Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-26-2016, 07:21 AM
 
16,345 posts, read 12,322,212 times
Reputation: 59349

Advertisements

TL;DR: Don't follow "health fads" because they change. Instead follow science (even though it changes)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-26-2016, 07:22 AM
 
23,984 posts, read 10,340,975 times
Reputation: 45854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
Just regurgitating the Health Information du jour. It changes like the weather.
Yep - the bad stuff of the day! Time to check the cat food isle for dinner ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 11:13 AM
 
10,599 posts, read 17,804,272 times
Reputation: 17349
I think you're SPECIFICALLY ranting against ME, wherein I even stated that the word "natural" can be a marketing gimmick WAY before you even challenged me on that thread.

Which happened to be a thread stating OLIVE OIL isn't healthy...of all things LOL. OLIVES. Which have been used by human beings for over 7000 years.

Weren't YOU the one who tried to make a case that mechanically altered foods like LOW FAT or NO FAT (dairy, for example) is HEALTHIER than plain old NATURAL milk?

Maybe I'm getting all of you anti-natural foods guys mixed up, sorry.

But: Nonsense.

You want "evidence"? Human milk is 50 - 60 % FAT.

Newsflash: Academics, politicians and the food industry get their FUNDING to come up with this nonsense busy work intended to control buying habits from scamming the taxpayer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 11:39 AM
 
5,683 posts, read 4,097,854 times
Reputation: 7402
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
You do realize what is backed by science changes constantly don't you? All you have to do is research what was and wasn't healthy eating 50 years ago compared to now: I can still remember in my nutrition classes n college back in the mid 50s what we were taught was a good diet.
Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean that science isn't the best option we have for determining what is healthy. What is the alternative you are suggesting? At least science is a concerted effort to base information on evidence. Studying nutrition is inherently tricky because there are many variables that can't always be controlled for, but it is a far better alternative than anything else.

In the past, scientific thought about physics was much different than it is today. Does that mean we shouldn't trust physicists? Or that we shouldn't believe the Bohr model of the atom (nucleus, electrons, etc.) because that hasn't always been the scientific consensus?


Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
I think you're SPECIFICALLY ranting against ME, wherein I even stated that the word "natural" can be a marketing gimmick WAY before you even challenged me on that thread.

Which happened to be a thread stating OLIVE OIL isn't healthy...of all things LOL. OLIVES. Which have been used by human beings for over 7000 years.
No, your posts are one example of the thing I'm talking about, but I've seen multiple posts of the same stripe.

And I never suggested that olive oil isn't healthy. My participation in a thread where the OP suggests that doesn't mean I agree with the OP and more than your participation here suggests you agree with me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
Weren't YOU the one who tried to make a case that mechanically altered foods like LOW FAT or NO FAT (dairy, for example) is HEALTHIER than plain old NATURAL milk?
I said the fact that natural milk is natural doesn't imply it is healthier. I stand by that. Food is healthy or unhealthy based on what's in it, not based on the fact that that's how it came out of the cow's utter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
You want "evidence"? Human milk is 50 - 60 % FAT.

Newsflash: Academics, politicians and the food industry get their FUNDING to come up with this nonsense busy work intended to control buying habits from scamming the taxpayer.
That isn't good evidence. Human milk is intended to turn an 8 pound infant into a 20 pound baby. It's designed to feed a human during the most intensive growth period of that human's life. That doesn't leave an obvious conclusion that high-fat milk is good for humans to drink.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top