Heidi's hierarchy/low-nutrient diets/was Re: Holy Organic

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/11/04 10:09:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

michaelantonparker@... writes:

> . A major variable would be caloric intake. A high-calorie

> diet (i.e. physically active person) with low nutrient-density can

> give the same amount of net nutrients as a low-calorie diet with high

> nutrient-density.

I think it depends on the nutrient. Physical activity depletes certain

nutrients.

That misses the point of soil fertility, I think. There seems to be

unidentified qualitative differences between foods grown in different qualities,

rather than just quantitative differences. (e.g., why is milk easier to digest

from better soil?) Also, there are an enormous array of important substances

that aren't included in our list of " vitamins " and minerals, most of which we

don't know much about at all. So it's possible that we might meet our

requirements for certain obvious nutrients from foods grown in relatively poor

soil,

while having suboptimal intake of the thousands of other things that are

necessary to optimize health.

Chris

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@ Suze:

> I don't disagree with your breakdown. But I was making the point

that the

> cow on low brix grass and the SAD dieter are both on low nutrient

diets.

> Which is true. And they will both suffer health consequences as a

result.

> When you break it down into all the different *types* of low

nutrient diets

> that you've outlined (the gray areas) I agree that that the

> species-appropriate low quality diets are MORE comparable. But

still, in a

> broader sense, all the low nutrient diets will result in negative

health

> effects ultimately.

@@@@@@@@@@@

I don't think low-nutrient diets entail health problems, and that the

health problems due to SAD are not just from low nutrient-density,

but rather actively harmful aspects, like refined sugars (giving

hormonal imbalances), trans fats (giving omega 3 deficiencies),

toxins, etc. It seems plausible to me that a person could have

identical health from HA and HC, or even HD (I'm using Heidi's

definitions from her post previous to Suze's). A low-nutrient diet

might just give " enough " nutrients, and that might be all that

matters. A major variable would be caloric intake. A high-calorie

diet (i.e. physically active person) with low nutrient-density can

give the same amount of net nutrients as a low-calorie diet with high

nutrient-density. This is a similar idea to what Heidi said about

cows eating so darn much grass they get what they need from it even

if it's low-quality grass. To me, the logic behind eating HA is to

stack the odds in my favor. I don't believe my quality of health

will be proportional to the quality of my diet beyond some threshold

of nutritional adequacy, but the simple fact is that we don't know

what this threshold is, so it's sensible to eat the highest quality

diet possible. (Plus, my diet is not high-calorie, so nutrient-

density is logically more relevant to me.) In practice, tons of

organisms from ours and other species eat subpar diets with no health

consequences. Needless to say, health is only partially determined

by nutrition, other determinants including genetics, environmental

toxicity, accidents/luck (not just " getting hit by a truck " types,

but consider the existence of subcellular accidents and microscopic

indeterminancy), etc. So I dispute Suze's viewpoint and suggest that

it collapses an important distinction between " mediocre but good

enough " and " dangerous " diets.

By the way, lately I've been unable to follow the list as much as I

have in the past, so I tend to randomly skim posts on the website now

and again. When I went to the NN homepage just a bit ago, it

said " 999 members " , and then a few minutes I wound up launching a new

browser and going to the same page again, whereupon it said " 1000

members " . I only mention this for those of you who get some thrills

from arbitrary numerical symbolism... It seems as if the list has

grown quite rapidly in previous months, following a much longer

stretch of relative stasis...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

>I don't think low-nutrient diets entail health problems, and that the

>health problems due to SAD are not just from low nutrient-density,

>but rather actively harmful aspects, like refined sugars (giving

>hormonal imbalances), trans fats (giving omega 3 deficiencies),

>toxins, etc.

And allergies! If you are allergic to peanuts, they will kill you

on any diet, and gluten is really actively harmful for a lot of folks.

Though a nutritious diet might help a person avoid many of the

allergies.

.. A high-calorie

>diet (i.e. physically active person) with low nutrient-density can

>give the same amount of net nutrients as a low-calorie diet with high

>nutrient-density.

And also, you can supplement your diet with those highly nutritious

bugs! ;--)

Nice to hear from you!

-- Heidi Jean