General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Fruit vs the root....

Started by Dave · · Last activity · 125 posts · 2,765 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
27 September 2003
Last activity
2 October 2003
Original author
Dave
Posts
125
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,765
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 125
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp
    scurvy
    Related: Pathology

    deficiency disorder resulting from a lack of vitamin C (ascorbic acid)
    in the diet. Scurvy does not occur in most animals because they can
    synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans, other primates, guinea pigs, and
    a few other species lack an enzyme necessary for such synthesis and must
    obtain vitamin C through their diet. Vitamin C is widespread in plant
    tissues, with particularly high concentrations occurring in citrus fruits
    (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruits); tomatoes, potatoes, cabbages, and
    green peppers are also good sources of this vitamin. Scurvy results in
    the weakening of capillaries, which causes hemorrhages into the tissues,
    bleeding of the gums, loosening of the teeth, anemia, and general debility.
    In infants there is also interference with bone development. Severe phases
    of the disorder can result in death. Scurvy is treated with large doses of
    vitamin C. Modern methods of transporting and preserving foods have made a
    diet rich in vitamin C available everywhere throughout the year, and even
    infants' diets include orange juice. Vitamin C is also available in tablet
    or syrup form.

    Scurvy was a serious problem in the past, when fresh fruits and
    vegetables were not available during the winter in many parts of the world.
    It was especially common among sailors in the days when only nonperishable
    foods could be stocked aboard ship. More than half the crew of Vasco da Gama
    died from scurvy on his first trip (1497-99) around the Cape of Good Hope.
    In 1747 the Scottish naval surgeon James Lind treated scurvy-ridden sailors
    with lemons and oranges and obtained dramatic cures. In 1795 the British
    navy began to distribute regular rations of lime juice during long sea
    voyages (hence the name limeys for British sailors), a measure that was
    largely successful in preventing scurvy. It was probably the first disease
    to be definitely associated with a dietary deficiency.

    Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2003.

    deficiency disorder resulting from a lack of vitamin C

    Correct, but let's put the proper emphasis, shall we? Here: "deficiency
    disorder RESULTING from a lack of vitamin C." There, the emphasis that
    the cause of the disorder is a lack of vitamin C.

    Quoted message said:

    deficiency disorder deficiency disorder deficiency disorder deficiency
    disorder deficiency disorder deficiency disorder
    deficiency disorder deficiency disorder deficiency disorder deficiency
    disorder deficiency disorder deficiency disorder

    None of these things support your contention that scurvy is a genetic
    disease, your annoying repetitions notwithstanding.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  2. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp

    ....does not say scurvy is a genetic disorder.

    Your contention makes no more sense than saying "starvation is a
    genetic disorder because we can't synthesize our own food from
    light."

    Of course, *you* probably think that makes sense.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Quoted message said:

    Anth

    "David Wright" the llsa wannabe wrote <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message news:[email hidden]...
    <snip>

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dave said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    It is a contradiction in terms because scurvy is a metabolic disorder


    which

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    affects 100% of the population.

    No it isn't.

    100% of the population cannot make vitamin C. That does NOT mean 100% of
    the population has scurvy. It means that 100% of the population needs to
    have an adequate intake of vitamin C to avoid GETTING scurvy.

    Quoted message said:

    You better be careful here. You are recommending a vitamin. It could
    cause a bad reaction, cripple or maim, some unsuspecting person.,
    couldn't it?

    No.

    Quoted message said:

    LOL

    Laugh, clown. The joke's on you, but you're too thick to know it.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  4. Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we don't.
    Anth

    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp

    ...does not say scurvy is a genetic disorder.

    Your contention makes no more sense than saying "starvation is a
    genetic disorder because we can't synthesize our own food from
    light."

    Of course, *you* probably think that makes sense.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Quoted message said:

    Anth

    "David Wright" the llsa wannabe wrote <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message news:[email hidden]...
    <snip>

  5. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we don't.

    However, once again, just because many mammals can synthesize vitamin C
    and humans happen not to be able to does NOT make scurvy a "genetic"
    disorder in humans. Genetic disorders/defects are defined relative to
    members of the same species, NOT relative to other species. If 100% of
    humans lack the appropriate enzyme to complete the synthesis of vitamin
    C it is not a genetic "defect" or "disorder."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  6. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we don't.

    True. And some animals need nutrients in their diets that we don't.
    I suppose they all have genetic disorders too.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Quoted message said:

    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp

    ...does not say scurvy is a genetic disorder.

    Your contention makes no more sense than saying "starvation is a
    genetic disorder because we can't synthesize our own food from
    light."

    Of course, *you* probably think that makes sense.

  7. We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and there's
    evidence that the gene was there.
    Anth

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we


    don't.

    Quoted message said:


    However, once again, just because many mammals can synthesize vitamin C
    and humans happen not to be able to does NOT make scurvy a "genetic"
    disorder in humans. Genetic disorders/defects are defined relative to
    members of the same species, NOT relative to other species. If 100% of
    humans lack the appropriate enzyme to complete the synthesis of vitamin
    C it is not a genetic "defect" or "disorder."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and there's
    evidence that the gene was there.

    No, we have a mutated gene, as do virtually all primates. "Defective"
    is simply a value judgement on your part, and a silly one at that.
    Our ancestors lost the ability to make vitamin C, but it didn't matter
    because they had diets containing large amounts of C.

    The fact that you don't like this does not make it a "defect" any more
    than our inability to synthesize other vitamins. After all, they're
    vitamins by definition, because we can't synthesize them.

    Go ahead and whine about this all you want. You're still wrong.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Quoted message said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we


    don't.

    Quoted message said:


    However, once again, just because many mammals can synthesize vitamin C
    and humans happen not to be able to does NOT make scurvy a "genetic"
    disorder in humans. Genetic disorders/defects are defined relative to
    members of the same species, NOT relative to other species. If 100% of
    humans lack the appropriate enzyme to complete the synthesis of vitamin
    C it is not a genetic "defect" or "disorder."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and there's
    evidence that the gene was there.

    Irrelevant. The gene is not there now, and its not being there is the
    norm in 100% of the population. It is therefore not a "defect."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  10. No I am not wrong I am correct
    It is seldom that I am wrong, but I am right again
    Anth

    "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and


    there's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    evidence that the gene was there.

    No, we have a mutated gene, as do virtually all primates. "Defective"
    is simply a value judgement on your part, and a silly one at that.
    Our ancestors lost the ability to make vitamin C, but it didn't matter
    because they had diets containing large amounts of C.

    The fact that you don't like this does not make it a "defect" any more
    than our inability to synthesize other vitamins. After all, they're
    vitamins by definition, because we can't synthesize them.

    Go ahead and whine about this all you want. You're still wrong.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Quoted message said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > Animals don't synthesise food, some animals synthesise vitamin c, we


    don't.

    Quoted message said:


    However, once again, just because many mammals can synthesize vitamin C
    and humans happen not to be able to does NOT make scurvy a "genetic"
    disorder in humans. Genetic disorders/defects are defined relative to
    members of the same species, NOT relative to other species. If 100% of
    humans lack the appropriate enzyme to complete the synthesis of


    vitamin

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    C it is not a genetic "defect" or "disorder."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    (David Wright) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and there's
    evidence that the gene was there.

    No, we have a mutated gene, as do virtually all primates. "Defective"
    is simply a value judgement on your part, and a silly one at that.
    Our ancestors lost the ability to make vitamin C, but it didn't matter
    because they had diets containing large amounts of C.

    Indeed. Natural selection tends to allow the loss of genes whose
    function is no longer necessary. If a species lives in a tropical
    climate, as early humans did in Africa, the gene to synthesize vitamin C
    is not necessary, given the abundant fruits in such an environment that
    can provide vitamin C in the diet. There would be no selective advantage
    to keeping the gene for the enzyme. Consequently, it could easily
    disappear over many generations.

    Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention to "Anth": just because there
    was evidence that the gene for the synthesis of vitamin C was there in
    our distant ancestors does NOT mean its absence today is a "defect."
    After all, there is abundant evidence that precursor species to humans
    had tails. Does that mean the lack of tails in modern humans is a
    "defect," as well?

    Quoted message said:

    The fact that you don't like this does not make it a "defect" any more
    than our inability to synthesize other vitamins. After all, they're
    vitamins by definition, because we can't synthesize them.

    Indeed.

    Quoted message said:

    Go ahead and whine about this all you want. You're still wrong.

    He'll never admit it.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    No I am not wrong I am correct
    It is seldom that I am wrong, but I am right again

    Saying it does not necessarily make it so. You have to prove you're
    correct.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  13. Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    It is a contradiction in terms because scurvy is a metabolic disorder which
    affects 100% of the population.

    No it isn't.

    100% of the population cannot make vitamin C. That does NOT mean 100% of
    the population has scurvy. It means that 100% of the population needs to
    have an adequate intake of vitamin C to avoid GETTING scurvy.
    --
    Orac

    Anth probably thinks that suffication is a disease as 100% of the population
    needs oxygen. Perhaps he thinks that ADHD is caused by a Ritalin deficiency.

  14. ...and furthermore since I posted links to an encyclopaedia reference that
    quotes scurvy as being a genetic disorder shows your ignorance.
    Anth

  15. It's a defect when it's responsible for disease, you should know that from
    your own cancer research.
    Anth

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    We don't synthesise vitamin c because we have a defective gene, and


    there's

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    evidence that the gene was there.

    Irrelevant. The gene is not there now, and its not being there is the
    norm in 100% of the population. It is therefore not a "defect."
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  16. Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp

    A quote from your own source:

    "It [scurvy] was probably the first disease to be definitely associated
    with a dietary deficiency."

    A disease associated with a dietary deficiency--what we've been saying
    all along.

    Eat ginseng and thrive.

    Spamming Dave, let me offer a bit of constructive advice along those lines:
    Eat [censored] from a Rusty Bowl and "thrive" from lockjaw.

  17. Quoted message said:

    No I am not 'getting it'
    Anth

    Obviously you aren't and that lack of a satisfactory sex life has left you a
    deranged ranter. Get laid, get over it and get it straight, Anth, Scurvy is
    NOT a genetic disorder anymore than not being a hermaphrodite.

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (David Wright) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Anth <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >Orac is wrong and by his argument, a genetic disease which affects 100%


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >the population is no longer a disease, it's the norm a 'trait.'

    NOW you're finally getting it! I guess the printout treatment
    worked.

    I wish he were getting it, but I doubt that he is.
    --
    Orac

  18. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    ..and furthermore since I posted links to an encyclopaedia reference that
    quotes scurvy as being a genetic disorder shows your ignorance.

    Nothing in that encyclopedia reference cited scurvy as being a genetic
    disorder. Indeed, it specifically called it the first recognized
    disorder caused by a nutritional deficiency.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  19. scurvy _is_ a genetic disorder.
    And maybe your comment on 'getting laid' parallels your own inadequacy in
    life?
    Anth

    "Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Obviously you aren't and that lack of a satisfactory sex life has left you


    a

    Quoted message said:

    deranged ranter. Get laid, get over it and get it straight, Anth, Scurvy


    is

    Quoted message said:

    NOT a genetic disorder anymore than not being a hermaphrodite.

  20. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Anth said:

    It's a defect when it's responsible for disease, you should know that from
    your own cancer research.

    That has to be the lamest thing you've said on this issue yet. (You're
    getting desperate, aren't you?)

    Here, I'll repeat it for you: If 100% of the human population lacks the
    gene for the enzyme necessary to make ascorbic acid, it is NOT a genetic
    defect or disorder. It is irrelevant that many mammals do happen to have
    this gene. It is also irrelevant that ancestors of [censored] sapiens may have
    had the gene for this enzyme sometime in the distant past, and that the
    gene may have been lost sometime during evolution. 100% of [censored] sapiens
    does not have the gene now, making lack of the gene NORMAL.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.