Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

conspiracy to keep people fat and unhealthy?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
also, to get your daily selenium intake, eating one brazil nut shud do it.

(better no doubt than taking a selenium supplement - which you shouldnt have too much of anyway; but a brazil nut a day or regularly will be good for you).




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
A good topic - thanks OP!

There are many factors, and certainly I believe that there is a conspiracy element here, but only in the fact that fast food chains deliberatelt try to "hook" people into addiction by the use of sugars and simple carbs.

Alongside this is the lifestyle choice, as well as the lazy factor.

Put another way, I can make a healthy, balanced meal in the time it takes to get in a car and go to the nearest drivethru.

Media is also to blame - we are constantly bombarded with ads telling us how tasty this "food" is, and the problem is, some people believe it.

Education is the key.

We could kill two birds with one stone, and get rid of these leech-like corporariotns, use less resources and become healthier, just by the process of education.

Now if only we could get people to listen, instead of staring at the idiot box....


thanks
... i try...



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


Oh, I'm interested. This is a discussion forum. We're supposed to discuss. If you don't want people commenting on your posts, start a blog and turn off the comments.

You make these assertions yet you provide no source. I'm saying that for every study you claim to have read that proves meat to be the devil, I'll provide you with actual studies that show the exact opposite.


also, obviously dont drink coke, soft drink, anything with aspartame in it like equal; caffeine (coffee) - green /herbal tea is ok.
make sure get enough protein by beans/chickpeas/lentils/corn etc.


Coffee? I believe the verdict is not out yet on the effects of coffee although there have been multiple studies demonstrating coffee's health benefits. Coffee berry is one of the best sources for antioxidants.


people need to be getting all minerals too; often iodine deficient (seaweed); magnesium deficient (green vegies); selenium deficient (nuts - brazil nuts); calcium - figs/bread; vit d - sunlight - 15 mins a day; enzymes - q 10 - flaxseed oil etc etc. essential sugars/proteins. chinese herbs are a good way of getting your minerals u may be lacking and fixing any health probs too. mushrooms often found in the herbal combos can cure lots of th ings.


While I agree with 90% of that quote, I can't agree with the bold. There is no such thing as an essential sugar/carbohydrate; however, protein and fat are completely different stories.


there's plenty of evidence to back up my assertions about meat. I started this thread to inform people about the existance of the book : the china study incase they want to read it and inform themselves.


There's no evidence in this thread that back up your assertions. Period. So you started this thread as a book recommendation but you conveniently titled your thread, Conspiracy to keep people fat and unhealthy?, which is it? I think it's funny that you started the thread making claims, after which you decided to plug the book. This thread is nothing more than opinion presented as fact.


You coming on here and arrogantly accusing me of false assertions without even reading the material i pointed out to you seems a little dumb. Why dont you go on another thread? this ones for people who want to read the books im talking about and discuss it.


Dumb? I think providing no evidence is dumb. I think ignoring the facts is dumb. I think posting a thread in a discussion forum and then telling those who disagree with you to leave your thread is dumb. I've read your material and I've read The China Study and I believe that it's a bogus study and that many studies conducted after it were evidence of this accusation.

I'm sure you didn't read my material, did you? Do you know why there are so many conflicting studies released almost daily? It's because most of these studies are epidemiological and aren't meant to determine causation.

-Dev


sigh. i dont think you're saying you've read the book 'the china study' by dr campbell are you? thats my source. i cant really summarize it better than i have, its quite complicated. you would have to read it. that's the basis for my assertions.

i started this thread to hopefully get people interested in the book so they might at least read it and judge for themselves. ive already made my decision based on what ive read. i wanted to give people the opportunity to know about and read what i consider to be a very interesting book.

a lot of people are coming on with preconceived opinions that meat is good or okay for you and dairy too, and showing their sources, to turn this into some sort of an argument about who's right and who's wrong. im not really interested in that - in arguing with you or the other poster who posted a similar comment to yours, about whether you are right or whether i am right or wrong.

all i wanted to do with this thread was put the information out there for people who want to know. I dont really mind what you or the other poster believe; but i do wish that you and the other poster would have read the book im referring to first before going on a thread about this book, and saying its all wrong because you've read other studies that say the opposite. if you haven't read the book im talking about, how do you know what you think about it? How do you know if you'd believe what it says or not? (arent you kind of pre-judging it on the basis of other conflicting studies youve read?)

and if you're not interested in reading it, then thats fine too - but you cant really say ive got no evidence to back the assertions im making if you havent read my evidence and arent interested in doing so.

(i cant really tell from your post if you've read the same book/china study that ive read. if you have read it - well, whatever; you're entitled to your opinion. i dont agree with you, but whatever.)

But this 'meat is the devil' stuff is just sensationalizing my opinion. i never said that. and 'claim to have read' - are you trying to discredit me on the basis that you're hinting i haven't read something? i find that strange. of course ive read the book, or i wouldnt be on here.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by rapunzel222]

[edit on 17-5-2009 by rapunzel222]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
and yes, of course i am aware there are conflicting studies, there are conflicting studies on just about everything. i found the china study very persuasive. first off i found his lab tests with rats, where he photographed the cancer cells, then after the rats were taken off casein he photographed them again, and theyd shrunk to almost nothing - pretty interesting; and then i also found his population study correlations, pretty interesting too. However if people arent convinced thats their business; thats cool. But i just want people to have the opportunity to read it and decide for themselves..



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


If your intentions were to direct people to read a book, maybe you should have posted it in the BTS Health & Wellness Forum.

Instead, you posted here. A forum that is intended for the discussion of topics with a focus on Medical Conspiracies. The title of your thread is in the form of a question. I answered the question and provided facts to support my position; a position that doesn't sit well with you.

I've read the book in question and I have to say, it's full of misinformation and flat out lies.

For Instance:


“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”


— T. Colin Campbell, PhD, author of The China Study.

This assumption is absolutely false. It's hard for any logical individual to consider this book a credible source when it's author continually preaches ignorance. And, isn't our duty as ATS members to Deny Ignorance???

So, here I am, Denying Ignorance.

-Dev



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Getting back to the China Study, Campbell discovered that Casein protein was promoting cancer in mice once it was initiated, which is usually by a virus or carcinogen. The problem is, he completely jumps the gun by submitting that all animal proteins cause cancer, yet he never conducts any study that supports this claim.

Also, what about different types of processing? Different techniques would affect the structure of casein and therefore it's physiological effects. The study never differentiates.

Another problem, isolating casein is great and all, but what about the fat that usually accompanies the protein in nature? Are we sure that casein would have the same effect on tumors if it were ingested in it's natural form; full of nutrients?


"Folic acid is a compound derived exclusively from plant-based foods such as green and leafy vegetables."


- Dr. Campbell, The China Study

You see, comments like this, which are blatant lies, are the reason why this guy has major and obvious bias. He devotes numerous pages to demonstrate the autoimmune diseases that are caused by milk, yet he never once mentions the autoimmune diseases associated with wheat consumption. He's twisted the results of the Epidemiological study to seem like cancer is directly associated with animal consumption.


Deny Ignorance,

-Dev



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Very interesting however i have one problem with what you say, when we talk of calories in and calories out we aren't talking biology, we're talking physics. If the energy in is less than the energy out the human body will use it's reserves. This is a simple fact, whilst leptin resistance may be a key, it does come down to will power for the majority of people. Obviously people on drugs like steroids will have a great deal of trouble. In the end this can easily be proven by taking an obese person, monitoring them 24/7 and watching their weight plummet. This has been down many times, even tv shows about obese people have covered it.


Dr. John Berardi would disagree with your assertions on energy balance and he has case studies to support his disagreeance.

www.johnberardi.com...


*Case Study #1:
National Level Cross Country Skier; Female - 20y

Client Information from September 2002:
5’6" ; 160lb ; 22% fat
(125lb lean, 35lbs fat)

Exercise Expenditure:
~1200kcal/day

Energy Intake:
~2500kcal/day
15% protein
65% carbohydrate
20% fat

Client Information from December 2002:
5’6" ; 135lb ; 9% fat
(123lb lean, 12lbs fat)

Exercise Expenditure:
~1200kcal/day

Energy Intake:
~4000kcal/day
35% protein
40% carbohydrate
25% fat

Net result — 12 weeks:
25lbs lost; -23lb fat; -2lbs lean

*Note that in case study #1, we increased energy intake by a whopping 1500 per day while energy expenditure remained the same. Since the athlete was weight stable in September—prior to hiring me—you might have expected her to have gained weight during our 12 week program. However, as you can see, she lost 25lbs (while preserving most of her muscle mass). Since the energy balance model above, as it appears, can’t explain this very interesting result, that’s one strike.


Good stuff. I think you might like Berardi.


What interests me now is the idea that a high carbohydrate diet, recommended by western medicine may be harmful! Or maybe it's only the simple carbohydrates that are causing this problem and complex ones are still ok.


Simple vs complex is a very outdated way to distinguish carbohydrates. What we focus on now is how quickly and how high blood sugar is spiked. A high carbohydrate diet is indeed harmful and is looking to be the cause of Heart Disease and many other conditions that are plaguing modern man.

In fact, modern man isn't the only one to become victim to this dietary lifestyle. If you think Heart Disease is caused by modern influences, think again. The ancient Egyptians were crippled by the disease as well as diabetes and cancer. Many of them were were overweight. And what did they eat? Carbohydrates, mostly. All thanks to agriculture.

This is why it's ridiculous, at least for me, to conclude that Meat intake is responsible for Heart Disease. The base for this assumption is supported by the Lipid Hypothesis, which, if you look at the literature and understand biochemistry, is bogus.


I still hold fast to the opinion that the majority of obese people can control their diet with will power and they are simply lazy and weak willed. If that offends people then sorry but that is the stark truth.


That's true. It comes down to what you mentioned earlier. People are using genetics as and thyroid problems as cop outs.


Again yes and no. The modern eating habits we have often do cause insulin resistance as we have an abundance of simple carbohydrates which we readily shove down our throats. Just look at people who drink 2 liters of fizzy, sugar filled drinks each day on top of their usual food intake! I have no doubt that this would cause insulin resistance and that is why we're seeing mroe of it.

However saying it is typically followed by insulin resistance i am not sure about. Maybe we need to separate type II diabetics into two further groups. Those who are insulin resistant, usually due to diet and those who are not insulin resistant and it appears to be genetic or at least have a genetic factor.


Genetics are involved, but the vast majority of Type 2 Diabetics are Insulin Resistant. Just eating a high carbohydrate diet normally leads to hyperinsulinemia and this is where insulin resistance starts.

In fact, it all starts with hyperinsulinemia. Heart Disease, Diabetes(Type2), Obesity and many other "diseases"(possibly even cancer) are symptoms of Hyperinsulinemia.

It's funny that The China Study chooses to ignore other facts that would dismantle it's so called evidence. For example, Pre-Westernized Eskimos that lived almost entirely on fat and protein. They had no incidence of heart disease or cancer.

www.cholesterol-and-health.com...


Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study Total Protein +12%
Animal Protein +3%
Fish Protein +7%
Plant Protein +12%
Total Lipids -6%

Carbohydrates +23%
Total Calories +16%
Fat % Calories -17%
Fiber +21%
Fat (questionnaire) -29%*
* statistically significant ** highly significant *** very highly significant
==============================
(Data taken from the original monograph of the China Study.)

But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent.

It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.


The actual data show the exact opposite of what Campbell suggests in his book.


-Dev



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


well, they guy was a pretty prominent scientist in the usa, and on the board of an important committee for informing the public about health and disease. saying he's a liar and a misinformer just doesnt sound right to me. no one ever had a problem with stuff he did til he wrote this book.

he only had the funds to do studies on casein. however he found CORRELATIONS with diet and disease in china, which he extrapolated from, and i think its okay to suggest from his research what he suggests. of course more studies need to be done (preferably by him since i dont trust the establishment scientists who seem to have a lot of funding/interests which create for them conflicts of interest in informing the public about this stuff, acc to his book) and i dont think he would dispute this, but he was muzzled after he did these studies. he thought what he found about casein and the correlations he found in china were striking enough to warn people of his results. i would agree with him. since his book could very well save peoples lives if the casein stuff is right, which i think it is.

do you really think drug companies would let it get out that cancer - perhpas some types of cancer - could be cured by eating vegetables and avoiding milk? do you know how much money they'd lose if they did?

so who's going to fund the studies to check his stuff out? no one.

you refer to other studies that disagree with his findings. well, i remain skeptical of any other studies, after the stuff he disclosed in his book about certain prominent scientists. i would rather trust him, than people who may be compromised.

also, intuitively, his findings seem to make sense; as far as i can see. do you know that since globalisation has occurred in india and peole have switched from vegetarian to a western diet (meat, dairy, junkfood), rates of heart disease and cancer are skyrocketing? its a fantastic growth industry for pharma companies (that was sarcasm..).

eating plants wont give u unhealthy types of cholesterol in your body. eating meat etc will...
whats wrong with saying there's folic acid in vegetables?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

well, they guy was a pretty prominent scientist in the usa, and on the board of an important committee for informing the public about health and disease. saying he's a liar and a misinformer just doesnt sound right to me. no one ever had a problem with stuff he did til he wrote this book.


Think about that last line. No one had a problem because his conviction wasn't under the public's eye, it wasn't peer reviewed. His problem is he doesn't have any true science to back his claims.

Yes, claiming proof to the public, suggesting they we should follow his findings while providing very little scientific evidence of the latter is ridiculous. It's grounds for being labeled a "Misinformer," or to a more scathing degree "Liar."



do you really think drug companies would let it get out that cancer - perhpas some types of cancer - could be cured by eating vegetables and avoiding milk? do you know how much money they'd lose if they did?

so who's going to fund the studies to check his stuff out? no one.

you refer to other studies that disagree with his findings. well, i remain skeptical of any other studies, after the stuff he disclosed in his book about certain prominent scientists. i would rather trust him, than people who may be compromised.


It's ok.
Maybe one day you'll understand the significance of "Deny Ignorance." Around here, we call what you're practicing religion, dogma even. You're relying on blind faith; operating on a notion that one man has all the answers and that no other evidence, not matter how conslusive or groundbreaking it may be, will sway your position.





also, intuitively, his findings seem to make sense; as far as i can see. do you know that since globalisation has occurred in india and peole have switched from vegetarian to a western diet (meat, dairy, junkfood), rates of heart disease and cancer are skyrocketing? its a fantastic growth industry for pharma companies (that was sarcasm..).


Well, you have to consider the fact that India is a dietarily diverse nation. By the way, Ghee is the standard fat used across India which is basically a glorified butter; that's dairy, my friend.


Diet appears to be related to the high rates of CHD, obesity, and diabetes, although a genetic component may exist in some cases. In recent decades, consumption of foodgrains also has shifted from coarse grains (e.g., barley, rye, maize, millet, and sorghum) to refined rice and wheat.
Jpgmonline.com

Could it be the "Developed" nation of India has conformed with America with it's newly found carbohydrate addiction? To you, and Dr. Campbell, this is not the case, even while the evidence, or lack thereof(in the case of Campbell's baseless findings), is staring directly at your face. (I made a ryhme)


eating plants wont give u unhealthy types of cholesterol in your body. eating meat etc will...


And again, not true. Saturated fat in meat will increase serum cholesterol levels but will not solely cause dangerous cholesterol profiles. If anything, as supported by numerous studies, saturated fat increases HDL, "good cholesterol" while improving overall cholesterol health.


whats wrong with saying there's folic acid in vegetables?


Nothing, until you add the word exclusive. He has claimed that folic acid is found exclusively in vegetables. This is not true, as I've pointed out.

-Dev



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

you refer to other studies that disagree with his findings.


And I have another.....


Data were from the Fukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study, covering 782 cases and 793 controls. Diet was assessed by interview, using newly developed personal-computer software for registering semiquantitative food frequencies. The intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA showed no clear association with the overall or subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer.
mdconsult.com< br />

Although this is a case-controlled epidemiological study, it just goes to show that recent studies demonstrate no correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer, contrary to Dr. Campbells biased opinions.

-Dev



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Just one problem with bernadi and his little study. It seems he claims people expend 1200 calories a day from exercise? I somehow don't think he's taking into account all energy expended. He also doesn't seem to have really taken into account basal metaboic rate, changes in that rate when people exercise etc etc.

So again, you can say what you like but you're going against a simple law of physics. So i guess we have to scrap pretty much all physics to fit in with that "study". Energy in and energy out, very simple law of physics and one which you cannot break.

He also doesn't take into account proportions of muscle to fat. Because it's possible these peopel are burning through muscle and so losing weight.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I have a deep interest in poisons and cases of food poisoning and I was looking up poisoned figs for research to do with another thread and Google threw up this thread during one of my searches!


I am bumping this thread so that I may return to it later on for research purposes to do with poisoned food.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

AGENT_T
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


Starred for the good information there.


Not 100% the governments fault though,people aren't stuffing down the garbage with a gun held to their head.

But you spend more on food,diets and medicines when you're a porker so what do you really think they want?


fat and unhealthy people make money for everyone.we should actually encourage people to be fat and unhealthy as this will make more profits and increase employment in the medical and fast food sectors.
And also increase profits for all concerned.

All fresh food and fruit should be taxed at least 10 times more or even banned and replaced with GMO foods laced with insecticide.

Money is what counts.If you have money people respect you.They will want tobe friends with you.

just look at all the poor bums and tramps.who cares about them.they are poor nobodies.

Money is what makes the world sunny.sunny..SUNNY.





new topics




 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join