This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I read yesterday that apparently a fried breakfast is not as bad as scientists originally thought. They also state that omega three oils might not help lower cholesterol also.
It seems that they have debunked their own research, and don't appear to know their arse from their elbow.
After the long list of foods that are 'bad for you' that have been brought into the public domain over the last decade, I wonder if you are simply best ignoring all health warnings that the media pump out. Using common sense and adhering to moderation when it comes to food.
It seems that they have debunked their own research, and don't appear to know their arse from their elbow.
After the long list of foods that are 'bad for you' that have been brought into the public domain over the last decade, I wonder if you are simply best ignoring all health warnings that the media pump out. Using common sense and adhering to moderation when it comes to food.
In reply to Blizzard:
common sense would not lead me to eating fried breakfasts on a regular basis!
That said, i tend to ignore most 'health advice'
common sense would not lead me to eating fried breakfasts on a regular basis!
That said, i tend to ignore most 'health advice'
In reply to Blizzard:
I think common sense works for those who have it, it's obvious that eating blocks of marzipan cannot be good for you however nice it is, so just do it every now and then. Same for fry ups.
I think common sense works for those who have it, it's obvious that eating blocks of marzipan cannot be good for you however nice it is, so just do it every now and then. Same for fry ups.
In reply to Blizzard:
any food to excess will do more damage than good, simples, and very much common sense.
The hidden ingrediants in processed foods is the real issue, my pet theory is that this will be mankinds downfall.
any food to excess will do more damage than good, simples, and very much common sense.
The hidden ingrediants in processed foods is the real issue, my pet theory is that this will be mankinds downfall.
In reply to Blizzard:
Where did you read this? Which scientists? How bad did they think a fried breakfast was?
Are you saying that the same people or organisation are responsible for whatever you read, and whatever you think it contradicts?
Probably. That isn't the same as ignoring the science, though.
> I read yesterday that apparently a fried breakfast is not as bad as scientists originally thought. They also state that omega three oils might not help lower cholesterol also.
Where did you read this? Which scientists? How bad did they think a fried breakfast was?
> It seems that they have debunked their own research, and don't appear to know their arse from their elbow.
Are you saying that the same people or organisation are responsible for whatever you read, and whatever you think it contradicts?
> After the long list of foods that are 'bad for you' that have been brought into the public domain over the last decade, I wonder if you are simply best ignoring all health warnings that the media pump out. Using common sense and adhering to moderation when it comes to food.
Probably. That isn't the same as ignoring the science, though.
In reply to fire_munki:
>it's obvious that eating blocks of marzipan cannot be good for you however nice it is,
damn!
>it's obvious that eating blocks of marzipan cannot be good for you however nice it is,
damn!
In reply to Blizzard:
In reply to Blizzard:
The actual evidence against saturated fat has been discredited for several years. If you read some of my earlier posts circa 2006/7 you'll see that I've been in a few heated arguments about this!
As far as I can find out, our bodies store energy as saturated fat. So I was always curious why the body would evolve to store fat in a form that was harmful to itself. It just didn't pass the smell test.
Personally I think that demonizing any one macro nutrient is fraught. Demonizing foods that have been part of our evolutionary diet ought to be dismissed forthwith - particularly if prepared by traditional means. Demonizing 'real food' - be if fat from animals, carbohydrate from potatoes, or eggs with their high cholesterol, should be similarly dismissed.
Nutrition research has very little credibility remaining.
In reply to Blizzard:
The actual evidence against saturated fat has been discredited for several years. If you read some of my earlier posts circa 2006/7 you'll see that I've been in a few heated arguments about this!
As far as I can find out, our bodies store energy as saturated fat. So I was always curious why the body would evolve to store fat in a form that was harmful to itself. It just didn't pass the smell test.
Personally I think that demonizing any one macro nutrient is fraught. Demonizing foods that have been part of our evolutionary diet ought to be dismissed forthwith - particularly if prepared by traditional means. Demonizing 'real food' - be if fat from animals, carbohydrate from potatoes, or eggs with their high cholesterol, should be similarly dismissed.
Nutrition research has very little credibility remaining.
In reply to Blizzard:
Agree. Eat a good variety of food and exercise regularly, and you will be reasonably healthy. An occasional fry-up or night on the ale won't do long-term harm.
Neil
Agree. Eat a good variety of food and exercise regularly, and you will be reasonably healthy. An occasional fry-up or night on the ale won't do long-term harm.
Neil
In reply to Kimono:
Absolutely right. That's my dinner down the tubes then.
> >it's obvious that eating blocks of marzipan cannot be good for you however nice it is,
> damn!
Absolutely right. That's my dinner down the tubes then.
In reply to skog:
You wont be able to access said article, its subscription access only. Times newspaper.
You wont be able to access said article, its subscription access only. Times newspaper.
Post edited at 12:25
In reply to Blizzard:
So think about all those climbing related articles you get in the news - "scaled the sheer wall", total confusion as to what was climbed and where, technical terms dropped in with no idea what they mean, out of context quotes, "climbers" going up the Pyg track etc.
Now think about the fact that most journalists don't know any more about science than they do about climbing, and the fact that what scientists are saying tends to be a lot more complicated and hard to understand.
So think about all those climbing related articles you get in the news - "scaled the sheer wall", total confusion as to what was climbed and where, technical terms dropped in with no idea what they mean, out of context quotes, "climbers" going up the Pyg track etc.
Now think about the fact that most journalists don't know any more about science than they do about climbing, and the fact that what scientists are saying tends to be a lot more complicated and hard to understand.
In reply to Blizzard:
I tend to ignore all diet advice as it seems to change every few years.
Whenever possible I just try and eat natural foods and avoid anything that other animals wouldnt eat, sweetners, soya etc
I tend to ignore all diet advice as it seems to change every few years.
Whenever possible I just try and eat natural foods and avoid anything that other animals wouldnt eat, sweetners, soya etc
In reply to Blizzard:
OK.
I'd still quite like to know who you think has debunked their own research, and doesn't appear to know their arse from their elbow.
Maybe a Times journalist? (Though I suspect they know what they're doing, and accurate or useful food science reporting isn't a huge part of it.)
OK.
I'd still quite like to know who you think has debunked their own research, and doesn't appear to know their arse from their elbow.
Maybe a Times journalist? (Though I suspect they know what they're doing, and accurate or useful food science reporting isn't a huge part of it.)
In reply to Blizzard:
Any reputable scientist will not categorise any legitimate food as "good" or "bad". Sounds more like a thicko journalist sound bite to me.
Any reputable scientist will not categorise any legitimate food as "good" or "bad". Sounds more like a thicko journalist sound bite to me.
In reply to Blizzard:
Hypothesis 1: All scientists working in food research are idiots
Hypothesis 2: Journalists are terrible at accurately representing the science they are writing about - and nuanced results don't make good stories, unlike 'x is evil'.
Looks like a classic case of Gell-Mann amnesia to me...
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Hypothesis 1: All scientists working in food research are idiots
Hypothesis 2: Journalists are terrible at accurately representing the science they are writing about - and nuanced results don't make good stories, unlike 'x is evil'.
Looks like a classic case of Gell-Mann amnesia to me...
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
In reply to Blizzard:
The stress induced from paying too much attention to health advice in the media would be severely detrimental to one's health.
The stress induced from paying too much attention to health advice in the media would be severely detrimental to one's health.
In reply to Blizzard:
Seriously, this is something you're only just thinking about? The good food/bad food debate has gone one way then the other for as long as I can remember, why is this suddenly news to you?
Seriously, this is something you're only just thinking about? The good food/bad food debate has gone one way then the other for as long as I can remember, why is this suddenly news to you?
In reply to Ava Adore:
Everyday, something is news to somebody, when it's been known about by other people.
Does it matter why? ()
> Seriously, this is something you're only just thinking about? The good food/bad food debate has gone one way then the other for as long as I can remember, why is this suddenly news to you?
Everyday, something is news to somebody, when it's been known about by other people.
Does it matter why? ()
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Brilliant. Sums up the media perfectly
You missed, however, " to a hammer, everything is a nail " which sums up most scientists approach to their work.
Brilliant. Sums up the media perfectly
You missed, however, " to a hammer, everything is a nail " which sums up most scientists approach to their work.
In reply to Timmd:
Doesn't matter a jot. I think I'm just stunned that someone should believe that this IS news!
Doesn't matter a jot. I think I'm just stunned that someone should believe that this IS news!
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Ha! Great. Didn't realise there was a name for this:
Whenever my wife reads anything about psychology & treatments etc, she gets really indignant as most of it is badly chruned up nonsense with bits of real theory & practice.
As least the TV and gig guide is usually right.
Ha! Great. Didn't realise there was a name for this:
Whenever my wife reads anything about psychology & treatments etc, she gets really indignant as most of it is badly chruned up nonsense with bits of real theory & practice.
As least the TV and gig guide is usually right.
In reply to Ava Adore:
Its a topic of conversation, inspired from reading an article. There is always the latest scare, red wine is bad, no it isn't, or there's too much salt, too little salt, too much sugar, too much red meat etc etc. All bad for you.
What is actually good for us?
Living off blueberries?
Its a topic of conversation, inspired from reading an article. There is always the latest scare, red wine is bad, no it isn't, or there's too much salt, too little salt, too much sugar, too much red meat etc etc. All bad for you.
What is actually good for us?
Living off blueberries?
In reply to Shani:
Now there should be a like button for posts like this! Absolutely, a decent meal made from scratch, containing whatever carbs, fats, proteins etc that have been reared, grown must be better than the processed muck that is fed to the masses.
Now there should be a like button for posts like this! Absolutely, a decent meal made from scratch, containing whatever carbs, fats, proteins etc that have been reared, grown must be better than the processed muck that is fed to the masses.
In reply to Blizzard:
Basically what happens is that a scientist does some research that finds that some obscure compound, in sufficient concentration, has some small but measurable effect on rates of infertility in fruitflies and writes a paper about the fact. The university press office then puts out a press release that plays down the "small effect" and mentions the "fruitflies" bit but not too prominently and also mentions the fact the the compound is found in donuts. Journalists then read the press release and write an article with the headline TOO MANY DONUTS WILL MAKE YOUR BALLS DROP OFF.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
> Its a topic of conversation, inspired from reading an article. There is always the latest scare, red wine is bad, no it isn't, or there's too much salt, too little salt, too much sugar, too much red meat etc etc. All bad for you.
Basically what happens is that a scientist does some research that finds that some obscure compound, in sufficient concentration, has some small but measurable effect on rates of infertility in fruitflies and writes a paper about the fact. The university press office then puts out a press release that plays down the "small effect" and mentions the "fruitflies" bit but not too prominently and also mentions the fact the the compound is found in donuts. Journalists then read the press release and write an article with the headline TOO MANY DONUTS WILL MAKE YOUR BALLS DROP OFF.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
In reply to Blizzard:
A good way to decide whether to buy a certain food is - would your great grannie have cooked/eaten it ?
A good way to decide whether to buy a certain food is - would your great grannie have cooked/eaten it ?
Post edited at 17:10
In reply to Blizzard:
You're making exactly the mistake that tempts journalists to write these sort of moronic stories. All things cannot be characterised into those that are 'good for us' and those that are 'bad for us'. To assume they can is idiotic.
Imagine you're a scientist for a second (as difficult as that might be). You have an unlimited budget (chance would be a fine thing). Now, design a study to tell me whether salt is good or bad for you. What does that study look like?
A study was published recently about the relationship between alcohol and heart disease. It was almost certainly the best study there has ever been in the field and it addressed a huge number of biases which previous studies have suffered from. The world's leading epidemiologists can still not agree whether the results show that drinking moderately protects you from heart disease or not. So what chance of any journalist writing a coherent article on the subject?
(In case you were wondering, even if there is a protective effect for heart disease, the increased risk of suffering from other health conditions almost certainly means that any amount of drinking is bad for you, and there is absolutely no evidence that red wine is better than anything else, that's just fantastic marketing by the industry).
> Its a topic of conversation, inspired from reading an article. There is always the latest scare, red wine is bad, no it isn't, or there's too much salt, too little salt, too much sugar, too much red meat etc etc. All bad for you.
> What is actually good for us?
You're making exactly the mistake that tempts journalists to write these sort of moronic stories. All things cannot be characterised into those that are 'good for us' and those that are 'bad for us'. To assume they can is idiotic.
Imagine you're a scientist for a second (as difficult as that might be). You have an unlimited budget (chance would be a fine thing). Now, design a study to tell me whether salt is good or bad for you. What does that study look like?
A study was published recently about the relationship between alcohol and heart disease. It was almost certainly the best study there has ever been in the field and it addressed a huge number of biases which previous studies have suffered from. The world's leading epidemiologists can still not agree whether the results show that drinking moderately protects you from heart disease or not. So what chance of any journalist writing a coherent article on the subject?
(In case you were wondering, even if there is a protective effect for heart disease, the increased risk of suffering from other health conditions almost certainly means that any amount of drinking is bad for you, and there is absolutely no evidence that red wine is better than anything else, that's just fantastic marketing by the industry).
In reply to steelbru:
If modern foods are so unhealthy, why did our healthy life expectancy increase so much over the last decades?
If modern foods are so unhealthy, why did our healthy life expectancy increase so much over the last decades?
In reply to timmeehhhh:
Better sanitation and medicine. Its worth noting that the life expectancy might actually be dropping again.
> If modern foods are so unhealthy, why did our healthy life expectancy increase so much over the last decades?
Better sanitation and medicine. Its worth noting that the life expectancy might actually be dropping again.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I can still remember the post-Chernobyl article by the Sun's "science correspondent" which warned that, if the reactor went into complete meltdown, it might burn its way down to the centre of the earth, continue in the same course and pop up somewhere in Australasia.
I can still remember the post-Chernobyl article by the Sun's "science correspondent" which warned that, if the reactor went into complete meltdown, it might burn its way down to the centre of the earth, continue in the same course and pop up somewhere in Australasia.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Was that really reported ?
I don't read the Sun, and if I occassionally pick it up and look past p 3, its for a laugh.
Was that really reported ?
I don't read the Sun, and if I occassionally pick it up and look past p 3, its for a laugh.
In reply to abseil:
Wash your mouth out, surely blocks of the almond based confection are the preserve of breakfasts?
> Absolutely right. That's my dinner down the tubes then.
Wash your mouth out, surely blocks of the almond based confection are the preserve of breakfasts?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Errrr maybe and thanks but I'm already on 2 kilos a day of the stuff [dinner] and I want to have a balanced diet. Still, perhaps I'll grate some onto my cornflakes tomorrow, I'll keep you posted, watch this space.
> Wash your mouth out, surely blocks of the almond based confection are the preserve of breakfasts?
Errrr maybe and thanks but I'm already on 2 kilos a day of the stuff [dinner] and I want to have a balanced diet. Still, perhaps I'll grate some onto my cornflakes tomorrow, I'll keep you posted, watch this space.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Haha, don't hold back or anything, both barrels.
> You're making exactly the mistake that tempts journalists to write these sort of moronic stories. All things cannot be characterised into those that are 'good for us' and those that are 'bad for us'. To assume they can is idiotic.
> Imagine you're a scientist for a second (as difficult as that might be).
Haha, don't hold back or anything, both barrels.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
You surely don't mean that the Daily Mail is <gasp> silly?
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
b
You surely don't mean that the Daily Mail is <gasp> silly?
http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
b
In reply to Blizzard:
I kept the cutting for years because I knew people wouldn't believe it if I told them.
Just found out that The China Syndromepostulated the same anti-gravity scenario, so that explains his source.
I kept the cutting for years because I knew people wouldn't believe it if I told them.
Just found out that The China Syndromepostulated the same anti-gravity scenario, so that explains his source.
Post edited at 08:12
In reply to Blizzard:
Research that ends up contradicted three decades later is for me the proof that most research is cooked up to suit the purpose of whoever commissioned it. I've some experience of how statisticians manipulate and obfuscate so I don't really believe statistics. What a wealthy society we inhabit that we can afford to support all these non-productive soothsayers.
Research that ends up contradicted three decades later is for me the proof that most research is cooked up to suit the purpose of whoever commissioned it. I've some experience of how statisticians manipulate and obfuscate so I don't really believe statistics. What a wealthy society we inhabit that we can afford to support all these non-productive soothsayers.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Which research are you referring to? Blizzard has been unable or unwilling to point it out.
> Research that ends up contradicted three decades later
Which research are you referring to? Blizzard has been unable or unwilling to point it out.
In reply to krikoman:
I went to hospital for a Barium 'Meal' once. I didn't expect it to go in at that end!
I went to hospital for a Barium 'Meal' once. I didn't expect it to go in at that end!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...