0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 31520 times.
Mike Adams wrote an article this past summer describing the food industry's most 'evil' ingredients, which I guess would fall right in line with the subject of this thread, although some of these have met disagreement here already:Sucralose - An artificial chemical sweetener sold as Splenda. The sucralose molecule contains a chlorine atom http://www.naturalnews.com/027491_aspartame_sweeteners_health.html. Researchers have repeatedly found that artificial sweeteners make people fat by actually promoting weight gain. http://www.naturalnews.com/024543_health_Splenda_weight.html
Nutrition certainly is a topic that gets the passions riled up - most people have an emotional relationship to food that dominates their perspective and is one of the elements that makes rational discussion difficult.Another huge element though is that Nutrition as a 'science' is far less advanced that most people think. Doing a true scientific study of nutritional factors is just an inherently intractable problem due to the extreme difficulty in isolating variables. Even the best studies are greatly limited in their ability to draw conclusions, and the not-so-great ones can basically conclude anything they want with creative statistics. The body is a dizzyingly complicated biochemical system where very few if any interactions are true direct cause-effect. It's all 'tendencies' and 'influences', and when you consider that a) nutritional effects aren't isolated from environmental effectsb) most interesting health questions develop over decades of timec) food quality varies significantly, so 'meat' and 'vegetables' aren't necessarily even meaningful without further qualificationd) individuals vary greatly both due to genetics as well as personal history.expecting auditable conclusions like "a causes b" is wildly optimistic.IMHO it's pretty much a lost cause expecting to get "answers" that are trustworthy without a lot of skeptical evaluation of the 'literature'. Considering the degree to which Agribiz and Phara are responsible for funding 'nutritional' studies, my default position is to assume that any 'study' is total bunk until it's examined and shown to be reasonable.My PERSONAL response to this is to have gravitated to an unprocessed diet that is basically primal/paleo/ancestral etc. The basic idea that the foods that were available during our million-plus year evolutionary development period are most likely to be compatible with our body is a pretty compelling one, even considering that the foods that we can actually get right now aren't necessarily all that close to what they were.In practice, this means avoiding substances with a high probability of causing problems. The main ones:- excess fructose- gluten- "vegetable" oils (i.e. industrial products like corn oil, soybean oil, safflower oi etc)- soyMacronutrient ratios (high-carb, low carb etc) are pretty fluid IMHO. Humans rose to be the dominant species in a huge variety of niches, consuming a wide variety of macronutrient ratios. This points to a high degree of metabolic flexibility, and the idea that a specific ratio is required doesn't seem to hold much weight. Specific individuals may have sensitivies that drive them to one approach vs another, but this isn't universal.
I take Splenda in my coffee and the wife does some cooking with it so I read the link on the Naturalnews site. Kind of frightening (although the claim that "Researchers have repeatedly found " is disingenuous at best as there is only one study ). It is peer reviewed study on rats by some Duke University PHDs that concludes that the consumption of Splenda may suppress some beneficial bacteria in the gut and cause weight gain. So let's stay away from Splenda...But then I do a little Googling. The study was funded by the Sugar Association, so this is kind of like Spy vs Spy . Mike Adams fails to mention this. Adams also fails to mention that the study has since been reviewed by "an expert panel" and found to be " not scientifically rigorous and deficient in several key areas"http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Sucralose-safety-scientifically-sound-Expert-panelAdams also quotes his own (seemingly subjective) publication almost exclusivelyIt certainly makes it hard for the non-scientist, non expert to get a clear view when on the one side you have a powerful industry pushing it's own views, and on the other, some, no doubt, well intentioned but less than objective self appointed guardians of my health.
I agree. I would call nutrition more of a pseudo-science. Recommendations change almost every year. One consistent theme is to avoid too many calories, eat lots of fresh veggies, avoid synthetic compounds and emulate the mediterranian diet.Steve N.
I take Splenda in my coffee and the wife does some cooking with it so I read the link on the Naturalnews site. Kind of frightening (although the claim that "Researchers have repeatedly found " is disingenuous at best as there is only one study ). It is peer reviewed study on rats by some Duke University PHDs that concludes that the consumption of Splenda may suppress some beneficial bacteria in the gut and cause weight gain. So let's stay away from Splenda...But then I do a little Googling. The study was funded by the Sugar Association, so this is kind of like Spy vs Spy . Mike Adams fails to mention this. Adams also fails to mention that the study has since been reviewed by "an expert panel" and found to be " not scientifically rigorous and deficient in several key areas"http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Sucralose-safety-scientifically-sound-Expert-panelAdams also quotes his own (seemingly subjective) publication almost exclusively.It certainly makes it hard for the non-scientist, non expert to get a clear view when on the one side you have a powerful industry pushing it's own views, and on the other, some, no doubt, well intentioned but less than objective self appointed guardians of my health.
Perhaps if the Inuits and Eskimos microwaved their seal meat, deep-fried their blubber, ate processed junk food and drank diet soda they'd be in the same boat as the rest of us.
I asked because I recall reading somewhere that the median life span (of a certain group) of Inuit was around 45, which is very young. Most people who die of heart problems do so later than that.
In the past, when I drink coffee, I did not use sugar or sweetener, I used to drink bitter coffee with milk.I can not understand why people has to take sweet coffee?? The refined white sugar is very dangerous to health.If I member well, refined sugar is the only substance that has the molecular structure inverted, the counter-clockwise.This is not a good sign.
AE, guess you never had a cat?
