| Pages:
1
2 |
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Chemical Evidence for an Alkaline Diet and Meditation?
Per this my recent thread:
Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  | If a problem relates to any of the products: •Br, •Br + Br- = •Br2- (from photoactive Br2, see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... ), or HOBr,..., I would try adding alkaline H2O2, which creates the radicals
•HO2 and •OH, thereby effectively removing radical species:
•Br2- + H2O2 -> 2Br-+ •HO2 + H+ k=1.0E+05 (Equation reference, see http://binarystore.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2006JD008227/asse... )
•Br2- + OH- -> 2Br- + •OH k=1.1E+10
•Br + OH- -> Br- + •OH
H2O2 + •OH -> H2O + •HO2
Note, H+ + •O2- = •HO2 (pKa = 4.88)
Other reactions employing the above radicals to remove problem •Br, •Br2- radicals:
•Br + •HO2 -> Br- + H+ + O2
•Br + •O2- -> Br- + O2
•Br2- + •HO2 -> 2Br- + H+ + O2 k=4.4E+09
•Br2- + •O2- -> 2Br- + O2 k=1.7E+08
......................
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER] |
A re-examination of my comments above possibly suggests first that an alkaline diet could introduce harmful •OH radicals, which could contribute to
cell damage, aging and disease (cancers,.., see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/ )! But, in the presence of higher metabolically generated H2O2, beneficial, in the proper
level, •O2- could be formed. Per a source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618079/ ), to quote:
"Superoxide dismutases are also antioxidant enzymes that work with copper/zinc in the cytosol and manganese in mitochondria catalyzing the breakdown
of superoxide anions into oxygen and H2O2 [77,78]."
More superoxide (•O2-) could also be formed via an iron rich blood (from foods like spinach,.. ) per a metal auto-oxidation reaction:
O2 + Fe(ll)L = •O2- + Fe(lll)L
where well oxygenated blood could arise from activities like meditation or exercise. Ligand complex here includes ascorbate from Vitamin C. To quote a
reference above (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/):
"Although there are several enzymes system within the body that scavenge free radicals, the principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are
vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] "
Also:
"Antioxidants act as radical scavenger, hydrogen donor, electron donor, peroxide decomposer, singlet oxygen quencher, enzyme inhibitor, synergist, and
metal-chelating agents. "
Per another source (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618079/ ), CONCENTRATION levels are important, to quote:
"Additionally, the ability of redox-active metals such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), and cobalt (Co)) in generation of superoxide anion
radical and nitric oxide radicals have been widely studies. For example, it is known that excessive amounts of Iron and copper can be toxic for cells
as they affect the redox state of the cell [49]."
"Indeed, metabolic processes may produce different types of ROS, including superoxide (O2•−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydroxyl radicals (OH•)
and singlet oxygen (O2), which can, if present at an inappropriate level, oxidize DNA and induce various types of damages such as double-stranded DNA
breaks and impairments which are frequently found in human tumors [50]. "
"Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) act with reactive oxygen species (ROS) to induce nitrosative stress condition. In animal cells, RNS production starts
with the reaction of superoxide (O2•−) with nitric oxide (NO•) to form peroxynitrite (ONOO−), which is a highly reactive species with the
ability to damage lipids, DNA bases, proteins, thiols, etc. Since generation of RNS is linked to ROS, it is not surprising that scavengers and
antioxidants could reduce the formation and activity of RNS and thus nitrosative stress condition."
I believe red meats may contribute to reactive nitrogen species, which are apparently problematic. Final quote:
"Combined, it is clear that ROS biology is complex where cells have evolved intricate mechanisms to modulate ROS levels, ensuring redox homeostasis,
depending on cell state and fate."
So it may be hard to assess, but I suspect things like an alkaline, vegetable rich diet, exercise, Vitamins C, E, Beta carotene,.. , less red meat and
meditation, all from a biochemical perspective, are likely good for the body, which is basically all stuff we have been told, but usually don't take
seriously.
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In the real world, any excess alkali in the diet will be excreted in the urine. The body has several robust systems in place to maintain pH.
So an "alkaline diet" is meaningless. It's the sort of nonsense that people use when they want to sell you "healing crystals"
Iron in the blood is strongly bound to proteins specially evolved for the purpose. The concentration of free Fe++ or Fe+++ ions is practically nil.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks Unionised for the comment.
I may take issue with the nil concentration comment, as does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule, perhaps resulting in a single
cancerous cell, that with time, may proliferate into a sizable tumor?
Also, while I agree that the body has early in life 'several robust systems' to address pH and also to administer the removal of cancer cells and the
like, does not the immune system weaken with age?
I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic
acid), and B-carotene.[32] ", to not put them in the same class of "healing crystals" which you appear to believe is the case for reducing ones
acidity.
For disclosure, I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do
unfortunately, know people who would probably buy them (and further suspect that they might not be of this planet, galaxy, or dimension).
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
You can not influence acidity of the body with diet. First everything is made highly acidic on the stomach. Next the blood is highly buffered.
Anything alkaline you eat is just compensated by your stomach producing more acid.
Changing the pH of your blood gives far more direct effects on once health (read; acute acidosis). Besides that it is not the immune system that makes
sure pH is regulated, it is pure chemistry and doesn't deteriorate with age.
You are mixing up chemistry and biology big-time. You are making up problems that don't exist and back them up with assumptions that don't work like
you assume.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | Thanks Unionised for the comment.
I may take issue with the nil concentration comment, as does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule, perhaps resulting in a single
cancerous cell, that with time, may proliferate into a sizable tumor?
Also, while I agree that the body has early in life 'several robust systems' to address pH and also to administer the removal of cancer cells and the
like, does not the immune system weaken with age?
I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic
acid), and B-carotene.[32] ", to not put them in the same class of "healing crystals" which you appear to believe is the case for reducing ones
acidity.
For disclosure, I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do
unfortunately, know people who would probably buy them (and further suspect that they might not be of this planet, galaxy, or dimension).
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER] |
" does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule,"
Yes, it does.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that the concentration of free iron ions in blood is practically nil. If they are not there, they don't cause
cancer.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant
"does not the immune system weaken with age?"
Yes, it does.
And so do the liver and kidneys, but the pH of the blood is still maintained within very tight limits.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant.
"I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic
acid), and B-carotene.[32] ""
Yes, there are.
But those don't say anything about an "alkaline diet", do they- they can't because such a diet has little effect- the excess alkali gets pissed out.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant.
" I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do unfortunately,
know people who would probably buy them"
Those people are the ones who buy into "alkaline diets".
[Edited on 29-9-18 by unionised]
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
To add to this, the way your body controls your blood pH is by breathing. CO2 lowers your blood pH, after all, and you need to breathe to eliminate
CO2. If your blood pH starts to get below 7.4, you'll start breathing more heavily. If your blood pH goes above 7.4, you'll breathe less. If you
want to raise your blood pH, you can do it right now! Just start hyperventilating! Then you'll give yourself respiratory alkalosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_alkalosis
Sounds fun, right?
As for things like aging, it's mostly caused by the fact that your cells can only divide something like 50 times before they'll start undergoing
apoptosis. Parts of you like your skin and your hair and your stomach lining are constantly dividing and shedding themselves. Since you're a
warm-blooded life form, you can't do much to change the rate that this happens. So you're pretty much consigned to live until either you get some
terminal illness, or your body stops being able to repair itself and one of your critical systems stops working.
Cancer is part random, part genetics, and part environmental. You probably have cancer cells in your body right now, but your immune system usually
takes care of them for you. Cancer starts with cells mutating though. Some species are really good at fixing cell mutations. Like sharks. Shark
cells can fix mutations so quickly that they almost never get cancer. Some people even take shark cartilage capsules because they think it will help
their bodies fend off cancer. But there's a downside to this resistance to cellular mutation. That being, mutation is a necessary condition for
evolution. And while shark cells are great at fixing mutations, it's meant that sharks have barely evolved in like 100 million years.
Presumably, we'll be able to control our own evolution via genetic engineering in the future, and won't need to rely on random mutation. When that
day comes, we'll probably also be able to engineer our cells to be as resistant to mutation as shark cells are. But in the meantime, we'll have to
just accept the fact that cancer is something bad that can happen to us, and is sort of an evolutionary side-effect of our dominance in the race
towards planetary domination.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
Mr. Rogers
Hazard to Others
Posts: 184
Registered: 30-10-2017
Location: Ammonia Avenue
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
From a health perspective, the best diet is probably a Mediterranean diet (which involves eating some fish) followed by a vegan diet.
Probably like most ppl. here, I have five grocery stores within walking distance of my house. These stores have isles of food stocked with choices
that don't involve dead animals. People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you
have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.
This is certainly a position of privilege and if I lived in the interior of Alaska there is no grocery store and I would have to hunt for my food.
But if you're an urban/suburbanite there's no reason you should be eating meat as you have *many* ethical choices available to you.
I certainly don't think a chemist (or a scientist) should be eating meat unless there is no other choice.
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers]
|
|
|
streety
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 14-5-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Nutrition science really has problems. Beyond disease causing deficiencies we know so little and it is so difficult to get conclusive evidence on the
more subtle effects.
Ideally we would have an optimal diet that works for everyone. Unfortunately, such a thing does not exist. The optimal diet is going to be influenced
by a persons genetics, environment, immunological status, microbiome, health goals, activity level, ethics, and probably other factors not even
occurring to me.
So until we are able to fully address all the nuances of human health we are left with an ever proliferating list of diet options. Some are truly
dangerous with no positive aspects but most, like any good lie, have just enough truth to deceive.
With the example of the Alkaline diet, although it is based on a flawed theory, many of the recommendations (more fruit and veg, less processed food,
etc.) would be an improvement on the diet of many people.
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | | Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER |
I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic
acid), and B-carotene.[32] ",
|
"I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic
acid), and B-carotene.[32] ""
Yes, there are.
But those don't say anything about an "alkaline diet", do they- they can't because such a diet has little effect- the excess alkali gets pissed out.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant. |
That quote seems to be from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/
Reference 32 is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217058/
Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but reading it only vitamin C is discussed. Even for vitamin C it is unclear whether the reference supports the
claim.
I interpreted the claim as indicating the main dietary sources of antioxidant capacity were vitamin C, E, and beta-carotene. It's a simple claim and
certainly seems plausible. There should be easy to find studies but searching around I'm struggling to find any evidence to support it.
Nutrition science really has problems.
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers | From a health perspective, the best diet is probably a Mediterranean diet (which involves eating some fish) followed by a vegan diet.
Probably like most ppl. here, I have five grocery stores within walking distance of my house. These stores have isles of food stocked with choices
that don't involve dead animals. People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you
have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.
This is certainly a position of privilege and if I lived in the interior of Alaska there is no grocery store and I would have to hunt for my food.
But if you're an urban/suburbanite there's no reason you should be eating meat as you have *many* ethical choices available to you.
I certainly don't think a chemist (or a scientist) should be eating meat unless there is no other choice.
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers] |
See, I can understand a vegetarian diet, but a vegan diet? That's based way more on an environmentalism perspective than a health perspective. While
there is overlap, they aren't the same thing. Just because eating too much fatty meat is bad for you, doesn't mean there are necessarily going to be
negative health effects from eating any meat at all. That's like saying that because refined sugar and vegetable oil both come from plants and aren't
very healthy, people shouldn't eat plants.
I don't even buy the environmentalism perspective, at least when it comes to dairy farming. In Switzerland, for example, the entire country was only
able to exist because of dairy farming. Farmers would graze their cattle in the mountains during the summer, then bring them down into the valleys
and feed them hay during the winter. The land and climate only really work for livestock farming. The same is true in places like Wisconsin and
Vermont. And for anyone that thinks dairy farming is cruel, it's a well-established fact that stressed cows produce less milk. One farm near me had
a new barn being built on their land, and noticed that milk production went up over the weekend. Apparently, all the noises from construction
bothered the cows, and they gave less milk during the week. So "cow comfort" is at the top of the list for farmers that want to increase their milk
production.
[Edited on 9/29/18 by Melgar]
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Having a lot of very personal experience with body chemistry being out of whack and cancer, I can make a few comments.
If you have chronic acidosis, they give you medicine to treat the cause and/or symptoms.
In my case I have taken allopurinol and sodium citrate.
The allopurinol effects how uric acid is generated from protein break down.
sodium citrate is an alkalizer as well as helping keep calcium oxalate in solution.
As for cancer, yes free radicals can damage DNA. So can our shared hobby if you don't take proper precautions.
No there is not significant 'free radicals' in any one cell or anywhere in particular.
Oxygen will cause damage to cells over time. So if you are seriously concerned, you should stop breathing it.
It is 100% fatal in the long term. But then not breathing is 100% fatal in the short term.
If you have a genetic predisposition for cancer you should get checked regularly and yes a vegan diet can help but nothing in life is 100% except
death. That is coming for all of us. But I personally am not giving up meat.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers | People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you have alternative choices in the
isles of the grocery store available to you.
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers] |
I disagree with your odd suggestion taste is not a good argument for choosing what to eat.
From a strict dietary health perspective, I shouldn't drink alcohol either- but it's not going to stop me.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | ...
The allopurinol effects how uric acid is generated from protein break down.
sodium citrate is an alkalizer as well as helping keep calcium oxalate in solution.
... |
Uric acid is produced from DNA, and RNA, rather than from proteins, but the problem there isn't the acidity of uric acid, but the insolubility.
Sodium citrate alters the pH of the urine helping with the excretion of uric acid (among other things) but it doesn't meaningfully affect the
pH of the blood etc.
| Quote: Originally posted by Melgar |
See, I can understand a vegetarian diet, but a vegan diet? That's based way more on an environmentalism perspective than a health perspective.
[Edited on 9/29/18 by Melgar] |
I think it's usually based on a moral decision; "eating sentient things is wrong".
[Edited on 30-9-18 by unionised]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Each juicy morsel of meat is alive, and swarming with the same filth as found in the carcass of a dead rat.
Meat eaters, Sir, are drowning in a tide of gore.
What is a sausage? A sausage is an indigestible balloon of decayed meat, riddled with tuberculosis.
Eat and die!
For I have seen many a repentant meat-glutton, his body full of uric acid and remorse, his soul adrift on a raft on an ocean of poisonous slime.
Also, certain other things have to be avoided:
Like Feather Beds, Romantic Novels, and the touching of one's organs.
Remember, every erection is a flagpole on your grave...
-John Harvey Kellogg, vegetarian and yogurt enema enthusiast
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5126
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's interesting.
It suggest he didn't realise that people usually cook meat.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
He lost me at touching your organ is to be avoided.
|
|
|
Mr. Rogers
Hazard to Others
Posts: 184
Registered: 30-10-2017
Location: Ammonia Avenue
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | I think it's usually based on a moral decision; "eating sentient things is wrong". |
I don't think it's wrong. It's necessary in many cases. I do however think it's not always an ethical choice when there are alternatives - and
that's not the same as a moral choice. Morality involves dogma where ethics doesn't.
[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
In the case of health benefits from an alkaline diet I guess ethical dilemma's concerning eating meat are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Mr. Rogers
Hazard to Others
Posts: 184
Registered: 30-10-2017
Location: Ammonia Avenue
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An "alkaline diet" is a pseudo scientific diet and is as meaningless as a blood type diet or South Beach diet or any other type of fad diet. You can
achieve proper heath and nutrition from most diets if you consume all foods in moderation. This goes for diets heavy or devoid of animal proteins.
Understand also I'm not using the term "diet" as synonymous with "activity to loose weight", but rather a style of consuming food - ie. I can believe
you'll loose weight by eliminating any single macro nutrient from your diet if all other parameters are kept equal - ie. eliminating meat or starch or
fat or whatever else. That's just a calorie reduction, and that's why fad diets seem to work.
Most humans should be eating a 1500-2000 kcal/day diet, heavily biased on plant matter, and if your circumstances warrant, maybe adding oily fish such
as sardines to your diet. That calorie count is based on average human basal metabolic rate for sedentary people in a post-modern society. If you're
like most people that post on internet forums that go to the gym three times a day and run marathons, than you should adjust your calorie count
accordingly.
[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]
|
|
|
Mr. Rogers
Hazard to Others
Posts: 184
Registered: 30-10-2017
Location: Ammonia Avenue
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Melgar | | Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers | From a health perspective, the best diet is probably a Mediterranean diet (which involves eating some fish) followed by a vegan diet.
Probably like most ppl. here, I have five grocery stores within walking distance of my house. These stores have isles of food stocked with choices
that don't involve dead animals. People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you
have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.
This is certainly a position of privilege and if I lived in the interior of Alaska there is no grocery store and I would have to hunt for my food.
But if you're an urban/suburbanite there's no reason you should be eating meat as you have *many* ethical choices available to you.
I certainly don't think a chemist (or a scientist) should be eating meat unless there is no other choice.
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers] |
See, I can understand a vegetarian diet, but a vegan diet? That's based way more on an environmentalism perspective than a health perspective. While
there is overlap, they aren't the same thing. Just because eating too much fatty meat is bad for you, doesn't mean there are necessarily going to be
negative health effects from eating any meat at all. That's like saying that because refined sugar and vegetable oil both come from plants and aren't
very healthy, people shouldn't eat plants.
I don't even buy the environmentalism perspective, at least when it comes to dairy farming. In Switzerland, for example, the entire country was only
able to exist because of dairy farming. Farmers would graze their cattle in the mountains during the summer, then bring them down into the valleys
and feed them hay during the winter. The land and climate only really work for livestock farming. The same is true in places like Wisconsin and
Vermont. And for anyone that thinks dairy farming is cruel, it's a well-established fact that stressed cows produce less milk. One farm near me had
a new barn being built on their land, and noticed that milk production went up over the weekend. Apparently, all the noises from construction
bothered the cows, and they gave less milk during the week. So "cow comfort" is at the top of the list for farmers that want to increase their milk
production.
[Edited on 9/29/18 by Melgar] |
The environmental impact of raising ruminants, poultry or pork for food is a negative gain. This can be explained by the laws of thermodynamics. We
simply put more energy into raising these organism for food than we gain as energy in the form of calories in the human diet. This is simply not the
case with responsibly grown plant matter which humans are capable of existing on, as we're omnivores.
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers | The environmental impact of raising ruminants, poultry or pork for food is a negative gain. This can be explained by the laws of thermodynamics. We
simply put more energy into raising these organism for food than we gain as energy in the form of calories in the human diet. This is simply not the
case with responsibly grown plant matter which humans are capable of existing on, as we're omnivores.
|
Not entirely true, at least in the case of cattle farming, which is the only type of livestock farming that I have personal experience with. Cattle
convert grass, which humans cannot eat, into milk and beef, which many humans are quite fond of. Land that's being used to raise cattle would
probably have been left fallow otherwise. You know how the Great Plains in the US used to have all those vast herds of bison? Well, that land is
still being grazed, just by cattle now. And cattle and bison are related closely enough that they can interbreed, so the main thing that changed is
that now all those calories are being consumed by people.
Also, it's arbitrary to compare the energy we put into producing our food to the energy we consume. After all, energy that people consume as calories
is dwarfed by the energy used by industry and commerce and transportation. Humans have proven exceptionally adept at harnessing the various energies
that exist in nature, and I don't think it should be counted against us when we use those energies.
| Quote: | | This is simply not the case with responsibly grown plant matter |
How is that not true of "responsibly grown" meat as well? Traditionally, pigs have been fed garbage, chickens picked around all day at whatever they
could find on the ground, and cattle, sheep, and goats ate plant matter that people could not. You can't compare ideal "responsibly grown" conditions
for plants, to actual practices of modern livestock farming. Because produce farming, as it's actually practiced, is incredibly wasteful, uses tons
of energy for refrigeration and transportation, and typically produces food that is low in calories anyway. The only crops we approach the break-even
point on are things like corn, soybeans, rice, and sugarcane. But I think we can both agree that a diet too heavy in those crops isn't very healthy
at all.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3694
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Offline
|
|
Clarify a simple question for me
Is it true that humans can live a full length, healthy, active life,
eating only vegetable matter ?
_____________________________________________________
I have no moral or ethical objections to flesh eating
I eat flesh daily because I like it, and my mind and body can handle it,
but I can see a need to reduce flesh consumption as arable land area and marine stock decrease, while population increases.
I am much more concerned with :
. how we treat each other,
. how we treat animals,
. and the unethical practices of many of our corporate food producers.
(both vegetable and animal food producers)
_________________________________________________________
Regarding the original question posed by AJKOER,
I have no information, just conjecture;
To a large degree I consider my body to be able to 'normalise' internal conditions
as external conditions such as diet, climate, pathogen exposure etc. are varied,
with the speed and degree of 'normalisation' depending upon
my inherited DNA, proteins, bacteria etc.
the history of my body
the type and speed of changes to external conditions.
I think that that efficacy of each component of the 'normalising' systems
can over time grow stronger or weaker as 'required'.
Which I am grateful for, but makes experimentation too complex for me.
and
components can be damaged/worn out by 'over use'
or lose effectiveness due to lack of use.
so
after that long and winding preamble, I believe that,
if you keep forcing your body in one direction (alkaline)
components that counteract the non-normal conditions will be stressed, possibly damaged
components that could produce the (alkaline) conditions will loose effectiveness if/when required.
I do not know what 'normal' is 
[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Sulaiman]
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman | Is it true that humans can live a full length, healthy, active life,
eating only vegetable matter ?
_____________________________________________________
I have no moral or ethical objections to flesh eating
I eat flesh daily because I like it, and my mind and body can handle it,
but I can see a need to reduce flesh consumption as arable land area and marine stock decrease, while population increases.
I am much more concerned with :
. how we treat each other,
. how we treat animals,
. and the unethical practices of many of our corporate food producers.
(both vegetable and animal food producers) |
Yes. It is possible for people to subsist entirely on plant matter, however it could take some research and effort to maintain intake of things like
B vitamins at healthy levels.
There is definitely a need to reduce meat consumption, however a great deal of land in the world is not well-suited for growing crops, and is
therefore used to graze livestock. You can't just convert cattle ranches into strawberry farms.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3694
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Offline
|
|
Excellent
"Yes. It is possible for people to subsist entirely on plant matter,"
This means that as many people as possible should be encouraged to be vegetarian.
That will leave much more meat for me.
mmmmm...
|
|
|
Mr. Rogers
Hazard to Others
Posts: 184
Registered: 30-10-2017
Location: Ammonia Avenue
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, absolutely. Many people live this way.
There is a big focus on things like B-vitamins and iodine, but in the medical literature, there is not a single case of a veggie eater being deficient
in these without *also* being malnourished.
If you live in the Western world, just think about how many foods you eat that are fortified with B-vitamins. I think a single can of Red Bull has
something like a *years* supply of B12 (12,0000ug or something like that). That's not to say you can drink one can of Red Bull a year as a vitamin
supplement, just that these vitamins are common in store-bought foods and only small amounts are required.
Anyway, if this is of concern, you can just pop a pill. There's no ethical quandary to do doing so.
[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Redbull contains a couple days worth of B12. Couple off years worth of B12 could actually be stored by the body, if a single consumption of that
amount could be taken up by the body is another question, as you need intrinsic factor in the gut to bind the vitamin before it can be absorpted.
Non animal products do not contain any B12; non of it. Therefor you cannot live solely on vegetables. Dairy products do suffice though. Without
fortified diet a vegan will get vitamine shortages. Saying a vegan diet is fine because in the modern world fortified foods are available doesn't cut
it for me. In the modern world a vegan will be fine, but only on the modern world...
Vegetables can be properly digested by humans, but only when cooked. Raw vegans develop malnutrition quickly.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
