I listened to a lecture a few years back about a study that was done on food. They used the same meals made from the same ingredients. Two were prepared by a loving mom for her family, two were made by an indifferent chief, and two were made by an agitated worker. They did this over and over with lots of different people and found that the same meal from the same ingredients was significantly nutritionally different depending on the emotional state of the person preparing it. More than that they found that the recipients body was able to much greater utilize the nutrients available once the meals had been prayed over. They found that the moms’ meals had the highest nutrition value, the most symmetric molecular structure, and the recipients bodies absorbed the most nutrients from it of the 3 unsprayed for controls. The chiefs’ meals were much less beneficial to the body and the meals made by the agitated workers actually cause detrimental effects to the body. Very little nutrition was absorbed from it at all and it caused an explosion of free radicals to be released in the body. In all cases the meals were prayed over and in all cases the meals ability to be used by the body improved. But the meal prepared with love and then prayed over was so much more beneficial to the body then the others that the scientist concluded, if they could find out why it could cut our food intake by 2/3. It was a very interesting lecture to say the least.
72 comments
KAY-rap.
That's crap, y'all.
Citations, please.
Facts: carbohydrates 4kcal/gramme. fats 9 kcal/gramme. protein 4kcal/gramme.
Nutrients-- and by this I believe you mean vitamins-- are absorbed according to their various chemical properties, e.g. fat-soluble, water-soluble.
Big pile of fail and rubbish in your dissertation there, Dr Nutritionist Hovind.
Uh I think I read this in a fiction book, except the experiment was about raising planets in an angery environment, a neutral environment and a friendly environment.
But nothing about meals, and I doubt "Praying" to the food helpe
Ummm, no. Nutrition refers to the physical nutrients in food, something that doesn't vary just because a mother or a chef made it. How a person perceives a meal, however, can vary based on the setting.
Oh yeah sure, my mothers cousins best friend was involved in it.
And were these 'chiefs' tribal chiefs or members of a sport team?
> Two were prepared by a loving mom for her family, two were made by an indifferent chief , and two were made by an agitated worker. They did this over and over with lots of different people <
OK, now...2,2, and 2 more - or - lots of times?
What kind of chief? Fire chief? Navy Chief? Indian chief?
And just how were they agitating the worker during these experiments? If they were proselytising at him I can see how he'd fuck the shit up real bad.
> The chiefs’ meals were much less beneficial <
OK, then, chief commisariman, sounds like a Navy chief to me, gotcha. Yeah, I've eaten that shit. Four fucking years of it and stood in line to get it. Feh!
What about the food prepared by the loving mom who works as a chef and who is agitated about not being able to provide for her children, even though she works three jobs and is hardly ever home to be with them.
I call bullshit on this whole study/lecture.
There could be some truth to the fact that when you are agitated or irate, you tend to do a worse job, than when you are calm and at ease. But the "molecular structure" of the food can't change, surely?
Argh, my mum once served chicken but forgot to gut it!
I mean I love her to pieces but her cooking still gives me nightmares.
I hope you got your money back for that lecture.
Sounds like some similar bullshit someone recently tried to convince me of about some guru she heard speak, who claimed he could change the molecular structure of water with "love", just by placing a piece of paper under the glass of water with the word LOVE written on it.
Must be the scam de jour.
Every study so far that has tested for the efficacy of prayer has demonstrated its total irrelevance, except that in the case of cancer patients who knew they were being prayed for their survival rate actually went down. So any study indicating the opposite would have been ballyhooed on every fundie site on the Web, and it ain't happening. Sorry.
(I can't give my source to the issue, but Skeptical Inquirer has printed several articles about prayer studies.)
Nutritional structure is nutritional structure. A more relaxed diner is more likely to digest their food better and therefore absorb more nutrients than a stressed out diner, but that still has nothing to do with who actually prepared the food. I've gotten sick from my mom's cooking, and I've digested drive-through meals just fine.
And I've heard these mothers that pop out 10-15 kids serve them crappy food, because even if they could afford quality food instead of the institutional shit they're forced to buy, they're too busy chasing after their brood to cook them a decent meal. I've also heard of fundies starving their kids out of punishment, or making them fast often.
Odd how the lecture was so fascinating that the OP recalls so many details years later ... except for the name of the speaker, venue, etc. that would allow for independent verification of the event.
"Friend of a friend" stories don't fly as evidence.
Every time somebody comes up with a bullshit "study" like that, I always ask the speaker to give me a reference, so I can see when it was done, by whom, and, most importantly, how. You know, because there are so many things you can do wrong in a study, let alone its unproven existence. Although the response is usually, "I'll get back to you as soon as I find the link, it's in {my archives|the Web|that magazine|.*}", not once I received such a follow-up. Which is quite fine, of course, because it leaves me with more time to do something actually useful.
1)Tests to see how well one absorbs nutrients would be massive in scope and time (one meal wouldn't show any trustworthy diet, you'd have to be in a system for weeks)
2)Humans ability to utilize food nutrients varies greatly from person to person.
3) No citation or credit or lab names. Just the usual 'Christian science' approach of " I was involved/I heard/ I read about" statement
In other words, this is bullshit.
Lecture, sure I believe it. Now whether the speaker had any evidence or a citation to back up his/her claims, I seriously doubt it. This was probably a lecture given in a church during a service, right? So they wouldn't have any reason to lie.
And it's "chef" not "chief."
Naturally if someone is inattentive, the meal is going to suffer - if from nothing else than it was overcooked or burned.
recipients body was able to much greater utilize the nutrients available once the meals had been prayed over.
So God makes our food less nutritious unless we kiss His ass before eating it?
@#1117858
You probably did. Madeleine L'Engle's A Wind In The Door had that fictional study in it.
And Marandia, I am calling bullshit.
There could be some truth to the fact that when you are agitated or irate, you tend to do a worse job, than when you are calm and at ease. But the "molecular structure" of the food can't change, surely?
Yes, it can. That's kind of the whole point of cooking.
I could believe that the "agitated worker" could have burnt the food so badly that it was inedible, or forgotten to add some of the ingredients.
But, assuming all the cooks did a competent job, there's not going to be any difference in nutritional value.
It was a very interesting lecture to say the least.
So interesting you remember no facts that would allow the reader to check up on it.
Try to be a little more clever with your lies, okay? This isn't even challenging.
This sounds like a job for Mythbusters!
Actually, just send Kari Byron, we don't need the others...
Sounds like they're trying to spin a line of new food products:
"New Jesus Fruit Muffins! They're better for you because we made them with love!"
"New Christ Corn Fritters! We prayed over them because we care."
The "made with love" part makes sense. If you're making something for someone you care about, you're automatically going to pay more attention to the little things, and in cooking especially, a tiny difference in ingredients or cook time can make a huge difference in flavor and nutrition.
The praying part sounds like bunk.
Oh yeah, that's like that Emoto guy, who tried to prove that water was influenced by labels on the bottle.
Funny enough, I switched the labels of Evian and Cola and I still only have water.
Re: BlackMageJ's comment
True, though the initial experiment sounds more like the Richard Hammond era Brainiac:Science Abuse show would have done, testing this theory, rather than Mythbusters...
(Though the thought of Kari, trying to cook a meal, in a attempt to disprove this myth, with the others shouting down a megaphone at her during said preparation, would be interesting indeed...) .
{citation needed)
Also...
BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.
careless food prep can lower the nutritional value, taste and texture of a meal, but you really need to work at it.
when was the study published ?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.