Health food not so healthy???

xiamjackie

I used to think any type of cold-cut sub was good for you, just because it wasn't smothered in bbq or ranch and it had veggies on it lol

dahkneeka

This tread has taken a turn!


Fruit yogurt would be mine. Thank god for plain greek yougurt!

bcattoes

And don't forget the leaky gut syndrome.

You mean gut permeability, and it's a real thing regulated by zonulin. (I have it... it's linked to something called "celiac disease")

Note... this wonder of syndromes has not a doggone thing to do with what you ate... but what genes your parents gifted you with.

Your last sentence was my point, not whether the condition exists.

bcattoes

1 - starch grains and wheat/corn/hard shelled grains are VERY different
2 - it absolutely does NOT contradict that they were PRIMARILY meat eaters. It simply implies they also ate starches. As you pointed out, it was all about calories in vs calories expended hunting or gathering their food. Big, fatty animals still provided the best bang for their buck, even if they also had starches in their diets.

The broad spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 June 29; 101(26): 9551–9555.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC470712/?tool=pubmed


Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf


65% veg certainly sounds like they were primarily meat eaters and i already posted the first link have a read

that's outdated research my friend. almost 20 years old.

Why would 20 year old research by any less valid than 2 year old research?

debbieyoung96343405

SO MUCH FOR THE MYTHS
CONSIDER THE FACTS ON CARRAGEENAN FOR A CHANGE

Q. What is Carrageenan??

A. Carrageenan is a naturally-occurring seaweed extract. It is widely used in foods and non-foods to improve texture and stability. Common uses include meat and poultry, dairy products, canned pet food, cosmetics and toothpaste.
Q. Why the controversy?
A. Self-appointed consumer watchdogs have produced numerous web pages filled with words condemning carrageenan as an unsafe food additive for human consumption. However, in 70+ years of carrageenan being used in processed foods, not a single substantiated claim of an acute or chronic disease has been reported as arising from carrageenan consumption. On a more science-based footing, food regulatory agencies in the US, the EU, and in the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) repeatedly review and continue to approve carrageenan as a safe food additive.
Q. What has led up to this misrepresentation of the safety of an important food stabilizer, gelling agent and thickener?
A. It clearly has to be attributed to the research of Dr. Joanne Tobacman, an Associate Prof at the University of Illinois in Chicago. She and a group of molecular biologists have accused carrageenan of being a potential inflammatory agent as a conclusion from laboratory experiments with cells of the digestive tract. It requires a lot of unproven assumptions to even suggest that consumption of carrageenan in the human diet causes inflammatory diseases of the digestive tract. The objectivity of the Chicago research is also flawed by the fact that Dr Tobacman has tried to have carrageenan declared an unsafe food additive on weak technical arguments that she broadcast widely a decade before the University of Chicago research began.

Q. What brings poligeenan into a discussion of carrageenan?
A. Poligeenan (“degraded carrageenan” in pre-1988 scientific and regulatory publications) is a possible carcinogen to humans; carrageenan is not. The only relationship between carrageenan and poligeenan is that the former is the starting material to make the latter. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan and cannot be produced in the digestive tract from carrageenan-containing foods.
Q. What are the differences between poligeenan and carrageenan?
A. The production process for poligeenan requires treating carrageenan with strong acid at high temp (about that of boiling water) for 6 hours or more. These severe processing conditions convert the long chains of carrageenan to much shorter ones: ten to one hundred times shorter. In scientific terms the molecular weight of poligeenan is 10,000 to 20,000; whereas that of carrageenan is 200,000 to 800,000. Concern has been raised about the amount of material in carrageenan with molecular weight less than 50,000. The actual amount (well under 1%) cannot even be detected accurately with current technology. Certainly it presents no threat to human health.
Q. What is the importance of these molecular weight differences?
A. Poligeenan contains a fraction of material low enough in molecular weight that it can penetrate the walls of the digestive tract and enter the blood stream. The molecular weight of carrageenan is high enough that this penetration is impossible. Animal feeding studies starting in the 1960s have demonstrated that once the low molecular weight fraction of poligeenan enters the blood stream in large enough amounts, pre-cancerous lesions begin to form. These lesions are not observed in animals fed with a food containing carrageenan.



Q. Does carrageenan get absorbed in the digestive track?
A. Carrageenan passes through the digestive system intact, much like food fiber. In fact, carrageenan is a combination of soluble and insoluble nutritional fiber, though its use level in foods is so low as not to be a significant source of fiber in the diet.
Summary
Carrageenan has been proven completely safe for consumption. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan.
Closing Remarks
The consumer watchdogs with their blogs and websites would do far more service to consumers by researching their sources and present only what can be substantiated by good science. Unfortunately we are in an era of media frenzy that rewards controversy.
Additional information available:
On June 11th, 2008, Dr. Joanne Tobacman petitioned the FDA to revoke the current regulations permitting use of carrageenan as a food additive.
On June 11th, 2012 the FDA denied her petition, categorically addressing and ultimately dismissing all of her claims; their rebuttal supported by the results of several in-depth, scientific studies.
If you would like to read the full petition and FDA response, they can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FDA-2008-P-0347

judydelo1

Penn & Teller did a funny bit on B*ll**** where they chopped several fruits in half then told people one half was organic and the other half was non-organic. The vast majority of the people said the organic half (keep in mind again, this was from the same fruit) tasted better. Organic is marketing hype. Feel free to pay double for your veggies though if you really feel the need.

I prefer not to eat pesticides with my meals. I also prefer to have my veggies grown in nutrient rich soil.

debbieyoung96343405

SO MUCH FOR THE MYTHS
CONSIDER THE FACTS ON CARRAGEENAN FOR A CHANGE

Q. What is Carrageenan??

A. Carrageenan is a naturally-occurring seaweed extract. It is widely used in foods and non-foods to improve texture and stability. Common uses include meat and poultry, dairy products, canned pet food, cosmetics and toothpaste.
Q. Why the controversy?
A. Self-appointed consumer watchdogs have produced numerous web pages filled with words condemning carrageenan as an unsafe food additive for human consumption. However, in 70+ years of carrageenan being used in processed foods, not a single substantiated claim of an acute or chronic disease has been reported as arising from carrageenan consumption. On a more science-based footing, food regulatory agencies in the US, the EU, and in the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) repeatedly review and continue to approve carrageenan as a safe food additive.
Q. What has led up to this misrepresentation of the safety of an important food stabilizer, gelling agent and thickener?
A. It clearly has to be attributed to the research of Dr. Joanne Tobacman, an Associate Prof at the University of Illinois in Chicago. She and a group of molecular biologists have accused carrageenan of being a potential inflammatory agent as a conclusion from laboratory experiments with cells of the digestive tract. It requires a lot of unproven assumptions to even suggest that consumption of carrageenan in the human diet causes inflammatory diseases of the digestive tract. The objectivity of the Chicago research is also flawed by the fact that Dr Tobacman has tried to have carrageenan declared an unsafe food additive on weak technical arguments that she broadcast widely a decade before the University of Chicago research began.

Q. What brings poligeenan into a discussion of carrageenan?
A. Poligeenan (“degraded carrageenan” in pre-1988 scientific and regulatory publications) is a possible carcinogen to humans; carrageenan is not. The only relationship between carrageenan and poligeenan is that the former is the starting material to make the latter. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan and cannot be produced in the digestive tract from carrageenan-containing foods.
Q. What are the differences between poligeenan and carrageenan?
A. The production process for poligeenan requires treating carrageenan with strong acid at high temp (about that of boiling water) for 6 hours or more. These severe processing conditions convert the long chains of carrageenan to much shorter ones: ten to one hundred times shorter. In scientific terms the molecular weight of poligeenan is 10,000 to 20,000; whereas that of carrageenan is 200,000 to 800,000. Concern has been raised about the amount of material in carrageenan with molecular weight less than 50,000. The actual amount (well under 1%) cannot even be detected accurately with current technology. Certainly it presents no threat to human health.
Q. What is the importance of these molecular weight differences?
A. Poligeenan contains a fraction of material low enough in molecular weight that it can penetrate the walls of the digestive tract and enter the blood stream. The molecular weight of carrageenan is high enough that this penetration is impossible. Animal feeding studies starting in the 1960s have demonstrated that once the low molecular weight fraction of poligeenan enters the blood stream in large enough amounts, pre-cancerous lesions begin to form. These lesions are not observed in animals fed with a food containing carrageenan.



Q. Does carrageenan get absorbed in the digestive track?
A. Carrageenan passes through the digestive system intact, much like food fiber. In fact, carrageenan is a combination of soluble and insoluble nutritional fiber, though its use level in foods is so low as not to be a significant source of fiber in the diet.
Summary
Carrageenan has been proven completely safe for consumption. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan.
Closing Remarks
The consumer watchdogs with their blogs and websites would do far more service to consumers by researching their sources and present only what can be substantiated by good science. Unfortunately we are in an era of media frenzy that rewards controversy.
Additional information available:
On June 11th, 2008, Dr. Joanne Tobacman petitioned the FDA to revoke the current regulations permitting use of carrageenan as a food additive.
On June 11th, 2012 the FDA denied her petition, categorically addressing and ultimately dismissing all of her claims; their rebuttal supported by the results of several in-depth, scientific studies.
If you would like to read the full petition and FDA response, they can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FDA-2008-P-0347

NutellaAddict

Let's just not eat and drink "skinny water" all day long. Good LORD :sick:

elianyluzcandoa

we are getting killed by hormones, greenhouse effect and so many other stuff than for just eating baby carrots, I´ve read that it's not they are tiny but the're cutted in that shape from the normal carrots

Sweets1954

After being diagnosed with diabetes I started checking labels on most foods. I found that almost all granola bars/protein bars/ "health" bars contain about the same amount of sugar as a candy bar. They are nothing more than candy disguised as "healthy." The same is true of "fruit snacks", I use to feed them to my children when they were little thinking that it was a sneaky way to get them some fruit but found they contained massive amounts of sugar as well. Many of the "diet" dinners you find in the freezer section are loaded with sodium. My daughter and I stopped buying many processed foods opting for fresh fruits and veggies and making our own meals. My daughter has moved out now but I have continued with my husband, including making our own "frozen" meals. I never liked the taste of any of the artificial sweeteners and don't like the idea of all the chemicals so I avoid things with any "fake" sugar.

judydelo1

After being diagnosed with diabetes I started checking labels on most foods. I found that almost all granola bars/protein bars/ "health" bars contain about the same amount of sugar as a candy bar. They are nothing more than candy disguised as "healthy." The same is true of "fruit snacks", I use to feed them to my children when they were little thinking that it was a sneaky way to get them some fruit but found they contained massive amounts of sugar as well. Many of the "diet" dinners you find in the freezer section are loaded with sodium. My daughter and I stopped buying many processed foods opting for fresh fruits and veggies and making our own meals. My daughter has moved out now but I have continued with my husband, including making our own "frozen" meals. I never liked the taste of any of the artificial sweeteners and don't like the idea of all the chemicals so I avoid things with any "fake" sugar.

Good for you for taking charge of your health! Checking labels is so important.

tuckervc

bump

judydelo1

Snopes can be a wealth of helpful information.

http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/carrots.asp

Baby carrots are cut from larger "imperfect" carrots. They are not 'bred". They are rinsed in a chlorine solution, then rinsed again with clean water. Do you not wash your veggies before eating them?

I agree that it can be a wealth of information ~ when correct. This is also from snopes:

"Baby carrots are not now made from larger imperfect carrots.........The carrots now used to make "baby cut carrots" have been specifcally bred and contain more sugar than their standard sized because this extra sweetness appeals more to children....."

Yes I was my veggies, not in chlorine though ~ which is a practice that is outlawed in several countries. Just because something is allowed here doesn't mean its a healthy thing ~ look at HFCS.

Sorry, I don't believe HFCS is evil either. Too much of any sweetener can be bad for you, but HFCS alone is not the devil.

Everything you eat has been "bred" in one way or another. Meats, plants, whatever. All genetically manipulated to suit our needs, be it size, flavor, or weather hardiness. One of my favorites, the Honeycrisp apple, was "bred" by the University of Minnesota.

You have hybrids and genetically modified confused. Plant breeders cross breed (think planned pollination) compatible types of plants in an effort to create a plant with the best features of both parents. These are called hybrids and many of our modern plants are the results of these crosses. Genetically modified is a whole different deal.

"Hybrids should not be confused with genetically modified organisms or (GMOs) which, according to About.com's Biotech Guide, can be any plant, animal or microorganism which have been genetically altered using molecular genetics techniques such as gene cloning and protein engineering. Plants like corn that has the pesticide Bt engineered into its genetic makeup to make it resistant to certain pests are GMO crops." http://gardening.about.com/od/vegetable1/f/Heirlooms.htm

edited to add source

seena511

i cannot believe this hasn't been reported yet.

*insert that gif of the gazelle munching on popcorn...i don't have it :-( *

NaBroski

Penn & Teller did a funny bit on B*ll**** where they chopped several fruits in half then told people one half was organic and the other half was non-organic. The vast majority of the people said the organic half (keep in mind again, this was from the same fruit) tasted better. Organic is marketing hype. Feel free to pay double for your veggies though if you really feel the need.

I prefer not to eat pesticides with my meals. I also prefer to have my veggies grown in nutrient rich soil.

Why do you think organic produce doesn't use pesticides?


With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

judydelo1

Penn & Teller did a funny bit on B*ll**** where they chopped several fruits in half then told people one half was organic and the other half was non-organic. The vast majority of the people said the organic half (keep in mind again, this was from the same fruit) tasted better. Organic is marketing hype. Feel free to pay double for your veggies though if you really feel the need.

I prefer not to eat pesticides with my meals. I also prefer to have my veggies grown in nutrient rich soil.

Why do you think organic produce doesn't use pesticides?


With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

That's interesting about rotenone-pyrethrin I'll have to look into that because that is news to me. Thanks for the heads up.
We grow huge organic gardens and raspberries and we have never used ANY organic or synthetic pesticides. When we don't have it growing in our own garden or greenhouse, then I buy organic produce from a privately owned health food store that buys local, organic produce as much as possible. I'll have to ask them if they use any organic pesticides.

I do know that in the article linked below, "the President's Cancer Panel released a report urging Americans to eat organic food, among other strategies, to reduce their exposure to harmful chemicals."

http://www.rodale.com/health-benefits-organic?page=0,1

The way I look at is this. Big agri-business knows that consumers are demanding organic produce. They only offer organics now because they know they have to. Some states have laxer laws than others regarding organic farming requirements for certification. So I've been reluctant to buy organic produce from the big box stores because I've been concerned their organic produce is farmed using the least stringent standards . . . because after all they aren't offering organics because they necessarily feel passionate about it . . . they're going to offer it the cheapest way possible. On the other hand, I feel a local organic farm or small organic farm is growing organically because they feel passionately about clean food.

etoiles_argentees

About Organic Produce

Organic produce has become increasingly popular in recent years, as consumers have grown more health conscious and environmentally aware. Many stores and supermarkets now have large sections devoted to organic fruits and vegetables.
WHAT MAKES PRODUCE "ORGANIC"?

Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.
So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.

Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).

ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH

When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES

Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.
Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic produce.

It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make such a purchase. Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals. It's a point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.

There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make. Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.

* * * * * * *

A formatted MS Word version of this document may be downloaded at:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organics.doc

The data describing the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic compounds are referenced in Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265.

Many thanks go to the Organic Crop Improvement Association for their cooperation in this study. The OCIA has chapters in AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD, UT, and WI. Thanks are also extended to the California Certified Organic Farmers, the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, and Oregon Tilth Certified Organic. (The appropriate information has not yet been obtained from the Natural Organic Farmers Association (NOFA), but it is almost certain that all facts stated here apply to their products as well.) The following state Departments of Agriculture have also been very helpful: AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, HI, IA, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, ND, OK, SC, TN, VA, and WA. States with no laws governing organic products include Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

NaBroski

"the President's Cancer Panel released a report urging Americans to eat organic food

This makes absolutely no sense, since organic produce contains more mutagens than conventionally-raised produced. (Not that the levels of either are any cause for concern).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

etoiles_argentees

Just reposting one of my previous posts, people. Food is not a cure all.

I'm sorry food scares you.

From The Way To Cook, written by Julia Child and published in 1989.

"Because of media hype and woefully inadequate information, too many people nowadays are deathly afraid of their food, and what does fear of food do to the digestive system? ... I, for one, would much rather swoon over a few thin slices of prime beefsteak, or one small serving of chocolate mousse, or a sliver of foie gras than indulge to the full on such nonentities as fat-free gelatin puddings."

"The pleasures of the table — that lovely old-fashioned phrase — depict food as an art form, as a delightful part of civilized life. In spite of food fads, fitness programs, and health concerns, we must never lose sight of a beautifully conceived meal."


and....

“Life itself is the proper binge.” ― Julia Child

luckyjuls

Yogurt. Too much sugar in most brands.

This. Recently read that a lot of them have more sugar than a small serving of Lucky Charms. Also when I compared a Yoplait Whips Peaches and Cream to the same flavor full fat ice cream, they also had the same amount of sugar (Yoplait actually edged it out slightly).

Another food I went crazy on at first was gluten free food but they have so many additives and encourage hunger.