Engineering Nutrition

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Engineering Nutrition

Unread postby sharpstuff on Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:01 pm

ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Nutrition is described as:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nutrition

I will take the first definition:

1. The process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth.

Nutrients are those elements that contribute to a sustained health (the ability to sustain life of some sort, depending upon their ability to do so).

Thus, nutrients are (or are not) available to any 'species' that has what one might call 'life'.

Life is the ability to continue an existence of which we are (as human animals) able to contemplate (and other flora and fauna do in their own way).

Thus, again, the nutrients for our personal existence depend upon that which we personally require for our personal existence.

Geographical locations of human existence rely upon the extent to which they may continue their life experiences with the nutrients they require to continue their life expectancy. Thus, we all have different requirements.

Nutrients must determine our life experiences where-ever we live. If suitable nutrients are not available, then we experience life difficulties and we become what we call 'sick'.

At present we are assailed by the notion that Nature has provided 'germs' and 'viruses' to complicate the issue. However, the fact is, we are not receiving the correct nutrients for our personal survival. Nature has no affect on the matter.

Thus, the engineering of notions that nutrients are available in/by the methods that are proposed- well, they are done so by the same persons who advocate nutrition for their own ends, not yours (to be political, which I decry).

We are constantly assailed by notions of 'vegan', 'vegeterian' and other stuff whose foundations are only in that of the minds of the progenators. Whilst I agreed they may be suitable for some/many persons, these notions often lead to silly arguments, labels and such-like that preclude what is important, which is getting the best nutrients available for our personal survival so far as they are available to us.

A diet is what you eat, whatever that may be. A diet should not be a set of rules set by a specific geographical group by which everyone should live, because that diet may not be conducive to the health of an individual, but rather it is set (or attempted to be so) by those who have no understanding as to what nutrition is in the first place. Thus, ‘diets’ are 'engineered' by/for those who may benefit of that engineering.

'Diets' (that which we eat to sustain ourselves) are absolutely geographical. That much should be pretty obvious, when we look at what other peoples consume for sustenance (wherever they come from). Have you ever eaten a Witchetty Grub?

What we call the 'West' insists that their diets (whomsoever concocted and by the faceless whom) are suitable for human consumption when they consist of foods modified by various means, and 'cooked' or 'heated' by various means, that they consider to be 'nutritional'.

One might argue for a life-time the best methods of assimilating food into a biological organism. But to what end?

One might well argue about the method of cooking/heating of foods (or not) but...

There is an old adage: 'You are what you eat'.

Peddling 'diets' and other spurious nonsense are not a viable proposition, and any 'theory' that states otherwise must be an engineering problem that does not address it.

For what it's worth.

Sharpstuff
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Kham on Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:29 pm

Quite a brilliant topic for a thread. Can’t wait to get my stuff together to participate here. Thank you!
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:38 pm

[Admin Notice by SCS: Dear Observer, please remember to use only a member’s (CluesForum) Username when addressing them. I have made the necessary edits- this time. Sincerely.]

[OK, understood SCS. Although please realize I wasn't sharing private info, Sharpstuff is open about himself.]

[Note: for my positive advice, please simply scroll down to the useful paragraphs, at the bottom, in green.] :)

sharpstuff wrote:appropriate or inappropriate nutrients


sharpstuff wrote:Nutrients are those elements that contribute to a sustained health


Question #1: What elements contribute to YOUR sustained health Sharpstuff?
Please have the courage to finally share with us what nutrients YOU eat.

sharpstuff wrote:Thus, again, the nutrients for our personal existence depend upon that which we personally require


Still same question: What nutrients do YOU personally require for YOUR personal existence?
Again, please have the courage to finally share with us what nutrients YOU personally eat.

sharpstuff wrote:Geographical locations of human existence
rely upon the extent to which
they can continue their life experiences
with the nutrients they require
to continue their life expectancy.
Thus we all have different requirements.


Just as Simon kindly once helped correct my minor typing errors
(when I repeatedly mistakenly switched "Concave" & "Convex")
I think a little order switch will help your paragraph be logical.

Since "Geographical locations" don't rely on "nutrients",
maybe your paragraph above can easily become logical
by simply switching around the order. I think you mean:

The nutrients humans require,
rely upon their Geographical locations.
We all have different nutrient requirements,
which vary based on where one happens to live.

OK, so it seems you are saying that correct nutrients for humans living in say warmer latitudes exist,
and that correct nutrients for humans living in say colder latitudes exist, thus: location-based needs?

sharpstuff wrote:If suitable nutrients are not available, then ... we become what we call 'sick'.


So, if suitable (based on current home location) nutrients are consumed, one can be healthier, yes?
Again, based on your current home location, what nutrients do YOU consume to remain healthy?
PLEASE - have the courage to share with us your location and what nutrients YOU personally eat.

sharpstuff wrote:At present we are assailed by the notion that Nature has provided 'germs' and 'viruses' to complicate the issue. However, the fact is, that we are not receiving the correct nutrients for our personal survival.


C'mon Sharpstuff, I feel YOU keep complicating the issue by assailing us with the "germs & viruses" notions.
I respect you for helping people drop their "germs/viruses/immune-systems/molecules/atoms" beliefs.
Now, can we pause that (righteous) battle against lies for a moment, to reveal true correct nutrients?
Again, what are the correct nutrients for personal survival (location-based, of course) which YOU eat?

Your Engineering Disease thread was preaching to the choir: "Mainstream beliefs & actions are wrong!"
Yes, we know. With the exception of maybe Nonhocapito & Flabbergasted, we all refuse vaccinations,
and don't go to doctors or take petrochemical pills, we know they prevent healing and cause sickness.

sharpstuff wrote:what is important, is getting the best nutrients available for our personal survival


Again, what are the best nutrients for personal survival (location-based, of course) which YOU eat?

sharpstuff wrote:what nutrition is in the first place.


Yes, that's what we've been waiting for you to reveal, since you obviously have confidence about it.

sharpstuff wrote:'Diets' (that which we eat to sustain ourselves) are absolutely geographical.


Can you provide more details beyond "Just eat whatever happens to be around your current location?"

sharpstuff wrote:What we call the 'West' insists that their diets ... are suitable for human consumption when they consist of foods modified by various means and 'cooked' or 'heated' by various means, that they consider are 'nutritional'.


OK, we're getting close to actual-opinion-reveal finally: that cooked or heated is NOT suitable. Yes?

sharpstuff wrote:There is an old adage: 'You are what you eat'.


And thus I ask again, what DO you eat? Do you eat anything grown/raised locally, as long as it's raw?"

sharpstuff wrote:For what it's worth.


For what it's worth, Sharpstuff, ever since 2016, we have been waiting for a non-angry simple answer:

May 4th, 2016, 5:56 am wrote:sharpstuff, since you [rightly] spit on the [allopathic] "cancer treatment" paradigm,
it would be wise to present things that actually work [to increase health], don't you think ?


Sceppy also kept being vague - instead of simply stating, "I think earth is bowl-shaped with an ice dome."

OK, so we understand you have pointed out the wrong beliefs. Thank you. Now please share your advice.
If the answer is, "I refuse to reveal what I eat" or "it depends on your location" that's kind of a cop-out.

How about just stating, without fear of ridicule, "I live at latitude X and eat raw local A, B, & C."
"Colder latitudes should eat raw local L, M, & N. Warmer latitudes should eat raw local X, Y, & Z. "
Or "I live at latitude X and eat raw local A, B, & C, and I have no idea what I would eat elsewhere."

Thank you for pointing out mainstream lies, much respect for that. Can you share some positive truth?
So far you just shared "best correct nutrients: depend on location" & vaguely implied raw is healthier?

Patrix says: "monosaccharide = bad as polysaccharide; sugar is sugar; and so sweet fruit is unhealthy."
And yet, also says "animal fat is better than olive/avocado fat; fat is not fat; animal fat is healthier."
I think he's right about "all sweets being bad" & "fat being vital", but I think the fat needn't be animal.


So from brother Patrix I take the low-grain high-fat advice, while discarding the animal-eating advice.
And from sister Kham I take the 100% plants advice, while discarding the sweet-fruits-are-fine advice.
And from the other brothers and sisters here I take the raw, fresh, limited-amount, and laugh advice.

OK, here's my (totally subjective) opinions currently, subject to change of course with new evidence:

Carnivores have short intestines, so the slow-moving rotting flesh doesn't remain in the body too long.
Plant-eaters have long intestines, for quick-moving plants, they can't handle slow-moving rotting flesh.
Carnivores' incisors are double the size of neighboring teeth. Plant-eaters' incisors are not double size.
So, simply looking at our long intestines and our not-double-size incisors, obviously we're plant-eaters.
And baby carnivores lick blood if given the chance while baby plant-eating-animals will not lick blood.
And no animals ever drink milk after babyhood is over, dairy is totally unnatural for all adult animals.
And thus when humans try to do that unnatural thing 70% get stomach-aches and forever runny noses.
Eating animals & dairy can't be healthy when animals themselves are unhealthy from being fed grains.
My skin absorbs animal fat from soap, but I'm not gonna' put slow-moving-flesh into my long intestines.
The fact is slow-moving-flesh causes constipation. I like the fact that raw plants move through me fast.
And the other fact is animal meat is just too acidic. Alkalinity is key to a healthy lymph-system, right?
Most people are around pH 6 or 5, & people dying unhealthily pH 4. Olympic athletes are alkaline pH 8.
So if one really can't stop eating adrenaline-filled acidic animals, figure out how to raise your pH to 7.
Seriously, whether a meat-addict or grain-addict or sugar-addict: drink (and/or bathe in) baking-soda!

Anyway, my stance is long-intestines means plant-eaters. But "fruit only" seems unnatural to me now.
I loved sweet fruit but I'm now starting to cut back and have more non-sweet high-fat alkaline plants. :)

Observer wrote:Perhaps the real way to clean the lymph system is simply: high-pH = high-alkaline = low-acid (for example, drinking 9.9 pH water like the naturally-alkaline springs water which I drink, or the electronically-alkalized water people buy, or even simply adding baking soda to whatever water you like.) And thus it is possible to solve the the acidic build-up throughout the body WITHOUT getting caught in the unneeded sweetness-drug trap.

Thus perhaps we simply need to cut sweet stuff, cut starchy stuff, cut grains, cut processed stuff, cut cooked stuff, and simply eat raw green stuff (like beet greens, spinach, kale, swiss chard, even grass) for magnesium, tart stuff (like citrus, lemon, acerola) for vitamin C, some almonds and apricot seeds and apple seeds for vitamin B17 aka Laetrile aka Amygdalin, carrots for anti-oxidants, cauliflower for anti-estrogen, and cover it all with healthy delicious raw olives/avocados/seeds/nuts for the vital vegan fat? Can we begin the habit of enjoying mainly just "boring" non-sweet food like that? Could healthy food really be as simple as this? :)


And yes: raw, as local as possible (for freshness), limited amounts, plus fasting, moving, and laughing. :)
And yes, eating seeds, like apple seeds & apricot seeds for B17, and cannabis seeds for many benefits. :)
And yes, eating cannabis which leaves regular cells alone while helping to eliminate unhealthy cells. :)
And yes, consuming more Vitamin K2, which if one is not into meat/dairy can be gotten from nattō. :)
And yes, taking naps (which creates DMT which then creates HGH) since HGH is very vital for health. :)

And I'm seriously staring to remember to breath very slowly to activate the parasympathetic system.
Inhaling for 20 seconds... then exhaling for 20 seconds... tells the body to activate its internal heater.
The natural way to kill "germs/viruses/mold/fungi" is maintaining a high-enough internal temperature.
Internal heat kills WHATEVER those unnatural body-invaders are, plus this relaxation allows for repair.
When we inhale/exhale quickly, our body enters the fight-or-flight sympathetic-system danger mode.
When we inhale/exhale very slowly... our body enters parasympathetic rest-digest-feed-breed mode.
Seriously, in addition to all the food advice I've summarized, this slow slow breath habit seems vital. :wub:
And as Simon recently reminded us, more important than body lightness, is Humor & Lightheartedness. :wub:
Last edited by Observer on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:30 pm

Dear Sharpstuff,

Thank you for your contributions to this forum, and I certainly appreciate your wisdom and humility as you speak to an issue that isn’t as simple as many would prefer it to be.

You are neither expected, nor are you in any way obligated to divulge what you eat, or where you live. There is no onus on you to reveal some mysterious secret to nutrition, as though you are somehow holding out here.

From the standpoint of this forum’s described purpose of “Exposing Mass Deception,” it only follows that (more often than not) we will find ourselves breaking down a given deception, and ultimately be in no position to answer questions about what is in fact the case (should it exist). That’s the nature of the research.

So, there is no burden whatsoever on the part of a member to replace what isn’t (i.e. the deception) with what others may think there must necessarily be. I recognize this is not a satisfying reality for some members and readers. The reality is, sometimes a “thing,” “event,” “person,” or a concept is purely a deception.

Consider how frustrating it is to be asked “what happened to all those people trapped in the WTC on 9/11?” Of course the premise is flawed in such a question.

And Sharpstuff, as you have previously stated, you don’t claim to know of some “magic elixir” of life. Unless that has changed, I see absolutely no point in trying to find out what your daily intake is. If you wish to share that, well, that is of course your prerogative.

And Observer, I think you have made yourself clear about your opinion on this. Be happy you have found something that ostensibly works for you. That should be reward enough for such an accomplishment. If others wish to follow your method/formula, that is their business.

But let’s please not get into some sort of contest over who has the best “nutritional plan” to meet the requirements of the human body.

Rest assured, that would be the fastest way to get a nasty looking padlock slapped on this topic (and/or the recently unlocked “Engineering Disease” topic that I am responsible for unlocking).

Surely that can be avoided.

Sincerely,

SCS
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby sharpstuff on Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:38 am

Thank you for your input SCS, much appreciated. Forum style is not really my thing. I am a writer of many books, amongst other things. I hope my reply here is useful for further discussion with members.

*******************************************

Firstly, I feel I might apologise for what might be seen as a didactic style of writing. It is because I am passionate about those subjects which interest me but have been, (as we know here on this forum) shall we say 'engineered' by those elements who have no more interest in our health (or anything else) than what might fill their wallets or other agendas.

I am trying to address a few issues members may have. I am very interested in what other members pursue to keep them healthy but is it possible to leave out some of the vague terms that have become part of the engineers' literature, such as carbs. (I had two SU carbs, in my MGBGT) and such-like?

I guess that I became very much more aware of health issues having spent twenty-three years (both in the U.K. and Western Australia) teaching young students with moderate and severe learning difficulties. In the U.K. it was a Special School. In Australia it was first a Special Ed. Unit, which later (and significantly) became a separate Centre. I now know, from this experience that a great deal of the students' problems were vaccine injuries. My own grand-daughter has been a victim of this crime.

The reason I wrote that last paragraph was to bring an issue to light. Namely that relating to education on nutrition. Most (if not all) our students were mixed with Main-stream students in a number of practical subjects. One of those was Home Economics. As teachers we had to accompany them, of course. So I have seen first-hand all these posters and such-like of 'Food Pyramids'. These change according to the teaching (indoctrination?) of students.

I have no problem with my location, which is in rural Brittany. Food here is of excellent quality. Europe does not allow modified foods (I hasten not to call them 'genetic' since I do not believe 'gene' theory).

In France, all the cattle are grass fed. I doubt they are subject to anti-biotics or hormonal treatments (whatever 'hormones' are). Thus the milk is not produced in cow-sheds. Although most of the milk is destroyed in quality by pasteurisation and homogenisation, skimmed to death, it is possible to buy raw milk, although I would almost give a right arm to taste it.

It is also quite easy to get raw milk butter and some cheeses. These are the only dairy products I buy. On a note regarding butter, I have it on good authority that butter in the U.K. (for example) goes rancid very quickly and has to be thrown away. I can leave raw butter (Cru) out on the counter all summer and it stays fresh. The same would go for milk and cheese. Of butter replacement therapy (magarines and such-like) I can make no positive comment.

Needless to say, the beef is most excellent.

France has a very long coast-line, thus we get any amount of types of fish.

Also, the flour used for making breads is sun dried. It is not as white as U.K. flour (for example) but again a loaf of bread rapidly loses and goodness it might once have had. Conversely, a loaf of bread in France can last a good couple of weeks in a bread bin. I defy you to prevent a French man or woman from his daily bread that was not decently produced!

Again, needless to say, the fruit and vegetables are marvellous. The French use rotation of crops theory. Why else do the English flock to the Continental Hypermarchés at Calais?

Having lived on my own for most of my life, I cook all my own food. I eat very little, anyway. I use virgin olive oil (don't get me on synthetic oils from plants that do not produce oils without being battered to death, or however they make them).

I generally steam most of my food or slow cook/fry on the stove-top. I use a gas oven for other cooking.

I have never owned or would use a microwave heater. The very notion scares me.

I have only very rarely eaten 'Fast foods'.

I have never imbibed 'colas' or other soft drinks as my body rejects them and they are virtually all impregnated with artificial 'sweeteners', yet another horrific crime against humanity and a good example of engineering nutrition......

I do not remember if I have linked this little video before but it may be worth repeating if I have. It was written around 2010.


The Importance of Good Terrain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qZgQkppoz8

I also link this video, if anyone is interested.

The Antibiotic Myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoI0oi0Apyg

Be well.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:48 am

Thank you for your reply Sharpstuff, that was a beautiful personal summary.

Seriously, thank you for your open sharing. I stand corrected and humbled. :mellow:
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:21 pm

Good points.

Natural unprocessed food is important but I think it's also important to eat a fair amount of natural fats and avoid the unhealthy kinds. I believe that is the main engineering of nutrition that's been going on. Make us avoid the foods that keeps us healthy and choose the ones that don't by the use of junk science and propaganda.

And there is a growing awareness on this (the fat issue). An ironic thing however is that New York Times reporters seems overrepresented here. Both Nina Teicholz (see video below) and Gary Taubes, who's written Good calories Bad Calories, are NYT reporters. And NYT is of course not to be trusted. But on this particular issue these people are right

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2UnOryQiIY
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:03 pm

patrix wrote: An ironic thing however is that New York Times reporters seems overrepresented here. Both Nina Teicholz (see video below) and Gary Taubes, who's written Good calories Bad Calories, are NYT reporters. And NYT is of course not to be trusted. But on this particular issue these people are right


Dear Patrix, I watched all of that Nina Teicholz's presentation you posted - and practically fell in love with the obviously sincere and best-intentioned nature of this woman. My point here is the following: I think that we all need to trust our intuition (and hone our perceptions) when it comes to discerning a good person from a bad one. Nina is clearly one of the former. As I see it, whenever a person radiates such relaxed passion, eloquence and charm (as well as a crystal-clear and well-documented grasp of the subject matter), this sort of individuals can be trusted - no matter what affiliations they may have in their professional lives.

In other words, we really need to use the resident lard, butter & tallow in our brains to separate the wheat from the chaff! ^_^


[Edit to add: this doesn't mean I fully embrace what Nina has to say - nor do I fully embrace any diet in particular. I eat as best as I can - a wide variety of things yet in moderate amounts - that's all].
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Kham on Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:51 am

Patrix,

Like all cf posters we expect a break down of videos posted and time stamps to pertinent parts.

Could you please summarize the video and give time stamps. Thank you.
Kham
Admin
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:26 am

I was going to type, "Of course heated canola-etc oils are bad, but my hero virgin-olive-oil is good, right?"

But now I checked: of the 100% fat in olive-oil: 85% unsat, only 15% Sat. So 100g olive oil: only 15g of Sat.

And alas, of the 15% fat in raw olives: 85% is unsat, only 15% Sat. So 100g olives: only about 2g of Sat.
Similarly, 15% fat in raw avocados: 85% is unsat, only 15% Sat. So 100g avocados: only about 2g of Sat.

Meanwhile, 33% fat in coconuts: 10% unsat, 90% is Sat. So 100g coconuts has a much better 30g of Sat.
And yet, 100g coconuts have 6g sugar. Perhaps that 6g sugar can be forgiven for this vegan 30g of Sat?

So olives/avocados are :( low sat. High-Sat plant options: raw coconuts, palm kernel oil, and palm oil.
Damn it! I don't want the hassle of opening coconuts - and I don't want heat-processed-palm-kernel oil.
And chicken-menstruation (eggs) also :( don't have much Sat: 100g egg yolks only has about 4g of Sat.

Well, since I'm not going to eat animals, I guess for high-Sat I'm back to cream, cheese, and butter. :mellow:
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:23 am

simonshack » October 21st, 2018, 11:03 pm wrote:
patrix wrote: An ironic thing however is that New York Times reporters seems overrepresented here. Both Nina Teicholz (see video below) and Gary Taubes, who's written Good calories Bad Calories, are NYT reporters. And NYT is of course not to be trusted. But on this particular issue these people are right


Dear Patrix, I watched all of that Nina Teicholz's presentation you posted - and practically fell in love with the obviously sincere and best-intentioned nature of this woman. My point here is the following: I think that we all need to trust our intuition (and hone our perceptions) when it comes to discerning a good person from a bad one. Nina is clearly one of the former. As I see it, whenever a person radiates such relaxed passion, eloquence and charm (as well as a crystal-clear and well-documented grasp of the subject matter), this sort of individuals can be trusted - no matter what affiliations they may have in their professional lives.

In other words, we really need to use the resident lard, butter & tallow in our brains to separate the wheat from the chaff! ^_^


Thank you Simon and I'm glad this side of the argument in this important question has reached you and hopefully more. I'm probably guilty of doing the opposite because of my lack of rethoric skills. As you say Simon, we need to use some intuition. At least to start listening to counter arguments of what we are convinced of. And it’s important to understand we can be fooled in two ways – To believe what is not true to be true, and to believe what is true to not be true. We all have the best intentions, but please try to to look at every side before passing judgment or advice. I’ve looked at this many years and to my horror understood that the vegetable oils that has emerged as foods the last century are really unfit for that purpose. News even for me however in this video (but it fits with the current health status of the world) is that the vegetable oils used today are probably more harmful than the ones that contained large amounts of trans fats that are now outlawed.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby pov603 on Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:21 am

Interesting posts sharpstuff & Observer.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:40 am



Worst of the Fat Industry: Nina Teicholz "Big Fat Surprise", YouTube video published October 2015, 10:44 minutes

0:30, "I think that her thesis that saturated fat is good for you is extremely dangerous."
1:06, a look at her TEDx talk, where she starts off looking at Masai People who allegedly ate massive amount of meat and dairy
1:55, Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, Okinawins
2:14, closer look at Masai people
4:44, saturated fat
5:10, Siri-Tarino Meta-analysis; Krauss, funded by big dairy, as well as getting money from Atkins Foundation
5:30, Harvard School of Public Health not amused
5:45, Ancel Keys
6:14, The Diet Heart Hypothesis
6:30, another meta-analysis, Hegsted Equation
7:28, L.A. Veterans Trial
8:00, lack of logic, Japanese stroke rates
8:51, Atkins diet
9:56, conclusion

~~~~~

Edit to add:
patrix » October 22nd, 2018, 2:23 am wrote:. . . At least to start listening to counter arguments of what we are convinced of. And it’s important to understand we can be fooled in two ways – To believe what is not true to be true, and to believe what is true to not be true. We all have the best intentions, but please try to to look at every side before passing judgment or advice. . . .

Yes.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:09 am

Kham » October 22nd, 2018, 3:51 am wrote:Patrix,
Like all cf posters we expect a break down of videos posted and time stamps to pertinent parts.
Could you please summarize the video and give time stamps. Thank you.

Dear Kham,

I find that hard since these videos are not about “look at 3.45 when the plane enters the building” but about how scientific and emotional language have been used to sell ideas around nutrition and medicine that I believe are bad for us, the environment and the animals. And I encourage everyone to watch some, to get both sides of this important subject.
Nina again on “Red meat is bad for you”

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rz-8H_i1wA
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:14 am

simonshack » October 22nd, 2018, 7:03 am wrote:I watched all of that Nina Teicholz's presentation you posted - and practically fell in love with the obviously sincere and best-intentioned nature of this woman. My point here is the following: I think that we all need to trust our intuition (and hone our perceptions) when it comes to discerning a good person from a bad one. Nina is clearly one of the former. As I see it, whenever a person radiates such relaxed passion, eloquence and charm (as well as a crystal-clear and well-documented grasp of the subject matter), this sort of individuals can be trusted - no matter what affiliations they may have in their professional lives.

In other words, we really need to use the resident lard, butter & tallow in our brains to separate the wheat from the chaff! ^_^


May I just play devil's advocate for a moment: Yes, she has a sincere and best-intentioned good radiating relaxed passion, eloquence and charm (as well as a crystal-clear and well-documented grasp of the subject matter), and thus a good person who can be trusted, but:

What if (although she is not knowingly lying at all, although she is 100% honestly sharing what she has been told about the supposed healthiness of the "flatter shape which saturated fat molecules have") is it possible she was told incorrect statistics by people whom she trusts, like Harvard, Big Dairy, AtkinsFoundation, and other TedTalkers?

With 9/11 victim-claimers, WE know they are lying, because their voices and facial expressions and body movements make it clear that they can't hide the fact THEY know they are lying.

Honest folks like this lady (and like Patrix, and Kham, and HonestlyNow, and IC Freely, and me, and everyone who has posted here on this subject) are simply HONESTLY summarizing the highest sentences we have received from our favorite higher super-source individuals.

So again, I see a problem here that we are simply trusting people who are simply trusting other people who are simply trusting other people. We don't even know who the "scientists" at the very top are who are giving us these "statistics" which we are all assuming are true.

This is a very different challenge than the 9/11 separating-wheat-from-chaff lie-finding situation. Even honest people can be accidentally HONESTLY regurgitating wrong statistics. And even healthy people can be blessed with genes that allow them to appear healthy even if they are accidentally HONESTLY eating the wrong foods.

I'm beginning to suspect that Patrik simply likes the taste of animal fat, and Kham simply likes the taste of sweet fruit, and that Simon simply likes the taste of everything, and that I simply dislike the taste of animals, and that NOBODY is going to change what they eat NO MATTER EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.

We're all pretending to be rational about this health subject, but as it turns out nobody is willing to change their diet based on new evidence. We are all searching for evidence to support our emotional taste preferences.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Next

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest