Hacker News Reader

Comment by shlant | Hacker News Reader

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)

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com