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
-
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »you know, i think everyone does what works best for them or what they prefer or what makes them feel good - for whatever reason.
you could kill a chicken in your yard and once you stick it over your firepit made with sticks and fire from lightening .... its processed.
i eat the way i eat, because i PREFER to. fresh veg and fruit. very little canned or frozen. meats (that im positive WERE frozen, and almost always are once they get to my house). i buy most of my bread, but even when i make it, once it hits that oven .... processed.
i dont buy many canned soups or items because i simply dont like them. i like to control my food and whats in it. and with prepackaged things, you dont have that control. if someone else wants to use it - awesome. i truly do not care. lol
live and let live.
and doritos are *kitten* good!!!
You may be getting fewer nutrients from "fresh" fruits and veg than from canned or frozen, unless they are local produce.5 -
Minor nutritional differences found between fresh, frozen, and canned. http://www.fruitandvegetable.ucdavis.edu/files/217102.pdf6
-
well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
I had some steel cut oats with almonds and blue berries and two eggs and a low sodium V8 for breakfast.
I had some grilled chicken over quinoa and peas and carrots for lunch.
I have a small individual sized bag of hot Cheetos that I'm planning to have as a snack later.
I also have an apple and some peanut butter for later as well.
For dinner tonight I'm grilling salmon and roasting asparagus and some sweet potatoes.
This is pretty much consistent with how I eat most of the time...my biometrics were bad when I was overweight...they're optimal now, despite my hot Cheetos. Pretty sure my little bag of hot Cheetos doesn't negate the rest of my day.
24 -
I don't think some "other foods" are horrible for many people to eat. a few doritos won't hurt most people but a few cigarettes don't hurt most people either... but you are probably better off skipping both.
Oh, I love the "probably better off" game. Let's play!
You are PBO not driving because of the fumes.
You are PBO not working because of stress.
You are PBO staying out of your house because that is where many accidents happen.
You are PBO staying out of the sun because of skin cancer.
You are PBO not eating because food is a choking hazard.
Wasn't that fun!!
19 -
well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.21 -
nettiklive wrote: »I answered: what makes it unnatural is the fact that it is, unnatural. Because Yellow #42 does not exist in nature, last I knew,
Yellow #42 is also known as yellow ochre, an iron oxide (Fe2O3.H2O) found in clays in many parts of the world, and used tens of thousands of years ago by Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals to make cave paintings and presumably adorn their bodies. That's about as "natural" as you can get.
There are chemicals concocted in labs that are totally innocuous.
There are chemicals found in nature that are deadly poisonous.
Just because humans invented something doesn't make it evil.
Just because Mother Nature (or Gaia, or whatever you choose to call it) makes something doesn't make it good.34 -
nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
11 -
nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
I'm disappointed that you didn't choose to answer the hypothetical question posed in a post before that. Let me re-state it 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?
14 -
nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
Well, the original post had no mention of context or dosage.
The question (that I now understand was rhetorical and not an actual discussion, silly me) was:
So all you out there, what makes these "other" food "unnatural"
I answered: what makes it unnatural is the fact that it is, unnatural. Because Yellow #42 does not exist in nature, last I knew,
As for: "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? "
Um, no that wasn't 'laden with a judgment', that was a simple statement of fact. Truly, every single adult I know tries to comprise their family's diets of mainly real, natural foods (let's not pick at words here, we all know what that means). "As much as possible' means just that - there can be pizza nights and parties and halloween candy and fast food on the road and whatever else. However everyone understands these for what they are - not particularly healthy choices that are inferior to 'real'/whole/natural/ whatever you wanna call it foods, again you know what I mean. And understand that they are not equal in healthfulness and should not make up the bulk of someone's diet. All this particularly when it comes to young kids, imo.
But again, the OP made no mention of any of this, he implied that there is no real difference at all between 'natural' and 'non-natural' foods.
But if you want to talk judgement. I do judge, not the people who consume these things but the industry that created them. Convenience is one thing. Promotion of artificially-laden junk molded together from modified corn starch, cheap grease, sugar, salt, and neon coloring, especially targeted to kids, is another. If you ask me, and call me elitist all you want - NO ONE needs to eat that crap, no one, and it should not even be sold as food. The only reason it was is because corporations found a gold mine. I'm incredibly happy that this crap seems to be getting pushed out more and more as people finally demand better food and so many more good quality products are becoming easily available. And when you have good quality food, you don't need to mask it with salt, sugar, and fake flavoring. You know what tastes like cheddar cheese? Cheddar cheese. Boil some pasta, plop in butter and sprinkle some on, voila. Takes the same amount of effort and time.
Okay I'm off my soapbox now. I'm not ripping anyone's cheetos out of their hands. I just don't get the love. So many other delicious, 'real' foods exist to indulge in as a treat. Bake some cookies with real butter, so much better than Oreos. Flame away now
Corporations sell us exactly what we the public, as a collective, vote for with our dollars. Most people buy what they personally consider tasty, convenient, affordable and generally desirable.
If we voted economically for shelf-stable, organic, non-GMO, gluten-free roasted Brussels sprouts in convenient, eco-friendly single-serve packs, the corporations would be falling over themselves to sell them to us as cheaply and conveniently as they could manage.
But we don't. Evolution wired us to like fats, sugar, salt; and to eat to excess when food is plentiful. The foods that respond to that are therefore ubiquitous.
Corporations exist to make money, not to be our mommies and daddies and take good care of us. It's our job to identify and act on our own self-interest. (I'm not arguing that this is the perfect society; I'm saying it's the one we happen to live in, in the wealthier first-world countries at least.)
In MBA-school marketing classes, the very clear message was that the magic key to profit is to identify what people really, really want - not what they think they ought to want, not what they say they want, not what they actually need (as if someone should or could decide that for them) - but what they really want. Then you advertise it as being what they think they ought to want. This is the whole story behind crispy chicken salad (with the Newman's Own dressing that adds a halo of charitable giving), and "healthy" granola bars (whole grains! heart-healthy nuts!) that have about the same ingredients, taste, and macro profile as traditional candy bars.
Furthermore, we are the corporations, too: Shareholders (perhaps through intermediaries like banks, mutual funds, pension plans), and employees.
Walt Kelly, in Pogo, had it right: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Conspiracy theories are one way to deny collective responsibility.25 -
Does anybody else REALLY want Cheetos now... or is it just me?16
-
nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
If I conflated "high quality" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods.
I don't see why a pastry, high quality or not, is more natural than a corn chip.
Can a pastry be good or bad, flavor-wise? Yes. But so can a corn chip.
If I conflated "contains nutrients" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods. But again, there are natural foods that aren't that nutrient-rich and some "non-natural" foods that are very nutrient-rich.
So this seems to be a case of framing the issue in a way that defines a certain outcome.
You're saying you prefer foods that you find delicious and deciding everything within that category is therefore "natural." But looking at the foods you include, I don't know if I agree with your categories or what you've decided to exclude.18 -
nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?17 -
Salt is a natural preservative that is also needed by the body. It is added to many processed foods to extend shelf life and to repel nasty bacteria. Pickles for instance. We all need salt....in moderation.12
-
nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
I'm disappointed that you didn't choose to answer the hypothetical question posed in a post before that. Let me re-state it 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?
I didn't bother because this is a stupid question. Of course the big mac guy would live longer (provided he hopefully isn't prone to high cholesterol or heart disease or already overweight and won't keel over from a heart attack), because he is the only one you've deemed to provide with a complete protein, fat, and carb source in this scenario. That however doesn't mean he would live up to his projected lifespan he could have if he was eating a normal diet. Now if you throw in some organic chicken breasts for the broccoli and bean people, they very well will outlive big mac guy.
In any case, what does this ridiculous scenario have to do with normal life where I'm assuming we aren't forced to choose between broccoli and big macs to survive? People in developing countries eat flat "breads" they mix together from powdered clay and water to stave off unbearable starvation. Does that mean clay is a perfectly fine food choice we should all incorporate into our diets?18 -
I know this is overly simplified but how about just noticing how you feel after you eat something? I love soft drinks and rice crispy treats but feel like crap when I eat them. Speaking for myself, I feel better when I eat pesticide free lettuce, carrots, oranges, etc and worse when I eat fried Chicfila. I think my body works better when I eat green beans instead of bacon and nitrates. I am grateful to live where I can grab a not as healthy prepackaged peanut butter and cracker pack and a diet coke when I don't plan ahead. Were all in this together. I don't feel quite as hopeless or overwhelmed with weight issues knowing we all have a common goal regardless of how we get there.
Please tell me where you obtain these mythical 'pesticide free' veggies and fruits? You do realize that organic does NOT mean pesticide free? All organic means is that they are regulated as to which pesticides can be used...
Are you implying that the organophosphate pesticide Monitor mentioned in this article is as safe as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is approved for organic gardening?2 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
If I drink milk fortified with vitamin D or eat bread baked with flour enriched with B vitamins, my body will be able to use those vitamins. If I eat yogurt that has some artificial coloring or flavor, my body will still process the calcium and protein in the yogurt. If I am able to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods all through the year due to preservation, I get the macro- and micronutrients contained in those foods.
You're approaching this as if adding certain things to a food cancels out everything else about a food and that just isn't true.
15 -
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 agree with you.
For the record, I've never been to the FoodBabe website or watched "What the Health" or things of that ilk.14 -
As I sit and eat my Reese Pieces with peanut butter in them - I noticed that the person defending "good" vs "bad" food with their opinion is getting loads of "likes" and "woo" on here.
This makes me believe that knowledge still isn't spreading. I have started to feel like people prefer "magical foods" over facts because magical foods don't need calorie counting- they would just automatically get you at the "perfect" body.
For example- any time in my family I talk to them about weight loss- first asked question is - what should I stop eating or what foods should I not consume? you notice -they don't ask if you can teach me how to measure my caloric balance so I can eat in deficit to lose weight.
It's just the "good" food "bad" food mentality- that people have been ingrained in us and it's much easier to go with it instead of re-learning everything. I, myself had a hard time accepting that "it's ok- I can even eat pizza and still lose weight if I stay in deficit" It's ok to eat pizza and still be healthy because pizza also has protein, carbs and fats.
Ah! Science. I'm so grateful to have people from all kind of mind set here - I get to learn so many new things.10 -
You're correct.nettiklive wrote: »...Of course the big mac guy would live longer...
It's no more ridiculous than your scenarios in which one can only choose between subsisting entirely upon "junk" food or entirely upon "healthy" food. As if there is no middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration, in which those kind of foods can easily be a part of an overall healthy, well-balanced diet. The scenario was postulated that way for precisely that reason.nettiklive wrote: »...In any case, what does this ridiculous scenario have to do with normal life where I'm assuming we aren't forced to choose between broccoli and big macs to survive?...29 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
If I conflated "high quality" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods.
I don't see why a pastry, high quality or not, is more natural than a corn chip.
Can a pastry be good or bad, flavor-wise? Yes. But so can a corn chip.
If I conflated "contains nutrients" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods. But again, there are natural foods that aren't that nutrient-rich and some "non-natural" foods that are very nutrient-rich.
So this seems to be a case of framing the issue in a way that defines a certain outcome.
You're saying you prefer foods that you find delicious and deciding everything within that category is therefore "natural." But looking at the foods you include, I don't know if I agree with your categories or what you've decided to exclude.
Err I don't "decide" that, it's just a fact. I'm picky with my food and I take the time to find out what's in them. Pastries for me don't mean the ones out in boxes at walmart, I mean either home baked or from a good bakery that does not use artificial additives. I had the experience once of getting a raspberry eclair from a nice-looking chain bakery I haven't tried before; and as soon as I bit into it I realized the unnaturally pink filling tasted like the fake raspberry-candy flavor. Clearly there were no actual raspberries involved. I've avoided that place since.
I don't claim to eat 100% natural, we eat out, my kids get treats. I'm just saying as a general rule, I try to stay away from these things because I don't see the value, not in nutrition or taste or quality. And yes I do conflate high quality with natural because I have yet to encounter a food with artificial additives that I would consider high quality (though doesnt work the other way, there ARE certainly plenty of low quality 'natural' foods).27 -
As I sit and eat my Reese Pieces with peanut butter in them - I noticed that the person defending "good" vs "bad" food with their opinion is getting loads of "likes" and "woo" on here.
This makes me believe that knowledge still isn't spreading. I have started to feel like people prefer "magical foods" over facts because magical foods don't need calorie counting- they would just automatically get you at the "perfect" body.
For example- any time in my family I talk to them about weight loss- first asked question is - what should I stop eating or what foods should I not consume? you notice -they don't ask if you can teach me how to measure my caloric balance so I can eat in deficit to lose weight.
It's just the "good" food "bad" food mentality- that people have been ingrained in us and it's much easier to go with it instead of re-learning everything. I, myself had a hard time accepting that "it's ok- I can even eat pizza and still lose weight if I stay in deficit" It's ok to eat pizza and still be healthy because pizza also has protein, carbs and fats.
Ah! Science. I'm so grateful to have people from all kind of mind set here - I get to learn so many new things.
You can't draw any conclusions about the use of the Woo button. When it was first rolled out, it could be used to mean either pseudo science or woo hoo, and to this day may still think it means woo hoo.8 -
I prefer to focus on individual processes and ingredients rather than all encompassing generalizations like "natural foods" or "other stuff" or "artificial chemicals." I know that bacon, a natural food, is a carcinogen. I know that man-made trans fats are demonstrably bad for human consumption and that the jury is still out on naturally occurring ones. I know that red dye #2 is banned in the US and I know why. There are food additives that are considered GRAS and those that aren't. I can look at the research and see which is which. I can find out how much is safe and how much isn't (as in the case of bacon, it takes a higher dose than I care to worry about to be trouble).
If someone tells me that a food additive isn't safe to eat and why and I can look at the research, then that's something I can respect and make my own informed decisions on. If you can tell me what it is exactly in Doritos or Cheetos that isn't safe and what it will do to me, then that's worth far more than just saying "something something Doritos aren't chicken something." Tell me why. Tell me what. Tell me by what mechanism it occurs. Tell me how much.
I refuse to live my life being afraid of the foods that I eat. I choose to avoid certain things that I know to be bad for me. That's not the same as avoiding everything that doesn't grow from the ground. It's too much.
Focus on the facts, not the feelings.29 -
nettiklive wrote: »Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
Nice try but that is not what you said that I responded to now is it?Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits.
Foods being the operative word here. I don't know of many people that consider the ingredients you listed as edible without being attached to actual food.
However, I should point out that there are health benefits to at least some of them and maybe all if I really thought about it.
ETA: I was distracted and came back to it so I see others have already addressed what I was thinking.
3 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Does anybody else REALLY want Cheetos now... or is it just me?
It's not just you.5 -
You're correct.nettiklive wrote: »...Of course the big mac guy would live longer...
It's no more ridiculous than your scenarios in which one can only choose between subsisting entirely upon "junk" food or entirely upon "healthy" food. As if there is no middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration, in which those kind of foods can easily be a part of an overall healthy, well-balanced diet. The scenario was postulated that way for precisely that reason.nettiklive wrote: »...In any case, what does this ridiculous scenario have to do with normal life where I'm assuming we aren't forced to choose between broccoli and big macs to survive?...
In exactly which post did I mention either of these 'scenarios'??
If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I've repeated several times I was only discussing the different types of foods, and NOT their place/dosage/context within a balanced diet because that was not part of the original post. Dosage and context is another discussion altogether. I'm looking at purely comparing the types of foods to each other and nothing else.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
I had some steel cut oats with almonds and blue berries and two eggs and a low sodium V8 for breakfast.
I had some grilled chicken over quinoa and peas and carrots for lunch.
I have a small individual sized bag of hot Cheetos that I'm planning to have as a snack later.
I also have an apple and some peanut butter for later as well.
For dinner tonight I'm grilling salmon and roasting asparagus and some sweet potatoes.
This is pretty much consistent with how I eat most of the time...my biometrics were bad when I was overweight...they're optimal now, despite my hot Cheetos. Pretty sure my little bag of hot Cheetos doesn't negate the rest of my day.
Ah, the middle ground. So sensible. So much easier for adherence for some. And totally in the pocket of Big Pharma and going to die young, I'm afraid. Get out of here with this balance /s15 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
If I conflated "high quality" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods.
I don't see why a pastry, high quality or not, is more natural than a corn chip.
Can a pastry be good or bad, flavor-wise? Yes. But so can a corn chip.
If I conflated "contains nutrients" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods. But again, there are natural foods that aren't that nutrient-rich and some "non-natural" foods that are very nutrient-rich.
So this seems to be a case of framing the issue in a way that defines a certain outcome.
You're saying you prefer foods that you find delicious and deciding everything within that category is therefore "natural." But looking at the foods you include, I don't know if I agree with your categories or what you've decided to exclude.
Err I don't "decide" that, it's just a fact. I'm picky with my food and I take the time to find out what's in them. Pastries for me don't mean the ones out in boxes at walmart, I mean either home baked or from a good bakery that does not use artificial additives. I had the experience once of getting a raspberry eclair from a nice-looking chain bakery I haven't tried before; and as soon as I bit into it I realized the unnaturally pink filling tasted like the fake raspberry-candy flavor. Clearly there were no actual raspberries involved. I've avoided that place since.
I don't claim to eat 100% natural, we eat out, my kids get treats. I'm just saying as a general rule, I try to stay away from these things because I don't see the value, not in nutrition or taste or quality. And yes I do conflate high quality with natural because I have yet to encounter a food with artificial additives that I would consider high quality (though doesnt work the other way, there ARE certainly plenty of low quality 'natural' foods).
I'm saying your decision that "artisan" or "fancy" pastry is somehow natural (like there's a pastry tree out there and it isn't the result of multiple human processes and refinements) is a category that you've decided on. It isn't self-evident. I don't consider an eclair to be a "natural" food even if there is an actual piece of fruit in it.
You don't like artificial fruit flavoring. That's understandable. I don't particularly care for it myself. But to decide that this means that there is no food value in things that have flavors you dislike seems to be mixing categories together.
We can be nourished by things we don't like. We can like things that don't nourish us. We can like things that nourish us and so on.
Taste value doesn't equal nutritional value. The health benefit difference between a "real" raspberry eclair (by your standards) and an raspberry eclair that contains some artificial flavorings could be quite minimal (obviously this is going to depend on the recipe, but the macronutrient content is likely to be quite similar and there probably won't be a lot of micronutrient difference either).
These categories -- that certain eclairs are "natural" and others aren't, that there is no value in foods with artificial additives because you don't consider them "high quality" personally, etc -- these are your categories. They're a guide for your personal food choices, but I don't know if they're really useful or relevant for anyone else's choices.28 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
If I drink milk fortified with vitamin D or eat bread baked with flour enriched with B vitamins, my body will be able to use those vitamins. If I eat yogurt that has some artificial coloring or flavor, my body will still process the calcium and protein in the yogurt. If I am able to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods all through the year due to preservation, I get the macro- and micronutrients contained in those foods.
You're approaching this as if adding certain things to a food cancels out everything else about a food and that just isn't true.
Sure; but I just don't see the point in adding artificial coloring to yogurt or whatever. What's wrong with just, you know, yogurt? Add some fruit or honey to it. You can freeze fruit and veg without artificial preservatives too.
In most cases, these things are added simply as a marketing gimmick - because it's cheaper to produce, and multicolored cereal will attract little kids more than brown cereal, and orange coloring is cheaper than real cheese. So many people's palates are spoiled since toddlerhood by the extreme amounts of salt, sugar, etc in this crap, so that corporations know people will not eat the yogurt if it's not sickeningly-sweet - and if they're trying to lose weight you load it up with aspartame instead and market it as 'no sugar added'. You get parents complaining their kids will not eat homemade mac and cheese because it doesn't taste like Kraft dinner, or chicken unless it's in the form of mcnuggets - and when parents are busy and stressed, its not a fight they want to take on. You have parents put Coke in baby bottles. And you wonder why the country has an obesity epidemic.
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.27 -
OH OH OH BTW
People these days are allergic to so many things - could it be because they are excessively picky eaters versus when I was a kid 10 years ago sometimes we would end up eating something that fell on the floor (as long as floor "looked clean") and was within that 5 second rule.
As a kid, I've sometimes eaten mud as well and my mom didn't panic or anything at all- Just asked me to rinse my mouth with water that's it.
Do you think it's because of something or I just have a generally stronger immune system due to genetics or it's because of excessively picky eating habits of this "good" vs "bad" food ??
Also, I've noticed- people in India (developed parts and some villages) don't have any allergies at all versus here where almost every other kid has allergy to something. (I know it's a very general statement) just trying to grasp.14 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
If I drink milk fortified with vitamin D or eat bread baked with flour enriched with B vitamins, my body will be able to use those vitamins. If I eat yogurt that has some artificial coloring or flavor, my body will still process the calcium and protein in the yogurt. If I am able to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods all through the year due to preservation, I get the macro- and micronutrients contained in those foods.
You're approaching this as if adding certain things to a food cancels out everything else about a food and that just isn't true.
Sure; but I just don't see the point in adding artificial coloring to yogurt or whatever. What's wrong with just, you know, yogurt? Add some fruit or honey to it. You can freeze fruit and veg without artificial preservatives too.
In most cases, these things are added simply as a marketing gimmick - because it's cheaper to produce, and multicolored cereal will attract little kids more than brown cereal, and orange coloring is cheaper than real cheese. So many people's palates are spoiled since toddlerhood by the extreme amounts of salt, sugar, etc in this crap, so that corporations know people will not eat the yogurt if it's not sickeningly-sweet - and if they're trying to lose weight you load it up with aspartame instead and market it as 'no sugar added'. You get parents complaining their kids will not eat homemade mac and cheese because it doesn't taste like Kraft dinner, or chicken unless it's in the form of mcnuggets - and when parents are busy and stressed, its not a fight they want to take on. You have parents put Coke in baby bottles. And you wonder why the country has an obesity epidemic.
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.
You or I may not see the point in adding color to something (although studies have shown that food color does have an impact on appetite, so there's that), but that doesn't cancel out the food value the yogurt may have.
I'm sorry this topic makes you upset. It may be a good idea to stay away from conversations like this if it's going do that. I find that getting upset online isn't really worth it for my quality of life (you may differ, of course).
FYI, I haven't had Cheetos for years. I've been vegan for over a decade. This isn't a personal thing for me, it's not grounded in a desire to eat Cheetos.16
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