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.
Fast Food Addiction - Can Anyone Else Relate?
Options
Replies
-
fuzzylop72 wrote: »Why is it people 'addicted to carbs' never have some unhealthy focus on squash, beets, peas, and beans. This makes me question whether the carbs are even a factor.
I'm not convinced these folks know what carbs actually are.9 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »Why is it people 'addicted to carbs' never have some unhealthy focus on squash, beets, peas, and beans. This makes me question whether the carbs are even a factor.
I'm not convinced these folks know what carbs actually are.
I feel like the current demonizing of carbohydrates has led to confusion among many people as to what they actually are. I've seen it a lot here . . . people will write things like "I don't eat any carbs, just protein and vegetables."7 -
That's a statement to fully disclose their associations because it is important to understand any conflict of interest that may be perceived by using a particular funding source or being employed by or receiving a monetary benefit as a source of personal income. Bought and paid for in the since that money was given to complete and publish favorable data for a mega industry based on selling products full of sugar. You are right I don't know if he did not publish unfavorable data, but no one will ever know unless you worked on the project. I did not. As far as "completely disregarding" the findings, I never said that. I said I have to question it when his funding may be seen as a conflict of interest and I said I was skeptical too because of the methods used to gather the data that was analyzed. As far as a researcher I respect that has completed research without funding...no... that is not the real question. Are there researchers that receive funding for their work and do not have even the slightest suggestion of conflict of interest...yes... there are many academics getting NIH or NIA funding in the US that are granted money not tied to any company that would potentially benefit financially. There are also many academic researchers getting full or partial grants from private companies because government or institutional funding is not enough and I have personally seen data produced that was filed under "good to know, but it really doesn't fit our narrative so you can not publish it without our blessing".... which never comes. I'm not saying his findings are to be totally disregarded only take his conclusions with a bit of skepticism until reproduced by others, using better methods and without a conflict of interest.9
-
That's a statement to fully disclose their associations because it is important to understand any conflict of interest that may be perceived by using a particular funding source or being employed by or receiving a monetary benefit as a source of personal income. Bought and paid for in the since that money was given to complete and publish favorable data for a mega industry based on selling products full of sugar. Your right I don't know if he did not publish unfavorable data, but no one will ever know unless you worked on the project. I did not. As far as "completely disregarding" the findings, I never said that. I said I have to question it when his funding may be seen as a conflict of interest and I said I was skeptical too because of the methods used to gather the data that was analyzed. As far as researcher I respect that has completed research without funding...no... that is not the real question. Are there researchers that receive funding for their work and do not have even the slightest suggestion of conflict of interest...yes... there are many academics getting NIH or NIA funding in the US that are granted money not tied to any company that would potentially benefit financially. There are also many academic researchers getting full or partial grants from private companies because government or institutional funding is not enough and I have personally seen data produced that was filed under "good to know, but it really doesn't fit our narrative so you can not publish it without our blessing".... which never comes. I'm not saying his findings are to be totally disregarded only take his conclusions with a bit of skepticism until reproduced by others, using better methods and without a conflict of interest.
What proof do you have that the money was given to complete and publish favorable data? That's a serious charge and it isn't proven just by the fact that a given industry may have provided funding.
If you don't know if he didn't not publish unfavorable data because you didn't work on the project, how can you be so confident that he accepted the money to complete and publish favorable data?
When you talk about the academics you respect who aren't doing any consultancy work, accepting funding, or doing speaking engagements in their industry, which particular nutritional researchers are you talking about?
When you reference data that was filed away and not published because the researchers couldn't get permission, what exactly are you referring to?
You say we shouldn't "totally disregard" his findings, but above you wrote that he was "bought and paid for." These two things don't seem to fit together well.9 -
Publishing data that supports sugar is not addictive and by extension not a problem is I think considered favorable data to companies that want to continue selling their products as is. If you don't see it that way ol' well. He was given money to do that very research from the vary sources that would benefit from a positive finding. That's not a charge but a fact. I'm sure you have read up on all the privately funded research the tobacco industry funded that supported there were no issues with their products before that was blown wide open. Again I'm not making any charges here I'm just saying conflict of interest should be a cautionary flag.
I don't work with many nutritional researchers, but that was not part of your first criteria to support. I'm speaking of academics in general doing NIH supported work vs private company funded work. I'm referring to research data that I have personally known about or close associates had pushed aside in the 20+ years I've been in the research game. Maybe you have a different definition or standard of what "bought and paid for" means, but when someone is given money to complete a job by a private entity under a type of contract verbal or written, whether it is medical research or digging ditches, that is bought and paid for IMO.12 -
chantalemarie wrote: »You aren't addicted, as fast food isn't an addicting substance. You just need to exercise some willpower.
I lost 65 pounds and still ate fast food. I just cut down from going after work on the weekends (both days, often) to once a week maximum, opting for smaller sandwiches and no fries (not worth the calories for what you get). It fits into my calories well.
This is awful advice. Of course it can be an addicting substance. By this logic you might think sex can't be addicting because it's not a substance either, or gambling because it's not a substance either, and yet there are lots of people who suffer from sex and love addiction, and gambling addictions. This is an ignorant statement to just boil it down to basically saying, "just stop doing it."
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but that's exactly what I did to recover from my addiction to alcohol. I just quit drinking it. Yes, it was at times difficult, but that's what was required of me. If I can successfully "just quit drinking" for coming up on 14 years, it is possible for someone suffering from "fast food addiction" to "just quit McDonalds" also.
8 -
Publishing data that supports sugar is not addictive and by extension not a problem is I think considered favorable data to companies that want to continue selling their products as is. If you don't see it that way ol' well. He was given money to do that very research from the vary sources that would benefit from a positive finding. That's not a charge but a fact. I'm sure you have read up on all the privately funded research the tobacco industry funded that supported there were no issues with their products before that was blown wide open. Again I'm not making any charges here I'm just saying conflict of interest should be a cautionary flag.
I don't work with many nutritional researchers, but that was not part of your first criteria to support. I'm speaking of academics in general doing NIH supported work vs private company funded work. I'm referring to research data that I have personally known about or close associates had pushed aside in the 20+ years I've been in the research game. Maybe you have a different definition or standard of what "bought and paid for" means, but when someone is given money to complete a job by a private entity under a type of contract verbal or written, whether it is medical research or digging ditches, that is bought and paid for IMO.
Did you consider the reason someone might fail to publish data indicating sugar could be addictive is because they failed to find reliable data to support the claim that sugar is addictive?
It's possible to fail to find evidence for a claim without being "bought and paid for."
The mere fact that a collection of data is good for someone's business doesn't mean that the data itself is unreliable. For example, I am sure that those who grow and sell broccoli are happy to see research showing that increased vegetable consumption is associated with better health outcomes. Does that mean we shouldn't trust that research?
You say you aren't making any charges, but you repeat your claim that this individual is "bought and paid for." In my opinion, that's a very serious charge. You are calling his professionalism, honesty, and integrity into question. That you have no actual evidence to support that and you're still willing to say that about someone says more about you than it could about him.
You seem to think we can take for granted that the money was paid for favorable research results whether they were supported by data or not. That may be how you and your close associates have worked in the past 20+ years, but you haven't presented any evidence that is what was happening here.
13 -
What exaclty do you do in research? And do have any specific examples of research that is pushed aside? Because it sounds like your just making it up.I'm referring to research data that I have personally known about or close associates had pushed aside in the 20+ years I've been in the research game.
I have to question if you really are involved in research. I don't get your logic here. Research isn't cheap and money for research doesn't just magically appear. If you are really involved in research then you know that NIH research funds aren't easy to come by and that private funding is necessary. So who should fund research into diet soda, for example? Why would any other company outside the soft drink industry fund research on soda? If there was a positive study about diet soda that involed non-industry funding would you then believe it?Maybe you have a different definition or standard of what "bought and paid for" means, but when someone is given money to complete a job by a private entity under a type of contract verbal or written, whether it is medical research or digging ditches, that is bought and paid for IMO.
11 -
No matter what I say is going to sway your opinions and vice versa. I’m not making any attacks on anybody’s reputation as an investigator only pointing out a clear conflict of interest and problem with methodology used in paper. If you guys don’t want to entertain that possibility in your perfect idealogical world that is your right. This is a public forum and maybe some people come on and pretend to be something they are not , but that’s not me. I’ll give no satisfactory evidence and you can say whatever, but the truth remains I know what I am talking about regardless of any internet experts with thousands of posts to support your credentials (eyes rolling). Yes NIH funding is hard to come by as it should be to promote research for the betterment of the tax payer not the private industry looking to promote their own agenda.11
-
No matter what I say is going to sway your opinions and vice versa. I’m not making any attacks on anybody’s reputation as an investigator only pointing out a clear conflict of interest and problem with methodology used in paper. If you guys don’t want to entertain that possibility in your perfect idealogical world that is your right. This is a public forum and maybe some people come on and pretend to be something they are not , but that’s not me. I’ll give no satisfactory evidence and you can say whatever, but the truth remains I know what I am talking about regardless of any internet experts with thousands of posts to support your credentials (eyes rolling). Yes NIH funding is hard to come by as it should be to promote research for the betterment of the tax payer not the private industry looking to promote their own agenda.
So based upon your vast experience and expansive knowledge in the field, approximately what percentage of studies (referring specifically to diet/nutrition/exercise/general health) aren't funded, at least in part, by a party/company/organization with a stake in the subject matter?8 -
Never claimed to be involved in those specific fields, but in neuroscience in last 10 years that % has grown due to lack of monies put towards AD and other neurodegenerative research compared to Cancer and HIV. And trust me if a private company is involved they control all the data and whether it is published.7
-
That doesn't answer the question.7
-
I can’t tell you a specific % in exercise, diet, nutrition, general health because that’s not the kind of research I try to get funded. But if the trend is anything like other research that is not deemed to be most important by NIH then I would guess private funding is necessary and increasing to fund those types of research. That still doesn’t mean we can not question those connections.2
-
I can’t tell you a specific % in exercise, diet, nutrition, general health because that’s not the kind of research I try to get funded. But if the trend is anything like other research that is not deemed to be most important by NIH then I would guess private funding is necessary and increasing to fund those types of research. That still doesn’t mean we can not question those connections.
Bingo.6 -
I think the middle ground is yes private funding may be needed for some but not all research in an a particular arena and those that choose to take private funding should understand their research is under more scrutiny and when the methods used to generate the data is less than optimal it can lead to more questions until reproduced using a better design.1
-
I think the middle ground is yes private funding may be needed for some but not all research in an a particular arena and those that choose to take private funding should understand their research is under more scrutiny and when the methods used to generate the data is less than optimal it can lead to more questions until reproduced using a better design.
Good points guys. Because of the question marks behind all research it the reason I lean so heavy on my own n=1 experiences. Do my own results apply to others is a question that the answer is not knowable. There is typically enough research to know if doing a n=1 is likely to kill oneself or do grave harm to oneself. Having the ability to read and understand research is a plus when trying to understand the validity of especially peer reviewed. Intelligence incest can be problem in peer reviews that one must be aware of. 100% of private and public funded research has one or more unstated objectives. Learning those are the first thing that I try to do.14 -
I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.
For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.
If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.4 -
I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.
For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.
If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.
Unless you're an idiot like Gary Taubes. He co-founded/funded NuSI and they funded Kevin Hall's energy balance study, as well as another study from Stanford. Unfortunately, the results of both of those studies disproved his BS about keto and insulin, lol.
Interesting glimpse into NuSI, funding and research results here: https://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-manhattan-project-of-nutrition-that.html
Excerpt re: above statement:...The Hall-led Energy Balance Consortium was completed by Summer 2014, and (finally) published in July 2016. Gary Taubes responded disgracefully to the results as they were not favorable to his pet hypothesis. Instead he chose the low road, impugning the integrity of researchers he had previously touted and eventually having to apologize to Kevin Hall for his behavior. In the end, this metabolic ward study added to considerable pre-existing evidence of similar quality that falsified TWICHOO.
The Gardner-led Stanford results were just published last month. Despite spin by Taubes and Ludwig (the conflict of interest there as a NuSI funded researcher is staggering!!) the results were unfavorable to TWICHOO. Make no mistake about it, the design of this study had foremost in mind this idea that a person's "insulin status" was an important component in dietary recommendations to either prevent weight gain/obesity and/or predict success in weight loss/reversing obesity. The answer was a rather resounding "no evidence to support" ... and the spin is rather more than embarrassing at this point...7 -
I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.
For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.
If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.
Unless you're an idiot like Gary Taubes. He co-founded/funded NuSI and they funded Kevin Hall's energy balance study, as well as another study from Stanford. Unfortunately, the results of both of those studies disproved his BS about keto and insulin, lol.
Interesting glimpse into NuSI, funding and research results here: https://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-manhattan-project-of-nutrition-that.html
Excerpt re: above statement:...The Hall-led Energy Balance Consortium was completed by Summer 2014, and (finally) published in July 2016. Gary Taubes responded disgracefully to the results as they were not favorable to his pet hypothesis. Instead he chose the low road, impugning the integrity of researchers he had previously touted and eventually having to apologize to Kevin Hall for his behavior. In the end, this metabolic ward study added to considerable pre-existing evidence of similar quality that falsified TWICHOO.
The Gardner-led Stanford results were just published last month. Despite spin by Taubes and Ludwig (the conflict of interest there as a NuSI funded researcher is staggering!!) the results were unfavorable to TWICHOO. Make no mistake about it, the design of this study had foremost in mind this idea that a person's "insulin status" was an important component in dietary recommendations to either prevent weight gain/obesity and/or predict success in weight loss/reversing obesity. The answer was a rather resounding "no evidence to support" ... and the spin is rather more than embarrassing at this point...
https://paypal.com/donate/?token=9zLZ9QNs7InPLtiFQ1nQmy7ieqdWiBOilgc3x9R5b7WJ4wP6rnGCRVq_g4iEA8J7ZRLgdW&country.x=US&locale.x=US
Did you find the above link on the first page of your posted link prior of interest. Sound like some people are raising money to do 'research' and others are raising money to slam the 'research' of others.
8 -
I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.
For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.
If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.
Unless you're an idiot like Gary Taubes. He co-founded/funded NuSI and they funded Kevin Hall's energy balance study, as well as another study from Stanford. Unfortunately, the results of both of those studies disproved his BS about keto and insulin, lol.
Interesting glimpse into NuSI, funding and research results here: https://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-manhattan-project-of-nutrition-that.html
Excerpt re: above statement:...The Hall-led Energy Balance Consortium was completed by Summer 2014, and (finally) published in July 2016. Gary Taubes responded disgracefully to the results as they were not favorable to his pet hypothesis. Instead he chose the low road, impugning the integrity of researchers he had previously touted and eventually having to apologize to Kevin Hall for his behavior. In the end, this metabolic ward study added to considerable pre-existing evidence of similar quality that falsified TWICHOO.
The Gardner-led Stanford results were just published last month. Despite spin by Taubes and Ludwig (the conflict of interest there as a NuSI funded researcher is staggering!!) the results were unfavorable to TWICHOO. Make no mistake about it, the design of this study had foremost in mind this idea that a person's "insulin status" was an important component in dietary recommendations to either prevent weight gain/obesity and/or predict success in weight loss/reversing obesity. The answer was a rather resounding "no evidence to support" ... and the spin is rather more than embarrassing at this point...
Love this!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions