3 ms·

Here are a few candidates: 1) Environmental contaminants in water, food, and air https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/13/a-chemical-hunger-part-iii-environmen

by tikkun 4y ago

Here are a few candidates: 1) Environmental contaminants in water, food, and air https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/13/a-chemical-hunger-part-iii-environmental-contaminants/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/13/a-chemical-hunger-p... 2) Xenoestrogens in plastics, pesticides, toiletries, perfumes, polyester and nylon clothing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3947648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3947648/ 3) Mass consumption of pharmaceutical drugs 4) Vegetable seed oils https://chriskresser.com/how-industrial-seed-oils-are-making-us-sick/ https://chriskresser.com/how-industrial-seed-oils-are-making... 5) Sugar and hyper palatable foods https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry... 6) Endemic pathogens like toxoplasmosis https://www.hardtowrite.com/pathogens/ https://www.hardtowrite.com/pathogens/

californical 4y ago
I’ve read #1 and #5 so far, and they were both fascinating. Thanks for sharing this! I figure the actual answer is a combination of many things, but reading each of these little pieces is really valuable info.
cinntaile 4y ago
4) needs a better source. He apparently has a history of claiming things not backed by science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  He does sound a bit "out there" but mainstream science says that vegetable/seed oils are safe to eat, so anyone who says they are not is going to be "anti-science."
  - notahacker 4y ago
    There are plenty of mainstream science studies on oils, not all of them favourably disposed, and "is ingredient x bad for you" has never been something that's been difficult to get mainstream funding for. If it was the case that the only indication of negative health consequences of cooking oils came from an "out there" self-publicist that would be a [weak] prior in favour of the safety if oils, not a reason to pay particular attention to the "anti-science" arguments of the "out there" guy on this topic.
- brnt 4y ago
  He cites no sources for any claim of adverse health effect. Also, evolutionary mismatch is the kind of nonsense common in alternative circles that we can do well without.

by tikkun 4y ago

californical 4y ago

I’ve read #1 and #5 so far, and they were both fascinating. Thanks for sharing this! I figure the actual answer is a combination of many things, but reading each of these little pieces is really valuable info.

cinntaile 4y ago

4) needs a better source. He apparently has a history of claiming things not backed by science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser

SoftTalker 4y ago
He does sound a bit "out there" but mainstream science says that vegetable/seed oils are safe to eat, so anyone who says they are not is going to be "anti-science."
- notahacker 4y ago
  There are plenty of mainstream science studies on oils, not all of them favourably disposed, and "is ingredient x bad for you" has never been something that's been difficult to get mainstream funding for. If it was the case that the only indication of negative health consequences of cooking oils came from an "out there" self-publicist that would be a [weak] prior in favour of the safety if oils, not a reason to pay particular attention to the "anti-science" arguments of the "out there" guy on this topic.
brnt 4y ago
He cites no sources for any claim of adverse health effect. Also, evolutionary mismatch is the kind of nonsense common in alternative circles that we can do well without.