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"

1679111219

Replies

  • Posts: 3,563 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    Those look like cat head sized underwear!

    Oh dear lord I just took another look and yes, they seem very versatile.
  • Posts: 34,631 Member
    edited May 2018
    nvmomketo wrote: »

    Darn. I have a long reply and lost it.

    So what? Well, essentially, I am not trying to prove you wrong, just stating my own opinion. I believe you responded to my posted opinion.

    I believe that highly processed and refined foods (which generally have a longer shelf life than whole foods)are not the best foods for best health. They are not great foods, IMO. They are not evil. They do not need to be avoided for life. They will not kill you (unless really unlucky). You are not a bad person if you eat them.

    I had bacon for breakfast - a processed food. Studies show that regular consumption of it may raise my risk of colon cancer from 5-6%. If I just had eggs or a salmon fillet, it probably would have benefited my overall health more than bacon would. I know this but I still choose to eat it.

    Likewise, foods like Doritos will generally not improve the health of someone more than whole foods like a steak or salad would, if we look past the need for calories. Will eating them a few times a month hurt you? Probably not. Would your overall health be better off if you never ate them? Probably. If you ate them frequently and in large amounts would it negatively affect your health in time? Probably. IMO

    IMO, some foods are better for your health than others. That's all.

    I think I was not clear. The "so what" was meant as "what does how long a food keeps have to do with the overall point". I don't think that "edible things that keep a long time" and "edible things that are nutrient dense and contribute well to a healthy diet" have any relevant relationship to one another. There's overlap in the Venn diagram, but it's pretty meaningless.

    Some things that keep a long time have "artificial" preservatives (as I understand that term to be in use here - it's a little fuzzy to me). Some things that keep a long time have "natural" preservatives (dehydration, salt, vinegar - though maybe those aren't "natural" in terms of this discussion?). Some edible things just inherently keep a long time because of their nature.

    I don't think how long something will remain edible without refrigeration has much to do with how nutritionally valuable it is.

    I quoted your post simply because it was the most recent in a multi-post sub-thread about food preservation - nothing particularly personal intended. :)

    ETA: I see someone else's post on the subthread intervenes between yours and mine. Apologies - I guess I let the page get stale before replying.
  • Posts: 1,706 Member
    edited May 2018
    nettiklive wrote: »

    Promotion of artificially-laden junk molded together from modified corn starch, cheap grease, sugar, salt, and neon coloring,

    What are you referring to here? Kraft macaroni and cheese?

    I didn’t think Kraft was that bad other than the bright color.

    A google search says
    The bright color comes from Annatto which is a seed from the South American achiote tree. Paprika and turmeric are also used to color foods as well.

    It seems as long as you aren’t allergic to it, it seems pretty safe and natural.



  • Posts: 12,019 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    I think I was not clear. The "so what" was meant as "what does how long a food keeps have to do with the overall point". I don't think that "edible things that keep a long time" and "edible things that are nutrient dense and contribute well to a healthy diet" have any relevant relationship to one another. There's overlap in the Venn diagram, but it's pretty meaningless.

    Some things that keep a long time have "artificial" preservatives (as I understand that term to be in use here - it's a little fuzzy to me). Some things that keep a long time have "natural" preservatives (dehydration, salt, vinegar - though maybe those aren't "natural" in terms of this discussion?). Some edible things just inherently keep a long time because of their nature.

    I don't think how long something will remain edible without refrigeration has much to do with how nutritionally valuable it is.

    I quoted your post simply because it was the most recent in a multi-post sub-thread about food preservation - nothing particularly personal intended. :)

    Nothing taken personally. :)
    I believe that highly processed and refined foods (which generally have a longer shelf life than whole foods) are not the best foods for best health.

    I don't think the preservatives are always a negative thing. Shelf life came into it for me because refined and highly processed foods, that I think should be eaten in limited quantities or avoided for best health through nutrition, tend to have a longer shelf life.

    Long shelf life and being highly processed and refined tend to occur together although there are exceptions like some grains or oils and was pointed out up thread. Uncooked quinoa might last just as long as (for example) Doritos but it may contribute to best health more than Doritos would.

    I agree that how long a food remains edible is not always the best indicator of its nutritional value, but it can be an indicator, IMO.
This discussion has been closed.