Can organic food help you lose weight?

SideSteel

Aragon and Krieger have both very effectively shot down the majority of info presented by Lustig and Taubes. If you're not familiar with Alan Aragon or James Krieger I'd very highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their work.

albayin

I don't understand why people try so hard to justify their choice of buying or not buying organic foods? Do whatever pleases you and your wallet but please don't expect others make the same choice.

SanteMulberry

Aragon and Krieger have both very effectively shot down the majority of info presented by Lustig and Taubes. If you're not familiar with Alan Aragon or James Krieger I'd very highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their work.

Both Aragon and Krieger are "nutritionists" (By the way, just because they SAY they have degrees in nutrition doesn't mean that they actually DO have degrees). They are hardly research physicians (where both Lustig and Taubes gained their information). It would be my guess (and I have no information to back this up, but I did take a look at their blogs and they seemed very "commercial") Aragon and Krieger are likely on the payroll of the agri-business giants. Did you ever see that movie about Archer Daniels Midland? The one with Matt Damon. It is actually a true story of incredible corruption there---and they all compete to see which corp. can be more corrupt or corrupt more governmental agencies who are supposed to watch over our food supply. There is a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto (among others of the food giants). Wake up.

p.s. In any case, are these nutritionists doing research of their own? Richard Johnson, M.D. (he is the chief of the renal research division at the U. of Colorado medical center) confirms what Lustig and Taubes have been saying. When evaluating information for and against something, it is very important to understand the "Cui Bono" element. Always ask, "Who benefits if I believe this information?" Richard Johnson gets the funding for his research from NIH and other governmental groups. As such, it is very doubtful that he would gain anything from attacking Big Agra---who would pay him to do so? The "commies"?

On the other hand, if people buy Aragon and Kreiger's hatchet jobs, Big Agra would be very grateful for the benefit that they gain if people buy the character defamation that Aragon and Kreiger are peddling. Cui Bono?

SanteMulberry

I don't understand why people try so hard to justify their choice of buying or not buying organic foods? Do whatever pleases you and your wallet but please don't expect others make the same choice.

I don't expect others to make the same choices as I do---just trying to offer information that may help people to make better choices for their health.

SideSteel

Aragon and Krieger have both very effectively shot down the majority of info presented by Lustig and Taubes. If you're not familiar with Alan Aragon or James Krieger I'd very highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their work.

Both Aragon and Krieger are "nutritionists" (By the way, just because they SAY they have degrees in nutrition doesn't mean that they actually DO have degrees). They are hardly research physicians (where both Lustig and Taubes gained their information). It would be my guess (and I have no information to back this up, but I did take a look at their blogs and they seemed very "commercial") Aragon and Krieger are likely on the payroll of the agri-business giants. Did you ever see that movie about Archer Daniels Midland? The one with Matt Damon. It is actually a true story of incredible corruption there---and they all compete to see which corp. can be more corrupt or corrupt more governmental agencies who are supposed to watch over our food supply. There is a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto (among others of the food giants). Wake up.

Your guess is incorrect. You shouldn't dismiss information before you have the information.

SanteMulberry

Aragon and Krieger have both very effectively shot down the majority of info presented by Lustig and Taubes. If you're not familiar with Alan Aragon or James Krieger I'd very highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their work.

Both Aragon and Krieger are "nutritionists" (By the way, just because they SAY they have degrees in nutrition doesn't mean that they actually DO have degrees). They are hardly research physicians (where both Lustig and Taubes gained their information). It would be my guess (and I have no information to back this up, but I did take a look at their blogs and they seemed very "commercial") Aragon and Krieger are likely on the payroll of the agri-business giants. Did you ever see that movie about Archer Daniels Midland? The one with Matt Damon. It is actually a true story of incredible corruption there---and they all compete to see which corp. can be more corrupt or corrupt more governmental agencies who are supposed to watch over our food supply. There is a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto (among others of the food giants). Wake up.

Your guess is incorrect. You shouldn't dismiss information before you have the information.

And how would you know? I read Aragon's blog "assessing" Lustig's address on Youtube (which, by the way, was given before a live audience of medical professionals). If you read Aragon's blog posting carefully, there are a couple of things which stand out. 1. He doesn't actually disagree with a number of conclusions that Lustig has reached. 2. It very much sounds like a lot of the "information" that Aragon includes comes directly from the anti-Lustig propaganda put out by Big Agra.

SanteMulberry

Aragon and Krieger have both very effectively shot down the majority of info presented by Lustig and Taubes. If you're not familiar with Alan Aragon or James Krieger I'd very highly recommend familiarizing yourself with their work.

Both Aragon and Krieger are "nutritionists" (By the way, just because they SAY they have degrees in nutrition doesn't mean that they actually DO have degrees). They are hardly research physicians (where both Lustig and Taubes gained their information). It would be my guess (and I have no information to back this up, but I did take a look at their blogs and they seemed very "commercial") Aragon and Krieger are likely on the payroll of the agri-business giants. Did you ever see that movie about Archer Daniels Midland? The one with Matt Damon. It is actually a true story of incredible corruption there---and they all compete to see which corp. can be more corrupt or corrupt more governmental agencies who are supposed to watch over our food supply. There is a revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto (among others of the food giants). Wake up.

p.s. In any case, are these nutritionists doing research of their own? Richard Johnson, M.D. (he is the chief of the renal research division at the U. of Colorado medical center) confirms what Lustig and Taubes have been saying. When evaluating information for and against something, it is very important to understand the "Cui Bono" element. Always ask, "Who benefits if I believe this information?" Richard Johnson gets the funding for his research from NIH and other governmental groups. As such, it is very doubtful that he would gain anything from attacking Big Agra---who would pay him to do so? The "commies"?

On the other hand, if people buy Aragon and Kreiger's hatchet jobs, Big Agra would be very grateful for the benefit that they gain if people buy the character defamation that Aragon and Kreiger are peddling. Cui Bono?

SideSteel

EDIT: nvm, I'm not going to bother anymore. This will go nowhere.

half_moon

... **** just got real.

TheRealParisLove

My freind told me today that if you eat all organic food you will lose weight. Is this true?

Only if you are toxic from the pesticides in convention foods. For most people it doesn't make a difference in weight loss.

Lozze

I love the nutters who believe that everyone is out to kill them.

I tend to go local produce because it tastes better. It's also dirt cheap. The organism labeled stuff at the supermarket (Aus) is not as good.

meshashesha2012

I don't think I'm an Organic food snob but I do find some of the fruits/veggies take better if they are organic, expecially strawberries, peaches, and celery.

i'm the same way. i can pretty much go either way of i dont taste a difference. well that's not true, i'll go with non organic if there's no taste difference because it's cheaper :laugh:

but some thing i absolutely must have organic. tomatoes is one. non organic tomatoes are pretty much tasteless and taste like water. organic ones have an actual flavor

Pandy1962

At my age I need all the preservatives I can get so I never buy organic,

plus the only lb's I would lose would be £ financial ones

tigersword

Gary Taubes, a research physician? Wow, Taubes has exactly ZERO medical training or education. He is no kind of doctor at all, never mind a physician. He has a masters degree in journalism, and degrees in engineering and physics. He has exactly no qualifications to talk about human nutrition or biology. Please stop making things up, you just make yourself look more and more ignorant, especially when you level completely baseless accusations against anything that discredits your opinion.

Who says Lustig and Taubes actually have any education or knowledge of nutrition? Lustig isn't a dietician, he's a pediatrician. Maybe you never noticed, but children are not adults, and a child's physiology and an adult's physiology are completely different. Taubes has no medical training at all. Alan Aragon has advanced degrees in human nutrition. I'd say he's infinitely more qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that you have to try and claim that his education is fake completely kills your entire argument. You have absolutely no defense, so you resort to personal attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622544

There's 3 studies that completely discredit Lustig's and Taubes' position on sugar and fructose.

Hearts_2015

Challenging the 'Conventional' Wisdom: One Farmer's Take On The Stanford Organic Food Study

Much has already been written about the recent study from Stanford University claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious or healthy than non-organic foods. In short, the researchers concluded that an apple is an apple and all lettuce was created equal -- no matter the food's provenance, how it was chemically treated in the field, or how many miles it traveled to reach your table.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the study.

As a farmer and a father, I strongly disagree, and I think the Stanford study sends a terrible message to U.S. consumers.

Here's why:

The word "conventional" may sound relatively harmless when used to describe the food we eat, but the reality is our nation's "conventional" factory farms use far more pesticides, herbicides and fungicides than most consumers realize when shopping for produce or preparing a family meal.

Granted, conventionally grown foods have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's minimum safety threshold when it comes to the amount of traceable pesticides. But the Stanford report fails to appropriately consider the compounding effects that multiple chemicals ingested through different foods may have on our long-term wellbeing, or the effects they have on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and small children.

As a parent of two young boys, I for one don't think the minimum requirements are anywhere near sufficient. Consider the chemical chlorpyrifos, an insect-killing organophosphate that has been approved for use in "conventional" American agriculture for more than four decades.

In 2009, more than one million pounds of this pesticide were used in California alone. Yet according to researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, minimal chlorpyrifos exposure, even at very low levels consistent with standard agriculture use, has been proven to cause adverse impacts on brain development in ways that interfere with academic achievement, reading and learning comprehension, and even sexual development. Not to mention the adverse impact that millions of pounds of this chemical, and hundreds of others like it, can have on the soil and watershed that supports delicate ecosystems for hundreds of miles or more. San Francisco Bay? Puget Sound? Gulf of Mexico? These chemicals eventually end up there, many times with devastating effects.

Agricultural chemicals are designed to kill things. They are toxic substances that come with skull-and-crossbones on the containers. Farm workers commonly wear futuristic-looking "hazmat" suits as protection when they spray the fields. In some cases, farmers, workers and even pets are not allowed to enter the fields for hours after treatment.

Farmers and food producers in this country have an opportunity, and an obligation, to provide consumers incentives for making the healthiest choices possible. The debate should not just be about whether a strawberry produced at a factory farm is more or less nutritious than its organically grown equivalent. We should instead be asking: "How can we grow and provide families with the freshest, cleanest, and most flavorful, strawberries possible?"

It's something we take very seriously at Full Circle, the 400-acre organic farm I founded in Carnation, Wash. My wife and brother were there at the beginning with me, helping to sow the fields from day one. It just didn't make sense to me to expose them, our customers, our land or our community watershed to toxic chemicals in the name of yield and cost. We're about purity. Flavor. Freshness. Stewardship.

Full circle. Farm to table. Cradle to grave. These are not concepts that have much resonance in our nation's industrial food system. But in the words of food advocate and organic pioneer David Lively, "Conventional agriculture is based on a lot of non-sustainable limited-resource practices and principles, and the chickens are coming home to roost."

It doesn't take a bunch of academics to tell us that industrial farming isn't working on many levels. We need to stop debating and measuring how "un-harmful" chemical pesticides are in our food. We need to instead focus on how we can best grow and distribute fresh, pure foods that are as inviting, delicious and healthy as possible, encouraging people to eat more of them and make better overall food choices. We should be giving folks incentives to eat those apples, greens and strawberries - not more reasons to fret over and avoid them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-stout/farmer-stanford-organic-study_b_1901677.html?ref=topbar

tigersword

Yeah, sorry, but that was just a long winded fear-mongering advertisement for his farm. As soon as someone starts pushing their own agenda, then anything they say loses credibility, unless they can show the actual research to support it. I don't see any research there, just, "regular farming is bad, not like MY FARM."

SanteMulberry

I love the nutters who believe that everyone is out to kill them.

Just because some of us are concerned about our health and the purity of the food we buy is no reason to call us "nutters"---why the insult? Does that make you feel better about yourself that you can insult others on an anonymous forum?

SanteMulberry

Gary Taubes, a research physician? Wow, Taubes has exactly ZERO medical training or education. He is no kind of doctor at all, never mind a physician. He has a masters degree in journalism, and degrees in engineering and physics. He has exactly no qualifications to talk about human nutrition or biology. Please stop making things up, you just make yourself look more and more ignorant, especially when you level completely baseless accusations against anything that discredits your opinion.

Who says Lustig and Taubes actually have any education or knowledge of nutrition? Lustig isn't a dietician, he's a pediatrician. Maybe you never noticed, but children are not adults, and a child's physiology and an adult's physiology are completely different. Taubes has no medical training at all. Alan Aragon has advanced degrees in human nutrition. I'd say he's infinitely more qualified to talk about this subject. The fact that you have to try and claim that his education is fake completely kills your entire argument. You have absolutely no defense, so you resort to personal attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354959
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22723585
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622544

There's 3 studies that completely discredit Lustig's and Taubes' position on sugar and fructose.

I NEVER SAID that Gary Taubes was a research physician---I said he is a Harvard-educated PHYSICIST. But Richard Johnson, M.D. IS a research physician and he agrees with them. I suggest you read more carefully before you fire off a reply. It is good to know what you are actually trying to refute (albeit unsuccessfully).

Why the insults? Do you really think that serves your argument? I don't think you really understand how much of our government bureaucracy is people by corporate shills. Look at the roster of high level employees at the FDA for example--- many of them have come from Big Agriculture and Big Pharma (and will be going back there when they serve their time at the FDA). The moral hazard in the revolving door that goes from the big food and drug corporations and then into service in the government and then back to Big Pharma and Big Agra is sickening. Former executive director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding (who was formerly a huge advocate for vaccines) is now the head of Merck's vaccine division (at a very lucrative salary--surprise, surprise!). And on and on it goes. You need to understand that corporations are interested in one thing---profits. They don't particularly care about the public health they are charged to serve. Our government agencies such as the CDC (the Center for Disease Control), the FDA (the Food and Drug Administration) are rife with conflict of interest. If you don't believe me---investigate for yourself. Don't buy the government/corporate propaganda. Deny ignorance.

SanteMulberry

Challenging the 'Conventional' Wisdom: One Farmer's Take On The Stanford Organic Food Study

Much has already been written about the recent study from Stanford University claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious or healthy than non-organic foods. In short, the researchers concluded that an apple is an apple and all lettuce was created equal -- no matter the food's provenance, how it was chemically treated in the field, or how many miles it traveled to reach your table.

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of the study.

As a farmer and a father, I strongly disagree, and I think the Stanford study sends a terrible message to U.S. consumers.

Here's why:

The word "conventional" may sound relatively harmless when used to describe the food we eat, but the reality is our nation's "conventional" factory farms use far more pesticides, herbicides and fungicides than most consumers realize when shopping for produce or preparing a family meal.

Granted, conventionally grown foods have to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's minimum safety threshold when it comes to the amount of traceable pesticides. But the Stanford report fails to appropriately consider the compounding effects that multiple chemicals ingested through different foods may have on our long-term wellbeing, or the effects they have on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and small children.

As a parent of two young boys, I for one don't think the minimum requirements are anywhere near sufficient. Consider the chemical chlorpyrifos, an insect-killing organophosphate that has been approved for use in "conventional" American agriculture for more than four decades.

In 2009, more than one million pounds of this pesticide were used in California alone. Yet according to researchers at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, minimal chlorpyrifos exposure, even at very low levels consistent with standard agriculture use, has been proven to cause adverse impacts on brain development in ways that interfere with academic achievement, reading and learning comprehension, and even sexual development. Not to mention the adverse impact that millions of pounds of this chemical, and hundreds of others like it, can have on the soil and watershed that supports delicate ecosystems for hundreds of miles or more. San Francisco Bay? Puget Sound? Gulf of Mexico? These chemicals eventually end up there, many times with devastating effects.

Agricultural chemicals are designed to kill things. They are toxic substances that come with skull-and-crossbones on the containers. Farm workers commonly wear futuristic-looking "hazmat" suits as protection when they spray the fields. In some cases, farmers, workers and even pets are not allowed to enter the fields for hours after treatment.

Farmers and food producers in this country have an opportunity, and an obligation, to provide consumers incentives for making the healthiest choices possible. The debate should not just be about whether a strawberry produced at a factory farm is more or less nutritious than its organically grown equivalent. We should instead be asking: "How can we grow and provide families with the freshest, cleanest, and most flavorful, strawberries possible?"

It's something we take very seriously at Full Circle, the 400-acre organic farm I founded in Carnation, Wash. My wife and brother were there at the beginning with me, helping to sow the fields from day one. It just didn't make sense to me to expose them, our customers, our land or our community watershed to toxic chemicals in the name of yield and cost. We're about purity. Flavor. Freshness. Stewardship.

Full circle. Farm to table. Cradle to grave. These are not concepts that have much resonance in our nation's industrial food system. But in the words of food advocate and organic pioneer David Lively, "Conventional agriculture is based on a lot of non-sustainable limited-resource practices and principles, and the chickens are coming home to roost."

It doesn't take a bunch of academics to tell us that industrial farming isn't working on many levels. We need to stop debating and measuring how "un-harmful" chemical pesticides are in our food. We need to instead focus on how we can best grow and distribute fresh, pure foods that are as inviting, delicious and healthy as possible, encouraging people to eat more of them and make better overall food choices. We should be giving folks incentives to eat those apples, greens and strawberries - not more reasons to fret over and avoid them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-stout/farmer-stanford-organic-study_b_1901677.html?ref=topbar

I salute you, sir, for trying to make a difference. Many people prefer to be told what "their" opinions should be and resent anyone who tries to challenge those "opinions". Many, many health professionals are belatedly trying to raise the alarm over the quality and purity of our foods. But most of the populace has been so brain-washed by the big corporations who speak through the big media corporations (most people are quite unaware that the vast majority of mainstream media outlets are controlled by only FIVE huge conglomerates). Their methods for persuading the populace include, character defamation, calling knowledgeable people "nutters" or "nut cases" using dishonest "science" to "prove" their case, etc. And then, they turn around and accuse other honest and knowledgeable people of the same thing that they themselves are doing. I gain nothing AT ALL from any health interest, but because I am concerned about the world that my children and grandchildren will inherit, I am called a "nutter". Pathetic. :brokenheart:

SanteMulberry

If you people who are getting in a lather because someone is suggesting that our food supply is not always healthful and pure would just look at history a bit, you might not be so smug about your assertions. Ever hear of the movement toward greater food purity at the beginning of the last century? The people who were raising the alarm over deplorable food storage conditions in those days were labeled "muckrakers" by the "robber barons" who owned the big agricultural concerns too:

From Wikipedia: "Before World War I, the term "muckraker" was used to refer in a general sense to a writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports to perform an auditing or watchdog function. In contemporary use, the term describes either a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change." Lustig, Johnson, and especially Taubes are part of this tradition. Instead of attacking them, you should be thanking them.