The culpable people

An abundance of food that we didn’t coevolve with and thus isn’t optimal nutrition.

Modern industrial foods have just shown up in the 3ish million years of homosapiens existence, hell, agriculture is still really new at 13,000 years.

Humans eating the coevolved foods won’t have this type of reaction, i.e. animals meats and fats won’t make even the most dedicated couch potato look like this guy.

Now… eventually, in a few hundred thousand or millions of years eating current processed foods, the future humans will have adapted and be ok with it, but not today

Last time I checked on fairphone they weren’t doing the due diligence for basic security, and that’s why grapheneos won’t touch them

Did they get worse?

Gold is a common food decoration and considered edible, but of no nutritional value.

Most plants are slow acting poisons, they don’t want to be eaten. Humans have a tolerance for some level of some poisons… Many nuts have trace levels of cyanide, but people eat them anyway… Beans if not soaked can make people very sick, etc …

The core problem is lots of people eat things that aren’t ideal - especially when starving.

Lots of people have gluten sensitivity, they get a inflamed gut when they eat it, but they eat it anyway… so it’s a poison, but it doesn’t kill them quickly, and they will argue gluten is a food…

There are very few perfect foods with no downsides: eggs get pretty close, but even then some people have allergies

basic blood draws don’t differentiate them, you need more detailed blood tests.

You can get pretty close with a standard lipid panel: the TG/HDL ratio < 2, is strongly correlated with insulin sensitivity and LDL being pattern A (the undamaged, good type).

And you’re not supposed to draw conclusions from epidemiological studies with results lower than a 100% risk increase (aka doubling risk). The result of this study was 18%.

Epidemiology cannot establish causation in any circumstance, but if the hazard ratio is > 4 (so 400% risk increase) then further studies/interventions are warranted. This is why epidemiology is more accurately called hypothesis generating. But yeah a 1.18 hazard ratio is such low noise it doesn’t warrant further study, only people with agendas try to use such a low noisy signal for political ends.

The WHO should be ashamed for platforming this trash study as if it’s 6-sigma physics results

!!!

Great write-up, thank you for taking the time, I liked reading it

the carnivore diet because 1: it’s boring, 2: it’s expensive, and 3: you need to do more research than what I’ve stated here to avoid problems. But regardless, it is doable.

As somebody doing carnivore, I don’t think it’s boring.

When you remove all of the plants from your grocery shopping, I don’t even think it’s more expensive. It’s about the same price. You’re not buying all that other stuff.

As far as research goes, I would agree for getting started, it’s a really good idea to follow somebody’s program, especially around electrolytes for adaptation. But if you are eating red meat and no sugar, and electrolytes, I don’t think there’s any negative problems you need to avoid

None of the Wikipedia claims are based on reproducible science, at best the justification is weak epidemiology with weak hazard rations and not controlling for carbohydrate consumption.

There is no nutrient deficiencies on a carnivore eating pattern, with zero carbohydrates, the nutrition from fatty red meat is complete

Profit or philosophy but mostly good old fashioned stubbornness

If the problem manifests after years of consumption blame it on user error and not eating a balanced diet.

If you eat it and it doesn’t kill you or make you sick within 24 hours

Yes, but its a ketogenic eating pattern. Zero carb.

Carnivore is a type of keto, and gets all of the benefits we see with keto

Carnivore I wouldn’t be surprised about though.

Carnivore is just keto.

PBF : Plant based food - The all plant based diet that gets lots of press

ABF : Animal based foods - the zero carbohydrate ketogenic that usually has lots of controversy

I would love to see a well funded interventional study on institutionalized populations comparing a totally pbf diet vs totally abf diets and settle the debate once and for all.

You would be very surprised! The effects of low-carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors: A meta-analysis

TLDR Metabolic health is mostly impacted by poor diet, excess glucose and carbohydrates (which directly become glucose). Reducing elevated glucose levels has direct and measurable improvements on blood pressure and CVD risk.

A strict ketogenic intervention is so potent that people taking blood pressure medication have to be very careful and monitor their blood pressure when starting to reduce their medicine so they don’t faint from hypotension… i.e. Cardiovascular disease risk factor responses to a type 2 diabetes care model including nutritional ketosis induced by sustained carbohydrate restriction at 1 year: an open label, non-randomized, controlled study

https://lemmy.ml/post/33176527

A decade ago I watched a YouTube series about a space Opera musical. It was great, I can’t find it anymore. But because of your post I put all of the things I can remember about it into chatGpt and it found it

I give you: Stingray Sam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxfggiZLn60

This has lived in my head forever. And it totally disappeared off the internet for a long time

KISS

The more complicated the machine the more chances for failure.

Remote management plus bare metal just works, it’s very simple, and you get the maximum out of the hardware.

Depending on your use case that could be very important

3-2-1 every copy is encrypted, so taking the machine isn’t much of a concern and more of a inconvenience

You are getting my upvote due to a lifetime of wasted potential