[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

I doubt you have read anything by Chek to have a basis for your accusations. His book "Awesome Abs" offers great insight into abdominal training and posture correction. His Swiss Ball training articles and videos were ahead of their time and still are applicable today. You are entitled to your views, but Chek should not be compared to a Scientologist.

You say he should not be compared to a scientologist, but the qualifications you listed as a basis for his credibility are equal to those of a Scientologist. So based on those qualifications, Chek is credible, but Scientologists arent? How so? And Ive read plenty from him. He has some good work, but hes more or less nutty.

As far as organic vs non organic, try tasting the difference in the two foods. Or look at the difference in shell density between an organic egg and non organic egg. The non-organic egg's shell is so paper thin it's ridiculous; the organic egg's shell is strong and healthy. I am not for omega 3 infused (done by man) eggs. Often the omega 3s put into the eggs are of low quality any way.

Taste is subjective, and I have had organic foods that either tasted no different, or worse, than their non-organic counterparts. As for egg shell densities - lol wut. How does this translate to better nutritional quality? I know egg shells are high in calcium, so maybe thats what youre getting at. Be my guest.

If you think about it, why would I want to eat a cow that has had anti-biotics and hormones injected into it? These bovine anti-biotics and hormones are passed onto the eater and drinker of the meat and milk respectively. Non organic meats are fed processed grains and are often not free range. Organic meats come from free range cows feed a natural grass diet. I won't get into plants sprayed with pesticides that are grown in nutrient lacking soil. The fact of the matter is, you can't get healthy eating an unhealthy animal/plant.

I love eating cows injected with hormones. Hopefully some of that will trickle down to me.

But feel free to post any data showing organic foods to be superior to non-organic foods. I have yet to see any.

***
1: Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2003 Sep;54(5):357-71.

Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence.

Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A.

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece.

Apparently, one of the primary reasons for purchasing organic food is the
perception that it is more nutritious than conventional food. Given the
increasing interest towards organic food products, it is imperative to review
the existing literature concerning the nutritional value of the produce, and to
determine to what extent are consumer expectations met. There are only few
well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison and,
therefore, compilation of the results is difficult and generalisation of the
conclusions should be made with caution. In spite of these limitations, however,
some differences can be identified. Although there is little evidence that
organic and conventional foods differ in respect to the concentrations of the
various micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and trace elements), there seems to
be a slight trend towards higher ascorbic acid content in organically grown
leafy vegetables and potatoes. There is also a trend towards lower protein
concentration but of higher quality in some organic vegetables and cereal crops.
With respect to the rest of the nutrients and the other food groups, existing
evidence is inadequate to allow for valid conclusions. Finally, animal feeding
experiments indicate that animal health and reproductive performance are
slightly improved when they are organically fed. A similar finding has not yet
been identified in humans. Several important directions can be highlighted for
future research; it seems, however, that despite any differences, a
well-balanced diet can equally improve health regardless of its organic or
conventional origin.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 12907407 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Feb;61(1):19-24.

Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?

Williams CM.

High Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, School of Human Nutrition, School of Food
Biosciences, University of Reading, UK. c.m.williams@reading.ac.uk

Consumer concern regarding possible adverse health effects of foods produced
using intensive farming methods has led to considerable interest in the health
benefits of organically-produced crops and animal products. There appears to be
widespread perception amongst consumers that such methods result in foods of
higher nutritional quality. The present review concludes that evidence that can
support or refute such perception is not available in the scientific literature.
A limited number of studies have compared the nutrient compositions of
organically- and conventionally-produced crops, with a very small number of
studies that have compared animal products (meat, milk and dairy products)
produced under the two agricultural systems. Very few compositional differences
have been reported, although there are reasonably consistent findings for higher
nitrate and lower vitamin C contents of conventionally-produced vegetables,
particularly leafy vegetables. Data concerning possible impacts on animal and
human health of diets comprising organic or conventional produce are extremely
sparse. Data from controlled studies in animal models, particularly within
single species, are limited or poorly designed, and findings from these studies
provide conflicting conclusions. There are no reports in the literature of
controlled intervention studies in human subjects. Comparison of health outcomes
in populations that habitually consume organically- or conventionally-produced
foods are flawed by the large number of confounding factors that might
contribute to any differences reported. If consumer perceptions regarding
potential health benefits of organic foods are to be supported, more research of
better quality is needed than that which is currently available.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 12002790 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2002 Jan;42(1):1-34.

A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of
organically and conventionally produced foods.

Bourn D, Prescott J.

Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
diane.bourn@stonebow.otago.ac.nz

Given the significant increase in consumer interest in organic food products,
there is a need to determine to what extent there is a scientific basis for
claims made for organic produce. Studies comparing foods derived from organic
and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional
value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that
there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid
comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong
evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various
nutrients. Considerations of the impact of organic growing systems on nutrient
bioavailability and nonnutrient components have received little attention and
are important directions for future research. While there are reports indicating
that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of
sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent. In future studies, the
possibility that typical organic distribution or harvesting systems may deliver
products differing in freshness or maturity should be evaluated. There is no
evidence that organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological
contamination than conventional foods. While it is likely that organically grown
foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation
of residue levels.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 11833635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Altern Ther Health Med. 1998 Jan;4(1):58-69.

Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic
with conventional crops.

Worthington V.

NutriKinetics, Washington, DC, USA.

The increasing use of alternative therapies that rely on organically grown foods
has renewed interest in the relationship between agricultural methods and food
quality. The purpose of this article is to review the literature produced over
the last 50 years comparing the nutritional quality of organic with conventional
crops. Whereas few studies have been conducted, there is a trend in the data
indicating higher nutrient content in organically grown crops. This phenomenon
is possibly due to a higher water content in conventional crops, which causes
nutrient dilution. For individual nutrients, existing studies show that organic
fertilization practices produce crops with higher levels of ascorbic acid, lower
levels of nitrate, and improved protein quality compared with conventionally
grown crops. Although a theoretical rationale exists for possible effects of
herbicides on nutrient content, few studies have examined the effects of these
or other pesticides. Animal studies showed better growth and reproduction in
animals fed organically grown feed compared with those fed conventionally grown
feed. Further research is required to confirm the trends seen in the existing
data and to clarify the exact relationships between agricultural management and
nutritional quality.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 9439021 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]