4 ms·

"""Do you actually believe you're more likely to lose weight eating organic protein?""" You are more likely to remain healthy while losing weight eating organi

"""Do you actually believe you're more likely to lose weight eating organic protein?""" You are more likely to remain healthy while losing weight eating organic protein.

tptacek 15y ago
Do you really believe that? Maybe the antibiotics in the chicken --- although truly healthy chicken is spectacularly expensive, and even products labeled "organic" can still be flooded with antibiotics "to prevent disease outbreaks" which are inevitable in factory farms. Other than antibiotics, I generally call BS on the health benefits of "organic" and "grass fed" protein. You should eat organic --- or, VERY preferably, local --- but you should do it (a) because it tastes better, (b) to support local family farming, and (c) because it's more humane. Not because of some supposed health benefit.
- dextorious 15y ago
  Do you think a) chicken fed not with grass/organic food but with whatever's cheaper and convenient (in Europe there were several scandals where they even found that they used machine oil in chicken feed), b) packed by the thousands in small cages, c) full off antibiotics and hormones to grow them fatter, are totally as healthy as organic chicken? (I used to have a chicken den (sp?), with 10-15 chickens in my backyard (in Europe, that is), raising them organic style. I have also visited a couple of huge chicken "factories". I'd never even begin to compare the two methods, much less the quality of their output.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I believe antibiotics are a real human health issue. But otherwise, no, I don't believe there's a real human health difference between Purdue chicken and the Gunthorp Farms chicken I get from my butcher. I certainly don't believe you're going to lose weight faster eating the better chicken. You might even lose weight slower, since authenticatically humane chicken is extraordinarily expensive, and chicken (that you cook at home) is probably going to tend to be a better dietary option than the alternative. Sorry.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  - driverdan 15y ago
    a) Your wording is weird, but yes, they are just as healthy. All scientific research on the topic has shown no health benefits to organic plants. What makes you think organic chicken is grass fed? b) Why do you think organic chickens are any different? USDA organic cert is a joke. It doesn't mean the chickens spend their days frolicking in fields. IIRC they can be kept in cages if they have some exposure to outdoors. c) In the US, hormone use in chickens is illegal. Antibiotics are used in all animals, organic or not.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Chickens are omnivores, not ruminants like cows. They'll eat grass but can't subsist on it. There's no such thing as "grass-fed chicken"; people who say "grass-fed", when they know what they're talking about, mean cows. Small farms do not flood their livestock with antibiotics to increase yield. It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that people are saying antibiotics should never be used on animals; it's their routinized use in factory farms that's the issue. Otherwise, I agree: "organic" isn't meaningful, and even the "real" good chicken isn't more healthful (apart, again, from the antibiotic issue), just better tasting. I'll happily slice up and saute kosher (conventional) chicken breast for a salad or pasta dish. But if I'm serving roast chicken, I use the good stuff.
      - dextorious 15y ago
        """Chickens are omnivores, not ruminants like cows. They'll eat grass but can't subsist on it. There's no such thing as "grass-fed chicken"; people who say "grass-fed", when they know what they're talking about, mean cows.""" Well, re: wording, no native english speaker. With "grass fed" I mean naturally fed, not necessarily grass or solely grass. In my chicken hen I used wheet, corn, wild grass, and something that I don't know it's name in english, but I found a translation here as: " small seed of any of various annual cereal grasses especially Setaria italica millet" http://www.lexvo.org/uwn/entity/ell/%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AF;jsessionid=1878dc4nk6avf http://www.lexvo.org/uwn/entity/ell/%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%87%CF%81...
        tptacek 15y ago
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Fats are shown to be qualitatively different in animals which are afforded range space and fed their natural feed than which are fed in CAFO's.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Uh huh. In what way meaningful to human health is the fat from conventional beef better for you than the fat from "organic" beef? The fat in local protein is way, way better than factory-farmed meat. By which I mean, it tastes much better. The fat from the pork chop of a responsibly raised pig tastes like bacon; the fat from a supermarket pork chop tastes like melting plastic. Buy local/humane protein. Just do it for real reasons.
    - euccastro 15y ago
      Fat is where many toxins accumulate. If the animal you eat has been fed with pesticide-ridden, fattening-rather-than-nutritious crap and pumped up with hormones and antibiotics, I bet its fat is not as good for you. As an heuristic, taste is supposed to be a measure of nutritional quality. Sure it can be cheated, but when something natural tastes better than something adulterated, I'm pretty confident you can rely on that hint.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Two reasons why this comment might get downvoted (it was light grey when I saw it): (1) Supplies your intuition about whether organic food is healthier than conventional but no facts to back that up. The world is usually counterintuitive. (2) Suggests with a straight face that palatability is a good proxy for healthfulness, a measure that suggests health food stores should stock up on Doritos.
        euccastro 15y ago
        (1) having no facts to back the opposite assertion either, I'll take intuition as an heuristic. (2) I explicitly noted the caveat that taste may be cheated. Now, taste was developed by evolution, and is cheated by the food industry, not (normally) nature. So I wouldn't trust taste of Doritos (artificial) over natural foods, but if I actually like vegetable soup better, I'm not going to look up what's the latest trend on nutrition to assume my choice is healthier.

"""Do you actually believe you're more likely to lose weight eating organic protein?""" You are more likely to remain healthy while losing weight eating organic protein.

tptacek 15y ago

Do you really believe that? Maybe the antibiotics in the chicken --- although truly healthy chicken is spectacularly expensive, and even products labeled "organic" can still be flooded with antibiotics "to prevent disease outbreaks" which are inevitable in factory farms. Other than antibiotics, I generally call BS on the health benefits of "organic" and "grass fed" protein. You should eat organic --- or, VERY preferably, local --- but you should do it (a) because it tastes better, (b) to support local family farming, and (c) because it's more humane. Not because of some supposed health benefit.

dextorious 15y ago
Do you think a) chicken fed not with grass/organic food but with whatever's cheaper and convenient (in Europe there were several scandals where they even found that they used machine oil in chicken feed), b) packed by the thousands in small cages, c) full off antibiotics and hormones to grow them fatter, are totally as healthy as organic chicken? (I used to have a chicken den (sp?), with 10-15 chickens in my backyard (in Europe, that is), raising them organic style. I have also visited a couple of huge chicken "factories". I'd never even begin to compare the two methods, much less the quality of their output.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 15y ago
  I believe antibiotics are a real human health issue. But otherwise, no, I don't believe there's a real human health difference between Purdue chicken and the Gunthorp Farms chicken I get from my butcher. I certainly don't believe you're going to lose weight faster eating the better chicken. You might even lose weight slower, since authenticatically humane chicken is extraordinarily expensive, and chicken (that you cook at home) is probably going to tend to be a better dietary option than the alternative. Sorry.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- driverdan 15y ago
  a) Your wording is weird, but yes, they are just as healthy. All scientific research on the topic has shown no health benefits to organic plants. What makes you think organic chicken is grass fed? b) Why do you think organic chickens are any different? USDA organic cert is a joke. It doesn't mean the chickens spend their days frolicking in fields. IIRC they can be kept in cages if they have some exposure to outdoors. c) In the US, hormone use in chickens is illegal. Antibiotics are used in all animals, organic or not.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Chickens are omnivores, not ruminants like cows. They'll eat grass but can't subsist on it. There's no such thing as "grass-fed chicken"; people who say "grass-fed", when they know what they're talking about, mean cows. Small farms do not flood their livestock with antibiotics to increase yield. It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that people are saying antibiotics should never be used on animals; it's their routinized use in factory farms that's the issue. Otherwise, I agree: "organic" isn't meaningful, and even the "real" good chicken isn't more healthful (apart, again, from the antibiotic issue), just better tasting. I'll happily slice up and saute kosher (conventional) chicken breast for a salad or pasta dish. But if I'm serving roast chicken, I use the good stuff.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      """Chickens are omnivores, not ruminants like cows. They'll eat grass but can't subsist on it. There's no such thing as "grass-fed chicken"; people who say "grass-fed", when they know what they're talking about, mean cows.""" Well, re: wording, no native english speaker. With "grass fed" I mean naturally fed, not necessarily grass or solely grass. In my chicken hen I used wheet, corn, wild grass, and something that I don't know it's name in english, but I found a translation here as: " small seed of any of various annual cereal grasses especially Setaria italica millet" http://www.lexvo.org/uwn/entity/ell/%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AF;jsessionid=1878dc4nk6avf http://www.lexvo.org/uwn/entity/ell/%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%87%CF%81...
      - tptacek 15y ago
einhverfr 15y ago
Fats are shown to be qualitatively different in animals which are afforded range space and fed their natural feed than which are fed in CAFO's.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Uh huh. In what way meaningful to human health is the fat from conventional beef better for you than the fat from "organic" beef? The fat in local protein is way, way better than factory-farmed meat. By which I mean, it tastes much better. The fat from the pork chop of a responsibly raised pig tastes like bacon; the fat from a supermarket pork chop tastes like melting plastic. Buy local/humane protein. Just do it for real reasons.
  - euccastro 15y ago
    Fat is where many toxins accumulate. If the animal you eat has been fed with pesticide-ridden, fattening-rather-than-nutritious crap and pumped up with hormones and antibiotics, I bet its fat is not as good for you. As an heuristic, taste is supposed to be a measure of nutritional quality. Sure it can be cheated, but when something natural tastes better than something adulterated, I'm pretty confident you can rely on that hint.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Two reasons why this comment might get downvoted (it was light grey when I saw it): (1) Supplies your intuition about whether organic food is healthier than conventional but no facts to back that up. The world is usually counterintuitive. (2) Suggests with a straight face that palatability is a good proxy for healthfulness, a measure that suggests health food stores should stock up on Doritos.
      - euccastro 15y ago
        (1) having no facts to back the opposite assertion either, I'll take intuition as an heuristic. (2) I explicitly noted the caveat that taste may be cheated. Now, taste was developed by evolution, and is cheated by the food industry, not (normally) nature. So I wouldn't trust taste of Doritos (artificial) over natural foods, but if I actually like vegetable soup better, I'm not going to look up what's the latest trend on nutrition to assume my choice is healthier.