sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1hr ago
Soviet attempts at forcible secularization of Chechens were extremely limited
This is indeed my point. Here's a population that Russia has been fighting with since the 18th century, they're right on the border (or even part of the country), and the Russians still didn't manage to secularize them. What hope did they have of secularizing the Afghans in a matter of years, even if it weren't for those meddling yanks?
You can claim it's because they didn't try hard enough, but that seems to me to be, as you say, cope, especially when the implication is that they would have tried hard enough in Afghanistan.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5hr ago
That's news to me, I've had a background check done for every job I've ever worked.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5hr ago
You might be metaphysically on the outskirts, but physically you are at the very center of the city.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5hr ago
The soviets didn't even manage to secularize the chechens, so I am skeptical that they could secularize a foreign population.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5hr ago
Of course it helps the government are subsidizing migrants to the tune of $350 per day, or $127,750 per year per migrant which would launch them almost into the top 10% of earners in the United States.
Technically this is spending per household (despite the media rarely lying). That's only the 73rd percentile of household income in the US.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
19hr ago
I doubt the voters are gone. Even subreddits like /r/bayarea have taken a notable anti crime turn over the past few years, to the point where it's rare now to see highly upvoted comments in favor of criminal law reform, rent control, or other progressive hobbyhorses.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
It is indeed obvious that the cabal that can be named is not the true cabal. If you don't own a bank, can you really be said to have access to energy, resources, or freedoms?
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
I am talking about income. If you don't think that 3rd percentile is "the top" of the global income distribution, well, then we've gotten to the salami slicing.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
I don't think your grip really matters, just use whichever feels comfortable and what you can get a good mind muscle connection with.
Just about any exercise is safe to do daily.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
I'm saying that it will grow monumentally in 2100 compared to 2000... And no, I'm not at the top even if I'm in a position to be a lazy layabout with internet and hookers, and if you're posting here, I assume neither are you. How many banks do you own?
You said that the overwhelming majority of humans in 2100 will be far less well off than those at the top.
We are talking about the world here, and not just the US, right?
My income is well within the global 1%, and the median American's income is within the top 3% globally.
I know you will want to salami slice even further, and talk about the global 0.1% or 0.00001%, but there's no reasonable metric by which the man in the mirror is not globally on top, despite ressentiment to people who have it even better.
the absolute value of available energy and freedoms for a common person will be considerably lower in 2100 than 2000.
I'm aware that this is the other part of your prediction, and I again can only say that the cabal needs to pick up the pace because the bottom half of the world is way better off than in 2000 and it's a long way back.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
I don't think you need to worry about tendinitis unless you've actually encountered it from a particular movement.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
Certainly the median human has "far less access to energy, resources, and freedoms... relative to what those at the top [enjoy]," and by "those at the top" I mean you and me.
The cabal seriously needs to pick up the pace, population is increasing every day and the century is nearly a quarter over.
by the end of the century human population will be smaller than at the start of it
So you are predicting... Two billion dead by the hand of the cabal if they start today?
an overwhelming majority of the remaining humans will have far less access to energy, resources, and freedoms, both in absolute terms and relative to what those at the top will enjoy.
This is already the case, so it's not much of a prediction.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3d ago
Yeah, the meta shows no effect on all cause mortality - but that's not the question we're discussing. I only brought it up since you responded to the graph of mortality outcomes rather than weight outcomes.
To stop gaining weight, decrease mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fat.
In fact, the meta shows that substituting unsaturated for saturated fats reduces weight and there's no association If the studies were actually controlled metabolic ward studies, they'd probably show no effect with isocaloric diets.
According to the PUFA hypothesis, it's more like a cliff than a gradient. Humans naturally eat around 4-5 gr a day of PUFA without seed-oil or mono-gastric animal sources. This study has the Sat Fat group get twice that.
This seems like an extremely specific and unusual claim, perhaps a result of undeniable studies chipping away at the upper limits of what people can defend. We definitely shouldn't privilege weird rat studies over human ones to defend this claim. Linear relationships should be the default assumption.
Losing lean mass when losing weight can actually be quite good, as you don't want a lot of extra skin hanging around.
The lean mass lost is not skin, it's internal organs, muscle mass, water weight, etc. The amount of skin remaining after weight loss does not depend on the diet.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
This leads to farces like "Learning and Memory Impairment in Rats Fed a High Saturated Fat Diet" They analyze the fatty acid composition of their lard and it is only 30% saturated. Despite this, the study uses lard as their Saturated fat intervention.
You can hardly hold this random rat study against me.
I encourage you to check the studies in the meta and see that this is not going on.
Specific to Hooper et al. (2020) that your linked article uses for it's argument, I am looking at their studies and am having trouble finding which showed a benefit from substituting polyunsaturated fat with saturated fats.
Review says:
Eleven RCTs (11 comparisons) assessed SFA intake during the study period and showed that SFA intake in the intervention arm was statistically significantly lower than that in the control arm (Black 1994; DART 1989; Ley 2004; Moy 2001; Oxford Retinopathy 1978; Simon 1997; STARS 1992; Sydney Diet‐Heart 1978; Veterans Admin 1969; WHI 2006; WINS 2006).
...
There was a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events in people who had reduced SFA compared with those on higher SFA (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93, I² = 65%, 11 RCTs, 53,300 participants, 4476 people with cardiovascular events, Peffect = 0.006, Analysis 1.35). This protective effect was confirmed in sensitivity analyses including only trials at low summary risk of bias (Analysis 1.36), that aimed to reduce saturated fat (Analysis 1.37), that significantly reduced saturated fat intake (Analysis 1.38), that achieved a reduction in total or LDL cholesterol (Analysis 1.39), or excluding the largest trial (WHI 2006, Analysis 1.40).
Table 4 additionally shows that reducing total fat has no impact on cardiovascular events.
However, the figure in question still shows that when dietary saturated fat reaches >12% of calories, markers improve! Risk of Stroke goes way down. CVD goes down.
It would be a big surprise indeed if a moderate amount of saturated fat is bad, but a small or large amount is good. The relationship is most likely to be linear.
Weight isn't studied in the Meta-analysis at all.
It was, of course.
There was evidence that reducing SFA intake resulted in small reductions in body weight (MD ‐1.97 kg, 95% CI ‐3.67 to ‐0.27, I² = 72%, 6 RCTs, 4541 participants, Analysis 4.3), and body mass index (MD ‐0.50, 95% CI ‐0.82 to ‐0.19, I² = 55%, 6 RCTs, 5553 participants, Analysis 4.4).
How much protein do you need?
This appears to be a study on untrained men? I agree that if you're okay with the average untrained physique, 44g is enough (and also not that far from the recommendation of 54g for a 150lb person).
Isoleucine and valine are specifically the Amino Acids that are problematic, but really to avoid them you need to avoid protein.
Most of these are mouse studies, so let's look at the first one.
The restricted protein group in this study was eating protein at the RDA of 0.8 g/kg, which again is fine for people without aspirations to build muscle (which doesn't apply to OP).
The study doesn't seem to report if the change in weight loss between PR and CR is significant or not. However, looking at figure 1, id suspect not, especially when removing the 300 pound guy in the PR group.
As far as metabolism goes, figure 2 shows that the CR had a much lower metabolic rate at baseline vs the PR group, so the randomization seems to have failed. The PR group's variance is way bigger too, perhaps due to the aforementioned outliers.
Here's a more sophisticated metabolic ward study with three isocaloric overfeeding diets with varying protein content. They're using dexa scans, CO2 respiration rate, and doubly labeled water to measure body comp, resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure, which are gold standard methods.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1103993
Overeating led to a significant increase in resting energy expenditure in both the normal and high protein groups. This increase occurred mainly in the first 2 to 4 weeks and the slopes of the regression lines were not significantly different from each other (Figure 4). In contrast, resting energy expenditure in the low protein group did not change significantly with overfeeding, and the slope of the regression line was not different from 0, but was significantly less than the other 2 groups (P < .001; Figure 4).
The metabolic efficiency of weight gain (defined as the excess energy intake divided by weight gain5) was significantly higher in the low protein group (75.1 MJ/kg [95% CI, 54.1-96.0 MJ/kg]) than in the high protein group (38.0 MJ/kg [95% CI, 18.6-60.5 MJ/kg]; P = .04).
Lean body mass decreased during the overeating period by −0.70 kg (95% CI, −1.50 to 0.10 kg) in the low protein diet group compared with a gain of 2.87 kg (95% CI, 2.11 to 3.62 kg) in the normal protein diet group and 3.18 kg (95% CI, 2.37 to 3.98 kg) in the high protein diet group (P < .001).
Overall, higher protein intake is more favorable for body composition (holding calories equal), and increased metabolism more than lower protein intake.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
I don't think this is a good representation of the "latest" in nutrition.
Protein restriction does not "rev up the metabolism" and is bad for maintaining lean mass.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
Thanks for posting that architecture writeup. It links to this debate which has some nearly supervillain-tier speechifying from the pomo side.
PE: Why does Chris need to feel comfortable, and I do not? Why does he feel the need for harmony, and I do not? Why does he see incongruity as irresponsible, and why does he get angry? I do not get angry when he feels the need for harmony. I just feel I have a different view of it.
Someone from the audience: He is not screwing up the world.
PE: I would like to suggest that if I were not here agitating nobody would know what Chris's idea of harmony is, and you all would not realize how much you agree with him ... Walter Benjamin talks about "the destructive character", which, he says, is reliability itself, because it is always constant. If you repress the destructive nature, it is going to come out in some way. If you are only searching for harmony, the disharmonies and incongruencies which define harmony and make it understandable will never be seen. A world of total harmony is no harmony at all. Because I exist, you can go along and understand your need for harmony, but do not say that I am being irresponsible or make a moral judgement that I am screwing up the world, because I would not want to have to defend myself as a moral imperative for you.
CA: Good God!
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
You thought that I was unreasonable for bringing up siblings because the median Canadian doesn't have siblings, but you are bringing up investment properties as if the median Canadian stands to inherit investment properties.
At least in the US REITs are a garbage investment next to the S&P.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5d ago
You are highlighting one passing sentence of his out of a ~100-sentence post about something else.
This is a poor response - if making a dig about Jews is not the point of the post, why is it there? Would you be dismayed if someone wrote a 100 sentence post, included a dig at straight white men in the middle, and someone bristled?
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5d ago
If the only way to make a multicultural community work is an aggressive secularism that excises huge bits of everyday life, I'm not sure that's worth it.
I am pretty sure that the school is for the underclass/lower class. In those cases, yes, in order for people to get along even to the point that they stop disrupting the learning process you practically have to beat the tribalism out of them.
Multiculturalism is not necessary for a disruptive learning environment (CVUHSD in LA is ~75% Hispanic and tests even worse than the average LA high school) nor is it sufficient (plenty of wealthy zip codes with a lot of immigrants where the kids is definitely learning, even if they have their own dysfunctions).
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5d ago
Hmm, so their parents have to sell their home, and then... Buy another, or rent, reducing or eliminating the gains? Move in with the kids? Or take out a HELOC get right back in debt again (why not just buy a house at that point)? Big banks are advertising rates of nearly 10% for helocs. This all sounds pretty shit, I can't blame Canadians for being upset.
Yes, if you have siblings, your parents have an above average number of children and you are probably not coming out ahead in this system, but the average Canadian does.
The average Canadian is not benefitting from boomers' property values going to the moon because the only way they benefit from their parents' property ownership is:
- Parents die and you have no siblings and you're young enough to benefit from the windfall
- Parents get into debt and possibly destroy their equity to tap into the house (at which point you are no better off than the Indians stepping off the plane)
- Parents sell, at which point you can't afford an equivalent house anyway because they need somewhere to live too
Only option 1 results in a young Canadian family having a house comparable to their parents when they were a young family. If your parents had you young or multiple children, tough luck.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
5d ago
Planet Money is still (mostly) worth listening to, or at least they confine the woke talking points to the episodes that telegraph it in the title so you can skip them right from the start.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
6d ago
Paging @DuplexFields and his fairtax proposal.
Exile usually implies you can't come back.
More options
Context Copy link