Readit News logoReadit News
michael9423 commented on Britain's postwar sugar craze confirms harms of sweet diets in early life   science.org/content/artic... · Posted by u/rbanffy
throwawaycities · 10 months ago
>HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased.

Because metabolic diseases are progressive chronic conditions. That’s why T2D & fatty liver were historically adult diseases, it’s not because throughout history people gradually increased sugar consumption as they got older and got the diseases, rather the metabolic damage progressed. In short when you are over consuming sugar for 20 years and see obesity, T2D and fatty liver disease increase you don’t necessarily expect to see it decrease even if sugar use slightly decreases…if you want to decrease or eliminate T2D/fatty liver disease then eliminate the sugar.

>"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again.

That’s not what “reversing diabetes” means, it means getting off insulin because you manage your BG through diet and lifestyle.

>Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk.

It’s just not a good metaphor because your definition of “reverse” is returning to eating carbs normally was wrong. Lactose intolerance is an acute reaction related to inability to produce an enzyme to breakdown and digest lactose - it’s managed not treated with medication, though some may take the enzyme lactase. Further, taking lactase because you’re lactose intolerant and want to eat some ice cream tonight is in no way comparable to having T2D and the need to take insulin.

michael9423 · 10 months ago
That does not make sense statistically. A decrease in total HFCS consumption would lead to a decrease in new diabetes cases if it was the actual root cause.

Sugar is not the cause of diabetes.

michael9423 commented on Does veganism have an ultra-processing problem?   bbc.com/future/article/20... · Posted by u/belter
IWeldMelons · a year ago
News flash - vegans and vegetarians do not need "meat substitutes", as we do not crave meat. Difference between 33% (non-vegetarian) and %39 (vegan)percent of "UPF" is trivial, and probably won't matter and will be offset by lack of carcinogens prevalent in fried meat etc.
michael9423 · a year ago
I don't think you can speak for all vegans and vegetarians.

I was vegetarian for a couple years until meat cravings became so strong I started eating meat again.

84% of vegans and vegetarians return to meat: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/201...

Many because they crave it.

Several vegan influencers have been caught eating meat and fish secretly. Conversely the same - some carnivore influencers have been caught eating fruit and other plant products.

Only 2% of US-Americans are truly vegan or vegetarian (and even those tend to cheat here and there).

michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
oliwary · a year ago
Could you explain why you consider nuclear power to be more clean than wind? That seems counterintuitive to me.
michael9423 · a year ago
Wind turbines do not produce a lot of energy in total so you need a lot of them.

Thousands of tons of concrete are poured into the soil for the foundation of one wind turbine, and the foundation is likely never removed, creating ecological implications.

And wind turbines also can not be recycled and go to landfills.

With nuclear energy, the newest 4th generation reactors are closed systems that consume their own nuclear waste, so there is no final disposal problem.

michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
pfdietz · a year ago
The relevant point is that the waste from renewables is dominated by mundane things like glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel.

This means it's pertinent to ask: is the quantity of waste from renewables important compared to the quantity of these produced by society in general?

And the answer is "no". So the problem of dealing with such waste has to be dealt with anyway by society; the waste of renewable energy sources just increments the problem slightly.

This is different from nuclear energy, which introduces an entirely new kind of waste not produced by society in general.

michael9423 · a year ago
The thing is that nuclear research has been stiffled for decades. It is possible to create nuclear reactors that consume their own waste.
michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
blitzar · a year ago
> I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.

You heard wrong. 4th generation nuclear doesn't actually exist anywhere but on paper.

I hear nuclear fusionand perpetual motion machines are pretty clean.

michael9423 · a year ago
This is considered 4th gen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
imtringued · a year ago
If this is about the lead in the solder then this is a huge nothingburger.
michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
blitzar · a year ago
> the only clean sources of energy are nuclear and water

> Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment

Nuclear waste is famously clean and Three Gorges Dam has caused the Earth to alter its rotation.

Lunch is not free and never will be free. Part of the problem is pretending that it is or that my one true solution will solve all the problems of the world.

michael9423 · a year ago
Yes, technically there is nothing that is 100% clean. But with nuclear and water, you more or less control the area of contamination and you don't have a permanent production of toxic waste that goes everywhere and is impossible to get out of the environment again.

I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.

michael9423 commented on 20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use   oxfordpv.com/news/20-more... · Posted by u/akamaka
SoftTalker · a year ago
In case you want more than a press release:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell

N.b the long section on lead toxicity concerns.

michael9423 · a year ago
In my previous comment elsewhere that got flagged, I said, among other things, that the only clean sources of energy are nuclear and water.

Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment. Even the silicon panels contain lead.

There's a pretty dark side to renewables that not many want to see.

https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

Dead Comment

michael9423 commented on Confessions of a Theoretical Physicist   nautil.us/confessions-of-... · Posted by u/signa11
michael9423 · a year ago
How can he be sure he's a theoretical physicist if he doesn't know reality exists at all?

The truth is, instead of reality, he would be better off questioning theoretical physics, which indeed does not exist outside the heads of academia.

His "questioning of reality" only happens philosophically (in other words, it is an academic farce), once he gets up to do some grocery shopping he sure knows what to buy so he can eat in order to survive. There is your objective reality.

Humans understand reality if they do not bury their heads in the sand. But academia can get in the way.

u/michael9423

KarmaCake day298February 25, 2024View Original