Corona Virus Update

Fair enough. We are on the same page!

Yeh, availability is the bottom line. When you don’t have unhealthy choices it’s pretty difficult to choose the unhealthy option. However, even starving people take the fiber and nutrients out of their food. It’s a strange human behavior that is self destructive.

I’m not sure about people gravitating to just carbs though. Most Americans I know love high quality protein that for decades was taboo and still not widely accepted as healthy. Even after years of research coming out on everything from the thermic effect of protein consumption to the effect on ratios of hunger vs. satiation hormones most Americans are still led to believe a bowl of simple carb cereal is better than a bit of steak and eggs. Never mind the cereal leads to glucose fluctuations that make the person want two Monster drinks before lunch (throwing @HereWeGoAgain a bone since drinks are his boogeyman). Whereas the steak and eggs would lead to more stable blood glucose levels and less consumption of things like sugary drinks to combat crashing glucose levels later.

Bottom line—I maintain the data all points to a higher protein diet being beneficial over the carb based diet recommended and heavily subsidized by our government.

 

Whoa, HereWeGoAgain, it is true that obesity hurts more people than just the obese themselves. That's what I was agreeing with. I thought that the parallel between obesity and Covid-19 was clever because most people who only superficially look at this issue, think that the obese only hurt themselves. Not so. Yes, the obese cause more traffic accidents as it is harder for them to operate the car and react swiftly to unexpected obstacles, are more prone to work accidents which can hurt others too as they are slower to move and are more prone to falling and breaking things, the morbidly obese are less agile and energetic to deal with their own kids which means the kids suffer too with less efficient parenting (just think of a morbidly obese parent with sleep apnea that causes morning confusion and depression), are more likely to suffer early death from strokes and heart attacks which again affects their loved ones, more likely to use up healthcare resources putting a burden on the overall costs that get shared by everybody in an insurance pool, etc., so there is a societal cost to obesity that is not hurting just the obese themselves. These are facts. In what way my being an MD would make me disagree with that??? We are very much interested in fighting off obesity, a public health scourge in the United State, with 40% of our population being obese, not even counting the merely overweight. It is also true that governmental advice on diet wasn't always the best one. For example, there was demonization of egg yolks as culprits for high cholesterol, which is actually not the case. Egg yolks are an excellent source of high quality proteins, calcium, copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, selenium and zinc.

Now, if you don't want to believe that I am who I say I am, frankly I couldn't care less.

Look, if you have a beef with 557, you're grown enough to fight your own battles with him. Pulling me in because I agree with him in most of what he says, while accusing me and doubting me, is at the very least not very polite behavior.

By the way, I like 557. Pretty intelligent and well-informed fellow.

 

@HereWeGoAgain - continuing, on egg yolks, we also find omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, E, and K, folate and B12. Actually LDL cholesterol increase is a lot more related to saturated fats than to egg yolks. They are a source of choline which is important in brain metabolism. Also they contain antioxidants such as lutein and zeaxanthine which are important for vision health. And on and on.

Still, governmental advice for a while said that people shouldn't consume more than one egg per day which is actually absurd as a blanket advice. In reality, most healthy people can consume up to 3 whole eggs per day with no detrimental effect whatsoever. Eggs mostly raise HDL (good) cholesterol. 70% of the population have no increase whatsoever in LDL (bad cholesterol) from "excessive" egg consumption. It is true that 30% can have a slight increase but there is also an effect in fostering larger LDL particles rather than small ones, and larger LDLs are actually protective against heart disease.

There was a controlled study of people with type 2 diabetes eating 2 eggs per day, six days per week, for 3 months, and this did not significantly alter their blood lipids.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25833969/

Now, coupled with a low carb diet, diabetics actually benefit from eating eggs, which then decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, increase muscle mass, and bone health. They also increase feelings of fullness and contribute to weight loss.

So this is a perfect example of how nutritional advice got it wrong. @557 does have a point.

 

People are dropping like flies in Florida today. I bet DeSantis is hugely popular with funeral home owners.



But with twice the population, California is doing almost an order of magnitude [ten times] better. Including the population California is doing almost 20 Times better than Florida.

The favorite Republican has policies that are almost 20 times deadlier than Democrat policies.

 

Oh and look at Texas! Reminds me of a song: All my dead Ex's lived in Texas...

With 2/3 the population of Ca they have twice the deaths.

 

You do well here to separate the obese/morbidly obese from the overweight. Unfortunately @557 did not as it would blur his argument.
Perhaps you could separate the morbidly unvaccinated from the slightly unvaccinated?

 

I'm not sure your government has ever suggested you migrate to a carbs only diet. Every national health service (NHS) diet I have seen includes the availability of meat.
And I know 5 vegetarians and one vegan. None argue that meat (not in excess) is bad for you. They may argue that cows are worse for the environment or that eating animals is unnecessary when we can eat what they do (Not literally grass).

 

Please don’t misrepresent my posts. I always differentiated obese from overweigh. You misread or didn’t read the studies I linked to you numerous times. I of course included the two when both were shown by peer reviewed study to have similar risks.

 

Please quote where I’ve said they recommend a carb only diet. I’m really weary of fallacious arguments. Look at a food pyramid from the past. The whole base is carbs.

Meats/eggs/dairy is recommended in very small amounts. As @CenterField correctly points out anything containing cholesterol was recommended against because it was assumed anything containing cholesterol was “bad”. It’s why we ended up with hydrogenated vegetable oil instead of butter etc. For years the mantra was “low fat, low cholesterol” and guess what that leaves you with? Mostly carbs by default. Carbs with more sugar components to increase palatability and deal with fluctuations in blood glucose.

 

LOL, sure, the slightly unvaccinated would be the people who got the first dose but did not show for the second dose (in case they received a first dose of a 2-dose vaccine like the Pfizer and the Moderna, as opposed to a single-dose vaccine like the J&J). While they have some protection, it is insufficient to protect from Delta. Studies have shown that 14 days after a second dose, people achieve a peak of neutralizing antibody that may be sufficient to deal with Delta. Not so with only one dose. Actually there are millions of "slightly unvaccinated" - many people get the first dose, experience side effects, and chicken out of the second dose, which is a grave mistake.

 

As far as I'm concerned you mixed and mashed according to what point you were trying to win. Numerous times I tried to get you to recognise your claims only applied to the morbidly obese.
For instance someone carrying a few extra pounds of fat (part of the overweight statistic you posted) is no anymore dangerous on the road than someone exactly the correct weight. But you still kept claiming the overweight were a danger to the public.

 

You said. "The government problem comes with the recommendations against the two other macronutrients. It leaves you with just carbs that trend towards processed carbs for palatability."

I don't disagree with this, but I have not seen (as I said) any government recommending a diet that "leaves you with just carbs"

 

Oh very good. A nice dodge of my point, but entertaining.

 

They are a danger to the public. Many of the studies I included also included the overweight. It’s well documented the overweight as well as the obese get less quality sleep. This translates into reduced reaction times and drowsiness.

I’m sorry you are as misled on the overweight as you have been on the obese. Both are more dangerous to others than healthy weight individuals. It’s just a fact. Health consequences don’t just remain at zero until someone crosses the 29.9 BMI threshold to a 30 BMI. Such a notion is patently absurd.

 

Its just a percentage, a very small one, especially compared to the risk of giving others Covid.

 

Ok. If we recommend against fats and high quality proteins, what is left in your opinion? What macronutrient is left besides carbs?

The food pyramid puts carbs as the base. Then on top of that, we were told anything with cholesterol or fat should be avoided. Sure, people could have eaten meat with no fat content. But we all know they won’t. They will eat something palatable. I’ve tried to be clear the crappy diet we ended up with was as much unintended consequences as it was a “though shalt not eat anything but carbs” mandate. Apparently I’ve failed. The recommendations made were incorrect and pushed people to high carb diets without a carved in stone demand only carbs be consume. It was a natural consequence of telling people to avoid high quality protein and fats. It’s a natural consequence because people prefer enjoyable food and a good share of healthy enjoyable food was made taboo.

There is no mandate from the government to me telling me I must produce more carbs. The influence is subtle using targeted subsidies. There are more ways to create/influence behaviors than just outright telling people they must do a thing.

 

Don’t forget, being overweight also increases the chance of a vaccinated or unvaccinated person giving others Covid.

First you claimed no risk. Now you admit some risk. We are making progress.

 

That would be true if we did, but as I say I don't think we do.

I've never been told that, some years back there was a drive to stop people eating meat 3 times a day, but then that was more about fat than steak. Fatty sausages and bacon cooked in fat was the breakfast of choice, not a lean cut sirloin steak.

I never claimed no risk. I claim your comparison is ridiculous and relies on lumping the vast majority of people posing very little risk in with a few high risk ones. You did this in order to deny the real at risk ones had mental illnesses which effected your argument.
But I am not willing o revisit your rabbit hole of twisting misconceptions.
How you smoothly move from this.
Please quote where I’ve said they recommend a carb only diet.
Which caused me to have to wade back a few pages to find:
"The government problem comes with the recommendations against the two other macronutrients. It leaves you with just carbs that trend towards processed carbs for palatability."

To this, without missing a step
Ok. If we recommend against fats and high quality proteins, what is left in your opinion? What macronutrient is left besides carbs?

I'm just not interested such games.

 

What was your point, the obese vs. the merely overweight? Yes, people with BMI between 25 and 30, the overweight, are not as likely to hurt others by being a bit out of shape (although it's not excluded; more on this below). I mean, what is the difference between someone with a BMI of 24.5 (normal) and another one with a BMI of 25.5 (slightly overweight)? Not much, and BMI is not the only marker; people can for example have denser bones than others, and have a more or less favorable balance between body fat and muscle mass, so merely calculating the BMI based on height and weight is not always entirely accurate to reflect someone's healthy weight versus abnormally high weight. Now, of course, the extremes are much more reliable. Someone with a BMI of say, 34 is indeed obese, and someone with a BMI of 42 is indeed morbidly obese. The obese and even more the morbidly obese do hurt others as well as themselves. The merely overweight, not so much. If that was your point, I agree with you.

But when I talk about the merely overweight, just half a point or one point above normal, for someone with lots of muscle mass, dense bones, etc., that's different from someone with say, 29.5, low bone density and low muscle mass. Also, you need to consider if the overweight are made worse from the fact of having other components of metabolic syndrome such as diabetes and hypertension. If yes, they may be in worse shape than say, a mildly obese person with a BMI of 31 who doesn't have other co-morbid conditions.

Being overweight especially the ones with higher numbers on the range or those with other unfavorable conditions like I said, can indeed result in some of the same problems the obese have, and those overweight people can indeed hurt others. It's just less likely to occur, statistically speaking, than it is for someone truly obese.

My point is, just looking at BMI is not written in stone. There is some variability (due to density of bones, size of bones, percentage of body fat, muscle mass) and there is some variability regarding what other co-morbid conditions occur.

That's why, for example, we consider morbidly obese someone with a BMI above 35 but below 40 (which is the cut-off for morbid obesity) in case that person also suffers from conditions such as diabetes and hypertension that are weight-dependent.

So, it's all a bit relative. These markers are useful indicators but do not tell the entire story. They are one element of the assessment of someone's nutritional and metabolic status.

 

@Tigger2

Now, obesity and Covid-19: there are some hints that obesity may be *the* biggest risk factor for a severe case of Covid-19, maybe even more than old age. Say, you have an elderly citizen who is in great shape, lean, and still with reasonable muscle mass. That person may have less of a risk of dying from Covid-19 than a much younger but morbidly obese person.

For various reasons. One, pulmonary function is worse for the obese due to the abdominal mass pushing up the diaphragm and reducing the available volume for the lungs, as well as conditions such as sleep apnea, very common among the obese, resulting in chronic pulmonary hypertension and diminished pulmonary capacity. Two, other risk factors for severe Covid-19 are closely associated with obesity, such as diabetes and hypertension. Three, the obese have a weaker immune system. Four, the obese are more prone to inflammatory syndromes and will be more likely to develop cytokine storms.

OK, so, from this, it is evident that if the obese are more prone to severe cases of Covid-19, they remain infectious for longer, and they remain sick for longer. The former increases their role in the contagion, and the latter increases the odds that they will breed SARS-CoV-2 variants (mutations occur more, the longer the virus lingers in someone's system especially if the host's immune system is not that great at clearing the virus).

So, the obese *are* indeed more dangerous to others regarding Covid-19, than people who are fit.

Again, @557 does have a point. The comparison is not absurd. Like I said, it's actually a clever comparison, with several issues that are similar to the issues surrounding the vaccinated and the unvaccinated regarding people who harm just themselves versus others who harm the community as well.

 

I’ve made my points and backed them up with evidence. That’s all I can do. I’m aware of your unsubstantiated opinions, so I agree there is nothing left to discuss.

 

Good! Now please keep your crackpot claims out of my thread. This is about the virus and not your crackpot theories.

And thanks for the demonstration that without the proper sophistication and training, simply looking up reports, papers, and blogs doesn't work. That isn't science. That is screwing around. That is a Holiday Inn Expert.

 

I have never made a crackpot claim. Every claim I make is based on solid, comprehensive empirical evidence . That is why you strike out every time you try and engage me. Because you know nothing of virology or epidemiology or biology for that matter. I have expert knowledge of all three whether you like it if not. That’s why you are reduced to 100% fallacious arguments when you engage me. None of the evidence supports your incorrect opinions. If I didn’t possess the expert knowledge you and others would be able to at least make an intellectual argument and likely be able to present counter evidence to evidence I offer. You can’t on either score.

Your thread? I can’t discuss Covid in your Covid thread? Covid vaccines and medical conditions that affect vaccine efficacy aren’t to be discussed in your Covid thread? I’m not the first to discuss vaccines in your Covid thread. Why are you upset with me for discussing Covid vaccines in your Covid thread?

You are going to have to deal with the fact this is an open forum and people like me that know much more about this virus and epidemiology in general than you ever will are going to spank you on the subject once in a while. Don’t like it? Start a private blog and lock the comments section.

 

Who says @557 doesn't possess the training? I won't disclose what I know of my friend 557, but he most certainly is trained in these matters. You don't know anything about his background.