 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2005We should eat no artificial food ! ! !! !
Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with chemicals is bad for the body. So better eat : Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat ! > Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with chemicals is bad for the body. Agreed > Insects , trees , flowers and raw meat ! I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit, Vegetables -- Succorso >> Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with chemicals is bad >> for the body. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit, Vegetables But all those things are made with chemicals too. So is tap water for that matter. (Bottled water might or might not have more chemicals, but it will have H2O, so you cannot avoid chemicals no matter what.) What exactly is "natural" food? Is it the opposite of supernatural food? Is it limited to foods that occur in nature? Grains may occur in nature, but a bag of whole grain flour does not. It's not natural. There are foods that claim to have all natural ingredients, so maybe a diet high in potato chips would be good. They have no preservatives either, even though salt used to be a preservative. I guess times change. My grandmother used to have a bowl of plastic fruit on her table. I'm pretty sure that that's artificial food. When my great grandmother tried eating it, my grandmother thought it was the funniest thing. Then when grandma got close to 100, she started to do the same thing. I agree that artificial food is a bad thing. I disagree with my great grandmother who said that America has the worst grapes. >> Artificial food is bad for the body, food made with chemicals is bad for the body. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I prefer Grains, Nuts, Seeds, Fish and (some) meat, Fruit, Vegetables No, you need to build a resistance. Eat more Cool Whip, Cheeze Whiz, Diet Coke, Pringles and Twinkies.  Signature"If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower" > Eat more Cool Whip, Cheeze Whiz, Diet Coke, Pringles and Twinkies. The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that nasty sugar. > The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic evaporated > cane juice that my health foods use instead of that nasty sugar. Please stop abusing the English language! http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html "Natural is what naturally occurs in nature without any assistance from man. What can only be made by man is called artificial. While natural is what naturally occurs in nature, if mankind did not and had never existed. Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins. Evolution has given living creatures a natural way of dealing with natural toxins. Man made artificial toxins are especially harmful to life since these toxins may not be biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins." Natural http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=natural "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. ... In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired." from Webster's 1828 Dictionary -- john gohde http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/ > Please stop abusing the English language! > "Natural is what naturally occurs in nature without any assistance [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > toxins may not be biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living > creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins." I wish life were really this simple. The problem I have is when natural is associated with healthy. All too often the opposite is true. Natural rape seeds are poisonous, unnaturally Canola is considered a health food. Cooking bread, vegetables, meat is to take a naturaly occurring material and chemically alter it (make it into an unnatural material) to make it taste better. All too often that change from natural to unnatural "a good thing". Elmer "natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean. bj > "natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean. Is that how science operates? I really don't think so! "Natural" has a specific meaning and it is always opposed to "artificial." -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html >> "natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean. > >Is that how science operates? How? What has science got to do with marketing? No wonder you are confused and ask such uninformed questions. >"natural" means whatever the marketer wants it to mean. Never a truer word. Thanks bj. > > Please stop abusing the English language! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I wish life were really this simple. The problem I have is when > natural is associated with healthy. All too often the opposite is true. Life is that simple, when you use your brain. :) The problem is entirely YOUR problem as the word 'natural' connotes no such thing. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html "Natural" has no particular meaning when it comes to toxins. People, who are natural too, and various other natural sources produce toxins as a routine protection against attack. That "natural" toxin some plant may make that sickens birds and may cause death if enough is consumed is there to protect plants. That natural toxin some snakes produce is protection against other critters. The taste of bitterness in foods is often a sign that it is due to some toxin that is a protection against something that plant wants to ward off as a protection. Toxic is toxic and using fuzzy warm words in association with some of them helps us not at all. This becomes important when "natural" supplements are offered for health and in fact may contain somethingthat is toxic to people. For example, certain "traditional" nostrums were discussed here recently because they routinely contain toxic heavy metals. "Natural" red rice is a lipid control supplement, which contains the biochemically same drug as a commercial statin and with all the possible side effects that come with it. > "Natural" has no particular meaning when it comes to toxins. People, > who are natural too, and various other natural sources produce toxins [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is a protection against something that plant wants to ward off as a > protection. If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to toxins, then you should not be referring to natural toxins so much in your post. The reality is that if a toxin occurs in nature, it's a natural toxin. > Toxic is toxic and using fuzzy warm words in association > with some of them helps us not at all. That's only if you consider "natural" to be fuzzy and warm. I don't. Nature has both good and bad things. > This becomes important when > "natural" supplements are offered for health and in fact may contain > somethingthat is toxic to people. It becomes important if people get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the word when they should not. If you recognized that "natural" is not necessarily something good or bad, it would be clear that merely being natural does not necessarily make those supplements safe. > If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to toxins, then you > should not be referring to natural toxins so much in your post. The reality > is that if a toxin occurs in nature, it's a natural toxin. Man is the measure of all things, Dear, especially in smn. :) This is NOT a ng on floral and fungi! Just thought you might want to know. Toxins obtained from the human diet are of two types, when man is the measure of all things: Natural and Artificial. :) Natural toxins are those that mankind has evolved to deal with while the artifical are those so new to the diet that no evolution has yet to take place. How many times do I have to state the perfectly obvious, before you finally respond to it? > It becomes important if people get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the word > when they should not. If you get warm and fuzzy from the world 'natural', Buddy, that certainly is YOUR problem. I certainly do not. Please STOP abusing the English language. -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html >> If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to toxins, then you >> should not be referring to natural toxins so much in your post. The reality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >This is NOT a ng on floral and fungi! Just thought you might want to >know. Floral what? >Toxins obtained from the human diet are of two types, when man is the >measure of all things: Natural and Artificial. :) > >Natural toxins are those that mankind has evolved to deal with while >the artifical are those so new to the diet that no evolution has yet >to take place. Another one who is ignorant of chemistry. Try looking up "active sites". >How many times do I have to state the perfectly obvious, before you >finally respond to it? We're waiting until you get it right. >> It becomes important if people get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the word >> when they should not. > >If you get warm and fuzzy from the world 'natural', Buddy, that >certainly is YOUR problem. I certainly do not. Please STOP abusing >the English language. So why do you think advertisers so like the word "natural" in their blurbs? > >> If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to toxins, then you > >> should not be referring to natural toxins so much in your post. The reality [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Floral what? Floral is in my dictionary. I suggest that you try taking biology all over again. Your comment was so stupid, that I am not going to waste my time replying to your other comments which are even more stupid than this one was. -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html >> >> If "natural" has no specific meaning when it comes to toxins, then you >> >> should not be referring to natural toxins so much in your post. The reality [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Floral is in my dictionary. And if you read beyond the headword, you would see it is an adjective. As I asked, "floral what?". BTW, I didn't need a dictionary for this simple word. Go figure! >I suggest that you try taking biology all >over again. What for? I already know what this adjective means. Do YOU know what an adjective is? It describes a noun. I asked what noun you were describing with it. >Your comment was so stupid, that I am not going to waste >my time replying to your other comments which are even more stupid >than this one was. As I said, "Floral what?" >Toxins obtained from the human diet are of two types, when man is the >measure of all things: Natural and Artificial. :) Toxins are made by bacteria, Toxic compounds may be natural, but mostly artificial :-) Atl least, that is how most scientific literature defines it. From plants they are called toxic phytoalexins. > "Natural" has no particular meaning when it comes to toxins. People, who > are natural too, and various other natural sources produce toxins as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > supplement, which contains the biochemically same drug as a commercial > statin and with all the possible side effects that come with it. My, how you babble on so? http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html "Natural is what naturally occurs in nature without any assistance from man. What can only be made by man is called artificial. While natural is what naturally occurs in nature, if mankind did not and had never existed. Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins. Evolution has given living creatures a natural way of dealing with natural toxins. Man made artificial toxins are especially harmful to life since these toxins may not be biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins." Just thought that you might want to know. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! -- john gohde > Evolution has > given living creatures a natural way of dealing with natural toxins. The statement is not very useful. If living things can "deal" with a substance without harm then it is not a toxin. If a naturally occuring substance is toxic to living creatures then evolution has not "given living creatures a natural way of dealing with" such "natural toxins". It is also important to note that evolution has given living creatures many ways of dealing with artificial materials that could be toxic. Many are digested, others are simply eliminated. Elmer Elmer > Man made artificial toxins are especially harmful to life since these > toxins may not be biodegradable. Nor, has evolution given living > creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins." > > Evolution has > > given living creatures a natural way of dealing with natural toxins. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > creatures then evolution has not "given living creatures a natural way > of dealing with" such "natural toxins". This statement of yours is not very useful. The human liver has in fact evolved to deal quite effectively with natural toxins. These substances which are removed from the blood without harming the host are still called toxins. Just thought that you might want to know. -- john gohde http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/ This whole thread is an example of how having an agenda tortures the process of making valid definitions. "Natural" has been kidnapped by a segment of marketing folk as spin, which the recent political national spin fest should have made us more sensitive as to it's use and abuse. A good definition flows from observations related to a question at hand and as a product of emperical data collection resulting. A look at the questions of the origin of human use of toxins will illistrate. Humans have been creating uses for toxins for as long as we can be aware. In early times so called "traditional" methods were used as an emperical effort to find substances which seemed to "correct" some aspect of life-health. I combine the latter because they had no scientific basis for the germ theory of disease and placed what we call health issues related to many diseases to "life" forces that also explained the failure of crops or of the hunt or of the success of a marriage and an endless list of other "life" concerns. The whole chinese system of ying and yang is an example of this. When it came to helping diseases by "traditional" methods they were in many cases doing a crude example of biochemistry. They could not know nor had the technoly to isolate the active chemicals in various substances found aound them and could only discover by approxamation what amount of each might have something in it that seemed by trial and error to help some way. Many of these were in fact toxins in living things that evolved to ward off other living things which wanted them as food or to destroy. These toxins played the role in humans of having a medical effect but if used in larger amounts in specific species would strongly discourage and/or kill the consumer/attacker. With the rise of science as a way to more specifically observe and test notions, we can now extract those substances and/or replicate their action outside their original source. We have gone one step further and done evolution one better by identifying what kind of substance might have a beneficial effect based on knowing in more detail how disease works in the body and replicating what evolution did over countless eons by inventing substances which enter human biology at some level so as to effect biochemical process in a direction thought beneficial. So why the long winded discussion, to show that we can speak in a way that accounts for the entire discussion without recourse to using the term "natural" because it advances the discussion not one bit to anyone's better understanding of it. It does not flow "naturally" from the observations, pun intended, unless one starts with a marketing or other agenda and works backwards to force it to have some meaning not inherent in the question. > This whole thread is an example of how having an agenda tortures the > process of making valid definitions. "Natural" has been kidnapped by a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > unless one starts with a marketing or other agenda and works backwards to > force it to have some meaning not inherent in the question. Don't they teach idiots in science college how to use paragraphs? I am still waiting for a direct answer to my simple question. Just thought that you might want to know. :) -- john ghohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html "I am still waiting for a direct answer to my simple question." No, as a simple answer. > "I am still waiting for a direct answer to my simple question." > > No, as a simple answer. That is because 'the Toad' always has trouble articulating intelligent responses to good questions. Better to shut up and not let the public realize just how dumb you really are, eh ... 'Toad'? -- john gohde >Man can produce both natural and artificial toxins. Evolution has >given living creatures a natural way of dealing with natural toxins. As opposed to an artificial way? >Man made artificial toxins are especially harmful to life since these >toxins may not be biodegradable. Can you name one that is not? >Nor, has evolution given living >creatures a natural way of detoxifying these artifical toxins. Evolution can't give anything, in case you wanted to know. Has your "evolution" given living creatures an artificial way of detoxifying these artificial toxins? Yes, my how you babble on so? Nevertheless, I will play your stupid game and respond line by line. How about actually responding to my points this time? Or, are you as stupid as your comments make 'the Toad' out to be? > "Natural" has no particular meaning when it comes to toxins. WRONG, ... wrong, Wrong! > People, who > are natural too, and various other natural sources produce toxins as a > routine protection against attack. Man is the measure of all things, especially in smn. This is not a ng on floral and fungi, you know! > That "natural" toxin some plant may > make that sickens birds and may cause death if enough is consumed is there > to protect plants. That natural toxin some snakes produce is protection > against other critters. Man is the measure of all things, especially in smn. This is not a ng on floral and fungi, you know! >The taste of bitterness in foods is often a sign > that it is due to some toxin that is a protection against something that > plant wants to ward off as a protection. Man is the measure of all things, especially in smn. This is not a ng on floral and fungi, you know! What the plants that we have been eating for thousands of years do is totally irrelevent! Do you suffer from AADD, 'Toad'? >Toxic is toxic and using fuzzy > warm words in association with some of them helps us not at all. WRONG, ... wrong, Wrong! I have been writing maturely about evolution and you babble on about warm and fuzzy. The only person being warm and fuzzy here is YOU. > This > becomes important when "natural" supplements are offered for health and in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > supplement, which contains the biochemically same drug as a commercial > statin and with all the possible side effects that come with it. Show me where I have referred to any one of these supplements in this thread as being 'natural'. This time 'Toad' respond to my points about evolution being the measure of what is natural and artifical. -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html >>> No, as a simple answer. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >word, not. But "no" usually fits your questions and doubtless serves in >this case; "naturally". > This time 'Toad' respond to my points about evolution being the > measure of what is natural and artifical. Got it, Toad? "> This time 'Toad' respond to my points about evolution being the > measure of what is natural and artifical. Got it, Toad?" No. > Natural rape seeds are poisonous, unnaturally Canola is considered If you think of erucic oil, please update yourself with recent literature (not published by those who just want to scare the hell out of you) If that toxic, there should be no population problems in China at all today, since all should have been dead by now, using daily natural rape seed oil containing more than 15% of erucic oil. (Seems like it is rather healthy since they seem to thrive very well) >> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic >> evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that nasty >> sugar. > > Please stop abusing the English language! I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if you didn't understand my post. > >> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic > >> evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that nasty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wasn't abusing the English language. Don't blame me if you didn't > understand my post. Don't blame me if I use my brain to disagree with your statements and conclusions. I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :) -- http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/ >>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic >>>> evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I do. And, just did. Yet, again. :) My statements implied that the word "natural" is pretty much meaningless in this context because even something like potato chips could be considered natural. I compared it to "organic evaporated cane juice" which is just a buzz word for sugar, and I compared that to "nasty" sugar itself to drive home my point. This was also a follow up to an earlier post where I explained my position in no uncertain terms. Then you berated me for abusing the English language even though you never said how, you gave a definition that was entirely consistent with what I had said on my earlier post on this topic, and you claimed that you understood my post. Saying something does not make it true. If you honestly believe that name calling and snide implications are the way to win arguments, I can do the same thing, in which case, I win on your terms. I used my brain far more than you did here. I win. Na, na, na, na, na. (That's a schoolyard taunt by the way.) By the way, you still did not understand my post, and I doubt you understand this one either. Natural does have a specific meaning, but it has nothing to do with whether a food is healthful. P.S. Don't bother replying. I've already killfiled you. > >>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic > >>>> evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this context because even something like potato chips could be considered > natural. Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :) Potato chips are artifical for a number of reasons. They contain chemicals that are NOT naturally the part of anybodyies diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT evolved to process those artificial chemicals. Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet because they have been in it probably not more than a 100 years. Cooking is natural to the human diet, because people have been cooking for about 30,000 years. :) Seems simply enought to me. I completely disagree with you, for the above cited reasons. -- john gohde http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html >> >>>> The ingredients in Pringles are just as natural as that organic >> >>>> evaporated cane juice that my health foods use instead of that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >diet: animal or human. Hence, humans have NOT evolved to process >those artificial chemicals. So what happens to them? >Next, potato chips are not natural to the human diet because they have >been in it probably not more than a 100 years. What parts of potato chips, or is it just that combination of substances? What ones are artificial? >Cooking is natural to the human diet, because people have been cooking >for about 30,000 years. :) No other animals cook anything. How can it be "natural"? >Seems simply enought to me. More "simplistic", I think. > >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :) > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What parts of potato chips, or is it just that combination of > substances? What ones are artificial? Perhaps, if you were to focus? Perhaps, if you STOP being such an a.s? Perhaps, if you actually tried reading the printed page your comments wouldn't be so stupid? Nah! You are natuarally born obnoxious. And, you are probably a Brit because all Britians suffer from the same mental illness. :) Just my opinion, but I am right as ususal. :) -- john gohde http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/ >> >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :) >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Just my opinion, but I am right as ususal. :) Nothing substantive comes to your mind? Why do you bombard this newsgroup with empty nonsense? > >> >Absolutely NOT! per the reasons I have already given. :) > >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Nothing substantive comes to your mind? > Why do you bombard this newsgroup with empty nonsense? Nothing substantive comes to your mind? Why do you bombard this newsgroup with empty nonsense? If it good enough for you to use, then it is good enough for me to reply with. Just thought that you might want to know. :) -- john gohde http://blog.naturalhealthperspective.com/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.