Good discussion, but you failed to make clear one essential piece of the puzzle: if you don’t eat carbohydrates, you don’t need much vitamin C.
Stefansson’s 1928 experiment should have given us a clue: it’s excessive carbohydrates that cause the “diseases of civilization” (obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer), not excessive fat.
Award-winning science writer Gary Taubes explains it all in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. A revelation.
IIRC, in that book, Taubes says that’s it’s unknown why meat eaters don’t need supplementary Vitamin C, but that one reason could be that *maybe *eating carbohydrates increases the need for Vitamin C. He is clear that he is only making a guess, and that there could be any number of reasons why, and that it is a topic worthy of research.
I read about some people who were shipwrecked and had no fruits or vegetables for a couple months until their rescue, and they had no evidence of scurvy. Whenever they trapped or caught an animal (mostly fish or turtles), they ate everything that was edible, including the eyeballs which are the densest repository of vitamin C in the body.
Oh, no… Not you too, Cecil.
" …just like you and I". That should be “you and me.”. Why is the world so intent on removing the word ‘me’ from the English language? I blame over-correction in generations past.
Although I understand your point --it grates on my nerves whenever someone says something like “The actor gave pictures to he and I” – Cecil is correct. The complete sentence is:
I can’t recall the name of the case/form/whatever, but you can see that the phrase “you and I” is serving as the subject of a clause so “I” is the correct word to use. Think of it this way: you wouldn’t say “Most arctic natives live in villages and get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just like you and me do.”
RR
Except Cecil’s sentence does not include the word “do”. If he was talking about only himself, the correct form would be “Most arctic natives live in villages and get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just like me.” Obviously “just like I” would never be correct.
I would agree that the best way to fix what Cecil wrote would be to add “do” at the end of his sentence. Not only does it fix the grammar issue, it removes any ambiguity about what “just like” refers to (the sentence ending “just like me” above could mean that the speaker is juice).
OMG all this nonsense about syntax and grammar. Much bigger issues–1) How do we know the Inuit/Eskimo didn’t suffer from scurvy? Self reporting? Where is the science/evidence? Huge unexamined assumption. That they “survived” means only that they lived long enough to reproduce. Now I think they did better than this, and the reason why is in their diet, no it’s not just meat, it’s seal liver and blubber; item 2) What is the dietary value not of things the inuit fed their dogs but of what they ATE, specifically seal and seal liver (yes, raw)?
The idea that the Inuit consume only animal products is largely a myth. The reality is that the Inuit do consume a wide variety of plants, as documented by Anore Jones in her book “Plants That We Eat.” She lived among the Alaskan Inupiat for 19 years and she documented enough plant consumption to fill a 240-page book.
I wasn’t able to find the post with the search tool, but I do recall that we had a member here 10-12 years ago whose username was something like igloorex who was Inuit and he mentioned that the Inuit were very careful to harvest and consume certain plants in order to avoid scurvy.
Reading up on this, it is an ambiguous case. Apparently there is much debate, largely because of interpretation of the intent of the sentence and the difference of colloquilism vs standard usage. According to this page:
Regarding Cecil’s sentence, he said:
A formalist may interpret that sentence to mean “…just like you and I [do]”, with the understood verb do at the end, and thus use the verb rule of “you and I” as the subject of the sentence. However, if one takes like as a preposition in that sentence, then the proper form would be “… just like you and me”. It appears Cecil was treating it as a subordinate clause with the understood verb “do”.
You could replace “like” in Cecil’s sentence with “the way”: “… just the way you and I [do].” In that form, “… just the way… me” does not make sense. Nor does “just he way I”. In that construction, one requires a verb for the clause, i.e. the verb do. Therefore, in that construction, one should use I.
A preposition does not appear to really work in that sentence form.
Colloquially, everyone would understand “just like me”, so they should understand “just like you and me”.
“Just as you and I [do]” would be more formally correct in that instance". “Just like” appears to be being used as a conjunction, not a preposition.
“I” is the subjective form. “Me” is the objective form.
In the sentence, “Most arctic natives get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice,” the subject is “arctic natives” and the object is “OJ and Juicy Juice.”
Therefore, “Most arctic natives get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just like I” implies that I am similar to the arctic natives. “Most arctic natives get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just like me” implies that I am similar to OJ and Juicy Juice.
To be more specific, the direct object is “vitamin C” and the object of the prepositional phrase is “OJ and Juicy Juice.” since “just like me” immediately follows the prepositional phrase and not the direct object, then that’s what it modifies. (I’m not sure how I would interpret “Most arctic natives get their vitamin C, just like me, from OJ and Juicy Juice.”) “Just like I,” though, would modify the subject in any case.
