Why Nutrition Studies Keep Contradicting Each Other
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 апр 2018
- It seems like nutrition studies contradict a lot, and it’s practically impossible to get a straight answer on whether a given food or supplement is good for you. But why?
Hosted by: Olivia Gordon
Head to scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe!
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Jerry Perez, Lazarus G, Kelly Landrum Jones, Sam Lutfi, Kevin Knupp, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, alexander wadsworth, سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Bader AlGhamdi, James Harshaw, Patrick D. Ashmore, Candy, Tim Curwick, charles george, Saul, Mark Terrio-Cameron, Viraansh Bhanushali, Kevin Bealer, Philippe von Bergen, Chris Peters, Justin Lentz
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
www.vox.com/2016/1/14/1076062...
www.vox.com/2015/1/5/7482871/...
fivethirtyeight.com/features/y...
www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
academic.oup.com/advances/art...
academic.oup.com/advances/art...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.washingtonpost.com/nation...
link.springer.com/article/10....
academic.oup.com/alcalc/artic...
content.iospress.com/articles...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Image Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resvera...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-Ca...
This is why, in general, science is not based on the outcome of just a single experiment or a single study.
Captain, really? I am a scientist, nobody ever wanted to pay me :-(
p hacking ... ALL THE TIME!!
Too true. Too bad the public at large is constantly being told otherwise with articles having headlines saying, "Science says X!" with the article itself stating that "one study had Y outcome, which means there's no debating that X is true!"
especially medical, biological science. not as "hard" as chemistry or physics.
I personally would add: There are imperfect comparisons; Not all studies are the same and there are different study/research methods that are done; Not all subjects and styles of study are the same; The goal of the study isn't directly for a singular idea but for a greater purpose.
“You can’t drink alcohol and not drink alcohol at the same time.”
Hold my beer!
You just have to put me in the box with the alcohol and not observe me.
You can inhale alcohol, does that count?
Wouter Cloetens lollll
underrated
Schrodinger's alcoholism
Thank you SciShow team. As an aspirant nutitionist this was REALLY helpful. It's so hard to explain why there's not always a easy or clear answer to questions about health and food. Now I can show this as an example.
Hey Mary;) Been there, never stopped studying since... May I also contribute to your growth by saying that nutritional facts are NEVER LINEAR alone... Sentences that offer good advice go like this..
If you have a X type micro-biological group currently favouring Y will use nutrient A to create all nutrient B and C but only in candidates that have type X... How to get a Type X micro biome involves.... it's never easy like 'Eat this, you'll be sweet'.... hope that kinda helps you sort the 'people you shouldn't listen to from those you should';)
Thank you Olivia Gordon, you have come a long way. Great work.
If I do that 23 & me, Will they be able to give me information about what will or wont work for me?
Mary Iula as a result, nutritionists simply can’t help people to eat healthy in general.
+Mary lula
Which is often the reason I am greatly skeptical of anyone who says there are easy and clear answers with nutrition.
A bonus data point for you is looking at who is funding the study. Most studies funded by the food industry find positive effects and most studies founded by other sources are finding the opposite.
Shadowstray It might be that the negative ones the food industry finds are discarded.
This seems plausible, but do you have a source?
@@mvmlego1212 See also, the sugar industry paying researchers to convince everyone that fat is the villain.
@@alexandramaclachlan7597 -- Just as plausibly, it's the dietary oil industry paying money to make sugar look like the villain. Once again: citations, please.
I read an article about the health benefits of pears.
It sounded scientific at first, but it was clear it wasn't... pear reviewed.
Master Therion The puns.
Master Therion yeah apPEARently not
HAH
Then this article should just dis-a-peer
Peer*
When I was a kid I went to the doctor and the dentist in the same week, I was very confused when one told me orange juice was fantastic and the other told me orange juice is terrible
Juice in most stores is pasteurized
This means they boiled it at 300 degrees.......
It's safe to drink after that.....but it's 60% sugar with no enzymes which aid digestion in many small ways
Drink it as a nice beverage but most juice will burn the body from acidity while lacking major benefits bacteria provide
Mix that with highly acidic OJ
And you get problems
Juice is sugar. Fruit is as well but whole it at least has some fiber. Still I avoid most of it. Doctors aren't trained well in nutrition & wrongly think fruits are good in general. Dentists want you to avoid all or at least most sugar because of it's negative effect on your teeth.
They add so much sugar to fruit juices in the US. Eating an orange will be far healthier for you and your teeth than drinking orange juice. That said, I have several cartons of orange juice in my fridge as we speak which will have vodka added to it later tonight for the VP debate. Basically, the orange juice forces me to slow down the vodka intake. There's no way I can watch political debates without some kind of alcohol. So in that way, we can say that political debates are bad for my health - both my teeth and my liver.
@Mou khles. Carnivores are generally not as carnivorous as they think they are. They all add seasonings and eat/drink things made from plants - including sauces. I personally prefer the Hindu/Buddhist diet as that makes more sense to me than the vegan diet. Plus, it allows me to eat cheese. Not that I actually follow it, I just think it makes more sense.
But I also grew up farm adjacent (grandparents were farmers and went to a lot of farm expos as a kid), so I'm aware that farm animals _usually_ aren't harmed in the process of producing products like milk, nonfertilized eggs (if there's no rooster present, there's no chance that egg will be fertilized), honey, etc... Ofc there are always farmers out there that are abusive towards their animals, but in my experience those tend to be big corporate farms, not family farm operations like I'm familiar with.
Domesticated farm animals have been bred to produce these products (and yes, that also includes honey bees, although that's on a lesser scale than say, cows) almost continuously. Jungle Fowl (wild ancestors of chickens) don't regularly lay eggs if they haven't mated - that would be a waste of resources for the animal. Humans have selectively bred that trait into chickens. Same thing with many milk cow breeds (as opposed to beef cow breeds) - they produce much more milk than their calf actually drinks and keep producing milk much longer, plus the calves are generally weaned earlier on than non-milk breeds.
I'm old enough to remember several changes in official medical "wisdom": Margarine being healthier than butter until it was "decided" it wasn't. Coffee, chocolate bad for us, then not so bad. Red wine, as shown here. I now eat cautiously but without absolute policies. Better to stay sane and die a few months sooner than to agonize (unhealthy) over diet, methinks. I'm 78.
0:33 Schrödinger's wine?
I had an argument about the " 'good for you' is too broad" thing with my mom, except for us it was 'healthy'. She wanted her diet to be 'healthier' but the term is so unspecific that we couldn't even agree on where to start.
Just don't eat. Problem solved.
Or drink
Or breathe, that’s the most important
Or eat in moderation.
just nut on the belly
Exactly, kids in africa dont have all those problems
I get the impression that this is more a video on methodology, critical thinking and science media coverage WITHIN the context of nutrition than a video on good nutritional guidelines. I guess that’s exactly what we need right now. Thanks for the good video.
sigh, if all of y'all would just follow my extra protein meal plan we wouldn't have all this confusion
I'm sorry Hank Papi
Found Muscle Hank
You haven't given us the plan yet.
..
Muscle hank comin at ya with more wisdom.
The wisdom from Muscle Hank keeps me going💪
"Wash your hands to prevent sickness" "Don't wash hands or your immune system weakens"
seasong
The answer is moderation.
wut? I've never heard anyone say that.
Find the right balance.
Sadly studies can't do it for you, everyone is different and we can't even say which behavior is the most important. :c we suck in science
That has to do with antibacterial soaps since the compound used in them is a little too strong and will kill all your good bacteria as well bad if used too much. I'm pretty sure in they only use that in hospitals and other places where you would actually need that strength. For the rest of us, regular old hand soap is just fine for keeping clean and it won't destroy your natural bacteria.
I'm pretty sure it was another SciShow episode where I learned that ironically. (Feel free to correct me, its been a few months)
Your immune system only evolve and gets stronger by fighting off disease. Mild and non-life threatening diseases/bacteria should be welcomed.
If you want to do your kids a favour on the long run, let them eat dirt and get colds/flus. Then when a future life threatening disease evolves, they might already have antibodies for it.
Stop using all the hand sanetizer etc, if you are not a high risk individual or in dangerous environments. It will only do you and your family harm on the long run.
These nutritional reports have lost all of their credibility a long time ago. Even if it was a decent appearing study, by the time the Buzzfeed-ish sites gets ahold of it, there's no way it'll still appear credible. Good information, Olivia.
Why did the tomato blush? It saw the salad dressing.
I though it was because it saw Green pea against the wall.
Baby dum, crash. That was a text rim shot!
Lol
THIS is what needs to be taught in schools
Really, there are four things that have plenty evidence and are good for you:
1) Don´t be obese
2) Excercise, sport or any kind of workout
3) Friendship, social life, social contact
4) Don't smoke
the problem is that no one makes money saying this, so they need to obscure the truth and sell you a supplement, service or an addictive substance that will make you into a recurring customer.
I'd add go outside for some fresh air as well.
Friendship??lol. Come on, use your brain. How could they possibly predict that? How many people with a. "social life" drink more or suffer negative effects due to those friendships? People have been killed by their friends. The right friends with the right values can be healthy, no friends can be healthy.lol. It's just silly. If we all just observed ourselves and our lives and bodies then we would be able to know what is good for us and what is bad.
Sometimes I feel like I learn more from SciShow than in school.
That was a great point you made in this video about the definition of "good for you" it's the same as the whole "clean eating" idea that became big a couple years ago in some circles until people realised that the definition of eating clean is so vague it's essentially a meaningless term! Great video as always!
Great! Cheers for this video.
Lets be honest here though. Most of this is on media and how news outlets report on science.
The actual science is almost always fairly clear about its results. Documenting everything meticulously. Accuracy, caveats, method used. Its all documented so other researchers can duplicate the findings.
But all that doesn't make for a good story...
I think this applies to a small set of empirical studies; frequently studies report methodology, "results", and discussion, but "results" are a highly abridged and filtered form of the data - in part this is for practical purposes, as one can't publish hundreds of pages of data, or data might contain sensitive information that needs to be filtered, and in part this is because one has a narrative to tell and wants to get published.
And that's just empirical studies - literature reviews and essays are numerous and don't necessarily need to report even as much, and they can *absolutely* guide what is being researched in a given field.
*And* yes, often methods are thorough enough to replicate an empirical study, but that does not mean that someone has the incentive or resources to replicate that study...
I agree whole-heartedly that the standards of scientific reporting in media are considerably less cautious about how they present findings than in journals, but as someone in academia I would argue that science reporting in journals is not at the standard you suggest here.
Apologies for lack of citations. ;)
Seriously, though, I feel like it would not be good form to start publicly throwing around examples of studies which *I* think miss the mark painted above. :/
NWRIBronco6 Yep. Top journals are not the holy grail people make them out to be, and there's been a reckoning over the past few years in the scientific community concerning the lack of reproducibility of some of the most major studies. I think that's a message people need to hear more often, in addition to the very valid points SciShow talks about about here, to put scientific reporting into context.
Sometimes they make super shocking news with interpretations of studies that had only few people ( sometimes as little as 10 ) examined.
+Luis I'm pretty sure that HealthcareTriage did a video about this very topic not too long ago (might have been SciShow or one of the subchannels - it all blurs together after a point).
I also can't stress enough that the OP's point is super valid, and that often general reporting falls prey to sensationalism - or at least the stuff you hear about! ;)
I simply wanted to highlight that often people conflate publication in a journal with rigor (this is *not* what the OP did, to be clear), and that as with all systems it's a bit more complicated than that. :S
Another important thing to look at is who funded the study.
Fantastic video that hundreds of thousands or millions should watch. The “scientific studies always contradict each other” line is becoming a trope on both local and national news.
A well reasoned and explained dialogue. This is the best explanation I have ever seen about why no-one should knee-jerk a response to every "studies have found" announcement. Very well done!
" beer may be healthy for you"
wisconsin: *heavy breathing*
"Makes you less likely to die from X" isn't saying "makes you less likely to die" unless it is also stipulated that "makes you more likely to die from W, Y, or Z" is not true.
Which is to say, did the alcohol kill them before the heart problems would have?
I like how the thumbnail begins to answer the title's question
Dang, this was a super good episode and really helped give me a better perspective on the science of nutrition in general. Thanks for helping to cut through the misconceptions of science in the media :)
Some studies are pushed through to keep funding or make a quick buck and are often cherry picked data or concluded after one or two tests. we also under fund them and make it not as profitable to study something someone else already did to check for changes or errors
steveXracer what are you talking about?
steveXracer oh i got you lol
@steveXracer u need to see the grade of the research material. Most research material conducted are grade C.Done under short period of time,limited resources and controlled variables.
These studies mostly also are purely biological and dont include factors like mental health, which is a key focus point when talking about alcohol. For people who do not show signs of addiction having a drink from time to time helps them relax, refocus and act healthier in other parts of their life. So some people may consume more alcohol, but because it helps them relax on the weekends, maybe they do more workout during the week and eat healthier. If you only compare the stats of 'alcohol consumed' and someone like that is in your control-group it may distorte the entire results of the study. When I stopped drinking alcohol for 6 months I gained weight and was overall less happy. When I started drinking again I was happier, which led to me caring more about my health and eating better and doing more things like taking a walk through the forest. So maybe biologically alcohol is bad for me, but because of the effect on my mental state it caused me to be an overall more healthy person.
Where has been your channel this whole time? Glad to have found you!
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.
You could do another episode on how the media portrays (misunderstands) experimental results in the interest of attracting attention. And you could cover near starvation diets, which seem to be good for your health if not for your happiness.
Nutrition and the study thereof is, sensibly enough, about as complex as the chemical architecture of the human body. Diet studies give weird and confusing (to the layman) results because the human body is an incredibly complex system. We'll know exactly what is healthy to eat and how and how much by about 10 minutes after we have finished discovering every detail about how every chemical reaction in every possible human body takes place. In the meantime, all we have are heuristics like "I ate that stuff and my body weight remained stable and I felt good, so I'll keep it up."
Studies once showed that you're damned if you do.
Then meta-analysis later indicated that you're damned if you don't.
But new data is convincing scientists that the damnation cannot be avoided, nor sugar-coated.
"I mean, you can't both drink and not drink alcohol at the same time."
Quantum Physics: "Are you sure about that?"
Define..."heavy" drinking..
Just live your life with common sense and don’t stress over minuscule impacts. Regardless of any study I’m going to live my life how I choose. I watch my weight, pay attention to what I eat, and I exercise because I care more about how I FEEL than what some study says might take 1% of the end of my life away.
What exactly IS common sense?
@@cassieoz1702 mood
This is the best video on this pet peeve of mine I have ever seen. Thanks for this.
Thanks for the video! Great job!!
"You can't both drink and not drink alcohol at the same time." Meet the new brew "Schroedinger" where you can both have your drink and not have it at the same time.
This was really helpful
This truly enlightened me, is like what happened when we were thinking on how to help my uncle with terminal cancer. Some stuff was good for one thing but bad for the kidney disease & antioxidants are worse if you already have cancer... Was horrible & sad & then you understand why is so hard to cure .
Cool! I'm really liking the question format.
Generally, wine is more expensive than beer, so i wonder if the studies have taken into account that the wine drinkers can possibly be richer on average than the beer drinkers and so are more likely to eat better and have higher education, etc, which is in that case the bigger factor in health effects + alcohol
That's a good point. Another reason I'm skeptical of the validity of the conclusion that mild alcohol consumption is healthy is that there's a huge assortment of compounds in beer and (to a lesser extent) wine. I wouldn't be surprised if they contain separate compounds that each have the same effect. Or, as a hybrid theory, only beer contains the healthy compound, and wine drinkers are healthy for the reason you mentioned.
“apples to oranges”
That phrase don’t make no sense; why can’t fruit be compared?
How about "Apples to orangutans"?
They can't be compared in a way the average person would believe; if you were to walk into a grocery store and see an apple and then an orangutan, most people would say they're two different things that cannot be compared in a quick and easy manner. That is my guess on why that saying exist. True that most life shares quite a bit of DNA even though they look very different so they can be compared by DNA and some related traits.
Although my main concern is why there is an orangutan in a grocery store.
You can't compare apples to oranges coz then the parameters of comparison would not be the same.
You can www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+%2B+orange
David Stinnett theres just all of these conflicting principles
Always interesting, thank you.
This is a very good video! Thank you, it makes my day :)
This science isn't nearly as messy as the science that established radiation & anaesthetics.
Thank you for explaining nutrition studies for the broad public :) /nutrition science student
Why so many negatives? The presentation was on point, concise, and simple to understand by the general population.
you seem to cover every question one can have about our world, and thank you for that!
the only question i have and cannot really google (i tried researching, but no results) is WHY it became so trendy to YOLO, live a moment, becoming one with the universe, etc.
I mean, it's a very fine concept but it became so mainstream these days! where are the roots of it? what's the story?
I'm in the middle of writing my final health and fitness report. I clicked on this to hear you say what i wish i could scream at my class during the presentation
This lady moves her hands around a lot when she talks xD
About the study on alcohol and cardiovascular issues: ascorbic acid is commonly used in good quantities to brew at least wine, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, it is also used in beer, but more rarely. People speak about its usage on the internet, anyway. And it is a vital component of the maintenance of cardiovascular tissues, and most people are quite deprived of the stuff. But well, I'm just a random viewer with no diploma, so…
although i normally dont like "common sense", the old nutrition rule still holds: eat a great variety of things, dont exaggerate
Life is the leading cause of death.
It's a fact
Yep
Quantum Wine, the super position of wine and grape juice
I really like how this video dealt with the problem of interpreting science and scientific consensus as part of the scientific process. It's often missing, but is a necessary part of "There was this one study..." type of arguments. One study is often specific and says very little, even putting aside all the intricacies and implications of an experiment's design.
Edible mustard oil is banned in EU and USA for consumption,but we consume on daily basis in India and other south Asian countries
I'm just here for muscle hank
Kazoo Klan lol same
I'm still waiting for a Muscle Olivia
I hope that seriously exists otherwise you have utterly disappointing me
He arrived my children
Haha same
On a side note, I question the efficacy and ethics of using animal studies. We should be trying to find other ways to conduct studies.
At the very least in testing for new drugs, according to Azra Raza an oncologist, professor of medicine and director of the MDS Center at Columbia University in New York, "The scientific idea that I believe is ready for retirement is “mouse models” must be retired from use in drug development for cancer therapy because what you see in a mouse is not necessarily what you are going to see in humans."
As stated in the video, studies on animals are almost always precursors to studies in humans. We are reaching a level of advancement with lab-grown and genetically engineered specimens to one day replace lab rats but we aren't there yet. In the meanwhile, there is no replacement for lab controlled animal testing.
On top of that, there are extremely stringent ethics guidelines to be followed by anyone wanting to use live animals in their experiments. Any mistreatment the animals suffer has to be thoroughly validated and potential pain minimized.
There's some concern on the flaw with animal testing, "The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
The use of mouse studies in cancer is also hindering the discovery of real cures for humans from being found:
www.maximumfun.org/adam-ruins-everything/adam-ruins-everything-episode-46-dr-azra-raza-mouse-model-misconceptions-other
In any case, scientists may not be able to completely divorce itself from the use of animal models, but it should put more effort in exploring and using other avenues of testing.
Joy G I would absolutely love to see us cease the use of animals in scientific testing, especially with regard to oncological and pharmacological studies. Thankfully we are moving toward that future; it's not sci-fi anymore. But it will be a while yet before we have reasonable substitutes along with the fact that in many other fields like epidemiology and psycology, lab rats and mice still play an important role.
www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs
a glass of wine a day may not keep the doctor away, but it sure is nice to have a glass of wine every day.
Haha!!!! I just got a commercial that said "Don't believe everything you read about nutrition" before I watched this. That's funny.
Y’all need Dr. Greger of Nutrition Facts. Yes, he is not right always, but he finds all the RCTs and tests and compare them and breaks it down in an easy to digest (pun intended) way
Fronde and he has lots of videos on each topic. Say salt ruclips.net/p/PL5TLzNi5fYd9ad1RO28vUDATty9WiFb9n
Ian C Tubman yeah I’ve seen pretty much all the videos, which I take with a grain of salt ;p
I take my daily SciShow vitamins. It keeps me healthy
I don't know, I heard it takes you 9 minutes 20 seconds closer to the grave!
I would theorize that when somewhat contradictory studies like these exists, it means the scientists in charge of the study aren't accounting for variables that may be changing their results. Pinpointing those variables down and.then controlling them would give more credible results across the board.
There are so many confounding variables so it is hard to determine a cause and effect. Were the subjects on a restricted diet during the study? Physical activity? Prior diet before the study? Health status? Age? Sex? Race? It is a challenge. I know, I’m a graduate student studying nutritional science. In general just have a well-balanced diet!!!!!!
Does the hoodie come with the video or does the video come with the hoodie?
The question is which came first, the hoodie or the video ?
Amitav Mostafa the lesbian comes with the hoodie or the hoodie comes with the lesbian
Does not matter, as long as Olivia is wearing it. ❤
Pa Pinkelman ikr
Great work, Olivia!
she's still annoying and these jokes man...
I really admire the effort she put into improving her speach. It is very different from the beginning. Especially after all those negative reviews, I imagine, it must have required a lot of self-control to continue and improve. Bravo.
Where can I get that sweatshirt? I want one
I was hoping this was going to be centered more on the constant arguments over what types of diet a person should have.
Scishow...my kingdom for you to do a video that specifically talks about all these modern diet trends such as paleo, keto, raw, etc
The alcohol studies mentioned are flawed, on the grounds that non-drinkers often get classified as life-long abstainers, where as many are actually quitters i.e. former alcoholics, which accounts for the increase at x=0 alcohol intake as these people already carry increased risk baggage. Subsequent studies have analysed the data and accomodated for this misclassification finding that the U-curve disappears and a directly proportional risk vs. alcohol intake starts to arise. One should also the source of funding in these flawed papers, which can mostly be attributed to the alcohol industry, and one could argue that it is not about flaws at all, but pure intention to skew the data in order to publish soothing results to all consumers thus of course reaping an enormous economic and financial benefit. Having said all of this, I still enjoy my late night beer every other day :)
WhiterockFTP, I don't understand why people drink beer if not get drunk or buzzed. Alcohol is neurotoxic at any dose.
For social reasons.
Look diet is not hard. Have a diverse range of foods and have everything in moderation. And stay away from processed food.
True, but there are some caveats.
Condiments, sauce, and spices. We need them, we enjoy them, otherwise food is bland and we want to kill ourselves. Unless you have a lot of time on your hand, you are not going to make your own ketchup, soy sauce, fish sauce, or hot sauce. So that's something to think about there.
Cheese. Where do we draw the line? By definition, cheese are processed. Some achieved their consistency using traditional fermentation method with yeast. Some with industrial process. support traditional method since it kept the meaning of why we eat fermented food: you have an excess of food, now we need a way to preserve them and eat all year long.
Preserved meats? Bacon, sausage, etc ... Those were traditionally made to serve a function: to give us a source of protein all year long. An equal weight of preserved meat compared to raw meat might be "worse" for you (whatever it means). However, we should remember that historically, human simply had less meat to eat altogether. It might be OK to eat a quarter pound of meat per burger but probably not a quarter pound of bacon per burger. Historically, people simply don't have enough meat to have a quarter pound of meat.
Grains and fats: these are demonised recently, but historically, they were excellent. Grains and fat can be kept for longer periods of time in the days before refrigeration.
Xuan Vinh To I think you misunderstand. By processed food I mean Ready Meals and the like. Stuff that is so full of preservatives that you can leave it out in the open for month without any real change in the food.
Spices and herbs are great. And as long as it's not slathered on everything to an insane degree things like mustard, ketchup and mayonnaise is fine.
I am not personally familiar with too many fermented foods. I've had kimchi before and it's delicious but I'm not familiar enough with other fermented stuff to pass judgement.
As for everything else again I say everything in moderation.
By the way my perspective is on sports nutrition so I might have a slightly different view to other people. I focus more on getting my macronutrients in with healthy food that is diverse enough that I don't get board.
As for this crusade against grains and fat, I think it's stupid. Fats are essential and a high fat Keto diet can be very good for some (but not all) people. And unless you have Celiac Disease gluten will do you no harm.
P.S. Sorry for the long reply you made many great points and I wanted to give a worthy answer making my point clearer. Good day sir.
Ieuan Hunt fermented foods are very common, all cultures have a version of it. It serves as a way to preserve food. A cheese wheel or a jar of kimchi can be left in the open for years.
From milk, you have yogurt and cheese.
From meat, you have things like salami, a few kinds of sausage.
From vegetable, you have pickles (cucumber, radish, etc...), kimchi, saukrauts.
Vinegar of all types are fermented.
You probably had some today. My main point regarding them is you can make them the traditional way, with yeast, bacteria, etc ... Or industrially, for eg: if you mix various types of acid with milk, you can get various types of cheese and yogurt. It depends on the POV what you prefer. I view food from a historical point of view. Fermented food using yeast and bacteria served a function, and it's probably OK to eat.
We can both agree that we should probably not eat frozen TV dinners. However, I content that the harmful effects are because people eating those thing tend to eat little else and thus consume a diet high in fat, sugar, starch, and salt while low on vegetables and fruit; rather than specific chemicals in the frozen dinner. I don't know if anyone has run this experiment or not; nor have time to experiment on myself but I suspect that instead of eating 3 frozen meals a day and little else, eating 1 frozen dinner spread out over 3 meals and make up the difference with vegetables, and fruit might not be that harmful after all.
In the same way that studies barely find any one food have any positive effect, so is the reverse: we barely find any chemicals present in food that can cause problems at the dose most of us will be exposed to. The latest example which I did some maths on is acrylamide in coffee as a result of roasting. The dose at which it may cause cancer in animals, in human, it will require you to either eat 60g of whole beans coffee, or drink 20 double espresso shots. To be frank, if you drink that much of coffee, you have bigger problems to worry about.
We all come back to the old conclusion: have a wide, varied diet; and don't worry too much.
Yes, unprocessed plant based food reverses and prevents the main killers: heart diabetes and cancer.
Not hard, but expesnive
Lou Grant said it best: "You're born. You die. Everything between is just filler."
Eat what you want, drink what you want, and try to be happy. None of us are getting out of this alive, but a life of stress and misery will screw you over worse than anything.
Thanks for the nutrition video. As usual, it's as clear as mud.
Why is Olivia still getting dislikes? She's a decent presenter!
She looks plain sick, and her enthusiasm is non existent. Every other presenter on the SciShow network is engaging and confident in their presentation. Presentation is hugely important in these kinds of videos, which is why the hank brothers have created such a huge and successfull network, it's through their presentation
Basically she looks like 90% of scishow demographics, let's be honest
Ben and maybe some more jokes would help her
yeah, and she should smile more... and wear more fitting clothes... and change glasses to contacts... and put on some blush ‘cause she looks too pale... yeah, and did I mention smiling?
Misogyny.....you already know....
Yay! An Olivia video!
Yay! I feel like she has a much more scientific approach than the other presenters
And much more dislikes, curious to why. . /s
This video is **so good** thank you
This is a really good video though. As someone who has an interest in science based herbalism it is really important to look at the contexts and methodology of various studies to get the right idea. Instead of just being like "Bleh it's all quackery" like NO plenty of medicines are refined from plants in the first place come on!
It's complex.
I really like her :) good video again guys!
Olivia is getting better and better as a host. Keep it up!
My method for deciding to which study should I listen to, is by using probability of multiple studies' conclusions
Although it will not to be perfect, it's the closest I can get to know about what's the reality (probably)
very cool. Hit the subject from all angles what I like
Here’s a better thing. Eat what you want to, drink what you want to and die happy.... the way this world is going who wants to live to 120?? Enjoy life!! Everything in moderation.
I feel best on a "Whole foods plant based diet."
this video is great in its succinct completeness! It needs to be made compulsory viewing. That applies even more strongly to journalists
One of the best videos yet sci show
As I've always said: Everything in moderation.
bruh, except for non-threshold cancer/heart disease/diabetes causing compounds like arsenic, heme iron, mercury, heterocyclic amines, pcbs, dietary cholesterol, trans fat and a bunch of other stuff, I suppose?
Darragoth Von Seitan I can't be too bothered to be worrying so much about what I eat daily. I just eat what I enjoy and take it one day at a time. I'm healthy enough, and that's good for me. I don't need the stress of over thinking what I consume.
Oxygen?
"excess in moderation" -Doug Stanhope
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
Sooner or later it will be discovered(if it hasn't been already) that everyone has their own unique health. What might allow me to live to be 120 might end up killing someone before they hit 40.
But such a thing is impossible to "market" in a one size fits all world so there isn't any rush to publish that realization. And then the special snowflakes will get triggered that they can't eat bacon, drink bourbon, and have a fine cigar daily and live to be 105.
steveXracer Yay for feeding myself with spirits! Bottoms up!
well,doesn't really make sense because if every individual had it's own healthy diet,this effect should be observed in animals too.But in reality,the animals of one population all mostly eat the same without "special snowflakes".People are mostly the same when it comes to what is good for them (with a few exceptions caused by conditions one might have),but as always,they all want to hear good news about their bad habits and rather be sick than wrong.
I drink fine spirits on a daily basis.
In short: don't eat too much of one thing, and to don't just believe every article you see without looking more into it first.
But that line she said "try that with a human, and see how long it takes to get punched in the nose", THAT have a clear answer on what you (don't) do, unlike those nutrition studies...and gave me a big laugh LOL
Stop trying to kill my buzz, SciShow!! ::throws a lamp::
I go with "un poco de tudo"; a little of all. A widely varied diet means you get some of everything and not too much of anything
If anyone wants to know. I had a routine medical exam with the usual blood work. except for a little winter lard (about 11 lbs worth 185 lbs, which will be gone by the end of June). All my numbers were "excellent". I'm still the same height at 72 as I was at 27; 5'8". I look like I'm in my ealy 60's the problems I have are glaucoma, going back 45 years, hiatial hernia GERD going back 45 years and high blood pressure, believed to be a side effect of the chemotherapy for follicular B-cell lymphoma stage III contracted (Yeah: it had a contract on me) in 1998 and last seen in 2005 (even the recurrant ones bugger off after awhile) and decleared dead and all in 2009. Before winter I could carry a 20 lb unframed pack for 2 hrs straight and a 30 lb unframed pack for 1-1/2 hors strraigh (and that was only because I ran out places to go) as of mid April I can be on my feet for 3-3/4 without a break carrying a 15 lb unframied pack for the first 2 hours and 22 lbs for the last 3/4 hr. A framed pack is less stressful on the bod because of the waistbelt. I'm goung do some long needed maintence work -- 37 years worth. The poo thing hasn't had any work since we built it in '81. It is a 36"x 14" ladder frame and has 2 regular size packs and a bag on the inside, which, when stuffed with clothes or a blanket, acts as a back cushion. I figure that by mid October I can take the full set of weights I have; 50 lbs for a full 4 hours. I think I'm a good model
This chick is good. Really good. She is the real deal. Not trying to be cute. Not trying to be liked. She is here to communicate about the world of science and I am getting everything she is saying. Well done. This is equality in science. Women doing a good job.
gus bisbal It’s not up to some dude to decide what equality is.
Its not up to some chick to decide how equality is defined. Feminism is a form of discrimination. You know that and you don't have the courage to admit it.
I wouldn't say "really good." I know there's a script but she sometimes makes it too obvious. You enjoy the content, but you felt the need to point out the fact there's a female host. Why did you feel this was necessary? You don't think she's trying to be cute but would that make her worse at presenting the material? It seems you have some preconceived notion a persons looks have some effect on their ability to present facts
Bob Bobson - How about all of us? Giving any one group a monopoly on what defines equality, is not equality.
I was just glad to see the Olivia-bashing is pretty much over, and to see a complementary post that didn't come off all infatuated and weird.
[I mean, yeah she is one of my celebrity crushes, but let's not get into that. This thread is all about the science! The *Science*!]
nsaylor10 - In a perfect world, a female science presenter using only brains, clarity and a collection of facts, rather than sex appeal [or at least where the sex appeal was purely incidental, not the main course], would be perfectly normal. It wouldn't even get noticed.
However in *this* world, which is still pretty rife with sexism and inequality, it is worth mentioning.
I once saw a guy trying to figure out the nutritional value of gasoline. There's a lot of chemical energy in gasoline, and he asked if chugging a couple gallons of the stuff would provide enough calories to last him the rest of his life.
.... And technically, the answer is yes, it completely would.
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.
Money.
Because some of them are paid by the dairy + egg industry to "advertise" them.
Anticonny you're downplaying fact as conspiracy to support your own bias. Do some research.
Anticonny, the dairy and egg industry actually has hundreds if not thousands of flawed research funded by them. I can link a couple dozen if you'd like.
Ideological diets cant be trusted...
www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/nov/21/sugar-industry-withheld-research-effects-of-sucrose-50-years-ago-study-claims www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-deadly-legacy-of-americas-fields-of-gold-7834226.html
edc2879, how is this at all revelvant?
5:41,
My childhood friend's grandpa "died of eating too many carrots" (this happened a long time ago)
I didn't understand how, but now I might; that's really sad
THANK YOU SCISHOW!! But WILL YOU PLEASE DO A VIDEO ON GLIOMAS??? Or at least give me a yes or no??