BG Health: Eating Right Edition

[Pirian]

Do the same for vaccines. See what happens.

Or gluten, or MSG, or any number of substances that most people heard that one time are like totally bad for you, and that the greater scientific community does not acknowledge as harmful in normal doses.

I'm not sure where you are getting the authority to speak for the greater scientific community so arbitrarily, but it does seem that these other examples have tainted your opinion to one side. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of manufactured controversy, but as soon as companies realized that scientific evidence had the potential to destroy their business they began to fund research to gain specific results.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun.../oe-michaels24

Spoiler: show

Data Reanalysis: A Tool for Manufacturing Uncertainty
Michaels, David PhD, MPH, published in Epidemiology,
November 2006 - Volume 17 - Issue 6 - p S43
ISEE/ISEA 2006 Conference Abstracts Supplement

Abstract:
Data reanalysis is a tactic used by product defense consultants to assist efforts to manufacture uncertainty to oppose imposition of public health regulation. Corporations in the tobacco, chromium, beryllium, plastics, and mining industries have used this tactic. The reanalyzes do not test prior hypotheses; often they simply substitute different comparison populations or divide the study population into different categories; the result is usually a lowering or the disappearance of an elevated risk reported in the original study. These methods used in the reanalysis are generally selected after the results of the original analyses are reported. For the most part, the reanalyzes have been conducted using raw data from publicly financed studies. Although access to data from publicly financed studies is freely available, epidemiologists working for these same industries are under no obligation to share data from their studies, and, in general, they do not. Resource-rich parties unhappy with the results of an original study pay for most reanalyzes. The overall effect is to fill the biomedical literature with studies with contradictory conclusions, manufacturing, or magnifying uncertainty.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

[Teorem]

I was able to give up soda, cold turkey, as a New Year's resolution in 2011. It's one of the few I've actually been able to keep. The headache sucked for a few days, but it wasn't anything I wasn't able to get through without cheap ibuprofen from the office's first aid cabinet. It took about a month for the desire to go away, and that was largely accomplished by drinking lots and lots of water; certainly not to the point of water intoxication, but enough that I had to use the restroom quite often and simply had no desire to drink, much less drink soda.

If you need the caffeine, green and jasmine tea have been great. If you want the texture, Sparkling Arrowhead has worked for me, but it's definitely an acquired taste. The flavored versions are better (in my opinion) and they're all just water and carbon dioxide.

Naturally, the closer you can keep water to you, the better off you are overall, especially if you are trying to give up soda. Fill up a few bottles of water (16 oz. or 1 liter bottles, something you can grab easily) and stick them within arm's reach of your desk, couch, or wherever you tend to find yourself drinking soda on a regular basis. Keep soda out of your house, if at all possible.

I concur with the taste observation; what little soda I've had since then has tasted just the same then (good or bad) as it does now. A few weeks ago, I came across my "emergency stash" that had been sitting in my closet for the last 18 months. As I was pouring them out into the sink, I realized that what keeps me away nowadays is that it's not so much that water tastes better but the recognition that the stuff I was pouring out looked pretty vile, and I couldn't believe I was actually drinking it to begin with.

Is this thread good for asking why my largely salad-based, sub-2000 calorie diet (plus a year of swimming 5 hours a week) has caused me to fail to realize any significant weight loss, or is that better in the monolithic fitness thread?

[Dotsudoku]

I'm not sure where you are getting the authority to speak for the greater scientific community so arbitrarily, but it does seem that these other examples have tainted your opinion to one side. I'm sure you're aware of the idea of manufactured controversy, but as soon as companies realized that scientific evidence had the potential to destroy their business they began to fund research to gain specific results.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun.../oe-michaels24

Spoiler: show

Data Reanalysis: A Tool for Manufacturing Uncertainty
Michaels, David PhD, MPH, published in Epidemiology,
November 2006 - Volume 17 - Issue 6 - p S43
ISEE/ISEA 2006 Conference Abstracts Supplement

Abstract:
Data reanalysis is a tactic used by product defense consultants to assist efforts to manufacture uncertainty to oppose imposition of public health regulation. Corporations in the tobacco, chromium, beryllium, plastics, and mining industries have used this tactic. The reanalyzes do not test prior hypotheses; often they simply substitute different comparison populations or divide the study population into different categories; the result is usually a lowering or the disappearance of an elevated risk reported in the original study. These methods used in the reanalysis are generally selected after the results of the original analyses are reported. For the most part, the reanalyzes have been conducted using raw data from publicly financed studies. Although access to data from publicly financed studies is freely available, epidemiologists working for these same industries are under no obligation to share data from their studies, and, in general, they do not. Resource-rich parties unhappy with the results of an original study pay for most reanalyzes. The overall effect is to fill the biomedical literature with studies with contradictory conclusions, manufacturing, or magnifying uncertainty.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Conspiracy theorizing is not an argument. If the data for something's safety is unreliable, the data for its harm is as well.

Show me things that definitively show harm, and I'll show you plenty to the contrary- including double-blind trials with regard to purely symptomatic claims in the case of gluten and MSG phobias.

[Draygon]

Either thread would work really, however it would be great if you could give some background information on your question. Height, weight, age, activity in detail, diet in high detail, etc.


edit: @ Teorem

[Dotsudoku]

Family history could be pertinent as well. Depending on what kind of weight you're starting at, that may be a metabolic issue.

[Pirian]

And when erring on the side of caution with regard to controversy, you'd be wise to take note of who's treating it that way. There's controversy surrounding biological evolution. That doesn't mean that those who treat it as controversy aren't morons.

I agree completely. The difference is I'm not making straw men. Comparing biological evolution, which is heavily backed by evidence and accepted by 99% of the scientific community, to the effects of artificial on the human body, which is still lacking in comprehensive human studies. There have been extensive animal research done, though, and the results of that data are shocking and frightening. While it is important to note that what effects rats in one way will not translate directly to humans, I think it is enough to warrant at least a cautious attitude toward the substance.

[Pirian]

Conspiracy theorizing is not an argument. If the data for something's safety is unreliable, the data for its harm is as well.

Show me things that definitively show harm, and I'll show you plenty to the contrary- including double-blind trials with regard to purely symptomatic claims in the case of gluten and MSG phobias.

No see, this is not conspiracy. A conspiracy theory is an argument based on ignorance, and this is not that. If you read my post then you would know this is not an argument based on ignorance. There are tons of evidence to show that this is what companies do, and you need look no further than the fact that the overwhelming majority of corporate backed science is in favor of their backers to realize this.

So far you've shown me nothing except conjecture.

[Teorem]

I'll stick it in the monolithic thread, because I can provide a ton of details and it may get kind of long as a result (and involve more than food). Thanks!

[Dotsudoku]

He used the fact that it's in some way "controversial" as means to showing that atypical concern was warranted. I demonstrated that to be controversial does not mean something has much in the way of reasonable doubt. That isn't a straw man, it's a perfectly valid juxtaposition.

Caution is warranted when reasonable doubt is presented. If we're going to draw reasonable doubt based on the assumption that the data is skewed for commercial purposes, then we may as well accept that all data for virtually everything is useless.

Artificial =/= bad, "natural"(which is just as loaded a term as artificial- essentially everything we're in contact with is a product of nature) =/= good

[Dotsudoku]

No see, this is not conspiracy. A conspiracy theory is an argument based on ignorance, and this is not that. If you read my post then you would know this is not an argument based on ignorance. There are tons of evidence to show that this is what companies do, and you need look no further than the fact that the overwhelming majority of corporate backed science is in favor of their backers to realize this.

So far you've shown me nothing except conjecture.

Great. That said, how am I to know that x, y, z "completely safe" products are such? How am I to distinguish the real healthy products from harmful ones manufactured by those who wish to exploit data? The argument works from either side, and is because of this completely useless.

[Pirian]

Artificial =/= bad, "natural"(which is just as loaded a term as artificial- essentially everything we're in contact with is a product of nature) =/= good

Nobody is making that argument. This is another straw man, btw

He used the fact that it's in some way "controversial" as means to showing that atypical concern was warranted. I demonstrated that to be controversial does not mean something has much in the way of reasonable doubt. That isn't a straw man, it's a perfectly valid juxtaposition.

Being a valid juxtaposition does not mean it isn't a straw man. Straw man argument IS a juxtaposition by its very nature. A juxtaposition is comparison of two things side by side. Straw man is exactly this, but taken one step further by breaking down the other argument and then asserting the assumption that because you can break down the comparing argument, you can breakdown the original argument.

Caution is warranted when reasonable doubt is presented. If we're going to draw reasonable doubt based on the assumption that the data is skewed for commercial purposes, then we may as well accept that all data for virtually everything is useless.

The best thing you've written so far (no sarcasm)! The fact is that we have to work based on the assumption that the data is skewed for commercial purposes until you find out what the intention of the research was to begin with precisely because of all the manufactured uncertainty. Who is backing the research? To what end? Where was it published? Was it even published in a journal relating to the field being studied (you clearly have no idea how often this happens)? All this is important knowledge, but often isn't realized by the layman because their time is important and they put their trust in whomever is feeding them the distilled information.

[Pirian]

Great. That said, how am I to know that x, y, z "completely safe" products are such? How am I to distinguish the real healthy products from harmful ones manufactured by those who wish to exploit data?

The easiest way? When you are reading your news article about whatever new study is out, actually go look at the study. Look at who's funding the study. This isn't rocket science.

The argument works from either side, and is because of this completely useless.

Except it doesn't. You're just intellectually lazy and are looking for excuses to explain your cognitive slothfulness (that isn't necessarily meant as an insult, despite how it sounds).

[Daemien]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671

Feel free to go through the entire study and review the full 100+ articles yourself. The safety data for sucralose(splenda) is even more compelling. The absorption from your GI tract is almost negligible.

Feel free to continue living in fantasy-land though, I can always do with a laugh.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Okay, let's not turn this thread into an argument about food additives. I suggest making a new thread for that.

[Pirian]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671

Feel free to go through the entire study and review the full 100+ articles yourself. The safety data for sucralose(splenda) is even more compelling. The absorption from your GI tract is almost negligible.

Feel free to continue living in fantasy-land though, I can always do with a laugh.

No, see, this is the first legitimate argument placed forward. The evidence presented is compelling and worth taking note of, but I'm wondering why they are not calling it a meta-analysis. The reason is because it's not. You've presented me with a study of studies that does not explain the basis for choosing the studies. That is worth taking note of. I am not saying this as to discredit, but one should be aware. The Burdock Group (the entity conducting the study) is a private consulting firm for corporate interest (as well as anyone who will pay) in these fields. Their clients are the ones manufacturing these products. Am I being over-scrupulous by suggesting there may be a conflict of interest here? I am not stating that as to discredit them because somebody always has to pay for the work being done, but one should be aware.

I contest that it is you who lives in the fantasy-land where interest groups don't make decisions that are not in your best interest. Feel free to continue living in your fantasy-land, though, I won't be laughing.

Okay, let's not turn this thread into an argument about food additives. I suggest making a new thread for that.

My bad I was constructing this post before you asked

[Kalmado]

Dotsudoku, too many things to quote so I'll just say it appears you are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. There are so many reports of how aspartame and other artificial products can be bad for people.

Let's be crystal clear on something regarding just about anything food and health related. There is no smoking gun on what's safe for one person and harmful to another. I bet there are 1 mil + people that have received zero harm from aspartame. It doesn't mean it's safe when so many reports, studies, etc have shown it's harmful to others.

We're all adults here. If you feel consuming aspartame is ok, more power to you and do your thing. I personally try to stay away from it.

[Kalmado]

Okay, let's not turn this thread into an argument about food additives. I suggest making a new thread for that.

I hadn't read your post before I just responded too. I agree.

On a side note, you state you have crohn's(sp?). Is it true that consuming wheat and the majority of processed food really tear up your insides?

[Boyiee]

I read most of this thread and still don't know what to eat

[Kerberoz]

The best thing about MSG is finding someone with an "allergy" to it, telling them their last meal contained it when it actually didn't, and watching them develop nocebo headaches, itching, etc.

[Mellema]

I read most of this thread and still don't know what to eat

Oversimplified, but it's a good guide line.

And here's the USDA recommendations, but with an important addition.