10 ms·

Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke in nutrition science circles, and tends to take poetic license wit

Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke in nutrition science circles, and tends to take poetic license with the truth. If you’d like to take a look at a critical review of her other work on this topic, I’d highly recommend this damning analysis of her “Big Fat Surprise” book: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1/ https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...

readthenotes1 2y ago
Are there any similar problems with this essay? I am pretty sure I've heard much of this before ...
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  It’s large and I’m about to go to sleep and only on my phone, so not easy to go through the whole thing, but in short, yes. Much like in her book, Nina is grossly misrepresenting the evidence, and I’d say just flat-out lies or at the very least misleads the author. See my comment here for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41958014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41958014
nograpes 2y ago
Thank you for providing this very helpful and needed context. I was indeed getting very excited.
valval 2y ago
The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP. To me it’s no secret that the mainstream nutrition science is a joke. The latest Nordic nutrition guidelines I’ve heard of recommend the same amount of sugar and red meat per week — 350 grams. If that’s not enough to tell you everything these organisations do is based on false premises, I have a bridge to sell you.
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  > The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP. Why?
  - valval 2y ago
    The tone is snarky and condescending, which already means it can't be taken seriously. Your initial comment struggles with the same issue to a lesser extent.
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      If you dismiss valid points addressing the substance of the claim under discussion because of the tone it’s conveyed in, and that’s the epistemic framework you use to understand whether scientific claims are valid or not, then best of luck to you. Personally, I think that’s hilarious. Enjoy your bacon and butter.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Your framing of "the" reasoning is rather impressive itself.
      - norswap 2y ago
        I shouldn't enter into consideration, but it's a shockingly good heuristic to evaluate the credibility of people. I repeatedly found that people who are thoughtful and not snarky — and often, nuanced — when discussing a topic I have no deep expertise on were much more correct on topics that I did have expertise on and could properly evaluate. We're all on a time budget at the end of the day. And I do share the sentiment: the scientific literature in nutrition is known not to be very good. You don't have to be an expert, it suffices to notice that there are a lot of people coming to contradictory conclusions, and that the consensus seems to have changed drastically over the past decades, not being particularly driven by any groundbreaking changes in available scientific methods.
cmsefton 2y ago
Thank you for this link, very informative.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Mistletoe 2y ago
How on earth was this person allowed to publish in this journal? Is it a pay for play?
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Some journals are. Others like to carry these kind of articles because heterodox controversial views like this can generate publicity, traffic and citations. Some journals will just publish any old rot.
meiraleal 2y ago
> Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke Hi KempyKolibri. Was this intervention so important that you needed to signup for HackerNews for the first time to call her a joke ? I think this is quite against this forum guideline but (unsurprisingly) you are being upvoted.
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Yes.
lumb63 2y ago
I cannot comment on Nina specifically, since I’m not familiar with her work. I’d only like to suggest that being “a joke in nutrition science circles” in the recent past is probably something of a compliment. Mainstream nutrition science led to advice such as putting energy-dense grains at the bottom of the food pyramid, and villainizing fat with respect to CVD, leading to “reduced fat” alternatives which instead use sugar (which is highly addictive). Now, debates center around how much added sugar should be the recommended daily amount (hint: it should be 0). Lawmakers are considering funding overpriced Ozempic via Medicare to fight our rampant obesity, while nutrition science has abdicated its role in helping people maintain healthful, satiating diets. At least in the United States, the nutrition science of the last 100 years has overseen the most incredible deterioration of metabolic health in human history. There are some folks doing good work out there, as there always have been, but listening to mainstream nutrition science as if their word is law is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption. Reduced fat is an interesting one. If you actually look at what Keys was investigating all the way back in the mid 20th century, the hypothesis was always that saturated fat increased CVD risk. The translation of that into policy and marketing aimed at total fat cannot be placed entirely at the feet of mainstream nutrition science. As to the claims that sugar is addictive, this is unsupported - sugar does not meet the DSM-V criteria for addictive substances based on current evidence (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8077-9_13 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8077-9_...) As for added sugar - again, you’re labelling policy decisions as nutrition science. The DGs that I’m aware of recommend as little added sugar as possible, but when you’re making policy you have to strike a balance between strict enough to make a difference, but not so restrictive that no one listens. That’s different from what mainstream nutrition science would claim (which is indeed that there are no benefits to added sugar and several risks). The same point applies to your claim that nutrition science has a role in getting people to adhere to satiating diets. No, nutrition science is to help us understand what those diets might look like. It is not responsible for getting populations to adhere to them.
apwell23 2y ago
> they have a unique feedback mechanism that suppresses endogenous cholesterol synthesis that most of us don’t have. What unique feedback mechanism is this and how can i find out if i have this too ? circular reasoning "what makes them different is that they are shown to be different" > they manage to escape heart attacks because their vessels are larger than average. Wow. I don’t know what to make of the Masai, except that they are indeed a unique people. Maybe they are not "unique people" and there are other non-genetic reasons their blood vessels are larger. I call BS on this so called review because author didn't bother to explain his points.
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  > What unique feedback mechanism is this and how can i find out if i have this too Get a blood lipids panel and see what your ApoB is like! > Maybe they are not "unique people" and there are other non-genetic reasons their blood vessels are larger. I don't think this effect has been observed in post mortem of other populations, so that would make them fairly unique, no?
  - apwell23 2y ago
    > Get a blood lipids panel and see what your ApoB is like! not sure how this tell me if i have 'unique feedback mechanism' . wtf does that phrase even mean.
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      If you have a cholesterol synthesis feedback mechanism then as you increased your consumption of foods that are known to increase LDL-c (butter, lard, tallow) then your LDL-c would not rise or would only rise by a smaller amount than would be predicted by the Keys equation. So you could get your LDL-c checked, up your butter consumption and then get a retest and compare the results to the expected value.
      - apwell23 2y ago
        only genetics influence those markers? I thought even stress causes increase in cholestrol levels. How is this person so sure that Masai have some sort of special genetics when there are so many other factors.
bjoli 2y ago
Yup. I had a nutritionist friend (that I would trust with my life) look through one of her books and she groaned already on the 4th page.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  Get her “Deep Nutrition” by Catherine Shanahan for Halloween. I dare you.
hereme888 2y ago
Thanks for that. I read into the intro then scrolled up expecting to see a listing of authorities, only to see a single person publishing this work.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pk-protect-ai 2y ago
"nutrition science circles" are the joke on their own.
Genbox 2y ago
"Maasai" is the correct spelling. They explain it on their website [1] [1] https://maasai.com/conservation/maasai/ https://maasai.com/conservation/maasai/
lowkey 2y ago
That the “critique” is posted on such a spamtaculous site doesn’t lend much credibility. I looked but didn’t find other negative reviews. I did read the book and it seemed well cited. If there are no more credible reviews do you care to substantiate your specific concerns with her work?
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  If you’re discounting a rigorous and well-referenced critique solely because it’s on a “spamtaculous” cite, then my intuition is that either you’re a motivated reasoner and nothing would push you off your position, or your epistemic framework for deciding what is credible and what isn’t is so wild that trying to discuss this issue with you would be like trying to teach French to a dolphin. Just read the critique, ignore whatever “spamtaculous” things you’re seeing on the site. The content of the review is what we should care about. Happy to discuss that.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Are there any similar problems with this essay? I am pretty sure I've heard much of this before ...

KempyKolibri 2y ago
It’s large and I’m about to go to sleep and only on my phone, so not easy to go through the whole thing, but in short, yes. Much like in her book, Nina is grossly misrepresenting the evidence, and I’d say just flat-out lies or at the very least misleads the author. See my comment here for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41958014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41958014

nograpes 2y ago

Thank you for providing this very helpful and needed context. I was indeed getting very excited.

valval 2y ago

The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP. To me it’s no secret that the mainstream nutrition science is a joke. The latest Nordic nutrition guidelines I’ve heard of recommend the same amount of sugar and red meat per week — 350 grams. If that’s not enough to tell you everything these organisations do is based on false premises, I have a bridge to sell you.

KempyKolibri 2y ago
> The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP. Why?
- valval 2y ago
  The tone is snarky and condescending, which already means it can't be taken seriously. Your initial comment struggles with the same issue to a lesser extent.
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    If you dismiss valid points addressing the substance of the claim under discussion because of the tone it’s conveyed in, and that’s the epistemic framework you use to understand whether scientific claims are valid or not, then best of luck to you. Personally, I think that’s hilarious. Enjoy your bacon and butter.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Your framing of "the" reasoning is rather impressive itself.
    - norswap 2y ago
      I shouldn't enter into consideration, but it's a shockingly good heuristic to evaluate the credibility of people. I repeatedly found that people who are thoughtful and not snarky — and often, nuanced — when discussing a topic I have no deep expertise on were much more correct on topics that I did have expertise on and could properly evaluate. We're all on a time budget at the end of the day. And I do share the sentiment: the scientific literature in nutrition is known not to be very good. You don't have to be an expert, it suffices to notice that there are a lot of people coming to contradictory conclusions, and that the consensus seems to have changed drastically over the past decades, not being particularly driven by any groundbreaking changes in available scientific methods.

cmsefton 2y ago

Thank you for this link, very informative.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Mistletoe 2y ago

How on earth was this person allowed to publish in this journal? Is it a pay for play?

KempyKolibri 2y ago
Some journals are. Others like to carry these kind of articles because heterodox controversial views like this can generate publicity, traffic and citations. Some journals will just publish any old rot.

meiraleal 2y ago

> Before anyone gets too excited, best to remember that Nina is regarded as something of a joke Hi KempyKolibri. Was this intervention so important that you needed to signup for HackerNews for the first time to call her a joke ? I think this is quite against this forum guideline but (unsurprisingly) you are being upvoted.

KempyKolibri 2y ago
Yes.

lumb63 2y ago

I cannot comment on Nina specifically, since I’m not familiar with her work. I’d only like to suggest that being “a joke in nutrition science circles” in the recent past is probably something of a compliment. Mainstream nutrition science led to advice such as putting energy-dense grains at the bottom of the food pyramid, and villainizing fat with respect to CVD, leading to “reduced fat” alternatives which instead use sugar (which is highly addictive). Now, debates center around how much added sugar should be the recommended daily amount (hint: it should be 0). Lawmakers are considering funding overpriced Ozempic via Medicare to fight our rampant obesity, while nutrition science has abdicated its role in helping people maintain healthful, satiating diets. At least in the United States, the nutrition science of the last 100 years has overseen the most incredible deterioration of metabolic health in human history. There are some folks doing good work out there, as there always have been, but listening to mainstream nutrition science as if their word is law is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.

KempyKolibri 2y ago
The food pyramid put whole grains specifically at the base of the food pyramid. Not sure why you consider this objectionable, the body of evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of benefits for wholegrain consumption. Reduced fat is an interesting one. If you actually look at what Keys was investigating all the way back in the mid 20th century, the hypothesis was always that saturated fat increased CVD risk. The translation of that into policy and marketing aimed at total fat cannot be placed entirely at the feet of mainstream nutrition science. As to the claims that sugar is addictive, this is unsupported - sugar does not meet the DSM-V criteria for addictive substances based on current evidence (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8077-9_13 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8077-9_...) As for added sugar - again, you’re labelling policy decisions as nutrition science. The DGs that I’m aware of recommend as little added sugar as possible, but when you’re making policy you have to strike a balance between strict enough to make a difference, but not so restrictive that no one listens. That’s different from what mainstream nutrition science would claim (which is indeed that there are no benefits to added sugar and several risks). The same point applies to your claim that nutrition science has a role in getting people to adhere to satiating diets. No, nutrition science is to help us understand what those diets might look like. It is not responsible for getting populations to adhere to them.

apwell23 2y ago

> they have a unique feedback mechanism that suppresses endogenous cholesterol synthesis that most of us don’t have. What unique feedback mechanism is this and how can i find out if i have this too ? circular reasoning "what makes them different is that they are shown to be different" > they manage to escape heart attacks because their vessels are larger than average. Wow. I don’t know what to make of the Masai, except that they are indeed a unique people. Maybe they are not "unique people" and there are other non-genetic reasons their blood vessels are larger. I call BS on this so called review because author didn't bother to explain his points.

KempyKolibri 2y ago
> What unique feedback mechanism is this and how can i find out if i have this too Get a blood lipids panel and see what your ApoB is like! > Maybe they are not "unique people" and there are other non-genetic reasons their blood vessels are larger. I don't think this effect has been observed in post mortem of other populations, so that would make them fairly unique, no?
- apwell23 2y ago
  > Get a blood lipids panel and see what your ApoB is like! not sure how this tell me if i have 'unique feedback mechanism' . wtf does that phrase even mean.
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    If you have a cholesterol synthesis feedback mechanism then as you increased your consumption of foods that are known to increase LDL-c (butter, lard, tallow) then your LDL-c would not rise or would only rise by a smaller amount than would be predicted by the Keys equation. So you could get your LDL-c checked, up your butter consumption and then get a retest and compare the results to the expected value.
    - apwell23 2y ago
      only genetics influence those markers? I thought even stress causes increase in cholestrol levels. How is this person so sure that Masai have some sort of special genetics when there are so many other factors.

bjoli 2y ago

Yup. I had a nutritionist friend (that I would trust with my life) look through one of her books and she groaned already on the 4th page.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
KempyKolibri 2y ago
Get her “Deep Nutrition” by Catherine Shanahan for Halloween. I dare you.

hereme888 2y ago

Thanks for that. I read into the intro then scrolled up expecting to see a listing of authorities, only to see a single person publishing this work.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pk-protect-ai 2y ago

"nutrition science circles" are the joke on their own.

Genbox 2y ago

"Maasai" is the correct spelling. They explain it on their website [1] [1] https://maasai.com/conservation/maasai/ https://maasai.com/conservation/maasai/

lowkey 2y ago

That the “critique” is posted on such a spamtaculous site doesn’t lend much credibility. I looked but didn’t find other negative reviews. I did read the book and it seemed well cited. If there are no more credible reviews do you care to substantiate your specific concerns with her work?

KempyKolibri 2y ago
If you’re discounting a rigorous and well-referenced critique solely because it’s on a “spamtaculous” cite, then my intuition is that either you’re a motivated reasoner and nothing would push you off your position, or your epistemic framework for deciding what is credible and what isn’t is so wild that trying to discuss this issue with you would be like trying to teach French to a dolphin. Just read the critique, ignore whatever “spamtaculous” things you’re seeing on the site. The content of the review is what we should care about. Happy to discuss that.