3 ms·

It is really, really surprising that this is discovered so lately. We should be knowing this for 30 or so years. I have a strong guess that this article is over

by erikb 9y ago

It is really, really surprising that this is discovered so lately. We should be knowing this for 30 or so years. I have a strong guess that this article is overpresenting how new this is. Otherwise something really weird is going on.

Pica_soO 9y ago
It was either this or having a large part of humanity living without western comforts. Fructose is cheap to get and produce. In addition a fat liver sounds more curable in a thirld-world-country then diabetes. So the worser of two it is.
wutbrodo 9y ago
> It is really, really surprising that this is discovered so lately. We should be knowing this for 30 or so years. I have a strong guess that this article is overpresenting how new this is. Otherwise something really weird is going on. 1) You're right, it's not that new. I'm pretty sure I've read it at least once before on _HN_ itself. 2) Nutritional science is a mess not because something weird is going on but because it's really, really hard. It's difficult enough to study the short and long term effects of substances on the body when you're taking about a drug but when you're trying to do it for something like food. Food is intimately tied to culture, habit, social settings, and mood, which makes it hard to fully regiment what your test subjects are taking. Nutrients also both appear and are metabolized in extremely complex arrangements that we still don't fully understand (even something as basic as calorie counts use a pretty ridiculous, roundabout measurement technique), which makes it hard to accurately track. It also is something that everyone has to do all the time, so (unlike drugs), we have to go with "best current understanding" recommendations, which create their own political and reputational effects on scientific study when they're contradicted. We just this year upended decades of public health consensus on the effects of low sodium on blood pressure. This isn't "something weird" going on, it's par for the course for the field.
- erikb 9y ago
  Okay, thinking about your arguments I have to agree. This is not about nutritional advise but about nutritional science. In the pure science department having a good enough result to statistically trust it is rare and may happen even two or three generations until it is common believe already. It is actually good that they ignore common believe in favor of reliable data. Someone must.

by erikb 9y ago

Pica_soO 9y ago

It was either this or having a large part of humanity living without western comforts. Fructose is cheap to get and produce. In addition a fat liver sounds more curable in a thirld-world-country then diabetes. So the worser of two it is.

wutbrodo 9y ago

> It is really, really surprising that this is discovered so lately. We should be knowing this for 30 or so years. I have a strong guess that this article is overpresenting how new this is. Otherwise something really weird is going on. 1) You're right, it's not that new. I'm pretty sure I've read it at least once before on _HN_ itself. 2) Nutritional science is a mess not because something weird is going on but because it's really, really hard. It's difficult enough to study the short and long term effects of substances on the body when you're taking about a drug but when you're trying to do it for something like food. Food is intimately tied to culture, habit, social settings, and mood, which makes it hard to fully regiment what your test subjects are taking. Nutrients also both appear and are metabolized in extremely complex arrangements that we still don't fully understand (even something as basic as calorie counts use a pretty ridiculous, roundabout measurement technique), which makes it hard to accurately track. It also is something that everyone has to do all the time, so (unlike drugs), we have to go with "best current understanding" recommendations, which create their own political and reputational effects on scientific study when they're contradicted. We just this year upended decades of public health consensus on the effects of low sodium on blood pressure. This isn't "something weird" going on, it's par for the course for the field.

erikb 9y ago
Okay, thinking about your arguments I have to agree. This is not about nutritional advise but about nutritional science. In the pure science department having a good enough result to statistically trust it is rare and may happen even two or three generations until it is common believe already. It is actually good that they ignore common believe in favor of reliable data. Someone must.