psud

I wonder if the rock industry person, who was a family friend when I was a kid in the 80s, had tinnitus. I didn't know him well enough to hear such complaints, but he had lost quite a bit of hearing due to his job.

Meanwhile and incidentally I have had my highest blood glucose result (6.1mM/L) on a blood test on zero carb, with a first thing in the morning test a year and a half into that way of eating. Apparently there's an effect called the dawn phenomenon where blood glucose peaks around dawn, presumably to help us get moving, but the lack of demand in fat adapted people means there's no demand, so a bit later it's mopped up. It nearly had me get a home glucose tester.

Am I reading fig 6 correctly:

• The more they lowered the cholesterol* of the experiment group the more likely they were to die
• The more the control group's cholesterol* went down the more likely they were to die

The population of the study were more likely to survive the more cholesterol* they had

*actually lipoproteins - and given the date of the original data "total cholesterol" with no differentiation between HDL and the various sizes of LDL

Aside: Do you know why we call the lipoproteins "cholesterol", is it that they were originally thought to be free cholesterol?

I’m not sure why they are talking about ketoacidosis at all, is it relevant?

I think it's because many people still, especially those working with diabetes, hear ketone and think of the uncontrolled diabetes crisis. I suppose it's also vaguely useful to point out that an excess so very much in excess that it breaks the body's ability to maintain correct acidity isn't helpful. As if we don't already know that everything is a poison, what matters is the dose.

That last bit about how poorly tolerated the keto diet is sounds very much like the first two weeks with poor guidance, or a badly designed ketogenic diet using foods some participants were intolerant to

I couldn't do internet keto or Atkins keto for long. I didn't tolerate it well. But zero carb is easy I have been doing it for 2 and a bit years.

The bit that really grabbed me that I didn't know was that it's actually more efficient to feed our grain crops to cattle than to turn that grain to bread if what we want is the complete collection of amino acids we need in the balance we need.

I doubt it's more efficient when reckoned on energy, I mean it can't possibly be, but what use is energy when it isn't also nourishing?

Plants managed to use their ability to pull carbon out of the air to kill almost everything else alive at the time

They pull out carbon from carbon dioxide, and dump the oxygen*

Which turned out ok. It's called the great oxygenation crisis

*That which they don't use, I don't know if they used it back then

And the green end of the spectrum is the highest energy end. Our solar panels out perform plants in energy production partly because they can tolerate much, much more of the higher energy frequencies

I shall edit that to say they can't absorb all of the green. Indeed some plants are very close to black

You have probably heard that plants are green. They are green because they reflect green light

They reflect green light because they can't absorb all of it

I mentioned dairy cows because they happen to have a similar count to horses. We talk here about animal sourced food, which includes dairy. Dairy has all the fat soluble vitamins, if you have your cornflakes with dairy milk you increase the vitamin content enormously

Noting that beef cattle typically live in places where nothing people can eat will grow, so if we stopped eating them the land would be abandoned and would instead support the same biomass of just as thirsty, just as methane producing (but with no one invested in fixing the methane problem) grass eating animals, be they wild horses or deer or bison.

Meanwhile how much water do pet dogs and cats consume? How much extra is wasted by being in open containers in airconditioned spaces?

I like that you only found fault in the fun fact that dairy and horses have similar numbers, which you didn't deny, and the fact that the water they drink isn't wasted which you reckon takes too long but it has been going on for a very long time, it has to be in a steady state in natural grasslands. Before beef it was bison in America

Cows don't eat breakfast cereal, bread, or cookies

The cows I eat eat grass, the cheapest meat is raised on grass

Permaculture cows in their fields are a negative carbon dioxide equivalent source.

Cows turn incomplete and hard to absorb proteins in wheat into 1. More protein, and 2. Complete and highly absorbable protein. It is more efficient to get your vital amino acids by feeding your crops to cows and then eating the cows

Beef is mostly grown on land that isn't fit for growing crops

Beef returns practically all the water it consumes to the water cycle

How much land is dedicated to feeding pet dogs and cats?

Did you know America has more horses than dairy cows? Horses have the same digestive system as cows, they release as much methane

There are promising projects to make cows digest methane rather than expel it

To the point of being social, living longer lets you help a younger generation survive and raise their kids

Were you fortunate enough to have a grandparent living with you when you were young? It makes things much easier for the parents, much nicer for the kids