Food that lacks taste probably lacks nutrition

[baftan]

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

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 summarize what I understood from your post:

1- If these sets of knowledge are "next to nothing", so we will never be able to know anything in... never.

2- If you are aware of these facts, you should know by now that natural evolution process works on try-and-error, rather than aimed constructions.

3- All these what you call "lack of knowledge" sounds like we know all ingredients but we do not know how do they work. It's like knowing all type of climate conditions, but not being able to guess what the weather exactly will be in a week or a month time. Here comes the computer capability, here comes the indoor environment where you can control the temparature and the armour of the building no matter what happens outside. So you will "construct" the artificial components depending on your project (let's say "healty survival of human bodies") using natural material (let's say everything you can obtain from nature).

And this is my comment: "Any suggestion that we can artificially tailor it to our needs is an argument from ignorance", but at the same time a challenge. We challenged nature before, send artificial satellites to outer space, even without knowing what gravity actually is.

You are telling me that it is utterly nonsense attempt to model our biologic system and food process, or it is totally impossible to play with DNA to create vegetable species which do not exist in nature. So, we will get nowhere or learn nothing (or "next to nothing") even if we started and followed such a project.
10 000 years ago our ancestors created an agricultural revolution and isolated some specimens (simply everything in your examples; fruit or vegetable or meat or nuts or dairy or cereal or lentil) without knowing anything about vitamins whatsoever. Yet you can recommend these artificially selected and altered products to other people.

I say this: Now is the time to use our knowledge. It is time to make serious experiments as our ancestors did in their time, and now we eat the "fruit". How can you know what you do not know if you do not try?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Let me summarize what I understood from your post:
1- If these sets of knowledge are "next to nothing", so we will never be able to know anything in... never.

Ridiculous and erroneous assumption.
We didn't know (for example) about electricity at one time in our history... we didn't know about genes...

2- If you are aware of these facts, you should know by now that natural evolution process works on try-and-error, rather than aimed constructions.

Which has what to do with it?

3- All these what you call "lack of knowledge" sounds like we know all ingredients but we do not know how do they work. It's like knowing all type of climate conditions, but not being able to guess what the weather exactly will be in a week or a month time. Here comes the computer capability, here comes the indoor environment where you can control the temparature and the armour of the building no matter what happens outside. So you will "construct" the artificial components depending on your project (let's say "healty survival of human bodies") using natural material (let's say everything you can obtain from nature).

We don't know enough to construct a "human" to use for testing.

And this is my comment: "Any suggestion that we can artificially tailor it to our needs is an argument from ignorance", but at the same time a challenge. We challenged nature before, send artificial satellites to outer space, even without knowing what gravity actually is.

We didn't need to know "what gravity is".

You are telling me that it is utterly nonsense attempt to model our biologic system and food process, or it is totally impossible to play with DNA to create vegetable species which do not exist in nature. So, we will get nowhere or learn nothing (or "next to nothing") even if we started and followed such a project.

Wrong.
That's NOT what is being said.

I say this: Now is the time to use our knowledge. It is time to make serious experiments as our ancestors did in their time, and now we eat the "fruit". How can you know what you do not know if you do not try?

You think we aren't "experimenting"?
We learn as we go along.

 

[baftan]

Ridiculous and erroneous assumption.
We didn't know (for example) about electricity at one time in our history... we didn't know about genes...

exactly...

Which has what to do with it?

It has to do with my point. Just because we don't know how every single atom works in our bodies, we can not restrict ourselves. We can also do trial and errors.

We don't know enough to construct a "human" to use for testing.

Fair enough. It's a moral and technical problem. Yet we are subject to many experiments when we try totally new products every day. And just as some astronauts believed in some scientist and took the risk of going to space (and mind you, some of them died), I know many people would volunteer for what scientist want us to try, including myself.

We didn't need to know "what gravity is".

That's my point. But we needed to know how gravity behaves to put the satellite into orbit. So instead of knowing "everything", we can start using what we already know.

Wrong.
That's NOT what is being said.

Possible. But it sounds like that...

You think we aren't "experimenting"?
We learn as we go along.

Totally agree.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It has to do with my point. Just because we don't know how every single atom works in our bodies, we can not restrict ourselves. We can also do trial and errors.

Excellent idea.
Just like we did with, say, Thalidomide?
Are you volunteering?

Fair enough. It's a moral and technical problem. Yet we are subject to many experiments when we try totally new products every day. And just as some astronauts believed in some scientist and took the risk of going to space (and mind you, some of them died), I know many people would volunteer for what scientist want us to try, including myself.

Okey doke.
But you'd have to sign over your children and grand children too...

That's my point. But we needed to know how gravity behaves to put the satellite into orbit. So instead of knowing "everything", we can start using what we already know.

We ARE using what we already know.
And we're also discovering (re Thalidomide and many other things, including everyday foods) that sometimes we don't know nearly enough.
In my, my parents' and my grandparents' lifetime there's been "scientific evidence" that cigarettes can be good for you, oops smoking is bad all round, cheese gives you cancer, so does coffee, preserves (jam) stunts the growth of children, alcohol is always bad for you, oh correction at least one glass of red wine a day has wonderful benefits, vitamins are nothing but beneficial, sorry don't overdo it on the multi-vitamins they can kill you... etc etc

 

[baftan]

Are you volunteering?
...

But you'd have to sign over your children and grand children too...

...

In my, my parents' and my grandparents' lifetime there's been "scientific evidence" that cigarettes can be good for you, oops smoking is bad all round, cheese gives you cancer, so does coffee, preserves (jam) stunts the growth of children, alcohol is always bad for you, oh correction at least one glass of red wine a day has wonderful benefits, vitamins are nothing but beneficial, sorry don't overdo it on the multi-vitamins they can kill you... etc etc

As long as you come to me with a sound offer I would volunteer. And this "sound"ness is very simple: Just tell me that you are working on a project which will totally change human possibilities and opportunities, like going to space, or trying a new combined nutrition product; I am in. Don't tell me about details, because we are not sure if it is going to work in the first place; we are "experimenting" (element of surprise): your success will be a giant leap, that's what I only care. If you can not success, you and your people (those who work for human benefit) will be more carefull next time.

As you pointed out, everything can give you cancer and we will eventually die anyway. But I can not have children for your experiment, you can only use me. Take it or leave it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But I can not have children for your experiment, you can only use me. Take it or leave it.

But that's the point.
With stuff like Thalidomide (and who knows what other things will work out like that?) the effects don't show up until the next generation...

 

[baftan]

But that's the point.
With stuff like Thalidomide (and who knows what other things will work out like that?) the effects don't show up until the next generation...

Try your Thalidomide stuff with some other volunteer, I don't want to have a child. Make an artificially organic stuff that feeds me -let's say one year-, take your notes. That's all I can offer. Sorry.

 

[S.A.M.]

You didn't answer my question

We have this vast body of knowledge on vitamin D and its generic effects that we think are on every cell of the body. So:

So, would you be willing to take 20,000 IU of oral vitamin D, given what we know about the vitamin?

 

[baftan]

You didn't answer my question

We have this vast body of knowledge on vitamin D and its generic effects that we think are on every cell of the body. So:

Here is my answer:

As long as you come to me with a sound offer I would volunteer. And this "sound"ness is very simple: Just tell me that you are working on a project which will totally change human possibilities and opportunities, like going to space, or trying a new combined nutrition product; I am in. Don't tell me about details, because we are not sure if it is going to work in the first place; we are "experimenting" (element of surprise): your success will be a giant leap, that's what I only care. If you can not success, you and your people (those who work for human benefit) will be more carefull next time.

 

[S.A.M.]

Too bad the IRB doesn't see it your way, might us saved us killing all those hundreds of rats.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

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.

That right there makes for instant credibility or me. It includes an acknowledgement of the limitations of authority, but it also asserts the strengths of his position. I find that style to be very impressive, and I sincerely wish that more people would include this type of clause in their language. I simply find it very relaxing, and it makes me feel a lot less prone to being defensive. I acknowlege this as a very very good opening, and it sets a very positive example for myself and others.

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.

An interesting digression would be that this knocks a hole the size of a big-testicled, XYY, bull wooly mammoth who grew up on l-arginine boosters in the theory that white skin is a purely physiological adaptation for cloudy/rainy climates. I think that my eye-color hypotheses may hold more merit, but the driving force behind the adaptation may have a closer relationship with Seasonal Affective Disorder than any of the other ideas that I have thrown out on that particular subject.

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.

And I would like to submit the opinion that, if you actively take the time to develop the different components of your palate, you won't need any encouragement to seek out a healthy, balanced diet. Once you have grown accustomed to pleasuring your palate in every possible way, you will never be a "meat and potatoes kind of guy" ever again. It would be like like taking high-dose morphine for six straight months and then quitting cold-turkey. A sophisticated, developed palate generally stays that way, and it makes eating in general a much more pleasurable, satisfying experience. If you really are stuck on a very severe, limited arrangement of tastes, you are just screwing yourself.

So, would you be willing to take 20,000 IU of oral vitamin D, given what we know about the vitamin?

Hehehehell, no. It would be a waste.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Well tastes are indicators to certain chemicals in certan foods, or elements and minerals all have distinct tastes. Like all dark green veg tastes alike due to the concerntration of iron within it. Red/blue fruits generally have antioxidants etc etc. Tastes are all linked and certain fruits/veg taste simular due to the chemical make up of the fruit/veg.

tasteless foods I would guess without reading up on it contain probably no iron or only trace elements, and are likely packed with minerals that are usualy tasteless. Like water carries many vitamins and minerals depending on the route the water took when being filtered. Volvic is filtered through a volcanic network of filters which pick up a slightly distinct taste compared to say Evian water, due to Evian comming through an alp type climate through icey deposits of water systems trickling down, which pick up different minerals than the volcanic alternative,

Water is tasteless virtually compared to most food and drink we consume, but there are still minerals within the water some are tasteless some have very slight taste with very little if no aroma at-all.


peace.

 

[S.A.M.]

Alien Cockroach:

Thanks, I teach nutrition to persons not familiar with it as a subject.

On the "bull wooly mammoth":

I have no novel impressions to offer there. IMHO, vitamin D or more accurately its active metabolite, 1, 25 dihydroxycholecalciferol is a known modulator of gene expression. I see no reason why there could not be an evolution of skin colour through selection bias [the lighter skinned ones are healthier through successive generations in regions where UVB is low, resulting in natural selection of lower melanin content in the skin. Melanin is a UVB blocker, which is why black men and women are more deficient in vitamin D than pale ones at the same latitudes]

On developing taste:

You can train your body to eat anything and like it. Even bull penises. Developing taste as a matter of choice can lead to healthier choices [and does]. But taste per se is a poor indicator of nutrition [as opposed to calories], hence the popularity of coke and even diet coke worldwide. Thats not even food/

 

[Alien Cockroach]

SAM, I have to disagree with you there. My main area of interest is neuroscience. I cannot offer any official credentials, but I do pursue this interest with the same obsession over detail as any autist. Based on my background in this area, I think it would be worthwhile to offer a deeper study into the psychology of eating. Although I have not significantly explored this issue, I can offer a few examples of what I am talking about:

Umami: umami is a Japanese term that translates most precisely to "yumminess." However, the more accurate translation would be something closer to "savory." In nature, savory tastes usually indicate the presence of glutamic acid and its relatives. There are probably ways to fake out these receptors, but that is not the point. These receptors are actually linked to neurons in your brain that secrete serotonin and ATP.

Alkaloids: not all alkaloids are poisonous. Some alkaloids actually have anti-inflammatory or analgesic properties. Now, those who pointed out that bitter taste receptors are there strictly to warn us away from poisons were absolutely correct. Lacking any other stimuli, our natural reaction to bitter tastes is to spit out the cause of this stimulus. However, the drug reactions of these alkaloids could help to override this instinct, viz our ability to happily consume large quantities of caffeinated beverages (caffeine is a bitter-tasting compound, but it has potent analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects).

Masochism: carbonated beverages actually stimulate receptors on our palate that are involved in our sense of pain. They are called nociceptors. When these receptors are stimulated below the threshold of pain, though, our pain-coping mechanisms override this, even to the point that mild levels of nociception can produce feelings of pleasure. This is literally a form of masochism, but billions of people around the world are doing it.

Fortunately, people can enjoy savory foods without as much risk to their health. Avocado, for example, is one vegetable that is high in l-glutamine. There are many others. Glutamate is also abundant in many mushrooms.

Also, capsaicin is actually extremely good for immune function, and I know of no risk that capsaicin poses to your health. As a result, capsaicin may actually serve as a decent psychological substitute for sodas in our diet.

In any event, my background in neuroscience is imperfect and mostly informal, but I think that the psychology of eating really is a subject that is worth exploring.

 

[mike47]

Cheesedicks are NEVER happy.....( : ) .