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

251–260 of 269 posts

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

#251

Post by azinman2 »

pessimizer wrote: post #233
teddyh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s possible to do this. You may be surprised to hear that the USA is one of only two countries on the entire planet which it’s even legal to advertise drugs. All others outlaw it completely.

Before 1997 it was impractical to advertise them, though. You couldn't mention both the name of the drug and what it was for in an ad without including the entire warning label text. The deregulation was another Clinton thing, and its main beneficiary was the SSRIs.

I believe that's still the case -- which is why we get all those commercials with happy people having family moments while a voice in the background quickly announces "if you have experience any of the following symptoms head to the ER immediately."

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

#252

Post by tomp »

pessimizer wrote: post #235
delecti wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morality isn't "solved" either, but we still outlaw murder. We can't not try to protect ourselves.

Murder is long solved. We've conclusively determined, with no exceptions, that it is unhealthy for the victim.

Clearly there are exceptions (military, capital punishment, police with guns, etc).

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

#253

Post by speeder »

evidence_first wrote: post #220
brianwawok wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about equal to doctors telling me to eat low sat fat and low cholesterol in 2016. The difference is doctors went to school for this and still are wrong.

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,…

It is not that simple.

I for example have Thyrodid disease, and every single doctor I went, including "free" ones (paid with public money) and the most expensive ones (I tried paying a famous expensive guy that help celebrities), all of them failed on me a lot, to the point I am mostly self-treating, I go to the medic only as a "ritual" of sorts, but I read my own blood tests, and decide my own medication.

I tried with many of them, presenting research I found about it, and they all said it was bullshit, that researchers know nothing about medicine, that only experience matters, and so on...

Some told me that the wrong blood test numbers they use, are correct because the laboratory says so, and they just do what the lab says.

After hearing this multiple times, I decided to take my blood test papers, and read them carefully, and found they do quote their source for the numbers! It is there, written where the numbers came from.

Yet, when I went to read the source... the research paper I was trying to show the medics were there! So, the medics claim to follow the guidelines and the lab values, that in turn cite a bunch of research, yet the medics insist in using outdated values, and claiming the research is bullshit.

To be honest, I don't even understand what is going on, I met so many medics like that, that now I mostly refuse to go to medics and fix my health in the way I can, I now assume that medics are literally evil, since they intentionally lie to me, or are intentionally negligent and ignore the guidelines they claim to follow.

The few medics I trust, sometimes I go to them even when what I need from them is completely unrelated to their field (one medic that greatly helped me with my thyroid, was specialized in eye diseases, another one that helped me with vitamin D deficit, was an medic specialized in arthritis, and I don't even have arthrists, I went to that medic out of desperation after hearing good things about her...)

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

#254

Post by tomp »

credit_guy wrote: post #78
andy_ppp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." - Michael Pollan

Right. And what do you do if you are hungry after you eat "not too much" ?

Stay hungry. Hungry (calorie restricted) mice live longer, probably monkeys as well, maybe even humans.

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

#255

Post by mtw »

yellowgatorade wrote: post #239
mtw wrote: post #219

For those who are curious, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines is available here https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-202... (PDF) Unfortunately it does not highlight the danger of sugar & processed food. Someone can follows these dietary guidelines and still be able to have a high intake of sugar, HCFS, processed food and all sorts of food chemicals (emulsifiers etc.), all prevalent in the american…

Are there any studies showing that "processed food" is, on its own, dangerous? Or is the inherent danger largely due to the HFCS, sugar, and other items that are usually added in the process?

A few studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26514947 http://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2016/11/25/thoraxjnl-201... http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2016/11/05/0... http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/4/8/895.short https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151

I am sure there is a meta-analysis somewhere but this would take a bit of time to find

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

#256

Post by dade_ »

creepydata wrote: post #85
dade_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with artificial flavours. The question was about what is processed food which almost always has artificial flavour and colour. Just a correlation, nothing for you to get upset about.

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

#257

Post by dade_ »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #165
dade_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I can understand the reasons not to remove fiber. But I'm pretty sure my body doesn't care what color something is.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with artificial colour. The question was about what is processed food which almost always has artificial flavour and colour. Just a correlation.

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

#258

Post by mjlangiii »

brianwawok wrote: post #217
tekromancr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thread is fucking scary.

It's about equal to doctors telling me to eat low sat fat and low cholesterol in 2016. The difference is doctors went to school for this and still are wrong.

doctors do NOT go to school for nutrition. I assumed they knew about it, but turns out they don't. Most med schools don't teach any classes about nutrition or at most 1 or 2.

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

#259

Post by calvano915 »

mtw wrote: post #219

For those who are curious, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines is available here https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-202... (PDF) Unfortunately it does not highlight the danger of sugar & processed food. Someone can follows these dietary guidelines and still be able to have a high intake of sugar, HCFS, processed food and all sorts of food chemicals (emulsifiers etc.), all prevalent in the american…

"Unfortunately it does not highlight the danger of sugar"

From the guidelines: When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10 percent of calories, a healthy eating pattern may be difficult to achieve.

Third year nutrition undergrad. Was told that this recommendation will likely be reduced further as more future research justifies doing so.

For most people that follow the recommendations, their diet may not be optimal but it will be markedly improved from average, at least in regards to preventing chronic diseases that are among the top causes of death (CVD, diabetes, etc) and improving overall wellness/health.

I disagree that the recommendations do not sway people toward healthier/less processed foods. See Table 1-1.

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

#260

Post by Dylan16807 »

dade_ wrote: post #257
Dylan16807 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the reasons not to remove fiber. But I'm pretty sure my body doesn't care what color something is.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with artificial colour. The question was about what is processed food which almost always has artificial flavour and colour. Just a correlation.

Unless it's a food specifically trying to promote a "natural" image, I don't think there's enough of a correlation between artificial color and level of processing to be useful.
Post reply on HN