I’ll be honest, this is a pretty poor article. It focuses solely on macronutrients but doesn’t even touch on satiety. Sure, some random tribe may eat 50% more carbs than we do, but the difference is our calories come from low satiety carbs such as high fructose corn syrup, and their carbs come from sweet potatoes, one of the more satisfying foods to eat. So it can hardly be called a “mystery” why a more physically active, lower calorie lifestyle produces a group of people who are healthier. It’s throwing a ton of stats at you that sound plausible but break down under scrutiny. Not to mention this is just the “mysteries”, and no actual hypotheses are drawn.
Is this really a mystery? People eat more energy wise and move less.
As to why people eat more, it's probably due to higher energy density food, advertising (especially to children) and lost norms about eating (e.g. sugary stuff is not "proper food"). As to why we move less is less manual labor, more sedentary entertainment and increased use of vehicles.
The obesity discussion seems to somehow deliberately try to avoid the obvious.
"Is this really a mystery?" They address your question on the first page. Please read a few sentences of the article, or hey, even the entire article, before trying to refute it.
A brief sample, though their whole argument is more complex:
"People in the 1800s did have diets that were very different from ours. But by conventional wisdom, their diets were worse, not better. They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard. Our great-grandparents (and the French) were able to maintain these weights effortlessly. They weren’t all on weird starvation diets or crazy fasting routines. And while they probably exercised more on average than we do, the minor difference in exercise isn’t enough to explain the enormous difference in weight. Many of them were farmers or laborers, of course, but plenty of people in 1900 had cushy desk jobs, and those people weren’t obese either."
It's not clear to me that what they describe as being a "worse" diet is actually worse.
If I make a roast chicken dinner, not breast but full fat chicken, chuck some butter in the mashed potatoes, salt up the broccoli/carrots etc, it's still significantly lower in calories and higher in nutrients than lots of things people eat today.
It sounds to me that their "conventional wisdom" is more like, well, veganism or something. Milk, butter, cream, great.
Lard is a bit more marginal, sure. But I'd still rather eat lard than random seed oil deep fried whatever.
Just because folks had access to tons of fats and such doesn’t mean that this is causal to gaining weight. It has to do with how good everything tasted. The ability to have food that’s just delicious has never been easier. Not just access to spices and seasoning, but access to premade ingredients that enhance taste. That also doesn’t even account for access in terms of cost. It’s never been cheaper to get calorically dense food than the modern era.
Honestly, have you looked at a 100 year old cookbook? Most of the recipes are… crude in their implementation, to put it mildly.
Let's assume this graph is correct. Why did humans 100 years ago consume fewer calories? The body is a complex system with many homeostatic mechanisms. We stop eating when we're full (generally). What has adjusted that homeostatic thermostat upward? Why did obesity increase linearly for half a century and then suddenly increase exponentially starting in 1980? Why are wild animals and laboratory animals also more obese than 100 years ago?
But people differ in their incomes. While there always were fat rich people, if food prices were the limiting factor, your average noble from the House of Lords of 1930 would be as fat as average people are today. And yet if you look at those black and white photos of important politicians, businesspeople etc., they were way less fat than an average contemporary student.
This is the Pacific War Council in the early 1940s. Do you believe that those people, decision makers whose decisions affected lives of millions, couldn't afford to eat ad libitum?
> As to why people eat more, it's probably due to higher energy density food, advertising (especially to children) and lost norms about eating (e.g. sugary stuff is not "proper food").
Animals, wild and lab, are probably affected by human food production.
> Why did obesity increase linearly for half a century and then suddenly increase exponentially starting in 1980?
I do know one thing people used to jump on that coincides with this timing, but I don't know how likely it is to be a/the culprit - high-fructose corn syrup. It's the green line on this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,...
Why do you think none of the thousands of researchers within nutritional scientists have considered your explanation? That to me seems extremely unlikely.
I am going to be brutally honest here - I see it as some form of personal 'character' weakness, very common these days, haven't lived for that long to judge previous generations so harshly.
To the gist - its supremely easier to be or move into position of weakness and victim, look for external blame, while staying very deep in comfort zone, aka fix my shit as long as I don't have to change anything in my life, I'll even throw a lot of money on it. Massive resistance to change that's not convenient nor pleasant at first sight. People throwing tons of money on diet fads, experiencing jojo effects, depressed about their self-image and feeling helpless, binging in anxiety attacks. Yet nobody taking gym ownership, personal trainer, throwing out all that chocolate and other junky food, amking any self-improvement plan that 5 year old can put together and sticking with it. And of course almost everybody moves much less, but gist of the issue is food, quantity and quality.
It doesn't have to be about junk food per se, same is with parents basically giving up on raising kids and leaving screens and ad companies to do the work. Then complaining how young suck and are horrible and have no respect etc. While they themselves are glued to phones every day, addicted to the core, half laughing about it while scrolling further. Telling them to put it down for a day, spend time with them and kids (if they are still little, not much point pushing teenagers suddenly against their well-trodden addictive habits).
Comfort zone is death of one's 'fighting' spirit, I mean in fighting-as-hard-as-possible-for-best-life-possible. No good stuff comes without some form of a fight, at least it didn't in my life. It just doesn't happen in that damned zone, not with social media showing folks what they could have been if they tried. I don't mean some artificial celebrities faking / pretending how everything is glorious, I mean your schoolmates or childhood friends who were not spectacular in any way, yet rewind 10-20 years and there is abyss in how their vs yours life looks like.
I've 'lost' quite a few close people to such envy exactly because I was nobody special in any way yet somehow made it way further than most, from environment which expected very little from me. One way would be 100% quiet about everything good in my life or fake complain about everything, thats how many successful or rich folks live. I refuse to go over the board with that just to keep such, at the end subpar relationships. Rather accept people change, and one of benefits of non-family relationships is that you can finish them and create better ones as you change if it feels like the opposite is a mistake. I am currently in the process of losing my best childhood friend in same way too, not the greatest experience but unfortunately at this point unavoidable one.
How can personal character weakness be a thing that varies by century? That doesn't make sense. If we have less willpower than our great-grandparents, whatever that means, it has a cause outside ourselves.
You can maybe blame individual differences in outcomes on personal character weakness, if you really want to, but when millions on millions of people fall to the same character weaknesses that very similar people didn't fall for before, then "personal" is exactly what it isn't.
It’s a combination of societal weakness/acceptance, marketing, and access to easier alternatives (eg, stuff that will make you fat) in my view. There’s not one thing that does it, but years and years of… conditioning that’s led us to this point.
Right, and science shows that in calorie controlled diets (where people have their diets carefully controlled), they have no issue with weight loss/gain/whatever.
This leads to the obvious conclusion it's peoples inability to manage how much they eat that leads to their obesity. What else could it be?
Granted, this isn't necessarily their own moral failing... but the environment they're put in does not set them up for success.
Sure, it has to be environmental, since it has affected millions of people (and animals). The question is: which environmental change? Ultra palatable food? Ultra processed food? The demonization of fat and subsequent additional sugar? Plasticisors in the environment? Lithium in the water supply? Something else?
One person's problem can be a moral failing. Thousands of people are a systemic failing.
Unless you think they literally just don't make people like they used to, if you swapped the babies in the cradle of the current generation with previous generations, we'd be thinner and they'd be fatter.
So saying the problem is people is kind of meaningless.
People do what's made easy and what makes them feel good. And what is advertised.
While it's rather obvious that obesity is caused by excess energy intake, it is not obvious how to change this. I'm getting weight (luckily not at an alarming speed) and I know exactly why I am and how I could stop it, but I don't. Knowledge that it's a "character flaw" doesn't change that.
I smoked for decades, knowing full well it's waste of health and money, and stopped only when smoking was made more difficult than not smoking (smoking bans, introduction of nicotine replacement products). I occasionally eat animal based products knowing they are destroying our environment, but eat them less now because of better plant based options.
Humans are not rational agents and our free will is at most limited.
I read Catcher in the Rye as a teen and enjoyed Holden's angst.
Now I'm approaching middle age. Last year I was looking for books to read in a language I'm learning. I decided to re-read Catcher, and to my surprise, found it heartbreaking. I mostly remembered the plot, but it was a completely different book to me as a man than as a boy.
Everything Holden does is in the shadow of his grief over his dead brother. As a kid, that flew over my head. I couldn't have understood the hole in your heart that comes from losing someone you deeply love and admire. I didn't get the sad chain of cause and effect - there are hints at how it affects everyone in his family.
It's a beautiful and subtle book, and it rewards re-reading later in life.
I was like the GP, thought I'd missed my "window" with that book - I tried reading as a late teen, but found Holden so unpleasant a character (he reminded me of kids I'd known, who'd been awful people) - so I never returned to it. Your comment made me interested to try again. Thank you.
Just as a counter point, I found catcher absolute shite and I have no idea why anyone ranks it so highly. It’s one of those books everyone claims is their favourite however it’s immediately clear to me when someone says that, that they’re not much of a reader.
Which is fine, I’m glad they enjoyed it and whatever but personally I thought it was a bad poorly written book that doesn’t deserve anywhere near the love it gets.
I don't feel like dying on the hill of Catcher in the Rye - while I think it's a good book and worth reading, I have no desire to write about it beyond the words I chose in my comment above. But I have to say that your comment here is of exactly the kind that diminishes the quality of Hacker News. Mindless name-calling: "absolute shite," "bad poorly written book," and you sneer that anyone who claims it as a favorite is "not much of a reader." No reasons, no evidence or examples, just name-calling. Ironically, your own comment, in ignoring the context and content of the whole thread, which was about the merits of reading and re-reading, seems to suggest you're "not much of a reader" yourself.
What you offer is not a "counterpoint," as you put it. It's the equivalent of: "I don't like ketchup, ketchup is bad, people who like ketchup are stupid."
The relatively simple grammar is a huge advantage. The major complaint I’ve heard from learners is about the spelling. It would be nice to reform the orthography, like the Academia Real in Spain did
Over 100 years is entirely possible in this case. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and precedent in the 2nd Circuit, the recommended total sentence will be stacked consecutively because SBF's "offense level" counsels life in prison. Here's the calculation.
A. Max sentence:
Wire fraud on customers (20 years max) + conspiracy to commit same (20) + wire fraud on Alameda lenders (20) + conspiracy for same (20) + conspiracy securities fraud on FTX investors (20) + conspiracy commodities fraud (25) + conspiracy money laundering (20).
Base offense level (7 levels) + Greater than $550,000,000 loss (30 levels) + Resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims (6 levels) + Offense otherwise involved sophisticated means (2 levels) + Defendant derived more than $1mm in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions (2 levels, maximum, due to a cap from earlier calculation) + Violation of securities / commodities law and defendant was "associated with a broker or dealer" or officer/director of a "futures commission merchant" (4 levels)
x axis: no criminal history. y axis, we calculated 51 levels.
The Guidelines therefore counsel life in prison.
D. Calculate sentence
The maximum sentence for each count is between 20-25 years. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.2(d) and Second Circuit precedent, sentences will be stacked consecutively "to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment." United States v. Evans, 352 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2003). In our scenario, that would be 145 years. This is the same legal reasoning used in stacking Bernie Madoff's sentences in the same federal district court, by the way.
E. Judge chooses sentence. He can depart downward from the Guidelines
Appeals courts are deferential to trial court choices in sentencing, so Judge Kaplan will have substantial latitude in choosing a sentence. That said, a judge may not be too favorably disposed to a defendant who stole billions of dollars from over 1 million customers, most of whom were ordinary people; who used Tom Brady, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Shaq, and Larry David as unwitting pawns; who advertised his scam in the Super Bowl and splashed its name on an arena; who used customer money to buy lavish real estate in the Bahamas, purchase favor from politicians, and make reckless leveraged bets
Given that half of the chart is taken up by >75-year sentences, with some of them in the 200s and 300s, before hitting life, federal prosecutors seem to be a lot more confident in the miracles possible in the federal prison medical system than I am.
We performed a dose-response meta-analysis to summarize the prospective data on coffee consumption and associated risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. These studies included 7486 dementia cases diagnosed among 328,885 individuals during an average follow-up of 4.9⁻25 years. Meta-analysis of all eight studies indicated no statistically significant association between coffee consumption and the risk of dementia and no deviations from a linear trend (p = 0.08). The relative risk of dementia per 1 cup/day increment of coffee consumption was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98⁻1.05; p = 0.37). Meta-analysis of five studies that focused on Alzheimer's disease revealed no association between coffee consumption and Alzheimer's disease and no deviations from a linear trend (p = 0.79). The relative risk of Alzheimer's disease per 1 cup/day increment of coffee consumption was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.95⁻1.07; p = 0.80). These results do not support an association between coffee consumption and an increased risk of overall dementia or Alzheimer's disease specifically, but further research on the association of coffee consumption with dementia risk is needed.
One difference between espresso and coffee made with a paper filter is that there is more cholesterol in espresso. Espresso extracts more from the bean because it is done under pressure, and the paper filter collects some the cholesterol. There is some evidence of a connection between high cholesterol and Alzheimers, so you might expect espresso to be worse, but it doesn't seem that well understood. Maybe the cholesterols in coffee beans act differently.
Are you thinking of cafestol? Cafestol and kahweol are lipophilic terpenes that are normally lost in filtration. They are thought to be cardiotoxins that contribute to the premature deaths of elderly unfiltered coffee drinkers. [1]
> There is a widespread belief among the public and even among chemists that plants do not contain cholesterol.
> This error is the result (in part) of the fact that plants generally contain only small quantities of cholesterol and that analytical methods for the detection of cholesterol in this range were not well developed until recently (1).
> Another reason has to do with the legalities of food labeling that allow small quantities of cholesterol in foods to be called zero (2).
> The fact is that cholesterol is widespread in the plant kingdom although other related sterols, such as β-sitosterol (henceforth referred to as sitosterol), generally occur in larger quantities.
> No current biochemistry text that we have examined provides an accurate account of cholesterol in plants.
I got downvoted above, but it isn't a joke. Vietnamese coffee beans are often roasted in butter. Robusta beans aren't as common in the US, sadly. After living in Vietnam, it is my preferred bean now. I like the extra bitterness and higher caffeine content of it.
Buy some VN coffee, the beans are often shiny from the oil.
Feel free to upvote this post now that I've shown you something new. =)
It's not a joke but completely besides the point. Most people aren't drinking butter-roasted coffee. Even if they did, the butter likely isn't adding any actual lipids to the final roast, just slightly altering the internal bean steam pressure, heat, and final water content. Any oils on the exterior would be vaporized at typical roasting temperatures. Also most heavily roasted beans will be shiny with oil within a few days of roasting, regardless of any added butter.
> Most people aren't drinking butter-roasted coffee.
I'm not sure how 'most people' is relevant to the discussion. Fact is that it is one of the largest GDP exports for Vietnam and 5th in the world [0]. Just because you don't drink it, doesn't mean millions of other people aren't drinking it.
"The main destination of Coffee exports from Vietnam are: Germany ($384M), United States ($257M), Italy ($230M), Japan ($186M), and Spain ($150M)."
If I take those beans "shiny with oil" (aka: butter), grind them up and make a cup of coffee with them (I personally go with an aeropress w/ steel mesh), then there is going to be oil (butter) in that coffee. In fact, I can see a slight oil (butter) sheen on the surface of the cup of coffee if I let it sit.
Sure, but you're making the assumption that your beans are shiny because of butter, while we know all dark-roasted beans will be similarly shiny regardless. You're not providing any clear evidence that butter-roasted beans retain any oils from butter, and frankly I'm very skeptical of that being the case. Have you ever tried heating butter to 300C in a pan? (Do not actually try this, you will start an oil fire and create lots of smoke)
Definitely not a joke. My friend from Singapore introduced me to butter-roasted beans. He enjoys western style roasts also but apparently craves a regular taste of home as well.
Could also just be confounding effects. Espresso machines tend to be expensive, as are cafés where people go to drink espresso. Did the study control for income?
That varies greatly depending on where you are in the world. In most of southern europe "a coffee" is an espresso, and outside of urban and/or tourist centers the normal price is less than 1€.
The study was done in Verona, where I suspect that espresso consumption isn't highly correlated with economic status.
I’m genuinely curious about the economics of the southern European coffee shop. The machines are quite expensive $20,000-$30,000+ (+- $5,000 - $10,000) and so for just 1€ plus they have to eat, potentially pay employees, etc. how viable are these shops?
On the other hand I think that the fact that such cafes exist and seem to work well speaks to walkability and proper transit as a cornerstone of entrepreneurship. In America you basically have to start a Starbucks drive through to get enough volume, or you have to charge $2.65 or something for a single because of a lack of volume.
Proper density (not Manhattan, moreso Amsterdam) and walkability seem to me to drive economic growth and encourage new businesses that don’t need to raise rounds of funding.
That would assume there is a correlation between Alzheimer's and income. In some quick googling of studies, there appears to be. However, with often differing results from US vs. European studies (and studying different things like education instead of income and vice versa, dementia vs. Alzheimers and vice versa, urban vs. macro and vice versa), there are hints that it is an accessibility of diagnosis issue.
We still don't know enough about Alzheimer's to have a definitive bullet list of healthy habits to stave it off. Sleep, exercise, dental health, all have some weak evidence behind it. It seems that Alzheimer's is still a more equal opportunity destroyer than heart disease or many cancers where there are plenty of evidence that you can mitigate risks with lifestyle changes.
In these large trials I assume they are not trying to separate someone who just drinks black coffee from someone who drinks coffee with a lot of sugar (mochas ect…). So the negative affects of daily consumption of sugar and dairy could offset whatever positive affects might have been possible.
Studies on AD and Coffee seem to be all over the place because they are just correlative. People with a genetic disposition to drink coffee (I kid you not) have higher prevalence of AD, people who drink coffee in middle age possibly less prevalence of later AD, so people who were drinking lots of coffee right before developing AD could mean a positive or negative affect.
> In the US if you fake data you can become president of Stanford (for a while).
One wonders: is the unearned time as an elite university president worth being humiliated by an 18 year old on the student newspaper and being forced to resign in disgrace?
For me that's an easy no, but others may have different preferences.
