Talk:Food woo/Archive1

Redlinks
Seven six red links in so short an article? Keepon keeping on 08:58, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

That food photograph really is terribly unappetising. Blech - "don't want that". DogP  04:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
 * But it was yummy in real life. Shrimp, peppers, baby weird corn things, water chestnuts, broccoli, carrots, sprouts, beanpods, etc.  A bit of soy sauce and five minutes in the wok and you couldn't walk away.  Too bad we can't record and upload "scent-o-rama"!  ħ uman  05:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

MSG
I'm going to have to disagree with the article on MSG. For decades I have known that MSG wrecks me. Evidence includes: 1) Never having experienced a racing, caffeinated heart in my life until moments after I began eating Chinese food as a teenager; 2) finding that while some (mostly Chinese) food would do this to me, other dishes wouldn't, but the same dishes in the same restaurant always did it;  3) still unable to eat MSG-containing food without it causing me sleepless, sweaty nights;  4) being able to spot 100% correctly when I have - unknown to me, it can crop up in unexpected places - eaten something with MSG in it;  5) being able to eat Chinese food until the cows come home when it contains no MSG;  6) seeing it happen to others, making the connection for them, and finding out (from the packet) that I was right, and they too are allergic to MSG.

I know I'm right. It's hideous stuff. Anyone else? DogP Marmite Patrol 06:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...just because you and others are allergic doesn't make it intrinsically bad. You might as well do a page on the health risks of peanuts.  24.63.134.59 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the case against MSG mostly consists of these kind of anecdotal reports, showing only that some people have an intolerance or bad reaction. Empirical tests on the effects of MSG (across larger sample groups) have largely proved inconclusive.   00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The stir-fry.
Okay, let me be absolutely clear here: I am deleting the stirfry now for the third time because there is meat on it. human's post above lists its contents as including shrimp, which would make it pescal; although there is controversy, the Vegetarian Society does not consider pescal vegetarians true vegetarians. At the very least, it is not a good illustration of the concept. Sake Fueled (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, it's been moved from "Vegetarianism" to "Sheer lunacy"; nevermind. Although I'm not sure how a picture of a shrimp stirfry illustrates "sheer lunacy," or "food woo," or... anything but a shrimp stirfry.  Sake Fueled (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's food. Woo. I don't see your point.  03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the 'woo as in wooing your lover' joke is passing over some heads here Huw. DogP Marmite Patrol 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be a bit more clear if it were a food more commonly associated with "wooing", like chocolate covered strawberries. The current photo really doesn't convey that, and really isn't very good quality anyway, making what I'm sure was a tasty dish look like a dog's breakfast. --Kels (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I dunno about that, but, yeah, anyway, it might make more sense if it were a box of choccies and a can of whipped cream. At DP, yes, and I didn't feel like explaining it because it made it twice as funny for a while.  For me, anyway.  23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Kombucha article
The small section for Kombucha is very obviously uninformed. First I'm not sure why Kombucha would imply algae - maybe it was a failed attempt at humor? Kombucha is also not a fungus but rather a symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast. They feed on the sugar and seal off the top of the liquid so it does not become contaminated with other organisms. This creates ideal conditions for the s.c.o.b.y. and leads to a mildly alcoholic beverage which I think is delicious. Read before you post information as fact. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.21.168.52 / talk / contribs
 * Read Kombucha. 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

HFCS discussed
Despite the fact that HFCS is nutritionally identical to sucrose (Table sugar) it is demonized because it's an EVIL CHEMICAL, as opposed to sugar, which is totally all natural (Excluding, of course, the enzymatic and chemical processing, similar to what that evil HFCS undergoes.) HFCS does create one problem, however. It's much cheaper than sucrose, meaning it finds it's way into more of what you eat and drink, and keeps the prices of sweet, unhealthy foods lower.
 * High Fructose Corn Syrup

So let's talk about it. it is not demonized as an evil chemical, it is demonized because there is suspicion that it affects appetite. The latter part of the edit is accurate, if poorly punctuated and written. 04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, redlinking a poorly titled article is lame. Not introducing the abbreviation is lame.  Etc.  04:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, HFCS is a "mixture" of glucose and fructose, while cane sugar has a chemical bond between the two, which makes a large difference in how the two sweeteners are digested, so one cannot claim that they are "nutritionally identical." 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My main issue with this edit is "HFCS is nutritionally identical to sucrose (Table sugar)". They certainly are not literally, chemically identical. It's not clear to me what "nutritionally identical" is supposed to mean, or how you would prove that two things are nutritionally identical.


 * So I Googled, and Google tells me that this phrase has appeared in a few research papers, mostly with respect to specific meals created with all but a few ingredients the same (so they are "identical" in the sense that the only differences are trace compounds assumed not to affect nutrition). The second most common use of the phrase seems to use "nutritionally identical" to mean "containing the same number of calories". Both uses seem to be context-specific (i.e. you couldn't guess what the phrase if it hadn't been explained) and not applicable to HFCS vs. sucrose.


 * It is plausible to me that someone has an irrational fear of HFCS, but since I haven't actually seen this as woo before, it would be nice to know who is worried about it and what they believe that is either a) unsupported and unlikely or b) almost certainly false. "Woo" is not a catch-all for claims that might turn out to be false (even if they spark a lot of fear), but rather for claims that persist (or are advanced) against the scientific evidence, or which are claimed to have scientific support when they clearly do not.--Quantheory (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know less about it than I probably should, but the rationale is that fructose follows a different (and poorly understood) metabolic pathway that may connect it to weight gain and insulin problems. At least according to the Wikipedia article, there seems to be a lot of arguing over exactly what fructose does in the body and not a whole lot of evidence that's better than circumstantial. It does, however, apparently engage the liver more; I'm not sure if fructose-induced cirrhosis would be a problem, but it's plausible from the article. EVDebs (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there are issues for diabetics on how quickly the type of sugar spikes blood sugar levels, I dont remember which is worse though. Hamster (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * HFCS is a mix of glucose and fructose. Fructose, a fruit sugar does not stimulate insulin release. Insulin also causes release of Leptin. Leptin helps control appetite, so sugar without the appetite supression can lead to weight gains. Fructose also forms acetyl CoA which is the start of fatty acid synthesis, so Fructose with no leptin can lead to fat deposition with little control. Actually eating fruit provides fibre which acts differently to supress appetite. Hamster (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hamster, I recalled some such but did not know how to say it. 06:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am diabetic, have to know what the food labels mean :) Hamster (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blue made a couple of edits, replete with grammar and typo errors, dragging this back into the article. Had to use rollback so couldn't leave edit comment.  "Calories" is not the total measure of a substance's effect in the body... I'll try to check the diffs and paste the edits here.  05:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote the entire thing, added a variety of references and made sure it all related back to the article. I didn't even look at what UncleHo added. 05:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here it/they are:

Cut starts here:


 * High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
 * A number of companies, as part of public relations, have removed high-fructose corn syrup from their product. The common perception that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful to you than table sugar, however, sounds right but is essentially incorrect. High-fructose corn syrup may be nutritionally identical to sucrose, or table sugar, and contains the same amount of calories. The American Medical Association, while calling for more research on the subject, concluded that "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose," and stated that "the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed." A legitimate concern, however, is that some HFCS plants may use a process that adds trace amounts of mercury &mdash;though this is a scientific-based criticism, and not part of the woo.

Cut ends here. 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the issue with UncleHo's edits, but I don't think the above discussion discounts ANY mention of high-fructose corn syrup, especially given how much irrational fear of it there is. In the US, anyway. 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly cut because after the first few major grammatical errors and clumsinesses, I got tired of trying to parse this into what it was supposed to mean. 05:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've spotted two grammar errors. I can correct them if that'll make you happy, Huw. 05:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point yet of how and why we are including it. There's no woo, there is legitimate concern, and companies are addressing this concern by trying to reduce or eliminate HFCS in some products.  Just as was the case with transfats.  05:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The mercury thing is quite, quite small, and isn't the reason why companies are removing it. They are removing it because of the perception that it contributes to obesity and other conditions more than regular sugar. If that wasn't clear, I can easily edit it to make it clear. 05:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and last I saw, that issue (obesity) was real. Can we try to work on it here as a draft, perhaps?  06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. I'd just appreciate a more thorough review before wholesale rejection, if that's possible. 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I copied all your text here, it just took me a couple of edits. I also changed the header (with this edit) so as not to prejudice opinion of your addition. 06:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. This subject isn't exactly a personal passion of mine, but after coming across a few articles on it, I figured I'd add it. I'll rewrite it with higher standards of clarity. 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should just have its own article, especially if there is a lot of contention over the issue? 06:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does. My edits could be added there, though. 06:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, I missed that from your header. Far better to discuss and edit and improov there I think. When finished there, synopsis here?  06:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I missed it too :) otherwise I probably would have edited there. 06:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied, pasted, and edited 2/3 of your thingie over there. 06:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AIDS food woo
I think the article needs to mention this, but not sure where to put it.

It goes back to the time of our thankfully late Minister of Health, Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and her insistence that eating garlic, onions, olive oil and the African potato was more effective than taking anti-retrovirals. -- PsyGremlin  11:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Food Woo Catigory and Template
I think it's time for a Food Woo category and template. It should probably have one subsection just for "diet woo". Anyone up to making a "food woo" graphic? I can do the basics of the template, and let others add actual humor. Godot  Around, around, around, around, over, and under and through 20:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. we already have "food and diet", this is just (oddly) not part of it.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Around, around, around, around, over, and under and through 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Food? Тy talk 20:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, like i said, we already had it. This article just wasn't part of it... but that's fixed.  that cat needs work, too.  If you feel like you want to boost your monthly edits.  muwhahahaha....[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Around, around, around, around, over, and under and through 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Using this as a portal like page
Would anyone mind if I work on linking all our diets, all the various food products we have articles on, into this page? It's light enough at present that I think it will not overload the page itself. Godot  Malaka 22:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Our own food woo

 * From the article ... "a truly heart attack generating approach like Atkins." That the Atkins diet is "heart attack generating" is woo. It's got less scientific evidence for it than homeopathy. See this blog post, Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat by a science writer, clearly showing the pseudoscience involved. For those who know me, it may be of interest that Gary Taubes has debunked a whole lotta woo (the alleged general harm of dietary salt, for example), and got his start with Cold fusion in the 1990s, where he (almost certainly incorrectly) claimed fraud was involved. Let's say he's learned a bit since then.
 * Enjoy. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that Taubes has no training in medicine or nutrition, and not that I'd like to damn him by association, but Taubes is also endorsed by Andrew Weil, which automatically makes me question his work. ORavenhurst (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a long retort, with cits and all, but basically the point is this: general medical opinons are not WOO. They may be wrong (though I doubt it), but they are not stated without serious studies and evidence. That said, the single study most of these (including Taubes) 'fat is ok' people are citing to, does not itself make that claim.  in fact it SPECIFICALLY states that "these studies should lead to new studies, but should not, on their own, suggest immediate changes to anyone's diet to a higher saturated fat one". I had the link but my phoen blanked teh page. lol [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the ever-conclusive Argumentum ad hominem. Never mind. And never mind the publication record and reputation of Taubes, in peer-reviewed journals, on diet,health, and the politics of these, and other scientific controversies. Never mind his clear arguments about the difficulties of epidemiological studies in this field (which is about scientific process, not nutrition, per se, and he is an expert on that). What was I thinking? --Abd (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, you are making an "extraordinary" claim, without extraordinary evidence. Again, it is possible that medical science is wrong.  It happens often.  We find out more and more about diet, exercise, teh brain, etc.  But the standard medical opinion, back up by YEARS of research is that saturated fats is the single largest factor in the development of coronary disease.  The NIH, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, the American Heart Association all say so. Are they wrong? Maybe, but until or unless you have more than one guy (who's own reference study says "these findings are not yet understood") it's not "ready for publication" as it were.  It's not good medical advice yet.  But, believe what you want, you might be right.  Science does change its mind as it gets more info.  There is no reason to think, however, that we are at that point, since no major medical group has even broached the idea, and all still advise against high sat fat diets.  EVERY SINGLE MAJOR MEDICAL GROUP discussing dietary health.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 18:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an ad hominem attack to point out that an individual with a background in physics and engineering with a master's in journalism but no medical credentials is note the most qualified to expound on these issues, even if I do agree that the low-fat thing is totally blown out of proportion. ORavenhurst (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring primarily to the reference to Andy Weil, who was expected, widely, to be totally rejecting of Taube's work, but, instead, recommended it. Because of the science.
 * You don't think that a lengthy career record as a science writer, specifically with a history of debunking myths, and for more than a decade this has been about nutrition, with the articles published in Science that I cited, is qualified to study and publish on the scientific method and nutrition? Oookkkaaayyy, but, someone here is better qualified to review the data?
 * Get this: there never was any decent evidence that natural saturated fats were bad for you. Period. The decision was made in the 1970s to promote low-fat diets, it was a *political* decision, not a scientific one. The testimony of scientists was rejected and ignored. A large body of work showing the opposite was ignored. Read Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, it's solid science reporting, thoroughly sourced and verifiable.
 * There is no credible mechanism, now, for the alleged harm of natural saturated fat. It does *not* clog arteries. The high-fat Atkins diet produces *improved* blood lipids, so what is the risk? Obesity? But fat does not make you fat. Carbs do. While people vary, high-fat diets have long existed as ways of controlling weight. Atkins didn't make this up, he found it in the literature. Low-carb diets have been known for more than a century to be useful with diabetes, but once insulin was invented, drug companies claimed diabetics could now "eat anything they want." Sure. Teetering on the edge of a precipice.
 * Suit yourselves, guys, I'm not going to bother editing the article. Read the science, or don't. I saw the blog and the title, "Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat." Pseudoscience pretending to be science has long been Taubes' theme. Not interested? Ignore it then.
 * But this "extraordinary evidence" thing fries me. The study Taubes is debunking shows a quite small risk from meat in the diet, at best. Taubes, in this, is not making a diet claim. His book is not a "diet book." It's a book on the science and on scientific history.
 * Meat has been eaten by human beings, often as a preferred food (what you eat if you can get it), for a very long time. The fattier the better. The claim that it is harmful is the extraordinary claim. So where is the extraordinary evidence?
 * As to the agencies cited, you might read them again. Nearly all of them have shifted their position over the last few years. They certainly were wrong! Are they still wrong? Maybe. Some more than others. They are still, often, advising caution about saturated fats, but agencies like that move very slowly. The question to ask here is where the idea came from in the first place that saturated fats were so bad for you. Read Taubes. That's what he covers, in great detail. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rectal opinion
The article says: "...It sometimes takes a lot of thought to determine what advice is genuine and healthy and what is just someone pulling ideas out of their rectum..."

But then it woos the reader with rectal opinion as if it were a scientific truth: "... those who are not vegetarian, yet eat a healthy balanced diet, essentially eating just as a vegetarian would, but with a reasonable amount of lean meat for protien (sic), instead of lots of nuts and beans, are just as healthy as those who eschew all meat..."

Pull your head out of there, pal! - Brasov 03:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, it is a scientific truth. Claims that it's not count as vegetarian food woo.

Rectal references
The author(s) also provide unscientific references which are nothing but rectal opinions from others. Example, regarding Monosodium Glutamate: "Alex Renton, ["If MSG is so bad for you, why doesn't everyone in Asia have a headache?"], The Observer, 10 July 2005."

Well Mr. Alex, I can't tell you about headaches in Asia, but PUMBED reports a strong association between MSG consumption and metabolic/breathing disorders in asian populations, see: Monosodium glutamate, (MSG) intake is associated with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in a rural Thai population and Association between monosodium glutamate intake and sleep-disordered breathing among Chinese adults with normal body weight - Brasov 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gluten-free
Really nothing on this? Latest absurd food fad? Siafu (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Start writing! Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Generalisations
The more chemicals in a food product, the more likely there will be something that disagrees with you.

If you try hard enough, Dihydrogen oxide can be made a 'do not touch substance.'

People have a dislike of 'food that has been mucked around with too much.'

Some foods, drinks and additives are good for you because (a) you enjoy them, (b) you dislike them intensely, (c) your favourite pop star, sportsperson, social media leader, some person in a white coat in an advert, endorses them.

Wait six months and the food you like but which is presently derided will be promoted as the greatest thing since sliced bread (or whatever is appropriate). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Very many companies sell fantasies that their food produce are healthy or play down unhealthy aspects of their products. And some just might advertise with Wikia. I hope that’s not an issue. Wikia runs yet another wiki called, Healthy Recipes Wiki. How healthy are the ideas in that wiki?

Before spring 2015 the page on Sugar didn’t mention health problems with sugar at all though there were plenty of suggestions about cooking with sugar. I tried to put that right. Also previously the category for Dessert Recipes had no warnings about sugar being harmful. I tried to put that right. Then a webpage from Harvard University on Carbohydrates and the Glycemic Load was moved or went offline. I haven’t had big trouble with Wikia though a recipe appeared in June that, I felt needed a warning about sugar.

I also greatly expanded the coverage about Salt and health which I felt previously was far too brief.

Anyway the problem is I’m not a qualified dietician but I know the RationalWiki team does a great deal about food woo. I’m asking for peer review of the whole Healthy Recipes Wiki website and specially of my contributions. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow foods
One suggestion I came across - have fruit and vegetables in as many different colours as possible, as this will ensure that you get a wide range of nutrients.

Does this count as reverse-woo (as it is likely to be beneficial)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Not really.  It's a mental shortcut for something where the reality is complicated.  Still magical thinking, but it's the fallacy fallacy to assume it's wrong because it's magical thinking.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you negating the 'reverse woo' or that 'consuming a diverse range of fruit and vegetables will be beneficial'? It was presented as an overt simplification/convenient rule of thumb. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "reverse woo" part. I'm not sure there even is such a thing as "reverse woo".  Either you're making an extraordinary claim: eating a rainbow diet will cure diabetes, or you're not, eating diverse foods tends to be part of a healthy diet.  What do you actually think the phrase "reverse woo" means?  Maybe if I get a better picture of your definition I'll understand where you're coming from.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mnemonic/useful summary? (Along with 'lefty loosy, righty tighty for taps and other things which are screwed, 'l in the colour goes left, r in the colour goes right' for plugs and many others.)

Will 'multi-coloured food' contribute to a healthy life - probably; will it 'cure' anything - probably not (beyond 'minimising deficiencies') 31.51.113.153 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, sure. But how what do you mean by "reverse woo"?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If woo is total nonsense, and stopped clocks are occasionally right, 'reverse woo' is 'a statement/activity that has some positive value/usefulness, even if less than the proponent thinks.' (eg hot lemon and honey as a cure for colds.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So what term should be used for such things - 'slightly true and not harmless magical thinking'? 109.150.11.241 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we already had a term for common sense? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is 'common sense' and there are the 'vaguely useful/placebo folk remedies and 'based on facts.' Hot lemon and honey to cure a cold might be another example - but the 'eating carrots to see better in the dark' meme is something else (being a disguise for WWII radar).

Can someone do an article on Stanley Green - or at least a mention here as 'one of the best known pre-Internet food woo-merchants'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrots and night vision
Could this be mentioned as a form of woo 'peculiar in its origins' - see eg ? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Argan oil
Should this oil have its own page - given the many articles promoting its hypothetical (as well as actual) benefits. It also comes with natural (tree) goat - but would need added snark. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)