5 ms·

This is a serious problem. How can we trust institutions that are suppose to provide evidence based advice to the general public? To me this is a crime so lar

This is a serious problem. How can we trust institutions that are suppose to provide evidence based advice to the general public? To me this is a crime so large that those involved should be held accountable for a percentage of all heart attacks. Furthermore it erodes trust in government, experts, and science. Right now it seems like the American public is actively feed extremely harmful food and lied to about the health consequences. Is it possible to create a Reddit style voting system where votes are weighed more depending on a level of trust/expertise to review scientific papers. The voting could be on multiple factors, such as on the different types of validity, the overall impact, how transparent they are with methods and data, how well it fits with other literature, etc. The end result could be a paper titled “A survey of saturated fat’s impact on cardiovascular health” where experts very publicly discuss the papers merits and common people interested in their health can review and understand where the science is. Decentralized informational authority.

KempyKolibri 2y ago
It’s nonsense. SFA consumption is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Nina is misreading the evidence to come to poor quality conclusions. The most rigorous analysis of RCTs on the subject shows this very clearly: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
- greentxt 2y ago
  "We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low‐quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI." This is your citation for saturated fat is evil?
  - KempyKolibri 2y ago
    I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD. And yes, that is my citation in support of that claim. Quote: “There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA” and “When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events” I explain why the null findings on insensitive endpoints aren’t the gotcha some people think they are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      > There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".
      - KempyKolibri 2y ago
        Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
        riku_iki 2y ago
        Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        KempyKolibri 2y ago
Aurornis 2y ago
> This is a serious problem. How can we trust institutions that are suppose to provide evidence based advice to the general public? The only serious problem here is that some people immediately trust a random article from someone who denies mainstream science simply because it’s a contrarian take. I don’t understand the people who will question everything that comes from professionals and institutions, but within minutes of reading an article that is contrarian they think “Yep this all checks out and I have no further questions”. To see it happening in real time in this thread is wild.
- mistermann 2y ago
  You did the same thing but in the opposite direction. That's how easy it is to make an unforced error.
  - exe34 2y ago
    one is based on an entire industry of people working in so many conflicting fields that it would boggle the mind if they could all be bought, and the other is based on one person who built their fame on being contrarian without a lot of evidence. I think the question still makes sense, why people are willing to ignore a ton of evidence from a lot of different unaffiliated people and focus on one article by one person that really doesn't add up to much of an argument - I think the answer is just that this is what they want to hear, so it must be right.
    - fwip 2y ago
      The claim isn't that everyone in nutrition etc is bought off. You simply don't need to do that. If you're in the sugar industry, you give funding to people investigating how saturated fat causes heart disease. You support organizations that back up your preferred theory. These orgs run media campaigns, slap a "heart-healthy" label on food products, and sometimes fund research. Forming popular consensus on "fats = bad" leads to additional funding from government or other charitable causes. Increased funding leads to an increased density of scientists working on the problem, which in turn increases the legitimacy of the field, especially among people just getting into their careers. If it's common wisdom in the cardio field that saturated fats are the worst cause of heart disease, that's where they're going to focus their efforts. It's one of those things where you simply don't need to buy anyone off. You just put your thumb on the scale early enough, and consistently push popular opinion toward a direction that's beneficial for you.
keybored 2y ago
> Furthermore it erodes trust in government, experts, and science. Does trust in X erode when X is wrong? Yes.
- Kurtz79 2y ago
  That is true but also probably misguided. Scientific knowledge evolves as new discoveries are made, immutable and unequivocal “truth” is the realm of religion, not science (which makes the former much more appealing to many than the latter). Trust really should not erode if X acted in good faith based on the consensus knowledge at the time.
  - keybored 2y ago
    If. What was proclaimed as nutritional facts decades ago turned out to be tainted by industry/lobbying interests.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    If the consensus is evolving, sure. If the consensus is going back and forth for decades, and each time it is presented with the authority of medical or physical science, then it is normal and correct to stop listening at some point. When scientists have weak theories that they're not sure of, they're not supposed to share those breathlessly with the public, and certainly not try to shape public laws based on the theories they know are weak. And nutrition science has been guilty of this for over a century. You can find people in the field making confident recommendations and setting dietary standards from the time when they didn't know vitamins were a thing. If you followed the science on nutrition and adjusted your diet accordingly around 150-100 years ago, you could literally get scurvy or other vitamin deficiencies. The field has evolved a little bit, but it's still extremely weak as scientific fields go.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
tonymet 2y ago
I agree that this reflects poorly on trust. But voting to give more authority to the federal government would make it even worse. Look at how poorly voting works. Just get rid of the agency altogether.

KempyKolibri 2y ago

It’s nonsense. SFA consumption is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Nina is misreading the evidence to come to poor quality conclusions. The most rigorous analysis of RCTs on the subject shows this very clearly: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

greentxt 2y ago
"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low‐quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI." This is your citation for saturated fat is evil?
- KempyKolibri 2y ago
  I don’t believe saturated fat is evil. I believe that consuming more than 10%E from SFA increases risk of CVD, and replacing SFA with PUFA reduces risk of CVD. And yes, that is my citation in support of that claim. Quote: “There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA” and “When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events” I explain why the null findings on insensitive endpoints aren’t the gotcha some people think they are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41960046
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    > There was a 17% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA they have table with breakdown of events by type, and in both rows with significant reduction it says that quality of evidence is "very low".
    - KempyKolibri 2y ago
      Don’t know where you’re seeing that. Combined cardiovascular events has an RR of 0.83 and the GRADE quality is moderate, not very low.
      - riku_iki 2y ago
        Yes, and I am talking about subtypes of events in the "summary of findings" table. Those subtypes with "moderate" quality has very insignificant diff in # of events. Those with significant diff in # of events have "very low" quality of evidence.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        KempyKolibri 2y ago

Aurornis 2y ago

> This is a serious problem. How can we trust institutions that are suppose to provide evidence based advice to the general public? The only serious problem here is that some people immediately trust a random article from someone who denies mainstream science simply because it’s a contrarian take. I don’t understand the people who will question everything that comes from professionals and institutions, but within minutes of reading an article that is contrarian they think “Yep this all checks out and I have no further questions”. To see it happening in real time in this thread is wild.

mistermann 2y ago
You did the same thing but in the opposite direction. That's how easy it is to make an unforced error.
- exe34 2y ago
  one is based on an entire industry of people working in so many conflicting fields that it would boggle the mind if they could all be bought, and the other is based on one person who built their fame on being contrarian without a lot of evidence. I think the question still makes sense, why people are willing to ignore a ton of evidence from a lot of different unaffiliated people and focus on one article by one person that really doesn't add up to much of an argument - I think the answer is just that this is what they want to hear, so it must be right.
  - fwip 2y ago
    The claim isn't that everyone in nutrition etc is bought off. You simply don't need to do that. If you're in the sugar industry, you give funding to people investigating how saturated fat causes heart disease. You support organizations that back up your preferred theory. These orgs run media campaigns, slap a "heart-healthy" label on food products, and sometimes fund research. Forming popular consensus on "fats = bad" leads to additional funding from government or other charitable causes. Increased funding leads to an increased density of scientists working on the problem, which in turn increases the legitimacy of the field, especially among people just getting into their careers. If it's common wisdom in the cardio field that saturated fats are the worst cause of heart disease, that's where they're going to focus their efforts. It's one of those things where you simply don't need to buy anyone off. You just put your thumb on the scale early enough, and consistently push popular opinion toward a direction that's beneficial for you.

keybored 2y ago

> Furthermore it erodes trust in government, experts, and science. Does trust in X erode when X is wrong? Yes.

Kurtz79 2y ago
That is true but also probably misguided. Scientific knowledge evolves as new discoveries are made, immutable and unequivocal “truth” is the realm of religion, not science (which makes the former much more appealing to many than the latter). Trust really should not erode if X acted in good faith based on the consensus knowledge at the time.
- keybored 2y ago
  If. What was proclaimed as nutritional facts decades ago turned out to be tainted by industry/lobbying interests.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  If the consensus is evolving, sure. If the consensus is going back and forth for decades, and each time it is presented with the authority of medical or physical science, then it is normal and correct to stop listening at some point. When scientists have weak theories that they're not sure of, they're not supposed to share those breathlessly with the public, and certainly not try to shape public laws based on the theories they know are weak. And nutrition science has been guilty of this for over a century. You can find people in the field making confident recommendations and setting dietary standards from the time when they didn't know vitamins were a thing. If you followed the science on nutrition and adjusted your diet accordingly around 150-100 years ago, you could literally get scurvy or other vitamin deficiencies. The field has evolved a little bit, but it's still extremely weak as scientific fields go.

throwaway984393 2y ago

[dead]

tonymet 2y ago

I agree that this reflects poorly on trust. But voting to give more authority to the federal government would make it even worse. Look at how poorly voting works. Just get rid of the agency altogether.