|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It doesn't matter if you all hate me, and I fail as a Christian in many ways, but this topic is important and could be helpful to a lot of people and I think I've given enough information to show that much, and I hope someone might benefit from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No one hates you Faith but it is reasonable to point out that you do not seem to know what evidence actually is or how to critically examine subjects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I was only stating the obvious. I know you want to suppress all criticism. But you would do better not to deserve it in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I support you in this path to health which you are on and which you seek. I too have a similar path, and although you and I have reached different conclusions as to our diets and means of achieving our goals, our paths are similar. Currently, i am studying one supplement which i brought up over in my Addiction By Definition thread. The ideal type of diet which I feel is best for my body type and my type II diabetes is a lower carb, good fats, minimal protein type of diet. Quite honestly, I know as much about the science behind this regimen as any of our members here at EvC, and I say that unapologetically and not arrogantly.
In the end, I am responsible for my health---no Doctor can cure me nor can any human except God (as Jesus) and though this comment alone will provide snickers from the peanut gallery, it only means that my intuitive wisdom and my choices and decisions about what to eat and about what if any supplements to take are mine alone. I encourage you to focus on healthy servings of vegetables and some good fats, and to cut back on most of the processed protein(meat) that sells today in the United States. Organic Chicken, though more expensive, is good in moderation with your vegetables, and also wild salmon. I will say that the NT Lipids are expensive, and you likely cannot afford them, but if you balance your diet from being a sugar burner into more of a fat burner, you will eventually gain energy, though it takes a good month of self-discipline. Trust me, I know how hard it is to become motivated to change---it took me many months of Contemplation before I could begin to prepare my strategy and determnine the best course of action. Tangle claims, perhaps rightly, that I am obsessive over what should be a normal part of everyday life. All i can say is that eating the way that I should has never came naturally to me, and I amk cautiously optimistic that my attention to detail will bring success. I am also aware of jars observation that I (and perhaps you also) tend to prefer fantasy over reality, but I will state for the record that there is no quick fix nor any magic involved in a good diet. It is 100% reality.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar,replying to Faith writes: Though I will admit that I do read and watch a lot of information that could be construed as marketing, i also follow the trail outside of the products which they are trying to push to examine any available science behind them. The difference is of course related to entirely diametric thought processes. Faith belongs to the group that totally turns off any analysis at all and places total believe in the marketing... I challenge you to prove that there is not legitimate science behind the many studies involving the mitochondria and whether or not science can help rebuild damaged mitochondria within the human body. Yiou will find much more than simply marketing.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: I'm not interested in the studies enough to put in the effort. I don't think they are important, as I said, and enough information has been given in the films anyway. Fair enough, but please, no more moaning about us not accepting your claims.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: I challenge you to prove that there is not legitimate science behind the many studies involving the mitochondria and whether or not science can help rebuild damaged mitochondria within the human body. First, do you even have a clue what mitochondria are? And if you want to discuss a study then you need to provide a link to the study, not to some video or marketing piece but to the specific study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's nonsense. The Bible doesn't say any such thing. Actually God made all creatures herbivores originally.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Joe Cross is a juicing guru himself these days, this is no anecdote, it is the story of his reversal of his obesity and ill health which he documented in the film "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead." (Bolding mine) That's what an anecdote is, in this context; a story. It is simply impossible to logically prove or disprove any causal hypothesis on the basis of a single self-reported case study.
Yes his diet was totally lousy before, so I guess you could argue that he'd have benefited from any dietary change for the better. Yes! Obviously this has to be true. It could hardly be otherwise.
I think his obvious glowing health shows more than that myself I'm curious; just what do you think this single case study shows? Above and beyond the banal observation that improving one's diet will improve one's health I mean.
I had been rather loose in discussing these things but I thought I'd also said enough over many posts to tighten it up some and I don't think you read any of that. I've been reading along. You talk about a great variety of different regimes, going into little detail on any of them. It comes across as rather scatter-shot. Taking a specific concrete example which you feel you can get behind and going into detail might be a good idea.
And here's a Wikipedia discussion of the Seventh Day Adventist Studies. I'm sure you can find the actual research in the References section. I think you mean this; Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Adventist Health Study 2 | Lifestyle Behaviors | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network This study is impressive, but one of the problems with it is that it lumps a lot of non-vegetarians into its "vegetarian" group, including pesco-vegetarians and "semi-vegetarians" (AKA meat-eaters). Where it does differentiate, the outcomes are not as you might expect. Pesco-vegetarians, for instance, had a slightly lower mortality rate than vegans. I also note that this doesn't agree with your position on the subject;
quote: So if you're going to side with this study, you have to side against the nutrition-beats-cancer crowd. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
A story that is filmed is more than an anecdote recounted by the subject himself. There are witnesses who are interviewed among other things. You can see for yourself at least samples of what he ate but you also have the testimony of his doctors to its effects.. There is room for error, but there is always room for error. At some point you have to trust people.
Not perfectly, nothing is perfect, nobody is perfect, but everybody here seems to want some kind of absolute perfection. I only ask people to trust my assessment of what I've been learning the same way I'd ask them to trust Dr. Lim or Dr. Esselstyn or Dr. McDougall or any of these guys who have devoted themselves to learning and teaching nutrition -- or for that matter anybody who tells an anecdote about something that improved their health. Why the blanket sour refusal to accept what people say? What makes your skepticism automatically superior to their conviction? Following a particular system wouldn't prove anything and I couldn't pick one to defend because I haven't settled on any particular version myself, I'm still checking it out and trying different things, and I still have some meat and dairy and that may continue. The differences between the plantbased systems are on the order of advocating nuts versus banning nuts, advocating some oils versus banning oils. I don't think the studies have yet discriminated among these things and so far the testimonies are all similar, great improvements in health on all of them. I'm sure it will get refined over time and some practices will show up as better than others. Meanwhile it's all a work in progress and I think any change in this direction is for the better especially for people who do have some kind of disease. The married couple doctor team in the film "Forks Over Knives" deal with a single patient in the film who has a long list of ailments from minor annoyances to being on a long list of meds for high cholesterol and I forget what all else. They put him on a plant-based diet and follow him through the film and show how much all his problems improve. It may be that if he'd retained some meat and dairy he'd also have improved. I'm certainly hoping for that to be true because I'm not able to go completely plant-based yet and would like to improve a bunch of ailments. Adding lots of plants and minimizing though not eliminating meat and dairy, -- and of course processed foods, but I've been pretty good at that for a long time -- is the best I can do right now, and I need a way to get the butter and cream down to a stark minimum or I don't think I can expect much in the way of good results. I read most of the article at your link and it overall shows benefits from a vegetarian diet, with the usual messy uncertainties and deviations. Overall it seems they are doing something in the right direction at least. There are enough people Chris Wark has interviewed who claim to have cured their cancers with diet and other lifestyle changes that in my opinion it is reasonable for the information to lead other people to try it themselves. Again, there's always room for error and perfection is too much to ask, and there are also different versions people follow, but the right direction to go in is pretty clear: up the plants, down the animal sources and out the processed foods, except the plant emphasis should be pretty drastic. Most of the people interviewed started out getting informed of what their prospects were on standard treatment and how much time they had to experiment with other methods before trying a drastically changed diet. Then they get tested at intervals to see if it's working. If it doesn't work they've left room to go on the standard treatment. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
A story that is filmed is more than an anecdote recounted by the subject himself I think you misunderstand the opposition to accepting anecdotes as evidence. The fact that something is filmed does not mean a great deal. Of course, even a film isn't going to capture all details; but that's not really the point. The point is that we are complicated organisms living in an extraordinarily complicated world. Let's imagine that the cameras followed the subject around for 24 hours a day and that we all sat here for several years and watched the entire footage end to end. We saw that the subject adopted diet A and had outcome B. Fantastic. This would not tell us that diet A caused outcome B. You see, over the course of the several years of footage we just sat through - all sorts of things went on. How do we know that outcome B was not caused instead by the new filtering techinques introduced at the local water purification plant? Or because of the fact that the subject took up more regular exercise after buying a dog three months into the experiment? Or because of an improvement in air quality related to his change of address? Or a complex interaction of all these and 467 other factors? How, for that matter, do we know we're not dealing with some weird congenital quirk of the subjects physiology that is not applicable to almost anyone else. This is what's meant when something is dismissed as anecdote. One story is not convincing evidence of anything when you're dealing with a complex series of interactions - this is why we have statistics and why people want to see the outcomes of studies with lots of subjects. Having said all this; the diet you're basically advocating does not seem to be controversial; which is what I think Granny Magda was getting at. Diets rich in a variety of fruit and vegetables are good for you. Diets rich in whole-grain foods are good for you. Diets rich in red meat increase cancer risk. These are not wrong, but these are standard dietary advice. Whether a strictly vegetarian diet is better for you I don't know - but it doesn't seem a silly idea. The point is that we can't establish this by stories. Things like the health impacts of diet have an enormous amount of complicating factors; and so we need correspondingly large studies to overcome this and come to meaningful conclusions. True stories are still anecdotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A study of a huge population like the Adventists has to gloss over all kinds of individual factors and unknowns, even though overall it shows benefits to their lifestyle nevertheless. Too many variables. It would probably be more informative if selected smaller groups with a shared diet and lifestyle were chosen for study.
I think what Esselstyn did with the 18 patients with severe heart disease is more telling in the end: actual reversal of the disease process on the prescribed diet. Chris Wark's interviewees I also find as convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
A story that is filmed is more than an anecdote recounted by the subject himself. Wikipedia defines anecdotal evidence thusly;
quote: This case is primarily personal testimony. No matter how thorough, this can, at best, be described as a study with a cohort of one. That is pathetic. Single case-studies are meaningless. I remain curious as to what you think this example proves. He improved his diet. His health improved. That is no big whoop.
There is room for error, but there is always room for error. At some point you have to trust people. Nullius in verba. Not perfectly, nothing is perfect, nobody is perfect, but everybody here seems to want some kind of absolute perfection. You misunderstand. No-one is calling for perfection. No-one can achieve perfection. The scientific method exists for this precise reason, to maximise breadth and accuracy of knowledge and minimise ignorance and error. The scientific method - and the attitude of sceptics - exists because we cannot achieve perfection, not despite it. It's a feature, not a bug.
Why the blanket sour refusal to accept what people say? What makes your skepticism automatically superior to their conviction? What makes a desire for evidence superior to blindly accepting whatever I'm told by people on the internet? Really? You're really asking me that? Just because we cannot attain perfect knowledge doesn't mean that we have to swallow everything we see on the internet and whilst I'm sure you're not quite that gullible, I do suspect that you may have opened your mind a little too far on this topic.
Following a particular system wouldn't prove anything and I couldn't pick one to defend because I haven't settled on any particular version myself, I'm still checking it out and trying different things. You don't have to defend anything. Just pick a specific sub-topic and dive deep into the evidence. Actually read the studies, rather than just accepting them because someone referenced them in a video. You don't have to bring it here, you could do it just as personal research. It might prove more enlightening than watching youtube videos.
I read most of the article at your link and it overall shows benefits from a vegetarian diet, with the usual messy uncertainties and deviations It's your link, you cited the study, I just fetched it for you. The Adventists study does not support is the claim you made for it. It includes non-vegetarians in its "vegetarian" group. It explicitly finds no reduction in cancer mortality.
the right direction to go in is pretty clear: up the plants, down the animal sources and out the processed foods, except the plant emphasis should be pretty drastic. I absolutely agree. Multiple lines of evidence agree that the average person should be eating more fruit and veg, less processed foods, etc. That is the position of mainstream dietary science though, it's not a fringe opinion. We agree on the generalities; vegetarianism tends to be healthy, processed foods are bad for you,, that sort of thing. It's on the specifics that I am sceptical. I don't think that there is clear enough evidence available to say what the absolute optimal diet might be. I don't think that vegetarian/vegan diets are quite the panacea you seem to see them as. And I most certainly do not see any evidence that diet can cure cancer. That remains pure fantasy.
There are enough people Chris Wark has interviewed who claim to have cured their cancers with diet and other lifestyle changes that in my opinion it is reasonable for the information to lead other people to try it themselves. They claim to have cured their cancers, but the truth is that not a single one of them can demonstrate that they cured their cancers with diet. None of these people really know whether they cured themselves or whether they just got lucky. As we have seen, these miraculous cures are nothing of the kind and can usually be attributed to surgery, as in Wark's case.
Most of the people interviewed started out getting informed of what their prospects were on standard treatment and how much time they had to experiment with other methods before trying a drastically changed diet. Then they get tested at intervals to see if it's working. If it doesn't work they've left room to go on the standard treatment. Dangerous horseshit. Any oncologist will tell you that early discovery and treatment are paramount in cancer treatment. Any delay lowers the chances of patients surviving over time. Encouraging people who know that they have cancer to delay reputable treatment is grossly irresponsible. This advice, should anyone be foolish enough to follow it, could cost someone their life. In the specific case of nutritional therapies it is especially absurd to present nutrition and conventional cancer therapies as being mutually exclusive choices, since in many cases a patient might well do both simultaneously. This kind of thinking is how alternative medicine kills people. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I know it's complicated and that was the main point in the post I just wrote. Huge studies also are dealing with too many complications to give a reliable result though. As I said I think we get better information from small controlled studies like Esselstyn's. But I'm still going to defend the single person anecdote.
The most important point about all this is not what's "good for you" but the ability of some versions of this diet to actually cure disease and radically improve health, which was dramatically demonstrated in Esselstyn's heart disease study. Smaller studies are more likely to pin down the relevant factors than a huge study with a zillion variables, most of them unknown. Some Adventists are living into their hundreds. The difference between their practices and those of other Advantists might be worth knowing. IN any case there will always be individual factors that can't be known or controlled. But also getting people do DO what's "good for us" is a big reason for getting more specific about it, watching the films about it, reading the anecdotes, listening to the experts. But again it's the possibility of reversing diabetes and heart disease and cancer and many other diseases that is the biggest point about it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Skepticism is one thing, the kind of sour accusatory stuff this topic is getting is something else. At least you maintain civility and I appreciate that.
I'll have to come back to this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024