The Official Health and Fitness Thread

[hockeyfan1]

By now, quite a few have seen or read about the findings of a group of researchers who studied eating patterns associated with consumption of meat and processed food.  They claimed that after undertaking massive studies examining the correlation of the above-mentioned foods being linked to diseases (cancer), they came to the conclusion after a wide array of a diverse study, that there is no indication that neither meat nor processed foods, eaten in quantitative amounts of variance, cause cancer or any other diseases for that matter.

Their findings were published in several medical journals and elicited an outcry from medical professionals and organizations everywhere. 
It has become a well-known fact from in-depth scientific studies done over time, and endorsed by organizations such as the WHO (World Health Organization), Medical Associations from around the world, researchers, scientists, physicians, etcetra, etcetera) that showcase and support the reality of a connection between the consumption of red meat in it?s various forms as well as processed foods to be a co-factor in the development of cancer and other related diseases and chronic illnesses (along with other factors such as environmental, etc).

One would have been wary of a connection one of these researchers who did the pro meat & processed meat studies had to an outside organization or influence.  Well, it was discovered as of yesterday that there was indeed such a connection, hence an ?influence? or vested corporate interests (pharmaceuticals, food processors, etc.,) to potentially bend the bias endorsing the pro meat/processed food conundrum.

Here it is. No surprise.  Why? Not when you read this:

...Dr. Johnston...he was the senior author on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. That study, which also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, or ILSI, an industry trade group largely supported by agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical companies and whose members have included McDonald?s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, one of the largest beef processors in North America. The industry group, founded by a top Coca-Cola executive four decades ago, has long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members.?

Perhaps the study was well undertaken and shouldn?t be marred by one researcher?s questionable connections in doing past studies.  Still, the acceptance of this study is simply too jarring contrary to what the science has telling us for years about the link with certain foods and diseases.

Dr. Johnston said the real problem is that people don?t want to accept findings that contradict long-held views. ?People have very strong opinions,? he said. ?Scientists should have intellectual curiosity and be open to challenges to their data. Science is about debate, not about digging your heels in.?

Dr. Hu said Dr. Johnston?s methods were not very objective or rigorous and the tool he employed in his meat and sugar studies could be misused to discredit all sorts of well-established public health warnings, like the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease.

?Some people may be wondering what his next target will be,? Dr. Hu said. ?But I?m concerned about the damage that has already been done to public health recommendations.?

Story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm always cautious of allegations of bias based on past ties to groups or individuals, but certainly the data and scientific methods are open to scrutiny. The study needs to be peer-evaluated to become even remotely credible.

As I've learned in a recent court case, "a perceived bias is not the same as a real bias."

And before someone takes me to task, I said I'm cautious, not that I discount claims of bias. There are certainly cases where bias affects results.

It sounds to me like there are certainly grounds for questioning the group's motives and results.

 

[Bender]

I think it's just rational to think that processed food probably carries a greater risk of disease long term than less processed food.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Quercitin, fortifying the immune system, Vit C, etc., The battle against the Coronavirus...

[tweet]1233763171359428608[/tweet]

Here is the article Dr. Rona is referring to:
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-made-in-canada-solution-to-the-coronavirus-outbreak/

How Vitamin C is benefitting the fight against infection:
[tweet]1231910761196408832[/tweet]


Proper nutrients and nutrition is essential to fortify our immune systems:

[tweet]1231736857320398848[/tweet]

Article written by Dr. Rona:
https://vitalitymagazine.com/article/coronavirus-protection-and-treatment-top-10-natural-remedies/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


Note:  Dr. Zoltan Rona is my go-to doctor for natural therapies.  I didn?t just choose any Naturopath but one who has a M.Sc. in Biochemistry.
Dr. Rona has been in practice for 30+ years, starting out as an M.D., but eventually gravitating towards alternative medicine.  As an M.D., he prescribed medications as any doctor would but due to patient complaints of medication side -effects and according to what he had been taught in medical school, he learned of things not taught in medical school such as other modalities in approaching certain health issues of his patients. 

Once again, let me reiterate that no one is advocating people throw out their medicines, but if there is a way to a 50-50 approach or even greater, then all the better for patient outcome.  Medications all have side-defects, it practically comes with the territory and there really isn?t much one can do about some greater and some minor, and taking them whatever they may be can cause long-term organ and general health damage to cells. 
Many doctors privately believe herbs are better than drugs, just as effective in the longer term.  Herbs have been around for thousands of years, long before pharmaceuticals were ever invented.

Everything has it?s risks ?do not self-medicate not even for natural products, always seek out the advice of a healthcare practitioner ? which is why a pragmatic, practical, and realistic approach for one?s health is truly the best advice.

Let?s face it, nutrition and health & wellness have become the lexicon on everyone?s lips.  It runs the gamut from health professionals to exercise & wellness experts.
What some of us may not know is that many of those in the natural medicine field were long endorsing the usage of supplementation in it?s various forms, healthy eating habits, body/mind de stressing techniques, etcetera, etcetera, way before anyone had ever heard of it en masse.  That?s who we have to thank long before the science behind it.