Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.

The Honey Monster

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Everyones an overnight nutritionist now. Between that and fitness "experts" my social media accounts make me want to burn my laptop.

Oh I hear you.

Also fire in "wellness advice" ie. they read some pamphlet on mindfulness.

So for €50 euros a week you get some fellow with no qualifications in anything telling you about squats, eating kale and slow breathing.

It is the ultimate load of utter cock. And people with low self esteem and a complete inability to do anything for themselves queuing to get into these guys. The Operation Transformation generation.

Tigger

strelok wrote: »

yes it is

It's all about calories for weight loss or gain but the type of food you consume to get those calories is also important
Eat nothing but rashers and see how you feel

Tigger

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I know all of this but my point still applies. Don't eat as many vegetables as you want!

Why ?

Canis Lupus

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I know all of this but my point still applies. Don't eat as many vegetables as you want!

In fairness it doesn't.

strelok

Tigger wrote: »

Why ?

Canis Lupus wrote: »

In fairness it doesn't.

well you can overdose on certain vitamins and minerals, not easy to do but possible.

Tigger

strelok wrote: »

well you can overdose on certain vitamins and minerals, not easy to do but possible.

It's eat as many vegetables as you like, not eat as many vegetables as humanly possible

Darkest Horse

joeprivate wrote: »

Well when I googled eggs and cholesterol I found this from a doctor in the US who has just put a article on the topic and what he is saying seems quite credible I recently went on his website and sent him a email and he responded in person with a health question I had.
His post is a bit long but it is important to find out where the truth is, for the moment I am not eating any eggs

Dr John McDougall post on eggs

The Egg Industry: Exposing a Source of Food Poisoning

In my June 2015 newsletter article, "There Are Lies and Damned Lies: Damned Lies Harm the Public and Planet Earth," I expressed my outrage over an "Opinion" piece in the June 23/24, 2015 Journal of the American Medical Association. The article applauded the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's (DGAC) recommendation for the "elimination of dietary cholesterol as a 'nutrient of concern'…and the absence of an upper limit on total fat consumption." The JAMA article was referring to the updated 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released in January of 2016. Previous US Dietary Guidelines had recommended that people consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol, which is about one large egg.

Appreciable amounts of cholesterol are only found in animal products, from tunas to turkeys. Of all the foods commonly consumed as part of the rich Western diet, eggs contain the highest concentrations of cholesterol: eight times more than beef. Traditionally, in scientific studies on humans, eggs have been used as the source to demonstrate the adverse effects of cholesterol on our health and our heart arteries. For this reason the egg industry has taken the lead in misleading the public (including physicians) about the harmful effects of eggs, which are poisonous when consumed in the high amounts typical of American diets.

Eggs: The Richest Source of Cholesterol
FOOD MG/100 CALORIES
All Plant Foods 0

Whole Eggs 272
Beef 33
Chicken 37
Salmon
41
Lobster 73


On January 6, 2016 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), myself, and other well-respected California-based physicians filed suit in the US District Court (North District of California) against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) over their DGAC's position "that cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern for overconsumption."

The DGAC's position is based on a 20-year attempt by the egg industry to change the public's image of eggs as a contributor to American's number one cause of death: coronary heart disease. The DGAC disregarded decades of independent basic research incriminating cholesterol consumption—in other words "eating animals"—in order to accomplish their task. They instead relied on recent research that was orchestrated and funded by the egg and other livestock industries to communicate the innocence of eggs as a major cause of the multiple illnesses that plague millions of Americans.

As a physician, if this position, "that cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern for overconsumption," remained in the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, I would be harmed because these foods high in cholesterol (meat, poultry, eggs, dairy products, and fish) and saturated fat (animal foods, except fish) impair the health of my patients, making it more difficult for me to accomplish my professional objectives and duties as a medical doctor, to keep my patients healthy, and to reverse their dietary diseases, including obesity, heart disease (atherosclerosis), diabetes, inflammatory arthritis, and various intestinal disorders.

The "Complaint for Declarative and Injunctive Relief" may have already made a difference on the final position on "dietary cholesterol" for the Dietary Guidelines (released on January 7, 2016). The Guidelines currently state, "The Key Recommendation from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to limit consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day is not included in the 2015 edition, but this change does not suggest that dietary cholesterol is no longer important to consider when building healthy eating patterns. As recommended by the IOM (Institute of Medicine), individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern." They continued with, "Strong evidence from mostly prospective cohort studies, but also randomized controlled trials, has shown that eating patterns that include lower intake of dietary cholesterol are associated with reduced risk of CVD (cardiovascular disease), and moderate evidence indicates that these eating patterns are associated with reduced risk of obesity."

Eating as "little dietary cholesterol as possible" means following the McDougall Diet (starches, vegetables, and fruits), since cholesterol is found in animal foods (meat, poultry, dairy, egg, and fish). And saturated fat, in practical dietary terms, is synonymous with meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs.

The filing of this complaint has been a partial victory. My hope is that when the "Complaint for Declarative and Injunctive Relief" is heard by the District Court that we will cause significant changes to be made in the current Dietary Guidelines and that this, more importantly, will open the way to challenge and change the messages from the meat, poultry, and fish industries that govern the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We especially need the media's attention (Internet, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc.) in order to spread the truth and win with our non-existent monetary budget.

Exposing Industries' Dirty Tricks for Four Decades

This will be a hard-fought battle, as the egg industry has deep pockets. According to the American Egg Board Annual 2014 Report, "Both the growth rate for dollar and unit sales were double that of 2013, and USDA is showing the highest per capita consumption in 30 years." The Board spends more than 23 million dollars promoting eggs. No doubt they will set aside a portion of their budget to deal with us. They will play as dirty as necessary to protect their business interests if we do get significant attention. Because I have so far not been able to expose their dishonesty to a threatening level, I have never been confronted by any of the livestock industries.

My 1983 publication The McDougall Plan revealed that the dirty tricks used today to get Americans to eat more eggs began in the late 1970s. I wrote more than three decades ago, "Of the six studies in the medical literature that fail to demonstrate a significant rise in blood cholesterol level with the consumption of whole eggs, three were paid for by the American Egg Board, one by the Missouri Egg Merchandising Council, and one by the Egg Program of the California Department of Agriculture. Support for the sixth paper was not identified."

The methods used to show no harm from eating cholesterol (animals) are designing beforehand the experiment to get the results you are looking for. To show little or no increase in cholesterol levels from eating eggs, you first saturate your subjects with cholesterol from other sources (meat, etc.). Studies show that once people consume more than 400 to 800 milligrams of cholesterol per day, additional cholesterol has only a minor effect on blood cholesterol levels. Candidates for an experiment are easy to find since the typical American diet is based on a high intake of cholesterol (meat, poultry, dairy, and fish). Study designs can also use improper control subjects and inadequate time periods for the ingested cholesterol to show effects in the blood.

Notes about Current Research in The "Complaint for Declarative and Injunctive Relief"

In the past two decades, the American Egg Board and the Egg Nutrition Center have become increasingly active in using research to increase demand for eggs. Of the 41 studies on dietary cholesterol included in a 1992 meta-analysis, 29% were paid for by industry, mainly the egg industry. Nine years later, in a 2001 meta-analysis, that figure had risen to 41%. Two decades later, in a 2013 review, the figure was 92%. The food industry now dominates research on dietary cholesterol.

The egg industry, through researchers at Tufts (University)/USDA Center, have an overshadowing influence on the DGAC. The Tufts/USDA Center researchers excluded all studies published prior to 2003. Of the 12 studies that they included, eight were funded by the American Egg Board through the Egg Nutrition Center, two were funded by British and Australian egg industry associations, and the eleventh was funded by the fish industry in defense of prawn consumption. In other words, 11 out of the 12 cited studies were designed to arrive at a specific pro-industry result.

Despite their industry-related funding, nearly every cited study showed that eggs or other cholesterol-containing foods had an unfavorable effect on blood cholesterol levels. Nevertheless, John Griffin and Dr. Alice Lichtenstein (Egg industry associated DGAC members) concluded that the effect of dietary cholesterol on plasma lipid concentrations "is modest and appears to be limited to population subgroups."

Studies Ignored by the 2015 DGAC

Well-designed studies by investigators independent of the food industry clearly demonstrate the detrimental effects of eggs on blood cholesterol levels. The actual impact of egg feeding is seen when people who eat little cholesterol are fed eggs. When 17 lactovegetarian college students (consuming 97 mg of cholesterol daily) were fed one extra-large egg daily for three weeks, their "bad" LDL-cholesterol increased by 12%.

The real life effects of eggs were investigated in a large population of nearly 6,000 vegetarians and 5,000 non-vegetarians over a period of 13 years. Within this group of nearly 11,000 people, those eating eggs more than six times a week had a 2.47 times greater risk of dying of heart disease than those eating less than one egg a week.

A 50-year study of nearly 2,000 middle-aged men (the Western Electric Study) found that a dietary reduction in cholesterol intake of 430 mg/dL (the same as two eggs) was associated with a 43% reduction in long-term risk of coronary heart disease, a 25% reduction of risk of death from all causes, and three years longer life expectancy. In addition to heart disease, a higher cholesterol intake was also associated with more risk for strokes, blood clots, high blood pressure, and cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, lung, and brain.

Cholesterol is the most damaging to our arteries when it is present in an oxidized form (as free radicals). Eggs and egg-derived products are the main source of oxidized cholesterol in our diet.

Untainted research from high-quality studies show that adding one egg to the daily diet of the average "healthy" person already eating 200 mg of cholesterol from other sources, will increase their serum cholesterol by about 4%, which translates into an 8% increase in their risk of heart disease.

Two eggs daily will mean a 6% increase in cholesterol (12 mg/dL) and 12% more heart disease over the next 5 to 10 years. For young adult men, indulgence in two eggs daily means 30% more coronary heart disease over their lifetime.

Jeremiah Stamler, MD, the Chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine of the Feinberg School of Medicine (Northwestern University), wrote in 1998 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "It is a reasonable inference that the sizable decline in per capita egg consumption in the United States in recent decades, and hence in per capita total cholesterol intake, has been one important component of the improved dietary patterns leading to a fall in mean serum cholesterol concentration in the adult population from ~ 6.08 mmol/L (235 mg/dL) in the 1950s to ~ 5.30 mmol/L (205 mg/dL) in the 1990s, and to the concomitant sustained marked reductions in mortality rates from CHD, all cardiovascular diseases, and all causes." Between 1970 and 1995 annual consumption decreased from 310 to 235 eggs per person. Annual consumption is back up to about 260 eggs per person in 2014. This letter by Dr. Stamler is a good reply to the egg industry and worth reading.

In a 2015 study published in the journal Atherosclerosis, "Higher egg consumption was associated with an increased prevalence of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and with a greater degree of coronary calcification, independent of CVD and dietary risk factors. This association was progressive over egg consumption categories and was observed in all clinical subgroups evaluated, including those at low cardiovascular risk."

The 2008 Physicians' Health Study reported that higher egg consumption was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality; this association became stronger when restricted to participants with diabetes.

A 2012 study in the journal Atherosclerosis found an increased prevalence of carotid plaque with high consumption of yolks in patients attending vascular prevention clinics.

In October of 2014 I published the results of 1615 people in the Nutrition Journal article titled, "Effects of 7 days on an ad libitum low-fat vegan diet: the McDougall Program cohort." The diet contained no cholesterol (animal foods) and little saturated fat. The median decrease in total cholesterol was 22 mg/dL (.6 IU). When the cholesterol initially was over 240 mg/dl the reduction in seven days was on average 39 mg/dL.

Eggs Are Perfect for Growing Chicks

The egg industry provides a timely example of how money can buy scientific nutritional information that can be detrimental to the public's health. Citizens of the US and other Western countries suffer diseases of over-nutrition. Yet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans focus on getting enough nutrients (nonexistent problems). We do not suffer from protein, calcium, fat, or vitamin deficiencies (scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, etc.). Our problems stem from too much of the foods and nutrients recommended in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The purpose of a hen's egg is to provide all the materials necessary to develop the one cell—created by the joining of a cock's sperm with a hen's ovum—into a complete chick with feathers, a beak, legs, and a tail. This miraculous growth and development is supported by a one and a half-ounce package of ingredients, the hen's egg, jam-packed with proteins, fats, cholesterol, vitamins and minerals. A result is the hen's egg has been called "one of nature's most nutritious creations."

Indeed, an egg is the richest of all foods, and far too much of a "good thing" for people. The components of a cooked egg are completely absorbed through our intestines. As a result, this highly concentrated food, recommended by the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, provides too much cholesterol, fat, and protein for our body to safely process. The penalties are heart disease, obesity, and type-2 diabetes, to name a few epidemic sicknesses from our food.

I'm not going to read all of that but I'm pretty surprised that you take it seriously in this day and age. One thing that jumps out at me in all that is that your doctor friend mentions 'associations' - i.e. correlations that are not proven to be causative. It's the whole thing about people eating more ice cream in the summer - but we are intuitive enough to realise that this is because it is warm rather than because the sun makes ice cream grow. Then again, that's not as easy to (dis)prove as you might think.

Nutritional studies are mostly observational in nature. That means participants document their food over a certain time with mostly no supervision. People who eat more of a certain food, by design or accident, probably eat more food in general and are therefore probably more likely to be obese (a proven risk for heart disease) or eat excessive amounts of potentially harmful foods like sugar. It's impossible to dissociate the two and all we really have are correlation studies. I promise you that there is not a single study out there that tested the effects of a standard western diet vs a diet of eggs only over a 52 week period and measured the results. And there never will be.

For what it's worth, I have often eaten 6 eggs per day. I eat tons of saturated fats from mackerel, red meat, dairy products etc. My cholesterol is perfect and is going nowhere fast.

Darkest Horse

Tigger wrote: »

It's eat as many vegetables as you like, not eat as many vegetables as humanly possible

What if I like 2 tons of carrots?

Tigger

Darkest Horse wrote: »

What if I like 2 tons of carrots?

Then you'll be orange

There are so many aspects of the culture, zeitgiest, world of of 2016 that I hate, compared to say 2006, 1996 etc... Everyone thinks the whole world should give a damn about their opinion now. As evidenced by my posting on this message board! And that's another aspect of nowadays I hate; everyone is far too self-aware.

whiskeyman

Detoxing is the biggest sham ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance

f toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete, he says, you’d likely be dead or in need of serious medical intervention. “The healthy body has kidneys, a liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he says. “There is no known way – certainly not through detox treatments – to make something that works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”

Tipperary Fairy

whiskeyman wrote: »

Detoxing is the biggest sham ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance

Yes, finally.
It boils my blood when I see "detox" tea's, the idea of "detoxing" after Christmas etc. I'd like to know what exactly people think they're getting rid of. I'd like to know do they think i'm going to drop dead because I'm not drinking these tea's...

desertcircus

Detoxing, low-fat being good for you, paleo, pretty much any diet with a name, pseudoscience...

Want to get leaner? Count the calories you're consuming and reduce that number, mostly by cutting down on sugar. Very few people are overweight on a diet of steak and stir-fried vegetables. Want to lose weight faster? Do some hard exercise. And you could probably stand to eat more veg. For 95% of those of us, that pretty much covers it.

And for the guy on a blood type diet: that's utter balls.

Lucyfur

Remember when we all thought a bowl of coco pops had all the vitamin d and riboflavins we needed? And when a "healthy snack" was crunchy nut cornflakes? I miss those days. A nice bowl of sugary goodness with a toy for good measure

suicide_circus

Detox.....horseshìte. The detoxing industry has about as much scientific basis has homeopathy ie: fu*k all. Charlatans selling snake oil to idiots.

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Vitamin c cures / prevents colds.

Artificial sweeteners are lethal. I particularly lose respect for those of this mindset.

Vit C completely agree.

Aspartame (sweetner) does have some questions BUT only in people with depression. Double blind tests have shown no impact on general population but did increase depressive tendancies (but again, only in those already suffering from it)

The tests also conclude that they cause of the anti sweetener brigade is that there have been very few trials performed in a correct scientific setting.

force eleven

force eleven wrote: »

That Guinness is full of iron. It's not. It's full of alcohol.

It's not, it's down around 4.2% now (and only hits that a cetrain amount of time a year)

Bulbous Salutation

The snackbox in Supermacs, Eyre Square, Galway is superior to those found in other Supermacs around the country.

Bullshít.

Azalea

Deleted User wrote: »

There are so many aspects of the culture, zeitgiest, world of of 2016 that I hate, compared to say 2006, 1996 etc... Everyone thinks the whole world should give a damn about their opinion now. As evidenced by my posting on this message board! And that's another aspect of nowadays I hate; everyone is far too self-aware.

Self awareness is one thing that is seriously lacking I think. E.g. the whinging online about other people not doing anything about whatever societal crisis is being discussed.

Irishcrx

I was only thinking about this the other day , I actually think it's part of the reason people eventually or even sooner rather than later give up on their initial plans for weight loss or healthy eating. It's become so extreme , everyone weighs in with one thing or another , another Nutritional expert has the latest fad and unless your in on it , good luck your now ****ed.

It can actually be quite stressful for someone who is trying to lose weight because there is so much been thrown at them they don't know where to start and it makes the whole task seem impossible and daunting , Gluten free this , Superfoods , can't drink milk , better drink milk , low fat only , low fat is bad for you , don't eat cheese , drink more water , Eat more Veg , eat only lean meats , don't eat too much red eat , NEVER any sugar , bread , Complex carbs only...and our latest SirtFood diet which is now the holy grail for the rest of the year (Skinny gene) I think their now claiming.

This can send a persons head spinning and is one of the reasons they will pay people to take all of the garbage out of their head and just 'tell them what to do' and it'll work right?

Well , yes and no. The truth is , you need to put all of that out of your head and just follow the basic rules , the rest can come later...this has been true since the start of time and will continue to be.

* To gain weight - Eat more
* To loose weight - Eat less
* Track what you eat

Yes , eating better foods is great and some foods are better than others, but the above is a great starting point. You see some results , you feel rewarded , your now on the right track and can slowly learn as you go along because you now start to learn from that basic rule, that it works. Their is no magic formula and everyone has a way that will work for THEM.

Tipperary Fairy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Vit C completely agree.

Aspartame (sweetner) does have some questions BUT only in people with depression. Double blind tests have shown no impact on general population but did increase depressive tendancies (but again, only in those already suffering from it)

The tests also conclude that they cause of the anti sweetener brigade is that there have been very few trials performed in a correct scientific setting.

I'd be interested in reading about that if you know where you read it?

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading about that if you know where you read it?

I'll try to dig out later after work. My pub med subscription is lapsed but might get the abstract at least

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ninap wrote:

"Organic food is better for you". No it's not. It's wallet-lightening though. (It may taste better, but that's a different issue.)

Who says it's not?

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

strelok

Merrick Uneven Python wrote: »

Who says it's not?

science

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

again, science. not logic. but to say that organic foods don't use pesticides is ****ing hilarious.

stimpson

This: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057559662

Tigger

strelok wrote: »

science



again, science. not logic. but to say that organic foods don't use pesticides is ****ing hilarious.

Is organic not made without pesticides? Is that not the point? Excuse my ignorance do you mean it's meant to be pesticide free but isn't or that it doesn't have to be ?

Ziphius

Merrick Uneven Python wrote: »

Who says it's not?

So foods laced with pesticides etc is the same as foods without? Where's the logic?

Organic food also uses pesticides. And also can also contain lethal amounts of E. coli from 'organic' fertiliser.

YFlyer

whiskeyman wrote: »

Detoxing is the biggest sham ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance

The author is not familiar with panchakarma.

NiallBoo

That the maximum calorie deficit to burn fat is 500 calories per day for everyone, regardless of differences on body-composition.

pajero12

Ziphius wrote: »

Organic food also uses pesticides. And also can contain lethal amounts of E. coli from 'organic' fertiliser.

What is your source? This is hilarious!

Organic food production is governed by EU regulation and strictly implemented by the Department of Agriculture.