You Should Study Nutrition - The Other Perspective

EvgeniZyntx

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

As you saw, that link raises the possibility of a small increase in the relative risk of cancer from processed meats - not processed food and not all types of processed meat. Yes, possibly daily consumption of large amounts of cured meat creates a greater risk. But you are conflating one study to conclude that this means all processed foods create a risk.

And this is my issue with a lot if these blogs and web sites - generalized conflated conclusions from limited information and behavior that is aberrant - for example, people that attempt to treat advance stages of cancer through funky new diets.

Is it useful and healthy to eat a variety of food with large amount of fresh food, especially vegetables? Yes. Is processed food all evil? Well, draw your own conclusions, I'm not selling anything.

Edit: science is all about interpretation - it is what a scientist does.

"Science IS NOT all about interpretation. An interpretation is what you, "think". but science has to be proven with a measured outcome. An interpretation is not a "measured outcome" it is a thought.


We were ONLY talking about red meat and not ALL PROCESSED meats. Just red meat. You are correct in what you said about meat, but that is a topic of itself, bc again the conversation was in discussion of red meat being linked to cancer.

Since I am a published researcher and you apparently are not I can tell you that when we carry out research we interpret the information we measure and evaluate in a variety of ways and make assumptions and build conclusions from qualifiable and quantifiable data which are influenced by our education, knowledge and bias. We try to eliminate it but, yes, absolutely interpretation is part of the process.

Learning to read a study is the process of understanding the interpretations and assumptions made by the researchers.

Edit: you first mentioned processed foods - are you moving the goal posts?

ninerbuff

Science agrees with me for a fact! Again, processed foods are linked to causing cancer.

Put the following into a Google search and take your pick on articles claiming "cancer is linked to some processed foods". The articles are by the dozens to support my claim.

Goolge: "is cancer linked to processed foods"

**On a side note "processed foods are also linked to obesity" Obesity is linked to cancer. I would explain WHY obesity is linked to cancer but it would open up a whole can of worms which I know would be non productive in explaining here. If you all can't get that "processed foods are linked to cancer" then you surely won't understand WHY obesity is linked to processed foods and also linked to cancer as well.

And this is why google fu doesn't make an expert. You confuse correlation with causation.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

pinkperfume

I am not going by "what I was told". Documentation works for me. You show me where 'SCIENCE' proved the earth was round, because I can certainly show you where Columbus was the first to prove the theory.

Ancient Greek mathematicians had already proven that the Earth was round, not flat. Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.E. was one of the originators of the idea. Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E. provided the physical evidence, such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon and the curvature of the Earth known by all sailors approaching land. And by the third century B.C.E., Eratosthenes determined the Earth's shape and circumference using basic geometry. In the second century C.E., Claudius Ptolemy wrote the "Almagest," the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. This text was well known throughout educated Europe in Columbus' time.

http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html

Okay, now yours.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Again, it was "thought" by the more educated to be "round" but never proven via science until Columbus sailed and didn't fall off the flat earth. No where did the people above PROVE it.

ie: The prove is someone actually sailing.
Where is the PROVE from the above? Pictures? Sailed? Walked? Sorry, but they didn't PROVE. Didn't you ever do a science center in school? You first come up with your theory (hence what the Greeks did above) HOWEVER, you THEN have to provide evidence to support your theory. Columbus provided evidence, the others just had "theories". This means that Columbus was the FIRST to PROVE the earth was round.

Lol, they did provide evidence. Where's your documentation showing that Columbus actually proved the world was round?
I get the idea that you like to appeal to authority, Washington Irving in this case. Thanks for playing though.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Thinking the world is "round" is a hypothesis. Actual proof is evidence to back up the hypothesis or refute it. You have to provide the proof.

What is your 'proof' that so-and-so PROVED the world round. They "thought" it, but they didn't prove it.

EvgeniZyntx

My evidence is the actual voyage that Christopher Columbus took and was thus the FIRST TO PROVE the earth was not flat. I will get the map of his journey for you.

So what is your proof that the previous ancestors gave to prove their hypothesis?

Thinking the world is "round" is a hypothesis. Actual proof is evidence to back up the hypothesis or refute it. You have to provide the proof.

Actually, the curvature of the earth was measured well before Columbus. Look up Eratosthenes who provided evidence that the earth was curved and spherical.
Columbus didn't prove diddly.

MissPatty584

bump

cravingskinnybody

Bumb for the amazing information!

VanessaHeartsMasr

bump

Joehenny

Peer-Reviewed or GTFOH

ninerbuff

Lol, they did provide evidence. Where's your documentation showing that Columbus actually proved the world was round?
I get the idea that you like to appeal to authority, Washington Irving in this case. Thanks for playing though.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Thinking the world is "round" is a hypothesis. Actual proof is evidence to back up the hypothesis or refute it. You have to provide the proof.

What is your 'proof' that so-and-so PROVED the world round. They "thought" it, but they didn't prove it.

Start here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/21/who-discovered-the-earth-is-ro/

And in the ancient world, the greatest scholars and scientists from Egypt, Greece, and all over the Mediterranean went to work at the Library of Alexandria. One of these scientists was the Ancient Greek Astronomer, Eratosthenes of Cyrene. While living in Alexandria, Eratosthenes received some amazing correspondence from the city of Syene in southern Egypt. In particular, it said that, on the Summer Solstice,

the shadow of someone looking down a deep well would block the reflection of the Sun at noon.

In other words, the Sun would be directly overhead at this time, not a single degree to the South, North, East or West. And if you had a completely vertical object, it would cast absolutely no shadow.
But Eratosthenes knew that this wasn’t the case where he was, in Alexandria. Sure, the Sun came closer to being directly overhead at Noon on the Summer Solstice in Alexandria than at any other time during the year, but vertical objects still cast shadows.

And — like any good scientist — Eratosthenes did the experiment. By measuring the length of the shadow cast by a vertical stick during the solstice noon, he could figure out what angle the Sun made with the vertical direction at Alexandria.

And the answer he got was one-fiftieth of a circle, or 7.2 degrees. But at this time, in Syene, the angle the Sun was making with an identical vertical stick was zero degrees! What could be causing this? In perhaps a stroke of genius, Eratosthenes realized that the Sun’s rays could all be parallel, and that the Earth could be curved!

If he could then figure out the distance from Alexandria to Syene, since he knew the angular difference between the two cities, he could figure out the circumference of the Earth! If only Eratosthenes had a grad student, he could have sent one to make the trip, and measure the distance!

There's more on how he went on to prove it, but it's a long read.
So again where's this documentation you spoke of to prove Columbus proved the world was round? Because he didn't sail around the world before Juan Sebastian Elcano completed it (Magellan started the journey but was killed in my ethnic homeland of the Philippines).

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dakotababy

My brother, I believe, has orthorexia. That definition does not even compare to represent his eating habits. He began by exercising, cutting out junk. Then after he lost significant amount of weight (he was obese), he began to do 'research" and discovered the great gift of "organic" foods. After this discovery, he cut out all dairy, all meat, and pretty much every carb except those from fruits and veggies.

That was all he was eating. Fruits and Veggies....
Needless to say, he began to look frail, weak, and sick. His eyes were sunken in, his cheeks were sunken in...and his skin looked pale and...greyish.

I honestly seen him after about 6 months, and my first thought (as i am an addiction counsellor) was that he was on some kind of drug. He resembled the appearance of a long-term heroin addict. He doesn't do drugs...he just became obsessed.

Orthorexia, as I understand it is the thought and behaviour of continuing to cut out more and more foods and types of foods until there is a very limited selection. (In his case, he would only eat fruits and veggies)...he eventually could not keep up and has gained most of his weight back...THANK GOD.

So in about 1 year...he went from being 280lbs, down to about 120...and now up to 240lbs again.

CoachReddy

My brother, I believe, has orthorexia. That definition does not even compare to represent his eating habits. He began by exercising, cutting out junk. Then after he lost significant amount of weight (he was obese), he began to do 'research" and discovered the great gift of "organic" foods. After this discovery, he cut out all dairy, all meat, and pretty much every carb except those from fruits and veggies.

That was all he was eating. Fruits and Veggies....
Needless to say, he began to look frail, weak, and sick. His eyes were sunken in, his cheeks were sunken in...and his skin looked pale and...greyish.

I honestly seen him after about 6 months, and my first thought (as i am an addiction counsellor) was that he was on some kind of drug. He resembled the appearance of a long-term heroin addict. He doesn't do drugs...he just became obsessed.

Orthorexia, as I understand it is the thought and behaviour of continuing to cut out more and more foods and types of foods until there is a very limited selection. (In his case, he would only eat fruits and veggies)...he eventually could not keep up and has gained most of his weight back...THANK GOD.

So in about 1 year...he went from being 280lbs, down to about 120...and now up to 240lbs again.

Yeah I'm sure it's a real thing, it just gets tossed around far too cavalierly by people who have no idea what they're saying. And to accuse people of having an eating disorder just because they eat more meticulously than others is no different than me calling all the 1200 cal/day people anorexic because they eat a third as many calories as I do. But were I to do that i'd be flamed, reported and potentially banned.

albertabeefy

Peer-Reviewed or GTFOH

Were you aware the peer-review process is unreliable (at best) and even "broken" (at worst)?

Scientific fraud is, in-fact, a low-risk and high-reward activity that's been engaged in by "notable researchers" hundreds of times.

To rely solely on the peer-review process leaves one as ignorant as listening only to one side of an argument.

The BEST thing we can do as individuals regarding a topic is research ALL sides relating to it, fully examine the studies and come to our own conclusions based on the information provided.... Then TEST those conclusions to prove them correct or not.

Source: Over 20 years as a medical researcher.

CoachReddy

Peer-Reviewed or GTFOH

Were you aware the peer-review process is unreliable (at best) and even "broken" (at worst)?

Scientific fraud is, in-fact, a low-risk and high-reward activity that's been engaged in by "notable researchers" hundreds of times.

To rely solely on the peer-review process leaves one as ignorant as listening only to one side of an argument.

The BEST thing we can do as individuals regarding a topic is research ALL sides relating to it, fully examine the studies and come to our own conclusions based on the information provided.... Then TEST those conclusions to prove them correct or not.

Source: Over 20 years as a medical researcher.

that was a much better response than mine would have been! :flowerforyou:

EvgeniZyntx

Peer-Reviewed or GTFOH

Were you aware the peer-review process is unreliable (at best) and even "broken" (at worst)?

Scientific fraud is, in-fact, a low-risk and high-reward activity that's been engaged in by "notable researchers" hundreds of times.

To rely solely on the peer-review process leaves one as ignorant as listening only to one side of an argument.

The BEST thing we can do as individuals regarding a topic is research ALL sides relating to it, fully examine the studies and come to our own conclusions based on the information provided.... Then TEST those conclusions to prove them correct or not.

Source: Over 20 years as a medical researcher.

While fraud in research does exist, the quality of nutritional research varies significantly, and the statistical hocus pocus of some meta analysis is down right shameful, research is still the golden standard of evidence-based analysis. Especially in terms of magic claims being sold by the snake oil merchants of health, it is a minimum requirement to demonstrate a study - it is much more difficult to shout "fraud" when the information or studies come from multiple sites and different researchers.

The absence of proof for fantastic claims is in no way suddenly justified by the presence of fraud. It only underlines that those making the claims haven't even bothered to propose a bad paper.

I would argue that in the last five years, the risk of fraudulent behavior has significantly increased and that while very much present it is not that much of a "low risk behavior" any more. As a reader of retractionwatch and other blogs/web sites on the subject, I'm impressed by the amount of self-policing going on.

As to testing conclusions - it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites. Yes, personal observation, holistic historical claims can be valuable and should be used as part of the big picture.

Edit: same source.

albertabeefy

While fraud in research does exist, the quality of nutritional research varies significantly, and the statistical hocus pocus of some meta analysis is down right shameful, research is still the golden standard of evidence-based analysis. Especially in terms of magic claims being sold by the snake oil merchants of health, it is a minimum requirement to demonstrate a study - it is much more difficult to shout "fraud" when the information or studies come from multiple sites and different researchers.

The absence of proof for fantastic claims is in no way suddenly justified by the presence of fraud. It only underlines that those making the claims haven't even bothered to propose a bad paper.

I would argue that in the last five years, the risk of fraudulent behavior has significantly increased and that while very much present it is not that much of a "low risk behavior" any more. As a reader of retractionwatch and other blogs/web sites on the subject, I'm impressed by the amount of self-policing going on.

As to testing conclusions - it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites. Yes, personal observation, holistic historical claims can be valuable and should be used as part of the big picture.

Edit: same source.

I think what's important is people take the time to learn the difference between observational studies (especially those using self-reported food and exercise diaries taken months or years after the fact) and RCT (randomized, controlled trials), and learn to analyze the data a bit on their own instead of relying solely on what the researchers (who may or may not be biased) conclude.

As for the statement " it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites" ... this may well be true - I haven't been here long enough to see 'most' of the studies, which after spending a few days here I'm probably grateful for... There are some interesting beliefs on this site, it seems. Many that aren't based in science or reality.

EvgeniZyntx

While fraud in research does exist, the quality of nutritional research varies significantly, and the statistical hocus pocus of some meta analysis is down right shameful, research is still the golden standard of evidence-based analysis. Especially in terms of magic claims being sold by the snake oil merchants of health, it is a minimum requirement to demonstrate a study - it is much more difficult to shout "fraud" when the information or studies come from multiple sites and different researchers.

The absence of proof for fantastic claims is in no way suddenly justified by the presence of fraud. It only underlines that those making the claims haven't even bothered to propose a bad paper.

I would argue that in the last five years, the risk of fraudulent behavior has significantly increased and that while very much present it is not that much of a "low risk behavior" any more. As a reader of retractionwatch and other blogs/web sites on the subject, I'm impressed by the amount of self-policing going on.

As to testing conclusions - it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites. Yes, personal observation, holistic historical claims can be valuable and should be used as part of the big picture.

Edit: same source.

I think what's important is people take the time to learn the difference between observational studies (especially those using self-reported food and exercise diaries taken months or years after the fact) and RCT (randomized, controlled trials), and learn to analyze the data a bit on their own instead of relying solely on what the researchers (who may or may not be biased) conclude.

As for the statement " it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites" ... this may well be true - I haven't been here long enough to see 'most' of the studies, which after spending a few days here I'm probably grateful for... There are some interesting beliefs on this site, it seems. Many that aren't based in science or reality.

Agreed. However, what you consider scientifically validated or not might differ from what I currently accept. Caveat lector.

2ht2hand1e

Bump to check out the articles. thanks for sharing!