15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Thanks for the reminder; you inspired me to go for a bike ride this morning ;-) However, I have to quibble a bit with this:

No wonder that the aboriginal people on this earth dont have any of the diseases of modern man; no cavities, no cancer, no heart problems, no disease.

They also happen to have a much lower life expectancy. I remember a quote from Steve Austad (a scientist who specializes in the study of aging) where he said something like, "if shamans are so effective at healing, why do so few of them live past the age of 45?"

Many people seem to take an all-or-nothing approach with Western lifestyle and medicine: either you're with it or you're against it (sound familiar?). Western medicine has plenty of faults, but so does traditional medicine. It strikes me as incongruous that people flock to "natural" herbal medicines whose safety has never been properly tested whlie at the same time decrying GMOs and other Western inventions because "we don't know if they're safe." Sure, people have been using herbal medicines for thousands of years, but for most of history the bulk of the human population was dying well before age 50. We don't know what 30 years of taking echinacea every time you feel a cold coming on will do to you. And I say that as a person who takes echinacea every time he feels a cold coming on, and have been doing so for years.

Regarding cancer, that's a disease that, for the most part, hits people after their 40s. A lot of aboriginal people don't live long enough to develop cancer. We know that some may be exposed to carcinogens such as those in burnt meat, as well as natural carcinogens in the foods they eat (even basil and black pepper have been shown to have carcinogenic properties, not that aboriginal people eat much of that but my point is that not all carcinogens are created by Western society).

15 May 2003 | fajalar said...

They also happen to have a much lower life expectancy. I remember a quote from Steve Austad (a scientist who specializes in the study of aging) where he said something like, "if shamans are so effective at healing, why do so few of them live past the age of 45?"

[generalizing]
Perhaps they have no need to live past the age at which they die. Yes, I know that doesn't make sense, but (with what little I know of it) I think they may have more of an emphasis on quality than quantity. And this goes to what alisha is saying. Certainly, from an evolutionary point of view, "we" have everything in common with them. So perhaps we shouldn't be living past age 45 either. Western meds keep us going twice that. Yet so few people live 2 entire lives. Just a long-drawn-out one

We spend so much time making things of high quality, then turn around and look at nothing but quantity in regards to what goes in to and on with our bodies. We put more in, and use western medicine to live longer so we can do more of the same.
[/generalizing]

Of your list above, alisha, the only thing I am lacking is exercise (which is of course extremely important). Not that I live the perfect existence of course. But even though I do very healthy things for my body, I still want to live to be about 256 years old. Hopefully I can convince myself to focus on quality over quantity over the next 40 years. Retire like EK did and start life anew. ;)

15 May 2003 | JF said...

So perhaps we shouldn't be living past age 45 either.

Ok, you first.

15 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

The Quantity versus Quality argument is, in the end, a personal choice.

I take good care of myself, and it shows :-). But, I also allow myself the occasional cigar and carpaccio.

But Alisha's point is right on; it's too easy to toss junk and bad habits into our lives.

Thanks, Alisha, for the nudge.

15 May 2003 | fajalar said...

Ok, you first.

Non, monsiuer, j'insiste. Vieillir avant la beaut.

Besides, I said I still want to live to age 256.

Heh.:)

15 May 2003 | alisha said...

Aboriginal people may have shorter life expectancy on the average, but they dont have our modern dieases. The elder members of the tribes dont have them either. What does 30 extra years bring us if we are walking trash cans? Im not talking about taking a few herbal medicines. Im talking about eating 80% fruits and vegetables (most of them raw), whole-grain breads, more fish, etc. And avoiding coffee, sugar, alcohol, white flour and fried food - as nature intended it to be. Many experts claim that the major cause of illness is the result of the body not getting what it needs nutritionally, which leads to degeneration of the immune system over the years. The stress of too much fat intake, unnatural or chemical substances and not enough exercise adds to it, making it impossible for your body to fuction properly. Cancer is the most often the late stage of some other illness like years of over-acidity in the gut. Thats why it comes most often after age 40. It takes years of abuse for your body to finally break down.

But Im glad I inspired you. Ive gone back on a healthy diet (like the one I mentioned above) and I feel incredible. The 3-day apple fast is also something to look into. You feel like a new person afterwards. I could smell again after I did it - go figure.

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Your diet sounds great, Alisha. I ate like that for the past 15 years, but now I'm living with a French woman and her daugher, which makes it hard to avoid meat and fat. I'm working on them, but les vieux habitudes sont tenaces.

And avoiding coffee, sugar, alcohol, white flour and fried food - as nature intended it to be.

You mean salt, sugar, caffeine, and grease AREN'T the four major food groups? Sheesh.

Actually nature intended us to eat some of that stuff -- especially sugar and fried foods, which is why they taste so good and are so addictive. We're hard-wired to go after those substances from millions of years of having to forage for food. Sugar and lipids bring in the calories that can be stored in the body as fat to provide energy later when there's nothing to eat. Now that high-calorie food's so readily available to most people in Western society and exercise is less a part of daily existence, we have a problem.

On sugar: There's a common misconception that refined sugar is somehow worse for you than other forms of sugar, which isn't true: the body doesn't make a distinction. An apple is better for you than a Hostess Twinkie only because the apple provides fiber and some nutrients, not because the sugar in the apple is any better for you.

Cancer is the most often the late stage of some other illness like years of over-acidity in the gut.

It's more likely the result of the buildup of years of genetic mutations caused by various carcinogens. Keeping a strong immune system by eating a healthy diet and getting plenty of exercise, reducing stress, steering clear of the powerful carcinogens like tobacco smoke, and avoiding overindulgence in the milder carcinogens is the way to go.

15 May 2003 | alisha said...

Thanks, Alisha, for the nudge.
---
When you wake up one morning with candida, you start investigating. ;-)

15 May 2003 | Darrel said...

Of COURSE western civilization has to live longer. We waste 45 years in the prime of our life working menial jobs.

Then we have to cram what time we have left in our retirement trying to get to know our families, friends, and visiting the planet.

As for cancer, that is very much a 'civilized' problem. Most of it is man made.

15 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

The Amish have a saying: "Work hard, eat well, and have faith in God".

Not a bad life, eh?

15 May 2003 | Darrel said...

> Not a bad life, eh?

Well, except for the fact that they miss out on all of the reality TV shows!

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Not to mention that they can't drive any Spyders.

15 May 2003 | yuckmouth said...

My grandfather ate fried foods daily, smoked cigarrettes since the age of 9 and drank hard liquor for about as long and lived to be 98. On the contrast, my older brother, who was a great athlete, died of cancer at the age of 28. If you have them, strong genes will get you far.

15 May 2003 | Chason said...

I'm only being a little contentious here, but I'd like to see the reasearch regarding the diseases that aboriginal tribes suffer from. I've never really bought this romanticism about native tribes and their harmony with nature, but I would love to be proved wrong. It seems to me that a large number of native peoples living largely still within their own culture and in traditional fashion suffer from quite alot of infant mortality and dangerous diseases, along with famine and dehydration (especially those nomadic tribes living in the desert regions of Africa).

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

(especially those nomadic tribes living in the desert regions of Africa).

Just take a look at the average life expectancy tables (link is to a PDF from the World Health Organisation) for various countries -- in much of Africa the average life expectancy is under 35. AIDS has something to do with that, but even if you go back to the years before AIDS it wasn't much better.

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Oops, I mean to add that I think Alisha's point is more that aboriginal people don't suffer from our "Western" diseases (although cancer certainly exists in traditional societies). That may be true, but it's not true to say that they're healthier -- they've got their own very serious health risks to deal with.

15 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

To those of you who believe "aboriginal people don't suffer from our 'Western' diseases" or "No wonder that the aboriginal people on this earth dont have any of the diseases of modern man":

I have a bridge to sell, cheap! Or how about some swampland, going fast! ;)

Really though, such wishfull thinking about such cultures is worse than naive. There are MANY people out there targeting scams at people who are so gullible. THINK, CRITICALLY!

15 May 2003 | SU said...

Evolutionarily, once you've produced children and raised them to be self-sufficient (i.e. able to successfully pass on their genes, too), your work is done. Unless, that is, you plan on helping to raise your grandkids as well.

With people choosing to have children later in life (mid to late 30s) these days, it's a darn good thing we can live past 45.

15 May 2003 | fajalar said...

Well in I have 13 years and 13 days until 45, so I better live it up while I can.

Good thing most people get more than age 30.

15 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

On May 27th, I'll be 44. Wow. I don't feel that old.

I'll bench 300 (at a bodyweight of 175) by year's end. I'm SO glad I took care of myself over the years; while I go surfing, my overweight buddies can only dream of carrying the groceries without getting winded.

15 May 2003 | alisha said...

Really though, such wishfull thinking about such cultures is worse than naive. There are MANY people out there targeting scams at people who are so gullible. THINK, CRITICALLY!
---
I think yall are missing the point. Its proven that we have diseases that they dont. On the average, they have the old-fashioned stuff (like bacterias and viruses), we have the new stuff that comes from being ignorant and lazy. (like cancer and heart disease and weird allergies) Im not saying theyve got long lifespans, Im saying we are literally weaker and less healthy when comparing same ages. And dont throw Africa at me - Im talking about healthy people who have access to everthing they need, BUT are living off of nature. I think you guys are in denial and dont want to admit it, no?

15 May 2003 | fajalar said...

Are you going to stretch your Memorial Day weekend to 4 days, Don?

I am going to try and make it a 5 day weekend for my birthday.

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

we have the new stuff that comes from being ignorant and lazy. (like cancer and heart disease and weird allergies)

Yo, I gotta disagree again on this. Cancer is not at all new. Here are some excerpts from http://www.rare-cancer.org/history.html:

The oldest description of human cancer was found in an Egyptian papyri written between 3000-1500 BC. It referred to tumors of the breast. The oldest specimen of a human cancer was found in the remains of a female skull dating back to the Bronze Age (1900-1600 BC). The mummified skeletal remains of Peruvian Incas, dating back 2400 years ago, contained lesions suggestive of malignant melanoma. And cancer was found in fossilized bones and manuscripts of ancient Egypt. Cancer is not a disease of our modern industrialized age, as some may have believed at one time.

One of the earliest human cancers found in the remains of mummies was a bone cancer suggestive of osteosarcoma. Louis Leakey found the oldest possible hominid malignant tumor in 1932 from the remains of either a Homo erectus or an Australopithecus. This tumor was suggestive of a Burkitts lymphoma (although that nomenclature was certainly not in use then). Diseases that we know to be rare cancers today have had a long history.

Hippocrates is credited with being the first to recognize the difference between benign and malignant tumors. His writings describe cancers of many body sites. The swollen blood vessels around the malignant tumors so reminded him of crab claws, he called the disease karkinos (the Greek name for crab). In English this term translates to carcinos or carcinoma.

Heart disease has been around for eons too. These are not "modern" diseases. They are more prevalent in Western society nowadays because of our lifestyles, that's true, but it's a mistake to think that the diseases themselves are new.

Cancer is also probably more prevalent today in part because of our longer lifespans, as I said above. Because it usually occurs after people have already passed their reproductive period, there's no way for natural selection to stop any genetic predisposition for cancer from spreading in the population. Plus, of course, we're exposed to more carcinogens.

15 May 2003 | alisha said...

you guys are really stretching for excuses here. Have you looked into some therapy for your difficulties with denial? (hehe)

15 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Hey, my father, my mother, and all my mother's siblings (there were quite a few of them) died of cancer...I for one have tried to play it safe by living a healthy lifestyle as I know the cards are stacked against me. I don't think there's any denial going on here; we're just trying to get the facts straight ;-)

15 May 2003 | Britt said...

No alcohol? Check into the many studies of the benefits of red wine. I'm not into denying myself anything that I find enjoyable.

15 May 2003 | Matthew said...

I have a somewhat different take on all of this.

Tony Robbins may be a bit of a cheeseball, but a friend lent me his "Personal Power" program, and I was curious to investigate why so many people seem to respond to him. So I listened. On one tape, he talks about what he views as the two guiding forces of human behavior: pleasure and pain. Basically, whatever actions we take in life, we take them to either experience pleasure or avoid pain. After thinking about it for some time, I think he's onto something.

For example: many of us experience pleasure from good design. The best solution, optimally executed, gives us a great sense of satisfaction. When something is both beautiful and functional -- like, for example, an Aeron chair -- we experience pleasure. Bad design causes us frustration. I know when something inconveniences me, the first thing I think of is how I would fix it, do it differently -- spare myself and others like me the pain of bad design.

With our bodies, it's not that we "don't give a shit" -- it's that we seem to experience far more pleasure or can avoid pain doing things that may not be the best choice for our bodies. Many take drugs for the pleasure they experience or the pain they avoid (emotional or otherwise). We take antibiotics to kill more expediently a virus that's making us feel miserable. And who hasn't asked a friend, while enjoying something bad for your body like cheesecake or pizza, why the best-tasting food is always the worst for you? It's because we're experiencing pleasure eating it, and that pleasure outweighs the pain of being overweight.

At the heart of Alisha's question is the suggestion that we can apply to our work an intelligence that we can't apply to that most precious of resources, the human body. But knowledge has little to do with most things. Instead, desire is the key. I know I should be saving 10% of my income for retirement, but I want a new iPod. I know I could do my own laundry, but a laundry service will do it for me. I have the knowledge but not the desire; I can experience pleasure and avoid pain by instead acting in accordance with my wishes. Everyone's wishes are different, of course. Making life interesting but highly variable.

At the end of the day, maybe Bjork has it boiled down further than Tony: "There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic to human behavior."

16 May 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Alisha, I think we can all agree that most people should eat better and exercise more than they do. I think the prevalent American obesity is proof.

However, that fact does not require us to agree that aboriginal societies are superior to us in understanding our bodies. They eat foods consistent with the body's requirements because that's all they've got. They don't hunt chicken fingers or hamburgers. They harvest plants and vegetables.

To say that they treat their bodies right is wrong. First, most people in the world are malnourished. That means that they're not achieving the daily caloric intake that they should be. Not "should be" by Western fat ass standards, but "should be" by minimum body-doesn't-start-eating-itself standards.

Second, they don't eat the cleanest or safest processed foods. Knock Armour or Tyson all you want, but the meats we purchase from them are in better shape than someone who hunts down a meat source with unknown diseases, processes it with tools of unknown cleanliness, cooks it in vessels of unknown cleanliness, and eats it with tools (or fingers) of unknown cleanliness.

Finally, and I think most importantly, these societies lack the medical attention that makes our quality of life much better. We whine and complain about our illnesses, but the fact remains that our illnesses are mostly irritants rather than debilitations. When we get sick, we take time off work (often paid) and we relax in our beds. When an aboriginal gets sick, he can't hunt or gather or really do much. I assume that the tribe or society takes care of him because they're all so great and caring, but that means that they're not necessarily working to their capacity. Point is, the slack comes from somewhere and it's mostly from the necessities of daily life. And their sickness isn't going to be treated by modern medical drugs—hate their cost and whatnot all you want—so it may last longer. The point gets more serious as the illness or injury gets more serious.

In closing, non-aboriginal life encourages us to be fat and lazy because we can afford to be so. When life is a daily uncertainty to overcome, you have to be much more active and vigorous. If you don't, you die. Here, we just get fat. Personally, I'd prefer to be able to drive around, play on my computer, and deal with the hassles of a full-time job than fend for myself in nature with only the minimal trappings of what societies can offer to assist me in that pursuit.

16 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Some relevant news:

Embargoed for Release
May 14, 2003

OBESITY ALMOST AS EXPENSIVE AS SMOKING, COST STUDY SAYS

BY BECKY HAM, STAFF WRITER
HEALTH BEHAVIOR NEWS SERVICE

The total medical costs of overweight and obesity may now rival those of smoking, according to a new study released today.

In 1998, Americans spent $78.5 billion in overweight and obesity-related medical costs, which works out to 9.1 percent of all national medical expenditures for the year. (That figure translates to $92.6 billion in 2002 dollars.) Medicare and Medicaid, the main public insurers, paid almost half of these costs.

Even with insurance, overweight and especially obese people spent more of their own money on medical care than people who weighed within the normal range. The 1998 figures show that overweight and obese individuals paid an extra 11.4 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively, on out-of-pocket medical costs.

More than half of Americans are either overweight or obese, and the prevalence of both conditions is on the rise, say Eric A. Finkelstein, Ph.D., of RTI International and colleagues.

"As with smoking, there is a clear motivation for payers to consider strategies aimed at reducing the prevalence of these conditions," Finkelstein says.

The study is published by the journal Health Affairs and supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Insurers may consider charging obese people higher coverage rates, as they do now for smokers, or encouraging weight loss through incentives like subsidized gym memberships, say the researchers.

16 May 2003 | Mixm said...

Healthy people are so boring. Eat what you think makes you feel good. Dont preach.

16 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fajalar -- not extending the weekend. Well ... didn't plan to ... but now that you mention it ... the ocean is around 58-60 degrees (F) at Assateague, and I'm anxious to go surfing, sooooo ...

16 May 2003 | fajalar said...

Yeah, and don't forget... It's birthday WEEK, not birthday DAY.

16 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

"I think yall are missing the point. Its proven that we have diseases that they dont."

I think you're missing the point. Offer up some evidence of this proof, since you're the one making the claim.

16 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

"you guys are really stretching for excuses here. Have you looked into some therapy for your difficulties with denial? (hehe)"

How about backing up your claims rather than insulting those who don't agree with you?

16 May 2003 | alisha said...

First of all Ron, lighten up - I was joking when I said that. Or do you really think Im want all of you to go to therapy? Second of all, there have been dozens of studies over many years about why asian cultures have less obesity, heart disease (and thier like) and longer lives. There have also been dozens of studies about native cultures and even Italians because they eat foods that promote health more than "we" do. There have been tests about Omega 3 oils, olive oil, animal fats, and hundreds of other foods in medical journals and magazines - I mean havent read any of them? The claim I made above was that we dont know very much about what our bodies need, and when we do, we often ignore it anyway. THAT was my claim. If you want me to go digging up all these links for you I will, but give me a couple days. In the meantime try getting a copy of Fit For Life. That will get you started on your proof.

16 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

why asian cultures have less obesity, heart disease (and thier like) and longer lives. There have also been dozens of studies about native cultures and even Italians because they eat foods that promote health more than "we" do.

Well, you have to admit you've been giving us a moving target. You started off claiming that aboriginal people don't suffer from any "modern" diseases (actually you said they don't get any diseases at all!), then you qualified that you were referring to healthy people who have access to everything they need, and now you're talking about Asians and Italians. I don't mean to nitpick, but really.

We've all heard about the studies on Asians (e.g. the Okinawan diet) and Italians (e.g. the Mediterranean diet), but I've never heard of any studies claiming that people in "native cultures" live longer or healthier than people in industrialized cultures do.

But anyway, it's not a big deal -- you were exaggerating to make a point and we're all guilty of that occasionally. I'll shut up now.

16 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

"There have also been dozens of studies about native cultures"

References?

"I mean havent (you) read any of them?"

Obviously not. The only ones related to aboriginal peoples that I've read discredit everything you have claimed.

"The claim I made above was that we dont know very much about what our bodies need, and when we do, we often ignore it anyway."

No, you made more specific claims including "they have already long ago mastered the optimization of the body".

It's nice to wish that some important problem (such as common health problems) was solved long ago, but it's hopelessly naive and only sets you up for those who would take advantage of your gullibility. Sorry for trying to make you think critically about it...

16 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

In reference to Fit for Life:

"That is one on the list of the nuttiest books of all time. It's based on the theory that people gain weight because they don't digest their foods completely and have toxic sludge in their intestine. The authors say that the way to fix that is to eat fruits and vegetables and to wash ourselves out from the inside. That's about as sensible as an astronomer who says the moon is made of green cheese." - Stephen Barrett, M.D. (http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biography.html)

16 May 2003 | mart said...

Aboriginals masters of their bodies? Do yourself a favor and read some anthropology. Nigel Barley's classic (and hilarious) "The Innocent Anthropologist", where he lives amongst the Dowayo people to study their circumcision rituals. The mutilation the genitals is mind-boggling. I also recall an anecdote from the book that illustrated the native people's wisdom and ability to "live in harmony with Nature", where they questioned Barley's sanity: Why hadn't he brought machine guns with him - so that they could kill off all the local wildlife?

I realize this isn't about food and exercise, but really, the original post was sorely misguided to compare "us" with these poor ignoramuses. Quality of life IS based on how likely you are to die of infant mortality - or of those horrific water-borne diseases - or any number of natural causes that "we" see fit to have innovated against. And if you're a white Westerner who speaks English and you're not happy then you need a slap round the face. ;)

Link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1577661567/ref=lib_rd_btb/002-9549647-3995244?v=glance&s=books

17 May 2003 | alisha said...

"No wonder that the aboriginal people on this earth dont have any of the diseases of modern man; no cavities, no cancer, no heart problems, no disease. "

Ok, you guys got me cornered; I realize that the term "no disease" is wrong. They have disease but not the ones we do in the same quantity - the "self-induced eating habits diseases". That was my point. But do you see where Im trying to go with this? I have been reading about all our allergies, skin problems, cancers, diabetes, heartburn, etc... and that these are mainly caused by our modern eating and living habits. If you guys are getting too hung up on the "native people" analogy, then replace them with wild animals. They also eat as nature intended as have VERY LITTLE of the diseases we have. (with the exception of those animals who have ingested man-made toxins)
---
"The American Surgeon General's report on Nutrition and Health (1987) asserted that at least half of all deaths in the USA are related to faulty diet and stated: "... the convergence of similar dietary recommendations that apply to prevention of multiple chronic diseases. Diseases of nutritional deficiencies have declined and have been replaced by diseases of dietary excesses and imbalances-problems that now lead rank among the leading causes of illness and death, touch the lives of most Americans, and generate substantial health care costs.""
---
Ron:
"No, you made more specific claims including "they have already long ago mastered the optimization of the body".
---
Yes - and by that I meant they live the way nature intended us to live, eating fresh living foods without chemicals, antibiotics, pestisides, preservatives or contaminated soil. Ive said that when they have all they need from nature and follow natures course, they live much healtlier lives than we do because we have distanced ourselves so far away from a natural diet.

Here are some links:
http://www.sugaraddict.com/Sugar_History.html
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/28/weston_price2.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/21/weston_price.htm
http://www.dlncoalition.org/related_issues/2003jan12a.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879838167/ref=lib_dp_TBCV/103-6703679-0719064?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=51#reader-link
http://www.hsu.com/internal_cleansing_program.htm
http://www.nutricounter.com/articles/greene3.htm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2906357.stm
http://www.asian-nation.org/asian_food.shtml
http://www.discover.com/may_01/feateatlocal.html

You may think Im a quack too Ron, but I have cured myself of tonsillitis and heartburn through following the Fit for Life diet for 4 months at a time each. I now have candida and am back on the Fit for Life diet (which is btw, nothing more than eating 80% fruits and vegetables, avoiding sugar, alcohol - except some red wine, white flour, red meat or too much meat and simple food combining) and in 3 weeks Ive lost 5 lbs., all my skin problems are gone, I sleep better and I feel incredible! Its a shame that you dont believe that we are what we eat. Or do you?

17 May 2003 | alisha said...

And if you're a white Westerner who speaks English and you're not happy then you need a slap round the face. ;)
---
Then come slap me baby. ;-) Youre on a different topic now.
---
Well, you have to admit you've been giving us a moving target.
---
Ok, but what Im talking about are native peoples eating thier native diets inwhich the food comes from thier natural, native environment, its natural form. Use any "native" culture you want - or use wild animals - whatever. My point is that modern societies are killing thier immune systems with thier eating habits. And btw, italians are known for being the healthiest europeans - thier diet consitsts of more (local) fresh fruits and vegetables than other Europeans diets. Thats why I brought them up.

17 May 2003 | alisha said...

One last thing Ron. I am more critical than you are remotely aware of. You know nothing about me and why I am very sceptical of chemotherapy, drugs and modern medicine. After losing my mom to breast cancer when she was 44, I have read volumes of stuff on our health and our bodies and researched my ass off and Im far from finished. I may not have all the right answers but I refuse to do nothing and let cancer come have at me. If I dont find out how to stop the cycle, Im next in line, you know?

17 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

"I may not have all the right answers but I refuse to do nothing and let cancer come have at me."

Great! Just don't let the quacks, frauds, and delusional (of which there are many in the links you provided) prevent you from finding effective treatments. (Myself, I've lost one aunt to breast cancer, another has it in remission, and a third is doing her best to get her's into remission.)

Of course, "natural" is pretty much meaningless, and there is absolutely no sound reason to think that natural foods are any better or worse for you than any other foods. For example: Are natural poisons (of which there are many in everyday foods) more harmful or less harmful to the body than man-made poisons?

Best of luck on your fight. Thank you for the clarifications.

17 May 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Alisha, did you even read my comment above?

Or was it so perfect that you couldn't address it?

17 May 2003 | jimbo junior said...

wow - that don shenck guy is some unbelievable wanker.

18 May 2003 | alisha said...

"Just don't let the quacks, frauds, and delusional (of which there are many in the links you provided) prevent you from finding effective treatments."
---
which ones are quacks and frauds? Id like to know. How do you know this? What about the ones that arent frauds? Do you disagree with them? why?
---
Im not sure why you are so against healthy eating as way to cure disease Ron, but if you believe that the diet I mentioned above is no better than a diet of minimal fresh fruit and vegetables and processed, chemically treated food, then I think youve never even tried it. We are what we eat and theres no getting around it. If losing wieght and feeling great isnt proof enough for you, then Ill leave you alone.

I would try everything if I had cancer and would be open to much more than only chemo, which is a terrible "cure" to have to go through. My mom had cancer for 7 years - thats time enough to try a few alternatives but she would only try chemo and that didnt work. Chemo is still an "experimental drug" because to pass FDA and AMA regulations the cure cannot have worse side effects than the disease itself. Im not saying it never works - Im just saying people should try alternatives too. There are some people who have cured thier cancer with fresh juice fasting for a few months. My best friends grandpa cured his cancer (he had prostate cancer and 6 mos to live) with B-17. He found a "quack" up in Reno, NV who was still distributing it. His doctor in California was dumbfounded that the cancer was shrinking. Then it vanished completely within about 1 1/2 yrs. that was 10 years ago. He follows a healthy diet plan and exercises.
---
"Alisha, did you even read my comment above?
Or was it so perfect that you couldn't address it?"
---
Of course I read it Bill.
I dont agree completely. One, because youve brought up cases of native people who are starving, undernourished and therefore have to deal with rapant disease. Ive clarified these arent the native peoples Im talking about - those poor souls have no choice.
---
"they don't eat the cleanest or safest processed foods."
---
They dont eat ANY prcessed foods (those are the people Im talking about). Youll never convince me that industrial produced meat (with all its anti-biotics and steroids, not to mention how those poor animals are "kept") is better than wild animal meat - now matter if its not cooked with "sterile" utensils. Our bodies can deal with tons of bacterias if they are properly nourished and in normal condition. BSE is proof enough for me that ranchers will do whatever they can to make a buck and I lost a lot of confidence in the industry over the years.And meat should anway be last on the list - we do superbly with out it. So do gorillas and elephants. In fact our digestive tract looks completly different than a carnivors. Thats why it takes 2-3 days for our bodies to digest meat.
---
"these societies lack the medical attention that makes our quality of life much better."
---
yes they do but they have less of our modern illnesses because most of these come from unnatural lives; chemicals, poisons, preservatives lack of exercise and improper diet over many years.

Im not saying that our lives suck, or that were stupid. Im saying we arent giving our bodies enough of what they need.

18 May 2003 | alisha said...

wow - that don shenck guy is some unbelievable wanker.
---
Its hard to get him to bite. hes so damn tolerant that you cant ruffle his feathers and force him to take sides. pretty cool if you ask me.

18 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Sorry to see that this argument is starting to get nasty. Anyway, I know I said I'd shut up, but I have to respond to this:

There are some people who have cured thier cancer with fresh juice fasting for a few months. My best friends grandpa cured his cancer (he had prostate cancer and 6 mos to live) with B-17.

I have nothing against alternative ways of healing and have tried some myself, but it's important to keep in mind that the body's natural state is one of health, and that a lot of diseases can be "cured" by just waiting and letting your immune system do its job. (Not that I'm advocating that approach with something as life-threatening as cancer.) The problem with citing anecdotal examples like the ones above is that they present only one side of the story: to see whether fruit fasts or vitamins have an effect you also should look at the number of people who tried to cure their cancer with fresh juice fasting for several months and died anyway, or the number of people who used "B-17" (is that a vitamin or a bomber?) and died anyway. The same goes for homeopathy and many other remedies: we always hear about the people who were "cured," because proponents of these remedies sieze on every anecdotal example, but we don't hear about the ones who weren't cured. If you wanted to, you could probably find a few thousand people who "cured" their cancer by drinking Coke or by smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

The body is very good at curing itself, and left to its own devices we will return to a healthy state. Sometimes your immune system alone can get rid of cancer, and the fact that you happened to be doing a fruit fast at the same time may have had nothing to do with it. To really know whether the fruit fast played a role, you'd have to do a clinical trial with lots of people.

Several of my friends believe that homeopathy works, and they're always giving me examples of how it worked for them or even for their pets. But we're not talking about a controlled experiment. We don't know how quickly they would have gotten better if they hadn't taken any kind of remedy. When I get sick, I usually do nothing about it except drink lots of water and get some rest, and I'm usually better in a few days or a week. That also seems to be the pattern for people who take homeopathic remedies when they get sick. I've even tried homeopathic remedies myself a few times and my impression was that I didn't get better any faster than I normally do (although even that's not a controlled experiment). When people ask what I think about these remedies, my usual response is, "If you believe it might work, then it'll probably work for you. If you don't believe it'll work, it probably won't." So far I haven't heard of any credible evidence to the contrary.

18 May 2003 | alisha said...

Sorry Hurley, if I offended you. Im not trying to be nasty. Sometimes my humor is only funny to me - obviously people took offense to my "denial" joke.

Im aware that people have cured thier illnesses in many ways. And not every cure works for everyone - thats why its good to try different ones. But our tendency is to do only what the doctor says and Ive been too disappointed by that over the years. Ive also realized that some diets and alternative methods have helped me personally very much.

18 May 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Sorry Hurley, if I offended you. Im not trying to be nasty. Sometimes my humor is only funny to me - obviously people took offense to my "denial" joke.

I didn't mean you were being nasty; I meant that other people were being nasty to you!

18 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

"which ones are quacks and frauds? Id like to know."

Forgive me if I have some doubts that you're truly interested in knowing... If I'm misreading you, then just research it.

If you are truly interested in distinguishing the scams from the useful information, I suggest the following (all from my weblog):

On Propaganda (how people are influenced)
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/propa.html
http://www.mapinc.org/propaganda/propaganda/proptech.htm

On Science (how causality is determined)
http://multiplesclerosissucks.com/science.html
http://multiplesclerosissucks.com/math.html
http://multiplesclerosissucks.com/math2.html

On Pseudoscience
http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

I've spent some time looking at the links you listed. Here's a quick catagorization of them:

Nice:
http://www.discover.com/may_01/feateatlocal.html

Anecdotal (but a nice article):
http://www.dlncoalition.org/related_issues/2003jan12a.htm

Correlation does not mean cause and effect:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879838167/ref=lib_dp_TBCV/103-6522242-2189421?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=51
http://www.nutricounter.com/articles/greene3.htm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2906357.stm
http://www.asian-nation.org/asian_food.shtml

Irresponsible Propaganda:
http://www.sugaraddict.com/Sugar_History.html
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/28/weston_price2.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/21/weston_price.htm

Complete Quackery:
http://www.hsu.com/internal_cleansing_program.htm

19 May 2003 | alisha said...

Complete Quackery:
http://www.hsu.com/internal_cleansing_program.htm
---
I wouldnt buy her products, but I thought the "Hunzaland" story was interesting and worth investigating.

So Ron, you think this "Dr. Price" is a quack? I really dont know much about him but I did find all the info intriguing.

I personally would try juice fasting if I had cancer. It seems the most natural thing to do. Afterwards, I would get myself on a Fit for Life diet. But I think when it comes to a life threatening situation, people need to decide for themselves what makes the most sense to them.

19 May 2003 | alisha said...

"I didn't mean you were being nasty; I meant that other people were being nasty to you!"
---
I can take it. I like debate (obviously) and Im sometimes edgy to get a response. But I think its anyway a good idea to tone it down now. We dont want SVN to be obnoxious and offensive.

19 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Come on Junior ... when you hurls insults, it's better to get the spelling right. That's S-C-H-E-N-C-K.

Wanker? You're too kind. If you REALLY knew me ... HA!

:-)

19 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha, I DO take sides. But in this case, my "side" is that I take good care of myself, and encourage those in my sphere of influence (wife, children, etc).

But at the same time, I stopped preaching in 1994.

Seriously. That's when I left Bible school. I literally stopped preaching!

19 May 2003 | Ron Zeno said...

Alisha, you have repeatedly put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it. I'm trying to get you to clarify and back your claims. I'm sorry you're offended by my doing so.

"So Ron, you think this "Dr. Price" is a quack?"

I didn't say that and I am not qualified to make such an evaluation, but what I've read about him makes his conclusions seem highly suspect, which is why I labeled the references you provided related to him as "Correlation does not mean cause and effect". I've since found other, qualified people who have drawn similar conclusions: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

"But I think when it comes to a life threatening situation, people need to decide for themselves what makes the most sense to them."

If they can do so responsibly. I just hope they take the time to research their condition well enough that they are not duped by the unscrupulous or the delusional.

19 May 2003 | alisha said...

Alisha, you have repeatedly put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it.
---
I dont think I have but whatever.
---
I'm trying to get you to clarify and back your claims.
---
I have.
---
I'm sorry you're offended by my doing so.
---
you dont offend me at all. Its your right to disagree with me.
Dont get so worked up about everything Ron. Were only exchanging opinions here.

Im finished with this post guys. on to other topics...

19 May 2003 | Steve said...

Wow, go away for a few days, and all hell breaks loose.

This is an interesting topic, because it's one that I've taken a lot of interest in lately as I try to clean up some bad habits and decisions from the past regarding treatment of my body. As I've been doing some reading and research, if I've found out any one answer, it's this: The human body is too damn complex to come up with a single answer regarding what's good and what's harmful.

Everybody can point to the 98-year-old grandfather who ate crap and never exercised. Would he have lived to 105 had he eaten better? Who knows? Who cares? If you ask me, 98 is a plenty long life.

Different things work for different people. There are some common-sense rules, like being extremely overweight is not a good thing (even just in a qualitative, do you enjoy your life right now sense). Heavy use of artificial ingredients and preservaties can be problematic. Etc. But, there's a lot of speculation and incomplete learning out there. And as soon as someone thinks they have an answer, they figure out that there are whole groups of people that the answer doesn't apply to.

The key: find what works for you. Realize that keeping healthy does take some effort, work and sacrifice. Realize that getting healthy if you aren't, takes more of all three, but it's worth it when you get to the other side.

22 May 2003 | yuckmouth said...

Do what this guy did.

27 Dec 2003 | young said...

Great website, interesting read. Thanks!

28 Dec 2003 | baccarat said...

excellent site

04 Jan 2004 | Cash Advance said...

Thanks for the read. Hope you had a great holiday!

05 Jan 2004 | internet gambling said...

great site

07 Jan 2004 | klingeltoene handylogos said...

Very useful comments - good to read

08 Jan 2004 | logos said...

Many knowledges I have found here I would come back

08 Jan 2004 | mortgages said...

I am surprised - interesting comments

09 Jan 2004 | gambling said...

You know, being yourself needs strong person.

10 Jan 2004 | diet pills said...

Hi, I wrote to many themes, but this is realy interresting.

12 Jan 2004 | klaus said...

great site, well done

Other Resources: http://www.spp-net.de | http://www.hgxweb.de | http://www.blk-web.de | http://www.iul-online.de | http://www.washere.de | http://www.top-of-best.de | http://www.top-the-best.de | http://www.lowclass.de | http://www.wotcher.de | http://www.giantipps.de | http://www.aektschen.de | http://www.livevents.de | http://www.stopp-hier.de | http://www.click-or-not.de | http://www.letemgo.de | http://www.notsure.de |
http://www.striemline.de | http://www.surfe-und-staune.de | http://www.cmeontv.de | http://www.phantadu.de | http://www.spassmaker.de | http://www.schanee.de | http://www.net-von-dir.de | http://www.willcommen.de | http://www.trolliges.de | http://www.innfg.de | http://www.outoff.de | http://www.dogolz.de | http://www.slng.de | http://www.andyedf.de | http://www.sandrabre.de | http://www.troggen.de |
http://www.fielit.de | http://www.darest.de | http://www.myfavlinks.de |

12 Jan 2004 | handylogos said...

Honour on your head for this work

12 Jan 2004 | loans said...

Veni vidi vici that is your way

12 Jan 2004 | spiele said...

Nice blog I am glad to see

17 Jan 2004 | Wombell said...

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.

24 Jan 2004 | teeny girls said...

Thanks for good site

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.