nutritional values of combined foods.

[Guest guest]

regarding positive and negative nutritional values ... I've just been

thinking today. it still happens from time to time.

 

most of any nutritional data I have ever read has always said;

 

bananas has this ...

peanut butter has this ...

bread has this ...

 

and so on.

 

all worked out in chemistry labs basically by burning the stuff and

analysis the residue [ over simplification I know ].

 

i guess the first response to this I have is, " OK. what about the '

life value ' of that food ... something that is dead, or incinerated

does not have the same value as something that is living. Even

in scientific terms, on the slide of entropic decline, it is

somewhere else from when I was just about to eat it. And my

stomach is not a simple chemistry set.

 

Fine, Science is very unhappy with " life value " as it does not

have a model or theory to hang it on and it might draw it nearer to

some huge horror like speculations about ether and other

dimensions of energy. So let's ignore this bit for now.

 

Then we take on board that no two bodies are the same, health

matters [ or indeed compacted fecal matters ] affect absortion

rates of nutrition. That is not so hard.

 

Now, can anyone tell me how much study has actually been

done about the nutritional values of combined foods. e.g. your

peanut butter and banana toasties? Not very macrobiotic this

one.

 

As simplistic as meat and two veg, all we have is beans with

grains equals full protein [ MAY BE ]. Granted that any doctor you

have ever met has probably had a grand total of an hour or two or

nutritional education [ " what food makes you sick ... ? never. hey,

wait a minute, we could make money out of that! change things

.... you've got to be nuts, that means me too. ] most nutritionalists

are busy just reciting what they have read in books.

 

kind of like IT buyers in corporations, no one ever got sacked for

buying Microsoft products ... how many state or corporate owned

nutritionalists are willing to stick their neck out for fear of losing

their jobs. stick to the books guys.

 

so who does that leave? the fruit and nuts? the crank labelled

foodies? the cults and food fadists or does that read fascists?

hell, next we will be labelled food terrorists. [ oh. that already

happened ].

 

but it has to make sense.

 

if you stick one thing in a test tube, it is going to come out one

way.

 

if you stick a whole load of things in a test tube, it is going to be

different. and that's just me without a PhD.

 

so then I start to consider RDA, state and corporate biased

eating advice and general nutritional analysis and wonder if

anyone has any clue of what is really going on.

 

on one lunatic fringes you have sainted folks that eat nothing or

next to nothing, on the other you have folk that eat nothing but

pork or treacle sandwiches. on the top millions dying from

healthy eating, and underneath ten of millions starving.

 

what is going on?

 

the " life " factor is stil the one that grabs me. human biology, not

to mention sociology defies the most holy of scientific laws, e.g.

thermodynamics [ entropy ] it has to be running on something.

can the body or soul absorb that more subtle energy? has any

work being done in this area?

 

dont worry, as soon as they do Coke will be marketing " Diet

Prana " and Marlboro " Menthol Elixirs " to high school kids.

 

</rant>

 

john