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

121–130 of 269 posts

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

#121

Post by baddox »

mkautzm wrote: post #65
WillPostForFood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yup, the science is "agreed on." Disagree and lose your job/funding. That's how to build climate consensus.

That's not at all true, and that level of ignorance is actually quite dangerous. Scientists in no field are punished for disagreement. Even in really fringe science, disagreement is not only well-funded, but encouraged. A great example is String Theory: It has a lot of supporters and a lot of people saying it's untestable bunk, but research for both sides continues.. Consensuses happen when there is sufficient data t…

String theory doesn't, as far as I know, have significant government policy implications, so I wouldn't expect heterodoxy to be stigmatized as much as in climate science.

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

#122

Post by mastazi »

pdq wrote: post #36
mkautzm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbohydrates are not a bad thing and are indeed an important part of health. The current suggested diet doesn't say, 'bread'. It specifically calls out Whole Grains, which a great deal of evidence suggests are a Good Thing. Suggesting that grains, or even carbs, are somehow worse than literal fat is misleading at best, and delusional at it's worst.

I'm referring to the original 1992 food pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#/medi... > Fats, oils, sweets: sparingly > Bread, cereal, rice & pasta: 6-11 servings Yes I am in the camp that believe fats and proteins are both much healthier than carbs, and especially refined sugars. The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets.

> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets

Our planet would like to differ though http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211...

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

#123

Post by lend000 »

badsock wrote: post #54
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

Just as an example: 9% of the cases of Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury is self-harm caused by people taking non-regulated dietary supplements: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18955056 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…

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 get sick by their own incompetence (which of course goes down significantly when people realize that they shouldn't blindly trust everything in our markets -- that blind, oft-misguided trust is another side effect of the FDA/USDA) will be DWARFED by the percentage of people saved by life saving drugs that make it to market faster/would otherwise be blocked. Do you know how many people the FDA has sentenced to die directly by rejecting appeals from terminally ill patients to get access to experimental drugs/procedures? Not to mention the indirect damage of delaying medicinal progress...

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

#124

Post by kuschku »

blhack wrote: post #109
kuschku wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets. That statement is not supported by any reliable studies. The latest nutrition supports a healthy mix of carbs and fats, specifically whole grain and unsaturated fats. Not a monodiet of fat, nor a monodiet of carbs, nor processed carbs, nor saturated fats. Focusing too much on a fat-based diet causes massive kidney issues, just…

Source on the kidney thing? I haven't read that (except for that a LCHF diet can trigger issues on people who have an existing kidney disease)

In previous HN threads on the topic, someone posted sources on this. So, take it as hearsay.

But someone else in this thread posted sources on the claim, so you might want to read those sources.

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

#125

Post by mastazi »

PKop wrote: post #63
mkautzm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbohydrates are not a bad thing and are indeed an important part of health. The current suggested diet doesn't say, 'bread'. It specifically calls out Whole Grains, which a great deal of evidence suggests are a Good Thing. Suggesting that grains, or even carbs, are somehow worse than literal fat is misleading at best, and delusional at it's worst.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. Typical carb intake in avg diet that doesn't remove grains and starches is literally worse for you than pure eating pure fat. Read about keto diet, read / watch presentations by Gary Taubes (his book "Why We Get Fat" is great). Your understanding of nutrition is about 20 years out of date.

The Keto diet doesn't seem the most environmentally friendly choice http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211...

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

#127

Post by ageofwant »

badsock wrote: post #54
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

Just as an example: 9% of the cases of Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury is self-harm caused by people taking non-regulated dietary supplements: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18955056 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…

These kind of context-less banding about of figures always serve the point the bander is trying to make, and rarely the truth. It leaves out the fact, for example, that regulated medicine is responsible for the rest. If we exclude approved regulated alcohol, the liver damage caused by unregulated 'medicine' is almost noise.

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

#128

Post by djsumdog »

petilon wrote: post #97

This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administrati…

I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus.

The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants!

Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs and HDLs, which are not actually cholesterol, but proteins that carry it through your bloodstream). If you eat a lot of sugar, cholesterol can build up between the walls of arteries as they fix the damage. They can eventually break down the wall, releasing plaque into the bloodstream and potentially causing heart complications.

I highly recommend Dr. Lustig's video (UCTV) to learn more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A few years back I switched to a keto normal fat/very low carb (excluding fiber) diet. I've lost weight, gained energy and have felt a lot better. Of course this isn't for everyone. Some people have a body type that lends itself to higher carb intake (I knew a runner who'd eat 30 bananas a week) and as always do your research, consult with your doctor, dietitian, etc. before drastic changes in your diet.

It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet. He didn't, and Reuters rededicated their column implying that he did. I honestly wonder if the obesity epidemic would have gone down today if the world didn't dismiss his ideas, or the ideas of many nutritionist for decades before him that made similar claims about the dangers of sugar.

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

#129

Post by ageofwant »

oh_sigh wrote: post #113
badsock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an example: 9% of the cases of Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury is self-harm caused by people taking non-regulated dietary supplements: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18955056 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…

What dietary supplements can cause liver injury?

Vitamin A, typically. Or more generally fat-soluble vitamins. The label usually warns you.

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

#130

Post by asdfasdfa11112 »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #87
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…

Yes! We could replace those flawed and lobbied against restrictions with advice. The market would be free once again to innovate. Bayer could once again offer Heroin as an addiction free drug. We could get long missed radium cures and snake oil. They could be free to advertise to their heart's content. They can tell us cigarettes are good for us. The companies can be trusted to have our health at heart. They can spen…

It was under basically the same regulatory regime that Purdue Pharma marketed Oxycontin 12-hour extended release as a drug unlikely to cause abuse.

It wasn't that long ago that Phen-Phen (sp?) was legally marketed and sold.

We currently allow prescription of extraordinarily strong methamphetamine to children, who often spend their formative years under the influence.

---

We still have a long ways to go.

Post reply on HN