aldarion

High-fat high-carb diet certainly is. There is however no conclusive data that high-fat low-carb diet OR low-fat high-carb diet contribute to CVD.

Mediterranean diet is basically a lie, though. If you look at the healthiest Mediterranean populations, they eat a lot of saturated fat.

Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with high standard of living. High standard of living is correlated with high consumption of processed foods. So... yeah.

Yep. And thanks for the recommendation.

I am currently reading The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz.

That is what I came to believe as well. If sugar alone was the problem, vegans would be fat. If fat alone was the problem, ketogenic and carnivore diets wouldn't help people lose weight.

It seems to be the combination of two at the same time that causes the issues.

"Okay, where is it? What are the conclusions? Is sugar actually contributing more than fat for CVD in most patients?"

Depends on the type of fat, I think. From what I have found out myself, it is trans fats > sugars / simple carbohydrates > polyunsaturated fats > complex carbohydrates > monounsaturated fats > saturated fats.

Obesity really exploded when consumption shifted from butter towards margarine and vegetable oils: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-US-fat-consump...

If anything, consumption of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is the issue: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3...

But of course, you also have to consider nature of food. In nature, you would consume either carbohydrates or fats - either plants or meat. But processed foods include a lot of fats and a lot of carbs in a single package. And that is the actual killer. Fats aren't an issue, carbs aren't that much of an issue, isssue is the nature of fats and carbs consumed, and issue is the way we consume them.

That is because dietary advice they give is actually bad. It mostly boils down to "limit calories while eating standard western diet" but that is impossible to follow long-term as SWD and similar (e.g. food pyramid) diets are nutrient-deficient.

How many doctors recommend things like paleo diet, intermittent fasting and so on? Not many, I think - most simply focus on calories, combined with the advice that is either extremely generalized ("avoid sugar") or outright counterproductive ("eat 5 - 6 meals a day"). And then they wonder why people can't follow their diet.

Here I described my own experiences: https://ketoview.wordpress.com/2025/11/09/low-fodmap-keto-di...

"I would argue that that - physical activity - is far more important than what you shove in your face."

No, it bloody is not.

I used to drive a bicycle for 6 - 12 hours ever day while working in the delivery. I also didn't watch what I was eating.

I ended up getting fat and with haemorrhoids. So I had to quit cycling.

Then I spend some time (years actually) researching and slowly improving my diet.

Result? I lost weight, my haemorrhoids (and several other health issues) stopped acting up, and I am overall much healthier despite most of my physical activity being walking.

Yes, exercise is important. But it won't help you if you eat massive amounts of garbage food.

So stop talking stuff you have no clue about.

Also, we do not "run off of" sugar. Human body can run off sugar, or fat, or a combination of these. And argument could be made that running off fat is actually healthier. Body can in fact produce all sugar it needs with absolutely zero need for dietary sugar (note that doesn't mean you should go zero carb, just that carbs / sugars are not a metabolic necessity).

As for this: "who even already have rotten teeth at two, despite their sugar free diets. They feed them simple carbs almost exclusively, and are oblivious to amylase."

Uhh... carbs ARE sugars. It literally doesn't matter that you are avoiding "sugar" if you end up eating bread instead.

Reasonable amount being whatever you get from an occasional fruit snack.

Not whatever we have in the modern / food pyramid diet.

Old idea that IIRC never worked out.

Probably. Most people hate to think anyway. I remember back at university, I was one of maybe two or three people who actually enjoyed the discussions we've had - rest of the class simply wanted to go home as quickly as possible.

Basically, why you should always eat either fat or carbs - so, no cakes, doughnuts or similar stuff.

Well, sometimes it needs to be rewritten.

Finally!

Now that is some useful advice!

I don't know. I'm used to life as is, but I wouldn't be hurt if places got swapped.

That is why I specified Early Middle Ages. Not much serfdom during that time, and there was a lot of food to go around due to low population density - and that included meat, and yes, even for the peasants.

Also, you are wrong. Meat stews were not just eaten, but the mainstay of the medieval peasants diet: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2019/may/medieval-peasant-die...

"No antibiotics" - true "Modern sanitation" - only really necessary in cities. But 90% of populace lived in the countryside. My grandparents did just fine without any kind of modern sanitation. "Internet" - true, but also irrelevant for quality of life. "refrigeration" - completely unnecessary when you have fresh food. "central heating" - completely unnecessary as medieval houses weren't massive and could be heated just fine with a fireplace "not much education" - true... to an extent. "massive infant mortality" - true, but if you didn't survive infancy, you wouldn't worry about living in Middle Ages, would you? "no way to travel faster to a horse" - so not having something completely useless is relevant for quality of life?

All and all, your objections a) completely miss the point and b) are kinda weird.

That is not hacking and hammering, though - not even close. What it in fact describes is grabbing the sword by the blade in order to achieve fine control, with the goal of thrusting through gaps in armor.

Early Middle Ages were probably a point in history where Europeans were at their highest level in terms of overall health and quality of life.

Antiquity and Renaissance were both overcrowded, urbanized, with bad living conditions and worse food.

Syrio literally says that knight's swordsmanship is "hacking and hammering":

“Just so. Now we will begin the dance. Remember, child, this is not the iron dance of Westeros we are learning, the knight’s dance, hacking and hammering, no. This is the bravo’s dance, the water dance, swift and sudden. All men are made of water, do you know this? When you pierce them, the water leaks out and they die.” He took a step backward, raised his own wooden blade. “Now you will try to strike me.”

Which is a direct reference to the myth of heavy and unweildy longsword.

Whether George Martin himself believes the myth or merely made Syrio misinformed, is anybody's guess.

Also, no, knight in full plate with a longsword is not certainly much less agile than someone with a rapier and no armor. He will be somewhat less agile... if the level of training is equal... but neither longsword nor armor are so heavy that they will significantly limit agility.

Main issue with full suit of plate is actually overheating and tiring out sooner due to added weight and insulation (and possibly restricted breathing depending on the helmet).

Reminds me more of a Golden Snitch.

Mine is to try and find physical work.

Yeah, I think we know why we never came across aliens.

Technological civilization is inherently self-destructive.

Yeah, the article is bullshit.

Serbian Wikipedia is far worse in that regard.

World doesn't consist of historians and animals, you know. Most people are not historians and (unfortunately) get their "historical" "education" from popular culture.

Hence, articles like this matter.

"where men would be rounded up and marched off against their will to die"

That is the thing, however - they weren't, at least not in feudal system. Peasants would be present only as personal servants of nobility, but weren't actually expected to fight. "All men under arms" is only typical of tribal society, but in that case theywere basically defending their homes - and also hoping to profit.

Point wasn't that it was never used, though, but that it wouldn't have been the first choice.

But yeah, bit of a weird wording.

Castle garrisons were small. Even a large-ish castle probably didn't have garrison larger than 25 - 30.

And food doesn't take that much space either. Consider how Age of Sail ships would spend months at sea without resupply, and how a castle has much more space available for storage. And even with medieval technology, you can make food that keeps long: salted, smoked or dried meat; dried fruit; marmelade; hardtack; and so on.

Precisely. First World War has fundamentally changed our society - including our attitude towards the war.

I really hope we never do get there...