Where's the evidence re: aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo etc?
Options
Replies
-
At this point it seems you can find a study proving something is good to counter a study saying the same thing is bad. I think that one of the largest problems with the things we consume daily is that there has yet to be long term human studies conducted on much of it.
Having said that, I find it difficult to accept that consuming something like monsantos GMO corn is going to be good long term. This "food" kills insects for cripes sake. It's not just the long term affects on humans I'm concerned about but the affects on the environment as well.
^^This.
I won't bother to spend hours looking up (and posting) research. Since I'm a Clinical Research Associate I sort of do this crap everyday, I have a solid handle on what I'm willing to eat and why. And for EVERY argument, there is a counter argument. There is also a great deal of political involvement with big box companies/Monsanto/USDA/FDA. The funding for these research studies comes from somewhere
and they sure as hell aren't going to let something be published that is discriminatory whilst they may lose said funding. Your best bets are to look into EU funded research. 0 -
Ok, I caved, EU abstract- because they don't have "pro chemical American Funding"
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/full/1602866a.html
"It was seen that aspartame disturbs amino acid metabolism, protein structure and metabolism, integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function, endocrine balances and changes in the brain concentrations of catecholamines. It was also reported that aspartame and its breakdown products cause nerves to fire excessively, which indirectly causes a very high rate of neuron depolarization. The energy systems for certain required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function optimally. The ATP stores in the cells are depleted, indicating that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells, and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA. The intracellular calcium uptake has been altered, thus the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited. Mitochondria are damaged, which could lead to apoptosis of cells and infertility in men and also a lowered rate of oxidative metabolism are present, thus lowering concentrations of the transmitters glutamate and production of GABA. The cellular walls are destroyed; thus, the cells (endothelium of the capillaries) are more permeable, leading to a compromised BBB. Thus, overall oxidative stress and neurodegeneration are present.
From all the adverse effects caused by this product, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product."0 -
Speaking to a more general point, it's fairly obvious that the OP, among others, have never been governmental affairs representatives. Otherwise, they'd know that much of "research science," including the circle jerk clubs known as "peer review," are many times bought and paid for by monied interests, either directly or indirectly, and in the latter case, often through intricate and unnavigable labryinths. Unimpeachable real scientists battle each year for various prizes, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Even then, it's wise to be skeptical and even cynical.
It's also hopelessly obvious that the OP doesn't quite understand that nearly every administrative agency in the United States, at the federal and state levels, are in large part funded by the industries that they regulate. Those are also the industries that set up the intricate and unnavigable labryinths.
The takeaway: very few people are even capable of figuring out who is wearing the white hats and black hats.
System 1 thinking got us through the first 244,000 years of human history, long before writing systems and certainly before "Novum Organum," and System 1 thinking along with that small percentage of "real science" is likely to be responsible for getting us through the next 244,000 years.
"Science" certainly isn't likely to be advanced by a bunch of self-important and undercredentialed Pub Med Ninjas dueling on myfitnesspal with competing "research studies."
With the foregoing in mind, I'm pretty sure that I need to find a really careful way to manage 1GF-1 as I grow chronologically older. Call it intuition.0 -
I must say that these threads help me figure out who I'd like to friend request.
^ AGREED 0 -
Regulation vs corporate competition? The first article below highlights the consumer addiction side of it by concluding that "while most people support nutrition guidelines to help Americans make better choices along with the posting of calorie counts on restaurant menus, nearly six in ten of those surveyed opposed unhealthy food taxes and three-quarters of respondents were against government restrictions on what people can purchase."
Obesity survey suggests many Americans don't know fat can cause cancer, infertility
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57562421/obesity-survey-suggests-many-americans-dont-know-fat-can-cause-cancer-infertility/
Can you get hooked on diet soda?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/01/diet.soda.health/index.html
Diet Drinks for Preventing Diabetes? No Way!
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diabetes-diet-drinks-for-preventing-diabetes-no-way.html
[/quote
For those of you that came to this thread to actually read studies, several have been posted. No one has yet to comment on the human study I posted regarding MSG and obesity, except to ask for the full study, which I provided. Let's see if anyone reads and has any intelligent discourse on any of these human or otherwise studies. Or do people just want to argue, without reading the research?
The OP has been silent regarding these studies. I thought he wanted to read them and have discourse.
because he's not actually interested in discussion.
Perhaps OP is at the gym....0 -
Regulation vs corporate competition? The first article below highlights the consumer addiction side of it by concluding that "while most people support nutrition guidelines to help Americans make better choices along with the posting of calorie counts on restaurant menus, nearly six in ten of those surveyed opposed unhealthy food taxes and three-quarters of respondents were against government restrictions on what people can purchase."
Obesity survey suggests many Americans don't know fat can cause cancer, infertility
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57562421/obesity-survey-suggests-many-americans-dont-know-fat-can-cause-cancer-infertility/
Can you get hooked on diet soda?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/01/diet.soda.health/index.html
Diet Drinks for Preventing Diabetes? No Way!
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diabetes-diet-drinks-for-preventing-diabetes-no-way.html
[/quote
For those of you that came to this thread to actually read studies, several have been posted. No one has yet to comment on the human study I posted regarding MSG and obesity, except to ask for the full study, which I provided. Let's see if anyone reads and has any intelligent discourse on any of these human or otherwise studies. Or do people just want to argue, without reading the research?
The OP has been silent regarding these studies. I thought he wanted to read them and have discourse.
because he's not actually interested in discussion.
Perhaps OP is at the gym....
Or at work? I doubt this though, since he works 9-5 trolling the forums.0 -
Here is a link to a whole page of studies done on Aspartame.... granted most of the studies are done on rats, the reason for this is because they first test things on animals to see the safety for humans, it is illegal to perform some of these test on humans. Others studies are no looking at the long term use of certian products on humans and the increased numbers of ailments that are related to the "animal" studies is scary. Just the fact that aspartame turns into formaldehyde is enough for me to keep it away from my famiily. The fact is they did not know enough about the long term use of the products and the toxic buildup, the companies putting this stuff out are more concerned about the bottom dollar, if something can't kill you right away then the FDA approves it... just look at the Tabacco companies.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html0 -
Speaking to a more general point, it's fairly obvious that the OP, among others, have never been governmental affairs representatives. Otherwise, they'd know that much of "research science," including the circle jerk clubs known as "peer review," are many times bought and paid for by monied interests, either directly or indirectly, and in the latter case, often through intricate and unnavigable labryinths. Unimpeachable real scientists battle each year for various prizes, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Even then, it's wise to be skeptical and even cynical.
It's also hopelessly obvious that the OP doesn't quite understand that nearly every administrative agency in the United States, at the federal and state levels, are in large part funded by the industries that they regulate. Those are also the industries that set up the intricate and unnavigable labryinths.
The takeaway: very few people are even capable of figuring out who is wearing the white hats and black hats.
System 1 thinking got us through the first 244,000 years of human history, long before writing systems and certainly before "Novum Organum," and System 1 thinking along with that small percentage of "real science" is likely to be responsible for getting us through the next 244,000 years.
"Science" certainly isn't likely to be advanced by a bunch of self-important and undercredentialed Pub Med Ninjas dueling on myfitnesspal with competing "research studies."
With the foregoing in mind, I'm pretty sure that I need to find a really careful way to manage 1GF-1 as I grow chronologically older. Call it intuition.
Well said, sir. As for your 1GF-1... calorie restriction, brah.0 -
I love MSG. That is all.0
-
Speaking to a more general point, it's fairly obvious that the OP, among others, have never been governmental affairs representatives. Otherwise, they'd know that much of "research science," including the circle jerk clubs known as "peer review," are many times bought and paid for by monied interests, either directly or indirectly, and in the latter case, often through intricate and unnavigable labryinths. Unimpeachable real scientists battle each year for various prizes, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Even then, it's wise to be skeptical and even cynical.
It's also hopelessly obvious that the OP doesn't quite understand that nearly every administrative agency in the United States, at the federal and state levels, are in large part funded by the industries that they regulate. Those are also the industries that set up the intricate and unnavigable labryinths.
The takeaway: very few people are even capable of figuring out who is wearing the white hats and black hats.
System 1 thinking got us through the first 244,000 years of human history, long before writing systems and certainly before "Novum Organum," and System 1 thinking along with that small percentage of "real science" is likely to be responsible for getting us through the next 244,000 years.
"Science" certainly isn't likely to be advanced by a bunch of self-important and undercredentialed Pub Med Ninjas dueling on myfitnesspal with competing "research studies."
With the foregoing in mind, I'm pretty sure that I need to find a really careful way to manage 1GF-1 as I grow chronologically older. Call it intuition.
Well said, sir. As for your 1GF-1... calorie restriction, brah.
You mirin'? 0 -
Its really hard to find human studies of anything. Things are mostly being tested in rats and no lifetime studies have been done. Someone tried to attempt a lifetime study with rats and GMO's but one study doesn't make the information definitive.
People tend to forget that in science something is a fact until someone proves it wrong. There are plenty of diets for instance that have been studied and we were told hey this is best. 10 years later we're told, my bad we were wrong. At some point people were told not to eat more than an egg a day because of "studies".
People believe what they choose to believe whether or not its enough evidence for you shouldn't matter unless you're going to give them evidence to dispute their claims. Its not that controversial. Is what you're doing working for you? Thats all that matters. You're not going to stop the rest of the world from believing an article that says something is bad for you. You're not going to stop them from passing it on to other people. When people give me information it is my job to determine if I believe that information. I won't tell people hey stop saying this if you didn't search the world for proof thats good enough for me. Let people think for themselves and if they believe everything they hear then let them deal with the consequences if any.
Have you ever been recommended to buy any product food or not and looked for human studies to prove whether or not its really good for you?
They sell us **** every day thats not good for us and tell us that it is and vice versa! Some people believe it and some don't. I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want people to admit that there aren't many human studies? Do you want people to stop believing those things are bad? Is this your way of encouraging people to do research? Do you want everyone to give evidence with opinions? Whatever you aim, good luck.
On one hand, I kind of agree with you but at the same time I think it's important to understand that lack of human studies and stating something as a scientific fact is a bit of a slippery slope. The scientific method, when done correctly, is done the same across the board, whether it is with food studies, quantum mechanics, or medical advances. It is true that something presented as scientific fact remains so until unproven, but I think this should instill more confidence in what is presented rather than less. Science is self-correcting.
It's easy to write off a food study by saying, "they're always changing the story", but the same thing is often done in medicine when a new advancement comes along. If you get sick, and go to the doctor, and they prescribe a current, peer-reviewed "proven" treatment, would you write it off as easily?
The main problem with people quoting studies on the internet is that the majority of the time, what is quoted is part of an ongoing study that possibly hasn't made it to the human testing stage, or hasn't been verified yet as a fact. Most of us (self included) don't usually take the time to double and triple check what we say, which is why there is an avalanche of misinformation predicated onto the forums. If someone has done their homework, and is presenting a case that is verified as scientific fact, and not merely a part of an ongoing study, then what they say is most likely legit.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the OP is requesting, and if so, then this is an important discussion.
I agree with you, but do you see the difference in your approach to the topic vs the op? Maybe its just me but what you said makes me go hmmmm thats a good point. I could be giving a lot of people half information and maybe I should think about that. What the op said makes me wonder why he didn't just say why people should be more informal about those topics. Its comes off as I don't agree with people who do this so they should give me more evidence so that I can believe them. Thats not going to stop them or me from giving people misinformation. Its going to make me google for what he wants and have more half information to give to people. Had you not made that statement I would have never guessed that he was trying to help stop people from giving misinformation on half information.0 -
Funny how last year you guys where bashing paleo because there was no "evidence," here it is now. I got many more paleo studies if you want them.
Do any of those compare identical calories and macros, but one contains non paleo foods(grains, legumes, dairy) and the other a stricter paleo diet and the stricter paleo diet was shown to be superior?0 -
CONCLUSION:
Higher amounts of individual MSG consumption are associated with the risk of having the metabolic syndrome and being overweight independent of other major determinants.
So we get to the point about dosage, it seems 6g/day based off the researchers giving families a box of msg and seeing how much they used over 10 days and using that as a sole determinant to msg intake?
I don't know myself, but what do you think the avg daily msg intake is outside of Asia? Anywhere near 6g/day? And what would happen if you compared high levels of msg intake to high levels of naturally occurring glutamate? Would you expect a significant difference between groups?0 -
Regulation vs corporate competition? The first article below highlights the consumer addiction side of it by concluding that "while most people support nutrition guidelines to help Americans make better choices along with the posting of calorie counts on restaurant menus, nearly six in ten of those surveyed opposed unhealthy food taxes and three-quarters of respondents were against government restrictions on what people can purchase."
Obesity survey suggests many Americans don't know fat can cause cancer, infertility
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57562421/obesity-survey-suggests-many-americans-dont-know-fat-can-cause-cancer-infertility/
Can you get hooked on diet soda?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/01/diet.soda.health/index.html
Diet Drinks for Preventing Diabetes? No Way!
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diabetes-diet-drinks-for-preventing-diabetes-no-way.html
[/quote
For those of you that came to this thread to actually read studies, several have been posted. No one has yet to comment on the human study I posted regarding MSG and obesity, except to ask for the full study, which I provided. Let's see if anyone reads and has any intelligent discourse on any of these human or otherwise studies. Or do people just want to argue, without reading the research?
The OP has been silent regarding these studies. I thought he wanted to read them and have discourse.
because he's not actually interested in discussion.
Perhaps OP is at the gym....
Or at work? I doubt this though, since he works 9-5 trolling the forums.
Funny when you asked a legit question, I gave you helpful advice. Unlike the time you tried to troll everyone by posting Sission's CHO curve which isn't even based in reality0 -
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this human study that I posted. Did you read it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873
Eviscerated:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-14.pdfIn addition, there are several questionable points regarding the study methods as follows;
1. According to their previous study, subjects who met exclusion criteria were excluded from
the 349 subjects resulted in 315 participants [16]. Although the exclusion criteria are the
same for both studies, participants were 349 in this study. Participants may be the same
because the median MSG intake and interquartile range are the same for both studies,
thus, there is a discrepancy about the number of participants.
2. They provided 250 g MSG in a box and measured weight of returned box to assess MSG
consumption under the assumption that MSG intake measured during 10 days reflect past
MSG intake behavior. This method seems to be similar to the weighted food component
measurement which is often used for food consumption studies and thought to be more
accurate than other methods such as 24 h food recall or food frequency questionnaire.
However, in the usual weighted food component measurement, participants use their own
ingredient whereas these participants used free MSG which was given by the investigator
in this study. This circumstance is quite different from the usual evaluation for
participants, and possibly affected the results. If free MSG is provided, it is very likely
that individuals use more MSG than usual because it is free. Thus, this method could not
be considered to be in the same category as the usual weighted food component
measurement and validation information should be provided.
3. In rural areas of Thailand, multi generations are often living together in the family home.
There may be a number of children in each such family home, but the study excluded
children under 10 years regardless of the number of children in the calculation, and this
possibly affected the MSG consumption data, although the statistical analysis was
adjusted for age.
4. None of the median and percentage values of the five criteria of ATP III were individually
associated with MSG intake cross-sectionally. Only the percentage of the metabolic
syndrome (defined as three or more of the five criteria are met) is associated with MSG
intake. This seems to be an oversight. More detailed data should be provided. In addition,
the observed associations are very weak with the very small odds ratios for overweight
and metabolic syndrome (1.16 and 1.14 respectively) although statistically significant.
5. They chose MSG users only so there is no comparison of the non-MSG users and MSG
users.0 -
Its really hard to find human studies of anything. Things are mostly being tested in rats and no lifetime studies have been done. Someone tried to attempt a lifetime study with rats and GMO's but one study doesn't make the information definitive.
People tend to forget that in science something is a fact until someone proves it wrong. There are plenty of diets for instance that have been studied and we were told hey this is best. 10 years later we're told, my bad we were wrong. At some point people were told not to eat more than an egg a day because of "studies".
People believe what they choose to believe whether or not its enough evidence for you shouldn't matter unless you're going to give them evidence to dispute their claims. Its not that controversial. Is what you're doing working for you? Thats all that matters. You're not going to stop the rest of the world from believing an article that says something is bad for you. You're not going to stop them from passing it on to other people. When people give me information it is my job to determine if I believe that information. I won't tell people hey stop saying this if you didn't search the world for proof thats good enough for me. Let people think for themselves and if they believe everything they hear then let them deal with the consequences if any.
Have you ever been recommended to buy any product food or not and looked for human studies to prove whether or not its really good for you?
They sell us **** every day thats not good for us and tell us that it is and vice versa! Some people believe it and some don't. I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want people to admit that there aren't many human studies? Do you want people to stop believing those things are bad? Is this your way of encouraging people to do research? Do you want everyone to give evidence with opinions? Whatever you aim, good luck.
On one hand, I kind of agree with you but at the same time I think it's important to understand that lack of human studies and stating something as a scientific fact is a bit of a slippery slope. The scientific method, when done correctly, is done the same across the board, whether it is with food studies, quantum mechanics, or medical advances. It is true that something presented as scientific fact remains so until unproven, but I think this should instill more confidence in what is presented rather than less. Science is self-correcting.
It's easy to write off a food study by saying, "they're always changing the story", but the same thing is often done in medicine when a new advancement comes along. If you get sick, and go to the doctor, and they prescribe a current, peer-reviewed "proven" treatment, would you write it off as easily?
The main problem with people quoting studies on the internet is that the majority of the time, what is quoted is part of an ongoing study that possibly hasn't made it to the human testing stage, or hasn't been verified yet as a fact. Most of us (self included) don't usually take the time to double and triple check what we say, which is why there is an avalanche of misinformation predicated onto the forums. If someone has done their homework, and is presenting a case that is verified as scientific fact, and not merely a part of an ongoing study, then what they say is most likely legit.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the OP is requesting, and if so, then this is an important discussion.
I agree with you, but do you see the difference in your approach to the topic vs the op? Maybe its just me but what you said makes me go hmmmm thats a good point. I could be giving a lot of people half information and maybe I should think about that. What the op said makes me wonder why he didn't just say why people should be more informal about those topics. Its comes off as I don't agree with people who do this so they should give me more evidence so that I can believe them. Thats not going to stop them or me from giving people misinformation. Its going to make me google for what he wants and have more half information to give to people. Had you not made that statement I would have never guessed that he was trying to help stop people from giving misinformation on half information.
I'm not going to try to speak for him. The only reason that I would guess that might be what he's asking for is that from what I've seen, he tends to be a genuinely helpful guy. But I definitely agree with the statement in bold above. I think that regardless of OP intent most people respond that way, and it perpetuates the cycle of misinformation.0 -
Here is a link to a whole page of studies done on Aspartame.... granted most of the studies are done on rats, the reason for this is because they first test things on animals to see the safety for humans, it is illegal to perform some of these test on humans. Others studies are no looking at the long term use of certian products on humans and the increased numbers of ailments that are related to the "animal" studies is scary. Just the fact that aspartame turns into formaldehyde is enough for me to keep it away from my famiily. The fact is they did not know enough about the long term use of the products and the toxic buildup, the companies putting this stuff out are more concerned about the bottom dollar, if something can't kill you right away then the FDA approves it... just look at the Tabacco companies.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html
Mercola? Really?0 -
They do it because they are jerks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they brag about that. One, they are rubbing in the face of those who struggle to lose. They know that the majority of people here are hurt, are suffering, are sick, are depressed about their current condition and are wanting to change. They make sure YOU KNOW, THEY CAN and YOU CAN'T so what is wrong with YOU and how cool are they? It is very immature and very rude. It's as if they are in junior high. Like I said, they know what they are doing. It's like me sitting outside of an AA meeting with a beer on a hot day and making slurping noises as I drink it, holding it up to the member saying, "I do this every day, but in moderation and I'm not an alcoholic". I CAN, you can'tChronic inflammation is a key feature of insulin resistance and obesity(TLR4 is important to modulating insulin resistance))[1]
The saturated fatty acid (SFA) palmitate induces insulin resistance in cultured skeletal muscle cells, which may be related to NF-kappaB activation. Collectively, these results demonstrate that SFA-induced NF-kappaB activation coincides with insulin resistance and depends on FA chain length.
So now we have NF-kB linked to insulin resistance. Chronic high levels of glucose can lead to insulin resistance. NF-kB is also linked to simple carbs. [3]
A 3 months study comparing a paleo diet to a diabetics diet concluded the paleo diet improved glycemic control. [4]
A diet that has lower GI foods lowered lower inflammation to a greater degree compared to an isocaloric diet with a higher carbohydrate and lower protein content although the weight loss was the same.[5]
Funny how last year you guys where bashing paleo because there was no "evidence," here it is now. I got many more paleo studies if you want them.
1.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2010/212563
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18957619
3. http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20071126/refined-carbohydrates-up-diabetes-risk
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407
5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17189547
You don't have to eat hardcore paleo to up your protein intake and moderately reduce carbohydrates, with an eye to glycemic loads.
I am not promoting the paleo diet. My point is how HIGH GI foods can lead to cellular inflammation.
If you eat too much of it, maybe. In small to moderate quantities in context to a balanced diet, I don't think they're that much of an issue. I've been using myself as a guinea pig here because a great deal of replacement starches for celiacs are higher GI. It's why people gain weight when they go GF and eat them, just like I did. I've lost weight through moderating them, but not completely eliminating them.
I'd agree but some of these guys preach eating ice cram everyday.
just making sure you all know. But hey, I do it in moderation and I STILL am not an alcoholic. "
couldn't agree more.0 -
Chronic inflammation is a key feature of insulin resistance and obesity(TLR4 is important to modulating insulin resistance))[1]
The saturated fatty acid (SFA) palmitate induces insulin resistance in cultured skeletal muscle cells, which may be related to NF-kappaB activation. Collectively, these results demonstrate that SFA-induced NF-kappaB activation coincides with insulin resistance and depends on FA chain length.
So now we have NF-kB linked to insulin resistance. Chronic high levels of glucose can lead to insulin resistance. NF-kB is also linked to simple carbs. [3]
A 3 months study comparing a paleo diet to a diabetics diet concluded the paleo diet improved glycemic control. [4]
A diet that has lower GI foods lowered lower inflammation to a greater degree compared to an isocaloric diet with a higher carbohydrate and lower protein content although the weight loss was the same.[5]
Funny how last year you guys where bashing paleo because there was no "evidence," here it is now. I got many more paleo studies if you want them.
1.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2010/212563
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18957619
3. http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20071126/refined-carbohydrates-up-diabetes-risk
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407
5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17189547
You don't have to eat hardcore paleo to up your protein intake and moderately reduce carbohydrates, with an eye to glycemic loads.
I am not promoting the paleo diet. My point is how HIGH GI foods can lead to cellular inflammation.
If you eat too much of it, maybe. In small to moderate quantities in context to a balanced diet, I don't think they're that much of an issue. I've been using myself as a guinea pig here because a great deal of replacement starches for celiacs are higher GI. It's why people gain weight when they go GF and eat them, just like I did. I've lost weight through moderating them, but not completely eliminating them.
I'd agree but some of these guys preach eating ice cram everyday.
And gals too
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/903628-one-year-of-barbells-and-ice-cream-my-story-so-far-pics0 -
Its really hard to find human studies of anything. Things are mostly being tested in rats and no lifetime studies have been done. Someone tried to attempt a lifetime study with rats and GMO's but one study doesn't make the information definitive.
People tend to forget that in science something is a fact until someone proves it wrong. There are plenty of diets for instance that have been studied and we were told hey this is best. 10 years later we're told, my bad we were wrong. At some point people were told not to eat more than an egg a day because of "studies".
People believe what they choose to believe whether or not its enough evidence for you shouldn't matter unless you're going to give them evidence to dispute their claims. Its not that controversial. Is what you're doing working for you? Thats all that matters. You're not going to stop the rest of the world from believing an article that says something is bad for you. You're not going to stop them from passing it on to other people. When people give me information it is my job to determine if I believe that information. I won't tell people hey stop saying this if you didn't search the world for proof thats good enough for me. Let people think for themselves and if they believe everything they hear then let them deal with the consequences if any.
Have you ever been recommended to buy any product food or not and looked for human studies to prove whether or not its really good for you?
They sell us **** every day thats not good for us and tell us that it is and vice versa! Some people believe it and some don't. I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want people to admit that there aren't many human studies? Do you want people to stop believing those things are bad? Is this your way of encouraging people to do research? Do you want everyone to give evidence with opinions? Whatever you aim, good luck.
On one hand, I kind of agree with you but at the same time I think it's important to understand that lack of human studies and stating something as a scientific fact is a bit of a slippery slope. The scientific method, when done correctly, is done the same across the board, whether it is with food studies, quantum mechanics, or medical advances. It is true that something presented as scientific fact remains so until unproven, but I think this should instill more confidence in what is presented rather than less. Science is self-correcting.
It's easy to write off a food study by saying, "they're always changing the story", but the same thing is often done in medicine when a new advancement comes along. If you get sick, and go to the doctor, and they prescribe a current, peer-reviewed "proven" treatment, would you write it off as easily?
The main problem with people quoting studies on the internet is that the majority of the time, what is quoted is part of an ongoing study that possibly hasn't made it to the human testing stage, or hasn't been verified yet as a fact. Most of us (self included) don't usually take the time to double and triple check what we say, which is why there is an avalanche of misinformation predicated onto the forums. If someone has done their homework, and is presenting a case that is verified as scientific fact, and not merely a part of an ongoing study, then what they say is most likely legit.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the OP is requesting, and if so, then this is an important discussion.
I agree with you, but do you see the difference in your approach to the topic vs the op? Maybe its just me but what you said makes me go hmmmm thats a good point. I could be giving a lot of people half information and maybe I should think about that. What the op said makes me wonder why he didn't just say why people should be more informal about those topics. Its comes off as I don't agree with people who do this so they should give me more evidence so that I can believe them. Thats not going to stop them or me from giving people misinformation. Its going to make me google for what he wants and have more half information to give to people. Had you not made that statement I would have never guessed that he was trying to help stop people from giving misinformation on half information.
Look at the various topics that people say X is bad for you. It would stand to reason there should be some evidence to draw such a conclusion, however one finds that their "evidence" is some livestrong article or equally crappy article. When asked to present real evidence they seem to be unable to do so, which makes you wonder how in the world did they reach the conclusion X is bad in the first place?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions