Return On Investment

...re plants...

"relatively low toxicity" (i.e. they are not completely harmless).

just shot yourself in the foot there...

neutral to supportive to your point, but as mentioned elsewheres we're already getting plenty.

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).

"potential"

"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.

"small amounts" which are available in what is grown now. this is not a point in your favor.

"neither a benefit nor a risk has been proven yet"

another point in my favor.

"are still under experimental evaluation"

most of these pretty much prove my initial statements accurate enough for general conversational purposes. good job!

songbird

Reply to
songbird
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
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.

Reply to
Bill who putters

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.

Reply to
Dan L.

I find your attitude tiresome.

It's probably best that I add you to a killfile for awhile.

Reply to
phorbin

good day, i hope you find whatever you are looking for in a decent conversation.

i'll drop it now.

peace all,

songbird

Reply to
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

Reply to
Billy

Come on, shake it, boid, shake it.

Reply to
Billy

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

Reply to
David Hare-Scott

Billy wrote: ...

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

Reply to
songbird

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.

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.

Again, judgement without facts. It comes second nature to you. With small populations, hunter-gathering was sustainable.

As to other cultures of pre-history, which one used man-made fertilizers, or pesticides, hmmm?

I think you'll find general agreement to that statement.

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.

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)

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.

How gallant of you.

As compared to a prairie?

I'm glad you read the material I posted, I was thinking it was a complete waste of electrons.

Trust me. You wouldn't be.

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.

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.

Reply to
Billy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.