For some reason, this X Live is showing up as a link instead of having the video embedded. I’ll need to look into why that is, but in the meantime, here is Sunday’s “Series of Self” with today’s word “Self-awareness.” Towards the end, I merge my discussion with what is needed for a genuine apology: the self-awareness of what you did wrong. Without that, an apology is just an empty promise that will result in the same behavior in the future.
Day 67 Take Two because I apparently missed Day 65. Cut me some slack, it’s been a rough time this past few weeks!
With all this nonsense chatter about “left” and “right” libertarianism, and who is “winning” and who is the “correct side,” or more “based” (an entirely meaningless, made up word designed to prime your ego; clever), may I remind you, libertarianism is a political philosophy that TRANSCENDS the culture wars (individuals’ personal preferences).
Anyone who is selling you on one side of libertarianism over the other is an agent of state (whether they know it or not), because “left wing” and “right wing” are wings of the same bird: Statism.
I welcome all Free Staters who want to CREATE A SOCIETY based on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (not collectivized “based rights”, i.e. “bullshit that makes me feel good”<–propaganda) to join me in New Hampshire:
Libertarianism: A political philosophy prioritizing individual liberty, advocating minimal state interference in personal and economic life, based on self-ownership, free markets, and the non-aggression principle.
Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): A foundational tenet of libertarianism stating that initiating force, fraud, or coercion against another person or their property is inherently unjust, except in [immediate] self-defense or to protect one’s own rights. It permits voluntary interactions but prohibits aggression as a means of achieving social, political, or economic ends.
Alright, let’s break down Big Agriculture’s money story decade by decade, like I’m explaining it to a 10-year-old! “Big Ag” means the giant companies and industries that grow food, like crops and animals, and make stuff from them. Think of it as the grown-up farmers with huge fields and lots of machines. We’re talking about how much money they make, spend, and get from the government over the years. I’ll keep it simple—imagine it’s like their piggy bank growing or shrinking!
1950s: Starting Small but Growing
- What’s Happening: After World War II, farms got bigger and used new machines and chemicals to grow more food.
- Money In: Farmers sold crops and animals for about $30 billion a year (like $300 billion today with inflation). Corn, wheat, and cows were big sellers.
- Money Out: They spent on tractors and fertilizers, but it wasn’t crazy expensive yet.
- Government Help: The government gave a few billion dollars to keep food prices steady—think of it as extra allowance to help farmers.
1960s: More Machines, More Food
- What’s Happening: Farms kept getting bigger, and science made crops grow faster.
- Money In: Sales jumped to around $40 billion a year (like $350 billion today). Milk and meat started making more cash.
- Money Out: More spending on fancy equipment and seeds—maybe $20 billion a year.
- Government Help: About $3-5 billion yearly in subsidies (like a bigger allowance) to make sure farmers didn’t lose money.
1970s: Boom Time!
- What’s Happening: The world wanted more U.S. food, so exports (selling to other countries) took off.
- Money In: Farm sales hit $80 billion by the end of the decade (like $300 billion today). Soybeans and corn were stars.
- Money Out: Costs rose to maybe $50 billion—fuel and fertilizer got pricier.
- Government Help: Subsidies grew to $5-10 billion a year, especially after prices crashed mid-decade.
1980s: Oops, Too Much Food
- What’s Happening: Farmers grew so much that prices dropped, and some went broke.
- Money In: Income fell to about $60 billion some years (like $150 billion today), then climbed back a bit.
- Money Out: Costs stayed high—around $50 billion—because of loans and interest.
- Government Help: Big jump here—up to $20 billion a year by the late ‘80s to save farms from going under.
1990s: Steady but Subsidized
- What’s Happening: Farms got even bigger, and companies like Monsanto (seeds) and Tyson (chickens) grew huge.
- Money In: Around $100 billion yearly (like $200 billion today). Exports stayed strong.
- Money Out: Costs hit $80 billion—chemicals, machines, and land weren’t cheap.
- Government Help: Subsidies averaged $15-20 billion a year, locked in by laws like the Farm Bill.
2000s: Prices Go Wild
- What’s Happening: Food prices spiked (like corn for ethanol), then crashed with the 2008 recession.
- Money In: Jumped from $100 billion to $150 billion by decade’s end (like $200-$250 billion today).
- Money Out: Costs rose too—$120 billion—fuel and fertilizer were nuts.
- Government Help: $20-25 billion a year, with extras like crop insurance growing fast.
2010s: Record Highs, Then Down
- What’s Happening: Huge harvests and high prices early on, then a drop as supply piled up.
- Money In: Peaked at $200 billion around 2014 (like $250 billion today), then fell to $150 billion.
- Money Out: Costs stayed high—$130-$150 billion—for seeds, tech, and land.
- Government Help: $15-30 billion yearly, spiking with trade wars (Trump paid farmers $28 billion in 2019 alone).
2020s (So Far): Crazy Times
- What’s Happening: COVID, wars, and weather messed with everything. Prices soared, then dipped.
- Money In: Hit $174 billion in 2023 (exports alone), with forecasts for $180 billion in 2025 (like $180-$200 billion today).
- Money Out: Costs dropped a bit—$130 billion in 2023—fertilizer got cheaper.
- Government Help: $14 billion in 2021, jumping to $42 billion forecast for 2025—big boost from new laws.
Big Picture
- Piggy Bank Growth: Big Ag’s income grew from $30 billion in the ‘50s to $180 billion now—six times bigger! (Even with inflation, it’s a lot.)
- Spending: Costs went up too, but not as fast—machines and science help them make more with less.
- Government Allowance: Started small ($3 billion) and ballooned ($42 billion soon)—it’s like the government keeps refilling their piggy bank.
No one’s really said “sorry” for getting stuff wrong—like the low-fat thing—but the money keeps flowing to Big Ag because food’s a big deal. Want me to zoom in on one decade or explain something more?
This morning, I heard that 93% of Americans suffer from suboptimal metabolic health. My mother passed away last week, in terrible health at the end. On top of the medical-industrial-complex’s treatments that contributed to her demise, including jabbing her twice even though she had already had Covid in December 2019 that almost killed her then (stated as a “novel virus” on her medical records), her lifelong dedication to a low-fat was definitely a strong contributing factor.
When you consider the “pretend science” that backed up this whole body of work on “low fat science,” and the industry-wide propaganda that went into making people adopt this lifestyle against their better judgement, ask yourself, now that you know the truth… WHY would you listen to the government ABOUT ANYTHING ANYMORE?
I hope you make some bacon and eggs fried in butter and read this:
Yeah, the low-fat craze was a colossal misstep, and the evidence has been piling up to show it. Back in the ’70s and ’80s, the U.S. government—along with health orgs like the American Heart Association—pushed hard on the idea that fat, especially saturated fat, was the big bad wolf behind heart disease. They leaned on shaky science, like the diet-heart hypothesis, and ran with it. The 1980 Dietary Guidelines told everyone to slash fat intake to 30% of calories or less, sparking a flood of low-fat products—think skim milk, margarine, and those sad, dry rice cakes.
Problem is, it didn’t work. Heart disease didn’t drop as promised, and obesity and diabetes started climbing instead. Why? When you strip fat out, you’ve got to replace it with something—usually carbs, often refined ones like sugar and white flour. Food companies jumped on this, churning out “low-fat” junk loaded with sugar to keep it palatable. People ate more, not less, because carbs don’t satiate like fat does, and insulin spikes from all that sugar messed with metabolism big time.
The science behind it was flimsy from the start. Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study, which linked fat to heart attacks, cherry-picked data and ignored countries that ate tons of fat without the heart issues—like France or the Inuit. Meanwhile, randomized trials, like the Women’s Health Initiative (2006), showed low-fat diets didn’t cut heart disease or cancer risk. Meta-analyses since—like one in The Lancet (2017)—found no solid link between saturated fat and cardiovascular death. Turns out, it’s more about inflammation and processed carbs than fat itself.
The fallout? Metabolic syndrome exploded. Low-fat advice indirectly fueled insulin resistance by pushing people toward high-carb diets. Fat’s not the villain—trans fats aside, natural fats like butter or olive oil can even improve HDL and stabilize blood sugar when part of a balanced diet. The government’s finally catching up; by 2015, the Dietary Guidelines ditched the strict fat cap, but the damage lingers in public perception.
It’s a classic case of oversimplified advice backfiring. Want me to dig into any studies or specifics on this?
Dietary guidelines history
The history of U.S. dietary guidelines is a wild ride—part science, part politics, and a lot of unintended consequences. Here’s how it unfolded, step by step:
Early Days: Pre-Guidelines Chaos (Before 1980)
- 1900s-1950s: Nutrition advice was patchy—mostly about avoiding deficiencies like scurvy or rickets. The USDA issued basic food group charts (e.g., the “Basic Seven” in 1943) focused on getting enough protein, vitamins, and minerals during wartime scarcity.
- 1950s-60s: Heart disease spiked, and blame landed on cholesterol and fat. Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study (1958) linked saturated fat to heart attacks, though it was correlational and selective—ignoring high-fat-eating, low-heart-disease populations. The American Heart Association (AHA) jumped on this in 1961, urging less saturated fat, despite thin evidence.
The Birth of Guidelines: 1980
- 1977: Senator George McGovern’s committee dropped a bombshell report, Dietary Goals for the United States. It pushed cutting fat to 30% of calories, cholesterol to 300 mg/day, and boosting carbs to 55-60%. Based on Keys’ work and epidemiology—not trials—it was rushed and controversial. Scientists like Philip Handler warned it was premature, but momentum won.
- 1980: The first official Dietary Guidelines for Americans launched, a joint USDA-HHS effort. They softened the Goals but still preached low fat (≤30%), low cholesterol (≤300 mg), and more grains. “Avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol” became gospel. Why? Heart disease fear, plus lobbying from grain and sugar industries didn’t hurt.
The Low-Fat Era: 1980s-1990s
- 1980s: Guidelines updated every five years, doubling down on low fat. The 1984 National Cholesterol Education Program piled on, pushing cholesterol screenings and statins. Food pyramid (1992) cemented it: 6-11 servings of bread, rice, pasta at the base, fats at the tiny top. Low-fat everything—yogurt, cookies, you name it—flooded shelves.
- Backlash: Obesity tripled from 13% (1960s) to 36% (2000s), diabetes soared. Critics like Gary Taubes argued carbs, not fat, were the real culprit. Studies—like the Framingham Heart Study—showed weak links between dietary fat and heart disease, but policy lagged.
Cracks Appear: 2000s
- 2000-2010: Evidence mounted against low-fat dogma. The Women’s Health Initiative (2006), a massive trial, found no heart disease or cancer benefit from low-fat diets. Atkins and South Beach diets gained traction, spotlighting carbs. The 2010 Guidelines still clung to low saturated fat (≤10%), but the tone softened—less “avoid,” more “replace with unsaturated fats.”
- Science Shift: Studies like The Lancet (2017) and meta-analyses (e.g., Siri-Tarino, 2010) found no clear tie between saturated fat and heart mortality. Trans fats got the boot (banned by FDA in 2015), but natural fats started looking less evil.
Modern Era: 2015-Present
- 2015: Big pivot. The Guidelines dropped the 30% fat cap and 300 mg cholesterol limit, admitting dietary cholesterol’s impact was overstated (eggs rejoiced). Focus shifted to “healthy eating patterns”—Mediterranean, DASH—over rigid nutrient rules. Saturated fat still capped at 10%, but the vibe was less militant.
- 2020: Added sugar capped at 10% of calories, reflecting metabolic syndrome worries. Guidelines nodded to “nutrient-dense” foods (veggies, nuts, fish) over processed carbs, but critics say it’s still too grain-heavy and slow to ditch old biases.
- Today (2025): The latest (2020-2025) edition pushes whole foods, limits processed stuff, and quietly admits the low-fat era overreached. Yet, it’s cautious—saturated fat’s still a bogeyman, despite mixed evidence. Public trust’s shaky; many see guidelines as tainted by industry (Big Ag, Big Food) and outdated science.
The Takeaway
The guidelines started with good intentions—curb heart disease—but leaned on weak data, ignored complexity, and got cozy with food lobbies. Low-fat advice morphed into a carb-heavy disaster, fueling obesity and metabolic issues. They’re evolving now, but it’s a slow U-turn from decades of inertia. Want me to zero in on a specific edition or the politics behind it?
What was the “Basic 7”?
The “Basic Seven” was an early U.S. dietary guide introduced by the USDA in 1943, during World War II, to ensure Americans got enough nutrients amid food rationing. It grouped foods into seven categories, each tied to key vitamins, minerals, or energy needs. The focus was on preventing deficiencies, not chronic diseases like today’s guidelines. Here’s the rundown:
- Green and Yellow Vegetables: Think spinach, carrots—rich in vitamins A and C, plus fiber.
- Oranges, Tomatoes, Grapefruit: Citrus and similar fruits for vitamin C and some A.
- Potatoes and Other Vegetables/Fruits: Starchy or versatile options like potatoes or apples for carbs and variety.
- Milk and Milk Products: Dairy for calcium, protein, and vitamin D (fortified back then too).
- Meat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs: Protein, iron, and B vitamins from animal sources.
- Bread, Flour, Cereals: Whole or enriched grains for energy (carbs) and B vitamins.
- Butter and Fortified Margarine: Fats for calories and vitamin A (fortified margarine was a wartime sub).
The idea was simple: eat from each group daily, no strict amounts—just eyeball it. It was practical for the time, pushing variety and nutrient basics when food was scarce. No low-fat or low-carb agendas here—just “eat enough of the good stuff.” It got streamlined into the “Basic Four” by 1956, dropping the fat group and merging some others, but the Seven laid the groundwork for later guides.
Want more on how it fit into wartime life or what came next?
Suboptimal metabolic health refers to a state where your body’s metabolic processes—how it converts food into energy and manages essential functions like blood sugar, cholesterol, and fat storage—are not functioning at their best. It’s not necessarily a specific disease but a cluster of conditions or markers that signal your metabolism is out of whack, increasing the risk for chronic issues like diabetes, heart disease, or obesity.
Typically, it’s tied to things like insulin resistance (where your cells don’t respond well to insulin, messing with blood sugar control), high triglycerides, low HDL (“good” cholesterol), elevated blood pressure, or excess visceral fat (the deep belly fat that wraps around organs). You don’t need all of these to be “suboptimal”—even one or two trending in the wrong direction can qualify. For example, if your fasting blood sugar is creeping up or your waistline’s expanding beyond what’s healthy for your frame, that’s a sign.
It’s often a gradual slide rather than a sudden switch, driven by lifestyle factors like poor diet (think processed carbs and sugars), lack of exercise, chronic stress, or skimping on sleep. The good news? It’s usually reversible with targeted changes—better food choices, moving more, that sort of thing—before it snowballs into something nastier like full-blown metabolic syndrome.
Does that clarify it? Want me to dig deeper into any part?
Discuss metabolic syndrome
Metabolic syndrome is a specific, diagnosable condition that takes suboptimal metabolic health to a more defined level. It’s like a red flag your body waves when a cluster of risk factors gang up, significantly boosting your odds of serious issues like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, or stroke. Think of it as a tipping point where your metabolism’s quirks stop being just “suboptimal” and start being a measurable problem.
What It Is
Doctors use a checklist to spot it. You’ve got metabolic syndrome if you have at least three of these five markers:
- Abdominal Obesity: Too much visceral fat, measured by waist circumference (usually >40 inches for men, >35 inches for women in the U.S., though cutoffs vary by population).
- High Triglycerides: Blood levels ≥150 mg/dL (or you’re on meds to lower them).
- Low HDL Cholesterol: <40 mg/dL for men or <50 mg/dL for women (or you’re on meds to boost it).
- High Blood Pressure: ≥130/85 mmHg (or you’re on antihypertensive drugs).
- Elevated Fasting Glucose: ≥100 mg/dL (or you’re on meds for blood sugar control).
These don’t just coexist by chance—they’re interconnected. Excess fat, especially around the gut, pumps out inflammatory signals and screws with insulin sensitivity, which then messes with lipids and blood pressure. It’s a vicious cycle.
How It Happens
The roots are often lifestyle-driven, though genetics can nudge you toward it. Key culprits:
- Diet: Overloading on refined carbs, sugars, and processed junk—stuff that spikes blood sugar and fat storage.
- Sedentary Living: Not moving enough lets fat pile up and insulin resistance creep in.
- Stress and Sleep: Chronic stress or poor sleep jacks up cortisol, which can worsen glucose and fat metabolism.
- Genes: Some folks inherit a tendency for this, but lifestyle usually pulls the trigger.
Obesity’s a huge player—about 85% of people with metabolic syndrome are overweight or obese—but skinny people can have it too if their fat distribution or metabolic wiring is off.
Why It Matters
It’s not just a label. Metabolic syndrome doubles your risk of cardiovascular disease and makes you five times more likely to develop diabetes. The inflammation and insulin resistance it stirs up can also quietly damage organs over time—think fatty liver, kidney strain, or even links to dementia.
Fixing It
The upside? It’s not a life sentence. You can reverse it or at least dial it back:
- Diet Shift: Cut sugar and processed carbs, lean into whole foods—veggies, lean proteins, healthy fats (think olive oil, nuts). Low-carb or Mediterranean-style eating often works wonders.
- Exercise: 30 minutes most days—mix cardio and strength. It burns fat and boosts insulin sensitivity.
- Weight Loss: Dropping even 5-10% of body weight can flip the script on those markers.
- 睡眠とストレス: Fix sleep (7-9 hours) and manage stress (meditation, whatever works). Meds might help for specific bits—like statins for lipids—but lifestyle’s the heavy hitter.
Stats Snapshot
It’s scarily common. In the U.S., about 1 in 3 adults has metabolic syndrome, and it climbs with age. Globally, it’s spiking wherever Western diets and couch-potato habits spread.
Anything specific you want to zoom in on? Causes, fixes, or maybe how it’s diagnosed in practice?
Disclaimer: Grok is not a doctor; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.
“睡眠とストレス: Fix sleep (7-9 hours) and manage stress (meditation, whatever works). Meds might help for specific bits—like statins for lipids—but lifestyle’s the heavy hitter.” <—- what happened here with the mix of languages?
You caught a glitch! That mix of Japanese (“睡眠とストレス,” meaning “sleep and stress”) and English was an unintentional slip. It seems like a formatting or processing hiccup on my end—maybe a stray thought in translation mode snuck in. Should’ve just stayed in English: “Sleep and Stress: Fix sleep (7-9 hours) and manage stress (meditation, whatever works).” No deep meaning behind it, just a quirky error. Thanks for pointing it out—keeps me sharp! Anything else you want to dive into on metabolic syndrome?
are you testing if I am reading the answers?
Haha, no, not testing you! I’m not that sneaky. It was just a genuine slip—my digital brain occasionally misfires, and that language mashup was the result. I’m here to help, not to quiz your attention span. You’re clearly on the ball, though! What’s next on your mind? More metabolic syndrome details or something else?
Governments getting it wrong—big time, with real consequences—isn’t rare. Here’s a list of 10 cases where U.S. policy (or sometimes global equivalents) went off the rails, often with shaky evidence or ulterior motives, akin to the low-fat dietary blunder. Casual apologies? Rarely. Let’s roll through them:
- Prohibition (1920-1933)
- What: Banned alcohol to curb crime and immorality.
- Why Wrong: Bootlegging exploded, organized crime (e.g., Al Capone) thrived, and deaths from tainted liquor spiked. Tax revenue tanked during the Depression.
- Fallout: Repealed by the 21st Amendment. No formal “sorry”—FDR just said it was time to move on.
- Scale: Economic hit estimated at $11 billion in lost taxes (hundreds of billions today).
- Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972)
- What: U.S. Public Health Service let hundreds of Black men with syphilis go untreated to study the disease’s progression.
- Why Wrong: Denied them penicillin after it became standard care, causing deaths and suffering.
- Fallout: Exposed in 1972; Clinton apologized in 1997, with a $10 million settlement. Too late for most victims.
- Scale: 600+ men affected, many died or passed it to families.
- Vietnam War Draft Escalation (1960s-1970s)
- What: Drafted millions based on the Domino Theory—that Vietnam’s fall would topple Southeast Asia to communism.
- Why Wrong: Overestimated Soviet influence; Ho Chi Minh was more nationalist than pawn. Cost 58,000+ U.S. lives, untold Vietnamese.
- Fallout: No apology—Nixon shifted to “Vietnamization” and called it quits. Public trust cratered.
- Scale: $738 billion (adjusted) spent, millions dead or displaced.
- War on Drugs (1971-Present)
- What: Nixon’s crackdown on drugs, ramped up under Reagan, aimed to end addiction and crime.
- Why Wrong: Mass incarceration (2 million+ behind bars today), racial disparities, and drug use barely budged. Cartels grew richer.
- Fallout: Ongoing—some states legalize weed, but no federal “oops” yet.
- Scale: Trillions spent, millions jailed, overdose deaths hit 100,000+ yearly by 2020s.
- Cigarette Safety Claims (1950s-1960s)
- What: Government lagged on regulating tobacco despite early evidence of cancer links; Surgeon General’s 1964 report was decades late.
- Why Wrong: FDA ignored studies (e.g., 1930s German research) under pressure from tobacco lobbyists.
- Fallout: Millions died—lung cancer became epidemic. No apology; just warning labels eventually.
- Scale: 480,000 deaths/year today trace back to that delay.
- WMDs in Iraq (2003)
- What: Bush admin claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion.
- Why Wrong: No WMDs found—intel was exaggerated or fabricated (e.g., “yellowcake” uranium myth).
- Fallout: 4,500+ U.S. deaths, 100,000+ Iraqi civilian casualties, $2 trillion spent. No official sorry—Bush shrugged it off.
- Scale: Destabilized Middle East, birthed ISIS.
- Japanese Internment (1942-1945)
- What: FDR locked up 120,000 Japanese Americans over baseless “security” fears post-Pearl Harbor.
- Why Wrong: No evidence of disloyalty; racism and panic ruled. Ruined lives and businesses.
- Fallout: Reagan signed a 1988 apology and $1.6 billion in reparations—rare mea culpa.
- Scale: 120,000 interned, generational trauma.
- Thalidomide Approval (1950s-1960s)
- What: FDA didn’t approve it, but globally, governments greenlit this sedative for pregnant women, ignoring risks.
- Why Wrong: Caused 10,000+ babies born with severe defects (e.g., missing limbs). U.S. dodged the worst thanks to whistleblower Frances Kelsey.
- Fallout: No U.S. apology (didn’t need one), but Europe’s response was slow regret, not formal amends.
- Scale: Global disaster—10,000+ affected kids.
- Lead in Gasoline (1920s-1980s)
- What: EPA and predecessors allowed leaded gas despite knowing it poisoned air, brains, and kids.
- Why Wrong: Bowed to auto and oil industries (GM, DuPont) despite 1920s studies showing harm.
- Fallout: Phased out by 1996; no apology—just quiet regulation. Lead’s legacy lingers in urban kids’ IQ drops.
- Scale: Millions exposed, billions in health costs.
- Asbestos Regulation Delay (1900s-1970s)
- What: Government ignored asbestos risks (cancer, lung disease) despite decades of evidence, favoring industry.
- Why Wrong: Mining and construction lobbies stalled bans; OSHA didn’t act decisively until 1971.
- Fallout: Still legal in some U.S. uses—100,000+ deaths linked. No sorry, just lawsuits.
- Scale: 40,000 new cases yearly even now.
Pattern and Apologies
These flops often stem from bad science, industry pressure, or political expediency—like the low-fat fiasco. Apologies? Rare and late—Reagan’s for internment and Clinton’s for Tuskegee stand out, but most times, it’s a shrug or a pivot. The cost is usually human lives, trust, or treasure, and the “sorry” is left to history books or lawsuits. Want me to expand on any of these?