Organic Produce Nutritionally Better?

Diet and Nutrition
41

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Also, I should note that several years ago I attempted to make a sudden and complete switch from standard to “organic” produce. After one day of consuming roughly 4-5 servings of organic vegetables, I broke out in the worst full-body rash in the history of the universe. It was torture. So, I highly advise the congregation to approach organics with as much cynicism as anything else.
[/quote]

The body can do weird things when trying to detoxify itself. If you eat pork on a regular basis, then all of a sudden stop eating it for a couple months, then try and eat it again, there is a good chance that you will get sick. It’s because your body is trying to get rid of the toxins. I bet if I had ONE piece of bacon, I’d get sick right now.

Also, pork isn’t supposedly good since pigs eat their own feces and feces contains lots of toxins. Plus, they don’t have sweat glans. No sweat glans means that it can’t get rid of toxins as easily as an animal with them. Don’t get me wrong, I love all animals, but the last type of meat I want to eat is pork.

I remember my girlfriend went on a body cleansing thing (taking plant extract pills)and she got really sick from it (she actually threw up a couple times). To be honest, she wasn’t even eating organic foods.

I have been eating organic foods for about 2 months now and I probably will never go back. There is only a thing or two that I don’t eat organic (like Parmesan cheese, since I can’t find it in a container LOL). That is about all that I can think of that isn’t organic. Even my cheat meals (pizza and spaghetti) are organic.

Let’s just say that switching to organic doesn’t make a huge difference. Say there is only a small increase in vitamins/minerals and just a little bit less toxins (let’s just assume). If you had the budget, wouldn’t you want to choose having less toxins in your body? Even if it was a little bit? A clean body is a muscle building body :slight_smile:

Just some food for thought…

42

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.

A small body of research has indicated (not proven) that there is a modest difference in micronutrient content between “organic” and standard produce, but, it is not as significant as the “dead soil” argument would lead one to believe. Realize that most phytochemicals are produced endogenously (within the plant) and do not come from the soil. Minerals do come from the soil, but pesticides don’t affect the soil’s mineral content.

And, again, if the soil is lacking any essential nutrient, the plants won’t grow. If the plant grows and is healthy, the nutrients are present.

I’m not trying to discourage people from buying organics, but some of the main pro-organic arguments that get tossed around just aren’t valid.[/quote]

Aren’t valid? And your opinion is valid? Show me one actual study that proves fertilizers and pesticides don’t deplete the soil.If not,then don’t tell me they don’t deplete the soil because you’d be giving an opinion that was not valid.Phytochemicals are produced within the plant,but the plant is dependent on the soil.

43

[quote]supermick wrote:
i call bullshit on the whole organic craze. Farmland has to lay unused for years in order for all pesticides and other chemicals to be leeched from the soil in order for the produce to then be truely organic imo.

Can someone tell me where this happens?

Just a way to get cash out of people that mean well.
[/quote]

If I took an apple, sprayed it with Raid ant killer, you wouldnt eat it would you? I bet you wouldnt. Not even if you could wash it, or even peel it.

Its a scientific fact that todays pesticides are, at the LEAST, ten times as toxic as raid.

Scary.

At the very least, I would urge all of you, that if your not going to buy organic fruit, to at least eat only fruit that has a protective layer, like a bananas, oranges, and pineapples. Less pesticides than something like a grape or an apple.

Supposedly blueberries dont get sprayed with much.

44

[quote]brainfreez wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
are you kidding me? saying old age is the reason for cancer is absurd.

perhaps living longer exposes one to more pollutants.
And I’m not saying non-organic is the only reason for cancer, but one can’t over look it.

Dear Jehovasfitness:

Buddy, I never said that age causes cancer. But by the way, age causes cancer. That’s not absurd that’s a scientific fact.

“The body?s DNA repair system, which is constantly on the lookout for dangerous changes that may cause a cell to become cancerous?and aborts the cell when such mutations are detected?is less effective as we grow older”

http://www.us.novartisoncology.com/info/understanding/aging.jsp?checked=y

But that’s not even relevant to what I was telling you. I said that most of the people with cance are old:

See? 26% of all cancer is between the ages of 65 and 74, whereas only 6% of all cancer if between 35 and 40.

All I was trying to show you is that the more old people you have, the more cancer you have. That’s why the prevalence of cancer is higher today than it was 100 years ago, not because of food processing. [/quote]

Your a moron, and your facts are so flawed its ridiculous. Age does NOT cause cancer. Carcinogenic toxins in the food we eat, water we drink and environment we live in cause cancer. Our bodies are just less likely to fight them off the older we get. If these toxin chemicals didnt get in our system, we would NEVER get cancer. We would eventually die of some sort of viral or bacterial infection overwhelming our weakened system. Thats natural. Cancer is not.

People don’t naturally get cancer. Its not a natural disease. A cold or the flu is normal. Cancer and heart disease is not. If a thousand years ago in a non toxic state, people lived in a safe environment with access to ample food, drugs, safty and doctor care, everyone would have lived into there 90’s and beyond without cancer, with most dying from a cold/flu.

45

[quote]The Stig wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.

A small body of research has indicated (not proven) that there is a modest difference in micronutrient content between “organic” and standard produce, but, it is not as significant as the “dead soil” argument would lead one to believe. Realize that most phytochemicals are produced endogenously (within the plant) and do not come from the soil. Minerals do come from the soil, but pesticides don’t affect the soil’s mineral content. I’m not trying to discourage people from buying organics, but some of the main pro-organic arguments that get tossed around just aren’t valid.

Fertilisers also can increase the amount of phytochemicals in certain vegetables.
Organic Brocolli has been shown in some studies to contain less Sulforaphane.

Madness huh ??!

[/quote]

Whoopty do. Who cares. The amount of overwhelming evidence to eat organic fruit and vegetables versus chemically sprayed and altered ones is ridiculous.

46

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
…

Aren’t valid? And your opinion is valid? Show me one actual study that proves fertilizers and pesticides don’t deplete the soil.If not,then don’t tell me they don’t deplete the soil because you’d be giving an opinion that was not valid.Phytochemicals are produced within the plant,but the plant is dependent on the soil.[/quote]

Show a legitimate study that proves they do deplete the soil. I have only seen hollow claims.

I always understood that it was the crop growth itself that depleted the soil, not pesticides. This is why smart crop rotation is important.

Perhaps crops grown with pesticides and fertilizer tend to deplete the soil faster because they grow faster?

And whoever said they cannot eat a single piece of bacon without getting sick does not sound too healthy to me.

47

I had one posted a while back about this matter. Look around T-Nation and I’m sure you can find it.I no longer have it.Our soil is depleted of important minerals like “fulvic acid”.But I guess pesticides didn’t do it.It naturally happened over a billion years of evolution while monkies and dragons ruled the world.

Our soil today is depleted.Just like the air is polluted.So you’re telling me that chemicals can pollute the air but not the soil?That is absurd.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
…

Aren’t valid? And your opinion is valid? Show me one actual study that proves fertilizers and pesticides don’t deplete the soil.If not,then don’t tell me they don’t deplete the soil because you’d be giving an opinion that was not valid.Phytochemicals are produced within the plant,but the plant is dependent on the soil.

Show a legitimate study that proves they do deplete the soil. I have only seen hollow claims.

I always understood that it was the crop growth itself that depleted the soil, not pesticides. This is why smart crop rotation is important.

Perhaps crops grown with pesticides and fertilizer tend to deplete the soil faster because they grow faster?

And whoever said they cannot eat a single piece of bacon without getting sick does not sound too healthy to me.
[/quote]

48

Stuff I grow in my back yard tastes better than anything I’ve ever bought at a store.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Show a legitimate study that proves they do deplete the soil. I have only seen hollow claims.

[/quote] http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/NEWSLTR/v2n4/sa-4.htm

"Biological degradation of soil.

Sims, G.K.

Advances in Soil Science 11:289-330. 1990

This extensive review (197 references) concerns the role of soil microbiota in nutrient cycling, waste and residue decomposition, and detoxification of environmental pollutants. If these processes are disrupted, human health can ultimately be harmed. Not all topics addressed pertain directly to agriculture, but the overall treatment may help in understanding issues of soil health and regeneration."

Pesticides affect soil microbia over short (<=8 week) interval while heavy metal contaminants have longer term effect. If the perterbation (application of pesticide, introduction of heavy metal contaminate, etc.) is stopped, the soil eventually recovers but not to its pristine state. Strip mining and heavy metal contaminants are more serious than pesticide application.

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/NEWSLTR/v3n2/sa-10.htm

Note especially the section about what happened to the soil as it transitioned from pesticide/herbicide application to more sustainable farming practices.

…assuming with the above references that it is well known that soil micro-organism provide for the transport of the nutrients from the soil to the plant.

To be fair, however, there is a recent study (2004) which states that current methods cannot detect a difference in the ability of the human digestive system to take up the increased polyphenols in organic foods:
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/perspectives/MayJune05.htm#org

Maybe the human digestive system micro-organisms need to be re-populated, too…

http://www.eufic.org/gb/food/pag/food30/food302.htm

http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/externe/English/Projets/Projet_MX/organisme_MX.html

50

[quote]frisbee wrote:
supermick wrote:
Farmland has to lay unused for years in order for all pesticides and other chemicals to be leeched from the soil in order for the produce to then be truely organic imo.

In order for something to be labeled organic, the soil it grows in has to be chemical free for 3 years. Yeah, may not get everything out, but better then nothing.[/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I think my point of farmland being chemical free for a period of time was missed by oboffill but nevermind.

This brings me onto another point - what were shelling out our hard earned cash for - how do we know that these guidelines are adhered to ie - has the land been left 3 years?

Im skeptical to be honest. Makes no difference to me anyways as i grow a lot of my own veg. ;p

51

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
The Stig wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Organic produce is higher in nutritional value.Look up “fulvic acid”. Nonorganic produce feeds off of soil that is depleted of this essential mineral(dead soil equal dead animals equal dead humans).
Organic farmers grow produce with soil rich in the mineral.

A small body of research has indicated (not proven) that there is a modest difference in micronutrient content between “organic” and standard produce, but, it is not as significant as the “dead soil” argument would lead one to believe. Realize that most phytochemicals are produced endogenously (within the plant) and do not come from the soil. Minerals do come from the soil, but pesticides don’t affect the soil’s mineral content. I’m not trying to discourage people from buying organics, but some of the main pro-organic arguments that get tossed around just aren’t valid.

Fertilisers also can increase the amount of phytochemicals in certain vegetables.
Organic Brocolli has been shown in some studies to contain less Sulforaphane.

Madness huh ??!

Whoopty do. Who cares. The amount of overwhelming evidence to eat organic fruit and vegetables versus chemically sprayed and altered ones is ridiculous. [/quote]

Proof ?

52

[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
brainfreez wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
are you kidding me? saying old age is the reason for cancer is absurd.

perhaps living longer exposes one to more pollutants.
And I’m not saying non-organic is the only reason for cancer, but one can’t over look it.

Dear Jehovasfitness:

Buddy, I never said that age causes cancer. But by the way, age causes cancer. That’s not absurd that’s a scientific fact.

“The body?s DNA repair system, which is constantly on the lookout for dangerous changes that may cause a cell to become cancerous?and aborts the cell when such mutations are detected?is less effective as we grow older”

http://www.us.novartisoncology.com/info/understanding/aging.jsp?checked=y

But that’s not even relevant to what I was telling you. I said that most of the people with cance are old:

See? 26% of all cancer is between the ages of 65 and 74, whereas only 6% of all cancer if between 35 and 40.

All I was trying to show you is that the more old people you have, the more cancer you have. That’s why the prevalence of cancer is higher today than it was 100 years ago, not because of food processing.

Your a moron, and your facts are so flawed its ridiculous. Age does NOT cause cancer. Carcinogenic toxins in the food we eat, water we drink and environment we live in cause cancer. Our bodies are just less likely to fight them off the older we get. If these toxin chemicals didnt get in our system, we would NEVER get cancer. We would eventually die of some sort of viral or bacterial infection overwhelming our weakened system. Thats natural. Cancer is not.

People don’t naturally get cancer. Its not a natural disease. A cold or the flu is normal. Cancer and heart disease is not. If a thousand years ago in a non toxic state, people lived in a safe environment with access to ample food, drugs, safty and doctor care, everyone would have lived into there 90’s and beyond without cancer, with most dying from a cold/flu.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? Cancer is caused by a sequence of mutations in your DNA, which occurs naturally but is usually fixed by your body.

However, with age, your chances of the correct sequence of mutations slipping past you bodies safe-guarding checking mechanisms increase. Thus, your chances of cancer increase. Yes, carcinogens as you have mentioned will increase the number of mutations, but mutations by themselves are not unnatural.

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And whoever said they cannot eat a single piece of bacon without getting sick does not sound too healthy to me.
[/quote]

Do me a favor.

Find someone that doesn’t smoke and make sure that same person doesn’t hang around people who smoke.

Take that person, stuff him or her in a car full of people who are smoking and let’s see how their body reacts, mkay?

54

I like this post. Everyone is bitch slapping everyone else.

55

Hmmmmmmm…

After thinking about it, I wonder if steroids are as safe as conventional foods. I knew I should of tried a cycle before switching to organic.

Darn :frowning:

56

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Hmmmmmmm…

After thinking about it, I wonder if steroids are as safe as conventional foods. I knew I should of tried a cycle before switching to organic.

Darn :([/quote]

Lol.
I hear ya.

57

[quote]The Stig wrote:
I like this post. Everyone is bitch slapping everyone else.[/quote]

Like the Three Stooges, huh? LOL!

58

Like that bald headed dude on the Benny Hill Show.

59

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
And whoever said they cannot eat a single piece of bacon without getting sick does not sound too healthy to me.

Do me a favor.

Find someone that doesn’t smoke and make sure that same person doesn’t hang around people who smoke.

Take that person, stuff him or her in a car full of people who are smoking and let’s see how their body reacts, mkay?

[/quote]

Bacon is food. Cigarettes are not food.

Your body should be able to handle food.

60

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
…

Our soil today is depleted.Just like the air is polluted.So you’re telling me that chemicals can pollute the air but not the soil?That is absurd.

…[/quote]

Pollution and depletion are not the same thing.

I have no doubt pesticides can and do result in pollution.

I am having a harder time with them depleting trace minerals from the soil.