selective absorption (was: Ocean Pollutants/absorption)

[Guest guest]

>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.)

i couldn't make much sense of this, but having read your subsequent

paragraph on cholesterol and phytosterol absorption i now understand that

you're referring to " saturation " point, as i believe it's commonly referred

to. there are mechanisms that i'm aware of that, when the body reaches a

saturation point of a given nutrient, it simply stops absorbing more at that

time, even though more might be present in the digestive tract. calcium

would be one example. however, this explanation doesn't account for

*selective* absorption. the bottleneck metaphor would be valid IF the body

actually absorbs mercury (for example) instead of another mineral, even when

the other mineral (which is the one it actually needs) is present. at least

that's how i understand the bottleneck metaphor, although admittedly, i'm

still not sure if i understand it correctly.

but the initial point that chris was making was that a well-mineralized body

may NOT absorb mercury much like a poorly-mineralized one because it already

has the minerals it needs and therefore doesn't absorb " substitutes " - he

was making it analogous to high brix plants not absorbing unnecessary " junk "

IIRC. remember the post from the brix list i posted here, in which rex

harrill stated that someone had tested the toxin level of NONorganic plants

grown in high fertility soil vs. organic plants grown in pristine organic

soil, and the NONorganic (better nourished plants) had a LOWER toxin load? i

believe that was the analogy he was discussing with mercury and other ocean

pollutants. and again, i don't see this analogous to bottlenecking.

>

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>> >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.

ok, so in order for the bottleneck effect to be true of mercury then the

absorption mechanism would have to be as poorly-tuned as the cholesterol

mechanism is - not able to distinguish mercury from another mineral that

would much more healthy for it to absorb. which may be the case - i really

have no idea, but it still doesn't fit with what i think chris was saying in

his original post about it being analogous to plants' selective absorption

of the " correct " minerals when they are present. although you may be

understanding his point better than i am, and i just may disagree with it.

i guess it comes down to how fine-tuned the mechanism is, and if its proper

function is adversely affected in any given individual due to

malnourishment, etc.

it also makes me wonder if people who have high mineral diets might be more

resistant to absorbing the mercury that leaches from their amalgams?

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>

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