Even the industry funded group the other guy quoted me admitted that the larger scale scientific studies found that
ultra-processed foods are associated with increased incidences of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes
I don’t think you know what food science is.
Food science is about testing and developing new products. It’s not longitudinal or population health and disease studies. It doesn’t show anything about the correlation between ultra processed foods and all causes mortality because it simply doesn’t study mortality in any way whatsoever.
Claiming that the science is contentious is a standard industry tactic for dismissing it. Its what vaccine skeptics and climate change deniers do, and it’s what the tobacco industry did over lung cancer.
They concede that the actual scientists found that
ultra-processed foods are associated with increased incidences of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes
And dismissed it all because there’s not a randomised controlled trail for ultra processed vs home cooked from ingredients foods, but their counterpoint to that, their main gotcha from that article, is it a randomised controlled trial? Does it measure obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes? No! Let’s see what it tests:
To answer this question, researchers in an USDA-funded study published in The Journal of Nutrition planned a seven-day, 2,000-calorie daily diet that was based on the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines but with more than 80% of the foods coming from Nova’s ultra-processed food category. The results showed that this planned diet achieved a Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score of 86 out of 100 points. The HEI measures the diet quality and evaluates to what extent Americans are following the Dietary Guidelines. For reference, the current HEI for Americans is 59 on average, meaning many Americans are consuming a diet below what is considered desirable.
So if you use one set of guidelines to make a diet plan (no one actually eats it) and you deliberately pick foods that are processed but reasonably healthy according to those very same guidelines, you achieve a great score on what basis? Long term health outcomes? No. Short term health outcomes? No. What basis? Oh, the very same guidelines you used to cherry pick the foods? Why isn’t it 100%?! What an absurdly vacuous claim.
In their enlightenment and dismissing all the science, they’ve replaced it by calculating some points of disagreement with some older healthy eating advice? That’s IT!?!
You have swallowed a bunch of pseudoscience. You’re as bad as RFK.
It’s a fucking industry funded pseudoscience pseudoprogessional pseudoeducation body. Did you even think about where they’re coming from?
https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors
Some highlights for you:
Danone North America
Eli Lilly and Company (weight loss drugs)
Gatorade Sports Science Institute
National Confectioners Association
National Dairy Council
National Honey Board
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Nestle Health Sciences
Quebec Maple Syrup Producers
Sodexo
Splenda®
Wonderful Pistachios
No wonder they’re dismissing all the science associating ultra processed food with all-causes mortality with a single diet plan!
Why on earth do you fall for this crap?
It’s not the processing, it’s the preservatives and other edible non-food junk they put in to make it last longer and keep customers coming back for more and more and more.
It’s called food science, and it works. It works very well indeed. Way too well for our health. You test for moreishness and you manufacture the ones the panel loves and wants more of. Result? Food that people really want more of. Its not magic and it’s not deliberately bad, it’s just that the inevitable result is the obesity epidemic.
I’m all out of entertaining things to say! Have a great week.
When you actually look in to the details of papers on this topic you’ll find that it’s actually not defined consistently across the literature.
This is such anti-science crap, and it’s exactly what various industries said all along about climate change and lung cancer studies.
When you dig into the reason why any specific “ultra processed” food is bad it boils down to:
No, no when you dig into the reason why ultra processed food is bad, it boils down to all-cause mortality. As in earlier death and shorter healthy lifespan.
You’re being overly literal. That you made it yourself with real ingredients is a good rule of thumb for not ultra-processed. You’re unlikely to have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids or high fructose corn syrup lying around, and you won’t test your recipe repeatedly until humans want more of it than any of the competing products on the supermarket shelves.
Yeah, everything’s a chemical, but that’s not what people mean when they say there’s chemicals in the food. They mean there are edible non-food ingredients whose only purpose is to cheaply make it last longer on the shelf or be more moreish or reduce costs.
There’s a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don’t pretend there isn’t.
No, this is crap.
“Scientists can’t agree therefore it’s not true” has been bogus through smoking and lung cancer, fossil fuels and climate change, and now ultra-processed food (UPF) and all-causes mortality and obesity.
A good rule of thumb is that if you made it in your home from real ingredients it’s probably much healthier than if some company did food science on it until it human testers said “yeah I’d love more of that one”. It’s not a coincidence, it’s not even malice, it’s just they’re selecting for overeating.
The malice is when the food industry tries to get you to believe that their products are healthy, that there’s nothing to see or be concerned about with UPF, and the malice is also when they’re lobbying and suing governments the world over that tell you to avoid UPF.
Yeah, unpasteurised milk and other crap is bonkers anti-science nonsense, but so is dismissing the correlation between larger quantities of ultra-processed food and all-causes mortality. It’s real. Don’t spread their lies that it’s not.
Yes, it did, and that’s what I suspected, but I saw other possible interpretations and ironically, I didn’t want to assume. Sorry for being annoying. I only meant any of this for fun and didn’t mean to offend or frustrate you.
I was hoping your reply would be something like “am woman” in which case I was planning to tell you that in real life it feels like a majority of the women that I thought were really really cool but who I didn’t feel inclined towards romantically turned out to be uninterested in my entire gender romantically, so I was going to assume that you are also really cool even though my maths teacher was very insistent that correlation does not imply causation.
I assert that your “I have good news for your wife, then!” answer fits with my correlation.
If your reply was “you’re really rubbish at flirting” I was planning on responding with “everybody wins”.
I was hoping to come up with something amusingly self deprecating if it was along the lines of “I’m specifically not interested in you”, but I hadn’t got as far as thinking through that answer, hoping it wasn’t that.
As you can see I’m not all that great at this social interaction thing. Genuinely sorry to have annoyed you.
Someone on Lemmy said that using his death to mislead the public, stymie democracy and play procedural shenanigans against the Democrats is definitely how he would have wanted to go.
Well, I like yours too, but don’t remind my wife of that. She’s just not a fan of me flirting with other men.
After all, why wouldn’t Microsoft use copilot to wrote their press releases?
"To address this class of risk, we use a defense-in-depth strategy with safeguards that block malicious instructions at multiple points and help keep tasks aligned with users’ requests,” Microsoft said.
Keep talks aligned with users’ requests?!? We’re doomed!
“We encourage customers to install the latest updates, use multiple layers of security protection, treat content from unknown sources with caution, and review AI-generated content before using or sharing it.”
No, no you don’t, you encourage customers to spend more to give copilot access to all of SharePoint and all of Exchange, so they can replace human competency, human expertise and long standing employees with copilot until they’re dependent on your ever-pricier subscription and you can raise prices until you recover your vast and incomprehensible LLM losses from your customers.
“Separating instructions from data may be part of the solution, but I think the distinction between data and instructions is not always clear in real-world workflows. For example, a user may ask an agent to arrange a business trip, requiring the agent to retrieve an email specifying the approved itinerary and a document containing the booking procedure,” Måløy [vulnerability researcher and discloser] said.
Or you could hire a PA, who wouldn’t spread the already live copilot worm.
A bunch of security experts note that distinguishing between instructions and data is a solved problem with SQL injection attacks, but completely unsolved in LLMs:
“None of them are rewarding that work commercially right now, so treat that as a multi-year research problem, not something a CISO should wait on.”
Is this a minor technical issue or a major problem? It’s a major problem.
Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, said it would be difficult to overstate the potential problems from this situation.
Thinking about it, I came across the terminology when I was deciding what licence to use for a side project I was coding, and it was on the webpages telling me about various licences folks use for open source projects.
So I’ve only learned this term from looking at licensing from the other side of the table, so to speak, so I suspect that most people who aren’t programmers wouldn’t come across it because it’s not even included in the text of most licences. It’s a unifying concept, rather than a contract term.
It’s always nice when I’m about to install some software and it says the name of a copyleft licence in aware of. When it says GPLv3 as the title, for example, I stop reading and say we’re good to go.
I thought “wait, how does the awesome Pickard Maneuver not already know that?”
But then I remembered instead to say
Congratulations!
You are one of today’s lucky 1000.
I say 1000 rather than 10000 because I estimate only about 1/10 of the people I know know what copyleft is. Then again, I don’t wasn’t to assume you’re American randomly.
No no, that’s because he’s omniscient (all-knowing).
Omnipotence (all-powerful) is why he wins every lawsuit despite having a legal disadvantage due to the omniscience you brought up originally.
But maybe he’s into open source and just wants people to treat the authors better rather than port all their projects to a more memory-safe platform.
Sleepy Don.
Seriously, though, this deranged old man should be in a care home, being told “yes my darling” by the care staff when he goes off on one of his insane racist rants or ill-informed tirades about foreign leaders or Biden, instead of being in the White House being told “yes Mr President” by people who will actually act on his nonsense on a global scale.
Care home staff would say “lets get you cleaned up, Donnie, and then you can have a lovely bath” when he poops his pants, instead of a bunch of people having to stand behind the resolute desk pretending it’s not happening live on television.
There’s a significant correlation between proportion of ultra-processed foods in diet and all-causes mortality. Don’t pretend there isn’t.