4 ms·

"MSG is especially worrying because there are some studies that show negative effects of MSG" Have you read the actual studies? There are no "mixed" studies, t

"MSG is especially worrying because there are some studies that show negative effects of MSG" Have you read the actual studies? There are no "mixed" studies, they're all conclusive. One of the biggest studies done was a decade long and found absolutely nothing. Sources: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03221.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.... http://www.livestrong.com/article/408512-neurological-effect-of-monosodium-glutamate/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/408512-neurological-effect... http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-52156839.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-52156839.html

hristov 13y ago
Did you read the article this discussion is attached to? It said in part: "Initially, researchers had success proving both the short-term and long-term dangers of MSG: mice injected with the additive showed signs of brain lesions, and humans fed 3 grams of MSG per 200 ml of soup presented symptoms congruent with “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.” " If you believe the original article is wrong, then you should perhaps make a comment in the main thread explaining why it is wrong instead of contradicting me. I merely assumed what the article said about the studies was more or less correct.
- akiselev 13y ago
  It's like your eyes refused to show your brain the words that you didn't want to read. "Subsequent studies, however, provided mixed results: some confirmed findings of brain lesions in animals or symptoms in humans, but other studies were unable to replicate the results. Double-blind studies often showed little correlation between MSG and adverse symptoms. Parties on both sides of the debate slung accusations at the other, with the anti-MSG researchers claiming that studies were being funded by MSG producers, and pro-MSG researchers accusing the other side of fear-mongering. From the FDA to the United Nations to various governments (Australia, Britain and Japan) the public bodies that have investigated MSG have deemed it a safe food additive. The FDA states on their website: FDA considers the addition of MSG to foods to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). Although many people identify themselves as sensitive to MSG, in studies with such individuals given MSG or a placebo, scientists have not been able to consistently trigger reactions. Scientific interest in its deleterious effects seems to be waning: one of the last studies to gain public attention was published in 2011. The authors of that study claimed to have found a link between MSG and obesity, though those results have been questioned. While the general scientific consensus seems to be that only in large doses and on an empty stomach can MSG temporarily affect a small subset of the population, MSG’s reputation is still maligned in the public eye." That last sentence is important.
  - hristov 13y ago
    I very clearly mentioned in my original comment that there are other studies that show no effects. My point was and still is that if there are some studies that show negative effects and some studies that show no negative effects, the latter do not (for me at least) cancel out the former. It is entirely possible that there are negative effects that are not picked up by some studies. The fact that the FDA believes that MSG is "generally recognized as safe" does not guarantee it is safe. To use my previous example, the FDA also used to believe that trans fats were safe. So all my comments have been logically consistent with each other and my actual honest opinion. Thus they are quite undeserving of your half thought out response.
    - gaadd33 13y ago
      So essentially there's no way for you to ever feel that MSG is safe because the normal outcome is "no negative effects" which, for you, will never counterbalance the few studies that have shown negative effects. I suppose someone would have to publish a study that shows positive effects for you to consider it?
    - sjwright 13y ago
      Your attempt at a rationalization is logically flawed to the point of embarrassment.
      - hristov 13y ago
        If you think there is a logical flaw in my argument say what it is. If you do not feel like saying what it is, then do not post. You must be very proud of yourself for composing a sentence with several big words in it, but it means absolutely nothing.
        sjwright 13y ago
        The logical flaw is that you assume that all studies are worthy of consideration, and the hidden inference that equal weight should be given to a study regardless of its methodology or rigor. Good information generally cancels out bad information. I have no particular opinion about the veracity of any MSG claim, but there have been so many bad dietary studies published. I would urge a skeptical default position on any result, and only moderate skepticism based on evidence of sample size, methodology and rigor.
- drdaeman 13y ago
  If you're injecting high doses of MSG to your bloodstream, then your health is probably in danger.

hristov 13y ago

Did you read the article this discussion is attached to? It said in part: "Initially, researchers had success proving both the short-term and long-term dangers of MSG: mice injected with the additive showed signs of brain lesions, and humans fed 3 grams of MSG per 200 ml of soup presented symptoms congruent with “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.” " If you believe the original article is wrong, then you should perhaps make a comment in the main thread explaining why it is wrong instead of contradicting me. I merely assumed what the article said about the studies was more or less correct.

akiselev 13y ago
It's like your eyes refused to show your brain the words that you didn't want to read. "Subsequent studies, however, provided mixed results: some confirmed findings of brain lesions in animals or symptoms in humans, but other studies were unable to replicate the results. Double-blind studies often showed little correlation between MSG and adverse symptoms. Parties on both sides of the debate slung accusations at the other, with the anti-MSG researchers claiming that studies were being funded by MSG producers, and pro-MSG researchers accusing the other side of fear-mongering. From the FDA to the United Nations to various governments (Australia, Britain and Japan) the public bodies that have investigated MSG have deemed it a safe food additive. The FDA states on their website: FDA considers the addition of MSG to foods to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). Although many people identify themselves as sensitive to MSG, in studies with such individuals given MSG or a placebo, scientists have not been able to consistently trigger reactions. Scientific interest in its deleterious effects seems to be waning: one of the last studies to gain public attention was published in 2011. The authors of that study claimed to have found a link between MSG and obesity, though those results have been questioned. While the general scientific consensus seems to be that only in large doses and on an empty stomach can MSG temporarily affect a small subset of the population, MSG’s reputation is still maligned in the public eye." That last sentence is important.
- hristov 13y ago
  I very clearly mentioned in my original comment that there are other studies that show no effects. My point was and still is that if there are some studies that show negative effects and some studies that show no negative effects, the latter do not (for me at least) cancel out the former. It is entirely possible that there are negative effects that are not picked up by some studies. The fact that the FDA believes that MSG is "generally recognized as safe" does not guarantee it is safe. To use my previous example, the FDA also used to believe that trans fats were safe. So all my comments have been logically consistent with each other and my actual honest opinion. Thus they are quite undeserving of your half thought out response.
  - gaadd33 13y ago
    So essentially there's no way for you to ever feel that MSG is safe because the normal outcome is "no negative effects" which, for you, will never counterbalance the few studies that have shown negative effects. I suppose someone would have to publish a study that shows positive effects for you to consider it?
  - sjwright 13y ago
    Your attempt at a rationalization is logically flawed to the point of embarrassment.
    - hristov 13y ago
      If you think there is a logical flaw in my argument say what it is. If you do not feel like saying what it is, then do not post. You must be very proud of yourself for composing a sentence with several big words in it, but it means absolutely nothing.
      - sjwright 13y ago
        The logical flaw is that you assume that all studies are worthy of consideration, and the hidden inference that equal weight should be given to a study regardless of its methodology or rigor. Good information generally cancels out bad information. I have no particular opinion about the veracity of any MSG claim, but there have been so many bad dietary studies published. I would urge a skeptical default position on any result, and only moderate skepticism based on evidence of sample size, methodology and rigor.
drdaeman 13y ago
If you're injecting high doses of MSG to your bloodstream, then your health is probably in danger.