Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I wouldn't be surprised if there are significantly more men than women that like a bitter taste.
Mostly, taste is acquired.
Food that lacks taste probably lacks nutrition
- Thread starter Alien Cockroach
- Start date
I wouldn't be surprised if there are significantly more men than women that like a bitter taste.
Mostly, taste is acquired.
I have never heard of a sex-linked gene that would account for an affinity for bitter tastes. I have heard of a gene that is related to cigarette smoking...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18524836
...to which I am susceptible.
Fortunately, nicotine by itself is non-carcinogenic, perhaps even beneficial, and you can toke an e-cig just about anywhere. Nicotine does not directly damage your arteries, but what it does do is cause your arteries to constrict slightly. What makes this a risk factor is that this can cause plaques to build up more rapidly on your arterial walls. If you are a smoker or use any kind of nicotine product, I recommend a diet high in soluble fiber and high-density lipophosphates. I also suggest getting plenty of l-arginine; for that, I suggest adding shrimp to the plate because shrimp are high in both l-arginine and high-density lipophosphate. I also suggest spiking your cooking flour with a little bit of sesame flour because there is actually a lot of l-arginine in those little seeds.
Now, if you do not believe that nicotine can have beneficial properties, join everyone else I have said this too. This is cutting-edge stuff, though. Here, Dr. Baron gives us a quick run-down of the potential benefits of nicotine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8746297
So now we're using chocolate and cranberries to clean our teeth, fat to make us skinny, and nicotine to increase our life expectancy. Later, I will tell you how natural gas can be derived from ordinary air. Unfortunately, I have not yet heard of a cost-effective method of turning lead into gold, but it is instructive to note that the carcinogens in cigarettes will still cause you to fucking die.
Annnnnnnnd, as Mangold, Payne, Ma, Chen and Li tell us, it can also be inherited to some extent. However, yes: tastes can be acquired, and that has been the entire point of this thread, thank you. We should develop and cultivate all parts of our palate. You don't have to punish yourself to have a healthy lifestyle. You really don't.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I was more referring to the masculinity (aka recklessness) male animals tend to display far more often than female ones.
See beer drinking.
So you think it's reckless to enjoy the taste of endive, spinach, or radish? I'm not sure where you are getting that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yea, I think it's a bit far-fetched myself. Never mind.. lol
Depends on where you get it. If it's not grown yourself, by your own hands, in your own garden, then the threat of salmonella is becoming higher and higher due to the contaminated irrigation water. So, yeah, ....eating anything that isn't cooked thoroughly could well be called "reckless" eating habits.
Baron Max
Avoid organic produce because organic produce actually has a higher risk of carrying infectious diseases. Wash your vegetables thoroughly before eating them. I also suggest leaving them to soak in vinegar and lemon juice for a while. Apple cider vinegar (vinegar in general, in this case) has antimicrobial properties, it is good for your teeth, and it may help fight some kinds of cancer. Lemon juice also has antimicrobial properties, and it can be very beneficial to your health. They also add a lot of flavor and life to your food. Only an idiot eats a plain, green salad. Yeah, I said that. Slice up an avocado in there, and add a few red pepper flakes. Be creative. You have a god-given right for your food to have TASTE.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, what's "inorganic produce"?
You'd best produce some documentation for that statement! I was lead to believe that no cold water or cold solution would kill the salmonella on produce. Now you're saying that it can be easily killed?????? Please provide evidence of that ......you might well get someone killed if you disseminate such false info and someone eats contaminated lettuce!! Are you that heartless and cruel?
Evidence please!! ...else I'm going to ask that your post be removed as a possible health hazard to billions of people.
Baron Max
Max! Hehehe, you know what I'm getting at, you silly crook! Are you trying to flirt, dear?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=be84be5763d0221e4eba066b96de49fd
If you want to analyze their materials and methods, though, you will have to either purchase the article or try to access the full-text through an institution (universities, public libraries (in the bound periodicals), etc.). Sometimes you can find FTs free from alt sources, but I wouldn't count on it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9713753
Vinegar has well-documented bactericidal properties, actually.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17105553
The essential oils of various citrus plants are actually highly valuable for their anti-bacterial properties.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200115/000020011501A0491450.php
You could also try steeping your vegetables in a potent green tea.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...zFLppM9cOYssjE7XA&sig2=S9G7feY16eSpNWItLD69ow
I suggest using matcha. It is tasty. You could then pour on a lemon vinaigrette dressing and leave your vegetables to steep in it while you enjoy a hearty dinner. Remember, some meat is good for you. Try going for leaner cuts, though. They actually have a better taste if you know how to prepare them correctly. If you never learned the right way to prepare a good, lean cut of meat, though, I feel sorry for you. You are missing out on a whole different perspective on meat.
Crazy like a fox, babe.
Last edited:
Those don't kill salmonella! So now what? Sulfuric acid? Napalm?
Listen, I'm not trying to be a hard-nose here, but you're just not telling the whole story ....and I think people deserve the whole story, don't you?
It's like people tell us how great it is to grow a garden in your backyard and how ecologically responsible it is and how it's saving the Earth. And yet they don't tell you how damned hard it is, nor do they tell you that you'll only get a tiny, insignificant amount of food from the damned thing! And worse, you can't eat or keep all that grows ...so it's also wasteful. See? There should be some truth involved ...instead of just a bunch of hype.
Baron Max
My first citation shows that the mixture of vinegar and lemon juice are effective at killing salmonella.
And this is one of my reasons for supporting modern farming techniques. The organic/natural food hype that is popular these days is a crock of shit. To make rhetorical use of redundancy, it is also utter balogna.
We need a new agricultural/food revolution, let's start doing nutritious and tasty food at labs, using DNA technology. Governments should open the way to genetic scientist, so we would not need to slaughter animals, or spend too much space or water in order to feed the world. Billions of new human generations are on their way, we need to radically change our food supply as well as quality.
Well, I don't really agree with your principles, here, but I do agree that we should put more funding into programs that are targeted at eventually eliminating our dependence on agriculture. One of my pet ideals is for us to be able to derive most of our food directly from the air we breathe. One day, I hope we will be able to attain nourishing food directly from sophisticated synthesizers that can be scaled to fit into our pockets if we're not picky about what the product comes out looking like (likely, at that scale, an ultra-fine powder or a chewable pellet).
You see, with the African developing and plans for a Central Asian union in the works, there will eventually be sufficient international cooperation worldwide to reduce our need for the military. Now, instead of spending that money on bullshit, we could spend it on scientific advancement. Think about it: the military takes up a huge percentage of our budget. Scientific research only gets a microscopic amount of funding by comparison. Well, if military spending could be reduced by, say, 75% within the next twenty years and half of that went into scientific research, that would blow us through the skylight. Our rate of progress, at that point, would be absolutely obscene. The only thing I'd need to be perfectly in a state of bliss at that point would be for religion and veganism to be banned on pain of death.
The sticking point, though, is that there is no reason to dismiss the idea that we could see a number of huge technological breakthroughs within our lifetimes. The world is changing, and it often changes for the better nowadays.
I wouldn't go so far: Firstly, if we reach this level of technology, we would not need to eat anyway; we would "synthesize" our existence to cyborgs, softwares or any other form which would not require any food hassle.
Secondly, in order to absorb nutricious things from air, we must first release these things into air. That means we would dramatically change other non-human lives on this planet. This is something we are already doing and should stop immediately.
I say we should isolate our ways of life from the natural theatre and use our knowledge more wisely to survive longer. You see, its today's news from the Guardian (British newspaper):
"Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food, according to a new, independent study funded by the Food Standards Agency."
How do we know that? Because we know all chemical ingredients, vitamins, protein, DNA about food and about our bodies. So why don't we literally "design" some DNA based controllable materials which includes everything we need, but does not bother the rest of nature in its production and consumption process? For example, easily growing fruit with the taste of fried chicken. We would stop killing other animals.
We know next to nothing about the components of food and how they interact with each other and with our bodies. What we do know is hardly sufficient to warrant such generalisation.
Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to read the details of their assessment criteria/
What is taste? Its a developed, subjective sensory experience. Instinctively, our body has developed to consider calories = taste. Which is why the sweet and fat taste are the most easily acquired and the bitter taste the least easily acceptable. Most foods high in calories are either sweet or contain fat. Most bitter foods are low in calories and may even be poisonous. I love bitter foods too but it is my opinion that bitter taste is learned, rather than instinctive. Those who are used to eating bitter foods from childhood find it easier to tolerate it.
IOW, taste does have a connection to nutrition, but not the one you suggest.
Last edited:
You can find the subject news on The Guardian website. You can also Google Food Standard Agency and check their website. I can not give you a specific link, because I am too busy to search how on earth we know next to nothing about the chemical compositions of our food and our body; and I am also checking some information on why have they been scatterring nobel prizes and building such expensive machines and disciplines since last hundred years. Sorry.
Oops, let me save you work then.
That's not what S.A.M. said: re-read it.
Different thing altogether.
Your opinion...
Wrong: the interactions of chemicals with each other and our bodies isn't fully known.
That's why (as I was told my degree tutor) chemistry is an experimental science.
You can't just calculate everything, you have to mix 'n' match and see what happens.
And with biological systems you may have to wait years to find out if there's any long-term effects...
FYI, I'm a professional nutritionist. Not that its a guarantee that I'm right. But the odds are I do know what I am talking about.
Let me give you a very small example. Does vitamin D from food have the same effect on the body as vitamin D from sunlight prepared under the skin? They have different routes of processing. Vitamin D when taken in foods is processed the same way as fats. It enters the portal system, is bundled along with fats and gets stored in adipose tissue. When produced under the skin, it is taken to the liver and kidney vy the Vitamin D receptor and activated to 1,25 dihydroxycholecaliferol, the metabolite which performs all the functions of vitamin D. How does vitamin D from adipose tissue get released? When the fat is burned for energy. But is it utilised the exact same way? Is there a down side to eating it rather than making it? Consider that in 20 mins under UVB you can make over 20,000 IU of vitamin D, but the DRI [Dietary Reference Intake] for it is topped at 200 IU for children and 400 IU for adults. Why? because we don't know for sure that large doses taken orally may not be toxic [there is one weird study from back in the 50s that suggests it may be, but recent research using upto 100,000 IU in rats does not show the same effects]. Epidemiological research suggests that vitamin D may play a role in prevention of cancer, obesity and muscle loss and may have no effect on bone other than calcium transport [which has been successfully circumvented in the absence of vitamin D]. Recent research also suggests that cells other than the kidney [mayhaps even all cells] have the ability to activate 25 hydroxycholecaiferol for their immediate local needs. We still don't know how 25-D enters the cells.
Almost all the vitamin D we get from food is artificially added i.e. it is not naturally present in the food or at least not present to the degree it is after enrichment or fortification. Changes have to be made to make it miscible [example, in orange juice]
So let me summarise:
1.this is an extensively studied nutrient
2. we don't know
-if the oral form is as effective as the one synthesised subdermally
-how much is safe
-how much we should eat
-whether we are eating enough
-whether we are eating too much
-whether it is any good eating it at all
-what are the effects on the body
-what does the body do with it
-whether it is a causal factor in chronic disease
-whether eating it will help prevent these diseases
-whether the previously known "facts" about it [effects on bone] are entirely valid
3. Most of what we do eat is artificially prepared, not naturally present in the foods we consume it from
And this is only with relation to the vitamin. I haven't even gone into its interactions with other nutrients. And this is a relatively minor micronutrient that we can get from the sunlight if we don't take enough of it. One we know of. We haven't yet identified all the components of food. So any suggestion that we can artificially tailor it to our needs is an argument from ignorance. Hence I always recommend, unless you are severely deficient, don't take supplements, eat the fruit or vegetable or meat or nuts or dairy or cereal or lentil. You don't know what you might be missing out.
So, would you be willing to take 20,000 IU of oral vitamin D, given what we know about the vitamin?
Let me give you a very small example. Does vitamin D from food have the same effect on the body as vitamin D from sunlight prepared under the skin? They have different routes of processing. Vitamin D when taken in foods is processed the same way as fats. It enters the portal system, is bundled along with fats and gets stored in adipose tissue. When produced under the skin, it is taken to the liver and kidney vy the Vitamin D receptor and activated to 1,25 dihydroxycholecaliferol, the metabolite which performs all the functions of vitamin D. How does vitamin D from adipose tissue get released? When the fat is burned for energy. But is it utilised the exact same way? Is there a down side to eating it rather than making it? Consider that in 20 mins under UVB you can make over 20,000 IU of vitamin D, but the DRI [Dietary Reference Intake] for it is topped at 200 IU for children and 400 IU for adults. Why? because we don't know for sure that large doses taken orally may not be toxic [there is one weird study from back in the 50s that suggests it may be, but recent research using upto 100,000 IU in rats does not show the same effects]. Epidemiological research suggests that vitamin D may play a role in prevention of cancer, obesity and muscle loss and may have no effect on bone other than calcium transport [which has been successfully circumvented in the absence of vitamin D]. Recent research also suggests that cells other than the kidney [mayhaps even all cells] have the ability to activate 25 hydroxycholecaiferol for their immediate local needs. We still don't know how 25-D enters the cells.
Almost all the vitamin D we get from food is artificially added i.e. it is not naturally present in the food or at least not present to the degree it is after enrichment or fortification. Changes have to be made to make it miscible [example, in orange juice]
So let me summarise:
1.this is an extensively studied nutrient
2. we don't know
-if the oral form is as effective as the one synthesised subdermally
-how much is safe
-how much we should eat
-whether we are eating enough
-whether we are eating too much
-whether it is any good eating it at all
-what are the effects on the body
-what does the body do with it
-whether it is a causal factor in chronic disease
-whether eating it will help prevent these diseases
-whether the previously known "facts" about it [effects on bone] are entirely valid
3. Most of what we do eat is artificially prepared, not naturally present in the foods we consume it from
And this is only with relation to the vitamin. I haven't even gone into its interactions with other nutrients. And this is a relatively minor micronutrient that we can get from the sunlight if we don't take enough of it. One we know of. We haven't yet identified all the components of food. So any suggestion that we can artificially tailor it to our needs is an argument from ignorance. Hence I always recommend, unless you are severely deficient, don't take supplements, eat the fruit or vegetable or meat or nuts or dairy or cereal or lentil. You don't know what you might be missing out.
So, would you be willing to take 20,000 IU of oral vitamin D, given what we know about the vitamin?
Last edited: