Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
As for fat being bad for you/not bad for you... I've known people who have done the Adkins Diet, and I did a modified/winging-it variation on it myself (while I was deployed). If you don't know, Adkins is about the almost complete elimination of carbohydrates (sugars and starches) from your diet. This means no sweets, candy, soda, bread, et al. You live off of meats and veggies. (What I did was probably more carbs than Adkins would allow, but still very low compared to a normal diet.) It isn't bad for you, but if you aren't prepared for it it can screw with you pretty badly (just as any major change in diet can). The problem, of course, is that it is such a restrictive diet that it is very hard to stay on it (I gave up on what I was doing after I got back from deployment). Adkins, because of the nature of what you are eating, often involves huge amounts of fat intake. But so long as you keep on the diet and exercise regulalry you'll be fine.
The Inuit of Alaska are known for being a culture that subsisted almost entirely on animal products, yet they didn't all die of malnutrition (though between the cold and hunting/fishing they burned a lot of calories on a daily basis).
So, yeah, so long as calories in is roughly even with colories expended, you get enough of certain key nutrients, and you're at least a little active, you'll be fine. The big problem is that people in modern societies tend to overindulge in food without a matching increase in activity. There are a lot of causes for this (most of them social, rather than commercial, in my observation).
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
I might have to rethink how I speak to some people on these forums...
I have always found it is good to have Strong Opinions, Weakly Held.
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
You should watch the show. After he does the 28 day McD diety, he does a Sat. Fat diet where he does almost no carbs mostly Sat. Fat, and his cholesterol actually improved by a couple of points. They show some science on it, but its really simplified. If you could watch it and tell me if the science is good I'd appreciate it...
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
You should watch the show. After he does the 28 day McD diety, he does a Sat. Fat diet where he does almost no carbs mostly Sat. Fat, and his cholesterol actually improved by a couple of points. They show some science on it, but its really simplified. If you could watch it and tell me if the science is good I'd appreciate it...
I don't think I really need to. I did a brief search. The guy isn't a scientist for starters, so his opinion on the body or biochemistry don't really matter. He also comes across like a denialist of sorts, as do his followers. The simple fact is that saturated fats and trans-fatty acids are still potentially bad for you, because of the nature of the molecule and how your body otherwise processes them. I got the information in my post from a [peer reviewed] Biology 101 textbook, "Biology: Eighth Edition" by Raven et al. Documentaries aren't exactly held to the standards of peer review.
For all I know, the data in the documentary could be fudged, and he wouldn't be the first to pull a stunt like that. Saturated fats being necessarilly "good for you?" He also says things on his website like sodium is apparently not bad for your blood pressure, and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... he sounds like a fraudster and a liar, or woefully misinformed by someone else. I don't have to watch a whole movie to tell you he sounds like he's full of s***. Either that, or his body temperature is abnormally high, like to the point of being disconcerting. But whether he was a liar or misinformed, he'd just be one more type on a long list of other types of denialists.
But, until now, I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
.. and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
Did I hear
Oh... you said fat head I thought you said Pyramid Head.
.. and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
Google it, they are not exactly hidden. As well as the previous studies being debunked. Lab assistants at the previous studies admitted to feeding the MSGs to the control group. Its actually not that hard to find...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
And check who paid for the study. A lot of studies are paid by the compagnies who sell the junk in the first place.
Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad study. Suspect, yes. But it does not automatically disqualify it.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
I'm gonna say this as politely as I can, but John Stossel isn't a scientist, let alone a relevant one. As far as I care, John Stossel can f*** himself. Journalists, reporters, film makers, and self-styled whistle blowers aren't scientists, and often times lack the education or training to be credible. Often times, worse so than many pop-science sources, they're misinformed or lying, or they just don't understand the science.
Fact of the matter is that taking in too much sodium increases blood pressure. Sure, sodium dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in salt actually increases the volume of the blood. Your body needs some salt for osmo-regulation (water-to-salt balance), but its effect on blood pressure is simple physics/chemistry.
I'm 26 years old, and I have high blood pressure for someone my age. Luckilly, I don't have to take anything for it, and its not so bad that I have to worry about a heart attack, but its still abnormal for someone in their mid-twenties. My doctor told me that it was due to sodium in-take. I'm not old enough for my blood pressure to just "go up due to age," and the only other medical condition I have is asthma, which otherwise doesn't effect my blood pressure. Anyone claiming that sodium doesn't contribute to high blood pressure, and can't lead to it, is woefully misinformed, or a liar, and at the very least, a medical denialist.
I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know
First, who is "we?" Who "we" is identified as is important to the topic. Are you referring to everyone?
Second, it apparently doesn't include all of "us." Or even most of "us."
from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children,
I don't know so much about that. But I'd like to see some of the peer reviewed papers/articles if you can cite them. If you know the titles, I can find them from there. I know a few paper databases, and we have a few at the school where they give the students free access. If there's any jargon or speak I don't understand, I have my mentor that I can show them to, and a host of professors at the school. (If you're going to use the phrase "scientific findings," I'm gonna ask for them.)
I do know, however, that aspartame has been linked to Multiple Sclerosis-like symptoms in women. Aspartame, however, is a non-saccharide sweetener (its a non-sugar with a sweet taste, in other words). Diabetics don't properly produce the enzymes to break down sugars like fructose or sucrose. Fructose, even for non-diabetics, is harder to properly catabolize for energy, hence why its the sugar that turns to fat and leads to cavities most often, whereas the sugars found in most plants we eat do not. Aspartame is kind of the answer to that. Chances are though, that if you're taking in enough of it to cause health problems, you'd also be taking enough fructose in to cause health problems to begin with, and the problem is perhaps due to drinking too much soda or eating too many sweets.
As far as MSG, or Monosodium Glutamate, that's what probably causes you to get hungry again after a while when you go out for Chinese food. However, the supposed health concerns are anecdotal, not scientific. Anecdotal evidence without any scientific data to back it up is pretty much useless in this scenario, but I can pretty much guarantee that "we" don't "all know because of scientific findings" that it does in fact cause brain damage.
yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal.
I can guarantee that this whole line is conspiracist propaganda in addition to being bulls***. I get into a similar discussion with the anti-GMO crowd all the time (I've been a veteran of that battle for about the last two years).
The USDA, FDA, and EPA all regulate the food that we eat here in the states, with the final one regulating more of the grown food crops. Even if I were to believe that the USDA were corrupt, there's still two other regulatory organizations. There's also the meritocracy of peer review, which can be envisioned as a fourth regulatory organization. As it is, its the job of the USDA, FDA, and EPA to look for holes in the food safety standards of the people handling said food. Peer review takes it a step further. Scientists spend more time dogging on each other than anything, and the chance to expose someone as even just incorrect, is rarely just passed up. If someone can be found to be a fraud, or something can be found to be unsafe, its almost never passed up.
If there was a conspiracy to poison our food with MSG and aspartame, and USDA approval scientists were lying in their results, it would have been found out and torn open a long time ago. There would have been countless papers and articles on the topic alone, and there would have been congressional hearings. Scientists, auditers, and other assorted involved personnel would have been professionally hung. There would be talk about it in scientific circles as just another time where peer review did what it was supposed to, but an ominous reminder that there is far more to lose by lying, than to gain. I can guarantee you that you don't know anything the scientific community doesn't, and neither do your sources. Science and food or drug safety don't work like an action movie, and the blogosphere isn't posession of dangerous information that the government and scientists are blissfully unaware of. That just isn't how it works...
The scientists aren't part of some dark cabal that works for the government or some dark company working in the shadows. They work for Universities and the occassional research firm. Peer review is also not under the domain of the government or any shadowy company CEO. Scientists at research firms don't even work for the regulatory companies. They have to maintain certain standards to keep their liscenses, or they can't do business. And typically, when the FDA, EPA, or USDA err, they do so on the side of caution.
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
I know this is my major, and what I'm going to school for, and its basic biochemistry, and rudimentary knowledge of how Biological science as an overall entity works, but hey, what the hell do I know?
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
However, a child's brain is still developing, growing, and so-on, for years after birth. It's not until much later ("adulthood") that the brain is "done". So something causing brain damage as a kid but not an adult? Probably because it doesn't rot or damage the brain directly (like, say, alcohol), but causes it to not develop and grow correctly.
Not saying it does or doesn't, mind you, just that it's certainly plausible. Plausible enough not to dismiss it simply because aspartame doesn't have the same effect on adults.
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
However, a child's brain is still developing, growing, and so-on, for years after birth. It's not until much later ("adulthood") that the brain is "done". So something causing brain damage as a kid but not an adult? Probably because it doesn't rot or damage the brain directly (like, say, alcohol), but causes it to not develop and grow correctly.
Not saying it does or doesn't, mind you, just that it's certainly plausible. Plausible enough not to dismiss it simply because aspartame doesn't have the same effect on adults.
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
And, Yes I am a gamer. But I am also a road biker and backpacker.
Fat is good for you. Cold pressed olive oil, avocados, and tree nuts are all excellent sources of fat.
Fat has nine calories per gram. I believe carbs and protein have four. You can eat all you want of the healthy fats, or any other food for that matter (good or bad) as along as your calorie intake is balanced against what you burn. I would not recommend deriving much more than 40% of your calories from fat (or proten or carbs) unless you have unusual nutritional needs.
I'm not one much for conspiracy theory in regard to MSG or aspartame. All heavily processed food like substances are bad for you. The only question is how bad they really are, and we are all part of that ongoing experiment. I try and take a wisdom based approach. If you cannot read the ingredients of a product without a PHD in food science, it is probably best to stay away. Anyone who is interested could look up The Ominvore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan(sp?). His perspective on food, american diet, and food industry is a good place to start for anyone who is interested.
[/qoute]
The scientists aren't part of some dark cabal that works for the government or some dark company working in the shadows. They work for Universities and the occassional research firm. Peer review is also not under the domain of the government or any shadowy company CEO. Scientists at research firms don't even work for the regulatory companies. They have to maintain certain standards to keep their liscenses, or they can't do business. And typically, when the FDA, EPA, or USDA err, they do so on the side of caution.
What about GMO crops, and the patenting of engineered life forms? How about the lawsuits filed against farmer who have had thier fields contaminated by GMO's, and been taken to courts packed with lawyers receiving contributions from Monsanto?
The FDA has also not had a stellar track record recently.
That is not conspiracy theory. That is just how the system works in the good ol' USA. It is just too easy too see conspiracy theory everywhere.
and we are all part of that ongoing experiment.
So why is the net full of paranoid people with ideas of conspiracies.
Think of other things popular on the internet. Are those things innately good for individuals or society as whole because they are popular?
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
Yes... but it's entirely possible that it could make it so that they don't develop right. Throw aspartame at fully developed brains? Doesn't do anything. At a partially developed brain? It changes how the rest of the brain continues to grow.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a link to a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a link to a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
A child's brain cells are still dividing. Cell division is how you get new cells. If a chemical interferes with this process it can cause errors in the DNA being copied and create cancerous cells. Whether the chemicals in question really can do that is a different question.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
I'm gonna say this as politely as I can, but John Stossel isn't a scientist, let alone a relevant one. As far as I care, John Stossel can f*** himself. Journalists, reporters, film makers, and self-styled whistle blowers aren't scientists, and often times lack the education or training to be credible. Often times, worse so than many pop-science sources, they're misinformed or lying, or they just don't understand the science.
Did you have this much vitral directed to John Stossel before he became a Fox Business Channel contributor? JS isn't a scientist, but do you seriously think he didn't do any research into the scientific experts he consulted for his Give Me A Break segments, or his book?
Fact of the matter is that taking in too much sodium increases blood pressure. Sure, sodium dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in salt actually increases the volume of the blood. Your body needs some salt for osmo-regulation (water-to-salt balance), but its effect on blood pressure is simple physics/chemistry.
Taking in to much alcohol lowers blood pressure (to life threating levels) too. Sure, alcohol dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in alcohol decreases the volume of the blood. Guess what, all things are toxic at certain levels. Salt, alcohol, water, you name it...taking too much of anything can kill you. Your liver processes alcohol, and removes it from your system, in much the same way that your kidneys remove salt from you body. Apart from having saltier urine, salt has few if any other side effects (making food tastier is nice side effect).
I'm 26 years old, and I have high blood pressure for someone my age. Luckilly, I don't have to take anything for it, and its not so bad that I have to worry about a heart attack, but its still abnormal for someone in their mid-twenties. My doctor told me that it was due to sodium in-take.
Doctors say a lot of stupid things. Like stress, smoking, etc. cause stomach ulcers. Doctors now know that isn't true. People who are afraid of sugar, and salt, and other process food "toxins" are mentally unstable.
Anyone claiming that sodium doesn't contribute to high blood pressure, and can't lead to it, is woefully misinformed, or a liar, and at the very least, a medical denialist.
I love this term. Can we please start tacking denialist onto everything.
I don't watch American Idol - continential vocalist denialist.
Justin Beber doesn't look like a lesbian - teenybopper homosexual denialist.
George Lopez isn't funny - latenight humor denialist.
BTW: I pretty much agree about everything you said regarding Aspartme and MSG. The guy linked to by the OP seems like a total wackjob trying to sell his books.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Your not on my ignore lists, I just havn't had enough time to read each and every link, and provide links to dispute many of those claims.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Your not on my ignore lists, I just havn't had enough time to read each and every link, and provide links to dispute many of those claims.
That would be, because they are widely scientifically accepted. If you really do have a career in this field and are just finishing up college. I'd ignore most of what you find out in your private research here. This is because the govt. doesn't give grants to people that disprove their pet theories. So professionally you should toe the line...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Ok, I have looked over you linked articles. Here are my observatoins.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I cannot comment on this study directly, as I don't have access to that publication (without going to the local university). Here is the wikipedia page talking about the controversy, and links to many different articles if anyone is interested.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
I am sure I can. I will have to do some research if I really wanted to know for sure. I don't think I really care, as the only people who seem to want to save me have something to sell. Here is what the cronies at the FDA have to say.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Edit: Found another one
Here is what the Hazardous Substance Database has to say...
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a linkto a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
This link appears to be talking about people who are senstive to MSG. Somewhere it claims that 30% of the population is sensitive to MSG, but I have heard that alergic reactions to MSG are about 1:200,000. It complains that products that do have MSG are incorrectly labeled. I personally wouldn't opt for this, you can see the folly in doing this with the Peanut Allergy scare. Now all products have a warning (to satisfy the laywers) that they may contain peanut products, or were manufactured in a place that packages peanut products. So, if you are alergic to peanuts you can't buy anything. I have found an interesting one that I might actually read related to Obesity and MSG (not saying I believe it yet, just saying I am going to read it).
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
You keep linking to websites that want to sell me something. Apparently, Anny Belle Foundation sounds better than Vicky Barker (whois report). Her website links to amazon where you can buy Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures they don't want you to know about. The Federal Trade Commision will tell you about Kevin Trudeau.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Yes, all junk science is common knowledge. If people didn't go out and repeat it so much, how could it spread far enough for snake oil salesmen to lighten people's pocketbooks.
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
I like how you skirt the issue here and go after character assasination.
I cannot comment on this study directly, as I don't have access to that publication (without going to the local university). Here is the wikipedia page talking about the controversy, and links to many different articles if anyone is interested.
Yes, the Wikipedia page talks about the 'controversy' I like how they gloss over the opposing studies and make reference to industry studies that have been shown to be conducted in questionable ways. Please take the effort to actually research the study as nearly every study done by independent researchers has shown that MSGs are extremely bad for you. All of the studies done by the industry shows them to be safe. I don't know about you but that looks fishy to me... I'd be willing to admit something might not be up if there were some double blind studies by independent 3rd parties, but I can't find any...
I am sure I can. I will have to do some research if I really wanted to know for sure. I don't think I really care, as the only people who seem to want to save me have something to sell. Here is what the cronies at the FDA have to say.
I've done some research, can you point me to some studies done by independent 3rd parties or double blind studies done in somebody else lab? As I've said before the FDA put out a report that pretty much said what I'm saying on their website, but it was pulled as soon as they realized their mistake. Claiming that the FDA who employs or has employed people specifically from those industries, or whose employees after passing chemicals become 'employed' by them doesn't really say much to me.
Here is a page with many many links to scientific articles and things of this nature on the Aspartame side.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Or perhaps as I said, it is common scientific knowledge and pretty much taken for granted at this point. It was kept out of the media to stop them from panicking. The fact that MSGs are classified as neurotoxin (exciter) should mean something.
Edit: Found another one
Here is what the Hazardous Substance Database has to say...
According to your link 32mg is all it takes to cause detrimental side effects. In this site they have a chart done from 1991 that shows that our intake is well above this amount and there is an indication that it is much worse as companies continue to increase the amount of MSGs added to food.
Also the studies used in the 1980's were shown to not follow good standards with things like waiting more than 48 hours to do the autopsy (brain lesions are not detectable after this time). Also using Aspartame and other legal but harmful additives in the control group and then saying 'there were not significant differences in the occurrence of side effects'.
The study that look at 'two symptoms' picked the two least likely symptoms to be present. It was done by the industry and paid for by the industry. It was also shown to be false. You'll also note that these studies follow a pick and choose, then do a second study format. Instead of a random sampling. I'm sure if you look at the details of the studies themselves you'll find this out. Also look at the articles where they investigate those studies. I don't know why they continue to be put up as 'good' studies...
Here's a linkto a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
This link appears to be talking about people who are senstive to MSG. Somewhere it claims that 30% of the population is sensitive to MSG, but I have heard that alergic reactions to MSG are about 1:200,000. It complains that products that do have MSG are incorrectly labeled. I personally wouldn't opt for this, you can see the folly in doing this with the Peanut Allergy scare. Now all products have a warning (to satisfy the laywers) that they may contain peanut products, or were manufactured in a place that packages peanut products. So, if you are alergic to peanuts you can't buy anything. I have found an interesting one that I might actually read related to Obesity and MSG (not saying I believe it yet, just saying I am going to read it).
Yes, those 1:200,000 odds are to have the throat closing "Chinese food" reaction. It does not include the 100's of other symptoms reported including eye problems, skin problems, developmental problems, and many others. If you count all of the symptoms reported you run closer to 40% of the population...
I'd rather have a warning, then eat something and have a negative reaction. Even if it just lists it as MSG in the ingredients with no warning label instead of 'flavoring', 'spices' or other worthless words.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
You keep linking to websites that want to sell me something. Apparently, Anny Belle Foundation sounds better than Vicky Barker (whois report). Her website links to amazon where you can buy Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures they don't want you to know about. The Federal Trade Commision will tell you about Kevin Trudeau.This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packed with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
This study looks at deaths from tumors. Since this is not one of the claims made, that MSGs cause brain tumors that then cause death, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Yes, all junk science is common knowledge. If people didn't go out and repeat it so much, how could it spread far enough for snake oil salesmen to lighten people's pocketbooks.
Some of the websites I linked were not specifically scientific, but rather cited scientific sources. Some of the links were directly to studies though. So hardly 'junk science'...
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
I like how you skirt the issue here and go after character assasination.
Here is what you said,
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
I fully admit that attacked the character of the person running the website. She paid for a "certification" from a business that wants to help people start their own business. As a skeptic, you should look into the credentials of the people providing you with information. Here is what credential watch (a QuackWatch affiliate) has to say about a degree from Integrative Nutrition. The only other information that was quoted from studies were the study titles. I am not sure exactly how you want me to address the issue of the choice of scientific study titles. What issue exactly was I supposed to dispute from the website that you linked to?
Here is a page with many many links to scientific articles and things of this nature on the Aspartame side.
It also has links to many un-scientific articles. Perhaps with all the research you have done, you can point me to one article that it links to that you feel sums up how dangerous Aspartame is.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Or perhaps as I said, it is common scientific knowledge and pretty much taken for granted at this point. It was kept out of the media to stop them from panicking. The fact that MSGs are classified as neurotoxin (exciter) should mean something.
Well, not really. First I have to admit that this is well above my pay grade. I may be an amature statistician, and I may have thought once about going to lawschool, but I never wanted to become a doctor or biochemist. The reason that MSG is classified as a neurotoxin is that it affects neurons (brain cells). The chemical in turkey Tryptophan affects brain cells too. You won't hear me warning about the dangers of the neurotoxins in turkey that make you sleepy though. Funny enough, I am pretty sure that John Erb sells melatonin supplements (or at least advocates them) that have "neurotoxin blocking" power.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packed with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
This study looks at deaths from tumors. Since this is not one of the claims made, that MSGs cause brain tumors that then cause death, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
My mistake, reading comprehension error on my part. I was under the impression that the brain lesions were causing the rats to die, you are correct that the studies weren't saying that.
Here is a request to the WHO (World Health Organization) to put MSGs on the list of bad. It cites many studies by name that show without a shadow of a doubt that it is unhealthy...
Dear World Health Organization,
Please stop putting out press releases about the dangers of Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The Relative Risk of SHS is 16%, and not noteworthy.
Just because someone makes a request to the WHO, doesn't mean that what they have to say is of any value. John Erb has a book he wants to sell. His level of research appartantly has to do with putting the titiles of scientific studies into PubMed.com, and then quoting the abastracts of those papers, and then drawing conclusions. (I invite anyone to click on your linked article by John Erb, paste the title of one of the studies in PubMed for themselves).
How much research do you think I am willing to do, when the guy most concered with MSG in our food only quotes abstracts, and wants to sell me books and vitaman suplements.
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
Ideally it should be required that these companies pay for independent double blind studies that would follow a predetermined protocol. Unfortunately its a corporation world out there and they pretty much call the shots where it matters...
If he quoted more than abstracts, it would have turned into a book. You still haven't addressed any of the actual research I've pointed you to. Please do that, then come back with research for me to look at that refutes me otherwise you are dismissing things out of hand without looking at the research...
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
The problem isn't that he didn't quote more than abstracts, making his report to long. The problem is that he only quoted abstracts. He only quoted the entire abstract. Imagine if you were turning in a book report for school, and every single one of your references came from the first page of all the books (Would your teacher believe you read the entire book?). Do you think the most useful and valuable information in every one of those studies was always in the abstract? Would you not question the credibility of someone who this for the basis of their "official" looking report to the WHO? This guy has a book about MSG posioning our children, and the only research that he presents to the WHO is the abstracts of research papers. Where is his other research?
I have no intention of reading any actual research that you have pointed me to, until you have read it first. This is why I wanted you to direct me to a research paper that sums up how dangerous MSG/Aspartme etc. are. You said you have done some research, so I hope that includes discovering some studies that really convinced you that those substances are dangerous. I don't want to go do some research and then you immediately tell me, "Well those papers were paid for by corporations."
I don't blindly trust corporations (or unincorporated people trying to sell me books).
The cost of living is people dying. Drop-Side cribs have been responsible for 30 deaths over the last 10 years. Media Hysteria got them pulled from the market. Falls kill 16 kids in 2002, should we just remove all crib beds that don't sit directly on the floor? In all honestly, if I had a product that 100s of millions of people bought and used for 10 years that happened to killed 30 people, I would be quite happy (unless I was manufacturing guns).
If he quoted more than abstracts, it would have turned into a book. You still haven't addressed any of the actual research I've pointed you to. Please do that, then come back with research for me to look at that refutes me otherwise you are dismissing things out of hand without looking at the research...
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
The problem isn't that he didn't quote more than abstracts, making his report to long. The problem is that he only quoted abstracts. He only quoted the entire abstract. Imagine if you were turning in a book report for school, and every single one of your references came from the first page of all the books (Would your teacher believe you read the entire book?). Do you think the most useful and valuable information in every one of those studies was always in the abstract? Would you not question the credibility of someone who this for the basis of their "official" looking report to the WHO? This guy has a book about MSG posioning our children, and the only research that he presents to the WHO is the abstracts of research papers. Where is his other research?
I'm not seeing the problem. He's quoting the summary and then listing the information about the study. So if you aren't convinced or want to know more you go look up the study. I just don't see the problem. Are you telling me that I should pour over these studies myself and give you a 30 page summary? I mean I'm literally pointing you to the studies and evidence of my position and your going "nah...nah...I can't hear you" or the equivalent.
What other research are you talking about? he lists 20+ studies that show its harmful and should be taken off the market. What more needs to be done. Should he go to a 3rd world country and force feed impoverished children MSGs to see how much it takes to kill them or cause severe brain damage? I'm just not seeing what you want from this, other than to be right when you are obviosly not...
I have no intention of reading any actual research that you have pointed me to, until you have read it first. This is why I wanted you to direct me to a research paper that sums up how dangerous MSG/Aspartme etc. are. You said you have done some research, so I hope that includes discovering some studies that really convinced you that those substances are dangerous. I don't want to go do some research and then you immediately tell me, "Well those papers were paid for by corporations."
You said where is the research. I pointed you at the names and summaries from the research. Now you want me to read all the research and then what write another summary? I'm giving you all the information you asked for and now your asking for what direct links to the research?
Here is a link to the entire abstract of one of the studies. For some reason you have to pay to see the full study. As an unemployed under the poverty line U.S. citizen I can't pay for the full study. Maybe you can look the full study up using your school database or whatever. I'm sure on that site you can find many more studies that have been done on this subject.
I don't blindly trust corporations (or unincorporated people trying to sell me books).
The cost of living is people dying. Drop-Side cribs have been responsible for 30 deaths over the last 10 years. Media Hysteria got them pulled from the market. Falls kill 16 kids in 2002, should we just remove all crib beds that don't sit directly on the floor? In all honestly, if I had a product that 100s of millions of people bought and used for 10 years that happened to killed 30 people, I would be quite happy (unless I was manufacturing guns).
Sure. A few accidental deaths due to misuse or whatever I can see, but when your lowering the IQ of 25% or more of the population and causing all kinds of health problems across the board I have a problem with it. There was a controversy awhile back about baby formula. They tried to say that killing 2% of the babies that ate the formula was ok. Do you think that would be ok? I don't. I know there will be deaths, but I don't think that it should be allowed to happen because 'its a little cheaper to put this other chemical in it'
Come back when you have some evidence to support your claims. I've provided evidence. Either disprove the evidence I've provided or provide counter evidence. Its pretty simple. Stop playing fallacy games...
So does anyone have some links or knowledge about the science of this movie? I'm not talking about "toe the line" party talk. I'm talking about actual science with studies to back it up...
As for fat being bad for you/not bad for you... I've known people who have done the Adkins Diet, and I did a modified/winging-it variation on it myself (while I was deployed). If you don't know, Adkins is about the almost complete elimination of carbohydrates (sugars and starches) from your diet. This means no sweets, candy, soda, bread, et al. You live off of meats and veggies. (What I did was probably more carbs than Adkins would allow, but still very low compared to a normal diet.) It isn't bad for you, but if you aren't prepared for it it can screw with you pretty badly (just as any major change in diet can). The problem, of course, is that it is such a restrictive diet that it is very hard to stay on it (I gave up on what I was doing after I got back from deployment). Adkins, because of the nature of what you are eating, often involves huge amounts of fat intake. But so long as you keep on the diet and exercise regulalry you'll be fine.
The Inuit of Alaska are known for being a culture that subsisted almost entirely on animal products, yet they didn't all die of malnutrition (though between the cold and hunting/fishing they burned a lot of calories on a daily basis).
So, yeah, so long as calories in is roughly even with colories expended, you get enough of certain key nutrients, and you're at least a little active, you'll be fine. The big problem is that people in modern societies tend to overindulge in food without a matching increase in activity. There are a lot of causes for this (most of them social, rather than commercial, in my observation).
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
I might have to rethink how I speak to some people on these forums...
I have always found it is good to have Strong Opinions, Weakly Held.
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
You should watch the show. After he does the 28 day McD diety, he does a Sat. Fat diet where he does almost no carbs mostly Sat. Fat, and his cholesterol actually improved by a couple of points. They show some science on it, but its really simplified. If you could watch it and tell me if the science is good I'd appreciate it...
Has anyone seen Fat Head? its the reply to Super Size Me. It has some very interesting data in it. Does anyone know if the data they are using is true?
Things like fat is good for you, sat fat is good, trans fat is bad?
Well, no, I've never actually seen it. But I'm a biochem major. Your body needs SOME fat, perhaps not as much as it needs other things, but it does need some, and certain types ARE better than others. In general though, you're not able to process vitamin A without it. Your body also catabolizes fat in a process called Beta Oxidation, to help make certain enzymes (Acetyl CoA), which your body needs to break down glucose and other sugars in food for energy in the Glycolytic pathway (and to produce more of a chemical called Adenosine Triphosphate, same process). The phospholipid bilayer in your cells also need it. This, of course, doesn't mean you should go to McDonald's and order the McFatAss meal for lunch, and here's why.
It has to do with the molecular structure of certain fats. A fatty acid consists of a chain of carbons, with some hydrogens attached to the other available bonding sites on the carbons. These can attach to a glycerol molecule to form a fat molecule. So you have a glycerol molecule with three fatty acid chains (the type of molecule is called a tryglyceride).
Saturated fats are potentially bad for you, because of the number of hydrogen atoms attached to the fatty acid chains. Sat fats tend to remain as a solid at room temperature, and thus carries more of the bad cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are easier to burn for energy, and have a lower melting point, because of the carbon double bonds, and lacking some of the hydrogen in the fatty acid tails, and it remains a liquid at room temperature. Trans-fatty acids are also bad for you for the same reason as saturated fats, because of the process of hydrogenation (i.e., hydrogenated oils), which also causes them to carry more of the bad cholesterol. The process is done to unsaturated fats to keep them from solidifying (like in peanut butter, or in the grease found in some fast foods), but it takes away the health advantages (it makes it chemically more like saturated fats, so it stays a solid at room temperature).
In short, if this was confusing, "all things in moderation" is perhaps the best way to think about it. Your body needs some fat, but not a lot and not every kind. Sat. fats and trans. fats aren't as good for you as unsaturated fats. Taking in too much of the former two causes build up of plaque and bad cholesterol in your arteries. Anyway, I hope that wasn't too confusing...
You should watch the show. After he does the 28 day McD diety, he does a Sat. Fat diet where he does almost no carbs mostly Sat. Fat, and his cholesterol actually improved by a couple of points. They show some science on it, but its really simplified. If you could watch it and tell me if the science is good I'd appreciate it...
I don't think I really need to. I did a brief search. The guy isn't a scientist for starters, so his opinion on the body or biochemistry don't really matter. He also comes across like a denialist of sorts, as do his followers. The simple fact is that saturated fats and trans-fatty acids are still potentially bad for you, because of the nature of the molecule and how your body otherwise processes them. I got the information in my post from a [peer reviewed] Biology 101 textbook, "Biology: Eighth Edition" by Raven et al. Documentaries aren't exactly held to the standards of peer review.
For all I know, the data in the documentary could be fudged, and he wouldn't be the first to pull a stunt like that. Saturated fats being necessarilly "good for you?" He also says things on his website like sodium is apparently not bad for your blood pressure, and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... he sounds like a fraudster and a liar, or woefully misinformed by someone else. I don't have to watch a whole movie to tell you he sounds like he's full of s***. Either that, or his body temperature is abnormally high, like to the point of being disconcerting. But whether he was a liar or misinformed, he'd just be one more type on a long list of other types of denialists.
But, until now, I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
.. and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
Did I hear
Oh... you said fat head I thought you said Pyramid Head.
.. and tries to blame high blood pressure on things other than sodium in-take... I don't think I've never heard of a Biochemistry denialist, or a Fast Food denialist I guess you could call him.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
Google it, they are not exactly hidden. As well as the previous studies being debunked. Lab assistants at the previous studies admitted to feeding the MSGs to the control group. Its actually not that hard to find...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
And check who paid for the study. A lot of studies are paid by the compagnies who sell the junk in the first place.
Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad study. Suspect, yes. But it does not automatically disqualify it.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
I'm gonna say this as politely as I can, but John Stossel isn't a scientist, let alone a relevant one. As far as I care, John Stossel can f*** himself. Journalists, reporters, film makers, and self-styled whistle blowers aren't scientists, and often times lack the education or training to be credible. Often times, worse so than many pop-science sources, they're misinformed or lying, or they just don't understand the science.
Fact of the matter is that taking in too much sodium increases blood pressure. Sure, sodium dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in salt actually increases the volume of the blood. Your body needs some salt for osmo-regulation (water-to-salt balance), but its effect on blood pressure is simple physics/chemistry.
I'm 26 years old, and I have high blood pressure for someone my age. Luckilly, I don't have to take anything for it, and its not so bad that I have to worry about a heart attack, but its still abnormal for someone in their mid-twenties. My doctor told me that it was due to sodium in-take. I'm not old enough for my blood pressure to just "go up due to age," and the only other medical condition I have is asthma, which otherwise doesn't effect my blood pressure. Anyone claiming that sodium doesn't contribute to high blood pressure, and can't lead to it, is woefully misinformed, or a liar, and at the very least, a medical denialist.
I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know
First, who is "we?" Who "we" is identified as is important to the topic. Are you referring to everyone?
Second, it apparently doesn't include all of "us." Or even most of "us."
from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children,
I don't know so much about that. But I'd like to see some of the peer reviewed papers/articles if you can cite them. If you know the titles, I can find them from there. I know a few paper databases, and we have a few at the school where they give the students free access. If there's any jargon or speak I don't understand, I have my mentor that I can show them to, and a host of professors at the school. (If you're going to use the phrase "scientific findings," I'm gonna ask for them.)
I do know, however, that aspartame has been linked to Multiple Sclerosis-like symptoms in women. Aspartame, however, is a non-saccharide sweetener (its a non-sugar with a sweet taste, in other words). Diabetics don't properly produce the enzymes to break down sugars like fructose or sucrose. Fructose, even for non-diabetics, is harder to properly catabolize for energy, hence why its the sugar that turns to fat and leads to cavities most often, whereas the sugars found in most plants we eat do not. Aspartame is kind of the answer to that. Chances are though, that if you're taking in enough of it to cause health problems, you'd also be taking enough fructose in to cause health problems to begin with, and the problem is perhaps due to drinking too much soda or eating too many sweets.
As far as MSG, or Monosodium Glutamate, that's what probably causes you to get hungry again after a while when you go out for Chinese food. However, the supposed health concerns are anecdotal, not scientific. Anecdotal evidence without any scientific data to back it up is pretty much useless in this scenario, but I can pretty much guarantee that "we" don't "all know because of scientific findings" that it does in fact cause brain damage.
yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal.
I can guarantee that this whole line is conspiracist propaganda in addition to being bulls***. I get into a similar discussion with the anti-GMO crowd all the time (I've been a veteran of that battle for about the last two years).
The USDA, FDA, and EPA all regulate the food that we eat here in the states, with the final one regulating more of the grown food crops. Even if I were to believe that the USDA were corrupt, there's still two other regulatory organizations. There's also the meritocracy of peer review, which can be envisioned as a fourth regulatory organization. As it is, its the job of the USDA, FDA, and EPA to look for holes in the food safety standards of the people handling said food. Peer review takes it a step further. Scientists spend more time dogging on each other than anything, and the chance to expose someone as even just incorrect, is rarely just passed up. If someone can be found to be a fraud, or something can be found to be unsafe, its almost never passed up.
If there was a conspiracy to poison our food with MSG and aspartame, and USDA approval scientists were lying in their results, it would have been found out and torn open a long time ago. There would have been countless papers and articles on the topic alone, and there would have been congressional hearings. Scientists, auditers, and other assorted involved personnel would have been professionally hung. There would be talk about it in scientific circles as just another time where peer review did what it was supposed to, but an ominous reminder that there is far more to lose by lying, than to gain. I can guarantee you that you don't know anything the scientific community doesn't, and neither do your sources. Science and food or drug safety don't work like an action movie, and the blogosphere isn't posession of dangerous information that the government and scientists are blissfully unaware of. That just isn't how it works...
The scientists aren't part of some dark cabal that works for the government or some dark company working in the shadows. They work for Universities and the occassional research firm. Peer review is also not under the domain of the government or any shadowy company CEO. Scientists at research firms don't even work for the regulatory companies. They have to maintain certain standards to keep their liscenses, or they can't do business. And typically, when the FDA, EPA, or USDA err, they do so on the side of caution.
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
I know this is my major, and what I'm going to school for, and its basic biochemistry, and rudimentary knowledge of how Biological science as an overall entity works, but hey, what the hell do I know?
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
However, a child's brain is still developing, growing, and so-on, for years after birth. It's not until much later ("adulthood") that the brain is "done". So something causing brain damage as a kid but not an adult? Probably because it doesn't rot or damage the brain directly (like, say, alcohol), but causes it to not develop and grow correctly.
Not saying it does or doesn't, mind you, just that it's certainly plausible. Plausible enough not to dismiss it simply because aspartame doesn't have the same effect on adults.
More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
No. No they haven't, and no it doesn't, because it would still do it to you as an adult. It's not like after a certain age, the brain is suddenly made out of a harder material.
However, a child's brain is still developing, growing, and so-on, for years after birth. It's not until much later ("adulthood") that the brain is "done". So something causing brain damage as a kid but not an adult? Probably because it doesn't rot or damage the brain directly (like, say, alcohol), but causes it to not develop and grow correctly.
Not saying it does or doesn't, mind you, just that it's certainly plausible. Plausible enough not to dismiss it simply because aspartame doesn't have the same effect on adults.
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
And, Yes I am a gamer. But I am also a road biker and backpacker.
Fat is good for you. Cold pressed olive oil, avocados, and tree nuts are all excellent sources of fat.
Fat has nine calories per gram. I believe carbs and protein have four. You can eat all you want of the healthy fats, or any other food for that matter (good or bad) as along as your calorie intake is balanced against what you burn. I would not recommend deriving much more than 40% of your calories from fat (or proten or carbs) unless you have unusual nutritional needs.
I'm not one much for conspiracy theory in regard to MSG or aspartame. All heavily processed food like substances are bad for you. The only question is how bad they really are, and we are all part of that ongoing experiment. I try and take a wisdom based approach. If you cannot read the ingredients of a product without a PHD in food science, it is probably best to stay away. Anyone who is interested could look up The Ominvore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan(sp?). His perspective on food, american diet, and food industry is a good place to start for anyone who is interested.
[/qoute]
The scientists aren't part of some dark cabal that works for the government or some dark company working in the shadows. They work for Universities and the occassional research firm. Peer review is also not under the domain of the government or any shadowy company CEO. Scientists at research firms don't even work for the regulatory companies. They have to maintain certain standards to keep their liscenses, or they can't do business. And typically, when the FDA, EPA, or USDA err, they do so on the side of caution.
What about GMO crops, and the patenting of engineered life forms? How about the lawsuits filed against farmer who have had thier fields contaminated by GMO's, and been taken to courts packed with lawyers receiving contributions from Monsanto?
The FDA has also not had a stellar track record recently.
That is not conspiracy theory. That is just how the system works in the good ol' USA. It is just too easy too see conspiracy theory everywhere.
and we are all part of that ongoing experiment.
So why is the net full of paranoid people with ideas of conspiracies.
Think of other things popular on the internet. Are those things innately good for individuals or society as whole because they are popular?
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
Yes... but it's entirely possible that it could make it so that they don't develop right. Throw aspartame at fully developed brains? Doesn't do anything. At a partially developed brain? It changes how the rest of the brain continues to grow.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a link to a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Could you point me to these more recent studies? This isn't like the more recent studies that say Coffee causes heart attacks, and then several months later Coffee is good at reducing fatal heart attacks.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Edit: Found another one
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a link to a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Even if its developing, the cells are still the same is what I'm getting at. The neurons, etc., are exactly the same at the cellular level.
A child's brain cells are still dividing. Cell division is how you get new cells. If a chemical interferes with this process it can cause errors in the DNA being copied and create cancerous cells. Whether the chemicals in question really can do that is a different question.
Are you saying that salt is bad for you if you have high blood pressure, or that all people should avoid too much salt to avoid high blood pressure. If it is the latter, then John Stossel wants to have a word with you.
I'm gonna say this as politely as I can, but John Stossel isn't a scientist, let alone a relevant one. As far as I care, John Stossel can f*** himself. Journalists, reporters, film makers, and self-styled whistle blowers aren't scientists, and often times lack the education or training to be credible. Often times, worse so than many pop-science sources, they're misinformed or lying, or they just don't understand the science.
Did you have this much vitral directed to John Stossel before he became a Fox Business Channel contributor? JS isn't a scientist, but do you seriously think he didn't do any research into the scientific experts he consulted for his Give Me A Break segments, or his book?
Fact of the matter is that taking in too much sodium increases blood pressure. Sure, sodium dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in salt actually increases the volume of the blood. Your body needs some salt for osmo-regulation (water-to-salt balance), but its effect on blood pressure is simple physics/chemistry.
Taking in to much alcohol lowers blood pressure (to life threating levels) too. Sure, alcohol dissolves into the blood, but "dissolve" doesn't mean "disappear," because taking in alcohol decreases the volume of the blood. Guess what, all things are toxic at certain levels. Salt, alcohol, water, you name it...taking too much of anything can kill you. Your liver processes alcohol, and removes it from your system, in much the same way that your kidneys remove salt from you body. Apart from having saltier urine, salt has few if any other side effects (making food tastier is nice side effect).
I'm 26 years old, and I have high blood pressure for someone my age. Luckilly, I don't have to take anything for it, and its not so bad that I have to worry about a heart attack, but its still abnormal for someone in their mid-twenties. My doctor told me that it was due to sodium in-take.
Doctors say a lot of stupid things. Like stress, smoking, etc. cause stomach ulcers. Doctors now know that isn't true. People who are afraid of sugar, and salt, and other process food "toxins" are mentally unstable.
Anyone claiming that sodium doesn't contribute to high blood pressure, and can't lead to it, is woefully misinformed, or a liar, and at the very least, a medical denialist.
I love this term. Can we please start tacking denialist onto everything.
I don't watch American Idol - continential vocalist denialist.
Justin Beber doesn't look like a lesbian - teenybopper homosexual denialist.
George Lopez isn't funny - latenight humor denialist.
BTW: I pretty much agree about everything you said regarding Aspartme and MSG. The guy linked to by the OP seems like a total wackjob trying to sell his books.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Your not on my ignore lists, I just havn't had enough time to read each and every link, and provide links to dispute many of those claims.
Can I get someone to quote this in case I'm just on some ignore lists so they can see the links...
Your not on my ignore lists, I just havn't had enough time to read each and every link, and provide links to dispute many of those claims.
That would be, because they are widely scientifically accepted. If you really do have a career in this field and are just finishing up college. I'd ignore most of what you find out in your private research here. This is because the govt. doesn't give grants to people that disprove their pet theories. So professionally you should toe the line...
In the movie they make similar claims. I can't say I don't believe them, because we all know from scientific findings that Aspertame and MSGs cause brain damage in children, yet they are still used today because people from the industry infiltrated the USDA and regulators. They passed it and so now we put it in all of our food. Oh almost forgot they faked their scientific findings in order to make it legal. More recent studies have been done and they have found that it does in fact cause brain damage in all subjects under a certain age...
Ok, I have looked over you linked articles. Here are my observatoins.
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
Here is a study that shows brain damage.
I cannot comment on this study directly, as I don't have access to that publication (without going to the local university). Here is the wikipedia page talking about the controversy, and links to many different articles if anyone is interested.
I'm sure if you go down the list on this page you can find many more studies.
I am sure I can. I will have to do some research if I really wanted to know for sure. I don't think I really care, as the only people who seem to want to save me have something to sell. Here is what the cronies at the FDA have to say.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Edit: Found another one
Here is what the Hazardous Substance Database has to say...
Here check these links out and tell me if they are scientific. As a computer programmer I have a marginal interest in science if for instance on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the average high school grad and 10 being a scientist in the specific field I'd rate myselft somewhere around 2-3. So I can understand a lot of the science speak, but I'm by no means an expert or even knowledgable. From what I've seen though there are scientific findings that prove this, so its not really in question. The fact that the original studies were not done properly and have been shown to be false should raise some questions.
Here's a linkto a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
This link appears to be talking about people who are senstive to MSG. Somewhere it claims that 30% of the population is sensitive to MSG, but I have heard that alergic reactions to MSG are about 1:200,000. It complains that products that do have MSG are incorrectly labeled. I personally wouldn't opt for this, you can see the folly in doing this with the Peanut Allergy scare. Now all products have a warning (to satisfy the laywers) that they may contain peanut products, or were manufactured in a place that packages peanut products. So, if you are alergic to peanuts you can't buy anything. I have found an interesting one that I might actually read related to Obesity and MSG (not saying I believe it yet, just saying I am going to read it).
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
You keep linking to websites that want to sell me something. Apparently, Anny Belle Foundation sounds better than Vicky Barker (whois report). Her website links to amazon where you can buy Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures they don't want you to know about. The Federal Trade Commision will tell you about Kevin Trudeau.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packe with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Yes, all junk science is common knowledge. If people didn't go out and repeat it so much, how could it spread far enough for snake oil salesmen to lighten people's pocketbooks.
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
I like how you skirt the issue here and go after character assasination.
I cannot comment on this study directly, as I don't have access to that publication (without going to the local university). Here is the wikipedia page talking about the controversy, and links to many different articles if anyone is interested.
Yes, the Wikipedia page talks about the 'controversy' I like how they gloss over the opposing studies and make reference to industry studies that have been shown to be conducted in questionable ways. Please take the effort to actually research the study as nearly every study done by independent researchers has shown that MSGs are extremely bad for you. All of the studies done by the industry shows them to be safe. I don't know about you but that looks fishy to me... I'd be willing to admit something might not be up if there were some double blind studies by independent 3rd parties, but I can't find any...
I am sure I can. I will have to do some research if I really wanted to know for sure. I don't think I really care, as the only people who seem to want to save me have something to sell. Here is what the cronies at the FDA have to say.
I've done some research, can you point me to some studies done by independent 3rd parties or double blind studies done in somebody else lab? As I've said before the FDA put out a report that pretty much said what I'm saying on their website, but it was pulled as soon as they realized their mistake. Claiming that the FDA who employs or has employed people specifically from those industries, or whose employees after passing chemicals become 'employed' by them doesn't really say much to me.
Here is a page with many many links to scientific articles and things of this nature on the Aspartame side.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Or perhaps as I said, it is common scientific knowledge and pretty much taken for granted at this point. It was kept out of the media to stop them from panicking. The fact that MSGs are classified as neurotoxin (exciter) should mean something.
Edit: Found another one
Here is what the Hazardous Substance Database has to say...
According to your link 32mg is all it takes to cause detrimental side effects. In this site they have a chart done from 1991 that shows that our intake is well above this amount and there is an indication that it is much worse as companies continue to increase the amount of MSGs added to food.
Also the studies used in the 1980's were shown to not follow good standards with things like waiting more than 48 hours to do the autopsy (brain lesions are not detectable after this time). Also using Aspartame and other legal but harmful additives in the control group and then saying 'there were not significant differences in the occurrence of side effects'.
The study that look at 'two symptoms' picked the two least likely symptoms to be present. It was done by the industry and paid for by the industry. It was also shown to be false. You'll also note that these studies follow a pick and choose, then do a second study format. Instead of a random sampling. I'm sure if you look at the details of the studies themselves you'll find this out. Also look at the articles where they investigate those studies. I don't know why they continue to be put up as 'good' studies...
Here's a linkto a paper on it. While not scientific it has sources that may lead to the actual information we are looking for.
This link appears to be talking about people who are senstive to MSG. Somewhere it claims that 30% of the population is sensitive to MSG, but I have heard that alergic reactions to MSG are about 1:200,000. It complains that products that do have MSG are incorrectly labeled. I personally wouldn't opt for this, you can see the folly in doing this with the Peanut Allergy scare. Now all products have a warning (to satisfy the laywers) that they may contain peanut products, or were manufactured in a place that packages peanut products. So, if you are alergic to peanuts you can't buy anything. I have found an interesting one that I might actually read related to Obesity and MSG (not saying I believe it yet, just saying I am going to read it).
Yes, those 1:200,000 odds are to have the throat closing "Chinese food" reaction. It does not include the 100's of other symptoms reported including eye problems, skin problems, developmental problems, and many others. If you count all of the symptoms reported you run closer to 40% of the population...
I'd rather have a warning, then eat something and have a negative reaction. Even if it just lists it as MSG in the ingredients with no warning label instead of 'flavoring', 'spices' or other worthless words.
Here is another link that describes the deficiency in the studies done by the industry.
You keep linking to websites that want to sell me something. Apparently, Anny Belle Foundation sounds better than Vicky Barker (whois report). Her website links to amazon where you can buy Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures they don't want you to know about. The Federal Trade Commision will tell you about Kevin Trudeau.This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packed with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
This study looks at deaths from tumors. Since this is not one of the claims made, that MSGs cause brain tumors that then cause death, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
so yeah, according to the science it is common knowledge.
Yes, all junk science is common knowledge. If people didn't go out and repeat it so much, how could it spread far enough for snake oil salesmen to lighten people's pocketbooks.
Some of the websites I linked were not specifically scientific, but rather cited scientific sources. Some of the links were directly to studies though. So hardly 'junk science'...
This website is owned by Debbie Allen (GoDaddy whois report). She is a Certified Nutrition Therapist CNT according to her About page. If you are unsure what a CNT is, 52-week course offered by intgrativenutrition. Who are they? Well the most interesting posts I could find about them are here (post #3) and here. In a completely unrelated way, here is Penn & Teller talking about Multilevel Marketing Schemes. Some interesting quotes from her website...
"It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff"
"But how can they claim it's safe with hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these" (I wouldn't draw any conclusions from titles of studies)
John Erb a friend of Debbie Allen supposedly proports the dangers of MSG, and a link between it, vaccines and Autism (You should already know about the "doctor" (he isn't anymore), that first started the controversy about vaccines and Autism. Oprah has probably caused the death of more children by putting Jenny McCarthy on her show than Andrew Wakefield ever could have).
lokiare, you might want to think harder about using this website as a reference.
I like how you skirt the issue here and go after character assasination.
Here is what you said,
this one links it to obesity and quotes several studies.
I fully admit that attacked the character of the person running the website. She paid for a "certification" from a business that wants to help people start their own business. As a skeptic, you should look into the credentials of the people providing you with information. Here is what credential watch (a QuackWatch affiliate) has to say about a degree from Integrative Nutrition. The only other information that was quoted from studies were the study titles. I am not sure exactly how you want me to address the issue of the choice of scientific study titles. What issue exactly was I supposed to dispute from the website that you linked to?
Here is a page with many many links to scientific articles and things of this nature on the Aspartame side.
It also has links to many un-scientific articles. Perhaps with all the research you have done, you can point me to one article that it links to that you feel sums up how dangerous Aspartame is.
As I said its not exactly a secret. Its just been kept out of the media...
Perhaps there isn't anything noteworthy for the media to report.
Or perhaps as I said, it is common scientific knowledge and pretty much taken for granted at this point. It was kept out of the media to stop them from panicking. The fact that MSGs are classified as neurotoxin (exciter) should mean something.
Well, not really. First I have to admit that this is well above my pay grade. I may be an amature statistician, and I may have thought once about going to lawschool, but I never wanted to become a doctor or biochemist. The reason that MSG is classified as a neurotoxin is that it affects neurons (brain cells). The chemical in turkey Tryptophan affects brain cells too. You won't hear me warning about the dangers of the neurotoxins in turkey that make you sleepy though. Funny enough, I am pretty sure that John Erb sells melatonin supplements (or at least advocates them) that have "neurotoxin blocking" power.
This one acutally lists some of the studies that show it causes brain damage. This last one is packed with studies and information. It even notes that scientists use MSGs to intentionally cause brain damage so they can study brain damage in animals.
I have been trying to find a link in the Center for Disease Control, or the National Cancer Institute that talks about the instances of brain tumors before 1981 (1981 saw the approval of dried form of Aspartme, 1983 was the flood of diet drinks). Unfortunately, this is all I could find (I didn't look to closely. Anyone find a link to older statistics?)
This study looks at deaths from tumors. Since this is not one of the claims made, that MSGs cause brain tumors that then cause death, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
My mistake, reading comprehension error on my part. I was under the impression that the brain lesions were causing the rats to die, you are correct that the studies weren't saying that.
Here is a request to the WHO (World Health Organization) to put MSGs on the list of bad. It cites many studies by name that show without a shadow of a doubt that it is unhealthy...
Dear World Health Organization,
Please stop putting out press releases about the dangers of Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The Relative Risk of SHS is 16%, and not noteworthy.
Just because someone makes a request to the WHO, doesn't mean that what they have to say is of any value. John Erb has a book he wants to sell. His level of research appartantly has to do with putting the titiles of scientific studies into PubMed.com, and then quoting the abastracts of those papers, and then drawing conclusions. (I invite anyone to click on your linked article by John Erb, paste the title of one of the studies in PubMed for themselves).
How much research do you think I am willing to do, when the guy most concered with MSG in our food only quotes abstracts, and wants to sell me books and vitaman suplements.
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
Ideally it should be required that these companies pay for independent double blind studies that would follow a predetermined protocol. Unfortunately its a corporation world out there and they pretty much call the shots where it matters...
If he quoted more than abstracts, it would have turned into a book. You still haven't addressed any of the actual research I've pointed you to. Please do that, then come back with research for me to look at that refutes me otherwise you are dismissing things out of hand without looking at the research...
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
The problem isn't that he didn't quote more than abstracts, making his report to long. The problem is that he only quoted abstracts. He only quoted the entire abstract. Imagine if you were turning in a book report for school, and every single one of your references came from the first page of all the books (Would your teacher believe you read the entire book?). Do you think the most useful and valuable information in every one of those studies was always in the abstract? Would you not question the credibility of someone who this for the basis of their "official" looking report to the WHO? This guy has a book about MSG posioning our children, and the only research that he presents to the WHO is the abstracts of research papers. Where is his other research?
I have no intention of reading any actual research that you have pointed me to, until you have read it first. This is why I wanted you to direct me to a research paper that sums up how dangerous MSG/Aspartme etc. are. You said you have done some research, so I hope that includes discovering some studies that really convinced you that those substances are dangerous. I don't want to go do some research and then you immediately tell me, "Well those papers were paid for by corporations."
I don't blindly trust corporations (or unincorporated people trying to sell me books).
The cost of living is people dying. Drop-Side cribs have been responsible for 30 deaths over the last 10 years. Media Hysteria got them pulled from the market. Falls kill 16 kids in 2002, should we just remove all crib beds that don't sit directly on the floor? In all honestly, if I had a product that 100s of millions of people bought and used for 10 years that happened to killed 30 people, I would be quite happy (unless I was manufacturing guns).
If he quoted more than abstracts, it would have turned into a book. You still haven't addressed any of the actual research I've pointed you to. Please do that, then come back with research for me to look at that refutes me otherwise you are dismissing things out of hand without looking at the research...
Edit: I'm sure these peoples motives are suspect, but then again the people that want to put MSGs into food are also equally suspect. So really the two even out. Beleive it or not as part of a corporation a certain percent of your customers dying from using your product is considered a cost of doing business. Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the corporations. The fact their research is suspect and been proven suspect over the years (the tobacco industry comes to mind), as well as the current research...
The problem isn't that he didn't quote more than abstracts, making his report to long. The problem is that he only quoted abstracts. He only quoted the entire abstract. Imagine if you were turning in a book report for school, and every single one of your references came from the first page of all the books (Would your teacher believe you read the entire book?). Do you think the most useful and valuable information in every one of those studies was always in the abstract? Would you not question the credibility of someone who this for the basis of their "official" looking report to the WHO? This guy has a book about MSG posioning our children, and the only research that he presents to the WHO is the abstracts of research papers. Where is his other research?
I'm not seeing the problem. He's quoting the summary and then listing the information about the study. So if you aren't convinced or want to know more you go look up the study. I just don't see the problem. Are you telling me that I should pour over these studies myself and give you a 30 page summary? I mean I'm literally pointing you to the studies and evidence of my position and your going "nah...nah...I can't hear you" or the equivalent.
What other research are you talking about? he lists 20+ studies that show its harmful and should be taken off the market. What more needs to be done. Should he go to a 3rd world country and force feed impoverished children MSGs to see how much it takes to kill them or cause severe brain damage? I'm just not seeing what you want from this, other than to be right when you are obviosly not...
I have no intention of reading any actual research that you have pointed me to, until you have read it first. This is why I wanted you to direct me to a research paper that sums up how dangerous MSG/Aspartme etc. are. You said you have done some research, so I hope that includes discovering some studies that really convinced you that those substances are dangerous. I don't want to go do some research and then you immediately tell me, "Well those papers were paid for by corporations."
You said where is the research. I pointed you at the names and summaries from the research. Now you want me to read all the research and then what write another summary? I'm giving you all the information you asked for and now your asking for what direct links to the research?
Here is a link to the entire abstract of one of the studies. For some reason you have to pay to see the full study. As an unemployed under the poverty line U.S. citizen I can't pay for the full study. Maybe you can look the full study up using your school database or whatever. I'm sure on that site you can find many more studies that have been done on this subject.
I don't blindly trust corporations (or unincorporated people trying to sell me books).
The cost of living is people dying. Drop-Side cribs have been responsible for 30 deaths over the last 10 years. Media Hysteria got them pulled from the market. Falls kill 16 kids in 2002, should we just remove all crib beds that don't sit directly on the floor? In all honestly, if I had a product that 100s of millions of people bought and used for 10 years that happened to killed 30 people, I would be quite happy (unless I was manufacturing guns).
Sure. A few accidental deaths due to misuse or whatever I can see, but when your lowering the IQ of 25% or more of the population and causing all kinds of health problems across the board I have a problem with it. There was a controversy awhile back about baby formula. They tried to say that killing 2% of the babies that ate the formula was ok. Do you think that would be ok? I don't. I know there will be deaths, but I don't think that it should be allowed to happen because 'its a little cheaper to put this other chemical in it'
Come back when you have some evidence to support your claims. I've provided evidence. Either disprove the evidence I've provided or provide counter evidence. Its pretty simple. Stop playing fallacy games...
So does anyone have some links or knowledge about the science of this movie? I'm not talking about "toe the line" party talk. I'm talking about actual science with studies to back it up...