Strange question

I'm assuming you mean dry tea, not freshly picked. Try tea rice, shincha gohan:

Chop tea very fine, mix with salt, combine with hot rice to taste just before eating.

--crymad

I'd think the only problem might be an oversupply of caffeine. Are you talking about what I do- nibble some of the used tea leaves before throwing most of them away? Toci

Well, if you eat enough, the caffeine is probably bad for you.

In Burma, they make a salad from fermented tea leaves. I don't care for it myself, but I have seen people eat huge amounts of it without any obvious harm other than really bad breath.

--scott

excellant, thank you. The idea is to eat one tea bag a day to provide high levels of antioxidants. I realise there are other antioxis, but have already covered them.

Oh... no, not to eat the paper bag itself!

thanks, NT

snipped-for-privacy@meeow.co. snipped-for-privacy@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com5/7/0

It would give you 100% of the contained caffeine, which can be quite high, especially in the youngest tenderest leaves, which are the very ones you'd most likely eat. Based on discussions elsewhere, it might not be that good an idea.

Michael

What are antioxidants? Think about it!

JB

Antioxidants are molecules that can give away an electron or two without needing to replace it.

What happens is that there's stuff in your diet and environment that is missing a few electrons, and sometimes they'll steal one from a neighbor, and sometimes that electron steals one from someone else, etc. This can cascade into oxidization cells, though the effect is mild.

Antioxidants give away some electrons without causing a chain reaction. This is a gross simplification, but should give you an idea what's going on.

The truth is that there is no credible evidence backing up the idea that you should eat a *lot of antioxidants. All the evidence points to rapidly diminishing returns.

Companies that advertise "super antioxidants" are obviously lying, because if their products had the advertised properties, they would be so acidic that they would dissolve your esophagus.

Go ahead and eat some vitamin C and drink some green tea, but this is not a super-cure that will prevent cancer and make you live to 115 years old.

Quite agree. Tomatoes and carrots and grapes all carry lots of antioxidants. The next fad will be that antioxidants are bad for you and we all have to stop drinking tea!

JB

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that oat bran is a silent killer.

('cause the doctor wants me eating more soluble fiber)

Tea is just too good to be subjected to voodoo. The health benefit I get from the pleasure of a successful Oolong outweighs any worry about antioxygens or some such (I hope).

JB

Hi,

Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.

this and other interesting facts about pauling (the guy who came up with the modern theories of bonding) can easily be found on the web.

so dr> >

I don't disagree with that at all. There are a lot of things that are necessary in small doses for a long, healthy life - fluoride, for example. Also aluminum, and arsenic.

What i disagree with is the extension of that concept into a belief that if something is good for you, a lot of it is even better.

As a case in point, there have been long term studies come to conclusion in the last few years that indicate statistically that people who take large doses of dietary iron (who are not taking it to treat a diagnosed deficiency) are significantly more likely to develop heart disease than average.

Dr. Pauling is equally famous as a scientist. For those who may be interested, I did a little research on Dr. Pauling and concluded those who are pushing megadose therapies of antioxidant vitamins are perhaps abusing Dr. Pauling's memory and his work, see

-elgoog

But Einstein (note spelling), in his dotage, did not start working in a field about which he knew nothing and then use his fame to push unwarranted theories.

Don't get me wrong, Pauling's fame for his work in crystal structure, molecular biology, and protesting nuclear testing is absolutely deserved. Wikipedia says "There is no doubt that Pauling was one of the finest scientific minds of the century." He did enough work for several astounding careers. But his move into clinical trials was unwise. He recommended doses of vitamin C which are now considered dangerous in order to achieve benefits which have not been reproduced. For example, his paper [Pauling, Linus , and Herman, Zelek S. (1989), ``Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments of cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle'', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86 , 6835-6837] is shameful in its misunderstandings of basic principles.

So if I idolize him for his work prior to age 65, why the vitriol? Because I would discount any of his work on health, suspect anything from his institute, and urge you to do the same.

Best,

Rick.

You've mixed up my reply with Tarssab's; but, FWIW, I agree with you.