Lu Norton

Organic Foods

162 posts in this topic

There is no propogation of the species, it is the gene. In other words, your genes do not make adaptations for our speicies, nor any genes for any speicies, it is speicifically for themselves, although not consciously. As a matter of fact genes continously make adaptations and it is nature that decides which is a good mutaion and which is an illmutation. If our genes made mutations that required immense amounts of nutrients in our ancestors then you and I would not be here as anceint man never had the availability of immense nutrients.

When you say the genes make "adaptations...for themselves," do you mean the genes make these adaptations in individual men, or do you mean they make them in all men?

Genes make adaptations in every living species not just man. In this thread we just happen to be talking about man, but the adaptations happen in every single living entitiy.

After some further thought I came to the conclusion that my statements, which were in response to Mercury's earlier statements, might be misunderstood without some further explanation. What I was trying to point out to Mercury was that the fundamental agent of evolution is not the species nor man. The fundamental agent of evolution is the gene. And it is the gene that lives on, evolving for thousands of generations long after man and species are long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an important point: the role of hunger. One of Fuhrman's claims is that there is something he calls toxic hunger and that his diet will eliminate it.

I haven't really pursued this claim too fastidiously, but I have noticed one clear change: I am now able to go very long periods without eating. Sometimes, I don't eat lunch until as late as 5p.m. People around me are puzzled, but I'm not. The food tastes much, much better at that point, and I'm not consumed [no pun intended] by the urgency to eat.

I experienced something like what he describes before I changed my eating habits, but what I did was increase the amount of protein and fiber in my diet and decrease the sugar. Instead of having a bagel for breakfast, I'd have oatmeal. I'd also have some pecans for a snack in the afternoon, which I like. I even picked up SlimFast shakes, which kept me from getting to the point of wanting to gorge myself without also having to worry about what to eat.

It's a tradeoff. What you don't get is the old satisfaction of having a big meal. Honestly sometimes I still want that, to just say to heck with limits I'll eat everything! :angry2: But on the other side I feel better, I'm lighter, I can go up a few flights of stairs without getting winded or run a bit. And of course I look better and it's very satisfying to know that I can control that. So for me, as soon as I got a taste of those benefits it became easier not to slip back into old habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually carbohydrates/sugars begin to break down almost as soon as they enter our mouths. This break down causes the release of serotonin that flows to the hypo-thalmus and begins to shut down the hunger urge. Proteins begin to break down next which causes the release of a chemical called cholecystokinin (CCK) which helps in the digestion/metabolism of protein. Fats take the longest to break down and they also cause the production and release of the chemical cholecystokinin, but fat causes the release of extra CCK that flows to the hypo-thalmus and shuts down the hunger urge. Protein does not cause large production of CCK as it only produces enough to help in the digestion of protein and never leaves the intestines. This is one of the reasons why I advise my clients to try and include carbohydrates, protein and fat in every meal as they all have a specific function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mecury,

Genes make adaptations in every living species not just man. In this thread we just happen to be talking about man, but the adaptations happen in every single living entitiy.

[...]

Did Ayn Rand have to offer you up a study to convince you that her ideas were proper? Did Frank Lloyd Wright have to write a paper to convince you that his building could stand? I am a scientist/businessman and I intend on continuously selling my ideas to whom ever wants to trade their money for my experience, I do not care that much about the rest. I offer it here on THE FORUM as payment for all the benefits I get from the many people like yourself.

Ray,

I am going to respond to your points in this post, so please don't take my silence as a sign of agreement. I am just quite tied up at the moment. I realize we're not going to agree - at least, not yet - but I have one or two things to say still, particularly about Ayn Rand's method of presenting Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an important point: the role of hunger. One of Fuhrman's claims is that there is something he calls toxic hunger and that his diet will eliminate it.

I haven't really pursued this claim too fastidiously, but I have noticed one clear change: I am now able to go very long periods without eating. Sometimes, I don't eat lunch until as late as 5p.m. People around me are puzzled, but I'm not. The food tastes much, much better at that point, and I'm not consumed [no pun intended] by the urgency to eat.

I experienced something like what he describes before I changed my eating habits, but what I did was increase the amount of protein and fiber in my diet and decrease the sugar. Instead of having a bagel for breakfast, I'd have oatmeal. I'd also have some pecans for a snack in the afternoon, which I like. I even picked up SlimFast shakes, which kept me from getting to the point of wanting to gorge myself without also having to worry about what to eat.

Pecans and oatmeal are whole foods. :angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray,

I am going to respond to your points in this post, so please don't take my silence as a sign of agreement. I am just quite tied up at the moment. I realize we're not going to agree - at least, not yet - but I have one or two things to say still, particularly about Ayn Rand's method of presenting Objectivism.

Mercury,

Do not worry I do not take your silence as agreement with me. And I doubt that we will ever agree on this subject. This is not to say that I have a closed mind as I do not. I have already stated that I have read an immense amount of research papers along with many other books on this subject which is what has allowed me to come to my conclusions and set rational dieting fundamentals. The reason I keep reading more studies is to get and even further understanding of the totality of diet and longevity. While reading all these different studies I have come to my own conclusions of which some were in agreement and some were not in agreement with the researchers.

A quick example is some studies try and claim that Okinawans and Greeks live very long lives because of their diets, I disagree. Within some of these studies the people being observed ate many different types of diets and foods, but the researchers do not seem to acknowledge this fact or try and explain it away. Also, in Greece the longest living were males and in Okinawa the longest living were females. Genetics plays a much larger part in longevity than most people like to acknowledge. Other studies show that eating large amounts of vegetables shows no long term beneficial effect against mortality. The vegetarians have slightly lower mortality death rates from heart disease but in other areas they have no noticeable difference or even worse death rates. Again, I do not expect you to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick example is some studies try and claim that Okinawans and Greeks live very long lives because of their diets, I disagree. Within some of these studies the people being observed ate many different types of diets and foods, but the researchers do not seem to acknowledge this fact or try and explain it away. Also, in Greece the longest living were males and in Okinawa the longest living were females. Genetics plays a much larger part in longevity than most people like to acknowledge. Other studies show that eating large amounts of vegetables shows no long term beneficial effect against mortality. The vegetarians have slightly lower mortality death rates from heart disease but in other areas they have no noticeable difference or even worse death rates. Again, I do not expect you to agree.

Do researchers take into account the impact on average lifespan from violent crime or accidents? Or are those factors removed from the data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick example is some studies try and claim that Okinawans and Greeks live very long lives because of their diets, I disagree. Within some of these studies the people being observed ate many different types of diets and foods, but the researchers do not seem to acknowledge this fact or try and explain it away. Also, in Greece the longest living were males and in Okinawa the longest living were females. Genetics plays a much larger part in longevity than most people like to acknowledge. Other studies show that eating large amounts of vegetables shows no long term beneficial effect against mortality. The vegetarians have slightly lower mortality death rates from heart disease but in other areas they have no noticeable difference or even worse death rates. Again, I do not expect you to agree.

Do researchers take into account the impact on average lifespan from violent crime or accidents? Or are those factors removed from the data?

Most of the time the researchers explain their criteria for their assumptions or conclusions in their introductory paragraphs, if it is the full text. But, I have read many different studies that do not use any of the things that you mention into account. For example, one study tried to link when a person was born into their family to how long they lived. That is, the second child born had a longer longevity than the first or third child. Another study tried to show that where you lived (just where you lived, nothing else) was the cause of a longer longevity, this study had charts for many different items to prove their point. There are also some very good studies and researchers, but a person will have to dig deep to find these. Some of the problem stems from the National Institute of Health (NIH) holding almost all the funds for research. Researchers must spend an immense amount of their time filing out applications for money to fund their studies/ideas. The NIH hands out the money accordingly and expects the claims of the application to be reached. If the researcher does not come to their aforementioned conclusions they have a good chance of losing their funding. As you can see this creates a real dilemma for most researchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the time the researchers explain their criteria for their assumptions or conclusions in their introductory paragraphs, if it is the full text. But, I have read many different studies that do not use any of the things that you mention into account.

That's odd. What about the impact of medicine?

For example, one study tried to link when a person was born into their family to how long they lived. That is, the second child born had a longer longevity than the first or third child. Another study tried to show that where you lived (just where you lived, nothing else) was the cause of a longer longevity, this study had charts for many different items to prove their point. There are also some very good studies and researchers, but a person will have to dig deep to find these. Some of the problem stems from the National Institute of Health (NIH) holding almost all the funds for research. Researchers must spend an immense amount of their time filing out applications for money to fund their studies/ideas. The NIH hands out the money accordingly and expects the claims of the application to be reached. If the researcher does not come to their aforementioned conclusions they have a good chance of losing their funding. As you can see this creates a real dilemma for most researchers.

This reminds me of criminal justice theories that argue crime is caused by structural characteristics, such as a child having one or two parents, being an only child or their age relative to other siblings, and the economic bracket of the family. I'm curious, what is the trend of the conclusions of this longevity research over the past 100 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious, what is the trend of the conclusions of this longevity research over the past 100 years?

Generally, that we are living longer, it is the reasons why, that vary in large degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mecury,

Genes make adaptations in every living species not just man. In this thread we just happen to be talking about man, but the adaptations happen in every

single living entitiy.

[...]

Did Ayn Rand have to offer you up a study to convince you that her ideas were proper? Did Frank Lloyd Wright have to write a paper to convince you that his building could stand? I am a scientist/businessman and I intend on continuously selling my ideas to whom ever wants to trade their money for my experience, I do not care that much about the rest. I offer it here on THE FORUM as payment for all the benefits I get from the many people like yourself.

I had promised last year to respond to your post, Ray, which is why I am doing so now. Apart from my lack of interest in the topic, some other personal factors intervened. Please forgive my late response.

I had begun typing a response last year, and finished it this afternoon just to post below.

----------------------------------

I see we're simply going to have to let reality be the judge, Ray. Still, I think it is important to address this last point on the standard of proof in philosophy vs. the standard of proof in science.

Did Ayn Rand have to offer you up a study to convince you that her ideas were proper? Did Frank Lloyd Wright have to write a paper to convince you that his building could stand?

Philosophy sets the boundaries for any specialized inquiry by man, and philosophic truths, even where complex science is involved to arrive at them, require no specialized knowledge to validate. The facts supporting philosophic principles are open to all men. So, Ayn Rand did not have to provide scientific studies (in the sense of experiments) to her readers.

But, even there, notice that Ayn Rand wrote extensively about her philosophy and its applications. She started 3 different magazines, published many articles, and taught several individuals her philosophy over a span of decades.

As references, she provided some texts for readers to follow-up on, but, philosophical truths being what they are, she referred most powerfully to human history and to the reader's own grasp of himself, others, and reality, as evidence.

But, physiological truths such as held by physicians, nutritionists, dieticians, and others in related specialties, need far more than philosophical observation to be judged, as this thread attests. You, Carlos, and your clients have your observations; Fuhrman, me, and Fuhrman's patients have our observations. But, it is the latter group which has been better reviewed and published. I maintain that a detailed exposition of the facts and methods of your approach is required for systematic appraisal.

As for Frank Lloyd Wright, he built his buildings as proof, yes, but he must have had to show cause in order to get funding.

I offer all this, not out of a need to prove myself - or Fuhrman - right, but only as a matter of fact. I, too, benefit from your presence here on THE FORUM, Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, I have nothing more to add to the subject of this thread. But I would like to offer that I enjoy and benefit from your presence here on THE FORUM also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites