Oct 9, 2013 at 21:53:57
“White rice doesn't have a negative effect on the body like white flour does. White it is stripped of the more nutritious bran, it's easier to digest as a result. In some ways, white rice is a better choice because the bran in the brown rice contains phytic acid which binds to minerals in the body and can potentially (over time) lead to deficiency.
Rice, like all grains, should ideally be soaked, sprouted, or fermented to mitigate antinutrients and increase digestibility.
Two more cultures that consume a good deal of fat are Tibetans (they love butter and use it in their tea) and Sri Lankans (lots of coconut). If memory serves (don't feel like digging up the data :P), Tibteans have a heart disease rate of ~30% (largely due to smoking, drinking, and altitude) and Sri Lanka has a heart disease rate of 10% or less.”
Oct 7, 2013 at 23:10:42
“The problem is a few things:
1) People don't understand how a study like this is conducted. People are sent a chart probably once every two years and they check off how often they eat something and how many servings. So.. you have to remember what you ate for the past two years...
2) People don't realize how horribly flawed this sort of system is for anything but finding a possible correlation (which would then need to be followed up with a control trial to isolate specific variables).
3) People think that all the variables etc etc are taken care of and this is a study with scientists and nutritionists and lab coats dutifully noting everything that was eaten.
4) I think sometimes people just like to agree with what sounds good to them. New study says X? Well they think X was true already, so that proved it for them. Cohorts don't. No no no no no.”
Oct 6, 2013 at 12:57:11
“So then the problem isn't their intake of vitamin A, but their intake of phytonutrients, correct?”
Alvarask on Oct 6, 2013 at 22:46:11
“Ahh....I see you had already addressed this. You are correct, this is why I-US seems to be saying as well. I personally would see it as an important measurement, but no more important than the measurement of any other micronutrients group.”
I-US on Oct 6, 2013 at 13:08:52
“It's a measure of fruit and vegetable consumption. Vitamin-A levels are measured as such. But beta-carotene blood tests are also used to measure vitamin-A levels because beta-carotene is converted to vitamin-A fairly efficiently without threat of hypervitaminosis-A toxicity.”
Oct 6, 2013 at 12:54:01
“That won't happen until the USDA rules that meat makes you fat. The USDA doesn't know healthy from a hole in the ground, but thankfully they haven't sunk that low. Though really, their recommendations have a lot more to do with industry funding than any sort of published science (read Dr. Marion Nestle's book Food Politics).”
Oct 6, 2013 at 12:34:18
“Meat eaters get retinol, which is a much more bioavailable source of vitamin A (up to 50% more). Since retinol is a fat soluble vitamin, most likely the individuals you mention are banking on old, discredited dietary advice and eschewing fat and consuming more boneless skinless chicken breast and low-fat or skimmed milk.
There's a 99.999999% chance the the individuals you mentioned are following a Standard American Diet, in which case, who knows what they're eating. As far as cohorts go, pizza salami is considered red meat.”
Alvarask on Oct 6, 2013 at 22:44:06
“Great comment. Fanned and faved for that. I would add that I have seen pizza classified as red meat in the Chinese whispers that make up some of the shockingly bad research floating about in the world these days.
To support something that I-US is saying though, I do think that phytonutrients intakes are worth measuring in terms of the health of the overall diet of any individual.”
I-US on Oct 6, 2013 at 12:46:12
“The article above notes that the meat-eaters had lower levels of beta-carotene. This is what they measured and beta-carotene measurements are used as a marker for vegetable consumption and levels of phytonutrients.
The Seventh-Day Adventist studies note what people are eating. These aren't studies of members and non-members of the Adventists but all members of the Adventists, vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, and meat-eater. They look at confounding variables in much more meaningful ways than many other studies, which makes them particularly valuable.”
Oct 6, 2013 at 10:29:59
You just proved that you're smarter than a health journalist. Probably a lot of scientists too :)
This is the problem with cohorts; they can not prove causation. There is no check box on the food frequency questionnaire for twinkies, McDonald's, or Dairy Queen. Nor is there a checkbox for Super Big Gulp or wild caught seafood.
They are horribly flawed.”
Carol57 on Oct 7, 2013 at 18:37:29
“Josh - thank you - it's nice to know someone else sees this issue the way I do! . . .”
Oct 4, 2013 at 21:58:11
“"Cow milk is designed for BABY COWS."
Honey is made for bees and alfalfa for ruminants.. and leafy greens for various mammals.... Milk is still a nourishing and nutrient dense food that is perfectly safe for humans to drink.
"Calves that need to stand up and walk around immediately after birth."
I'm sort of lost here... sorry... even in a factory farm, calves get at least some mothers milk (no I don't condone factory farms).
"Human milk is for HUMAN babies."
But it still contains fat, cholesterol, and casein, which didn't you just say humans can't process?
"Very different and you cannot compare the two."
Why? What science do you base this on?
"Would you drink whale milk if it was readily available and the government told you it was OK?"
If I grew up drinking it, sure. I don't drink yak milk or camel milk, but some people drink that. There's no evidence that because it's milk from another species that that makes it bad for someone.
"There is science behind this. Google it"
Where? I haven't seen any of it. There is no evidence that milk in itself is bad for humans. What biochemical compounds make it so? What is the biochemical difference between the same structures found in each?
.....please don't tell me "it's not natural" or "we're the only species that does it".. -_-”
Oct 4, 2013 at 15:47:06
In regards to your other comments, save for the last one (I don't recommend frozen foods), you're getting the processing confused with the food itself; this may be what has you hung up on dairy.
Peanut butter doesn't have to have any preservatives or additives. You can buy it with 3 ingredients: peanuts, oil, sugar (or make your own and put in honey if you really want to cut all sugar).
Bread does not have to have sugar. Wheat and other grains do not contain any sugar molecules, so how is this an indictment of the bread itself?
Turkey does not have to contain nitrate and nitrite isolates for preservation. A traditional method is to use celery juice to preserve the meat. There is no science that I am aware of that cautions against nitrates from whole-food sources. If you'd rather go without, then just buy it fresh from a farmer. It's really simple!
You're taking an industrially processed food and then applying it to the whole-food. This is like saying you shouldn't eat corn because it's sprayed to death with pesticides and is genetically modified. There is such a thing as organic, local, and a garden :)”
AOMAJPI on Oct 4, 2013 at 19:11:56
“This article is not referring to organic foods. This is suggesting alternatives to those found in your average grocery store. Cow milk is designed for BABY COWS. Calves that need to stand up and walk around immediately after birth. Human milk is for HUMAN babies. Easier on the infant to adhere to it's growing needs. Very different and you cannot compare the two. Would you drink whale milk if it was readily available and the government told you it was OK? There is science behind this. Google it.As for the other foods, SIMPLY READING THE INGREDIENT LIST would tell you what all this crap is loaded with. (Your average "whole wheat" loaf of bread will list cane sugar as it's 2nd ingredient. SECOND. That is a whole lot)Obviously for someone who is cautious of the foods they eat would eat organic and whole, and make sure to choose items that have the shortest ingredient list. You are preaching to the choir; I spend a big chunk of my time researching "quality" foods as it is a part of my work. ”
Oct 4, 2013 at 15:46:57
“"Milk is not good for humans."
Says who? The fat soluble vitamins and fatty acids in milk are very healthy.
" There have been many studies showing that our bodies aren't capable of processing a protein in dairy.'
If that were true, we wouldn't be able to digest human breast milk. Casein and cholesterol both are in human breast milk.
"Once it has been pasteurized all of the nutrients go out the door."
Enzymes, yes. Other nutrients are lessened but are not universally destroyed. Regardless, the best way to drink it is raw, anyway.
"If you are going to drink it, think of it as a treat and not a healthy choice, because it is not."
There is no evidence to support this claim. We just have a handful of shoddy cohorts and agenda-driven-doctors (I'm looking right at you, PCRM!) that try to push this notion.
The Kelenjin have more championship olympic runners than any country in the world. Half of their daily calories comes from mursik (a local cheese). The dietary staple of Tibetan people is butter (they love to put it in their tea). Even pre-industrial Swiss villages thrived on dairy and made it a central part of their diet. Traditional cultures that drank milk have always prized dairy. I'm really not sure what evidence you're basing this on. There is no evidence that dairy in and of itself is a poor health choice.
“There is no real evidence that shows that meat in and of itself is deleterious to one's health.
Instead, we have cohort studies that show that eating meat along with soda, refined carbohydrates, fast food, and a sedentary lifestyle is bad for one's health. Are you familiar with epidemiology or how these studies are conducted?
There are other (less popular) studies which focus on an isolated biochemical compound in a food which is dangerous in isolation, but when combined with other factors in the whole food (which is how it's eaten), there is no evidence of danger. This is another example of really bad science that health journalists pick up and run with (when they should really know better).”
“What essential nutrients is he not getting? What is unhealthy about his diet, specifically?
Offal is the most nutrient dense food on the planet.
Well, that, and, all the essential amino acids and essential fatty acids are there for him. He's eating it raw, so he's getting a great number of enzymes (ideally, some food should be cooked, but he seems to be doing ok). Lastly, he's being really smart and fermenting so he's getting cultures as well.”
“There is no real evidence that dietary cholesterol correlates with heart disease.
There is a popular analogy, that blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming firefighters for fires. Correlation does not prove causation (ie: affirming the consequent). This is how we got the shoddy science that suggested - for ages - that saturated fats correlate with heart disease. Except, now science has vindicated it! This is what we get when we don't use epidemiology to come to absolutist conclusions :).
A free market is a system where there is no government intervention and the success or failure of that business is dependent on no one but that business and the its consumers.
This mean no bailouts, no subsidies, no laws restricting business or promoting it.
If a company is failing because they made a number of poor business decisions, the Government will not bail them out.
If they are growing a crop, they can not ask (more like bribe) the Government to subsidize them (pay them money for the simple act of growing that crop).
If they want to support gay marriage or not support it, consumers may decide whether or not they wish to give their money to that business. The Government will not be able to force them to do business with certain groups of people.
This would eradicate a major problem we have in America: big business conspiring with Government.
May I ask where you got your understanding of the ideology of Free Market from? It isn't accurate. I mean, if you think the Government should be involved in these things, that's certainly your prerogative, but I just think it's important to criticize something based on what it actually is..not based on a - sorry to say - very inaccurate interpretation of it..”
“This is why I continue to be opposed to this legislation.
We are not actually fixing America's health care nightmare; we are merely extending it.
Where is the actual focus on health? On making us healthier?
Where in this legislation does it get the food industry out of the USDA, and the drug industry out of the FDA? Where does it make doctors and dietitians actually read their own journals and keep up on the science (bad news folks: the USDA's diet to help keep you from getting a heart attack will increase your risk for a heart attack, statins will increase your risk of heart disease, and mammograms have a high % of false-positives and can increase your risk of breast cancer.................. but strangely,these are still pushed, and science is ignored..)
Where is the support for alternative medicine like acupuncture? The focus on preventative care? Better nutrition education (that doesn't include the USDA's sorry excuse for it today)?
It's not there.
Is it any wonder that this legislation was co-written by an insurance lobbyist?
Considering all the money that politicians on both sides (yes, BOTH sides; 99% chance folks: your favorite politician isn't your buddy; they're the buddy of some corporation) get from industry, I doubt we'll ever see actual health care reform that addresses the actual problem. Until then, we will argue about what band-aid solution to use.”
Oct 5, 2013 at 10:23:13
“"I can always tell when someone has just taken up an interest in science because they are so proud of the fact that they know, or think they know, the difference between correlation and causation, that they start accusing everyone of confusing the two."
My view is in line with science.
Please read the links I provided previously. My view is 100% in line with them and the examples given, and that is precisely what I am speaking of.
It is pointless to continue this discussion, it seems. I have repeatedly been polite with you and have asked the same of you. I only wish to have a discussion on the actual science; I am not interested in childish bickering.
If you wish to levy more insults at me for disagreeing with you, I will let you insult me until your heart is content. Hopefully in the future we can have a civil, adult, and even scientific discussion on this topic. Until then I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Sorry.”
Oct 5, 2013 at 08:05:44
“I'm going to try this one more time...
I really have no idea why you're getting snarky with me. I have been polite with you this whole time.
If you'd like to discuss matters, that's great. If you just want to be snarky in response to everything that is an affront to what you think is true, then there's no point in having this discussion since the sharing of information would fall on deaf ears.
I am not an expert in every field. Please show where I said I was.
Nutrition is my field. For other fields, if there is doubt, I try my best to evaluate the evidence, see if it has followed the scientific method, and if it is beyond my understanding I will refer out. I do not believe, however, that because group X has a consensus on Y that it is therefore infallible and must be correct. This is a fallacy of logic.”