ADVERTISEMENT

OT: "What the Heck Should I Eat?"

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 27, 2012
40,159
52,880
1
An altered state
This Dr is the head of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and has written ten NYT best selling books on nutrition. He says that 80% of our healthcare costs are self inflicted by terrible nutrition, bad habits, and lack of exercise. That seems high to to me but no doubt those are significant causes that never get discussed in the healthcare debate. Even we can get people to eat healthier and reduce costs by 25% that would be huge.

Anyway, watch this video, search youtube for a few more by this Dr, and he will open your eyes to a better way of eating and better health for all.

 
This Dr is the head of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and has written ten NYT best selling books on nutrition. He says that 80% of our healthcare costs are self inflicted by terrible nutrition, bad habits, and lack of exercise. That seems high to to me but no doubt those are significant causes that never get discussed in the healthcare debate. Even we can get people to eat healthier and reduce costs by 25% that would be huge.

Anyway, watch this video, search youtube for a few more by this Dr, and he will open your eyes to a better way of eating and better health for all.


I'm torn when I see stuff like this. I think he is partly right and partly entirely wrong. My analogy is like when there's a war going on and some hippy says "We should all stop fighting and live in harmony." Yes, we should all stop fighting, but it's simplistic to just say we should all live in harmony. How?

Here are some flags from that video. Using the phrase "real food." You hear that one a lot. It's a way of defining as bad anything you don't like. Any food is real food. Period.

The talk about "chemicals and hormones and pesticides." First, EVERYTHING is chemicals. Next, "natural" food has all manner of hormones and pesticides in them. Animals have hormones in them naturally. Plants develop pesticides as a means of defense against pests and when doing so they don't test themselves to make sure the pesticides they're developing aren't harmful to humans.

This is all leading up to a "Nature is God" religion type thing. He actually invokes God near the end, saying if God made it then eat and if humans made it then don't. In the slide they put on the screen at one point it takes about eating being "a way of life." Groovy, baby. If we can just all live in harmony there will be no war so let's just mellow out together.

Mellowing out together is a good thing. And eating the foods that doctor proposes is good too. But that doesn't mean it's The Way. Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy. Processing is just applying technology to food. Why would that magically always be bad when applying technology is so beneficial on other aspects of life?

Yes, people should eat more like that doctor says but the problem is that eating that way costs more time and money and we're never going to have more than a small minority of people that are going to want to have making and eating food be "a way of life," as they say in that video.

Cheap, fast food isn't bad in principle, it's just that it's often bad in practice. The solution isn't to have people eat expensive, slow food instead, rather it's to make cheap, fast food also be healthy. And that involves developing new technology and applying it to food. But for people at the Church of the Natural, applying technology to food is a sin.
 
I'm torn when I see stuff like this. I think he is partly right and partly entirely wrong. My analogy is like when there's a war going on and some hippy says "We should all stop fighting and live in harmony." Yes, we should all stop fighting, but it's simplistic to just say we should all live in harmony. How?

Here are some flags from that video. Using the phrase "real food." You hear that one a lot. It's a way of defining as bad anything you don't like. Any food is real food. Period.

The talk about "chemicals and hormones and pesticides." First, EVERYTHING is chemicals. Next, "natural" food has all manner of hormones and pesticides in them. Animals have hormones in them naturally. Plants develop pesticides as a means of defense against pests and when doing so they don't test themselves to make sure the pesticides they're developing aren't harmful to humans.

This is all leading up to a "Nature is God" religion type thing. He actually invokes God near the end, saying if God made it then eat and if humans made it then don't. In the slide they put on the screen at one point it takes about eating being "a way of life." Groovy, baby. If we can just all live in harmony there will be no war so let's just mellow out together.

Mellowing out together is a good thing. And eating the foods that doctor proposes is good too. But that doesn't mean it's The Way. Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy. Processing is just applying technology to food. Why would that magically always be bad when applying technology is so beneficial on other aspects of life?

Yes, people should eat more like that doctor says but the problem is that eating that way costs more time and money and we're never going to have more than a small minority of people that are going to want to have making and eating food be "a way of life," as they say in that video.

Cheap, fast food isn't bad in principle, it's just that it's often bad in practice. The solution isn't to have people eat expensive, slow food instead, rather it's to make cheap, fast food also be healthy. And that involves developing new technology and applying it to food. But for people at the Church of the Natural, applying technology to food is a sin.
----
Sorry you don't like his terminology. People easily understand what he means when he says 'real food' vs 'processed food'. I don't like avocados but that is still 'real food' in his and any definition. And there are different levels of 'processed food'. I can grind up a steak and have ground beef, which is processed but still good for ya. But if I add salt, food colors to make it more appealing, a chemical preservative so it lasts longer on the shelf, a binding agent and who knows what else, it is now processed to the point it is not as healthy as pure ground beef.

And yep, plants make their own pesticides. Thats why herbs have such strong flavors. And many medicines have been developed from plant chemicals. But you don't see plants with polychlorinated b-phenol esters or the other complex synthetic chemicals added to foods. And naturally raised animals have low levels of hormones compared to ones that are fed hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff to boost their growth. And many of those are artificial hormones.

Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy. Processing is just applying technology to food.

So processed foods might be good but the ones we have now aren't? Fine. If people start rejecting the crap on the market now then the food industry will respond with better food. Like Micky Ds offering salads and other healthy meals. Just need people to make better choices/
.
And we have to try something. Our healthcare system is going bankrupt taking care people that are slowly killing themselves eating garbage. I do not expect everyone to suddenly stop eating junk food and high carb garbage.

Sorry if 'better' is so difficult. No need to sing silly songs or hold hands or 'mellowing' Just trying to help people.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Creek Side
I think the issue is pretty simple. Most people shop based on price and have no feel for the compromise that lower quality food has on long term costs. Those chemicals listed in the ingredients mean nothing to the average Joe. And even if you could show people the link between food quality and chronic health problems they would most likely believe that such problems won't happen to them.

Generally, for most, I liken the issue to cigarette smoking. Smokers believe they won't get cancer because not all smokers get cancer.

Then there are the folks that believe health care should be an inalienable right. How that can happen without any personal responsibility is beyond me. Maybe if we have the right to health care we don't get the right to smoke, or to eat greasy food. Maybe we could fulfill this right if we ban sugar.
 
I think the issue is pretty simple. Most people shop based on price and have no feel for the compromise that lower quality food has on long term costs. Those chemicals listed in the ingredients mean nothing to the average Joe. And even if you could show people the link between food quality and chronic health problems they would most likely believe that such problems won't happen to them.

Generally, for most, I liken the issue to cigarette smoking. Smokers believe they won't get cancer because not all smokers get cancer.

Then there are the folks that believe health care should be an inalienable right. How that can happen without any personal responsibility is beyond me. Maybe if we have the right to health care we don't get the right to smoke, or to eat greasy food. Maybe we could fulfill this right if we ban sugar.
--------
My preference would be to put a tax on any food additives that is in line with their societal costs. Say that we have evidence that high fructose corn syrup adds $125 billion to our national healthcare costs. Place a tax on every bushel of corn that would add up to $125 billion. Then put that amount to pay for the sick and for research on prevention and care.

Do the same with alcohol....say a fifty cents on every bottle of beer, a dollar on a bottle of wine, and two dollars on hard liquor. Same with tobacco products. A dollar on every opioid pill made. Make the users of such products pay for the harm caused.

I know that would be very difficult to do as the ag industry is very powerful. Also the mid west ag areas are R strongholds and the Rs would want to piss off their base. But when I become King thats what I would do.....;)
 
There are plenty of people who eat by the book healthy and have all sorts of medical issues.

There are plenty of people who eat crap all day and have no medical issues.
 
This Dr is the head of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and has written ten NYT best selling books on nutrition. He says that 80% of our healthcare costs are self inflicted by terrible nutrition, bad habits, and lack of exercise. That seems high to to me but no doubt those are significant causes that never get discussed in the healthcare debate. Even we can get people to eat healthier and reduce costs by 25% that would be huge.

Anyway, watch this video, search youtube for a few more by this Dr, and he will open your eyes to a better way of eating and better health for all.


If it smells like fish, eat it.
 
There is a good book “The 4-Hour Body” by Tim Ferris published in 2009 2010 ish...it’s an amalgamation of multiple diets, sources and physicians theories and some scientific facts. Anyhow lot on what to eat and how 90% of food in a grocery store is bad for you...very interesting points he made.

Since that book....I stopped drinking cream with coffee after twenty years. I use cinnamon and love it. Think we had a post few months ago about “our coffee”. Ferris’s book started that black coffee has antioxidants and the minute u put cream in it it neutralizes the benefits. By adding cinnamon it does two things, kills the bitterness that black coffee has and it helps keep blood sugar levels even.

My breakfast starts out everyday with black coffee with cinnamon floater. Then all water the rest of the day. No sugar drinks an occasional drink- beer or a fine spirit, wine but that’s occasional. No milk! Loved me some skim milk...no more. Interesting fact humans are the only mammal after 6 months to still drink milk. There is 12 grams of sugar in skim milk!

My go to breakfast everyday is egg whites, black beans with fresh salsa and guacamole. It’s a four minute meal....egg whites pour into microwaveable safe omelet container you can buy at grocery store. I make black beans fresh on Sundays, simply scoop daily and heat up in microwave. Scope salsa and guacamole...healthiest meal you will eat. The beans provide good carbs and fiber.

The rest of the day well that changes lol...

Anyhow hadn’t been to the Dr. 13 years. No idea cholesterol,etc. Just had it done last week...cholesterol 201. Everything else perfect....dr. Said u don’t eat like a typical American...one thing my vitamin d was 29. Needs be 30-60 range lol...will add almond milk.

Check out the book it’s a fun read very resourceful..
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
There are plenty of people who eat by the book healthy and have all sorts of medical issues.

There are plenty of people who eat crap all day and have no medical issues.

good ideas let take away everyone's free choice and do what you think is best

interrobang; Brilliant observation. Good health habits...nutrition, exercise, avoiding society's poisons...do not guarantee anything. Its about increasing your odds and making what days you get more enjoyable. We all die someday, we get sick. But a good lifestyle not only increases your odds of avoiding many illnesses, it makes you more likely to recover well when bad news hits.

eidolon; I am about as libertarian as one could be. I don't give a damn what people do as long as they leave me alone and take responsibility for their actions. I workout, have an organic garden, avoid the poisons in the world, and stay healthy. For decades never had a single health problem. Yet my insurance bills subsidized the people that did all sorts of crap....booze, drugs, eat like a horse, eat tons of junk food, are obese.....

Put a tax on all the bad stuff....alcohol, opioids, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, junk food...equal to the societal costs that result from the consumption of those things. Let the users of those pay for the damage they do to themselves.

Hell, even make the taxes a little higher to help take of people that fall ill in spite of avoiding those poisons.

Give them all the free choice they want. Just make them responsible for the damage they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eidolon21
There is a good book “The 4-Hour Body” by Tim Ferris published in 2009 2010 ish...it’s an amalgamation of multiple diets, sources and physicians theories and some scientific facts. Anyhow lot on what to eat and how 90% of food in a grocery store is bad for you...very interesting points he made.

Since that book....I stopped drinking cream with coffee after twenty years. I use cinnamon and love it. Think we had a post few months ago about “our coffee”. Ferris’s book started that black coffee has antioxidants and the minute u put cream in it it neutralizes the benefits. By adding cinnamon it does two things, kills the bitterness that black coffee has and it helps keep blood sugar levels even.

My breakfast starts out everyday with black coffee with cinnamon floater. Then all water the rest of the day. No sugar drinks an occasional drink- beer or a fine spirit, wine but that’s occasional. No milk! Loved me some skim milk...no more. Interesting fact humans are the only mammal after 6 months to still drink milk. There is 12 grams of sugar in skim milk!

My go to breakfast everyday is egg whites, black beans with fresh salsa and guacamole. It’s a four minute meal....egg whites pour into microwaveable safe omelet container you can buy at grocery store. I make black beans fresh on Sundays, simply scoop daily and heat up in microwave. Scope salsa and guacamole...healthiest meal you will eat. The beans provide good carbs and fiber.

The rest of the day well that changes lol...

Anyhow hadn’t been to the Dr. 13 years. No idea cholesterol,etc. Just had it done last week...cholesterol 201. Everything else perfect....dr. Said u don’t eat like a typical American...one thing my vitamin d was 29. Needs be 30-60 range lol...will add almond milk.

Check out the book it’s a fun read very resourceful..
----
Cinnamon is good for controlling glucose levels. And a breakfast high in protein like yours is helps keep one from getting hungry until much later.

Try adding walnuts, almonds, and other nuts to your meals, it helps lower cholesterol. And what was the spread between LDL and HDL? There are good cholesterol so you need to know what levels of each.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftlpsu
interrobang; Brilliant observation. Good health habits...nutrition, exercise, avoiding society's poisons...do not guarantee anything. Its about increasing your odds and making what days you get more enjoyable. We all die someday, we get sick. But a good lifestyle not only increases your odds of avoiding many illnesses, it makes you more likely to recover well when bad news hits.

eidolon; I am about as libertarian as one could be. I don't give a damn what people do as long as they leave me alone and take responsibility for their actions. I workout, have an organic garden, avoid the poisons in the world, and stay healthy. For decades never had a single health problem. Yet my insurance bills subsidized the people that did all sorts of crap....booze, drugs, eat like a horse, eat tons of junk food, are obese.....

Put a tax on all the bad stuff....alcohol, opioids, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, junk food...equal to the societal costs that result from the consumption of those things. Let the users of those pay for the damage they do to themselves.

Hell, even make the taxes a little higher to help take of people that fall ill in spite of avoiding those poisons.

Give them all the free choice they want. Just make them responsible for the damage they do.
You guys are pushing all of my hot buttons. Blaming farmers and their lobbies for poisoning everyone with hormones and pesticides. Organic food— biggest fraud out there. Almond milk is crap from Big Almond (quote from mother jones).

Everyone claims they found a magic bullet, but the secret is a balanced diet and exercise. Nothing more.

Organic food has no science behind it for all of you people who claim to believe in science. Organic is more about climate change arguments. Commercial fertilizer is outlawed in organic and it is mostly derived from natural gas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777
You guys are pushing all of my hot buttons. Blaming farmers and their lobbies for poisoning everyone with hormones and pesticides. Organic food— biggest fraud out there. Almond milk is crap from Big Almond (quote from mother jones).

Everyone claims they found a magic bullet, but the secret is a balanced diet and exercise. Nothing more.

Organic food has no science behind it for all of you people who claim to believe in science. Organic is more about climate change arguments. Commercial fertilizer is outlawed in organic and it is mostly derived from natural gas.
---
Are you saying that the ag lobby doesn't have massive impacts on our eating habits? That an overload of hormones and pesticides is ok?

There is a lot of science behind organic farming. I would not trust everything labelled organic in a grocer store but true organics are better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion
Put a tax on all the bad stuff....alcohol, opioids, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, junk food...equal to the societal costs that result from the consumption of those things. Let the users of those pay for the damage they do to themselves.

I'm going to disagree with your blanket conclusions on the "bad things." For me, a mild synthetic opioid is enabling me to stay active, which is enhancing my health. Frankly, I'm tired of paying for the bad behavior of those who abuse opioids, or use them as a path to worse things. The truth is that, other than perhaps CBD (for some people), opioids are the only type of pain medicine that does not produce damage to your organs. The OTC stuff is much worse for your liver, kidneys, and stomach. If you don't suffer from some kind of chronic pain, or never need pain relief, then terrific. You are lucky. Hope that holds as you get old.

From what I hear, there have apparently been some studies that show benefits to low/moderate alcohol consumption. So I wouldn't make a blanket statement on ethanol either.
 
There are plenty of people who eat by the book healthy and have all sorts of medical issues.

There are plenty of people who eat crap all day and have no medical issues.

So it follows then that food has nothing to do with health. (???) Is that what you're trying to say? Or are you saying that "plenty" is so large in each case that it doesn't matter much?
 
You guys are pushing all of my hot buttons. Blaming farmers and their lobbies for poisoning everyone with hormones and pesticides. Organic food— biggest fraud out there. Almond milk is crap from Big Almond (quote from mother jones).

Everyone claims they found a magic bullet, but the secret is a balanced diet and exercise. Nothing more.

Organic food has no science behind it for all of you people who claim to believe in science. Organic is more about climate change arguments. Commercial fertilizer is outlawed in organic and it is mostly derived from natural gas.
Get the soil right and you don't need to add any of the poisons you espouse!
 
---
Are you saying that the ag lobby doesn't have massive impacts on our eating habits? That an overload of hormones and pesticides is ok?

There is a lot of science behind organic farming. I would not trust everything labelled organic in a grocer store but true organics are better.
Actually no. The studies show no significant health differences. I will make a blanket statement like others and assert that the science you refer to are theories not double blind studies.

If people actually looked at the history, modern ag (fertilizer, pesticide, gmo,etc) used to be called the green revolution which provided sufficient food for most of the world. Wikipedia (don’t hate) lists an estimate of one billion lives saved. Organic comes along fueled by ideologies like climate change and suddenly modern ag is corrupt and trying to poison for profit.
 
Get the soil right and you don't need to add any of the poisons you espouse!
Get the soil right? Do you mean carefully till and lime and add natural fertilizer like manure? After that you manually weed at least weekly? That works in your backyard and is perfect fully cool for you, but not when you are planting millions of acres for billions of people.

Thanks for framing your question as me espousing poison. It makes me chuckle when such an uninformed aggressive attack is made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleLar
Get the soil right? Do you mean carefully till and lime and add natural fertilizer like manure? After that you manually weed at least weekly? That works in your backyard and is perfect fully cool for you, but not when you are planting millions of acres for billions of people.

Thanks for framing your question as me espousing poison. It makes me chuckle when such an uninformed aggressive attack is made.
I guess my agronomic studies at PSU leave me uninformed....you really are an ignorant, pompous a-hole!
Just let me add that I'm placing no blame on the farming industry..it's what happens to their product from the field to your table that causes me concern....
And, applying lots of compost to encourage the growth of soil microorganisms is far more beneficial than your natural gas fertilizers...;)
 
Last edited:
This Dr is the head of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and has written ten NYT best selling books on nutrition. He says that 80% of our healthcare costs are self inflicted by terrible nutrition, bad habits, and lack of exercise. That seems high to to me but no doubt those are significant causes that never get discussed in the healthcare debate. Even we can get people to eat healthier and reduce costs by 25% that would be huge.

Anyway, watch this video, search youtube for a few more by this Dr, and he will open your eyes to a better way of eating and better health for all.



Dr. Mark Hyman is the sheet in the medical community among people that work out a lot. I mentioned him in Ro's article on working out. The influence of the gut on the brain is really amazing.
 
People should settle down when it comes to punishing some others for their dietary choices. I have been listening to podcasts and TED talks on a regular basis to help me deal with diabetes. It is instructive to know that nutrition science is relatively young. For example, theories about cholesterol began to hit in the late 1950's to early 1960's. At that time, it was simply "cholesterol." After considerable studies that have become public of late, we now have good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. One is supposed to be high (HDL) and one should be low (LDL). However, now the researchers say the LDL should be separated by large, fluffy globules of LDL and small ones. The small ones are the ones that are dangerous. Also, I keep hearing that Triglycerides are the real bad guys when it comes to heart disease. Some doctors have now been saying that Cholesterol levels are unimportant. They point to the fact that there are so many early deaths of people with low cholesterol. So, who do we punish with punitive taxes. Those with high cholesterol, those with low HDL, those with high LDL, those with small LDL particles or those with high Triglycerides?
Some doctors want you on a Mediterranean diet and some will place you on a Keto diet, some on Paleo and listen to Jordan Peterson and his daughter, Mikhalia discuss their food alergies and how they were saved by a Carnivore diet.
Another doctor (TED talk) discussed his findings from a study that indicated that, in truth, no one diet works for everyone. He related one test result where people given ice cream actually did not register any increase in blood sugar.
Of my two law school roommates, one died in his twenties from disease and my other died in his early 60's also. On the other hand, a college friend (female) lived on candy and sugar soda. She is till alive and in her seventies.
Before we punish part of our population for diet, or the new religion of global warming, we have to realize that science is in its infancy and science will eventually disprove some things we now hold dear.
 
Actually no. The studies show no significant health differences. I will make a blanket statement like others and assert that the science you refer to are theories not double blind studies.

If people actually looked at the history, modern ag (fertilizer, pesticide, gmo,etc) used to be called the green revolution which provided sufficient food for most of the world. Wikipedia (don’t hate) lists an estimate of one billion lives saved. Organic comes along fueled by ideologies like climate change and suddenly modern ag is corrupt and trying to poison for profit.
----
I have no problem with controlled use of fertilizers. Certainly factory farming has produced more food than was thought possible 50 yrs ago.

But too many over use it to try to maximize profits and a lot runs off into the water table. Same with pesticides. Monsanto even developed glucophosphate-resistant corn so they can double or triple the application rate.

Further, we are exposed to a very large variety of pesticides, herbicides, hormones and more. Not counting the massive amount of other chemicals like cleaners, fire retardants, adhesives, and who knows what off gasses from all the stuff in our lives. While each has been tested for safety, I doubt there have been many studies on the cumulative affect of the cocktail of chemicals we all get.

Are saying that eating 50 lbs of sugar a year are ok? Or eating huge amounts of starch? What all the complex petro chemicals in processed foods? Feasting on junk food doesn't affect health?

I prefer to limit my exposure when and as much as I can.
 
People should settle down when it comes to punishing some others for their dietary choices. I have been listening to podcasts and TED talks on a regular basis to help me deal with diabetes. It is instructive to know that nutrition science is relatively young. For example, theories about cholesterol began to hit in the late 1950's to early 1960's. At that time, it was simply "cholesterol." After considerable studies that have become public of late, we now have good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. One is supposed to be high (HDL) and one should be low (LDL). However, now the researchers say the LDL should be separated by large, fluffy globules of LDL and small ones. The small ones are the ones that are dangerous. Also, I keep hearing that Triglycerides are the real bad guys when it comes to heart disease. Some doctors have now been saying that Cholesterol levels are unimportant. They point to the fact that there are so many early deaths of people with low cholesterol. So, who do we punish with punitive taxes. Those with high cholesterol, those with low HDL, those with high LDL, those with small LDL particles or those with high Triglycerides?
Some doctors want you on a Mediterranean diet and some will place you on a Keto diet, some on Paleo and listen to Jordan Peterson and his daughter, Mikhalia discuss their food alergies and how they were saved by a Carnivore diet.
Another doctor (TED talk) discussed his findings from a study that indicated that, in truth, no one diet works for everyone. He related one test result where people given ice cream actually did not register any increase in blood sugar.
Of my two law school roommates, one died in his twenties from disease and my other died in his early 60's also. On the other hand, a college friend (female) lived on candy and sugar soda. She is till alive and in her seventies.
Before we punish part of our population for diet, or the new religion of global warming, we have to realize that science is in its infancy and science will eventually disprove some things we now hold dear.
Like I said in an earlier post, healthy habits are not a guarantee of good health or a long life....just the best way to increase the odds. And certainly everyone is different. But the massive obesity problem we have is diet based. And drug and alcohol abuse is a huge problem. I enjoy occasional beer or wine but would gladly pay a bit more as I drink so little to hardly affect me. But someone that drinks a case a week or does ten or twenty opioid pills a day should pay for the damage they are doing.
 
I guess my agronomic studies at PSU leave me uninformed....you really are an ignorant, pompous a-hole!
Just let me add that I'm placing no blame on the farming industry..it's what happens to their product from the field to your table that causes me concern....
And, applying lots of compost to encourage the growth of soil microorganisms is far more beneficial than your natural gas fertilizers...;)
What agronomy did you study—organic is the only way 101? Of course you try to encourage the growth of microorganisms. But also have to have enough nitrogen to maximize yield. Some people have enough manure to do that but most do not.

It is an absolute fact that organic can only produce half as much per acre as conventional with current technology (and that is generous). Again, modern ag has saved countless lives. The change in paradigm you advocate gets filed in the “cancer” scare category. Despite lack of proof all you need to do is say cancer and scare people into following you.
 
What agronomy did you study—organic is the only way 101? Of course you try to encourage the growth of microorganisms. But also have to have enough nitrogen to maximize yield. Some people have enough manure to do that but most do not.

It is an absolute fact that organic can only produce half as much per acre as conventional with current technology (and that is generous). Again, modern ag has saved countless lives. The change in paradigm you advocate gets filed in the “cancer” scare category. Despite lack of proof all you need to do is say cancer and scare people into following you.
The focus of today's farming practices is on size, growth rate and pest resistance at the expense of a dwindling nutritional value...you need to eat much more to satisfy nutritional needs eating today's foods...obesity at all time highs worldwide...Go NITROGEN!!! LOL

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
 
The focus of today's farming practices is on size, growth rate and pest resistance at the expense of a dwindling nutritional value...you need to eat much more to satisfy nutritional needs eating today's foods...obesity at all time highs worldwide...Go NITROGEN!!! LOL

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
Most crops have been bred to increase starch content or, in the case of corn, an increase in fructose. The current crops are poor nutritional sources compared to those of years ago. Much is true of farm animals.
 
The focus of today's farming practices is on size, growth rate and pest resistance at the expense of a dwindling nutritional value...you need to eat much more to satisfy nutritional needs eating today's foods...obesity at all time highs worldwide...Go NITROGEN!!! LOL

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
You have a problem with nitrogen?! It is a basic nutrient necessary for plant growth. Organic just argues that you should get it from manure or compost. That argument is fine for backyard gardens and for certain areas where manure is readily available but not practical otherwise.
 
I'm torn when I see stuff like this. I think he is partly right and partly entirely wrong. My analogy is like when there's a war going on and some hippy says "We should all stop fighting and live in harmony." Yes, we should all stop fighting, but it's simplistic to just say we should all live in harmony. How?

Here are some flags from that video. Using the phrase "real food." You hear that one a lot. It's a way of defining as bad anything you don't like. Any food is real food. Period.

The talk about "chemicals and hormones and pesticides." First, EVERYTHING is chemicals. Next, "natural" food has all manner of hormones and pesticides in them. Animals have hormones in them naturally. Plants develop pesticides as a means of defense against pests and when doing so they don't test themselves to make sure the pesticides they're developing aren't harmful to humans.

This is all leading up to a "Nature is God" religion type thing. He actually invokes God near the end, saying if God made it then eat and if humans made it then don't. In the slide they put on the screen at one point it takes about eating being "a way of life." Groovy, baby. If we can just all live in harmony there will be no war so let's just mellow out together.

Mellowing out together is a good thing. And eating the foods that doctor proposes is good too. But that doesn't mean it's The Way. Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy. Processing is just applying technology to food. Why would that magically always be bad when applying technology is so beneficial on other aspects of life?

Yes, people should eat more like that doctor says but the problem is that eating that way costs more time and money and we're never going to have more than a small minority of people that are going to want to have making and eating food be "a way of life," as they say in that video.

Cheap, fast food isn't bad in principle, it's just that it's often bad in practice. The solution isn't to have people eat expensive, slow food instead, rather it's to make cheap, fast food also be healthy. And that involves developing new technology and applying it to food. But for people at the Church of the Natural, applying technology to food is a sin.

Here are some flags from that video. Using the phrase "real food." You hear that one a lot. It's a way of defining as bad anything you don't like. Any food is real food. Period.

It's pretty easy. Real food = bananas, oranges, beans, legumes, kale, carrots, etc.

Not real food or manufactured food like substances = ice cream, Pepsi, Twinkies, donuts, cake, cookies etc.

Plants develop pesticides as a means of defense against pests and when doing so they don't test themselves to make sure the pesticides they're developing aren't harmful to humans.

We have evolved over thousands of generations eating plants. A lot of the plant pesticides have beneficial effects on our health.

Here is a sample:

Carotenoids
(such as beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin) Red, orange and green fruits and vegetables including broccoli, carrots, cooked tomatoes, leafy greens, sweet potatoes, winter squash, apricots, cantaloupe, oranges and watermelon May inhibit cancer cell growth, work as antioxidants and improve immune response

Flavonoids
(such as anthocyanins and quercetin) Apples, citrus fruits, onions, soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.), coffee and tea May inhibit inflammation and tumor growth; may aid immunity and boost production of detoxifying enzymes in the body

Indoles and Glucosinolates
(sulforaphane) Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, collard greens, kale, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts) May induce detoxification of carcinogens, limit production of cancer-related hormones, block carcinogens and prevent tumor growth

Inositol
(phytic acid) Bran from corn, oats, rice, rye and wheat, nuts, soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.) May retard cell growth and work as antioxidant

Isoflavones
(daidzein and genistein) Soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.) May inhibit tumor growth, limit production of cancer-related hormones and generally work as antioxidant

Isothiocyanates Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, collard greens, kale, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts) May induce detoxification of carcinogens, block tumor growth and work as antioxidants

Polyphenols
(such as ellagic acid and resveratrol) Green tea, grapes, wine, berries, citrus fruits, apples, whole grains and peanuts May prevent cancer formation, prevent inflammation and work as antioxidants

Terpenes
(such as perillyl alcohol, limonene, carnosol) Cherries, citrus fruit peel, rosemary May protect cells from becoming cancerous, slow cancer cell growth, strengthen immune function, limit production of cancer-related hormones, fight viruses, work as antioxidants

Mellowing out together is a good thing. And eating the foods that doctor proposes is good too. But that doesn't mean it's The Way. Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy.

Um yeah, so don't eat them. That's the whole point.

Processing is just applying technology to food. Why would that magically always be bad when applying technology is so beneficial on other aspects of life?


Why don't we just eat the food as is? What else do you need to do a carrot? We have been eating them just fine for eons.

Yes, people should eat more like that doctor says but the problem is that eating that way costs more time and money a

Getting sick and putting yourself into the US healthcare system costs and incredible amount of time.

Beans, legumes and most vegetables are the cheapest foods you can buy.
 
Most crops have been bred to increase starch content or, in the case of corn, an increase in fructose. The current crops are poor nutritional sources compared to those of years ago. Much is true of farm animals.
Sweet corn has been bred to be “super sweet” to meet demand. Sweet corn’s sugar content drops rapidly after it is picked. To give a “sweet” corn to consumers who don’t get the ears same day, the corn was bred to dramatically increase the sugar content.

There is nothing sinister here. In order to get produce from CA to NY and still be edible is a huge problem. Backyard sweet corn and tomatoes are much better than the varieties which must withstand harvest and shipping thousands of miles. The other option is no produce most of the year.

I don’t have a clue what you mean with animals. That just seems like an ominous statement you throw in for no reason.
 
----
Sorry you don't like his terminology. People easily understand what he means when he says 'real food' vs 'processed food'. I don't like avocados but that is still 'real food' in his and any definition. And there are different levels of 'processed food'. I can grind up a steak and have ground beef, which is processed but still good for ya. But if I add salt, food colors to make it more appealing, a chemical preservative so it lasts longer on the shelf, a binding agent and who knows what else, it is now processed to the point it is not as healthy as pure ground beef.

And yep, plants make their own pesticides. Thats why herbs have such strong flavors. And many medicines have been developed from plant chemicals. But you don't see plants with polychlorinated b-phenol esters or the other complex synthetic chemicals added to foods. And naturally raised animals have low levels of hormones compared to ones that are fed hormones, antibiotics, and other stuff to boost their growth. And many of those are artificial hormones.

Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy. Processing is just applying technology to food.

So processed foods might be good but the ones we have now aren't? Fine. If people start rejecting the crap on the market now then the food industry will respond with better food. Like Micky Ds offering salads and other healthy meals. Just need people to make better choices/
.
And we have to try something. Our healthcare system is going bankrupt taking care people that are slowly killing themselves eating garbage. I do not expect everyone to suddenly stop eating junk food and high carb garbage.

Sorry if 'better' is so difficult. No need to sing silly songs or hold hands or 'mellowing' Just trying to help people.

I can grind up a steak and have ground beef, which is processed but still good for ya.

I personally steer clear of all the meats. The big meat companies are only interested in profits and they have bought off all the government regulators. They stuff they pushing on the American public is pathetic.

US pork banned in many countries.

Ractopamine is a feed additive, banned in many countries, to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Pharmacologically, it is a phenol-based TAAR1 agonist and β adrenoreceptor agonist that stimulates β1 and β2 adrenergic receptors. It is most commonly administered to animals for meat production as ractopamine hydrochloride. It is the active ingredient in products known in the US as Paylean for swine, Optaflexx for cattle, and Tomax for turkeys. It was developed by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.

As of 2014 the use of ractopamine was banned in 160 countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption.

The fundamental reason comes down to ractopamine, a feed additive that helps pigs bulk up with more lean meat in the final weeks before they're sent for slaughter. It's fed to between 60 percent and 80 percent of American pigs
US chicken meat banned from Europe:

It all comes down to money and efficiency of space. The majority of farmers do care about rearing their birds, but as profit margins can be very tight, animal welfare is sidelined to keep costs down. In the EU, cost is also important, but the law means it can’t come at the expense of the birds’ basic welfare. There is a legal minimum amount of space, lighting and ventilation for EU poultry rearing houses.

The more space the birds have to move around in, the fewer can be housed in a single area, which in turn has an effect on production costs. As there are no laws governing this in the US, the birds can be crammed in tightly so they have limited movement, with little light or ventilation. This reduces production costs but increases the risks of disease and contamination in a flock.

Washing the chickens in a strong chlorine solution (20-50 parts per million of chlorine) provides a brash, cost-effective method of killing any microorganisms on the surface of the bird, particularly bacteria such as species of Salmonella and Campylobacter. This helps prevent the meat being contaminated with microbes during slaughter and evisceration.

Why is the process banned in the EU?

US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this chlorine washing process. But this isn’t because the treatment itself has been deemed dangerous. A report by the EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, for example, highlighted that the chemical cleaning treatment can be effective at removing foodborne pathogens depending on how it is used. The real fear is that heavily soiled birds may not be sufficiently disinfected, and that relying on chlorine washing could lead to poorer hygiene standards overall.

EU officials believe the food industry should be continually improving hygiene standards in all steps of processing – the “farm to fork” principle, and so have banned chickens washed in chlorine as a deterrent to poor practices. But in the US, there are no poultry welfare standards so the process is common. There have also been reports, including undercover video evidence by the Humane Society of the United States, of both inhumane and unsanitary practices being carried out within poultry houses due to a lack of animal welfare regulation.
And milk:

You may be surprised to learn that American milk is banned in Europe. Why? Because there are so many health issues surrounding the production of American milk that European authorities — along with those in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada — have blocked these dairy imports.

American milk is genetically modified. Farmers inject the cows with a genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH (or rBST) for the simple reason that they can produce up to 20 per cent more milk.

It should be noted that BST also occurs naturally in milk. This particular rBGH hormone increases the IGF-1 (insulin–like Growth Factor-1) levels in the milk. This IGF-1 is great for healthy growth in children, but studies at Harvard Medical School have found that there are serious health risks for adults. After studying over 30,000 nurses for a six-year period, they found some rather disturbing patterns. The nurses who had the higher levels of IGF-1 had a much greater risk of developing colorectal cancer. They also found that men with high levels of IGF-1 hormone were four times more likely to develop prostate cancer than those with lower levels. The most common source of this hormone is milk, fish, and poultry.​
 
Sweet corn has been bred to be “super sweet” to meet demand. Sweet corn’s sugar content drops rapidly after it is picked. To give a “sweet” corn to consumers who don’t get the ears same day, the corn was bred to dramatically increase the sugar content.

There is nothing sinister here. In order to get produce from CA to NY and still be edible is a huge problem. Backyard sweet corn and tomatoes are much better than the varieties which must withstand harvest and shipping thousands of miles. The other option is no produce most of the year.

I don’t have a clue what you mean with animals. That just seems like an ominous statement you throw in for no reason.
Wrong on sweet corn. The problem with sweet corn was that after it was picked there are enzymes that convert the sugar to starch, harming the taste.They actually bred new cultivars that have reduced the enzyme that changes sugar to starch so that it stays sweet days longer.

My starch comment was about field corn, wheat, oats, and other that all have much larger grains now than 40yrs ago. It is because they have much more starch. The good parts of grains are in the 'germ' which is the viable part that is a new plant. Full of proteins and other good stuff. But now the % of good stuff to starch is very low.

My animals comment was that animals have also been bred as so that they are not as nutritious as older meet was. Watched a cooking show a while ago where the chef was using old recipes from his grandma. He said they never turn out the same as when he was kid because the old free range chickens had different flavor, different texture, and different nutrition than modern chickens.
 
----
I have no problem with controlled use of fertilizers. Certainly factory farming has produced more food than was thought possible 50 yrs ago.

But too many over use it to try to maximize profits and a lot runs off into the water table. Same with pesticides. Monsanto even developed glucophosphate-resistant corn so they can double or triple the application rate.

Further, we are exposed to a very large variety of pesticides, herbicides, hormones and more. Not counting the massive amount of other chemicals like cleaners, fire retardants, adhesives, and who knows what off gasses from all the stuff in our lives. While each has been tested for safety, I doubt there have been many studies on the cumulative affect of the cocktail of chemicals we all get.

Are saying that eating 50 lbs of sugar a year are ok? Or eating huge amounts of starch? What all the complex petro chemicals in processed foods? Feasting on junk food doesn't affect health?

I prefer to limit my exposure when and as much as I can.

Two hundred years ago, the average American ate only 2 pounds of sugar a year. In 1970, we ate 123 pounds of sugar per year. Today, the average American consumes almost 152 pounds of sugar in one year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tboyer
Like I said in an earlier post, healthy habits are not a guarantee of good health or a long life....just the best way to increase the odds. And certainly everyone is different. But the massive obesity problem we have is diet based. And drug and alcohol abuse is a huge problem. I enjoy occasional beer or wine but would gladly pay a bit more as I drink so little to hardly affect me. But someone that drinks a case a week or does ten or twenty opioid pills a day should pay for the damage they are doing.

And certainly everyone is different. But the massive obesity problem we have is diet based.

The standard American diet( lots of processed food, meat, fat, sugar, very little fruit, vegetables and fiber) is responsible for the epidemic of obesity and diabetes we are seeing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
Here are some flags from that video. Using the phrase "real food." You hear that one a lot. It's a way of defining as bad anything you don't like. Any food is real food. Period.

It's pretty easy. Real food = bananas, oranges, beans, legumes, kale, carrots, etc.

Not real food or manufactured food like substances = ice cream, Pepsi, Twinkies, donuts, cake, cookies etc.

Plants develop pesticides as a means of defense against pests and when doing so they don't test themselves to make sure the pesticides they're developing aren't harmful to humans.

We have evolved over thousands of generations eating plants. A lot of the plant pesticides have beneficial effects on our health.

Here is a sample:

Carotenoids
(such as beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, zeaxanthin) Red, orange and green fruits and vegetables including broccoli, carrots, cooked tomatoes, leafy greens, sweet potatoes, winter squash, apricots, cantaloupe, oranges and watermelon May inhibit cancer cell growth, work as antioxidants and improve immune response

Flavonoids
(such as anthocyanins and quercetin) Apples, citrus fruits, onions, soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.), coffee and tea May inhibit inflammation and tumor growth; may aid immunity and boost production of detoxifying enzymes in the body

Indoles and Glucosinolates
(sulforaphane) Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, collard greens, kale, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts) May induce detoxification of carcinogens, limit production of cancer-related hormones, block carcinogens and prevent tumor growth

Inositol
(phytic acid) Bran from corn, oats, rice, rye and wheat, nuts, soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.) May retard cell growth and work as antioxidant

Isoflavones
(daidzein and genistein) Soybeans and soy products (tofu, soy milk, edamame, etc.) May inhibit tumor growth, limit production of cancer-related hormones and generally work as antioxidant

Isothiocyanates Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cabbage, collard greens, kale, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts) May induce detoxification of carcinogens, block tumor growth and work as antioxidants

Polyphenols
(such as ellagic acid and resveratrol) Green tea, grapes, wine, berries, citrus fruits, apples, whole grains and peanuts May prevent cancer formation, prevent inflammation and work as antioxidants

Terpenes
(such as perillyl alcohol, limonene, carnosol) Cherries, citrus fruit peel, rosemary May protect cells from becoming cancerous, slow cancer cell growth, strengthen immune function, limit production of cancer-related hormones, fight viruses, work as antioxidants

Mellowing out together is a good thing. And eating the foods that doctor proposes is good too. But that doesn't mean it's The Way. Processed foods aren't necessarily bad per se but instead it's just that most processed foods they currently make aren't healthy.

Um yeah, so don't eat them. That's the whole point.

Processing is just applying technology to food. Why would that magically always be bad when applying technology is so beneficial on other aspects of life?


Why don't we just eat the food as is? What else do you need to do a carrot? We have been eating them just fine for eons.

Yes, people should eat more like that doctor says but the problem is that eating that way costs more time and money a

Getting sick and putting yourself into the US healthcare system costs and incredible amount of time.

Beans, legumes and most vegetables are the cheapest foods you can buy.


More on phytonutrients found in plants:

 
I can grind up a steak and have ground beef, which is processed but still good for ya.

I personally steer clear of all the meats. The big meat companies are only interested in profits and they have bought off all the government regulators. They stuff they pushing on the American public is pathetic.

US pork banned in many countries.

Ractopamine is a feed additive, banned in many countries, to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Pharmacologically, it is a phenol-based TAAR1 agonist and β adrenoreceptor agonist that stimulates β1 and β2 adrenergic receptors. It is most commonly administered to animals for meat production as ractopamine hydrochloride. It is the active ingredient in products known in the US as Paylean for swine, Optaflexx for cattle, and Tomax for turkeys. It was developed by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.

As of 2014 the use of ractopamine was banned in 160 countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption.

The fundamental reason comes down to ractopamine, a feed additive that helps pigs bulk up with more lean meat in the final weeks before they're sent for slaughter. It's fed to between 60 percent and 80 percent of American pigs
US chicken meat banned from Europe:

It all comes down to money and efficiency of space. The majority of farmers do care about rearing their birds, but as profit margins can be very tight, animal welfare is sidelined to keep costs down. In the EU, cost is also important, but the law means it can’t come at the expense of the birds’ basic welfare. There is a legal minimum amount of space, lighting and ventilation for EU poultry rearing houses.

The more space the birds have to move around in, the fewer can be housed in a single area, which in turn has an effect on production costs. As there are no laws governing this in the US, the birds can be crammed in tightly so they have limited movement, with little light or ventilation. This reduces production costs but increases the risks of disease and contamination in a flock.

Washing the chickens in a strong chlorine solution (20-50 parts per million of chlorine) provides a brash, cost-effective method of killing any microorganisms on the surface of the bird, particularly bacteria such as species of Salmonella and Campylobacter. This helps prevent the meat being contaminated with microbes during slaughter and evisceration.

Why is the process banned in the EU?

US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this chlorine washing process. But this isn’t because the treatment itself has been deemed dangerous. A report by the EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, for example, highlighted that the chemical cleaning treatment can be effective at removing foodborne pathogens depending on how it is used. The real fear is that heavily soiled birds may not be sufficiently disinfected, and that relying on chlorine washing could lead to poorer hygiene standards overall.

EU officials believe the food industry should be continually improving hygiene standards in all steps of processing – the “farm to fork” principle, and so have banned chickens washed in chlorine as a deterrent to poor practices. But in the US, there are no poultry welfare standards so the process is common. There have also been reports, including undercover video evidence by the Humane Society of the United States, of both inhumane and unsanitary practices being carried out within poultry houses due to a lack of animal welfare regulation.
And milk:

You may be surprised to learn that American milk is banned in Europe. Why? Because there are so many health issues surrounding the production of American milk that European authorities — along with those in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada — have blocked these dairy imports.

American milk is genetically modified. Farmers inject the cows with a genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH (or rBST) for the simple reason that they can produce up to 20 per cent more milk.

It should be noted that BST also occurs naturally in milk. This particular rBGH hormone increases the IGF-1 (insulin–like Growth Factor-1) levels in the milk. This IGF-1 is great for healthy growth in children, but studies at Harvard Medical School have found that there are serious health risks for adults. After studying over 30,000 nurses for a six-year period, they found some rather disturbing patterns. The nurses who had the higher levels of IGF-1 had a much greater risk of developing colorectal cancer. They also found that men with high levels of IGF-1 hormone were four times more likely to develop prostate cancer than those with lower levels. The most common source of this hormone is milk, fish, and poultry.​
Be careful quoting the Humane Society of the United States. HSUS is a militant advocacy group intent on changing agriculture to match their ideology. Basically vegan but I don’t know much more except they have a rep for spending all their money on advocacy and very little on the mistreated cats and dogs in their commercials. They are not related to the Humane Society of America.

Milk and other products are usually not allowed in countries for protectionist reasons not health. BST is a hormone which is pretty much marginalized now. Most companies require their producers to pledge not to use it. The countries you cite are notorious for protectionist policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pecolion
Eating well is a great idea, however, this is a very, very large part of overall health that gets ignored a lot.



Check our Dr. Sapolsky’s research. Primates get coronary artery disease and obesity too. Why? They aren’t eating McDonald’s or sugar. Stress and stress as experienced by your social status. Our minds are wonderful things but can also wreak havoc with our health.
 
And certainly everyone is different. But the massive obesity problem we have is diet based.

The standard American diet( lots of processed food, meat, fat, sugar, very little fruit, vegetables and fiber) is responsible for the epidemic of obesity and diabetes we are seeing.
Rumble, we finally found common ground!

Our common diet is responsible for a lot other things like cardo, stroke, liver diseases, depression, and much more. What angers me is in the 15 years of a massive healthcare debate no one ever mentions this. If they attack this issue we could cut our healthcare costs in half.
 
this. if you want to talk about food and health, the discussion has to begin with sugar and grain. A grain and sugar based diet is great for fattening up cattle but it shouldn't be what humans eat. Obesity is the cause of most health problems in the US -- high blood pressure, reflux, diabetes, heart disease and abdominal cancers are all largely obesity-related. And obesity is the result of a diet too weighted toward sugar and grain. The solution is pretty simple -- just eat less of the things that make us fat and sick. But easier said than done.... The sugar and grain industry are very powerful and fighting hard to maintain market share.




Two hundred years ago, the average American ate only 2 pounds of sugar a year. In 1970, we ate 123 pounds of sugar per year. Today, the average American consumes almost 152 pounds of sugar in one year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT