I can't trust people who say...

[leadchipmunk]

In the same theme, an Indian health textbook published about six months ago claims meat-eaters "easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes" (source: BBC).

 

So that's where it all went wrong. Oh well, I like meat too much to change now.

 

I'll have to agree with most of the previous "I can't trust"s, but especially with the paleo diet is eating what our ancestors ate claim.

[Raincloak]

I agree, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

That quote always makes me laugh, because ... the word "only" is an absolute.  Sums up a lot of what's wrong with the Jedi knights, actually.

 

Speaking of religious fanaticism, that's probably what's behind the Indian textbook (checking the article, big yes... they're citing Genesis for a dietary guide?  I ask you.)

 

and allow me to cite one of my favorite xkcd cartoons on self-righteousness...

http://xkcd.com/546/

 

^ also applies to diets.  In fact, there is a psychological disorder known as "orthorexia."  It means being obsessed with having a perfect diet.

[Flex Luthor]

I get advice all the time from people whom I promptly ignore. I don't trust anyone who isn't a ) in superior condition to myself or b ) is a certified fitness professional who has actually helped people achieve what I want. If they aren't 1 of those 2 people they will either tell me something idiotic, or something I already know. And yet, people still try to give me advice on what to do with my body ALL THE TIME, despite the fact that, so far, I've achieved every goal I've ever set, while maintaining a healthy diet and remained injury free. I'd like to get angry but I find it hard to get angry at things I'm completely confused by.

[Katinka]

I can't trust weight loss advice from anyone who has never been overweight, even if only by 5 pounds. Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight are two very different things. I also don't trust anyone who says women shouldn't lift heavy weights, and that low weight, high reps builds "tone". I also don't trust anyone who says eating fresh, whole foods is expensive - maybe the fancy, organic ones you want are, but 5 pounds of apples for $5 is a lot cheaper than a box of crackers.

[joeyb]

what is the china study ?

 

i just had someone tell me that low-carb diets are being seen as increasingly problematic.

 

based on this study: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026

 

well, i dont know. there doesnt seem to be one diet that has no flaws.

 

The conclusion from that study:

 

Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

 

There is bound to be an impact on your health if you don't consider the nature or source of your foods in your diet. I mean, I could probably find a correlation between vegetable consumption and increased blood pressure because so many people eat canned vegetables, which are loaded with sodium.

 

 

As an aside (and back to the original topic), I can't trust people who quote studies without physiological proof to back up the claims of the studies. It's one thing to find correlations in a short study with small sample sizes; it's a completely different thing to be able to talk about chemical reactions in the blood or basic physiology to explain why things happen.

[ScrabbleGirl]

I can't trust weight loss advice from anyone who has never been overweight, even if only by 5 pounds. Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight are two very different things. 

 

Yeah, this is interesting. I agree. It's really difficult to accept weight loss information off someone who has never had to lose it. 

[minderly]

In the same theme, an Indian health textbook published about six months ago claims meat-eaters "easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes" (source: BBC).

 

Standford published a study last year that showed no significant difference in nutrient levels between organically-grown and regular produce and a lot of folks lost their minds trying to show the study couldn't possibly be right. Some researchers said they didn't measure the right kind of nutrients (flavanols vs flavonols). Despite the study being designed to look at nutrient levels only, a lot of folks claimed the study should have taken pesticide residue, agricultural run-off, or whatever their personal wonk was into account. You'd have thought Standford came out with a finding that said "convetional produce is better", rather than the "well there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove organic produce has higher nutrient levels."

 

Ooh, I want to get my hands on the data behind this claim :-)

There is bound to be an impact on your health if you don't consider the nature or source of your foods in your diet. I mean, I could probably find a correlation between vegetable consumption and increased blood pressure because so many people eat canned vegetables, which are loaded with sodium.

Also, there are so many other variables that can affect the outcome! That's why everyone should be skeptical of all out claims. I think people should demand more evidence from all these diet fads.

[minderly]

I can't trust weight loss advice from anyone who has never been overweight, even if only by 5 pounds. Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight are two very different things. I also don't trust anyone who says women shouldn't lift heavy weights, and that low weight, high reps builds "tone". I also don't trust anyone who says eating fresh, whole foods is expensive - maybe the fancy, organic ones you want are, but 5 pounds of apples for $5 is a lot cheaper than a box of crackers.

I agree. I've dated men who were very against me lifting AT ALL. Like as in lifting anything over 10lbs, because women's bodies weren't designed for it and it'll hurt my chances of having a baby...that's just crazy talk.

[newburpee10]

Some of the regulars include...

 

"I'll do that workout when I get in shape"

"I went to yoga yesterday so I could sweat off all the crap I ate last week"

"Coffee is bad for you" (as they're drinking some sort of soda)

 

And my personal favorite...

"I can feel my fat turning into muscle already!"

[cline]

I can't trust the following

 

* people who say you need to drink X amount of water/day or people who constantly drag water bottles around or WORSE gallons of water around

* anyone who says "the research says" - I have a lot of letters behind my name and I'm a researcher.  I know what it freakin says and how to read it

* anyone who says "statistics lie" - statistics lack intention and motivation

* anyone who says "you can't trust/believe research" - - no, you just don't know how to read it properly

* "the man"

* shake weights

[Raincloak]

It's true organic produce isn't always more nutritious. I dont know how that myth got started, but it's wrong. It may be lower in pesticides, but actual nutrient density depends on a lot of things that have nothing to do with "organic."

Veggies grown in rich soil with good water, under mildly buggy conditions, with plenty of time to ripen naturally, are the most nutritious... and you dont have any way of knowing soil or water quality, or length of growing time, when you buy the food. I believe you can still label a food organic if it is raised under grow lights, in exhausted soil, or picked too soon and ripened with gas. In fact, you have to pay to get certified organic, so many small producers don't do it.

Heirloom varieties from the farmer's market are probably best for nutrient density, since odds are they're grown like plants were meant to be grown. but that's even more expensive than organic. At least around here.

[Starstuff]

I can't trust weight loss advice from anyone who has never been overweight, even if only by 5 pounds. Losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight are two very different things.

 

Agreed. I'm also rather skeptical of weight loss advice from anyone for whom being overweight was just a brief abberration. Not that I don't believe that losing weight was hard for them, but the challenges of (for example) someone who gained 20 lbs over the couple years they were eating in thier college dorms and then immediately lost it when they graduated are likely very different from mine as someone who has been overweight her entire life.

 

I can't trust the following

 

* people who say you need to drink X amount of water/day or people who constantly drag water bottles around or WORSE gallons of water around

* anyone who says "the research says" - I have a lot of letters behind my name and I'm a researcher.  I know what it freakin says and how to read it

* anyone who says "statistics lie" - statistics lack intention and motivation

* anyone who says "you can't trust/believe research" - - no, you just don't know how to read it properly

* "the man"

* shake weights

 

I have to disagree slightly on people carrying water. People who push water-drinking, sure, but there are a lot of legitimate reasons to carry water: dehydrating/dry-mouth-inducing medication, singing on a regular basis, and presenting at or leading lots of meetings, just to name a few.

 

However, I'm right there with you on "statistics lie" and "you can't trust/believe research." People quoting "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is right up there with the colloquial misuse of "the exception that proves the rule" for prompting me to pull out my ranty-pants.

 

Your comment has also made me realize how very lucky I am to have never knowingly encountered anyone using "the man" or speaking of shake weights in anything other than a mocking fashion.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

I once heard a lecture from someone who claimed we should only drink distilled water since all the minerals in water are bad for us and I managed to keep my mouth shut! I also am incredulous when hearing about health/fitness claims from anyone trying to sell me something.

[Pyth]

Oh boy! An old fashioned!  

[Zorch]

-"It's easy."  Sorry, I've been there.  It's not.

-"It's impossible/too hard".  Sorry, I've been there.  Surrender = failure.

-"You should build your strength up on the machines before working on the barbell lifts".   LOL, No.

[Nomad Jay]

It's true organic produce isn't always more nutritious. I dont know how that myth got started, but it's wrong. It may be lower in pesticides, but actual nutrient density depends on a lot of things that have nothing to do with "organic."

Veggies grown in rich soil with good water, under mildly buggy conditions, with plenty of time to ripen naturally, are the most nutritious... and you dont have any way of knowing soil or water quality, or length of growing time, when you buy the food. I believe you can still label a food organic if it is raised under grow lights, in exhausted soil, or picked too soon and ripened with gas. In fact, you have to pay to get certified organic, so many small producers don't do it.

Heirloom varieties from the farmer's market are probably best for nutrient density, since odds are they're grown like plants were meant to be grown. but that's even more expensive than organic. At least around here.

I'd guess it probablys started with an appeal-to-nature marketing gimmick, much like homeopathic remedies and the resurgence of "traditional" medicine. Corporate agribusiness figured out there was a great deal of money to be made if they could cash in on the trend.

 

 

Ooh, I want to get my hands on the data behind this claim :-)

Unfortunately both the Standford study and the refutations, including the one claiming spelling errors, are behind academic paywalls. The Standford study is here: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685.

 

The citation trail for refutations is a little harder to follow. Starting with Mr Bitman's piece in the NYTimes editorials, one follows to the Huffington Post. This article includes the claim about spelling errors and links to a previously published contradictory study  by, from what I can tell, is the study's main scientifically-qualified critic. Far as I can tell there haven't been any new studies specifically attacking the Stanford study, just a lot of blog-o-sphere noise.

 

 

 

[geegeemcgee]

I can't trust people who tell me:

- Certain foods are 'negative calorie', such as celery or grapefruit.
For the average dieter, this advice is scientifically unsound for so many reasons and it makes me weep.

- Liver cleansing diets will rid the body of built up toxins.
It's a nice thought, however if someone wants to sell me a product which claims to do the job my liver and kidneys already do for free, they'd better have some solid peer reviewed scientific data to back it up. 

- 99% fat free. 
hooray, marshmallows, gummy bears and chocolate pudding for everybody!

 

[Katariana]

Yes, I hate false advertising on products. Especially things like 20% less fat, or "Now Gluten-Free" on something that never - ever - had gluten to begin with. 

 

I hate people telling me I can't do something, or I shouldn't do something, for dumb reasons. "You're too small (weak) to lift weights". What!? 

 

Also, people always judging you based from their perspective (almost unavoidable, but annoying).

 

Hence, someone who is naturally really tiny, saying "Well, you're not -that- thin" Because, oh yes, everyone needs to be a size zero to be considered small or petite, a size 4/6 doesn't cut it.

Or, someone who is really out of shape or much heavier telling me "Well, just eat another donut/serving of pasta/candy bar, it's obviously not hurting you, you're too small, you could use it!" 

 

Thats not really a "I cant trust people who say this" but its still really annoying. 

 

I don't like stars who insist they just "live an active lifestyle" by walking their dogs or biking sometimes and are somehow in perfect shape that way.

 

Or people who say "I just keep eating, but can't manage to gain weight!" When I hang around them and never (ever) see them eat. 

 

Oh yes, and if you eat certain food in strange combinations it will somehow react in your body to cause you to loose 10 lbs in 3 days. Like the Cleveland Clinic Diet. 

If you eat a grapefruit for breakfast, cottage cheese for lunch, and hot dogs for dinner, it will create a magical combination that will actually burn fat!  Or maybe you're just only eating like 900 calories and starving yourself....

[minderly]

I'd guess it probablys started with an appeal-to-nature marketing gimmick, much like homeopathic remedies and the resurgence of "traditional" medicine. Corporate agribusiness figured out there was a great deal of money to be made if they could cash in on the trend.

 

 

Unfortunately both the Standford study and the refutations, including the one claiming spelling errors, are behind academic paywalls. The Standford study is here: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685.

 

The citation trail for refutations is a little harder to follow. Starting with Mr Bitman's piece in the NYTimes editorials, one follows to the Huffington Post. This article includes the claim about spelling errors and links to a previously published contradictory study  by, from what I can tell, is the study's main scientifically-qualified critic. Far as I can tell there haven't been any new studies specifically attacking the Stanford study, just a lot of blog-o-sphere noise.

 

 

 

That's why I like this article : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1489946/

Raw data should have to be shared!! For the good of all! Especially data funded by tax dollars.

[minderly]

How about people that talk about being "big-boned" or it's just they have a "small frame". That's directly tied to your weight. Your bones are alive (well depending on the type of bone) and grow with your body. If you gain weight, your bones get bigger in order to support that weight! It's an excuse to give up on being healthy.

[Starstuff]

How about people that talk about being "big-boned" or it's just they have a "small frame". That's directly tied to your weight. Your bones are alive (well depending on the type of bone) and grow with your body. If you gain weight, your bones get bigger in order to support that weight! It's an excuse to give up on being healthy.

 

This is somewhat misleading. Some people do have naturally bigger/smaller frames. I have a friend who is the same height as I am. I am overweight, and was for many years obese. She is not overweight and has not been in as long as I've known her (since college). Her wrists are much bigger around than mine are, and she wears several sizes larger in rings than I do. She has trouble finding women's watches with bands big enough for her wrists. I usually end up in kids' watches because my wrists are so small. She has a large frame, and it has nothing to do with being fat, because she's not. I have a small frame, and it has nothing to with not being fat, because I am.

[minderly]

This is somewhat misleading. Some people do have naturally bigger/smaller frames. I have a friend who is the same height as I am. I am overweight, and was for many years obese. She is not overweight and has not been in as long as I've known her (since college). Her wrists are much bigger around than mine are, and she wears several sizes larger in rings than I do. She has trouble finding women's watches with bands big enough for her wrists. I usually end up in kids' watches because my wrists are so small. She has a large frame, and it has nothing to do with being fat, because she's not. I have a small frame, and it has nothing to with not being fat, because I am.

Your wrist is a little difficult to use for this purpose since it is made of quite a few little bones that are spread apart by cartilage and it's also where two bones meet...so it's not really the best indicator...I don't know anyone in med research that actually uses frame calculators (height and wrist circumference).

 

Bones adjust to your body. I'm saying that I think body fat percentage should be examined for people who think they are just "big boned". If you have a healthy percent, then great, you may have slightly larger bones for other reasons, like how your body processes certain things.

 

I know that bones do differ between individuals. I've worked with processed human skeletons, and it is crazy how the bones differ...but it's not in "size" of bone (circumference), but rather in length and "setup". Some of the female skeletons fit more into male profiles because their bones had adjusted to support their bodies, but they were overweight as females. Typically, bones fit the body. And techinically, yes, overweight people are big boned...

[Kunai]

How about people that talk about being "big-boned" or it's just they have a "small frame". That's directly tied to your weight. Your bones are alive (well depending on the type of bone) and grow with your body. If you gain weight, your bones get bigger in order to support that weight! It's an excuse to give up on being healthy.

Using "big-boned" as an excuse is annoying. No reason you can't be healthly and big-boned, you will just have a higher number on the scale.

[minderly]

Exactly. The more muscle you have, the bigger your bones too. So it's not just overweight people with big bones.

[PrincessHeather]

"Women should never lift more than 3 lbs ever!"

 

Hmm, what about my purse that weighs 10 lbs??

 

I also don't trust anyone who tries to tell me that they will lose weight heathily on a diet scheme that is all grapefruit day one, then all veggies day two etc... Why on earth is that a good idea? It's unsustainable, and they haev the nerve to think it's weird that I just generally prefer veggies to rice/bread/pasta because I feel better and get more out of them.