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
-
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
Whichever one wins the lawsuit.3 -
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
I first read that as "sardines".
(Just to be on topic to the thread: Sardines are more "natural" than saltines, because they have eyes. ).
I did the same thing.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
Mr. Black Toast in the kitchen with the cancerstick.
10 -
how many superfoods do i need to counter the black toast is the real question, and do they have to be kiwis because everyone knows that's the only real superfood
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I've got just one life to live. People can do what they want, but I refuse to spend it being scared of burnt toast.
But it has the carcengines!! Plus, it can burn you.
Or give you those little abrasions on the roof of your mouth . . . maybe the anti-toast brigade is on to something here.
particularly the gluten-free toast..that stuff is like sandpaper.
It's got nothing on Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Cereal. That stuff is brutal on the roof of the mouth! And I don't even burn it in the toaster. But it maybe still has cancerogens because not 'natural'.
Unicorn poop is the all-natural anti-cancerogen. I'm offering free samples.3 -
sunfastrose wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »I randomly stumbled on this video today and remembered this thread, I'm sure it'll get woo'd on here but this sums up exactly what I've been trying to say about fast food and junk food and how it's different from natural foods
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1025790800904622&id=276157035868006
Can you please point to where in this thread, or any other, anyone said that there is NO difference between "junk food" (whatever you are defining that as) and natural foods (again, however you define them)? You keep proclaiming that people are saying something that no one is saying, and you've been misrepresenting the context of this thread in others as well.
People were claiming here there's no difference between a homemade burger or potato and McDonald's or frozen Walmart burgers or whatever. There is because production matters.
You'll have to find the exact quote where someone said there is no difference between a homemade burger or potatoes and those purchased from McDonalds so that I don't misinterpret their position, but my guess is that the point was that the nutritional value of the basic, common ingredients used in these food items is negligible in comparison.
Homemade ground beef burgers vs McDonalds ground beef burgers - same size, same toppings. Tell me how the nutritional value is going to be different?
Homemade french fries vs McDonalds french fries... again, tell me how the nutritional content is going to vary significantly.
You've trotted out some scary sounding chemicals that are listed on a fearmongering article/video. How specifically do those chemical additives detract from the basic nutritional profile of both the burger and fries if it is mass produced by McDonalds vs prepared by a home cook?
It's like earlier in the thread where the example of letting children snack on a giant bowl of canned frosting instead of fruit was used . . . like, the reason we usually don't let children snack on frosting is because it's freaking frosting, not because it came in a can. It's not like we'd see big differences in the results of letting kids snack on homemade buttercream frosting from grass-fed cows instead of Duncan Hines from a tub.
...and now I'm craving frosting.
Rainbow chip frosting on saltines is awesome.
I first read that as "sardines".
(Just to be on topic to the thread: Sardines are more "natural" than saltines, because they have eyes. ).
I did the same thing.
Calls for this photo:
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
And at that point, does it matter anyway?
Only one guarantee in life - nobody gets out alive.0 -
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?0 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
No, the hypothetical question showcases the stupidity of the false dichotomy often posited à la "Eat nothing but Burgers for a year and tell me again how they're not harmful!!!1". That kind of crap happens almost daily over here. For some reason these people never seem to want to eat nothing but broccoli for a year though to assess whether broccoli is harmful or not.5 -
There was a rash of children with cognitive deficits raised in fairly wealthy homes a few years back as the parents put them on a low fat diet. Not enough fat and fat soluble vitamins, and you have developmental delays/smaller brains.
Sorry I don’t have a link. This was related to me by my sister, a family physician.
I similarly listened to a tragic tale (on the radio) of a vegetarian mother who breast fed her infant, all healthy natural stuff, but unknowingly she had depleted all her stores of B vitamins. The baby suffered developmental problems.
I eat a lot of natural foods and I grow what I can. Nevertheless I trust our national bodies (FDA, WHO) to give the best overall guidance for my health. Ignorant, untempered fads can result in unforgiving consequences.
So yes, it does need to be pointed out that an all broccoli diet is just as silly as an all “junk food” diet. Maybe even more so.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
No, the hypothetical question showcases the stupidity of the false dichotomy often posited à la "Eat nothing but Burgers for a year and tell me again how they're not harmful!!!1". That kind of crap happens almost daily over here. For some reason these people never seem to want to eat nothing but broccoli for a year though to assess whether broccoli is harmful or not.
Great point...2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Get rid of your workout clothes while you're at it. Synthetic fabrics have chemicals that will kill you.
Gonna be exciting to see what gets me first, my french fries, my toast, my workout clothes, or my counters.
Here’s the thing, how would you know which one is the culprit?
And at that point, does it matter anyway?
Only one guarantee in life - nobody gets out alive.
"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero..."
- Fight Club.6 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
You must be new here. Also, did you read this thread all the way through? There is a poster asserting that anything “natural” must inherently be healthier than anything “unnatural” and when people ask what’s wrong with eating things like McDonalds or store bought cookies in moderation, this is twisted, as in every post like this, into a misinterpretation that posters are advocating for eating nothing but McDonalds, or cake, or cookies. This straw man argument comes up time and again on these boards.
The hypothetical question is meant to demonstrate how ridiculous the claim that natural automatically means healthier. Also how in every clean eating vs junk thread - the proponents of CICO and all things in moderation are always only offered a mono diet of eating just one thing compared to a broad spectrum of clean Whole Foods (sure you could eat but nothing but cake and lose weight but I prefer to eat a healthy diet)
Stick around though, I think you agree with the position that many are making that context and dosage matter...9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
You must be new here. Also, did you read this thread all the way through? There is a poster asserting that anything “natural” must inherently be healthier than anything “unnatural” and when people ask what’s wrong with eating things like McDonalds or store bought cookies in moderation, this is twisted, as in every post like this, into a misinterpretation that posters are advocating for eating nothing but McDonalds, or cake, or cookies. This straw man argument comes up time and again on these boards.
The hypothetical question is meant to demonstrate how ridiculous the claim that natural automatically means healthier. Also how in every clean eating vs junk thread - the proponents of CICO and all things in moderation are always only offered a mono diet of eating just one thing compared to a broad spectrum of clean Whole Foods (sure you could eat but nothing but cake and lose weight but I prefer to eat a healthy diet)
Stick around though, I think you agree with the position that many are making that context and dosage matter...
Thank you for saving me the typing. 3 -
And at that point, does it matter anyway?
Only one guarantee in life - nobody gets out alive.
And healthy nutrients can be the one that killed you. I don't know about every vitamin or mineral but I do know that some of them at very high levels can be toxic and fatal. I remember as a kid having these sweet flavored vitamin C tablets that ended up making me very sick because I had too many.
Similar to your island scenario I have known some people who jumped into veganism and were essentially starving themselves because they did not properly understand the mechanics of nutrition and how to get it on their new lifestyle.
As much as we praise protein you can die from too much protein if you don't have any fat which as I recall was discovered when some people have tried to live off of only rabbits.
It just seems the more I look around and use a modicum of common sense that moderation has always been the key.
5 -
@stevencloser , @AnvilHead , @WinoGelato
I take all of your points and I have long been an advocate of CICO (because anything else is just wrong) I also personally believe in "things I like in moderation" as this keeps me on track for my goals.
However, as someone who is new here I think that message sometimes gets lost in increasingly nuclear attacks on the various WooWoo pseudo-scientists.
That's why I commented on that particular post as IMHO its dropping down to the fruit cakes level.0 -
Just to add and this probably won't be popular on here but as well as knowing CICO holds true and all things in moderation. I also think (I don't have studies or links) that too much of a good thing isn't that great either.
Left to my own devices I'd probably eat along the lines of Breakfast: Bacon Sandwich, Lunch: Burger, Dinner: Burrito I can fit that into my calorie goal (even on my cut if I eat back some exercise).
In fact I did eat like this for most of my 20s and I was in great shape. (CICO).
In all honesty I didn't get ill, fat or poisoned.
However, I think a more balanced diet with more fruit and veg is better for my (very) long term health.1 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »@stevencloser , @AnvilHead , @WinoGelato
I take all of your points and I have long been an advocate of CICO (because anything else is just wrong) I also personally believe in "things I like in moderation" as this keeps me on track for my goals.
However, as someone who is new here I think that message sometimes gets lost in increasingly nuclear attacks on the various WooWoo pseudo-scientists.
That's why I commented on that particular post as IMHO its dropping down to the fruit cakes level.
I respectfully disagree. Time and time again moderation has been used in this thread and it is a strong theme throughout the forums. I don't see how it could be getting lost even a little.
4 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »@stevencloser , @AnvilHead , @WinoGelato
I take all of your points and I have long been an advocate of CICO (because anything else is just wrong) I also personally believe in "things I like in moderation" as this keeps me on track for my goals.
However, as someone who is new here I think that message sometimes gets lost in increasingly nuclear attacks on the various WooWoo pseudo-scientists.
That's why I commented on that particular post as IMHO its dropping down to the fruit cakes level.
That's because you either didn't read the whole thread or didn't understand the context of my post.
I'm a strong 'everything in moderation', 'context and dosage' proponent, and I think that anybody who doesn't believe in CICO may as well not believe in gravity either. I don't believe in ridiculous monodiets, nor do I believe in arbitrarily restricting any particular food/macro/food group from one's diet without a valid reason to do so. The scenario I presented, and the ensuing conversation, was in response to another poster's contentions that basically anything not 100% natural and hand-picked off a plant by a virgin elven maiden under the halo of a harvest moon is 'poison' and will almost immediately kill you. My post was intentionally 'fruitcakey' and extremist because it was dealing with an equally extremist position.
As do about 95% of the people involved in this thread, myself included. But I believe that any individual food/meal should be evaluated within the context of the overall diet, and whether the dosage is appropriate. Too much of anything is not a good thing, which is what the hypothetical question was aimed toward....However, I think a more balanced diet with more fruit and veg is better for my (very) long term health.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
Hypothetical question for you:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
As far as I've seen on this thread no one has advocated eating just burgers. (Which is a shame as I LOVE a good burger and would happily eat them everyday)
But like wise I've seen no one advocate eating only broccoli and carrots or beans and peas as that would be completely stupid. However, the "clean eating" and "raw food" fads aren't that far off and are clearly a fad to drive internet clicks and sell books.
The way you've positioned your hypothetical question looks to me like you're saying Big Macs are good but Carrots and Broccoli are bad?
My diet (nutrition) contains a fair amount of veggies and I've not noticed any harm, it also contains a fair amount of burgers, pizza and burritos and likewise I've not noticed any harm.
Why is it a zero sum game?
No, the hypothetical question showcases the stupidity of the false dichotomy often posited à la "Eat nothing but Burgers for a year and tell me again how they're not harmful!!!1". That kind of crap happens almost daily over here. For some reason these people never seem to want to eat nothing but broccoli for a year though to assess whether broccoli is harmful or not.
Nor do they seem to recognize that you probably would be alive after eating nothing but burgers for a year. Not so much for broccoli.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions