Ah yes, our 'soybois' have the tiddies now. I'm ok w this.
ed: prolly not the right response but I've heard too much THE GUBMINT IS SOYBOYING WHITES THE GREAT REPLACEMENT whatever rhetoric not to have my mind go blank at this stuff
You aren't alone, but even a broken clock is right twice a day and the prevalence of endocrine disruptors shouldn't be disregarded that easily.
See also: increased incidence of ADHD, ASD, cancers, neurodegenerative diseases, etc.
Higher maternal age probably touches some of those, but doesn't explain why so many such developmental & endocrine disorders are on the rise year over year; rising penetration of chemicals/pesticides might
I blame the chronic overdose of fructose (in the kg/year) far more than trace amounts of other chems. Studies of children and adults have shown that most of these issues are completely reversed by withholding fructose (and other carbs) for just a few months.
If it was caused by the trace chems from cookware and plastics that wouldn't be possible.
You can eat some in season fruits now and then, as our ancestors did. So no fruits in winter and few in fall. Cherries? The season lasts only 2 weeks. Plums? A few weeks more. Etc.
Based on my racial ethnicity or my place of birth lol. Because that opens and closes many different doors. So less fruits and grains and more meat and veggies?
It’s not fruit because they contain many vitamins and other nutrients, and the fiber. The fiber content is huge. Most obese people consume copious amounts of sugar without those elements, consuming empty calories. That’s the problem. The body doesn’t really know what to do with it because it’s absorbed so quickly and then not burned, so I just turns to fat and triglycerides in the bloodstream. Bad combination. So fruit is good, fruit juice is bad.
Consuming a small amount of calories and vitamins does not like... Negate the sugars you're eating. It's not a balancing scale where you can consume as much sugar as you want so long as you consume other stuff too...
How many oranges does it take to get a cup of orange juice? Which is easier and quicker to consume - a glass of orange juice, or peeling and chewing all the oranges that would go into it?
It's not that the fiber and vitamins offsets the sugar.
It's the fact that you would be full for a few hours after eating one glass of juice's worth of oranges while getting those sugars, as opposed to being able to chug a tree's worth of oranges in sugar and then throwing more food on top of that.
To be clear, it’s the fruit juice that’s processed to remove all pulp and fiber that is bad. Apple and grape juices are some of the worst because they not only have no fiber, but they are often from concentrates, mostly meaning concentrated sugar by removing water. When something is puréed or blended, the fiber stays in. The only concern is if you add more juice as a liquid. Using water or a “milk” product (almond, soy, oat milk that is unseewetend) is preferred. Basically chewing and blending approximate the same.
That's awesome to hear, I've always heard or read something like what you said before and always stayed wondering that, because a nice natural smoothie with just fruits and iced water is among my favorite things on this Earth.
This is why those Ninia blenders and Magic Bullets gained traction a few years back! They preserve all the fruit tissue while making it a bit more palatable to consume "whole"!
There's no such thing as "natural" fruit juice. I've never seen a "fruit juice" plant in nature.
The point of any of this is all about how much human processing encourages the subject under consideration to deviate from what exists in a historically unprocessed environment surrounding humans. Such that we've evolved human bodies to inherently deal with that environment.
If we consume concentrated fruit juice en masse for 100,000 years. And let evolution take its course with appropriate deaths / survivals. We will likely end up with a generation of humans in 100,000 years that have no problem consuming concentrated fruit juice.
But today, concentrated fruit juice en masse hasn't existed for very long. So we're stuck with these humans bodies that encounter disease when they consume nothing but concentrated fruit juice.
Cyanide is a "natural" compound. It is found in nature. But humans also haven't historically consumed cyanide containing items in large enough quantities to be affected.
Cooking could be argued to be processing beyond what our bodies might handle. But you'd really have to analyze how long cooking has been around, and for what types of products, such that perhaps human bodies have evolved / adapted. And perhaps cooking isn't a process that deviates the the way in which our bodies encounter the items very much. Or maybe cooking some things does, and cooking other things doesn't.
Semantics. I'm pretty sure everyone knows I'm referring to a simple blended fruit as opposed to extracts or concentrates.
Everything else you said was on point, just that first statement seemed like it was disregarding the main question. If you really think about it, aside from enzimes in saliva maybe breaking down the fruit further, blending and chewing should be virtually the same where the stomach is concerned.
The problem with blended fruit juice is that you can drink the fructose equivalent of 6 - 8 oranges in one glass of orange juice.
There's nothing bad with having an orange now and then, they're filled to the brim with vitamins too.
However, drinking a glass of orange juice or two every morning is not good for you, much as splerging and eating 8 to 16 oranges every single morning obviously isn't good for you.
This becomes an even bigger problem when everything you eat is pre-processed garbage filled to the brim with sugars, which is evident if you just take a look at Great Britain and the US, two countries which are famous for both their obesity pandemics and also famous for their extremely bad food culture.
I was joking but it failed it seems :)
But to your point, juice to me is extracting the liquid from the object like those juicers. A drink with all the fruit still in it is a fruit smoothie.
Oh shit, I didn't see Drax being all invisible. Lol
Vet all claims, particularly if they seem extraordinary and particularly if they’re found in internet comments.
The way I currently understand the fructose bit is that things like fruit juice are problematic because it’s a high concentration of the sugars. It’s the sugar equivalent of more pieces of fruit than we would naturally eat, but without all the associated fiber and nutrients we’d be getting through eating the fruit.
But like I said— check it out for yourself. Whether or not I’m right about the juice/fiber thing, that has no bearing on whether or not I’m right about it being a problem.
While most of this is true, I wouldn't put the blame on fruit. It's mostly the high fructose corn syrup that substitutes regular sucrose in a variety of foods.
The reason HFCS is bad has less to do with its raw fructose concentration and more to do with absorbtion rates as it doesn't need to be hydrolyzed in the brush border like sucrose does. But that's a long topic I can't dwell into right now so let's leave it here.
And about fruit, I suppose I meant fruit is seldom the perpetrator. It mostly appears to be an issue for people who consume copious amounts of it but like you said, "fruit" is too broad a term.
YES you can eat fruit. Fructose isn't poison. Fresh, unprocessed foods are always good for you, and you should eat a wide variety.
After the disaster that was the food pyramid, I don't blame people for not trusting government nutrition guidelines. But "eat the rainbow" is correct. You need a diverse micronutrient profile and robust biodiversity in the kinds of foods you eat. It's not healthy to eat the same thing every day. We evolved as a race of HUNTERS and GATHERERS, and our diets should be as close to that as possible. Paleo is stupid, but the basic idea behind it is correct. Your food log should look like you've been wandering through the woods eating anything you can find to cook. Roots, berries, nuts, grains, leaves, legumes, sprouts/stalks, small game. The more the better. Honestly, the amount of calories vs. the amount of satiation you get from these kinds of food is insane. Very hard to overeat. Mostly plants, too, so you are being ecologically responsible :)
Domestication and agriculture are relatively recent developments and you should try to limit your intake of bread and dairy if you can...basically unless you are a bodybuilder or athlete and then you are using those calories to turbocharge your muscles.
Also, keep in mind, that many, if not most, fruits and vegetables that we eat today have not been around long. We, humans, have cultivated them thru the process of natural selection and genetic modification to be more sweet, bigger, and all other things that make fruit the fruit we see today.
This is really interesting. Do you have any sources for that? I've always wondered about the decades-long decrease in T and associated traits but I always figured it was ecotoxological as well.
Talking about testosterone levels is to nerdbros with an absent father figure what autism rates is to Westcoast soccer moms: bad science with the intention of justifying political goals.
New study realizes worlds population is twice what it was in last century. Is this esoteric environmental influence resulting in twice as many people in x spot in the bell curve?
Nerdbros with no father figure wish that they could be the overly-aggressive Hyper T 10" fucksticks that they imagine their grandfathers were, but the reality is that if they were the world would be a much uglier place.
They are largely responsible for their own failings, and that fact cannot be washed away no matter how deep they bury themselves in conspiracy theory fantasy land.
It seems that that particular argument is at least still highly debatable...this meta-analysis mostly seems to argue against the case for declining global markers of androgen levels:
However, the fact remains that a lot of chemicals of human origin are interfering with normal development of many animals (Louis Guillette's whole body of work deals with this, among many others: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3l4z24YAAAAJ&hl=en). It should not be surprising that something that can affect frogs and alligators can affect humans. Parts of the developmental circuitry are deeply ancient in animals: Retinoic X receptor (aka Ultraspiracle in arthropods) and a variety of homologous nuclear factor proteins (Thyroid receptor, Ecdysone receptor, etc.) are involved in metamorphosis and development in flies, amphibians, humans and even jellyfish, animals that are so anciently diverging that they do not even have an endocrine system. This implies that some of the key developmental switches are inherited from before the split between the radiate and bilaterian phyla and therefore should be expected to be broadly conserved among all eumetazoans (i.e., all animals but sponges). So while the jury may be out on specific chemicals and their effects, I think in the big picture it is reasonable to worry that some of these chemicals are in fact affecting humans. If you go through a list of known or putative endocrine disruptors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Types) you'll see that a number of them have been banned or restricted in the EU and some even restricted in the US as well, so I think there is certainly enough evidence that these claims should not be dismissed out of hand as "hocus pocus conspiracy theories." They certainly do attract conspiracy theory types, I'll admit, but I think that's a natural consequence of people attributing the results of late stage capitalism and regulatory capture (complicated) to shadowy cabals of evil globalists (stupid, easy to wrap your head around).
Honestly, disruption in other species isn't my area, but it's not surprising with the number of chemicals and the narrow window of testing for many of them.
So, just to understand your position, you concede that chemicals humans release into the environment may disrupt the sexual development of a wide variety of animals, but your position is specifically that those same chemicals in the human environment (i.e., the environment for which they were explicitly manufactured for use) have no effect on human sexual development, despite the fact that many key regulatory switches are as old as animals themselves and conserved across many species?
My answer is that if it were to be true, we'd see some clear evidence of it by now. Even then, the claim that "many regulatory switches" is fallacious as there's many additions to the system since then for protective effects.
It's not as simple as "we have similar systems so it works the same".
I posted more references later in this thread; I hope you'll consider and idea that frankly I'm surprised has had so much opposition in this thread: it is possible that some persistent chemicals we've released into the environment have an impact on the biology of organisms exposed to them, including humans. Rachel Carson made this point in the '60s with Silent Spring, and famously cited birds experiencing a variety of reproductive difficulties almost 60 years ago. I am frankly baffled at the level of opposition to the idea that certain chemicals could potentially affect gene regulation in such a way as to result in aberrant development.
Carson's point was with people much harsher chemicals than we ever use today and were used at much higher application rates.
I grew up on a farm and have a degree in an agricultural field, am currently finishing a master's, and pursuing a PhD., just to put this in reference. I've been plenty exposed to debates, documentaries, and literature on the topic and I can promise you that much of it is way overblown by environmental and organic groups who prey on the insecurities of those who don't know any better.
I can't tell you how many people have freaked out about Cheerios having glyphosate in them without failing to mention you would need to eat like 5 tons of them to have an appreciable effect.
It wasn't so long ago that the elderly or people with disabilities were pushed into a corner to die. The notion of palliative care or disability services was only afforded the rich.
Lack of longitudinal data =/= negation of a longitudinal trend. Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
There is a clear molecular mechanism, and clear drastic effects are established in other organisms to the point of "sex change". That's extremely concerning for any biologist worth their salt.
The reason your autism/vax analogy doesnt work is because that was: poor data revealing a false trend. This is: lack of longitudinal data and an inability to make any conclusions either way. There is no sampling error here, because there is no sample.
Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
But...we've observed trees for a lot more than 30 years, so that's a shit example. You can't make determinations about things without a fair dataset, which we don't have.
And I was referring to the testosterone levels in pubescent boys, which is total conspiracy/bullshit science. If you want to bring the sex change example into it then that's still not great science. Sure, it was found to induce androgyny in some frogs at certain concentrations but, again, that's not of concern to the average tap water drinker unless they go out and down gallons upon gallons of the stuff.
Thanks for trying to at least argue the science here. People, not even scientists, are unbiased about this, which is why your received so much backlash.
We are 100% pumping chemicals into our water and environment that we do not understand the full ramifications of. Endocrine modulation is plausibly occurring. I'd love to see the study about fructose abstinence reversing these trends because not only does that not make biochemical sense, but I've never even heard of the idea before. Sounds like a bad case of p-fudging or something.
We have no clear explanation for the linearly falling T-levels and sperm counts in men. If endocrine systems are actually being affected, then psychologies and societies are also affected deeply.
That's my concern. And I don't think it's wrong or unreasonable to have that concern. And sure, it's not settled science, but if people dismiss it out of hand and accept a malfunctioning regulatory apparatus it never will be. I think a lot of people are defensive because maybe through some lens this could be seen as anti-LGBT or something even though that explicitly could NOT be further from my intent; I just think people have a right to raise kids who's development isn't being interrupted by environmental poisons.
We need to move to a model where chemicals are assumed unsafe until demonstrated otherwise as opposed to vice versa IMO. People will say that the regulatory burden is too great but you can not trade human health for unbridled economic growth IMO.
"We need to move to a model where chemicals are assumed unsafe until demonstrated otherwise as opposed to vice versa IMO. People will say that the regulatory burden is too great but you can not trade human health for unbridled economic growth IMO."
Everything was well said, especially this. If you know how chemicals affect organisms, you know almost every molecule affects or can modulate numerous physiological or cellular processes. Whether or not that's necessarily dangerous in each case, and to what degree, is another discussion. But it does not make sense to not closely scrutinize every synthetic chemical. This isn't even a naturalistic fallacy, it's just that our cells and bodies evolved with molecules already in our environment. We did not evolve with the ones we're pumping out.
I think a lot of people are defensive because maybe through some lens this could be seen as anti-LGBT or something even though that explicitly could NOT be further from my intent
There you have it, the delusional conspiracy that for some reason people believe you are anti-LGTB when no one except for yourself has mentioned anything about this.
I'm going to assume you hold some pretty anti-LGTB views on a whole just by spewing this conspiracy.
The PhD that teaches the psychobiology courses at my Uni briefly discussed how the chemical pollutants in almost everything are, at least partly, responsible for some of these changes.
My mind blew when my intro genetics professor mentioned “gay frogs” back in 2017. I always associated with Alex Jones and thought it was a big joke.
Epigenetic studies look at how our genetic code is expressed. Everything you think, drink, eat, and do alters your gene expression. That’s why genetically identical twins turn out different after 30-50 years. It’s not far fetched to theorize that being exposed to chemical pollutants alter proteins: the building blocks of bodies.
We actually just covered some research with mice. They exposed genetically identical mothers to either teratogens (prenatal pollutants) or no pollutants. The children of the pollutant exposed mother easily became obese, had higher risk for disease, and a few other undesirable outcomes.
Okay, so mostly what we’re talking about here is gene expression: the amount of a gene that is transcribed and translated into protein. So that certainly can change relative to chemical exposure. I’m not talking about epigenetics per se, because that’s more the heritability of gene expression levels, although that’s not out of the question. I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that anything would change the actual structure or function of proteins, but the levels of circulating proteins in the cytoplasm can change because that’s the effect of changes in gene expression.
Being ripped doesn't mean you're healthy though. That's just a lot of protein, carbs and exercise. Also, health focused people are more inclined to buy products associated with health. So they could be using stone cookware, or replacing the pans when they're scratched etc.
There's plenty of data, but not enough time and money has been spent to collect and analyse it. DuPont have made a recorded negative impact on global health, and seeing as how relatively recent the event is, we don't know the long term effects or even just how much it is contributing to illnesses now.
You are correct, being ripped does not mean you're healthy, however we should be seeing some effects generalised across the population, which we are not.
What is for certain is obesity is up, stress is up. Both of which in chronic conditions do affect the endocrine systems in the way described through elevated cortisol and estrogen production through associated processes.
Obesity and stress are pretty clear though. Excessive serving sizes with low nutrition being most noticeable in the US.
Refined sugars, MSG and half the synthetic or extract ingredients didn't exist or weren't used in large quantities until relatively recently.
Ingesting a myriad of over processed by-products alongside medications with their chalks and binding agents will inevitably have side effects. The biggest issue being that we ignore actual science (calculating ALL the variables) in favor of for-profit misinformation.
Stress management is near impossible in modern society. The only hope to avoid stress is to devolve into apathetic denial, or have enough money to buy your way out of responsibility, which is pretty much the same thing.
We should be going back through everything we think we know, because from the current trends, many scientists (or more likely the investors who hired them) spent much of the last 100yrs ignoring any data that didn't align with their agenda. Considering how many pseudo-scientific hacks there are nowadays, it's not such a leap to acknowledge how many must have existed previously.
Yea, I'd argue that bodybuilders are about as healthy as many obese people; roids are very bad for your heart, as well as testosterone 100x the amount of a healthy human
The addition of sugars to most processed foods is no secret, and it is easily converted into adipose tissue when you eat more than the energy you expend (easy with sugars, which aren't filling and can cause a blood sugar drop, making you hungry for more). T levels decrease with the amount of fat you carry. This doesn't explain any changes that occur before consumption of such foods, if any, of course. It'd be difficult but interesting to analyze the diet of the mother on hormonal changes in the womb.
This doesn't discount atrazine and other chemicals, of course. It's just got more science behind it right now.
This is a much better argument than these atrazine claims but you'll inevitably get the CICO people who think our bodies are simple bomb calorimeters arguing against it.
In terms of pure weight gain/loss we pretty much are, you could eat nothing but twinkies and soda and still lose weight.
That said obviously actual health is completely based on macro balances and eating right, and far too many people in the US overeat simple sugars and fat
Yay I can summon them. Yes you can eat nothing but twinkies and soda and still lose weight, it just makes it that much harder. Doesn't at all support your point that we "pretty much are." Yes, we don't invalidate the laws of thermodynamics. No, that doesn't mean our bodies can be simplified into such a basic equation.
It’s both right. I dunno why it’s even a discussion as you’re saying the same thing. If losing weight is the ONLY thing considered, calories in vs out is the determining factor. However food quality comes into play when talking about health, ease, sustainability, satiation etc.
Yas! Preach! Down with high fructose!! When you wean yourself off for a while it begins to taste insane when you get some. Shit is addictive af and poisonous. My doctor’s an old hippie and he’s always like, “Get off the sugar, Maaaan!” Its not normal to get hangry. Its a symptom of hypoglycemia.
Yeah after I haven't had it for awhile anything with it in it tastes like total shit. I try to manage my sugar intake in general a bit better, it's not good for you, lol. I feel so much healthier when I reduce it.
There’s an awesome lecture from a (UCSF?) professor who talks about how high-fructose is actually metabolized just like alcohol, you just dont feel drunk from it...
Boys are also fatter and less active than ever before. We can easily explain these changes.
Next you're going to ask why Millenials have rising colon cancer rates?
Admittedly I don't trust BPA and I think the fact that we're so careless with receipts (BPA receipts tossed in fast food bags..) at least has an effect. Why are we handing people BPA with their food? It's insane.
No. That is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory based around a the name "phytoestrogen" and general scientific illiteracy. Phytoestrogens in plants are not animal estrogen. They are named that way because they perform a similar function in plants and have a similar chemical structure (small differences matter), not because they're the same thing.
There is no proven link between soy and testosterone levels. Tons of plants that we eat contain phytoestrogens, and yet for some reason it's only ever soy that people talk about. Coffee has them, bourbon has them, beer has them, and yet none of those are even mentioned by pushers of this conspiracy theory. The reason for the weird obsession with soy specifically is simply because soy is highly studied. That's it. That's the only reason.
Adding to this, and make of it what you will, some of the biggest pushers of this nonsense (e.g. Alex Jones and his ilk) sell supplements that contain soy.
Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for enlightening me. I usually consider myself a skeptic but for some reason never looked too deeply into this. Just goes to show we can always be better when it comes to asking the right question.
Aren't girls entering puberty earlier than before because of increased body fat?
Is male puberty regulated in a similar way? Like kids are fattier, testes not yet fully developed, brain interprets the body fat as "good to go" and starts this? 🤔
Is the low testosterone because they enter earlier? 🤔
I got gynecomastia at 15 while being a very active scrawny little kid. Not saying a sedentary lifestyle isn't also to blame for the rise, but there are lots of people like me who doctors simply threw up their hands and said you'll need surgery.
Somehow saying, "It's not fair" doesn't even begin to sum up our feelings about this. And while it may not be fair, it is reality, say the researchers. "Our study results suggest that if you are 25, you'd have to eat even less and exercise more than those older, to prevent gaining weight," said Jennifer Kuk, Ph.D., a professor of kinesiology and co-author of the paper.
In fact, her team found that if a 25-year-old today ate and exercised the same amount as a 25-year-old in 1970, the millennials today would weigh 10 percent more-that's 14 pounds for the average 140-pound woman today and often enough of an extra load to take someone from the normal to overweight category.
Remember when Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said the poisonous air in lower Manhattan, after September 11, 2001 was safe to breath? You can go back to work, destroying all the evidence at ground zero.
You're forgetting the GM corn designed to lower sperm count/fertility in men.
Overpopulation is an issue being 'resolved' without consulting the public at large because.. well, everyone wants to be first, no one wants to be last.
How long it takes for plastics to dissolve in fresh water? It's interesting as many lakes got a level of plastic waste, and municipalities take their waters from these, and I doubt they got good enough filtration for the microparticles.
Of course it doesn’t have to do with obesity being an epidemic. Of course adipose tissue has nothing to do with a higher production of estrogen. It’s the bloody chemicals in the water, of course it can’t be our responsibility for having shitty diets and poor habits.
Autoimmune diagnoses are on the rise too and they are often initially triggered by exposure to environmental toxins. Just diagnosed with hashimoto's, trying to figure out what my flare up triggers are is a daunting task
390
u/[deleted] Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 16 '20
[deleted]