posted
I do supplement my iron, since even with an iron-rich diet and a supplement I tend to be low enough on iron that the Red Cross won't take my blood (not clinically anemic, but borderline.)
I have heard that Floradix is a great way to keep iron up and is better absorbed. I haven't tried it yet though (haven't been to Whole Foods, nearest place that carries it, since we had that discussion.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've considered switching to cast-iron pans, but I sort of hate them. I know, I'm probably the only one. But just try lifting a cast-iron dutch oven when you are pregnant. That's enough to create animosity for life.
And I'll check out Floradix. Thanks for that. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm the traitor in my family. They all swear by cast-iron (cast iron?) and bought me a ton of it when I got married. It...disappeared all on its own, I swear!
But I was nineteen then and a lot less patient. Maybe I'll just buy one piece to start and see how it goes.
ETA: Exactly, the seasoning! That's why I don't use my wok as often as I could. That, and I have an electric stove. Fie!
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It won't help keep iron up, but if you like cooking with cast iron and don't like the weight, check out Calphalon One's Infused Anodized line. They're wonderful pieces of cookware, with many of the good properties of cast iron.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what a diffuser ring is, although I can make an educated guess. All I have is a metal ring that holds my pan above the burner. If that's what you are talking about, then they don't give much better results.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day."
IIRC, no, unless the person is pale-skinned, naked, and in a place that is not currently in a "Vitamin D winter." You didn't read carefully, and I don't what I can do to make you read carefully.
Oh, and dried fruit is absolutely not a healthy food. In small amounts, it's no great evil, but to act like it's some kind of health food is quite wrong-headed. Every raw vegan I know has made themselves really sick on dried fruit. That includes me. If you want to know the difference between the health benefits of fresh versus dried fruit, talk to people who have tried to live largely on each. I am one of those people, and everybody here needs to be aware that dried fruit is just not a healthy food, unless you are comparing it to yellow heart-shaped marshmallows, or some shit. LOL
The only acceptable cereals are freshly ground. By the time it's been ground, formed into flakes/puffs, bagged, boxed, shipped, and put on the shelf, the nutrients in it have undergone serious changes, none of them good. I'd also like to get back to one of my earlier points, which is that fat is the single most useful calorie source. Grains are relatively low-fat, even oats.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're coming across a little extreme, there, steven.
Dried fruit might make people sick because they eat too much due to the low water content (and therefore bulk).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. I think everyone is aware that fresh fruit is healthier than dried. What does that have to do with anything?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Um. I think everyone is aware that fresh fruit is healthier than dried. What does that have to do with anything?"
I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was reacting to PSI Teleport's assertion that dried fruit was an indicator of a "healthy" cereal.
I seriously jacked up my health on dried fruit. I felt weak, and my hair started turning gray. It turned back brown after I stopped eating dried fruit. I've heard similar stories from tons of other raw foodists. Pretty much every long-time rawie I know has a story about their experience with it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Did you seriously compare Tay-Sachs to diabetes? OK, look, (and I'm trying to say this delicately) Tay-Sachs is a result of...extreme...genetic...OK. I really don't know how to nicely say "your family tree doesn't fork", but that's the situation. It's a disease of Eastern European Jewry, and that's pretty much it. Diabetes shows up everywhere. It's ubiquitous, and is only non-selected for if the diet allows it. I'm not trying to bust the Jews, they've given us more than their share of great scientists, musicians, entertainers, etc., so forgive me if that's how it's come across.
Wow.
First of all, way to miss the point. You claimed a disease that kills before puberty cannot be genetic. I gave you an example of a disease that kills before age 5 that is 100% genetic. (I doubt you actually missed my point; you simply had no actual response and therefore decided to be supremely offensive.)
Second of all, if you are claiming Tay Sachs is a result of inbreeding, I'd like to see some evidence of that? You know, as opposed to the counter-evidence kq provided?
You clearly have no clue about genetics.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day."
IIRC, no, unless the person is pale-skinned, naked, and in a place that is not currently in a "Vitamin D winter." You didn't read carefully, and I don't what I can do to make you read carefully.
From your Vitamin D Council link:
quote: If one regularly avoids sunlight exposure, research indicates a necessity to supplement with at least 5,000 units (IU) of vitamin D daily. To obtain this amount from milk one would need to consume 50 glasses. With a multivitamin more than 10 tablets would be necessary. Neither is advisable.
The skin produces approximately 20,000 IU vitamin D in response 20–30 minutes summer sun exposure—100 times more than the US government's recommendation of 200 IU per day!
One of the ways it lists for "adults to ensure adequate levels of Vitamin D" is to "regularly receive midday sun exposure in the late spring, summer, and early fall, exposing as much of the skin as possible." (All quotes are from the same paragraph.) Since it's illegal to stroll around outside naked that obviously wouldn't fall under the category of "as much skin as possible". I'm sure they would have used the term "legal" in their phrasing, except that a person of average intelligence would be able to parse that. And yes, I'm aware that some steps would need to be taken to ensure adequate intake in some areas during "winter months", but that doesn't include the majority of the United States, according to the National Institute of Health. The Vitamin D Council only suggests taking 5,000 IU if you "regularly avoid sun exposure." That's a bit different than getting winter sun. Winter sun still supplies some Vitamin D. In other words, you would have to drink 50 glasses of milk (which they do not suggest) only if you were getting NO sun exposure at all.
quote: The UV energy above 42 degrees north latitude (a line approximately between the northern border of California and Boston) is insufficient for cutaneous vitamin D synthesis from November through February
So the people who live in the very northernmost part of the US would need some form of supplementation during the winter. People due south of that line may only need supplementation during a very short time in the dead of winter, and people in the southern half of the US (Oklahoma and south, also mentioned by the NIH) never need it at all.
Also from the NIH:
quote: The factors that affect UV radiation exposure and research to date on the amount of sun exposure needed to maintain adequate vitamin D levels make it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested, for example, that approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2-6% UVB radiation is also effective [11,28].
Basically the only points I made are that kids who play outside regularly and eat a well-balanced diet shouldn't have much of a problem. Being outside alone will give kids south of the 42nd parallel most or all of the Vitamin D they need. Most kids also get some form of fortified milk or cereal as well. I'm not saying that eating cereal for breakfast all the time is a good idea. I'm saying that cereal with milk is a breakfast staple and milk is a staple in general, at least in the US. Most kids are consuming them quite regularly.
Let me say it again: I'm not a big fan of cereal. But MY children play outside everyday, and I live in Texas, so I don't have to worry about it. However, most other children are consuming milk and/or cereal quite often, and ALSO receive sun exposure. So in order for a child to not get enough Vitamin D, they would have to avoid all sun exposure AND milk. My worries for a child like that go beyond their Vitamin D intake alone.
Of course, this is also from your link, in response to the question "How much Vitamin D Should I Take?":
quote: Again, we don't know. This is a difficult question because it relies on so many personal factors. Everyone's situation is either a lot, or at least a little, different. How much vitamin D you need varies with age, body weight, percent of body fat, latitude, skin coloration, season of the year, use of sunblock, individual variation in sun exposure, and—probably—how ill you are. As a general rule, old people need more than young people, big people need more that little people, fat people need more than skinny people, northern people need more than southern people, dark-skinned people need more than fair skinned people, winter people need more than summer people, sunblock lovers need more than sunblock haters, sun-phobes need more than sun worshipers, and ill people may need more than well people.
Quite a few factors are involved, as you can see. However, don't feel bad, no one understands it. Vitamin D is used by the body—metabolically cleared—both to maintain wellness and to treat disease. If you get an infection, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the infection? Nobody knows. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the cancer? Nobody knows. If you have heart disease, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the heart disease? Nobody knows. If you are a child with autism, how much vitamin D does your brain need to turn on the genes that autism has turned off? Nobody knows. If you are an athlete, how much vitamin D does your body use up making you stronger and quicker? Nobody knows, etc.
Based on this definitive research, they suggest taking a lot! Maybe I'll stress about it more when they figure out what you're taking it all FOR.
quote: I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was reacting to PSI Teleport's assertion that dried fruit was an indicator of a "healthy" cereal.
Since I never said this, nor made a comment regarding the healthfulness of dried fruit at all, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not paying attention, and stop responding to you.
ETA: At this point we're probably just arguing to see who's more anal about the food they eat. So I'll concede: it's you.
posted
"this point we're probably just arguing to see who's more anal about the food they eat. So I'll concede: it's you."
As an American in 2008, that's a compliment. It displays the awareness of the need to focus on the fundamentals. It doesn't get much more fundamental than your health, and I guarantee that diet is the #1 cause of poor health in this country. So yeah, I'm anal about my diet. I also am height/weight proportionate, with no blood sugar or blood pressure problems, and am more free of aches and pains of the joint and muscle type than I was 10 years ago. I need no medications, and I have plenty of stamina and strength, even though I don't do a lot of exercise beyond tai chi. I eat a lot better than I used to, and my health shows it. You get out of things what you put into them, and I have chosen to put a lot of energy and time into eating healthily. No shame in that. I can always go back and eat junk later. the junky stuff isnn't going anywhere. It isn't hiding from me, or sneaking away when I'm not looking.
But seriously, my grandparents are all height-weight proportionate, and only one of them has had a heart attack and/or heart trouble, and he was 69 when that happend. OTOH, my parents are both heavily overweight, have been for years, and had a quadruple bypass at age 48 (mom) and major heart attack at age 49 (dad). 2 of my 4 grandparents smoke, and both my parents do, so it isn't really that. It's the diet, no?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So the people who live in the very northernmost part of the US would need some form of supplementation during the winter. "
There's a big difference between
a. enough of a vitamin to prevent obvious deficiency
and
b. enough of a vitamin to protect the health in a more general sense, including during times when more of that vitamin is being used up, like during illness.
Personally, I'm aiming for option b.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
