|
|
Rich wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160144799.061756.126360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cancer is too broad a term for this to be true. Yes, we are learming more
> and more about such preventive benefits as anti-oxidants reducing the rate
> of cancer in general, and high fiber diets being somewhat preventive of
> bowel cancer.
anti-oxydants = vitamins = real fresh whole foods
You are making some progress here.
Fiber is crap.
> But still, people with excellent diets do get cancer.
Now we know this do we? Few studies are done on this. But I would love
to see a study that compares directly the diets of cancer patients to
people with no signs of cancers.
> Good
> nutrition can reduce your risk of cancer just as good driving can reduce
> your risk of dying in an accident. But like many drivers drive drunk and
> stupid for years without mishap, millions and millions of people live to
> ripe old age on absolutely abysmal diets.
But you see the direct effects of poor nutrition in peoples lives
directly. Moodiness, anxiety, depression, susceptibility to infections,
poor skin tone and color, susceptibility to colds and flus, poor
healing, more sick days, diabetes, obesity, heart disease and yes,
cancers.
My family went from needing dozens of prescriptions per year when
eating a lot of grains, margarine and low fat foods and since we've
started eating much less grains, more meat and animal fats, we have
gone to zero prescriptions in the last about 5 years. The contrast is
absolutely startling.
When I see the contrast between my family and other families I cringe.
I see it every time we eat at friends houses or go out to restaurants
with them.
>
>
> Nobody denies that nutrition contributes to health, but even the very best
> of nutrition cannot entirely prevent any of these diseases, nor will poor
> diet inevitably cause any of them.
It is absolutely essentil to good health. And it does cure many and
mitgates most chronic diseases. Poor diet most definitely causes
obesity, diabetes, IBS, Crohn's, and many many more chronic diseases.
>
>
> Any doctor will tell you that exercise is more effective in controlling
> cholesterol than diet.
Low carb diets will completely cure your high cholesterol levels in a
matter of months. Fact.
>
>
> Not nonsense at all. Calorie control and exercise are the only way to lose
> weight. All other effective methods are so only because they influence
> calorie intake or encourage more exercise.
Calories are a factotum from the days when we had no understanding
whatsoever of human metabolism. Counting calories and restricting fats
to lose weight fails in more than 95% of cases.
The mechanism is carbs and foods which elevate our blood glucose levels
which in turn causes chronically high levels of insulin to be secreted
and force the body in a chronic fat storage state. The chronically high
levels of BG cause all kinds of damage to the pancreas which is forced
to produce massive quantities of insulin over the long-term which in
turn batters the insulin receptors to the point where they whither and
can no longer sense the insulin (insulin sensitivity is lessened).
Eventually the pancreas has produced its lifetimes worth of insulin and
cannot produce any more.
Please explain how exactly calories trigger fat storage? What are the
processes involved? Hormones? How does the body detect an excess of
calories and how does that trigger fat storage? And vice-versa, how
does the body detect a calorie deficit and how does that trigger fat
loss? Huh?
>
>
> Sodium does affect blood pressure, and many patients benefit from reduced
> salt intake. No nonsense here, either.
Only when they are in a state of malnourishment. I can eat all the salt
I want with no noticable changes.
>
>
> Anecdotes do not prove scientific claims.
But observation is the basic building block of science. And this
observation is valid. And it shows clearly that in this case, like many
other, the MDs were completely clued out about basic simple nutrition
and its effect on the body. And the naturopath did cure her supposedly
non-existant condition.
>
>
>
> Yet more anecdotal nonsense. As for padding the patient schedule, most
> general practitioners I know are overwhelmed by their patient schedule and
> are not accepting new patients at all. I also doubt your perception that
> sports docs are more result oriented than any other physicians.
You would be amazed at the numbers of anecdotal evidence out there. The
12 year average I quoted above came from a book that contained about
120 anecdotal incidences of people with back problems. Very few, if any
of them, got any real healp from MDs.
>
>
>
> Not at all. They use physical therapists as referral resources. They also
> prescribe such adjuncts as heat, rest, and exercises, and use of proper body
> mechanics.
Only because chiropractors essentially forced them to do something. The
whole physical therapist movement is a response to chiropractors
showing up the doctors. Physical therapists still have a long way to go
to catch up.
>
>
> Bullshit.
I personally know of probably a dozen or more people, including myself
and my mother in law, who experienced this "bullshit" first hand.
>
>
>
> Most will when that is the case. The key to successful surgery is selecting
> those cases which can be helped by surgery. The great surgeons with records
> of very high rates of surgical success are not just those with great skills
> in the OR--the actual cutting is monkey work that about anybody could learn.
> They are great because they are great at recognizing those they can't help
> and sending them back to the internists.
the "great surgeons" do not represent 100% of surgeons, do they?
>
>
>
> Bullshit. You have no idea of how a medical education works.
Read the course outlines buddy. It is all there in B&W.
>
>
> Those one or two courses are just the foundation. Doctors get much more
> education in physiology and pathology, and the interaction of nutrients and
> cells, tissues, and body chemistry are fundamental elements of that
> education. Even a course in organic chemistry cannot take place in a vacuum
> without including the actions of nutrients.
And pharmaceutical prescribing.......
>
>
>
> Perhaps that's because you doctors recognized that you are unteachable. Do
> you think they have time to sit around and argue with you about how much
> nutrition education they've had?
Nope, I tend to ask questions. I do not waste time arguing with people
who have an infalated sense of absence of doubt. My time is valuable
too.
>
>
>
> Neither assertion is true. There is no known correlation of diet to
> appendicitis, it happens to perfectly healthy people at any age. There is a
> correlation of diet to certain types of kidney stones, but heredity plays a
> much larger role. Dyhydration is also a big factor, though since water is a
> nutrient too, I suppose that could be classified as nutritional.
There is a direct correlation between diet and resistance to infection.
Appendicitis is an infection. Vitamin C is an anti-bacterial,
anti-fungal and anti-viral. And many other nutrients bolster that
resistance to infection. You still do not get it.
>
>
>
> And you don't get it that nutrition is not the be-all end-all of health.
> Well nourished people get sick too, and when they do they need other
> intervention than diet change.
Well nourished people do not get sick, unless they are exposed to
exceptionally strong physical stress or physical injury. Don't you get
it?
>
>
> No doctor would disagree with that.
And the body cannot function properly and heal itself and maintain
itself against infectious agents unless it is optimally nourished.
TC
>
>
>
> Not universally.
>
>
> Not universally.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/
> http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/
|
|