Do you drink fruit juices but not artificial sweeteners?
Replies
-
it's pretty simple... man combining naturally found chemicals to make new chemicals that aren't found in nature. thus, "unnatural" or "synthetic"
Ok so man is natural and all the chemicals combined are natural but you call the result unnatural. If man is natural than why do you consider the actions of man to be unnatural. The ant is natural but do you consider the actions of the ant to be unnatural? Why are we setting this distinction for man? The new chemical is simply the result of our work in the same way that the anthill is the result of the ant's work. Do you consider anthills to be unnatural?
Because referring to everything in the universe as "natural" is a meaningless distinction.
"Natural" is generally used to refer to things that are found in nature, as opposed to "unnatural" or "artificial" things that are things not found in nature but instead created by man.
I know how it is generally used. I am disagreeing with it. The phrase"...not found in nature but instead created by man." makes no sense if you count man as part of nature.0 -
No, I don't but...
This whole thread is just a load of WELL ACTULLY bull and I TOLD YOU SO crap.
Do what makes you feel good.
Neither fruit juice nor sweeteners make me food good so I don't drink them. Beer on the other hand.... xD
What makes it crap?0 -
Umm no. Man was created by nature, ergo... anything we create is also natural. Or do you believe that God created man and that makes us unnatural?
Why would the fact that man was created by nature make everything he creates "natural"? Man sometimes manipulates natural processes to obtain a different outcome. The manipulation of the natural process is what makes the outcome unnatural, not wether the man performing the manipulation had a natural origin or not.0 -
Umm no. Man was created by nature, ergo... anything we create is also natural. Or do you believe that God created man and that makes us unnatural?
Why would the fact that man was created by nature make everything he creates "natural"? Man sometimes manipulates natural processes to obtain a different outcome. The manipulation of the natural process is what makes the outcome unnatural, not wether the man performing the manipulation had a natural origin or not.
Ok so you are saying that beehives and anthills are not natural. So it is sounds to me like something being unnatural isn't that big of a deal anymore.0 -
Umm no. Man was created by nature, ergo... anything we create is also natural. Or do you believe that God created man and that makes us unnatural?
Why would the fact that man was created by nature make everything he creates "natural"? Man sometimes manipulates natural processes to obtain a different outcome. The manipulation of the natural process is what makes the outcome unnatural, not wether the man performing the manipulation had a natural origin or not.
Bonobos and chimps use sharpened sticks to hunt and to extract insects from trees. Sea otters smash clams against rocks on their stomachs to open them. These animals are all manipulating nature to their benefit. When we do it on a molecular level we are somehow unnatural?? Are you defining nature by level of intelligence? Thousands of years from now when our descendants look back on our "primitive" technology I doubt they will describe it as unnatural.0 -
it's pretty simple... man combining naturally found chemicals to make new chemicals that aren't found in nature. thus, "unnatural" or "synthetic"
Ok so man is natural and all the chemicals combined are natural but you call the result unnatural. If man is natural than why do you consider the actions of man to be unnatural. The ant is natural but do you consider the actions of the ant to be unnatural? Why are we setting this distinction for man? The new chemical is simply the result of our work in the same way that the anthill is the result of the ant's work. Do you consider anthills to be unnatural?
Because referring to everything in the universe as "natural" is a meaningless distinction.
"Natural" is generally used to refer to things that are found in nature, as opposed to "unnatural" or "artificial" things that are things not found in nature but instead created by man.
I know how it is generally used. I am disagreeing with it. The phrase"...not found in nature but instead created by man." makes no sense if you count man as part of nature.
You're disagreeing with the definition, not the actual meaning or intent as used by people. You're saying their opinion is less valid because you intentionally and knowingly interpret a word differently from the way they meant it.0 -
Umm no. Man was created by nature, ergo... anything we create is also natural. Or do you believe that God created man and that makes us unnatural?
Why would the fact that man was created by nature make everything he creates "natural"? Man sometimes manipulates natural processes to obtain a different outcome. The manipulation of the natural process is what makes the outcome unnatural, not wether the man performing the manipulation had a natural origin or not.
Bonobos and chimps use sharpened sticks to hunt and to extract insects from trees. Sea otters smash clams against rocks on their stomachs to open them. These animals are all manipulating nature to their benefit. When we do it on a molecular level we are somehow unnatural?? Are you defining nature by level of intelligence? Thousands of years from now when our descendants look back on our "primitive" technology I doubt they will describe it as unnatural.
:huh: Wow. I can't tell if you are serious or not. But I certainly hope you are being facetious.0 -
Umm no. Man was created by nature, ergo... anything we create is also natural. Or do you believe that God created man and that makes us unnatural?
Why would the fact that man was created by nature make everything he creates "natural"? Man sometimes manipulates natural processes to obtain a different outcome. The manipulation of the natural process is what makes the outcome unnatural, not wether the man performing the manipulation had a natural origin or not.
Bonobos and chimps use sharpened sticks to hunt and to extract insects from trees. Sea otters smash clams against rocks on their stomachs to open them. These animals are all manipulating nature to their benefit. When we do it on a molecular level we are somehow unnatural?? Are you defining nature by level of intelligence? Thousands of years from now when our descendants look back on our "primitive" technology I doubt they will describe it as unnatural.
:huh: Wow. I can't tell if you are serious or not. But I certainly hope you are being facetious.
I'm being serious.0 -
I'm not a big juice drinker, but I think that I would feel healthier drinking juice than I would something with artificial sweetener. For me, it's mental. If I'm going all out to be healthy, I feel strange about eating something that someone in a labcoat concocted someplace and would prefer something from nature. Now, I'm a total hypocrite because I don't eat 100% like this always- it kinda seems impossible....but on a good day... no artificial sweeteners.
I'd simply like to have as much control as I can LOL. And an apple is an apple.... but I have no clue what splenda is.
Oh those poor people in lab coats. At some point in the past someone told somebody else that chemicals are bad for you. Scientists use chemicals. They take good hearty and nutritious food and they taint it with their evil chemicals all in an effort to make god cry.
Then others believed this because the alternative would involve learning a bit of chemistry and that sounds like a lot of hard work. Let me tell you this. If you can't pronounce it you shouldn't ingest it is not a good guide. Let me assure you that you consume things you can't pronounce every single day. Try looking up pyridoxine hydrochloride some time. I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's vitamin B6.
This one may shock you but we are natural. Our houses are every bit as natural as anthills. The things that we create are natural. Our scientists are not something separate from nature and neither is their work. They are working within the confines of nature at all times. We are chemical processes. Plants are chemical processes. Chemistry is the study of matter and we are made of matter. Plants are made of matter. I would really love it if we could just eliminate the stigmas associated chemicals and scientists. We benefit from the fruits of scientific endeavors every day.
Anti-science is the new religion.
People who have rejected traditional religion as "unbelieveable" have latched on to all sorts of non-scientific silliness because it gives them touchstones of reassurance, and those are far easier to believe in than science is to understand.
Now, I think I'll go have a coffee enema to rid myself of the toxins from the unclean food I ate yesterday.
or we just are open to other information and don't put ourselves in little boxes created by the food industries and the gov't.
for example - science will tell you that a sick person can't get better by just WANTING it and THINKING it... but then they turn right around and acknowledge the existence of the placebo effect.
there are many things science cannot yet explain, and others that it explains imperfectly. does science give us a hell of a lot of great information? yes. Is it the ONLY thing you should be open to? I don't think so. But we're all allowed to feel however we want about that.
You can certainly feel whatever you want about whatever you want. But, if what you feel goes against existing scientific knowledge, you're either an amazing revolutionary thinker, a not yet appreciated Galeleo, or you're headed in the wrong direction.
or what i believe is supported by the decades of clinical experience of holistic doctors...
From my perspective, holistic doctor is an oxymoron. For that reason, we'll never get to common ground on this (or much else I suspect).
you'd be surprised - never thought i'd agree with jonnythan or mmapags on anything either, but you'd be surprised how much we probably agree on.
i just think that you can blend science and holistic medicine. i don't think it needs to be one or the other.0 -
it's pretty simple... man combining naturally found chemicals to make new chemicals that aren't found in nature. thus, "unnatural" or "synthetic"
Ok so man is natural and all the chemicals combined are natural but you call the result unnatural. If man is natural than why do you consider the actions of man to be unnatural. The ant is natural but do you consider the actions of the ant to be unnatural? Why are we setting this distinction for man? The new chemical is simply the result of our work in the same way that the anthill is the result of the ant's work. Do you consider anthills to be unnatural?
Because referring to everything in the universe as "natural" is a meaningless distinction.
"Natural" is generally used to refer to things that are found in nature, as opposed to "unnatural" or "artificial" things that are things not found in nature but instead created by man.
I know how it is generally used. I am disagreeing with it. The phrase"...not found in nature but instead created by man." makes no sense if you count man as part of nature.
You're disagreeing with the definition, not the actual meaning or intent as used by people. You're saying their opinion is less valid because you intentionally and knowingly interpret a word differently from the way they meant it.
I am skeptical of the existence of something that is contrary to the laws of nature and I disagree with the conclusions that people draw about things based on that definition. There exists a stigma that something created in a lab must be less than that which you find in a forest or a stream or what have you. When in reality a chemical found is a lab is no different from that same chemical being found in an apple.
It is even fashionable in today's vernacular to label behaviors that you disapprove of as unnatural. I grow tired of people trying to use the monicker as a prop for an argument that has no logical basis. Which is why I would require anyone who uses the term unnatural to explain to me what they mean by it. It sounds like the definition that you use means that something being unnatural is not by itself a sufficient justification to avoid it.
I would never say someone's opinion is less valid in and of itself. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not entitled to their own facts. Now if someone makes a statement and they say "in my opinion" then we can discuss whether I agree or disagree but we can't discuss if they are right or wrong. In my opinion cake is better than pie. Now if you hate cake and love pie then we disagree but both are correct because nobody is asserting a fact that is true for anyone outside themselves. If I claim the earth is flat like a pancake and you say it is a spheroid then you would actually be right and I would be wrong regardless of my opinion making my statement invalid because it is untrue.
un·nat·u·ral
[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.0 -
it's pretty simple... man combining naturally found chemicals to make new chemicals that aren't found in nature. thus, "unnatural" or "synthetic"
Ok so man is natural and all the chemicals combined are natural but you call the result unnatural. If man is natural than why do you consider the actions of man to be unnatural. The ant is natural but do you consider the actions of the ant to be unnatural? Why are we setting this distinction for man? The new chemical is simply the result of our work in the same way that the anthill is the result of the ant's work. Do you consider anthills to be unnatural?
Because referring to everything in the universe as "natural" is a meaningless distinction.
"Natural" is generally used to refer to things that are found in nature, as opposed to "unnatural" or "artificial" things that are things not found in nature but instead created by man.
I know how it is generally used. I am disagreeing with it. The phrase"...not found in nature but instead created by man." makes no sense if you count man as part of nature.
You're disagreeing with the definition, not the actual meaning or intent as used by people. You're saying their opinion is less valid because you intentionally and knowingly interpret a word differently from the way they meant it.
I am skeptical of the existence of something that is contrary to the laws of nature and I disagree with the conclusions that people draw about things based on that definition. There exists a stigma that something created in a lab must be less than that which you find in a forest or a stream or what have you. When in reality a chemical found is a lab is no different from that same chemical being found in an apple.
It is even fashionable in today's vernacular to label behaviors that you disapprove of as unnatural. I grow tired of people trying to use the monicker as a prop for an argument that has no logical basis. Which is why I would require anyone who uses the term unnatural to explain to me what they mean by it. It sounds like the definition that you use means that something being unnatural is not by itself a sufficient justification to avoid it.
I would never say someone's opinion is less valid in and of itself. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not entitled to their own facts. Now if someone makes a statement and they say "in my opinion" then we can discuss whether I agree or disagree but we can't discuss if they are right or wrong. In my opinion cake is better than pie. Now if you hate cake and love pie then we disagree but both are correct because nobody is asserting a fact that is true for anyone outside themselves. If I claim the earth is flat like a pancake and you say it is a spheroid then you would actually be right and I would be wrong regardless of my opinion making my statement invalid because it is untrue.
un·nat·u·ral
[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
It's hard for me to read what you are saying, because you talk so above me.0 -
I'm not a big juice drinker, but I think that I would feel healthier drinking juice than I would something with artificial sweetener. For me, it's mental. If I'm going all out to be healthy, I feel strange about eating something that someone in a labcoat concocted someplace and would prefer something from nature. Now, I'm a total hypocrite because I don't eat 100% like this always- it kinda seems impossible....but on a good day... no artificial sweeteners.
I'd simply like to have as much control as I can LOL. And an apple is an apple.... but I have no clue what splenda is.
Oh those poor people in lab coats. At some point in the past someone told somebody else that chemicals are bad for you. Scientists use chemicals. They take good hearty and nutritious food and they taint it with their evil chemicals all in an effort to make god cry.
Then others believed this because the alternative would involve learning a bit of chemistry and that sounds like a lot of hard work. Let me tell you this. If you can't pronounce it you shouldn't ingest it is not a good guide. Let me assure you that you consume things you can't pronounce every single day. Try looking up pyridoxine hydrochloride some time. I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's vitamin B6.
This one may shock you but we are natural. Our houses are every bit as natural as anthills. The things that we create are natural. Our scientists are not something separate from nature and neither is their work. They are working within the confines of nature at all times. We are chemical processes. Plants are chemical processes. Chemistry is the study of matter and we are made of matter. Plants are made of matter. I would really love it if we could just eliminate the stigmas associated chemicals and scientists. We benefit from the fruits of scientific endeavors every day.
Anti-science is the new religion.
People who have rejected traditional religion as "unbelieveable" have latched on to all sorts of non-scientific silliness because it gives them touchstones of reassurance, and those are far easier to believe in than science is to understand.
Now, I think I'll go have a coffee enema to rid myself of the toxins from the unclean food I ate yesterday.
or we just are open to other information and don't put ourselves in little boxes created by the food industries and the gov't.
for example - science will tell you that a sick person can't get better by just WANTING it and THINKING it... but then they turn right around and acknowledge the existence of the placebo effect.
there are many things science cannot yet explain, and others that it explains imperfectly. does science give us a hell of a lot of great information? yes. Is it the ONLY thing you should be open to? I don't think so. But we're all allowed to feel however we want about that.
You can certainly feel whatever you want about whatever you want. But, if what you feel goes against existing scientific knowledge, you're either an amazing revolutionary thinker, a not yet appreciated Galeleo, or you're headed in the wrong direction.
or what i believe is supported by the decades of clinical experience of holistic doctors...
From my perspective, holistic doctor is an oxymoron. For that reason, we'll never get to common ground on this (or much else I suspect).
you'd be surprised - never thought i'd agree with jonnythan or mmapags on anything either, but you'd be surprised how much we probably agree on.
i just think that you can blend science and holistic medicine. i don't think it needs to be one or the other.
Is holistic medicine in the same camp as homeopathic medicine? I know there is an area of medicine that actually claims that the more diluted something is the more potent it is. No matter what you call it that is a huge load of bull right there. All that aside I have to agree that simply because you don't agree on this subject it is not enough data to draw the conclusion that you won't have any common ground on anything else. I think that is just pessimism.0 -
I'm not a big juice drinker, but I think that I would feel healthier drinking juice than I would something with artificial sweetener. For me, it's mental. If I'm going all out to be healthy, I feel strange about eating something that someone in a labcoat concocted someplace and would prefer something from nature. Now, I'm a total hypocrite because I don't eat 100% like this always- it kinda seems impossible....but on a good day... no artificial sweeteners.
I'd simply like to have as much control as I can LOL. And an apple is an apple.... but I have no clue what splenda is.
Oh those poor people in lab coats. At some point in the past someone told somebody else that chemicals are bad for you. Scientists use chemicals. They take good hearty and nutritious food and they taint it with their evil chemicals all in an effort to make god cry.
Then others believed this because the alternative would involve learning a bit of chemistry and that sounds like a lot of hard work. Let me tell you this. If you can't pronounce it you shouldn't ingest it is not a good guide. Let me assure you that you consume things you can't pronounce every single day. Try looking up pyridoxine hydrochloride some time. I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's vitamin B6.
This one may shock you but we are natural. Our houses are every bit as natural as anthills. The things that we create are natural. Our scientists are not something separate from nature and neither is their work. They are working within the confines of nature at all times. We are chemical processes. Plants are chemical processes. Chemistry is the study of matter and we are made of matter. Plants are made of matter. I would really love it if we could just eliminate the stigmas associated chemicals and scientists. We benefit from the fruits of scientific endeavors every day.
Anti-science is the new religion.
People who have rejected traditional religion as "unbelieveable" have latched on to all sorts of non-scientific silliness because it gives them touchstones of reassurance, and those are far easier to believe in than science is to understand.
Now, I think I'll go have a coffee enema to rid myself of the toxins from the unclean food I ate yesterday.
or we just are open to other information and don't put ourselves in little boxes created by the food industries and the gov't.
for example - science will tell you that a sick person can't get better by just WANTING it and THINKING it... but then they turn right around and acknowledge the existence of the placebo effect.
there are many things science cannot yet explain, and others that it explains imperfectly. does science give us a hell of a lot of great information? yes. Is it the ONLY thing you should be open to? I don't think so. But we're all allowed to feel however we want about that.
You can certainly feel whatever you want about whatever you want. But, if what you feel goes against existing scientific knowledge, you're either an amazing revolutionary thinker, a not yet appreciated Galeleo, or you're headed in the wrong direction.
or what i believe is supported by the decades of clinical experience of holistic doctors...
From my perspective, holistic doctor is an oxymoron. For that reason, we'll never get to common ground on this (or much else I suspect).
you'd be surprised - never thought i'd agree with jonnythan or mmapags on anything either, but you'd be surprised how much we probably agree on.
i just think that you can blend science and holistic medicine. i don't think it needs to be one or the other.
Is holistic medicine in the same camp as homeopathic medicine? I know there is an area of medicine that actually claims that the more diluted something is the more potent it is. No matter what you call it that is a huge load of bull right there. All that aside I have to agree that simply because you don't agree on this subject it is not enough data to draw the conclusion that you won't have any common ground on anything else. I think that is just pessimism.
No. Holistic medicine is at least a thing. Homeopathy is simply magic.0 -
I'm not a big juice drinker, but I think that I would feel healthier drinking juice than I would something with artificial sweetener. For me, it's mental. If I'm going all out to be healthy, I feel strange about eating something that someone in a labcoat concocted someplace and would prefer something from nature. Now, I'm a total hypocrite because I don't eat 100% like this always- it kinda seems impossible....but on a good day... no artificial sweeteners.
I'd simply like to have as much control as I can LOL. And an apple is an apple.... but I have no clue what splenda is.
Oh those poor people in lab coats. At some point in the past someone told somebody else that chemicals are bad for you. Scientists use chemicals. They take good hearty and nutritious food and they taint it with their evil chemicals all in an effort to make god cry.
Then others believed this because the alternative would involve learning a bit of chemistry and that sounds like a lot of hard work. Let me tell you this. If you can't pronounce it you shouldn't ingest it is not a good guide. Let me assure you that you consume things you can't pronounce every single day. Try looking up pyridoxine hydrochloride some time. I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's vitamin B6.
This one may shock you but we are natural. Our houses are every bit as natural as anthills. The things that we create are natural. Our scientists are not something separate from nature and neither is their work. They are working within the confines of nature at all times. We are chemical processes. Plants are chemical processes. Chemistry is the study of matter and we are made of matter. Plants are made of matter. I would really love it if we could just eliminate the stigmas associated chemicals and scientists. We benefit from the fruits of scientific endeavors every day.
Anti-science is the new religion.
People who have rejected traditional religion as "unbelieveable" have latched on to all sorts of non-scientific silliness because it gives them touchstones of reassurance, and those are far easier to believe in than science is to understand.
Now, I think I'll go have a coffee enema to rid myself of the toxins from the unclean food I ate yesterday.
or we just are open to other information and don't put ourselves in little boxes created by the food industries and the gov't.
for example - science will tell you that a sick person can't get better by just WANTING it and THINKING it... but then they turn right around and acknowledge the existence of the placebo effect.
there are many things science cannot yet explain, and others that it explains imperfectly. does science give us a hell of a lot of great information? yes. Is it the ONLY thing you should be open to? I don't think so. But we're all allowed to feel however we want about that.
You can certainly feel whatever you want about whatever you want. But, if what you feel goes against existing scientific knowledge, you're either an amazing revolutionary thinker, a not yet appreciated Galeleo, or you're headed in the wrong direction.
or what i believe is supported by the decades of clinical experience of holistic doctors...
From my perspective, holistic doctor is an oxymoron. For that reason, we'll never get to common ground on this (or much else I suspect).
you'd be surprised - never thought i'd agree with jonnythan or mmapags on anything either, but you'd be surprised how much we probably agree on.
i just think that you can blend science and holistic medicine. i don't think it needs to be one or the other.
Is holistic medicine in the same camp as homeopathic medicine? I know there is an area of medicine that actually claims that the more diluted something is the more potent it is. No matter what you call it that is a huge load of bull right there. All that aside I have to agree that simply because you don't agree on this subject it is not enough data to draw the conclusion that you won't have any common ground on anything else. I think that is just pessimism.
No. Holistic medicine is at least a thing. Homeopathy is simply magic.
this. i mean, if it someday turns out that homeopathy is real, then I'll be quite surprised, but at this point i pretty much consider it placebo...
holistic medicine is herbal, mental and physically based medicine that encompasses everything from chiropractors to acupuncture to herbal supplements to yoga to meditation, etc etc etc0 -
It's hard for me to read what you are saying, because you talk so above me.
I apologize for that. I will try to clarify. Basically what I am saying is that when someone is calling something unnatural in our daily conversations they are generally expressing disapproval for the thing that they are talking about. For example they will say something like, "Don't eat Splenda it is unnatural." The dictionary would tell you that unnatural would be that it is contrary to the laws of nature. I have doubt as to whether or not that is even possible.
The person I was talking to was saying that my issue is only with the definition itself and not with what the people using the word are actually trying to say and he goes on to say that I know what they mean but I am intentionally and knowingly claiming that they mean what the dictionary says about the definition of that word.
I was responding to that by saying that if you change the definition of the word to some less potent then it stops serving as an acceptable justification for the claim that we should avoid something based on the reason being it is unnatural.
I hope this is easier to understand. :happy:0 -
this. i mean, if it someday turns out that homeopathy is real, then I'll be quite surprised, but at this point i pretty much consider it placebo...
holistic medicine is herbal, mental and physically based medicine that encompasses everything from chiropractors to acupuncture to herbal supplements to yoga to meditation, etc etc etc
Oh well I can have your back on this one. I have had chiropractors fix me multiple times. I had my back thrown out in wrestling and that was fixed in two visits. I was rear ended in my car and that gave me severe whiplash. I was fixed in about 2 months. I fell off a snow mobile and went rolling down a mountain. I was fixed in only one visit on that one which surprised me. As far as herbalism goes it depends on what you are trying to do with them. I know that they can be used as sleep aids for sure. Eucalyptus can be used to help open up airways. It is used to help severe smokers get back some of their lung capacity and in some rare cases it has been employed by doctors to improve the quality of life for asthmatics. So I haven't done enough legwork to give a truly qualified perspective based on what I have seen so far it sounds like holistic medicine may just have something going for it.0 -
I don't drink juice. Or soda...
I drink water, AND COFFEE.
*Waits to be shot at for admitting to drinking coffee*0 -
this. i mean, if it someday turns out that homeopathy is real, then I'll be quite surprised, but at this point i pretty much consider it placebo...
holistic medicine is herbal, mental and physically based medicine that encompasses everything from chiropractors to acupuncture to herbal supplements to yoga to meditation, etc etc etc
Oh well I can have your back on this one. I have had chiropractors fix me multiple times. I had my back thrown out in wrestling and that was fixed in two visits. I was rear ended in my car and that gave me severe whiplash. I was fixed in about 2 months. I fell off a snow mobile and went rolling down a mountain. I was fixed in only one visit on that one which surprised me. As far as herbalism goes it depends on what you are trying to do with them. I know that they can be used as sleep aids for sure. Eucalyptus can be used to help open up airways. It is used to help severe smokers get back some of their lung capacity and in some rare cases it has been employed by doctors to improve the quality of life for asthmatics. So I haven't done enough legwork to give a truly qualified perspective based on what I have seen so far it sounds like holistic medicine may just have something going for it.
yeah man. i've done things to fix my reflux using natural herbals that PPIs and drugs never could. suffered through a chronically hoarse voice for over a year. started following an herbal regimen and it's pretty much gone away. definitely has value. but you have to be smart and do your research. with ANYTHING there are people trying to screw you and scam you, whether it's over-prescription of medication from MDs or raspberry ketones - no matter what you have to do your homework.0 -
this. i mean, if it someday turns out that homeopathy is real, then I'll be quite surprised, but at this point i pretty much consider it placebo...
holistic medicine is herbal, mental and physically based medicine that encompasses everything from chiropractors to acupuncture to herbal supplements to yoga to meditation, etc etc etc
Oh well I can have your back on this one. I have had chiropractors fix me multiple times. I had my back thrown out in wrestling and that was fixed in two visits. I was rear ended in my car and that gave me severe whiplash. I was fixed in about 2 months. I fell off a snow mobile and went rolling down a mountain. I was fixed in only one visit on that one which surprised me. As far as herbalism goes it depends on what you are trying to do with them. I know that they can be used as sleep aids for sure. Eucalyptus can be used to help open up airways. It is used to help severe smokers get back some of their lung capacity and in some rare cases it has been employed by doctors to improve the quality of life for asthmatics. So I haven't done enough legwork to give a truly qualified perspective based on what I have seen so far it sounds like holistic medicine may just have something going for it.
yeah man. i've done things to fix my reflux using natural herbals that PPIs and drugs never could. suffered through a chronically hoarse voice for over a year. started following an herbal regimen and it's pretty much gone away. definitely has value. but you have to be smart and do your research. with ANYTHING there are people trying to screw you and scam you, whether it's over-prescription of medication from MDs or raspberry ketones - no matter what you have to do your homework.
Education is key. The things that are created in labs are often extracted from something else. The reason for this is in higher concentrations you can get more potent results from things. So it stands to reason that if I ingested the thing that it was extracted from I could still get a result and if it is one of this things that the body likes to store up you could compound over time and get the same things. It would cost less and it may even work just as well. This is just speculation on my part but it could be possible.
I can see why holistic medicine will bonk heads with traditional medicine however. When you are a hammer all of your problems look like nails. If you had two practitioners from each respective school of medicine and you showed them one problem I am sure they would each pose a solution from their own school of thought. I highly doubt either of them would recommend the patient to the other because they have not trained themselves to think that way.0 -
I'm not a big juice drinker, but I think that I would feel healthier drinking juice than I would something with artificial sweetener. For me, it's mental. If I'm going all out to be healthy, I feel strange about eating something that someone in a labcoat concocted someplace and would prefer something from nature. Now, I'm a total hypocrite because I don't eat 100% like this always- it kinda seems impossible....but on a good day... no artificial sweeteners.
I'd simply like to have as much control as I can LOL. And an apple is an apple.... but I have no clue what splenda is.
Oh those poor people in lab coats. At some point in the past someone told somebody else that chemicals are bad for you. Scientists use chemicals. They take good hearty and nutritious food and they taint it with their evil chemicals all in an effort to make god cry.
Then others believed this because the alternative would involve learning a bit of chemistry and that sounds like a lot of hard work. Let me tell you this. If you can't pronounce it you shouldn't ingest it is not a good guide. Let me assure you that you consume things you can't pronounce every single day. Try looking up pyridoxine hydrochloride some time. I'll just go ahead and tell you. It's vitamin B6.
This one may shock you but we are natural. Our houses are every bit as natural as anthills. The things that we create are natural. Our scientists are not something separate from nature and neither is their work. They are working within the confines of nature at all times. We are chemical processes. Plants are chemical processes. Chemistry is the study of matter and we are made of matter. Plants are made of matter. I would really love it if we could just eliminate the stigmas associated chemicals and scientists. We benefit from the fruits of scientific endeavors every day.
"Woman. Wo-man..... WHOOOOOAAAA MAN!"
Chill out. I'm just saying that I like having the control of knowing what's in the food that I eat. Chemicals.. blah blah blah.. what "chemicals" make up an apple... I don't really care about. I'm no scientist, and not to step on your little man toes but neither are you. I'm not carrying a banner that says "God hates splenda users." I'm just saying, I like the idea of eating something that I can go pick myself and I understand the logic behind others that are against artificial sweeteners.
In a nutshell this is the chemical composition of an apple:
Alpha-Linolenic-Acid, Asparagine, D-Categin, Isoqurctrin, Hyperoside, Ferulic-Acid, Farnesene, Neoxathin, Phosphatidyl-Choline, Reynoutrin, Sinapic-Acid, Caffeic-Acid, Chlorogenic-Acid, P-Hydroxy-Benzoic-Acid, P-Coumaric-Acid, Avicularin, Lutein, Quercitin, Rutin, Ursolic-Acid, Protocatechuic-Acid, and Silver.
Now that is not an exhaustive list as there is a little bit more to it but for the most part this is what your apple is made of and this is the lion's share of things that actually make a difference in your diet. This list compiles much of the reason that we eat them.
Now I have made claims about computers in the past and had someone tell me that I am not a computer tech so I am just talking off the cuff. On that day I was able to say, "Yes, I am a computer tech." Today I wish I changed my credits around a bit and got my degree in science because it would be great if I could say that I am an actual scientist. Truth be told I am just an educated layman. I have always had an interest in science and I have taken many classes but I changed my major over to IT when I realized I would have a higher earning potential.
All that aside making fun of me and my little man toes is not going to change the actual facts. There are plenty of things that grow naturally which you can go pick yourself that will kill you. Nobody in a lab coat ever got close to it. Try eating some berries of Belladonna. You would end up with a nice mouth full of tropane alkaloids. You would lose the ability to speak and then you would die unable to call for help. They are also known as the devil berries.
I really should dedicate myself to a more full understanding of science as should we all but even with the level of knowledge that I have I can assure you that we are all natural. I actually have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of anything unnatural existing. I don't exactly understand the concept.
I'm not exactly making fun of you.. I'm making fun of how touchy you are being about the fact that I don't like the idea of "man made foods." All of your "facts" aren't really adding anything to what I am saying here. As said previously... I like having the control. I don't eat deadly berries. I like knowing what I am eating.. but I don't really care what "chemicals" make up foods that come from nature. Yes... I know that you are saying its all natural... it comes from somewhere... but I don't know what or where that is when someone in a lab coat is making it. I did not disagree with Matt's point... I just gave my perspective on why I would prefer fruit juice over artificial sweetened drinks.
I think he's saying - if I'm reading correctly - that even "man made foods" as you call them, are derived from natural sources. That nothing is ever truly man made, and that worrying about natural vs artificial is pointless.0 -
The whole angst on this forum about using artificial sweeteners IN SMALL SENSIBLE AMOUNTS - never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, you may get bladder cancer or whatever if you swallow 10 buckets of it every day for 100 years or suchlike - but the risk in having a few glasses of diet coke a week is miniscule to nil so I will happily carry on doing so.0 -
this. i mean, if it someday turns out that homeopathy is real, then I'll be quite surprised, but at this point i pretty much consider it placebo...
holistic medicine is herbal, mental and physically based medicine that encompasses everything from chiropractors to acupuncture to herbal supplements to yoga to meditation, etc etc etc
Oh well I can have your back on this one. I have had chiropractors fix me multiple times. I had my back thrown out in wrestling and that was fixed in two visits. I was rear ended in my car and that gave me severe whiplash. I was fixed in about 2 months. I fell off a snow mobile and went rolling down a mountain. I was fixed in only one visit on that one which surprised me. As far as herbalism goes it depends on what you are trying to do with them. I know that they can be used as sleep aids for sure. Eucalyptus can be used to help open up airways. It is used to help severe smokers get back some of their lung capacity and in some rare cases it has been employed by doctors to improve the quality of life for asthmatics. So I haven't done enough legwork to give a truly qualified perspective based on what I have seen so far it sounds like holistic medicine may just have something going for it.
yeah man. i've done things to fix my reflux using natural herbals that PPIs and drugs never could. suffered through a chronically hoarse voice for over a year. started following an herbal regimen and it's pretty much gone away. definitely has value. but you have to be smart and do your research. with ANYTHING there are people trying to screw you and scam you, whether it's over-prescription of medication from MDs or raspberry ketones - no matter what you have to do your homework.
Education is key. The things that are created in labs are often extracted from something else. The reason for this is in higher concentrations you can get more potent results from things. So it stands to reason that if I ingested the thing that it was extracted from I could still get a result and if it is one of this things that the body likes to store up you could compound over time and get the same things. It would cost less and it may even work just as well. This is just speculation on my part but it could be possible.
I can see why holistic medicine will bonk heads with traditional medicine however. When you are a hammer all of your problems look like nails. If you had two practitioners from each respective school of medicine and you showed them one problem I am sure they would each pose a solution from their own school of thought. I highly doubt either of them would recommend the patient to the other because they have not trained themselves to think that way.
absolutely. it's funny though, the GI doc I saw yesterday used the EXACT same hammer/nail phrase you just did, but when speaking about ENTs (because he feels they overdiagnose refux when they don't know what's wrong) so it exists within science and medicine as well
obviously people will try to diagnose based on their own training and experience. I wouldn't really expect them to do otherwise - but to take one side's argument as gospel (regardless of side) is problematic to me. you've got to be your own advocate. why else do people look for second opinions? not all doctors agree, not all scientists agree, we're learning new things all the time - learning we were wrong about things all the time. to blindly trust a scientific study or to blindly trust holistic medicine - both positions are highly flawed.
skepticism is a good trait when it comes to your own health, because no one cares about you as much as you do.0 -
I am skeptical of the existence of something that is contrary to the laws of nature and I disagree with the conclusions that people draw about things based on that definition. There exists a stigma that something created in a lab must be less than that which you find in a forest or a stream or what have you. When in reality a chemical found is a lab is no different from that same chemical being found in an apple.
It is even fashionable in today's vernacular to label behaviors that you disapprove of as unnatural. I grow tired of people trying to use the monicker as a prop for an argument that has no logical basis. Which is why I would require anyone who uses the term unnatural to explain to me what they mean by it. It sounds like the definition that you use means that something being unnatural is not by itself a sufficient justification to avoid it.
I would never say someone's opinion is less valid in and of itself. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not entitled to their own facts. Now if someone makes a statement and they say "in my opinion" then we can discuss whether I agree or disagree but we can't discuss if they are right or wrong. In my opinion cake is better than pie. Now if you hate cake and love pie then we disagree but both are correct because nobody is asserting a fact that is true for anyone outside themselves. If I claim the earth is flat like a pancake and you say it is a spheroid then you would actually be right and I would be wrong regardless of my opinion making my statement invalid because it is untrue.
un·nat·u·ral
[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the healthiness of artificial sweeteners has no bearing on your stance on natural vs unnatural.
Citric acid found in fruit is natural. Citric acid made in a lab is unnatural. That said, they are exactly the same chemical formula, and provide exactly the same taste/feel/weight.
Read your definitions over again, looking specifically at number 1 and number 5. Being made in a lab means it is contrary to the laws or course of nature. If man was not on this planet, that citric acid would not have been made. Now number 5 says "not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived..." Being made in a lab qualifies that citric acid as artificial (made or produced by humans) and contrived (deliberately created rather than arising naturally).
Arguing against the common definition of a word doesn't work any better than saying driving drunk doesn't cause accidents. No matter how many times you say it, it will never be true.
If I really wanted to nitpick, I would go so far as to say you incorrectly used the word moniker up there as well, but I would assume it's probably more acceptable in a broader context than a proper name where you live.0 -
I am skeptical of the existence of something that is contrary to the laws of nature and I disagree with the conclusions that people draw about things based on that definition. There exists a stigma that something created in a lab must be less than that which you find in a forest or a stream or what have you. When in reality a chemical found is a lab is no different from that same chemical being found in an apple.
It is even fashionable in today's vernacular to label behaviors that you disapprove of as unnatural. I grow tired of people trying to use the monicker as a prop for an argument that has no logical basis. Which is why I would require anyone who uses the term unnatural to explain to me what they mean by it. It sounds like the definition that you use means that something being unnatural is not by itself a sufficient justification to avoid it.
I would never say someone's opinion is less valid in and of itself. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not entitled to their own facts. Now if someone makes a statement and they say "in my opinion" then we can discuss whether I agree or disagree but we can't discuss if they are right or wrong. In my opinion cake is better than pie. Now if you hate cake and love pie then we disagree but both are correct because nobody is asserting a fact that is true for anyone outside themselves. If I claim the earth is flat like a pancake and you say it is a spheroid then you would actually be right and I would be wrong regardless of my opinion making my statement invalid because it is untrue.
un·nat·u·ral
[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the healthiness of artificial sweeteners has no bearing on your stance on natural vs unnatural.
Citric acid found in fruit is natural. Citric acid made in a lab is unnatural. That said, they are exactly the same chemical formula, and provide exactly the same taste/feel/weight.
Read your definitions over again, looking specifically at number 1 and number 5. Being made in a lab means it is contrary to the laws or course of nature. If man was not on this planet, that citric acid would not have been made. Now number 5 says "not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived..." Being made in a lab qualifies that citric acid as artificial (made or produced by humans) and contrived (deliberately created rather than arising naturally).
Arguing against the common definition of a word doesn't work any better than saying driving drunk doesn't cause accidents. No matter how many times you say it, it will never be true.
If I really wanted to nitpick, I would go so far as to say you incorrectly used the word moniker up there as well, but I would assume it's probably more acceptable in a broader context than a proper name where you live.
In its most literal uses the word moniker is referring to a person's nickname. I have used it to mean label. Either way I do acknowledge that I have taken some liberty here and used the word in a fashion that deviates from the dictionary definition. So we can call that a point in your favor.
What I was saying was that calling something unnatural is not a sufficient reason for avoiding it. I can't help but notice that you are still counting man as unnatural. I have already stated that if you count all of the creations of man as unnatural than it cannot be used as a justification for avoiding something.
Definition 1 was the definition we were talking about and you would have to defend the assertion that being made in a lab means "contrary to the laws and course of nature" since I am asserting that man and the lab itself are both natural.
Definition 5 is actually using unnatural in a different context. As in a director might say "Your acting is unnatural." We are talking about things in the natural world and not the mannerism of an individual.
In your own rebuttal you stated that the citric acid is identical in every way which is another way of saying indistinguishable. You have basically stated what I have been stating all along. You don't really have a way of distinguishing a natural thing from an unnatural thing in an objective sense. It would be entirely dependent upon your ability to discern its origins. If you believed it was created you would call it unnatural and if you felt it grew out of the ground you would label it as natural. Unnatural is simply a label that you apply to something arbitrarily.
Let me be clear on this since your opening seems to indicate that you did not understand what I was saying. It is likely you only read the post you quoted so you did not see the entire evolution of the conversation so it is understandable. I am only addressing the justification itself. You can still claim that artificial sweeteners are bad. What I am contesting is the statement "X is bad because it is unnatural." It does not matter what X is. In order for that statement to hold any weight the "...because it is unnatural." part would have to be a valid statement.0 -
The whole angst on this forum about using artificial sweeteners IN SMALL SENSIBLE AMOUNTS - never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, you may get bladder cancer or whatever if you swallow 10 buckets of it every day for 100 years or suchlike - but the risk in having a few glasses of diet coke a week is miniscule to nil so I will happily carry on doing so.
Sensible posts have no place in this discussion.
Reported
0 -
The whole angst on this forum about using artificial sweeteners IN SMALL SENSIBLE AMOUNTS - never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, you may get bladder cancer or whatever if you swallow 10 buckets of it every day for 100 years or suchlike - but the risk in having a few glasses of diet coke a week is miniscule to nil so I will happily carry on doing so.
Sensible posts have no place in this discussion.
Reported
I don't see this thread as being that bad. There has been some back and forth but people are making proportionate responses for the most part. The number of ad homonyms has been kept to a minimum. This has been about as good a dialogue as one can expect given that we are communicating on an open forum.0 -
The whole angst on this forum about using artificial sweeteners IN SMALL SENSIBLE AMOUNTS - never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, you may get bladder cancer or whatever if you swallow 10 buckets of it every day for 100 years or suchlike - but the risk in having a few glasses of diet coke a week is miniscule to nil so I will happily carry on doing so.
Sensible posts have no place in this discussion.
Reported
I don't see this thread as being that bad. There has been some back and forth but people are making proportionate responses for the most part. The number of ad homonyms has been kept to a minimum. This has been about as good a dialogue as one can expect given that we are communicating on an open forum.
I've certainly seen and taken part in worse.0 -
The whole angst on this forum about using artificial sweeteners IN SMALL SENSIBLE AMOUNTS - never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, you may get bladder cancer or whatever if you swallow 10 buckets of it every day for 100 years or suchlike - but the risk in having a few glasses of diet coke a week is miniscule to nil so I will happily carry on doing so.
Sensible posts have no place in this discussion.
Reported
I don't see this thread as being that bad. There has been some back and forth but people are making proportionate responses for the most part. The number of ad homonyms has been kept to a minimum. This has been about as good a dialogue as one can expect given that we are communicating on an open forum.
I've certainly seen and taken part in worse.
Yeah I think we have to lower the bar a bit when you are chatting on the internet. You will find the occasional thread where everyone is contributing in a positive way to the conversation but they just don't seem to last long. I think the Jerry Springer style of argument is just more ubiquitous.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions