Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006
greed vs "lifestyle food cult" - which makes more sense
|
|
Thread rating:  |
TC - 07 Dec 2006 23:08 GMT In one corner there is the NIHs, the FDA, Universities, researchers, etc, all affiliated in some way with the food and/or the pharmaceutical industry. The result is one majorly confused science. We don't know what causes the major diseases that afflict us like cancers, diabetes or even simple obesity, but the medical people still insist that their treatments are the way to go. Billions are spent on "science" just confuses the issues even more. No two scientists can agree on any point unless they are paid by the same company. The motivation is simply greed.
In the other corner is, among others the Weston Price so-called "lifestyle food cult". Their motivation? It isn't greed because they aren't selling anything except for a membership and a newsletter that, I think, costs about $35 a year. Is their motivation arnarchy? I doubt it, because everything they say seems to be peaceful and lawful. Their message is always consistent.
So why would one support the greed machine over the Weston Price people? And why would one trust in the greed machine unless there is a vested interest involved?
Maybe these industry trolls can shed some light on why they are so beholden to the greed machine.
TC
monty1945@lycos.com - 08 Dec 2006 00:31 GMT The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now. The problem is that the textbooks are filled with nonsensical claims, models, and assumptions. If you have not been trained to examine evidence and claims critically, as I was in graduate school, it will indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe, which is why I put together my web stie.
TC - 08 Dec 2006 15:08 GMT > The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the > evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe, which is why > I put together my web stie. I learned to be examine things, such as evidence, critically from my training in IT. There is no one who can claim to have the definitive answer to any question. You have to examine the situation (data) yourself and come to your own conclusions on what you see and what makes the most sense as to what the right answer is. The moment that you apply this sense of doubt and criticality to what is currently the state of the science in nutrition, is the very moment that you realize that there is something very wrong with this picture.
The very sad thing is that we have thousands of advanced degree pinheads running around spouting their garbage by rote with no sense whatsever of doubt. No ability whatsoever to look at the science critically in any way. A science that does not question its own basis is no longer a science, it becomes a religion. Which makes it quite funny to think that the industry trolls in this ng that repeat their nonsensical mantras ad-infinitum by rote actually have the temerity of accusing the SAD diet sceptics of being part of a religious-like cult ie. this so-called lifestyle food cult.
I watch the science channel quite often and I follow science news very closely. When a new discovery is made, often we see interviews with scientists who say that this discovery may challenge fundamental aspects of theories and beliefs that have been held for ages. And when they say this, they are often very excited at the prospect of seeing a major shift in scientific belief in their field of study. They are open to the possibility of old beliefs being wrong and new paradigm re-writing their scientific textbooks. In fact they are excited by the prospect.
Not so with nutrition. When low-carb was becoming very popular and many many people started seeing that it not only works, but it works better than the mainstreams low fat diets, the mainstream scientists were under pressure to explain this away or at least respond to it. Studies were coming out left, right and centre showing how low carb worked better for weight loss and for general health. One of the responses I saw was an appearance by certain scientists on a popular science show on the science channel. Their response was a re-iteration of the mainstreams concepts of higher calorie fats vs lower calorie carbs and proteins, etc. etc. And their message was that these new studies are wrong and we have always been right even though low fat fails most of the time and low carb seems to work better. There answer was that they were absolutely certain that what has been believed for generations is completely unassailable and to question the science is unthinkable and unscientific.
So, with virtually all other fields of science, change is part of the process and the scientists find it exciting to examine and accept new findings regardless of what it does to their beliefs. In nutrition, the current state of utter confusion and massive obesity and other malnourishment diseases is the state of the science, and it will remain the state of the science for as long as the thought leaders in nutrition have their way. All nutritional thought is frozen in time and no-one ought to dare challenge it. Have faith in the advanced degree pinheads that insist on perpetuating the current paradigm in the face of global massive increases in nutritional diseases. Meanwhile if you try to challenge the paradigm, you are labelled a "religious lifestyle food cultist". Now that is IRONY.
TC
allr1@webtv.net - 09 Dec 2006 13:37 GMT I learned to be examine things, such as evidence, critically from my training in IT. There is no one who can claim to have the definitive answer to any question. You have to examine the situation (data) yourself and come to your own conclusions on what you see and what makes the most sense as to what the right answer is. The moment that you apply this sense of doubt and criticality to what is currently the state of the science in nutrition, is the very moment that you realize that there is something very wrong with this picture.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's a lot of dogma, that's for sure
=====================================
" The very sad thing is that we have thousands of advanced degree pinheads running around spouting their garbage by rote with no sense whatsoever of doubt. No ability whatsoever to look at the science critically in any way. A science that does not question its own basis is no longer a science, it becomes a religion. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's hard to believe that all those advanced degree pinheads can't figure out the cause various diseases, like inflammatory related ones.
I'm afraid the 'religion' of greed and industry prefers it that way.
====================================
" I watch the science channel quite often and I follow science news very closely. When a new discovery is made, often we see interviews with scientists who say that this discovery may challenge fundamental aspects of theories and beliefs that have been held for ages. And when they say this, they are often very excited at the prospect of seeing a major shift in scientific belief in their field of study. They are open to the possibility of old beliefs being wrong and new paradigm re-writing their scientific textbooks. In fact they are excited by the prospect.
Not so with nutrition. When low-carb was becoming very popular and many many people started seeing that it not only works, but it works better than the mainstreams low fat diets, the mainstream scientists were under pressure to explain this away or at least respond to it. Studies were coming out left, right and centre showing how low carb worked better for weight loss and for general health. One of the responses I saw was an appearance by certain scientists on a popular science show on the science channel. Their response was a re-iteration of the mainstreams concepts of higher calorie fats vs lower calorie carbs and proteins, etc. etc. And their message was that these new studies are wrong and we have always been right even though low fat fails most of the time and low carb seems to work better. There answer was that they were absolutely certain that what has been believed for generations is completely unassailable and to question the science is unthinkable and unscientific. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I watched some doctor on PBS (wearing his surgeons fatigues, no less) saying to avoid saturated fats. (probably at the behest of the vegetable oil industry)
Talk about a generalization that can't help but be wrong.
There are more than a few different types of saturated fats. To suggest avoiding them all is just plain asinine. (and doesn't take into account an individuals present physiology)
Ron Peterson - 09 Dec 2006 17:03 GMT > I watched some doctor on PBS (wearing his surgeons fatigues, no less) > saying to avoid saturated fats. (probably at the behest of the vegetable > oil industry) You're bringing up the issue of critical thinking where the motives need to be considered even if the results are true. Malaysia has been sponsoring research to "prove" that palm oil is healthful compared to coconut oil.
People like simple answers requiring minimal change to their lifestyle and some pander to that.
> Talk about a generalization that can't help but be wrong. It may be right, but its a simple answer and needs to be elaborated with further studies.
> There are more than a few different types of saturated fats. To suggest > avoiding them all > is just plain asinine. (and doesn't take into account an individuals > present physiology) It's a simple answer, but has helped many people with atherosclerosis.
 Signature Ron
allr1@webtv.net - 09 Dec 2006 13:21 GMT monty1945 wrote:
" The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now. The problem is that the textbooks are filled with nonsensical claims, models, and assumptions. If you have not been trained to examine evidence and claims critically, as I was in graduate school, it will indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The 'solution' is to get the profit motive out of medicine all together.
Sick people shouldn't be a commodity.
I would add, to your 'do some thinking and learning', (always good advice) to trust your instincts and personal observations. (if you possess a keen perception and a sufficiently high IQ)
|
|
|