Chemicals: It's in everything, including "natural" food
Replies
-
My problem is adding chemicals excessively or when we don't need them. Like adding high fructose corn syrup and sugar...why do we need both? I believe in altering our food when it creates a better product...like cooking tomatoes to produce more lycopene. I just don't understand the processing of food when another product that is just slightly less processed is just as good.
High fructose corn syrup is a signal of economic waste and is a product of government subsidies for corn farmers. So many farmers are growing corn because the subsidies have made it profitable, so the excess gets turned into HFCS and that's why it is of such prevalent use in the U.S. instead of sugar.
Exactly-this is when I begin to have a problem with chemicals added to my food- when it is about money rather than improving food quality or safety.0 -
I stumbled upon an article yesterday at work and it was really good at explanation (in layman's terms) at how chemicals are "viewed" by the general population.With this rise in lifestyle commentary, misconceptions about what chemicals are and what they do have increased and
spread. So much so, that the facts about chemicals seem surprising and counter-intuitive. Do people know that nothing can be ‘chemical free’? How many know that ‘E-numbers’ simply denote approval for food use and include some essential vitamins? Did you know that your body functions in exactly the same way whether you follow a ‘detox’ regime or just a normal
diet? Or that the idea of the‘cocktail effect’ in relation to alcohol is an urban myth? When it comes to chemicals, there are so
many misconceptions that people are often scared and anxious when they needn’t be,and complacent when they shouldn’t
be.
So why is there such a disconnection between perception and reality? It seems partly to be the result of intensive merchandising of ‘alternative’ products, lifestyle ideas and campaigns that play on misconceptions about chemicals and
about how the body works. It is also notable that lifestyle commentators are excluded from science-related briefings,
and have few opportunities to make relevant scientific contacts. So, something needs to be done by the scientists
in a way that is genuinely helpful to people writing quick copy for a lifestyle audience.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/5/MakingSenseofChemicalStories_July08-Reprint.pdf
It's a pretty good read for those trying to figure out if they are eating too many "chemicals" in their food and that's why they have a weight problem.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm going to read the report, but the bit I bolded struck me from your quote. Are lifestyle commentators truly excluded, or are they simply not interested in the science? Because I'd have to say it seems like the latter to me...0 -
I stumbled upon an article yesterday at work and it was really good at explanation (in layman's terms) at how chemicals are "viewed" by the general population.With this rise in lifestyle commentary, misconceptions about what chemicals are and what they do have increased and
spread. So much so, that the facts about chemicals seem surprising and counter-intuitive. Do people know that nothing can be ‘chemical free’? How many know that ‘E-numbers’ simply denote approval for food use and include some essential vitamins? Did you know that your body functions in exactly the same way whether you follow a ‘detox’ regime or just a normal
diet? Or that the idea of the‘cocktail effect’ in relation to alcohol is an urban myth? When it comes to chemicals, there are so
many misconceptions that people are often scared and anxious when they needn’t be,and complacent when they shouldn’t
be.
So why is there such a disconnection between perception and reality? It seems partly to be the result of intensive merchandising of ‘alternative’ products, lifestyle ideas and campaigns that play on misconceptions about chemicals and
about how the body works. It is also notable that lifestyle commentators are excluded from science-related briefings,
and have few opportunities to make relevant scientific contacts. So, something needs to be done by the scientists
in a way that is genuinely helpful to people writing quick copy for a lifestyle audience.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/5/MakingSenseofChemicalStories_July08-Reprint.pdf
It's a pretty good read for those trying to figure out if they are eating too many "chemicals" in their food and that's why they have a weight problem.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm going to read the report, but the bit I bolded struck me from your quote. Are lifestyle commentators truly excluded, or are they simply not interested in the science? Because I'd have to say it seems like the latter to me...
A little of both I would believe. When someone makes wild claims in public nobody bats an eye. When someone makes unsubstantiated claims at a scientific symposium people get irritated that you're wasting their time. Lifestyle commentators tend to buy their representatives, like Dr. Oz.0 -
My problem is adding chemicals excessively or when we don't need them. Like adding high fructose corn syrup and sugar...why do we need both? I believe in altering our food when it creates a better product...like cooking tomatoes to produce more lycopene. I just don't understand the processing of food when another product that is just slightly less processed is just as good.
Do you defy the laws of physics when you cook tomatoes?
ETA: this is just one example of the lack of scientific understanding the OP is calling out
ETA: not to mention that the health claims around lycopene are wildly over stated. There's only 1 FDA highly limited health claim around prostate cancer prevention and 1 preliminary study around ischemic stroke prevention.
Let me guess...you heard of lycopene on a Heinz commercial0 -
To sort of put a few things about chemicals in perspective, my wife is going through an Organic Chemistry 2 class. Her, being a native Korean speaker, uses me as a guinea pig when reading her lab reports. She has successfully extracted and purified caffeine from steeped tea bags, b-carotene from carrot juice, and a whole host of other direct chemical extractions from standard household products.
The interaction between chemicals with solubility, and polarity and proton balance, etc. really makes you appreciate the necessities of your body and how sometimes, something like eating a raspberry vs. raspberry ketones can change in purpose drastically, or not at all. With better living through chemistry you can get better or worse reaction with your body, depending on what you use or ingest.
Additionally, the fact that you have to go all the way up to an Organic Chemistry 2 class to even fathom some of the chemical reactions makes it extremely simple for some charlatan, or snake oil peddler, or fear monger, or rumormill to say anything they want about nearly any product, food or supplement and have people get sucked in to believing it.
TL;DR - Nature IS Chemistry
Interesting read...thank you
0 -
this is like opening pandora's box, at least it was for me and it stressed me out as I slowly realized there was no way to eat truly healthy without growing it yourself. Unfortunately, if you buy from the commercial food supply, the nutrition if that food is terrible and highly toxic. There is NO way around it. Even organic doesn't mean much (although it's still better than non-organic).0
-
this is like opening pandora's box, at least it was for me and it stressed me out as I slowly realized there was no way to eat truly healthy without growing it yourself. Unfortunately, if you buy from the commercial food supply, the nutrition if that food is terrible and highly toxic. There is NO way around it. Even organic doesn't mean much (although it's still better than non-organic).
Really? No way? It sounds like you might be experiencing a little orthorexia.0 -
Have you heard about that horrible Dihydrogen Monoxide stuff?0
-
My problem is adding chemicals excessively or when we don't need them. Like adding high fructose corn syrup and sugar...why do we need both? I believe in altering our food when it creates a better product...like cooking tomatoes to produce more lycopene. I just don't understand the processing of food when another product that is just slightly less processed is just as good.
Do you defy the laws of physics when you cook tomatoes?
ETA: this is just one example of the lack of scientific understanding the OP is calling out
ETA: not to mention that the health claims around lycopene are wildly over stated. There's only 1 FDA highly limited health claim around prostate cancer prevention and 1 preliminary study around ischemic stroke prevention.
Let me guess...you heard of lycopene on a Heinz commercial
Wow, for starters, you're rude. There are plenty of legit scientific studies about cooking vs raw food. Look up the Cornell study for starters. I also read conflicting studies and the conclusion is basically there are benefits from raw and benefits from cooked food. Why do you assume everyone is an idiot who can't find "scientific studies." I didn't get it from a Heinz commercial, I got it from reading for weeks about raw vs cooked because I was deciding whether to start consuming mass amounts of raw vegetables. Jesus, some of you guys are really high and mighty and think you are the end all be all to everything. Thanks for the vote of confidence that us plebeians can do a little research before making a decision about our health and food choices.0 -
it doesn't stress me out now as there isn't much I can do about it without growing my own food and raising my own livestock. I'm just saying, when I was trying to eat better throughout my weight loss journey, i went through different stages of learning what was bad and good but it turns out everything is bad in the commercial food supply. That is a FACT. So I basically follow the IIFYM type of lifestyle, which basically ends up being pseudo-paleo without the strict grass-fed/organic/etc part of it(just can't afford it).0
-
My problem is adding chemicals excessively or when we don't need them. Like adding high fructose corn syrup and sugar...why do we need both? I believe in altering our food when it creates a better product...like cooking tomatoes to produce more lycopene. I just don't understand the processing of food when another product that is just slightly less processed is just as good.
Do you defy the laws of physics when you cook tomatoes?
ETA: this is just one example of the lack of scientific understanding the OP is calling out
ETA: not to mention that the health claims around lycopene are wildly over stated. There's only 1 FDA highly limited health claim around prostate cancer prevention and 1 preliminary study around ischemic stroke prevention.
Let me guess...you heard of lycopene on a Heinz commercial
Wow, for starters, you're rude. There are plenty of legit scientific studies about cooking vs raw food. Look up the Cornell study for starters. I also read conflicting studies and the conclusion is basically there are benefits from raw and benefits from cooked food. Why do you assume everyone is an idiot who can't find "scientific studies." I didn't get it from a Heinz commercial, I got it from reading for weeks about raw vs cooked because I was deciding whether to start consuming mass amounts of raw vegetables. Jesus, some of you guys are really high and mighty and think you are the end all be all to everything. Thanks for the vote of confidence that us plebeians can do a little research before making a decision about our health and food choices.
You do not produce more lycopene when you cook a tomato. Lycopene synthesis is not as simple as cooking a tomato. Cooking with oil will help extract lycopene and increase its bioavailability but will not produce more of it. Using such imprecise language is further evidence that you, and many other people, do not have a working understanding of basic science.
If you think that assessment is rude, I'm fine with that. But this is a problem we should work on in the states, where we lag behind most other developed nations. It's why clever marketing has made orthorexics of perfectly normal people. It's why we have so many chemophobes,0 -
Not to mention cryptosporidium. Of course if one ingests either, they can claim it as a natural "detoxifier".:laugh:I would, have have, drank fresh water from a river, that had bugs on it's surface and was running fast.. you're right.. it's not always perfect.. but i have a brain and i know how to use it.
to each thier own.
Apparently you've never had giardia...
To which I say "lucky you!" I aint fun.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just had someone call off from drinking fast running mountain snow melt water at 12,000ft! Bugs be everywhere.0 -
great article It better articulates what I have believed forever
thanks for sharing 0 -
My problem is adding chemicals excessively or when we don't need them. Like adding high fructose corn syrup and sugar...why do we need both? I believe in altering our food when it creates a better product...like cooking tomatoes to produce more lycopene. I just don't understand the processing of food when another product that is just slightly less processed is just as good.
Do you defy the laws of physics when you cook tomatoes?
ETA: this is just one example of the lack of scientific understanding the OP is calling out
ETA: not to mention that the health claims around lycopene are wildly over stated. There's only 1 FDA highly limited health claim around prostate cancer prevention and 1 preliminary study around ischemic stroke prevention.
Let me guess...you heard of lycopene on a Heinz commercial
Wow, for starters, you're rude. There are plenty of legit scientific studies about cooking vs raw food. Look up the Cornell study for starters. I also read conflicting studies and the conclusion is basically there are benefits from raw and benefits from cooked food. Why do you assume everyone is an idiot who can't find "scientific studies." I didn't get it from a Heinz commercial, I got it from reading for weeks about raw vs cooked because I was deciding whether to start consuming mass amounts of raw vegetables. Jesus, some of you guys are really high and mighty and think you are the end all be all to everything. Thanks for the vote of confidence that us plebeians can do a little research before making a decision about our health and food choices.
You do not produce more lycopene when you cook a tomato. Lycopene synthesis is not as simple as cooking a tomato. Cooking with oil will help extract lycopene and increase its bioavailability but will not produce more of it. Using such imprecise language is further evidence that you, and many other people, do not have a working understanding of basic science.
If you think that assessment is rude, I'm fine with that. But this is a problem we should work on in the states, where we lag behind most other developed nations. It's why clever marketing has made orthorexics of perfectly normal people. It's why we have so many chemophobes,
OH! OH!
Lycopene from tomato juice was one of the extractions my wife did! You can not create more lycopene by cooking or not cooking a tomato. To produce more lycopene through cooking you would have to include additional chemicals that convert other chemicals to lycopene on a hot plate. It's possible to synthesize lycopene, but not with the specific chemicals within a tomato. Lycopene is litterally the red pigment in a tomato. Here, have the experiment:
Isolation of Lycopene from Tomato Paste using Column Chromatography:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jaltig/Lycopene.pdf0 -
Not to mention cryptosporidium. Of course if one ingests either, they can claim it as a natural "detoxifier".:laugh:I would, have have, drank fresh water from a river, that had bugs on it's surface and was running fast.. you're right.. it's not always perfect.. but i have a brain and i know how to use it.
to each thier own.
Apparently you've never had giardia...
To which I say "lucky you!" I aint fun.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just had someone call off from drinking fast running mountain snow melt water at 12,000ft! Bugs be everywhere.
The city my parents live in (in BC) finally started treating their drinking water a few years ago. The population was in an uproar about it because they liked their "fresh mountain spring water" and are very upset that they will have chlorine in the water and "they will get cancer from showering in it" (no word of a lie I heard someone say this - and laughed because they do go to the puplic swimming pool .....) The area is in ranching country and if these people could only see what gets into the streams around the area.... it is simply smart to treat the water you drink, you cannot see the bugs that will make you sick0 -
OH! OH!
Lycopene from tomato juice was one of the extractions my wife did! You can not create more lycopene by cooking or not cooking a tomato. To produce more lycopene through cooking you would have to include additional chemicals that convert other chemicals to lycopene on a hot plate. It's possible to synthesize lycopene, but not with the specific chemicals within a tomato. Lycopene is litterally the red pigment in a tomato. Here, have the experiment:
Isolation of Lycopene from Tomato Paste using Column Chromatography:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jaltig/Lycopene.pdf
*sighs* Thank you. You understand me.
Best of luck with Orgo 2. I didn't enjoy it much, though if I had to do it over again (without 18 additional credit hours of coursework to compete with it), I'm sure it would be a lot more fun.0 -
Not to mention cryptosporidium. Of course if one ingests either, they can claim it as a natural "detoxifier".:laugh:I would, have have, drank fresh water from a river, that had bugs on it's surface and was running fast.. you're right.. it's not always perfect.. but i have a brain and i know how to use it.
to each thier own.
Apparently you've never had giardia...
To which I say "lucky you!" I aint fun.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just had someone call off from drinking fast running mountain snow melt water at 12,000ft! Bugs be everywhere.
The city my parents live in (in BC) finally started treating their drinking water a few years ago. The population was in an uproar about it because they liked their "fresh mountain spring water" and are very upset that they will have chlorine in the water and "they will get cancer from showering in it" (no word of a lie I heard someone say this - and laughed because they do go to the puplic swimming pool .....) The area is in ranching country and if these people could only see what gets into the streams around the area.... it is simply smart to treat the water you drink, you cannot see the bugs that will make you sick
I'm not sure of the rules in Canadaland, but where I"m at they're required to provide an annual water contaminate report. Putting out a contaminate report with the projected contaminate levels after chloramination (they won't do straight chlorine except for a month every 3-5 years to kill resistant strains) may do some good in quelling the hysteria.0 -
Snake and Jellyfish venoms are sometimes fatal to humans yet they're 100% natural, the same with toxin produced by Clostridium Botulinum.
What matters to me personally is not whether my food is 'natural' but whether it contains anything harmful. I'm not going to avoid food that contains Ascorbic Acid and Cyanocobalamin simply because their mouthful names sound like 'chemicals'.
If you have ever been hospitalized for Typhoid Fever (I have), you'll begin to appreciate the role of disinfecting chemicals in our water. Sure, tap water might taste a bit funny, but it beats getting sick from Salmonella or Hepatitis A.0 -
Not to mention cryptosporidium. Of course if one ingests either, they can claim it as a natural "detoxifier".:laugh:I would, have have, drank fresh water from a river, that had bugs on it's surface and was running fast.. you're right.. it's not always perfect.. but i have a brain and i know how to use it.
to each thier own.
Apparently you've never had giardia...
To which I say "lucky you!" I aint fun.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Just had someone call off from drinking fast running mountain snow melt water at 12,000ft! Bugs be everywhere.
The city my parents live in (in BC) finally started treating their drinking water a few years ago. The population was in an uproar about it because they liked their "fresh mountain spring water" and are very upset that they will have chlorine in the water and "they will get cancer from showering in it" (no word of a lie I heard someone say this - and laughed because they do go to the puplic swimming pool .....) The area is in ranching country and if these people could only see what gets into the streams around the area.... it is simply smart to treat the water you drink, you cannot see the bugs that will make you sick
I'm not sure of the rules in Canadaland, but where I"m at they're required to provide an annual water contaminate report. Putting out a contaminate report with the projected contaminate levels after chloramination (they won't do straight chlorine except for a month every 3-5 years to kill resistant strains) may do some good in quelling the hysteria.
Not sure of the rules either although I am pretty sure there is something like that available if you look for it. But, in my experience the large majority of people here in this area aren't interested in doing the research - especially if doing the research will refute their beliefs. (not just about food or chemicals but anything really). On the flip side of that though you can probably find equal amounts of research to support both sides of most arguments these days lol
Taking Hydrology though was a real eye opener when we covered contaminants and pollution (not just man-made pollution) and health regulations etc of water 0 -
Thanks for posting this. It is an excellent source of information. I knew a good bit of it already, but it was good to see it all pulled together. I highly recommend reading it!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions