All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 4, 2017 - Skeptoid
16:29
Skeptoid #578: Student Questions: Bitters, Gas, and Diet Woo

Skeptoid answers another round of questions sent in by students all around the world. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Curiosity Leads to Google Bitters 00:06:29
Once again, Skeptoid answers some questions sent in by students all around the world.
If you're a teacher, are your students curious about stuff they've heard on the news, seen on Facebook, or heard from their friends?
A lot of them are because we've got a bunch of their questions and my answers to them right here on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Student Questions, Bitters, Gas, and Diet Woo.
Once again, we head to the virtual mailbox of student questions sent in by students of any age from any institution, anywhere in the known universe.
Maybe some of them have even come from an unknown universe.
How would I know?
Anyway, I do my best to give each the full Skeptoid treatment.
Today's questions cover alcoholic bitters, gasoline additives, pandas, and the usual assortment of fad diet woo.
Let's get started with a subject most students probably shouldn't know to ask yet.
My name is Aaron, and I'm enjoying one of my favorite cocktails, an old-fashioned.
Curiosity led me to Google Bitters, which is one of the ingredients, and I found some claims I'd like to know more about.
One source claims that bitters, quote, balance one's appetite and, quote, curb sugar cravings.
While another source claims that bitters stimulate appetite and are used to encourage weight gain.
These come along with plenty of other health claims.
Is bitters a health food?
This is a subject rife with pseudoscience.
As you know from your Google search, this will take you to all kinds of alternative wellness sites.
Most of the claims I found say that bitters aids in digestion or helps you digest your food more completely.
I found a grand total of zero scholarly articles discussing research on this.
In my experience, a lack of published research usually means that a claim is particularly vague, too vague to test, or simply not supported by any consistent observations.
Bitters is made similar to absinthe, discussed in detail in episode 515, a preparation of water and alcohol in which some collection of botanicals has been steeped.
Its history is also very similar.
It was originally sold as a patent medicine in all its many varieties.
Just about any botanical you can think of can be added to bitters, and has been at some point, and some salesman has probably sold it as a cure for anything you care to name.
At its height in the late 1800s, Bitters was widely consumed, nominally for its medical value, but actually for recreation.
Also, like absinthe, alcoholic bitters was banned in prohibition, which only added to its legend.
We now know that there are no real medical benefits to any of these drinks, only the lasting belief that they harbored some sort of secret herbal cure-all.
In short, no, bitters is not a health food.
Hi, my name is Andrew from Oregon, and I'd like to know what you think about gasoline additives, such as fuel injector cleaners or synthetic additives that gasoline companies advertise that they put in their gasoline to make your car run better or remove buildup from the inside of your engine.
Thanks a lot.
In the United States, most gasoline companies participate in a voluntary standard system established by automobile manufacturers in 2004 called Top Tier, which requires their fuel meet rigorous standards for controlling deposits in the fuel system, much tougher than the minimum standards established in 1996 by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Deposits in the fuel system reduce efficiency, causing your engine to make less power and produce more emissions.
AAA, the American Automobile Association, recently published the results of a major research project in which they compared the results of using top-tier and non-top-tier fuel.
They found the difference was remarkable, much greater than they expected.
Non-top-tier fuel created 19 times as much deposits than did the good stuff.
The cleaners that you can buy separately as an additive should work just as well.
However, they're not price competitive with simply buying top-tier gas.
Adding such a product to gas that's already top-tier usually does not add any benefit and may actually reduce performance.
How do you know if your favorite gas station sells top-tier gas?
Well, if it's a major brand, it probably does, but you can check for sure at toptiergas.com.
Use top-tier gas, use the right octane grade specified by your car's manufacturer, neither higher nor lower, and you're treating your engine as well as you can.
Debunking the Glycemic Index Myth 00:07:49
Hi, Brian.
My name is Kayla and I live in the state of Oregon.
I recently heard about something called the Shangri-La diet, wherein a person consumes a few tablespoons of oil a day in order to suppress appetite and to manipulate something called the set point, which is a hypothesized natural homeostasis for the body's weight.
What's your take on this weight loss approach?
Obviously, you're right to be skeptical of this or any other fad diet.
This is another miraculously easy solution to a difficult problem.
Continue eating whatever you want, but also sip a small amount of olive oil each day, and your body will automatically want to be skinnier, and the rest takes care of itself.
Needless to say, no controlled trials have ever been published on this, no data supports it, and there's no sound theory behind it.
It's popular because its non-expert creator wrote a book, which publisher Penguin successfully got showcased on Good Morning America, upon which it shot to the bestseller list.
As we see so often, people believe whatever publicists want them to believe.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
The idea of a set point is undefined and a bit controversial, but reasonable.
It's the approximate weight everyone naturally returns to after stopping a diet or recovering from pregnancy or any other weight change.
This does tend to happen, probably due to many complex physiological processes.
But there's no sound theory supporting the idea that there is a single set point number that can be easily dialed up or down, and your body will follow suit.
That's pure pseudoscience, and it's the core of this claimed magically easy solution.
It follows that there's also no theory supporting the idea that drinking olive oil or anything else will turn this dial up or down.
And certainly no evidence.
Hi, Brian.
This is Gary.
I'm at a university in Singapore.
My question is about glycemic index and whether I should be using it for planning my diet.
When glycemic index first came out, it made intuitive sense, but I was told that it was controversial because some findings contradicted established science for complex versus simple carbs.
Plus, there were also unexplained variations across people for the same food and within the same person at different points in the day.
I'm wondering what's the latest story on glycemic index?
Should I be using it to plan my diets?
Thank you.
The glycemic index is a measure of how quickly a certain food raises your blood sugar level, and it was developed as a tool for people with type 2 diabetes.
When you have this, your body doesn't use its insulin properly and so can't manage spikes in blood sugar, which can be very dangerous.
The glycemic index is intended to help diabetics avoid foods likely to impact their blood sugar.
You're right about its inconsistency.
To determine a food's glycemic index, test subjects are given whatever amount of the food contains 50 grams of carbohydrate.
Then their blood sugar levels are measured for two hours as it rises then falls back, and the glycemic index is determined.
One obvious problem is that enough of a food to contain 50 grams of carbohydrate is going to be in some foods less than one might typically eat, and in others, far more than one could ever reasonably eat.
So in many cases, foods with a high glycemic index can still be safely eaten because a normal serving is way less than the amount needed to produce a spike in blood sugar.
So it's not perfect, but it's still one tool for diabetics.
But as far as weight loss goes, no, there is neither empirical evidence nor sound theoretical foundation for eating a glycemic index diet for weight loss.
It's like choosing a car with comfortable seats hoping to achieve good gas mileage.
The two don't have anything to do with each other.
But yes, of course, you will still find plenty of promotion of the glycemic index diet for weight loss.
Any effects it might have are probably just the effects of eating a restricted diet, which usually means less total food.
But that won't stop people from selling books.
I'm Zach, a student from Oklahoma, and I have a question about the giant panda.
When I was a kid, I was always told that it wasn't really a panda bear because pandas were more related to raccoons than they were to bears.
But I have read in more recent books that pandas are related to bears and are not related to raccoons.
I've been looking on Google and I just keep finding conflicting answers.
So I was wondering, is there a consensus among biologists about is the panda more related to the bear or the raccoon?
You are correct that for a long time there was debate about how the panda should be classified in the taxonomy.
The markings on a panda look like those on raccoons, and many aspects of the behavior and anatomy of pandas differ from bears.
So although we always had it classified as a bear, there was always debate.
But by the 1980s, genetics had progressed far enough that we were able to prove for a certainty that the panda is indeed a bear.
And if you look at today's taxonomy databases, you'll find their classifications correct to our current best knowledge.
Pandas, other bears, and raccoons are all part of the Caniformia suborder, dog-like carnivores, and shared a common ancestor some 40 million years ago.
From then on, they split apart, bears into the Ursidae family and raccoons into the Procyonidae family, which also includes olingos and coatis.
Pandas and the Caniformia Suborder 00:02:07
One final note.
Don't be fooled by the red panda, which is not a panda or a bear or a raccoon.
It actually comes from yet another branch of the Caniformia suborder.
So students, keep these questions coming.
Sometimes you can cheat and also send one in if you're not actually a student.
It's not like I check or anything.
If you're a teacher, you should make every student in your class send one in.
All you do is record your question with the voice memo app on your smartphone and then email it to brian at skeptoid.com.
I'll try and answer it on an upcoming show.
Thank you so much, students, and keep your skeptical eyes peeled.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection