Getting the energy back?

[That Guy]

Appreciate your humour really!

Since you don't have an avatar yourself, why don't you try it on for size eh?

 

Now gents, let's not turn this into a long off-topic.

I admit that you don't agree with me, is that ok?

 

Guy, did you hear about the kittens and the powder milk experiment?

I could and it is tempting, but as an enlightened being I am everything and at the same time I am nothing, so no image can ever display that

 

I know all, but thats a lot of stuff to look through in ones head, so please proceed with the kitten experiment data.

 

 

Though I feel we are going down a different path compared to before, where its not so much about the human beings physic these days, but the treatment their bodies are getting. A degeneration of lifestyle rather than one of humanity in a great part of the world. Which are different things, One influences the other but they are not the same.

[Mal]

Guy, did you hear about the kittens and the powder milk experiment?

 

The powered (or was it pasteurised) milk vs real milk over generations experiment is a classic. Basically Cats continued to reproduce when being fed only whole milk. But those on pasteurised mike stoped reproducing after 3 generation and had lots of health problems. (or something like that, learnt it back at Uni quite a while ago )

[宁]

The powered (or was it pasteurised) milk vs real milk over generations experiment is a classic. Basically Cats continued to reproduce when being fed only whole milk. But those on pasteurised mike stoped reproducing after 3 generation and had lots of health problems. (or something like that, learnt it back at Uni quite a while ago )

 

Yes that's the one Mal, thank you.

And as a disclaimer i'm sure it doesn't apply to enlightened beings such as Guy

But for the rest of us unenlightened beings it may have some points to ponder...

 

edit: Re the initial question, the only reason i responded to this thread was the fine intuition captured in the words 'getting back', or returning the energy... Pity the idea was overlooked.

 

L1, over and out

Edited May 10, 2010 by Little1

[That Guy]

Yes that's the one Mal, thank you.

And as a disclaimer i'm sure it doesn't apply to enlightened beings such as Guy

But for the rest of us unenlightened beings it may have some points to ponder...

 

edit: Re the initial question, the only reason i responded to this thread was the fine intuition captured in the words 'getting back', or returning the energy... Pity the idea was overlooked.

 

L1, over and out

But what percentage of the world gets baby formula as oppose to real mothers milk as an infant? How can you place a tag on the whole or majority of the human race as degenerating without looking into these statistics?

 

maybe some breast milk is what all these young men need to get back the energy

[thelerner]

 

Now gents, let's not turn this into a long off-topic.

I admit that you don't agree with me, is that ok?

 

Guy, did you hear about the kittens and the powder milk experiment?

 

I read somewhere the experiment as described in Daniel Reids book had been debunked, though I just tried to find out where in a quick search of the internet and couldn't. For the record I like Reids books, but he does over reach sometimes, cherry picking some info on mega vitamins etc.

 

 

Found it: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

 

Quick cut and paste:

 

Was Pottenger's cooked diet detrimental because it was "dead" or simply deficient? One might argue in response here that commercial feeds are not simply cooked food--they are supplemented as well. But this, then, simply demonstrates it is not that the food is somehow "dead" (as raw-fooders often term cooked food) that is the underlying problem, but rather that the diet fed by Pottenger was deficient in some way. And we shall see later that cooked diets--in humans, at least--are not necessarily more deficient than raw ones. Moreover, one cannot compare pet diets--particularly cat diets--with cooked human diets, which are less monotonous and hence provide a larger variety of nutrients. (Cats are true carnivores, humans are omnivores eating a much wider range of foods.) To put it plainly: cats are cats, humans are humans, and there are significant differences between the two.

 

Such considerations, therefore, suggest that--since domestic cats reproduce prolifically on today's cooked-food pet diets (to the point that everyone is urged to spay and neuter their cats to prevent severe overpopulation)--Pottenger's cats suffered not due to some magically bad toxic effects of cooking, or because the food was "dead," but rather from nutritional deficiencies in the diets fed by Pottenger.

 

# The cat feeding studies were apparently never replicated or confirmed by any other study. It's worth remarking once again, here, that the reliance on old scientific studies that haven't been updated or confirmed--especially citing a single study without mentioning the context of the rest of the scientific literature on that subject--is a weakness of several other rawist arguments. Sentiment among some raw-fooders seems to be that there must be some secret scientific conspiracy to ignore the Pottenger experiment. But if the experiment has been relegated to the dustbin by science--at least in terms of its applicability to humans--the reason is far more logically the one which follows next.

 

# Cats are not an appropriate experimental animal model applicable to humans. Even if one assumes the study to have been a valid one (as far as it went, at least), the decisive and most fundamental criticism of the validity of the Pottenger's Cats experiment is that cats are not used by researchers as an experimental model for humans because the results cannot be extrapolated to human beings with any confidence. More common animal models for which results may have greater relevance for humans are mice, rats, and particularly primates, who are omnivores rather than carnivores as cats are.

 

# Differences between cats and humans. Cats, being total carnivores, have special nutritional needs in certain respects when compared to humans (who are omnivores): They require inositol, which is a B-vitamin; but not vitamin C; they need more protein (25-30%) than humans, a fair amount of fat (15-40%), etc. Recall that the SAD is about 15% protein, and that one can live (on a calorie-adequate diet) with 10% protein or even less without visible signs of deficiencies; and that low-fat diets may be as low as 10% fat. It is true that cats and humans do share some metabolic similarities in certain respects as well. (See Metabolic Evidence of Human Adaptation to Increased Carnivory on this site for examples.) However, given the significant differences, drawing more sweeping conclusions about human nutrition from experiments on cats cannot be given much credibility. Most crucially, of particular note are differences in taurine requirements:

 

* Cats lack the ability to synthesize taurine and require it in their diet. One of the more striking differences between humans and cats is that the latter require taurine in their diet, which they have no ability to synthesize from precursors. While humans and cats are similar in that both have reduced ability to synthesize taurine in their diets compared to herbivores, the key difference is that cats (who are carnivores) have completely lost the ability and must obtain all that they need of it from their diets. (Humans, as omnivores, have retained the ability to synthesize taurine although it is limited and inefficient compared to herbivores.)

 

* Heat-processing negatively affects taurine levels in cats. It has been shown [Hickmann et al. 1990, 1992, Kim et al. 1996a, 1996b] that cats eating heat-processed foods have a lower plasma taurine concentration. The explanation is probably that Maillard reaction products promote an enteric (intestinal) flora that degrades taurine and decreases recycling of taurine by the enterohepatic route. Excessive secretion of the hormone CCK due to a lower protein digestibility might also be another reason [backus et al. 1995]. (Note: "Enterohepatic" recycling occurs when food absorbed in the lower bowel is transported to the liver for storage and/or processing, some of which is released via the bile back into the upper bowel, where it can recycle again.)

 

 

more then needed but thats the nature of cut and paste.

[gendao]

- If you want some facts, go and speak with physicians, with doctors.

For example, I see it myself, as I work in a pharmacy.

Many old men seem to have alot more vitality that many young men.

It's a sad thing to see.

And it gets worse, as time goes by.

- Many young men resort to Viagra and other pills to get a decent erection.

In young men today you can see alot of meat, and a tiny spark of energy...

You want numbers? Age? Look up the internet. Check up the high rate in onchological (cancer) type diseases. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

Still,I have no intention to prove anything, just know some facts, from what I see everyday, that's all...

 

- I remember my uncles, aunts, as I was little... they had a physical consistency that I don't see it today anymore.

The food is much less nutricious now, we move our bodies alot less, the electomagnetic smog is at an unprecedented rate. Do you really believe these go without consequences to our biology? The most sensitive part of our biology is our fertility... There are many factors that need be respected if you still want to keep this healthy.

It's not just erections. It's also the consistency of the sperm, and these have a direct influence on your mental health, your emotional health, your social health, and your sense of well being. So no, i don't think talking about it is overrated. I'm not interested in opinions either... Facts, they save time.

 

And, Guy, anybody ever tell you what happens to athletes after their career is over? Just met a handball national player yesterday at the hospital: she was replacing her knee with a metal one. Oh she had no problems whatsoever when she played... But with age, the abuses tend to come out. Don't get me started on martial artists, the story is even more sad...

You make a lot of great points.

 

We are bathed in a xenoestrogen soup now. Most pollutants are estrogenic, which have all synergistically combined together to "feminize" the population. This includes plastics, household antibacterials like Triclosan, millions of Pills used by women daily & flushed back into our water supply, unprocessed soy, etc etc. I think the NW0 is also actually doing this on purpose to sterilize men & reduce overpopulation.

Regarding athletes, they're obviously stronger than before, you can tell by performance, if you want speculation on how long they'll last ask a psychic, we have a couple around probably.

Well, recent sports doping scandals have shown that athletes are now using a lot more newer performance drugs that weren't available 40 years ago. Back then they basically just had some weak oral steroids. Now they have HGH & a whole host of other substances...that athletes are megadosing in insane stacks now.

 

Then:

Now:

[thelerner]

Its ironic you use a picture of Schwarzenegger as an example because he admittedly used steroids, I don't know about the person in the modern picture, but Schwarzenegger started in his teens.

 

Secondly, may I point out that the problem with seeing healthy seniors and less healthy youngsters in the pharmacy could do due to the fact the unhealthy seniors died or are non ambulatory. Whereas unhealthy younger people keep mozying around.

 

 

Still, in general our life styles and diet is probably sub par to older generations. But much of that is personal choice, a little research and will power and I'd stack this and future generations up against the best of any.

 

 

 

Michael

[宁]

@Michael, maybe you think that if you keep looking for debunking information it will help you to preserve your critical and skeptical attitude. If that is the reason, I admire it, but the method isn't that great... IMO Practice and personal experimentation can give you enough tools to check out on what is real and what is not.

 

@Vortex, every kind of natural foods contains natural sexual hormones and enzymes. They succeed in doing what they do, by gradualy breaking down all these natural stimulus of the human fertile tissues....

[gendao]

Its ironic you use a picture of Schwarzenegger as an example because he admittedly used steroids, I don't know about the person in the modern picture, but Schwarzenegger started in his teens.

Well, you can see the steady progression in physiques in different eras as a direct result of increasing doping:

 

50s - No one really took steroids (other than some experimental Communist weightlifters).

60s - Mainly elite bodybuilders only took some steroids here.

70s - Steroids became more accessible to the forefront of bodybuilding. Physiques look noticeably different after this.

80s - With bulk volume discounts, prices kept dropping & dosages kept rising...

90s - Bodybuilders start taking HGH & insulin too. They get really supersized now, including all their organs.

Y2K - Bodybuilders are megadosing cocktails of all these drugs & other supplements as increased volume production lowers prices even more. Doping is becoming mainstream in professional sports now too.

Edited May 10, 2010 by vortex

[thelerner]

@Michael, maybe you think that if you keep looking for debunking information it will help you to preserve your critical and skeptical attitude. If that is the reason, I admire it, but the method isn't that great... IMO Practice and personal experimentation can give you enough tools to check out on what is real and what is not.

 

I disagree, without checking on sources outside yourself, we are biased to think 'We' are right. I like Daniel Reid, so he must be right. No. Sometimes he's wrong. Unless we're very careful, what we think of as personal experimentation is an exercise in self misdirection to show we're right.

 

Its a matter of the right tool for the right job. The doctor who Reid bases his thoughts on had a preconceived idea. He killed 100's of cats in order to prove that idea was right. Others keep it alive because it fits there preconceived ideas.

 

 

I don't mean to set myself as a hard core skeptic here. I come to tao bums for uncommon sense (and I often find it), but there's something about the milk and cats study I found particularly disturbing. Like pulling the legs off a fly and deducing it keeps them hearing. Except this was killing off 100's of cats. (*&()(*&

 

Michael

[That Guy]

Thank you thelerner, I hadn't thought of how good a subject a cat could be for conclusions on humans beings.

 

Vortex, I can obviously see todays athletes are stronger now That ass!

But seriously, you can't say all the top athletes today use these things, it is like a slap in the face to all of them after they have spent all this time and putting all this effort into their sport.

Also doping tests for professionals these days I would suspect are a lot more rigourous, can you cheat them? maybe some, but not all. You can't even hide being a hermaphrodite much less drugged, should you win.

And no offence to body builders, but what they do is kinda like a beauty pageant, more about looking "good" rather than performance.

 

Little1

Looking outside yourself for questions that can truly be answered and aren't so personal is fine, and more people should do it, i mean heck if you don't and you're wrong how will you ever find out?

 

It's not about debunking, but about not ignoring other possibilities. Besides if just looking at your day to day for accurate speculation were all thats needed, then companies wouldn't spend the $$$$$$$$ on market research to get a more accurate picture of things.

[宁]

mwell...

i just said that most times you only need yourself to check something up that really affects you...

and, if you still fall for the mythbusters, at least take into consideration whose payroll are they into...

 

trululu

[That Guy]

mwell...

i just said that most times you only need yourself to check something up that really affects you...

and, if you still fall for the mythbusters, at least take into consideration whose payroll are they into...

 

trululu

"Yooz Squakin' To Me?"

 

trululu