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

71–80 of 136 posts

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

#71

Post by ooyy »

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 are championing wins.

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

#72

Post by abfan1127 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #66
cko wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many years ago my uncle told me eggs were bad because cholesterol. So naturally, I ate 6-8 eggs a day for a few weeks, then went for a lipid panel. My HDL went from 50 to 60 and my LDL went from 80 to 70. I think I had two ramen noodles right before that too. Granted, the initial readings were from a year before, so maybe it wasn't the eggs.

Yeah my total cholesterol has always been between 120 and 140. Not sure what the details are, but it seems to work for me.

the answer to your question is why cholesterol exists. why does your body produce the majority of cholesterol? If your body produces the majority, why would diet (the minority) make an impact?

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

#73

Post by alisonatwork »

bigcorp-slave wrote: post #41
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…

It would be great if this website answered the question “what is a healthy diet”, instead of trying everywhere to get me to watch some of its hundreds of videos.

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

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

#74

Post by nomel »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #21
spidersouris wrote: post #3

Eggs could easily be replaced with salt. Consuming too much salt (more than 2g a day) is heavily discouraged by some because it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases as well as increase blood pressure to a dangerous level, but others repudiate these claims and assert they are untrue, and that salt has positive health benefits above this limit. Even if we take a group of people, put them in a closed…

> it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases How? Salt is a convenient bogeyman, but nobody can demonstrate what it role it plays as an agent of disease. Every cell in your body regulates isotonic balance and excess sodium is rapidly excreted. Complex lifeforms wouldn't exist without this fundamental ability.

> Every cell in your body regulates isotonic balance and excess sodium is rapidly excreted.

If I eat something salty for dinner, I wake up with swollen eyes, with others in my immediate family doing the same. My family uses very little to no salt. My wife can eat as much salt as she wants, without any visible effect at all. Her family uses, in my perspective, extreme amounts of salt. My naive assumption is that salt sensitivity is somewhat genetic, with research suggesting the same [1]. Maybe related, near hypotension runs in my family, while hypertension runs in hers.

1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180705115632.h...

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

#75

Post by abfan1127 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #27

Honestly I expect diet doesn’t matter that much unless you are trying to lose weight, except that eating lots of sugar is probably not good for you. Exercise is probably more important for long term health than what particular kinds of animals or plants you eat.

my experience has been exercise moderately, avoid sugar, and life is good.

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

#76

Post by abfan1127 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #23
Ensorceled wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember him initially being sort of balanced and reasonable then he started pushing supplements etc. Then a few years later, he started showing up in infomercials pushing all sorts of crap. I liked his cookbook, I presume it was ghost written.

His usual shtick is to have a guest on who promotes quack notions and he just sits there pitching softball questions without challenging the BS coming from their mouth. That gives him cover when Congress calls him in to testify about misleading the public.

50% of what he says is wrong or fake...

https://futurism.com/50-dr-oz-says-no-evidence-contradicted-...

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

#77

Post by mping »

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…

Where should one get the other side? Genuinely interested

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

#78

Post by jessaustin »

mcguire wrote: post #43

Ya know, technically,... " Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. " You could say the same things about astronomy.

In 1695 Edmond Halley predicted the return of his comet in 1758. That was one of the first astronomical experiments, but it was hardly the last.

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

#79

Post by bserge »

caeril wrote: post #16
spidersouris wrote: post #3

Eggs could easily be replaced with salt. Consuming too much salt (more than 2g a day) is heavily discouraged by some because it is said to increase the risks of cardiovascular diseases as well as increase blood pressure to a dangerous level, but others repudiate these claims and assert they are untrue, and that salt has positive health benefits above this limit. Even if we take a group of people, put them in a closed…

I think the issue with salt and eggs is that we talk of humans in the aggregate. For eggs, there is some small percentage of the population that passes the cholesterol into actual high levels of serum LDL. For salt, there is some small percentage of the population that reacts to high sodium levels with hypertension. And these subsets of population studies skew the results to a degree that adversely affects the conclu…

Pretty much. Same with humans with a "leaky" blood-brain barrier. They can actually get GABA and other amino acids from the stomach to the brain, leading to vastly different effects than the majority of people get.

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

#80

Post by dotcommand »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #46

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Side note: Why do we constantly cry about recommendations from the 1970s being different from today's recommendations? That's a lot of time. Over time we tend to figure things out. It doesn't mean that in 40 years today's recommendations will be overturned.

> Side note: Why do we constantly cry about recommendations from the 1970s being different from today's recommendations?

Because hardly anything in nutrition "science" has proven to be predictive. It's all junk. Most of it intentional junk pushed by political and business interests.

For example, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." is just nonsense based on junk "science" funded by vegan/vegetarian aligned interest groups. I'm guessing with major multinational corporations peddling veganism, we'll get more junk nutrition science.

Considering life expectancy, health and development has increased with more meat consumption. This is true of the countries with the highest life expectancy - japan, switzerland, spain, etc.

Since we are omnivores, perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation.

Post reply on HN