“Someone will start demanding governmental regulation to reduce your intake of food to prevent you from developing diseases arising from hypernutrition.”
I don’t have a simple - and how rude of you to make such assumptions.
The problem with the US public as of now - is not “quality” of food - it’s over-processed and lacks nutrients. That is a fact - not an opinion. Giving the body nutrients is not a bad thing. Taking pills is.
Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.
Other cultures that do not participate in the US Diet don’t have these problems. Japan for one.
The last thing I want is more govt, control - but that’s what we have in corn and soy production. I live in Indiana and I fly my own helicopter - and it’s all I see in the vastness of this state.
Per Cancer - I’m very familiar with it. I’ve conducted research studies from an Anti-Terrorism perspective on germ warfare - and cancers were the initial phases of that.
As the results - my father died from such treatments - his immune system destroyed - and he received his bone marrow transplant from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Wash. At the time it was the best place to go for such traditional cancer treatments.
I love it when people get on here and are rude - knowing nothing about me - with one liners.
Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time. I call B.S.
Cancer rates have soared statistically for two reasons.
One is because people are living longer and not dying of all the other things that were getting people before they developed cancer. The second is that cancer is better detected now than thirty years ago. It doesn't count as cancer unless the cancer is detected. In 1960 Grandma would die of liver failure. In 2010 she died of liver cancer. The only differnce being the detection.
I also have experience with the subject. My daughter has brain cancer so I have been learning from the doctors at MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center in Houston. They just happen to be #1 in the world in cancer treatment, so I think they know what they are talking about.
I love it when people get on here and are rude - knowing nothing about me - with one liners.
Knowing nothing about you? What you're mistaking for rudeness is an appropriate response, not just to the absolute crap you push, which could have been lifted directly from an Adelle Davis, Eat Right to Stay Fit, food fad website, but to your wholly unjustified attitude about the adequacy of your knowledge:
1.
The problem with the US public as of now - is not “quality” of food - it’s over-processed and lacks nutrients.
Absolutely and wholly without foundation. There has never been a time in U.S. history when the general public has had easier access to a more inexpensive and wider variety of more nutritious and wholesome food products at any time of year than the present.
2.
Cancer rates have soared in the last 30 yrs - and it’s due to large volume of food being processed for easy meals - easy pick-up - and the results is a population that is fat and sick all the time.
Absolutely and wholly without foundation. Cancer death rates, except for those related to tobacco products, have been decreasing. For both men and women
cancer deaths have fallen since 1975. If, for instance, you have a country whose average age is lower, you'll have lower cancer rates since many types of cancer take a long time to develop and come as a result of senescence of DNA repair mechanisms and other cell repair/programed cell-death mechanism more typical of the elderly.
As far as being sick all the time, the health consequences of a population suffering consequences of hypernutrition aren't anywhere as bad as one suffering from under-nutrition. Look at Robert Fogel's Nobel lecture to see how things used to be in the bad old days of caloric restriction, diets limited by season and geography and income, and foods having only drying, smoking, or salting to preserve them. The ravages of incomplete tissue and organ development due to less than optimum pre and peri-natal nutrition made themselves felt throughout a person's lifetime and, in many cases, ended it prematurely compared to today's life span.
The single most important thing anyone can due to reduce risks to health due to smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes, short of not smoking and reducing caloric intake to match expenditure, is to get adequate physical activity, followed by reducing insults to the body from tobacco, and a bit of dietary tweaking. On the last, if you eat from a wide variety of foods including fruits, meats, vegetables, and grains at a level sufficient to meet your daily caloric needs, your diet will be adequate except for, perhaps, vitamin D and calcium, especially if you're a woman.
3.
Other cultures that do not participate in the US Diet don’t have these problems. Japan for one.
Absolutely and wholly without foundation. Guess what the Japanese stomach cancer rate is compared to the United States? About ten times higher. Other countries with different traditional diets have other problems, such as mental retardation in the Middle East from the phytate sequestration of zinc in unleavened bread or pellagra suffered by indigenous populations in America or by the maize-eating poor for a couple hundred years in certain European nations or protein malnutrition suffered most often by children in third world countries when they are being weaned by the use of the traditional farina or by adults with excessive physical labor coupled with inadequate protein intake resulting in compromised immune systems.
And I will put my Ph.D. in Human Nutrition/Nutritional Physiology (together with my thesis work in molecular neurobiology and a 4 year post-doctoral cardiology fellowship) up against your "research studies from an Anti-Terrorism perspective on germ warfare."