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.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1…8182848687…358

Replies

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    If it gave the specific source of the genes, it would help. Otherwise, I imagine that if the debate were resolved, it would be a blanket 'avoid GMOs in general because you don't know what's in them' or 'since GMOs aren't a problem, don't worry'. We already have (expensive!) bagged salads and frozen fruits and veggies because some of these are hard to check for bugs, so we're paying more for 'expertise' and convenience. And yes, I can check my own, but if something has a lot of bumps and crevices, like broccoli or romaine lettuce, it's extremely time-consuming.

    If GMOs aren't labeled, I can definitely see some kosher certification boards scouting out farmers who aren't using it, working out an arrangement, and basically doing their own non-GMO certification at a cost that would be passed on to the kosher consumer.

    Grape products are another can of worms because they're nearly as strict as kosher meat. I know my local kosher certification board declared Grapples (apples modified with grape genes) non-kosher some time ago: http://www.cor.ca/view/420/is_grpple_kosher.html

    OH right, I totally forgot about grapes...
    And as for your examples, the answers are

    Likely Correct
    Likely Correct
    Not sure, but probably Partly correct. Could depend on whether the genes were extracted from a living or dead sheep and if dead, whether the sheep was slaughtered kosher. Salmon would be okay.

    Note: I am not an authority in Jewish law/kosher. I can just identify problem areas, but if the question ever becomes more than academic, I'm going to have to ask my own questions from more knowledgeable sources.

    And Thank you.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    edited June 2017
    stevencloser wrote: »
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    peppypea wrote: »
    OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
    Organic is a scam and a waste of money

    GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
    o

    You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?

    Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?

    Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)

    That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.

    More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,940 Member
    Bring back the gummy bear discussion. :neutral::wink: :smiley:

    Actually, popcorn with Mike and Ikes Hot Tamales for breakfast, por favor.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Dazzler21 wrote: »
    Muscles do not mean fit or healthy at all.

    The visceral fat levels, the cholesterol levels and risk of heart disease in of a lot of lifters is really concerning for them, but if you comment on it you're jel?

    A clean diet and cardio (20 minutes hard work 3-5 times a week) can supplement your lifting and drive down the cholesterol and visceral fat levels...

    You have access to their medical records and serum cholesterol? Or are you making an unsubstantiated assumption.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    If it gave the specific source of the genes, it would help. Otherwise, I imagine that if the debate were resolved, it would be a blanket 'avoid GMOs in general because you don't know what's in them' or 'since GMOs aren't a problem, don't worry'. We already have (expensive!) bagged salads and frozen fruits and veggies because some of these are hard to check for bugs, so we're paying more for 'expertise' and convenience. And yes, I can check my own, but if something has a lot of bumps and crevices, like broccoli or romaine lettuce, it's extremely time-consuming.

    If GMOs aren't labeled, I can definitely see some kosher certification boards scouting out farmers who aren't using it, working out an arrangement, and basically doing their own non-GMO certification at a cost that would be passed on to the kosher consumer.

    Grape products are another can of worms because they're nearly as strict as kosher meat. I know my local kosher certification board declared Grapples (apples modified with grape genes) non-kosher some time ago: http://www.cor.ca/view/420/is_grpple_kosher.html

    OH right, I totally forgot about grapes...
    And as for your examples, the answers are

    Likely Correct
    Likely Correct
    Not sure, but probably Partly correct. Could depend on whether the genes were extracted from a living or dead sheep and if dead, whether the sheep was slaughtered kosher. Salmon would be okay.

    Note: I am not an authority in Jewish law/kosher. I can just identify problem areas, but if the question ever becomes more than academic, I'm going to have to ask my own questions from more knowledgeable sources.

    And Thank you.

    You're welcome.
  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 1,249 Member
    edited June 2017
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Dazzler21 wrote: »
    Muscles do not mean fit or healthy at all.

    The visceral fat levels, the cholesterol levels and risk of heart disease in of a lot of lifters is really concerning for them, but if you comment on it you're jel?

    A clean diet and cardio (20 minutes hard work 3-5 times a week) can supplement your lifting and drive down the cholesterol and visceral fat levels...

    You have access to their medical records and serum cholesterol? Or are you making an unsubstantiated assumption.

    Queue the lifter to ignore the point of the post... I've highlighted the key words by bolding them up for you...

    I don't need their medical records. I see it daily when I measure lifters body composition statistics at the gym. So they're not unsubstantiated either in my experience.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited June 2017
    Dazzler21 wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Dazzler21 wrote: »
    Muscles do not mean fit or healthy at all.

    The visceral fat levels, the cholesterol levels and risk of heart disease in of a lot of lifters is really concerning for them, but if you comment on it you're jel?

    A clean diet and cardio (20 minutes hard work 3-5 times a week) can supplement your lifting and drive down the cholesterol and visceral fat levels...

    You have access to their medical records and serum cholesterol? Or are you making an unsubstantiated assumption.

    Queue the lifter to ignore the point of the post... I've highlighted the key words by bolding them up for you...

    I don't need their medical records. I see it daily when I measure lifters body composition statistics at the gym. So they're not unsubstantiated either in my experience.

    You do serum blood cholesterol testing at your gym?

    Also, what about my question or my profile makes you think that I'm a lifter.

    Hint: I'm not.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,442 Member
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    I'm Haribo Gummy Bears and Tootsie Pops kinda guy. Best fuel out there.

    Add my vote for Haribo Gummy Bears as well.

    Wrong. Sour Patch Kids.

    I keep telling you people... :|



    :D:p;)

    Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.

    rowntrees fruit gums. /discussion.

    I don't know what these are!!! What am I missing?!? *runs off to Google
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    peppypea wrote: »
    OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
    Organic is a scam and a waste of money

    GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
    o

    You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?

    This is actually an argument for keeping it as is.

    Foods are kosher certified or halal (as opposed to the gov't requiring that non kosher foods be labelled non kosher, which would be silly as what does the gov't know about what meets or does not meet kosher requirements), so similarly foods could be (as many are -- WF is just full of them) labelled non GMO.

    If you are imagining there's some rule against labelling foods non-GMO, you are mistaken. The debate (in the US anyway) is about requiring that GMO foods be labelled as such.

    The real debate is where the line between gmo and GMO should be drawn. Hybridization, even forced or cross species hybridization is not a new technology or concept.

    That there's debate is mentioned in the Slate piece, which is why it makes sense for those who care about avoiding it to decide what's entitled to the "Not GMO" label and then to define it. (Similar to how those who care about eating kosher foods have a certification that means specific things, and some people find it not good enough and use other methods.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Dazzler21 wrote: »
    A clean diet and cardio (20 minutes hard work 3-5 times a week) can supplement your lifting and drive down the cholesterol and visceral fat levels...

    Depends on what you mean by clean. But probably not.

    As I understand it, "clean" means avoiding all processed (or something all but minimally processed, which is more honest) foods. Usually foods high in sat fat (like red meat) are considered "clean," as they are no more processed than other meats -- indeed, a normal steak would seem to be less processed than (ugh) ground turkey or skinless, boneless chicken breast, and certainly less than the average deli turkey.

    But at least for some, sat fat is related to cholesterol. My dad (who was never overweight) reduced his own cholesterol by cutting out (but for special occasions) red meat and dairy fat. (My own cholesterol has always been good no matter what I eat, but is somewhat better when I'm thinner, although well within the healthy range in any case, at least so far). I don't see any evidence that cholesterol is related to avoiding processed foods completely, especially since many processed foods (whole grains, for example, or legumes) tend to be helpful for cholesterol.

    As for visceral fat, big issue there is not having excess fat -- i.e., losing body fat if it's too high. Eating 2400 calories (if maintenance is 2900) of a healthy diet with a variety of processed foods included vs. a healthy diet without any (however one is defining unclean foods) is NOT going to make a difference to visceral fat.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.

    We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.

    The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.

    You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.

    Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.

    Everyone has (PAST) trauma.

    Would you care to play, "My trauma is worse than your trauma?" I'm pretty sure I could hold my own in that.

    My point is that the world goes forward, not backward. It's okay to have moments of sadness and grief and fear, but to then make that your life-view is tragic and a slap in the face to the rest of us who do deal with our pasts and do move on.

    A tragic/scary/horrible event does not have to define anyone's life. Sure, they will continue to get triggered every now and then, but to give into those fears gives the PAST power. There is no power in the past. It is an illusion.

    Hmmm I honestly don't think you could "hold your own" because it is clear you have zero understanding of trauma and absolutely no empathy for sufferers of PTSD. "Moments of sadness, grief and fear" indeed!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    peppypea wrote: »
    OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
    Organic is a scam and a waste of money

    GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
    o

    You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?

    Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?

    Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)

    This is covered a bit in the Slate piece I linked:
    The anti-GMO movement intersects and overlaps with organized religions. When the food industry filed suit over the Vermont law, a Canadian philosopher named Conrad Brunk filed an amicus brief expanding on this idea. Brunk had chaired an expert committee on GMO regulation set up by the Canadian government and in 2009 he edited a study of religious attitudes toward genetic modification among both scholars and lay practitioners. “The scholars and practitioners in almost every case have fundamentally different ontological views about the nature of reality,” Brunk told me. In short, the experts were somewhat more forgiving in their appraisal of GMOs and how they might fit into each faith. A scholar of Judaism, for example, didn’t think that a tomato would become un-kosher just because its genome had been augmented with a pig gene. But in a series of focus groups, Brunk and his colleagues found that regular, practicing Jews might see the “pig-ness” of that extra gene as a contaminant. The tomato would be off limits.

    There’s no such thing as a pig-mato—that’s a standard hypothetical. But similar issues have already come up in the marketplace. The GM salmon breed that the FDA approved last November, called AquaBounty, includes an eel gene, and since eels are not kosher—their scales can’t easily be removed—anti-GMO activists have argued that AquaBounty salmon are themselves off limits for observant Jews. Rabbis may disagree, but as Brunk argues in his legal brief, the real beliefs and practices of religious folks are more relevant to public policy than the hairsplitting theories of scholars and theologians.

    More information here, although you likely know all this: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/israel.php

    Bigger point is that what makes something kosher is going to be distinct from whether it's GMO or not, so kosher certification would still be needed, and what makes something count as GMO (is beef from a cow fed corn that's GMO itself "GMO") is also debated, so it makes sense to have those who care certify it.

    Which is basically as it is, except the labels could be improved and better explained -- something that needs to come from the anti-GMOers, just as the various "organic" labels have been pushed by those who care about those things. It is a nice marketing bonus for those who want to market to the anti GMO crowd. These all seem to me reasons to say that the approach should be, as it is, that labeling should be voluntary and for non GMO products.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    estherdragonbat wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    peppypea wrote: »
    OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
    Organic is a scam and a waste of money

    GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
    o

    You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?

    Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?

    Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)

    Exactly right. The GMO labelling...whether labelling stuff with GMOs or labelling the GMO-free stuff...is not all about safety. Thank you for speaking up on this. Too many people think it's all a bunch of anti-science nuts that want some kind of label to know what's GMO or not GMO.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories