Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lifestyle, Health, Fitness & Food' started by ftr, Sep 10, 2017.
I literally just shit my pants and left it there for 34 minutes after reading that ^
I'll say this as nicely as I can.
Science is a methodology for determining the truth and falsehood of a given hypothesis. When a hypothesis is accepted, that is because ithas been determined that it is NOT false. To then argue that because science is a method and not a series of facts, you can ignore any scientific conclusions you don't like, conveys a vast lack of understanding about the scientific method, and is the basis of non-scientific "pseudoscience."
If something is accepted science, it's because it's been proven not to be false. If you want to decide it's something you want to decide is false, then the onus is on you to prove that it's false, or what you're doing isn't engaging in science, it's engaging in superstition.
That's where the beer comes in!
The point of science is not to "contain" truth, it's to expose it.
I've made the "science is comparable to religion" argument before, because I think there are some fair parallels to draw, but not ones that discredit the things we've established as fact. Sure, there's a layer of trust ("faith" if you absolutely must) involved since the average person is not in a position to personally verify everything, but that's also the point of things like peer review. I agree insofar that you shouldn't be taking something as an absolute truth because "that's what science says!" - because science doesn't say things. Scientists say things, science does not. And yes, some of those scientists are wrong - because they're people and people aren't perfect. What science gives us is evidence and data, and it falls on us to interpret those results and hopefully come to some kind of consensus. Even if we're wrong a significant amount of the time, it's still the best approximation of the truth we've got (sketchy/manipulative interpretations aside).
There's this concept of the half-life of knowledge - and I'm fuzzy on the details - but part of it is the suggestion that somewhere around half of what we claim to "know" becomes wrong or obsolete every 45-ish years. I'm sure the numbers are meaningless, but I believe the core idea of it. Lots of our knowledge is just plain wrong. We don't know which of that knowledge is wrong, but some of it definitely is. So, do I blindly trust all established scientific knowledge? Absolutely not. But at the same time I recognize its value as a process and as a means to get as close to the truth as possible. I don't foolishly dismiss science either.
But that would be science.
(I extended the quote and added bold)
The thing with internet statements is that most won't read the whole thing and react on the first argument, oh boy.
My point is not to discredit the science methodology, but to question the results delivered by scientists, which are humans with all the benefits and faults. Questioning is a form of understanding if things make sense to us or not and, at its inner core, the drive of science itself.
Food is a subject that goes deep within ourselves and therefore should not to be taken lightly based only on facts from this or that source, may them be scientifically accepted papers or empirical cultural heritage. Science doesn't exclude data, scientists do because of processing power, of themselves or the instruments they use to "make science". There's yet to be done a full study on the "correct human diet" (if there is such thing) for there are huge number of variables at play, so much that it's hard to number them. I'll list, however, 2 that science cannot compute or measure completely:
Cultural heritage has a direct implication on how local DNA evolves and adapts to what is received as energy. Cultural heritage is not only tradition, is also DNA heritage. It is known DNA doesn't contain only how one grows or the color of its eyes, DNA is adaptable to the environment (to some extent, obviously). I know that some populations are vegetarian for centuries while others aren't. Have the food science studies acknowledged them? I doubt it very much. What is the sample of data used, where was it "harvested"? Does it accounts for other source variables?
Feelings, how can science measure the joy one feels on eating this or that food. How can science quantify how much "the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients? Food isn't only nutrients and fiber, it's love and care, but is that science quantifiable?
This to say that what scientists say is not necessarily "the truth", for in this matter there is no truth, only the one that applies to our needs as individuals. That's my point on this. Trust your science, do it correctly, understand how your body reacts and absorbs nutrients in food. Everything is related, therefore the need to acknowledge where and how food is produced. If one get into this like "because it is an accepted paper that says this or that", you missed the entire point of it.
Again, Science is not knowledge, for that there are libraries, science is a path and on food, one must be his/hers own mad lab scientist. However, to become that, one must study what have already been discovered. Know the rules so you know how to bend them to your needs.
In that case, maybe it's not such a hot idea to open an argument by questioning the validity of scientifically-derived conclusions, no?
I think maybe I can agree with your gist, on at least some levels, but some of your points are just not really speaking to me. Rather than go into specifics, maybe it'd just be best to say, in general, that picking on a profession, or category of professions, over a) some things you assumed, but haven't looked into (e.g. "Have the food science studies acknowledged [vegetarian cultures]? I doubt it very much.") and show no interest in looking into, simply because it is easier for you to assume that the entirety of food science is bogus and b) some things you sweepingly generalize without any regard for correctness of fact (e.g. "Food isn't only nutrients and fiber, it's love and care, but is that science quantifiable?").
Why not take the approach of:
1. Someone put a lot of work into this scientific study. Maybe I should give it enough respect to read it before I dismiss it.
2. Science in general is a peer-reviewed process. If I disagree with something in a journal, I should do a search to see if other authors brought this up. If not, maybe I should contact the original authors for clarification or maybe to add a new dimension to the study.
3. Biology is a complicated science with a lot of variables. Maybe Different people react to different foods differently, as they often do, so perhaps I can read the paper to see what kind of sampling was done, or what methods are explained. If there is a potential bias toward a genetic trait common in one culture, but not another, perhaps I should follow step 2 above to address that issue.
4. Saying that there is more to this than what two or three studies can possibly cover, I should point that out, rather than encourage people to generally ignore scientific works. Scientific works can be used as a tool, even if they do not cover specifically my body or the intricate biochemistry of my phenotype.
You jumped from this:
to saying that the best diet should be chosen based on:
If the conversation is about whether or not your diet should be chosen taking into account how your quality of life improves when you eat stuff you like, then sure, maybe... but your metabolism doesn't care how much you love your food. Not in that sense. Maybe mood can affect your metabolism in some way, for reasons that we could study scientifically, but love doesn't change the dietary properties of your lunch.
@Drew the problem is exactly there: conclusions, means ending of something. As in every answer there are risen questions, it is a never ending process. All I'm saying is don't stay at the papers to justify your choices of food.
1. Yeah, but that doesn't mean it is "the truth", only that it is a limited vision/version/perspective of it. One should question it, always, for that is the way of science, is it not?
2. Yeah... and I could tell you some stories on that, on how much so called "science" is "made" worldwide by peers review. Generally speaking it is still, by far the best way, but people are people and I don't trust them... most of times...
3. All true, but isn't it what I've said before? Don't take for granted what papers say? Question and question some more...?
4. Again, did I say not to trust scientific work? I believe my point is to question it, as it is the academic duty. The thing is that people often don't do that regarding to food, they blindly go after of whatever cultural thing is going on and that's the hard part of it, even scientists. There are many many papers reviewed by peers (or so they say) that are totally biased towards some perspective.
Consider this: "making" science costs money and money must come from some source, for some labs it is tax money, for others it can also be privately funded. This is a big science bias, for tax money is limited and therefore, scientists will fight for their slice. Competition is no science in my book. This sort of competition biases the science itself, because of its money driven sustainability. If on the other hand science is privately funded, then there's an agenda behind that probably also biases its own funded science. Obviously and fortunately not everything goes this way, but a huge part of goes. From this, how does one understands what is or not biased? one has to read all and became a specialist himself... I'm sorry, I don't have that time.
Again, all these papers are important, all this work makes the wheel go round and that is important, far more than the alternative which is nothing being studied. Again, I'm sorry if I'm distrustful, it is me. And as far as I am concerned, my first argument was not to discredit scientific papers on this matter, but to not take them as "the truth", for there are many in this matter.
@TedEH you're getting good at taking things out of context... good for you!
Me out, take care and eat consciously, truly and deeply consciously.
I dunno what I took out of context. The context is a conversation about nutrition science, and my point was that how much you enjoy what you're eating has nothing to do with nutrition.
@odibrom When you say that science "contains no truth" in response to sources I posted, you are politely telling me that my evidence is garbage. As for saying you do not trust scientific work, I have to kind of laugh, because, well, that's exactly what you said before and are still saying after you denied saying it.
It's true that corporations self-publish a lot of studies. Actually, those sorts of paid studies can end up in peer-reviewed journals, but 995 times out of a thousand, they are self-published or published in non-peer-reviewed sources, because the process is more difficult to corrupt than most people who never published think. And that wasn't even where my point landed, because there are tons of ways to get a rebuttal paper published.
Anyway, it's clear that you are doing what works for you. There are plenty of paths that lead to the same result. If you or anyone else doesn't want to eat soy because of the taste or amino acid balance or amount of carb or even plain old superstition, there are still plenty of other options that are healthy to eat. I just took exception at the advice given that was based on what I consider a false claim, and I made my case for why I felt that was not the best advice.
As for case studies, I've been eating soy for decades, and I'm ferfectly pine.
@bostjan the thing is, my first post here was after yours, not in response to what you posted! There is a big difference, I did not quote you so why did you assume I was replying to your specific post or bashing its pointed studies? I stand by my post, I read it a few times before hitting the reply button. I think it is clear that I'm not discrediting science, only saying that, in this food subject, it is far from being... consensual, as is on other matters like "Is the Earth round or flat"?
I stand for conscience on the process of eating and knowledge of food, how it interacts with one's body, day by day. We are in a constant change, cells die every day to make place for other cells, our moods change accordingly and by other factors external to ourselves. We should eat accordingly to our biological needs as well as our psychological ones. Everyone knows the difference of eating a pizza alone and with friends. Given the same pizza, which feels better? Why? How will one's body react to that feeling? This is just an example.
There was nothing in my first post in this thread going against or in favor of soy or its subproducts, only against fast food and against meal replacement products (and posture) as a daily source of energy and whatever nutriente there are to absorb. Fasting, on the other hand is quite healthy if done with conscience and care, it is told (by some scientific studies that I cannot post since I tend to loose track of these things) it resets our defense mechanisms. Take that with a grain of salt...
Generally, I run away from soy, not because of what have been spoken about it, but because of MONSANTO and BEYER. GMOs are spoken to be the "science solution for hunger". Yes, what they do not say is that the hunger they are referring to is the one of their already large pockets. I cannot trust non organic soy, so I do not eat it outside my home. Yes, I do eat TOFU weekly, and Tempeh whenever I can, and Natô (sorry, don't know how to spell it) and even its beans and sprouts but ONLY if they are certified organic. Since most of these soy based meal replacement products are not organic, I run from them, I won't even look at them.
Mr. @TedEH, it is clear that you misread my posts and reacted with your impulse. I stated that our moods interfere with the absorption of nutrients, which is the key thing in eating, absorbing nutrients. If I'm sad, my body won't absorb my food as well as when I'm happy, because my inner chemistry is changed from its supposed neutral balance. Our moods and feelings interfere deeply with our nutrient absortion, not with the nutrients that exist in the food we eat.
If one eats too much calcium, kidneys will suffer, however, dairy companies are constantly selling their "+calcium" products as a "science solution" for bone dis-calcification. Guess what, it won't help if one keeps on having an overall acidic food source... sodas / soft drinks, suggar and animal grease in excess (excess kills everything, btw), over processed industrial junk food, just to name a few.
Conscience isn't against science, the word itself contains the word science in it and its prefix means "with", so conscience goes for "with science"... is it so hard to understand?
Oh, ok, but I mean, I posted a couple scientific papers; you didn't quote me, but your post was directly about dietary science and you mentioned:
So, I think you might see where I could get that impression. Sorry I made the wrong assumption. I generally try not to assume to much, but I slip up every now and again.
Also, your idea of eating things that you crave is a huge thing. There are plenty of diets out there that incorporate that. The thing is, if no one expounds on that rough idea, people might say "I'm craving a bag of ten fast-food burgers," and then eat it, expecting that following up on the craving is healthy. I very much believe that cravings happen for good reason, but there are always healthy and unhealthy alternative to dealing with the same craving. Maybe a craving for a chocolate bar is a craving for something sweet (energy) or maybe it's a craving for polyphenol antioxidants. So, perhaps that dark chocolate granola would fulfill the craving just as well as the Wonka Bar in the impulse aisle, for example. And maybe the key to getting to that point is just to listen more attentively to your cravings. I would guess most people have forgotten how to, and maybe it'd take some practice to get back up to speed.
Except that's not what you said. This is what you said:
That has nothing to do with your mood. This reads as "food that tastes good to you will be absorbed better". If you meant to say mood, then just say mood.
It's also far from being "the key thing". If you live off of ice cream and chips, no amount of being in a good mood is going to make that healthy. Neither will not being able to enjoy a meal replacement product negate it's nutritional value, whatever that might already be.
If I'm misinterpreting your point... then I don't understand what you're trying to say, other than that you have a certain distrust for science.
DISCLAIMER: I have a problem, I'm not English native, so there may be some miss spellings and difficulties in idea articulation. I do not possess your vocabulary knowledge. Please acknowledge that before jumping on me with blazing guns and that kind of atitude.
@bostjan you are almost to the point I am trying say about eating. One can read all papers, but in the end it is one's conscience on eating that will dictate the results. There are scientific paper that say our thoughts change our DNA... (yeah, I'm not going to change my eye color from within because I want to, maybe with colored lens or some crazy fancy aesthetic surgery) and other studies relate cancer to the way one deals with his/hers feelings and thoughts. We are a psychosomatic system, which means that we shouldn't only see the chemistry behind food. The human body can accomplish many incredible things based on the thought and force of will and those aren't only Parkour or acrobatic stunts. Many are within our selves and relate to how we process the absorbed nutrients. Again, and as stated in my first post here, a healthy body is a better lab for testing than an unhealthy one and that can be accomplished through physical activity (which we all agree on, right?). To eat with conscience, one should in fact study the chemistry behind food, but also how it affects one's body needs and feels. If too much alcohol messes with one's thoughts, what will do too much meat, or rice, or apples? Just because a paper might say that broccoli helps fight cancer (it does, doesn't it?) it doesn't mean one should rush to eat broccoli at all one's meals. That attitude might even trigger cancer, eventually not because of the broccoli itself, but because of the agrotoxic substances used to grow the broccoli in less time than it should have (just an example, and a silly one btw). Conscience in eating goes all this way and that's what I'm for.
@TedEH let me break it down to you: "the pleasure one gets from food" affects your mood right? How does that not affect how one's body will absorb the food's nutrients? Obviously it doesn't affect the initial nutrient value of the food itself. If one doesn't eat enough vitamin, one will get sick. Making a meal out of ice cream and chips isn't eating consciously in my book, but it does wonders sometimes. About the "key thing" in that sentence, it is related to absorbing nutrients and that's where conscience breaks in. There is no point in eating lots of protein if one's body can't process/absorb it and give the protein the expected use. Eating too much protein is also related to health problems btw (oh, excess yeah said it before). Eating with conscience is also knowing when we are exceeding our body limits. Nothing wrong with meal replacement products if used when needed (once in a while), but not on a daily base, IMO. I'm not distrustful of science per se, only of men and their agendas which many times are hidden under the cloak of a "scientific paper" like those of MONSANTO and BAYER (not Beyer as previously written, sorry about that).
Scientific knowledge is, IMO, in its first steps on food, not consensual and mostly biased towards something like beliefs or agendas. Most papers focus entirely on food's chemistry only (which is a major thing btw), but food is ecological and environmental (how does it grow, etc.), is a social thing also, is moody, it is love and care. Not accounting these is bypassing a huge part of the process that make us what we are and how we eat. The love/energy put into cooking transforms how one absorbs its nutrients, not only the previously read paper.
In about 1931 Otto Warburg (please google him) stated "no disease, including cancer, can exist in an alkaline environment" (I think he got a Nobel prize on that) however most humans are constantly feeding themselves with the acidic food sources almost 100 years later, scientists included (I personally know huge number of them, doctor included). Later on, the macrobiotic movement explored the acidic versus alkaline food balance, favoring the later towards healthy eating.
I'm no saint, I do eat some junk once in a while, but I do it consciously, I know what I'm eating and that changes the way my body reacts to this kind of food, extracting what it needs and discarding what it doesn't. It becomes a meditation thing and food is or should be IMO something alike. Peace out.
Honestly, I don't think I have a problem understanding your language, but it simply comes down to some of your ideas with which I simply cannot agree.
Dr. Warburg's quote is too often misrepresented in exactly the way you just did - as if having a high pH means that you don't get cancer. No. It doesn't work that way. He never linked cancer occurrence to pH. And, in fact, saying that no disease can live in an alkaline environment is like saying that no disease can live inside of an active volcano. It's true, but healthy tissue cannot live in that environment either.
If you are going to drop a bomb like
, then that forces me to ask (knowing where this is going) for the papers. If I can cure cancer by simply wishing it so, then that really begs the question "So...people who die of cancer don't wish that they didn't have cancer?!?!" which is kind of silly, but in my mind, just points out how silly the initial statement is in the first place.
And, I am sorry to have to bring this up, but dude, most of the stuff you are saying is peppered with new age pseudoscience that has already been thoroughly debunked. I thought that most of these ideas withered away in the 2000's, but here we are going through it again. I wonder if there is something to that.
Mood does not affect how you absorb nutrients at any scale that negates any other nutritional science. There is proper nutritional science behind how things like cheat meals can be beneficial for things like weight loss, and it has nothing to do with how you feel. I mean, you can argue that there's a psychological impact of letting yourself cheat in order to stay motivated to keep up a diet or something, which will, in a super roundabout way, help you in the long run- but on a very base level, that doesn't transform an unhealthy meal into a healthy one. The phsycological aspect has nothing to do with nutrition.
I mean, I get it that there's a lot of psuedo-science and sketchy interpretations of the data out there. I agree insofar that you shouldn't jump on every health trend and clickbait article claiming that you'll "lose weight with this super-food that doctors don't want you to know about". There's tons of misinformation out there under the guise of "science".
The trick is to not just substitute that psuedo-science with other pseudo-science, or just throw out all nutrition science in favor of winging it.
@bostjan I didn't say that thoughts could cure cancer, that was your argument interpretation, I said that they may be related to cancer (among a great number of other things). As for alkaline environment and Dr Otto, yeah, not sure I said one should go for high value pH, but if you say so. As for those papers, yeah, sorry, can't help you there, lost their track a long time ago.
Maybe my thoughts are based on new age pseudoscience that have already been debunked and I missed it, may be not. I've been happy with my lifestyle for quite some time and I'm as healthy as anyone else. I do see the official medicine doctor regularly and do my health blood tests regularly with everything measured within the expected values. Maybe I failed to pass on my idea of going beyond what scientific papers say, on testing them right or wrong for each one of you, yeah, that's on me. Sorry.
@TedEH You did not read from me that our mood transforms bad nutrition meals into good ones, only that it affects how one's body absorbs its nutrients for better or worst. I also stated that meal replacement products are ok within some margins, but not to have them as source of everything food related as a daily base. Yeah, psychological aspects do not interfere with the quality of what one eats (never wrote that), only with how one absorbs the food's nutrients. If one only eats junk, there is no psychological mambo jambo that will help on transforming water into wine... is there? I also do not agree that meal replacement products should be used for weight loss, though they may deliver fast results. One doesn't get fat from day to night, why does every body +1 want to get thin within the hour? (yeah, very exaggerated time values here, but I'm sure you get the point).
So, peace out and enjoy your meal. I surely will enjoy mine, conscientiously, not winging it btw (which was not me saying)...
I do think there's some language barrier issues in this discussion. I disagree that mood affecting absorption is significant at all. Call it an opinion.
To get back on topic though-
I think it's safe to say that, despite there being a lot of details involved, be they scientific or otherwise, there's a lot of room for what you can/can't get away with to reach nutritional goals. Or at least there seems to be. I see no reason why meal replacement's can't be used in the way OP wanted. Again, I'm no expert though.