General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

wow, my 2nd insult of the day. it must be my lucky day.

i'm also unoriginal and quote a lot.

"Mystery is essential to the impostor. Above everything else, the charlatan
must avoid straightforward reasoning and simplicity of expression: too clear
and direct a light would quickly destroy the spell he exerts, through
eloquent ambiguity, over his victims. In all ages, the voice of the humbug
has exercised a peculiar fascination -- it is his chief weapon. But though
he has to speak and write continuously, his announcements are best couched
in indefinite phrases, opaque and susceptible of many interpretations, like
the words of Subtle, the alchemist in Ben Jonson's play of that name."
- Grete de Francesco


and stop derailing the thread.

they way u view things is just very close minded. Its inside a box where nobody can get it. Tony robbins is la la land while he gets sick results and get praised by almost everybody in his field. I wonder if you even know what field he really is?

If you look @ his ted talk, its awesome on so many levels, but if you look at it from an 'science perspective' all you see is a 4 feet tall dude talking very positive. You think too much inside of the box.

I mean I think Tony Robbins falls somewhere in between the two extremes on where you guys are putting him. A decent amount of his content is somewhat weak or ineffective (ie. NLP, nutrition) although he says some good things that are quite simplistic and can be learnt from many sources, but what he does well is motivate... the dude is off the charts as a public speaker and I think that's where almost all his effectiveness/results come from.

I can see how a skeptical person would see him as a charlatan though, he does many things that are complete BS. For instance I went to one of his events and he talked about this fire walk we'd do (walking across hot coals) where the only way you can walk across it is if you believe and if you don't believe you're going to get burnt... literally said that our intentions effect physical reality. Now I can see how tricking people into believing this can be effective in getting results, they walk across the fire and don't get burnt then realize what they're thinking is very important... although for completely the wrong reasons, but to peddle this BS (there are many other examples in his work) can make it hard for some people to take him seriously. He was very motivating though, amazing in person in definitely impacted my life in a positive way, not really from any information/content he gave me but from inspiring/motivating me to do the things I knew I needed to do.

To say he's praised by everybody in his field is like a psychic getting praised in their field. Tt speaks nothing of the field, or the person, other than they're better than people who do similar things.

Oh and making blanket statements about TED talks because of one speaker seems... weird. They have no agenda, just allow people at the top of their fields to communicate their ideas with little restraint. They obviously don't endorse everything every speaker says, and they're in front of a very intelligent crowd that can sniff out BS very well, there's also quite a strict rule on not being able to advertise products so people can't as effectively use it as a marketing tool. In any case I don't see the problem with casting a wide net and allowing a lot of people to speak with a wide range of beliefs, substantiated or not, as too much is better than not enough. I'd much rather have people like Tony or Deepak speaking there than to risk potentially cutting out people that have important things to say because someone thinks it's la-la, if anything I think this makes TED as a forum far less suspect.

And Snappie stop being a douche

Edit: Btw Nawhead I think the link the person was trying to send to you was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc which is a pretty cool talk, although I seem to remember the argument/evidence being a little weak/sensationalist, but yeah check it out imo.

His field is being a motivational coach, a public speaker, as you say. And that is where he is praised.

And Snappie stop being a douche

you are right about this one. I just can't stand it if people talk about things they clearly dont have a real understanding about. Saying tony robbins is la la land is as stupid as saying that sugar is absolutely fantastic for your body.

Tony Robbins was great in Shawshank Redemption tho- I don't care what anyone says.

I mean I think Tony Robbins falls somewhere in between the two extremes on where you guys are putting him. A decent amount of his content is somewhat weak or ineffective (ie. NLP, nutrition) although he says some good things that are quite simplistic and can be learnt from many sources, but what he does well is motivate... the dude is off the charts as a public speaker and I think that's where almost all his effectiveness/results come from.

[...] they walk across the fire and don't get burnt then realize what they're thinking is very important... although for completely the wrong reasons, but to peddle this BS (there are many other examples in his work) can make it hard for some people to take him seriously. He was very motivating though, amazing in person in definitely impacted my life in a positive way, not really from any information/content he gave me but from inspiring/motivating me to do the things I knew I needed to do.

+1

i'm all for motivating oneself. belief is critical to forming habits. if you read my blog, you know how big i'm into this stuff.

but the way Robbins and others like him packages something very simple (and free) alongside a bunch of useless pseudoscientific nonsense then labels everything as if he invented and sells these overpriced seminars is what really irks me. it just reminds me of how churches/preachers sell to "religious consumers."

but there's no debating the dude's got charisma.

Tony Robbins was great in Shawshank Redemption tho- I don't care what anyone says.

Oh and making blanket statements about TED talks because of one speaker seems... weird. They have no agenda, just allow people at the top of their fields to communicate their ideas with little restraint.

They obviously don't endorse everything every speaker says, and they're in front of a very intelligent crowd that can sniff out BS very well, there's also quite a strict rule on not being able to advertise products so people can't as effectively use it as a marketing tool. In any case I don't see the problem with casting a wide net and allowing a lot of people to speak with a wide range of beliefs, substantiated or not, as too much is better than not enough. I'd much rather have people like Tony or Deepak speaking there than to risk potentially cutting out people that have important things to say because someone thinks it's la-la, if anything I think this makes TED as a forum far less suspect.

this is a really good point. i guess i try to differentiate between sites like Youtube that allows anybody to upload vs something like TED where i assume the speakers are invited, and as such, there's some kind of implicit endorsement in the message. but if it's just an open forum, i was mistaken.

Edit: Btw Nawhead I think the link the person was trying to send to you was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc which is a pretty cool talk, although I seem to remember the argument/evidence being a little weak/sensationalist, but yeah check it out imo.

i'm biased to believe Dr. Wahls' overall health was helped by her change to a paleo-like diet, but she was also doing some radical therapy at the same time. so to what extent the diet changes had any effect on her MS condition seems in question.

from http://www.uiowa.edu/be-remarkable/portfolio/people/wahls-t.html

In 2007, Wahls began eating greater amounts of foods known to support mitochondria. Her energy increased, and the progression of the disease slowed. At the same time, she read 212 research papers about electrical stimulation, which was being used to help athletes’ muscles heal and to improve quality of life for people with paralysis. She convinced her physical therapist to give it a shot, though he cautioned that it would be painful and may not help.

"I dialed it up to as much pain as I could take, because if I was going to fail, I didn’t want to look back and think I hadn’t gone as hard as I could," Wahls says. "He was right. It hurt, a lot. But it also released a lot of endorphins, and at the end I felt better than I had in years."

Wahls continued e-stim using a portable device at home and work, and began to exercise in small time increments. She also revamped her diet to see that every calorie would contribute to maximizing the brain’s building blocks. The "Wahls Diet" calls for nine cups of fruits and veggies per day: three of green leaves, three of sulfur-containing food, and three of bright colors.

Within a few months, she was walking between exam rooms at the hospital. She stopped taking her medications and continued to improve.


i'm trying not to dump every piece of evidence that supports my beliefs into one large pile and rubber stamp them. that would be lazy and dishonest. that's why i frown whenever i listen to her talk. and i have watched this talk before. just the thought of propagating spurious claims like these (and others ) is why i went on my general TED rant.

but the sensational connection which i do find compelling once going LCHF/Paleo is improvement in dental health:

http://hunter-gatherer.com/blog/white-mans-food-and-tooth-decay

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/obesity-in-ancient-egypt/

but the way Robbins and others like him packages something very simple (and free) alongside a bunch of useless pseudoscientific nonsense then labels everything as if he invented and sells these overpriced seminars is what really irks me. it just reminds me of how churches/preachers sell to "religious consumers."

I guess you haven't got any further then 'walking on fire' or trying something for a week to realise it didn't work. Most of his stuf really work well, if you really are comitted to it. Indeed, he didn't invent any of it (if you look closely its gestalt therapy, and all kind of therapy forms that all have its place in some situation), but that is what good entrepreneurs do man. Thats how they get rich.
They see something, and see how it can be better. Look at any entrepreneur and he does exactly that.

an honest and sobering article about the difficulty of weight loss in the New York Times.

and a letter to the editor in the form of a signed petition by Gary Taubes and Petter Attia, M.D.., in response.


it's not a conversation, yet, but it's still very good reading from both sides' perspectives.

I personally think Tony Robbins can really help you to get motivated to do something about your eating patterns

I've been eating a VERY strict paleo diet for over 2 years now, and its like night and day for me.
I cant even express the difference in how i feel, perform, and in my energy levels, and clarity of thought.
I have a serious auto-immune condition, though, and don't even have the option of eating anything else.
if i am exposed to gluten in even trace amounts (look up Biagi study which showed that an invisable amount is enough to cause damage if the auto-immune system is reacting to gluten/ casein. its a reaction, much like a poison oak reaction, and it just requires the presence of the trigger to keep the reaction going.)

in a way, i consider myself very very lucky, because i have no choice but to eat the best diet there is.
i can't cheat, or i will not be able to function for weeks.
grains are garbage food.
rich ppl traditionally ate meat, eggs, and vegetables, and poor ppl the grains.
look at the weekly menu at Chez Panisse, it's virtually paleo, because quality food is paleo, not for health reasons.

look at Greek history. the rich ppl, land owners, and governors ate meat and vegetables, and the warriors ate boiled grains. they were expendable, and grains are cheap food that gives them high energy.

even though long exposure to grains (gluten) in my diet triggered a really really bad auto-immune condition for me, it's been shown that they just cause inflammation across the board in everyone.
its just a matter of degree.
autoimmune is basically inflammation caused by the autoimmune system when it recognizes a foreign invader (gluten) and attacks your tissue in an effort to attack the invader. the proteins of both the gluten and your tissue can appear similar, and the antibodies (T cells) attack both;

Robb Wolf, a california bio-chemist, and popular paleo advocate has done studies with other biochemists where they ate certain diets for long periods, and did blood tests, and found that the grains just cause inflammation, period, whether the person had a known 'problem' with it or not.

then just look at aboriginal populations in places like Borneo, where they have eaten the same diet for literally 1000s of years (obv no grains) and there is NO cancer, NO autism, NO diabetes, NO heart disease, NO depression, or mental illness, NO autoimmune.
pls explain, if it isnt because grains are not food that our bodies are designed to process well.

grains are not even really natural foods, but were hybridized by humans from grasses.
its basically grass seed (wheat, corn).
its for hanging wall paper with, and making kitty litter out of.

i hear ya. i have severe gluten sensitivity also. but i kept eating the stuff for most of my life cause that's what the posters at school said i should be eating growing up. even tho i was eating bread sparingly as an adult cause i suspected something was wrong, i still balked when i read the Paleo diet arguments cause bread is so part of the culture. it's pretty much ingrained (no pun) into Western culture at a religious level (communion, breaking break, etc.). to think that this food that's been in our diets and consciousness for so long is actually bad for us sounds crazy. but it's true.

in retrospect, i think i was lucky having such a severe sensitivity cause i was very willing to accept the message once the points were brought up. on the other hand, people who just have a weight problem have a harder time accepting just how unnatural bread is in the human diet and try to work with it as long as possible. for example, my sister is pretty overweight and she loves bread. she's even been on Atkins before, but she just won't give up bread. i think she's basically given up and just thinks she's doomed to be overweight and won't change her mind about these things. it's very sad, but i'm hopeful she'll listen with all these new mainstream studies coming out.

however, i think the Paleo claims are a bit too much. it sounds quackish once you start saying people who eat Paleo never have depression or cancer. i'd rather stick to what's actually provable.

look up 'gluteomorphins'
bread is addictive because it contains gluteomorphins, among other things.
like the name suggests, it is chemically similar to morphine, and very addictive.
just look at ppls addictive behaviour surrounding bread/ pasta/ other garbage.
they act like alchoholics, or herion addicts, and see what happens if you take it away from them.

obesity is caused by whats called metabolic derangement.
because of damage to the gut from a diet of grains, and the lack of real nutrients, one actually starves, and the bodies response is to hold on to weight, as the metabolism goes totally out of whack.|
If one switches to paleo, it takes a period of time for the metabolism to correctly readjust (months), so that the benifits can start to emerge, so it requires patience, too. (and discipline, obv)

i'll need to research it more, but i believe that ppl who eat a paleo diet from birth dont get any of the chronic diseases that we get in the 'civilized world', including obesity, AT ALL. (like in Borneo) it is provable.

cancer is called a 'genitic disorder' which is pure BS. it is caused by environmental stresses on the system. explain why the US has the highest cancer rates in the world now; highest diabetes rates??
explain why 50 years ago childhood cancer was almost unheard of, and a child with cancer was as rare as a unicorn, and now its commonplace??
I'm so sick of ppl talking about cures for cancer, when the cure is so obvious. its a preventative one.
remove the stressors from your environment. (toxins, bad food, vaccines, and emotional stress, ect...)

and what part of the human body interacts with the environment the most?
not the skin, not the lungs, but the gut. by far.
what we eat and drink is the part of our environment that effects us the most, and it isnt even close.

cool post; i will have to take time to read thru it, having just discovered it.

how great the paleo diet is for anyone who is doing something performance based is something ive actually wanted to keep under my hat in the poker world.
i love it when my opponents are eating garbage, actually.
they prolly put premium gas in their cars, but skimp on how they fuel themselves.

was browsing reddit.com/r/keto and found this

http://imgur.com/r/keto/pmzIw

look up 'gluteomorphins'
bread is addictive because it contains gluteomorphins, among other things.
like the name suggests, it is chemically similar to morphine, and very addictive.
just look at ppls addictive behaviour surrounding bread/ pasta/ other garbage.
they act like alchoholics, or herion addicts, and see what happens if you take it away from them.

it's an interesting theory, but stuff like this is pretty hard to prove. i found lots of pages claiming the theory, but nothing to actually prove it. it's one of those claims that can only be proven intuitively (it's true cause we believe it makes sense).

i'm reading this book now called The Power of Habit, and it argues that there's very few real chemical addictions (even things like nicotine and alcohol and morphine) that lasts more than a day or two. but people still crave them months or years afterwards, long after physical dependence should have stopped. so it's not the chemical itself that's bringing us back (the science of tolerance tells us the drugs aren't doing much for us anyway after awhile), it's the rituals and habits that are part of the addiction that's more important. so if there's nothing to replace the ritual, we'll keep going back to the addiction, usually under stress.

anyway, kind of an aside, but pretty interesting.

how great the paleo diet is for anyone who is doing something performance based is something ive actually wanted to keep under my hat in the poker world.
i love it when my opponents are eating garbage, actually.
they prolly put premium gas in their cars, but skimp on how they fuel themselves.

yup it's def an edge imo as well.

then just look at aboriginal populations in places like Borneo, where they have eaten the same diet for literally 1000s of years (obv no grains) and there is NO cancer, NO autism, NO diabetes, NO heart disease, NO depression, or mental illness, NO autoimmune.
pls explain, if it isnt because grains are not food that our bodies are designed to process well.

Do these Borneans (Borneonese?) use cell phones? Travel large distances? Comparable life span to ours?

http://drjosephalaimo.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/caseomorphins-and-gluteomorphins---the-food-opiods/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_peptide <<< look under opiod food peptides

http://glutensensitivity.net/Adverse_reactions.htm

labs like Cyrex can now blood test for the presence of gluteomorphins, so to say it's not provable is not true.
also, i stand corrected. gluteomorphins are peptides which form in the body from gliadin (gluten) proteins. so, the peptides are not contained literally in the grains, but the proteins which your body needs to transform into the addictive peptides are, so it's the same difference.

also, i hope youre not suggesting that alcoholism, nicotine, or heroin addiction are not real addictions;
it was'nt clear.

i've tried to get numerous friends to try to go without gluten for even a few days, or a week, and none can do it. they always break down. just like other 'real' addictions.

also; one poker dealer i know has an autistic son, @8 years old, and had never spoken a complete sentance ever. I suggested she try putting him on a gluten free diet.
she did, and he was speaking his first sentence within days. she thought it was a miracle. a gluten free diet won't exactly 'cure' autism, but the difference is HUGE, and is also standard. Ppl w/ autism or ADD get significant benefits close to 100% of the time.

a gluten free diet won't exactly 'cure' autism, but the difference is HUGE, and is also standard. Ppl w/ autism or ADD get significant benefits close to 100% of the time.

To my understanding the data so far somewhat contradicts you (and tbh a lot of other things you've said earlier). Also I think you saying vaccines are stressors in your environment that contribute towards cancer is pretty telling. Unfortunately the world or the paleo diet isn't as amazing as you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_peptide <<< look under opiod food peptides

Opioid-like peptides may also be absorbed from partially digested food (casomorphins, exorphins, and rubiscolins), but have limited physiological activity. The opioid food peptides have lengths of typically 4-8 amino acids. The body's own opioids are generally much longer.

and i'm not denying that gluten is bad. i'm just not convinced by the opioid connection.

also, i hope youre not suggesting that alcoholism, nicotine, or heroin addiction are not real addictions;
it was'nt clear.

these are addictive chemical compounds, but they're not as addictive as people assume them to be. physical dependence to these drugs can be broken very quickly (if not easily). but the psychological addiction is much harder to break and lasts for a lifetime.

when people say, "i'm an alcoholic," it means they need a drug to get through stressful times. their drug of choice is alcohol, and they identify with it, but they're actually addicted to needing a ritual to offset stress. and that stress can be relieved through any number of drugs/activities, but it's not that the alcohol has a specific biological match to their genes. the alcohol is simply preferred or convenient.

but again, i'm just reading a book on habits right now. i don't know if i actually believe this yet.

also; one poker dealer i know has an autistic son, @8 years old, and had never spoken a complete sentance ever. I suggested she try putting him on a gluten free diet.
she did, and he was speaking his first sentence within days. she thought it was a miracle. a gluten free diet won't exactly 'cure' autism, but the difference is HUGE, and is also standard. Ppl w/ autism or ADD get significant benefits close to 100% of the time.

you might like this interview with a psychiatrist treating kids with LCHF then
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/3566/dr-ann-childers-on-the-influence-of-carbs-in-mental-disorders-episode-437/

this is what i do when i'm travelling (in Vegas or Reno...)
i go to Whole Foods and do my shopping when i arrive.
i request a refrigarator for my room.
i bring a crockpot, a chefs knife, a cutting board, ect...
i throw some lamb, turnips, green beans, whatever into the crockpot w/ some chicken stock (gluten free),
and then go down and play a 2-3 hour session.
the i go up to the room, throw in some mustard greens, and eat a small meal.
play a few more hours, and then back to the room for another bite. (eating smaller meals more often is better for performance, imo)
it's cheaper than eating in casinos, more convienient in a way, and obv way healthier,
AND i dont have to trust anyone to touch my food. (which i don't).

I eat in a resturant @ 1-2 times a year (ate at le Cave at the Wynn recently, they have a gluten free menu, like every resturant in the Wynn, and the servers were aware of cross contamination issues, which made me feel comfortable). all PF changs have a gluten free menu, too.
I like making all my own meals, although i know most ppl would have a hard time with doing this.
again, i have no choice in the matter.

i noticed that OP has a problem w/ gluten. and yet picks the meat of off of a bun, and eats it.
this doesnt work.
you are still getting gluten in your system by doing this, and even in tiny tiny amounts it will have an adverse effect if it's giving you a problem.
cutting down on gluten doesnt work. you have to eliminate it 100%. even in trace amounts.
a virtually invisible amount will continue to cause harm if you do react to gluten, and theres a scientific study to prove it. there may be no 'safe amount'.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/1/160.long

take the term 'celiac disease' w/ a grain of salt. it only means that the reaction has been going on long enough to cause serious damage to the gut, brain, nervous system, and other tissue. waiting til you test positive for CD to do something about it is retarded. you are essentially 'waiting til its too late'.
the damage is cumalative, so if its going on, you need to stop it before it gets to the point of a major autoimmune problem (like me).

my own experience backs up this study.
i switched to gluten free, or so i thought, for over a year, but had roommates who had bread crumbs in the kitchen, and i still ate out in restuarants that have gluten all over thier kitchens, and i was sloppy about cross contamination because i didnt know any better.
i got sicker and sicker, (too many symptoms to mention).
only when i learned what was up, and got my own place, with my own kitchen did i start getting better, it's been over 2 years now, and i only get the symptoms now if i get accidentally exposed.
when i do, they linger for months from one exposure!! the improvement ive seen is overwhelming since i started avoiding gluten like its the plague. i literally could'nt function before.

i used to get pissed when friends/ family refuse to believe this reality, but now i dont care.
i know the truth about my experience. most ppl are just in a state of denial, and are addicts themselves.

when i get exposed, i cant even walk a straight line, like i'm drunk. (gluten ataxia)
i get insanely irritable, like i want to bite ppls heads off for no reason.
my right arm goes numb and tingly (like i slept on it.)
my hip gets arthritic, and i literally am limping, and cant even get out of my car without crawling out.
my skin erupts in blisters (dermatitas herpetiformis).
theres more, too many symptoms to mention here...
it's alarming as hell to me, and yet some ppl refuse to believe this is a reality,
because 'it's food'

Opioid-like peptides may also be absorbed from partially digested food (casomorphins, exorphins, and rubiscolins), but have limited physiological activity. The opioid food peptides have lengths of typically 4-8 amino acids. The body's own opioids are generally much longer.
/

the quote you picked didnt include gluteomorphins, but only caseomorphins (from dairy) exomorphins, and rubisconilins (from spinich).
gluteomorphins were left out of this statement for a reason.

if you don't want to believe that its addictive, whatever, but just try observing ppls insanely addictive behaviour surrounding their need for gluten. they will literally go into withdrawls if you take it a way for even a few days, just like w/ alcohol. or heroin.

the quote you picked didnt include gluteomorphins, but only caseomorphins (from dairy) exomorphins, and rubisconilins (from spinich).
gluteomorphins were left out of this statement for a reason.

i only used the link you gave me. if the references you use don't pertain to and/or support your argument, you should be more careful next time.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/1/160.long

Conclusions: The ingestion of contaminating gluten should be kept lower than 50 mg/d in the treatment of CD.

from the actual results of the study:

Clinical and serologic evaluation
The comparison between the baseline and the postchallenge findings in the 39 patients completing the microchallenge did not show any significant changes in the clinical outcome between the 3 groups.

serologic means the body detects dangerous foreign substances and is actively trying to fight it. if you can detect it but the body's not fighting it, it's not harmful.

this is an example of researchers making conclusions that don't follow the evidence.

a valid (and honest) conclusion would have been, "trace amounts of gluten up to 50mg does not seem to have a harmful effect, so further testing is needed to find the minimum dose."

if you think trace amounts are causing your arthritis to act up, it's most likely a placebo effect.

i'm done with you, bro. i was trying to contribute something that i know a great deal about, both from experience, and from research. I've been to one of the leading doctors in the world on celiac. (he said i had one of the worst cases he's seen). I can PM you his info.
last time i got exposed to gluten was when i unknowingly parked in front of a bagel factory, and opened my car door. the door to the place was open, and clouds of flour were coming out of it. i was @6 feet away from big mixers, and big bags of flour.
within 30 seconds i couldnt walk. (now look up gluten ataxia, and tell me that thats not provable)
its a helpless feeling being incapacitated like that. and this came from just breathing it in.
then all the other symptoms come back with a vengence.
do you know how many mg are in an ounce?
28,300.
so 50 mg can be too much. thats an invisable amount.

but im imagining it. (sarcasm)
i'm also imagining the dermatitas herpetiformis (celiac disease of the skin.) thats extremely painful, almost beyond words (look it up, mr. doubting thomas)
Pm me your email and i'll send you pictures, and then tell me i'm imagining it.
when i cant even walk without limping, i'm imagining that too.
when i cant feel my arm, i'm imagining that.

try calling the Le Cave art the Wynn, and ask them why they see fit to protect their customers with celiac from gluten cross contamination? to humor them??
i would post any number of legit articles on the subject, but you would prolly throw it back in my face, and say 'not provable'/
i don need 'proof'; ive lived the proof, a priori, you tool.

you are exceedingly insensative, and are also an ignoramus.
the bad news: i dont believe they have found a cure for that.

i only used the link you gave me. if the references you use don't pertain to and/or support your argument, you should be more careful next time.



from the actual results of the study:

serologic means the body detects dangerous foreign substances and is actively trying to fight it. if you can detect it but the body's not fighting it, it's not harmful.

this is an example of researchers making conclusions that don't follow the evidence.

a valid (and honest) conclusion would have been, "trace amounts of gluten up to 50mg does not seem to have a harmful effect, so further testing is needed to find the minimum dose."

if you think trace amounts are causing your arthritis to act up, it's most likely a placebo effect.

reread the wiki article on food opiods.
you are missing the whole point, and nit picking based on your misreadimng of the material, have a nice day.