>> ^gargoyle:

not "siliac" in the tags, but "celiac"


hey,
thanks for pantsing me in public.
very awesome of you!

>> ^Ornthoron:

no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".
health and nutrition wackos to garner votes
west coast hippies
Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason.


Of course not.

>> ^Ornthoron:

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?


He gives lip service to liberty and freedom of choice. I'm not one of those "west coast hippies" that avoids vaccines or drinks raw milk, but I'd never want to stop them from doing so. Unlike you and others, I don't sit on a high throne and sneer down at those who choose to do so. Even if there's zero health benefit over pasteurized or even if raw milk can be (but not always is) dangerous to ingest.

Why does this topic irk you so? And would you be against letting free adults choose to put things in their body even if they know the risks?

I hope you're not as uncritical when looking for libertarian literature as you are when looking for health information. That page is written by a HuffPo grade misinformer. Unpasteurized milk has no nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk, no matter how much some California hippies bleat about "natural".

Of course, I'm not here to judge those who choose to drink raw milk for some reason. I come after all from a country where half-rotten fish is considered haute cuisine (Although properly made rakfisk has no infectuous risks. And is delicious! And is a great excuse to drink lots of aquavit! Errm, I digress.). If you absolutely want some dysentery with your milk, that's your problem. I just want to warn people that we pasteurize milk for a very good reason.

On a larger scale though, I find it alarming that Ron Paul has to pay lip service to the health and nutrition wackos to garner votes. What will be next? The same type of west coast hippies also campaign actively against childhood vaccination. Will he, if he is elected president, abandon childhood vaccination programs in the name of freedom, when we know for a fact that the disappearance of group immunity in some areas of California has resulted in deadly outbreaks of measles and whooping cough?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ornthoron:
Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom.

It does if it keeps those things from being offered or used. I'm curious what you think freedom means, because I hear a lot of people make arguments similar to the one you just made. How is restricting people's ability to ingest raw milk - which some claim is healthier than pasteurized milk - a testament to freedom?

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.

This may be a shaky analogy, but it's similar IMO. to the 2nd Amendment, I'm very pro-gun, but there has to be SOME regulations, you just don't put certain weapons out there in the open market for any tom dick and harry who has the cash to buy. The potential for those weapons infringing on the life, liberty and happiness of others far outweighs the freedom to buy said weapons. Sure there may be plenty of people out there who would use such weapons wisely...but we don't just take their word for it, do we?

If it weren't for gov't regulations, we probably wouldn't even have ingredient lists or nutrition information on our food. Much of our quality of life today is because of these gov't regulations, not because of the free market. Personally, I don't want to turn back the clock and live in the old west days where if someone shoots me, It's MY fault for not dodging quick enough or for not shooting him first. Free market says slavery works too. Free Market says child labor is awesome. Free Market says sweatshops rule! We as a people have said time and time again that some things are more important than profit at all cost and that just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Were you asleep in History class?

If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it. It's a judgement call, you can't just blindly de-regulate everything in the name of liberty. News flash, the patriot act has very little to do with patriotism. The fair tax is anything but fair, and freedom isn't free. Just because Liberty is in the word libertarian, doesn't make it so.

This is another case of someone envisioning their version of a utopian world and working backwards. Well in a perfect world, there are no abortions, so obviously we have to ban abortions. Well in a perfect world, there are no poor people, so obviously we gotta make life more and more difficult for poor people so they are motivated to not be poor. In a perfect world, we don't need gov't looking over our shoulder because we get along fine on our own, then obviously we need to reduce gov't.

It' just doesn't work that way.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm definitely a fan of my wiener - it's the best wiener in the world.>> ^Skeeve:

So you're a wiener man?
J/K, I totally get it. Personally, if she looks like she's smuggling watermelons, I'm not interested.
>> ^dag:
Man, only mammals would be turned on by modified sweat gland sacks that secrete nutritional sap.
(not a breast man)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Man, only mammals would be turned on by modified sweat gland sacks that secrete nutritional sap.

(not a breast man)

so i watched this and for some reason thought you would enjoy it also.
http://videosift.com/video/primal-mind-nutrition-and-mental-health

>> ^Jinx:

I've had Salmonella. Its not really very nice. I like my food bombared with ionising radiation thanks.
I expect those laws exist for good reason. If these nitwits want to risk their health for "raw" food, and as long as the risks are clearly advertised then I don't really know why they shouldn't let them.


The debate is a bit more complex than just 'which has the most germs in it'. A great deal of the regular milk sold in stores is not simply milk, it usually has additives and other ingredients in it such as permeate. It is able to be sold as milk because that's how the labeling laws work in many parts of the world. Also, people may want to buy raw milk because they know the supplier is local, and they want to support local, more sustainable, business. Buying regular milk from a store means your likely supporting a large company that has little care for the environment or the cows.

In essence, people want to have a choice as to what they put in their body, it's about autonomy, and not always just about nutrition. I agree that the risks are higher, however I personally don't believe that these raids are about that at all.

Also, while there seems to be epidemiological evidence that raw milk has a higher chance of causing sickness than pasteurized milk, from what I've read most of these outbreaks occur when people are trying raw milk for the first time, or if they are eating products made with raw milk that haven't been handled properly. People that are raised on a farm drinking raw milk don't tend to get sick from it, due to the fact they build up resistance to any bacteria that may be present in the milk.

Oh you don't like how they try to use personality tests, GPA, and the infamous "career day" to help kids decide? I'm still not sure what I could stand to do for the rest of my life, and that's mainly because everything they tried to tell me was not helpful and everything you look into is not what people claim it to be.

Which I view as a failing of colleges, since young people are paying money to go into things they only have a very vague notion of and unless their parents or a close relative do the job, no one is going to provide them with straight answers in a vast majority of the time. Assuming they even consider what careers to ask about or what questions to ask about said careers.

I hold it up as proof that colleges at this time are there to get people in and out of programs while milking them for as much as possible, but don't actually take the time to evaluate that their programs provide the building blocks the student would need to follow the job path they THINK they want. The colleges don't care if the students presumptions are wrong.

I also view elementary to high school as bypassing a lot of common knowledge, common sense, life skills, etc things kids should learn. Like electric safety and basic repairs, basic automotive/mechanic/tool usage, cooking/laundry basics, and probably the most important of all nutrition and exercise. You see people on the news having heatstroke and everything else because they don't drink enough fluids or don't realize that not sweating is a really bad thing. Plus proper stretching and all that. I mean I remember them having wood working classes, and it didn't even focus on things you might actually run into that you could repair on your own without having some major equipment.

Education is great, but too many people come out of high school and college with a lot of knowledge, no applicable skills to a field, and almost no rudimentary skills to speak of. And this isn't saying they should be trained for jobs, this is saying they have enough of a common life skill set that they can at least somewhat measure what is required in positions. Right now, everyone claims they can do everything and they really know very little.

But Im with you there on the TNG DNA job matching.....wish we had it. No politics, nepotism, and what not to throw a wrench into everything.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner 'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.

So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.
Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.
Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.
I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Louis CK - Videogames, TV, Nutrition. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

In most cases, I'd think a live racoon would not only be more nutritional, but also tastier than a fast food burger.

Nothing new for me here, but I eagerly wait for the non nutritive sweeteners video.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^gwiz665:
Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.

As someone who is currently (perennially) trying to lose weight, I wish it was something as simple as running around the block a few times. I trained for a marathon two years ago and simply stopped losing weight during the process. I remained 30 lbs above my goal weight, and ran (and finished) the marathon like that. For people who are not naturally lean, it is the difficult (near impossible) combination of proper exercise with proper diet that causes them to often simply give up. It also an unhappy truth that the cheapest food is the least healthy, so poor people are much more likely to be malnourished into obesity.
As to the video, in this particular case, laughing is totally appropriate. But when it's a fat person by themselves, I am usually just saddened. And I always remember that phrase, "Are you riding a scooter because you're fat, or fat because you are riding a scooter?"


As polarizing as Nutrition Science is, (Whatever the fuck that means), there are three keys to losing weight. Diet, Weightlifting (or whatever muscle working exercise you do), and Cardio.

I'm not a PHD in whatever Nutritionists get PHDs in. But I do know that the best way to burn fat, over time, is getting you're Basal Rate Metabolism up. The best way to do that is to eat less more often.

The next best thing is to work the large muscle groups on your body. You don't have to be a body builder, but you want those muscles to work.

The last important thing on the fat burning trifecta is cardio. 20 minutes a day, or 30 minutes a day depending on what kind of cardio you do. I skip a day because of high impact running, and lifting.

The last thing you should always remember? You won't lose 20 pounds in a period of 2 weeks. You probably won't lose 5 pounds in a week. I went from about 270 to 255 in a year; with just cardio (boxing and running). I went from 255 to 243 in 3 months with diet, weight lifting, and cardio.

The trick is to cut all the excess fat. Then when it starts to get hard to lose weight you know you're actually making progress.

The reason you didn't lose weight when training for a marathon is because you were training for a marathon, not to lose weight. What I mean to say is that, most likely, you're body was storing up energy for the marathon.

In short three things: Diet, (Not going on a diet, but how and what you eat), Muscle Exercise, and Cardio.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.