Meta Analysis, Calcium, and Organic Food
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2014
- Last week we discussed systematic reviews, and why they're better than review articles, or opinions. But they're not the only types of "studies of studies" I've presented to you. Sometimes you can go a step further. After you've collected all the appropriate studies, you can merge the data together and do one large analysis. Those studies are called meta-analyses, and they're the subject of today's Healthcare Triage
For those of you who want to read more or see references, look here: theincidentaleconomist.com/wor...
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen -- Graphics
/ aaronecarroll
/ crashcoursestan
/ realjohngreen
/ olsenvideo
I was one of the people who openly complained initially about the organic food video. Aaron replied and asked me a few questions then replied again and actually convinced me that I was wrong. For that, I will be happy to watch any video of his and suggest others to do the same. I am glad he does these videos.
Made my day.
What a BEAST your are KMA's. Popper would be proud. I mean that.
'I'm not saying there was a conflict of interest. I'm just sayin'.' -- Aaron.
Actually "I'm just sayin'" is one of my pet peeves! I wasn't saying that...
Healthcare Triage
Aaron, can you please do an episode on circumcision? My sister says that she wants to circumcise her future boys, and I think it's not a good idea. Anything would help.
*****
I know, but I figured a doctor, especially a pediatrician, would be nice to hear from.
Would the Green bros allow it, though?
Dorth Lous Sexplinations did a video on it, and that's a Green Bros. Production.
Wow, this was a really intriguing episode. Your final thought in particular. I was wondering, where do you draw the line when determining whether a study has been influenced by its funders?
I'm a second year medical student and we're learning all about the different EBCP techniques and its great to see your videos in context with new up to date research! Keep the awesome videos coming!
Great job with your whole series, your perspective always illuminates and clarifies these important issues. I for one am glad to know that simply by spending a few minutes each week I understand the issues presented much better. Thank you for doing such a great job providing education perspective and facts.
So _that's_ how you read those meta analysis charts! Thank you for helping out us laypeople by breaking it down.
Gah, I love your videos. You sum up scientific articles so well and make the conclusions easier to understand for most of the population than their original form. Making scientific research more accessible and easily understandable is really important to counteract health fads that are actually detrimental to people's health. It's so easy to access a lot of information these days, it can be overwhelming, but your videos approach a topic clearly, in small doses, and what I believe to be in a very fair way (for all sides).
Great job, and please continue making videos of such high caliber.
Nice, I've been following you for a week now. Pretty interesting how you put emphasis on studies.
Thanks for the follow-up! I had wondered about the 2014 study.
I studied crop production as a graduate student. What usually goes unsaid in this debate is that the difference in nutrient content between crops of different gene lines (both organic and non) is significantly greater than any detected difference in nutrient content between organic and non-organic crops of the same gene lines. Meaning, boosting nutrient content is best achieved by selecting the best gene line (crop variety) and not whether you grow them organically or not.
I love the way you teach its sassy yet interesting and not to boring.
Thank you for your videos and your systematic explanations of your approach to interpreting research. As you point out, it is unusual to see that since most people just cherry pick what supports what they already believe and it is refreshing to see someone doing this. Your videos really deserve more views than they get.
I'm wondering if you can address what you mean by unsafe levels of pesticide. What studies have determined this? And who funded those studies? And what sort of food preparation strategies does this take into consideration? (Like washing veggies). Worth an episode!
Seems like I have been waiting for forever since the last video. Love it. Keep them coming!
I love these videos, first they point out the flaws in the organic food and gluten free fads, then they make you question "common knowledge" things like low sodium diets and the benefits of antioxidants.
Thank you for addressing this! I saw news about the new study and wondered how it affected the one you had previously discussed. Thanks for clearing it up :)
Wow! What an awesome channel to discover !!!
Really looking forward to the Guinea worm episode! I've been following the carter centers work on the parasite for a while now. So exciting to see a worm that infected millions only a few decades ago being wiped out.
Great videos from you guys
This episode was really great and I learned a lot. Good job.
Hey, Doc, have done the math? At the time of this writing, you've hit the YT-301 perplex, so i'm not sure how many views you currently have. Nevertheless, that you have 238 likes is a very high percentage of the actual number, although that number is yet unknown. And, without a dislike and having attracted 74 comments, this is a good indicator of your hard work and your appreciative audience.
Appreciated!
Would you mind posting the link to the vitamin D systematic review? In my experience, many clinical trials studying vitamin D supplements use much lower doses than what is recommended by vitamin D physiologists in the field so I'm curious as to what doses the studies used.
I didn't realize this until watching the video on my computer. The slides with the magnifying glasses are magic eye pictures!
A major thing to note about the most recent meta analysis as well is that, unless i'm mis-reading it, in its comparison of pesticide use, it completely omitted organic pesticides and only looked at synthetic pesticides, even though it is the former actually used in organic farming.
A lot of the organic industry funded studies seem to do this, as they don't appear to want people to know about the likely larger pesticide residues that are on organic produce.
Can you do an episode on alternative and "complementary" medicines? Like does any of it really work?
Love this channel and its contents. Dr. Carroll et al., will you do an episode on multi-vitamins and absorption? Include calcium pills please. And gender differences/why different vitamins are marketed to men and women.
As I've said multiple times - quite possibly the most important channel on YT. Please let us know if it's unprofitable or loosing money before you shut it down!
did you use a different camera, or change the depth of field for this episode? it looks.... different, but much more in focus :)
For the graph at 1:09, why is the total error bar so much smaller than the average component error bars? I thought error compounded.
Did they change the lighting in the studio?
is there a study which combines the psychological or physiological benefits of the placebo effect and the consumption of organic foods? If I'm eating a commercially grown apple, but am told it is 100% organically grown could my body somehow yield some kind of higher benefit from it?
Are there any data regarding the taste of organic v. Conventional food?
This is a fantastic review of how meta-analyses should be used to form opinions, and I'm going to share it with a lot of people. That said, whether Organic foods are more nutritious is a pretty uninteresting question, since that's not the rationale behind the industry.
well i just wanted to share my thoughts, I have heard that organicly grown fruits and vegetables dont have more nutrients or vitamins but they are smaller in size so they are packed in a smaller package, what are your thoughts on this?
Really enjoy your channel
I really appreciate the content you make and the insight you bring to my every day thoughts about health. I'm a poor graduate student, so I hope you will accept my meager offering...
Hey Aaron, can you cover the efficacy of flossing? There seems to be meta-analyses finding no significant impact and ones finding reductions in plaque and gingivitis compared to just brushing. Does flossing actually have an impact, or is it just a mislead common sense?
Good episode. Very informative
Although I plan to do more reading, I'm definitely on the path to changing my view due to your videos on this topic. That said, I believe very strongly in buying local produce due to the emissions produced through transportation, and sometimes those same local items also happen to be organic since they're catering to the same market. So I hope this doesn't discourage people from buying local!
Just means maybe avoid the local farmers selling that, since the extra price isn't worth it and buy from the other local farmers.
Some things that might be worth throwing out there.
tl;dr -- Organics aren't healthier, but are good for the environment. Buying local doesn't reduce emissions, sorry.
First, Organics aren't healthier, but if you're interested in the environmental impact of your food, organics start to look much better. They typically release less and less harmful chemical runoff into the soil & water supply.
Second, if you're interested in the "carbon footprint" of your food, it's more complicated, and locally grown food is often worse. Shorter trips are often the worst in per-mile terms, since they use smaller, less efficient vehicles. Getting food from a distant (even international) farm to store actually uses less gas than getting it from store to the typical home. Farmer's markets are even worse, since they typically move only small amounts of food and hop from one city to the next before making a sale. So the most important part of "local" may just be to walk to the supermarket.
Finally, Transporation is typically a small part of a given calorie's carbon footprint. The impact of tillage, machinery, and inputs is several times larger, which means you may be better off buying from a distant place that's good at growing what you want. Shipping midwestern soy and California avocadoes is better than trying to do those things locally, and Organics with low-yield may be worse for climate change. And the Harvard link makes clear that even getting all your produce from the garden may not be as helpful as just eating less beef.
www.extension.harvard.edu/hub/blog/extension-blog/buying-local-do-food-miles-matter
shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-miles
Elliott Collins Their environmental impact is worse, actually, because they have to use 3 to 5 times more pesticides, as organic pesticides wear off easier and wash off in rain, unlike most syntheitc pesticides. So organic pesticides have to be re-applied more often.
Silverizael I've also talked to farmers who use genuinely eco-friendly techniques. but yeah, I've heard that this is often true.
Elliott Collins Thanks for referencing your claims Elliott. I'll be sure to read through those links and consider this more carefully. Although my ultimate goal is to grow as much of my own food as possible once I have enough space.
Same thing happened with the IARC glyphosate study. They just added studies that everyone else deemed subpar to sway the results.
I eat organic because it tends to taste better, which causes me to eat more vegetables (which _does_ have clearly demonstrated health benefits.)
As an extension to this video, I do have a request. What determines whether a study is worth including in a meta-analysis? If the new study came to a different conclusion because it is more permissive, which one is correct? Both sides can claim the other might be cherry picking based on selection criteria. What makes methodology "good"? Perhaps give examples or case studies?
I love this channel over a lot of other educational ones because it's not afraid to go into the rigorous "boring" analysis of research, and I would like to know more about the nitty gritty of scientific academia.
Some of the text slides in this video were difficult to read quickly; I believe it was the result of the color scheme. Just an FYI.
Fine, then what is the perfect diet? Please make a video about it.
Love this video!
How about something on second hand smoke? Have there been any studies that have factual evidence to support any conclusions?
As far as I've seen, there's no evidence showing that second hand smoke is safe. Instead, there is a small group of people with vested interests who pay scientists to write reviews on the methodology of studies showing that it's dangerous. As was mentioned in the last HCT video, reviews are not in themselves actual studies. This is being done by the same well-funded 'grassroots' organizations which now deny climate change. They don't make evidence against the consensus, they try to convince people there is no consensus.
This is written about in the book _Merchants of Doubt_ by Naomi Oreskes.
Not possible. A randomized controlled trial on something like that would be shut down by the ethics board in 5 seconds.
That study would require intentionally risking giving people cancer. 100% unethical.
What about 3rd hand smoke? It exists you know!
I would really love to know if conventionally grown foods affect gut microbiome.
matt wodziak why does the microbiome matter if there is NO DIFFERENCE in health outcomes? You don’t care about clinical outcomes?
good video, but vitamin E and beta carotene are nutrients (beta carotene is converted into vitamin A).
the study that found higher antioxidant levels also found lower fiber levels, in addition to less protein.
And those lower fiber levels are probably the most significant of the findings, from a nutrition standpoint.
I am convinced that conventional and organic are equally nutritious, but the chemicals in conventional fruits have a tendency to not only kill bugs and bacteria on the food, but also the good bacteria in our bodies in long term eating. That is one of many reasons I eat Organic, but this is the most fitting for this episode.
so much sanity its unbelivable
Yay, camera focus!
I was somewhat uneasy during this video and didn't figure out why until about 3/4 through... Dr. Carroll's glasses were crooked!
All that matters is that organic is generally of a higher quality than conventional produce. At the end of the day I'll buy what looks and tastes better even if that costs a few extra dollars.
define "higher quality"?
S Nance presumably fresher which should be true if made locally (more likely with organic simply because long distances aren't an option)... but i'd rather save the 30% or whatever and eat what i already do :D
Honestly if you want it that fresh you can also grow some of it at home though I know it probably depends where you live I still know and have known plenty of people who grew veggies and fruit in their yards or in plant boxes in their apartments if they are that concerned it's another option.
If it truly taste better, which may be the case for you, then by all means. But there are few cases besides where "organic" is better than conventional foods.
Sudonym Rodriguez I think it's really noticeable in fruit and lettuces. Especially organic or even fair trade bananas, potatoes, celery, or romaine lettuce are almost always better. I will admit in typical grocery stores with small organic sections the food has usually been there far too long and doesn't taste so good anymore.
Haha! "Deal with it." I like you Dr. Carroll.
I personally find that I’m allergic to many fruits and veggies that aren’t organic. I believe it may have something to do with chemicals used that trigger those with a latex allergy. Perhaps they use those on some organic as well, but I’ve noticed a difference for sure.
I've been watching this series since its first episodes and I can confidently say that the most used phrase in it, is "...no evidence..." :)
You fixed your camera focus! Thank you! I couldn't watch your last few episodes, only listen.
Didn't the AREDS studies on nutritional supplements for macular denegeration containing beta-carotene actually find that it increases the rate of getting lung cancer in previous smokers?
I don't think the conclusion was robust enough to rule out random variance.
I would have to agree that the studies on organic food do not suggest it is more nutrient dense. However, what is considered the benchmark for 'safe levels' of pesticides, for instance, is a predeterminate that may actually present difficulty in determining the 'safety' of conventional food versus organic. I don't imagine studies can account for existing policy, research or understanding that in itself may be dated or flawed. Also, the greater health of the land and eco-systems is not taken into account. The studies are only about human health of course which I won't dispute the findings of, however if we argue that the general health of the planet and of humans as a part of a very complex system, then how do you begin to substantiate the role of pesticides and other chemicals or hormones used in conventional farming practices? Just some thoughts
Healthcare Triage I'm seeing all kinds of messages in the news here, about the pesticides on non-organic foods killing out honey bees and different kinds of insects, and also the birds that eat those insects. Those messages come from people with a clear interest against pesticides and because of that manage to make the news.
I also see a lot stating that those pesticides are safe for the biosphere and that we shouldn't worry about it. Those messages clearly come from the people with an interest in selling those pesticides, and they too pay to make the news.
Could you point out a couple of studies that show what's really going on?
Would it help certain species if we were to shift more of our food production to organic food or are there better ways to take care of the other species on our planet, such as banning certain pesticides?
I would also like to get to know the effect on other natural plants and beneficial insects.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pesticides. You can't paint them all with the same brush. The type of pesticide which is argued to be killing bees is known as neonicotinoids which are fairly new, so we don't know the long term effects. Other pesticides which have been used for decades, however, are mostly shown to be safe.
Nolan Thiessen that's the reason I'm asking for more data
Isn't the benefit of organically grown food more an environmental one than a nutritional one? That's always been my reason to prefer them whenever they're a viable option, at least.
I would like to see a show on strep throat. In the UK I never heard about it. Either people get it there a lot less or no body cares. But here in the USA I hear about it all the time and it seems like the worst thing ever and you NEED to see a doctor about it. But from what I can gather, antibiotics don't help very much but people don't seem to like to hear that. Can you tell us what the research has to say on the topic please?
We do get strep throat we just don't call it that. We usually just call it tonsillitis.
jellyfox That makes sense. But most of the time tonsillitis is caused by a virus and I rarely hear people suggest that you take antibiotics.
James Lloyd Tonsillitis can be caused by a virus or bacteria, and it tends not to last longer than a few days at a time. I used to get it a lot as a teenager. I found that the only difference was that the bacterial infection gave me really bad breath. Doctors would always prescribe antibiotics, and the tonsillitis symptoms will have faded by the end of the prescription regardless.
Tonsilitis or pharyngitis just means swelling of the tonsils or pharynx - basically, a sore throat. Most of the time it's viral, and not a huge deal. When it's caused by a bacteria, it's most likely to be a case of strep throat. The symptoms will go away whether antibiotics are used or not. BUT antibiotics significantly reduce the risk of transmitting to others. And it makes sure there are no complications. And since the complications of strep throat include things like rheumatic fever, that's kind of important.
I never personally thought that organic food was healthier, or better with regards to it's makeup. I've always supported organic produce because it's more sustainable. It's significantly better for the environment to not use pesticides that can harm the habitats of wildlife.
Indeed. If we lose the bees, we're up a creek without a paddle.
At least one study suggests that you're incorrect on the environment claim: www.newscientist.com/article/dn22240-organic-food-no-better-for-you-or-the-planet.html#.VA5rIWd0yUm
loopylollypop27 Any development of land, be it for a shopping mall or for a field of flax, necessitates the alteration of the local environment, which is often detrimental to the species endemic to that environment.
By choosing organic, you're choosing a method of crop-raising that requires altering more land, with lower crop yield, than conventional modern practices.
If there were an infinite amount of arable land, not being used otherwise, your statement would be sensible and ethical. Sadly, there is not - and so the Amazon basin burns, to make space for your own warm, fuzzy, 'organic' choices.
So, question: 'more sustainable' than what, exactly?
I recently found out that organic crops use plant derived pesticides, however those pesticides can be very toxic and be sprayed multiple times on a single crop. Whereas synthetic or conventional pesticides may only be sprayed one time so take your pick, multiple sprays from a an organic pesticide derived from a toxic plant or a single synthetic application. I also found out that the health effects of the organic pesticides are rarely studied and we fully don't understand what the health implications of exposure are or how long they stay in the system(human or environment). In fact there is a common organic pesticide that was, until recently, used in organic farming and it is still used to kill non native fish and plant species in lakes. Think about that: it is used to kill fish and it's ok to spray it on food because it's organic or plant derived. I'm starting to rethink organics and maybe not fret as much if I have to buy something conventionally grown if the organic option is not available. Either way we're all pretty much boned.
Any comment on types of research that can't be control tested studies because of rarity or ethics? How should we be careful with it?
Can you do an episode on how much sleep you need?
As vaping is exploding into our culture. Can you do an episode on that?
"Milk is sorta ridiculous... deal with it." LOL
Milk ridicules what? Or is it ridiculous?
Matthew Johnson haha thanks.
I just read an "article" on some website that was filled with vague correlation and absolutely no statistics or facts that said that research in mice found that antibiotic use could harm the bacteria balance in the digestive tract and cause food allergies. Generally I love another reason to be wary of antibiotics, but this was a wildly unsupported claim on this website. Is there any truth to what I can't fathom calling more than a rumor? I know antibiotics can harm healthy bacteria for the body, and can mess with the digestive system, but could it actually affect food allergies?
Certain antibiotic treatments can harm gut flora, yes, though I have no idea where the heck food allergies comes into that. That last part makes no sense at all and I would assume is completely unsubstantiated on the part of whatever website you read it on.
IMO a lot of the benefits of eating organic food come from the fact that its less processed. I dont know how it is where you live but here most of the local grocery stores carry almost exclusively processed garbage, with maybe a lackluster produce aisle thrown in somewhere for show...but then you go to the "organic" store and it seems difficult to find food that is processed. And the produce there is incredibly fresh, maybe thats just where I live...even though they focus on organic food they also sell nonorganic food there as well, most of that still tends to be less processed, I can tell the difference in taste and sometimes they ripen at different times. Does that have any effect on health? Probably not but I prefer that store for damn sure. lol
Mentioned it elsewhere but I eat organic because I know what the ingredients are. If non-organic food starts using foodstuffs that I understand I'll purchase them more. I'm a big fan of chemistry and still I find myself scratching my noggin at stuff at Vons.
Otherwise no illusions that organic is going to make me live to 300.
HTC should do a video about homeopathy.
All in all either one is still healthier than going out and eating fast food everyday, which is what people should really be focusing on if they want better health.
Organic food is just another religion. There are three primary arguments in favor of organic: nutrition/health, impact on the environment, and worker compensation.
NONE of these three reasons has been borne out by data. You should be suspicious of anyone still promoting organic food. They are being either maliciously ignorant or outright deceptive.
He never replies to emails...
When it comes to food, my only real concern is:
A) Is it safe?
B) Is it delicious?
If that's a GMO or not, I don't care.
In next week's news, I hope you cover this "CDC whistleblower" thing that has exploded. Dr. William Thompson is the subject. From reviewing sites, many claims seem very suspect.
Deeper depth of field looks much better without the constantly in- and out-of-focus Aaron.
Unrelated, but I went cross eyed while watching this video and it became 3D.
"Deal with it"
Whuuuuuu~
Yeah! Deal with it! =)
OK we all agree that organic food is not more nutritious and antioxidants are not a major deal. We need some studies/meta analysis on organic vs conventional farming regarding yield and environmental factors!!!!!! Thanks to whoever does it.... I'm not a scientistic. I'm just really tired of talking to nut bar factor 10 hippy morons everywhere in the world I go to.
Oh and this is quite possibly the best channel on TH-cam. I often share it with my friends and colleagues.
Study of crop yields has been done www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/node/9942
Fera Fish another study (30 years) on crop yields has also been done. rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/
in fact, many studies have been done.
This is a pretty meta meta analysis analysis...
That's pretty fucking meta.
$429,000?! For a meta-analysis?! How many grad students did they pay to sift through the literature?! Does anyone else feel this a insane amount of funding for a meta-analysis, considering that they are not actually conducting new research, just combining older studies and running the data through a big computer?
Maybe they thought the more money the spent, the more prestigious the study would sound?
I don't go for organic because I think there's more nutrients in it. I buy it to avoid the toxins that are often sprayed on conventional crops. As for GMOs, if the genetic manipulation is only for the purpose that the plant survives being dosed with more poisons, I'm steering away from them too. Monsanto started out as a *PESTICIDE* company and started doing GMO so they could sell More Pesticides.
So, you avoid the pesticides that are specifically engineered to be targeted only at pests, and harmless to humans - in order to pay more for the privilege of consuming more generalized pesticides that are indiscriminate in what they kill?
Also, read a bit about GMO from scientists, not reactionaries. There is a great deal more going on than just one company looking for immediate profits - feeding the world, preventing common nutrition deficiencies (and associated diseases), while better using marginal lands (thereby conserving prime biospheres). . . . Blathering against GMO is just one of the modern ways of saying 'look at me! I'm a poorly-informed dim bulb!'
Your complaint about Monsanto is meaningless. Who would know better about how to effectively use pesticides, than people who've spent nearly a century studying and developing them? Bic started as a razor company - does that mean that their lighters and pens are going to slice you open if you use them?
And you misunderstand the idea of Organic. It *doesn't* mean using "more generalized pesticides." It means using *non-toxic* methods for getting rid of insects, such as letting the chickens eat the bugs off of the plants.
As for Monsanto, I grew up hearing commercials for "Roundup-Ready" seed. As in, won't die when sprayed by that toxin. You say it's safe? Go drink a gallon & get back with me.
And if their product is so safe, why did they buy off politicians to pass a law *specificly stating* that Monsanto products can't be barred from the market, *even if it is later found to be harmful?* Sounds like they know something they're not telling the rest of us.
TheDajamster
No, I posit that you're looking at the term 'organic' with rose-tinted sunglasses firmly affixed to your nose.
There are few actual legal restrictions on certified 'organic' crop-raising. Fewer, in fact, than there are on modern, effective, methods. Basically, don't use human waste as fertilizer. There are many 'organic' pesticides which are used, and are incredibly toxic to humans and other mammals. Rotenone, neem oil, pyrethrone - all are potentially deadly, and are generally used with abandon under the delusion that 'natural' = 'safe.'
'You say it's safe? Go drink a gallon & get back with me.'
You say water is safe? Go chug a couple olympic-sized swimming pools and get back with me. Your hyperbole doesn't help your case, sir or madam - it only makes you look like a complete idiot.
'why did they buy off politicians. . .'
***Citation Needed***
woobmonkey p It helps to know the growers. You eat what you want & I'll make my own decisions.
I do agree with your risk assessment that a gallon of Roundup is comparable to attempting a couple of olympic-sized swimming pools.
Monsanto Protection Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
Fortunately there was enough of an outcry and the mandate was allowed to expire.
TheDajamster 'I do agree with your risk assessment that a gallon of Roundup is comparable to attempting a couple of olympic-sized swimming pools.'
It wasn't a risk assesment. It was me pointing out the inherent absurdity of your comment. There are closely-monitored restrictions on the amounts of pesticides used, and when roundup-ready seedstocks are planted, even less pesticide is necessary. And, that's without even pointing out that there are ZERO cases of human toxicity, outside of attempted suicide via direct ingestion in quantity.
Did you even read the wiki page you cited? Not a single shred of evidence of anyone being paid off - that's a serious accusation you've made, with no proof whatsoever. Otherwise known as slander. Dirty pool, mate. Also, most of the support for that law came from FARMERS, not bioengineers. Try again.
How's the view from inside your own colon?
Episode idea: Does smoking actually help you slim, or is this just a myth?
As a non-smoker, I've never understood why people start.
I don't think getting slim is anybody's primary reason for starting regardless of whether it's true. This is just anecdotal based on my own experience, but peers around you smoking leads you to try it, smoking kinda feels nice, you allow yourself another, and another, you buy yourself a pack, and BOOM now you're addicted. Cigarettes are an appetite suppressant, so that would have an affect on how much you eat and how frequently you eat. It's not a stretch to think it would have at least some effect on a person's weight.
Agreed. Definitely more healthy ways of going about reducing your weight.
Smoking doesn't help you slim down. It does, however, cut down on your senses of smell and taste, making eating more mechanical and less sensual. This may lead some to eat less, overall; then again, it may also lead to eating more flavourful, less healthy foodstuffs. Example: after a cigarette, you can't taste much from that pear in your hands, but the excessive seasoning on that bag of potato chips still pops!
I haven't seen figures, but anecdotally, there seems to be about the same ratio of lardasses to hardbodies in smokers as there is in the general population.
Yet, everyone who prefers organic food will still ignore the facts.
I get it - milk isn't especially healthy. I still like it on my cereal.
calcium? where is the calcium?
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews suffer from the same problem: Garbage in, garbage out. If you include garbage individual studies in your meta-analysis or systematic review, you will have garbage conclusions.
I wish you could pick what ads you play, sick of the political ad I keep getting when watching your vids
your collar
First!
I feel very neutral, I have no feelings either way. I just want to eat stuff
Meta analysis is what the NSA is supposedly using.
You're thinking meta-data analyses. Not the same thing.
Kevin Baker
Oops. Your right - thanks for the correction!
***** But it is the same idea. Taking large amounts of information, combining it, and withdrawing useful information.
Also, the problem with the NSA is that they are taking their data from people without their knowledge or consent and using it to analyze "things" that presumably then influence decisions being made that have no public oversight to make sure they are using this unconsented data wisely or even usefully. THAT is the major difference from peer-reviewed and published scientific meta-analyses of data that frequently is ignored in decision making anyway... :-P
EmethMatthew As far as I know, authors do not have knowledge nor give their consent to have their studies used in the majority of systematic reviews.
personally I feel ANY level of pesticide in my food is unsafe. just saying
Your feelings are entirely irrelevant to the facts of the matter. Do you avoid eating apples because they contain arsenic, and any level of arsenic in your food is unsafe?
What you feel and what is true are two different things.
Fun fact - organic food often uses *more* pesticides than conventional farming methods. The difference, of course, is that those pesticides are labelled as 'organic' for various reasons, mostly because they're found in nature. As any biochemist will tell you, being 'from nature' doesn't necessarily mean a compound is any safer than a man-made compound.
The dose makes the poison.
Kevin Baker I don't avoid eating apples I avoid eating their seeds, which is where the poisons are more likely to be found.
I don't eat organic produce because I think it might be more nutritious or contribute to improved health for me. Oh, I do think that I'd like to NOT consume chemicals given a choice. But this doesn't keep me up at night.
I eat organic because I know it is healthier for THE PLANET.
Conventional food production is demonstrably damaging to the planet. The examples are unfortunately endless and, ultimately, an unhealthy planet IS bad for my health.
HCT doesn't address this issue at all with this narrow and intense focus on individual health. This is odd because HCT had no problem looking at more macro issues when discussing vaccines and "herd immunity". A little of that kind of focus on the larger health picture would have made this investigation more apt. As it is, this video is a very narrow view of the benefits (or lack thereof) of organic foods
That's very interesting, and I share your enthusiasm for supporting the vibrancy of our ecosystems. Perhaps you could produce some references so we could get some real discussion going.
Or you could realize that you sound like a fool in love, emphasis on fool, apologize, delete your comment, and save some face, or you could leave your ugly mug out there as an example to other fools in love, so that they can make better choices in their lives.
"Chemicals".
That's probably a whole other video. I mean it would probably take another 15 minutes to get into that, but most people eat organic based on health reasons which is the significance of the video.
Yes! EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS!!!! :D
What is your beef against organic? Clearly there must be smthg behind it that you fail to mention the many many positive reasons to consume organic products over conventional. It also seems you're trying hard to skew the facts. I very much nearly unsubscribed, but I imagine I'll find more topics of value and don't expect 100% agreement with all things anyways. I don't feel I'll take the topics I'm unfamiliar with at your face value.
What positive benefits, exactly? Because all he's doing is going off the scientific literature, which doesn't support that organic farming is any better whatsoever.
"...you fail to mention the many many positive reasons to consume organic products over conventional."
Citation required
Nolan Thiessen I see this all the time. Organic is a wide range of things. Wood is organic, but I don't want to eat it.
Wow - you really don't like organic food. And I don't really understand why it's so important to discourage people from eating organic. There are a variety of other benefits - cleaner water, greater biodiversity, and fewer pesticides among them. These less direct health benefits are shared by the whole population, not just the people buying organic.
Something else that you're leaving out of all this research you're reporting, as though it's the whole story, is that commercially grown organic food is not the same as the food you'd be getting at a farmers' market or growing yourself. The single variety of broccoli, carrots, or beefsteak tomatoes you purchase at the grocery store has been selectively bred for size, color, crop yield, and ease of transport - not for nutrition or flavor. Heirloom varieties, which are very often grown organically, may have more vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, and phytonutrients than the mono-culture crops from ConAgra or Dole.
sunny jim Unless your local farmers' market is somehow different from every other market in the world, the farmers there are just as much commercial enterprises as any others supplying your local grocery store.
Or are they just giving their stock away, in a grand altruistic gesture?
You're right, of course, that major food producers use different methods than you do in your own backyard; the main difference being that their methods work. Consistently well, and backed by the latest scientific data on efficiency, sustainability, and profitibility.
As for 'cleaner water, greater biodiversity, and fewer pesticides" - Citation Needed. Pig shit is still pig shit, even if the sow was free-range.
The main argument against organics has more to do with the way that one term allows for so much bullshit to sneak by under people's skepticism, unquestioned. As seems to be the case here.
He never stated that he didn't like organic food - he's merely telling you, as a consumer, nutrition-wise, it isn't necessary to spend extra money on organic food.
woobmonkey p You're more likely to find heirloom varieties at a farmers market than at a supermarket. I completely agree with you that "Certified Organic" isn't a cure for bullshit. Mostly, I was trying to get across the point (perhaps inelegantly) that it's a far more complicated discussion than just, "Organic isn't worth the money".
sunny jim
It's true that it's a complicated issue. The sad fact, for 'organic' supporters, is that the more one takes into account the complications, the less viable the 'organic' market is, as anything more than a cash grab.
It's how confidence schemes work - convince your mark that they're knowlegeable, then collect the money!
Nice, I've been following you for a week now. Pretty interesting how you put emphasis on studies.