|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jim Chinnis
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1030
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Perhaps, if TC were to focus? He wouldn't always be making an Arse of himself.
|
|
|
"msamson11975@yahoo.ca" <msamson11975@yahoo.ca> wrote in part:
| Quote: |
Jim Chinnis wrote:
"msamson11975@yahoo.ca" <msamson11975@yahoo.ca> wrote in part:
Jim Chinnis wrote:
Face it: what's been programmed doesn't exist anymore.
Yes, it does...our practices and diet may have changed, however our
insides haven't. The biochemistry of your digestive system thinks the
same now as it did a million years ago (give or take a couple of
hundred thou)
By "what's been programmed" I refer to the foods our ancestors ate. They are
gone. The thousands of wild herbs, berries, roots, and such. The wild
animals that ran free and lived on them and one another. They are almost
completely gone and probably totally gone. Yet the human genetic programming
remains.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
Agreed. This is why we have to maintain a diet that is close as
possible as to the way it was back then. This means meat and produce,
not grains, starches, and legume, and processed SAD diet.
|
As a species, we can't do that. The only thing preventing mass starvation is
the huge increase in grain production and in the nutrition value of the
grain produced. These increases have managed to keep pace with the
population explosion. Sufficient food of the "produce and meat" variety
cannot be produced with the available land and resources.
So, not only is our produce and meat very, very different from what we are
programmed to eat, but lots of us are going to be eating mostly grain for a
long time to come.
It's true that the privileged among us can cut the grain and even buy
grass-fed meats, but we can't get either the less sweet vegetables and
fruits in the huge variety or the wild animals that fed on them--both of
which shaped our privileged genes.
So any discussion in a science/nutrition group needs to consider what might
be done to try to counteract the morbidity and mortality that come from not
having the proper diets we were designed for.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Perhaps, if TC were to focus? He wouldn't always be making an Arse of himself.
|
|
|
Jim Chinnis wrote:
| Quote: | As a species, we can't do that. The only thing preventing mass starvation is
the huge increase in grain production and in the nutrition value of the
grain produced. These increases have managed to keep pace with the
population explosion. Sufficient food of the "produce and meat" variety
cannot be produced with the available land and resources.
|
I absolutely agree Jim. The problem is that the agricultural
revolution sparked this massive population explosion. But it doesn't
mean it was a good thing. Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes of all
time. There is no need to speed up time, or population, and as a
result will probably also end up in our great demise.
| Quote: | So, not only is our produce and meat very, very different from what we are
programmed to eat, but lots of us are going to be eating mostly grain for a
long time to come.
|
Also agreed. Unfortunately this long time will see even more disease
and suffering. But I guess population control is a good thing.
| Quote: | It's true that the privileged among us can cut the grain and even buy
grass-fed meats, but we can't get either the less sweet vegetables and
fruits in the huge variety or the wild animals that fed on them--both of
which shaped our privileged genes.
|
Also agreed.
| Quote: | So any discussion in a science/nutrition group needs to consider what might
be done to try to counteract the morbidity and mortality that come from not
having the proper diets we were designed for.
|
Exactly. My opinions are that we should adapt a diet -as close to-
that for which we are designed for. Ofcourse everything isn't perfect,
and as you mentioned we don't have access to the quality of food back
in the day, but we can at least TRY to replicate it as best we can.
See Mr. Natural Kook -- at least Jim provides an intelligent
informative response, unlike yours and your faddish website. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Perhaps, if TC were to focus? He wouldn't always be making an Arse of himself.
|
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
| Quote: | See Mr. Natural Kook -- at least Jim provides an intelligent
informative response, unlike yours and your faddish website.
|
Post your proof, Kook. Or, shut your trap.
Who says so? I do.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Perhaps, if TC were to focus? He wouldn't always be making an Arse of himself.
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
| Quote: | msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
It is the Subject Line, Stupid!
It
is our activity levels that determine how many carbs we can eat!
I say it is our activity levels that determine just how much fat we can
safely eat.
|
Which illustrates clearly yet again just how stupid you are, and you
are so damned proud of it too.
| Quote: |
You consistently fail to realize that a traditional diet is the
healthiest and perhaps try to "sell" yours or your website as a healthy
"balance" which doesn't exist...your beliefs/website/advice is more
faddish than any other I have seen!
Which just goes to prove my point that any arse on a ng can shoot his
mouth off.
|
back at ya moron
| Quote: |
You have my condolences.
|
And you have neither our condolences nor our sympathy. FOAD.
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Perhaps, if TC were to focus? He wouldn't always be making an Arse of himself.
|
|
|
TC wrote:
| Quote: | Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
It is the Subject Line, Stupid!
It is our activity levels that determine how many carbs we can eat!
I say it is our activity levels that determine just how much fat we can
safely eat.
Which illustrates clearly yet again just how stupid you are, and you
are so damned proud of it too.
|
It is the Subject Line, Stupid!
Just thought that poor TC might want to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Picasso
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Natural Health was born out of Food Faddism
|
|
|
TC wrote:
| Quote: |
The man was an abject idiot like you.
|
Could it have been his archaic views on sex that tipped you off? ;o)
p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen C
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: Natural Health was born out of Food Faddism
|
|
|
Thanks for this info
SC
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
| Quote: | My history of the development of natural health, now has a definite end
point in sight.
Food Faddism in America that took place during the turn of the 20th
century is the immediate birth place of natural health, without a
doubt.
John Harvey Kellogg, MD with his "biological living" at the Battle
Creek Sanitarium and his emphasis on diet is probably the first person
that should be clearly associated with natural health. Kellogg also
promoted physical exercise. Concern with physical culture was likewise
developing around this time period. The concern with eating wholesome
food continued to develop into an interest in vitamins around the World
War I period.
Rather than being associated with a physician-patent relationship like
naturopathy, natural hygiene, and homeopathy; natural health had a
distinctive commercial retail connection to the commercial sale of
health foods products (such as, corn flakes) and vitamin supplements.
Of course, nature health since its birth has had a lot of time to
develop and grow into something beyond food faddism. But, natural
health is now probably more closely associated with taking vitamin
supplements than it is with eating health foods products.
Now, it only a matter of finding the time to put it down in writing.
--
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/definition.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:28 am Post subject:
Re: Natural Health was born out of Food Faddism
|
|
|
Stephen C wrote:
| Quote: | Thanks for this info
|
No problem.
John Harvey Kellogg was a MD. As a result, Kellogg engaged in a lot of
practices very typical of an MD, such as surgery. He was also
connected to both vegetarianism and the Seventh Day Adventist church.
Unfortunately, his earlier views on sex which were very common among
vegetarianism and the Seventh Day Adventist church during the 1870's
have been used by small minded people as justification to totally
ignore his later views on health.
The man died in 1943, after all. The man was interested in a lot of
different areas and was a true genius. A web page devoted mostly to his
views on natural health will make a great addition to my web site.
And, most of the gaps in the history of natural health up until the
World War II period will be covered.
The Seventh Day Adventists, also, did a lot to promote health resorts,
vegetarianism and health food stores and restaurants. And, will
eventually be covered.
| Quote: |
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
My history of the development of natural health, now has a definite end
point in sight.
Food Faddism in America that took place during the turn of the 20th
century is the immediate birth place of natural health, without a
doubt.
John Harvey Kellogg, MD with his "biological living" at the Battle
Creek Sanitarium and his emphasis on diet is probably the first person
that should be clearly associated with natural health. Kellogg also
promoted physical exercise. Concern with physical culture was likewise
developing around this time period. The concern with eating wholesome
food continued to develop into an interest in vitamins around the World
War I period.
Rather than being associated with a physician-patent relationship like
naturopathy, natural hygiene, and homeopathy; natural health had a
distinctive commercial retail connection to the commercial sale of
health foods products (such as, corn flakes) and vitamin supplements.
Of course, nature health since its birth has had a lot of time to
develop and grow into something beyond food faddism. But, natural
health is now probably more closely associated with taking vitamin
supplements than it is with eating health foods products.
Now, it only a matter of finding the time to put it down in writing.
--
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/definition.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:23 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Fast Loans | Loans | Loans | Mortgages | Advertising
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
nutrition
