mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
I'm not a chemist but this doesn't sound right. "Organic calcium"?
What about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4389837.stm
Organic calcium
- Thread starter mummymonkey
- Start date
I'm not a chemist but this doesn't sound right. "Organic calcium"?
What about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4389837.stm
Rolfe
Adult human female
Woo.... woo....
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Let's see...
There's GREEN calcium and there's RED calcium, you see. One grows in plants and the other is put in humans by them eating those plants and the tiny little thingummies in your chakra transform it from green to red.
Or something.
Never mind what that silly old Periodic Table says, that's just bunkum...
There's GREEN calcium and there's RED calcium, you see. One grows in plants and the other is put in humans by them eating those plants and the tiny little thingummies in your chakra transform it from green to red.
Or something.
Never mind what that silly old Periodic Table says, that's just bunkum...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Well, just look at those qualifications!
Living foods? Isn't that rather cruel?
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
this reminds of a relatively recent Randi commentary when he discussed a company selling "organic" table salt.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Leaving aside the nonsense-context of this, wasn't one of the crazy claims of that "You are what you eat" woman that eating chlorophyll improved the oxygenation of the blood?
Is there no end to the pseudoscience of these idiots?
Rolfe.
Dragonrock
Militant Elvisian Tacoist
mummymonkey said:
In my nutrition class we were taught that "organic" simply means "carbon based" so, basically what they are talking about is carbon based calcium. Apparently they've found a new law of physics that allows them to build one element out of another. What's next? Lead into gold?
mummymonkey said:
"Organic" has three meanings relevant to food these days:-
1. Containing carbon compounds. (Organic chemistry)
2. Derived from living material. (plant , animal, fungus etc)
3. Produced without , or with regulated use of synthetic pesticides, fertilisers etc.
Having first learned definition 1., I find "Inorganic carrots" risible and "organic carrots" redundant. But that's my bias.
I suspect the person being quoted is using definition 2, so implying that the calcium is derived from plants , which may (for all I know), make it easier to digest, prepare or absorb than calcium in supplement form.
Granted, calcium is calcium, but if what is important is a calcium compound which is present in cabbage,but less available in supplements then the text makes sense.
I'm sticking with cheese.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Re: Re: Organic calcium
I think iron in heme form (i.e. in a complex with an organic molecule) is more easily utilised by the body than ionic iron. But is there any vaguely analagous form of calcium?Soapy Sam said:
Re: Re: Organic calcium
We could change lead into gold....bombard it with the right particles...
Of course, you'd have to build the apparatus..and spend quite a bit of money to do so. We could, but it's just not a good cost/profit ratio.
Dragonrock said:
We could change lead into gold....bombard it with the right particles...
Of course, you'd have to build the apparatus..and spend quite a bit of money to do so. We could, but it's just not a good cost/profit ratio.
Re: Re: Organic calcium
As for the last two definitions, I believe they arose out of common usage associated with pseudoscience. I realize that words can change with common usage, but I also realize that some people use words in ways that don't make sense. Shall we adopt all their standards?
As for one form of calcium being more readily utilized, I'd have to see some evidence of this. Clacium, Ca(II), is such a small ion it should be able to permeate the cellular membrane without hinderance, much the same as water. Cellular membranes are meant to keep out larger things, like proteins.
Cheese rocks!
Soapy Sam said:
As for the last two definitions, I believe they arose out of common usage associated with pseudoscience. I realize that words can change with common usage, but I also realize that some people use words in ways that don't make sense. Shall we adopt all their standards?
As for one form of calcium being more readily utilized, I'd have to see some evidence of this. Clacium, Ca(II), is such a small ion it should be able to permeate the cellular membrane without hinderance, much the same as water. Cellular membranes are meant to keep out larger things, like proteins.
Cheese rocks!
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Re: Re: Re: Organic calcium
You could be opening up an entirely new field of geology here.clarsct said:
John Bentley
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
- Messages
- 448
Re: Re: Re: Organic calcium
I think the problem is that the calcium in many supplements doesn't dissolve into separate ions, if I remember correctly. Most of the calcium you eat in foods is bound to something else like protein (animal source) or phytins (I think) from plant sources.
Ca is not absorbed very well at all from the intestine, and must use an active transport mechanism in which Vit. D plays an essential part. So go get a tan, it really is good for your bones.
clarsct said:
I think the problem is that the calcium in many supplements doesn't dissolve into separate ions, if I remember correctly. Most of the calcium you eat in foods is bound to something else like protein (animal source) or phytins (I think) from plant sources.
Ca is not absorbed very well at all from the intestine, and must use an active transport mechanism in which Vit. D plays an essential part. So go get a tan, it really is good for your bones.
Re: Re: Re: Organic calcium
This is untrue. The use of "organic" to mean, for example, "derived from a living organism or organisms" (OED, definition 2b) has citatinons back to 17th century medical textbooks, substantially before the distinction between carbon-based and non-carbon-based chemistry existed. The first use of "organic" in a strictly chemical sense that the OED documents is in the early 19th century, and even then did not hinge on the presence or absence of carbon (1894 is the earliest relevant date I can see).
Similarly, the definition of "organic" meaning "using no chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" (defn. 8b) is dated to 1942. But there's nothing pseudoscientific about examining the use of, for example, manure as a fertilizer vs. chemical-based.
clarsct said:
This is untrue. The use of "organic" to mean, for example, "derived from a living organism or organisms" (OED, definition 2b) has citatinons back to 17th century medical textbooks, substantially before the distinction between carbon-based and non-carbon-based chemistry existed. The first use of "organic" in a strictly chemical sense that the OED documents is in the early 19th century, and even then did not hinge on the presence or absence of carbon (1894 is the earliest relevant date I can see).
Similarly, the definition of "organic" meaning "using no chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" (defn. 8b) is dated to 1942. But there's nothing pseudoscientific about examining the use of, for example, manure as a fertilizer vs. chemical-based.
"For true cheesophile geologists, Cheddar Gorge is an holy place, as are the great mediaeval parmesan quarries at Roquefort"- The Cheesemonger Vol XXXIV (1867)
________________________________________________
New drkitten- that's interesting. My ordering of definitions 1,2 & 3 is in the order I encountered them. I had (unthinkingly) supposed that was also their chronological order. Not so.
________________________________________________
New drkitten- that's interesting. My ordering of definitions 1,2 & 3 is in the order I encountered them. I had (unthinkingly) supposed that was also their chronological order. Not so.