# 20 Mainstream Nutrition Myths that Most People Believe (Even though they've been Prov



## TATTRAT (Oct 17, 2014)

20 Mainstream Nutrition Myths that Most People Believe (Even though they've been Proved Wrong)


Pretty interesting read.


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 17, 2014)

I have some issues with the explanations given in support of the claims, some of which I've never heard before.


----------



## jennyema (Oct 17, 2014)

"There are even studies showing that eating too often can be harmful… a new study came out recently showing that more frequent meals dramatically increased liver and abdominal fat on a high calorie diet."

They needed a study to show that eating frequent high calorie meals makes you fat?


----------



## Steve Kroll (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't know what to believe anymore. As I mentioned on another thread, I was just diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. When I visited the dietitian, she gave me the play by play on what foods I should be eating, etc.

I then told her I had been pretty much following those exact guidelines for the last 8 years, and yet here I was in her office getting advice on how to treat my disease.

Her only comment was "Well then keep up the good work."


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 17, 2014)

I'm not fond of sites that hide who is behind them. I usually get my health and nutrition information from .gov or .edu sites.

From the About Us page: 


> Rick D
> 
> Rick is a founder at eatlocalgrown.com. He enjoys taking on near impossible pursuits. His beautiful wife of 25 years, his 3 three grown children (and his future grandchildren) provide the motivation required to keep throwing rocks at the big bad guys. In his spare time he enjoys being a dad, cooking, playing guitar, traveling, drinking good beer and hanging out with great friends.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 18, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> I don't know what to believe anymore. As I mentioned on another thread, I was just diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. When I visited the dietitian, she gave me the play by play on what foods I should be eating, etc.
> 
> I then told her I had been pretty much following those exact guidelines for the last 8 years, and yet here I was in her office getting advice on how to treat my disease.
> 
> Her only comment was "Well then keep up the good work."



My dietician was the Professor who taught my nutrition class.  I described a diabetic diet to her, we briefly discussed my food preferences and I haven't seen her since.  I know what to do, but obviously my body has betrayed me anyway.

Your dietician needs a class on effective listening...


----------



## creative (Oct 18, 2014)

Re.  _the “whole grain” label is a joke… these  grains have usually been pulverized into very fine flour, so they have  similar metabolic effects as refined grains...._this overlooks the benefit of whole grains, i.e consuming the bran and the wheatgerm, notably FIBRE!  

Where it concludes _the wheat most people are eating today is unhealthy. It is less  nutritious and may increase cholesterol levels and inflammatory markers...._this overlooks the link between consuming fibre and its beneficial effect on cholesterol.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Oct 20, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> 20 Mainstream Nutrition Myths that Most People Believe (Even though they've been Proved Wrong)
> Pretty interesting read.



Thanks.  I have proven the low carb approach works along with several others mentioned in the list.
It seemed I am on board with most every statement.  Kinda reinforced what i already believed to be true.



GotGarlic said:


> I'm not fond of sites that hide who is behind them. I usually get my health and nutrition information from .gov or .edu sites.
> From the About Us page:



I wouldn't trust the government to walk my dog, less tell me whats good or bad for me.
Even the education community is biased on several issues.


----------



## buckytom (Oct 20, 2014)

some decent info, but they lose me every time they say that if you're healthy it doesn't matter.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 21, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Thanks.  I have proven the low carb approach works along with several others mentioned in the list.
> It seemed I am on board with most every statement.  Kinda reinforced what i already believed to be true.
> 
> 
> ...



So who do you trust? Random people who have no training in medicine, nutrition, biochemistry or pharmacology but imagine they know better than researchers who have studied these topics for decades? People like Dr. Oz and "Dr." Mercola, who have an obvious interest in making money off of their "fans"? Oversimplified and sensationalized news reports of research studies? I'd really like to know what sources you used to decide what you believe.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Oct 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I'd really like to know what sources you used to decide what you believe.



You know, thats a damn good question.  I cannot pinpoint any particular source of knowledge that inspires me or teaches me anything.
I guess most of my reasoning and beliefs come from experience with a particular subject.
And if I have little experience with a subject, I guess I would agree that an informed source is the best bet. Like my doctor for example.
I don't always correlate government with knowledge or even common sense.
Maybe my parents?  Teachers?  People I admire?  
I guess those would be my main sources of information and where many of my beliefs come from.

I do my best to not listen or read national news either.  I watch my local news at 5:00 pm and ignore any other news until the next day a 5:00.
Places like this also seem to have good resources and nice people.  So you could say DC is a source of knowledge and that knowledge put into use becomes a belief.


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 22, 2014)

Over the years, so many of the "Truths" about healthful eating have been overturned that I now ignore them all.  I know to eat reasonable amounts of minimally processed foods on a regular basis.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 22, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I don't always correlate government with knowledge or even common sense.
> ...
> I do my best to not listen or read national news either.  I watch my local news at 5:00 pm and ignore any other news until the next day a 5:00.
> Places like this also seem to have good resources and nice people.  So you could say DC is a source of knowledge and that knowledge put into use becomes a belief.



"Government" isn't one big monolithic thing. Most of the people who work in government have nothing to do with elections or policies; they just do their jobs, year after year, like other people do their jobs. That includes teachers and scientists and air traffic controllers and police and firefighters and park rangers and on and on. 

Funny that you avoid national news and watch local news. I mostly stopped watching local news 15 or so years ago because it's nothing but death and destruction, shootings and fires and crime. I will watch the weather report and that's about it. 

However, I often watch the Today show in the morning and NBC Nightly News in the evening. Cable news is way too frantic for my liking. I only watch it if something major happens, like the shooting in Ottawa today. When I was on the board of the local League of Women Voters, reading a daily newspaper was one of the expectations of board members - so we would be informed on current events.

Nice people don't necessarily have the knowledge they seem to  Just because someone believes something strongly doesn't make it true.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 22, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> Just because someone believes something strongly doesn't make it true.



But, but...I clapped real hard and loud while watching Peter Pan...


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 22, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> But, but...I clapped real hard and loud while watching Peter Pan...



I'm so sorry, Wendy ... I mean Princess Fiona.


----------



## creative (Oct 22, 2014)

Believing something strongly CAN (potentially) make it come true/manifest ...it's in the area of creative manifestation/cosmic ordering i.e. in the realm of spirituality. Many have used it successfully to bring about their desires.


----------



## buckytom (Oct 22, 2014)

well said, creative.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

creative said:


> Believing something strongly CAN (potentially) make it come true/manifest ...it's in the area of creative manifestation/cosmic ordering i.e. in the realm of spirituality. Many have used it successfully to bring about their desires.



If you're assigning a fancy name to describing and working toward what you want out of life, then fine. However, no matter how much you want it, belief alone will not cure cancer or any other serious disease. Believing strongly in it will not make homeopathy work and it won't make acupuncture cure anything. People who have type 1 diabetes or cystic fibrosis or infertility are not going to overcome them by wishing for it. And of course, the corollary of that idea is that people are responsible for whatever bad things happen to them - they didn't believe strongly enough in a positive outcome. 

It's called magical thinking for a reason: http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

That site is full of interesting reading. 

http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html
http://skepdic.com/tilogic.html
http://skepdic.com/newthought.html


----------



## creative (Oct 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> If you're assigning a fancy name to describing and working toward what you want out of life, then fine. However, no matter how much you want it, belief alone will not cure cancer or any other serious disease. Believing strongly in it will not make homeopathy work and it won't make acupuncture cure anything. People who have type 1 diabetes or cystic fibrosis or infertility are not going to overcome them by wishing for it. And of course, the corollary of that idea is that people are responsible for whatever bad things happen to them - they didn't believe strongly enough in a positive outcome.
> 
> It's called magical thinking for a reason: magical thinking - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> ...


No it's not a fancy name for working towards something.  Clearly you are not familiar with this procedure.  I did use the word CAN (and in capital letters)....of course it's not a cure all but, as mentioned, many people have successfully used "the secret" to manifest their desires.  The book "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne was a bestseller and...not for nothing!   It is not some new fangled, hippy trippy idea either but has its roots going way back and employs the law of attraction which is a universal law.

Rather than being quick to diss it, I suggest you would do well to look into the many successful accounts of those that have benefited from this process.  It is real and empowering.

Not all manifestation exercises are fruitful and this may be due to a number of reasons, e.g. if people ask for what they _don't_ want, that is a negativity and is not "received".  Also we may get what we want rather than what we need. 

I take your point about the blame thing re. if bad things happen to us then it is our fault. Whilst I believe in causality (actions having consequences), this is a new age thinking that may be taking it a tad too far.  I have a genetic lung condition and was asked why would I wish to be born with that?!  






Sorry, I realise that this is vastly off topic now...perhaps I should have PM'd you on it but thought others might want to read about this issue too.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

Diet books have been huge best-sellers for decades, yet Americans get heavier and heavier. The desire of people to improve themselves doesn't prove that any particular method works. 

From http://skepdic.com/lawofattraction.html



> law of attraction
> 
> "The Secret" is like Amway for the soul.
> 
> ...


----------



## creative (Oct 23, 2014)

Here you will find many successful accounts of employing this ancient practise, i.e. not a new age thing at all - it just got repackaged for our times.

Secret Stories :: Official Web Site of The Secret


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

You'll notice that quote started with a quote from the Bible. I know this is an ancient idea. That's not relevant to the question of whether it works. Liars, cheaters, thieves and fakers of all kinds are ancient archetypes because they have been around for millennia as well. 

That's why the scientific method was developed - to prove or disprove a hypothesis by rigorous experimental design and testing and eliminating confirmation bias as much as possible. It's not perfect, since people aren't perfect, but it's much more accurate than believing something because it's been around for a long time.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

creative said:


> Here you will find many successful accounts of employing this ancient practise, i.e. not a new age thing at all - it just got repackaged for our times.
> 
> Secret Stories :: Official Web Site of The Secret



1. Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. It may provide a place to start looking for a hypothesis, but most of the people who write in support of something like that are self-selected. The ones who got nothing out of it will either blame themselves or just not bother to write in. And the author certainly isn't going to publish any complaints. 

2. Sites whose primary objective is to sell me something are not valid sources of information, imo.


----------



## creative (Oct 23, 2014)

Ah yes GG - I forgot about your heavy leaning towards science.  That explains a lot!

By the way, anecdotal evidence may not _prove_ anything to you (hard to get experiences wired up in a lab I think you will find) but may still have occurred, i.e. be real!   I am sure your life is full of anecdotes.....  Are you implying they are all accounts of pure fabrication?


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

creative said:


> Ah yes GG - I forgot about your heavy leaning towards science.  That explains a lot!
> 
> By the way, anecdotal evidence may not _prove_ anything to you (hard to get experiences wired up in a lab I think you will find) but may still have occurred, i.e. be real!   I am sure your life is full of anecdotes.....  Are you implying they are all accounts of pure fabrication?


I have a heavy leaning toward facts and logic. 

I didn't say anecdotes weren't experience, and I didn't say they were fabricated. You're now displaying the common logical fallacy called a straw-man argument - accusing me of saying things I didn't say in an attempt to strengthen your own position.

I said anecdotes don't prove the validity of a specific hypothesis and I explained why. Without knowing how many people tried something, how many succeeded, how many failed, and what else they were doing, you can't know that X worked for them. You can *believe* it. But you can't *know* it. 

If you knew that 1 million people bought that book and tried the procedure, and that 1,000 of them got what they wanted and wrote to her, would you feel confident in telling people that you know it works?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Oct 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> "Government" isn't one big monolithic thing. Most of the people who work in government have nothing to do with elections or policies; they just do their jobs, year after year, like other people do their jobs. That includes teachers and scientists and air traffic controllers and police and firefighters and park rangers and on and on.
> 
> Funny that you avoid national news and watch local news. I mostly stopped watching local news 15 or so years ago because it's nothing but death and destruction, shootings and fires and crime. I will watch the weather report and that's about it.
> 
> ...



Somewhere in all these written words, I would be willing to bet, we have common ground.
I can take a lesson from a professor or the guy on the corner with a beer in a bag.
Its not always the source. Its the quality of the information and the ability to put that information to use.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Somewhere in all these written words, I would be willing to bet, we have common ground.
> I can take a lesson from a professor or the guy on the corner with a beer in a bag.
> Its not always the source. Its the quality of the information and the ability to put that information to use.



Yes. When it comes to something like Ebola, I'll take the word of the director of the Centers for Disease Control before almost anyone else. Except maybe for the infectious-disease expert I know personally who works at the medical school where I used to work 

We all use shortcuts to decide which sources have the information quality we want, though. From what I learned working at a medical school with physician and scientist researchers, and dealing with a long-term chronic medical condition requiring interactions with many many health-care providers, I believe that most of them have people's best interests at heart. They want to cure, or if that's not possible, improve quality of life, for their patients, and researchers want to help cure disease. Many of them have a personal reason for doing what they do - a family history or some other specific motivation. The people you read about who lie and cheat are outliers, imo.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 23, 2014)

Who are you going to believe?

Those who want to sell you the truth?

or

Those who want to tell you the truth?


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 23, 2014)

PF, thank you for summing up my wordiness so succinctly


----------



## CharlieD (Oct 23, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> I don't know what to believe anymore. As I mentioned on another thread, I was just diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. When I visited the dietitian, she gave me the play by play on what foods I should be eating, etc.
> 
> I then told her I had been pretty much following those exact guidelines for the last 8 years, and yet here I was in her office getting advice on how to treat my disease.
> 
> Her only comment was "Well then keep up the good work."



I have the same problem and the Same story here with the nutritionist. I can maybe understand cholesterol problem, but sugar i just don't get it.


----------



## creative (Oct 23, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I have a heavy leaning toward facts and logic.
> 
> I didn't say anecdotes weren't experience, and I didn't say they were fabricated. You're now displaying the common logical fallacy called a straw-man argument - accusing me of saying things I didn't say in an attempt to strengthen your own position.


Not at all GG...it is yourself that is falsely interpreting that apparently I am accusing you of saying things.  If you read my post more carefully you will see that I was asking you a question and asking you if you were _implying_... 

Never mind - it is abundantly clear that you are far from receptive to this issue.  Not _everything_ is amenable to scientific testing yet still exists. For instance, science can merely reduce love to chemicals.  A poor analysis for this vast, wonderful experience wouldn't you say?


----------



## Addie (Oct 23, 2014)

And I know where  you can buy a pair of Copper socks. The Copper bracelet didn't work, so lets try this. Maybe if we wish hard enough?


----------



## creative (Oct 23, 2014)

Copper works effectively on some but not others it seems. (Senses a major bashing of alternative health coming up).


----------



## Silversage (Oct 23, 2014)

Wow! Has this thread taken a turn to the kooky!


----------



## creative (Oct 24, 2014)

Silversage said:


> Wow! Has this thread taken a turn to the kooky!


Yes.  Apologies to TATTRAT.  Perhaps the mods could edit it?


----------



## Addie (Oct 24, 2014)

creative said:


> Copper works effectively on some but not others it seems. (Senses a major bashing of alternative health coming up).



You will never get a bashing from me. And if I feel inclined to say something to you, I will always do it privately.


----------



## Addie (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't need studies to tell me  how to eat. Common sense is what leads me. When I leave that behind, I get into trouble. 

When I get into trouble, I don't feel very good. Physically and emotionally. I know I screwed up with my diet.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 24, 2014)

creative said:


> Not at all GG...it is yourself that is falsely interpreting that apparently I am accusing you of saying things.  If you read my post more carefully you will see that I was asking you a question and asking you if you were _implying_...
> 
> Never mind - it is abundantly clear that you are far from receptive to this issue.  Not _everything_ is amenable to scientific testing yet still exists. For instance, science can merely reduce love to chemicals.  A poor analysis for this vast, wonderful experience wouldn't you say?



You can characterize it however you want, but it's pretty clear that the intent of your question was to disparage my earlier statements; you were not seriously asking for clarification. That doesn't advance your argument at all, which in any case consists of a series of logical fallacies. 

I'm open to new ideas and ways of doing things, but I don't start believing things that have no rational basis just because it's been around a long time, someone has sold a lot of books about it and some people think it worked for them. 

P.S. I guess you haven't heard about the amazing things they're doing with MRI scans these days. The reason for pursuing this kind of understanding is to help people suffering from clinical depression to experience love again. A worthy goal, wouldn't you say? 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-in-love-graphsci/


----------



## creative (Oct 24, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I'm open to new ideas and ways of doing things, but I don't start believing things that have no rational basis just because it's been around a long time, someone has sold a lot of books about it and some people think it worked for them.
> 
> P.S. I guess you haven't heard about the amazing things they're doing with MRI scans these days. The reason for pursuing this kind of understanding is to help people suffering from clinical depression to experience love again. A worthy goal, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Your Brain in Love - Scientific American


Well lots of things have no rational basis, e.g. love...so do you not believe in this?

Your link left me cold...yes the areas of the brain can be pinpointed for precise emotions and yet they do not _define/describe_ the *experience* of love _which was my point_.  If someone said they had a wonderful steak and chips...to recognise that this is composed of complete amino acids and carbohydrates misses the mark.

Limitations of Science


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't agree that love has no rational basis and I'm aware that science has limitations. We have art to define the experience of love  

I think we've talked this out enough. I always appreciate the opportunity to try to understand better the thought process of people who disagree with me, so thank you for that.


----------



## TATTRAT (Oct 24, 2014)

creative said:


> Yes.  Apologies to TATTRAT.  Perhaps the mods could edit it?



No apologies needed. I'm glad it sparked some conversation.


----------

