Blender bullshit

[bigfield]

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 still doesn't explain why you you would say, "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."

Which "reputable nutritionists" contradict Willett? The consensus is that people should only eat a relatively small amount of high-GI foods or none at all, thereby avoiding the "high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose" examined by Willett.

And how does this make "the 'science' of nutrition a minefield"?

 

[DBT]

This still doesn't explain why you you would say, "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 said it because research is ongoing. What was once excepted by university trained nutritionists is now not necessarily the case.

Which "reputable nutritionists" contradict Willett? The consensus is that people should only eat a relatively small amount of high-GI foods or none at all, thereby avoiding the "high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose" examined by Willett.

The advice on particular food items has changed, butter, eggs, margarine, oils, soy, etc, with research.

Soy was once touted as a superfood, a healthy cereal grain, but in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption.

And how does this make "the 'science' of nutrition a minefield"?

Advice over the years; eggs are good, eggs are bad (cholesterol) butter is bad, margarine is good, margarine is bad, butter is good, soy is good, soy is bad.........


One example:

''A little fat may not be harmful, while too much of it can be unhealthy, and even fatal. But in the latest review of studies that investigated the link between dietary fat and causes of death, researchers say the guidelines got it all wrong. In fact, recommendations to reduce the amount of fat we eat every day should never have been made.

Reporting in the journal OpenHeart, Zoe Harcombe, a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at University of the West of Scotland, and her colleagues say that the data decisionmakers had in 1977, when the first U.S. guidelines on dietary fat were made, did not provide any support for the idea that eating less fat would translate to fewer cases of heart disease, or that it would save lives.''

 

[bigfield]

I said it because research is ongoing. What was once excepted by university trained nutritionists is now not necessarily the case.

So?

This year, students studying nutrition at uni were taught something that will, in the future, be discovered to be incorrect. But no-one, including you the layman, can know what that thing will turn out to be.

Nutritionists are not infallible, but their method of applying scientific research to eating is still the best approach that anyone has.

Which "reputable nutritionists" contradict Willett? The consensus is that people should only eat a relatively small amount of high-GI foods or none at all, thereby avoiding the "high, long-term intake of carbohydrates that are rapidly absorbed as glucose" examined by Willett.

The advice on particular food items has changed, butter, eggs, margarine, oils, soy, etc, with research.

Soy was once touted as a superfood, a healthy cereal grain, but in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption.

And how does this make "the 'science' of nutrition a minefield"?

Advice over the years; eggs are good, eggs are bad (cholesterol) butter is bad, margarine is good, margarine is bad, butter is good, soy is good, soy is bad.........

Advice from whom?

Your claim that "in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption" is dubious. I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

One example:

''A little fat may not be harmful, while too much of it can be unhealthy, and even fatal. But in the latest review of studies that investigated the link between dietary fat and causes of death, researchers say the guidelines got it all wrong. In fact, recommendations to reduce the amount of fat we eat every day should never have been made.

Reporting in the journal OpenHeart, Zoe Harcombe, a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at University of the West of Scotland, and her colleagues say that the data decisionmakers had in 1977, when the first U.S. guidelines on dietary fat were made, did not provide any support for the idea that eating less fat would translate to fewer cases of heart disease, or that it would save lives.''

Guidelines created by cardiologists in 1977 are not a good reflection on the state of nutrition science today.

 

[DBT]

So?

This year, students studying nutrition at uni were taught something that will, in the future, be discovered to be incorrect. But no-one, including you the layman, can know what that thing will turn out to be.

Nutritionists are not infallible, but their method of applying scientific research to eating is still the best approach that anyone has.

Sure, not infallible, but also downright contradictory in the advise given by this or that institute, research lab or study.

This is basically what I'm talking about.

Quote;
''It’s official, according to a study about the effect of conflicting media reports on health and nutrition published in the January issue of the Journal of Health Communication. Many consumers don’t know what to think about nutrition, with all the contrary info bombarding them, especially when it comes to foods like wine, fish, coffee and supplements where messages have been mixed.

The worst, according to study author Dr. Rebekah Nagler of the School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, is that these confused readers may be less likely to comply with expert nutrition and health advice. They are also prone to ignore advice about foods and behaviors for which there is no ambiguity that they lower disease risk. This includes prescriptions like eating more fruits and veggies and doing regular exercise.

The take home message for many, after they’ve read or been exposed to a few conflicting reports on Oprah, Dr. Oz, the Internet or their favorite women’s magazine is to give up any pretense of healthy living. Dr Nagler describes this retreat to the Oreo cookie box as “backlash.”

''The logic appears to be that, if the experts can’t agree on what’s healthy, nobody knows; so it doesn’t matter what one eats.''

Which "reputa
Advice from whom?

Your claim that "in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption" is dubious. I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

Nutritionists in general, studies, etc. A mixed bag of contradictory information.

As for soy, amongst other things, it's the plant oestrogen that's a problem.

Oestrogen
"People ought to know that there ain't no free lunch," says Lon White, MD, MPH, senior neuroepidemiologist at the University of Hawaii. "At some point -- if these molecules are as potent as [we think] they are -- there will be potent [adverse] effects."

White, for one, worries that soy may speed the aging of brain cells. He recently found evidence that the brains of elderly people who ate tofu at least twice a week for 30 years were aging faster than normal. Tests designed to assess memory and analytical ability showed that their brains functioned as if they were four years older than their actual age, White says of his study published in the April 2000 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Another fear is that the estrogen-like substances in soy may dampen the function of the thyroid. Consuming 40 milligrams of isoflavones a day can slow the production of thyroid hormone, says Larrian Gillespie, MD, author of The MenopauseDiet and The Goddess Diet. (One tablespoon of soy powder contains about 25 milligrams of isoflavones, while most isoflavone supplements come in 40-milligram pills.)

According to Gillespie, within a few weeks of regularly consuming 40 milligrams of isoflavones, some women feel fatigued, constipated, and achy all over. Some also gain weight and have heavier menstrual periods. Menopausal women are at particular risk, since they're already prone to hypothyroidism. "Women think it's because of hormones and don't realize they're symptoms of hypothyroidism," Gillespie says. "Once they stop the soy, they say, 'I'm feeling fine again.' "

How neonatal plant estrogen exposure leads to adult infertility
2 May 2012
– A paper published today in Biology of Reproduction’s Papers-in-Press describes the effects of brief prenatal exposure to plant estrogens on the mouse oviduct, modeling the effects of soy-based baby formula on human infants. The results suggest that exposure to estrogenic chemicals in the womb or during childhood has the potential to affect a woman’s fertility as an adult, possibly providing the mechanistic basis for some cases of unexplained female infertility.

Earlier research suggested that neonatal exposure to plant estrogens or other environmental estrogens (synthetic substances that function similarly to the estrogen naturally produced in the body) may have long-term effects on adult female reproductive health. Wendy N. Jefferson, a researcher in the lab of Carmen J.
Williams at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health, previously demonstrated that neonatal exposure to the plant estrogen genistein results in complete infertility in female adult mice. Causes of infertility included failure to ovulate, reduced ability
of the oviduct to support embryo development before implantation, and failure of the uterus to support effective implantation of blastocyst-stage embryos.''

Guidelines created by cardiologists in 1977 are not a good reflection on the state of nutrition science today.

That's the point. Including the contradictory advice before 1977 and after.....right up to the present day.


Edit to add another example:

The advice to avoid cholesterol from foods like eggs has been cut out of new dietary guidelines.

The U.S. secretaries of health and agriculture released the new guidelines Thursday to reduce obesity and prevent diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

The Cholesterol Question, CBC's The Nature of Things

Old cholesterol warnings steeped in 'soft science,' may be lifted in U.S.

''In a departure from the 2010 guidelines, the advice to limit cholesterol in the diet to 300 milligrams a day is overturned.

"Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption," the guideline now reads.

After more than 50 years of warnings to cut dietary cholesterol, the panel agreed with the American Heart Association's 2013 report that "available evidence shows no appreciable relationship" between eating cholesterol and blood levels of cholesterol. ''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a little detail often forgotten. There's a difference between what athletes need to eat and non-athletes. Loads of non-athletes read nutrition advice for athletes and follow it to the letter, and then affirm strongly that the are in the shape of their lives, when everybody around them can see they're fat as fuck.

I just think this human behavior is astonishing. I once dated a ballet dancer. Her dietitian forced her to drink large quantities of oil every day, among other things. Still not a shred of fat on her body. Differences in lifestyle.

 

[bigfield]

Sure, not infallible, but also downright contradictory in the advise given by this or that institute, research lab or study.

This is basically what I'm talking about.

Quote;
''It’s official, according to a study about the effect of conflicting media reports on health and nutrition published in the January issue of the Journal of Health Communication. Many consumers don’t know what to think about nutrition, with all the contrary info bombarding them, especially when it comes to foods like wine, fish, coffee and supplements where messages have been mixed.

The worst, according to study author Dr. Rebekah Nagler of the School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, is that these confused readers may be less likely to comply with expert nutrition and health advice. They are also prone to ignore advice about foods and behaviors for which there is no ambiguity that they lower disease risk. This includes prescriptions like eating more fruits and veggies and doing regular exercise.

The take home message for many, after they’ve read or been exposed to a few conflicting reports on Oprah, Dr. Oz, the Internet or their favorite women’s magazine is to give up any pretense of healthy living. Dr Nagler describes this retreat to the Oreo cookie box as “backlash.”

''The logic appears to be that, if the experts can’t agree on what’s healthy, nobody knows; so it doesn’t matter what one eats.''

"Oprah, Dr. Oz, the Internet or their favorite women’s magazine" is the problem I have been referring to. People should not be replying on these sources for nutrition advice precisely because they are unreliable, and people should stop treating them like authoritative sources.

Which "reputa
Advice from whom?

Your claim that "in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption" is dubious. I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

Nutritionists in general, studies, etc. A mixed bag of contradictory information.

As for soy, amongst other things, it's the plant oestrogen that's a problem.

Oestrogen

<removed extract from blog article, for brevity>

From the same article:

So what's the verdict on soy? Health experts say that although there's no need to give up your favorite frosty shake made with soft tofu, frozen strawberries, and a dab of honey, you may not want to eat soy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Yet there's nothing wrong with incorporating soy into a healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

This is very different than your claim that "in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption".

How neonatal plant estrogen exposure leads to adult infertility

<removed extract from journal editorial, for brevity>

Here is the study the editorial refers to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22553218

The researchers dosed the rats with 50 mg/kg/day of genistein. That is not representative of human levels of consumption: even a person eating nothing but soy-based products in every meal would only achieve a fraction of that dosage.

If this is your basis for claiming that soy is "not fit for human consumption" then it appears you're simply mistaken.

Guidelines created by cardiologists in 1977 are not a good reflection on the state of nutrition science today.

That's the point. Including the contradictory advice before 1977 and after.....right up to the present day.

Edit to add another example:

<snipped extract from news article>

Finally, an actual example.

Nevertheless, sources such as health.gov are still more reliable than "Oprah, Dr. Oz, the Internet or [someone's] favorite women’s magazine", and it is far better to follow the latest advice from nutritionists than to rely on one's own selective reading of the scientific literature, lest one jump to groundless conclusions about the safety of foods.

 

[DBT]

"Oprah, Dr. Oz, the Internet or their favorite women’s magazine" is the problem I have been referring to. People should not be replying on these sources for nutrition advice precisely because they are unreliable, and people should stop treating them like authoritative sources.

People take these sources seriously because Oprah, et al, don't just walk out into the street before the show, grab a passerby and say 'hey, Joe, wanna come on TV and give some dietary advice''

Viewers tend to take this seriously because Oprah, et al, presumably get people who are qualified in their field, who supposedly know their subject matter, who cite current research, some of it being their own research.

Hence, as the article states, people shake their heads say 'if the experts can't agree.....''

They do this because the talking heads are being presented as experts in their field, and not some Joe freshly picked up off the street.

That is the point. We are given so called 'expert advice' from presumably reliable sources, newspaper reports, tv news, etc, yet this so called expert advice, by what should be reputable sources, is contradictory...consequently people shake their heads and say 'not even experts can agree on what is a good or bad''

This very different than your claim that "in recent times it appears that soy is not fit for human consumption".

I also said the information we get is contradictory. The remark contradicts the information the article presents.

And of course there are claims touting the health benefits of soy, claims that soy is a healthy addition to out diet. Overall, an example of the contradictory information we have on diet in general and soy in particular.

Another example of the claimed negative effects of soy, citing various studies;

''A 1991 study found that eating only 2 TBL/day of roasted and pickled soybeans for 3 months to healthy adults who were receiving adequate iodine in their diet caused thyroid suppression with symptoms of malaise, constipation, sleepiness, and goiters (Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi 1991, 767: 622-629)!

Six premenopausal women with normal menstrual cycles were given 45 mg of soy isoflavones per day. This is equivalent to only 1-2 cups of soy milk or 1/2 cup of soy flour! After only one month, all of the women experienced delayed menstruation with the effects similar to tamoxifen, the anti-estrogen drug given to women with breast cancer (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1994 Sep;60(3):333-340).

Dietary estrogens in the form of soy foods were found to have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system with the effects in women similar to taking the breast cancer drug tamoxifen (Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1995 Jan;208(1):51-9).

Estrogens consumed in the diet at low concentrations were found to stimulate breast cells much like DDT to increase enzymatic activity which leads to breast cancer (Environmental Health Perspectives 1997 Apr;105 (Suppl 3):633-636).

The soy isoflavones genistein and daidzein appear to stimulate existing breast cancer growth indicating risk in consuming soy products if a woman has breast cancer. (Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2001 Sep;35(9):118-21).

Direct evidence that soy isoflavones genistein and daidzein suppress the pituitary-thyroid axis in middle-aged rats fed 10 mg soy isoflavones per kilo after only 3 weeks as compared with rats eating regular rat chow (Experimental Biology and Medicine 2010 May;235(5):590-8).

Scientific research has shown that the developing male fetus which is exposed to soy phytoestrogens may suffer from higher susceptibility to prostate cancer later in life (Prostate 1994;24(2):67-78).

Dietary genistein (soy phytoestrogen) in developing female rats had the effect of significantly accelerated puberty (Toxicol Sci 1999 Oct;51(2):236-44).

A study of 12 men aged 18 years and older experienced a 19% drop in serum testosterone in only 28 days when supplemented with 56 grams of soy protein powder over that same time period (Prev 2007;16:829–33).

Female newborns who are orally exposed to genisin, the glycosylated form of genistein (soy phytoestrogen) experienced harm to the reproductive system in the form of “delayed vaginal opening… abnormal estrous cycles, decreased fertility, and delayed parturition.” (Environmental Health Perspective 2009 Dec;117(12):1883-9).

Some great alternatives to soy products are beans, lentils, mushrooms, almond, rice and coconut milks and just a lot more dark leafy greens! Also, fermented soy products like tempeh and miso are not bad for you, but should still be eaten in moderation.''

If this is your basis for claiming that soy is "not fit for human consumption" then it appears you're simply mistaken.

I've barely got started!

Nor is it 'my' claim, it's not something I made up. Nor is it a personal issue, which you appear to be suggesting.

Finally, an actual example.

There are countless examples of contradictory advice given on common food stuffs in the media, cited as this or that study, as I've already mentioned....coffee, eggs, cheese, milk, bread, grains, sugar, etc, etc. some of course with the caveat, ''all things in moderation''

 

[bigfield]

People take these sources seriously because Oprah, et al, don't just walk out into the street before the show, grab a passerby and say 'hey, Joe, wanna come on TV and give some dietary advice''

Viewers tend to take this seriously because Oprah, et al, presumably get people who are qualified in their field, who supposedly know their subject matter, who cite current research, some of it being their own research.

Hence, as the article states, people shake their heads say 'if the experts can't agree.....''

They do this because the talking heads are being presented as experts in their field, and not some Joe freshly picked up off the street.

That is the point. We are given so called 'expert advice' from presumably reliable sources, newspaper reports, tv news, etc, yet this so called expert advice, by what should be reputable sources, is contradictory...consequently people shake their heads and say 'not even experts can agree on what is a good or bad''

Oprah et al. are precisely who I had in mind when I wrote:

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

The media should not be trusted to report on nutrition science, as they are apparently incapable of reporting on any scientific field without sensationalising it. Celebrities should not be trusted to give nutrition advice, but people trust them because they are extremely good at establishing themselves as authoritative voices despite a lack of actual expertise.

They do not represent "reputable nutritionists", and their opinions do not represent nutrition of science. You stated that "the 'science' of nutrition is a minefield" but perhaps your complaint is better-directed at the media and not the actual science.

 

[DBT]

Oprah et al. are precisely who I had in mind when I wrote:

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

Are you saying that this form of media only uses charlatans with bogus qualifications? That newspapers quote any old source when you read a report that coffee or eggs are a problem for health, only to read the opposite a few months later? These are all bogus studies done by unqualified researchers? Even when they cite the name of a well recognised university, or someone with recognised qualifications?

The media should not be trusted to report on nutrition science, as they are apparently incapable of reporting on any scientific field without sensationalising it. Celebrities should not be trusted to give nutrition advice, but people trust them because they are extremely good at establishing themselves as authoritative voices despite a lack of actual expertise.

They do not represent "reputable nutritionists", and their opinions do not represent nutrition of science. You stated that "the 'science' of nutrition is a minefield" but perhaps your complaint is better-directed at the media and not the actual science.

I don't entirely disagree with what you say here. It is a minefield. But that doesn't mean there isn't reputable research with results that are showing health problems associated with grains such as soy.

 

[Draconis]

I love this word "natural". As if naturally occuring poisons don't kill you quite so much as horrid human-made ones.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I love this word "natural". As if naturally occuring poisons don't kill you quite so much as horrid human-made ones.

Yeah. Poo is as natural as it gets. Why don't these guys eat that?