Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Fast Food Addiction - Can Anyone Else Relate?

1234689

Replies

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited March 2018
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    jervin6 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    candylilacs wrote: »
    It's carbs and sugar! Can it not be addictive?

    1) Sugar is carbs. And all carbs are eventually metabolized into simple sugars in the body.

    2) Sugar is not addictive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28330706

    3) Fast foods are often very high in fat as are a lot of "treat" or "junk" foods. Why isn't fat getting the bad rap for being evil and addictive and fattening? Oh yeah, I forgot - because the keto fad.

    Addressing peer reviewed evidence #2. Have you seen this? Call me skeptical of a study based on self reporting on an online survey that asks for participants to remember and classify food intake as far back as 12 months and no questions about exercise habits. The fact the author Peter Roger's is bought and paid for by the sugar and soda industry and has come out with another research paper claiming Diet Soda could help weight loss better than water makes me question his research on sugar.

    https://www.naturalhealthnews.uk/newsletter/sugar-sweeteners-and-science-for-sale/

    Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? A systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies
    P J Rogers et al

    International Journal of Obesity volume 40, pages 381–394 (2016)
    doi:10.1038/ijo.2015.177

    You didn't really just reference Natural Health News, did you? The site so full of woo and BS that it's been blacklisted by Google and won't show up in searches?

    LOLOL.

    https://google.com/search?q=Natural+Health+News&oq=Natural+Health+News&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Google is now aware of woo posters posting false posts about their company and have now reinstated Natural Health News.

    Could you clarify your meaning of the word "woo" here? Given your last several posts on the word, I'd like to be sure I'm following your current train of thought.

    Tonight just use the one posted by MFP in the past on that subject if you wish.

    Thank you for clarifying. So it's good/bad, and intentionally ambiguous.
  • koda0071
    koda0071 Posts: 40 Member
    If you would the entire paper you would see that it was verified in the author's own paper. They actually stated in "Declarations of interest

    Rob Markus provide (free) consultancy services to ‘Kenniscentrum Suiker en Voeding’, The Netherlands. Peter Rogers has received funding for research from Sugar Nutrition UK, and has provided consultancy services to Coca-Cola Great Britain and received speaker's fees from the International Sweeteners Association." That how I know.
  • koda0071
    koda0071 Posts: 40 Member
    I can’t tell you a specific % in exercise, diet, nutrition, general health because that’s not the kind of research I try to get funded. But if the trend is anything like other research that is not deemed to be most important by NIH then I would guess private funding is necessary and increasing to fund those types of research. That still doesn’t mean we can not question those connections.
  • koda0071
    koda0071 Posts: 40 Member
    I think the middle ground is yes private funding may be needed for some but not all research in an a particular arena and those that choose to take private funding should understand their research is under more scrutiny and when the methods used to generate the data is less than optimal it can lead to more questions until reproduced using a better design.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.

    For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.

    If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    I believe that when studies are partially or fully funded by an entity that has an interest in the outcome, it's because they've previously done their own small-sample studies that lead them to believe the outcome of a formal, peer-reviewed study would be favorable to their interests.

    For instance, as soon as the "sugar is as addictive as heroin" myth started trending, the sugar industry would have done internal research that would make them pretty confident that this isn't true. They would then either find a legitimate research team that was looking for funding to study the addictive (or not) properties of sugar, or offer funding on their own for the research. In cases like this, the research team works independently of funding, and the outcome is peer-reviewed like any legitimate study.

    If the outcome were to indicate sugar actually is addictive, I'm assuming heads would roll in sugar industry labs across the land, but this would rarely happen since solid if biased research has already concluded it's not.

    Unless you're an idiot like Gary Taubes. He co-founded/funded NuSI and they funded Kevin Hall's energy balance study, as well as another study from Stanford. Unfortunately, the results of both of those studies disproved his BS about keto and insulin, lol.

    Interesting glimpse into NuSI, funding and research results here: https://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-manhattan-project-of-nutrition-that.html

    Excerpt re: above statement:
    ...The Hall-led Energy Balance Consortium was completed by Summer 2014, and (finally) published in July 2016. Gary Taubes responded disgracefully to the results as they were not favorable to his pet hypothesis. Instead he chose the low road, impugning the integrity of researchers he had previously touted and eventually having to apologize to Kevin Hall for his behavior. In the end, this metabolic ward study added to considerable pre-existing evidence of similar quality that falsified TWICHOO.

    The Gardner-led Stanford results were just published last month. Despite spin by Taubes and Ludwig (the conflict of interest there as a NuSI funded researcher is staggering!!) the results were unfavorable to TWICHOO. Make no mistake about it, the design of this study had foremost in mind this idea that a person's "insulin status" was an important component in dietary recommendations to either prevent weight gain/obesity and/or predict success in weight loss/reversing obesity. The answer was a rather resounding "no evidence to support" ... and the spin is rather more than embarrassing at this point...

    Love this!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories