/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5244368
>I read everywhere that they have the following health benefits
Writted probably by random diet "experts" that never finished highschool or blueberry sales reps.

>>5244375
Well no actually by academics who outrank you.

>>5244384
What's his academic standing if you can so brazenly state that those "experts" outrank him?
Also, did you read articles on hippie dieting websites or scientific papers?

>>5244375

Yeah they are awesome, why are you skeptic about it ?

Just keep in mind some of said effects are almost negligible, like reduces belly fat, improves brain function etc..

They contain shitload of antioxidants,phytochemicals, resveratrol and other awesome stuff .

>>5244368
>9) Reduces blood sugar
Now don't eat too many then or you might end up in a hypoglycemic coma!

>>5244395
I read amongst others, these pubmed articles :

Memory : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22569815
Cholesterol : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23046999
Blood sugar : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861718

The other articles I'm still looking for but I'll post them in a bit.

>>5244410

5 star post made my day

It astounds me that we can mess with the quantum world and map out whole galaxies yet our experts in the field of nutrition still haven't come even close to a consensus on most things. It almost seems like there's something stifling the process, apart from the inherent difficulty of testing hypotheses in something with so many variables.

>>5244424

Living things are far FAR more complicated than that other stuff.

>>5244438

I know and I understand why it's difficult to test for things in this area but what I find odd is how professionals still completely disagree on fundamental things like macronutrient ratios, the causes of heart disease and the healthiness of grains.

>>5244449
Living things are seemingly simple but are very complex when analyzed deeper.

>>5244375
>blueberry sales reps.

>>5244723
>PhD in blueberry sales
>any third world country I want
It's not about the job, breh, it's about the experience. Travelling the world and learning about other cultures while I give them nutritious and inexpensive blueberries. We're already making monumental changes by introducing the people of O'kprok-mek!tu in Africa to mother nature's healthiest candy! Think of the lives changed. I feel like I'm actually make a difference while improving myself and EXPERIENCING other cultures. I honestly can say I'm one step closer to enlightenment!

>>5244714
>>5244438

>this is what biologists actually think

Hey biologists, are rocks living things?

What constitutes living versus dead?

First of, no 1. and 2 are not actually health benefits. It was a theory that proved entirely wrong and free radicals don't damage your body thus antioxidants do not prevent the damage caused.
Second, high fiber food by itself is not a health benefit. It is however beneficial for you if you are someone who does not eat enough fiber (a cup of salad daily suffices).
People with high cholesterol live longer so reducing cholesterol is not necessarily beneficial to ones health.

Blah, I don't feel like continuing. The "dietary science" is filled with theories by "high ranking" academics that get disproven quite often. Just so happens that saturated fat doesnt cause heart problems either.

>>5244763
>can't into high school bio
rocks are not living.
the ability to replicate is what defines life

>>5244818
I wrote a computer program that replicates a certain sequence, then corrupts it, then finally deletes it. Using a random timer, sometimes the sequence is not corrupted, but doubled.
Is this life? Pain and success? Death?

>>5244818
Life ends, yet all energy remains.

>>5244763

>Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[25][27]

>Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
>Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
>Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
>Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
>Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
>Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
>Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

>>5244761
>biologists
>thinking

the humour on this board is so deliciously subtle

>>5244783
I'm sorry but what you said about free radicals NOT being able to damage the human body is complete bullshit.
People with cholesterol live longer? Source?
Seriously, just leave /sci/.

>>5244818
You best be trolling. If not, leave /sci/ now. See >>5244844 before you leave.

Free radicals can damage DNA and thus protein expression. They can react with bases to form oxidised products and also they can cause pyrimidine dimers too. DNA polymerase cannot read these. However, there are different mechanisms of DNA repair too. It is a balance of both mechanisms in the body which controls the chance of mutation. Eating blueberries may show some benefit, but it all depends on the evidence and also how you fit it to yourself.

Source: Textbook of biochemistry: with clinical correlations/ edited by Thomas M. Devlin - 7th edition.
There are 10 primary research studies on TRIP database, I would suggest reading these, and if you don't understand then the 2 clinical Q & A's would also be useful for you.

>>5244449
Well, the problem is this:
>epidemiological studies
Almost impossible to adjust them for all possible kinds of correlations. Take saturated fat, for instance: official food/health organizations have been saying that it's bad for ages->people who care about health eat less sat fat->you can perform studies that confirm that sat fat leads to increased mortality

You interpret this as sat fat->death, while in reality it's like
>healthy people->less sat fat
&
>healthy people->less death

(not saying that the above is true, and studies obviously try to adjust as much as possible, but it's just so many factors that you need to be aware of)

>intervention studies
Expensive and tedious as fuck (especially seeing how you need to maintain food intakes for a very long time), also there is little to no commercial interest in determining what kind of food is healthy. If some kind of food lobbying organization decides to do some research here 1: it will be biased as fuck & 2: they won't publish any bad results, i.e. it's worthless.

>trying to reason what kind of effects something will have
The body is way too complicated for us to be able to do this reliably. (in physics and math etc. you can do this npnp though)

And lastly, there's a fuckton of food with a fuckton of chemicals in them. How do they interact, and what in a certain food gives what benefit/disease? Bioavailability? You must compare every food with every other, as well, and all of them contains a ton of chemicals. It just spins out of control, and we're really just scratching the surface.

>>5244738
oh god. fuck off. I know this exact person IRL

nigger tried to get me involved in a pyramid scheme

>>5244861
youre a perfect example of why plebeians dont deserve a scientific education.

itt
> biologists discuss a problem scientifically
> plebeian mathematicians and physicist high five each other and diss actually useful fields of study.

>>5245057
This.

>>5245057
itt: biologists argue amongst each other preventing any useful information from being conveyed.
>jelly that physics and math always provides definitive and helpful answers.

actually there is consensus on most stuff but even then you have problem of interaction of these singular factors..Beneficial stuff can become harmful depending on context.Also a dosage problem.It is a common knowledge that the poison is in the dosage.So you don't have good~bad dichotomy but shitload of inbetween situations.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/302/4/E476.full

take this for example and tell me are antioxidants good or bad..What about high dosing when they actually become oxidants..

Nutritional science can be summed up in most cases with : ''It depends''

>>5245137

There's no consensus on straightforward stuff like whether wheat is healthy or not.

>>5244874
There's a difference between nutritionists and scientists. That difference is scientific method.

The sources for cholesterol can be found at first click of google. Just pick one:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033975_high_cholesterol_heart_attacks.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/cardiovascular-disease/benefits-of-high-cholesterol
http://anthonycolpo.com/new-study-women-with-higher-cholesterol-live-longer/
http://commonground.ca/2012/02/cholesterol-healer/
http://stronglifts.com/cholesterol-saturated-fat-how-many-eggs-daily/
http://www.stop-trans-fat.com/high-cholesterol-foods.html

Free radicals are used as triggers for processes inside your body and your body makes its own. The theory of free radicals vs antioxidants healing has been an appealing one but has been overthrown. Although it is possible, that free radicals damage something on a molecular level it is not food related.
>but autism says you said the....
yes I said it, to emphasize a point because I know the dietary field is filled with retards who should get shocked and commence demystification. I do not feel like arguing with you about it though. You probably have a happy little world going on in this sandbox called dietary science

>>5245168

It seems to me people who have high cholesterol live longer simply because eating a diet that results in a low cholesterol is more likely to have things that cause inflammation of the arteries, which is the key component of heart disease.

>>5245168

>scientific method
>stronglifts.com

Hahaha

>>5245171

Yeah because wheat is not one substance.It is a mixture of numerous chemicals.What is the net outcome depends on numerous factors.Age, dosage, genetics (gluten sensitivity?),weight,bf% etc etc .. As I said it depends.People with coeliac disease will surely have problems with it, but some malnourished nigger in Sudan should probably eat it.
Also stop thinking in terms healthy and not healthy.As you see it's fucking blurry as fuck

>>5245191
like what? vegetables ? fruit ? everything without cholesterol containing food sources is proinflamatory ? if that was the case we would catch CRP and other indicators of inflammation skyrocket without cholesterol.Which we don't.But yeah, jury is still out on cholesterol but we fucking sure as fuck know it doesn't cause heart problems.Beneficial stuff is still hypothesized.Mechanisms are vague..

>>5245193
Yeah, he should have known better.Unsourced claims, news articles and shit :(

>>5244861

your statement is very contradictive because that jab wasnt even remotely subtle...

>>5244832

It's reddit tier philosophical debate

>>5245233
Go back to reddit, you sneaky bastard.