Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[Matthew]

Let's not forget how ridiculous it got early on in this thread, when it was stated by the Wu Gulun followers that vegetarianism is a requirement for spiritual enlightenment and reaching the highest levels of gongfu.

Hi LFJ,

This seems like a rash mischaracterization of the thread.
While I believe you mean WuNanFang and not WuGulun- to my knowledge are no WuNanFang followers here, although perhaps 2 people who might regard themselves as students of Master Wu at most.

The same reason many people practice qigong or neigong-as an expedient device, not because they believe it is a requirement to being healthy. In this nature, 2 or 3 people at most claimed that refraining from eating meat may be an expedient means to clearing the mind/intentions.

In any case- I don't see anywhere on this thread someone said what it is you claim was said. An important distinction between an expedient device and a requirement.

I'd say anything that allows improved concentration and clarity that is also beneficial to health may be an expedient means. Improving diet via the world's most up to date and reputable research would fall in that category for me (whose body of research happens to lean more toward eating plant based diets to improve health for nearly all peoples).

as opposed to your own belief that it isn't, supported by the selective research that you have chosen to give credance to; what was that about confirmation bias again?

Sorry if I came off as aggressive or imposing.

As far as that guy's Paleo diet-site.. his skepticism about dietary nutrition on his site is quoted from a 2006 study that questions the research methodology of prior clinical nutrition studies for valid reasons... since this is science, when a finding comes up with errors in methodology, most future studies will attempt as best possible to account for whatever errors may lie in their methodology.- That's not to say all studies are reliable and shouldn't be questioned... it is to say the paleo-guy references a 6+ year old study that is of exaggerated relevance. Many of the most groundbreaking lifestyle dietary/nutrition studies have come out in more recent years.

So please don't throw out your Masters degree, we need more educated people like you who are trying to promote health and wellbeing! Surely you can appreciate the need to review the most up to date, relevant, and reputable science that exists instead of relying on outdated ideologies.

As far as the site I linked to- he examines studies relating to all dietary intake, not just animal products. That means any plant, animal or other product. I hope any possible unintended aggression in my post doesn't deter you or anyone else from viewing the Dr.'s videos. They're extremely informative on a vary wide range of topics of diet, nutrition, lifestyle eating, and medicine.. and all of his videos directly link to the studies discussed, there is no blind following necessary as when we simply follow someone's beliefs about their own diet that are unfounded in science. He does this perpetually, so little guesswork is needed in how outdated or irrelevant a study might be.

Also to note for those who mention "nutrition is bouncing back and forth, often contradictory"-this is the scientific process, but it is not as hectic or inconsistent as some people seem to be implying. When study parameters vary greatly, results may also be disparate from study to study- The Dr. mentions previous related studies in each video and the significant differences in methodology, sample size, and confounding factors that are of importance and discusses whether or not there are wide bodies of agreement in that area, or what the potential contradictions may lie.

That being said, I hope we all take time to actually watch some of the videos on the site. if we watch individual video clips and we determine, using our own logic, the validity of each study presented, and are open minded enough to adjusting our diet a healthier one when is called for- then we are practicing an expedient means of practicing our Chinese Martial Arts

[wenshu]

No one claimed evolution has ceased. If you read up on the literature concerning the evolution of humans in regards to the paleolithic diet you will discover that humans simply haven't had enough time to adapt to a fully veggie diet.

Still tilting at vegetarian windmills? I have read up on it. No one here said evolution stopped but that is the central implicit assumption that justifies the so called paleo lifestyle. It also has nothing to do with adapting to a "veggie" diet, most reasonable modern paleo diets contain plenty of vegetables.

As a matter of fact humans have adapted since the agrarian revolution. Hunter gatherers did not consume dairy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence


Cro magnon man ate plenty of cooked vegetables. This is an example of the uninformed assumptions made to backup a particular viewpoint about what was and wasn't in early human diets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12071424http://news.discovery.com/history/fl...mkcpgn=rssnws1

At a certain level paleo, like the Atkin's diet that preceded it is just an excuse for extreme examples of people to justify eating bacon for every meal.

[wenshu]

Perhaps our problem with the perception of evolution is the fact we are all in the dimentional illusion of linear growth at all. Life likes to split off into infinite curling tangents of potential, some 'forward' some arching back on themselves helplessly.This process is demonstrated in the mandelbrot set, which when seen graphically describes 'fractals'. This, to me shows the true course of evolution, which isn't linear at all. Conscious thought or more directly,human conscious thought, seems to be an interesting influence on the direction of our tangent, the sucess of which remains to be seen.

This is a good point and I should clarify between what I mean as evolution is linear versus our own abstract, arbitrary concept of progress. A more precise way of describing it is that evolution is a continuous process.

Whether or not we make "progress" is our own perception and is independent of what I meant by evolution is linear.

For instance in the future as adaptations to our environment continue future generations may adapt to be less intelligent. From our arbitrary framework of interpretation this would appear to be a reversal of linear "progress". However it is still simply the process of evolution continuing independent of our own definitions.

[Scott R. Brown]

Still tilting at vegetarian windmills? I have read up on it. No one here said evolution stopped but that is the central implicit assumption that justifies the so called paleo lifestyle. It also has nothing to do with adapting to a "veggie" diet, most reasonable modern paleo diets contain plenty of vegetables.

As a matter of fact humans have adapted since the agrarian revolution. Hunter gatherers did not consume dairy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence


Cro magnon man ate plenty of cooked vegetables. This is an example of the uninformed assumptions made to backup a particular viewpoint about what was and wasn't in early human diets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12071424http://news.discovery.com/history/fl...mkcpgn=rssnws1

At a certain level paleo, like the Atkin's diet that preceded it is just an excuse for extreme examples of people to justify eating bacon for every meal.

It is implicit in your mind, that is the best you can say.

Cro Magnon are NOT H0m0 sapiens! There is no know descent of humans from cro magana. They are believed to be a different species. Both are omnivores however, NOT herbivores!



We.are not discussing the Akins diet at the moment.

I am sure you believe it is implicit that that is why people eat Akins.

Your fallacious assumptions are you own windmills! Attend to your own windmills before you preoccupy yourself with what you THINK are the "implicit" windmills of others.

[Scott R. Brown]

Also to note for those who mention "nutrition is bouncing back and forth, often contradictory"-this is the scientific process, but it is not as hectic or inconsistent as some people seem to be implying. When study parameters vary greatly, results may also be disparate from study to study- The Dr. mentions previous related studies in each video and the significant differences in methodology, sample size, and confounding factors that are of importance and discusses whether or not there are wide bodies of agreement in that area, or what the potential contradictions may....

What I am critical of is living ones life by the latest scientific studies. This is blind following. "Everything in moderation, including moderation" is a much easier dictum to follow, than following the latest scientific fads that will just change every 6-12 months.

It is nice this guy gives the latest details of the scientific studies' methodology and what-nots, however that only muddies the water of what is believable and trustworthy research. So, instead of trusting science blindly you are trusting one man's interpretation of the science. Which isn't much more reliable.

There is no need to over-complicate any of this. It is rather simple:

1) Eat a variety of foods.
2) Eat as wholesome of food as possible in as natural a condition as you can find and afford.
3) Eat in moderation.
4) Breathe as fresh of air as you can.
5) Drink as clean of water as you can find!
6) Exercise
7) Reduce excessive stress.

These do not take scientific studies to validate or prove. These have been followed for over 2,000 years and go back to the Greeks in the west and the Taoists in the east.

Life does not need to be over- complicated or we will evolved into dumber people like wenshu has demonstrated, by his own example, is already occurring!

[wenshu]

Both are omnivores however, NOT herbivores!

Point to where I said any different?

Your fallacious assumptions are you own windmills! Attend to your own windmills before you preoccupy yourself with what you THINK are the "implicit" windmills of others.

See above.

Nearly every single rebuttal you offer is for an argument I never made. You are either deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments or you're not actually reading my posts and just waiting for your turn to post your well rehearsed preconceptions.

Cro Magnon are NOT H0m0 sapiens! There is no know descent of humans from cro magana. They are believed to be a different species.

Really?

Discovered in 1868, the Cro-Magnon 1 was among the first fossils to be recognized as belonging to our own species—homo sapiens.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/cro-magnon-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

Perhaps you are mistaking them for Neanderthals. In that case, you are also straight up wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/

You were saying something about assumptions?

[Scott R. Brown]

Point to where I said any different?



See above.

Nearly every single rebuttal you offer is for an argument I never made. You are either deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments or you're not actually reading my posts and just waiting for your turn to post your well rehearsed preconceptions.

Interesting, it is my impression that you twist most of my posts into your own fantasy as well!

I am trying not to play tit for tat, but you are making it very difficult! I surely could go back and point out your grammatical and logical inconsistencies as you have attempted to do with me. But that merely turns the conversation into a childish, you said/I said game and I am not inclined to school yard play at this time.

Really?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/cro-magnon-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

Perhaps you are mistaking them for Neanderthals. In that case, you are also straight up wrong.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/

Oops!

To be more specific with what I meant, at any rate, is Modern Humans are not Cro Magnon and the fact they ate cooked veggies doesn't mean much!

No one here used the argument they didn't so the fact you mentioned it was superfluous to the conversation.

You were saying something about assumptions?

Incorrect information, is NOT the same thing as making an in correct assumption!

The one is incorrect based upon misunderstanding, mis-remembering or being given incorrect information.

The other is drawing a conclusion from the information available.

Both may be correct or incorrect, but they are not the same thing!

AND...I am not the one constantly complaining about your repeated incorrect assumptions, even though you are making just as many or more as you think I have.

You are like the little weakling who constantly pokes the big kid in the chest daring him to "Hit me!" and then when the big kid finally gets tired of it and punches him back, he runs and cries to the teacher. Grow up a little bit, at least for the sake of this conversation. Take the burr out of your butt!

Attend to your own assumptions, implications, conclusions, and errors in logic and grammatical consistency before you preoccupy yourself with those of mine!

In other words...."Lighten up Leslie!!!!"

[taai gihk yahn]

just to make matters more interesting, as if on cue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...%28The+Crux%29

[rett]

Let's not forget how ridiculous it got early on in this thread, when it was stated by the Wu Gulun followers that vegetarianism is a requirement for spiritual enlightenment and reaching the highest levels of gongfu.

Who claimed that and in what post? Be specific please, and careful. I just don't see it. Thank you.

[Scott R. Brown]

just to make matters more interesting, as if on cue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...%28The+Crux%29

OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!!

Thanks for bringing home the point I have been too lazy to do myself!

Who claimed that and in what post? Be specific please, and careful. Thank you.

(you know... speaking of "ridiculous")

You lighten up too Leslie!!

You guys need to stop making arguments for argument's sake!

If he wasn't addressing you personally rett, there is no reason for your comment!

You are nit-picking just to make an argument!

The world won't end if he made a mis-statement or came to a wrong conclusion, or etc.

[rett]

If he wasn't addressing you personally rett, there is no reason for your comment!

You are nit-picking just to make an argument!

The world won't end if he made a mis-statement or came to a wrong conclusion, or etc.

Misattributing views to other posters in a thread deserves to be challenged. It's not just arguing for arguing's sake.

And I do think it could have been directed at me, among a few others.

I don't think any of us said what he's claiming we said, so I'm calling him out on it. Maybe he'll backpedal a few steps.

Let's see.. I could swear that the narcissists said it was okay to beat up kittens...

[Scott R. Brown]

Misattributing views to other posters in a thread deserves to be challenged. It's not just arguing for arguing's sake.

And I do think it could have been directed at me, among a few others.

I don't think any of us said what he's claiming we said, so I'm calling him out on it. Maybe he'll backpedal a few steps.

Let's see.. I could swear that the narcissists said it was okay to beat up kittens...

Well...I think it is unnecessary nit-picking, so I had my say on the subject...full steam ahead!

And FYI it is NARCIST, and as president of the world's narcists, I can say with certainty that kittens are God's foremost narcists and therefore they are off limits to any form of abuse, except when included in a Chinese stew!

[Scott R. Brown]

So, I read the link from TGY's post and for the inherently lazy, like myself, here are some of the more interesting points, coincidentally they are the ones I have tried to make in my own lazy manner:

Chocolate & Red Meat Can Be Bad for Your Science: Why Many Nutrition Studies Are All Wrong

An association by itself contains no causal information. There are an infinite number of associations that are not causally related for every association that is, so the fact of the association itself doesn’t tell us much.

Here’s how the great German pathologist Rudolph Virchow phrased this in 1849: How, he said, can we “with certainty decide which of two coexistent phenomena is the cause and which the effect, whether one of them is the cause at all instead of both being effects of a third cause, or even whether both are effects of two entirely unrelated causes”?

Zoe Harcombe did this beautifully with the Harvard data. The obvious clue is that as we move from the bottom quintile of meat-eaters (those who are effectively vegetarians) to the top quintile of meat-eaters, we see an increase in virtually every accepted unhealthy behavior (smoking, drinking, sedentary behavior), and we also see an increase in markers for unhealthy behaviors (high BMI, high blood pressure, etc). So what could be happening here?

…..a whole host of effects, known as confounders—they confound the interpretation of the association—that could explain associations between two variables but have nothing to do biologically with the variables themselves. One of these confounders is called the compliance or adherer effect.

“So faithfully taking the placebo cuts the death rate by a factor of two,” says David Freedman, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley [who passed away, regrettably, in 2008]. “How can this be? Well, people who take their placebo regularly are just different than the others. The rest is a little speculative. Maybe they take better care of themselves in general. But this compliance effect is quite a big effect.”

Now let’s get back to the idea of doing experiments—i.e., how we ultimately settle this difference of opinion. This is science. Do the experiments. We have at least two reasonable explanations for the tiny association between meat-eating and morbidity and mortality. One is that it’s the meat itself. The other is that it’s the behaviors that associate with meat-eating. So do an experiment to see which is right. Start with a cohort of subjects and assign them at random to eat either a diet rich in red meat and processed meat, or to a diet that’s not—a mostly vegetarian diet. By assigning subjects at random to one of these two interventions, we mostly get rid of the behavioral (and socio-economic, educational, etc.) factors that might associate with choosing of your own free will whether to be a vegetarian (or a mostly-vegetarian) or a meat-eater.

These experiments have effectively been done. They’re the trials that compare Atkins-like diets to other more conventional weight loss diets—AHA Step 1 diets, Mediterranean diets, Zone diets, Ornish diets, etc. These conventional weight loss diets tend to restrict meat consumption to different extents because they restrict fat and/or saturated fat consumption and meat has a lot of fat and saturated fat in it. Ornish’s diet is the extreme example. And when these experiments have been done, the meat-rich, bacon-rich Atkins diet almost invariably comes out ahead, not just in weight loss but also in heart disease and diabetes risk factors. I discuss this in detail in chapter 18 of Why We Get Fat, ”The Nature of a Healthy Diet.” The Stanford A TO Z Study is a good example of these experiments. Over the course of the experiment—two years in this case—the subjects randomized to the Atkins-like meat- and bacon-heavy diet were healthier. That’s what we want to know.

So, really it all comes down to a person's personal preference. Each person will tend to accept the "scientific" evidence that more closely conforms to their own preconceived notions.

As I have said previously, it is doubtful people who think veggie is the way to go will alter their diets based upon science that does not confirm their already preconceived notions on how to eat.

Those who conform themselves to the currently accepted science in order to determine how to live their lives with go back and forth their whole lives in a panic trying to live the most healthy they possibly can in order to preserve their lives, and try to stay healthy.

When all you have to do is the follow the simple rules established over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks and the Taoists:

1) Eat a variety of foods.
2) Eat as wholesome of food as possible in as natural a condition as you can find and afford.
3) Eat in moderation.
4) Breathe as fresh of air as you can.
5) Drink as clean of water as you can find!
6) Exercise
7) Reduce excessive stress.

And not worry about all the constantly conflicting science, and BB posters who try to pick apart every post you make because of their anal retentive need for absolute accuracy over every little thought you post!

[Scott R. Brown]

BTW:

My comment that Veggies tend to be healthier than meat eaters is because of other personal traits that lead them to be healthier in general is also addressed in the article.

It is referred to as "The Bias of Compliance" and those that are generally compliant are referred to as "Girl Scouts"!

Now when we’re looking at the subjects who avoided red meat and processed meat and comparing them to the subjects who ate them in quantity, we can think of it as effectively comparing the Girl Scouts to the non-Girl Scouts, the compliers to the conventional wisdom to the non-compliers. And the compliance effect tells us right there that we should see an association—that the Girl Scouts should appear to be healthier.

The bolding is mine to bring home the point that they only "appear" to be healthier. Because the better health is due to behaviors unrelated to the subject of any particular study!

[Drake]

The vegetarians I know are nauseated by the smell of meat, cooked, cooking, or raw. I actually get where they are coming from. Why eat something that sickens you?