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

The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

undark.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#21

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

spidersouris wrote: post #3

Eggs could easily be replaced with salt. Consuming too much salt (more than 2g a day) is heavily discouraged by some because it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases as well as increase blood pressure to a dangerous level, but others repudiate these claims and assert they are untrue, and that salt has positive health benefits above this limit. Even if we take a group of people, put them in a closed…

> it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases

How? Salt is a convenient bogeyman, but nobody can demonstrate what it role it plays as an agent of disease. Every cell in your body regulates isotonic balance and excess sodium is rapidly excreted. Complex lifeforms wouldn't exist without this fundamental ability.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#22

Post by rich_sasha »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #9

“the study tracked participants’ health outcomes over periods ranging from 13 to more than 30 years, and participants were queried about their diet only once, at the beginning of the study. Can we assume that the participants gave a reliable depiction of their diet at the outset, and then that they maintained that same diet for the years — in many cases, decades — that followed?” That seems like an awful way to desig…

I was going to say something defensive about the science, like it’s really difficult to do a double-blind large randomised diet study over decades, but then I read this bit. It is beyond bad science. If someone makes an error in statistics, well, happens, we can’t all be experts. But this is almost taking the mick.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#23

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Ensorceled wrote: post #19
nedludd wrote: post #8

"Dr. Mehmet Oz even touted it on his television show." Yeah, no.

I remember him initially being sort of balanced and reasonable then he started pushing supplements etc. Then a few years later, he started showing up in infomercials pushing all sorts of crap. I liked his cookbook, I presume it was ghost written.

His usual shtick is to have a guest on who promotes quack notions and he just sits there pitching softball questions without challenging the BS coming from their mouth. That gives him cover when Congress calls him in to testify about misleading the public.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#24

Post by [deleted] »

jtdev wrote: post #20
spicymaki wrote: post #6

Industrial egg production is bad for the chickens, especially male chicks. I consume egg alternatives such as Just Egg and use alternatives (e.g. tapioca starch) for baking and no one notices.

You can find locally raised free range eggs in almost any city/town in the Americas... Egg alternatives are nutritionally inferior to real eggs.

[deleted]

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#25

Post by Mikeb85 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #21
spidersouris wrote: post #3

Eggs could easily be replaced with salt. Consuming too much salt (more than 2g a day) is heavily discouraged by some because it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases as well as increase blood pressure to a dangerous level, but others repudiate these claims and assert they are untrue, and that salt has positive health benefits above this limit. Even if we take a group of people, put them in a closed…

> it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases How? Salt is a convenient bogeyman, but nobody can demonstrate what it role it plays as an agent of disease. Every cell in your body regulates isotonic balance and excess sodium is rapidly excreted. Complex lifeforms wouldn't exist without this fundamental ability.

It was demonized because of the vast quantities contained in many processed foods but you're right and to add to that you'll die much quicker from a lack of salt than from excess salt.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#26

Post by nradov »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #17
nedludd wrote: post #8

"Dr. Mehmet Oz even touted it on his television show." Yeah, no.

There is also this "Other nutrition research critics, such as John Ioannidis of Stanford University" There is a good appeal to authority for you.

John Ioannidis is a critic of bad clinical research in general, not just nutrition. This is his most widely cited paper on the topic.

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#27

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Honestly I expect diet doesn’t matter that much unless you are trying to lose weight, except that eating lots of sugar is probably not good for you. Exercise is probably more important for long term health than what particular kinds of animals or plants you eat.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#28

Post by dalbasal »

So... I think I have 3 points.

First is worst. Looking back over a few generations, standard nutritional advice informing doctors, institutions and the public have been poor. Not only inaccurate, but de facto pushing people down bad paths. Low fat & low cholesterol labels led to foods, with processed foods with high sugar & many additives. Cereal instead of a boiled egg.

Second is that many norms, like the food pyramid hanging in classrooms during the 80s & 90s were based on long forgotten, often arbitrary decisions. Self correction was fatally weak. Challenging norms had a higher burden for proof than the norm had faced. Proof is really hard, it turns out.

Third is that "what's a healthy diet?" was never answered better by science than book gurus or old cultural understandings of nutrition. That is, a practicable, science based understanding of nutrition wasn't achieved. Lots of things about nutrition have been learned but it doesn't really add up to a Big Theory.

I think the real issue here is "what to do when we bust." Science doesn't predictably produce answers to questions we think it should answer. We discover what we discover. But, what do you do when hospitals, health ministries and such need scientific guidelines? IDK is not an acceptable answer. I do know is not a scientific one. "Lets not do science " doesn't (didn't?) work either. The only choice left is between a lie and a delusion. Postmodernism is inevitable.

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#29

Post by JoeAltmaier »

I eat astonishing numbers of eggs, and salt nearly everything heavily. My N=1 study shows its all good for you, letting you stay active for life with low cholesterol and no health issues.

It reminds me of the 100+ year old lady asked "What do you attribute your advanced age?" and she replied "Whisky and a cigar every day!" I wonder if she was in this study?

Re: The humble egg is an example of what’s wrong with nutrition studies (2019)

#30

Post by colordrops »

dalbasal wrote: post #28

So... I think I have 3 points. First is worst. Looking back over a few generations, standard nutritional advice informing doctors, institutions and the public have been poor. Not only inaccurate, but de facto pushing people down bad paths. Low fat & low cholesterol labels led to foods, with processed foods with high sugar & many additives. Cereal instead of a boiled egg. Second is that many norms, like the food pyram…

You are leaving out one of the biggest reasons "science" has failed us - big food industry has been heavily influencing politics, public opinion through PR campaigns, and even science by funding their own studies.
Post reply on HN