MTL_t3k t1_iub1toc wrote

Usually refrain from responding to obnoxious idiots, but just in case anyone who does not know better comes across this nonsense:

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cannabis Use Following Legalization in US States With Medical Cannabis Laws

In this cross-sectional study analyzing repeated yearly surveys of US adults conducted from 2008 to 2017, living in a state after enactment of recreational cannabis laws was associated with increases in the odds of cannabis use..."

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

"Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect."

So basically everything pothead idiot just wrote is simply not true. Legalisation of cannabis has led to increased use, and prohibition worked remarkably well in terms of public health outcomes.


MTL_t3k t1_iu9eu62 wrote

Not sure why such research is even undertaken when something is so readily obvious from the outset.

Looks like some people are arguing about the merits of the new bivalent 'vaccine' vs the original 'vaccine'. Development of the bivalent versions started in February, since which there have been several major mutations of the virus. The newer 'vaccine' will not likely be significantly more effective.

Omicron has become the new seasonal flu, for which the annual vaccine - without quotes, since it is an actual vaccine and not an mRNA-based thereapeutic - has proven remarkably ineffective.


MTL_t3k t1_iu99gai wrote

Interesting that neither the words 'food' nor 'diet', the means by which the bacterial composition of the gut microbiome is created and can be altered, appear even once in the linked blog post. The word 'treatment', however, appears 4 times.

The role of diet in rheumatoid arthritis

Suppose it is easier, and not to mention far more profitable, to come up with a 'treatment' than to address the obvious source of the problem.


MTL_t3k t1_iu4x2ij wrote

More garbage research to support cannabis legalisation.

Who cares what uninformed children think or feel about something. If a poll of five year olds finds that most think or feel that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are real, that does not make it so.

Cannabis does impair cognitive development, and legalising it leads to increased use among young people. That is not hypothetical; that is what actually happened when Québec legalised and started selling it at government-regulated dispensaries (SQDC) in 2018. Teens were lining up around the block. The government was forced to undertake a bizarre public education campaign warning the same young people it was selling cannabis to about the risk of impaired cognitive development; it eventualy increased the age limit to purchase cannabis from 18 to 21, with little scientific evidence that doing so would mitigate potential harm (cognitive development continues beyond age 21).

Decriminalation is one thing, where most people agree that no one should have a criminal record for simple possession, and very few actually do. Legalisation is another matter. The government getting into the business of providing products or services with known detrimental effects, whether gambling, alcohol or cannabis, while simultaneously promoting campaigns to limit the harm from these same products and services, is the height of hypocrisy.


MTL_t3k t1_iu33z6w wrote

So basically, dangerous stupid surgery to try to lose weight is not a magic bullet. Who could have guessed? Oh, right. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

What fat, lazy people will resort to, and what an unscrupulous medical system will readily sell them, to avoid personal accountability for their health and well-being is quite troubling, not to mention sad.


MTL_t3k t1_iu2oins wrote

No need to even skip breakfast. Have breakfast at 10 AM and dinner at 6PM and you are IF'ing, or, as we commomers like to call it, eating .

Even the researchers are admitting that their research is useless. From the article:

"No changes were observed in the level of estradiol, estrone and progesterone in post-menoapusal women after the eight-week regimen.

Speaking to the utility of the data, Varady said, “I think this is a great first step. We’ve observed thousands of pre- and post-menopausal women through different alternate-day fasting and time-restricted eating strategies.”

All it’s doing is making people eat less. By shortening that eating window, you’re just naturally cutting calories. Much of the negative information on IF reported has come from studies on mice or rats. We need more studies to look at the effects of intermittent fasting on humans,” she concluded."

There are a lot more effective ways to consume less calories than starving oneself. One could consume an abundance of whole plant-foods (other than a few high fat ones like nuts, seeds, avocados) that would be calorically dilute yet satiating. Of course, one cannot do that on the idiotic keto diet, which is why its adherents resort to intermittant starvation.


MTL_t3k t1_iu0r7un wrote

No one cares what you were 'taught' by some idiot on youtube.

Effect of a plant-based, low-fat diet versus an animal-based, ketogenic diet on ad libitum energy intake

This was a short-term dietary ward experiment. Even though the keto diet groups lost ~0.7 lb more weight (Fig 2g), they lost ~1.5 lb more lean mass (Fig 2h) and ended up with ~1 lb more fat mass relative to the low-fat diet groups (Fig 2i). The keto diet groups did worse across the board in terms of health bio-markers. Basically keto resulted in significantly higher cholesterol, reduced insulin sensitivity, higher uric acid, impaired thyroid function and being skinny-fat. And all of that in less than a month. No wonder the idiots who advocate for it also advocate starving to try to compensate.

Ketogenic Diets and Chronic Disease: Weighing the Benefits Against the Risks

"Given often-temporary improvements, unfavorable effects on dietary intake, and inadequate data demonstrating long-term safety, for most individuals, the risks of ketogenic diets may outweigh the benefits."

Regarding keto, there is literally no legitimate research showing long-term health benefits from following this idiotic eating pattern, and what little research there is suggests it can be harmful long-term. That is why no professional nutrition or dietetics association recommends it, and most actially caution against it.

Regarding intermittant fasting, as noted in the previous comment, the most common form is eating within an eight hour window, or what is known in most parts of the world as regular eating. Presumably, calling it by some other name adds some element of novelty to the research.


MTL_t3k t1_itzttwk wrote

Not surprised to see research on intermittant fasting, keto's slightly less idiotic diet fad cousin, on r/science.

Notably, one of the 'IF' strategies, labeled 'TRE', or time-restricted eating, goes by another name in most parts of the world: Eating.


MTL_t3k t1_ity7x39 wrote

All the Vitamin D deficiency research suffers from the same inherent flaw. Vitamin D status can be a proxy for time spent outdoors, which can be a proxy for physical activity, exposure to fresh air, social interaction and other factors with beneficial effects on physical and mental health. Efforts to contril for these effects are fraught with their own inherent flaws.


MTL_t3k t1_itsuiwd wrote

Whoa. Stop the presses. Being physically active actually improves overall health and makes one less susceptible to illness?

What next, that young, active healthy people who get COVID-19 irrespective of 'vaccine' status are at practically no risk of requiring hospitalisation?

That is about as crazy as claiming that people who comsume a healthy, plant-based diet have 73% lower odds of developing moderate-to-severe illness from COVID-19 irrespective of 'vaccine' status.

Plant-based diets, pescatarian diets and COVID-19 severity: a population-based case–control study in six countries

"After adjusting for basic demographic characteristics, medical specialty, and health behaviours (smoking, physical activity) in model 2, participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) compared with participants who did not follow plant-based diets."

Stop it with all this crazy talk about health and nutrition and just give me my umpteenth booster while I chow down on my triple bacon cheeseburger over here on the couch already.