The current plan, as proposed, isn't even accurate or helpful. It has butter under healthy fats, which it is not. "meat" is thoroughly vague and red meat is very different from fish and poultry. Red meat of all types are filled with saturated fats associated with cvd and ldl-c levels.
It's not scientific and that's exactly what you'd expect out of RFK and MAHA movement.
All of this coming while the administration guts science funding, food inspections, vaccine guidelines, handouts to farmers producing nutrient poor foods, corporatist policies creating more food deserts.
thoroughly discredits what they are trying to do, even if there is some good in here.
CVD and links to saturated fats is a long, long established phenomenon and has a lot of science behind it. A single study or even studies should not invalidate or discount it. Before people misinterpret what this is saying.
Sugar may also contribute some to CVD but most cardiologists still think fats are the main driver of CVD.
Those studies however generally put beef and sausages into the same "red meat" category. So yeah... that science is, from what I've seen, basically worthless.
Large percentage, yes. The issue is the "not large percentage" part. Sugar, additives, preservatives, colors... all of these are toxic. And when you mix up beef steak with sausage... you won't get realistic results.
That's like asking "what's the issue if somebody salts the soup with cyanide, most of the meal will still be soup". Yeah, but the cyanide will still kill you, even if it is the small percentage.
there are literally thousands of studies. there's no real scientific debate amongst people that know what they are talking about. Red meat, and any food high in saturated fats, are awful for your heart. full stop. that includes sausage, steak, ham, butter, etc.
the people eating "lean steaks" are fooling themselves. There's no such thing as "clean beef" it all has high amounts of bad fats. Are some worse than others? of course but let's not kid ourselves.
There is literally no proof for any of that. In fact, scientists recently seem to be walking back on the whole "saturated fat bad" stuff. Because nutritional science is less science, and more "monetary interests + blind faith".
There is very little science in nutrition, despite the existence of thousands of studies. There are huge gaps in even the basics of nutrition understanding, and we are constantly discovering new confounding variables. Some dietary fibers were being counted as carbs as late as the 2000s. The huge impacts of the gut microbiome on digestion of food has barely been recognized in the last 10 years, and we still basically know nothing about it. Inter-personal variations in base metabolic rates and/or absorption of nutrients from food is gigantic, with basically no known reasons for it (some of the difference is tied to muscle mass, but even if you eliminate differences in muscle mass, there are still large differences that remain), and no inclusion in common models and dietary recommendations.
I'm not trying to say that red meat is good for you. I'm just saying we have no real idea, and you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. Try things out, see if you can eat similarly to people you know who are in good health, and get blood work done regularly to see if you're ok. Probably avoid highly synthesized foods.
Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question.
You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so?
> you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot.
This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot.
I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern.
In any other domain, I would agree with you 100%. But nutrition science really is that bad, in my experience and opinion. With some exceptions (e.g. the need for vitamins to avoid things like scurvy, or the relationship between salt intake and blood pressure), even long-standing nutrition beliefs and practices have been overturned (e.g. consumption of cholesterol, or the discovery of the role of dietary fiber), and some of the newer research is likely to overturn others (e.g. with the role and diversity of gut microbiomes, it's likely other nutrition advice will depend to some extent on your specific microbiome).
The reason for this is fairly simple to see: the methods of science that work so well in other areas of biology are completely impractical in nutrition because of
1. The difficulty of ascertaining and maintaining compliance with a specific diet for a long term study
2. The very long-term effect of some food choices
3. The unknown degree of inter-personal variance in food consumption
4. The expected low effect size of dietary recommendations
5. The huge variety of possible dietary effects
6. The huge amount of possible confounding factors in any population-level study
As you'd expect from this combination, the only effects we really have good science about are those that are relatively fast acting (e.g. salt intake increases BP in less than a day) or have very strong effect sizes (e.g. lack of vitamins or certain amino-acids produces severe diseases). For things like life-long effects, or even effects over multiple years, especially where the correlation is slight, you're left with very unclear science where the unknown possible confounding factors dominate any conclusion.
Edit to add: even today, there is a clear disconnect in nutrition science between people who advocate mostly for relatively simple guidelines and the avoidance of processed foods, usually recommending a preference for vegetables over animal-based products; and the older style of guidelines that you suggest, that say a grilled steak is much worse for you than, say, a stevia-sweetened granola bar you'd buy in a super market.
Dietary cholestrol hasn't really been overturned, but sure there is some nuance. Some people do respond badly to dietary cholestrol (like you said, individual advice is sometimes required), but dietary cholestrol is also not a linear response afaiu. That is, if you eat one egg a day, you may as well eat 4, but if you can completely eliminate dietary cholestrol it could make a difference. So, many guidelines don't bother with suggesting it, because it's too hard to eleminate it to the point of mattering for the average person.
All that to say, the science isn't wrong, but the practicalities influence the advice.
The guidelines haven't changed, but they should be. The association between cholesterol and CVD is specifically related to blood cholesterol levels. However, in healthy individuals, blood cholesterol levels are not strongly impacted by dietary cholesterol choices - since cholesterol is synthesized in the body, there is homeostasis, and higher cholesterol intake leads to lower rate of synthesis, maintaining the same blood levels.
However, some individuals suffer from a bad regulation of this homeostasis, and for them dietary cholesterol does lead to persistent high levels of blood cholesterol as well. So the guidelines should apply for them, but not for everyone else.
Nutrition science is not science in almost any of the ways a real science needs to be, and there is almost zero "real, good science" to be found in it. The reasons this statement is true (as well as the precise qualifications of the exceptions to this) are well laid out by tsimionescu in response to your post.
The measurement, control, confounds, and even basic concepts are atrocious here, this is possibly the only field as bad as or even worse than e.g. social psychology. And this is all ignoring the massive economic interests involved.
It is in fact only science illiteracy that would lead one to think nutrition science is a serious science. At the most absolute charitable, it is a protoscience like alchemy (which did have some replicable findings that eventually led to real chemistry, but which was still mostly nonsense at core).
Matter of the fact is that the entirety of belief that saturated fat "clogs the arteries" was based on the epidemiological studies which failed to adjust for other risk factors such as trans fat intake, intake of processed foods, and many more.
We should not throw away "80+ years of scientific studies and data" because... said "80+ years of scientific studies and data" do not exist. Not a single actual study had ever been made. The best we have are epidemiological studies, and these have massive issues.
"This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot.
I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern."
It is not an insane take, you are just being a dumbass. Doctors do not have any training in nutrition. When I asked my doctor - doctors, actually, plural - for dietary advice, literally all of them told me "I don't have knowledge to advise you on that, figure it out on your own".
Science has basis in reality, yes. But doctors aren't scientists.
not sure where people have been for the last year but MAHA and rfk have been on the "fat is good train" and seem to completely ignore entire decades of science.
yeah social media is proving itself to be a bad actor like big alcohol, big tobacco. No incentive to do the right thing or improve anything. ripping audiences away from them is the only way they'll understand.
That's a really cool use case and seems super helpful. working cloud native is a chore sometimes. having to fiddle with internal apis, acl/permissions issues.
Bold of you to assume the public will ever catch up or care in the world of relentless algos and propagandizing. Tariffs have been in place for months now, which is objectively a regressive self imposed tax on US citizens.
It's going to get worse, I'd imagine, as more Americans double down on 2nd citizenship, permanent residencies. As the US becomes more unstable, the risk of overstaying is going to increase. Countries will start yanking visa free entry as the US falls apart.
The stock market isn't representative of 1) how the economy is doing and 2) how your civil rights are doing.
Would you say the surveillance state we've lived under since Bush is fine because the stock market is at an all time high? Similarly for the global inflation under COVID: is it fine since stocks went up?
Not necessarily. There are quite a few levers the U.S. government and Federal Reserve have to keep things humming along since we're a giant. Stocks are not as rational as you're making them out to be. As the saying goes "gradually, then suddenly"
Your remarks about "shorting the market if you think this" are not only ignorant but passive aggressive.
If by sucker you mean in the context of the film's title, then that fits. If we use a more general definition of sucker, then I guess it depends on if the Trump voter wanted exactly what he is delivering. If they are getting precisely what they wanted, then they aren't really a sucker, they are something else.
So you are only not a sucker if you agree 100% on everything he does? And this is the first time in this nations history where that is true? Meaning its ok to partially agree with previous presidents and NOT be a sucker?
I think the world is full of suckers right now, both right wing and left wing. Also, full of suckers for CEOs and celebrities. Suckers for AI utopia and so on.
Trump somehow contributed to that radicalization (he is not the sole responsible for it though). I think many who support him don't see it that way, and instead interpret his actions as some sort of cheat codes for progress that cut through a lot of bullshit. I am skeptic of his agenda.
I am, however, also cautious about many of the leftist ideas, specially in the last decade. If made to chose though, I would definitely go left.
I think I'm an orphan of a deceased left that doesn't exist anymore. A left that cares more about things like education and healthcare than about how they look on social media. I don't see much value in discussing leaders (this comment is a rare exception) or amplifying partisan narratives.
Well said, thank you. The only thing I have a slight issue with is this.
"If made to chose though, I would definitely go left."
This is part of the problem I think. Many people (dare I say everyone) doesn't fit neatly in a left vs right. On certain topics, definitely, but not like a sports team.
So why do we just assume this from someone having a R or a D on their voter card or who they voted for last time?
they understand that, and that's why they're making it sticky by adding in app purchasing, advertising, integrations. also why they hired OGs from IG/FB. They are building the moat and hoping that first to market is going to work out.
they are trying to become/replace google. they are first to market for an entirely new query paradigm and in app purchases and advertising are just one aspect of a platform.
My battery is 3 separate "48v" x 280ah units in parallel. There is no grid so I am not sure what you mean by coupled. The batteries output DC to inverters which output AC. It is several years old at this point, probably the better value is in "48v" x 320ah setups now. The breakers/busbars, etc are setup for max discharge of 200A but in practice I have never gotten anywhere near that.
As electrician I install PV systems and the Chinese have nice battery+inverter combos. Inverter feeds the battery at 480V@10A DC and then the battery later delivers 3-5 kW back over the inverter. Batteries are modular and can go up to 50 kwh. 10kW rated inverter with ~10 kWp panels fully charges 10 kWh battery in couple hours and produces additional 40-50 kWh on a sunny day (southern Germany). Probably the advantage of these products is high voltage and system integration. Sadly I have no good advice for your setup.
It's not scientific and that's exactly what you'd expect out of RFK and MAHA movement.
reply