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"
Replies
-
Following that logic, deathcap mushrooms are 'natural' and therefore my body loves them.14
-
Following that logic, deathcap mushrooms are 'natural' and therefore my body loves them.
Should I feed them to my kids since they are natural and clearly much better than a store bought cake ? I certainly wouldn't want to be the awful mother who gives their kids poison additives like blue icing so I should probably switch to these nice Earth made mushrooms, right?!
11 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »I've seen the effects of this at children's birthday parties. The kids who have a extremely controlled diet at home, restricted to the "all natural, everything free" foods you're mentioning are often the ones around the party food table binging on sweets (although a lot of our sweets are not artificially coloured or flavoured), cakes (from the supermarket, shock horror), crisps, chocolates etc. The children who aren't subjected to restricted diets are usually the ones who can moderate themselves and don't need to eat their bodyweight at the party.
This was my experience. My mom would never have any “junk” food in the house. I never learned about moderation. As soon as I got my driver’s license I would sneak out of the house late at night to buy a bunch of treats from 7-Eleven and binge. I still have issues with moderation today.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
Like coconut oil or heavy whipping cream?
Yes. I don't recommend them in large amounts.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Why do you think someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries? Why can't a family have roasted chicken some days and chicken nuggets on others? Why can you only envision an all-or-nothing situation?
If you think opening the door to some days with frosting and chicken nuggets means people would eat nothing else, I hate to break it to you -- you don't really like strawberries and roasted chicken. You're just clinging to them out of fear.
You missed my point. I never said that "someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries". What I said is that it's silly for an informed person to argue that there is no difference between fresh strawberries and icing, and that one is not superior to the other simply because it's natural - that was the premise of the original post.
Most parents I know, myself included, will be fine with giving kids access to a huge bowl of fresh fruit, berries, veggies etc to snack on as much as they want (barring medical issues or allergies); but most would not do the same with a can of frosting. If one is no worse than the other, than why not?
No one, literally no one in this thread, including in the OP, said there was no difference between fresh strawberries and icing. People did say that so called "natural foods" are not inherently superior though, but again, making that general statement, is not the same as saying there is NO DIFFERENCE between fresh strawberries and canned icing.
Do you really think that is what people are saying?
It's good to know though that this entire time you've been arguing against a point in the Original Post which, I'm not sure if you realized, was a very distilled summary of a conversation that OP had with an unnamed person, and quite possibly, was not an exact accounting of the actual words that were exchanged... and probably not even completely reflective of the OP's actual opinion on food quality and nutrition. It was a conversation starter- not a definitive set in stone proclamation.
You seem to be arguing with the rest of us based on this misunderstanding and suggesting that any of us that are saying that there's nothing wrong with eating Oreos in moderation, or occasionally feeding kids chicken nuggets on busy nights are saying that all foods are completely equivalent in nutritional profile, which is just plain silly.
I don't know what the op was or wasn't trying to say, I can't read minds, only.what was written here. The way I read it, he and several others were implying that there are absolutely no benefits in choosing foods free of artificial additives over those that have them. Regardless of other diet context, I believe foods CAN be compared simply on their own. And no one will convince me that foods containing artificial additives are just as healthy as choice as an alternative without them (let's focus on this for this argument's sake and leave alone other considerations such as processing, organic etc).
People here are arguing that no food is inherently worse or better than another, it's only about context, and I disagree. Again, I can go back to my glass of wine. Can I have it as part of an.overall healthy diet? Of course. Does it mean there is nothing harmful or unhealthy about alcohol? No. I may have it as part of a healthy diet but I know that is very likely NOT doing favors for my health - at best, it is simply not causing any effects; at worst, it is doing damage somewhere at the cellular level even though I do not feel any I'll effects at the moment. It is a risk I am taking, knowing the cons and making an informed decision and practicing moderation. I don't have the same need to moderate, say, my intake of water or herbal tea because, aside from rare water intoxication in insane amounts, an extra cup doesn't have the potential for harm in the same way as wine.
I dont know how else to explain it. You can sprinkle your food with the tiniest bit of laundry detergent every day. Maybe it gives it a cool funky flavor that you enjoy. Likely if the amount is small enough, you won't feel any ill effects from it at the beginning. Maybe for days. Maybe for years. Maybe you can keep eating it all your life and live long and healthy and it will never affect you. And maybe it will build up and kill you in a matter of months or decades. I dont know. I haven't tried. But it somehow just makes sense that since it is not a food substance, it's better not to take that risk and find out.
And if some corporation now decides to create new and cool edible Tide pods claiming they can do your laundry AND double as a snack, I'm not going to run out and start buying them as part of the kids snack rotation. Again simply because it just seems like the logical thing to me. Apparently I'm in the minority on here. Oh well.
The negative effects of alcohol are known. They're quantifiable and researchable. The same is not true of "artificial additives" -- a broad category that covers far too many foods. What are the negative effects of these additives? How much does it take before they start to effect someone? When a doctor takes a blood or tissue sample, how will they expect to see and measure these effects? What are they actually doing to my body? Which ones?
Laundry detergent is not listed as a GRAS food. It's a ridiculous comparison and you know this. If you truly believe that it's a good comparison, then I'd say that you're making the exact same argument you accuse others of making: that there's no difference between "artificial additives" and laundry detergent. But even so, there are measurable, quantifiable, observable effects that will happen if I eat laundry detergent. What are the effects of these additives? Are there different ones for different additives? How did they get through the GRAS process if there are measurable effects?
I said it upthread and I will say it again. If someone can show me what the negative effects are, then I can make an informed decision to stop or keep eating them. Just as we've all had to do with man-made transfats or carcinogenic bacon. But without that information, you're asking people to take this belief that artificial additives will have negative effects on nothing but faith.
Name the risks. Show us how they're observable and measurable. Until then, I will go off of the research that I have rather than the argument that we should avoid them just because.
Have you seen many studies looking at the effects of consuming laundry detergent? I'm not sure there have been any done, nor am I sure you would experience "measurable, observable" effects from consuming a minute dose even daily. Neither are there many studies looking at the long-term effects of regularly consuming artificial additives, and it would obviously be extremely difficult to conduct such a study, comparing the health and longevity of someone who consumes those regularly and someone who avoids them entirely over a lifespan. There are too many confounding factors and the effects may not be immediate and easily linked.
Anyway, the point was not to equate detergent and food additives in their degree of risk. It was to show that our bodies are fairly resilient and most anything, even poison, could perhaps be consumed in miniscule doses without doing obvious damage. But clearly it is not something one would recommend to do. Having no studies done, period, to show something may be harmful is not the same as proving it's completely safe. At one point in time, there were no studies to prove the harm of cigarettes. Some suggested it and were called fear mongerers. Pregnant women were allowed to drink and smoke. We had no knowledge that lead, asbestos, thalidomide, BPA, or many many other substances were harmful, for decades, until we did. FDA approval is not the end-all. It is a highly politicized process, and as you may know, there is a number of additives allowed in food in the US that are forbidden in many other countries around the world such as Europe and Asia. How much trust you place in the FDA that any product placed on shelves and labelled as food is completely and entirely safe for unlimited consumption is up to you. I believe corporations are driven by their bottom lines and couldn't care less about consumer health as long as it the effects are not immediate enough to get them sued.
Our world is permeated with so many harmful substances as is, in the air, water, soil, that we can't control, that for me it is worth it to at least limit as much as possible the ones we can, particularly when there is no good reason to consume them. There is a reason people are realizing the harmful impacts of harsh chemicals even in cosmetics, cleaning products etc, and turning to more natural alternatives. It is not about snobbery or elitism or virtue but simply an attempt to provide healthier choices for our families. You don't have to believe it, but it's silly to try to convince everyone who does that they're stupid. And the argument of deathly mushrooms etc is ridiculous. Of course not everything natural is safe. But it just seems logical that food sourced in nature is preferable to 'food' entirely produced in a lab. At least to me. Feel free to woo.
33 -
nettiklive wrote: »But it just seems logical that food sourced in nature is preferable to 'food' entirely produced in a lab. At least to me. Feel free to woo.
What food is available to you that is entirely produced in lab?
Most of the foods you have a problem with are predominantly made out of "natural" ingredients.14 -
Sigh. Everything is toxic if taken to excess. Including water. There are studies that appear to show that arsenic may be an essential mineral to the human body in trace amounts, though it's unclear as to what it does. (One source for this can be found here: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/arsenic/facts-on-arsenic.html)
And pregnant women are still "allowed" to drink and smoke. It's not recommended. Most people are aware that it puts the unborn child at significantly higher risk. But it's not illegal.
18 -
nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color. Why didn't you just add in food coloring? According to the thread, there is no benefit in using beet juice instead of red food dye.
Waiting for the argument now that red dye is actually made from insects so it's in fact natural...
I'm only up to here in this fun and fascinating thread, but I just had to post this:
(From two years ago)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-and-cheese-recipe/index.html
Notice anything different about your mac & cheese lately?
No? Don't worry, nobody else did either.
Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its mac & cheese recipe in December. To keep its yellow-orange glow, Kraft swapped out artificial food colors, including yellow 5 and yellow 6, for natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.
The company is calling it "the world's largest blind taste test."27 -
Labels are important.
Food that is prepared in a building called a "home" is "good" and makes you feel lovely and smug.
Food that is prepared in a building called a "factory" is "bad" and makes you feel guilty and all the mommies will shun you for eating it.
Apparently.32 -
nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Why do you think someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries? Why can't a family have roasted chicken some days and chicken nuggets on others? Why can you only envision an all-or-nothing situation?
If you think opening the door to some days with frosting and chicken nuggets means people would eat nothing else, I hate to break it to you -- you don't really like strawberries and roasted chicken. You're just clinging to them out of fear.
You missed my point. I never said that "someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries". What I said is that it's silly for an informed person to argue that there is no difference between fresh strawberries and icing, and that one is not superior to the other simply because it's natural - that was the premise of the original post.
Most parents I know, myself included, will be fine with giving kids access to a huge bowl of fresh fruit, berries, veggies etc to snack on as much as they want (barring medical issues or allergies); but most would not do the same with a can of frosting. If one is no worse than the other, than why not?
No one, literally no one in this thread, including in the OP, said there was no difference between fresh strawberries and icing. People did say that so called "natural foods" are not inherently superior though, but again, making that general statement, is not the same as saying there is NO DIFFERENCE between fresh strawberries and canned icing.
Do you really think that is what people are saying?
It's good to know though that this entire time you've been arguing against a point in the Original Post which, I'm not sure if you realized, was a very distilled summary of a conversation that OP had with an unnamed person, and quite possibly, was not an exact accounting of the actual words that were exchanged... and probably not even completely reflective of the OP's actual opinion on food quality and nutrition. It was a conversation starter- not a definitive set in stone proclamation.
You seem to be arguing with the rest of us based on this misunderstanding and suggesting that any of us that are saying that there's nothing wrong with eating Oreos in moderation, or occasionally feeding kids chicken nuggets on busy nights are saying that all foods are completely equivalent in nutritional profile, which is just plain silly.
I don't know what the op was or wasn't trying to say, I can't read minds, only.what was written here. The way I read it, he and several others were implying that there are absolutely no benefits in choosing foods free of artificial additives over those that have them. Regardless of other diet context, I believe foods CAN be compared simply on their own. And no one will convince me that foods containing artificial additives are just as healthy as choice as an alternative without them (let's focus on this for this argument's sake and leave alone other considerations such as processing, organic etc).
People here are arguing that no food is inherently worse or better than another, it's only about context, and I disagree. Again, I can go back to my glass of wine. Can I have it as part of an.overall healthy diet? Of course. Does it mean there is nothing harmful or unhealthy about alcohol? No. I may have it as part of a healthy diet but I know that is very likely NOT doing favors for my health - at best, it is simply not causing any effects; at worst, it is doing damage somewhere at the cellular level even though I do not feel any I'll effects at the moment. It is a risk I am taking, knowing the cons and making an informed decision and practicing moderation. I don't have the same need to moderate, say, my intake of water or herbal tea because, aside from rare water intoxication in insane amounts, an extra cup doesn't have the potential for harm in the same way as wine.
I dont know how else to explain it. You can sprinkle your food with the tiniest bit of laundry detergent every day. Maybe it gives it a cool funky flavor that you enjoy. Likely if the amount is small enough, you won't feel any ill effects from it at the beginning. Maybe for days. Maybe for years. Maybe you can keep eating it all your life and live long and healthy and it will never affect you. And maybe it will build up and kill you in a matter of months or decades. I dont know. I haven't tried. But it somehow just makes sense that since it is not a food substance, it's better not to take that risk and find out.
And if some corporation now decides to create new and cool edible Tide pods claiming they can do your laundry AND double as a snack, I'm not going to run out and start buying them as part of the kids snack rotation. Again simply because it just seems like the logical thing to me. Apparently I'm in the minority on here. Oh well.
I would like to address your problem with wine. I live in Italy and two glasses a day are considered VERY good for your health. I don't see people keeling over on the street or in restaurants. Excess of alcohol is the problem. Moderate usage is being tested on the brain in preventing dementia. By the by, I don't drink wine. I prefer my calories from other sources, but a prosecco or Oppidum now and again are delicious.10 -
I think every household should make flour, bread, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, and cheese at home. At least once. In order to appreciate the value of industrial production.
I’ve looked at my breadmaker friendly dry yeast and marvelled that it is available for my use any time I need it. I’ve tried keeping a wild sourdough going myself and haven’t succeeded past six months. It takes dedication to nurture yeast month after month.
I’ve pondered the consequence of a world wide disruption of our agro industrial food network and I predict that our food choices would be seriously curtailed within a year or two.
I’d miss cheese and white fluffy bread most of all.12 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Now I'm confused... Are you saying I don't need to moderate my intake of grass-fed organic beef? I only need to moderate if it's part of a McDonald's burger? How about if it were another fast food outlet? How about if it was grass-fed, but not organic?
How about I moderate ALL my food choices regardless of where they fall on you Good-Evil continuum, you know, because calories?
Wasn't talking about moderation for weight reasons here, only health/ nutrition as that's what we were discussing here.
I have yet to hear anyone make excuses for feeding their kids too many fresh fruit and veggies and homemade meals. 'we've been so busy all week we've only eaten at home, even baked our own cookies, better balance it out with some McDonald's and oreos!'
I've seen the effects of this at children's birthday parties. The kids who have a extremely controlled diet at home, restricted to the "all natural, everything free" foods you're mentioning are often the ones around the party food table binging on sweets (although a lot of our sweets are not artificially coloured or flavoured), cakes (from the supermarket, shock horror), crisps, chocolates etc. The children who aren't subjected to restricted diets are usually the ones who can moderate themselves and don't need to eat their bodyweight at the party.
I can confirm this. This was me as a child, not allowed any “bad” or “unnatural” foods. There are 3 incidents I remember well. One was at a badminton camp when I was 6, they served hot dogs, and I ate 7 of them. Another time I was about 9 and at a friends house, sleeping over, and I kept sneaking off to the kitchen and ended up eating an entire box of cookies among other things. About the same age at another friend’s house I ate an entire large jar of homemade fortune cookies. My parents would have never allowed me to have these foods so I stuffed as much into my mouth when I had the chance, and I did it every time I was out of their sight.9 -
crabbybrianna wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Now I'm confused... Are you saying I don't need to moderate my intake of grass-fed organic beef? I only need to moderate if it's part of a McDonald's burger? How about if it were another fast food outlet? How about if it was grass-fed, but not organic?
How about I moderate ALL my food choices regardless of where they fall on you Good-Evil continuum, you know, because calories?
Wasn't talking about moderation for weight reasons here, only health/ nutrition as that's what we were discussing here.
I have yet to hear anyone make excuses for feeding their kids too many fresh fruit and veggies and homemade meals. 'we've been so busy all week we've only eaten at home, even baked our own cookies, better balance it out with some McDonald's and oreos!'
I've seen the effects of this at children's birthday parties. The kids who have a extremely controlled diet at home, restricted to the "all natural, everything free" foods you're mentioning are often the ones around the party food table binging on sweets (although a lot of our sweets are not artificially coloured or flavoured), cakes (from the supermarket, shock horror), crisps, chocolates etc. The children who aren't subjected to restricted diets are usually the ones who can moderate themselves and don't need to eat their bodyweight at the party.
I can confirm this. This was me as a child, not allowed any “bad” or “unnatural” foods. There are 3 incidents I remember well. One was at a badminton camp when I was 6, they served hot dogs, and I ate 7 of them. Another time I was about 9 and at a friends house, sleeping over, and I kept sneaking off to the kitchen and ended up eating an entire box of cookies among other things. About the same age at another friend’s house I ate an entire large jar of homemade fortune cookies. My parents would have never allowed me to have these foods so I stuffed as much into my mouth when I had the chance, and I did it every time I was out of their sight.
This is why I think my parents were brilliant for letting me indulge food whims. If I was shuddering by the time I got through 1/3 can of frosting, I was unlikely to want a repeat - I'd discovered the downside on my own.
At the same time, they routinely feed me a home-cooked balanced diet, didn't routinely keep soda/pop in the house, brought out the cookies only if drop-in guests arrived, and generally modeled good food habits.2 -
I think every household should make flour, bread, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, and cheese at home. At least once. In order to appreciate the value of industrial production.
I’ve looked at my breadmaker friendly dry yeast and marvelled that it is available for my use any time I need it. I’ve tried keeping a wild sourdough going myself and haven’t succeeded past six months. It takes dedication to nurture yeast month after month.
I’ve pondered the consequence of a world wide disruption of our agro industrial food network and I predict that our food choices would be seriously curtailed within a year or two.
I’d miss cheese and white fluffy bread most of all.
I'd miss the easy access to clean water that would accompany any major system failure.
Very few people espousing 'natural' foods have an understanding of the back-breaking labor involved in producing all their own food.8 -
nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Your assumptions about why people moderate their food choices just reinforce that you've got this all or nothing, black and white, good vs bad philosophy underscoring every comment you make about food.
People don't only moderate the "bad foods". You moderate ALL foods, that's the whole point of "All Things In Moderation, Including Moderation". You seem to be coming at it from the assumption that a person really wants to eat unlimited junk food and that the only way they can justify eating any junk food is to call it "moderation" but that all of those people are really hoping that they can somehow manage to take a pill to achieve nutritional goals, another pill to manage their weight, and then it's free reign to eat whatever they want which in your mind, is weirdly: Cheetohs, McDonalds, Kraft Easy Mac and Fake Strawberry Icing, if I remember the examples you've brought up in this thread.
Most people I know in real life (since you seem to be a fan of playing that game) want to eat a variety of foods. They like grilling out in the summer time with grass fed beef, maybe some roasted potatoes and asparagus, fresh strawberries (although I'm allergic, so for me, fresh strawberries are definitely bad) AND can appreciate a side of Velveeta Shells and Cheese thrown in the mix. That's what moderation is, you aren't checking the box on the healthy foods just so you can justify eating the Shells and Cheese or an Oreo McFlurry after dinner. You are building a comprehensive diet that includes ALL the foods, the healthy ones AND the less nutrient dense ones, in moderation.
If nutrition and calories were not a factor - would you eat nothing but "junk food"? Why do you assume that anyone wants to build a diet entirely around these types of food then?
We're talking about two different things here.
You are talking about choices and diet.
I am talking about knowledge and comparing foods - simply on their own, in isolation, regardless if you eat them once a year or every day.
And yes, I believe there are gradations of good, not-so-good, and bad (hence the term 'junk' btw, ever wonder where that came from?) foods. Does that always translate to me or others only eating the 'good' foods? Of course not. I don't always choose to eat or feed my family what I think is the best food choice. But I know that if we're eating pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut tonight (which I can't remember the last time we did to be fair), we are not as making as healthy of a food choice as if we made homemade pizza with whole wheat crust and fresh toppings instead. I know that that my kid is going to a party and will eat neon-blue Costco cupcakes there, and that's fine, but if I am going to be making cupcakes for them and I have the time, I will make them from scratch, with no food dye and very little sugar, and believe me all the parents I know really appreciate it and most try to do the same on their end as well. (but if my kid really wanted blue cupcakes for his birthday, they would get them of course. If they wanted them every weekend, they wouldn't).
Another example: I have a friend who is hard-core into cooking and making everything herself. She raises chickens, she grows her own organic veggies. She has stopped buying prepared bread and even pasta for her family and makes it all herself ((with eggs from her chickens of course and specially-ordered whole-grain flours and sourdough cultures etc) and believes her homemade food is much healthier and better quality than storebought - and I agree. I am way too lazy to do all that, I will admit, and I despise gardening and outdoor work so I will probably never go to the extent of growing my own food - but for those who can, it is most certainly a superior choice than picking up conventional produce at Safeway. And I'm not afraid to admit that this friend is feeding her family better than I feed my own.
In my view, even natural foods come in degrees of quality - growing your own is better than buying, buying from a local farm is better than pre-packaged from a supermarket, cooking yourself is better than premade or frozen meals, pre-made meals that only use natural ingredients such as Amy's are better than those that are laden with other additives, etc etc.
At any point I can make an inferior food choice for convenience, pleasure or other reasons, but that does not discredit the fact that it is in fact inferior.
I'm not sure there is that much of a difference between the pepperoni you'd use to top a pizza at home and the pepperoni Pizza Hut is using. It seems like you're stressing yourself about things that are creating little, if any, real difference for your children
I wouldn't use pepperoni if we were making at it home, we would use grilled chicken breast and plenty of fresh veggies and homemade sauce.
If you honestly believe there is no difference between a homemade food made with quality ingredients over fast food made with the cheapest highly processed ingredients and flavor additives....well, I won't bother.
This thread is kind of surreal. Like an alternate reality, or arguing with a bunch of five year olds.
In real life, I see almost everyone moving towards natural and scratch-made and away from artificial and highly processed more and more, leaving it only for rare occasions; like I said I just assumed that was a common sense thing. Guess much of this country is still behind.
So you'd use different toppings, creating a difference in macronutrients. Pizza Hut offers chicken and vegetables as toppings, right?
To say there is a difference in the toppings . . . that's because you literally chose different toppings. You were free to choose chicken and vegetables for your pizza. You choose differently. To say that this somehow makes Pizza Hut inferior to your homemade pizza doesn't make sense.
They're different due to the specific choices you made. If you'd chosen vegetables from Pizza Hut they wouldn't be inferior to the vegetables you'd use at home, would they? I find it surreal that you're blaming Pizza Hut for including the processed ingredients that . . . you requested.
Actually yes, they probably would be, if I were using good quality organic veggies, even better seasonal and local.
As for the chicken, this is what's in Pizza Hut's chicken:
Chicken, Water, Modified Tapioca Starch, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Salt, Flavour, Spice, Sodium Phosphate, Spice Extractives,Tricalcium Phosphate.
As opposed to chicken, sea salt, fresh garlic and herbs.
Plus the chicken itself is very likely the cheapest and hence of low quality. As opposed to a free-range organic chicken.
This is one of their sauces:
Dried Butter (Cream, Salt), Palm Oil, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Salt, Food Starch-Modified, Natural Flavors, Sodium Caseinate, Dried Garlic, Soy Lecithin, Monoglycerides, Dipotassium Phosphate, Artificial Color, Xanthan Gum, Dried Parsley, Citric Acid, Bha (To Help Protect Flavor),Yellow 5, Yellow 6, And Less Than 2 Percent Silicon Dioxide (Anti-Caking Agent) -Contains Milk, Soy.
Why would someone want all this on their pizza, I'm honestly not sure.
You can argue all these things don't matter and there is no difference, go ahead. Sorry, I will not be convinced otherwise.
You ordered it though? I mean, if you can't explain why you wanted it, how can anyone else hope to know?
I'm sorry you have already decided that you are incapable of changing your mind. May I ask what you're hoping to get from this debate if you are unwilling to change your position even in the face of evidence?
I mean, garlic powder and onion powder . . . these aren't scary substances that remove nutrition from chicken. Many people actually use them in home cooking. Starches and thickeners . . . again, home cooks use them. I have xanthan gum at home, I'm using food starch in a homemade bean/potato sausage this weekend. What's wrong with including them in pizza?
You won't change your mind, but I am open to changing mine. You're arguing that it matters if someone eats these. Explain to me how it matters.18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
I have tons of foods in my kitchen right now that I would never eat in large amounts. Coconut oil, mentioned just below, is a great example.
Every food I eat regularly has macronutrients in addition to calories. So I'm not sure what you mean by a food that offers calories and taste but very little else. Do you not consider macronutrients to be something a food can offer?9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
Like coconut oil or heavy whipping cream?
Yes. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
You say you're better off skipping Doritos and even compared them to cigarettes, do you have the same position on coconut oil and heavy whipping cream?
10 -
I think every household should make flour, bread, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, and cheese at home. At least once. In order to appreciate the value of industrial production.
I’ve looked at my breadmaker friendly dry yeast and marvelled that it is available for my use any time I need it. I’ve tried keeping a wild sourdough going myself and haven’t succeeded past six months. It takes dedication to nurture yeast month after month.
I’ve pondered the consequence of a world wide disruption of our agro industrial food network and I predict that our food choices would be seriously curtailed within a year or two.
I’d miss cheese and white fluffy bread most of all.
Makes me want to re-read this book - https://books.google.com/books/about/Make_the_Bread_Buy_the_Butter.html?id=t96Zstlc02EC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
I have tons of foods in my kitchen right now that I would never eat in large amounts. Coconut oil, mentioned just below, is a great example.
Every food I eat regularly has macronutrients in addition to calories. So I'm not sure what you mean by a food that offers calories and taste but very little else. Do you not consider macronutrients to be something a food can offer?
I'm not following your thinking here. Yes, food has macronutrients. What does that have to do with what I said ?
It's sort of like arguing that food has pretty colours so does that not offer something to a person?janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
Like coconut oil or heavy whipping cream?
Yes. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
You say you're better off skipping Doritos and even compared them to cigarettes, do you have the same position on coconut oil and heavy whipping cream?
If someone is eating high carb AND high fat, I would say yes, they are probably better off skipping coconut oil and cream.
Otherwise my position is exactly as stated. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
9 -
nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color. Why didn't you just add in food coloring? According to the thread, there is no benefit in using beet juice instead of red food dye.
Waiting for the argument now that red dye is actually made from insects so it's in fact natural...
I'm only up to here in this fun and fascinating thread, but I just had to post this:
(From two years ago)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-and-cheese-recipe/index.html
Notice anything different about your mac & cheese lately?
No? Don't worry, nobody else did either.
Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its mac & cheese recipe in December. To keep its yellow-orange glow, Kraft swapped out artificial food colors, including yellow 5 and yellow 6, for natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.
The company is calling it "the world's largest blind taste test."
I didn't because i haven't eaten it since I was 12 and we were broke just-arrived immigrants getting our food from a food bank (in case anyone thinks my 'elitist' views stem from being privileged all my life).
But good for Kraft. And again proves my point. More and more companies are now doing this and increasingly these artificial additives are getting pushed to the sidelines of the market. Because consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of what they are eating and demanding it. Why though? I mean, according to this thread, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with any of this stuff in our food. Why then are companies bothering to remove it?
22 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
I have tons of foods in my kitchen right now that I would never eat in large amounts. Coconut oil, mentioned just below, is a great example.
Every food I eat regularly has macronutrients in addition to calories. So I'm not sure what you mean by a food that offers calories and taste but very little else. Do you not consider macronutrients to be something a food can offer?
I'm not following your thinking here. Yes, food has macronutrients. What does that have to do with what I said ?
It's sort of like arguing that food has pretty colours so does that not offer something to a person?janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
Like coconut oil or heavy whipping cream?
Yes. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
You say you're better off skipping Doritos and even compared them to cigarettes, do you have the same position on coconut oil and heavy whipping cream?
If someone is eating high carb AND high fat, I would say yes, they are probably better off skipping coconut oil and cream.
Otherwise my position is exactly as stated. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
You said a not great food choice was a food that offered calories and taste and not much else. I was saying I didn't understand the "not much else" in the context of all foods having macronutrients.
If coconut oil and heavy whipping cream depend on the overall context of the diet to understand why people should include them or eliminate them, why don't Doritos? Why are coconut oil and heavy whipping cream okay for some people, but Doritos are -- across the board -- a not great food choice?
I'm trying to understand what difference you see -- if any -- between coconut oil/heavy whipping cream and Doritos.
Both contain a macronutrient that some people can overdo depending on the overall context of their diet. Both are rich in macronutrients but don't contain a lot of micronutrients. Both are calorie-dense, so people who are watching calories will have to be mindful of portions.
12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Your assumptions about why people moderate their food choices just reinforce that you've got this all or nothing, black and white, good vs bad philosophy underscoring every comment you make about food.
People don't only moderate the "bad foods". You moderate ALL foods, that's the whole point of "All Things In Moderation, Including Moderation". You seem to be coming at it from the assumption that a person really wants to eat unlimited junk food and that the only way they can justify eating any junk food is to call it "moderation" but that all of those people are really hoping that they can somehow manage to take a pill to achieve nutritional goals, another pill to manage their weight, and then it's free reign to eat whatever they want which in your mind, is weirdly: Cheetohs, McDonalds, Kraft Easy Mac and Fake Strawberry Icing, if I remember the examples you've brought up in this thread.
Most people I know in real life (since you seem to be a fan of playing that game) want to eat a variety of foods. They like grilling out in the summer time with grass fed beef, maybe some roasted potatoes and asparagus, fresh strawberries (although I'm allergic, so for me, fresh strawberries are definitely bad) AND can appreciate a side of Velveeta Shells and Cheese thrown in the mix. That's what moderation is, you aren't checking the box on the healthy foods just so you can justify eating the Shells and Cheese or an Oreo McFlurry after dinner. You are building a comprehensive diet that includes ALL the foods, the healthy ones AND the less nutrient dense ones, in moderation.
If nutrition and calories were not a factor - would you eat nothing but "junk food"? Why do you assume that anyone wants to build a diet entirely around these types of food then?
We're talking about two different things here.
You are talking about choices and diet.
I am talking about knowledge and comparing foods - simply on their own, in isolation, regardless if you eat them once a year or every day.
And yes, I believe there are gradations of good, not-so-good, and bad (hence the term 'junk' btw, ever wonder where that came from?) foods. Does that always translate to me or others only eating the 'good' foods? Of course not. I don't always choose to eat or feed my family what I think is the best food choice. But I know that if we're eating pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut tonight (which I can't remember the last time we did to be fair), we are not as making as healthy of a food choice as if we made homemade pizza with whole wheat crust and fresh toppings instead. I know that that my kid is going to a party and will eat neon-blue Costco cupcakes there, and that's fine, but if I am going to be making cupcakes for them and I have the time, I will make them from scratch, with no food dye and very little sugar, and believe me all the parents I know really appreciate it and most try to do the same on their end as well. (but if my kid really wanted blue cupcakes for his birthday, they would get them of course. If they wanted them every weekend, they wouldn't).
Another example: I have a friend who is hard-core into cooking and making everything herself. She raises chickens, she grows her own organic veggies. She has stopped buying prepared bread and even pasta for her family and makes it all herself ((with eggs from her chickens of course and specially-ordered whole-grain flours and sourdough cultures etc) and believes her homemade food is much healthier and better quality than storebought - and I agree. I am way too lazy to do all that, I will admit, and I despise gardening and outdoor work so I will probably never go to the extent of growing my own food - but for those who can, it is most certainly a superior choice than picking up conventional produce at Safeway. And I'm not afraid to admit that this friend is feeding her family better than I feed my own.
In my view, even natural foods come in degrees of quality - growing your own is better than buying, buying from a local farm is better than pre-packaged from a supermarket, cooking yourself is better than premade or frozen meals, pre-made meals that only use natural ingredients such as Amy's are better than those that are laden with other additives, etc etc.
At any point I can make an inferior food choice for convenience, pleasure or other reasons, but that does not discredit the fact that it is in fact inferior.
I'm not sure there is that much of a difference between the pepperoni you'd use to top a pizza at home and the pepperoni Pizza Hut is using. It seems like you're stressing yourself about things that are creating little, if any, real difference for your children
I wouldn't use pepperoni if we were making at it home, we would use grilled chicken breast and plenty of fresh veggies and homemade sauce.
If you honestly believe there is no difference between a homemade food made with quality ingredients over fast food made with the cheapest highly processed ingredients and flavor additives....well, I won't bother.
This thread is kind of surreal. Like an alternate reality, or arguing with a bunch of five year olds.
In real life, I see almost everyone moving towards natural and scratch-made and away from artificial and highly processed more and more, leaving it only for rare occasions; like I said I just assumed that was a common sense thing. Guess much of this country is still behind.
So you'd use different toppings, creating a difference in macronutrients. Pizza Hut offers chicken and vegetables as toppings, right?
To say there is a difference in the toppings . . . that's because you literally chose different toppings. You were free to choose chicken and vegetables for your pizza. You choose differently. To say that this somehow makes Pizza Hut inferior to your homemade pizza doesn't make sense.
They're different due to the specific choices you made. If you'd chosen vegetables from Pizza Hut they wouldn't be inferior to the vegetables you'd use at home, would they? I find it surreal that you're blaming Pizza Hut for including the processed ingredients that . . . you requested.
Actually yes, they probably would be, if I were using good quality organic veggies, even better seasonal and local.
As for the chicken, this is what's in Pizza Hut's chicken:
Chicken, Water, Modified Tapioca Starch, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Salt, Flavour, Spice, Sodium Phosphate, Spice Extractives,Tricalcium Phosphate.
As opposed to chicken, sea salt, fresh garlic and herbs.
Plus the chicken itself is very likely the cheapest and hence of low quality. As opposed to a free-range organic chicken.
This is one of their sauces:
Dried Butter (Cream, Salt), Palm Oil, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Salt, Food Starch-Modified, Natural Flavors, Sodium Caseinate, Dried Garlic, Soy Lecithin, Monoglycerides, Dipotassium Phosphate, Artificial Color, Xanthan Gum, Dried Parsley, Citric Acid, Bha (To Help Protect Flavor),Yellow 5, Yellow 6, And Less Than 2 Percent Silicon Dioxide (Anti-Caking Agent) -Contains Milk, Soy.
Why would someone want all this on their pizza, I'm honestly not sure.
You can argue all these things don't matter and there is no difference, go ahead. Sorry, I will not be convinced otherwise.
You ordered it though? I mean, if you can't explain why you wanted it, how can anyone else hope to know?
I'm sorry you have already decided that you are incapable of changing your mind. May I ask what you're hoping to get from this debate if you are unwilling to change your position even in the face of evidence?
I mean, garlic powder and onion powder . . . these aren't scary substances that remove nutrition from chicken. Many people actually use them in home cooking. Starches and thickeners . . . again, home cooks use them. I have xanthan gum at home, I'm using food starch in a homemade bean/potato sausage this weekend. What's wrong with including them in pizza?
You won't change your mind, but I am open to changing mine. You're arguing that it matters if someone eats these. Explain to me how it matters.
O/T... can you hook me up with this home made bean/potato sausage recipe? Sounds delicious and has two of my favorite foods in it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Your assumptions about why people moderate their food choices just reinforce that you've got this all or nothing, black and white, good vs bad philosophy underscoring every comment you make about food.
People don't only moderate the "bad foods". You moderate ALL foods, that's the whole point of "All Things In Moderation, Including Moderation". You seem to be coming at it from the assumption that a person really wants to eat unlimited junk food and that the only way they can justify eating any junk food is to call it "moderation" but that all of those people are really hoping that they can somehow manage to take a pill to achieve nutritional goals, another pill to manage their weight, and then it's free reign to eat whatever they want which in your mind, is weirdly: Cheetohs, McDonalds, Kraft Easy Mac and Fake Strawberry Icing, if I remember the examples you've brought up in this thread.
Most people I know in real life (since you seem to be a fan of playing that game) want to eat a variety of foods. They like grilling out in the summer time with grass fed beef, maybe some roasted potatoes and asparagus, fresh strawberries (although I'm allergic, so for me, fresh strawberries are definitely bad) AND can appreciate a side of Velveeta Shells and Cheese thrown in the mix. That's what moderation is, you aren't checking the box on the healthy foods just so you can justify eating the Shells and Cheese or an Oreo McFlurry after dinner. You are building a comprehensive diet that includes ALL the foods, the healthy ones AND the less nutrient dense ones, in moderation.
If nutrition and calories were not a factor - would you eat nothing but "junk food"? Why do you assume that anyone wants to build a diet entirely around these types of food then?
We're talking about two different things here.
You are talking about choices and diet.
I am talking about knowledge and comparing foods - simply on their own, in isolation, regardless if you eat them once a year or every day.
And yes, I believe there are gradations of good, not-so-good, and bad (hence the term 'junk' btw, ever wonder where that came from?) foods. Does that always translate to me or others only eating the 'good' foods? Of course not. I don't always choose to eat or feed my family what I think is the best food choice. But I know that if we're eating pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut tonight (which I can't remember the last time we did to be fair), we are not as making as healthy of a food choice as if we made homemade pizza with whole wheat crust and fresh toppings instead. I know that that my kid is going to a party and will eat neon-blue Costco cupcakes there, and that's fine, but if I am going to be making cupcakes for them and I have the time, I will make them from scratch, with no food dye and very little sugar, and believe me all the parents I know really appreciate it and most try to do the same on their end as well. (but if my kid really wanted blue cupcakes for his birthday, they would get them of course. If they wanted them every weekend, they wouldn't).
Another example: I have a friend who is hard-core into cooking and making everything herself. She raises chickens, she grows her own organic veggies. She has stopped buying prepared bread and even pasta for her family and makes it all herself ((with eggs from her chickens of course and specially-ordered whole-grain flours and sourdough cultures etc) and believes her homemade food is much healthier and better quality than storebought - and I agree. I am way too lazy to do all that, I will admit, and I despise gardening and outdoor work so I will probably never go to the extent of growing my own food - but for those who can, it is most certainly a superior choice than picking up conventional produce at Safeway. And I'm not afraid to admit that this friend is feeding her family better than I feed my own.
In my view, even natural foods come in degrees of quality - growing your own is better than buying, buying from a local farm is better than pre-packaged from a supermarket, cooking yourself is better than premade or frozen meals, pre-made meals that only use natural ingredients such as Amy's are better than those that are laden with other additives, etc etc.
At any point I can make an inferior food choice for convenience, pleasure or other reasons, but that does not discredit the fact that it is in fact inferior.
I'm not sure there is that much of a difference between the pepperoni you'd use to top a pizza at home and the pepperoni Pizza Hut is using. It seems like you're stressing yourself about things that are creating little, if any, real difference for your children
I wouldn't use pepperoni if we were making at it home, we would use grilled chicken breast and plenty of fresh veggies and homemade sauce.
If you honestly believe there is no difference between a homemade food made with quality ingredients over fast food made with the cheapest highly processed ingredients and flavor additives....well, I won't bother.
This thread is kind of surreal. Like an alternate reality, or arguing with a bunch of five year olds.
In real life, I see almost everyone moving towards natural and scratch-made and away from artificial and highly processed more and more, leaving it only for rare occasions; like I said I just assumed that was a common sense thing. Guess much of this country is still behind.
So you'd use different toppings, creating a difference in macronutrients. Pizza Hut offers chicken and vegetables as toppings, right?
To say there is a difference in the toppings . . . that's because you literally chose different toppings. You were free to choose chicken and vegetables for your pizza. You choose differently. To say that this somehow makes Pizza Hut inferior to your homemade pizza doesn't make sense.
They're different due to the specific choices you made. If you'd chosen vegetables from Pizza Hut they wouldn't be inferior to the vegetables you'd use at home, would they? I find it surreal that you're blaming Pizza Hut for including the processed ingredients that . . . you requested.
Actually yes, they probably would be, if I were using good quality organic veggies, even better seasonal and local.
As for the chicken, this is what's in Pizza Hut's chicken:
Chicken, Water, Modified Tapioca Starch, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Salt, Flavour, Spice, Sodium Phosphate, Spice Extractives,Tricalcium Phosphate.
As opposed to chicken, sea salt, fresh garlic and herbs.
Plus the chicken itself is very likely the cheapest and hence of low quality. As opposed to a free-range organic chicken.
This is one of their sauces:
Dried Butter (Cream, Salt), Palm Oil, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Salt, Food Starch-Modified, Natural Flavors, Sodium Caseinate, Dried Garlic, Soy Lecithin, Monoglycerides, Dipotassium Phosphate, Artificial Color, Xanthan Gum, Dried Parsley, Citric Acid, Bha (To Help Protect Flavor),Yellow 5, Yellow 6, And Less Than 2 Percent Silicon Dioxide (Anti-Caking Agent) -Contains Milk, Soy.
Why would someone want all this on their pizza, I'm honestly not sure.
You can argue all these things don't matter and there is no difference, go ahead. Sorry, I will not be convinced otherwise.
You ordered it though? I mean, if you can't explain why you wanted it, how can anyone else hope to know?
I'm sorry you have already decided that you are incapable of changing your mind. May I ask what you're hoping to get from this debate if you are unwilling to change your position even in the face of evidence?
I mean, garlic powder and onion powder . . . these aren't scary substances that remove nutrition from chicken. Many people actually use them in home cooking. Starches and thickeners . . . again, home cooks use them. I have xanthan gum at home, I'm using food starch in a homemade bean/potato sausage this weekend. What's wrong with including them in pizza?
You won't change your mind, but I am open to changing mine. You're arguing that it matters if someone eats these. Explain to me how it matters.
O/T... can you hook me up with this home made bean/potato sausage recipe? Sounds delicious and has two of my favorite foods in it.
It's bound together with wheat gluten!
I think you're gluten-free, right?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
I have tons of foods in my kitchen right now that I would never eat in large amounts. Coconut oil, mentioned just below, is a great example.
Every food I eat regularly has macronutrients in addition to calories. So I'm not sure what you mean by a food that offers calories and taste but very little else. Do you not consider macronutrients to be something a food can offer?
I'm not following your thinking here. Yes, food has macronutrients. What does that have to do with what I said ?
It's sort of like arguing that food has pretty colours so does that not offer something to a person?janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll 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".
Are we really better off skipping a few corn chips? I mean, how is this quantified?
If this is your general impression, that's one thing. But as a factual statement, I'm scratching my head to see what this is based on.
I doubt it is quantifiable.
... Actually I doubt that a few cigarettes would have a quantifiable effect either.
But I did say it as part of my opinion. I think Doritos are not a great food choice. A few may not hurt anyone but more may, IMO.
We actually can track changes in the body that are tied to smoking a cigarette, even just one (heart rate, blood pressure, platelet changes, etc). If one doesn't smoke more cigarettes, the body returns to normal. Even then, people who smoke lightly but regularly still have an increased death rate as opposed to those who don't smoke.
Given that we don't have any evidence of a specific impact corn chips have on the body or an increased death rate due to light corn chip consumption, I don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't know exactly what it means to say something isn't a great food choice without any additional information about how many are being consumed or the overall context of the diet. What does it mean for something not to be a great food choice?
A not great food choice is something that should not be eaten in large amounts or frequently. Usually a food that offers calories and taste but very little else, IMO.
Like coconut oil or heavy whipping cream?
Yes. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
You say you're better off skipping Doritos and even compared them to cigarettes, do you have the same position on coconut oil and heavy whipping cream?
If someone is eating high carb AND high fat, I would say yes, they are probably better off skipping coconut oil and cream.
Otherwise my position is exactly as stated. I don't recommend them in large amounts.
But this is the point about any food that tips the scales on the calorie/nutrient ratio like that... to not eat it to excess.
It's exactly the point, whether that food is Doritos or coconut oil.
Both still provide *something* to the body, but neither are nutrient dense for the calories. So you moderate their intake.
8 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color. Why didn't you just add in food coloring? According to the thread, there is no benefit in using beet juice instead of red food dye.
Waiting for the argument now that red dye is actually made from insects so it's in fact natural...
I'm only up to here in this fun and fascinating thread, but I just had to post this:
(From two years ago)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-and-cheese-recipe/index.html
Notice anything different about your mac & cheese lately?
No? Don't worry, nobody else did either.
Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its mac & cheese recipe in December. To keep its yellow-orange glow, Kraft swapped out artificial food colors, including yellow 5 and yellow 6, for natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.
The company is calling it "the world's largest blind taste test."
I didn't because i haven't eaten it since I was 12 and we were broke just-arrived immigrants getting our food from a food bank (in case anyone thinks my 'elitist' views stem from being privileged all my life).
But good for Kraft. And again proves my point. More and more companies are now doing this and increasingly these artificial additives are getting pushed to the sidelines of the market. Because consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of what they are eating and demanding it. Why though? I mean, according to this thread, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with any of this stuff in our food. Why then are companies bothering to remove it?
For the same reason Coke (or was it Pepsi?) removed aspartame from their diet version; marketing to the woo.
Thanks to social media, we now live in a post-factual world... Facts don't matter - only feelings. And chemicalz are scary.38 -
mutantspicy wrote: »
Surprise, surprise, surprise: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/nettiklive wrote: »If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets?
I moderate my intake of leafy green vegetables, fruits, healthy grains, etc. too - because I need adequate protein and fat sources in my diet. I moderate my intake of grass-fed beef and organic free-range chicken because fiber is good for you and because I rely upon carbs for energy for my workouts, anti-catabolism and satiety. I moderate my intake of liquids because I need solid foods for satiety and nutrition. I moderate my intake of solid foods because I need liquids for hydration.nettiklive wrote: »The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
What is so hard to understand about moderation in everything being part of a well balanced, nutritious diet?
That article only discusses calories and macros. It doesn't discuss anything about the quality of nutrients you get from Grass Fed Beef or quality carbs. Its just more calories are calories blah blah. At some point you need to move past food 101.
Interesting take on the Lyle article. I found both the Bray et al paper and Lyle's commentary on the paper to be insightful. The only relevance of calories and macros stated there are that they were roughly normalized. I see a study and discussion well beyond just calories and macros.
What I don't understand is your term "quality of nutrients." I know about macro-, micro-, and phytonutrients, but I'm not sure what you mean by the term "quality of nutrients?" Same for "quality carbs." What are those? I know about mono-, di-, and polysaccharides. I understand carb metabolites and their metabolic pathways, and the nuances of starch digestion. But I don't know what the term "quality carbs" means.12 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body,
Let's just keep it here...
17 -
nettiklive wrote: »I'm not a microbiologist so I won't claim to know exactly how they affect your body,
Let's just keep it here...
Hmmm... does not exclude the possibility that she is a biochemist though!2 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color. Why didn't you just add in food coloring? According to the thread, there is no benefit in using beet juice instead of red food dye.
Waiting for the argument now that red dye is actually made from insects so it's in fact natural...
I'm only up to here in this fun and fascinating thread, but I just had to post this:
(From two years ago)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-and-cheese-recipe/index.html
Notice anything different about your mac & cheese lately?
No? Don't worry, nobody else did either.
Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its mac & cheese recipe in December. To keep its yellow-orange glow, Kraft swapped out artificial food colors, including yellow 5 and yellow 6, for natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.
The company is calling it "the world's largest blind taste test."
I didn't because i haven't eaten it since I was 12 and we were broke just-arrived immigrants getting our food from a food bank (in case anyone thinks my 'elitist' views stem from being privileged all my life).
But good for Kraft. And again proves my point. More and more companies are now doing this and increasingly these artificial additives are getting pushed to the sidelines of the market. Because consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of what they are eating and demanding it. Why though? I mean, according to this thread, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with any of this stuff in our food. Why then are companies bothering to remove it?
For the same reason Coke (or was it Pepsi?) removed aspartame from their diet version; marketing to the woo.
Thanks to social media, we now live in a post-factual world... Facts don't matter - only feelings. And chemicalz are scary.
Yep. Enough ignorant people (many willfully so) whine(d) about these ingredients, so the companies are simply going, "fine - here they are without these ingredients."
So, of course, that feeds the cycle of ignorance in thinking that there must have been something wrong with them - even though they can't say what. Quite similar to all the testing that has happened (and will likely continue to happen) with aspartame et al:
1) "It's not tested enough!"
2) "It's been tested extensively."
1) "Why does it keep getting tested, then? That means there must be something wrong with it!"
Willful ignorance is bliss?31 -
To be perfectly honest, I do make choices about food (don't we all?). I regard them as personal preferences, not abstract objective values. Other people can make their own rational choices, and end up with different conclusions than I do, and I don't think they're doing the wrong thing. It's not generally a moral issue. (Note: I am not saying there are no possible wrong things or moral issues.)
After a lifetime (62 years so far), I've decided that I prefer to eat mostly foods that large numbers of humans have eaten successfully for centuries or millennia, and thrived on (long enough to breed, anyway ). They're evolution tested. From experience, I've learned that these foods also tend to be the most satiating and tasty for me personally. (This is clearly not true for everyone: Most "hyperpalatable" foods are not mostly even good enjoyment-wise, IMO, but others obviously differ.)
Clearly, I'm avoiding things that modern science suggests are affirmatively and significantly dangerous, no matter their history; and it makes sense to me to pay even more attention if those effects are cumulative, since we now live longer than was typical in many periods of history.
For things that are newer or with a history in very small ethnic/genetic groups, I may apply a bit more scrutiny. Very loosely, it matters what the FDA considers GRAS, what the Europeans regulate, and the like. I don't usually even think about it for things I eat in vanishingly tiny quantities or very infrequently, especially if many other humans are eating them routinely without obvious ill consequences from that one thing. It matters whether the thing in question is highly desirable to me in other ways, too - tastiness, nutrition, etc. - since these are all trade-offs. I don't eat Tide pods, or any non-food that I can think of.
I get that modern varieties of X agricultural product (wheat, fruit, whatever) are different from heritage varieties, and grown and different ways, but research suggests there's no great difference in their effect on humans. I tend to prefer heritage varieties of veggies and fruits, but more because it seems like good shipping qualities have driven out flavor and other desirable characteristics in some modern varieties. I love my (year-round, even in the US frozen North) farmers market - things are so much fresher, and usually tastier varieties - so I end up eating more organic produce than I otherwise might, because that's mostly what's there. I wash everything thoroughly, organic or not, especially things that involve eating the skin. Organic isn't magic, even with respect to undesirable pesticides or other undesirable tag-alongs. I don't mostly eat organic broccoli, because for some reason I find flea beetles especially gross. I do drink organic milk because even my cancer center RD couldn't find any definitive answers about residual estrogens in milk and estrogen-driven breast cancer (which I had), and I drink a lot of milk.
The thing is, none of this has anything to do with "natural" or "artificial". Humans have eaten "natural" things for centuries/millennia, and "artificial" things for centuries/millennia, by most definitions of those ill-defined terms. There are things modern "eat natural foods" advocates often seem to eat that I feel skeptical about (and mostly don't like), so I don't routinely eat them: Protein powder, fake meat, etc. I prefer sugar to Stevia.
One of my main points of skepticism about modern highly-processed foods is not what's in them, it's what's not in them. (Some of you will have seen me hand-wringing on other threads about people who think supplements are a suitable nutritional substitute for fruits/veggies, on the grounds that a number of essential nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals have been discovered in my lifetime: They're not in supplements before being "discovered", but they were in foods all along.)
So, food choices? I make a lot of them. That doesn't make my choices "right", or anyone else's choices "wrong". It has nothing to do with things being "additives" or "artificial" or "processed" vs. being "natural" or "whole" (whatever the heck that means). It's a ridiculous straw man that if I think there aren't abstractly "good" or "bad" foods irrespective of dosage and context, that that means I think all foods are the same in all respects and any quantity or regularity. (Tide pods are not food. Soap is used as a pesticide on organic produce, however.) We all make food choices.
I'm sticking to "no (inherently) good or bad foods", and the idea that a high-quality (nutritious) overall way of eating is a good thing for most people, even though they're entitled to choose a non-nutritious route if they're grown-ups. Context and dosage matter.
Oh, and sticking to CICO. Wait, this isn't that thread, is it? 16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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