Posts by Walter Moore4

It’s a decent movie. Not boring, actually—pretty interesting. The acting is solid, too. But if you're sitting there expecting some massive action-packed adventure, just skip it. Save your time for something else.

Does anyone have a solid recommendation for a good book by William H. Sheldon regarding personality psychology and body types? I'm looking for stuff on endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph constitutions. I tried Googling it, but honestly, I haven't found much helpful. Doesn't matter if it's in English or American. Thanks!

Since we’ve got some actual protein experts hanging around here, I figured it would be worth looking beyond just the whole whey vs. soy debate. Maybe we could also talk about how the actual extraction process affects the quality of the protein itself? It feels like we need to cover that if we're ever going to actually wrap this topic up properly.

Are there actually any clinical trials out there? Maybe a link or something?

nimbledriver81 said:George, the soil has been getting polluted for years. Look, I’m all for healthy eating too, but I’m not under any illusions thinking organic or biodynamic food is somehow totally free of chemicals. That's just not an option anymore.
And please, let's not go attacking people who are just trying to do their jobs honestly. New research leads to new theories, and nutrition science is no different. Nutritionists argue with each other just like any other scientists. Everyone stands by their own findings.
[/B]

I’m not delusional enough to think that kind of food is perfect or 100% chemical-free. But I do believe it's better than stuff grown using standard industrial farming methods. There's also the whole question of how much value hybrid varieties have lost over time, etc...

If I offended anyone, my bad, but this is just how I react when I sense that kind of gatekeeping elitism!

I still feel like we need more of a balanced perspective here, like the one found at this link:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html

I especially liked this part: " It is based on the best available scientific evidence about the links between diet and health."

In plain English, just in case someone's struggling: It's based on the best AVAILABLE scientific evidence regarding the connection between diet and health.

👋

driftinggull13, hey, maybe come back down to earth for a second. You’re posting like you’ve swallowed 😁

driftinggull13 said:Mavrovič's land is relatively small, and it's surrounded by farms that use pesticides and all sorts of other chemicals. Do you honestly think those same substances don't end up on Mavrovič's land through the water and air? Besides, I doubt all that production actually comes from his properties; he produces too much, and without using protective sprays and synthetic fertilizers, the yields would be way lower (since people use those things specifically to boost yields). From what I can tell, the difference is mostly just him grinding up a bunch of husks and mixing different grains together.

I see you're also an expert on organic farming, I guess. It seems like everyone in that field is either a fool or just exploiting the naivety of people who believe this kind of food is actually better for them. Maybe try convincing the people who have managed to escape illnesses—which even those know-it-all doctors and nutritionists couldn't solve—through things like macrobiotics or "non-existent" ways of balancing bodily processes and energy.

Furthermore, regarding the land, I doubt Mavrovič and the others involved haven't thought about this. What if the land is elevated compared to the neighbors, or if there's some other system in place to protect against what you mentioned? Even if none of that is true, it's still not the same as using chemicals at regular intervals versus whatever amount eventually drifts over indirectly. Plus, runoff doesn't just move horizontally; it moves vertically. Gravity plays a part in that, too.

driftinggull13 said:Bringing the body into balance????? Give me a break. An organism is in balance because if it wasn't, you'd be six feet under. Do you really think the systems for detoxification, digestion, or "cleansing" are just waiting for you to remember to eat less, drink more water, or stick to greens or......???? Pure New Age nonsense. Recommendation for reading (for the umpteenth time): Guyton: Physiology. I promise there would be a lot less fluff about "balance," especially regarding passive and active transport.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt you to brush up on your knowledge and expand it a little.
Just a little note on your somewhat limited understanding of homeostasis; take a long-term smoker, for instance. Do you think there aren't substances in those lungs that shouldn't be there? And there are such smokers—people who seem healthy without any obvious symptoms. Is that entire organism in homeostasis? No, it isn't. While one part is, another, smaller part definitely isn't—can you guess which? This is where cellular adaptation and compensation mechanisms kick in. These processes are reversible up to a certain point, but after a certain stage, they aren't. Assuming the changes in this smoker are reversible, once they stop taking in toxins, they'll be excreted with extra energy expenditure. So, you need to stop the intake of toxins and help the body return its systems, organs, or cells back to homeostasis. Fasting and a diet free of additional unnecessary (not to mention toxic) substances helps this whole process run faster and smoother.

driftinggull13 said:By the way, they're missing facilitated transport too (that’s the third type).

Yeah, yeah, very important to insult the person you're talking to. I'm sure you feel much smarter now.
If you hadn't noticed, I put in parentheses that I was talking about a broad classification.

Here, let me just throw some nonsense out there too: you've got passive transport, which is diffusion, then you have facilitated diffusion, then osmosis, then active transport, exocytosis, endocytosis... is anyone actually smarter than this guy???

driftinggull13 said:A negligible amount of energy is used for transport, whereas a much, much larger amount is used for digestion.

I've read that active transport of substances within a cell consumes more energy than any other process in the cell. Some smart guy from Stanford wrote that. Maybe he doesn't know, who knows?

driftinggull13 said:The carbohydrate from Mavrovič's bread will use the same amount of energy as the carbohydrate from Claire's white bread because it doesn't depend on where it's from, but what kind of compound it is, and the breakdown method for those types of compounds has a specific energy level (chemical reactions).

It isn't just about carbohydrates. It's also about other micronutrients without which homeostasis can't exist. And fiber. And hey, who knows, maybe it's all just New Age shit. And I don't just mean Mavrovič's bread here, but other foods too.

And as for those self-proclaimed nutritionists who think they know everything, and those who so cheerfully cite Guyton—in that lovely Guyton textbook, in many places, it says: "it is not precisely known...", "it is not certain...", "it is assumed..." and in various other medical books, it nicely states: "cause unknown...", "still unknown..." And now someone comes along trying to present things as if you should just ask nutritionists and stuff, like they know it all. And anything else they don't know is just New Age shit. Screw that kind of rhetoric.

The chapter on metabolism and the human body is still nowhere near being finished. Of course, I'm not dismissing what we already know, but you have to be open to new things!

One more thing about nutritionists. Just GOOGLE the famous "food pyramid" and see how many conflicting opinions there are regarding its accuracy and effects. That should tell you enough about their competence. No offense intended. I'm not implying anything; let everyone draw their own conclusions. 😁 😁 😁

👋

driftinggull13 said:What’s so groundbreaking about this bread? Seriously, please tell me why you think it makes him so much healthier, and what’s actually wrong with food additives?

Hey driftinggull13,
The big deal here—at least in the US—is finally having grains grown without all the "chemicals," synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or insecticides. And then they take those grains to make bread that's also chemical-free. It's just the first time stuff like this has been available to the general public.

As for the whole additive situation, look at it this way: take macrobiotics, for example, which people use for healing to get their bodies back in balance. They completely cut out foods like this because those processed items don't offer any healing benefits. Another thing—look at fasting therapies like the ones recommended by specialists like Brojsov—to flush out toxins (including those "harmless" additives), they use juices made from foods that haven't been "fortified" with any kind of additives.

And finally, since I've spent time studying medicine, I know there's a pretty clear distinction between passive and active transport in the body. Active transport requires extra energy, and that's the same process used to eliminate toxins and additives. So, to get rid of these supposedly "safe" substances, the body has to exert extra effort. My guess is if you bombard the system with increasing amounts of this stuff year after year, eventually the body just won't be able to clear it out anymore...

Nicole Mendoza27 said:LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES👎 👎 👎 👎

What on earth are you talking about, man?
I mean, I guess your arguments are totally spot on!
😕

Maybe it isn't actually the confidence itself that turns people off, but more like everything else that comes bundled with it. Usually, it’s just plain old arrogance and selfishness, which I guess can be pretty obvious, though sometimes it shows up in much subtler ways.
I don't see many confident people who also happen to be, you know, kind, empathetic, or humble. To me, those seem like the traits of someone who's actually mature and stable—someone who genuinely knows their own worth without needing to act like they're better than everyone else.

If I were in your shoes, I’d probably look into NLP or maybe even homeopathy. It really just comes down to how open-minded you are, I guess.
As for the advice above regarding psychiatrists, you can clearly see from the comments just how effective that approach actually is.

mistyhound2 said:Your disorder falls under the neurosis category. Don't panic—it’s usually managed quite well with SSRIs and what they call "behavioral therapy." Just go see a psychiatrist, and honestly, don't listen to the person above suggesting a psychologist instead.

The thing is, there are two little issues here. Not all psychiatrists (unfortunately) are equally competent, nor are they all equally experienced, and they definitely don't all use the same techniques—and there are a hell of a lot of different methods out there...

Also, if it's possible to know, when you're on SSRIs, do they actually clear the disorder, or does everything just come crawling back once you stop taking them?