Downshifting bad for your health ?

spaceraiders

aless02 wrote: »

Organic and free-range vs. caged eggs is a completely different debate. Free-range/barn eggs are not bought for HEALTH implications, but for animal welfare. That is a totally separate issue and not for 'health' thread, but an ethics thread (free-range, fairtrade, rainforest alliance, etc.)

I agree with caged eggs, but you're wrong to lump organic with free range. There's no reason why you cannot buy non-organic eggs that were produced in an ethical manner. "Organic" is just a list of non-scientific arbitrary requirements that some people like to follow because they're scared of new technology or want to charge a premium. Look up the use of copper sulphate as an organic pesticide (it's highly toxic and not as good as modern pesticides) if you're interested.

aless02

spaceraiders wrote: »

I agree with caged eggs, but you're wrong to lump organic with free range. There's no reason why you cannot buy non-organic eggs that were produced in an ethical manner. "Organic" is just a list of non-scientific arbitrary requirements that some people like to follow because they're scared of new technology or want to charge a premium. Look up the use of copper sulphate as an organic pesticide (it's highly toxic and not as good as modern pesticides) if you're interested.

Oh, I totally agree! I was saying that ORGANIC does not equal FREE RANGE. Just like FREE RANGE is not the same thing as "healthy" or whatever. It's a whole separate issue, so to bring free-range eggs into this debate is pointless.

clutterydrawer

Mercy wrote: »

I'm all for fresh food and doing it yourself. You know what is in the meal.

I think it's worth noting that food labelled as low fat has generally a higher sugar / carbohydrate content. Not really good in the light of blood sugar problems experienced by type 2 diabetics. But this is what they're told to eat. Other fillers are artificial sweeteners, polyols and other chemicals. Some of which cause allergic reactions like bloating in some people.

I'd rather eat natural fat (full cream milk, butter, etc) than fill myself up on chemicals.

Don't ever think the government guidelines are for the health of the nation

M

It's amazing isn't it how people will insist that margarine is better for you without seeming to stop to think about it. I too would rather eat butter than marge - the trick is to not eat too much of either!

I have the same view with "no added sugar" soft drinks...I would rather be drinking sugar (essentially, crystallised plant sap) than aspartame, saccharin and whatever other sweeteners they use these days.

I have no concrete argument for this incidentally, just makes more sense to me

spaceraiders

clutterydrawer wrote: »

It's amazing isn't it how people will insist that margarine is better for you without seeming to stop to think about it. I too would rather eat butter than marge - the trick is to not eat too much of either!

I have the same view with "no added sugar" soft drinks...I would rather be drinking sugar (essentially, crystallised plant sap) than aspartame, saccharin and whatever other sweeteners they use these days.

I have no concrete argument for this incidentally, just makes more sense to me

This is the kind of faulty and uninformed reasoning the organic movement is fueled on. The sweeteners used as sugar substitutes are all tested for safety and there's nothing wrong with them. We know that sugar as a sweetener is calorific, which can lead to weight gain which we know is bad, so sugar substitutes can be much better for you in some cases.

The other poster mentioned "full of chemicals". This is a meaningless phrase as even water is a chemical. Any product can cause side-effects too, so I don't understand what the point singling out sweeteners for this are e.g. alcohol, fat, sugar are all natural yet too much is very bad for you.

competitionscafe

davetrousers wrote: »

I cannot understand why people perceive Nescafe to be good coffee (well it's down to how it is marketted). Any instant coffee is hugely inferior to proper coffee.

Perhaps they have never tasted proper fresh ground coffee? Buy a cafetiere, order some coffee from has bean or james gourmet coffee and make a cafetiere of coffee and a cup of nescafe. Taste and compare. You will never drink nescafe again! The proper coffee tastle like coffee while the instant stuff tastes like vaguely coffee flavoured dishwater.

Fire_Fox

spaceraiders wrote: »

This is the kind of faulty and uninformed reasoning the organic movement is fueled on. The sweeteners used as sugar substitutes are all tested for safety and there's nothing wrong with them. We know that sugar as a sweetener is calorific, which can lead to weight gain which we know is bad, so sugar substitutes can be much better for you in some cases.

The other poster mentioned "full of chemicals". This is a meaningless phrase as even water is a chemical. Any product can cause side-effects too, so I don't understand what the point singling out sweeteners for this are e.g. alcohol, fat, sugar are all natural yet too much is very bad for you.

Artificial sweeteners may be considered safe by many authorities, but they do have unpleasant side effects. We gave up aspartame last summer, which we only had in sugar-free squash anyway. Both Mr. Fire Fox and I were getting up in the night for a drink, as we were incredibly thirsty. There are many other anecdotal stories of medical problems, which I had previously thought to be down to over indulging: now I am not so sure.

If you wish to use a dry product for sweetness but prefer to avoid refined table sugar, you might try sucralose (Splenda) which is at least made from sugar, fructose (Fruisana aka fruit sugar) lower GI and slightly sweeter so you can use less, or xylitol (Perfect Sweet) which again is derived from fruit but is lower in calories. I don't pretend any of these are 'healthy' but I do think they are less unhealthy than sucrose.

clutterydrawer

spaceraiders wrote: »

This is the kind of faulty and uninformed reasoning the organic movement is fueled on. The sweeteners used as sugar substitutes are all tested for safety and there's nothing wrong with them. We know that sugar as a sweetener is calorific, which can lead to weight gain which we know is bad, so sugar substitutes can be much better for you in some cases.

Lots of things we used in the past were "tested for safety" and "fine" till their side effects became apparent later. I did state that it was my personal opinion rather than an argument based on any actual facts.

to avoid weight gain from sugar: eat lower quantities of sugary products. very simple

Debt_Free_Chick

spaceraiders wrote: »

This is the kind of faulty and uninformed reasoning the organic movement is fueled on. The sweeteners used as sugar substitutes are all tested for safety and there's nothing wrong with them. We know that sugar as a sweetener is calorific, which can lead to weight gain which we know is bad, so sugar substitutes can be much better for you in some cases.

Both sugar and artificial sweeteners are bad for you - if taken to excess.

spaceraiders

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Both sugar and artificial sweeteners are bad for you - if taken to excess.

My only point was that you shouldn't demonize sweeteners because they're "artificial" or "chemicals" as such statements don't make any sense. Your statement is also fairly meaningless as you can that about almost anything.

1carminestocky

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Both sugar and artificial sweeteners are bad for you - if taken to excess.

So is water, for that matter. Or, indeed, oxygen.