Wondering if the large number of semiconductor fabs has anything to do with this? These fabs like to be in flat areas with stable temps and access to water. Places like Arizona and Texas are the best places for these types of facilities and they use boat loads of electricity.
Haven't look up the numbers but it's possible that this and other industrial facilities consume a large amount.
You say this as if you have complete control over your thoughts and the content of your sub conscious mind, which you don’t...
Half the battle of accomplishing anything in life is priming your subconscious mind with the right line of thinking for the task at hand. If you reframe it that way this is fantastic advice.
Edit: I might also add your subconscious mind could very well be considered a separate entity considering it exists out of the full range of your conscious brains influence.
It doesn't make any sense to 'control your own thoughts'. It's weird how people seem to picture their 'real self' as some disparate nonphysical entity in their body pulling levers, in this case even separate from the brain and thoughts
I think you missed the entire point of the article. The "real" thing is subjective and varies from person to person depending on their experience with the subject.
If someone else had no trouble creating art then this situation simply doesn't apply to them. That person might have a different part of the process that gives them trouble that they SHOULD be practicing.
For Eric, practicing the thing he had trouble with over and over was the best way for him to get over his struggles. Now he can move onto the next thing he needs to work on and continue to make progress.
Sounds like you didn't respond to your bodies natural negative feedback mechanism. You are bashing the method when in this case you were completely responsible for the failure.
He never says in the article to keep doing something even if it is painful. If you went for a run and experienced pain, I think it would be safe to start trying to stretch or figure out why this happens.
This is still compatible with the method he recommends here.
Sure, I agree it was stupid and don't mean to reject responsibility for my actions, but I do think this sort of behavior could be encouraged by the OP's advice. For one, it's quite hard for someone who is not doing sports, to judge what kind of pain you should push through and what kind of pain you shouldn't. If you don't do proper research it's easy to get reached first by memes like "no pain, no gain" etc.
And your refinement of the advice only coincidentally happens to work because my injury was non-acute. There's plenty of sports where you can seriously hurt yourself if you don't know what you're doing, without any prior warning.
And the advice also only works under the assumption that you get multiple chances, that you will not catastrophically fail on your first go. All of the following sound absurd:
- if you want to fly an airplane, just fly an airplane
- if you want to build bridges, just build a bridge (not a toy one, that's not "the real thing", one that people will actually use)
- if you want to skydive, just knit a parachute and jump out of a plane
Of course, you'll say that that's not what you or the OP mean with "doing the real thing" and they're obviously insane. But they're just edge cases to prove a point, you don't need to fail this catastrophically to cause serious harm. OP writes about someone rejecting a job that requires fluency in French, without posting any details about that job, then judges the person for rejecting that job out of hand. That is just crazily irresponsible, it may very well have been a job where she has to communicate in French with French-speaking clients, and where a miscommunication might cost her company a large contract, cost her or her colleagues their jobs, or just sink the company altogether.
I think if your advice has this many edge cases where it is harmful, you should think carefully about who you are delivering it to. I'm not saying it is bad advice in all circumstances, it might be exactly what some people need to hear. But it is bad advice to broadcast unqualified.
I think for your first point, you're definitely reading into it too much...
As for you second point, what kind of proof do you need? Do you want scientific studies that dive way too deep into specifics and are not applicable to real life? This article is targeted towards learning, which varies heavily from person to person and can be very subjective. Think about it from your perspective and see if the ideas apply to what you do. Simple as that.
For your third point, yeah sure real and fake are pretty subjective. In the end it's obviously up to you to decide or come to a decision about what is and what isn't. Our gut instinct usually fails here thought...
However, to address the point about learning Japanese, I would argue that taking the time to learn before doing so is the "fake" way. How do children learn a language if they can't use a computer or phone to get on Duolingo or go to a community college to take a course? They literally just are exposed to it and pick it up over time.
People may not know his background but he is a prominent figure when it comes to language learning and his strategies are to replicate natural learning methods and ignore the canned courses like Duolingo that don't do you any good...
How do you explain what Dave Feldman refers to as the lipid triad which is common in people that are on a low carbohydrate diet?
In this case, there is not sufficient evidence that those who have elevated HDL, LDL and low triglycerides have higher rates of cardiovascular disease...
not familiar with this fellow but if I had to guess I would say that in some cases ldl-c (volume) is high while ldl-p (count) is low leading the ldl not to cause as much damage as it a high number of particles
Why would our bodies need to evolve to follow them when the mechanisms are already built-in?
Our body already contains the necessary pathways, enzymes and processes to switchover to utilizing fat as fuel. We quite literally evolved to do this...
That being said, I think this adaption was more of an energy conservation mode for when food was scarce rather than our ancestors intentionally eating in a ketogenic compatible manner.
> That being said, I think this adaption was more of an energy conservation mode for when food was scarce rather than our ancestors intentionally eating in a ketogenic compatible manner.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. I am aware that humans have the capability of surviving on a ketogenic diet, but that doesn't support the argument I was replying to that following such a diet is what we evolved to do.
You must not know too many people that have taken statins...
Sure, on paper, the LDL number goes down and according to the numbers you have a lower risk of heart attack, but the one common thing I've notice is that everyone complains that they feel terrible. Things like dizziness, nausea, low energy/libido, etc...
Let's not forget that it takes mainstream science time to catch up to new research. There is a lag in existing beliefs while more research is being done and evidence solidified.
That being said, lipidology is extremely complex but in the case of low carbohydrate diets the issue of having high LDL and HDL may not be as bad as mainstream medicine would make it out to be.
For some interesting insights on research being conducted in this field, Thomas Dayspring and Dave Feldman are extremely knowledgable and explain things quite well.
edit: I would also argue that his subjective feelings of good health are a much better indicator than the population-averaged cholesterol numbers...
edit2: to say that this type of research is outside of mainstream medical advice is misleading. Lipodology is a prominent topic and a quick pubmed search for the "lipid" keyword since 2018 shows over 60k results. In medicine there is rarely a such thing as "settled" science. Things are continuously researched with new questions and information is used to update our original hypothesis. To refer to current advice as set in stone is very naive...
> That being said, lipidology is extremely complex but in the case of low carbohydrate diets the issue of having high LDL and HDL may not be as bad as mainstream medicine would make it out to be.
I'd 100% agree with this. But "your cholesterol sky rocketing a good sign" is not something the evidence currently shows.
> that everyone complains that they feel terrible. Things like dizziness, nausea, low energy/libido, etc...
Statins definitely have side effects, just on balance it leads to better cognitive outcomes instead of worse ones.
It's true that it takes time for mainstream science to catch up. But new preliminary research is new and preliminary and when it goes wrong it goes wrong more catastrophically than solid mainstream science.
> I'd 100% agree with this. But "your cholesterol sky rocketing a good sign" is not something the evidence currently shows.
"sky-rocketing" is a definite over-exaggeration here.
I would be curious to see what your response is to the link I posted in another comment here.
I am wondering how people that still reference these dated outlooks on cholesterol can explain why there is insufficient evidence of higher cardiovascular disease rates in those with high LDL in the presence of high HDL and low triglycerides, commonly called the "lipid triad"?
What the parent comment initially stated would lead me to believe that he falls into this lipid triad group and if I was in his shoes I would tell any doctor that recommended a statin to f* off if I had just started feeling the best I'd ever had in my life.
Also, can you send me some research for your points about statins having an increase in cognitive function? My understanding was that many were arguing the opposite and some meta-reviews I read on the topic suggested that more evidence was needed to make any clear observations.
Not trying to be nitpicky but urine sticks are notoriously unreliable:
False-positive when you are first starting because you are not well adapted to utilizing ketones and urinate out most of the BHB.
False-negative when you are well adapted because usable fuel will not be wasted in urine.
It is generally accepted that the only foolproof way to truly know if you are in ketosis is to do a blood BHB measurement.
Other than that, I would only comment that it seems there are certain phenotypes that have much more success with low carb diets and vice versa with high carb diets. I don't think it is as easy as dismissing it because you had a poor experience.
Also, not particularly a fan of many of the observational nonsense coming out of both camps (low carb vs plant based) over the last few years. There was a HN article posted a while back but we really have a legitimacy problem in nutritional science right now. P-value hacking and nonsense correlation is just far too common and then most never read the study to get the true story behind the results.
Finally, this is anecdotal but I have known people whose libidos have dropped on low carb diets and also others who lost libido when they went most vegan (whole food, plant based). This supports the idea:
"Figure out what works for you and ignore the rest."
I agree with most of what you said. Yes sticks are unreliable, but I know my way around food and know how to keep my daily intake of carbs to be <40-50gr/day and sticks were just another easy to get data point to confirm what I was doing, but yes, it is anecdotal experience.
And yes, food research is very problematic. Some reasons are valid, for example we will probably never have randomized double blind placebo control study on various food intake patterns which lasts years or decades because it would cost too much and is very hard to do. But we can draw at least some conclusions based on the weight of evidence that we have. My only "problem", setting anecdotes aside, is that people jump on latest trends and make a cult out of it, when there are not even low quality observational studies to support what they claim. For example lately carnivore diet pops up too often with magical claims.
There are differences between people, and some will thrive on some diets where others would be miserable. But that is why we need to find the biggest common ground for all of us first then optimise on differences. Cut all the fluff and pointless optimisations in the beginning, first stick to the most basic things : eat real food, move moderately, sleep well, don't drink alcohol or at least not too often or daily, try to be less reactive (less stressful), do it for a few months and then try to optimise for your ticket in the gene lottery.
The carnivore diet is definitely at the nearly pure anecdote stage right now haha
Let's not forget most diet trends start at that point until someone decides to the take the anecdotes seriously and start researching it more.
I agree with your conclusions about interpreting research and find that weighing the evidence combined with some well defined n=1 trials on yourself can do wonders.
Haven't look up the numbers but it's possible that this and other industrial facilities consume a large amount.