You Should Study Nutrition - The Other Perspective

So. To recap.


The world is round. Whether or not astronomicals believes it - it really really is.

Alan Aragon has some thoughts about orthorexia which (wait for it) sometimes gets misunderstood because it isn't even a real thing in the not-even-a-real-Book DSM.

If you don't eat bacon or if you mop your floor more than twice a week you have a disorder - or maybe you don't.

If you make a thread and then someone disagrees with it in another thread you should attack and call that person names obsessively.

cmriverside says:

The majority of stuff called mental disorders are just part of the Human Condition that are exploited by companies looking to make a buck.

See your psychiatrist for suitable pharmaceuticals.


Or you could treat yourself with clean eating.

This was awesome.

Can you do the same thing with Revolution? I really don't want to have to watch the last 6 episodes that I skipped

Where is Orthorexia a recognized condition besides the internet? (I have no problem being wrong on this point, but I've never seen where it has been officially accepted and recognized as a condition by anyone with authority in the field.)

Even if Orthorexia is a recognized condition, there are stringent requirements necessary for all mental health conditions. These requirements usually include duration and always include clinical impairment. Someone afraid of fat would not be orthorexic as a result of misinformation in the fitness world. If I told you oxygen was once a toxin and is still dangerous and you believed me, that would be ignorance causing you to act to protect your life, not a disorder. If this person was given sufficient education and was still terrified of fat in such a way that caused true clinical impairment, at present, this person would most likely be diagnosed with some form of eating disorder (NOS), anxiety disorder, or possibly a psychotic disorder depending on the nature of the fear and the presentation of the symptoms.

Food can be used as a vehicle for an underlying condition just as germs or religion can be. This doesn't mean a new disorder automatically exists. If you are truly interested, look up the many different subtypes of disorders for various conditions to understand this point further. There's a lot of danger in coining medical terminology and pathology for every observed behavior.

"However, researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a part of the National Institutes of Health, are not aware of any conclusive evidence linking the use of underarm antiperspirants or deodorants and the subsequent development of breast cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates food, cosmetics, medicines, and medical devices, also **does not have any evidence or research data that ingredients in underarm antiperspirants or deodorants cause cancer.** "

I wouldn't trust the FDA. They wouldn't ban something that is cheap and used by many industries unless it outright causes cancer short term. There are a lot of products that are suspect. I say why take a risk with your life until they find out that it actually causes cancer in the long term.

Would you trust the Cancer Research UK? - they have nothing to do with the FDA:

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/deodorants/deodorants-and-cancer

"You may have heard rumours that deodorants and antiperspirants could cause breast cancer. But these concerns were started by an e-mail hoax. There is no convincing evidence that antiperspirants and deodorants cause breast cancer.

For example, a large study in 2002 looked for links between antiperspirant use and breast cancer in 1,500 women. The researchers found that neither antiperspirants nor deodorants increased breast cancer risk."

I wasn't talking about just deodorants or antiperspirants I was talking about many of the ingredients in household products. Most of them there is little to no evidence linking them to cancer in studies funded by the industries that use the product but there is also little to no evidence they are completely safe.

That is fine. But the quote was about deodorants and antiperspirants and the comment not to trust the FDA. People seem to forget that the FDA is an American administration and that there are organizations other than the FDA that have a vested interest in determining health risks. Having the FDA say something is safe does not invalidate an organization's (or multiple organization's) , such as a well established organization whose purpose is to preventing and treat cancer, stance.

Edited for typo

In your origional post you said alan aragon said, "Orthorexia is an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food". You went on to say, numerous times over the last 5 pages, that 10-20% of your intake can be "dirty" foods...


Heres the problem..


"In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food."

Furthermore, that whole 10-20% thing comes from the same fracking article.

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/

All written by Alan Aragon!

You dissected his article and twisted facts and acted as if you got your ideas from somewhere else.

I think you owe the man an apology.

ETA:You said "I have been called orthorexic. that alone should tell you that the already fake word is easily corrupted and misused, as my nutrition is outstanding".... Every orthorexic would say that.. I'm not saying you're orthorexic, but, that defense is worthless.




waiting for response to this one..... resposting it since you ignored it....

I've said a couple times that I agree with Aragon on a few basic points, but that I don't like the way he goes about treating anyone who disagrees with him or has a different perspective like ****.

Think about it. He states a public opinion and gets attacked from all sides everyday. You state some opinions and get attacked. See any similarities between your responses and his?

Depends on how your grandma made it.:laugh: Mine made it with MSG and salt in high amounts. I think where you're off on perception is that IIFYM people eat nothing but crap, when in truth 80% of what is eaten is usually whole foods with vegetables and fruits. 20% of it is the processed crap, but even then I would bet that the processed is of the "lesser" evils.

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

Chicken stew 50 to 60 yrs ago was not made with MSG. It was made by butchering a chicken you probably raised yourself and which was not fed growth hormones. Veggies were from the garden. And the broth came from adding vinegar and bones to the stew. The vinegar drew out the calcium from the bones and the chicken meat also added to create the broth. The bones were then removed and you had stew. Now days, ppl add bullion cubes to make broth. It's time to get back to the basics.

Cancer cases have risen every year for the past 30 years. There is a reason for that.

You do realize that I said MINE? My grandmother? Not everyone else's?

And according to a 2009 report from cancer.org, the cancer rates have been going down since 1990.
Where are you getting your information from?

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

To say nothing of the fact that 60 years ago most of the population of America did not have chickens running around in their back yard and were growing their own vegetables. That is a fantasy. I am old enough to have lived then.

It may depend on where you lived in America. My family in Nebraska most certainly got most all their food from their farms . This included chickens and vegetables in gardens and butchering and milking cows.

Your family's experience was not the norm. Percentage of the population wise, very small 60 years ago.

LOL! I can agree with that, my family has never been the, "norm". LOL. It is true of my grandparents though and up until a few years ago at their passing. They still used grocery stores, but the majority of their main food came from the cows, chickens, crops and the gardens. Nebraska is very rural and not industrial. That said it is the NORM for the majority of people in my small hometown to use their own crops and livestock for feeding their families. They are in the business of selling it to other states and even over seas so why not use it themselves? If you grew up in a different part of the U.S. then you can't say what is "norm" for all of America.


**Cute baby, btw.

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.

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

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/

bumping to read later!

Opened thread.

Saw Reddy was OP.

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/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

Funny thing is - the linked PubMed review does not actually say that processed foods increases the risk of pancreas cancer.

"The causes of pancreatic cancer are not firmly established, but factors considered to increase the risk including age, smoking, certain medical conditions such as diabetes, family history of cancer, excess weight and obesity, and – as this study has investigated – potential dietary factors. The reason why any individual develops cancer is always hard to say. For pancreatic cancer, it may be due to a combination of these factors, or none at all. Despite being a well-conducted review, this study cannot tell you that by cutting out red or processed meat, you will definitely reduce your risk of pancreatic cancer. Further prospective studies investigating the association are needed."

there's likely no nutritional study ever conducted that conclusively states "such and such definitely increases risk of XYZ disease"

all nutritional studies end with "may be a factor in" or "may contribute to"

and many, many studies end with "further study is needed"

that doesn't make this study one to ignore.

This was linked as a study 'showing' the assertion - I was just showing that it did not support the assertion - simple as that...but it would not be you if you didn't argue would it?

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/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

hate to say it but the study she posted is actually a good one...

not 100% conclusive, as no study is (especially in nutrition), but it's still a very good study.

"As you can see, it’s quite complex and all over the map, although there are a few ingredients for which the studies do appear to be fairly consistent, such as bacon being associated consistently with a higher risk of cancer. Bummer. Or is it? Let’s continue with Schoenfeld and Ioannidis’ analysis. What they found is rather disturbing. First, they report that although 80% of the studies they examined reported positive findings (i.e., a positive association between the food or ingredient studied and some form of cancer):

' …the vast majority of these claims were based on weak statistical evidence. Many statistically insignificant “negative” and weak results were relegated to the full text rather than to the study abstract. Individual studies reported larger effect sizes than did the meta-analyses. There was no standardized, consistent selection of exposure contrasts for the reported risks. A minority of associations had more than weak support in meta-analyses, and summary effects in meta-analyses were consistent with a null average and relatively limited variance. '

In other words, there are lots of studies out there that claim to find a link, either for increased risk or a protective effect, between this food or that ingredient and cancer, but very few of them actually provide convincing support for their hypothesis. Worse, there appear to be a lot of manuscript-writing shenanigans going on, with the abstract (which usually means, I note, the press release) touting a strong association while the true weakness of the association is buried in the fine print in the results or discussion sections of the paper."

--Dr. David Gorski
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/everything-we-eat-causes-cancer/

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/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

Funny thing is - the linked PubMed review does not actually say that processed foods increases the risk of pancreas cancer.

"The causes of pancreatic cancer are not firmly established, but factors considered to increase the risk including age, smoking, certain medical conditions such as diabetes, family history of cancer, excess weight and obesity, and – as this study has investigated – potential dietary factors. The reason why any individual develops cancer is always hard to say. For pancreatic cancer, it may be due to a combination of these factors, or none at all. Despite being a well-conducted review, this study cannot tell you that by cutting out red or processed meat, you will definitely reduce your risk of pancreatic cancer. Further prospective studies investigating the association are needed."

there's likely no nutritional study ever conducted that conclusively states "such and such definitely increases risk of XYZ disease"

all nutritional studies end with "may be a factor in" or "may contribute to"

and many, many studies end with "further study is needed"

that doesn't make this study one to ignore.

This was linked as a study 'showing' the assertion - I was just showing that it did not support the assertion - simple as that...but it would not be you if you didn't argue would it?

I don't think he is arguing, I believe he is instead "debating". Healthy debate helps us grow.

That is your take on it.