Should we eat man made/cooked, or all Natural?

ernestbecker

Eat at a deficit and in a way that is sustainable for you. That's all you need to know to lose weight.

Now I wonder if the question should expand from not just obesity question, but also speak to quality of life. Many of you consider processed foods off limits. What do you consider a natural food and are you eating it for quality of life issues, or why? In the past month I've defined natural foods as: fruits, veggies, and things that grow like: seeds, nuts, etc... How does meat fit into your "natural" definition? Grass fed? Trolling/Wild caught? un-caged? Most of all, how does chocolate fit in? lol.

rml_16

This statement resonates with me: Not saying it's true, but.... I think we could also replace the word "cook" with the word "make".

“Humans are the only species smart enough to cook (my addition "make") their food but dumb enough to eat it.” – Einstein

I'm not hating here, just wondering if there's something to this when you consider the sky rocketing obesity rates in our country. Maybe it's less about "self control issues" vs. the food supply? I'm not stating, just asking...

The only place I can find that quote as attributed to Einstein is on 3 paleo sites. What is your source for it?

My guess was Mark's Daily Apple (right?). I had the same thought you did.

miss_jessiejane

Einstein was a good friend of mine, and he really liked my cooking.

Anyway, I think if you're going to eat man, raw and wriggling is the way to go.

poohbah4

Well, right off hand, I'd say don't obsess. Eat healthy foods in moderation. I presume "man-made" means "processed." Nothing wrong with processing, per se, nothing wrong with cooking some of your food. Raw potatoes are not good for you. A baked potato occasionally will do you no harm, if you avoid heaping it with butter, sour cream, and cheese.

cwolfman13

I don't really think the "making" of food or preparing or cooking food has anything to do with it other than the fact that processed foods tend to be calorie dense and most people tend to be calorie ignorant and completely unaware of what they are eating from an energy standpoint. They just stuff their faces and then go sit at their desks before stuffing their faces again later.

This obesity epidemic thing is what? 20? 30? years old? Haven't humans been cooking their food for, like, thousands of years?

That's what I'm sayin'...and I didn't realize there were actual people who truly think cooking food is the root cause of obesity...that just seems really dumb to me.

LH85DC

I avoid sugar...Don't mean to oversimplify, just trying to make a point using sugar.

Sugar consumption has exponentially increased since the 1850's...the beginning of the steam engines and mechanized porocessing. It took off again after 1920's...the industrial revolution.

People do not instantaneously get fat upon the first bite of sugar, there is a delay. IMHO this is a pretty obvious correlation.



EDIT - forgot the make the IMGs lower case - again :grumble:

Just going to point out that the industrial revolution is given the dates of 1760ish-1820-40, depending on who you ask. So, just purely looking at this chart, the industrial revolution might explain the 1850s bump, but certainly not the one in 1920s, considering it was over 100 years prior.

Of course, correlation != causation, as pointed out by the other pretty graphs posted. I seriously love graphs.

ETA: After staring at it for a much longer time, I'm not sure that there's anything else to be said here besides the fact that we started eating more sugar.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the 1920's bump was the result of people starting to consume more sugar again after rationing and restrictions on food sales were lifted post-World War 1... but just a guess

(ETA: I don't think sugar causes obesity, nor do I think cooking does, eating too much does. I just enjoy charts/graphs/history...)

SexKittenlovesitrough

it ALWAYS comes back to self control.

Basically what you are saying is that if we make it ourselves as opposed to buying it, then we will eat less...

so basically if we have to put ALL the effort in rather than having the effort applied for us, we will eat less...

is working to make our food not providing us with a method of self control?

"oh it took me 2 hours to make that cheesecake, I'm going to draw it out, enjoy the heck out of it for as long as I can"

as opposed to "oh I bought that cheesecake I'm going to eat it all tonight"

again..appreciation for effort and thus self control.

it always comes back to self control.

the quality of the calorie has not changed.

LiftAllThePizzas

Ah, the good old naturalistic fallacy, combined with a false dichotomy.

A quick Google search doesn't come up with any evidence at all that Einstein actually said that. Do you perhaps have a source that just didn't come up?

rml_16

I don't really think the "making" of food or preparing or cooking food has anything to do with it other than the fact that processed foods tend to be calorie dense and most people tend to be calorie ignorant and completely unaware of what they are eating from an energy standpoint. They just stuff their faces and then go sit at their desks before stuffing their faces again later.

This obesity epidemic thing is what? 20? 30? years old? Haven't humans been cooking their food for, like, thousands of years?

That's what I'm sayin'...and I didn't realize there were actual people who truly think cooking food is the root cause of obesity...that just seems really dumb to me.

Yep. I was agreeing with you. :-)

This raw food thing is so weird. There was a Wife Swap (or the other one?) where one of the families ate raw, but they still ate meat, so they were eating raw beef and chicken and stuff.

I nearly made me hurl.

richardheath

This statement resonates with me: Not saying it's true, but.... I think we could also replace the word "cook" with the word "make".

“Humans are the only species smart enough to cook (my addition "make") their food but dumb enough to eat it.” – Einstein

I'm not hating here, just wondering if there's something to this when you consider the sky rocketing obesity rates in our country. Maybe it's less about "self control issues" vs. the food supply? I'm not stating, just asking...

The only place I can find that quote as attributed to Einstein is on 3 paleo sites. What is your source for it?

My guess was Mark's Daily Apple (right?). I had the same thought you did.

Yup!

parys1

Cooking foods increases digestibility and nutrient availability in many things. Not to mention, the killing of dangerous parasites and/or bacteria.

ETA: Unlike a cow, I do not have four stomachs to do the job.

Collier78

I'm in for the show...hoping to get a hateful PM from Ernie so he can make an honest woman out of me..(I belong to the "I received a hateful PM from Ernie group, but I really haven't yet :sad: )

^^Other than this I really have nothing to contribute here..

bcattoes

Eat at a deficit and in a way that is sustainable for you. That's all you need to know to lose weight.

Now I wonder if the question should expand from not just obesity question, but also speak to quality of life. Many of you consider processed foods off limits. What do you consider a natural food and are you eating it for quality of life issues, or why? In the past month I've defined natural foods as: fruits, veggies, and things that grow like: seeds, nuts, etc... How does meat fit into your "natural" definition? Grass fed? Trolling/Wild caught? un-caged? Most of all, how does chocolate fit in? lol.

I don't consider processed foods off limits, but I'm answering anyway. I don't think everything has to be as black and white as many make it, but here are my thoughts.

The definition of nature is the world outside of humans and human intervention. So, technically there is very little true natural food available today by the strictest definition, because we pretty rule the planet and influence everything on it.

Wild game/fish is more natural than farmed, whether the farmed is grass fed or not. Farmed animals that are fed a diet closer to what they would eat in the wild are more natural than those that are not. Same for fruits and vegetables. Wild plants are more natural than farmed. The more human made pesticides and fertilizers and such that are used to farm plants, the less natural they become.

Things like Pop-Tarts, frozen pizza, Fruit Loops, candy bars, and (sorry) chocolate, would not exist without humans so I don't know how anyone could call them natural.

cwolfman13

...

Go_Mizzou99

I avoid sugar...Don't mean to oversimplify, just trying to make a point using sugar.

Sugar consumption has exponentially increased since the 1850's...the beginning of the steam engines and mechanized porocessing. It took off again after 1920's...the industrial revolution.

People do not instantaneously get fat upon the first bite of sugar, there is a delay. IMHO this is a pretty obvious correlation.



EDIT - forgot the make the IMGs lower case - again :grumble:

I wonder where they dug up the statistics from the 1700's.

You'd be surprised at the records they kept back then. I'm guessing this was reached by looking at records of sugar sales/production.

great point about production numbers. probably tell tale.

Take what supports your POV and discard the rest, sounds logical. basically a waste of bandwidth going forward. Out.

So - it looks to me like obesity took off when sugar consumption hit 50 kg per year.


Oh - Oh - I know - I need to get a chart showing the correlation between the use of the TV remote control and obesity? :noway:

cmriverside

...

^this

jwdieter

The definition of nature is the world outside of humans and human intervention.

By that definition, anything eaten by humans is unnatural.

arios952013

I don't like processed foods because you don't know what things manufacturers put in their food. Just like when we go to Subway and they were putting a plastic chemical in the bread to preserve it. If we want to not only lose weight but also be healthy we realize that perhaps avoiding processed food, going out to a restaurant is not in our best interest health wise.

Likewise, I don't trust the FDA or the government with our meat, what chemicals are in our meet to preserve it? Does it cook out all the way? I would never eat meat raw. Raw fruits and vegetables I would eat raw all day long. I prefer not to eat meat or processed foods.

The vegetarian life is okay, but still has too many animal products in it for me (worried about cholesterol and other issues). Does meat have fiber? No! I know I can get all my protein and fiber in through spinach, beans, etc. We don't live in the caveman days and we have to be aware of where our food is coming from and where it is grown, how it is grown. Cancer seems to be running wild in our society.

Check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ&feature=share&list=FLbKUZzKXb0PHCISBTtmK_gA&index=1
it is pretty amusing too - hope you all enjoy. Not asking you to give up your favorite foods, but think about what you put in your bodies.

I like raw and cooked fruits and vegetables with beans an legumes. Fiber fills you up - those of you on a diet. It is real food without processing. Also google: Eat to Live and Forks Over Knives.

Cheers!

bcattoes

The definition of nature is the world outside of humans and human intervention.

By that definition, anything eaten by humans is unnatural.

If you consider eating as intervention, then I suppose so.