Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Natural foods" vs "others"
Options
Replies
-
As I sit and eat my Reese Pieces with peanut butter in them - I noticed that the person defending "good" vs "bad" food with their opinion is getting loads of "likes" and "woo" on here.
This makes me believe that knowledge still isn't spreading. I have started to feel like people prefer "magical foods" over facts because magical foods don't need calorie counting- they would just automatically get you at the "perfect" body.
For example- any time in my family I talk to them about weight loss- first asked question is - what should I stop eating or what foods should I not consume? you notice -they don't ask if you can teach me how to measure my caloric balance so I can eat in deficit to lose weight.
It's just the "good" food "bad" food mentality- that people have been ingrained in us and it's much easier to go with it instead of re-learning everything. I, myself had a hard time accepting that "it's ok- I can even eat pizza and still lose weight if I stay in deficit" It's ok to eat pizza and still be healthy because pizza also has protein, carbs and fats.
Ah! Science. I'm so grateful to have people from all kind of mind set here - I get to learn so many new things.
You can't draw any conclusions about the use of the Woo button. When it was first rolled out, it could be used to mean either pseudo science or woo hoo, and to this day may still think it means woo hoo.8 -
I prefer to focus on individual processes and ingredients rather than all encompassing generalizations like "natural foods" or "other stuff" or "artificial chemicals." I know that bacon, a natural food, is a carcinogen. I know that man-made trans fats are demonstrably bad for human consumption and that the jury is still out on naturally occurring ones. I know that red dye #2 is banned in the US and I know why. There are food additives that are considered GRAS and those that aren't. I can look at the research and see which is which. I can find out how much is safe and how much isn't (as in the case of bacon, it takes a higher dose than I care to worry about to be trouble).
If someone tells me that a food additive isn't safe to eat and why and I can look at the research, then that's something I can respect and make my own informed decisions on. If you can tell me what it is exactly in Doritos or Cheetos that isn't safe and what it will do to me, then that's worth far more than just saying "something something Doritos aren't chicken something." Tell me why. Tell me what. Tell me by what mechanism it occurs. Tell me how much.
I refuse to live my life being afraid of the foods that I eat. I choose to avoid certain things that I know to be bad for me. That's not the same as avoiding everything that doesn't grow from the ground. It's too much.
Focus on the facts, not the feelings.29 -
nettiklive wrote: »Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
Nice try but that is not what you said that I responded to now is it?Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits.
Foods being the operative word here. I don't know of many people that consider the ingredients you listed as edible without being attached to actual food.
However, I should point out that there are health benefits to at least some of them and maybe all if I really thought about it.
ETA: I was distracted and came back to it so I see others have already addressed what I was thinking.
3 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Does anybody else REALLY want Cheetos now... or is it just me?
It's not just you.5 -
You're correct.nettiklive wrote: »...Of course the big mac guy would live longer...
It's no more ridiculous than your scenarios in which one can only choose between subsisting entirely upon "junk" food or entirely upon "healthy" food. As if there is no middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration, in which those kind of foods can easily be a part of an overall healthy, well-balanced diet. The scenario was postulated that way for precisely that reason.nettiklive wrote: »...In any case, what does this ridiculous scenario have to do with normal life where I'm assuming we aren't forced to choose between broccoli and big macs to survive?...
In exactly which post did I mention either of these 'scenarios'??
If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I've repeated several times I was only discussing the different types of foods, and NOT their place/dosage/context within a balanced diet because that was not part of the original post. Dosage and context is another discussion altogether. I'm looking at purely comparing the types of foods to each other and nothing else.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
I had some steel cut oats with almonds and blue berries and two eggs and a low sodium V8 for breakfast.
I had some grilled chicken over quinoa and peas and carrots for lunch.
I have a small individual sized bag of hot Cheetos that I'm planning to have as a snack later.
I also have an apple and some peanut butter for later as well.
For dinner tonight I'm grilling salmon and roasting asparagus and some sweet potatoes.
This is pretty much consistent with how I eat most of the time...my biometrics were bad when I was overweight...they're optimal now, despite my hot Cheetos. Pretty sure my little bag of hot Cheetos doesn't negate the rest of my day.
Ah, the middle ground. So sensible. So much easier for adherence for some. And totally in the pocket of Big Pharma and going to die young, I'm afraid. Get out of here with this balance /s15 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »well I would rather use all natural foods to bring my bio metrics into a healthy reading instead of popping meds...you cant do that with Doritos or Cheetos or or...get the picture. It does matter.
So anybody who eats Doritos or Cheetos eats NOTHING BUT Doritos and Cheetos? Do you really think most people who are making an effort to get healthy don't also eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc., maybe with Doritos and Cheetos (or whatever other food one is choosing to demonize) in moderation, within the context of an overall balanced diet?
This binary, "either/or" reasoning always puzzles me. It's as if there are only two possibilities - gorge yourself on junk food all day every day, or eat nothing but the purest, most wholesome foods at all times. As if there could be no reasonable middle ground. And assuming that if you eat so much as ONE "unhealthy" meal/snack, your entire body is poisoned, diseased and rapidly spiraling toward death.
We're talking about different things here.
Again, the OP didn't ask "is eating the occasional junk food detrimental to your health in the context of an overall balanced diet?".
The way he worded his post made it sound as if he sees no difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' foods at all and therefore they're entirely equal and it's a false dichotomy to separate them and pointless to choose one over the other.
That's an entirely different argument, and I will stand by my opinion that they are NOT equal.
Again going back to caffeine and alcohol (both natural substances mind you, but that does not make them any healthier) - can you consume both within the context of a healthy diet and experience no ill effects? Of course. Does that make either of them good for your health and completely without *some* degree of risk? No. Little is confirmed with studies, it seems to go back and forth, but the overall common sense view is they are likely to increase your risk of cancer among other diseases. The pleasure I and others derive from consuming these makes it worth it to take that risk, so be it. But I would not look down on someone who chose not to consume them at all for these reasons as being ill-informed, elitist or fear-mongering.
Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
If I conflated "high quality" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods.
I don't see why a pastry, high quality or not, is more natural than a corn chip.
Can a pastry be good or bad, flavor-wise? Yes. But so can a corn chip.
If I conflated "contains nutrients" with "natural," I would probably also decide I preferred "natural" foods. But again, there are natural foods that aren't that nutrient-rich and some "non-natural" foods that are very nutrient-rich.
So this seems to be a case of framing the issue in a way that defines a certain outcome.
You're saying you prefer foods that you find delicious and deciding everything within that category is therefore "natural." But looking at the foods you include, I don't know if I agree with your categories or what you've decided to exclude.
Err I don't "decide" that, it's just a fact. I'm picky with my food and I take the time to find out what's in them. Pastries for me don't mean the ones out in boxes at walmart, I mean either home baked or from a good bakery that does not use artificial additives. I had the experience once of getting a raspberry eclair from a nice-looking chain bakery I haven't tried before; and as soon as I bit into it I realized the unnaturally pink filling tasted like the fake raspberry-candy flavor. Clearly there were no actual raspberries involved. I've avoided that place since.
I don't claim to eat 100% natural, we eat out, my kids get treats. I'm just saying as a general rule, I try to stay away from these things because I don't see the value, not in nutrition or taste or quality. And yes I do conflate high quality with natural because I have yet to encounter a food with artificial additives that I would consider high quality (though doesnt work the other way, there ARE certainly plenty of low quality 'natural' foods).
I'm saying your decision that "artisan" or "fancy" pastry is somehow natural (like there's a pastry tree out there and it isn't the result of multiple human processes and refinements) is a category that you've decided on. It isn't self-evident. I don't consider an eclair to be a "natural" food even if there is an actual piece of fruit in it.
You don't like artificial fruit flavoring. That's understandable. I don't particularly care for it myself. But to decide that this means that there is no food value in things that have flavors you dislike seems to be mixing categories together.
We can be nourished by things we don't like. We can like things that don't nourish us. We can like things that nourish us and so on.
Taste value doesn't equal nutritional value. The health benefit difference between a "real" raspberry eclair (by your standards) and an raspberry eclair that contains some artificial flavorings could be quite minimal (obviously this is going to depend on the recipe, but the macronutrient content is likely to be quite similar and there probably won't be a lot of micronutrient difference either).
These categories -- that certain eclairs are "natural" and others aren't, that there is no value in foods with artificial additives because you don't consider them "high quality" personally, etc -- these are your categories. They're a guide for your personal food choices, but I don't know if they're really useful or relevant for anyone else's choices.28 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
If I drink milk fortified with vitamin D or eat bread baked with flour enriched with B vitamins, my body will be able to use those vitamins. If I eat yogurt that has some artificial coloring or flavor, my body will still process the calcium and protein in the yogurt. If I am able to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods all through the year due to preservation, I get the macro- and micronutrients contained in those foods.
You're approaching this as if adding certain things to a food cancels out everything else about a food and that just isn't true.
Sure; but I just don't see the point in adding artificial coloring to yogurt or whatever. What's wrong with just, you know, yogurt? Add some fruit or honey to it. You can freeze fruit and veg without artificial preservatives too.
In most cases, these things are added simply as a marketing gimmick - because it's cheaper to produce, and multicolored cereal will attract little kids more than brown cereal, and orange coloring is cheaper than real cheese. So many people's palates are spoiled since toddlerhood by the extreme amounts of salt, sugar, etc in this crap, so that corporations know people will not eat the yogurt if it's not sickeningly-sweet - and if they're trying to lose weight you load it up with aspartame instead and market it as 'no sugar added'. You get parents complaining their kids will not eat homemade mac and cheese because it doesn't taste like Kraft dinner, or chicken unless it's in the form of mcnuggets - and when parents are busy and stressed, its not a fight they want to take on. You have parents put Coke in baby bottles. And you wonder why the country has an obesity epidemic.
Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.27 -
OH OH OH BTW
People these days are allergic to so many things - could it be because they are excessively picky eaters versus when I was a kid 10 years ago sometimes we would end up eating something that fell on the floor (as long as floor "looked clean") and was within that 5 second rule.
As a kid, I've sometimes eaten mud as well and my mom didn't panic or anything at all- Just asked me to rinse my mouth with water that's it.
Do you think it's because of something or I just have a generally stronger immune system due to genetics or it's because of excessively picky eating habits of this "good" vs "bad" food ??
Also, I've noticed- people in India (developed parts and some villages) don't have any allergies at all versus here where almost every other kid has allergy to something. (I know it's a very general statement) just trying to grasp.14 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Artificial foods gross me out and I do not derive any pleasure from their consumption, so it's not worth it for me to eat them considering they provide no health benefits. I also don't get much pleasure from eating most fruit or vegetables but because I know they have important micronutrients so I eat them anyway. For pleasure, I would much rather enjoy good quality chocolate, quality bakery pastry, fresh-baked bread with good butter, good cheese, than cheese-flavored orange powder and 'chocolate' candy bars that have little relation to actual chocolate. But to each their own.
Hasty generalization
No health benefits? Zero? You can't really believe that can you?
Please enlighten me then. Exactly what health benefits are provided by artificial flavorings, artificial color, artificial sweeteners, or artificial preservatives?
If I drink milk fortified with vitamin D or eat bread baked with flour enriched with B vitamins, my body will be able to use those vitamins. If I eat yogurt that has some artificial coloring or flavor, my body will still process the calcium and protein in the yogurt. If I am able to eat vegetables, fruits, and other foods all through the year due to preservation, I get the macro- and micronutrients contained in those foods.
You're approaching this as if adding certain things to a food cancels out everything else about a food and that just isn't true.
Sure; but I just don't see the point in adding artificial coloring to yogurt or whatever. What's wrong with just, you know, yogurt? Add some fruit or honey to it. You can freeze fruit and veg without artificial preservatives too.
In most cases, these things are added simply as a marketing gimmick - because it's cheaper to produce, and multicolored cereal will attract little kids more than brown cereal, and orange coloring is cheaper than real cheese. So many people's palates are spoiled since toddlerhood by the extreme amounts of salt, sugar, etc in this crap, so that corporations know people will not eat the yogurt if it's not sickeningly-sweet - and if they're trying to lose weight you load it up with aspartame instead and market it as 'no sugar added'. You get parents complaining their kids will not eat homemade mac and cheese because it doesn't taste like Kraft dinner, or chicken unless it's in the form of mcnuggets - and when parents are busy and stressed, its not a fight they want to take on. You have parents put Coke in baby bottles. And you wonder why the country has an obesity epidemic.
Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.
You or I may not see the point in adding color to something (although studies have shown that food color does have an impact on appetite, so there's that), but that doesn't cancel out the food value the yogurt may have.
I'm sorry this topic makes you upset. It may be a good idea to stay away from conversations like this if it's going do that. I find that getting upset online isn't really worth it for my quality of life (you may differ, of course).
FYI, I haven't had Cheetos for years. I've been vegan for over a decade. This isn't a personal thing for me, it's not grounded in a desire to eat Cheetos.16 -
nettiklive wrote: »Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.
Looks like we might end with the appeal to pity fallacy.
The kids that are fortunate to get the food the need and want have parents or guardians to feed them. They don't need to worry about ingredients. The ones at risk of obesity probably just need to be outside more doing play and exercise. They do need to learn proper nutrition before adulthood but they shouldn't learn from a place of fear.22 -
nettiklive wrote: »Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.
Looks like we might end with the appeal to pity fallacy.
The kids that are fortunate to get the food the need and want have parents or guardians to feed them. They don't need to worry about ingredients. The ones at risk of obesity probably just need to be outside more doing play and exercise. They do need to learn proper nutrition before adulthood but they shouldn't learn from a place of fear.
I think the "But the Chiiiillllldreeeeeen!" appeal is a corollary to Godwin's Law.
19 -
@AnvilHead lol That is likely true especially on a nutrition and fitness website.3
-
OH OH OH BTW
People these days are allergic to so many things - could it be because they are excessively picky eaters versus when I was a kid 10 years ago sometimes we would end up eating something that fell on the floor (as long as floor "looked clean") and was within that 5 second rule.
As a kid, I've sometimes eaten mud as well and my mom didn't panic or anything at all- Just asked me to rinse my mouth with water that's it.
Do you think it's because of something or I just have a generally stronger immune system due to genetics or it's because of excessively picky eating habits of this "good" vs "bad" food ??
Also, I've noticed- people in India (developed parts and some villages) don't have any allergies at all versus here where almost every other kid has allergy to something. (I know it's a very general statement) just trying to grasp.
If by "excessively picky eaters" you mean people like nettiklive, I avoid the same things she does and I have no food allergies. Ditto for many other family members. I don't see the correlation.6 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
Clearly, the Big Mac guy will die first.
But only because the other two will end up killing him for his incredibly tasty and nutritionally superior food.
Hee hee!! 2 -
When it comes to food you have three choices:
1. sugar
2. salt
3. bacteria
Not a difficult concept folks. There is no evil conspiracy, just transportation/logistical issues from where the food is grown and where the people eat the food.9 -
Watching this thread is a prime example of food cult behavior. People who latch onto these ideas use food restrictions as a way of virtue or status signalling, establishing their "purity" over those who haven't been enlightened with "the truth". The rules are as arbitrary religious prohibitions on pork or meat on fridays. The only difference is the scriptures are netflix documentaries or food gurus who use threats of unspecified health harms instead of spiritual damnation.
Here's a fun read on the topic: http://www.bodyforwife.com/10-commandments-of-dietary-zealotry/21 -
nettiklive wrote: »Sorry I'm done with this topic, it just makes me upset. Especially for the kids who don't know any better. Enjoy your Cheetos.
Looks like we might end with the appeal to pity fallacy.
The kids that are fortunate to get the food the need and want have parents or guardians to feed them. They don't need to worry about ingredients. The ones at risk of obesity probably just need to be outside more doing play and exercise. They do need to learn proper nutrition before adulthood but they shouldn't learn from a place of fear.
I think the "But the Chiiiillllldreeeeeen!" appeal is a corollary to Godwin's Law.
Its funny that you mention Godwin's law no one has adhered to that in years unfortunately. Just like no one ridicules false equivalency arguments anymore, you know like the kind that suggest someone's view on whole foods is flawed because there's arsenic in the dirt and grandma has to boil potatoes. You know like those kind of arguments.10 -
When it comes to food you have three choices:
1. sugar
2. salt
3. bacteria
Not a difficult concept folks. There is no evil conspiracy, just transportation/logistical issues from where the food is grown and where the people eat the food.
This is a good point, one that's impact has changed over time. So many of the points in this thread are referencing "how it used to be" But in modern times these points are becoming irrelevant. With modern logistics and shipping and general health knowledge, a lot of packaged products nowadays are shipped without salts and preservatives because they can. I never used to buy packaged or canned goods but more and more, I'm finding canned products to be available without salt and preservatives. Perhaps it because They can get here without spoiling, but also because people have become aware and of course consumer advocacy groups putting pressure where it needs to be.0 -
KeithWhiteJr wrote: »I think natural or whole foods tend to be healthier than "other food", which I would consider to be refined an highly processed with additives to make the food more shelf stable or appealing (to look at and then eat).
I don't think some "other foods" are horrible for many people to eat. a few doritos won't hurt most people but a few cigarettes don't hurt most people either... but you are probably better off skipping both.
IMO, natural or whole foods are usually better for health than "other foods", so I try to make that the majority of my diet.
For weight management I think it matters less unless you are someone who's weight is affected by poor health that is affected or caused by "other foods".
Did you just compare eating Doritos to smoking cigarettes? I don't think Cool Ranch Doritos are linked to many cancer studies...
In that a few won't hurt you, yes.
Is Cool Ranch Doritos linked to any studies? LOL7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions