Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.

joeprivate

ford2600 wrote: »

You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?

It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?

What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?



Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.

From reading the China Study it appears that the more meat you eat the higher the risk of cancer, even in China where cancer was much lower than the western societies the highest risk of cancer was with the people that eat the most meat.Even eating a small amount of meat increased the cancer risk by a small amount , there seemed to be no safe limit.But if you must eat meat ,then get 10% of calories from unprocessed meat and the rest of your calories from whole plant food ,this worked well for the people featured in another book called the Blue zones but reducing meat even further may be helpful particularly if you have damaged your body by eating badly for years and now you wish to attempt to reverse the damage already done to your body.

If you are not familiar with the China study the book is loosely based on the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study – described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology" – conducted by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University and the University of Oxford. T. Colin Campbell was one of the study's directors. It looked at mortality rates from cancer and other chronic diseases from 1973–75 in 65 counties in China; the data was correlated with 1983–84 dietary surveys and blood work from 100 people in each county. The research was conducted in those counties because they had genetically similar populations that tended, over generations, to live and eat in the same way in the same place. The study concluded that counties with a high consumption of animal-based foods in 1983–84 were more likely to have had higher death rates from "Western" diseases as of 1973–75, while the opposite was true for counties that ate more plant foods.

If you have not heard of the blue zones here is some background info
The term, "Blue Zones" first appeared in an article by Drs. Gianni Pes and Michel Poulain in an issue of the Journal of Experimental Gerontology . Dan Buettner reported his Blue Zones findings in his cover story for National Geographic Magazine's November 2005 edition, "Secrets of Long Life." The issue became the third best-selling issue in the magazine’s history.
In 2006, under aegis of National Geographic, Buettner collaborated with Poulain and Costa Rican demographer Dr. Luis Rosero-Bixby to identify a fourth longevity hotspot in the Nicoya Peninsula. In 2008, again working with Poulain, he found a fifth longevity hotspot on the Greek Island of Ikaria.
In April 2008, Buettner released a book on his findings, The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer From the People Who've Lived the Longest,through National Geographic Books. It became a New York Times Best Seller and resulted in interviews for Buettner on Oprah, The Dr. Oz Show, and Anderson Cooper 360, among other national media.
In September 2009, Buettner gave a TED talk on the topic, titled "How to live to be 100+". which now has over 2 million views.
In October 2010, he released the book Thrive: Finding Happiness the Blue Zones Way, largely based on his research of which identified took a data-based approach to identify the statistically happiest regions of the happiest countries in earth. He argues the creating lasting happiness is only achievable through optimizing social and physical environment.
Buettner’s New York Times Magazine article "The Island Where People Forget to Die" was one of the most viewed articles of 2012.

Its not easy to give up processed or mass produced food ,big Industry spends a lot of money to keep you hooked on it ,scientifically designing studies that give the result that they want and not publishing studies that give results that are unexpectedly negative, adding ingredients to make the food more additive even knowing that the food is much more unhealthy for you,every single aspect of the food, the smell, the colour ,the taste,the feel ,the packaging,the shelf life,where it is positioned in the store, the advertisements etc are researched to maximise the sales.
There is less money to be made in selling healthy food compared to processed food as you would end up buying most of the healthy food in the farmers market bypassing the big businesses.

Day Lewin

What makes the Blue Zone thinking even more radical is the persistent assertion that it is NOT only all about what you put in your mouth.
Yes, food is important, and it is one of the easiest things to control: you have choices, you feel strong!

But over and over, they found that if you are going to live to be 100 in good shape, you will also have friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: and -yes - a natural mainly-plants diet.

So that's another nutritional myth to be wary of: that food alone will ensure good health. It won't: the authors of the Okinawa study found that loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking. Think about that!

https://www.bluezones.com/2014/04/power-9/

Darkest Horse

malnurtured wrote: »

The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.

Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943

Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".

Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864

Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".

Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20

Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.

Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full

Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.

Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".

Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150

From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".

That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.

As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.

You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.

Against you is that you clearly have no idea how to interpret research and when I criticised you for providing correlation studies and meta analyses, you produce more of the same. I'm not going to get into why meta analyses don't always come to robust conclusions but if you educate yourself on the concept of within and between study heterogeneity, it may help you to make better conclusions. You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results. The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease. Oh yeah, and stop lumping red meat in with processed meat. They aren't one and the same and don't necessarily have the same effects in the body.

malnurtured

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Against you is that you clearly have no idea how to interpret research and when I criticised you for providing correlation studies and meta analyses, you produce more of the same. I'm not going to get into why meta analyses don't always come to robust conclusions but if you educate yourself on the concept of within and between study heterogeneity, it may help you to make better conclusions. You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results. The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease. Oh yeah, and stop lumping red meat in with processed meat. They aren't one and the same and don't necessarily have the same effects in the body.

I'm disappointed. I expected a refutation of the data in the studies I listed. You can't seriously believe that all these independent studies across different populations, races and geographic areas at different times are all coming to the same wrong conclusion shown by the data time and time again?

I don't see the problem with meta-analyses, and even if there is one, all they're doing is examining data that's already been collected in individual studies. Just because they are meta-analyses does not mean that they instantly lose credibility, and I have no idea why you seem to think they do. I'll try and read up on the subject, but honestly, if they're so useless, they wouldn't be published in the most respected journals all the time.

Anyway, I cited more than meta-analyses. I gave you a paper discussing mechanisms and two papers with primary data.

That's 3/5 papers which were not meta-analyses, which means you can just dismiss their conclusions? I really have no idea where you're coming from. Even if we exclude meta-analysis, there is a massive one-sidedness in the scientific consensus on the issue. Click any related link on NCBI and you will find study after study showing the same data trends.

"You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results."

No, it won't. Not to this degree. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and wailing in the face of data (from many different sample sizes, may I add) in the hope that maybe the trends will go away.

"The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease."

You really don't seem to have the slightest clue how statistical analysis works, do you? We're supposed to have a perfect study controlling for all factors, or else there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support the conclusion.

By that logic, all the studies showing the correlation between smoking and lung cancer are lies, damned lies, because they haven't controlled for the fact that people eat food. How vapid a suggestion is that?

This is not a hypothesis based on the theoretical nature of an aspect of the Universe. The field of epidemiology cannot control for everything and place people in a vacuum, because they'd f*cking die. Apparently, all data is irrelevant until they start doing that.

EDIT: I'm not lumping in processed meats with red meats. The studies specifically separate the risk factors for each, as far as I can remember. Both are associated with a higher incidence of cancer(s).

Darkest Horse

You are focusing too much on my criticism of meta analyses. That was only a part of my argument and they aren't valueless but if you take 20 correlation studies and pile them altogether what do you get? Conclusions of researchers who highlight mere associations between variables which are, in turn, picked up by people like you who interpret them as causative. Quite literally putting two and two together and getting five.

You say I have no idea of stats but point to an issue of disagreement on hypothetical study design? I'd get off the horse now before your credibility is further damaged.

For the record, I don't recall refuting any of your opinions. My own feeling is that they are incorrect but I can't prove or disprove that. What I can stand by is that the way you interpret the findings of some studies is incorrect. So you keep asking people for peer reviewed evidence and I think you yourself should make a better attempt to understand any evidence that comes your way.

And just one last thing. When we put any number of foods in our bodies it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which one, if any, is causing a health issue. Now I'm not familiar with the research in smoking but do you think it's plausible to suggest that if I am a smoker and I get lung cancer and I'm coughing up feckin tar that it could be any other environmental factor?

malnurtured

Darkest Horse wrote: »

You are focusing too much on my criticism of meta analyses. That was only a part of my argument and they aren't valueless but if you take 20 correlation studies and pile them altogether what do you get? Conclusions of researchers who highlight mere associations between variables which are, in turn, picked up by people like you who interpret them as causative. Quite literally putting two and two together and getting five.

You say I have no idea of stats but point to an issue of disagreement on hypothetical study design? I'd get off the horse now before your credibility is further damaged.

For the record, I don't recall refuting any of your opinions. My own feeling is that they are incorrect but I can't prove or disprove that. What I can stand by is that the way you interpret the findings of some studies is incorrect. So you keep asking people for peer reviewed evidence and I think you yourself should make a better attempt to understand any evidence that comes your way.

And just one last thing. When we put any number of foods in our bodies it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which one, if any, is causing a health issue. Now I'm not familiar with the research in smoking but do you think it's plausible to suggest that if I am a smoker and I get lung cancer and I'm coughing up feckin tar that it could be any other environmental factor?

So wait, your whole problem with meta-analyses is that the conclusions are too ambitious? That's all? You're not disputing the results, just the interpretation? So the data stands? Then how exactly do you intend to explain away the many positive correlations that support my position?

There is a point, after so many independent studies show the same correlation over a long period of time, that causation becomes a real threat. Personally, I think we've crossed that boundary a long time ago, given that there are also solid mechanisms hypothesised for why it might be the case that processed/red meats caused colorectal cancer, for instance. What are your conditions for demonstrating causation (because they seem to be pretty lofty if the hundreds of independent papers coming to the same conclusion is not enough for you)?

Please, elaborate on why my disagreement with your hypothetical study design means that I am clueless about statistical analysis. I've already said that you're 'ideal' study is impossible, and that we shouldn't ignore data indicative of a causation mechanism just because the study isn't done in a vacuum.

As for your smoker comment, well, I think you've really shown your ignorance. The reason anyone found out that smoking caused cancer in the first place was because of epidemiological work, not because people were 'coughing up tar'. The first notable study showing the link between smoking and health problems is usually attributed to this man;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll

This was, of course, played down and suppressed by the tobacco industry, just as the meat industry do today if it ever becomes an issue. The response to the WHO IARC panel's announcement was typical of this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no veggie, I ate a pepperoni passion pizza last night for God's sake, I just hate to see people defending the things they like because they don't want to believe they cause health problems. AT least own up to it, eat the stuff anyway, and know the risks (which are admittedly not horrific, and I consider them a worthwhile gamble). This beating around the bush and trying to weasel out of the obvious conclusion the many data sets bring is just futile and it doesn't help anyone.

Darkest Horse

malnurtured wrote: »

So wait, your whole problem with meta-analyses is that the conclusions are too ambitious? That's all? You're not disputing the results, just the interpretation? So the data stands? Then how exactly do you intend to explain away the many positive correlations that support my position?

There is a point, after so many independent studies show the same correlation over a long period of time, that causation becomes a real threat. Personally, I think we've crossed that boundary a long time ago, given that there are also solid mechanisms hypothesised for why it might be the case that processed/red meats caused colorectal cancer, for instance. What are your conditions for demonstrating causation (because they seem to be pretty lofty if the hundreds of independent papers coming to the same conclusion is not enough for you)?

Please, elaborate on why my disagreement with your hypothetical study design means that I am clueless about statistical analysis. I've already said that you're 'ideal' study is impossible, and that we shouldn't ignore data indicative of a causation mechanism just because the study isn't done in a vacuum.

As for your smoker comment, well, I think you've really shown your ignorance. The reason anyone found out that smoking caused cancer in the first place was because of epidemiological work, not because people were 'coughing up tar'. The first notable study showing the link between smoking and health problems is usually attributed to this man;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll

This was, of course, played down and suppressed by the tobacco industry, just as the meat industry do today if it ever becomes an issue. The response to the WHO IARC panel's announcement was typical of this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no veggie, I ate a pepperoni passion pizza last night for God's sake, I just hate to see people defending the things they like because they don't want to believe they cause health problems. AT least own up to it, eat the stuff anyway, and know the risks (which are admittedly not horrific, and I consider them a worthwhile gamble). This beating around the bush and trying to weasel out of the obvious conclusion the many data sets bring is just futile and it doesn't help anyone.

The only person not helping anyone is you and your dogma. I've an open mind on the situation. The fact remains that you've no idea how to interpret research and your latest post demonstrated that yet again.

Where did I talk about meta analyses being "ambitious" as you say? Don't put words in my mouth. Like I said, educate yourself on study heterogeneity and you'll have yourself a lightbulb moment. God knows you need one.

You just are not getting this. If confounding factors (those are the things that are undermining your stance FYI) have, and always will be, a factor in epidemiological studies AND all we have is correlation based evidence, a proliferation of these inadequate studies over and over and over does not lend any weight to your argument. You can give me 5 million positive correlations. If you can't distinguish confounding factors (remember the Big Mac?) you can't conclude there is a causative relationship AS YOU ARE DOING! You can highlight the relationship, you can say there could be a link, you, for all I care, can avoid red meat for the rest of your life. What you CANNOT do is make unequivocal claims as to the effect that red meat has on the incidence of disease. You can argue against that all you want but you just reinforce the idea hat you are a dogmatic and close minded interpreter of research.

You've totally misunderstood my example on smoking too and to be honest, I see a pattern in how you process information in general. I know I can't convince you otherwise (because unlike you I realise there is no conclusive proof) so at that I'll leave it. Read up on how research should be interpreted.

malnurtured

Darkest Horse wrote: »

The only person not helping anyone is you and your dogma. I've an open mind on the situation. The fact remains that you've no idea how to interpret research and your latest post demonstrated that yet again.

Where did I talk about meta analyses being "ambitious" as you say? Don't put words in my mouth. Like I said, educate yourself on study heterogeneity and you'll have yourself a lightbulb moment. God knows you need one.

You just are not getting this. If confounding factors (those are the things that are undermining your stance FYI) have, and always will be, a factor in epidemiological studies AND all we have is correlation based evidence, a proliferation of these inadequate studies over and over and over does not lend any weight to your argument. You can give me 5 million positive correlations. If you can't distinguish confounding factors (remember the Big Mac?) you can't conclude there is a causative relationship AS YOU ARE DOING! You can highlight the relationship, you can say there could be a link, you, for all I care, can avoid red meat for the rest of your life. What you CANNOT do is make unequivocal claims as to the effect that red meat has on the incidence of disease. You can argue against that all you want but you just reinforce the idea hat you are a dogmatic and close minded interpreter of research.

You've totally misunderstood my example on smoking too and to be honest, I see a pattern in how you process information in general. I know I can't convince you otherwise (because unlike you I realise there is no conclusive proof) so at that I'll leave it. Read up on how research should be interpreted.

It's clear that you're hung up on the heterogeneity of the meta-analyses I cited (or these types of studies in general). So, since you're obviously much more accomplished than myself when discussing these matters, please point out to me where the sources of heterogeneity are in each meta-analysis I linked to previously. It's not enough to simply disregard them because SOME meta-analyses may fall into this trap, you have to show me where the ones I showed you did so.

Anyway, as for confounding factors, it seems obvious to me that as you keep a constant factor, red meat consumption, and allow for the fact that there will be confounding factors that influence your data, that you must then leap to the conclusion that these confounding factors must all be causing the same type of cancers. We've got loads of studies across populations, geographic locations, etc. where the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that all participants are consuming red meats (bearing in mind that many of the studies, and indeed all of the studies in a good meta-analysis have already controlled for known factors).

When you have a massive sample size, the proportion of the confounding factors and their effect on the data will not necessarily diminish, but since they are different factors then they cannot all be causing the same ailment. You're taking a leap of faith there, assuming that despite the fact that the effect and nature of the confounding factors is changing from study to study, we see that the incidence of the same ailment is relatively constant. But whatever, it's clear that you don't value any research done because it's not in a vacuum, and that the real cancer risk (i.e. one of the confounding factors) is lurking somewhere in all these red meat sources, or that red meat eaters are coincidentally exposed this carcinogen more, causing colorectal cancer en masse in the developed world.

Fine with me.

Darkest Horse

malnurtured wrote: »

It's clear that you're hung up on the heterogeneity of the meta-analyses I cited (or these types of studies in general). So, since you're obviously much more accomplished than myself when discussing these matters, please point out to me where the sources of heterogeneity are in each meta-analysis I linked to previously. It's not enough to simply disregard them because SOME meta-analyses may fall into this trap, you have to show me where the ones I showed you did so.

Anyway, as for confounding factors, it seems obvious to me that as you keep a constant factor, red meat consumption, and allow for the fact that there will be confounding factors that influence your data, that you must then leap to the conclusion that these confounding factors must all be causing the same type of cancers. We've got loads of studies across populations, geographic locations, etc. where the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that all participants are consuming red meats (bearing in mind that many of the studies, and indeed all of the studies in a good meta-analysis have already controlled for known factors).

When you have a massive sample size, the proportion of the confounding factors and their effect on the data will not necessarily diminish, but since they are different factors then they cannot all be causing the same ailment. You're taking a leap of faith there, assuming that despite the fact that the effect and nature of the confounding factors is changing from study to study, we see that the incidence of the same ailment is relatively constant. But whatever, it's clear that you don't value any research done because it's not in a vacuum, and that the real cancer risk (i.e. one of the confounding factors) is lurking somewhere in all these red meat sources, or that red meat eaters are coincidentally exposed this carcinogen more, causing colorectal cancer en masse in the developed world.

Fine with me.

At least you are making an effort to see it another way. In any case, it's become obvious by now that we are arguing two completely different things. You think red meat is carcinogenic, I, regardless of my actual opinion on the matter, think you are making incorrect conclusions on the available evidence. I think we can be sure of just one thing: I have an open mind on the issue and you've made up your mind. I'm done with this anyway. It's ok to differ and the other half has just served up a beef curry that can't wait until tomorrow.

joeprivate

malnurtured wrote: »

The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
.

I think it may be a mistake to ignore old studies as big business has learned from its mistakes in the past and is now designing the latest studies to give the results they want.I remember reading about a study the beef industry designed a to show that a diet containing beef was able to lower cholesterol they did this by cutting out enough poultry, pork, fish, and cheese to halve one’s total saturated fat intake.
Many of the older studies were less influenced by big business so dont be so quick to ignore them.
Otherwise I agree with most of what you are saying.

malnurtured

joeprivate wrote: »

I think it may be a mistake to ignore old studies as big business has learned from its mistakes in the past and is now designing the latest studies to give the results they want.I remember reading about a study the beef industry designed a to show that a diet containing beef was able to lower cholesterol they did this by cutting out enough poultry, pork, fish, and cheese to halve one’s total saturated fat intake.
Many of the older studies were less influenced by big business so dont be so quick to ignore them.
Otherwise I agree with most of what you are saying.

Well, I don't see why big business would have less of an effect on older studies in all honesty. Businesses are always looking for scientific validation of their products etc., whether justified or not.

Why do you think older studies are less susceptible to corporate interference (bearing in mind that the studies I cited don't count - they weren't funded by any big company and they declared no conflict of interest)?

joeprivate

katemarch wrote: »

What makes the Blue Zone thinking even more radical is the persistent assertion that it is NOT only all about what you put in your mouth.
Yes, food is important, and it is one of the easiest things to control: you have choices, you feel strong!

But over and over, they found that if you are going to live to be 100 in good shape, you will also have friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: and -yes - a natural mainly-plants diet.

So that's another nutritional myth to be wary of: that food alone will ensure good health. It won't: the authors of the Okinawa study found that loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking. Think about that!

]

Lots of people in Ireland have "friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: " yet they have much more heart attacks,strokes and cancer than people in the Blue Zones so for the moment I am going to try and eat like people in the Blue Zones to reduce my risk of our top killers in Ireland.
And as for the Okinawa study that found loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking this is not a surprise to me Japanese smokers also have a much less risk of cancer death than western smokers ,its the FOOD ,they eat much more veg which I believe helps the body cure it self of cancer while they eat (or used to) much less dairy and meat which promotes cancer.So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet,So dont be surprised that people who smoke and eat very little meat get less cancer than people who smoke and eat lots of meat.

Zillah

joeprivate wrote: »

So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet.

This is not how things work in our universe. Are you from a different one?

Day Lewin

Ah - all good points, of course.

However, MY point was simply that there's more to good health than merely food. I'm not saying it isn't important!

But, for longevity, these other things are important too.

Darkest Horse

joeprivate wrote: »

Lots of people in Ireland have "friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: " yet they have much more heart attacks,strokes and cancer than people in the Blue Zones so for the moment I am going to try and eat like people in the Blue Zones to reduce my risk of our top killers in Ireland.
And as for the Okinawa study that found loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking this is not a surprise to me Japanese smokers also have a much less risk of cancer death than western smokers ,its the FOOD ,they eat much more veg which I believe helps the body cure it self of cancer while they eat (or used to) much less dairy and meat which promotes cancer.So even people who smoke which we know causes cancer can in many cases heal them selves by eating a healthy diet,So dont be surprised that people who smoke and eat very little meat get less cancer than people who smoke and eat lots of meat.

Joe, through your own intuition and also by default, I'm sure a lot of what you are saying could be correct. It does sound to me though that this is just your own personal take on things with not a whole lot to back it up?

BlibBlab

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Whats the issue there? Is it cows that are fed a predominantly meal based diet or grass supplemented with meal?

Meat from grass fed vs meal fed has shown to be different

jive

I read somewhere that glasses cause cancer.

_Tombstone_

jive wrote: »

I read somewhere that glasses cause cancer.

Irish Water gives you cancer.

Good chunk of Cancers are environmental. 1 in 4.

I mentioned to some gobsh1te on here one time to be careful buying face paints from china and got told to go and stay in my bubble. That was an easy one to avoid but People are just to stupid and dopey nowadays.

The Scary Truth About Your Kid's Face Paint

Omega28

Any opinions on Kinetica Whey protein?

joeprivate

Omega28 wrote: »

Any opinions on Kinetica Whey protein?

I was doing some research on protein recently and found a few articles on the topic
here is some of what I found interesting .

Nutrition is an emotional subject and nothing arouses people’s passions more than the subject of protein in their diet. Widely divergent opinions on whether more protein or less is best, and on the merits of animal vs. vegetable sources, have been debated for more than 150 years. And for all that time solid scientific research has clearly supported the wisdom of a diet low in protein

Why do you need the extra protein?

What are Your Construction (Protein) Needs?

Protein from your diet is required to build new cells, synthesize hormones, and repair damaged and worn out tissues. So how much do you need?

The protein lost from the body each day from shedding skin, sloughing intestine, and other miscellaneous losses is about 3 grams per day (0.05 grams/Kg).3 Add to this loss other physiological requirements, such as growth and repairs. The final tally, based on solid scientific research, is: your total daily need for protein is about 20 to 30 grams.4,5 Plant proteins easily meet these needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein. This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly useable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.

Our greatest time of growth—thus, the time of our greatest need for protein—is during our first 2 years of life— At this vigorous developmental stage our ideal food is human milk, which is 5% protein. Compare this need to food choices that should be made as adults—when we are not growing. Rice is 8% protein, corn 11%, oatmeal 15%, and beans 27%.8
Your greatest need for protein is when you grow the most. The greatest time of growth in a human being’s life is as an infant. We double in size during the first 6 months. The ideal food for a baby is mother’s milk. Therefore, breast milk is the “gold standard” for nutrition – during your time of greatest need for all nutrients, including protein. Five to 6.3 percent of the calories in human breast milk are from protein. This is the maximum concentration of protein we will ever need in our food supply. Knowing this value tells us that at no other time in our life will we ever require more protein. Consider the protein content of the foods we consume after weaning – these are even higher in protein – rice is 9%, potatoes are 8%, corn is 11% and oatmeal is 15% protein.Thus protein deficiency is impossible when calorie needs are met by eating unprocessed starches and vegetables.

Processing all that excess dietary protein – as much as 300 grams a day –causes wear and tear on the kidneys;

www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/031200puprotein.htm

www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm

Darkest Horse

joeprivate wrote: »

I was doing some research on protein recently and found a few articles on the topic
here is some of what I found interesting .

Nutrition is an emotional subject and nothing arouses people’s passions more than the subject of protein in their diet. Widely divergent opinions on whether more protein or less is best, and on the merits of animal vs. vegetable sources, have been debated for more than 150 years. And for all that time solid scientific research has clearly supported the wisdom of a diet low in protein

Why do you need the extra protein?

What are Your Construction (Protein) Needs?

Protein from your diet is required to build new cells, synthesize hormones, and repair damaged and worn out tissues. So how much do you need?

The protein lost from the body each day from shedding skin, sloughing intestine, and other miscellaneous losses is about 3 grams per day (0.05 grams/Kg).3 Add to this loss other physiological requirements, such as growth and repairs. The final tally, based on solid scientific research, is: your total daily need for protein is about 20 to 30 grams.4,5 Plant proteins easily meet these needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that men and women obtain 5% of their calories as protein. This would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. This quantity of protein is impossible to avoid when daily calorie needs are met by unrefined starches and vegetables. For example, rice alone would provide 71 grams of highly useable protein and white potatoes would provide 64 grams of protein.

Our greatest time of growth—thus, the time of our greatest need for protein—is during our first 2 years of life— At this vigorous developmental stage our ideal food is human milk, which is 5% protein. Compare this need to food choices that should be made as adults—when we are not growing. Rice is 8% protein, corn 11%, oatmeal 15%, and beans 27%.8
Your greatest need for protein is when you grow the most. The greatest time of growth in a human being’s life is as an infant. We double in size during the first 6 months. The ideal food for a baby is mother’s milk. Therefore, breast milk is the “gold standard” for nutrition – during your time of greatest need for all nutrients, including protein. Five to 6.3 percent of the calories in human breast milk are from protein. This is the maximum concentration of protein we will ever need in our food supply. Knowing this value tells us that at no other time in our life will we ever require more protein. Consider the protein content of the foods we consume after weaning – these are even higher in protein – rice is 9%, potatoes are 8%, corn is 11% and oatmeal is 15% protein.Thus protein deficiency is impossible when calorie needs are met by eating unprocessed starches and vegetables.

Processing all that excess dietary protein – as much as 300 grams a day –causes wear and tear on the kidneys;

www .nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/031200puprotein.htm

www .drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm

I don't know about most of what you said so I can't really question it. I suspect the links you provided aren't particularly reliable but because I can't click on them, I'll reserve judgement. Most days I clear 250g of protein. Kidneys are fine at last time of checking. Why do I do this? Because if I ate the same amount of carbs I'd be ravenous all day and would become obese. There's more rationale to higher protein intake than just the repair of tissues etc. which is all you've really touched upon. Would you suppose I have favourable fasting blood sugar and cholesterol because I eat a greater amount of protein? In my opinion, yes.

Edit: misspelling

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I don't know about most of what you said so I can't really question it. I suspect the links you provided aren't particularly reliable but because I can't click on them,

I was unable to post links as I had less than 25 posts now fixed as I now have 25 posts links edited and extra space removed.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Most days I clear 250g of protein "

The World Health Organization knows the truth. Since 1974 it has recommended that adults consume a diet with 5% of the calories from protein – this would mean 38 grams of protein for a man burning 3000 calories a day and 29 grams for a woman using 2300 calories a day. These minimum requirements provide for a large margin of safety that easily covers people who theoretically could have greater protein needs – such as accident victims or people with infections.Its a good idea to beware of people telling you that you need much more protein especially if the same people have a vested interested in you consuming it.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Kidneys are fine at last time of checking.ing it."

Lots of people pass annual medical checks every year yet are suddenly struck down with illness that have been slowly getting worse over a number of years until the body finally is not able to cope. Don't rely to much on doctors, its a business and the business model makes the most money if you are sick .If your dead they make no more money and if they cure you they make no more money so they get rewarded most if your are sick and on long term meds.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Why do I do this? Because if I ate the same amount of carbs I'd be ravenous all day and would become obese.

Cultures who traditionally eat most of their calories from carbs such as much of asia who used to eat more than 80% of calories from rice were invariably trim people even when they had sedentary lifestyle ,( teachers ,doctors etc) So eating unprocessed carbs and a small amount of meat or fish should not make you obese.

Darkest Horse wrote: »

There's more rationale to higher protein intake than just the repair of tissues etc. which is all you've really touched upon. Would you suppose I have favourable fasting blood sugar and cholesterol because I eat a greater amount of protein? In my opinion, yes.

Its normal for people who have cholesterol readings in the normal range to suffer with heart disease, however people at the bottom end of normal or below the normal range have much less heart disease.
People who eat approx 90% of there calories from unprocessed plant based food and 10% from higher protein foods such as meat and fish tend to have a much better outcome health wise that people who consume a diet high in protein.

Darkest Horse

I don't think you are incorrect or correct, I just don't know but there are things in there about medical treatment that are just plain ridiculous. Public health services are not a business model. Private services might well be but it's ridiculous to imply that profits are made on the back of a deliberate sustenance of illnesses. Profits are not made by keeping people sick because if, as a doctor, you operated like that you wouldn't actually have any patients because you would be known as someone who doesn't cure people. On the other hand, if you are a good doctor who cures people you will have a steady stream of "business". You strike me as another one of those conspiracy theorists.

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I don't think you are incorrect or correct, I just don't know but there are things in there about medical treatment that are just plain ridiculous. Public health services are not a business model. Private services might well be but it's ridiculous to imply that profits are made on the back of a deliberate sustenance of illnesses. Profits are not made by keeping people sick because if, as a doctor, you operated like that you wouldn't actually have any patients because you would be known as someone who doesn't cure people. On the other hand, if you are a good doctor who cures people you will have a steady stream of "business". You strike me as another one of those conspiracy theorists.

This is not a conspiracy theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

The following is a list of the 20 largest settlements reached between the United States Department of Justice and pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, ordered by the size of the total settlement. The settlement amount includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo's $3 billion settlement included the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on record,[1] and Pfizer’s $2.3 billion settlement including a record-breaking $1.3 billion criminal fine.[2] Legal claims against the pharmaceutical industry have varied widely over the past two decades, including Medicare and Medicaid fraud, off-label promotion, and inadequate manufacturing practices.

Have you ever been in a doctors surgery ever wonder what the smartly dressed medical rep is doing in the surgery the same rep that jumps the queue ahead of almost every body else .There are not there to remind the doctor that many of the doctors patients could come off the drugs they are taking for the rest of there lives if they changed the type and amount of food they eat, they are not there to remind the doctor that money could be saved by prescribing the generic drug that is available that does the same thing as the expensive branded drug.They are there to promote off label drug use ,give out free samples ,push the drugs that they supply over other drugs that may be better.They are there to increase the profits of big pharma.One of the many things they do is give out free samples of drugs they are promoting to the doctor, the doctor might give you such a free sample and then prescribe the same drug for you to take for the next few days or perhaps the rest of your life a good return on a free sample that costs very little to make.

see http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/pharma-firms-payments-to-doctors-to-be-disclosed-1.2012350

Pharma firms’ payments to doctors to be disclosed
Rules to bring ‘greater transparency’ to the industry

However, individual doctors will still be able to avoid having their name disclosed by refusing to give their consent under data protection rules.
In such cases, the amount of the benefit they receive will be included in the aggregate sum published by a pharmaceutical company but their name will not be disclosed.


Many Doctors are in Bed with the drug companies

One of the best ways to sell drugs is to establish strong ties with those who directly prescribe to the customer—the medical doctors

The drug companies leave doctors almost no choice in your care. Clinical practice guidelines are papers written by experts to help practicing doctors (too busy to review the scientific literature themselves) decide how to treat their patients. These summary papers are designed to influence the practice of a large number of physicians. A study published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found eighty-seven percent of authors of these position papers had some form of interaction with the pharmaceutical industry.1 Fifty-eight percent had received financial support to perform research and 38% had served as employees or consultants for a pharmaceutical company. Of the 192 authors in the study, only 2 revealed this relationship in their publication. So your doctor learns what, how, when, how much, how long, how often and why to prescribe blood pressure, diabetic, heart, pain, and most other pills directly from the manufacturer making billions in profits.
I am sure there are exceptions to this , but at this point people go to the doctor expecting drugs and this is what they mostly get whether the need them .In fact doctors get little or no training in what food people should eat while at the same time it is known that the food we eat causes a lot of the illness we get.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11755884/Lavish-trips-laid-on-by-drugs-firms-to-sway-NHS-staff.html
Lavish trips laid on by drugs firms to ‘sway’ NHS staff
Health service officials earn thousands organising and attending extravagant events where companies promote their products

The Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation meanwhile confirmed that they “are and have been carrying out inquiries in relation to procurement practices at Irish hospitals”.http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/mheymhcweygb/rss2/#!

Queen's former doctor, Sir Richard Thompson, has backed new campaign
Experts calling for urgent public enquiry into drugs firms' 'murky' practices
They say too much medicine is doing more harm than good worldwide
And claim many drugs such as statins are less effective than thought
Sir Richard Thompson, former-president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to the Queen for 21 years, warned tonight that many medicines are less effective than thought.
The physician is one of a group of six eminent doctors who today warn about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on drugs prescribing.
The experts, led by NHS cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, claim that too often patients are given useless – and sometimes harmful – drugs that they do not need.
They maintain drugs companies are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those which are likely to be the most beneficial.
And they accuse the NHS of failing to stand up to the pharmaceutical giants.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3460321/How-Big-Pharma-greed-killing-tens-thousands-world-Patients-medicated-given-profitable-drugs-little-proven-benefits-leading-doctors-warn.html#ixzz41DXalwlf

Darkest Horse

I think you're mad. Stone mad. My experience with doctors is that they've always done their best. What I said about doctors also applies to pharma companies: there is no point in pumping millions into researching drugs that don't work. Ineffective drugs won't sell and if the pharma companies are as money hungry as you say, developing such underperforming drugs won't yield profits. No industry runs on the principles you've suggested. I have direct experience of this through my use of anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs which I have found nothing short of life changing: When I took a drug that didn't work after 6 months I got rid of it. When I found the one that worked, I held on to it for dear life. Guess which company makes more money from me?

joeprivate

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I think you're mad. Stone mad. My experience with doctors is that they've always done their best. What I said about doctors also applies to pharma companies: there is no point in pumping millions into researching drugs that don't work. Ineffective drugs won't sell and if the pharma companies are as money hungry as you say, developing such underperforming drugs won't yield profits. No industry runs on the principles you've suggested. I have direct experience of this through my use of anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs which I have found nothing short of life changing: When I took a drug that didn't work after 6 months I got rid of it. When I found the one that worked, I held on to it for dear life. Guess which company makes more money from me?

Perhaps I am mad but I am mad at the medical profession and the drug companies.

Do you realise that the medical profession is the 3rd leading cause of death ,that is iatrogentic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

Let me pause while you take that in.

This means that doctors and hospitals are responsible for more deaths each year than cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and pneumonia.


If you have a interest in anti depressant and anti anxiety drugs have a look at this video Published on 12 May 2015

In his talk, Peter Gøtzsche - Overdiagnosed & Overmedicated will discuss the various ways in which psychiatry may be harming rather than helping its patients, citing evidence from his latest book "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMhsPnoIdy4&ebc=ANyPxKr4TxkeeW9BsdEdKuoSXgw0ttOJ67HepszMLjcAbfHeq48Bu7_AFP8dotnbTepn-t8YKJpaSSt81PmagBeCdjCv5CoSnA

I also have some personal experience with doctors but at this point I don't wish to make it public.

Have a read of this and tell me you trust the medical/pharma industry

GSK has been fined for paying money to generic drug companies to prevent the potential entry of generic alternatives to its own "blockbuster" anti-depressant.

GlaxoSmithKline's so-called pay-to-delay agreements were found to have delayed the launch of generic alternatives to its anti-depressant Seroxat. Drugs companies including GSK fined £45m for paying to delay cheap versions of anti-depressant Seroxat
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gsk-fined-45m-seroxat-paroxetine-anti-depressant-cma-delaying-cheap-versions-a6869011.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

Year Company Settlement Violation(s) Product(s) Laws allegedly violated
(if applicable)
2012 GlaxoSmithKline[1] $3 billion ($1B criminal, $2B civil) Criminal: Off-label promotion, failure to disclose safety data.
Civil: paying kickbacks to physicians, making false and misleading
statements concerning the safety of Avandia, reporting false best
prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Avandia, Wellbutrin,
Paxil, Advair,
Lamictal, Zofran,
Imitrex, Lotronex,
Flovent, Valtrex; False Claims Act/FDCA
2009 Pfizer[2] $2.3 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks Bextra/Geodon/
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
2013 Johnson & Johnson[6] $2.2 billion Off-label promotion/kickbacks Risperdal/Invega/
Nesiritide False Claims Act/FDCA
2012 Abbott Laboratories[7] $1.5 billion Off-label promotion Depakote False Claims Act/FDCA
2009 Eli Lilly[8] $1.4 billion Off-label promotion Zyprexa False Claims Act/FDCA
2001 TAP Pharmaceutical Products[9] $875 million Medicare fraud/kickbacks Lupron False Claims Act/
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
2012 Amgen[10] $762 million Off-label promotion/kickbacks Aranesp False Claims Act/FDCA
2010 GlaxoSmithKline[11] $750 million Poor manufacturing practices Kytril/Bactroban/
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
2005 Serono[12] $704 million Off-label promotion/
kickbacks/monopoly practices Serostim False Claims Act

clocks

Duggy747 wrote: »

I

Ask people what exactly they mean by "toxins", what specific toxins, and listen to the utter drivel that comes out. I think people seem to have forgotten what the kidneys and liver actually do, the miracle of wheatgrass or a coffee enema seems to the cures for all-ailments and ridding the body of "toxins".

The GF went to a few nutritionists / raw foodies who do cookery classes where I noticed a common theme with most of them was that they were staunchly anti-vaccinations................and mercury.

Will you be my wingman tonight ?

clocks

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't difficult to do though. Eat 10,000 cals of broccoli a day and see how slim you get. Unrealistic but theoretically true so in my opinion this shouldn't be encouraged, particularly in light of many people classifying potatoes as one of their vegetables.

What's being encouraged is to eat vegetables, preferably raw or lightly cooked. That's amongst the single best piece of nutrition advice avaliable. (See "Simple Rules for Healthy Eating", The Upshot blog, Nytimes.com, 20th April 2015. (Apologies that I can't post the url.)

JumpShivers

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

NiallBoo

JumpShivers wrote: »

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

A typical case of Chinese whispers in nutrition advice.

It comes from the idea that if you eat slowly then your appetite will be satisfied before you've eaten as much and thus are likely to eat less ( Or at least less likely to over-eat).

Obviously though for a fixed quantity of food it makes no difference.

Latatian

The Chinese whispers thing happens a lot. Reminds me of the idea that a single bar of chocolate has more calories than a big mac meal.

The initial comparison was weight-for-weight- comparing the calories per 100g. But it got turned into 'one bar'.

MileyReilly

Fruit makes you fat!! Yea cause look at all the fat vegans.

strelok

there are loads of fat vegans...

MileyReilly

And a hell of a lot more fat non vegans.

Mellor

MileyReilly wrote: »

And a hell of a lot more fat non vegans.

So? The fact that there are some means that it can actually make you fat. Therefore tis not a myth.

The fact that there are less common means fruit is not as fattening as big macs, but nobody ever said it was.

Mellor

JumpShivers wrote: »

Eating food quickly will give you more calories than eating it slowly. You'll get fatter if you eat quickly than slowly.

Eat slowly, eat less food.
Eat less food, eat less calories.

Pretty simple. Very strange to suggest that speeds would change a given quantity.

Latatian wrote: »

Reminds me of the idea that a single bar of chocolate has more calories than a big mac meal.

Where was that?







Most of the things mentioned are myths, but more like "nutritional facts misconstrued as nonsense". Suppose it's got less of a ring to it.

ezra_pound

The anti fried bread brigade piss me off no end. It is so good!

MileyReilly

Mellor wrote: »

So? The fact that there are some means that it can actually make you fat. Therefore tis not a myth.

The fact that there are less common means fruit is not as fattening as big macs, but nobody ever said it was.

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Dtp1979

MileyReilly wrote: »

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Too much of anything that contains calories will make you fat. Only a moron would think it wouldn't.

Mellor

MileyReilly wrote: »

Fruit doesn't make you fat. Only a moron would think it does. Fruitarians are not fat. Fruit doesn't make you fat.

Too much of any food that has significant calories will make you fat.
Only a moron would fail to understand that.


A diet consisting of avocado, dried fruit, almonds, coconut cream/flesh/oil, fruit juices, etc, is very high in calories.
To think you can't gain fat on a fruitarian diet is idiocy.

NiallBoo

Mellor wrote: »

Too much of any food that has significant calories will make you fat.
Only a moron would fail to understand that

You're right of course but I wonder if there are circumstances where it wouldn't be true?
Say if you ate 3000 calories worth of oranges per day would it be impossible to absorb enough calories for maintenance because you just get severe diarrhoea?
Could this be the new fad diet?

MileyReilly

Morons everywhere

Dtp1979

MileyReilly wrote: »

Morons everywhere

You talking to a mirror?

laoch na mona

NiallBoo wrote: »

You're right of course but I wonder if there are circumstances where it wouldn't be true?
Say if you ate 3000 calories worth of oranges per day would it be impossible to absorb enough calories for maintenance because you just get severe diarrhoea?
Could this be the new fad diet?

marketed as the most aggressive detox/colon clense in the world

RainyDay

So fats don't make you fat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fats-don-t-make-you-fat-1.2572826

Dtp1979

RainyDay wrote: »

So fats don't make you fat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fats-don-t-make-you-fat-1.2572826

Welcome to 2003

joeprivate

RainyDay wrote: »

So fats don't make you fat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fats-don-t-make-you-fat-1.2572826

Interesting article however many of the Irish times readers don't agree with it have a look at the comment section.

Or look at this link about NinaTeicholz the main speaker https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/tag/teicholz/

Or this guy Robert Lustig another fat expert referenced in the article
Sugar: The Bitter Truth Robert Lustig Debunked By Durianrider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtlvBfW4hm4

In support of Ancel Keys http://plantpositive.com/3-the-journalist-gary-taubes-3/

Read the last link for a detailed support of Ancel Keys the inventor of the K rations.

j@utis

joeprivate wrote: »

<...>
Or this guy Robert Lustig another fat expert referenced in the article
Sugar: The Bitter Truth Robert Lustig Debunked By Durianrider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtlvBfW4hm4

I've watched some of this guy's videos just for comedy value, he's a complete physo
look here, wtf is with your hair man LOL LOL LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCNajRO3bfg

ps. I got back into the gym couple of weeks ago after having a baby and I decided to roughly track my calories too. I think I'm gonna drop dead soon because my everyday diet is 50% fat. I mean I'm not forcing myself to eat this way, I eat everything I like and I like what I eat. What should I do

norwegianwood

I'm doing a masters in food safety at the moment and a personal gripe of mine is when people bang on about 'dangerous chemicals' in food or say they're making people obese. No, no they're absolutely not. They're not nutrients, your body doesn't need them, but that doesn't make them harmful. The majority of them are there for some technological purpose and are completely benign.The ones that may be toxic at high doses are so rigorously tested for safety that there's no way you could put yourself at risk by eating foods that they've been added to. Nearly everyone that says this to me is obese, a chain smoker or a heavy drinker or all three. Food additives are by far the least of your worries bud. It does my head in the way people focus on minute irrelevant matters like chemicals in their food rather than looking at the real culprits for the obesity crisis-eating too much and not moving enough. I suppose it's easier to do that than to take personal responsibility but it's not going to solve anything long-term.

laoch na mona

norwegianwood wrote: »

I'm doing a masters in food safety at the moment and a personal gripe of mine is when people bang on about 'dangerous chemicals' in food or say they're making people obese. No, no they're absolutely not. They're not nutrients, your body doesn't need them, but that doesn't make them harmful. The majority of them are there for some technological purpose and are completely benign.The ones that may be toxic at high doses are so rigorously tested for safety that there's no way you could put yourself at risk by eating foods that they've been added to. Nearly everyone that says this to me is obese, a chain smoker or a heavy drinker or all three. Food additives are by far the least of your worries bud. It does my head in the way people focus on minute irrelevant matters like chemicals in their food rather than looking at the real culprits for the obesity crisis-eating too much and not moving enough. I suppose it's easier to do that than to take personal responsibility but it's not going to solve anything long-term.

I'd agree with most of what you are saying but saying the rise in obesity is solely down to individuals is a simplification, the reality is that people just don't know enough about nutrition or get told the wrong things in school, that along with the increase of sugar in peoples diets are contributing factors as well.

did you ever see the documentary 'the men who made us fat'? It looks at how diet change over the last 40 years has created the problem.

I agree people as individuals can take responsibility, but in reality regulation and education are needed to address the problem at a societal level