bpizzi

It is just something we, the children of those who fought, promised to our grand parents on their deathbed. Such things matters.

I think you may be forgetting the big picture, which is to never have Europe spawning a World War again. In that regard, the fears (rational and irrational) of those with tendencies for isolationism are simply not relevant.

Bulgaria has already pegged its currency (the lev) to the euro through a currency board since 1997. This means it already lacks independent monetary policy, and joining the euro wouldn’t significantly change that. The exchange rate is fixed, and inflation differentials are already impacting competitiveness.

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.

(Github Copilot allows selecting different models, but I didn't check more carefully whether that also includes a local one, anyone knows?).

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.

https://github.com/karthink/gptel

looking at VO2 max in relation to all-cause mortality, we see a very clear trend. Simply bringing your VO2 max from ‘low’ (bottom 25th percentile) to ‘below average’ (25th to 50th percentile) is associated with a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality. When you go from ‘low’ to ‘above average’ (50th to 75th percentile) the risk reduction is closer to 70%!

https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/

Yeah, I'm in Team Rowing (indoor) myself, and 30min of HIIT every week is HELL. My next session is in 1h...

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).

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...

I’m all ear actually, if you could kindly point me to the relevant material.

Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear. As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1]. More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD.

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/

If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.

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.”

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/

Yes, we are borg, we will adapt.

or do you include it as an epigenetic factor?

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...

That's terrible, I hope you're recovering to the best possible. Do you happen to know what was your blood pressure prior to the heart attack, and/or your apob level? At least you should have it checked now (I assume that's what have been prescribe by your doctors). It is my understanding that it is more statistically sound to point the cause of a heart attack at your age to genetic/epigenetic factors instead of a potential coronavirus infection with no symptoms.

Not really Fukushima, more likely Chernobyl and the disastrous handling of governments trying to hide things instead of taking action, explaining complexities and planning further education. That let a wide open hole for every naysayer for spraying and preaching political and scientific non-sense. Let it rot 20y without addressing the issue and you'll pick anyone on our streets today and be virtually assured that one's either totally afraid or fully ignorant of nuclear power.

I can say something like ‘a tiger is just a lion with stripes’ to a 3 year old and they now ‘understand’ what a tiger is almost as well as if they saw a picture of one. They could definitely identify one from a picture now.

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?

I'm curious: do you have noticed any connection between what you eat (macro and micro) and the symptoms level? Because what you're describing could match dysbiosis and/or leaky gut, and you seem to have already dug really well into your condition.

You were generalizing,

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.

Wrong. My 2-year old loves videos of trains, both from this perspective and showing the trains themselves. She can last longer than 30 seconds, and is thrilled by them way longer than me (the videos are pretty, but I find trains boring).

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.

Screens are extremely addictive to kids. (Adults too, I suppose, but that's their own responsibility.)

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.

Once the body is starving for carbohydrates it begins a process to break down fats and even protein into an energy source. This produces toxins, ketones.

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).

but secondly the auto-antibodies that caused the destruction of the beta cells can often be detected in their blood.

That's actually really interesting, I still have got much to learn (and you seems to know that stuff pretty well, thanks for sharing!).

I second that. Looks to me that the author is more knowledgeable in T1 than T2, and is almost categorizing the latter as a subspecies of the former, for example:

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.

I got sick, I lost 8 more kg (16lb) in weight in 5 days: when I got out of hospital I over-ate sugar and carbs for two weeks and got fitter, faster than anyone would believe.

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.

Is a glas of (pure) orange juice the same as a glas of coke?

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).

We've been eating bread for millenia

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

If you fail to see the moral difference between typing on a computer and "curing ageing"... I don't know what to say to be honest

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.

Moreover, there's no correlation between the LDL ingested and the degradated LDL that freely floats in arteries.

From an athletic or 'health' perspective, [...] You can get 93+% lean beef with 3-4 grams of fat per 20~ grams of protein

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).

Damn, I’m exactly on the same boat! I found that wearing a dental splint at night help a lot.

Ha, I think I can read David Sinclair's words there! (not a bad thing at all IMHO)

@see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifespan:_Why_We_Age_%E2%80%93...