Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
Billy wrote:
.... Seems like the problem is the distribution of wealth. seems like the problem is people eating poorly. songbird |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote: ....re plants... not directly as they don't "mentate" (there is rumor most people don't either ), but if they kill off all of their seed dispersers then they will eventually be outdone by the other plants that are "nicer". Try to get it into that dormant organ that resides between your ears, that "organic agriculture" doesn't increase flavonids, it simply doesn't suppress them as insecticides do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavono...gical_activity .... Potential for biological activity Flavonoids (specifically flavanoids such as the catechins) are "the most common group of polyphenolic compounds in the human diet and are found ubiquitously in plants".[4] Flavonols, the original bioflavonoids such as quercetin, are also found ubiquitously, but in lesser quantities. Both sets of compounds have evidence of health-modulating effects in animals which eat them. The widespread distribution of flavonoids, their variety and their relatively low toxicity compared to other active plant compounds (for "relatively low toxicity" (i.e. they are not completely harmless). just shot yourself in the foot there... instance alkaloids) mean that many animals, including humans, ingest significant quantities in their diet. Resulting from experimental evidence that they may modify allergens, viruses, and carcinogens, flavonoids have potential to be biological "response modifiers", such as anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory,[5] anti-microbial[6] and anti-cancer activities shown from in vitro studies.[7] [edit] neutral to supportive to your point, but as mentioned elsewheres we're already getting plenty. Antioxidant activity in vitro Flavonoids (both flavonols and flavanols) are most commonly known for their antioxidant activity in vitro. Consumers and food manufacturers have become interested in flavonoids for their possible medicinal properties, especially their putative role in prevention of cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Although physiological evidence is not yet established, the beneficial effects of fruits, vegetables, and tea or even red wine have sometimes been attributed to flavonoid compounds rather than to known micronutrients, such as vitamins and dietary minerals.[8] Alternatively, research conducted at the Linus Pauling Institute and evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority indicates that, following dietary intake, flavonoids themselves are of little or no direct antioxidant value.[9][10] As body conditions are unlike controlled test tube conditions, flavonoids and other polyphenols are poorly absorbed (less than 5%), with most of what is absorbed being quickly metabolized and excreted. this sounds like a body having to do work to get rid of a substance that there is too much of. i.e. having less of it in plant products is probably putting less stress on the liver (which is in fact one of the things i mentioned originally -- this is a point in my favor if the science holds up). The increase in antioxidant capacity of blood seen after the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods is not caused directly by flavonoids themselves, but most likely is due to increased uric acid levels that result from metabolism of flavonoids.[11] According to Frei, "we can now follow the activity of flavonoids in the body, and one thing that is clear is that the body sees them as foreign compounds and is trying to get rid of them." *ding ding!* [edit] Other potential health benefits "potential" [edit] Cancer Physiological processing of unwanted flavonoid compounds induces so-called Phase II enzymes that also help to eliminate mutagens and carcinogens, and therefore may be of value in cancer prevention. "may" Flavonoids could also induce mechanisms that may kill cancer cells and "could" inhibit tumor invasion.[11] UCLA cancer researchers have found that study participants who ate foods containing certain flavonoids, such as catechins found in strawberries and green and black teas; kaempferol from brussel sprouts and apples; and quercetin from beans, onions and apples, may have reduced risk of obtaining lung cancer.[12] "may" but that could be due to other factors (like fiber) or other compounds. a true study of flavonols in isolation would be needed to pin this down. the point to consider further is that there might be the case that everything we currently eat is bad for us in one form or another. some vegetables just might be the least noxious. like i said before evolution is not optimal, there might be other pathways which can be demonstrated to be better. we don't know yet. Research also indicated that only small amounts of flavonoids may be needed for possible benefits. "small amounts" which are available in what is grown now. this is not a point in your favor. Taking large dietary supplements likely provides no extra benefit and may pose risks. However, certainty of neither a benefit nor a risk has been proven yet in large-scale human intervention trials.[11] "neither a benefit nor a risk has been proven yet" another point in my favor. [edit] Diarrhea A study done at Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland, in collaboration with scientists at Heinrich Heine University in Germany, has shown that epicatechin, quercetin and luteolin can inhibit the development of fluids that result in diarrhea by targeting the intestinal cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator Cl* transport inhibiting cAMP-stimulated Cl* secretion in the intestine.[13] [edit] Capillary stabilizing agents Bioflavonoids like rutin, monoxerutin, diosmin, troxerutin and hidrosmin have potential vasoprotective proprieties still under experimental evaluation.[citation needed] [edit] "are still under experimental evaluation" most of these pretty much prove my initial statements accurate enough for general conversational purposes. good job! songbird |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
In article ,
"songbird" wrote: Billy wrote: ... Seems like the problem is the distribution of wealth. seems like the problem is people eating poorly. songbird http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/43968/2/298.pdf A taste VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on a household health production framework, this paper exploits the combination of socio-economic, health and nutrition information from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey to analyze the endogenous relationship among wealth, nutrition, weight and the final health outcomes. Using structural equation modelling, we reach three main conclusions: (1) higher wealth is associated with lower weight and better health as expected, but because of a better diet rather than extra exercise or lower calorie consumption; (2) while reduced exercise and unhealthy diets have a direct negative effect on health, this does not rule out an additional adverse health outcome associated with larger weight; (3) the waist- hip ratio is a better predictor of health outcomes than body-mass index. The study has also limitations and model specification can be further improved by including prices and other behavioural determinants. However, there is a lack of such a comprehensive data-set.VI. -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden What use one more wake up call? http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/ http://tinyurl.com/277bz9m |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
In article ,
"songbird" wrote: Billy wrote: ... Seems like the problem is the distribution of wealth. seems like the problem is people eating poorly. songbird Songbird and Billy are correct. The poor do eat poorly. However, Corn, Wheat, Soybeans and Rice are subsidized foods. These subsidized foods make processed foods very cheap. Fresh fruits and vegetables are not subsidized are cost much more per calorie than: Corn Chips, Sandwiches and Cereals. Also many poor communities do not have a super markets near them (I am talking poor in the United States). Super Markets want a nice profit margin when they build stores. Poor communities also do not have good public transportation to get to those nice markets. The poor communities tend to have small party stores which sells only canned or packaged goods which the poor can mostly afford. Distribution of wealth can help the poor eat better. Also over population of the planet also contributes to poverty and not as eating as well due to limited resources of the planet. -- Enjoy Life... Dan Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
phorbin wrote:
songbird says... "are still under experimental evaluation" most of these pretty much prove my initial statements accurate enough for general conversational purposes. good job! I find your attitude tiresome. It's probably best that I add you to a killfile for awhile. good day, i hope you find whatever you are looking for in a decent conversation. i'll drop it now. peace all, songbird |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
In article ,
"songbird" wrote: Billy wrote: ... Seems like the problem is the distribution of wealth. seems like the problem is people eating poorly. songbird ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
In article ,
"songbird" wrote: phorbin wrote: songbird says... "are still under experimental evaluation" most of these pretty much prove my initial statements accurate enough for general conversational purposes. good job! I find your attitude tiresome. It's probably best that I add you to a killfile for awhile. good day, i hope you find whatever you are looking for in a decent conversation. i'll drop it now. peace all, songbird Come on, shake it, boid, shake it. -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
Billy wrote:
In article , Bill who putters wrote: In article , phorbin wrote: I don't have time to supply cites but the truth is out there. Try sugar salt fat acts brain drug study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Truly, an excellent presentation. The content was good. The delivery was rather self indulgent, it could have been, should have been, reduced from 1 1/2 hours to 1. There was too much courting the audience and too much previewing what was to come. In a lecture format questioning of the audience is generally helpful in engaging them however you couldn't hear the audience response so for the viewer it was a waste of time. Of course the small screen format made it impossible to read most of the slides but that is not the lecturers fault. I know, I am hard to please. But the message was good, I learned quite a few things. David |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
feeling the love in the grapes
Billy wrote:
.... Come on, shake it, boid, shake it. i love you too Billy. the grapes look ok, i might get some kind of crop out of them yet this year. the birds are being birds so i'm losing some to pecks and poop damage. some are being stung and i remove them when seen. only a few have shown signs of rot and i've trimmed them off too just in case that can spread further. for the rest there are plenty showing no sign of rot and good clean loose bunches that should plump up well. getting them through the rest of the summer will be a challenge and it's so early yet. amazing that a large number are already the size of a nickel (and getting into the safe from black rot zone now). have a nice day, now i have to go weed and SAVE THE LEAF LITTER! songbird |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Return On Investment
In article ,
"songbird" wrote: Billy wrote: ... ------- So that is what we were talking about, this crazy organic gardening thing. You know, the way in which all food was grown before 1945. false. some food was grown organically pre 1945, but much of the rest of it was grown in a kind of slow motion slash and burn agriculture. the slash and burn was not tropical forests, but the result is still the same, the topsoil is used up in many places and there is no cheap fix. 1) Is this some kind of fuzzy idea, or just another brain fart? Are you confusing organic with sustainable? Are there any man made chemicals used in your slash and burn agriculture? If, not, it was organic. have you made any claims about pre-history and sustainabilty? When did the conversation become sustainability? Again, commercial factory agriculture isn't sustainable, because at some point we will run out of fossil fuels (non-sustainable), if we don't die from the heat and H2S first. other than your general waving of the word organic at it, but i suspect that much of what you think about pre-history isn't accurate either. Again, judgement without facts. It comes second nature to you. With small populations, hunter-gathering was sustainable. http://www.environnement.ens.fr/pers.../mistake_jared _diamond.pdf As to other cultures of pre-history, which one used man-made fertilizers, or pesticides, hmmm? i'll admit i don't know either. I think you'll find general agreement to that statement. So now you propose that eating the way we did before 1945, and reaping the benefit of flavonoids as we did before 1945 is some kind of "organic religion". it is if science eventually shows that the pathways that flavonoids take in the body are not universally beneficial then my point is valid. i mentioned the liver in specific because it is vital to any debate about nutritional health and various effects from different sources. also, there is such a thing as too much of a substance not being a good thing. folic acid, vitamin A, copper, selenium, iron, and many others, required in small amounts, but beyond that amount possibly toxic. what makes you think that flavonoids escape that type of problem? do they flush out of the body without any cellular intervention -- does the liver not have to regulate them or their byproducts? i'll admit i don't know, i'm not sure the science is in on them completely. or at least i would be very surprised if any reputable scientist says they are a 100% solved item. there's much we still do not know. You know, if you could make a statement instead of wandering off into sophistry, this would be a discussion, instead of theater of the absurd. Since falvonoids exist in all plants (not counting fungi) that we eat, where is the incidence of excess consumption, hmmmm? While Wikipedia may not be perfect, it is sufficient for a citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavonoid Flavonoid Biological roles They also protect plants from attacks by microbes, fungi[3] and insects. (When plants are grown with pesticides, flavonoids are less necessary, and fewer are produced. Parentheses mine) Potential for biological activity Flavonoids (specifically flavanoids such as the catechins) are "the most common group of polyphenolic compounds in the human diet and are found ubiquitously in plants".[4] Flavonols, the original bioflavonoids such as quercetin, are also found ubiquitously, but in lesser quantities. Both sets of compounds have evidence of health-modulating effects in animals which eat them. The widespread distribution of flavonoids, their variety and their relatively low toxicity compared to other active plant compounds (for instance alkaloids) mean that many animals, including humans, ingest significant quantities in their diet. Resulting from experimental evidence that they may modify allergens, viruses, and carcinogens, flavonoids have potential to be biological "response modifiers", such as anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory,[5] anti-microbial[6] and anti-cancer activities shown from in vitro studies.[7] Antioxidant activity in vitro Flavonoids (both flavonols and flavanols) are most commonly known for their antioxidant activity in vitro. (I'll let you look up free radicle. Parentheses mine) ---- Then on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:53:45, I try to show carbon sequestration in the soil, in part by describing the flora and fauna found in good garden soil, your effort failed, most people agree with me that healthy garden soil does not sequester carbon, for the most part it cycles it. In the sense that there is more carbon in garden soil than in impoverished, commercial, factory-farming soil, where there is next to none? Even you should be able to understand that. if you want to argue that changing poor soils to better sequesters carbon then i'll give you that, How gallant of you. but that is still a small and limited amount compared to what is actually needed. and then, eventually the poor soil improves to the point where it mostly cycles carbon again, but it is not the same degree of carbon sink as compared to a forest. but even the mature forest will be a relatively carbon neutral cycle. As compared to a prairie? note: there were some interesting hints in the literature i scanned about some sequestration by certain bacteria in soil that already had charcoal/char/etc in it, but i'm not sure this is a phenomena that will be repeatable world wide. it might require tropical jungle conditions with a certain level of moisture or some other factors not very transferrable. i.e. the science is still out on this. a small glimmer there from what i've seen so far. i'm always looking for more such hints of hope. I'm glad you read the material I posted, I was thinking it was a complete waste of electrons. I repeat. You are either very dense or a troll. most often i'm amused, but whatever makes you happy. Trust me. You wouldn't be. songbird I fear I've strained your brain by going to what "MAY" be the next step in our understanding of nutrition, "flavoniods", so let me back up and just direct that ADHA little mind of yours to the citations below, comparing organic and contemporary commercial (factory farmed) produce. http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/the-...e-against-comm ercially-grown-foods.html http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/delate/ http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...commercial_foo d/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555301750164244 http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri018.htm http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html http://www.organixentral.co.uk/rutgers.html Let me add, that this exchange isn't for you, but for others who may read it. The conversation shows your lack of authoritative support by the lack of citations, and the sophistry of your arguments, e.g. referring to earthworms as an invasive species in a discussion about gardening. Happy trolling. -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
AMC: Super Couple of the past return and speculation about their return *spoilers!* | Ponds | |||
Perennials reward your landscape investment | Gardening | |||
Will pine investment be a bad risk now? (Was: New problems with GM corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Will pine investment be a bad risk now? | sci.agriculture | |||
alternative investment | alt.forestry |