Guest guest Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 >> Am I extrapolating? I have heard many people tell the same story. << So what? Really, do you have to turn every passing observation into a universal rule? I have never found dairy foods to be at all " addictive, " nor have I ever had any problems eating just the amount I wanted to eat. On the other hand, I've had that exact problem with sugar, and with starchy foods such as bread, potatos, rice. And yet I manage to not insist that just because I can't eat those things, neither can anyone else, and just because they are addictive for me, they must be addictive to everyone else. Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 On 7/2/05, José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > If nobody needs dairy, is this equivalent to saying it is > superfluous? I think it was who mentioned this word in relation > to philosophy. When I read his suggestion, I felt as if I had wasted > a large part of my life: much of my time and many of my conversations > have been spent with philosophy and poetry. I like both philosophy and poetry. But, in considering whether or not milk is a healthy food, the philosophical musings about naturalness or unnaturalness really add nothing to our understanding of its value. They're interesting to talk about, but they don't help inform us of the question we were after, and we have plenty of information that does. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 On 7/2/05, Anton <michaelantonparker@...> wrote: > Allow me to point out that the matter of osteoporosis in certain > industrialized countries, mainly Scandanavian, has also been explained > by the high intake of natural (cod liver) and/or synthetic (fortified > dairy) retinol in those countries. There are mechanisms identifying > the interaction of retinol and osteoclasts that make this explanation > the most likely I've encountered. When people like Masson blithely > discuss relationships between milk and bone health it automatically > discounts their credibility in my view. It is frankly absurd to even > mention the topic when debating the merits of milk because it presumes > a special role of calcium intake in bone health, which any reasonably > knowledgeable person doesn't believe now that the deficiencies in vit > D and various minerals like magnesium are widely known to be the > primary issues in practice. The relevance of calcium to milk is a > classic red herring of nutritional discourse. Ray Peat was just saying in some correspondence on a different list that vitamin A requirements are importantly linked to the metabolic rate. Increasing the metabolic rate can be harmful without sufficient vitamin A, on the one hand, and vitamin A can be toxic or harmful when not accompanied by factors that increase the metabolic rate, on the other. He said that typically humans would have eaten a thyroid gland for each liver. The increase of thyroid hormone due to the consumption of thyroid increases the rate at which vitamin A is provided to cells for steroidogenesis. So, if the metabolic rate is not sufficiently high, a lesser amount of vitamin A would prove harmful. The vitamin A in the Scandanavian study would not have been available for its role vis-a-vis osteoclasts were it used for steroidogenesis, which would have occurred were the subjects' metabolic rates higher. Perhaps this shouldn't be seen as an indictment of vitamin A per se, but rather a matter of balance of vitamin A with other dietary factors. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 In my lifetime, I have observed that when someone doesn't like you, or wants to find fault with you, discredit you or deny you all the time, whatever you say doesn't make any difference. I can't assert this to be the case between you and me, but it looks like it is. So, as a precautionary measure and in order to spare my own resources, I am not going to talk to you any more – on this thread. > >> Am I extrapolating? I have heard many people tell the same story. << > > So what? Really, do you have to turn every passing observation into a > universal rule? > > I have never found dairy foods to be at all " addictive, " nor have I ever had > any problems eating just the amount I wanted to eat. > > On the other hand, I've had that exact problem with sugar, and with starchy > foods such as bread, potatos, rice. And yet I manage to not insist that just > because I can't eat those things, neither can anyone else, and just because > they are addictive for me, they must be addictive to everyone else. > > Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 > Interesting question. > Or perhaps the bull is the offspring of the cow he is suckling? I saw a tv show once about cheetahs - in a time of famine the previous year's cubs, then full grown, came back to mom and nursed. Her this year's cubs had died I think. Connie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.