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"
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.2 -
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Ok now if this is going to turn into that kind of au naturel thread I am out of here.3 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Hmmm really? So scandals like DDT where something is promoted as totally fine, until cancers and birth defects begin, never happened? How many times in history did corporations produce something, only to go 'whoops' decades later and end up with the substance banned or restricted? That however doesn't help those who have already suffered the consequences (and mind you, not everyone does). And this, for the most part, happens with artificially produced substances, not ones occurring in nature. Though these also exist, and I try to avoid natural foods that are potential cancerogens or endocrine disrupters, such as soy for children or even overly burnt toast. Same with additives, that may be totally harmless, or may, in twenty years, emerge to be associated with cancer or other issues. Its easy enough to avoid them (not fanatically but minimize), to where it's one of the easiest risk to.mitigate in an environment that's already not too healthy.
You've mentioned the bolded, and I have to say I was surprised to see it. I'm admittedly very poorly informed about child nutrition (I'm childless), but pretty well informed about soy foods (I'm vegetarian, long-term). In particular, I was under the impression that research is suggesting that young girls may gain resilience against adult breast cancer when soy foods are part of their routine diet. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X12003527, among others.)
What I'm aware of is a combination of statistical assessments of populations in soy-consuming cultures, animal studies, and retrospective survey research, so that's not a 100% persuasive case. I haven't dug deeper, because, as I mentioned, I've had no reason.
You may very well be correct about the effect overall: I don't claim expertise. Still, the one piece of the puzzle I've seen leads me to question, and I'm posting this mainly to suggest that anyone who's concerned may want to do their own research and form a well-rounded picture, rather than taking your statement as confirmed truth because no one has commented.
Edited to make quote tag properly attribute, losing some context from up-thread in process. Apologies for that bad side-effect.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Things aren't natural anyway.3 -
nettiklive wrote: »
Hmmm really? So scandals like DDT where something is promoted as totally fine, until cancers and birth defects begin, never happened? How many times in history did corporations produce something, only to go 'whoops' decades later and end up with the substance banned or restricted? That however doesn't help those who have already suffered the consequences (and mind you, not everyone does). And this, for the most part, happens with artificially produced substances, not ones occurring in nature. Though these also exist, and I try to avoid natural foods that are potential cancerogens or endocrine disrupters, such as soy for children or even overly burnt toast. Same with additives, that may be totally harmless, or may, in twenty years, emerge to be associated with cancer or other issues. Its easy enough to avoid them (not fanatically but minimize), to where it's one of the easiest risk to.mitigate in an environment that's already not too healthy.
First off, DDT as a scandal was almost entirely hype. And removing it from the marketplace did much more harm than good.
Thalidomide is a much better example that also falls short under closer scrutiny.
The problem with this discussion isn't so much what we do or don't know, it's what we know for sure that just isn't so.10 -
7
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
But how will all the lululemon wearing sanctimommies judge me while sipping their almond milk raw sugar lattes while watching their children wholesomely play in the sunshine on non wooden/arsenic treated playground equipment?11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
But how will all the lululemon wearing sanctimommies judge me while sipping their almond milk raw sugar lattes while watching their children wholesomely play in the sunshine on non wooden/arsenic treated playground equipment?
Wholesomely play while being bombarded with the carcinogenic glare of the sun? I don't think so.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I've got just one life to live. People can do what they want, but I refuse to spend it being scared of burnt toast.
But it has the carcengines!! Plus, it can burn you.
Or give you those little abrasions on the roof of your mouth . . . maybe the anti-toast brigade is on to something here.
particularly the gluten-free toast..that stuff is like sandpaper.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
ooh- That reminds me --> 'tis the season to re-permethrin-treat the ** out of my backpacking clothes.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I've got just one life to live. People can do what they want, but I refuse to spend it being scared of burnt toast.
But it has the carcengines!! Plus, it can burn you.
Or give you those little abrasions on the roof of your mouth . . . maybe the anti-toast brigade is on to something here.
particularly the gluten-free toast..that stuff is like sandpaper.
It's got nothing on Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Cereal. That stuff is brutal on the roof of the mouth! And I don't even burn it in the toaster. But it maybe still has cancerogens because not 'natural'.1 -
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
This sounds like something I would enjoy.0 -
Put some macerated fruit on that saltine. It will be more like a PIE!1
-
-
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
I first read that as "sardines".
(Just to be on topic to the thread: Sardines are more "natural" than saltines, because they have eyes. ). 2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
I'm going to start saving now so I can afford to hire this guy when I get sick: https://www.medicalmedium.com/2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
Whichever one wins the lawsuit.3 -
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
I first read that as "sardines".
(Just to be on topic to the thread: Sardines are more "natural" than saltines, because they have eyes. ).
I did the same thing.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
Mr. Black Toast in the kitchen with the cancerstick.
10 -
how many superfoods do i need to counter the black toast is the real question, and do they have to be kiwis because everyone knows that's the only real superfood
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I've got just one life to live. People can do what they want, but I refuse to spend it being scared of burnt toast.
But it has the carcengines!! Plus, it can burn you.
Or give you those little abrasions on the roof of your mouth . . . maybe the anti-toast brigade is on to something here.
particularly the gluten-free toast..that stuff is like sandpaper.
It's got nothing on Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Cereal. That stuff is brutal on the roof of the mouth! And I don't even burn it in the toaster. But it maybe still has cancerogens because not 'natural'.
Unicorn poop is the all-natural anti-cancerogen. I'm offering free samples.3 -
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
I first read that as "sardines".
(Just to be on topic to the thread: Sardines are more "natural" than saltines, because they have eyes. ).
I did the same thing.
Calls for this photo:
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
And at that point, does it matter anyway?
Only one guarantee in life - nobody gets out alive.0 -
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?0 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
No, the hypothetical question showcases the stupidity of the false dichotomy often posited à la "Eat nothing but Burgers for a year and tell me again how they're not harmful!!!1". That kind of crap happens almost daily over here. For some reason these people never seem to want to eat nothing but broccoli for a year though to assess whether broccoli is harmful or not.5 -
There was a rash of children with cognitive deficits raised in fairly wealthy homes a few years back as the parents put them on a low fat diet. Not enough fat and fat soluble vitamins, and you have developmental delays/smaller brains.
Sorry I don’t have a link. This was related to me by my sister, a family physician.
I similarly listened to a tragic tale (on the radio) of a vegetarian mother who breast fed her infant, all healthy natural stuff, but unknowingly she had depleted all her stores of B vitamins. The baby suffered developmental problems.
I eat a lot of natural foods and I grow what I can. Nevertheless I trust our national bodies (FDA, WHO) to give the best overall guidance for my health. Ignorant, untempered fads can result in unforgiving consequences.
So yes, it does need to be pointed out that an all broccoli diet is just as silly as an all “junk food” diet. Maybe even more so.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions