Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Pika

If its man made, don't eat it

Recommended Posts

Food was more nutritious? Are you insane? Variety is the lifeblood of nutrition. Our diet exemplifies variety. Yeah, if you eat chips and fast food your statement is true. But if you eat chips and fast food, then it's your own fault, it has nothing to do with your generation.

No he's not insane. The chemicals all over the food today takes down the nutritional value incredibly. They say you'd have to eat 5 apples to get the nutritional value of 1 today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutritional value of 1 what?

You do know that there have been countless tests that pretty much demonstrate little to no nutritional difference between organic and non-organic produce right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

could you provide links to some of these tests!!

have you seen the movie the corporation Melek.

Do you know that there's certain chemical's injected into cows that cause cancer in humans consuming the milk

When fox news found out, they were going to air the story.. but pulled the plug because it would have cost them millions in endorsement $$$$

You really think that a natural vegetable or fruit is the same as one sprayed with pesticides. Its a fact that plants absorb everything in there environment. So if a played was sprayed with a chemical... you think that the plant doesn't absorb some of it. Now take that chemical and drink half a cup of it.... then tell me how u feel after!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these are found in medical journals that can't be found online. But you can easily find summaries online.

Vitamin C, Phosphorus and Magnesium are generally agreed upon, but most often only to the extent that the higher water content of non-organic produce allows, (Meaning that minerals/kcal or minerals/gram of solid mass are equal). This usually varies from 15-30%. Depending on the test. This isn't across the board of course. Nonorganic carrots actually test slightly higher for Vit C sometimes.

Nowhere close to 500%, and of vastly more importance is freshness. Most vegetables have already lost a good percentage of flavor and nutritional value after only 24 hours.

Properly nourished soil will produce healthier veg. But the fact is that organic really doesn't mean dick towards that. It only dictates what they don't use. Organic is a buzzword and certainly doesn't mean that the produce is fresh or came from richer soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gentle~Rain

I'm talking 19 hundreds as in 1900+ where quite a lot of people who lived on farms surpass 90 years of age.

Living the 1900's farm style, there was little or no stress, you've gotta experience this first hand, stay on a farm for at least a month with no electricity, do the daily tasks farmers were doing eg milking the cows, check that the sheep is doing fine, make sure there's enough food for the cattle and prepare your land for whatever your planting etc. This is damn hard work, but you're too tired after every day to even think about stress.

Long before 1900 lots of people died younger, so I'll accept your point there: less nutrition, maybe stress, little hygene... :cool:

Quick google search shows average life span during 1900's to be 45-49 :razz: but hey, it's all cool. Bottom line, I think they had acne back then just like we do today, for whatever reasons.

:wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main factor in having less nutrients in food nowadays is the soil. Unfortunately, nobody knows the whole picture as to what makes the perfect soil for increasing the nutrient content in foods. We have bits and pieces but far from the whole picture. There are also foods now that are being bred to increase the nutrient density significantly, while working with that soil you have. I didn't mention this as a main factor because it's kind of trial and error and is only practiced by a small amount of farmers. Some of my relatives do this and they spend an insane amount of time on fairly small plots of these exerimental plants, but I suppose the money they get is worth it (Not GMO really, more like what wine growers do when they graft a variety of grape vine to another and let that new vine grow. It's the closest I can think of as an example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main factor in having less nutrients in food nowadays is the soil. Unfortunately, nobody knows the whole picture as to what makes the perfect soil for increasing the nutrient content in foods. We have bits and pieces but far from the whole picture. There are also foods now that are being bred to increase the nutrient density significantly, while working with that soil you have. I didn't mention this as a main factor because it's kind of trial and error and is only practiced by a small amount of farmers. Some of my relatives do this and they spend an insane amount of time on fairly small plots of these exerimental plants, but I suppose the money they get is worth it (Not GMO really, more like what wine growers do when they graft a variety of grape vine to another and let that new vine grow. It's the closest I can think of as an example).

I don't think it's a lack of knowledge as much as a lack of feasibility. The cost of marketing (and ensuring as no doubt the fda would demand if you were to make such claims) a higher-nutrient produce would far outweigh the premium the public would pay for such produce. So as long as the produce has enough nutrients to produce as much fruit as feasible in the space given and make that fruit look healthy: the growers are more than happy and have no incentive to spend more time, money, and effort ensuring a fertile soil that guarentee's the maximum nutritional value from the harvest.

It's certainly possible on the small scale, and many rural (and even urban) towns have small produce vendors that make guarantee's of a more nutrient-rich product because they keep their soil healthier and grow smaller crops on it. Now whether these claims are true or not is untested, and you won't typically find this fruit in your local grocery store, which is about as far as many of us are willing to go for our produce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as long as the produce has enough nutrients to produce as much fruit as feasible in the space given and make that fruit look healthy: the growers are more than happy and have no incentive to spend more time, money, and effort ensuring a fertile soil that guarentee's the maximum nutritional value from the harvest.

---------------------------------------------

The grade you see in stores is the highest grade or next to highest grade that farmers put out without going into really niche markets where they spend a lot on ensuring above premium quality products, which is reflected in the price as you said. Their incentive, whether it be wheat and grains, veggies, fruit, etc... is to meet the requirements of this premuim grade because it pays the best.

Now pretty much everyone strives for this and if the weather and other conditions were ideal that year many would meet that standard(Although it really isn't that high of a standard). Like I said though, things like an extra day of rain on freshly cut grains would send it down a grade or even two or three, it's that finicky.

As for looking nice, a lot of my produce in Safeway or wherever looks less appealing than decades ago(According to my parents and those older), and the taste is different. By this I mean a more watered down taste and a more dull colour, which in many foods represents less nutritional value. The problem is it's really really hard to ensure a proper nitrogen balance in soil so farmers end up going overboard with the stuff and what you get is say a fruit with too much water content in it, lessening the nutrient density. It's really hard to ensure thousands of acres have the ideal soil for that climate with the technology we have. Or course you are right that in this case feasability has a part in it but I don't even really consider it a large factor considering to do the above you would have to invest close to a million of not more in equipment for the average sized farm.

The change in quality has been so gradual yet I know many that complain about it all the time. Even with organic food, the quality is usually less becuase of shipping. They don't ship well. You should see how much organic food they throw out before it hits the shelves, it's insane. If they could transport better and spoil slower some organic way, you would have a big drop in prices for this stuff. Of course if you live in the interior of BC or along the west coast and can buy organic or whatever right from the farms you are getting the best deal but most can't or don't, like you said.

I'd just like to reinforce that if anyone thinks there is no stress in this, they are crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack LaLanne would roll over in his grave if he would ever freaking die.

Edit: Amusingly, I didn't realize this post was a LaLanne quote when I posted this. I just looked LaLanne up to see if he was still alive and saw that he had said it. Small world.

Anyway, we can agree that due to issues of soil quality, produce is slightly (most estimates/studies seem to say 20-40%) less nutritious than it was 50-100 years ago. Hopefully a large part of this is due to overhydration which makes it less of a problem. But either way, there is little that can feasibly be done on a large scale to remedy this. And if/when it is possible, it will likely be through the same genetic alterations holistic freaks protest (Such as the "Golden Rice" project) or else "chemical" suppliments given to the plants or produce itself (I wouldn't be surprised to see an invisible vitamin supplimenting powder on flash frozen vegetables in the near future). Our best bet is to shut the hell up about what was or what would be ideal and focus on what we can do with what we have... which is educate ourselves, eat healthy and get a variety of foods to ensure balanced nutrition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, sounds like someone read Kevin Trudeau's "Natural Cures" book. I was just skimming through it, and he contradicts himself. On one side, he tells you to avoid every man made food, and then in chapter 8 he says Cheat whenever you want. You want ice cream,cookies,cakes,chocolate,french fires,pizza,potato chips? Don't deprive yourself.

Wait a minute, didn't he just say not to eat anything man-made? Also, his natural cure for acne states:

Drink 10 glasses of distilled water daily,Candida cleanse,colon cleanes,liver/gallbladder cleanse,parasite cleanse,full body fat cleanse, infrared sauna, Dr. Caldwell's stress reducing techniques, probiotics.

I'm not trying to attack him, but when reading the book, he attacks so many things. He says, if you can't eat it, don't put it on your skin. What does that mean, should I start putting all my foods on my face and hope that one of them clears up my horrible face? Who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×