jet @ jet @hackertalks.com

Posts

93

Comments

6,662

Joined

2 yr. ago

Health effects associated with consumption of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids: a Burden of Proof study

Study title... CNN title is only about meat.

A meta-analysis of observational epidemiology

All of the issues with epidemiology apply

• association is not causation
• hypothesis generating only
• healthy user confounders
• people eating meat are often eating high carbohydrate diets
• metabolic context of the participants
• food frequency questionnaires filled out yearly or every 4 years.

I don't have access to the paper, it hasn't made it to the Free Academic circles yet, so I haven't been able to read it.

Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review

I personally think the reason EVERYTHING is linked to cancer, as well as the massive surge in cancer since the 1900s, is all due to the modern metabolism (sugar burners) being very different then pre-1900 metabolism (fat burners)

• High carbohydrate load, high blood glucose load, high insulin levels
• Industrial Oil, systemic body inflammation
• Agrochemical contamination of food supply, more systematic inflammation

The problem with these observational studies is they don't look at the modern metabolic context, so in this context, yes EVERYTHING is associated with cancer - because the studies arn't looking at the right variables.

This is exactly why hard science doesn't use association to draw conclusions, epidemiology is hypothesis generating only

If you haven't read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It's a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).

It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.

I don't think that quite transfers, epidemiology is very weak, it only surfaces associates which is a good point to do a interventional trial but that is rarely done. The core problem with these studies is that to isolate variables they have to make a model of that variable in isolation, this relies on both assumptions of the model maker, accuracy of data, and is very vulnerable to p-hacking. Model assumptions that a hamburger and fries counts as meat, but not vegetable (potato) also impact the outcomes.

The large observational food surveys conducted typically have a 1-4 year questionnaire about how many servings of different food someone ate. Once every 4 years leaves lots of room open for forgetfulness.

There is a huge problem with healthy user confounders, people trying to follow all the modern health advice are going to skew results - not because all of the advice is correct, but some of it is. If someone exercises regularly, practices mindfulness, avoids processed foods, avoids meat - Are their improvements due to any single variable, yet on a food survey they get over represented because of these exclusionary behaviors.

We also have multiple different epidemiology studies covering the same topics and getting different results, that probably means we are focusing on the wrong question, it's noisy.

From my reading its far more likely the modern epidemic of chronic disease is caused by the introduction of excessive carbohydrates in processed foods, the novel addition of industrial oils (again processed foods) into the food supply - they account for 30%!!! of the average westerners average calorie intake, exposure to food contaminates from agrochemicals such as pesticides. The metabolic context of people filling out these surveys is a critical part that is being omitted.

In the following graphs notice how the incidence is very high in countries with traditionally low meat consumption like india? This indicates the hypothesis generated from the abstract paper isn't asking the right question.

My point is that you can follow every bit of advice from associative food surveys, but since the wrong questions are being focused on, your outcomes wont be as good as you hope. Quite frankly epidemiology is more about publicity and marketing then being part of the scientific process.

If you haven't read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It's a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).

The one benefit of Fiat physical cash is anybody can use it, it has no opinions on its owner. But yes, its very much a economic weapon wielded by countries.

I'm pretty sure you can buy coke and hookers with Monero today

They already do, just some people. Like the ICC prosecutor that was sanctioned by the US and can't have email service, bank accounts with any organization that wants to do business with the USA. I think thats the reason Germany is dropping microsoft.

Make friends in meat space. Have activities you do with other people regularly

The ways of lemmy federation are mysterious and "best effort".

great setup!

Do you use the trackball with one hand exclusively or mix it up? Just thinking about the middle placement

Session was a good idea, but not implemented well

All file attachments go to a central server I think in Canada

They copied the signal protocol, and monero, to build their application but they removed perfect forward secrecy. Because it was hard to implement. This means of any session device ever gets compromised, somebody can look at the entire conversation from packets they captured on the wire

I'm much more excited about simplex and briar

Alright, so

• A - Origin community
• B - Other community
• C - following community of A & B

User posts to A, a "as:announce" on C is generated. A user replies to the post on C. Will user A see the reply? Will someone looking at the post on A see the activity on C?

It's kind of like the diet problem. You can buy the best food you intend to eat and keep it home. But you still eat the trash. But now instead of the computer helping you stay on track with what you intend to watch, your subscriptions, the junk foods just being shoveled down your throat because it gets better engagement.

Multiply that by every feed, every piece of algorithmic engagement, every search bar... People lose a lot of self-improve opportunities

To be fair, they're not messaging you. Their messaging your boyfriend. Different people get different advice.

People's Friends see red flags, and they want to tell their friend about it before they get into more trouble. That's normal human behavior.

Of course, you can prove, through a lifetime of good deeds and work, that you're the exception. And I look forward to having a happy and committed life. But people will be doubtful, and that's okay. Even if they never say it, they're still thinking it. So it's good that this is all out there in the public.

UXG_PRO buddies!

I've noticed the topology view doesn't handle non-Ubiquity devices well. They tend to just go to the very top.

How would comments happen? Would they not get back to the original poster?

Only if you get a constitutional amendment that the benefits senators get is shared by the population. I.E. if the senators get healthcare the public gets the same healthcare, if the public doesn't get healthcare then neither does the Senate.

If I think the content is a net positive for Lemmy you get a upvote, even if I disagree, even if I don't like you.

So that means even if someone later reveals themselves to be an asshat, they are still adding to Lemmy's ecosystem and get to keep their upvotes.

Update: but I'm not a saint, if someone is downvoting me I'll downvote them right back

Cherry pick a few topics you know incredibly well and look at their published articles on those subjects.

Did they cover your area of expertise correctly with nuance and giving the appropriate context?

If yes, now you have more confidence that the articles in other areas are also well written and researched.

If no, now you have less confidence in them

You can apply the above strategy to any news source. For many people the above protocol gives good results with aj.

You should be clear about what your threat model is. What are you willing to accept? What are you willing to trade?

Using a phone only as a Wi-Fi device is probably going to reduce the information surface you exposed to the world.

It runs terribly slowly anywhere outside of China.