We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, January 30. 2014
The US government recommends 9-11 servings of fruits and/or vegetables daily.
What are they smoking? Unless a stalk of raw celery or a leaf of spinach counts as one vegetable.
If you ate all that, you would be obese, especially with the fruit which, as I always say, is God's dessert. Unless you are at a starvation weight, you don't need fruit. Fruit is just sugar, and you might just as well have some ice cream.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
We need a government that listens to OUR recommendations, not the other way around.
It's not about the amount of servings...its about filling up the stomach. I predict in the next 10 years you are going to see a tremendous push to eliminate all animal products from your diet. You know those dastardly bovines and their production of that terrible carbon dioxide that will burn our planet to a crisp!!!!!
Eliminate the animal proteins and gorge on the veggies!!!
I once had to drive up to MI from FL and, to be "healthy", bought some dried apricots to munch on during the lengthy trip. They really cleaned me out. Too much of anything can be bad for you.
The government isn't forcing us to do anything. We just have to use our heads and do what we think is right.
Fruit is no better than ice cream? Surely you jest. I've never heard anything like that before. Look at what an apple contains versus ice cream. Surely those good things in an apple benefit our bodies. Just the fiber alone helps.
Fructose is hard on your liver and body. Worse than sucrose.
I've also heard of moderation in everything including moderation (Oscar Wilde, I believe). If ice cream is the same to you as an apple, good for you. I'll stick with a couple of fruits every day along with veggies. I know, I'm crazy for doing that.
That is a crazy counter-culture myth. Frctose doesn't harm your liver. Alcohol does, many illegal and legal drugs do but fructose is benign to your liver. The liver is an amazing organ and does many jobs for our body. One of those jobs is to convert frcutose to glucose. It is what your liver is supposed to do. The low informations people with food biases have attempted to interpret this simple fact as bad i.e. "Fructose is hard on your liver". Ironically they are the same people and it is the same philosophy that 40 years ago favored fructose and made many of the same negative claims about sucrose. Sugar is the most studied food in the world. Most of those studies were intended to find something, anything bad about sugar. But the bottom line is the only negative thing they could discover about sugar is it causes dental caries.
Crazy isn't it? It's like a full length feature film of fear uncertainty and doubt. A scary movie with sugar as the mass murderer. And yet we all (most all) consume more sugar every year and our life expectancy increases every year. So who spends their time and money to make such a propaganda film and what else are they wrong on?
Yeah, crazy to think the cancer and heart and obesity and stroke and dementia epidemic is in any way related to processed American diets, full of nutrition-empty calories.
Pounds of refined white sugar, fat, and salt is just what nature - what God - intended.
But fruit? God's dessert.
If there actually was a cancer, heart disease or stroke epidemic I would be right there with you. But in fact it is not true. Cancer rates are pretty much the same, more lung cancer for smokers but most cancers, heart attacks and storkes are age related and it is because we are living longer that they "appear" to have increased. Certanly not related to sugar or HFCS.
As for obesity that is a major scam that we have become obsessed with. In 1998 they changed the way they evaluated "obesity" and overnight the percnetage of Americans who were obese doubled without anyone gaining a pound. Then there is the fact that obesity is largely genetic and the percentage of our population from those ethnicities prone to obesity has increased with the inevitable result that our overall obesity rate has increased. It isn't because of our diet, obesity is genetic.
"The natural, raw, non-meat diet is, with its abundance of complex sugars, profoundly healthier than the American alternative". I wish it were true. There are more magical diets then you can shake a stick at and everyone of them have their acolytes. Believing in them is an act of faith not logic. Everyone of them has rules that are contrary to each of the others and everyone of them is unproven and appear to be unprovable.
Interesting that you would invoke faith in a comment devoid of anything but proofs by conventional wisdom.
-because, goes your logic, we have absolutely nothing to fear consuming a diet that creates chronic disease in the age of what has always been chronic disease.
And this then - this constancy of disease and death - is either the justification of God or of science and there's nothing that reams of evidence to the contrary have to say about it.
It's a nice screed. You elaborate the original post, which was also wrong and by the same thinking.
- or in your formaldehyde.
That such misguided processed sugar-'n'-red meat groupthink would be posted by a Dr. beggars belief. The natural, raw, non-meat diet is, with its abundance of complex sugars, profoundly healthier than the American alternative currently visibly, statistically killing a nation.
Unless of course cancer and the host of fatal illnesses fairly unique to the synthetic modern West strike you as normal.
As a classical liberal I never could fathom the fondness certain rightists have for a lifestyle, pridefully conflating it with a conservative intellect.
Even with contrary evidence mounting they are still pushing low fat and low sodium. A balanced (some of this, some of that, and some of the other to taste) is in order. The only thing you are required to eat in excess is Bacon because it's gooood.
there's probably a massive fruit surplus due to government subsidies on growers and importers, so now they need to push consumers to eat away that mountain of fruit before it rots.
Same here where I live with milk. For decades dairy farms have been heavily subsidised, so the gov tells people to drink at least 2 liters of milk each day, and eat lots of cheese, yoghurt, etc. etc.
And wheat of course, the ultimate subsidised food of them all. Leading cause of obesity, people are still pushed to eat mountains of bread, pasta, and muesli every day.
A decade or so ago when our large family had gathered for some holiday meal or other, and the conversation had drifted to diets as it always does, a preteen granddaughter chimed in with, "eat what you want; quit when you're full".
"Interesting that you would invoke faith in a comment devoid of anything but proofs by conventional wisdom."
Exactly! You get it! There are numerous fad diets all claiming to give us longer life and prevent disease and they are all based on faith. You finally understand.
"we have absolutely nothing to fear consuming a diet that creates chronic disease in the age of what has always been chronic disease."
But then you digress and try to claim these faith based diest must be right because your faith based propaganda proves it to be true. There is less chronic disease in the West not more. And this is in spite of the faith based diets you seem to believe in. Go figure!
"this constancy of disease and death - is either the justification of God or of science and there's nothing that reams of evidence to the contrary have to say about it."
Somewhat confusing. You are aware that we do indeed know what causes diseases and what the treatments are for diseases. While it's true that some serius diseases cannot always be treated effectively and it is true we are all going to die of something I see nothing on the horizon in either science or religion to change that. I can assure you that you will die of something and it will most likely be one of those diseases that your faith based diet claims to prevent. Most of use die from heart disease with cancer being a close second and strokes coming up third. All the fad diets in the world will not prevent it and to imply science doesn't understand it is, well, uninformed at best.
So much wrong with this post that I'd advise you stop posting.
The faith-based position, Wind, is yours: As I said, you're citing your own faulty frame of reference, which makes your point a fallacy.
I'm aware of the conventional wisdom; your reminder that you subscribe to it instead of to either fact or reason - or a sense of sarcasm and irony, apparently - is of little interest outside of using it, as I have, to challenge your mindset.
As for "knowing" the causes of disease, it appears you believe that diet is not one of them. Do I have this right? Are you saying that diet and a generally unhealthy lifestyle does not contribute to disease? And that this is "known"?
As for you finding my mindset propaganda and faith-based, cite your evidence. (Or maybe stop posting such rot.) Do you know who the longest-lived people in the world are? And what they eat? Their lifestyle?
Do you know the per capita instances of all major diseases in the contemporary West versus the rest of the world, including throughout history? Do you know how, in fact, there is a profound correlation between those statistics in this continent and those for peoples who do not eat and live as we do?
Or are you faith-based yourself, relying on the usual, um, marketing propaganda dispensed by your establishment of crony capitalists (I say that as an anarcho capitalist, which is merely one degree freer than Libertarianism, so spare me another baseless labels) and crap-packagers that are the dozen or so major US conglomerates that brand a hundred of the brands you consume without a second thought, probably thinking it both choice and nutrition?
You don't know the topic. You're repeating conventional, unthought wisdom, oddball asides, meandering adjuncts, and you're doing it without much sense of just how foolish this position of yours is, including missing what I'd hoped was some obvious sarcasm on my part.
The American diet is rife with poison. Obesity, heart failure, cancer, and all the rest of the West's lovely legacies of poor lifestyle and choices are not "hereditary" without the triggers of abysmal nutrition, industrial poisoning, a sedentary lifestyle, and the lack of will and honesty to think outside this trap.
And I'm not citing a faith. I'm condemning the faith that denies this. Yours.
I am the lord of sarcasm and irony but apparently you are no fan of it.
"Do you know the per capita instances of all major diseases in the contemporary West versus the rest of the world"
Yes. But do you know why? Simply because in the 3rd world moat people die young from horrible diseases that we in the West avoid through science and medicine. Thus we have the good fortune to live longer and die from diseases of old age. Some, those who don't understand statistics, think that because we have high rates of heart disease and cancer that it must be something in the water. You need to look deeper into the statistical data to understand it.
yada, yada, yada follwed by "The American diet is rife with poison". You gotta be kidding! There it is. The nutty left wing, hippie, counterculture, pro-vegan anti-meat craziness. I simply cannot understand that mentality.
"Obesity, heart failure, cancer, and all the rest of the West's lovely legacies of poor lifestyle and choices are not "hereditary" without the triggers of abysmal nutrition, industrial poisoning, a sedentary lifestyle..."
More of the same hippy-dippy thinking. If we just ate organic and no meat we would all live to be 100. But, no, your hippy mysticism is simply wrong. Most heart disease is indeed genetic and many, not all, cancers are genetic as well. Then too these big three killers (heart disease, cancer and stroke) are diseases of old age. In the third world the biggest killers are Malaria, respiratory infections, measles, diarrhea, AIDS and violence. BUT, if they avoid all this and live past age 60 the leading cause of death then becomes heart disease, cancer and stroke just like in the West.
Obesity is genetic. Obesity is far more common in Africa and Mexico then it is in the U.S. Not suprisingly obesity in the U.S. is far more common among people of African and Mexican heritage then people of European heritage.
I am the lord of sarcasm and irony but apparently you are no fan of it.
The Democrats are self-proclaimed lords of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but I am no fan of it.
Yet I appreciate your helpful advisory. Apparently this gift parallels your deft use of the Reply button, HTML, the direct reply, and simple reason.
You've likewise yet to deploy your juggernaut of an answer to the elementary question if diet is unrelated to disease. This in no way discourages me into assuming you aren't the Lord of it as well.
Because you say so, Your Grace, I shall remain faithful.
(Have you considered a GoneWithTheWind newsletter? The world awaits. No, really.)
your hippy mysticism
Your chromium-orange hydraulic antlers.
"an answer to the elementary question if diet is unrelated to disease"
"unrelated" well it depends. Some diseases require or benefit from a specific diet. That's related. But your point is and always has been that our decadent Western diet is responsible for most diseases and obesity. There is no evidence of that. There are theories and opinions galore. There are fad diets each with their cheerleaders making astounding claims. But no real and convincing evidence that our decadent Western diet causes disease. For example your claim that our diet causes heart disease. If true then we could take your basic healthy 18 year old and feed him this Western diet and withn a few years he would have a heart attack. In fact it would work for everyone if your theory were true. But it doesn't. There are 300 million examples of people in the U.S. eating this horrible Western diet and most live to a ripe old age with no heart disease. The evidence to suport your thesis is simply not there.
But wait! But wait! What about cancer? Indeed cancer is a scurge and our forefathers never got cancer, right? But they did, that is if they avoided all the diseases that were common 100 years ago and lived to an old age their chances of getting a cancer were no different from ours. But why aren't the history books full of stories of people dying horribly from cancer? Why does it seem to be so common today but so uncommon centuries ago? Well the simple answer is centuries ago when you died they buried you and probably were unaware of what actually killed you. Yes indeed before the modern Western diet people died of cancer and they did it in the same percentages we do today. It isn't and never was about diet.
Most myths about fad diets are the result of wishful thinking and mass hysteria. We really really want to be in control of our health. If only eating kale or not eating wheat would make us healthy and immune from disease... If only mega doses of vitamins C and D would keep us from getting sick... If only... Of course the next step is to believe, to believe out of faith. Oh, it helps that there are quacks who are always ready to take advantage of our ignorance and human need for answers and they write books; "good calories, bad calories" or something else catchy and we read it and we believe! We want to believe. We are humans and science and truth come hard and myths and superstitions that affirm our biases come easy to us. Simple as that.