*Official* Work Out Thread

[iamshack]

Well, I think the moral of the story is we all have to live with the hand we're dealt. There are certain things we can do to improve our chances, at least things that are most likely to improve our chances.

[Y2HH]

so many things to say.

 

1. I don't trust government subsidized science all that much when it comes to food.

 

2. Agree on organic. Disagree on fish/chicken. Caged chicken eat corn. Corn provides zero nutrients but makes them fat. So you get big ole breasts and half the nutritional value. Fish that swim in the ocean have more muscle mass and a better omega 3/6 ratio than their farmed counterparts. Farmed fish are lacking in color (salmon) because they're lacking in nutrients and are much fattier - and not with the good kinds of fat.

 

3. Our life expectancy in America is driven up by all the invalids in hospitals who can't f***ing do anything but thank god they're still ALIVE!!!! You should die when you should die, and in aboriginal cultures they do.

 

4. I didn't say zero. I said close. Still probably hyperbole, but I do that - you may have noticed.

 

1. Good. Neither do I.

 

2. While corn fattens chickens, it doesn't fatten the breast...they do that via cross breeding for breast size. Chicken breasts are almost devoid of fat regardless of what they eat...there just isn't fatty tissue there. I agree on wild caught fish...take it from me, a fisherman ...I can filet, skin, etc...any sort of fish you bring me. There is a vast difference in quality between the two...but that said, these fish today are full of mercury to an alarming point. IE, there is more mercury in one piece of salmon than there is in every shot/immunization you've ever had...combined.

 

3. This is quite possible...but I don't necessarily agree with the you should die when you die...if we find scientific means to keep people alive, and healthy...I see no issues with doing so.

 

4. So do I. You may have noticed, too.

[Reddy]

1. Good. Neither do I.

 

2. While corn fattens chickens, it doesn't fatten the breast...they do that via cross breeding for breast size. Chicken breasts are almost devoid of fat regardless of what they eat...there just isn't fatty tissue there. I agree on wild caught fish...take it from me, a fisherman ...I can filet, skin, etc...any sort of fish you bring me. There is a vast difference in quality between the two...but that said, these fish today are full of mercury to an alarming point. IE, there is more mercury in one piece of salmon than there is in every shot/immunization you've ever had...combined.

 

3. This is quite possible...but I don't necessarily agree with the you should die when you die...if we find scientific means to keep people alive, and healthy...I see no issues with doing so.

 

4. So do I. You may have noticed, too.

 

there's the kicker. everything else we're now in agreement with more or less. what a successful debate! a soxtalk rarity.

[Reddy]

National surveys continue to demonstrate that the lack of Recommended Daily Amounts (RDA) of nutrients in our diets and increased intake of sugar-rich food is the leading cause of degenerative diseases. Research shows that these lifestyle diseases are almost absent in aboriginal societies. These diseases include coronary heart diseases, high blood pressure, degenerated disc, osteoarthritis, appendicitis, gallstone, diabetes, obesity, strokes, hemorrhoids, dental caries, all cancers and even scoliosis. In fact, Dr. Price use to send modernized Eskimos and Indians attacked with tuberculosis, a fatal condition and untreatable with modern medicine, back to primitive conditions and to a primitive diet and found that a great majority recovered! When Dr. Price studied the native diets, he noticed some similarities in the foods that were keeping them so healthy. Among them: The foods were natural, unprocessed, and organic (and contained no sugar except for the occasional bit of honey or maple syrup). The people ate foods that grew in their native environment. In other words, they ate locally grown, seasonal foods. Many of the cultures ate unpasteurized dairy products, and all of them ate fermented foods such as natto, kimchi or kefir. The people ate a significant portion of their food raw. All of the cultures ate animal products, including animal fat and, often, full-fat butter and organ meats. The native diets also had more omega-3 fat than modern diets and FAR less omega-6 fats. A diet that is lacking in omega-3 fats, and heavy on omega-6 fats from vegetable oils (which are consumed so heavily today) is a recipe for disaster.

 

 

Lau, Kevin (2012-02-15). Your Plan for Natural Scoliosis Prevention and Treatment - Health In Your Hands (Kindle Locations 1157-1166). Health In Your Hands Pte Ltd. Kindle Edition.

 

oh, and i have scoliosis. something doctors will tell you is irreversible. friggin liars.

[Y2HH]

there's the kicker. everything else we're now in agreement with more or less. what a successful debate! a soxtalk rarity.

 

Unfortunately, most people can't have educated discussions without wanting to hear what the other person says.

 

You have no idea how many times I've had the organic argument with people that refuse to believe how bastardized the word has become. Regardless of what I try to show them, they don't believe it...if it has the word stamped on it...it's better.

 

At first, I was fearful you were one of them, too...I was happy to see you weren't.

 

As for GMO's...I don't like it when we mess with stuff without understanding the possible consequences...this is just another example of us tampering with mother.

[Reddy]

On another note. Did Beast: Cardio today in the Body Beast program. It's actually a really great workout, but Sagi avoids the tougher moves by checking form.

 

But I mean I get why... there's nothing funnier than seeing a Russian Body Builder trying to do high knees.

[Y2HH]

On another note. Did Beast: Cardio today in the Body Beast program. It's actually a really great workout, but Sagi avoids the tougher moves by checking form.

 

But I mean I get why... there's nothing funnier than seeing a Russian Body Builder trying to do high knees.

 

What is this, p90x with more of a focus on weight training with heavy weights for pure strength gain?

[Reddy]

What is this, p90x with more of a focus on weight training with heavy weights for pure strength gain?

It's a new program put out by Beachbody - same company as P90X/Insanity/etc

 

It was developed using old school bodybuilding combined with new school exercise science. The trainer is a former bodybuilding champ and he's even russian so you know it's authentic. There's cardio once in a while, but it's mostly focused on pure muscle gains. Perfect for all those guys who've been wanting something that actually builds muscle. (you can do it w/ P90X but it takes modification)

 

So far it seems like a really legit program. Does require a bench, but besides that, the same equipment as P90X. They want you to splurge for a barbell but you don't NEED it. The fancy jargon for this one (remember muscle confusion?) is "Dynamic Set Training". Basically just a bunch of different types of sets all smashed together. Really seems to give a good pump/burn so far. We'll see how it goes. Definitely more hardcore than P90X.

[Reddy]

"By taking the best of old-school bodybuilding and fusing it with a breakthrough in sports science we call Dynamic Set Training, Body Beast is proven to put on up to 10 pounds of muscle mass in just 90 days. You'll crank out Single Sets, Super Sets, Giant Sets, Progressive Sets, Drop Sets, Tempo Sets and more—exercises you've probably seen before but now put together in an entirely new way. Now you'll add resistance and execute elite moves at crazy angles to exhaust the muscle, activate more muscle fibers, and naturally boost testosterone levels far beyond what's been possible before in a home training system."

[soxmaniac!]

"By taking the best of old-school bodybuilding and fusing it with a breakthrough in sports science we call Dynamic Set Training, Body Beast is proven to put on up to 10 pounds of muscle mass in just 90 days. You'll crank out Single Sets, Super Sets, Giant Sets, Progressive Sets, Drop Sets, Tempo Sets and more—exercises you've probably seen before but now put together in an entirely new way. Now you'll add resistance and execute elite moves at crazy angles to exhaust the muscle, activate more muscle fibers, and naturally boost testosterone levels far beyond what's been possible before in a home training system."

Most of these things are unnecessary and just tax your CNS. I used to fool around with stuff like that, but then I learned the best way to train. Using compound exercises as the base of all workouts, and having a routine that progressively increases weight each weak or so.

[Jake]

here's the crazy thing. while yes, genetics are hard to avoid, just by eating right (and i mean ACTUALLY right, not what typical americans think of as "healthy") you can avoid all SORTS of diseases - even diseases you're genetically predisposed to.

 

I'm talking antioxidants, pre and probiotics, vitamin K, fermented foods, organic veggies, free-range chicken, grass-fed beef, non-farmed fish, non-enriched flour, no processed foods etc etc.

 

Why do you think people in aboriginal societies have such a LOW rate of cancer and other mega-diseases? Because they eat REAL FOOD. That's it. That's the difference.

 

Yes you can't bring the risk to zero, but you can come pretty damn close.

 

 

I feel like you're taking some leaps here, but your heart is in the right place. Just remember that the organic, non-GMO movement is FILLED with misinformation and has big money behind it (often from the same pockets as those that are profiting from the inorganic, GMO).

 

 

You don't explain it...exercising and strengthening muscles can help with things like this...but sometimes it does nothing at all. I guarantee there are far more stories where eating properly and exercising did nothing to trump genetics than it did to help it. You simply don't hear about them...but go to any local hospital to check the facts. While 1 patent may have destroyed cancer and credited it to eating properly and exercising...most every patient facing a life or death disease does the same...only a majority of them lose the war. They simply don't make very good stories...so you rarely hear about them.

 

Like I said...I ate right...and a lot of what you recommended really has no scientific proof behind it...for example, probiotics...may or may not do anything. While I happen to believe they do something...I just happen to have a bottle of them here with me...notice the FDA won't recommend them...because for every person it seems to help, there is a person it does nothing for in their testing. The fine print is pretty clear: * This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any diseases.

 

When various products actually do the things they claim to do...the FDA says so. And no, I don't believe everything the FDA says...but you shouldn't believe everything product X says, either. A lot of life is luck. Be thankful you've had it so far...because if the day comes you ever are stricken with something like I've been in my past...or Rock has been, for another example...all the eating right and exercising isn't going to help...because you're already eating right and exercising. You will NOT beat genetics the majority of the time...sadly.

 

 

I suppose if you're genetically pre-disposed to something horrible, it is liable to happen. I think "healthy living" is usually more geared towards preventing lifestyle-induced disease and health issues, extending one's longevity, etc. The expectation that eating well/exercise/what have you will save you from a genetic predisposal to cancer, arthritis, a battery of other things of varying degrees...is probably an unreasonable expectation. Perhaps one could delay or lessen the blow of some of these things.

 

 

1) You can *possibly* lessen your chances of said diseases by eating right. That's as far as science backs you up on this. No farther.

 

 

 

2) Some of this is true, some if it unproven, and some of it is false. Antioxidants have been studied and shown mixed results at best in actual studies: (http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/antioxidant4.htm). Organic foods are not proven to be any better for you than their inorganic counterparts...and at times can even be worse, as organic foods still contain pesticides...only they must contain organic pesticides...which can be worse for you than their synthetic counterparts. That said, other variations of organic foods, if they are actually organic foods, can be a healthier choice. Unfortunately, since the organic craze started, the corporations have joined this bandwagon and have bastardized the meaning of the word, so most of the organic foods you see today don't meet actual criteria to be called that...but they're called that anyway. Yes, grass fed beef is better for you. Non-farmed fish is still an iffy proposition, because how do you know the mercury content or where the wild fish has been, or what waters it was exposed too? Free range chickens and their eggs are also proven worse for you than their caged counterparts, as free range chickens are exposed to fecies/manure-borne diseases...but they're a great marketing ploy that get people to pay 2x+ for eggs or meat that are no cleaner/safer or nutritionally better. We agree on enriched flour and heavily processed foods, however...

 

 

 

3) They also have lower life expectancies regardless. I'd need to show citations on this...but last I looked via the Australian census, aboriginals tend to live 8-10 years less than their western counterparts. I can't speak for Eskimos, however...I do not know their life expectancy...and I doubt they eat much processed food. Whatever it is, however, I doubt it's more than the average American...and we live in one of the top 2 most obese societies in the world. The longer we live, the longer we are exposed to coming down with one of these mega-diseases. That's just the law of averages.

 

 

 

4) No, you can't. You can possibly decrease it by some percentage points...but to zero? If you want to make statements like this...where is/are the scientific studies backing it?

 

 

I enjoy your perspective here.

 

 

You are absolutely right in that I shouldn't be making judgements. I apologize for doing so. And you have my sympthies for going through what you've gone through.

 

But you again lean on organic. Inorganic foods have the SAME vitamin quality as their organic counterparts. I'm not sure where you've hear they don't.

 

Yes, throughout my 20's, I ate properly, steamed veggies, brown rice, boneless skinless chicken, egg whites, salmon, fish oil, etc...all of it. That's unfortunate for me and anecdotal at best, but that's what happened.

 

 

I'd like to hear more about your take on "natural" foods and the like.

 

 

yeah we need to stop using the word organic because you're right, it has been bastardized. i'll definitely agree with you on that. it's just a fast way for me to express "non genetically modified". How bout that? GMO-free. I'll use that instead.

 

GMO's are f***ing awful.

 

 

I need to see some evidence for GMOs being bad. It makes no sense to me that it is bad.

 

 

 

 

@FDA talk

 

To receive FDA "approval" you'll need multiple supporting human clinical trials, typically double-blind with n=32 or better. This always costs a bundle of money and in some cases can get astronomical depending on the amount of controls necessary. For your every day supplement company (say the one selling you a probiotic) these multi-million dollar studies are just not going to happen.

 

 

[Reddy]

I need to see some evidence for GMOs being bad. It makes no sense to me that it is bad.

 

Really? It makes NO sense? Modifying corn so that it already has the pesticide INSIDE IT isn't bad?

 

the corn is produced so that if an insect eats it, that insect dies. So the corn is deadly to insects but can't POSSIBLY cause any adverse reaction in humans after long-term exposure?

 

Monsanto REFUSES to even test whether there could be negative effects (or any effect for that matter) on humans. Why the hell should we eat something that hasn't been vetted by science? It's ludicrous and unsafe and downright despicable on the part of the company.

[Y2HH]

Really? It makes NO sense? Modifying corn so that it already has the pesticide INSIDE IT isn't bad?

 

the corn is produced so that if an insect eats it, that insect dies. So the corn is deadly to insects but can't POSSIBLY cause any adverse reaction in humans after long-term exposure?

 

Monsanto REFUSES to even test whether there could be negative effects (or any effect for that matter) on humans. Why the hell should we eat something that hasn't been vetted by science? It's ludicrous and unsafe and downright despicable on the part of the company.

 

The question is how much of this is FUD and how much of it is factual? I've not done much research on GMO's, other than some basic reading, and while I don't like the tampering we're doing with GMO's that produce natural pesticides (like you mentioned), I have no issues with GMO's that produce massively bigger crop yields. If we only grew organic foods (truly organic), the amount of edible food we produce in the world would fall by a massive amount...and the world is only getting more populated, not less...so we sort of need to find methods as GMO's produce...but hopefully do it in a safe way.

[StrangeSox]

GMO's tend to be bad in practice for a variety of reasons, but they're not inherently a bad thing. Every staple crop we eat has been genetically modified by humans over millenia of selection for bigger yields, better drought resistance, better pest resistance etc. They're still not sure where the hell corn came from and how it diversified into so many species so quickly.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Really? It makes NO sense? Modifying corn so that it already has the pesticide INSIDE IT isn't bad?

 

the corn is produced so that if an insect eats it, that insect dies. So the corn is deadly to insects but can't POSSIBLY cause any adverse reaction in humans after long-term exposure?

 

 

As far as I can tell, BT is made to only harm a few insect species. Its effect is on gut receptors that humans don't even have.

[Y2HH]

I'd like to hear more about your take on "natural" foods and the like.

 

Much of the problem with the "natural" or "organic" movement is it's been hijacked and bastardized to the point that the word organic has lost it's luster. To begin, natural and organic are not the same. USDA Organic, which is an actual label, must meet strict standards set by the USDA about farming/growing/etc., which then allows you to use their stamp on your packaging and avoid possible lawsuits and fines. Natural means...well...it means exactly nothing. There are no standards in which you can or cannot use the natural label, and this is how they [corporations] hijacked the industry. Rather than saying it's organic, because it's not...they instead label it natural. They realized that to most people, the two words are interchangeable...even though they aren't. When producers found that you could charge hefty premiums on anything labeled organic, or in this case "natural", they set out to do exactly that. There is also a difference in labeling your food "Organic", vs "USDA Organic". The label of organic, without the USDA in front of it means the food must be 95% organic. Well...that 5% can make all the difference in the world when it comes to "cheating the process". That said...even though they only used 5% pesticide, or some other biological means to cheat, they can still use the word...and it's vastly cheaper for them to produce it that way.

 

The other issue is, as with anything, there is a lot of misinformation that's been passed off as fact over the years, to the point that people often repeat things they've heard about organic vs inorganic without bothering to do any actual research for themselves. A bit of ideology has crept into the discussion, so because people feel so strongly about the subject, they tend to not care what the science actually says...all they know is it makes them feel better inside. Is organic more nutritious? They don't really know. They've been studying this for over 40 years and the results are often inconclusive...one study will show the organic foods yielded higher levels of vitamin C, but another study will show the inorganic counterpart did the same. Overall, actual research/science have concluded that (thus far) there is no nutritional difference, no matter how badly people wish their was.

 

Some information from the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/

 

More misinformation people accept as fact: Cooking vegetables destroys nutrients. I've heard this repeated a number of times, and it's a half truth at best. This is more complicated than a simple true or false answer, because while cooking can destroy small amounts of unstable water soluble vitamins, primarily Vitamin-B and Vitamin-C (ascorbic acid), it doesn't do much to other types of vitamins, and it also doesn't completely kill them as some people like to believe. An uncooked Vitamin C filled veggie will only retain about 10-20% more vitamin C content than it's cooked counterpart, but the trade off is they've found people tend to eat way more of a vegetable if it's cooked...so you easily make up the difference in any lost vitamin content. Now, to take this further, cooking can do the opposite when it comes to vitamin A. For example, cooking carrots actually increases the amount of beta-carotene in them. Also, microwaving those same vegetables seems to preserve the Vitamin B/C...because it's direct heat that seems to hurt them.

 

Whenever a subject becomes something of an ideology to a group of people...such as health and nutrition...be sure to research what you hear, which will be backed by actual scientific studies.

 

People tend to have a causal (NOT casual) mentality when it comes to diet and it's affect on their bodies...to highlight a quick example, when people come down with food poisoning, they will tend to look for a cause in the last 24 hours. Almost every time, they will look for the worst thing they ate nutritionally (in their opinion), or the thing they disliked they most in that time span, and that's what they will blame. They won't just blame it, but they will *know* it was the cause. Reality, however, tends to disagree almost always...because more often than not, it takes more than 24 hours for food poisoning to set in...and goes back as far as anything you ate in the previous 72 hours.

[Reddy]

As far as I can tell, BT is made to only harm a few insect species. Its effect is on gut receptors that humans don't even have.

so then why won't Monsanto perform the tests if there's nothing to hide?

[RockRaines]

For example, what Rock is experiencing sounds like cartilage degeneration...that's genetic...and no amount of eating properly or exercising is going to do much about it. A friend of mine has chronic arthritis, and I mean severe heavily medicated level...he's only 34 years old. Eating broccoli and exercising did nothing for him...and does nothing for him.

 

\

True on my knees, however I could have pushed back the onset of it according to my doctor by having much better flexibility and NOT using those barefoot-type shoes. I accelerated the issue by being extremely active and having basically no flexibility in my legs and hips.

[Reddy]

True on my knees, however I could have pushed back the onset of it according to my doctor by having much better flexibility and NOT using those barefoot-type shoes. I accelerated the issue by being extremely active and having basically no flexibility in my legs and hips.

which is exactly why people doing P90X or other workout regimens benefit so damn much by doing Yoga once a week.

[Y2HH]

True on my knees, however I could have pushed back the onset of it according to my doctor by having much better flexibility and NOT using those barefoot-type shoes. I accelerated the issue by being extremely active and having basically no flexibility in my legs and hips.

 

Those barefoot type shoes are more often than not bad for people who are used to wearing normal gym shoes who have probably formed poor/bad running habits over the years due to the increased cushion they've always used. The idea, when running, is to come down on the balls of your feet (toes first), which you can do with regular gym shoes, as it lessens the impact on your knees. The problem is if you've already formed bad habits (heel first impact), and switch to those barefoot shoes, odds are you'll still run with heel impact, only now you have no padding to cushion the blow to your knees. The idea behind them was to retrain you to run properly...but that doesn't work for a lot of people.

[CrimsonWeltall]

so then why won't Monsanto perform the tests if there's nothing to hide?

 

BT has been tested on humans with no effects. I imagine there'd be more testing if there was even a plausible biological harm.

[RockRaines]

Those barefoot type shoes are more often than not bad for people who are used to wearing normal gym shoes who have probably formed poor/bad running habits over the years due to the increased cushion they've always used. The idea, when running, is to come down on the balls of your feet (toes first), which you can do with regular gym shoes, as it lessens the impact on your knees. The problem is if you've already formed bad habits (heel first impact), and switch to those barefoot shoes, odds are you'll still run with heel impact, only now you have no padding to cushion the blow to your knees. The idea behind them was to retrain you to run properly...but that doesn't work for a lot of people.

That essentially what he said. I hadnt established the correct strength in my foot/lower leg area to use those shoes so when I switched over even for cross training I tightened my calves which tightened my hammys which then pulled on my IT band which helped cause my initial tear in my knee and then the subsequent wearing away of cartilage. Alot of it was flexibility (I could barely get mid shin on toe touches) but some of it was those shoes and me not being a good candidate for them.

[Jake]

The question is how much of this is FUD and how much of it is factual? I've not done much research on GMO's, other than some basic reading, and while I don't like the tampering we're doing with GMO's that produce natural pesticides (like you mentioned), I have no issues with GMO's that produce massively bigger crop yields. If we only grew organic foods (truly organic), the amount of edible food we produce in the world would fall by a massive amount...and the world is only getting more populated, not less...so we sort of need to find methods as GMO's produce...but hopefully do it in a safe way.

 

 

The latter point is very important.

 

 

Much of the problem with the "natural" or "organic" movement is it's been hijacked and bastardized to the point that the word organic has lost it's luster. To begin, natural and organic are not the same. USDA Organic, which is an actual label, must meet strict standards set by the USDA about farming/growing/etc., which then allows you to use their stamp on your packaging and avoid possible lawsuits and fines. Natural means...well...it means exactly nothing. There are no standards in which you can or cannot use the natural label, and this is how they [corporations] hijacked the industry. Rather than saying it's organic, because it's not...they instead label it natural. They realized that to most people, the two words are interchangeable...even though they aren't. When producers found that you could charge hefty premiums on anything labeled organic, or in this case "natural", they set out to do exactly that. There is also a difference in labeling your food "Organic", vs "USDA Organic". The label of organic, without the USDA in front of it means the food must be 95% organic. Well...that 5% can make all the difference in the world when it comes to "cheating the process". That said...even though they only used 5% pesticide, or some other biological means to cheat, they can still use the word...and it's vastly cheaper for them to produce it that way.

 

The other issue is, as with anything, there is a lot of misinformation that's been passed off as fact over the years, to the point that people often repeat things they've heard about organic vs inorganic without bothering to do any actual research for themselves. A bit of ideology has crept into the discussion, so because people feel so strongly about the subject, they tend to not care what the science actually says...all they know is it makes them feel better inside. Is organic more nutritious? They don't really know. They've been studying this for over 40 years and the results are often inconclusive...one study will show the organic foods yielded higher levels of vitamin C, but another study will show the inorganic counterpart did the same. Overall, actual research/science have concluded that (thus far) there is no nutritional difference, no matter how badly people wish their was.

 

Some information from the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/

 

More misinformation people accept as fact: Cooking vegetables destroys nutrients. I've heard this repeated a number of times, and it's a half truth at best. This is more complicated than a simple true or false answer, because while cooking can destroy small amounts of unstable water soluble vitamins, primarily Vitamin-B and Vitamin-C (ascorbic acid), it doesn't do much to other types of vitamins, and it also doesn't completely kill them as some people like to believe. An uncooked Vitamin C filled veggie will only retain about 10-20% more vitamin C content than it's cooked counterpart, but the trade off is they've found people tend to eat way more of a vegetable if it's cooked...so you easily make up the difference in any lost vitamin content. Now, to take this further, cooking can do the opposite when it comes to vitamin A. For example, cooking carrots actually increases the amount of beta-carotene in them. Also, microwaving those same vegetables seems to preserve the Vitamin B/C...because it's direct heat that seems to hurt them.

 

Whenever a subject becomes something of an ideology to a group of people...such as health and nutrition...be sure to research what you hear, which will be backed by actual scientific studies.

 

People tend to have a causal (NOT casual) mentality when it comes to diet and it's affect on their bodies...to highlight a quick example, when people come down with food poisoning, they will tend to look for a cause in the last 24 hours. Almost every time, they will look for the worst thing they ate nutritionally (in their opinion), or the thing they disliked they most in that time span, and that's what they will blame. They won't just blame it, but they will *know* it was the cause. Reality, however, tends to disagree almost always...because more often than not, it takes more than 24 hours for food poisoning to set in...and goes back as far as anything you ate in the previous 72 hours.

 

 

I'm enjoying your posts very much.

 

 

so then why won't Monsanto perform the tests if there's nothing to hide?

 

I don't know all the facts here, but your tone sounds very "conspiracy-ish" and its undermining your arguments

[Reddy]

The latter point is very important.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm enjoying your posts very much.

 

 

 

 

I don't know all the facts here, but your tone sounds very "conspiracy-ish" and its undermining your arguments

 

i don't really care what you think man.

[Reddy]

Monsanto's website states,

 

"There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans. So long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks. Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food--conventional or GM--or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing."