2

votes

Do we need scientists to tell us that chemical manipulation of food leads to increased weight?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Slow as a glacier advancing the 'mainstream' is starting to connect-the-dots:

http://lowcarbconfidential.com/2011/06/23/fake-fat-makes-you-fat-stuns-researchers-low-carbers-say-meh/

If people just stop & think a little about what we eat I am sure this big brain we evolved can logically see that eating chemical laden crap results in great negative impacts on our health. Seems the great masses still need some news source to 'tell them what to think'.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on June 23, 2011
at 07:45 PM

Thanks, Vrimj! .

949d4d02ea7d1abd714cc3347c2c6854

(1021)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:21 PM

But Jon Stewart is America's most trusted newscaster! http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

1568416ef28477d1fa29046218d83ddd

(6235)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:13 PM

I agree that I wish I had more time to look for stuff like this. I just went looking because the two line summary didn't seem very informative. What is weird to me is that none of the news articles I read from standard news sources provided information on where to find the underlying study. I ended up finding it linked on a finance bloggers page who was primarily interested in its effects on P&G's profits. Weird that the person who wasn't reporting on the study (just its possible effects) was the only one who told me where to find it!

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:09 PM

Very nice walk-through of some of the more interesting points besides the headline. I like to read the papers for myself too, and wish I had more time/access/science-fu to do so.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," it's a useful check on what I like to think of as macrotheories arising from microdata. Go science!

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

But we love him because he's absurd and hilarious - not as a hard news source =P

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:56 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," it's is a very useful check on what I like to think of as macro-theories arising from microdata. Go science!

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:55 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," research is a very useful check on what I like to think of as macro-theories arising from microdata. Go science!

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on June 23, 2011
at 01:53 PM

Doesn't Olean also give people explosive digestive problems? Poor rats...

  • 66974b2cb291799dcd661b7dec99a9e2

    asked by

    (11121)
  • Views
    822
  • Last Activity
    1281D AGO
Frontpage book

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

5 Answers

6
E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29

on June 23, 2011
at 03:47 PM

We need scientists to do this research and document it so that people, and legislators among them, know and understand that these aren't harmless, which is the claim by anyone adding this crap to food or spraying it on growing crops. There is a very, very powerful lobby of chemical companies (Monsanto is probably the largest) that will stop at nothing to make sure they are making money off their chemicals, which means they're out to convince everyone that their chemicals are not only harmless, but necessary for some reason or another.

Most people are very busy and generally believe that if something is available for sale on a shelf, then it must be safe. Most people are not informed, and moreover, have no idea that they need to be informed, because they want to believe that they live in a safe world with easy choices.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:56 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," it's is a very useful check on what I like to think of as macro-theories arising from microdata. Go science!

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," it's a useful check on what I like to think of as macrotheories arising from microdata. Go science!

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:55 PM

Yep. Even when research confirms what we think is "common sense," research is a very useful check on what I like to think of as macro-theories arising from microdata. Go science!

3
1568416ef28477d1fa29046218d83ddd

(6235)

on June 23, 2011
at 04:55 PM

Here is a link to the PDF of the study.

The thing that might be interesting to parents is the chart on page 3 comparing weight gains. Initially Rats were fed either a standard diet or one high in fat, and the high fat rats gained weight faster. Then both groups of rats were switched to high fat chow. Rats on both initial diets gained weight, but rats on a standard diet switched to a high fat diet gained weight much faster then rats that were consistently fed the high fat diet.

There is a lot here that I find interesting about the effects of messing with the sensory properties of food and its effects on appetite. And that is totally research I support, I don't think we understand enough about how our experience of food effects our digestion of the food, the way our bodies use the nutrients after digestion on a cellular level, or the way this all might effect hunger and other experiences.

The Abstract is

The use of food products designed to mimic the sensory properties of sweet and fat while providing fewer calories has been promoted as a method for reducing food intake and body weight. However, such products may interfere with a learned relationship between the sensory properties of food and the caloric consequences of consuming those foods. In the present experiment, we examined whether use of the fat substitute, olestra, affect energy balance by comparing the effects of consuming high-fat, high-calorie potato chips to the effects of consuming potato chips that sometimes signaled high calories (using high-fat potato chips) and that sometimes signaled lower calories (using nonfat potato chips manufactured with the fat substitute olestra). Food intake, body weight gain and adiposity were greater for rats that consumed both the high-calorie chips and the low-calorie chips with olestra compared to rats that consumed consuming only the high-calorie chips, but only if animals were also consuming a chow diet that was high in fat and calories. However, rats previously exposed to both the high- and low-calorie chips exhibited increased body weight gain, food intake and adiposity when they were subsequently provided with a high fat, high calorie chow diet suggesting that experience with the chips containing olestra affected the ability to predict high calories based on the sensory properties of fat. These results extend the generality of previous findings that interfering with a predictive relationship between sensory properties of foods and calories may contribute to dysregulation of energy balance, overweight and obesity.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on June 23, 2011
at 07:45 PM

Thanks, Vrimj! .

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:09 PM

Very nice walk-through of some of the more interesting points besides the headline. I like to read the papers for myself too, and wish I had more time/access/science-fu to do so.

1568416ef28477d1fa29046218d83ddd

(6235)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:13 PM

I agree that I wish I had more time to look for stuff like this. I just went looking because the two line summary didn't seem very informative. What is weird to me is that none of the news articles I read from standard news sources provided information on where to find the underlying study. I ended up finding it linked on a finance bloggers page who was primarily interested in its effects on P&G's profits. Weird that the person who wasn't reporting on the study (just its possible effects) was the only one who told me where to find it!

2
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on June 23, 2011
at 02:02 PM

"In other news, water runs down hill. Researchers amazed."

I just lol'd

1
Fe535c4994ac6176f76e1ff6d29eb08a

on June 23, 2011
at 02:55 PM

I think it more comesdown to advertising than anything. As long as "experts say" something is good for you, then Big Food will continue to advertise that it is. HFCS is just like real sugar, whole grains lower cholesterol, eat this fake butter because it has no saturated fat, etc. Once the researchers do an about face, then the govt will, then what they will be able to advertise will finally change. However, with Big Food paying for most of the studies, and most "respected" research firms being unapologetic grant whores, dont expect the tide to change to soon.

The sad part is most people get their news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, and learned all they need to know about nutrition from the Cheerios (with whole grains) and Kool-Aid (with Vitamin C) commercials during those shows.

949d4d02ea7d1abd714cc3347c2c6854

(1021)

on June 23, 2011
at 05:21 PM

But Jon Stewart is America's most trusted newscaster! http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

0
B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:22 PM

but...but...i love Stephen Colbert :(

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc

(4171)

on June 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

But we love him because he's absurd and hilarious - not as a hard news source =P

Answer Question


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