A banana is an edible fruit ? botanically a berry ? produce d by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa. In some countries, bananas used for cooking may be called "plantains", dist inguishing them from dessert bananas.
Nutrition Facts Bananas Amount Per 1 medium (7" to 7-7/8" long) (118 g) Calories 105 % Daily Value* Total Fat 0.4 g 0% Saturated fat 0.1 g 0% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 0 g Cholesterol 0 mg 0% Sodium 1 mg 0% Potassium 422 mg 12% Total Carbohydrate 27 g 9% Dietary fiber 3.1 g 12% Sugar 14 g Protein 1.3 g 2% Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 17% Calcium 0% Iron 1% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 20% Cobalamin 0% Magnesium 8%
Generally, the USDA does a pretty good nutritional analysis.
Pretty good for nutrition facts, probably, but that's damning with faint praise.
The fact that they're quoting potassium to three significant figures is also not confidence-inspiring. That number is almost 1% of the dry weight of the banana--if the soil isn't rich in potassium, where is it going to come from?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
tudent in the '50s measured three bananas from a plot fertilized with potas h, and surprise surprise all bananas became "a good source of potassium" fo rever, no matter what soil conditions they're grown in."
Not dodgy, just that it is so much more profitable when people are in the d ark. The obscene medical costs in the US, WHO GETS THAT MONEY ?
Reputable scientific sources recognize 24 minerals as essential, that means needed, for human life. Potassium is one that we need alot of, and it is a good thing that ALL plants have alot of it. sodium, at needing about 600-7
00 mg. is another large requirement, if you don't get enough, other than fa inting spells guess what you got - HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE. Fancy that.
It is not dodgy but the real information is hard to find. I have a database on the subject with those references at the bottom, the little numbers etc ., and I checked out a few and they were legit. So there is no bullshit her e. In fact even the USDA recognizes those same 24 as essential but they do not publicize it. You guess why, that instead of telling people what they r eally need they would rather push carbs and allow things that run up the he art disease and diabetes rates.
Well I am 58 and my health does nothing but improve and I eat a variety of foods, based on my theories of mineral nutrition. I drink bacon grease and use buckets of salt, eat fat and all that shit and my numbers would make a soy boy drool in his alfalfa sprouts. I mean BP like 115/60, cholesterol 13
8 at 1.89, (that's right one point eight nine) and about seven months after the accident I beat their stress test and didn't hit target heart rate wit h everything they could throw at me. I don't get sick, my back only hurts w here there is a fracture at L1 from the fall, and I have again started to s hadow box with hand weights, used to use 15s but now use 10s. The 15s got b roken actually... And I still have all my teethe and hair. Very little gray . (I think it was tin (Sn) deficiency that turns hair gray as well as affec ts the hearing. My hearing DOES suck though but I used to listen at 136dB f or a long time. (I shit you not) My eyesight always sucked.
Many years ago I lived on fast food, pizza n shit and my knees were so bad I couldn't walk DOWN a flight of steps without excruciating pain, I also ha d chronic back problems. Once I learned how to really eat right, and the US DA has no clue, I improved drastically. Even my roids are about gone. The o nly broken bones I have ever had, despite the fights, car wrecks and all th at shit were ribs and fingers. I used to lay on the floor and have a full g rown Man stand on my chest as I smoked a cigarette. I used to work out with a cigarette or a joint in my mouth hitting it, not breathing as "they" say and now my ECG shows a prolonged QT, I don't know if that caused it or not , but it is possible. With my BP, the pulse pressure is so high it's like I have the heart of a 19 year old, and up until recently when I got a hardon I could probably hang ten pound on it.
If I had done what "they" say,I would have had knee replacements, possibly even hips, fused vertebrae, root canal and all the other shit Men my age ne ed.
But I don't.
If you want my database email me and I'll send you a ZIP file with 25 web p ages in it all written in HTML1, no chance of a virus or anything, not one character that wouldn't show up properly in Notepad.
ced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa . In some countries, bananas used for cooking may be called "plantains", di stinguishing them from dessert bananas.
At first, I thought it has to be much better than that. I couldn't find anything specific on the equipment or methods that the FDA uses to populate the ubiquitous nutrition facts label except that its derived from a database maintained by the US Dept of Agriculture: Only 928 different banana foods lists. Ugh. Selecting a raw banana from the list, I find: containing Potassium between 290mg and 806mg per 100gram banana depending on how it's pre-processed. Click on "full report" button for a list of accepted values and long lists of data sources.
A similar discussion: "How do they measure the nutritional data of food? How accurate are the labels?" In the majority of cases, the producer of a food product looks up each of the ingredients in a food database, and determine the nutritional contribution of each ingredient in the recipe based on it's weight. The USDA maintains a large database of foods (raw and processed) for reference.
Perhaps you're correct. The USDA data might be garbage, assuming the database was originally populated with inaccurate data, and that no effort has been made to fix the problem. Maybe just add a few more significant figures to the data so that it looks more accurate.
Banana: Not high in potassium as popularly thought but still good for your immune system and mood. Oops. No wonder my ancient Geiger counter doesn't show much activity from the K-40.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I'd be super glad to be corrected on those points--I'd far prefer to have confidence in the data I'm presented with, especially since some of the conclusions I'm invited to make have serious health repercussions.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Nutrition science covers the full quality range, as does any other medical topic. The ones to look at are metastudies. Nutritional healthcare worked wonders for me.
Well, if I can't convince you that the USDA Food Composition Database is reasonably accurate by the number of decimal places, voluminous source data, and the large number of citations, perhaps a "what-if" sanity check might be helpful. That's what I do when an assertion or conclusion doesn't quite ring true. I ask myself: If the USDA database was populated in the 1950's by slave labor (grad students) and never verified, what might I also expect to be true or to happen?
The data would conflict by food databases from other countries. For example, Australia: Line number 2653 for "Banana, cavendish, peeled, raw" shows 346mg potassium, which is quite close to the USDA nominal figure of 358mg per 100grams. I haven't checked any other databases, but I can look around for discrepancies if necessary.
Food and supplement producers that rely on potency claims to sell their products would have an interest in stabilizing the official figures so that their products would always be higher potency than typical. A common variation of this need for stability is the declared weight of the contents of packaged food. The weight can be greater, but never less than the stated value (unless the listed item is deemed undesirable). Same with nutritional values.
The nutritional values listed have been used in thousands of health and medical experiments since the database was corrected. If there were any errors, experiments based on the data would also show discrepancies or at least large variations in results which would attract suspicion. I haven't seen any of that in the press.
Enough for now.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I do not question their numerical accuracy, and in fact it really isn't all that critical nor could it be.
Vitamins are irrelevant, minerals are what you need. Their numerical accura cy means nothing, like the number of grains of rice per capita in Zimbabwe. (probably among the lowest in the world lol)
I would like to see the figures on all 24 of the minerals recognized as ess ential by every health organization in the world not run by hyenas. And bei ng essential, and recognized as such, how come they are not out spreading i nformation about that ?
Energy, ba. Fiber, I shit just fine. What's next, ash like in fish food ? G imme the numbers on the minerals dammit.
Database for the email. Draw your own conclusions. Don't say I didn't offer .
Look at;
formatting link
TWENTY FOUR recognized as ESSENTIAL. Count how many they give. And it is im possible for the ones not mentioned to be of insignificant quantity because the livestock is given mineral (not vitamin)supplements. They require appr oximately the same 24 we do, and they are there but not reported.
Here they give more;
formatting link
Why ? Beef bone broth MUST have more different minerals in it than ANY plan t for the same reason we need them.Plants do not move, breathe, think, talk , any of that shit. they are fertilized with what they need,nit what we nee d. The producers are paid by the pound,not the content. Why pay like 50 tim es as much on enriching the soil for ZERO PROFIT. Most people don't know sh it about essential minerals so it is of absolutely no advertising value. Wi th that and extremely higher costs of operation, would YOU ? Would YOU care enough about your fellow Man to go broke giving them good foods in the mar ket with zero recognition for it, and like I said, go broke. Your kids star ve so total strangers are more healthy ?
That is not the American way, hell that is not the anything way.
The above are included in the "72" list as advertised by any number of trac e-mineral supplement sites.
Not listed are the more obvious items such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesi um, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, z inc, cobalt, fluoride and selenium. Which get you to the 72.
Cadmium is highly toxic (and cumulative) in other than vanishingly small am ounts. And, is listed amongst the Most toxic elements together with Berylli um, Chromium, Selenium (necessary, but too much is highly toxic), cesium an d a few others. Brute fact: Most of the items on that first list are suffic iently toxic that any amount one could see in its pure form would be a bad idea to ingest. And even in its most common salt (sodium chloride as one ex ample), moderation would be advised at the least, and avoidance more likely .
The problem with listing items as 'necessary for life' without further disc ussion is that the issue of toxicity is ignored. Vitamin A is good. Too muc h is toxic. Iron is good, too much is toxic - and so forth.
There is a theory that Human blood apart from specific cells approximates t he structure of seawater when the human precursors first popped up - and so the need for these "72" were born. And as with most life, certain creature s 'fix' certain elements - such as mushrooms and selenium, bananas and pota ssium, shrimp and iodine - you get the picture. Omnivores - creatures with long guts, but a single stomach - generally are exposed to all that they ne ed based on their eating habits. But, not always. Goiter and Iodine is an e xample of that phenomenon.
Cutting to the chase, the problems with identifying _every_ trace element a re:
a) That an element is present does not make it necessary. b) If the mechanism by which it functions is not understood, then neither i s the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels. c) Enough may be enough, but too much is quite often deadly. And in the cas e of some - very subtly deadly. d) How individuals metabolize varies. And therefore tolerance to some eleme nts. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foods humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bitter sweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertilize foxglove and acanthus without consequence.
There are some we get plenty of so it is not concern.
is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels."
Hold on there. That statement is off somehow. There is always a difference between therapeutic and toxic. It is true however, that some are more impor tant than others. What's more, the levels needed or toxic will vary person to person especially among those with different lineage. There is proof of this though indirect.
ase of some - very subtly deadly."
True of anything. Years ago someone did die of water poisoning. It was a wa ter drinking contest, like they h ave taco, pizza or hot wing eating contes ts. I am not sure if the dead guy won...
ments. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foo ds humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bitt ersweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertili ze foxglove and acanthus without consequence. "
I think I said that about people, but it applies n spades to different anim als. Dogs can eat damnear anything, try it. Koala bears only eat eucalyptus leaves, how they get along without some of the minerals which MUST be defi cient in those leaves is unknown, at least to me. Likewise, how do Eskimos get vitamin C ? Humans lost the ability to manufacture C in body they say I think about 10,000 years ago. Why ? How ? And did this supposedly happen t o all humans in the space of a few years or what ? It almost can't be envir onmental, that leaves evolutional. Right ? Not quite sure on that one. I ha ve looked into that and found that they DO have a source of vitamin C, in w hale skin. Vitamin C is destroyed at 374F, so I imagine they're not deep fr ying it and if you've eaten skin, fried is the way to eat it. So they reall y sit around and eat whale skin ?
The database I offered does contain a significant amount of information on what some of those minerals actually do in the body. It gives information o n symptoms of deficiency, diseases that coincide with certain deficiencies, recommended level and sources. The problem is it only has that information on about 20 of them. there are quite a few more. Also, there are a few abo ut which they have little information at all.
Since this hijack was successful (hi Raul, tell Fidel I send him my best) I might excerpt from that to illustrate what is in it. I used to host the fi les on Dropbox but me and them don't see eye to eye on a couple of things.
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:16:49 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrot e:
er is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels."
e between therapeutic and toxic. It is true however, that some are more imp ortant than others. What's more, the levels needed or toxic will vary perso n to person especially among those with different lineage. There is proof o f this though indirect.
I repeat: If you do not know how a mechanism functions, nor what it actuall y does, nor why it exists, then you cannot know whether it is operating pro perly or not, whether it is necessary, or not. And whether what it is produ cing is useful, or not. Nor are you able to recognize, understand, or descr ibe why a given mechanism may be good (therapeutic) or bad (Toxic).
Keep in mind that the core of your premise is that these "72" are necessary for proper metabolism, that is, life. Per William of Occcam, It either is, or it ain't. Can't be both.
sium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, zinc, cobalt, fluoride and selenium. Which get you to the 72.
amounts. And, is listed amongst the Most toxic elements together with Beryl lium, Chromium, Selenium (necessary, but too much is highly toxic), cesium and a few others. Brute fact: Most of the items on that first list are suff iciently toxic that any amount one could see in its pure form would be a ba d idea to ingest. And even in its most common salt (sodium chloride as one example), moderation would be advised at the least, and avoidance more like ly.
I don't think anyone suggests easting great amounts of trace minerals, so n o problem
scussion is that the issue of toxicity is ignored. Vitamin A is good. Too m uch is toxic. Iron is good, too much is toxic - and so forth.
it's not ignored at all
the structure of seawater when the human precursors first popped up - and so the need for these "72" were born. And as with most life, certain creatu res 'fix' certain elements - such as mushrooms and selenium, bananas and po tassium, shrimp and iodine - you get the picture. Omnivores - creatures wit h long guts, but a single stomach - generally are exposed to all that they need based on their eating habits. But, not always. Goiter and Iodine is an example of that phenomenon.
are:
is the difference between therapeutic and toxic levels.
that's not logical. The chemical link between boron & arthritis isn't known afaik - icbw - but the pattern of high arthritis in low boron countries & vice versa is very much noticed. It's also not hard to find out what dose & form people have been taking & find that it's safe. No mysteries there. Lo ts of what goes on in the body we don't fully understand - or often underst and much about at all.
ase of some - very subtly deadly.
not sure how death can be subtle.
ments. Cats, dogs, and many primarily carnivores cannot tolerate common foo ds humans enjoy. And birds will eat choke-cherries, mistletoe berries, bitt ersweet and hemlock with no ill effects. Hummingbirds and bees will fertili ze foxglove and acanthus without consequence.
sure. not a problem.
Oh we do. The method of filtering out unsafe medical treatments that has be en used for millennia may seem a bit crude but it does work. When that's wh at you've got it's what you use - or go without the cure.
n what some of those minerals actually do in the body. It gives information on symptoms of deficiency, diseases that coincide with certain deficiencie s, recommended level and sources. The problem is it only has that informati on on about 20 of them. there are quite a few more. Also, there are a few a bout which they have little information at all.
I'd be interested to see your info. If you email to my addy I can go check it. Cheers,
lly does, nor why it exists, then you cannot know whether it is operating p roperly or not, whether it is necessary, or not. "
Analyse your diet and eliminate everything with chromium and vanadium in it . Do that for two years and eat plenty of sweets, white refined sugar would be best. Now see what happens WITHOUT looking up the chemical reactions de aling with the pancreas, insulin and sugar metabolism in the body.
Your diabetes will be evidence enough. Of course they do know of the chemic al reactions, but the point is for YOU not to know, and in such a condition , you will know it is essential.
The statement is not completely worng, it just needs qualification.
ecognize, understand, or describe why a given mechanism may be good (therap eutic) or bad (Toxic)."
If you are in good health or bad is an indicator. Perhaps not empirical pro of but a definite strong indicator. People have been convicted of murder an d executed on such indicators.
ry for proper metabolism, that is, life."
It is not purely a matted of breathing. I don't mind dying but I want to be healthy when I do it. You can exist with heart disease, diabetes, liver an d kidney problems, no gall bladder, prostrate problems, roids, deaf, near b lind, no teeth and brittle bones. You can exist for a long time like that. Do you want to ? derived and circumstantial evidence while not absolute, sh ould not be discarded.
Per someone else (Menken ?) there is always an answer that is simple - and WRONG. Yes, the razor applies to many things, but there are those things ab out which direct evidence is not available. That does not mean the proper c ourse of action is to totally disregard everything, throw your hands up in apathy and quit.
For example it is damn hard to tell if someone is actually getting their mi nerals. Even if ingested not everyone metabolises them the same or at the s ame rate. What might work for one may be totally unassimilated for another. Some respond better to chelated supplements, others colloidal.
The only way to tell for sure is to perform biopsies on several organs, tha t is invasive and dangerous. So what is the most logical course of action ? Cower all the bases.
If you have no idea what the toxic level of something is, which of course v aries according to the compound in which it is ingested, it can be estimate d by the relative levels found in healthily grown foods. You need chromium, eating wrenches though will not supply you with anything. Chromium picolin ate for example, might.
Soon, I am going to paste one of the pages form the database here and we'll see what those people know and don't know. In fact there are some things t hey don't know and they come out and flatly say it.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.