/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11830774
I eat hotdogs and now I shit my pants

>>11830774
is this the intro of the vomit porn?

What the fuck is "nutritional science" sounds like vegan propaganda

>>11830774
Because most of it is financed by the food industry.
Too much calcium in food causes premature aging, there is no evidence of anything above 300mg having any benefits and ridents keptvon very liw Ca diets keep their teenage bones through life.
Obesity is from too much fat, possiblu from a specific fatty acid being toxic (and blocking fat metabolism).
Copper deficiency causes Alzheimers and NFALD and blocks dopamine/norepinephrine conversion, adding to obesity. LTP is a patholigical process of synapses failing to reset after computation, and has nothing to do with memory. It mught be the reason time seems to speed up as we age.
Diebetes is from manganese deficiency (likely secondary to iron overliad in western diet) and has really nothing to do with obesity.

>>11830774
Because most of it is financed by the food industry.
Too much calcium in food causes premature aging, there is no evidence of anything above 300mg having any benefits and rodents kept on very low Ca diets keep their teenage bones through life.
Obesity is from too much fat, possibly from a specific fatty acid being toxic (and blocking fat metabolism).
Copper deficiency causes Alzheimers and NFALD and blocks dopamine/norepinephrine conversion, adding to obesity. LTP is a pathological process of synapses failing to reset after computation, and has nothing to do with memory. It mught be the reason time seems to speed up as we age.
Diebetes is from manganese deficiency (likely secondary to iron overload in western diet) and has really nothing to do with obesity.

>>11831554
Is there a way to preview the comment? It's really hard to proofread in that tiny edit window.

>>11831556
Write it in notepad or some other text editor and then copy-paste it to the reply box.

>>11830774
I trust the findings of the pig industry or otheer animal research studies where they have a profit insentive for actual performance because even a few pennies per pig is profitable. even if the physiology is a little different.

>>11831556
either copy and paste from another word processor or drag the blue top line to the left then expand the box with the little arow in the bottom right corner

>>11831554
Take your meds, schizo

>>11831905
It's science.

>>11830774
Nutritional science is like climate science. You get exactly the results that you want to, every time.

>>11830774
Nutrition is so hard to determine among humans for so many reasons it boggles the mind on how we're actually meant to go about it the fucking difference in even our gut biota is immense

>>11831554
>Obesity is from too much fat
stopped reading right there.
dietary fat has nothing to do with weight. Eating like a fucking hog does

>>11832017
It's weird how much is known about some things and not others. For laughs, see Tom Brady's diet. Everyone says it's probably just quack science and it probably is. There may be no link to his diet and football performance and he's just an outlier. But it isn't doing him any harm, apprently

>>11832003
It is not the same thing.

>>11832036
Animals are made overweight by high fat diet. High carb keeps them lean.

>>11830774
>it's pretty difficult to do well controlled experiments in a field like this
Yes.
That's why if you see someone being absolutist in this branch he is probably wrong and everyone is giving more of a general guidelines. It's really hard to control and timeframes are really large for hard results, not counting some obviously lethal substances. And generally you get an agreement on what is considered unhealthy by every nutrition scientist. But details on what you should eat vary among different people.

>>11830774
Yes

>>11832063
That's good and all
But if you expend more energy than you get in from eating, you lose weight

>>11831554
>Too much calcium in food causes premature aging, there is no evidence of anything above 300mg having any benefits and rodents kept on very low Ca diets keep their teenage bones through life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20473218/

Low calcium is okay so long as phosphorus is also kept relatively low . High phosphorus and low calcium is a recipe for disaster.

>>11832202
Higher is not always better.

>>11832202
Higher is not always better. The way it works is exactly that the bone mineral remains moderate, but more of the bone consists of collagen. (As opposed to high Ca diet where the collagen gets lower over time until the bone starts disintegrating.)

>>11832038

Started to follow TB12 method and lost 120 lbs.

Feel younger than I was 10 years ago and I'm 31.

His diet is the best. Started to study Mathematical Physics again starting from first year university level as I think I can live until I'm 80 now.

>>11832233
The study I posted measured bone volume, not density. Also, exercise decreased bone volume loss despite the low calcium, high phosphorus diet, which implies it was protective and the bone loss was a negative. Many animals are fed 2:1 Calcium to Phosphorus diets specifically because it strengthens bones.

Do you have an example of calcium leading to brittle bones? I'm finding it hard to believe that happens unless calcium intake is extreme. I think it's more likely there's a hormonal issue involved (i.e. hyperparathyroidism).

>>11830774
> I guess it's pretty difficult to do well controlled experiments in a field like this
Absolutely. Because it's a multivariate long-time hell to study.

>>11831554
pretty sure that take on calcium is wrong

>>11832818
There is a strong correlation between calcium intake and osteoporosis. Osteoperosis starts with weakened collagen, and the mineral loss follows. Bones on low Ca diet only lose some Ca, but their collagen strengthens.

>>11832889
>There is a strong correlation between calcium intake and osteoporosis.
There's also a strong correlation between osteoporosis and latitude. Sunlight/vitamin D probably has more to do with it than diet, it may even be why cultures far from the equator tended toward dairy. The Maasai have a very high intake of calcium and no osteoporosis that I'm aware of. I'm also not aware of animal studies showing high intakes of calcium causes osteoporosis.

>>11833212
There is no correlation with lattitude.

>>11831554
Bad post

>>11833212
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4926535/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2425246/

>>11833619
Why?

>>11830774
I want to make a meal supplement that has 100% of your needed nutrition, plus helpful shit like phyto chemicals.
>inb4 onions
That's only the only possible formula you know.

>>11833628
It's wrong

>>11830805
Due to causation being equal to correlation, I can confirm that whenever you shit your pants in the future, you are obliged to have eaten a hotdog in the last day.

>>11833672
Why?

>>11831554
This comment is full of bullshit. I'm a bio major, don't even bother reading this shit.

>>11830774
Look nigger, it's simple.
PROCESSED FOOD BAD
HOME-MADE COOKING GOOD
Got it through your thick, empty nigger skull ?

>>11834666
They taught you the same nonsense they tell to everyone else, but there is no scientific reason to believe it. Basically, calcium is good for the nones, but those who eat too much suffer from some other problem that gives them osteoporosis, and the calcium actually protects them, ...
Ridiculous. Use Occam's razor.

>>11832270
Is there a book about his method?

I just figure being heavy in vegetables and fruits and nuts and being lean with everything else is probably a safe bet.

>>11830774
>ready study about cayenne for pain relief
>more people in the control "felt it working" than the people who actually used it
How do you get anything done when you're dealing with these retards? I'm glad I study rocks.

>>11830774
It's another evil perpetrated by academia. One should really have an M.D. to be even somewhat qualified to apply the scientific method in nutritional science, but of course the Chads and Stacys just want to party for 4 years and go on to be personal trainers or nutritionists, fucking their clients and peddling their stupidity on Instragram.

>>11831905
Why is it that every time someone implies that politics/economics has a way to influence science theres always the faggot that jumps with "Take your meds schizo" do you people take any science philosophy or logics class in college?

>>11837463
They're just shitposters, shills, and paid trolls, their whole purpose is to deflect discussion or provoke people ino wasting their time and energy, there are a number of infographics listing the various methods they use to disrupt forum discussions a few of which would be thread sliding, topic hijacking and tryin to get a rise out of people, if they don't actually engage with the discusion and rely on ad hominem attacks it's fairly clear what they are, hopefully someone can post one of the breakdowns, pay them no need or tell them to kill themselves already

>>11837483
>there are a number of infographics listing the various methods they use to disrupt forum discussions
Source me up

>>11834666
I don't know much about nutritional science myself, but don't dismiss what people are saying just because you go to college.
Disprove what he is saying, not "you're below me so i don't even bother listening". Hell, you might even be able to help someone out.

>>11838426
>hey, mannnn
>don't be an asshole to him on the internet mannn

>>11839667
You're acting like a child.
If you don't want to partake in discussion, why even bother being on /sci/?

>>11840514
to shitpost, why else?