Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
This is amusing in light of the more recent discussions here:
https://cigaretteadvertising.wikispaces.com/
"The 1960’s were a rough time for cigarette companies because the Surgeon General declared a causative link between smoking and lung cancer in 1964. The situation was exacerbated the next year when these warnings went on the packages. To combat the growing public health concern, many companies started advertising natural ingredients. In this advertisement, fresh fruits and plants are depicted behind the pack and the word natural is underlined and centered in the page to emphasize the safety of Pall Mall’s cigarettes because natural ingredients couldn’t be harmful...."14 -
Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Per WHO in 2015, there were 214 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 438,000 deaths.
Secondary level chemistry I'm assuming. Yeah I learned the same thing. Time to pop that bubble.
I doubt the residents of Africa share your enthusiasm over the banning of DDT.6 -
Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Per WHO in 2015, there were 214 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 438,000 deaths.
Secondary level chemistry I'm assuming. Yeah I learned the same thing. Time to pop that bubble.
I doubt the residents of Africa share your enthusiasm over the banning of DDT.
Penn Gillette has said that he would personally torture and kill every monkey on the planet to cure AIDS.
I stand with Penn on that... and That goes just the same for Bald eagles and Malaria.
Oh and the risk to bald eagles and other animals was wildly overblown.8 -
Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.
As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.9 -
Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.
As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.
Neither of you posted sources, so both of your posts are pointless.9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.stevencloser wrote: »It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.
If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.
MSG is in tomatoes.
...and yet companies like the one below are paying off fraud lawsuits for concealing the presence of MSG in their foods. How silly!
https://www.bigclassaction.com/settlement/noodle-soup-maker-settles-msg-consumer-fraud-lawsuit.php
It's often cheaper to settle than to fight.
Although not always.
See the Ford Pinto case study.
Had they not gone through the trouble of determining that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than fight/fix the issue they would have done quite well.
But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?
According to the article, it's because it's illegal to say "No MSG added" on a package that contains foods that naturally contain MSG. So they broke the law. It seems like a silly law but it's the law and they broke it.1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.
As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.
Neither of you posted sources, so both of your posts are pointless.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html
Specifically, read the paragraph titled 'The Silent Spring Fraud'
This one talks about the deaths that can be attributed to malaria:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=12594 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.
As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.
Neither of you posted sources, so both of your posts are pointless.
. . . unless I missed it, you never posted any sources for your claims.5 -
0
-
Actually, DDT is being used to combat Malaria in Africa and parts of Asia - and has been for more than a decade. An article in Scientific American citing scientific studies (criteria met?) suggests it needs to be cut back due to harmful health effects.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/#6 -
I don't believe in Calorie cycling. CICO. The end. I've got a lot to lose, and I haven't lost it yet because I've been wasting time believing stupid myths instead of doing what actually makes changes: moving more, and eating cleaner (more whole foods, less processed), and portioning things properly.10
-
Actually, DDT is being used to combat Malaria in Africa and parts of Asia - and has been for more than a decade. An article in Scientific American citing scientific studies (criteria met?) suggests it needs to be cut back due to harmful health effects.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/#
Indoor Use only:
"In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. The WHO position is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control."
It's debatable how effective this type of use is in the overall fight against malaria.1 -
Running sucks lol. Oh and having to pay to go to the gym is dumb. Why make us pay to be healthy or oh much equipment is. I live in a place where you can NEVER depend on the weather so outside is not much of an option.1
-
justisebrundage wrote: »Running sucks lol. Oh and having to pay to go to the gym is dumb. Why make us pay to be healthy or oh much equipment is. I live in a place where you can NEVER depend on the weather so outside is not much of an option.
You can workout in your house without having an additional cost.9 -
justisebrundage wrote: »Running sucks lol. Oh and having to pay to go to the gym is dumb. Why make us pay to be healthy or oh much equipment is. I live in a place where you can NEVER depend on the weather so outside is not much of an option.
Paying for the gym is worth it to me. *shrug*6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »justisebrundage wrote: »Running sucks lol. Oh and having to pay to go to the gym is dumb. Why make us pay to be healthy or oh much equipment is. I live in a place where you can NEVER depend on the weather so outside is not much of an option.
You can workout in your house without having an additional cost.
Or at least, lower costs and no monthly dues. I'm getting a lot of mileage out of my dumbbells, bands, tubes, stability ball, and cardio step. (And even the glider has been helpful.)2 -
Both of those are advertisements for one thing.Bry_Lander wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
Secondly, I'd like to see what the smallprint for that * says and "less irritating" than what? Looks more like a "than other cigarette brands" to me and also doesn't actually say they're good for you.
And the second one is simply saying what they smoke themselves. There's still doctors who smoke today you know and no one is saying that this means they're good for you.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
"Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.
I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.
These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...
Marketing and advertising.
Rarely confused with a scientific journal.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
Problem(s) found.
1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.
Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.
1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).
Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?
That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.
This is very clear proof that videogame consoles peaked in the 90s, since go is infallible and an advertisement would never lie.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
"Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.
I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.
These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...
Marketing and advertising.
Rarely confused with a scientific journal.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
Problem(s) found.
1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.
Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.
1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).
Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?
That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.
This is very clear proof that videogame consoles peaked in the 90s, since go is infallible and an advertisement would never lie.
But.... But.... Goldeneye!0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.stevencloser wrote: »It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.
If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.
MSG is in tomatoes.
...and yet companies like the one below are paying off fraud lawsuits for concealing the presence of MSG in their foods. How silly!
https://www.bigclassaction.com/settlement/noodle-soup-maker-settles-msg-consumer-fraud-lawsuit.php
It's often cheaper to settle than to fight.
Although not always.
See the Ford Pinto case study.
Had they not gone through the trouble of determining that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than fight/fix the issue they would have done quite well.
But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?
Because of a jury of 12 in a civil trial.
12 of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Be9f7Ovgg
Or 12 of those:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTUklMF9Wg 5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
Those are advertisements. They have many ways of stating things to mislead. Just because period advertising claims that doctors say *brand x* is the healthiest brand (or whatever) doesn't mean that actual physicians were telling their patients that smoking a specific brand of cigarette will improve their health.3 -
justisebrundage wrote: »Running sucks lol. Oh and having to pay to go to the gym is dumb. Why make us pay to be healthy or oh much equipment is. I live in a place where you can NEVER depend on the weather so outside is not much of an option.
I never set foot in a gym. If that was the only way to exercise I'd be done for. I have adjustable dumbbells, mats, bands, TRX type thing, pull up bar etc that work me as hard as any gym session. And I live in a pretty small flat/apartment. You don't even need any of that, there's a lot can be done purely with bodyweight and we all have a body.
So you see, anyone can find a way to exercise regardless of weather or cost.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
These appear to date from the golden age of B.S. misleading/false advertising. Regulation was pretty much nonexistent. (Do the 1930s/1940s even count as "not too distant past"? I guess it's relative.)
BTW, the physicians who were surveyed got a free carton (not pack) of Luckies with that survey . . . y'know, so they could do their own "research".
This, in an era when most doctors - most men in general, and quite a few women (few of whom were doctors at the time) - would've been smokers.
There's literally no point in discussing this as a demonstration that "science endorsed smoking as healthy".
Unlike some here, I think you could probably find some science-of-the-time-sorta that suggested some health benefits from tobacco, but it would likely be decades further back.
Someone else already commented that these come from a time when smoking was coming under attack as unhealthy - that ads of this type were trying to counter that impression. Seems right to me.7 -
Define "science". If you mean company paid studies that not surprisingly support their initial goal, I question their veracity.
I know poster said he was leaving the discussion, but I thought I'd answer anyway.
Science. The scientific method. Performed rigorously. Hypothesis, test, analyze. Then report in peer reviewed journal articles. Those peers aren't just buddies saying "good job, brah." They are trained scientists as well, generally with no dog in the fight. The reports (articles) detail the methods and the data so the reviewers and anyone who reads the article can see what they did and attempt to reproduce it.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.
As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.
Neither of you posted sources, so both of your posts are pointless.
. . . unless I missed it, you never posted any sources for your claims.
I'm happy to post sources for any facts I "claim." But I don't WTF claims you're talking about, since there aren't any in the thread you're commenting on.2 -
I can't wait for this fad of big butts to pass. I don't think a big *kitten* is all that attractive and I'm sick of my Instagram being full of girls hiking their undies up their butt crack and shoving their bum at the camera.29
-
chloe0wens wrote: »I can't wait for this fad of big butts to pass. I don't think a big *kitten* is all that attractive and I'm sick of my Instagram being full of girls hiking their undies up their butt crack and shoving their bum at the camera.
Lol. It's not a fad to want a strong posterior.8 -
Regarding the food dyes from vegetables, that reminds me that the nutrition facts for watermelon do list a very small amount of saturated fat. But in practicality, of course, it's such a tiny amount that it is considered nonexistent.StealthHealth wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.stevencloser wrote: »It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.
If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.
MSG is in tomatoes.
Lamb and beef naturally contain small amounts of trans fats and several food dyes are extracts from vegetables (beetroot and carrots for example) and insects (cochineal).
0 -
chloe0wens wrote: »I can't wait for this fad of big butts to pass. I don't think a big *kitten* is all that attractive and I'm sick of my Instagram being full of girls hiking their undies up their butt crack and shoving their bum at the camera.
I too, have no desire to see big butts nor have one. Christ... I've watched my mom battle her naturally large butt my whole life. A small butt with a bit of bubble looks best. But others are free to think it looks attractive, of course.7 -
WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »chloe0wens wrote: »I can't wait for this fad of big butts to pass. I don't think a big *kitten* is all that attractive and I'm sick of my Instagram being full of girls hiking their undies up their butt crack and shoving their bum at the camera.
I too, have no desire to see big butts nor have one. Christ... I've watched my mom battle her naturally large butt my whole life. A small butt with a bit of bubble looks best. But others are free to think it looks attractive, of course.
So much shaming. So little time. Smh.21
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions