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

181–190 of 269 posts

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

#181

Post by Fnoord »

argonaut wrote: post #171
Dylan16807 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When disproving a need, an anecdote is pretty effective.

Except nobody is claiming all runners need a high carb diet. If anyone actually claimed that it was that most runners would benefit from a high carb diet (I have no idea if anyone actually makes this claim scientifically).

> If we instead go with "almost all would benefit" then the anecdote is pretty good evidence against it.

No, one anecdote is not pretty good [scientific] evidence against anything.

I can give you an anecdote about how I drove through red lights multiple times. That does not mean you should follow the example.

Why not? You have no idea about the circumstances. I was actually talking about driving a bike, I was a teenager, and there was barely (if any) traffic. There's pro and cons there, but what matters is I omitted the details. Hence, YMMV. Plus, the statistical evidence is too small (sample size is one). Good luck reproducing the outcome, too.

Its the same in our runner's example. There's simply hardly any -if any- evidence presented to even make the anecdotal claim. Which still lacks any statistical evidence.

What anecdotal evidence can lead to is scientific research. But we should not conclude on the outcome yet. We must keep an open mind, accept on a method and test circumstances, and gain statistical relevance.

It is absolutely mind blowing, btw, how much 'scientific' research these days is not statistical relevant yet gets passed good grades (and yields the paper) at say college & universities. I'm not sure if its incompetence or laziness or lack of time or lack of money. I've even witnessed this first hand recently when my significant other was completing an assignment for her higher education degree which I was reviewing. Four interviews lead to a conclusion. Which, yes, is anecdotal ;)

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

#182

Post by creepydata »

kbart wrote: post #174
creepydata wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with artificial flavors,they are chemically identical to natural flavors.

There are when they are combined with worthless food. You wouldn't eat hot dogs or other junk food without artificial flavors.

Um... What? I eat plenty of junk food without artificial flavor, especially all the junk food that comes out of my own kitchen. The suggestion was "avoid artificial flavor" (which implies natural flavor is OK) not "avoid added flavor."

You're also implying everything with added flavor is junk food. Flavored Seltzer is the only thing that got my husband off of soda. Sure it's acidic due to the carbonation, but other than that it's pretty harmless especially compared to soda.

Artificial flavors and natural flavors are exactly the same thing, the only difference is how they are synthesised.

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

#183

Post by Dylan16807 »

Fnoord wrote: post #181
argonaut wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nobody is claiming all runners need a high carb diet. If anyone actually claimed that it was that most runners would benefit from a high carb diet (I have no idea if anyone actually makes this claim scientifically).

> If we instead go with "almost all would benefit" then the anecdote is pretty good evidence against it. No, one anecdote is not pretty good [scientific] evidence against anything. I can give you an anecdote about how I drove through red lights multiple times. That does not mean you should follow the example. Why not? You have no idea about the circumstances. I was actually talking about driving a bike, I was a teena…

> I can give you an anecdote about how I drove through red lights multiple times.

As evidence for what? If you're trying to disprove an assertion that everyone running a red light gets hit, it's good evidence.

> You have no idea about the circumstances. I was actually talking about driving a bike

Assume good faith.

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

#184

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

From your link:

    RESULTS: DILI was caused by a single prescription 
    medication in 73% of the cases, by dietary supplements 
    in 9%, and by multiple agents in 18%. More than 100 
    different agents were associated with DILI; 
    antimicrobials (45.5%) and central nervous system 
    agents (15%) were the most common.

    CONCLUSIONS: DILI is caused by a wide array of medications, 
    herbal supplements, and dietary supplements. Antibiotics are 
    the single largest class of agents that cause DILI.
So FDA approved drugs cause 73% of these liver injuries, while unregulated supplements cause 9%. I don't understand how that is an argument for FDA regulation?

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

#185

Post by darpa_escapee »

Veratyr wrote: post #143
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…

> 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 products at the margin of regulation. I know this is an incredibly callous opinion but isn't this natural selection at work? People even go further and knowingly partake of substances known to b…

Isn't murder survival of the fittest?

We as a society have decided that, generally, profiting from causing harm to others incentives bad things.

I don't want cough medicine that might stop my breathing, but heroin was regularly sold as just that before the FDA.

History has shown that without regulation the quality, efficacy, composition, safety and side-effect profile of drugs might stray from reality because of market incentives. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes it is more profitable if those five things are ignored and people get hurt or die. Hence, regulation.

> People even go further and knowingly partake of substances known to be harmful (cigarettes).

Tobacco products are heavily regulated. One could argue that because of lobbying and the amounts of wealth involved, that tobacco companies have been spared some of the stronger regulations they could have faced.

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

#186

Post by jwatte »

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…

The strip mining of the public good that drug companies would do if all sales were allowed boggles the mind.

Such an open policy would only work if all information (including internal information proprietary to the maker) was available to inform buyers, and while I think a fully informed market w would be great, I don't see any real chance of that happening.

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

#187

Post by erikb »

empath75 wrote: post #3

There is so much that 'everybody knows' about nutrition that is pure bullshit peddled by farmers, agribusiness and processed food companies. Just one example-- that fat causes heart disease. Pure nonsense pushed by the soda and sugar industry. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co... Just eat a balanced diet, don't overeat, and don't eat too much processed food and red meat, and you'll probably…

Yes, all that info may be b.s. but at the same time the same could be true about the articles who say it's b.s. Why believe one more than the other?

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

#188

Post by erikb »

rcavezza wrote: post #12

Here is my paraphrased takeaway: Cholesterol you see in your blood results is still bad. Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad. Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good. I don't think this changes any of my mental models. The foods that I always thought of as "probably not great" are still classified as such, according to this article.

> Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good.

You mean "might not be bad". There's a whole lot of gray area between "bad" and "good".

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

woofyman wrote: post #82
BurningFrog wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or have competition in the form of foreign FDA counterparts. If the European/Japanese/Other Reputable Country authorities have approved a drug, it could be allowed it in the US, with a clear label, of course. Foreign physiology and science is the same as American.

Thalidomide is the poster child for dangerous drugs approved elsewhere but not by the FDA. Experts estimate that the drug thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

Fnoord wrote: post #178
ageofwant wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.

You're forgetting all the biases (& fallacies) which may or may not have affected the experience or the memory leading to the anecdote. These biases (& fallacies) are detectable or the lack of them is verifiable, with the scientific method. I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers. I'm also will admit I, too, us…

I feel like waving my hands around in the air while running around screaming.

The bullshit that's been pushed on us for decades about cholesterol isn't science.

And to add to that, I've never heard any anecdotal evidence that goes "I went on a low cholesterol diet and my symptoms improved".

The scientific method is valuable. Science as it is practiced...? Let's just say it's reputation has been tarnished.

Post reply on HN