Merged Instinct & Immunity? / Innate immunity?

[zooterkin]

Hello. Inharent means:- Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic : inborn; forming a natural or inseparable part or quality.

I think you'll find that is the definition for inherent. I'm not sure how you managed to find that definition given you are consistently misspelling the word.

It may take generations to justify anything to be natural to us. Though honey is natural to us but if one had taken a lot in previous times, he can be allergic. Similarily other foods. Either or both odd in quality & quantity, can cause disorders.

Well, you're the one using the term, please define what you mean by it. I don't see anything useful in your vague definition so far.

 

[pakeha]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who simply can't grasp what is inharent to the human diet.
Please clear this up, Kumar.
I think there is very little inharent to the human diet, since at this stage of our evolution, we're omnivores, at least as far as I understand.
And this
"honey is natural to us but if one had taken a lot in previous times, he can be allergic."
has my head spinning.
Sorry, Kumar, we're talking about a child here.
What previous times do you mean?

And "It may take generations to justify anything to be natural to us."
What does this mean? How can one 'justify' a food to be natural to us or not?

 

[Sawbones79]

Well, in general tolerating food is not "learned", and definitely over such a short span as generations. Extracting proteins, fat and carbs from foodstuffs is as inherent as it gets. As for allergies, they represent a hyperactivation of the immune system, reacting to a non-pathogen as to a pathogen in a deleterious manner. Kumar, might I impose upon you to give an example of a substance or situation you consider humans innately incapable of handling (beyond obviously harmful ones such as Botulinotoxins or angry tigers, that is)?

 

[Kumar]

I think you'll find that is the definition for inherent. I'm not sure how you managed to find that definition given you are consistently misspelling the word.


Well, you're the one using the term, please define what you mean by it. I don't see anything useful in your vague definition so far.

If it is not so, you can define as per you instead of wasting time.

 

[Kumar]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who simply can't grasp what is inharent to the human diet.
Please clear this up, Kumar.
I think there is very little inharent to the human diet, since at this stage of our evolution, we're omnivores, at least as far as I understand.
And this
"honey is natural to us but if one had taken a lot in previous times, he can be allergic."
has my head spinning.
Sorry, Kumar, we're talking about a child here.
What previous times do you mean?

And "It may take generations to justify anything to be natural to us."
What does this mean? How can one 'justify' a food to be natural to us or not?

I insisted on quantity & quality. I thinks, single molecule of anything may not to odd or toxic to us but its abnormal quantity can.

 

[Sawbones79]

Trying to separate some issues here:
Allergies: the activation of the immune system to a non-pathogen. Generally not dose-dependent.
Intolerance: Inability of the organism to handle a certain substance. Not synonymous with allergy, as for example lactose intolerance is simply a lack of lactase and thus an inability to digest foodstuffs containing lactose.
Toxicity: The ability of a substance to cause outright damage to the organism, often due to destruction on a cellular level.
So, Kumar, what kind of substances and detrimental effects are we discussing?

 

[pakeha]

Thanks, Sawbones79

...Well, in general tolerating food is not "learned", and definitely over such a short span as generations. Extracting proteins, fat and carbs from foodstuffs is as inherent as it gets. ...

So inharent refers to our digestion, not the foodstuffs in themselves?
Sorry to be so dense, but it's important to understand just what we're talking about.
I still don't understand Kumar's point, though.

Kumar answered me

I insisted on quantity & quality. I thinks, single molecule of anything may not to odd or toxic to us but its abnormal quantity can.

Um. This sounds as though you are debunking homeopathy.
But it's possible I'm not understanding you.
What do you mean by

single molecule of anything may not to odd or toxic to us

And could you explain what you mean by an inharent diet?
I've heard of all sorts of food regimens that are supposedly ideal for humans but they seem to fall from fashion after a time.
The subject interests me and I'd like to learn more.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

First I am asking questions. So posters can reply instead of bouncing.

First of all, I don't care. As the old saying goes, "You're not the boss of me." If you don't like people asking you questions on a topic you created, go make a blog and talk preach there. If you want to have a dialog with someone, questions will come up. Because your primary language is not English, there will be even more questions.

Insulin should be replacement or supplement.

What should insulin be replacing? The average body makes enough insulin.

Coffee or other foods, which we take since long back and to which our body system has inharent sense of wrong or right, should not be a drug.

Define drug. Caffeine is not produced in our body. We typically ingest it through coffee and soda. It is a stimulant. My body does not have morals. It cannot determine what is right and what is wrong.

Is the act of eating horse meat^WP right or wrong? My body doesn't care since it is getting protein.

Unnaturality to us can lie in quality &/or quantity, which is not normal to us. Eg. Insulin & Caffeine in excess quantity is harmful & unnatural to us.

From what I remember, there is no such thing as too much Vitamin C. The US FDA recommends 90mg a day, upper limit of 2,000mg a day. My math teacher was taking 5,000mg a day. Please tell me if taking that much Vitamin C is "unnatural" since no harm comes from it.

What about drinking red wine? If I drink too much I can become an alcoholic, but if I drink a glass a day, I see some benefits.

(Referring to more examples of food to see if it is "normal food".)
Look above.

(See above)

I had defined "unnatural to us" many time. It means, to which we do not have inharent sense of wrong or right OR which our body system can not process normally--pre-informed. Such unnatural things to us, can cause odd results--confused, adverse, shoking, healing etc. As all things have come from nature, we can't say that anything can be unnatural, though unnatural form can be possible, if processed.

Your definition is flawed. Our bodies have no inherent sense of right or wrong. Look at the horse meat example. What about the people on Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571^WP. Is what they did right or wrong?

Didn't you just say "Unnaturality to us can lie in quality &/or quantity, which is not normal to us. Eg. Insulin & Caffeine in excess quantity is harmful & unnatural to us"? Now it's "to which we do not have inharent sense of wrong or right OR which our body system can not process normally--pre-informed." Pick a clear definition and stick too it.

 

[Sawbones79]

Thanks, Sawbones79


So inharent refers to our digestion, not the foodstuffs in themselves?
Sorry to be so dense, but it's important to understand just what we're talking about.
I still don't understand Kumar's point, though.

.

No problem, and I hardly think you're dense. Problem is, this thread is veering all over the place from immunosuppresion due to stress, to what foodstuffs are fitting for human consumption.
Kumar: Sorry to be nagging you, but could you kindly provide an example of exactly what harmful exposures you wish to discuss?

 

[dafydd]

I insisted on quantity & quality. I thinks, single molecule of anything may not to odd or toxic to us but its abnormal quantity can.

And no molecules have no effect,so homeopathy does not work.

 

[Mojo]

What should insulin be replacing? The average body makes enough insulin.

Check out Kumar's previous threads about diabetes. Here are a couple:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41395
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30360

 

[Sawbones79]

Check out Kumar's previous threads about diabetes. Here are a couple:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41395
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30360

Oh, seems I'm in for the long haul if we're going to discuss immunity and diet in the same way those threads deal with diabetes...

 

[Kumar]

We tend to deviate from topic subject. Let us first agree on scientific validity or comment on the reply given on the link provided by me in new topic but merged in this topic.

 

[zooterkin]

We tend to deviate from topic subject. Let us first agree on scientific validity

Ok. There isn't any. Do you agree?

 

[Sawbones79]

Hello,



The above reply looks quite interesting & logically valid to me since long back. Can you comment on scientific validity of it?

Best wishes.

Ok, focusing on this link it seems to be in line with what I've read elsewhere on stress and the immune system. The final part deals with how cells up- and downregulate their response to a stimuli with longtime exposure, using medications as a well-known example. Anything in particular you wish to clarify or disagree with?

 

[Kumar]

Ok, focusing on this link it seems to be in line with what I've read elsewhere on stress and the immune system. The final part deals with how cells up- and downregulate their response to a stimuli with longtime exposure, using medications as a well-known example. Anything in particular you wish to clarify or disagree with?

Ok thanks. As such, can we take chronic stress as silent killer? It looks bit obious because if immune response will not work on need, it can be fatal.

 

[Kumar]

Definition: Chronic stress is a state of ongoing physiological arousal. This occurs when the body experiences so many stressors that the autonomic nervous system rarely has a chance to activate the relaxation response. (We were built to handle acute stress, not chronic stress.) This type of chronic stress response occurs all too frequently from our modern lifestyle..
http://stress.about.com/od/stressmanagementglossary/g/Chronicstress.htm

Above link also indicate similarily.

In our day to day life, we can see many people who are not stressed from many stressors which are common to others. Somewhat they are less senstive. We take them as strong people. But fact may be different that, probably they have compromised immune system, so never get normally stressed. Probably, it may be an unhealthy odd & dangerous condition which most percieve as good health. OK??

I am not sure if chronic relaxation(opposite to chronic stress), also weaken or compromise immunity?

 

[pakeha]

Yes look like so but simply endogenous stress harmones & odd/unnatural exposures which can cause stress. Normal Foods or other natural exposures to us don't cause such effect even on prolonged intake.

I meant:- "natural to us"--i.e. to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong--whatever our body can process with such inharent sense. If a thing is not natural to us, our body can't process it with pre-informed sense so odd(confused, shocking, adverse) effects should be possible which should be stressful. Actually it is difficult to say that anything can be unnatural because all things have come from nature BUT natural to us is important here.

Sawbones, I think this is where I conflated the stress/immunilogical response relation with dietary concerns, as it seems Kumar feels an uninharent diet is a factor contributing to chronic stress, correct me if I'm wrong.

I find this sort of thing annoying, as once I was taken in by that old blood-type dietary regime scam. I followed the regime for two years and was happy with the results before I twigged it had been calibrated to the wrong blood-type!

In any case, it seems to me a morecompelling source of chronic stress would be the LACK of food rather than uninharent foods.

 

[Sawbones79]

Ok thanks. As such, can we take chronic stress as silent killer? It looks bit obious because if immune response will not work on need, it can be fatal.

Chronic stress is definitely detrimental, yes. However, humans respond to different situations in an individual manner and what causes harmful stress in one person may be ideal conditions to another. The subject of stress is a large one and mostly outside my area of knowledge.

 

[Sawbones79]

Sawbones, I think this is where I conflated the stress/immunilogical response relation with dietary concerns, as it seems Kumar feels an uninharent diet is a factor contributing to chronic stress, correct me if I'm wrong.

I find this sort of thing annoying, as once I was taken in by that old blood-type dietary regime scam. I followed the regime for two years and was happy with the results before I twigged it had been calibrated to the wrong blood-type!

In any case, it seems to me a morecompelling source of chronic stress would be the LACK of food rather than uninharent foods.

I'd count dietary deficiencies as a factor in its own right rather than as a contributor to stress, at least when using the definition Kumar quoted above.
Glad to hear you left the blood-type diet, as there's no science at all to support it.