• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Organic means fewer chemicals, not fewer calories!

Big VIC

Big VIC

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
5,414
Points
38
Organic means fewer chemicals, not fewer calories!
POSTED BY: MONICA REINAGEL, M.S., LD/N | JUNE 28, 2010 | 9:48 AM
"Are organic foods less fattening than regular foods?" It seems like a silly question. Obviously, organic certification describes how foods are produced. It has nothing to do with how much fat, sugar, or calories a food contains. Yet consumers apparently think desserts are less fattening if they're organic, as demonstrated by a recent study at the University of Michigan.
Of course, we're all too smart for that, right? Actually, I suspect we're all a lot more susceptible to the "health halo effect" than we think. When we read about these studies, the subjects' responses seem naive and silly--but that's because we're in on the joke. Had we been the one in the hot seat--and not clued in to the point of the questions, a lot of us would probably reveal the same sort of unconscious bias. For more, see Junk Food in Disguise.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Organic is such a load of crap anyway. It isn't any better at all.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,654
Points
38
Penn and Teller did a good episode of Bullshit on this. Gave regular food to people in front of grocery stores, told them it was organic and asked them to compare it to regular food. The always claimed it was tastier if they were told it was organic. One woman even at two halves of the same banana and claimed it tasted different. Pretty funny stuff.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
Organic is such a load of crap anyway. It isn't any better at all.

Do you have any good literature /studies done on the topic that you would be willing to share?
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
^^ I'm pretty sure I've posted them before. Anyway there are a few that have directly compared organic and conventional agriculture. I've seen them for Australia in Dairy, broadacre cereals, intensive horticulture and fruits.

Basically the only difference was in production levels, which is 30% less in organic, due to lower levels of inputs.

All the nutritional studies that have tested comparable products (i.e. fruit picked at the same stage of ripening, etc) have shown no differences. There was a macro study published recently on this.

One thing that organic agriculture does have more of is faecal matter and e-coli contamination.

This study was done by my supervisor (VAMs are meant to be the panacea of organic agriculture nutrition):
Effects of phosphorus and nitrogen on growth of pasture plants and VAM fungi in SE Australian soils with contrasting fertiliser histories (conventional and biodynamic)
Megan Ryan1, * and Julian Ash

Abstract
The soil biological community has been reported to differ between conventional and alternative (organic and biodynamic) farming systems. However, few studies have investigated whether this results in substantial differences in the biological pathways controlling major ecosystem processes, such as plant nutrient uptake. This paper describes a glasshouse experiment conducted using a red-brown earth (Natrixeralf) soil sampled from three conventional and three biodynamic irrigated dairy pastures located in the Goulburn River Valley, Victoria, Australia. The biodynamic soils had not had organic or inorganic fertilisers applied for, on average, 17 years, while the conventional soils had received regular inputs of fertilisers containing soluble phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). The experiment examined whether the contrasting fertiliser histories had resulted in different pathways of plant nutrient uptake through assessing the response of white clover (Trifolium repens L.), perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne L.) and the indigenous vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi to addition of four levels of soluble P and N. The response to added P and N did not differ between the conventional and biodynamic soils, although, plants in the biodynamic soils had a slower growth rate and a higher level of colonisation by VAM fungi due to lower initial soil P and N concentrations. Overall, there was no indication that the biodynamic and conventional soils had developed substantially different processes to enhance plant nutrient uptake or that the indigenous VAM fungi differed in their tolerance to applications of soluble nutrients.

New Zealand has also come to the conclusion about lower fertility and inadequate nutrient return.
A comparison of soil and environmental quality under organic and conventional farming systems in New Zealand
Authors: L. M. Condrona; K. C. Camerona; H. J. Dia; T. J. Clougha; E. A. Forbesa; R. G. McLarena; R. G. Silvaa

Abstract

Organic farming in its various forms is seen by many as a sustainable alternative to conventional farming. This review considers and compares aspects of soil and environmental quality associated with organic and conventional farming systems under New Zealand conditions. The sustainability parameters considered include soil quality, nutrient dynamics, nutrient budgets, trace elements, and pesticides. The review used information from appropriate comparative studies conducted in New Zealand and overseas. However, because of the shortage of data on nutrient dynamics under organic systems in New Zealand, we also used a nutrient balance model (OVERSEER) and a nitrogen leaching estimation model to assess the comparative sustainability of typical model systems. Interpretation of the measured data coupled with the results of the modelling exercise suggests that organic farming carried out according to the Bio-Gro New Zealand production standards can be sustainable if sufficient amounts of nutrient are returned to match removal and losses. Bio-dynamic farming may be unsustainable because nutrients removed in farm produce are not adequately replaced. Soil organic matter content and biological activity is generally higher under both types of organic system than under conventional systems. Trace element availability and use may limit the sustainability of organic systems if no attempt is made to address natural deficiencies common in New Zealand soils. The reduced use of pesticides may be beneficial for the wider environment. The main conclusion is that a concerted research effort is urgently required to address various soil and environmental quality issues associated with the large-scale adoption of organic farming practices in New Zealand.

This paper deals with how we might correct the unproductive nature of organic farms. Phosphorus is only one part of the picture though, as nitrogen would have to be used at some point, and experience has been that pulses and pasture rotations under organic systems don't provide enough biologically fixed N to produce better crops.
Phosphorus management on extensive organic and low-input farms
P. S. Cornish

Abstract
A synthesis of the Australian literature reporting soil and plant phosphorus (P) status under organic methods of broadacre farming provides clear evidence that available soil P is lower in organic systems, although there have been no reports of farm P balances that might help to explain the lower P concentrations. There is also evidence, which is largely circumstantial, to suggest that P deficiency significantly reduces productivity of broadacre organic farms, but few experiments prove this conclusively because of other confounding factors. An overview of international literature suggests similar findings for mixed farms. Nine case studies further examined the constraints imposed by P on broadacre organic and low-input farms in Australia. Two farms on fertile soils had negative P balances but maintained productivity without fertilisers by ‘mining available’ P reserves. Five extensive organic farms on inherently less fertile soils had positive P balances because P fertiliser was used. Four of these farmers reported low productivity, which was supported by comparisons of wheat yields with estimated water-limited potential yields. Low productivity appeared to be related to P deficiency despite the use of allowable mineral fertilisers, mostly reactive phosphate rock (RPR), on these farms. The apparent ineffectiveness of RPR is most likely due to the modest rainfall at these farms (380–580 mm/year). The highest research priority is to develop effective, allowable fertilisers. Until this has been achieved, or ways of using less labile P have been developed, there is a case for derogation in the Certification Standards to allow the use of soluble forms of P fertiliser on soils with low soil solution P and high soil P-sorption. Two low-input farms practicing pasture-cropping had approximately balanced P budgets and from this perspective were the most sustainable of the farms studied.
You also have to remember that inorganic fertilisers are not new. The first were being developed 150-170yrs ago (possibly earlier, but this was when they started being used commercially) and modern systems for inorganic fertilisers were developed and commercialised ~100yrs ago. So organic agriculture is essentially wanting to take a step back of a century, which means we'd need to cut population back to pre-1900's levels. Oh and have famines and blights every few years due to pests and diseases and failed crops. :omgwtf:

I can't find the dairy one in my EndNote program, which is a shame because it really breaks down the production figures (30% less, mostly due to N) and has a good literature discussion. Organic is basically a huge step backwards for food production. It is being pedalled falsely (much in the ilk of snake-oil) and has unfortunately had far too much coverage. I will say though that organic can be used in some areas more productively than areas like Australia.
 

Similar threads

jolter604
Replies
6
Views
4K
bourehim
B
The Creator
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Creator
The Creator
robert.gaskins4
Replies
4
Views
4K
Lymbo
Lymbo
Top