vegetable juice... substitute for caffeine?

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

That would make zero sense.

So what exactly did you mean when you wrote that?

Just now, Strange said:

That may explain a lot.

Well, when it comes down to it, what are the choices?  You either care about preventative healthcare, or you don't care about preventative healthcare, or you'e somewhere in the middle.  For example, a person can choose not to smoke because they decide it's an unacceptable risk factor for their long term health.  They could do this for a number of reasons. Perhaps they actively researched the negative affects of smoking and discovered for themselves that smoking increases the risk of cancer.  Or they might have been fortunate enough to live in a society that educates its populace on the dangers of smoking, and so that particular individual didn't have to take any initiative but instead just went along with the herd (which in that situation happened be informed correctly by external forces).  Or the person can know full well the dangers of smoking but think "I only live once!" and choose to disregard the potential hazards of the activity.    

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So what exactly did you mean when you wrote that?

Firstly, you cannot draw any conclusions from an individual data point. So appealing to an individual 's experience is not scientific.

And, secondly, if you were to do a large study and find that, say, 64.3% of people said they felt healthier after switching to fresh juice (from coffee or even purchased juice) that doesn't tell you (a) if they are healthier or (b) the reason why they feel healthier.

14 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, when it comes down to it, what are the choices?

Well, an obvious option you missed (which would have been top of my list) would be to see what the expert recommendations are based on proper scientific studies.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

Firstly, you cannot draw any conclusions from an individual data point. So appealing to an individual 's experience is not scientific.

No, you factor the individual's experience into the aggregate.  I'm not debating that. 

So what about the second part of your answer?  Why are subjective feelings scientific and individual experiences not? 

Just now, Strange said:

And, secondly, if you were to do a large study and find that, say, 64.3% of people said they felt healthier after switching to fresh juice (from coffee or even purchased juice) that doesn't tell you (a) if they are healthier or (b) the reason why they feel healthier.

Of course not.  Further research would need to be done to verify their claims.  Unfortunately there haven't been many long term studies done on the effectiveness of juicing, so the jury's still out.  You can look at people who have followed a raw food / juicing lifestyle and see how they turned out.  Jay Kordich died at 93.  Jack La Lane died at age 97.  Norman walker at age 99, all from natural causes. I'm not going to wait around until New Scientist tells me to start juicing before I take action.   It may take another 50 - 100 years to gather conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of juicing on long term health.    If the formerly mentioned pioneers of nutrition lived that long, if it makes me feel great everyday, if other people are doing it and are also seeing their health skyrocket, that's good enough for me. 

Just now, Strange said:

Well, an obvious option you missed (which would have been top of my list) would be to see what the expert recommendations are based on proper scientific studies.

That's part and parcel of point #2.  Any person who is actively seeking to prolong their life would investigate all avenues.  But the key is experimenting with and implementing that knowledge into their daily life, otherwise it's useless.  This would also include listening to people who are not scientifically orthodox and or those who have had experiences that might not be validated by the mainstream.     

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Of course.  So in the face of inevitable death, what kind of life do you choose to live?

1. You either treat your health with casual indifference, living the life of the bohemian pleasure seeker, thinking: "everyone has to die someday, so I may as well just do as I please".
2. You make an effort to live as long as your can and stay in as optimal as shape as you can, experimenting with different diets / nutrition regimes in your search for the healthiest possible lifestyle. 
3. Or you just do as everyone else does, not thinking about it too much while you follow the herd, whichever way it may go. 

The avenue a person chooses is related to how much they value their life. 

My answer is obviously " 4. None of the above."
I realise that there's no way I can sensibly do enough research to find out what's good for people.
In particular, I can't do much  useful research on my own because of things like the placebo effect.

So I find sources of information which publish the basis for their advice and I look at that basis to see if it is logically valid and scientifically well constructed.

And then I base my actions on that actual knowledge.

Why don't you?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Treating one's subjective experiences, whether in relation to health, consciousness, psychology, or any other area of life as irrelevant is an oversight which impedes the search for truth.  This is one of the major flaws in the mechanistic / materialist philosophy that currently prevails in the scientific mainstream. 

!

Moderator Note

If you have a problem with scientific methods, discuss them in another thread. Discussions here are to be under the premise that science works, and its well-tested methodology is valid.

Responses to the OP are to be based on accepted science.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

 

Just now, John Cuthber said:

So I find sources of information which publish the basis for their advice and I look at that basis to see if it is logically valid and scientifically well constructed.

Then I imagine you actually implement that advice into your daily life and see how it works out for you.  

Just now, John Cuthber said:

And then I base my actions on that actual knowledge.

Assuming that it is in fact accurate knowledge, which seems to change rather frequently in the scientific mainstream. 

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Why don't you?

I do.  I thought I already made that clear.  

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Then I imagine you actually implement that advice into your daily life and see how it works out for you.  

Sometimes I choose to ignore it; for example, I'm not vegetarian.
But at least I know that I'm making a risky decision.

 

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

ssuming that it is in fact accurate knowledge, which seems to change rather frequently in the scientific mainstream. 

It's not perfect, but it's the least bad option.

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

do.  I thought I already made that clear.  

You made it clear that you avoid  shop-bought fruit juice because of a mistaken belief that it's been super-heated and so  on,
You doubled down on that by misunderstanding how the addition of pesticides and preservatives actually reduces our exposure to what I think you called "unknown toxins".

And , to top that off, you are now arguing with a bunch of scientists about what science is and how a single anecdote fits into that endeavour.

[Alex_Krycek]

 

Quote

I realise that there's no way I can sensibly do enough research to find out what's good for people.
In particular, I can't do much  useful research on my own because of things like the placebo effect.

You just wrote that you "can't sensibly do enough research to know what's good for people", so why do you assume to know what the correct answer is in this instance? 

Quote

And , to top that off, you are now arguing with a bunch of scientists about what science is and how a single anecdote fits into that endeavour.

Anyone who follows the scientific method while conducting an experiment is a scientist, which includes my own experiments with juicing, and the OP if he chooses to conduct one.  So you don't have exclusive ownership of that title, I'm afraid.  Science is for everyone.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You just wrote that you "can't sensibly do enough research to know what's good for people", so why do you assume to know what the correct answer is in this instance

I can't exert enough force to lift a car. But I can tell when a group of people has lifted one.

Why did you think that was a valid question?

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Anyone who follows the scientific method while conducting an experiment is a scientist, which includes my own experiments with juicing, and the OP if he chooses to conduct one. 

Yes.

But if you don't take the trouble to make sure that you exclude known biases (for example if you don't use "blind" trials and reference interventions) then what you are doing is called "cargo cult science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

So, yes, anyone who uses the scientific method is a scientist.
And anyone who pretends to use it is a pretend scientist.

[hypervalent_iodine]

13 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

You just wrote that you "can't sensibly do enough research to know what's good for people", so why do you assume to know what the correct answer is in this instance? 

Anyone who follows the scientific method while conducting an experiment is a scientist, which includes my own experiments with juicing, and the OP if he chooses to conduct one.  So you don't have exclusive ownership of that title, I'm afraid.  Science is for everyone.

 

Perhaps you’d like to revisit the mod note that was posted in this thread earlier?

[StringJunky]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Do you have any evidence for this?  Because there are countless individuals who would attest otherwise.  Or are they all victims of psychosomatic thinking?

You have to be careful when you go on a vitamin and mineral binge because you may harm yourself. For instance, having too much vitamin D can cause hypercalecaemia where one starts developing calcium deposits in the wrong places.  It's best to check your levels and then deal with any deficiency.  I have to say that your tone on this subject is like that of an evangelist.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, StringJunky said:

I have to say that your tone on this subject is like that of an evangelist.

Just trying to pass on the positive effects of juicing to the OP,  which in my life have been profound. 

It's fine to be skeptical, but at the same time being overly skeptical can become limiting, so hopefully he gives it a try.  

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Just trying to pass on the positive effects of juicing to the OP,  which in my life have been profound. 

It's fine to be skeptical, but at the same time being overly skeptical can become limiting, so hopefully he gives it a try.  

There's no difference between fruit juice and coke, physiologically speaking, you may as well suggest cocaine in terms of the OP.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, dimreepr said:

There's no difference between fruit juice and coke, physiologically speaking, you may as well suggest cocaine in terms of the OP.

I don't think the OP is interested in becoming a drug addict. 

I think he's interested in becoming healthier. 

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't think the OP is interested in becoming a drug addict. 

I think he's interested in becoming healthier. 

Then suggest fruit, not fruit juice.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Then suggest fruit, not fruit juice.

We discussed this earlier.  Fruit juice should be taken in moderation due to the high sugar content.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Alex_Krycek said:

We discussed this earlier.  Fruit juice should be taken in moderation due to the high sugar content.

Whilst fruit can be taken in excess (and still be healthy), the difference is the fiber content.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So what about the second part of your answer?  Why are subjective feelings scientific and individual experiences not? 

I can't imagine why you think I said that. Presumably you have misinterpreted something I said, but I can't see what would lead to that conclusion.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You can look at people who have followed a raw food / juicing lifestyle and see how they turned out.  Jay Kordich died at 93.  Jack La Lane died at age 97.  Norman walker at age 99, all from natural causes. 

Cherrypicking data to support an argument is also not scientific.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That's part and parcel of point #2. 

OK. It'd didn't seem like it.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This would also include listening to people who are not scientifically orthodox and or those who have had experiences that might not be validated by the mainstream.

And reading your horoscope....

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Whilst fruit can be taken in excess (and still be healthy), the difference is the fiber content.

That's true.  The pioneer of juicing, Jay Kordich mostly ate fruit, for this reason.  But some nutritional aspects of the fruit can't be accessed without a juicer.  For example, the rind of a watermelon is highly nutritious, but can't be easily consumed like the flesh of the watermelon.  The pith of the orange is another example.  Many people when they peel the orange lose most of the pith.  The juicer helps to break down these parts of the fruit that would otherwise be discarded.    

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That's true.  The pioneer of juicing, Jay Kordich mostly ate fruit, for this reason.  But some nutritional aspects of the fruit can't be accessed without a juicer.  For example, the rind of a watermelon is highly nutritious, but can't be easily consumed like the flesh of the watermelon.  The pith of the orange is another example.  Many people when they peel the orange lose most of the pith.  The juicer helps to break down these parts of the fruit that would otherwise be discarded.    

If it's true why bother?

There's nutrition to be found in shit, but I'm not gonna eat it.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

I can't imagine why you think I said that. Presumably you have misinterpreted something I said, but I can't see what would lead to that conclusion.

Here's what you said earlier:  "Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience."

If we can measure and take into account subjective feelings, why can't we measure and take into account personal experience?  I still don't get what you mean. 

Quote

Cherrypicking data to support an argument is also not scientific.

Nor is ignoring it. 

Quote

And reading your horoscope....

Taking into account the experiences of others is completely different from reading a horoscope.  One example of how science collects data by measuring personal experience is through polling. 

Just now, dimreepr said:

If it's true why bother?

Well, to avoid food waste for one reason.  If you buy a watermelon and are going to consume it, why not get all the nutritional value from the food?  Juicing is an excellent way to do that. 

Quote

There's nutrition to be found in shit, but I'm not gonna eat it.

No sane person would unless they're in a dire survival situation.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Here's what you said earlier:  "Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience."

If we can measure and take into account subjective feelings, why can't we measure and take into account personal experience?  I still don't get what you mean. 

Ah, I see. You picked up on the difference between "feelings" and "experience", which wasn't the point.

The point is that an individual's experience is a single data point and, therefore, by itself of little value. It is also subject to all sorts of biases. On the other hand, one could carry out a scientific study of people's personal/subjective experience and/or feelings. In fact, this is very frequently done. If done scientifically, efforts would be made to eliminates sources of bias (such as blinded or double-blinded tests) or to take them into account when analysing the results.

 

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Nor is ignoring it. 

And yet another straw man argument.

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

No sane person would unless they're in a dire survival situation.

 

Indeed...

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Indeed...

Quote

"That doesn't mean the red parts are the only good ones. "All parts of the watermelon are good. There are a lot of nutrients throughout," said Jarzabkowski. This includes the white flesh nearest the rind, which contains more of the amino acid citrulline than the flesh, according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Chromatography. 

So why waste it?

Quote

Citrulline is a valuable amino acid that converts to the amino acid arginine. These amino acids promote blood flow, leading to cardiovascular health, improved circulation, and according to research at Texas A&M University, erectile dysfunction improvement (you'd probably have to eat a lot of the fruit to get a Viagra-like effect, though).

Juicing solves this problem.

Quote

Recent studies have found that watermelon seeds are also wonderfully nutritious, especially if they are sprouted and shelled. They are high in protein, magnesium, vitamin B and good fats, according to an analysis by the International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences.  "

A lot of people spit out the seeds when eating the watermelon and lose out on these additional nutrients. 

Source:

https://www.livescience.com/46019-watermelon-nutrition.html

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So why waste it?

 

Because it tastes like shit.