Listener Feedback Episode VIII: No New Hope

Asbestos is a mineral habit and not a specific mineral. A minor technicality but something I figured you might like to know.

Fry, Laramie WY
July 07, 2009 9:16am

I don't know, Brian. Your fast food argument seems to shift depending on who disagrees with you. The criticism of fast food is mostly centered on: A) their use of poor quality (high fat) meats, B) their overuse of fatty and salty condiments and C) their penchant for super-sizing everything from sugary drinks to salty, fatty fries.

Sure, anyone can cook up a heart-busting meal at home. We all know that. But RELIANCE on fast food tends to mean greater consumption of fatty/salty/sugary food. And yeah, there are often healthy meals available as well, but just look at what people actually carry away in their bags. It isn't salads and apples; it's super sized fat burgers and fries with a sweet 32 oz Dr. Pepper. And this isn't limited to just fast food, btw. One of my favorite Italian restaurants is a very bad actor.

But after all is said and done; it's the consumer who is to blame for this. If people wanted healthy food, they wouldn't buy the unhealthy stuff. I remember when McDonald's offered a healthy burger, called the McLean. I ordered it many times because it was always fresh. Why? Because no one else was ordering it and they never had any ready to be sold.

Mark, Huntsville, AL
July 07, 2009 9:19am

$24.37 seemed like a suspiciously exact amount until I saw this website:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/future/Christ-Returns-2437.htm

That's the year Jesus is coming back - apparently to sift through the ashes of the 2012 apocalypse.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 07, 2009 9:26am

Love your show, and I don't disagree, but a minor point. Citric acid may be Citric acid regardless of how it came into this world, but Citric acid is not an orange. Nor have we identified all that makes an orange. When people say unprocessed foods are preferable to processed foods, research does indicate that the stuff in processed foods and the stuff not in processed foods are both worse for your health than unprocessed foods. Now will you please hand over that McFish Sandwich?

Tonya Haughwout, Melbourne, FL
July 07, 2009 10:20am

"I wonder what research Tristin did that led him to conclude that fast food restaurants spend extra money to '[add]much higher amounts of sodium, sugar, fat, etc into food than anyone ever would at home.'"

In the quote posted, Tristin, did not bring up the issue of cost. It seems likely to me that fast-food probably saves itself money not because it takes the time to ADD extra unhealthy items, but because restaurants purchase the most inexpensive meats, condiments, and breads. If you are strictly discussing calories, Brian is likely right that you will find it difficult to make a Big Mac at home with fewer. However, it is possible to make a healthy big mac at home if you use leaner beef, a higher fiber bread, etc.

Regarding the statement by another listener/reader that "it's the consumer who is to blame for this:"

With an appeal to authority I'll claim that this is partially true. I have heard on BookTV Michael Pollan discussing this issue. He explained that the large federal subsidies funding corporate agriculture have permitted restaurant chains to sell food at a considerably reduced rate. He went on to note that if, through subsidies, we emphasized and cheapened local fresh produce and leaner meats it would lead to healthier diets. I'm not the person to check his citations, but here's hoping Brian will.

Matthew, Kalamazoo
July 07, 2009 11:07am

The argument you're attributing to Devon is stronger than the one he actually presented (at least in the excerpt you provided). He wrote that you have "a bit too much faith" in manufactured drugs, but you seem to have interpreted that as saying the correct level of faith is zero ("Devon says such treatments are not to be trusted . . .", "drugs do come from pharmaceutical companies; but that's not a reason to reject them . . ."). It's possible he believes that drug companies provide useful products, but also that they and doctors have overlooked valuable natural medicines.

Eric Hanneken, Dublin, OH, USA
July 07, 2009 12:24pm

Aren't there several food eaten by people that would be inedible or poisonous if not processed in some way? First that comes to mind is tapioca.

Tapioca takes some human processing before you eat it. I'd have to ask Josee how much processing becomes too much and "bad"?

tudza, Seattle
July 07, 2009 4:57pm

What a great episode! You had me thinking of Mrs Palins legs all week and now this,, A tour de Force!

Where do you start.. the comment above about take away food being better or worse for you is a bit nonsensical. It depends on if you are dumb enough to mince sirloin or buy mince. My beef with the fast fooders is the barrage of ads that had my kids thinking that the food was a magical treat.

I have already stated my position on mashing various cereals.. If you dont like mash products dont buy beer or breakfast flakes. The reason why we get fat is because we over eat.

You are a cruel cruel man Brian. I think its time you knocked over the apocalypser again

Of course homeopathers that sneak in sub homeopathic dilutions are a fair target too

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Australia
July 07, 2009 8:51pm

Admitting that fast food is the same as regular food means we can't blame EVIL CORPORATIONS when we eat too much.

Therefore it MUST be the processed, chemical-tainted EVIL food!

Cambias, Massachusetts
July 08, 2009 5:25am

I found your your response to the fast food comment in this episode completely reasonable, but I think you may have forgot a simple point.

People that cook at home do not necessarily eat hamburgers and drink milkshakes very often. I for one do eat healthier when I cook because a cook healthier foods than I eat at a fast food chain. And I think that a good many other people probably do the same.

I think the bigger issue here is not the fast food chains, but the lifestyle choices of some people. Whether you are eating the fast food version or the home version of fatty, sugary, or salty foods does not matter, it is the amount that is consumed and how often.

I think you may have addressed this in the original episode, but I didn't go back to look.

So, I think there can be a case made that eating fast food or cooking food with similar amounts of fat, sugar, salt a lot is less healthy than taking the time to cook foods that are lower in these ingredients.

Of course, for completeness I must point out that many fast food chains are now offering a greater variety of healthier food items since it is popular at the moment.

Note: I do not think that fast food is evil, nor do I think that they are responsible for damaging people's health. People make their own choices about what to eat, if they don't like the results it's their problem. In this case I would suggest change.

Vicki, Alabama
July 08, 2009 6:11am

""some are insane raving lunatics straining at the straps of their straitjackets and flapping around on the floor like landed fish.""

Wow. Was that one really necessary?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen
July 08, 2009 9:26am

I strongly disagree with this point:

"But just consider the logic: Would it add to McDonald's profits to go out and buy additional sodium, sugar, and fat to mix in with their ingredients? Of course not."

It certainly *would* add to their profits if it made the end product more appealing to the consumer. And historically, processed food producers have done this very thing.

For example, McDonald's used to cook its french fries in beef tallow, leading to fries that were higher in fat and colesterol than anything you'd cook at home. It was only public scrutiny and bad press that caused them to change the practice.

Corporations respond to the bottom line. The surest way to ensure that they provide healthy food is to pay attention to what they're selling and refuse to buy unhealthy offerings. If we are complacent about this, we will suffer the consequences.

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
July 08, 2009 10:12am

But, these ingredients do not make McDonald's more appealing to the customer - I do not have a single friend who I can drag to McDonald's. I have never met someone who said, "I do not want to grill outside because a fast food chain can do it better!" The fast food chains are not making a better product so extra sodium, etc., is not giving them a leg up.

Adam D. Jones, Dallas, TX
July 08, 2009 4:47pm

I like your argument: no one *you* know likes McDonald's, therefore their particular offerings and recipes give them *no* competitive advantage. Thanks for clearing that up. But it makes me wonder why food companies waste so much time and effort on research.

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
July 08, 2009 5:48pm

Brian, I stumbled upon this last week and so far I have enjoyed it. While I agree with everything you say, I do have to suggest that you take a bit more time understanding conflicting points of view and be a bit more sensitive to those who you tend to quickly write off.

For instance, the reply about Big Pharm... while true they are indeed doing research, this is not what people are complaining about and why they feel they are 'evil'. To be fair and balanced, you need to always acknowledge this point.

And no, the Citric acid is not the same in an Orange as it is in a Pixie stick (I actually had one the other day, love em). The Citric acid in the Pixie stick is man made... from Phosphoric Acid (an ingredient in many colas)... which causes liver disease.

There is legitimate reason to fear that large corporations are not always doing things in our best interests. When you wave those fears off as being unfounded... well... then you do sound like an apologist, no?

Shad, Ottawa, Canada
July 08, 2009 6:28pm

The problem with fast food and Big Pharm and all the anti-corporation BS that flies around comes to a single common problem: People want to have their cake and eat it to.

Why is fast food popular? Because it is fast and cheap. People want to be able to go into a restaurant, get a meal for $6 and get out. They can't do this if they are using fresh, locally grown, organic food lovingly prepared by professionals. They get this by using highly-processed, mass produced, pre-fab food slapped together under heat lamps by teens.

That's the trade-off. Fast and cheap burgers vs. slow and expensive meals. Powerful drugs with side effects vs. being sick. Expensive hard-to-find products vs. $40 microwave from WalMart.

These people give us what we want - that's why they are successful. That doesn't make them evil or wrong. I for one love getting food and products on the cheap and if that means maybe I shave 5 years off the warranty on my heart and liver than that's a trade-off I'm comfortable with.

If you feel differently, then head to the hills, grow your own food, play shadow puppets and use St. John's Wort to treat your pnuemonia. Enjoy.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 09, 2009 6:43am

Regarding the complaints about "big Pharma" versus "natural" medicine, while I am skeptic I'm also something of a cynic. Brian noted that pharmaceutical companies test "natural" substances all the time. As suggested in a recent Newsweek article, they are driven by profits and won't bother testing a natural substance that likely cannot be patented. In fact, they may even have a motive to suppress such products or the testing of them if the result would compete with a drug for which they have spent millions. I'm not suggesting anything sinister, just human nature.

R. Matta, Washington, DC
July 09, 2009 7:33am

Brian,

I thoroughly enjoy the listener feedback episodes. It's a great way to exercise our collective skeptical skills on actual feedback.

However...

I think it's clear that you cherry-pick the easiest topics. Are YOU ever wrong? Do YOU ever "goof up?"

How about a "Brian Dunning Falling on the Sword" episode? I think it would be very instructive!

Ben, Texas
July 09, 2009 9:02am

R. Matta: Interesting point, but still a little paranoid. I'd like to point out that many natural substances that cannot be patented are commonplace and are sold cheaply, yet are profitable. Among these things are water (more expensive than gasoline if you buy it in small bottles), carrots, lettuce, pineapple, countless herbs with alleged medicinal properties (dandelion, willow bark, etc.). Though garlic can't be patented, it is sold by many medical conglomerates at high markup and high profit.

Therefore, to say that Big Pharma is agressively supressing cures due to their lack of profitability requires a higher standard of proof than a supposition about human nature.

David H., Minneapolis, MN
July 09, 2009 11:08am

David, just because something can turn a profit for one company doesn't mean it can turn a profit for any company. The big drug companies spend mind boggling amounts of money on research. They recoup these costs and turn a profit through short term monopolities on the drugs they create. Once their patents expire, those products become commodities. Competition drives the price down and they generate vastly less revenue. A company like that really isn't going to spend millions investigating a substance that's going to be a commodity as soon as it hits the shelf. Quite simply, it wouldn't pay back.

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
July 09, 2009 11:23am

Wow Brian, I am a really big fan, but I kinda think you might have been cherry picking my comment a bit. I wrote an entire paragraph in front of what you quoted me

It was exactly thus:

"I work on f-15 aircraft for a living, programming and installing and fixing the computers that control the numerous systems. I know that static charge is a VERY big deal when traveling through the air, however, engineers know this, I am not an expert on 747s but I would venture to guess that they have a static arrestor to prevent such a catastrophe. I also have a hard time believing that a static charge somehow made its way into the fuel tank and caused an explosion there. They have capacitor type fuel guage indicators, which use the fuel as a variable dialectric to give an accurate indication. So there is already electricity in the fuel tank. I am not saying it could not cause the explosion. But static electricity seems really tough for me to believe. What really makes it difficult to digest is the plethera of eyewitnesses that say something asend and contact the aircraft. My experience with this suggests that perhaps they did not see what they think they saw, but maybe they did see something. There are lots and lots of possible failures with a system this complicated, but my vote would go to a random act of nature, like lightning or a meteor, that seems to almost make sense of the eyewitness accounts."

then I made the comment you used... you changed the context a bit

DAN, NORTH CAROLINA
July 09, 2009 3:19pm

First I just want to say that your podcast is in a 3-way tie as the podcast I look most forward to each week! You do a fantastic job, keep up the great work!

My comment regards HFCS. When you did your original episode on it I meant to comment then got busy and forgot, but this episode brought the issue up again. I'm no chemist, so I won't argue that, but the claim that HFCS is identical to sugar, while I'm in no position to argue, leaves me with a conundrum. You see, my wife is allergic to HFCS. She is not however allergic to sugar or honey (or any other sweetenr that we're aware of). This took a year to figure out given HFCS is in a lot of things you wouldn't expect (wheat bread for instance, she has to avoid it at restaurants/sandwich shops like the plague).

So if HFCS and sugar are truly identical, then why isn't she allergic to sugar as well?

My own hypothesis has to do with the production of HFCS being the culprit, and possibly trace elements that are in HFCS. For instance, I knew someone who was allergic to Liquid Smoke. The brand, not all liquid smoke products. Turns out the way that Wright's distills their product introduces some other chemical/substance in the process. Given that only a "trace" amount of the substance potentally is in the product, it does not have to be listed as an ingredient. It is this other substance that he was allergic to.

So I wonder if in the case of HFCS it is the chemicals used in the process of creating HFCS?

Your thoughts?

Chris, Seattle, WA
July 09, 2009 5:55pm

Can pharmceutical companies make a profit on natural products?
of coarse they can, they will find out the individual chemical or protein which creates the benefcial effect or cure and then produce a drug which contains a pure concerdated verison of the natural product's chemical then they patent that.

Thats how it works and why pharmceutical companies spend money researching natural 'cures'.

Claire, Melbourne, Australia
July 09, 2009 6:59pm

Big fan of the show, but I wanted to bring up something for clarification's sake. The person who wrote you about fast food mentioned "sodium, sugar, fat, etc." At the end of your reply, you asked, "do you really think [making a Big Mac and milkshake at home is] gonna have fewer calories than a McDonald's version?" Tristan didn't mention calories. I don’t know if the "etc." is includes calories or not. But there seemed to be some shifting criteria going on here, so I decided to crunch some numbers. Just taking those three items, there is a difference between a McDonald's Big Mac and a homemade one. I decided to only look at one ingredient, the beef, and see what the numbers were. According to the McDonald's website, the 100% beef patty (33g) has 7g of fat, 3g of saturated fat, 125mg of sodium, and 90 calories. According to caloriecount.about.com, a 33g beef patty that’s 80% lean has 5.7g fat, 2.15g of saturated fat, 29.6g of sodium, an, and 88.8 calories. Sugar was not mentioned. It looks like there are some differences, assuming my numbers are right. Is there a lower grade than 80/20 available at supermarkets? If one uses 85% lean beef, one only has to contend with 5.1g of fat, 1.9g of saturated fat, 23.6g of sodium, and 81.9 calories, and that’s not even the leanest beef available. My question to you is this: are you assuming that the person making a Big Mac and 32oz. shake at home is using the exact same ingredients?

Marty, Redmond, WA
July 10, 2009 2:21am

Marty, obviously if the person making the burger at home is using healthier ingredients they will have different numbers. They could use ground turkey instead of beef and low-fat cheese and fat-free mayo. All of these would make the burger healthier than a Big Mac.

The point is that McD's isn't adding stuff to the burgers to make them intentionally less healthy. They don't use lean ground beef I assume because this is more expensive - and that cost would be passed on to consumers and hit their sales.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 10, 2009 6:12am

Why are you picking on McDonald's all the time? McDonald's is trying to do the right thing and making their food healthier than it was years ago. They were doing that long before Spurlock made his movie. The most popular things on the menu, atleast in the local McDonald's, are Salads, Bottled Water and fruit and Yogurt cups. They do not sell a lot of Big Mac's like they used to down here.

If you want to go after the real guilty parties in the battle of the bulge, go after Carl's Junior. Instead of being healthy, they are advertising bigger portions, larger sodas, and something really weird, meat on top of meat. The one here had a pastrami and bacon burger, by itself 900 calories. That one burger, no bigger than a big mac, is almost twice as bad for you.

That is the least fattening thing on the menu.

Go After Carl's if you really care about American's weight.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
July 10, 2009 10:04am

If you really care about Americans' weight, go after Americans. No one is forcing this stuff down their throats.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 10, 2009 10:54am

Brain,

You got me a bit irritated so I went and talked to a good friend of mine at the base today about flight 800, who happens to be an expert. We got online and we looked up the report, then he opened his textbook on flight and wreck investigation and for two hours informed me about many of the ways that you can in fact investigate a crash.

After speaking with my friend, I am forced to agree with you that it was not a missile that caused flight 800's explosion chiefly because of the "bulges" of the explosion appeared... mostly outward, as opposed to a missile which makes a distinct indentation.

Also, saying that it is impossible to hit a plane with a missile at altitude 6 nm out over water is a FALLACY.

Maybe you should consult Gary Powers the U2 pilot who was shot down over the Soviet Union, at a much higher altitude than 30,000 ft.

My original point was NOT, however to insinuate that I ever believed a missile was the cause of this wreck TO BEGIN WITH

I clearly stated I believed probable causes were lighting, or a meteor.

You cherry picked a very small part of my comment and changed the context to suit your rant...

DAN, NORTH CAROLINA
July 10, 2009 3:50pm

Tiberius -

I can't say for certain that they are adding something, but the huge increase in sodium does point to some added ingredient, most likely salt. Unfortunately, I don't know the full answer to that as I have never been a burger flipper at McD's, but if I go there again, I'll ask.

My point was that there is a difference between a Big Mac cooked at home and one cooked at McDonald's even when using a very low grade of ground beef. Are they adding fat, sodium, etc.? It's not impossible; just cooking the burger in butter adds all of those elements. And adding salt for flavor, something not entirely unheard of in the world of cuisine, would certainly raise the sodium. Both of these would also add taste, and I would assume that McDonald's wants to make a tasty product so that people return and have it again. I could be wrong on that count, but it's not an irrational assumption.

Marty, Redmond, WA
July 10, 2009 4:51pm

Yeah, I took my ex shopping a couple of months ago. She wanted to buy some hair conditioner & asked me to compare the ingredients (even though I haven't done any chemistry work in a couple of decades I can still read).

So I did, explaining that basically all the ones she was looking at contained the same ingredients whether they were $4 or $20 for the same amount.

She asked me why the cost difference was so great & I told her its because people were willing to pay more for "natural" ingredients even though they were exactly the same as the man-made versions.

"you mean they're chemicals?", she asked.

I answered, "yes".

She's never quite recovered.

Robert Jase, New Britain, CT
July 10, 2009 5:45pm

Just "heard" the episode and picked up on something that didn't come through with the reading for me. Brian states a charge that fast food companies add extra sodium among other things. Which is a bit of a straw man. I'm not familiar with anyone making any claim of added sodium over what can be found in the grocery stores. The problem I face is the impossiblity in finding low sodium products that come from the industrial chain.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
July 13, 2009 7:17am

DAN, in the Flight 800 episode Brian stated it was impossible to hit that plane with a shoulder launched weapon. Gary Powers was downed by a SA-2 missile - check it out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-2 - you would have to have one hell of a shoulder to launch one of those that way.

Tomek, Warsaw
July 14, 2009 7:29am

as a person with the first name Tristan I feel embarrassed with someone with my name acts like an ass.

Tristan, Burlington, Ontario
July 17, 2009 6:59pm

I take exception to your comment about Naturopaths, as I am one. My four years of accredited med school included many hours of biochem and physiology, understanding the impact of food, nutrients, pollutants and botanicals on the human body (as well as other factors). We also have training in pharmaceuticals, and how they compare in action and efficacy to various healing strategies. I am a licensed physician, and I can write prescriptions for most drugs. I can also show people how to (often quite successfully) reduce or reverse disease processes (asthma, allergies, hypertension, for example) with a change in diet, exercise, nutrition and sometimes botanicals. Because I understand biochemistry.

Christine, Phoenix, AZ
July 22, 2009 9:55pm

Robert McBride said: "I'm not familiar with anyone making any claim of added sodium over what can be found in the grocery stores."

Depends on what you're finding in the grocery stores. A prepackaged frozen hamburger patty might have the same amount of sodium as a fast food burger patty. If you buy plain lean ground beef and make patties out of it at home without adding salt, you're ahead of the curve.

Even though we have access to more food energy than we need, we're still drawn to the fattiest and saltiest and sweetest things. The theory behind adding extra salt, fat, and sugar to commercially-prepared foods is that that kind of food appeals to our basic survival instincts.

I don't know where to find the most comprehensive analysis of fast food and convenience food ingredients, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that prepackaged supermarket burgers were just as bad as fast food.

Brenda Shaw, Toronto, ON
July 23, 2009 10:26am

I love the last one!!! Did they really send ya money?

Lucky Jean, Pahoa, HI
August 09, 2009 4:23pm

"Would I rather eat natural food, as Mother Nature intended – true natural foods – not necessarily the ones FDA says are natural – or, would I rather eat processed foods?"

I would argue that nothing is truly unnatural, nothing. We are a species of animal arisen from natural forces found on earth; our buildings are merely rock and metals found in the ground that are on a geologic scale only briefly re-shaped by a certain animal as a temporary shelter. The processing of food is a series of natural forces acting on natural chemicals and in the end it's all plant and animal matter mixed together by an extremely bright species of ape. One could argue where the specific line between natural and "unnatural" would be if it existed at all. If something has multiple natural sources, say I take a bunch of natural extracts from plants and mix them together. Is it synthetic? What if I cook this mixture, then what is it? How about if I add naturally occuring chemicals to it that alter its properties? Then what?

I think the nature-good, humans-bad crowd are just struck by how different process food looks from crops, and maybe wouldn't be so against "unnatural" things if they witnessed, understood and tought themselves how to extract every natural resource from the ground and re-shape it to make it appear totally different

Jonathan, Earth
January 09, 2010 5:43pm

@the letter at the end of your article:

That PROVES it! They DO exist! Crazy theories: 1, Regular theories: A billion!

Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
February 01, 2010 8:26am

I'm confused by this comment after your last podcast: "it's time to give a voice to our listeners... some are insane raving lunatics straining at the straps of their straitjackets and flapping around on the floor like landed fish."

So, what happened with "Is an ad hominem attack really the best way to express disagreement?" Brian???

Have you changed your mind now, and agree with those that call Palin, Bush, etc. dumb as hell? :)

Adam Freeman, Springfield
July 20, 2010 3:31am