41 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Here is another discussion about iron.

[niner]

I've heard nanoceramic may not be safe because the ceramic particles are so tiny they can cross the blood brain barrier, get into your cells, etc., and there are no long term studies on that technology.

I'm curious to learn more about it.

My understanding is that the nanoceramic glazes are fired at high temperatures, so they melt together. Thus, there wouldn't be any nano-sized particles. I've also heard it claimed that "nano" is just a marketing term, kind of like ipod nano... Maybe it relates to something about the surface morphology on the nanoscale; I don't know. Reliable scientific information on this technology is hard to find. My own thinking on it is that ceramics are glasses, and glasses are pretty clean. Someone figured out how to make a ceramic that food doesn't stick to, but it's still a ceramic, so it should be safe.

[ironfistx]

Maybe the solution is to buy both Teflon and ceramic pans and alternate using them to kind of hedge your bets.

There are some brands of ceramic pans that have lead in them, though. I saw a news story about it. I'll see if I can find it again if anyone wants. Basically, make sure whatever brand you buy says "lead free."

[xEva]

You are implying that iron pans are shortening people's lives? Speaking of facts, do you have any to back that up?

I believe that iron pans enhance your health. ...

You sound like my mom. It took me a lot to convince her to stop using those. Old habits die hard.

Historically, I think it was not a coincidence that bloodletting stopped being the most popular therapy of the day when stainless steel pans and pots appeared.

We scoff at blood lettings of the past centuries but people were not stupid and employed it because it worked -- for the wide-spread iron overload, apparently, because up until late 19th most metal pots were cast iron (or bronze, which posed its own health problems, also helped by bloodletting).

[niner]

Historically, I think it was not a coincidence that bloodletting stopped being the most popular therapy of the day when stainless steel pans and pots appeared.

We scoff at blood lettings of the past centuries but people were not stupid and employed it because it worked -- for the wide-spread iron overload, apparently, because up until late 19th most metal pots were cast iron (or bronze, which posed its own health problems, also helped by bloodletting).

Sorry, I don't buy this for one second. Do you have any evidence that bloodletting 'worked', beyond the placebo effect that would be expected from such a dramatic technique? Is there any evidence whatsoever that iron overload was rampant during the 2000 years that bloodletting was practiced? During most of the time that bloodletting was practiced, metal cookware was rare. Stainless steel cookware wasn't widely available until the mid 20th century. Bloodletting went out because science advance to the point that people figured out once and for all that it was counterproductive.

[xEva]

Of course no one studied iron levels in the populations of the past. But in regions of Africa, sometime last century, there were studies (1970-80s -?) of people who used cast iron pots for everything, and they did have high occurrence of acquired hemochromatosis (iron overload).

And you seem to underestimate how widespread iron pots were in the past. Every village had a blacksmith, every horse had shoes and every household had a cauldron. Even mongol nomads in Russian steps had cast iron pans (the legend has it that frying meat in a pan was introduced by them). Finally, we're all familiar with an ancient image of a cauldron steaming over fire. Don't know about the dirt poor -- they probably could not afford the local barber's bloodletting services anyway, but those who did, did use metal pots exclusively. And not just for cooking, but for everything (brewing herbal teas, etc.)

And if so, then iron exposure was high, and bloodletting was the best therapy for that.

I think you reacted to the term and the baggage that comes with it. If I said therapeutic phlebotomy instead of bloodletting, would you react quite the same?

[niner]

I think you reacted to the term and the baggage that comes with it. If I said therapeutic phlebotomy instead of bloodletting, would you react quite the same?

Yes, I would have, because I think the premise is wrong. Bloodletting was falling out of favor in the later 1800s, and was essentially gone in the 20th century, yet cast iron was the predominant cookware for the entire first half of the 20th century. Why was there no recognized epidemic of hemochromatosis then? People figured out that bloodletting didn't work, aside from in a few rare conditions. If it was really helping due to rampant hemochromatosis, why did everyone stop using it?

My main arguments are 1) Bloodletting doesn't really work for most things, and people figured that out (during a period of near exclusive iron cookware use). 2) Cooking with cast iron may have led to levels of iron in some people that we would consider excessive, but I suspect that it was rarely high enough to have caused an acute problem. It would instead simply contribute to conditions like CVD or "old age" that would have been considered normal. 3) There is a mismatch between the end of bloodletting and the end of widespread iron cooking.

[xEva]

It is true that there is a bit of a mismatch between the end of bloodletting and the end of widespread iron cooking. And we have to thank the medical profession for it, who became 'enlightened' and declared it barbaric. The privileged class, they were among the first to acquire stainless steel cookware (already available toward the end of 19th C). So, they were among the first who could dispense of bloodletting. Besides, people --med profession included-- did not understand why bloodletting worked, they only knew that it did (until they decided that it did not and made it a party line, to which you still react). No one ever measured iron levels until long after the bloodletting era.

I still think that your reaction is to the term. Your poo-pooing bloodletting in this thread does not match recommendations of regular blood donations on other threads. And these recommendations are given to people who do not use cast iron pots. Imagine if they were.

I see a mismatch here. Today regular blood donation is good for health but centuries ago bloodletting "did not work, except for rare conditions". Hello?

Edited by xEva, 28 January 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[ironfistx]

Cliffs Notes on why regular blood donations are good for you?

[xEva]

Cliffs Notes on why regular blood donations are good for you?

http://www.longecity...ion#entry481060

http://www.longecity...ion#entry476911

http://www.longecity...ion#entry453219

[niner]

I still think that your reaction is to the term. Your poo-pooing bloodletting in this thread does not match recommendations of regular blood donations on other threads. And these recommendations are given to people who do not use cast iron pots. Imagine if they were.

I see a mismatch here. Today regular blood donation is good for health but centuries ago bloodletting "did not work, except for rare conditions". Hello?

I'm not "poo-pooing" the concept of phlebotomy for life extension purposes. I'm saying that with rare exceptions, it doesn't cure disease. Those two things are different.

[xEva]

I'm not "poo-pooing" the concept of phlebotomy for life extension purposes. I'm saying that with rare exceptions, it doesn't cure disease. Those two things are different.

I must have missed the part where it said that bloodletting/phlebotomy cured diseases I myself referred to it as the most popular 'health therapy' of its day.

Considering the quality of the pipes of water supplies systems in conjunction that most food and hot drink were prepared in iron vessels, I'd say that iron levels were high in the past and bloodletting/phlebotomy had more impact on people's health than today.

Edited by xEva, 28 January 2013 - 10:26 PM.