So glucose is not a nutrient you say! lol! Boy you are, like everyone keeps telling me, not as smart as you try to pretend you are! lol! This is hilarious!
So what is the nutritional value of glucose Justin? Just because the body needs something for function this does not automatically make it a nutrient. If that were the case then all the acids in the body would be classified as nutrients along with all the hormones, neurotransmitters.........
And like I said above, you will continue to expose your ignorance until even the most gullible of your drones will see through your BS.
And yes you ignorantly claim you know gardening yet cant make the connection between high mineral content and sweetness!
Sweetness has to do with the sugar content Justin. Do you really think potassium is sweet? Or sodium? Or zinc? It is not the minerals creating the sweetness, it is the sugar. So lets look at fructose (C6H12O6) and show us all knowing one where the minerals are in the fructose. It is not that hard to see that you are WRONG as usual.
Tell me Hvermoney just what is it that makes a vegetable or fruit have high or low sugar levels??? A laboratory! lololol!
No, it is called photosynthesis. Need an explanation? And the sugars still do not contain minerals.
Ah so photosynthesis is what decides what makes some some fruits sweet and another not sweet! Absolutely ridiculous!
Yes the body will die if it doesn't produce glucose, I call that a nutrient no matter what you say to weasel out of your idiotic statements! Glucose helps fuel the body if that isn't a nutrient nothing is, ! I dont care about your grade school values charts, they are not what decides what a substance is! Im not impressed with your responses hver, they defy logic and simple common knowledge! You are not the authority here hver, you aren't good enough at it!
Tell us all hver how does the sun pick out which fruits it will make sweet and which ones it doesn't???? lol!
Tell us all hver how does the sun pick out which fruits it will make sweet and which ones it doesn't???? lol!
Boy do you need to learn some simple biology and chemistry. Do you really think all the sugar generated by photosynthesis remains as a simple sugar? I supposed you also think that all the cellulose ( a complex sugar), for example, has nothing to do with photosynthesis but is put in the plant by the cellulose fairy, ROTFLMAO!!!
>>"Oh you mean high sugar (brix) foods. I never thought of sugar as being a real nutrient."<<
glycoproteins and glycoprotein enzymes, glycolipids and glycolipid enzymes...
the body consumes and makes them with alkaline minerals as catalysts... they are essential to life... as are lipoproteins and their enzymes.
Perhaps why so much information is coming forth on glyconutrients.
Brix confuses people who try to make things more difficult/complicated than they actually are. In foods, a higher sugar content does correlate with higher mineral content and nutritive value.
Re: your argument on Brix...
Sure you could take a man made sugary product and get a high Brix reading... however this is an artificial reading... apples and oranges in comparing a brix reading from a home grown natural food and a man made product that is artificially held together.
One can also get a high brix reading from a fruit from a fruit tree that was under high stress.A tree will take minerals from the fruit to preserve the integrity of the tree itself.This shows the inherent weakness of using such a crude measuring device as a refractometer.The point HV was making is legitimate and yours is based on speculation.There is a difference here that you are very well aware of as is justin.Speculation is as it is and it is alternative and is often BS packaged for sale to the unknowing public.
Drought stress is a common example here in central Il.Stress influence on the quality of produce is as it is and it is very common.This will not be noted on a sugar reading.
Sure it will, I experience this frequently! When rain or any threatening weather approaches nutrients go south into the root system making and storing nutrients to recover from incremental weather! This is the beauty of the refractometer, it can register this loss of nutrients in the foliage and then after good weather returns and the sun returns so do the measurable nutrients! Remarkable but quite simple actually!
That is my point as far as the consumer end is concerned.Most people buy there produce and do not test during the year.This is the weakness and absurdity of using such a crude tool in testing food from a consumer point.They are totally without any of the growing variables involved in the equation of the high brixs growing modality.They do not test the foliage they do not take soil samples they do not make soil augment adjustments and they do not know what takes place as far as stress is concerned.It brings the guessing to maximum and the knowledge to the minimum.A sugar reading is as it is just a sugar reading.If it were only so easy as poke and go.I still cant get the deer to leave my apple trees alone.
That is why these yoyo weather extremes hot one day, cold the next... are so hard/bad on our commercial food supply, organic or not, as well.
grz-
It is those stresses that cause the plants to produce more sugars and beneficial phytochemicals. If you want to make a sweeter watermelon you stress it by withholding water until it starts to wilt so it concentrates its sugar. If you want hotter peppers you use the same trick so the plants concentrate their oils in the fruits. This is also the reason I prefer wildcrafted herbs over cultivated herbs. The stresses of nature make for more medicinal plants, as well as healthier plants.
I agree to a point, particularly your feelings on wild harvested... however, this is dicey at best, and one must know what they are doing - find the healthiest plants to harvest from - no way to tell this unless you wild harvest on your own.
Due to water availability, soil and air flow, one plant mere yards from another could be much "better", in terms of benefits.
Wild apes unless stressed, do not over harvest a food source, and choose only those plants that are the healthiest to eat from, leaving the weaker plants to recover from their stresses.
>>"The stresses of nature make for more medicinal plants, as well as healthier plants."<<
again, this is not true across the board... read above... however, that is one reason why the loss of biodiversity due to man made chemicals, GMO's, activities, etc. is so grievous.
The plants that do survive under the most stressful conditions, do develop a much hardier constitution... the same is true for humans, however, our creation of artificial environments, poor foods laden with chemicals, and pharmaceuticals has weakened us considerably, and our ability to battle illnesses over many generations now - to the point where we believe that we need artificial help (drugs, supplements, chemicals, zappers and the like, magnetics, etc.) just in order to survive.
>>"The stresses of nature make for more medicinal plants, as well as healthier plants."<<
again, this is not true across the board... read above.
You read one fraction of what I wrote leading to a misinterpretation of what was said. This is why I have given up on responding to your posts lately. You are so eager to try and prove me wrong that you keep twisting what I said giving it a new meaning than what was really said. At least you are not outright lying as Justin keeps doing. Oh well, back to the reality boards.
If you had read my post... you would have read that "I agree with you to a point".
Which in essence, meant, at least from my perspective when I wrote it, that I agreed with you... and then went on to illustrate why what you wrote is true... to that point, and then illustrated the possible exceptions to that "truth" for a few, various reasons.
Which I am certain that you understood and agreed with in spite of your response.
Though many things in this world are, according to our understandings, thought to be absolutes (some of those are not, however, I will not get into them... you are mired in scientific dogma and seem to see it as a religion), not everything is right or wrong, this or that, most especially in the natural world... variability is a constant in all things in the natural world, including soil, water and air, which profoundly affect the health of living organisms.
If I worked with and was exposed to chemicals day in and day out, while an identical twin was not, we would express our health and well being differently over our lives.
Subtle things like if I ate my vegetables, especially leafy greens, and he did not, we would express our health and well bing differently over our lives.
"Habits" such as his cigarette and coffee habits would have effects as well.
It is why we find "cancer islands" among people and animals in highly polluted cities, etc... with those having weaker constitutions for any number of reasons, expressing those cancers.
it is why we are finding cancers in wild birds, animals, and fish, along with struggling vegetation, in various geographical regions...
it is why we are seeing drastic die offs in pollinating species, including bees, bats and song birds in various regions...
It is why we have ocean dead zones where rivers enter into the seas...
etc. etc.
Would you give a 250 pound man the same dose of an "herb" as a 110 pound woman for the same condition? Of course not. Would one herb be more beneficial to a man and less so to a woman... yes, that is so as well... variability my friend.
Many tribal cultures knew of these things...
I am not trying to prove you wrong... and really do not think that I did, as much as I illustrated the natural variations we encounter... Which need to be illustrated for growth... Never have I had the intent of proving you wrong as much as I am engaging you in discussion for benefit of greater understanding, not only for myself, but also for any readers that might happen by.
You can take it or leave it as you wish.
BTW - I thought that forum owners could not post in Debate Forums ... that does not seem to be true across the board.
Home
Truth from Big pharmatroll 
Re: A fraud is. 
