DNA kit to test best diet and exercise
Replies
-
Just wanted to interject that I have yet to see anyone here debunk my specific fears of clandestine cloning and reverse engineered poison. I knew it!
I don't know. My DNA that I accidentally leave out in the world is randomly shuffled together with everyone else's. My other "contributions" are in my doctor's hands and hopefully there is some kind of actual security in that. The DNA I purposefully give away in platelet donations is for a higher purpose. Sending my DNA in a convenient package to a private company for curiosity's sake just pushes the queasy button for me. I tend to be pretty level headed and not a conspiracy-theory follower, so I guess this is just my little weird tick. Hopefully it will make me a not so great candidate to be cloned.
10 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Here's the thing, though.
They can't prove who took these tests.
When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.
We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.
An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.
All this fear is just unfounded.
...but the WIRE TAP!!! ... and the cats and pancakes!
Apologies for not keeping up with the thread, which I have to say, I am enjoying immensely. Thank you everybody!4 -
cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Exactly what data aggregators want you to think...
5 -
Not sure how DNA is going to help you create a caloric deficit, but hey someone's making money.8
-
born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Here's the thing, though.
They can't prove who took these tests.
When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.
We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.
An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.
All this fear is just unfounded.
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.
People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.
I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.
Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.
As someone from an IT background (including a big chunk of DRM-type work), I find it touching how good people think the "big data" people are at matching up data from disparate databases to profile you, just as if we were on one of those CSI TV shows where they push a button and the suspect's 20-year-old employment records get matched up with residence history, crime patterns in each city, and a list of how their Starbucks preferences have changed over the years. (LOLZ!)
If you haven't, seek out and look at one of the advertising infrastructure sites where you can look at your own profile data. IME, it's pretty hilarious. If I were paranoid about this kind of stuff, I'd be worried more about the consequences of how weirdly wrong they are, not how scary-effective they are. I'm still seeing insurance ads from Mexico occasionally because I watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos, and 3 years post weight loss, all I see is plus-size clothing ads. I ain't skeered.
Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.
Individual identify theft is a whole different thing, with a whole different set of mechanisms. So is black hat hacking, so is doxing, etc. My biggest point of amusement is people who are all paranoid about this kind of *baby-feline*, then use the same trivial password on every site they sign up for, even ones we should care about.
There's enough to be cautious about without inflating particular risks.
I'm not really suggesting a CSI-type scenario like the one you allude to. Mainly, I try not to put any information out there where I can avoid it. The more places your information sits, the more likely it is to be acquired by someone you don't want to have it. IIRC, Target and Home Depot have both had their customer databases plundered to the tune of hundreds of thousands of peoples' identities and credit information.
I mean, here I am on this social media website and I'm on Facebook so it's not like I sit cowering in my bathtub all day. This doesn't mean I'm about to spit in a cup for some corporation though.
You say what they do with my information is not scary insightful...yet. When what they do with my information does become scary insightful, which you indicate you think will occur at some point in the future, do you think they're going to send me a notification on that day? I think not so I'll continue to play it safe by being miserly with what I put out there.
5 -
cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Sometimes the one with something to hide gets burned by another family member. They cought a serial killer that was an ex cop because another family member did a 23&me test.2 -
I got a health and fitness report with Ancestry DNA test. It said I'm likely to be vegetarian (HAHA!) and that I'm built to be a runner (HAHAHA)4
-
born_of_fire74 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Here's the thing, though.
They can't prove who took these tests.
When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.
We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.
An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.
All this fear is just unfounded.
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.
People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.
I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.
Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.
As someone from an IT background (including a big chunk of DRM-type work), I find it touching how good people think the "big data" people are at matching up data from disparate databases to profile you, just as if we were on one of those CSI TV shows where they push a button and the suspect's 20-year-old employment records get matched up with residence history, crime patterns in each city, and a list of how their Starbucks preferences have changed over the years. (LOLZ!)
If you haven't, seek out and look at one of the advertising infrastructure sites where you can look at your own profile data. IME, it's pretty hilarious. If I were paranoid about this kind of stuff, I'd be worried more about the consequences of how weirdly wrong they are, not how scary-effective they are. I'm still seeing insurance ads from Mexico occasionally because I watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos, and 3 years post weight loss, all I see is plus-size clothing ads. I ain't skeered.
Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.
Individual identify theft is a whole different thing, with a whole different set of mechanisms. So is black hat hacking, so is doxing, etc. My biggest point of amusement is people who are all paranoid about this kind of *baby-feline*, then use the same trivial password on every site they sign up for, even ones we should care about.
There's enough to be cautious about without inflating particular risks.
I'm not really suggesting a CSI-type scenario like the one you allude to. Mainly, I try not to put any information out there where I can avoid it. The more places your information sits, the more likely it is to be acquired by someone you don't want to have it. IIRC, Target and Home Depot have both had their customer databases plundered to the tune of hundreds of thousands of peoples' identities and credit information.
I mean, here I am on this social media website and I'm on Facebook so it's not like I sit cowering in my bathtub all day. This doesn't mean I'm about to spit in a cup for some corporation though.
You say what they do with my information is not scary insightful...yet. When what they do with my information does become scary insightful, which you indicate you think will occur at some point in the future, do you think they're going to send me a notification on that day? I think not so I'll continue to play it safe by being miserly with what I put out there.
I think it's possible (maybe 50/50?) that the technology and the privacy regs will converge on better solutions in time. Mostly, though, I don't care: I expect to be dead by then. Can't speak for you.
I'm probably slightly more paranoid about the convergence of governmental CCTV and face/person recognition, my self.
BTW: The database plundering is one of the black hat scenarios. You started out talking about the grocery store selling your info, and FB being nefarious. Those latter depend significantly on the data analysis and data matching that just isn't as easy as most people think.
I'm not trying to argue you out of paranoia; paranoia is fine. I'm just arguing (in general, not targeting you individually) that people should think a little more clearly about what the actual risks are, and why. Most of the worry I hear from people is equivalent, risk-analysis-wise, to worry about being eaten by a shark at the beach, but texting while driving as one heads home from the beach on the freeway.6 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Even if this were true, which I very much disagree that it is, it rankles me that someone is making money off of my personal information. I don't like being passed around like the town pump. I don't like the idea that I possibly contributed to the downfall of American democracy. I don't like receiving emails, phone calls and junk mail for crap I've never expressed even the remotest interest in because some corporation bought my information from some other corporation.
Add to this that they have the gall to pretend they're doing me a favour when they collect and sell my information by knocking $4 off of my bag of dog food or whatever. I don't care to be pressured to join the clubs just to get a good deal; as if they haven't made back from selling my information far more than any deal I'm getting anyway. If it were not a net gain for the corporation, they wouldn't be doing it.
By taking a DNA test, you are much more likely to contribute to the development of new drugs than to the downfall of American Democracy. Most of these companies make their money by selling their databases to drug companies, who are looking for genes responsible for particular illnesses, so that they know more about how those illnesses work and can target new drugs to them. You can opt out of having your information shared with outside companies.
As far as the potential forensic use of your DNA is concerned, there's really nothing you personally can do about it, since you share DNA with thousands of relatives who might use the service. The Golden State killer was captured by a dedicated genealogist who built a list of possible suspects from a number of THIRD COUSINS who shared DNA with the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Then the police narrowed down the list of suspects by who lived in the area at the time the crimes were committed, and recovered a modern sample of the DNA of the most likely suspect by going through his trash, and it turned out to be a match for the crime scene DNA. Most American-born DNA testers have hundreds of third cousin matches and thousands of fourth cousin matches. There's no way to prevent all of those people from using a DNA testing service. In this case, the only things that the criminal could have done to escape being identified by DNA would have been 1) not leave DNA at the crime scene in the first place (duh) or 2) not leave DNA on any trash, since trash is legal to go through.6 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Here's the thing, though.
They can't prove who took these tests.
When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.
We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.
An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.
All this fear is just unfounded.
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.
People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.
I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.
Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.
As someone from an IT background (including a big chunk of DRM-type work), I find it touching how good people think the "big data" people are at matching up data from disparate databases to profile you, just as if we were on one of those CSI TV shows where they push a button and the suspect's 20-year-old employment records get matched up with residence history, crime patterns in each city, and a list of how their Starbucks preferences have changed over the years. (LOLZ!)
If you haven't, seek out and look at one of the advertising infrastructure sites where you can look at your own profile data. IME, it's pretty hilarious. If I were paranoid about this kind of stuff, I'd be worried more about the consequences of how weirdly wrong they are, not how scary-effective they are. I'm still seeing insurance ads from Mexico occasionally because I watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos, and 3 years post weight loss, all I see is plus-size clothing ads. I ain't skeered.
Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.
Individual identify theft is a whole different thing, with a whole different set of mechanisms. So is black hat hacking, so is doxing, etc. My biggest point of amusement is people who are all paranoid about this kind of *baby-feline*, then use the same trivial password on every site they sign up for, even ones we should care about.
There's enough to be cautious about without inflating particular risks.
I'm not really suggesting a CSI-type scenario like the one you allude to. Mainly, I try not to put any information out there where I can avoid it. The more places your information sits, the more likely it is to be acquired by someone you don't want to have it. IIRC, Target and Home Depot have both had their customer databases plundered to the tune of hundreds of thousands of peoples' identities and credit information.
I mean, here I am on this social media website and I'm on Facebook so it's not like I sit cowering in my bathtub all day. This doesn't mean I'm about to spit in a cup for some corporation though.
You say what they do with my information is not scary insightful...yet. When what they do with my information does become scary insightful, which you indicate you think will occur at some point in the future, do you think they're going to send me a notification on that day? I think not so I'll continue to play it safe by being miserly with what I put out there.
I think it's possible (maybe 50/50?) that the technology and the privacy regs will converge on better solutions in time. Mostly, though, I don't care: I expect to be dead by then. Can't speak for you.
I'm probably slightly more paranoid about the convergence of governmental CCTV and face/person recognition, my self.
BTW: The database plundering is one of the black hat scenarios. You started out talking about the grocery store selling your info, and FB being nefarious. Those latter depend significantly on the data analysis and data matching that just isn't as easy as most people think.
I'm not trying to argue you out of paranoia; paranoia is fine. I'm just arguing (in general, not targeting you individually) that people should think a little more clearly about what the actual risks are, and why. Most of the worry I hear from people is equivalent, risk-analysis-wise, to worry about being eaten by a shark at the beach, but texting while driving as one heads home from the beach on the freeway.
Haha, I don't think I'll be much behind you.
FWIW I 100% do not text and drive. This gives me free reign to fret about identity theft and who is manhandling my personal information
And apologies to OP for hijacking his thread. I'm terrible for it. I can't help it when such an interesting but only tangentially related thing pops into my head. Best of luck to you.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Here's the thing, though.
They can't prove who took these tests.
When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.
We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.
An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.
All this fear is just unfounded.
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.
People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.
I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.
Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.
Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.
I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."
It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.
What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.
Have you not watched the documentary Gattaca?6 -
cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Sometimes the one with something to hide gets burned by another family member. They cought a serial killer that was an ex cop because another family member did a 23&me test.
AND he deserved to be caught. I say that's the way it should be. Wasn't he out there just living the vida loca for decades, getting away with serial rape or some such thing?
I agree with this:rheddmobile wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Even if this were true, which I very much disagree that it is, it rankles me that someone is making money off of my personal information. I don't like being passed around like the town pump. I don't like the idea that I possibly contributed to the downfall of American democracy. I don't like receiving emails, phone calls and junk mail for crap I've never expressed even the remotest interest in because some corporation bought my information from some other corporation.
Add to this that they have the gall to pretend they're doing me a favour when they collect and sell my information by knocking $4 off of my bag of dog food or whatever. I don't care to be pressured to join the clubs just to get a good deal; as if they haven't made back from selling my information far more than any deal I'm getting anyway. If it were not a net gain for the corporation, they wouldn't be doing it.
By taking a DNA test, you are much more likely to contribute to the development of new drugs than to the downfall of American Democracy. Most of these companies make their money by selling their databases to drug companies, who are looking for genes responsible for particular illnesses, so that they know more about how those illnesses work and can target new drugs to them. You can opt out of having your information shared with outside companies.
As far as the potential forensic use of your DNA is concerned, there's really nothing you personally can do about it, since you share DNA with thousands of relatives who might use the service. The Golden State killer was captured by a dedicated genealogist who built a list of possible suspects from a number of THIRD COUSINS who shared DNA with the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Then the police narrowed down the list of suspects by who lived in the area at the time the crimes were committed, and recovered a modern sample of the DNA of the most likely suspect by going through his trash, and it turned out to be a match for the crime scene DNA. Most American-born DNA testers have hundreds of third cousin matches and thousands of fourth cousin matches. There's no way to prevent all of those people from using a DNA testing service. In this case, the only things that the criminal could have done to escape being identified by DNA would have been 1) not leave DNA at the crime scene in the first place (duh) or 2) not leave DNA on any trash, since trash is legal to go through.
Or here's an idea. Don't do the crime.
People are so naive.
There is a greater good here. I suppose the people who think DNA companies are out to get them probably don't believe in flu shots, either. The sooner a wide population database happens the better, for the human race.
With that said, we'll likely blow ourselves up, run out of food, succumb to global warming or or get hit by an asteroid in 2029, right? Democracy? America? Oxymoron?
We're treading precariously close to site guidelines, now.
2 -
@jesselee10 thank you for bringing up this subject. At first it sounded over the top but I am starting to see the scientific thoughts behind it.
https://pathway.com/blog/6-types-of-diets-your-dna-can-recommend-you/20 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@jesselee10 thank you for bringing up this subject. At first it sounded over the top but I am starting to see the scientific thoughts behind it.
https://pathway.com/blog/6-types-of-diets-your-dna-can-recommend-you/
A blog from a site that sells the product is hardly an unbiased source.7 -
https://npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/22/579003429/personalized-diets-can-your-genes-really-tell-you-what-to-eat
This source seems to take a common sense approach to the subject in my view.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/22/579003429/personalized-diets-can-your-genes-really-tell-you-what-to-eat
This source seems to take a common sense approach to the subject in my view.
Do you even read these? Are you arguing for or against? Not clear."For basic healthy living, it's not about your genes, it's about your behavior," Mozaffarian says.
From the conclusion of the article:So, while the marketing of DNA-based nutrition advice may have gotten ahead of the science, Mozaffarian says these personalized services can be beneficial.
It's a service. Not a DNA-based diet. Basically they take a bunch of unrelated stuff and tell a story.
6 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?
It's like this but with DNA
OMG... LOVE this!
ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.
Anyone that thinks large organization that wants their personal data and doesn't already have it are living in a land of rainbows and unicorns.2 -
jesselee10 wrote: »Well I am pretty fit already just trying to loose the extra 5-10% body fat. I have seen high end fitness people do this test and results would indicate if individual would be better on a higher carb diet va high protein, high fat, etc and exercise based on individual. I already do lots of weight training but interested to see if adding liss cardio or hitt would be better for my body type.
For those talking about selling my dna to government I did think of that but with all the stuff out there now with smart phones I think that is more worrisome. The only thing that could be crazy is if they can telepathically alter my being with the dna they have😬
You're in luck: I have a crystal ball that specializes in questions like this!
It says that if you're doing no to minimal cardio now, and general CV fitness is your goal, you should do LISS regularly at a time investment that fits well into your daily life (starting with frequent rest days, but increasing both frequency and intensity (while staying LISS) as you start to gain fitness). It recommends a LISS intensity that is what you can sustain for your allotted time period (after a short warm-up), while feeling energized, not exhausted for the rest of the day (after a few minutes recovery from immediate effects).
Then, when you have a decent CV base fitness (maybe as soon as 2-3 months if you're consistent, even for someone new to cardio), it says you should begin doing regular intervals (like walk/run or equivalent) perhaps every other workout, and pay attention to rest needs via perceived fatigue, always taking one rest day per week (which can be active rest, especially as you get fitter).
When that is going well, if you want to improve your VO2max, it thinks that you should then replace one of the interval workouts each week, possibly at most two, with true CV HIIT (not one of those trendy circuit thingies they call HIIT, that aren't CV HIIT). If you don't need to enhance your VO2max, it says the HIIT isn't very important.
Oh, and: It says if you enjoy different types of cardio, it would be best for your body type if you mix up the modes sometimes across the week.
It's a smart crystal ball: You should listen to it. Also, it's generous: It just saved you hundreds of dollars.
Ooooo, forgot to mention: If your goal is primarily weight loss, the crystal ball advice is still LISS, at that same maximum sustainable intensity that leaves you feeling energized for the day, whatever amount of time you want to devote; increase intensity and frequency as fitness increases and life balance allows. That's best calorie burn for your genetics and body type!
If the only goal is calorie burn, you won't need intervals or HIIT!3 -
Sad, isn't it, how companies can market scams to people who are so desperate to lose weight that they will pay any ridiculous amount for these "gimmicks" but are sure nothing as simple as CICO would work!? Isn't there a diet plan based on your blood type, too? I wish OP had inquired before they spent the $199 for the analysis kit and one week of the diet plan.5
-
cmriverside wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/22/579003429/personalized-diets-can-your-genes-really-tell-you-what-to-eat
This source seems to take a common sense approach to the subject in my view.
Do you even read these? Are you arguing for or against? Not clear......
One has to grasp a concept before they can intelligently argue for or against anything. This not a debate for or against. The OP is not asking permission or to be validated in any way as far as I can tell. No one posting has posted their qualifications to offer any argument for or against anything the best I can tell. I read personal opinions only from posters. Some of the people quoted in the articles seem to be saying maybe yes maybe no. I expect it will take years of results to know the validity of this subject. In the meantime all we have is our own n=1 results which in the end is the only result that counts.
Knowing our DNA is interesting but we now understand it is Epigenetics in the end that determines what our DNA expressions will be so just knowing our DNA tells us little to nothing about how to eat that is best for us.
https://whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/
We can take the results and recommendations for one of these testing companies and build our n=1 study to see if the test results are valid or invalid based on the results of our n=1 trial.
20 -
I have no experience with any DNA test specific for diet, but if you already have a 23andme or Ancestry test, you can do a more DIY-style. You can download your raw data for your existing test, and then use Promethease.com to build a personal DNA report based on information from SNPedia. It costs $12, and you can filter the report based on the confidence level, magnitude of the impact by that particular allele. Hacky and unreliable, but very interesting, given the nominal cost.
Of course you won't find any 100% conclusive insights, but some SNPs are pretty well documented, so you can read the research and go after the evidences, and then decide if you believe it's significant enough for you or not.
IIf I were to guess, these opportunistic "Diet DNA kits" are probably just looking at SNPs rs4994, Gs285 and Gs282 to try to determine which type of diet (carbs vs. fat) and exercise are better for you. These SNPs just have a few experimental studies, so of course results would be highly questionable. This blog post has a good summary.
TL;DR: calories matter, but you don't need a DNA to know this. What your DNA may help clarify is how your body processes fat vs. carbs, and then adjust your diet accordingly. But on top of this you need to consider Epigenetics, as mentioned before, which throws a monkey wrench into everything else.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/22/579003429/personalized-diets-can-your-genes-really-tell-you-what-to-eat
This source seems to take a common sense approach to the subject in my view.
Do you even read these? Are you arguing for or against? Not clear......
One has to grasp a concept before they can intelligently argue for or against anything. This not a debate for or against. The OP is not asking permission or to be validated in any way as far as I can tell. No one posting has posted their qualifications to offer any argument for or against anything the best I can tell. I read personal opinions only from posters. Some of the people quoted in the articles seem to be saying maybe yes maybe no. I expect it will take years of results to know the validity of this subject. In the meantime all we have is our own n=1 results which in the end is the only result that counts.
Knowing our DNA is interesting but we now understand it is Epigenetics in the end that determines what our DNA expressions will be so just knowing our DNA tells us little to nothing about how to eat that is best for us.
https://whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/
We can take the results and recommendations for one of these testing companies and build our n=1 study to see if the test results are valid or invalid based on the results of our n=1 trial.
I sort of have qualifications since I did support for Ancestry for a while. So I probably know more about the subject of security than the average layman, and what sort of information is even possible to learn at the current stage of research. You could call me an educated amateur.4 -
Once upon a time, a unicorn wanted to find out what kind of cat he would be. So he sent his tinfoil hat to Oxford Analithica. They stole his sister's identity and used it to bring about the Downfall of Armenian Democracy. But first they sent the unicorn a very nice certificate proclaiming that he was, certifiably: "A Very Cool Cat, Daddy-O!"cmriverside wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/01/22/579003429/personalized-diets-can-your-genes-really-tell-you-what-to-eat
This source seems to take a common sense approach to the subject in my view.
Do you even read these? Are you arguing for or against? Not clear."For basic healthy living, it's not about your genes, it's about your behavior," Mozaffarian says.
From the conclusion of the article:So, while the marketing of DNA-based nutrition advice may have gotten ahead of the science, Mozaffarian says these personalized services can be beneficial.
It's a service. Not a DNA-based diet. Basically they take a bunch of unrelated stuff and tell a story.
The End. Please send me $800 dollars.
13 -
3
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »
Why not just... try it without spending the $800.00? Check your results after a month or two.
Who said anything about $800, i paid $85 for it.2 -
Not sure how DNA is going to help you create a caloric deficit, but hey someone's making money.
Who said anything about a calorie deficit. Said best diet for my body type. I know taking in less calories than needed will burn fat, but with some people a combination of certain food intake, and exercise has a better outcome.
Looking for reviews from those who have done the test.
14 -
So far no one replying has done it. Oh well. Didn’t spend much on it so guess I will take or leave the results with little impact on my wallet.7
-
I don't see where you ever provided the name of the company selling the test, perhaps you'd get more specific feedback if you did.
As it stands, I can find no credible evidence that a DNA test would provide any useful insight to exercise and diet. Aside from abnormalities that would indicate problems to be mindful of, like iron overload or familial high cholesterol, it wouldn't tell you much that would be any different than general advice. If the company selling the package is making claims they can, I'd like to see what they are basing the claims on before paying them money10 -
To the person who said industry was the biggest fear, many of us who have connections with the DoD had our information compromised when they were hacked.
So I'm not sure that Big G is any more trustworthy or secure than Big B.
Now with that being said, I will gladly give up some information that may or may not be true to get $4 off a bag of cat food.9 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »i'll make a prediction that it'll say you need a calorie deficit... and doing some exercise would be good too...
Oh, I'd predict it says something completely different. Why do I get the feeling this is just the next version of the blood-type diet?
Sadly yes.
The scientific evidence for this kind of testing is simply not yet available. One of my profs had the luck of getting access to the studies used as evidence for one of those providers. It was... thin to say the least. Problem is a lot is based on observational studies. The few RCTs used were based on very small samples with very clearly defined populations where links to other non-similar populations is difficult to draw. There were no reviews or meta-analyses.
In the long term, once the evidence is better, there might actually be something to it. Currently, the only proven effect is on the wallet.
The truth is there will never be any "scientifically valid" study of diet because all are based in self reporting. As such they are inherently unreliable. It is one area of study where true controlled groups can't be done ethically or humanely.
CICO works for most. Food sensitivities impact some. I have foods that trigger inflammation, water retention, and eczema. This can cause weight fluctuations up/down of several pounds over a day or two. But the longer term downward trend is mostly CICO.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions