4 ms·

What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself. A

by hilux 2y ago

What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself. A few things I notice: - "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.) - A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example. - For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.

bcrosby95 2y ago
The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art. It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact. Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.
the_gastropod 2y ago
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"? > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.
- hilux 2y ago
  That's fine. Then show me controlled studies on bacon being bad. I have no problem with that. That's what science should be. Don't lump bacon in with "processed foods" like all that sugary crap.
  - the_gastropod 2y ago
    Sure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/ In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meats (including bacon, salami, etc.) as group 1 carcinogens.
    - hilux 2y ago
      It's a meta-analysis. It's not a controlled study like I asked. And if you go back and dig through the original studies, not a single one of them is a controlled study. Not one. They always require people to fill out cards of what they ate months or years ago. (This problem is well known - google: nutrition observational study problem) AND there's the problem that people who eat bacon - which is "supposed" to be bad - often are overweight, and eat and drink way more other stuff that's bad, like tons of carbs, alcohol, etc. Which means that teasing out any actual harm from the bacon, is determined by a statistician. Not so obvious after all. But if you or I exercise, are healthy weight, eat bacon in a low-carb way, don't drink or smoke, and consume lots of fiber (all of which are true for me, don't know about you) ... it's really not clear how serious a risk factor the bacon is. Compared to just - the risk of being alive.
timClicks 2y ago
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence that you're offering. It could also be explained by vegans simply wanting more research on nutrition.
- hilux 2y ago
  The vegan-funded research (that gets published) always finds that a "plant-based diet" is healthier. Check out the Stanford twin study. Check out the rebuttals. Nina Teicholz is a good place to start for that. (Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or hers, but if you're motivated, you can watch the entire process - the vegans, the headline, the data, the rebuttal.)
  - the_gastropod 2y ago
    So the source you're using to rebut a Stanford nutrition study is someone whose most relevant education is a Masters degree in Latin American studies? And the people suggesting eating more foods you can literally grow yourself in your backyard are corrupted business scientists? Make it make sense.
    - hilux 2y ago
      I think it's telling that rather than address any of Nina's very detailed analysis, you launch an ad hominem attack. Also, by your logic, almost all journalists (except those who happen to have a PhD in the relevant science) should be ignored. Is that what you believe? I don't know anyone with a backyard capable of feeding their entire family. Do you?
chimprich 2y ago
> What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data Most of the people who make comments like this sound more religious than most. > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. It's well established that processed meats containing nitrates, like bacon, are carcinogens. > A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans That's completely backwards. Actually a lot of nutrition research is paid for by large multinationals who sell ultra-processed food. That's where all the cash is. Who are these shadowy rich vegan organisations?
- jdougan 2y ago
  7th Day Adventists

by hilux 2y ago

bcrosby95 2y ago

The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art. It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact. Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.

the_gastropod 2y ago

> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"? > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.

hilux 2y ago
That's fine. Then show me controlled studies on bacon being bad. I have no problem with that. That's what science should be. Don't lump bacon in with "processed foods" like all that sugary crap.
- the_gastropod 2y ago
  Sure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/ In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meats (including bacon, salami, etc.) as group 1 carcinogens.
  - hilux 2y ago
    It's a meta-analysis. It's not a controlled study like I asked. And if you go back and dig through the original studies, not a single one of them is a controlled study. Not one. They always require people to fill out cards of what they ate months or years ago. (This problem is well known - google: nutrition observational study problem) AND there's the problem that people who eat bacon - which is "supposed" to be bad - often are overweight, and eat and drink way more other stuff that's bad, like tons of carbs, alcohol, etc. Which means that teasing out any actual harm from the bacon, is determined by a statistician. Not so obvious after all. But if you or I exercise, are healthy weight, eat bacon in a low-carb way, don't drink or smoke, and consume lots of fiber (all of which are true for me, don't know about you) ... it's really not clear how serious a risk factor the bacon is. Compared to just - the risk of being alive.

timClicks 2y ago

> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence that you're offering. It could also be explained by vegans simply wanting more research on nutrition.

hilux 2y ago
The vegan-funded research (that gets published) always finds that a "plant-based diet" is healthier. Check out the Stanford twin study. Check out the rebuttals. Nina Teicholz is a good place to start for that. (Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or hers, but if you're motivated, you can watch the entire process - the vegans, the headline, the data, the rebuttal.)
- the_gastropod 2y ago
  So the source you're using to rebut a Stanford nutrition study is someone whose most relevant education is a Masters degree in Latin American studies? And the people suggesting eating more foods you can literally grow yourself in your backyard are corrupted business scientists? Make it make sense.
  - hilux 2y ago
    I think it's telling that rather than address any of Nina's very detailed analysis, you launch an ad hominem attack. Also, by your logic, almost all journalists (except those who happen to have a PhD in the relevant science) should be ignored. Is that what you believe? I don't know anyone with a backyard capable of feeding their entire family. Do you?

chimprich 2y ago

> What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data Most of the people who make comments like this sound more religious than most. > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. It's well established that processed meats containing nitrates, like bacon, are carcinogens. > A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans That's completely backwards. Actually a lot of nutrition research is paid for by large multinationals who sell ultra-processed food. That's where all the cash is. Who are these shadowy rich vegan organisations?

jdougan 2y ago
7th Day Adventists