Years of research? LOL, I guess the current rise in cancer rates is just coincidental? Granted, there are other pollutants for cause, but one can’t deny that more people die from cancer now than they did in 1900 when farming was much different.
Buddy, cancer rates are higher now because people are living long enough to get cancer. Life expectancy in 1900 was 48 [ Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 ], not a heck of a lot of time to develop breast cancer which peaks in 55 year olds, or prostate cancer which peaks in 65 year olds.
If farming were so damn healthy in 1900 you wouldn’t expect us to be living on average 17 years longer in 2006, would you?[/quote]
quality over quantity. People are living longer because of advances in health care, not because food is healthier.
And people still get cancer young, so saying us living longer is the reason for cancer is off base.
Years of research? LOL, I guess the current rise in cancer rates is just coincidental? Granted, there are other pollutants for cause, but one can’t deny that more people die from cancer now than they did in 1900 when farming was much different.
Buddy, cancer rates are higher now because people are living long enough to get cancer. Life expectancy in 1900 was 48 [ Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 ], not a heck of a lot of time to develop breast cancer which peaks in 55 year olds, or prostate cancer which peaks in 65 year olds.
If farming were so damn healthy in 1900 you wouldn’t expect us to be living on average 17 years longer in 2006, would you?[/quote]
People are living long enough to get cancer?What on earth are you talking about?More people are dying in their 30’s today than ever before.I posted a study showing organic produce was higher in nurtitional value a few weeks back,you guys should look it up.People are getting cancer and diseases because drugs like vioxx weaken our immune system,hurt our liver,kill us,and the high toxicity levels in our processed foods today (along with the air we breathe) is full of chemicals.By the way,the life expectancy in the 1900’s was not 48.
With WW1,WW2,the great depression,and the influenza it would be normal for Life expectancy to be 48 yrs old-that was a time of great depression and poverty,not to mention two world wars.People died at an early age because they lived in poverty,not naturally.If WW3 hit us tomorrow and people where dying at the age of 30,doesn’t mean the life expectancy was 30 because of natural disasters,but because of war.
Primarily better sanitation and less dependance on seasonality for food quantity/diversity. In the 1900s, the life expentancy was much greater living on a farm than a city because cities were cesspools. The average life expectancy was low then because 1/4 to 1/3 of infants died in their first year compared to 1-3% today.
Jehovahsfitness said that cancer is higher now because people aren’t eating organic. I made three simple points that appear to have been lost on you:
Cancer is, primarily, a disease of old people
On average, people didn’t live to be very old in 1900
Therefore, more people have cancer today because more people are old enough to get it.
I certainly understand that there are hundreds of reasons why people live longer now. I was simply pointing out that jehovahsfitness’s reasoning was terribly invalid.
Jehovahsfitness said that cancer is higher now because people aren’t eating organic. I made three simple points that appear to have been lost on you:
Cancer is, primarily, a disease of old people
On average, people didn’t live to be very old in 1900
Therefore, more people have cancer today because more people are old enough to get it.
I certainly understand that there are hundreds of reasons why people live longer now. I was simply pointing out that jehovahsfitness’s reasoning was terribly invalid.[/quote]
are you kidding me? saying old age is the reason for cancer is absurd.
perhaps living longer exposes one to more pollutants.
And I’m not saying non-organic is the only reason for cancer, but one can’t over look it.
"15. How are cancer incidence and death rates presented?
Cancer incidence rates and cancer death rates are measured as a number per 100,000 people and are age-adjusted to the 1970 U.S. standard million population. When a cancer affects only one gender, such as prostate cancer, the number is per 100,000 people of that gender."
This means rate changes compare rates for, for example, a group of 50 year old men in 1950 to a group of 50 year old men in 1990. While it is true that older people have a greater incidence of cancer than younger people that was true of older people in 1900, too.
Believe it or not there are plenty of old people who are healthy. Why do older people get cancer? One of the reasons is because they have a very weak immune system.Why do they have a weak immune system? Hmm,lets see. Older people have a higher chance of getting cancer,but that doesn’t mean you get cancer because you’re older.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
are you kidding me? saying old age is the reason for cancer is absurd.
perhaps living longer exposes one to more pollutants.
And I’m not saying non-organic is the only reason for cancer, but one can’t over look it.
[/quote]
Dear Jehovasfitness:
Buddy, I never said that age causes cancer. But by the way, age causes cancer. That’s not absurd that’s a scientific fact.
“The body?s DNA repair system, which is constantly on the lookout for dangerous changes that may cause a cell to become cancerous?and aborts the cell when such mutations are detected?is less effective as we grow older”
But that’s not even relevant to what I was telling you. I said that most of the people with cance are old:
See? 26% of all cancer is between the ages of 65 and 74, whereas only 6% of all cancer if between 35 and 40.
All I was trying to show you is that the more old people you have, the more cancer you have. That’s why the prevalence of cancer is higher today than it was 100 years ago, not because of food processing.
You have a good chance of getting cancer the older you get,but that doesn’t mean age causes cancer.Older people get cancer more often than younger people because they have weak immune systems too.A lot of old people have weak immune systems too from all the drugs they use.Thats one good reason why they get cancer too. Some doctors and people say that age and genetics is the main factor,but thats just because they and their medicine has failed. America is fatter,they don’t exercise anymore,they eat more processed foods that are full of toxins and chemicals that their body can’t recognize,and we say age is the main factor in cancer? That is absurd.
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
America is fatter,they don’t exercise anymore,they eat more processed foods that are full of toxins and chemicals that their body can’t recognize,and we say age is the main factor in cancer? That is absurd.[/quote]
Buddy, I never said that age causes cancer. But by the way, age causes cancer.
umm, ok[/quote]
Here’s how it went
I said that most cancer is in old people
You accused me of saying that age causes cancer, even though I hadn’t said that.
I decided to say that age causes cancer, since it happened to be true.
See? So when you made your accusation, I hadn’t said that age causes cancer. But then I decided to say it anyways. I was just pointin gout that your really weren’t understanding what I was saying.
Here’s the deal. Our farming practices are basically targeted at selling the most while spending the least - a good rule of business. However the ‘spending least’ part has gone far overboard with refinement and denaturalization of food.
Eggs, meat and other animal products made through commercial farming have a huge disbalance in Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratios, less quality nutrients and bovine drugs. There have even been several articles here on T-mag.
Plant products are bombarded with chemicals that alter the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables. There’s hordes of info on that if one is inclined.
Will it affect your bulking cycle? No. Should you listen to Kellog’s Froot Loop Paul Check? Nope. But it’s something that one does for own health. If it’s too expensive for you - don’t buy it. But at least know what’s better for you, be educated.
People are being ripped off by not knowing how shitty some food is. The less educated people are the easier it is to make money off them. And then we have everyone on 3 medications at any given moment and with new diseases springing out every month. You pay for the food and then you pay for the meds to save you from what that food has done to your immune system.
I do tend to believe that “organic” meat is nutritionally superior to standard, but I will not believe that organic produce is superior until someone proves it definitively. I am aware of studies indicating that “organically” raised produce contain marginally more vitamin C, but
people like Paul Chek who say that organic contains 40x more micronutrients are absolutely full of shit. If a plant is deficient in any essential nutrient, it won’t GROW- plain and fucking simple. Pesticides are still a valid concern because we never know how much we’re really consuming nor what the effects of any given amount are, so it’s only appropriate to maintain an agnostic point of view there- we just don’t know for certain either way. If that justifies a switch to organic, so be it, but that’s a personal decision and not a scientific fact.
Also, I should note that several years ago I attempted to make a sudden and complete switch from standard to “organic” produce. After one day of consuming roughly 4-5 servings of organic vegetables, I broke out in the worst full-body rash in the history of the universe. It was torture. So, I highly advise the congregation to approach organics with as much cynicism as anything else.
organic food tastes better.
what i may actually mean is the food i buy from that market near me that sells organic food tastes better. i have had organic food from stop and shop that isn’t very good. not near as good as the market. thing is the stuff from stop and shop always looks really good but never has any flavor. that crap pisses me off. shitty food pisses me off. people who think i’m a fruitcake like paul chek just 'cause i prefer fresh food raised with standards and that hasn’t been treated and engineered to last a long time on the shelf piss me off.
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.
[quote]swivel wrote:
organic food tastes better.
what i may actually mean is the food i buy from that market near me that sells organic food tastes better. i have had organic food from stop and shop that isn’t very good. not near as good as the market. thing is the stuff from stop and shop always looks really good but never has any flavor. that crap pisses me off. shitty food pisses me off. people who think i’m a fruitcake like paul chek just 'cause i prefer fresh food raised with standards and that hasn’t been treated and engineered to last a long time on the shelf piss me off. [/quote]
I hear ya.
I’d rather give my money to a family business who makes organic food with love and care than to give my money to some huge business that puts ingredients in their food like MSG that makes us eat more of their product so we get fatter and buy more of their food.Kinda like when you see obese people crave taco bell really badly.
[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.[/quote]
A small body of research has indicated (not proven) that there is a modest difference in micronutrient content between “organic” and standard produce, but, it is not as significant as the “dead soil” argument would lead one to believe. Realize that most phytochemicals are produced endogenously (within the plant) and do not come from the soil. Minerals do come from the soil, but pesticides don’t affect the soil’s mineral content. And, again, if the soil is lacking any essential nutrient, the plants won’t grow. If the plant grows and is healthy, the nutrients are present.
I’m not trying to discourage people from buying organics, but some of the main pro-organic arguments that get tossed around just aren’t valid.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.
A small body of research has indicated (not proven) that there is a modest difference in micronutrient content between “organic” and standard produce, but, it is not as significant as the “dead soil” argument would lead one to believe. Realize that most phytochemicals are produced endogenously (within the plant) and do not come from the soil. Minerals do come from the soil, but pesticides don’t affect the soil’s mineral content. I’m not trying to discourage people from buying organics, but some of the main pro-organic arguments that get tossed around just aren’t valid.[/quote]
Fertilisers also can increase the amount of phytochemicals in certain vegetables.
Organic Brocolli has been shown in some studies to contain less Sulforaphane.
Also conventional farming doesn’t have to prove a thing!!! It has gotten to the way it is through years of research, thats pretty good proof!
Years of research? LOL, I guess the current rise in cancer rates is just coincidental? Granted, there are other pollutants for cause, but one can’t deny that more people die from cancer now than they did in 1900 when farming was much different.
And I’d rather my produce be contaminated with fecal matter (which btw I have heard, and still is disusting) rather than dangerous chemicals supposedly said to be safe by our ever trust worthy gov’t.
Now, I’ll still by regular produce at times when organic isn’t available, but I won’t sit here and deny that something natural the way it is intended is not better than a man-made attempt at improving. [/quote]
Per the latest study cancer rates have peaked and are going down.