Science, rational evidence, and made up nutritional facts.
jknops2
Posts: 171 Member
So, first off some background on me. I am a scientist, biology specific, and work and teach on plant community and ecosystem ecology, carbon and nitrogen cycling, much of it related to global change research issues. Not nutrition, or weight loss, but I have read up on it to some degree.
I have had high cholesterol for a long time, genetics, and a while ago started on statins, specifically Crestor.
Four months ago, on my annual cholesterol check, my doctor saw high blood sugar, and on retesting mentioned pre-diabetes, syndrome X, or borderline diabetes. So, being a nerd, reading up on this, it was clear to me that a high BMI index, or being overweight, is the major risk factor that I can do anything about. Hence, having an IPhone and because this site is metric (I grew up in the Netherlands and am still totally confused about pounds, ounces, stones, cups, pints, etc), I am using this site to figure out where my calorie intake comes from and how to lower it. And as many people, I accumulate 1-2 pounds per year over 20 some years leading to a BMI of 28, but am down to 23.5 now.
In addition, I have a 2 year old, which has tendency to call out at 5.30 – 6.00 AM, Daddy I am awake, come get me, I want to get up. Then supplying her with bread and peanut butter or cheerios and milk, I got some time and started to look at the community board at www.fitnesspall.com, before the newspaper shows up.
So my question, I am a scientist and follow evidence based research in my own work and in examining weight, diet and health. What disturbs me is that there are a number of posters here that provide strong opinions about nutrition and what will help you lose weight, totally disconnected from the scientific consensus. For instance, see the following:
Quote from a poster:
"Also, the whole saturated fats are bad for your cholesterol and heart is an effort that the medical community started for interest in the soybean and vegetable oil market.
Research it, it is well known in the naturopathic world how things that are natural occurring become bad for you when the government is lobbying against it for a commercial concern.
As long as they can keep people believing that cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you, then they can keep tons of people on statins for high cholesterol that don't do any good and keep people getting sicker and sicker with all the crap they are feeding you.
I average over 6-8 eggs per day most days. My cholesterol is too LOW, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. There are many others on this site that can attest to what I am saying also.””
There is broad consensus among scientists refuting these points and there is no point arguing with this poster, because her mind is set, she is not going to listen to rational arguments and critically examine evidence and change her opinion.
My opinion, anyone can make up anything and propagate it through the web, which is increasingly happening. (To ‘paraphrase another poster, why don’t we start saying drinking cat pee because it will help us lose weight. Some people are bound to try this after we post it).
The reason I bring this up, is that other posters respond with comments like
“Um, wow, strong opinions over fats. Interesting article. I think getting unbalanced on either end of that is probably wrong. The right answer for all of that is probably in the middle. Obviously fat is good for your body, whole, natural fats. But that doesn't mean mass amounts of it, especially processed foods, is what our culture needs, really.”
This I don’t know how to respond to, and I think is a major problem that we have in our society and the US. If there is broad consensus among scientist about a topic, but there are a couple of individuals on the fringe questioning this with non-rational arguments, this leads to a problem. Their mind is made up no matter what you say or evidence that you present. There is no middle in this debate. And it is impossible to have a debate about this topic, if one side is not rational and willing to change your opinion based on solid evidence. But there is no real middle!
And yes, the same is the case the other way around. BUT if someone shows me solid evidence, I will change what I think. A by now classic example is stomach ulcers and H. pylori. Up to 20 years ago consensus was that stress coursed stomach ulcers, but there was a couple of scientists pursued an alternative explanation, got the critical data, and rewrote the textbooks on this, and got a Nobel Price for doing this. That changed my view on this too, but the people I mention above just assert things without providing solid proof.
But to get back to the main point, the MAJOR problem is that many perceive these discussion as that there are two real sides that both have valid points of views. In other words, I starting a discussion on this seems to validate the fringe’s point of view, even though it is totally bogus, and seems to confuse many readers.
Topics for this are:
• Cholesterol health issue being a myth
• Saturated fats being a health issue
• HCG diet
• Paleo diet, or other diets eliminating all carbs
• Corn sugar being bad and natural sugars being good (sugars are sugars after all)
I run into this with science all the time, on issues like global climate change, evolution, the cause of AIDS, etc.
The broad consensus, versus the couple of fringe people and most people perceiving these debates as there is no consensus. I think for many science issues, including nutrition and health, this is major problem in our society.
Any suggestions on how to address this?
I have had high cholesterol for a long time, genetics, and a while ago started on statins, specifically Crestor.
Four months ago, on my annual cholesterol check, my doctor saw high blood sugar, and on retesting mentioned pre-diabetes, syndrome X, or borderline diabetes. So, being a nerd, reading up on this, it was clear to me that a high BMI index, or being overweight, is the major risk factor that I can do anything about. Hence, having an IPhone and because this site is metric (I grew up in the Netherlands and am still totally confused about pounds, ounces, stones, cups, pints, etc), I am using this site to figure out where my calorie intake comes from and how to lower it. And as many people, I accumulate 1-2 pounds per year over 20 some years leading to a BMI of 28, but am down to 23.5 now.
In addition, I have a 2 year old, which has tendency to call out at 5.30 – 6.00 AM, Daddy I am awake, come get me, I want to get up. Then supplying her with bread and peanut butter or cheerios and milk, I got some time and started to look at the community board at www.fitnesspall.com, before the newspaper shows up.
So my question, I am a scientist and follow evidence based research in my own work and in examining weight, diet and health. What disturbs me is that there are a number of posters here that provide strong opinions about nutrition and what will help you lose weight, totally disconnected from the scientific consensus. For instance, see the following:
Quote from a poster:
"Also, the whole saturated fats are bad for your cholesterol and heart is an effort that the medical community started for interest in the soybean and vegetable oil market.
Research it, it is well known in the naturopathic world how things that are natural occurring become bad for you when the government is lobbying against it for a commercial concern.
As long as they can keep people believing that cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you, then they can keep tons of people on statins for high cholesterol that don't do any good and keep people getting sicker and sicker with all the crap they are feeding you.
I average over 6-8 eggs per day most days. My cholesterol is too LOW, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. There are many others on this site that can attest to what I am saying also.””
There is broad consensus among scientists refuting these points and there is no point arguing with this poster, because her mind is set, she is not going to listen to rational arguments and critically examine evidence and change her opinion.
My opinion, anyone can make up anything and propagate it through the web, which is increasingly happening. (To ‘paraphrase another poster, why don’t we start saying drinking cat pee because it will help us lose weight. Some people are bound to try this after we post it).
The reason I bring this up, is that other posters respond with comments like
“Um, wow, strong opinions over fats. Interesting article. I think getting unbalanced on either end of that is probably wrong. The right answer for all of that is probably in the middle. Obviously fat is good for your body, whole, natural fats. But that doesn't mean mass amounts of it, especially processed foods, is what our culture needs, really.”
This I don’t know how to respond to, and I think is a major problem that we have in our society and the US. If there is broad consensus among scientist about a topic, but there are a couple of individuals on the fringe questioning this with non-rational arguments, this leads to a problem. Their mind is made up no matter what you say or evidence that you present. There is no middle in this debate. And it is impossible to have a debate about this topic, if one side is not rational and willing to change your opinion based on solid evidence. But there is no real middle!
And yes, the same is the case the other way around. BUT if someone shows me solid evidence, I will change what I think. A by now classic example is stomach ulcers and H. pylori. Up to 20 years ago consensus was that stress coursed stomach ulcers, but there was a couple of scientists pursued an alternative explanation, got the critical data, and rewrote the textbooks on this, and got a Nobel Price for doing this. That changed my view on this too, but the people I mention above just assert things without providing solid proof.
But to get back to the main point, the MAJOR problem is that many perceive these discussion as that there are two real sides that both have valid points of views. In other words, I starting a discussion on this seems to validate the fringe’s point of view, even though it is totally bogus, and seems to confuse many readers.
Topics for this are:
• Cholesterol health issue being a myth
• Saturated fats being a health issue
• HCG diet
• Paleo diet, or other diets eliminating all carbs
• Corn sugar being bad and natural sugars being good (sugars are sugars after all)
I run into this with science all the time, on issues like global climate change, evolution, the cause of AIDS, etc.
The broad consensus, versus the couple of fringe people and most people perceiving these debates as there is no consensus. I think for many science issues, including nutrition and health, this is major problem in our society.
Any suggestions on how to address this?
0
Replies
-
wow that was long, I gave up after the second paragraph..(god im lazy!) but bump just incase I get a case of the unlazies and want to read it later0
-
No problem. This has been on my mind for for while, hence the long post. But I really would like your opinion.0
-
Sugar is sugar, indeed!0
-
I don't know how to address it. I would probably go ahead and reply to this stuff as it comes up. I can't stand to see misinformation spread. It bothers me to the core.
I'm obviously not a nutritionist, dietitian, or fitness expert, but I still give advice when I think it could be helpful. I tend to try to prefix with "this is what has worked for me" or "i have read" or "many sources agree"... basically just throwing an idea out there and leaving it up to the person to go research it and reach their own conclusion. Many of the things discussed here aren't black and white and 99% of us aren't experts. So I hate it when people come out and say "X is wrong; Y is right. Never do X; Always do Y"
Another problem around this whole area of nutrition and fitness that I, as someone who is trying hard to learn All The Right Answers, am struggling with is that even the actual experts can't seem to agree on many points. There seems to be a contradiction and rebuttal to just about any idea out there. At the end, we probably just go with whatever ideas seem to resonate with us, and what has been working for us.
Well, if you ever see me spouting out something that's just plain false please go ahead and shoot me down.0 -
Lower your expectations for people posting on message boards
No, but really, you can't control others and what they choose to believe. All you can do is listen to reason, find out the scientific facts on nutrition for yourself, and get yourself healthy. Ignore comments that you think are misguided, ill-informed, or in any way irritating.0 -
Hi scientist, I am too scientist - genetics. So greetings fellow biologist!
The way I deal with these types of things is to go to the data myself. I don't simply Google something - I Google Scholar it and read the real information from the actual journals. When it comes to nutrition, especially in the US, you have to be careful. There are a lot of government fingers (and thus lobbists from certain industries) pushing for things. So, as you know, it is important to also look at the disclosures from the authors of the article you are reading. Outside of that, you can easily find data on both sides of an argument. The whole saturated fat = fat people issue arose from a bad study years ago that has gotten propagated. (It was a statistical comparison between a handful of cultures. Never mind the populations that live on red meat and full fat dairy with few cardiovascular issues) Same thing goes for the sodium debate: a study over 30years of ~30 countries showd no difference in sodium intake...what is popping up now is the problem of a lack of potassium in the Western/modern diet. And for the egg & cholesterol debate, yes eggs have cholesterol, but you being a biologist should also know that only about 40% of blood cholesterol is from the diet. Data also shows that eating eggs may raise cholesterol, but does not affect the ratio of HDL: LDL, which is what is considered the more important issue that simply total cholesterol.
The point is, no matter where you are, on MFP or even in the lab, people are going to have different views - remember it is those different views that push our knowledge further. You operate under one paradigm and you may find other ones on here.
Even your example of Heliobacter pylori is off. The bacterium causes SOME, not all ulcers. So, as much as you read, none of us knows everything. You can't always argue with everyone, but why do you want to? If you disagree on here, then state your position and support it like us good scientists do. I don't get why you need to argue something. But realize, that it won't always change everyone's minds, just like in the lab.
Not to mention, there is no perfect consensus on ANY of the stuff you brought up in the scientific community.0 -
Really?0
-
That was very confusing to me, but in the end I think that for people who are dead-set on what they believe, nothing will change their mind I am personally very flexible with my opinions and since nutrition "facts" seem to change all the time with new research and conflicting results from studies, I just try not to be too extreme with anything
Not to mention the fact that 6-8 eggs a day may be normal for one person, but 1-2 is normal for another and neither suffers any health problems (that was about as far a I could read before I started skimming :laugh: )
I don't think there is anything wrong with things like paleo diet either. People do it and are still healthy0 -
wow that was long, I gave up after the second paragraph..(god im lazy!) but bump just incase I get a case of the unlazies and want to read it later
To summarize, there are papers out there which easily prove that drinking cat urine is the best and fastest way to lose fat while building lean muscle. So anyone who isn't on a cat urine drinking regimen is wasting their efforts, plain and simple. It's also very good for the skin.
If you are interested in obtaining my specially blended proprietary formula of high quality cat urine isolate (now with 22 additional vitamins and performance enhancing minerals), I can get you a great discount on the stuff.
:laugh:
sorry, i think i need to step away from the computer now0 -
Good Point. I have two cats too might be a good time to go into making money of them.
Anyhow, I agree, late enough time to go to bed.
Good night.0 -
Just remember a consensus of the majority may still be incorrect. We should never become arrogant but seek truth in all things... and be open to finding it. :flowerforyou:0
-
First of all, there are a lot of people who are absolutely incapable of discerning between opinion and fact. They'll latch onto whatever idea appeals to them and no amount of data you throw at them will make any difference. They're going to believe what they want to believe. After all, most of them have been taught to *believe* - not to *think*.
Secondly, you never know what kind of mental or emotional issues some of these particularly opinionated and stunningly irrational people may have. It's generally a waste of time trying to reason with unreasonable people. Let's just leave it at that.
Third, you'll see a lot of people who won't question or disagree with someone (particularly someone with a very strong opinion) because they don't want to seem "mean" or "rude" or they just don't want to deal with the conflict or the hassle. Many people will even jump in and defend someone whose bad information is challenged because they perceive it as an "attack" on a friend or whatever. It has nothing to do with logic and facts! It's social behavior with a whole other set of motivations.
Most likely the majority of people know when someone is posting baloney and appreciate it when others post facts and cite sources. Trying to "win" an internet argument with people who play by totally different mental rules and have totally different motivations than you, is usually an exercise in frustration. I should know because I spent years doing it, LOL!0 -
I don't know how to address it. I would probably go ahead and reply to this stuff as it comes up. I can't stand to see misinformation spread. It bothers me to the core.
I'm obviously not a nutritionist, dietitian, or fitness expert, but I still give advice when I think it could be helpful. I tend to try to prefix with "this is what has worked for me" or "i have read" or "many sources agree"... basically just throwing an idea out there and leaving it up to the person to go research it and reach their own conclusion. Many of the things discussed here aren't black and white and 99% of us aren't experts. So I hate it when people come out and say "X is wrong; Y is right. Never do X; Always do Y"
Another problem around this whole area of nutrition and fitness that I, as someone who is trying hard to learn All The Right Answers, am struggling with is that even the actual experts can't seem to agree on many points. There seems to be a contradiction and rebuttal to just about any idea out there. At the end, we probably just go with whatever ideas seem to resonate with us, and what has been working for us.
Well, if you ever see me spouting out something that's just plain false please go ahead and shoot me down.
I agree. The more I study nutrition, the more conflicting arguements I see. I've seen a lot of myths debunked, I've seen a lot of those same myths defended. I do think that all people are different, and their bodies will not always respond to the same things in the same ways.0 -
*S*
how to deal with it?
i sit here and shake my head.. and most times say nothing.. partly because ...
a) i simply don't need the stress of what will likely become a bit of a 'kerfuffle' with folks differing opinions despite what i know is fact.
and
b) i know i cannot change anyone's mind. If they are the type of person who is not open to facts and perhaps doing some background investigation of their own, with an open mind if they are finding information that may well be proving them incorrect in their viewpoint, then nothing i can ever say to them will help.
the only person that can change someone's mind is.. that person.
granted... at times i comment anyway as misinformation drives me nuts as i DO know many will believe whatever they see 'said' online so long as the 'speaker' says it with conviction and a feeling of authority.
me? while not a scientist i do indeed have an analytical mind.. but i must remind myself all the time that most people would rather i didn't 'bother' them with facts *LOL*
good luck.. and btw.... thank you for posting this.. was refreshing to read *S*0 -
Great post! Love it!! Friendly debate.... researching and understanding facts instead of relying on rhetoric. Either way... I find this site very helpful for tracking and support and I am glad to have such a large community of people with similar goals to consort with. Thank you for a scientific perspective. Cheers!0
-
So, first off some background on me. I am a scientist, biology specific, and work and teach on plant community and ecosystem ecology, carbon and nitrogen cycling, much of it related to global change research issues. Not nutrition, or weight loss, but I have read up on it to some degree.
I have had high cholesterol for a long time, genetics, and a while ago started on statins, specifically Crestor.
Four months ago, on my annual cholesterol check, my doctor saw high blood sugar, and on retesting mentioned pre-diabetes, syndrome X, or borderline diabetes. So, being a nerd, reading up on this, it was clear to me that a high BMI index, or being overweight, is the major risk factor that I can do anything about. Hence, having an IPhone and because this site is metric (I grew up in the Netherlands and am still totally confused about pounds, ounces, stones, cups, pints, etc), I am using this site to figure out where my calorie intake comes from and how to lower it. And as many people, I accumulate 1-2 pounds per year over 20 some years leading to a BMI of 28, but am down to 23.5 now.
In addition, I have a 2 year old, which has tendency to call out at 5.30 – 6.00 AM, Daddy I am awake, come get me, I want to get up. Then supplying her with bread and peanut butter or cheerios and milk, I got some time and started to look at the community board at www.fitnesspall.com, before the newspaper shows up.
So my question, I am a scientist and follow evidence based research in my own work and in examining weight, diet and health. What disturbs me is that there are a number of posters here that provide strong opinions about nutrition and what will help you lose weight, totally disconnected from the scientific consensus. For instance, see the following:
Quote from a poster:
"Also, the whole saturated fats are bad for your cholesterol and heart is an effort that the medical community started for interest in the soybean and vegetable oil market.
Research it, it is well known in the naturopathic world how things that are natural occurring become bad for you when the government is lobbying against it for a commercial concern.
As long as they can keep people believing that cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you, then they can keep tons of people on statins for high cholesterol that don't do any good and keep people getting sicker and sicker with all the crap they are feeding you.
I average over 6-8 eggs per day most days. My cholesterol is too LOW, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. There are many others on this site that can attest to what I am saying also.””
There is broad consensus among scientists refuting these points and there is no point arguing with this poster, because her mind is set, she is not going to listen to rational arguments and critically examine evidence and change her opinion.
My opinion, anyone can make up anything and propagate it through the web, which is increasingly happening. (To ‘paraphrase another poster, why don’t we start saying drinking cat pee because it will help us lose weight. Some people are bound to try this after we post it).
The reason I bring this up, is that other posters respond with comments like
“Um, wow, strong opinions over fats. Interesting article. I think getting unbalanced on either end of that is probably wrong. The right answer for all of that is probably in the middle. Obviously fat is good for your body, whole, natural fats. But that doesn't mean mass amounts of it, especially processed foods, is what our culture needs, really.”
This I don’t know how to respond to, and I think is a major problem that we have in our society and the US. If there is broad consensus among scientist about a topic, but there are a couple of individuals on the fringe questioning this with non-rational arguments, this leads to a problem. Their mind is made up no matter what you say or evidence that you present. There is no middle in this debate. And it is impossible to have a debate about this topic, if one side is not rational and willing to change your opinion based on solid evidence. But there is no real middle!
And yes, the same is the case the other way around. BUT if someone shows me solid evidence, I will change what I think. A by now classic example is stomach ulcers and H. pylori. Up to 20 years ago consensus was that stress coursed stomach ulcers, but there was a couple of scientists pursued an alternative explanation, got the critical data, and rewrote the textbooks on this, and got a Nobel Price for doing this. That changed my view on this too, but the people I mention above just assert things without providing solid proof.
But to get back to the main point, the MAJOR problem is that many perceive these discussion as that there are two real sides that both have valid points of views. In other words, I starting a discussion on this seems to validate the fringe’s point of view, even though it is totally bogus, and seems to confuse many readers.
Topics for this are:
• Cholesterol health issue being a myth
• Saturated fats being a health issue
• HCG diet
• Paleo diet, or other diets eliminating all carbs
• Corn sugar being bad and natural sugars being good (sugars are sugars after all)
I run into this with science all the time, on issues like global climate change, evolution, the cause of AIDS, etc.
The broad consensus, versus the couple of fringe people and most people perceiving these debates as there is no consensus. I think for many science issues, including nutrition and health, this is major problem in our society.
Any suggestions on how to address this?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. But, if you have a problem with people's lack of knowledge, offer up your own scientific knowledge. People will either believe it or they won't.
But as far as the topics listed go, here's my take:
• Cholesterol health issue being a myth
High cholesterol is definitely a serious problem for those who have it. But, it has absolutely nothing to do with the cholesterol in food. (My husband and I have both done tons of research on this because he has high cholesterol.) Cholesterol isn't absorbed into the blood stream, so it doesn't affect your blood cholesterol. What does affect blood cholesterol is saturated fats. They get broken down and absorbed into the blood stream and the body turns them into cholesterol.
• Saturated fats being a health issue
Covered above.
• HCG diet
Total crap. The science this diet is based on is decades old and this diet just isn't safe. I don't care how much fat HCG can make your body metabolize, only eating 500 calories a day does not give your body the nutrition it needs (your body needs more than just calories from body fat) and it doesn't allow you to exercise. Not healthy.
• Paleo diet, or other diets eliminating all carbs
I don't know much about the Paleo diet, but any diet that completely cuts carbs is bad. Your brain runs exclusively on carbs, cutting them out of your diet can actually damage your brain.
• Corn sugar being bad and natural sugars being good (sugars are sugars after all)
All sugars are not the same. Natural sugars found in fruits and milk are very different from refined cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Natural sugars have proteins surrounding them that make them slower to digest, they don't spike your blood sugar and they don't cause the body to automatically store them as fat. Cane sugar is similar, but the refining process makes it easier to digest and store as fat. High fructose corn syrup is extremely bad. It is not natural at all. It goes from corn to corn starch to corn syrup. As the sugar molecules go through this process they get broken down and manipulated in such a way that they are extremely easy to break down and they react with the body in such a way that they are automatically stored as fat. They spike the blood sugar very fast and very high. Either Harvard or Yale has been studying corn syrup and has directly linked it to diabetes and obesity.0 -
I have ADHD and still managed to read your whole post- ironic considering all of the people that declare ADHD doesn't exist. I agree with the other poster who mentioned managing your expectations for most message boards. You're simply not going to find the average person willing to build a case and supporting their *opinion* about nutrition and other banefully controversial topics with logic and empirical evidence.
I'm not a scientist- I'm just a stay at home mother. Fortunately- I don't rely on these boards for hard facts. When I'm concerned I look up information myself. I've personally read study results and formed opinions of my own based on them.
When and if I encounter crackpots online that espouse something like eating a mountain of eggs to decrease cholesterol and whose reasoning is founded on the shifty sands of a doubtful, but possible conspiracy.. I IGNORE it.
You will never find consensus on the Internet or among people about anything. People on the Internet will argue about which freaking underwear is the sexiest FFS.0 -
wow that was long, I gave up after the second paragraph..(god im lazy!) but bump just incase I get a case of the unlazies and want to read it later
To summarize, there are papers out there which easily prove that drinking cat urine is the best and fastest way to lose fat while building lean muscle. So anyone who isn't on a cat urine drinking regimen is wasting their efforts, plain and simple. It's also very good for the skin.
If you are interested in obtaining my specially blended proprietary formula of high quality cat urine isolate (now with 22 additional vitamins and performance enhancing minerals), I can get you a great discount on the stuff.
:laugh:
sorry, i think i need to step away from the computer now
This post made me LOL...too funny!! Thanks for the laugh!!0 -
enjoyed the posts. people should do their own research but the net is a misinformation minefield. my favorite out of the above was the: (To ‘paraphrase another poster, why don’t we start saying drinking cat pee because it will help us lose weight. Some people are bound to try this after we post it).
lol but wincing at the same time...0 -
I don't disagree with you about the general wackiness of the fringe element in nutrition,but I also want to say something that's been on my mind quite a lot lately as I read MFP posts and compare them to the medical community's official word on weight loss.
So here goes. The medical community has repeatedly stated that the ONLY thing that matters for weight loss is eating fewer calories than we use. When we (people who are not successful at losing weight while diligently counting calories and consuming fewer colories than we use) tell them (the medical community) that it's not working and that there must be more to it, they tell us that we must not really be counting all the calories we consume.
But perfectly reasonable posters on MFP who have no reason to lie repeatedly describe situations in which they have been consuming fewer calories than they used, sometimes for weeks, without losing weight. When science tells us that something HAS to be true and then our own life experience denies it, that confuses us, makes us distrust science, and leaves a lot of room for superstition about things like high fructose corn syrup.
In my own experience, I lose weight when I do anaerobic exercise, and I do not lose weight doing only aerobic exercise, even if the calories consumed are the same. I don't understand the science behind this, and there is nothing in the medical community's "rule" about weight lost to account for it, so is it surprising that I would believe other posters when they talk about what works for them, even if the whole body of medical knowledge denies it?
Yes, to be honest, I'm carrying a grudge against the medical community because doctors tend to have a really bad attitude toward fat people. But if they ever said word one about weight loss that actually helped me lose weight I'd for sure be lining up to listen to the second word.0 -
jknops2:
Excellent post.
I ran into the same thing about a week ago when I responded to a post about a blood type diet. I did some quick "research" by Googling blood type diet and lo, there was the fringe versus scientific consensus. I've come to the conclusion that these folks are part of the crowd which says that I'm not listening unless I agree with them.
If you're trying to debate a topic you have to have a person who is willing to listen your arguments and logically refute or accept them. Otherwise its just emotion. In your argument with the "egg lady," nothing you say is going to change her mind. You only tell the truth and let the reader decide who to believe.
Anecdotal evidence is always attractive to believe from an emotional perspective. I have to accept the argument based on the other side's dedication to their own experience. Otherwise I end up being accused of dismissing the individual, not the "fact' or assertion that is being supported. (It happens to me all the time.)
At the end of the day, these are just folks who are posting on a message board. Its all hearsay, I lost 8 lbs since starting this program but you can only accept or dismiss my assertion since you have no way of verifying my log entries.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, It got me to thinking.
Best,
Markja0 -
Mostly I appreciate your need for real evidence. I have a hard time going off what just anyone says on here (or in life in general) without some real speculation. (But I'm a philosophy major, so, that may have something to do with it.)
As far as HCG is concerned: It worked FOR ME, and that's what I'm happy about. I've lost almost 20 pounds. That's weight I haven't been able to lose on my own for a variety of reason... be it food addiction, out of control portions, my body CLINGS to carbs.
But that's a little beside the point. I've said it a thousand times... different things work for different people. I try really hard not to speculate on what everyone says here mostly because if its something they're doing and its working, well, perception is reality.
I DO, however, appreciate this post in its entirety. I think its great that you've found the real issue with our media/ healthcare.0 -
jknops2:
Excellent post.
I ran into the same thing about a week ago when I responded to a post about a blood type diet. I did some quick "research" by Googling blood type diet and lo, there was the fringe versus scientific consensus. I've come to the conclusion that these folks are part of the crowd which says that I'm not listening unless I agree with them.
If you're trying to debate a topic you have to have a person who is willing to listen your arguments and logically refute or accept them. Otherwise its just emotion. In your argument with the "egg lady," nothing you say is going to change her mind. You only tell the truth and let the reader decide who to believe.
Anecdotal evidence is always attractive to believe from an emotional perspective. I have to accept the argument based on the other side's dedication to their own experience. Otherwise I end up being accused of dismissing the individual, not the "fact' or assertion that is being supported. (It happens to me all the time.)
At the end of the day, these are just folks who are posting on a message board. Its all hearsay, I lost 8 lbs since starting this program but you can only accept or dismiss my assertion since you have no way of verifying my log entries.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, It got me to thinking.
Best,
Markja
I think your post in the blood type diet thread is a good example. But the OP in that thread wasn't asking for evidence for or against it - they just wanted to know something about oats and wheat. You have to pick the battles you want to "fight." Some people are going to want to listen, others aren't. Not to mention, what works for you may not work for another person. That's one of the biggest lessons you have to realize on here. Some of those wacked out diets actually work for some people, but not necessarily for the reasons they think. In typical MFP style, my example is Atkins, I rocked on Atkins. Turns out that I have a wheat sensitivity that causes me issues when I eat standard carbs, so no duh that I lost weight on there and felt great.
As with most things, there are some general rules, but not everyone can live by those rules - it's how we make progress in learning more things.0 -
It is very common to see people spouting total garbage on this site. This site is mainly about people trying to change their weight/diet in general and there is so much information out there, constantly changing, it is difficult to know what is real and what can be trusted. Like the girl on here earlier who said that nuts are bad for you because they are a high calorie food, and to eat a handful is 300 calories. Crazy. But you can't say they're crazy cuz then they get defensive and cry. So what do you do? Explain the scientific benefits, the cals per serving and explain that in moderation they are a good source or protein and fat. It's up to you whether you wanna list a book of research for the person as they are always "right" but it could help the other people out there who don't know much about nuts or whatever have a more balanced view. As for quick fix diets and the like I don't really pay any attention to them. If people try it and it works for them, more power to them. But for most of us, we may experiment and quickly realize that starving our bodies, or just eating meat, or whatever the case may be, is not the best option. I say, respond to posts that you feel could be unhealthy or downright dangerous which as many scientific facts you can find. If there is misinformation as to nutritional facts, correct them. As to the people just being silly, i think you should just ignore it.0
-
I don't disagree with you about the general wackiness of the fringe element in nutrition,but I also want to say something that's been on my mind quite a lot lately as I read MFP posts and compare them to the medical community's official word on weight loss.
So here goes. The medical community has repeatedly stated that the ONLY thing that matters for weight loss is eating fewer calories than we use. When we (people who are not successful at losing weight while diligently counting calories and consuming fewer colories than we use) tell them (the medical community) that it's not working and that there must be more to it, they tell us that we must not really be counting all the calories we consume.
But perfectly reasonable posters on MFP who have no reason to lie repeatedly describe situations in which they have been consuming fewer calories than they used, sometimes for weeks, without losing weight. When science tells us that something HAS to be true and then our own life experience denies it, that confuses us, makes us distrust science, and leaves a lot of room for superstition about things like high fructose corn syrup.
In my own experience, I lose weight when I do anaerobic exercise, and I do not lose weight doing only aerobic exercise, even if the calories consumed are the same. I don't understand the science behind this, and there is nothing in the medical community's "rule" about weight lost to account for it, so is it surprising that I would believe other posters when they talk about what works for them, even if the whole body of medical knowledge denies it?
Yes, to be honest, I'm carrying a grudge against the medical community because doctors tend to have a really bad attitude toward fat people. But if they ever said word one about weight loss that actually helped me lose weight I'd for sure be lining up to listen to the second word.
First off, my expertise is plant ecology, carbon and nitrogen cycling, not nutrition or medical fields. Having said that, I have researched my health issues in the primary literature and I can comprehend what is well known and what is not.
And you make a good point, medical research is pretty good evaluating drugs, but not genetic influence on peoples weight and health issues. Which is for good reasons, it is not ethical to do these experiments on humans and rat and mouse studies can only tell us a limited amount. Correlational studies like the large nurses study can help us a bit, but are still limited. See
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/145/7/614.abstract
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/289/1/76.abstract
But for instance looking at myself, examining diabetes risk, there is not a lot of good data and enough of a sample size to get solid evidence to evaluate what BMI is best for me. Reading though it, BMI of 20 seems best for me. There is solid data supporting of having a BMI below 25, but the data is not that solid for if it is better to be substantially below it like 20, which I am aiming for, but it points in that direction. And yes, I had to read through a bunch of papers to figure this out, most of the websites, even reputable ones don’t cover this much. And these scientific articles are not easy to read or evaluate, because they are outside my field. Websites and government agencies simplify them down to make them understandable to everyone, which does not help either.
Going back to you. Genetics clearly matter. Ultimately calories in and calories out is what counts for most people. For me, eating less works, I don’t have time to exercise that much, work, kids, a spouse with a long commute, so I take care of dinner and moving kids to school and daycare.
But, going again back to you, yes genetics matter and, as far as I can see, there is not much in the literate evaluating this, which is a problem. I actually thought about this and this website like this has the potential to address this. Think about the large number of people logging in what they eat, what their weight is and what results you get. I think this has the opportunity to get much better data than most scientific studies have. We should email the owner of this website to encourage him to pursue this NIH has grants for this kind of research.
But again, again, going back to you, I don’t know what to say. Yes, there must be something else than just counting calories for a large number of people that’s important. And yes, I see a problem, with high fructose corn syrup. Yes calories are calories, but HFCS is cheap, so it gets added in large amounts to many foods. In my opinion, there is nothing fundamentally different from other sugar, but 48 grams in each can of soft drinks adds up fast. My doctor told me nothing about losing weight, but to cut my carbs in ½. I did not use much sugar before, rarely drink soft drinks, and probably (before my fitness pall) consumed less than 150 grams of carbs a day, so I don’t think that’s what caused my high sugar level
“In my own experience, I lose weight when I do anaerobic exercise, and I do not lose weight doing only aerobic exercise, even if the calories consumed are the same. I don't understand the science behind this, and there is nothing in the medical community's "rule" about weight lost to account for it, so is it surprising that I would believe other posters when they talk about what works for them, even if the whole body of medical knowledge denies it? “
Sorry nothing useful I can say about this. I did not look into this.
And yes, I agree about doctor’s attitude. Me being pre-diabetic, my doctor mentioned eating less carbs, as I said I don’t drink pop and rarely eat sugar, so not much I can do there. But weight is a major factor, which she did not mention, which I can do something about. In addition, I actually teach many pre-med students in an ecology-evolution course and I am not impressed with most of these students either. Future earnings seem to be more on their mind than anything else.
And your final point about overweight people. I think the problem is that for many people it is the basic issue of eating less or losing more, i.e exercising. And they dominated the people that doctors interact with. But yes, another part of overweight people has other factors causing this and for these people we don’t know what the key factors are and doctors, because there is no solid data, lump them in with the rest. The only hope is that with the decreasing cost of sequencing genetic data, the new development of individually based health care is coming soon. This has the potential to maybe address this issue in the future.0 -
I'm a scientist. I have to say as a non-medical doctor the medical community lets us down. It's recommendations are very often not based on good science especially in the realm of nutrition. You clearly don't need a PhD to pick up on this.
Medical 'science' fails people all the time. And when it does they turn to whatever crazy thing might possibly work... as they should.
Check this out:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio
Maybe the egg lady isn't so crazy.0 -
I'm interested in the scientist view of Coconut oil.....it's a saturated fat, right? I hear both positives and negatives. There's a lot of "this is the greatest thing for you" with an almost cult-like fervor attached to it which gets me immediately suspicious, then there's Dr. Mercola, who I think has SOME interesting info but is also a crank. I'm interested in what the scientists on this thread say.0
-
n/a0
-
Great article! Thanks for the link.
Here's another one--this time about exercise: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-exercise-really-make&page=4I'm a scientist. I have to say as a non-medical doctor the medical community lets us down. It's recommendations are very often not based on good science especially in the realm of nutrition. You clearly don't need a PhD to pick up on this.
Medical 'science' fails people all the time. And when it does they turn to whatever crazy thing might possibly work... as they should.
Check this out:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio
Maybe the egg lady isn't so crazy.0 -
I'm interested in the scientist view of Coconut oil.....it's a saturated fat, right? I hear both positives and negatives. There's a lot of "this is the greatest thing for you" with an almost cult-like fervor attached to it which gets me immediately suspicious, then there's Dr. Mercola, who I think has SOME interesting info but is also a crank. I'm interested in what the scientists on this thread say.
Not a lot of good data. Below are a couple of sample articles that have some relevant info in them. But sorry, this is not my research field, there are hundreds of similar articles and this would take a while to review and synthesize.
However, looking at this it is clear there is at best, marginal evidence that coconut oil is good for you, and nothing that it is magically good for you.
Fish oil clearly is, and there is much more evidence that oils, like olive and grapeseed, high in unsaturated fats are good. And there is lots of evidence that saturated fats are really bad, coconut oil is very high in saturated fats, so I would not include this in any diet, if you have high cholesterol. Outside of that, any food including coconut oil is, in my opinion, fine, it eaten in moderation. Except for trans fats, there is clear evidence that we should eliminate these.
• (Assunção, ML; Ferreira, HS; Dos Santos, AF; Cabral Jr, CR; Florêncio, TM (July 2009). "Effects of dietary coconut oil on the biochemical and anthropometric profiles of women presenting abdominal obesity.". Lipids 44 (7): 593–601). This study used 20 women for 12 weeks with a coconut supplement versus soybean oil, 20 women. This shows a 3 point increase in HDL. No difference in weight loss.
• Plasma lipid and lipoprotein response of humans to beef fat, coconut oil and safflower oil. R Reiser, JL Probstfield, A Silvers… - The American journal …, 1985 - This compares 19 males, 25 years old for 5 weeks. It shows that men with beef fat have lower LDL cholesterol
• Mechanisms of hypertriglyceridemia in the coconut oil/cholesterol-fed rabbit. Increased secretion and decreased catabolism of very low density lipoprotein. M Van Heek… - Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and …, 1991. This study looks at rabbits, comparing coconut oil to olive oil and shows lower cholesterol with olive oil.
• Serum and liver lipids in rats and chicks fed with diets containing different oils. AM Feoli, C Roehrig, LN Rotta, AH Kruger… - Nutrition, 2003 –This looks and rats and chickens comparing soybean and coconut oil and shows that coconut diet has higher cholesterol levels.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions