[Indydealmaker]

I subscribe to the theory (my own) that our bodies have evolved over many years to not only tolerate, but to thrive on the chemicals. It is the deletion from our diets of some of these chemicals that is killing us. Bring back DDT!

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

I subscribe to the theory (my own) that our bodies have evolved over many years to not only tolerate, but to thrive on the chemicals. It is the deletion from our diets of some of these chemicals that is killing us. Bring back DDT!

I don't think DDT ever went away completely. According to a book I read about 4 or 5 years ago, they can still find traces of it in beef. My father told me that, many years ago, people used to buy DDT by the bag and throw handfuls of it around the perimiter of the house as a means to keep flees and ticks under control.

I think the main problem might have been with certain wildlife creatures being sensitive to it. Also, I think it could be toxic to humans at some level. If it keeps building up -evidently it doesn't seem to break down over several decades- it could get to the point where it becomes a problem.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

...food, in the long run, can have an important effect on one's health, for better or worse...

Of course it can. I don't think many here question that. But which studies, experts, etc., do you base your lifestyle on? I think considering them all, adding a grain of salt, and then eating accordingly, is a reasonable path.

[casita37]

Think about it this way...say you have a nice fresh bowl of organic peaches, all cut up and ready to enjoy. Someone gives you a small amount of Round-UP and says to spray it on your peaches. Would you do it? Of course not!

We eat organic as much as possible, and some things we just skip if we can't get organic, like peaches...If we go to YOUR house for dinner, we gladly eat what you serve (and enjoy it), and if we go to a restaurant, we enjoy that, too. We do try to order wisely, but it's not always possible. That's what we consider "in moderation". Just seems to me, when it comes to our health, there are so many things we can't control. Why not, at least, eat as well as we can. That we can control. I, for one, am convinced organic is better, and I tend not to trust study results when big business (read Monsanto, et al) stand to profit from the results.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by casita37

Think about it this way...say you have a nice fresh bowl of organic peaches, all cut up and ready to enjoy. Someone gives you a small amount of Round-UP and says to spray it on your peaches. Would you do it? Of course not...

If it were that simple, there would be no discussion.

Originally Posted by casita37

...I, for one, am convinced organic is better, and I tend not to trust study results when big business (read Monsanto, et al) stand to profit from the results...

I, for one, am convinced it would be very difficult to find a study where nobody stands to profit from the results.

[lightworker888]

Casita, you have stated it so well. That's my idea of moderation too. We control what we can based on our idea of what would be a good choice for us. We still enjoy eating and find lots to eat both in and out of the house that fits our criteria most of the time.

LW888

[lightworker888]

I am not debating about Mercola. I just know that things I have learned from his website (like the importance of VitD) many years before they became mainstream have shown me time and again that he has a great research team and he does interviews with the pioneers in the field. I have bought some products from him but I usually purchase elsewhere after checking out the sources and comparing information.

There is a huge difference between synthetic astaxathin and naturally sourced astaxathin as there is with any synthetic vs naturally occurring supplement. I heard about its benefits from Mercola a number of years ago and have taken it ever since.

Before he created his store Mercola was funding the website himself but as it grew and he stopped his medical practice to expand the website, he needed to fund it in order to continue to do the research and spread the info that was growing exponentially. It became his life's work to get the truthful information out to as many as possible and that is when he started developing products that he believes are the best he can get, to support the many people who do order from him, based on the research he has done so thoroughly. He uses all the things himself first, sometimes for a year or two to prove the value to himself before marketing it.

I do find that there is an "extremist" sense to his articles, but I search for the grain of truth that I always find in them. In fact some of the earlier articles that I thought were extreme have proven to be quite moderate now that even more info is out.

And it really boils down to what info resonates with you and makes sense to you and feels right. That is all that you really have to go on regardless of the source. JMHO

LW888

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Of course it can. I don't think many here question that. But which studies, experts, etc., do you base your lifestyle on? I think considering them all, adding a grain of salt, and then eating accordingly, is a reasonable path.

I can't disagree with that. We do our homework and then we do the best we can to follow what we think is right.

[lightworker888]

Polar Bear and VPL

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...lies/agree.gif

LW888

[lightworker888]

Yeh I read that today too. We use Krill oil for Omega 3, not fish oils, and I am careful about the source. It seems to be a good supplement for us so we are continuing to use it. Haven't used fish oil for some time. Also read that the study was not really a big picture study so don't know if it really holds much weight. There are so many other factors that weren't considered when choosing the criteria.

LW888

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by lightworker888

Yeh I read that today too. We use Krill oil for Omega 3, not fish oils, and I am careful about the source. It seems to be a good supplement for us so we are continuing to use it. Haven't used fish oil for some time. Also read that the study was not really a big picture study so don't know if it really holds much weight. There are so many other factors that weren't considered when choosing the criteria.

LW888

I did some reading today about omega-3 and omega-6 from various sources. And here's my conclusion, for whatever it's worth: Omega-3 isn't bad or good and omega-6 isn't bad or good per se. It's the balance between the two that is important. Too much of either one, when one far outweighs the other, is likely to put one at higher risk for cancer. I believe the best way to achieve a healthy balance between the two is by eating natural whole foods.

Avoiding what is unnatural: Any animal that is grain-fed will be high in omega-6, and that includes farm raised (grain-fed) fish. If one can avoid eating a high protein diet consisting of grain-fed animals, then it's much less likely that omega-3 (unnatural)supplements will be needed to bring balance.

Then consider this question: Being that the meat from grain-fed animals is high in omega-6, will we become high in omega-6 by eating a lot of grain? I've never heard or read of anyone saying that but it seems logical. If it's true, then we probably should limit grains to about 3 or 4 servings per day. That's what I have always recommended.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

Everyone has been going gung-ho over Omega-3, but a recent study shows that Omega-3 increases men's chances of prostate cancer by 71%. Older studies show it's not the panacea it is touted to be.

PCRM | Omega-3 Fatty Acids Linked to Prostate Cancer Risk

See here we go again experts calling other experts opinions incorrect. The fact is people are living longer but not healthier. The pivotal question is why genetics, lifestyle, diet, personality or all of the preceding?

Secondly, how can we be sure foods claims are as advertised. The FDA isn't infallible and obviously neither are experts as they continue to reframe their claims. Polar Bear was spot on with the profit motive. People have been selling snake oil since the beginning of mankind.

Third, as with every issue it cuts as much as it kicks. So while proponents advance the benefits they may not, intentional or otherwise, speak to the unhealthy side effects or the fact of how much has to be consumed to attain nirvana or oblivion.

Too often the success of a product, health claim ,etc reflects the singer and not the song

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

DDT is still used in Third World countries. It seems they'd rather risk eating a suspected carcinogen than die by the millions from malaria. Go figure.

WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria : NPR

Thanks for posting that information, it was interesting.

About 50 years ago I visited the Yukatan peninsula in Mexico. I was told that there were malaria mosquitos there. What I found is that the mosquitos were not a problem during the day. They came out looking for blood at night. As long as you were awake and moving around they were not much of a threat. I don't recall anyone being too worried about it.

I don't know about today but it seems that homes back then didn't have screened windows and doors. So at night everyone slept under mosquito nets. It was a very simple and inexpensive solution to the problem.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

I wasn't talking about Mexico. I was speaking about Africa.

Are the mosquitos different in Africa?

I believe the article said they are mostly using DDT indoors. Why do that when you can use a fly swatter and mosquito netting?