6 ms·

Interesting you suggest in this post that reducing carbs is a step towards a healthier diet. A whole food plant based diet is mostly carbs and is generally reg

by qume 9y ago

Interesting you suggest in this post that reducing carbs is a step towards a healthier diet. A whole food plant based diet is mostly carbs and is generally regarded as the healthiest diet available. The field of nutritional science is as valid as any and saying it ia becoming more validated science suggests to me you havent been exposed to the thousands of high quality studies being published every year. This is a huge red card for someone who is proposing to intervene with peoples health. Im sorry to be skeptical but there are way too many alarm bells associated with this venture, most too small to mention individually but the pattern adds up. For anyone looking for more legitimate bridge between the science and us "consumers" I recommend http://nutrition http://nutrition facts.org/

vancanwin 9y ago
I appreciate your skepticism as there should be more of it when addressing these type of health topics. I wish there was more of this type of healthy discussions in the place of healthcare. But back to the topic, my mistake for generalizing the statements above. For some who need to reduce or should I say "monitor" their carb intake, such as myself, I had to drastically reduce my carb intake due to diabetes. And sugars are particularly a huge culprit for this problem, but I have to significantly reduce consuming potatoes, rice, pasta, even healthy fruits. So for many in these categories reducing their carbs is necessary. The space of nutritional science does contain lots of research but some are very limiting and over simplified. An example, I've seen studies of arginine consumption and how that effects the aortic heart stiffness. Some of the studies only lasted for 120 minutes and concluded that there weren't any effects. But many many longitudinal clinical trials have shown improvement in heart health through decrease in heart stiffness. For us, we still have to comb through all the papers of published studies and make sure the conclusions made are just an oversimplification of lack of rigor in those studies. But yes, we want to make the data and information more transparent as well. Thank you for recommending that site. We've definitely checked it out but will check it out again.
- treis 9y ago
  (1) Your 10x claim is obvious bullshit. Where is your research showing a measurable health improvement that is 10x greater? (2) Where is your peer reviewed research demonstrating that your system leads to measurable health improvements? Your company, like virtually every supplement company, is a scam that plays on the fears and ignorance of its customers. You have an obvious conflict of interest in that you both recommend and sale vitamins. At minimum, to be an ethical health care provider, you should either be a manufacturer of vitamins or a service that recommends them.
  - dang 9y ago
    > Spare us the sanctimony. You're a con artist and you know it Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of whom you're attacking, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - qume 9y ago
      His or her language wasnt great, but they made a very specific, falsifiable claim. A confidence trickster or con artist is a very specific type of endeavor and it should absolutely be ruled out that this isn't what's going on here. Personally im on the fence but it is most certainly possible that this is the truth here and discourse on this should be encouraged. Great claims (as we have here) require great evidence (not supplied) and one possible explanation is that the founder is using his or her genuine credentials in a confidence trickster way. Its a fine line but the core of this discussion is in fact about the legitimacy of this individual presenting as an expert, so you may want to ease off in this case regarding your interpretation of this being a 'personal attack'.
      - dang 9y ago
        It's perfectly possible to raise relevant concerns without being uncivil. Better, in fact, because then one isn't discrediting them with bad behavior.
  - vancanwin 9y ago
didgeoridoo 9y ago
Despite the official-sounding name, nutritionfacts.org is run by Dr. Michael Greger, a passionate advocate of veganism and animal rights. This doesn't mean it should be dismissed, but it is at its root a political project — it is by no means neutral or objective with regards to the science.
- qume 9y ago
  The 200+ volunteers working with Dr Gregor have never even mentioned animal rights as far as I remember and Ive reviewed personally most of what they have published. It is as unpolitical as you can get - a volunteer group doing an ongoing literature review of nutrition papers and publishing their condensed findings in video and constantly updated book form. So yes it does aim to be objective with regards to science, thats the whole point. Which you would know if you spent more than 5 minutes researching before blessing the world with your knowledge.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    It doesn’t take more than five minutes to realize that nutritionfacts.org is purely one-sided. You can’t find a SINGLE piece of science on there that disagrees with vegan orthodoxy. What is the likelihood that this is the result of an evenhanded look at a broad range of scientific literature, vs. a careful cherry-picking of evidence to support a predetermined conclusion? Here’s a trick: if you’re the only person who thinks a complex science is clear cut and obvious, maybe you’re the one who is missing something.
hokkos 9y ago
nutrition facts is a vegan propaganda site disguised as a science based, political independent site. https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-against-dr-michael-gregernutritionfacts/ https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-aga... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes... https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/6b1ik6/seriously_dr_michael_greger_is_controversial/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/6b1ik6/seriously... https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/3uiriu/how_biased_is_nutritionfactsorg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/3uiriu/how_biased_is...

by qume 9y ago

vancanwin 9y ago

I appreciate your skepticism as there should be more of it when addressing these type of health topics. I wish there was more of this type of healthy discussions in the place of healthcare. But back to the topic, my mistake for generalizing the statements above. For some who need to reduce or should I say "monitor" their carb intake, such as myself, I had to drastically reduce my carb intake due to diabetes. And sugars are particularly a huge culprit for this problem, but I have to significantly reduce consuming potatoes, rice, pasta, even healthy fruits. So for many in these categories reducing their carbs is necessary. The space of nutritional science does contain lots of research but some are very limiting and over simplified. An example, I've seen studies of arginine consumption and how that effects the aortic heart stiffness. Some of the studies only lasted for 120 minutes and concluded that there weren't any effects. But many many longitudinal clinical trials have shown improvement in heart health through decrease in heart stiffness. For us, we still have to comb through all the papers of published studies and make sure the conclusions made are just an oversimplification of lack of rigor in those studies. But yes, we want to make the data and information more transparent as well. Thank you for recommending that site. We've definitely checked it out but will check it out again.

treis 9y ago
(1) Your 10x claim is obvious bullshit. Where is your research showing a measurable health improvement that is 10x greater? (2) Where is your peer reviewed research demonstrating that your system leads to measurable health improvements? Your company, like virtually every supplement company, is a scam that plays on the fears and ignorance of its customers. You have an obvious conflict of interest in that you both recommend and sale vitamins. At minimum, to be an ethical health care provider, you should either be a manufacturer of vitamins or a service that recommends them.
- dang 9y ago
  > Spare us the sanctimony. You're a con artist and you know it Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of whom you're attacking, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - qume 9y ago
    His or her language wasnt great, but they made a very specific, falsifiable claim. A confidence trickster or con artist is a very specific type of endeavor and it should absolutely be ruled out that this isn't what's going on here. Personally im on the fence but it is most certainly possible that this is the truth here and discourse on this should be encouraged. Great claims (as we have here) require great evidence (not supplied) and one possible explanation is that the founder is using his or her genuine credentials in a confidence trickster way. Its a fine line but the core of this discussion is in fact about the legitimacy of this individual presenting as an expert, so you may want to ease off in this case regarding your interpretation of this being a 'personal attack'.
    - dang 9y ago
      It's perfectly possible to raise relevant concerns without being uncivil. Better, in fact, because then one isn't discrediting them with bad behavior.
- vancanwin 9y ago

didgeoridoo 9y ago

Despite the official-sounding name, nutritionfacts.org is run by Dr. Michael Greger, a passionate advocate of veganism and animal rights. This doesn't mean it should be dismissed, but it is at its root a political project — it is by no means neutral or objective with regards to the science.

qume 9y ago
The 200+ volunteers working with Dr Gregor have never even mentioned animal rights as far as I remember and Ive reviewed personally most of what they have published. It is as unpolitical as you can get - a volunteer group doing an ongoing literature review of nutrition papers and publishing their condensed findings in video and constantly updated book form. So yes it does aim to be objective with regards to science, thats the whole point. Which you would know if you spent more than 5 minutes researching before blessing the world with your knowledge.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  It doesn’t take more than five minutes to realize that nutritionfacts.org is purely one-sided. You can’t find a SINGLE piece of science on there that disagrees with vegan orthodoxy. What is the likelihood that this is the result of an evenhanded look at a broad range of scientific literature, vs. a careful cherry-picking of evidence to support a predetermined conclusion? Here’s a trick: if you’re the only person who thinks a complex science is clear cut and obvious, maybe you’re the one who is missing something.

hokkos 9y ago

nutrition facts is a vegan propaganda site disguised as a science based, political independent site. https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-against-dr-michael-gregernutritionfacts/ https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-aga... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes... https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/6b1ik6/seriously_dr_michael_greger_is_controversial/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/6b1ik6/seriously... https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/3uiriu/how_biased_is_nutritionfactsorg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/3uiriu/how_biased_is...