US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015) • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by anexprogrammer » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #130

anexprogrammer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spen…

It was under basically the same regulatory regime that Purdue Pharma marketed Oxycontin 12-hour extended release as a drug unlikely to cause abuse. It wasn't that long ago that Phen-Phen (sp?) was legally marketed and sold. We currently allow prescription of extraordinarily strong methamphetamine to children, who often spend their formative years under the influence. --- We still have a long ways to go.

I did say it was flawed.

> currently allow prescription of extraordinarily strong methamphetamine to children

As someone adult diagnosed ADHD and taking "extrordinarily strong amphetamine" from my 40s I'd like to point out they do not affect ADHD sufferers in the same way as neuro typicals. They're used at tiny dosages compared to using recreationally. I would not wish children with the condition to have my hugely damaged teen years because of horribly misinformed popular rhetoric about amphetamines. Using meth is the last resort option when other forms haven't worked.

That popular rhetoric meant I spent an additional 10 years before gaining effective treatment. I had to read and interpret actual papers to get past the media bullshit and gain an informed opinion.

I doubt you can even imagine how much I wish I had been taking "extraordinarily strong", ie correctly dosed, amphetamines from my earliest years. I will add that I'm not in favour of use for weight - many other tactics can work there.

Do you use the term "extrordinarily strong" when you mean "correct dosage" or speaking of paracetamol? Paracetamol is the cause of many deaths unlike amphetamines. Now add the liver damage.

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

#142

Post by ageofwant » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

baron816 wrote: post #134

djsumdog wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus. The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants! Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs…

It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weigh…

Dr. Tim Noakes of "Lore of Running" fame agrees. Not everybody is happy about that though http://foodmed.net/2016/05/03/noakes-exposed-real-beef-dieti...

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

#143

Post by Veratyr » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:21 AM UTC

badsock wrote: post #54

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…

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…

> 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.

I know this is an incredibly callous opinion but isn't this natural selection at work?

People even go further and knowingly partake of substances known to be harmful (cigarettes). We don't stop them from that, why should we stop them from consuming medication that hasn't yet been deemed safe?

Educating and providing support for those that need it I agree with but if people freely and knowingly choose to act in a self destructive manner with a sound mind, I'm not convinced it benefits society or themselves to forcibly preserve their life.

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

#144

Post by Naritai » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:21 AM UTC

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #119

mkautzm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Unfortunately, a significant number of bureaucrats and statists would prefer consumers to be dumb (or at least say that they are) in order to maintain power. Oh and let me guess, you're not one of the dumb ones....it's the other guys right? ;)

I'm a complete idiot when it comes to what drug is going to have what effect on me. That's why I consult an expert: a doctor.

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

#145

Post by ageofwant » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:22 AM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #139

baron816 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weigh…

There's a certain irony in calling something a myth based on your personal anecdote.

Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.

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

#146

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:29 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #44

mkautzm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

[deleted]

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

#147

Post by FrancoDiaz » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:31 AM UTC

Naritai wrote: post #144

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that the average consumer is both A) dumb, and B) doesn't know what they need. Unfortunately, a significant number of bureaucrats and statists would prefer consumers to be dumb (or at least say that they are) in order to maintain power. Oh and let me guess, you're not one of the dumb ones....it's the other guys right? ;)

I'm a complete idiot when it comes to what drug is going to have what effect on me. That's why I consult an expert: a doctor.

You're choosing your own doctor, right?

Do you just blindly take whatever the doctor prescribes to you without doing your own research? How do you know your doctor is an expert? I'm pretty sure my doctor is not an expert in lots of things pertaining to medicine. He's not studying all the new research. That doesn't mean I can't have a conversation with him, but it's healthy to be skeptical of doctors too...that's why we get second opinions.

I don't have a huge problem with the FDA, but I'd rather have a number of choices of where to get information, and at the end of the day make my own choice on what to consume.

Also if people are so stupid like the OP suggested why not ban a whole plethora of foods like Twinkies, potato chips, soda, etc..?

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

#148

Post by FrancoDiaz » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:35 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #128

petilon wrote: post #97

This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administrati…

I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus. The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants! Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs…

It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet.

And there was a whole bunch of nutritionists, doctors, "advocates" that went after him after he was six feet under.

I'd like to see those prominent people that went after him held to account now.

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

#149

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:38 AM UTC

teach wrote: post #51

pdq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by adevine » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:39 AM UTC

petilon wrote: post #97

This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administrati…

I don't understand your point about statins. The Bloomberg article you linked said statins were very effective in preventing heart attacks, just not necessarily due to their cholesterol-lowering effect. If that's the case, statins would still seem to be warranted in a lot of people.