Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 269 posts

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

#81

Post by will_brown »

mkautzm wrote: post #20
pdq wrote: post #10

Let me know when the government wakes up and inverts the food pyramid, so that breads and grains and carbs are scarce, rather than fats.

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.

>Suggesting that grains, or even carbs, are somehow worse than literal fat is misleading at best, and delusional at it's worst.

Carbs/sugars trigger insulin production...fats don't do that. Just look at the Western diet and the substitution of fats with sugars in the food industry in the 70's and you will trace origins of type 2 diabetes that would begin appearing in children - yes, it used to be called adult onset diabetes - now over a million cases.

Carbs are not inherently bad, but there is no doubt way to much in the Western diet and from poor sources.

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

#82

Post by woofyman »

BurningFrog wrote: post #49
throwaway2016a wrote: post #24

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.

Thalidomide is the poster child for dangerous drugs approved elsewhere but not by the FDA.

Experts estimate that the drug thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/

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

#83

Post by tertius »

mkautzm wrote: post #65
WillPostForFood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not at all true, and that level of ignorance is actually quite dangerous. Scientists in no field are punished for disagreement. Even in really fringe science, disagreement is not only well-funded, but encouraged. A great example is String Theory: It has a lot of supporters and a lot of people saying it's untestable bunk, but research for both sides continues.. Consensuses happen when there is sufficient data t…

Are your a scientist? You seem very naive about the scientific world.

If you haven't experienced the cut throat nature of science or the immensely aggressive politics you may need to reassess your rose colored view.

The mantra, is your haven't heard it, is publish or perish.

Disagreement is well funded? What are your talking about? Good data is well funded. Doesn't matter how much you disagree, if the data is missing or bad you get no money.

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

#84

Post by watertom »

rcavezza wrote: post #12

Here is my paraphrased takeaway: Cholesterol you see in your blood results is still bad. Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad. Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good. I don't think this changes any of my mental models. The foods that I always thought of as "probably not great" are still classified as such, according to this article.

Of course then there is Linus Pauling who says that cholesterol has noting to do with heart disease, which he called chronic scurvy, insufficient L-ascorbic acid and lysine is the real underlying cause.

I'm throwing my lot in with Linus, he was as smart or smarter than probably anyone in history, and he wasn't making money from his discovery.

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

#85

Post by creepydata »

dade_ wrote: post #16
tree_of_item wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just do it right" isn't very good advice. And what exactly counts as "processed" food?

A simple answer is anything with the fibre removed, such as white flour & rice, and with artificial flavours and colours. No risk in eliminating these from your diet...

There is nothing wrong with artificial flavors,they are chemically identical to natural flavors.

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

#86

Post by wyager »

mkautzm wrote: post #27
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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…

If nutrition science "isn't solved", the government shouldn't be making laws and regulations based on it.

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

#87

Post by anexprogrammer »

clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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…

Yes! We could replace those flawed and lobbied against restrictions with advice. The market would be free once again to innovate.

Bayer could once again offer Heroin as an addiction free drug. We could get long missed radium cures and snake oil. They could be free to advertise to their heart's content. They can tell us cigarettes are good for us.

The companies can be trusted to have our health at heart. They can spend adequately on SEO to ensure their messages are dominant. Silly government warnings and or indivduals having problems with side effects or Heroin forum posts can sensibly be lost in the far reaches of search.

Seriously? I can't think of anything more stupid, even though the system is horribly flawed.

Want to go back to food adulteration, and poisons sold as cures? Endless advertorials pushing pointless product? We have an entire vitamins and supplements industry that's pointless (and problematic) for most people.

Go read the history of those regulations and restrictions. I don't want the pre-drug and food adulteration acts world back, thank you very much. How is this the highest voted post?

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

#88

Post by wallace_f »

nether wrote: post #15
rcavezza wrote: post #12

Here is my paraphrased takeaway: Cholesterol you see in your blood results is still bad. Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad. Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good. I don't think this changes any of my mental models. The foods that I always thought of as "probably not great" are still classified as such, according to this article.

> Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad You're sure of that? http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the... My main takeaway: > "Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written.

> "Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written.

This is an illuminating comment on the state of research, and it needs more awareness.

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

#89

Post by RangerScience »

azinman2 wrote: post #73
badsock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't forget that marketing budgets for pharmaceuticals are also huge. The average person has no chance. The constant bombardment already means people go to their doctor asking for Rx by name even without understanding the medical need or if they're right for it. Now remove regulation... the warnings basically just blur into the background. Already we get so many warnings on prescriptions that they just turn into not…

Hmm. Could you then disallow any advertising of drug while you're still without FDA endorsement? Like how you're not allowed to advertise cigarettes.

I suspect this line of thinking just leads to too many problems, however.

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

#90

Post by lkbm »

PKop wrote: post #63
mkautzm wrote: 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 sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Typical carb intake in avg diet that doesn't remove grains and starches is literally worse for you than pure eating pure fat. Read about keto diet, read / watch presentations by Gary Taubes (his book "Why We Get Fat" is great). Your understanding of nutrition is about 20 years out of date.

I think their understanding of nutrition is up-to-date, but focuses on kidney health, not just weight, or the realities of the current American diet.

Whole grains are great and very healthy, and a high-carb diet rich in whole grains and with an appropriate level of calories will be great.

On the other hand, while a ketogenic diet is great for weight control and cardiovascular health, they're probably much worse for your kidneys.

In the US, kidney issues are a problem, but cardiovascular health are a much bigger problem. Perhaps more importantly, people who don't do keto/high-protein usually aren't on a perfect veggie-rich, whole grain diet instead. They're on a diet of refined carbs and excessive calories.

If you're really committed to a super-healthy diet, you should probably eat lots of carbs, but the right carbs--complex and mixed with fiber. If you're an average American who doesn't feel like a diet of veggies and whole grains, high-protein is probably a good route to take. I tend to go high protein (even as a vegetarian) because I enjoy the taste and it fills me up better than many others things I like. It fits my health vs. food enjoyment balance in a way I have the will-power to maintain.

In short, complex carbs are great, but don't make perfect the enemy of the good, and don't set yourself up for failure.

Post reply on HN