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.
"Natural foods" vs "others"
vm007
Posts: 241 Member
in Debate Club
Hi,
So umm- I got into a discussion with a person today regarding -well "natural" foods vs "others".
I asked so what's so good about natural food versus "others"-
Person- well natural food is naturally occuring and has mineral and all versus others have chemicals and ingredients that don't make sense
I- Ok , so is one processed differently than the other?
Person- yes! natural is digested easily and body loves it , other kind harms your body and has toxins and all.
I- Hmm, yeah sounds reasonable lol (in my head ) in actual I just nodded.
Person- that's why natural goes bad faster than all these other items on the shelf- like it's suppose to be by nature. Others have such long expiry date.
I- hmm I see
Person- so natural food will keep you fit and healthy
I- umm- caloric intake must be monitored
Person- well this is all natural
I- Ok time to walk away
So all you out there, what makes these "other" food "unnatural" lol
So umm- I got into a discussion with a person today regarding -well "natural" foods vs "others".
I asked so what's so good about natural food versus "others"-
Person- well natural food is naturally occuring and has mineral and all versus others have chemicals and ingredients that don't make sense
I- Ok , so is one processed differently than the other?
Person- yes! natural is digested easily and body loves it , other kind harms your body and has toxins and all.
I- Hmm, yeah sounds reasonable lol (in my head ) in actual I just nodded.
Person- that's why natural goes bad faster than all these other items on the shelf- like it's suppose to be by nature. Others have such long expiry date.
I- hmm I see
Person- so natural food will keep you fit and healthy
I- umm- caloric intake must be monitored
Person- well this is all natural
I- Ok time to walk away
So all you out there, what makes these "other" food "unnatural" lol
6
Replies
-
Nothing but fear.
Next time someone brings up toxins in processed foods (and to be honest, EVERY food has chemicals and is processed to some degree), ask them to list the toxins.24 -
Nothing but fear.
Next time someone brings up toxins in processed foods (and to be honest, EVERY food has chemicals and is processed to some degree), ask them to list the toxins.
usual go to comment is- they put stuff that we don't even understand and yet we are eating it
lol
We don't understand combustion of engine yet we drive. When it comes to food-everyone is a Nutritionist.11 -
There are natural foods that are legit toxic...like some mushrooms. Also, radon and arsenic are naturally occurring and also toxic.
That's usually my closer in these types of discussions.13 -
If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you. I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body, but it sort of makes sense that we are not meant to eat non-food substances - and these are essentially what those are. For me personally, it grosses me out to be eating these, we don't consume them or buy them in our family aside from rare occasions.
For me, that includes things such as artificial flavorings, artificial colors, artificial preservatives, high corn fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners. Some of the foods we almost never buy or eat are soda, artificially colored/flavored candy/cookies/snacks, junk food like Doritos/ cheetos etc (all-natural tortilla or potato chips very rarely), Wonderbread-style bread, fat free yogurts with added starch/sugar/gelatin, American processed cheese slices, and most fast food chains, among others.
I stand by the opinion that all that stuff is not food, and should never have been created or marketed as food to begin with. I think it is silly to argue that, I don't know, chicken or broccoli is no better than a pack of Hot Cheetos. Artificial ingredients have no real nutrition or benefits to the body (unless artificially 'enriched' and that's questionable) and were only created as palate-pleasing profit-makers and nothing more.
70 -
nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you. I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body, but it sort of makes sense that we are not meant to eat non-food substances - and these are essentially what those are. For me personally, it grosses me out to be eating these, we don't consume them or buy them in our family aside from rare occasions.
For me, that includes things such as artificial flavorings, artificial colors, artificial preservatives, high corn fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners. Some of the foods we almost never buy or eat are soda, artificially colored/flavored candy/cookies/snacks, junk food like Doritos/ cheetos etc (all-natural tortilla or potato chips very rarely), Wonderbread-style bread, fat free yogurts with added starch/sugar/gelatin, American processed cheese slices, and most fast food chains, among others.
I stand by the opinion that all that stuff is not food, and should never have been created or marketed as food to begin with. I think it is silly to argue that, I don't know, chicken or broccoli is no better than a pack of Hot Cheetos. Artificial ingredients have no real nutrition or benefits to the body (unless artificially 'enriched' and that's questionable) and were only created as palate-pleasing profit-makers and nothing more.
Where does the corn to make hfcs or doritos come from if not a plant in a field? Sugar comes from a plant. Wonderbread is surely made from wheat....as are the bread products at fast food places. They also use meat (from naturally occurring animals), and vegetables (from naturally occurring plants). Starch, and gelatin are naturally occurring too.
34 -
nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you.
I'd be willing to bet when you need medication you will be thanking the labs that created it when you feel better.
32 -
nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you. I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body, but it sort of makes sense that we are not meant to eat non-food substances - and these are essentially what those are. For me personally, it grosses me out to be eating these, we don't consume them or buy them in our family aside from rare occasions.
For me, that includes things such as artificial flavorings, artificial colors, artificial preservatives, high corn fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners. Some of the foods we almost never buy or eat are soda, artificially colored/flavored candy/cookies/snacks, junk food like Doritos/ cheetos etc (all-natural tortilla or potato chips very rarely), Wonderbread-style bread, fat free yogurts with added starch/sugar/gelatin, American processed cheese slices, and most fast food chains, among others.
I stand by the opinion that all that stuff is not food, and should never have been created or marketed as food to begin with. I think it is silly to argue that, I don't know, chicken or broccoli is no better than a pack of Hot Cheetos. Artificial ingredients have no real nutrition or benefits to the body (unless artificially 'enriched' and that's questionable) and were only created as palate-pleasing profit-makers and nothing more.
Ahhh I see we are playing the straw man argument game again... please point out where anyone has said that there is no difference whatsoever in chicken and broccoli vs cheetohs?
The rest of it is just silly fear mongering nonsense. Spend a little less time on the FoodBabe website and maybe think a little bit about what preservatives were originally invented for, and then tell us that there’s no benefits to the fact that we now have shelf stable foods that can be transported all over the world to people who might otherwise have no access to “natural” foods and potable water, things like that.47 -
WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you. I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body, but it sort of makes sense that we are not meant to eat non-food substances - and these are essentially what those are. For me personally, it grosses me out to be eating these, we don't consume them or buy them in our family aside from rare occasions.
For me, that includes things such as artificial flavorings, artificial colors, artificial preservatives, high corn fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners. Some of the foods we almost never buy or eat are soda, artificially colored/flavored candy/cookies/snacks, junk food like Doritos/ cheetos etc (all-natural tortilla or potato chips very rarely), Wonderbread-style bread, fat free yogurts with added starch/sugar/gelatin, American processed cheese slices, and most fast food chains, among others.
I stand by the opinion that all that stuff is not food, and should never have been created or marketed as food to begin with. I think it is silly to argue that, I don't know, chicken or broccoli is no better than a pack of Hot Cheetos. Artificial ingredients have no real nutrition or benefits to the body (unless artificially 'enriched' and that's questionable) and were only created as palate-pleasing profit-makers and nothing more.
Ahhh I see we are playing the straw man argument game again... please point out where anyone has said that there is no difference whatsoever in chicken and broccoli vs cheetohs?
The rest of it is just silly fear mongering nonsense. Spend a little less time on the FoodBabe website and maybe think a little bit about what preservatives were originally invented for, and then tell us that there’s no benefits to the fact that we now have shelf stable foods that can be transported all over the world to people who might otherwise have no access to “natural” foods and potable water, things like that.
Sure, what does that have to do with it??
Speaking of strawmen.
It's great that people with no access to food or water can benefit from these types of foods rather than starve. For them it provides a clear benefit.
What benefit do preservatives provide for me as a first world country resident who has access to food in its natural state?
38 -
nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you.
I'd be willing to bet when you need medication you will be thanking the labs that created it when you feel better.
Yes,and all medications have side effects and few would argue that they are 'good for you' or 'healthy'. Which is why you don't see actual healthy people popping medications. And even something as benign as Tylenol is arguably not great for you and should not be eaten as candy.
It is quite simply a necessary evil when it comes to treating illness. Artificial foods, however, have no such benefit (not talking about low income populations for whom it's the only accessible food, that's another story). Basically I just don't see the need for eating them, nor do I see enjoyment in them but that's of course a personal preference. It's not going to kill you on the spot to eat them. But I would liken them more to a harmful substance such as tobacco or alcohol than a food source. If they rock your boat, that's perfectly fine. We all have vices, I drink wine and coffee, that's my choice and risk to take - but I am aware it does no favors for my health and that it does have a degree of risk. I would never argue with someone that either wine or coffee is a healthy food choice and that any health risks are fear mongering.50 -
No FDA definition of natural...it's marketing BS
https://fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm456090.htm11 -
I live in a northern city. If we had to depend on naturally sourced foods with no allowance for preservatives my diet would consist of vegetables in the summer only, beef, venison, rose hips and saskatoons in season.17
-
@nettiklive
I should have known better. I blame being sick on my lapse of judgment in engaging here.
You know what? I don't care. You can be afraid of whatever you want in the name of health. You are better informed than us unenlightened folks. I might as well be trying to convince an alien enthusiast that... well aliens are real... never mind.24 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you.
I'd be willing to bet when you need medication you will be thanking the labs that created it when you feel better.
Yes,and all medications have side effects and few would argue that they are 'good for you' or 'healthy'. Which is why you don't see actual healthy people popping medications. And even something as benign as Tylenol is arguably not great for you and should not be eaten as candy.
It is quite simply a necessary evil when it comes to treating illness. Artificial foods, however, have no such benefit (not talking about low income populations for whom it's the only accessible food, that's another story). Basically I just don't see the need for eating them, nor do I see enjoyment in them but that's of course a personal preference. It's not going to kill you on the spot to eat them. But I would liken them more to a harmful substance such as tobacco or alcohol than a food source. If they rock your boat, that's perfectly fine. We all have vices, I drink wine and coffee, that's my choice and risk to take - but I am aware it does no favors for my health and that it does have a degree of risk. I would never argue with someone that either wine or coffee is a healthy food choice and that any health risks are fear mongering.
Can of Progresso soup, Amy’s frozen entree, loaf of sandwich bread, fat free yogurt, granola bar, grilled chicken sandwich from Wendy’s... these are harmful substances? Like tobacco?
And again, can’t see any reason to EVER consume one of these? You make every single meal at home from scratch? From “natural” ingredients?30 -
18
-
nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you. I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body, but it sort of makes sense that we are not meant to eat non-food substances - and these are essentially what those are. For me personally, it grosses me out to be eating these, we don't consume them or buy them in our family aside from rare occasions.
For me, that includes things such as artificial flavorings, artificial colors, artificial preservatives, high corn fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners. Some of the foods we almost never buy or eat are soda, artificially colored/flavored candy/cookies/snacks, junk food like Doritos/ cheetos etc (all-natural tortilla or potato chips very rarely), Wonderbread-style bread, fat free yogurts with added starch/sugar/gelatin, American processed cheese slices, and most fast food chains, among others.
I stand by the opinion that all that stuff is not food, and should never have been created or marketed as food to begin with. I think it is silly to argue that, I don't know, chicken or broccoli is no better than a pack of Hot Cheetos. Artificial ingredients have no real nutrition or benefits to the body (unless artificially 'enriched' and that's questionable) and were only created as palate-pleasing profit-makers and nothing more.
I stand by the opinion that you feel better only because you get to indulge in virtue signalling by your food choices and looking down on other people's food choices.
48 -
-
WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »If we're talking strictly weight loss and calories, of course it doesn't matter.
If we're talking health... I personally believe that any foods or ingredients that are created entirely artificially, ie. do not occur in nature in any form, cannot be good for you.
I'd be willing to bet when you need medication you will be thanking the labs that created it when you feel better.
Yes,and all medications have side effects and few would argue that they are 'good for you' or 'healthy'. Which is why you don't see actual healthy people popping medications. And even something as benign as Tylenol is arguably not great for you and should not be eaten as candy.
It is quite simply a necessary evil when it comes to treating illness. Artificial foods, however, have no such benefit (not talking about low income populations for whom it's the only accessible food, that's another story). Basically I just don't see the need for eating them, nor do I see enjoyment in them but that's of course a personal preference. It's not going to kill you on the spot to eat them. But I would liken them more to a harmful substance such as tobacco or alcohol than a food source. If they rock your boat, that's perfectly fine. We all have vices, I drink wine and coffee, that's my choice and risk to take - but I am aware it does no favors for my health and that it does have a degree of risk. I would never argue with someone that either wine or coffee is a healthy food choice and that any health risks are fear mongering.
Can of Progresso soup, Amy’s frozen entree, loaf of sandwich bread, fat free yogurt, granola bar, grilled chicken sandwich from Wendy’s... these are harmful substances? Like tobacco?
And again, can’t see any reason to EVER consume one of these? You make every single meal at home from scratch? From “natural” ingredients?
It sounds kind of like that stupid What the Health Netflix shtick where they showed somebody frying a pan full of cigarettes and compared it to eating meat. Ridiculous hyperbole and scaremongering with absolutely no basis in fact.23 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »No FDA definition of natural...it's marketing BS
https://fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm456090.htm
I don't need definitions or labels to tell me if a product is natural or not... I can read an ingredient list.
"Marketing BS" is dyeing macaroni with fake orange coloring pretending it's cheese. Or "cream" filled cakes that are shelf-stable and don't expire for years. Or selling 'healthy' yogurt where they replace the fat with a metric ton of sugar and thickeners because they're afraid people won't buy the yogurt if it actually tastes like, you know, yogurt. There is no good reason to add artificial colors or flavors to anything, except marketing.
Things like Amy's frozen meals ARE in fact, made from only natural ingredients. Kraft dinner is not. I do try to cook most meals from scratch but I do stock convenience foods like that on hand for those rushed times, and when I buy those, I read labels and choose those without artificial additives in the ingredient list. I like TJ's for that reason, as all their frozen and convenience meals have natural ingredients only. I choose yogurt that has nothing but milk and cultures, and bread that has only ingredients one would use at home. I keep thinking I should just bake it myself but I'm a bit intimidated by the process.
You want to call it elitism, go ahead, though that's a really weird label for someone's dietary choices. I thought it was just sensible eating. Certainly every one I know in real life tries to avoid these types of foods and make good choices as often as possible. I don't 'buy into' a lot of trends in today's diets such as going gluten or dairy-free because I don't agree with all the claims, but I wouldn't call someone elitist or stupid because they've made that choice. Same as I wouldn't someone who chooses not to consume alcohol or caffeine. It's a personal choice and though it's not mine, I can understand their rationale for it.
This thread just seems weird to me and really twilight-zonish, to read people claiming that natural ingredients have no advantage over man-made ones. I just thought it was a given that avoiding artificial ingredients was a good thing
51 -
I live in a northern city. If we had to depend on naturally sourced foods with no allowance for preservatives my diet would consist of vegetables in the summer only, beef, venison, rose hips and saskatoons in season.
'Naturally sourced' doesn't mean seasonal or local or non-processed. Or do you live somewhere where no food gets imported?12 -
nettiklive wrote: »Keto_Vampire wrote: »No FDA definition of natural...it's marketing BS
https://fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm456090.htm
I don't need definitions or labels to tell me if a product is natural or not... I can read an ingredient list.
"Marketing BS" is dyeing macaroni with fake orange coloring pretending it's cheese. Or "cream" filled cakes that are shelf-stable and don't expire for years. Or selling 'healthy' yogurt where they replace the fat with a metric ton of sugar and thickeners because they're afraid people won't buy the yogurt if it actually tastes like, you know, yogurt. There is no good reason to add artificial colors or flavors to anything, except marketing.
Things like Amy's frozen meals ARE in fact, made from only natural ingredients. Kraft dinner is not. I do try to cook most meals from scratch but I do stock convenience foods like that on hand for those rushed times, and when I buy those, I read labels and choose those without artificial additives in the ingredient list. I like TJ's for that reason, as all their frozen and convenience meals have natural ingredients only. I choose yogurt that has nothing but milk and cultures, and bread that has only ingredients one would use at home. I keep thinking I should just bake it myself but I'm a bit intimidated by the process.
You want to call it elitism, go ahead, though that's a really weird label for someone's dietary choices. I thought it was just sensible eating. Certainly every one I know in real life tries to avoid these types of foods and make good choices as often as possible. I don't 'buy into' a lot of trends in today's diets such as going gluten or dairy-free because I don't agree with all the claims, but I wouldn't call someone elitist or stupid because they've made that choice. Same as I wouldn't someone who chooses not to consume alcohol or caffeine. It's a personal choice and though it's not mine, I can understand their rationale for it.
This thread just seems weird to me and really twilight-zonish, to read people claiming that natural ingredients have no advantage over man-made ones. I just thought it was a given that avoiding artificial ingredients was a good thing
And this is why conversations like these are pointless. Everyone purporting to subscribe to this superior way of eating - whether you call it “clean” or “natural” or “Whole Foods” or “nothing processed” has their own arbitrary definition that they adhere to but when asked about some of the statements they make about how they eat, it turns out that there are all sorts of exceptions that really aren’t different than how most people eat. The self proclaimed clean eaters always have whey protein powder or go to Chipotle for lunch. The nothing processed folks always say “well you know what I meant” when asked about Greek yogurt or steel cut oats or dried pasta.
It’s very unlikely that any individual is growing, harvesting, slaughtering, and processing all of their own foods. We are busy human beings and most of us are living in a world of.many conveniences. It is “natural” for today’s world to rely on these conveniences, and anyone claiming otherwise is likely using some arbitrary and subjective food classification system. But yes, there’s an air of superiority and elitism inherent in all of these statements. “Everyone I know I’m real life tries to avoid these foods and make good choices as much as possible “. How is that not laden with judgement toward people who do eat a weight watchers meal, a fat free yogurt, a Diet Coke, a kraft dinner and hot dogs on occasion with my kids?
And to your last point, I didn’t actually see anyone saying there was no advantage to eating “natural” foods over artificial... but it’s a weird false choice to project here because it completely ignores, as most of these discussions do, the concept of context and dosage. In the context of a calorie appropriate and overall balanced diet, how is eating a serving of Oreos going to actively harm me?34
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions