It seems like nutrition studies contradict a lot, and it's practically impossible to get a straight answer on whether a given food or …
source
It seems like nutrition studies contradict a lot, and it's practically impossible to get a straight answer on whether a given food or …
source
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
44 comments
Why aren’t they just using real
Raspberries? The format is flawed just by that.
One word: “Money.”
The title is misleading because, as the actual video explains, the studies do not "keep contradicting each other".
6:00 The first thing to ask is who paid to the scientists.
You missed the spot, the company that pays for the study will make them confirm their convenient conclusion. Like tobacco companies paying to doctors.
Scishow is frequently naive about liberal capitalism effects on science and inequailty.
Trying to keep it outside political discussion you are missing a big part of the story.
Not to mention, scientists will fudge data to make it look more interesting, meaning they will get published in a journal. Read the book rigor mortis. I guess in a lot of cases, science is not an "exact" science. We have to be skeptical of research studies.
I forget where I read about this many years ago, but these "research" studies also require the researchers to document, write up stuff, the more the better, to get grants and funding. Some enterprising writer, whether newspaper or magazine, reads these and then writes up their take on the "results" for us, the general population. News programs also latch onto these and report them, some making a big deal about them, so people are lured into these "magical" dietary issues – "studies say", OH, must be good for me! On top of that, MFGs will jump on this bandwagon and MARKET their products promoting these same "results". As noted in this video, test results don't really say much of anything, other than the tests, as DESIGNED, maybe show some result, often on animals and/or with lack of real controls, as they ARE just research. These are not tests like drug tests where there are many controls and prior testing results. But given how they are presented to the lay person, it can be deceiving, so stick to NORMAL foods.
I do remember over the years all those GOOD vs BAD… Salt, eggs, coffee, and so forth. One day BAD for you, the next day or week or later, they are not so bad or even GOOD! The best we can do is ignore these "reports" and stick to more natural foods, stuff that hasn't been "processed." Fruits, vegs, some grains, some meat and prepare them yourself so you know what's in it. One suggestion seen long ago was to shop mostly the outer areas of the grocery store – most of the stuff in the interior are your processed foods – ingredient labels that look like science experiments likely are! Think those granola bars are good for you? Nope. Processed sugary snacks – make your own. The reason these items can be stored so long is due to the nasty ingredients/process that increases their shelf life. Tasty maybe, but NFG for you.
Whether a food is "good for you" or "bad for you" is a matter of personal opinion.
"Good nutrition" IS a matter of opinion because it is literally what you think and feel based on what you eat.
I can read one thing one place, and then read the exact opposite another place🤣
"I mean, you can't both drink and not drink alcohol at the same time."
Quantum Physics: "Are you sure about that?"
They study blood pressure in rats and I can't get the image of a teeny tiny blood pressure cuff out of my head
With the berries thing. I recently heard that when you blend fruit it changes the molecular composition and it's different than masticating a whole raspberry.
Empiricism ruined science
Scientism ruined science
This is interesting
Quantum nutrition should work. Drink and not drink red wine. Consume and don't consume turmeric. Etc etc.
Has a study ever been done on who funds these studies, and why?
Because science is used as propaganda, that's why. It's used to fool stupid people. This is the reason Coca-Cola has those little stickers on ther soda machines that say "balance what you drink and do." They want people to think that the calories in sugar are just calories and have no metabolic effect on you hunger, and that you can just exercise it off.
The reality is that food companies really understand that sugar makes people eat more. That's why they put high fructose corn syrup in just about all processed foods, because it spikes sales. These corporations push studies as propaganda so people won't understand what they are doing to their health by eating so much sugar and processed foods.
After a while it all turns into white noise. I don’t really care anymore.
Just eat as many calories as possible. That is proven to be healthy.
Always interesting, thank you.
Our Natural Diet is one that is:
1. Appealing to the eyes. 👀
2. Fragrant to the nose. 👃
3. Delicious to the taste. 👅
4. Easily acquired. 🖐
5. Can be eaten AS IS. 🍎
If any nutritional study clearly indicated something we didn't know then most Doctors would tell you about it.
All is in the mind, everything else is "almost" pointless
What's good for you? Moderation. Having a burger once in a while isn't going to hurt you. Or a glass of wine. Or a bowl of ice cream. What's bad for you is only what you have too much of. Hell, if you live on a diet of only bananas, eventually you're gonna have problems like definicienies in some vitamins and too much of others. But no one would argue that having a banana for breakfast is "bad" for you.
I just watched a 45 minute video on this from “what I learned today” and if you don’t get it from this video, to sum it up,
A: they do studies on rats which are a lot different from humans
B: the rats themselves are not very diverse, think about if they ONLY did studies for a golden retriever and recommended it for all dog breeds
And lastly, certain compounds in a food or drink may help with say, heart disease but that doesn’t mean the food or drink itself, with the red wine example there’s compounds in it that helped heart disease in rodents but for humans you’d have to drink somewhere around 1000 bottles of red wine, so no, a glass of red wine isn’t gonna make your heart healthier, just like there’s no clinical evidence salt causes high blood pressure, it did in rodents when the person testing them used a special breed of salt sensitive rodents and then gave the rodents a baby food, and then said salt causes high blood pressure, think about that for a second
The problem is that most food scientists do not understand statistics well enough to carry out robust analysis. In engineering, you frequently have to identify a major cause of an observed result-this becomes complicated when you have confounding factors. This is called "the hunt for the red X". It takes many experiments to do this, and good controls. Remember in the 1970s coffee was said to cause heart disease and cancer? These erroneous results scared a lot of people and were the result of sloppy experiments and poor data analysis. Now coffee is thought to protect against both maladies! A lot of nutrition studies are therefore worthless unless confirmed by multiple studies in different labs.
Another problem: there is lots of industry money behind food studies. If the goal of your study is to find "benefits" of the sponsor's product, you are going wrong right from the start of your investigation, because even if we ignore the whole "how am I going to continue my relationship with the sponsor?" issue, the question that's being asked is ITSELF already biased. A neutral version of the same question would be "What are the effects of consuming this product?" Then, you leave open the possibility of finding positive or negative results, which you can then publish no matter where the chips fall. When you ask what the benefits are, you only look for, find, and publish benefits (like how when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail). What you should instead be doing is looking for the most SALIENT effects of the product, whether they be good, bad, or neutral.
Could be that the expectations of the scientists observing their experiments is a major factor in the outcomes ? ( see double slit experiment )
I watch this video 5 times a day.
There are plenty of bad science research sponsored by the food industry to promote foods
Depends on which food producer financed the study
Does not have good results im low weight but way too much body fat
Anyone else from india and loving this?
I enjoyed the content! I've been trying to look for a vid similar to yours that really explains everything in this vid. 🧑⚕️ 🩺Your breakdown totally is like the videos of Dr. Ethan. Doctor's demonstrations are totally insightful and I actually learned a lot for wellness! He is an educational health enthusiast in Europe and he talks about diseases and health symptoms.
Go see his YT out and give the med student a subscribe here! ➡️ #DrEthanTips
This is really smart! I have been trying to look for a vid similar to yours that explains the ideas in this YouTube vid! 🥼 🩺Your tip actually is like the videos of Doctor Ethan. Dr Ethan's explanations are informative and I really learned a lot for my exams. He is an insightful Dr in Nottingham and he explains health and vaccines!
Go check his YT out and give the Dr a like! 👉 #DrEthanYouTube
Hello! This vid is so instructional! I have been trying to look for a video similar to yours that teaches the ideas in this YouTube video! 🩺 🧑⚕️Your video reminds me of the videos from Dr Ethan! Ethan's videos are insightful and he helped me a lot on diet! He is a new Dr in Nottingham.
I recommend you check his page out and give the doc a like over here! 👉 #DrEthanEducational
I did a masters in nutritional sciences looking at the cancer protective effects of the omega-3 linolenic acid and phytoestrogen lignans in flaxseed on an animal model. Later on, because of seeing the relatively unpronounced effects of virtually all food component (requiring supraphysiological doses to see a statistically-observable effect), I switched my PhD studies to pharmacological research. Right, the uncertainty in scientific research is always there and the major problem with most nutrition studies is: While observational studies may identify an association (not causation) of a food constituent (present in matrix with others) and a certain health risk, the nature of a controlled clinical trials always requires a specific food constituent be isolated and tested as a fairly purified form that won't occur in nature. This 'unnatural' approach adopting a pharmacological method negates the synergistic/additive effects of a food constituent that must work in concert with other accompanied constituents.
Are studies really the only way to find out what's good for the body? Isn't analyzing how the body works a better way to find out what's the best fueling?
Respected people look at my results very simple facts, if a zebra using nature’s power can stay healthy why can’t we. I have tested nature’s power for 3 years no medicine just educated bacteria.
I follow the Apollo rule of thumb – all things in moderation. Ofc, there's stuff that I just don't like, so I generally avoid that stuff.
Here's how to avoid cancer, a 2 step process:
1. smoke so much that the tumor in your lungs suffocates to death.
2. eat at least 300 bananas a day for inexpensive radiation therapy from poatssium-40
optional: dissolve your drugs in alcohol prior to consuming to sterilize them
3:57 I had a big glass of some kind of expensive wine at a restaurant in Florence, Italy. The waitress told me it was good for me, I should have known she was lying and just wanted me to buy a $30 glass of wine lol I was going to buy it anyway, because how often does an American get to drink wine in Italy, but still… she and I are now sworn enemies.
I am curious to know what other factors the researchers took into account in the 'alcohol might be good for you studies'.
My first thought is that it might be that the alcohol might not be the causation at all. My thinking is that if the people in the study are drinking alcohol when they, for example, stop at a bar with friends before heading home from work, or, for example, if they are drinking alcohol when they have friends over for dinner, etc., then the positive health effects might well be derived not from the alcohol but rather from having positive social connections. We know that these social connections are good for both our physical and psychological health. So, if alcohol is the tool that prompts people to gather with their friends, or is brought out because people are with their friends then it is not the cause, or even the correlation with, positive health benefits. Rather, the social interaction would be what is bringing about these health benefits.
I am curious is the researchers checked the context in which people are drinking the alcohol. To me, it seems really important to know this information and then compare the lone drinkers with the social ones. Or, to maybe look at studies where people gather socially and drink nonalcoholic beverages and see if any of the same health benefits show up in these groups.
It is a shame that so many life scientists are afraid to investigate research from the social sciences. A multi-disciplinary approach would really help health research as a whole.