From the BS files: UK luxury spa told guests its ‘apple crumble could help reduce cancer risk’

Kevin Rawlinson of The Guardian writes the luxury spa chain Champneys is being taken to court over claims it told guests its apple crumble could help reduce the risk of cancer and other conditions.

The chain has also been accused of failing to tell guests about allergens, including gluten, mustard, eggs and soybean, in its restaurant food. And it allegedly sold diners a vegan tofu Pad Thai dish that contained milk.

It had been due to go on trial on Tuesday after West Sussex county council launched a prosecution against it on 19 charges relating to food safety, information, nutrition and consumer protection laws. If found guilty the firm could face an unlimited fine.

However, the case at Brighton magistrates court was adjourned at the last minute after neither Champneys nor the county council attended court.

Champneys has been accused of making a series of claims on its food menu and of failing to inform guests at its Forest Mere resort in Liphook, West Sussex, that it had a food hygiene rating of just two out of five.

The chain allegedly told guests, who paid up to £230 a night, that its apple crumble could cut the risk of “cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes”. Guests were also informed a black rice, quinoa and ginger salad was “anti-inflammatory”, it has been claimed.

The so-called wellness centre claims on its website it “steers away from all the fads and fallacies” to “keep things honest and enjoyable”. Champneys denies all the charges.

Hydration hype: Fancy bottled drinking water is nonsense, just drink tap

My friend Tim Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, author of “Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness” (Beacon, 2015) and host of “A User’s Guide to Cheating Death” on Netflix (that’s a long bio) writes for NBC News, humans need water but the marketing of water as a detoxifying, energizing, health-enhancing, miracle beverage has become a lucrative business. Over the past few years the booming wellness industry (aka Big Wellness) has coopted this most basic of biological needs to sell products and promises of miraculous improved health. But is there any evidence to support the hydration hype?

Before I dump on the water business, let’s give a nod to the positives. There is growing recognition that sugary beverages are not a good choice, nutrition wise. Evidence suggests that consumption of sugary beverages, especially soft drinks, is associated with a range of health issues, including obesity and heart disease. As a result, there is a broad consensus among nutrition and public health experts about the value of limiting the consumption of these calorie-dense and relatively nutrition-free beverages.

So, in this context, the shift to water is a very good thing. But that doesn’t mean we have to buy what the “premium” water market is selling.

But before we get to the fancy packaging, we need to talk about volume. Do you actually need to drink eight glasses of water a day? In a word: Nope.

This strange and incredibly durable myth seems to have emerged from a misinterpretation of a 1945 US Food and Nutrition Board recommendation. That document suggested a “suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 litres daily” (i.e., roughly eight glasses a day). But what is almost always overlooked is that the recommendation — which was not based on a robust body of research — also noted “[m]ost of this quantity is in prepared foods.” In other words, you already get the bulk of your needed water from the food you eat.

In reality, there is no magical amount of water. We do need to stay appropriately hydrated, of course. And as our climate and activities change, so does the amount of water we lose through sweating etc. But our bodies are good at telling us how much and when we should drink. (Thanks, evolution.) And all liquids — coffee, tea, that weird fluid inside hotdogs — count toward your daily consumption of water. My body can’t tell if an H20 molecule came from a fresh-water spring on the side of a remote Himalayan mountain or from a cup of gas station java (which isn’t, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, dehydrating).

But even if water is found in a lot of foods and beverages, pure bottled water is still better for us, right? Wrong again.

Yes, drinking plain water is almost always a better choice than some other, sugar-infused, beverage. But the water you drink doesn’t need to come out of a plastic, glass, or 24-karat gold (yes, that is a thing) bottle.

The twisted logic behind wellness gadgets like Fitbit isn’t making us healthier

Studies have shown that some people believe bottled water is healthier than tap water. That perception is wrong. In fact, tap water in the U.S. and Canada is almost always the best, cheapest and most environmentally friendly choice. Bottled water can be essential during emergencies that disrupt the supply of clean water. And there have been scary examples of contaminated public water — the Flint, Michigan water crisis being only one recent example.

We also need to be vigilant to ensure our public water supply remains clean. But in most places in the United States and Canada, tap water is tightly regulated and safe. Not only that, but tap water can have less contaminants than bottled waterA study from Canada, for example, found that 70 percent of the tested bottled water brands contained high levels of bacteria and generally had more bacteria than tap water. A 2019 Consumer Report investigation concluded “that in some cases bottled water on store shelves contains more potentially harmful arsenic than tap water.”

But bottled water tastes better, you say! Actually, blind taste tests have consistently found that to be untrue too. To cite just one example, only one-third of the participants in a Boston University study, were able to correctly identify tap water. One third thought it was bottled water and one third couldn’t tell the difference.

But bottled water tastes better, you say! Actually, blind taste tests have consistently found that to be untrue too.

And now we get to what is probably the biggest scam. Wellness wonks have been pushing absurd diets, supplements and potions for decades. Now that same thinking has come to water, with alkaline, hydrogen, gluten and GMO-free water brands hitting the supermarket and health food store shelves near you.

Nope, nope and — sigh — nope.

Alkaline water is part of the larger multimillion-dollar alkaline diet fad embraced by celebrities like New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. Proponents claim that humans can become too acidic and, as such, we need to consume foods and beverages that will lower the pH of our bodies. By doing so, we will improve our health and reduce the incidence of disease and cancer, the theory goes.

Problem one: There is little evidence to support the entire premise that adjusting the pH of your food will have an impact on our health. And the studies that have explored the claim have found little benefit to this dietary approach, outside of the diet’s push to eat more fruits and vegetables. (Eating more fruits and vegetables is of course good for you hand can help you stay healthier for longer.)

Problem two: You can’t change the pH of your body through food and beverages. So the entire premise is scientifically absurd. Your body tightly regulated the pH of your blood. It doesn’t need the help of overpriced bottled water.

 

Please ignore: Katy Perry drinks apple cider vinegar

Whenever I visited my grandparents, this bored kid would check out the tabloids lying around, the real news of the world, the National Enquirer.

apple.cider.vinegarGlamour magazine reports (???) that Katy Perry recently opened up about the reason she says she’s been able to work so tirelessly: She drinks unpasteurized apple cider vinegar.

The singer tells SELF that she started drinking Bragg Apple Cider Vinegar for her health on the advice of her mom while growing up. Instead of having soda, she’d drink the vinegar, which contains the “mother,” i.e., stringy strands in the vinegar where probiotics and other nutrients are found.

This BS has been flogged for centuries.

Don’t take food advice from celebrities.

Don’t take any advice

Enjoy their, um, art.

men_in_black_weekly_world_news

 

Televised medical talk shows—they’re just BS

I’ve written before about how I was unceremoniously relegated to the cheap seats because I wouldn’t go along with the story line on Dr. Oz a couple of years ago; it wasn’t factual and they weren’t interested in facts.

powell.costa.dr.oz.09Now, researchers report in the British Medical Journal that TV talk shows like Dr. Oz and The Doctors are full of it at least 50 per cent of the time.

Objective To determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows.

Design Prospective observational study.

Setting Mainstream television media.

Sources Internationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors).

Interventions Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show.

Main outcomes measures Percentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made.

Results We could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations.

Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.

Whole Foods bragging about raw milk in Pennsylvania; this will be handy in the next lawsuit when someone gets sick

Whole Foods Market has terrible food safety advice, blames consumers for getting sick, sells raw milk in some stores, offers up fairytales about organic and natural foods, and their own CEO says they sell a bunch of junk.

This afternoon, the Whole Foods blog offers up, The Family Cow – Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, a heartwarming tale of nostalgic and scientific BS about the alleged virtues of raw milk.

“The Family Cow’s fresh raw milk is not processed in any way, making it truly a whole food, alive with natural enzymes, immunity building probiotic bacteria and bursting with full-bodied flavor.”

Check it out for yourself.