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.
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't. 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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. 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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. 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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. If you want to disagree, I'm OK with that, but I'd be curious about why.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Bev, are you even reading my posts? You aren't responding to them at all.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I figure it is too subjective to define. I think it is significant, another might not.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
