Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
butter vs margarine
Options
Replies
-
michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So you can pronounce and describe all the ingredients in the all-natural blueberries and banana pictured above?
If the cream was broken down into its chemical components, I doubt you'd be able to pronounce and describe every one of them either. And salt is actually NaCl (Sodium Chloride).0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So you can pronounce and describe all the ingredients in the all-natural blueberries and banana pictured above?
If the cream was broken down into its chemical components, I doubt you'd be able to pronounce and describe every one of them either. And salt is actually NaCl (Sodium Chloride).
You are contradicting yourself. They aren't ingredients, they are chemical compounds. Not the same thing. Nice try though.
0 -
So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.0
-
michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So you can pronounce and describe all the ingredients in the all-natural blueberries and banana pictured above?
If the cream was broken down into its chemical components, I doubt you'd be able to pronounce and describe every one of them either. And salt is actually NaCl (Sodium Chloride).
You are contradicting yourself. They aren't ingredients, they are chemical compounds. Not the same thing. Nice try though.
Why would you avoid an ingredient simply because you can't pronounce but embrace a chemical compound that you can't pronounce? I'm struggling to see a meaningful difference.
And why would your diet preferences be dependent on your scientific literacy and pronunciation skills anyway?0 -
You're not going to drag me into this in the way that you want to. You have your opinion, I have mine. I can see you are trying to turn this into a debate. I know you know the difference, since you are so smart. But hey, here you go.
I would say, in my opinion, the difference between you're scientific posts about fruit composition and what the every day person thinks, is that most people, when they say loaded with Chemicals, are referring to the additives, preservatives and food colorings that are added to many foods today. You know, the things that keep foods from turning moldy for years, the things that make the color of the food more appealing, or alter the texture to be more appealing. The pesticides used the keep the bugs off.
I lean towards more organic, whole foods, less of the canned bottles and packaged stuff. That's my choice. But, by posting these pictures, with the chemical compositions of fruit as a defense, you are going to lead someone who doesn't know a lot about additives, preservatives and food coloring into thinking they are the same thing. Thats a slippery slope.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
I don't care what they eat. I don't care what you eat. Quite frankly I don't care what anyone eats besides myself and my family. I've stated my preferences.
0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Tropical_Turtle wrote: »margarine is a chemical sh*tstorm... just sayin. Butter is natural and better for you in moderation
No chemicals in butter? Are you sure about that?
Do you see any chemicals in either of these?
Yes. Well, I don't actually see anything but a picture, but yes, there are chemicals in there.
OMG... If there were chemicals, it would be listed in the ingredients! Like this picture...
Is it a trick question? Are you serious???
You might want to pause and look up the definition of "chemical" before continuing down this road.
You might want to learn how to take things in context. Also, think about why you want to spend your time arguing in a weight loss forum. You are another one on here looking to argue. I'm not. All set. I have better things to do with my time.
I gave the OP some valuable information. You do what you want. Good luck in your journey. Have a nice day.
I think what gets missed in these discussions is the danger of saying things without thinking of the implications of blindly accepting things that you've read before, or things that seem to make sense but haven't been critically evaluated. When someone says that everything is composed of chemicals, it's not to be difficult or catch you in a battle of wordplay. But there is so much fearmongering around the "dangers" of chemicals, and things that we can't pronounce, etc. When someone points out the absurdity of this, it's not to be difficult or argumentative. It's to shed light on the fact that no - chemicals are not prima facie bad. If you're going to say that a particular chemical is bad, your reason can't be that it's hard to pronounce if you want to be taken seriously. It has to be based on solid evidence or there's no reason you should expect others to accept it.
I think these kinds of objections are great for critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean the objector is necessarily right and you are wrong, but it could help you to see that maybe you are accepting principles without giving them the appropriate evaluation.
Well, in the case of margarine, a lot are made with Canola Oil which is a GMO vegetable oil that is partially hydrogenated, something I personally prefer to avoid.
So you are explaining your preference, and the reasoning behind it. That makes perfect sense and is a good addition to the discussion. My point is that others are making blanket statements about margarine in general being "worse" than butter, because of chemicals. That argument just doesn't hold water.0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »You're not going to drag me into this in the way that you want to. You have your opinion, I have mine. I can see you are trying to turn this into a debate. I know you know the difference, since you are so smart. But hey, here you go.
I would say, in my opinion, the difference between you're scientific posts about fruit composition and. What the very day person thinks, is that most people, when they say loaded with Chemicals, are referring to the additives, preservatives and food colorings that are added to many foods today. You know, the things that keep foods from turning moldy for years, the things that make the color of the food more appealing, or alter the texture to be more appealing. The pesticides used the keep the bugs off.
I lean towards more organic, whole foods, less of the canned bottles and packaged stuff. That's my choice. But, by posting these pictures, with the chemical compositions of fruit as a defense, you are going to lead someone who doesn't know a lot about additives, preservatives and food coloring into thinking they are the same thing. Thats a slippery slope.
And your fearmongering about additives, preservatives and food coloring is an even more slippery slope. Claiming dangers not supported by science, stating that the body "doesn't know how to process them", etc.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So you can pronounce and describe all the ingredients in the all-natural blueberries and banana pictured above?
If the cream was broken down into its chemical components, I doubt you'd be able to pronounce and describe every one of them either. And salt is actually NaCl (Sodium Chloride).
You are contradicting yourself. They aren't ingredients, they are chemical compounds. Not the same thing. Nice try though.
Why would you avoid an ingredient simply because you can't pronounce but embrace a chemical compound that you can't pronounce? I'm struggling to see a meaningful difference.
And why would your diet preferences be dependent on your scientific literacy and pronunciation skills anyway?
My diet is generally focused on whole, organic foods. Foods with single ingredients, the best that I can. I eat foods that come from the outside edges of the grocery stores, foods that generally have a very short shelf life unlike most of the packaged foods that you find in the middle of the store that are somehow shelf stable for months or even years. I eat meats from animals that are treated humanely and raised on their natural diet, not what giant corporations like Monsanto say they should eat. I eat wild caught, sustainable fish. I eat eggs from chickens that are free range and not shot up with antibiotics. I eat fruits and vegetables that aren't treated with pesticides. It's my definition of a clean diet. We can have differing opinions and different preferences, but you are simply here to be argumentative because I make difference choices and have different preferences than you do. I've eaten things that I can't pronounce, but it is generally a single food, and not some mashed up creation that some corporation is trying to tell me is better, or healthier, or whatever flashy label they want to put on their boxes. I like my foods to come to me in the package that mother nature put it in whenever possible. Agree, don't agree, but I'm no longer going to sit here and argue semantics with you, I need to go home and cook dinner for my family.0 -
It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?
I have no idea what POF is, and I don't use this username anywhere but here - so nope.0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
I don't care what they eat. I don't care what you eat. Quite frankly I don't care what anyone eats besides myself and my family. I've stated my preferences.
That's fine, and good for you. But the premise that one shouldn't eat foods that they cannot pronounce makes no sense and I hope new people who lurk the forums understand that this is a questionable premise to base one's consumption on.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
I don't care what they eat. I don't care what you eat. Quite frankly I don't care what anyone eats besides myself and my family. I've stated my preferences.
That's fine, and good for you. But the premise that one shouldn't eat foods that they cannot pronounce makes no sense and I hope new people who lurk the forums understand that this is a questionable premise to base one's consumption on.
You are allowed your own personal reasons for choosing what you do and don't come as a mommy. Not once have I said anything other then this being my personal preference. Just trying to give the LP and others a different perspective and if they wish to pursue that themselves that is their choice but not something I'm going to tell anyone to do.
0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?
I'm just going to go ahead and say this again. I really don't understand why people see debate as mean and unsupportive.
I think what gets missed in these discussions is the danger of stating things as facts without thinking of the implications of blindly accepting things that you've read before, or things that seem to make sense but haven't been critically evaluated. When someone says that everything is composed of chemicals, it's not to be difficult or catch you in a battle of wordplay. But there is so much fearmongering around the "dangers" of chemicals, and things that we can't pronounce, etc. When someone points out the absurdity of this, it's not to be difficult or argumentative. It's to shed light on the fact that no - chemicals are not prima facie bad. If you're going to say that a particular chemical is bad, your reason can't be that it's hard to pronounce if you want to be taken seriously. It has to be based on solid evidence or there's no reason you should expect others to accept it.
I think these kinds of objections are great for critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean the objector is necessarily right and you are wrong, but it could help you to see that maybe you are accepting principles without giving them the appropriate evaluation.0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
There are many knowledgeable people on this board who will challenge pseudo/junk science when it's presented. That's a lot more supportive and helpful than letting garbage information go unchallenged. There are a lot of users here who struggle enough with the most basic concepts of weight loss - caloric deficit and how to achieve it. They don't need to be fed a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and woo (often presented as fact) that they have to restrict foods/entire food groups from their diets, eat "clean" (by whatever the poster's definition of that vague phrase might be), not eat after a certain hour, avoid foods with ingredients they can't pronounce, etc. to lose weight and be healthy. So it is supportive to call out people who post those garbage claims as fact, in an attempt to properly inform other people who read the threads that it is garbage and unnecessary.
Sure, you can find "research" to support opinions, but you can't find legitimate, peer-reviewed research to support things that aren't fact. There's a difference. Saying "Don't eat things you can't pronounce, your body doesn't know how to process them and they'll kill you!!1!!!" is a lot different than saying "I prefer to avoid processed foods because I don't like the additives in them". Just as saying "Don't eat after 5 pm if you want to lose weight" is different than saying "I don't eat after 5 pm because going to bed on a full stomach gives me indigestion".0 -
Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
True dat! Also, chemists can eat practically anything cox dey so gud at pronouncing 'n' *kitten*.0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
I think being able to eat a variety is just reward for being a cunning linguist.0 -
Flora margarine, I actually prefer it to butter.0
-
michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure...
Even though I love butter (and prefer it over margarine, for the record), I had to laugh at that one. Nicely played, sir.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions