Monkeys, Myths, and Molecules: Separating Fact from Fiction, and the Science of Everyday Life

by Dr. Joe Schwarcz Narrated by Garrett Goodison

Overview

A healthy dose of scientific skepticism in the information age, from bestselling author Dr. Joe Schwarz

The internet is a powerful beast; no matter what question you may have, the answer is just a few keystrokes away. But with so many sources available, and so many conflicting answers, how do you know what information is reliable? In Monkeys, Myths, and Molecules, Dr. Joe Schwarcz takes a critical look at how scientific facts are misconstrued in the media, debunking myths surrounding canned food, artificial dyes, SPF, homeopathy, cancer, chemicals, and much more. Unafraid to expose the sheer nonsense people are led to believe about health, food, drugs, and our environment, Dr. Joe confronts pseudoscience and convincingly and entertainingly advocates for a scientific approach to everyday life.

Editorial Reviews

NOVEMBER 2020 - AudioFile

Garrett Goodison's narration finds the balance between this author’s deep knowledge of human biology and the subtle sardonic tone he aims at popular media. Schwarcz's informative and entertaining audiobook on scientific myths uses food, healthcare, and the environment as platforms to analyze how the relationships among living things are understood, and often deliberately misinterpreted. Dr. Oz, the popular television personality, appears as a target several times. The subjects tackled cover such topics as the toxic properties of chewing gum, the truth about whether Greek yogurt is environmentally friendly, the question of whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unfairly maligned, and more. The audiobook is accessible, and Goodison's narration is dynamic. Best of all, his performance keeps the proceedings entertaining. S.P.C. © AudioFile 2020, Portland, Maine

From the Publisher

The book is chock-full of captivating anecdotes . . . The author engages readers with his wit and wisdom.” — The Canadian Jewish News

Library Journal

06/01/2015
In 1858, chemist August Kerkulé recounted a dream that eventually served as the basis for his theory of molecular structure. In the vision, atoms "gambol[ed]" about, joining in pairs and chains, behaving in a manner later parodied by a cartoon in which monkeys seized one another's tails. Schwarcz (office for science and society, McGill Univ.) posits that such dreams can be productive for scientific innovation, but they must be separated from proven fact—a task that the author undertakes here. In dozens of short chapters, he interrogates ideas about health, nutrition, and daily life, exploring topics that range from the health benefits of a sugar-free diet to the psychedelic qualities of specific plants and the effect of music on milk production. He indicates weaknesses in scientific studies and questions the assumptions of personalities such as Dr. Oz. At one point, Schwarcz reminisces about his early days when he checked facts against the Encyclopedia Britannica, and this book similarly acts as a kind of almanac or handbook brimming with curious anecdotes and studies. Ultimately, the author successfully demonstrates how claims should be queried and analyzed before they are accepted. VERDICT Recommended for readers of health, nutrition, and popular science.—Talea Anderson, College Place, WA

NOVEMBER 2020 - AudioFile

Garrett Goodison's narration finds the balance between this author’s deep knowledge of human biology and the subtle sardonic tone he aims at popular media. Schwarcz's informative and entertaining audiobook on scientific myths uses food, healthcare, and the environment as platforms to analyze how the relationships among living things are understood, and often deliberately misinterpreted. Dr. Oz, the popular television personality, appears as a target several times. The subjects tackled cover such topics as the toxic properties of chewing gum, the truth about whether Greek yogurt is environmentally friendly, the question of whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unfairly maligned, and more. The audiobook is accessible, and Goodison's narration is dynamic. Best of all, his performance keeps the proceedings entertaining. S.P.C. © AudioFile 2020, Portland, Maine

Product Details

BN ID:	2940177080345
Publisher:	ECW
Publication date:	07/20/2020
Edition description:	Unabridged

Read an Excerpt

Monkeys, Myths, and Molecules

Separating Fact from Fiction in the Science of Everyday Life

---

By Joe Schwarcz

ECW PRESS

Copyright © 2015 Joe Schwarcz
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-77041-191-3

---

CHAPTER 1

SWALLOW THE SCIENCE

FRUITS OF THE INTERNET

When I graduated university, my parents gave me a very special gift: a set of the renowned Encyclopedia Britannica! It had the answer to virtually every question I came across and was fun to just browse through. But the last time I picked up one of those heavy volumes was about twenty years ago. By then, the Internet and the tsunami of information it brought to our fingertips had appeared on the scene.

Every day I witness both the positive and negative power the web can unleash. I'm continuously flooded with questions that can be traced back to some item seen on the web. You don't even have to watch television anymore because significant clips, or entire programs, are just a few keystrokes away. A glance at just a few of the hundred or so questions that came my way during a single week affords insight into what is on the public mind. So let's have a go.

I always know what Dr. Mehmet Oz has been up to because my email inbox boils over with questions about his latest antics. Judging by the number of questions I got about monk fruit, it was clear that Oz had been trying to sweeten people's lives with this alternative to artificial sweeteners. We love sweets, but we worry, justifiably, about consuming too much sugar, and less justifiably, about its artificial replacements. The market is ripe for products that can be promoted as "natural no-calorie sweeteners." Monk fruit extracts happen to fit the bill.

Legend has it that the fruit, commonly known by its Chinese name, "luo han guo," was first cultivated by Buddhist monks back in the thirteenth century for its supposed fever-reducing and cough-relieving properties. Folklore also has monk fruit extending life, with claims that the counties in China where the fruit is grown for commercial purposes have an unusual number of centenarians. This has never been confirmed; neither do we know whether the fruit is routinely consumed by the population there.

Various preparations of the fruit are sold in China with claims of moistening the lungs, eliminating phlegm, stopping cough, relieving sunstroke and promoting bowel movements. While the efficacy of monk fruit as a medicine is questionable, the sweetness of its juice is not. This, however, did not arouse scientists' curiosity until the 1970s, when expanding waistlines led to expanding markets for non-caloric sweeteners. Analysis revealed that monk fruit contained five closely related compounds called mogrosides that are some 250 to 400 times sweeter than sugar. These can be extracted from the juice and processed into a powder that can be used as a sweetening agent. Because of the high degree of sweetness, very little of the monk fruit extract is required, so it can be classified as non-caloric. Although there have been no extensive safety studies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified monk fruit preparations as "generally recognized as safe," or "GRAS."

McNeil Nutritionals has now introduced monk fruit extract as a "no-calorie sweetener" under the name Nectresse. In order to provide volume and appropriate texture, the extract is blended with a small amount of erythritol (a sugar alcohol), sugar and molasses. These contribute fewer than five calories per serving, which is the limit for a product to be labeled as "containing no calories." I'd have no problem with trying this sweetener, and I'm sure many people who worry about artificial sweeteners will pounce on it. And people are worried, sometimes for unusual reasons.

I was asked whether it is true that aspartame is made from the waste of certain bacteria. Actually, it sort of is, but that is irrelevant. Enzymes churned out by bacteria are commonly used to produce chemicals. Just think of adding Lactobacillus bulgaricus to milk to produce lactic acid and thereby yogurt, or using genetically modified bacteria to make insulin or human growth hormone to treat diabetes and dwarfism. In the case of aspartame, Bacillus thermoproteolyticus is used to join together the two amino acids that make up aspartame. I suspect the question was asked because of concern that somehow bacterial waste implies some sort of safety issue. It does not. The safety of a product does not depend on the route used to produce it; it is established by extensively studying it in the laboratory, in animal models and by monitoring its use in humans.

Then there was a question about whether ripe bananas, full of black spots, have anticancer properties. The answer is simple. No. The ripe banana silliness was based on a Japanese study reported in an obscure journal that involved injecting banana extract into the peritoneal cavity of rodents. Why this was done isn't clear. I suppose it's because nobody had done it before. Scientists will be scientists. So what did they find? A slight increase in the animals' production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which as the name suggests, can have antitumor effects. But it can also have negative effects, such as exacerbating arthritis. In any case, this rodent study has no relevance to humans. We eat bananas; we don't mainline them. Furthermore, the circulating email suggests that bananas contain TNF, which is nonsense. Even if they did, it would not matter because this is a protein that would be broken down during digestion. Bananas make for a great snack, but there is no point in looking for spotted ones with the hopes of preventing cancer.

Now for the really weird. A worried woman asked if it is safe to drink milk when she travels to the U.S. Why? She had heard that women who drink milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin to increase milk production are at risk for growing mustaches. Apparently that story came from some Russian official who claimed that American milk causes women to develop male sexual characteristics. What a load of twaddle. Bovine somatotropin in not bioactive in humans. The only mustache you'll get by drinking milk is made of milk.

Next question. How do I know my answers are reasonable? Because the Internet allows me to search virtually all the published literature without leaving my desk. Clearly, the era of the printed encyclopedia is over. Although I was emotionally attached to my copy, it was taking up so much space that I decided to give it away. Nobody wanted it. A sign of the times.

ADVICE ABOUT FOOD IS SOMETIMES HALF-BAKED

Back in the early 1970s, just as I was developing an interest in the chemistry of food, I came across a witty quote by Mark Twain. "Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like and let the food fight it out inside." Twain was likely reacting to the plethora of health fads that were rippling through America at the time. As evidenced by a passage in his classic work The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, he didn't approve: "[Aunt Polly] was a subscriber for all the 'Health' periodicals and phrenological frauds; and the solemn ignorance they were inflated with was breath to her nostrils. All the 'rot' they contained about ... what to eat, and what to drink, and how much exercise to take, and what frame of mind to keep one's self in ... was all gospel to her, and she never observed that her health-journals of the current month customarily upset everything they had recommended the month before."

Indeed, there was health advice galore in the nineteenth century. Sylvester Graham urged people to eschew white flour, cooked vegetables and meat. Drinking water during a meal was verboten. If a vegetarian and a meat eater were shot and killed, Graham maintained, the body of the vegetable eater would take two to three times as long to become intolerably offensive from the process of putrefaction. There is no record of Graham ever putting this to a test. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg followed in Graham's footsteps, curing the rich and famous of diseases they never had with a regimen of vegetables, fruits, over-baked bread and yogurt.

Horace Fletcher, the "Apostle of Correct Nutrition," suggested that the secret to good health lay in chewing food until the last hint of flavor disappeared, and Lydia Pinkham promoted her Vegetable Compound as just the thing for "female complaints and weaknesses." Dr. James Salisbury claimed that heart disease, tumors, mental illness and tuberculosis were the result of vegetables and starchy foods producing poisonous substances in the digestive system. His solution was the "Salisbury steak," essentially fried ground beef with onion and seasonings. According to the good doctor, the steak was to be eaten three times a day with lots of water. This would cleanse the digestive system and, as a bonus, the high-meat, low-carbohydrate diet would lead to weight loss. Early shades of Atkins.

Little wonder that Mark Twain poked fun at these half-baked, contradictory fragments of advice with his suggestion to let the food fight it out once inside. That of course was pure whimsy, but foods really do duke it out, though not inside our bodies. Rather, it is in the scientific literature that dietary components vie for infamy or honor. And the biggest battles take place when the stakes are high, such as in the struggle against heart disease.

I've now been watching that battlefield for more than four decades. My bookshelves sag with dozens of books about the relationship between diet and heart disease, ranging from The China Study, in which Dr. T. Colin Campbell urges us to reduce blood cholesterol by eliminating all animal products to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick's The Great Cholesterol Con and Dr. Ernest Curtis's The Cholesterol Delusion, which claim that a high-fat diet does not put a person at risk for coronary artery disease and that lowering the cholesterol level with diet or drugs will not prevent heart attacks. My filing cabinets swell with the studies referenced in these books plus numerous others. One would think that a definitive conclusion about the relationship between diet and heart disease could be arrived at by digging through all this material. Alas, it is possible to find reputable studies to either support or oppose the obsession with cholesterol. When it comes to dueling studies, there rarely is a clear-cut winner.

When I began my search for light at the end of the misty tunnel of nutrition oh so many years ago, one name kept cropping up. Ancel Keys was a physiologist who had noted that well-fed American businessmen suffered a higher rate of heart disease than post-war undernourished Europeans. Keys knew that atherosclerosis was characterized by deposits of cholesterol in the walls of the arteries, and that in the early 1900s Russian scientist Nikolai Anichkov had shown a link between feeding cholesterol to rabbits and artery damage. He was also aware that in the 1940s John Gofman had identified lipoproteins as the molecules that transport cholesterol through the bloodstream and that he had demonstrated a relationship between blood levels of these lipoproteins and the risk of heart disease.

Since cholesterol is present in the human diet, mostly in fatty animal foods, Keys thought a relationship between diet and heart disease was likely. One way to explore this possibility was to compare disease patterns in countries with different amounts of fat in the diet. In his famous Seven Countries Study, Keys showed that both elevated mean blood cholesterol levels and deaths from heart disease correlated with the percent of calories attributed to fat in the diet, although there were a few exceptions. Inhabitants of the island of Crete had the lowest heart disease rate but ate lots of fat. Their fat intake, however, was mostly of the unsaturated variety found in fish and olive oil. So Keys concluded the real culprit was saturated fat and promoted a Mediterranean diet, emphasizing unsaturated over saturated fats.

Correlation, of course, is not the same as causation, and critics quickly pointed out that increased heart disease rates correlated even better with the number of radios produced or with the amount of gasoline sold. There were also questions about the reliability of death certificates to determine heart disease mortality, as well as about the calculation of fat consumption. Then there was the bothersome point of Keys choosing only seven countries when statistics about food consumption and mortality were available for at least twenty-two others. Did he leave these out because the data did not fit the straight-line relationship that was evident when only seven countries were considered? And with that salvo of criticisms, the war between the proand anti-fat forces was launched.

Keys correlated the risk of death from heart disease with levels of blood cholesterol and with the amount of saturated fat in the diet. This did beg for further exploration. That was undertaken with the famous Framingham study that followed more than 5,000 initially healthy inhabitants of the small Massachusetts town and confirmed that high blood cholesterol correlated, albeit weakly, with heart disease. Rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that the Framingham study found no relation between fat consumption and heart disease!

Observational studies such as Keys's and Framingham can only show associations. To prove that high cholesterol is a causative factor in heart disease, and that it is a function of diet, an intervention study is needed. A demonstration that a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet results in a drop in blood cholesterol and also parallels a decline in heart disease would constitute good evidence for recommending such a diet. In 1972, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, cleverly abbreviated as MR. FIT, took on this challenge. Some 12,000 men at high risk for heart disease because of high cholesterol, elevated blood pressure and smoking habits were divided into two groups. One group got advice on quitting smoking, management of high blood pressure and received intensive instruction on preparing food that was low in cholesterol, low in saturated fat and high in polyunsaturated fat. The other group received no specific advice other than what would normally be offered by their family physician.

After ten years, the intervention group had reduced saturated fat intake by almost 30 percent and increased polyunsaturated fats by 33 percent, while the diet of the control group was essentially unchanged. Blood pressure was reduced significantly in the intervention group and about half the smokers gave up the habit. But in spite of the intense changes in diet, total cholesterol declined only by 7 percent. At the end of the study, there were 115 deaths ascribed to heart disease in the intervention group and 124 in the control group. Although that was significant, the result was clouded by the fact that there were 265 total deaths in the intervention group as opposed to 260 in the control group. Rigorous modification of risk factors had not provided the impactive results that had been hoped for.

Roughly at the same time as MR. FIT, the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (CPPT) enlisted some 3,800 men with cholesterol levels that ranked in the top 1 percent of the population. Half were given cholestyramine, a drug expected to reduce cholesterol significantly. After ten years, the actual reduction was only 8 percent, but this did result in a reduction in non-fatal heart attacks and coronary disease deaths by 19 percent. The authors' claim that each 1 percent reduction in cholesterol would result in a 2 percent reduction in cardiac risk made for splashy headlines.

But where exactly does 19 percent come from? In the treatment group, 7 percent of the subjects died or had a heart attack, while the corresponding figure in the control group was 8.6 percent. Decrease 8.6 by 19 percent and you get 7 percent! Another way of saying this is that one would have to treat about sixty-seven people with high cholesterol aggressively to save one cardiac event. Not very impressive, but still, Keys's correlation, together with CPPT and MR. FIT, were judged to have provided enough evidence to justify making recommendations to the public about reducing blood cholesterol to reduce the risk of heart disease. That advice centered on manipulating the amount and type of fat in the diet. Incredibly, after some fifty years of research, it still is not clear just what that manipulation should be. Well, perhaps it isn't so incredible. It is very difficult to tease meaningful results out of epidemiology, especially when it comes to nutrition. Statistics about disease patterns are often ambiguous and people's recall of what and how much they ate is notoriously unreliable.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Monkeys, Myths, and Molecules by Joe Schwarcz. Copyright © 2015 Joe Schwarcz. Excerpted by permission of ECW PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Videos