Live data from Hacker News

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

241–250 of 269 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, there are always people who will do that. I try to eat very low-carb and it's helped my heath dramatically, but even I occasionally will have a burger or real pasta. The issue is education. It's very difficult to tell what is healthy and what isn't. There is a lot of research coming out that shows us sugar and starches are very bad for us. The stress from those carbs can damage our arteries and is what allows c…

How's a burger carbs btw? Unless you mean the bun and not the actual patty.

Why the vote down? It's a serious question

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

#242
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't protect people from themselves You can't protect all people from themselves, but you can protect a lot of people from themselves. If you look at smoking [1] in the US, smoking went from 42.4% in 1965 to 16.8% in 2014. Raising awareness, taxing cigarettes, outlawing advertising, warnings on packaging, these things work. The same could be done with alcohol if society wanted. One of the reasons why it hasn't…

Oddly, the people you're asking to implement this harm reduction plan are often making the same mistakes as those who would "benefit" from the regulations. Government bureaucrats are not special or different from us regular folk. Why should we expect them to be?

Because you can select them for their expertise. E.g., to create medical regulations, you can select doctors and pharmacists.

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

#243
Hmmm this was just on the homepage then quickly removed.. top of the page then boom gone? Any reason why this is?

Also I've been on statins since 37 after feeling my heart race and not being able to catch my breathe after being with girlfriend at the time. That was some scary stuff and after the statin and change of diet I no longer have those type of bouts anymore. So maybe it's my change in diet (cut out 75% fried food and sugar intake is 50% less) and the statin combined and or maybe the statin is just a placebo and my change is diet helped eliminate those heart racing attacks?

I had a lot of those attacks from 37 to about 39...im now 41 and haven't dealt with any such attacks unless I eat a say Five Guys or In and Out.

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

#244
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people will also choose to eat potato chips, not exercise, smoke, and drink heavily. You can't protect people from themselves, and even if it was an ethical government job to do so, i.e. take away people's freedoms because the government says it knows better, like with marijuana (I am REALLY humoring you, if you can't tell), there is no practical argument either. How much do you think your high estimate of X% who…

> You can't protect people from themselves You can't protect all people from themselves, but you can protect a lot of people from themselves. If you look at smoking [1] in the US, smoking went from 42.4% in 1965 to 16.8% in 2014. Raising awareness, taxing cigarettes, outlawing advertising, warnings on packaging, these things work. The same could be done with alcohol if society wanted. One of the reasons why it hasn't…

All of your points are born of the flawed assumption that it is ethical to take away people's freedoms because you think you know better. Even if you DO know better and could PROVE it (which is never guaranteed in theory OR in practice -- see: FDA, USDA), I would never support coercive measures. It's about as moral and effective as outlawing suicide. The practical arguments are already lost. There were a lot of well-intentioned common folk and bureaucrats who think JUST LIKE YOU and tried something called Prohibition, and it didn't work. Same with the drug war.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

Isn't murder survival of the fittest? We as a society have decided that, generally, profiting from causing harm to others incentives bad things. I don't want cough medicine that might stop my breathing, but heroin was regularly sold as just that before the FDA. History has shown that without regulation the quality, efficacy, composition, safety and side-effect profile of drugs might stray from reality because of mark…

> Isn't murder survival of the fittest?

Murder is bad for society, as people who can benefit society through say their knowledge of medicine or physics aren't adept at self defence.

A similar argument could be made that people who aren't very good at taking care of themselves are valuable to society somehow and should be protected from idiotic self-harm but I believe a person's autonomy trumps society's interest in preserving whatever value they have.

> I don't want cough medicine that might stop my breathing, but heroin was regularly sold as just that before the FDA.

Heroin was sold as cough medicine that might stop your breathing? If it tells you you might die and you choose to ingest it, that's on you. If you choose to play Russian Roulette, nobody's stopping you.

In case it wasn't sold with a warning that it might stop your breathing, you could have chosen to verify that it did what you expected before ingesting it. The modern FDA could also warn of the dangers without forbidding the sale of the substance.

> Tobacco products are heavily regulated.

They may be regulated but any adult can still choose to partake of however much they like regardless of the damage to their health.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not. The reason we have these publications is that medicine is continually reevaluating its recommendations. Your statement is about as unreasonable as saying 'we don't need computers since sometimes computers stop working'. Also, if you've ever spoken to a doctor about this, few would disagree that nutrition is an area where we still need more research. Finally, ask yourself: in the absence of evidence,…

> The reason we have these publications is that medicine is continually reevaluating its recommendations. The problem with nutrition is that for a very long period of time it wasn't, at all. It was citing ancient half-assed studies and anecdotes, never bothering to reassess or confirm them, and recommendations for low-salt and low-cholesterol are remnants of that time. I have no doubt that since a lot of that stuff h…

> We don't need science if we are just going to rely on easy, intuitive explanations of everything. Anybody can decide that eating fat makes you fat and fills your arteries with fat; you don't need any particular expertise for that.

Science comes in when you want to know how plaque consisting of macrophages containing fats/cholesterol on arterial walls are embedded, and how macrophage uptake of fats/cholesterol is increased/decreased. There's current work in trying to understand the role of TMAO (primarily from animal foods) in increasing macrophage uptake of fats/cholesterol:

http://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology/Abstract/2016/04000/Tr...

The research in this area is promising enough that insurance may derive TMAO-based measures of heart health:

https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/files/Winter2015/Artery...

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that the customer for prescription drugs is a licensed doctor. Who can be bought and misled like anyone else.

Just like federal regulators can be bought and misled like anyone else.

Federal regulators are not in any way the consumer in this line of discussion, so your comment is a non sequitur. Doctors are not expected to regulate the drug industry, federal regulators are. Please read the comment I was responding to.

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't murder survival of the fittest? We as a society have decided that, generally, profiting from causing harm to others incentives bad things. I don't want cough medicine that might stop my breathing, but heroin was regularly sold as just that before the FDA. History has shown that without regulation the quality, efficacy, composition, safety and side-effect profile of drugs might stray from reality because of mark…

> Isn't murder survival of the fittest? Murder is bad for society, as people who can benefit society through say their knowledge of medicine or physics aren't adept at self defence. A similar argument could be made that people who aren't very good at taking care of themselves are valuable to society somehow and should be protected from idiotic self-harm but I believe a person's autonomy trumps society's interest in p…

I actually agree with you. I believe all drugs, including the illegal ones, should be made accessible if I want them. Now, having said that, everyone else has great arguments, and these things can not go unregulated. I'll want officially sanctioned reviews, warnings, I want labels to be truthful, I want legitimate access to accurate and quality information, I need more then known side effects, I need propbability of each one, I need to know the amount and quality of the studies that have shown efficacy and effect, etc.

I think cigarettes is actually a pretty good example of regulation that's not restrictive. I don't want to deregulate to enable business to sell more crap for higher prices with disinformation and attractive pitches. I want deregulation so that I am free to use any drug I would decide to use for myself. Granted, I would need to be guaranteed access to the correct information. Even today, there's not enough regulation around package labels. A lot of products don't mention important facts about them, or are allowed to lie on certain facts.

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

#249
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over-regulation prevents what we call in the software world "rapid iteration". It may take more time for the dust to settle, but eventually the best solutions naturally rise to the top by this method.

The 'dust' in your metaphor are human lives . Most software does not involve life-and-death situations. In cases that do, e.g. the space shuttle, they don't use rapid iteration [1]. [1] https://www.nap.edu/read/2222/chapter/5#48

how many lives were lost due to over-regulation of fats instead of sugar? i stand by my belief that experimentation with 1000 different diets will prove the subset that works over time.

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

#250
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over-regulation prevents what we call in the software world "rapid iteration". It may take more time for the dust to settle, but eventually the best solutions naturally rise to the top by this method.

The 'dust' in your metaphor are human lives . Most software does not involve life-and-death situations. In cases that do, e.g. the space shuttle, they don't use rapid iteration [1]. [1] https://www.nap.edu/read/2222/chapter/5#48

[deleted]
Post reply on HN