The Myth of All-Natural

[coach Hale]

The Myth of All-Natural

Evidence does not support the claim that natural is necessarily safer, better or more nutritious. When people are asked why they prefer natural products, their reasoning is often inconsistent and ambiguous. Even when they are told that the chemical structures are identical, and do not differ in respect to influence on health and effectiveness they still prefer the natural choice. Why is this?
Perhaps Paul Rozin has it right:

“Because natural is treated as a basic good thing, not subject to evidence, somewhat like belief in God for those who believe in God.”
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/the...e-for-natural/

[Ben6485]

the only thing I buy purposely natural is PB

[Silvance1]

People seem to view the word "natural" as the opposite of the word "processed," a word that has a negative connotation these days. This of course isn't always accurate. Organic is another of those overused words.

[ASTRONOMICAL]

"I'm All Natural" seems just about as self righteous as "I eat clean". Just more douche bags who think they are better than someone cuz they do things in a different manner that they find superior. The previous statement was not intended as a blanket statement. If you don't look down upon others, who have a different approach, than don't get your panties in a knot.

Granted, I'm not exactly a fan of pre-workout supplements that contain research chemicals, or, anything that contains research chemicals.

[Delgadido]

the only thing I buy purposely natural is PB

yea dude. skippy natural pb with honey is ****ing awesome


Lets be serious.
After we took our first vaccinations and antibiotics we are no longer natural either

[n0useforaname]

The Myth of All-Natural

Evidence does not support the claim that natural is necessarily safer, better or more nutritious. When people are asked why they prefer natural products, their reasoning is often inconsistent and ambiguous. Even when they are told that the chemical structures are identical, and do not differ in respect to influence on health and effectiveness they still prefer the natural choice. Why is this?
Perhaps Paul Rozin has it right:

“Because natural is treated as a basic good thing, not subject to evidence, somewhat like belief in God for those who believe in God.”
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/the...e-for-natural/

Came in here expecting to read stories about cell-tech.. Anyways, like the above poster, I buy Natty PB, but mainly because I LOVE the taste of it over the other types. Other than that, I but my beef from a local farm, but it cooks/tastes better by far.

[motiva8]

You would be damn surprised at how many people for absolutely no basis think a chemical compound say vitamin C formed in a lab, is not as "nutritious/healthy" as vitamin C gotten from plant sources. Its even worse when it comes to biotech production using organisms to pump out steroids or whatever in a bioreactor.

Now if a person cannot understand something as basic, that a chemical compound is a chemical compound regardless of what source produced it & our body cannot differentiate it....Do you really expect them to grip slightly harder ideas of the same naturalistic fallacy?

[SullyPHD]

I think people have a basic understanding that things created in a lab and created by nature AREN'T structurally identical though.

so when you ask someone whether two identical things , natural and artificial, are the same they don't understand that chemically identical is the key word.

And it is true that there is no way for your body to know a difference between a natural substance and an artificial substance, but there is no way for a human to declare them to be identical either.

[-JR]

I prefer natural anything over pills or concoctions. Perhaps it's unscientific, really doesn't matter to me, but I think the chemical lab doesn't come close in determining safe and effective doseage of nutrients that nature has parsed out for over the course of human history. It's pretty difficult to overdose on oranges....

Regarding chemically identical-promising enough idea, but how about complete? There are several nutrients that rely on other nutrients to be fully effective/absorbed.

[motiva8]

I think people have a basic understanding that things created in a lab and created by nature AREN'T structurally identical though.
so when you ask someone whether two identical things , natural and artificial, are the same they don't understand that chemically identical is the key word.

And it is true that there is no way for your body to know a difference between a natural substance and an artificial substance, but there is no way for a human to declare them to be identical either.

Except that lab created chemicals are not necessarily isomers of whatever natural chemical. Often their enantiomers & spatial arrangement is the exact same & is required to be the case in industries of high quality for eg medicines, I'd say food production is a bit more leniant as it tends to be.
I believe this is what happened with thalidomide(?) due to them supplying the wrong enantiomer which was responsible for the whole host of bad side effects (defects etc)

People tend to have this belief that in some way a lab produced chemical is somehow inferior, which is ironic seeing as people then go to lab synthesized aspirin as opposed to willow bark.

EDIT*
Look up racemic mixtures in reactions & how we can control it to produce the desired compound, if further interested.

[motiva8]

I prefer natural anything over pills or concoctions. Perhaps it's unscientific, really doesn't matter to me, but I think the chemical lab doesn't come close in determining safe and effective doseage of nutrients that nature has parsed out for over the course of human history. It's pretty difficult to overdose on oranges....

This is what is refered to as a naturalistic fallacy which is discussed in the article, ie something in its form found in nature is superior.

You can believe all you want that herbal medicines or whatever alternative pseudo-science you use is better, but it is not supported by scientific methodology. For any pill you take, you can look up the ingredients & then further research the LD50, the range doses & side effects associated with these ranges & even the chemical synthesis or sourcing of these ingredients etc etc. Alongside the studies.

This is lacking in alternative sciences & leads to unsubstantiated claims, which I & many others find highly unethical.

[Delgadido]

It's also natural to die at 20 so don't take vaccines, drugs, or anything else of that nature and tell me how that works for you

[Black_Label]

a lot of the natural/organic/range/blah blah blah is marketing. people need to learn some basic chemistry and nutrition to see what matters.
Im all for the natural PB though!!

I am in a really odd place being a business AND dietetics major (dietetics in line for ADA/AND credentials). i can see both ends with marketing, application, and so on
On a side note I dislike the ada/and, it reminds me of a money ploy. They want more money than i spent on my education, room, and board to be certified... so i can be a personal trainer that enforces the idea that nutrition is key.

I went to UDel, not cheap at all.

[-JR]

This is what is refered to as a naturalistic fallacy which is discussed in the article, ie something in its form found in nature is superior.

You can believe all you want that herbal medicines or whatever alternative pseudo-science you use is better, but it is not supported by scientific methodology. For any pill you take, you can look up the ingredients & then further research the LD50, the range doses & side effects associated with these ranges & even the chemical synthesis or sourcing of these ingredients etc etc. Alongside the studies.

This is lacking in alternative sciences & leads to unsubstantiated claims, which I & many others find highly unethical.

Nice strawman-I mentioned nothing regarding herbal medicines or alternative science.

In addition to the exact compounds chemists can make, our body needs the surrounding nutrition such as fiber that actual food brings.

From my post edit:
Regarding chemically identical-promising enough idea, but how about complete? There are several nutrients that rely on other nutrients to be fully effective/absorbed.

[motiva8]

Nice strawman-I mentioned nothing regarding herbal medicines or alternative science.

In addition to the exact compounds chemists can make, our body needs the surrounding nutrition such as fiber that actual food brings.

From my post edit:
Regarding chemically identical-promising enough idea, but how about complete? There are several nutrients that rely on other nutrients to be fully effective/absorbed.

Apologies for the straw man, it was just insurance to immediately dismiss derailing the topic into disussion on alt science.

I'm not doubting our bodies absorb nutrients better from food due to synergetic effects & conversely due to anti-nutrients blocking absorption in the gut or competition of nutrients (eg calcium & iron)
I'm merely stating that the idea that a compound in its natural form is always better is blatantly false, and that people REALLY underestimate humans knowledge of biochemistry when it comes to food related products. But for medicine we marvel at how much we know.

[Evandrus]

the only thing I buy purposely natural is PB

^^^^^^
This!!!! X ah 100!

Stay away from anything with hydrogenated oils in it