Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:40:19 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Just an observation, but on a paleo, organic diet for quite some time,
the routes of possible exposure to bromine, et al, is drastically
reduced. I tend to believe the observation by van Leeuwen (and others)
that the main route is from standard (non-organic) food commodities
(pesticides, etc.). I would hazard the opinion that iodine (or other)
supplements might be warranted for a time when switching from a SAD-like
diet to paleo. But it is difficult for me to justify their use after the
body has come back to a healthy, paleo condition.
-=mark=-
On 1/10/12 9:43 AM, william wrote:
> On 01/10/2012 12:22 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> So how does a diet based on grassfed animals supplemented with the
>> odd organic lettuce or avocado not meet nutritional needs such that
>> supplements are required?
>>
>
> How do you, on such a diet, remove the bromine from the iodine
> receptors, the fluorine, lead, mercury etc.?
>
> Iodine is needed for the parietal cells that concentrate HCl, so that
> you can digest cooked meat. Just one of the problems with [b]proven[/b]
> iodine deficiency
>
> William
>
|
|
|