5 ms·

It's a lie. The effects are always beneficial except in extreme doses. No dose that makes no difference is exactly what you would expect from a nutrient. Lead

It's a lie. The effects are always beneficial except in extreme doses. No dose that makes no difference is exactly what you would expect from a nutrient. Lead activates the proteins it supoosedly poisons: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_lead_and_calcium_interact_positively_in_activation_of_calmodulin https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_... Yes, teeth and bones use most of the lead that you consume. But why is there lead in the teeth of neandethals? https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-old-neanderthal-teeth-reveal-evidence-of-lead-poisoning https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-o... Yes, iron overload seems to interfere with lead. Calcium not so much, it seems it rather makes lead used for building more bone. Licking lead causes cravings for calcium rich food.

eternityforest 4y ago
Where's the evidence that those proteins need "activating"? The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. For that matter, activating and poisoning aren't even mutually exclusive, you can run an engine too fast and burn it, work out till you get rhabdo and your P looks like T, etc. To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. Lots of stuff is just mildly bad, it kills some people, sickens others, but not enough to affect population growth so Darwin continues not caring while people die and suffer. Maybe they had some lead containing tools or medicines or something, of the sort we can avoid now because of safety standards. Our ancestors were exposed to lots of unhealthy stuff, including battle axes, most of us would prefer to minimize it to below that level, and continually improve things.
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  >The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. We're arguing what the 'default' is. I'm arguing the default state is with lead. It would be strange for a protein to evolve to get so easily activated by a toxin. >To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. I thing it's completely uncontroversial that the current typical human health is at the historic rock bottom. There is no reason theoretical or not to believe it is toxic in the first place, except for the strange claim that the body uses it in error. >The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. That's an absurd claim, and really grasping at straws, don't you think? Mote that the remains aren't many. It isn't that they sieved through thousands of teeth to find a couple that were poisoned.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    You're absolutely wrong, why don't we start consuming things like poneratoxin? Proteins evolved to be activated by it right?
  - eternityforest 4y ago
    I don't think it's uncontroversial at all. People's health is better for lots of reasons unrelated to lead, so it's very hard to compare. We no longer die of pathogens and injuries as much, even COVID is not as bad as some historical plagues. There's new hazards that didn't exist then, but a some of them are exactly due to the body doing harmful things with surplus nutrition, that's what obesity is. Toxins activate things all the time. Just because it can be activated doesn't prove it should be activated at any more than the baseline level, and some things might be better off activated less. There's various papers on "ultratrace elements" and a few old ones on "lead deficiency" talking about impaired lipid absorption, and reduced Hct and Hb(Isn't lower but still normal hemoglobin a good thing?) but people are likely already getting more lead than 100 years ago. Even if there's some role for lead and the papers aren't getting it wrong, everyone's probably getting more than the optimal point. Unless they study that optimal point it could be above, the same as, or well below what our ancestors got. Or perhaps the optimal point has even changed. Maybe lead helped them have Moe Hb, which helped them persistence hunt or something, but now we don't need any boosts like that to meet typical or even optimal levels of excercise, and it just puts unneeded stress on the heart. We do have studies like this showing detrimental effects to people with increased lead, even within the typical range(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.628321 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.6...)
    - Weneedlead 4y ago
      >any more than the baseline level Again. Can't you see it's a circular argument? How did you determine that it's the 'baseline'? >people are likely getting more lead than 100 years ago. People used to get much more. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440310002682 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...

eternityforest 4y ago

Where's the evidence that those proteins need "activating"? The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. For that matter, activating and poisoning aren't even mutually exclusive, you can run an engine too fast and burn it, work out till you get rhabdo and your P looks like T, etc. To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. Lots of stuff is just mildly bad, it kills some people, sickens others, but not enough to affect population growth so Darwin continues not caring while people die and suffer. Maybe they had some lead containing tools or medicines or something, of the sort we can avoid now because of safety standards. Our ancestors were exposed to lots of unhealthy stuff, including battle axes, most of us would prefer to minimize it to below that level, and continually improve things.

Weneedlead 4y ago
>The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. We're arguing what the 'default' is. I'm arguing the default state is with lead. It would be strange for a protein to evolve to get so easily activated by a toxin. >To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. I thing it's completely uncontroversial that the current typical human health is at the historic rock bottom. There is no reason theoretical or not to believe it is toxic in the first place, except for the strange claim that the body uses it in error. >The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. That's an absurd claim, and really grasping at straws, don't you think? Mote that the remains aren't many. It isn't that they sieved through thousands of teeth to find a couple that were poisoned.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  You're absolutely wrong, why don't we start consuming things like poneratoxin? Proteins evolved to be activated by it right?
- eternityforest 4y ago
  I don't think it's uncontroversial at all. People's health is better for lots of reasons unrelated to lead, so it's very hard to compare. We no longer die of pathogens and injuries as much, even COVID is not as bad as some historical plagues. There's new hazards that didn't exist then, but a some of them are exactly due to the body doing harmful things with surplus nutrition, that's what obesity is. Toxins activate things all the time. Just because it can be activated doesn't prove it should be activated at any more than the baseline level, and some things might be better off activated less. There's various papers on "ultratrace elements" and a few old ones on "lead deficiency" talking about impaired lipid absorption, and reduced Hct and Hb(Isn't lower but still normal hemoglobin a good thing?) but people are likely already getting more lead than 100 years ago. Even if there's some role for lead and the papers aren't getting it wrong, everyone's probably getting more than the optimal point. Unless they study that optimal point it could be above, the same as, or well below what our ancestors got. Or perhaps the optimal point has even changed. Maybe lead helped them have Moe Hb, which helped them persistence hunt or something, but now we don't need any boosts like that to meet typical or even optimal levels of excercise, and it just puts unneeded stress on the heart. We do have studies like this showing detrimental effects to people with increased lead, even within the typical range(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.628321 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.6...)
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    >any more than the baseline level Again. Can't you see it's a circular argument? How did you determine that it's the 'baseline'? >people are likely getting more lead than 100 years ago. People used to get much more. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440310002682 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...