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"
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I've never made soy sauce, something I use all the time in my "from scratch" cooking.
That is wise since soy sauce is a fermented product taking months to make. I am not about to bury a jar of pickled cabbage in my backyard either and wait 4 months for kimchi.
I saw a documentary once on how soy sauce was made. It was fascinating television, but you're right . . . that's never going to happen in my sixth-story apartment.3 -
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.
Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the ibuprofen we have once in a blue moon.
Second of all, it's not really fair to assume the person who posted this doesn't scrutinize the medicine she consumes. Many people do research and scrutinize medicine and vitamins. I personally rarely consume medicine unless I have a very strong reason to believe that I need it. When I got my wisdom tooth surgery, my doctor prescribed several types of pills for pain (it was a tougher surgery than most wisdom teeth procedures) - I was fine with Ibuprofen and didn't even fill the other prescriptions. Recognizing that I'm not an expert on prescription painkillers (and neither are most doctors), I didn't see a need to take a risk by consuming something I didn't need. Of course, I understand that sometimes people need it and everyone's circumstances are different!
Lastly, of course when people are prescribed medications they are inclined to trust their doctors' judgement. I don't think this is an argument against seeking natural foods and a "clean" lifestyle. Personally I'd rather keep my lifestyle as clean as possible (ex: avoiding processed foods when possible, choosing cosmetics without sulfates and parabens, etc.), and make harder choices on things like medications when I need to. No need for anyone to go to extremes.14 -
nm2
-
NicoleHaki wrote: »Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the ibuprofen we have once in a blue moon.
Second of all, it's not really fair to assume the person who posted this doesn't scrutinize the medicine she consumes. Many people do research and scrutinize medicine and vitamins. I personally rarely consume medicine unless I have a very strong reason to believe that I need it. When I got my wisdom tooth surgery, my doctor prescribed several types of pills for pain (it was a tougher surgery than most wisdom teeth procedures) - I was fine with Ibuprofen and didn't even fill the other prescriptions. Recognizing that I'm not an expert on prescription painkillers (and neither are most doctors), I didn't see a need to take a risk by consuming something I didn't need. Of course, I understand that sometimes people need it and everyone's circumstances are different!
Lastly, of course when people are prescribed medications they are inclined to trust their doctors' judgement. I don't think this is an argument against seeking natural foods and a "clean" lifestyle. Personally I'd rather keep my lifestyle as clean as possible (ex: avoiding processed foods when possible, choosing cosmetics without sulfates and parabens, etc.), and make harder choices on things like medications when I need to. No need for anyone to go to extremes.
Perhaps you jumped in a little soon without seeing the word "need" in the post you replied to. Need is not optional like painkillers. Need is staving off death or reversing a medical problem. If we were talking about surgery your reply above might make sense with regard to cosmetic and elective surgeries but I am talking about a bypass or a ruptured appendix.
I believe the only reason you can eat "clean" is because most people don't. If they did I strongly suspect it would create a famine.
2 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the ibuprofen we have once in a blue moon.
Second of all, it's not really fair to assume the person who posted this doesn't scrutinize the medicine she consumes. Many people do research and scrutinize medicine and vitamins. I personally rarely consume medicine unless I have a very strong reason to believe that I need it. When I got my wisdom tooth surgery, my doctor prescribed several types of pills for pain (it was a tougher surgery than most wisdom teeth procedures) - I was fine with Ibuprofen and didn't even fill the other prescriptions. Recognizing that I'm not an expert on prescription painkillers (and neither are most doctors), I didn't see a need to take a risk by consuming something I didn't need. Of course, I understand that sometimes people need it and everyone's circumstances are different!
Lastly, of course when people are prescribed medications they are inclined to trust their doctors' judgement. I don't think this is an argument against seeking natural foods and a "clean" lifestyle. Personally I'd rather keep my lifestyle as clean as possible (ex: avoiding processed foods when possible, choosing cosmetics without sulfates and parabens, etc.), and make harder choices on things like medications when I need to. No need for anyone to go to extremes.
Perhaps you jumped in a little soon without seeing the word "need" in the post you replied to. Need is not optional like painkillers. Need is staving off death or reversing a medical problem. If we were talking about surgery your reply above might make sense with regard to cosmetic and elective surgeries but I am talking about a bypass or a ruptured appendix.
I believe the only reason you can eat "clean" is because most people don't. If they did I strongly suspect it would create a famine.
Right and clearly nobody in need of a life-saving medication would question it because of artificial ingredients, nor would they have the luxury of making that decision even if clean eating was a priority for them. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to replace artificial foods/products/choices with more natural choices where that is possible within reason. This doesn't need to be a polarizing issue - we don't all need to make blanket decisions about whether or not we can have chemicals in our lives. People who prefer less-processed foods and goods aren't hypocritical if they take life-saving medications prescribed by their doctors.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »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.
I am very lucky in that money and to a lesser extent time are not a problem for me. Would you recommend I choose highly processed foods over cooking from scratch with fresh produce?
As long as I stay within my goal calories of course (for whatever my goal is at that time).
Why do you have to choose one or the other? Why can't you eat a variety of foods within the context of a diet that is meeting your nutritional needs?
Exactly, it always baffles me when people can only see 2 dry and cut extremes but not the whole spectrum. Money and time are not a problem for me, but there are other factors at play such as willingness to prepare something from scratch on any given day, preferences or wanting something specific, social factors, rituals, some foods are part or certain experiences (think fair food), foods that bring back memories...etc.
I value myself as a multi layered person, and each part of what I know as "me" deserves care and respect, including the part that wanted Qatayef today (syrup sweetened nut and cheese filled dumplings) because they're only available to buy during Ramadan. It's like a yearly ritual with memories and feelings attached to it. That part of me deserves to be recognized, not shunned.
Even many (most?) people cooking from scratch are using some pre-made ingredients. I mean, if a recipe calls for a tablespoon of dijon mustard, are most people going to make their own? Or are we grabbing a bottle (I know how to make it, I've made it a few times, but most of the time I'm grabbing the bottle).
I've never made soy sauce, something I use all the time in my "from scratch" cooking.
Who on earth suggested making their own soy sauce or Dijon?0 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the ibuprofen we have once in a blue moon.
Second of all, it's not really fair to assume the person who posted this doesn't scrutinize the medicine she consumes. Many people do research and scrutinize medicine and vitamins. I personally rarely consume medicine unless I have a very strong reason to believe that I need it. When I got my wisdom tooth surgery, my doctor prescribed several types of pills for pain (it was a tougher surgery than most wisdom teeth procedures) - I was fine with Ibuprofen and didn't even fill the other prescriptions. Recognizing that I'm not an expert on prescription painkillers (and neither are most doctors), I didn't see a need to take a risk by consuming something I didn't need. Of course, I understand that sometimes people need it and everyone's circumstances are different!
Lastly, of course when people are prescribed medications they are inclined to trust their doctors' judgement. I don't think this is an argument against seeking natural foods and a "clean" lifestyle. Personally I'd rather keep my lifestyle as clean as possible (ex: avoiding processed foods when possible, choosing cosmetics without sulfates and parabens, etc.), and make harder choices on things like medications when I need to. No need for anyone to go to extremes.
Perhaps you jumped in a little soon without seeing the word "need" in the post you replied to. Need is not optional like painkillers. Need is staving off death or reversing a medical problem. If we were talking about surgery your reply above might make sense with regard to cosmetic and elective surgeries but I am talking about a bypass or a ruptured appendix.
I believe the only reason you can eat "clean" is because most people don't. If they did I strongly suspect it would create a famine.
What's the point of comparing life-saving medicine to junk food??
Exactly - you may NEED essential medication, but no one NEEDS junk food, so it makes sense to limit it just as reasonable people limit painkillers, for instance, and not pop them like candy.
And pretty much all essential medications do have a ton of bad side effects that harm certain parts of your health just as they heal others. An obvious example is chemotherapy - necessary, but awful at the same time.
The way I see it, there are already so many negative effects on our health in the environment that we can't avoid, that to me personally it doesn't make sense to add others where I can easily avoid it. We all drive cars and breathe in exhaust fumes, no one is about to give that up, yet that doesn't mean it's good for us! It damages our lung tissue to an extent, it contains tons of cancerogens. And we would likely all be healthier living out in fresh mountain air with no cars around, it's just not feasible for most. That said, when we were looking at places to live, I absolutely ruled out homes right next to busy streets or highways - noise aside, I believe the constant high levels of fumes are absolutely harmful for young kids in particular. Yet plenty of people live next to freeways and are maybe perfectly healthy, yet it doesn't MAKE it healthy. Same with food. Any substance that has been invented purely for marketing reasons and that doesn't have a good reason to be in our food, is something I would rather avoid because I don't know how it will affect the body in the long term. Just as we avoid some natural substances too that have been shown potential to be harmful, especially for kids - soy comes to mind, or overly blackened/ fried foods as they are said to be cancerogenic.16 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »Right and clearly nobody in need of a life-saving medication would question it because of artificial ingredients, nor would they have the luxury of making that decision even if clean eating was a priority for them. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to replace artificial foods/products/choices with more natural choices where that is possible within reason. This doesn't need to be a polarizing issue - we don't all need to make blanket decisions about whether or not we can have chemicals in our lives. People who prefer less-processed foods and goods aren't hypocritical if they take life-saving medications prescribed by their doctors.
My original reply was for someone else and you have taken it out of context. Chemicals do have benefits including chemicals in food which was the point I was trying to make.
You have the luxury of eating clean while many do not.2 -
nettiklive wrote: »What's the point of comparing life-saving medicine to junk food??
Exactly - you may NEED essential medication, but no one NEEDS junk food, so it makes sense to limit it just as reasonable people limit painkillers, for instance, and not pop them like candy.
And pretty much all essential medications do have a ton of bad side effects that harm certain parts of your health just as they heal others. An obvious example is chemotherapy - necessary, but awful at the same time.
The way I see it, there are already so many negative effects on our health in the environment that we can't avoid, that to me personally it doesn't make sense to add others where I can easily avoid it. We all drive cars and breathe in exhaust fumes, no one is about to give that up, yet that doesn't mean it's good for us! It damages our lung tissue to an extent, it contains tons of cancerogens. And we would likely all be healthier living out in fresh mountain air with no cars around, it's just not feasible for most. That said, when we were looking at places to live, I absolutely ruled out homes right next to busy streets or highways - noise aside, I believe the constant high levels of fumes are absolutely harmful for young kids in particular. Yet plenty of people live next to freeways and are maybe perfectly healthy, yet it doesn't MAKE it healthy. Same with food. Any substance that has been invented purely for marketing reasons and that doesn't have a good reason to be in our food, is something I would rather avoid because I don't know how it will affect the body in the long term. Just as we avoid some natural substances too that have been shown potential to be harmful, especially for kids - soy comes to mind, or overly blackened/ fried foods as they are said to be cancerogenic.
I thought you were done with this topic:nettiklive wrote: »Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.
15 -
nettiklive wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the ibuprofen we have once in a blue moon.
Second of all, it's not really fair to assume the person who posted this doesn't scrutinize the medicine she consumes. Many people do research and scrutinize medicine and vitamins. I personally rarely consume medicine unless I have a very strong reason to believe that I need it. When I got my wisdom tooth surgery, my doctor prescribed several types of pills for pain (it was a tougher surgery than most wisdom teeth procedures) - I was fine with Ibuprofen and didn't even fill the other prescriptions. Recognizing that I'm not an expert on prescription painkillers (and neither are most doctors), I didn't see a need to take a risk by consuming something I didn't need. Of course, I understand that sometimes people need it and everyone's circumstances are different!
Lastly, of course when people are prescribed medications they are inclined to trust their doctors' judgement. I don't think this is an argument against seeking natural foods and a "clean" lifestyle. Personally I'd rather keep my lifestyle as clean as possible (ex: avoiding processed foods when possible, choosing cosmetics without sulfates and parabens, etc.), and make harder choices on things like medications when I need to. No need for anyone to go to extremes.
Perhaps you jumped in a little soon without seeing the word "need" in the post you replied to. Need is not optional like painkillers. Need is staving off death or reversing a medical problem. If we were talking about surgery your reply above might make sense with regard to cosmetic and elective surgeries but I am talking about a bypass or a ruptured appendix.
I believe the only reason you can eat "clean" is because most people don't. If they did I strongly suspect it would create a famine.
What's the point of comparing life-saving medicine to junk food??
Exactly - you may NEED essential medication, but no one NEEDS junk food, so it makes sense to limit it just as reasonable people limit painkillers, for instance, and not pop them like candy.
And pretty much all essential medications do have a ton of bad side effects that harm certain parts of your health just as they heal others. An obvious example is chemotherapy - necessary, but awful at the same time.
The way I see it, there are already so many negative effects on our health in the environment that we can't avoid, that to me personally it doesn't make sense to add others where I can easily avoid it. We all drive cars and breathe in exhaust fumes, no one is about to give that up, yet that doesn't mean it's good for us! It damages our lung tissue to an extent, it contains tons of cancerogens. And we would likely all be healthier living out in fresh mountain air with no cars around, it's just not feasible for most. That said, when we were looking at places to live, I absolutely ruled out homes right next to busy streets or highways - noise aside, I believe the constant high levels of fumes are absolutely harmful for young kids in particular. Yet plenty of people live next to freeways and are maybe perfectly healthy, yet it doesn't MAKE it healthy. Same with food. Any substance that has been invented purely for marketing reasons and that doesn't have a good reason to be in our food, is something I would rather avoid because I don't know how it will affect the body in the long term. Just as we avoid some natural substances too that have been shown potential to be harmful, especially for kids - soy comes to mind, or overly blackened/ fried foods as they are said to be cancerogenic.
So...it makes sense to you to compare junk food to narcotics?
Things certainly are starting to make sense.11 -
Could “natural” food and everything else be on a spectrum? Relative naturalness could be graded according to a criteria including genetic drift from the original, the soil it’s grown in, the relative naturalness of its fertilizers, how far it was grown from home, and how much processing is required before eating it. Dandelion greens grown on your windowsill for instance woul be the most natural.1
-
Irrational "unnaturalness" from me -- I'll happily cook dandelion greens if they are in my farm box or order them at a restaurant or on rare occasion even buy them from WF, but I pick them out of my yard and don't think to cook them (let alone adding them to my garden on purpose).2
-
On the other end of the spectrum might be this chemical:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoamyl_acetate
Produced in the lab or naturally by the banana as part of its ripening process.
Because it can be replicated in the lab, is this chemical unnatural and therefore bad?
Is the same chemical produced by the banana good?10 -
@lemurcat12 I would only want the tender early leaves from the dandelion.
Considering that this hardy weed is practically begging us to pluck it, isn’t it odd that we rarely treat it like food? How funny we are.5 -
@lemurcat12 I would only want the tender early leaves from the dandelion.
Considering that this hardy weed is practically begging us to pluck it, isn’t it odd that we rarely treat it like food? How funny we are.
Well... considering the fact that I know exactly which cats, dogs and foxes in the neighborhood like to pee where... nope. Not going to pick dandelions from the lawn for salad.
Our garden plot is fenced in on all sides (top included) with a fine wire mesh to avoid having it turned into a huge outdoor kitty litter.
3 -
Pity you are passing up all that free fertilizer.
For similar reasons I could not get my daughter to eat salad greens from our garden. She preferred the packaged lettuce from the store.0 -
Typical visitors to my thriving dandelion patch are a magpie and the resident rabbit.2
-
NickyGee2015 wrote: »So I sometimes like to compare our bodies to cars. If you want the best performance get the best fuel, but thats not always the case. Im sure a 2018 chevy will run better with cheap gas than a ford from 1920 with 91 octane. There are a lot of factors in someones health and what can be harmful to an individual. Simplest example i can think of is people are allergic to friggen peanuts...like a nut can kill them and here I am eating spoonfuls of peanut butter. Point is the car is going to go at some point (just like us) no matter what you put in it. I don't think any of us are 1g of aspartame away from death or cancer.
From my personal experience I found that the more expensive foods, natural and organic (and whatever that means because there are naturally occurring chemicals) has made me feel better to some extent but probably not the case for everyone.
I also know people who eat whole foods and say they feel better, but I also know placebo is a wonderful thing, and you may think you feel better because you're eating better (I look good I feel good but with eating).
We breath in fumes, we eat this and that, no matter what we do, it'll be hard to get away from any of it. If you're looking for a better quality of life then just mix and match, try stuff out. Neither an organic or processed cookie will kill you, maybe in higher dosages and different context. Plus what is a good quality of life without eating "oreos" and saving some cash, instead of eating gluten-b-gone cookie crumbs.
Disclaimer: I'm sorry if I offended your choice of automobile or cookie in the making.
This is placebo. Your brain decides that you paid more for it so it must taste better. There are some funny and enlightening experiments conducted showing this. The wine studies are the best. People will pick the highest price wine as the "best" tasting even though it may be the identical product.
Feel is subjective. Performance is another matter and humans are remarkably similar barring immunological response.
My best run times are directly linked to Skittles and Oreo consumption.
It goes so far that you can even fool professional wine tasters. It's funny.2 -
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.
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.)
How old are all three. What’s their gender. What state of health are they each in to start with? Do any of them have allergies?
7 -
Let’s make it three thousand people on the island, with a normal distribution of ages, all five genders.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions