3 ms·

I don't disagree with your critique of the parent's preferred "source," but "over-eating" has a certain hand-waving component as well (IMO at least.) If you ea

by fallous 11y ago

I don't disagree with your critique of the parent's preferred "source," but "over-eating" has a certain hand-waving component as well (IMO at least.) If you eat 10 pounds of celery, there is no doubt that the vast majority of people would consider that over-eating but the negative health effects would at best be an abundance of fiber I suspect.

gbog 11y ago
> 10 pounds of celery > an abundance of fiber You seem to be misinformed. 10 pounds of celery is most probably a very bad idea. There is no such thing as "good food" if you push it to the limits and eat too much of it. Celery has a lot of active component, just smell this taste and you will know. It is mainly good but as an addition to a normal meal's main component, which is traditionally white rice or noodles in the East, bread or potato in the West. Among these I would guess the best is rice. But even rice you cannot eat 50 pounds of eat without harm. I think the main issue here is that food is not science, and should not be the subject of science. Some chemical reactions are, but not nutrition. Nutrition is a cultural thing, much more connected to health, well-being and social living than to chemical reactions, milligrams of whatever and parameters of our bodies.
- fallous 11y ago
  10 pounds of celery would result in 40g (or thereabouts) of sugar intake, 4 liters or so of water, and round about the US RDA of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, E and the minerals calcium, iron, magnesium, phosophorous, potassium, sodium, and zinc. Granted, the consumption of vitamin K would be noticeably above the USRDA, although we're also not accounting for the reduction in hypertension observed in those that consume celery juice. Food and nutrition may not be a science, but that is a result of incomplete understanding rather than some special magic that culture exerts on biochemistry.
  - gbog 11y ago
    > incomplete understanding The first act of ratio (reason) is to assert its own limits. Many things are outside the scope of science, for example no science will ever explain why a novel or a painting is good, why someone love another. From the catastrophic results of nutrition-as-science (things like USRDA), I would bet that the most important part of nutrition is outside the scope of science. Eating food is only marginally the matter of pouring x or y or z into one's body. Just as reading a book is nothing like pouring one by one a long string of words in our memory. We are no robots, after all.

by fallous 11y ago

gbog 11y ago

> 10 pounds of celery > an abundance of fiber You seem to be misinformed. 10 pounds of celery is most probably a very bad idea. There is no such thing as "good food" if you push it to the limits and eat too much of it. Celery has a lot of active component, just smell this taste and you will know. It is mainly good but as an addition to a normal meal's main component, which is traditionally white rice or noodles in the East, bread or potato in the West. Among these I would guess the best is rice. But even rice you cannot eat 50 pounds of eat without harm. I think the main issue here is that food is not science, and should not be the subject of science. Some chemical reactions are, but not nutrition. Nutrition is a cultural thing, much more connected to health, well-being and social living than to chemical reactions, milligrams of whatever and parameters of our bodies.

fallous 11y ago
10 pounds of celery would result in 40g (or thereabouts) of sugar intake, 4 liters or so of water, and round about the US RDA of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, E and the minerals calcium, iron, magnesium, phosophorous, potassium, sodium, and zinc. Granted, the consumption of vitamin K would be noticeably above the USRDA, although we're also not accounting for the reduction in hypertension observed in those that consume celery juice. Food and nutrition may not be a science, but that is a result of incomplete understanding rather than some special magic that culture exerts on biochemistry.
- gbog 11y ago
  > incomplete understanding The first act of ratio (reason) is to assert its own limits. Many things are outside the scope of science, for example no science will ever explain why a novel or a painting is good, why someone love another. From the catastrophic results of nutrition-as-science (things like USRDA), I would bet that the most important part of nutrition is outside the scope of science. Eating food is only marginally the matter of pouring x or y or z into one's body. Just as reading a book is nothing like pouring one by one a long string of words in our memory. We are no robots, after all.