And if I grow the grass with non 'organic' fertilizer, there'd be more grass and I'd get more omega 3 per acre of this green chicken feed.
More importantly: I don't know about you, but I get my dose of omega 3 from cheap and common canola oil, not chicken, or coffee, or that paperweight on my table. You might as well complain that the steak you ate last night doesn't give you much vitamin C!
By the way, I find it ironic that a lot of health foods have dozens of kinds of olive oil when olive oil is very poor in omega 3.
Sure it is, as a study has to be focused and go in depth. Breadth comes from the non-lazy reader considering the multitude of studies in an area together.
We don't have hens, but one of my wife's patients feeds us. Night and day difference. Did that "researches" try to eat only mixed in laboratory ingredients they measure, and survive?
The most stupid thing I heard, is to measure cholesterol level in food in order to predict cholesterol level in blood stream. And to measure poly-saturated fats in food to predict fat in humans, while most fatty and prone to heart problems people eat more of carbohydrates from "laboratory-refined" foods.
We don't have hens, but one of my wife's patients feeds us. Night and day difference. Did that "researches" try to eat only mixed in laboratory ingredients they measure, and survive?
The most stupid thing I heard, is to measure cholesterol level in food in order to predict cholesterol level in blood stream. And to measure poly-saturated fats in food to predict fat in humans, while most fatty and prone to heart problems people eat more of carbohydrates from "laboratory-refined" foods.
Correct you are. My doctor says I don't care about eggs it is the cookies and sugar she knows I eat at night just by looking at me.
At least in the USA organic has a specific legal meaning (grown without pesticides), whereas anything can be labeled natural.
Durnit, I had to look - I was about to claim the name "Natural Audio:"
Welcome to Natural Audio
But the word organic isn't regulated outside of the food industry. Oh, darn, I'm too late there, too:
Organic Audio
Durnit, I had to look - I was about to claim the name "Natural Audio:"
Welcome to Natural Audio
But the word organic isn't regulated outside of the food industry. Oh, darn, I'm too late there, too:
Organic Audio
Organcially grown foodstuffs can be toxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic from other "perfectly organic" things growing on them - mycotoxins, aflatoxins from natural molds
contanimated with natural pathogens, parasites...
have toxins themselves - as long as they aren't too quickly lethal
the "Natural, Organic" world doesn't care about anything but making copies of DNA, RNA - species don't have to "have a good time", have any pressure to live much beyond reproducing enough offspring
humans have found, modified thru selective breeding some foods that don't kill us too quickly
contanimated with natural pathogens, parasites...
have toxins themselves - as long as they aren't too quickly lethal
the "Natural, Organic" world doesn't care about anything but making copies of DNA, RNA - species don't have to "have a good time", have any pressure to live much beyond reproducing enough offspring
humans have found, modified thru selective breeding some foods that don't kill us too quickly
Last edited:
the slow world population growth until just a few centruys or so ago means birthrates, survival to childbearing were in very close balance for virtually all human populations over long time scales
estimates range upwards from 40% for pre-childbearing age mortality - before science, technologies started giving us leverage over some of the high "natural" mortality
"in the state of nature" world population was nearly static due to how well we are loved, supported by Gaia, thrived on Organic foods, how much immune strength consuming them added
estimates range upwards from 40% for pre-childbearing age mortality - before science, technologies started giving us leverage over some of the high "natural" mortality
"in the state of nature" world population was nearly static due to how well we are loved, supported by Gaia, thrived on Organic foods, how much immune strength consuming them added
Last edited:
Yes, the myth about technology and longer life, lower death rate, growth of population, does exist. But if you find statistics you can see that native population of technologically developed countries decline, while in less technologically developed countries population grows more rapidly. Even in the same countries you can see that poor people reproduce faster.
However, there is another problem: emigrants from poor countries have to eat fast food rich in carbohydrates, as the result having higher growth of obesity and diabetes than their cousins who continue to eat more natural food.
Here is very interesting site by the guy who tested hypothesis of diet and exercise on himself. He stopped eating balanced food, stopped exercising, started eating refined products like fast food, white bread, sugary cereal and soda.
Manning gained 23.5 pounds by week 4. As the weeks progressed, his confidence – and his health – took a downturn.
He started to get winded easily, and his glucose level and blood pressure were high. “It’s getting a little scary,” he said in one of his video blogs.
Manning’s wife, Lynn, was prepared to see the physical changes in her husband, but didn’t expect the emotional and personality changes that came with the weight gain.
“His self-confidence, that completely went away and depleted,” she said, explaining that he was “becoming lethargic, lazy, not helping around the house.”
“I was in denial at first until she kept pointing out the things I was doing,” Manning said today on “Good Morning America.” “But I did become lazier. … I had less energy so I did become exhausted and I kept seeing how it affected our relationship because of that. And so that’s where the biggest surprise was, the emotional [part].
When Manning started his experiment on May 7, 2011, he had a 34.5-inch waist and 17-inch neck, and he weighed 193 pounds. Six months later, he had a 48-inch waist, 19-inch neck and he weighed 265 pounds. His clothes didn’t fit.
Last fall, he ended the experiment and started to whip his body back into shape.
“It was hard to get back into the exercise routine,” Manning said today on “GMA,” revealing his new physique. ”This is the first time going to the gym that I was nervous. Before I loved going to the gym, but for the first time in my life, I was humbled. … doing push-ups on my knees, doing assisted pull-ups, things like that for the first time, it was a very humbling experience.”
‘Fit2Fat2Fit’ Author Drew Manning’s Top 5 Weight-Loss Mistakes to Avoid - ABC News
Here is his site: Welcome Home
However, there is another problem: emigrants from poor countries have to eat fast food rich in carbohydrates, as the result having higher growth of obesity and diabetes than their cousins who continue to eat more natural food.
Here is very interesting site by the guy who tested hypothesis of diet and exercise on himself. He stopped eating balanced food, stopped exercising, started eating refined products like fast food, white bread, sugary cereal and soda.
Manning gained 23.5 pounds by week 4. As the weeks progressed, his confidence – and his health – took a downturn.
He started to get winded easily, and his glucose level and blood pressure were high. “It’s getting a little scary,” he said in one of his video blogs.
Manning’s wife, Lynn, was prepared to see the physical changes in her husband, but didn’t expect the emotional and personality changes that came with the weight gain.
“His self-confidence, that completely went away and depleted,” she said, explaining that he was “becoming lethargic, lazy, not helping around the house.”
“I was in denial at first until she kept pointing out the things I was doing,” Manning said today on “Good Morning America.” “But I did become lazier. … I had less energy so I did become exhausted and I kept seeing how it affected our relationship because of that. And so that’s where the biggest surprise was, the emotional [part].
When Manning started his experiment on May 7, 2011, he had a 34.5-inch waist and 17-inch neck, and he weighed 193 pounds. Six months later, he had a 48-inch waist, 19-inch neck and he weighed 265 pounds. His clothes didn’t fit.
Last fall, he ended the experiment and started to whip his body back into shape.
“It was hard to get back into the exercise routine,” Manning said today on “GMA,” revealing his new physique. ”This is the first time going to the gym that I was nervous. Before I loved going to the gym, but for the first time in my life, I was humbled. … doing push-ups on my knees, doing assisted pull-ups, things like that for the first time, it was a very humbling experience.”
‘Fit2Fat2Fit’ Author Drew Manning’s Top 5 Weight-Loss Mistakes to Avoid - ABC News
Here is his site: Welcome Home
what are you smoking? Organically farmed I hope
you are pushing a incredibly naive Romanticized version of the world - the population statistics, mortality rates that kept human population from overrunning the planet 50,000 years ago aren't "Myth"
massive population growth occurs when food supplies, public health moves ahead of the "Noble Savage" or even manual labor agriculture stage
this means infrastructure for water, waste processing, mechanization of food production, storage, delivery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides
while the society's reproductive patterns, culture are still shaped by the previous higher mortality conditions that no longer exist
highly industrialized societies with low early mortality, access to birth control, educated women with more options leads to reduction in birthrates - through intelligent choice - not increased child mortality
yes you can make poor choices about applying technology to refine, modify foods, bad individual choices about what to consume - but that has nearly no consequence on mortality compared to "the state of nature" where 4 in 10 died before age 15, women giving childbirth faced survival odds that would break most regular troops in active combat
if you want to warn that some tech is misapplied, may be running ahead of knowledge of long term effects go ahead
just don't confuse rational evaluation with Romanticism over a idyllic “Natural Harmony” that has never exited
you really weaken your Science based argument when you do
Last edited:
You are right, they did not "make poor choices about applying technology to refine, modify foods, bad individual choices about what to consume", and yes, they did not have such life support system like we have; they had to work harder in order to get their food, they do not eat enough, but they managed to survive, they did not have such problems with diabetes, obesity, cancer, heart deceases, and so on, that our highly developed society faces. Remove all that life support we have, but leave intact refined, processed food industry, and you will see what happens. Actually, you could see for yourself if you would follow the links I provided in my previous post. The guy demonstrated what happened as the result of change of lifestyle, but could return back. For me no more evidence is needed.
And please if you want to argue against my arguments, argue exactly against my arguments, but not against your own musings about my arguments.
And please if you want to argue against my arguments, argue exactly against my arguments, but not against your own musings about my arguments.
You did not know?
Despite apes look more alike.
Edit: https://www.google.com/search?q=pig+transplants
Last edited:
this thread is truly bizarre. i like it.
btw, as soon as our ancestors started making tools and got fire, we evolved to eat processed food. that's why we have small teeth and short intestines.
before we had fire and tools we had to process our food totally with our body functions.
after fire and tools we could absorb calories and protein much more efficiently. this gave us a big jump on competing species.
it appears we may have made some errors lately, mostly having to do with processing our food a little too finely. but that's not hard for an individual to deal with, providing he has the requisite knowledge.
btw, as soon as our ancestors started making tools and got fire, we evolved to eat processed food. that's why we have small teeth and short intestines.
before we had fire and tools we had to process our food totally with our body functions.
after fire and tools we could absorb calories and protein much more efficiently. this gave us a big jump on competing species.
it appears we may have made some errors lately, mostly having to do with processing our food a little too finely. but that's not hard for an individual to deal with, providing he has the requisite knowledge.
Exactly!
The question is in the requisite knowledge
It turned that we have here less consensus than in questions of speed of life and sound quality vs measurements.
You are in luck. "Genetically Modified Audio" is still available.
"Corn Syrup Audio" also seems to have escaped unscathed.
Last edited:
You're confusing longevity (lower death rate) with fertility (birth rate). Poorer people, especially in third-world countries, have more children for many reasons - to help around the farm or go to work and make money for the family, and so they will still have other children in case one or more die, a real concern in third-world areas. Middle class and richer people have fewer children, with very good expectations that they will live to be adults. Perhaps they have better access to, and actively use birth control technology as well. THIS is what accounts for the "population decline" of technologically developed countries - lower birth rates and smaller families, NOT higher death rates than third-world countries.
If you want to look at lifespan, compare the US life expectancy from two centuries ago, one century ago, and now. Life expectancy is greater than it ever was, and is growing at about one month per year, and that rate of growth is increasing.
ETA: Running off to register geneticallymodifiedaudio.com
- Status
- Not open for further replies.