I'll posit an additional theory—that people with gastrointestinal problems don't eat spicy food because it causes discomfort.
But the other part that the article mentions—eating more vegetables and meats—well, most of the spicy foods I can think of are basically vegetables + meat in a spicy sauce.
On the second point, while I wouldn't say "most spicy dishes are healthy"...I might agree that spicy dishes are on average, healthier than some other flavor affinities.
Agreed, spiciness adds minimal additional calories compared to something like a thick cream sauce or sugary hoisin-style sauce. Healthiness isn't a given but seems easier to achieve compared to other popular styles of preparing food.
I'm also curious how spiciness affects satiety. Eating a meal and feeling full afterward is obviously preferable to having constant cravings for more snacks and treats.
Indeed, these kinds of “staples” have made up the bulk of calories in pretty much all peasant diets around the world for the past 5000+ years.
Not just rice and wheat, but also including oats, barley, rye, maize, quinoa, potatoes, yams, manioc (a.k.a. cassava, yuca), taro, plantains, soybeans, peas, lentils, chickpeas, beans, etc.
Reliance on staples is the main reason that agricultural societies tend to have substantially shorter stature, shorter life expectancy, and more health problems than hunter–gatherer societies.
In recent times, the biggest problem is sugar though. Modern people consume ridiculous quantities of refined sugar in processed foods, fast restaurant food, soda and fruit juice, etc. Consuming large quantities of alcohol also isn’t helping anything.
Agreed. I love hot food, but I don't eat it anymore. Peppers are very bad to me. But not nearly as bad as eggplant. Nightshades are legitimately toxic.
Yeah, the whole solanum family increase reflux in a lot of people, some worse than others. I save my allowance for spicy peppers, and simply don't miss aubergines, potatoes (I eat yams instead), tomatoes, and perhaps related, I'm extremely tobacco-sensitive.
Curiously, I can't eat yams. When I do, I often end up with some kind of nasty burn on my tongue. I have the same response to citrus fruits (my favourites), and sweet-and-sour sauces.
I look forward to the inevitable study that finds an association between spicy foods and heart disease, or colon cancer, or spontaneous brain tumors, or Lewandowsky-Lutz dysplasia, and recommends reducing intake of aforementioned spicy foods for all humans aged 10-75.
> The report details six studies on rats and mice in which the animals developed signs of cancer in the stomach or liver after their diet was changed to include more capsaicin
Ok, so I do work alongside people that do these food studies (coffee, wine, chocolate, etc). I myself do not do these studies, but I do know a few people that do. None of the scientists are trying to deceive the public. Nor are they trying very hard to get out a publication. Peer review for these, and for most paper, really works.
The issue here is the press. These little studies show a very narrow and tightly controlled (with rare exception) effect, and if you read these papers, the effect is usually very small or only for certain age ranges of mice. However, when the press release comes out, these caveats are totally ignored or buried at the end of the press article that the univ releases. This is usually accompanied by very pretty pictures of the PI that never touched the bench in a lab coat that has the name of a lab tech stitched onto it. That then gets spun around to a local news outlet that may or may not tell you about the limits of the study. If you are 'lucky' then you have a major news outlet pick it up and just copy/paste most of it and leave even more out. Then the blogs get a hand on it and somehow your buddies that made the original study are being accused of being lizard people working for the moon god Tsath-Satha. All along the way it gets distorted and the general public is rightfully confused.
Honestly, the blame lies with the researchers. We are where the 'buck stops'. That we allow the press to say these things and distort the work so much harms us and makes us less trustworthy the public that we are working to help. How to stop this is something that we could use help with.
I pretty much just ignore all of these reports and articles because of everything you just said. And I hate to change the subject, but studies done in every other subject are the exact same way. I'm in no way impugning the research and hard work of people out there who are doing an honest and forthright job and are trying to serve humanity. It's just that I've been to a lot of these same rodeos and well, I've seen some astounding breaches of ethics. Maybe someone down the line isn't trying to deceive the public, but the public is in fact being deceived, is it not? And now we have the bigger problem of we can't trust major news outlets and sources of information. So here we are.
This probably has more to do with mice being an imperfect model organism for humans. A healthy diet for a mouse is different than a healthy diet for a human.
Humans have a particularly robust digestive system, compared to other animals; for instance, we can eat lemons. We could be regarded as highly omnivorous, and extreme generalists. This makes it difficult to model human dietary nature, because many animals can't handle a diet as varied as ours.
As far as mammals go, humans might actually be the most tolerant of a varied diet. This probably stems back to our early days, where scavenging was common. It's pretty apparent that at some point humans underwent intense selective pressure for dietary tolerance. I can't think of another mammal that can regularly eat things as diverse as corn, lemons, and beef, and not die. This makes it really difficult to find a good organism for modeling human dietary behavior. Even our close relatives, like Chimpanzees, would have issues when fed a normal human diet.
I swear I recall some Canadian study that showed capsaicin to reverse one of the types of diabetes. IIRC it was published in Cell but I can't entirely recall, it was so long ago.
Man, I should live forever then. I love hot peppers. Well, OK, I usually use bottled pepper sauces of various sorts, not whole, fresh peppers themselves. So maybe that doesn't work. But if it's just the capsaicin, then I get plenty of it... jalapeno pepper, cayenne pepper, chipotle pepper, scotch bonnet pepper, habanero pepper, ghost pepper (naga jolokia), trinidad scorpion pepper, carolina reaper peppers... I love 'em all.
Thanks HN, now you have me wanting to cook a big pot of chili that I can pepper up to ludicrous levels of hotness.
I want to eat them but they burn me up. Not sure if gradual progression starting at Jalapeno will knock that out over time or if you gotta be born with it. My brother & his household are about hot peppers. I give him free Ghost pepper sauce just to watch the results of them trying to add it to stuff or drink it straight. He'd have to be totally dehydrated after a day in the desert to look the same as what it does haha.
So, what do all yall think about building up a tolerance so I can enjoy more spicy stuff maybe with some health benefits? Does that even work?
I mean... to me, the possible health benefits are pretty tenuous. I probably wouldn't make it a point to pursue eating progressively hotter food on the off chance there might be some minuscule health benefit. To me, the reason for eating hot foods is because they're tasty and good, and it's an enjoyable experience.
FWIW, though, I didn't always like hot stuff. In fact, up through probably my mid 20's, I really didn't eat much spicy food at all. It wasn't until I moved to a more urban area and did two things that my taste for hot stuff started to develop. One, I started hanging out at sports bars to watch football, and got into eating buffalo wings. Two, I discovered Thai food and started eating that a lot. And over time I just found myself wanting the stuff hotter and hotter. I never made a conscious decision to say "Hey, I hope to one day be one of those guys who eats crazy hot food loaded with Ghost Pepper sauce." It just kinda happened.
So I guess I'd say... eat what you like. Branch out now and then just to explore and expand your boundaries, but I wouldn't suggest making eating a painful experience for no particular reason. shrug
Scotch Bonnet peppers are a little less hot than Habanero but have - to me - a much nicer flavor.
A pattern I use quite often in things I cook, is to use quite a bit of Scotch Bonnet pepper and then add a much smaller amount of the Ghost Pepper sauce. To my tastes, that yields a nice combination of flavor and heat.
I am not a trained statistician, so can someone help me understand why this is even publishable?
I read the abstract and found they quote their key statistic at P = 0.01. The "NHANES III" study that their data comes from has over 1000 variables. Can't you just cherry-pick a handful of "significant" variables at the P = 0.01 level, when there are 1000 variables to choose from?
The entire idea of using a default null hypothesis and calculating a p-value in order to learn something is fatally flawed to begin with. If p-values are to be of any use, the hypothesis you are trying to reject needs to be predicted by your theory/model, so set that as the null hypothesis. You know... how science works. To start you off:
Yes. They could also cherry pick an outcome variable (eg diastolic blood pressure etc).
Given that they haven't applied any multiple testing correction (eg bonferroni or fdr) it's basically impossible to NOT find a significant association in this dataset.
Correlation finding is still an incredibly important first step towards figuring out what would be a good double blind randomized trial. Science media could definitely report correlations better.
correlations are leads to spark further inquiry, they aren't explanatory in themselves. there is room for, and great need of, some imagination and speculation when trying to look for the truth.
This is what I suspect. There's pretty clear evidence that most American's don't eat nearly enough roughage. Peppers count as roughage, and are often paired with other healthy/fresh items.
Similar correlations have been found with avocados. Avocados aren't particularly healthy when compared to other fruits and vegetables (not to say that they're unhealthy), however eating avocados correlates with better overall dietary quality.
Generally if you're buying more expensive fresh vegetables, you're probably eating that in place of unhealthy processed foods.
Indigestible dietary fiber also helps regulate "fullness." Seeing as the stomach is filled with largely indigestible fiber, instead of high-calorie digestible carbohydrates, it takes far fewer calories to feel full. The work the digestive system has to do in order to break down the roughage also helps mitigate blood glucose levels, by preventing rapid spikes.
If one were to eat just carbs, their readily digestible nature allows the energy to immediately be absorbed. However, the pairing with vegetables slows down the absorption of the carbs, by forcing the digestive system to work on the vegetables in addition to the carbs.
Now this isn't to say carbohydrates are bad, but they shouldn't make up the majority of ones dietary volume.
This is a great comment. I particularly agree that people eating real peppers are probably eating other healthy things. Really important to capture all these incidental things that exist in the group one is studying to see if it's actually those having the effect. We also know that many foods they might be buying fresh have direct health benefits. Naturally, I wonder if if the peppers's benefits, the big ones, are just incidental on top of the type of people eating them or their other food intake.
My favorite speculation: eating more chili peppers is associated with reduced sensitivity to pain in general, which leads to lower stress, lower inflammation, and greater physical activity (greater tolerance of muscle soreness and injury risk). There's way more variation in pain sensitivity than most people realize.
Seriously, though, I would expect that the biggest correlation is to ethnic/regional cuisine (particularly southwestern US and Mexican), which I'm not convinced moves the "healthy lifestyle" needle in any particular direction.
Nice! Given the level of capsicin contained in my blood, I can then declare I'm immortal:)
Seriously, this is something I heard many many years ago. Don't know if it's just a popular belief or something proved scientifically but I had many people tell me that eating hot pepper is very good for health. Roughly the same for garlic.
Around here (Western Europe) I've never heard or seen anyone say they believed spicy food was healthy. I mostly got told too much of it is bad for your liver, though I don't know how well proven that is either.
I'll use this opportunity to recommend all of Dr. Rhonda Patrick's appearances on the Joe Rogan podcast. She discusses the science behind many nutrition and health topics, including hormesis: https://www.google.com/search?q=rhonda+patrick+jre
You develop tolerance to exercise, is that not healthy?
If you've never done squats before, go do a couple reps. You probably will be sore and stiff for the next 4 days. Keep it up and one will develop a tolerance and (generally) have a healthier body than if one didnt do any kind of exercise.
It's probably a trivial matter, but is anyone else confused as to why the color red is cited throughout the article? Presumably the color of the peppers has nothing to do with the findings. Right?
The red (green and yellow) color of peppers is due to various carotenoids -- pigments such lutein and zeaxanthin -- which are considered to be central to whatever is particularly healthy about eating plenty of "leafy green" vegetables (and carrots). These nutrients are also highly concentrated in non 'hot' peppers like paprika. They could be involved in the studies results and really deserved a mention.
Corrolation is not Causation. It is more likely that people who are not robust, and therefore in gross numbers more likely to die earlier, are smart enough not to destroy themselves by eating spicy foods.
There are some possible explanations for red chili peppers’ health benefits, state Chopan and Littenberg in the study. Among them are the fact that capsaicin – the principal component in chili peppers – is believed to play a role in cellular and molecular mechanisms that prevent obesity and modulate coronary blood flow, and also possesses antimicrobial properties that “may indirectly affect the host by altering the gut microbiota.”
No no. That's only a 'possible' explanation. In articles such as these you'll find plenty of 'may'-s, 'might'-s, 'can'-s and 'further research'-s.
The vagueness and intellectual cowardice are exasperating. Don't be afraid to call it out when correlations are two-a-penny and funding is at stake. There are problems crying out for research.
Welcome to the world of journalism. If you want something stated with absolute certainty when the facts don't support that maybe you want to read propaganda.
Well, certainty isn't available whatever the facts! So it's not relevant here.
There's no contradiction between fallibilism and asserting that some scientific explanation is true. This study doesn't assert anything apart from an 'association'. Yet progress is made by addressing theoretical problems, not by looking for assocations, which are everywhere.
As for 'propaganda' I think you've got it the wrong way around. It's the people who applaud this kind of non-result who are seeking a kind of uncritical 'Yay Science' experience.
Those people are called the "lay public" and they're capable of believing that caffeine is both good for preventing heart disease and a major cause of heart disease at the same time.
But the other part that the article mentions—eating more vegetables and meats—well, most of the spicy foods I can think of are basically vegetables + meat in a spicy sauce.