Leigh Blyth BVM&S. Ex-veterinary surgeon.
Here to promote my Base-Line Hypothesis of Human Health and Movement. Grounded in some basic anatomy, the 5 main muscles for physical alignment and a balanced body.
Now that you have a definition for mortality rate - time for an update in your post?
I presume more people will be reading so clarification would be valuable.
:) liquid/paste/pulp ... mechanically processing your food with your teeth to increase its surface area is a good thing. Chewing increases the production of saliva so more enzymes available and more time for them to mix with the food. Although I dislike the expression, it's a "no-brainer" to me hence the confidence.
I was expecting more of a push-back on food that's grown not manufactured. A visceral belief but I'd struggle to form a rational argument - there's a lack of scientific proof for something so hard to test. Nature's hard to beat.
from the CDC.
A mortality rate is a measure of the frequency of occurrence of death in a defined population during a specified interval.
i.e not based on number of cases v. death, it's population v. death.
you say "better digestion = better", but why? and why do you believe it?
We are one unit of many parts - complex and interconnected.
Simply put, improvements in digestion = better absorption of nutrients = benefit of the whole.
I believe it because of:
I don't know what your knowledge base is but if you don't believe that the thorough chewing of food is a good idea, it'll be more productive for you to do a search for "benefits of chewing" and work from there rather than me trying to explain the digestive (and related) processes from mouth to rectum.
I'm with you on the satiety thing.
Why? What is this belief based on?
If you are happy with the concept of stopping eating when the body says "full" then more chewing = longer time with each mouthful of food = increased chance of sufficient time for satiety messages to be sent = less food consumed which, for many people, would be a good thing.
The chewing bit is the one I'm skeptical of. I don't currently chew this way.
While scepticism is a trait I encourage the fact you don't chew this way is irrelevant to whether chewing food to a liquid before swallowing is beneficial or not.
If I did, what life outcomes would be better for me?
You could try it and see. Do rationalists like to find things out for themselves?
I don't know what effect on your life outcome chewing your food will have. It should improve your digestion and that seems a positive.
It is harder to do than it sounds. It takes attention to change eating habits. Remembering to fully chew every mouthful. The basis of "mindful eating" sort of stuff.
Something that might interest you is embryology. Following the division and migration of cells to start forming a body is a fascinatingly complex insight into life although it's a long time since I studied embryology (a nightmare subject to learn [and then mostly forget] in 2-D) so I don't know what resources are out there these days.
If anyone was up for the exercise of creating a globe-base graphic showing the when and where of human history I would love to see it. From the known locations of predecessors to modern humans, the rise and fall of societies, civilisations, conflicts, border changes etc etc. A world-wide view of our collective history - quite a big project for comprehensive information gathering!
Chewing is the first step in the digestive process, prepping food before it enters the stomach but it is a step that is easily skipped.
Thorough chewing means your food is physically broken down - decreasing size of bits and increasing surface area so maximising exposure to its contents/nutrients.
Chewing also means the food is mixed with a lot of saliva which contains digestive enzymes to start the processing of food pre-stomach.
Catch yourself when you go to swallow a mouthful of food - how liquefied is it?
Better chewing = better digestion = better.
Satiety ~ the stomach telling the brain it's full - 20 min is the touted time for that process. Chewing properly slows eating speed so satiety is reached with less food consumed. Stopping eating when your body signals 'that's enough' will prevent excess consumption.
we've wiped out or drastically reduced most of the diseases that cause severe, attributable death and disability
we've wiped out or drastically reduced some diseases in some parts of the world. There's a lot of infectious diseases still out there: HIV, influenza, malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, ebola, infectious forms of pneumonia, diarrhoea, hepatitis ....
we've connected the world with high-speed transport links, so that the subtle, minor diseases can spread further.
Disease has always spread - wherever people go, far and wide. It just took longer over land and sea (rather than the nodes appearing on global maps that we can see these days).
... very likely for autoimmune conditions ... have risen greatly over time
"autoimmune conditions" covers a long list of conditions lumped together because they involve the immune system 'going wrong'. (and the immune system is, at least to me, a mind-bogglingly complex system)
Given the wide range of conditions that could be "auto-immune" saying they've risen greatly over time is vague. Data for more specific conditions?
Increased rates of automimmune conditions could just be due to the increase in the recognition, diagnosis and recording of cases (I don't think so but it should be considered).
What things other than high speed travel have also changed in that time-frame that could affect our immune systems? The quality of air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, our environment, levels of exposure to fauna and flora, exposure to chemicals, pollutants ...? Air travel is just one factor.
I think this is somewhat likely for chronic fatigue and depression, including subclinical varieties that are extremely widespread.
Fatigue and depression are clinical symptoms - they are either present or not (to what degree - mild/severe is another matter) so sub-clinical is poor terminology here. Sub-clinical disease has no recognisable clinical findings - undiagnosed/unrecognised would be closer. But I agree there is widespread issues with health and well-being these days.
Or, put another way: the "hygiene hypothesis" is the opposite of true.
Opposite of true? Are you saying you believe the "hygiene hypothesis" is false?
In which case, that's a big leap from your reasoning above.
My full confidence as being correct/right/true:
This I believe:
Could you post your essays here too rather than just linking?
There is the sequence feature that would allow you to put them in order and keep them together.
My mind keeps flicking back to this.
Newcomb's problem - I'm told to imagine a (so far been) perfect predictor so I imagine it. I don't have an issue with the concept of the perfect predictor (possibly because I tend to think of time as more of a 'puddle' even if mine appears linear) so one-boxing is the way to go. I can't get past that in my head, am I missing something?
that there are situations where your choice of thought process can help to determine the world you find yourself in--that making decisions in a dualist framework (one that assumes your thoughts affect the world only through your actions) can sometimes be leaving out important information.
I'll be honest, this sentence confuses me. I don't know what to make of it.