|
|
|
|
|
|
by array_key_first
72 days ago
|
|
|
"chemicals" (however those are defined) are bad for you, but unhealthy food is still unhealthy even if it's natural. The naturalism fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Hamburgers aren't bad because chemicals. They're bad mostly because they're super high in calories, saturated fat, and red meat. All of those are going to contribute to heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, etc. UPF are bad for you, yes. Not necessarily because of the processing, but rather because MOST UPF is unhealthy. That does not mean that non-UPF is magically healthy. If you deconstruct an UPF and eat it's components, it's still unhealthy. Oreos are bad for you because it's sugar and empty calories. Not because they were made in a factory. If you just take a spoonful of sugar and eat that, that's still bad for you. I agree that rules of thumb can be good. Here's a simple one: - eat more greens, eat less meat |
|
|
I disagree. It's a "good enough" rule of thumb.
There are many poisons in nature. Saponins and tannins are extremely poisonous but because they are so widespread in plants and because humans have been eating such a wide variety of plants for so long we've adapted specific pathways to make them basically harmless in standard amounts (some even have medicinal importance). Give those substances to a carnivorous animal and they will suffer or die. Alcohol too is something we've uniquely adapted to. How "poisonous" something is is often a function of how widespread it is. The most lethal poisons are also some of the rarest in nature.
Given the option of two substances, one which we've had 10k years to adapt to and one which was just created in a lab and has structures not like anything commonly found in nature, there is definitely a lower chance that the "natural" substance will be more harmful to you.