Continued from Elenia's log....
Sujet : Languid Language LearningCavesa wrote:? I am not sure I even follow anymore.
I don't blame you, I'm poor at explaining myself often on this forum, usually because I just cannot be bothered using up my time writing lengthy posts, finding the research, referring to articles, or I can't recall properly what i've read and where, and I just reel of in a sloppy blurr what I can recall. As I really just have very little time and prefer to spend my time doing other things, I also rush and get things wrong. Still, as you know, I do make those comments regardless..... and I leave holes. I will try to clarify (I have some time).
Cavesa wrote:1. We have been adapting to our natural habitat for millenia. A phototype 1 person in the Mediterranean may eat whatever they want, but it won't help much.
.
Point accepted. I don't disagree.
What I was getting it with regards to living further from nature, if that's what you're responding to, is that as modern technology increases, as pharmaceutical companies aim to make profits, as food becomes more large-scale and run by powerful companies which aim to make a profit, as GMO's increase in presence, as chemicals in the environment increase, as we watch TV's with increased radiation, we cut down forests, wear sunglasses and sunscreen (with chemicals inside), use mobile phones and other such devices that interfere with our natural light exposure (as well as increased EMF)... and so on, my general argument is that we are interacting less with nature. I don't believe we've had sufficient time to adapt to these changes, and as they are unnatural, we may never fully thrive in the presence of such things.
If you take a look at Australian aboriginals and the effects on their dental health when compared to aboriginals eating a traditional diet, modern western processed food diets are unkind to the human body and promote disease (increase the likelihood). Other races have adapted somewhat, but it's still conducive to increased disease. His observations extended to other areas of the globe.
Dr. Weston Price visited Africa in 1935. His journey into the interior began in Mombasa on the east coast of Africa, inland through Kenya to the Belgian Congo, then northward through Uganda and the Sudan.
Throughout his studies of isolated populations on native diets, Price was continually struck by the contrast of native sturdiness and good health with the degeneration found in the local white populace, living off the “displacing foods of modern commerce” such as sugar, white flour, canned foods and condensed milk.
(
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... an-tribes/)
(
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... -the-land/)
If we lived like aboriginals did once, eating naturally occurring foods available in our environment, which were not carbohydrate dense, we weren't sedentary and in contrast were very active, we didn't have sunglasses, we were hunting and gathering, we didn't have sunscreen, but trees were covering most open areas, we didn't have technology, we sought natural remedies, I hypothesize that melanoma (once we'd adapted after -insert number- of generations perhaps) would be rare. I say this to show where i'm coming from with this argument, not to advise that we return to living as they did, as it's simply unrealistic to completely live this way, as it currently stands, but we can certainly learn from such.
Cavesa wrote:2.I'd much rather risk a slight vit D deficiency than a melanoma. The risks of melanoma, the epidemics, the risk factors, all that has been proved.
Easy to prove that sunlight causes melanoma in general populations when they are living the way modern man does - blocking natural light during the day, living indoors, travelling in vehicles behind glass, using chemical sunscreens, only going outside in bursts so that the body can't adapt (and possibly as you suggest for those from cooler populations heading for the warmer weather in bursts we are unadapted for), eating less than ideal diets devoid of essential vitamins, minerals, fats and important antioxidants, then limiting melatonin production at night due to use of devices and so on... Any wonder you can draw such a conclusion... almost every time, I don't refute that. Now to be clear, I am
not saying that the above risks are unfounded and completely false. They are dead real. I'm just suggesting that by living so far from interacting with nature, as some indigenous populations did so in the not so distant past, that is, naturally, that any wonder such results can be found, because we have been eroding away our natural protection. And for the record, I do not advocate anyone spend prolonged periods in the sun without sunscreen or sunglasses, or even with. I am suggesting that melanoma is potentially prevalent because we are too far from living naturally, and are now almost devoid of natural defences.
Here's a link that I
quickly found, which has links to sources throughout. The article is on diet and risk of skin cancer. I apologise if it's not from a well respected medical journal. Nevertheless the information is out there.
http://nutritionadvance.com/scary-real-link-diet-skin-cancer/Cavesa wrote:I wish we knew at least all that about half the diseases we face. It is not just melanoma, UV is a either one of the causes or at least a risk factor of various health conditions and diseases.
But I don't think cures for cancers, osteoporosis and other diseases will become widespread common knowledge in our lifetime as long as there remains concerns from powerful figures over the numbers of human beings on the planet. This is in part why I do not put the modern medical system up on the pedestal that many do. It's majorly one-dimensional and flawed with deliberate limitations, it seeks to find answers with Band-Aid fixes that bring huge profits while inducing nasty side-effects. It's unwilling to acknowledge much beyond mechanical interventions and pharmaceuticals, and where there's profit to be made, natural cures are ignored. How much of your medical training went into the importance of healthy diet (just curious - not meaning anything malicious by that)?
Cavesa wrote:3.The possible vit D deficiency is unlikely to be too harsh, except for rather rare cases. Everyone else, should they feel the need, can simply supplement it as they see fit. VitD deficiency can be fixed before it does any persistent damage. Melanoma is a totally different story.
I'm not sure what your point is, you're possibly responding to one of my comments, which likely made little sense or was incomplete. I do agree that vitamin D supplementation is a valid option.
Cavesa wrote:4.I must admit I have no clue about the vit D connection to the pituitary gland. But whatever the function is, it doesn't get there through some direct connection with retina, the gland doesn't care at all where was the vitamine made. .
You know nothing about the pituitary gland and vitamin D, because I was wrong. I was thinking of melatonin production. Here's a good article on that:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/10/melatonin.aspxand some short explanation for anyone curious...
The retina responds to light (blue light), well it registers it, and interacts with the pituitary gland, and this regulates melatonin production, as you more than likely know. Electronic devices interfere with this, hence the orange filters, as does WIFI and so does unnatural light (ie lights in a house). Again, being further from nature, sees us interrupting our sleep patterns, producing less melatonin (a hugely powerful protector of good health).
In addition to the healthy affect on your skin, sunlight also provides another positive benefit. The human eye contains photosensitive cells in its retina, with connections directly to the pituitary gland in the brain. Stimulation of these important cells comes from sunlight, in particular, the blue unseen spectrum. A study by Dr.’s Turner and Mainster of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, published in the British Journal of Opthamology in 2008 states that, “these photoreceptors play a vital role in human physiology and health.” The effects are not only in the brain, but the whole body.
Photosensitive cells in the eye also directly affect the brain’s hypothalamus region, which controls our biological clock. This influences our circadian rhythm, not just important for jet lag but for normal sleep patterns, hormone regulation, increased reaction time, and behavior. Most cells in the body have an important cyclic pattern when working optimally, so potentially, just about any area of the body can falter without adequate sun stimulation. Turner and Mainster state that, “ensuing circadian disturbances can have significant physiological and psychological consequences.” This also includes “increasing risk of disease” as the authors state, and as numerous other studies show, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
The hypothalamus also regulates the combined actions of the nervous and hormonal systems.
The brain’s pineal gland benefits directly from the sun stimulation. The pineal produces melatonin, an important hormone made during dark hours that protects our skin. In addition, melatonin is a powerful antioxidant for body-wide use, is important for proper sleep and intestinal function, and can help prevent depression. (Aspirin, however, reduces melatonin production.)
As for some more information on the benefits of vitamin D in general...
Before the Industrial Revolution, more than 90 percent of people living in Europe and North America obtained their supply of vitamin D from this sunlight-driven process. With work and life style changes over the last 100 years, the decrease in UV exposure has led to an increase in vitamin D deficiency. Today, vitamin D deficiency has been linked to 17 types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autism, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and even influenza. (1,2,3,4)
You are vulnerable to the lack of sunlight if you live in a northern climate, have black or dark brown skin, work indoors, or are housebound and elderly. Infants also are considered vulnerable. Therefore, it appears that the degree of UV B sunlight exposure you receive based on the latitude in which you live, your race, and working environment (office vs. outdoor worker), can greatly affect your health.
(
https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/diet-and-nutrition/vitamin-d)
I would rather take the 'increased risk' and take the sunlight, thanks (without getting burnt).
I do not mean any offence if you at any moment feel that a lay-person is trying to educate a doctor here (i'm not trying to 'educate' you), I don't mean this in a condescending way at all Cavesa. I do feel however that any training designed to produce professionals working as a part of the modern medical system is devoid of many things, particularly when it comes to natural living, cures and diet. I'm certain your knowledge on medicine is MASSIVE compared to mine, I don't discount that at all, but I believe what is taught to med students and other medical professionals, is detailed and very focused, yet ironically also limited in it's range and scope.
Cavesa wrote:Yes, we are steering away from the nature and so on. But how long does a usual aborigine live? Let's remember our ancestors. They lived completely organically, no glasses, no artificial light, no artificial chemistry. And in areas well covered with trees, sure (except for all those living in naturally less forested areas, everything wasn't a jungle). Well, I guess they were worried neither about their vit D nor their melanoma. They didn't live long enough for that.
Just because I am equating the benefits of sunlight with a healthy life does not mean that you can therefore rule out my arguments on the basis of those who were exposed to ample sunlight and lived very natural lives, but lived shorter lives. Equally, I could counteract your argument and say, well look at the massive gap between life expectancy in Australian aboriginals today and the rest of the Australian population...
because they are living in the modern era now, because they live less naturally, less like they used to. Would you prefer to have our statistics rise and rise while our health fails us unless we run to the modern medical system for help? It enables us to live lives of gluttony and escape the consequences. I would prefer to be independent as much as possible, find my own ways to live very healthily and avoid the modern medical system as much as possible. When an emergency arrives, i'm there, and voila, I affect the statistics. How long would aboriginals have lived IF they lived the way they did, and had access to surgery and other procedures that saves lives? I think you'd find that they'd outlive us.
Cavesa wrote:PeterMollenburg wrote:I have also heard hypothesized that diet is a major part of our protection (anti-oxidants etc which help protect our skin, diabetics can have visual deterioration - sugar likely to affect eyesight for example) and that melanoma is the sun drawing toxins to the surface and an indicator of ‘serious inbalances’ for want of a better description internally (and not just a reaction on the surface). I simply do not trust the run of the mill reasons at face value, there’s more depth to it than just more exposure = skin cancer. Mind you, I agree, exposure can pose a problem, particularly when we aren’t exposed to enough natural light, and when we are, sometimes it’s in areas devoid of trees as we’ve cut many of them down.
Of course there is more to it! That's why studying medicine takes so long and is such a hell!Each of these points you've just mentioned in a few words, as awesome simple examples, is actually worth several huge tomes of knowledge. There are dozens of years of research, and there will need to be many more.
Yes, I agree, you learn a hell of a lot, studying medicine, and I admit I do not fully comprehend this, but I do reserve the right to reiterate that the training is still devoid of much.
Cavesa wrote:Don't get me wrong. It is a bit sad I just cannot bear to watch this, even though I don't like taking too much place in Elenia's language log. But there is a lot of oversimplification in your posts. I know how wrong today's medicine is in various areas much better and closer than vast majority of people. Perhaps more than most people summed up. But I think you are choosing wrong targets, weird sources of information you trust, and sometimes a weird way to argument about it. The disparity between the awesome way you argument about the language learning stuff and this is rather significant.
A fair observation (see my earlier comments). It's easy to follow a language course, or two
and I have said it before, in my own words, that I often form poor arguments, rush things, look hardly credible and so on. Still, I do find it difficult not to take offence to your above comments, but I won't
And I'm sure equally, I could have offended you here. That wasn't my aim.
I would like to get on with language learning, so if you want to continue this discussion, I advise pick one point at a time that we can talk about, because this is one hell of a time sink trying to discuss so much in one post! I also want to finish saying I respect you greatly Cavesa, your language learning, your judgement, your medical opinion (honestly), and I hope we can mutually respect each other, even if you have to compartmentalise yours to just my language learning and forget about the rest (no cynicism meant). I just wanted to point out my one main point - that
living naturally, in many aspects of life, I feel,
is so much better for our health, and finally,
living optimally, has
benefits for the things we love to do, like language learning.