Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad

The Definitive PP Bookshelf Thread

Login or register to post comments Last Post 8146 reads   49 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)
  • Tue, May 15, 2018 - 09:49pm

    #11
    nedyne

    nedyne

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2012

    Posts: 50

    count placeholder

    We are part of the environmental solution too

When I watched the Crash Course 2014 for something like the 4th time recently, it struck me as odd that food isn’t mentioned for the impact it has. In fact, when it is mentioned in this site, as in the recommendations here for books by Mark Sisson and other similar paleo fans, the opposite message is given. Environmentally, what humanity is doing is wildly unsustainable, and yet I feel that more emphasis could be placed on ways in which we can as individuals and families contribute to the environment.

For example, animal agriculture alone contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, trucks, buses, planes and ships combined. Transportation emissions are part waste, part necessity, but animal agriculture emissions are 100% unnecessary (at least outside of very poor nations). Not only is the science clear that we do not need any animal products for optimal health (that includes all meats including fish, dairy and eggs), but also there is a growing balance of scientific evidence that shows the deleterious effects that animal products have on our health (and balance of evidences implies consideration of all valid evidence). Yes, I know you’ve probably heard people who think otherwise, but I’ve devoted a lot of time to finding unbiased evidence about this and I can assure you what I’ve just said is true. I invite you to verify for yourself. One place to start is the published position paper of the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

So yes, the world is going to continue in its unsustainable ways for the time being, but you and I have a lot more power than we think, to reduce our individual contribution to this environmental mess.

 

I know this message may not square well with Chris and Adam since they recommend paleo quacks like Mark Sisson. I tried paleo myself for a month a few years ago after I listened to one of those podcasts here and I read a book by Sisson. After my trial I decided to look into the science of paleo and I discovered that it’s one big hoax built on a terribly biased interpretation of the available science. The book The Low-Carb Fraud by T. Colin Campbell PhD provides a readable and relatively short account of that. Nutrition is a very complicated field with conflicting evidence and there’s plenty of room for people who want build a case for something to pick and choose data to support their pet theory. That’s not how science works.

I would also recommend that you look into Dr. Michael Greger’s research. He and his team of researchers read every paper published in every scientific journal on nutrition in English, and then synthetize the results with only one goal: finding what promotes optimal health. And his findings are clear that the fewer animal products in the diet, the better for the individual’s health. I highly recommend his very short introductory videos here and this talk in which he summarizes what he’s found.

 

Giving up animal products is not something that most people are ready to do right away, so I think it’s better to start thinking of ways you can begin to reduce your consumption. Every reduction you can make has an impact. It’s a start. (One thing I would caution you against doing is replacing red meat with chicken, since chicken meat involves a lot more animal suffering per pound than beef. Better to start by replacing some animal products altogether with plant-based alternatives.)

 

In short, you too can be part of the solution, not just by being prepared for what could come, but by reducing your contribution to the environmental mess caused by animal agriculture.

 

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 12:23am

    #12
    MKI

    MKI

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 69

    count placeholder

    Meat

Nedyne: Not only is the science clear that we do not need any animal products for optimal health (that includes all meats including fish, dairy and eggs), but also there is a growing balance of scientific evidence that shows the deleterious effects that animal products have on our health (and balance of evidences implies consideration of all valid evidence).

We’ve known since W. Prince back in the 1930’s that one can survive but never thrive without meat. This is old news. As we know from countless studies as well: there are no centenarians among vegetarians.

You can look at a human’s teeth and know immediately he needs meat to thrive; it’s how we’ve evolved. Just looking at the fossil record of hunter/gatherers vs farmers tells the tale. From teeth alone! The only animal to have rotting teeth in the fossil record is modern humans after agriculture. Oh, and their dogs.

I do agree the idea of a healthy life is counter to the whole “resources are running out” belief. But that’s a problem with false belief, not living right.

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 02:08am   (Reply to #12)

    #13
    nedyne

    nedyne

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2012

    Posts: 50

    count placeholder

    Diet and health

MKI, from your response it doesn’t look like you read the links I posted. For example, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published in its scientific journal:

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.

Clearly, flawed ideas from one guy (Weston Price) in the 1930s can’t override the position in 2016 of the biggest academy of nutrition and dietetics of the US, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, can it? What’s the last peer-reviewed article you found published by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, or a similar organization, touting the health benefits of a paleo-type diet?

 

Are there centenarian vegetarians? I don’t know, and it wouldn’t matter even if it were true. Think about it. If only an uber tiny proportion of world population was vegetarian at age 80, then it wouldn’t be in the least surprising if there were no centenarian vegetarians, would it? Just because of the size of the cohorts, not because of any health advantage or disadvantage. It’s just not the way to settle the argument. A better way is to study people of all age groups that are vegan and that are not vegan and then compare disease rates, among other scientific ways, and you’ll find those peer-reviewed studies by the hundreds if you read the links I posted to Dr. Greger’s work.

 

I know this is an emotional topic, and I know that many people don’t want to change their diet even if was better for them and for the environment, but if you’re genuinely interested, read the resources I linked, I seriously recommend it.

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 03:23am

    #14
    aggrivated

    aggrivated

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2010

    Posts: 441

    count placeholder

    Two more books

‘The Five Stages of Collapse’ by Dmitry Orlov

A very good high altitude look down on what we are living through as I write this. Financial, commercial, political, social and cultural aspects are all considered. Worth reading biannually at a minimum.

‘A Prosperous Way Down’ by Howard T Odom and Elisabeth C Odom.

Two professors, husband and wife, speak from a well developed foundation of systems ecology and environmental science coupled with economics. Written in 2001 the content of their predictions provide a possible path to a gentler descent than outright collapse. This book is the capstone of their combined years of study and teaching. As pointed out in their conclusion, “during quiescent periods (of civilization) information was kept alive by low eneegy institutions specializing in knowledge.”

PP members may be a small group of outliers today, but we all are information hounds.

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 07:11am   (Reply to #12)

    #15

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 100

    count placeholder

    With Peers like these….

nedyne wrote:

MKI, from your response it doesn’t look like you read the links I posted. For example, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published in its scientific journal:

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.

Clearly, flawed ideas from one guy (Weston Price) in the 1930s can’t override the position in 2016 of the biggest academy of nutrition and dietetics of the US, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, can it? What’s the last peer-reviewed article you found published by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, or a similar organization, touting the health benefits of a paleo-type diet?

 

 

At the risk of actually agreeing with MKI for the first time, it is pretty clear that humans evolved as omnivores that derived much of their nutrition from eating meat.  And that animal fats and proteins provides optimal health and functioning. This frankly makes logical and common sense from an evolutionary standpoint.  And is a separate argument from the issue of  harm that industrial farming both meat and grains/vegetables  has on the environment.   

I say this as a practicing vegetarian and former Vegan who has looked hard at the evidence and personally experienced dramatic health benefits by both reducing grains and fruits and other carbs and  reintroducing animal protein and fat into my diet.

 Your appeal to authority touting the academic integrity and unassailablity of the the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is particularly misguided.

They (formerly known as the ADA ) are essentially a’ professional’ special interest organization operating on a sclerotic and failed paradigm that brought us both the upside down food pyramid and the  subsequent obesity and metabolic syndrome epidemic.  Their science is self referential and suspect and funded by industrial food interests and commercial entities.  Looking at their current sponsors they are unsurprisingly  in sync with their dietary recommendations, and their ‘helpful’ articles and findings. 

On the plus side Coca Cola is no longer sponsoring them!

NutritionFact.org wrote:

 The American Dietetic Association (ADA) is the world’s largest association of nutrition professionals. They claim to be devoted to “improving the nation’s health.” They promote a series of Nutrition Fact Sheets. Who writes them? Industry sources pay $20,000 per fact sheet to the ADA and explicitly take part in writing the documents. The ADA then promotes them through its journal and on its website.

Some of these fact sheets are “What’s a Mom to Do: Healthy Eating Tips for Families” sponsored by Wendy’s; “Lamb: The Essence of Nutrient Rich Flavor,” sponsored by the Tri-Lamb Group; “Cocoa and Chocolate: Sweet News” sponsored by the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition; “Eggs: A Good Choice for Moms-to-Be” sponsored by the American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center; “Adult Beverage Consumption: Making Responsible Drinking Choices” in connection with the Distilled Spirits Council; and “The Benefits of Chewing Gum” sponsored by the Wrigley Science Institute. For visuals, see Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Conflicts of Interest.

Did you know there was a Wrigley Science Institute?

In 2008, the ADA announced that the Coca-Cola Company had become an “ADA Partner” through its corporate relations sponsorship program. The ADA “provides partners a national platform via ADA events and programs with prominent access to key influencers, thought leaders and decision makers in the nutrition marketplace.” The ADA’s press release also pointed out that “the Coca-Cola Company will share their research findings with ADA members in forums such as professional meetings and scientific publications.” For example, did you know there are “No Harmful Effects of Different Coca-Cola Beverages on Rat Testicles?” Was that even a concern? Thou doth protest too much methinks…

Since this is a book library thread I will reccomend:  Crystalizing Public Opinion by Edward Bernays

 

PP

 

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 12:01pm   (Reply to #12)

    #16
    VeganDB12

    VeganDB12

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2008

    Posts: 109

    count placeholder

    Please let’s not debate veganism

I have been on this site a very long time and support the message fully. I have changed my name to VeganDB12 a while ago as a way to offer gentle support to other veggie types out there (love ya all) who might feel marginalized by the animal husbandry focus (which I have never ever argued with here btw).  Chris and Adam welcome everyone who offers clear data, respectful debate and I hope we can provide that here. 

MK1 please let people like me make suggestions.  I for one am not trying to be a thorn in anyone’s side by being open about my food choices and I  wish we could put aside this debate for purposes of letting the thread continue peaceably. 

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 01:01pm

    #17
    greendoc

    greendoc

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 23 2008

    Posts: 112

    count placeholder

    yes, lets get along

With respect to the  MKI and nedyne, you are both correct.  I work as a secondary researcher evaluating the evidence based literature to develop nutrigenomic tools for clinicians.  I get paid to read science. I have probably read over 10,000 articles in the last three years.  What has become very clear in that time is there is no “One diet that fits all”.  Research into dietary habits is notoriously difficult to perform well and a lot of the evidence based literature that gets quoted as proof is not case controlled, does not have large enough cohort to to be sufficiently powered, relies on patient self reporting, gets misquoted, is poorly designed, etc. I follow the work of Mark Sisson and Michael Greger both, and I see they cherry pick the evidence to support their messages.  If you comb Google Scholar/Pubmed you can always find a piece of science that supports your personal bias. 

 

Science is a verb really: the building of tested observations that try to control for as many confounding factors; its replication by other research groups; the eventual emergence of an accepted theory that seems to work in all cases.  That model works great in the physics lab, but not so well in the human body as we are all so unique: which different genetics, different habits, different environments, and different metabolic challenges over our lifetime.  We exist along a spectrum of ability to eat, digest,absorb and metabolize fats, protein and carbs.  Some people have the genetics to thrive on a cyclical ketogenic or low carb diet, for others its a nightmare.  Likewise, there are folks among us who do extremely well on diet 65% high complex carbs, 10% fat, 25% protein (MCdougall, Ornish, Okinawan, etc ) but for others it ends in Type 2 diabetes.  Most of us lie in the middle somewhere.

 

Research into the blue zones that have a much higher percentage of centenarians (Sardinia, Icaria Greece, Loma Linda Adventists, Okinowans and Nicoya Costa Rico) show they are not vegan, but they eat animal products sparingly: dairy, fish and eggs weekly and red meat monthly (expressed as a median intake, not a rule, there are outliers on either side who skew vegan or eat animal products more often).  It is also interesting to note that these are people who are highly active into old age, eat very little sugar, have a strong community of friends/social life, tend to have some faith based practice, and with exception of the Loma Linda Adventists, live in relatively unpolluted rural environments.  So it is not all about the food.  

 

Its my considered opinion that vegan/vegetarian diet done well (Whole Foods plant based with quality unprocessed foods and animal products used sparingly more like a garnish, and supplementation of B12 and other missing micronutrients if needed) is best for most people and the planet.  

 

Long story short:  There is plenty of good evidence the SAD (standard American diet) is crap.  There is sufficient credible evidence/number crunching  that a vegan diet is more environmentally sustainable long term for the numbers of people on the planet now.  There is overwhelming evidence we all need to eat more Whole Food plant based nutrition. (Half your plate should be vegetables, a forkful or two fermented).

 

And in the spirit of cherry picking I will leave you with this: a sufficiently powered meta-analysis with clear end points that shows that yes, vegan and vegetarian diets superior to omnivore diet.  But also point out, that statisically significant results does not mean 100% of the people in the study benefited, there are always outliers who defy p values < 0.05.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923

 

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 05:08pm

    #18
    aggrivated

    aggrivated

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2010

    Posts: 441

    count placeholder

    We argue like First Worldlers

Without refrigeration this discussion will have a much different flavor. What do we have the ability to forage in winter?, would be a good approach. BARF(biologically appropriate raw food) can be fairly easily introduced to dogs. What is the human equivalent?

Dr Price’s primary research dealt with the diets ofhealthy indigenous populations in various parts of world. Bottom line, those who survived and thrived had developed cultural customs and taboos that protected and developed an adequate diet specific to their locale.

A good exercise would be delving beyond the veggie-carni divide and learning, as Price did, what nutients are needed for health and how to most successfully source them in our locales year round with the minimum of help from modern fossil fueled technologies.

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 06:09pm

    #19
    MillenialFalcon

    MillenialFalcon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2016

    Posts: 6

    count placeholder

    The Fourth Turning

I’ve read many of the books on Adam’s list.  The one book that was most impactful for me I found via this site but was not on the list.  It was Neil Howe’s The fourth Turning.  It seemed to have a slightly optimistic twist in that even though things are getting worse now its all cyclically and will get better in about 20 years.

  • Wed, May 16, 2018 - 08:25pm

    #20

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1446

    count placeholder

    On the grittier side of things, left and right brain

Surviving the Economic Collapse by Ferfal

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Survival-Manual-Surviving-Economic/dp/9870

Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense by Massad Ayoob

https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Understanding-Right-Defense/dp/14402

Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver by Mike Maloney

https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Investing-Gold-Silver-Financial/dp/19378327

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

https://www.amazon.com/New-Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man/dp/1626566747/re

The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986

The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins (cleverly disguised as an adventure story for tween girls, but quite revolutionary and relevant to our near future)

https://www.amazon.com/Hunger-Games-Trilogy-3-Book/dp/B00PMGUR7S/ref=sr_

“Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor.”

If you were to read all of these in the next six months, you’re going to need this proverb:

“When you’ve finally had enough, grab your rifle and run out onto your front porch.  If you’re the only one there, it’s not time yet.”

And this one:

“We’re at that awkward stage where it’s too late to work through system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

 

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)

Login or Register to post comments