DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Advances in Health Care
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: May 17, 2015, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][b]Seven Essential Keys to Rehabilitate Your Gut, from
Birth to Death[/b][/center]
In his book, Dr. Perlmutter delves into seven essential keys for
rehabilitating your gut, starting at birth.
1. Vaginal birth Do everything you can to avoid a Caesarian
section. When you elect to deliver a child via Caesarian section
– and there are times when it needs to be done to save the life
of the mother or the baby—understand that by and large, you're
tripling the risk for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and doubling the risk for autism in your child. You're
also dramatically increasing the risk that your child will
struggle with obesity, type 1 diabetes, and allergies. These are
all inflammatory issues that are dramatically increased in
children born via Caesarian section.
Dr. Perlmutter describes a simple and elegant technique
developed by researchers at Yale University, whereby an organic
gauze sponge is placed in the birth canal before the mother who
is going to have a C-section is given the IV antibiotics. The
sponge is then removed, the antibiotics are given, and as soon
as the baby is born, the sponge is placed over the baby's face,
inoculating the child with its mother's bacteria. This could be
a good adjunct anytime a Caesarian is required. Unfortunately,
at present it's unlikely you'd be able to get your doctor to do
it.
2. Breastfeeding Aside from providing the most appropriate
nutrients, breast feeding also affects your child's microbiome
via bacterial transfer from skin contact.
3. Antibiotics When you change your microbiome, certain groups
of bacteria tend to be favored, such as the Firmicutes group.
When present in excess, Firmicutes increase your risk of
obesity. Animal research shows that when you change the animals'
microbiome using antibiotics, they gain weight. We also give
antibiotics to cattle to make them fatter, faster. The same
thing occurs in your body, which is why avoiding unnecessary
antibiotics is so important.
Disinfectant products like antibacterial soaps and hand gels
also fall into this category and should be avoided as much as
possible.
4. Refined sugar and processed fructose Sugar and high-fructose
corn syrup (HFCS) preferentially increases the growth of
pathogenic disease-causing bacteria, fungi, and yeast, so
limiting the amount of refined and processed sugars in your diet
is a key dietary principle for gut health.
According to Dr. Perlmutter, fructose in particular promotes
gut dysbiosis, and there's also a good correlation between
fructose consumption and the levels of LPS, the inflammatory
marker that shows your gut is leaking.
Fructose is also far more aggressive in terms of causing
glycation of protein than other sugars, meaning high levels of
sugar in your blood that bind to proteins. This too is
correlated with leaky gut, and may explain why fructose
consumption is related to increased gut permeability, and
inflammatory diseases like obesity.
5. Genetically engineered foods and pesticides Avoid genetically
engineered foods. As noted by Dr. Perlmutter: "Yes, there is a
clear and present danger in the notion of genetically modifying
the food that we share with our gut bacteria. The gut bacteria
are expecting the type of food that they have been provided for
a couple of million years.
Suddenly, we're introducing foods that are genetically unlike
anything the human microbiome has ever seen. The research that
allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow
genetically modified food has not even considered looking at the
effects of GMOs on the human microbiome."
Glyphosate, which is liberally used on genetically engineered
Roundup Ready crops, and many non-organic non-GMO crops as well,
has also been found to alter the human microbiome, so
genetically engineered foods deliver a double assault on your
gut bacteria every time you eat it.
"We're poisoning the food that we eat. If that's not bad enough,
that's the food we're feeding our microbiome, which are going to
determine whether we live or die," Dr. Perlmutter says. "It's a
bit of a worry."
6. Probiotic foods Focus on eating probiotic foods, such as
fermented vegetables, sauerkraut, kimchi, kefir, and kombucha (a
fermented drink). A broad-spectrum probiotic supplements may
also be advisable—especially if you have to take a course of
antibiotics.
7. Prebiotic fiber Consume plenty of prebiotic fiber. Not all
fibers are prebiotic, so not any old fiber will do the job here.
Whole foods are the best. Examples include dandelion greens,
which can be lightly sautéd, Mexican yam or jicama that can be
chopped up raw and put in your salad.
Onions and leeks are also excellent choices. These kinds of
foods will allow your gut bacteria to flourish, which is the key
to health, disease resistance, and longevity.
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/05/17/gut-bacteria-brain-health.aspx
HTML http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sunflower-592x393.jpg
#Post#: 3241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: June 2, 2015, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oliveoiltimes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2F49156976_ml.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img][/center]
[center]What’s the Verdict on Olive Oil: Is it Good or Bad for
You?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp[/center]
Dr. Mark Hyman | June 2, 2015 1:39 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/02/olive-oil-good-or-bad/
Hint: [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
#Post#: 3359--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: June 25, 2015, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]“The Sioux Chef” dishes on the past — and future — of
Native American cuisine[/center]
By Madeleine Thomas on 24 Jun 2015
SNIPPET:
[size=12pt]On “oppression food.”[/size]
Almost all Native American communities were basically forcibly
removed from their traditional food systems, which threw a
wrench into everything.
You saw fry bread become integrated into native communities
across the board, but only because it was “oppression food,”
really. It was something that kept them alive, but it wasn’t
really healthy for anybody. Because it had passed through so
many generations, people were talking more about their
grandmother’s fry bread recipe than they were about the cool
sauce they were making from wild greens or roots.
On why Native American food should be the next big thing.
I think native communities are really still recovering from what
happened to them. Across the board, all Native American people
have had a pretty dark history with the United States.
There’s a lot of great positivity we can offer and I think our
food system is a huge one that should be all over the place.
There should be Native American restaurants all over the nation
that really show how diverse the United States is in culture and
cuisine — not just beer and burgers at every stop you go to.
There’s so many different food systems, and so many different
cultures and religions within Native America, so that should
really be the focus. [img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png[/img]<br
/>
Someday, I hope we see more Native American restaurants across
the board. [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-221017161839.png[/img]
HTML http://grist.org/people/sioux-chef-dishes-on-the-past-and-future-of-native-american-cuisine/
#Post#: 3374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: June 28, 2015, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/jPkRdAfuwjg[/center]
[center]Proper Nutrition and Exercise are the KEY to
Cardiovascular health.
The importance of Vitamin K2 as opposed to the TOTALLY DIFFERENT
Vitamin K1, is explained.
[/center]
HTML http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/28/vitamin-k2-health-benefits.aspx
#Post#: 3492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: July 20, 2015, 7:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Rock star gives $100,000 to Vermont’s GMO defense fund
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp[/center]
Sam Heller Jul. 20 2015, 5:58 pm
Gov. Peter Shumlin announced Sunday at a concert by Neil Young
in Essex Junction that Young (right) had donated $100,000 to a
legal defense fund for Vermont's GMO labeling law. Photo
courtesy of the Governor's Office.
Gov. Peter Shumlin announced Sunday at a concert by Neil Young
in Essex Junction that Young (right) had donated $100,000 to a
legal defense fund for Vermont’s GMO labeling law. Photo
courtesy of the Governor’s Office.
Canadian rocker Neil Young joined Gov. Peter Shumlin in Essex
Junction on Sunday to voice his support for Vermont’s GMO
labeling law, which requires food produced using genetic
engineering to say so on the packaging.
Shumlin praised Young’s announcement that he would make a
$100,000 donation to the Vermont Food Fight Fund, established to
defend Vermont’s law from opponents who wish to see it
overturned in court.
“Support for the food fight fund is support for the consumer’s
right to know. Huge corporations fighting to keep consumers in
the dark are suing the state in a series of vigorous and costly
lawsuits. The food fight fund will defend against the lawsuits
and is the classic David and Goliath story of a small state
versus the big food industry,” Shumlin said in a news release.
Act 120 has been challenged in court by the Grocery
Manufacturer’s Association and other food industry trade groups,
who say the bill is unconstitutional and a violation of their
freedom of speech.
“The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved,
Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the
fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly
‘governmental’ interest, not just a political one,” the Grocery
Manufacturer’s Association says on their website.
The organization also argues that GMO labeling laws are neither
comprehensive enough to achieve their goal of greater
transparency in the food industry, nor backed by scientific
research.
In the news release, Shumlin characterized the bill as a
populist attempt to protect consumers’ right to know what
they’re eating.
“If we win in Vermont it will pave the way for labeling laws
across the country. If we lose, so, too, does the consumer right
to know and the power of people over profits,” he said.
The state will draw upon the Vermont Food Fight Fund to help pay
for the upcoming legal battle against the GMA. Young’s $100,000
contribution brings the contents of the fund up to $550,000, the
release said.
Young is no stranger to either Vermont politics or controversy
over GMO issues. He recently came out in support of Sen. Bernie
Sanders’ presidential bid after Republican candidate Donald
Trump used Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” as his campaign
song without Young’s permission. Shumlin supports Sanders’
Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton.
Young’s latest album, “The Monsanto Years,” offers a harsh
critique of the eponymous company’s heavy use of genetic
engineering.
[quote]
“I am proud to stand in solidarity with the people of Vermont
and support efforts to uphold the people’s will in the legal
battle against corporate bullying. GMO labeling will stand,”
Young said in the release.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718204530.gif<br
/>[/quote]
Young, a former member of the band Crosby, Stills, Nash and
Young, was in Vermont on Sunday to perform at the Champlain
Valley Exposition.
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/20/rock-star-gives-100000-to-vermonts-gmo-defense-fund/
#Post#: 3507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: July 27, 2015, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Time to refuel? (Or not!) ???
by David Catchpoole
One of man’s clever inventions is the fuel gauge used in cars.
In modern ones, there is often even a warning light that comes
on when it’s ‘time to refuel’. Another is the valve on
fuel-filling nozzles that shuts off to prevent overfilling and
wastage/spilling. But our human body has analogous devices, too.
Humans need to refuel, too
Once, while lunching with an older acquaintance, I complimented
him on his slim physique at a time when many in society were
tending towards obesity. His answer astonished me. He said, “I
can’t take any credit for that because it seems I don’t have the
urge to eat that other folks have.” He could not recall ever
having known what it was like to feel ‘hungry’. Eating gave him
no pleasure nor was there any urge to do so. “The only reason I
know I have to eat is because experience has shown that if I
don’t, after a day or so I notice I’m tired and listless. So I
know I have to eat to get my energy back.”
time-to-refuel
It seems his internal ‘fuel gauge’ and ‘low-fuel warning light’
were broken.
‘Enough fuel, already!’
Our body also has an appetite ‘switch-off’ mechanism similar in
effect to the automatic cut-off of a fuel nozzle, so as not to
‘over-fill’. In some obese people the ‘Enough fuel, already!’
click-off mechanism is known to be faulty. However, it can be
hard to identify precisely where the problem lies, as a range of
hormones is known to be involved in the body’s food-feedback
systems, and the processes are far from fully understood.
However, some insights are emerging.
The leptin hormone
In the 1990s, scientists discovered the hormone leptin, produced
by the ob gene.1 Leptin is now known to curb appetite.2 High
levels activate certain of the brain’s nerve cells, or neurons,
in a way that suppresses the desire to eat, instead generating a
feeling of ‘fullness’. Low levels, on the other hand, stimulate
hunger.
Researchers have observed that giving the leptin hormone to
obese people born without the ob gene reduced their hunger
pangs. They ate less, and so were able to lose weight.
How exactly leptin achieves this, and thus helps the body’s
delicate balance between energy intake (eating) and energy usage
(exercise and metabolism), isn’t completely known yet. Many
scientists suspect that leptin might be as crucial as the
hormone insulin in this function. When leptin levels are low,
the sight and smell of tasty food can stimulate an immediate
desire to eat. But sight and smell don’t have anything like the
same impact when leptin levels are high.
Researchers have observed that giving the leptin hormone to
obese people born without the ob gene (and who thus lacked their
own naturally-produced leptin) reduced their hunger pangs. They
ate less, and so were able to lose weight.
Unfortunately for those who might therefore have hoped that
leptin could be used to treat all obesity, “the story turned out
to be much more complicated”.2 It’s only a minority of obese
people who lack the ob gene. Most obese people have the ob gene,
but it produces so much leptin that they’ve become resistant to
its effects. :o Researchers are endeavouring to understand the
mechanism of that resistance.3
The ghrelin hormone
Another hormone now known to have a key role in appetite is
ghrelin, which stimulates
itself of the previous meal, bloodstream levels of the ghrelin
hormone rise rapidly, signalling to the body that “it’s time to
eat!” Then as soon as the stomach becomes full, ghrelin levels
fall again.
In people who lose weight through dieting, ghrelin levels become
“chronically high”—which might help explain why many people
struggle to adhere to such weight loss programs.
In people who lose weight through dieting, ghrelin levels become
“chronically high”—which might help explain why many people
struggle to adhere to such weight loss programs.2
The melanocortin–4 receptors
Researchers are also investigating the receptors, or ‘docking
sites’, on neurons for a hormone called melanocortin–4.
When these receptors are working properly, they help to suppress
appetite. But defective receptors lead to “morbid obesity”.2
Crediting design
These hard-won insights into the intricacies of the body’s
appetite-control systems point to far greater complexity than
that of the car fuel gauge and nozzle overfill-prevention
mechanisms. Surely nobody would say that fuel gauges and
automatic pump shut-off gadgetry were not designed. The human
engineers certainly deserve the credit for their designs, so how
much more honour is due to the Designer of the human body’s
intricate stomach-sight-smell intertwined feedback systems? And
the fact that they now don’t always work is the result of Adam’s
fall into sin, which brought about God’s just curse on creation
(see also box above).4
[quote]DNA Decay
When someone is born lacking hunger signals, or with the
defective food-feedback mechanisms in certain obese people
today, these are examples of genomic decay (mutations). This is
all part of the “bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22) to which the
originally “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31) was
subjected—because of the first man’s sin (Genesis 2:16–17, 3;
Romans 5:12,17; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22). No wonder then that
genomic decay (due to mutations) is increasingly in evidence.5
E.g. people lacking the ob gene, or unresponsive to the
appetite-suppressing leptin it produces, or with defective
melanocortin–4 receptors.6[/quote]
References and notes
1.Zhang, Y., and 6 others, Positional cloning of the mouse obese
gene and its human homologue, Nature 372:425–432, 1994. Return
to text.
2.Society for Neuroscience, Brain briefings—Appetite and food
intake, sfn.org, November 2007. Return to text.
3.Like Type 2 diabetes and other modern ‘scourges’, it may be
related to the increasing shift to high energy density and
high-glycemic-index refined grains and sugars and away from
fruit and vegetables, especially in developed countries. Return
to text.
4.Smith, H., Cosmic and universal death from. Adam’s Fall: an
exegesis of Romans 8:19–23, J. Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007;
creation.com/ romans8. Return to text.
5.Catchpoole, D., Time—no friend of evolution, Creation
34(3):30–31, 2012; creation.com/time-genetic. Return to text.
6.Interestingly, estrogen has been found to use the same
pathways as leptin uses to suppress appetite—“a possible reason
why women tend to gain weight after menopause.” (see main text,
ref. 2) Return to text.
HTML http://creation.com/time-to-refuel-or-not
#Post#: 4650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: March 8, 2016, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]A healthy Mediterranean-style diet costs less than a
junky American diet[/center]
Katherine Martinko (@feistyredhair)
Living / Green Food
March 2, 2016
An interesting research project has found that swapping out meat
for olive oil and more canned legumes and frozen vegetables
costs less than the most economical version of the USDA's
dietary guidelines.
There is a misconception that eating a healthy
Mediterranean-style diet is too expensive for low-income
families, but new research dispels that notion. A joint project
between the Miriam Hospital and the Rhode Island Community Food
Bank has demonstrated that a plant-based diet rich in
extra-virgin olive oil is cheaper than the most economical
recommendations made by the United States Department of
Agriculture’s MyPlate program – a whole $750 cheaper per year!
;D
Dr. Mary Flynn, who works as a dietician at the Miriam Hospital
and was a lead author on the study, said that most people think
healthy diets are expensive due to the increased amounts of
fresh vegetables and fruit, but she suspected it was really the
meat that made it pricey. Flynn set out to show that we don’t
actually need that much meat, and that replacing with olive oil
can not only reduce the cost but also improve health.
"Extra-virgin olive oil is thought to be expensive, but we
suspected it was meat that made a diet expensive, and
extra-virgin olive oil is cheaper than even small amounts of
meat. We expected the two diets to be similar in fruit and
vegetable content, but our plant-based diet was substantially
cheaper, and featured a lot more fruits and vegetables and whole
grains."
Flynn developed recipes that were used by Food Bank clients on
an average of 2.8 times per week. The recipes provide price
breakdowns per batch and per serving. Clients responded
favorably, saying the recipes were easier to prepare than their
usual ones and that they lost weight while experiencing improved
food security.
The big difference between Flynn’s approach and the one espoused
by MyPlate is that Flynn uses greater quantities of frozen and
canned products, such as chickpeas, black beans, and vegetables.
They are cheaper than their fresh counterparts while still
retaining the same nutritional benefits. This accounted for much
of the price difference: $53.11 per week for the USDA
recommended diet vs. $38.75 for Flynn’s version of a
Mediterranean diet. Meat cost $11.20 (or 21 percent) of the USDA
diet.
Instead of meat, the plant-based diet includes 4 tablespoons of
extra-virgin olive oil per day. Olive oil is often perceived as
luxurious but works out to only $3.61 (or 9 percent) of the
weekly food cost. When a household budget is limited, olive oil
is a good way to increase one’s intake of healthy fats.
Other studies have shown that low-income families fill their
grocery carts first with meat, eggs, cereal, and baked goods,
none of which featured prominently in this version of a
Mediterranean diet. EurekAlert says that Flynn’s work in
educating consumers “to include some weekly meals that do not
contain meat, poultry or seafood but do include extra virgin
olive oil, vegetables, and a starch will decrease food costs and
improve food access and body weight.”
It is an interesting study with hopeful results for the many
people who think it is impossible to eat healthily on a
shoestring. That’s not the case, as this research team has
happily shown, as long as those dollars are spent wisely.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
HTML http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/healthy-mediterranean-style-diet-does-not-have-be-expensive.html
#Post#: 4675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: March 12, 2016, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/5-LwAMwAobc
[/center]
[center][font=georgia]David Wolfe, a leading authority on
nutrition and raw food, points out the value of a simple
mushroom growing on a tree stump.[/font][/center]
In these mushrooms is where you will find some of the strongest
medicinal compounds.
He shows us the cloud mushroom, so common it grows in every
state of the US and Canada.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-036.gif
It has tremendous healing properties: immune system enhancing
and anti-cancer properties, and it detoxifies the liver not only
of cancer causing agents but of plastic by-products!
If you learn to identify it, you can simply harvest this
mushroom, take it home and make a healing tea. ;D
--Bibi Farber
This video was produced by 21daystohealth.com - See more at:
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/health-and-wellness/healing-with-wild-mushrooms-.html#sthash.H0Buc1CF.dpuf
#Post#: 4897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: April 16, 2016, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://simplenutritiontips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/8-SUGAR-CUBES.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][font=georgia]What can sugar teach us about
evidence-based chemical regulation? [/font] ???[/center]
April 14, 2016 at 6:07 pm
This month, we recommend reading “The Sugar Conspiracy”
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin,<br
/>a Guardian Long Read by science writer and journalist Ian
Leslie. The article is interesting because the challenges of
developing evidence-based chemical regulations are mirrored in
this account of the lessons we should be learning from a 60+
year-old argument about the place of sugar and fat in dietary
guidance for public health.
[center][font=georgia]Sugar, chemicals, and the role of science
in policy-making[/font][/center]
Chemicals and public health policy both sit at the interface of
science and decision-making, trying to make sense of
accumulating scientific evidence about health risks posed by
chemicals, how to best make use of that ever-shifting research
landscape to agree on desired outcomes, and shape the policies
that will stand the best chance of achieving them.
The first lesson about the relationship between science and
policy, which “The Sugar Conspiracy” gets right, is that
scientific research as well as policy-making is embedded in
human social practices: there is no magic cordon which
automatically ensures a separation of scientist from society, or
of scientific behaviours from regular ones.
In many circumstances, these social determinants may be at least
as important for explaining why scientists have a particular set
of beliefs as what a putative body of evidence might be saying.
These social determinants operate at the personal level and
include deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority
opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with
admitting to error.
They also operate at the societal level, with the article
touching on how the spread and eventual mainstreaming of an idea
can be sometimes be explained without apparent recourse to an
evidence base at all: academics accumulate power and appoint
like-minded thinkers to influential positions; this increases
their funding and ability to determine the research agenda, the
methods used, and the admissible evidence.
As the elite spreads and homogenises, any canvassing of expert
opinion reaches only a demographically uniform group, and any
dissenting opinions are either missed altogether or dismissed as
outliers. So by shaping the evidence and the surrounding
opinion, ideas can spread through the research community without
needing to be right.
The second lesson from the piece is its first misstep: the
article misunderstands the role the scientific method can play
in providing constraints on the social steers under which
scientists operate. Of the above psychological and social
pressures, the article states: “Of course, such tendencies are
precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct
for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it.”
In fact, it is a mistake to hold that the scientific method
somehow automatically keeps in check the worst social excesses
of human researchers; really, the scientific method cannot do
anything automatically because it has to be deliberately applied
by researchers in order to have any effect.
Most of the time, this deliberate application is made in the
context of the single experiment, whereby the controlled set-up
required by the scientific method makes it possible for the
researcher to be more confident that the effect they are seeing
is a consequence of the changes they are introducing, rather
than a consequence of something else happening in the experiment
of which they are unaware.
But in “The Sugar Conspiracy”, the author is interested in how
scientific research is aggregated: here, the research activity
moves from limiting the effect of psychosocial pressures on
producing new evidence at the lab bench, to limiting the effect
of these pressures on the process of gathering and appraising
existing evidence.
Why, in making this transition, should we assume the scientific
method
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>is still being applied? Even if scientists are good at
conducting controlled experiments in the lab, there is no reason
to assume they are equally effective at controlling the
variables which affect the process of synthesising all the
evidence which those lab experiments are producing.
The third lesson is that we can question another assumption
implied by the article: in this case, it is how the Sugar
Conspiracy seems to buy into the idea that science produces a
canon of fact, to which some people (like John Yudkin) are
aligned all along and some (like Ancel Keys) are not.
[quote]In fact, science produces a body of evidence which is
sufficiently confusing, messy and open to interpretation that at
any given time it might not be possible to tell who is right.
[/quote]In these instances (which may be the vast majority of
the time) there is just opinion, some of it better founded on
the available evidence, some of it formed by social
determinants, and some of it ultimately turning out to represent
the best guess as to the facts of the matter regardless of how
it was come to.
If it really were a matter of science determining the facts and
researchers agreeing with those facts or not, it is unclear how
scientific debate could ever get started: if scientists either
know the facts or they do not, then anyone arguing against the
facts is either doing so out of ignorance or bad faith. It
doesn’t allow for the possibility of uncertainty stemming from
the difficulty of interpreting a limited and/or conflicting
evidence base.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
This is perhaps why the article focuses on Keys’ rather
uncivilised behaviour to explain how he won the argument with
Yudkin; however, it is not clear if the debate would have been
resolved differently even if Keys had been more of the quiet man
which Yudkin was.
In a situation in which nobody knows because the evidence is
weak, a decision still has to be made and it is down to luck if
it is the right one. (It is also worth noting how Yudkin never
really disappeared from view quite as much as the article would
have the reader believe, such as this Guardian piece from 1999.)
This is one of the reasons why developing policy from an
evidence base is so difficult: except in very restricted
decision-making contexts, the evidence base is always going to
be too underpowered to be capable of determining the right
decision among the multitude of policy choices and their
attendant consequences.
This is for two reasons: that the number of possible choices
vastly outstrips our capacity to gather sufficient empirical
data to determine which choice is best; and because many of the
choices are not determinable by research anyway, deriving as
they do from our value systems (i.e. what we want in the world).
Where evidence is lacking, opinion fills the space. Where
outcomes can be legitimately informed or determined by evidence,
the trick will be in determining which opinions are sufficiently
based in what is currently known, where there is opinion instead
of evidence, and what to do in terms of research to meet the
information requirements of the policy-makers. (Where outcomes
cannot be legitimately determined by evidence, the trick is
ensuring the political process is capable of producing fair and
equitable outcomes.)
The final lesson concerns what to do in order to ensure that we
are making the best use of evidence in policy-making. At this
point, the Sugar Conspiracy rather peters out, being ambivalent
about information democracies or information oligarchies, as if
somehow the prize of science is clarity in purpose rather than
(as the article itself seems to imply throughout) using the
evidence to give oneself the best possible chance of making the
right decision.
[quote]There is in fact a route to a better way of doing things
which means we can be much more optimistic about the prospects
for the scientific method in hastening resolution of scientific
disputes, whether they are about appropriate sugar intake in
dietary guidelines or the risks to health posed by chemicals and
other pollutants.[/quote]
The solution involves revisiting how the scientific method can
be applied to the aggregation of evidence. [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img]
The premise of the story, that scientists are bad at developing
evidence-based policies, only comes as a surprise because people
(scientists included) seem just to assume that because
scientists are scientific when they are producing evidence, then
they must be just as scientific when they are accumulating
evidence.
As the article shows, they are not. But the situation is by no
means insoluble: the reason scientists are not very good at
accumulating evidence is that it is only relatively recently
that the scientific method has been deliberately applied not
only to the process of generating evidence, but also to
aggregating it.
These lessons have been most painfully learned in medicine,
historically an eminence-led profession where, by the 1990s,
experts were being found to be making one error after another in
their understanding of what they thought the evidence said. This
cost lives in administration of ineffective interventions and
resulted in clinical trials being conducted for questions to
which the answers should already have been known.
[quote]The lesson was that as much methodological care needs to
be taken in [b]aggregating research as needs to be taken in
producing it.[/quote]
For this purpose, systematic review methods were invented. In
essence, they are simple: it is about taking the principle of
control, of transparency and repeatability of methods and of
minimising bias, so familiar in lab work, and applying it to how
evidence is synthesised.
This has been very successful in medicine, making groups of
experts consistently much better at using effective healthcare
treatments and rejecting ineffective ones. In the context of
systematic review, as the large volume of positive responses to
the Teicholz article in the BMJ suggests, the culture shift
towards challenging eminence with evidence, facilitated by an
accessible evidence-base, could go a long way towards preventing
the likes of Ancel Keys apparently getting their way by throwing
their weight around rather than demonstrating the evidence for
their position.
So while we can’t make scientists asocial, we can start imposing
controls on the aggregation of evidence, to minimise (or at
least help us identify) the effect which uncontrolled social
influences have on what we think the best evidence is saying.
This won’t solve all the problems with ensuring policy makes
best use of the best evidence, but it helps with at least one of
them.
[center]
[font=georgia]Further reading[/font][/center]
Testing Treatments. Evans et al. (2011). Short, free and very
accessible book about how randomised controlled trials,
systematic review methods, patient involvement in research
decisions and other hallmarks of the modern approach healthcare
research have transformed medicine.
“How science makes environmental controversies worse”. Dan
Sarewitz (2004). Offers a compelling explanation of why the
processes of conducting research and developing policy should
not be conflated.
The Honest Broker. Roger Pielke Jr (2007). Explains how science
can become politicised, politics can become scientised, and how
science advice, if sought in the right way, can navigate between
these two unappealing alternatives.
HTML https://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/04/14/what-can-sugar-teach-us-about-evidence-based-chemical-regulation/
Agelbert NOTE: Unsaid in the article, unless you read between
the lines (i.e. define what "politicized" means ;)), is the
deliberate cherry picking OFTEN involved in control group
selection. This is done, while falsely claiming the control
group is a "random" selection, so that the experimental results
will produce the "appropriate" benign results if they want to
"prove" a chemical is not toxic, carcinogenic or otherwise
damaging to humanity and the biosphere. The epidemiological
"studies" on cancer clusters near nuclear power plants are an
excellent example of disingenuous cherry picking of "control
group" subjects.
The article states, "Where outcomes cannot be legitimately
determined by evidence, the trick is ensuring the political
process is capable of producing fair and equitable outcomes."
Unfortunately, in our world of rampant corporate corruption of
scientific research, the TRICK is ACTUALLY to ENSURE the DESIRED
outcome for corporate profit. To this end, the methodology is
gamed and the scientific elite are bought and paid for to claim
those that question the research are either "ignorant" or
"outliers" to be ignored.
[center]
[img
width=100]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/img][/center]
The NIST studies on 911 and WTC 7 are ALSO an excellent example
of how this gamed science for "officially desired outcomes"
works. And the arguments made by people like MKing or Palloy
against those that question the NIST study are, as stated above,
that [color=green]those that question the research[/color] are
either "ignorant" or "unscientific outliers" to be ignored. [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]
[center][b]The "scientific method" of those who wish to
guarantee DESIRED corporate bottom line outcomes: [/center]
[center][img
width=160]
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img
width=140]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img][/center]
[move]And DESIRED Gooberment Official Physics Fairy Tales about
911 too!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp[/move]
#Post#: 5128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Healthy Eating
By: AGelbert Date: May 21, 2016, 5:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]May 2016 News Bulletin: Soup-makers drop BPA from cans;
French ban on tallowamine/glyphosate formulations. [img
width=60]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
May 20, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Posted in News and Science Bulletins
May 2016 News Bulletin [img
width=100]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/img]
Campbell’s soup cans to drop hormone-mimicking chemical.
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/01/campbells-soup-cans-to-drop-hormone-mimicking-chemical<br
/>The iconic US soup maker will stop using Bisphenol-A by 2017,
after the chemical was found in all 15 of its cans tested in a
US survey. The Guardian. (See also coverage in the Daily
Telegraph: Does canned food cause cancer? A leading UK cancer
charity has written to major food manufacturers asking them to
reveal details of their use of the controversial chemical BPA in
food cans.)
Benign by design:
HTML http://www.dw.com/en/benign-by-design-how-chemists-aim-to-end-pharmaceutical-pollution-of-the-environment/a-19170547<br
/>how chemists aim to end pharmaceutical pollution of the
environment. From antibiotics to hormones and pain killers –
residue from drugs is found in wastewater, rivers, fish, and
even in polar bear fat. But chemists say they may know how to
end this environmental pollution. Deutsche Welle.
France to ban some glyphosate weedkillers amid health concerns.
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-glyphosate-idUSKCN0X512S<br
/>France’s health and safety agency is poised to ban weedkillers
that combine chemicals glyphosate and tallowamine because of
concerns over possible health risks. Reuters.
‘Breakthrough’ hailed in EDCs logjam.
HTML https://chemicalwatch.com/46782/breakthrough-hailed-in-edcs-logjam#utm_campaign=46598&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alert<br
/>Scientific experts, from both sides of the endocrine debate,
have agreed a “consensus statement” on identifying endocrine
disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which will be passed to the
European Commission to support its work compiling regulatory
criteria. Chemical Watch.
Firefighters seek new law to ban flame retardants.
HTML https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/24/firefighters-seek-new-law-ban-flame-retardants/Zzv8aVoRN6WTcpKDIvV4cP/story.html<br
/>Amid growing concern that flame retardants are responsible for
elevated cancer rates in firefighters, Massachusetts lawmakers
are pushing legislation that would go further than any other
state’s in banning the use of chemicals meant to slow the spread
of fires. Boston Globe.
HTML https://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/05/20/may-2016-news-bulletin-soup-makers-drop-bpa-from-cans-french-ban-on-tallowamineglyphosate-formulations/
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page