dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Elon's latest virus related post, purely data based this time.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Less good, hospitalization and death aren't the only debilitating long lasting outcomes. Chronic Coronavirus?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/11/coronavirus-chronic/
(My understanding on the following.) The N95 masks filter to (I think) 2 or 3 microns. They also have a seal so that breathing goes through the mask rather than some breath escaping around the perimeter. The KN95 help contain anything you might have but don't seal and don't have the same filtration. They do limit to a certain extent what you breath in. In other words, the KN95 are much better than nothing, but the reality is that they help the other person more than they help you. So to be fairly effective, everyone needs to use them.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
My understanding is they have the same level of filtration (in theory), and they do create a tight seal. See the link I posted.
However, most of them have ear loops, which makes them not NIOSH compliant, and does tend to create fit issues. Some have full headbands however.
I have heard that N95s have to be fitted to each person by a professional fitting person.
KN95 are the standard mask in China from what I understand, used by medical professionals, so practically I don’t see any reason why when worn properly, and when not counterfeit, that they would not be very effective, when worn with eye protection (a key extra step I feel everyone should practice - either enclosing goggles, or a full face shield which blocks droplets from above). I always wear eye protection if I am relying on my mask to protect me.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I believe they are specced to filter 95% of particles 0.3um in size because this the most difficult size to filter. They have much higher than 95% efficiency for both smaller and larger particles.
N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks | | Blogs | CDC
I think this is mostly early anti-mask propaganda. There are plenty of YouTube videos for health professionals showing how to fit an N95. The only adjustments are the size, position, position of straps and the nose wire!
The KN95 masks I bought on eBay seem to fit pretty well. When I breath in it feels and looks like the air is going through the filter material. When I exhale some of the air definitely goes around the filter. I doubt they fit as well as a molded N95 though.
He's generally wrong.
Sugar is definitely not great, nor is HFCS. HFCS is just 55% fructose 45% glucose, (vs. usual 50/50 split). It's not some demon.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I wonder how representative this is of a return to regular commuting travel. I'd think that the correlation would be weakened, since presumably most people who drive to work don't supercharge. I can see people who were often on the road in their cars returning to the road sooner than most of the rest of the population. That being said, seems like around here in San Diego, people just use the Superchargers for their daily charging needs.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Actually, that is just flat out wrong on your part.
I was a biochemist in college, and carried that training forward for both my M.D. and Ph.D. We know, 100% for fact, that fructose is metabolized very differently than other sugars we take in. It is not primarily used for fuel for running muscles, etc. but instead goes into the liver where it is broken down in to 2-carbon units which are used to build fat molecules.
Unlike Glucose, Fructose is primarily lipogenic (generates fat DIRECTLY). Glucose will directly power ATP production much more than Fructose, and thereby can be used more by muscles.
Both are much worse than complex carbohydrates and starches, but Fructose is definitely much more lipogenic than Glucose.
EDIT - for those with long attention spans, the evidence is presented here step by step in some of his lectures:
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
HFCS is just... a variety of things, there isn't just one set ratio:
Composition and varieties
HFCS is 24% water, the rest being mainly fructose and glucose with 0–5% unprocessed glucose oligomers.[16]
The most common forms of HFCS used for food and beverage manufacturing contain fructose in either 42% ("HFCS 42") or 55% ("HFCS 55") amounts, as described in the US Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 184.1866).[5]
- HFCS 42 (≈42% fructose if water were removed) is used in beverages, processed foods, cereals, and baked goods.
- HFCS 55 is mostly used in soft drinks..
- HFCS 65 is used in soft drinks dispensed by Coca-Cola Freestyle machines..
- HFCS 70 is used in filling jellies.
- HFCS 90 has some niche uses, . but is mainly mixed with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.
You didn't refute my point that HFCS is just like sucrose with slightly different ratios of fructose / glucose. What you described is essentially the same for both table sugar and HFCS (yes a bit worse for HFCS).
The fearmongering of HFCS relative to sucrose is overblown.
Processed foods are certainly not good, but the fearmongering of sugar is also a bit much. So many claims of effects on obesity, insulin resistance with poorly controlled studies.
The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog
Dude mingles with Taubes and other low-carb nutjobs.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
There are literally thousands of papers, with hundreds of thousands of patients, that show sugar intake promotes insulin resistance and obesity. This is one of the best-established health facts of the past 200 years, period.
Are you an anti-vaxer and flat-earther too?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I was not saying it's necessary for it to work properly - it is completely unnecessary - you just need to make sure it fits correctly (and know how to check that). But in workplace environments where OSHA requirements have to be met, it's apparently required.
"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.134) requires a respirator fit test to confirm the fit of any respirator that forms a tight seal on the wear’s face before it is to be used in the workplace. That same OSHA respirator standard also prohibits tight-fitting respirators to be worn by workers who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face of the wearer."
Ancillary Respirator Information, Fit Test FAQs | NPPTL | NIOSH | CDC
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The latest trumper - ism:
"If we stopped testing, we would not have any cases"
There is only one question remaining with regards to trump: what is dumber than a moron ?
"If we stopped testing, we would not have any cases"
There is only one question remaining with regards to trump: what is dumber than a moron ?
I would say that you are generally wrong. Correct that table sugar isn't really any better, dead wrong about both not being a metabolic disaster in the quantities that it is being consumed in this country and many others. Have you actually READ any of the original research of any kind on the profound dietary alterations associated with Western societies compared to our ancestors? Here is a chart from a medical textbook outlining the profound differences between ancient and modern lifestyles, a good chunk of which is dietary (a chapter that I actually wrote).
Last edited:
I make 2 separate points that I want to reiterate:
1) Difference in effects between table sugar and HFCS are overblown. That does not mean I think either are healthy! My point on the fructose / glucose breakdown is simply to show HFCS is not some alien product. No doubt the extra fructose makes it marginally worse, but not at the level HFCS is demonized.
2) More importantly - [I am not saying table sugar is good] - I am saying Lustig overly demonizes sugar. Like, it's his answer to every problem and lacks any nuance. It's intellectually lazy and just as dangerous as saying sugar is totally fine.
Let's go over some reasons why. [Just as a background I have studied and taught nutrition / exercise physiology and sometimes act as well trained athlete and have focused on all the review of relevant literature for a decade or so (but not so much the last 5 years)]
Lustig likes to say sugar is literally poison. In the real world, the dose-response relationship needs to be discussed.The ability to handle sugar intake is dependent on metabolic activity. Sedentary folks have say 25 grams (or 50?) of fructose that their liver can metabolize and use as energy before excess is converted into fatty acids (like 200 calories of sugar). However if you are more active, you will have more leeway and a larger amount of sugar that your body can handle. The most extreme case of this is in endurance athletes, where optimal performance actually needs 50 g/hr of a glucose/fructose mix. That stuff is just metabolized for ATP rapidly. It's not poison.
Lustig joins the low-carb folks who incorrectly hatch onto the demonization of insulin spikes as the holy grail of fat accumulation and diabetes, though neither are proven. Low-carb diets have been shown time and time again to not be any better at managing body weight / body fat than other diets, because fat gain / loss is not about insulin alone.
Sugar certainly causes an insulin spike / drop, but has never been shown to actually mess up insulin regulation directly. You can bring up all the associative studies you want. If sugar was such a disastrous chemical that caused diabetes, it would have been clearly shown. You can go google it and find all the medical websites noting how it's not proven.
Does sugar, along with fat and other processed foods contribute to obesity? F yeah. Guess what, you can binge eat on salty fatty food and get obese and get type II diabetes just as well.
TLDR:
Sugar is bad because the food and drinks its in promote taking in more calories than you burn off. Back in the day, people were more active so they could handle more fructose (and ironically had less exposure to it).
Is taking in lots of sugar bad? Yes. Does context matter? Yes. Is sugar the poison of the earth that causes all our problems like Lustig likes to push? No
Clinically an idiot is someone with the mentation of a 2 year old. Imbeciles are up to the mental ability of a 7 year old. Morons are up to the mental ability of a 12 year old.
Edit: as an example my wife always calls me an idiot just to be clinically correct.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Oversimplified, because the difference in those curves when they diverge is actually taken up by ARTIFICIAL sweeteners. The food lobby groups don't want you to know that, but artificial sweeteners, while zero calorie themselves, promote additional consumption of food because they trigger the hunger centers of the brain.
So, while technically you might be correct in this one graph, you are missing the forest for . . . the grass blades.
I think you're completely missing the point of the chart that I included as a global environmental context of the problem of refined sugar. Single ingredients have been both demonized and lionized by the media and by big food, and its the global change in diet and liefstyle that generates risks for the major diseases (Especially the big four diseases of aging that are breaking the bank – coronary artery disease/stroke, cancers, type II diabetes/obesity, or diaobesity as it's called, and neurodegenerative disorders, particularly Alzheimer's disease).
If you would actually look carefully at the chart you will see that our ancient environment could only supply sugar and carbs in the form of fruits and vegetables (and perhaps a very small amount of honey, wine and few ancient grains that were not common in hunter gatherer groups). So I agree with you if you are suggesting that you have to see the big picture of all those changes. I would disagree with you however if you're suggesting that refined sugars are not a huge part of that big picture alteration.
The other issue that you're leaving out is microbiome alteration associated with sugary foods. There's lots of evidence that microbiome tilt in a pro-inflammatory direction with increased Intestinal permeability (leaky gut) is a direct consequence of both sugary diets as well as artificial sweeteners. As others have mentioned, despite the increased use of artificial sweeteners, obesity continues to go up. How much is this because of microbiome effects, versus Direct effects from sweeteners on the energy homeostat in our brains is another open question. Microbiome itself may have effects on energy homeostasis which is regulated by the hypothalamus. So there are plenty of reasons why sugary diets may lead to weight gain. A calorie in other words is not simply a calorie (this highly quoted and popular doctrine in nutrition circles is simply dead wrong) because some calories increase our craving for more calories whereas other calories do not. If you're skeptical about this Google "leptin resistance" – This is seen even in endurance athletes suggesting that this has nothing to do with fitness.
We still don't know to what extent so-called healthy diet patterns (Paleolithic or perhaps Mediterranean or other Non-Western diet pattern but with minimal processed carbs and minimal dairy) are healthy due to their effect on the microbiome, and to what extent they are healthy simply because direct effects on our metabolism. I'm sure it's a mix. But it is pretty hard to separate out those factors both experimentally and mechanistically. In any case, in the quantities that we are consuming sugar, the evidence as my senior physician colleague dkp_Duke emphasizes, is simply overwhelming that those dietary patterns, including perhaps most especially the consumption of high fructose corn syrup in sodas and in other foods, is a proven risk factor for type II diabetes and obesity. There simply a pretty straight line between those issues. If you are seeking to deny or minimize that I would suggest you seek a career as a publicist for Big Food. They'd be very appreciative. I say this in part because the only other people who I've ever seen advance your argument are in fact apologists/publicists for Big Food.
As for endurance athletes, you need to look up gluconeogenesis. Glycogen and fat stores are quickly turned into glucose which is quickly metabolized into ATP. Even with a blood glucose of 100 (essentially a pre- or prodromal diabetic level), that's not enough to supply much physical activity without this hepatic mechanism. So the idea that athletes need to load up on sugar directly is metabolically/scientifically misinformed.
Last edited:
Lol I definitely don't disagree that sugars / artificial sweeteners / fat don't promote additional food consumption.
But if you think like Lustig that sugar is poisoning you via excess fructose the liver can't handle...
Artificial sweeteners aren't doing that.
The point is it's way more complex than Lustig makes it seem.
Similar threads
