Recent comments in /f/science

TinFoilHeadphones t1_j7xgrnp wrote

Oh, that explains. I thought he said such a specific number as 81mg because of some calculations. I couldn't understand why such a weird number.

(I don't live in the USA, so measurements here are different)

1

CotyledonTomen t1_j7xfnfk wrote

Its possible to over eat on food considered healthy. Its easier to feel sated on low calorie, high density foods, but you cant say eating the equivalent number of calories in burgers with toppings, wouldnt lead to the same result, without a study anyway.

5

lalapine t1_j7xecob wrote

Heparin is a bit different than lovenox. I was having a weird reaction to lovenox but did fine with heparin. Heparin is shorter acting so usually is taken more often than lovenox (twice daily instead of once daily).

1

JaelPendragon t1_j7x9eqs wrote

Irrelevant whether I'm in the minority or not (and congrats for failing to read and understand my pointless personal anecdote claim, where I mention being slightly hungry but whatever), it is still a personal anecdote which has no value. Just like yours. Go educate yourself about how science works

2

skoolofphish t1_j7x7vdu wrote

Yeah I stayed at a farm out there for a bit years ago and the stuff they grew was so strong I could barely handle it and I'm a long time smoker! They know what they're doing out there for sure.

4

memetunis t1_j7x7838 wrote

I go to a clinic to have my port flushed, which is done with heparin. Each room has a sign stating they don't store large amounts of heparin on site, similar to what you see with opioids. Do you know why this would be? I have asked the nurses but they weren't aware.

8

pspahn t1_j7x6iax wrote

They say heparin, but is enoxaparin/lovenox the more specific name?

So instead of daily injections you could take low dose aspirin instead?

My wife is not going to be happy about the timing of this news (pregnant and taking lovenox.)

−3

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7x5j76 wrote

Thank you for pointing this out. It was exactly my point in my comment. How can caloric restriction be said to lead to better health and longevity when it's inextricably linked to better diets? Wouldn't the better diet be assumed to be the real determinant? Is calorie restriction necessary at all or is it simply better diets that lead to better health and longevity? I think the answers are pretty clear, particularly when you consider what's known about the diets and cultural factors of so-called blue zones.

17

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7x4cjp wrote

A healthy diet is one which contains a low amount of animal products and highly processed foods along with a good amount of fiber. In recent years we have become aware of the effects of highly processed foods in our gut microbiome and how chronic diseases are linked to inflammation caused by poor diets.

Calories being equal, a serving of plainly cooked farro is healthier than a serving of white bread in the same manner that a serving of grapes is healthier than a serving of wine, etc. because of the inflammatory effects and associated chronic diseases linked to highly processed foods.

We have known for a while that calorie restriction works, we don't know why it works, there are various competing theories. People do not like to be hungry, it affects their mood and their cognitive abilities. The point of my comment was to stress that it may not be necessary to restrict calories in order to promote health, that link has not been definitively established because the cause for improved health and longevity through caloric restriction has not been determined.

−1

creggieb t1_j7x3ws6 wrote

Trust me its not weaker, Maybe if you compare the beat outdoor ever, with the worst indoor. Its not like its perfectly sunny, or bug free with a nice vpd outdoors for the entirety of the plants life.

I can literally turn my grow light up to the point where the plant is suffering from light burn. Where the solution is to turn the light down, or move it away.

Outdoor might cost less , but its for concentrates, not smoking

1