I hope you two enjoy being confused together then. Lots of confusion exists when it comes to "common sense" and nutrition. Just go into a bookstore and look at the shelves and shelves of diet and nutrition books, most of which rely on common sense. Obviously it makes sense to cut out the fat. Or maybe common sense says Atkins is right and you really need to load up on the protiens and cut the carbs. Or maybe it is processed sugar. Or perhaps the only way to get healthy is eating a raw diet just as animals do in nature. Or maybe vegans are the healthiest. Or maybe just eating a balanced diet in moderation with exercise will do the trick.
The point is that Roland is comfortable with his very own "common sense", but some of us think his common sense isn't so common, so we're just looking for a little science. I know that may be confusing, so thanks for bearing with us.
I didn't say anything about common sense. I thought it was common knowledge though. I don't have time to do research for you and post studies, but have you tried doing any?
I didn't say anything about common sense. I thought it was common knowledge though. I don't have time to do research for you and post studies, but have you tried doing any?
You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?
I'm not suggesting that anyone should believe something merely because it's common knowledge - only that I'm surprised it's being debated that the height of a society is an indicator of nutritional sufficiency. I thought most people were aware of this. I study public health at a medical school and this is one of the first things we are taught.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?
Why equate the extremely limited knowledge of ancient times when there was no such thing as combustion engine, or toilet paper, or even pencils, for that matter...with modern scientific advances as a valid example to prove an argument?
yikes...
Even just going on the laws of energy alone it makes sense to me. More energy in = more growth. It's like 1 + 1 = 2 to me.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why equate the extremely limited knowledge of ancient times when there was no such thing as combustion engine, or toilet paper, or even pencils, for that matter...with modern scientific advances as a valid example to prove an argument?
yikes...
Even just going on the laws of energy alone it makes sense to me. More energy in = more growth. It's like 1 + 1 = 2 to me.
Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Regrettably, the processed food industry wastes over $33 billion per year in advertising to lure people to consume sugar-laden, fast, junk foods. These processed foods are overloaded with hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and trans fats. While lacking in necessary nutrition, processed foods' main ingredients are nutrient empty sugar, water, fat, flour, starch, artificial colorings and flavors. In 2002 alone, the processed food industry sold over $174 billion worth of this adulterated combination by fabricating thousands of cookies, crackers, puddings, cakes, soft drinks, and other concoctions.
The ensuing outcome is America has become a factory of wide spread obesity and chronic disease where a huge number of Americans are then sent on to the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry. In 2007, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health warned: if not halted, the ever-increasing obesity crisis will explode by 2015 to 24% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese, and 75% of adults being overweight with 41% being obese.
Currently over fifty percent of people with severe weight problems have diabetes alone. At this time, the CDC and NIH have estimated over 7% of our population has a form of diabetes for a total of over 21 million people but nearly a third are undiagnosed. In 2007, indirect and direct medical cost of diabetes is estimated at over $174 billion. Presently these numbers are exploding daily and tangible statistics are difficult to obtain to keep up with the reality of our diabetes epidemic.
It is very distressing that American society has chosen this lifestyle in view of the fact that 1970's nutritional experts' research data revealed patterns of eating has a direct influence on illnesses. By the 1980's publicized research revealed populations consuming more fruits, vegetables, and high fiber foods experienced lower disease rates. Two well-researched examples are the whole grains, nuts, seeds, fresh fruits and vegetables, and olive oil rich Mediterranean diet, and the South Pacific diets with copious amounts of coconut oil. Even something as simple as water has a profound affect on health. Last year, Loma Linda University research revealed something as uncomplicated as 5 glasses of water per day reduces the risk of our number one cause of death heart attack by 50%. Since we have three decades worth of proven research on the benefits of a healthy diet, but are not applying this knowledge, one has to contemplate just what our goals are as a society.
Experts have estimated twice the current acreage would have to be planted for farms to grow the amount of fruits and vegetables necessary for Americans to consume healthy diets. Deplorably, American politicians stubbornly continue to pander to lobbied interests and subsidize the processed foods industries while blatantly disregarding the health and well being of American citizens. The ever mutating Amended H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, otherwise known as the Farm Bill, is supposed to provide for the continuation of our country's agricultural programs through 2012. For months the Senate and House have been wrangling over our country's next five-year plan but when they finally agree on it, President Bush will probably veto it due to disagreements regarding crop subsidies. The Citizens Against Government Waste states there is no significant reform in HR 2419 and are encouraging the President to stick with his veto threat. The result of all this is our nation has a completely out of balance healthcare and agricultural economics policy which is now affecting the rest of the planet."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?
I think scientists want to track trends over time and they are not able to track BMI, rate of hair and nail growth, etc. from the past as well as they can track height.
That's why I asked a number of posts ago why you wouldn't think bone density would be a better indicator than height. I'd think a solidly built 5'11" would be "healthier" than a rickety 6'7" for all sorts of reasons.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I think scientists want to track trends over time and they are not able to track BMI, rate of hair and nail growth, etc. from the past as well as they can track height.
Absolutely. I was just throwing "newer" in there because Roland was arguing that his common sense was better than older common sense because of newer data points or science.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
That's why I asked a number of posts ago why you wouldn't think bone density would be a better indicator than height. I'd think a solidly built 5'11" would be "healthier" than a rickety 6'7" for all sorts of reasons.
Not all tall people are skinny.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Absolutely. I was just throwing "newer" in there because Roland was arguing that his common sense was better than older common sense because of newer data points or science.
I dunno, you get/put energy into something more efficiently, and it grows accordingly.
Seems really simple to me.
Not sure why you find this scenario complicated.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Now you're getting it! That's precisely why height may not be the best indicator. It may be all we had to work with historically, but may not actually tell the story.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I dunno, you get/put energy into something more efficiently, and it grows accordingly.
Seems really simple to me.
Not sure why you find this scenario complicated.
It is funny. I find your scenario overly simplistic, not overly complicated. It is you who doesn't want to look beyond height with everything from your 1+1 = 2, to energy in = tall equations.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It is funny. I find your scenario overly simplistic, not overly complicated. It is you who doesn't want to look beyond height with everything from your 1+1 = 2, to energy in = tall equations.
I already asked you how you think something grows. Apparently height was not a consideration in something getting bigger or growing. There is a law of ratios that nature tends to adhere to. You're aware of that right?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Now you're getting it! That's precisely why height may not be the best indicator. It may be all we had to work with historically, but may not actually tell the story.
Or it might totally. moot point.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
How many 60-70 year old people do you see walking around, who are 6' 5" or taller?
No many. If any at all.
This whole concept of taller equals healthier is rather silly and hardly seems based on any real scientific/biological fact.
I don't even know where this connection between height and longevity came from.
My grandmother was no taller than 5' 2 " her whole life and lived to be 96 years old. We had Grandfathers who were between 5' 6" and 5' 9" respectively, who lived into their 80s and 90s.
I've known/met several older men and women not related to me who are all into their 80s/90s and they are below 5' 10".
If anything, what I have seen id that people who are taller than 6' 1"/6' 2" generally don't seem to live past their 60s.......maybe early 70s.
And people who are 6' 5" or taller seem to live shorter live spans than that.
I notice athletes who are unusually tall ( 6' 4" and up), experience a breakdown or deterioration of their bodies much quicker/sooner than athletes who are shorter. The knees being one of the most vulerable joints/body parts.
While I may be refering to athletes, it seems to apply to a lot of unusally tall non-athletic people.
How many 60-70 year old people do you see walking around, who are 6' 5" or taller?
No many. If any at all.
This whole concept of taller equals healthier is rather silly and hardly seems based on any real scientific/biological fact.
I don't even know where this connection between height and longevity came from.
My grandmother was no taller than 5' 2 " her whole life and lived to be 96 years old. We had Grandfathers who were between 5' 6" and 5' 9" respectively, who lived into their 80s and 90s.
I've known/met several older men and women not related to me who are all into their 80s/90s and they are below 5' 10".
If anything, what I have seen id that people who are taller than 6' 1"/6' 2" generally don't seem to live past their 60s.......maybe early 70s.
And people who are 6' 5" or taller seem to live shorter live spans than that.
I notice athletes who are unusually tall ( 6' 4" and up), experience a breakdown or deterioration of their bodies much quicker/sooner than athletes who are shorter. The knees being one of the most vulerable joints/body parts.
While I may be refering to athletes, it seems to apply to a lot of unusally tall non-athletic people.
It's a growth v.s. nutrition connection over successive generations. More positive energy in = more of anything. It has to go somewhere. If you build something up better....it's gets built up better....v.s something that does not.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It is very distressing that American society has chosen this lifestyle in view of the fact that 1970's nutritional experts' research data revealed patterns of eating has a direct influence on illnesses. By the 1980's publicized research revealed populations consuming more fruits, vegetables, and high fiber foods experienced lower disease rates. Two well-researched examples are the whole grains, nuts, seeds, fresh fruits and vegetables, and olive oil rich Mediterranean diet, and the South Pacific diets with copious amounts of coconut oil. Even something as simple as water has a profound affect on health. Last year, Loma Linda University research revealed something as uncomplicated as 5 glasses of water per day reduces the risk of our number one cause of death heart attack by 50%. Since we have three decades worth of proven research on the benefits of a healthy diet, but are not applying this knowledge, one has to contemplate just what our goals are as a society.
Maybe it's all a matter of how much we poo and pee. The more you go the better chance you have of excreting something that, if left inside for awhile, could gestate into an illness.
Maybe it's all a matter of how much we poo and pee. The more you go the better chance you have of excreting something that, if left inside for awhile, could gestate into an illness.
Actually that's more or less correct. There's something called leaky gut syndrome which is essentially what you described. Not sure how detrimental it is to hold in your urine for extended periods of time though, probably not so great either. Not voiding in and around twice a day is not good. Some people go only once every few days. Urinating, somewhere around 4-6 times a day is pretty common for well hydrated people.
Scientists have kept cells alive for something like 20 years just by removing all the waste byproducts it produced. The same cell would normally have a few months of life in comparison.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Actually that's more or less correct. There's something called leaky gut syndrome which is essentially what you described. Not sure how detrimental it is to hold in your urine for extended periods of time though, probably not so great either. Not voiding in and around twice a day is not good. Some people go only once every few days. Urinating, somewhere around 4-6 times a day is pretty common for well hydrated people.
Scientists have kept cells alive for something like 20 years just by removing all the waste byproducts it produced. The same cell would normally have a few months of life in comparison.
All I know is I take far more dumps than most people at the place I work. Hell, I take far more than most of my friends...I'd have to say I average about 4 a day. I guess I'm also alot skinnier than most people there too. Bring on the BM's!!!
All I know is I take far more dumps than most people at the place I work. Hell, I take far more than most of my friends...I'd have to say I average about 4 a day. I guess I'm also alot skinnier than most people there too. Bring on the BM's!!!
lol.... I'm around three myself. It's a good thing.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
??? My whole family is short and fat (except for me, I am short and skinny) and the average age of death is around 80-90 years old. We are Italian and we eat everything and anything. That's all we talk about is food. The shortest people in the world live the longest. I don't think there is a link between height and longevity, nor do I believe that tall people are tall because they eat better.
You don't really see too many tall old guys do you? I'm 6'3" so I guess I'm in for an early check-out. Ah well -- I had a good run.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
i read this yesterday by the way, after 1 google search, about 4 clicks down.
didn't really want to get involved in the whole pissing contest, but i do get annoyed when tall people try and claim it as an achievement...i probably do too much getting annoyed, but fuck you!
There are genetic dispositions attributed to any scenario. One has to understand factors affecting the genome, and what genetic traits affects what. Maybe I take too much for granted here.
The Okinawans ancestors (for example) may have gone through a long series of nutritional hardships that in effect set their height at a pre-disposed status. Your report does not talk about ancestral genetic attributes or potential hardships or other environmental factors in forming its conclusion.
The findings in the original article were not tall = healthy but rather better nutritional habits leads to more growth of a populous (in comparison) in general.
It's just a simple concept of comparing two precisely similar groups of people wherby one is nutritionally deficient and one isnt . The group that isn't deficient will grow taller, bigger, and stronger.
dead simple concept
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There are genetic dispositions attributed to any scenario. One has to understand factors affecting the genome, and what genetic traits affects what. Maybe I take too much for granted here.
The Okinawans ancestors (for example) may have gone through a long series of nutritional hardships that in effect set their height at a pre-disposed status. Your report does not talk about ancestral genetic attributes or potential hardships or other environmental factors in forming its conclusion.
The findings in the original article were not tall = healthy but rather better nutritional habits leads to more growth of a populous (in comparison) in general.
It's just a simple concept of comparing two precisely similar groups of people wherby one is nutritionally deficient and one isnt . The group that isn't deficient will grow taller, bigger, and stronger.
dead simple concept
you just beat me to it actually, was going to say it doesnt actually deal with your whole argument.
It does pretty conclusively suggest that increased height doesnt equal increased health, in fact quite the opposite. it does also suggest im going to be in an ok position at 5'10", and my moneys on jet li to win a fight against hulk hogan, so all in all my issues on the subject are satisfied...:).
I am aware im a bit of date with hulk hogan, but i dont keep up with wrestling, i know of the the rock, but he's more of a chef ye? anyways im just being a dick.
crack on.
Comments
I didn't say anything about common sense. I thought it was common knowledge though. I don't have time to do research for you and post studies, but have you tried doing any?
You thought what was common knowledge? That tall = healthy? I have seen studies from economists and sociologists using that as a model, but haven't seen medical studies to that effect. And the onus is on the person making the assertion to back it up, right? Also, please explain to me the difference between Roland's use of the phrase "common sense", and your use of "common knowledge." When people used to believe that the earth was flat was that common sense or common knowledge?
I'm not suggesting that anyone should believe something merely because it's common knowledge - only that I'm surprised it's being debated that the height of a society is an indicator of nutritional sufficiency. I thought most people were aware of this. I study public health at a medical school and this is one of the first things we are taught.
understanding...
hairs to split...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why equate the extremely limited knowledge of ancient times when there was no such thing as combustion engine, or toilet paper, or even pencils, for that matter...with modern scientific advances as a valid example to prove an argument?
yikes...
Even just going on the laws of energy alone it makes sense to me. More energy in = more growth. It's like 1 + 1 = 2 to me.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why use height, then? We now have a newer measure called BMI that may be even more indicative. Or maybe not. Maybe the best indicator would be how quickly hair and nails grow. Energy in = more growth, like 1 + 1 = 2, right?
I'm thinking bones. Core structure. Core principles.
That's how it works in my head.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Consequences of the American Processed Foods Diet:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023459.html
"Regrettably, the processed food industry wastes over $33 billion per year in advertising to lure people to consume sugar-laden, fast, junk foods. These processed foods are overloaded with hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and trans fats. While lacking in necessary nutrition, processed foods' main ingredients are nutrient empty sugar, water, fat, flour, starch, artificial colorings and flavors. In 2002 alone, the processed food industry sold over $174 billion worth of this adulterated combination by fabricating thousands of cookies, crackers, puddings, cakes, soft drinks, and other concoctions.
The ensuing outcome is America has become a factory of wide spread obesity and chronic disease where a huge number of Americans are then sent on to the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry. In 2007, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health warned: if not halted, the ever-increasing obesity crisis will explode by 2015 to 24% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese, and 75% of adults being overweight with 41% being obese.
Currently over fifty percent of people with severe weight problems have diabetes alone. At this time, the CDC and NIH have estimated over 7% of our population has a form of diabetes for a total of over 21 million people but nearly a third are undiagnosed. In 2007, indirect and direct medical cost of diabetes is estimated at over $174 billion. Presently these numbers are exploding daily and tangible statistics are difficult to obtain to keep up with the reality of our diabetes epidemic.
It is very distressing that American society has chosen this lifestyle in view of the fact that 1970's nutritional experts' research data revealed patterns of eating has a direct influence on illnesses. By the 1980's publicized research revealed populations consuming more fruits, vegetables, and high fiber foods experienced lower disease rates. Two well-researched examples are the whole grains, nuts, seeds, fresh fruits and vegetables, and olive oil rich Mediterranean diet, and the South Pacific diets with copious amounts of coconut oil. Even something as simple as water has a profound affect on health. Last year, Loma Linda University research revealed something as uncomplicated as 5 glasses of water per day reduces the risk of our number one cause of death heart attack by 50%. Since we have three decades worth of proven research on the benefits of a healthy diet, but are not applying this knowledge, one has to contemplate just what our goals are as a society.
Experts have estimated twice the current acreage would have to be planted for farms to grow the amount of fruits and vegetables necessary for Americans to consume healthy diets. Deplorably, American politicians stubbornly continue to pander to lobbied interests and subsidize the processed foods industries while blatantly disregarding the health and well being of American citizens. The ever mutating Amended H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, otherwise known as the Farm Bill, is supposed to provide for the continuation of our country's agricultural programs through 2012. For months the Senate and House have been wrangling over our country's next five-year plan but when they finally agree on it, President Bush will probably veto it due to disagreements regarding crop subsidies. The Citizens Against Government Waste states there is no significant reform in HR 2419 and are encouraging the President to stick with his veto threat. The result of all this is our nation has a completely out of balance healthcare and agricultural economics policy which is now affecting the rest of the planet."
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I think scientists want to track trends over time and they are not able to track BMI, rate of hair and nail growth, etc. from the past as well as they can track height.
That's why I asked a number of posts ago why you wouldn't think bone density would be a better indicator than height. I'd think a solidly built 5'11" would be "healthier" than a rickety 6'7" for all sorts of reasons.
Absolutely. I was just throwing "newer" in there because Roland was arguing that his common sense was better than older common sense because of newer data points or science.
Not all tall people are skinny.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I dunno, you get/put energy into something more efficiently, and it grows accordingly.
Seems really simple to me.
Not sure why you find this scenario complicated.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Now you're getting it! That's precisely why height may not be the best indicator. It may be all we had to work with historically, but may not actually tell the story.
It is funny. I find your scenario overly simplistic, not overly complicated. It is you who doesn't want to look beyond height with everything from your 1+1 = 2, to energy in = tall equations.
I already asked you how you think something grows. Apparently height was not a consideration in something getting bigger or growing. There is a law of ratios that nature tends to adhere to. You're aware of that right?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Or it might totally. moot point.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No many. If any at all.
This whole concept of taller equals healthier is rather silly and hardly seems based on any real scientific/biological fact.
I don't even know where this connection between height and longevity came from.
My grandmother was no taller than 5' 2 " her whole life and lived to be 96 years old. We had Grandfathers who were between 5' 6" and 5' 9" respectively, who lived into their 80s and 90s.
I've known/met several older men and women not related to me who are all into their 80s/90s and they are below 5' 10".
If anything, what I have seen id that people who are taller than 6' 1"/6' 2" generally don't seem to live past their 60s.......maybe early 70s.
And people who are 6' 5" or taller seem to live shorter live spans than that.
I notice athletes who are unusually tall ( 6' 4" and up), experience a breakdown or deterioration of their bodies much quicker/sooner than athletes who are shorter. The knees being one of the most vulerable joints/body parts.
While I may be refering to athletes, it seems to apply to a lot of unusally tall non-athletic people.
It's a growth v.s. nutrition connection over successive generations. More positive energy in = more of anything. It has to go somewhere. If you build something up better....it's gets built up better....v.s something that does not.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe it's all a matter of how much we poo and pee. The more you go the better chance you have of excreting something that, if left inside for awhile, could gestate into an illness.
Actually that's more or less correct. There's something called leaky gut syndrome which is essentially what you described. Not sure how detrimental it is to hold in your urine for extended periods of time though, probably not so great either. Not voiding in and around twice a day is not good. Some people go only once every few days. Urinating, somewhere around 4-6 times a day is pretty common for well hydrated people.
Scientists have kept cells alive for something like 20 years just by removing all the waste byproducts it produced. The same cell would normally have a few months of life in comparison.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
All I know is I take far more dumps than most people at the place I work. Hell, I take far more than most of my friends...I'd have to say I average about 4 a day. I guess I'm also alot skinnier than most people there too. Bring on the BM's!!!
lol.... I'm around three myself. It's a good thing.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You don't really see too many tall old guys do you? I'm 6'3" so I guess I'm in for an early check-out. Ah well -- I had a good run.
no, i dont know how you do that
edit, don't worry does it on its own:)
didn't really want to get involved in the whole pissing contest, but i do get annoyed when tall people try and claim it as an achievement...i probably do too much getting annoyed, but fuck you!
There are genetic dispositions attributed to any scenario. One has to understand factors affecting the genome, and what genetic traits affects what. Maybe I take too much for granted here.
The Okinawans ancestors (for example) may have gone through a long series of nutritional hardships that in effect set their height at a pre-disposed status. Your report does not talk about ancestral genetic attributes or potential hardships or other environmental factors in forming its conclusion.
The findings in the original article were not tall = healthy but rather better nutritional habits leads to more growth of a populous (in comparison) in general.
It's just a simple concept of comparing two precisely similar groups of people wherby one is nutritionally deficient and one isnt . The group that isn't deficient will grow taller, bigger, and stronger.
dead simple concept
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
you just beat me to it actually, was going to say it doesnt actually deal with your whole argument.
It does pretty conclusively suggest that increased height doesnt equal increased health, in fact quite the opposite. it does also suggest im going to be in an ok position at 5'10", and my moneys on jet li to win a fight against hulk hogan, so all in all my issues on the subject are satisfied...:).
crack on.