Blender bullshit

[DrZoidberg]

I just bought a blender. Mostly just to make daiguiris. But I thought I might as well explore the usages for it.

That's when I found this comedy goldmine of sciency word salad. Idiots on Youtube using words they don't understand in the hopes they sound impressive. No you don't. Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3YvHD4at4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxvENwv7rWY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDmfVc85yZc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4zXFcLTnrA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHRxr4a2-o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxItCQx4eVI

My analysis of these recipes seems to be, avoid adding sucrose (from a bag) and replace it with fruits and berries containing massive amounts of sucrose and fructose. They use the word natural a lot. I still don't know what it means and I'm pretty sure they don't either. Apparently Kale is magical somehow. Who knew? Apparently milk is bad somehow even to people who aren't lactose intolerant. I thought the reason that milk was bad was because of the high fat content. Boy was I wrong. Because in these video I learned that it's perfectly fine to replace milk with the much healthier coconut milk or almond milk. It's not. The raw food trend must be the dumbest fucking idea ever. The good news that if they keep it up they will all die. I also learned that all amino acids are all the same. So it doesn't matter what proteins you eat. It'll be just as healthy. I also learned that antioxidants are so important we want to have as much as possible. Let's just ignore that most people get all the antioxidants they need just from regular food.

Just a note to those who aren't good with nutriton: What matters in food is the glycemic index. Ie, how quickly food gets digested from the stomach. So basically big bits that require effort from the stomach and colon. Guess what happens when you put those in a blender? The big bits become small bits completely cancelling out any health benefits from the fiber. It makes all these amazingly dumb. They add all manner of horrendous high fiber stuff to their smoothies (because fiber is healthy).

The athletes I know who drink a lot of smoothies do it in order to increase calorie intake. Because they work out so much it's hard for them to get all the calories they need if they'd only been eating like ordinary folks.

 

[bigfield]

The nutrition industry is chock-full of charlatans, most of whom have bogus qualifications or none at all. And they are extraordinarily good salespeople.

There is plenty of free advice available from reputable nutritionists on how to eat to lose weight, gain athleticism or to just stay in good shape, but it has to compete with a massive amount of bullshit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is plenty of free advice available from reputable nutritionists on how to eat to lose weight, gain athleticism or to just stay in good shape, but it has to compete with a massive amount of bullshit.

I think that's the gist of it. There's no money in speaking the truth. While lying is lucrative. I'm thinking of Adam Smith's water and diamonds example. A problem.

 

[DBT]

Even reputable nutritionists do not have the final word. The 'science' of nutrition is a minefield. So called established principles, the food pyramid, carbs, etc. are open to question.

 

[bigfield]

Even reputable nutritionists do not have the final word. The 'science' of nutrition is a minefield. So called established principles, the food pyramid, carbs, etc. are open to question.

The Food Pyramid was published by the US Department of Agriculture, and its composition differed significantly from that recommended by USDA nutritionists due to modifications made to satisfy lobbyists.

Carefully reviewing the research on nutrient recommendations, disease prevention, documented dietary shortfalls and major health problems of the population, we submitted the final version of our new Food Guide to the Secretary of Agriculture.

When our version of the Food Guide came back to us revised, we were shocked to find that it was vastly different from the one we had developed. As I later discovered, the wholesale changes made to the guide by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture were calculated to win the acceptance of the food industry. For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.


Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour — including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats — at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies.

http://whale.to/a/light.html

The lesson there is that you can't trust the government on scientific matters when they are beholden to groups with a vested interest in misinforming the public.

I don't know what you mean regarding carbs; you'll have to explain.

 

[DBT]

You must be aware of the recent controversy between the benefits and pitfalls of carbs and fats? It's been in the media, Catalyst, etc, discussed on this forum.

 

[bigfield]

You must be aware of the recent controversy between the benefits and pitfalls of carbs and fats? It's been in the media, Catalyst, etc, discussed on this forum.

The 2014 Catalyst episode on low-carb diets: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4126228.htm

The episode doesn't present a controversy.

The problem here is that the general public is ignorant of the state of nutrition science. The idea of a low-carb diet is not even remotely controversial within the field of nutrition; it is only novel to the general public because most people are simply misinformed.

 

[DBT]

You must be aware of the recent controversy between the benefits and pitfalls of carbs and fats? It's been in the media, Catalyst, etc, discussed on this forum.

The 2014 Catalyst episode on low-carb diets: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4126228.htm

The episode doesn't present a controversy.

The problem here is that the general public is ignorant of the state of nutrition science. The idea of a low-carb diet is not even remotely controversial within the field of nutrition; it is only novel to the general public because most people are simply misinformed.

People are still arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of carbs, such cereal grains for example, which some claim are not fit for human consumption (inflammatory response, blood sugar, etc), which makes it a controversy. Not an earth shaking controversy to be sure, but controversial none the less.

 

[bigfield]

People are still arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of carbs, such cereal grains for example, which some claim are not fit for human consumption (inflammatory response, blood sugar, etc), which makes it a controversy. Not an earth shaking controversy to be sure, but controversial none the less.

Which nutritionists are claiming that whole grains are "not fit for human consumption"?

As I pointed out above, there is a plenty of publications out there that are authored by people who merely present themselves as experts. For example, Dr William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly and one of the people who advocates a no-grains diet, is a cardiologist, not a nutritionist. People are impressed by his title and his white coat, but he's no different than an engineer writing on the subject of climatology.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a nutritionist who recommends a no-grains diet to a patient who doesn't have a relevant condition (such a type 2 diabetes or coeliac disease).

 

[rjh01]

A few things to reduce to the minimum
- processed food
- salt
- refined sugar and products that contain lots of refined sugar
- the latest fad diet or any diet that tries to say it will lose weight fast
- any diet that says avoid groups of foods, like all dairy or meat
- most supplements
- most take away food

Then eat as wide a variety of foods as possible. This includes eating lots of fibre. This may not give you the perfect diet, but any improvements to it would be small.

I am sure I could find references to the above, but then others could find references for just about any diet. This is one area where you need to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. If you are of the right weight, your diet is probably ok. If you are overweight then it could do with improving.

 

[Deepak]

Which nutritionists are claiming that whole grains are "not fit for human consumption"?

Tons of them. 'Nutritionist' isn't an academically or professionally regulated title, and there's no shortage of woo slinging nutritionists.

https://twitter.com/catnutritionist

 

[bigfield]

Which nutritionists are claiming that whole grains are "not fit for human consumption"?

Tons of them. 'Nutritionist' isn't an academically or professionally regulated title, and there's no shortage of woo slinging nutritionists.

https://twitter.com/catnutritionist

Obviously I'm asking for claims from bona fide nutritionists.

 

[Deepak]

Tons of them. 'Nutritionist' isn't an academically or professionally regulated title, and there's no shortage of woo slinging nutritionists.

https://twitter.com/catnutritionist

Obviously I'm asking for claims from bona fide nutritionists.

My point is there's no real way to determine what a bona fide nutritionist is. Anyone can claim to be one, and people like Robert Atkins and Loren Cordain have quite a bit of influence.

If your definition of bona fide nutritionist is one who isn't a charlatan then it seems like a silly question to ask. What bona fide X believes Y when the definition of bona fide X doesn't believe Y. You win a point, but there's no shortage of claimants and believers so I don't concede the argument.

If you were talking about dietitians then maybe there would be some meat on the bone.

 

[DBT]

People are still arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of carbs, such cereal grains for example, which some claim are not fit for human consumption (inflammatory response, blood sugar, etc), which makes it a controversy. Not an earth shaking controversy to be sure, but controversial none the less.

Which nutritionists are claiming that whole grains are "not fit for human consumption"?

As I pointed out above, there is a plenty of publications out there that are authored by people who merely present themselves as experts. For example, Dr William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly and one of the people who advocates a no-grains diet, is a cardiologist, not a nutritionist. People are impressed by his title and his white coat, but he's no different than an engineer writing on the subject of climatology.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a nutritionist who recommends a no-grains diet to a patient who doesn't have a relevant condition (such a type 2 diabetes or coeliac disease).

I didn't say that 'qualified nutritionists are saying ''grains are not fit for human consumption'' - what I said was, 'people'
I quote:
''People are still arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of carbs, such cereal grains for example, which some claim are not fit for human consumption (inflammatory response, blood sugar, etc), which makes it a controversy.''

Now the remark is not exactly meant to be taken literally. What is meant by the remark is that grains are not necessarily the healthy foodstuff that we have been led to believe. Insulin response even in healthy subjects, for example.

 

[bigfield]

I didn't say that 'qualified nutritionists are saying ''grains are not fit for human consumption'' - what I said was, 'people'
I quote:
''People are still arguing about the benefits and pitfalls of carbs, such cereal grains for example, which some claim are not fit for human consumption (inflammatory response, blood sugar, etc), which makes it a controversy.''

Now the remark is not exactly meant to be taken literally. What is meant by the remark is that grains are not necessarily the healthy foodstuff that we have been led to believe. Insulin response even in healthy subjects, for example.

The things you have been led to believe have been heavily influenced by unreliable sources, including sensationalised stories in the media and garbage advice published by bogus experts. If you've found yourself misled by the media, or by celebrity pseudo-experts, or by your friends, then that is not the fault of nutritional science.

However, when you first mentioned 'carbs' in this thread, you weren't talking about "people", you were criticising "reputable nutritionists" and "the 'science' of nutrition". We've already covered the food pyramid, but what does your mention of carbs mean with respect to "reputable nutritionists" and "the 'science' of nutrition"?

Even reputable nutritionists do not have the final word. The 'science' of nutrition is a minefield. So called established principles, the food pyramid, carbs, etc. are open to question.

 

[DBT]

The things you have been led to believe have been heavily influenced by unreliable sources, including sensationalised stories in the media and garbage advice published by bogus experts. If you've found yourself misled by the media, or by celebrity pseudo-experts, or by your friends, then that is not the fault of nutritional science.

However, when you first mentioned 'carbs' in this thread, you weren't talking about "people", you were criticising "reputable nutritionists" and "the 'science' of nutrition". We've already covered the food pyramid, but what does your mention of carbs mean with respect to "reputable nutritionists" and "the 'science' of nutrition"?

Even reputable nutritionists do not have the final word. The 'science' of nutrition is a minefield. So called established principles, the food pyramid, carbs, etc. are open to question.

I have not 'been led' to believe anything. I have considered the evidence from several studies, some long term (Walter Willet) and tested different foods for blood sugar response myself.


Abstract

The possibility that high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes has been a long-standing controversy. Two main mechanisms have been hypothesized, one mediated by increases in insulin resistance and the other by pancreatic exhaustion as a result of the increased demand for insulin. During the past decade, several lines of evidence have collectively provided strong support for a relation between such diets and diabetes incidence. In animals and in short-term human studies, a high intake of carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (a relative measure of the incremental glucose response per gram of carbohydrate) produced greater insulin resistance than did the intake of low-glycemic-index carbohydrates.

Available evidence also suggests that a high intake of high-glycemic-index carbohydrates can increase insulin resistance, at least in the short term. Feeding rats a diet with a high glycemic index (consisting of amylopectin or glucose) produced more rapid and severe insulin resistance than did feeding rats a low-glycemic-index diet (amylose) (8,9). In a detailed study among 28 women with and without a history of coronary heart disease, Frost et al (10) randomly assigned one-half of the women to consume high- or low-glycemic-index diets for 3 wk. Insulin resistance measured in vivo and in cultured adipocytes was greater in women consuming the high-glycemic-index diet, and these adverse effects were greatest among those with a history of coronary disease, who had a greater degree of insulin resistance at baseline. The adverse effects of the high-glycemic-index diet appeared to be due to an increased production of free fatty acids in the late postprandial state, presumably as a result of a depression in blood glucose below baseline (reactive hypoglycemia) and possibly mediated by increases in counterregulatory hormones (cortisol, glucagon, and growth hormone) (11).

''In summary, both metabolic and epidemiologic evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index forms of carbohydrate with low-glycemic-index carbohydrates will reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Among patients with diabetes, the weight of evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index with low-glycemic-index forms of carbohydrate will improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes among those treated with insulin. These dietary changes can be accomplished by replacing products made with white flour and potatoes with whole-grain, minimally refined cereal products. Because this low-risk dietary pattern has also been associated with reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (49–,52) and a lower occurrence of diverticular disease (53) and constipation (54), this is an appropriate component of recommendations for an overall healthy diet.''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which nutritionists are claiming that whole grains are "not fit for human consumption"?

Tons of them. 'Nutritionist' isn't an academically or professionally regulated title, and there's no shortage of woo slinging nutritionists.

https://twitter.com/catnutritionist

Yup. That's true. Anybody can call themselves "nutritionist". But you need to study to become a "dietician".

But even so. Dieticians in Sweden are bound by law to recommend what the Swedish equivalent of the FDA recommends. Too bad those recommendations are politically informed. Various manufacturers lobbying gets to inform the guidelines. Which is not cool. I don't know how it works in other countries

 

[bigfield]

Abstract

The possibility that high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose may increase the risk of type 2 diabetes has been a long-standing controversy. Two main mechanisms have been hypothesized, one mediated by increases in insulin resistance and the other by pancreatic exhaustion as a result of the increased demand for insulin. During the past decade, several lines of evidence have collectively provided strong support for a relation between such diets and diabetes incidence. In animals and in short-term human studies, a high intake of carbohydrates with a high glycemic index (a relative measure of the incremental glucose response per gram of carbohydrate) produced greater insulin resistance than did the intake of low-glycemic-index carbohydrates.

Available evidence also suggests that a high intake of high-glycemic-index carbohydrates can increase insulin resistance, at least in the short term. Feeding rats a diet with a high glycemic index (consisting of amylopectin or glucose) produced more rapid and severe insulin resistance than did feeding rats a low-glycemic-index diet (amylose) (8,9). In a detailed study among 28 women with and without a history of coronary heart disease, Frost et al (10) randomly assigned one-half of the women to consume high- or low-glycemic-index diets for 3 wk. Insulin resistance measured in vivo and in cultured adipocytes was greater in women consuming the high-glycemic-index diet, and these adverse effects were greatest among those with a history of coronary disease, who had a greater degree of insulin resistance at baseline. The adverse effects of the high-glycemic-index diet appeared to be due to an increased production of free fatty acids in the late postprandial state, presumably as a result of a depression in blood glucose below baseline (reactive hypoglycemia) and possibly mediated by increases in counterregulatory hormones (cortisol, glucagon, and growth hormone) (11).

''In summary, both metabolic and epidemiologic evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index forms of carbohydrate with low-glycemic-index carbohydrates will reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Among patients with diabetes, the weight of evidence suggests that replacing high-glycemic-index with low-glycemic-index forms of carbohydrate will improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes among those treated with insulin. These dietary changes can be accomplished by replacing products made with white flour and potatoes with whole-grain, minimally refined cereal products. Because this low-risk dietary pattern has also been associated with reduced incidence of coronary heart disease (49–,52) and a lower occurrence of diverticular disease (53) and constipation (54), this is an appropriate component of recommendations for an overall healthy diet.''

In short: High-GI foods increase insulin resistance, and it is better to eat low-GI foods instead. How is this relevant?

 

[Deepak]

Tons of them. 'Nutritionist' isn't an academically or professionally regulated title, and there's no shortage of woo slinging nutritionists.

https://twitter.com/catnutritionist

Yup. That's true. Anybody can call themselves "nutritionist". But you need to study to become a "dietician".

But even so. Dieticians in Sweden are bound by law to recommend what the Swedish equivalent of the FDA recommends. Too bad those recommendations are politically informed. Various manufacturers lobbying gets to inform the guidelines. Which is not cool. I don't know how it works in other countries

As I understand the situation, this is not the case - though these recommendations are taken into consideration by the professional orgs.

 

[DBT]

In short: High-GI foods increase insulin resistance, and it is better to eat low-GI foods instead. How is this relevant?

It's relevant to grains (and of course high GI load food in general) - especially processed grains such as white flour products, bread, biscuits, cakes, etc - being a problem in relation to pancreatic function, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, etc, because these are high GI load foods...factors contributing to obesity, type 2 diabetes and other health problems, systemic inflammatory response and all that entails, and so on.

Nor do I want this to be taken that cereal grains such as wheat are the only problem....potatoes, amongst a list of foodstuffs, are known to rapidly raise blood sugar and insulin response, for example.

It being this rapid rise in blood sugar level with corresponding insulin response being the factor that erodes pancreatic function and its related health problems.

This is not what I ''have been lead to believe'' but what several long term studies on human health in relation to diet appear to be showing.