What foods should I stop eating?
Replies
-
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?
Yes
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.
[snipped bc MFP has a character limit]
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.
Ok, I can respect your line of reasoning. But the difference is, you didn't say "I suggest eliminating X foods because I feel that there is not sufficient research at this time proving that they are not harmful to us and therefore prefer to focus my diet on fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, nuts, etc."
You came in and said that talking to people here was a waste of time and that we would eat plastic bags if they had FDA approval.
If you want people to accept your line of reasoning for eating the way you do, then you need to show them equal respect and accept that they have made decisions to eat the way they do based on their research, values, and lifestyle.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.
[snipped bc MFP has a character limit]
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.
Ok, I can respect your line of reasoning. But the difference is, you didn't say "I suggest eliminating X foods because I feel that there is not sufficient research at this time proving that they are not harmful to us and therefore prefer to focus my diet on fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, nuts, etc."
You came in and said that talking to people here was a waste of time and that we would eat plastic bags if they had FDA approval.
If you want people to accept your line of reasoning for eating the way you do, then you need to show them equal respect and accept that they have made decisions to eat the way they do based on their research, values, and lifestyle.
Agreed, but that'll never happen on MFP. MFP is the land of absolutists, where context and reason go to die.0 -
I don't know. What is it? If it's pineapple anything, no. Does it have all the dioxin and twice the PCBs? I read labels. I also know that it can't be put on the market in most first world countries without passing some kind of standards agency scrutiny. There is a list of known carcinogens that is being constantly updated and banned in certain countries.
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?
If it came from some guys still, I might try it anyway, but I'm like that.
0 -
KGEYSER, (sorry my quotations screwed up)
Completely agree. Under this name, you are right. I didn't say that. But I did take your exact approach in quotation marks under other names and I was met with disrespect. So I dished it back under a new name. Which was fun. I wasn't expecting to win people over when being a jacka$$.
The fact is I actually do respect all of you, yes even the ones that have said brutal things to me, because you're all taking charge of your lives and do make great decisions and commitments. I just have a beef from my perspective in the healthcare system that we are causing the diseases that we are trying to prevent with our advice that we give to patients. We as a profession still give a free pass to everyone to eat very potentially offending foods in moderation.
What happens when we cause chronic disease? People like me collect the money. Through tests and treatment. Since there are people who don't like me out there clearly, if you want me to stop getting rich off your current and future diseases, there's a good chance that I will be poor if the population demanded clean food from the market. Because the foundation of medical practice, and hence my salary, is based on management of chronic disease. So you want to screw me over and cut my paycheque? Eat as clean as you can. Prevent chronic disease. All of you. And I can die a happy man.
0 -
NONE!!!!!0
-
I don't know. What is it? If it's pineapple anything, no. Does it have all the dioxin and twice the PCBs? I read labels. I also know that it can't be put on the market in most first world countries without passing some kind of standards agency scrutiny. There is a list of known carcinogens that is being constantly updated and banned in certain countries.
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?
If it came from some guys still, I might try it anyway, but I'm like that.
Ok cool. Fair enough. I probably should have started with that question anyway. Would have clarified our positions. I wouldn't drink it, but I'm like that
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.
I'm telling you it's Steve 098... or whoever that really is
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions