The majority of sleep apnea comes from fat being where it shouldn't be, ectopic fat in the airway. Ectopic fat is driven by metabolic disease, basically eating a bad diet. Eating a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar causes fat to build up where it shouldn't be. I.e. Airway. Ectopic fat can be resolved rather quickly by not eating carbohydrates and sugar. Cpaps are great, and if you need one, absolutely use it. There is a dietary intervention also available, low carb, or keto, will resolve sleep apnea as well.

Carbohydrate consumption does not result in chronically-elevated fasting insulin in the absence of excess fat consumption. This is a very strong statement. Can you please share your literature on this claim? I'd love to read more about it.

https://hackertalks.com/post/17259951 Have you read the journal article? would you like to discuss it? Or is the issue that it's only one reference I supplied? https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2139 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4137 Or if you prefer a more approachable summary: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/saturated-fat#evidence-to-date What should alarm everyone is that saturated fat was vilified and replacement with a manufactured fat source and carbohydrates (a new human eating pattern) without sufficient evidence. Going back the the 1900s diet, a eating pattern established before our modern plagues of diabetes, obesity, cancer shouldn't really be considered crazy.

You can't speak to my intentions. You can say the quote was inadequate, you can say there's a better quote, but to say I was trying to mislead people is a personal attack and I don't appreciate that

I wonder if there's a micro plastic connection?

It's as proven as a lot of epidemiology. The White House referenced a paper talking about acetaminophen and pregnancy, it was a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. That's not very rigorous. However, it's the same level of rigor used to demonize red meat consumption. So you're either in the camp that epidemiology is not serious science, and should not be used for public policy. Which is fine, that's a reasonable place to be Or you're in the camp that some epidemiology should be used for public policy, which then this acetaminophen link should be taken seriously. I'm personally not compelled by weak epidemiology, so I don't think any of it should be used for public policy. And especially politicians shouldn't get in the business of pumping epidemiology. However, this USA today article does not disprove anything. It can't. You can't prove the negative. Is acetaminophen safe at all Dose levels during pregnancy? I don't know, it should be minimized unless it's necessary, but I don't know the dose dependent response. That would require an interventional trial. It would be reasonable to not take any drugs during pregnancy unless they're absolutely medically necessary, and not use simply as a panacea which acetaminophen is often used as I do find it odd that The article uses the fact that acetaminophen is very popular so it's safe. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a widespread problem, but that's exactly what the acetaminophen research paper was saying.... They're kind of arguing against that premise

They had to submit details before?!?!

We now think of stress as the body getting out of balance, and this pathway recognizes the imbalance and corrects it. So it’s more of a physiological balancing act than what we originally thought, where it was simply a bad thing that happened when you were exposed to stress. Makes sense If you eat a poor diet, say a high-fat diet, it activates the pathways of stress throughout your entire body: muscles, liver, fat… everywhere. What you eat has a huge effect on biology, and obesity is a major epidemic in the developing world and increases the risk of many diseases, such as cancer. Just an assumption against fat... But it doesn't cancel out the stress hypothesis We have to worry about what we eat and the food we’re eating, but when you eat and fasting periods are also important. But in many cases, human studies haven’t reached a stage where the same thing has been done as in other organisms like mice. Fair point

For myself, a sauna session a few hours before bed gives me wonderful uninterrupted sleep. But, it doesn't fit my schedule, so I do it in the morning heh

Any activity is good, micro exercise movements like taking the stairs or going for a walk do have long term cumulative health benefits. Keep moving!

One wants to think that in a study like this, researchers kept that in mind and ensures that those variables were accounted for. that is such a “step one” that it’d be really stupid if they hadn’t The neat part about epidemiology is they can't really control for healthy user bias - they can acknowledge it, then model a offset adjustment (assuming some uniform random variable with linear effect usually - so a regression to remove factors requires knowledge of their causal contribution which is "estimated" in the model....)... but yeah, the neat part is they don't - which is why epidemiology can never prove causation. :::spoiler neat [image: 2d8443ec6b68719e22edd3c05259d7f2.jpg] :::

Get them addicted early! They are future customers

Agrochemicals in the food supply is a real issue, you can't see it, you can't taste it.. it's insidious

untreated gonorrhea infection that had spread widely throughout her body. The story is worrisome but this isn't the same as the treatment resistant gonorrhea we should also be worried about experienced no or few symptoms of their gonorrhea prior to their DGI. They also often had no clear risk factors for an STI and sometimes even tested negative on standard urine and genital swab tests for gonorrhea. Well， shit

Health effects associated with consumption of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids: a Burden of Proof study Study title... CNN title is only about meat. A meta-analysis of observational epidemiology All of the issues with epidemiology apply association is not causation hypothesis generating only healthy user confounders people eating meat are often eating high carbohydrate diets metabolic context of the participants food frequency questionnaires filled out yearly or every 4 years. I don't have access to the paper, it hasn't made it to the Free Academic circles yet, so I haven't been able to read it. Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review I personally think the reason EVERYTHING is linked to cancer, as well as the massive surge in cancer since the 1900s, is all due to the modern metabolism (sugar burners) being very different then pre-1900 metabolism (fat burners) High carbohydrate load, high blood glucose load, high insulin levels Industrial Oil, systemic body inflammation Agrochemical contamination of food supply, more systematic inflammation The problem with these observational studies is they don't look at the modern metabolic context, so in this context, yes EVERYTHING is associated with cancer - because the studies arn't looking at the right variables. This is exactly why hard science doesn't use association to draw conclusions, epidemiology is hypothesis generating only 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).