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

John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

acsh.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#51

Post by hannob »

User23 wrote: post #26
schizoidboy wrote: post #5

My favorite quote from Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-da...

A competent medicinal chemist can spend a lifetime in drug discovery and never get a candidate molecule out of clinical trials. I learned this from the excellent Derek Lowe, whose blog at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/ is on my daily list. Quote from an interview[1]: "I’ve been doing this for 27 years, and I have never once put a drug into a pharmacy. I tell people: “If you want to know why your prescriptions…

> “If you want to know why your prescriptions cost so much, it’s me.” I’ve done nothing but spend money the entire time."

Sounds nice, the best evidence we have disagrees: https://news.ohsu.edu/2017/09/11/how-much-does-it-cost-to-br...

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#52

Post by hannob »

api wrote: post #18
dekhn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's really crazy is how much money it takes to not make much progress, either. Modern labs are washing cash down the drain.

Is there a shortcut? I'm sure some improvements can be made but I am skeptical of the idea that science is just doing it wrong.

There's not really a shortcut to the fact that science is difficult.

But more quality science and less garbage science would help. Doing 10 studies with a small likelyhood of any of them having a true result is less helpful than 1 high quality study that almost certainly is true.

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#53

Post by jdietrich »

oh_sigh wrote: post #22
beagle3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.

So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?

To a first approximation, nobody actually cares what scientists say. Scientists can publish press releases and hound journalists until they're blue in the face, but they're not getting on the news unless what they're saying fits into a pre-determined media narrative. They're little more than a useful prop, like the flashy "scientific" graphics in moisturizer commercials.

Fox News will wheel out anyone with a PhD who is willing to cast doubt on climate change, Vox will dredge up someone who'll say that NASCAR gives you cancer and we all end up less informed than grade-schoolers.

Scientists are largely powerless to "push back" against anything, because they don't control the institutions that disseminate information.

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#54

Post by peteretep »

eebynight wrote: post #3

About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...

> This is

I like to think the object of this sentence is the Daily Mail[0].

[0] https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#55

Post by firmgently »

oh_sigh wrote: post #49
toasterlovin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.

It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement

"disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field"

It doesn't necessarily follow that people will gamble grant money on the off-chance that you might turn out to be that superstar.

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#57

Post by coldtea »

randomsearch wrote: post #4
eebynight wrote: post #3

About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...

“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…

>The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.”

The previous recommendations (that got retracted) had "convincing" evidence at their time too.

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#58

Post by circlefavshape »

beagle3 wrote: post #13
oh_sigh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.

It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.

I used to be convinced that I knew more about nutrition science than doctors do.

Then I found that my total cholesterol was v high (7.5 mmol/L). I got scared and followed my doctor's dietary advice (less saturated fat, basically), and it dropped significantly (to 5.7, still higher than recommended levels)

That's when I realised that the likelihood that I can come up with some health strategy for myself that is better "following the advice of professionals" is extremely low

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#59

Post by beagle3 »

circlefavshape wrote: post #58
beagle3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.

I used to be convinced that I knew more about nutrition science than doctors do. Then I found that my total cholesterol was v high (7.5 mmol/L). I got scared and followed my doctor's dietary advice (less saturated fat, basically), and it dropped significantly (to 5.7, still higher than recommended levels) That's when I realised that the likelihood that I can come up with some health strategy for myself that is better…

I followed doctors’ advice for my asthma blindly for years (since age 0, practically, without question) and basically felt horrible most of the time - was basically unable to finish a 2km run until age 20.

Then I woke up one day with the feeling that this can’t be right; started experimenting, and within a couple of months got to 5k, and within less than a year to 15k, feeling much better all the time and with every objective measurement improved.

That’s when I realized I should look into things and not just trust “advice of professionals” most of whom follow others quite blindly, and whose incentives are very different than mine (in my case, their incentive that guided me for 20 years is to minimize their legal risk - it was not to improve my health).

I agree it is important to know the bounds of knowledge - both yours and the professionals - and also to realize the incentives.

Also, google “John ioannadis”, an MD, on nutrition science and research in general. His seminal work about not trusting published research is unrefined 13 years later.

Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)

#60

Post by feanaro »

jdminhbg wrote: post #36
dsr_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And have mixed-and-matched enough that claiming any sort of "purity" is idiotic. We're all braided together.

I don't think anyone is claiming "purity" at all. Purity, if anything, would make things simpler.

The operating principle is homogeneity.

Purity is a bit of a misnomer because a "perfectly" homogeneous species with no distinctive heterogeneous groups would have to be called pure, but that's not usually how people use the word. The implication is usually that there are several distinct, homogeneous groups within which there is homogeneity among its members.

Having homogeneity at some level, even if it ends up being in the form of several homogeneous groups, allows one to make useful scientific findings and generalizations. On the other hand, if everything was very heterogeneous, down to each individual, it would be very hard to find a general statement applicable to any appreciable number of individuals.

Post reply on HN