Study on the dangers of cereal and question

[BeckyFL]

I read this yesterday: http://editor.nourishedmagazine.com.au/articles/puffed-grains-should-we-eat-them

 

Most days I eat homemade yogurt and fruit for breakfast. Dh and ds like cereal but, after reading this, I'm hoping we can change their cereal habit.

 

My question is... would oatmeal be produced this way as well? Supposedly the health food store cereals are even more dangerous. Oatmeal would be processed as well, wouldn't it? How about steel cut oats?

[gingersmom]

The article keeps referencing unpublished studies.

 

I would like to know more than her comments on the subject before I jump to any conclusions.

 

We don't eat much cereal in our house anyways (cereal without milk is not much fun).

[amey311]

That short article wouldn't change my mind. I have no idea about the sample size of the studies (that were never published??) or any other information. This could be an example of correlation rather than causation. It should be easily replicated.

 

You'll note in the comments that someone says steel cut oats are okay. Someone else says grains are okay, but only if you soak them overnight.

 

We eat some cereal, but not daily mostly because it's more expensive than other breakfast options. I don't think this "article" changed my mind in any way, but I can be pretty skeptical. I want to check sources, and this one doesn't provide any.

[MrsMe]

Not only that, seems everything is really bad for you. Just another on the list. :rolleyes:

[AuntieM]

Well, that's pretty scary if it can be substantiated. I'd imagine we'd be seeing a larger population of teens and young adults dropping with serious organ failure, though, if the results were what's implied, because so many rely on cereal for breakfasts and snacks.

 

Any other studies to shore up her conclusions?

[Julie in Austin]

I think it is a very bad idea to give any weight at all to unpublished studies involving rats.

[BeckyFL]

There was a show on FitTV (I was sick with a fever yesterday, so there I was watching health shows lol) and the host was explaining to a mother and her daughter about the studies done by cereal companies, but never published because they didn't like the results. I googled again and only found more people siting the same studies.

http://lindaprout.com/nodietblog/?p=10 as an example.

 

There was also a snopes entry in which someone was saying it was on a Mythbusters episode, but it doesn't say what Mythbusters found.

 

Well.... I know we should be cutting back on it anyway. This just gives me a little more incentive.

[Parrothead]

To me this entire blog post sounded like a pitch for the author's cookbook. "Don't eat the poisonous cereal."

"Well, what can we eat?"

"I don't know, but this lady has a cookbook out. Maybe we should buy the cookbook and eat what she tells us to."

 

I don't know anything about this woman other than what she has posted on this blog. She is selling something. The article is old - dated December 2008 edition. But the first comment is dated 2006. Who is lying?

 

I won't put my trust in the cereal companies. But I also won't put my trust in someone who is out to make a buck by fear mongering. . This lady is citing unnamed studies. One from the 1960s. She has no scientific background or formal nutrition education. She piggybacks her name with that of a PhD.

 

How about she posts the studies she has cited so we can make up our own minds instead of taking her word for it.

[Dobela]

Unpublished sometimes means that there was not enough evidence for the scientific community to say that the study reached reasonable conclusions. Basicly, the other scientists possibly didn't feel that the study was accurate or could be copied with the same results. There are many other issues with the post if ou read the comments section below it.

 

The next problem I find is that at least one of the studies was from the 1960s. Our food has changed dramatically since the 1960s.

[Parrothead]

There was a show on FitTV (I was sick with a fever yesterday, so there I was watching health shows lol) and the host was explaining to a mother and her daughter about the studies done by cereal companies, but never published because they didn't like the results. I googled again and only found more people siting the same studies.

http://lindaprout.com/nodietblog/?p=10 as an example.

 

There was also a snopes entry in which someone was saying it was on a Mythbusters episode, but it doesn't say what Mythbusters found.

 

Well.... I know we should be cutting back on it anyway. This just gives me a little more incentive.

Yes, I agree. People should cut back on processed foods, including breakfast cereals.

 

But this blog you linked was again, another blog which named an "Ann Arbor University study." Where is the actual study? All you have been able to come up with is rumor. Was this rumor of unpublished studies started by Cereal Company G to discredit Cereal Company K? Or possibly Cereal Company P.

 

Can you link the snopes article?

 

Just the fact that Mythbusters took this on at one point says to me Urban Legend.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Parrothead

[TravelingChris]

:iagree:with other comments that we can't really comment on unpublished studies but they shouldn't be used as justification for anything.

 

Just also want to tell you about using only rat studies- I am currently on potentially life saving medicine (since I have blood clots) that kills rats. It used to be used as rat poison. It helps keep me and millions of others alive.

[BeckyFL]

The snopes is more of a discussion and I don't know if there's any credible info in it at all...

s.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=001013;p=1

[BeckyFL]

Woops...

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=001013;p=1

[Rivka]

There are a lot of people out there pushing extreme ways of eating based on very little actual evidence. I ignore most things that are written about nutrition and health, and just feed my family a wide range of foods.

 

I wouldn't lose sleep, or try to get my family to stop eating foods they enjoy, based on vague unverifiable claims that were supposedly proven in unpublished studies.

[Parrothead]

Woops...

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=001013;p=1

That thread was hilarious. The first post was that Mythbuster is doing an episode about the urband legend of the box being more nutritious than the cereal. Lots of speculation, more rumor, and a few antecedents. Then almost at the end this guys post:

The MythBusters never identified which cereal they were testing ( [ tongue in cheek ] gee, wonder why? [ /tongue in cheek ]), but the friend I was watching the episode with says it looked like Froot Loops.

 

And from what I read (link from the fan club forums), there was a mouse test as well, that was not aired for good reason. Let's just say that it wasn't malnutrition that caused fatalities.

Mythbusters is not live TV. It is edited. I can not imagine where they would start a show about the cereal legend and end it with out a conclusion just because the conclusion is bad. The entire story line would have had to be edited out. This is more rumor.

 

What actually happened on the steam cannon/cereal episode is here

 

So what you have is the person in your original link perpetuation an urban legend as fact. Mythbusters tested the urban legend and found it unfounded. What you have to do is decide who you trust more. The lady in your first post, your own research or Mythbusters.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Parrothead

[H.S. Burrow]

That thread was hilarious. The first post was that Mythbuster is doing an episode about the urband legend of the box being more nutritious than the cereal. Lots of speculation, more rumor, and a few antecedents. Then almost at the end this guys post:

Mythbusters is not live TV. It is edited. I can not imagine where they would start a show about the cereal legend and end it with out a conclusion just because the conclusion is bad. The entire story line would have had to be edited out. This is more rumor.

 

What actually happened on the steam cannon/cereal episode is here

 

So what you have is the person in your original link perpetuation an urban legend as fact. Mythbusters tested the urban legend and found it unfounded. What you have to do is decide who you trust more. The lady in your first post, your own research or Mythbusters.

 

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

[yslek]

I read about this in the author's cookbook (which I had checked out from the library) and was totally freaked out by puffed cereal (and many other foods--to the point of not buying enough for our family at the store, because it was all bad in some way!) for a while. More recently, I read a bit more about her (& her book) and found that this (citing unpublished studies) is pretty typical to her approach. I was kicking myself for not actually checking the many references in the back of her book; most of them were referencing articles she had previously written! Now, seeing her name is an immediate turn-off for me. (I know, I know...not logically valid to dismiss the message because of the messenger, but I don't want to have to sift through her info to decide what's actually sound. So much easier to just dismiss it all. ;))

 

We don't eat cereal, though, mostly just because it's so processed. We like to eat rolled oats and homemade granola (this author claims granola is unhealthy, too, btw, because the grains are roasted w/o sprouting them or at least soaking them in whey or yogurt first :glare:) which costs much less and tastes better (IMHO) to boot. :001_smile:

[BeckyFL]

I read about this in the author's cookbook (which I had checked out from the library) and was totally freaked out by puffed cereal (and many other foods--to the point of not buying enough for our family at the store, because it was all bad in some way!) for a while. More recently, I read a bit more about her (& her book) and found that this (citing unpublished studies) is pretty typical to her approach. I was kicking myself for not actually checking the many references in the back of her book; most of them were referencing articles she had previously written! Now, seeing her name is an immediate turn-off for me. (I know, I know...not logically valid to dismiss the message because of the messenger, but I don't want to have to sift through her info to decide what's actually sound. So much easier to just dismiss it all. ;))

 

We don't eat cereal, though, mostly just because it's so processed. We like to eat rolled oats and homemade granola (this author claims granola is unhealthy, too, btw, because the grains are roasted w/o sprouting them or at least soaking them in whey or yogurt first :glare:) which costs much less and tastes better (IMHO) to boot. :001_smile:

 

I'm thinking the same. You know, a couple of years ago I actually bought the original author's NT book because so many people were talking about it. I only made it through the first couple of chapters... for some reason I it just didn't sit right.

 

Bottom line, eating less processed food can't hurt.

[BeckyFL]

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

 

Wow... now I know that I definitely will not allow my family to eat cardboard! LoL

[mirth]

^

[yslek]

I read her book too. I have read other books like it. I take from them what I want to and what works for me. I still buy cereals for my kids, but I focus on lower (or no) sugar. I am trying to majorly reduce sugar and processed foods. It's hard because my kids love these things and they are easy! I try to do a lot of eggs and stuff like that for breakfast instead of relying on junky cereals. I think it is a step in the right direction. I don't, however, think all of them will instantly kill a person.

 

Some cereals really are garbage though. Fruity Pebbles Cupcake cereal comes to mind. Really now? :confused: And they advertise these things as if they are nutritious.

 

Some of her ideas are great. Some of them are impossible or totally impractical. It made me laugh that at the end of the nutrition section she says "Even whole foods, properly prepared according to traditional methods, do us no good if we eat them with a grudge; they will not confer health on the person who does not forgive." So this is her conclusion after all the doom and gloom. :rolleyes:

 

I tend to take things to heart. And I'm a perfectionist. It took me some serious soul searching to take only what I can from all of it. I believe she is closer to the truth about nutrition than what most "experts" tell us in the national media (or even what our doctor's often are taught). But, again, I don't think she has all the answers nor is she really addressing the impracticality of her suggestions.

 

If nothing else, take from it that what we are often told about nutrition may not be true.

 

:iagree: The ideas about food (that she promotes) that I have stuck with, I read about in other (actually reliable ;)) sources, too. Joel Salatin's books, for example, some of Michael Pollan's writing, and more recently, Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (which isn't about whole/natural foods at all, but is focused heavily on what research exists, particularly about the fat hypothesis--which research hasn't managed to bear out, and the dangers of sugar/refined carbs).

 

I also like Weston Price's book (the first half--where he writes about his actual observations. The later parts, where he draws some very interesting conclusions, some of them based on physiognomy, are more a product of his time than sound science.) It was actually reading Price's own work that made me begin to question the many conclusions Fallon drew from it. Many of the findings she attributes to Price are not to be found in his work at all. :glare:

 

Your comments about being a perfectionist resonate with me very much. Hence the freak-outage about everything after first reading this. :tongue_smilie: I think I'm in a better place, food-wise, now. We are lucky to live in an area where many local farmers sell grass-fed beef, and where we can get local produce delivered weekly to our door. :) We also have some chicks who will hopefully provide us with delicious pastured eggs in the spring. When times require it, though (like when I had horrible 24/7 morning sickness) we do buy cereal, and I refuse to feel (too) guilty. ;)

[yslek]

There is no such thing as Ann Arbor University. No wonder the study is unpublished.

 

:lol: Hahaha! That totally escaped me.

[Corraleno]

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

Oh wow, thanks for posting that! :lol:

 

I'm a big believer in eating organic, unprocessed food as much as possible, but I think these two "unpublished studies" are totally bogus. I don't doubt that cereal companies have done lots of studies that they don't want the public to see, and I don't doubt that a diet high in breakfast cereals is not particularly good for you, but the idea that rats eating cardboard lived longer than rats eating cornflakes? Nope.

 

Plus the other anomalies, like citing the nonexistent "Ann Arbor University" and saying that every cereal that comes in a box is "extruded" (totally untrue) cast doubt on the article. Puffed wheat, the cereal that supposedly killed the mice because it was extruded, is not an extruded cereal! Fruit Loops, Trix, Lucky Charms, are extruded cereals. Rolled and puffed whole grains are processed, but they're not extruded.

 

Jackie

[Impish]

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

Its only available in the States :(

[Heather in WI]

Wow... now I know that I definitely will not allow my family to eat cardboard! LoL

 

:lol:

[Parrothead]

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

:lol: Like I said, "who are you going to believe..."

 

If I had a very strong feeling about the answer, and I don't, I'd conduct my own test.

 

Mice are pretty cheap in a pet store. Buy some mice, create the groups, and do the experiment. If it were me doing the experiment, I'd go for several types of cereal just to see what happens.

[Rivka]

This is also known as the University of Michigan. I found it referenced in other studies and cited like this:

 

Ann Arbor: University Research Centre, University of Michigan

 

That was from an article in 1967. Perhaps at that time it was referred to by the "Ann Arbor" name first? If you google "Ann Arbor University" it comes up University of Michigan Ann Arbor.

 

That's a citation format showing location of publication and publisher; presumably this was a report which was printed by the University Research Centre at UMichigan rather than, say, by an academic publisher. It's the equivalent of putting, as part of a book citation, "New York: McGraw-Hill Books."

 

If someone is unable to interpret the citation properly, I would take it as a sign that they are not very familiar with academic research. And that would limit my confidence in their conclusions.

[H.S. Burrow]

Its only available in the States :(

 

 

Sorry! It's a video of Adam of Mythbusters fielding audience questions, one of which was there ever anything that Discovery didn't air. He tells how Jamie set up the experiment:

 

one group of mice get mouse food

one group of mice get Froot Loops

one group of mice get pellets made of cardboard & water

 

In the group that got the cardboard, one mouse ate the other 2! :lol: The cannibal mouse was edited out of the show. It is episode #55.

[Rivka]

I found it online. It was a PDF of citations in a thesis written by a person from Australia.

 

Could it possibly be that the author uses a different formatting style? I know there are different styles. My husband went to a foreign university and wrote his thesis using a different style (and cringes when he sees ours).

 

Sorry, I think I was unclear. My problem was not with the citation format itself, but with the blog poster who looked at that citation and said "Ann Arbor University." I meant that if the blog poster didn't know how to read a citation correctly, they probably didn't have a lot of familiarity with research.

 

I'd be curious to see the PDF you found.

[stripe]

Oatmeal would be processed as well, wouldn't it? How about steel cut oats?

For what it's worth, oatmeal is squashed oats. I wouldn't put them on the same plane as puffed items.

 

I found an "article" that said Quaker conducted this study in 1942. Not to be flip, but given the increase in cereal consumption since then, I'd imagine many Americans would have dropped dead by then...

 

There is no such place as Ann Arbor University. That does not mean Ann Arbor does not exist.

[Slartibartfast]

And here's what really happened in the Mythbusters "cereal" episode & why Discovery wouldn't all of it.

:lol:

[regentrude]

If the science were solid behind these experiments, they would have been replicated since (after all, those happened 50 years ago!)

I am extremely cautions about a study with only 18 subjects divided into three groups - everybody who knows anything about statistics realizes that those are too few subjects to make any meaningful conclusions.

[dirty ethel rackham]

That was hilarious. My Mythbusters fans in this household had to watch that.

[Dobela]

My only point with posting that was to show that perhaps Ann Arbor is in fact a real place. Someone here said it isn't. My guess is that maybe some older publications referred to it in this way.

 

I was limited to what I could find online (and not have to pay for).

 

This is what I was referring to:

 

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/2546/24/Reference%26Appendix.pdf

Ann Arbor is a real place. It is the name of the city where the University of Michigan is located and has been since the early 1800s. The official name of the state university is The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. UofM has more than once campus and Ann Arbor is one of them, probably the most well known of them. The hospital connected to the college is often referred to as Ann Arbor University Hospital but the official name is not that. As far as I can find the college there has never been called Ann Arbor University.

 

There is also another private college in the area named Concordia University Ann Arbor.

[dirty ethel rackham]

My only point with posting that was to show that perhaps Ann Arbor is in fact a real place. Someone here said it isn't. My guess is that maybe some older publications referred to it in this way.

 

 

 

As far as I know, it has never been referred to as Ann Arbor University. It was named University of Michigan in 1821. As the flagship university of the state, it is quite widely well-known in academic circles.

[BeckyFL]

:lol: Like I said, "who are you going to believe..."

 

If I had a very strong feeling about the answer, and I don't, I'd conduct my own test.

 

Mice are pretty cheap in a pet store. Buy some mice, create the groups, and do the experiment. If it were me doing the experiment, I'd go for several types of cereal just to see what happens.

 

No test conducting here... I don't want to see the fat mouse surrounded by sketetons. lol

[Parrothead]

No test conducting here... I don't want to see the fat mouse surrounded by sketetons. lol

:smilielol5::smilielol5: