6 ms·

Inflammation is a basic life process, not a reaction to the food you eat. Inflammation plays an active part in wound-healing. Teething in infants has an inflamm

Inflammation is a basic life process, not a reaction to the food you eat. Inflammation plays an active part in wound-healing. Teething in infants has an inflammatory component. Systemic inflammation is ubiquitous during and following parturition in mammals. There is inflammation everywhere, it's as generic a word as "oxidation" and "metabolism."

tartoran 6y ago
That's like saying cell division is a basic life process and nothing can stop this process from going haywire, but what about cancer. It is widely believed that inflammation levels spike for certain foods and the overall effect on the body is not optimal to say the least.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  There's a middle ground: some is probably beneficial in certain cases, but you can have too much of a good thing-- then it's an issue.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    Yes, that is obvious. It is a natural process as much as apoptosis or cell suicide is.
atat7024 6y ago
Every time you eat, the body enters a state of heightened inflammation. This is well documented. Please don't spread disinformation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- voxl 6y ago
  Two things: First, if this is as well documented as you say then you should provide such documentation as you seem to think it should be at the finger tips of others. Second, your comment doesn't actually counter the main point of what you are responding to. The point is that what "inflammation" means is too general. Even if it is true that you enter a "heightened inflammation" state when eating, that doesn't discredit the idea that inflammation as a category is being overloaded.
- darkteflon 6y ago
  Pseudoscience schooling science.
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    No, please do some research, even a cursory Google leads to many papers on this.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170116121912.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170116121912.h... For example suggests this is true...
  - atat7024 6y ago
    Yeah, honestly this is no different than real life. People don't want to be told that alcohol, sugar, too many calories, etc inflames the hell out of the body. So be it. Wait for your own wakeup call. I hope it never comes.
rsync 6y ago
"Inflammation is a basic life process, not a reaction to the food you eat. Inflammation plays an active part in wound-healing. Teething in infants has an inflammatory component. Systemic inflammation is ubiquitous during and following parturition in mammals. There is inflammation everywhere, it's as generic a word as "oxidation" and "metabolism."" Everything you have said is true. What I think you are missing is that there is both a per-calorie inflammation cost for all food inputs and a minimum inflammatory startup cost just to metabolize at all. More simply: 1000 calories spread across two meals will generate more inflammation than 1000 calories in a single meal. There are two analogies that I think are useful when thinking about this: First, introducing food inputs appears to be an interrupt for most other bodily activities - even very essential ones like sleep and reproduction, etc. You might consider how many hours each day your body spends not digesting. It doesn't take much to increase that by 50% or more... Second, electric motors like pumps and fans have failures ("deaths") that are much more accurately predicted by number of start-stop cycles than by the number of hours run. Startup is expensive for these devices and I suspect that startup is expensive for our food metabolism as well.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  Yes, also we know cell machinery operates in a different mode when the body is without fuel, it’s moves in a repair/conserve mode that includes preferential autophagy of damaged cells. It makes sense, eating used to be extremely dangerous so the body mounts an immune response including inflammation every time.
  - jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
    > eating used to be extremely dangerous You're talking a very long time ago. Shouldn't that be already disregarded from an evolutionary POV?
    - MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
      > You're talking a very long time ago. We've made strong progress in food security in the last 100-200 years, not sure about before that. I suspect hunter/gatherers had it actually better than farmers. What time spans are you talking about?
andy_ppp 6y ago
No-one is say all inflammation is bad, just that constantly being in that state is really bad for you...
nabla9 6y ago
Inflammation is immune system response. Nothing to do with metabolism or oxidation.
- keymone 6y ago
  You’re wrong, insulin is inflammatory hormone, google it.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Googling ... Result: Insulin is anti-inflammatory and antiatherosclerotic hormone.
    - keymone 6y ago
      Ok, this is dumb, I meant to say there is connection between insulin and inflammatory processes (hence it is definitely connected to metabolism), insulin itself has anti-inflammatory effect, but insulin resistance and chronic inflammation are also linked. And I managed to say something completely opposite. Sorry.

tartoran 6y ago

That's like saying cell division is a basic life process and nothing can stop this process from going haywire, but what about cancer. It is widely believed that inflammation levels spike for certain foods and the overall effect on the body is not optimal to say the least.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
There's a middle ground: some is probably beneficial in certain cases, but you can have too much of a good thing-- then it's an issue.
- tartoran 6y ago
  Yes, that is obvious. It is a natural process as much as apoptosis or cell suicide is.

atat7024 6y ago

Every time you eat, the body enters a state of heightened inflammation. This is well documented. Please don't spread disinformation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
voxl 6y ago
Two things: First, if this is as well documented as you say then you should provide such documentation as you seem to think it should be at the finger tips of others. Second, your comment doesn't actually counter the main point of what you are responding to. The point is that what "inflammation" means is too general. Even if it is true that you enter a "heightened inflammation" state when eating, that doesn't discredit the idea that inflammation as a category is being overloaded.
darkteflon 6y ago
Pseudoscience schooling science.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  No, please do some research, even a cursory Google leads to many papers on this.
andy_ppp 6y ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170116121912.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170116121912.h... For example suggests this is true...
- atat7024 6y ago
  Yeah, honestly this is no different than real life. People don't want to be told that alcohol, sugar, too many calories, etc inflames the hell out of the body. So be it. Wait for your own wakeup call. I hope it never comes.

rsync 6y ago

"Inflammation is a basic life process, not a reaction to the food you eat. Inflammation plays an active part in wound-healing. Teething in infants has an inflammatory component. Systemic inflammation is ubiquitous during and following parturition in mammals. There is inflammation everywhere, it's as generic a word as "oxidation" and "metabolism."" Everything you have said is true. What I think you are missing is that there is both a per-calorie inflammation cost for all food inputs and a minimum inflammatory startup cost just to metabolize at all. More simply: 1000 calories spread across two meals will generate more inflammation than 1000 calories in a single meal. There are two analogies that I think are useful when thinking about this: First, introducing food inputs appears to be an interrupt for most other bodily activities - even very essential ones like sleep and reproduction, etc. You might consider how many hours each day your body spends not digesting. It doesn't take much to increase that by 50% or more... Second, electric motors like pumps and fans have failures ("deaths") that are much more accurately predicted by number of start-stop cycles than by the number of hours run. Startup is expensive for these devices and I suspect that startup is expensive for our food metabolism as well.

andy_ppp 6y ago
Yes, also we know cell machinery operates in a different mode when the body is without fuel, it’s moves in a repair/conserve mode that includes preferential autophagy of damaged cells. It makes sense, eating used to be extremely dangerous so the body mounts an immune response including inflammation every time.
- jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
  > eating used to be extremely dangerous You're talking a very long time ago. Shouldn't that be already disregarded from an evolutionary POV?
  - MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
    > You're talking a very long time ago. We've made strong progress in food security in the last 100-200 years, not sure about before that. I suspect hunter/gatherers had it actually better than farmers. What time spans are you talking about?

andy_ppp 6y ago

No-one is say all inflammation is bad, just that constantly being in that state is really bad for you...

nabla9 6y ago

Inflammation is immune system response. Nothing to do with metabolism or oxidation.

keymone 6y ago
You’re wrong, insulin is inflammatory hormone, google it.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Googling ... Result: Insulin is anti-inflammatory and antiatherosclerotic hormone.
  - keymone 6y ago
    Ok, this is dumb, I meant to say there is connection between insulin and inflammatory processes (hence it is definitely connected to metabolism), insulin itself has anti-inflammatory effect, but insulin resistance and chronic inflammation are also linked. And I managed to say something completely opposite. Sorry.