Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
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 08-25-2016, 01:07 PM
 
5,682 posts, read 4,065,957 times
Reputation: 7380

Advertisements

I've seen a lot of people on this board mention that they think foods like Canola oil are unhealthy but foods like bacon or lard are healthy. More broadly, there seems to be this idea that natural things are healthy because they are natural. This idea is sometimes manifested in statements like "Don't eat something your grandmother wouldn't have recognized" or "Don't eat foods that contain things you can't pronounce." While it is undeniably true that there are many artificial things that should be avoided, this sort of natural bias isn't founded on science.

Canola oil is, according to just about every expert, a relatively healthy fat (here's a Harvard School of Public Health article: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...ut-canola-oil/).

Saturated fat is still not considered a healthy fat by most experts. Here's a quote from another Harvard School of Public Health article (http://www.health.harvard.edu/stayin...bad-and-good):

A handful of recent reports have muddied the link between saturated fat and heart disease. One meta-analysis of 21 studies said that there was not enough evidence to conclude that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease, but that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat may indeed reduce risk of heart disease.

Two other major studies narrowed the prescription slightly, concluding that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats like vegetable oils or high-fiber carbohydrates is the best bet for reducing the risk of heart disease, but replacing saturated fat with highly processed carbohydrates could do the opposite.


While saturated fat may not be the devil, there is no scientific evidence to support some of the claims I see on this forum, such as "Saturated fat is healthy" or "There's no reason to avoid lard and heavy cream."

There is a ridiculous emphasis in society right now on "natural foods." Watch a few food commercials and see if you don't see a single one that is emphasizing that there are no artificial colors or preservatives or that don't mention the product being "100% natural." Hell, even McDonald's is trying to spin Chicken Mcnuggets as healthy because they are all-natural. This idealization of the natural sounds good, but consider the following:
  • Sugar is completely natural, yet is undeniably unhealthy
  • There is no difference to the human body between sugar and high fructose corn syrup
  • Many natural substances have been proven to be unhealthy to the human body (sugar, trans fat, etc)
  • Many artificial substances can save your life when no natural substance could do so

Eating like a pioneer or a cave man or a 1940's grandmother (pick your pop-nutrition meme) might sound great. It sounds natural, and it's popular to think that natural foods are "real." After all, what's more real than bacon and lard? The problem is that this trend is independent of science. In some cases, the natural things are very healthy (broccoli, for instance). In some, they aren't (bacon). Most importantly, however, we have good, science-based reasons to think of the healthy things as healthy and the unhealthy things as unhealthy. What is natural and what is not is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2016, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
12,441 posts, read 14,701,041 times
Reputation: 28430
Great, a soapbox rant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 02:45 PM
 
5,682 posts, read 4,065,957 times
Reputation: 7380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
Great, a soapbox rant.
At least my post had some real information in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
12,441 posts, read 14,701,041 times
Reputation: 28430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
At least my post had some real information in it.
Just regurgitating the Health Information du jour. It changes like the weather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:05 PM
 
5,682 posts, read 4,065,957 times
Reputation: 7380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
Just regurgitating the Health Information du jour. It changes like the weather.
To the contrary, I am disputing some popular notions about nutrition. It is very much a fad that eating like grandma or a caveman or a pioneer is the healthiest option. My point is simply that we should care about what is backed by science, and that is not "health information du jour." Yes, the actual scientific conclusions may change, but our commitment to science itself should not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,404 posts, read 15,901,275 times
Reputation: 8092
Natural and Organic are tricky...arsenic is "natural", but it will kill you! Toadstools are organic and natural...you don't want to eat them!

Common sense should prevail!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 01:20 AM
 
5,682 posts, read 4,065,957 times
Reputation: 7380
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb at sea View Post
Natural and Organic are tricky...arsenic is "natural", but it will kill you! Toadstools are organic and natural...you don't want to eat them!

Common sense should prevail!
Yes, exactly. "Natural" isn't meaningful when discussing nutrition.

The fascination with "natural" has become so absurd that some food commercials are literally advertising that their products contain "pure cane sugar," as though that's some sort of health advantage. "Pure cane sugar" sounds nice and natural, but it's far from healthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 03:34 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 29,909,995 times
Reputation: 39946
I get dinged for trolling when I have inflammatory posts..

and here is one,,

let the mud fly

haven't we covered this 100 times.....usually ends with a closed thread...

put this is the political forums,,they love slinging mud

Last edited by mainebrokerman; 08-26-2016 at 03:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,773 posts, read 103,857,104 times
Reputation: 49242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
Great, a soapbox rant.
can't rep you til I spread it around.

mainebrokerman: thanks

Last edited by nmnita; 08-26-2016 at 06:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2016, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,773 posts, read 103,857,104 times
Reputation: 49242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
To the contrary, I am disputing some popular notions about nutrition. It is very much a fad that eating like grandma or a caveman or a pioneer is the healthiest option. My point is simply that we should care about what is backed by science, and that is not "health information du jour." Yes, the actual scientific conclusions may change, but our commitment to science itself should not.
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.
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