Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Organic foods, BULL****?

p00ndawg

p00ndawg

Banned
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxl05cCA88"]YouTube - Penn & Teller - Bullshit! - Organic Food (1/3)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QclJEoSJfq4"]YouTube - Penn & Teller - Bullshit! - Organic Food (2/3)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YiDt1aql9s"]YouTube - Penn & Teller - Bullshit! - Organic Food (3/3)[/ame]

what ya think? Some really funny moments.

oh its soooo creamy, thats a real banana. LOL
 
I watched this when it originally aired and laughed my ass off. I love the excessive use of the word, "fuck!"
:D

EDIT: "Team Sour-Pussy vs. The World!"
:toofunny:
 
I can taste a huge difference between an organic banana and a non-organic banana. The organic one is much sweeter compared to it's counterpart.
 
organic is only a state of mind... it costs 2-3x as much and who's to say it was not grown with chemicals... total bs in my book!
 
i just picked up some strawberries, only $15 for a small container at whole foods, yep they were on sale
 
Where I shop organic is maybe a few cents more. And in the end organic is cheaper in my estimation. You don't have to pay to have chemicals filtered out of our water supply for one. My view on nonorganically grown produce is it's bigger, less tasty, and lower in nutrients than organically grown. To me, it just makes more sense.
 
A report jointly produced by The Organic Center and professors from the University of Florida Department of Horticulture and Washington State University provides evidence that organic foods contain, on average, 25 percent higher concentration of 11 nutrients than their conventional counterparts. The report was based on estimated differences in nutrient levels across 236 comparisons of organically and conventionally grown foods.

Source: “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods,” Invalid Link Removed.

Reviewing 41 published studies comparing the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington concluded there were significantly more of several nutrients in organic crops. These included: 27% more vitamin C, 21.1% more iron, 29.3% more magnesium, and 13.6% more phosphorus. In addition, organic products had 15.1% less nitrates than their conventional counterparts. She also noted that five servings of organic vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage) provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while their conventional counterparts did not. Worthington said the results are consistent with known soil dynamics and plant physiology.

Source: “Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,” by Virginia Worthington, published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173).
 
To me, organic isn't about what is additionally present in the food. Its more about what is left out. No chemicals, no pesticides, etc. This alone makes it worth it to me; along w/ the ability to support my local farmers and sustainable growing practices.
 
Urban Monk said:
To me, organic isn't about what is additionally present in the food. Its more about what is left out. No chemicals, no pesticides, etc. This alone makes it worth it to me; along w/ the ability to support my local farmers and sustainable growing practices.
Click to expand...

the only problem i see is that you cant tell that they the farmers did not use ANY chemicals (unless you grow it yourself) and then you cant tell where it was grown either! I like farmers market as well I go there when I have a chance it helps support local growers.... but I don't go there for the organic products
 
Last edited:
I buy my beef from a local farmer. It's 100% grass fed, organic. Tastes better and the fat when cooked is clear and behaves a lot differently than store-bought grain fed.

I completely agree with we can't support the worlds population on organic grown produce with our current growing processes. I don't try to push people to buy organic. I like to, but I also understand not everyone can buy organic. If you don't feel the need to, then don't.
 
Organic is the healthier choice if you can afford it. Our gym has a side cafe that chefs up some grass fed beef burgers and they are the best burgers I ever had.
 
Jordinator said:
A report jointly produced by The Organic Center and professors from the University of Florida Department of Horticulture and Washington State University provides evidence that organic foods contain, on average, 25 percent higher concentration of 11 nutrients than their conventional counterparts. The report was based on estimated differences in nutrient levels across 236 comparisons of organically and conventionally grown foods.

Source: “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods,” Invalid Link Removed.

Reviewing 41 published studies comparing the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington concluded there were significantly more of several nutrients in organic crops. These included: 27% more vitamin C, 21.1% more iron, 29.3% more magnesium, and 13.6% more phosphorus. In addition, organic products had 15.1% less nitrates than their conventional counterparts. She also noted that five servings of organic vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage) provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while their conventional counterparts did not. Worthington said the results are consistent with known soil dynamics and plant physiology.

Source: “Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,” by Virginia Worthington, published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173).
Click to expand...

Now thats bull****. They said it was better based on estimates? How about actual measurements?
 
Indeed, E.
I always research the company and their processes before buying from them. Also, I only buy fresh produce at the local Farmer's Market so my money impacts my region rather some sh*tty farm in South America.
EasyEJL said:
Now thats bull****. They said it was better based on estimates? How about actual measurements?
Click to expand...
 
EasyEJL said:
Now thats bull****. They said it was better based on estimates? How about actual measurements?
Click to expand...

Because so many factors impact the nutritional quality of food, studies seeking to compare the
nutritional quality of conventional and organic foods must be designed to eliminate or control, to
the fullest extent possible, multiple potentially confounding variables.
Two articles have addressed directly the proper design of studies striving to compare the
performance of alternative farming systems. In 1997 van der Werf et al. published a paper entitled
“Methodological Issues in Comparative Agro-Economic On-farm Research Assessments of
Organic Versus Conventional Farming Techniques” in the U.K. journal Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture. While the focus of the paper is on carrying out such studies in
developing countries, the basic issues addressed, and suggestions made, apply universally.
The need for clear definitions of the production systems being compared is emphasized. The
authors recommend use of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements
(IFOAM) definition of organic farming. They argue that conventional agriculture should be defined
“as the most common set of agricultural practices of the research population” (van der Werf et al.,
1997). Three possible approaches are described to carry
out comparative research –
• Single farms are compared with regional
averages;
• Matched pairs (or groups) or farms and/or fields are identified, each containing an
organic and conventional farm/field; or
• A controlled experiment is carried out on a research station, emulating to the extent
possible organic and conventional systems. The authors favor the second approach for several
reasons including its relevance to commercial operations, ability to select matched pairs that
control for a variety of confounding variables, and tendency to produce more reliable results. They
also recommend that research teams focus on defined sets of practices, as opposed to wholefarm
performance, because the later raises so many additional analytical and data collection
challenges. Ideally, farmers should have at least two years of experience in carrying out a given organic
technique before they are asked to participate in a comparison study. In addition, it is important to
assure that the farms, and farmers, chosen to be included in a matched pair are representative of a
broader population of organic and conventional farmers.

More info is on pg. 21 of the pdf.
 
That is ridiculous.

The small increased percentage of nutritional value is nowhere near the value of the cost. Not to mention does it manifest itself in improved absorption of said nutrients.

An apple is an apple and broccoli is broccoli. Take vitamins if you are worried about vitamins.

JMHO
 
Jordinator said:
A report jointly produced by The Organic Center and professors from the University of Florida Department of Horticulture and Washington State University provides evidence that organic foods contain, on average, 25 percent higher concentration of 11 nutrients than their conventional counterparts. The report was based on estimated differences in nutrient levels across 236 comparisons of organically and conventionally grown foods.

Source: “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods,” Invalid Link Removed.

Reviewing 41 published studies comparing the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington concluded there were significantly more of several nutrients in organic crops. These included: 27% more vitamin C, 21.1% more iron, 29.3% more magnesium, and 13.6% more phosphorus. In addition, organic products had 15.1% less nitrates than their conventional counterparts. She also noted that five servings of organic vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage) provided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and women, while their conventional counterparts did not. Worthington said the results are consistent with known soil dynamics and plant physiology.

Source: “Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains,” by Virginia Worthington, published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001 (pp. 161-173).
Click to expand...

If we can suspend our judgment long enough to forget this study was funded and carried out by an organization known as, "The Organic Center, there are still serious methodological issues afoot here - namely, the selection criterion employed by the researchers. Vague and ambiguous selection criteria are put forward, both in respects to the categories of comparison, and the studies themselves. The study is certainly ambiguous, and borders on outright bias.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
If we can suspend our judgment long enough to forget this study was funded and carried out by an organization known as, "The Organic Center, there are still serious methodological issues afoot here - namely, the selection criterion employed by the researchers. Vague and ambiguous selection criteria are put forward, both in respects to the categories of comparison, and the studies themselves. The study is certainly ambiguous, and borders on outright bias.
Click to expand...

I agree, The Organic Center is bias in favor of supporting Organic. It was also done by Professors from two different Universities however. In most scientific studies there is a bias because someone obviously has an interest or else there wouldn't be a study taking place, either for against. When the Dairy producers have a study saying calcium helps you lose weight, drink 2-3 servings daily, it's the same thing. Just have to decide what to believe and take away from the studies.
 
Iron Lungz said:
Indeed, E.
I always research the company and their processes before buying from them. Also, I only buy fresh produce at the local Farmer's Market so my money impacts my region rather some sh*tty farm in South America.
Click to expand...



same here, we got some nice farmers markets where I am, and there prices are almost always cheaper than most grocery stores.
 
just think of all the food you could be buying with the amount of money you'd be saving buying non organic food.


you literally have to be high to spend 4.50 on a gallon of organic milk when walmart sells non hgmg whatever stuff for 1.58.

high.
 
soontobbeast said:
just think of all the food you could be buying with the amount of money you'd be saving buying non organic food.
Click to expand...

And just think of all the money we would all save if we bought nothing but fast food, pepsi, and other unhealthy foods simply because they were less expensive than chicken, beef, whole gains, and whey protein. When I walk the stores, usually the products that are the least costly are also the worst in nutritional value.

We would be saving money but at what cost? As for organics, I like apples that are the size of a fist instead of apples the size of a softball.

Just my two cents.
 
actually single serving fast food is not cheaper by volume than making several serving meals.


sooo what are you talking about?


good try though.
 
Rodja said:
I can taste a huge difference between an organic banana and a non-organic banana. The organic one is much sweeter compared to it's counterpart.
Click to expand...

organic isn't sprayed with toxic chemicals...usually. I never eat non organic. I used too like Penn and Teller but I think they are pricks now. I can tell you if I eat non-organic I get very sick. Even some organic produce I have trouble with, since Auxigro is considered by some to be organic. Any whole milk I do fine with though.
 
soontobbeast said:
actually single serving fast food is not cheaper by volume than making several serving meals.


sooo what are you talking about?


good try though.
Click to expand...

"When I walk the stores, usually the products that are the least costly are also the worst in nutritional value."

Alright, what about this statement? Do you read abstracts instead of entire research articles as well? One overlook's some important information that way.

From this week's grocery store ad:

3lb of beef franks: $7.99
Big K 2ltr soda: 20 for $10.00
16oz Pork & Beans: 20 for $10.00
Hungry-Man Entrees: $1.88/each
16oz Hunt's Manwhich: 10 for $10.00
8oz Goldfish: $0.99

So yeah, about that more pertinent portion from my prior post (alliteration in your face.)

sooo what are you talking about?


good try though.
Click to expand...

Threadjack over. Buy organic. :laugh2:
 
:D
That's my boy.

SilentBob187 said:
"When I walk the stores, usually the products that are the least costly are also the worst in nutritional value."

Alright, what about this statement? Do you read abstracts instead of entire research articles as well? One overlook's some important information that way.

From this week's grocery store ad:

3lb of beef franks: $7.99
Big K 2ltr soda: 20 for $10.00
16oz Pork & Beans: 20 for $10.00
Hungry-Man Entrees: $1.88/each
16oz Hunt's Manwhich: 10 for $10.00
8oz Goldfish: $0.99

So yeah, about that more pertinent portion from my prior post (alliteration in your face.)



Threadjack over. Buy organic. :laugh2:
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

Hey, good try, though!
 
Jordinator said:
I agree, The Organic Center is bias in favor of supporting Organic. It was also done by Professors from two different Universities however. In most scientific studies there is a bias because someone obviously has an interest or else there wouldn't be a study taking place, either for against. When the Dairy producers have a study saying calcium helps you lose weight, drink 2-3 servings daily, it's the same thing. Just have to decide what to believe and take away from the studies.
Click to expand...

Again, whether this study was funded by the Organic Center, or the Center for Inorganic Study, the study's design would still lead to highly suspect results at best. Beginning with the dubious selection process, and leading into their complete lack of statistical significance of meta-analysis, the study suffers from fairly rudimentary issues of methodology. While the authors employ a filter method to dissolve the pool of studies into "acceptable" categories, these filters are not normalized for bias in any meaningful way - i.e., the selection of studies seems arbitrary at best, and directional at worst.

Extending into the study parameters, the very definitions of "organic" and "conventional" seems to vary from study-to-study, making clear distinctions of either term an irresponsible feat; in fact, the authors explain that they accepted the definition of conventional orthodoxy as being, "the most common set of agricultural practices of the research population". Put otherwise: the "conventional" practices of 'Study A' most likely differ highly from 'Study B', making even a relative comparison of their nutritional content moot from the standpoint of statistical significance. By function of simple logic alone, the study's results are insignificant: in order for a proper method-comparison to occur, the study parameters (i.e., particularly your definite terms) must be equalized across the board, or you are comparing different things entirely. This is particularly important when performing cross-analysis of several instances of 'X' and 'Y' respectively: unless the characteristics of each term ("r") you set are transitive (i.e., apply "r" to all set of 'X' and 'Y') then your results are relatively invalid.

The fact is, the authors only nominally included the internal quality and consistency of farming practices into account when making their selection - in other words, their 'stringent' criteria was merely that a comparison was taking place, and not that each farming method (i.e., conventional and organic) was being carried out to a high enough respective standard to garner an objectively valid result. If the authors are as 'generous' in their selections of studies as they are their descriptions of organic nutritional content, I have no doubt of the invalidity of some of the literature reviewed. And finally, the language throughout was blatantly telling of their bias, and hardly indicative of a study published in an accredited journal. Quite frankly: this study and organic food are bullshit.

DerickVonD said:
organic isn't sprayed with toxic chemicals...usually. I never eat non organic. I used too like Penn and Teller but I think they are pricks now. I can tell you if I eat non-organic I get very sick. Even some organic produce I have trouble with, since Auxigro is considered by some to be organic. Any whole milk I do fine with though.
Click to expand...

So: you now dislike somebody merely because they challenged your subjective beliefs with objective evidence?
 
Iron Lungz said:
:D
That's my boy.


Invalid Link Removed

Hey, good try, though!
Click to expand...


this pole jocker follows me around everywhere lol.


the point of this great story is that. cheap food may be cheaper in some things, but you're an idiot anyway. ill explain why.

SilentBob187 said:
"When I walk the stores, usually the products that are the least costly are also the worst in nutritional value."

Alright, what about this statement? Do you read abstracts instead of entire research articles as well? One overlook's some important information that way.

From this week's grocery store ad:

3lb of beef franks: $7.99
Big K 2ltr soda: 20 for $10.00
16oz Pork & Beans: 20 for $10.00
Hungry-Man Entrees: $1.88/each
16oz Hunt's Manwhich: 10 for $10.00
8oz Goldfish: $0.99

So yeah, about that more pertinent portion from my prior post (alliteration in your face.)



Threadjack over. Buy organic. :laugh2:
Click to expand...


so you listed 6 of the cheapest items in the store. awesome argument! do you normally eat gold fish? why are you comparing them to normal inorganic food?



the fact that you compared items that no healthy person buys with normal items that people on diets typically buy shows just how terrible of an argument you have. organic items compared to normal items that people on diets actually eat, however, dont show the same difference measured in a price to added benefit ratio.

thankyou, come again.
 
easy comparison that completely destroys your argument that 'fast food' is cheaper than good food.


go to wendy's and buy 5 combos. how much will that cost? around 30$


now go buy 2lbs ( 7$) of ground meat, a bag of french fries( 2-3$)

a bag of buns ( 2$), a tomato or two ( 1.50) a head of lettuce ( 1$)


14$ for leaner,homemade food vs 30$ for wendy's


i thought everyone knew this? it is a shame i have to teach people these things on a body building forum.

thats why people stay home and cook instead of going to restaurants , in order to save money.
 
Just to be a d*ck, but soontobebeast, the $ symbol (sign) is supposed to be in-front of the dollar amount. Example: $25
Learn it.
 
Iron Lungz said:
Just to be a d*ck, but soontobebeast, the $ symbol (sign) is supposed to be in-front of the dollar amount. Example: $25
Learn it.
Click to expand...


you enjoy making an ass of yourself , don't you?

a symbol is not the same thing as a sign.


furthermore, that is the exact response i expected from someone that just got beat.


thx
 
soontobbeast said:
easy comparison that completely destroys your argument that 'fast food' is cheaper than good food.


go to wendy's and buy 5 combos. how much will that cost? around 30$


now go buy 2lbs ( 7$) of ground meat, a bag of french fries( 2-3$)

a bag of buns ( 2$), a tomato or two ( 1.50) a head of lettuce ( 1$)


14$ for leaner,homemade food vs 30$ for wendy's


i thought everyone knew this? it is a shame i have to teach people these things on a body building forum.

thats why people stay home and cook instead of going to restaurants , in order to save money.
Click to expand...

the combos include fries and a drink, plus include labor time to prepare, deep fryer, etc. At the low end cost wise, you can't purchase items for the same pricing as mcdonalds does, simply based on volume.
 
EasyEJL said:
the combos include fries and a drink, plus include labor time to prepare, deep fryer, etc. At the low end cost wise, you can't purchase items for the same pricing as mcdonalds does, simply based on volume.
Click to expand...

i knew someone would mention labor. but that doesnt work either. my labor doesn't cost me anything if there was no opportunity cost ( i wasn't making money, then stopped to make a hamburger ). so that is off of the table. also, add a 2liter for one dollar and im still under cost. and it will not cost me 10 dollars to use my stove for 20 minutes.


after taking ALL of the variables into account, i am still under cost with leaner food ( and have food left over ).
 
soontobbeast said:
i knew someone would mention labor. but that doesnt work either. my labor doesn't cost me anything if there was no opportunity cost ( i wasn't making money, then stopped to make a hamburger ). so that is off of the table. also, add a 2liter for one dollar and im still under cost. and it will not cost me 10 dollars to use my stove for 20 minutes.


after taking ALL of the variables into account, i am still under cost with leaner food ( and have food left over ).
Click to expand...

do you eat 5 at a time? if not you have to take into account spoilage and buying in quantity as well. you also left out the potatos. and the cost of using the stove is one thing if you live at home and don't work, but if you have a job its not like there is necessarily a stove there. In the end there is no way you can buy the materials and have them on hand for less than mcdonalds does. a double cheese burger is 99 cents with 4.8oz of beef, and there is no way you can duplicate that.
 
If you find organic expensive try looking for a Traders Joes. I like to buy my chicken their, i don't buy the organic one buy i buy the no hormone one. I think i pay like 3 or 4 bucks a lb. Their organic produce seems no more expensive than the grocery store non organic, and i buy all my eggs either organic, or free range no chemicals. You can absolutely tell a difference with eggs. I have recently dropped most dairy, but i used to by all my yogurts from stoneyfield farms. I am not a freak with organic, buy i try and get my berries organic when i can. And i always buy my salad organic, their is a huge difference in taste.
 
jcp2 said:
If you find organic expensive try looking for a Traders Joes. I like to buy my chicken their, i don't buy the organic one buy i buy the no hormone one. I think i pay like 3 or 4 bucks a lb. Their organic produce seems no more expensive than the grocery store non organic, and i buy all my eggs either organic, or free range no chemicals. You can absolutely tell a difference with eggs. I have recently dropped most dairy, but i used to by all my yogurts from stoneyfield farms. I am not a freak with organic, buy i try and get my berries organic when i can. And i always buy my salad organic, their is a huge difference in taste.
Click to expand...

Organic fruit and vegetables make you want to eat them. non-organic makes you want to spit the damn thing out.
 
Do they hold a gun to you, demanding that you eat them?
:blink:
DerickVonD said:
Organic fruit and vegetables make you want to eat them. non-organic makes you want to spit the damn thing out.
Click to expand...

Agreed with a previous poster about Trader Joe's; absolutely the place to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top