4 ms·

>sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. >One example is how it became clear

>sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. >One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional science that in general the more processed the food is the more harmful it is for us. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. >There is also the reverse problem, illustrated by the condescending attitude toward herbalism in this article, of people who idealize modernity, and for example believe only medicine in the form of pills can be effective, even though plants may contain exactly the same chemical compounds. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. >In general I think it is ridiculous to ignore the thousands of years of experimentation and exploration of our ancestors just because it wasn't "science-based". It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them.

stiff 14y ago
It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them. I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.
ericb 14y ago
There's a tremendous amount of baggage in the loaded term "natural". But I think there might be a shred of reason to underlying the naturalistic fallacy if you interpret natural to mean "previously present in our evolutionary environment and therefore has previously exhibited evolutionary selective pressure on the development of our immune system and biochemistry." In other words, novel, isolated chemicals and processes have more opportunity to present our bodies with circumstances their evolution has not "tuned" them for.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  That is a lovely hypothesis, but it has failed to stand up to testing. You go ahead and eat all natural poison ivy salads.
  - ericb 14y ago
    What I am stating is limited in scope, and your response is as disingenuous as it is snarky. Your example likely demonstrates selective pressure within species--specifically urushiol in plants as a protective mechanism against herbivores. But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. So you have beat up a straw man in which all things natural are better, but of course, I never argued that. Do you believe in selective pressure? Do you think digesting cow milk conferred no evolutionary advantage? There ARE studies on the prevalence of the genes for digesting dairy milk, and I think they back me up. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=0
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      >But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. No, I am arguing against pretending there is a correlation between "natural" and "good" when there is not. Like I very clearly said.
      - ericb 14y ago
        On a different note. I'm interested in a link to the study where where they studied my hypothesis and disproved it like you say. I've never seen a serious study attempt to disprove this. So, citation please?

stiff 14y ago

It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them. I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.

ericb 14y ago

There's a tremendous amount of baggage in the loaded term "natural". But I think there might be a shred of reason to underlying the naturalistic fallacy if you interpret natural to mean "previously present in our evolutionary environment and therefore has previously exhibited evolutionary selective pressure on the development of our immune system and biochemistry." In other words, novel, isolated chemicals and processes have more opportunity to present our bodies with circumstances their evolution has not "tuned" them for.

papsosouid 14y ago
That is a lovely hypothesis, but it has failed to stand up to testing. You go ahead and eat all natural poison ivy salads.
- ericb 14y ago
  What I am stating is limited in scope, and your response is as disingenuous as it is snarky. Your example likely demonstrates selective pressure within species--specifically urushiol in plants as a protective mechanism against herbivores. But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. So you have beat up a straw man in which all things natural are better, but of course, I never argued that. Do you believe in selective pressure? Do you think digesting cow milk conferred no evolutionary advantage? There ARE studies on the prevalence of the genes for digesting dairy milk, and I think they back me up. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html?_r=0
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    >But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. No, I am arguing against pretending there is a correlation between "natural" and "good" when there is not. Like I very clearly said.
    - ericb 14y ago
      On a different note. I'm interested in a link to the study where where they studied my hypothesis and disproved it like you say. I've never seen a serious study attempt to disprove this. So, citation please?