Consistent persistence pays off :-)

It's amazing how you can go from barely being able to pick the strings while looking at them to playing any note blindfolded in a relatively short time.

Great progress for just 1 year.

I think you're right about people moving around less in general, and it no doubt has played a part.

But there are also studies which show that even if calories in/out remains the same between all diets, the diet which is less processed food and lower fat food does better.

E.g. https://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v7/n3/pdf/nutd20173a.pdf

Oil (and fat) is crazy because it's so calorie dense. Not only is there 9 calories per gram (vs carbohydrates which are only 4 calories per gram) it's in a tiny package. Not that sugar is healthy, but for scale: a tablespoon of sugar has less than 1/2 the calories of a tablespoon of oil.

Great video about oil here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGGQxJLuVjg

I hear you, but the interpretation part is where I think the problem lies.

While you have a fairly benevolent interpretation, someone else who has trouble getting laid could read it as a god given justification to own sex slaves. That's a pretty extreme example of course, but you can imagine that there would be interpretations varying between your example and my extreme example, many of which could be used to oppress women.

When all that was needed was a simple "no gossiping in church" rule. It's a clear command, unmistakable and unexploitable for anything other that it's original intention.

So a 3rd testament would start with the words READ THIS LITERALLY :-)

Right now though - How do we know whether or not take the bible word for word? It's not even clear whether that is up to us to decide.

It's your interpretation that's made you decide not to read it literally, but instead to interpret it with the overall goal of viewing the good in the bible. And that says more about you being a good person, rather than the contents of the bible. I think you would be advocating living a compassionate lifestyle whether or not you read the bible.

That's why I'm thinking it's unnecessary to even have religion, when we can just teach ethical behavior, and ethical thinking in a very clear way, which leaves no room for error, or danger of allowing people to justify their bad behaviors.

You don't need religion of any kind to spread compassion and unity. We can teach that to people without all of the metaphysical juju, and without burying the good messages in a minefield of misogyny and xenophobia.

Also how about we learn to do good things for the sake of goodness, which is it's own reward, instead of the threat of eternal punishment.

I think there needs to be a 3rd testament that really clears this shit up.

And if we are supposed to just use common sense, then it means we don't need the bible at all, since that would mean we have an innate ability to make good decisions ourselves.

Here's the study he's talking about in the video: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311889?query=featured_home&#Results=&t=articleBackground

It looks like a legitimate study, but being correlational it should be taken with a grain of salt *snare drum, splash cymbal* As corrolation cannot show causation.

They seem to control for various factors like age, cholesterol level and previous hypertension too, so they don't appear to be fudging any results.

Perhaps I could argue they aren't measuring salt intake, but rather sodium excretion, and estimating intake based on urine samples. So there is potentially a huge difference in diet - a lot of the participants were from Asia, where they don't tend to use table salt (they use soy sauce instead) And even though it's still high in sodium, soy sauce could be going through a different process inside the body. (Similar to how sugar doesn't cause an insulin spike when it's in fruit form, but does when it's refined form). It's possible that the salt from soy could be passing through the body rather than settling in the blood stream. I'm just speculating. Or perhaps they are also eating other foods which are protective against moderate salt intake, allowing more of it to be excreted than absorbed.

Either way it's very interesting to me :-)

What I would like to see is a study on foods, rather than ingredients to get a better picture. Because humans don't usually eat individual minerals, and combinations of minerals seem to act differently in the body.


I guess what it's all saying though is if you are healthy, then 3-6g of salt is fine, but once you are at risk of CVD you need to back off in order to reverse the damage. But CVD is of course not the only disease people need to be careful about (although it is the #1 we should be worrying about), but salt also feeds various cancers etc.

Your taste buds adjust within about a week, and things actually begin to taste better, because you can taste the flavours of the actual ingredients instead of just salt.

If you gradually ease off the salt, you never even notice (until you eat something that isn't salt reduced, and it will taste way too salty).


It's a lot easier than using a penis pump or popping viagra's later in life ;-)

Watch out, I'm a crazy vegan that's trying to trick you into eating healthier, reducing your carbon footprint and saving billions of lives each year(human and animal). Wouldn't that just be terrible if you got suckered into my plan!

I've quoted from:
Dr. Kim A Williams
Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn
Dr. Michael Greger
Dr. William C. Roberts
Dr. Neal Barnard
T. Colin Campbell Phd
Dr. Michael Klaper
Dr. Joel Fuhrman
Dr. Dean Ornish

All of which are themselves getting data from non-vegan originated scientific research.....

Feta is 46% RDI of salt
Halloumi etc....
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=feta+nutrition

EDIT:
Oh I see, I didn't write RDI in my previous comment, my bad. fixed. That would indeed be insanely wrong.


Although I do find it funny how I've posted about 10 different doctors, and you constantly think that it's the same guy just so you can allow yourself to dismiss any of the facts.

Here's another one in case you are counting: https://carsonmcquarrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/dr-kim-cardiologist-vegan-quote.jpg?w=640


Back on the ignore list you go :-)

Chicken and cheese are two very salty foods.

Depending on the cheese it's 25-50% RDI of salt.

Chicken is often injected with saline solution to plump it up, and also as a cheap way to make it weigh more. When you cook it the water is boiled out, but the salt remains.

It's worth getting used to unsalted peanut butter too (the 100% peanuts is the one to go for). You can sweeten it to your liking later with jam or maple syrup.

If you can keep your salt intake down to 1500mg your blood pressure returns to that of a child! (you also have to eat plenty of greens to create nictric oxide which prevents things sticking to the arterial walls.)

Blood pressing increasing as you age doesn't need to happen at all.

Eat more whole foods, and less processed foods essentially, and you need never have hypertension or erectile dysfunction.

The science is enough. People are fucking stupid and society needs to take active steps to stop people below the current average IQ from breeding.

Now some libtard will tell me that it's immoral, without even considering the morality of letting an entire race destroy itself by not acting.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"