What foods should I stop eating?
Options
Replies
-
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
I'm actually a closet obese blogger with several athersclerotic risk factors and several chronic autoimmune diseases who never comes out of my basement and loves to eat all sorts of junk food in moderation within my daily calorie limits because I can't stand the thought of anyone telling me that I have to restrict something because this is America and we have the right to everything they put on a grocery store shelf regardless if it goes against all common sense.
Ah. I'm letting it all out now. Thanks kgeyser! So liberating!!!!
Well this I could almost believe baby steps you're getting there
Of course it's believable. I just blended in with this forum. Just like putting on army camouflage.
No you still haven't blended because those that have been successful can back up their claims and offer realistic advice. Hell you're about my age I would love to hear how I could eat 4000 calories a day and reach my goals share this wisdom with us common folk
Ok. I just replied on a long post to someone else so there may be something helpful there for you. Dunno if that helps.
My advise doesn't sound realistic because it's virtually the opposite of what is preached on this forum.
And I certainly am not saying that people on this forum don't have results. Some people have unbelievably astounding weight loss results and have more muscle than a whole village.
I'm approaching things from a health standpoint with weight loss and muscle mass as a nice side effect.
I don't need to back up my claims - I didn't invent the paleo/primal diet or lifestyle. They are not my claims. If it doesn't grab you when you read about it, then it just won't grab you.
I read your long post, and no not really helpful at all. What's the opposite? only that most say after your nutritional needs are met enjoy you ice cream and cookies? Maybe if you lost your elitist attitude and actually looked at the people you are arguing with (all of them have open diaries and pictures) and you will see lean proteins, veggies, fruits, and all kinds of other things.
Now I find this very funny you say you do this from a health standpoint, well that's why I started this 22 months ago. 14 prescriptions, getting ready to be put on 24/7 oxygen, couldn't do 30 seconds of a 6 minute pulmonary function test. Now I can bike 50+ miles a day, I can run 6 miles oh and down to 4 prescriptions. All of that was achieved eating a flexible diet that included a nightly dessert.
Unlike you I can and do share my diary, my pictures and I'll even share my blood work, so those that are looking for help can see it is possible it's not me just blowing smoke up their a**
Differences aside. Honestly. Your health gains. That's awesome. I mean that. Congrats. Wicked story.
Elitist? bc I don't elaborate? When you elaborate against the grain (no pun intended) it's not too productive. I only did the long post for the one guy b/c of the way he handled things.
Why don't I share my info? Privacy is one. The other reason???? People come up to ME in person all the time and say, what the hell, you have lost all that weight and are jacked!!! in a matter of months!! and you keep maintaining it!!! HOW DO YOU DO IT????
THEY ask ME.
I tell them.
They go - nah, you're lying. It's just calories in calories out. It's gotta be. Or you have a tumor.
Seriously.
Let me ask you. If this was your experience, would you bother with sharing details of your personal real life evidence????
That being said, there are a few people who have benefitted from me in my personal life and online. All of them had an open mind and were willing to see the big picture regarding health.
mhm.
So, anecdotal?
Yes, when one is referring to personal information and replying to an inquiry about said information, that is in reference to anecdotes by definition yes. But good try at using the typical debunking buzzword to devalidate the whole argument.
You killed your own argument when you claimed to eat more then a former world class athlete and maintain...
Yes, that is correct, assuming calories in calories out is the pivotal scientific principle that governs everything... and on this forum it certainly seems to.
Who woulda thought that on a calorie counting site?
Of course. But I like challenges. I learn alot on other forums such as Mark's Daily Apple, but can't really make a difference there as it is preaching to the choir.0 -
I'm kinda late to the party, and admittedly I've only scanned the last 5ish pages of bickering.
Are we talking about all this in the context of overall health or general weight loss?
Is this ultimately 1 soapbox against another?
Why can't there be merit to both? Why can't an individual make the decision for themselves? Why do we have to cram our viewpoints down people's throats with little/no context or supporting information?0 -
i've sworn off tofu!! 0 -
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.0 -
at the end of the day its cals in vs cals out isit not?0
-
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
0 -
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
0 -
Umm. don't some of us do both?I forgot how much derp there was in the forums. Cut out no food and learn how to budget your calories and macros. Do you cut out a certain activity you like to do that costs money because your bank account is tight or do you save up for it and do it when you can afford to? This isn't rocket science.
Because of my finances:
I cut back on some thing.
I find a "cheaper" alternative for some things.
And I flat out DON'T DO some things.0 -
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We're not talking about altering the food supply as society, we're talking about specific individuals making specific claims on MFP that certain foods are bad for us and should be eliminated from our diets. Yes, the role of corporations and big agriculture is an important topic of conversation, but it's not relevant to this topic.
The OP asked what foods they should eliminate from their diet; people responded. Some people claimed that certain foods should be eliminated because they are harmful, and when asked to provide support for those claims were unable to do so.
No one here expects scientific studies to be ironclad. The people asking for studies are pretty well-versed in research methods and are able to identify the limitations of studies, even the ones they post. The problem that we have every time this topic comes up in discussion is that either no studies are provided, or the studies that are provided have serious limitations (only performed on mice, insulin studies only on diabetics, etc) which the person making the claim refuses to acknowledge, preferring to go with "the study says what I want it to say, so therefore I'm correct." Or they just move the goalposts to another topic.
If you make a claim, provide the research that supports your claim and talk about how that research led to you reaching your conclusion. Identify the limitations and discuss how you feel the research can be applied despite those limitations to the general population, or why the findings are relevant to the discussion at hand. If you can't even argue your opinion, you opinion isn't worth very much. This is why people here readily dismiss claims that certain ways of eating are better than others or that one diet is more beneficial to health than another.0 -
Doesn't matter. You've already been shown to be a liar. Have multiple accounts. Have no clue what you are talking about. All the people in this thread you are debating have all had proven success. You have shown nothing. No one is actually taking you serious.
They are continuing to go back and forth with you because it's Friday. It's protocol.
You're a bit late to the party. All that has been said already. Yes I'm a liar. And taking your Friday for a ride was fun.0 -
No. When there is evidence, we remove them. I don't see how it could be possible to test for all unforeseen consequences. One can only ask for due diligence in novel ideas.
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We move forward.
0 -
No. When there is evidence, we remove them. I don't see how it could be possible to test for all unforeseen consequences. One can only ask for due diligence in novel ideas.
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We move forward.
One question, yes or no: You don't see a problem in putting food into a food supply without evidence to support it?0 -
I have no idea what that means.
No. When there is evidence, we remove them. I don't see how it could be possible to test for all unforeseen consequences. One can only ask for due diligence in novel ideas.
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We move forward.
One question, yes or no: You don't see a problem in putting food into a food supply without evidence to support it?
0 -
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We're not talking about altering the food supply as society, we're talking about specific individuals making specific claims on MFP that certain foods are bad for us and should be eliminated from our diets. Yes, the role of corporations and big agriculture is an important topic of conversation, but it's not relevant to this topic.
The OP asked what foods they should eliminate from their diet; people responded. Some people claimed that certain foods should be eliminated because they are harmful, and when asked to provide support for those claims were unable to do so.
No one here expects scientific studies to be ironclad. The people asking for studies are pretty well-versed in research methods and are able to identify the limitations of studies, even the ones they post. The problem that we have every time this topic comes up in discussion is that either no studies are provided, or the studies that are provided have serious limitations (only performed on mice, insulin studies only on diabetics, etc) which the person making the claim refuses to acknowledge, preferring to go with "the study says what I want it to say, so therefore I'm correct." Or they just move the goalposts to another topic.
If you make a claim, provide the research that supports your claim and talk about how that research led to you reaching your conclusion. Identify the limitations and discuss how you feel the research can be applied despite those limitations to the general population, or why the findings are relevant to the discussion at hand. If you can't even argue your opinion, you opinion isn't worth very much. This is why people here readily dismiss claims that certain ways of eating are better than others or that one diet is more beneficial to health than another.
Understood. I really do respect the scrutiny people exhibit on principle.
But, the difference is, I do think that food supply and role of corporations and big agriculture is relevant to OPs topic because that's what I think should be eliminated.
I don't use research to argue the point because as I stated, I don't think research against foods, and especially for foods, is valid enough currently. Yes, there are lots of small studies I could throw out there, but as you say, not perfect in the least. I never once claimed that evidence is foolproof to eat real food.
We would have to wait half a century for a study with a long enough timeline, and that is if there is enough variable control, which is impossible.
I just don't plan on waiting 50 years for someone to prove to me what common sense would tell me in the first place.
0 -
Wow, you managed to pick one of the worst examples possible.(...)
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful???
That's an achievement of sorts...0 -
I have no idea what that means.
No. When there is evidence, we remove them. I don't see how it could be possible to test for all unforeseen consequences. One can only ask for due diligence in novel ideas.
That's because the default position in critical thinking is the null hypothesis.
Actually, I haven't seen you post any links to actual science. Nor am I male, which I would expect a physician to be able to discern.
But since you opened the door by stating that you are a medical doctor and have been giving advice to people in that capacity, please provide us with information so we can verify your credentials.
By Buddy I meant the guy who was exhibit A. He beat you to that coveted title.
Opened what door? The door that actually cares whether you think I'm a medical doctor or not? Let me think about that one......... no.
Ok, so you're not a doctor, either. Because a real medical doctor would actually adhere to ethics and happily provide credentials when asked, based on my anecdotal experience of dealing with real doctors, of course.
Again. Care factor? zero.
That's fine. Everyone on the site has now seen you admit to lying on your profile, having had multiple profiles which you've also lied about, and falsely claiming to be a doctor. By publicly discrediting yourself, you discredit your message, not that there even was much of a message.
It's actually ok, not like I was gaining any mass traction anyway. But it's fun to see you guys shake your heads.
It's mostly eye-rolling. We keep waiting for someone to show up with science and all we get are blogs. But we'll keep holding out for that unicorn.
Ok. Fair enough. I understand that. But what kind of science are you actually holding out for?
In our profession we actually aren't good at carrying out valid studies. You need a long enough time course, and you need control of an enormous amount of variables because multiple offenders may be present. Yes we have access to the patients in our line of work and we do lots of small studies, but they are easily debunked because of design flaws. We just don't have funding for large enough studies.
People on this site are looking for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods are absolutely not ok or not safe. But I do think it's weird that these same people don't look as hard for iron conclusive studies that say certain foods ARE absolutely ok or safe.
We have no real evidence against, but where is the real evidence for? The only evidence for certain foods are the types of foods that have stood the test of time - human history. And even those have changed, but it's a lesser evil for sure.
I appreciate everyone's need for science, but it won't solve the food problem. More funding goes towards industrialization because that's where the economics are. Long term food safety is not on the economical radar. And why should it be if you are a businessman? All you have left is common sense and rationale for making dietary choices at the end of the day.
You can't go looking to prove negatives. You have to ask for evidence of a positive claim like "wheat is bad". Show me the why you are claiming that.
Correct. Null hypothesis is default. Given existing variables. All of us inherited the food supply variables from birth (assuming we aren't too old).
But when INTRODUCING new variables into an ecosystem, you don't think it's reasonable to expect evidence FOR?
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful??? Same goes for massively hybridized wheat, GMO corn and soy, grain feedlots for animals, whatever.
When food is created de novo, heavily engineered or altered AND THEN INTRODUCED into the food supply, the same people that demand evidence for daring to eliminate it don't care so much that there wasn't evidence endorsing it in the first place.
So, we don't need to provide any evidence if we are going to heavily alter our food supply, but when those alterations are already in existence, we better have very good evidence to remove them??
We move forward.
One question, yes or no: You don't see a problem in putting food into a food supply without evidence to support it?
Ok. Using an example, yes or no: Drink X is introduced into the marketplace next week and it is made in a lab/factory. You have not heard of any trial to prove that it doesn't have chronic adverse effects on you. Would you drink it?0 -
Wow, you managed to pick one of the worst examples possible.(...)
Eg. Coca cola. It was made, then introduced into our food supply. Our species didn't grow up on it. Ok, so everyone thinks coke isn't bad for you because there is no evidence against. But at the time of introduction of that particular food, was there a demand for evidence that it wasn't harmful???
That's an achievement of sorts...
Exhibit E. new aisle.-2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions