Can nutrients be addictive?

[Kumar]

Hello,

"Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
addiction, but recent research has also identified elements of
physical dependence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "

When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes or make
that person as addictive or dependent of high glucose levels?
If yes, Will there be withdrawl symptoms on sudden control of
BG levels--harmful or causing uneasiness?

Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?

Best wishes.

[Johngohde@]

kumar wrote:

> Hello,
>
> "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
> individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
> give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
> addiction, but recent research has also identified elements
> of physical dependence:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
>
> When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes or
> make that person as addictive or dependent of high glucose
> levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl symptoms on sudden
> control of BG levels--harmful or causing uneasiness?
>
> Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?

Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?

Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the term. :(

Just thought that you might want to know.

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/sugar.html
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor
of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages,
the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[Kumar]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> kumar wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
> > individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
> > give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
> > addiction, but recent research has also identified
> > elements of physical dependence:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> >
> > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes or
> > make that person as addictive or dependent of high glucose
> > levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl symptoms on sudden
> > control of BG levels--harmful or causing uneasiness?
> >
> > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
>
> Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
>
> Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the term. :(

Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen one
more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and water. Can
their excesses make us addictive or dependent?

> Just thought that you might want to know.

I want to understand can their be toxicities, addiction or
dependence of nutrients esp. carbs, fats protiens, water and
O2, if exposed in excess to tissues( not in blood)?

Rest I will read at rest. Thanks for links.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/sugar.html
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a
> Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological
> factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18
> web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more
> documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

[Tc]

Kumar wrote:
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> > kumar wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> > >
> > > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes
> > > or make that person as addictive or dependent of high
> > > glucose levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl symptoms
> > > on sudden control of BG levels--harmful or causing
> > > uneasiness?
> > >
> > > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
> >
> > Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
> >
> > Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the
> > term. :(
>
> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
>
> > Just thought that you might want to know.
>
> I want to understand can their be toxicities, addiction or
> dependence of nutrients esp. carbs, fats protiens, water
> and O2, if exposed in excess to tissues( not in blood)?

I doubt it. Real nutrition (real food) is something that the
body can consume and either utilize it or excrete what it
cannot utilize with little or no adverse effects.

The next question is what is real food or real nutrition? Real
meats, real whole and fresh produce, clean air and water as
well. Foods that we evolved on as an organism thruout the
millions of years of our evolution.

What is not real food? Food that we did not evolve on as an
organism. Soy, margarine, pure sugar, high fructose corn
syrup, refined white flour, preservatives, flavouring
agents, chemical thickeners, powdered soups, powdered
gravies, selectively and genetically modified produce, RTE
cereals, etc.

TC

[Johngohde@]

Kumar wrote:

> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> > kumar wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> > >
> > > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes
> > > or make that person as addictive or dependent of high
> > > glucose levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl symptoms
> > > on sudden control of BG levels--harmful or causing
> > > uneasiness?
> > >
> > > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
> >
> > Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
> >
> > Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the
> > term. :(
>
> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?

So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
eating food?

A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did not
need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.

So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?

IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric value
in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and magnesium.

Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though
a lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine,
and salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar
as a nutrient.

[Kumar]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> Kumar wrote:
>
> > johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> > > kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> > > >
> > > > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > > > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes
> > > > or make that person as addictive or dependent of high
> > > > glucose levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl
> > > > symptoms on sudden control of BG levels--harmful or
> > > > causing uneasiness?
> > > >
> > > > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
> > >
> > > Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
> > >
> > > Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the
> > > term. :(
> >
> > Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> > one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> > water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
>
> So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> eating food?
>
> A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
> starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
> not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
>
> So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
>
> IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric value
> in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> magnesium.
>
> Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
> lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
> salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
> nutrient.

"A nutrient is any element or compound necessary for or
contributing to an organism's metabolism, growth, or other
functioning. Six nutrient groups exist, classifiable as those
that provide energy and as those that otherwise support
metabolic processes in the body:Some of them are essential
because they cannot be synthesized in the body and must be
obtained from a food source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrients
". Apart from these O2 can also be thought as nutrient.

Pls read following quotes.

""Local blood flow control can be divided into two phases;

1)Acute - rapid change constriction/dilatation of arteriols,
metarteriol et spincters.

2)Long-term control provides a better control by
increasing/decreasing the physical size and number of blood
vessels supplying the tissues. "

""From "Text book of Medical physiology by Guyton & Hall "Long
term regulation of blood flow is esp. important when metabolic
demands of tissue change. Thus, if a tisue become chronicallt
overactive and therefore require chronicaly increased quantity
of oxygen and other nutrients, the blood vessels usually
increase within few weeks almost to match needs of the the
tissues--unless the circulatory system has become pathological
too old to repond.

The mechanism of long term local blood flow regulation is
principally to change the degree of vascularity of the
tissues. For instance; if metabolism in in a given tissue is
increased for a prolonged time vascularity increases; if the
metabolism is decreased, vascularity decreases. Thus there is
reconstruction of the tissue vasculature to meet the needs of
the tissues. The reconstruction occurs rapidly(within

days) in exteremely young animals. It also occurs rapidly
in new groth tissue, such as scar tissue and cancerous
tissue; however it occurs much more slowly in old, well
established tissues.

Oxygen is important not only for acute but also long term
control of local blood flow. One example of this in to
increase in vascularity in the tissues of animals that live on
high altitudes, where the atmospheric oxygen is low. A second
example is that fetel chicks hatched in low oxygen have upto
twice as muchblood vessel conductivity as is normally true.
This same effect is also dramatically demonstrated

in premature human babies who are put on oxygen tents for
therapeutic purposes. The excess O2 causes almost immediate
cesstion of new vascular growth in the retina of the premature
baby's eyes and even causes degenaration of some of the
capillaries that already have formed. Then when the infant is
taken out of the o2 tent, there is explosive overgroth of new
vessels to make up for the sudden decrease in available
oxygen; indeed, there is often so much overgroth that vessels
grow into the eye's vitreous humor and eventuall cause
blindness. (This condition is called "retrolental
fibroplasia"). ""

Can't excessive nutrients establish long term blood flow
controls by increasing/decreasing the physical size and number
of blood vessels supplying the tissues and withdrawl symptoms
apear on controling nutrients uptake due to reversing
established long term local blood flow regulations?

[Kumar]

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> Kumar wrote:
>
> > johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> > > kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> > > >
> > > > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > > > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes
> > > > or make that person as addictive or dependent of high
> > > > glucose levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl
> > > > symptoms on sudden control of BG levels--harmful or
> > > > causing uneasiness?
> > > >
> > > > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
> > >
> > > Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
> > >
> > > Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the
> > > term. :(
> >
> > Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> > one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> > water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
>
> So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> eating food?
>
> A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
> starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
> not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
>
> So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
>
> IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric value
> in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> magnesium.
>
> Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
> lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
> salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
> nutrient.

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> Kumar wrote:
>
> > johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> > > kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> > > >
> > > > When a diabetic2 peson have persistent much elevated
> > > > hyperglycemia, can it cause some morphological changes
> > > > or make that person as addictive or dependent of high
> > > > glucose levels? If yes, Will there be withdrawl
> > > > symptoms on sudden control of BG levels--harmful or
> > > > causing uneasiness?
> > > >
> > > > Whether other nutrients can also behave similarily?
> > >
> > > Question: Do Kooks ever die, or fade away quietly?
> > >
> > > Sugar is NOT a nutrient under any definition of the
> > > term. :(
> >
> > Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> > one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> > water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
>
> So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> eating food?
>
> A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
> starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
> not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
>
> So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
>
> IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric value
> in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> magnesium.
>
> Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
> lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
> salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
> nutrient.

"A nutrient is any element or compound necessary for or
contributing to an organism's metabolism, growth, or other
functioning. Six nutrient groups exist, classifiable as those
that provide energy and as those that otherwise support
metabolic processes in the body:Some of them are essential
because they cannot be synthesized in the body and must be
obtained from a food source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrients
". Apart from these O2 can also be thought as nutrient.

Pls read following quotes.

""Local blood flow control can be divided into two phases;

1)Acute - rapid change constriction/dilatation of arteriols,
metarteriol et spincters.

2)Long-term control provides a better control by
increasing/decreasing the physical size and number of blood
vessels supplying the tissues. "

""From "Text book of Medical physiology by Guyton & Hall "Long
term regulation of blood flow is esp. important when metabolic
demands of tissue change. Thus, if a tisue become chronicallt
overactive and therefore require chronicaly increased quantity
of oxygen and other nutrients, the blood vessels usually
increase within few weeks almost to match needs of the the
tissues--unless the circulatory system has become pathological
too old to repond.

The mechanism of long term local blood flow regulation is
principally to change the degree of vascularity of the
tissues. For instance; if metabolism in in a given tissue is
increased for a prolonged time vascularity increases; if the
metabolism is decreased, vascularity decreases. Thus there is
reconstruction of the tissue vasculature to meet the needs of
the tissues. The reconstruction occurs rapidly(within

days) in exteremely young animals. It also occurs rapidly
in new groth tissue, such as scar tissue and cancerous
tissue; however it occurs much more slowly in old, well
established tissues.

Oxygen is important not only for acute but also long term
control of local blood flow. One example of this in to
increase in vascularity in the tissues of animals that live on
high altitudes, where the atmospheric oxygen is low. A second
example is that fetel chicks hatched in low oxygen have upto
twice as muchblood vessel conductivity as is normally true.
This same effect is also dramatically demonstrated

in premature human babies who are put on oxygen tents for
therapeutic purposes. The excess O2 causes almost immediate
cesstion of new vascular growth in the retina of the premature
baby's eyes and even causes degenaration of some of the
capillaries that already have formed. Then when the infant is
taken out of the o2 tent, there is explosive overgroth of new
vessels to make up for the sudden decrease in available
oxygen; indeed, there is often so much overgroth that vessels
grow into the eye's vitreous humor and eventuall cause
blindness. (This condition is called "retrolental
fibroplasia"). ""

Can't excessive nutrients establish long term blood flow
controls by increasing/decreasing the physical size and number
of blood vessels supplying the tissues and withdrawl symptoms
apear on controling nutrients uptake due to reversing
established long term local blood flow regulations?

[Kumar]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> >> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> >> one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> >> water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
> >
> >So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> >eating food?
> >
> >A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
> >starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
> >not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
> >
> >So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
> >
> >IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric
> >value in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> >magnesium.
>
> According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any
> substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give
> energy and build tissue.
>
> That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll argue
> that anything that HAS caloric value that can be digested is
> a nutrient, especially "junk food".
>
> >Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
> >lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
> >salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
> >nutrient.
>
> Gordon L.
> Burditt

TC, Jim, Sordon,

Pls read my reply to
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com 's post.

[Mr. Natura]

Kumar wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
> > >> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think
> > >> oxygen one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals,
> > >> vitamis and water. Can their excesses make us addictive
> > >> or dependent?
> > >
> > >So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> > >eating food?
> > >
> > >A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed
> > >to starve to death when they attempted to prove that they
> > >did not need food to survive. They called them
> > >Breatharians.
> > >
> > >So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
> > >
> > >IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric
> > >value in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> > >magnesium.
> >
> > According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any
> > substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give
> > energy and build tissue.
> >
> > That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll argue
> > that anything that HAS caloric value that can be digested
> > is a nutrient, especially "junk food".
> >
> > >Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though
> > >a lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine,
> > >and salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar
> > >as a nutrient.
> >
> > Gordon L.
> > Burditt
>
> TC, Jim, Sordon,
>
> Pls read my reply to johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
> 's post.

Kumar should be classified as a Twit, rather than as a Kook.
Nor, is Kumar a Science Geek. Just call Kumar by his proper
name, Twit.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/faddism.html

Thanks in part to Kumar, I was able to make my first update to
my published research on the Kooks who inhabit smn since 2002.
Let us all hear it for, Kumar!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[Mr. Natura]

Gordon Burditt wrote:
> >> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
> >> one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
> >> water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
> >
> >So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> >eating food?
> >
> >A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
> >starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
> >not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
> >
> >So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
> >
> >IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric
> >value in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> >magnesium.
>
> According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any
> substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give
> energy and build tissue.
>
> That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll argue
> that anything that HAS caloric value that can be digested is
> a nutrient, especially "junk food".
>
> >Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
> >lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
> >salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
> >nutrient.
>
> Gordon L.
> Burditt

Gordon Burditt should be clearly classified as a science Geek.

As I clearly play the role of a Quack on smn, I will stick to
my original assertion. No way, would I ever call sugar an
important nutrient on the same level of vitamin B-12.

Imagine, the science Geeks have just now figured out that
people are addicted to sugar.

Maybe with a few more degrees behind their belts, they might
accidentally discover what us Quacks knew over 100 years
ago? Nah!!!

You Geeks have my condolences.

[Doc John]

kumar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
> individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
> give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
> addiction, but recent research has also identified elements
> of physical dependence:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "

Ooooh! Now, I remember you. You are the same Twit that has
been polluting these ngs for years with your inane
questions and babling. Hmn, ... You might be a science Geek
after all. :(

It called the mind-body connection, otherwise known as the
Biopsychosocial Model of Disease.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/glossary.html

Just thought that the Geek might want to know.

[Kumar]

Kumar wrote:
> Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
> > >> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think
> > >> oxygen one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals,
> > >> vitamis and water. Can their excesses make us addictive
> > >> or dependent?
> > >
> > >So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> > >eating food?
> > >
> > >A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed
> > >to starve to death when they attempted to prove that they
> > >did not need food to survive. They called them
> > >Breatharians.
> > >
> > >So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
> > >
> > >IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric
> > >value in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and
> > >magnesium.
> >
> > According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any
> > substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give
> > energy and build tissue.
> >
> > That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll argue
> > that anything that HAS caloric value that can be digested
> > is a nutrient, especially "junk food".
> >
> > >Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though
> > >a lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine,
> > >and salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar
> > >as a nutrient.
> >
> > Gordon L.
> > Burditt
>
> TC, Jim, Sordon,
>
> Pls read my reply to johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com
> 's post.

More to add:-

"Vitamin poisoning, or hypervitaminosis, refers to a condition
of high storage levels of vitamins, which can lead to toxic
symptoms. The medical names of the different conditions are
derived from the vitamin involved: an excess of vitamin A, for
example, is called "hypervitaminosis A".

High dosage vitamin A, high dosage, slow release vitamin B3
and very high dosage vitamin B6 alone without vitamin B
complex are sometimes associated with vitamin side effects
that usually rapidly cease with supplement reduction or
cessation. Conversely, certain vitamins do not produce
toxicity in excess levels. Vitamin C has been used in dosages
over 100,000 mg for serious illness [1] - over 1000 times the
daily recommended intake - without ill effects. Vitamin C does
have a pronounced laxative effect, typically in the range of
5-20 grams per day for a person in normal "good health".

High doses of mineral supplements can also lead to side
effects and toxicity. Mineral supplement poisoning does occur
occasionally due to excessive and unusual intake of iron
containing supplements, including some multivitamins.
Hypervitaminosis with multivitamins is uncommon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_poisoning "

[Kumar]

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> Kumar wrote:
> > Gordon Burditt wrote:
> >
> > > >> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think
> > > >> oxygen one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals,
> > > >> vitamis and water. Can their excesses make us
> > > >> addictive or dependent?
> > > >
> > > >So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
> > > >eating food?
> > > >
> > > >A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed
> > > >to starve to death when they attempted to prove that
> > > >they did not need food to survive. They called them
> > > >Breatharians.
> > > >
> > > >So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to
> > > >food?
> > > >
> > > >IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric
> > > >value in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium
> > > >and magnesium.
> > >
> > > According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any
> > > substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give
> > > energy and build tissue.
> > >
> > > That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll
> > > argue that anything that HAS caloric value that can be
> > > digested is a nutrient, especially "junk food".
> > >
> > > >Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even
> > > >though a lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar,
> > > >caffeine, and salt in their diet. But, I would never
> > > >classify sugar as a nutrient.
> > >
> > > Gordon L.
> > > Burditt
> >
> > TC, Jim, Sordon,
> >
> > Pls read my reply to
> > johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com 's post.
>
> Kumar should be classified as a Twit, rather than as a Kook.
> Nor, is Kumar a Science Geek. Just call Kumar by his proper
> name, Twit.
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/faddism.html
>
> Thanks in part to Kumar, I was able to make my first update
> to my published research on the Kooks who inhabit smn since
> 2002. Let us all hear it for, Kumar!
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"Metabolic disruptor

A metabolic disruptor is a food or food ingredient that
disrupts the body chemistry and puts the system out of
homeostasis. Common metabolic disruptors include sugar, white
flour, hydrogenated oils, certain chemical additives, some
artificial sweeteners, and drugs such as caffeine. ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_disruptor

Body's mechanism may be doing something to protect from
metabolic disruptor or from excesses of nutrients. How??

[Jim Chinni]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:

>What is not real food? Food that we did not evolve on as an
>organism.

There is virtually nothing to eat, then. Hardly anything
available today was around even 10,000 years ago, and hardly
anything that was around then isn't now. Every type of fruit
and produce we grow has been genetically shaped over hundreds
of years to be sweeter, less fibrous, and easier to grow, not
to mention the increased shelf life.

Shot any wild boar that have fed on the natural flora of
10,000 years ago? Maybe the closest you could come would be to
eat some wild birds, probably leaving nothing but the feathers
and bones.

Honey has been around a hell of a long time. We haven't
tinkered with bees much, but the bees do feed on different
flora now.

Maybe you could do okay in the Amazon rain forest.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Gordon Bur]

>> Ok, you can consider six nutrient's grops (I think oxygen
>> one more)--Carbs, fats, protiens, minerals, vitamis and
>> water. Can their excesses make us addictive or dependent?
>
>So, you are claiming that a person can be additicted to
>eating food?
>
>A few people in the USA during the 19th century managed to
>starve to death when they attempted to prove that they did
>not need food to survive. They called them Breatharians.
>
>So, I guess that means people cannot be addicted to food?
>
>IMNO, a nutrient is something that contains no caloric value
>in most cases like vitamin B-12, zinc, calcium and magnesium.

According to wordreference.com: nutrient (noun): any substance
that can be metabolized by an organism to give energy and
build tissue.

That makes carbs, fats, and proteins nutrients. I'll argue
that anything that HAS caloric value that can be digested is a
nutrient, especially "junk food".

>Hence, your query as stated is rather absurd, even though a
>lot of people are indeed addicted to sugar, caffeine, and
>salt in their diet. But, I would never classify sugar as a
>nutrient.

Gordon L.
Burditt

[David R. T]

In article <eogj92lqh9pquruur6g45gmqfgtrc1rkle@4ax.com>, Jim
Chinnis <jchinnis@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Honey has been around a hell of a long time. We haven't
> tinkered with bees much, but the bees do feed on different
> flora now.

Don't forget the locusts! The locusts are an important part
of the diet.

Mark.1.6: And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a
girdle of
a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

:-)

DRT I'm sticking with barbeque.

[Marcia]

Doc John wrote:
> kumar wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
> > individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
> > give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
> > addiction, but recent research has also identified
> > elements of physical dependence:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
>
> Ooooh! Now, I remember you. You are the same Twit that has
> been polluting these ngs for years with your inane questions
> and babling.

And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person. You're not
trying to decieve people, are you?

[Tc]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >What is not real food? Food that we did not evolve on as an
> >organism.
>
> There is virtually nothing to eat, then. Hardly anything
> available today was around even 10,000 years ago, and hardly
> anything that was around then isn't now. Every type of fruit
> and produce we grow has been genetically shaped over
> hundreds of years to be sweeter, less fibrous, and easier to
> grow, not to mention the increased shelf life.
>
> Shot any wild boar that have fed on the natural flora of
> 10,000 years ago? Maybe the closest you could come would be
> to eat some wild birds, probably leaving nothing but the
> feathers and bones.
>
> Honey has been around a hell of a long time. We haven't
> tinkered with bees much, but the bees do feed on different
> flora now.
>
> Maybe you could do okay in the Amazon rain forest.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

Well, if you want to get extreme, go ahead. I won't argue such
silliness.

We did not evolve eating vegetable oils like canola and
margarine. We did not evolve eating soy. We did not evolve
eating high fructose corn syrup or even refined white sugar.
We did not evolve eating 60% of our calories as refined grain
products. We did not evolve eating hydrogenated vegetable
oils. No preservatives, no antibiotics, no artificial
thickening agents, no binding agents, no powdered or chemical
flavouring agents.

We did evolve eating real animal fats and real animal proteins
and real whole fresh produce and real fresh unpasteurized
dairy and real fresh eggs etc.

For hundreds of thousands of years we evolved eating animal
fats and proteins, and in the 21st century when the food
industry develops all of these new foods, all of a sudden,
animals fats and proteins are evil and the new artificial
products become health foods. Talk about bass-ackwards
thinking. And we bought into it, literally and figuratively.

And in spite of the wide spread consumption of these "healthy"
grains and soybeans and margarine and hfcs-laden "lite" low
fat foods, and our reduction of consumption of dangerous red
meats and pork and chicken skin (too fatty eh) we have never
been more obese and more riddled with diabetes, heart disease
and other chronic diseases.

TC

[Marcia]

Pete wrote:
> marcia wrote:
> > And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person. You're
> > not trying to decieve people, are you?
>
> Very good Marcia :-)

LOL. Well, I found out he's also Johngohde@... , so he's three
characters in this thread... or should I say *at least* three.
What a great way to form a concensus! :D

[Doc John]

marcia wrote:
> Doc John wrote:
> > kumar wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation
> > > where individuals crave sweet foods, and find them
> > > impossible to give up. There is clearly an aspect of
> > > psychological addiction, but recent research has also
> > > identified elements of physical dependence:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
> >
> > Ooooh! Now, I remember you. You are the same Twit that has
> > been polluting these ngs for years with your inane
> > questions and babling.
>
>
> And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person. You're
> not trying to decieve people, are you?

Do you also believe in UFO's, Ghosts, and Remote Viewing?

Perhaps, in another 10 years it will also dawn on you, why
you are here?

[Pete]

marcia wrote:
> Doc John wrote:
>> kumar wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> "Sugar addiction is a popular term for the situation where
>>> individuals crave sweet foods, and find them impossible to
>>> give up. There is clearly an aspect of psychological
>>> addiction, but recent research has also identified
>>> elements of physical dependence:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction "
>>
>> Ooooh! Now, I remember you. You are the same Twit that has
>> been polluting these ngs for years with your inane
>> questions and babling.
>
>
> And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person. You're
> not trying to decieve people, are you?

Very good Marcia :-)

[Jim Chinni]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:

>
>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>> >What is not real food? Food that we did not evolve on as
>> >an organism.
>>
>> There is virtually nothing to eat, then. Hardly anything
>> available today was around even 10,000 years ago, and
>> hardly anything that was around then isn't now. Every type
>> of fruit and produce we grow has been genetically shaped
>> over hundreds of years to be sweeter, less fibrous, and
>> easier to grow, not to mention the increased shelf life.
>>
>> Shot any wild boar that have fed on the natural flora of
>> 10,000 years ago? Maybe the closest you could come would be
>> to eat some wild birds, probably leaving nothing but the
>> feathers and bones.
>>
>> Honey has been around a hell of a long time. We haven't
>> tinkered with bees much, but the bees do feed on different
>> flora now.
>>
>> Maybe you could do okay in the Amazon rain forest.
>> --
>> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
>
>Well, if you want to get extreme, go ahead. I won't argue
>such silliness.

It was your silliness. Read your own post.

>We did not evolve eating vegetable oils like canola and
>margarine. We did not evolve eating soy. We did not evolve
>eating high fructose corn syrup or even refined white sugar.
>We did not evolve eating 60% of our calories as refined grain
>products. We did not evolve eating hydrogenated vegetable
>oils. No preservatives, no antibiotics, no artificial
>thickening agents, no binding agents, no powdered or chemical
>flavouring agents.
>
>We did evolve eating real animal fats and real animal
>proteins and real whole fresh produce and real fresh
>unpasteurized dairy and real fresh eggs etc.
>
>For hundreds of thousands of years we evolved eating animal
>fats and proteins, and in the 21st century when the food
>industry develops all of these new foods, all of a sudden,
>animals fats and proteins are evil and the new artificial
>products become health foods. Talk about bass-ackwards
>thinking. And we bought into it, literally and figuratively.
>
>And in spite of the wide spread consumption of these
>"healthy" grains and soybeans and margarine and hfcs-laden
>"lite" low fat foods, and our reduction of consumption of
>dangerous red meats and pork and chicken skin (too fatty eh)
>we have never been more obese and more riddled with diabetes,
>heart disease and other chronic diseases.

What you seem to miss is that the criticisms you have of carby
foods apply perfectly well to meats and dairy.

We no more evolved eating fat-streaked corn-fed beef (hold the
organs, please) than we did eating Wonder Bread.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Marcia]

Doc John wrote:
> marcia wrote:
> > And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person. You're
> > not trying to decieve people, are you?
>
> Do you also believe in UFO's, Ghosts, and Remote Viewing?

Nooooo. I believe in empirical evidence, though. Your Doc John
profile brings up the following information:

*******************************************************
John Gohde Nickname: Mr-Natural-Health, formerly known as John
'the Man' Location: Richmond, VA, USA Email address: johngohde
@ naturalhealthperspective.com Website or Blog:
http://naturalhealthperspective.com

Quote: An advocate of the healing power of nature, I like to
comment on the human condition. I function as William
Shakespeare's Chorus and Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery on these
newsgroups.
*******************************************************

Since you're apparently so good at writing fiction, maybe you
can conjure up an interesting explanation for this?

[Mr. Natura]

marcia wrote:
> Doc John wrote:
> > marcia wrote:
> > > And you and Mr. Natural Health are the same person.
> > > You're not trying to decieve people, are you?
> >
> > Do you also believe in UFO's, Ghosts, and Remote Viewing?
>
>
> Nooooo. I believe in empirical evidence, though. Your Doc
> John profile brings up the following information:
>
> *******************************************************
> John Gohde Nickname: Mr-Natural-Health, formerly known as
> John 'the Man' Location: Richmond, VA, USA Email address:
> johngohde @ naturalhealthperspective.com Website or Blog:
> http://naturalhealthperspective.com
>
> Quote: An advocate of the healing power of nature, I like to
> comment on the human condition. I function as William
> Shakespeare's Chorus and Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery on
> these newsgroups.
> *******************************************************
>
> Since you're apparently so good at writing fiction, maybe
> you can conjure up an interesting explanation for this?

All you Geeks are mentally slow. And, you guys have been doing
a excellent job of exposing just how dull your brain power
actually is.

You are just now pondering what us Quacks knew a 100
years ago.

I recommend that you call up Coast-to-Coast tonight and tell
them about your conspiracy theory. I am sure that a few
callers will claim to have been abducted by aliens. Hey, why
don't you use remote viewing to visit me in Richmond?

Boy, are you mentally slow. And, I do not mind saying so. :)

You have my condolences.

[Marcia]

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> marcia wrote:
> > Nooooo. I believe in empirical evidence, though. Your Doc
> > John profile brings up the following information:
> >
> > *******************************************************
> > John Gohde Nickname: Mr-Natural-Health, formerly known as
> > John 'the Man' Location: Richmond, VA, USA Email address:
> > johngohde @ naturalhealthperspective.com Website or Blog:
> > http://naturalhealthperspective.com
> >
> > Quote: An advocate of the healing power of nature, I like
> > to comment on the human condition. I function as William
> > Shakespeare's Chorus and Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery on
> > these newsgroups.
> > *******************************************************
> >
> > Since you're apparently so good at writing fiction, maybe
> > you can conjure up an interesting explanation for this?
>
> All you Geeks are mentally slow. And, you guys have been
> doing a excellent job of exposing just how dull your brain
> power actually is.
>
> You are just now pondering what us Quacks knew a 100
> years ago.
>
> I recommend that you call up Coast-to-Coast tonight and tell
> them about your conspiracy theory. I am sure that a few
> callers will claim to have been abducted by aliens. Hey, why
> don't you use remote viewing to visit me in Richmond?
>
> Boy, are you mentally slow. And, I do not mind saying so. :)
>
> You have my condolences.

Are you what they call a "sock puppet"?

Maybe you can explain how all three of you have AOL accounts
that connect to the internet using IP addresses that place
*ALL THREE OF YOU* in *EXACTLY THE SAME CITY* (which,
incidentally, is not Richmond,
Ms)? Perhaps you can explain how you are all using the same
type of computer, with the same Windows '98 operating
system, and the same browser? Are you neighbors? Brothers?
Co-workers? C'mon, think fast!

How far would you like me to go with this little
investigation? Because the more you deny the truth, the more
motivated I feel to pursue it.

Keep going writing... prove that *I'm* the one who's
mentally slow. :)

[Kumar]

marcia wrote:
> Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > marcia wrote:
> > > Nooooo. I believe in empirical evidence, though. Your
> > > Doc John profile brings up the following information:
> > >
> > > *******************************************************
> > > John Gohde Nickname: Mr-Natural-Health, formerly known
> > > as John 'the Man' Location: Richmond, VA, USA Email
> > > address: johngohde @ naturalhealthperspective.com
> > > Website or Blog: http://naturalhealthperspective.com
> > >
> > > Quote: An advocate of the healing power of nature, I
> > > like to comment on the human condition. I function as
> > > William Shakespeare's Chorus and Howdy Doody's Peanut
> > > Gallery on these newsgroups.
> > > *******************************************************
> > >
> > > Since you're apparently so good at writing fiction,
> > > maybe you can conjure up an interesting explanation for
> > > this?
> >
> > All you Geeks are mentally slow. And, you guys have been
> > doing a excellent job of exposing just how dull your brain
> > power actually is.
> >
> > You are just now pondering what us Quacks knew a 100
> > years ago.
> >
> > I recommend that you call up Coast-to-Coast tonight and
> > tell them about your conspiracy theory. I am sure that a
> > few callers will claim to have been abducted by aliens.
> > Hey, why don't you use remote viewing to visit me in
> > Richmond?
> >
> > Boy, are you mentally slow. And, I do not mind saying
> > so. :)
> >
> > You have my condolences.
>
>
> Are you what they call a "sock puppet"?
>
> Maybe you can explain how all three of you have AOL accounts
> that connect to the internet using IP addresses that place
> *ALL THREE OF YOU* in *EXACTLY THE SAME CITY* (which,
> incidentally, is not Richmond,
> VA)? Perhaps you can explain how you are all using the same
> type of computer, with the same Windows '98 operating
> system, and the same browser? Are you neighbors?
> Brothers? Co-workers? C'mon, think fast!
>
> How far would you like me to go with this little
> investigation? Because the more you deny the truth, the more
> motivated I feel to pursue it.
>
> Keep going writing... prove that *I'm* the one who's
> mentally slow. :)

All,

Pls try to concentrate on topic subject and contribute
whatever you can.

Whether establishing of local long term blood flow regulations
of increasing and decreasing the size and numbers of arteries
(which may be due to addictive substance or excess or
deficient nutrients) can be a reason o expressing/getting
addiction, physical dependance, physiological tollerance etc.?

Can't excesses or deficiencies of nutrients trigger and
establish local long term blood flow regulations to save
tissues from toxicities or defficiencies of these as per need?

Can nutients be toxic or harmful to target and other tissues,
if exposed to them in excess?

[Nico Kadel]

TC wrote:

> Well, if you want to get extreme, go ahead. I won't argue
> such silliness.
>
> We did not evolve eating vegetable oils like canola and
> margarine. We did not evolve eating soy. We did not evolve
> eating high fructose corn syrup or even refined white sugar.
> We did not evolve eating 60% of our calories as refined
> grain products. We did not evolve eating hydrogenated
> vegetable oils. No preservatives, no antibiotics, no
> artificial thickening agents, no binding agents, no powdered
> or chemical flavouring agents.
>
> We did evolve eating real animal fats and real animal
> proteins and real whole fresh produce and real fresh
> unpasteurized dairy and real fresh eggs etc.

Much of which was partly spoiled. There's interesting evidence
in our digestive tract that we're used to eating real carrion
and other semi-rotten cruft. We're *omnivores*, baby. That
ain't "wholesome goodness", that's eating everything that
doesn't outrun us.

> For hundreds of thousands of years we evolved eating animal
> fats and proteins, and in the 21st century when the food
> industry develops all of these new foods, all of a sudden,
> animals fats and proteins are evil and the new artificial
> products become health foods. Talk about bass-ackwards
> thinking. And we bought into it, literally and figuratively.

Well, Americans certainly typically get a lot more meat, and a
lot more food in general, than we could have reasonably hoped
for until fairly recently. And it's much more expensive to
produce than plant-based food, so there are economic reasons
to cut back.

> And in spite of the wide spread consumption of these
> "healthy" grains and soybeans and margarine and hfcs-laden
> "lite" low fat foods, and our reduction of consumption of
> dangerous red meats and pork and chicken skin (too fatty eh)
> we have never been more obese and more riddled with
> diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases.

That's because most of us don't cut back: we're used to eating
when we can, when resources are available before the winter
hits and we'll be hungry for a few months, but now we get food
shipped from elsewhere. This has little to do with carnivorous
or herbivorous behavior.

And also, remember that getting milk after infancy is pretty
unusual, so throw out all that tasty dairy right away as you
climb on your high horse.

[Doc John]

marcia wrote:

> Are you what they call a "sock puppet"?

Are you what they call an A-Hole?

Yes, I definitely think so? Too bad you don't, think too goog.
:(

> Maybe you can explain how all three of you have AOL accounts
> that connect to the internet using IP addresses that place
> *ALL THREE OF YOU* in *EXACTLY THE SAME CITY* (which,
> incidentally, is not Richmond,
> VA)? Perhaps you can explain how you are all using the same
> type of computer, with the same Windows '98 operating
> system, and the same browser? Are you neighbors?
> Brothers? Co-workers? C'mon, think fast!

What in the hell are you talking about A-Hole? Any fool can
figure out where my posts are coming from. Guess what? My
service allows me, and millions of other posters, to use a
different account name in each ng that I am subscribed to.
Don't use or even know what your options are? That makes you
an a-hole, A-Hole.

So what is your problem A-Hole?

Oh, I know. You are fundamentally just a Moron.

You have my condolences, A-Hole.

[Marcia]

Doc John wrote:

No, Doc John, Mr. Natural-Health, and John Gohde et al., it
doesn't make *me* the one with the problem. It means *you* are
trying to mislead people by posting to the same thread under
three different names in order to make it appear that more
people agree with you than actually do. IOW, you're attempting
to form a false consensus.

Your defensiveness supports this theory. You wouldn't have
initially *denied the truth*, and then gotten angry and
called me names if you didn't know you were caught being
deceitful. Your response is typical of someone who's been
caught in a lie.

That your ISP and Usenet permits you to use more than one
account doesn't change the fact that you're doing so to
mislead people.

Call me whatever you like; the history of your behavior shows
you to be sociopathic. You've made a wise choice in
confessing. I'm done investigating you now.

Have a nice day. :)

marcia

[Marcia]

Kumar wrote:
> marcia wrote:
> > Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
> > > marcia wrote:
> > > > Nooooo. I believe in empirical evidence, though. Your
> > > > Doc John profile brings up the following information:
> > > >
> > > > *****************************************************-
> > > > **
> > > > John Gohde Nickname: Mr-Natural-Health, formerly known
> > > > as John 'the Man' Location: Richmond, VA, USA Email
> > > > address: johngohde @ naturalhealthperspective.com
> > > > Website or Blog: http://naturalhealthperspective.com
> > > >
> > > > Quote: An advocate of the healing power of nature, I
> > > > like to comment on the human condition. I function as
> > > > William Shakespeare's Chorus and Howdy Doody's Peanut
> > > > Gallery on these newsgroups.
> > > > *****************************************************-
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > > Since you're apparently so good at writing fiction,
> > > > maybe you can conjure up an interesting explanation
> > > > for this?
> > >
> > > All you Geeks are mentally slow. And, you guys have been
> > > doing a excellent job of exposing just how dull your
> > > brain power actually is.
> > >
> > > You are just now pondering what us Quacks knew a 100
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > I recommend that you call up Coast-to-Coast tonight and
> > > tell them about your conspiracy theory. I am sure that a
> > > few callers will claim to have been abducted by aliens.
> > > Hey, why don't you use remote viewing to visit me in
> > > Richmond?
> > >
> > > Boy, are you mentally slow. And, I do not mind saying
> > > so. :)
> > >
> > > You have my condolences.
> >
> >
> > Are you what they call a "sock puppet"?
> >
> > Maybe you can explain how all three of you have AOL
> > accounts that connect to the internet using IP addresses
> > that place *ALL THREE OF YOU* in *EXACTLY THE SAME CITY*
> > (which, incidentally, is not Richmond,
> > VA)? Perhaps you can explain how you are all using the
> > same type of computer, with the same Windows '98
> > operating system, and the same browser? Are you
> > neighbors? Brothers? Co-workers? C'mon, think fast!
> >
> > How far would you like me to go with this little
> > investigation? Because the more you deny the truth, the
> > more motivated I feel to pursue it.
> >
> > Keep going writing... prove that *I'm* the one who's
> > mentally slow. :)
>
> All,
>
> Pls try to concentrate on topic subject and contribute
> whatever you can.
>
> Whether establishing of local long term blood flow
> regulations of increasing and decreasing the size and
> numbers of arteries (which may be due to addictive substance
> or excess or deficient nutrients) can be a reason o
> expressing/getting addiction, physical dependance,
> physiological tollerance etc.?
>
> Can't excesses or deficiencies of nutrients trigger and
> establish local long term blood flow regulations to
> save tissues from toxicities or defficiencies of these
> as per need?
>
> Can nutients be toxic or harmful to target and other
> tissues, if exposed to them in excess?

There's no blood feud. I'm done with him now. If you want to
carry on a conversation with one person and two of his sock
puppets, that's your business.

[Marcia]

Sorry... the last post had no attribution... here it is again.
Please ignore if this is irrelevent to you.

Doc John wrote:
> marcia wrote:
>
> > Are you what they call a "sock puppet"?
>
> Are you what they call an A-Hole?
>
> Yes, I definitely think so? Too bad you don't, think too
> goog. :(
>
> > Maybe you can explain how all three of you have AOL
> > accounts that connect to the internet using IP addresses
> > that place *ALL THREE OF YOU* in *EXACTLY THE SAME CITY*
> > (which, incidentally, is not Richmond,
> > VA)? Perhaps you can explain how you are all using the
> > same type of computer, with the same Windows '98
> > operating system, and the same browser? Are you
> > neighbors? Brothers? Co-workers? C'mon, think fast!
>
> What in the hell are you talking about A-Hole? Any fool can
> figure out where my posts are coming from. Guess what? My
> service allows me, and millions of other posters, to use a
> different account name in each ng that I am subscribed to.
> Don't use or even know what your options are? That makes you
> an a-hole, A-Hole.
>
> So what is your problem A-Hole?
>
> Oh, I know. You are fundamentally just a Moron.
>
> You have my condolences, A-Hole.

Doc John wrote:

No, Doc John, Mr. Natural-Health, and John Gohde et al., it
doesn't make *me* the one with the problem. It means *you* are
trying to mislead people by posting to the same thread under
three different names in order to make it appear that more
people agree with you than actually do. IOW, you're attempting
to form a false consensus. Your defensiveness supports this
theory. You wouldn't have initially *denied the truth*, and
then gotten angry and called me names if you didn't know you
were caught being deceitful. Your response is typical of
someone who's been caught in a lie.

That your ISP and Usenet permits you to use more than one
account doesn't change the fact that you're doing so to
mislead people.

Call me whatever you like; the history of your behavior
shows you to be

a common sociopath. You've made a wise choice in confessing.
I'm done investigating you now.

Have a nice day. :)

marcia

[Kumar]

marcia wrote:
> Doc John wrote:
>
> No, Doc John, Mr. Natural-Health, and John Gohde et al., it
> doesn't make *me* the one with the problem. It means *you*
> are trying to mislead people by posting to the same thread
> under three different names in order to make it appear that
> more people agree with you than actually do. IOW, you're
> attempting to form a false consensus.
>
> Your defensiveness supports this theory. You wouldn't have
> initially *denied the truth*, and then gotten angry and
> called me names if you didn't know you were caught being
> deceitful. Your response is typical of someone who's been
> caught in a lie.
>
> That your ISP and Usenet permits you to use more than one
> account doesn't change the fact that you're doing so to
> mislead people.
>
> Call me whatever you like; the history of your behavior
> shows you to be sociopathic. You've made a wise choice in
> confessing. I'm done investigating you now.
>
> Have a nice day. :)
>
> marcia

Request; Pls avoid everything other then the topic subject.

[Mr. Natura]

marcia wrote:
> Doc John wrote:
>
> No, Doc John, Mr. Natural-Health, and John Gohde et al., it
> doesn't make *me* the one with the problem. It means *you*
> are trying to mislead people by posting to the same thread
> under three different names in order to make it appear that
> more people agree with you than actually do. IOW, you're
> attempting to form a false consensus.
>
> Your defensiveness supports this theory. You wouldn't have
> initially *denied the truth*, and then gotten angry and
> called me names if you didn't know you were caught being
> deceitful. Your response is typical of someone who's been
> caught in a lie.
>
> That your ISP and Usenet permits you to use more than one
> account doesn't change the fact that you're doing so to
> mislead people.
>
> Call me whatever you like; the history of your behavior
> shows you to be sociopathic. You've made a wise choice in
> confessing. I'm done investigating you now.
>
> Have a nice day. :)

Not only what I am doing is NOT illegal, it is an option that
is obviously being encouraged by my service provider.

So, mind your own damn business. And, I don't mind saying so.

Just thought that you might want to know.

[Marcia]

Mr. Natural-Health wrote:

> Not only what I am doing is NOT illegal, it is an option
> that is obviously being encouraged by my service provider.

I see, so it's your service-provider's idea for you to lie to
and mislead people? And here I thought you figured that out on
your own. Wouldn't want to take responsibility for your own
behavior, would you? LOL.

> So, mind your own damn business. And, I don't mind
> saying so.

There is no such thing as an assumption of privacy on Usenet.
Anything you post here, and anything you make available
through public records, is public business. And anything you
write in an open forum is potentially subject to comment by
another user, whether you like it or not. If you want privacy,
use email.

Personally, I think the fact that you're trying to con people
is *EVERYONE'S* business. That's why I posted the information.
It speaks directly to your credibility--or lack thereof.

> Just thought that you might want to know.'

I don't care. This is becoming tedious.

[Doc John]

marcia wrote:
> There is no such thing as an assumption of privacy on
> Usenet. Anything you post here, and anything you make
> available through public records, is public business. And
> anything you write in an open forum is potentially subject
> to comment by another user, whether you like it or not. If
> you want privacy, use email.

I think that anybody, such as yourself, who displays such
obvious mental problems as you are displaying should seek the
services of a shrink.

I can manage my subscriptions to Google Groups any time I feel
like it, because Google has seen fit to give me that option.

Why are you using a totally out of date newsgroup service? In
other words, Marcia owns the problem.

Just thought that you might want to wake up before it is too
late.

Try minding your own business, once and a while too. :)

You have my condolences.

[Kumar]

We should be bothered about informations and we should be able
to process it as per our need. How a person gives such
information should not bother us. So just consider
informations not person/s.

It looks that this thread is completely derailed, so I may
prefer to post other thread. Here you may just pass time by
this and that type of talks. Bye here.

[Kumar]

TC wrote:
> Jim Chinnis wrote:
> > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in part:
> >
> > >What is not real food? Food that we did not evolve on as
> > >an organism.
> >
> > There is virtually nothing to eat, then. Hardly anything
> > available today was around even 10,000 years ago, and
> > hardly anything that was around then isn't now. Every type
> > of fruit and produce we grow has been genetically shaped
> > over hundreds of years to be sweeter, less fibrous, and
> > easier to grow, not to mention the increased shelf life.
> >
> > Shot any wild boar that have fed on the natural flora of
> > 10,000 years ago? Maybe the closest you could come would
> > be to eat some wild birds, probably leaving nothing but
> > the feathers and bones.
> >
> > Honey has been around a hell of a long time. We haven't
> > tinkered with bees much, but the bees do feed on different
> > flora now.
> >
> > Maybe you could do okay in the Amazon rain forest.
> > --
> > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
>
> Well, if you want to get extreme, go ahead. I won't argue
> such silliness.
>
> We did not evolve eating vegetable oils like canola and
> margarine. We did not evolve eating soy. We did not evolve
> eating high fructose corn syrup or even refined white sugar.
> We did not evolve eating 60% of our calories as refined
> grain products. We did not evolve eating hydrogenated
> vegetable oils. No preservatives, no antibiotics, no
> artificial thickening agents, no binding agents, no powdered
> or chemical flavouring agents.
>
> We did evolve eating real animal fats and real animal
> proteins and real whole fresh produce and real fresh
> unpasteurized dairy and real fresh eggs etc.
>
> For hundreds of thousands of years we evolved eating animal
> fats and proteins, and in the 21st century when the food
> industry develops all of these new foods, all of a sudden,
> animals fats and proteins are evil and the new artificial
> products become health foods. Talk about bass-ackwards
> thinking. And we bought into it, literally and figuratively.
>
> And in spite of the wide spread consumption of these
> "healthy" grains and soybeans and margarine and hfcs-laden
> "lite" low fat foods, and our reduction of consumption of
> dangerous red meats and pork and chicken skin (too fatty eh)
> we have never been more obese and more riddled with
> diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
>
> TC

TC sorry, but getting evolved and getting resistences is one
concept which may need genetic changes (irreversible?) BUT
getting addictions, dependances, tolerances etc. is other
concept, which may be independant of genetic changes upto some
extent(reversible upto some extent?). So pls reply in these
considerations.

[Italiangm]

Kumar wrote:

> Body's mechanism may be doing something to protect from
> metabolic disruptor or from excesses of nutrients. How??

Why do you pose questions then answer them yourself? This
behavior seems irrational and unproductive.

Why not state your hypotheses along with your evidence and
leave it at that?

[Kumar]

italiangm wrote:
> Kumar wrote:
>
> > Body's mechanism may be doing something to protect from
> > metabolic disruptor or from excesses of nutrients. How??
>
> Why do you pose questions then answer them yourself? This
> behavior seems irrational and unproductive.
>
> Why not state your hypotheses along with your evidence and
> leave it at that?

Sorry, actually, I study and discuss many things. I get some
thought provakations and unclarities during such studies and
discussions. I post for the sake of getting clarities and
indicating those provokations. Still I go on reading and
searching anwsers on internet, in bllks etc. Sometimes I get
some awnsers, which I post here for final clarities. These
can't be considered as hypotheses. Since, I remain in field by
discussions, so many new things are added into me.