If you’ve been anywhere near the internet I’m sure the headlines caught your eye. But a 43% higher risk of fractures just seemed really high to me with a meat free diet as the cause. I found the following article online. Since most people nowadays can’t get past the headlines you’ll find the second paragraph completely ignored by the media.
Compared with people who ate meat, vegans with lower calcium and protein intakes on average, had a 43% higher risk of fractures anywhere in the body (total fractures), as well as higher risks of site-specific fractures of the hips, legs and vertebrae, according to a study published in the open access journal BMC Medicine. Vegetarians and people who ate fish but not meat had a higher risk of hip fractures, compared to people who ate meat. However, the risk of fractures was partly reduced once body mass index (BMI), dietary calcium and dietary protein intake were taken into account.
The authors caution that they were unable to differentiate between fractures that were caused by poorer bone health (such as fractures due to a fall from standing height or less) and those that were caused by accidents because data on the causes of the fractures were not available. No data were available on differences in calcium supplement use between the different diet groups, and as in all dietary studies the estimates of nutrients such as dietary calcium or dietary protein are subject to measurement error. As the study predominantly included white European participants, generalisability to other populations or ethnicities may be limited, which could be important considering previously observed differences in bone mineral density and fracture risks by ethnicity, according to the authors.
As I was gathering my thoughts the algorithms started doing what they do and this popped up in YouTube.
Let’s discuss the latest paper from the EPIC database. Excuse me eating while working. Not enough hours in day. Short version: this is a database from 90’s. Average fiber intake is 20 gm so not healthiest plant based eaters. Meat eaters got more vitamin D. Also (forgot to mention in video) used hormone replacement therapy up to 50% more. Both associated with stronger bones. Other studies have shown that plant based eaters have great bone health BUT you have to be healthy. Get dark greens. Drink or eat soy (studies show as good dairy for bones). Exercise and use resistance training. And take supplements if needed. I like multivitamins that have K2 as that may be a nutrient vegans are deficient in unless you eat natto 🤮. Definitely vitamin D if deficient. The EPIC Oxford cohort are not the healthiest vegans and vegetarians BUT have less ischemic stroke, weight less, generally better heart and less of certain cancers despite poor supplementation and diet habits.
Dr. Garth Davis YouTube post 11.23.20
I love it when someone else does the work for me. If you have eleven minutes listen to Dr. Davis’ analysis. I am now less confused.
The researchers found that after one day of total isolation, the sight of people having fun together activates the same brain region that lights up when someone who hasn’t eaten all day sees a picture of a plate of cheesy pasta.
“People who are forced to be isolated crave social interactions similarly to the way a hungry person craves food. Our finding fits the intuitive idea that positive social interactions are a basic human need, and acute loneliness is an aversive state that motivates people to repair what is lacking, similar to hunger,” says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.
The research team collected the data for this study in 2018 and 2019, long before the coronavirus pandemic and resulting lockdowns. Their new findings, described today in Nature Neuroscience, are part of a larger research program focusing on how social stress affects people’s behavior and motivation.
Taxpayers face a loss of $435 billion on the $1.37 trillion in student loans on the government’s financial statement at the beginning of this year, even if no additional loans are issued going forward, according to an internal study by the Department of Education, reported by the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the documents. Most of the losses would come from the already established income-based repayment programs and the debt forgiveness at the end of their term.
But who ultimately got this money, since students were just the conduit? The educational-financial-industrial complex, of course, the entities that have lined up to clean out the taxpayer via these student loans. Billionaires have been printed in the process, enabled and encouraged by the government since 2009. Any solution to the student-loan crisis needs to include measures that shut down that money-transfer and return the government’s role in student loans to where it had been before 2009.
Interim data analysis of Phase-3 trial of Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 candidate vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-2019) showed different efficacies in preventing COVID-19 disease. In the case of the regimen where a halved dose was used as a prime (first dose) followed by a standard dose of booster, the efficacy was 90%. However, when full doses (standard doses) were […]
As it turns out, protecting students from Covid was never a top priority for University Presidents. The American Council on Education (“a membership organization that mobilizes [ha] the higher education community to shape effective public policy and foster innovative, high-quality practice”) has published periodic surveys on what University Presidents consider pressing issues.
The author of this article doesn’t attempt to hide his bias or contempt for the so-called leaders of our colleges and universities. I’ve made no attempt to hide my disdain either (sharp eyed readers will note my title above deletes two words from the original article title). The college clusterfuck has been one of my recurring themes:
The full article contains some pretty sorrid stuff. Enjoy!
Online education will become the standard operating model for higher education. Thousands of colleges and universities will go belly up. Professor Galloway at NYU says it’s simple math. See Galloway’s comments here: Post Pandemic Changes in Consumer Behavior
More research is needed but if this study findings hold up we have a game changer.
“We found a statistically significant inverse correlation between mumps titer levels and COVID-19 severity in people under age 42 who have had MMR II vaccinations,” said lead study author Jeffrey E. Gold, president of World Organization, in Watkinsville, Georgia. “This adds to other associations demonstrating that the MMR vaccine may be protective against COVID-19. It also may explain why children have a much lower COVID-19 case rate than adults, as well as a much lower death rate. The majority of children get their first MMR vaccination around 12 to 15 months of age and a second one from 4 to 6 years of age.”
“We don’t need to generalize, we don’t need to say let me explain the whole world to you as an artist. You don’t have to do that. Just tell the truth about your own life, what you’re experiencing, what you’re seeing and dig into it. Don’t be afraid of it, confront it. Let’s see where it comes out. Let’s describe our most intimate relationships with the hopes that other people can see themselves in our work.”
In 2015, 42% of 14-year-old girls and boys said they currently were trying to lose weight, compared to 30% in 2005.
Lead author Dr Francesca Solmi (UCL Psychiatry) said: “Our findings show how the way we talk about weight, health and appearance can have profound impacts on young people’s mental health, and efforts to tackle rising obesity rates may have unintended consequences.
“An increase in dieting among young people is concerning because experimental studies have found that dieting is generally ineffective in the long term at reducing body weight in adolescents, but can instead have greater impacts on mental health. We know, for instance, that dieting is a strong risk factor in the development of eating disorders.”
OBJECTIVE To assess the relation of type 2 diabetes occurring earlier (age <55 years) versus later in life to the risk of cardiovascular death and to diabetes in offspring.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the Framingham Heart Study, a community-based prospective cohort study, glycemic status was ascertained at serial examinations over six decades among 5,571 first- and second-generation participants with mortality data and 2,123 second-generation participants who initially did not have diabetes with data on parental diabetes status. We assessed cause of death in a case (cardiovascular death)–control (noncardiovascular death) design and incident diabetes in offspring in relation to parental early-onset diabetes.
RESULTS Among the participants in two generations (N = 5,571), there were 1,822 cardiovascular deaths (including 961 coronary deaths). The odds of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular death increased with decreasing age of diabetes onset (P < 0.001 trend). Compared with never developing diabetes, early-onset diabetes conferred a 1.81-fold odds (95% CI 1.10–2.97, P = 0.02) of cardiovascular death and 1.75-fold odds (0.96–3.21, P = 0.07) of coronary death, whereas later-onset diabetes was not associated with greater risk for either (P = 0.09 for cardiovascular death; P = 0.51 for coronary death). In second-generation participants, having a parent with early-onset diabetes increased diabetes risk by 3.24-fold (1.73–6.07), whereas having one or both parents with late-onset diabetes increased diabetes risk by 2.19-fold (1.50–3.19).
CONCLUSIONS Our findings provide evidence for a diabetes subgroup with an early onset, a stronger association with cardiovascular death, and higher transgenerational transmission.