Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- From: "MMu" <brilhasti@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:53:49 +0100
"TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1140706675.492536.22580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MMu wrote:
"TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im NewsbeitragI wasn't suggesting that "Liebig's Law" be specifically referenced.
news:1140626743.737813.152560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum
Just the concept of the importance of having all useful nutrients in at
least the minimum amounts needed for optimal and proper development and
health.
But that is the basic meaning of the DRI's (or whatever the recommended
daily intake of essential food components is termed in the different
countries).
They are based on the minimal amounts needed for maintaining health and add
some percentage to that (usually) to come to a recommended intake.
But some in the medical maintream seems to not see any importance in
this. In many instances medical people will be anti-vitamin. And some
even actively support an inherently nutrient-deficient diet like
vegetarianism and/or veganism.
I think that depends what you call the medical mainstream.
If you are talking about the consensus of the scientific community, then I
disagree-
if you talk about media presence things are a little different.
The scientific idea behind what you probably call being "anti-vitamin" is:
teach people to buy, prepare and eat a healthy diet instead of encouraging
them to just take some vitamin pills because there is more to healthy
nutrition than just having enough vitamins in your diet..
I dont agree that veganism is being pushed either (and I have not yet found
any instance where it was).
Vegetarism is different however.. while you may assume that a
nutrition-uninterested person (for the lack of a better word) on a
vegetarian diet will eventually develop deficiencies most of the vegetarians
are interested in nutrition and have a higher basic knowledge about food and
its contents [which is only natural because being vegetarian in most western
countries is an active choice, not a default option].
That is probably why, in comparisons with non-vegetarians, they do not come
off any worse and sometimes even better than non-vegetarians.
And with regards to the "hampers growth" limitation, it makes sense
that this would be obviously applicable only during the active growth
stage. But during that stage of life when growth is not apparent, it
would also be applicable to health in general. Without the minimally
optimal amounts of all useful nutrients, health and/or growth will be
hampered.
TC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- From: TC
- Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- References:
- Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- From: TC
- Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- From: MMu
- Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- From: TC
- Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- Prev by Date: Re: holy contradictions batman
- Next by Date: Re: Low-Carb Diets are Quackery
- Previous by thread: Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- Next by thread: Re: Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|