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

121–130 of 136 posts

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

#121

Post by Akronymus »

tersers wrote: post #7

The concept of sticking to one particular form of eating has always bothered me. It's always felt like an attempt to find a panacea that doesn't require much analysis by the person of what they input to their bodies. Realistic eating is a lifelong responsibility of paying attention to what you're eating and the effects it has on your body. Perhaps what we need is a faster feedback loop of what the current state of yo…

I am trying to shed quite a lot of weight. The only guideline I strictly follow is trying to keep my caloric intake slightly under my usage. (Altough, I am additionally aiming towards cutting out as much added sugar as possible and instead consuming more fiber and protein)

A specific diet would just lead to me giving up and rebounding.

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

#122

Post by 1_player »

ncmncm wrote: post #119

We were told for decades that saturated fat was really bad for us. Now it turns out (as some pointed out even back when it started) that saturated fat is absolutely fine . All the people dropping dead from heart disease were being poisoned by trans fats, which were being added to everything (as e.g. Crisco, and margerine). There is something wrong in (American) beef, but it's not the saturated fat. We lost decades, b…

Recent studies point to fructose and vegetable oils being toxic for the human body, at least in the proportions used in mainstream dietary advice.

Big supermarket brands in UK are still selling low fat variants of food, more often than not packed with sugar for taste.

Because of course, fat in the arteries comes from dietary fat, isn't it obvious?

Let's not even start with the red meat propaganda.

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

#123

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

ooyy wrote: post #71
yboris wrote: post #33

Nutrition Science is broken because of the financial incentives of companies to fund sham research to get their products sold. I strongly recommend going to https://nutritionfacts.org/ for your information -- a nonprofit that never sells anything or promotes any products, just tries to distill research on nutrition in easy-to-understand videos and posts. Here's an example: "How the Egg Board Designs Misleading Studie…

Nutritionfacts is ideologically driven operation. They only present one side of the argument. Plant based diet first, facts second. Being a nonprofit doesn't make you immune from bias. It's not just money perverting the field, but also ideology. The whole field of nutrition is divided into camps, when they conduct meta-analyses of all the literature, they pick inclusion/exclusion criteria so that the side that they a…

Your comment is valuable, but at least Nutrionfacts seems to present one side of the argument factually.

There are operations like 'Brand Power'[1] which masquerades like consumer fact checking service but in fact they just 3rd party advertisers for brands.

When I first saw their Ads in India, I thought it's disingenuous and then I learnt that they do the same even in developed countries.

https://www.brandpower.com/us/en/

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

#124

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

danaris wrote: post #102
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very simple. If you suffer from high blood pressure (above 140/90mm Hg) and your sodium intake is considerable, your blood pressure rises even more. You can easily set up a study with a control group and test it repeatedly, the results will be the same. However, the mitigating factor is potassium. If you consume an adequate amount of foods rich in potassium, the negative effect of sodium on your blood pressure…

> If you suffer from high blood pressure (above 140/90mm Hg) and your sodium intake is considerable, your blood pressure rises even more. You can easily set up a study with a control group and test it repeatedly, the results will be the same. How do you square this with jonasmerlin's sibling post of a Scientific American article, pointing out that the foundations of this belief do not stand on rigorous science?

That article focuses not on the mechanics of action (increase of sodium intake -> higher blood pressure), and doesn't question the fact that reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure somewhat (albeit not by a significant amount), but that at a global level reducing salt intake in populations does not reduce overall mortality from heart-related conditions.

There might be many confounding factors at play. As the authors say, every study about negative effects of salt can be offset by an opposing one, so it is definitely something to be studied in more depth.

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

#125

Post by sithadmin »

unmole wrote: post #112
sithadmin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t even have to have high blood pressure for above ‘normal’ (~2000mg/day) salt intake to create the effect. It’s observable in people with normal blood pressure as well, and pronounced in a subset of the population with a gene that appears to worsen the effect. The potassium factor is why many doctors often recommend sea/himalayan salt — these salts usually have a bunch of other minerals, including potassium.…

> doctors often recommend sea/himalayan salt Himalayan salt is 99% sodium chloride and doesn't contain significant potassium to make a difference. Someone recommending it as a healthier alternative should not be taken seriously.

The sodium content can be that high, but it's certainly not universal. The brand I use is only around 40%.

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

#126

Post by kobayashi »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #123
ooyy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutritionfacts is ideologically driven operation. They only present one side of the argument. Plant based diet first, facts second. Being a nonprofit doesn't make you immune from bias. It's not just money perverting the field, but also ideology. The whole field of nutrition is divided into camps, when they conduct meta-analyses of all the literature, they pick inclusion/exclusion criteria so that the side that they a…

Your comment is valuable, but at least Nutrionfacts seems to present one side of the argument factually. There are operations like 'Brand Power'[1] which masquerades like consumer fact checking service but in fact they just 3rd party advertisers for brands. When I first saw their Ads in India, I thought it's disingenuous and then I learnt that they do the same even in developed countries. https://www.brandpower.com/u…

While you accurately describe Brand Power, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand —- the biases surrounding nutritional research.

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

#127

Post by unmole »

sithadmin wrote: post #125
unmole wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doctors often recommend sea/himalayan salt Himalayan salt is 99% sodium chloride and doesn't contain significant potassium to make a difference. Someone recommending it as a healthier alternative should not be taken seriously.

The sodium content can be that high, but it's certainly not universal. The brand I use is only around 40%.

You can buy low sodium salt. The Himalayan part has nothing to do with it.

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

#128

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

kobayashi wrote: post #126
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is valuable, but at least Nutrionfacts seems to present one side of the argument factually. There are operations like 'Brand Power'[1] which masquerades like consumer fact checking service but in fact they just 3rd party advertisers for brands. When I first saw their Ads in India, I thought it's disingenuous and then I learnt that they do the same even in developed countries. https://www.brandpower.com/u…

While you accurately describe Brand Power, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand —- the biases surrounding nutritional research.

You're correct, I shared Brand Power because of their representation of what they claim as 'Nutritional Facts'[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-ABnVPZk&t=13s (Tamil)

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

#129

Post by Inate_Hikkers »

bserge wrote: post #84
stronglikedan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another anecdote: My grandma lived to 98, and only couldn't get around so well and lost mental sharpness around 96. She grew up on "southern" cooking, complete with lard at almost every meal. She refused to eat anything green. Most of her diet in her later years, when she just didn't feel like cooking any more, was KFC chicken, Papa John's wings, and Domino's pizza, and always a sugary dessert. Her joke was the greas…

Some people are obsessed with diets and risk factors that amount to pretty much nothing over the course of one's life. There's heavy alcoholics and smokers living to 90, then there's the poor sods doing everything "right" and dying of cancer at 50. Nutrition is just a very small, imo insignificant, part of it - assuming you're not starving or eating the exact same thing every day for years.

It's probably more genetic; I know a family that lived to about the same age (late 80s, early 90s) but they suffer from dementia at around the 70s. (I'm the guy from reddit, I noticed your account got suspended and reverse searched your username)

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

#130

Post by bserge »

Inate_Hikkers wrote: post #129
bserge wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are obsessed with diets and risk factors that amount to pretty much nothing over the course of one's life. There's heavy alcoholics and smokers living to 90, then there's the poor sods doing everything "right" and dying of cancer at 50. Nutrition is just a very small, imo insignificant, part of it - assuming you're not starving or eating the exact same thing every day for years.

It's probably more genetic; I know a family that lived to about the same age (late 80s, early 90s) but they suffer from dementia at around the 70s. (I'm the guy from reddit, I noticed your account got suspended and reverse searched your username)

You'd have to be more specific, but yeah, amazing, isn't it. God forbid you share something real, we don't do that now. All about that money and happy people probably pay more. Very good, greed is a big part of any downfall.

Not like I was complaining much, I had my own subreddit with exactly one post lol.

It's fine though, such a society is bound to go to shit soon enough. If I live, I will buy drugs illegally, I will forge papers, I will import and sell drugs and more, and then I will do whatever I can to help bring this motherfucker down.

Come on, ban me here, too. I'm fucking done with this circus.

Post reply on HN