Re: Ocean Pollutants/absorption

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@ Chris/Suze:

> >Well to *some* degree it *has* to be true by basic laws of

chemistry,

> >physics, and probability. If you stick your hand into a jar once

> >a minute to pick

> >out a chip, and I do the same, and there are 10 blue chips in each

> >of our jars,

> >but 100 red ones in mine and 200 red ones in yours, I'm going to

> >accumulate

> >blue chips at twice the rate you will, even though we have the

same amount.

>

> that assumes that the body *arbitrarily* picks minerals from the

supply it's

> provided. therefore it doesn't seem analogous to plants (in the brix

> thread), which seem to *selectively* choose what they need. if

living

> organisms *arbitrarily* selected nutrients from the given supply, i

can't

> imagine how any of us would be alive today. my understanding is

that plants

> and animals *selectively* absorb what they require to function

properly, not

> *arbitrarily* absorb whatever happens to be in the brew they

consume.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Suze,

I don't think Chris' point makes that assumption. He was simply

pointing out the " bottleneck " effect that's inevitable at some level

in a closed system like nutrient-absorption. This is independent of

the selectivity of absorption. Whether or not the quantities of

nutrients in this system can be large enough for this to be relevant

is another matter entirely (I have no clue) but the idea is solid.

This reminds me of the bottleneck effect in cholesterol absorption,

which is significant for its relevance to both total same-meal

dietary cholesterol quantity and same-meal phytosterol quantity.

btw, after reading your reply to and , I just wanna

say " ouch!! " ROFL! there is probably a chorus of " ouch " es out

there in list-land!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

>I don't think Chris' point makes that assumption. He was simply

>pointing out the " bottleneck " effect that's inevitable at some level

>in a closed system like nutrient-absorption. This is independent of

>the selectivity of absorption. Whether or not the quantities of

>nutrients in this system can be large enough for this to be relevant

>is another matter entirely (I have no clue) but the idea is solid.

i don't understand what bottlenecking has to do with chris' explanation -

can you clarify?

>

>This reminds me of the bottleneck effect in cholesterol absorption,

>which is significant for its relevance to both total same-meal

>dietary cholesterol quantity and same-meal phytosterol quantity.

how does that work?

>btw, after reading your reply to and , I just wanna

>say " ouch!! " ROFL! there is probably a chorus of " ouch " es out

>there in list-land!

LOL! well of course it was said in jest - mostly to get michael back for

describing my background as " anorexic " . but at least he fasts quite often,

so take off some gluttony points for that. chris is another story....maybe

he's just making up for years of gorging on soy and other fake foods and

farting most of it off into the wind. <vbweg>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@

> >I don't think Chris' point makes that assumption. He was simply

> >pointing out the " bottleneck " effect that's inevitable at some

level

> >in a closed system like nutrient-absorption. This is independent

of

> >the selectivity of absorption. Whether or not the quantities of

> >nutrients in this system can be large enough for this to be

relevant

> >is another matter entirely (I have no clue) but the idea is solid.

>

> i don't understand what bottlenecking has to do with chris'

explanation -

> can you clarify?

@@@@@@@@@@@@

maybe it's not the tightest metaphor, but if you conceptualize a

physical extension of absorption mechanisms then this constrains the

quantity of nutrients that can possibly interact with the mechanisms

at any given moment in time due to the principle " two objects cannot

occupy the same space " . (please note i'm using the word " extension "

in its less common sense from formal philosophy, i.e. " space-time

material realization " , the opposite of " intension " . sorry, this is

just the way my brain works and i can't think of a simpler term that

works as well.)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> >This reminds me of the bottleneck effect in cholesterol absorption,

> >which is significant for its relevance to both total same-meal

> >dietary cholesterol quantity and same-meal phytosterol quantity.

>

> how does that work?

@@@@@@@@@@@@

You'll be thinking " oh yeah, that " in just a second. It's just the

fact that the body can only absorb a certain amount of sterols at

once. That's why the amount of cholesterol absorbed from something

like 2 eggs is the same as 20 eggs. (I don't know the quantitative

details; nor do i care since it's about as important as what color

shirt a person wears when they eat...) The other part to it is that

the cholesterol absorption mechanism isn't fine-tuned enough to

distinguish between cholesterol and phytosterols--although of course

other physiological mechanisms make the distinction quite readily--so

if your meal contains equal and sufficient amounts of cholesterol and

phytosterols then you'll only absorb half as much cholesterol as you

would in the absence of phytosterols. That's why obsessive dietary

cholesterol phobics take phytosterol pills and emphasize phytosterol-

rich foods, etc. Pretty sad, but very true.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania