It is just something we, the children of those who fought, promised to our grand parents on their deathbed. Such things matters.
867 karma · joined June 9, 2013
Moreover, Bulgaria does not directly compete with Germany in the same product categories. Bulgaria is integrated into supply chains, often providing components or assembly work for German companies.
You are only 7M. I’ve got the feeling that it is just not large enough to significantly be distorted by eurozone monetary policy, at least in the way that might affect much larger economies.
To my knowledge, it doesn't.
On Emacs there's gptel which integrates quiet nicely different LLM inside Emacs, including a local Ollama.
> gptel is a simple Large Language Model chat client for Emacs, with support for multiple models and backends. It works in the spirit of Emacs, available at any time and uniformly in any buffer.
Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].
In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.
The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.
[1] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/high-intensity-zo...
[2] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/
[3] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/aerobic-zone-2-tr...
Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/
You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0].
> “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”
Well, in my mind `epigenetic = biological age * food intake`, where `food intake` is 'is he eating a consistent healthy diet, given that a typical person not eating healthy will surely says that she's eating healthy'. It's (unfortunately) enough to be >30yo, having bad genes around cholesterol handling pathways and eating a standard american diet (even without significant overweight) to be in the danger zone in terms of cardiovascular risks.
ApoB in the golden (and recent) blood test here. OP: given that you have experienced chest pains, and if it's not the case already, go have your ApoB checked and ask for statins if needed: your 60yo you will thank you.
And, in my own and non-important opinion: don't waste your time even thinking about potential link between your condition and covid/vaccine, this is a path that leads nowhere in terms of prevention of futures attacks.
Source: https://peterattiamd.com/measuring-cardiovascular-disease-ri...
Assuming the 3 year old already knew what a lion looks like, and point at 'things with stripes' and 'things without stripes'.
I think that a model that can already recognize separately lions and stripes should be able to tag a tiger's picture as a 'Lion with stripes', no?
The GP was!
> I'm sorry, I can't agree with your point.
At least we're getting somewhere!
gp: Screens are extremely addictive to kids
me: wrong, any kid will not like train video
you: wrong, mine is, the screen itself is addictive.
me: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content, or are switched off screens intrinsically addictive?
you: this is absurd, a switch off screen is not a screen, let me rephrase for you: switched on screens remain powerful attractors for many children
Next round is where we agree that, actually, its the content showed on a switched on screen that can or cannot trigger attraction for a child: yours is ok with trains, mines are not.
But I'll stop here, that was fun, but I've got some other things to handle.
My two 8/10y old boys won't. Great, there's two data point now, we can plot a trend!
> The screen itself is addictive.
Is a switched off screen addictive too?
If your answer is along 'of course not, I just said that content can vary, use your brain, fill in the gaps geez', then that was exactly my point to the GP: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content.
No, wrong. What can be addictive is the content displayed by the screen and the eventual interaction that the kid have with this content.
Put a kid in front of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viOkh9al0xM (`This is the Train Driver's/engineers/operator/conductors view from the Bergen Line and the Famous Flåm Railway in Norway in Northern Europe.`), and start a 30s countdown: the kid will have left the screen before, guaranteed.
You may want to read some (hopefully) unbiased information on that subject : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenesis
For example:
> Both [two of the three types of ketone bodies] are 4-carbon molecules that can readily be converted back into acetyl-CoA [which can directly fuel the krebs cycle] by most tissues of the body, with the notable exception of the liver.
Which is not really matching the definition of 'toxins'.
In my mind, saying that ketone bodies are toxins could be suggested in the fact that ketoacidosis is a real threat when a metabolism is affected by T1. But, again, T1 is not T2, and it's not the condition of a healthy metabolism, which is fully capable of handling ketone bodies, even thriving on it (glucose is fine, too, I'm not trying to sell that line).
That's actually really interesting, I still have got much to learn (and you seems to know that stuff pretty well, thanks for sharing!).
> Some type 2 patients wrongly associate insulin with personal failure surrounding diet or exercise
Well, I don't want to be that person, but to me the association is tangible.
If you lost that much so fast it's because before being sick you were very high in glycogen muscular reserves, which binds on water big time. Surely you didn't eat during your sickness, leading to glycogen depletion, leading to shredding all that water and weight.
You surely were then very miserable, because losing so much water during 5 days means having virtually no more minerals, magnesium and potassium being key components for cellular activity.
And then you binged on carbs, building your glycogen reserves back to normal, bringing minerals back in your system, and assuredly you felt better.
But you also piked your insulin level by eating a lot of carbs, and you are now a step closer to insulin resistance.
> Sugar is good for you
If you eat sugar often enough to induce insulin resistance, then, no, it's not. Otherwise, yes, go enjoy your annual 100gr of candies, it won't hurt, it may even go one rep further on that squat max.
About the same, both are high on fructose (orange's being nature made, whereas coke's is added from corn syrup), and fructose is the #1 culprit in fatty liver.
Both are piking your insulin big time, which is the main vector of 'sugar' consumption leading to a wide variety of health concerns (numerous insulin pikes leads to insulin resistance which leads to type 2 diabete which leads to virtually any non-infectious disease).
According to wikipedia [0]: approximately from 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. Let's take an average reproduction age of 25y and you've got roughly 1000 human generations eating bread.
But, also according to wikipedia [1], the oldest Homo Sapiens that we can date range from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. That's 70-90% of our direct ancestors' natural selection process not having been exposed to bread (widespread grains, in fact).
And, if we dare to argue that human metabolism have mainly not changed since Homo Erectus, then we are in another world in terms of comparison, because Wikipedia trace the oldest signs of Erectus as far as 2,000,000 years ago [2], which represent 80,000 generations, and that's ~1% of our ancestors having evolved exposed to grains.
So, all in all, "we've been eating bread for millenia" is clearly not all that there is to say on that matter.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo
GP's not alone, maybe you're not too, but the point is, GP's point of view is not a snowflake. This person sounds mentally able, keeps her tone gentle, and make sensible arguments. Maybe it could be a wise move for you to reassess a logic you seems to adhere to a bit too much, so that there could be room for discussion? Because, liking it or not, anti-ageing medication and aging prevention is already here.
Well, from a health perspective, what you really want as your main drive is high, low omega 6 vs omega 3, high quality fat, relatively low protein and the least carb you can do. Carb is not evil per se, a carb+protein based is, it leads to type 2 diabetes, and pave the way to cancer and cognitive dysfunctions, the key thing in those disease being recurrent and close insulin spikes.
A beef with <5% of fat is a nutritional non-sense, this whole 'eat the least fat possible' fable needs to die.
But otherwise I agree with you: plant-based meat-like patty is the worst you can eat (referring to their current recipes that are loaded with omega 6).
@see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifespan:_Why_We_Age_%E2%80%93...