Lu Norton

Organic Foods

162 posts in this topic

[My knowledge of the quote feature is lacking; in the meantime, apologies for my formatting...]

From RayK: "Gnargtharst, if you go back and read what I have written with a closer look you will see that I stated people need to eat according to those three fundamentals and vary their foods."

My previous post expressed doubt about the conclusion of a particular study cited, and had nothing to do with your 3 fundamentals of eating. Your defensiveness is misplaced.

RayK: "...do you think that our ancient ancestors made certain that they received a large amount of vitamins, minerals and certain amounts of fiber? Highly unlikely."

Again, this is not germane to my previous post. I will answer though: of course ancient humans strove toward viatmins and minerals. Maybe not self-consciously or scientifically, if that's what you mean, but they did seek out foods with a variety of these vitamins. If they didn't, they didn't survive. Long-term vitamin C derpivation, for example, would take the swing right out of a guy's woolly-mammoth-spearing arm.

RayK: "...The reason we have gotten to the place we are now is because man does not require large amounts of anything to survive. In other words, man could have never made it to the point we are at now if he required large amounts of macro and micro-nutrients as he was in a famine state for a very large portion of our ancestral past."

I don't know what you mean here. Without some concrete example, I can't figure the point. You say though man does not require "large amounts"; compared to what? Of course man requires *some* amount of macro- and micro-nutrients. I can't figure out what you're objecting to.

RayK: "...somehow you think (along with many others) that man has become less efficient with his nutrients and requires huge masses just to survive...."

*I* think this? I have no idea whatsoever how the above could be attributed to me. I went back and re-read my post, to see what might be the source of misunderstanding, but failed to find the likely sticking point. To clarify: I have never said or implied that man needs "huge masses just to survive"; infact, I don't even know what it means. Huge masses of what? Compared to what? Etc.

My one point thus far is fairly simple: I doubt that any study of a restricted-calorie diet could not at least incidentally imply particular foods, particularly low-calorie foods like fruits and vegetables. As an analogy: if you held up a small purse and told me it contained $100,000, it would be difficult for me to figure how it couldn't contain predominantly $100- and $1,000- dollar bills, rather than nickels and dimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RayK: "I would also like to add that you seem to know how much was quoted as the total amount of calories being taken in, which I doubt."

I do not know by what standard I "seem" to know how many calories were assumed, when I fairly clearly indicated that I did not know. I said "...*if* you intake is 20% less than the average -- *assuming* the average itself isn't some subset with a higher-than-average intake...".

Obviously not I nor anyone here could know the baseline caloric intake, as that information wasn't given and you yourself have explained above that you cannot reference the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayK: "I would also like to add that you seem to know how much was quoted as the total amount of calories being taken in, which I doubt."

I do not know by what standard I "seem" to know how many calories were assumed, when I fairly clearly indicated that I did not know. I said "...*if* you intake is 20% less than the average -- *assuming* the average itself isn't some subset with a higher-than-average intake...".

Obviously not I nor anyone here could know the baseline caloric intake, as that information wasn't given and you yourself have explained above that you cannot reference the study.

Yes, but your lack of knowledge did not keep you from asking what the average was (as I would have given it) before you came to your skeptical conclusion that it could not be done.

Do you know what your body does with all those vitamins and minerals that enter your body in excess? It sends them through the liver and kidneys and then out through your urine. So, when people take in an excess of unuseable resources/vitamins (except calories) it has to work even harder to get rid of what the body reacts to as waste or toxins. Do you know that your body cannot even store water soluable vitamins, except B-12, which it can store two years worth of demands in the liver? The body can store fat soluable vitamins (A, D, E and K) in fat with up to 5 years worth of storage. Did you know that one also? So, yes knowing what our ancestors required is relevant to what we need today, as it helps a person to understand the nature of man his metabolism and so much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I decided to try an organically grown apple. I bought one red delicious apple with several of the regular apples I normally buy. After about 2 days in the frig, I decided to try it and when I bit into it, it had a whole bunch of brown areas inside. After about 2 bites, I decided to throw it away. Was this just one "bad apple in the bunch" and I was unlucky, or is this common with organically grown apples? I think I'll stick to regular apples if this is common.

For most uncut fruits, it's a bad idea to keep them in the fridge. With this said, some organic fruits might be picked riper and / or be more fragile varietals, and therefore more prone to being bruised.

I often buy organic food, mostly because my partner likes that and it's easier to do as she likes than fight about it. I also find that the nicest food venues (e.g., Whole Food) practically only have organic food these days. Finally, I agree that a concern for organic food often (not always) comes with a concern for yummyness over looks (e.g., those delicious - and fragile - varietals of weird looking tomatoes are mostly grown by organic farmers). As a foodie, I value yummyness over most other attributes.

With this said, I have 2 issues with organic food:

1 - The chemicals needed to grow efficiently what we need are known and few in numbers. Whether you use chicken poop or artificial fertilizers, what gets the food to grow are nitrates. There's no difference. So it's really a silly word game.

2 - Organic farming is inherently less efficient than intensive farming in terms of yield-per-acre. What that means is that *all other things remaining equal* you need to use more land to grow the same amount of food, therefore you have to re-dedicate forest and other wildernesses to farming. As a Westerner, I value highly the luxury of having forests and other wild spaces where to have fun and explore. This is a luxury of (semi) capitalist societies that I enjoy tremendously. Intensive farming is one reason why the forested areas in the US have been growing for several decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My one point thus far is fairly simple: I doubt that any study of a restricted-calorie diet could not at least incidentally imply particular foods, particularly low-calorie foods like fruits and vegetables. As an analogy: if you held up a small purse and told me it contained $100,000, it would be difficult for me to figure how it couldn't contain predominantly $100- and $1,000- dollar bills, rather than nickels and dimes.

I don't understand how the small purse fits into this, but with portion control you can consume the same amount of calories no matter what you eat. Having a calorie restricted diet doesn't imply anything in itself. You can choose to switch to low-calorie foods or you can simply eat less of what you're already eating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bborg: "...with portion control you can consume the same amount of calories no matter what you eat. ...You can choose to switch to low-calorie foods or you can simply eat less of what you're already eating."

Exactly. For example, eat half as much fried chicken, or switch to twice as much broccoli. My idea was that at a certain point, one couldn't restrict one's portion any more, without being perpetually hungry. If one's diet consisted predominantly of french fies, for example, you'd have to eat such a tiny volume of them before you reached X calories, that your stomach would signal constant hunger. Whereas if you ate exclusively salad greens, you could stuff yourself to the gills, and still have consumed very few calories.

Because the claim about the study was that its connection to longevity was its 20%-below-average caloric intake, my hunch was that it almost certainly implied a high proportion of fruits and veggies (rather than "no direct link to certain foods"), because: 1. restricted portion diets so frequently fail (the more the restriction the higher the rate of failure), and I would think that the subjects of the study would have to be consistently *non-failing* to have contributed meaningful statistics to the study, and so 2. those who succeeded eating 20% less than average, likely did so by eating more veggies, rather than smaller portions of french fries, as a low-calorie, tiny-bit-of-french-fries-diet is significantly lacking in vitamins A-Z, minerals, anti-oxidants, and fiber, the lack of which does not tend to correlate with longevity.

I suppose the argument might proceed: "the study does not *directly* link to eating certain foods, but *indirectly* does".

...which would go full-circle as to why I was sceptical: longevity-promoting diets tend to be proptionately high in fruits, vegetables, and legumes (and thus, lower in calories), and low in (high-calorie) meat, sugar, and oils. I doubt that a study showing longevity would not also show this relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. For example, eat half as much fried chicken, or switch to twice as much broccoli. My idea was that at a certain point, one couldn't restrict one's portion any more, without being perpetually hungry. If one's diet consisted predominantly of french fies, for example, you'd have to eat such a tiny volume of them before you reached X calories, that your stomach would signal constant hunger. Whereas if you ate exclusively salad greens, you could stuff yourself to the gills, and still have consumed very few calories.

I challenge you to find me a person satisfied with a diet of salad greens. B)

As someone who lost over 20 pounds (got back my college weight) with portion control, I can confidently say that it's all about compromise. If you try to abstain from the foods you like, the diet will fail and you'll just resume your old habits. However, like you said, just cutting portions on the fat-loaded stuff leaves you hungry. It really doesn't matter what you eat, as long as you are satisfied with what you eat. My rule of thumb is to focus on food with higher fiber and protein, which can both help to delay hunger. Also, one thing Ray has mentioned before is eating smaller and more meals, and that helps a lot too. If you do it right, you never feel "stuffed" and you never feel hungry. If I started to get hungry, I wouldn't save it up and just gorge myself, I'd eat something small right then and then eat something else later. It keeps you from overeating. It takes a little getting used to, but I noticed I felt a lot "lighter" even before losing any pounds.

That said, like Ray I love pizza and even when I was still trying to lose I ordered delivery every weekend. What I'd do differently is I'd eat 1 rather than 3 slices in a sitting, and only eat more when I was hungry later. I'm really not the model of a balanced diet at all, and I honestly have done zero research so I'm not going to argue that there is no value to it. However, I can say that I feel better than I have in years, and I didn't have to load up on greens to get there (I got sick of salads after the first few weeks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From RayK: "...your lack of knowledge did not keep you from asking what the average was..."

I think you mean to say that it *did* keep me from asking (I did not ask, after all). I proceeded with my reasoning from the assumption I posted.

RayK: "...before you came to your skeptical conclusion that it could not be done."

My conclusion that *what* could not be done? I'm not finding any link whatsoever anymore between what I posted and what is being answered.

RayK: "...Do you know what your body does with all those vitamins and minerals that enter your body in excess?... Did you know that one also?..." Etc.

Thanks for the metabolism primer, Ray; I'm actually already pretty familiar with the material. Ray, you're obviously very enthusiastic about this topic and have a lot of knowledge to share, however, as I mentioned above, I'm not sure how this particular knowledge jibes with my original comments; my impression is that two different discussions are going on. Further -- and this could be my imagination so apologies in advance if I'm incorrect -- but I detect an undercurrent of defensiveness and even some antagonism. Since this runs contrary to my purposes for discussing such things, I'm dropping this thread with you for now. Best wishes though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bborg: "I challenge you to find me a person satisfied with a diet of salad greens."

Do rabbits count?

Bborg: "... If you try to abstain from the foods you like, the diet will fail and you'll just resume your old habits."

Amen. If somebody told me abstaining forever from pepperoni & jalapeno pizza would add 5 years to me life, I'd probably say "and extra cheese, please". But if I were told eating it only rarely -- rarely enough so that my arteries stayed squeaky clean -- then I'd do what I'm doing now: eat about 90% (as a proportion of calories) healthy fruits and veggies, and not worry about the other 10%.

I don't avoid any single food, but I do space them all out with lots of fresh plants of one sort or another. Several leading fatal diseases are linked with absence of fiber, some vitamins, and arguably anti-oxidants, so it *does* matter what you eat to some extent.

I'll end by explaining: I do *not* consider eating all these healthy foods as any sort of punishment that has to be endured for the sake of health. After about 2 or 3 days of eating less rich foods, my body -- in particular my taste buds apparently -- craved more subtle tastes such as are overwhhelmed by the rich foods. Most of the time, I'd rather eat a peach now, than a bag of Taco Doritos (Frito Lay and I are still friends though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gnargtharst, I have never stated that one should eat all french fries, doritos, cup-cakes and many other high calorie foods. I have stated many times that if a person eats rationally within the three principles that I mentioned that they "can eat, drink and be merry." My clients eat a large variety of different foods, but if they primarily eat in accordance to those three fundamentals all of them lose weight/fat and gain a large amount of the medical markers that people are searching for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't avoid any single food, but I do space them all out with lots of fresh plants of one sort or another. Several leading fatal diseases are linked with absence of fiber, some vitamins, and arguably anti-oxidants, so it *does* matter what you eat to some extent.

I'll end by explaining: I do *not* consider eating all these healthy foods as any sort of punishment that has to be endured for the sake of health. After about 2 or 3 days of eating less rich foods, my body -- in particular my taste buds apparently -- craved more subtle tastes such as are overwhhelmed by the rich foods. Most of the time, I'd rather eat a peach now, than a bag of Taco Doritos (Frito Lay and I are still friends though).

As someone who has been following, to a significant extent, Joel Fuhrman's diet-style recommendations, for a year and a half now, I fully understand what you mean.

You can be slim and eat "small portions" and even work-out conscientiously; but, eventually, if you ignore the type of food you eat, a disease such as cancer may catch up with you. (I think this is what happened to Lance Armstrong and, more lately, to Christina Applegate.) In many contexts, personal trauma is required to change an individual's mind; and, if the individual is lucky, it may not be too late.

I've already tried to push the importance of nutrient-density on THE FORUM (just search for "Fuhrman"), a push which met with some resistance. And this is understandable, given the many conflicting ideas in the culture.

More broadly, however, it appears that people are built differently, with some individuals possessing stronger constitutions than others. These genetic exceptions exist, and many individuals are willing to wager that, given some ancestor's age at death, they belong in this category. Besides, life shouldn't be a sacrifice. If any man believes 40 years on Earth doing what he likes trumps 80 years making choices that appear unappealingly difficult, then good luck to him.

I know my limits, however, and have chosen a path I can control, given the knowledge available to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found the studies of long-lived Ashkenazi Jews to be very interesting, e.g. (laymen-level articles):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C0A9629C8B63

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000679.php

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...ws_1c06old.html

Dr. Barzilai has a page here with references to the actual scientific articles.

In studies of very long-lived individuals, the biggest single common denominator is that they had abnormally high levels of HDL/larger lipoprotein sizes - which are genetically based - as opposed to a particular diet or lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Mercury: "In many contexts, personal trauma is required to change an individual's mind..."

I can relate. No personal trauma to me, but to so many people around me recently. My brother-in-law lifestyled his way to a heart attack a few months ago (he's still in his 50s). Virtually everybody was surprised; I wasn't at all. And his ignorance of basic diet and fitness will bring the next heart attack soon, I'm sure. Frustrating.

Mercury: "More broadly, however, it appears that people are built differently, with some individuals possessing stronger constitutions than others..."

Indeed. This is interesting to me. In my own immediate ancestry, about half lived to only medium-old ages, mainly dying of probably-diet-related madadies (e.g., colon cancer). The other half, however lived to be freakishly old. My grandmother, for example lived for THREE CENTURIES! (Hee hee -- sort of... she was born the last year of the 19th century, lived throughout the entire 20th century, and died 4 months into the 21st. See? 3 centuries! Anyway, 3 days shy of 101 years old. And her mother lived to be 101.).

So I'm doing my best to give my genes a fighting chance. Barring falling off something or being smote by Allah's minions, I'm planning on going water skiing on my 100 birthday.

From PhilO: "I've found the studies of long-lived Ashkenazi Jews to be very interesting..."

Thanks Philo.

PhilO: "In studies of very long-lived individuals, the biggest single common denominator is that they had abnormally high levels of HDL/larger lipoprotein sizes - which are genetically based - as opposed to a particular diet or lifestyle."

I don't doubt the genetic part, but I think it misses the mark slightly to say "as opposed to diet or lifestyle"; somebody with a genetic predisposition toward high cholesterol (or even toward obesity, for example) still ultimately controls their own health through diet and exercise, it just may require more vigilance than somebody who does not have such a predisposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess that this thread is the most I've ever read about organic foods and issues of diet. I appreciate the information people have given. However, I have to say that what I take from all of it is what I've always held at a generalized, common-sense level: be rational about what you eat and how much.

More specifically, 1) don't eat too much of the stuff that tends to clog your arteries or otherwise cause health problems, 2) it's unnecessary to completely exclude the things in #1 out of an irrational fear that eating them once in awhile will reduce your lifespan, and 3) get some exercise. I also take that some eating habits are better than others in terms of how often in a day to eat, especially in relation to one's activity level. I don't mean to oversimplify it, as there is obviously a whole science to this. But this is what it amounts to for me.

As to the organic craze, my almost immediate response to people who tout it is, "keep that crap away from me!" However, what I want kept away is not the food per se, but what often turns out to be the "green" philosophy behind it. I also almost invariably hear the line, "Well, we all pay for it in healthcare costs." But that argument demonstrates the wrongness of socialized medicine, not the wrongness of freedom to consume what one wants.

Additionally, I cannot stand the absolutely arrogant, even elitist, attitude or demeanor such people assume when discussing their "superior" lifestyle (or condemning others' lifestyles as inferior because they don't do the same). Think of Catherine Halsey in The Fountainhead and what she ultimately became.

Also, I see the people who are so obsessed with diet (without clear medical reasons), and are willing to follow every fad, as riddled with anxiety and, often, anger. Many people seem to pursue this with thoughtless hypervigilance, as if the near-manic energy they expend in pursuit of health is the actual proof that what they are doing is healthful. Their behavior speaks to how mentally unhealthy they are. While I don't have any data to back it up, I tend to think such people are at as great a risk for health problems and early deaths as those with poor diets. The constant psychological stress they put themselves under is far worse than a McDonald's cheeseburger ever could be.

p.s. None of my comments are addressed at anyone who has participated in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, I hope everyone here enjoys what they eat and drink, and will live many years. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't doubt the genetic part, but I think it misses the mark slightly to say "as opposed to diet or lifestyle"; somebody with a genetic predisposition toward high cholesterol (or even toward obesity, for example) still ultimately controls their own health through diet and exercise, it just may require more vigilance than somebody who does not have such a predisposition.

I'm not disputing the general sensibility of considering one's diet and exercise, but the point with the study is that it showed that their extreme longevity - for those fortunate enough to possess their genetics - was explicitly *not* correlated to their particular diets or lifestyles. The explanation as far as I've read one, is that the high levels of HDL are superlative bloodstream scavengers of toxic molecules including excess cholesterol, and removing them quickly limits their damage potential and hence damage (ageing).

I do agree with the view that some common "food", e.g., high fructose corn syrup, is a bad thing and should be avoided.

For those interested in really extending human lifespan, considerations of diet are worth something, but the bottom line is that nobody is going to live much past 100 on any diet without sophisticated, man-made cellular/molecular level enhancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From PhilO: "I'm not disputing the general sensibility of considering one's diet and exercise, but the point with the study is that it showed that their extreme longevity - for those fortunate enough to possess their genetics - was explicitly *not* correlated to their particular diets or lifestyles."

Agreed. Reading back, I think my comment was irrelevant -- the correlation was between the genes and longevity, regardless of lifestyle. Presumably, further correlations might be made within that group based on lifestyle, but the linked articles didn't speak on that (caveat: my reading was very quick; haven't had time to read more thoroughly yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experiences with "organic" foods indicate to me that they don't taste any better, aren't any healthier, are more likely to spoil and are more expensive. So I generally avoid them. I also don't much care for the packaging of some of these things that is full of ecologist propaganda.

Once in a while, some organic produce will be marked down in price, but even then, I'm careful. I recall looking over a batch of organic oranges in which most of the fruit was going bad, with soft, mushy areas, and I have seen this frequently in organic fruit.

Somebody mentioned that he thought organic tomatoes were better - not as thick-skinned. The supermarket I buy tomatoes in has several kinds (of non-organice ones). The ones I buy have vines attached and are thinner-skinned and tast better, BUT, they are not marked organic.

Some day, people are going to look back with amusement at those people in the early 21st century who were paying a premium for produce fertilized with animal waste.

The funniest organic product I ever saw was some salt that was marked organic. Really? Organic salt? Sodium chloride is about as inorganic as you can get! (But maybe these are special sodium atoms that are organic...... B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add some more articles to this discussion on cholesterol and fat which are not the demons most people think they are.

The first article is by Malcolm Kendrick, MD

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm

This next one is from the Oxford Journal of Medicine

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927

Here is an abstract of a study on cholesterol lowering and mortality

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...0270ba04dbc0d2c

And one more

http://www.ravnskov.nu/ncep_guidelines

What I am trying to show is that there is a lot more to staying healthy and alive than cutting out some so called "unhealthy" foods that have been deemed a risk. For example, Certified Public Accountants were studied before, during and after the highly stressful tax season. During the months prior to the tax season the CPAs had their blood cholesterol levels observed and recorded. During the 3.5 months of tax season the CPA's cholesterol levels rose dramatically with no change in their food intake. As a matter of fact, the only change that was recorded was the amount of stress that was taken on. After the tax season and a lowering of the stress in their lives, the cholesterol levels went back down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give a quick glimpse back toward the initial subject of this thread I would like to give for consideration some of the differences between so called "organic" and canned or frozen foods. Researchers at the University of Illinois found that many nutrients from frozen or canned foods were equal to fresh food/"organic" and in some cases canned and frozen foods were even better. All the hype and almost no nutritional difference. The thing that diminishes the minerals the most is the way someone cooks/prepares their food, excessive heat diminishes the nutrients the most.

I still have not been able to find the "International Study" from my ealier post but here is one that was done in 1935 on calorie restricted diets from Cornell University. The study was originally done on rats by reducing their intake of food to 40% below what the rat would have eaten on it's own. The rat's ageing effects were retarded, cataracts, bone deterioration, immune problems. A rational conclusion might be that processing of excess food (and the resources in the food) cause the speeding up of the ageing process. So what you might say, they are rats. Well, the positive effects have been shown to be similar in protozoans, fleas, spiders, guppies, chickens, pigs and every mammal that has been put through similar test to include humans.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=P...1F7FBB988EC9E25

And another on the same subject.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

Now, let us talk about fat and cholesterol. Fat and cholesterol are needed within the body for many different uses. Just to mention a few, insulation/padding, manufacture of sex hormones, estrogen, skin oil, bile, cell walls, coverings of nerves. So, when people attempt to cut these two items out of their diet they are making a big mistake. What happens when people try and reduce their fat and cholesterol intake by eating less saturated fat? In studies the person's body begins to crave more calories such as the ones in carbohydrates to make up for the difference, which can lead to overeating. Studies have also shown that by eating less fat/cholesterol (which are really two different substances) the level of one's HDL (so called good cholesterol) drops off also. And low levels of HDL have been shown to raise the risk of heart disease. To make up for that doctors recommended polyunsaturated oils which unfortunately showed another reduction in one's HDL.

In another study, from Sweden in 1998, 60,000 women that were taking polyunsaturates increased their risk of breast cancer. In that same study the researchers also found that eating fish in large amounts in an attempt to get the so called "positive" effects of fish oils also increased the women's risk of breast cancer.

In a JAMA study from 1994 researched showed high cholesterol levels appear not to be an important risk factor for coronary heart disease in people over 70. Earlier in 1991 JAMA came to the conclusion that checking for high cholesterol levels would have no direct effect on the elderly and their morbidity, so why waste the resources.

In 1991 the University of California at San Francisco (medical school) calculated what would happen if the average American could get their fat intake down to the recommended 30% of one's calories. The calculations showed an increase of life expectancy for women of three months and for males four months. So, should we give up all the food that we enjoy for 3 and 4 months?

In a similar study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine from 1994 which focused on saturated fats being reduced to 10% of one's total calories the research was very similar. The average male would have a life expectancy of 11 days to 5 months longer and the average women would have 3.5 days to 2 months longer.

I think we might be able to see the beginning of the amazing totality of metabolism and why it is so hard to change just one thing. Every little thing causes another reaction that is not always good and can sometimes be very harmful. I do agree with Phil, that being more studying into how to enhance the human body on the cellular/molecular level is the correct direction to head toward. Until then, eat, drink and be merry within reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the interesting posts.

I would like to share a reply I received from a good friend of mine: Apparently there weren't any scientific evidence proving that eating organically grown foods is better for your health. It might taste good to some people but then again, taste varies in individuals. If you can afford organic foods, there is nothing to loose eating them.

Therefore, I decided to continue eating non-organic foods. However, I just become more conscious on some of the food additives in the ingredients. Here's a link that might help : Food Additives

Buen Provecho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lu (and anyone else), I would recommend that you quesiton the information on the site you linked to as they seem to be using scare tactics and not supplying all the facts.

As a matter of fact the first example they use is incorrect.

ACESULFAME-K which is an artificial sweetner was used in test on rats and did show that it might cause cancer in rats that were feed immense amounts everyday for something like 20+ years. It has never been shown to cause cancer in humans and even if it did the amounts that would have to be taken to duplicate the effects with the rats is over (I am going from memory as the research is at my office) 500 packets* per day for years at a time.

It sometimes still amazes me that people worry so much about sythetic/man made additives and pesticides but never worry about the natural ones. Yes, plants produce their own toxins as they did not make it to this point by being just delicious to insects and other predators. Some of the toxins that fruits and vegetables make on their own have been shown to cause cancer. And as a matter of fact, in studies done on animals (besides humans) items such as coffee, cocoa, cinnamon, mustard, pineapples and plums, just to name a few, were shown to cause cancer.

In a 1996 National Research Council report it was stated that natural components may be of greater concern than synthetic ones. And in a 1996 National Academy of Sciences report it was stated that synthetic chemicals in Americans' diet are so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk.

As I have said many times in the past eat, drink and be merry, rationally. Aging begins at birth and every breath we take along with every type of food we ingest we are putting demands on our bodies that leave behind toxins.

*I actually think this number is much larger, but I do not want to over quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACESULFAME-K which is an artificial sweetner was used in test on rats and did show that it might cause cancer in rats that were feed immense amounts everyday for something like 20+ years. It has never been shown to cause cancer in humans and even if it did the amounts that would have to be taken to duplicate the effects with the rats is over (I am going from memory as the research is at my office) 500 packets* per day for years at a time.

And that the producers of Sweet'n Low even had to put a cancer warning on their product is criminal. What won't harm you if taken is immensely massive quantities for several years in a row?

I once read a statement that if the same standards that deemed saccharine to be a possible carcinogen were applied to the brown/black char that forms when you burn meat, then the FDA would have to ban cooking! :angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been curious on the purpose of eating organic foods.

Does anybody have any reliable source on the reason of eating organic foods? I am very skeptical of all the "hogwash" on eating organic foods.

Thanks in advance!

Somehow, plant material grown in semi-liquid fecal material is supposed to be more "natural". Not that I have any objection to doo doo mind you. I used to be quite the gardener and I produced lots of tomatoes, corn, squash, lettuce all grown in good black loam loaded up with doo doo. Humus and doo doo (particularly chicken doo doo), help make very good soil to grow stuff in. The hours I spent on my garden were not subtracted from life.

Once the molecules of plant material are broken down by the digestive system, the body does not know the difference between "natural" food and food produced by capitalists.

As to animal material, that might be a different story. Eating meat from animals pumped up with anti-biotic chemicals and artificial growth hormones might have a bad effect. Or maybe not. Grass fed livestock has less fatty tissue than steers and sheep fed corn feed and anti-biotics. The less fat, the better. I prefer grass fed meat because it is leaner.

ruven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites