Lettuce and old people gut is an IBS stronghold and can be painful.
Try Inulin on your cereal and enjoy the loss of visceral fat and a better constitution.
Red Salmon out of a can at evening meal is great for sparking up the brain the next morning.
Most liked posts in thread: Food for thought...
Page 1 of 2
Some old myths being challenged quite often now, makes me wonder what will be uncovered in the next 5 years with better technology and research
Unpublished Research Undermines Decades of Dietary Advice
Ancel Keys was one of the most prominent nutritional researchers of the mid-20th century. He gained enormous professional and influential prominence and his views were widely adopted by professional and public health organizations. His research formed the foundation for all of the low-fat recommendations that followed. Interestingly, some of his own follow-up research actually undermined his hypotheses on cholesterol and saturated fat, but these findings were never published.
Had they been, the cholesterol and low-fat myths might never have gained the same kind of traction. The four decades' old study in question was unearthed by Dr. Christopher E. Ramsden, who specializes in digging up and reevaluating lost studies that challenge mainstream health advice.7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
Keys, who was largely funded by the sugar industry, is believed to have been responsible for suppressing this damning study, as it doesn't support his original hypothesis. Only parts of the trial's results were ever published, leaving out the controversial finding that replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil had no benefit on mortality. As reported by Scientific American:17
Welfare are never given to able-bodied people who thought they'd rather not work and live like royalty on welfare. Welfare are mainly for the sick, the elderly, the young and sometimes the youths who are encouraged to study so that they may one day get a job, know the gov't - through taxpayers - helped them and it's their turn to repay that favour.
So those needing welfare do so out of absolute necessity, they do not go on welfare to be a burden. Sure, there are frauds and scam artist, those the exceptions and there are laws against that kind of fraud.
How is helping those in need ever a bad thing? And why shouldn't the poor and the needy not entitled to them? Were they always poor? Do they not pay their taxes when once they could work and paid them? If welfare are taken away from them, what if one day "we" become "them" through some series of unfortunate events? Tough titties?
Second, if the rich and the corporation that they own most of receives welfare and handouts from the gov't, why is it immoral or bad for the people who literally need a few bucks from the gov't to live?
What, corporations and rich people don't receive welfare?
Starts with national security; domestic policing. If the judge, the court, the police are not provided for by taxpayers, who will protect assets and address contractual disputes? If the gov't does not provide roads and infrastructures, does not educate and make laws and policies that "encourages" early employment and high indebtedness... who would work and earn all those profits, just to be replaced like cogs in a machine once they're old and broken?
And forget about tax incentives; tax breaks and generous giveaways like zero real interest rates, negative gearings; free trade policies etc. etc.
Third... if, instead of a Corvette, we deliver healthcare and education to a family... wouldn't that also create jobs? Maybe even cleaner, greener, safer, more meaningful jobs that help people instead of mining, drilling for oil, refining the oil and killing a few poor families living near refineries... all so some rich douche can have a fancy car he takes out for a spin a weekend here and there.
So much for greed and idiocy disguised as "capitalism".
A bloke I have got to know here at Bendigo is an engineer. His place 800 sq metres is self sufficient with a very innovative hydroponic system powered purely with solar panels, little loss of water, replenished as needed from rain tanks. We sat down with a number of others and worked out that the farm I grew up on in south western Victoria, 600 acres with a river running through could support 400 families and leave plenty of recreational space also. In the system he has ample supply of fish and fresh vegetables.
But of course no actual money would be generated so Governments would not be interested.
I'll bet I could get a lot of unemployed involved in this and they would no longer need government support.
But what would I know, noco says I am just a useless left wing greenie.
There was a question here regarding our own state, Mr Burns.
Beggars a sign of the times, or a sign of the welfare state?
A Government that reflects the people
As said, I am not one for BIG government.
I have a 42 acre property, half is left to nature, a few heads of cattle on most of the second half but for a small orchard/garden and house/outbuilding pads.We easily produce enough wood ,water and food for our family while still working full time city jobs.A well manage property can generate a lot of food on a very small surface if you work it a bit.
If you are in Sudan with ten kids families and warring faction, it is a different story, but the earth is a great garden of Eden as is, as long as you handle it properly.
Tink, we have big Govt but worse we have big business where the big just get bigger and everyone else is left behind, and worse, people are now fast becoming mere commodities to be fleeced by big business at will.
Look into the eyes of the workers in Safeway or Coles. they get paid minimum wage and they are just surviving, they look hopeless and abandoned.
Companies should be forced to limit their share of any market but there goes the stock market if that were to happen.
Read somewhere the other day, that only 7.5% of welfare goes to the unemployed and less that .5 of that percentage don't want to work. 19 people to one job is the average. We just do not seem to have the work.
Most goes to the elderly who paid their taxes anyway.
A good thread
The intellectuals out there rarely go a step further and points out that maybe with new industry, new sources of energy... people will be better trained, still employed and maybe better paid for the higher skills... and all without destroying the environment.
I think some recent report found that about 600,000 children under five - mainly in the poor third world - dies from smog and dust from the burning of fossil fuel around them.
Such costs are other people's problems I guess.
I still find that hard to believe, but yea, might be true.
In terms of food security, health to consumers... would be better to have it in the hands of local farmers and not control by nation-less multinationals.
Take Haiti or Mexico, or any country that accepts free trade agreements and have their country flooded in with "cheap" grain and crops. What it has done is it first drive broke the small family run farmers, then a few years later "the market" dictate much higher prices and the country become totally dependent and malnourished because they just can't afford the price for that corporate efficiency and blah blah.
Then to the matter of health. Livestocks being kept in close quarters need a bunch of hormones and anti-biotics, that weaken human consumers' natural defense against diseases and we're just a pandemic waiting to happen.
Page 1 of 2