There are giant and massively funded trials to see what food is healthy for people, what food has association with disease and in what circumstances, theres trials are double-blind. When a doctor or nutritionist is telling you what to eat, based off the best of this *SCIENCE, its the best advice that there is on diet as far as evidence can reveal.
Plenty of medications work for what they tell you they work for. Antibiotics usually work for bacteria, vaccinations usually help against the flu, heart-medication usually helps with heart-problems. Plenty of medication is bad for you, plenty of medication is still worth taking because what it treats is more dangerous than the side-effects of medication. And yeah, theres statistics about plenty of medicines being harmful for you, most medications have side-effect statistics widely available (some doesn’t) most patients choose to lightly take medication without looking into the risks.
See, this is just idiotic asshole drivel, cancer doesn’t dissapear with diet/exerecise, nor dose heart disease, dental problems and so forth. No one is arguing that diet/exercise doesn’t radically decrease your chances of cancer, no one is arguing that if all people ate right’/exercised these things wouldn’t be less of a problem, its still idiotic to even suggest that skin cancer would dissapear if people did fucking anything, but get out of the sun.
Skin cancer would still exist as long as all people weren’t black and out in the sun. So would cancer in general, that book may be great but it doesn’t invalidate all the genetic research on cancer that links genes, found in some parts of the population, that have a huge cancer association.
its not incorrect to say that if all my family members die of cancer, that my chances of getting cancer are higher than the average person’s no matter what I do, exercise or no.
Unfortunately those trials are ruled by greed and profit and thus their conlusions are highly suspect.They are often biased studies put forth by companies with something to sell,who stand to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars off the results of said studies.Look at the actual scientific data of such “nutrition” studies and you will most often find that the conclusions drawn are bunk or that the data is bunk or both.In the case of the studies which are valid they are on to something but aren’t getting the bigger picture.For example I believe that the studies that purport a correlation between consumption of vegetables and lower risk of cancer are valid.But vegetables are not the solution to cancer.That’s science catching onto a small piece of the picture without realizing the bigger picture.All conventional nutritional science has produced is a list of foods which may lower or raise your risk of developing a certain disease.
True that most medications work for what they advertise but saying this is misleading.Also true that medications are nescessary in situations which are unsolvable with diet,I don’t think we should completely eliminate medication.For example,antibiotics would be nescessary in the case of an extreme parasite invasion.But most medications are deceptive and some are downright useless.This is because medications promote the false perception that the solution to most ailments is not diet.Also some medications are built upon made up diseases which have never been scientifically proven to exist.Other medications are just silly,such as cholesterol lowering drugs.There has never been a scientific correlation between lower cholesterol and lower risk of any disease,although many people have been falsely mislead that there is by both the media and the companies who stand to make a profit off such ideas.Vaccinations are useless to someone who eats a healthy diet and potentially quite harmful (vaccinations have killed thousands of people in the past on numerous different occasions).Antibiotics are useless in most cases,which the exception of the most extreme.Antibiotics are also extremely overprescribed.I don’t think you understand the extent to which diet is protective of the body,which is understandable considering the massive propaganda campaign going on today.I barely found out about it myself and I attribute this to luck,since such information is so hard to find.If it were true that we suffered all these things before eating a modern diet,we would not exist today.Human beings would have died out.We are more resistant to these things than you think,cyrene.But we have to be eating a healthy diet in order to maintain this resistance.Take any modern human today eating their modern diet ,put them into a primitive enviroment,force them to live as the primitives do and most if not all of them will die quite quickly.
Cancer does disapear with correct diet,as does heart disease,as do dental problems.Primitives do not have any of these problems,ever.Not once.Modernized and semi primitives do,but no true primitives who are isolated from modern civilization suffer from these problems.There is extensive anthropological and other scientific proof to back this up.This book itself proves it on it’s own.The book is an anthropological study of 14 different primitive tribes,all in vastly different climates eating vastly different diets.All of them have the exact same health.There are even hundreds of photographs in the book to prove it.The kicker is,it also studies members of these same exact groups who have contact with modern civilazation and all of them were having the same problems we do,so it’s not their genetics which gives them such great health.Maybe you should read it.Sure,it’s true that certain genes increase your risk of cancer if your eating a bad diet.I’m not saying it does invalidate genetic research,that research is valid.But those genes just allow you to be more able to get cancer if you eat unhealthy,they don’t give you cancer themselves.This is the brainwashing that modern medicine puts into peoples heads and it causes untold suffering upon the masses.If everybody on this planet ate the way described in this book,all degenerative disease would disapear.Period.If not immediately then whithin one or two generations.
Just imagine this.Say we took medical technology away.What would happen to people?We would die out.Our health today is pathetic and the only thing that keeps us alive and able to act like it isn’t is technology.Just imagine if you had never been to a doctor,never brushed or flossed your teeth,never been to a dentist,etc.Would you even be alive today?Likely not.And if you would be what would your health be like?Most of us would be toothless cripples.Many women would die in childbirth.We would have terrible health.It is absurd to even suggest that the problems we have today were also rampant in primitives.If this was true,humanity wouldn’t even exist as we do today.How could people have been in such terrible health and managed to survive in a primitive enviroment?
I was born with anemia. Same problem–could out eat almost anyone–no help. I started weight lifting, body building. Work hard at it for 3 or 4 months then just quit. You gain a few pounds. Keep repeating the process.
If you are like me, you will find it very difficult to move in the start–very painful.
but I am now at 215, and stable.
The black lines under my eyes that give away my anemia are still there sometimes. j.c.
The ‘primitives’ rarely lived to an age past 30, so you’re point is a lot of bullshit. Maybe the primitives didn’t die of cancer/heart disease because they were dying of the fatal condition of ‘spear through the heart’
Theres certainly diseases which infected the ancients, 500,000 year old humans have been found with Tuberculosis, so.
When we’re talking about the type of bone cancers and stuff that preserve well, we’;re talking about a fairly rare cancer to begin with on the population level, these had smaller populations for one, the mean age of death in these groups (typically before 40) is also a huge consideration, not that many people get bone cancer, not that many people get bone cancer before their 40, put this on top of the fact that they probably exercised a lot, we shouldn’t expect to find a fossilized cancer in them. (especially with the rarity of fossils period)
We do find *some cancers from BC, and a lot more as human life-span keeps increasing. Most researchers put this off to increased life-span and usually thats about it.
They probably didn’t die of cancers, ,but died of other infections and inuries, sooner than cancer typically gets a chance to develope.
I don’t believe that primitives rarely lived to an age past 30 and if you have proof of this,please show it to me.Various primitive societies have been studied during modern times that do not have a average lifespan of 30 and that have plenty of older individuals.Nevertheless,even if it was true that they had average lifespans of 30 this would be due to their lifestyles,not degenerative disease.Your correlating their average lifespans with their maximum lifespans is a fallacy here.Just because they didn’t live long enough to develope degenerative disease does not mean that they would develope degenerative disease.The book I posted a link to shows numerous primitive societies which have a decent number of long lived inhabitants,none of which have degenerative disease.
Those ancients could have been suffering from certain things which lowered their normal immunity to tubercolosis.They might have been starving,etc.Moreover the book I posted a link to also details multiple different societies in which tuberculosis is rampant in nearby modernized areas but does not affect even one primitive in nearby non-modern areas.How do you explain that?
The size of their populations doesn’t matter,look at the percentage of the population.You’re right that if they had a lower average lifespan that would affect the percentage of people’s with a degenerative disease.But it is a simple fact that most people 30-40 in current modern societies have multiple ailments that would be lethal or horribly debilitating to a person without access to modern medical technology.Even most modern children suffer from something that would be serious without medical treatment.Any honest look at any primitive society demonstrates they have a complete absence of the diseases that are rampant in our modern society,at every age level.
Anthropological data has proven this assumption to be false,since there are primitive societies studied who have large numbers of long lived inhabitants that do not suffer from degenerative disease whatsoever.Also,most modern day humans suffer from various ailments from birth that are never seen in primitives.
The bones studied in that article were of agricultural peoples,not true hunter gatherers,therefore the quality of their diets is suspect.Any study of truly primitive bones usually reveals excellent health,especially dental health.It is a fact that general human health deteriorated after the agricultural revolution,some 10,000 years ago.
its a general fact except that human lifespan in developed countries is higher than that in modern hunter-gatherer groups, and definatly a lot higher than previous hunter-gatherer groups.
As people move away from hunting/gatherer the average lifespan increases dramatically.
No one is saying that living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle isn’t healthy, but living that life comes with massive inherent risks, both with disease and with injury. We can point to all these ancient diseases that hunter-gatherers are found with, and we can say that they were killed by them like the case with the super ancient turburcleosis cases.
Again, we also know that theres a lot of other ancient diseases that wiped out populations of people, because different blood-types have different immunities to diseases, on top of the immune system that we have to fight plenty of these diseases, that needed to evolve, which naturally means a lot of people dying to plauge, thats hunter-gatherers as well.
Lifespan has been increasing steadily and has doubled in the last 100 years or whatever, in canada the average lifespan of males is raising to the 80s+ in recent years, which is not seen, on average, this is not seen in non developed countries. Or hunter-gatherer societies.
They had less cancer for a few reasons: They didn’t live very old, they exercised, and probably ate less red meats and fats and so forth that contribute to cancer. Someone living a modern life, with access to medicine, exercising normally, and eating a balanced diet is probably much much much healthier, and we do see cancer appear in world class athletes, we do see cancer appear in people who lived their lives exercising and eating right, its JUST RARER.
50% of cancers or at least statistically diagnosed cancers are apparently avoidable by life-style changes, that is huge.
But you’re not going to find a massive population of 80-90 year olds free of cancer, you’re not going to find 60-70’s olds free of cancer. The children that end of with brutal cancer’s at five, seven, three, its not because of diet. *ITS not because of diet.People can have genetic predispositions towards getting cancer. Mutations in genes can predispose to cancer. Living old can build up dna damage and its not repaired correctly.
lifestyle changes are huhge to prevent disease, a lot of people, are still going to end up with cancer, even though they’re very fit and have eaten correctly their entire lives. its a lot more rare, but it still *HAPPENS.
Average lifespan is irrelevant to maximum lifespan.Also,average lifespan takes into account things such as infant mortality,which is much higher in primitive groups than modern groups.It is likely that if a primitive individual survived childhood (which is a hard thing to do for any wild species),he would have lived 10-20 years longer than the average lifespan.
There aren’t alot of “ancient” cases of degenerative disease and for the rare ones that exist,they are explainable.Pointing to a couple of primitive skeletons with some degenerative disease and concluding that primitives suffered from disease close to as much as we do is foolish.First of all,most primitive skeletons and all contemporary hunter gatherers show this to be false,which is really all we need to know.Also,we don’t know what that individual was eating,being exposed to,etc.I’m sure that humans in the last 500,000 years have done some stupid things which weren’t good for them which could have caused that.Having to subsist on a nutritionally insufficient source of nutrition due to inavailibility of other foods could cause it,for example.Direct exposure to a certrain type of flame could have an effect.Who knows,the point is it’s not a sufficient proof for what your claiming.
I’m talking about degenerative diseases here.That truly healthy primitive groups were wiped out is suspect,but either way it doesn’t have any relevance to degenerative disease.
Because of medical technology and the ease of modern life,yes.
Eating less red meat and fats does not cause a decrease in cancer…like I said Cyrene,the things you think are healthy aren’t.Those athletes you mentioned who “ate healthy” were no doubt eating what I consider junk,which is why they got sick.Also,there is no evidence that excercise actually makes you healthier.I highly doubt you’ve ever met someone who actually ate healthy.People in modern society are certainly not healthier in any regard than primitives.I don’t think you’ve ever lived a primitive lifestyle Cyrene,it is very vigorous.Like I said above take any modern human,put them in a hunter gatherer society and force them to live with the primitives in their way of living and most will soon be dead.I have lived like that before for awhile and it is incredibly hard on you.You have to deal with bugs,hunger,disease,parasites,not bathing,no dental hygene,cold and hot temperatures (depending on the climate),the sun,extreme physical exertion,etc.It really ages you to live that way.I wouldn’t have made it had I been eating typical modern junk.The fact that primitves could survive at all in such an enviroment demonstrates their dietary superiority.Most modern humans live in highly sanitary enviroments,have doctors,dentists,medications and surgeons,are protected from the weather and the sun,sit around on their ass all day,have high standards of hygene and don’t experience extreme temperatures.No wonder they live as long as they do.
Make that 100%.
The reason for this is that the only societies that eat really healthy have extremely hard lifes,therefore lowering their lifespans.I guarentee that if you took a society of people and fed them properly,whithin 1-2 generations you would have this scenario.Those children have cancer due to birth defects inherited from improperly fed mothers.
Yes but those people your referncing don’t eat a healthy diet.
Yet again,the book I linked to shows plenty of african primitives with complete immunity to malaria,despite living in open huts and walking around naked all day and night.Modern groups nearby do not share their immunity,despite having similar genetics.Today malaria is rampant in africa where most of the people are either malnourished or don’t eat healthy.
As I said,those are very rare and not typical of primitive socities.I’m sure there is a explanation.You can’t ignore contemporary anthropological data in favor of some 1.5 million year old skeleton with a defect.
That book details 14 societies all around the world,all having perfect health.It also shows primitive people of the same racial stock who,at the time the book was written,were just becoming modernized.The just recently modernized people had all the diseases we do.The nearby non-modernized had none,demonstrating they had no genetic superiority.How do you explain that?If your right,then how come these people had such great health including a good number of older cititzens especially in spite of their harsh enviroments.They also had perfectly straight teeth and no dental or gum problems whatsoever,despite never having been to a dentist or brushing/flossing their teeth.They didn’t have any babies with birth defects either (such as retardation,etc).How do you explain this?There are 100’s of photos documenting their excellent dental health.You can’t ignore this data.There has also been a good number of people who have followed this diet and had similar results,including some who had children while eating it and the children were free from crooked teeth (which is highly unusual in modern societies).I myself,after following this diet,haven’t brushed or flossed in at least 1 1/2 years and haven’t suffered from bad breath,cavities,or gum disease at all.My dentist is always raving about how good of a job brushing and flossing I am doing (little does he know…).If we were to combine the primitive style of diet with the modern level of technology we’d have a great situation.We could live a long time (90-100 years) and have a population with excellent health.