As pit bulls have become more common, their representation in dog fatalities has grown, as have the per capita rates of dog fatalities and injuries.
In 1979-1998, pit bulls were a quarter as common as now, but they were still responsible for a large % of deaths. The premiere "aggressive dog" at the time was the Rottweiler, and despite its reputation, bad owners, and far greater numbers, it didn't kill as many as the pit bull.
And this isn't due to mix-ups. We used to have data separating purebred pit bulls from crossbred ones.
Crossbred pit bulls are fortunately now more common, but they used to be the less common variety. It's fortunate because the mixing means less violence per dog.
More recently, in the deadliest states with respect to dog attacks, it's clear that pit bulls are to blame for most dog fatalities.
A major part of why pit bulls are such outliers is that, where we have data, it appears they kill people at a wider - older - range of ages.
52% of all dog fatalities are of people ≥10 while 72% of pit bull fatalities are, versus 28% for the ~94% from all other breeds combined
Despite aggressive dogs and bad owners being a thing forever, the switch from Rottweilers and the like to the pit bull has been destructive for this reason
Dog fatalities used to be a problem for children alone, but due to pit bulls they are now largely a problem for people ≥10
Pit bulls are not deadly because they're strong. Many breeds are stronger. They are deadly for the reason fighters want them: tenacity.
"Pit Bull" here is a mix, but the broader label applies to the APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
This is something that's difficult for police to get dogs to adopt through the rigorous training they're subjected to. Most fail! Because it's been bred into pit bulls, it's much more reliably observed in that breed.
Other BSL'd breeds are also often extremely tenacious.
Here's a previous post with the relative risks of fatalities by breed.
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it
Diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption lead to improved blood sugar and insulin levels, as well as reduced insulin resistance.
Additionally, they're good or neutral for the liver and kidneys, and they don't affect the metabolic rate.
Carbohydrate isn't the only thing that affects glycemic parameters.
So does fat!
So, for example, if you replace 5% of dietary calories from saturated fat with PUFA, that somewhat improves fasting glucose levels (shown), and directionally improves fasting insulin:
Dietary composition may not be useful for improving the rate of weight loss ceteris paribus, but it can definitely make it easier given what else it changes.
Those non-metabolism details may be why so many people find low-carb diets so easy!
There's a popular belief that family wealth is gone in three generations.
The first earns it, the second stewards it, and the third spends it away: from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations!
But how true is this belief?
Gregory Clark has new evidence🧵
The first thing to note is that family wealth is correlated across many generations. For example, in medieval England, this is how wealth at death correlates across six generations.
It correlates substantially enough to persist for twelve generations at observed rates of decay:
But why?
The dominant theory among laypeople is social: that the wealth is directly transmitted.
This is testable, and the Malthusian era provides us with lots of data for testing.
The Catholic Church helped to modernize the West due to its ban on cousin marriage and its disdain for adoption, but also by way of its opposition to polygyny.
The origin of this disdain arguably lies with Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian🧵
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues with a Jew that Christians are the ones living in continuity with God's true intentions.
Justin sees Genesis 2 ("the two shall become one flesh") as normative.
In his apologetic world, Christians are supposed to transcend lust.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, is attacking Gnostics (Basilides, Carpocrates), whose sexual practices he finds scandalous.
To him, "temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed"—polygyny is a doctrinal and moral deviation from creation affirmation.