Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FAT, SICK & NEARLY DEAD

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,196 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I have no problem with juicing, it is only part of a solution to some health issues though.

    I suffered from migraines. I completely stopped chocolate and red wine. I do not have any migraines now. If I juiced red grapes I would get a migraine. Juicing other fruit and veg would be good for me - in moderation, as with everything - but it would not improve the migraine situation if I also continued to eat chocolate.

    I have a close acquaintance who eats 100% rubbish. Total diet of fast food, sugar, fat, very little else. He is grossly overweight and has serious health issues. He goes to the doctor for pills to relieve the symptoms of his issues, he has been told numerous times that he will not improve his health unless he loses weight. He is addicted to his diet and has no interest in changing it. Medication in his case is a waste of time and money.

    I also know of people who are undoubtedly overweight, though not obese, and they are healthy, energetic people with more energy than me.

    Medication in my own case is managing a health problem that juicing or any other change to my diet would not impact.

    The point I am making is that there is a case for juicing, there is a case for losing weight, there is a case for medication. It is nonsense to try and prove that any one of these situations is a catch-all solution for health issues.


  • Options
    #63
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Contradicted here

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-nierenberg/is-organic-food-better-fo_b_5787374.html


    http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/15/study-claiming-organic-food-more-nutritious-deeply-flawed-say-independent-scientists/

    Lots of faults with this and his previous attempts.


  • Options
    #64
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Huff post is a known pseudoscience promoting website so i'll take their spin on the paper with a pinch of salt.

    It is an old paper too so it hasn't made much of an impact. Think it was debunked on the Primetime special also.

    First impression is the amounts could easily be just natural variation and not significant enough to impact diet. Saying something is three times more sounds impressive but if the figure is 0.001% of your rda then it has no health implications. I'm suspicious that they have not given % rda's in the article.

    The difference in the levels of pesticide s is irrelevant if they are below safety threshold.


    Read what research was done ... read who did it

    If you think it was debunked then show us where

    Are they quacks now also ??

    Dr. Charles Benbrook, professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

    Carlos Leifert, Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University


    Another link

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food


  • Options
    #65
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Read what research was done ... read who did it

    If you think it was debunked then show us where

    Are they quacks now also ??

    Dr. Charles Benbrook, professor at Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

    Carlos Leifert, Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University


    Another link

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/new-study-finds-significant-differences-between-organic-and-non-organic-food

    Huff post is dodgy as hell.

    Prof Be brook is a anti gmo activist.

    The flaws in his work are documented in the link provided.


  • Options
    #66
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/15/study-claiming-organic-food-more-nutritious-deeply-flawed-say-independent-scientists/

    Lots of faults with this and his previous attempts.

    from your link
    It has been alleged the Stanford study you refer to above had funding links to Monsanto and Cargill so is not necessarily "independent" as suggested. One of the lead researched was also Oleg Ilkin - a researcher who was employed by Philip Morris to suggest on court smoking didn't cause cancer in tobacco court cases in the 80's, so I wouldn't hold anything resulting from Stanford's study as being unbiased or credible.


    And around we go


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    from your link




    And around we go

    So lets just stick to the science, are the differences within natural variation? Are they significant enough to impact diet? Did the inclusion of poor data comprise his conclusions? A lot of his peers have issues with his findings.


  • Options
    #68
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    looksee wrote: »
    I have a close acquaintance who eats 100% rubbish. Total diet of fast food, sugar, fat, very little else. He is grossly overweight and has serious health issues. He goes to the doctor for pills to relieve the symptoms of his issues, he has been told numerous times that he will not improve his health unless he loses weight. He is addicted to his diet and has no interest in changing it. Medication in his case is a waste of time and money.

    A good example of a GP/pharma maintaining the status quo, IMO


  • Options
    #69
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So lets just stick to the science,


    I thought i did with my link

    Even funded by the EU ... Are they into the scam as well ?


  • Options
    #70
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    A good example of a GP/pharma maintaining the status quo, IMO

    You need to reread his post,

    He has been told numerous times to lose weight but refuses to do so.


  • Options
    #71
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I thought i did with my link

    Even funded by the EU ... Are they into the scam as well ?

    Still a flawed paper does not show organic food is better for you. Middle class status symbol IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    jh79 wrote: »

    The difference in the levels of pesticide s is irrelevant if they are below safety threshold.

    From my readings, it's been documented that this safety threshold is not really very well known at this stage as the use of such chemicals in foods is quite new and the long term affects can't be fully known. Again, put two apples side by side similar size, look and taste, but one has been sprayed with chemicals, well I'm choosing the other. It just makes more sense to me.


  • Options
    #73
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    cormie wrote: »
    From my readings, it's been documented that this safety threshold is not really very well known at this stage as the use of such chemicals in foods is quite new and the long term affects can't be fully known. Again, put two apples side by side similar size, look and taste, but one has been sprayed with chemicals, well I'm choosing the other. It just makes more sense to me.

    Can you show where it has been documented that safety thresholds are flawed?

    From a scientific point of view it makes no sense if the residues are minuscule.


  • Options
    #74
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    I won't be able to find the article I read, it was a few years ago, it basically concluded that although the study didn't show any major (if any, I forget) difference between the health benefits of organic vs conventional, that it was too early to be able to determine the long term affects on humans of eating treated foods, which again makes sense as does choosing the organic/wild option if possible.


  • Options
    #75
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    cormie wrote: »
    I won't be able to find the article I read, it was a few years ago, it basically concluded that although the study didn't show any major (if any, I forget) difference between the health benefits of organic vs conventional, that it was too early to be able to determine the long term affects on humans of eating treated foods, which again makes sense as does choosing the organic/wild option if possible.

    But the same can be applied to the pesticides allowed in organic farming , they are toxic too otherwise they wouldn't kill pests?

    Based in current research there is no reason to go organic.


  • Options
    #76
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    This study from Denmark used controlled conditions to see if organic offered any benefits, it didn't.

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/46402419_Effects_of_organic_and_conventional_growth_systems_on_the_content_of_flavonoids_in_onions_and_phenolic_acids_in_carrots_and_potatoes


  • Options
    #77
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    jh79 wrote: »
    But the same can be applied to the pesticides allowed in organic farming , they are toxic too otherwise they wouldn't kill pests?

    Based in current research there is no reason to go organic.

    I'm not too up to date with what's allowed, but I'm guessing a lot less is allowed in organic farming? My choice would be 1) wild, 2) organic, 3) conventional, 4) GM


  • Options
    #78
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Still a flawed paper does not show organic food is better for you. Middle class status symbol IMO.

    Flawed where? debunked by whom ? The GM shills ?


  • Options
    #79
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You need to reread his post,

    He has been told numerous times to lose weight but refuses to do so.

    I read it right I even quoted that part ffs ... Still the status quo remains .... Keep popping pills to battle the symptoms


  • Options
    #80
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I read it right I even quoted that part ffs ... Still the status quo remains .... Keep popping pills to battle the symptoms

    So what should his doctor given he refuses to a dress his diet issues?


  • Options
    #81
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Flawed where? debunked by whom ? The GM shills ?

    Flawed because it uses poor quality data, the differences could be due to natural variation and are the differences even significant?

    Whereas the Denmark study controls all variable it can and no benefits were found.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    cormie wrote: »
    I'm not too up to date with what's allowed, but I'm guessing a lot less is allowed in organic farming? My choice would be 1) wild, 2) organic, 3) conventional, 4) GM

    Going organic will not necessarily help you avoid GM in the future

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/30/can-gm-and-organic-farms-coexist


  • Options
    #83
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    jh79 wrote: »
    Going organic will not necessarily help you avoid GM in the future

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/30/can-gm-and-organic-farms-coexist

    Is that not just an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of this? Therefore his harvest wouldn't be sold as organic, so I would still be avoiding it by buying organic?


  • Options
    #84
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    cormie wrote: »
    Is that not just an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of this? Therefore his harvest wouldn't be sold as organic, so I would still be avoiding it by buying organic?

    In the future they may have remove this criteria as it would make it too risky to invest in organic methods if someone down th e road uses GM methods. GM is here to stay, and rightly so, organic certification will have to change to account for cross contamination or disappear.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/28/gm-canola-organic-farmer-loses-court-case-over-alleged-contamination


  • Options
    #85
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Flawed because it uses poor quality data, the differences could be due to natural variation and are the differences even significant?

    Whereas the Denmark study controls all variable it can and no benefits were found.

    So that's a big fat NO on the debunking part ....


  • Options
    #86
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So that's a big fat NO on the debunking part ....

    So what nutrients are significantly higher in organic produce based solely on %rda? You are saying there is a significant difference so prove it.


  • Options
    #87
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Can you also explain the findings of the Denmark study, if organic is better than why not all the time , unless of course it is just natural variation.


  • Options
    #88
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/an-unhealthy-row-report-claiming-organic-food-is-better-divides-uk-scientists-9601608.html?origin=internalSearch

    So the " nutirients" that may be higher in organic produce may not be beneficial in any way. Anti_oxidants aren't even essential nutrients and have no proven health benefits.


  • Options
    #89
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    jh79 wrote: »
    In the future they may have remove this criteria as it would make it too risky to invest in organic methods if someone down th e road uses GM methods. GM is here to stay, and rightly so, organic certification will have to change to account for cross contamination or disappear.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/28/gm-canola-organic-farmer-loses-court-case-over-alleged-contamination

    Hopefully that won't happen. Why do you say "and rightly so" about GM being here to stay? In an ideal world there'd be no need for it surely?


  • Options
    #90
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    cormie wrote: »
    Hopefully that won't happen. Why do you say "and rightly so" about GM being here to stay? In an ideal world there'd be no need for it surely?

    There is no reason to fear GM and it could be majorly beneficial to society eg golden rice


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    cormie
    Registered Users Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    To me, the whole idea behind it seems to be that it's a solution to a Worldwide food demand issue which is influenced by the overconsumption of animal products and waste of resources and land to accommodate this and general overconsumption and that in an ideal World it would be possible for everyone to eat and thrive off local, organically grown produce. I don't know if I'm dreaming though :)


Advertisement