English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am trying to lose weight and I really like the idea of all organic,but it is just not possible to do it right now in my life.It's like I feel guilty now for having to give myself and my kids conventional fruits and vegs.,dairy etc.Is organic really better for you?

2007-09-22 16:14:58 · 9 answers · asked by lvbrdy4vr 1 in Food & Drink Other - Food & Drink

9 answers

I agree with James, organic is better but if you can't do it then the next best is lots of fresh, unprocessed foods. It's mainly the preservatives and artificial colors & flavors that have been shown to cause behavioural and health problems. What's really shocking is that some products have actually been shown to make you eat more!

My best friend cut out most of the processed foods in her family's diet and she was really surprised by how easy it was to lose weight.

Personally I have wondered if foods that have higher nutrition (such as organic) mean that your body needs less food and you fill up quicker.

Some studies have shown that washing produce really well will remove quite a lot of pesticides and chemicals. Lots of people will tell you that if you can only go organic for some foods then it's best to go organic for meat because the growth hormones in non-organically raised farm animals harm kids' growing bodies.

I've found farmers markets are also a great way to buy even fresher produce at an even better price. Go on the weekend and take the whole family for a healthy outing.

For more info on Whether Organic is Really Better for you, go to http://organiclivinglifestyle.com/uncategorized/are-organic-foods-really-healthier-for-you

2007-09-23 17:58:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

A better goal would be natural foods. Fresh peas vs. canned peas etc. Organic is better though. If you eat meats, organic is the only way to go. The factory chicken, beef and pork are loaded with antibiotics, growth hormones etc... It can't be washed or cooked out. Most people serve way too much meat in a serving anyway and cutting the servings back to a 100 grams of meat may save you the extra money you have to pay for organic. Some of the supermarkets have organic meats and fish that is less expensive than the natural food stores. Look in some of the supermarkets that you don't shop in an see what they have. Vegetables are full of pesticides and herbicides but a lot of it can be washed off. Peel fruits and you get rid of most of the poisons. Growing some stuff yourself is a good idea if at all possible. A tomato plant in the window instead of a house plant works well, cherry tomatoes work real well in pots. I hope a few of my ideas help.. Good luck.
People that are 80 years old and healthy that say they have never ate organic foods are mistaken. The foods they grew up on in there young life was closer to organic than some of the foods we now get as certified organic. I do agree that the junk food is the NUMBER ONE KILLER in the foods we eat.

2007-09-22 16:37:10 · answer #2 · answered by James Q 4 · 0 0

My husband and I have both been homeless or with a home but too poor to buy much food (even with foodstamps) and we went to the food banks for 'donated food' ... MOST OF IT WAS NOT GOOD FOOD ... people give 'outdated' cans they should throw away, broken (smashed) pasta, mixed dried beans that need different amounts of soaking and cooking time ... even vegetables they don't want to eat because they are wilted and dried out. When I give to a foodbank (which we do regularly) I go to the store and buy NEW basics ... boxes of pasta (the best they have, too), NEW cans of food, fresh flour, fresh vegetables, canned meat and canned juices, baby food in all varieties ... then I take it and drop it off with a 'I hope this helps' and a big smile ... if I hang around, I tell the people that we once were where they are, and we have money now, so we are just 'paying back' what we were given ... and people hold up their heads and think that they are just 'down for awhile' instead of being 'down forever' ... it's not SELFISH to feed a person who needs food ... an old person, a worker, a mother, a father, a child ... PEOPLE DESERVE TO GO TO BED FEELING FULL AND KNOWING THEY'LL GET FULL THE NEXT DAY, WEEK, MONTH, YEAR. Donate GOOD FOOD (even if it means you must eat a bit less for a day or two a month) and the world will be a BETTER PLACE for ALL of us!

2016-05-21 03:18:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Yes, organic is really better for you. And for the rest of us, too. Here's why.

Organic is better for you because you are not taking in the pesticides, growth hormones, and animal antibiotics which are part of what you eat when you eat conventional foods.

Further, contrary to what T I reports, there is data supporting the thesis organic food actually contains more nutrients than do the conventional. The Journal of Dairy Science reported in 2006 organic milk samples tested higher in the essential omega-3s than did conventional milk samples. The Journal of Animal Science reported in 2002 similar findings in comparisons of organic and conventional beef. USDA and FDA data from 2000 to 2004 report more than 90% of conventional apples tested positive for pesticide residues. On the positive side, some European studies suggest organic apples may be higher in phenols, flavonoids, and vitamin C (that's the good stuff). These don't even scratch the surface of the data that's out there. In any case, the bottom line in eating organic is what you do NOT put into your body.

Organic is better for the rest of us because supporting the conventional food industry is also supporting the pollution of our water supply with agricultural runoff containing those same pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Conventional agriculture also does a number on the soil.

Obviously, the price difference between the two can be a major stumbling block to those on a tight budget. There are some strategies you can adopt as a compromise. Target those food items that make a significant difference: milk and milk products is where I'd start, especially if I were raising and feeding children. After milk, I'd look at meats.

As for fruits and vegetables, the Environmental Working Group has identified what they call the "cleanest 12" and the "dirty dozen" fruits and vegetables. I know apples and peaches come in at 1 and 2 on the "dirty dozen" list. I'd buy those two only as organics; or substitute a couple of the "clean" fruits for my apples and peaches.

Those would be a good start.

Good luck, Jennifer.

*****

Joanne A W makes several cogent points.

She and her husband belong to a generation that was not raised on not only junk food, but also the processed, ready-to-cook foods so prevalent in today’s marketplace. I have no ready evidence at hand, but I strongly suspect the lack of chemicals and empty calories in the food, and the significantly less pollutants in the air and water, made for a much healthier environment for the growth and development of much healthier human beings.

In addition, the myriad of medical treatments and interventions were nowhere near as numerous and sophisticated as they are today. Those who have made it to their 70s and 80s are indeed hardy stock. My generation, and my children's generation, on the other hand, have a wide array of medical interventions to get us past many of Mother Nature’s previously fatal checkpoints. I suspect we are not nearly as genetically hardy as Joanne A W’s generation.

Finally, all statistics have a bell curve of some sort. There are always exceptions to every rule. My 88-year-old mother cited her first 86 years of heavy smoking without lung cancer or emphysema as proof cigarettes didn’t cause these diseases. (She was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 86 – and has since stated it was caused by her stopping smoking for three months so she could have dental implants! She still subscribes to the cigarette industry’s propaganda, but, interestingly, has not resumed smoking.). Assuming that what does or does not happen to you therefore must or must not happen to everyone is a fallacy that ought to be self-evident.

2007-09-22 16:35:49 · answer #4 · answered by argawarga 3 · 0 0

A 2002 meta-analysis, found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguisable difference in taste. Both need to be evaluated with care because neither conventional nor organic farming practices are uniform. However, the fact that diet is the major source of pesticide ingestion does not mean that pesticides are ingested at amounts that could ever prove harmful; modern pesticides biodegrade into harmless components in the body; and food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide

2007-09-22 16:34:47 · answer #5 · answered by T I 6 · 0 1

My husband is 81 years old, I am 70 years old. We are both healthy.
We have never eaten organic.
When we were young, just about every family had eggs and bacon with toast for breakfast.
Meat was eaten almost every night at dinner.
Chicken was for Sunday lunch.

The only thing we did not eat in those days were sodas, candy, chips, junk foods, etc. It wasn't around to eat. I truly think junk foods have been the downfall of health in this country. I like coke, but do not allow myself to have it in the house so that I will not be tempted to drink them. We keep all junk foods out of our house.

Please do not let all these fads make you feel guilty. Organic is watered from city water which has chemicals in it. Nothing is really 100% organic in this day and age. Even the containers have chemicals in them.

Buy, eat, and enjoy your non-organic foods. :o)

2007-09-22 16:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No. It is a fad that is only better for agribusiness.

If they can convince everyone to buy only pricey organic the next step will be something like "ultra-organic" food grown on a continent that has no chemicals within 200 miles of its coastline. That ultra-organic will cost even more and those consumers who want to be on the leading edge will flock to it leaving present-style organic as a has-been.

I have not seen the evidence for "better" only for "trendier."

2007-09-22 16:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 1 0

Organic matters far more for males.
The stuff in pesticides increases estrogen.
You might even want to buy less organic food, if you need an estrogen kick.

2007-09-22 16:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

i think organic is better for because they don't have the pesticides, antibiotics, steroids, etc. and organic is alot more expensive UNLESS you have a local farmer's market... then it ends up being less expensive

2007-09-22 16:21:29 · answer #9 · answered by mommyrayne 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers