L7Death t1_iy8uvtv wrote

People aren't all the same. Metabolism differs between genotypes. Some people are terrible at fat absorption, it's kind of a super power according to some lipidologists. They can eat a high fat, low carb diet and have perfectly healthy cholesterol and triglycerides and so on. Others hyper absorb fat. Low fat, high carb diets are probably best in that case.

Then 'normal' people have metabolic flexibility. In healthy people the gut lining expunges excessive fats and they're excreted. In low absorbers the gut lining often doesn't even uptake it, and it's excreted. In high absorbers the gut uptakes fat readily but 'doesn't get the signal' to release fat back into the lumen, so excessive fats move into the lymphatic system or directly into the bloodstream, possibly wreaking havoc.


L7Death t1_ixmtwcz wrote

There was just a post about global bacteria infections leading to death.

People die from colds and flus all the time, especially people with compromised immune systems.


L7Death t1_iwxnk19 wrote

That's not pure science. That's a lot of math.

The funny thing about math is that various forms can be remarkably similar. The same math can explain completely different things. The equations for gravitational lensing are equivalent to basic refraction, for instance. Perhaps there's no gravitational lensing. Perhaps it's just particles acting as a lense, for instance. Though, that's really besides the point. The point is the same math can describe very different physical phenomenon.

RelMOND is basically as good as LCDM in many ways. Very different approaches with similar results in many cases.

We know we have a dark gravity problem. Gravity is just not very well understood across vast (cosmic to subatomic) scales.

The interesting bit is that by 'fixing gravity' both dark matter and dark energy may become entirely unneeded, or at least significantly reduced in magnitude. That's appealing as it's simpler, ya know, ol occums razor.

Yet our best models (regardless) still fail too frequently. So we still haven't got it right.


L7Death t1_iwetmpk wrote


> For example, 10 of the 24 (42%) clinical studies included in a recent review [1] provide evidence for the anti-tumor effect of KDs, whereas seven (29%) showed no effect and only one study reported a pro-tumor effect of the KD.


42 percent sounds better than 1 out of 24.


L7Death t1_ivdwy2r wrote


L7Death t1_iv8thd4 wrote

Heart failure. The article talks about heart failure, repeatedly.

> "[I]nclusion of some ALA-rich foods, such as walnuts, in the diet of any individual, whether they have HF or not, might translate into [cardiovascular] benefits, besides the putative effect on [heart failure]," Sala-Vila said, according to Medscape.

It's also found in the article.


L7Death t1_iszfd8b wrote

That's a lot of protein!

Various studies have shown high-quality protein like whey maxes out MPS at a mere 20g in healthy young men. That's equivalent to about 3 large whole chicken eggs, including the yolk as it contains half of the aminos.

Whole eggs beat egg whites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30133322/

Soy takes nearly twice that amount in some studies. Although if you mix plant proteins to get a better complete (aminos) protein then 30g of blended (one study used wheat, corn and pea protein isolates) isolated plant proteins can match 20g of isolated whey.

Whey also promotes prolonged post-exercise phosphorylation vs soy (4 vs 2 hours): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324640/

You're link is looking at a fairly high protein intake(like 25 percent). So MPS is going to be maxed either way. With only high-quality animal proteins we can likely get the same results with 10 percent protein, and avoid the extra oxidation and urea production from excessive protein consumption.


L7Death t1_isr7nao wrote

Well, if you look at the amounts of protein needed from various sources to maximize MPS, animal sources of proteins have huge advantages over plant sources of proteins. This is true even when those proteins are isolated.


L7Death t1_is4ycqk wrote

The problem isn't saturated fat.

Beef fat is predominantly monounsaturated, and maybe 40 percent saturated. Chicken fat is like 30 percent saturated, even fish fat is 20 percent saturated. Our bodies make saturated fats constantly, and cholesterol too.

Ancel Keys was a quack. Minnesota and Sydney RCTs proved replacing saturated fats with PUFA increased all-cause mortality. The official stance of the AHA and other orgs are pushing advice that's known to be harmful, and they've been doing it for decades. Animal fats are healthy in moderation. Ultraprocessed foods (like seed oils or sugar or white whatever) aren't -- especially not at the ubiquitous levels found in western diets. Processed foods cause metabolic disorders, especially when they become staples.

Too many examples of peoples all around the world that have thrived on very high meat consumption with extreme amounts of saturated animal fats and yet didn't have metabolic disorders or CHD. Read some of Dr. Mary Enig's work if you want examples.