What is it with food fear-mongering?

[Darsithis]

http://www.realfarmacy.com/7-foods-t...ver-eat-again/

I read through this and wanted to facepalm at every point. The author threw around things like "disease in a box" and "causes diseases" and "artificial" at every single opportunity, but a few particular areas got my ire:

• By definition, white bread and refined flours in general are toxic for your body because they have been stripped of virtually all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other important nutrients. Because of this, the body does not know how to properly digest and assimilate these so-called foods, which can lead to health problems. (their source: http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/BREAD.htm) lol
  
  Since when did something lacking any particular nutritional value actually become toxic? When did something lacking vitamins suddenly become something the body isn't able to digest and lead to disease? Where is this tipping point where food magically becomes something the body can't digest properly? I understand why people should eschew bleached grains in favor of whole grains due to the speed of absorption, but it doesn't make them toxic, just less nutritionally valid.
  
  
• On top of this, microwaveable popcorn contains a chemical known as diacetyl that can actually destroy your lungs.
  
  Not in this form it can't. Diacetyl is a compound produced naturally by fermentation and is found in alcohol and dairy products. This little tidbit of fear mongering comes from a misread study performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Study) discussing ways to prevent lung disease in workers who have to breathe the chemical for all day, every day. Last time I checked, people to not snort popcorn for 10 hours a day (by the way, most microwavable popcorn producers no longer have diacetyl in their popcorn anyway).
  
  
• ...most frozen meals are little more than disease in a box, so avoid them in favor of fresh foods
  
  Again, this is really being taken out of context. Even their source, at no point, says that frozen food is "disease in a box". There was only one part at the bottom that discusses Listeria contamination of Eggo Waffles in 2009 and a discussion of how supermarket freezers emit greenhouse gases, not the food itself. Their source merely points out that frozen "health" meals are usually low in calories, so low, in fact, that the fat calories take up a disproportionally large amount of the calories provided compared to a larger meal. In addition, they provide too little food overall for any one meal (as anyone who has actually tried to live on Healthy Choice meals can attest) and contain more sodium than you should want in a meal. Nowhere did they say that frozen meals are disease-causing nightmares.

While there is some truth to the statements the author makes (especially about nitrates), it amazes me that people can spout off so much misinformation so publicly and there are piles of people that just take it as gospel. They don't think critically about what they're reading and do some independent research. I had one friend already say they're "never going to have microwave popcorn again". I'm not saying that microwavable popcorn is amazing for you, but in moderation it won't have any effect on your health.

How do you guys feel about these kind of articles? Do you research the "facts" yourself, or do you repeat them to your friends and coworkers? Do you regularly share these on social sites like Facebook or do you debunk them instead?

[s_bushido]

Meh, there's plenty of shady stuff on the internet. And this person just sounds like a hypochondriac. What isn't linked to heart disease and cancer these days? Hell, even enough water is toxic to your system (but I won't tell you how much because it would be less scary that way).

This particular blogger seems to have simply lost perspective...as in "everything in moderation" is better advice than "delicious strawberry flavored death!"

[Pitkanen]

Nobody reads the articles that doesn't agree with their own already existing viewpoints usually. Like most democrats won't watch Fox news. And more republicans won't watch msNBC. Seriously, the fact that you read the whole article is impressive.

Too lazy to debunk them usually. But not always.

The first point has a little bit of a point to it, if the diseases they are referring to is everything caused by obesity. The fact is that the more you process food the more available the food is to the body, when you then eat the food you get the full impact of all the calories, and quicky. Without the fiber content or the original pre-processed structure of the food you lose much of the lasting filling sensation, and getting a blood sugar rush is less healthy than having a longer absorption time. On top of that a longer absorption time give the bacteria in your gut a chance to compete for those calories reducing your caloric intake.
There is a systematic issue with people getting "empty calories", but it's mainly from what people drink rather than what they eat.
Their point that the "body doesn't know how to digest cheap calories" is just wrong. The body prefers to digest the easy stuff, and tells the mind such, because in a hunter gather society that food is the food that is most likely to give you enough energy to survive the amount of physical activity required at that point in time. The body has no "off" switch for when you've starting piling on the pounds though so America and Mexico have grown plump off these stupidly easy to digest carbs (and fats, but really mainly sugars).

[Dezerte]

Generally, the more sensational the claim is the more reason to fact check it.

[Darsithis]

Nobody reads the articles that doesn't agree with their own already existing viewpoints usually. Like most democrats won't watch Fox news. And more republicans won't watch msNBC. Seriously, the fact that you read the whole article is impressive.

Too lazy to debunk them usually. But not always.

The first point has a little bit of a point to it, if the diseases they are referring to is everything caused by obesity.

I read what people send me, which is how I came across this . I agree with you in part about reading what fits your viewpoint, but even then I regularly sit back and think about what I'm reading vs just believing it outright.

Of course eating excessive amounts of nutritionally-deficient food is terrible for you, which can lead to obesity which, in turn, leads to other conditions like diabetes. But the food itself doesn't intrinsically cause these by virtue of being itself, it's caused by over-consumption of less-nutritional foods. The author, however, is saying that eating bleached grains by themselves is enough to doom you to an early grave. Statements like "white bread and refined flours in general are toxic" is a perfect illustration of that.

[Pitkanen]

Yeah. It'd definitely a extreme doomsday hippie viewpoint. Which is mirrored on the other side by the Paula Dean, "It's ok to eat in a totally unhealthy manner" (as long as you have a paid sponser that gives you your diabetes meds for free).

I don't believe half of what I read, but I read so much that I tend to have heard too much. New info fits into an existing puzzle rather than being a framework of belief. People being "generally informed" is the best protection against falsehood.

[s_bushido]

The author, however, is saying that eating bleached grains by themselves is enough to doom you to an early grave. Statements like "white bread and refined flours in general are toxic" is a perfect illustration of that.

Well, when the author tells you of these horrible chemicals used in processed foods, s/he conveniently doesn't mention if those chemicals are burned off in the cooking process, or the actual findings of these studies that link them to disease. Sensationalism can be found in more than just the mainstream media's toolbox. :P

[Blood Fox]

I put them in the same little box of people who claim gluten free diets are better for the normal person. they want someone/ something to blame so that's exactly what they do.

[Darsithis]

Well, when the author tells you of these horrible chemicals used in processed foods, s/he conveniently doesn't mention if those chemicals are burned off in the cooking process, or the actual findings of these studies that link them to disease. Sensationalism can be found in more than just the mainstream media's toolbox. :P

So true

I put them in the same little box of people who claim gluten free diets are better for the normal person. they want someone/ something to blame so that's exactly what they do.

It's iffy there. There are people who are allergic to gluten. Even I have a sensitivity to it and there are some studies showing that gluten can cause a minor amount of inflammation in the intestinal lining for those not sensitive. I back away from the idea that it is actually harmful to everyone who consumes it.

[Deleted]

I'm versed enough in dietary and nutritional facts due to having to have quite a strict diet, that I don't take the fear-mongering seriously, and feel a bit sad for anyone who does. That popcorn thing was a "cause for concern" over here as well, such poppycock.

[Masark]

Goes like this

- Someone with something to sell distorts data or simply makes shit up.
- Above statement mutates into a more extreme form.
- Above statement finds an unskeptical person with a soapbox who then spreads said statement.

[Theimp]

As long as you're not an idiot, you should never starve in this world. There are enough rats, rabbits, deer, cats, chipmunks, etc. etc. to last.

[Laize]

http://www.realfarmacy.com/7-foods-t...ver-eat-again/

I read through this and wanted to facepalm at every point. The author threw around things like "disease in a box" and "causes diseases" and "artificial" at every single opportunity, but a few particular areas got my ire:

• By definition, white bread and refined flours in general are toxic for your body because they have been stripped of virtually all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other important nutrients. Because of this, the body does not know how to properly digest and assimilate these so-called foods, which can lead to health problems. (their source: http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/BREAD.htm) lol
  
  Since when did something lacking any particular nutritional value actually become toxic? When did something lacking vitamins suddenly become something the body isn't able to digest and lead to disease? Where is this tipping point where food magically becomes something the body can't digest properly? I understand why people should eschew bleached grains in favor of whole grains due to the speed of absorption, but it doesn't make them toxic, just less nutritionally valid.
  
  
• On top of this, microwaveable popcorn contains a chemical known as diacetyl that can actually destroy your lungs.
  
  Not in this form it can't. Diacetyl is a compound produced naturally by fermentation and is found in alcohol and dairy products. This little tidbit of fear mongering comes from a misread study performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Study) discussing ways to prevent lung disease in workers who have to breathe the chemical for all day, every day. Last time I checked, people to not snort popcorn for 10 hours a day (by the way, most microwavable popcorn producers no longer have diacetyl in their popcorn anyway).
  
  
• ...most frozen meals are little more than disease in a box, so avoid them in favor of fresh foods
  
  Again, this is really being taken out of context. Even their source, at no point, says that frozen food is "disease in a box". There was only one part at the bottom that discusses Listeria contamination of Eggo Waffles in 2009 and a discussion of how supermarket freezers emit greenhouse gases, not the food itself. Their source merely points out that frozen "health" meals are usually low in calories, so low, in fact, that the fat calories take up a disproportionally large amount of the calories provided compared to a larger meal. In addition, they provide too little food overall for any one meal (as anyone who has actually tried to live on Healthy Choice meals can attest) and contain more sodium than you should want in a meal. Nowhere did they say that frozen meals are disease-causing nightmares.

While there is some truth to the statements the author makes (especially about nitrates), it amazes me that people can spout off so much misinformation so publicly and there are piles of people that just take it as gospel. They don't think critically about what they're reading and do some independent research. I had one friend already say they're "never going to have microwave popcorn again". I'm not saying that microwavable popcorn is amazing for you, but in moderation it won't have any effect on your health.

How do you guys feel about these kind of articles? Do you research the "facts" yourself, or do you repeat them to your friends and coworkers? Do you regularly share these on social sites like Facebook or do you debunk them instead?

I pretty much lose respect for anyone who suggests that organic food tastes better or that fast food is inherently worse for you than any other type of food. They've been proven wrong several times. Don't even get me started on preachy vegans.

I'm gonna eat what I want and ignore anyone who suggests otherwise when not substantiated by anything concrete.

[eriseis]

http://www.realfarmacy.com/7-foods-t...ver-eat-again/

I read through this and wanted to facepalm at every point. The author threw around things like "disease in a box" and "causes diseases" and "artificial" at every single opportunity, but a few particular areas got my ire:

[LIST][*]By definition, white bread and refined flours in general are toxic for your body because they have been stripped of virtually all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other important nutrients. Because of this, the body does not know how to properly digest and assimilate these so-called foods, which can lead to health problems. (their source: http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/BREAD.htm) lol

This is a frequent excuse for those who are celiac by choice...or what I like to call "glutards".

I hate it when people avoid gluten just because it's hip instead of real medical reasons.

[Deleted]

The problem is most of the things they are saying is right, but to very small margin. You probably are better off without gluten, though the difference is probably going to be negligible. We can probably reduce the human diet to a select number of foods, an "ideal" diet, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to follow that, but people will always hear "optimal" and think "mandatory".

[eriseis]

The problem is most of the things they are saying is right, but to very small margin. You probably are better off without gluten, though the difference is probably going to be negligible. We can probably reduce the human diet to a select number of foods, an "ideal" diet, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to follow that, but people will always hear "optimal" and think "mandatory".

We live in a world where all foods, even water, seems to give you cancer or came from some exploited part of the world. After all that propaganda, I know I've stopped caring xD.

[Darsithis]

The problem is most of the things they are saying is right, but to very small margin. You probably are better off without gluten, though the difference is probably going to be negligible. We can probably reduce the human diet to a select number of foods, an "ideal" diet, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to follow that, but people will always hear "optimal" and think "mandatory".

And there is truth to that, yes. But everything comes down to moderation. Consuming a small amount of Oreos for the rest of my life, weekly, for instance, is not going to make me obese or kill me early. If I downed an entire box a day, though, I'd probably die of a heart attack at 50. But the food media is full of "omg Oreos will kill you because they have a gram of trans fat! Don't ever, ever eat them!"

[Gheld]

Either A. These people are egomaniacs, desperate for a good ego stroking. So they Spam all these BS facts onto social media, and refresh the like/share counter all day long.

Or B. Not eating these foods serves some other agenda that they feel strongly about.

Or
C. They are just perpetuating the BS because they are one of the "devotees" of somebody who spreads this crap.

[Sayl]

Since when did something lacking any particular nutritional value actually become toxic? When did something lacking vitamins suddenly become something the body isn't able to digest and lead to disease?

When you're an alt-med crank selling fad diet books or supplements, primarily. Holy crap is it big business.

There's somewhat of a perfect storm going on right now with all this nonsense, especially in the US. The public is largely ignorant of reliable information about nutrition/diet/exercise, and even when armed with some knowledge of the subject it still sometimes might be difficult for them to discern between decent advice and quackery, at least at first glance. People who don't know how to objectively and critically research these topics are at a disadvantage.

Moreover, many don't want to make that sort of effort. Lots of people seem to adopt these wacky, untenable and restrictive diets as an expression of their distrust for government, corporations, industry, or regulatory bodies (or, they're falling victim to the naturalistic fallacies that are so in vogue). They frequently treat it as an emotional issue rather than a scientific one. It's easier to assign blame for your shortcomings to a particular food or ingredient than take personal responsibility for portion size or nutritional content. Factor in that weight loss and body type are inextricably connected to public acceptance, and you've got all of the insecurity and self-esteem issues that keep people buying worthless diet advice. There is no magic bullet -- and until people understand that, this entire industry is guaranteed to siphon untold amounts of cash right out of their pockets.

Lastly, and at the risk of sounding like some sort of authoritarian asshole: it really irks me that our culture values people's right to promote and sell utter bullshit with little if any consequences, above the public's right to reliable, accurate information. I really think that's the foundation that lets these jokers operate.

How do you guys feel about these kind of articles? Do you research the "facts" yourself, or do you repeat them to your friends and coworkers?

Scaremongers irritate the hell out of me in general. If examples like those you've posted surface in my circle of friends, I'll fact-check and debunk the nonsense, with references. Thankfully that doesn't happen often.

[Netherspark]

This is the problem with health nuts - they believe anything other health nuts tell them and then plaster that all over the internet, insulting anyone who disagrees.

I once read a similar article that claimed amino acids are harmful and you should cut out all foods that contain them... for a start I'm pretty sure that's literally impossible, and if it were possible you would die.