Alberto Chicote once again conducted a report related to food,pitulo-2-superfood-program_2016032800871.html # http: //www.atresplayer.com/television/programas/mitos-de-los-alimentos/temporada-1/capitulo-2-programa-supera "target =" _ blank "> Superfoods . In this special ten aliMents, "supposedly" superfoods, habitual of our pantry that according to the program hid surprising properties. Olive oil, which delays bone aging, oily fish, which fights stress or cocoa, which speeds up the menu.you, are some examples.
Chicote's program, even and being more interesting and less harmful than 70% of programs that are broadcast on TV, has treated the issue of healthy eating lightly, even bordering on thefrivolity and with a more than dubious scientific rigor, despite the posh collaborators. It can be understood that it is a general TV program oriented to a non-specialized audience, it can be understood the orientation to entertainment of the "show butelevision siness. What is difficult to explain is how high-ranking professionals, such as Professor Clotilde Vázquez , have been able to lend themselves to so much frivolity and inaccuracy.I want to believe that the original shot is much more complete and less skewed and the final product is a matter of post-editing. All for the audience!
The show talks about the everyday superfoods in our pantry. But are they really superfoods? Or the use of the word is very fashionable.
The benefits I was talking about may not be a lie, but neither the approach nor the message are correct. Nutrition is much more complex than what Chicote and his program would have us believe. The control groups in each study, the state de health of each subject, the physical activity that each person performs, studying components of certain foods in isolation ... in short, it is no small feat to conclude that it is good and that it is not. Taking advantage of the volunteers who have put themselves at the service of the (ppseudo) science, they should have taken the chance and deepened developing more credible and empirical experiments: there is no use doing a test with 8 taxi drivers or 3 swimmers, or other cases, without at least double blind (method so that it does not includeand the placebo effect). The term "scientific study" has been trivialized.
They talk about olive oil as if it were a miracle product to lose those love handles. Chicote states that he uses it often but it seems in him nor has done the expected effect. The program is full of half-truths, is a Mediterranean diet better where the fat is olive oil, instead of butter or other saturated fats? Absolutely yes, but the miracle is not in the gold lLiquid, which is one more ingredient in the cocktail, without physical exercise and a balanced diet and low in processed foods, there is no paradise! No matter how much extra virgin olive oil you use in your stews ...
The program performs a proven experiment on taxi drivers, a profession subjected to high doses of stress: the antidote consists of ingesting blue fish 4 times a week for four weeks. Without taking into account the double blind effect thatIt is supposed to have explained the topic to the participants. Oily fish contains much more significant and remarkable nutritional properties than the anti-stress effect, such as its high content of Omega 3 (preventive forcardiovascular diseases) and its protein quality.
But when it seemed that the program could not get worse, he goes and they say that pasta is a superfood! It is a truth like a temple that the pasta is delicious, but it does not leave de be a refined flour, and this is an irrefutable argument. And there is still more, the comparison of pasta with a piece of meat and salad, in my opinion is not an affront. The acceptable thing would be the comparison of raisins and water. The correct thing would be comparaisin with another fruit or with another food rich in carbohydrates and minerals! It is obvious that if we compare water with fruit, the one that contains sugars and micronutrients will always provide us with more, and more when we talk about recovery after an effort.erzo physical.
Perhaps the studies shown have a serious scientific basis behind them, but the program was a rigorous zero show ...
To finish, we can affirm without fear of being wrong, that they have given us a pig for a hare. Although the idea of beginning to disseminate food-related issues among the population is a positive thing, doing so in this way undermines good interest.nationality of its producers. The end, no matter how good it is, does not justify the means and less so if we refer to scientific issues where accuracy and empiricism are basic pillars for its credibility. If the thing was about food awarenesshealthy ion shouldn't have crossed the scientific red line. And once again we realize that in the end it has been a program to entertain more than to learn, but I do not know that we are surprised when in this country it has been a long time since the tele is no longer a means of learning. We all know that three "share" points are worth much more with an attractive story, than the conscientious and boring reality! All for the audience!
