Can organic food help you lose weight?

[/quote]
[/quote]
"Ugh. People in Asia and India have been refining sugar cane into sugar syrup since at least 3500 BC. Granulated sugar has been made since about 500 BC. It came to Europe in the Middle Ages, became common in the 1600's, and was considered an essential staple for regular people from the 1700's on. Long before the 20th century.

As for the article you posted, all that proves is don't inject pesticides directly into your fat cells. How does that change when you factor in the toxin filtering and eliminating ability of the liver, that the experiment conducted completely ignored?"
[/quote]
[/quote]

Sugar was not made in any quantity until modern times. Before that, it was NOT plentiful or cheap. Obesity was a rich man's disease until sugar did become plentiful and cheap. For most of the world's history, the vast majority of mankind had the problem of not being able to obtain the nutrients of a healthy diet or sufficient calories. Are you seriously implying that we should deliberately take in toxic substances (and remember we don't know what "safe" limits are as it has not been tested) and then hope our liver and kidneys are able to filter them out??

Be my guest, play roulette with your health and your life---but please don't try to convince others that they should do the same. Do you work for the sugar industry? How about the pesticide industry? The conventional food industry? I can assure you that I have absolutely no monetary interest in advocating that people be cognizant of the threat that I sincerely believe that pesticides pose to our health.

I have seen enough research and observed that much of our population lacks the health that their grandparents and great grandparents enjoyed because they had access to wholesome food that was NOT tainted by chemicals. In just one parameter of health---that of fertility---we are failing miserably. Many physicians are alarmed over the drop in testosterone levels in young men as well as fertility due to low sperm counts. If sperm counts in young men fall at the same rate that they have been falling in the past three decades, few young men will be capable of fathering children, in decades to come. Researchers believe that this drop in testosterone levels and sperm counts is due to "zenoestrogens" in the environment---primarily due to pollution from pesticides and pharmaceuticals that enter the water systems and food chain.

Why does this thread keep coming back?!!? WHY??! AAHGGGGG JRWORJFOEJRFOREJ

You're welcome not to read it.

"Ugh. People in Asia and India have been refining sugar cane into sugar syrup since at least 3500 BC. Granulated sugar has been made since about 500 BC. It came to Europe in the Middle Ages, became common in the 1600's, and was considered an essential staple for regular people from the 1700's on. Long before the 20th century.

As for the article you posted, all that proves is don't inject pesticides directly into your fat cells. How does that change when you factor in the toxin filtering and eliminating ability of the liver, that the experiment conducted completely ignored?"

Sugar was not made in any quantity until modern times. Before that, it was NOT plentiful or cheap. Obesity was a rich man's disease until sugar did become plentiful and cheap. For most of the world's history, the vast majority of mankind had the problem of not being able to obtain the nutrients of a healthy diet or sufficient calories. Are you seriously implying that we should deliberately take in toxic substances (and remember we don't know what "safe" limits are as it has not been tested) and then hope our liver and kidneys are able to filter them out??

Be my guest, play roulette with your health and your life---but please don't try to convince others that they should do the same. Do you work for the sugar industry? How about the pesticide industry? The conventional food industry? I can assure you that I have absolutely no monetary interest in advocating that people be cognizant of the threat that I sincerely believe that pesticides pose to our health.

I have seen enough research and observed that much of our population lacks the health that their grandparents and great grandparents enjoyed because they had access to wholesome food that was NOT tainted by chemicals. In just one parameter of health---that of fertility---we are failing miserably. Many physicians are alarmed over the drop in testosterone levels in young men as well as fertility due to low sperm counts. If sperm counts in young men fall at the same rate that they have been falling in the past three decades, few young men will be capable of fathering children, in decades to come. Researchers believe that this drop in testosterone levels and sperm counts is due to "zenoestrogens" in the environment---primarily due to pollution from pesticides and pharmaceuticals that enter the water systems and food chain.

Ugh. As an historian, I'm begging you, please read a history book. SUGAR DROVE THE WORLD ECONOMY before oil took over in the late 1800's. Sugar has been affordable to everyone starting in the 1500's, became popular in the 1600's, and has been considered essential since the 1700's. Sugar was traded in tremendous quantities throughout the world in the 1600's and 1700's, building up the sugar industry, the rum industry, and a large part of the slave industry. The sugar trade led to massive innovation and technological advancement in machinery in order to keep up with increased demand and improve profit margins similar to the oil industry from the late 1800's through today.

Islands like Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados, and other islands in the Caribbean were essentially sugar processing plants, and without sugar, none of those islands would be settled today. By 1750, sugar was the most popular commodity traded in Europe, even more common than grains (sugar made up over 20% of the total world economy.)

As for obesity being a "rich man's disease," that's true. However, it had nothing to do with sugar. See, from the 1500's through the 1800's, most people had to work hard manual labor all day, every day in order to make enough money to survive. People worked from sunrise to sunset, 7 days a week, and were lucky to eat 1 meal per day, usually lunch. Get up at dawn, work for several hours, eat, work the rest of the day, go home and sleep. The rich didn't have to do that. They had those poor people to work for them, so they got to lounge around their houses, eating several meals a day (breakfast was a meal invented by the rich, who had the luxury of being able to sit down and eat soon after waking, rather than working.) So the dynamic that you find, poor people ate less, and were moving more, while rich people were eating more, while moving less. And if that sounds like basic weight loss advice, it's because it is. It's also the simple truth of the matter. A banker, sitting in an office all day, will be far more likely to be obese than a farmer, working in the fields all day. Calories in, calories out.

Most of your research seems to come from biased sources, you might want to branch out a little bit.

As for the fertility question, I'd love to see some actual cited studies on that, as there are much better explanations than pesticides. Things like the increase in women in the work force, economic downturns, overpopulation laws, and birth control availability all have an impact on birth rates and fertility rates.

Organic produce may not be any healthier, but it would still be a good idea to stop by at one of those organic supermarkets or whatever you call them in the US and have a look around.

I don't eat meat, so when I look for something to put on my bread in a regular supermarket that pretty much leaves me with cheese, peanut butter, cheese, sweet things, cheese and more cheese. (I'm Dutch. It's what we do).

When I went to an organic shop I found all these awesome vegetable spreads that are quite low in calories but taste amazing. Also, they had loads of fake meats that taste pretty good and have all the proteins but a third of the calories in meat.
I've also had a look at the labels. Most of the products use different (and more importantly fewer) sweeteners than the ones in the supermarket and fewer additives.

While it is more expensive, it tastes better (at least to me) and gives me some variation.
If you'd told me ten years ago I would one day eat red beet horseradish spread and love it, I would probably have laughed at you but I usually can't wait for lunch when that's what I brought with me to work that day.

Tiger'sword,

You said: "Most of your research seems to come from biased sources, you might want to branch out a little bit. "

You wouldn't begin to understand the amount of research I have read on the topic. Try reading up a bit yourself. Start with the subject of "Xenoestrogens" and the number of chemicals in our environment that act like them in the human body. There is a great deal of university research (largely unbiased, except for that which is sponsored by Big Agra, Big Chem and Big Pharma) on the subject. I know a number of people in the field who are doing research on the health effects of these chemicals. It is very serious research and it is often frightening in its implications. You may be an historian, but you are not medically literate.

Here, I'll help you start your education: From Wikipedia---"The potential ecological and human health impact of xenoestrogens is currently under extensive study by many scientific institutions and independent researchers. The word xenoestrogen is derived from the Greek words ξένο (xeno, meaning foreign), οἶστρος (estrus, meaning sexual desire) and γόνο (gene, meaning "to generate") and literally means "foreign estrogen". Xenoestrogens are also called "environmental hormones" or "EDC" (Endocrine Disrupting Compounds). Most scientists that study xenoestrogens, including The Endocrine Society, regard them as serious environmental hazards that have hormone disruptive effects on both wildlife and humans...."

Tiger'sword,

You said: "Most of your research seems to come from biased sources, you might want to branch out a little bit. "

You wouldn't begin to understand the amount of research I have read on the topic. Try reading up a bit yourself. Start with the subject of "Xenoestrogens" and the number of chemicals in our environment that act like them in the human body. There is a great deal of university research (largely unbiased, except for that which is sponsored by Big Agra, Big Chem and Big Pharma) on the subject. I know a number of people in the field who are doing research on the health effects of these chemicals. It is very serious research and it is often frightening in its implications. You may be an historian, but you are not medically literate.

Here, I'll help you start your education: From Wikipedia---"The potential ecological and human health impact of xenoestrogens is currently under extensive study by many scientific institutions and independent researchers. The word xenoestrogen is derived from the Greek words ξένο (xeno, meaning foreign), οἶστρος (estrus, meaning sexual desire) and γόνο (gene, meaning "to generate") and literally means "foreign estrogen". Xenoestrogens are also called "environmental hormones" or "EDC" (Endocrine Disrupting Compounds). Most scientists that study xenoestrogens, including The Endocrine Society, regard them as serious environmental hazards that have hormone disruptive effects on both wildlife and humans...."

Exactly what do xenoestrogens have to do with SUGAR? I've been talking to you about sugar, not the pesticides. If you're going to question someone's literacy, you should make sure that your reading comprehension is actually correct first. Then again, I guess it's just easier to insult someone by talking about a completely unrelated topic, rather than actually read what has been written. Also, if you're going to question someone's "medical literacy," how do you expect to maintain any sense of credibility when you quote wikipedia? Wikipedia is never a valid academic source. But then, if you WANT to quote Wikipedia, from the VERY SAME ARTICLE, "The results do not support with certainty the view that environmental estrogens contribute to an increase in male reproductive disorders, neither do they provide sufficient grounds to reject such a hypothesis." So, there's no conclusive evidence whether they are actually dangerous or not. More research needed. You're picking and choosing only the portions and citations that fit your preconceived notions, which is very much the opposite of how actual science works. If you're going to question someone's scientific literacy, you may want to start with your own.

Tiger'sword,

You said: "As for the fertility question, I'd love to see some actual cited studies on that, as there are much better explanations than pesticides. Things like the increase in women in the work force, economic downturns, overpopulation laws, and birth control availability all have an impact on birth rates and fertility rates. "

You didn't read my post very well---I said SPERM COUNTS ARE FALLING. That has nothing to do with "women in the work force, economic downturns, overpopulation laws, or birth control availability". From an article in the U.K Guardian, reproductive epidemiologist, Michael Joffe is quoted,""My guess would be that it's more likely to be something in the food than something in the air or water," You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/08/thisweekssciencequestions3

There's tons of scientific literature on falling sperm counts on the web---Google is your friend.

From the very first paragraph of that article: "The researchers were quick to point out that the study might not be typical of the whole population, but it once again sparked fears of ever-decreasing male fertility and is not so far from the truth." Not typical of the whole population. In other words, meaningless. Also, from the same article, "There was no decline in America or Finland in parallel studies." Meaning that other studies couldn't reproduce the result. Again, you're cherry picking only what you want to hear, and ignoring everything that disagrees with your biased viewpoint.

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

You're friend is retarded. Eating 3000 calories of fried chicken will make you gain the same about of weight as 3000 calories of free range chicken, eggs, and fruit.

There is a way of putting things - this foregoing seems to be the typical MFP way. The friend is merely mistaken and/or misinformed - why do you have to pronounce judgements in such insulting terms? please?

Compared calorie for calorie there's no difference, but your health and probably your weight will definitely benefit from eating organic.

If there's no difference in energy value then how can there be a weight related benefit?

Compared calorie for calorie there's no difference, but your health and probably your weight will definitely benefit from eating organic.

If there's no difference in energy value then how can there be a weight related benefit?

Organic foods are not sweetened with high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. HFCS in particular is being increasingly linked to disproportionate weight gain in genetically susceptible individuals. So that's one way in which no difference in energy value translates to weight-related benefit, if you're among the sensitive population.

Organic foods are not fed on antibiotic-enriched feeds. The purpose of antibiotics in animal feed is not to treat illness, it is to promote weight gain. Livestock farmers have known for years that antibiotics are linked to weight gain, but for some reason we missed for a long time that this might also be related to disproportionate weight gain in humans. I don't know that anyone yet has directly linked antibiotic residues in meat to weight gain in humans -- most of the work being done links direct human antibiotic consumption (when you take antibiotics to treat an illness) to weight gain (and most of that research is right now being done in children -- the link between children, antibiotics and unhealthy weight gain) -- but it wouldn't surprise me if that has an effect.

Organic foods contain much lower levels of estrogen mimics -- chemicals that mimic the action of estrogen (a hormone) in the body, which can also contribute to disproportionate (disproportionate to calories consumed) weight gain. rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) given to dairy cows is one such example. There's no direct evidence that human exposure to rBGH through dairy products correlates with disproportionate weight gain, however, the reason there's no such evidence is that this has not actually been studied. I started buying organic milk when the FDA decided to allow rBGH in dairy cows, because they really have not studied the long-term safety of it, and I did not want them experimenting on my then-18-month-old-daughter (she's 12 now). Another estrogen mimic that is ubiquitous in our food supply is BPA (bis-phenol A), which is used in the linings of canned products, most notably soft drinks but also canned fruits, meats and vegetables. This one, you can't avoid by going organic -- it's in the organic canned foods, too -- and it's in some plastics. So, going organic doesn't avoid everything, but if you quit drinking canned sodas and start eating organic meat and dairy, you lose a lot of those exposures.

That's how, even on a calorie-equivalent basis, "going organic" could have weight-related benefits.

Compared calorie for calorie there's no difference, but your health and probably your weight will definitely benefit from eating organic.

If there's no difference in energy value then how can there be a weight related benefit?

Organic foods are not sweetened with high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. HFCS in particular is being increasingly linked to disproportionate weight gain in genetically susceptible individuals. So that's one way in which no difference in energy value translates to weight-related benefit, if you're among the sensitive population.

Organic foods are not fed on antibiotic-enriched feeds. The purpose of antibiotics in animal feed is not to treat illness, it is to promote weight gain. Livestock farmers have known for years that antibiotics are linked to weight gain, but for some reason we missed for a long time that this might also be related to disproportionate weight gain in humans. I don't know that anyone yet has directly linked antibiotic residues in meat to weight gain in humans -- most of the work being done links direct human antibiotic consumption (when you take antibiotics to treat an illness) to weight gain (and most of that research is right now being done in children -- the link between children, antibiotics and unhealthy weight gain) -- but it wouldn't surprise me if that has an effect.

Organic foods contain much lower levels of estrogen mimics -- chemicals that mimic the action of estrogen (a hormone) in the body, which can also contribute to disproportionate (disproportionate to calories consumed) weight gain. rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) given to dairy cows is one such example. There's no direct evidence that human exposure to rBGH through dairy products correlates with disproportionate weight gain, however, the reason there's no such evidence is that this has not actually been studied. I started buying organic milk when the FDA decided to allow rBGH in dairy cows, because they really have not studied the long-term safety of it, and I did not want them experimenting on my then-18-month-old-daughter (she's 12 now). Another estrogen mimic that is ubiquitous in our food supply is BPA (bis-phenol A), which is used in the linings of canned products, most notably soft drinks but also canned fruits, meats and vegetables. This one, you can't avoid by going organic -- it's in the organic canned foods, too -- and it's in some plastics. So, going organic doesn't avoid everything, but if you quit drinking canned sodas and start eating organic meat and dairy, you lose a lot of those exposures.

That's how, even on a calorie-equivalent basis, "going organic" could have weight-related benefits.

Wait, what? Are you saying farmers inject non-organic vegetables with high fructose corn syrup? Are you confusing the term "organic" with the term "processed?" Also, saying "part of the sensitive population" is a HUGE caveat. You could substitute just about any food for high fructose corn syrup and make the same statement and have it be equally valid.

Tiger's word,

You said: "Exactly what do xenoestrogens have to do with SUGAR? I've been talking to you about sugar, not the pesticides."

My response: Check the topic of the thread. But pesticides are not the only problem. A number of us are concerned about the adulteration of the food supply with man-made chemicals by giant corporations that care a LOT more about profits than the health of their customers. Sugar is just another chemical additive. Just because it has been around for a while does not mean that it is wholesome or safe to consume in large quantities. HFCS is an even worse product than is sugar in that it is put in a wide variety of "foods" because it is very cheap to produce and appears to have addictive properties for the human population that is consuming it. It also seems to have some very serious affects on the liver of test subjects. Take a cruise through the grocery store and check ingredient labels. You will find a shocking number of foods that have HFCS as an ingredient. We have an epidemic of endocrine disorders of one type or another and it is highly unlikely that it is as simple as eating too much/exercising too little. I will ask you one question: Why do you think that the mega-rich eat only organic food?


Tiger's word said: "If you're going to question someone's literacy, you should make sure that your reading comprehension is actually correct first. Then again, I guess it's just easier to insult someone by talking about a completely unrelated topic, rather than actually read what has been written."

My response: It was pertinent to the wider application of the OP. The unifying theme is the tainting of the food supply by enormous food conglomerates and the affect of that contamination on weight (and, by extension, health).

Tiger's word said: "Also, if you're going to question someone's "medical literacy," how do you expect to maintain any sense of credibility when you quote wikipedia? Wikipedia is never a valid academic source."

My response: I wasn't aware that we were having an "academic" discussion. In any case, I'm not an anti-Wikipedia snob--a great many of the articles are written by professionals in the fields on which they are writing. In any case, I grabbed the first few articles on the subject that I saw. I was merely trying to interest you in informing your opinion. Recall that I also suggested that you Google some articles for yourself.

Tiger's word said: "But then, if you WANT to quote Wikipedia, from the VERY SAME ARTICLE, 'The results do not support with certainty the view that environmental estrogens contribute to an increase in male reproductive disorders, neither do they provide sufficient grounds to reject such a hypothesis.' So, there's no conclusive evidence whether they are actually dangerous or not. More research needed."

My response: That is the way any scientific research paper ends---"More research is needed." That does not mean that there is not something there---but that more research is needed to try to verify the results of previous studies. There is definitely more research needed but the evidence is beginning to stack up on the side of the assertion that man-made chemicals are causing disease in the human population of the planet.

Tiger's word said: "You're picking and choosing only the portions and citations that fit your preconceived notions..."

My response: No, I had no "pre-conceived notions". I investigated for myself---instead of assuming that "...all is well" The medical establishment has been worried about the effects of man-made chemicals for some time---and now, the research data is affirming that they had reason to be worried.

Organic food has been scientifically proven to offer no measurable benefit to ones diet..

however it will have a significant impact on your wallet.

i can provide sources if you wish, or you can take my word for it.

your friend has unfortunately fallen victim to the cloud of misinformation surrounding organic food.

LOL So Correct Here ^^^

There have been studies and numerous articles in recent weeks stating no Benefits to eating or Buying Organic except decreased funds in your bank account

None at all hey? What about the benefit of better paid workers, less exploitation of the workers, less sponging the agri land from other local habitats... If pesticide ridden non organic produce is so good how come workers on non organic farms are head to toe in protective gear (if they are lucky) and then go home to where they have mini organic gardens? and what about non organic banana farms in South America. Planes drop their chemicals from above over farms and farmers wearing no protective gear. These farmers are reproducing a large quantity of babies with whom are severely disfigured. This is all ok though because it does not affect us directly?

It is more expensive for the dieter who is trying to lose weight but still eats a tonne! We spend the same on organic food as we did on other food as we are more aware of what we eat and how much. Whether the nutrients are more so or not... it tastes divine and makes me feel better to know I'm not supporting awful working environments that sponge the local people and wildlife.

Calories are calories, organic or not.