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.
As far as I can tell, we do not know why it happens, but monitoring sugar intake is a key strategy for managing the disease, which also has no known cure.
Assume type 2 diabetes is actually just a natural phenomenon associated with aging, that hits some people earlier, some later, and some little or not at all. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that careful moderation of sugar intake is still a good idea?
Regarding sugar consumption declining while T2D and NAFLD increase, could it be the case that metabolic effects could translate to genetic mutations that are expressed in later generations?
You perfectly framed why it’s my belief this debate will rage on for 100-1000 years.
People irrationally get agitated and become sugar advocates when you explain the two truths:
1. 100% of T2D cases can be prevented through diet/lifestyle
2. Some T2D cases can be reversed (not a cure but getting off insulin) through diet/lifestyle
As you point out that the diet/lifestyle I am referring to consists of restricting carbs and sugars.
Unfortunately, that’s where people freak out and declare “sugar doesn’t cause diabetes” as if that’s well settled science - it’s not. Maybe sugar causes T2D or maybe it doesn’t, but it is immaterial to the point that it is established that sugar/carb restriction can prevent 100% of cases and is both practical and actionable for nearly everyone.
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).
Can you elaborate on the distinction you’re trying to draw? I’m confused why the word diet would apply to one but not the other. They both seem like diets to me. Not as in fad diet, but as in restricted composition of food choices.
Tl;dr - "plant based" is a (poorly named) vegan-compatible diet and fits better; veganism is a broader brush where "cheating" implies moral failure instead of a lapse of discipline.
- - -
Vegetarianism is a diet - choices about food for whatever reason. Many of those reasons have plenty of room for imperfection and still hold - the concept of a "cheat day" is common and often even useful for people trying to change their lives through food choices. In almost every case for a diet, craving a treat is normal and healthy and not a personal failure. "Perfect is the enemy of progress".
Veganism, on the other hand, is a moral philosophy specifically about right or wrong AND it isn't internally motivated/facing/impactful. It isn't a diet or guidelines for personal change and a "slip" or "cheat" is very different (craving and then doing something you think is objectively wrong) than occasionally choosing to miss your calorie or macro target.
Of course there are overlaps since choosing to be vegan requires a massive diet change in the US AND because, like vegetarianism, people choose that diet for many reasons, not all of which are the moral philosophy. People use the term "plant based" to describe the diet only (not a good name but it seems to be out there for better or worse) which is on the same footing as any other diet.
As a thought experiment for why the diet vs moral distinction might matter, pick something you're comfortable deciding is morally wrong (lying? Shoplifting? Infidelity? Sexual harassment? Domestic violence? Rape? Murder? Slavery?) and then think about what a "cheat day" for that would be. To me it invalidates the whole idea. As an example, someone cutting down their violent crime to only one "cheat day" a week might objectively be progress but it doesnt earn my respect - the only correct amount of that behavior is zero in my mind and the worse the "indulgence" or "craving" the more clear that is for me when I think about it.
I hope this doesn't put your back up or come off as "holier than thou" - I'm trying to talk about the shape of the difference without taking a side on the specific moral arguments.
For what it's worth this is a common way I see vegans and non-vegans accidentally offended each other and get into a negative spiral so I really appreciate you asking the genuine question.
I was under the impression most vegetarians were vegetarian for similar moral reasons to vegans, they just draw the line at a different place (direct consumption of the flesh vs any product or byproduct).
Nonetheless I now understand the point you’re making about the framing of “cheating.” Thanks for explaining!
Thanks for listening! It's a touchy subject with lots of baggage but it's dear to my heart so I appreciate it when folks can chat about it without vitriol.
I am sorry to hear that, but your experience actually conforms what I said, only those who transition needs the fake meat substitute. I have about 12 years of vegetarian experience, and after 0.5 years of switching |I stopped having any cravings.
I have no way to verify your statements about cheating, but I personally do not cheat, as I have no need in it, but my advice to everyone who crave meat to stop torturing themselves and it imitations, you'll abandon vegetarian/vegan life anyway.
> 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.
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.
Has the war in Ukraine changed your perspective at all? A stray missile could irradiate all of Europe; no other form of energy can lead to such widespread damage. Perhaps mega-hydro projects, but the damage there is at least localized.
No one develops 4th generation nuclear simply because nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. On grand scale, even with all the security measures, it's actually pretty easy and cheap to just bury all the nuclear waste. So it's not really worth to recycle it, or make 4th gen reactors.
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.
Nuclear boosters can't seem to produce economical power, but they sure seem to be able to crank out the excuses.
A great deal of time and money was spent on nuclear reactors that destroy actinides. The conclusion is it's considerably more expensive than the nuclear technology we have now. That's why it's not being done.
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.
I can't talk to a comparison, but wind turbines have a finite lifespan and leave a lot of fibreglass behind. We're a lot better at piling it up than actually bothering to recycle. We can but virgin materials are cheaper and GRP isn't fun to process.
Almost certainly better than nuclear though, right?
Hydroelectricity causes pollution. Flooding a piece of land causes more conversion of metallic mercury to organic methylmercury.
> Increased methylmercury concentrations in water and fish have been detected after flooding of soils associated with reservoir creation (e.g. for hydroelectric power generation)
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.
Librewolf does #1 and #2 already. But generally, there's no market for that.
Most of those who say "I would pay for that" would indeed never do it. Because those people want something very specific - something you can only have via extensions and personal modifications. What you want is very specific to what you personally want and it is different to what everyone else wants.
And no one can create a browser project for your personal preferences.
Just like you will probably say "Librewolf doesn't stay up to date the way I want them to... and they don't turn off all the stupid ideas the way I want them to."
Librewolf is everything one can ask from an open-source Firefox fork.
People always complained when Firefox moved to a more efficient extension system but practically no one cared about Waterfox keeping the old firefox extensions alive. That's because those people are the absolute minority and do not represent the common user.
And what they complain about is not actually the technical change - it is about the overall change in society and what a move away from the more technical approach that allows user modification symbolizes - the dumbing down of software in general. For example, RSS symbolizes the old internet, but the old internet is gone.
It's not at all funny. It's dumb, and from the headline alone - "A dairy delight" - I already knew it was the lame and predictable ChatGPT language model with all it's repetitiveness, puns and consciously designed idiocy.
"dairy-inspired exploration" - word salad garbage
"we will humorously consider" - good to be reminded again, I was already falling for it
"the implications of a lactose-laden lunar surface" with acutely annoying aliterations.
Sure, I'm a bit tired of repetitive ChatGPT output too. But I'm really surprised at how vitriolic this reply is.
It's a student's side project, with the tagline "Your Source for Academic Satire", with a basic one-liner prompt textbox. No one's expecting this to disrupt the academic world or whatever. The author (a college student) doesn't advertise this to be "the world's most advanced academic scientific rigorous paper generator", of course it's going to hook into GPT for content.
You don't have to like the project or think it's interesting, but problems with ChatGPT output are already apparent and well-known so I'm not sure what your comment adds.
To be fair, I would totally have the same reaction if this project didn't have all the "satire" and "jokes" stamped on it, and if it was advertised for actual use in research papers. And while this project in particular is (relatively) harmless, it is pretty disgusting to see in real paper submissions.
it started as a joke about boeing doors falling off and was quite funny. unfortunately i don't have time write a paper for each person who clicks the generate button so this will have to do.
> You know perfectly well that point 1 is completely irrelevant in the world of open-source.
Genuinely, why not? Open source projects go through ownership changes (as unlikely as they may be), social engineering, etc. In the unlikely chance something were to happen and anything malicious were to occur, what recourse is a user to have? And we are talking about a web browser here, which will be accessing peoples most sensitive data. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance.
> A UK Ltd. is less transparent than Librewolf, an open-source project run by many volunteers without the incentive to make any money.
Well this UK Ltd is still beholden to English law and UK GDPR. You could argue the merits and teeth that GDPR has, but I don't see why it's not a valid comparison? I can't just start processing personal data without complying with GDPR, for example.
> The risks you are talking about are not inherent to Librewolf, but to Linux and open-source, and thus are not legitimate criticisms of Librewolf.
Linux has the Linux foundation, which AFAIK is going to be beholden to California law? I don't see how that can't also be a criticism of Librewolf (and any OSS in a similar spot?).
> Point 3 is no longer true, the installer comes with the option to enable auto-update and on Linux, it also auto-updates, depending on distro, etc.
It seems to me to still true, because the installer is installing WinUpdater. Which, as it seems, is maintained by an individual developer?
> If you want LibreWolf to be automatically updated (recommended), you can choose to install the LibreWolf WinUpdater[1], which is included in the installer.
I think ads should not be allowed for anything at all in the digital world, including TV. In a world without ads, products would be known due to reputation. Ads are an assault on the limited resource of attention.
People say how can new products reach people, but the solution to that problem isn't ads but platforms/websites that catalog new products and allow for easy discovery.
Ads actually make the problem of finding new products worse because you only see a fraction of new products if you consume ads, primarily those from companies that already have lots of money to invest into ads.
It’s a nice dream, but enough people have to be willing to pay for things in preference to tolerating ads to not pay. Streaming services and some online news services provide this option, so it’s available. But asking for everything to be free and ad free is wishful thinking, at least outside government funded media (which is still paid by taxes)
Near me is a conservation area where agriculture is not allowed, but cattle grazes there all year round. It is sold locally. Plant-based food is often farmed on an industrial scale which pollutes the environment with glyphosate for example.
It is not about food type, it is about how it's produced.
> And if you really want that hamburger, enjoy it without any guilt!
> It is not about food type, it is about how it's produced.
It absolutely is!
A single cow produces around 220 pounds of methane and around 200 pounds of ammonia per year. That's equivalent to 5ish gigatons of CO2, again per cow per year, so this really makes no sense.
Why not compare to how much food you can produce on the same land with some sustainable cereal?
I bet you, there's no less than 30 times more food at a fraction of the emissions.
> That's very gracious of you, to allow this.
I am not vegan myself and I don't feel guilty eating meat at all, but I'm aware enough to limit the intake and spread this to my family which is the point I'm trying to make.
> A single cow produces around 220 pounds of methane and around 200 pounds of ammonia per year. That's equivalent to 5ish gigatons of CO2, again per cow per year, so this really makes no sense.
Ignoring the myth of harmful CO2 for a moment - Ammonia is an important nutrient, maybe one of the most important chemicals that make it possible to feed humanity. Another example of environmentalist ideology trying to destroy the foundation of modern civilization. Ammonia is so important that it's produced synthetically in large amounts.
Your ammonia calculation is also merely copy-pasted and comes from factory farming and can't even be used to judge freely grazing cattle. Additionally, the naturally present ammonia goes right back into the soil as fertilizer for the gras. There is no "CO2 equivalency", this is another naive fallacy of the environmentalists. It's just theoretical statistics used for political propaganda purposes.
Sugar is not the cause of diabetes.