Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

I think the piece of missing information here is the distinction between macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients.* The info from Mayo clinic quoted in the another answer addresses some reasons why whole foods might be better than pills for obtaining micronutrients (i.e. vitamins and minerals). While this may be true, most of it remains to be conclusively ...


4

Oxidation does not mean inflammation. But oxidation can be a cause of inflammation. Oxidation processes are part of normal cell metabolism (mostly in mithocondria). They lead to reactive oxygen species ($O_2^-$, $H_2O_2$ and $OH-$) which can trigger inflammation via activation of some transcription factors: NF-κB, AP-1, p53, HIF-1α, PPAR-γ, ...


-2

No one would like to eat a pill when we've been genetically selected for millennia to salivate at the small of roast beef. Our stomachs tell us we are full only when they are distended - try getting that with a pill. Therefore there is not much of a market for pills that will fully replace food. Unfortunately, there are some people "working" on a food ...


2

Honey is produced from nectar that does not contain any living cells and carefull beekeeper should be able to take at least some from the hive without killing any bees. However bees themselves will also consume pollen that is alive. It also may be possible to feed on fruits; while cells there are still alive, they are about to die soon without any prospects ...


6

No. It is possible but extraordinarily impractical to nourish yourself without killing animals, plants or even bacteria, as many have explained in detail. However, your immune system constantly kills pathogens that infect your body. What's worse, the macrophages literally catch and eat these bacteria alive, so you are very much "consuming" them. You could ...


4

Well, technically if you are eating something from a plant or animal without killing that plant or animal, then technically you would not be "consuming life" as nothing as been killed. Fruits, for example, can be removed from the tree without harming it and in fact are meant to be removed as that is how the tree reproduces. Ditto with berries, melons, ...


19

Even on a purely synthetic diet, your body would still use living cells as an energy source. Our bodies contain more bacterial cells than human, mostly contained in our gut. These microbes process any nutrients we ingest and when they die, we absorb their cellular components as nutrition. The lining of the gut is the most rapidly dividing population of ...


14

Your question is phrased somewhat ambiguously as to whether you're asking about the theoretical possibility, the feasibility, or the practical ability in everyday life. 1) Theoretically, yes. It is chemically possible to produce all substances that humans need to survive without the use of living organisms in the process. In the end, biological systems use ...


7

Question: Is it possible for humans to live healthy long lives without eating any type of life, i.e no animals, no plants? First, according to a definition of a living organism(biology-online), milk is not live, because it does not have an ability to reproduce itself, among other... My claim: If you consider milk and honey non-live (no DNA), then, yes, ...


2

It is entirely possible to live without consuming life using only current technology. In fact, there is a company called Soylent which has developed a food substituent designed to replace all eating, entirely. The philosophy of that company is that – food is just a collection of chemicals for the body to process, and that as long as the body gets all ...



Top 50 recent answers are included