posted
random examples of other variables that can very easily discount these studies: -Family 1 is on average X years older/younger than Family 2 -Family 1 has a bunch of household idols around that are made of lead and happen to be giving them lead poisoning, Family 2's are made of wood -In addition to modern food Family 2 is exposed to alcohol, tobacco, snuff... -The modern diets that they are now exposed to are in no way nutritionally balanced, not because the modern food is inherently worse, but because they don't have the experience/knowledge to know what proportions to eat... i.e. if I start feeding an aborigonee a diet of twinkies and he gets sick it doesn't prove that processed food is bad so much as it proves that you can't survive on just twinkies.
Example of "science" that I find similar to all of this is the fact that I think heroin (could have been cocaine) used to be thought a wonder drug that helped the complexion, the digestive system etc etc before it was also proven to be a highly addictive drug with many horrendous side-effects.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there is also a connection in what good bacterial fauna get passed from the mother to the infant too.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given all three points, what's the question?
The question is were his studies properly statistically designed and analyzed. In my perusual of the chapters you suggest reading, what I see is anecdotal evidence which could easily be the result of sampling bias or simple anonmalies in the population. The plural of anecdotes isn't good statistics. Does Price ever do stastical analysis of his results? What statistical tests does he use? Does he describe the demographics of the populations he studies? Does he present any histograms that might show the age distribution, economic status, societal status, gender distribution of the populations he studied?
With regard to the animal studies, have the animals studied been validated as a reasonable model of humans? Most animals have digestive systems that are radically different from the human digestive system. Additionally, their are differences in their biochemistry which result in dramatic differences in dietary requirements. Koalas are quite healthy living on a strict diet of eucalyptus leaves. Cows are quite healthy living on a strict diet of wild grasses. Humans would starve to death on either diet. Furthermore, were the animals studies properly statistically designed. What quantitative measures were made? What controls were used? What statistical test were performed rule out the possibility that differences observed were the result of random chance or confounding factors?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Huh. I have thought before about using our enourmous outbuilding as a slaughethouse. Part of it was sectioned off and insulated for the purpose of refrigeration.
I now understand all the visual references I have seen in the media of carcasses hanging in a cold room.
I wonder why contamination is not a problem? People would be coming and going in the room, introducing new airborne microorganisms all the time. We all have been taught that meat that isn't fresh isn't safe. This link doesn't explain *why* dry aging can be safe in a controlled environment.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, bev, but it's the standard practice. So the common knowledge that we've taught non-fresh meat isn't safe already takes this aging into account when determining "freshness."
I do know most bacterial growth is very slow at those temperatures. Also, there is less surface area exposed per volume of meat. I suspect both of those factors help.
I would assume there are standards on entry and what people wear in there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, you might want to read the book. Price notes in several places that infant mortality and birth complications were much lower among those on a traditional diet. I read a book in college about a Haida woman who had 11 kids, and delivered all 11 by herself at home, with no medical help. This was the norm among the Eskimos. Read this passsage from the book:
"A similar impressive comment was made to me by Dr. Romig, the superintendent of the government hospital for Eskimos and Indians at Anchorage, Alaska. He stated that in his thirty-six years among the Eskimos, he had never been able to arrive in time to see a normal birth by a primitive Eskimo woman. But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days. One Eskimo woman who had married twice, her last husband being a white man, reported to Dr. Romig and myself that she had given birth to twentysix children and that several of them had been born during the night and that she had not bothered to waken her husband, but had introduced him to the new baby in the morning."
that's from Chapter 18.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
but that isn't NUMBERS steven, that is anecdotal evidence. Maybe educated anecdotal evidence but it doesn't prove anything.
He's got to have population numbers and actual *data* on infant mortality or it proves nothing.
It's the same scenario as the apples. Just because all I ever see is red apples in my entire life, doesn't mean green apples don't exist.
Now if rather than an "impressive comment" by Dr. Romig, he'd said, the government hospital and birth certificate records from the year 1930 state that X number of children were born at home and Y children were born in the hospital, we'd only just be beginning. First we'd need to show year-by-year trends of home births vs hospital births then we'd need to check to see if distance to the hospital had anything to do with it.
We *don't* have actual documentation in raw nubers on the true number of hours these women were actually in labor. It's all just hearsay.
quote: Price notes in several places that infant mortality and birht complications were much lower among those on a traditional diet.
Does he have statistics to back this up? Can you refer me to the pages where the statistics are shown.
Your Eskimo story is also anecdotal. That doesn't mean its wrong, just that one cannot draw sweeping conclusions from it.
The Empress Maria Theresa who ruled Austria from 1740 to 1780 gave birth to 16 children in 19 years without complications and managed to rule the Austro-Hungarian empire at the same time all while eating a western diet.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read Dagonee's link on aging meat, although I suspect it is quite thorough.
My understanding of aging meat is that it should be done on whole slabs, not on ground meat (for the "seeding" reason mentioned previously). It needs to be done in an environment that minimizes bacterial growth. I think Alton Brown has a good section on one of his episodes, too.
Sometimes there is, for example, a deliberate production (or allowance) of mold to grow -- such as (I think) for Virginia smoked hams -- because microorganisms can competetively inhibit one another. That is to say, the presence of certain kinds of mold may change the microbial environment to make it unfriendly to the growth of "bad" bacteria (changes in pH, levels of glucose or various proteins, dryness, etc). people who do this for a living do it very very carefully in order to do it well. I think it is likely one of the older apprenticeship models of training -- you learn at your Gradpappy's knee, traditionally, and you listen carefully to the instructions and caveats he mutters from deep in his jowls.
----
The following is a bit detailed on TMI type issues for women. Fair warning.
Competitive microbial inhibition is one of the reasons why a well-balanced vaginal microbial flora helps prevent yeast infections. The right sort of bacteria there inhibit the growth of yeast. Now, there are a variety of ways to muck around with this and get into trouble, if you don't know what you are doing.
Someone overly (and incorrectly) obsessed with "cleanliness" may use an antibacterial douche, this wiping out the normal (healthy, protective) bacteria and leaving it wide open for yeast colonization. Someone else might douche with vinegar, raising the pH level to promote the growth of the acid-loving lactobacilli, and that would probably be okay. Not necessary, but no great harm.
Someone else might be taken with the "natural is good" philosophy -- and be a big fan of Brewer's yeast -- and rub in a bunch of Brewer's yeast powder. Good when taken internally (for Vitamin B), not so good for the vagina (this is over-simplified, but the gist is correct).
Someone else might be taken with the "natural is good" philosophy and be more microbiologically savvy, deciding to rub in yogurt instead. Acidic, full of lactobacilli (the "good" vaginal bacteria), and probably either a good thing or at least not a problem. (The lactobacilli in yogurt may or may not be the ones that can survive at body temperature -- i.e., it's more complicated than it looks -- but again, the gist is there.)
---
[/end of potentially squicky female topics]
So, I'd bet that the various time-tested techniques of aging meat carefully combine a balance of minimizing contamination, maximizing an unfriendly environment to "bad" bacteria (likely through temperature and/or savvy competitive microbial inhibition), and ensuring that the meat itself is double-checked for known warning signs.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."
So....now people come to hospitals to have their children? And this is bad why?
posted
OK, let's just make clear once again---usually, when people in these groups switched to Western food, they switched ALL the way. It was a point of pride/status to them. According to Price, anyway. I had the same type of bias against whole grain bread, growing up.
I'm not saying one bite of white bread, and you're sick for life. That's idiotic. But why is this stuff still sold?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."
Could there be some selection bias in this anecdote because previously they simply didn't take the hard labor cases to the hospital?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... Which part of 'anecdotal' did you not understand? In fact, this isn't just anecdotal, it's also appeal to authority, another weakness comrade Price tends a bit to. Especially the first chapter is full of references to this, that, and the next doctor in a government position or chief of a large hospital.
Maybe the Price debate needs a battle cry, like 'vaaaarves' for the young-Earth thing. How about 'Daaataaaa!'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, there should be a footnote at the end of that paragraph with a study reference, as to where the numerical recorded data is about this phenomenon.
quote:Originally posted by steven: KoM--how about we change the deal and you take my $25 to shup up?
This is yet another example of the unwarranted hostility that keeps giving you a bad name here, as well as your continued tactic of ignoring everyone's legitimate and well-thought-out concerns about Price's methods.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're paying off everyone who has a problem with you yammering on endlessly about bad science, I surely hope you have an excellent source of income.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "...But conditions have changed materially with the new generation of Eskimo girls, born after their parents began to use foods of modern civilization. Many of them are carried to his hospital after they had been in labour for several days..."
Its still anecdotal. To be more than that, we would need the historical fertility rates and the number of complications associated with pregnancy before and after the introduction of a western diet. Even then, numerous factors besides changes in diet could be involved including changes in physical activity, changes in childhood diseases, changes in fraction of children who live to adulthood and so on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The University of Minnesota has what looks to be a pretty thorough article on Aging Beef.
beverly, the Cooperative Extension Service at your state's university probably has a lot of experience and information about this sort of topic. Cooperative Extensions are funded by the universities (often as part of a land grant deal; i.e., the state will yield this land to the university as part of a deal where the members of the state benefit directly from the university's presence) as outreach programs to disseminate information.
They are excellent resources for agricultural-based questions as well as other topics. Great starting point for detailed, reliable, accurate information.
You can start browsing around for answers to many frequently asked questions on the site, or just give them a call if you can't find what you need. They are usually very eager to be helpful and are good at helping you figure out just what you need to know to answer a given question.
posted
Rabbit, the numerous animal studies that show similar rates and types of disease on the same diet make all that unnecessary.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah! We don't have to be all scientific about human studies because we have these animals studies, and animals are people, too.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olive, it's only logical that, if you can produce predictable results in animals using different diets, ranging from stillborn to deformed to very healthy, that the same effects in humans could also be produced using some kind of deficient diet. Isn't it?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes there is, for example, a deliberate production (or allowance) of mold to grow -- such as (I think) for Virginia smoked hams -- because microorganisms can competetively inhibit one another.
Ahhh, probiotics!
quote: people who do this for a living do it very very carefully in order to do it well. I think it is likely one of the older apprenticeship models of training -- you learn at your Gradpappy's knee, traditionally, and you listen carefully to the instructions and caveats he mutters from deep in his jowls. [Smile]
Yeah, well maybe. But it was this kind of thinking that discouraged me from believing all growing up that I could run a farm. I intend to learn more about this. It may turn out to be too complicated to be worth it, but we'll see.
Edit: Thanks for the links, Sara! I will definitely want to contact the local Extension Services. I have sooo many questions! I hope they can help me out.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
it is logical, and it is possible and perhaps even probable, however it is certainly not definitive proof. As others have mentioned, there are significant differences between animals and humans (of all types) which can easily have important impacts on this kind of research.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The University of Minnesota has what looks to be a pretty thorough article on Aging Beef
That would be "the link at the bottom for more info on safety and mold" I mentioned.
quote:Olive, it's only logical that, if you can produce predictable results in animals using different diets, ranging from stillborn to deformed to very healthy, that the same effects in humans could also be produced using some kind of deficient diet. Isn't it?
Yes, it's logical to think it might happen. It's not scientific to say it does until one performs controlled experiments to confirm it.
It was logical to think that giving extra oxygen to premature babies (whose undeveloped lungs represent one of the biggest threats to their survival) would be a good thing. An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rabbit, the numerous animal studies that show similar rates and types of disease on the same diet make all that unnecessary.
OK... let's look at those.
1) What studies - be specific and tell me who performed them when and where.
2) How exactly were the studies performed - methods, controls, conditions etc.
3) What studies have been done to show that biologically the subject animals are similar enough to humans in the areas the studies are testing that the results can be extrapolated to me.
posted
A pdf file on curing pork at home from the Virginia Cooperative Extension. Although it is specific to pork, the explanantion of history and why/how may be useful to help you understand more about the process in general.
beverly, if you haven't been familiar with Cooperative Extensions before this move, I have a feeling you are going to fall in love. *grin
Detailed and specific information, lots of old fogies with years of real-world experience on the frontlines, and people on the other end of the phone just salivating at the thought of talking to someone who is interested in the same things that they are.
Heck, five years from now I predict you'll be volunteering there sometimes yourself, dispensing your own real-world experience and all you've learned from your research.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can find similarities and differences, Grim.
Notably, however, every species studied could be mapped easily in terms of which vitamin deficiency would cause which problem. It's very predictable.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've heard the Extension Services mentioned again and again, here on Hatrack, in books I've read. But I haven't had *any* first-hand experience as of yet.
I have a feeling this is going to be like when Porter and I urged new Cub Scout leaders, "Just *go* to Round Table. You'll be *so* glad you did." ^_^
These people may be just the resource I'm looking for. For example, I want to know who in my immediate area raises dairy goats. Rather than drive every country road visually scouring the landscape for goats (which I have not yet seen here) it sounds like the ES could know just that, or know who knows....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes, it's logical to think it might happen. It's not scientific to say it does until one performs controlled experiments to confirm it.
It was logical to think that giving extra oxygen to premature babies (whose undeveloped lungs represent one of the biggest threats to their survival) would be a good thing. An epidemiological study confirmed that doing so caused blindness (I think - it might have been deafness).
quote:An ROP epidemic occurred in the 1940s and early 1950s when hospital nurseries began using excessively high levels of oxygen in incubators to save the lives of premature infants. During this time, ROP was the leading cause of blindness in children in the US. In 1954, scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health determined that the relatively high levels of oxygen routinely given to premature infants at that time were an important risk factor, and that reducing the level of oxygen given to premature babies reduced the incidence of ROP. With newer technology and methods to monitor the oxygen levels of infants, oxygen use as a risk factor has diminished in importance.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I have a feeling this is going to be like when Porter and I urged new Cub Scout leaders, "Just *go* to Round Table. You'll be *so* glad you did." ^_^
The activities of this group will include large audience, multi-topic workshops; small narrow topic workshops; development of a small farm resource handbook; develop linkages with experiment stations for hands on skill building; provide newsletter articles; and publish bulletins as needed.
Coordinator:
Garry Stephenson, Extension Agent Benton County Extension 1849 NW 9th St., Suite 8 Corvallis, OR 97330 541-766-6750; FAX 541-754-1603 garry.stephenson@oregonstate.edu
Calorie restrictive diets appear to have a very fervent fanbase, too, and the Biosphere study made the news recently.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concerning calorie restrictive diets: They talked about that on NPR's Science Friday about six months ago. Pretty interesting stuff, which I hope turns out to be completely false because I don't want it to be true. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, I have heard that this research was done quite well, and that the conclusions have merit. I haven't kept up on it or read it in detail, but word on the street in my neck of the woods (for what it's worth) is that a calorie-restricted diet, when done well (not overboard, appropriate levels, good balance of healthy foods) probably does have a substantial effect on lengthening lifespan.
More research needs to be done, of course. Follow-up studies with refined initial set-ups over long periods of time, well-controlled, etc. But looks promising.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
