
Iron Is the New Cholesterol? - tosh
http://m.nautil.us/issue/67/reboot/iron-is-the-new-cholesterol
======
sn41
A significant percentage of people are living comfortably up to an age of 70
or more even in the poor nations. I think this focus on marginal effects is
not going to cut it any longer.

How about focusing on air pollution, which is the likely emerging leading
carcinogen in developing countries?

~~~
woodandsteel
>How about focusing on air pollution, which is the likely emerging leading
carcinogen in developing countries?

You are right, air pollution is a huge problem. But there is no reason to
think we can't work on both at the same time. And I may be wrong, but my guess
is that you are perfectly well aware of that.

~~~
Fezzik
It is a good practice to be aware of though - often constructive conversations
can be derailed by well-intentioned but unintentional “but-what-about-X”
arguments being introduced when no such arguments existed to begin with. It is
a hard habit to break when it comes to important topics. Generally, as in this
case, the two things are in no way mutually exclusive.

~~~
coldtea
They don't need to be exist "to begin with". A conversation can expand with
new X items to put things in perspective.

Besides, even if every course of action is not mutually exclusive, there is a
opportunity cost and a need to prioritize them.

------
throwaway984789
The opening is pretty misleading.

"Like almost any refined food made with wheat flour, it is fortified with
iron"

This makes it sound like everything we eat has this absurd level of iron.
Typical refined food made with wheat flour has a much lower level of iron than
cheerios (which incidentally are not made with wheat) do. Cheerios are weird
that way. Kix are the only other thing I've found that has that level of high
iron fortification (I'm personally at risk for low iron and read a lot of
labels). Even Luna bars back when they were marketed as having nutrients for
women had less.

~~~
BaryonBundle
To complicate matters, not all iron should be considered equal per units mass,
some forms of iron are considerably more bio-available, and in general the
forms provided as supplement on cereals in are on the low end of bio-
availability.

~~~
JunkDNA
This. I remember my biochemistry professor in college grinding up a bowl of
cereal into a fine powder and then using a magnet to yank all the iron out.
Fine iron powder like the kind present in cereals is nowhere near as
bioavailable as iron complexed with proteins (e.g. from red meat). You
basically just poop most of it out. Ask anyone who has had an iron deficiency.
It is ferociously difficult to take enough supplements and change your diet
enough to correct a severe form of it.

------
LIDuck
Hereditary Hemochromatosis is a genetic disorder with which some one million
people in the US (and more in other, especially northern European countries)
are priviledged to suffer. Hereditary Hemochromatosis is a disorder of iron
metabolism. The body stores inordinate amounts of iron obtained from fortified
and unfortified foods. The iron damages liver, pancreas, brain, joints, causes
diabetes, causes impotence, extreme fatigue. Etc etc etc. We don't need extra
iron. Give us the choice. Phlebotomy is not fun.

------
qwerty456127
I've heard calcium in milk blocks iron absorption so only a tiny part of iron
contained in cereals is actually absorbed in your body if you eat it with
milk. Can anybody tell how true or false this is?

------
sc4les
If only there was some kind of iron that the body isn’t forced to absorb... oh
wait there is. The non-heme iron in plants

~~~
risto1
Yep. It's unfortunate how little people know about nutrition and think it's
all BS. A bunch of quacks hijacked the entire industry and everyone somehow
believed them

------
jpatokal
Up next, "iron-free" becoming the next dietary fad after low-salt, low-
cholesterol, low-fat and gluten-free.

~~~
kurthr
They'll process the parts-is-parts even more to remove the Iron from your
"iron-free" McNuggets or put Iron-chelating agents into your Szechuan sauce.

------
api
So its the new thing we will be told is bad for you for a decade only to be
told the next decade that it's actually good for you?

Great! Marketers get two food fads: low iron today, iron rich when its
reversed!

------
woodandsteel
A lot of skeptical remarks here. The commenters seem certain, without any
evidence, that it is simply impossible that problems with iron are even one
tenth as bad as the article says the might be.

I think it is quite possible there are some real problems here, and so there
should be a big research push to find out.

You know, it occurs to me that if an article raising danger signs about iron
fortification is published, the iron fortification industry would have a
strong financial interest in attacking it.

------
bad_user
The article starts by giving as example cereals fortified with iron.

A much better idea is to simply stop eating processed crap.

------
gniv
This article made me look at the iron content of various foods that I eat
often. Surprisingly, dark chocolate has a lot of iron -- a 100g bar has 100%
of DV.

------
joaomacp
Wait, I had anemia all my life and I thought this was bad. Does this mean I'm
actually healthy now?

------
lj3
I hate to be that guy, but...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15703544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15703544)

There's a reason enrichment of foods is illegal in most of Europe.

~~~
yesenadam
Leaving all the content of your comment in links isn't very informative to
most people, I'd guess, who don't bother clicking. Especially when you forget
to say why they should. I clicked - but you did exactly the same thing on the
linked-to page! No thanks. Don't waste my time. If you have something to say,
say it.

------
andrewguenther
Iron is the new cholesterol

Gluten is the new sugar

Sugar is the new fat

Fat is the new salt

X is the new Y

At what point do we come full circle and just realize "consuming too much of
anything is bad for you"?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but it feels like there is a study to support
that just about anything can give you cancer. When do we just say "cancer
happens no matter what"? Will we ever say that? Is that even the direction
we're heading? It feels like the more we understand these diseases, the closer
we come to the conclusion that they simply aren't preventable and no matter
what you do you're always at risk. Obviously there are unhealthy lifestyles
that increase your risk, but I feel like a study comes out every week linking
something new to cancer.

~~~
a2dam
I understand the desire to abstract everything to simple, general, easy to
follow rules, but it's better to have a better understanding of nutrition.
These beliefs can change over time and that's a good thing, even if it's hard
to keep up with.

~~~
barry-cotter
This would be much more convincing if I didn’t remember salt and dietary
cholesterol going from definitely bad to mostly irrelevant or that we were
told margarine was healthier than butter. The new health scare is sugar and
that’s less than ten years old. Nutritional science in humans is important but
it’s also impossible. Leave nutritionists to try and do their research and in
your own life ignore everything they say.

You can’t do long term randomised control trials, you can barely do short term
ones because people do not follow diets. And observational studies are very,
very confounded.

~~~
risto1
Salt and dietary cholesterol never went from definitely bad to mostly
irrelevant. It's still definitely bad. I'm guessing what you had read are
magazine articles and 'nutritionists' coming up with their own theories.

If you look at actual recommendations from real organizations from real
registered dietitians, the advice has largely not changed:

\- Don't eat processed crap

\- Eat mostly plants

\- Eat lean meats and try to eat more beans and legumes as a protein source

\- Keep your overall fat intake low

\- Calcium from low-fat dairy, a milk substitute like almond milk, or plant
sources of calcium

\- Reduce added salt as much as possible

\- Avoid saturated fat

\- Avoid dietary cholesterol

\- Avoid refined carbs

\- Avoid added sugars and oils

And this advice is consistent across health organizations and across different
countries. It's scary how much people get all their information from shitty
sources and then spread the misinformation everywhere..

Sources:

[https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/healthy-...](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/healthy-diet)

[https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executi...](https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executive-
summary/)

[https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-
nutriti...](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-
nutrition/canada-food-guide/choosing-foods.html)

[https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.dge.de/index.php%3Fid%3D52&xid=17259,1500008,15700021,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242&usg=ALkJrhikcFGd8Jbjo_1ooCpTPKpVaMMeQw#)

[http://www.mangerbouger.fr/pro/sante/alimentation-19/determi...](http://www.mangerbouger.fr/pro/sante/alimentation-19/determinants-
de-l-etat-nutritionnel/limiter-la-consommation-de-matieres-grasses.html)

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_national_nutrition_s...](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_national_nutrition_sant%C3%A9)

[http://www.fao.org/3/a-as686o.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/a-as686o.pdf)

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742750/Eatwell_Guide_booklet_2018v4.pdf)

[http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-
guidelin...](http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-
guidelines/resources/en/)

[http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/010/ai800e/ai800e00.pdf](http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/010/ai800e/ai800e00.pdf)

[http://apps.searo.who.int/PDS_DOCS/B4818.pdf](http://apps.searo.who.int/PDS_DOCS/B4818.pdf)

~~~
barry-cotter
Cholesterol

Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause
mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and
meta-analysis of observational studies

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/)

"does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high
consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total
saturated fats."

Salt

[https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/tl-
tls080818...](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/tl-
tls080818.php)

The Lancet: Sodium reduction programmes may only be appropriate for
communities with very high salt intake

A new study shows that for the vast majority of communities, sodium
consumption is not associated with an increase in health risks except for
those whose average consumption exceeds 5g/day (equivalent to 12.5g of salt,
or 2½ teaspoons). Communities with high average levels of sodium intake (above
5g/day) were mostly seen in China, with only about 15% of communities outside
China exceeding this level of consumption.

WHO guidelines recommend a global approach to reducing sodium intake in all
populations to below 2g/day, but this has not been achieved in any country.
The authors say that sodium reduction strategies should instead target
communities with high average levels of sodium consumption (above 5g/day).

[https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSe...](https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSession?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Fjournals%2Flancet%2Farticle%2FPIIS0140-6736%2816%2930467-6%2Ffulltext&rc=0)

~~~
risto1
You can't rely on single studies to come up with conclusions, if you want to
play that game you can literally prove or disprove anything you want to.

The whole picture can and does look very different than any single study.
Studies vary a lot in quality, and there are tricks that are done to fudge
with the conclusions. See:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg](https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg)

He very clearly points out exactly how people screw with the data on a large
number of studies. That's why I listed all those sources from credible
organizations from conclusions drawn by actual dietitians, not me or you or
joe 'nutritionist' randomly trying to come up with our own conclusions.

Also, any reasonably intelligent random person can attack any studies pretty
easily and make it look credible. Example: The first one is a meta-analysis of
observational studies, one of the weakest forms of evidence, and other meta-
analyses came up with the exact opposite conclusion. The second one's
conclusion is obviously flawed, since salt without a shadow of a doubt
increases blood pressure, so salt intake definitely does matter for older
populations which almost always have a compromised cardiovascular system, so
it definitely matters to them. The third isn't really saying anything except
that they aren't successful at reducing salt consumption.

I'd rather trust experts to do their work, but you can do what you want it's
your health. I bought all this crap for a few years until I suffered health
problems from eating tons of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat with
theoretical benefits. I could _literally_ see my intake of saturated fat and
cholesterol turning my blood cholesterol (total and LDL) and triglycerides on
and off like a light switch. I did this several times. It was SO cut and dry.
I kept all other variables the same. And I've always eaten tons of really
health foods, a ton of plants, I just bought into the hype that butter and
eggs are suddenly 'healthy', according to magazines and 'nutritionists'. Even
blood work doesn't stop some people -- I remember reading a HN post of someone
who started eating tons of eggs and had absurdly high levels of blood
cholesterol, but his conclusion was that it's 'not a concern' and he 'feels
fine' \-- The doubt that was introduced already got to him and he just doesn't
care anymore.

Cigarette companies played this exact same game for years btw, introducing
doubt as to whether cigarettes caused cancer and lung disease. All you have to
do is introduce doubt. It doesn't even have to be a strong argument towards
experts, as in experts don't think there is any doubt. It's targeted towards
just the lay person who doesn't understand the science

