:: blushes ::
It seems like an offshoot of animism.
“The good fight”. What an tough fight. Only believe what the experts say, stop inquiries any further than what they say, only be intellectually stimulated by what authorities say, and tell anyone else who wants to attempt to jump ahead that they are not being logical. Whew, I wish I was smart enough to participate in this “fight”. Let’s see how far this “fight” gets all of you as you miss out on the potential health benefits of what nature provides (as I continue to bench my weight and jog 3 miles into my early nineties and while most of you are blind from checking what the authorities have to say about this or that in front of your computers).
Bottom line is scientists don’t know jack about produces’ net effect on health as opposed to taking pills or supps. They tell you its all the same, but then they say “nothing ought to be a substitute for 5 servings of fruit/veggies a day”.
In the absence of proof that phytochemicals have no net positive effect on human health, I CHOOSE to act as if they are healthy. I am doing the unthinkable :eek: , pity me. In fact, point me to the nearest “illogicalness anonymous” support group because I have a disease!
That’s not to say I haven’t learned about phytochemicals and the problems with saying they are healthy. Honestly, thank (some of) you for your time.
Okay, that was just cold. 
I don’t believe any scientists are telling people that fresh fruits and vegetables are the same as taking pills or supplements. Haven’t you noticed the amount of publicity the new food pyramid has received? It’s false statements like these that have tended to cause people to question your understanding of the scientific facts you’re disparaging or say don’t exist.
Here’s a remarkably even-handed alternative site promoting phytochemicals, yet warning against phytochemical pills and supplements. Ironically, it’s not the scientists who are pushing pills, but the alternative health industry.
But the even more important point made on that page is this:
I guarantee you that no one on earth can say what all those phytochemicals are, whether they have effects on the body, good or bad, whether they work to boost or inhibit one another, or whether they are present in sufficient quantities to do anything of value.
Again, it’s ironic that you are arguing for the consumption of fresh produce, which is exactly what mainstream science touts as beneficial, while simultaneously arguing that you are leaping ahead of science by buying into unproven claims about individual chemicals which scientists are busily investigating but haven’t yet been able to make a definitive statement about.
Nice effort, and right on the money too, Exapno Mapcase. But it doesn’t appear that Fuel is listening at all. There’s a reason why this fight against ignorance is taking longer than we thought.
Bingo. I knew there was something about this DEBATE (hint hint to mods) that seemed…well, for lack of a better or more PC word, retarded. Here’s a better one: pointless.
Fuel, nobody is saying that you shouldn’t be eating whole foods. They’re good for you. It’s just that you seem to have a faith-based reason for why your actions are right, and the words ‘faith-based’ and ‘reason’ don’t usually play well together.
Well, Fuel may be the new Hauss but the valiant efforts of Stranger and Excalibre may help dispel some ignorance among the lurkers. You go, guys. 
I understand that a high fiber diet will also help with that.
Yes. Water.
*Too sick to wade through this thread any longer.
You know, Fuel, you and hauss have been incredibly rude in both of these threads. A lot of people have taken considerable time to find information that you two were too lazy to find yourselves, to inform you of the actual facts underlying these claims, and to write detailed explanations of exactly the problems with the assumptions you (and many other people) are making. In exchange, you have stated that it’s enough for you to ask questions and everyone else to answer them (as if we were your paid staff), you have tried to stop the rest of us from talking about what we wished to if it didn’t fit into your agenda, and you have consistently misrepresented the things we’ve been saying.
I’m not sure why you’re so determined to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The bigger problem is that you’re being incredibly rude to the rest of us. If you have a set of beliefs and are unwilling to see them challenged, then please don’t share them with us - that’s not what we’re here for. If you wish to have science just meekly go along with whatever you believe, evidence or no, then - well - you don’t understand science, and you have a tremendous ego to boot.
The “authorities”? We’re talking about the results of investigation. There are no authorities in science - the term is meaningless because science is “a tyranny of the evidence.” If factual evidence is upsetting to you, then that signifies something grossly awry in your thought process. I don’t see where you get off with discussing the “authorities” because no one here has engaged in any sort of appeal to authority. We have argued with evidence, your response has been, “Well, you can’t prove it.”
Did you come here just to sit and be amused by others? You seem like a king reclining on a sofa, waving your hands and yelling, “Bring me another” every time your jester fails to amuse. You have done zero research beyond linking to Wikipedia and Howstuffworks, which certainly ain’t on the cutting edge of research. You sit here, demand information, and information that confirms your prior prejudices because you are unwilling to even consider building a worldview based upon fact. Then you get upset and suggest that we’re all fools for not embarking upon a set of beliefs based upon nothing more than your own whims.
I do too. Heck, I wish you would just make the effort to try to participate.
What the “authorities” say? You’re like a teenager, obsessed with a rebellion against nebulous authority figures, except that the only authority cited has been the evidence of scientific research. Do you have a better way to determine a healthy diet than the best evidence of science? If so, why are you so upset when science fails to support you? Is it more important for you to feel like you’ve won some victory against the “authorities” than to actually acknowledge the truth?
Where in this thread have you found any blind appeals to authority? Hmm?
I didn’t think so.
What scientists are you talking about here? Why would a scientist recommend supplements and then recommend against them in the next breath? Did that paragraph make sense in your mind when you wrote it? I’m serious - it doesn’t make any sense when it’s read. Of course you should eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. And where do you think those recommendations come from? Ouija boards? Crystal balls? Lucky guesses? Personal philosophy? No. They come from monitoring thousands of people’s eating habits for years and years and years, and determining which diets had the best effects on health. Why is that process so bothersome to you?
What is wrong with you? Who here has told you to change anything about your diet? We’re not your doctor. We’re not your dietician. We have not told you to do anything for your health. We have explained multiple times why the term “phytochemical” is meaningless, and frankly, if you don’t understand why pretending that a “net effect” can be imagined for a body of tens of thousands of chemicals, some of which are known to be beneficial and some of which are deadly poisons, then you’re not illogical, you’re stupid. It’s a simple concept: plants have many chemicals that do many different things. They do not grow in order to feed you - they grow for their own purposes. Many of the chemicals in plants are toxic, even carcinogenic; other chemicals have anti-cancer properties. It makes zero sense to even think about them as a category. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
We have put a lot more time into this than you have. You owe everyone whose views you misrepresented an apology. Every time you mentioned “supplements”, you were misrepresenting others’ arguments, since none of us recommended them. Every time you mentioned “authorities”, you were misrepresenting others’ arguments, since none of us appealed to authority figures. In short, you appear not to have even bothered to read what we wrote. You accused me of having discouraged you from eating fruits and vegetables, for which you owe me an apology.
You have read our arguments with a bizarre attitude of attempting to prove us wrong without doing the work to do so. You have been argumentative, you have failed to read what others have written, you have attempted to control every moment of the discussion, and you won’t even do the courtesy of finding some evidence to support your claims. Now you imply that we have tried to change your diet and exercise routine (why do you keep bringing exercise up at all? Who mentioned it?) and encourage you to take supplements - while none of us have done that.
Why did you do that? Why did you misrepresent all of our views? Why, in short, are you a liar? Why would you lie to us about our own words, when we can go back and reread them?
So what is the hauss/Fuel relationship? At one point, Fuel said he was the better half of the hauss duo. I’m gathering he’s one of a pair of brothers, one of whom is a a health nutter and the other one of whom is a real piece o’work with a pregnant(?) girlfriend. If you lookat previous thread, they seem to post on very similar subjects. (lawn care and the health benefits of inhaling grass particles) Do they use the two accounts interchangably?
Last time I checked, the authorities say to eat around 5 servings or produce a day. 5 ain’t nothing. In fact, its avoiding produce, to be exact. Where’s the advice from the authorities to season your food with lots of fresh seasonings, to eat a large variety of different produces such as ginger, garlic, beets, mushrooms, ect.? Don’t tell me the authorities are admitting what I am saying.
Simple: Follow the food pyramid, live until the average person dies, while living a very small amount of healthy years. Follow your heart, nose, brain, tongue and intrinisic wisdom (while partaking in science here and there) and live until you are really supposed to die.
I really wish I hadn’t offended anyone. Of course, whoever feels I am rude is using a frame of reference to feel that way, one of which I cannot be held responsible for because I am not aware of it.
I asked very simple questions, I warned others to not give detailed answers. I got off subject only when others started talking about me. Seems like I didn’t have a whole lot to do with this thread taking a turn for the worse, or wasting anyone else’s time.
Some of you need to be less interrogative in GQ, more unemotional in GQ, less person-based and more question-based. Just my advice. And I’ll take yours as well, dully noted Excalibre.
Why should there be such advice? What’s the rationale beyond ‘it feels good to me’?
You’ve gotten some excellent and reasoned responses. If they are unwelcome, you are better off not posting in GQ and instead choosing IMHO or the Pit, where you can post things like ‘Science sucks, except for the parts I choose to believe’ and will be less troubled by people taking the effort to supply you with good information.
How could you have expected simple answers to your questions? Any answer to the question in your OP at the very least must include a discussion of what phytochemicals are. While you could hope for a simple answer there, it just isn’t going to happen when you’re talking about a vast and poorly defined set of biological molecules. Any direct answer to your OP must then address whether these chemicals are being ignored or hushed up by the scientific community, which would require quite an involved response as well. Numerous scientific studies would have to be cited, given the number of phytochemicals and the myriad possible interactions they could have, and you yourself ensured that rather than a dispassionate list of studies on phytochemicals, the responses would also have to address the issue of whether your impression that these chemicals are being ignored is valid.
The basic idea here is that had your OP been phrased differently, you would have gotten the answers you seem to want. A simple request for research or studies on phytochemicals would, I suspect, have resulted in a dispassionate but informative laundry list from the very same knowledgeable contributors who are now arguing with you. The problem came in with your attitude of mistrust and suspicion toward “science,” which many of us think is a counterproductive attitude. Especially when it doesn’t seem very internally consistent, either. Where else would anyone have heard about the concept of phytochemicals, if not from scientists?
In particular, and I think I speak for most here when I say this, the notion of partaking in science “here and there” is counter to what science means. Science is the study of the Way Things Really Are. If you think what some scientists, or even a bunch of them are saying is wrong, then you and others who agree with you can try to find what they did wrong, or do what they should have done and do it right. Your answer may be different from theirs. But what you just did is science. IF it is indeed true that phytochemicals A, B, and D are really good for you, but C doesn’t really do anything, there must be a way to find that information out. And those ways of gathering evidence and trying to see what really is the truth is science.
The question is then, do you have better information, better evidence, for your conclusion that phytochemicals, on the whole, are good for you? If you don’t, why do you really believe that it’s true? I am asking this in total honesty, because I have no stake in this matter or in this argument. I eat my oranges already and will continue to do so after I leave this thread. But whether or not certain chemicals in them are healthy, I don’t know. I’m not an expert on the matter. And oranges are very complicated things, really, when you think about it. So I leave it to the experts to try to find the truth, and I’m going to tentatively trust them because no other experts have called them out for being wrong. And some of them would, believe me, since there’s money and fame to be made in being the one who first gets something right.
I don’t really want to put words in your mouth here, so if you disagree with the following characterization then simply ignore me. But the impression I got from your posts is that you trust your intuition to guide you on the right path, because in something so complex as nutrition no expert anywhere has all the right answers. While I sympathize somewhat with the end result of this, since out of a similar lack of a sense of confidence in the completeness of nutrition science I apply a healthy dose of skepticism to breaking news in health food, I have a similar skepticism of my own intuition as a reliable guide.
I don’t know about you, but my intuition’s got some serious blind spots. The first really serious one I think I ever ran into was the Monty Hall problem. You can look it up if you like, I find it fascinating, but the basic idea is that it’s a probability problem. I, being the smart-aleck resident math nerd among my friends (also minor math nerds in their own rights), was posed the problem by my devious best friend. My immediate, confident response to the problem… was utterly wrong. But I thought I was right. And after I was told the correct answer, I still thought I was right. I was explained the real answer. Yeah, I still thought I was right. Maybe a week later, I went and read the solution again somewhere online, and I finally got it. But it still seems sort of weird. Sorry for the long tangent here, but puzzles like this are one of my favorite things. But there is a point to this. That was the first of many problems and puzzles that led me to conclude that if there’s one thing human intuition sucks at, royally, it’s probability. Just look at thing’s like the Gambler’s Fallacy. If the last three flips were heads, the next one’s just got to be tails. It’s so widespread, so seductively right-seeming. Our brains are just wired that way.
I find that fascinating. You may not. But my basic point, in case I wasn’t clear or you wer just skimming that paragraph, is that human intuition doesn’t always work. And it’s really hard to tell when it isn’t. Those times when the real answer just doesn’t seem possible is when it’s the hardest to learn something. This happens in more than just math, but for me and most of the people I know (being of the appropriate age, as we are), it happens more in school subjects than in anything else. In a biology class, not much of the stuff they teach you is something that could have been intuited. A lot of the time, the way things really work is obscure and difficult for us to grasp, and the only reason we know these facts with reasonable confidence is that scientists demand a standard of evidence rather than a sense of rightness. Science is just a way of making sure our intuitions can’t lead us astray.
My intuition at least seems kind of malleable. Once I get my head around something that doesn’t make sense, over time I get better at seeing things intuitively. A sense of that “rightness” grows. I won a few awards in high school team math competitions, and I think some of it was due to the fact that everyone’s least favorite topic was probability. Except me. To everyone else, the probability questions were the nastiest; the kind where three team members could do the problem and come up with three different answers, and all be absolutely convinced that theirs was right. I handled most of those for our team, since having done so many counter-intuitive probability puzzles on my own (yeah, I was a nerd), I was good at them. I felt how they worked.
Again, sorry for the digressions and life story here, but I’m just trying to get across where I’m coming from. I don’t ignore my intuition, it serves me well. But I know it has limits, and I’m not willing to reject something “the scientists” are saying just because it doesn’t seem right to me. I’ll research it, get second opinions, maybe do a little learning on the subject if it isn’t way over my head (usually is). Only then do I reject it.
Kidding! Well, only a little. I take it with a grain of salt, to be sure, but I don’t think my intuition is inherently any better at knowing what’s good for me than science. Because science will eventually get all the right answers, we’re just somewhere in the middle of that journey.
You may say that our body’s own preferences were evolved to get us what we need. That our intuitions about food are really survival traits in a way that intuition about game show hosts and goats (Monty Hall) is not. To that I say, you’re probably right. To some extent. But I consider evolved cravings or desires for certain foods to be a rather blunt instrument for controlling my own health. It ould certainly work, as I wouldn’t die tomorrow and would probably live a pretty normal life. But I think science is capable of topping that. Plus, even if you’re not quite so optiistic about how close we are to the right answers on the specifics of health, consider that the broad guidelines are so widely agreed upon by scientists that they’re pretty safe bets. And with all the food around today that our ancestors couldn’t have evolved tastes for or aversions to to properly balance diet, intuition is a guide that knew these parts real well back 20 years ago before they did all this construction. Don’t be too surprised if it gets a bt lost in the new bits.
Some days, were it just up to me and my appetite, there wouldn’t be anything in my mouth that didn’t involve the word “chocolate.”
Thanks for listening.
And I, for one, will take him at his word.
I entered a 20-year-old male who exercises an hour of more a day into the new food pyramid.
It called for:
That’s four cups a day, more than the equivalent of five servings in the old pyramid.
Sorry for the lack of preview up there two posts or so, but it is getting late here, I have work early tomorrow, and I just don’t have time (I know, lame excuse… and even I’m cringing over that apostrophe!).
Plus I post slow, so some other people seem to have snuck in around my response to Fuel, which was what that massive post up there was. You know, for the edification of those who skipped over it. Just in case they care.
Stranger and Excalibre,
Very excellent, thoughtful posts, and a tip o the hat to A I Wintermute. Phytochemicals are complex, in my ongoing study with medicinal herbs, I’m amazed at this complexity. I work with plants every day, read, and talk to others doing research, and it’s mind-boggling how far we are coming in our understanding of that complexity. I have just returned from a medicinal plant conference, and the level of presenters/papers was amazing in the detail of phytochemicals to specific hormonal/immune system pathways. Good work being accomplished.
What I’d like to bring to the fore here; in US research, it’s often about patenting an “active ingredient”, so pure research studies about plant substances suffer from the inability to claim ownership, therefore, those studies aren’t done in a well-funded manner. In food crops, as with medicinals (very interesting phytochemicals), there is work being done, but it’s marginal grants for that.
Fuel, the AG scientists I know from NC State, MDs from UNC, aren’t trying to hide anything about the benefits of eating vegetables. They work hard to get good scientific evidence about why that carrot is worth the stick.
The point has been made, but permit me to reiterate the point: it is this sort of hyperbole to which people are objecting. I don’t think anyone has questioned the value of fresh fruits and vegetables. There’s no question that most people, especially (but not only) Americans get less than they should, and could use more than the recommended minimum. But the effect of any individual substance in and of itself causing the kind of health and longevity you describe, or the absence thereof resulting in illness is disingeneous. In fruits and veggies there are thousands of chemicals and nutrients; those that are beneficial do not act in isolation, but rather in conjunction with others, and in relative proportion. Even if, say, garlic has some “phytochemicals” (which, by a strict biochemical definition, is any active compound produced by the plant in question), eating twenty cloves of garlic a day, or distilling and consuming an extraordinary amount of said chemicals isn’t necessarily, or even likely, twenty times more healthy than a single clove, or no garlic at all. Heck, even water, in extreme quantities, is detrimental to health.
:rolleyes: The point others are trying to make is that we don’t have anything constituting “proof” that particular phytochemicals are universally and independantly beneficial, and even if we did so they would not be the magic potion that leads to health and longevity. Choosing to believe that a particular compound is beneficial does not constitute proof, or even a well-considered hypothesis. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eat foods with that compound–if nothing else, fruits and veggies offer a lot of fiber and nutrients without the saturated fats and bacteria that is prevelent in meats–and the placebo effect might make you feel better about your diet, but I’d be cautious about going overboard on any one substance. I’m not really clear what you’re upset about, honestly; other than acknowledging that our scientific knowledge about the benefits of such compounds are sketchy at best, no one has berated you for eating healthy. You seem to be, er, counfounded by the fact that no one has offered up validation of your claims.
For what it’s worth (and while in and of itself it doesn’t qualify as a strict epidemological study) many of the cultures of Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim have demonstrated good health and longevity; of particular interest right now are the Okinawans who have vastly lower rates of cancer, heart disease, and other chonic illnesses. It’s worth studying not only their diet–which consists of a limited selection of vegetables, especially onions and green peppers, and small quantities of fish protein and soya, along with a lot of rice (so much for the Atkins Diet)–but also their lifestyle, in which they remain physically and intellectually active throughout their lives and participate strongly in both family and community activities. There is, being on an island and traditionally living in small, somewhat isolated communities, no doubt a genetic component as well, but the point is that health and longevity are determined by the complete lifestyle, not just one component of diet.
There are no magic potions, not even the ones that Larry King hocks at every commerical break. Eat good food, stay active, and the “phytochemicals” will take care of themselves. Just don’t go expecting validation of pseudoscientific claims.
Stranger