Organic Food makes You Slimmer????

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Carol Frilegh - 26 Feb 2005 11:10 GMT

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

Signature

Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

Reply to this Message

clemenr@wmin.ac.uk - 27 Feb 2005 08:11 GMT

> 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

Reply to this Message

Andy - 27 Feb 2005 11:34 GMT

clemenr@wmin.ac.uk wrote in news:1109491929.531735.233240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

>> Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a
> stronger
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Ross-c

What animals were tested? And like Ross asked, a link would be helpful.

One thing I know is organic is more expensive so that might explain it,
if the animals were human.

Andy

Reply to this Message

Carol Frilegh - 27 Feb 2005 12:24 GMT

> clemenr@wmin.ac.uk wrote in news:1109491929.531735.233240
> @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Andy

The item was either in yesterday's N.Y. Times or Toronto Star and a
search did not bring it up. Sorry. I'll post URLs in future.

Signature

Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

Reply to this Message

Paul Turner - 01 Mar 2005 14:49 GMT

> 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

Reply to this Message

clemenr@wmin.ac.uk - 02 Mar 2005 09:51 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

The Enlightenment - 04 Mar 2005 02:44 GMT

> > Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a
> stronger
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 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.

Reply to this Message

Renegade5 - 28 Feb 2005 22:13 GMT

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)???

>Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger
>immune system than those on conventional diets.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>http://www.bettykamen.com/hints/1749.htm

Reply to this Message

Rachael - 02 Mar 2005 06:51 GMT

Thank you for this info. I will try to choose more organic foods.

> Test animals fed a diet of organic food were slimmer and had a stronger
> immune system than those on conventional diets.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> http://www.bettykamen.com/hints/1749.htm

Reply to this Message