3 ms·

The studies I've seen that show an MSG reaction allow respondents to taste the MSG. In studies in which respondents cannot taste the MSG (by putting it in a cap

The studies I've seen that show an MSG reaction allow respondents to taste the MSG. In studies in which respondents cannot taste the MSG (by putting it in a capsule), there's no effect demonstrated.

dotancohen 6y ago
I'm not familiar with those studies, but here are just a few ideas (made up now, on the spot). 1. MSG in a capsule is not how MSG in food is delivered. So perhaps the delivery mechanism has something to do with it. Perhaps the capsule allows the MSG to pass the tongue, or esophagous, or stomach, with far less reactivity than free MSG does. Maybe the interaction of MSG with other chemicals is necessary for the effects to manifest. 2. Maybe there exists a psycophysical element for some subjects? Such as the commonplace phenomenon of non-celiac "gluten intolerant" people. If those types of people self-select to take part in a study, no wonder no connection is found. And real sufferers would stay far away from a study that promises to expose them to a chemical that they know to be harmful to themselves. 3. There have been many studies which have found no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There have been many studies which have found no connection between fossil fuel usage and climate change. The existence of a study which finds no connection does not mean that such a connection does not exist. Especially when a huge industry depends upon no connection being found.
- kevinmchugh 6y ago
  I'm unaware of any blinded study which shows a reaction. Here's a good thread on it: https://twitter.com/CookingIssues/status/1084888303613214720?s=19 https://twitter.com/CookingIssues/status/1084888303613214720... There have been studies which get self-selecting individuals to test their reaction, which would make #2 less likely. The best study, I think is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027869159390012N https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027869..., where none of the individuals tested knew what they were being tested for. Maybe all msg sensitive people opted out of any food challenge, but that's not always the case, given the 2000 study in the linked tweet. I think #1 is the most likely explanation, fwiw.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Or, instead of buying into a pharmacokinetic hypothesis someone on a message board just made up to avoid losing an argument, it could be the case that all the studies are simply right, suggesting as they do that the body doesn't discriminate between forms of glutamate, nor is there significant uptake in the bloodstream from glutamates ingested orally, nor does MSG sensitivity square with the very large amounts we get relatively from natural food sources, and so MSG simply isn't a problematic food additive.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    > it could be the case that all the studies are simply right Let's take that argument at face value. The fine article mentions that the first studies all showed a link between MSG intake and ill effects. Only after the food industry started taking an interest did other studies show otherwise.

The studies I've seen that show an MSG reaction allow respondents to taste the MSG. In studies in which respondents cannot taste the MSG (by putting it in a capsule), there's no effect demonstrated.

dotancohen 6y ago

I'm not familiar with those studies, but here are just a few ideas (made up now, on the spot). 1. MSG in a capsule is not how MSG in food is delivered. So perhaps the delivery mechanism has something to do with it. Perhaps the capsule allows the MSG to pass the tongue, or esophagous, or stomach, with far less reactivity than free MSG does. Maybe the interaction of MSG with other chemicals is necessary for the effects to manifest. 2. Maybe there exists a psycophysical element for some subjects? Such as the commonplace phenomenon of non-celiac "gluten intolerant" people. If those types of people self-select to take part in a study, no wonder no connection is found. And real sufferers would stay far away from a study that promises to expose them to a chemical that they know to be harmful to themselves. 3. There have been many studies which have found no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There have been many studies which have found no connection between fossil fuel usage and climate change. The existence of a study which finds no connection does not mean that such a connection does not exist. Especially when a huge industry depends upon no connection being found.

kevinmchugh 6y ago
I'm unaware of any blinded study which shows a reaction. Here's a good thread on it: https://twitter.com/CookingIssues/status/1084888303613214720?s=19 https://twitter.com/CookingIssues/status/1084888303613214720... There have been studies which get self-selecting individuals to test their reaction, which would make #2 less likely. The best study, I think is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027869159390012N https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027869..., where none of the individuals tested knew what they were being tested for. Maybe all msg sensitive people opted out of any food challenge, but that's not always the case, given the 2000 study in the linked tweet. I think #1 is the most likely explanation, fwiw.
tptacek 6y ago
Or, instead of buying into a pharmacokinetic hypothesis someone on a message board just made up to avoid losing an argument, it could be the case that all the studies are simply right, suggesting as they do that the body doesn't discriminate between forms of glutamate, nor is there significant uptake in the bloodstream from glutamates ingested orally, nor does MSG sensitivity square with the very large amounts we get relatively from natural food sources, and so MSG simply isn't a problematic food additive.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  > it could be the case that all the studies are simply right Let's take that argument at face value. The fine article mentions that the first studies all showed a link between MSG intake and ill effects. Only after the food industry started taking an interest did other studies show otherwise.