Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Protein (Score 1) 59

And BTW, to all the people obssessed with "paleo" / "cave men" diets and think that means "meat":

While there certainly were (just like today) some hunter-gatherer societies (such as in the high arctic) that got most of their calories from meat, the average hunter-gatherer got the majority of their calories from plants. But not highly bred high-calorie plants, but rather high-fibre wild plants, meaning that they had to eat significantly more of these fibre-loaded plants. Your average hunter-gatherer ancestor ate way more fibre than a person eating a "modern" diet today eats.

A proper "paleo" / "cave man" diet isn't a high-meat diet - it's a high fibre diet.

Comment Re:Most health science has failed in similar ways (Score 1) 59

Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs treatment, and the medical system is often pathetically bad about treating them. Chronic inflammation itself can even lead to cancer, such as lymphoma. But you need to find a targeted way to control your specific condition. For example, if you have say Sjögren's with small fibre neuropathy, an appropriate treatment might be IVIG or something like HyQvia or Hizentra - not broad-based immunosuppression. Unfortunately, such treatments are expensive, and doctors often resist prescribing them, or patients end up in insurance-denial hell.

Comment Re:Food-"Sciences" habe been pathetic (Score 1) 59

They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

"Fat is bad"
"Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
"Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
"Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

The earlier statements weren't wrong, they were just overly broad.

This is part of why I had the new "ultraprocessed" label. We've been working so hard to separate out what specific things are causing what impacts, and then they just leap backwards and lump everything back together again : Homemade doughnuts deep-fried in coconut oil and lard: "not ultraprocessed". Store whole-grain bread: "ultraprocessed". Such a moronic grouping. Yes, the average of the ultraprocessed category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that says nothing about individual foods. It's also a back door for anti-tech/anti-science woo to sneak into food science.

Comment Re:Meta-Analysis (Score 1) 59

The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's always a mix. And there's no need to get everything all at once within a single meal - it's fine for it to be spread out not just between meals within a given day, but across multiple days.

Comment Re:Protein not an issue on a varied plant-based di (Score 1) 59

Yeah, even on a vegan junk food diet, it's almost impossible for a modern person to not get all the amino acids they need, for the simple reason that there's not just one plant used in vegan junk food - corn, wheat, potato, soy, etc - and together, even if their protein is watered down with a lot of carbs and fat, any realistic mix still hits sufficient levels of essential amino acids, as the required amounts of each to avoid deficiency aren't huge.

Vegans have other actual things to worry more about. B12, for example, requires fortification or supplements (the body stores years worth at a time, but eventually you will run out if you don't consume it). Iron is highly likely to be in the low-but-acceptable to deficient range if either the diet isn't specifically high-iron or supplements taken. Some other minerals are real but lesser risks than iron as well. Etc.

Comment Re:Proteinaholic: How Our Obsession with Meat is.. (Score 1) 59

Re: protein, they're surely talking about "in a modern diet, without disease, alcoholism, etc". Of course people in sustenance diets can readily end up with protein deficiency. Some diseases can cause it, and severe alcoholism can lead people to it as well. But a "normal" person eating any "normal" modern diet doesn't really need to think about whether they're getting enough protein.

Now, deficiency aside, people working on muscle building do need to actually think about what they're eating. But again most go too far - benefits taper off after about 1,6-2,2g/kg-d. There's some uncertainty about these figures, and it's possible that there may be some benefit to somewhat higher protein intake, but there's no benefit to living off of an extreme protein diet like some do.

Comment Re:AI generated art and music... (Score 0, Troll) 83

One of the people making those songs used to be in a band who got a few singles in the top 40 years ago. Now he doesn't need a band because he can write songs, have the AI perform them and mix them himself. It's allowed him to produce many of his songs that otherwise would never have existed.

"Creative" is just midwitslop they use to pretend that somehow they're creative and the plumber figuring out how to fix your leaking toilet at 3am without having to rip the walls apart isn't. There hasn't been a lot of creativity in Big Label pop music for decades.

And that's what this is really telling us: most pop music has been slop for most of my life, and AI can create infinite slop.

Comment Re:AI generated art and music... (Score 4, Insightful) 83

I've bought several AI-generated songs on iTunes and a few more that might be AI-generated. Who cares if it's a good song?

And that's what the "Major Labels" are scared of. They're used to being able to control which music makes it and which doesn't, and now anyone can make songs at home and sell them online. They're desperate not to lose the near-monopoly they've had for decades, which pretty much gave them a license to print money.

Comment Re:AI gives better answers. (Score 1) 83

Except they still do it. That was just a glaring example that sprang to mind.

Another example more recently is going around in circles trying to find out how to change some setting because the "AI" (Google, Bing, whatever) pulls instructions from two years ago and the UI has completely changed since then. Or maybe it just made up UI features that never existed.

Oh yeah, and then there was Copilot recently, I asked it to suggest an app which would do something, it told me there were two free Microsoft apps which would do it, I downloaded them, neither would do it, I told it that and it basically said "Oh, sorry, I made that up."

Comment Re:AI gives better answers. (Score 1) 83

Except the answer is often wrong.

For example, last year I was looking for info about a library that some old software we maintain every decade or so uses. The "AI" told me it was deprecated, but when I actually went through the search results it turned out there was some other library of a similar name which was now deprecated and end-of-life.

Without the search results you can't check to see whether what it told you us is true or misinterpretation or just plain made up.

Comment Re: Here's the thing (Score 3, Insightful) 62

I believe the argument is that radio frequency is a limited resource and therefore the Feds must ensure it's used to the public benefit. So magically the First Amendment doesn't apply.

This ends up meaning that stations which support whatever the current government is can do what they want and station which oppose risk losing their license. Regardless of who is in charge.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...