Because each person's health is their own responsibility, NOT the government's.

Should government agencies such as the Surgeon General, USDA, and FDA be making the information easily accessible? Absolutely, and they do. Including having all kinds of free materials available to teachers, schools, industry, and private citizens. Not to mention maintaining freely available websites with lots of information. Is it their job to force that information down people's throats? Absolutely not.

Why is it not widely known information? There are many reasons, but the biggest one is that the average American doesn't care.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Because each person's health is their own responsibility, NOT the government's.
Not according to the schools that teach my children. They are full of all kinds of propeganda about fire saftey, drugs, and more. Why? Because someone with power and money decided it was important enough. The superiority of organic foods didn't make the list.

Obviously there are levels of propeganda milder than the teaching of elementary school children. But there are myriad ways that these things are made more accessable to the average American.

Actually, I do not believe that it is anyone's responsibility to propegandize any of these things to my children (in spite of what I said earlier) drugs or fire safety included. That is *my* job. I was more illustrating a point of certain things being more "out there" than others and how it effects what is widely known and what isn't.

quote:
Why is it not widely known information? There are many reasons, but the biggest one is that the average American doesn't care.
True. IOW,
quote:
it is not deemed important enough
[Razz]
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
I have a theory. [Smile] I think that books like Price's are appealing because they take a subject that is important and make it accessible. Perhaps a lot of the real scientific data is not easily understood (for a variety of reasons, from poor writers to a lack of definite consensus to it simply being complex), and therefore putting eating recommendations an inspiring narrative with illustrations and graphs that have the form if not the function of rigorous science is appealing. It gives sweeping recommendations and the reader a sense of ownership over their diets which had seemingly been co-opted by agribusiness. That's why it's inspiring - it's empowering.
I can totally get behind this statement, Kat. It isn't the most accurate thing, but it is powerful, and it can change lives. I honestly think there is value in that. Harm in calling it science, but value nonetheless.

So many great teachers have had people come along and misconstrue their teachings. From Christ to Atkins. That doesn't mean that the original teacher was bad.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bev, you're simultaneously contending that the government does too much protecting of us (making it hard to buy unpastuerized milk) and then not enough (while teaching about nutrition, not teaching enough).

I really can't tell if there is a consistent policy behind your preference for the way our government handles nutrition. Is it up to the individual or not?
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Maybe I'm missing something...but um, what's the issue with fortefied breakfast cereals? After all, artificial nutrients are likely better than no nutrients at all. It's not about getting nutrents to people who wouldn't otherwise get them. It's not a conspiracy. It's hey, this food is tasty and people will eat it. Let's add some extra stuff in there that's good for them. Why is this bad? We drink orange juice with added calcium, milk with added vitamin D, we use iodized salt...

-pH
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
So many great teachers have had people come along and misconstrue their teachings. From Christ to Atkins. That doesn't mean that the original teacher was bad.
It doesn't mean it was good, either. Andrew Jackson did lots of inspiring, but so did P.T. Barnum.

Being a good communicator does NOT automatically mean someone should be listened to. It means that they are listened to, and in that case have an even GREATER responsibility to get it right and be careful with claims, rather than less. I don't believe in handing out the pass of "What he said was wrong, but he said it so well."
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Bev, you're simultaneously contending that the government does too much protecting of us (making it hard to buy unpastuerized milk) and then not enough (while teaching about nutrition, not teaching enough).
You're absolutely right. The argument that the gov't ought to teach us does not actually reflect how I feel. I was just making a point (see post above.)
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That more people know about Brad and Angelina than know about the new Speaker of the House is not actually a poor reflection on the Speaker of the House.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
After all, artificial nutrients are likely better than no nutrients at all.
Agreed! I think I actually said that in my post.

quote:
It doesn't mean it was good, either.
Agreed! I think Price was good. [Smile] If you want to disagree, I'm OK with that, but I'd be curious about why.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
Because each person's health is their own responsibility, NOT the government's.
Not according to the schools that teach my children. They are full of all kinds of propeganda about fire saftey, drugs, and more
Propaganda is such a negative term to use when talking about teaching children things like fire safety, to take one of the examples you used. Would you rather they were not taught these things?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
That more people know about Brad and Angelina than know about the new Speaker of the House is not actually a poor reflection on the Speaker of the House.
A sad truth. And I would totally understand someone complaining that things ought not to be so, even if it is not anyone's responsibility.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:
Propaganda is such a negative term to use when talking about teaching children things like fire safety, to take one of the examples you used. Would you rather they were not taught these things?
No. Sorry about the negative connotations, it was not the best choice of words.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That more people know about Brad and Angelina than know about the new Speaker of the House is not actually a poor reflection on the Speaker of the House.

Brad Pitt just bought a house a couple blocks from my old apartment.

/useless fact. [Razz]

-pH
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
Because each person's health is their own responsibility, NOT the government's.
Not according to the schools that teach my children. They are full of all kinds of propeganda about fire saftey, drugs, and more. Why? Because someone with power and money decided it was important enough. The superiority of organic foods didn't make the list.
Probably because it is NOT agreed upon.

Lack of pesticide exposure = good
Additional mold, mildew, and insect infestation = bad
Additional cost, and therefore probably less produce consumed by poor households = bad

Whether organic produce is on net better or worse is not so simple, and therefore I certainly am glad the government is not pushing it. (They are quite open about both the benefits and the drawbacks.)

And as far as the majority of studies I have seen indicate, there is little or no evidence that "artificial" vitamins and minerals provide any less nutritional value than natural ones, provided they are with their "partners" (such as having the correct balance of calcium and magnesium, etc.).

Many of the choices about which health issues are taught to your children are made by individual teachers and/or schools. Also, your kids are very young. Some of these issues are too complex for elementary school, and they will probably hear about them in high school.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
quote:
steven....how many "natural" grown tomatoes have the reasfings of the "best"? Most don't I'd bet.
Here ya go, from page 11. I am guessing that it is supposed to say "readings", but I am not sure.

Banna said something about all the nutrients a plant needs can be synthesized and that the plants wouldn't know the difference. I haven't found it yet, though.

Bev...that was me, and I stand by it. He was talking about a BS test, using a meter incorrectly to get it, and telling us that hydroponics don't work, and can't meet the same standards that his own tomatoes can, without mentioning that even his own home grown ones don't all measure up to a his above mentioned standard.

I never said I knew everything about nutrition, but when hydroponic grown vegetables are grown and the majority of people can't tell the difference (with or without actual scientific testings), I'd say hydroponics are a viable option. Particularly since the specific lab I mentioned, at Disney, uses natural home grown pest controls, macrobiotics measures, and natural fungicides whenever possible., rather than using chemicals.

The tomatoes and other plants they grow are used in their own restraunts, BTW, and are a huge hit.

Kwea
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BannaOj:
all your so-called "organics" that your fruiting plants need, can be completely synthizised from non-organic sources and the plants aint gonna know the difference.

AJ
Heck your man Evan even agrees with me on the chemistry of it.
http://www.progressivegardens.com/growers_guide/hydroponics.html
quote:
there is absolutely no difference in the final ion product with respect to synthetic nutrients and organic based nutrients. An ion is an ion. It is simply a different way of delivering the food to the plant. As has been stated, plants “eat” ions in an inorganic form in the end anyway. In other words, plants do not eat guano ions, or kelp ions; they eat the inorganic constituents of these materials after they have been broken down or dissolved in water.

Bev...here is the quote you were looking for, BTW.

[Wink]
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
...the specific lab I mentioned, at Disney, uses natural home grown pest controls, macrobiotics measures, and natural fungicides whenever possible., rather than using chemicals.

Those things are all chemicals as well. The word "chemical" is not a pejorative. Nor are things inherently good because they're "natural" (whatever that means -- plenty of "natural" goods are synthesized anyway).
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
*waits for rivka to drop by and mention arsenic*
[Wink]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
[Razz]

I deliberately omitted that from my post above. Beverly and I have had that conversation before.

Water is a chemical too. And too much of it can kill you.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Kwea, according to Rex Harrill, the moderator of the Brix Yahoo group, who lives in Florida, the orange growers for the Florida orange juice industry are paid according to the Brix of their oranges. Higher Brix=more cash per bushel.


You are conflating vegetables and fruiting plants. The complex relationship between fruiting plants and microbes is not yet fully understood. For vegetables it's simpler, and hydroponics is more likely to give similar results as soil-grown.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
And brix basically = sugar. The way they are talking about total solids being comparable to brix I have major issues with, because of the physics of light and refractive indices.

Of course things with more sugar taste better to everyone! That part of it does make sense to me. I do *not* agree that brix actually implies anything about anything other than sugars content.

With regards to other items being discussed involving my name.

From my reading of Price, it wasn't necessarily that he wanted to return to whole grains because he realized that industrialized processes for feeding a nation weren't entirely compatible with such a notion. But, that in lieu of whole grains making sure everyone has vitamins is a good thing. Breakfast cereals are currently enriched with *more* vitamins than are in the raw grains. This helps compensate for a less balanced diet.

I never said that eating less processed food is bad, I said that I think Price would be pleased that the nutrient content of processed food has vastly improved.

I also completely stand by my statement about plants. Supplying minerals in hydroponic form generally results in far more nutrient rich plants, because the minerals are easily accesibleand they can't tell the difference in where the ions came from.

Bev, one of the cool things about plants is all of these "organics" you are talking about, are things that plants make for themselves. From the air. The roots exist to provide the trace minerals and water. Every single carbon atom in a plant, even the roots, came from carbon dioxide molecule in the air. None of it came from the ground. The trace minerals of course are necessary in helping the carbon fixation process, but it doesn't matter where they come from as long as the correct ions are there.

I would agree that fruiting plants are more complex particularly in pollination mechanisms, and there may be some microbe symbiosis in the wild, because the microbes can eat harmful things, and put nutritents in more accesible forms. But pollination can be provided for artificially in most cases, and in most agricultural fruits the entire process is very well defined.

Do plants synthesize different chemicals in response to environmental stressors? Absolutely. But you would have a hard time convincing me that those chemicals help humans nutritionally in any whey, when they get broken right back down into simple molecules in our stomachs and digestive systems. Those complex molecules get destroyed so fast by the acidic pH in our stomachs that I think their nutritional usefulness is highly unlikely.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"I do *not* agree that brix actually implies anything about anything other than sugars content."

I never said otherwise. It is possible to have high Brix and low mineral content. That's why you also can use an EC meter to determine total mineral content. You can also test for phosphorus, calcium, etc.

I am not insulting the idea of hydroponics. I think it's the wave of the future. I think it's also important to be honest about where we are versus where we one day will be, nutritionally speaking, in hydroponics. Brix and EC, among other tests, help tremendously in this regard. Animal testing takes a lot longer, but is another objective measure.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Electrical conductivity will give you an idea of the ionization of the object, however to directly correlate it with total mineral content is problematic, as an increase in sodium chloride will increase electrical conductivity.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, banna---well, yes, but

a. you mostly know your total salinity anyway, if you know how much salt you put in the reservoir, and

b. that's what salinity meters are for.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Yeah, and all of the meters lie to you because of complex ion interference, unless you have a specific ion electrode.

AJ
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
That leaves us with animal testing, which I mentioned a couple of posts ago. I imagine you can get results with insects in a couple of days, and with mice in a few weeks. I still say that Brix+EC is an excellent starting point.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
OR use specific ion electrodes. THey are considereably cheaper than animal testing. I don't understand what your aim of animal testing is? A good laboratory assay would tell you the organics present so I don't see why you need animals.

AJ
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
...the specific lab I mentioned, at Disney, uses natural home grown pest controls, macrobiotics measures, and natural fungicides whenever possible., rather than using chemicals.

Those things are all chemicals as well. The word "chemical" is not a pejorative. Nor are things inherently good because they're "natural" (whatever that means -- plenty of "natural" goods are synthesized anyway).
I know that, twinky, I really do. I was trying to be concise and left something out. Again.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't doubt that we still have a ton of things to learn....about ourselves and about the food we eat. I do think that modern science is a MUCH better, more reliable way of finding out what we do and don't know, and increasing the amount we do know in a significant manner.


I just had a couple of problems with you claiming your personal beliefs as scientifically proven fact, and with you jumping on anyone who objected to any part of your arguments, steven. I tried, at least at first, to leave an opening for you. I heard a lot of people saying that for his time, Price wasn't was off base.

But the scientific method has evolved, and a lot of study has been given to a lot of claims he had made. There are also a lot of predujces in some of his views, and eugenics was not a pretty movement. Nor was it particularily scientific in it's processes.


I hope that hydroponics are the gleaming hope they seem to be, and that we will continue to improve on their techniques.


But I still don't believe, nor have I seen any real proof, of people regrowing teeth, or curing their Downs Syndrome.

Nor do I get anything other than disgust reading up on Ormus. [Smile]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Banna, animal testing is the gold standard by which the usefulness of any other testing method is judged. I have never worked with single-element electrodes, nor have I heard of anyone in hydroponics using them. Can you point me to some hydroponics papers on using them?


Regarding regrowing teeth--there's no question that people have had their cavities healed using diet alone. You can find plenty of pictures of this in Dr. Price's book.

It's also very true that sometimes people do regrow teeth on their own, without dietary changes. I admit to knowing squat about how that works.

Down's syndrome--Dr. Price found that older women on a traditional-style diet were not more likely, on average, than younger women, to have children with birth defects.

My whole point with eating a traditional-style diet is this--when you break down nature, you had better know what you're doing. "The Law of Unintended Consequences" applies. My personal experience has been that, the better quality food I eat, the more pleasant the surprises in my life tend to be, barring other factors. The opposite is true when I don't eat so well.

Re: Ormus--here are the basic facts.

1. David Hudson found huge amounts of "precious metals" in the volcanic dirt on his land in Arizona. He was extracting rhodium to the tune of 100 pounds per ton or more from this dirt, as well as iridium and gold, et al in smaller amounts. Rhodium goes for about 3-5 thousand dollars an ounce, currently.

2. The ancient alchemists said that these materials like white powder gold, the oil of gold, and others would prolong life and increase health.

3. I personally know quite a few Ormus researchers who have had their own cancer healed via taking Ormus, or have provided Ormus to people who have healed their own cancer using it. Don Nance at Atlantis Alchemy is one such person. I can name 4 or 5 others easily.

4. Ormus elements exist in large abundance in certain rocks, some groundwater, and seawater, and many plants. They are much more abundant in their Ormus form in nature than the metallic form. David Hudson's chemists found them in brain matter, Concord grape juice, aloe vera, and some Hawaiian-grown carrots, as well as other foods. Other researchers have found Ormus in groundwater.

5. Plants grown in volcanic soil are very often extremely nutritious compared to other soil types. Anyone who has been to Hawaii or Costa Rica and eaten lots of the local fruit can attest to this.

6. The anecdotal research of Dr. Price suggests that native diets are extremely protective against cancer as well as other common health problems.

7. Many raw food vegan healing centers claim high rates of cancer cures. Hippocrates Health Institute is one. I have heard they claim 77% cancer cure rate, although I've never contacted them. I'm not a vegan, and I suspect the rate would be higher using good-quality raw animal products like good-quality raw dairy and fish eggs.

8. Many Ormus researchers have seen their hair start to return to it's original color from being gray. I can name at least 3 or 4.

9. Stories of hair turning to its original color are very abundant in the raw foods community. I started going gray at age 25, went 100% raw, and the gray disappeard 2-3 months later, and hasn't returned since.

10. Several Ormus reseachers have reported the healing of tooth problems.

11. Billins of dollars in research money ahs been spent on learning how to use the platinum group metals to heal cancer. The research is geared toward getting the particles to their smallest size and keeping them at that size. Ormus is probably eithier diatomic or monatomic, according to most Ormus researchers.

Can anyone see what I'm sayin'? I don't think the case is closed by any means. Don't assume I do. I think it may actually be ridiculously more complicated.

Here's a nice passage from Chapter 15. It has nothing to do with Ormus but I thought I'd post it and see what you said.

"Shortly before our arrival in Northern Canada a white prospector had died of scurvy. Beside him was his white man's packet of canned foods. Any Indian man or woman, boy or girl, could have told him how to save his life by eating animal organs or the buds of trees.

Another illustration of the wisdom of the native Indians of that far north country came to me through two prospectors whom we rescued and brought out with us just before the fall freeze-up. They had gone into the district, which at that time was still uncharted and unsurveyed, to prospect for precious metals and radium. They were both doctors of engineering and science, and had been sent with very elaborate equipment from one of the large national mining corporations. Owing to the inaccessibility of the region, they adopted a plan for reaching it quickly. They had flown across the two ranges of mountains from Alaska and when they arrived at the inside range, i.e., the Rocky Mountain Range, they found the altitude so high that their plane could not fly over the range, and, as a result, they were brought down on a little lake outside. The plane then returned but was unable to reach the outside world because of shortage of fuel. The pilot had to leave it on a waterway and trudge over the mountains to civilization. The two prospectors undertook to carry their equipment and provisions over the Rocky Mountain Range into the interior district where they were to prospect. They found the distance across the plateau to be about one hundred miles and the elevation ranging up to nine thousand feet. While they had provisions and equipment to stay two years they found it would take all of this time to carry their provisions and instruments across this plateau. They accordingly abandoned everything, and rather than remain in the country with very uncertain facilities and prospects for obtaining food and shelter, made a forced march to the Liard River with the hope that some expedition might be in that territory. One of the men told me the following tragic story. While they were crossing the high plateau he nearly went blind with so violent a pain in his eyes that he feared he would go insane. It was not snow blindness, for they were equipped with glasses. It was xeropthalmia, due to lack of vitamin A. One day he almost ran into a mother grizzly bear and her two cubs. Fortunately, they did not attack him but moved off. He sat down on a stone and wept in despair of ever seeing his family again. As he sat there holding his throbbing head, he heard a voice and looked up. It was an old Indian who had been tracking that grizzly bear. He recognized this prospector's plight and while neither could understand the language of the other, the Indian after making an examination of his eyes, took him by the hand and led him to a stream that was coursing its way down the mountain. Here as the prospector sat waiting the Indian built a trap of stones across the stream. He then went upstream and waded down splashing as he came and thus drove the trout into the trap. He threw the fish out on the bank and told the prospector to eat the flesh of the head and the tissues back of the eyes, including the eyes, with the result that in a few hours his pain had largely subsided. In one day his sight was rapidly returning, and in two days his eyes were nearly normal. He told me with profound emotion and gratitude that that Indian had certainly saved his life.

Now modern science knows that one of the richest sources of vitamin A in the entire animal body is that of the tissues back of the eyes including the retina of the eye...."
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I rest my case.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry, y'all. We had a big storm come through Oregon, and we lost power for about 48 hours. Quite an adventure!

quote:
Regarding regrowing teeth--there's no question that people have had their cavities healed using diet alone. You can find plenty of pictures of this in Dr. Price's book.

It's also very true that sometimes people do regrow teeth on their own, without dietary changes. I admit to knowing squat about how that works.

I know very little about dentistry, but I had a small cavity this last year, one of those "let's wait and see" cavities. I had been told "wait and see" on small cavities before by other dentists. I remember asking the dentist, "Why wait and see? What do you expect to happen?" The dentist told me that sometimes a cavity can "recalcify" or something like that, basically implying that there are times when the mineral enamel of the tooth can build back up again. I thought this sounded extraordinary and asked him more about it. He said that the minerals that we take in can contribute to it.

I just want to generally apologize for getting cranky with y'all. I still honestly don't understand the issues you have with steven, since I find what he has to say interesting, but we might just have to agree to disagree.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
15 pages? I go away for a week and a half because of a wedding and living at work (not going to get better before the 22nd, then it's lots of family time until the second) and I have 11 pages to catch up on? wow... I thought I'd have to go searching three or four pages back to find the thread. [Big Grin]

Price didnt claim to heal cavities, but in his practice he induced (through changes in diet) dentine to remineralize over existing calories. he never proved it scientifically or published professionally, but NaPD is full of anecdotes from his practice) I think this is one of many things Steven didn't quite understand.

To quote the good doctor:
quote:
If [the chemical content of the saliva] has been sufficiently improved, bacterial growth will not only be inhibited, but the leathery decayed dentine will become mineralized from the saliva by a process similar to petrification. Note that this mineralized dentine is not vital, nor does it increase in volume and fill the cavity. When scraped with a steel instrument it frequently takes on a density like very hard wood and occasionally takes even a glassy surface.
Note he's quite clear that the cavities are not cured, but that dentine remineralizes over them. this is made even more clear by the preceding and following paragraphs.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I still honestly don't understand the issues you have with steven
My big issue is that the underlying understanding of science exhibited and advocated by steven leads people to stop seeking evidence-based treatment for cancer and check in to a vegan treatment center.

People die because of this (in general - I'm not laying any deaths at steven's door in particular), and the whole "pharmaceutical conspiracy" issue is used to convince people who otherwise would not be convinced.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I offer a more moderate view. The things that steven discusses are fascinating (to me) anecdotes that get filed away in my brain for later in case I come across something similar somewhere else, but I don't turn a deaf ear to what science and medicine is saying.

I figure certain kinds of people are predisposed in their nature and experiences to go against conventional medicine. If it isn't steven, it will be someone else they listen to. They are looking for it. The arguments for medical wisdom are abundant and if they are already being ignored, further arguments here may not be effective either.

I guess what I'm saying is that I am not personally concerned about steven leading anyone astray. I understand that others are. I'm sorry about that, and I am especially sorry because of the hurtful words that have come out of the conflict. I don't think it is worth it, and I truly wish that could be avoided.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Interestingly, there have been dozens of studies on which people choose varieties of CAM ("complementary and alternative medicine") and what reasons they give for that choice. There are some pretty consistent findings. There is also a national database collecting information on negative (and positive) outcomes for CAM users. I didn't know if anyone was unaware of these, or whether such information would be useful to the discussion.

---

In other news, I thought of steven when I read this article in a recent Vancouver Sun: Traditional Inuit diet keeps people healthy
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I was aware of the existence of such such studies, but don't recall seeing results.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Same here I wasn't aware that any comprehensive findings were made, either.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I never suggested people shouldn't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Both are proven to work in at least some cases. I suggest using whatever works. I suspect Dag knows all this, though.

Dag, what are your motivations for this? Are you trying to make sure people get the best of both worlds, or are you still sore at me for nailing the Catholic church last year on the Overpopulation thread?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I never suggested people shouldn't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Both are proven to work in at least some cases. I suggest using whatever works. I suspect Dag knows all this, though.
I don't doubt you think people should use whatever works. I think your standards for determining what works are wrong and potentially dangerous.

quote:
Dag, what are your motivations for this? Are you trying to make sure people get the best of both worlds, or are you still sore at me for nailing the Catholic church last year on the Overpopulation thread?
My motivations are apparent on the surface of my posts in this thread.

What are your motivations here?
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Ahh, it's the Catholic church bit.

I only accuse you of this motivation because I can't imagine putting this much energy into anything for any reason other than religion.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean Dags wouldn't. Also, does this mean you view this thread (and those that came before it) as a religious crusade?

Interesting that you feel the need to assign motivations in any case. No longer able to stick with the actual issues?
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I only accuse you of this motivation because I can't imagine putting this much energy into anything for any reason other than religion.

The first sentence of the post you're responding to isn't good enough?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Ahh, it's the Catholic church bit.

Please stop lying about me.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
OK, well, maybe I misinterpreted your attitude with me last year. I thought you were defending your church.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If such a thread occurred - I'm not doubting you, but I don't remember it - then my motivation in said thread was to defend my church.

My motiviation in this thread has been explicitly stated.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
If you want to discuss my motivations in this thread, we can. If you want to argue Dr. Price's work point-by-point, we can. I think it would be more productive for you to read the 5 chapters I have suggested, then make up your mind about what you want to do.

However, you may have just wanted some more clarity on how I felt about Western medical treatments, which is understandable, perhaps.

The other thread I was referring to was the "overpopulation" thread, which I, apparently, have deleted. I will admit I may have done some counter-productive things in that thread. Mea culpa, etc.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Ion selective electrodes
http://www.chemistry.nmsu.edu/Instrumentation/IS_Electrod.html
http://www.nico2000.net/Book/Guide1.html
http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=2750410
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
on another subject, check your email, banna.

As far as selective-element electrodes go, I can see using that once you're testing extremely specific things.

Right now I'm working on putting together a total hydroponic solution with my friend Evan Folds. It's going to include an organic N-P-K liquid nutrient, seawater precipitate, a biodynamic compost preparation, and probably oyster shell and/or fish bones that have been dissolved and re-precipitated. It may also include green leaf juices, although that may have to be added on site because they are perishable.
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I prefer to use General Hydroponics nutrient solutions, which have been designed by PhD's from UC Davis, and were used to grow wheat hydroponically.

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
And don't expect an e-mail answer from me any time soon. Those who actually need to communicate with me get my work e-mail address and the one I use on forums is basically a throw away account that I check about once a month.

AJ
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Ahh, it's the Catholic church bit.

I only accuse you of this motivation because I can't imagine putting this much energy into anything for any reason other than religion.

You DO realize the irony of that statement coming from you, don't you steven? [Wink]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Beverly, that's why, among many other reasons, I have a problem with steven. He is advocating Price as his personal religion and then insults people when they don't convert. You know that's a lousy tactic.

Appeasement is not always the most virtuous tact to take.
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I don't know where you got "appeasement" out of "validation", Kat. They aren't the same thing.

We all know that the best way to deal with trollish behavior is to ignore it. Insults beget insults. If someone shows repeatedly that they can't be civil, they ought to be ignored and reported. Don't engage them in conversation. I don't like the insulting behavior either, I just prefer a different way of dealing with it. And appeasement isn't what I'd call it.

I am giving steven some berth because I haven't personally seen enough to draw my own conclusion. If steven shows that he isn't worth engaging in conversation, then I won't, even if I find what he has to say interesting. You have had time to draw your own conclusion, I need time to draw mine.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
steven, here is your thread, in all it's glory.


Which is why I started it....this one isn't deleted like the ones YOU started.


Beware of this stuff, guys....it is dangerous.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I kind of wish you WOULD delete it. Along with yourself, from Hatrack.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I kind of wish you WOULD delete it. Along with yourself, from Hatrack.

LOL


[No No]


Play nice.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I could say the same thing to you.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
For me, this is.
 
Posted by Chris Masterjohn (Member # 10511) on :
 
Well done, Steven! I don't know why you even think you need anyone's help. Sounds like you have everything in control here. I'd be surprised if anyone eats another processed food product after this thread. Keep up the good work!
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
Chris, you're a pretty clever guy, and you have an interesting site www.cholesterol-and-health.com for those that don't know. I'd certainly be very interested to hear you respond to some of the questions put forth here regarding the scientific merit of Dr. Price's research methods in the context of modern scientific rigor.

personally I find the anecdotal tales fascinating for storytelling purposes/traditions and the value of the book as a whole to lean more towards anthropology than health. In terms of health I don't find the presentation of material in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration to be balanced or consistent (selection bias and confounding factors, oy!) to draw any useful conclusions other than the most vague one, (that various peoples across the globe sometimes experienced more ill health after being introduced to industrialized food stuffs).
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Wow.

This thread is like pirate treasure, unearthed after so long.

It is full of traditional pirate treasure! Like Doubloons! and pieces of eight! and specious reasoning!
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's also like the scene in POTC3 when Jack is talking to multiple versions of himself. Chris Masterjohn is the steven swabbing the deck.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Hey! Spoiler warnings!
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
It's funny that you think Chris is me, kat. I don't have time to analyze it, but I don't cheat like that very often. c.t.t.n. went all kinds of places I never expected it to go, but I believed fervently I'd get caught if I tried the alts trick in a Dr. Price discussion.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
If just Steven and Chris told me about the exciting works of Dr. Price, I don't think I would be convinced, but if one or two more people also pointed to the same book, at the same time - Perhaps a Douglass or Michael - I think I could see myself starting to believe every word of it.

They wouldn't even have to swab the deck!
 
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Guys, he invited a guy named Chris (among others), pointed us to the place where he extended the invitation, and now a guy named Chris shows up so it must be steven himself? C'mon.

I did go (yesterday) to the native-nutrition place, join, and post a reply to steven's original post, and tried in a very non-confrontational and even-handed way explain that steven's depiction of the reception people might get is probably less than accurate. That post hasn't been cleared by TPTB over there yet, apparently (darn moderators*** -- not worth a thing anywhere you go *smile*).

Welcome to Hatrack, Chris.

--Pop

***Edit for clarity -- the moderator comment was making fun of myself, because I'm the moderator here. I hadn't noted at the time I made the comment that Chris is apparently the moderator over there. That kinda makes it even funnier to me, but that's just my sense of humor, and Chris doesn't know me and so may not see it the way I intended it. Anyway, Chris, it was not a comment on you in any way.

[ June 02, 2007, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
To be honest, I actually assumed that "Chris" was an uncharitable, non-Steven Hatracker trying to make fun of him.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I think you're probably right, Tom. I just emailed Chris from his Yahoo email to find out. I'm betting that the fact that the email is not available at all on this Hatrack profile is one of the two reasons you made that assumption, right? The other being the tone.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
steven....notice I didn't say you were alts.....but I thought it might be so, because you have done the alt thing before.

It is hardly even a reach to think so, really, although I am not convinced one way or another.


And people HAVE tried to pull that crap before, with BC being one of the most obvious.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
To be honest, I actually assumed that "Chris" was an uncharitable, non-Steven Hatracker trying to make fun of him.

Yeah, the reply was so off the wall that it sounded like sarcasm.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I have heard back from teh real Chris. He...had never heard of Hatrack.

Yeah.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
shocking....
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
To be honest, I actually assumed that "Chris" was an uncharitable, non-Steven Hatracker trying to make fun of him.

Yeah, and pretty obviously so. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Poor steven... I don't think there is anybody left to convince buddy.
 
Posted by ChrisMasterjohn (Member # 10521) on :
 
Hi,

This is the real Chris Masterjohn and I did not write the post in this thread. I do not have time to participate in this forum but I just wanted to make that clear.

Thanks,
Chris
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Is anybody else envisioning dozens of these posts, each claiming to be the real "Chr1s Masterjohn", "Christ Master John", "Christmas Johnter", and so on?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
It's like that scene in Spartacus redone for an internet forum.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Well, I didn't email teh real Chris to find out if it's him or not. I assume it is, although I don't know.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
I'm Chris Masterjohn
Yes I'm the real Masterjohn
All you other Chris Masterjohns
Are just imitating
So won't the real Chris Masterjohn please stand up
Please stand up
Please stand up
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
*groan*
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Hmm. He's made another post, I see. I suspect the Hatrack Vortex is slowly dragging him down...

BWAH-HAH-HAH! You cannot escape now, noobling!
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Hmm. He's made another post, I see. I suspect the Hatrack Vortex is slowly dragging him down...

BWAH-HAH-HAH! You cannot escape now, noobling!

As long as he doesn't start backing the creationist museum. [Razz]
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Hmm. He's made another post, I see. I suspect the Hatrack Vortex is slowly dragging him down...

BWAH-HAH-HAH! You cannot escape now, noobling!"


I think he can escape, and I think he will escape. Chris seems to keep busy with his temp-to-permanent mod duties over at Native Nutrition.

I don't know, I think more and more that people push the dietary recommendations that have worked for them. Chris pushes liver. I push fish eggs, and mostly-raw. There's a girl on Native Nutrition who pushed her anti-amine agenda until I truly began to hate her. But, in all fairness, it works for her, at least so far. And so it goes.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
There's a girl on Native Nutrition who pushed her anti-amine agenda until I truly began to hate her.
*relates*
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2