Live data from Hacker News

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

51–60 of 269 posts

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#51
post #36
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbohydrates are not a bad thing and are indeed an important part of health. The current suggested diet doesn't say, 'bread'. It specifically calls out Whole Grains, which a great deal of evidence suggests are a Good Thing. Suggesting that grains, or even carbs, are somehow worse than literal fat is misleading at best, and delusional at it's worst.

I'm referring to the original 1992 food pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#/medi... > Fats, oils, sweets: sparingly > Bread, cereal, rice & pasta: 6-11 servings Yes I am in the camp that believe fats and proteins are both much healthier than carbs, and especially refined sugars. The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets.

> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets

The "latest nutrition" supports nothing of the sort. Dietitians still recommend you get roughly 50% of your calories from healthy carbs.

Source: my wife is a registered dietitian and has a PhD in nutrition.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#52
post #27

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

The science behind nutrition health is extremely complicated and expecting it to remain constant represent a total misunderstanding of how nutrition research is done and how results are determined. > The history of medical reversals -- and in this case, nutrition reversal -- shows that the government isn't magic. What it shows is that nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher…

> The problem with this is that the average consumer is both A) dumb, and B) doesn't know what they need

Note that the customer for prescription drugs is a licensed doctor.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#53

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. The way you'd like the FDA to work is literally the way it already works. You're allowed to buy basically any drug you want unless it's scheduled by the DEA. Companies just aren't allowed to market them as being effective for a specific disease without passing clinical t…

Can doctors legally prescribe them without FDA approval? There are many niche drugs currently unavailable for therapeutic use in the USA because no current manufacturers hold an FDA certification.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#54

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

Just as an example: 9% of the cases of Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury is self-harm caused by people taking non-regulated dietary supplements:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18955056

You have a theory that the average person will wisely assume the responsibility to vet the health effects of what they consume, but empirical reality disagrees with your theory. Right now people are injuring themselves with products at the margin of regulation.

There's a societal cost for lots of people injuring themselves, and offloading the responsibility of researching safety to the average consumer will cause fear and superstition, limiting people's willingness to try new products, and I would argue that that reduces innovation. Regulation in this area has been a net societal benefit.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#55
post #5
post #3

There is so much that 'everybody knows' about nutrition that is pure bullshit peddled by farmers, agribusiness and processed food companies. Just one example-- that fat causes heart disease. Pure nonsense pushed by the soda and sugar industry. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co... Just eat a balanced diet, don't overeat, and don't eat too much processed food and red meat, and you'll probably…

'everybody knows' red meat is bad?

Rastafari surely do.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why people have been so slow to mobilize around climate change predictions.

Only through people's incorrect interpretation of reality. >nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher in the field suggest otherwise. You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist not in agreement with the consensus on climate change, at least one that isn't already promoting book deals on Fox.

yup, the science is "agreed on." Disagree and lose your job/funding. That's how to build climate consensus.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and…

Or have competition in the form of foreign FDA counterparts. If the European/Japanese/Other Reputable Country authorities have approved a drug, it could be allowed it in the US, with a clear label, of course. Foreign physiology and science is the same as American.

True. That is a good idea. Why shouldn't I be able to buy drugs that are approved by Canada for instance?

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#59
The sugar industry has a history of lobbying public attention away from sugar and towards cholesterol. It has even enlisted places like Harvard School of Public Health on this task:

http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-researc...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and…

That worked out really well for the banking industry. You really want a similar scheme for medical care?

Hey why wouldn't a CDS on someone's health be a good thing? /snark
Post reply on HN