Science, rational evidence, and made up nutritional facts.

Teemo

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.

That's because there isn't a consensus, the science is constantly developing/evolving, bias funding (real or perceived) shades all studies, and people prefer to listen to the advice their parents and friends give. That, and people like to look for easy excuses and scapegoats. To take your topics in turn:

• Cholesterol health issue being a myth

Not sure what you mean by this. Blood cholesterol, from all schools of thought, is a legitimate issue. The only dispute as it were is whether -dietary- cholesterol has any effect on blood cholesterol. Popular consensus is "yes, of course." Scientific studies lean towards the side of "no, of course not" with a few studies in between.

• Saturated fats being a health issue

I don't think there's a dispute about this, except to the extent that popular consensus is "all fats in any amount are bad" which is simply incorrect.

• HCG diet

Don't know what this is.

• Paleo diet, or other diets eliminating all carbs

Fad diets and or fancy calorie-restriction diets with no scientific support or basis. That said, the Paleo diet doesn't eliminate carbs it eliminates GRAINS... which is an important distinction since even ketogenic diets require some level of carbohydrates. Processed foods and grains are either no worse than natural foods and grains or worse than natural foods and grains -- there has never been an argument that processed foods are BETTER for you. No harm therefore in cutting them out.

• Corn sugar being bad and natural sugars being good (sugars are sugars after all)

Media alarmism and uneducated hype. Sugars are sugars.

aeevr

" superstition about things like high fructose corn syrup"

High fructose corn syrup can be produced from genetically modified corn. We really have no idea how genetically modified produce can affect us since no real thorough testing is required by the FDA.

I am no expert in this issue and really have no idea what to think, but if anyone can produce some hard evidence that shows GMO's are harmless, I'm very interested.

aeevr

"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. "

I think this is a FANTASTIC idea. Cheap, ready to use data - what more could a scientist want?

jknops2

Almost all of insulin, human growth hormone, hepatitis-B vaccine, and antibodies for cancer treatments these days is produced by GMO modified bacteria, with great benefit and lower cost. Most animal studies (rats, mice) of human diseases use genetically modified animals. No one seems to be worried about this.

In crops, for human health, there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact. Just vague talk about potential problems, like allergies. And keep in mind that the same bt protein that GMO corn produces is used in organic farming as a natural pesticide.

GMO corn leads to substantially lower pesticides use and higher yields. I think that this is a great benefit for all of us.

aeevr

Almost all of insulin, human growth hormone, hepatitis-B vaccine, and antibodies for cancer treatments these days is produced by GMO modified bacteria, with great benefit and lower cost. Most animal studies (rats, mice) of human diseases use genetically modified animals. No one seems to be worried about this.

In crops, for human health, there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact. Just vague talk about potential problems, like allergies. And keep in mind that the same bt protein that GMO corn produces is used in organic farming as a natural pesticide.

GMO corn leads to substantially lower pesticides use and higher yields. I think that this is a great benefit for all of us.

I'm worried and I know I am not the only one.

From my understanding Roundup ready GMO's were produced to withstand more herbicides (the Roundup). So yeah, less pesticide, way more herbicide. An herbicide that to my understanding is an endocrine disruptor/estrogen mimic.

"there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact"
My question is: have valid, thorough studies shown this?

jknops2

I'm worried and I know I am not the only one.

From my understanding Roundup ready GMO's were produced to withstand more herbicides (the Roundup). So yeah, less pesticide, way more herbicide. An herbicide that to my understanding is an endocrine disruptor/estrogen mimic.

"there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact"
My question is: have valid, thorough studies shown this?
[/quote]

Ok, corn is mainly Bt GMO. Corn is a big competitive plant and does not need much weed control, hence herbicide use is not an issue, and neither is Roundup Ready corn widely used.

Most of the soybean in the US, is roundup ready GMO. And Alfalfa is just approved as a roundup ready GMO, and will likely be used widely. These plants are much shorter stature and have major weeds issues. It is planted as a monoculture after all. Roundup is broad spectrum and kills all plants, but it is rapidly broken down in the soil by bacteria, does not accumulate or contaminate water streams, and is better than most alternatives, like 2.4.D. (I do have to say, my undergraduate was in horticulture and I was up on this, but I switched to ecology and am not up on what current herbicides are commonly used, and more recent herbicides are likely to be not as bad as 2.4.D, which does accumulate and leaches into water). So, (my opinion) I prefer roundup over many herbicides, which have a much worse environmental impact.

You also need to note that organic producers use tillage to controls weeds in the same corps. Tillage leads to increased soil erosion, loss of topsoil which contaminates streams and rivers and is not sustainable. If anyone wants to claim that organic agriculture is environmental better, they need to address the issues of increased soil erosion, which they do not do. I am familiar with these studies and no till agriculture using herbicides, in my mind, is much more sustainable and better for the environment than tillage driven organic agriculture.

As a related issue, urban use of Roundup is much worse; most people apply much too high levels in their yards. So, if you are worried about Roundup, check your neighbors. This scares me more than regulated agricultural use. I don’t eat organic, but I do not use anything herbicide/pesticide in my yard or house. It still surprises me that many people who eat organic do use all this stuff in and around their house and do not realize that they get much more exposure this way.

Going back to corn, the Bt gene which is the GMO part produces a protein that kills insects. Hence much less insecticide use. And, as I said there is no evidence showing that this negatively impact human health. But, as you ask can you prove this? It is really hard to prove a negative. Bt corn has been widely used for more than 15 years and yes, so far nothing has emerged. So, I think, it makes no difference. But, I can see that people want more evidence, but it is not going to be easy to get this.

In the same note, many organic produces claim that their product is healthier. But they also have no evidence or data to support this. Why not require organic producers to provide convincing data that justifies their higher price?

schobert101

Great points knops2, couldn't agree more. As a physician I am trained in uosing evidence based principles. There is so much garbage on some of these boards that it realy isn't possible to argue every point. i too like to see a reference to the data or study that backs up what someone is claiming. If I see something on here though that is just medically wrong or dangerous I wil speak up. I have commented on this problem in several other posts and it behooves all of us to really trust nohting that you see here and do your own research or ask the person claiming something to back it up ith a reference

jknops2

I'm worried and I know I am not the only one.

From my understanding Roundup ready GMO's were produced to withstand more herbicides (the Roundup). So yeah, less pesticide, way more herbicide. An herbicide that to my understanding is an endocrine disruptor/estrogen mimic.

"there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact"
My question is: have valid, thorough studies shown this?
[/quote]

Not quite thru, not more but different herbicides. Roundup kills corn. It kills most plants. Roundup resistant corn has a gene inserted that prevents this, that’s why farmers can use Roundup with this GMO corn. But the bottom line is this roundup in GMO Roundup resistant plants replaces other herbicides, so the question is if Roundup or the alternative herbicides are better. My understanding Roundup is more benign. It decomposes fast and does not accumulate. To answer your question about “endocrine disruptor/estrogen mimic”, I don’t know. You would need to evaluate different herbicides and I have not done this.

And your last question “"there is no evidence that GMO has any adverse impact. My question is: have valid, thorough studies shown this?”
There is not a lot of good data on this. It is much easier to show that something matters than it does not matter. Bt Corn has been around for more than 15 years with no clear evidence that it has an adverse effect on human health. Roundup ready soybeans have been around for more than 10 year, and so far no evidence of any problems. So, in my opinion, no, there is no evidence. However saying this, I am familiar with most this literature. However, if there was a striking scientific paper out there on this topic I would know about this and you too, because the press would have reported on this.

Thinking about this. It is kind of ironic. I work with several agricultural scientists, who consider me the environmentalist. I keep arguing for lowering fertilizer use and pesticide use, because of the environmental consequences of their use. And here I am arguing the benefits of modern agriculture. I guess, like politicians, it is not easy to advocate a middle ground in these issues.

aeevr

Thanks so much for your replies. It's definitely nice to hear someone educated in these matters not pushing an agenda.

I really don't know what to think about this stuff. I don't buy organic, I don't trust those people either! If I had the income, I'd be eating a lot more grass fed beef, though.

I do know that prescription drugs caused me to gain ~60 lbs in 2 years with no correspondingly large increase in calories while living a very active lifestyle (along with some other ailments). So I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry and see the medical establishment as basically their puppets. I don't trust the government to protect us from the likes of Monsanto either.

I just try to eat real food and hope for the best.

Mirabilis

hmmmmm

Diet-tainment.

We're as processed as Kraft Dinner in this... children of the television age who don't ask enough questions because the information's just handed to us.

I agree.. look it up, make inquiries, question the answers. We can't all have medical degrees (mine are Philosophy (Logic) and Law) but we can actively question, which would be a good thing.