• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Does eating fruit and vegetables off season destroy electron balance?

therival58 said:
Has anyone read in depth the work of neurosurgeon Jack Kruse? He postulates that since mitochondria break down food through electron chain transport, when you eat a food that is off season, it messes up the balance of electrons in your body, that then mess up your charge to absorb vitamin D from the sun. Hence, leading to disease. Or something along those lines, Kruse cites a lot of scientific jargon, and it's hard to keep up with it all.
Click to expand...

It is technobabble. It doesn't even make sense to try to pick it apart. Don't try to keep up, because there's nothing to keep up with.

Spend your time with something more useful, like watching paint dry.

Hans
 
"If anybody thinks they understand cellular respiration they have missed something."

Sometimes they have missed a LOT.
 
therival58 said:
The atomic structure is not altered in the fruit, the assertion is that the fruit's election "charge" will alter the 'charge' in the individual's quantum physiology, which throws our systems out of whack. This Hellhound says is nonsense.
Click to expand...

And it is nonsense. Period. Note the use of "quantum". A sure sign of nonsense *) .

Hans

*) "Quantum" is only nonsense if used out of context. This is a case of out of context use.
 
Hellbound said:
Yeah that's...not even wrong.

If a food was "electron-poor" then it would, by definition, have a positive electrical charge. No way around that.

Besides, your body doesn't use electrons as electrons. Your "neural wiring" uses postive and negative ions, notably Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, HPO42-, and HCO3-.

This is woo of the highest order.
Click to expand...

The notion that foods can be "electron poor" shows an appalling lack of knowledge of basic science. Electrons are elementary particles, and everything that exists contains an abundance of them. Of course, objects can become temporarily "electron poor" or "electron rich" by acquiring a static electric charge, but such imbalances tend to correct themselves quite quickly -- in spectacular fashion in the case thunderstorms, a bit less spectacularly if you vigorously pet your cat.
 
Last edited:
It's complete bollocks, like everything Kruse spouts to separate gullible idiots from their money.
 
CORed said:
The notion that foods can be "electron poor" shows an appalling lack of knowledge of basic science. Electrons are elementary particles, and everything that exists contains an abundance of them. Of course, objects can become temporarily "electron poor" or "electron rich" by acquiring a static electric charge, but such imbalances tend to correct themselves quite quickly -- in spectacular fashion in the case thunderstorms, a bit less spectacularly if you vigorously pet your cat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was pretty much the point I was making. Electron poor is just so...I don't even know.

It's like seein a logical proof that goes:
If A, then B
If C, then D
A2, therefore Cabbage

There's no link in it that isn't flawed.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Sounds like Paleo woo and Appeal to Nature fallacies.
Click to expand...

The whole "paleo" fad is based on nonsense. First is the assumption that there is one "paleo" diet. Pre-agricultural humans ate whatever was most available in their local environment. That might be meat, fish, or any of a wide variety of edible plants. Second, is the assumption that they ate mostly meat. Most anthropological studies of hunter-gatherers have found that they at a lot more plant matter than animal, but there are exceptions. Native Americans in the Coumbia River basin ate lots of salmon, because that was far and away the most abundant food resource in the area.
 
Hellbound said:
Yeah, that was pretty much the point I was making. Electron poor is just so...I don't even know.

It's like seein a logical proof that goes:
If A, then B
If C, then D
A2, therefore Cabbage

There's no link in it that isn't flawed.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the quoted text in one of thrrival58's posts was something like, "If avocados are electron poor, why are they so fatty?". Where do you even begin to answer a question like that? Well, it is correct that avocados are fatty, but what relation that is supposed to have with their alleged electron poverty, I can't begin to work out.
 
Last edited:
therival58 said:
Has anyone read in depth the work of neurosurgeon Jack Kruse?
Click to expand...
Not me but when you linked this example:
The avocado’s abnormally giant seed presents anything from a severe digestive hazard to a death sentence for contemporary earthly species but, apparently, avocados coevolved with ground sloths and were originally eaten by gomphothere — elephant-like creatures that lived during the Miocene and Pliocene, between 12 million and 1.6 million years ago, who happily reaped the fruit with their hefty trunks, crunched them with their massive teeth, and passed the seeds comfortably through their oversized digestive tract. The Younger Dryas took out these animals about 100,000 years ago. Avocado's are there leftovers.
Click to expand...
I realized it was bunk. A just so story. Just look at the silly inaccuracies regarding the gomphothere.
Yes it is a thing. A side branch of the elephants. But look at those silly dates. It supposedly lived between 12 million and 1.6 million years ago. But then he says 100,000 years ago. So we must change it to between 12 million and 100 thousand years ago. But wait.. He also says the Younger Dryas took them out. That was about 14 thousand years ago! So maybe between 12 million and 14 thousand? oops wrong again! The younger dryas did not take them out after all. We know the first nations hunters in Central America were still hunting them 13,400 years ago, hundreds of years after the younger dryas ended!! Meet the Gomphothere: UA Archaeologist Involved in Discovery of Bones of Elephant Ancestor

Now I have no actual idea about his main hypothesis other than it sounds very much like ridiculous woo that can't even be tested really.

However, a mind that found a way to be wrong 4 times about the same thing in one short paragraph really doesn't seem to be a very organised, educated or critical scientific mind at all.:rolleyes:

We can probably safely dimiss this without too much more investigation. Sounds ridiculous on the surface, almost as ridiculous as an onion article. Probably even purposely written that way as a poe or a troll.
 
ahhell said:
Given the discussion of avocados, I think this is more concerning to him than
This? Maybe. Frankly, its rather incoherent.
Click to expand...

It is only possible to answer an incoherent theory with intentional incoherent questions. This dude makes no sense to even a non science guy like me.

Above all humans are omnivores and all woo aside we are designed to be able to eat most things resembling food safely. In and out of season foods was solved by transport systems meaning good food should be available just about anywhere in every season.
This isn't the 8th century anymore.
 
oxidative phosphorylation

When we eat foodstuffs, much of the chemical energy comes from starch or triacylglycerols (fats). Both can be made into acetyl CoA, which enters into the Krebs' cycle where it is oxidized. The electrons are mainly given to NAD to make NADH (some also are given to ubiquinone to make ubiquinol). The passage of these electrons through the electron transport chain and ultimately to molecular oxygen is indirectly responsible for the synthesis of ATP. However, it is mind-boggling to imagine how these electrons could...remember(?)...from which foodstuff they came. In other words, the idea presented in the opening post is beyond nonsense.
 
Why do people always assume that once you eat something your body will magically transport it to your cells and magic happens there?

Everything you eat is broken down to its component parts and transported trough a very complicated system into your cells in forms that are needed in that cell at the moment.
The fruit you've eaten arrives as glucose (or related sugars), amino acids and small organic molecules. And no, there is no difference between glucose from off-season fruit and seasonal fruit.

The same with the usual anti-oxidant woo. Yes, your body produces reactive oxygen species during its function. And every cell contains peroxisomes to deal with that. An anti-oxidant on its own by the way is JUST as reactive as an oxidant. It's like saying that because acid is bad for you, you should bathe in strong base.

Of course, since most anti-oxidants react with acid, >95% of those will never actually leave the stomach in any case.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
In that case, I won't bother to look up this said neuro-surgeon in wikipedia!!
Click to expand...
I did it so you don't have to. There is no Wikipedia entry for "Jack Kruse". There is a "Jack Krause" but he's a Thai-German football player. "Jack Kraus" was a baseball player during the war. I hope your screen reader can cope with the different spellings :)
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
The same with the usual anti-oxidant woo. Yes, your body produces reactive oxygen species during its function. And every cell contains peroxisomes to deal with that. An anti-oxidant on its own by the way is JUST as reactive as an oxidant. It's like saying that because acid is bad for you, you should bathe in strong base.

Of course, since most anti-oxidants react with acid, >95% of those will never actually leave the stomach in any case.
Click to expand...
I saw a documentary on BBC ("Trust Me, I'm a Doctor") where they measured the level of free radicals before and after eating antioxidants, and the result was surprisingly that there were more free radicals in the body some time after eating antioxidants, because the body reacted to a lack of free radicals (that is apparently used as messenger molecules regulating muscle growth) by producing more of them.

Still, a lot of doctors advocate eating antioxidants in order to reduce the harmful free radicals.
 
arthwollipot said:
I did it so you don't have to. There is no Wikipedia entry for "Jack Kruse". There is a "Jack Krause" but he's a Thai-German football player. "Jack Kraus" was a baseball player during the war. I hope your screen reader can cope with the different spellings :)
Click to expand...

Yes thank you! There was in fact a slight differentce in pronunciation too by Synthetic Dave.

Because I joined the GH message board first (followed closely by JREF and BBC), I still look in daily. However, even the Science board seems to be undergoing an attempt at a take-over bid by those who want to wedge a bit of woo into it.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
Yes thank you! There was in fact a slight differentce in pronunciation too by Synthetic Dave.

Because I joined the GH message board first (followed closely by JREF and BBC), I still look in daily. However, even the Science board seems to be undergoing an attempt at a take-over bid by those who want to wedge a bit of woo into it.
Click to expand...

That is an awesome turn of phrase, Susan!

Wedge-woo. I like it. Immediately brings to mind "Woo of the Gaps" type arguments: find a place where science can't answer all the questions, and try to wedge your woo into it.
 
Hellbound said:
That is an awesome turn of phrase, Susan!

Wedge-woo. I like it. Immediately brings to mind "Woo of the Gaps" type arguments: find a place where science can't answer all the questions, and try to wedge your woo into it.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely using this phrase in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom