Health Extremists & Idiots

ChubbyHubby

Scanlas The 2nd wrote:

Remove grains from a persons diet and their health improves dramatically.

Your links don't back up your claim. All they conclude is that excessive amount is bad which is what everyone is saying:

from random article wrote:

Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets of most people without any noticeable, deleterious health effects, and herein lies their strength. When combined with a variety of both animal- and plantbased foods, they provide a cheap and plentiful caloric source, capable of sustaining and promoting human life. The ecologic, energetic efficiency wrought by the widespread cultivation and domestication of cereal grains allowed for the dramatic expansion of worldwide human populations, which in turn, ultimately led to humanity’s enormous cultural and technological accomplishments. The downside of cereal grain consumption is their ability to disrupt health and well being in virtually all people when consumed in excessive quantity. This information has only been empirically known since the discovery of vitamins, minerals and certain antinutrients in the early part of this century.

bbam

But people believe this stuff.
Some lads where I worked found some crackpot site about purging your body.
The basis of it was to load up your system with fibre for a few days, think it was four or five.
Then you had a day where you made your purge. The mix sounded dreadful, 1/3 each of prune juice, orange juice and vegetable oil. Three pints to be taken, morning lunch and evening.
It near killed them, one lad was off work for a month and missed his summer holidays as they had constant scutters for long afterwards. The doctor warns him he could have permanently damaged his bowel with the purge.
Even years after he says that he gets the squirts really often and easily and blames it on what he took.

People are always looking for the easy answer. The only + was that he lost a stone in a week, which he promptly put back on.

theg81der

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Regression to the mean?

Modern medicine doesn't have all the answers, however that doesn't mean that the gaps are filled by whatever a homeopath, faith healer or you choose to believe.

I didn`t "choose to believe" in any of that crap I said in my post I tried those thing and they didn`t work. I couldn`t eat normal food, I could barely walk, I was in daily agony for years and no one could tell me why so after trying modern medicine and quackery - which as I said was a load of crap - I tried eating only organic fruit and veg which was the only thing that didn`t bring me out in a rash head to toe. I got better and still am I can eat everything now and do anything I want - I`m not arrogant enough to porport to know why.
Blood test were more or less normal, few odd things happened to my body that doctors couldn`t really understand, so there were some external signs of illness and they did find several problems but non really that would explain what was happening.

Read a post before you post an irrelevant answer please.
And no I don`t buy that I added 2+2 and got 5. I was sick for years and woke up everyday believing I was going to get better - it didn`t happen! Positive/negative thinking is a load of rubbish the extent of its impact is seriously over rated and used as an argument far to oftenby people who are suppose to be scientific.lol

hooradiation

Weirdly, my own scenario might be considered 'proof' of this "grains r evul!".
But I have a legitimate medical reason for avoiding grains so it's nothing to do with all this "hunter-gathers were healthier than farmers" nonsense.

Capt'n Midnight

UL_heart_throb wrote: »

With regard to red meat. Here are three reasons why it could be argued that it is unhealthy.

Undercooked red mean is a source of food poisoning.

and parasites

also close contact with animals may have lead to most of our contagious diseases

Pushtrak

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Check out the below links on wheat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21901116

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:

The results suggest that the diet rich in whole grain and low insulin response grain products, bilberries, and fatty fish improve glucose metabolism and alter the lipidomic profile. Therefore, such a diet may have a beneficial effect in the efforts to prevent type 2 diabetes in high risk persons.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.abstract

Conclusion: The results show that fractional magnesium absorption from white-wheat bread is significantly impaired by the addition of phytic acid, in a dose-dependent manner, at amounts similar to those naturally present in whole-meal and brown bread.

So, phytic acid with the dose makes the poison. Or, not to excess.

Nothing can be seen from this one.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/9/2973S.long

Although phytic acid inhibits zinc absorption in adults, the situation in infants and children is unclear and young infants have shown relatively high zinc absorption from high phytate cereal and legume mixtures. Nevertheless, decreasing phytic acid by 90%, from 1% to 0.1%, would also be expected to double zinc absorption in adults, and complete degradation could increase zinc absorption further. If the molar ratio of phytic acid to iron in an iron-fortified food were reduced to <0.5, zinc absorption in adults would be expected to increase markedly. The influence of phytic acid reduction on zinc absorption in infants and young children appears to be modest but needs further evaluation.

Alba Therapeutics were noted as a conflict of interest in a lot of sources that I saw after I remembered to keep an eye on that. I've already closed the sources I've quoted from above.

Honestly, the particulars of wheat aren't exactly as fruitful a subject for exploration as one might could possibly imagine it to be.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

On the whole modern medicine does fantastic things, and on the whole I think most alternative therapies are nonsense, but judging from various studies I've read and their methodology I wouldn't be so quick to blindly accept what im told from mainstream medicine.

One shouldn't blindly accept anything. What exactly are these various studies have disinclined you to have paranoia on this? And what is your understanding of the methodology, and what are the flaws? You didn't understand what confounding factors are, and how studies work to remove them. Oh, and the peer review process is the study being re-tested to see if the conclusions can be reached by re-performing the experiments.

There are still doctors for example who do cholesterol tests without giving a full lipid breakdown. They base their decision to prescribe statins on the overall cholesterol instead of LDL and triglycerides. It's shocking really. It wasn't long ago it was common knowledge to only eat three eggs a weak. With good studies and sound statistical inference behind the results we wouldn't have so many myths.

Honestly, this level of nuance isn't something I can really respond to. Even assuming you are right though, your issue isn't the methodology, but the methodology not being performed properly. Whereas alternative medicines don't have a methodology proven to work in any way, shape or form.

Edit: 5 minutes late. Though, in my defence I wasn't sure if that 2 hour mark would be the start or end of my post being ready :pac:

Mr.Biscuits

Pushtrak wrote: »

You have this vague wishy-washy defence of complementary medicine at the moment. Exactly what complementary medicines do you find to be effective? And what evidence is there to demonstrate the efficacy of your chosen complementary medicines?

There is plenty of evidence that complementary medicine can be beneficial even on the pittance they work form. However, even when shown to be more effective that many drugs today.

For the purpose of this thread though, I am referring to dietary change as a form of complementary medicine as that is why it was started in the first place and the bull**** about eating too many bananas causing death why I posted . I have provided links to people like Dr Terry Wahls to show why I believe diet can reverse disease where western medicine fails. Her own colleagues called her a quack, yet now many have done a 180 and are asking her for more information on her work.

Please don't give me "shur whats the harm, it might help or it might not... But it isn't going to harm on its own." I'd like you come up with something better than a non-effect, or a non-negative effect. Again, with proof.

Please pay attention.

I have made it quite clear why there is NO proof that say something like Terry Wahls dietary intervention with regards to MS works (yet at least):

LACK OF RESEARCH FUNDS.

So far on a measly pittance, she has made astounding ground and so one can only imagine where she (and other researchers like her) would be were funding made available to them, to any where near the same level that it is for researchers funded by big pharma.

How would you suppose the statistics would look if surgeons were replaced by a plethora of alternative medicines, from crystals, herbal remedies, homeopathy and any other quackery that you can think of.

Eh, what the fcuk are you waffling about. I have called for more funding in areas like dietary research and you come out with the above crap. Way off and play with your straw elsewhere.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Wow, some amount of backward logic there. If you could point me towards evidence where complementary medicine has worked contradictory to conventional medicine I'd be grateful.

If you would actually listen rather than repeating the same point over and over, then we might actually get some where.

Certain complementary procedures have been shown to be very effective in alleviating and treating medical conditions but without adequate funding, there will never be able to compliment let alone compete with drug treatments:

http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results

For instance: for many years people with recurrent ulcers could only get relief from diet and/or going to a herbalist for instance. My first boss back in the 80's even spent time in a psychiatric unit as they (the medics) where convinced he was suffering from stress. In the end what saved him was a herbalist in the UK and they never returned. His doctors told him it was placebo of course and wasn't until many years later when the world found out about h-pylori's role in peptic ulcers that it became clear just why herbal medicine worked for him and Prozac didn't.

Now, his story is not unique of course and millions worldwide suffered as a result of h-pylori and many of time got relief elsewhere. Some through starch free diets (a much touted alternative cure which worked for some and not for others) and herbal medicine.

You want proof of this? How could there ever be such a thing. Proof in the arena of medicine requires money and data gathering by those who can submit their findings to peer reviewed journals. Asking for such things is just done for asking purposes; point obviously well and truly being missed (or deliberately ignored, take your pick).

As for medical malpractice, I'm not (and nobody from the medical profession would) claim they are infallible. At the end of the day there is a human element making critical decisions on people's health, through negligence and/or unfortunate combination of circumstances, people die. What medicine does do (which alternative med DOES NOT), is seek to greatly reduce this risk, tightly regulated membership to practice, coupled with tools such as evidence-based medicine, continual review of treatments and protocols, etc

Eh, I never said anything to the contrary, I brought it up to make a point. Sorry you missed it.

However unfortunate and I'm sorry you lost people close to you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

How original. I bet you wouldn't so smug to my (or anyone else's) face when discussing such matters. Can you point out anywhere that I said or implied that my personal anecdote was evidence? If I believed anecdotes were evidence, why would I be complaining that people like Dr Whals have little or no money and that they should receive more research funding (as I clearly have been?). Wouldn't be so that they could actually prove their findings so that it becomes EVIDENCE now would it?

When a doctor gives a figure such as six months, it is usually with a disclaimer - say 95% with cancer at a similar stage lived that long. Doesn't mean everyone will.

Draw a standard distribution (bell) curve of survival time of cancer patients given 6 months to live, - you'll find 95% die around say 4-8 months. Approx 2.5% will be fortunate and live longer. However there will be the unfortunate remaining percentage who die sooner. It's nobodies fault.

Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't refer to them as a pup for the fun of it. I'm sorry you seem to think that crap like this doesn't happen in our hospitals but it does. Put it down to family not listening, or not understand the complexity of treatments and outcomes as much as you like, but that is not what occurred. Many years later in fact, we were told by another oncologist (off the record) that the person should never have been placed on that particular form of chemo in the first please, as it had been known to aggravate the form of lung cancer that they had, especially so when at the stage that they had it. You can either accept what I am telling you, or not but I am not certainly not going to this point any further with you. I was there, you were not.

Sounds cold and clinical but your family and friends deaths in some small way will help drive improvements in medicine potentially used to treat their children, grandchildren and other descendents. I'm sorry if that offends, but I think it's a positive way of looking at death.

Did you go anywhere special to learn that level of patronization?

Yes, it is very confusing.

It's not confusing at all, but you keep telling yourself that it is if it makes you feel clever.

You twisted a point I made earlier, so I'll rephrase it:

It is my contention that had nutritional science researchers in the area of cancer research had anywhere near the funding that pharmaceutical companies have made available for drug research, then we would have made far more progress into treating it and reversing it's destruction upon the human body.

You can again of course twist that, be my guest but I will leave you with a few quotes from Marcia Angell, MD, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. As reprehensible as many industry practices are, I believe the behavior of much of the medical profession is even more culpable.

A review of 74 clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that 37 of 38 positive studies were published.

But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome (Turner, 2008).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF3ISihHLM

the_syco

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Originally posted over on A&A, a cautionary tale for those who think offering false hope is largely harmless. A long read but worth it.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78049735&postcount=1681

I believe this bit is why they say these things will cure you;

If you had said homeopathy might give me a cure and it might not, that it was impossible to tell, do you really think I would have risked your protocol? I would not have. I would have considered homeopathy as a support therapy only, as I had originally intended.

Just finished reading the entire article. If this nut did this to someone in my family, I'd make Hitler look like Mother Theresa in how I'd treat the charlatan!

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

As I said in my earlier post: things are changing and finally diet is slowly been seen as a form of treatment rather that just something that can maybe prevent disease, but in fact, reverse it.

Provide a link to back this up, please. I ask as someone curing themselves as a once off is not a cure; it's a once off. Too many times these once-offs are somehow made into a one-size-fits-all treatment.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

They were bigger and had much less signs of illness on their skeleton, they even had better teeth.

Did they live as long as us?

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

You want proof of this? How could there ever be such a thing. Proof in the arena of medicine requires money and data gathering by those who can submit their findings to peer reviewed journals

You are correct, but without study, we won't know if what one ate cured them, or was it what he ate, where he was at that time, how much sun/moon light and the exercise he did whilst on that diet. Thus, what worked for one, may not work for another. Another reason why it must be studied, is that to (try to) ensure that no outside influences (such as large phrama companies) are contributing to the persons well being.

Scanlas The 2nd

the_syco wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

They were bigger and had much less signs of illness on their skeleton, they even had better teeth.

Did they live as long as us?
.

They lived until about 60 or 70 provided they didn't die during complications at birth or weren't killed in an accident of some sort like falling off a cliff. We are only now catching up with the size and height of hunter gatherers.

Get full bloodwork done and then eat a paleo diet for a month and gets your bloods done again. Your doctor will be astounded by the changes and you'll feel much better.

hooradiation

And to think we believed the era of the snake oil salesman was over.

cormie

What's so surprising here? Fruits and vegetables are widely regarded, in pretty much every profession and practice, worldwide, as the best forms of food and nutrition available. The message from the guy Harley is pretty straight forward, eat a high fruit and veg diet and your health will improve, eat it unprocessed, organic and uncooked and it will improve further. That's common sense no? Cooking destroys nutrients in most foods (although in some foods such as tomatoes releases beneficial nutrients) so if you're going to eat and you're concerned for your health, why not eat the best food available? It just sounds like common sense to me and his results do definitely speak volumes. 30 bananas a day, well in order to meet the recommended calorie intake, only eating fruit and veg, you will need to eat a lot so it doesn't seem too ridiculous, but to most people, definitely sounds extreme.

When I was first introduced to the idea of Raw Foods by my friend I thought it to be very extreme too, but on second thoughts, it just makes sense.

There does seem to be a certain following to it though and a lot of the people who would be into raw food would also be into complete and utter nonsense products. Every area will attract its scammers and every area has it's array of desperate bait willing to throw a few quid at anything that's said to be of benefit.

You just have to have a sensible head about you. Raw, organic, ripe, local fruit and veg, you can't really consume anything better. Eat lots of it and you'll surely benefit. Don't beat yourself up over not following such a strict ideal. The human body can take a great amount of abuse.

As for eating such a diet reversing diseases, well I don't know about that, I wouldn't dismiss it for sure but it's a pity not more money is put into research that may prove so.

micropig

Next thing someone will overdose on bananas and they be banned.:rolleyes:

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

then eat a paleo diet for a month

I'd puke up over half of the veg crap that it advises and my body refuses raw meat, so I'll pass, thanks.

cormie

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've seen this 70 year old:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDKXkWpYTQ

and this 71 year old:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TR8FyZ75l4

Both denote their youthful looks to sticking to a raw vegan diet

Can you link to some fruitarians who look older than their age? I'm sure there are, just as there are people who stick to a more common diet who look much older than they should.

micropig

What age do you think this guy is?

Pushtrak

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

For the purpose of this thread though, I am referring to dietary change as a form of complementary medicine as that is why it was started in the first place and the bull**** about eating too many bananas causing death why I posted . I have provided links to people like Dr Terry Wahls to show why I believe diet can reverse disease where western medicine fails. Her own colleagues called her a quack, yet now many have done a 180 and are asking her for more information on her work.

I had written up a long response to this, but think its better not to post all that. You don't seem to advocate for every alternative pseudoscience under the sun.

You seem to be working only on a type of diet that you think one would be wise to go on. Am I understanding you right on that? If you think there are alternative/herbal/holistic/homeopathic or their ilk that you think works, then feel free to point out what you think has a place in the arena of patient treatment.

Now, the most important bit to respond to is the banana issue. One has to exercise caution on the issue.

It's not their high radiation signature. It's because bananas contain potassium. But wait, you may be saying, isn't potassium good for me? It is, but like everything else, too much potassium is bad for you. Too much potassium can lead to heart damage and cardiac arrest. I was reminded of that when reading about an upcoming attempt to set a new world record for eating bananas. Apparently the world record effort has been scaled back so that it involves more people eating bananas and not people eating as many bananas as possible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22605836

A 76-year-old woman (51 kg, 158 cm, body mass index 20.5) was admitted to the hospital because of an acute kidney injury with hyperkalemia. On admission, she reported progredient muscle weakness of all limbs for several days. Serum potassium level was dramatically elevated and ECG showed QRS with a 'sine-wave' pattern and haemodialysis was started. 45 days ago, Hartmann's operation was done because of stenosing sigmoid diverticulitis. At this time, the serum creatinine was 0.4 mg/dl ('normal' 0.5-1.2). Thereafter, she got severe 'high output-ileostoma' with severe intestinal fluid losses and treatment with potassium supplementation and spironolactone was started by the surgeons. She was discharged with elevated serum potassium levels and serum creatinine of 1.0 mg/dl ('normal' range (0.5-1.2 mg/dl)). This case illustrates impressively the lack of serum creatinine as an ideal kidney function test, because it is depending on muscle mass and there is no interindividual normal range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22119823

potassium level changes represent a major pathophysiological factor in monitoring chronic kidney disease. Even more, potassium level imbalance could lead to life-threatening situations with the risk of severe rhythm disorders appearance. The aim of the study was to determine in which degree the serum potassium changes are implicated in arrhythmias development in CKD patients.

CONCLUSIONS:

Hypokalemia is a stronger risk factor than hyperkalemia, but all together, any minimal changes in serum potassium levels could determine arrhythmia in CKD patients.

Pushtrak

cormie wrote: »

What's so surprising here? Fruits and vegetables are widely regarded, in pretty much every profession and practice, worldwide, as the best forms of food and nutrition available.

See my previous post about bananas and potassium. There is an excess point that can be reached. Too many have the mistaken assumption that if a little is good, a lot is better. Not so. It is a fallacy.

The message from the guy Harley is pretty straight forward, eat a high fruit and veg diet and your health will improve, eat it unprocessed, organic and uncooked and it will improve further.

Straight forward, perhaps, but not entirely honest. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78937638&postcount=82

Edit: hM.D. -- Homeopathic Medical Doctor

Jimoslimos

Lest we get bogged down with too much science, here is a prime reason I fcuking can't stand raw foodists.

*NSFW* Coarse language (and hippies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xubWxy1vHMk#t=422s

Pushtrak

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Lest we get bogged down with too much science, here is a prime reason I fcuking can't stand raw foodists.

*NSFW* Coarse language (and hippies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xubWxy1vHMk#t=422s

The follow up to that:

Jimoslimos

Pushtrak wrote: »

The follow up to that:

I do have reservations about the GM food industry, although not the scaremongering by certain environmental activists. Much of my concerns lie with the attempts to control plant propagation genetically, i.e: you've got to go back to buy more seed rather than cultivating seeds from your crop. I don't like the idea of big pharma companies having such control on agriculture. There is also a lack of transparency when it comes to allowing independent trials.

Pushtrak

From my understanding of GM foods, there is a big issue with patents and the exploitation of said patents. I can't say I have an in depth understanding of them.

Scanlas The 2nd

the_syco wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

then eat a paleo diet for a month

I'd puke up over half of the veg crap that it advises and my body refuses raw meat, so I'll pass, thanks.

You can cook your meat and eat normal veg. Some of your meals are probably already paleo.

cormie

Pushtrak wrote: »

See my previous post about bananas and potassium. There is an excess point that can be reached. Too many have the mistaken assumption that if a little is good, a lot is better. Not so. It is a fallacy.

Straight forward, perhaps, but not entirely honest. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78937638&postcount=82

Edit: hM.D. -- Homeopathic Medical Doctor

I'm not the most medically educated or indeed academic person at all. I did read your post and noted it said something about a 0.4 level on that woman, which is what harley, the banana man said he had the day after he ate 72 bananas. I didn't quite understand the conclusion of the paragraph you wrote, I just woke up Did it say that even though she had a "normal" level, that she still suffered with organ failure?

The videos you linked to are 30 minutes altogether which I don't have at the moment, gave a quick listen, I'm not sure who the narrator is or what qualifications he has and I don't know who you're saying is hM.D.? I didn't think there was much to argue with in my post

Capt'n Midnight

Pushtrak wrote: »

From my understanding of GM foods, there is a big issue with patents and the exploitation of said patents. I can't say I have an in depth understanding of them.

Like a lot of technologies there are good and bad uses.

using GMO to produce stuff like human insulin from plants rather than harvesting insulin from pigs is just awesome, especially when you consider how much easier and cheaper it is


using GMO to make crops resistant to pesticide , so you can sell more pesticide sucks

preventing farmers taking cuttings or seeds from plants so they can re-sow them nest year sucks

Patenting the genes of a potato kept from extinction by Peruvian subsistence farmers sucks if you haven't given them anything remotely close to adequate compensation

kylith

cormie wrote: »

What's so surprising here? Fruits and vegetables are widely regarded, in pretty much every profession and practice, worldwide, as the best forms of food and nutrition available. The message from the guy Harley is pretty straight forward, eat a high fruit and veg diet and your health will improve, eat it unprocessed, organic and uncooked and it will improve further. That's common sense no? Cooking destroys nutrients in most foods (although in some foods such as tomatoes releases beneficial nutrients) so if you're going to eat and you're concerned for your health, why not eat the best food available? It just sounds like common sense to me and his results do definitely speak volumes. 30 bananas a day, well in order to meet the recommended calorie intake, only eating fruit and veg, you will need to eat a lot so it doesn't seem too ridiculous, but to most people, definitely sounds extreme.

When I was first introduced to the idea of Raw Foods by my friend I thought it to be very extreme too, but on second thoughts, it just makes sense.

There does seem to be a certain following to it though and a lot of the people who would be into raw food would also be into complete and utter nonsense products. Every area will attract its scammers and every area has it's array of desperate bait willing to throw a few quid at anything that's said to be of benefit.

You just have to have a sensible head about you. Raw, organic, ripe, local fruit and veg, you can't really consume anything better. Eat lots of it and you'll surely benefit. Don't beat yourself up over not following such a strict ideal. The human body can take a great amount of abuse.

As for eating such a diet reversing diseases, well I don't know about that, I wouldn't dismiss it for sure but it's a pity not more money is put into research that may prove so.

The problem with raw food is that humans cannot break down the cellulose walls of vegetables. Studies have shown that to consume your recommended caloric intake you would have to eat for hours a day (and would get some pretty awesome diahorrea). Cooking foods breaks the cell walls and allows us to access the calories and nutrients within which means that we can get more nutrients and calories more efficiently. This is the reason that people on a raw food diet will tend to be thinner than those who cook their food, even if they eat the same amount; they simply cannot get the calories from what they're eating. If eating vegetables raw was better than cooking it we would never have started cooking them. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/11/raw-food-or-cooked-food_n_1089151.html http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science/Cooked-food-may-provide-more-energy-than-raw-Study

The impermiability of cellulose is the reason that herbivorous animals spend up to 20 hours a day eating. Elephants are so enormous partly to accomodate huge guts to get nutrition from vegetable foods. Cows chew the cud and have 4 stomach to ferment the vegetation in order to break the cell walls. Some animals even eat stones to grind vegetation in their guts. All these evolutionary adaptations are simply to get enough nutrition from vegetables.

Many women on a raw food diet report interruption to their menstrual cycle, this is down to the lack of calories and nutrients in their diet; they cannot support a growing embryo so their bodies stop releasing eggs. http://www.triedtastedserved.com/raw-food-pregnancy/menstruation.php That link recommends eating

• Two cups of fruits
• Two and one-half cups of vegetables
• Five and one-half mixed cups of, nuts, peanut butter, seeds, peas, or sprouted lentils,

every day. I did a quick measurement using what I had at home: in mixed seeds (sunflower, pumpkin, linseed and millet) 2.5 cups is over 300g, 2 cups of frozen peas was 250g. A pound of apples is 3 cups, a pound of bananas is 2 cups. That is an unbelievable amount of food, even without taking into account the fat content of nuts and seeds.

Vegetarian raw food diets are especially dangerous for children, and can lead to malnutrition, vitamin deficiency, and death. http://whatstheharm.net/childvegetarianism.html

Mr.Biscuits

Pushtrak wrote: »

If you think there are alternative/herbal/holistic/homeopathic or their ilk that you think works, then feel free to point out what you think has a place in the arena of patient treatment.

I already have pointed out where I dietary therapy can be beneficial. You want me to list every condition in the world where diet change can help? Or where herbal medicine can? Do you think all the herbalists in the world are charlatans ripping people off or something?

I get accused on this thread of having an agenda, but there is only one side here rubbishing everything about the other and it ain't the one I am on.

Medical science has saved my life on many occasions. I have been in traffic accidents when I would have died without it and have had operations that without them, I would no longer be here. So please don't imply that because someone sees that complementary/alternative medicine (if that's the umbrella term of choice) can be beneficial to people when mainstream medicine fails them, that somehow this must mean they want a homeopath to treat them when they have appendicitis or that they have Tom Cruise on speed-dial for when they get hit by a bus.

Now, the most important bit to respond to is the banana issue. One has to exercise caution on the issue.

That's a link to someone posing a question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22605836

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22119823

Are you serious with this?

These links are about people with Chronic Kidney Disease. Sure someone with a peanut allergy can be killed by ONE peanut! Should we warn all people about peanut consumptions and tell them that they really should not eat more than one peanut because people are dying from them?

I honestly can't believe you are suggesting that eating bananas is dangerous. All the cries for science based evidence seem to go out the window when rubbishing the consumption of fruit it would seem.

the_syco wrote: »

Provide a link to back this up, please. I ask as someone curing themselves as a once off is not a cure; it's a once off. Too many times these once-offs are somehow made into a one-size-fits-all treatment.

Well, if someone is suggesting that because some person with a disease just ate peppers and they appear to no longer suffer from it and so everyone with the same disease should do the same, then they are foolish. If it is dangerous and they are making money from it (selling supplements and the like) then they are reprehensible.

However, there is much evidence (much of it anecdotal) that there are many people worldwide treating their conditions/diseases with dietary changes and seeing remarkable results. Some doctors out there have written books because they have been able to change their patients lives through dietary means when they were failing with mainstream medication.

Does that mean I am advising that everyone with the disorder this doctor treats with diet should go on it? Well, if they are getting nowhere with whatever treatment they have been offered, then sure - why not. If they get well, does that mean they got well for the reasons the doctor believes they did? No.

The reason for this of course is because there are so many variables involved in restrictive diets and while a diet may work, the contention as to why it did, make be an incorrect one and I personally believe there are many doctors that have written books and claimed a diet worked for x reason where I believe in fact that it could also have worked for y and z.

Esselstyn's Reverse Heart Disease and Dr Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes are such examples of where I feel the conclusions that these have come to as why they got the results they did, might be incorrect.

I am not having a go at them for this by the way: just pointing it out. It's all about money at the end of the day and while they do include patient studies, they are minimal and don't really prove their contention, which at times they concede but with enough money, I for one would sure like to see them try.

You are correct, but without study, we won't know if what one ate cured them, or was it what he ate, where he was at that time, how much sun/moon light and the exercise he did whilst on that diet. Thus, what worked for one, may not work for another.

I agree, I think most people would (ignore the strawmanning that they don't) but people can't wait forever. They are ill and if medicine fails them, it's only natural to seek an alternative that offers better quality of life and sure that alternative arena is strewn with fcukers ripping off people left and right but that doesn't mean they all are or that there is nothing out there that can alleviate people's suffering, because there is.

I don't see anyone saying that anecdotal evidence should ever be referred to as proof but anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Some of the greatest findings of medical science came about as a result of anecdotal evidence. People in famine times noticing that their (and other people's) stomach complaints and wasting actually disappeared was what first led to the link between Coeliac disease and Gluten.

As I pointed out earlier, there was also much anecdotal evidence pointing to the fact that Peptic Ulcer sufferers where not all just stressed and that something was making them ill which quite often could be alleviating by diet change and/or herbal treatments. I am old enough to remember those times and how people where dismissed as being stressed, put on Valium and told it was all in their head, a "yuppie" complaint. Had these people not persevered with their adamant contention that they were in fact physically ill, most likely Gastric ulcer patients would still be being told the same today, as Marashall and Warren have stated many times that it was patients vigor and determined belief that something was making them ill, that drove their research and now it is clear just why diet change and herbal medicine had helped these people.

Lets pretend for a moment that these guys had not made their findings and people where still using Turmeric and Ginger (as many people tended to, based purely on anecdotes of fellow sufferers and herbalists suggestions that patients tended to complain of less attacks when taking them regularly).

Now, while not proof, such alternatives to the mainstream medicine that people were taking (which was clearly not working) were having good results. Many people were reporting that they were doing very well when avoiding too much starch and consuming Ginger and Turmeric. Why is it such a bad thing for these people to take this route and to try it?

I get that people need to be careful in what they consume and herbs are not all safe but this thread thread is mainly focusing on diet and yet people are still up in arms at the notion that diet could treat disease states where mainstream medicine fails. Are people really that naive and blind to just how much the medical profession is powerless in certain areas ill-health and how diet and certain alternative therapies can be lifesavers for them. It would seem so reading this thread.

take everything

Even though at times he attacks easy enough targets, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a funny enough read about this stuff.

EthicRanger

mackg wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone here think that this guy, if he contracted cancer, would rely solely on his "treatments"?

Resounding Yes. Check his 100 day juice feast with his girl ( North Ireland native by the way) on youtube .



For all others who belong to this " boards.ie negativity society " ( I actually shocked with the so much negativity here ) , check this guy:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s250objJpWg
Banana diet on national Australian TV with Durianrider


Also guess, how many bananas you need to eat and how quickly to be killed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJueUbQVjLU

He ate 72 big bananas one day, and checked potassium levels next day.
I also want to say, i ate 70 bananas myself ( just to show people about ridicolous claims that max 2-3bananas a day is all you should eat . People are told this in hospitals, colleges . Crazy ) in 1 day 2 years ago. absolutely no any bad sensations.

" Healing Cancer Inside Out " is another documentary to release your anger, guys.
Honestly, anger is 50% reason you'll get cancer, so better watch it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

A doctor told me at a check up last September that If I kept my tobacco consumption to under 10 cigarettes a day I could continue the enjoy the habit in the long term, albeit in a reduced capacity.

skoomi

One of my dogs got cancer (she's dead now).

I wonder if I showed her that video would she have survived?

Jimoslimos

skoomi wrote: »

One of my dogs got cancer (she's dead now).

I wonder if I showed her that video would she have survived?

Was she angry? Cos y'know apparently 50% of cancers are caused by bad vibes and negativity man.:rolleyes:
Oh and did you try switching her Pedigree Chum with a vegan diet containing a few dozen bananas. Bet that would've reversed cancer too.

Serious: Sorry about your dog

gsxr1

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

A doctor told me at a check up last September that If I kept my tobacco consumption to under 10 cigarettes a day I could continue the enjoy the habit in the long term, albeit in a reduced capacity.

You may need to consider changing your GP.

:rolleyes:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation

DEFTLEFTHAND

gsxr1 wrote: »

You may need to consider changing your GP.

:rolleyes:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation

Balderdash! Moderation and all that dear chap, I'll take to the pipe if the ancient blow horns give trouble, Tobacco is part of ones life, you live by the sword and die by the sword.

howardmarks

im an idiot

gsxr1

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Balderdash! Moderation and all that dear chap, I'll take to the pipe if the ancient blow horns give trouble, Tobacco is part of ones life, you live by the sword and die by the sword.

Not sure about that mate. 1 in 2 of you lot will die because of it.

Not great odds.

Its worth considering taking on the struggle of quitting, especially if you are only a moderate smoker anyways.

They are too dam expensive anyways.

howardmarks wrote: »

im an idiot

How many bananas have you consumed today?

Capt'n Midnight

gsxr1 wrote: »

Its worth considering taking on the struggle of quitting, especially if you are only a moderate smoker anyways.

age is also a factor.

might be worth considering starting to smoke cigars when you retire
or participating in nuclear clean ups like they did in Japan
or taking a one way trip to mars



Just a reminder that they can now do full genome screening before birth, thankfully EU rules means insurance companies can't discriminate.

Feathers

Peetrik wrote: »

People were sure the earth was flat at one stage too.

I'm sure if he'd have brought up his banana diet 2,500 years ago it wouldn't have gotten the same level of criticism.

Really though, I think it's all a front. He's obviously put all his savings into Fyffes shares.

Pushtrak

EthicRanger wrote: »

Honestly, anger is 50% reason you'll get cancer, so better watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8

In all seriousness though, how many people on this forum are on the banana diet? Anyone?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/508643-risks-of-eating-too-many-bananas/

High Potassium Content

Bananas are rich in potassium; one banana provides 487 mg, or about 25 percent of the daily recommended intake of this nutrient. While potassium is essential, consuming too many bananas can put you at risk for hyperkalemia, or an excess of potassium. Too much potassium can lead to diarrhea, nausea, loss of strength and abnormal heart rhythm. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, the risk of hyperkalemia increases as you age, as your kidneys become less effective at eliminating potassium.

Also worth checking this out.

Oh, and as for smoking, there is a thread that'd be better suited for that: here.