0

votes

Most maddening contradictions in mainstream media?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 27, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I was reading in New Scientist this morning and came across a maddening contradiction:

In "You may scoff..." by Emma Young, about dieting, I read... "Unfortunately we don't all have the self-discipline and determination it takes to cut back on the cake and hit the gym." Yes! I screamed. She said it was about cake. Finally, in the mainstream we are talking about how carbs - and particularly the flour and sugar delivered in a piece of cake - are the problem... Then later, "The mice (put under stress) went on to choose more high-fat food..." So, what's the problem with that! I screamed at the magazine. It said nothing back...maybe that's why it was so maddening...

What's your example of where you finally thought the mainstream had got something important, only to have your hopes dashed against the rocks of conventional wisdom?

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on December 28, 2011
at 06:20 PM

Love the pizza is a "freaking cracker with cheese all over it!" analogy.

164ed7cd8d84c926bc66f366619bf853

(495)

on December 28, 2011
at 01:21 PM

In my state, organic can mean grown with "natural" pesticides/herbicides (f&v), can mean the same as Karen P re: chickens & other livestock. Some chemicals used in place of antibiotics/steroids can be used in animals but aren't "hormones". It's laughable... therefore, I stand by my statement.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on December 27, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Sure Dave S., but there is also a HUGE difference between Frankenoils and healthy fats, and studies don't differentiate. I would say it's impossible to tease the culprit out of something like a cake, although I'm pretty sure we understand the effects of each of the components on the body separately.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on December 27, 2011
at 07:29 PM

Sheet cakes and cupcakes are about 40% fat by calories. Of course, sugar and flour gives you the rest. Do you eat plain sugar by the teaspoon? Or flour? Do you drink corn or soybean oil? Of course not! (I hope) But put them together, with some vanilla or chocolate flavoring and voila! An irresistable treat. We have got to stop blaming entire categories of macronutrients.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:29 PM

In Florida, chicken growers almost got a loophole added to the organic rules that said they didn't have to feed their chickens organic feed to be considered organic. WTH?! If they're not eating organic, how can they possibly be organic?!

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:27 PM

Sorry, you can't call a refined flour-sugar bomb a fat. I don't care how much vegetable oil is in it. It's as foreheadslappable as folks calling pizza a high-fat meat. It's a freaking cracker with cheese all over it!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:22 PM

Organic is defined. However, the definition is rather ambiguous and favors corporate farmers more than anything. It doesn't mean all that much in my opinion. It is not regulated either. There's no testing that goes on and it's all an "honors system" when it comes to truth in advertising. The incentive for fraud is high. Calling something "organic" doubles (or more) the price.

F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:02 PM

I was forced to endure a conversation the other day wherein my dad and my aunt were both raving about him. *Shakes head, checks date of flight back home*

Ca1150430b1904659742ce2cad621c7d

(12540)

on December 27, 2011
at 04:34 PM

Actually, "Organic" is well regulated and fully defined. http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml and http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo as well as http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop "Natural" is an unregulated term, but "organic" is well defined and regulated.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:43 PM

I caught a few minutes of his show yesterday. What a pile of bull that he shovels to his audience!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:24 PM

But your mice are gonna love 'em.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:23 PM

If you leave the fat out of a ding dong or a twinkie you lose the reward. Cheap, high calorie, PUFA loaded junk.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:10 PM

But the fat in most cake is not good fat- likely soy oil.

6cdc6b1e75690cfcc4804a6c9eaa910a

(2171)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:05 PM

Yes..except for all the cake marketed as "Low Fat"...surely they wouldn't lie or mislead us???

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 27, 2011
at 01:43 PM

Cake is also a food which is extraordinarily high in fat, usually vegetable oils. I consider it a good example of a fatty food.

  • 6cdc6b1e75690cfcc4804a6c9eaa910a

    asked by

    (2171)
  • Views
    1.2K
  • Last Activity
    1430D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

3
Medium avatar

(2301)

on December 27, 2011
at 08:14 PM

I hate when the yogurt commercials are like OMG THESE ARE LOW FAT AND 100 CALORIES OR LESS and then they have the fine print at the bottom of the screen that says "some varieties are 110 calories" as if this makes any difference at all.

2
164ed7cd8d84c926bc66f366619bf853

(495)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:31 PM

Re: fats, I'm sad/angry that the majority of foods I would like to enjoy/partake are marked as "low fat" "skim milk" "lite" "fat free" etc. Those things have next to no taste & if they do, it's such a false "chemical" taste, it's not worth it.

"Organic" (is a big laugh - not fully defined/regulated, has diff. meanings depending on the food/manufacturer/etc.).

"less processed" or "minimally processed" - so this one's jumping on the bandwagon, which is cool, except it's STILL processed! Duh!

I'll second the popular "Dr's" on tv & how this week they say one thing & next week it'll be something totally opposite. I gave up yrs ago trying to figure it out - b/c there's nothing I could eat/drink/do/have/etc w/o "dying" from it... so I'd rather just be dying b/c I'm alive than from worry about whatever info they're selling.

My biggest pet peeve & how customers CHOOSE to remain ignorant & buy into these "selling points" & believe (brainwashed?) into thinking they're feeding their bodies in a healthy/nutritious manner.

/off soapbox/

Ca1150430b1904659742ce2cad621c7d

(12540)

on December 27, 2011
at 04:34 PM

Actually, "Organic" is well regulated and fully defined. http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml and http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo as well as http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop "Natural" is an unregulated term, but "organic" is well defined and regulated.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587

(7660)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:29 PM

In Florida, chicken growers almost got a loophole added to the organic rules that said they didn't have to feed their chickens organic feed to be considered organic. WTH?! If they're not eating organic, how can they possibly be organic?!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:22 PM

Organic is defined. However, the definition is rather ambiguous and favors corporate farmers more than anything. It doesn't mean all that much in my opinion. It is not regulated either. There's no testing that goes on and it's all an "honors system" when it comes to truth in advertising. The incentive for fraud is high. Calling something "organic" doubles (or more) the price.

164ed7cd8d84c926bc66f366619bf853

(495)

on December 28, 2011
at 01:21 PM

In my state, organic can mean grown with "natural" pesticides/herbicides (f&v), can mean the same as Karen P re: chickens & other livestock. Some chemicals used in place of antibiotics/steroids can be used in animals but aren't "hormones". It's laughable... therefore, I stand by my statement.

2
69891d3f91e8bf51508e0dcedc684807

on December 27, 2011
at 02:49 PM

Multiple contradictions in Dr. Oz

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:43 PM

I caught a few minutes of his show yesterday. What a pile of bull that he shovels to his audience!

F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on December 27, 2011
at 05:02 PM

I was forced to endure a conversation the other day wherein my dad and my aunt were both raving about him. *Shakes head, checks date of flight back home*

1
A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on December 27, 2011
at 03:40 PM

"New and improved." How can it be both? They just assume I am an idiot.

"The more you spend, the more you save." Nope, just saving less. Again, I must be an idiot.

"It's on sale every day." Okay, again, duh! (If it's every day, it's the regular price, not a "sale" price.)

-1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 27, 2011
at 01:23 PM

Mocking Sarah Palin but not Barack Obama. Both easy targets, but only one has a bullseye marked on her butt.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!