Three fruit and veg may be enough

Apparently, the PhD's and other scholars at the university of Athens did not
think that their work was worthless. As is usually the case, it was most
likely peer reviewed by a group of other highly educated academic sorts who
also failed to concur with you evaluation of the study as 'worthless'.

I'm still not sure why studying correlation is a bad thing. Long before
data existed to 'prove' the dangers of smoking, a correlation was noted
between cigarettes and certain diseases.

In the past ten or so years, enormous gains have been made by those studying
addictions. Still, up until recently, it was the correlation between
drinking excessive alcohol and alcoholism that determined the diagnosis.
Note that not everyone who drinks excessively is an alcoholic but those who
have never had any alcohol are not likely to turn into alcoholics.

What besides a correlation exists that demonstrates that higher traffic
fatalities are associated with increased speed. True, the driver may be on
the cell phone, impaired or otherwise compromised but the fact remains,
traffic fatalities increase with higher speeds. It may be perfectly safe
for me to drive 100 miles an hour while alert, sober and attentive but no
one is going to raise the speed limit for me.

Does obesity cause or promote diabetes or does impaired glucose tolerance
promote obesity? By observing the correlation, and addressing the obesity,
many people can make positive gains in their health regardless of whether it
is the chicken or egg that came first.

If you noticed that all of the children in a particular class at your
child's school were coming down with a mysterious illness, would you simply
write it off as useless correlation or would you investigate the cause?
Would you sign your child up for the class before causation was proved? I
mean, maybe, all the kids in that class coincidentally went to the same
movie theatre over the weekend and were exposed to a toxin there but the
correlation between the class and the illness would be very difficult to
ignore.

j

"Ignoramus16661" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Diarmid

Logan said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Demosthenes Panagiotakos and colleagues at the University of Athens
carried out a study of 848 people with heart disease and 1,078 healthy
volunteers last year.

that study is worthless and should be ignored.

it is a study of correlation and not causation.

it is quite possible that eating fruits is a proxy for healthy
lifestyle in general.

If I eat fruits, exercise well, avoid obesity, and avoid certain bad
foods like sugar or possible some certain animal products, it is
likely that this combination will improve my chances wrt heart
disease.

Which of them works in isolation? Maybe none.

How much is the study worth? Nothing.

i

Julianne said:

Apparently, the PhD's and other scholars at the university of Athens
did not think that their work was worthless. As is usually the case,
it was most likely peer reviewed by a group of other highly educated
academic sorts who also failed to concur with you evaluation of the
study as 'worthless'.

Did the peers actually bother to read it before saying how great it was, I
suspect they had better things to do. Maybe they are highly educated, but
that doesn't mean understood it or have the ability to be scientific about
it.

Quoted message said:

I'm still not sure why studying correlation is a bad thing. Long
before data existed to 'prove' the dangers of smoking, a correlation
was noted between cigarettes and certain diseases.

Correlation is fine, but it doesn't necessarily give you any answers without
further investigation.

Quoted message said:

In the past ten or so years, enormous gains have been made by those
studying addictions. Still, up until recently, it was the
correlation between drinking excessive alcohol and alcoholism that
determined the diagnosis. Note that not everyone who drinks
excessively is an alcoholic but those who have never had any alcohol
are not likely to turn into alcoholics.

Hmmmm, Beer :-D :-D

Quoted message said:

What besides a correlation exists that demonstrates that higher
traffic fatalities are associated with increased speed. True, the
driver may be on the cell phone, impaired or otherwise compromised
but the fact remains, traffic fatalities increase with higher speeds.
It may be perfectly safe for me to drive 100 miles an hour while
alert, sober and attentive but no one is going to raise the speed
limit for me.

But it doesn't solve the underlying problem of why people crash, if we
understood that and solved it then we would have a better solution than just
limiting speed, which doesn't work too well since people still get wiped
out.

Quoted message said:

Does obesity cause or promote diabetes or does impaired glucose
tolerance promote obesity? By observing the correlation, and
addressing the obesity, many people can make positive gains in their
health regardless of whether it is the chicken or egg that came first.

Agreed, it's a start, rather like the speed limit thing.

Quoted message said:

If you noticed that all of the children in a particular class at your
child's school were coming down with a mysterious illness, would you
simply write it off as useless correlation or would you investigate
the cause? Would you sign your child up for the class before
causation was proved? I mean, maybe, all the kids in that class
coincidentally went to the same movie theatre over the weekend and
were exposed to a toxin there but the correlation between the class
and the illness would be very difficult to ignore.

Of course I would investigate the cause, but the correlation on it's own
isn't particularly helpful to solving the problem, it's just the corner
piece of the puzzle, but I do agree it needs to be seen.

Going back to the fruit and veg thing, 1900 people isn't very many, and were
they from a broad spectrum of life? You can't get very broad and still
maintain decent numbers for each group with only 1900 people. It's a bit
like throwing some dice and you get more 6's than any other numbers. Do dice
generally produce 6's or was there some other effect? It's just not a good
correlation.

Dave.

In my work, I review scores of clinical records and try to pull objective
data from which I can make correlations. My standard line is that no one
should ever have patient care guided by a spreadsheet but it sure does tell
administrative staff where to go looking.

For instance, one thing that I have been noticing is that patient's with
Alzheimer's do not have pain documented as frequently as other patients who
are not mentally impaired. I could be wrong, but it seems that this is what
I am seeing.

Next, I will go to the data and run filters to see if my anecdotal
observation is correct. If it is, I will continue to research to see if
there is any reason why an Alzheimer's patient does not experience pain. I
am not an expert in Alzheimer's but there are plenty of folks who are
experts.

At the end of the day, what I suspect will happen is that I will be
delivering to my clients information and education on how to assess pain in
elderly patients with impaired cognition.

Flawed? Sure. I'm designing my work based on an assumption. Does
objective data exist? I think so. Is it any more than a correlation? No.
Can we fix the underlying cause (assuming I am correct)? No, curing
Alzheimer's would be noble but I am not that good. Addressing the
correlation might just ensure that some elderly folks are more comfortable
in their advancing age. In my humble opinion, this correlation is hardly
worthless.

Last year, we looked at data for 32,000 episodes of care and looked for
correlations. Because I am not a statistician, I called the university's
math department and found a statistician. My question was that there were
subsets of data that I didn't think were great enough to be statistically
relevant, so how could I define the outliers? What data should be
eliminated? His answer, which I do not fully understand, was that no data
should be excluded.

The correlations have held and predicted trends in my clients' agencies and
using this information, business and clinical systems have been designed to
address problems before they actually start. Did I address the cause?
Sometimes, we looked further but most times, not.

By the way, I have done peer reviewed work and am in the middle of another
project that will be peer reviewed. I wish that my peers would simply say
how great my work was without bothering to read it. I sincerely wish they
had better things to do with their time than to brutally cut apart my work
even to the extent of commenting that the use of the word 'marriage' to
illustrate a complex relationship was too 'emotional' for a nursing journal!

j

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Julianne said:

Apparently, the PhD's and other scholars at the university of Athens
did not think that their work was worthless. As is usually the case,
it was most likely peer reviewed by a group of other highly educated
academic sorts who also failed to concur with you evaluation of the
study as 'worthless'.

Did the peers actually bother to read it before saying how great it was, I
suspect they had better things to do. Maybe they are highly educated, but
that doesn't mean understood it or have the ability to be scientific about
it.

Quoted message said:

I'm still not sure why studying correlation is a bad thing. Long
before data existed to 'prove' the dangers of smoking, a correlation
was noted between cigarettes and certain diseases.

Correlation is fine, but it doesn't necessarily give you any answers

without

Quoted message said:

further investigation.

Quoted message said:

In the past ten or so years, enormous gains have been made by those
studying addictions. Still, up until recently, it was the
correlation between drinking excessive alcohol and alcoholism that
determined the diagnosis. Note that not everyone who drinks
excessively is an alcoholic but those who have never had any alcohol
are not likely to turn into alcoholics.

Hmmmm, Beer :-D :-D

Quoted message said:

What besides a correlation exists that demonstrates that higher
traffic fatalities are associated with increased speed. True, the
driver may be on the cell phone, impaired or otherwise compromised
but the fact remains, traffic fatalities increase with higher speeds.
It may be perfectly safe for me to drive 100 miles an hour while
alert, sober and attentive but no one is going to raise the speed
limit for me.

But it doesn't solve the underlying problem of why people crash, if we
understood that and solved it then we would have a better solution than

just

Quoted message said:

limiting speed, which doesn't work too well since people still get wiped
out.

Quoted message said:

Does obesity cause or promote diabetes or does impaired glucose
tolerance promote obesity? By observing the correlation, and
addressing the obesity, many people can make positive gains in their
health regardless of whether it is the chicken or egg that came first.

Agreed, it's a start, rather like the speed limit thing.

Quoted message said:

If you noticed that all of the children in a particular class at your
child's school were coming down with a mysterious illness, would you
simply write it off as useless correlation or would you investigate
the cause? Would you sign your child up for the class before
causation was proved? I mean, maybe, all the kids in that class
coincidentally went to the same movie theatre over the weekend and
were exposed to a toxin there but the correlation between the class
and the illness would be very difficult to ignore.

Of course I would investigate the cause, but the correlation on it's own
isn't particularly helpful to solving the problem, it's just the corner
piece of the puzzle, but I do agree it needs to be seen.

Going back to the fruit and veg thing, 1900 people isn't very many, and

were

Quoted message said:

they from a broad spectrum of life? You can't get very broad and still
maintain decent numbers for each group with only 1900 people. It's a bit
like throwing some dice and you get more 6's than any other numbers. Do

dice

Quoted message said:

generally produce 6's or was there some other effect? It's just not a good
correlation.

Dave.

The point is that with a small sample in one country
the results are unreliable. It has to be repeated in
other countries with large numbers of people of all
races. There may be a mixed-race demographic in Greece,
but with less than 1000 people the correlation is not
reliable.

Unlike smoking where the correlations was millions of
people of both sexes, all ages and all races worldwide
over a 70 year period, according to the paper
I did a couple years ago.

Julianne said:

Apparently, the PhD's and other scholars at the university of Athens did not
think that their work was worthless. As is usually the case, it was most
likely peer reviewed by a group of other highly educated academic sorts who
also failed to concur with you evaluation of the study as 'worthless'.

I'm still not sure why studying correlation is a bad thing. Long before
data existed to 'prove' the dangers of smoking, a correlation was noted
between cigarettes and certain diseases.

In the past ten or so years, enormous gains have been made by those studying
addictions. Still, up until recently, it was the correlation between
drinking excessive alcohol and alcoholism that determined the diagnosis.
Note that not everyone who drinks excessively is an alcoholic but those who
have never had any alcohol are not likely to turn into alcoholics.

What besides a correlation exists that demonstrates that higher traffic
fatalities are associated with increased speed. True, the driver may be on
the cell phone, impaired or otherwise compromised but the fact remains,
traffic fatalities increase with higher speeds. It may be perfectly safe
for me to drive 100 miles an hour while alert, sober and attentive but no
one is going to raise the speed limit for me.

Does obesity cause or promote diabetes or does impaired glucose tolerance
promote obesity? By observing the correlation, and addressing the obesity,
many people can make positive gains in their health regardless of whether it
is the chicken or egg that came first.

If you noticed that all of the children in a particular class at your
child's school were coming down with a mysterious illness, would you simply
write it off as useless correlation or would you investigate the cause?
Would you sign your child up for the class before causation was proved? I
mean, maybe, all the kids in that class coincidentally went to the same
movie theatre over the weekend and were exposed to a toxin there but the
correlation between the class and the illness would be very difficult to
ignore.

j

"Ignoramus16661" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Diarmid

Logan said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Demosthenes Panagiotakos and colleagues at the University of Athens
carried out a study of 848 people with heart disease and 1,078 healthy
volunteers last year.

that study is worthless and should be ignored.

it is a study of correlation and not causation.

it is quite possible that eating fruits is a proxy for healthy
lifestyle in general.

If I eat fruits, exercise well, avoid obesity, and avoid certain bad
foods like sugar or possible some certain animal products, it is
likely that this combination will improve my chances wrt heart
disease.

Which of them works in isolation? Maybe none.

How much is the study worth? Nothing.

i

"Ignoramus16661" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Diarmid

Logan said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Demosthenes Panagiotakos and colleagues at the University of Athens
carried out a study of 848 people with heart disease and 1,078 healthy
volunteers last year.

that study is worthless and should be ignored.

I am not sure if you are even serious or not, or merely somehwat ignorant of
the associated science.

Firstly, it adds to what a very large number of other studies show.

Quoted message said:

it is a study of correlation and not causation.

True, but a causal relationship is very strongly favoured for other
reasons. Fruits and vegetables are our main sources of vitamins,
antioxidants, isoflavones, dietary fibre and other LDL influencing
chemicals. Do you not know this? Or are you not prepared to consider
such facts relevant to the interpretation of all the studies shwing such
effects?

Quoted message said:

it is quite possible that eating fruits is a proxy for healthy
lifestyle in general.

If I eat fruits, exercise well, avoid obesity, and avoid certain bad
foods like sugar or possible some certain animal products, it is
likely that this combination will improve my chances wrt heart
disease.

The first three are generally advised, and this study reinforces that.

Quoted message said:

Which of them works in isolation? Maybe none.

Actually probably all three do, since there are strong correlations in all
trials, often after controlling for other variables. But a diet low in
fruits and vegetables will be more likely to consist of foods leading to
obesity-- so will little exercise, so there will be likely linkages.

Quoted message said:

How much is the study worth? Nothing.

Nonsense. No study is considered in isolation. It has to be considered in
the light of other studies and other kinds of evidence. What evidence
can you find that would make the conclusions of the researchers unlikely?

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

i

Julianne said:

Addressing
the correlation might just ensure that some elderly folks are more
comfortable in their advancing age. In my humble opinion, this
correlation is hardly worthless.

I don't see how it helps them but it might save some cash by saving pain
killers for those that aren't feeling pain.

Quoted message said:

Last year, we looked at data for 32,000 episodes of care and looked
for correlations. Because I am not a statistician, I called the
university's math department and found a statistician. My question
was that there were subsets of data that I didn't think were great
enough to be statistically relevant, so how could I define the
outliers? What data should be eliminated? His answer, which I do
not fully understand, was that no data should be excluded.

Well, he's right :-)
As soon as you exclude some data, you've thrown away possible correlations
you may not have even dreamed of, or it may skew the remaining data in the
wrong direction without you realising.
32000 sounds like a reasonable number to start correlating, but 1900 when
there are billions of people on the planet, all of which eat (apart from
those that, erm, don't). You do the maths :-)

Quoted message said:

The correlations have held and predicted trends in my clients'
agencies and using this information, business and clinical systems
have been designed to address problems before they actually start.
Did I address the cause? Sometimes, we looked further but most times,
not.

Agreed, it can be useful, in my previos post I never said they were all
useless.
to quote myself:
"Correlation is fine"
"Agreed, it's a start"
"I do agree it needs to be seen"

Quoted message said:

By the way, I have done peer reviewed work and am in the middle of
another project that will be peer reviewed. I wish that my peers
would simply say how great my work was without bothering to read it.

Hahahaha, me too :-D

Quoted message said:

I sincerely wish they had better things to do with their time than to
brutally cut apart my work even to the extent of commenting that the
use of the word 'marriage' to illustrate a complex relationship was
too 'emotional' for a nursing journal!

Ah, they are not reading it in the right way by the sound of it. Sounds more
like they are deliberately trying to cut it apart rather than decide how
useful it is. My correlation may not be accurate though as I only have a
sample set of 1.....

Dave.

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Julianne said:

Addressing
the correlation might just ensure that some elderly folks are more
comfortable in their advancing age. In my humble opinion, this
correlation is hardly worthless.

I don't see how it helps them but it might save some cash by saving pain
killers for those that aren't feeling pain.

It helps because unless I am mistaken they feel pain but do not know how to
express it or remember that they were up all night with pain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Last year, we looked at data for 32,000 episodes of care and looked
for correlations. Because I am not a statistician, I called the
university's math department and found a statistician. My question
was that there were subsets of data that I didn't think were great
enough to be statistically relevant, so how could I define the
outliers? What data should be eliminated? His answer, which I do
not fully understand, was that no data should be excluded.

Well, he's right :-)
As soon as you exclude some data, you've thrown away possible correlations
you may not have even dreamed of, or it may skew the remaining data in the
wrong direction without you realising.

Still don't get it except that it is useful at times to note that hardly no
one falls into one category🙂

Quoted message said:

32000 sounds like a reasonable number to start correlating, but 1900 when
there are billions of people on the planet, all of which eat (apart from
those that, erm, don't). You do the maths :-)

Yes, I agree the data would be better if the number was larger. On the
other hand, it is hard enough to get 1900 people to play nice and follow the
rules of a study. Furthermore, about half (800ish if I recall) fell into a
specific subset and the remaining were there for comparison. By increasing
the specificity of who gets to be in the study, do you not also increase the
reliability of the data as it pertains to that subset of folks?
Furthermore, because it is limited demographic area, the data is even that
much more specific. If it cannot be duplicated in other parts of the world
then that tells us that the Grecians may be doing something else in addition
to eating a mere three pieces of fruit. Interesting, yes. Useful? Not
really but it is a starting point for finding useful information.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The correlations have held and predicted trends in my clients'
agencies and using this information, business and clinical systems
have been designed to address problems before they actually start.
Did I address the cause? Sometimes, we looked further but most times,
not.

Agreed, it can be useful, in my previos post I never said they were all
useless.
to quote myself:
"Correlation is fine"
"Agreed, it's a start"
"I do agree it needs to be seen"

I agree with you completely. My ire was in response to someone who said
that the study was totally worthless. Everything else aside, I am imagining
that more than one person approached this study with passion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By the way, I have done peer reviewed work and am in the middle of
another project that will be peer reviewed. I wish that my peers
would simply say how great my work was without bothering to read it.

Hahahaha, me too :-D

Maybe one day we will get lucky. Meanwhile, I keep finding one more thing
to do before I ship this project off for review. I would rather stand
nekkid in Shea stadium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I sincerely wish they had better things to do with their time than to
brutally cut apart my work even to the extent of commenting that the
use of the word 'marriage' to illustrate a complex relationship was
too 'emotional' for a nursing journal!

Ah, they are not reading it in the right way by the sound of it. Sounds

more

Quoted message said:

like they are deliberately trying to cut it apart rather than decide how
useful it is. My correlation may not be accurate though as I only have a
sample set of 1.....

When dealing with rabid nurses, you only need a set of one🙂 Most of us are
not rabid, however. The ones that are live to stand in judgement of other
folks' work.

Quoted message said:

Dave.

Quoted message said:

This bit makes me laugh:
"Overall, 43% of heart patients and 67% of healthy volunteers said
they regularly ate fruit and vegetables"

Perhaps veg eaters are more inclined to volunteer (the heart patients
aren't really volunteers)

I forgot to mention, how did they know the 'healthy' volunteers were
healthy?

Dave.

cutting it down again....

Quoted message said:

Yes, but real. The really sad thing is that for us women, we can no
longer marry rich and one foot in the grave. Viagra is a miracle
drug........

Is there a cheaper antidote than Beer?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hehehe. Actually, I don't see why that's a quote out of context, the
findings were indeed rejected, how could it mean anything else?

How, indeed? Should they have been universally rejected, do you
think the study would have come to our attention?

Ah, but I think you are quoting me out of context, I didn't specify the
rejection (It was already stated in the article who rejected it and I felt
no need to state that). Or did I miss something (quite possible, late and
beer.....)

Quoted message said:

And a good consultant always stays on top. Some things you can't
change. It is clearly a strategy to design a rule set so complex that
it takes average folks who don't have time to sit and read as
consultants do, several years to fully understand and then they
invoke more changes. Works for me but I do not have direct
responsibility for patients. It really sucks for those that do.
More importantly, it sucks for the patients. I hope your parents or
grandparents are not byproducts of this.

Sounds similar to the way Tax is implemented over here.....

Quoted message said:

I have a kayak. I usually take it out when we go to the camp. I
will send you photos if interested that illustrate why I haven't
taken it out lately.

Please do :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note, I said that I would 'rather' stand nekkid in shea stadium.
Alas, I am just about done with the material slated for peer
distruction.

If you'd rather stand nekkid in shea stadium, just do it :-D
Just let me know when.....

I promise to email you time and date if it ever comes to that. Can I
count on you for bail money when I get arrested for indecent (but
aesthetically pleasing) exposure? Please be advised that some of us
are rather prone to exageration to illustrate extreme points of view.
However, if I get desperate, send me your preferred airport and I
will send someone to get you.

Any airport, whichever is closest, cost loads wherever in the US I fly to so
it may as well be the nearest.. Yes, you can hold me to that and I could
probably manage the bail (try and get an estimate maybe?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hospitals scare the alcohol out of me!

Damn, that's scary!!

You made me put down my glass with that one!

Dave.

Eat like a gorilla - nature isn't wrong!
Anth

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3200545.stm

Three fruit and veg may be enough

Just three portions of fruit and vegetables a day may be enough to
protect against heart disease, according to a study.

In Britain, the government and leading experts advise people to eat
five portions each day.

But a study by doctors in Greece involving 1,900 people indicates that
three portions may be more than enough.

They told the European Society of Cardiology Congress in Vienna that
eating more may have no benefit.

Just one in eight men and one in seven women in Britain eat the
recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables each day.

This is despite the insistence of experts that it can significantly
reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers.

Dr Demosthenes Panagiotakos and colleagues at the University of Athens
carried out a study of 848 people with heart disease and 1,078 healthy
volunteers last year.

They were each asked how much fruit and vegetables they regularly ate.

Overall, 43% of heart patients and 67% of healthy volunteers said they
regularly ate fruit and vegetables.

Of these, the vast majority ate less than two portions a day.

Just 7% of these heart patients and 10% of these healthy volunteers
said they ate more than 2.5 portions each day.

The researchers found that people who ate between one and two portions
of fruit and vegetables a day had a much lower risk of developing
heart disease compared to those who did not eat any.

What's more, they found that this risk fell further with each
additional portion they ate.

They found that people who ate more than 2.5 portions per day reduced
their risk of heart disease by about 70%.

However, they also discovered that this benefit levelled off at this
point. Eating more than three portions did not result in any lower
risk of developing heart disease.

The UK's Department of Health said it stood by its recommendation that
people should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables each day.

A spokeswoman said: "The World Health Organization and the UK
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition recommendations
are based on epidemiological research that states we should consume at
least 400g of fruit and vegetables a day - five portions.

"Large studies have shown that the more fruit and vegetables that is
consumed the lower the risk of coronary heart disease."

Belinda Linden, cardiac nurse manager for the British Heart
Foundation, said people should continue to try to eat at least five
portions of fruit and vegetables each day.

"The current five portions a day recommendation is based on evidence
from large controlled studies. "The recent study from Athens
University, suggesting we only need to eat three portions of fruit and
vegetables a day, was based on a small number of participants over a
limited number of time.

"This is not convincing enough to change the current recommendation."

Anth said:

Eat like a gorilla - nature isn't wrong!

http://www.western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas.com/western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas-mountaingorilla.htm

Diet
Mountain gorillas are principally folivorous, but occasionally eat
invertebrates. Naturally, mountain gorillas require large quantities of food
due to their massive size. Surprisingly, they do not need water because they
obtain enough from the plants they eat. Approximately 86% of the mountain
gorillas diet is shoots, stems, and leaves. Gorillas spend in the order of
30% of their day feeding.

http://www.western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas.com/
Diet: Gorillas are primarily vegetarians, who eat roots, fruits, shoots,
leaves, termites, bark, pith, and grubs growing from rotting wood. <>

Do you eat invertebrates, grubs and termites?
J

http://www.thisislondon.com/lifeandstyle/health/articles/5908858?source=Evening%20Standard

Go ape for new diet
By Mark Prigg, Evening Standard
24 July 2003
Move over Atkins, the gorilla diet could soon be taking the world by
storm.
Researchers have discovered that following a primitive ape-like regime
reduces cholesterol by up to 30 per cent in a month, putting it on a par
with the best drugs on the market.

Nutritionists have described the new diet as "near perfect", claiming
that as well as cutting cholesterol it also leaves its followers satisfied
after a meal.

Its key components are plant sterols, found in plant oils, leafy
greens and enriched margarines, along with viscous fibre, common in oats,
barley and aubergine, and finally soy protein and nuts.

Anth

I eat carrots apples pineapple papaya beetroot nuts sweetcorn numerous
berries shoots celery lettuce radishes tomatoes squash oranges limes
pomegranate wheatgrass spinach (and other stuff I can get my hands on - all
raw & mostly juiced). It's boring but It should keep the 2 main killers away
from me - cancer and cvd.
I munch on vegetables/fruits in my spare time, and I take a litle milk
cheese and oils to get what I am not getting from the vegetables.
I've also added recently 4g of vitamin c as supplement and niacin and EPA.
(So I do practice what I preach.)
Anth

"J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anth said:

Eat like a gorilla - nature isn't wrong!

http://www.western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas.com/western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas-mountaingorilla.htm

Quoted message said:

Diet
Mountain gorillas are principally folivorous, but occasionally eat
invertebrates. Naturally, mountain gorillas require large quantities of

food

Quoted message said:

due to their massive size. Surprisingly, they do not need water because

they

Quoted message said:

obtain enough from the plants they eat. Approximately 86% of the mountain
gorillas diet is shoots, stems, and leaves. Gorillas spend in the order of
30% of their day feeding.

http://www.western-gorillas-eastern-gorillas.com/
Diet: Gorillas are primarily vegetarians, who eat roots, fruits, shoots,
leaves, termites, bark, pith, and grubs growing from rotting wood. <>

Do you eat invertebrates, grubs and termites?
J

The best quotes from that are these:

"Nutritionist Natalie Savona believes "

"It's almost perfect, in fact, the only addition some people might like to
make is a small amount of fish or lean meat."

"Professor Jenkins believes that as humans and apes are so similar, we may
be evolutionarily adapted to the diet."

I may be hairy, but I don't weigh as much!

Dave.

Quoted message said:

True, but a causal relationship is very strongly favoured for other
reasons.

I agree wholeheartedly. While everyone is arguing about the
population size, the benefits of correlating data, the peer review
system, the weather at the time ... isn't the result painfully obvious
and predictable?

In logical arguments there is a particulary effective style of proof,
it's called Proof by Duh. It should be invoked here.