Somewhat OT/Eating to your meter

I'll take responsibility for the misunderstandings. Please accept my deepest apologies Janknitz. My intention in quoting you was not to discredit you or to provoke a misrepresentation of your views or statements.

I in fact was attempting to show my agreement with you regarding the use of a low-carb diet to better manage Type II diabetes. But then I inadvertently embellished your post with my own words to encourage people to break loose of their insurance “standard of care” bondage and take control of their own chronic health conditions … especially those caused by metabolic/hormonal disregulation.

It was I who stated that Type II diabetics can cure themselves …. and I stand behind that statement based on the science that I have read and come to understand. I'm not a medical doctor nor am I diabetic, but I do have an educational and professional foundation in science and feel comfortable with my understanding of various scientific principles and findings.

Furthermore, I also strongly agree with Hippocrates, and without too much embellishment, quote him below:

“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” - Hippocrates
“There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” - Hippocrates

Anyway, I have no further posts in this thread though I may follow up for my friend Jim in a new thread when I get some time.

So again, my appologies to you Janknitz for hooking you into my extreme views with the click of a quote button. I'll be more careful.

Judge Nap wrote:

SewTired wrote:Organic doesn't actually matter.

+1
Always glad to see someone who knows this. Organic, non-GMO, gluten-free is a huge scam by a multi-billion dollar food industry.

clean fats

"Clean", in today's context, used to describe any food, is without definition, but you always find superstition and no science behind it. It's another buzz word used by "natural" food marketers/scammers.

Enjoy your side of pesticides and herbicides. People are still dealing with the effects of DDT in their systems. It might not affect you but it will affect your grandchildren.

BlackSpinner wrote:People are still dealing with the effects of DDT in their systems.

That's not true. DDT is low-toxicity to humans when used on food crops - http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf.

But, DDT has not been used on food crops in the U.S. in 44 years.

BlackSpinner wrote:Enjoy your side of pesticides and herbicides.

Living in Canada, you may not know what "organic" food means in the U.S. It does not mean pesticide free. There are over 400 pesticides that can be used and still call the food "organic". Some of these are synthetic. Most are mineral or oil based. Sulfur, which is approved for "organic" food, is by far the most commonly used pesticide in California. Plus, it is applied at much higher levels than synthetic pesticides.

Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say about the health of "organic" foods versus conventional foods:

But at this time, there is no evidence that such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk or providing other health benefits than similar foods produced by other farming methods.
http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealth ... -questions

lilly747 wrote:Everyone has the right to their opinion and eat the way they want to eat. I eat organic and I think that is OK: you don't and I think that is OK.

No one likes to be told the way they eat is not the right way .....the only thing a person needs to REALIZE is....They have a right, in this country anyway, to eat the way they want

Everyone has the right to be scammed. I ask you to refrain from talking to low-income people who can't afford this nonsense. Too many that I know are wasting their money thinking if it isn't organic, it's unhealthy. That is money they don't have to waste. Or worse yet, the poor are reducing their intake of conventional vegetables and fruits - http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... t-the-poor

Organic foods should be only for the self-absorbed, well-to-do consumer.

CowFish wrote:Everyone has the right to be scammed.

You are so right... I do, you do, the poor do, we all do....

We all have the right to choose our own poison, and nobody has the right to play God by telling another what to do or not to do with the little money they have or the food that they eat. China is a great place to live for people who like to be told what to do by those who know best.....

And with this statement, I am out of this thread as it has gone OT by those who know best.......so have fun....

CowFish wrote:Everyone has the right to be scammed. I ask you to refrain from talking to low-income people who can't afford this nonsense. Too many that I know are wasting their money thinking if it isn't organic, it's unhealthy. That is money they don't have to waste. Or worse yet, the poor are reducing their intake of conventional vegetables and fruits - http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... t-the-poor

Organic foods should be only for the self-absorbed, well-to-do consumer.

It is a scam. I finally have my wife on board understanding this. I will show her the article you linked in the NYT. She will be infuriated. She is an active volunteer for the poor, and the organic scam hurts them the most. Good article.

CowFish wrote:
Everyone has the right to be scammed. I ask you to refrain from talking to low-income people who can't afford this nonsense. Too many that I know are wasting their money thinking if it isn't organic, it's unhealthy. That is money they don't have to waste. Or worse yet, the poor are reducing their intake of conventional vegetables and fruits - http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... t-the-poor

Organic foods should be only for the self-absorbed, well-to-do consumer.

+++++1

One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of antibiotics and synthetic hormones. It is the one thing we do pay the extra $$ for, acting on the advice of an Oncologist that specializes in breast cancer. My wife is predisposed to breast cancer anyway, so why take any unnecessary risks, when they're so easily avoided for a couple bucks difference in price ? Fortunately, we can afford it.

Blackspinner, when my daughter got her braces off the was given a retainer. She asked the orthodontist how long she would need to wear a retainer and he told her "only as long as you want straight teeth." In other words, forever.

Low carb is like that too. If I decided I was "cured" and went back to eating carbs ad lib, I'd be right back to square one pretty darn quick. Or think of it like CPAP--I have little or no apnea as long as I use the machine. I think of my way of eating more like optimized settings on my CPAP than a cure.

Jason Fung is claiming a cure for insulin resistance through fasting. He says that when there has been enough fasting, glucose tolerance improves even without further fasting, and he even cites some studies to that effect. Perhaps that is so, but I'm not on board with the degree of fasting I'd have to do to claim a "cure". Short fasts are fine, I haven't seen much progress with them though.

So I just don't want to be associated with claiming a cure. I know people think a lot of my ideas are whacky (apparently because the NY Times says so and they are always right ) but I'd like to keep the blame limited to my own ideas

Gasper62 wrote:One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of antibiotics ...

All milk that is sold in the U.S. is free of antibiotics. It's tested and conforms to legal standards that require it to be free of antibiotics. As a side note, both organic and conventional dairy cattle are treated with antibiotics when they get sick. But before milk from either type of dairy can be sold, it has to be demonstrated by testing that the milk is free of antibiotics.

So, if you see milk that is labeled antibiotic-free, the supplier is engaging in deceptive marketing.

Gasper62 wrote:One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of ... synthetic hormones.

Do you know that dairy cows produce hundreds of times more growth hormone than they are given by farmers? Do you know that the human body produces thousands of times more growth hormone than is in milk, either conventional or organic?

The American Cancer Society says milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone is as safe as milk not treated with synthetic hormone - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... th-hormone

The FDA says milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone is as safe as milk not treated with synthetic hormone - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... th-hormone

Gasper62 wrote: Fortunately, we can afford it.

But can the earth's environment afford it? The environmental footprint of dairy farming without the use of synthetic hormone is significantly larger than dairy farming with the use of synthetic hormone:

The present study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production and mitigates environmental parameters including EP, AP, greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel use.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9668.full

Midnight Strangler wrote:

Gasper62 wrote:One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of antibiotics ...

All milk that is sold in the U.S. is free of antibiotics. It's tested and conforms to legal standards that require it to be free of antibiotics. As a side note, both organic and conventional dairy cattle are treated with antibiotics when they get sick. But before milk from either type of dairy can be sold, it has to be demonstrated by testing that the milk is free of antibiotics.

So, if you see milk that is labeled antibiotic-free, the supplier is engaging in deceptive marketing.

Gasper62 wrote:One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of ... synthetic hormones.

Do you know that dairy cows produce hundreds of times more growth hormone than they are given by farmers? Do you know that the human body produces thousands of times more growth hormone than is in milk, either conventional or organic?

The American Cancer Society says milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone is as safe as milk not treated with synthetic hormone - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... th-hormone

The FDA says milk from cows treated with synthetic growth hormone is as safe as milk not treated with synthetic hormone - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... th-hormone

Gasper62 wrote: Fortunately, we can afford it.

But can the earth's environment afford it? The environmental footprint of dairy farming without the use of synthetic hormone is significantly larger than dairy farming with the use of synthetic hormone:

The present study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production and mitigates environmental parameters including EP, AP, greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel use.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9668.full

I reject your "facts". You don't happen to be a Monsanto employee, do you ? The FDA and various other organizations have practiced blowing smoke and falsehoods up American's asses for as long as they've existed. I'll believe the board certified doctor if you don't mind. Thanks for your efforts, though.

http://time.com/3738069/fda-dairy-farme ... tics-milk/

Gasper62 wrote: I'll believe the board certified doctor if you don't mind. Thanks for your efforts, though.

like the board certified doctors that tell you an AHI of 5 is just fine and dandy?

palerider wrote:

Gasper62 wrote: I'll believe the board certified doctor if you don't mind. Thanks for your efforts, though.

like the board certified doctors that tell you an AHI of 5 is just fine and dandy?

I've never experienced that clueless of a doctor, therefore, I can't speak to that scenario.

DDT across generations

“What your great-grandmother was exposed to during pregnancy, like DDT, may promote a dramatic increase in your susceptibility to obesity, and you will pass this on to your grandchildren in the absence of any continued exposures,” says Michael Skinner, WSU professor and founder of its Center for Reproductive Biology. He and his colleagues document their finding in the current issue of the journal BMC Medicine.
When Skinner and his colleagues exposed gestating rats to DDT, they saw no altered rates of obesity in the parent or first generation of offspring. But the disease developed in more than half the third-generation males and females. The researchers say the insecticide may be affecting how genes are turned on and off in the offspring of an exposed animal, even though its DNA sequences remain unchanged.

This is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In recent years, the Skinner lab has documented epigenetic effects from a host of environmental toxicants, including plastics, pesticides, fungicides, dioxins, hydrocarbons and the plasticizer bisphenol-A or BPA.
However, says Skinner, the frequency of DDT effects on obesity are far greater than other toxicants his lab has reviewed.

Gasper62 wrote:One organic item that isn't a scam (IMO), is milk that's free of antibiotics and synthetic hormones. It is the one thing we do pay the extra $$ for, acting on the advice of an Oncologist that specializes in breast cancer. My wife is predisposed to breast cancer anyway, so why take any unnecessary risks, when they're so easily avoided for a couple bucks difference in price ? Fortunately, we can afford it.

Milk is the only thing I worry about buying specially. Thankfully, there is a local farm co-op that sells hormone and antibiotic free milk at a reasonable price.