Eating french fries or hash browns 2 or 3 times a week leads early death according to a study

[Rubato]

RIP in advance

Everyone dies

 

[Chi-Town B]

Everyone dies

Well those niggas going before their time with their horrible eating habits

 

[Blue_London]

dat pork!

yall can keep that

 

[Dwayne]

Fried foods leads to early death?










Ground breaking discovery

 

[Sony Montana]

Who else got something to say

Lmaoooooo fuck it man

 

[B_A]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Another study found that when you deep fry potatoes they become a carcinogen. Which idgaf burger and fries is my most favorite meal.

 

[Inori]

Air fryer for the win! lol

 

[OGDirtyD]

Keep that air fryer plugged in.

 

[Rubato]

Well those niggas going before their time with their horrible eating habits

No one dies before their time

 

[Chi-Town B]

Ok

 

[B_A]

I'm gonna be dead af cuz I loooove hashbrowns with my breakfast and I eat fries at least 4 times a week. Cant even imagine my life without them ?

 

[JUDAH]

Who else got something to say

Well well well....

 

[The Lonious Monk]

At the end of the day. You should try to eat healthy, but if you're giving up stuff you love to maybe get a few extra years when you might get hit by a car tomorrow...I don't know. Shit is weird. My grandparents made it to their 80s and behind and they ate way shittier food. I don't know.

 

[Soul_Rattler]

Bet yall won't convince me not to eat ribeyes once a week tho

 

[BRIAN B.]

At the end of the day. You should try to eat healthy, but if you're giving up stuff you love to maybe get a few extra years when you might get hit by a car tomorrow...I don't know. Shit is weird. My grandparents made it to their 80s and behind and they ate way shittier food. I don't know.

it would have to suck goin to the gym 5-6 days a wk & not bein able to die of old age/natural causes smh

 

[ImaInfluenza]

Being alive leads to death

 

[Disanthrope]

View attachment 307370

Eat it

Get money

 

[loud-ninja]

Air fryers just heat up foods way faster then ovens. Not really frying anything but it is still good.

 

[LurkerSix]

View attachment 307371

Who else got something to say

Stop 100% believing these small scale, click bait, food studies. News outlets love these just like "florida man" articles. Same thing with studies that are titled "so and so food is good for you". Those studies are usually funded by the food manufacturers that the article promotes. Not to mention they do a lot of data dredging to promote w/e they want.

The reason why you constantly see this research is scientists put together some bullshit study, to quickly publish so they can get hired. If you dont have any papers published your going to get passed up.

Also just by glancing at this I be theres other info about their diet thats missing. In this country the odds of people JUST eating french fries or hash brown as a meal is low af. These are side dishes to other unhealthy shit. We all know its fresh fries AND a burger and soda with desert. Also people who eat that stuff that many times a week tend not to work out, ever. That could also be another small reason they're dying early

I quoted the important parts that im sure most of you wont read -_-

More Evidence That Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up (Published 2018)

A Cornell food scientist’s downfall could reveal a bigger problem in nutrition research.

www.nytimes.com

Dr. Wansink’s lab was known for data dredging, or p-hacking, the process of running exhaustive analyses on data sets to tease out subtle signals that might otherwise be unremarkable. Critics say it is tantamount to casting a wide net and then creating a hypothesis to support whatever cherry-picked findings seem interesting — the opposite of the scientific method. For example, emails obtained by BuzzFeed News showed that Dr. Wansink prodded researchers in his lab to mine their data sets for results that would “go virally big time.”

Data dredging is fairly common in health research, and especially in studies involving food. It is one reason contradictory nutrition headlines seem to be the norm: One week coffee, cheese and red wine are found to be protective against heart disease and cancer, and the next week a new crop of studies pronounce that they cause it. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said that many researchers are under enormous pressure to churn out papers. One recent analysis found that thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days.
Data dredging is fairly common in health research, and especially in studies involving food. It is one reason contradictory nutrition headlines seem to be the norm: One week coffee, cheese and red wine are found to be protective against heart disease and cancer, and the next week a new crop of studies pronounce that they cause it. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said that many researchers are under enormous pressure to churn out papers. One recent analysis found that thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days.

“You can’t get a job if you don’t have papers,” she said. “I see this at my university. We expect assistant professors to be hired with already a record of scholarship.”
In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis, the chairman of disease prevention at Stanford, published a study titled “Is Everything We Eat Associated With Cancer?” He and a co-author randomly selected 50 recipes from a cookbook and discovered that 80 percent of the ingredients — mushrooms, peppers, olives, lobster, mustard, lemons — had been linked to either an increased or a decreased risk of cancer in numerous studies. In many cases a single ingredient was found to be the subject of questionable cancer claims in more than 10 studies, a vast majority of which “were based on weak statistical evidence,” the paper concluded.

Nutrition epidemiology is notorious for this. Scientists routinely scour data sets on large populations looking for links between specific foods or diets and health outcomes like chronic disease and life span. These studies can generate important findings and hypotheses. But they also have serious limitations. They cannot prove cause and effect, for example, and collecting dietary data from people is like trying to catch a moving target: Many people cannot recall precisely what they ate last month, last week or even in the past 48 hours. Plenty of other factors that influence health can also blur the impact of diet, such as exercise, socioeconomic status, sleep, genetics and environment. All of this makes the most popular food and health studies problematic and frequently contradictory.

Experts say that the problem extends to science journalists as well: Many reporters are encouraged to produce articles that get lots of clicks. That is another reason researchers and universities feel pressure to put out studies and news releases with exaggerated findings.

8 Times Food Companies Funded Studies to Prove Their Product Was "Healthy"

You're not supposed to believe everything you read, but tack the word "science" to something and many people will take it as fact — no questions asked. This is why big food companies have percolated into the world of nutrition science. If food…

www.mic.com

Before you read another health study, check who's funding the research

Food companies have a bad history of funding biased research to support their products. We took a look at a few egregious recent examples

www.theguardian.com

 

[WilberDMillz]

so %5 of the people studied died and of that 5% not all were linked to French fries?