If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Organic Food makes You Slimmer????
Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger
immune system than those on conventional diets. These findings offer support for organic foods grown for human consumption. Consumers expect organic food to be healthier than food produced the conventional way, and here is one bit of science that helps prove the point. The diets fed to the test animals had similar energy and protein contents and a relatively high content of fat as compared to their usual diets. Nutrients were added to the diets, including those fed to non-organic control groups. Those animals fed on organic and minimally fertilized diets had a significantly higher level of immune factors than those fed on food conventionally grown. The organic group also had higher vitamin E levels in their blood, despite the similar content of vitamins in both diets. The animals fed on the organic diet also showed a tendency towards a lower weight and lower adipose tissue. They also appeared to be more relaxed than their conventionally-fed counterparts. Source: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Report, Feb 24, 2005. http://www.bettykamen.com/hints/1749.htm -- Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Carol Frilegh wrote: Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger immune system than those on conventional diets. Do you know where the research can be downloaded? All I can find is that the study seems to have been "submitted to a journal but not yet published". This is a bit worrying, because even the report being published is no guarantee that the methodology used is correct. One report said that there were only about 36 rats involved, which is a very small sample. If that was true, there would have to be a very large difference in the recorded figures for the results to be statistically significant. Cheers, Ross-c |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not surprised in general, however, am surprised by the fact that
the energy contents were similar. My theory was that people eating organic would eat less, because they are higher in micronutrients, etc. (sometimes we eat more because our body recognizes a deficiency??) But it's interesting that they ate about the same amount of calories, and the organic-fed group was still slimmer. Is this another inidcation of importance of metabolism (presumably higher levels of vitamins and minerals in the organically-fed group improved their metabolism)??? On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:10:32 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote: Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger immune system than those on conventional diets. These findings offer support for organic foods grown for human consumption. Consumers expect organic food to be healthier than food produced the conventional way, and here is one bit of science that helps prove the point. The diets fed to the test animals had similar energy and protein contents and a relatively high content of fat as compared to their usual diets. Nutrients were added to the diets, including those fed to non-organic control groups. Those animals fed on organic and minimally fertilized diets had a significantly higher level of immune factors than those fed on food conventionally grown. The organic group also had higher vitamin E levels in their blood, despite the similar content of vitamins in both diets. The animals fed on the organic diet also showed a tendency towards a lower weight and lower adipose tissue. They also appeared to be more relaxed than their conventionally-fed counterparts. Source: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Report, Feb 24, 2005. http://www.bettykamen.com/hints/1749.htm -- Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Do you know where the research can be downloaded? http://www.darcof.dk/research/health.html I didn't think it was very convincing. The diets were similar, but the non-organic diet had approximately 1 1/2 percent more calories. The difference in body fat was not listed specifically, but appears on the chart to be about 5.8 percent vs. 6.2 percent. The sample of animals (rats) was small. It seems plausible that a lifetime of 1 1/2 percent more calories would be the cause of slightly more body fat. -- Paul Turner |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for this info. I will try to choose more organic foods.
"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message ... Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger immune system than those on conventional diets. These findings offer support for organic foods grown for human consumption. Consumers expect organic food to be healthier than food produced the conventional way, and here is one bit of science that helps prove the point. The diets fed to the test animals had similar energy and protein contents and a relatively high content of fat as compared to their usual diets. Nutrients were added to the diets, including those fed to non-organic control groups. Those animals fed on organic and minimally fertilized diets had a significantly higher level of immune factors than those fed on food conventionally grown. The organic group also had higher vitamin E levels in their blood, despite the similar content of vitamins in both diets. The animals fed on the organic diet also showed a tendency towards a lower weight and lower adipose tissue. They also appeared to be more relaxed than their conventionally-fed counterparts. Source: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Report, Feb 24, 2005. http://www.bettykamen.com/hints/1749.htm -- Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the link. I have to agree with your conclusion of the study
not being very convincing. The description is quite short. However, I note the paragraph: "However, the results presently obtained cannot be extrapolated to all organic and conventional cropping systems as, for example, the crops were grown only in one replication and a very low level of fertiliser was used in the organic system. Likewise, the results cannot be directly extrapolated from rats to humans. Nevertheless, the results show the need for further interdisciplinary research in the area of human health aspects in relation to organic foods." This makes it look like the data they have doesn't support the claim particularly strongly. I'm particularly worried about the 1 1/2 percent more calories for the non-organic diet. This may look like a small difference, but it may be a larger difference if we only consider the energy intake over and above metabolic needs. I find it plausible that organic versus non-organic foods might have different health benefits as different nutrients could lead to different growth (and hence different nutritional composition). But, what I can see from this study doesn't suggest to me that there is a significant (in terms of benefit rather than in the statistical sense) difference. Cheers, Ross-c |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message roups.com...
Carol Frilegh wrote: Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger immune system than those on conventional diets. Do you know where the research can be downloaded? All I can find is that the study seems to have been "submitted to a journal but not yet published". This is a bit worrying, because even the report being published is no guarantee that the methodology used is correct. One report said that there were only about 36 rats involved, which is a very small sample. If that was true, there would have to be a very large difference in the recorded figures for the results to be statistically significant. On http://www/lef.org (life extension foundation) they have some research on CLA or Conugated Linolenic Acid. (its one of the products they sell; they have search engines). It's a fat that is 4.5 times more common in grazed and free ranged Australian Beef and Dairy than US grain fed stock. (try the search CLA Norway to get you started on the LEF website; it gets several hits) CLA if given at a dose of 3 x 1 gramm per day will convert about 22% of body fat into equivalent body muscle over 3 months based on Norweigen studies using human subjects and placebo control groups (double blind study; not even the researchers knew who was getting the placebo). Becuase musc is much denser than fat waist measurements went down a great deal as well. Over 1 year it reduces weight a few percent as well. There is similar research on Omega-3 fatty acids (i.e. EFA or Essential Fatty Acids) these too are 4 times more common in free range animals fed a natural diet. Again high quality digestible fats such as EFA's are associalted with fat loss. In the case of 4 stomach ruminants it is the exercise and the fact that the bacterial processes in the stomach are working properly. There is a similar situation with Chickens, EFA's and CLA becuase if fed natural grains rather than feeds the fats and oils are present. Organic animals (if certified properly) not only receive synthetic pesticide free and synthetic fetiliser free food they must receive a natuaral diet, exercise and be treated humanly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minnesota seeks ban on junk food | Roger Zoul | General Discussion | 37 | May 7th, 2004 02:41 AM |
help needed on where to start | Diane Nelson | General Discussion | 13 | April 21st, 2004 06:11 PM |
Full-fat (natural) food | ray | General Discussion | 62 | April 20th, 2004 03:17 AM |
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma | pearl | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 164 | April 11th, 2004 10:29 AM |
"Food for Fuel" vs. "Food is LOVE & Food is FUN" | vlcd_hell | General Discussion | 14 | February 15th, 2004 03:15 PM |