Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Hadrian on 04/03/2006 20:18:52
-
A much published work by a Dr. Paul Kouchakoff found that the blood make up altered significantly by increasing white blood cells when you ate food altered by high temperatures. Do we pay enough attention to this?
-
Why do you feel it is important to give Kouchakoff's findings more attention? (I am presuming you do feel this, else you would not have started a thread on the topic.)
Leukocytosis from benign physiological factors is not typically considered an issue, is it?
-
According to his findings the effect was not subject to the amount of consumed.
I am interested in what we eat and how it effect us and delicate balance of internal chemistry .
-
In that case I am asking, what do you believe are the negative effects of leukocytosis.
-
Nothing in the body happens without investment of resources and energy one way or another. Everything we do has cause and effect built into it. If we are continuously triggering an event in our blood cemetery it has to have an effect and this has to have a cost. I not a biochemist so I will not pretend that I can prove or even know if there is a negative effect of leukocytosis that can be seen in the short term. But what about long term. Millions and millions are spent and even more gained on developing products they are called processed foods. The food industry is no more trustworthy the tobacco industry was and is. I don’t expect there is any future in a look for research funding in this subject. Too much food is processed using super high heat levels the cost of changing this can only be imagined.
-
You appear to be using a logical fallacy:
Some companies within industry A have been guilty, on occasion, of illegal, or unethical, or unhealty, or unsafe practices.
Many companies in industry A carry out a specific process B.
A single study, conducted over thirty years ago, shows that foodstuffs subject to process B produce a temporary reaction C in persons who consume this food (note that the effect is eliminated if 10% of the foodstuff is consumed raw).
Temporary reaction C is not known to cause any specific side effects.
All well and good to this point, but then you make the illogical, unfounded contention "Therefore process B is bad".
I prefer to make adjustments to my life style on the basis of facts, evidence and logical connectivity. It seem to me you need to do two things:
1) Carry out tests to confirm the results of the original study, ideally providing more detail on the character of the effects.
2) Demonstrate there is a significant negative effect from temporary leukocytosis.
Arguing against foodstuffs subjected to high temperatures without those two steps would seem at best ill conceived and at worst dangerously misguided.
-
You have the right to your view and there is nothing wrong with your logic as such, that is if you overlook the contradictions. One a least is your lofty ending “dangerously misguided”.In a forum that finds talking about making pipe booms ok seem a little strange. If you wish to discredit my thinking then do. I welcome it. But try not to take it all so personal unless I have insulted you in some way and if I have I beg for your forgiveness. I love to know why you feed the need to defend the food industry and therefore the whole system the global food politics because I dare to question it. The results of this industry is the starvation for millions third world food producers and obesity for us. These are the people who gladly pursue the destruction of rain forest to make burgers. I asked “Do we pay enough attention to this?” I can't see a single thing in you response to suggest we do or don’t. You are in your rights to buy into the logic of “if its not broken then don’t fix it” if you like. After all the tobacco industry clamed that smoking was good for us. I am sorry that good questing science uncovered their little mistake, after all we must not ask questions that we don’t have the answers too.
-
Hadrian,
I am at something of a loss as to why you think I have taken any of this personally (I haven't), or feel that you have insulted me (so there is no need to beg for forgiveness).
I am at even more of a loss to understand why you think I am "defending the food industry, or the whole system of global food politics." I am not. But please, for my education, and possible edification, please identify why and where you think I am.
Equally, where have I said "if its not broken don't fix it" (although this is good advice if taken literally). Indeed, quite the reverse: I have laid out a general description of a necessary program of investigation - "it seems to me you need to do two things".
You are disappointed in my failure to address your central question, "Do we pay enough attention to this?" I am suggesting that the background to your thinking is logically flawed, and therefore the quesiton has no relevance. Despite that I have offered a way forward, founded upon proper investigation.
In your reply you are very definitely erecting a strawman argument. Have I disputed the effects of the food industry on the third world? Have I questioned the impact of the food industry on the health of those in the West? Have I challenged the findings of research on the effects of cigarette smoking, or defended the culpable behaviour of tobacco company executives over decades? If I may answer my own questions, no I have not. Introducing these observations has nothing whatever to do with the science of the effects of elevated temperatures on foodstuffs and the consequent physiological and biochemical reaction of the human body, which is what I thought you wanted to discuss. If you wish to debate any of these other, irrelevant issues, I would recommend starting a new thread.
This is a Science Forum. Although I am very new hear I read through quite a few threads before registering. That was sufficient to give me the feeling that this site was consistent with my own views. These include a belief in the importance of bringing objectivity to the application of science. Science has brought us a great deal of value and interest. Its strength lies in the rigour of the scientific method. I feel aspects of this method are just as applicable in a discussion on a forum such as this as they are in any laboratory.
At the risk of repeating myself, this is how it looks from where I am sitting.
1. You have major concerns about the politics, tactics and consequences of industrialised food production.
2. You are aware of a seventy year study that, if accurate, would help reinforce your negative view of this industry.
I am a little uneasy that you have anticipated your conclusion at this point. You seem to feel, in answer to your central question, that we don't pay enough attention to it. Your implicit solution is to reduce the intake of processed foods. Now this may well be a very good thing. (I happen to think it is.) But it has, if you will excuse the mild obscenity, bugger all to do with determining whether that reduction is helpful in eliminating a possible negative consequence of a possible effect of elevated temperatures. That is simply not the scientific method, but a broad brush application of a political agenda.
The biased, unscientific approach that such a position represents is, in my view, irresponsible. If you argue for investigations of the type I outlined in my prior post, you will have my support. If you use this unvalidated research to push an agenda position without recourse to proper scientific study, you have my total opposition.
-
Were agreed then thanks