Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 Suze- Just be glad this particular unreachable person isn't one you care about. >i guess i will just have to reconcile that some people are TOTALLY >UNREACHABLE. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 Quoting Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...>: > i was just at the gym and saw the woman who got upset when i discussed my > skepticism of the diet-heart hypothesis with her last week. This reminds me of a minor complaint I've had about WAPF literature--the fact that they keep referring to " the diet-heart hypothesis " in disparaging terms. None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 - >None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor >in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " Good point. They should be criticizing the lipid hypothesis. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 >>>This reminds me of a minor complaint I've had about WAPF literature--the fact that they keep referring to " the diet-heart hypothesis " in disparaging terms. None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " ---->brandon, i don't believe the WAPF made up that term - it's the term that's used in common parlance to refer to the theory that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease, aka " the lipid hypothesis " . i'm not sure who first coined it, and i also noticed that it doesn't accurately reflect the specifcity of the hypothesis in question. but if you google, you'll see it's widely used by other writers, as well. i'm now printing out 20 pages from the international network of cholesterol skeptics website (http://www.thincs.org/public.htm). it's a list of papers and books written on the diet-heart hypothesis by members of THINCS. at minimum, it will show that these " voodoo priests " have published a hell of a lot of literature on cholesterol and heart disease in, what the mainstream considers, " reputable " journals. as it is now, this woman seems to think it's just a bunch wacko mumbo jumbo with no science behind it, but it's hard to say that with this impressive source list in your face. hmmmm...i guess i'm not ready to give the jackhammer up yet! lol. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 she said she ran it by a couple of docs and they thought it > was nonsense. <GROAN....> ----> I have two good friends that are docs. One is a teaching OBGYN and ultrasounded herself god knows how many times during her pregnancy just case it was fun to see every week! I kept my mouth shut but barely The other is an anesthesiologist who continually begins her day on sweetrolls or french bread plus coffee. That is all she eats and she'll be in operations for hours often making critical snap decisions. She says her adrenaline is so high it doesn't matter what she eats and she knows waht to eat. I keep my mouth shut but barely! Hard to take from the " best and brightest " our society produces! Of course I do know not all docs are these stupidly blindsided. But <GROAN as Suze says>....I seem to know ones that are. Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 >At >minimum, it will show that these " voodoo priests " have published a hell of a >lot of literature on cholesterol and heart disease in, what the mainstream >considers, " reputable " journals. as it is now, this woman seems to think >it's just a bunch wacko mumbo jumbo with no science behind it, but it's hard >to say that with this impressive source list in your face. Very often the most defensive people make the biggest " converts. " But when people call something " voodoo " a lot of it is that they really don't like dealing with the science -- science scares a lot of people! The folks that can read a source list or a medical journal are usually more open minded. Anyway, I get the same thing from my family, even though they believe me. I start spouting off on some obscurity and the reaction is " Ok, what you are saying is xyz is BAD and we shouldn't eat it, right? So lets just not eat it. " They really, really, don't want details. This group is amazingly open-minded, willing to research, willing to argue. Most people just want a good/bad list! I think that is one reason Atkins gets such a following from people who would never, ever listen to WAPF -- you just say " Carbs bad, protein good " and if you are a doctor when you say it, it is easy for people to deal with. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 In a message dated 7/1/03 5:32:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bberg@... writes: > This reminds me of a minor complaint I've had about WAPF literature--the > fact that they keep referring to " the diet-heart hypothesis " in disparaging > terms. None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor > in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " *I* question that. Anyway, I've mostly seen Uffe Ravnskov use those terms, and haven't seen Sally or WAPFers use it too much (though maybe I'm forgetting). And Uffe, if you read his book, does seem to thoroughly question that diet has anything to do with it. I think diet is significant in heart disease, but there's no way it's *the* primary factor, in my mind. Exercise, stress, pollutants, myco/endotoxin exposure, all play significant roles. In fact, I happen to think (like Price did) that a good chunk of heart disease is caused by root canals. During Price's time, root canals were common but not the most common way of dealing with dead teeth, and heart disease rate was 10%. Their popularity grew especially in the 40s and they came to be the dominant way of treating dead teeth thereafter, which in a rough sort of way corresponds with the increase in heart disease. No doubt that is also attributable to hydrogenated and pufa oils, but without a doubt systemic infections from root canals cause heart disease. Price's experiements and those following him pretty much proved it without a doubt, and new research is again and again confirming that tooth decay and gum disease are among the best predictors of heart disease. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2003 Report Share Posted July 1, 2003 In a message dated 7/1/03 5:45:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > ---->brandon, i don't believe the WAPF made up that term - it's the term > that's used in common parlance to refer to the theory that cholesterol and > saturated fat cause heart disease, aka " the lipid hypothesis " . i'm not sure > who first coined it, and i also noticed that it doesn't accurately reflect > the specifcity of the hypothesis in question. but if you google, you'll see > it's widely used by other writers, as well. I don't know if Ravnskov coined it or not, but he uses it a lot in his book, and I got a clear impression that he thinks there is no proven connection between diet and heart disease, and that he thinks it probably isn't the primary cause of heart disease. He criticizes excess pufa, but primarily for its carcinogenic properties and not due to heart disease. He points out that almost every study that's been done hasn't been able to find *any* dietary correlations with heart diesease. But Ravnskov isn't WAPF, and there's no reason for him to follow perfectly in line. Heck, Sally even has variance with Enig on *fats* sometimes. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 I've been thinking that now that omega-3 fatty acids have been receiving so much publicity, and are acknowledged to be so important for good health, it might be time to point out that omega-3's were never considered in all the research that purports to connect saturated fat and heart disease. Since our American meat supply has been lower and lower in omega-3's that could easily be the factor that caused the observed effects, rather than saturated fat or cholesterol, since the research never controlled for that factor. That might be an argument that might wash with the docs. I'll have to run it by my doctor son. Peace, Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this Web site: http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html To learn more check out our Web site: http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/ .. voodoo vent > ack! ack! ACK!!! > > i was just at the gym and saw the woman who got upset when i discussed my > skepticism of the diet-heart hypothesis with her last week. so i told her i > was sorry to have upset her with my skepticism of this hypothesis, and she > said " voodoo, voodoo, it's just voodoo " or something like that, rather > emphatically. she said she ran it by a couple of docs and they thought it > was nonsense. <GROAN....> > > i guess i will just have to reconcile that some people are TOTALLY > UNREACHABLE. > > > would anyone like to borrow my jackhammer? don't think i'll have much need > for it! > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 Kris wrote: > I've been thinking that now that omega-3 fatty acids have been receiving so > much publicity, and are acknowledged to be so important for good health, it > might be time to point out that omega-3's were never considered in all the > research that purports to connect saturated fat and heart disease. Since our > American meat supply has been lower and lower in omega-3's that could easily > be the factor that caused the observed effects, rather than saturated fat or > cholesterol, since the research never controlled for that factor. That might > be an argument that might wash with the docs. I'll have to run it by my > doctor son. How about coconut oil that is extremely rich in SF's? If I am not mistaken, coconut is a poor source of Omega-3's, especially those that have been shown more effective, EPA (and DHA?). People in countries where coconut is very popular don't suffer unusually high rates of heart diseases, do they? Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Suze Fisher wrote: > >>>This reminds me of a minor complaint I've had about WAPF literature--the > fact that they keep referring to " the diet-heart hypothesis " in disparaging > terms. None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor > in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " > > ---->brandon, i don't believe the WAPF made up that term - it's the term > that's used in common parlance to refer to the theory that cholesterol and > saturated fat cause heart disease, aka " the lipid hypothesis " . i'm not sure > who first coined it, and i also noticed that it doesn't accurately reflect > the specifcity of the hypothesis in question. but if you google, you'll see > it's widely used by other writers, as well. It's nice to hear other people bring this up, because back when I read Ravnskov's book that phrase drove me NUTS!! As mentioned, " lipid hypothesis " is much better, but even that is too unspecific. It's totally insane to use the vacuous phrase " diet-heart hypothesis " and it's equally insane to think that it's NOT something about people's diets that are to blame, even there are some non-dietary factors too. As much as I admire Ravnskov and have been solidly disabused of the lipid hypothesis in my own worldview, I found his book unsatisfactory because of some of the heavyhandedness and sloppiness in his presentation, such as this phrase. And while I don't disagree with his Popperian logic, the extremely imbalanced presentation of opposing views weakens his case. Still a profoundly valuable contribution one way or another though. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 where coconuts grow i imagine sea critters are plentiful... think of all the recipes you see for coconut and seafood combinations... mike parker On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Roman wrote: > Kris wrote: > > > I've been thinking that now that omega-3 fatty acids have been receiving so > > much publicity, and are acknowledged to be so important for good health, it > > might be time to point out that omega-3's were never considered in all the > > research that purports to connect saturated fat and heart disease. Since our > > American meat supply has been lower and lower in omega-3's that could easily > > be the factor that caused the observed effects, rather than saturated fat or > > cholesterol, since the research never controlled for that factor. That might > > be an argument that might wash with the docs. I'll have to run it by my > > doctor son. > > How about coconut oil that is extremely rich in SF's? If I am not mistaken, coconut is a poor > source of Omega-3's, especially those that have been shown more effective, EPA (and DHA?). > People in countries where coconut is very popular don't suffer unusually high rates of heart > diseases, do they? > > Roman > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 >>>>>I've been thinking that now that omega-3 fatty acids have been receiving so much publicity, and are acknowledged to be so important for good health, it might be time to point out that omega-3's were never considered in all the research that purports to connect saturated fat and heart disease. Since our American meat supply has been lower and lower in omega-3's that could easily be the factor that caused the observed effects, rather than saturated fat or cholesterol, since the research never controlled for that factor. That might be an argument that might wash with the docs. I'll have to run it by my doctor son. ----->kris, Some researchers *have* discussed EFA ratios vis-a-vis heart disease. some, such as the ottobonis, make a case for excessive omega 6s/inadequate omega 3s causing inflammation, and contributing to a number of chronic and degenerative diseases, including heart disease. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 >>>>It's nice to hear other people bring this up, because back when I read Ravnskov's book that phrase drove me NUTS!! As mentioned, " lipid hypothesis " is much better, but even that is too unspecific. ----->yeh well " lipid " is more specific than " diet " but not specific enough either, because it includes ALL lipids, such as trans fats, which may turn out to have some causal roll in heart disease. if so, then that would make " lipid hypothesis " even more confusing and inappropriate, since *some* lipids *may* play a role in heart disease while others don't. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 I see this conflict as a " takes one to know one " sort of thing. In other words, whenever someone gives out with knee-jerk criticism of something they know virtually nothing about, it's just a symptom that their " religion " has been threatened. Don't you think that Americans' primary (or secondary) religion is the Lipid Hypothesis...and their physicians are their high priests? > > >At > >minimum, it will show that these " voodoo priests " have published a hell of a > >lot of literature on cholesterol and heart disease in, what the mainstream > >considers, " reputable " journals. as it is now, this woman seems to think > >it's just a bunch wacko mumbo jumbo with no science behind it, but it's hard > >to say that with this impressive source list in your face. > > Very often the most defensive people make the biggest " converts. " But when > people call something " voodoo " a lot of it is that they really don't like > dealing with the science -- science scares a lot of people! The folks that > can read a source list or a medical journal are usually more open minded. > > Anyway, I get the same thing from my family, even though they believe me. I > start spouting off on some obscurity and the reaction is " Ok, what you are > saying is xyz is BAD and we shouldn't eat it, right? So lets just not eat > it. " They really, really, don't want details. > > This group is amazingly open-minded, willing to research, willing to argue. > Most people just want a good/bad list! I think that is one reason Atkins > gets such a following from people who would never, ever listen to WAPF -- > you just say " Carbs bad, protein good " and if you are a doctor when you say > it, it is easy for people to deal with. > > -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 >>>>>I see this conflict as a " takes one to know one " sort of thing. In other words, whenever someone gives out with knee-jerk criticism of something they know virtually nothing about, it's just a symptom that their " religion " has been threatened. ---->haha! that's what i think, too. it's totally irrational to call an idea, or a large body of evidence " voodoo " when you haven't read one single word of it. >>>>Don't you think that Americans' primary (or secondary) religion is the Lipid Hypothesis...and their physicians are their high priests? ----->pretty much. and lipitor is the wafer.... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 >Don't you think that Americans' primary (or secondary) religion is >the Lipid Hypothesis...and their physicians are their high priests? > > Interesting connection. A lot of religions really do connect diet and spirituality -- Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, 7th day Adventists ... Baptists in the avoidance of alcohol and the promotion of jello salads ;-) -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 > >>>>>I see this conflict as a " takes one to know one " sort of thing. > > In other words, whenever someone gives out with knee-jerk criticism > of something they know virtually nothing about, it's just a symptom > that their " religion " has been threatened. > > ---->haha! that's what i think, too. it's totally irrational to call an > idea, or a large body of evidence " voodoo " when you haven't read one single > word of it. > *** The word 'voodoo' in this context is worse than irrational, it is demeaning. It is a technique (unfortunately used by many doctors and scientists) of avoiding a challenge to status quo theories, on the grounds that the opposing argument is based in mysticism and not science. The word 'voodoo' here is a weapon used to place you in the 'irrational' category so there is no basis for debate. This argumentation technique is inherently unscientific, because it bypasses the scientific method on the grounds that the 'scientist' has authority that the layperson cannot challenge ( " I ran it by some doctors... " ). The primary reason this attitude is so prevalent is the weakness of our education system in both science and philosophy. Even most doctors probably get deficient science education in grade school; then have to cram so much into pre-med and med school, that once they get their degree, they'd much rather rest their case on their titles, rather than apply rational thinking to what they've learned. Lack of philosophical education is also pertinent because our educational system demands that we memorize pre-digested 'knowledge' contained in textbooks. Every young person should have a grounding in the Greek philosophers who first developed Western rationalism based on the dialectic (that is, reasoned debate). Instead we have a convoluted product of rationalism, where what's considered rational is locked up in the ivory tower and no longer subject to open debate by 'outsiders'. BUT, from the woman at the gym's point of view, you might as well have approached her on April 15th right after she mailed her enormous tax payment, and said: " Hey lady, don't you know this tax business is a conspiracy? Look at this classified document from the IRS. What the tax code *really* says is 'Only Idiots And Fools Pay Taxes. All Others Are Exempt By Law. Ha Ha.' " Her roof is leaking, she's exhausted and overworked: She calls you a liar. Having eaten low-fat all your life, and hearing that's it's actually *damaging* is, well, a major bummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 > In other words, whenever someone gives out with knee-jerk criticism > of something they know virtually nothing about, it's just a symptom > that their " religion " has been threatened. > > ---->haha! that's what i think, too. it's totally irrational to call an > idea, or a large body of evidence " voodoo " when you haven't read one single > word of it. > *** The word 'voodoo' in this context is worse than irrational, it is demeaning. It is a technique (unfortunately used by many doctors and scientists) of avoiding a challenge to status quo theories, on the grounds that the opposing argument is based in mysticism and not science. The word 'voodoo' here is a weapon used to place you in the 'irrational' category so there is no basis for debate. This argumentation technique is inherently unscientific, because it bypasses the scientific method on the grounds that the 'scientist' has authority that the layperson cannot challenge ( " I ran it by some doctors... " ). The primary reason this attitude is so prevalent is the weakness of our education system in both science and philosophy. Even most doctors probably get deficient science education in grade school; then have to cram so much into pre-med and med school, that once they get their degree, they'd much rather rest their case on their titles, rather than apply rational thinking to what they've learned. --------->really well put, daphne :-) >>>>BUT, from the woman at the gym's point of view, you might as well have approached her on April 15th right after she mailed her enormous tax payment, and said: " Hey lady, don't you know this tax business is a conspiracy? Look at this classified document from the IRS. What the tax code *really* says is 'Only Idiots And Fools Pay Taxes. All Others Are Exempt By Law. Ha Ha.' " Her roof is leaking, she's exhausted and overworked: She calls you a liar. Having eaten low-fat all your life, and hearing that's it's actually *damaging* is, well, a major bummer. ----->right, my thinking was she's taken " ownership " of the idea - it has become part of who she is. after all she said she's read about it for *20 years*. she may have convinced other people of it, too. so for me to challenge it, may seem like a personal affront to her, since it's an integral part of her worldview. if *i* ever become that rigidly dogmatic, someone please shoot me! <g> Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 > > ----->right, my thinking was she's taken " ownership " of the idea - it has > become part of who she is. after all she said she's read about it for *20 > years*. she may have convinced other people of it, too. so for me to > challenge it, may seem like a personal affront to her, since it's an > integral part of her worldview. > > if *i* ever become that rigidly dogmatic, someone please shoot me! <g> > Saving people from evil cholesterol is woven into her self image, from the sound of it. Suze, you could not become dogmatic like that. You ask questions. It's a tough line between sharing information and sounding like an evangelist. Even if one is not dogmatic, having opinions so outside the mainstream makes one seem like a cult member. What does one do when one's pregnant sister-in-law is practically a vegan? Preach, or cringe and look the other way? Half of me says it's none of my business. The other half thinks, what about the baby, entirely dependent on mom's nourishment? And with the ADA saying it's ok to raise kids vegan, how can my sis-in-law know if I don't tell her? There's no easy answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 A source list might not mean anything to her. It's worth a try, but there are a lot of people to whom authority is all that's important. They do not use their minds or look at evidence. They just think that whatever the highest authority tells you is right. The very idea of questioning authority is painful/unthinkable to them. That might be why this particular individual got upset. Robin From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> Reply- < > Subject: RE: voodoo vent Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:47:47 -0400 >>>This reminds me of a minor complaint I've had about WAPF literature--the fact that they keep referring to " the diet-heart hypothesis " in disparaging terms. None of us are questioning the idea that diet is the primary factor in heart disease, so why all this criticism of " the diet-heart hypothesis? " ---->brandon, i don't believe the WAPF made up that term - it's the term that's used in common parlance to refer to the theory that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease, aka " the lipid hypothesis " . i'm not sure who first coined it, and i also noticed that it doesn't accurately reflect the specifcity of the hypothesis in question. but if you google, you'll see it's widely used by other writers, as well. i'm now printing out 20 pages from the international network of cholesterol skeptics website (http://www.thincs.org/public.htm). it's a list of papers and books written on the diet-heart hypothesis by members of THINCS. at minimum, it will show that these " voodoo priests " have published a hell of a lot of literature on cholesterol and heart disease in, what the mainstream considers, " reputable " journals. as it is now, this woman seems to think it's just a bunch wacko mumbo jumbo with no science behind it, but it's hard to say that with this impressive source list in your face. hmmmm...i guess i'm not ready to give the jackhammer up yet! lol. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 >>>>>It's a tough line between sharing information and sounding like an evangelist. Even if one is not dogmatic, having opinions so outside the mainstream makes one seem like a cult member. ------>right, i get this feeling too. i think my enthusiasm for discussing nutrition also makes me seem even more like an evangelist than like a nutrition enthusiast, to some people. but this is just my personality - when i'm deeply interested in a subject, i tend to talk about it a lot, debate it, analyze it, joke about it, etc. >>>>> What does one do when one's pregnant sister-in-law is practically a vegan? Preach, or cringe and look the other way? Half of me says it's none of my business. The other half thinks, what about the baby, entirely dependent on mom's nourishment? And with the ADA saying it's ok to raise kids vegan, how can my sis-in-law know if I don't tell her? There's no easy answer. -------->that's a tough one...you want to protect the baby, but not evangelize to the mom. i think you (me, everyone) have to figure out the best approach for the individual. i don't really care about the dietary habits of the woman at my gym, so i don't feel compelled to urge her to change them, but family members are a whole different thing. and with some people, it just takes time. unfortunately, it often seems that people are unwilling to change *until* they are suffering from poor health. let's hope your sis-in-law doesn't let it get that far. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2003 Report Share Posted July 3, 2003 When I started on a NT diet and started telling my sister about lard, and coconut oils, she thought I was nuts. After all we all know how bad coconut oil is thanks to those psudo-scientists at Center for Science in the Public Interest. So I printed out several articles from WAP and the coconut info site. I gave them to her when she visited on a Tue. By Thur evening she called me back and said she had found a copy of NT (she couldn't wait for me to borrow mine) and wanted to know if I had any sources for real eggs, raw milk and free range chickens.(I live in farm country, she's in the city) She had also spoken with a couple of her friends from church that also knew about the PUFA horrors so that helped. So mayby if you share some good reading material with your relatives it will get them to understand that there really is good research behind what we are doing. > >>>>>It's a tough line between sharing information and sounding like an > evangelist. Even if one is not dogmatic, having opinions so outside > the mainstream makes one seem like a cult member. > > ------>right, i get this feeling too. i think my enthusiasm for discussing > nutrition also makes me seem even more like an evangelist than like a > nutrition enthusiast, to some people. but this is just my personality - when > i'm deeply interested in a subject, i tend to talk about it a lot, debate > it, analyze it, joke about it, etc. > > >>>>> What does one do > when one's pregnant sister-in-law is practically a vegan? Preach, or > cringe and look the other way? Half of me says it's none of my > business. The other half thinks, what about the baby, entirely > dependent on mom's nourishment? And with the ADA saying it's ok to > raise kids vegan, how can my sis-in-law know if I don't tell her? > There's no easy answer. > > -------->that's a tough one...you want to protect the baby, but not > evangelize to the mom. i think you (me, everyone) have to figure out the > best approach for the individual. i don't really care about the dietary > habits of the woman at my gym, so i don't feel compelled to urge her to > change them, but family members are a whole different thing. and with some > people, it just takes time. unfortunately, it often seems that people are > unwilling to change *until* they are suffering from poor health. let's hope > your sis-in-law doesn't let it get that far. > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@v... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 Hmmm..sounds like the late great Dr. Mendelsohn in his " Confessions of a Medical Heretic " On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:48 -0000 " " <toyotaokiec@...> wrote: > I see this conflict as a " takes one to know one " sort of thing. > > In other words, whenever someone gives out with knee-jerk criticism > of something they know virtually nothing about, it's just a symptom > that their " religion " has been threatened. > > Don't you think that Americans' primary (or secondary) religion is > the Lipid Hypothesis...and their physicians are their high priests? > > > > > > > > > >At > > >minimum, it will show that these " voodoo priests " have published a > hell of a > > >lot of literature on cholesterol and heart disease in, what the > mainstream > > >considers, " reputable " journals. as it is now, this woman seems to > think > > >it's just a bunch wacko mumbo jumbo with no science behind it, but > it's hard > > >to say that with this impressive source list in your face. > > > > Very often the most defensive people make the biggest " converts. " > But when > > people call something " voodoo " a lot of it is that they really > don't like > > dealing with the science -- science scares a lot of people! The > folks that > > can read a source list or a medical journal are usually more open > minded. > > " Humans live on one-quarter of what they eat; on the other three-quarters lives their doctor. " --Egyptian pyramid inscription, 3800 B.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.