Bad Food Science and the Media

BunnyKillBot

BunnyKillBot

BunnyKillBot

Soldato
Joined
20 Jun 2010
Posts
3,251
How anyone can be expected to come upon the right, helpful information with relation to diet and healthy eating is quite beyond me. In this day and age, we should be basing our dietary choices on good science but so often the good science gets buried beneath bad science and marketing blurb. Bad science includes observational studies that make outrageous claims and bad marketing abuses sciency-sounding words to suggest 'healthy' where there may be none.

Then add on top of this already murky base the media, and you have the blind leading the blind leading the blind; sensationalist headlines that spin an abstract/conclusion to spell doom and gloom. How many people that glance at a foodscience headline based on actual science, actually go on to check out the paper it was based off for fuller information and critical review?

Take this article being pushed by the BBC today, how much bad science can you
find?

Processed meat 'early death' link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21682779

Ill start off here:
The researchers, writing in the journal BMC Medicine, said salt and chemicals used to preserve the meat may damage health.

The British Heart Foundation suggested opting for leaner cuts of meat.
Click to expand...

So the paper points the finger at 'salt and chemicals', however note the 'may'. They are guessing a cause to fit their data.

But in the very next sentence, the good old BHF, OBSESSED with fat/lipids suggests 'leaner meats'. Nothing todo with the articles conclusion whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Oxygen causes free radicals, they damage cells and could cause cancer, therefore I feel we should all hold our breath.
I feel I'm now qualified to write articles on health and diet :D
 
monkentage said:
Salts such as sodium nitrate have been linked statistically to cancer. This isn't proof hence they say may.
Click to expand...

The emphasis is more on the BHF's response. The researches made a cause suggestion, and the BHF clings on to the lipid hypothesis.

With regards thought, I honestly don't care for stats. Show me a human trial, or a rat trial, some controlled variable clinical study, then we can talk :p
 
Many of these health scares do fall apart under scrutiny. The ultimate one has to be the 'salt causes high blood pressure' which still regularly gets an airing.

It's complete bunkum. Low sodium diets are worse.

Also fat. You could get most of your daily calorific content from Animal fat and as long as it was from an animal grazed naturally on pasture and 'foggage' you'd very likely see your LDL cholesterol (The bad kind) levels go down, have more energy, higher Vitamin D levels, stronger skin, hair, nails, etc. As opposed to hydrogenated 'trans' fats which really do have health implications.
 
Trouble is you need to find out who commissions some of these studies.

As we have seen in recent weeks with the horse meat debacle, the best 'average Joe' can do is know where our food comes from and use trusted local suppliers if at all possible.

It seems clear to me that it isn't in the governments interest to dig too deep into the food industry as it is a huge revenue earner for them and they rely on cheap food for many of their essential services.

Just like smoking, as soon as the health risks and most importantly the cost of treatment clearly outweigh tax/duty revenue, the government will step in to try and make changes - hence we now see government sponsored smoking groups.
 
Ok, so there hasn't been a huge uptake of interest in this thread, but I would love to see more discussion on science based diets around here. If anybody feels up to the challenge of creating the ***science based diet thread*** I would be very happy, but I don't 'know' enough to do it myself. I want to know, from a scientific perspective, what foods to avoid, with reference to clinical trials demonstrating their harmful effects, what is snake oil (supplementation industry, I'm looking at you) and what foods to actively seek, again with supporting evidence.

---------

On an unrelated note, before I started taking an interest in diet and food science, I generally went by the colour food wheel all the supermarkets are using these days. More and more I am realising how utterly useless it is. Generally, it lists calories, sugar and fats, with no mention of protein (for such a major food group, why doesn't it make the chart???). You end up with absurd situations where healthy natural foods get a big, Warning Stay Clear red mark because they are high in essential fats (seeds and nuts), or a green lit sugar mark on a processed item that in reality is high in simple carbs (white flour!?!?) quickly converted to glucose and far more damaging to your health than sugar.

What a mess!!
 
Trouble is there's not much to discus.
If you read up on the studies, there's very few clinical trials. The ones there are, are poorly designed. Like high fat, high proteins vs low fat, high carb vs normal.
But no mention of what types of proteins or fat. So could be proccessed.
The few better studies but still not brilliant basically come back as I would expect.
Each has its benefits and downsides. But a balanced diet on any off them with a bit of exercise all improve you stats. High protines/fats sees same weightloss as low carb, but more size shifted around belly, also much better lipid and insulting profiles.


Due to this, people really have to do their own reading and conclusions. But they must understand the difference between clinical and statistical papers. As well as being able to see what is actually being tested, eg high protine high fat can have many different forms.
On top of that I think it depends on your genes, listento your body. I know I do not cope on high carb (even extremly balanced balanced high carb) I'm constantly tiered amongst other things. High protine high fat on the other hand I feel great.

Those who say HPHF is boring just need to relearn how to cook and read normal cook books/magazines, thousands of suitable recipes people use unknowingly that fit.
 
So errr for those of us not clued up... what other incorrect myths about food have you come across? (open question)

I'm personally still making the switch away from processed foods to cooking myself from scratch. The biggest pain so far is the amount of extra washing up involved!

I wish someone would make a simple table with food grouped into the following columns: good for you, ok in limited quantity, avoid at all costs, etc. Maybe a hyperlink behind each one for those who want to know the reasoning.
 
Last edited:
monkentage said:
Salts such as sodium nitrate have been linked statistically to cancer. This isn't proof hence they say may.
Click to expand...

Copypasta:

Well now, the preservative that they are all getting worked up about (again) is sodium nitrite.

So let's examine the issue shall we?

You want meat that is safe, and easily stored. Lets assume this meat is bacon. This bacon is shoved into vacum packs and then kept chilled in the fridges at the supermarket. Ideally of course you would buy it, take it home and then cook it. No problem.

Let's suppose you are an idiot though, or someone who can't read and is too stupid to ask what the storage instructions are, or a little old lady who has filled the fridge up with cat food, blah blah blah.That bacon has now been sitting on the table for a few days still in its wrapping. Without a preservative like sodium nitrite that bacon would be the absolutely perfect breeding ground for botulism.

Oh dear. This particular toxin is extraordinarily gruesome in its effects. You wouldn't want a second dose trust me! Actually that's a superfluous comment because there wouldn't be a second time of course. The first would kill you stone dead. Starting with the fact the toxin from this particular strain of bacteria quickly moves down and paralyses the breathing muscles whilst you are still fully awake and can't move. If that's not straight out of a Japanese horror movie I don't know what is.

Sodium nitrite stops this particular germ dead in its tracks though and the bacon remains perfectly safe to eat. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who has ever eaten bacon out of a vacum pack owes their life to sodium nitrite - its that simple!

Most of the criticism about this inclusion of sodium nitrite in the human food chain occurred long before it was discovered that it also exists in most foodstuffs including vegetables (can you hear me all you anti meat-eater veggies?) and is manufactured by the body in any case.

Ah, you might say! What about the cooking leading to nitrosamines then. They are pretty crap things too and they are formed from all that extra nitrite that has been bunged in!!

And this is true. Except for the fact that the inclusion of Vitamin C in processed meats (as mandatory by law) prevents the formation of these nitrosamines.

What about migraines, asthma attacks and sundry other things being triggered by nitrites then? Oh sorry, that alleged link was never proven and again predated the discovery of the nitrites in thing like cauliflowers, lettuce and turnips etc.

Is it actually poisonous though? The answer is yes of course it is - what isn't?? Five grams of it taken in one go would kill maybe half the forum members here. That's a great deal more than botulism's toxin, caffeine, potassium salt (I think) and sundry other things found in the kitchen cupboard.

All in all its a load of old codsballs and anyone wasting their time worrying about it deserves to be locked away in a nunnery for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
 
Imy said:
So errr for those of us not clued up... what other incorrect myths about food have you come across? (open question)

I'm personally still making the switch away from processed foods to cooking myself from scratch. The biggest pain so far is the amount of extra washing up involved!

I wish someone would make a simple table with food grouped into the following columns: good for you, ok in limited quantity, avoid at all costs, etc. Maybe a hyperlink behind each one for those who want to know the reasoning.
Click to expand...

Fats are bad. Carbs are bad. Protein is bad. Everything is bad, or has been bad at some point.
 
There's so much to go on - it depends on so many factors, but the main one is being what is available to buy, and at what price. Locality and food sources are the other things to discuss.

I'm still a firm believer of eating as closely as to what our biological make up intended, i.e. no processed and refined carbs and/or meats. As such my diet is mainly based around proteins and fats, and natural carbs from vegetables and fruits. Don't get me wrong, I do treat myself to pasta and rice on occasion - but try and keep away from it.

Though I guess as modern man develops we will develop an improve ability to consume non natural foods - and we should embrace modern manufacturing. However, I'm not convinced.
 
The only real answer is everything in moderation, eat a mixture of different things and don't eat ridiculous quantities and you will be fine.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The only real answer is everything in moderation, eat a mixture of different things and don't eat ridiculous quantities and you will be fine.
Click to expand...

It sounds good, it's probably right, but what's it based on, good wisdom and verbatim? If its true it should be scientifically testable. How do I know there isn't something I should be eating in excess, for the sake of my health.

Does anybody know what astronaughts eat? I would have thought NASA put some science into keeping their spacemen alive and healthy.
 
They can't eat salt in zero gravity. For some reason salt and zero G don't mix.
They eat ration packs, which are easily rehydrated.
 
So we now have Oxbridge scientists as well as Harvard ones claiming that red and processed meat is bad for you.
No doubt though we will have meat lovers trying to discredit/poo poo these experts from 3 of the most respected university's on the planet :rolleyes:
 
Even if you looked around, there's probably not much in peoples diets these days that hasn't been proved to be bad for you by a respectable university. All things balanced and in moderation is the way to do it
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
So we now have Oxbridge scientists as well as Harvard ones claiming that red and processed meat is bad for you.
No doubt though we will have meat lovers trying to discredit/poo poo these experts from 3 of the most respected university's on the planet :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Anything processed/refined is going to poor for you nutritionally.

Red meat however, isn't, on the contrary, red meat (as part of a balanced diet - yawn) is tremendously good for you.

Sugar for example is a really poor nutritionally empty ingredient which we've refined/processed now for years and have become addicted to. It's a poor ingredient - unfortunately, we like making cakes and biscuits which require it.

Think about it, our bodies are designed to eat fats, proteins, a certain type of natural sugars (fruits/vegetables) and fibrous foods from plants and leaves. All this refined and highly processed food just creates huge hormonal imbalances, and our bodies love it, especially insulin - it loves to store fat by default - we're (well not all of us ;)) hammering ourselves with poor quality foods which has longer term implications.

If people moved away from all these poor foods and ate more veg, and yes, red meat, people would be healthier - add to that some activity (or exercise) and your on the highway to a healthy lifestyle.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
So we now have Oxbridge scientists as well as Harvard ones claiming that red and processed meat is bad for you.
No doubt though we will have meat lovers trying to discredit/poo poo these experts from 3 of the most respected university's on the planet :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Peer review is part of the scientific method, and you dont have to be a 'meat lover' to evaluate the methodolgy used in a given piece of food science research.

Take the harvard red meat study for example.

'mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13'
'We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.'

PROBLEM?

Participants were given 'an extra one pertion of red meat per day'

Now I don't know about you, but i eat red meat, but I do not eat it every day. In fact, it enters in to my cycle less than once a week. I would suggest that even amongst 'meat lovers' as you put it, having red meat every single day is unusual. Also, according to Harvard, I could have 42g/d of red meat and be relatively safe.

Suddenly, your quote:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Harvard ones claiming that red and processed meat is bad for you.
Click to expand...
Suddenly falls apart. Not surprising when you base your assumptions off bad science and sensationalist media reporting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom