A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 8th 11, 10:29 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
JimmyMac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,754
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

On Jul 7, 9:27*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"T m Sherm n _ " " wrote in ...

On 7/6/2011 12:25 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]
The Western diet has been a disaster for my entire lifetime and it keeps
on
getting worse ever year. Unfortunately, the rest of the world aspires to
our
diet if and when they can ever afford it.


Indeed. *I have stopped eating [1] highly processed foods and have
minimized intake of refined carbohydrates, meat [2] and dairy products. A
few months will tell if my cholesterol and blood glucose levels improve..
I also try to consume adequate amounts of dihydrogen monoxide.


The average American will never be able to modify their diet like you have.


I guess I'm not average then as I have.

Even so, it may not make any difference. It has not been proven that diet
has anything to do with prostate cancer.


Has it been disproved? It has been proven that can activate
deactivate genes that cause prostate cancer and the anecdotal and
statistical evidence is overwhelming that diet is certainly a factor
linked to prostate cancer.

There is not enough grain raised in the world for everyone in China alone,
much less 7 billion plus, to eat as much meat per capita as USians do. *In
most places meat is more of a condiment than a staple.


I think all humans would like to consume more meat. The only thing that
prevents it is a scarcity of resources.


Ed, you really should to stop using the emphatically inclusive "ALL"
when not applicable. Surely it is a given that vegetarians and vegans
are humans who have chosen not to consume meat. Your conclusion does
not follow from your premise (logical fallacy - non sequitor).
Scarcity of resource is not the ONLY thing the prevent ALL humans from
consuming more meat. You are disregarding the matter of conscious
choice not to consume meat. Some humans have no such desire.

All early human cultures (before agriculture) were based on hunting and
gathering. I don't think it can be argued that humans were ever like some
other primates who are strictly vegetarians.


I don't believe that either Tom or myself implied that. Since you
brought the topic up though, back then we got exercise hunting game
instead of driving to the butcher and animals roamed freely eating
natural substance rather than genetically modified feed grown in
fields where herbicides and pesticides are employed. Hormones and
antibiotics had yet to be invented that are found in the meat we
consume and these are all reason enough to consider how much meat one
consumes. There are more reasons, but don't even get me started.

The only other primates to eat meat are chimpanzees, and it is only a
small part of their diet, monkeys [3] being hard to catch and kill.
However, it is valued enough that male chimpanzees will give meat to
females in exchange for sex.


[1] Unless social circumstances dictate otherwise.
[2] Free range and fish only.
[3] Chimpanzees have been known to steal and eat human babies [4], which
typically ends up in the chimpanzee being hunted down and killed in short
order.
[4] Or parts of adult humans, in a few cases of morons [5] who keep them
as pets.
[5] Yes, I think I will get an animal that will grow to 150 to 200 pounds,
be 3 to 5 times as strong as a human with jaws that can bite through bone,
have near human intelligence, and will be naturally agressive (and
sexually frustrated) as a pet.


If we want to keep a pet, a dog or cat should do just fine. I suggest
limiting them however to just a few. No one in this world needs as many cats
as I have.


As for dogs, two is a good idea, since they're pack animals. Cats are
not pack animals, so more that one is unnecessary. Multiples qualify
your house as a cat house ;^)

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


Ads
  #22  
Old July 8th 11, 11:42 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 9:27 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Even so, it may not make any difference. It has not been proven that diet
has anything to do with prostate cancer.


Has it been disproved? It has been proven that can activate

deactivate genes that cause prostate cancer and the anecdotal and
statistical evidence is overwhelming that diet is certainly a factor
linked to prostate cancer.

I never place any confidence in anecdotal 'evidence'. Even statistical
'evidence ' is highly suspect. Either do the science or forget about it.

Tom Sherman wrote:

There is not enough grain raised in the world for everyone in China
alone,
much less 7 billion plus, to eat as much meat per capita as USians do.
In
most places meat is more of a condiment than a staple.


I think all humans would like to consume more meat. The only thing that
prevents it is a scarcity of resources.


Ed, you really should to stop using the emphatically inclusive "ALL"

when not applicable. Surely it is a given that vegetarians and vegans
are humans who have chosen not to consume meat. Your conclusion does
not follow from your premise (logical fallacy - non sequitor).
Scarcity of resource is not the ONLY thing the prevent ALL humans from
consuming more meat. You are disregarding the matter of conscious
choice not to consume meat. Some humans have no such desire.

There are only a few folks in this world who choose not to eat meat. In
fact, it is so rare that it borders on eccentricity.

All early human cultures (before agriculture) were based on hunting and
gathering. I don't think it can be argued that humans were ever like some
other primates who are strictly vegetarians.


I don't believe that either Tom or myself implied that. Since you
brought the topic up though, back then we got exercise hunting game
instead of driving to the butcher and animals roamed freely eating
natural substance rather than genetically modified feed grown in
fields where herbicides and pesticides are employed. Hormones and
antibiotics had yet to be invented that are found in the meat we
consume and these are all reason enough to consider how much meat one
consumes. There are more reasons, but don't even get me started.

Then you are saying human activity (exercise) is another element that must
be considered? All animal organisms are evolved to combat a variety of
situations, especially as regards diet.
[...]

If we want to keep a pet, a dog or cat should do just fine. I suggest
limiting them however to just a few. No one in this world needs as many
cats
as I have.


As for dogs, two is a good idea, since they're pack animals. Cats are

not pack animals, so more that one is unnecessary. Multiples qualify
your house as a cat house ;^)

Cats may not be pack animals, but they are social animals to a limited
extent. It is cruel to keep just one cat.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #23  
Old July 10th 11, 01:45 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
JimmyMac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,754
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

On Jul 8, 5:42*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Jul 7, 9:27 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Even so, it may not make any difference. It has not been proven that diet
has anything to do with prostate cancer.
Has it been disproved? *It has been proven that can activate


deactivate genes that cause prostate cancer and the anecdotal and
statistical evidence is overwhelming that diet is certainly a factor
linked to prostate cancer.

I never place any confidence in anecdotal 'evidence'. Even statistical
'evidence ' is highly suspect. Either do the science or forget about it.


The science is there and if you do the research as I have you will
realize that. More further down.

Tom Sherman wrote:
There is not enough grain raised in the world for everyone in China
alone,
much less 7 billion plus, to eat as much meat per capita as USians do..
In
most places meat is more of a condiment than a staple.


I think all humans would like to consume more meat. The only thing that
prevents it is a scarcity of resources.
Ed, you really should to stop using the emphatically inclusive "ALL"


when not applicable. *Surely it is a given that vegetarians and vegans
are humans who have chosen not to consume meat. *Your conclusion does
not follow from your premise (logical fallacy - non sequitor).
Scarcity of resource is not the ONLY thing the prevent ALL humans from
consuming more meat. *You are disregarding the matter of conscious
choice not to consume meat. *Some humans have no such desire.

There are only a few folks in this world who choose not to eat meat. In
fact, it is so rare that it borders on eccentricity.


The vegan/vegetarian populace is not the rareity it once was.

All early human cultures (before agriculture) were based on hunting and
gathering. I don't think it can be argued that humans were ever like some
other primates who are strictly vegetarians.


I don't believe that either Tom or myself implied that. *Since you
brought the topic up though, back then we got exercise hunting game
instead of driving to the butcher and animals roamed freely eating
natural substance rather than genetically modified feed grown in
fields where herbicides and pesticides are employed. *Hormones and
antibiotics had yet to be invented that are found in the meat we
consume and these are all reason enough to consider how much meat one
consumes. *There are more reasons, but don't even get me started.

Then you are saying human activity (exercise) is another element that must
be considered? All animal organisms are evolved to combat a variety of
situations, especially as regards diet.
[...]


You are somewhat putting words in my mouth here. First off biological
organisms take time to evolve and combat what is thrown at them,
especially at the cellular lever, but evolution is a slow process and
often not fast enough for adaptation ans survival. That is why there
are extinction events. Secondly a biological organism can only fend
of so much before being overcome or diseases would not be as
commonplace as they are. Now getting back on topic, although exercise
is arguably of benefit, what I was saying is that the meat you suggest
that all humans want to eat more of is not as safe as it was back when
mankind were hunter gathers. Furthermore it was never safe to consume
in large quantity quantity. I said not to get me started, but just
knew I'd get sucked into at least explaining the rudimentary basics,
but will nonetheless restrict my commentary and only briefly touch on
things. Here is an example that men who commonly get prostate cancer
should take notice of. Laboratory research focused on the reason why
a diet high in animal fat appears to foster progression in prostate
cancer demonstrated that a fatty acid, arachidonic acid, common in
meat, dairy products, and egg yolks promotes the survival and growth
of human prostate cancer cells. Arachidonic acid is converted to a
hormone, 5-HETE, which appears to foster the spread of prostate
cancer. This is sufficient reason to restrict the consumption of
meat, eggs, and diary products. I'll not elaborate further on this
subject. If you want to verify or learn more in this regard, that's
what Google is for. I just don't have the time to reinvent the wheel
and lay it all out for you. Regardless, suffice it to say that the
scientific research and evidence is there to indicate that diet does
indeed play a role in prostate cancer despite what you have said to
the contrary.

If we want to keep a pet, a dog or cat should do just fine. I suggest
limiting them however to just a few. No one in this world needs as many
cats
as I have.
As for dogs, two is a good idea, since they're pack animals. *Cats are


not pack animals, so more that one is unnecessary. *Multiples qualify
your house as a cat house ;^)

Cats may not be pack animals, but they are social animals to a limited
extent. It is cruel to keep just one cat.


The operative words here are "TO A LIMITED EXTENT". I have had both
cats and dogs, even at the same time. There is no way that a cat is
as social an animal as is the dog. Far more independent, most (but
not all) cats are more attached to their residence than to a
person ... their owner. At least that has been my personal
experience.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #24  
Old July 10th 11, 03:05 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Tºm Shermªn °_°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default OT - Felis Catus

On 7/8/2011 4:29 PM, JimmyMac wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:27�am, "Edward wrote:
[...]
If we want to keep a pet, a dog or cat should do just fine. I suggest
limiting them however to just a few. No one in this world needs as many cats
as I have.


As for dogs, two is a good idea, since they're pack animals. Cats are
not pack animals, so more that one is unnecessary. Multiples qualify
your house as a cat house ;^)


butbutbut, kitties like each other!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/5203260302/in/set-72157625331406609

Unless one is retired or works at home, a kitty needs at least one other
kitty for companionship.

As for the cat house idea, I need to get to work on interior modifications:
http://www.thecatshouse.com/catshouse/tour.htm.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #25  
Old July 10th 11, 06:45 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Tºm Shermªn °_°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default OT - Kitty-Cats

On 7/9/2011 7:45 PM, JimmyMac wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:42�pm, "Edward wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 7, 9:27 am, "Edward wrote:
[...]

If we want to keep a pet, a dog or cat should do just fine. I suggest
limiting them however to just a few. No one in this world needs as many
cats
as I have.
As for dogs, two is a good idea, since they're pack animals. �Cats are


not pack animals, so more that one is unnecessary. �Multiples qualify
your house as a cat house ;^)

Cats may not be pack animals, but they are social animals to a limited
extent. It is cruel to keep just one cat.


The operative words here are "TO A LIMITED EXTENT". I have had both
cats and dogs, even at the same time. There is no way that a cat is
as social an animal as is the dog. Far more independent, most (but
not all) cats are more attached to their residence than to a
person ... their owner. At least that has been my personal
experience.


My kitties run up to greet me when I come home, and spend most of their
time in the same room I am in.

When my little one was gone for a week (recovery from surgery), my
orange tabby became extremely clingy.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #26  
Old July 10th 11, 06:55 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Tºm Shermªn °_°
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default OT - Chimpanzee Attacks

On 7/7/2011 5:54 AM, ATP wrote:
"T�m Sherm�n " wrote in message
...
[...]
The only other primates to eat meat are chimpanzees, and it is only a
small part of their diet, monkeys [3] being hard to catch and kill.
However, it is valued enough that male chimpanzees will give meat to
females in exchange for sex.

[1] Unless social circumstances dictate otherwise.
[2] Free range and fish only.
[3] Chimpanzees have been known to steal and eat human babies [4], which
typically ends up in the chimpanzee being hunted down and killed in short
order.
[4] Or parts of adult humans, in a few cases of morons [5] who keep them
as pets.


Although surgeons recently reattached Charla's face- reportedly with Gorilla
Glue...........


Before surgery (not for the squeamish):
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/117986/original.jpg.

Another attack: http://www.esquire.com/features/chimpanzee-attack-0409-3.

Thankfully no one has a pet chimpanzee in my neighborhood, but if
someone did, I would adopt a shoot first, ask questions later policy.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #27  
Old July 10th 11, 06:51 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Jul 8, 5:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

All early human cultures (before agriculture) were based on hunting and
gathering. I don't think it can be argued that humans were ever like
some
other primates who are strictly vegetarians.


I don't believe that either Tom or myself implied that. Since you
brought the topic up though, back then we got exercise hunting game
instead of driving to the butcher and animals roamed freely eating
natural substance rather than genetically modified feed grown in
fields where herbicides and pesticides are employed. Hormones and
antibiotics had yet to be invented that are found in the meat we
consume and these are all reason enough to consider how much meat one
consumes. There are more reasons, but don't even get me started.

Then you are saying human activity (exercise) is another element that must
be considered? All animal organisms are evolved to combat a variety of
situations, especially as regards diet.
[...]


You are somewhat putting words in my mouth here. First off biological

organisms take time to evolve and combat what is thrown at them,
especially at the cellular lever, but evolution is a slow process and
often not fast enough for adaptation ans survival. That is why there
are extinction events.

Only too true!

Secondly a biological organism can only fend

of so much before being overcome or diseases would not be as
commonplace as they are. Now getting back on topic, although exercise
is arguably of benefit, what I was saying is that the meat you suggest
that all humans want to eat more of is not as safe as it was back when
mankind were hunter gathers. Furthermore it was never safe to consume
in large quantity quantity.

Only too true!

I said not to get me started, but just

knew I'd get sucked into at least explaining the rudimentary basics,
but will nonetheless restrict my commentary and only briefly touch on
things. Here is an example that men who commonly get prostate cancer
should take notice of. Laboratory research focused on the reason why
a diet high in animal fat appears to foster progression in prostate
cancer demonstrated that a fatty acid, arachidonic acid, common in
meat, dairy products, and egg yolks promotes the survival and growth
of human prostate cancer cells. Arachidonic acid is converted to a
hormone, 5-HETE, which appears to foster the spread of prostate
cancer. This is sufficient reason to restrict the consumption of
meat, eggs, and diary products. I'll not elaborate further on this
subject. If you want to verify or learn more in this regard, that's
what Google is for. I just don't have the time to reinvent the wheel
and lay it all out for you. Regardless, suffice it to say that the
scientific research and evidence is there to indicate that diet does
indeed play a role in prostate cancer despite what you have said to
the contrary.

Regarding an animal's ability to adapt in order to survive, some are much
better at this than others. Those who are not good at this do indeed become
extinct. The panda is an example of an animal that is specialized and in
danger of extinction. The human is an example of an animal that is
generalized and not in any danger of extinction. We can survive
environmental assaults whether of nature or of our own creation far better
than most other animals.

I will repeat what I have already hinted at before. The science on what
causes prostate cancer is not solidly grounded. It is mostly speculation
based on very thin slivers of research. I would not base what I eat on those
speculations. Entire cultures based solely on meat and dairy products do
not seem to have particularly high rates of prostate cancer. Eat a variety
of foods in moderation is still the best and most sensible regimen.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #28  
Old July 12th 11, 05:15 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
JimmyMac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,754
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

On Jul 10, 12:51*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Jul 8, 5:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]



All early human cultures (before agriculture) were based on hunting and
gathering. I don't think it can be argued that humans were ever like
some
other primates who are strictly vegetarians.


I don't believe that either Tom or myself implied that. Since you
brought the topic up though, back then we got exercise hunting game
instead of driving to the butcher and animals roamed freely eating
natural substance rather than genetically modified feed grown in
fields where herbicides and pesticides are employed. Hormones and
antibiotics had yet to be invented that are found in the meat we
consume and these are all reason enough to consider how much meat one
consumes. There are more reasons, but don't even get me started.


Then you are saying human activity (exercise) is another element that must
be considered? All animal organisms are evolved to combat a variety of
situations, especially as regards diet.
[...]
You are somewhat putting words in my mouth here. *First off biological


organisms take time to evolve and combat what is thrown at them,
especially at the cellular lever, but evolution is a slow process and
often not fast enough for adaptation ans survival. *That is why there
are extinction events.

Only too true!

Secondly a biological organism can only fend


of so much before being overcome or diseases would not be as
commonplace as they are. *Now getting back on topic, although exercise
is arguably of benefit, what I was saying is that the meat you suggest
that all humans want to eat more of is not as safe as it was back when
mankind were hunter gathers. *Furthermore it was never safe to consume
in large quantity quantity.

Only too true!

I said not to get me started, but just


knew I'd get sucked into at least explaining the rudimentary basics,
but will nonetheless restrict my commentary and only briefly touch on
things. *Here is an example that men who commonly get prostate cancer
should take notice of. * Laboratory research focused on the reason why
a diet high in animal fat appears to foster progression in prostate
cancer demonstrated that a fatty acid, arachidonic acid, common in
meat, dairy products, and egg yolks promotes the survival and growth
of human prostate cancer cells. *Arachidonic acid is converted to a
hormone, 5-HETE, which appears to foster the spread of prostate
cancer. *This is sufficient reason to restrict the consumption of
meat, eggs, and diary products. *I'll not elaborate further on this
subject. If you want to verify or learn more in this regard, that's
what Google is for. * I just don't have the time to reinvent the wheel
and lay it all out for you. *Regardless, suffice it to say that the
scientific research and evidence is there to indicate that diet does
indeed play a role in prostate cancer despite what you have said to
the contrary.

Regarding an animal's ability to adapt in order to survive, some are much
better at this than others. Those who are not good at this do indeed become
extinct. The panda is an example of an animal that is specialized and in
danger of extinction. The human is an example of an animal that is
generalized and not in any danger of extinction. We can survive
environmental assaults whether of nature or of our own creation far better
than most other animals.

I will repeat what I have already hinted at before. The science on what
causes prostate cancer is not solidly grounded.


On what do you base this assertion? It would be more appropriate to
state that there is there is still much yet to learn about the causes
and even the biology of the disease.

It is mostly speculation
based on very thin slivers of research.


Your statement is itself speculation. Much research has been done,
but progress has been slow due it part to the complexity of the
disease itself.

I would not base what I eat on those
speculations. *Entire cultures based solely on meat and dairy products do
not seem to have particularly high rates of prostate cancer.


Saying something does not make it so. Yours is merely an expression
of an opinion stated as though it were fact and an opinion I might add
for which you offered no substantiation to support your contention.
This is an all too common practice that you employ when debating an
issue. Granted, many complex and interrelated factors contribute to
contracting prostate cancer and a Western diet consisting of
consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products is one of those
contributing factors. I just looked up the mortality incidence data
and wealthier, more developed countries (Northern and Western Europe,
North America, New Zealand and Australia) have the highest rates.
Southern Europe fairs better than Western and Northern Europe. This
is likely due to the heart/cancer healthy Mediterranean diet. Asian
countries fair the best. Their diet is much different that the
typical Western diet.

Eat a variety of foods in moderation is still the best and most sensible regimen.


This is generally a good rule of thumb provide the variety does no
consist of foods know to be causally linked to disease or foods know
to advance a disease one already has.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #29  
Old July 12th 11, 08:17 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 12:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
I will repeat what I have already hinted at before. The science on what
causes prostate cancer is not solidly grounded.


On what do you base this assertion? It would be more appropriate to

state that there is there is still much yet to learn about the causes
and even the biology of the disease.

It is mostly speculation
based on very thin slivers of research.


Your statement is itself speculation. Much research has been done,

but progress has been slow due it part to the complexity of the
disease itself.

It is not just the complexity of the disease, but the complexity of the
human organism and his culture. Scientific studies are not able to take into
account all the variables. They are usually controlled for only a few
variables, neglecting hundreds of other variables which may or may not have
a bearing. Junk science reigns supreme in the area of diet and health.

For instance, is wine good for one's health? Is coffee good for one's
health? Who the hell knows? The research studies are all over the place and
contradict themselves. The reason for this is because the science itself is
flawed. That is because it is being done by academic types who are
nincompoops! What I know for sure based on my own experience is that too
much wine and too much coffee make me feel bad. However in small amounts,
they probably do no harm. Most foods are like wine and coffee. I have never
understood gourmets and food faddists.

I would not base what I eat on those
speculations. Entire cultures based solely on meat and dairy products do
not seem to have particularly high rates of prostate cancer.


Saying something does not make it so. Yours is merely an expression

of an opinion stated as though it were fact and an opinion I might add
for which you offered no substantiation to support your contention.
This is an all too common practice that you employ when debating an
issue. Granted, many complex and interrelated factors contribute to
contracting prostate cancer and a Western diet consisting of
consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products is one of those
contributing factors. I just looked up the mortality incidence data
and wealthier, more developed countries (Northern and Western Europe,
North America, New Zealand and Australia) have the highest rates.
Southern Europe fairs better than Western and Northern Europe. This
is likely due to the heart/cancer healthy Mediterranean diet. Asian
countries fair the best. Their diet is much different that the
typical Western diet.

Have you checked the incidence of prostate cancer among Eskimos? Their
traditional diet was almost exclusively based on meat. Various pastoral
peoples of East Africa fall into the same category.

Eat a variety of foods in moderation is still the best and most sensible
regimen.


This is generally a good rule of thumb provide the variety does not

consist of foods known to be causally linked to disease or foods known
to advance a disease one already has.

It is difficult to say what foods do that.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #30  
Old July 16th 11, 08:33 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.soc
JimmyMac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,754
Default Insight into the phases of the Internet forum life cycle: a perspective

On Jul 12, 2:17*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Jul 10, 12:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

I will repeat what I have already hinted at before. The science on what
causes prostate cancer is not solidly grounded.
On what do you base this assertion? *It would be more appropriate to


state that there is there is still much yet to learn about the causes
and even the biology of the disease.

It is mostly speculation
based on very thin slivers of research.
Your statement is itself speculation. *Much research has been done,


but progress has been slow due it part to the complexity of the
disease itself.

It is not just the complexity of the disease, but the complexity of the
human organism and his culture.


Well, yes the biological complexity of the host and the cellular
complexity of the disease itself both make research a cuanting
task.

Scientific studies are not able to take into
account all the variables. They are usually controlled for only a few
variables, neglecting hundreds of other variables which may or may not have
a bearing. Junk science reigns supreme in the area of diet and health.

For instance, is wine good for one's health? Is coffee good for one's
health? Who the hell knows? The research studies are all over the place and
contradict themselves. The reason for this is because the science itself is
flawed. That is because it is being done by academic types who are
nincompoops! What I know for sure based on my own experience is that too
much wine and too much coffee make me feel bad. However in small amounts,
they probably do no harm. Most foods are like wine and coffee. I have never
understood gourmets and food faddists.

I would not base what I eat on those
speculations. Entire cultures based solely on meat and dairy products do
not seem to have particularly high rates of prostate cancer.
Saying something does not make it so. *Yours is merely an expression


of an opinion stated as though it were fact and an opinion I might add
for which you offered no substantiation to support your contention.
This is an all too common practice that you employ when debating an
issue. *Granted, many complex and interrelated factors contribute to
contracting prostate cancer and a Western diet consisting of
consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products is one of those
contributing factors. *I just looked up the mortality incidence data
and wealthier, more developed countries (Northern and Western Europe,
North America, New Zealand and Australia) have the highest rates.
Southern Europe fairs better than Western and Northern Europe. *This
is likely due to the heart/cancer healthy Mediterranean diet. *Asian
countries fair the best. *Their diet is much different that the
typical Western diet.

Have you checked the incidence of prostate cancer among Eskimos?


Yes and thi\eir is a rather unique meat diet not to be confused with
consumption of beef and chick the is predominant in Western diets, but
their diets are changins and so is the rates of cancer right along
with it. I'd suggets tyou go back an re-do you research. Begin here,
for starters...

http://www.cancermonthly.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=228
http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-p...ase-and-cancer


Their
traditional diet was almost exclusively based on meat. Various pastoral
peoples of East Africa fall into the same category.

Eat a variety of foods in moderation is still the best and most sensible
regimen.
This is generally a good rule of thumb provide the variety does not


consist of foods known to be causally linked to disease or foods known
to advance a disease one already has.

It is difficult to say what foods do that.


Well know it isn't actually, but I have delved into this much more
deeply than you have. I till have three more books yet to read a DVD
to view regarding this very topic. I don't want to waste too much
more of my time bringing you up to speed when you can do that on your
own.

Jim

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
freedom cycle forum craig General 0 December 28th 06 08:52 AM
Insight into phases of the internet forum ... A Perspective JimmyMac Recumbent Biking 6 November 1st 06 06:45 PM
Stupid internet geek posting in this forum. Paulie-AU Australia 0 September 28th 06 02:12 AM
Some insight into the life and phases of a mailing list ... A Perspective [email protected] Recumbent Biking 2 February 10th 05 11:49 PM
Internet only cycle store? [email protected] UK 6 December 23rd 04 09:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.