Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: what to eat??

  1. #1 what to eat?? 
    Forum Freshman Deividas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    12
    Everyday we see shops full of food (or maybe shit?)
    But what to choose to eat? We can't eat meat, because of dioxines, vegetables, because of nitrates. On every label we see: E621, E300 and so on....
    I am scared of cancer statistics, I don't know what to eat to avoid poison in our food.
    what do you think about food situation in our lifes? we see full shelfs of food, but really there're nothing to choose.. Help


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    E300 is good for you.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Deividas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    12
    I just gave you an example.. There are about 1000 E, and they are poison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Meh. Just eat a variety, keep it all in moderation, and get regular exercise (i.e. burn at least as many calories as you take in).

    That'll give you balance. Humans are omnivores and it may very well be meat in our diets starting at around 2-3 million years ago that jump-started our cognitive evolution and gradually larger ratio of brain to body mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    The main reason cancer is on the rise is not the types of food we eat but the fact we live a lot longer. Cancer epidemiology is still a young science so don't read too much into it, especially if you're getting your 'facts' from the media. The ecological damage of our eating habits must be far greater than any damage to individuals?
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Let me once more state the first rule of toxicology. It is : the dose makes the poison.

    This means
    1. Everything is poisonous if the dose is big enough - even water.
    2.. Everything is harmless if the dose is small enough, even dioxins.

    Now, rather sadly, there are numerous idiotic fanatics who fail to understand this simple principle. They see tiny traces of certain poisons in food, like dioxins, and jump immediately to the most stupid conclusion, and go round telling everyone that the food is toxic.

    Food from supermarkets is not toxic. Food additives, dioxins, traces of synthetic pesticide etc., are present in such tiny amounts that they are totally harmless. The only truly nasty materials in modern food is saturated fat, sugar, salt, and too much refined starch. Good diets avoid consuming too much of those materials, but the trace toxins are not an issue.

    It is kind of ironic that the food nutters who warble on about things that do not matter, never mention natural toxins. While fat, sugar, salt and starch are by far the biggest problem materials in food, there are rare occasions when natural toxins become an issue. Such things as the solanine found in the green portions of potatoes. The cucurbitacin in zucchinis that have been attacked by insects. A number of others. These natural toxins cause a few people to suffer a level of poisoning every year, but the food nutters, who are so concerned about harmless traces of dioxins, never ever mention anything that actually matters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    The main reason cancer is on the rise is not the types of food we eat but the fact we live a lot longer. Cancer epidemiology is still a young science so don't read too much into it, especially if you're getting your 'facts' from the media. The ecological damage of our eating habits must be far greater than any damage to individuals?
    I think that's too broad. Some cancers are going up even among the young such as rectal cancers which are probably a direct result of diet.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Yeah it's broad. Apart from aflatoxins, and possibly red meat (but you'd have to eat a lot), i can't think why cancer attributable to food could be on the increase in younger populations - do you know of any studies?

    I still maintain the point though - the media are awash with cancer scare stories and a generally well-rounded diet will be sufficient to be healthy. And, while i'm at it, there's no such things as superfoods.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The best guess reason for the increase in rectal cancer in young people is improved diagnosis. The increase 'coincides' with the widespread use of modern colonoscopy and microscopic checks of biopsy samples. Before that, we had a condition called "colo-rectal cancer" which has not increased overall significantly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Let me once more state the first rule of toxicology. It is : [i]the dose makes the poison.

    This means
    1. Everything is poisonous if the dose is big enough - even water.
    2.. Everything is harmless if the dose is small enough, even dioxins.

    Well said but let’s not forget about accumulation. You can’t really accumulate water /except pathology/ but unfortunately you can dioxins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Hippocampus

    Re accumulation.

    True, but the numbers are normally way below that. For example, here in NZ there was a dioxin 'scare' a few years back, when workers from a pesticide plant were claiming they had high levels of cancer due to dioxin exposure. (And a claim for big $$$ as compensation!).

    The minimum dioxin dose the USEPA considers "at risk" in the human body is about 20 ppb, for the worst dioxin (2,3,7,8, TCDD). The complainants had 5 to 35 ppt total dioxin in their bodies when tested. In other words, such low levels that the mere suggestion of risk is a sick joke.

    To know if a toxin is a genuine hazard, you need to know the minimum that might cause harm, plus the actual amount of exposure. Then you can make a determination. It is amazing how often people jump to conclusions without that data!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Hippocampus

    Re accumulation.

    True, but the numbers are normally way below that. For example, here in NZ there was a dioxin 'scare' a few years back, when workers from a pesticide plant were claiming they had high levels of cancer due to dioxin exposure. (And a claim for big $$$ as compensation!).

    The minimum dioxin dose the USEPA considers "at risk" in the human body is about 20 ppb, for the worst dioxin (2,3,7,8, TCDD). The complainants had 5 to 35 ppt total dioxin in their bodies when tested. In other words, such low levels that the mere suggestion of risk is a sick joke.

    To know if a toxin is a genuine hazard, you need to know the minimum that might cause harm, plus the actual amount of exposure. Then you can make a determination. It is amazing how often people jump to conclusions without that data!
    Could not agree more with you.

    But, when it comes to food we are talking about life long accumulation of different ‘toxins’. In majority of the cases they are not monitored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    What to eat?

    Who knows anymore.

    I personally believe is staying away from certain ingredients like High fructose Corn Syrup, emulsifiers, etc. Cannot eliminate them completely, but I keep it to a minimum by watching what I buy. Even have a soft drink on a rare occasion.

    I believe we do have a food crisis. mandated regulation I believe require processors to kill the things in food that are good for us.

    My fix is this.

    I buy what I can from "farm markets."

    I drink lots of V8-Fusion, probably 5 bottles a week.

    I take amino acid supplements.

    Otherwise, I don't worry about calorie intake, or other foods that are claimed to be harmful. I love that high fat stuff like whole milk, cheese, etc.

    Now I do eat high protein meats like fish, turkey, etc. Seldom buy beef, but that's what I get at fast food or a restaurant.

    I'm in my 50's and in better health than most in college... who don't party!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    58
    buy what I can from "farm markets."
    It might just mean that the food you buy was produced next to contaminated water supplies and in many cases next to busy roads or contaminated agriculture land.

    The food we buy in the supermarkets is not the best quality but at least the supermarkets have resources to check when it comes from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Meh. Just eat a variety, keep it all in moderation, and get regular exercise (i.e. burn at least as many calories as you take in).

    That'll give you balance. Humans are omnivores and it may very well be meat in our diets starting at around 2-3 million years ago that jump-started our cognitive evolution and gradually larger ratio of brain to body mass.
    Doctor Paracelsus agrees

    Paracelsus, sometimes called the father of toxicology, wrote:[10]

    German: Alle Ding' sind Gift, und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
    "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Deividas
    I just gave you an example.. There are about 1000 E, and they are poison.
    Most, if not all, fruits and vegetables contain various "E numbers". And I'm talking about natural, organically grown, additive-free fruits and vegetables.

    E numbers are merely designations for food additives, many of which are derived from natural sources. As an aside, plenty of naturally derived compounds are dangerous, and many synthetic compounds are utterly safe. Just as being an 'additive' is not the equivalent of being 'unnatural', similarly being 'unnatural' is not the equivalent of being dangerous. Nutritionist types love to oversimply and conflate these concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Dkav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    183
    Definitely, moderation is key, and don't eat until you are full and sitting slouching thinking wow Im so full. But, who doesn't do that. That is why cancer is on the rise. People need to have immediate pleasure, food is a great source of pleasure, esp. the sad American diet. Also, the FDA puts chemicals in our food which result in diseases that make a huge profit for pharma companies. Cancer being one of those, is a huge money making business.
    The need for an intelligible world begins with the fearfulness of pre-philosophical, pre-literate societies facing an unpredictable world of change and trying to make sense of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1
    Good post, thanks you!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    37
    Don't worry about it, according to a recent scientific paper picked up by Fox News (who else would?), black holes might cure cancer.
    If you listen statistics, everything gives you cancer, and most things cure it. Also don't forget the classic "everyone who has been into a Starbucks will die" statistic. Statistics are regularly manipulated to represent the interest of the topic at hand.
    Besides, as someone else mentioned, cancer is more of a longer lifespan issue than a consumption issue.

    I'm a bit of a fitness nut so I follow a fairly strict diet of brown rice, chicken/fish/egg whites and veg/fruits/nuts + whey protein. Occasionally I allow myself some pasta and even (very rarely) a soft drink. Then once a week I get to eat a single 'unhealthy' meal.
    But thats not to say that I don't regularly crave all the crap that other people get to eat. Like bacon. God that stuff smells good.
    Anyway if you're looking for almost guaranteed healthy food you should keep to stuff like the foods I listed. There are others, a quick google search will show you them. Its difficult at first, trading off the delicious burgers etc for fairly bland stuff, but you get used to it and eventually it doesn't bother you much. I just eat hot peppers with almost everything!

    And no, Dkav, the FDA does not work with the medical industry to give people cancer (as you seem to be implying). Don't be ridiculous.
    Last edited by iainmacb; August 3rd, 2011 at 02:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    7
    There are carcinogens everywhere. Don't worry about them excessively. If you did, you wouldn't be able to drink water. (Yes, we have carcinogens there too) Lean meat and veggies are healthy. Just don't eat the carcinogens plain. Don't smoke. Don't make your diet composed of only one or two foods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Deividas View Post
    I am scared of cancer statistics,
    Stress may increase the chance of cancer! There are no miracle foods, and too much of the same thing may not be good for you, and the odd unhealthy pudding may do your spirits the world of good.

    You just have to accept that life is fatal.

    As a very rough guide, I recommend the article "Don't eat cereals that change the colour of the milk: Unlikely but brilliantly simple rules that will transform the way you eat" (13th Jan 2010)
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deividas View Post
    I am scared of cancer statistics,
    Stress may increase the chance of cancer! There are no miracle foods, and too much of the same thing may not be good for you, and the odd unhealthy pudding may do your spirits the world of good.

    You just have to accept that life is fatal.

    As a very rough guide, I recommend the article "Don't eat cereals that change the colour of the milk: Unlikely but brilliantly simple rules that will transform the way you eat" (13th Jan 2010)
    I really wouldn't bother. The Daily Mail is notorious in the medical research community for misunderstanding and misrepresenting research findings, especially those relating to cancers. There are whole websites dedicated to the Daily Mail's frankly bizarre quest to categorize everything in the world into lists of causes and cures for cancer.

    You can, generally speaking, ignore most of the health reporting in the mainstream media, particularly in tabloid rags like the Daily Mail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    I really wouldn't bother. The Daily Mail is notorious in the medical research community for misunderstanding and misrepresenting research findings
    The article is attributed to Michael Pollan, an Oxford educated professor of journalism who also writes for New York Times Magazine, and whose books on diet do not seem to have received the same negative criticism as the Daily Mail.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    I really wouldn't bother. The Daily Mail is notorious in the medical research community for misunderstanding and misrepresenting research findings
    The article is attributed to Michael Pollan, an Oxford educated professor of journalism who also writes for New York Times Magazine, and whose books on diet do not seem to have received the same negative criticism as the Daily Mail.
    I hope you'll take some criticism on board. I do mean it to be helpful!

    Firstly, the article was not written by Pollan, but by Claire Cohen, who drew on one of Pollan's books- so immediately it's being filtered through mind of one of the Daily Mail's writers and her editor. It's worth noting that Cohen is not a dedicated science journalist, primarily writing for The Mail's horrendous FeMail supplement. Whether Pollan's books have received praise or criticism, I really could not say- I haven't read any of them and I haven't read any reviews of them, let alone peer-reviews. I can say that the Daily Mail article you linked (which I have read) is very much in keeping with their style. Zero references aside from one of Pollan's books, a reliance on the same old unfounded claims about things like antioxidants and fish oils (both very much lacking in evidence based on studies over the last few years), some causality/correlation conflation (people who eat traditional diets are healthier... or do healthier people tend to eat the diets they've been told will make them healthier?) and how slowly humans adapt to changing diets (which is also the basis of the paleo diet concept, which isn't yet validated by the evidence). There are a few wise-sounding but basically vacuous sayings thrown in for good measure. "It's not food if it arrived through the window of your car" sounds pithy, but since the window of you car is not a barrier to fresh meat, fruit and vegetables, it's basically nonsense. I get it- we shouldn't eat fast food- but in fairness, who hasn't twigged that one yet? As a aside, listing a person's qualifications and conferring body as evidence of credibility is an argument from authority. A logical error. A clanger of one, in fact, as it's very often employed by some of the biggest pseudoscience pushers around. Creationists, for example, love to start an argument with "The Nobel prize-winning chemist, Professor Something says...", almost as a substitute for the actual evidence. It doesn't make you wrong, but it's a tactic well recognized as meaningless by skeptical types.

    In summary, the article offers us very little. If Pollan's books are of the same ilk, then they're basically doorstops.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    I hope you'll take some criticism on board. I do mean it to be helpful!
    I accept many of your criticisms. Nevertheless, I don't think the article is a bad guideline.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    I hope you'll take some criticism on board. I do mean it to be helpful!
    I accept many of your criticisms. Nevertheless, I don't think the article is a bad guideline.
    Fair enough- what points specifically do you feel are worth following and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    Hi dear,

    For the healthy life you should eat each healthy food.
    You should eat fresh fruits and raw vegetables, pure milk, fresh meat, eggs, fish and dry fruits.
    Last edited by Blake123; December 10th, 2011 at 10:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    As I said in post #6, everything is harmless if in small enough dose. Pretty much everything, except fat, salt, sugar and purified starch, in our foods is there in such low doses as to be totally harmless. It is very rare for pesticide residues, food colourings or flavourings, or any toxins to be in high enough dose to warrant even the slightest concern.

    In other words, if you are concerned about health, and worry about bad things in food, confine your worry to fat, salt, sugar and purified starch, and you will not go far wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    I hope you'll take some criticism on board. I do mean it to be helpful!
    I accept many of your criticisms. Nevertheless, I don't think the article is a bad guideline.
    Fair enough- what points specifically do you feel are worth following and why?
    One good one is about plate size. Use smaller plates to make it easier to eat less without feeling that you're depriving yourself. I know some nursing homes use the reverse for elderly people who say they have no appetite. Put the same amount of food on a larger plate, and they eat the lot without coaxing or nagging. Vision is related to food and its enjoyment.

    The other is the number of ingredients. We all have different thresholds, but 2 people I know have decided not to fuss about particular ingredients. They just choose a number they won't exceed (15 for one of them, I think the other uses 21) they just don't buy it, they look for something else. Makes decisions simple and stress-free.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    trader joes stores sell good stuff maybe whole foods too
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    I think you need to eat more fresh vegetables because you are a patient of cancer
    and i listen to my doctor that vegetables are so good for cancer's patient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •