Re: Spaceflight and human immunity

[Guest guest]

> (I also wonder about the

>increasingly awful stuff soldiers are fed in the field -- diet sodas left

>to bake in the sun, macaroni and " cheese " MREs, etc. It can't be all that

>much healthier.)

My dh and his brother are in the Naval Reserves (they were on active duty

during the first Gulf War), and they call MREs Meals Rejected by Everyone

else. They also joke about the name, Meals Ready to Eat, saying that the

contents are in fact none of those things. Your tax dollars hard at work,

folks!

[Guest guest]

You know, that's a very interesting question. I'm fairly certain

that most of it is the microgravity (after all, plenty of people in the

US eat far less nutrient rich material for much longer periods of time)

but even something as simple a increasing the amount of animal fat in

the food would make most of the nutrients in the food far more available

and that might put off some of the microgravity effects.

On the other hand, an improvement in the foods used to feed our

soldiers (and students) is definitely called for. With greater nutrition

and better food would come increased health, decreased carbohydrate

obesity, greater lucidity of thought, and improved morale. Meals Ready

to Eat (MRE's are less adaptable but there are still some tweaks that

could be used to improve a food source to be relied upon in one of the

most stressful situations known to man.

Geoffrey Tolle

Idol wrote:

> Thought some of you might be interested in this.

>

> I've always wondered how much of the bone demineralization and muscle

> loss

> that afflicts astronauts in space is really because of the

> microgravity, as

> they say, and how much is actually because of the appalling food (if you

> can even call it food) they're fed up there.

[Guest guest]

-

>My dh and his brother are in the Naval Reserves (they were on active duty

>during the first Gulf War), and they call MREs Meals Rejected by Everyone

>else. They also joke about the name, Meals Ready to Eat, saying that the

>contents are in fact none of those things. Your tax dollars hard at work,

>folks!

I read an article maybe a year ago about how much " progress " the military

has made with MREs since the first Gulf War, making dishes like macaroni

and cheese that troops actually (well, supposedly) want to eat, but reading

about what the dishes were actually made from, it sounded like a recipe for

ill health and nothing but. Interesting to hear they aren't (or weren't,

anyway) actually ready to eat, though. I wonder whether that's still true.

-

[Guest guest]

Geoffrey-

>I'm fairly certain

>that most of it is the microgravity (after all, plenty of people in the

>US eat far less nutrient rich material for much longer periods of time)

Admittedly I'm not up on the latest in astronaut rations, but I'm not so

sure about that. Literally nothing an astronaut eats while in space is

unprocessed, not even semi-unprocessed. Even SAD eaters generally get some

fresh meat in some form or other, even if it's a Big Mac made with the

worst available beef. AFAIK everything an astronaut eats has to be

reconstituted from powder and paste, and since foods processed into powders

and refined as highly as that tend to be pretty toxic, it wouldn't surprise

me if a major cause of their physical degeneration is in fact dietary.

>With greater nutrition

>and better food would come increased health, decreased carbohydrate

>obesity, greater lucidity of thought, and improved morale.

Not to mention less shell shock (or PTSD, or whatever they're calling it

now) and more hardiness and fewer non-battle-related injuries -- and who

knows, maybe fewer casualties, if the soldiers were in better health and

thus able to be more on the ball. It's criminal, sending soldiers into

harm's way and feeding them swill like that.

-

[Guest guest]

At 07:09 PM 9/29/2004, you wrote:

>Not to mention less shell shock (or PTSD, or whatever they're calling it

>now) and more hardiness and fewer non-battle-related injuries -- and who

>knows, maybe fewer casualties, if the soldiers were in better health and

>thus able to be more on the ball. It's criminal, sending soldiers into

>harm's way and feeding them swill like that.

>

>-

Course, if you want to get into how we treat our troops, you

could also talk about depleted uranium, strange vaccinations,

using them as guinea pigs, lack of armor-plated vehicles,

extended tours of duty ...

Actually in the old days I think they might have done

better by the troops sometimes. Ghenghis Khan wasn't

the model of humanitarianism, but his troops carried

pickled cabbage, he travelled with the troops so

shared the danger, and everyone got to pillage so

there was hope of reward. Anyway, as far as health,

I read somewhere that he is credited for coming up

with better ways to feed his troops.

I better shut up now or I'll have to add " POLITICS " ...

Heidi Jean