Jump to content

9nines

Members
  • Posts

    469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

9nines's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. This is very interesting, where did you hear about this? I have read it in Dr. McDougall stuff before and Dr. Neal Bernard briefly discussed it on a radio show recently.
  2. Yes I think it probably works the way your body treats iron. For an example of a likely similar body process: From what I have read and heard from doctors (Dr. Neal Bernard was discussing this on a show last weekend, as a matter of fact), if your diet is lower in iron, your body produces more ferritin, which is a protein that increases storage and release of iron. If your diet is high in iron, your body produces less ferritin, to cut down storage. This is why non-heme iron (plant-based) might actually be superior to heme iron (animal sourced) while most critics opine that non-heme is inferior. Critics often cite that non-heme iron is less absorbed by your body so it is inferior to animal based iron which is more easily absorbed. But actually it is not less absorbed; it is just more sensitive (its absorption can be amplified or retarded by body chemistry), therefore your body can better control it, as I wrote in the first paragraph. Whereas, your body can not control heme iron absorption as easily, since it is much less sensitive to the body's chemistry, so if you eat too much heme iron, your body will have to deal with the higher amount since iron is toxic if you get too much and your body can not easily retard the absorption of heme-iron. But if you eat too much non-heme iron, your body just retards the absorption through its own chemistry and then it does not have to deal with the excess or if your diet is low, it amplifies the absorption. I do not know on DHA specifically but I would assume your body's chemistry handles it similarly, therefore plant based ALA is probably easier to managed along similar chemistry processes than actually consuming EPA from an animal source like fish which would not be as controllable but this is just a guess based on the fact that our bodies work as a system to regulate resources like that and my lay person understanding of how the body handles heme and non-heme iron.
  3. This is an interesting topic. Here are some points I would like to make: 1) What ever early man's diet was, it does not mean it was optimal. Early man only had to live to 25 or 30 years of age to be successful. He likely had kids at puberty and then his kids would need about a dozen years of adult supervision and teaching , after that the 25-30 years of age adults were expendable as far as the tribes success. Even under a bad diet, people would live that long. Therefore, early man could eat pretty much anything and be successful as a species. Therefore, exact diet (early man could eat whatever he could get) was irrelevant to his success and it is therefore a fallacy to declare early man's diet, what ever it was, as optimal as that Paleo Diet tries to do. 2) If you wonder what early man's diet why not look at similar species now. We are great apes. So I would find the actual diet of other great apes that can be observed to be more relevant than hypothesis of what hunter-gathers did or did not eat. Great apes are vegetarian for the most part (Chimps eat the most meat but even then it is a small part of their diet and they tend to do it more ritualistic than for dietary purposes - example, they tend to kill enemy chimps, monkeys, and other small animals in trees and then show off by eating it in front of their tribe or in courting rituals.) 3) The amount of work and time between hunts would make a meat center diet inefficient. I have always doubted that meat was large part of year-round hunter-gathers' diets. It does seem to make sense on the work that would be needed and what you get from that work. What I mean by that is that gaining meat was likely a hard job. First, since man lacked the physical attributes to catch small game (man was certainly not quick and agile enough to catch them, and he lacked claws or sharp teeth to grasp them even if he were quick enough), until traps or precise range weapons were developed, I imagine most of their kills were rather large animals which were slower or less intimidated by man so those animals did not run away as often. But since the animals were large, it likely took a large hunting party to kill them and based on the early crude weapons of man, it probably was a fairly long fight of at least several minutes and possibly longer, so many of the hunters were probably injured to one degree or another. All this (large ordeal, attrition of hunters being hurt and not being able to hunt again right away ) likely meant there were many days between hunts. I.e hunts were likely more weekly events versus daily events. Many hunter gathers lived in warmer climates, so meat would not last but a few days, so even though a single large animal produced a lot of meat for small tribes, it did not last but a few meals or diseases would have been rampant had they kept eating it. So if my assumptions are right and hunts were more weekly than daily events and meat did not last long, what did they do the other days, not eat? Evidently plant food played a large role in their diet and was larger than meat as far as total calories on weekly basis during much of the year. During winter when less plants grew and meat would last much longer, meat was probably a higher percentage of the diet. 4) Agriculture caused a major shift from hunter-gather to domesticated man. I might be wrong but I think anthropology is fairly certain that the progress from hunter-gathers to a domesticated people was largely based on farming. The hypothesis is that man noticed plants he ate growing from his feces (he ate fruit and the seeds passed through his bowels and grew out of his waste) and from that he was able to learn what seeds did and then he expanded on that insight by developing seed cultivating, and later farming. If seed cultivating and farming lead to man domesticated himself, then I would assume plants were central to his diet or why else would he make such a profound change (from hunter-gather to agriculture)? In other words, if man's central diet was meat, would tribes had likely decided to make a major change to their way of life based on plants?
  4. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/07/18 You can not get podcasts for this show without a paid subscription, so you need to listen on radio if you want to hear it. It airs 1:00 am to 5:00 AM Eastern time. You can click on http://www.coasttocoastam.com/affiliates to find a station near you.
  5. I rarely eat at restaurants. Maybe eight or ten times a year, I will eat at a vegetarian restaurant and while it is not exactly healthful, I usually eat grilled tofu sandwich and a sprouted whole wheat bun with freshly prepared french fries, it is closer to whole foods/lightly processed foods than most restaurant food and when I eat there I feel fine. Then, maybe a few times a year, I will eat an all vegetable sandwich from Subway. When I eat the Subway sandwich, I always feel weird. About 20-30 minutes after eating it and for most of the rest of the day, I feel restless yet tired at the same time. I feel flushed and I do not think as completely clearly as normal (much more easily distracted.) Also, I have pressure in my forehead area and around my eyes (not a headache but just a feeling of pressure.) Anyone else have this experience? Any idea what it is? Just typical poor restaurant quality food – chemicals in the bread?
  6. I use my own soap at work (hand bottle.) I leave it on the bathroom sink (usually next to a potted fake plant so others do not see it and waste it - I use a very small dab when I use it.) Today, I came out and it was gone. The sink area and commode area are separated by a door. Someone had entered the commode area after me. I was certain I had brought my soap, so I waited for him to come. He came to sink area and he had the soap. I asked him why he took it and he said he wanted to read the label because he likes to question products that people have that state organic on the product. Based on his comment, I think it is safe to assume he thought it belonged to someone versus being something supplied by the company. It seems extremely rude to take it as he did, plus it is uncomfortable. I leave it on the sink because I do not want it in the commode area. For all I know he put it on the floor then had pee mist get all over it. I also use this soap to wash my plates and eating utensils and I do not like the idea that he took it into a commode stall with him.
  7. I would assume that genetically modified foods are less nutritious. Many micro-nutrients are produced in plants as responses to outside attacks (pest attacks, draughts, disease etc.) Those chemicals protect the plants from those adverse conditions. There are studies that show that organically grown vegetables and fruits, on average, have more nutrients than non-organically grown ones because they must fend for themselves more, a situation which produces the nutrients. So since genetically modified food is engineered to make plants resistant to these attacks, I would assume the plants produce less of these micro nutrients also. In other words, evolution favored these plants to produce these chemicals, that are our micro-nutrients, in response to adverse conditions. The more you take the adverse conditions away, the less nutritious foods will probably become.
  8. I do not understand why the press is not hitting on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five With all the current scandals rocking the US economy, isn’t it very relevant that McCain was one of five principals involved in one of the largest scandals twenty years ago? And people claim there is liberal bias in the media (imagine if the situation was reversed – Obama was involved in something like that-, how much play this would be getting.)
  9. I thought he was mainly looking for ways to personally profit from wind and solar etc. but maybe he does care about stuff. He supports animal welfare legislation - see below: From alert today: Normally we limit our alerts to subjects directly affecting animals, but we are making an exception this time for two reasons: first, the subject affects the environment which indirectly affects animals; and second, the subject deals with a program being proposed by T. Boone Pickens who, along with his wife, Madeleine, has consistently supported THLN both financially and politically. In fact it was the Pickens who so generously gave THLN the challenge grant that allowed us to hire an executive director. The program under consideration is alternative energy sources and, in particular, wind power. Mr. Pickens' plan will help the environment and help America reduce its dependence on foreign oil. You can learn more about Mr. Pickens' plan by going to his website as follows: http://push.pickensplan.com/. Please do so and sign up to support his plan. It's good for the environment, the animals and America. Thank you for your continued support! The Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) is a nonprofit, grassroots organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals through legislation, education and advocacy. For more information about THLN please visit www.thln.org.
  10. Very good video clip. It shows (1) difference in leaders talking to other leaders versus appeasement and (2) that many of the sound bite arguers do not know about what they are talking:
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlGg68fMbhA&NR=1 Is it just a "warped" film or is trying to get people to see from where meat comes by tricking them to watch it? It seems to be making a point from the reading but it is weird. Warning: has animal slaughter in it.
  12. That book made me do home-repairs like regrout my bath tub etc.
  13. What is Avi's age? anyone know?
  14. I like these quotes from Thomas Edison back in 1910 (Source: Interview in Elbert Hubbard's Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great) - and these words were well before any signs of scarcity were seen. He bases his opinion simply on how wasteful combustion is (note the bold and italics - it is such an apt description of current society.) Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. I'll do the trick myself if some one else doesn't get at it. Sunshine is spread out thin and so is electricity. Perhaps they are the same, but we will take that up later. Now the trick was, you see, to concentrate the juice and liberate it as you needed it. The old-fashioned way inaugurated by Jove, of letting it off in a clap of thunder, is dangerous, disconcerting and wasteful. It doesn't fetch up anywhere. My task was to subdivide the current and use it in a great number of little lights, and to do this I had to store it. And we haven't really found out how to store it yet and let it off real easy-like and cheap. Why, we have just begun to commence to get ready to find out about electricity. This scheme of combustion to get power makes me sick to think of--it is so wasteful. It is just the old, foolish Prometheus idea, and the father of Prometheus was a baboon." When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy. Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property. There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen, for it can not be destroyed. Now, I am not sure but that my new storage-battery is the thing. I'd tell you about that, but I don't want to bore you...
  15. What is the opposite of Christmas?
×
×
  • Create New...