Free Range Naturism

Naturism => General Naturism Discussion => Topic started by: eyesup on April 06, 2016, 01:37:38 AM

Title: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on April 06, 2016, 01:37:38 AM
We have known for years that being naked outside is good for your mental and emotional health. It is also good for your physical health, you get exercise and you skin produces vitamin D. A necessary vitamin for strong bones and teeth.

Well the medical community is presenting research findings that show vitamin D, the "Sunshine Vitamin", is good for more than your bones and teeth. It's also good for your heart. See here (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/147251/20160405/vitamin-d-supplements-linked-to-improvements-in-heart-failure-patients.htm), here (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35959556), and here (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01619891?term=NCT01619891&rank=1).

How much more does evidence is needed to show all the benefits of being outside in the outfit God gave you. Apparently, everything needed for sustaining life is available by just stepping outside in your birthday suit.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 AM
Oh, what a surprise !   ::)
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on April 06, 2016, 02:59:15 PM
Oh, what a surprise !   ::)

There have been quite the number of studies done over the years. Not only the absorption of the D vitamin but the fact a person is outdoors. To me that would mean some sort of exercise like walking or even gardening. What we need is a study using naturists as a control group to prove that getting the vitamin naturally is better than supplements.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Davie on April 06, 2016, 03:21:38 PM
... and as a started for 10 ... see  here (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/12/why-vitamin-d-supplements-are-not-the-same-as-sunlight.aspx)

Perhaps we also need a study to see if naturists have a greater absorption of vitamin D than non-naturists, although I expect that the extra amount absorbed due the lack of a cossie is pretty small.

Davie  8)
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on April 06, 2016, 05:03:40 PM
... and as a started for 10 ... see  here (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/12/why-vitamin-d-supplements-are-not-the-same-as-sunlight.aspx)

Perhaps we also need a study to see if naturists have a greater absorption of vitamin D than non-naturists, although I expect that the extra amount absorbed due the lack of a cossie is pretty small.
Davie  8)

My point is that naturists get more exposure due to the lifestyle. Instead of just being on the beach it is more of an all day everyday thing. Time and weather permitting.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: John P on April 07, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but let's not forget that sunlight is also bad for the skin, and you can die from its effects. In fact skin cancer is becoming more common; naturists should be the first people to think about how much sun they should be exposed to!
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on April 07, 2016, 12:34:09 PM
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but let's not forget that sunlight is also bad for the skin, and you can die from its effects. In fact skin cancer is becoming more common; naturists should be the first people to think about how much sun they should be exposed to!
While I totally agree that we should be sensible about our exposure to the sun, I also believe that there are a few factors which also need taking into consideration.

Firstly there is a tendency for naturists to have a more regular exposure throughout the year with the result that the skin's natural protections are likely to be more effective, resulting in less burning.

Secondly I believe there is a positive correlation between sudden short term holiday exposure and skin cancer.

Also I strongly suspect that sun protection creams may also have a carcinogenic effect and that in many cases the casual user does not apply it properly thus reducing its effectiveness.

Putting these factors together I am convinced that naturists tend to be less liable to skin cancers than textiles, but of course this may be simply my prejudice.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Davie on April 07, 2016, 02:39:33 PM
Quote
Putting these factors together I am convinced that naturists tend to be less liable to skin cancers than textiles, but of course this may be simply my prejudice.

That might be an interesting study - do naturists have a different rate of skin cancers to non-naturists, but then define naturist - indoor only, once a week, every day, only on holiday, and how long in the sun etc. ectc.

Davie  8)
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on April 07, 2016, 03:02:34 PM
I would be curious to a point to see the connection between skin cancers of textile verses non-textile. But one would also have to consider geography. How could you compare a naturist who lives full time in a nudist enviorment in Florida to say a person in England? Where as the Florida resident has almost year round weather to be naked winter plays havoc on northern dwellers. Despite speculation I feel these types of studies will not be done any time soon.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: kensunwalker on April 07, 2016, 03:16:41 PM
Avoiding the sun is like a bad poker bet.  True, you avoid to some extent the "slight" risk of contracting skin cancer (something that is easily curable).  But instead, you have much great risk of contracting high risk internal cancers and other serious diseases.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on April 07, 2016, 07:22:58 PM
The makeup of the skin is also a factor. "Ol Red" the pink guy, compared to the folks who live in equatorial regions naked all mixes inbetween.

Also, the health of the system, the skin. I have noticed how sauna and scrapping has changed the character of my skin. The efficiency is improved as modern toxins and clogging are removed, thus the manufacture of "D" can take place to a higher degree. Intake of good cholesterol seems to be a factor.

There are many different studies with diverse aspects converging for our home team. Basically "D" come from skin and diet, "D" good. Get lot of "D".

The cancers mostly come where parts commonly get red and burn, the edge of tanlines.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: MartinM on April 08, 2016, 09:19:52 AM
It isn't just about 'skin' cancer. Studies show that those with frequent exposure to sun are overall healthier, despite being more prone to skin cancer, which is not generally the serious kind, melanoma. Those with the lowest levels of exposure are less healthy and are MORE likely to get melanoma.

Avoiding burning is clearly important. Regular exposure provides much natural protection.

Also, studies have shown that the health benefits of exposure to sunlight go far beyond those you get from vit C. Exposure to sun is the most effective way of increading vit C levels, but it is the only way of getting the other benefits, at least on current knowledge. These include mood and mental health.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on April 08, 2016, 04:30:53 PM
Back in the old days on the ambulance we had a term "red haired skin". Besides usually the hardest IV sticks they were also prone to severe sunburns. Working the medical tent at a music festival we dealt with quite a few inebriated, sunburned,dehydrated individuals that weekend. Some of the most severe cases were red headed freckled women who required hospitalization due to the skin surface involved.

My mother was one of those skin types and later in life developed a few lesions that were removed and biopsyed. Thankfully, none were serious but that is why I visit a dermatologist yearly. I take after my father with more of an eastern European darker features. Two of my sisters however remain porcelain goddesses.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nuduke on April 13, 2016, 10:54:33 PM
I don't know about Vit D but I do know that the sunny weather in the last few days has lifted my spirits enormously and several other people have remarked similar feelings.  In one such conversation my interlocutor wondered and got me wondering that if
our spring feeling is that noticeable, how deep in fact is the winter depression.

Good question, I felt?  Perhaps the answer is to remember the happy mood today and take VIT D supplements when the winter bites and see if it unmasks the April feeling?

John
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on August 02, 2016, 08:42:15 PM
Here's a good one. Sunblock bad. Sun good. Lobster bad, suntan good. Eat well.
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/sun-exposure-cancer/?gl=582828491&mpweb=144-1473256-442413327

I've added a half dozen or so organic free range, wider diet eggs to my smoothies each week, raw. My D problem went away, AND, ya all know I get lots of sun. I also do weekly sweats, three rounds of at least 15 minutes, where I meditate, pray and sing, naked. This helps the skin detox and should contribute to its function optimally which is much more than skin deep.

I haven't dug deeper into the studies, but their talking improving risk of getting cancer in 50 percentile areas. They're dismissing melanoma and an entire drug empire that has increased profits from $20 mil to $400 mil on BS and dangerous snake oil claims.

We've got a copy of the whole series. It is amazingly intriguing, but this pertains to us directly.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Alf on August 02, 2016, 10:39:18 PM
I've read and listened to blogs on this subject and the advice to the level headed, non-extremist, reasonable person is that some sun exposure is extremely good and natural. As with many things, too much sun exposure can become a bad thing, so when I 'feel' the sun beating down too strong, I seek shade or I will use some chemical sun protection.

It is reasonable to believe that people who go out and shock their systems with the sun will increase their risk of bad effects like a short term sunburn or something worse.

../Alf
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on August 03, 2016, 10:28:51 AM
The article certainly reinforces my prejudice against sun creams and supports my habit of seeking shade as soon as I feel my skin getting too heated from the sun.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on August 03, 2016, 01:51:06 PM
I don't use sun block chemicals either.  My plan is to go out into the sun an hour a day beginning in spring when it becomes warm enough to be naked.  By mid summer I'm covered with natural sun block and no longer getting sunburned even all day in the sun.

Sure, too much of anything good all of a sudden is too much, but too little is bad and toxic chemicals are not good for babies and other living things. 

Bob
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on August 09, 2016, 06:44:28 PM
The level of severity of sunburn is determined by genetics. Northern Europeans can attest to this. So can the residents in the tropical zones. Everything reacts to solar radiation. No exceptions. What I do is manage it.

After the 1st couple of outings I stop burning and simply get darker. I don't stop reacting to the sun. Even though I am not burning I don't overdo it.

This is common sense. Or should be.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on August 09, 2016, 07:32:08 PM
Were on the last day of a week in fuerteventura'', were in an all inclusive hotel with buffet style catering' there's a couple of pools' , though were beach front its pebbly so we've been driving to a nice sandy beach after breakfast, 3 to 4 hours on the beach , naked' back to hotel for lunch ' spend the afternoon in the shade on our balcony , naked. Dress for dinner and a walk along the beach.
We people watch,  there's people round the pool who've not seen sun since god was a nipperr,, got lilly white skin and slapping on the suncream, we've seen one of down the beach in a bikini and leather furry ankle boots..  all the red sunburned bodies are covered in layers of cream, and still sitting in the sun or strutting down the beach.
Noticed one 20 something woman at dinner, plain pasta, spaghetti, for starter, followed by a plate of mashed potatoes.  The amount of bread people are shovelling away is amazing.
There's all sorts of salads' , vegetables, meats and fish available,  why eat white rolls and croisonts for breakfast?,if you don't want eggs, bacon, sausage, tomatoes, beans, there's all sorts of fruits, yogurts'', etc sets on offer.


Incidentally we haven't used sunscrean or sunglasses at all,  not only has the skin got to be free to react to the sun, we feel the whole system is getting information from the light in the eyes..  wear sunglasses and you're telling the Boddy its not sunny...hence you burn?

I don't like typing on a tablet, bloody thing keeps writing what it thinks I'm going to type

Conclusion is a lot of people having got a clue about healthy living.

Incidentally we having used suncream or sunglasses at all
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on August 09, 2016, 08:15:29 PM
Quote from: ric
I don't like typing on a tablet, bloody thing keeps writing what it thinks I'm going to type.

I hate that too!
I believe there's a way to turn it off in the preferences.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: reubenT on August 16, 2016, 04:59:10 AM
It's our diet that causes skin cancer, very little to do with sun exposure.    The sun plays only a minor role in skin cancer and it's effect is played up way more than it deserves.  Too much animal fat does it.  Saturated fat I think they call it.  If the only fat one gets is raw plant source it'll create significant good results.   Just heating it too much changes it to a form not so good.  Along with naked life in nature,  God's design was for us to eat food picked fresh from the plants and trees,  no heating of it,  no second hand by way of animals.     And that diet I have learned can do amazing things for us,   provided it's grown on mineral rich soil.  Everything available to us through the regular produce production lines is very poor quality.  Worse than most people understand.  Which is why I'm determined to grow my own. 

  There were some things in that info I didn't know.  But it makes it even more obvious,   we were designed to go naked outside,  a lot.   When we don't it's compromising our health.  Those people who object to nudity are forming their opinions contrary to science and health.  And contrary to God's original plan for us.   

  I don't burn easy, even if I do it's very minor.   My brother burns much easier.  And he has ever so slight hint of reddish hair too.  He's starting to go bald on top at 41,  I'm 50 and every barber I go to is amazed at my thick heavy mop.     I don't know where my sunburn resistance came from.  All I know about is a general mixture of European ancestry.   But I have heard if a person's ancestry came through early America there's  high chance of american indian input.  Since I have several lines of ancestry going back to the 1600's at immigration, including one that was on the second trip of the mayflower according to my grandmother.   I guess I can assume there would be some Indian in me.   I like the thought for some reason.  Possibly because I can identify with their lifestyle to some extent. 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: MartinM on August 16, 2016, 09:15:37 AM
There is plenty of evidence to prove a direct link between exposure to thr sun and skin cancer, but it is also much misrepresented. The risk is particularly to melanoma, the less serious kind of skin cancer. It is also, i believe, linked to behaviour, such as getting burned on foreign holidays, short shatp bouts of exposure for those who have not developed a tan. Use of sun cream may make matters worse by encouraging over exposure, especially in the middle of the day when the dun is strongest.

Mankind is omnivorous, and has been eating meat for 100s of thousands of years and has anatomy (teeth) to suit. Likewise, human use of fire and cooking go back a long way and is believed to have contributed to a burst in human evolution due to the more readily available calories through cooking. Having said that, diet would still have included a lot of uncooked food and fruits, so there is a question of balance. The diets most people eat are now very artificial and simplicity is clearly a way to improve diet. Some racial types eg inuit) are more evolved to survive on a largely meat and fish diet.

'God's plan' was for us to evolve to where we are, in tune with nature around us. Unfotunately, we are now very much 'out of tune', and risk evolving ourselves, and much around us, out of existence.

Most people eat far too much, especially processed food, and don't eat enough fruit and veg, including raw food. But there is no reason to suggest that moderate eating of meat and cooked food is in any way unhealthy. However, I do believe in keeping meat consumption down for environmental reasons.

Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on August 16, 2016, 05:29:34 PM

RANT

There are more silly superstitions about food and health than just about anything else.  Our evolution is based on cooked food, mostly cooked meat, for something around 2 million years.  Over that time our teeth and jaws have been reduced significantly compared to other primate species.  Wild chimpanzees spend about 8 hours per day chewing raw food, and now have much larger and stronger jaws and teeth then we do.  Our guts have also diminished and are less effective digesting raw foods.  Two humans can eat the same food and either starve or grow fat depending on whether it has been cooked.  That efficiency allowed our ancestors to spend time and energy on larger brains and social activity.

Despite decades of false or "quack" medical information telling us that saturated fats cause heart attacks and deaths, sunshine causes cancer, etc. etc. etc., the medicine show has been more recently demonstrated to be based on hooey.  The biochemistry of human digestion doesn't care if your fats are saturated or not, it all is chemically converted before it becomes absorbed.  Mega vitamins are another medicine show marketing gimmick. Most of us get sufficient vitamins from our food.  Mega amounts can be more destructive than helpful.  Most cancer "treatments" and other surgeries have been shown to be ineffective or harmful.  There are thousands of charlatans wanting to sell us some fad.   

Yes, some people get cancer and die young, most do not.  The 6 year old girl who lived across the street did not get brain cancer from eating the "wrong" food nor playing in the sunshine.  Some people get cancer and die.  Something goes wrong with the extremely complicated process.  Superstitious blaming it on whatever the medicine show is selling this week is not going to save our lives nor prevent us from dying.  There once was a time in Europe where troops of religious people went from town to town beating themselves bloody to stop the black plague.  Rather that bringing protection of their God, they spread plague to each town.  The medicine show is still just as nuts and still just as much believed.

Walk on the earth.  Enjoy the sunshine.  Live in harmony with nature and evolution.  Eat what your body wants, which is what you enjoy eating.  Listen to your body rather than the medicine show. So-called "junk food" is what we enjoy because our bodies tell us that is that to eat.  Death is, perhaps, the only thing more sure than taxes.  We can and should enjoy our lives as much as we can for as long as we can.

End Rant.   
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on August 16, 2016, 06:58:13 PM
sad fact is that the vast majority of medical and dietary research is either funded by somebody  trying to sell something or instigated by academics trying to reinforce their theories to get more funding for their team for the next few years

in short it aint worth the paper its printed on.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on August 16, 2016, 08:10:03 PM
Bob’s Rant: “Despite decades of false or "quack" medical information telling us that saturated fats cause heart attacks and deaths, sunshine causes cancer, etc. etc. etc., the medicine show has been more recently demonstrated to be based on hooey.”

HOO rah, Hoo Rah! Yup, since they told mothers that breast milk was inferior, since they cut out millions of thyroids because they didn’t do anything, that silly government nutritional pyramid, all cholesterol should be avoided, “these little blue pills will help your momma” and radiation cures cancer, going barefoot will give you flat feet because you need the arch support, on and on. This skin cancer thing is just another in a long list. The truth is plain simple.

The last few decades have brought us more and more often, companies with the scruples worse than any street pusher that I ever knew (I was a child of the 60’s and knew….). Senators telling me that big pharm owns congress, etc. Causing people to die just to make a profit for the investors is common practice. There are numerous ways to squirrel out of the consequences for these blackhearted pirates to use.

The idea that a body can’t handle too much sun is ludicrous. Of course you don’t want to burn. Of course some bodies burn easier than others, Of course some situations give stronger sun that others. Sunburn sucks, that should be enough. We evolved on the planet, we are adapted like ma earth born us and we need her milk.

I won’t eat meat that has been monocrop fed, shot up with unnatural hormones, stuck in conditions that breed disease, loaded with antibiotics to combat that problem. I don’t eat fish that has been grown in confined artificial conditions, set with weird GMO genetics, subjected to disease problems, like the cattle, and mono-fed. I don’t eat either of these, that have been over processed so that they only are fish and meat from sight, but actually are loaded with fats, chemicals, grains and processes, that have to be cooked way too much because they are unpredictably unfit, and don’t really have the taste of true meat.

We have had supplementary meat in our diet for millennia, we probably ate what was available, like fish, and plants mostly, depending on the location. Rolling thunder the bruho once told me to eat what my ancestors ate. That is a mess because my genetic background is all over. But I do know that they weren’t eating the fake food that is available in the supermarket (I hear and have read that European food supply is much more nutritious.  I know that the European cheeses don’t taste and cook like plastic, because they are more traditional. There are no GMOs there, too.

Even dogs are getting cancer tumors. People with the poor modern processed diet are getting associated diseases more and more as the food system becomes more and more corrupt and crappy meat oriented. I sit in any airport and watch the passengers waddle off of the planes, exhibiting old age that shouldn’t be there, back problems, obvious diabetes, etc. and I know that it is rampant and for profit that they a conned into thinking that they are doing great. They are eating fake food, that is rich in fat and sugar to disguise and make a false craving. They gobble it down instead of eating it, chewing it, because it has no nutritional value and they must eat more and the body keeps trying to get nutrition. Good food doesn’t require gobbling and shoveling. Good food taste so good you slow down, and you get satisfied quicker, much quicker.

People eat junk food because it is made to get people to eat lots of it, to create addiction and cravings. The studies show how this works and murderers are creating fake foods using that knowledge, knowingly. It isn’t that the body likes an ice-cream sandwich because it is nutritious. It is the fat and sugar combo, which are two things that mess bodies up. I have changed my diet over the years. I can see the difference. I can know the addictive science because I feel it. I feel sluggish, I gain weight, I have mood swings, I crave, and when I detox and fast, it gets amazingly weird and obvious what these foods do.

Doctors ARE pushing supplemental vitamins for a solution to the obvious problem and ric has it right. The studies are corrupt, even criminally irresponsible.

So, as usual, I agree with Bob and disagree. Rubin has it correct. It is all about real soil, over processing and not cooking out the nutritional value from your food, getting it fresh. I can feel and taste the difference. It is very apparent.

I’m staying barefoot all over in the sun and I’ll live longer and healthier while I’m at it. I don’t worry about these diseases that nearly everybody else does. I take my medicine, real food, exercise, sauna and these diseases go away. It is natural. These diseases, foods, and lifestyles that have taken over diet the last century are not natural, or healthy, or the diet and life that we evolved with up until these times. We can live longer and healthier.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nuduke on August 19, 2016, 01:08:28 AM
Wow, Bob and Jbee
It's all hanging out in this thread!

Some strong views held here.  My stance is one of the rationalist reductionist.  If the evidence is good enough, it's a fact (at least for as long as that evidence isn't superseded by some more!  That's not cynical - Change happens.  Newtonian mechanics held sway for 300 years until Einstein changed it a bit, Galen was the medical authority even though totally wrong in some cases until Harvey and Pasteur amongst others defined the true knowledge from evidence.)

So Bob, whilst I entirely agree with your balance and moderation in all things argument, your points about the endless assault of poorly defined quack theories and your recommendations for things that create a balanced diet, I rather feel you rant a bit too loosely in dismissing entirely the combined efforts of medical science to date!  You mention numerous foods that are bad for us - those opinions can only have been formed with the help of the scientific research that created the view on those foods.

In Jbee's comments, I can, as usual, recognise the desire to get away from the processing and additives that could cause some of the many evils and pandemic ills of modern western society.  My experience of food in the US is that there is a much wider variety available of foods that are astoundingly more processed than in the UK & Europe, but skim off that difference and there is a big overlap.  But, as a biochemist by training, I've never been able to see why an organic carrot or potato is any different than one raised non-organically or a GM crop different from a normal one in nutritional terms provided that there isn't a definitely identifiable difference such as residual hormones in meat and chicken.  But if monocrop fed meat or GM tomatoes can't be distinguished from their traditionally produced counterparts, I fail to see what 'fluence' or 'miasma' they contain that is to be avoided.  For decades, plant breeders have naturally bred highly productive rice and wheat species that have essentially revolutionised farming and cropping and have saved the eastern world from mass starvation.  Yet these new species contain exactly the same sort of genetic differences as a species created by GM manipulation.  GM is in many cases just a shortcut to what nature might have done over millennia.  Why then is GM soya milk not the same product as soya milk when the GM difference is, say, bushier plants for better harvesting - nothing to do with the nutritional content.

So whilst I can't and don't wish to try to refute either Bob's recommendations for healthy balance or Jbees recommendations for imbalance towards the healthy and natural, because both views look pretty sensible, nevertheless I would ask whether those opinions are a little too generalised in the aspects of dismissing science, modern processing and the interests of industry in quite such general terms. 

What I would add to the conversation, is the opinion that what we believe and understand about our diet and lifestlye is tainted by the appallingly poor objectivity of those who disseminate our understanding in the media.  It is the media that peddle the crap guidance on food and correct consumption that Bob rightly rails against.  And in my experience, every new food fad or lifestyle adjustment e.g. less sun/more sun is created not by poor research (a proportion of which certainly exists, but that's a digression), but the media taking serious but specific research findings and extrapolating them way beyond scientific reality or the known facts and conclusions.  The number of unspecialised journos trying to scratch a living scrying barely recognisable conclusions following the publication of a paper in a science which relates strongly to our lifestyle (e.g. in nutrition) is too large!  My plea is for more serious and clear explanation of research and medical treatments that enables us to form an objective understanding and take personal and public dietary  action where necessary.

I used to work in pharmaceutical manufacturing in a factory that produced a number of large volume vitamin supplement products.  As a biochemist, I knew that in populations able to afford the luxury of buying vitamin tablets, dietary intake was usually more than sufficient to provide all vitamin requirements.  There was absolutely no need for vitamins in a normal diet (even one heavily skewed towards junk food) and that the vast majority of any ingested extra vitamin would be metabolised or excreted without ever being needed for the metabolic pathways that it participated in.  But the taking of vitamins is one of the most embedded myths in our society and the industry is truly vast that is devoted to making us take useless dietary supplements for everything that we might want to cure or aspire to. 

Has anyone reading this ever found anyone able to ascribe an objective effect of taking OTC dietary supplements that has not got a hereditary metabolic dysfunction that requires the taking of a specific vitamin (e.g. Vit B12 needed by some hemophiliacs)?  My prediction is that no-one has.  Has anyone observed a specific effect of a prescribed or administered drug?  (e.g. relief of a headache by paracetamol or the curing of an infection by antibiotics).  My prediction is that everyone has!
I would therefore say that to ignore where science guides us is foolhardy but to be sceptical of what we are told by the media is entirely healthy!

John     
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on August 19, 2016, 02:18:49 AM
All this discussion about GMO's and such reminded me of a show I saw about corn. The three most consumed staple foods worldwide are corn, rice and wheat in that order. Corn does not reproduce readily on it's own. To get to the levels of production needed to provide food for millions, it is necessary to intervene in it's growth cycle. It has to be harvested processed and then planted. Every year.

Talk about a GMO! Of course most of the original modifications done on this grass was done over the course of hundreds of years ago in tried and true methods that Gregor Mendel would have recognized.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nuduke on August 27, 2016, 06:07:19 PM
Yes, Duane

Plant and animal breeding over the years have brought nutrition where previously only hunger was the future.  Problem is that a lot of additional yield is only possible, as you indicate, by a lot of technological support such as fertilisers.  Without being Malthusian, as a liberal i.e. simply asking the question without any implied meaning, I wonder what the world would be like today if those innovations in food production productivity hadn't occurred? 

I distinctly recall from my childhood and youth, in a world of 3 billion people at that time (1960s) that the TV documentaries and articles in the  science periodicals and news, not to mention governments and world organisations were of dangerous population growth and the likely shortage of food and oil to come.  In those days the prediction was for a doubling in population by the millennium (which happened) but a global food shortage and scarcity or complete loss of oil.  If technology and science hadn't moved on, I wonder what the world would have been like with not enough food?  My guess is less peaceful.

One also wonders whether the burgeoning of plenty in some parts of the world, and more than was predicted back then, and the concomitant increase in population is sustainable, ecologically and quantitatively speaking.  The prediction is 8-9bn by 2050.  I wonder therefore again, in the absence of those aspects of 'progress' that the post WW2 decades brought, and are still bringing, would populations have peaked and decreased? If so it may not have not been a world that many of us would have wished to live in.

Just a little idle speculation. :)

John
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on August 27, 2016, 07:49:04 PM
Yes, Duane

Plant and animal breeding over the years have brought nutrition where previously only hunger was the future.  Problem is that a lot of additional yield is only possible, as you indicate, by a lot of technological support such as fertilisers.  Without being Malthusian, as a liberal i.e. simply asking the question without any implied meaning, I wonder what the world would be like today if those innovations in food production productivity hadn't occurred? 

I distinctly recall from my childhood and youth, in a world of 3 billion people at that time (1960s) that the TV documentaries and articles in the  science periodicals and news, not to mention governments and world organisations were of dangerous population growth and the likely shortage of food and oil to come.  In those days the prediction was for a doubling in population by the millennium (which happened) but a global food shortage and scarcity or complete loss of oil.  If technology and science hadn't moved on, I wonder what the world would have been like with not enough food?  My guess is less peaceful.

One also wonders whether the burgeoning of plenty in some parts of the world, and more than was predicted back then, and the concomitant increase in population is sustainable, ecologically and quantitatively speaking.  The prediction is 8-9bn by 2050.  I wonder therefore again, in the absence of those aspects of 'progress' that the post WW2 decades brought, and are still bringing, would populations have peaked and decreased? If so it may not have not been a world that many of us would have wished to live in.

Just a little idle speculation. :)

John
But NUDUKE! Your topic drift has left you with a post that has nothing to do with naked bodies! Maybe I can help…

…!

…Ah, I know how. Over population of people who possess way too much clothing drain huge amounts of resources. Cotton fields could be used for food production. Sustainable organic production and biodiversity being consumed locally, could make these fields more habitable, so there would of course be more space for all of those people and much less oil burned.  ::)

Cattle production takes many times the space, water and resources as plant food production. Eating less meat makes for better and much much more food. The production of animals will produce more carbon problems than oil by 2030 at current trends. Most famine is in places where animal production has replaced it, starving the people that traditionally lived there. Science (corporate PR) makes itself out to be a savior and tells us that we would all be starving if it wasn’t for big farms, pesticides, GMO crops, fertilizers, etc., and the need to eat lots of meat every day.  That just isn’t so. You get tons more bang for your buck out of small farms and plots. Cattle provide leather, which is clothing, so less leather, less clothing.  ;)

 I remember reading Science Illustrated when I was like 10, science telling me that there would only be about 15 square feet per person in 2020. I visioned a vast empty space with naked people standing just a few feet apart looking confused. :-\

There would be plenty of places to roam freely nude in the western United States, but the water natural habitat has been decimated by cattle production. Only 7% of meat comes from this vast area. This meat is nearly all sent to a fattening up station which is where antibiotics are injected, disease is produced among the meat, the most water pollution of all is produced, and it stinks to high heaven. If the public land was turned to nude hunting, nude fishing, nude hiking, nude camping and naturist tourists, (and I suppose it is okay to dress if you lean that way), then the rest of the country would miss just one hamburger every couple of weeks, more or less, and we would have a healthier planet. Meat production could be done on privately held land and we’d all be better off except for a few cattle corporations that are squeezing ranchers every which way anyhow. Then, of course the deer, elk and bison would probably wreak havoc on those small plots of plant production :D….I’m trying to inject humor into this along with the need for nudity discussion, if no one noticed…. :o


…91% of Amazon rainforests have been destroyed to raise cattle. Half of the US land mass and 45% landmass of the entire Earth is used to produce meat. More than 78% of land used for agriculture in the US is used to feed animals. 80% of the one billion people starving are in counties that produce food for meat eaters in other more well off countries. 15:1 ratio that plants produce more per acre than meat. More than half of the water used in the US is given to livestock. There will be a 40% shortage of water in the next 15 years worldwide. 30% to 50% of greenhouse gases are from livestock production. The apparent Earth bearing load of 565 gigatons will be exceeded by the year 2030 without any fossil fuel from vehicles, electricity, etc., JUST from eating meat. One can nit pick these statistics, but there is fire under that smoke and I’ll take naturism over a daily hamburger every time.  8)

There, we ARE talking getting’ naked again. :)
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nuduke on August 27, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
I hadn't thought of the cotton fields for food and go naked point.  Somebody brief Trump and Clinton! :)

I agree with all your points.  That takes the thought onwards and prompts me to add to my previous post in that, whilst science has enabled us to feed many more people, those in the richer parts of the world have simply sequestrated this capacity for their preferences, not necessarily for the greater good(e).  I do so agree that we have increasingly indulged our predilection for inefficient meat consumption and less for efficient beans and greens. 

I think our western greed is less applicable in the East (of the earth not the USA!) where the new genetic strains of rice have fed the population with basic carbohydrate staple and avoided starvation.  However, there is ever news of the Chinese adopting western tastes and habits such as the proliferation of MacDonalds in China and a taste for beef emerging.  Would that it were the other way round and their healthier diet we were adopting and turning some of the pampas to rice fields not grazing ground!

I might remark that reducing meat consumption would apply equally to sheep and pigs.  Thus woollen clothing and shoes could also become a thing of the past!  Hurrah for vegetarianism! (This hypocrisy from someone who has just eaten an Indian meal containing lamb, cream, and chicken but also rice, cauliflower, wheat(naan bread), mangos (chutney) and almonds.

Speaking of food efficiency, Jbee, where do you stand on mealworms?

John
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on August 28, 2016, 10:16:18 AM
Where ever they may be getting at grain. I would suppose that they are very crunchy no matter where you put your foot down. ???
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on August 28, 2016, 02:54:10 PM
All life feeds on life.  For each to live something must die.  That is the fundamental fact of life. 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: reubenT on November 29, 2016, 07:09:26 AM
What I see in farming around me,  (all over the eastern part of the USA actually)   Is a whole lot of lazy farming going on.   Oh there are some ambitious farmers,  but most are pretty lazy.   Raising beef cows on land that would support nice vegetable crops is one big point of lazyness.  It's the easy thing to do.  But also the most inefficient food source there is, and definitely less than the healthiest.   A few hundred lb of beef versus 20-40,000 lb of good produce from a good acre.   It takes a lot more thought, planning, education, input, and interest,  to make the land produce vegetable food products.  But the reward in profit is there if it's done right. 

   At one time apples were considered essential,  6 trees per person was the average needed.  Which included fresh apples, cider,  hog and horse food.     At one time people ate all food from the land and fruit juice was real juice.    But a look at the store shelves now and what do I see?    Most beverage and fruit juices run form zero food to maybe 15% food in them.     That tells me that flavored water has replaced much of what used to be consumed as good food.  So the food being grown has not kept up with population growth at all.     Like was said when more visitors showed up  "add some water to the soup"      What is being produced is watered down and flavored up to make it go around.  And we depend on a fragile system of transportation to get it to us.  An oil based economy may well lead to mass starvation at some point,  and it could come on real fast.  Since people do not have much food in their houses, depend on the grocery stores and restaurants on a daily basis.   I've heard that in general there's about 3 days worth of food available if the trucks suddenly stopped running.   

  I don't like the situation.  So I intend to do something about it, at least locally for myself and a few neighbors.       Also the major benefits I've heard about by consuming all raw vegan diet are so good,  it makes me want that as well.   The very long life potential, extreme physical endurance possible.   The country of Mongolia is all flesh food oriented.  But what is the average life expectancy?  67 years, compared to 75 for the chinese who eat a lot more plant foods.   Highest in the world is the Japanese island of Monaco with average of almost 90 years.     "The islanders have a typical Mediterranean diet based on olive oil, tomatoes, peppers, fish and goat's cheese. The local wine comes from the cannonau grape which has a particularly high level of anti-oxidants."    But on 100% raw I've heard of 150 up to over 250 possible.    Although the very few examples of it do not have sufficient documented proof of birth date to satisfy modern science,  but it's sufficient for me to learn from.   That there is something to that original diet recorded in Genesis that is what our body system was designed to live on. 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on November 29, 2016, 07:50:45 PM
We are a species that evolved as meat eaters.  Over two million years of eating cooked meat as our primary food we have lost much of the size and strength of our mouth and jaws.  We have lost about 25% of our digestion system as a percentage of body mass.  We are no longer creatures adapted to eat a vegan diet.  A high percentage of the vegetables will pass through and not be absorbed.  Our close relatives, chimps, spend about 8 hours per day chewing plant food, and carry much larger guts around. 

What we have rather than large digestion systems is a much larger brain that takes a very significant supply of nutrition.  Most of us are smart enough to eat a diet that supports our evolutionary adaptations, a diet similar to what our human ancestors ate for millions of years. 

I do come from an area where apples are the most plentiful corp.  But I'm not going to survive eating the coarse grasses that my rancher neighbors convert into meat for me to cook.  Its really not a trade off. 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: John P on November 29, 2016, 11:06:32 PM
...Highest in the world is the Japanese island of Monaco with average of almost 90 years.     "The islanders have a typical Mediterranean diet based on olive oil, tomatoes, peppers, fish and goat's cheese. The local wine comes from the cannonau grape which has a particularly high level of anti-oxidants." 

That story about Monaco being in Japan makes me think of an old advertisement for whisky there: "Real Scotch whisky, made from genuine Scottish grapes".

Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 06, 2017, 02:55:18 AM
Yet more preaching to the choir here, but at least the trend towards more nudity is being presented to the college age group.
A confidence (https://studybreaks.com/2017/06/17/naked/) builder.
They aren’t hearing it from the previous generation as an option but as a self-help kind of practice for their own generation.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Davie on July 06, 2017, 09:58:42 AM
I have a set of teeth designed for eating meat. I'm not and couldn't be a vegetarian or vegan although I do respect their views and admire them for sticking to their beliefs. (I hope that doesn't sound patronising)

I once listened to a man suggesting at we should concentrate on eating the fatty bits of meat. He banged on for a while and after a while a man put his hand up and quietly asked if his eating theories had been peer reviewed? The speaker rocked on his feet and spluttered some excuse and the talk ended. Now whether or not his theory is right or wrong he had no evidence to support it.

I believe in a balanced diet. We do need fruit and vegetables and carborhydrates , one reason we are called limies is because our sailors ate limes to prevent scurvy.

I do like the idea of Scottish grapes in whisky, good job I'm not Scots - but I do love their malts, part of a balanced diet?

Davie  8)

Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Peter S on July 06, 2017, 01:34:42 PM
Whisky (or whiskey) is a vegetable derivative, therefore counts as one of your five-a-day. Same can be said for BEER and wine. Oh, the joys of a healthy diet!

peter
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 06, 2017, 05:54:36 PM

The Article in Question:
I finally saw that there is an article on confidence that jumped us from least November's diet discussion. "Start sleeping topless" and then try nudity, sounds goofy to me. Most of the dangers are to the lower part of the body. It is hidden in the sheets, and just a shirt will ride up in the night anyway. Nice to know that someone is d trying and we are now producing articles for people with greater hang ups that need a step by step hand holding to merely try getting naked. Hard to believe that their are people with such issues as to have difficulty getting into bed simply naked. Our society produces a very unhealthy situation, emotionally, and physically.

On chewing meat:
We also have lesser canine teeth. Our mouths work well preparing both meat and vegetation. We are designed to eat both. It doesn't follow that we have always eaten primarily meat. The rest of our systems overwhelmingly point out that we better digest and live healthier when eating more plant base foods. Meat has been a supplement, something to eat when there is less plant life, a treat, or delicacy. Some cultures have certainly eaten more meat regularly than others through human history; we have a choice in the diversity. The plant based diet is proven to be much more successful.

We are better adapted to survive with more choices. When the plants run out, head to the animals. When the animals run out, eat some plants. When we began to populate, we found domestication of meat and other animal uses. We found farming. When the hunt doesn't provide, we have found another source, carefully taken care of. Now, we have created another kind of calamity, by placing over processed and weirdly processed meat at the top of the list. Most of the meat that is eaten isn't meat, or real meat is hardly like it. It is a lot of crap, and mostly muscle and fat. It is filled with antibiotics and unhealthy hormones and disease potentials, ulcers, to the point that medium rare is no longer safe to eat. The nutrition has to be cooked out of it. One can get more protein out of plants, even green ones, than the BS factory farmed meat. I have nothing against wild meat in moderation. I refuse to eat the factory farmed crap, because it is unhealthy and generally worthless and a strain on my body to digest. It is an over indulgence to eat so much of it. It is like all of the processed food that people eat instead of fresh vegetables.

I sat in the supermarket the other day watching the people. 44 were obviously unhealthy, hobbling, overweight, in time they will be sick. Their carts were full of processed food and crappy meat. 11, six of which were children, looked healthy. Wanna guess what I saw in their shopping carts? It is sooo obvious!

Now, we have taken meat consumption to a new crisis. It is having dramatic effects on the health of our planet and stealing the resources that we need to survive. It is time to face fact. We can't sustain unreasonable consumption of meat anymore. It is irresponsible. The world and its people are being poisoned by a profit driven greed and its lies, like the old tobacco industry analogy.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on July 06, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
most of the long term vegetarians i know have health problems,  in old age theyre skinny with no body reserves to call on in time of need ... half starved if you like.

my other half was a veggy when we met , i tried it for a while, for health reasons  were now omnivores again .

broadly speaking vegetarians in the uk fall into 2 catorgaries,  the furry animal brigade who think exploiting animals is wrong and the health freaks who think that meat is unhealthy ,  the majority  in the uk just cut meat products out of their junk food diets and dont have enough knowledge to eat a good long term veggy diet.

healthy vegetarians eating a good healthy diet are rare.

it appears that  our uk /european meat industry is less factory based than that in the us.  most of our beef and lamb has a grass based diet and gets to frolic in the fields for 3/4 of the year. 
pork and chicken are more intensivly farmed in sheds and fed grain based diets.

we eat mainly beef and lamb with some pork but only occasional chicken.  we rarely eat processed meat products,  not even bacon...id rather have a pork chop for breakfast.

perhaps my views are coloured by my upbringing in rural somerset , i grew up with beef cattle outside the bedroom window , and worked for some years in the dairy industry, its 20 odd years since i last worked with/owned cattle but some things are ingrained.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 07, 2017, 01:32:58 AM
Correct. Balanced means, well, balanced. A little of this and that in appropriate amounts.
Recently I decided I wasn’t feeling my best and have begun modifying my diet. I eat exactly the same stuff, just less of it on fewer occasions. I’ve lost 10 lbs. That’s my idea of going on a diet.

I have believed for years that BEER is it’s own food group, and is a long neglected stone in the food pyramid.

Quote from: Peter
Oh, the joys of a healthy diet!
BEER and wine are good for the digestion. Good for the constitution!

Quote from: Peter
Whisky (or whiskey) is a vegetable derivative, therefore counts as one of your five-a-day.
Reminds me of the old Bill Cosby routine where he defends giving the kids cake for breakfast after his wife jumped all over him for it:
There’s   flour, eggs, milk, butter and sugar; pretty much everything you would get at breakfast. Right?
Without all the work. Right?  ;)

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on July 07, 2017, 07:11:15 AM
As I understand it we have a set of teeth capable of coping with a wide range of carnivorous and vegetarian foods but an inadequate digestive system for a totally carnivorous or vegetarian diet and unsuitable for a lifetime diet of uncooked food.
I believe that part of our success as a species is down to the fact that we pre-digest much of our food by cooking, thus allowing ourselves to both use a far wider range of foods and requiring a far smaller portion of our body to be used for digrstive processes than many other species.

I will continue to eat a wide range of carnivorous and vegetarian foods but avoiding as far as one can in this modern world the heavily processes stuff using modern industrial methods.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Peter S on July 07, 2017, 08:14:07 AM
After years of TV programmes and magazine articles on the subject of diet and health, the one overriding factor that shines through, no matter what line is being put forward, is that fresh is good, processed is bad. Get your meat or veg in its raw state and prepare it yourself it'll generally speaking be good for you. Get the stuff that's been machined and has a long list of chemicals on the packet, and you're ingesting the problem - even washing it down with BEER doesn't help ...

Peter
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 07, 2017, 08:34:47 AM
The places where people live the longest are filled with vegetarians. They don't get most of the diseases that western diet (ie too much meat) people get, in the first place. The diabetes, the cancers, the heart problems don't happen to them. Studies done on tens of thousands prove this. Read Campbell's "The China Study." They tend to not get the diseases that would require more fat on the bodies in the first place. Inactivity makes old folks skinny, unless it is coupled with a diet that makes them obese. What kind of vegetarian diet is a factor. Many people just stop eating meat and eat crappy and then call themselves vegetarians. It probably is those skinny people that you have seen veggie diet not working for. It is a fact that good veggie diets will make a body more lean. That isn't such a bad thing in all ways.

Raw diet works just fine. It digests well and the nutrition is much much better than having it cooked out of the food. Very few foods are a problem raw. You don't have to eat as much to satisfy the body, which makes digestion better. You can taste the difference. The good fresh taste is nutrition. Instead of cooking, one might grind the food up, juice it, let the body take a break some of the day. I have smoothies each morning after not eating all night. It gives the body some time. Most people overcook food. Fresh live living food works very well for a body. Somebody gets broccoli farts at a potluck and doesn't chew his carrots and thinks that fresh whole food is all too hard to handle. You have to grind up wheat to make bread, so why wouldn't one need to grind up a handful of almonds, or any nuts?

I used to be adamantly opposed to a veggie diet, but it has changed my health 180 degrees to positives, so my mind is open. I eat raw living food, I check my sources. I eat raw eggs and fish. I don't eat chicken sushi. ;D It is too difficult to maintain this diet strictly in this rigged world, so I only shoot for 80%, then I eat some poor food for fun. For example, I have pizza each week.

I used to have BEER at the top of my pyramid, but after a couple of decades, it began to stop working out for me. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but results will vary.

These two weeks, I'm taking care of a friend who is 90 years old, who has been eating what he pleases all along. There are exceptions, but the reason that he needs my help is his BEER at the top of the pyramid. It caught up with him a few years back. It is still messing things up, destroying his quality of life. He says he still doesn't want to be anymore than 95 anyway. Seems that he believes that he has won the battle. I still believe that washing down crappy food with BEER does help, it doesn't do the trick, but it does help. I mean...why wouldn't it at least help? ;)

AND another thing! I have observed that digestion is hindered r dramatically by belts and tight clothing. If you want to live well and long, digest your good food well. EAT NAKED!
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on July 07, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
got to agree with the belt/tight clothing  bit.   even sitting rigidly upright in a chair folds the digestive tract and stops it working properly.
wife and kids always grumble after ive driven their cars .... i always recline the seat back a couple of notches,  otherwise i get gut ache on long journeys ,   then they also moan if i undo trouser waistband whilst driving... no ive not broached the subject of naked driving , somethings are best kept hidden from the kids.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on July 07, 2017, 12:48:13 PM
a lot of (99% ?) of the lifestyle and dietry advice weve been given over the last 50 odd years is either simplistic,  aimed at promoting a product, or directly oposite to the advice given out last month.

decades ago we were told that butter and red meat was bad for us , millions have been spent on research to prove it... totally unsucessfully, weve still got heart diseease and cancer despite the charities asking for money to fund research cos theyll find a cure next year.

the mediteranean diet was touted as the wonder diet ... when you look at the one study it was based on , it was fundamentally flawed ... data from countries that contradicted the conclusions was excluded.... even the basic beleif that country populations were vegetarian was gathered in the aftermath of a world ware where all the livestock had been stolen by the occupying army.

recent years weve had the 5 a day fruit and veg thing... its well known that the 5 was invented on the way to a conference by an "expert" with nothing to say in their speech...with little thought and  based on no research whatsoever

the hunzas are now touted as the model of a vegetarian population , but whats not often considered is they are an isolated population in a remote mountain valley,  little genetic input /social interaction from outside, the peoples genetics and metabolism have had hundreds /thousands of years to develope to suit that diet and that environment and lifestyle.... drop in say a traditional eskimo used to seal / whale meat etc i doubt hed have a long healthy life on the hunza diet.... let alone a burger chomping coke swilling "civilised" man. 
sorry man should probably be person but im not very pc.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on July 07, 2017, 02:30:24 PM
- even washing it down with BEER doesn't help ...
Peter


What?   Beer has been the healthy drink for hundreds of years. 

OK, skip the processed food.  Just drink the beer.

Bob
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Davie on July 07, 2017, 02:59:43 PM
I was advised by a doctor that beer is good, helps to hydrate. Off course too much is another story. It's also good from a social and mental point of view. Man does not live by bread alone! I hope to have a couple of pints of good old English ale this evening and to hell with the prophets of doom!

Davie  8)
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 07, 2017, 05:24:22 PM
a lot of (99% ?) of the lifestyle and dietry advice weve been given over the last 50 odd years is either simplistic,  aimed at promoting a product, or directly oposite to the advice given out last month.

decades ago we were told that butter and red meat was bad for us , millions have been spent on research to prove it... totally unsucessfully, weve still got heart diseease and cancer despite the charities asking for money to fund research cos theyll find a cure next year.

the mediteranean diet was touted as the wonder diet ... when you look at the one study it was based on , it was fundamentally flawed ... data from countries that contradicted the conclusions was excluded.... even the basic beleif that country populations were vegetarian was gathered in the aftermath of a world ware where all the livestock had been stolen by the occupying army.

recent years weve had the 5 a day fruit and veg thing... its well known that the 5 was invented on the way to a conference by an "expert" with nothing to say in their speech...with little thought and  based on no research whatsoever

the hunzas are now touted as the model of a vegetarian population , but whats not often considered is they are an isolated population in a remote mountain valley,  little genetic input /social interaction from outside, the peoples genetics and metabolism have had hundreds /thousands of years to develope to suit that diet and that environment and lifestyle.... drop in say a traditional eskimo used to seal / whale meat etc i doubt hed have a long healthy life on the hunza diet.... let alone a burger chomping coke swilling "civilised" man. 
sorry man should probably be person but im not very pc.
Amen! It is a bitch to try to sort "the experts" out.

Eat good fresh food, the best most nutritious food...naked. At least that is an obvious conclusion. Washing it down with BEER seems to work for many people. Good nutritious processed with love and respect.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on July 07, 2017, 09:42:36 PM
......... Washing it down with BEER seems to work for many people. Good nutritious processed with love and respect.
Jbee
BEER is good but not the chemical products purveyed under the same name by the multinationals.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 08, 2017, 12:38:09 AM
There is more energy per gram of meat than vegetables. There are more vitamins in veggies than meats. Iron and protein are more plentiful in meat. The higher capacity for meat to deliver more nutrition per unit weight makes it the fastest way to get that. It doesn’t necessarily make it better, just faster.

Cooking advances the process so the human digestive tract can work more efficiently. It all boils ;) down to how much effort and energy you want to spend on hunter gathering. It’s not about which is better per se, it’s about time allocation. Less time spent surviving means more time to spend on innovations.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 08, 2017, 12:40:58 AM
I remember that at one time mother’s milk was bad, bacon was bad, coffee was bad, et.al. infinitum. Over time they figure out that there is no singular culprit or champion when it comes to metabolism, nutrition, DNA and breeding. There seems to be a benefit, in different measures, no matter the food being discussed.

The whole field of study about free radicals, not the political kind, and antioxidants has a great deal to do with how diet affects your health. Some is good, too much is bad. It’s getting too complicated to just look for a good hero. :)

The more information that is compiled, the better the big picture is filled in. Anyone claiming to be an authority is to be under suspicion of fraud immediately.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 08, 2017, 12:44:48 AM
Quote from: Jbee
It is a bitch to try to sort "the experts" out.
It’s actually not that hard.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
- Niels Bohr


Anyone with that track record should be listened to only long enough to determine they are in fact an expert.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: JOhnGw on July 08, 2017, 07:07:58 AM
On a brief working trip to Beijing the executive secretary who was acting as my interpreter pointed out that while in China they consider the ways in which each food is good for you, in the west it is why each food is bad that is considered.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 08, 2017, 11:28:55 AM
There is more energy per gram of meat than vegetables. There are more vitamins in veggies than meats. Iron and protein are more plentiful in meat. The higher capacity for meat to deliver more nutrition per unit weight makes it the fastest way to get that. It doesn’t necessarily make it better, just faster.

Cooking advances the process so the human digestive tract can work more efficiently. It all boils ;) down to how much effort and energy you want to spend on hunter gathering. It’s not about which is better per se, it’s about time allocation. Less time spent surviving means more time to spend on innovations.

Duane
Iron is more plentiful in many veggies than meats, most notable famous example, Popeye's spinach, but there are many more. Good fresh veggies, which are live and living have been given a bad rap by the meat industry propaganda. There is a ton of protein in veggies, too. Often more than meats. When you consider the overcooking to get rid of the factory farm defects and dangers, the nutritional benefits cooked are nothing like the raw product. Veggie nutrition also disappears 40% and 60% and more cooked. A couple of days after picking and there is dramatic reduction, too. Simply grinding, squeezing, and blending, will reduce the intake time of mastication. Meat doesn't digest as well. There isn't as much fiber.

There is also an obvious difference when eating fresh and raw. Much less is consumed before satisfaction. The food is enjoyed more and chewed more mindfully. There is a tendency to eat cooked foods by more of a shoveling style in various amounts. The heat makes one eat it before it gets colder, so one eats faster and greater quantities. The reason for the lesser intake is because the body knows that it is getting its nutritional needs, it isn't searching for more by eating more to get satisfied.

Meat taste fun, it lays me out satisfied in big quantities, but it isn't necessary and overuse generally isn't so good, without lots of exercise and plenty of veggie fiber.

We aren't hunter gatherers anymore. We have had a balanced domestic animal and farming success,  which is being destroyed
by a very greedy unscrupulous group of corporate pirates. We have the resources to feed a much greater population than the Earth has now using local smaller farm methods. Creating domestic meat is many times less efficient to the point of doing massive environmental harm and harm to other humans. These new factory farm methods also have ethical questions, like gruesome lifetime of torture, which isn't necessary and instead gives superior products. Meat, is just an overused bad habit making trouble in epic proportions.

The meat industry has placed this idea of a body needing massive protein on us. People actually don't need a diet that is mostly protein. Some people need more than others according to Aruvedic medicine, but nothing like we have been told. China Study showed the overwhelming evidence of that. Even so, there is more protein to be had in veggies, not even considering plant sources like beans and nuts.

Hmm, I suppose I disagree with you Duane.... ;) ;D

Less meat eating, more fantastic places to hike naked.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Peter S on July 08, 2017, 11:34:23 AM
Quote
...  in China they consider the ways in which each food is good for you, in the west it is why each food is bad that is considered.

I suspect that reflects the Chinese peasant farming tradition compared with our industrial food production system which grows what's easiest to grow and then wraps it in plastic before overcharging us for it ....

Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on July 08, 2017, 04:56:10 PM
theres no argument that the peasant farmer growing vegetables  and possibly keeping chickens and pigs is the most efficient use of land area there are places where the topography or lack of water wont allow that intensive cultivation,  ideal country for free range animals , cattle. sheep, goats or whatever.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Bob Knows on July 08, 2017, 06:23:16 PM
I remember that at one time mother’s milk was bad, bacon was bad, coffee was bad, et.al. infinitum. Over time they figure out that there is no singular culprit or champion when it comes to metabolism, nutrition, DNA and breeding. There seems to be a benefit, in different measures, no matter the food being discussed.
Duane


I recently saw a news article saying that 50 years of "medical" teaching everyone about cholesterol, saturated fats, etc, was totally bogus.  All my life I've been reading about "healthy" diets and foods, and in 20 years its something else.  99% of it turns out to be marketing bullshit for over priced or "yuppie" foods and quack medical "treatment."

Most of it does more harm than good. 

The primary benefit is to separate people from their money.  As P.T.Barnum said, "A fool and his money are easily separated." 

Bob
 

Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 08, 2017, 10:00:56 PM
Yep!
Too much research too narrowly focused on a singular agenda.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Peter S on July 09, 2017, 12:29:54 AM
Is it an urban legend, or wasn't there a 'scientific' report which once claimed coffeecaused lung cancer - til someone realised that a cup of coffee was always accompanied by a cigarette? If it's not true it should be ...
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 10, 2017, 02:11:32 AM
I don’t believe that there is a thing called a “cancer virus”. Cancer happens as a reaction to something. Your body begins to fight back, something gets triggered and then tumors form. It seems everything has been labeled as a carcinogen at some point in an attempt to find a root cause.

Between genetics, environment, virus and microbial influences, there are too many factors at play.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on July 11, 2017, 05:14:25 PM
I'd say genetics plays the biggest part when it comes to cancers. Some people just seem to be predisposed to it. However, this area in which I live has a high incidence per capita of both cancer and autoimmune diseases. So there is an environmental factor I would assume, as much as the water here has been poisoned. Some of the auto immune factors are linked to lack of sunshine! 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: ric on July 11, 2017, 08:58:52 PM
over here theres concern about nucleur power stations... were some 20 miles from hinkley point where the 3rd reactor is under way.
theres also talk about electric fields from power lines
less well publisised , and more recent is concern about the long term effects of the increasing proliferation of wifi and mobile phone signals.

then we get to chemicals in foodstuffs...from pesticides through to preservatives and flavourings.


were lucky to live in a rural setting ... the only wifi we pick up is our own... a house in the village you can pick up half a dozen , our wifi gets turned off if we dont want to use it .... the wifes desktop and this laptop are hard wired , so wifi is only needed when the kids are here .
we are one of the rare houses without a microwave oven.

having  2 parents whove had dementia its not only cancer risk were trying to minimise.  were not fanatical but if theres a risk factor we can minimise without hardship we will minimise it.   

for example getting a good nights sleep... with wifi off and blackout curtains, mobile phones banished from the bedroom etc  is easy to do with no drawbacks..... since weve been doing it i dream more... which is an indication that im sleeping better and the body is definatly getting into the sleep repair cycle its supposed to

kids think were daft

eldest is having a house built ... into computers and wireless gizmos ..for example all the tvs are fed wirelessly from the one satelite receiver, computer wifi repeaters on all 3 floors on 24/7. ive banned the wife from taking her field strength meters round.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 12, 2017, 02:35:47 AM
Most of us recognize that clothing is an obsession, an over indulgence and that there are some suspect toxins involved. We recognize that it is natural to go without clothing, unless necessary, or some costuming. We mostly recognize that Vitamin D is manufactured in the body and the body needs certain substances, like the good cholesterol and a good amount of sunshine all over. That too much sunshine at once creates burn which can be a health risk and our bodies tell us that something is wrong with this. Nude and natural wards off unhealthy influence and there is a natural sense that, “Hey, this is good for me, I like this. 

I attempt to look for natural behaviors, histories of these behaviors, science and logic in my relationship to my body and nudity. I also apply this naturism to other aspects, like body movement, squatting, yogas, relaxation, etc. I have found that these are factors related to longer and healthier quality of life. It hasn’t been much of a step to apply the same kinds of exploration, sociology, psychology, experimentation and thinking to my diet. I had no leader, or authority to fallow with nudity, I have taken this role on myself. Ultimately, I have to be the authority. I take the diet and exercise portion that way as well. My spiritual values and outlook are eclectic, just as the rest.

Over and over, taking a more natural tact is giving me the wisdom of humanity before all of this new “scientific” evidence, but I keep my mind open to anything, judge, weigh, ponder, explore.

So, like clothing, I am moderate, I take the natural route, I continue to explore, and I continue to get better and better results.

Like a witch doctor, I may even incorporate the power of belief. I believe that I am taking all of the steps that have kept many peoples healthy and extended their lives during the centuries. These diseases are mostly new, the epidemic proportions are a new feature to this. When you take away the causes and do prevention, nearly all of these diseases like cancers, heart diseases and diabetes disappear. This has been shown in studies on massive scales. Less driven, more spiritual, fresh and naturally produced veggies with maybe a little meat, what the heck. These factors, including genes were how my ancestors and relatives lived to nearly 100. Tried and proven and well documented, are the studies of other peoples. None of the rest of these new foods, lifestyles, the electrical, polyestered, newfangled have a track record. There is evidence, lots of it, showing and where from hazards, possible hazards, out and out dangers, much of which is being heavy handedly squelched by profiting industry.

The approach keeps bringing me benefit, just like my approach to the nudity thing.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Karla on July 12, 2017, 08:46:10 AM
I developed a neurological condition in March. One day I was perfectly fine, two weeks later I had very little sensation from the neck down, could not sign my name, use a knife and fork and lost my sense of balance. I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

It's all largely come back now and last week was the first time I managed to get back to the highlands of Scotland. I even started driving again. But I have been doing a lot of reading up. No one knows the exact cause of MS but there are a lot of exacerbating factors, such as stress, whether you have had EBV, saturated fats etc, and a lack of Vitamin D. I was planning on starting a thread on it but I will post here now there is one. The incidence of MS increases in more affluent countries, but also the further away from the equator you are. Scotland and Canada are real hot spots for MS because they both have unhealthy diets and a lack of sunshine.

It puzzled me that people in sunny countries still got MS but most people cover up and use too much sun cream. I certainly used to out of a fear of skin cancer. And being someone who sits behind a computer all day I get very little sunshine anyway. One thing I learnt though is you if you only expose your face or arms say, you won't get more Vitamin D just by staying outdoors for longer. You will get more Vitamin D by exposing more skin even if you stay out side for just say half an hour. I now walk to and from work, about 3 miles each way, and was sunbathing in my living room for an hour if the sun comes round on a weekend (I live on the top floor and open the window). I no longer need sun cream because I have developed a tan.

Multi-vitamins supplements can also be unhealthy but the medical literature has shown that super doses of Vitamin D is safe so I take 4000 IU a day. Vitamin B is also safe in large doses too. I don't take any other multi-vitamin supplements though.

As for cancer, I suggest reading The China Study. It's not just a matter of being exposed to carcinogens but also your diet. Too much protein such as the typical affluent or western diet compared to whole-food plant- based diets in developing countries means that your exposure to carcinogens is more likely to cause cancer.

I developed MS much later than normal and I think it was my generally healthy diet and naturism that was mainly protecting me. It was life stopping me from getting out into the wild for 2 years and immense amounts of stress that finally triggered the attack which made me realise that I had it.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on July 12, 2017, 04:30:53 PM
I can relate only because I have quite a few friends who had the same symptoms and got the same diagnosis. Until the things started hitting closer to home and began going to a University Hospital did we realize that our area has more overcast days than Seattle WA which is known for rainy days! With some of my own symptoms I was also instructed to take D vitamins and a B complex, along with sun exposure. But back to my point, all five of my friends that have been diagnosed all have one thing in common. They all worked in an office, very little if any sunlight and all are very light complected. Nor were they the outdoors type as they spent their time off watching TV and sitting at home.

It seems that you are on the right track, read and study for sure. I wish you all the best!
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 12, 2017, 11:22:32 PM
This reminded me of my friend in Houston that is in recovery from Guillain-Barré syndrome. It pains me to see my friend is such straits. But she is a RN and does not back down. Never has.

Some of the symptoms are similar to MS. Both of these are auto-immune conditions. Neither one is well understood by the medical community. I was reading them on the sites for The Mayo Clinic and WebMD. They both say that they seem to be triggered by a viral or bacterial infection.

This seems to track what this discussion is about. The environment you live in affects you more than you are aware.

I hope all goes well. As nudewalker alludes to, knowledge is power. Sometimes you have to attack on multiple fronts.

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on July 13, 2017, 06:04:54 PM
And on that note I'm due to visit the vampires again! With the change in diet, exercise and fluid intake maybe the kidneys are functioning better? I don't seem to be as winded as I climb those hills but still carry a mid section bulge despite losing weight. In the meantime I continue to try and move forward.

The good thing about the internet is the availability of resources, the downside is that the opinions expressed are not always those of qualified people. The wife and I, both being of a medical back round, have a knowledge of anatomy and physiology to kind of figure out what may work and what sounds like snake oil. We have been through this before, by all measures she should have died three times by now, but between us and the knowledge we can gather she's still here. Although a bit worse for wear. 
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 13, 2017, 08:07:59 PM
Karla: Walking, focusing on health, prevention, good food, you testify that you are better. You are creating priorities, and giving time time. The walking helps the stress, too. People aren't designed to continue modern life for years and years and it catches up. It is good survival skill to have fight, work ethic accomplishment, goals, some value in oneself, but it has now been harnessed into an unhealthy lifestyle for the ends of productivity and consumerism. I'll stay away from the political and economic factors that have created this into a norm. I'm sure that this scare will keep you conscious of your need to focus one health.

My ol' girlfriend with an obsessive personality insisted that I read China Study, what now seems many years ago. The evidence overwhelmed me. I was overweight, having back problems and couldn't get up a good grade without resting a few times. I was on my way to illness. The doctor told me my cholesterol was way up and wanted to put me on pills. I was becoming  those that I see hobbling around, ready to complain that God has made them sick by the luck of the draw.

The China Study opened my eyes. I took up my girlfriend's directions and goofy diet plans and began to move about with her.  The China Study doesn't much mention the need for exercise. She insisted on all sorts of little things, like taking the stairs and parking far off in the seas of cars at the strip mall, just to have to walk farther. Now, I find these places as parking in the shade and a quiet place to put some clothes on. It is these small things that get a body to move. Convenience is overrated. Time management can be efficient, but not efficient health. The need for so much time management is a symptom of too much stress, and to little focus of the body that we are blessed with. It is like taking clothing off to realize what fun it is, how good it feels, to be in the moment and enjoying, living, ones existence. Modern pace isn't natural. Being slaved into efficiency to sell ones life to someone else is a loss of rightful personal boundary. These days, I'd rather do with less materially and "live" my life than embrace all of the bad habits that convention thrust on people.

So, I went veggie, but reserved one steak each week. Then, one each month. Then, I just forgot about the meat. I realized that it is a fun thing to do on occasion, but it gives a burden to my health unless I minimize or do without. The China Study further convinced me past the knowledge of personal improvement that I felt. It showed me what was down the road. Now, I had to find my own plant based diet. I'm still working on keeping health at a focus on diet and exercise. It takes time and unlearning.

The girlfriend popped up with McDougal's diet, which contained lots of potatoes. For a guy hypoglycemic, that created all sorts of issues. After years, I experimented with a live living diet and got better results. I still continue to hone my diet. We are eating all sorts of interesting and fabulous concoctions that regular Western diet, including restaurants can't compete with. We save lots of money, not eating meat dishes at restaurants. It is a cornucopia, but it comes with some extra effort and inconvenience.

The core and foundation was "The China Study" eat less protein (it is different for each individual) plant based, variety. It is just that simple. People who do, rarely contract the stuff that is killing us off early, and slowing the quality of life. So, I highly recommend reading it to anyone and let them make their own decisions after the reading.

The thing is that we are controlled and habituated into something very much unlike what has been successful for generations. Our lives are shaped by ethics that were created by economic hardship, dog eat dog capitalism, and at least in America, we have become for the most part a driven herd. The profit motive has created unhealthy eating habits. The food is designed to save time, to gobble, to be cheap on the run. The quality is horrible and inefficient. The results are obvious, just look around. The prevention is simple and effective. The healthcare ramifications are astronomical. The lies for profit are literally killing people...murder.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: Karla on July 14, 2017, 12:07:26 AM
jbeegoode, after reading The China Study I started reading Fats that heal, fats that kill by Udo Erasmus. I am still reading it but for me what the food industry does to oil and fat in order to maximise profit really is the smoking gun regarding MS in my eyes. I would definitely recommend reading this book as well. I've stopped using margarine, frying or eating anything containing an oil or fat that has been used to keep it stable at room temperature for a long time. The book describes the manufacturing processes involved and quite what effect it has on the oil and how utterly different it is compared to what about bodies are expecting.
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 14, 2017, 01:27:44 AM
Quote from: Jbee
These days, I'd rather do with less materially and "live" my life than embrace all of the bad habits that convention thrust on people.
I agree 100%. I began to see all the accumulation of stuff as a type of rat race long ago. I still like to buy books and music, but we only look for things that improve life overall. I probably value different things as you, but that’s just variation.

Quote from: Karla
I've stopped using margarine, frying or eating anything containing an oil or fat that has been used to keep it stable at room temperature for a long time.
Any fat product that is solid is likely hydrogenated. The most common are margarine and shortening. Oils are hydrogenated in order to increase shelf life. Hydrogenated oils get converted into trans fats in the process, which are a no-no for health reasons. Your body has a hard time using them and they usually get stored away as body fat. This will domino into all sorts of other problems.

We have used vegetable oil, olive oil and butter, mostly for cooking, for years. I still eat meats but not as much as I used to. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have lost 10 lbs. just this spring. I feel better and sleep better also. I just have to start improving the amount of my regular exercise.

More naked hiking!!! :) :D ;D

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 14, 2017, 03:56:07 AM
Yea, my veggie consumption and meat intake make the things associated with squatty pottys efficiency as different as night and day.

There are lots of pieces of information out there to sift through. "The China Study" is one of the slid ones.

My went in on Netflix a couple of months ago with my son. There are "What the Health", "Food Choices" "Food, Inc." Sustainable" "Sugar Coated" "Cooked"" Forks Over Knives""Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret""Food Matters""Fed Up""Hungary for Change""Fat Sick and Nearly Dead" "Vegucated""Fat Sick and Nearly Dead 2"  ;D "Supersize Me" "Live and Let Live" available to watch. All have something fascinating to say, some of it is hyped up, there is a smoking gun and a lot of powerful liars lies being pushed for profit. Yes, you can now binge watch how sick the system is making people. Just grab a bucket of buttered popcorn and the remote control!
Jbee ;D
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 14, 2017, 05:52:58 PM
There is an article in the current "N" magazine that quotes and discusses the findings of a pair of studies that indicate that getting out in nature is dramatically good for stress, even a part of an essential human existence. Of course, something we obviously know all know from getting naked in nature. Science is catching up with the obvious, again...
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nudewalker on July 14, 2017, 08:20:34 PM
Science is catching up with the obvious, again...
Jbee

I don't think it's science catching up as much as it is debunking moralists or religious teaching. It seems that our local religious leaders have taken it upon themselves again to push for an agenda that questions scientific theories.  In other words they want to have creationism taught along with the big bang fore starters. So in that same light they would be preaching from their pulpits if either our local paper would publish an article or (heaven forbid) a local or national television broadcast would extol the wellness of being nude in nature. It's like we're going back to the dark ages again, at least in my corner of the world!
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 14, 2017, 09:19:03 PM
Appalachia has been noted for a strong cultural component of old time religious practices, which has had an influence on the area. Until your correspondence made it seem less so, I figured that was still the case. Then, I thought, maybe it is just in the more remote hills and my impressions were wrong. Your area is the place to go for things like pure untouched old European folk music studies and folk medicines. That culture, I now suspect has sustained itself and is now just being more assertive.

It may be a culture that accepts skinny-dipping to be practical, but not adults in mixed company. That same culture is stronger religious based, than science based. The old music has medieval roots, and so do other aspects of the culture. It is like people go to study pure Castiliano language in the Medellin region of Colombia, instead of in Europe.

Yea, there are things still around that are of the Dark Ages. There are whole countries around the world wrapped up in medieval, feudal, even a tribal world view. Why not here, too?

Most of my early family in America came to find religious freedom, but their religions were horribly intolerant of others. I have records of all seven brothers and sisters, only a generation here, being excommunicated and cast out for marrying outside of their religion.

Rules of "modesty" seem to vary in opinion.
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: reubenT on July 15, 2017, 06:59:08 AM
Look at religion and that's what we see,   all manner of corruption and violence,   plenty of intolerance and "I'm better than you" pride.     Look at Jesus and the Bible and I see pure love,  humility that generates peace,   innocence of nudity,   rules that make sense with the basic principal of "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you"      Too many people profess to believe in that book and live by it,  but don't bother to actually read it and live by it,  instead inventing their own rules to live by according to their selfish desires and faulty understanding.      If everyone would actually conform their lives to the teaching of that book it would be a wonderful world. 

   As for skin cancer,   it's a product of diet mostly,  the sun is only a side issue.     I've heard of people eliminating cancers of all sorts just by changing their diet to imitate the original diet gave to man.  100% plant derived and 100% unprocessed and uncooked.  As a short term thing blood root salve will kill abnormal cell growth,  apply it to the skin cancer,  melanoma,  mole,  wort, or whatever,  it dies, pulls loose and falls out, leaving a hole to heal over. 

The original perfect lifestyle presented in the Bible,  designed by our Creator for our perfect health and happiness,  was naturist in style and raw vegan in diet.  Nude gardeners getting plenty of sun exposure and eating all the wonderful bounties a tropical paradise garden could offer.   As the basic trend of the story goes they lost it due to failing the love and faith test,    The Creator invented a rescue plan, and put it in operation.  Demonstrating His love in the process as an example for us to follow.     And according to the time line laid out in prophecy 2500 years ago we are real close to the end of the process.    Yes,  every point of those old prophecies in the books of Daniel and revelation have been fulfilled right on time.  7 times in the books of Daniel and Revelation the time period is given that the roman pontiff would rule the world, 1260 years,  and it happened right to the very year.  538 AD when the power of the roman empire was handed to the bishop of the roman church,  to 1798 AD when the French general took the pope prisoner, effectively eliminating his power.    Most professed chrisitians have ignored it all,  the few who figured them out in detail get condemned because it's just not very popular to preach that  we're on the verge of dooms day and that the "mark of the beast"  actually involves the most common christian malpractice of all time which very few are willing to change.      But dooms day for this world just means the end of evil and restoration of naturist life in the tropical paradise for those who throw out all their false religions, their loud proclamations of holiness, impressive church ceremonies;  and just learn to love others like Jesus did.   So that's not a bad thing.   The pending end of all evil and reward of all good should be a welcome message.   

  So why don't all professed christians promote the naturist lifestyle?   since it was the original perfect life we had in the beginning,  and the perfect life we look forward to at the end.     There should be nothing but great benefit to instill all we can of it in the present life.            Forgetting to look to the good book for instruction they invent their own rules to live by.   They end up calling good evil and evil good.  Isaiah said   "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"    And yet religionists have been foremost in doing just that in many areas of life for thousands of years.    We need to discard all that religious nonsense, including anti naked foolishness,   and get down to the real naked simple truth that true pure religion consists of nothing but love,  everything done with love as the motivator.   The foundation of the law of God is love,   part of it as what we do to show love for our Creator,  and the rest being what we do in love to ourselves and those around us.    Everything done out of love is a joy to do.   If we really love each other we will naturally do it and consider the alternative as unthinkable.      "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Matt.24:12
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: John P on July 15, 2017, 03:44:59 PM
If I believe in anything, it is "healthy incredulity". If your religion, or your dietary preferences, suit you, then fine. But given that authorities on just about every topic disagree, then I'm going to be very reluctant to believe any of them entirely.

As Jonathan Swift said, "The best three doctors are Dr Diet, Dr Merryman and Dr Quiet".
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: John P on July 15, 2017, 03:57:22 PM
Most of my early family in America came to find religious freedom, but their religions were horribly intolerant of others. ...

Rules of "modesty" seem to vary in opinion.
Jbee

A while ago I visited Plimoth Plantation, a re-creation of the first English settlement in New England. There they have actors who play the parts of people known to have lived there in the 1620s, and if you talk to them they'll answer you in rural British accents. So it was a day in July, and I was in my usual public garb of shorts, teeshirt and sandals. There was a man digging with a spade, in breeches and and stockings, plus a shirt and jacket. I said to him, "That looks like hot work in weather like this!" And he replied, "Hot, yes of course it's hot. But I didn't leave half my clothes at home, like you did!"

https://www.plimoth.org/
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 15, 2017, 11:10:27 PM
Quote from: Jbee
. . . there is a smoking gun and a lot of powerful liars lies being pushed for profit.
This is true everywhere. The old maxim ‘caveat emptor’ certainly applies. It can be tiresome to constantly have to check the veracity of everything, but on the more important things it is always a good idea.

In the marketplace, trust no one.
Or as Reagan told Gorbachev, ‘doveryai, no proveryai, “trust, but verify.”
Good advice no matter the source. ;D

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 15, 2017, 11:13:09 PM
Quote from: nudewalker
I don't think it's science catching up as much as it is debunking moralists or religious teaching.
God gave us a brain and curiosity to explore, study and understand His creation. Why do people get so afraid when scientists start to describe it?

Is a puzzlement!

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 15, 2017, 11:20:09 PM
John, I have visited Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, where they do something similar. If you ask a question about anything that happened or was invented after that time period, they look at you and ask, “What’s that?” or claim no idea of what you are talking about.

Great fun!

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: John P on July 16, 2017, 05:53:58 AM
Yes, I can remember two other incidents during my visit to Plimoth Plantation. In one, there was a man building a house, and he was packing the wall cavity with something, maybe dried seaweed. A boy asked him, "Are you doing that for insulation?" and he responded, "I don't know that word. But it keeps the cold out, that's what it does."

And in one of the houses, there was a great big Bible, and the woman there asked a young girl, maybe 11 years old, if she could read from it. When the girl read a sentence or two, the woman smiled and said, "Oh, that's very clever. There aren't many of us that can read here, especially women. It's good to see a girl your age has managed to learn."
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 16, 2017, 09:25:44 PM
When we would do or SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) medieval recreation the events were in "grab". Everyone is encouraged to costume. When mundane current dress is encountered, those are considered "naked!" People stop and stare at them, as if they are surprised that they are nude. Men will stand and smirk looking at the "naked ones" as if getting a sexual thrill. People will rush to find some cloth to cover them up.

One evening, a couple were going home early and she had dressed for the road, wandering back into camp to say goodbye. "Sir, how can you allow your lady to comport herself in such a brazen fashion?" "My lady, have you no shame?!!!"
Jbee
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: nuduke on July 17, 2017, 11:47:18 PM

Karla,
So sorry to hear about your medical issues.  There's no justice, is there?  From what one could gather from the Naked Munros previously and FRN today, you and Stuart had/have a pretty healthy and fit lifestyle which, as you observe, may in fact have been protecting you but, it seems, perhaps only temporarily.  Maybe there were too many Scottish fried breakfasts to stoke up for the next munro in years past!?


I have read the voluminous output of this thread with interest.  Whether it be matters of faith or matters of the relative merit or harm of foodstuffs and diet habits, or personal responses to one's medical problems, unless we ourselves are expert across a vast field of learning, there is such a ridiculous profusion of "expert" voices, opinions, guidance, proscription and prescription, research, counter research, changing dietary and medical practice that it is impossible to find a path to truth and health for any individual (particularly when a proportion of 'experts' are out and out charlatans).  And if you do find a dietary or medical guru, often to follow their regime is complex, expensive and arduous.  I tend to side with 'moderation in all things' and relying heavily on one's own findings about diet changes and health practices.  Whilst Jbee's approach to managing his own health is bewilderingly wide ranging and eclectic, nevertheless I applaud the long term over which he has tested and found solutions that fit his need.  You can't do that without careful trial and objective comparison (where that is possible if you are the subject of your own research with a sample population of one!).


Not everything is addressed by 'virtuous practices' either.  My wife has IBS and finds great benefit in adjusting her diet towards many things you are not supposed to.  For instance eating lots of veg and fibre definitely exacerbates her condition and eating white bread, pasta, potatoes and white food in general has a very noticeable settling effect when, in theory it shouldn't.  Heaven knows what else it is adversely affecting but the most acute need is addressed.


On that line of thought in respect of your changing your consumption of fats, Karla, if it works that's great.  I guess it will be a long haul to prove that.  If you never had another MS attack would that prove cutting fats worked?  There's no way of telling.  But if you feel the benefit then that has to be fine for the individual.  Perhaps you can prove benefit by reverting to previous diet and witnessing the return of adverse symptoms.  But why would one want to court that negative possibility?  My view is to get on with what seems appropriate and keep doing what works over time.  I think that's been Jbee's way.


John
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 17, 2017, 11:47:41 PM
I stood in the joinery in Colonial Williamsburg and watched the joiner work his trade. Using mallets and extremely sharp chisels of many shapes, he was making mortise and tenon joints for the casework in a new building they were building. He consistently deflected all attempts to get him to acknowledge any sort of discussion of newer technologies.

I poked about there then went and inspected the framed walls and roof of the new building.
Not a bolt anywhere. Square nails, yes, no bolts.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: eyesup on July 18, 2017, 12:00:11 AM
I just came aware of the extreme topic drift here.
From medical to mechanical.

Ahh, well! Always interesting.

Duane
Title: Re: Medical evidence or (Who didn't know this?)
Post by: jbeegoode on July 18, 2017, 02:12:57 AM
There seems to be an epidemic of irritable, or bleeding bowel, gut imbalance, colon this and that, gluten intolerant, belly achin'. There also seems to be quite a bit of controversy as what is going on and how to deal with it. It seems to be more women than men being affected, going on for years, now, but I have no statistics. Everybody's wondering what's up down there.

DF is so fed up, discouraged and frustrated that she is now trying a Bolivian Andes witch doctor, Aruvedic, and Chinese herbal/acupuncture person's diet suggestions to see how it works out as she gets poked with needles. This stuff has to do with diet and balance, because that is what has been fixing the problems. The doctors are pill, symptom oriented, with woefully little nutritional knowledge and inclination. Most of it has something to do with the gut and its 17,000 bacterial components, ecologies and balances. Antibiotics, chemo and weird new foods and unnatural diets are getting blamed, and that often makes sense. There is something new afoot. Seems that something old would be the solution.

Then there are some people that do so much tinkering that it is obvious that they are just making themselves sick.

I'd best say no more, but this...everything is better if you are naturally naked. We know at least that for a fact.
Jus' sayin',
Jbee