Are Plant Foods truly “Healthy”?

[C T J]

Poor comparison. Natural Selection is very different than Unnatural Selection.

Point being that selective/cross breeding is natural for survival over time.
It also ensures the biggest, baddest, most yielding continue to thrive. There's nothing unnatural about it.
I also pointed out mutts have less problems than purebred dogs for this very reason.

Do you think a crossbred Honey Crisp Apple is worse for your health than a Golden Delicious?

As mentioned earlier, the corn we eat today and have for 100s of years is a hybrid version of the original.
Do you think the corn we've been eating for 100s of years is bad for you?

I'm guessing you believe whites should only breed with whites as well? lol

I'm giving all of these examples and yet you've given nothing to prove your point that it's unnatural.

 

[C T J]

If you truly believe that cross-breeding is bad then you literally need to stop eating everything you're currently eating.
That includes the meat from cows, pigs, chickens, and every vegetable and fruit you buy from the grocery store.

The only time we don't use cross-breeding for a product is when it doesn't produce an advantage. e.g milk from Holstein cows, one of the rare exceptions.

 

[testboner]

Point being that selective/cross breeding is natural for survival over time.
It also ensures the biggest, baddest, most yielding continue to thrive. There's nothing unnatural about it.
I also pointed out mutts have less problems than purebred dogs for this very reason.

Do you think a crossbred Honey Crisp Apple is worse for your health than a Golden Delicious?

As mentioned earlier, the corn we eat today and have for 100s of years is a hybrid version of the original.
Do you think the corn we've been eating for 100s of years is bad for you?

I'm guessing you believe whites should only breed with whites as well? lol

I'm giving all of these examples and yet you've given nothing to prove your point that it's unnatural.

Are you Bill Gates?
Natural = Natural. Interference with nature ultimately has a price in a myriad of ways eventually..
The answer to your question about corn and honey crisp and golden delicious apples is; Ultimately, no, they’re not actually good for us. Plant foods in general aren’t optimal for primary consumption.
Plant foods were theoretically at there best before being interfered with — they were as intended by nature..
So far as your whites breeding only with whites remark, that’s insulting in many ways that doesn’t dignify a response, and has nothing to do with natural selection as we’re discussing.

 

[testboner]

Point being that selective/cross breeding is natural for survival over time.
It also ensures the biggest, baddest, most yielding continue to thrive. There's nothing unnatural about it.
I also pointed out mutts have less problems than purebred dogs for this very reason.

Do you think a crossbred Honey Crisp Apple is worse for your health than a Golden Delicious?

As mentioned earlier, the corn we eat today and have for 100s of years is a hybrid version of the original.
Do you think the corn we've been eating for 100s of years is bad for you?

I'm guessing you believe whites should only breed with whites as well? lol

I'm giving all of these examples and yet you've given nothing to prove your point that it's unnatural.

We’re not talking about eugenics. The whites with whites nazi superiority shit isn’t a part of this.

Pertaining to optimized healthfulness — naturally. Just scratching the surface of countless examples:
Are vaccines an “improvement” over the natural immunity process?
Are AAS an improvement of biological testosterone?
Is pollenless honey an improvement upon natural / real honey?
Are seedless fruits superior to seeded fruits that enable them to reproduce?

Just because we interfere with evolution and create (via unnatural selection) more appealing sizes, textures, flavors, drought durable, longevity/shelf life etc, by no means does this mean they’re an “improvement,” especially as far as health is concerned.
The technocratic direction we’re rapidly heading is a dystopia. The intention is to no longer pursue sustaining nature, but to transition to artificially synthesizing everything.

 

[C T J]

All of this coming from a guy who juices? Very interesting. Do you only drink water if it's from a spring? Taking it out of the spring and bottling it is not natural...

Taking berries and making juice is also not natural. Humans intervened and squeezed the berry to make that juice...nature didn't do it. That ain't natural either...

Also, that's not an insulting question, just an easy way for you to avoid answering it by claiming it as an insult lol.
That's your line of thinking with plants so I was making a parallel comparison. My daughter is half black btw and I just asked her the same question. She laughed.

 

[C T J]

@testboner I understand what you're getting at and this has been a fun debate. I can agree with some of what you're saying no doubt. I do get it.
But back to the main point, just because humans help facilitate something in nature doesn't mean it's worse for us.
Starting with the simple example of corn. Native Americans modified corn to what we have today. We've been eating it for hundreds, possibly thousands of years and we're living longer than ever.
If that were truly bad for you you'd think we would've seen negative consequences by now, right?

 

[testboner]

@testboner I understand what you're getting at and this has been a fun debate. I can agree with some of what you're saying no doubt. I do get it.
But back to the main point, just because humans help facilitate something in nature doesn't mean it's worse for us.
Starting with the simple example of corn. Native Americans modified corn to what we have today. We've been eating it for hundreds, possibly thousands of years and we're living longer than ever.
If that were truly bad for you you'd think we would've seen negative consequences by now, right?

I do appreciate your degree of acknowledgement. So thank you for that mention.
Corn (Maize) is one of thee most altered foods in fact, and is a problematic food now more than in its thousands of year old past., It’s all GMO, and corn syrup / high fructose corn syrup is a massive health crisis driver in both humans and animals (as the quality of food it creates in those it’s fed to affects us). When I buy eggs or have chicken, I have to pay a premium to specifically avoid corn and soy fed chickens. The type of fatty acid profile it results has a negative effect on health.
So far as people living longer — that doesn’t wind up equating to living more healthful, functional quality lives, and is primarily a result of pharmaceuticals and emergency medicine / surgeries. It’s artificially extending years but not actual vital healthfulness.

On the subject of plant foods in particular, there are some good sources of info. Sally K Norton has a history of education and experience for the topic, and a lot of Paul Saladino’s (MD, and researcher in the nutrition field specifically for functional medicine and optimizing health thru diet) information covers it in depth.

 

[C T J]

This debate has been about plants and the negative effects of cross-breeding. Your logic in using HFCS is a completely different topic and a strawman argument.

Let's take marijuana for example. Probably one of the most crossbred plants in human history. From your logic, if someone were to make a THC extract/tincture, the healthiest option
would be to only use Cannabis Sativa or Cannabis Indica plants. Somehow using a hybrid of the two creates a less than desired outcome? The plant is no longer natural (purebred), therefore...?

I believe some plants and animals can be crossbred to have negative effects (usually on accident) on the environment and our health. e.g. Killer bees.
However, generally speaking, cross-breeding is used to achieve a positive outcome. In regards to the produce we eat, I'm not buying that it's less healthy for us without hard scientific data, which I've yet to see.

 

[C T J]

Pertaining to optimized healthfulness — naturally. Just scratching the surface of countless examples:
Are vaccines an “improvement” over the natural immunity process?
Are AAS an improvement of biological testosterone?
Is pollenless honey an improvement upon natural / real honey?
Are seedless fruits superior to seeded fruits that enable them to reproduce?

I have mentioned that the goal is for a more positive outcome but that hasn't been my argument. My argument was that just because something is crossbred doesn't mean it's worse for you.
Seedless watermelon isn't worse for you than seeded watermelon. I'm not saying it's better, but it's not worse. Do we sacrifice maybe taste for the seedless? Possibly. Is it worse for us in regards to health. No.

It’s all GMO, and corn syrup / high fructose corn syrup is a massive health crisis driver in both humans and animals (as the quality of food it creates in those it’s fed to affects us). When I buy eggs or have chicken, I have to pay a premium to specifically avoid corn and soy fed chickens. The type of fatty acid profile it results has a negative effect on health.

This is all strawman here. HFCS has nothing to do with crossbred corn being worse for our health. Do they use crossbred corn for HFCS? Obviously, but that's not what the debate is about.
As far as paying more for eggs or chicken that have had a diet without corn, again, another strawman. Do chickens eat corn. Yes. However does chicken eating corn have anything to do with the debate
that crossbred corn is worse for us than the original specie of corn? No. If you want to debate about chickens and cows eating corn and the negative effects that has then great, but it's a different topic.
From reading other threads I know this is your argument style and it's basically pointless to proceed any further.

 

[testboner]

@CTJ,
Correspondingly, as produce has been / is increasingly crossbred for reasons (claimed) such as size, color, flavor, higher crop yield, climate adaptability, more rapid growth, and so on — the very soil they’re grown from has been increasingly depleted. Modern manmade produce is in fact far less nutritious than their previous versions of the past — so ultimately, Yes, contemporary versions of produce are provably less healthy.
There are a variety of differences (negative) regarding the healthfulness of contemporary produce. Many reasons for this.

 

[SAD]

So I CAN eat anything I want. It just has to be from a reeeallly long time ago. Got it.

 

[testboner]

So I CAN eat anything I want. It just has to be from a reeeallly long time ago. Got it.

No. But we’re stuck with what we’ve got — which is less healthful than it used to be (even within our years here). But don’t worry, technocracy is working rapidly to synthesize ALL of our food supply….. Mmm.