Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.

Tipperary Fairy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Vit C completely agree.

Aspartame (sweetner) does have some questions BUT only in people with depression. Double blind tests have shown no impact on general population but did increase depressive tendancies (but again, only in those already suffering from it)

The tests also conclude that they cause of the anti sweetener brigade is that there have been very few trials performed in a correct scientific setting.

I'd be interested in reading about that if you know where you read it?

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading about that if you know where you read it?

I'll try to dig out later after work. My pub med subscription is lapsed but might get the abstract at least

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ninap wrote:

"Organic food is better for you". No it's not. It's wallet-lightening though. (It may taste better, but that's a different issue.)

Who says it's not?

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

strelok

Merrick Uneven Python wrote: »

Who says it's not?

science

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

again, science. not logic. but to say that organic foods don't use pesticides is ****ing hilarious.

stimpson

This: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057559662

Tigger

strelok wrote: »

science



again, science. not logic. but to say that organic foods don't use pesticides is ****ing hilarious.

Is organic not made without pesticides? Is that not the point? Excuse my ignorance do you mean it's meant to be pesticide free but isn't or that it doesn't have to be ?

Ziphius

Merrick Uneven Python wrote: »

Who says it's not?

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

Organic food also uses pesticides. And also can also contain lethal amounts of E. coli from 'organic' fertiliser.

YFlyer

whiskeyman wrote: »

Detoxing is the biggest sham ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance

The author is not familiar with panchakarma.

NiallBoo

That the maximum calorie deficit to burn fat is 500 calories per day for everyone, regardless of differences on body-composition.

pajero12

Ziphius wrote: »

Organic food also uses pesticides. And also can contain lethal amounts of E. coli from 'organic' fertiliser.

What is your source? This is hilarious!

Organic food production is governed by EU regulation and strictly implemented by the Department of Agriculture.

runawaybishop

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

If you want to try with carrots, it's 29 baby carrots for 100 calories. So that's 290 baby carrots for 1000 calories or 2900 baby carrots for 10,000 calories.

You'd be some bunny to get through that in a day.

You don't have to eat them all in one day though. Its real easy to go into a surplus because you are not counting in veg.

E.G Someone thats been tracking their calories and eating say 2400 calories a day when they require 2500 and disregarding calories from veg and fruit (because their dumb program tells them they are 0 sins or whatever nonsense term is being used) could easily find they are putting weight on. Eat 15 baby carrots with your meal and eat and apple+banana day and you are now eating a surplus and will put on weight - even an extra 50 cals a day results in a nice few pounds over the year.

tldr: dont disregard calories from veg, they arent free.

kfallon

Eat/drink less + Exercise more = weight loss

Can't go wrong with that!

Ken.

Mod-Moved to Nutrition & diet, please read the local charter before posting

lee_baby_simms

"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day."

This is one of the worst. Originally a marketing slogan intended to sell cereal has now become a mantra that everyone seems to have hardcoded into their heads as fact.

Christy42

pajero12 wrote: »

What is your source? This is hilarious!

Organic food production is governed by EU regulation and strictly implemented by the Department of Agriculture.

I really doubt the ecoli claim is true (except in exceptional circumstances) on the basis that we don't have hipsters dying left, right and center.

However there is no health difference between organic and non organic. The amount of pesticides on your food by the time it gets to you is minimal. The dose makes the poison and all that.

The organic thing seems to come from the natural = good fallacy that has infected a large chunk of arguments (including both sides of the marriage equality debate but that is a different topic). Vitamin tablets are unnatural but good for you if you aren't getting enough. Arsenic is natural and not quite as good for you.

Greenduck

I think I read one recently that normal potatoes are just as good for you as sweet potatoes. Mind blown!

G'wan the spuds

Ziphius

pajero12 wrote: »

What is your source? This is hilarious!

Organic food production is governed by EU regulation and strictly implemented by the Department of Agriculture.

Organic farming doesn't mean pesticide free. The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis is commonly used in organic farming as an insecticide.

Organic bean sprouts contaminated with E. coli killed 31 people in 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed

In 2005, 33 people across the US were infected with toxic E. coli after consuming contaminated organic spinach. Almost half were hospitalised.
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O157H7-11-12/index.html

Hardly hilarious.

NiallBoo

I think a lot of the problem with these things is the tenancy for the health food industry and self-proclaimed"experts" to take something that shows some benefits in some circumstances and turn it into the ultimate ass-kicking cure for everything.

You're then left with people either believing them and disregarding other good advice, or not and ignoring the product/advice altogether and losing out on what benefit there actually is in it.

It's pretty annoying that you have to cut through so many layers off crap.

Ziphius

Christy42 wrote: »

I really doubt the ecoli claim is true (except in exceptional circumstances) on the basis that we don't have hipsters dying left, right and center.

However there is no health difference between organic and non organic. The amount of pesticides on your food by the time it gets to you is minimal. The dose makes the poison and all that.

The organic thing seems to come from the natural = good fallacy that has infected a large chunk of arguments (including both sides of the marriage equality debate but that is a different topic). Vitamin tablets are unnatural but good for you if you aren't getting enough. Arsenic is natural and not quite as good for you.

Yes, it is certainly rare. Perhaps my older post gave the impression that is more common.

I am not trying to scare people or dissuade them from buying and eating organic. Just pointing out that it is no safer than conventional agriculture.

LCD

Really good thread. Yes diet industry is so full of BS, which I think is down to the fact that people won't pay for common sense.
You could cook your own food, plenty of fruit & veg, wholewheat, not a lot of fatty/sugary snacks, etc.

Or you could pay some "expert" who tells you you`re fat not because you eat crap, but bread, yeah that's it bread, is evil. Life is so hard for you because you're body can't process bread & dairy, also sugar. Now if you cut out bread, dairy & sugar I GUARANTEE you'll loose weight.

Well of course you`ll fcuking loose weight, cause what I am allowed eat tastes like muck.

But wait, the ex party girl who is now a yoga instructor (she spent 2 weeks on an intensive course in India she must be good), has written a book about cooking. Delicious recipes that are "clean" eating. A person who's job it is to be in shape, with no children knows how a person with a 40hr job plus 3 kids and a 90min commute can cook for a family of 5.

OldNotWIse

I've always taken the "you need dairy for calcium" spin with a pinch of salt. I'm more with the "not your mom, not your milk" way of thinking

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll try to dig out later after work. My pub med subscription is lapsed but might get the abstract at least

The 1993 study (2nd here) sparked my interest when I was in college around 2000, so is something I've been interested in (as someone who consumes such drinks and has had Depression)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24700203

Abstract
Despite its widespread use, the artificial sweetener aspartame remains one of the most controversial food additives, due to mixed evidence on its neurobehavioral effects. Healthy adults who consumed a study-prepared high-aspartame diet (25 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days and a low-aspartame diet (10 mg/kg body weight/day) for 8 days, with a 2-week washout between the diets, were examined for within-subject differences in cognition, depression, mood, and headache. Measures included weight of foods consumed containing aspartame, mood and depression scales, and cognitive tests for working memory and spatial orientation. When consuming high-aspartame diets, participants had more irritable mood, exhibited more depression, and performed worse on spatial orientation tests. Aspartame consumption did not influence working memory. Given that the higher intake level tested here was well below the maximum acceptable daily intake level of 40-50 mg/kg body weight/day, careful consideration is warranted when consuming food products that may affect neurobehavioral health.

Here is the one which really worried me. Now it is a study from 1993 so the above may superseded it
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935

Abstract
This study was designed to ascertain whether individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame. Although the protocol required the recruitment of 40 patients with unipolar depression and a similar number of individuals without a psychiatric history, the project was halted by the Institutional Review Board after a total of 13 individuals had completed the study because of the severity of reactions within the group of patients with a history of depression. In a crossover design, subjects received aspartame 30 mg/kg/day or placebo for 7 days. Despite the small n, there was a significant difference between aspartame and placebo in number and severity of symptoms for patients with a history of depression, whereas for individuals without such a history there was not. We conclude that individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener and its use in this population should be discouraged

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I've always taken the "you need dairy for calcium" spin with a pinch of salt. I'm more with the "not your mom, not your milk" way of thinking

It's a very easy way of obtaining the calcium.
We don't eat enough greens, fish, and/or pulses in general (they are also sources)


Milk is also damn nice tasting and quite healthy

Christy42

Greenduck wrote: »

I think I read one recently that normal potatoes are just as good for you as sweet potatoes. Mind blown!

G'wan the spuds

Frequently these things are true in certain circumstances. Nearly every ingredient you should avoid is required by your body (just generally in much smaller doses it is likely to get in today's world). 130 years ago when all you had was a few spuds and milk? Replace those potatoes with some sweet ones and you will struggle a lot more.

The annoying phrase "good for you" is just meaningless without context of the rest of your diet (I get this was probably your point, I am not arguing with you).

Never met one of these people but I always figured that a good response would be to challenge them on the basis that you are also a nutritionist (you become one as soon as you declare it).

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a very easy way of obtaining the calcium.
We don't eat enough greens, fish, and/or pulses in general (they are also sources)


Milk is also damn nice tasting and quite healthy

I do. And I find the idea of drinking the breast milk of another mammal quite bizzare. Also my lack of lactase and casein (being a non-infant) is a factor.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I do. And I find the idea of drinking the breast milk of another mammal quite bizzare. Also my lack of lactase and casein (being a non-infant) is a factor.

You do (as they are easily available) was not always so and many still don't take the required

Why bizarre??
Why is it different to ANY other nutrient source from a prey animal?

If you expended several hundred calories to hunt/kill an animal would your really leave a bone building, protein rich liquid behind.

Leave your religious guilt behind.

Clearlier

Gebgbegb wrote: »

sugar makes kids go hyper...
kids.go hyper regardless..... cos theyre kids.

Nobody but an absolute nutter says that a tiny amount of sugar makes a kid go hyper.
Nobody but a nutter says that if you give most kids too much sugar they won't go hyper.

Kids go hyper for reasons other than sugar too.

Tolerances vary amongst kids and within themselves as they get older and while I'm sure that there are exceptions there is mostly definitely a link between the excessive consumption of sugar and hyperactivity.

Luke92

strelok wrote: »

yes it is

You get your 2500 calories each day from oreos and tell me how you feel.

I'll just eat what I want in good foods not counting calories and we will see who's better off.

the groutch

No carbs after X O'clock.

Irishcrx

the groutch wrote: »

No carbs after X O'clock.

That one actually has a bit of basis..

arayess

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Artificial sweeteners are lethal. I particularly lose respect for those of this mindset.

Do you keep a list of those you have lost respect for?
If so , stick me on it.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

sugar makes kids go hyper...
kids.go hyper regardless..... cos theyre kids.

in a large dose it does.
I'd deal with the hyper any day over the crash that comes afterwards though.

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

You do (as they are easily available) was not always so and many still don't take the required

Why bizarre??
Why is it different to ANY other nutrient source from a prey animal?

If you expended several hundred calories to hunt/kill an animal would your really leave a bone building, protein rich liquid behind.

Leave your religious guilt behind.

Cheap dig. I'm an atheist (not that its your business). Pity because you made some good points, but lowering yourself to insults doesn't do anything for your argument.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Cheap dig. I'm an atheist (not that its your business). Pity because you made some good points, but lowering yourself to insults doesn't do anything for your argument.

It may be cheap dig but not an insult, I do believe that it's a religious based societal view. I'm atheist also but social conditioning is a powerful thing and there are things where I must fight the indoctrination also

Essien

Made me think of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1BubC_8Ejc

NiallBoo

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Artificial sweeteners are lethal. I particularly lose respect for those of this mindset.

Either way it's a mistake to lump them all in together. There's a variety of them and different ones have the potential to have different effects on the body.

Either dismissing them all or claiming they're all equally safe is a mistake.

Of course, if negative effects of a particular sweetener are established you then have to ask the question of whether or not that negative outweighs the negatives of being overweight that the sweetener might help you avoid.

Why isn't life more simple?

JJJJNR

Can anyone debunk coconut oil, i've been using it for a while now, and i really like cooking with it and its supposed to be really beneficial but again it was recommended by a friend.

RDM_83 again

Christy42 wrote: »

I really doubt the ecoli claim is true (except in exceptional circumstances) on the basis that we don't have hipsters dying left, right and center.

However there is no health difference between organic and non organic. The amount of pesticides on your food by the time it gets to you is minimal. The dose makes the poison and all that.

The organic thing seems to come from the natural = good fallacy that has infected a large chunk of arguments (including both sides of the marriage equality debate but that is a different topic). Vitamin tablets are unnatural but good for you if you aren't getting enough. Arsenic is natural and not quite as good for you.

What about meats?sort of curious about that with less antibiotics being used etc
and while I can't taste a difference with organic veg I can taste a difference in the meat but that may just be more exercise in the muscle.
About veg read something interesting while ago about how by breeding strains to be easier to eat and less bitter we're loosing nutrients.

tommy_tucker

What a pointless tread, if you want to make a claim about diet you have to back it up with good scientific papers and i will emphasis good, there's plenty of ****e out there to tell you that McDonald's is good for you and so on.

Otherwise its just people spouting stuff they heard/read once and took it as gospel.

tommy_tucker

What a pointless tread, if you want to make a claim about diet you have to back it up with good scientific papers and i will emphasis good, there's plenty of ****e out there to tell you that McDonald's is good for you and so on.

Otherwise its just people spouting stuff they heard/read once and took it as gospel.

annascott

Ninap wrote: »

"Organic food is better for you". No it's not. It's wallet-lightening though. (It may taste better, but that's a different issue.)

of course it is! It hasn't been sprayed or injected with chemicals/growth hormones etc.
The common misconception is that all organic food is fresh. Sometimes the vendor keeps it too long and all you have are sorry looking wilted vegetables with a high price tag...

tommy_tucker

tommy_tucker wrote: »

What a pointless tread, if you want to make a claim about diet you have to back it up with good scientific papers and i will emphasis good, there's plenty of ****e out there to tell you that McDonald's is good for you and so on.

Otherwise its just people spouting stuff they heard/read once and took it as gospel.

I did

Blacktie.

annascott wrote: »

of course it is! It hasn't been sprayed or injected with chemicals/growth hormones etc.

Chemicals does not automatically equal bad.

jam_mac_jam

Juicing, smoothies all that stuff. Has to be nonsense. Eat the full thing and stop mashing it up.

jh79

pajero12 wrote: »

What is your source? This is hilarious!

Organic food production is governed by EU regulation and strictly implemented by the Department of Agriculture.

annascott wrote: »

of course it is! It hasn't been sprayed or injected with chemicals/growth hormones etc.
The common misconception is that all organic food is fresh. Sometimes the vendor keeps it too long and all you have are sorry looking wilted vegetables with a high price tag...

http://www.ecpa.eu/news-item/agriculture-today/pesticides-used-organic-farming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

rawn

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Juicing, smoothies all that stuff. Has to be nonsense. Eat the full thing and stop mashing it up.

Basically you're mechanically breaking down all of the fibre and turning it into easily absorbed sugar, which will be digested quickly and give you a nice sugar rush and an even nicer sugar crash. Way better off munching the whole fruit and a) digesting the fibre and b) feeling fuller for longer.

Having said that, my OH won't eat fruit or veg so I blend it and he downs it in one, so it's better than none at all.

tommy_tucker

Deleted User wrote: »

I did

Fair play.

But realistically unless everyone is doing that, there is no point having the argument, a fact is not a fact unless its backed up with evidence.

Hayden Pennyfeather

rawn wrote: »

Basically you're mechanically breaking down all of the fibre and turning it into easily absorbed sugar, which will be digested quickly and give you a nice sugar rush and an even nicer sugar crash. Way better off munching the whole fruit and a) digesting the fibre and b) feeling fuller for longer.

Having said that, my OH won't eat fruit or veg so I blend it and he downs it in one, so it's better than none at all.

Juicing removes the fiber (contained in the pulp) - making a smoothie does not.

rawn

rawn wrote: »

Basically you're mechanically breaking down all of the fibre and turning it into easily absorbed sugar, which will be digested quickly and give you a nice sugar rush and an even nicer sugar crash. Way better off munching the whole fruit and a) digesting the fibre and b) feeling fuller for longer.

Having said that, my OH won't eat fruit or veg so I blend it and he downs it in one, so it's better than none at all.

Breaking down the fibre to sugar??? Are you serious here??

This thread was about debunking myths, should have been moved to a science forum

tommy_tucker

tommy_tucker wrote: »

Fair play.

But realistically unless everyone is doing that, there is no point having the argument, a fact is not a fact unless its backed up with evidence.

Agreed

El_Dangeroso

the groutch wrote: »

No carbs after X O'clock.

Irishcrx wrote: »

That one actually has a bit of basis..

Actually there's studies showing the opposite. You're better off eating your carbs at night as they assist with the production of melatonin, the sleep hormone, who anyone who has gotten drowsy after a carby meal with attest to.

Carbs at dinner lead to better weight loss.

JJJJNR wrote: »

Can anyone debunk coconut oil, i've been using it for a while now, and i really like cooking with it and its supposed to be really beneficial but again it was recommended by a friend.

Coconut oil cannot be debunked, because it's awesome. It does some seriously good stuff to your body. One thing I would advise is Extra Virgin Coconut Oil is totally pointless and not work the extra money. Get the cheap refined stuff if like me, you don't like the taste of it.

I'm gonna state something that probably no-one will agree with but one of the biggest myths out there is that we all have the same capability to be thin, and that a thin person is always more disciplined than a heavy person. That all you need to do is eat less, like defying hunger every single day for the rest of your life is an easy thing to do.

Most thin people who were never fat are just lucky. 70% of the differences in body fat between two given people are based on inherited factors. (Note I didn't say genetics, as maternal diet in utero plays a big role also.)