thebeautybrains said:
I don't consider it a dangerous e-journal nor do I believe in any 'global conspiracies'. However, the article is full of information about digestion that is different than the things taught in university level Biochemistry courses (I studied biochemistry). For example, I've never heard of the notion that Calcium is involved in the digestion of sugar. Unfortunately, no references to any scientific studies are cited.
Sugar does not 'use' calcium but it certainly upsets calcium metabolism. Even I know that much. Perhaps that knowledge wasn't necessary for your syllabus? Anyway if the science is 'self-correcting' how do you know what you have been taught has been corrected to a sufficient degree. What is my point? Well, that nothing, nothing is objective and nothing will ever be. If you lose sight of that even to the smallest degree, you are on dangerous turf.
thebeautybrains said:
The article also makes no distinction between table sugar (sucrose) and corn syrup (50:50 blend of fructose & glucose). Corn syrup is the primary sugar used in Coke. It's curious because
Honey is composed of mostly fructose & glucose just like corn syrup. Why would there be a difference?
Here is an
interesting article about two recent scientific investigations into nutrition and obesity. Their conclusion (based on population studies of over 16,000 children) was that they could not establish a connection between overweight children and consumption of junk food.
And here's an
interesting report siting a study from the National Academy of Scientists that suggests eating comfort foods like chocolate cake and ice cream can actually reduce chronic stress. That sounds like a great idea to me.
First of all, I am amazed you consider Wikipedia a remotely respectable source considering it is just a set of beliefs typed in by the believers.
Secondly, you miss the science again! How can you compare honey and corn syprup by using the sole similarity that 'mostly fructose & glucose just like corn syrup'. Where is the science in that wishy washy phrase? Has your scientific analysis of the natural world not yielded the fact that the very very precise ratios that exist make a crucial difference, even the difference between life and death in ecosystems? I hate to use the oft used phrase 'the banana is 25% (or whatever) the same genetic makeup as a human' but it really is apt at this point.
The first tcs link is very interesting indeed. Particularly for the following spoof which the author uses to condemn putting too much faith in correlation.
You are about to learn of a beverage so dangerous, that we must ban or restrict its sales, or at least enact tax penalties on it to deter consumption. Here's what the research shows:
• Every American who drinks it dies.
• It's been linked to obesity: in fact, bigger people drink the most of it.
• It's associated with type 2 diabetes and all diabetics drink it in especially large amounts.
• All heart attack victims drink it and it's a known factor in heart failure.
There are been hundreds of studies finding these correlations -- correlations so strong they make the evidence irrefutable. This is bad stuff.
Everything you've just read is true. What is it?
Water."
Of course you and I can both use this spoof in our argument. My argument is, as the author goes on to say, 'we hear assertions made every day by mainstream scientists and medical professionals, reputable healthcare organizations, public policy makers'. It is common sense not laboratory science that would mean that assumptions like this aren't made. How many old wives tales turn out to be factually true? And if a generation chose not to cross paths with a black cat, so be it. And a study isn't hard science. These mainstream scientists are your collegues. The author says, "To protect yourself from making unsound health choices for you or your children, or putting your support behind costly public health solutions, learn to identify "data dredge" studies -- where correlations frequently come from -- and to differentiate them from evidence you can trust to mean something." But my question is, at what point do you differentiate within the science establishment, especially if you cannot differentiate between washing a fruit and chemically altering it?
Anyway to the (pseudo) studies:
"These two studies from GUTS significant is that the researchers couldn't even find a connection between soda or snack (ice cream, candy, chips, sweet baked goods, etc.) consumption and weight among these kids after 3 years. In other words, fat children weren't eating more sweets than thin children."
Yes but were they eating MORE than thin children, were they eating stodgy food (refined wheats, pastas, breads etc), were they eating lower quality and more refined produce that other the thin children. An easy way to find out the latter was to ascertain what sort of financial background the children came from. If they were poor, they are unlikely to be shopping at the Westbourne Grove Branch of Fresh N Wild. Which is sad but a reason for their obesity. Their parents are probably not organic shoppers either. Refined foods aren't limited to sugar you know. What a load of bunkum.
"What the GUTS research, led by Allison Field, did find, however, was that regardless of their overweight status, children who dieted gained significantly more weight compared to children who never dieted. This confirms another study these same researchers released last October which found the BMIs of girls who were frequent dieters versus those who never or rarely dieted were nearly 4 entire BMI points higher. "
WHAT a waste of money and time. I could have told Ms Field that girls who dieted (I take diet here to mean go on a specific weight loss plan) were going to be of higher BMI. First of all, Sherlock Field, fatter girls, feel worse and so diet more. Secondly, if you are heavy set, you cant change your body type and if you try to, there are going to be a world of problems. Thirdly, if you feel worse and you don't understand the complexities of nutrition, then you tend to binge. Why is there any research being done on this? I hope that this is not coming out of the tax my parents pay.
And REALLY? Bingeing on crap lowers stress? Wow why didn't I try that. Oh wait I did. Of course the scientists weren't around to see the stress the next day when I got on the scales and I was heading
away from instead of
towards my 106lb target. Nor were they around to see the stress that stemmed from a spotty face right before the party. Of the general sluggish feeling. But hey, let them go for it if that is what they believe in. I'd sooner them than me.
Of course the start of agriculture 10,000 years BC (I am a former anthropologist and a bit of a Jared Diamond girl I'll have to admit... determinism aside) can be considered a refinement of the natural world. But if you don't realise there is a line between what is acceptable and what is not (in terms of our health and survival) and you think that washing a vegatable is comparable to eating pure sucrose, then... wow I sound like a broken record... but your poor digestive system! The reason people don't make a fuss about sugar is because it has all been a very gradual process. People have been evaporating water from sugar cane since before Christ (I'm sorry... since before that guy posed as the son of God and people went insane... does that help?
) and it all grew from there. But I think capitalism has led to food production becoming completely and utterly out of control. You can say that people get more cancer because we are living longer but a) why are some cancers, such as gut cancers, increasing exponentially (not exponentially -I exaggerate but you know what I mean) whereas others are more stable? and b) how does getting more Cancer because we are living longer mean that, suddenly, the causes and what we are exposed to, no longer matter?
Or maybe you're just so much smarter than everyone else we should just believe everything you say without question.
impose despotic governments on them, support middle eastern tyrants, invade countries for oil and strategic control and stir up all sorts of trouble... that and the misplaced young male desire to prove oneself and a need to avenge the death of a loved one and a million other reasons as well. But then you are making the classic layman (not scientist... I wouldn't award you that distinction) mistake of confusing religion with politics. Human nature is not caused by religion, it is reigned in my religion. It reigns in human appetities and as a character in Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby says, 'Subdue your appetites, my dears, and you’ve conquered human nature'. (well to an extent) And you forget the good that religion does, which is what I was talking about (I talk here as someone with decidedly atheistic tendencies by the way). How is the outside of that box seeming like now? Like half the picture? Because that is what it is. 
