posted
Letting it die is one thing. Letting it die with somebody else having the last word is another. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Does everyone agree that it's kind of difficult to build bone without the necessary minerals? (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, etc.)?
Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins act as catalysts for those bone-building minerals?
Do we all agree that all the traditional tribes prized fatty tissue far above all other body parts (muscle meat)?
Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins are generally found in fatty tissue, more than in muscle meat?
Do we all agree that trace minerals are found in the largest amount in shellfish, followed by fatty organs, followed by other fatty tissues?
What does everyone want?
Answer me one question---why do the foods that all traditional tribes prized have the highest content of minerals and fat-soluble vitamins?
Every time I start thinking I'm wrong, I remember the 20,000 Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica, straight-toothed and much healthier than the average Hatracker. Now, to be fair, they have all the same relationship and humans issues that we do. They cheat on their spouses, and they cry when their spouses leave them, just like almost any group of humans. I've seen it happen.
I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it. It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your conclusions also include the idea that you can regrow teeth and that these minerals are a magical healing agent that will make you live forever.
Also, you're making some really sweeping generalizations about "all traditional tribes." Which tribes are we talking about? I want specifics.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it. It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
You are either dishonest or lack basic reading comprehension skills. Here's what Bob said:
quote:so that even if you are right (and Price is right -- I've wanted to use that one for days!), there's no compelling reason to believe you, or him.
"Even if..." does not mean that Bob agrees with your conclusion.
So the question before us: Are you a liar? Or are you a poor reader?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it.
The clause you quoted, in context, is part of a conditional. That is,
quote:The problem is that I (and most everyone else here) knows that your line of reasoning is flawed, so that even if you are right (and Price is right -- I've wanted to use that one for days!), there's no compelling reason to believe you, or him.
is accurately translated as
quote:so that even if you [and Price] are right, then ...
The "Price is right" reference is to a pop cultural icon game show. The clue is Bob's tongue-in-cheek "I've wanted to use that one for days!" (note: italics added for emphasis). By saying "that one," he indicates it is a specific type of thing, namely, a pun.
I speak Bobbish.
quote:It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
Yes.
That is, he doesn't claim to know the truth value of your conclusion. He can't assess it because the methods you use to get there don't make sense.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a quote from Bob: "and Price is right -- "
Bob_Scopatz, COME ON DOWN! You're the next contestant on THE PRICE IS RIGHT!!!"
<huge applause from studio audience. Bob jumping up and down like a giddy bobby socker, squealing and shreiking, and hugging Bob Barker. Going to his podium and getting ready to bid the closest price without going over for some broadloom carpet and a sofa>
Uh. What? I'm sorry! But I can't have been the only one that had that image just go through the imagination. Back to our regularly scheduled earnestness.
Teeth, traditional tribes, eating brains and clams, scientific method, indignation, indigestion, yadda yadda yadda.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think that the Price is Right is working through their stock of prizes donated by companies in the 1980's.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does everyone agree that it's kind of difficult to build bone without the necessary minerals? (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, etc.)?
Of course.
quote:Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins act as catalysts for those bone-building minerals?
Do you mean we need Vitamin D to build bone? Then again, of course.
quote:Do we all agree that all the traditional tribes prized fatty tissue far above all other body parts (muscle meat)?
No. "All the traditional tribes" is far to broad a term to use in any context, let alone this one.
quote:Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins are generally found in fatty tissue, more than in muscle meat?
Yes, they are found in fatty tissue. No, fatty tissue is no the only or even best source.
quote:Do we all agree that trace minerals are found in the largest amount in shellfish, followed by fatty organs, followed by other fatty tissues?
*shrug* Do you think all traditional tribes live within range of shellfish?
None of these lead to your conclusion that straight teeth follows from this diet. None of these lead to your conclusion that better health follows from this diet. None of these preclude the possibility that there are other causes of crooked teeth. And none of these preclude the possibility that there are other sources of these minerals and vitamins.
We can grant every single premise you put forth, and the conclusions you reach still aren't supported.
Here's the list: Dinka, Maori, Polynesians of all kinds, including Hawaiians, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans of all types, including Cherokee, Eskimo, Seminole, Peruvians, Bantu, Masai, and some European groups, Loetschenstal Swiss and Hebrides Scots. It's a very partial list. Price's book is a condensation of his conclusions, and he doesn't cite every meal he ate with everybody he met. It's a 500-page condensation. He did a lot. he mentions other tribes as well, but I can't bring them all up from memory.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, when I say fatty tissue, I mean brains, liver, kidneys, marrow, etc., almost everything but muscle, skin, bone, and hair. Fatty vs. protein. They aimed at organs with lots of fat and little protein,. To me, the fact that shellfish are so full of trace minerals points up that fact that Price mostly missed the boat by saying that it's the macro-minerals and fat-soluble vitamins that do the bone-building.
Dab, some tribes would travel hundreds of miles on foot just to get shellfish, including a number of African tribes, as well as Peruvians in the Andes.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I remember the 20,000 Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica, straight-toothed and much healthier than the average Hatracker.
Ever been to COsta Rica steven? My uncle has lived there for over 6 years now, and he wouldn't agree with this statement at all.
I hate to break it to you, but our problems are with BOTH your conclusions AND the methods used to find those conclusions.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, I'm, talking about a group of Guaymi who live a 3-hour hike throught hilly virgin rainforest jungle from the nearest road. A few of them live part-time at a farm where I stayed, and they all had ruler-straight teeth and were extremely strong and flexible. The farm they stay at is literally at the end of the road in Costa Rica, at the very Southwest corner of the country, in other words, BFE. This group simply has no access to refined foods.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that shellfish, aren't fatty, right? That it's a question of tissue function more than formation, right? Also, you realize that if you eat too much of something you tend to piss it out?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, somehow, none of this proves ANYTHING. How many times will you repeat the same thing over and over before at least addressing others' points?
Did you lie or misread Bob's post? What other possible conclusions could be drawn from Price's data? Are there any differences other than diet between "traditional tribes" and Americans?
Without an epidemiological study of some kind, this proves nothing. Especially since the study wasn't blind - the selection bias alone is enough to cause the results to be questioned.
Check out the book Voodoo Science. It's short and will go over many of the problems associated with "studies" such as this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kwea, I'm, talking about a group of Guaymi who live a 3-hour hike throught hilly virgin rainforest jungle from the nearest road. A few of them live part-time at a farm where I stayed, and they all had ruler-straight teeth and were extremely strong and flexible. The farm they stay at is literally at the end of the road in Costa Rica, at the very Southwest corner of the country, in other words, BFE. This group simply has no access to refined foods.
So the odds are good that they get more exercise and eat less sugar, right?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's exactly my point. I've been saying this whole thread that Price missed the boat. He never mentioned trace minerals, yet he still noticed that all tribes praised shellfish. I think the reason he didn't see that is because the role of trace minerals in nutrition was not well-understood in 1939, compared to 2005.
Some things are urinated out more than others.
Price found that on average, the tribes had 5 times the B and C vitamins in their diet, 10 times the A, D, and E vitamins, 7 times the calcium, 5 times the phosphorus, and up to 29 times the magnesium, versus the standard American diet than people in the US were eating.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
could you try to stop accusing me of being a liar?
as far as eating less white sugar goes, that's only half the issue. White sugar has had all minerals removed. No minerals=no teeth and bones. Sweeteners are not the problem--raw honey was used by many groups with no ill effects.
As far as exercise goes, it was so cold in Central Canada for 5-6 months out of the year that those Indians barely went outside or did any work at all for 5-6 months. They had to sit around, and were not any more actuve than any other group when they could actually go outside. Price made a special mention of how they were some of the healthiest and happiest people he found, and they survived on almost nothing but preserved organ meats for months out of the year.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not what I said at all. I'm saying that the fact that these things are fatty soluble is completely irrelevant when it comes to finding a good source of them. Because they aren't stored in fatty tissue, they're stored on storage proteins in the circulatory system. That you find vitamin 1,25-D3 in the kidneys is not because the kidney is fatty, but because that's the (well, one of the) organ(s) where the vitamin is active. If you take another organ you will not find the vitamin there because it does not need to be there. Orgamisms are remarkably compartmentalized, really.
Not that this really matters to your argument, it's just somethig that mildly irritates me. As opposed to the rest of your argument whose flaws have already been outlined by Bob and Tom.
And steven, if Price claimed that the natives of central Canada barely did any work for 5-6 months of the year, he's clearly making things up.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
how do you rule out genetic factors and their influence on your observations? Were the ones you met close relatives? On average were there closer genetic relationships between them as a group and the group composed of "average Hatrackers?"
And, really, I figured you were joking with that misquotation you posted earlier on this page. If you weren't, then Dagonee's got it right. I'm going to hope and assume that was just a joke.
Again, you and I are not on the same page. Even if or when you state a conclusion that I agree with, I believe that you arrived at it by means other than logic or scientifically valid evidence. That I might agree with a statement you make is no indication at all that I agree with your reasoning. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you weren't, then Dagonee's got it right. I'm going to hope and assume that was just a joke.
I would have assumed that without the last sentence of the post. You're a better man than I for giving him the benefit of the doubt. Bob.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the clock is off by any amount, it will eventually show the right time unless it keeps absolutely perfect 12-hour cycles.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Bob, I simply assumed you were serious as well as joking with that comment. Your comments were all over the place, I couldn't exactly tell where you were coming from.
The Guaymi I met were not closely related. They all had perfect teeth and well-made bodies.
As far as THAT goes, I can always tell an African that was raised on a good diet in Africa. They look very different than the African-Americans I grew up with. The cheekbones are just different. It's quite visible. It takes me less than half a second to see the difference. Just this weekend I was at a chinese buffet, and I saw two Africans sitting together. My first reaction was to assume one of them was a friend of mine from Senegal who has beautiful teeth and cheekbones, because the two guys in the restaurant looked so different than the Black people I know and work with. It just jumps out at you.
This is just sad.
All right, this is as bald as I can make it.
Diet #1.--shellfish, organ meats, marrow, etc. is the native diet. It has 5-10 times the vitamins, and up to 29 times the magnesium.
Diet #2. --the diet that produces the fine healthy stock I used to see in the hospital I worked at as a nurse assistant.
Which diet do you THINK will build better bones and teeth?
Here's a link, use you eyes. Scroll down to the pictures.
Do pictures lie? Don't tell me Dr. Price took photos of only the straighter-toothed people. Dr. Pottenger's cats ALL had bad teeth and skeletons on the wrong diet, and cats are less closely related genetically to each other than humans are to each other, at least from what I understand of genetics.
As well, Price would have had a hard time faking those photos. It was 1939.
The man went on a journey to find a vegan tribe, and instead, he found that the closer to vegetarian a tribe was, the WORSE their teeth were.
If Price was intentionally lying or concealing information, how could he, in the search for veganism, find that it's is the worst thing you can do for your teeth?
He repeatedly remarks on how the Masai, who eat almost nothing except raw milk, raw blood, and organ meats, have MUCH better teeth than the Bantu, who grow and eat lots of vegetables. The Bantu had the most cavities of any tribe.
How does this make Price look good to find the opposite of what he hoped to find? HOW?
Look at the link. Just look at the pictures. Price's book has close to a hundred photos showing the same things. The photos in his whole book are just more of the same.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Diet #1.--shellfish, organ meats, marrow, etc. is the native diet. It has 5-10 times the vitamins, and up to 29 times the magnesium.
Diet #2. --the diet that produces the fine healthy stock I used to see in the hospital I worked at as a nurse assistant.
Which diet do you THINK will build better bones and teeth?
Okay, steven, you're still not getting it. Do you not understand why this is not necessarily a scientific conclusion? Please answer me. I will endeavor to explain this to you, if you would sincerely like to understand why you're encountering difficulty in this conversation.
You are still attempting to convert us. That's not going to happen. The information you continue to rehash in an attempt to convert us is not going to have that effect.
Why? Because scientific procedures were not followed here.
Do you understand that? Do you understand why that matters? Do you recognize even a few of the procedures that should have been followed that were not?
Do you realize that the fact that Price has a hundred photos in his books, all showing the same things, is in actually a likely point against him?
Furthermore, do you realize that what you believe Price has proven -- that eating some meat is better for teeth than not eating any meat -- is not exactly a justification for some of your other, considerably wilder dietary theories? And do you understand why it's not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
(I though if I shouted it would make more sense... )
OK, I will actually take the time to type all of this out. I doubt it will make a difference though...
In order for a specific pool of subjects to be considered a good sample for a scientific study, there has to be something to compare them with. It is usually called a control group or a comparison group, depending on what they are being used for in each specific case. You seem to be using the "average American" as your control group, and that single flaw shows EXACTLY why no one here will take anything you say as serious science.
What is the "average American"?
SCIENTIFICALLY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!
It is too broad a category, and contains too many counter-indications to be taken seriously as a control or comparison group. There are too many types of people who have too many types of background to scientifically quantify the group...which would be necessary if we were going to use it in an actual scientific study.
I am not saying all your assumptions are wrong...I am saying that they are assumptions, based on pseudo-science, and we have no way of telling if they are correct assumptions or not. Nothing resembling science has been conducted in this, and too many of the claims you make are inadequate documented to take them at face value.
Also, you DO realize how racist you sound here:
quote: As far as THAT goes, I can always tell an African that was raised on a good diet in Africa. They look very different than the African-Americans I grew up with. The cheekbones are just different. It's quite visible. It takes me less than half a second to see the difference. Just this weekend I was at a chinese buffet, and I saw two Africans sitting together. My first reaction was to assume one of them was a friend of mine from Senegal who has beautiful teeth and cheekbones, because the two guys in the restaurant looked so different than the Black people I know and work with. It just jumps out at you.
This is just sad.
What if they were Americans who ate your diet because their parents had converted to it before their birth? Or is they were second generation Americans, but still ate a traditional diet?
You do know that people come from different stock, right? White people and black, along with every other race I know of, even within their own race (which opens a whole other can of worms, using that definition, but I will save that for later )? They look different, when they do, because of any number of reasons....the same reason you can usually tell if a white person is Italian or Russian....and you would be wrong about as often as I am when I try to guess....and that is all it would be, a somewhat educated (although I cringe to use that word in this context) guess.
Also, there have been extensive studies done about modern sugar and sweeteners, and the research in Sugar Busters, a book I read in part because the subject matter interests me, mentions that as a society we have been having dental problems for about as long as we have had white flour and processed sweeteners. THAT book was researched fairly well, although I still have qualms about some of it even so, and it explains quite well some of the issues we have raised here in this thread.
posted
Steven: Let me put it bluntly. I'm pretty sure that nobody here cares about your theory. Nobody here is convinced by your arguments. Stating them over and over isn't helping you or anyone else.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it would be better to try a different tack. No offence intended to Tom or Bob, but maybe thinking about this in a different way will help Steven understand. Or not. We'll see.
Steven, let's start fresh. Let's pretend that you are a researcher who is highly interested in how nutrition affects oral health. How would YOU set up a study to ascertain this? What sorts of problems might you run into?
The rules: You can't take anything as given unless you can find a scientific study to back you up. Price and Pottenger don't count, find someone new. What is the question that you want answered (your hypothesis)? How will you limit variables?
Now pretend that we are the grant committee who has to decide if we are giving you the money to run this experiment. We want to know that you won't waste our money on a study that is unscientific. Your job is to convince us that your methods will be sound.
Now, you aren't a researcher, so I'm not expecting a graduate level proposal. High school science fair would probably be sufficient. There's no need to solve all of the problems that you would run into in such an experiment, you just need to notice that the problems exist and need to be dealt with.
Got it?
--Mel
(And if this tack doesn't work, I'll be jumping off the merry-go-round. I can't think of any other way to present what we are looking for. Guess that's why I'm not a teacher.)
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:<huge applause from studio audience. Bob jumping up and down like a giddy bobby socker, squealing and shrieking, and hugging Bob Barker. Going to his podium and getting ready to bid the closest price without going over for some broadloom carpet and a sofa>
I drive past the line waiting outside CBS to be on The Price is Right pretty often.
I've never noticed anything about their teeth. Or their diet . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
1/3 of what Price talked about was getting completely rid of all refined flour and sugar in the diet. 1/3 was about correlations between soil fertility and health, and 1/3 was about specific foods that were used in every group he found as the main basis of good health. Shellfish topped the list, followed by fatty organs and marrow.
I think the reason that the tribes used so much shellfish and organ meats is two-fold, at least:
1. Those foods are more digestible than, say, seeds, nuts, and legumes, and can be eaten in larger amounts
2. They have a relatively high nutrient content. Not as high as some seeds, nuts, etc, but still much higher than others.
I have heard many people people remark on how second-generation Americans look very different than their parents. There's a 6'2" Chinese guy (lives in Chapel Hill, NC) who was raised here whose dad was raised in China. His dad is all of about 5 feet, even, if that. This is pretty common in the Chinese-American community. It's not a huge stretch to think that if diet can cause such a difference in bone structure vertically, it can cause one horizontally as well (as in the narrowed faces and skeletons seen on deficient diets). But, that last sentence may not be met with agreement.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: They eat lots of Jiffy Pop Popcorn. Pops up light and fluffy every time. Jiffy Pop!
You'll be happy to know that I heard that in . . . um . . . what's-his-name's voice. You know, the guy who always wore the outrageous suits (may he rest in peace).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I have heard many people people remark on how second-generation Americans look very different than their parents. There's a 6'2" Chinese guy (lives in Chapel Hill, NC) who was raised here whose dad was raised in China. His dad is all of about 5 feet, even, if that. This is pretty common in the Chinese-American community. It's not a huge stretch to think that if diet can cause such a difference in bone structure vertically, it can cause one horizontally as well (as in the narrowed faces and skeletons seen on deficient diets). But, that last sentence may not be met with agreement.
Yes, that is a pretty huge stretch. You're basically positing that the American diet leads to poor bone structure and bad teeth, then you turn around and say that it can add a foot to your height. Poor nutrition leads to stunted growth, not extra growth. This is precisely why you really need to learn what the scientific method is. You're making conclusions that are either based on poor evidence or are contrary to logical reasoning.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if it's not a huge stretch, it's not scientifically established. That's the point of pretty much everyone's objections.
At best, Price's book is justification for a real scientist to conduct real scientific research into this question.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Price noted that the healthiest tribes were not the tallest tribes. The tallest ones were the biggest meat eaters (the Masai), whereas the healthiest tribes were the biggest fish and shellfish eaters, the Dinka and the Maori.
Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Ok, Jon Boy, now we're getting somewhere.
Oh, good. And it only took two and a half months.
quote: Price noted that the healthiest tribes were not the tallest tribes. The tallest ones were the biggest meat eaters (the Masai), whereas the healthiest tribes were the biggest fish and shellfish eaters, the Dinka and the Maori.
Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
I swear you're making this stuff up off the top of your head.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
Where is the proof that straight-toothed = healthy?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Bob.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)? They look different, when they do, because of any number of reasons....the same reason you can usually tell if a white person is Italian or Russian....and you would be wrong about as often as I am when I try to guess....and that is all it would be, a somewhat educated (although I cringe to use that word in this context) guess.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
