CherryAA
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,170
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511
this one is a real doozy
What is basically states is that
"We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”
In the outside world, the problem isn’t that plants are suddenly getting more light: It’s that for years, they’ve been getting more carbon dioxide. Plants rely on both light and carbon dioxide to grow. If shining more light results in faster-growing, less nutritious algae—junk-food algae whose ratio of sugar to nutrients was out of whack—then it seemed logical to assume that ramping up carbon dioxide might do the same. And it could also be playing out in plants all over the planet. What might that mean for the plants that people eat?
In my view it means exactly what I have already described -in my blog
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/blog-entry/a-unifying-theory-of-disease.1795
Even basic foodstuffs increasingly create a higher insulin response than they used to . That will be why for example the Kraft curves describe "Normal" curves that probably simply do not exist today because NO_ONE is immune to the effect of the above changes on our food supply.
That may be why it is increasingly difficult to for example process fruits and below ground vegetables compared to their historic counterparts.
The global effect on food supplies is why it becomes increasingly important that at an individual level we do all we can to limit our own circulating insulin and therefore propensity towards insulin resistance, because whatever we do the number is going to be higher than it has been historically simply because we eat food!
this one is a real doozy
What is basically states is that
"We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”
In the outside world, the problem isn’t that plants are suddenly getting more light: It’s that for years, they’ve been getting more carbon dioxide. Plants rely on both light and carbon dioxide to grow. If shining more light results in faster-growing, less nutritious algae—junk-food algae whose ratio of sugar to nutrients was out of whack—then it seemed logical to assume that ramping up carbon dioxide might do the same. And it could also be playing out in plants all over the planet. What might that mean for the plants that people eat?
In my view it means exactly what I have already described -in my blog
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/blog-entry/a-unifying-theory-of-disease.1795
Even basic foodstuffs increasingly create a higher insulin response than they used to . That will be why for example the Kraft curves describe "Normal" curves that probably simply do not exist today because NO_ONE is immune to the effect of the above changes on our food supply.
That may be why it is increasingly difficult to for example process fruits and below ground vegetables compared to their historic counterparts.
The global effect on food supplies is why it becomes increasingly important that at an individual level we do all we can to limit our own circulating insulin and therefore propensity towards insulin resistance, because whatever we do the number is going to be higher than it has been historically simply because we eat food!