303 karma · joined November 17, 2021
Edit: you will get fat assuming you are like most people and do not expend greater than 4k calories / day in total
1) Mechanistic data we don't fully understand the implications of.
This basically means we observe mechanisms that we believe ought to have some effect on people, and yet when longitudinal studies are done to measure actual long term effects, they are not statistically significant
2) Confounding factors.
In longitudinal studies, it can be very difficult to fully control for confounding factors, as diets are very complex. Take a hypothetical red meat study, where participants are simply instructed to eat "more red meat". Is a McDonalds burger different than a lean, grassfed steak? That's an easy one to control for, not the best example. But basically exemplifying how there can be a lot of variability within the intervention itself when it comes to nutrition
But the jury is still out on potential effects of diet on the microbiome and insulin sensitivity etc, so I wouldn't go encouraging people to pick it up for no reason.
1) SBF refused to testify right before he was due to anyways: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/12/former-ftx-ceo-sam-bankman-f...
2) The charges he is looking at are so serious, I have a hard time believing it would matter that much whether he racked up one more charge of lying under oath
Edit: formatting
We should hope that despite influence, good scientists prioritize the scientific method over lying or intentionally misleading for personal gain. Of course, history has shown this is too much to ask of many people :)
a) The user must be wearing the anklet at all times to initially calibrate but their body is able to determine how much rotation / transposition they have undergone in order to point north. b) After training, one could tell which way is north without ever having to put on the anklet again