Sunscreen Health Issues and Solutions

[jbeegoode]

Many of them ARE worthless. I get medical grade supplements through a doctor.

I mostly only use them for recovery. I never use  them for long periods. A body can addict to them. I'm concerned that if supplements are used a body may stop producing for itself. The excess is often weird on a body. Imbalance is a possibility, like B vitamins.

I can get what I need in natural sources, but it can be hard.

I do collagen supplement after getting obvious results and from other's good results, but every couple of weeks, I stop for a week, if I'm doing a smoothie every morning.

Then, my doctors are prescribing things like Vitamin D, iron and B-12. Their data has been often wrong and ignorant. Docs don't learn about nutrition.

If my food lacks nutrition, vitamins probably won't hurt.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

If those supplements aren't sold in health food stores, what do health food stores sell, then? I wasn't implying that the article mentioned health food stores. It's just that I happen to pass by one frequently. I've never been in that store but I imagine it has shelves full of bottles of pills. I still imagine that some people feel better taking supplements whether they do any good or not, provided they do no harm. The Post had an interesting article about salsa in the food section, too, with no suggestion as to whether it was good for you.

I think it's rare for Americans to be undernourished. Many may not eat well but no one's going to die from lack of nourishment. Yes, they may live longer if their diet is perfect, like yours is, but is it something for you to worry about? My wife is almost certain to outlive me by ten years, judging from our respective family histories and we eat at the same table. Mostly ignored in these discussions is that we eat when we're hungry and we eat what we like to eat and probably eat the same things we've been eating for decades. That said, there are always new foods being introduced into this country by immigrants. There have been Chinese restaurants in this country since around the time of the Civil War. Pizza came later.

[jbeegoode]

Bluetrain wrote: "I think it's rare for Americans to be undernourished. Many may not eat well but no one's going to die from lack of nourishment."
 Depends on where you put the bar on nutrition. There is lots of evidence that Americans are short on nutrition. The food is over cooked, over processed, days old and called fresh. The result is disease, lethargy, immobility, depression among many outcomes. This leads to diabetes, heart attacks and cancers, which are the major killers.

Not so many are having gestended bellies, but the optimum is not reached by probably most and the scale goes down from there. Americans eat overdone genetically weird wheat, sugar and weird fat as their major staple, instead of healthy real food.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Overcooked, over processed, and days old pretty much describes what I grew up eating. I've even read complaints that food isn't being cooked enough these days, although I don't recall what that resulted in. Crunchy green beans, I guess. But if we eat healthy, what will we die of then? Shall we merely die in good health?

I have no authority to put up the standards on nutrition no more than I do the height-weight standards, nor do I have any suggestions. But leaving that behind for the moment, I would imagine that these things vary by location. For example, one frequently hears about overweight Americans, even morbidly obese. But yet where I live, I simply do not see it. Perhaps I go to the wrong places; or more likely, I don't go to the wrong places. However, my daughter, now about 30, went to school in West Virginia and lives there now. I vividly recall her mentioning that there were more fat people there (no offence to West Virginia; I was born there). So I do not deny that some people might weight a little more than they should but it's not the same everywhere. Whose problem that is, I don't know.

[John P]

I claim to have a naturist attitude toward food, though I'm sure others (some of them right here!) would say they're doing the same, and yet they have a totally different practical conclusion. But I think the human body is excellent at handling different circumstances, and that means that we're true omnivores, able to eat a wide variety of foods and remain healthy. So within some pretty broad limits, I think you can eat what you choose, and you don't need to make a deep study of all the components your diet has to have to allow you to survive. An ordinary diet is all any of us need.

In particular, "Is There Really Any Benefit to Multivitamins?" (Pretty much no, there isn't.)
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/is-there-really-any-benefit-to-multivitamins

And I don't think we help ourselves by saying "Doctors don't know anything". They know a hell of a lot more than I do, I'm sure of that.

BlueTrain, I'm sure you've seen that on just about every state-by-state comparison of health issues, West Virginia comes out near the bottom every time. People there just don't seem to take care of themselves. What's the psychology behind that?
http://wvmetronews.com/2019/09/12/report-west-virginia-continues-to-lead-nation-in-adult-obesity-rate/

[jbeegoode]

It is more than just vitamins and minerals that a body needs. There are things like amino acids, stuff in the soil, bacteria. Roughage in plants, certain oils to lubricate. These things are part of eating healthy live living foods. Things that we evolved with and vitamins are just a part of. Multi-vitamins are just a supplement, they try to be a failsafe to enhance. Vitamins are no substitute. If your food and diet aren't enough, they can help, but like the article says, get your stuff from healthy sources.

I see kids growing up eating little in nutritious foods and lots of faked foods. Some are slow, some aren't. They are chubby and get little or limited exercise. I see others dramatically healthier eating better.

There is something to vitamins. I know that when I eat them, at first, I can actually have some extra energy, but it wears off after a while. A body needs to starve some, to fast, to readjust, to cleanse, to use up excess. That is a natural pattern with hunter gatherers.

Are we going to just get by, or optimize and avoid harmful, harmful short and long term? Are we merely out to survive, or survive longer term. I'm going to be around for a longer term than I expected. I'll make the best of it. It is about quality, less about quantity. Dying is one thing, but my concern is quality until that date.

Naturally nude is healthy, but also fun and adds richness to life. Eating and health, living in this body, is best done healthy, but it can be fun, needs to be fun and rich, too. I don't slack off and get a sunburn. I shouldn't over eat, or over indulge.
Jbee

 

[BlueTrain]

People live all over the world in all sorts of environments. Moreover, they (we) eat all kinds of food and mostly thrive on whatever we eat, provided we get enough of it, which is not a given. It may have been natural (or normal) for primitive hunter-gatherers to have lean times but it wasn't because that's what they wanted, nor does it follow that it's necessarily better for them. I'm beginning to believe we overthink this whole thing about food and nutrition. And sometimes, for some people, just getting by is something of a minor achievement.

[Safebare]

"it wasn't because that's what they wanted, nor does it follow that it's necessarily better for them."
I respect your perspective, Blue Train, but the presentation hits my nerves.  Opinions roll out of your fingertips as though you have some authority on the subject, when it is simply an opinion.  I can accept it as style, but it still causes me to pause.

"I'm beginning to believe we overthink this whole thing about food and nutrition." Now this is a statement I can totally get behind.

I believe our own metabolism has evolved over eons.  And evolved differently according to habitat and diet.  That evolution continues today.  Our bodies are adapting to the GMO, chemically altered, over processed, profit derived foods that currently crowd our supermarket shelves and corner drive through.  Well, maybe more so for some of us than others.  But the point is that whether you fast, take vitamins, eat entrails or mercury laden shell fish, your body is taking notice.  As a good friend frequently reminds me, "It all ends up as a turd".

I make a concerted effort to minimize my contributions to the municipal landfill, recycling approximately 80% of my discarded waste.  Organic material is composted.  Why is this important to a discussion on diet?  I try to adapt the same philosophy to what I eat. I do eat junk, but do it consciously and conscientiously. Mindfully.  My niece was the editor of 'The China Study', referenced by JB.  Her blood flows through me.  It makes me look closely at the 'food' i eat, and strive to do more.

These are my own perspectives.  I hold only that each must set their own.  My advice: Don't be led down the road paved by profit and commercialism.  That taco in the commercial cannot be found at the drive-through.

~Safebare

[BlueTrain]

You could always shop in supermarkets that operate at a loss, if profit bothers you.

[jbeegoode]

Bluetrain, I don't know if you are being sarcastic, humor, or what. I'm sure that Safebare meant that profiteering has this innate problem. It goes from reasonable to a corrupted unethical greed very fast and often, depending on who is at the helm and what they are driven by, just profit/bottom line or psychopathocally cold and dangerous compared to putting on the brakes and doing the right thing..

As for my understanding of the issue, more and more, everyday, over years and years, I have been seeing cold corporate pigs doing nasty for a buck as a more and more common behavior. CEO's have a mandate to make profit and they are hurting, even killing people for it.
Jbee

[jbeegoode]

Here are some stats (supposed facts) gleened out of that movie that I mentioned above.
A plant based diet actually gives more energy.
All the amino acids are available in plants.
Meat is a middleman.
Mr. meat for muscle Arnold Schwarzenegger went veggie at 69 and his cholesterol went down to the best of his life.
There is a 75% less risk from all causes of pre-natural death wiht a plant based diet.
Increase of 400 to 500% of colon and breast cancer , or diabetes2 from meat compared to veggie diet.
40% increase of prostrate cancer.
One white meat meal each week triples risk of colon cancer.

In olden evolutionary times meat didn't preserve, so plants were key to survival.
There are no meat adaptations for meat consumption. It is of course ignoring your ketosis and many good arguments. The teeth are for veggie eaters, because the fangs are used  for combat and intimidation, by apes and other relatives, not eating flesh. But still:
Carnivores all have shorter digestive tracks. We have the veggie longer track.
We can't produce our own vitamin C, and it doesn't come from meat.
We have tricarmatic vision (color). It is good for finding fresh ripe fruit. Carnivores have dichromatic vision.
The brain in crazy about glucose. Carbs make for a bigger brain.
B-12 comes from bacteria that animals get from traces in the soil and water, not meat. Pesticides, clorine and anti-biotics kill the bacteria. Farm animals get B-12 supplements, both veggie people and meat people are often low in B-12. This getting it from meat is a propaganda thing to sell meat (selling doubt).
Veggie and meat eaters both have testosterone, but animal foods have estrogen. Drinking cows milk within one hour will decrease testosterone by 20% and increase estrogen by 18%.
Cortisol drops with a veggie diet.
 
3/4 of all the land in the world is used by livestock. Using 83% of the land they produce only 13% of the calories.
Animals consume 6times more protein than they produce.
One hamburger uses 2400 liters of water to produce it. Animals are 27% of water consumption.
They produce 50 times more waste than people.
They produce 15%of all emissions, I have read other statistic claiming much more, like #3 in production of greenhouse gasses.

A single hamburger can increase inflammation by 70%.
Plants have 64% more antioxidants.
Switching to a plant diet for three weeks, reduces inflammation by 29%.

I haven't delved into these claims deeply, but there is enough here to show that something is happening and something is wrong and unsustainable. The stats are just too high, too extreme to ignore. The studies are good, but I'm not so sure how good. It ain't anecdotal, but it's...I digress. There is just so much info out there.

Any conventional doc will say that eating just meat is setting up for heart attacks, etc. But they are often wrong. This other stuff however, has some argument.

I cured my Vitamin D deficentcy with one raw egg in my smoothie each day and plenty of naked sunshine during peak hours. Eggs are everything that a chicken needs to grow and mature, like sprouts are filled with everything that plants need to get started. So, I eat some meat as egg. I eat some fish for omega 3's, oil and protein. I think that mostly live living veggies are best, natural and healthiest. Live living veggies taste best, I get satisfied quicker, I eat less and go further on them.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Bluetrain, I don't know if you are being sarcastic, humor, or what. I'm sure that Safebare meant that profiteering has this innate problem. It goes from reasonable to a corrupted unethical greed very fast and often, depending on who is at the helm and what they are driven by, just profit/bottom line or psychopathocally cold and dangerous compared to putting on the brakes and doing the right thing..

As for my understanding of the issue, more and more, everyday, over years and years, I have been seeing cold corporate pigs doing nasty for a buck as a more and more common behavior. CEO's have a mandate to make profit and they are hurting, even killing people for it.
Jbee

Of course I was being sarcastic and it was deserved. But you should know that human behavior has not changed one bit in recorded history. There are rarely benevolent corporate CEOs. Slavery was considered perfectly acceptable not that long ago and I imagine it still is. As for corporations, their only reason for existence is to make money for the owners. It doesn't necessarily work that way all the time but that's another story. It isn't to provide employment for people, either. I have no idea how much money corporations should make, although some have a clear idea: "reasonable."

It always irks me when people cry about profit making when farmers across the country barely scrape by. Not the huge corporate farms (that actually provide most of the food we eat) but all the small farmers that we think of as the salt (not the sodium) of the earth. Having worked for corporations for the last 50 years, I can assure you that it isn't all that easy to make money. It might help to have connections in D.C. but none I worked for did, even though one job I had was across the street from the treasury department. They still went out of business.

[jbeegoode]

BlueTrain wrote, "although some have a clear idea: "reasonable."
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

How much money anybody makes on a food product is really irrelevant to the issues brought up here so far, although what is costs the consumer certainly is. But what someone eats is really their own business, mostly, although I have read that those living in the big suburbs, people like us who have cars and are not hurting financially, sometimes have better places to do their grocery shopping and sometimes at lower prices than those living in the poorer sections of the big city. Doubtful if that is true for those living in the poorer suburbs, which also exist. There is also the matter of how "good" food is more expensive than "junk" food. However, my wife does the shopping. Then too, "junk food" is a loaded expression.

[Safebare]

I guess the sarcasm was deserved.  I really struggle with the real intent, but accept that you found offense and therefor feel justified in the retort.  It adds no value to the discussion, so I will ignore it.
To be honest, much of what you post, Blue Train, is very difficult for my small brain to follow.  An example:  "How much money anybody makes on a food product is really irrelevant to the issues brought up here so far, although what it costs the consumer certainly is."
Okay.  How can profit be irrelevant, but 'cost certainly is' (relevant)?  Isn't profit a 'relevant' part of cost?  My mind just can't decipher your meaning.
I truly believe that our differences make us stronger.  I do not intend to be critical, but I can understand that my perspective can come across that way.  Let's try to keep this on the 'high road' by avoiding senseless sarcasm and other pokes and prods.  That way we can support each other in our differences, not push each other apart, where we end up less than where we started.
~Safebare