Gyroscopic Investing

I don't drink soda, alcohol, or fruit juice and have pretty much found that I can eat nearly whatever else I want and not gain weight. What I stuff in my pie hole still has other effects (too many carbs in one meal make me sleepy of course) but when I only drink water, I just don't gain weight. These are a real killer since they're so easy to drink; you can really ingest a ton of calories, sugar, and/or carbs very quickly without even realizing it.

Gumby wrote:All that calcium in plants that you keep raving about. All it's doing is probably calcifying your arteries and getting into your heart and joints where it doesn't belong, if you are deficient in Vitamin K2 (which you likely are since you don't consume natto or grass-fed dairy).

And yet strict vegetarian or vegan diets have long been used to reverse calcification of arteries in meat-eating patients with heart disease, to the point where some of them are able to avoid bypass surgery altogether.  So something doesn't add up here, Gumby. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20236396

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19305232

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10174891

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1973470

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368755

Gumby wrote:It's well-established that lobbyists write our government's dietary guidelines. Small dairy farmers do not contribute to those lobbying groups — so the guidelines are biased to promote the factory-based dairy industry. Small community dairy farmers are the competition in the dairy business. What better way to squash the competition and convince the masses to consume factory-farmed dairy than to slander the competition?

You're implying that small dairy farms don't pasteurize their milk.  Most do even when not required by their state, since they know it's safer to consume.  We have several small family-owned dairies in my area, and they are all responsible enough to pasteurize their products to protect their customers. 

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote: Sesame seeds still win with 88mg per tablespoon.

That's a pretty dumb way to get calcium. Sesame seeds are really high in Omega-6 (as are most seeds/nuts). It's recommendations like that which make it difficult to take you seriously.

I didn't say you need to get all your calcium from sesame seeds, but they are a concentrated source so sprinkling some on a salad or cereal is never a bad idea.  Certainly it's not as dumb as drinking unpasteurized milk.

moda0306 wrote:

rocketdog wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Do alligators get osteoporosis?

Um... er... what?

You seemed to be claiming that because cows each so musch greenery they avoid osteoperosis, and that somehow was an indication that humans should eat similarly or something. Also, our meat is apparently causing too much acid and therefore osteoperosis within us.

I was wondering if looking at whether alligators get osteoperosis was a good indicator as to whether we should eat raw whole animals. 

Just tongue in cheek of course.

Well, alligators are reptiles that eat bones, and they have an entirely different physiology than mammals, so I don't know that we can draw any useful comparisons.  If you want to draw an animal comparison, the closest you can get is to look at our nearest genetic relatives, which are the chimps and bonobos, who rarely (if ever) eat meat and of course never consume dairy. 

My point about the cows is that people think we need to consume milk to get adequate calcium, yet no other animal in the world consumes milk as an adult, nor do they consume the milk of a different species.  So whenever the subject comes up the conversation usually goes something like this:

Them: As a vegetarian, where do you get your calcium?

Me:  Well, where do you get your calcium?

Them:  Dairy.

Me:  And where does dairy come from?

Them:  Cows.

Me:  And where are the cows getting all their calcium?

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote: This one's for Gumby:

Raw Milk Outbreaks do happen despite what the Weston A. Price Foundation says

Gee, five alleged contaminations of raw milk. Whatever will we do?

OK, here are a few more:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... finds?lite

http://www.musingsofahousewife.com/2012 ... -milk.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242164.php

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3989 ... t=Abstract

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 2005.2.115

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1537 ... t=Abstract

http://aem.asm.org/content/44/5/1154.ab ... f_ipsecsha

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... CBF.d01t04

http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundSe ... FullRecord

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1798 ... t=Abstract

http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/3A2C5D ... hogens.pdf

http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/628544 ... 0_2012.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/RawMilk/

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/r ... ideos.html

http://www.cdc.gov/media/matte/2012/02_ ... tdrink.pdf

Gumby wrote: More people get sick from eating bad melons each year. Does knowing that make you want to pasteurize all your melons?

I don't eat melons, but if I did I would wash them thoroughly on the outside before cutting, as I do with all produce. 

rocketdog wrote: Them: As a vegetarian, where do you get your calcium?

Me:  Well, where do you get your calcium?

Them:  Dairy.

Me:  And where does dairy come from?

Them:  Cows.

Me:  And where are the cows getting all their calcium?

Unlike humans, cows have four stomachs to ferment and digest plant matter over the course of days. Unless our stomachs are four times better than those of ruminants, then we're not getting anywhere near the nutrition out of plants as they are. I mean, if our simple digestive systems allowed us to absorb nutrients as well as ruminants, why would they have four stomachs and spend all day grazing? Is our digestive system just better for plant digestion? (hint: no)

If you want to draw comparisons between us and bonobos, then you can't imply that the nutritional profile of plants is the same for cows and humans.

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:This anomaly appears to be specific to animal protein:

Animal protein robs body of calcium, say health experts

When you get your dietary information from infotorials, you aren't getting the whole story. Chris Kresser explains why the "protein robs the body of calcium" theory is a myth:

And when you get your dietary information from a "licensed acupuncturist and practitioner of integrative medicine" (whatever that is), you're being led astray by someone without a medical degree.  Epic fail.

RuralEngineer wrote: I've had to cut out all soda from my diet and replace it with water (one 12 ounce coke per day, with dinner, and a diet coke with lunch) due to a new migraine medication leaving me unable to taste carbonation.  Flat soda is disgusting and I only lost the ability to taste it on my tongue. I can still feel the carbonic acid in my throat, and that's just plain weird.

Anyway, I've lost 12 pounds already in about 6 weeks with no additional exercise.  It's crazy how much such a simple thing does to our diets, but if Americans just stopped drinking soda, I think the results would be shocking, because I was actually closer to the low end of the scale on consumption.

Now if I could just get over my depression at having to give up beer as well...

Liquid calories are a major contributor to obesity.  Congrats on switching to water!  Too bad about the beer though. 

Gumby wrote: Source: http://chriskresser.com/natures-most-po ... omment-484

Another myth squashed.

Chris Kresser is an acupuncturist (read: quack).  He holds no license to practice medicine.  We can safely ignore anything he has to say about nutrition. 

Pointedstick wrote: Unlike humans, cows have four stomachs to ferment and digest plant matter over the course of days. Unless our stomachs are four times better than those of ruminants, then we're not getting anywhere near the nutrition out of plants as they are. I mean, if our simple digestive systems allowed us to absorb nutrients as well as ruminants, why would they have four stomachs and spend all day grazing? Is our digestive system just better for plant digestion? (hint: no)

If you want to draw comparisons between us and bonobos, then you can't imply that the nutritional profile of plants is the same for cows and humans.

How many stomachs do primates have?  And do they eat dairy products or any significant quantity of meat?

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:This anomaly appears to be specific to animal protein:

Animal protein robs body of calcium, say health experts

When you get your dietary information from infotorials, you aren't getting the whole story. Chris Kresser explains why the "protein robs the body of calcium" theory is a myth:

And when you get your dietary information from a "licensed acupuncturist and practitioner of integrative medicine" (whatever that is), you're being led astray by someone without a medical degree.  Epic fail.

Rocketdog, I guess you must take pride in being ignorant. Acupuncturists in California are far, far more qualified than most doctors to give nutritional advice. Most medical doctors only take an afternoon lecture in nutrition — and that's it. No other training in nutrition. Getting nutritional advice from a medical doctor is like getting decorating advice from you painter — they just aren't qualified to do it.

Acupuncturists are considered primary care providers in California and many other states. We are trained to evaluate patients using professionally recognized standards and medically-based criteria (physical exams; consultation between other providers, conventional medical diagnoses; and ordering x-rays and laboratory tests)...

In California, acupuncturists complete training in the biological sciences such as anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, as well as conventional medical diagnosis and treatment. In addition, acupuncturists receive extensive training in needle therapy, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, energy cultivation practices (Tai Chi & Chi Gong), stress management and lifestyle counseling.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/clinic/faq

So, yeah, you can bash on Kresser all you want because he isn't a medical doctor, but the fact is that his state's required training, alone, makes him far more qualified to give nutritional advice than any doctor.

Here's Kresser viewpoint (and he's right)...

Chris Kresser wrote:Considering that most medical schools fail to meet the 25 unit minimum for nutrition that’s recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, literally, they’re not even getting 25 units of nutrition education so why would anybody ask a doctor what to eat? Honestly and I said this before and I’ll say it again, I have respect, most of the doctors I’ve met really want to help their patients, they’re doing the best job they can do. They’re really smart, they now a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but generally and I think most doctors would agree with me, nutrition is not one of those things that they know a lot about. Because they weren’t educated unless they educated themselves which a lot of good doctors do. But just because a doctor is an expert in surgery or gastrointestinal diseases or whatever it is that they specialize in it doesn’t make them an expert in nutrition so my advice is to be careful taking nutritional advice from doctors.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-healthy-ske ... -episode-7

The idea that doctors know much about nutrition is yet another myth that Kresser just squashed.

rocketdog wrote:Chris Kresser is an acupuncturist (read: quack).  He holds no license to practice medicine.  We can safely ignore anything he has to say about nutrition.

You think acupuncturists are "quacks"? You've just dismissed a few millennia of highly advanced Chinese Medicine and you have no idea what you are talking about. Acupuncture is, in many ways, far more powerful than Western Medicine when it comes to treating chronic issues — such as chronic pain, allergies, digestive issues, and neurological conditions. Your ignorance on the subject is astounding.

rocketdog wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Unlike humans, cows have four stomachs to ferment and digest plant matter over the course of days. Unless our stomachs are four times better than those of ruminants, then we're not getting anywhere near the nutrition out of plants as they are. I mean, if our simple digestive systems allowed us to absorb nutrients as well as ruminants, why would they have four stomachs and spend all day grazing? Is our digestive system just better for plant digestion? (hint: no)

If you want to draw comparisons between us and bonobos, then you can't imply that the nutritional profile of plants is the same for cows and humans.

How many stomachs do primates have?  And do they eat dairy products or any significant quantity of meat?

Two major digestive organs — for all practical purposes. Primates have large cecums. We do not.

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

The human digestive system isn't really designed to digest large amounts of vegetables and fruits — nor are we able to efficiently extract many nutrients from plants. This is evidenced by the fact that all herbivores have cecums to digest plant matter (that they have to consume all day for nutrients, mind you). Whereas the cecum we inherited from primates is now the pretty much just our appendix. Our acid/pepsin based stomachs are designed to more efficiently extract bioavailable nutrients from organ meats. All carnivores get their nutrients by eating herbivores — who have gone through the trouble of digesting the plant matter and making it bioavailable.

I find it odd that vegetarians, such as yourself, seem to have no clue as to a fact that cecums, and hindgut fermenting, is what sets us apart from primates. How exactly did you become convinced to eat only plants when you barely seem to understand these concepts?

I have been under the care of multiple gastroenterologists for over 20 years for an intestinal disease, and not once in all that time has any one of them ever provided dietary advice, or even recommended getting such advice from someone else.  Only in recent years have I figured out on my own that certain foods make me feel worse.

So, in my experience, there is little correlation between the initials "M.D." and expertise about diet and nutrition.

rocketdog wrote: And when you get your dietary information from a "licensed acupuncturist and practitioner of integrative medicine" (whatever that is), you're being led astray by someone without a medical degree.  Epic fail.

Following the nutrition advise of anyone WITH an MD (and I have one so I can say this) is likely hazardous to your health.

Kresser is actually a very credible source, and one of the paleo type people I would most trust.

Having said that my personal belief (and that of many others) is that there is no one diet that is best for everyone, some people will thrive on a vegetarian diet, others need more meat.  Some (particularly with GI issues) will do best on a paleo type diet.

back to your regularly scheduled knock down drag out fight.....

The following Wikipedia entry is the most concise explanation of the difference between a primate's digestive system and a human's digestive system...

Monogastric

A monogastric organism has a simple single-chambered stomach, compared to a ruminant organism, which has a four-chambered complex stomach. Examples of monogastric animals include omnivores such as humans, rats, and pigs, carnivores such as dogs and cats, and herbivores such as horses and rabbits. Herbivores with monogastric digestion can digest cellulose in their diets by way of symbiotic gut bacteria. However, their ability to extract energy from cellulose digestion is less efficient than in ruminants.

Herbivores digest cellulose via microbial fermentation (biochemistry). Monogastric herbivores who can digest cellulose nearly as well as ruminants are called hindgut fermenters, while ruminants are called foregut fermenters. These are subdivided into two groups based on the relative size of various digestive organs in relationship to the rest of the system: colonic fermenters tend to be larger species such as horses and rhinos, and cecal fermenters are smaller animals such as rabbits and rodents. Great apes (other than humans), derive significant amounts of phytanic acid from the hindgut fermentation of plant materials.

Monogastrics cannot digest the fiber molecule cellulose as efficiently as ruminants, though the ability to digest cellulose varies amongst species.

A monogastric digestive system works as soon as the food enters the mouth. Saliva moistens the food and begins the digestive process. After being swallowed, the food passes from the esophagus into the stomach, where stomach acid and enzymes help to break down the food. Bile salts stored in the gall bladder empty the contents of the stomach into the small intestines where most fats are broken down. The pancreas secretes enzymes and alkali to neutralize the stomach acid.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogastric

Hindgut fermentors, such as apes, have a large caecum located after their stomach. The caecum is where fermentation happens in an herbivore. Humans have a very tiny caecum and it has very little fermenting bacteria in it. Therefore, we can only digest a small amount of cellulose per day. In fact, humans really just have an appendix, which resembles the tip of a caecum. As you know, the appendix is practically useless to our digestive system. Charles Darwin believed that the appendix may have devolved from what was once a larger caecum (which is still present in apes).

And here is another explanation...

An adult human's digestive tract is approximately 6.5 meters long and consists of the pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Digestion in humans is similar to that of other monogastric animals. However, unlike most herbivorous animals, humans have a relatively small caecum with a vermiform appendix. The appendix is a blind-ended tube connected to the caecum near the point where the small intestine joins the large intestine. The appendix appears to be a vestigial structure, reduced in size and function when compared to the same structure in other animals. One explanation for this is that the human appendix was once much larger and served a similar function to the caecum of hind gut fermenters.  Over time, the diets of early humans changed to include more meat and less high-fibre plant material. This meant that there was no selective advantage in having a large appendix (and in fact there would be an energy cost in maintaining it), and individuals with a smaller appendix became more common over time. Modern humans would have difficulty extracting enough nutrients if they were restricted to a diet similar to that of ruminant animals. While we are encouraged to eat a diet high in vegetables and fruit, that diet is generally restricted to easy-to-digest material that is relatively low in cellulose: fruit, flowers and new stems and leaves. In other words, our diet is restricted by our inability to extract sufficient nutrients from high-cellulose plant material.

Source: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/farm/content/a ... cture.html

So, there you go. We humans don't have the ability to ferment lots of plants within our digestive system (as apes do). We just aren't very good at digesting plants.

The way I've come to understand our evolution from apes is that we essentially, at one point, figured out how to pick up a club and kill animals to help survive cold or arid climates, or simply to survive, period, and as we developed this skill into a spear, we delved further into these climates, etc, etc, thereby advancing as "predators" with tool making skills instead of fangs and claws.  Especially as we began to lose the ability to digest cellulose, this process would only accelerate, and fulfill itself.

Keep in mind, we've been essentially eating a lot of meat for millions of years.  We evolved from apes, yes, but all animals evolved from single-cell organism... I really don't want to have to try to eat by spreading biological material all over my body hoping I will absorb it .

The paleo and especially Atkins guys probably take it a bit too far, but if you don't believe us, go try eating some random leaves.  There aren't many leaves we can eat anymore.  We specifically are told to eat fiber because it's essentially indigestible sand-paper inside our intestines.  This should tell us that, at the very least, we're NOT an ape, and that some kind of omnivorous diet is ideal... and likely one that doesn't freak out about saturated fats.

moda0306 wrote:There aren't many leaves we can eat anymore.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many wild leaves and nuts are poisonous. For instance, the only reason we can tolerate a wide variety of nuts in our diet now is because they were all domesticated and made palatable.

For instance, wild almonds are extremely bitter and highly poisonous.

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

Wikipedia.org wrote: The wild form of domesticated almond grows in parts of the Levant; almonds must first have been taken into cultivation in this region. The fruit of the wild forms contains the glycoside amygdalin, "which becomes transformed into deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing, chewing, or any other injury to the seed."

Almond is considered to be one of the earliest domesticated tree nuts. Wild almonds are bitter, the kernel produces deadly cyanide upon mechanical handling, and eating even a few dozen at one sitting can be fatal.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond

So, yeah, our Paleolithic ancestors weren't eating a lot of the domesticated plants we eat now. Toxins are embedded in plants to protect them. Domestication was crucial to making a lot of our current plant-based diet tolerable.

Gumby wrote: Rocketdog, I guess you must take pride in being ignorant. Acupuncturists in California are far, far more qualified than most doctors to give nutritional advice. Most medical doctors only take an afternoon lecture in nutrition — and that's it. No other training in nutrition. Getting nutritional advice from a medical doctor is like getting decorating advice from you painter — they just aren't qualified to do it.

Where are his double-blind, peer-reviewed, published studies?  Or does he just like to offer his "opinion" without actually having to do the hard part?

Gumby wrote:

In California, acupuncturists complete training in the biological sciences such as anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, as well as conventional medical diagnosis and treatment. In addition, acupuncturists receive extensive training in needle therapy, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, energy cultivation practices (Tai Chi & Chi Gong), stress management and lifestyle counseling.[/size][/font]

So, yeah, you can bash on Kresser all you want because he isn't a medical doctor, but the fact is that his state's required training, alone, makes him far more qualified to give nutritional advice than any doctor.

I'm not only bashing him because he's not a doctor (and yet he doesn't hesitate to offer medical advice), I'm bashing him because he's a quack acupuncturist.  That tells me all I need to know about his critical thinking skills (or lack thereof).  What's worse, his web site has emblazoned on it the catch-phrase "Medicine for the 21st Century".  So clearly he's trying to confuse visitors (and worse, potential patients) into believing that he's a legitimate member of the medical community. 

Gumby wrote:

Chris Kresser wrote:Considering that most medical schools fail to meet the 25 unit minimum for nutrition that’s recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, literally, they’re not even getting 25 units of nutrition education so why would anybody ask a doctor what to eat? Honestly and I said this before and I’ll say it again, I have respect, most of the doctors I’ve met really want to help their patients, they’re doing the best job they can do. They’re really smart, they now a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but generally and I think most doctors would agree with me, nutrition is not one of those things that they know a lot about. Because they weren’t educated unless they educated themselves which a lot of good doctors do. But just because a doctor is an expert in surgery or gastrointestinal diseases or whatever it is that they specialize in it doesn’t make them an expert in nutrition so my advice is to be careful taking nutritional advice from doctors.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/the-healthy-ske ... -episode-7

The idea that doctors know much about nutrition is yet another myth that Kresser just squashed.

You know what this guy Kresser reminds me of?  The kids in school who couldn't make straight "A" grades on their report cards, and then instead of studying extra hard to bring their grades up, they instead try to console themselves by mocking the kids who were able to make straight "A" grades. 

If he has a beef with the way doctors are taught nutrition, then maybe he should become a doctor himself and work to fix his perception of the problem.  Instead all I hear is "I learned more about nutrition than a doctor, that makes my advice better than a doctor's."  Tell him to perform some double-blind studies, get them published in peer-reviewed journals, and in the meantime keep his sour grapes to himself. 

rocketdog wrote: If he has a beef with the way doctors are taught nutrition, then maybe he should become a doctor himself and work to fix his perception of the problem.  Instead all I hear is "I learned more about nutrition than a doctor, that makes my advice better than a doctor's."  Tell him to perform some double-blind studies, get them published in peer-reviewed journals, and in the meantime keep his sour grapes to himself.

If one learns more about nutrition than doctors, you don't think that would render one more qualified than doctors to offer nutritional advice?

If you got more training in fencing than judo instructors, don't you think you would be able to fence better than them?

Not hearing a lot of substantive criticisms here, just a lot of insults and epithets ("quack acupuncturist").

rocketdog wrote:I'm not only bashing him because he's not a doctor (and yet he doesn't hesitate to offer medical advice), I'm bashing him because he's a quack acupuncturist.  That tells me all I need to know about his critical thinking skills (or lack thereof).

Whoah, rocketdog. Careful. It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evaluating the efficacy of alternative medical practices.

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4926e/s4926e.pdf

I have to say, Rocketdog, I'm really shocked that you think acupuncture is "quackery" — despite the fact that states, such as California, New Mexico and Florida, allow acupuncturists to be Primary Care Physicians. I mean, just listen to yourself. Your comments sound incredibly narrow-minded.

Lisa Rohleder: Acupuncture is Like Noodles wrote:"Imagine what would happen if a pharmaceutical company announced that it had invented a drug which could effectively treat practically everything that could go wrong with a person. The short list would include asthma, arthritis, indigestion, PMS, sinusitis, insomnia, fibromyalgia, hot flashes, high blood pressure, infertility, constipation, the side effects of chemotherapy, and the common cold, not to mention every conceivable variety of pain. And imagine that not only can this drug address all of these problems, but all of its "side effects" are positive: it has stress-reducing and mood-elevating properties, and is fact is so relaxing that some people who have nothing really wrong with them like to use it on a regular basis, just because they enjoy it so much. And yet it isn't addictive, and there's no way to overdose on it. Think about the potential market for such a drug -- and how it would challenge our assumptions about how medicine works.

"Now imagine that this drug isn't a drug, but a practice so old that it cannot be patented or claimed by anyone. A practice that requires almost no materials and potentially costs almost nothing. In a country that is not only in the midst of a health care crisis due to skyrocketing costs, but also sunk in the worse recession in memory."

I recently experienced the power of acupuncture, first hand, and I can assure you that it is not a placebo effect. I walked in with very little expectations (I thought it would just be relaxing and stress-reducing) and I walked out completely amazed and feeling better than I've ever felt. Very, very powerful stuff — way more advanced for treating chronic conditions than anything offered by Western medicine.

You have to understand that Chinese Medicine is about 5,000 years old — it's been highly perfected for what it can do. Chinese physicians discovered the phenomenon of continuous blood circulation — probably the most significant medical discovery in human history — about 2,000 years before it was discovered in the West. Whereas Western/allopathic medicine is just a few hundred years old — with only the biggest advances happening over the last few decades. In fact, much of Western/allopathic medicine's history was spent wasting time with humors and phlegm.

If you need acute trauma treatments or surgery, Western medicine is amazing. But, if you have chronic conditions, Traditional Chinese Medicine is way more advanced than Western medicine.

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:Chris Kresser is an acupuncturist (read: quack).  He holds no license to practice medicine.  We can safely ignore anything he has to say about nutrition.

You think acupuncturists are "quacks"? You've just dismissed a few millennia of highly advanced Chinese Medicine and you have no idea what you are talking about. Acupuncture is, in many ways, far more powerful than Western Medicine when it comes to treating chronic issues — such as chronic pain, allergies, digestive issues, and neurological conditions. Your ignorance on the subject is astounding.

Gumby, here you've gone completely off the rails.  Acupuncture is quackery, pure and simple.  It is the placebo effect in action, nothing more.  It should be lumped in with all the other quackery out there: homeopathy, chiropractic, ear candling, and so on.  Ask an acupuncture therapist what "chi" is and you'll get a vague response about "energy channels" and "meridians", none of which are detectable, of course (which begs the question: "If they are undetectable, how do you know they exist?!)

The mere fact that something has been practiced for a long time doesn't mean it's effective or that it's not relying on the placebo effect.  People have been using voodoo dolls for a long time too -- do you believe voodoo dolls really work?  If I have a headache and I take powdered rhinoceros horn and my headache goes away, does that mean the powdered rhinoceros horn cured my headache? 

Study where "sham" acupuncture proved more effective than "real" acupuncture:

http://journals.lww.com/clinicalpain/pa ... e=abstract

Another study comparing "real" acupuncture with "sham" acupuncture:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=718524

Quackwatch has a detailed article about acupuncture, including extensive references:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel ... s/acu.html

The National Council Against Health Fraud also weighs in on acupuncture:

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

Wait, now chiropractors are quacks too?

rocketdog wrote:Gumby, here you've gone completely off the rails.  Acupuncture is quackery, pure and simple.  It is the placebo effect in action, nothing more.

...Says the guy who only eats plants based on extremely limited proof of the supposed health benefits.

Rocketdog, if acupuncture was quackery, do you think that it would have survived for thousands of years and practiced all over the planet? If acupuncture was quackery, do you think major Universities would be conducting research like this?:

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/stor ... fm?id=2880

University of Rochester Medical Center wrote:In a paper published online May 30 in Nature Neuroscience, a team at the University of Rochester Medical Center identifies the molecule adenosine as a central player in parlaying some of the effects of acupuncture in the body. Building on that knowledge, scientists were able to triple the beneficial effects of acupuncture in mice by adding a medication approved to treat leukemia in people.

The research focuses on adenosine, a natural compound known for its role in regulating sleep, for its effects on the heart, and for its anti-inflammatory properties. But adenosine also acts as a natural painkiller, becoming active in the skin after an injury to inhibit nerve signals and ease pain in a way similar to lidocaine.

In the current study, scientists found that the chemical is also very active in deeper tissues affected by acupuncture. The Rochester researchers looked at the effects of acupuncture on the peripheral nervous system – the nerves in our body that aren’t part of the brain and spinal cord. The research complements a rich, established body of work showing that in the central nervous system, acupuncture creates signals that cause the brain to churn out natural pain-killing endorphins.

The new findings add to the scientific heft underlying acupuncture, said neuroscientist Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., who led the research. Her team is presenting the work this week at a scientific meeting, Purines 2010, in Barcelona, Spain.

Source: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/stor ... fm?id=2880

Gumby wrote: I have to say, Rocketdog, I'm really shocked that you think acupuncture is "quackery" — despite the fact that states, such as California, New Mexico and Florida, allow acupuncturists to be Primary Care Physicians. I mean, just listen to yourself. Your comments sound incredibly narrow-minded.

So when states permit acupuncturists to be primary care physicians, you're pro-state, but when they forbid the sale of raw milk, you're anti-state? 

The fact that a state allows an acupuncturist to be a primary care physician should not be taken as their endorsement of acupuncture.  States make changes like this to please their constituents, not to mention health insurance companies.  States like CA, NM, and FL have a high percentage of "New Age" constituents, and the legislatures are only too happy to appease them if they can garner their votes. 

If the constituents were clamoring for a return to bloodletting treatments, I'm sure we would see the same pattern emerge.  Fortunately, I don't think that idea appeals to most people.