Starship Asterisk*

Not sure I understand why preferring what your body is naturally attracted to as being perverted.

Let¨s take.
I understand by natural food, wich is grown with organic fertilizer and no pesticides.
The industrial food has been grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
In the natural food the most important is the quality, in the industrial the amount.
Some said the food is the medicine of the body.
I would say the natural food is the beeter medicine for the body.
Natural food is longevity
Natural food is life, beeter life

saturno2 wrote:Let¨s take.
I understand by natural food, wich is grown with organic fertilizer and no pesticides.
The industrial food has been grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
In the natural food the most important is the quality, in the industrial the amount.
Some said the food is the medicine of the body.
I would say the natural food is the beeter medicine for the body.
Natural food is longevity
Natural food is life, beeter life

There is no evidence that natural food (as in "organic") is any healthier than other food, or that it leads to longer life. You may consider it worth buying because it is produced in a more sustainable, nature-friendly way. But that's it. Neither is there any evidence that pesticide or herbicide residues in food cause any harm. Most are, after all, analogs of chemicals that occur naturally in many of our vegetables.

There is little in common in the diets of people who live to be very old. Many eat what might be considered "unhealthy" diets. So what commonalities do seem to be present? In food, it is mainly moderation, a low calorie diet during the first half of life (but without sacrificing nutrition), and a lack of stress over food. In addition, it is community and exercise. That's it.

[img3="Credit: MAXINE"]http://fbcdn_sphotos_e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/533310_10150883274557945_739115174_n.jpg[/img3]

Chris Peterson wrote:There is no evidence that natural food (as in "organic") is any healthier than other food, or that it leads to longer life.

I mostly agree, but I do think it's important to maintain a diet which is as similar as possible to the sorts of foods we evolved eating. That is, to not over-manufacture our foods, and to not change the balance of our diets too much, especially if that change moves us towards excess fat and sugars. Organic, in all its aspects, is a way to maintain that focus.

Chris Peterson wrote:Neither is there any evidence that pesticide or herbicide residues in food cause any harm. Most are, after all, analogs of chemicals that occur naturally in many of our vegetables.

Now that's a stretch! Yes, they are analogs of naturally occurring substances, but they are effective in our industrial agriculture because they are used in massive amounts, vastly greater than any naturally occurring amounts. And in such massive amounts, they radically change the balance of the local flora and fauna -- which is, of course, the whole purpose of using them. And I think any claim that their residues cause no harm is not supportable -- but neither is any claim that they do. We're simply experimenting on ourselves and the results are not yet in.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:There is no evidence that natural food (as in "organic") is any healthier than other food, or that it leads to longer life.

I mostly agree, but I do think it's important to maintain a diet which is as similar as possible to the sorts of foods we evolved eating. That is, to not over-manufacture our foods, and to not change the balance of our diets too much, especially if that change moves us towards excess fat and sugars. Organic, in all its aspects, is a way to maintain that focus.

What is interesting is that, population wide, there is clear evidence that certain foods are unhealthy, but there is virtually none that supports this in the case of centenarians. People who live to be very old frequently have what would be considered fairly unhealthy diets, and commonly have smoked and consumed alcohol. Again, however, the key factor is moderation.

rstevenson wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Neither is there any evidence that pesticide or herbicide residues in food cause any harm. Most are, after all, analogs of chemicals that occur naturally in many of our vegetables.

Now that's a stretch! Yes, they are analogs of naturally occurring substances, but they are effective in our industrial agriculture because they are used in massive amounts, vastly greater than any naturally occurring amounts. And in such massive amounts, they radically change the balance of the local flora and fauna -- which is, of course, the whole purpose of using them. And I think any claim that their residues cause no harm is not supportable -- but neither is any claim that they do. We're simply experimenting on ourselves and the results are not yet in.

I'm certainly not saying that modern chemical agriculture and food production doesn't have huge ecological effects. What I'm saying is that the levels of these chemicals found in foods is very low, the chemicals themselves are pretty much what are found naturally in many other foods, and there's no evidence that they produce any health problems. There is no "natural" food that humans have evolved to consume. Depending on where your ancestors came from, there are many different diets, and many different things people can or cannot tolerate. Natural foods are full of naturally occurring toxins and carcinogens, and there's no reason to think they aren't harmful, especially if they are from someplace your ancestors never lived.

My diet is heavy on organic foods. That's because we like the way the food is produced, the philosophy of less monoculture, more natural ways of pest control, more ethically raised animals, etc. And in many cases, this produces better tasting food. But I don't think it's any healthier (except that we feel better about what we're eating, and I do think that is healthy).

In 1900 AD , human life expectancy was around 40 to 50 years old ( Read that somewhere.). Then agricultural evolve. We start using chemical to facilate growth of food and to preserve it fresh much longer. We use antibiotique on animal so they dont have parasite.

And sudenly! Human life expectancy grow and is now around 80 to 90 years old. Thats is wonderfull.

So i am not sure i want to go back to natural food.

Having a 80 to 100 years life expectancy is more appealing.

Doum, don't you think that we now live longer because we have effective ways to prevent and treat what used to be deadly? Antibiotics, vaccines, and various treatments have taken us a long way. Chemicals and biological engineering of food have merely allowed us to more efficiently produce massively larger amounts of food in the same area. Actually, since we have ways of making it so cheap, it's lead to a huge increase some extremely unhealthy lifestyles leading to morbid obesity, diabetes, and various whole organ system failures which happen after one's body can no longer handle it. Modern medicine allows people who could have easily died to that cheap food habit to continue living well into old age.

geckzilla wrote:Doum, don't you think that we now live longer because we have effective ways to prevent and treat what used to be deadly? Antibiotics, vaccines, and various treatments have taken us a long way. Chemicals and biological engineering of food have merely allowed us to more efficiently produce massively larger amounts of food in the same area. Actually, since we have ways of making it so cheap, it's lead to a huge increase some extremely unhealthy lifestyles leading to morbid obesity, diabetes, and various whole organ system failures which happen after one's body can no longer handle it. Modern medicine allows people who could have easily died to that cheap food habit to continue living well into old age.

People where dying a lot from rotten meat in those years. Even rotten vegetable. Medicine help both way ( people and growth of vegetable and beef and lamb etc...) with antibiotics, vaccines and various treatment and CHEMICAL. I see no reason to ban the use of chemical for growth. Abuse is the same in what ever you do or eat. Chemical is as good as medicine is. We need to not abuse of it.

So, between a natural carrot with a parasite and a chemical carrot well growth and safe i will take the chemical carrot. I do not want to be extremist and follow blindly someone who tell me to eat only natural growth vegetable that look sick. My attempt on the post before was to show that chemical aint that bad. Dont go extreme( I'm talking to all here)

PS: I have a garden and i dont use chemical. Except for my potatoes plant to protect them from a parasite. And everything is good. Going bio only is not for me. But i like bio as i like chemical to give me good vegetable. So eat well my friend.

Doum wrote:In 1900 AD , human life expectancy was around 40 to 50 years old ( Read that somewhere.). Then agricultural evolve. We start using chemical to facilate growth of food and to preserve it fresh much longer. We use antibiotique on animal so they dont have parasite.

And sudenly! Human life expectancy grow and is now around 80 to 90 years old. Thats is wonderfull. :)

So i am not sure i want to go back to natural food. :mrgreen:

Having a 80 to 100 years life expectancy is more appealing. 8-) :oops:

Depending on how you look at it, human life expectancy hasn't increased at all. The oldest humans are the same age now that they were 100 years ago (or 1000). If you made it to 50 anytime in the last 1000 years (probably more), you had about the same chance of living to 80 that you do today. So what makes the life expectancy statistics look so different? Nearly half of all humans died before the age of 5. Many more died of accidents and what would today be trivial infections before they were 20. What changed after 1900 had little to do with food, and a lot to do with just two things: improved hygiene and antibiotics.

When it comes to treating adults, modern medicine is basically just offsetting the reduced health created by modern processed foods, by smoking, and by what is generally called the "Western lifestyle".

Well, well.
Thanks for the important explanations.
I agree with Doum. The ends are not good.
Natural foods can be grown with a small amount of chemicals.
It¨s no good abusing chemicals in agriculture and the medicine.
There are certain gaps in the natural substances and the industrials, too.
For example. A once had a fever of 39 degrees Celsius and pharmacy medicines could not lower it. Then take a medicinal herb infusion and automatically lower flat at 37 degrees Celsius.
The natural chemical complement to both industrial and quickly dominated the clinical picture.

Chris Peterson wrote:What changed after 1900 had little to do with food, and a lot to do with just two things: improved hygiene and antibiotics.

And vaccines (and even with a vaccine, measles is still one of the leading causes of death of children under 5 -- 15 deaths every hour).

owlice wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:What changed after 1900 had little to do with food, and a lot to do with just two things: improved hygiene and antibiotics.

And vaccines (and even with a vaccine, measles is still one of the leading causes of death of children under 5 -- 15 deaths every hour).

Agreed. Vaccines were (and are) incredibly important in increasing survival rates amongst the young.

Most childhood diseases that we vaccinate for confer immunity on their survivors, which is why adult mortality hasn't changed that much for hundreds of years. If you made it through measles and mumps and all the others, you had already run the gauntlet of most of the things that could kill you.

Plus hygiene got a lot better at homes and in clinics.

In countries with less or non clean water, no sanitary installations, canalisation, sewerage system, children get parasites, viruses and germs which lead them to live very short. That was
in 1900 and before in Europe the hygiene standarts at physicians offices or clinics were very bad compared to today.

I prefer organic food because of the disastrous effects big food companies made in the enviroment and ecology. Plus I like to support local farms which have it really hard
to compete with the big companies. Organic foods are often Fairtrade too, which is fair for the employer.

Fruits and vegetables which are sprayed with herbicide and pesticide can be washed off.

But I prefer for example strawberries which grow in Germany and eat them only in this season, instead strawberries which are importet from another continent,
sprayed with chemicals to preserve them and have to fly with planes so people can eat strawberries all year long...I call such vegetables and fruits Fly-Fruits and
Fly-Vegetables

People living in 1900 or around had dangerous workplaces too...too many hours, less wage, dangerous machines...

If you compare life in 1900 and life in 2012 mind that there are many factors to count.

I must say that i agree with all of you (Didnt know about the mortality rate. Thanks Chris for the info) But better food also help. . Moderation is the answer. Not everyone control it. Using chemical with moderation is good. Same with medicine. If not, both will finish in river. And as chemical is bad in fresh water so is the medicine that people trow away. Fish and marine animal are affected by it (Medicine). Treatment of waste water should be improve to include the elimination of medicine. Where i work, researcher are already working on the problem of medicine in waste water. We get better as we discover those problem. And i think we will solve them. What we can do to prevent these pollution is like predicting weather (Too much unknown). We can only solve the problem once we find it. I am confident in humankind to do the right thing so enjoy your food. And beer and....

Natural food vs. industrial food
When I was a kid, I spent the holidays at the farm of my grandparents. They were farmers. Land divided into 4 parts and made shifting cultivation. My grandmother told me it is not good to cultivate the same product in the same place, because wore the ground.
Compost used and only used a chemical to preserve the corn once harvested.
Well. An agricultural engineer came every day to see the cultivation of potatoes from my granparents. He was amazed that with all his science and all the chemicals, could not get the quality of potatoes that produced my grandparents (And free of pests, the tubers had no warms)
The quality of potatoes that I eat today, are not even the shadow of wich I was feeding my grandmother. Indeed!

So much of our food nowadays is designed, and the criteria which informs the design tends not to include nutrition and flavour. Rather the food is designed to, for example, ripen all at once for ease of machine harvesting, or it's designed to withstand the rigours of world-wide shipping, or to be the right colour at the right time whether or not the colour has anything to do with ripeness or flavour, or it's designed to suit the needs of huge processors/users such as fast food chains. (They've ruined the humble potato, because of their demand for same-size, overly large tubers.)

A sensible culture would design food for maximum nutrition and flavour, and let the chips ( ) fall where they may. Our inabaility to do such a simple thing well is only one small symptom of a species-wide insanity. On a good day, I can imagine we'll muddle through somehow. This isn't a good day.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:A sensible culture would design food for maximum nutrition and flavour, and let the chips ( :lol2: ) fall where they may. Our inabaility to do such a simple thing well is only one small symptom of a species-wide insanity. On a good day, I can imagine we'll muddle through somehow. This isn't a good day.

Sensibly, you need a balance. Our development of foods that are easily grown and harvested was a big factor in averting mass starvation from overpopulation (you should better argue that a sensible culture wouldn't breed so prolifically).

For the most part, the foods we produce are not less nutritious than more "natural" foods. They usually don't taste as good, but if you can produce them inexpensively and get them into the people's bellies, society has done most of its job.

It's the stuff that's truly manufactured that causes most of our problems- the overprocessed, overpackaged stuff that is far removed from anything growing in fields.

Just as long as no one ever tries to take away my chocolate...

geckzilla wrote:Just as long as no one ever tries to take away my chocolate...

Save planet earth, it is the only one with chocolate on it

geckzilla wrote:Just as long as no one ever tries to take away my chocolate...

Well, this month chocolate increases longevity. Stop following the health news and you should do fine.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Just as long as no one ever tries to take away my chocolate...

Well, this month chocolate increases longevity. Stop following the health news and you should do fine.

And the other 11 months :

July: icecream
August: cheetos
September: marshmellow
Oktober: sweet popcorn
November: candy drops
December: ginger bread...German Lebkuchen is yummy
January: toffee
February: butter cookies
March: bubble gum
April: chocolate...again...it's my birthday!
May: licorice

We shall live long and prosper

Or at least have happy taste buds.

Moonlady
Gladly accept your list of candy for the year. I like sweets.
Much happiness

Having a pet will also help you live longer, especially if you are alone. How about a nice little puddy tat, like Rupert, for instance.
http://now.msn.com/now/0611-rupert-biggest-cat.aspx
MEOW