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

'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#31

Post by stinkbeetle »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #26
stinkbeetle wrote: post #16

It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been even more staggering.

Huh? 1) No vaccine is 100% effective. 2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The same thing would happen in the absence of vaccines, but it would take longer.) The idea that it could actually be stamped out was very wishful thinking. But the vaccine does have a big benefit in reducing death.

Yeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#32

Post by stinkbeetle »

tonyarkles wrote: post #24
stinkbeetle wrote: post #16

It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been even more staggering.

> COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus People aren't good at subtlety and nuance, and it's quite necessary: - Did the COVID vaccine prevent transmission of the virus? No, clearly not, because I was double vaccinated and still caught the virus and inadvertently spread the virus. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the probability of transmission of the virus? Probably. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the severi…

I was not talking about "subtle and nuanced" claims though, just the one I mentioned.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#33

Post by aaron695 »

dekhn wrote: post #2

No health claim is ever proven. Even with overwhelming evidence for a claim we can't really say it's proven. At best we can say we have very high confidence, supported by a lot of data. Further, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Should we read the NY Times or Nature and just accept that what gets published there is the absolute truth? As we know, many paradigms have been overturned over the years- sometimes re…

[dead]

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#34

Post by sunnybeetroot »

foobarchu wrote: post #17
dekhn wrote: post #2

No health claim is ever proven. Even with overwhelming evidence for a claim we can't really say it's proven. At best we can say we have very high confidence, supported by a lot of data. Further, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Should we read the NY Times or Nature and just accept that what gets published there is the absolute truth? As we know, many paradigms have been overturned over the years- sometimes re…

As a complete non-expert, as far as I can tell, the only true agreement out there is that certain very specific substances are bad for you if you consume them too often. That's tobacco, alcohol, painkillers...and that's about it for consensus ones, with alcohol having wiggle room among the public thanks to some poor studies. Just about every other piece of nutrition advice out there can easily be categorized as contr…

Alcohol is bad for you regardless of the frequency, not “if you consume them too often”. It’s literally a neurotoxin and metabolic toxin aka poison.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#35

Post by Tepix »

tonyarkles wrote: post #22
foobarchu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a complete non-expert, as far as I can tell, the only true agreement out there is that certain very specific substances are bad for you if you consume them too often. That's tobacco, alcohol, painkillers...and that's about it for consensus ones, with alcohol having wiggle room among the public thanks to some poor studies. Just about every other piece of nutrition advice out there can easily be categorized as contr…

> that certain very specific substances are bad for (for the general population) if you consume them too often There are people who smoke their entire lives, die at 90, and tobacco had nothing to do with their individual deaths or even really any tangible negative health outcomes. There are people who drink or smoke pot every day and it has nothing to do with their deaths or quality of life. There are people who have…

Poison moves this probability towards 100%.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#36

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

The very first example that this study says is "false or unproven" uses ambiguous language at best:

> Animal protein is healthier than plant-based protein.

All commonly consumed sources of animal protein (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, etc.) are complete proteins, meaning they provide all essential amino acids. This is not true for all sources of plant-based protein. In addition, "protein" as is often used to indicate a part of a meal (I mean not just the technical definition of a chain of amino acids). Vegans are nearly always advised to supplement with B12 because good plant protein sources like legumes are poor sources of B12.

I understand what the study is getting at with the question, for as far as I am aware there are no studies that show that getting, say, 10 grams of complete protein from animals is any different from getting 10 grams of complete protein from plants. Still, given this question is easily ambiguous for valid definitions of "healthier", I find this study suspect, despite having no problem with the general idea that tons of people believe absolute batshit insane ideas about health and nutrition.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#37

Post by aziaziazi »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #36

The very first example that this study says is "false or unproven" uses ambiguous language at best: > Animal protein is healthier than plant-based protein. All commonly consumed sources of animal protein (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, etc.) are complete proteins, meaning they provide all essential amino acids. This is not true for all sources of plant-based protein. In addition, "protein" as is often used to indi…

> complete proteins

If I may nitpick:

- Human amino acid requirements vary with age, physical condition, and physiological state. PDCAAS and DIAAS use a young child as reference pattern.

- Amino acid proportion also varies across animal foods: eggs closely match the child pattern, while beef is slightly lower in tryptophan.[0]

- Some plant proteins are considered complete above scoring systems: soy, quinoa, buckwheat, amaranth, hemp, chia, and potato protein, though potatoes themselves are low in protein/carb.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331560091/figure/fi...

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#38

Post by aziaziazi »

nradov wrote: post #11
ike2792 wrote: post #4

They really picked a strange set of claims to ask people about. - For the protein one, it's too general of a question. Some plant proteins aren't complete proteins while others are, and animal proteins can range from super-healthy oily fish to less-healthy bacon. - The next three are more standard "almost certainly false" claims that would make sense to ask in a survey like this. - The acetaminophen/autism thing was…

We can't even necessarily claim that oily fish is "super-healthy". People shouldn't rely on it as their only source of protein due to the risk of heavy metal toxicity, especially for larger fish. A few servings per week are probably fine depending on the exact fish species. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal... Some plant proteins are "complete" in the sense of including all essential amino…

> plant proteins are "complete" [...] but the ratios are wrong

While I understand the idea, it lacks to point out the right ratio of others plants. A better generalization would be:

   Most plants include all AA acids. Some are "complete" as they include all AA while others are leaves at least one AA as a limiting factor.
See my sibling comment for a short list of "complete" plants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48018888

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#39

Post by dzhiurgis »

For me wildest one is vegan diet, i.e. Bryan Johnson stays away from animal products, while levelsio mostly eats meat. Both track their biomarkers and seem to be extremely fit.

Personally I have to fight my entire country (and most of Eastern Europe fwiw) that cold weather, drafts, air conditioning, wet hair and cold feet does not cause common cold or flu. Yes there is rhinorrhea, but that's just reaction to change in air's humidity.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#40

Post by GJim »

sunnybeetroot wrote: post #34
foobarchu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a complete non-expert, as far as I can tell, the only true agreement out there is that certain very specific substances are bad for you if you consume them too often. That's tobacco, alcohol, painkillers...and that's about it for consensus ones, with alcohol having wiggle room among the public thanks to some poor studies. Just about every other piece of nutrition advice out there can easily be categorized as contr…

Alcohol is bad for you regardless of the frequency, not “if you consume them too often”. It’s literally a neurotoxin and metabolic toxin aka poison.

And going to the pub once a week is terrific for your social life and mental wellbeing.

Swings and roundabouts init.

Post reply on HN