Trying to lose weight by eating organic only

NovusDies

bluediamond5 wrote: »

To me, eating organic and sticking to the Dirty Dozen put out by EWG just makes sense in reducing your chance for lots of conditions as you get older. Also I try to only eat organic, grass fed meats and chicken and lots of sustainable fish. Have been doing this for the past 6 years - But still gain weight - you can over eat organic just like any other food - Now trying to lose 35 lbs - Green juice organic every day - really cleans you out!! Digestion problems should have a DR check. Hope this helps.

The problem with this is that it might distract you from what is really important which is a reasonably healthy lifestyle. I believe what cuts down on future problems is being active, getting exercise, eating a fairly balanced nutrition, not drinking too much, not smoking, etc. I believe you need to be working on your entire life and if you do (and your genetics are favorable) the food does not have to be pristine and perfect all the time.

magnusthenerd

kshama2001 wrote: »

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising/

Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group

The American Council on Science and Health defends fracking, BPA, and pesticides. Guess who their funders are.

...internal financial documents (read them here) provided to Mother Jones show that ACSH depends heavily on funding from corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates it aims to shape. The group also directly solicits donations from these industry sources around specific issues. ACSH’s financial links to corporations involved in hot-button health and safety controversies have been highlighted in the past, but these documents offer a more extensive accounting of ACSH’s reliance on industry money—giving a rare window into the operations of a prominent and frequent defender of industry in the science wars.

Mother Jones itself isn't terribly likely to turn down ads from Organic groups - they're a form of big business influence too.
In particular, the study that generally kicked of the Round-Up Glyphosate controversy was done with funds from organic companies. Sadly, the science is so poorly done in that study, it is hardly worth getting into funding.

I do take exception with the particular ACSH article though. Bloom claims organic farming allows synthetic chemicals, but the general principle of Organic is that none of the chemicals used are synthetic. I'd like to see a source from Bloom for that claim, preferably with a particularly named synthetic used in Organic farming. Not because there's anything wrong with synthetic chemicals, but there is something wrong with misrepresentation and poor journalism.

eddiesmith1

While organics may see fewer chemicals enter your system, they are not any better nutritionally than non-organic. they can be better for the environment (though not if that red pepper traveled thousands of miles versus a non-organic one grown locally. avoiding processed foods is not a bad thing but organic is nothing to do with that. personally I will avoid GMO that introduce things like neo nicitinoids into plants not because all GMO is bad (it's not all bad selective breeding has gone on for centuries and is really just a variation on the concept) but because it is introducing an element that should not be in the DNA of the plant and is killing off bee populations. I am fussy on how my meats are grown and processed. First I don't like to see animals mistreated and factory farms and large scale processing plants are notorious for it. i also prefer to ensure diversity in the food supply so I will buy heritage breeds that come through smaller farms (they taste better, the animals are treated better and killed humanely) the same holds true for Veg I will encourage and support heritage vegetables because loss of diversity in the food supply is a huge threat to humanity . in many cases supporting this also supports organic but almost always supports local whether organic rules are met or not

kshama2001

eddiesmith1 wrote: »

While organics may see fewer chemicals enter your system, they are not any better nutritionally than non-organic. they can be better for the environment (though not if that red pepper traveled thousands of miles versus a non-organic one grown locally. avoiding processed foods is not a bad thing but organic is nothing to do with that. personally I will avoid GMO that introduce things like neo nicitinoids into plants not because all GMO is bad (it's not all bad selective breeding has gone on for centuries and is really just a variation on the concept) but because it is introducing an element that should not be in the DNA of the plant and is killing off bee populations. I am fussy on how my meats are grown and processed. First I don't like to see animals mistreated and factory farms and large scale processing plants are notorious for it. i also prefer to ensure diversity in the food supply so I will buy heritage breeds that come through smaller farms (they taste better, the animals are treated better and killed humanely) the same holds true for Veg I will encourage and support heritage vegetables because loss of diversity in the food supply is a huge threat to humanity . in many cases supporting this also supports organic but almost always supports local whether organic rules are met or not

Yes, I am passionate about buying some things locally and a lot of that is selfishly about the taste. I'm in Massachusetts and won't touch supermarket peaches, but the ones grown in the next town are AMAZING! Also, the honeycrisp apples from this local orchard are better than the ones I've been buying since they ran out for the season, which was months ago, sadly.

I am also less concerned about organic when buying from local farms, as they are small and do not use all of the practices described by a Jerome, Idaho potato farmer in this article by Michael Pollan: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html (Note: Monitor has since been withdrawn from the market.)

merekins

Absolutely, IF buying organic means you are eating less calories than than you are now. Assuming you spend the same amount on groceries and the higher price of organic food, you would be buying less and eating less as a result. Whatever gets you to consume fewer calories will result in weightloss.

Danp

All food is organic by it's very definition (unless you're eating rocks, metals or minerals then that's a whole other issue).

Everything is a chemical. Everything. And everything is both toxic and non-toxic because toxicity is determined by dosage.

Organic (with a capital O) is a marketing ploy used to fleece gullible people and offer the same benefits as cleanses, detoxes and healing crystals.

Natural doesn't mean healthy or good for you. Arsenic and snake venom are both 'Natural'

lemurcat2

merekins wrote: »

Absolutely, IF buying organic means you are eating less calories than than you are now. Assuming you spend the same amount on groceries and the higher price of organic food, you would be buying less and eating less as a result. Whatever gets you to consume fewer calories will result in weightloss.

The problem I see with this, is that some of the obvious price differences are between organic and conventional produce (indeed, I think of produce as the main "organic" one would buy, as in the US meat isn't "organic" so much as pastured or free-range or whatnot (which are also often labels that are misleading unless you know more about the source). So being able to purchase less produce seems counterproductive for a diet plan or for nutrition, since most in the US actually should eat more produce.