Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[wenshu]

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

You are like the little weakling who constantly pokes the big kid in the chest daring him to "Hit me!" and then when the big kid finally gets tired of it and punches him back, he runs and cries to the teacher.

Project much?

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

Although, if tgy is in a good enough humor, he may just ream you a new one!

You mad?

[wenshu]

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

just to make matters more interesting, as if on cue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...%28The+Crux%29

Yeah, the recent Harvard study was bullshit.

[Scott R. Brown]

Originally Posted by wenshu

Project much?

Not at all! I just call 'em like I see 'em!

You mad?

Mad crazy? Or mad angry?

I don't get angry over insignificant little things on the BB! I deal with you the way I do because you are not worth the effort to apply myself but minimally!

You are a nit picker who is not very bright! I am merely lazy and you are not worth any more effort than the little I expend for my own entertainment.

You never address the argument, you nit pick little mistakes and errors and avoid the larger argument and you whine too much! But you provide a small distraction when I am otherwise bored and have nothing else to do.

[wenshu]

Post after post filled with personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you but we're the ones who need to lighten up.

Ok.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings

[rett]

My wife has jazz on the computer (with a fiddle)

and the popcorn my kid's making sounds syncopated

It's probably just projection but,

I feal like snappin my fingers like a turtlenecked beat.

[wenshu]

Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn

just to make matters more interesting, as if on cue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...%28The+Crux%29

This is a good article, right up until the point that he falls victim to the very kind of bad science journalism that he is railing against.

Now let’s get back to the idea of doing experiments—i.e., how we ultimately settle this difference of opinion. This is science. Do the experiments. We have at least two reasonable explanations for the tiny association between meat-eating and morbidity and mortality. One is that it’s the meat itself. The other is that it’s the behaviors that associate with meat-eating. So do an experiment to see which is right. Start with a cohort of subjects and assign them at random to eat either a diet rich in red meat and processed meat, or to a diet that’s not—a mostly vegetarian diet. By assigning subjects at random to one of these two interventions, we mostly get rid of the behavioral (and socio-economic, educational, etc.) factors that might associate with choosing of your own free will whether to be a vegetarian (or a mostly-vegetarian) or a meat-eater.

These experiments have effectively been done. They’re the trials that compare Atkins-like diets to other more conventional weight loss diets—AHA Step 1 diets, Mediterranean diets, Zone diets, Ornish diets, etc. These conventional weight loss diets tend to restrict meat consumption to different extents because they restrict fat and/or saturated fat consumption and meat has a lot of fat and saturated fat in it. Ornish’s diet is the extreme example. And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I discuss this in detail in chapter 18 of Why We Get Fat, ”The Nature of a Healthy Diet.” The Stanford A TO Z Study is a good example of these experiments. Over the course of the experiment—two years in this case—the subjects randomized to the Atkins-like meat- and bacon-heavy diet were healthier. That’s what we want to know.

He neglects to mention the sample of the Stanford A to Z study.

Design, Setting, and Participants Twelve-month randomized trial conducted in the United States from February
2003 to October 2005 among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic,
premenopausal women.

http://nutrition.stanford.edu/documents/AZ_abstract.pdf

Ranging from overweight to morbidly obese women.

Conclusions drawn from a randomized control study are orders of magnitude more precise than any observational Cohort study. Nevertheless you can't make conclusions about the effects such diets would have on a healthy population based on its effects on an obese one.

the subjects randomized to the Atkins-like meat- and bacon-heavy diet were healthier. That’s what we want to know.

I'll bet.

[Scott R. Brown]

Originally Posted by wenshu

This is a good article, right up until the point that he falls victim to the very kind of bad science journalism that he is railing against.



He neglects to mention the sample of the Stanford A to Z study.



Ranging from overweight to morbidly obese women.

Conclusions drawn from a randomized control study are orders of magnitude more precise than any observational Cohort study. Nevertheless you can't make conclusions about the effects such diets would have on a healthy population based on its effects on an obese one.


I'll bet.

He said the A to Z study was "A" Good study, not the only one!

You can draw universal conclusions from a study of obese people to non-obese people because obese people are known to have mutiple health risks caused by their obesity. When these health risk factors are reduced due to the weight loss and the risk factors are more reduced in one population than another and you have a control mechanism for every other variable you can conclude the diet was the major cause.

It is reasonable to conclude that, if at risk people benefit, healthy people would benefit as well. It isn't the one diet in question, it is the comparison bwween all the diets against each other from which the conclusion is drawn. Your conclusion would have more value if he was only using one diet study to draw his conclusion.

At any rate, even if his conclusion is incorrect, it would still demonstrate that science cannot be relied upon to inform people accurately how to eat healthily. It comes down to which flawed study a person accepts as their authority. And the studies they are more likely to accept are the ones which confirm their preconceived notions.


If you don't like personal attackes, set an example, and stop engaging in them yourself.

[wenshu]

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

It is reasonable to conclude that, if at risk people benefit, healthy people would benefit as well.

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

You can draw universal conclusions from a study of obese people to non-obese people because obese people are known to have mutiple health risks caused by their obesity.

This is the very sort of argumentation that you have been objecting to for pages. You're only saying this because his opinion aligns with your own beliefs. If it were reversed you would attack it with all sorts of anti-science bombast.

Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown

Your conclusion would have more value if he was only using one diet study to draw his conclusion.

The only conclusion I drew from the reference to the A to Z study is if you are going to bemoan crappy science writing don't fall victim to the very questionable practices that you decry.

Not only does the Standford A to Z study confine itself to an already unhealthy population but it doesn't actually outline what they ate. The nutritional intake parameters for the Atkins group is high protein, high fat, low carbohydrates, it never says what kind of protein. We can presume that they ate red meat as that is what Atkins is known for in popular culture but how much and how often? For all we know it could have been nothing but eggs, dairy, fish and poultry. The only thing you can reasonably conclude from it is that high protein, high fat, low carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss and demonstrate a reduction in already high metabolic risk factors. What you cannot reasonably conclude from it (by the strictures under which the author holds interpretation of the Harvard study) is anything about red meat consumption. Which is exactly what the author does. He might as well be drawing conclusions from a questionnaire based observational cohort study.

Who said I don't like personal attacks? I can give as good as I get. I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to insult anyone who disagrees with you and then turn around and tell them they are apoplectic and need to calm down. Almost as ridiculous as the person who accuses others of being prone to appealing to authority when not one page before they actually had deferred to another.

[wenshu]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10386509

Here is a good example of a randomized control study that would be better suited to drawing conclusions about red meat consumption and metabolic risk factors.

[Happy Tiger]

There once was a fighter from shaolin
Who, when disagreed with commenced howlin.
"You know where it’s at
‘Til your hit with a bat
Then to me, you’ll see
You’ll come crawlin.."

[sanjuro_ronin]

Originally Posted by GeneChing

I don't think I'm that much healthier due to my diet, but I do have better bowel movements. I enjoy a good bowel movement. That's probably why I spend so much time here on the forum.

best post of the thread !

[GeneChing]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

best post of the thread !

Thanks s_r. I credit this clever post my vegetarian (well, pescatarian to be honest) diet for the clarity both mentally and colonically.

[GeneChing]

Dr. James Costello and Dr. Stephen Costello
Cool Food
Posted: 05/15/2012 2:50 pm

"Hahhh!" We were literally and figuratively blown away. In the middle of a qigong demonstration, Master Wu pushed his palms out with a loud shout. The energy that radiated from his palms was so forceful that even at a distance of ten feet, we barely managed to stop ourselves from rearing back.

It is the year 2009 and we are in Hai Nan Island in South China. Hai Nan is a former penal colony mid-way between China and Vietnam that boasts of shimmering white sandy beaches and a deep blue sea. In the last 30 years, it has been transformed by the firm hands of China's economic revolution into a Hawaii-esque playground brimming with six-star resorts for the rich and famous. It has also been the chosen venue for the yearly Miss Universe pageant.

It is doubtful whether Master Wu pays much attention to Miss Universe. He is a Shao Lin Kung Fu master of the highest order and spends most of his days honing his prized Kung Fu skills, from smashing bricks with his bare fist to doing a hundred push ups on three fingers. His boyish, unassuming good looks belie his seriousness towards his art.

We flew from Hong Kong to Hai Nan to meet Master Wu. He started by giving a two-hour recital of the Heart Sutra in his beautiful voice, and proceeded to give us a demonstration of various qigong moves. We waited patiently for him to finish, then at the end of the session we approached to ask the one question that we have been waiting for. "What is the most ideal food for a human?" He fell silent and looked pensive. Then, his face brightened, his eyes sparkled, and with a slow smile, he said: "A steamed vegetable dumpling, made by your mother."

This was unexpected. At the time, we were strict raw vegans, and saw and judged everything with a raw vegan mindset. We were waiting for him to give us the answers that we wanted to hear. Would he say raw sprouts? Green juices? Chlorella? Tou Fu?

Embedded within this simple statement is a high wisdom of health and happiness. Master Wu went on to expound that the essence of Traditional Chinese Medicine is the balance of the elements -- wood, wind, fire, metal, and water, plus a sixth element -- love, whose beneficial vibration is transmitted through water, the most impressionable of all the elements, to the food.

This simple and important truth spawned a new realization of a lifestyle diet that included raw, as well as lightly steamed and boiled food that is heated to below 100 degrees celsius (212°F). 100°C is the upper limit beyond which water dissociates into steam; the upper temperature limit that still enables the quantum information in the food to be retained and transmitted to the body.

For those of you who would like to look better, feel better and last a long time, we have an easy new way to do it. Just try this for one day: eat/drink what you like, but take nothing past boiling point. Make your best effort to eat organic and add no condiments/sauces that include processed foods, which are usually heated to very high temperatures in production at the factory. Use Himalayan salt or raw sea salt instead.

This 100°C Vegan lifestyle breaks the unrealistic bonds of all-raw, while maintaining the parameters of perfect health and life-long sustainability.

"It changed my life. It did. Because I was definitely on my way out." -- Bill Edward, V.P. SJLuxury, HK, Ltd.

I would follow up this article with one that asks the obscure Master Wu "What is the most ideal food for Miss Universe?"

[ShaolinDiva]

Originally Posted by GeneChing

I would follow up this article with one that asks the obscure Master Wu "What is the most ideal food for Miss Universe?"

Well,, let me answer that question since I use to be Miss Universe

A warm bowl of white rice porridge made with hotdogs, hamburger meat and spam! umm... and of course with love .... wait, I am missing one of the elements of the zhang fu organs... let me see, which color I am missing... BLACK= for kidney = darn it, i forgot the black chicken, black sesame seeds, or black whatever.... TCM nutrition is so backwards sometimes ...

But cold and raw food isn't great for you and causes damp in your body which in turn will stagnate some of your qi eventually.... :-)

Back to my chinese diet of noodles and veggies... and soup! BRING ON the dumplings!

[GeneChing]

Originally Posted by ShaolinDiva

A warm bowl of white rice porridge made with hotdogs, hamburger meat and spam! umm... and of course with love ....

Shaolin sausage. Everyone loved Shaolin sausage....until the Abbot banned it.