deanwins Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Re: that paper... haha yea this is exactly what I told my wife the other day: that potentially going into ketogenic metabolism by fasting might starve/kill off some types of cancer. Correction to my post above: sugar and refined complex (long chain) carbs (glucose) too (like starch). So the paper says that caloric restriction is even more effective than ketogenic (fat & protein only) diet in fighting cancer huh?Of course cancer is caused both by genetic problems and diet/metabolism problems. The genetic problems might not get fixed our fixable in an economically feasible manner in our lifetimes... but we can try to eat better to push off the onset and severity of cancer now.The paper you linked to mentioned that maybe eating a diet really high in fat (and somewhat restricted in protein, and very in carbs) would work well too to fight cancer... similar in effectiveness to caloric restriction. I'd guess this is because I don't think eating fat really has much of an effect on the body's metabolism. Fat cell size doesn't really matter I don't think... as long as its healthy natural animal lipids, I don't think it matters how fat one is for long term health reasons. The paper says that eating protein still somehow maintained higher blood glucose levels... I wonder if that was due to muscle cells (I'm not sure what they were feeding the rodents) have about 1% glycogen (highly branched glucose polymer), which for some reason is ignored in nutritional data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Paleo diet, intermittent fasting... agreed. Seeds = bad. Refined sugar = bad. Hey by the way... sugar causes/feeds cancer, fructose causes CVD, and sugar causes diabetes. Sugar = primary cause of death in US. Pavel Tsatsouline: Thanks for the reference I'll have to look into that.Do you agree Dean [on never killing innocent people]? Is there an emergency situation where you would kill an innocent person? Only in strange concocted emergency situations where disasters cause a situation where the only way I could survive was to kill or be killed. Or maybe even kill or die. But not in every emergency situation of those kind. So... better not hope to get on a one man life boat with me... because I may very well chose to fight to the death. That is, unless you can clean & jerk really big kettlebells... I've been slacking in exercising lately, both cardio and strength. A one-man lifeboat? Never heard of such a thing. How many women too? Anyway, Dean can have my one-man lifeboat I'll make special for him. I'll stay aboard the yacht and sail away after throwing him a ten-pound bag of sugar and a case of carbonated soda sweetened with corn syrup. --Brant just joking, but I won't give him Jules' dog; Jules might take some umbrage with me ("Where's my dog, you worthless SOB? Prepare to die!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 http://www.viewbug.com/photo/10828941Don't mess with piggy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Re: that paper... haha yea this is exactly what I told my wife the other day: that potentially going into ketogenic metabolism by fasting might starve/kill off some types of cancer. Correction to my post above: sugar and refined complex (long chain) carbs (glucose) too (like starch). So the paper says that caloric restriction is even more effective than ketogenic (fat & protein only) diet in fighting cancer huh?Of course cancer is caused both by genetic problems and diet/metabolism problems. The genetic problems might not get fixed our fixable in an economically feasible manner in our lifetimes... but we can try to eat better to push off the onset and severity of cancer now.The paper you linked to mentioned that maybe eating a diet really high in fat (and somewhat restricted in protein, and very in carbs) would work well too to fight cancer... similar in effectiveness to caloric restriction. I'd guess this is because I don't think eating fat really has much of an effect on the body's metabolism. Fat cell size doesn't really matter I don't think... as long as its healthy natural animal lipids, I don't think it matters how fat one is for long term health reasons. The paper says that eating protein still somehow maintained higher blood glucose levels... I wonder if that was due to muscle cells (I'm not sure what they were feeding the rodents) have about 1% glycogen (highly branched glucose polymer), which for some reason is ignored in nutritional data?Dean,From Robb Wolf's site: http://robbwolf.com/2013/09/19/origin-cancer/I have been repeatedly stunned the last few years by learning how bad the advice we've been given in the last 50 years about our health. The low fat diet advice is based on bogus research and cooked data for one and has contributed to heart disease, obesity, diabetes and any number of auto immune diseases. But it is a cornucopia of cash cows for the pharmaceutical industry. I'm proud of the fact that I've always been skeptical of this advice. Like, how could eggs be bad for you? Turns out they're not. But they've done such a good job brainwashing people by making them afraid of eating anything other than the AMA recommended diet that I cannot get my wife to change her diet. She would prefer to eat cheerios than the meat and vegetables I prepare for myself. We prepare separate meals most of the time because she doesn't like what I fix. She is the one taking three different blood pressure medications and complains about how hard it is to keep her weight in check. The meals we have together that she prepares are my "cheat" meals. And who knew the metabolism of cancer cells is broken where they cannot utilize oxygen? The metabolism theory of cancer was theorized 90 years ago but evidently the genetic theory appeals to the "experts" and they get a lot of grant money for studying it. More special interests and government money. And you hear absolutely nothing about an alternate theory, until recently, though it's been around the longest. To say I am jaded about the medical industry is an understatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I was told yesterday that my 95yo uncle is likely going into hospice for he's non-responsive though breathing okay. He's unlikely to last two weeks. In early April he would be 96yo. I've got great longevity genes from both sides of my family. I could easily live to 95 albeit with a lot of creaking but a good mind most of the way. If everyone had what I have the profession of cardiology would hardly exist. Cancer much less a threat. There are ways to compensate for bad genes: avoid overly stressful, physical work over decades. Don't smoke. Eat right, avoiding processed foods. Don't be an adrenaline freak. Avoid recreational drugs. Take anti-inflamatories. Don't be completely sedentary. For me such is insurance, for others without my genes it's literally save your life or you'll never see 50, 60 or 70. --Brant coffee will likely be the end of me before it should be the end of me: lacking much will power, I had to choose between giving up coffee or cookies--I couldn't do both; except for running into some girl scouts yesterday, I've managed to give up cookies (I only buy one at a time twice a week) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Mike,My wife was very skeptical of my diet at first (I was learning the nuances of diet and biological effects while first dating her)... but she took the "30 day challenge" and hasn't gone back to Cheerios since. My father on the other hand is completely brainwashed into thinking grains are good and animal fat is bad. Plain oatmeal with soy milk for breakfast... grains are a large staple of his diet, I give him all sorts of reasons why such a diet is not healthy... but he for some reason would rather trust the medical industry and government than his own son, I have no idea why, he is religious about the topic I guess. Well one thing about my dad is that he is a vegetarian for philosophical reasons, something like more humans could live if humans ate grain instead of animals, that eating grains is more ecologically efficient than eating animals.On eggs, I'm a huge fan of the yolks, but I don't like the harmful proteins in the whites. Funny that popular opinion thinks the healthy part is actually in my opinion worthless harmful proteins (my waste) and their waste is in my opinion full of all sorts of nutrition with no bad things at all (cholesterol, essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, various other nutrients that are not as well studied). In fact, I think that a combination of pasture raised egg yolks, grass fed butter, lactose, and water would be an excellent alternative to commercial breast milk formula: 185g water, 1 egg yolk (17g), 15.5g lactose, 6.8g butter. You can get lactose at a home beer brew shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Well, IMHO, if you're concerned about egg whites you should be concerned about anything else instead. --Brant but that's just me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Brant,Technically... raw egg whites are pretty much full of proteins that are design to inhibit bacteria from surviving once consuming it. Cooking it to where the proteins "denature" results in change in structure of these proteins, which diffuses (like diffuse bomb) their life inhibiting ability. Given that you already eat enough protein, egg whites just put an unnecessary acid load on your body. Given you don't cook the white thoroughly, you harm your symbiotic gut bacteria. Why eat that tasteless rubbery egg white for protein when a cheap alternative like whey is available? Or something more delicious like medium-rare grass fed ground beef? Oh, you add salt, pepper and butter to make it more palatable? I can think of more enjoyable things to put salt, pepper, and butter on.Personally, my digestive system starts to feel like I've got non-digestable bloat lumps in it if I eat egg whites on a daily basis.Edit: Sorry for the argumentative connotation. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Thanks for the heads up Dean. I eat 3-4 whole eggs on a daily basis. I take a pro-biotic to deal with stomach upsets which I attributed to stress and the after effects of the ablation procedure I had for afib. I'll research the egg white issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Mike, I'd suggest just eating the egg yolks raw. Especially if its from pastured chickens (not that "natural" vegetable (grain) fed crap). People do it all the time with "over easy" eggs, I think people's concern for salmonella poisoning is a little over the top germophobic. But maybe if your immune system is already compromised (you feel sick etc) then I would recommend being more careful with cooking grain fed animal food sources to FDA recommended temperatures. You can use egg yolk as dressing. Pastured egg yolks actually taste good. Cooked (hardened denatured) egg yolk tastes nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Brant, Technically... raw egg whites are pretty much full of proteins that are design to inhibit bacteria from surviving once consuming it. Cooking it to where the proteins "denature" results in change in structure of these proteins, which diffuses (like diffuse bomb) their life inhibiting ability. Given that you already eat enough protein, egg whites just put an unnecessary acid load on your body. Given you don't cook the white thoroughly, you harm your symbiotic gut bacteria. Why eat that tasteless rubbery egg white for protein when a cheap alternative like whey is available? Or something more delicious like medium-rare grass fed ground beef? Oh, you add salt, pepper and butter to make it more palatable? I can think of more enjoyable things to put salt, pepper, and butter on. Personally, my digestive system starts to feel like I've got non-digestable bloat lumps in it if I eat egg whites on a daily basis. Edit: Sorry for the argumentative connotation. Cheers. Grump. --Brant grump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 Re: Attacking the unhelpful person: Could this be a lingering undercurrent of paternalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Anybody want to comment on this bitcoin story?"Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox disappears in blow to virtual currency."TOKYO (Reuters) - Mt. Gox, once the world's biggest bitcoin exchange, looked to have essentially disappeared on Tuesday, with its website down, its founder unaccounted for and a Tokyo office empty bar a handful of protesters saying they had lost money investing in the virtual currency.The digital marketplace operator, which began as a venue for trading cards, had surged to the top of the bitcoin world, but critics - from rival exchanges to burned investors - said Mt. Gox had long been lax over its security.It was not clear what has become of the exchange, which this month halted withdrawals indefinitely after detecting "unusual activity." A global bitcoin organization referred to the exchange's "exit," while angry investors questioned whether it was still solvent.http://news.yahoo.com/bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox-39-website-down-053727771--sector.htmlI do not believe this nightmare is going to go away...(Reuters) - A Japanese American man thought to be the reclusive multi-millionaire father of Bitcoin emerged from a modest Southern California home and denied involvement with the digital currency before leading reporters on a freeway car chase to the local headquarters of the Associated Press.Satoshi Nakamoto, a name known to legions of bitcoin traders, practitioners and boosters around the world, appeared to lose his anonymity on Thursday after Newsweek published a story that said he lived in Temple City, California, just east of Los Angeles.Newsweek included a photograph and a described a short interview, in which Nakamoto said he was no longer associated with Bitcoin and that it had been turned over to other people. The magazine concluded that the man was the same Nakamoto who founded Bitcoin.What the hell is going on?Suicides, car chases ...wouldn't it be hilarious if this was just a reality show...http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-bitcoin-inventor-idUSBREA252D820140307 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I imagine the head of the defunct exchange has retired to Bitcoin Island. --Brant and where's mine? (outta billion bucks!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I did not join the auction/game...just bought a ticket and this is the stuff movies are made of...suicidescar chasesO.J. oops - just thought I would throw him in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Since this thread is about Dean who is a moderator on Rebirth of Reason, I want to state that it wasn't my intention to go there and get Robert B. moderated, but when Robert told me my intention wasn't to help him and go back to my "master" (on OL, MSK), he directly violated Joe Rowlands stricture to cut it out about OL and MSK. He got moderated, and not, I think, because I sent over a retaliatory verbal bomb that he reacted to which in itself would have gotten him moderated if Joe had been willing to overlook the first instance.Robert hung himself. He couldn't help himself. I admit jumping on him just after the trapdoor opened but before his neck snapped. I despise R of R and Joe Rowlands and his paterfamilias and he's damaged his site once again instead of letting two posters talk it out. As for that "master" crap--look who was talking!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Is it immoral of me to laugh? Screw it. BWAHaaaHaAHahahahahahahHa haaaaa!I have a cartoon character etched indelibly on my mind forever now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 "I want to state that it wasn't my intention to go there and get Robert B. moderated..."I knew that was your intention when you showed up and I thought it was small minded and petty of you. Now that you're lying about it I think you'd have to look up a ways to get to small minded and petty. I think I need a long break from the fragile egos in both places. What a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Despise? Like you think he has a net negative impact on your life? His "paterfamilias": can you tell me what you mean by that? And who you are reffering to?"He's damaged his site": whats his purpose of his website? Of course you are free to disagree on the purpose. Further, since its a complex matter surely you could dispute whether such moderation was worthwhile to his purpose.Moderatoration is not my role, nor a role Joe wants me to perform. So saying I am a moderator at RoR is not right. I do have moderation privilages... but I am only supposed to use them to help non-inflamatory and non-spam through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Dean,Friendly advice.Seek wisdom. There are no easy things to say or do right now.Find the wise old archetype in the deep recesses of your mind and ask it to mull this thing over and get back to you.I see Dean as a very good person so I have little doubt you will find a wise path. And here's the good news. Not everybody has to like it. When you act from a wisdom-seeking perspective, most people will respect you for it, whether they like it or not.And those who won't respect you would never have respected you no matter what you would have said or done. So don't even think about them.Like I said, friendly advice. If you have other ideas, I'm cool with that.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Despise? Like you think he has a net negative impact on your life? His "paterfamilias": can you tell me what you mean by that? And who you are reffering to?"He's damaged his site": whats his purpose of his website? Of course you are free to disagree on the purpose. Further, since its a complex matter surely you could dispute whether such moderation was worthwhile to his purpose.Moderatoration is not my role, nor a role Joe wants me to perform. So saying I am a moderator at RoR is not right. I do have moderation privilages... but I am only supposed to use them to help non-inflamatory and non-spam through.He has no impact on my life nor will I let him. As for what I meant by that word, it's in the dictionary and I meant Joe Rowlands. If your moderation priviledges are so light why was Robert put on moderation? What will you be looking for? Or is it just a way Joe uses to harass select posters with the bother of it all and drive them out? What has happened to Robert's prolific posting since moderation? I had no ill will toward him until he got stupid with me. It was a one-off we then couldn't talk out. You are only Joe's children over there and that's where the paterfamilias comes from. Nothing has changed in the almost nine years he first dumped it on Barbara Branden then on me. Not one thing has changed that way since; that's what he is or he is what he is.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Mikee, no one forced a keyboard in front of said person. Many good posters warned him to let it go and stop with his obsessive behaviour. He pretty much told Dean, Tess, Steve etc to go f themselves and he would do what he wants.Heck I even mentioned to start a friendly light unrelated to anything objectivist thread and even there he was argumentative. I thought it would be a fun thread. It was not.In Brant's Defence on his first post over there he mentioned in not so many words "hey you can have a voice here don't fu#k it up."Well? He fu#ked it up. No surprise there. If Brant had not posted there at all the end result would have been the same. It may have been delayed by two days at most.Some people just are not happy unless they are miserable or making everyone miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 "I want to state that it wasn't my intention to go there and get Robert B. moderated..."I knew that was your intention when you showed up and I thought it was small minded and petty of you. Now that you're lying about it I think you'd have to look up a ways to get to small minded and petty. I think I need a long break from the fragile egos in both places. What a waste.Can I say it again? My first post was a mistake. I thought Robert had continued with his forbidden stuff but he hadn't. That's what I said in my second post. I had misread Robert's posting dates. My last post was a straight arm to the chest for Robert's nonsense. Now, WTF have I lied about? It's not my intention for it's what I said and I know it better than anyone.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Brant"You are only Joe's children over there and that's where the paterfamilias comes from.""I despise [Joe's] paterfamilias."Such statements would lead me to deduce that you despise me."If your moderation priviledges are so light why was Robert put on moderation? What will you be looking for?"Your first question doesn't really make sense, the former not related to the latter. I accept things that seem obviously acceptable. If its obvious spam (genuine scam stuff and off topic advertisements) I delete. Otherwise I just leave them in the queue for Teresa or Joe to decide. Sometimes I make mistakes. Your recent posts at RoR were not in themselves inflammatory, but I'm not sure now what your intentions were: Given that your prior history with "Robert" was inflammatory, then maybe it was your intention to incite him over Joe's line. "Why was Robert put on moderation?": ask Joe... but it probably had something to do with his posting obsession with OL/MSK.Edit: Re #148... this is how I interpreted your posts at RoR by just reading the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I have never known Brant to be manipulative.Ever.Outspoken at times? OK.Aggressive at times?OKManipulative?I just don't see it.That's not Brant.I admit, I never tried my hand at being a lady with a whip, so who knows what I'll think if my perspective ever changes? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now