I have heard this too, and that cholesterol measurements are flawed because they don't account for particle size. That you can actually have better 'numbers' but worse results, if you reduce particulate size but also overall volume. It's frustrating that the science behind cholesterol is constantly in wild flux, but at any discrete moment you're expected to accept whatever the momentary consensus is.
Interestingly, my dentist, who also has a bit of a fixation on cholesterol on a personal level and is educated on the matter, has said that a heart calcium scan is the best way to determine what someone's target cholesterol number should actually be, and that it should not be the same from person to person.
This was after I voiced my frustration to him at having made lifestyle changes to get my cholesterol down in order to avoid getting put on statins (not wanting yet another daily drug if I can avoid it), getting the my number below the target of 110, only to shortly after that find out that they'd lowered it to 70. I talked to my endocrinologist about it, and she basically said "yeah, those numbers are more-or-less unachievable. But we want to be extra careful for type 1 diabetics, so we hold them to a higher standard. Either way, everyone gets put on statins at some point anyway, so who cares?"
I'm absolutely allergic to "everyone goes on x medication, so stop whining and go on x medication" as a medical argument, and will probably just deal with being labelled non-compliant over this one unless my cholesterol reaches a level I actually personally find to be too high at this point. Which sucks to have to do, but hey, it's my body after all, and so far doctors have failed to make a convincing case for me personally here.
Significant inflammation reduction, which is another factor in ASCVD. More plaque sticks to you the more inflammation there is. It's a feedback loop, as well. There are some that will even claim inflammation is the real villain in ASCVD, not atherogenic particles. That's not the majority position and ignores a metric ton of research, but what both camps are in agreement on is that more inflammation makes the situation worse.
Another is that they help stabilize plaque - by calcifying it. Which sounds like a bad thing, until you realize some of the greatest risks here come from plaque breaking off, which soft plaque is way more likely to do. Calcified plaque restricts bloodflow, but doesn't throw bits of it off to cause even bigger issues.
VLDL is worse than regular LDL but high LDL in general is an issue. The science here isn't "If your LDL is denser everything is just peachy and you can be fine with 100 LDL," it's "You might be anywhere between significantly worse and marginally better than your numbers suggest"
If your LDL is in the 80s, you are almost certainly progressing plaque buildup regardless of all other factors. It won't be particularly fast in most people, maybe not even enough to matter over your lifespan unless you have other risk factors. If everything is favorable, you might see a halt or slow regression in the 70s, but this is like perfect storm levels of factors.
Most people need to be below 60 to start see soft plaque begin to retreat, with under 55 being the general target for high-risk individuals that need regression.
Your endo is right that basically no one gets there without some form of medication. It sucks, but it's also reality.
> my dentist, who also has a bit of a fixation on cholesterol on a personal level and is educated on the matter, has said that a heart calcium scan is the best way to determine what someone's target cholesterol number should actually be, and that it should not be the same from person to person.
Your dentist is an idiot and very much obviously not educated on the matter and should stick to teeth. CAC is a huge trailing indicator because it shows only calcified plaque. Plaque exists and blocks arteries long before it is calcified. 5+ years. People regularly have massive arterial soft plaque buildup with minimal or 0 calcium scores. And soft plaque is almost always the part that ruptures and breaks away and you throw a clot resulting in a heart attack or stroke.
A CCTA will let you see soft plaque which could potentially help give you a better understanding of just how aggressive you need to be... But the problem there is that the target for everyone should still be keeping their LDL as lower than we have been targeting for years. And if they have other atherogenic particle load, like high Lp(a), then that numbers needs to be commensurately lower to account for the combined load.
I'm not telling you to go on statins. I'm not your doctor. I'm not a doctor at all. But I do have risk factors that require I pay careful attention to this sort of thing, and I spend a lot of time reading research here because I like being alive and want to stay alive in a generally healthy state for as long as I can. And if you are the same, then, well, I would suggest listening to your doctors. They're telling you to get your LDL to that level because they think it will improve your health outcomes, and the vast, huge, overwhelming majority of research over the past decades points towards lowering LDL as being hugely important for improving ASCVD outcomes in at-risk populations across a wide variety of study types, including MR genetic studies looking at health outcomes in people that effectively do not produce LDL in their liver (in fact these studies are what really inspired the class of medicine in the article to begin with) and they basically just don't die of ASCVD. You have other options besides statins, too. Ezetimibe. These new inhibitors - hopefully the small molecule version will be more accessible than the MAB version.
Last time I looked into anki was years ago, and I ended up giving up after researching it and finding a billion videos all claiming the default settings are terrible and you have to set up an elaborate bunch of settings nobody could agree on to actually get effective SRS spacing. Are the defaults better now? I never really got into anki because I couldn't get a good handle on how to set it up effectively
I don't know what's the default, but you basically just have to pick the FSRS algo and you're good. That one is actually based on scientific research: https://github.com/open-spaced-repetition
Idk, I've been meaning to get around to music flash cards because quick recall has honestly become a bottleneck for me in musical situations. I think it's pretty huge even for learning scales, which you should be able to derive from facts which I should but don't have memorized. Some of examples of cards that would be of high utility to me:
- What are the sharps in the key of E? (can be derived using the circle of fifths, but is better to do that with random practice until it's deeply internalized and eventually memorized, helps memorize info on the circle of fifths as well)
- What is the 5 chord in the key of G? (can be generalized to all chords in all keys)
- What is the relative minor of A?
- What scale is A dorian (or any mode) the ionian (or any other mode) of?
- What scale degrees are raised in mixolydian (or any other) mode?
- What chords are 2 5 1 in (key)?
- What are the chord degree numbers for an F-turn in c?
- What are the chords for an f-turn in c?
- What are the numerals for the andalusian (or any other) cadence?
The more I think about it, the more I think analyzing common progressions and how they often fit together via flashcards would be huge for actual in-practice musicianship as well, but I on't belabor that by adding more here. Most of these can be derived from the circle of fifths, but building the connections from repeatedly doing that over and over again is invaluable and there's so so much more you could make just reviewing the relationships there than what I have listed here.
It would also be interesting to make flashcards for practicing audiation, I can pretty easily imagine how a major, aolean, mixolydian, or harmonic minor scale sounds but am not nearly as clear on all the other ones should sound and couldn't hum them on demand.
What do you use to monitor this? I don't really keep a close enough eye on my services to know what the traffic is doing (and haven't had any issues) but maybe I should start
I just tailed the web logs for a bit and saw that it was wild. For fun, I fed 10 minutes of logs into an AI and it picked up a lot of signal I didn't catch at first glance, like clients claiming to be MSIE 7 on Android 3 and such. I added some reject rules to the webserver in front of Forgejo but that only made a dent in the traffic, alas.
If they just had a back option that was a foot higher, I'd seriously consider buying one of these to use as a mini camper. I feel like they were so close!
Edit: damn, bed length: 5 feet. Wonder if they could get an extra foot in the other direction as well, although I'm guessing all that would eat into range.
You missed the K2 part of his comment though. Both my mother and I have chronically tested incredibly low for vitmain D, both always taken supplements, both never had improvement. A couple years ago, my mom texted me saying she tried a D3+K2 supplement and for the first time in her life tested in range for vitamin D on her panel. I was skeptical but tried it, and have tested in normal range since.
People usually make the determination by reading at least part of the text and then find multiple smoking guns / llm-isms
The comment you responded to did not have those.
Fwiw, the article we're commenting on was likely not LLM written. The sentence structure is too convoluted, no LLM would've generated it like that - unless very carefully prompted ... But at that point it's no longer pure AI slop (imo).
I am curious about these 'smell' comments, or at least how you're supposed to react to it. The last time I got pulled over, the cop commented multiple times that something smelled like marijuana, and he asked if I had been smoking or had friends that smoked.
I said I hadn't and didn't know anybody who did. It's true that I don't and had not been around any and there's no way my car smelled like drugs. I think I was on the verge of heat stroke and basically didn't respond with any level of stress to anything he said. I was being pulled over for driving without a seatbelt, which I almost never do, but it was 95 degrees and my AC was broken and I couldn't bring myself to put my back against the chair (plus I was in the middle of nowhere).
Another cop also showed up reasonlessly to hang around behind the other one with his lights on after awhile (I'd pulled into a gas station), which I think was also supposed to freak me out. I ended up excusing myself to go stand in the gas station to cool down and when I came back they were gone
How to react to it is exactly what that video covers. Basically - don’t try to explain/justify it. It could be anything - maybe you drove through a cloud of pot smoke? Who knows. The advice from the video is to say you exercise your right not to discuss what you ate or smoked and ask if you’re detained or free to go.
I have a framework 13. It looks like eventually you'll be able to upgrade the chassis to the pro one, including the battery, for under 200? Am I reading this right? That's borderline unbelievable to me
I've always thought I'd like to visit Japan someday, but have always been worried about the cultural significance and omnipresence of white rice. Like, I can see how not eating rice would seem boorish (like you only want to eat the more expensive proteins, don't understand the purpose of a palate cleanser, etc), but living with type 1 diabetes I have not eaten white rice in literal years. Every single time I do, I regret it -- it's a complete nightmare to control your blood sugar after, sometimes for the entire rest of the day. I've even wondered if I could find a way to avoid being impolite by deliberately under eating the whole time if I were to visit, to make it clear I'm not just taking the good stuff and leaving the rice out of greed.
Interestingly, my dentist, who also has a bit of a fixation on cholesterol on a personal level and is educated on the matter, has said that a heart calcium scan is the best way to determine what someone's target cholesterol number should actually be, and that it should not be the same from person to person.
This was after I voiced my frustration to him at having made lifestyle changes to get my cholesterol down in order to avoid getting put on statins (not wanting yet another daily drug if I can avoid it), getting the my number below the target of 110, only to shortly after that find out that they'd lowered it to 70. I talked to my endocrinologist about it, and she basically said "yeah, those numbers are more-or-less unachievable. But we want to be extra careful for type 1 diabetics, so we hold them to a higher standard. Either way, everyone gets put on statins at some point anyway, so who cares?"
I'm absolutely allergic to "everyone goes on x medication, so stop whining and go on x medication" as a medical argument, and will probably just deal with being labelled non-compliant over this one unless my cholesterol reaches a level I actually personally find to be too high at this point. Which sucks to have to do, but hey, it's my body after all, and so far doctors have failed to make a convincing case for me personally here.