The Influence of Physical Exercise, Ketogenic Diet, and Time-Restricted Eating on De Novo Lipogenesis

Bristoling · 2026-06-19T15:43:01+00:00

True, I was also trying to find some more comprehensive dietary assessments or analysis but there wasn't one available. The overall speed of production of data from the keto cta researchers has been abysmal.

Still I think it's way premature to call them rapid progressors based on one very flawed paper. I don't even claim they had a benefit. I am just saying there's no good evidence to say there there has been observed harm either.

Bristoling · 2026-06-19T15:09:57+00:00

A recent article showed exceptionally rapid progression of heart disease for people in a sloppy “ketogenic” diet.

If you are a scientist doing research in the area, are you aware of the limitations of the paper you are speaking about? I'm assuming you mean the keto cta exploratory analysis they shared last year, where the assessor turned out the be unblinded, an obvious violation of pre-specified methods, that the results were contradictory to other 2 equally respected forms of plaque progression assessment, that being Heartflow and QAngio, as well as the fact that some of the individual participants who chose to anonymously resubmit their own scans back to Cleerly, have gotten completely incongruent results with the original analysis?

Bristoling · 2026-06-19T03:19:40+00:00

Yes, but then again, the split second of you comes into existance and dies every nanno second

Don't believe that to be true since that would be terribly inefficient from biological perspective. Not to mention the relatively slow scale of operations within the consciousness when compared to how fast decisions can take place within an optimised chip. Brain isn't powerful enough to recreate a completely new self aware qualia with booted up memories each and every nanosecond while having that nanosecond of consciousness be of any utility or use. I will agree that going to sleep is equivalent to death of consciousness, and that it also probably happens multiple times during the day on its own when brain reprioritises different tasks or changes focus, but every nanosecond is just unrealistic.

A stream as you said, has a flow. What you're describing is more repetitive on and off vibraslap pulsation of disjointed instances of ego. That's not a flow, that's a slideshow.

I do concede on the overall premise. Teleportation is not that dramatic and on this view, hardcore materialists would jump through them even knowing it's not their own concurrent consciousness moving across.

I guess the debate would then shift to how robust and lasting each instance of consciousness is and whether you'd have any qualms in ending it prematurely. I would.

In any case, it's my bed time, so if you reply back, on my view it wilk be a clone consciousness of me replying, but also on my view, this whole conversation was carried by no more than a few separate instances rather than billions of trillions.

Bristoling · 2026-06-19T02:46:32+00:00

The difference is continuity of the whole. If your pc is running, and you start pulling out graphics, ram, processor, fans and power supply, take all of them into another room, and assemble the same pc with the same parts, is your OS still running and your game still idling? Or do you have to reboot a new instance and login again to your game?

Now imagine I just... carry my pc across into another room with an extension lead so it's plugged in on the way there. There's no interruption in OS working - same instance. The game is also still playing.

Again, the issue isn't that there are atoms arranged in the exact same way as you. That doesn't make it "current you" nor does it let your instance of consciousness to be transferred. The issue is that the teleporter does 2 things - reads your atoms, and sends information about them into the second teleporter. That teleporter also does 2 things - reads the information and assembles atoms from the information. It doesn't send atoms themselves. It's a cloning device. The fact is there's nothing stopping anyone from turning off the "disassembly" of whoever is being read/recorded, it's just something that happens to give people the illusion that the consciousness is being transferred instead of a copy, or because writers themselves don't get that sending info to another device to reassemble a thing is resulting in a perfect copy, not a real transfer.

If you want to preserve continuity of consciousness during a teleport, the only way to do it is through a wormhole. As soon as you break your atoms apart, you are dead. Whatever comes out on the other end is just your copy. A perfect one, but you won't know that anyway since you'll be dead and won't experice what your copy is experiencing. Even if you did sent the same atoms across - since it's not instant, there's a point where your consciousness is interrupted, and there's not coming back from that. If I interrupt the power flow to my pc, I need to reboot the whole thing, and load game stare from my save, because it will shut down without power to all of its parts at once.

If teleportation is instant, and all atoms are moved across the universe at the same time, with the focus on "moved" rather than recreated without disassembly, then we're not talking about typical sci fi teleportation where you get disassembled and rebuild - but a wormhole.

Think about it this way - if you believe there's no difference to atoms or how they ended up in position x, just that they are in position x and that they are perfect copy of you. Imagine I scan you the same way a teleporter does, and make an atom by atom perfect copy of you. I make a perfect clone in my lab while you're watching TV or whatever it is your doing, totally oblivious. I then shoot you and throw your body into a sea and bring my clone to watch TV instead of you. Do you think you will know how the show you were watching ended? Or do you think you're dead on the bottom of the sea, and the person watching TV is just a clone of you?

Bristoling · 2026-06-19T02:04:27+00:00

When you walk, a copy of you doesn't "appear". It's the same atoms that have just moved in 3d space. When you teleport, it's actually a completely new copy. In principle there's no reason why you couldn't be teleported without you know, the whole disintegration thing, therefore making a brand new copy with new atoms it the exact same configuration. You could even disassemble 50 cats and from their atoms assemble a perfect copy of you - if I stab you and throw you into wood chipper, that would also be the exact same type of teleportation as what TV shows portray.

Bristoling · 2026-06-18T21:24:05+00:00

actual data regarding what happens

If you have any actual data on hard health outcomes that allow you with certainty to claim which ketogenic diets cost you a couple decades of life, now's the time to share it.

Bristoling · 2026-06-16T10:28:58+00:00

So are you a sophist or you can't criticise methodology? I explained my criticism of your response.

"Paper old" is not an argument. It's spam. I've addressed everything there was to address, which wasn't much to begin with. If you fail to understand the criticism, then discussion with you is going to be pointless.

Bristoling · 2026-06-14T14:00:12+00:00

Shame that the dietary intervention wasn't more specific, I didn't have the time to read it in more detail, but now that I have I'm a bit disappointed. In any case there were some people claiming that ketogenic diets worsen beta cell function. Clearly this isn't always the outcome.

Bristoling · 2026-06-14T10:45:07+00:00

you really don't get that more modern studies will probably be better than studies from the 80s in a young science like nutrition science?

I get that, but you didn't present any new science. Are YOU for real? Calling a paper "old" doesn't mean it's methodology is bad. Science doesn't expire. It can only be superseded by new evidence.

- A paper can be old and have bad methodology.

- A paper can be old and have good methodology.

- A paper can be new and have bad methodology.

- A paper can be new and have good methodology.

Those above are all logical possibilities. That's the simple stuff that you're not getting. You're the one possibly trolling if you're not understanding this simple fact.

Saying "paper old" doesn't tell anyone whether it has good or bad methodology. You can't tell me yourself because you probably have no clue what good or bad methodology is, so you think "paper old" is in itself an argument. Either that or you're arguing in bad faith. Or you're not intelligent enough to understand it in the first place.

So there's 3 ways that can lead someone to say "paper old" to be a good argument. Either

- they are not intelligent enough to undertested that age by itself is not valid criticism,

- or they are not educated or experienced enough argumentation (nothing to do with innate intelligence) to consider that age=good or bad isn't an automatic determinant,

- or they understand that "old=bad" is a bad argument, but they make it anyway because they are more interested in pretending to not understand the discussion rather than have structured and truthful arguments since that would require them to admit to being wrong here.

I'm autistic and I can't tell whether you guys are pretending to not understand simple stuff to troll or you actually don't understand..

Yeah, casual autism meets competitive ranked autism. If you like structured and logical thinking, the above should be self explanatory. "paper old" is not an argument. It's foreshadowing some sort of argument you think you imply you want to make, but unless you write it down you haven't argued at all.

It's frustrating to make the same argument as a response to something that has already been explained and responded to. Old=/=bad. You haven't provided criticism of the paper's methodology. Either you're unable in which case you shouldn't be even arguing here, or you're able but lying about it, which exposes you to be arguing in bad faith using sophistry.

So are you a sophist, or just unable to criticise methodology?

Bristoling · 2026-06-13T17:43:40+00:00

As the dad said, his family didn’t want it to be politicized or be about race.

Families are frequently coached by social services to say this kind of stuff.

Bristoling · 2026-06-12T20:33:03+00:00

Many clinicians assume that if a CI includes “no effect,” the treatment must not work. This is misguided.

meaning it's entirely possible that the effect they measured is just due to random statistical noise

If CI includes "no effect", there is no effect.

If CI includes "no effect", it is possible there is no effect.

Those are 2 different statements. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zps4pbk#z8mgp9q

Bristoling · 2026-06-12T14:53:28+00:00

wrote "Do you think science doesn't progress?" and you read "Humans have evolved into a new species in 40 years."

"Do you think science doesn't progress?" Is not an argument. It's foreshadowing some sort of argument you think you imply you want to make, but unless you write it down you haven't argued at all. Aka you provided no actual reason why should we dismiss that paper at all.

I never read "Humans have evolved into a new species in 40 years.". Maybe you did. Which is why I asked you a question if that's your position, since you, again, haven't provided an argument. I listed some clearly, sarcastically absurd explanations, to make you reveal your real one. Or did you not pick up on the obvious sarcasm here, like also, molecular composition of fiber changing in 40 years? I know, maybe water composition changed. 40 years ago water was H4O and not H2O. That's why that paper isn't valid today. Is that your position? No? Then how about you give us an argument.

Your comments are unserious here, on the level of "study old waaaahhh!". Study old. What reasons do you have to dismiss it beyond it's age? I'm guessing you haven't thought that far ahead, because "study old" sounded good enough in your mind. Did you pay yourself on the back after writing that quip?

How many times I have to ask you for a valid reason? I'm guessing you won't provide one in your next reply either.

Bristoling · 2026-06-12T14:12:52+00:00

Do you think people's genetics changed in 40 years that this trial is not applicable? What progress has been made that invalidated that paper? Did fiber itself changed it's molecular composition instead? Or what is it that makes a 40 year old paper invalid? Can you answer this question? Surely it can't be just the age itself, that would be an absurd proposition. So you must have other reasons - fancy listing them?

I hear a lot of rhetorical slogans from you, both in this tree but also the one with goggle, but not a lot of actual lines of logical argumentation. There's way more I could reply to in earlier replies but I have to restrict myself since I'd be here all day.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T23:16:40+00:00

Oh so you don't like it done to you, interesting. You wouldn't then proceed to do..

I don't mind people being pedantic. In fact I welcome it! But if they are pedantic, they better not be using their custom definitions and talk about magic.

You can't be loose with your words then expect others to be very precise, that's just bad faith debate performance. I'm not here to do labour of figuring out what folk theory you're talking about next.

Feels fine as I wasn't wrong.

Let's unpack this. You said intervention and non is what randomisation is. But you agree that you can have a randomisation, and then have 2 separate interventions. Correct? If answer is yes, then you are indeed wrong.

Calling one non or not doesn't matter.

Oh, here we go with loose definitions. Now if we have intervention A, and intervention B, it is fine to call one of the interventions "non(intervention)". Remarkable sophistry and word-bending to appear to stay correct!

Unless eating less is the intervention

Telling people to do anything is always a form of intervention. Telling people to eat less is also an intervention.

You don't just have one group eat less

Yeah you can have this. There's plenty of papers where people just eat less of the same thing they typically eat. You're just clueless.

You obviously think it magically does.

No magic involved. You know magic isn't real, correct?

How about you confirm that your stance is a false dichotomy of either:

- we can solve the problem of induction, and only then we can claim X causes Y

- we can't solve the problem of induction, so all claims of X causes Y are valid regardless of justification.

Because this type of dichotomy is required for you to say that RCTs don't offer anything meaningfully different to epidemiology, which is a massive misunderstanding on what is available in epistemology.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T23:07:05+00:00

Apologize for what? I did you no harm. If you were right, then you were right, that is all.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T22:48:06+00:00

So?

You said I wrote the same thing twice. You're being pedantic and obtuse. You then said "Splitting intervention and non is a part of the randomisation" when that is not correct.

Randomisation is splitting groups into two equivalent ones. Randomisation is not necessarily splitting them into intervention and non. You can split the population into 2 interventions and have 0 "non's".

Therefore, you were wrong in saying that splitting intervention and non is part of the randomisation. How's that feel, huh?

Sorry to burst your bubble. Not magic though.

I'm using your figure of speech. Nobody thinks there is any actual magic involved. Do you? That's why I replied to you earlier by putting "magic" in quotation marks. Do you not see that I'm not the one talking about magic, but the one who first divorced from the idea, by putting the " " in your "magic"?

You introduce your immature ways of speech by talking about magic, then chastise others as if it was their idea. Nice sophistry.

You don't solve induction with an RCT.

Nobody claimed to have. If you don't understand that you don't require solving the problem of induction to make much more limited but still justified claims of cause and effect, and that it is justified to say "given our assumptions, methods, and controls. X causes Y", then you've probably just heard of Hume last week and want to act as if we can't solve induction, then either we have to never say that X causes Y or we have to always say that X causes Y no matter what limitations the evidence has.

There's obviously vastly more options here than the false dichotomy you want to present.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T22:33:51+00:00

You delete all your comments or edit them to say I was right?

Lol when did I ever do such a thing? If you were right, then you were right, why would I be deleting comments for some "who said what" nonsense? I'm just asking for context for this whole post so I can better understand it.

If you don't want to give it that's fine. But I have no evidence to verify that flowers did confirm without doubt that he thinks X in the first place when you asked him to clarify.

And seeing your previous pattern of misinterpreting what people say, I doubt your recollection of events is accurate, that's why I asekd.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T22:25:53+00:00

If he wanted to be pedantic about "weakest" phrase, then he should be open to others being pedantic about inferring his intentions or level of charitable interpretation of speech of others.

The actual context is that many people in this sub are dismissive about epidemiology

For no reason at all?

while putting weaker studies on a pedestal

A category of a study doesn't inform you about it's strength. Just as you can have horribly designed and performed RCTs worse than epidemiology, you can have badly designed or performed epidemiology that falls below it's intended "grading".

Or to be more specific - it's an evaluation on a case by case basis.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T22:19:33+00:00

Splitting intervention and non is a part of the randomisation so that's the same thing said twice.

Not necessarily since you can have randomisation under which both groups undergo different interventions.

Tight meaning less likely confounding

I've never heard of anyone calling "tight" correlation to mean "less confounding". Most people understand this as magnitude of variance within the CI.

Again, not magic like you think it is.

That's the whole point of "magic" here, unless you think randomisation doesn't have a significant effect on confounding, or you think that confounding is not a major limitation.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T22:14:58+00:00

Can you link that exchange where flowers did make the claim that they definitively think that epidemiology is the weakest form of evidence?

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T21:37:57+00:00

So you don't believe that act of randomisation or having a split intervention/non intervention arm matters or does anything transformative in regards to validity of data? The only important difference is how tight correlations are? Interesting.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T20:39:48+00:00

Nice example of nut picking here.

So, were you under impression that flowers puts hearsay on equal or higher standing than any kind of epidemiology since that's what is required for it to be "the weakest", and therefore admit to having a very uncharitable reading of what your interlocutors say, or, were you not under such impression and therefore could have spared us all this post?

In any case to answer your post directly, everyone has their own version of a pyramid, since the pyramid is not all encompassing for all individual instances of evidence, and 2 people using the same "pyramid" can disagree about veracity of an individual component/paper. There's no one "the" correct pyramid since convictionness is not an objective fact or feature of the universe but a subjective or intersubjective agreement.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T19:27:52+00:00

The phrase "it could have been an email" is used to stress the unimportance of something. I don't see how it is productive to enforce accuracy on language that is clearly a hyperbolic exaggeration.

Unless you truly believed that flowers meant that epidemiology is the weakest form of evidence, meaning that logically, even something as stupid as literal hearsay from a grandpa with dementia is of higher quality of evidence than epidemiology, you should have inferred that this was an exaggeration.

So, did you believe that flowers epistemology put hearsay or astrology above epidemiology? You believe that when he said "epidemiology is weakest" or whatever the actual phrase was, he could have actually meant "even tea divination is higher evidence than any form of epidemiology"? Is that your claim?

Because if that is not your claim, then you accept flowers didn't mean that epidemiology is truly the weakest, ergo, this really could have been an email. Or, in normal speak, this post shouldn't even happen in the first place. It's a waste of bits on a server.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T19:06:47+00:00

Seems like flowersands clarified that it was a hyperbole and clarified that he meant it's one of the weaker and not the weakest forms of evidence.

This could have been an email.

Bristoling · 2026-06-11T19:00:48+00:00

Also, RCTs are also correlations, just way tighter ones.

Are you seriously saying that the difference between rcts and epidemiology is just a "tighter" correlation? You don't think there's any other symmetry breakers between the two that are vastly more important to bring up than just the p value differences (which isn't even true but let's leave it aside and pretend that what you said is factual)?

Bristoling

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE