Quick fish oil questions..

[Throttle]

he said "basically"... there are lots of things that are basically true but are full of exceptions.

try another one. basically, you want to avoid white foods (refined sugar & starch). but there are plenty of exceptions.

 

[spesmilitis]

No, what he was talking about was not a trend. Re-read what he talks about. I did correct him.

"Basically, the darker and richer the color of the food, the healthier it is."

Poliquin's words in quotes. As I said before... NOT TRUE

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f170/annefranks/ralph.jpg

 

[Omen]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f170/annefranks/ralph.jpg

Hey, good comeback on that one. Obviously you have nothing solid to back up your previous statement. Good try though.

Basically the sky is blue, or is it?

For the most part.... WRONG. The darker the fruit has NOTHING to do with how healthy it is. This is a bunch of crap.

Even saying basically. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Damn I wish people would do their stupid research.

Oh wait, we never need too, because Charles is ALWAYS correct. What was I thinking.

So are we going to debate the ORAC issue, or the the chemical composition of each fruit and veggie and what they contain? There are MANY fruits out there that have a higher ORAC value than other darker fruits. Yes, they are lighter, and who would have thought. Now what about their whole chemical structure and in what each contains. What about the fruits that have a lower ORAC but contain certain compounds that darker fruits dont have? How are you going to compare it then?

And onions ORAC content is about 5,000 per gram, and that is MUCH higher than blackberries at about 400 ORAC units/gram. Last time I checked, an onion was know where close to the darkness of a blackberry.

So you cant say basically based off of ORAC, nor what fruits and veggies contain chemically. Understand, or do we need to be spoon fed on here again? One thing I spend quite a bit of time on are fruits and veggies and antioxidants and the like. So if you want to start a debate over this topic, then maybe you can prove to me what I dont seem to understand. We can get into EGCG, Polyphenols, Resveratrol, Chlorogenic acid.... and on and on.

Poliquin has nothing to back his statement with. He is ASSUMING the darker the better. This is pretty dumb if you ask me.

http://www.southafrica.to/transport/carrentals/Avis-car-rental/congratulations-idiot.gif

 

[spesmilitis]

Hey, good comeback on that one. Obviously you have nothing solid to back up your previous statement. Good try though.

Basically the sky is blue, or is it?

No the sky is blue, not 'basically, the sky is blue'. You seem to have as much confidence in your nutritional expertise as you do in your grammatical expertise. Basically, people are not going to have a lot of confidence in your nutritional info because of this

 

[Throttle]

from Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen":

"There's a useful guideline for estimating the relative healthfulness of vegetables and fruits: the deeper its color, the more healthful the food is likely to be."

This after a long discussion of the usefulness of antioxidants, a field of study McGee acknowledges is in its infancy. So if Poliquin is wrong, he's in very good company. And if you can really prove them both wrong, you should be writing your own authoritative books, not hanging out on this website.

As for ORAC, it's a speculative measure that is also in its infancy. Oddly, despite your assertion, onions are not on the Wikipedia page on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Radical_Absorbance_Capacity

And in any case, your point is ridiculous: no one considers onions a substitute for berries. They DO consider questions like "if I'm going to eat berries, which are healthiest?" or "if I'm going to eat a salad, which lettuces or greens are healthiest?"

Color IS a helpful guide for those questions, and to say otherwise is to blow smoke up our collective rear end and confuse people to the point that some will say "aw screw it, who needs fruits & veggies anyway?"

 

[Throttle]

Ok, here's the relevant PDF from the USDA...

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/ORAC/ORAC07.pdf

And...wait, your argument is in trouble already!

White onions have a higher value than sweet; yellow onions have a higher value than white; red onions have the highest value of all. Seems like deepness of color IS a guide, when looking across relevant substitutes.

 

[spesmilitis]

^^^^^^
Yup. Basically D), that trend is the same for any type of vegetable. Another reason why the colored variety tend to be more nutritious is that nutrients give off that color.

"It is these flavonoids which are responsible for the rich purple coloring of both red cabbage and red beets, and it is these flavonoids which give both red cabbage and red beets their strong antioxidant health benefits. "

http://www.healthfood354.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=2

 

[Omen]

from Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen":

"There's a useful guideline for estimating the relative healthfulness of vegetables and fruits: the deeper its color, the more healthful the food is likely to be."

This after a long discussion of the usefulness of antioxidants, a field of study McGee acknowledges is in its infancy. So if Poliquin is wrong, he's in very good company. And if you can really prove them both wrong, you should be writing your own authoritative books, not hanging out on this website.

As for ORAC, it's a speculative measure that is also in its infancy. Oddly, despite your assertion, onions are not on the Wikipedia page on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Radical_Absorbance_Capacity

And in any case, your point is ridiculous: no one considers onions a substitute for berries. They DO consider questions like "if I'm going to eat berries, which are healthiest?" or "if I'm going to eat a salad, which lettuces or greens are healthiest?"

Color IS a helpful guide for those questions, and to say otherwise is to blow smoke up our collective rear end and confuse people to the point that some will say "aw screw it, who needs fruits & veggies anyway?"

Please tell me you dont use Wikipedia for this information?

If you were in any science related field, or even class and you said you didn't find it on Wikipedia, you'd be laughed at by your professor, and hopefully colleagues too.

Yes, in upper level sceince/exercise classes, the first thing they tell you when you do research is DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA. If you write a paper or sort Wikipedia, it will be tossed out in a heart beat.

But hey, most people on this board dont realize that, so what ever.

Color is a guide, and no more. And if you know nothing about onions, you might do a little more research on them. Forget Wikipedia. It's useless to most scholars out there.

No one is saying forget berries and eat onions, but you dont get the point.

This is why I rarely bring up any of this stuff on this board. Most people on here just read crap from Wikipedia, or what ever, and then come up with some argument. Everyone who does this seems to think they have some expertise on the subject. They dont, plain and simple. I read FLEX and I lift, so I must be an expert at lifting.

Some people do these things for livings, and study this stuff for a living. I do the supplement/nutraceutical thing for a living. I dont make crap up.

Even saying if I am going to eat berries, which are the healthiest, is STILL not something you can do. Oh, blueberries must be, so i'll stick with them and nothing else.

And no one is saying ORAC is not in its infancy. We all know this. And by "we" I mean those of us in this profession. We aren't claiming it is the only thing to go by.

 

[spesmilitis]

Please tell me you dont use Wikipedia for this information?

If you were in any science related field, or even class and you said you didn't find it on Wikipedia, you'd be laughed at by your professor, and hopefully colleagues too.

Yes, in upper level sceince/exercise classes, the first thing they tell you when you do research is DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA. If you write a paper or sort Wikipedia, it will be tossed out in a heart beat.

But hey, most people on this board dont realize that, so what ever.

Color is a guide, and no more. And if you know nothing about onions, you might do a little more research on them. Forget Wikipedia. It's useless to most scholars out there.

No one is saying forget berries and eat onions, but you dont get the point.

This is why I rarely bring up any of this stuff on this board. Most people on here just read crap from Wikipedia, or what ever, and then come up with some argument. Everyone who does this seems to think they have some expertise on the subject. They dont, plain and simple. I read FLEX and I lift, so I must be an expert at lifting.

Some people do these things for livings, and study this stuff for a living. I do the supplement/nutraceutical thing for a living. I dont make crap up.

Even saying if I am going to eat berries, which are the healthiest, is STILL not something you can do. Oh, blueberries must be, so i'll stick with them and nothing else.

And no one is saying ORAC is not in its infancy. We all know this. And by "we" I mean those of us in this profession. We aren't claiming it is the only thing to go by.

:crackup: :crackup:

Slow down and actually consider what throttle posted. That wikipedia page is just a summary of a report from United States Department of Agriculture, and throttle posted the actual report right after he posted the wikipedia page. Yes, no professor would accept wikipedia, would they would accept info from the USDA.

Stop having such a "Aha! I am so great and this proves he is an idiot' approach to these sorts of discussions. First, Calm down, its just the internet, you really shouldn't be looking for validation on the internet in the first place. Second, actually read and understand people's arguments. Don't look for a 'bullseye' to help you 'win a internet debate'. Look at this as more of a discussion instead of a debate.

 

[Throttle]

LOL thanks for telling me how to do research, I'm sure that will help me finish my PhD. You're right, if one of my undergrads quotes the Wikipedia in a research paper, I do laugh -- and then guide them to quote more appropriate sources. However, we're not writing research papers here.

I'm trying to understand a topic that I am NOT an expert in, which is a very appropriate use of Google & the Wikipedia and I encourage my students to use them in exactly this way. If I was doing research, I would hit PubMed (which incidentally I also checked), etc.

You still seem to believe that you've proven Poliquin wrong, and I still strongly disagree.

 

[mrRuckus]

Charles Poliquin trained Gary Freakin' Roberts. That's enough for me. Chuck Norris has Gary Roberts check under his bed for monsters.

During the second period of the Penguins game against the Buffalo Sabres on December 29, 2007, Roberts became tangled up with Tim Connolly and landed awkwardly, breaking his left fibula.[7] In a showing of grit and character, Roberts refused to be carried off in a stretcher. He had been honored before the game for having scored his 900th career point.[8] Roberts scored two goals against the Ottawa Senators on April 9, becoming the oldest player in the NHL to register multiple goals in one playoff game