Van Helmont famously planted the shoot of a willow tree into a container of soil, watered the soil for five years and concluded 'the 164 pounds of wood, bark, and root arose from the water alone' (Harvey, 1929, p. 543; McCall, 1931, p. 45).
'Helmont's conclusion was in error because he did not know that plants absorb mineral elements from the soil and carbon dioxide from the air' (Hershey, 1991, p. 458).
Two questions:
Firstly, would van Helmond have been right if he had concluded that the 164 pounds of wood, bark, and root arose from water, from mineral elements in the soil, and from the carbon dioxide in the air? If not, why not?
Secondly, the average weight of an adult in England is 78.1kg (NHS Digital, 2016). Would it be true to say that all the tissue in an adult male has arisen from the food and air that the adult has taken into their body during their lifetime? If not, why not.
References:
Harvey, R. B. (1929) ‘Joannes Baptista Van Helmont’, Plant Physiology, 4(4), pp. 542–546.
Hershey, D. R. (1991) ‘Digging Deeper into Helmont’s Famous Willow Tree Experiment’, The American Biology Teacher, 53(8), pp. 458–460. doi: 10.2307/4449369.
NHS Digital (2016) ‘Health Survey for England, 2015: Trend tables’. NHS Digital. Available at: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/pubs/hse2015trend (Accessed: 20 May 2017).
Steingrimur, The d on the end of van Helmont was a spelling mistake and I would have thought you would have realised that. The text clearly states Helmont.
That apart, the answer is as obvious to you as it is to me 'of course our bodies are made from metabolism of food stuffs you ingest'. You have said the question is strange and asked if there is an intelligent question in there somewhere, so I will try and explain my reason for asking.
It seems obvious to me that our bodies are made from the metabolism of food we ingest. However, the point of the question is that I can find no text-book, and no peer-reviewed article, that actually says so. Of course, there may be some things that are so obviouse that they don't need to be written down, but in science that is rare. I find it surprising that I can't find this 'fact' written down anywere.
Whilst it is helpful for you to have written 'of course our bodies are made from metabolism of food stuffs you ingest', what I was hoping for was that you would have included in your reply a reference to some authoritative published source that would support the statement.
The history of science is littered with established 'facts' that have subsequently been found to be incorrect. In short, I agree with your conclusion, and want to state this obvious 'fact' in a paper I am currently writing. I was surprised to find that I could find no authoritative source to support what I believed, and in asking the question I was hoping someone could point me to such a source.
The point about van Helmont is similar. His experiment is often quoted alongside statements that he arrived at the wrong answer, but I can find no authoritative source where a similar, but improved, experiment has actually taken place and a correct answer given.
Your statement, 'If not, then please go away' is just plain rude. I expected better from you.
Quite an interesting question.
As I understand, the closest to what you seek was said by Savarin, see attachment.
This is a rather philosophical cum medical statement. And not exactly based on any measurements. May be what one eats affects the psyche too, and in turn the body itself. Dogs that eat dogs may behave like dogs, even if they are humans? People eating same diet gain weight different, because of metabolic differences, which makes measurements and conclusions difficult
Narayanan
Hi Richard, you probably don't know this, but human metabolism has been studies for hundreds of years by countless thousands of researchers in over 100 countries.
Every aspect of ingested foodstuffs has been analyzed and reanalyzed and mapped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_pathway
https://www.google.com/search?q=human+metabolism+pathways&num=100&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNjdby4NzUAhXBPD4KHdVGCMMQsAQIcw#imgrc=_&spf=1498523260665
If you want to argue specific points, then take it up with the thousands of researchers which include ~10 nobel laurates.
Be my guest to tilt at all these windmills. Knock yourself out and disprove all of them.
As for me being rude, yes I am, but I am really holding back..
Steingrimur,
Don't think anyone who asks a question "How many scientists are planning to stay in the usa after rumps election?" has any right to criticise my question (Rumps!)
I note, though, that you are still unable to answer my question by giving me a quote to any authoritative research. Just one or two quotes from the thousands of researchers you have mentioned would have been a greater help to me, and I am surprised you are unwilling to help someone who is as ignorent as me but who is obviously trying to improve.
Not sure how I offended you in the past, but it must have been something terrible, so please accept my apology.
Narayanan,
Thanks. Although not exactly what I am looking for, I appreciate your reply.
More a philosophical statement from someone who enjoyed eating than scientific research, but nevertheless, as Brillat-Savarin observed, we are what we eat sure enough.
For anyone reading this far who, like me, is looking for an authoritative reference about the actual mechanism of how 'fuel' and 'food' gets turned into living tissue, there is an excellent detailed explanation which takes up the whole of chapter four of Al-Khalili & McFadden's 2015 book.
Whilst I can find many references that say this is what happens, which is obvious, this is the only authoritative detailed explanation of HOW it happens that I have actually found to date.
Reference:
Al-Khalili, J., & McFadden, J. (2015, chaper 4). Life on the edge: the coming of age of quantum biology. Londres: Black Swan.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Laboratory