Earlier quoted context omitted.
What dietary supplements can cause liver injury?
Vitamin A, typically. Or more generally fat-soluble vitamins. The label usually warns you.
Oh, duh. People don't know that? That's why I refuse to eat polar bear liver.
US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
151–160 of 269 posts
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#152Earlier 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? ;)
For nearly all the products I buy, I'm definitely 'dumb'. I have a narrow expertise that gives me insight into a narrow set of consumer products where I can effectively evaluate product quality and value. For nearly everything else, I'm 'dumb'.
If you show me a rack of food product, I probably can't identify which is the best for a particular person given a set of goals. I probably can't even tell you which ones are 'bad' or 'good', because I don't really know. While food is but one subject, this applies to nearly everything I purchase. Which plastics are the best for a given task? What ingredients in a shampoo would actually give me results I want? What kind of bed or bedding is the best for my comfort? To all these questions: I have no idea. I'm at the mercy of google or a salesman, the latter which has a different motive than me which immediately calls that in to suspicion.
I'd be a fool to say I'm an all-knowing consumer, but so would anyone. Most people don't know what the need. They know what problem they want to solve, but they have no idea what the best product or solution is to solve said problem. Acknowledging this, we can easily see why when it comes to our health, it's probably best to see some regulation lest people do what they do best: make really dumb choices.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 da…
This assumes correct diagnoses. In your case, the cost was lost years of correctable, sub-optimal brain chemistry. To a kid unnecessarily prescribed amphetamines, the cost is a life with a malformed brain.
The issue at hand is how to balance the outcomes. Based on increased prescription rates (600k diagnosed in 1990 to 3.5 million in 2012 [0]), it seems probable to me that we've passed the breakeven point. I bet that increase in diagnoses corresponds with an increase in marketing spend for these drugs, which is another indicator that gives me pause.
You as an adult were able to decide for yourself. Many diagnosed nowadays are young; they do not have the ability to give informed consent to the medication, nor the ability to roll back the effects. Younger brains are more easily harmed as well.
Further complicating the fact is that it requires an assessment of relative importance: is it better to harm by inaction (your situation) or by over-action?
It's really hard to try and fairly balance these and other issues that I'm sure I'm missing. However, thank you for sharing; although uncomfortable, I thought about the issue from a perspective that quickly embarrassingly had not previously occurred.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-atte...
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Do you just blindly take whatever the doctor prescribes to you without doing your own research?
Yes. I'm do not have a medical background and at best, I could gain a surface-level understanding of the drug, which is not useful to determine which drug(s) are best for me.
> How do you know your doctor is an expert?
They went to 10 years of school and several years of residency to do doctor things. These things are also regulated by several boards which have the power to revoke medical licenses if doctors suck.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist not in agreement with the consensus on climate change You'd also be hard pressed to find a numerologist not in agreement with the consensus that numerology is effective. Argument from authority isn't appropriate in this forum.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#156Youtube is where most people get their dietary advice now. The most influential diet advice is coming from young attractive healthy looking people. Whatever they're eating seems to be working. Obviously most of these people won the genetic lottery, but they've also nurtured their body correctly with food and exercise.
This seems like a much better approach in convincing people what to eat anyway. Look at the results and imitate healthy people if you want to look and stay healthy.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#157This 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.
For people who do not already have heart disease, statins have no apparent benefit. For people who have had a heart attack, statins are indeed useful. Not because of its cholesterol lowering effect, but due to its ability to dial back inflammation in arteries. For more on this here's yet another Bloomberg article on statins:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-choles...
So you are right, statins are indeed useful in a lot of people: people who have already had a heart attack. But that's not who statins are being marketed to. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#158Wouldn'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. 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…
> I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and test drugs.
Because that worked so well with risk analysis in finance. 2008 is calling.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#159Earlier 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.
When disproving a need, an anecdote is pretty effective.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#160This needs a (2015) added to it.
February 2015, nonetheless. It's almost two years later. I'd like to hear what developments there have been on the topic since this was published.