Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[wayno]

if you've sucked the moisture out of it, it should last a long time. nothing for bacteria or mould to grow on.

[GPSGuided]

if you've sucked the moisture out of it, it should last a long time. nothing for bacteria or mould to grow on.

No moisture, no air and no bacteria (sterilised). The question is, to what extent and how good is the packaging to last the duration. It's easier said than done.

[photohiker]

I thought that 2/7 diet was a restricted diet on the 2 days, not a total fast?

You are correct PH (nice pun there in the context of this thread?) but "restricted" is rather euphemistic. The calorific allowance on the two "fasting" days is pretty miniscule - equates to something like a cup of clear soup each day, I think.

Just had a quick look, this is what I found:

That’s five days of normal eating, with little thought to calorie control and a slice of pie for pudding if that’s what you want. Then, on the other two days, you just eat a quarter of your recommended daily calorie quota. That works out at 500 calories for women and 600 for men.

Sure, it's restricted but a lot more than a cup of clear soup I think... Maybe depends on the soup?

[stry]

Clear soup with sediment or some lumpy bits perhaps ?

I couldn't recall the exact calories - thanks. I think tantalising myself with morsels on the two days would make it harder for me.

[GPSGuided]

A further news report on the damaging public hysteria created by the Catalyst program - Heart of the Matter.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/c ... 2xfxy.html

It also noted that ABC's Media Watch has also come out exposing the sensationalist and poor journalism in the program. Some serious evidence that's worth knowing.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 888657.htm

[stry]

Love the last para in the SMH article. Says it all - well says most of it.

Everything that one eats is a choice !!! Accept responsibility for one's choices and don't pass the responsibility to the taxpayer!!.

[geoskid]

It also noted that ABC's Media Watch has also come out exposing the sensationalist and poor journalism in the program. Some serious evidence that's worth knowing.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 888657.htm

Good on Media watch - lays the cognitive bias (and that is being generous) bare for all to see.
It's like getting Meryl Dorey on to talk about Vaccination/Autism, and only giving someone who does know something about immunology a few minutes to refute the ignorant and unevidenced assertions.

[icefest]

Accept responsibility for one's choices and don't pass the responsibility to the taxpayer!!.

That's hardly fair nor reasonable. It doesn't happen for smoking or alchohol/drug abuse nor should it happen with diet.

Here are two hypothetical situations that demonstrate to me why this is an awful health care policy:
I'm sorry, you caused that obesity, pay for your own gall bladder removal/knee replacement/heart replacement.
I'm sorry, you can't pay for you dialysis that you need due to your type two diabetes that you caused via diet. Burleigh & Stronginthearm sell a wide range of caskets.

[Onestepmore]

There were similar sentiments expressed when people objected against the abortion pill being paid for by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule. They were saying 'Im not going to support that, it's against my morals/belief system/ religion/whatever'. Would be nice if we could also say, 'Hey, I don't want to pay for your smoking associated lung cancer/emphysema/ throat cancer etc'
My doctor said if you removed the following categories from the medical system - alcohol and drug related violence, chronic addictive disorders, smoking related illness, obesity related medical and musculoskeletal problems, and diabetes and associated renal disease, then the hospitals would be almost empty, and would only have 'proper' sick people in them ! (He used to be an emergency doc, switched to GP after he got married so he had a decent lifestyle)
It's a pity the whole amount of the tax the Government collects from alcohol, tobacco (and ideally processed food tax!) doesn't go directly to the medical system.

[GPSGuided]

... My doctor said if you removed the following categories from the medical system - alcohol and drug related violence, chronic addictive disorders, smoking related illness, obesity related medical and musculoskeletal problems, and diabetes and associated renal disease, then the hospitals would be almost empty, and would only have 'proper' sick people in them !

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that. The difference to society with the removal of those disease inducing factors will just be longer life expectancy ie. Living to a grand "older" age. But eventually they'll develop some disease or be consumed by aging at a greater age. The hospital will still be full, but with a mix of different disease pattern. There'll be more demented patients, more heart failures, more valvular heart diseases, more pneumonia, more strokes, more OL (old ladies) and OM (old men) with various fractures amongst others. At the end of the day, there still will be death by "heart attacks" and strokes. From a government's perspective, the increased burden of an even older population and increased aging care will just add more financial strain to the country. As was bluntly satirised in the TV series "Yes Prime Minister" many years ago. Yes, give them tobacco and alcohol and the govt receive a fat tax revenue. Early post-retirement death and a quick death is a good death (to the national finance).

[GPSGuided]

That's hardly fair nor reasonable. It doesn't happen for smoking or alchohol/drug abuse nor should it happen with diet...

An obvious ethical question. In real life, clinical decisions are regularly affected by patients' rehabilitation status, especially in times of limited resources eg. Cardiac surgeons will not operate on smokers who refuse to quit, transplant surgeons will not offer a new liver to persisting alcohol abusers, methadone will not be offered to continued illicit drug abusers and the list goes on. It's a question of intent and given our ever tightening medical and health budget, I can see a time when such will be brought out for debate, not unreasonably. The only problem is, with a majority of voters being overweight and still growing, such legislation may not be popular and no political party would dare to support it.

[wayno]

the old people in hospitals scenario is happening, its just that they are competing with all the other categories. i used to work in hospitals , south auckland it was those living unhealthy lifestyles mainly clogging the hospital, north shore it was the old....
modern life is prolonging life but not necessarily maintaining peoples health that well..

[perfectlydark]

Well I didnt wamt them to get old, why should I pay for that?
Just pointing out the stupidity of that way of thinking

[wayno]

nothing much we can do about it, i'm just saying the no's of old people in hospitals are increasing. its a side effect of modern health care, i'm not passing judgment on the fact.

[perfectlydark]

Sorry that was a precoffee reply lol. A better example would be bushwalkers should pay for rescues no matter how prepared, cause they chose to do it.
I take your point wayno and agree its just the way it is, but the science in regards to diet is either way off or twisted and bent to suit certain agendas, people of all diets can and do wind up with health problems. Be happy with life seems to be the best way to live healthily I reckon and no count micrograms of stuff that may or may not matter

[wayno]

i think sars issue with paying for rescues is that people are more likely to delay setting of a beacon if they pave to pay for it , and that can result in a more complicated, involved, rescue and it can cost lives and put sar staff in bigger dangers...
a ridiculous case was the one i mentioned about teh chap in nz who set his beacon off because he was running late and thought it was better to get a helicopter now rather than have a massive ground search initated for him when he ended up overdue by several days...
maritime nz control sar operations that are initiated by a beacon being set off, they wanted to prosecute him for about $40k for unecessarily setting the beacon off. they were pretty determined because they were using a law that was nothing to do with search and rescue to prosecute him with, it was actually a law to do with interference of official communication bandwidth frequencies... and they were pretty quick to announce their prosecution,,, someone made their mind up to throw the book at the chap, in the end he wasnt prosecuted... but if someone is going to hit you with $40k when the rescue cost is only a few thousand what sort of message does that send to people. just let sar engage a big ground search instead of sending the cheaper option of the chopper? and avoid setting off your beacon unless you're convinced you're going to die? problem is maritime nz have todeal with a significant no of ill prepared boates setting off beacons or radioing and wasting their time, waiting too long to set their beacons off making searches harder... someone in a position of power jumped to a conclusion and sent out a very bad message to the public of NZ

[wayno]

Niacin Beats Statins
Supplements and Diet are Safer, More Effective

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources ... 9n25.shtml

[geoskid]

Niacin Beats Statins
Supplements and Diet are Safer, More Effective

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources ... 9n25.shtml

Oh wayno, where do you find these ideologically driven websites. Do you actually read them and follow the links??

Any 'alternate' website always has an alternative way of 'Knowing' - no exceptions that I have seen.
The clues are in the emotive language, thinly veiled intent to lead a reader to an inference, misrepresentation, dishonesty.
You have dropped Weston Price - what..5 times (conservatively). Do you read these links??
Do you know what science is? - more importantly, (anyone can google what the scientific method is), do you know what it is about human thinking that requires a method to prevent ourselves from self deceit?

I mean , seriously??
There are direct questions here, I would appreciate direct answers.

[wayno]

the editorial review board listed below if full of medical doctors...

[geoskid]

the editorial review board listed below if full of medical doctors...

And my direct questions to you, would you like to reply?
See, I don't do dot dot dot dot.... I like to exchange ideas and pin down floating , vague, hand waving. I am prepared to change my ideas because I want to understand. And you.......?

Would you like to answer my direct questions Wayno?

[geoskid]

the editorial review board listed below if full of medical doctors...

So? They are human too, subject to the same biases as all of us.
It's not the letters after their name that gives them credibility, it's the evidence that backs up what they claim.
You did note that they are advocates of supplements. Did you read their Myth section? ? Wrong question.
This is basic stuff,unless you already believe the ideology.
None of what they say takes away from the message that a balanced diet is the way to go.

[wayno]

and what is being pedalled as a balanced diet by the authorities is less than balanced...
ie margarine and all vege fats are healthy, saturated fat and cholestrol in food are bad...., low fat diets are good, fruit juice is good.... stick to a diet like that long enough and people will need some sort of intervention to save their health and they will be told statins are good.... niacin has been tested extensively in numerous scientific tests as being beneficial, just google it rather than sit there and right it off because you don't like one internet link.
and like statins there is controversy around using niacin,
but statins were used in "scientific studies" to prove their effectiveness, but the results since there release have been far from ideal.
science has its limitations, and so can orthomolecular methods but niacin hasnt been shown to serious affect peoples health the way statins do, you'll struggle to find much in the way of deaths from vitamins compared to how many people die due to the pharmaceuticals they take do your homework, choose your options and take your risks... I post a lot on this site, i dont have the time to elaborate extensively on everything i post but dont point the finger at someone else to do all the groundwork, when you've posted 4000 posts on this site and justified everythign you write with scientific proof then come back to me to do the same...

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/niacin/CL00036

[stry]

Relax Geoskid The thread is following a wideranging topic in which fresh surveys and evidence seem to emerge almost daily.
We all have physiological differences and 100% black and white conclusions about some aspects are difficult
to make with any confidence.

I personally find the Weston Price articles very thought provoking, if only for the contrarian angle that is often present. All this stuff needs to be read critically, and with a dose of common sense, but at least it is out there for us to be aware of and to think about.

I think it was pointed out earlier in this thread that one of the scary things about so many people is that they will treat the medical profession and formal medications with great scepticism and mistrust, but will go into a business selling supplements, which are far less rigorously tested, discuss their self diagnosed ailment with the counter jumper, who is usually devoid of any formal pharmacological training, buy a few containers full and happily gobble them up.

Not knocking supplements, and not saying that advice from the medical profession should be accepted unthinkingly, but the sharply contrasting approaches desribed above show some pretty muddy thinking in the populace.

[GPSGuided]

I think it was pointed out earlier in this thread that one of the scary things about so many people is that they will treat the medical profession and formal medications with great scepticism and mistrust, but will go into a business selling supplements, which are far less rigorously tested, discuss their self diagnosed ailment with the counter jumper, who is usually devoid of any formal pharmacological training, buy a few containers full and happily gobble them up.

When human starts to believe in something or tempted to it by some external factors eg. Money, power, no amount of prior training or qualification matters. In the US, seen plenty of MDs who are up to really weird concepts and commercial ventures. At the same time, the number of MDs in the US is massive, the great majority practice on a solid scientific base. The great majority of medical research are top notch and world leading. A country of extremes.

[LandSailor]

No doubt some will argue this is too simplistic (correlation does not equal causation etc) but this short video encapsulates why some people question the current nutritional dogma.

[Onestepmore]

Blindly accepting a widely accepted theory that was originally based on faulty scientific method is like continuing to say the world is flat, when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Big business, ego, powerful multinational companies, face saving of organizations like The Heart Foundation (anyone want to buy a 'tick'?) all get in the way.
I don't buy supplements, or take vitamins. Aussies have the most expensive urine in the world. Just eat real food. In season. Locally grown as much as possible. Mainly plants lol. Almost everyone can keep a couple of chooks and have a herb garden. Know where your food comes from. Choose to eat meat from animals you know have been raised humanely - it wont be the cheapest, so eat less of it! Unfortunately that doesn't make food manufacturing companies wealthy.
That's my little take on things.

[wayno]

many aussies who dont go bushwalking could well do with vitamin d supplements outside of summer or even in summer if they avoid the midday sun. mate of mine who's a naturopath is yet to test any of his patients who have adequate vitamin d... he's a mountain biker and he was deficien when he first tested himself

[GPSGuided]

many aussies who dont go bushwalking could well do with vitamin d supplements outside of summer...

Wow! That's a big claim to use bushwalking as the differentiator.

[wayno]

well, its not just bushwalking but bushwalkers spend so much time outside, unless you're outside a lot and not covering up completely and not using sunscreen abitually you are almost guaranteed to be vitamin D deficient.
something like 80% of americans are deficient... deficiency is showing statistical links with increased incidence of cancer, heart attacks, and some other degenerative diseases including mental decline...
one study claimed theres less cancer in queensland compared to nsw and victoria. cant recall exactly which types of cancer,
if you work outdoors you're statistically no more likely to get skin cancer than indoor workers

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statem ... ma-despit/

[matagi]

well, its not just bushwalking but bushwalkers spend so much time outside, unless you're outside a lot and not covering up completely and not using sunscreen abitually you are almost guaranteed to be vitamin D deficient.
something like 80% of americans are deficient... deficiency is showing statistical links with increased incidence of cancer, heart attacks, and some other degenerative diseases including mental decline...
one study claimed theres less cancer in queensland compared to nsw and victoria. cant recall exactly which types of cancer,
if you work outdoors you're statistically no more likely to get skin cancer than indoor workers

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statem ... ma-despit/

Vitamin D deficiency is indeed common amongst people in Australia - and the darker your skin, the more likely it is.

Regarding melanoma - there is a clear link between sun exposure, pale skin and melanoma. Queensland has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world.
Yes, there are individuals who develop melanoma without a history of sun exposure but they often have an inherited genetic predisposition to malignant transformation of naevi (moles).

As far as the other two most common skin cancers, namely basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma - they tend to arise almost exclusively on sun damaged skin. Unless, again, you have an inherited genetic problem. Gorlin syndrome is one such.