Hacker News Reader

Comment by Houshalter | Hacker News Reader

Well something between 50-80% of antibiotics are used in agriculture. Which is huge, but it's within the same order of magnitude. I'm not sure there is evidence that the majority of antibiotic resistance is caused by agriculture.

I know for example my brother takes a low dose of antibiotics everyday to treat acne. Lots of people do. That can't possibly be good for preventing resistance.

Also the germs animals have are different than those in humans. Do cattle spread gohnerrea? And the antibiotics they use are different than those used in human medicine as well. The biggest problem is it is becoming resistant even to the last line antibiotics we have, and that can't be from agriculture.

View on HN

Ask your brother to stop the intake of sugar completely for 3 month (including all the hidden sugar in any processed food). I know this from myself and couple people which had acne that if you stop the intake of artificial sugar long enough the acne will mostly vanish. Even today whenever I eat high amounts of sugar I know for sure what will happen. I think this is a good example of misuse of antibiotics.

I can say that this corresponds to my experience. I underwent a rigorous transformation from obese teenager one summer, which included a fairly strict diet. I used to have bad acne but since then have been barely troubled by it. I have a number of friends who have acne trouble who say they have tried "everything" but I wonder have they tried anything like this for such a protracted period ...

It is really hard to stop eating sugar so drastically but it helped me a lot. After that eating even a small piece of chocolate was giving me a sugar high. High in the sense of you feel it in your whole buddy and get goosebumps. Nowadays I am more relaxed regarding sugar but I am nowhere close to "bad old times". I went from 2L-3L of high sugar soft drinks like Coke and high amounts of sweets every day to zero for a while and after that started slowly.

I remember going back to college after my "summer of dieting" (proper balanced, calorie restrictive, but not the crazy kind) and having my first chocolate bar. Sent me to the moon and back.

There are many good reasons for cutting down on sugar, but before we get enthusiastic, it is worth recognising that there is no established link between diet and acne.

See the 'common myths' section.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Acne/Pages/Causes.aspx

That's because the cause of acne is so different person to person. There's teenage acne which definitely isn't caused by diet and goes away eventually. A regimen of clearasil works for these lucky folks.

Then there's the severe type that always recur every month. Less than 1% of the population has this and the standard advice never works for these people. For some, changing diet works. For some it doesn't but thats the type of acne that's possibly linked to diet.

So saying there's no link is really misleading. There's no universal law that says red meat causes acne for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause acne for you

Might be that the study says it's a myth but I know enough people including me which did nothing else then cutting down sugar and it worked. So for me the myth seems to be true. Also to be clear not eating less I mean full on stop! No sugar for month.

Also it's generally not useful to provide links like this. I can create hundreds of "sources" for you which say its myth. I can also do the opposite. If you want to link something please link a full blown study with hundreds or thousands of participants over at least half a year. Then we can talk.

It's odd that you require a full blown study with hundreds or thousands of participants before being willing to talk but you base your own conclusion on anecdotal evidence.

Not sure what counts as an "established link", but that doesn't mean there is no evidence, or that such a link is a "myth". Check this out:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.12180/full

That paper discusses a link between dairy, insulin levels, and acne.

> Overall these theories provide a plausible and useful guide to the possible mechanisms by which a high-GI diet and dairy products can exert their effects in the pathogenesis of acne and can explain in part why people native to Papua New Guinea and Paraguay, living non-Westernized lifestyles, have no acne compared with more Westernized populations such as in Belgium (Table 2 and Table S1; see Supporting Information). However, they provide only the first step to understanding the link between diet and acne.

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.13462/full

Not sure why you chose that source, but one second searching google for "acne diet research" returns this from the AAD no less:

https://www.aad.org/media/news-releases/growing-evidence-sug...

Yes, the cause of acne can be different from person to person, but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant. From my experience, many Dermatologists still deny the connection for whatever reason, but I have come across many instances (including my own) where cutting back on processed sugars and dairy has drastically impacted the levels of acne someone has.

My sister-in-law is sitting across from me and is currently dealing with the acne directly related to the amount of sugary drinks she has started consuming since moving (Thai Iced Teas are addicting)

How can you be 100% sure it's the sugar? Perhaps it's a new set of chemicals and bacteria in the water supply of her new home? Perhaps it's the tea itself, the temperature of the drink, the cream, new molds or pollen in the air where she now lives? Or the stress of moving?

Or the stress of being a social outcast for giving up sugar?

People who say they don't eat sugar make no sense, it's meaningless. My mother in law "doesn't eat sugar" but I see her eat stuff with sugar in it all the time. Fruit, most vegetables, and milk all have sugar in them.

I chose that source because a) I'm British and b) the NHS has a vested interest in reducing its drug bill and antibiotic usage as far as possible. So if there were a strong correlation between diet and acne and GPs could reduce treatment by suggesting dietary changes - they would.

If you look at the article you linked the most substantial source is a study of 23 Australian men, which showed interesting, but not conclusive results. So at best the jury is out.

Note that these were low GI diets, so we are not just talking about sugar, but simple starches found in potatoes, white bread, rice etc.

> but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant.

Intuitively, of course this feels right. In practice, I'll wait to see the actual studies, rather than the anecdotage.

And I'm not comfortable calling the majority of dermatologists, the NHS etc "willfully ignorant "

The fact that your sister in law has moved has undoubtedly introduced a variety of life-style and dietary changes. That you've picked sugary drinks as the most important factor isn't really compelling evidence.

It's silly to refuse advice and to quote an article that doesn't deny that there could be an link, and it just say that there is no proof that definitively there is a link. It's extremely hard to do tests on humans whether something works on them or not, because scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results.

Right now the only way to find out is to try yourself, it is free after all, and you can't deny that in any case (whether it works for acne our not) reduction of sugar intake is good for your body.

You're really claiming it's silly to refuse advice from a random person on the Internet, in favour of waiting for studies and clinical data?

Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you.

It took 50 years before it we noticed that there might be a relation with smoking causing a lung cancer and 80 years (1980) before we were sure about it[1][2].

Acne though is far less serious issue, and not many people would be interested finding cause for it, especially since it would kill business for companies selling solutions that treat the symptoms (which do help, but you need to use them regularly)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_conc...

> "Yep, there's one thing to tell you to do something that could potentially be harmful, vs telling you to not doing something because it might be harmful to you.".

I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be harmful to reduce sugar intake (although, I'm sure there may be cases where it is, or perhaps it's just easier said than done). I think it's more that there's apparently no proven link between sugar intake and acne and, given all the possible things that someone try in order do to reduce their acne, it might not make sense to choose one that has no evidence supporting it. Or at least, exhaust the other possibilities first.

Also, in the parent to my comment you say "scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results". But, they can, and do. It's called a controlled clinical trial. I've participated in one that went on for a week (was well paid for it) where we were kept in a room, fed a designed diet, and restricted in our activities. There were test subjects in the building who were in for much longer than my trial. So I don't think the idea that it's impossible to (dis)prove these things is accurate.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/107.full.pdf+html

"A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial"

Cohort size 43 persons.

My summary: At 12 wk, mean total lesion counts had decreased more in the low-glycemic-load group ( 23.5 +/- 3.9) than in the control group ( 12.0 +/- 3.5).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com