3 ms·

You're really claiming it's silly to refuse advice from a random person on the Internet, in favour of waiting for studies and clinical data?

by vosper 10y ago

takeda 10y ago
Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you. It took 50 years before it we noticed that there might be a relation with smoking causing a lung cancer and 80 years (1980) before we were sure about it[1][2]. Acne though is far less serious issue, and not many people would be interested finding cause for it, especially since it would kill business for companies selling solutions that treat the symptoms (which do help, but you need to use them regularly) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_conc...
- vosper 10y ago
  > "Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you.". I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be harmful to reduce sugar intake (although, I'm sure there may be cases where it is, or perhaps it's just easier said than done). I think it's more that there's apparently no proven link between sugar intake and acne and, given all the possible things that someone try in order do to reduce their acne, it might not make sense to choose one that has no evidence supporting it. Or at least, exhaust the other possibilities first. Also, in the parent to my comment you say "scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results". But, they can, and do. It's called a controlled clinical trial. I've participated in one that went on for a week (was well paid for it) where we were kept in a room, fed a designed diet, and restricted in our activities. There were test subjects in the building who were in for much longer than my trial. So I don't think the idea that it's impossible to (dis)prove these things is accurate.

You're really claiming it's silly to refuse advice from a random person on the Internet, in favour of waiting for studies and clinical data?

by vosper 10y ago

You're really claiming it's silly to refuse advice from a random person on the Internet, in favour of waiting for studies and clinical data?

takeda 10y ago

Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you. It took 50 years before it we noticed that there might be a relation with smoking causing a lung cancer and 80 years (1980) before we were sure about it[1][2]. Acne though is far less serious issue, and not many people would be interested finding cause for it, especially since it would kill business for companies selling solutions that treat the symptoms (which do help, but you need to use them regularly) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_conc...

vosper 10y ago
> "Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you.". I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be harmful to reduce sugar intake (although, I'm sure there may be cases where it is, or perhaps it's just easier said than done). I think it's more that there's apparently no proven link between sugar intake and acne and, given all the possible things that someone try in order do to reduce their acne, it might not make sense to choose one that has no evidence supporting it. Or at least, exhaust the other possibilities first. Also, in the parent to my comment you say "scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results". But, they can, and do. It's called a controlled clinical trial. I've participated in one that went on for a week (was well paid for it) where we were kept in a room, fed a designed diet, and restricted in our activities. There were test subjects in the building who were in for much longer than my trial. So I don't think the idea that it's impossible to (dis)prove these things is accurate.