It isn’t, in fact it’s more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables and legumes and rich in amino-acids necessary to maintain muscle mass which is increasingly important as you age.
It’s just something the anti-meat crowd parade, while omitting that:
- These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake.
- Often when saying meat is bad, what is actually referred to is processed meat packed with salt and nitrites.
Eating chicken, pork or beef that you buy raw and cook yourself is healthy.
How much you eat of anything matters too. Don’t eat anything in excess and move.
> more nutrient dense per calories than vegetables
I'm not sure how this meme started, but it's not actually true. You can plug foods into Cronometer.com and see for yourself. e.g. carrots (vitamin A) or kale (vitamin K1) give you the RDA with few calories. I mean, the cocoa powder I added to my smoothie this morning had 100% RDA copper and 45% RDA iron in 57 calories.
Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown.
These are some really ancient wives tales about vegetables.
> These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake.
This isn't true. Tracking and multivariate adjustment are standard fare for epi studies.
It's not a meme. If you look at research that look at foods rich in micronutrients, you'll see that meat covers most of them.
For example, yes Kale is rich in calcium and vitamin K than meat in general, but beef, pork or chicken covers a higher ratio of micronutrients than Kale. Obviously, one should not only eat meat. But the point was that meat itself does not make you sick (unless in excess, like anything).
> Similarly, plants and plant-based foods have full amino profiles. Once again, plug anything from soy beans or even broccoli into Cronometer.com and look at the amino acid breakdown.
Full amino acid profile doesn't mean that it contains the same amount, it just means that it's present. Moreover, nutrient absorption is often lower with vegetables than with meat.
Again, not saying one should not eat vegetables. One definitely should eat fruits and vegetables. But it's clear that lacking meat in one diet has long term consequences that reveals itself later in life.
Be specific about the micronutrients because aside from a few things like protein and b12, I think you will be let down by your expectations when you plug meat into Cronometer.
What are all these micronutrients that you think 100g (184cal) of chicken has? Now compare the mineral and folate contents of 100g (121cal) edamame (first vegetable I saw in my freezer). Or compare it to 530g of cooked broccoli which has the same calories as 100g chicken (if isocaloric comparison is easier) and tell me that chicken is more nutrient dense per calorie.
I don't want to sound like I'm a Cronometer affiliate, but most people can't even estimate which foods have which nutrients until they plot a few days of their diet into Cronometer. I was certainly surprised, myself.
I highly recommend you log a whole day of eating into Cronometer to get an idea of where nutrients come from.
I'm assuming here that we're talking about "nutrient density"—the ratio of nutrients per calorie. Is that what you means? Or are you using something like "per gram"?
I'm not sure. We don't really have a specific term for it as far as I know.
I think it's mostly confusing because we're talking about how healthy food is, and because you talked about a ratio. Since we're in a situation too many calories is more of an issue than too few, nutrition-per-calorie is used as a rough proxy for how "healthy" a food is. Pure lard has a higher nutrition-per-gram ratio than beef. (So long as you consider calories to be part of the "nutrition".)
OH OK! When it said "Ice storm" - I was thinking something like "it's not rain, it's not snow, it's actually raining ice and throwing sheets of ice around." So I assumed it would be horrid. Seems kind of balmy
The main issue at hand is the accumulation of ice on trees and powerlines, which can become excessively thick and weighty. This creates the risk that trees may topple onto sidewalks or powerlines (those not underground). In certain cases, powerlines that have not been reinforced since the '98 storm may collapse under their own weight. Also, as of March 15th it is no longer required by law to have winter tires on cars, this has caught many drivers off guard as they were not expecting another storm, much less an ice storm.
I started taking 3g of pharmaceutical grade fish oil about 1 year ago with 5000IUs vitamin D and 120mcg of K2 MK-7. I don’t “feel” anything but my Garmin is clear that my RHR and VO2max have greatly improved, and yet that’s on 5-6h sleep per night. I’m also definitely less sick.
Now question remains, which of those is responsible for this?
Here’s the thing, I don’t work out much, if at all other than cleaning the house and mowing the lawn. Not much has changed on the lifestyle side, overall.
I recently started doing the stepper and noticed the improvement compared to occasional physical activity that I inconsistently do from time to time (e.g. sports outside with the kids).
While I agree with most of the critics towards the article and the author (who by the way, is a friend of Peter Diamandis who also happens to run a scammy longevity clinic), (some) reasons behind the longevity of many of those centenarians have been identified: low mTOR activity and high omega 3 intake. mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) is a nutrient sensing enzyme particularly sensitive to some amino acids like Leucine found in meat and whey protein.
Rapamycin (Sirolimus), an immunosuppressive drug was found to considerably inhibit mTOR activity. Past clinical trials recently showed considerable lifespan extension in multiple animal models and will likely work in humans. It’s one of the too drugs found in the ITP trials (1). If I’m not wrong, they are even starting trials now and new ones will come soon. That’s because, as the name implies, that enzyme is part of all mammals.
Lots of people experiment with safe dose ranging from 5 to 10mg once a week and report lots of benefits, few side effects (doses aren't as high as if used by organ transplant receivers).
I’m in my 30s so I’m not willing to take any risks with those. I move, I eat a Mediterranean-ish diet, take Vitamin D3, K2 and Omega 3d and eat no sugar. But if I was past 60 I’d definitely ask my doctor.
That being said, this is not radical life extension. That would likely be possible with upcoming therapies like partial reprogramming or senolytics. But it definitely is promising and will possibly help living a longer and healthier life if repurposed for other diseases than simply immunosuppression.
Either way, I agree that IF is the best inhibitor of mTOR. My guess is that there is much we don’t know still about the effects of Rapamycin and mTOR itself. Clearly mTOR inhibition extends lifespan considerably in mammals, but we also know that protein intake is crucial to retain muscle mass in old age. Seems like a double edged sword.
Question is, using rapamycin, can you still consume adequate protein amounts and retain muscle mass?
I’m sure he is. It’s easier for Scandinavian countries because they don’t have such a large, deserted territory. But most of the Canadian population is concentrated in specific areas, mostly in the southern part. There are some relatively large towns below the 55th parallel, but for the most part it’s large, empty land with small communities and reservations spreaded across the territory.
Starlink would provide broadband to communities that still don’t have it, or have it at a higher price because it’s a different satellite internet provider. Even more so past the 55th. I’m sure Santa would appreciate too.
No it doesn't. To have a "stationary satellite", you need to put it in a geosynchronous orbit, which is 32,000km up. With starlink, it's at about 550km up. The latency difference is _huge_. With starlink, you can easily get 50-150ms ping times. With geo satellites, you get like 2 _seconds_. That's completely unusable for many usecases of the internet like video calls or online videogames.
You are correct, but the exact ping times (to the ground station) is 6.7ms for Starlink (if directly above) or 10-15ms just for the link.
For geostationary, it is 400ms if you are on the equator, and 450ms if you are north/south. Realistically it is about 600ms from what I have seen in Europe.
Well yeah that's true, but is ping really important when you live in the far north...is it so important that a whole part of a country is highly dependent on a private US company?
>That's completely unusable for many usecases of the internet like video calls or online videogames.
stationary is ~600, and it's absolutely possible for video-calls (from my own experience)...but yeah no good scores for your counter-strike...but then better go hunting/fishing irl when you up there.
> Well yeah that's true, but is ping really important when you live in the far north...is it so important that a whole part of a country is highly dependent on a private US company?
In a word, yes. High ping isn't bad for just gaming, so much of the internet is written by people who assume that roundtrips are cheap that ~600ms internet connections are just painful for everyday use. If you feel that relying on Starlink gives SpaceX too much power, you need to start thinking about other LEO constellations, not substituting with GEOsats. Because they are simply inadequate.
> North Canada is not accessible...and probably never will (not enough customers)
Literally everywhere in the world will be accessible once they get enough intersat links and the polar sats up. Right now, they are limited by both the bent-pipe architecture they use for the first shell of sats (because intersat links were not ready), and because they launched the 53° shells first (because they get the most customers with the fewest sats operational the fastest).
And they need to do this even if they'd have only a single customer, because their FCC frequency allocation requires them to provide service in all 50 states, including the very northernmost parts of Alaska. They plan to achieve this with a 97.6° shell of 10 planes, which will provide service all the way to the pole.
They have demonstrated the intersat links, and have launched 867 satellites to working orbits with them since last September (excluding the ones that failed to deploy). Assuming they are launching the shells in sequence, if they maintain their current rate of ~4.5 sats per day on average, they will complete the 53.2° shell by the end of the year. After this, the next in line is the 70° shell. Assuming the same launch rate, it will complete in a bit over 5 months. It doesn't need to be entirely complete for service to start, but the sats will also need a few months to drift into position before they are usable. So about this time next year, Starlink will be usable in all of Canada below the ~72° line. The remaining islands will get service about 5 months after that.
And none of that requires any of their more speculative projects to work, but just for the things they are already doing to continue at current pace.
From Space-stations, Vans, and hyper-speed-vacuum tunnels.
And even if they have 867 satellites up it's still not really good, there was a good article here recently. But that's how Elon collect's his money, make big promises deliver nothing "Big" but something that already exists.
> is it so important that a whole part of a country is highly dependent on a private US company?
Sure, fine, that's something worrisome. But be honest with your arguments from the get-go, instead of saying a stationary satellite would be better. I'll pass on the weird condescending gaming tone.
I reached the same conclusion as you when I became a biology student and started to learn about morphogenesis, epigenetic reprogramming, DNA repair enzymes, etc.
I wouldn’t have said that a few years ago and would have accepted my fate. However, now my perspective has changed because we’re on the verge of a revolution in biotech (we’ll, one could argue we are in the middle) where we understand enough of the aging process - not all of it - to reverse it or at least slow it down.
However, I’m really disappointed with some of the people in the field such as David Sinclair who have become snake oil salesman and almost charlatans, pushing inconclusive science as facts (e.g. resveratrol, sirtuins, etc) and I think it hurts the field more than anything else.
Interesting years ahead, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t mind living a few more decades as long as I’m healthy and active.
Except that in his podcast he spreads a lot of bad science. I'd even call it misinformation. The work on Sirtuins role in health span and life span is, at most, inconclusive. Multiple studies on trans-resveratrol failed to show any improvement whatsoever (and yes, even when mixed with a fat to increase bioavailability). Maybe NMN does something, maybe not. It's not yet clear.
He states everything as facts while most of his own studies have never been successfully replicated, even disproven in some cases.
I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt. He's been called out multiple times by his peers, including his own friends like Matt Kaeberlein.
_Obviously_ until conclusive double blind controlled studies have been done, this is all hypothesis.
The science behind the "longevity clock check" with by testing methaliations seems legit though doesn't it? I'm just a dude on the internet so would love some advice from somebody in the field.
But if that test is real, then it's a mater of time now isn't it? We wouldn't need to wait decades for people to die off so we can prove anything, we can just test with this clock, and in a couple of years we'll have results. I for one am quite excited about the whole thing.
While in his book he is less so, I think he seems pretty straight forward on his podcast by what has been tested with what, and how dubious the science of the various claims is. He admits a lot about some mechanism that they have no idea how it works, just that it does in various model organisms.
Anyway fasting and exercise have been linked to longevity for literally millennia by various religions largely unconnected with each other. I gather that we're now just trying to understand the mechanisms how all of this actually works.
I personally am trying the things on myself that have been proven to not cause harm, and seeing how it affects me. For now I've settled on reduced sugar in my diet, cut out gluten, stoped doing breakfast, started excising and do an occasional (2-3 times a year 4+ days water fasting). Seems to have kept the gray out of my hair for now - a lot of the friends in my age group already have it. Will see how that "no lunch" affects to me. All anecdotal of course.
He’s done a lot for mainstream interest in gerontology and longevity research but it’s pretty clear at this point that he’s financially tied to his position, there are multiple companies worth millions that develop products based on his labs research.
So he’d rather block everyone who tries to challenge him on Twitter and claim certainty on his podcast than be objective about the data.
Never had a sweet tooth to start with but I replace all sugar with monk fruit and erythritol blends like Lakanto (taste same as table sugar unlike Stevia).
Made a big difference already. Then I’ve cut all simple carbohydrates or non-soluble fiber and unlike the low carb craze, increased my high soluble fiber intake from low GI whole grains like steel cut oat. Keeps me full for a while, low calorie, and I don’t feel sluggish.
I don’t eat anything above 50 on the GI scale. Once a week I might have pasta.
No fruits because of fructose but lots of vegetables.
No drinks containing sugar like sweetened Almond drink but I keep the milk because the fat and the protein helps feeling satiated.
Basically I lost about 20 pounds over 3 months and I’ve maintained the loss for 2 years now.
It’s just something the anti-meat crowd parade, while omitting that:
- These beliefs come from epidemiological studies without regards for other life habits such as smoking or dietary choices such as sugar intake.
- Often when saying meat is bad, what is actually referred to is processed meat packed with salt and nitrites.
Eating chicken, pork or beef that you buy raw and cook yourself is healthy.
How much you eat of anything matters too. Don’t eat anything in excess and move.