Live data from Hacker News

Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

jamanetwork.com

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The healthiest populations in the world consume virtually no dairy. Okinawans, vegans, 7-day adventists etc. The Mediterrean diet is largely vegetarian: http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-02-16/10-commandments... 75% of the world's population loses their ability to digest lactose after infancy: http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-in... Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies.

Vegetarian ≠ Vegan. Lots of dairy in the standard Vegetarian diet. The link you provided to the Mediterranean diet included lots of dairy (cheese, yogurt, etc.). Also, a lifetime of personal experience says that Seventh-day Adventists eat quite a lot of dairy.

I'm vegan so I know the difference. The Adventists are often cited in nutrition studies and the vegan subgroup of Adventists is the healthiest.

Quoting directly from the link I provided:

If you think the Mediterranean diet looks a little low on dairy foods, you're right. It's certainly lower in dairy than is currently advised in the National Dietary Guidelines

...But traditional Greek Mediterranean populations got calcium from other sources: sardines and other small fish which were eaten with their bones, and from leafy greens (which contain only a little calcium but the large volume of the greens eaten meant the amount added up).

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#152
post #48

I'm always amused/horrified by Hacker News comments on anything health-related. Herein lie a group of incredibly smart individuals sharing anecdotal evidence and folk remedies without a lick of irony.

Imagine that you could aggregate all the anecdotes shared on the internet. It would be fascinating to compare the statistical conclusions you could draw against accepted science.

It would be damn near impossible to conclude anything from such research without a control. “Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial” is the critical sentence - at best you’d get a correlation which probably has been influenced by the availability of research. Finding truth is freaking hard.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Changing my diet helped clean up my acne (not eating junk food) This. Actually, for me, it wasn't really the diet in general, but making a switch to drinking water instead of pretty much any other drink (*especially soft drinks!). I went on a hike for a couple of weeks as a teenager, and I think that not having access to anything but water to drink was enough to change my habits.

For me chocolate causes acne (usually on my back). It happens to my father too. When I eliminate that one item from my diet I am fine. Every few years I eat chocolate in hopes that my body's reaction will change. But 30 years later it still causes a reaction. My high school health teacher insisted that chocolate does not cause acne, according to the research. Her definitive statement made me ignore what my father had…

It happens quite often, I donno why there is no supportive research on it.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#154
As per my personal anecdotal evidence: diet is always key to Acne. I have been suffering from Acne vulgaris, Acne conglobata, and—worst of all—Acne inversa for all my life (26yo), and whenever I fell into bad eating habits with lots of (saturated) fats and carbohydrates, my skin issues are worsening. Western food is just poor quality in general, being heavily processed and “enhanced” and all.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#156
post #48

I'm always amused/horrified by Hacker News comments on anything health-related. Herein lie a group of incredibly smart individuals sharing anecdotal evidence and folk remedies without a lick of irony.

Yeah, me too. It's more than just the comments in this case though.

> Here's a 15yo uncontrolled epidemiological study of acne, that blames everything on diet, go forth and treat your own skin conditions!

The paper is more restrained than that, but that's not how people interpret it. Problem solved. Eat like a Bantu.

Science would use this as bearing for a hypothesis to do an single-factor studies.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#157
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the link to the discussion in your comment. Would taking 10x the RDA of Vitamin D daily have any side effects? (overdose?)

Max "official" safe daily limit is 4000 IU currently, but the only studies I'm aware of where actual toxicity was reported started at something like 40,000 IU daily for months. Vitamin D is likely pretty safe.

I just wonder how does official data of this kind emerge if not based on any studies.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#158
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the link to the discussion in your comment. Would taking 10x the RDA of Vitamin D daily have any side effects? (overdose?)

Max "official" safe daily limit is 4000 IU currently, but the only studies I'm aware of where actual toxicity was reported started at something like 40,000 IU daily for months. Vitamin D is likely pretty safe.

No, the estimated RDA based on EPIC series of studies is 3000 IU daily and it's suspected to be on the lower side due to old people being bit overrepresented. This based on all cause mortality, various European subjects. Intake estimated by direct multiple blood levels.

Vitamin D intake vs mortality followed a very shallow U curve (almost J) and minimum was between 2000 and 4000 IU.

Re: Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization (2002)

#159
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Max "official" safe daily limit is 4000 IU currently, but the only studies I'm aware of where actual toxicity was reported started at something like 40,000 IU daily for months. Vitamin D is likely pretty safe.

No, the estimated RDA based on EPIC series of studies is 3000 IU daily and it's suspected to be on the lower side due to old people being bit overrepresented. This based on all cause mortality, various European subjects. Intake estimated by direct multiple blood levels. Vitamin D intake vs mortality followed a very shallow U curve (almost J) and minimum was between 2000 and 4000 IU.

So the RDAs are about just decreasing mortality rather than improving life/health, right?
Post reply on HN