7 ms·

Low Fat Diet and Sunscreen: a Recipe for Disaster

47 points by bayareaguy 18y ago

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
In conclusion: never trust a doctor without verifying things on your own. Doctors are no smarter than the financial professionals who have obviously got things disastrously wrong lately.
- StrawberryFrog 18y ago
  Well, I disagree with that generalisation. A good doctor makes decisions based on evidence (symptoms of the patient, proven effect of the treatment) as well as experience as a doctor. When "verifying things on your own" you run into all kinds of unfounded and delusional ravings on the internet. Doctors may err on the side of conventional wisdom, but that's not a call to disregard them and err on any nonsense that you come aross.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    This is complicated by the fact that most doctors don't know jack squat about statistics. Since most medical data nowadays is collected through statistical means you end up witht he embarrassing situation where a economist or a mathematician would be better informed about a subject if it were not for the constant attention a doctor pays to it.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Then why do most doctors reject evidence based medicine?
    - emmett 18y ago
      I presume you're talking about "evidence based medicine" the right wing medical reform movement, not all medicine based on evidence. Because while many doctors reject that movement, few seem to reject using evidence to pick treatment regimes.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Is it really right wing? Why? I've just read multiple articles about how slow Dr's are to adopt it even though, empirically, it is more effective. I figured they rejected it for the same reason people always reject things: "that's the way we've always done it". Now granted, those articles could have been biased, but I had no idea there was any sort of left wing vs right wing thing going on. Stupid politrix. The entire movement reminded me of Moneyball by Michael Lewis.
        emmett 18y ago
        There are, of course, a few doctors who reject the very idea that mere scientific evidence should be able to tell them what to do. But in general, most doctors want to provide the best care they can for their patients, and that includes scientific evidence. However, it's extremely common for doctors to prescribe medicine off-label, before the full level three trials have completed for that use (which can take a decade). There is often compelling evidence a medicine is effective (in the Bayesian sense) far before there is official "Evidence" which counts for "Evidence Based Medicine". The very fact that it's called "Evidence Based Medicine" should set off alarm bells. Being against it sounds like being against science in medicine, which would just be stupid. In fact, it's code for "restrict public care facilities from being able to offer a full range of medical benefits to conserve money".
        fallentimes 18y ago
        Thanks for the information. I seriously thought it was much more like the Moneyball situation where it was just a bunch of old schoolers not accepting reality & empirical evidence and instead relying on standard practices and conventional wisdom. P.S. We just fully implemented Twisted at TicketStumbler :) (I heard you guys use it, and love it, at Justin.TV).
        emmett 18y ago
        I'm sure there's some of that too :). Twisted really is awesome; we've been super happy with it. A little sad they wouldn't take our memcache get_multi patch (they said we hadn't written enough tests for it).
    - StrawberryFrog 18y ago
      Do most doctors reject evidence based medicine? Do you have a reference or citation for that assertion?
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
StrawberryFrog 18y ago
The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis (that vitamin D deficiency causes autism, or at least increases the risk of it) so it should be either confirmed or disproved by further studies.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  It's already researched to hell. This has been clear from the evidence for a long time now. It just contradicts the dogma.
  - StrawberryFrog 18y ago
    See the para near the end: "However, I will concede that thus far there is no definitive study that would leave no doubt that this hypothesis is correct. This, more than anything else, is what's needed to really convince people to dramatically change their practices"
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Have the studies also been published exclusively in hell, or can you provide a citation?
- jbert 18y ago
  Agreed. The hypothesis is interesting, but the phraseology and assembly of info reads a bit like a kook. But as you say - it's a testable hypothesis, so I don't care how it's been written up, it would be good to test this.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis Anybody can put forward a testable hypothesis. That doesn't make you a good scientist. A good scientist is one who puts forward a testable hypothesis and then tests it before publishing. A great scientist is one who creates a testable hypothesis, tests it, and then -- when the data fail to prove the hypothesis -- shrugs, publishes the definitive refutation of her own hypothesis, and moves on to something else. It took me years to realize just how rare a skill this is, even for scientists. Part of the problem is that the career system for scientists actively discourages this -- once you've finally managed to sell a line of research to a funding agency, there are very strong incentives to keep that research going, even if it isn't getting anywhere.
danteembermage 18y ago
Some economists are causing tons of trouble by using economic-style research design to show autism rates are linked with cable television and the rain. Certainly tv watchers in rainy city washington are going to get less sunlight, so that adds more credence to her argument. Their study: http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTISM-WALDMAN-NICHOLSON-ADILOV.pdf http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTI...
- jbert 18y ago
  > economic-style research design If you sample 100 uncorrelated variables looking for significance at 95% confidence, you should find about 5 which are significant. Data mining to produce hypotheses is fraught with danger. You should declare your hypothesis and then go to the data, otherwise your confidence measurement is bogus.
josefresco 18y ago
That trip to Mexico at the 'all you can eat' resort my wife and I took when she was 6 months pregnant suddenly looks like brilliant vacation planning.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  It's not a question of eating a lot. Gorging on pasta when pregnant will just produce a type I diabetic child. The issue is animal/fish fat consumption. Women and children need quite a bit of it.
  - coglethorpe 18y ago
    "Gorging on pasta when pregnant will just produce a type I diabetic child." ORLY? Seriously, is there study that show a low-fat/type I diabetes connection?
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      The issue is in utero insulin exposure. http://tinyurl.com/447xh5 http://tinyurl.com/447xh5 When mom eats french fries and rice the insulin spikes permanently screw up the kid's endocrine system, leaving a propensity to obesity if not diabetes.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Are the obesity rates in countries with diets high in rice consumption (e.g. Japan) especially high? Or is it usually offset by something (so in Japan's case: fish consumption)?
        delackner 18y ago
        Living in Tokyo, an obese person really sticks out. You just almost never see them. You do see some fat teenagers though, since they are abandoning the traditional diet. Japan is in love with fat in all its forms (fatty marbled beef, fatty tuna, fatty pork) and there is almost no culture of sun-screen usage, but they also are much better at producing melanin than europeans, making for pretty effective natural protection. They also have one of (if not the) largest populations of centenarians on earth.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
Ignoring the window dressing about the health risks of extreme low-fat diets (which are real, and there's plenty of better writeups on them) this is an article about Vitamin D. And the question you have to ask when you see an article like this is: What's the groundwork-to-hysteria ratio? I see plenty of hysteria here, but no data. There's one cited reference to the scientific literature... but it's on a different subject. There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing that (a) modern medical practices are leading to deficiencies in Vitamin D among certain populations and (b) Vitamin D deficiency is linked to autism. But the responsible next step is to get some good data, or at least link to some. It's not to write stuff like this: Since the 1970's, our country has witnessed a 3000% increase in the sales of sunscreen products, alongside a 30% increase in deaths from melanoma[17]. Isn't it time to admit that sunscreen is not working? This is a telling paragraph. It tells me that the author is prone to making mistakes straight out of Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics: Clock A strikes midnight a few seconds before clock B; isn't it time to admit that A caused B to strike? Autism seems to be one of those issues that really inspires the quack epidemiologist. When you combine it with the opportunity to lecture new mothers -- our culture's favorite vice -- the temptation becomes irresistable. But it's worth remembering that actual epidemiology is really hard. Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Randomly sampling the population for autism is even harder. Even something relatively simple, like measuring Vitamin D levels in the blood, is tedious and expensive and difficult to do without bias. But just because anecdotes and handwaving are much easier doesn't make them more believable.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > How to Lie With Statistics There is no fallacy in the statement you've focused on. I'm a bit confused. Sunscreen is sold and used to prevent cancer. There's no evidence it has, and sound reasons to suggest sunscreen has contributed to cancer. That's all it's saying. > Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Are you suggesting the autism epidemic is a product of better diagnosis? If so, where are all the autistic 50 year olds?
  - kurtosis 18y ago
    This is weak evidence. I would be more convinced by a controlled experiment. Do a study where two demographically equivalent groups are given equal sun exposures one with sunscreen the other without, and then compare their rates of melanoma. The author doesn't have data on sun exposure or evidence that the sunscreen sold is actually used, etc. etc.
KirinDave 18y ago
This article is interesting, but I cannot take it seriously until the sources begin to link to more supporting medical literature. Nearly half of the links are to a website with a domain specifically selling this message. I clicked around this site and didn't find any citations. I'm sorry, but the format of this site trips off my whackjob detector and no one should be willing to take random medical advice without at least the appearance of support from the medical literature. This is doubly true when it comes to subjects of fertility or diet.
boredguy8 18y ago
Cargo Cult Science http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf
- WilliamLP 18y ago
  True, this article immediately fails Sagan's bullshit detector. Claiming you understand _any_ cause of autism is an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.
mhb 18y ago
Doubling of vitamin D for children is urged: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/health/policy/13vitamind.html?scp=1&sq=vitamin%20d&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/health/policy/13vitamind.h...
jmatt 18y ago
Assuming this woman doesn't own a chain of tanning salons as her side gig - it's a good read. An interesting alternative to the current opinions on vitamin D, Autism and low-fat diets. As I read it, I quickly categorized it as an interesting persuasive essay citing supporting facts. I have no problem reading papers like this and gaining what I can from them. There is a place for persuasive essays and a place for research papers. As long as the author is not trying to misrepresent - no problems. I read up on the author a bit and she seems to be closer to an expect on these issues than a vast majority of op-ed diet and autism write-ups that I've seen. Plus she's got an undergrad biophysics degree to boot. http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
hugh 18y ago
Rules to live by: 1. If someone feels the need to point out, at the end of an essay, that they have a PhD, they're probably a kook. 2. That goes doubly for anyone who feels the need to tell you which prestigious institution their PhD is from.

47 points by bayareaguy 18y ago

In conclusion: never trust a doctor without verifying things on your own. Doctors are no smarter than the financial professionals who have obviously got things disastrously wrong lately.

StrawberryFrog 18y ago
Well, I disagree with that generalisation. A good doctor makes decisions based on evidence (symptoms of the patient, proven effect of the treatment) as well as experience as a doctor. When "verifying things on your own" you run into all kinds of unfounded and delusional ravings on the internet. Doctors may err on the side of conventional wisdom, but that's not a call to disregard them and err on any nonsense that you come aross.
- newt0311 18y ago
  This is complicated by the fact that most doctors don't know jack squat about statistics. Since most medical data nowadays is collected through statistical means you end up witht he embarrassing situation where a economist or a mathematician would be better informed about a subject if it were not for the constant attention a doctor pays to it.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Then why do most doctors reject evidence based medicine?
  - emmett 18y ago
    I presume you're talking about "evidence based medicine" the right wing medical reform movement, not all medicine based on evidence. Because while many doctors reject that movement, few seem to reject using evidence to pick treatment regimes.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Is it really right wing? Why? I've just read multiple articles about how slow Dr's are to adopt it even though, empirically, it is more effective. I figured they rejected it for the same reason people always reject things: "that's the way we've always done it". Now granted, those articles could have been biased, but I had no idea there was any sort of left wing vs right wing thing going on. Stupid politrix. The entire movement reminded me of Moneyball by Michael Lewis.
      - emmett 18y ago
        There are, of course, a few doctors who reject the very idea that mere scientific evidence should be able to tell them what to do. But in general, most doctors want to provide the best care they can for their patients, and that includes scientific evidence. However, it's extremely common for doctors to prescribe medicine off-label, before the full level three trials have completed for that use (which can take a decade). There is often compelling evidence a medicine is effective (in the Bayesian sense) far before there is official "Evidence" which counts for "Evidence Based Medicine". The very fact that it's called "Evidence Based Medicine" should set off alarm bells. Being against it sounds like being against science in medicine, which would just be stupid. In fact, it's code for "restrict public care facilities from being able to offer a full range of medical benefits to conserve money".
        fallentimes 18y ago
        Thanks for the information. I seriously thought it was much more like the Moneyball situation where it was just a bunch of old schoolers not accepting reality & empirical evidence and instead relying on standard practices and conventional wisdom. P.S. We just fully implemented Twisted at TicketStumbler :) (I heard you guys use it, and love it, at Justin.TV).
        emmett 18y ago
        I'm sure there's some of that too :). Twisted really is awesome; we've been super happy with it. A little sad they wouldn't take our memcache get_multi patch (they said we hadn't written enough tests for it).
  - StrawberryFrog 18y ago
    Do most doctors reject evidence based medicine? Do you have a reference or citation for that assertion?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

StrawberryFrog 18y ago

The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis (that vitamin D deficiency causes autism, or at least increases the risk of it) so it should be either confirmed or disproved by further studies.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
It's already researched to hell. This has been clear from the evidence for a long time now. It just contradicts the dogma.
- StrawberryFrog 18y ago
  See the para near the end: "However, I will concede that thus far there is no definitive study that would leave no doubt that this hypothesis is correct. This, more than anything else, is what's needed to really convince people to dramatically change their practices"
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Have the studies also been published exclusively in hell, or can you provide a citation?
jbert 18y ago
Agreed. The hypothesis is interesting, but the phraseology and assembly of info reads a bit like a kook. But as you say - it's a testable hypothesis, so I don't care how it's been written up, it would be good to test this.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
The author reads like a kook, but the good thing is that they put forward a testable hypothesis Anybody can put forward a testable hypothesis. That doesn't make you a good scientist. A good scientist is one who puts forward a testable hypothesis and then tests it before publishing. A great scientist is one who creates a testable hypothesis, tests it, and then -- when the data fail to prove the hypothesis -- shrugs, publishes the definitive refutation of her own hypothesis, and moves on to something else. It took me years to realize just how rare a skill this is, even for scientists. Part of the problem is that the career system for scientists actively discourages this -- once you've finally managed to sell a line of research to a funding agency, there are very strong incentives to keep that research going, even if it isn't getting anywhere.

danteembermage 18y ago

Some economists are causing tons of trouble by using economic-style research design to show autism rates are linked with cable television and the rain. Certainly tv watchers in rainy city washington are going to get less sunlight, so that adds more credence to her argument. Their study: http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTISM-WALDMAN-NICHOLSON-ADILOV.pdf http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTI...

jbert 18y ago
> economic-style research design If you sample 100 uncorrelated variables looking for significance at 95% confidence, you should find about 5 which are significant. Data mining to produce hypotheses is fraught with danger. You should declare your hypothesis and then go to the data, otherwise your confidence measurement is bogus.

josefresco 18y ago

That trip to Mexico at the 'all you can eat' resort my wife and I took when she was 6 months pregnant suddenly looks like brilliant vacation planning.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
It's not a question of eating a lot. Gorging on pasta when pregnant will just produce a type I diabetic child. The issue is animal/fish fat consumption. Women and children need quite a bit of it.
- coglethorpe 18y ago
  "Gorging on pasta when pregnant will just produce a type I diabetic child." ORLY? Seriously, is there study that show a low-fat/type I diabetes connection?
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    The issue is in utero insulin exposure. http://tinyurl.com/447xh5 http://tinyurl.com/447xh5 When mom eats french fries and rice the insulin spikes permanently screw up the kid's endocrine system, leaving a propensity to obesity if not diabetes.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Are the obesity rates in countries with diets high in rice consumption (e.g. Japan) especially high? Or is it usually offset by something (so in Japan's case: fish consumption)?
      - delackner 18y ago
        Living in Tokyo, an obese person really sticks out. You just almost never see them. You do see some fat teenagers though, since they are abandoning the traditional diet. Japan is in love with fat in all its forms (fatty marbled beef, fatty tuna, fatty pork) and there is almost no culture of sun-screen usage, but they also are much better at producing melanin than europeans, making for pretty effective natural protection. They also have one of (if not the) largest populations of centenarians on earth.

mechanical_fish 18y ago

Ignoring the window dressing about the health risks of extreme low-fat diets (which are real, and there's plenty of better writeups on them) this is an article about Vitamin D. And the question you have to ask when you see an article like this is: What's the groundwork-to-hysteria ratio? I see plenty of hysteria here, but no data. There's one cited reference to the scientific literature... but it's on a different subject. There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing that (a) modern medical practices are leading to deficiencies in Vitamin D among certain populations and (b) Vitamin D deficiency is linked to autism. But the responsible next step is to get some good data, or at least link to some. It's not to write stuff like this: Since the 1970's, our country has witnessed a 3000% increase in the sales of sunscreen products, alongside a 30% increase in deaths from melanoma[17]. Isn't it time to admit that sunscreen is not working? This is a telling paragraph. It tells me that the author is prone to making mistakes straight out of Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics: Clock A strikes midnight a few seconds before clock B; isn't it time to admit that A caused B to strike? Autism seems to be one of those issues that really inspires the quack epidemiologist. When you combine it with the opportunity to lecture new mothers -- our culture's favorite vice -- the temptation becomes irresistable. But it's worth remembering that actual epidemiology is really hard. Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Randomly sampling the population for autism is even harder. Even something relatively simple, like measuring Vitamin D levels in the blood, is tedious and expensive and difficult to do without bias. But just because anecdotes and handwaving are much easier doesn't make them more believable.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> How to Lie With Statistics There is no fallacy in the statement you've focused on. I'm a bit confused. Sunscreen is sold and used to prevent cancer. There's no evidence it has, and sound reasons to suggest sunscreen has contributed to cancer. That's all it's saying. > Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Are you suggesting the autism epidemic is a product of better diagnosis? If so, where are all the autistic 50 year olds?
- kurtosis 18y ago
  This is weak evidence. I would be more convinced by a controlled experiment. Do a study where two demographically equivalent groups are given equal sun exposures one with sunscreen the other without, and then compare their rates of melanoma. The author doesn't have data on sun exposure or evidence that the sunscreen sold is actually used, etc. etc.

KirinDave 18y ago

This article is interesting, but I cannot take it seriously until the sources begin to link to more supporting medical literature. Nearly half of the links are to a website with a domain specifically selling this message. I clicked around this site and didn't find any citations. I'm sorry, but the format of this site trips off my whackjob detector and no one should be willing to take random medical advice without at least the appearance of support from the medical literature. This is doubly true when it comes to subjects of fertility or diet.

boredguy8 18y ago

Cargo Cult Science http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf

WilliamLP 18y ago
True, this article immediately fails Sagan's bullshit detector. Claiming you understand _any_ cause of autism is an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.

mhb 18y ago

Doubling of vitamin D for children is urged: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/health/policy/13vitamind.html?scp=1&sq=vitamin%20d&st=cse http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/health/policy/13vitamind.h...

jmatt 18y ago

Assuming this woman doesn't own a chain of tanning salons as her side gig - it's a good read. An interesting alternative to the current opinions on vitamin D, Autism and low-fat diets. As I read it, I quickly categorized it as an interesting persuasive essay citing supporting facts. I have no problem reading papers like this and gaining what I can from them. There is a place for persuasive essays and a place for research papers. As long as the author is not trying to misrepresent - no problems. I read up on the author a bit and she seems to be closer to an expect on these issues than a vast majority of op-ed diet and autism write-ups that I've seen. Plus she's got an undergrad biophysics degree to boot. http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

hugh 18y ago

Rules to live by: 1. If someone feels the need to point out, at the end of an essay, that they have a PhD, they're probably a kook. 2. That goes doubly for anyone who feels the need to tell you which prestigious institution their PhD is from.