In one para : what's wrong with our modern diet.
- Thread starter PoBoy
- Start date
Makes no difference actually as both contain Sodium. Better to try and reduce intake of salt.
Ssreek
Guide
So no alternatives to salt? regarding taste.
No, since they use some or other chemical as a substitute which would have similar issues.
Last edited:
Ssreek
Guide
Is it similar to how they say those sugar free products and jaggery not an alternative to sugar?
TinTinSnowy
Guide
We use Tata SuperLite Salt at home for its lower sodium and higher potassium content, which helps maintain a balanced electrolyte level. Please consult your doctor or nutritionist before using any high-potassium salt, as excessive potassium intake can lead to Hyperkalemia. It's challenging to provide specific advice without knowledge of your overall diet. Our diet is low in potassium, so this salt is beneficial for us.
Are Pink/Himalayan salts iodized?
Yes, it is markedly less salty.
Salt taste is caused by Na+ ions. K+ ions have a similar taste but not really the same saltiness.
However, if you are used to higher saltiness the good part about Tata Superlite, you will add more spoons to reach the same saltiness that you are used to. HOWEVER, automatically you are also adding more potassium to your diet.
Can you even understand what is written in your own paper ? How on earth does explaining the shortcomings of the LiverTox database constitute an argument pointing out flaws in studies that utilized RUCAM? kuch bhi ?
In the present article we have considered only reports who have applied Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for causality assessment (Benichou et al., 1993; Danan and Benichou, 1993; Danan and Teschke, 2016), since the weaknesses of LiverTox database approach include a case selection merely based on published case number and not on a strong causality assessment method such as RUCAM (Teschke and Danan, 2021). It is nowadays the suitable method applied in 81,856 DILI and HILI cases worldwide, according to (Teschke and Danan, 2020). The considered cases were judged as probable, supporting the causal relationship to the use of Curcuma longa containing supplements and herb-induced liver injury (HILI).
Still better what? So, you trust a mice study more than the liver biopsy of patients who suffered liver injuries from Turmeric.
What is Rubbish? The study discusses a gene that may increase susceptibility to liver injury due to the consumption of herbs. The paper explicitly states, 'Genetic studies performed by our group and others suggest that there is a common susceptibility link in persons carrying HLA-B*35:01, making them sensitive to multiple polyphenols.' This same gene was previously associated with liver injury because of green tea extract, which is also an herb. The study argues that the particular gene may be increasing the likelihood of liver injury due to herbs, just as some genes increase the risk of alcohol-induced liver injury.
I can't continue explaining things that are written in studies in plain English. It's quite clear that you have no idea about what is written in your own links. I won't bother with the rest of the quotes, as some have already been addressed 2-3 times, and some are downright laughable.
My point is simple, when the cause of injury is confirmed, even a few cases are enough to issue warnings, and that's what the Italian and Australian governments did. You can ignore the warnings and move on. Even alcohol-induced liver injury does not occur easily in everyone. There has to be some predisposition, such as certain genes making a person susceptible, or the person being obese, gender, age, certain health conditions etc. Can one conclude that alcohol is not dangerous for healthy individuals?
Lastly, everyone should be careful with these fake supplements and trust only medicines that have proved their efficacy and an absence of harm in clinical trails. The BS of selling random herbs as 'supplements' must always be called out and NO, a physician cannot recommend an untested medicine or a supplement when better, properly tested and safer treatment options are available. A good physician is not a pseudoscience apologist.
Ah, the weekend turmeric marker of the thread is here again.
In case of liver, biliary or calculosis abnormalities in the biliary tract, the use of the product is not recommended. Do not use during pregnancy and lactation. Do not use for prolonged periods without consulting your doctor. If you are taking medications, it is it is advisable to hear the opinion of the doctor.
First of all you started quoted RUCAM all over only when this study pointed it out. Second the paper called out studies using case selection from Livertox as the basis. Half of the links you quoted were based on Livertox case selections and not RUCAM. Finally it concluded that the RUCAM based cases were too few to even to warrant any judgement.
Probability and likelihood tells us they are not sure. It may or may not cause it. More specifically, if there is an adverse event, the definitive cause is yet unclear.
It is clear that you have a personal vendetta in all of this. You choose to believe what you want to believe and ignore everything else. You have a problem with understanding statistical analysis and probability but I sense that it is more about that you cannot accept what they are saying and that they are inconclusive.
This is the warning they issued -
In case of liver, biliary or calculosis abnormalities in the biliary tract, the use of the product is not recommended. Do not use during pregnancy and lactation. Do not use for prolonged periods without consulting your doctor. If you are taking medications, it is it is advisable to hear the opinion of the doctor.
The fact that you need to repeatedly compare turmeric to alcohol tells me how desperate you are. One does not even need common sense to know that each individual is unique and the same genetic predisposition cannot be applied to everyone. With the kind of logic you have been spewing all over, you should stop eating and drinking altogether. Almost everything you consume has one or the other study telling it's bad in one or more scenarios. Even water is known to cause problems in specific cases.
That is for the physician to decide, not you nor me. They are in the position to understand studies and trials and patient needs better than you.
The fact that a physician is not a pseudoscience apologist does not make them good just because you say so. A good physician is one who makes sense out of all the BS and game of smokes and mirrors being played. A good physician interprets studies and trials for what they are and prescribes the best possible course of action for the patient. A good physician doesn't really need to be on Twitter.
Last edited:
US nutrition panel’s ties to top food giants revealed in new report
Transparency group US Right to Know finds members linked to Nestlé, Coca-Cola and others, raising conflict-of-interest questions
www.theguardian.com
Transparency group US Right to Know finds members linked to Nestlé, Coca-Cola and others, raising conflict-of-interest questions
US nutrition panel’s ties to top food giants revealed in new report
Transparency group US Right to Know finds members linked to Nestlé, Coca-Cola and others, raising conflict-of-interest questions
hahaha So, you think you can make false claims, and others will not even correct them? I mentioned RUCAM because you made a false statement about the cause not being verified. Almost all papers I mentioned used RUCAM. You didn't even mention it because you couldn't comprehend what is written in those papers. Also, you do not understand the significance of the RUCAM scores in clinical practice, so don't try to be an expert when you are not.
You falsely claimed that your paper pointed out the flaws in studies using RUCAM. Where did your paper point out flaws in studies which used RUCAM?
Do you even know what is a livertox database? Anyway which study used livertox database? And still the question remains,
How on earth does explaining the shortcomings of the LiverTox database constitute an argument pointing out flaws in studies that utilized RUCAM?
This is a new low even for you. When you have nothing to add to the thread which is logical, you come up with 'the personal vendetta' lol. You got triggered because I quoted you and this is getting laughable now. You are the one who have nothing to add here other than expecting everything to be spoon fed to you.
I believe evidence and expert opinions. I don't believe people who post low quality papers and rely on whataboutery and personal comments. You cannot even quote a single high quality study other than a crap review paper relying on mice studies and ancient use.
A person who doesn't even know the difference between a supplement, food, and a medicine better not talk about statistics. Your problem is, that you have no idea that statistics cannot be blindly implemented everywhere in clinical practice. There is a place for statistics, such as randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. How many of these studies have you posted, lol? You should have walked your talk. Do you even know how to judge which of these are high quality and do you understand quality of evidence?
Your problem lies in not understanding things written in plain English and considering yourself to be an expert. First, start reading your own links to avoid unnecessary quotes. Below is another example of the level of understanding you have.
You made a lame argument linking green tea to turmeric because you failed to comprehend that a gene may be responsible for increasing the chance of herb-induced liver damage. I had to explain that it also happens with alcohol. Instead of acknowledging your mistake and moving on, you have the audacity to shift the goalposts? The fact that you cannot understand basic examples, the fact that you introduced water, cigarettes, and salt into a discussion of turmeric, clearly indicates who is desperate here.
One does need common sense to understand that a gene increasing the risk of a liver injury is an important discovery with clinical relevance, and this discovery does not apply to everyone. No one ever said it does.
And here you go again. When you have nothing logical to say, you bring something irrelevant. Water is a necessity; turmeric is not needed for human survival and sustenance. Last time too, you started talking about food. How many times this has to be repeated to you that we need water, food, micro nutrition for sustenance but we don't need turmeric. Read it a few hundred times if you must.
Then why are you quoting random studies talking about the efficacy of turmeric when you yourself don't know how to understand the clinical significance of the said study ?
A good physician can see that even after thousands of research papers it is impossible to find a single one which has some clinical significance. A good physician can see what is going on here.
Doctors prescribe medicine based on the risk/benefit ratio. There is no proven benefit of turmeric, and we don't even know which formulation or what dose to use. There are no large-scale trials confirming that turmeric will be side effects-free and useful. Until the turmeric gang conduct large-scale trials and confirm its efficacy, the current evidence prevails, indicating that turmeric as a medicine has a poor risk-benefit ratio, is deemed clinically insignificant, and could be harmful.
Last edited:
Among the patient cases, you posted how many used RUCAM ? The ones which did not use RUCAM were based on a selection of cases and the paper pointed out that there was no causal assessment done. I admit I was wrong to state that the paper debunked the causality assessment of studies which used RUCAM - what it was saying is that those RUCAM studies were too few to pass judgement on Curcumin and that more trials and studies are needed.
Do you know that RUCAM is based on - probability ? The RUCAM score assigns a likelihood of the cause. It neither "assigns" nor "establishes" the cause. They used RUCAM to try and explain a causal relationship based on probability with one common factor - patients took x supplement in y dosage which contained Curcumin among other stuff. They never established a definitive cause for the patient illness. They never established how and why Curcumin acted, as it did, even if it did, on the human body to lead to what happened with the patient.
I never claimed I am an expert in these and, for sure as hell, one doesn't need common sense to see the others who are not. But then when they claim so, it doesn't really need an expert to show them the mirror.
So the truth hit home. You have not been able to establish anything to dictate to anyone by quoting few RUCAM cases of few patients and when you cannot answer the questions asked just deflect, deflect and deflect. Please leave it to the "real" experts to figure it out. And no, I am not claiming to be one but neither are you.
You believe that a few RUCAM analysed cases of few patients are enough to stop everyone from taking Curcumin. You believe that those same RUCAM studies definitively established that Curcumin is the culprit. You believe twitter when someone talks about Curcumin causing issues for patients with pre-existing liver conditions and take that and apply it to everyone. You believe you know more than the medical authority and the regulators. You know I was not wrong when I told you - you choose exactly what you want to believe.
My question doesn't even pertain to the benefits of Turmeric (I thought one would have understood that by now). I have been saying from the beginning that if anyone wants to take it, then consult the doctor first. Again for the umpteenth time, my question to you is to prove that Curcumin is having a definitive detrimental effect on healthy individuals (and not individuals with any pre-existing ailments) and what is the % of such cases among the total healthy population, who are taking Curcumin ?
See above, or rather read above. You were using the terms supplement, herb, food or medicine interchangeably throughout your posts. I have been sticking to the active ingredient in Turmeric - its called Curcumin. Do you do clinical practice ? Are you a doctor ? Have you even seen or been in part of a medical trial ? Do you even know where they use probability ? You keep using terms like randomized controlled trials (frankly I lost count) throughout but then you quote papers stating few patient cases and tell everyone to stop consuming Curcumin. Do you know how regulators regulate any substance which falls under their purview - even this does ? Do you think they are stupid ?A person who doesn't even know the difference between a supplement, food, and a medicine better not talk about statistics. Your problem is that you have no idea that statistics cannot be blindly implemented everywhere in clinical practice. There is a place for statistics, such as randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. How many of these studies have you posted, lol? You should have walked your talk. Do you even know how to judge which of these are high quality and do you understand quality of evidence?
Your problem lies in not understanding things written in plain English and considering yourself to be an expert. First, start reading your own links to avoid unnecessary quotes. Below is another example of the level of understanding you have.
Lol .. that "lame" argument was made in one of your quoted papers. And make your your mind - is it herb, green tea or Curcumin, we are talking about here ? Fyi, there are thousands of herbs. If you can quote green tea and link it to Turmeric, I am free to quote anything. Of course the intention was to show you how your argument of Curcumin being bad compares to others.
One doesn't even need any sense to understand that this has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Then why quote it in the first place to support your argument. Just plain and simple noise.
I am asking everyone to speak with the doctor before considering Curcumin. I am asking you to prove how it is bad for everyone like you are claiming it to be. Do you even understand the difference ? Lol..
There you go again venturing into places you shouldn't go. Let the good physician do that job. You want them to be good at their job, don't you ?
I will listen to you and believe your sermon only if and when it comes from a position of appropriate authority and expertise.
We have a serious problem in that "self-appointed experts" start poking noses in places they do not understand and then mislead others. I will continue to point them out each time.
Last edited:
California became the first state in the nation to prohibit four food additives found in popular cereal, soda, candy and drinks after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a ban on them Saturday.:
will ban the manufacture, sale or distribution of brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3 — potentially affecting 12,000 products that use those substances, according to the Environmental Working Group...
will ban the manufacture, sale or distribution of brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3 — potentially affecting 12,000 products that use those substances, according to the Environmental Working Group...
That's why you should read properly. All of those cases used RUCAM except one and even that did causality assessment. The links include a systematic review, which is considered as a highest level of evidence. The links I posted were also cited by your own paper. Anyone could have figured it out in a few minutes had he wanted to do a genuine discussion.
So, now you've accepted your fault but buried it in a 1000-word rant. I know what the study said, but you fabricated something that it never mentioned.
There is a medicinal herb in China called Polygonum Multiflorum, known to be liver-toxic. A systematic review published a few years back concluded that the herb was indeed toxic. Do you know how many cases it considered? About 450 cases over the last 20-25 years. Now go argue with them about the statistics. Go tell them that they need more trials. The safety assessment of a supplement, which lands in the market without trials, starts from the reporting of adverse events. You cannot say that these are individual cases or rare cases and ignore these.
So now you've realized that herbal supplements are a mixture of multiple substances and how difficult it is to identify the precise cause of injury. I explicitly told you not to try to be an expert and judge the scores based on probability alone. The cause can never be established definitively. There is no 'definite' in RUCAM; the maximum you can get is 'highly probable.' Multiple times they tested the supplement and found no other substance; many times, abstaining from the use of turmeric healed the liver completely while no other medications were discontinued. They drew conclusions based on their experience that curcumin was the cause of liver injury. So, stop trying to be an expert and let real experts debate the significance of these reports.
Furthermore, the health burden of these supplements may be huge because most cases go unreported. Many times, a lot of liver injuries were reported as 'unknown cause.' Doctors have observed that patients tend to consider these supplements as herbal and safe and never report their use. The Twitter profile of theliverdoc is full of such instances.
Again, stop trying to be an expert. Even the exact mechanism of liver damage from Polygonum Multiflorum is unknown. It is also dose and duration independent; it sometimes takes 10, other times takes 200 days to cause the damage. Millions of people so far have taken it safely. That doesn't mean experts who are calling it liver toxic are fools. Now, we will get another rant from you, 'ohh, you compared a herb with another herb, you are desperate.' Another nonsense rant incoming in 3...2...1...
There are plenty of people on the internet who try to show a mirror to others and end up getting owned in the process..
You failed to comprehend your own paper and wrote "My paper debunked every other study, bla bla bla....," you tried to mislead everyone, and now you are accepting your fault. You even tried to downplay every study counter to your narrative while claiming to listen to 'the experts.'You could have made a reasonable point that, yes, there are genuine cases, but the numbers seems less. That would have been a meaningful contribution to the thread and I would have given more examples how the findings may be significant. Instead, you tried to be an expert, even quoting a systematic review and foolishly attempting to find flaws in it. Mr. Smarty Pants, you aren't fooling anyone here.
hahaha achha? No one has any obligation to establish or show anything to you. Your sense of entitlement, thinking that people somehow owe an explanation to you, is laughable. Everyone can see how you blatantly lied, tried hard to deflect and finally got caught.
You are still trying hard to downplay every study and opinion which is counter to your narrative. Why don't you leave it to experts ?
I trust experts, and I trust evidence. There is no evidence of turmeric being useful. No clinical society recommends turmeric for any disease condition. An expert who specializes in herb-induced liver injury is stating that turmeric could be harmful as a supplement and advising people to keep it confined to the kitchen. I believe his advice based on the evidence surfaced so far.
The problem here is two fold:
1) You either consume a herb with no proven benefits, diverting you from real medicines, or you create a potentially harmful cocktail of herbs and drugs that could impede your healing or cause harm.
2) The second issue is that you may end up being directly harmed by these herbs.
If you don't want to believe him, then move on. Others have found the information helpful.
Don't lie in front of everyone. You posted a "comment" talking about efficacy of turmeric, you said multiple times that research have been posted in this thread which says turmeric is beneficial, you even asked me to prove that turmeric is not a food supplement (since according to your logic if it has health benefits then it must be a food supplement ). May be open 9th standard book next time.
This is the last time I am repeating this. Reporting of adverse cases is an essential step in safety assessment. This is where we start to find problems and issue warnings. Since randomized-controlled clinical trials are not mandated for supplements, reporting of adverse cases is the beginning of the safety assessment of these supplements. Doctors report individual cases, and these reports are later consolidated in systematic reviews. Adverse event reporting is the only way to catch harmful supplements; that's why these cases are given importance. Many times, toxicity may be idiosyncratic, meaning it is dose and duration independent, so it is extremely difficult to be caught in randomized controlled trials anyway.
Anyway, even the herbal supplement manufacturers themselves do not use the logic you are trying to push here. They provide mice/labs and other poor studies as proofs of efficacy and safety for their products. This is a new level of enlightenment even for them—shifting the burden of large-scale trials to the customers. Wow!
A person who had some commonsense would have figured out that turmeric is being sold as a food supplement with medicinal properties which doesn't make any sense.
How many times do I have to tell you that these so-called 'food supplements' do not come under any regulations? You just need a GMP certificate, and you can sell anything. These supplements are never even tested for banned substances. A drug is rigorously tested, and the best brands are free from any banned substances, while the best brand of these herbal supplements is recently caught in a legal battle with the liver doc because the doc found banned substances in it.
There you go again. So, you will not drop your habit of schooling the experts. For once in your life start listening to your own advice. There may be some doctors working in real hospitals, managing real patients who know more than you. This is getting laughable now. Why don't you write a counter paper, "genetic studies, a baseless accusation on turmeric, which I don't consume but defend on internet", and see if it gets accepted ?
You are the one who said that a genetic predisposition has no significance so I told you that it does. Someone like you who is an expert in whataboutery better not talk about irrelevant things. You compared turmeric to water, salt, cigarettes. That shows what kind of discussions you are capable of doing. Enough said.
It is not my fault if you cannot read and comprehend. I never said it is harmful to "everyone". Writing 'lol' in a sentence is not going to improve the quality of your argument.
Who made you the doorkeeper of the places? Anyway, you are contradicting yourself.
I accepted all quality evidence by default. When your paper talked about RUCAM, I accepted it. I only pointed out flaws when a paper came with mice studies.
You on the other hand, foolishly tried to point flaws in a systematic review as if you know more than the experts, then you wrote a silly comment about the genetic observations one study has made, Then you write another rant on American journal of medicine study and even sifted the burden of proofs, you even ignored reports of patients because you had no idea about how adverse effects are reported. You have no idea about anything yet you have to rant endlessly on everything under the sun.
So you have the license to poke your nose in every study, every expert opinion and every medical practice? We indeed have a serious problem with 'self-appointed rant specialists' who can't even comprehend what is written in their own links but love to find flaws in every expert opinion. Yes, you will continue to lie, continue getting caught, continue to endlessly defend it and continue try to be an 'self-appointed expert'. I have seen what you have done so far.
Finally.. . I ignore the rest of the bs and rest my case.
Last edited:
Your replies are the BS that need to be ignored. They demonstrate a blatant lack of comprehension and consist of entire responses built on nothing but assumptions and irrelevant examples.
You compared turmeric to cigarettes, salt, water, food even air plane
. I have repeated multiple times that turmeric is not some lethal substance, It is just an unnecessary risk with no rewards. If this quote is what you wanted then you should have quoted it earlier and avoided all your rant. See belowUnfortunately people will have to go through a lot of your BS to arrive here.
Moving on, some studies say that habitual skipping of breakfast can increase the risk of certain cancers. One such study is done in China and has several limitations but still provides some insight.
Habitually Skipping Breakfast Is Associated with the Risk of Gastrointestinal Cancers: Evidence from the Kailuan Cohort Study - PMC
Habitually skipping breakfast may promote the initiation and progression of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, which have never been systematically explored in large-scale prospective studies. We prospectively examined the effects of breakfast frequency ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Another one done in USA
The association of skipping breakfast with cancer-related and all-cause mortality in a national cohort of United States adults - Cancer Causes & Control
Purpose Many lifestyle and dietary factors have been recognized as risk factors for cancer morbidity and mortality. However, investigations of the association of the frequency of breakfast consumption and cancer are limited. This study aimed to examine the association of skipping breakfast with...
link.springer.com
Reiterating again, among even more bs -