Vitamins are natural substances. They outlawed POT so they can outlaw anything. But they would look pretty stupid doing it.

Okay after this ridiculous statement I'm done listening to you. You don't know what you are talking about.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that ketones and sugars are mutual exclusive groups (they aren't). The CNS requires sugars (IIRC, ketone sugars are fine), so your body must maintain a minimum blood sugar level to stay alive. Are you saying that the sugars that our brain needs won't also keep cancer alive? Cancer cells can't survive on ketone sugars?




True, and our bodyies need fat in a way that it doesn't need sugar: there are certain fat compounds that we must eat. A zero lipid diet will definitely hurt you. But just like with vitamins, you only need so much, and once you get that amount getting more is not necessarily good.




Define 'low' ? A zero fat diet is bad for you, yes. If the fats you do it are rich in the necessary fat compounds, I'd wager you can be very healthy while getting 10% of your calories from fat.

If all of your fat calories come from fats that lack nutritional value, then a 10% fat diet may be harmfully lacking.




Just because a substance is deemed 'bad for you' doesn't mean that its actually harming you in the actual quantities present. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here - I know very, very few vegans who have been vegan for more than 5 years who are healthy.




You can live without [insert a category of exercise] but you won't be as healthy. Does that mean you need [category of exercise] ?






Thats great for obese people trying to lose weight, but for healthy people striving for a healthy diet, I don't see that this matters.

He means that we don't need dietary carbs to the get the energy for out bodies to function, and he's right. Our body cells (specifically the CNS) absolutely need 'carbs' for energy, but they can be produced within our bodies using fats and proteins.

True.




I'm not sure that the quality of the meats that are readily available today would make for a good substitute for the meats our ancestors ate.

Vitamin therapy is great for people who are actually deficient. This is a rarity in this country.

Companies pushing mega-doses of vitamins often try to trick people into believing they will heal situations that they won't heal.

That "deficient people is a rarity" is not a true statement. Most people in this country are deficient, even fat people. But of course medical doctors are not trained in nutrition and most know very little about how deficiency effects health issues.

Mega-doses of vitamins for therapy are not necessarily "tricks" to make people believe they will be healed. What would be the point in that? There is not a lot of big money to be made in vitamins and natural cures. The money to be made is in the drug industry.

But prescription drug reactions have killed millions of people in the last 20 years, even when taken and prescribed as directed. At least millions of people have not died from vitamins. Only about 10 in the last 20 years and that was from allergic reactions.

If by sugars, you mean glucose, then you are correct. Your body can turn protein into glucose.



Parts of your brain, kidneys and heart need glucose, but your body can easily make that from protein.



Cancer cells generate energy using glycolysis, which requires glucose. If you aren't eating carbs, then you aren't feeding cancer. Your body will be forced to make a small amount of glucose, but it may not be enough for the cancer to grow or spread and in some cases it's not enough for the tumor to maintain it's current size, so they shrink.



Right, we don't need carbs in our diet. We need sugar to survive, but our body can easily make enough if we are eating protein.



Our ancestors ate a diet very high in fat, from 60-80%. A similar diet would do us good.



There are three macro nutrients. Carbohydrates, protein and fat. If you lower the amount of one in your diet, one or both of the others will have to be increased. Usually, if you reduce fat, you also reduce protein and increase carbohydrates drastically. Of the macro nutrients, your body only needs protein and fat. Too much protein can cause problems. Carbohydrates aren't necessary and are actually harmful in the long run. Fat is blood sugar neutral, nutritious and makes you feel full longer. Fat also helps to elevate mood and helps your liver to produce the healthy version of LDL cholesterol.




Pattern B LDL is definitely bad for you in any quantity. It is responsible for forming plaques in arteries.




Apples to oranges. Couch potatoes often live longer than people who exercise regularly. People who don't get enough animal fat in their diet are more sick and die earlier.



True, the weight gain portion is particularly important to people who are already overweight or who are struggling to maintain their weight, but the diet also treats metabolic disease. Metabolic disease doesn't necessarily make you fat, in fat many people with metabolic disease are skinny. Skinny doesn't mean healthy. A skinny person with metabolic disease can experience beta-cell burnout just as easily as a fat person. It's perhaps worse for them, because a fat person just needs to look in the mirror to see that they are doing things wrong, a skinny person looks and feels healthy, so they might ignore their doctor's orders concerning metabolic disease.

Carbs are only carbs in the stomach, where they are broken down into glucose. Some cells in our bodies require glucose to survive, but that glucose is easily made from proteins. Your body can turn glucose into fat, but it cannot turn fat into glucose.

After I posted I did some reading and realized that my thinking was wrong regarding the categories/terms - as if some sugars might have ketone groups and others don't. It looks like (?) all sugars have a ketone group. Also (as you already know) I learned that the brain can use three ketone-based substances which are not sugars - for fuel. I'm assuming these were the substances you referred to (correctly) as 'ketones'. If those substances are not just usable, but also adequate, then my teachers and textbooks would be wrong re: the need for sugar; but I'm thinking that just because these non-sugars can be used, doesn't mean they provide all that the brain needs.

Separately from a precise statement of the brains true needs, you are right to say that our bodies will, if possible, ensure a minimum amount of glucose if available in the blood.





Pretty cool.



In other posts you speak to the kinds of food, not just the ratios. This is essential. I don't believe that eating 60-80% fat, in the forms most commonly consumed in our society, is a good thing.




All true.



Certainly the kinds of carbs that most people are eating, yes, but I'm not convinced that, say, 60% of your calories from the right kinds of carbs is harmful for most people.






Interesting.




There are several different subcultures' language/terminology preferences intersecting in this conversation, and I think you are using 'carb' in the nutrionists' sense of the word. Most everyone agrees re: the breakdown of macronutrients that you gave earlier, into three groups. Many apply a similar breakdown to all organic molecules, even those that are indigestible to people, with 4 major classes being used (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids) and in that scheme blood glucose is categorized as a carbohydrate.

. . . and new data being studied shows possible issues with mega doses of vitamins feeding certain types of cancers.

Yes, they are not necessarily (or always) 'tricks', but they sometimes are.



Oh, but there is! A good deal of money to be made in selling people vitamins they don't need. Especially if you can convince people that they need a certain form or certain ratios or whatever which can't be found in your standard generic vitamin pill.

Sure, the drug industry also makes money convincing people to buy things they don't need and they make a lot more of it. But its not an A vs B situation. Both industries have some products that are useful for some people, and both industries try to push their products where they aren't needed.

I just read a long article on ketones and the brain. I wanted to quote the final sentence, which sums up the entire article "For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair."

Your Brain On Ketones

So it seems that ketones are the superior fuel for the brain and incidentally (not mentioned in this article) for the heart. Your heart functions more efficiently while running on ketones.

EDIT: From my own experience, I can think much more clearly and have a lot more energy when I'm on a low carb diet.

I know that simple sugars are mostly bad. One of the diet changes my aunt had to do is to eliminate simple sugars. She also drank distilled water. She had to prepare all natural foods, no junk, no prepackaged foods with artificial substances.

Her diet alone probably had a lot to do with her recovery. She got out of her stressful job. Cancer thrives on stress.

And she took vitamins and laetrile.

I just watched a video called Cereal worm holes. Oddly enough it was not really about worm holes. It was about crop circles and circle makers.

There are apparently people who go around making complex crop circles.

They say that there are actually two kinds of crop circles, and those are the "hoaxes" made by people and the ones that are associated with the paranormal and can't be explained.

But even the man made crop circles have a lot of mystery surrounding them, and the circle makers have experienced some strange things and seen some strange balls of light that come around the circles and seem to be "looking at them."

Yea I remember a group of scientists whose pet hobby was studying Aliens sighting and what not going out to a few of these crop circles and gathering soil and plants ect and testing them.

One of them found higher levels of radioactive materials in the soil than he expected and claimed this was evidence that a craft of some kind had made the crop circle.

Well low and behold another researcher decided to ask . . . well, how much radioactive materials do we expect to find in soils in general, and discovered the quantities were quite normal and found at sites not suspected of alien visitors.

Skepticism starts with asking . . . what if I am wrong? How can I test all possible alternatives to falsify my hypothesis?

It is this honest search for truth that drives skeptics, and when you have yourself supported an idea, and can falsify it willingly and feel good about yourself even thought it turned over your own pet notions, that is when you are a true intellectual.

I agree that any finds of radioactive materials in a crop circle should be compared to radioactive materials found normally, also in other crop circles, and also in just the wheat field or else the findings don't really mean anything.

Radioactivity can be found in the mountains of Colorado in higher doses than other places.

It's obvious that Wiki is your "source" for info on homeopathy.
It's also obvious that you didn't read the entire article.



The entire premise? Or just the definition you supplied?

But anyways, let's use your definition, 'cause I'm flexible like that...


So, care to explain the reasoning behind cureing a disease with the disease? (immunization)






Who said anything about Autism? Is this a weak strawman? Can you provide evidence for that claim?


You make assertion that vaccines have made it possible to be 7 billion people on Earth? I guess that exponential procreation would have nothing to do with that!

Show your evidence that vaccines are the reason there a billions of people now...






You think that alien life is a guarantee? Now ain't that some scary chit!!! Care to provide some evidence?









I wish you could have followed that, but you seem to lack proper understanding of what it was that I said.


So you admit that being intellectually dishonest is relevant?
Attacking the chararcter?
Poisoning the well?
Appeal to ridicule?


If you want an example of what is "pathetic", I think you should read this quote.

"Once you gain knowledge of a given thing, its not needed to reestablish that knowledge again."

It's idiotic statements like that one that stagnates intellectual growth...

Possible issues? That's extremely vague.!!

The real statistics are that MILLIONS of people have died from prescription drug interactions. These were drugs prescribed and taken in the correctly given doses.

Most drugs have side effects. Some of the side effects are WORSE than the problem they are being taken for.

In the last 20 years only 10 deaths have been attributed to vitamins compared to millions of deaths attributed to prescribed drugs.

I don't know...bacon has healthy fat, eggs have healthy fat, beef has healthy fat, coconut oil have healthy fat, chickens have healthy fat...etc

Should you eat transfats? no. You also shouldn't be eating the "frankenfats" found in canola oil, soybean oil, etc. Natural fats are healthy fats. The only fats that I intentionally add to my diet that aren't from animal sources are: olive oil, peanut butter, sunbutter and coconut oil.