Scientific Consensus on the verge of being bunk in Nutrition

TheonGreyJoy**

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
4,897
Reaction score
0
Edit as suggested...

TheonGreyJoy said:
the OP is about why a 'consensus' in science in a topic should never dissuade skeptics from challenging the prevailing views and how consensus' can be proved wrong after the fact as more and more data comes in.


It was about as near to a full consensus as science has seen and it was directly related to our health and well being.

Fats are bad and Saturated fats are evil and the enemy. You did not want to be a scientist on the other side of this debate.

In my personal experience in my first career job as a QA Manager for a major food Co, our focus based on the data being provided was to purge our foods and processes of saturated fats and foods like Coconut Oil which are now recognized as a Super food were replaced by oils like processed Canola and Soy which are now considered bad.



Healthy eating
The case for eating steak and cream

Why everything you heard about fat is wrong

7 foods that were supposed to be incredibly unhealthy — but are actually anything but

...

Case in point: The seven foods below are ancient. But they’ve gone from being considered healthy (long ago) to unhealthy (within the last generation or two) to healthy again, even essential.

1) Coconut Oil

Old wisdom: Coconut oil is a saturated-fat body bomb that should be avoided.

New wisdom: Coconut oil can cure what ails you.

Talk about an about-face. Anyone who grew up eating such nutritious fare as SpaghettiOs, Nestle Quik and Bisquick—actually, anyone old enough to vote in the United States—probably doesn’t remember a jar of coconut oil in the cupboard, or anywhere in the family diet.

Why? Coconut oil was stigmatized after flawed studies decades ago tested partially hydrogenated coconut oil for its ill effects. Now, of course, we know that the chemical process of hydrogenation is what does a body ill. That’s true whether the oil consumed is coconut, corn, canola, soy or any other.

...

2) Coffee

Old Wisdom: Coffee equals caffeine equals bad for you.

New Wisdom: Coffee is loaded with antioxidants and other nutrients that improve your health. Plus, a little caffeine makes the world go round.

Why? Actually, most of the world never bought into the whole caffeine/coffee scare that made so many Americans start to swear off coffee, or heaven help us, switch to decaf. But these days, the U.S., chock full of Starbucks, has come around. Several prominent studies conducted over the last few years unearthed a bounty of benefits in the average cup of joe. As everyone knows, caffeine boosts energy. Based on controlled human trials, it has also been proven to fire up the neurons and make you sharper, with improved memory, reaction time, mood, vigilance and general cognitive function. It can also boost your metabolism, lower your risk of Type II diabetes, protect you from Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, and lower the risk of Parkinson’s. Whew.

3) Whole Milk

Old wisdom: High-fat milk lead to obesity. Exposing children to lower-fat options keeps them leaner and healthier and instills the low-fat habit.

New Wisdom: Ha!

A study at Harvard University found that despite recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics that children drink skim or low-fat milk after age two, doing so did not make for leaner or healthier children. In fact, the study found the opposite. Kids who consumed skim milk were likely to be fatter than those who drank it whole. Turns out that skim drinkers were more likely to indulge in junk food, which spiked their blood sugar levels, leading to more cravings for junk. And so on and so on.

4) Salt

Old Wisdom: Salt kills. It raises blood pressures, causes hypertension and increases the risk of premature death.

New Wisdom: Salt is essential to health. Too little salt can actually lead to premature death.

The new wisdom is actually older than the old wisdom. Long before it became the number-one evildoer in the Department of Agriculture’s hit list, worse than fats, sugar and booze, salt was considered so valuable to body and soul that it was literally used as currency. Homer called it a “divine substance.” Plato described is as dear to the Gods. The Romans considered it the spice of life; a man in love was salax—in a salted state. Only fairly recently, in that oh-so-wise 20th century, did salt become the bad guy at the dinner table.

It turns out that high-sodium processed “food” is the real villain in our diets. Unrefined salt, such as Himalayan salt or raw sea salts, contain 60 or more valuable trace minerals. It supports thyroid function and a faster metabolism and speeds the elimination of cortisol, the stress hormone that causes weight gain. Did you know salt is also a natural antihistamine (a pinch on the tongue may stem an allergic reaction). Finally, unrefined salt is needed for good digestion.

5) Chocolate

Old Wisdom: Chocolate gives you pimples, makes you fat and creates heartburn.

New Wisdom: Dark chocolate is loaded with antioxidants.

Chocoholics of the world rejoiced when the food scientists started doing an about-face on chocolate. After a few decades on the vilified list, in 2001, scientists began doing a double take, with the New York Times reporting that the science on chocolate was up in the air. Ten years later, chocolate had moved squarely into the good-for-you column. A 2011 Cambridge University study concluded that chocolate “probably” lowers stroke rates, coronary heart disease and high blood pressure. A more recent study has found that regular chocolate consumers are often thinner than non-chocolate eaters.

No one is advising you to grab a Snickers bar for lunch, though. Eating chemically laden, sugar-bombed milk chocolate is still a no-no…for now, anyway.

6) Popcorn

Old Wisdom: Popcorn is junk food.

New Wisdom: Popcorn is a whole grain, loaded with nutrients.

Like most of the foods on this list, this one has caveats. If you consider popcorn something to douse with “butter-flavored topping” and shovel in your mouth at the multiplex, then keep it on the “bad” list. A study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest has concluded that movie theater popcorn—a medium tub, mind you—has 1,200 calories and 60 grams of the worst kind of saturated fat. And that’s before you add whatever it is that is supposed to taste like butter. That calorie count is the equivalent of three McDonald’s Quarter Pounders.

Microwave popcorn, laden with chemicals, is also bad. But homemade, air-popped (let’s add organic, for good measure) or made with good oil popcorn, well, that’s a snack of a different color. Last year, researchers at the University of Scranton revealed that homemade popcorn has more antioxidants—known as polyphenols—than fruits and vegetables. Polyphenols have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancers.

If that isn’t enough to make popcorn addicts rejoice, popcorn is a great source of fiber (it’s a whole grain) and is low in calories. Air-popped popcorn is the healthiest of all, with only 30 calories per cup.

7) Eggs

Old Wisdom: Eggs clog your arteries and increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes and early death.

New Wisdom: Nonsense! Eggs are very nearly the perfect food.

How did this one happen? A century ago, when our grandparents gathered their eggs from the backyard hens, there was no controversy. Then cholesterol became the big bugaboo, and all of a sudden, we were being lectured to limit our consumption of eggs to four a week, if any.

Last year, scientists decided to settle the matter once and for all. A meta-analysis of 17 studies on egg consumption and health discovered that eggs did not contribute—at all—to heart disease or stroke in healthy individuals. On the contrary, eggs raise our good (HDL) cholesterol numbers and change the bad (LDL) cholesterol from small and dense to large and benign. Eggs are also high in iron and protein and two antioxidants, lutein and zeaxanthine, which protect against age-related eye disorders like macular degeneration and cataracts.

The key is to eat eggs from free-range, happy and healthy chickens, just like in the old days, and avoid eggs that come from sickly, antibiotic-soaked, factory farm hens.


There is no bigger example of this as to why skepticism in science must not only be maintained but encouraged. If a consensus is formed and those outside the consensus are ridiculed and pressure tactics are used to try and force them to conform because THIS TIME WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE WE ARE RIGHT, no body benefits. We learn as much through challenging convention as we do in coming to conclusions.
 
Last edited:
I dont wanna talk to no scientist
 
I have no idea what the OP is about.

Most of the points OP brings up have been known about for years...nothing new at all and certainly no evidence whatsoever that "scientific consensus is on the verge of being bunk".

Your comments about salt are a bit misleading as well. Salt certainly is essential to a balanced diet, but too much of it can kill you - excess sodium is a massive, massive public health problem.
 
Is this 1990? None of this is news

But like all things, moderation is key. Too much of anything can kill you.
 
I have no idea what the OP is about.

Most of the points OP brings up have been known about for years...nothing new at all and certainly no evidence whatsoever that "scientific consensus is on the verge of being bunk".

so what if they have been known about for years. For decades prior the consensus in science was the opposite and yes it can take 'years' of data to break such strongly held views from past decades.

the OP is about why a 'consensus' in science in a topic should never dissuade skeptics from challenging the prevailing views and how consensus' can be proved wrong after the fact as more and more data comes in.
 
The thing about science is that they can change their views on things. It may take a while but if you present enough evidence they will change.

Nutrition is one of those areas where they are starting to make good progress on now. It's not perfect but they are trying.

Also, this nutrition evidence you have posted is actually old news.
 
Is this 1990? None of this is news

it is not about the specifics of the articles and the STILL emerging evidence to support the NEWER views.

it is about how something that was about a strong a scientific consensus from about the 1960's to 2000 has been slowly been torn apart and proved wrong in the last decade.

There is a view amongst many that if a consensus in science is achieved it equals fact and those skeptics in science who challenge that consensus need to be demonized and drummed out.

this huge turn shows exactly why that is not the case.
 
i feel like they change there minds on coffee every 3-5 years.
 
2 glasses a wine a day keeps spousal abuse away.
 
The thing about science is that they can change their views on things. It may take a while but if you present enough evidence they will change.

Nutrition is one of those areas where they are starting to make good progress on now. It's not perfect but they are trying.

Also, this nutrition evidence you have posted is actually old news.

yes, as long as skepticism is not demonized and discouraged to prevent other facts information being entered into the dialogue. As long as the scientists who pursue skepticism are not ostracized and punished.

And see my post above as this is not about the articles per se.
 
it is not about the specifics of the articles and the STILL emerging evidence to support the NEWER views.

it is about how something that was about a strong a scientific consensus from about the 1960's to 2000 has been slowly been torn apart and proved wrong in the last decade.

There is a view amongst many that if a consensus in science is achieved it equals fact and those skeptics in science who challenge that consensus need to be demonized and drummed out.

this huge turn shows exactly why that is not the case.

Things changed because skeptics provided a scientifically-testable response. People who are not providing scientifically sound arguments should get their shit together if they really want to make change.
 
the OP is about why a 'consensus' in science in a topic should never dissuade skeptics from challenging the prevailing views and how consensus' can be proved wrong after the fact as more and more data comes in.

You should cut and paste this as the very first thing in your OP...the thread will do better. It's fairly confusing as it stands.


Also, while I agree with you in principal, I really don't like encouraging people who are just "entitled to their opinion", even if that opinion runs opposite to everything the evidence and science tells them. Too many people think they are smarter than science and entitled to their opinion on issues that they are 100% empirically and demonstrably wrong about.
 
Things changed because skeptics provided a scientifically-testable response. People who are not providing scientifically sound arguments should get their shit together if they really want to make change.

And most important to your point is those scientists were not dissuaded from pursuing the science that disproved the consensus. If you demonize and try and make sure no scientists pursue counter type information you make it unlikely such 'scientifically-testable responses' will be found.

In the end the nut of my point is that scientist need to be left free or politics and coercion and skepticism must once again be welcomed into science since it was considered one of the corner stones of science prior to this modern era.

This thread is proof of why skepticism against the strongest consensus is a very good thing.
 
You should cut and paste this as the very first thing in your OP...the thread will do better. It's fairly confusing as it stands.


Also, while I agree with you in principal, I really don't like encouraging people who are just "entitled to their opinion", even if that opinion runs opposite to everything the evidence and science tells them. Too many people think they are smarter than science and entitled to their opinion on issues that they are 100% empirically and demonstrably wrong about.

Took your suggestion. thx.

And this goes well beyond individuals. In todays politicalized climate, scientists are dissuaded and demonized for being skeptics and can pay a high monetary cost.
 
And most important to your point is those scientists were not dissuaded from pursuing the science that disproved the consensus. If you demonize and try and make sure no scientists pursue counter type information you make it unlikely such 'scientifically-testable responses' will be found.

In the end the nut of my point is that scientist need to be left free or politics and coercion and skepticism must once again be welcomed into science since it was considered one of the corner stones of science prior to this modern era.

This thread is proof of why skepticism against the strongest consensus is a very good thing.

Scientific skeptics = deserve some room to speak. Non-scientific skeptics = deserve to get angry when people ignore them.
 
Can you provide some examples you take issue with?

I am trying to not make this thread about one hot button topic and trying to keep it on the topic of 'skepticism in science IN GENERAL' being a good thing.

So no, I do not want to give an example as I am pretty sure I will then end up trolling my own thread as it devolves into the same old topic.
 
I am trying to not make this thread about one hot button topic and trying to keep it on the topic of 'skepticism in science IN GENERAL' being a good thing.

So no, I do not want to give an example as I am pretty sure I will then end up trolling my own thread as it devolves into the same old topic.

You do know that if you prove a long standing theory in science wrong you become famous and are able to get more money be it grant money or from publishing books or what have you.

The thing about science is you need to be able to show proof and retest your theory. You can't just be a dude who says I don't believe you your wrong because of x. You need to present evidence why x proves the long standing theory wrong.
 
You do know that if you prove a long standing theory in science wrong you become famous and are able to get more money be it grant money or from publishing books or what have you.

The thing about science is you need to be able to show proof and retest your theory. You can't just be a dude who says I don't believe you your wrong because of x. You need to present evidence why x proves the long standing theory wrong.

yes, but again in this era of very politicized science it is not supported to be a skeptic.

If you are a scientist in the University supporting the prevailing theories your university can get massive grants and lots of gov't money. You can and will get your university cut off from that money if you are pursuing the opposite side.
 
Scientific 'studies' are paid for by people with agendas to push. Simple as that. You want to remove politics from mainstream science? Good fuckin' luck!

Just look at the global warming fiasco...
 
Back
Top