Wellness AF Club · Library · Goes with Lesson 16

Does it matter if your produce is organic?

Lesson 16 was blunt: just eat them, dammit. The second you actually commit to that, a new worry shows up at the grocery store. Do they have to be organic? Is organic worth it, or is that just clever marketing? Here’s the honest answer, the real science behind it, and what matters more than the little green label.

So you’ve decided to eat your five a day. Good. It’s one of the best things you can do for your health. Which leaves one nagging question at the store: is organic worth it?

Now you get to the produce aisle, and the conventional strawberries are $3, and the organic ones are $6, and a voice in your head says the cheap ones are basically poison. That voice is repeating a decade of marketing. The research will help calm that voice. Here’s what the studies actually found, because the truth is more useful (and more freeing) than the fear.

Quick promise before we start: nothing here is going to tell you to spend more money. The whole point of Lesson 16 stands no matter what you buy: EAT FRUITS AND VEGGIES!

What “organic” even means

Organic is a regulated legal standard with associated audits. In the US, the USDA Organic seal means the crop was grown without synthetic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, or genetic engineering, and the farm got audited to prove it.

This is where it trips people up. Organic does not mean pesticide-free. Organic farmers absolutely use pesticides, they just use ones approved for organic systems (often plant- or mineral-derived). “Natural” pesticide and “no pesticide” are not the same thing, and a few organic-approved ones are no gentler than the synthetic versions.

So here’s the big question: are the differences that do exist big enough to matter for your body and your budget? Let’s find out.

Is organic actually more nutritious?

This is the claim that sells the $6 strawberries, so let’s test it.

Two of the largest reviews ever done showed the same thing. A 2009 systematic review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition pooled data from 162 studies and found no meaningful differences in nutrient content between organic and conventional foods¹. A 2012 Stanford review in the Annals of Internal Medicine pooled 223 studies and found that the evidence doesn’t show organic foods are more nutritious².

The vitamin C, the potassium, the fiber, the folate, all the stuff that makes produce a powerhouse, comes through about the same whether the carrot was grown organically or not.

There’s one interesting wrinkle in those, though. A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies in the British Journal of Nutrition found that organic crops have higher levels of a class of plant compounds called polyphenols³.

In that analysis, organic crops had higher levels of several polyphenol families, from about 19% more phenolic acids to nearly 69% more of a group called flavanones, and they had lower levels of cadmium, a toxic metal that accumulates in the body over time³.

Worth knowing. But hold your applause, because “more antioxidants measured in the food” and “more antioxidants doing something in you” are two very different things. We will get to more of this in a minute.

The pesticide question, where organic actually wins

This is the real, measurable difference.

Conventional produce is roughly four times more likely to carry detectable pesticide residues than organic³. The Stanford review put the same finding in a different way: the risk of a sample carrying detectable residue was about 30% lower for organic².

And it shows up in your body, fast. When researchers took families eating a conventional diet and simply switched them to an organic diet, pesticide breakdown products in their urine dropped within days. One study of US adults and kids saw a malathion marker fall about 95% and a chlorpyrifos marker fall about 61% after the swap⁴. An earlier study put children on organic food for five days and watched two common pesticide markers drop to nearly undetectable⁵.

So if your goal is to lower pesticide exposure, organic clearly does that. Real effect, measured in real people.

Now the honest caveat, because I’m not going to fearmonger you into the expensive aisle. The residues found on conventional produce are almost always well below the safety limits set by regulators². “Detectable” means the instruments are sensitive, not that the amount is dangerous. Lower exposure is a reasonable thing to want. It just isn’t the same as proven harm from the conventional stuff.

What buying organic actually changes, at a glance.

But does eating organic make you healthier?

This is the question that actually matters, and it’s where the marketing gets quiet.

Two large studies followed huge groups of people for years and came to opposite conclusions. A French study of nearly 69,000 adults found the people who ate the most organic food had about 25% lower cancer risk over the follow-up⁶. Encouraging. But a British study of 623,000 women found no drop in overall cancer for organic eaters at all, with a possible exception for one type of lymphoma⁷.

When two big studies disagree this hard, it usually means the honest answer is “we don’t know yet.” Both are observational, which means they watched people’s choices instead of assigning diets. And people who buy lots of organic food tend to also exercise more, smoke less, and eat more produce overall. Untangling the organic label from the healthy-person bundle around it is really hard.

The newest research backs that up without settling it. Two big systematic reviews came out in 2024, the most current ones we have. One found that across the long-term studies, eating organic lined up with lower rates of cardiometabolic trouble like obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, alongside the usual drop in pesticide exposure⁸. The other pooled 50 studies and reached the same split as everything before it: a clear win on pesticide exposure, a thumbs-up for the polyphenols, and still no verdict on cancer or basic nutrition⁹.

Read that cardiometabolic signal with the same caution as before. The people buying the most organic are also the ones eating more produce and moving more, so the label keeps getting credit the lifestyle may have earned. (One of those 2024 reviews had authors from a dairy company, so it isn’t a neutral referee either.)

So I’m not going to tell you organic is a proven health upgrade. The strong, repeated, can’t-miss-it evidence is for eating produce at all, organic or not. That’s the finding behind Lesson 16, and it dwarfs anything the organic label adds on top.

The word that matters more than “organic”: bioavailability

Okay. Here’s a concept I want you to get because it can work in other areas where companies are trying to sell you the benefit of a supplement.

This is where the “organic has more polyphenols” thing comes back down to earth. Those antioxidants are notoriously hard to absorb. A review of 97 human studies found polyphenol absorption ranges from under 1% to about 43% of what you eat, depending on the specific compound¹⁰. And the polyphenols you eat the most of often aren’t the ones your body absorbs best¹¹.

Translation: a modest bump in polyphenol content from buying organic can easily get swallowed by how little of it you absorb in the first place. The label gives you a slightly richer raw material. Your body decides how much actually counts.

So what does move the needle on absorption? How you prepare and pair your food. And the effects here are not small.

Adding avocado or its oil to salad raised carotenoid absorption up to 15-fold in a controlled human study.¹²

The reason is simple plumbing. Pigment antioxidants like beta-carotene and lycopene are fat-soluble, so they need a little dietary fat riding along to get ferried across your gut wall. No fat means poor pickup.

Cooking helps, too, for certain foods. When researchers fed people cooked versus raw cherry tomatoes, the cooked version raised blood levels of two tomato antioxidants that the raw version didn’t budge¹³. Heat breaks down tough plant cell walls and frees the compounds trapped inside. Your grandmother’s slow-simmered tomato sauce was quietly doing nutrition science.

Sit with the size of this for a second. Buying organic might get you maybe 20 to 50% more of certain antioxidants in the raw food. Adding a spoon of olive oil or roasting your vegetables can multiply how much you absorb several times over. The prep beats the label, and it’s basically free.

Organic, the honest pros and cons

No spin. Here’s the whole ledger.

So, is organic worth it? Here’s what I’d do

Here’s how I’d play it, in order of how much each move is backed by evidence.

1. Eat the five servings. Organic or not. This is the only step with overwhelming, repeated evidence behind it, the kind Lesson 16 walked you through, roughly a third lower risk of dying early¹⁴. Conventional broccoli you’ll actually eat beats organic broccoli you skipped because it was pricey.
2. Add fat and cook for variety. Free, and it can multiply what you absorb. Olive oil on the salad, avocado on the toast, tomatoes into the sauce. This step might do more for your actual nutrition than the organic label ever will.
3. Wash everything. A good rinse and rub under running water removes a chunk of surface residue and dirt from any produce, including organic. Free, fast, worth doing.
4. If you have the budget and want lower exposure, prioritize organic for the stuff you eat skin and all. Berries, leafy greens, apples, grapes. You’re eating the surface, so residues have nowhere to hide. For thick-skinned things you peel, like bananas, avocados, and onions, conventional is an easy call. Spend the organic money where it does the most.

That’s the whole strategy, and it answers the question. Is organic worth it? As a nice-to-have, yes, sitting near the top of a pile of things that matter more. The flag Lesson 16 planted still stands: more produce, however you can get it onto your plate, is the win. Don’t let a $6 clamshell of strawberries make you forget that a $3 one is still one of the best things you’ll eat all week.

Wellness AF Club · Library

How much protein do women actually need, and why

The daily lessons keep circling back to protein for a reason. It is the one number worth getting right while you lose weight. Here is the whole story, with the actual research behind it.

Most women I talk to are eating about half the protein they think they are. Not because they are careless. Because the official “recommended” number is low on purpose, and nobody ever told them it was a floor instead of a goal.

So let’s fix that. By the end of this you’ll know what protein does in your body, the real number to aim for, and how to actually hit it without choking down chicken breast at every meal.

What protein actually does in your body

Carbs and fat are mostly fuel. Protein is the construction material. Your muscle, skin, hair, hormones, enzymes, and the antibodies your immune system fires off are all built from it. You are, quite literally, made of the stuff.

Here is the part that matters when you’re losing weight. When you eat fewer calories than you burn, your body has to make up the difference from your own tissue. You want it pulling from fat. But if protein is short, it will happily strip your muscle for the amino acids instead, because staying alive beats keeping your biceps.

That’s the worst possible trade. Muscle is metabolically active, so the more you lose, the fewer calories you burn at rest, which makes the weight easier to regain later. Eating enough protein tells your body to keep the muscle and burn the fat. Think of it as the bodyguard standing in front of your hard-won muscle while you diet.

How much protein you actually need

You’ve probably seen the RDA: 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (about 46 grams a day for women). That number is real, but read what it’s for. The RDA is the minimum to keep a sedentary person from developing a deficiency (Trumbo et al., 2005). It was built around inactive reference bodies, and it says nothing about what’s best for holding onto muscle or losing fat.

Newer methods suggest even that floor has been undercounted by roughly 30 to 50% (Bandegan et al., 2017; Pencharz et al., 2016). And the moment you add activity, the target climbs. Here’s what the research actually supports, straight from NASM’s nutrition coaching curriculum:

That probably sounds like a lot. It is more than you’re eating now, almost guaranteed. That gap is the single most common thing standing between women and the results they want.

Wait, can you eat too much protein?

Short version: for a healthy person, no. NASM’s review puts the safe ceiling at 2.2 g/kg even for sedentary people, and notes that going over your needs has “few, if any” downsides (Pencharz et al., 2016).

The research goes further. Studies feeding trained people 3.0 to 4.4 grams per kilogram, which is wildly more than anyone needs, found no increase in body fat over time (Antonio et al., 2014; Antonio et al., 2015; Claesson et al., 2009). So when you’re deciding whether to round your protein up or down, round up. While we’re here: the claim that high protein leaches calcium from your bones is a myth. I bust it properly in how to build bone density: what women need to know.

Why it’s your best friend for fat loss

Two reasons, and they stack.

First, fullness. Of the three macros, protein triggers the strongest satiety response, and fat the weakest (Chambers, McCrickerd & Yeomans, 2015). It works through real mechanisms: it sits in your stomach, it nudges the gut hormone CCK, and it’s not very calorie-dense (Blundell et al., 2012). A breakfast built on protein keeps you full for hours. A breakfast built on a muffin has you foraging by 10:30.

Second, muscle. As we covered above, protein is what keeps your body burning fat instead of cannibalizing the tissue that keeps your metabolism humming.

The protein hack: add a zero

Here’s a five-second test for whether a food is really a protein source or just pretending. Take the grams of protein in one serving and add a zero. Then ask one question: is that number bigger than the calories?

If yes, it’s a strong protein source. If the calories run well ahead of that number, you’re looking at a fat or a carb that just happens to carry some protein.

This is more of a rough gauge than a hard line, so don’t get crazy about the exact numbers. The closer the add-a-zero number gets to the calories, the better that food is pulling its weight, and clearing them is better still. Take an egg: 70 calories and 6 grams of protein. Add a zero and you land at 60, sitting right up against the 70. It doesn’t quite clear the bar, but it’s close enough to tell you an egg is a respectable source of protein. The whole point is a fast read at a glance.

It works on anything with a label. Greek yogurt, chicken, cottage cheese, and white fish all sail through. Peanut butter, cheese, and most nuts do not, which is fine, just know you’re eating them as a fat.

How to actually hit it

Wondering whether a powder or a bar should do some of that work? Here’s how protein powders compare with whole food, and what the additives really do.

You don’t get there by eating one giant steak at dinner. You get there by anchoring every meal with a protein first, then building the rest around it.

• Pick the protein before anything else. Eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, chicken, fish, lean beef, tofu, tempeh, edamame, lentils. Decide that, then add the carbs and veggies.
• Spread it across the day. Roughly 30 to 40 grams per meal gets most women to target without a heroic dinner.
• Lean on the easy wins. A cup of Greek yogurt is about 20 grams. A scoop of whey is 20 to 25. Three eggs, about 18. These add up fast.
• Log it for a few days. Almost everyone is shocked by how low they actually are. You can’t close a gap you can’t see.

Your protein target is already calculated in the app, built from your goal weight. Open it, see your number, and start chasing that one before you worry about anything else on your plate.