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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
Now to understand the limits of anecdotal evidence.
I feel we're getting somewhere!
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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???
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Hey Jenni, where is all this coming from?
Dammit....my wife never logged out.
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.
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't hold up because it hasn't been throughoughly tested, not because it has been proved wrong.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
