Wow! I wonder which people who poorly-researched these claims were involved in getting these
alleged 'false' claims out? Oh wait... it was the mainstream media.
But heh, you've got to fill the pages with something, haven't you? Let's just hope this isn't one of
those times.
Exposed, the truth behind the great health myths:
From the five-a-day rule to eating oily fish once a week, experts reveal the common mantras
that were completely made up.
*Most of us follow common health tips, thinking they're based on proper research
*But recently a U.S. scientist said the target of 10,000 steps a day is actually false
*Here, we reveal which well-known examples can really be backed up with facts
'Eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, take 10,000 steps, drink eight glasses of water, brush your
teeth twice and then sleep for eight hours. They're the mantras many of us follow in the belief they're
based on proper research.
But are they? Recently a U.S. scientist revealed that the target of 10,000 steps a day, recommended
by the NHS, [National Health Service of the UK] isn't based on science at all.
In fact, the number of steps seems to have been picked at random.
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=1377]](http://rogue-nation3.com/attachment.php?aid=1377)
(Bland image that's in most articles and the irony is that the media treat us as vegetables!)
Dig deeper and you'll find quite a bit of the health advice churned out by health authorities is based on
flimsy science, if any. 'The overall message is that many recommendations aren't proven outright, so
don't beat yourself up or feel anxious if you don't achieve them,' says Martin Caraher, a professor of
food and health policy at City, University of London.
'Even the evidence-based findings should be adapted to your own needs as they will be based on
general trends, not individual lifestyles. It is broad guidance.'
Here, we scrutinise the best-known examples to separate the mantras you should follow from the
myths you need not worry about...'
You're going to scrutinise now?! How dare you!
Are you telling us that these past claims that may have convinced people into buying a particular
food item may have been done in the name of promoting that item?
'...You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the five-a-day rule — a government
recommendation since 2003.
The phrase 'five-a-day' was dreamt up by the California Department of Health Services in 1988
as a marketing tool to increase fruit and veg consumption. The number wasn't based on specific
studies — it was just catchy...'
And you reported that back in 1988, yes...? You announced to your readers that this was just a fake-out
in the hopes it would persuade the masses to purchase more specific foods from California?
And these specific products that not grown in the United Kingdom... the same United Kingdom exported
them from California? I think not.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Please continue with I'm to assume is the truth now.
'...The campaign was adopted as a national initiative by the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. in 1991
after a meeting with the Produce for Better Health Foundation (which represents the fruit and veg industry).
The UK's five-a-day advice follows a recommendation from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1990
based on studies that show an association between the consumption of more than 400g of fruit and
vegetables and lower risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers...'
Woooah...! wait a moment!
Someone -and you haven't researched into who it was exactly, 'dreamt up' a way of selling more fruit and
vegetables in another country and the UK National Health Service take it as gospel that since the World
Health Organisation said it was a good idea? That's the outcome?!
Mother of Go... what's next? Some guy passes me in the street and says something and I'm supposed to
just accept it as fact?!
I'm seriously beginning to think the mainstream media and these established institutions can't be trusted.
'...In its report the WHO conceded that 'nutrient goals have been set judgmentally rather than on the basis
of specific evidence'. Nonetheless, the five-a-day campaign was launched based on chopping up this 400g
recommendation into five 80g portions.
But no studies have ever found that 400g is the magic number...'
I think Daitengu's way of life may have as much validity than these charlatans in suits and the people wearing
white lab coats. More and more, we can see that "You've been living in a dream world, Neo' and the constant
conditioning of those we've been conditioned to believe are our superiors is being exposed every day.
The fact that mainstream media have been complicit in this social controlling should also be remembered.
'..The recommendations for fruit and vegetables are based on observational studies which showed that people
who ate a lot of fruit and veg had a lower risk of cancer,' says Thomas Sanders, an emeritus professor of
nutrition and dietetics at King's College London.
'It was a ballpark figure at first, thought to be a reasonable target.'
So what are we to make of a new study by Imperial College London which concluded ten portions is the goal?
This amount was found to reduce risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer much more significantly than five
portions...'
Utter garbage. A marketing ploy from an organisation that wishes to promote it's products is taken and used
as a health-action by other organisations. This article now announces that the endorsement from the World
Health Organisation was erroneous and without a pause for breath, this report will now walk it back in favour
of not making waves with the Establishment.
But to do this, it must rationalise with the reader. First: Tell them that 'A Professor' says the findings are dubious
and then blanket-cover the article with comments that will seem fair.
Example: Drink water, eat different foods and keep active.
'...Professor Sanders says it is 'ridiculous' and 'unrealistic'.
This study just shows that people who eat ten-a-day will have healthier lifestyles generally — i.e. not smoke, be
more active — and not that this amount of fruit and veg improves health this much,' he says.
This has been a regular criticism of studies into the benefits of fruit and veg — while they can show a link that these
foods are good, the conclusions can't be used to suggest what the desired number to eat a day is.
A 2013 study by the authoritative Cochrane Review concluded there was no strong evidence to support the effect
of fruit and veg intake on heart risks.
Furthermore, few studies provided evidence of the specific amount of fruit and veg needed...'
There's more of this rubbish in the link.
SOURCE:
I see this every single day. The masses are bombarded with stories that say 'a source said this' and 'academics
said that' and yet in reality, even if these unknown connections are valid, there's rarely any any positive substance
to them.
Of course we should eat different things and it's obvious we should drink liquids, but I'm sure that if a large segment
of a country decided that a manufactured and tax-generating item was no longer desired for consumption, the powers
-that-be will march out men and women in white coats and sporting spectacles and clipboards, to assure the public
that this embargoed item is good for you!
And it will do this from assistance of television and newspapers.
Granted, the internet is a place where you can be arguing or agreeing with strangers that may have agendas that
counter your own, but at least it individualistic on websites such as Rogue Nation.
I'm of an age that tends to frown at catchphrases and buzzwords, but I believe 'Woke' is the appropriate term for
myself.
alleged 'false' claims out? Oh wait... it was the mainstream media.
But heh, you've got to fill the pages with something, haven't you? Let's just hope this isn't one of
those times.
Exposed, the truth behind the great health myths:
From the five-a-day rule to eating oily fish once a week, experts reveal the common mantras
that were completely made up.
*Most of us follow common health tips, thinking they're based on proper research
*But recently a U.S. scientist said the target of 10,000 steps a day is actually false
*Here, we reveal which well-known examples can really be backed up with facts
'Eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, take 10,000 steps, drink eight glasses of water, brush your
teeth twice and then sleep for eight hours. They're the mantras many of us follow in the belief they're
based on proper research.
But are they? Recently a U.S. scientist revealed that the target of 10,000 steps a day, recommended
by the NHS, [National Health Service of the UK] isn't based on science at all.
In fact, the number of steps seems to have been picked at random.
(Bland image that's in most articles and the irony is that the media treat us as vegetables!)
Dig deeper and you'll find quite a bit of the health advice churned out by health authorities is based on
flimsy science, if any. 'The overall message is that many recommendations aren't proven outright, so
don't beat yourself up or feel anxious if you don't achieve them,' says Martin Caraher, a professor of
food and health policy at City, University of London.
'Even the evidence-based findings should be adapted to your own needs as they will be based on
general trends, not individual lifestyles. It is broad guidance.'
Here, we scrutinise the best-known examples to separate the mantras you should follow from the
myths you need not worry about...'
You're going to scrutinise now?! How dare you!
Are you telling us that these past claims that may have convinced people into buying a particular
food item may have been done in the name of promoting that item?
'...You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the five-a-day rule — a government
recommendation since 2003.
The phrase 'five-a-day' was dreamt up by the California Department of Health Services in 1988
as a marketing tool to increase fruit and veg consumption. The number wasn't based on specific
studies — it was just catchy...'
And you reported that back in 1988, yes...? You announced to your readers that this was just a fake-out
in the hopes it would persuade the masses to purchase more specific foods from California?
And these specific products that not grown in the United Kingdom... the same United Kingdom exported
them from California? I think not.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Please continue with I'm to assume is the truth now.
'...The campaign was adopted as a national initiative by the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. in 1991
after a meeting with the Produce for Better Health Foundation (which represents the fruit and veg industry).
The UK's five-a-day advice follows a recommendation from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1990
based on studies that show an association between the consumption of more than 400g of fruit and
vegetables and lower risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers...'
Woooah...! wait a moment!
Someone -and you haven't researched into who it was exactly, 'dreamt up' a way of selling more fruit and
vegetables in another country and the UK National Health Service take it as gospel that since the World
Health Organisation said it was a good idea? That's the outcome?!
Mother of Go... what's next? Some guy passes me in the street and says something and I'm supposed to
just accept it as fact?!
I'm seriously beginning to think the mainstream media and these established institutions can't be trusted.
'...In its report the WHO conceded that 'nutrient goals have been set judgmentally rather than on the basis
of specific evidence'. Nonetheless, the five-a-day campaign was launched based on chopping up this 400g
recommendation into five 80g portions.
But no studies have ever found that 400g is the magic number...'
I think Daitengu's way of life may have as much validity than these charlatans in suits and the people wearing
white lab coats. More and more, we can see that "You've been living in a dream world, Neo' and the constant
conditioning of those we've been conditioned to believe are our superiors is being exposed every day.
The fact that mainstream media have been complicit in this social controlling should also be remembered.
'..The recommendations for fruit and vegetables are based on observational studies which showed that people
who ate a lot of fruit and veg had a lower risk of cancer,' says Thomas Sanders, an emeritus professor of
nutrition and dietetics at King's College London.
'It was a ballpark figure at first, thought to be a reasonable target.'
So what are we to make of a new study by Imperial College London which concluded ten portions is the goal?
This amount was found to reduce risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer much more significantly than five
portions...'
Utter garbage. A marketing ploy from an organisation that wishes to promote it's products is taken and used
as a health-action by other organisations. This article now announces that the endorsement from the World
Health Organisation was erroneous and without a pause for breath, this report will now walk it back in favour
of not making waves with the Establishment.
But to do this, it must rationalise with the reader. First: Tell them that 'A Professor' says the findings are dubious
and then blanket-cover the article with comments that will seem fair.
Example: Drink water, eat different foods and keep active.
'...Professor Sanders says it is 'ridiculous' and 'unrealistic'.
This study just shows that people who eat ten-a-day will have healthier lifestyles generally — i.e. not smoke, be
more active — and not that this amount of fruit and veg improves health this much,' he says.
This has been a regular criticism of studies into the benefits of fruit and veg — while they can show a link that these
foods are good, the conclusions can't be used to suggest what the desired number to eat a day is.
A 2013 study by the authoritative Cochrane Review concluded there was no strong evidence to support the effect
of fruit and veg intake on heart risks.
Furthermore, few studies provided evidence of the specific amount of fruit and veg needed...'
There's more of this rubbish in the link.
SOURCE:
I see this every single day. The masses are bombarded with stories that say 'a source said this' and 'academics
said that' and yet in reality, even if these unknown connections are valid, there's rarely any any positive substance
to them.
Of course we should eat different things and it's obvious we should drink liquids, but I'm sure that if a large segment
of a country decided that a manufactured and tax-generating item was no longer desired for consumption, the powers
-that-be will march out men and women in white coats and sporting spectacles and clipboards, to assure the public
that this embargoed item is good for you!
And it will do this from assistance of television and newspapers.
Granted, the internet is a place where you can be arguing or agreeing with strangers that may have agendas that
counter your own, but at least it individualistic on websites such as Rogue Nation.
I'm of an age that tends to frown at catchphrases and buzzwords, but I believe 'Woke' is the appropriate term for
myself.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.