Freetube does this really well

normal human things like consuming things in excess.

Excess and normal are contradicting each other in this sentence.

Yes cellular metabolism can use glucose, but that glucose in humans does not need to be eaten in the form of carbohydrates, the body is perfectly able to make its own glucose via gluconeogenesis

Fats need to be balanced.

What does this mean?

Vitamin C is also lacking in an all meat diet devoid of organ meats.

Vitamin C is in meat in small amounts, but if one is eating only meat then there is not glut4 competition and that vitamin c is very effective.

Addictions are real things in both my experience and reading - can you explain how they are not real?

Carbohydrates are not necessary for human nutrition, so there is no such thing as a carbohydrate imbalance.

Eating saturated fat does not become bad at any level of consumption.

Meat has everything we need in it, its the perfect food.

This is my shelf, there are many like it but this one is mine…

Max headroom would like to have a word.

Things humans can do that ai can’t, currently do, politicking, sleeping to the top, building a brand outside of work, demonstrating integrity

I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion. I would like to contribute that the most significant factor in excessive obesity isn’t a typically a nutrient deficiency, or even a moral failing in CICO - it’s carbohydrate addiction.

Yes, hunger can be driven by low-levels of essential nutrition, pica during pregnancy is a great example of that. Many people are over-fed and under-nourished, so when they get hungry they continue to go to their deficient food source (probably something carbohydrate heavy).

What I’m looking for basically is just evidence for the claim posted above us, specifically that “it is a fact that weight loss results in lifelong ravenous hunger due to fat cell signaling”

In my reading the the literature there is nothing to support this “fat cells make you hungry” theory.

At best there is an association between fat people and fat cell population, but given hyperplasia is more common in people of european descent its not a causal connection. Plus this theory doesn’t account for fat people from hypertrophic populations (asians).

empty/depleted fat cells basically scream “we are hungry”, so as soon as you get off Ozempic, you basically can’t stop eating until you regained at least the former state.

I don’t think that is quite right. If people on Ozempic use the opportunity to adapt to a low carbohydrate diet, when they come off the drugs they won’t be suffering from the save sugar craving addiction cycle.

Fat cells don’t scream “we are hungry” they scream “we are full” that is what leptin signaling is for, but carbohydrate addiction is a much stronger signal for many people.

Essentially PCOS causes a craving for carbs and sugar

There is a good amount of literature documenting PCOS being a downstream effect of metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is caused by carbs and sugar. The addiction and cravings are real, but the order is reversed.

You might want to consider keto or low carb. It will help with your blood sugar.

Watch Spokane Police arrest two vegan protesters outside a restaurant during a heated demonstration on March 6th 2025. Officers charge them with disorderly conduct, referencing a prior restaurant disruption. The activists argue they were peacefully protesting animal abuse and accuse the police of siding with cruelty.

Heated is a bit of a stretch looks like the street was empty, they were shouting at diners through the restaurant windows.

That’s the big difference between being unreasonable at people online vs in real life.

Normal people minding their own business just want to be left alone, and they will leave you alone. You break that social contract and things happen.

Online people make a real tempest in a teacup about small things, and due to algorithmic the echo chambers builds.

My experiences on Lemmy almost never match how people act in my real life.

This is exactly why I love the internet

Spell checker in my web browser!

It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.

I don’t think that quite transfers, epidemiology is very weak, it only surfaces associates which is a good point to do a interventional trial but that is rarely done. The core problem with these studies is that to isolate variables they have to make a model of that variable in isolation, this relies on both assumptions of the model maker, accuracy of data, and is very vulnerable to p-hacking. Model assumptions that a hamburger and fries counts as meat, but not vegetable (potato) also impact the outcomes.

The large observational food surveys conducted typically have a 1-4 year questionnaire about how many servings of different food someone ate. Once every 4 years leaves lots of room open for forgetfulness.

There is a huge problem with healthy user confounders, people trying to follow all the modern health advice are going to skew results - not because all of the advice is correct, but some of it is. If someone exercises regularly, practices mindfulness, avoids processed foods, avoids meat - Are their improvements due to any single variable, yet on a food survey they get over represented because of these exclusionary behaviors.

We also have multiple different epidemiology studies covering the same topics and getting different results, that probably means we are focusing on the wrong question, it’s noisy.

From my reading its far more likely the modern epidemic of chronic disease is caused by the introduction of excessive carbohydrates in processed foods, the novel addition of industrial oils (again processed foods) into the food supply - they account for 30%!!! of the average westerners average calorie intake, exposure to food contaminates from agrochemicals such as pesticides. The metabolic context of people filling out these surveys is a critical part that is being omitted.

In the following graphs notice how the incidence is very high in countries with traditionally low meat consumption like india? This indicates the hypothesis generated from the abstract paper isn’t asking the right question.

My point is that you can follow every bit of advice from associative food surveys, but since the wrong questions are being focused on, your outcomes wont be as good as you hope. Quite frankly epidemiology is more about publicity and marketing then being part of the scientific process.

If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).

Make friends in meat space. Have activities you do with other people regularly

Session was a good idea, but not implemented well

All file attachments go to a central server I think in Canada

They copied the signal protocol, and monero, to build their application but they removed perfect forward secrecy. Because it was hard to implement. This means of any session device ever gets compromised, somebody can look at the entire conversation from packets they captured on the wire

I’m much more excited about simplex and briar

Alright, so

• A - Origin community
• B - Other community
• C - following community of A & B

User posts to A, a “as:announce” on C is generated. A user replies to the post on C. Will user A see the reply? Will someone looking at the post on A see the activity on C?

It’s kind of like the diet problem. You can buy the best food you intend to eat and keep it home. But you still eat the trash. But now instead of the computer helping you stay on track with what you intend to watch, your subscriptions, the junk foods just being shoveled down your throat because it gets better engagement.

Multiply that by every feed, every piece of algorithmic engagement, every search bar… People lose a lot of self-improve opportunities

How would comments happen? Would they not get back to the original poster?

If I think the content is a net positive for Lemmy you get a upvote, even if I disagree, even if I don’t like you.

So that means even if someone later reveals themselves to be an asshat, they are still adding to Lemmy’s ecosystem and get to keep their upvotes.

Update: but I’m not a saint, if someone is downvoting me I’ll downvote them right back