 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2006Liebig's Law of the Minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum Liebig's Law of the Minimum, often simply called Liebig's Law or the Law of the Minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is controlled not by the total of resources available, but by the scarcest resource. This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to "need") was the growth of a plant or crop improved. Liebig used the image of a barrel-now called Liebig's barrel-to explain his law. Just as the capacity of a barrel with staves of unequal length is limited by the shortest stave, so a plant's growth is limited by the nutrient in shortest supply. Liebig's Law has been extended to biological populations. For example, the growth of a biological population may not be limited by the total amount of resources available throughout the year, but by the minimum amount of resources available to that population at the time of year of greatest scarcity. That is, the growth of a population of animals might depend not on how much food is available in summer, but on how much food is available in winter. *************** I can see how this would be applicable to humans nutrition and available nutrients. One scarce nutrient can limit your entire health potential. This brings to mind how vegetarianism may have serious and lasting impact on the health of children and adults. Or how restricting healthy fats can cause serious problems. I wonder why this is not used, discussed and referenced more often in modern medicine. TC > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum > > Liebig's Law of the Minimum, often simply called Liebig's Law or the > Law of the Minimum, is a principle developed in agricultural science by > Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is controlled not by the total > of resources available, but by the scarcest resource. > I wonder why this is not used, discussed and referenced more often in > modern medicine. It isn't referenced because, unlike most plants, humans don't grow for their lifetime. So quoting that something "hampers growth" would be a lot less meaningful and could only apply to a certain time of human life. It is used (in the basic meaning of it), however: although not referenced as "Liebig's Law".. because that would be about as redundant as referencing "Newtons Law of Gravity" when talking about trees loosing their leaves in autumn. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Newtons Law of Gravity" when talking about trees loosing their leaves in > autumn. I wasn't suggesting that "Liebig's Law" be specifically referenced. Just the concept of the importance of having all useful nutrients in at least the minimum amounts needed for optimal and proper development and health. But some in the medical maintream seems to not see any importance in this. In many instances medical people will be anti-vitamin. And some even actively support an inherently nutrient-deficient diet like vegetarianism and/or veganism. And with regards to the "hampers growth" limitation, it makes sense that this would be obviously applicable only during the active growth stage. But during that stage of life when growth is not apparent, it would also be applicable to health in general. Without the minimally optimal amounts of all useful nutrients, health and/or growth will be hampered. TC >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum >> > > I wasn't suggesting that "Liebig's Law" be specifically referenced. > Just the concept of the importance of having all useful nutrients in at > least the minimum amounts needed for optimal and proper development and > health. But that is the basic meaning of the DRI's (or whatever the recommended daily intake of essential food components is termed in the different countries). They are based on the minimal amounts needed for maintaining health and add some percentage to that (usually) to come to a recommended intake. > But some in the medical maintream seems to not see any importance in > this. In many instances medical people will be anti-vitamin. And some > even actively support an inherently nutrient-deficient diet like > vegetarianism and/or veganism. I think that depends what you call the medical mainstream. If you are talking about the consensus of the scientific community, then I disagree- if you talk about media presence things are a little different. The scientific idea behind what you probably call being "anti-vitamin" is: teach people to buy, prepare and eat a healthy diet instead of encouraging them to just take some vitamin pills because there is more to healthy nutrition than just having enough vitamins in your diet.. I dont agree that veganism is being pushed either (and I have not yet found any instance where it was). Vegetarism is different however.. while you may assume that a nutrition-uninterested person (for the lack of a better word) on a vegetarian diet will eventually develop deficiencies most of the vegetarians are interested in nutrition and have a higher basic knowledge about food and its contents [which is only natural because being vegetarian in most western countries is an active choice, not a default option]. That is probably why, in comparisons with non-vegetarians, they do not come off any worse and sometimes even better than non-vegetarians. > And with regards to the "hampers growth" limitation, it makes sense > that this would be obviously applicable only during the active growth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > TC > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_Law_of_the_Minimum > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > daily intake of essential food components is termed in the different > countries). Actually thay are based on the minimum required to avoid overt signs of disease or deficiency. That is not the same as enduring that one gets enough for optimal health. The DRI's are patheticly low, which happens to help the food industry by holding them to a low nutritional standard and also good for the medical and the pharma industries by not actually helping people achieve optimum health. > They are based on the minimal amounts needed for maintaining health and add > some percentage to that (usually) to come to a recommended intake. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > disagree- > if you talk about media presence things are a little different. Consumer and popular media is owned by the advertizers who buy the ads, which are the food and pharma industries for the most part. They also own the universities that research drugs and health matters and train the doctors that kick out the prescriptions and determine treatments. > The scientific idea behind what you probably call being "anti-vitamin" is: > teach people to buy, prepare and eat a healthy diet instead of encouraging > them to just take some vitamin pills because there is more to healthy > nutrition than just having enough vitamins in your diet.. Since when has mainstream medical doctors ever taught people proper diet. They teach the line which is low fat and high carbs, now it is whole grain carbs. Whatever the food industry, the USDA, and the pharma industry wants to push at any given time. The AMA follows the lead that makes their members the most money and it ain't good nutrition. The very foundation of good health is good nutrition. And in light of the poor condition of even our best and freshest foods being produced by mass production methods, vitamin supplementation is often a damned good idea. Without the best foods possible there will not be the best nutrition and without the best nutrition there will never be the best health. Vitamin supplementation , in many cases, has become a necessity due to the poor quality of even our best foods. > I dont agree that veganism is being pushed either (and I have not yet found > any instance where it was). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That is probably why, in comparisons with non-vegetarians, they do not come > off any worse and sometimes even better than non-vegetarians. Actually, many of the better designed and unbiased studies on vegetarianism shows a marked inferiority in a vegetarian diet. It has been shown that vegetarian Hindus have up to 3 times the rates of CVDs as non-vegetarians livng in the same areas. Other studies show that most vegetarians are deficient of several nutrients. B12, some essential lipids and some essential proteins. > > And with regards to the "hampers growth" limitation, it makes sense > > that this would be obviously applicable only during the active growth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > TC Without excellent nutrition, excellent health is un-attainable. It is an absolutely essential pre-requisite. And no pharmaceutical will ever change that. TC > Actually thay are based on the minimum required to avoid overt signs of > disease or deficiency. That is not the same as enduring that one gets > enough for optimal health. But they key word is: "based"- not "equal to". What else could you base something like this on, other than a measurable adverse effect? (DRI's are not set to exactly the level where you don't have deficiencies any more, they are higher than this treshhold- at least in all countries that I know the specifications of in this area) > The DRI's are patheticly low, which happens to help the food industry > by holding them to a low nutritional standard and also good for the > medical and the pharma industries by not actually helping people > achieve optimum health. This is paranoia- there is not a big conspiracy behind everything. Nobody keeps people from eating healthy, and raising the DRI 30+ percent won't make people eat healthy either. Its a decision everyone has to make for himself OR something that the gouvernment has to dictate by influencing or forcing the economy in a certain direction (which won't happen). And: who produces vitamin supplements? Who profits from that? The calculation just does not solve that way. > They also > own the universities that research drugs and health matters and train > the doctors that kick out the prescriptions and determine treatments. I doubt that, or rather, I doubt the first part of that. Most universities in most countries are independent institutions and do not depend on external resources from the economy directly. Sure, there are crosspoints where certain projects are sponsored by the economy- but thats why there is a "Competing Interests Statement" in every good journal that requires scientists to disclose who sponsored the study. About the doctors: yes, pharma companies do have a very big influence on what doctors prescribe- and no, I don't think that this is a good thing. But it has nothing to do with DRI's in any way.. just with a specific product being prefered over a another (maybe more potent) product because the favoured company does not produce this product. >> The scientific idea behind what you probably call being "anti-vitamin" >> is: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since when has mainstream medical doctors ever taught people proper > diet. They don't. But that is not their area- or at least not what they learned to be their area. If people go to the doctor (especially in the usa) they are already ill in most cases (which is probably, because there is no general health insurance like in other countries). Prevention and public health has become more of a gouvernment issue than one of your local doctor. > They teach the line which is low fat and high carbs, now it is > whole grain carbs. Whatever the food industry, the USDA, and the pharma > industry wants to push at any given time. The AMA follows the lead that > makes their members the most money and it ain't good nutrition. Well, this may be a country specific problem. But there isn't just the US out there. About to low-carb or not to low-carb: I am not going to comment on that; it has become an almost religious question where either party got so blinded by their crusade against the other that they are not able to make any consense. > The very foundation of good health is good nutrition. And in light of > the poor condition of even our best and freshest foods being produced > by mass production methods, vitamin supplementation is often a damned > good idea. Even if by " our " you mean " the USs' ": I doubt that. While mass production can lower food quality (and most probably does in most cases to some degree): you are not forced to eat something that is mass produced- you can buy the more expensive non-mass produced products (and help the small producers thereby). But this is how far the will to change goes for most people.. you can always complain about the bad mass production, but when it comes to taking consequences (and using your power as a consumer in a land driven by economy) most just go back to the cheap junk, grinding their teeth in the process. > Without the best foods possible there will not be the best nutrition > and without the best nutrition there will never be the best health. Well, I agree to the spirit of that- good nutition is the basis for a healthy life. > Vitamin supplementation , in many cases, has become a necessity due to > the poor quality of even our best foods. I do not agree to that. You can search the various food data bases: its not a problem to meet your requirement for all food components by eating food instead of supplements. > Actually, many of the better designed and unbiased studies on > vegetarianism shows a marked inferiority in a vegetarian diet. Well, who decides on a rational, scientific, basis what is biased an what isn't? If such a decision would be possible the stury just wouldn't be published in the first place. And if it isn't possible: how can it be an argument against a study? But if you have such studies at hand, please post. > It has > been shown that vegetarian Hindus have up to 3 times the rates of CVDs > as non-vegetarians livng in the same areas. Other studies show that > most vegetarians are deficient of several nutrients. B12, some > essential lipids and some essential proteins. This supports what I said earlier: when vegetarianism is a default you will probably come off worse than if non-vegetarian but you are talking about a country (india) with severe malnutrition problems here- this can't be compared to anything like a western industrialized country where everyone can buy as much food as he needs (and money is not the limiting factor in this). Families in india literally starve- vegetarian or not; this is not the case in a western county. >I wasn't suggesting that "Liebig's Law" be specifically referenced. >Just the concept of the importance of having all useful nutrients in at >least the minimum amounts needed for optimal and proper development and >health. Yes, it is important, In babies and adolescents still growing that is. Later, other things are more important as the limiting principle. Like decreased efficiency in food uptake in intestines, something that decrease down to almost zero, at which time you dies, anyway. the longer you manage to keep intestine nutrition uptake in vitality, the longer you will live. One way to decrease it is eating too little food, especially proteins, since a key nutrient is glutamate/glutamine which is the sole energy fuel in those cells. (Sugar should only be transferred through the cell): The glutamate comes partly from diet, but, when starving, the sole source is muscle cells in full activity. so, combined eating little food with low protein quality combined with low physical activity is a sure killer. After a period of starvation, you will need lot of physical activity and increased protein quality to recover the damage done to intestinal cells. But, the increased protein is not for increasing muscle weight, but to repair damage done to intestinal cells. >>I wasn't suggesting that "Liebig's Law" be specifically referenced. >>Just the concept of the importance of having all useful nutrients in at [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > cells. But, the increased protein is not for increasing muscle weight, > but to repair damage done to intestinal cells. True, but how many people have protein-energy-malnutrition in western countries (kwashiorkor/marasmus/marasmic-kwashiorkor)? People in first world nations do never get too few protein. >True, but how many people have protein-energy-malnutrition in western >countries (kwashiorkor/marasmus/marasmic-kwashiorkor)? People in first world >nations do never get too few protein. When ill and having a CRP value above 50 you most probably has protein malnutrition due to immune system inducing glucagon release in order to release glutamate for use by several macrophages (which don't use sugar). That mean, most people being chronically ill very often don't get enough protein, in turn meaning the disease/infection turns from acute infection to chronic infection, like in tuberculosis which could be far better prevented all the long term degradation of body if diet had supplied enough GSH and taurine (through cystein/methionine intake or taurine intake directly) I myself had obvious sign of marasmus during my life-threatening disease in 2003. Fortunately I did know about importance of protein and had a whole division of the hospital alone for myself due to easter celebration, so I had all egg supplies for my own. At the worst I had around 12 eggs daily. One day they didn't have time for boiling so many, may foot and leg increased terribly in dimension, so after some few hours in pain, they thought to give me more eggs and my leg and feet responded within a few hours. (It was very few things I was able to eat, most soups because they had removed all teeth except three in my lower jaw due to infections. In upper jaw they still was intact because they were too infected with results that no pain killers would have helped me, and more possible, rather killed me. [...] > I myself had obvious sign of marasmus during my life-threatening > disease in 2003. Fortunately I did know about importance of protein [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some few hours in pain, they thought to give me more eggs and my leg > and feet responded within a few hours. [...] You are talking about highly pathologic conditions- people with life-threatening diseases are not representative for the general population and its needs when it comes to protein consumption - you probably wouldn't say that every man and woman in your country should be given antibiotics to their diet because they helped someone who had a bad infection survive. I definitely would not recommend anyone to eat 12 whole eggs a day under normal conditions. >You are talking about highly pathologic conditions- people with >life-threatening diseases are not representative for the general population [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >definitely would not recommend anyone to eat 12 whole eggs a day under >normal conditions. CRP >50 is normal for a throat Streptococal infection. So no, I'm not talking about life-threatening conditions, but people with any kind of infections. As soon as immune system is triggered and macrophages and other lymphocytes and any other kind of white blood cells are mobilized, body need more energy, in the form of both glutamate and glucose and thus trigger both glucagon and adrenaline to increase rate of release. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.