Is the food you buy safe to eat?

[Syn7]

What Does 200 Calories Look Like?


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-20...-look-like.htm

[GoldenBrain]

Maaaan, I say "just" a lot!

Hahaha, at least you don't say alot a lot.


Oh, and that page where it shows what 200 calories looks like is really cool. I think most people don't have even the slightest grasp on portion control so having a visual reference might really help.

[Syn7]

Hahaha, at least you don't say alot a lot.

Actually I do No frontin'!!!

I write "Ofcourse" too.

Old habits die hard.

[GoldenBrain]

Ah well, nobody is perfect. I still have to think about their, they're, there, your, you're...etc. Effing spell check and calculators have nearly ruined me for things like writing on actual paper. I know, it's weird, writing on paper in this day and age.

[Syn7]

Ah well, nobody is perfect. I still have to think about their, they're, there, your, you're...etc. Effing spell check and calculators have nearly ruined me for things like writing on actual paper. I know, it's weird, writing on paper in this day and age.

I'm the same. Not for the same words, but for spelling words I don't use very often. Like how some words use "able" and others use "ible" and I cannot find any rhyme or reason to distinguish one method from the other. Sometimes it's just a crap shoot for me. Highlight then search term is used often!

[SoCo KungFu]

This is what I'm basing my statement on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.

I believe you are misinterpreting this study. Although its not entirely your fault, the author obfuscates (most likely unintentionally) certain points in the article.

Again, I'm contending with the notion that poor dietary ****genization is the cause of chronic illness and that "good" dietary ****genization is going to fix the matter. I think ****genization in general (ie, Diet XXXX) is bad regardless of form.

In short, I'm contending against your claim that its as you put it, "flour and sugar."

Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle.

I'm assuming this is where you got this stat from, which you posted earlier in this thread. Important distinctions here. 1) this does not yet speak to your claim that 90% of chronic illnesses are diet and lifestyle. More on that in a bit. 2) The author here is segregating genetic defects due to environment, from simple matters of improper genetic replication, etc (for example, nondisjunction). This is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Its just something that needs to be pointed out because technically what the author later mentions in say, solar radiation damage, is still genetic defect (ex, thymine dimers) which can lead to cancer. Basically, is the matter genetic or environmental? Well, its both, they're linked.

Tangent, but this is a pet peeve of mine. No one seems to be writing in regards to the intersection between constraints. A lot of these things, are about interactive effects. To use an example from ecology...
Chytrid fungus is a pathogen that is decimating world amphibian populations. No one seems to know why this is so infectious. Its suspected, however, that its the cumulative effects of multiple issues. Amphibians as you probably know, spend the beginning of their life cycle, in most cases, in an aquatic environment. Chytrid particularly hits species which lay eggs in standing pools of water. Its suspected that increased global temperatures due to climate change have caused an increase in drying of such pools. This isn't really a contentious matter, its easily documented. This reduces the depth of the pools remaining. Decreased depth means increased UV exposure to the eggs, which has negative effects on the immune system. This increases susceptibility to Chytrid. Disease is more about the interface between multiple factors than it is about parsing out A or B.

The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.

This quote is inaccurate. First off, the author is talking about cancer mortality, not incidence rate. Furthermore, it is directly contradicted later in the paper, as shown below...

Most carcinogens that are ingested, such as nitrates, nitrosamines, pesticides, and dioxins, come from food or food additives or from cooking.

Environmental pollution has been linked to various cancers (Fig. 7). It includes outdoor air pollution by carbon particles associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); indoor air pollution by environmental tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, and volatile organic compounds such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene (which may particularly affect children); food pollution by food additives and by carcinogenic contaminants such as nitrates, pesticides, dioxins, and other organochlorines; carcinogenic metals and metalloids; pharmaceutical medicines; and cosmetics (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control64)

The author is first claiming diet is approx 30% responsible for cancer mortality (again not incidence) but now we see that they are double dipping in their data presentation. The author is attempting to both include environmental carcinogens in food prep and food production. Simply, its misrepresentation to say that carcinogens related to pest control and soil intensification are "dietary" issues in the same sense of processed sugars, etc.

The article goes on about other factors, again minimizing their effect. And again, see my comment above on the interactive effects of multiple factors.

Incidentally, I don't disagree with the overall aim of the article...

Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups.

I just can't stand when people try to simplify complex systematic issues into sound bites.

[SoCo KungFu]

Sustainable Farm Practices Improve Third World Food Production



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0123163315.htm

Awesome report, but the truth be known, and as you know Kymus, most of us out here who use sustainable farm methods already knew this. I'm am happy to see this info being shared with the folks who haven't discovered the realz yet. It doesn't surprise me that many people out there want to be hand fed GMO seeds since they want to be hand fed everything else in their lives, but maybe studies like this can sway them over to the sustainable organic side.

This article was based on the actual publication found here:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es051670d

And the actual publication itself speaks nothing to distinguishing GMO from non GMO methods. In fact, the word genetic occurs only once in the entire pub.

Agricultural sustainability does not, therefore, mean ruling out
any technologies or practices on ideological grounds (e.g.,
genetically modified crop, organic practice)sprovided they
improve productivity for farmers, and do not harm the
environment

They are simply attempting to present an inclusive picture utilizing a multi faceted approach to sustainable ag. This really doesn't speak anything to the GMO vs non GMO debate as they are including such technology with other non GMO sustainment practices.

[GoldenBrain]

Well there you go SoCo, trying to interject reason and scientific mumbo-jizmo into this discussion. Just kidding! Seriously, your opinion is well received and since I know you actually worked in the field of cancer research, though I don't know exactly what you do, it does add weight to your words.

I do have a few questions for you. Do you think there is a link to a persons PH, wether alkaline or acidic, and the development of cancer? I've heard that eating to many foods with high acidity can lead to the development of cancer or at least lead to the conditions which help to create the preferred environment for cancer to live in. Do you think sugar in the form of fruit, processed or whatever feeds cancer cells? Do you have an opinion on what kind of diet is recommended to keep a more alkaline PH and avoid these sugars or is this all bunk? These are serious questions and not at all meant to antagonize or draw you out into some sort of new age debate on these issues.

Thanks!!!

[SoCo KungFu]

Well there you go SoCo, trying to interject reason and scientific mumbo-jizmo into this discussion. Just kidding! Seriously, your opinion is well received and since I know you actually worked in the field of cancer research, though I don't know exactly what you do, it does add weight to your words.

I do have a few questions for you. Do you think there is a link to a persons PH, wether alkaline or acidic, and the development of cancer? I've heard that eating to many foods with high acidity can lead to the development of cancer or at least lead to the conditions which help to create the preferred environment for cancer to live in. Do you think sugar in the form of fruit, processed or whatever feeds cancer cells? Do you have an opinion on what kind of diet is recommended to keep a more alkaline PH and avoid these sugars or is this all bunk? These are serious questions and not at all meant to antagonize or draw you out into some sort of new age debate on these issues.

Thanks!!!

To sum up all the above. No

To be more detailed, the pH of what you eat means next to nothing in terms of health for 99% of the population. There are exceptions to this, but pretty much, its bunk.

What we're really talking about is compartmentalization. Your body is not a continuous space. Its a mesh of segregated tissues comprising segregated systems. When you eat, the pH of your stomach environment drops to approximately 2-3. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly eat that would even compare to that high of acidity. Well, nothing that you'd survive. I personally don't make a habit of drinking battery acid.

So, EVERYTHING you eat is instantly acidified. This is required because the proteases in your gastric juice that are responsible for breaking down food are optimized to this pH level. In fact, they would not function otherwise. So that's the first knock right there. If "alkaline" food actually made a difference, you'd not be able to digest it.

Then, once you stomach empties the contents into the intestine, pancreatic secretions neutralize the pH, rendering it safe to travel the GI tract.

These pH diet people try to make these claims that you can do urine tests and that's somehow indicative of blood pH. Because really that's what they're interested in, blood pH.

1) Urine pH is absolutely irrelevant to blood pH. Urine pH is a matter of kidney function (more on this in a minute).

2) Blood pH is so tightly controlled there is virtually nothing a healthy person can do to throw it out in any dangerous way. Blood pH is regulated by your kidneys through filtration, by the blood acid/base buffer system, and more actively via respiration. Hemoglobin binds 3 molecules; oxygen, hydrogen and BPG (2,3-bisphosphoglyceric acid). CO2 actually doesn't bind to Hb but rather is transported in plasma as HCO3-. BPG is not really related to this discussion but is a molecule that binds to Hb in low oxygen environments and decreases affinity of O2 to Hb (thus increasing O2 in the tissues). Think, mountain climbing or free diving without an oxygen tank.

So Hb works in 2 states. This is based on the molecular arrangement of Hb and is related to O2 binding. T state is deoxygenated Hb, R state is oxygenated. T state has low O2 affinity, R state is high. The way Hb works, is that 1 heme can bind 4 oxygen molecules. Once that first is bound, the Hb molecule changes is conformation (shape) from T, to R. This R configuration (R=Relaxed) opens up the 3 subsequent binding sites and those empty spaces bind very rapidly. Thus the R state's high affinity.

This is linked with pH; remember I said the other molecule that binds to Hb is hydrogen, specifically H+ ions. Which is what pH actually is, a measure of H+ ion concentration. The lower the pH, the more the ions. H+ binding to Hb favors a T state. Thus, in lower pH (meaning higher H+), less O2 binds to Hb. This means more O2 is in the tissues. I realize this might be confusing, but think of it like this. When you are working out, you're producing a bunch of CO2 and H+ ions. You also are using up a lot of O2 and thus, need that oxygen in the organs, its not doing you any good stuck in the blood.

The opposite is true when Oxygen is in high supply. More oxygen is bound up in the Hb, leaving less space for H+ to bind.

So, a couple things should be apparent to you at this point. One, notice how respiratory rate seems to be implicated in blood pH? 2nd, notice this whole time I've been talking about bound molecules and Hb? The blood system as a whole, is consistent. These molecules are there, regardless. The changes are based on whether at one point they're bound vs unbound. So the pH is relatively constant within a very narrow range of constraints. This is vitally important because notice how much an impact H+ ions have on your body's ability to carry oxygen, its literally life or death. So ANY changes in blood pH can become VERY VERY bad. But yet we live everyday problem free.

With regards to respiration, you can (for a very short time period) change your blood pH. Hold your breath for about 20 seconds. During that time the pH is being altered (and quickly corrected for). Opposite holds true as well. When people that are hyperventilating black out, what is actually happening is their body is losing too much CO2 and the pH is being altered (become more alkaline). When they pass out and breathing slows down, their body automatically corrects itself. So not only is it tightly controlled, its so tightly controlled your body does it when you're not even conscious.

I did mention exceptions to this. Remember I said kidneys also control pH? This is long term regulation. Now people suffering from a depreciated kidney function very much can have adverse effects based on what they eat. They pretty much have adverse effects based on anything though. Renal failure is very serious business.

As for cancer. There's been stuff shown that cancer cells "favor" an acidic environment in culture. And there's been stuff showing that altering the pH to a more alkaline level can kill the cells, in culture. Here's the problem. It kills everything. This is all in culture mind you. This mechanism, for reasons I've already explained make absolutely no difference in vivo because there's nothing we can do to instantly turn someones body "alkaline."

So with regards to diet, I don't recommend any diet based on pH. I don't think its a relevant consideration.

Summary: Blood pH is so tightly controlled that this is an irrelevant matter for any healthy individual. If you're up on chemistry, at least enough to understand le Chatelier's principle of chemical equilibrium, this is the blood pH buffer equation that basically summarizes what I just said:

H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq) <--> H2CO3(aq) <--> H2O (l) + CO2(g)

Anytime you push the equation one way, so long as it doesn't exceed the constraints of the buffer system, your body will alter respiration and such to correct back toward equilibrium.

Just my take on this. I'm not an expert, I've just worked in a lab trying to kill the stuff. Incidentally, the mechanism I was looking into was a means of (in part) spilling a cell's acidic contents in the lysosome, into the cytoplasm. Basically, killing a cancer cell with its own "stomach acid", so to speak. Or rather, using this as an instigator for apoptotic cell death.

[SoCo KungFu]

FYI, if you're not familiar with le Chatelier's Principle; google it and learn. That's just really good knowledge to have. 2nd to learning what the hell and electron actually is, that's probably the next thing everyone should know about chemistry for just a day to day real world impact. Its involved in everything from your blood, to voltaic reactions.

Le Chatelier's principle is the reason you can pour water into a car battery in a pinch to get it to crank up.

[Syn7]

FYI, if you're not familiar with le Chatelier's Principle; google it and learn. That's just really good knowledge to have. 2nd to learning what the hell and electron actually is, that's probably the next thing everyone should know about chemistry for just a day to day real world impact. Its involved in everything from your blood, to voltaic reactions.

Le Chatelier's principle is the reason you can pour water into a car battery in a pinch to get it to crank up.

Yay... back to something I actually understand!!!

The pH post was way above my paygrade.

[Syn7]

Speaking of chemistry. It took me a minute to figure out why it was funny, but when it clicked for me I laughed for like 5 minutes. It's my 12 year old sense of humour kicking in.

[GoldenBrain]

Thank you SoCo! That was extremely educational, enlightening in fact. I love science but unfortunately never studied chemistry beyond the very basics. I look forward to reading up on Le Chatelier's principle.

[Kymus]

Goldenbrain, I saw this and thought you'd like it.

It seems to discuss the "perfect BBQ", going from sustainable farming to how and why that produces healthy food.

[GoldenBrain]

Thanks Kymus! I just briefly returned to my computer so I'll have to check it out later this evening. There appear to be a bunch of other interesting topics as well.