• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RayK

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. Some food for thought (pun intended) about eating fish and some of the comments that are not backed by science although some may think otherwise. In a 1998 Denmark study of 60,000 women whom were trying to reduce their rate of heart disease by eating more "heart healthy" fish, it was found that they increased their rate of death by breast cancer instead. In different terms neither group lived any longer, those that aet fish died around the same time span as those that did not although they died from something different. In 1991 researchers at the University of California at San Francisco came to the conclusion that cutting one's fat intake down to the recommended 30% (which is what is recommended by the American Heart Association) would have very little effect on increasing one's life span. As a matter of a fact that increase would amount to a total of an extra 3 months for women and 4 months for men. It has been estimated that to see further increases in one's life that one should cut their daily saturated fat level intake down to about 10%. Well, in a study similar to the one above and published in 1994 by the Archives of Internal Medicine researchers concluded that by cutting one's saturated fat intake down to the 10% level it would increase one's life span in contrast to the recommended 30% total fat level with the following: men would extend their life's from 11 days to five months and women from 3.5 days to two months. Of course the people that can actually do this miss out on all the micro nutrients along with the very much needed cholesterol that comes in or with fat. In a 1998 Havard Medical School research study that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) it was found that saturated fat reduced the risk of stroke. Each 3% increase in total fat increased the chance of not having a stroke by 15%. For those that do not know this, Japanese have very low fat diets and hence have a very large rate of stroke. This has been shown not to be related to genetic reasons as Japanese men that have moved to Hawaii and eat larger amounts of fat have far fewer strokes. Further food for thought. In 1976 Harvard Medical School started a sixteen year study with 115,195 Caucasian women which were between the ages of 35 and 55. While the study went on the mortality rate from heart disease averaged 1 in 100. The skinnier women in the group had the lowest mortality but the numbers did not substantially increase until the average 5 foot 4 inch woman increased her weight to 160 pounds. The mortality rate doubled when the average women reached 200 pounds which means 2 in 100 would die of heart disease. Looked at from a different perspective, skinny women had a 99% chance of not dying from heart disease while the fat/obese one's had a 98% chance of not dying from heart disease. Now, I am almost certain someone will ask themselves why I am writing about this on this thread. My answer is that people on this thread are making statements about certain types of food intake like they are a panacea which they are not. If one likes fish (or fishing), eat it, if not then do not eat it. In general the only way to increase one's life through eating is by not overeating which means life extension and health has almost nothing to do with what one eats over their life. Enjoy the food you enjoy as it is not going to make much of a difference in the end as we are almost all going to die from eating and breathing as long as something else does not get us first.
  2. Integrated philosophical systems

    My post from above you start out with "Yes you did" instead of "Yes you do."
  3. Integrated philosophical systems

    Yes you do when you deny that you have a consciousness, so get it straight. One cannot be conscious without a consciousness which your brain is not. So, please pay attention.
  4. Integrated philosophical systems

    Ruveyn, when you reject consciousness you must also reject free will which hence means that you become solely a deterministic being which cannot love, hate, choose a career path, learn math tables and so on. So, if you are claiming you love (along with all those other things) but deny you have a consicousness, it is you that are creating mytical states because those are all beyond the nature of a brain as a brain does not make choices.
  5. Integrated philosophical systems

    You can object all you want, it takes a conscious mind to object. So whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, whether some test supposedly demonstrates to you that their is aciton in your brain or not, you are conscious. You can scream it as much as you want and that will never make you a unconscious being. Good day lost man.
  6. A culture is representative of the profound underlying philosophy that guides it. So as I stated in my first post, one should not be surprised that a culture is growing "dumber" when they constantly discard the two items that allow them to gain intelligence; reason and logic. To be interested in something one must first have an ethical system that would guide their choices in what to be interest in. Today's profound ethical system is altruism. So, one should not be surprised when one cannot seem to be interested in something when that would be considered selfish which by today's philosophy is considered evil. In other words, a lack of interest is an effect of a bad philosophy and not the fundamental reason why it may seem people are getting dumber.
  7. Integrated philosophical systems

    Ruveyn, It is good to hear that you consciously love your wife, your children and your grandchildren.
  8. You don't have to be an Objectivist to state the Truth

    I own Daniel Hannan's book The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter Of Warning To America which is a good book although I do not agree with him on all subjects.
  9. So, let us look at what is meant by a fundamental understanding of the nature of things and let us start with the two amino acids I mentioned earlier that make up aspartame. Aspartic in a non-essential amino acid which means it can be syntehsized from central metabolic pathway intermediates in humans. Aspartic is found in many food sources such as animals, vegeatables, fruits (to include sugar cane), salts, and dietary supplements such as magnesium aspartate. Aspartic (aspartate) is also a metabolite in the urea cycle and participates in gluconeogensis which is the conversion of fat and or protein into sugar to fuel the body. Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid that is found in breast milk of mammals. It is also used in the manufacturing of food and drink products along with being sold as a supplement. It also has other biological roles such as being converted mulitple times before it turns into dopamine, norepinephrine and or epinipherine. So, when someone tries to claim that aspartame is a toxin and creates harmful effects I know they are lying or just do not understand the fundmental nature of those items and or that which is under discussion. One can read all the studies they want and still not know how to determine whether the researcher's claims are correct or not without first having a fundamental understanding of that which is under discussion.
  10. Integrated philosophical systems

    As usual, you did not answer the question.
  11. No, I think my fundamental undestanding of the nature of the items under discussion give me insight into what is correct. I also think my years worth of applying that understanding to my daily life backs my claims. One does not get a fundamental understanding about a subject by reading research articles as they only tell us that something happened (that is if the reserachers are honest). To actually now the "why" one must have a grasp of the fundamentals. So, if someone wants to persuade me, I please ask them to bring facts that support that my fundamental undestanding of subjects under discussion is incorrect and not some study which contradicts the next guy's study and the next and the next. I was reading an article just yesterday while on facebook that gave a very good example of the average's person understanding of science and how they then apply that information without any further knowledge gathering. The study reminded me of this discussion as I have been doing something similar since as far back as the 1970s without any illeffects. During the 1970s when my mother wanted to lose weight she would buy Tab and Fresca which both are made with sugar substitutes. I would drink both of them even though I did not prefer the taste of Tab over Pepsi. In the mid-1980s I switched from regular Pepsi to Diet Pepsi as my main soft-drink, I also switched to using items such as Splenda when I make up Kool-Aid as it allows me to drink a lot of water while adding flavor and yet almost calorie free. I have been doing these things for almost 30 years now without any illeffects. As a matter of a fact I drink probablyl 50 ounces a day in Diet Pepsi and yet I am healthy and a lot more so than most people half my age. So, if sugar substitutes were toxic as so many average people and researchers attempt to claim I, along with my family members and clients that follow my advice, then I should be unhealthy if not already dead. http://www.wnd.com/2005/06/31095/ One does not need a Ph.D. to come to their own conclusions on a subject. What one needs is a fundamental understanding of the subject or they are just acting in a second-handed nature by accepting another's thoughts without any evidence of the why.
  12. Integrated philosophical systems

    It was not meant as a compliment. I also have no intuitive talent and one does not need it to think and act in an objective manner. So you have everything worked out empirically? So, you worked out your emotional response to the woman you are married to empirically? What was it empirically that let you choose to love her, to actually feel love? You cannot physically see love nor hate for that matter? Or, are you going to tell me/us that you married a woman you feel nothing for?
  13. Who one works with does not define whether one is right or wrong about the facts. So, as always, I offer that you, and people like you, first gather a fundamental undestanding of what you think you know before you comment on whether or not someone else is "misinformed." I also have never stated that one's ferver defines whehter their claims are valid, that is what you and others on this forum do. But as long as you, and those like you, keep stating invalid opinions I will be here to rebut them. Finally, what one goes through in their life does not make them an automatic expert on that subject so bring facts that prove your position not who you work with as I do not care who you work with and it will not convince me.
  14. Hi Bert, I hope you enjoy your time here as this is a very interesting and rewarding place.