INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Getting it wrong...

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Getting it wrong...

#1 Post by Dave B » January 22nd, 2016, 4:36 pm

Bus trip to town, picked up Metro, confirmed that it's journalistic standards still leave much to be desired.

Small article about fried veg being better for you than boiled, more beneficial compiuds retained. Hmm, yes, if you boil them in a bucket of water then throw the water away... I use minimum water and turn what is left into sone kind of sauce, maybe liquidising some of the veg to thicken.

Looked for it online and found a Torygraph article
The results showed that using olive oil for frying vegetables increased their fat content and reduced moisture, something not seen in other methods.
Wow! You don't say, so blasting them with an oxy-acetylene torch might also produce, "...something not see in other methods." Where's me welding set...

Seems poor journalism in reporting science is not confined to the Metro!

"Drying" foods always concentrates wbatever chemicals they contain, sultanas have the same amount of sugars, mierals and vitamins as that variety of grapes but in a smaller volume. This also applies to meats and other foods.

Now, we were once told tbat olive oil should not be used for frying at high temperature since that process converts some of it to fats that are not good for us. Many recepies only add the oil in the last few minutes, as I do, just to season and dress the dish.

I could be wrong but it feels like the media grabbing something they feel might be controvertial and then getting it all wrong anyway. In my search I found other articles saying thst lard is better for us than vegetable oils - according to the media interpretation, or "fucking up the facts" as it is technically termed.

The public do not stand a chance - yet another reason not to waste money on such sources of misinformation.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
John G
Posts: 74
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 2:44 am

Re: Getting it wrong...

#2 Post by John G » February 19th, 2016, 4:45 pm

Poorly researched articles are a waste of time.

The problem is, how do you tell if an article is poorly researched?

I was in my pharmacy the other day. They have this large screen TV that displays advertising and health recommendation.

One article caught my eye. The article said that 'UK study shows that sitting for long period of time is not bad for your health.'

The problem is having an unhealthy lifestyle to begin with. Sitting for long periods of time may be a sign that you have an unhealthy lifestyle. Once your health is compromised sitting for long periods of time is bad for you as any activity is better than none. Cardiovascular problems may also be exacerbated by prolonged sitting.

Without digging into the studies to find out exactly what they were studying, I am left with some writer summarizing a subject that they may or may not know well.

The few articles were I have had inside knowledge of a subject and read a new article on said topic, have left me wondering what the heck was going on.

Interesting vs accurate.

How much influence does a one line news title have?

If we agree with a subject and don't read the article it's reinforcing a point of view without reason.
If we read the article and learn nothing new, its a waste of time. If we read the article and learn some new fact we may be faced with agreeing or disagreeing and having to change our view or perhaps add a new piece of data to our knowledge of a subject.
Looked for it online and found a Torygraph article
The results showed that using olive oil for frying vegetables increased their fat content and reduced moisture, something not seen in other methods.
Wow! You don't say, so blasting them with an oxy-acetylene torch might also produce, "...something not see in other methods." Where's me welding set...
[bolding added by me.]

The major point that the article misses directly is the type of oil used. The link in bold leads to an article on frying using other types of oil and the problems they might cause.

It also misses the point that there are different methods of boiling. Microwave, steaming etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... shows.html

This was linked to the above

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... perts.html

Well, thanks to Dave I have updated my understanding of an important aspect of cooking that everyone should have some knowledge about. :)

The conclusions that I came to for myself.

If you are going to fry something for a long period of time don't use certain types of oils.
Some forms of frying preserve certain properties of food better then certain types of boiling.
Fry food with high heat but for short periods of time. Unless the oil has some added some health benefits then adjust cooking method.

Cooking with animal fats can reduce the amount of aldehydes produced in the cooking process. If you cook in vegetable oil for long periods of time vs animal fats or in this case olive oil.

To say that lard is healthier for you than vegetable oil is not a lie, Not using lard is even healthier which seems to be a point that gets missed or is assumed to be common knowledge.

If it's important to you, research the subject.

It's called food-science for a reason after all. Like all science the knowledge base grows. Like all sciences, we sometimes get things wrong.

All we can do is trust the popular media will inform us enough to know that there may be something new that might be useful to know and research.
A good learner is forever walking the narrow path between blindness and hallucination. ― Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Getting it wrong...

#3 Post by Dave B » February 19th, 2016, 8:16 pm

Well, I am still a bit confused as to which fats/oils are good or bad, so I have modified my cooking a bit to share them out a little but reduce my overall intake:

1. Bought an oil spray; this puts a fine coating, but enough, on, say, fish dusted with seasoned cornflour to crisp it a little. Works OK on "stir fries" as well, main cooking in water with soy sauce, spices etc then, when dry, a quick spray to get a little colour on high heat for a couple of mins.

2. Olive oil only used, sparingly, as a dressing in final few minutes of cooking, mainly to give a gloss and flavour.

3. Meat in stews/soups no longer "browned", just as tender and tasty.

4. Bacon cooked in "paninni press" and blotted with kitchen towel.

My mum used to fry everything in lard, including bacon, when I were a nipper - olive oil was used to clean wax out of ears. Or by "those people down the road who smell of garlic", a local Italian family!

Must admit, animal fats make the best chips and roast spuds - OK for an occasional treat.

Damn, now my appetite is awakened!

But, Ì seem to find errors or ambiguities in most science and technology articles in the non-technical media, some down to simply sloppy journalism.

Ooh, deja vu moment there.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: Getting it wrong...

#4 Post by jdc » February 25th, 2016, 2:40 am

UK study shows that sitting for long period of time is not bad for your health
I googled this and found a Daily Mail article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... claim.html about a study of 5,000 people that concluded that... well, the authors seem to be a bit more cautious than the Mail. They're quoted as saying 'Our findings suggest that reducing sitting time might not be quite as important for mortality risk as previously publicised and that encouraging people to be more active should still be a public health priority' and 'Policy makers should be cautious in recommending a reduction in the time spent sitting without also promoting increased physical activity'. The Mail gleefully tell us that this contradicts NHS recommendations.

The actual NHS recommendations* http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Page ... ealth.aspx are to (a) reduce sitting and (b) increase physical activity, so there's not really a contradiction as I see it. The NHS recommendations to reduce sitting time are based on a systematic review and meta analysis of 18 trials with around 800,000 participants.

* "The advice is clear: to reduce our risk of ill health from inactivity, we are advised to exercise regularly – at least 150 minutes a week – as well as reduce time spent sitting or lying."
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

User avatar
John G
Posts: 74
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 2:44 am

Re: Getting it wrong...

#5 Post by John G » February 25th, 2016, 5:28 am

Thanks for the clarification jdc.

It looks like someone referenced the Mail article rather than the original NHS article and came up with a poor one liner.

I think I'll talk to the pharmacist about this. His picture is next to this snippet of health advice. Not sure if it's a subscription service or if they have some say about what gets posted. Poor advice is worse than no advice in some cases.
A good learner is forever walking the narrow path between blindness and hallucination. ― Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm

Post Reply