jet

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).

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).

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).

Linoleic acid when burned by mitochondria for fuel only produce 60% of the energy required, starving cells and creating inflammation in the body.

I never knew that before I read a new book this week and started following the references. I knew it was bad for oxidative stress but I didn't think it also has a energy impact on cell respiration

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.

example graphs

CVD

Type 2 Diabetes

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).

Mandatory online only mode

I know it's a real language, but it kinda felt like someone doing a really good on the spot improv of a foreign language

https://archive.is/ejWS6

Sales are down in sweet baked goods and snacks, and the industry is weathering a downturn.

They might just have to be happy making healthy food available

But they are concerned they are losing their addicts. Trying to engineer addictive food specifically for glp1 patients seems kinda evil. Like the drug dealer giving away free hits to people trying to get clean

Larry Wynns is now buying mainly fruits and vegetables, he still turns to Healthy Choice frozen meals in a pinch

These patients really need to be shown the value of whole food diets in preserving their muscle mass and avoiding triggers.

Fuck this, I'm going carnivore. Pull up the griddle and get me a bacon, egg, gravy, and cheese muffin where the muffins are sausage patties.

Go slowly! Your gut biome will need time to adjust. Try introducing a bit of abf at each meal slowly increasing it every day. Make the full transition take about 3 weeks.

But avoid the gravy, it's not actually carnivore, it's a dense source of carbohydrates.

Comparison of thermoregulatory, cardiovascular, and immune responses to different passive heat therapy modalities - https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00012.2025

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