Interesting and i agree whether it be logic or ignorance.
There is so much misinformation in that post I wouldn't know where to begin.Let's get something right first: There are two different things, things that are healthy, and things that are not. Our body is programed to work right 100% of the time, and the only thing that will stand in the way of that is interference. So our body needs no help, just no interference. Now, things that give our body interference is stress. Any type of stress whether it be Physical, chemical, or emotional stress. So things that give our body stress are not healthy, or in other words bad for you because they cause stress. I think we could ALL agree that things that need to be put in the body should come from the Earth, things that are natural.... We are all made from the earth, we were made out of the earth and when we die, we will become part of the earth again. It's simple biology. So, artificial sweetners, something that is not natural, man made, a toxin so to speak would be unhealthy. It causes a toxicity in our body, which in turn causes chemical stress and therefore interference in our body -- one side effect would be headaches. Now, in that case I would call an artificial sweetner toxic, and unhealthy, or in other words "bad for you". It has no positive traits, only negetive... so if something has no positive benefts, but did have negetive traits, I would... by LOGIC, call it harmful....... There are only two ways to get sick... by either a deficiency in something, or a toxicity to something.... artificial sweetners cause a toxicity to the body. They are harmful!
People have died from water toxicity... and I'm pretty sure water is natural. Oh, and running causes stress on the body.You also have to take things into consideration... who is doing these studies, what question are they asking when they do the tests.. If nobody did a study on "are artificial sweetners unhealthy" then we will never know. They ahve done a lot of studies, on if artificial sweetners cause cancer, but they have never done a study that said do artificial sweetners cause stress on the body... you have to first ask the right question before you get the right answers my friends.
Well, that is not getting anything right. In reality, the vast majority of compounds that we commonly ingest have a much more, let's say, "health neutral" effect - that is, they are neither "healthy" and/or "unhealthy."Let's get something right first: There are two different things, things that are healthy, and things that are not.
Incorrect.Our body is programed to work right 100% of the time, and the only thing that will stand in the way of that is interference.
Again, incorrect. This would assume that overactive cellular proliferation (i.e., cancer) requires exogenous (outside the body) "interference," but often it does not. It can and often is hereditary - or in other words, defectiveness was programed in that person's genome.So our body needs no help, just no interference. Now, things that give our body interference is stress.
Wrong. Stress comes in varying kinds and degrees, and as a matter of fact, some stress is entirely necessary for the body's proper function. The beta oxidation of fatty acids, for example, is classically "stressful," but also necessary in order to avoid conditions that precipitate hypercholesterolemia, dyslipidemia, NIDDM, and so on.Any type of stress whether it be Physical, chemical, or emotional stress. So things that give our body stress are not healthy, or in other words bad for you because they cause stress.
Koombaya?I think we could ALL agree that things that need to be put in the body should come from the Earth, things that are natural.... We are all made from the earth, we were made out of the earth and when we die, we will become part of the earth again.
No.So, artificial sweetners, something that is not natural, man made, a toxin so to speak would be unhealthy.
No, it's not.It causes a toxicity in our body, which in turn causes chemical stress and therefore interference in our body -- one side effect would be headaches.
I am sure you would.Now, in that case I would call an artificial sweetner toxic, and unhealthy, or in other words "bad for you".
I am sure you would, because you do not understand how logic works. Reference my post about negative and positive claims.It has no positive traits, only negetive... so if something has no positive benefts, but did have negetive traits, I would... by LOGIC, call it harmful.......
Well, that is not getting anything right. In reality, the vast majority of compounds that we commonly ingest have a much more, let's say, "health neutral" effect - that is, they are neither "healthy" and/or "unhealthy."
Incorrect.
Again, incorrect. This would assume that overactive cellular proliferation (i.e., cancer) requires exogenous (outside the body) "interference," but often it does not. It can and often is hereditary - or in other words, defectiveness was programed in that person's genome.
Wrong. Stress comes in varying kinds and degrees, and as a matter of fact, some stress is entirely necessary for the body's proper function. The beta oxidation of fatty acids, for example, is classically "stressful," but also necessary in order to avoid conditions that precipitate hypercholesterolemia, dyslipidemia, NIDDM, and so on.
Koombaya?
No.
No, it's not.
I am sure you would.
I am sure you would, because you do not understand how logic works. Reference my post about negative and positive claims.
You are right, people can die from a water toxicity, like I said, toxic things are harmful on the body, so too much water can cause negative stress, and you can die from it. Running causes stress on the body, but it also has benefits..... LIKE I SAID ---- something that is has ONLY negative effects and NO benefit would be harmful in my opinion. Quit being a retard and comprehend what I am writingThere is so much misinformation in that post I wouldn't know where to begin.
People have died from water toxicity... and I'm pretty sure water is natural. Oh, and running causes stress on the body.
No offense, but your logic is illogical. Your facts are based on your assumptions... and I have no idea what your assumptions are based on.
I suppose it was asking too much of you to read something thoroughly. Let me state it more simply.You are an idiot in my opinion. You have no clue what you are talking about, you think that cancer is a genetic disease? Its not, its caused by lifestyle stresses... you are right about there being good stress and bad stress. I was talking about the bad stress.
To comprehend what you're writing would call for you to have intelligence in the first place. You sound like an 8th grade halfwit.You are right, people can die from a water toxicity, like I said, toxic things are harmful on the body, so too much water can cause negative stress, and you can die from it. Running causes stress on the body, but it also has benefits..... LIKE I SAID ---- something that is has ONLY negative effects and NO benefit would be harmful in my opinion. Quit being a retard and comprehend what I am writing
I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.I suppose it was asking too much of you to read something thoroughly. Let me state it more simply.
Cancer is an unchecked development of a cell - it arises over time as defects in the genetic coding of that cell are replicated again and again, causing the expression of the defect (i.e., the cancer) to become more pronounced.
There are times when this can arise due to ingesting carcinogens which mutate the cell's DNA expression. Other times, the mutation is programmed into the person's DNA - you know, hereditary cancer that affects generations upon generations of the same family with varying degrees of lifestyle stress.
I was giving you too much credit.
Intellectual pretentiousness just doesn't suit you.Why don't you read about what Dr. Chestnut talks about, you might learn something.
Agreed.We have conflicting ideas of what health and wellness is.
You don't know what I believe... but you are definitely the king of assumptions.You two probably think that being healthy is going to your doctor to get a prescription, and covering up your symptoms.
You stay classy, Tone.and I hope you both die of cancer.
Serious question here...I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.
To get this straight: you do not feel that cancer, which is a mutation in the expression of genes responsible for controlling cell growth and death, has anything to do with gene expression, which is inherited at birth?I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.
http://www.thewellnesspractice.com
Why don't you read about what Dr. Chestnut talks about, you might learn something.
I believe what you are saying to be true. I do not believe that when you are born you are predetermined to have a chronic illness. I believe that lifestyle has determination on whether or not you develop cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes. ect.... Not that a person is born with it and no matter what they do they will develop these diseases. Obviously I believe there to be some acceptions, but for the majority I feel it is about lifestyle choices, and what we do or do not put into our bodies, examples: processed foods, additives, pesticides, herbicides, hormones from cows/chickens ect... Our drinking water, HFCS, sugars, MSG.... the list could go on, You look at native americans who did not have a history of heart disease, or diabetes before we came to this country, now you can see a very high rate of this. Don't tell me it was because they were predetermined to have it, cuz they weren't...To get this straight: you do not feel that cancer, which is a mutation in the expression of genes responsible for controlling cell growth and death, has anything to do with gene expression, which is inherited at birth?
This is 100% true, and does not differ from my opinion. However, to say that genetic coding has nothing to do with the development of disease at all is naive. Diet, exercise levels, environmental pollutants, genetics, etc., they all play their part.I believe what you are saying to be true. I do not believe that when you are born you are predetermined to have a chronic illness. I believe that lifestyle has determination on whether or not you develop cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes. ect.... Not that a person is born with it and no matter what they do they will develop these diseases. Obviously I believe there to be some acceptions, but for the majority I feel it is about lifestyle choices, and what we do or do not put into our bodies, examples: processed foods, additives, pesticides, herbicides, hormones from cows/chickens ect... Our drinking water, HFCS, sugars, MSG.... the list could go on, You look at native americans who did not have a history of heart disease, or diabetes before we came to this country, now you can see a very high rate of this. Don't tell me it was because they were predetermined to have it, cuz they weren't.
I like what Alex said. I've opened my mind up to the alkaline/acidic food subject and it's pretty interesting... to me at least.In moderation, diet soda/products are ok... But I try and eliminate all artificial sweeteners and acid-forming chemicals from my diet. Diet Cola's have too many negatives to even get into. They are extremely acidic (both from the added acids and from the acidic sweeteners). I think people also often over-look the fact that a serving of artificially sweetened protein powder has ALOT more sucralose than say a bottle of Mountain Dew... Try and buy unflavored/unsweetened whey isolate and add cinnamon/stevia. Not only is this healthier, but cinnamon/stevia are very alkaline!
-Alex
Haha, hi Ubi!I like what Alex said. I've opened my mind up to the alkaline/acidic food subject and it's pretty interesting... to me at least.
Mullet, look at you all grown up! I'm very proud of you. It's been quite a while since I visited for reasons other than looking at Buki's log.
Mullet, dear one... instead of arguing logic and empirical evidence,you must focus all that bundle of seething debate energy on fixing the lag time in the canadian health system. I hear the wait time for simple appointments is unbelievable..
No, no. Here is a way to think about it.Back to the genetic diseases..... Just bare with me on this one ha..... Sooooo nothing could have stressed the body to "spark" the "genetic" disease, from the beginning that is? So, at the root of the family tree they always had that "genetic" disease? I know it would be hard to explain this but, im just checking if im correct. Or are you saying that reaction just occured without any action? Would this be the same thought process of luck or fate? I know we do not have alot of research on most of the diseases whether they are genetic or not.
For example I have crohnes disease. Im the only one in my family that has ever had this disease. Now my mothers side of the family has had digestive problems chronic heartburn, diverticulitis(sp?), etc.. So maybe that is relative. But i cant help but consider that my family tree, since the beginning, has had digestive problems, and also say that nothing in the past caused these digestive problems.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Marlboro red and diet coke journey | Workout Logs | 64 | ||
OK TMat... let me have it. Diet Coke addiction here. | Male Anti-Aging Medicine | 4 | ||
Caffeine Guidelines/Diet Coke | Male Anti-Aging Medicine | 5 | ||
Diet Coke Plus = Test Booster? | Weight Loss | 13 | ||
Diet Coke with Splenda | General Chat | 45 |