I’ve always thought night jobs should have limitations on how long an individual can consecutively work an overnight shift to limit the toll it takes on mental and physical health.
My dad preferred to work the night shift because it was less stressful at his workplace. He tried day shift a couple of times, but always ended up going back to nights by choice. For that reason, I have trouble agreeing with your suggestion, but I understand that you mean well.
> Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than [..]
to
> Lack of sunlight during the day has a larger effect on your bio rhythms then [..]
but that effect isn't per-se bad
it's bad if you life is out of sync with your bio rhythms to a point where it can have sever effects on you mental and physical health
also additionally the way various factors can affect (mainly but not exclusively) shift our bio rhythms there is also the fact that people have various "dispositions" (not the right scientific term), dispositions which also change with age and which seem to have naturally evolved to improve the survival chances of human by making sure that in a pack of human (\j) there is always someone "fit" to spot danger/react fast/etc.
the reason I'm pointing that "dispositions" out is because they can have a major affect on how likely (and more important how much) the bio rhythms of a person and their life with night shifts are out of sync
as far as someone like me who doesn't know much about sleep science can tall the most harmful think is the switch between night and day shift making your bio rhythms fall completely out of sink (leading to fun thinks like potentially constantly increasing exhaustion every day) and/or the bio rhythms not adapting to night shifts
worse as far as I can tell from personal experience there can be a big mismatch between what your bio rhythms are and what your "habits of sleep/work" are, especially if other factors like huge external stress come into play :\
Anyway examples of people living healthy lives with unusual bio rhythms (longer, shorter, shifted) are quite many.
Places that limit overnight shifts tend to have variable shifts - folks will work all three shifts, have one night a week, and so on. This definitely takes a toll on mental and physical health - just in a different way. At least with regular overnight shifts, you can get into some sort of rhythm with regular sleep and eating times.
The other solutions mean things like paying folks more so they can work fewer days (make a full time salary in 3-4 days a week), but few places are going to do that and taxpayers are going to foot some of that bill - some pretty vital places have staff at night. 911 operators, police and fire services, snow plowing, nursing homes and hospitals tend to need around the clock staffing.
>... circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
Is this about that circadian rhythm line? It look true, if not under-stated. Shift between nights and days was one of the major constant things throughout the evolution of life. And the influence of this rhythm goes deeper than just physiology - it reaches a molecular level. Almost every cell in the body has a mechanism for keeping internal time of the day [1]. And they are kept in synch through suprachiasmatic nucleus, mainly via the light through the retina, changes in temperature, and food intake [2].
It is so prevalent, that even small things, like your sense of smell or which nasal side is more active and which one is congested falls under circadian regulation [3].
I doubt it's that the circadian rhythm is news to the person you're replying to, but rather that that line is fairly badly written, particularly the "want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon" part.
Summarizing:
> [They] are the [...] changes [...] that [...] modulate when we [...] have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
You might be right, thou I don't see that sentence as being exceptionally unclear. The first remark in the OP - stating that this is about fruit flies, made me think they might not have heard about circadian rhythms and were genuinely surprised, as it portrays a certain view often shared by people who have studied little about biology.
The conjunction should be "or" not "and"; and the lack of Oxford comma really, really hurts comprehensibility. Also, including the `in the afternoon` breaks the parallel structure of each of the items in the list.
A couple options to improve:
1. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or, in the afternoon, have asthma attacks or a fever.
2. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or suffer conditions like asthma attacks or fevers.
3. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry (mealtimes), sleepy (nighttime), want sex (??? i didnt know this was a thing), or suffer asthma attacks or fevers (afternoons).
>The conjunction should be "or" not "and"; and the lack of Oxford comma really, really hurts comprehensibility
Only for people unable to understand a sentence in context.
In general, the Oxford comma, or it's lack thereof, rarely, if ever, is a problem - except for grammar geeks (and even those have debated its significance since forever).
>I doubt it's that the circadian rhythm is news to the person you're replying to, but rather that that line is fairly badly written, particularly the "want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon" part
That was the best written part of the description, and was written with a clear intention.
The author wanted to add some more surprising (but still really affected by circadian rhythms) stuff, to make the description more memorable and interesting, even to those that knew the "hungry" and "sleepy" part.
Quote from my mom in social media a few weeks ago: "How does the November cactus know that it's November?" with a picture of the flowering cactus. We don't have a true Arctic night at these latitudes, but thanks to the mountains it's close.
> Question. During your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you mentioned that 50% of our genes were regulated by circadian rhythms, but in your talk you said that it is at least 70%?
> Answer. I have updated the figure due to new research done over the past six years. The 50% figure came from research in rodents, but in 2019 there was a large study done on baboons, the first in primates, and [the figure] went to 70%.
I took these figures to also apply to the relevance of the title, which is a quote from the article?
I don't know about asthma attacks, but body temperature is linked to the circadian rhythm (your body temperature is lower during the night). Fevers being influenced by it sounds plausible.
That's how circadian rhythms work, and all of the above are true. The author just picked some more unusual/funny/jarring examples after the staples "hungy and sleepy" to drive his point and give some fun to the article.
There are a few other mfgs, Yuji is another great one, but the best price/performance IMO is SunLike from Seoul Semiconductor. They are in GE Sun Filled and Norb SMILE bulbs in the US.
I remember a blog post entry on HN of someone who turned their corner office/living room into some sunlight simulated thing with high candela bespoke bulbs. Maybe with the search at the bottom you will find it.
No, UV radiation doesn't matter at all for this purpose. The only thing that matters is brightness of the visible spectrum, especially blues and greens. Buy the brightest white light lamp you can find, those that treat Seasonal Affective Disorder are good.
You can't do a 'lumen' lamp. The IR rays are what help. Anecdotally it felt good to cover my hands with the old lamps, and the cfls and LED lights never "felt" good.
Be careful of eye damage. Cataracts form from certain frequencies of blue light, and IR can damage your retina.
(There was an article about some guy with an IR heater on his desk, which was partially faulty, and emitted too much IR in a certain frequency, and damaged his eyes)
My understanding is that typically it isn't an issue, but the hearer malfunctioned, and it was on his desk, and so he was kind of staring at it all day.
I'd take care. Don't stare into the light, for starters.
to regulate circadian rhythm you want something that hits melanopsin, which is optimally excited at 484 nm. most LEDs have a gap in the spectrum there. like another commenter mentioned, waveform has some good products with engineered phosphors. they sell some reels of LED and heat sink channels which I used to make my SAD lamp. shitty ikea, costs a little more and you have to put it together yourself. still cheaper than off the shelf SAD lamps though
Philips has had a series of lights to stimulate the sun during the short day season, that they've been selling in Norway, at least since the nineties. At the moment they've branded them energy up. They are the only brand I've seen selling something like it. But there might be others.
I've had reasonable luck with full spectrum LED grow lights (quantum board). Though you absolutely 100% need a diffuser. Discovered their efficacy by accident after one winter I shared an office with my house plants.
Though looking at the research they are probably putting out enough energy in the blue spectrum to risk cataracts (so do your own safety research).
Adding this to my collection of reasons why remote work is better. My home office has direct sunlight from 10:00-16:00 every day of the year. I've never been to a commercial office that comes close.
You mean why work from home is better _for you_. Can't imagine most people have uninterrupted access to sunlight throughout the day. If we're using personal experiences, I certainly have never lived in a house or apartment where any of the rooms had that luxury.
I've never lived in a house or flat where the rooms didn't have a window. I wonder if that's a regulation here (France), that wouldn't surprise me. Also, the labor law mandates windows and as much natural light as possible in offices.
Eh -- most home offices tend to end up in bedrooms, which in the US are obligated to have a window that a person could fit through (or to have some other secondary exit aside from a door).
One problem is where the window faces. A north-facing window, or a window facing into a hillside or into a courtyard, does not allow sufficient sunlight. In London, my flat is in a Victorian terraced house, and the bedroom I'd use as a home office has a window which only has views of the house next door, and very little natural light. (That said, probably still more natural light than I got in my office, where I'm essentially in a corridor.)
That might be a code where you live, but either it isn't universal or older places are exempt. My first apartment - which still rents out, decades later, had a small windowless bedroom with only a door for an exit. The nearest window was blocked by the kitchen sink.
A large fraction of UV radiation is blocked even by single pane glass.
If the 'health' benefit or bio signal for this effect, requires UV radiation then there is very little that can substitute being outside for 1 or 2 hours a day depending on the season.
If we are talking about humans and the hormones associated with the 24-hour sleep/wake cycle, they are largely influenced by blue light which is in the visible spectrum. It's part of why screens without orange-shifting software will tend to keep you wide awake at night.
Interestingly, red wave (IR) light appears to influence cortisol levels but not melatonin. [1] IR also makes it through windows as any cat can attest.
Getting outside for an hour or two as often as possible, regardless of the season, is probably a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be strictly necessary for modulating circadian rhythms.
I used to work in an office block. I had a corner desk on the southwest of the building overlooking a park, with floor to ceiling glass.
It was miserable. The direct light was blinding during the summer,and during the winter the sun didn't clear the top of the window so I got direct light straight at either me or my screens. I tried every orientation.
COVID solved that problem but the next step was blackout blinds, which defeats the purpose a little
Absolutely. I've been working flex hours for 12 years, and from home for 6 years, and I live in northern europe.
So every winter I actually take a long 2 hour walk during lunch to get some sun. Then I work later once the sun has set.
This should be the standard for all office workers in northern latitudes. But we're so stuck in our ways that we use the same work schedule all year even though the weather is clearly different.
downvoted for what? He could be working there, or served by hacking and want to talk about it. If people post they were in jail in a post about "sunlight during the day", the "in jail for what?" should be expected..
Prior comments from the person suggest Cook County and Illinois within the USA, all in pre-trail as a result of not being wealthy enough to foot a bail bond.
It is legal in the US to utilize solitary confinement methods that are implemented 24 hours a day. [1] There are facilities without windows and some keep the lights on all day and night in their solitary confinement units. [2]
In a recent story, D3f4ult discussed that this happened to him for a year and he was given 24/7 isolation for one year. [2]
I understand that some prisoners are so dangerous that you might want to deny them contact to other prisoners. But you can still provide them with a view of the sky and some fresh air time every day.
USA. Many county and federal jails are built right in the center of dense populated areas like downtowns. They don't want you looking out, they don't want you looking in. Also, they are very space restricted as they cannot grow in any direction, so space for recreation is not available.
I once had to do a deposition with a warden, so I asked him straight out how they got away with this. His answer was "math". Basically he said "Look, jails are short term facilities, the average stay here is 30 days. Nobody is going to come to harm in 30 days."
The problem with the word "average" is that it is very misleading. When say 50% of those arrested are able to bail out within hours, that brings the average down considerably, compared to the other significant part of the population who have been in there up to 11 years waiting for trial.
I vaguely recall a study long ago where they took 2 groups of prisoners of the most dangerous kind and did regular blood work on one group giving them vitamin supplements. After some months the guards chose to leave all the cell doors open, they were sitting in the hallway in groups playing board games, making music, singing, telling stories. The guards thought it was pretty funny. The other group was still doing their gang warfare, getting into fights, making primitive weapons and killing each other.
Lack of D wouldn't be good for the brain. Symptoms of Shortage could be bone pain, muscle weakness, fatigue, cardiovascular disease, asthma etc but those are things you would notice.
I definitely suffered bone pain, muscle weakness and fatigue, even while trying to work out every day. I can't speak for the cardiovascular issues. No asthma. I did try to maintain a low-carb diet for the 10 years I was locked up to try to balance things out.
Most people on HN probably have the privilege to have grown up in a somewhat semi healthy society and now have reasonable decent jobs.
But compared to people which are semi forced to do stuff like working 24h shifts frequently or living in a area with so much noise pollution (and or danger or hunger (it's really hard to sleep if you haven't eaten anything for 30h and not much before that either)) that it's hard to sleep at all. Or which have to work 3 jobs sleeping only 4 hours a night it's really quite privileged.
A privilege which _should be the norm and not having it is inhuman_.
But if we consider that there are _many millions_ of people which do not have it calling it a privilege is sadly not absurd.
I think the word privilege should be reserved for those things which inherently everyone can't have. You can imagine a world where everyone has a flying car, but you can't imagine one where everyone has a personal servant (because then the servants would also have servants, who would have servants etc.)
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
> Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
We already have "Zero Sum" to describe the thing you're talking about. Privilege is a different word, which refers to "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people" (Dictionary.com)
You can try to fight to redefine the word, but recognize you're waging an uphill battle against how everyone else uses it
We need different words for rights, immunities or benefits that everyone can have and rights, immunities or benefits that you necessarily have at other's expense. I have to fight uphill either way, since these two are so often conflated by activists.
But I'm not alone or the first to insist on making the distinction.
Don’t we? I could be wrong but my understanding is that the glymphatic system works very well during sleep. Basically excretory process of the central nervous system
No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn't one (yet). Here is the most likely theory according to Wikipedia:
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
>We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. There's not purpose in a volitional sense in evolution, only effects. We sleep because necessary functions occur when we do and problems happen when we don't.
24 hour cycles are even observed in bacteria and archaea as well as the individual cells in our bodies. If I am understanding correctly, even in pure darkness bacteria will respond to 24-hour cycles of temperature change. Considering this, combined with the critical role of the microbiome in human health and the fact that our bodies tend to get 1-2 degrees cooler when we sleep, it seems our sleep/wake cycle may go even go beyond the brain.
I believe you're trying to assign a design intent behind sleep. Nature doesn't need this. We sleep because it works better than not sleeping, and that's all there is to it.
What is being awake for? When we sleep and dream we connect with some kind of other dimension, incredible places. Animals seem to do as well. Maybe being awake just has the purpose of nourishing the body so that we can sleep, with sleep and dreaming being the meaning of life?
Or it is to conserve energy during the time that we are on the dark side of this spinning globe, since it is difficult to see in the dark.
We have good hints at the reasons : to repair cellular damage caused by reactive oxygen species. Clues pointing in this direction: animals without sleep survive with antixoydants and melatonine evolved as one.
I mean, it's kind of obvious. One is some extra light frequencies that might or might not disturb sleep.
The other is preventing an essential function, there since evolutionary times, the disturbance of which is known to be associated with all kinds of problems, from depression to various cancers and general health.
Even when I lived 60 degrees North of the equator and it was regularly -40 for a daytime high, I always went for a walk on my lunchbreak. Usually the coldest days are the sunniest, and I always felt better for having the sun on my face.
I really noticed the days I wasn't able to - I felt horrible at the end of the day.
My sleep schedule used to just permanently drift forward and it was super awful towards having any kind of regular lifestyle and work was borderline impossible.
Sometime about 1.5 years ago I decided to start walking in the sun for about 30 minutes a day. I have since increased that amount to around 3 hours per day every day. I am no longer able to stay up past say 3 or 4 AM, even if I wanted to ! It is impossible!
If you listen to enough Huberman Labs podcasts you'll hear him talk about the importance of getting some direct sunlight in the morning on a daily basis. Here's one example: https://youtu.be/UF0nqolsNZc
Also in the anecdotes folder, saw a sleep specialist with my (young adult) child and he stressed the importance of getting daily sunlight exposure.
Ah yes the "People living in California forgetting the rest of the work isn't like California" phenomenon - I would love to get sunlight every day but living in the UK that just isn't viable. Sunlight into my eyeballs within 15 minutes of waking up? Forget about it between October and March.
Further evidence to me that humans weren't supposed to stray far from the equator and that I was born in the wrong climate (yes I am working on moving south)
This got to me too. I moved from NY to Paris and the fact that the days are so short in winter doesn't make up for the fact that they are quite long in the summer. I wake up at 6 and there is no sunlight until 8 these days. Even moving to the south of France wouldn't help much.
I live in Norway. My sunrises are a little after 9:30. IN a couple weeks, it'll be a half an hour later. Sunset is before 3 in the afternoon. If you wake up late enough and get lucky enough not to have cloud cover, you can get some weak sunlight that won't be enough to give vitamin D even if you could spend enough time outside without long sleeves on.
Realistically, folks aren't getting sun in the morning.
I'm not looking to move south, though. I moved up here for marriage and the weather has just been a nice benefit.
Whenever people talk about the benefits of direct sunlight, those wavelengths make it through clouds (just to a lesser degree). Whereas 5-10 minutes morning exposure is plenty without clouds, it is recommended to increase to 15-20 minutes during cloud cover. In both cases, face towards (but don't look directly at) the sun for the best effect.
I live in Northern Europe and in this time of years it is not uncommon to have cloudy days with little light (you need lights on indoors) for weeks at a time. I wonder people from before artificial lighting had adaptions to lower light levels.
Not necessarily contradicting this, but even overcast days still have a high amount of sunlight outside. We don't really notice the difference to room lighting because our eyes have a very high dynamic range, but during the day (unless you live in the polar circle), the intensity of sunlight outside (and also the broadness of its spectrum) are much higher than any common indoor lighting.
This is definitely not as black and white as you put it.
Today, where I live (53 degrees latitude, northern hemisphere), the brightest point of the day is just about 100W/m². That converts to about 12000 lumens, but that is only at the very brightest midday hour. Before that or after that, it is only about a third of that. There are plenty of days where it doesn't even reach 100W/m².
On those days, daylight is more dim than regular lamps even at the brightest point of during the middle of the day.
Living in Scandinavia has really made me hate the kind of studies. You have stupid advise like "Get up early and get sun in your eyes first thing in the morning"... Okay so which is it, sleep til' 9:00 or get up early, in the dark? It's the same with, go to bed when it's dark, right now the sun set at 15:40.
If the suggestion is that I reduce my working hours drastically during the winter I'm all for it, but it is getting a little tiresome that supposed scientists completely ignore the fact that a pretty sizeable chunk of the worlds population lives pretty far north and have done so for thousands of years.
The research may very well be right, but it's not particularly useful if you don't address the fact billions of people live in areas where you're recommendation don't make sense.
I'm not a native English speaker yet I have objections with the use of "adapted" in this sentence
The Earth had been spinning on its axis for a billion years when the first living beings appeared. Since then, we have adapted to alternate between light and darkness.
You adapt when the environment was in a state A and changes to state B while you are already there. When you start from "scratch" in a specific stable environment, you develop/grow in that environment, not adapt. Or not ?
LUCA[1] almost certainly didn't care about day/night cycles, so it seems accurate. And even if it had, the ways in which a modern mammal with a central nervous system cares are new changes brought on by the day-night cycle. An organism if an organism is changing in ways that are caused by the a specific environment, it's still adapting to the environment even if the environment isn't continuing to change.
Isn't that change/evolution though ? If the environment didn't change - talking about the very specific attribute of earth axes rotation - is it correct to use "adapt" ?
"Adapt" is perfectly valid here. After all, the beings have changed (evolved). It doesn't matter whether the environment has. Which is also the case - not just the seasons but also huge climate changes and the mass extinctions.
Ah that makes sense then! So in this context it is used in the same sense as evolve. Thanks that not only makes sense but lead me to search with both terms and get this
Sorry. Was being bit sarcastic. Since every single day is a new state, State A and B are different, and we are adapting.
Organisms are continually adapting. So this question seemed to be calling into question the findings because the earth always rotated and so always had a night and day, so State A and B are identical, thus we didn't adapt.
I never heard this before: "Plants produce toxins to avoid being eaten, such as psoralen, which is abundant in celery. Snacking at night introduces toxins that, at that hour, our repair systems are not ready to eliminate. There is also speculation that the major epidemic of epithelial cancers, such as colon cancer, in the U.S. is because of this."
I eat eggs, bacon, beef, and salmon. More than half my calories, maybe more than 75%, come from beef.
One thing you notice is that because there is no fiber or sugar (or carbs of any kind) in the diet, you end up basically never farting -- and the volume of your poop decreases by something like 80%.
You also hold a lot less water weight, your tolerance for alcohol decreases dramatically (although if you were strict about the diet you wouldn't be consuming alcohol anyway), you seem to have much less nasal congestion, and heartburn completely disappears. And your skin feels better.
I've looked into it, and this diet is nutritionally complete -- it is not lacking in any vitamins or minerals. Fresh meat even contains some vitamin C. You can eat some sardines from time to time for extra calcium.
On the whole I can't recommend this diet enough -- you end up in phenomenal shape.
On the other hand, global warming (methane emissions from beef), water crisis (water to grow feed, instead of water to grow food), and wanton animal cruelty (most meat and eggs are industrially farmed and ethically dubious).
It's a diet with lots of externalities, which really shouldn't scale up - Atkins and Paleo were disasters, really. (And it's worth reading about the long term research on the Atkins diet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet )
Worth considering whether you can get similar effects with, say, 50% of the calories coming from plants. It sounds like you're mainly after carb- or gluten-free, which is quite doable without resorting to an all meat diet.
Meh beef emissions are 3% of the emissions in the U.S. That and they could even be far lower with food additives. Globally it's higher but that is because of poor farming practices and very loose/negative regulation.
I did keto for 8 years and it was fantastic. I am no longer on it for other reasons that have nothing to do with the diet itself.
This can't be healthy, can it? Plants give trace minerals, vitamins necessary for life. Not to mention the high-cholesterol and high-blood pressure cauding diseases of the heart by eating a meat-only diet. It's good to cut down on carbs but this seems extreme.
It doesn't seem healthy if you are accustomed to the standard American diet.
One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients, not just how much there are in food. Lots of plants are high in X, but it's not very bioavailable, but nutrients in meat tend to be highly.
It doesn’t seem healthy from basically every diet across the world. The amount of cultures, in history, that consumed only meat is incredibly tiny.
Ignoring that, just the cost alone will be extreme. Oh it’s fine for you, you’re probably consuming garbage meat. Oh you only buy “grass fed” you’re probably buying grass pellet fed meat that has been shown to not have the nutritional diversity of actual grass fed meat.
How is, eat a balanced diet, mostly plants become so controversial.
It became controversial because Big Food co-opted "balanced diet" in the mid 20th century to demonize animal fat and lionize agricultural fat and sugar. All the extreme diets you see are a reaction to that. There is absolutely nothing wrong on a dietary level with the majority of "traditional" diets--whether that is the fish, miso, and rice of Japan or the English meat and two veg. The problems come when you get to introduce a million cheap, tasty calories in the form of added fats and sugars.
Prior to agriculture human beings got the vast vast majority of their calories from meat. We followed a carnivore diet as a species for about 200,000 years until basically yesterday.
This isn’t true. When you look at modern hunter gatherers who don’t practice agriculture today, the bulk of the calories still come from plants they forage rather than meat.
The megafauna extinction was in the Americas. Human coexist with megafauna in Africa: elephant, giraffe, hippo, rhino.
Megafauna don't make much of diet of African hunter-gatherers cause they are a lot of work to hunt. They hunt smaller game. Gathering is much easier and safer.
> It doesn't seem healthy if you are accustomed to the standard American diet.
This is such a low bar that it's not really saying much at all. There are very real reasons why this kind of diet is almost certainly not healthy long term - risk of CVD being the main one.
> One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients
This is not a significant factor that someone should be basing a diet on. Bioavailability is influenced by many factors and the vast majority of people aren't eating enough nutrient-rich foods, period. Optimizing based on bioavailability misses the forest for the trees.
There's a lot of false information out there. Many people on low carb find their cholesterol levels improve and blood pressure lower. Also organ meats are far more nutrient dense than plants and not only that they are more bio-available.
I like the flavor of plants, so I don't do carnivore myself. But you seem to be a few decades behind on the research.
Healthy for who? I have Inuit heritage (Sami) the Inuit pretty much 80 vegetables except for seaweeds. Our genetics have changed because of this diet and we’ve adapted to it to become our healthy diet.
It’s frustrating to me that there is zero talk about genetics when it comes to diet and specifically when it comes to keto because those of us who are carry genetic polymorphisms in our CPT1A gene that makes it harder for us to go into ketosis. Therefore, we do better on a higher meat diet.
That's mainly because any dramatic change feels like a change and they haven't seen the downsides yet. Some downsides take decades to develop with some diets.
And the argument of "now I feel so much better" I have heard it with absolutely every kind of diets. Vegetarians now eating meat. Meat eaters now vegetarians. Paleo. Gluten-free. Crude/Raw...
Atkins, low carb, paleo, keto, carnivore -- diet of the month. Sure but they are very close to the same thing and these have been rolling along for decades. Intermittent fasting and some new drugs are the only things in recent years that seem novel imo.
this is ill-advised and often actually dangerous over time - source: witness to similar approach and after several years an adult damaged their stomach and GI tract (at least)
Perhaps don't focus on cholesterol as the only indicator.
Because you have high cholesterol but have not yet died, does not mean it is safe.
There are countless studies that show meat based diets impact cardo health. That doesn't mean sugar doesn't also. Or if meat good, then carbs bad, or carbs good, meat bad.
It isn't all binary. Generally if you are throwing back a rack of ribs everyday to be 'low carb', then things aren't going to end well for you.
Oreos are vegan -- they would count as plant-based calories in my system. I don't eat any calories that are not animal-based. That includes fruit, nuts, vegetable oils, etc, along with standard vegetables.
Food science is crazy and unreliable (difficult to perform relevant research, many confounding factors, often sponsored by groups with questionable motives, etc). But food anecdata seems just as crazy.
I eat no fiber. If you would just try this diet for yourself then you would realize, just like tens of thousands of other people have, that it makes your bowel movements much smaller and much easier. Literally everyone who tries this diet notices this effect. You spend 80% less time in the bathroom.
What makes you think that smaller stools are somehow better? Smooth, bulky stools with a decent amount of fibre and moisture are ideal. Makes for easier travel, easier passing, and little (or no) wiping.
I'm not interested in spending 80% less time on the toilet (going from less than a minute to 10 seconds just seems like a pointless optimization). I'm also not too interested in the purported anecdotal experience of "tens of thousands" of other people. This diet seems like a terrible idea, both from a bowel health point of view, a climate point of view, and quite frankly a taste point of view.
Not eating vegetables/fibre seems like a miserable existence.
These "toxin" phytochemicals are often very healthy for humans in the levels found in typical foods and weird keto/carnivore diet nuts try to overstate their negative effects and minimize the positive ones. For example psoralen has "antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects" [1].
All vegetables we eat have toxins in them and it's precisely these toxins that benefit most of us when eaten periodically. Eaten daily, vegetable meals are probably unhealthy, just as eating meat daily is probably unhealthy. Mediterranean peoples figured this out a long time ago and expressed these findings in religious rituals and texts, with designated feasting and fasting periods, where a feast means lots of meat and cheese and wine, while a fast means humble meals consisting of bread and vegetables and water.
I'd imagine Northern Europeans would benefit from a similar arrangement, though they're likely better adapted to a different periodicity of feasting and fasting, given the climate and the longer periods where fresh food is unavailable.
It is december. The nights are quickly growing very long. For the next few months I will travel to work before dawn and return home after sunset. And the cold will soon mean i dont go out much during the day. If i work sat/sun during a push period i might not see sun for weeks. Since my health is therefore basically f-ed, I guess I can now take up smoking. Tell all those people working on ships and submarines that they are also free to smoke. Or, perhaps we are more adaptable than we think and annual cycles of darkness are no more dangerous than any number of lifestyles factors. Id bet good money that my risk of skin cancer drops considerably in winter.
I've said this a few times forcefully (as in pound sand) in my career, "nobody remembers a missed release date but they never forget broken features that cost them time".
I live in the upper midwest and, like many other places, don't get much light in the winter. I don't get much light in the summer turns out since I'm inside most of the day anyway, but winter feels worse. A couple years ago I was suggested a SAD lamp, and man did it make a difference. What I've learned this year though, is it isn't enough. It's a small square light that sits in the same place and only comes into your eye at a small angle.
Article[0] came up across a feed which was saying the same thing, and I said screw it, and got two 100W LED corn bulbs[1] that the article suggested, and boy did it make a difference. Literally came mid last week, and for the last 4 days, I've had more energy, better sleep, and felt better than I have in months, years even. Incredible difference for $60.
The corn bulbs are just like light bulbs so they fit into the same sockets (some are bigger, but get the ones that say E26). You can also get specific lamps to put them around. I also got some construction string lights[2] and hanging those on my wall. Makes it almost seem like I'm in a museum which is cool too.
My goal is to get some more lights and make my living / office area legit feel like I'm outside on a summer day. I have a lux meter coming today to be able to see and judge intensity. If it's too intense, I can turn them off like I'm going into the shade.
The importance of letting your body know when it's daytime and nighttime, which is talked about in the article, makes all parts of life better. Eat better, more energy to do things, less angry. Part of me disappointed I didn't know this before, but another part glad that I'm catching on now.
I don't have SAD(at least to a degree I notice), but I do occasionally daydream of having something like this artificial sunlight in my windowless office at work. If only I had more space. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6bqBsHSwPgw
For sure. I'm in Wisconsin, and when I see maps about where Europe would be overlayed compared to the US in terms of latitude, it's a shock. I feel like we get such little light in the winter months, but turns out I live middle of France, while you in the UK is much further north.
I relocated to Redmond, WA for a few years to work at MSFT. Let me tell you, every winter there felt like a sadistic game show called "How Miserable Can You Get?" And boy, did I win!
Thankfully, the good ol' USA is a massive country, so I hit the eject button and moved to FL.
3154 hours of sun in FL compared to 2170 hours of sun in WA. Huuuuuuge difference in mental and physical aptitude. I feel more energetic. More focus, more workouts, more horny, less self loathing.
Florida seems like it’s terrible if you’re white. The weather is actively hostile towards you. People must spend a fortune on sunscreen. The vision of blue eyed people is relatively worse in bright light.
What about Miami? I would not think a black/brown gay or trans person would feel uncomfortable there?
Or is it like the state politics? Like someone who loved Portland might hate eastern Oregon, but the state of Oregon as a majority is more progressive so it’s ok?
Personally I care far more about local politics/culture than state or national politics/culture and would rather be in a state opposed to my way of life, while in a city that isn’t, than vice versa. Though ideally both, but can’t always have it all.
I'm in the PNW and the gray gloomy weather is a delight for me. I love mushroom foraging, love being surrounded by trees, the beautiful waterfalls, the wet hikes, the moss everywhere, the berry picking, everything! I used to live in a VERY sunny state, I found it depressing. Sun irritates me. I never realized how uncomfortable it made me until I moved to a rainy cloud region and felt at home for the first time. Really shows there's something for everyone!
When I was at UW in the dorms I felt bad for the students who came from southeast US, they’d start school like end of September, and then leave beginning of June and go back home and essentially only get the worst of western Washington weather, and miss out on what is absolutely amazing weather and sunshine in the summer months.
If we only experienced western Washington for those months hardly anyone would stay, but those summer months are so incredible it makes it worth enduring the dreary gray for a good amount of people.
The glow lamp I have is ~4x4 inch square panel, and it can get decently bright where I can feel some energy in my eyes and a difference in mood. That's what I've used for the past couple years. The thing I found with it is that it's almost like an orb, where there's energy glowing from it, but the rest of the area is still dark.
With the corn bulbs, it blasts energy and more light all over, which makes a much bigger difference in vibe. I can't comment on the lux difference (I'm actually getting a lux meter today so I can get a better number in comparison), but with more light all over the room, I can feel much more energy overall.
LED light panels are the other thing I think you mention, and I haven't tested with those. I picked corn bulbs to try first. Compared to the marketed mood lamps, the bigger panels would also light the whole room for a better vibe.
I don't think there are dimmable LED type higher power bulbs or panels. On or off for them. I'm planning to get more lights, and then maybe see if there's a way to create shades to put over them to change the color and amount depending on day.
For now, I'm keeping the lamps powered until ~6pm, and then back to the old light I had before to get ready for sleep.
No, I meant gRow lamps that are marketed to help to grow plants indoor, and thus presumably have a light spectrum that is natural (although they also include UV light, so it's not clear if they are safe).
Oh! Good question. Not sure, but having lights that come closer and closer to legit sun shine throughout the day would seem like the ideal end goal. If the grow lights already are tuned for that, then they could definitely good ones to try.
exabrial | 2 years ago
throwaway9980 | 2 years ago
thierrydamiba | 2 years ago
BadCookie | 2 years ago
dathinab | 2 years ago
It doesn't necessary.
You could rephrase the title from
> Lack of sunlight during the day is worse than [..]
to
> Lack of sunlight during the day has a larger effect on your bio rhythms then [..]
but that effect isn't per-se bad
it's bad if you life is out of sync with your bio rhythms to a point where it can have sever effects on you mental and physical health
also additionally the way various factors can affect (mainly but not exclusively) shift our bio rhythms there is also the fact that people have various "dispositions" (not the right scientific term), dispositions which also change with age and which seem to have naturally evolved to improve the survival chances of human by making sure that in a pack of human (\j) there is always someone "fit" to spot danger/react fast/etc.
the reason I'm pointing that "dispositions" out is because they can have a major affect on how likely (and more important how much) the bio rhythms of a person and their life with night shifts are out of sync
as far as someone like me who doesn't know much about sleep science can tall the most harmful think is the switch between night and day shift making your bio rhythms fall completely out of sink (leading to fun thinks like potentially constantly increasing exhaustion every day) and/or the bio rhythms not adapting to night shifts
worse as far as I can tell from personal experience there can be a big mismatch between what your bio rhythms are and what your "habits of sleep/work" are, especially if other factors like huge external stress come into play :\
Anyway examples of people living healthy lives with unusual bio rhythms (longer, shorter, shifted) are quite many.
Broken_Hippo | 2 years ago
Places that limit overnight shifts tend to have variable shifts - folks will work all three shifts, have one night a week, and so on. This definitely takes a toll on mental and physical health - just in a different way. At least with regular overnight shifts, you can get into some sort of rhythm with regular sleep and eating times.
The other solutions mean things like paying folks more so they can work fewer days (make a full time salary in 3-4 days a week), but few places are going to do that and taxpayers are going to foot some of that bill - some pretty vital places have staff at night. 911 operators, police and fire services, snow plowing, nursing homes and hospitals tend to need around the clock staffing.
tripdout | 2 years ago
Also, what?
>... circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex and have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
kkoncevicius | 2 years ago
Is this about that circadian rhythm line? It look true, if not under-stated. Shift between nights and days was one of the major constant things throughout the evolution of life. And the influence of this rhythm goes deeper than just physiology - it reaches a molecular level. Almost every cell in the body has a mechanism for keeping internal time of the day [1]. And they are kept in synch through suprachiasmatic nucleus, mainly via the light through the retina, changes in temperature, and food intake [2].
It is so prevalent, that even small things, like your sense of smell or which nasal side is more active and which one is congested falls under circadian regulation [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_clock
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cycle
kwk1 | 2 years ago
Summarizing:
> [They] are the [...] changes [...] that [...] modulate when we [...] have asthma attacks or a fever in the afternoon.
That does not read clearly to me!
kkoncevicius | 2 years ago
RheingoldRiver | 2 years ago
A couple options to improve:
1. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or, in the afternoon, have asthma attacks or a fever.
2. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry, sleepy, want sex, or suffer conditions like asthma attacks or fevers.
3. circadian rhythms are the 24-hour changes in our physiology that synchronize with the day-night cycle and modulate when we are hungry (mealtimes), sleepy (nighttime), want sex (??? i didnt know this was a thing), or suffer asthma attacks or fevers (afternoons).
coldtea | 2 years ago
Only for people unable to understand a sentence in context.
In general, the Oxford comma, or it's lack thereof, rarely, if ever, is a problem - except for grammar geeks (and even those have debated its significance since forever).
housecarpenter | 2 years ago
ralferoo | 2 years ago
https://desk.thecontentcloud.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/...
coldtea | 2 years ago
coldtea | 2 years ago
That was the best written part of the description, and was written with a clear intention.
The author wanted to add some more surprising (but still really affected by circadian rhythms) stuff, to make the description more memorable and interesting, even to those that knew the "hungry" and "sleepy" part.
vintermann | 2 years ago
ryanjshaw | 2 years ago
In the article it reads:
> Question. During your Nobel Prize acceptance speech, you mentioned that 50% of our genes were regulated by circadian rhythms, but in your talk you said that it is at least 70%?
> Answer. I have updated the figure due to new research done over the past six years. The 50% figure came from research in rodents, but in 2019 there was a large study done on baboons, the first in primates, and [the figure] went to 70%.
I took these figures to also apply to the relevance of the title, which is a quote from the article?
wongarsu | 2 years ago
coldtea | 2 years ago
That's how circadian rhythms work, and all of the above are true. The author just picked some more unusual/funny/jarring examples after the staples "hungy and sleepy" to drive his point and give some fun to the article.
kjkjadksj | 2 years ago
spaceman_2020 | 2 years ago
subhro | 2 years ago
sooheon | 2 years ago
http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/technology/sunlike/casestudy/
User23 | 2 years ago
DoingIsLearning | 2 years ago
twooster | 2 years ago
DoingIsLearning | 2 years ago
anonuser123456 | 2 years ago
ImHereToVote | 2 years ago
hackerlight | 2 years ago
graphe | 2 years ago
bbarnett | 2 years ago
(There was an article about some guy with an IR heater on his desk, which was partially faulty, and emitted too much IR in a certain frequency, and damaged his eyes)
graphe | 2 years ago
bbarnett | 2 years ago
bbarnett | 2 years ago
My understanding is that typically it isn't an issue, but the hearer malfunctioned, and it was on his desk, and so he was kind of staring at it all day.
I'd take care. Don't stare into the light, for starters.
graphe | 2 years ago
hackernewds | 2 years ago
andbberger | 2 years ago
hackernewds | 2 years ago
einarfd | 2 years ago
hackernewds | 2 years ago
dpeckett | 2 years ago
Though looking at the research they are probably putting out enough energy in the blue spectrum to risk cataracts (so do your own safety research).
ryanjshaw | 2 years ago
hackly | 2 years ago
noitpmeder | 2 years ago
hackernewds | 2 years ago
draven | 2 years ago
jwestbury | 2 years ago
One problem is where the window faces. A north-facing window, or a window facing into a hillside or into a courtyard, does not allow sufficient sunlight. In London, my flat is in a Victorian terraced house, and the bedroom I'd use as a home office has a window which only has views of the house next door, and very little natural light. (That said, probably still more natural light than I got in my office, where I'm essentially in a corridor.)
Broken_Hippo | 2 years ago
loloquwowndueo | 2 years ago
throwaway290 | 2 years ago
aiisjustanif | 2 years ago
ryanjshaw | 2 years ago
DoingIsLearning | 2 years ago
If the 'health' benefit or bio signal for this effect, requires UV radiation then there is very little that can substitute being outside for 1 or 2 hours a day depending on the season.
graphe | 2 years ago
InSteady | 2 years ago
Interestingly, red wave (IR) light appears to influence cortisol levels but not melatonin. [1] IR also makes it through windows as any cat can attest.
Getting outside for an hour or two as often as possible, regardless of the season, is probably a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be strictly necessary for modulating circadian rhythms.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905913/
maccard | 2 years ago
It was miserable. The direct light was blinding during the summer,and during the winter the sun didn't clear the top of the window so I got direct light straight at either me or my screens. I tried every orientation.
COVID solved that problem but the next step was blackout blinds, which defeats the purpose a little
INTPenis | 2 years ago
So every winter I actually take a long 2 hour walk during lunch to get some sun. Then I work later once the sun has set.
This should be the standard for all office workers in northern latitudes. But we're so stuck in our ways that we use the same work schedule all year even though the weather is clearly different.
qingcharles | 2 years ago
pelasaco | 2 years ago
Doxin | 2 years ago
hackernewds | 2 years ago
TheSpiceIsLife | 2 years ago
rvba | 2 years ago
sebstefan | 2 years ago
swader999 | 2 years ago
pelasaco | 2 years ago
qingcharles | 2 years ago
konschubert | 2 years ago
Erratic6576 | 2 years ago
actionfromafar | 2 years ago
plugin-baby | 2 years ago
belorn | 2 years ago
(Title: The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange)
buro9 | 2 years ago
aiisjustanif | 2 years ago
In a recent story, D3f4ult discussed that this happened to him for a year and he was given 24/7 isolation for one year. [2]
[1]: https://solitarywatch.org/facts/faq/ [2]: https://journalistsresource.org/home/solitary-confinement-re... [3]: https://darknetdiaries.com/transcript/139/
konschubert | 2 years ago
konschubert | 2 years ago
qingcharles | 2 years ago
jmcqk6 | 2 years ago
it is completely about barbarian, punitive, punishment. it doesn't work, but it makes many of us feel good, so we continue doing it.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK | 2 years ago
qingcharles | 2 years ago
qingcharles | 2 years ago
I once had to do a deposition with a warden, so I asked him straight out how they got away with this. His answer was "math". Basically he said "Look, jails are short term facilities, the average stay here is 30 days. Nobody is going to come to harm in 30 days."
The problem with the word "average" is that it is very misleading. When say 50% of those arrested are able to bail out within hours, that brings the average down considerably, compared to the other significant part of the population who have been in there up to 11 years waiting for trial.
6510 | 2 years ago
Lack of D wouldn't be good for the brain. Symptoms of Shortage could be bone pain, muscle weakness, fatigue, cardiovascular disease, asthma etc but those are things you would notice.
qingcharles | 2 years ago
elchief | 2 years ago
Come on
dathinab | 2 years ago
Most people on HN probably have the privilege to have grown up in a somewhat semi healthy society and now have reasonable decent jobs.
But compared to people which are semi forced to do stuff like working 24h shifts frequently or living in a area with so much noise pollution (and or danger or hunger (it's really hard to sleep if you haven't eaten anything for 30h and not much before that either)) that it's hard to sleep at all. Or which have to work 3 jobs sleeping only 4 hours a night it's really quite privileged.
A privilege which _should be the norm and not having it is inhuman_.
But if we consider that there are _many millions_ of people which do not have it calling it a privilege is sadly not absurd.
vintermann | 2 years ago
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
handoflixue | 2 years ago
We already have "Zero Sum" to describe the thing you're talking about. Privilege is a different word, which refers to "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people" (Dictionary.com)
You can try to fight to redefine the word, but recognize you're waging an uphill battle against how everyone else uses it
vintermann | 2 years ago
But I'm not alone or the first to insist on making the distinction.
godd2 | 2 years ago
Al-Khwarizmi | 2 years ago
_thisdot | 2 years ago
Pyramus | 2 years ago
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep
I-M-S | 2 years ago
kryptiskt | 2 years ago
thfuran | 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. There's not purpose in a volitional sense in evolution, only effects. We sleep because necessary functions occur when we do and problems happen when we don't.
InSteady | 2 years ago
snovv_crash | 2 years ago
rvba | 2 years ago
_kb | 2 years ago
carlosjobim | 2 years ago
Or it is to conserve energy during the time that we are on the dark side of this spinning globe, since it is difficult to see in the dark.
jlpom | 2 years ago
coldtea | 2 years ago
The other is preventing an essential function, there since evolutionary times, the disturbance of which is known to be associated with all kinds of problems, from depression to various cancers and general health.
grecy | 2 years ago
Madmallard | 2 years ago
Sometime about 1.5 years ago I decided to start walking in the sun for about 30 minutes a day. I have since increased that amount to around 3 hours per day every day. I am no longer able to stay up past say 3 or 4 AM, even if I wanted to ! It is impossible!
anotherevan | 2 years ago
Also in the anecdotes folder, saw a sleep specialist with my (young adult) child and he stressed the importance of getting daily sunlight exposure.
simonbarker87 | 2 years ago
Further evidence to me that humans weren't supposed to stray far from the equator and that I was born in the wrong climate (yes I am working on moving south)
waveBidder | 2 years ago
simonbarker87 | 2 years ago
michalf6 | 2 years ago
anotherevan | 2 years ago
Living in the southern hemisphere it's hot here at the moment and were keeping an eye on the bushfire reports.
retsibsi | 2 years ago
(I'm on the combination bushfire and flood website.)
gniv | 2 years ago
Broken_Hippo | 2 years ago
Realistically, folks aren't getting sun in the morning.
I'm not looking to move south, though. I moved up here for marriage and the weather has just been a nice benefit.
InSteady | 2 years ago
stavros | 2 years ago
Think outside the box, wake up at noon.
fy20 | 2 years ago
MauranKilom | 2 years ago
hackerlight | 2 years ago
vlabakje90 | 2 years ago
Today, where I live (53 degrees latitude, northern hemisphere), the brightest point of the day is just about 100W/m². That converts to about 12000 lumens, but that is only at the very brightest midday hour. Before that or after that, it is only about a third of that. There are plenty of days where it doesn't even reach 100W/m².
On those days, daylight is more dim than regular lamps even at the brightest point of during the middle of the day.
adamjc | 2 years ago
mrweasel | 2 years ago
If the suggestion is that I reduce my working hours drastically during the winter I'm all for it, but it is getting a little tiresome that supposed scientists completely ignore the fact that a pretty sizeable chunk of the worlds population lives pretty far north and have done so for thousands of years.
The research may very well be right, but it's not particularly useful if you don't address the fact billions of people live in areas where you're recommendation don't make sense.
gbil | 2 years ago
Symmetry | 2 years ago
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
gbil | 2 years ago
pjc50 | 2 years ago
darkerside | 2 years ago
mwest | 2 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation
gbil | 2 years ago
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/adaptation...
FrustratedMonky | 2 years ago
State A: No Earth
State B: Earth.
Thus, we adapted to Earth.
gbil | 2 years ago
FrustratedMonky | 2 years ago
Organisms are continually adapting. So this question seemed to be calling into question the findings because the earth always rotated and so always had a night and day, so State A and B are identical, thus we didn't adapt.
gniv | 2 years ago
amelius | 2 years ago
jononomo | 2 years ago
msk-lywenn | 2 years ago
jononomo | 2 years ago
One thing you notice is that because there is no fiber or sugar (or carbs of any kind) in the diet, you end up basically never farting -- and the volume of your poop decreases by something like 80%.
You also hold a lot less water weight, your tolerance for alcohol decreases dramatically (although if you were strict about the diet you wouldn't be consuming alcohol anyway), you seem to have much less nasal congestion, and heartburn completely disappears. And your skin feels better.
I've looked into it, and this diet is nutritionally complete -- it is not lacking in any vitamins or minerals. Fresh meat even contains some vitamin C. You can eat some sardines from time to time for extra calcium.
On the whole I can't recommend this diet enough -- you end up in phenomenal shape.
sdenton4 | 2 years ago
It's a diet with lots of externalities, which really shouldn't scale up - Atkins and Paleo were disasters, really. (And it's worth reading about the long term research on the Atkins diet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_diet )
Worth considering whether you can get similar effects with, say, 50% of the calories coming from plants. It sounds like you're mainly after carb- or gluten-free, which is quite doable without resorting to an all meat diet.
nightski | 2 years ago
I did keto for 8 years and it was fantastic. I am no longer on it for other reasons that have nothing to do with the diet itself.
botanical | 2 years ago
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/carnivore-diet#downside...
newsclues | 2 years ago
One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients, not just how much there are in food. Lots of plants are high in X, but it's not very bioavailable, but nutrients in meat tend to be highly.
tashoecraft | 2 years ago
Ignoring that, just the cost alone will be extreme. Oh it’s fine for you, you’re probably consuming garbage meat. Oh you only buy “grass fed” you’re probably buying grass pellet fed meat that has been shown to not have the nutritional diversity of actual grass fed meat.
How is, eat a balanced diet, mostly plants become so controversial.
purpleflame1257 | 2 years ago
jononomo | 2 years ago
kjkjadksj | 2 years ago
jononomo | 2 years ago
ianburrell | 2 years ago
Megafauna don't make much of diet of African hunter-gatherers cause they are a lot of work to hunt. They hunt smaller game. Gathering is much easier and safer.
shlant | 2 years ago
This is such a low bar that it's not really saying much at all. There are very real reasons why this kind of diet is almost certainly not healthy long term - risk of CVD being the main one.
> One overlooked factor is bioavailability of nutrients
This is not a significant factor that someone should be basing a diet on. Bioavailability is influenced by many factors and the vast majority of people aren't eating enough nutrient-rich foods, period. Optimizing based on bioavailability misses the forest for the trees.
nightski | 2 years ago
I like the flavor of plants, so I don't do carnivore myself. But you seem to be a few decades behind on the research.
Podgajski | 2 years ago
It’s frustrating to me that there is zero talk about genetics when it comes to diet and specifically when it comes to keto because those of us who are carry genetic polymorphisms in our CPT1A gene that makes it harder for us to go into ketosis. Therefore, we do better on a higher meat diet.
TeaBrain | 2 years ago
shlant | 2 years ago
ta988 | 2 years ago
And the argument of "now I feel so much better" I have heard it with absolutely every kind of diets. Vegetarians now eating meat. Meat eaters now vegetarians. Paleo. Gluten-free. Crude/Raw...
swader999 | 2 years ago
mistrial9 | 2 years ago
manmal | 2 years ago
FrustratedMonky | 2 years ago
What to do ? Eliminate plants and meat? Just eat oreos?
jononomo | 2 years ago
shlant | 2 years ago
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoqlTVCWIAI81XY?format=jpg&name=...
FrustratedMonky | 2 years ago
Because you have high cholesterol but have not yet died, does not mean it is safe.
There are countless studies that show meat based diets impact cardo health. That doesn't mean sugar doesn't also. Or if meat good, then carbs bad, or carbs good, meat bad.
It isn't all binary. Generally if you are throwing back a rack of ribs everyday to be 'low carb', then things aren't going to end well for you.
jononomo | 2 years ago
elric | 2 years ago
Do you eat fibre? Or do you shit literal bricks?
SiempreViernes | 2 years ago
danaris | 2 years ago
There was a period in my life where I experienced this firsthand. Do not recommend.
jononomo | 2 years ago
jononomo | 2 years ago
elric | 2 years ago
I'm not interested in spending 80% less time on the toilet (going from less than a minute to 10 seconds just seems like a pointless optimization). I'm also not too interested in the purported anecdotal experience of "tens of thousands" of other people. This diet seems like a terrible idea, both from a bowel health point of view, a climate point of view, and quite frankly a taste point of view.
Not eating vegetables/fibre seems like a miserable existence.
mistrial9 | 2 years ago
vGPU | 2 years ago
cmiller1 | 2 years ago
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.5715...
shlant | 2 years ago
ta988 | 2 years ago
VoodooJuJu | 2 years ago
I'd imagine Northern Europeans would benefit from a similar arrangement, though they're likely better adapted to a different periodicity of feasting and fasting, given the climate and the longer periods where fresh food is unavailable.
shlant | 2 years ago
VoodooJuJu | 2 years ago
shlant | 2 years ago
VoodooJuJu | 2 years ago
kjkjadksj | 2 years ago
sandworm101 | 2 years ago
hackerlight | 2 years ago
loloquwowndueo | 2 years ago
goda90 | 2 years ago
Regardless of weather and sunlight, you should avoid this as much as possible. Due dates are almost always arbitrary, especially in software.
swader999 | 2 years ago
jackschultz | 2 years ago
Article[0] came up across a feed which was saying the same thing, and I said screw it, and got two 100W LED corn bulbs[1] that the article suggested, and boy did it make a difference. Literally came mid last week, and for the last 4 days, I've had more energy, better sleep, and felt better than I have in months, years even. Incredible difference for $60.
The corn bulbs are just like light bulbs so they fit into the same sockets (some are bigger, but get the ones that say E26). You can also get specific lamps to put them around. I also got some construction string lights[2] and hanging those on my wall. Makes it almost seem like I'm in a museum which is cool too.
My goal is to get some more lights and make my living / office area legit feel like I'm outside on a summer day. I have a lux meter coming today to be able to see and judge intensity. If it's too intense, I can turn them off like I'm going into the shade.
The importance of letting your body know when it's daytime and nighttime, which is talked about in the article, makes all parts of life better. Eat better, more energy to do things, less angry. Part of me disappointed I didn't know this before, but another part glad that I'm catching on now.
[0] https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZHMD5ZL [2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C5X7XLRQ
goda90 | 2 years ago
dukeyukey | 2 years ago
Not to one-up here, but the UK gets around 60 hours on sunshine across the whole of November, compared to Minnesota at about 115.
Europe north of the Mediterranean is gloomy beyond basically anywhere populated in North America.
jackschultz | 2 years ago
kitten_mittens_ | 2 years ago
nojvek | 2 years ago
Thankfully, the good ol' USA is a massive country, so I hit the eject button and moved to FL.
3154 hours of sun in FL compared to 2170 hours of sun in WA. Huuuuuuge difference in mental and physical aptitude. I feel more energetic. More focus, more workouts, more horny, less self loathing.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sun...
phone8675309 | 2 years ago
faeriechangling | 2 years ago
mostertoaster | 2 years ago
Or is it like the state politics? Like someone who loved Portland might hate eastern Oregon, but the state of Oregon as a majority is more progressive so it’s ok?
Personally I care far more about local politics/culture than state or national politics/culture and would rather be in a state opposed to my way of life, while in a city that isn’t, than vice versa. Though ideally both, but can’t always have it all.
kylehotchkiss | 2 years ago
yukinon | 2 years ago
mostertoaster | 2 years ago
If we only experienced western Washington for those months hardly anyone would stay, but those summer months are so incredible it makes it worth enduring the dreary gray for a good amount of people.
dukeyukey | 2 years ago
Compared to 1403 hours here in London :(
devit | 2 years ago
Is there any >=100W (actual, not equivalent) sunlight-like bulb available that is dimmable and programmable via ZigBee or other means?
jackschultz | 2 years ago
With the corn bulbs, it blasts energy and more light all over, which makes a much bigger difference in vibe. I can't comment on the lux difference (I'm actually getting a lux meter today so I can get a better number in comparison), but with more light all over the room, I can feel much more energy overall.
LED light panels are the other thing I think you mention, and I haven't tested with those. I picked corn bulbs to try first. Compared to the marketed mood lamps, the bigger panels would also light the whole room for a better vibe.
I don't think there are dimmable LED type higher power bulbs or panels. On or off for them. I'm planning to get more lights, and then maybe see if there's a way to create shades to put over them to change the color and amount depending on day.
For now, I'm keeping the lamps powered until ~6pm, and then back to the old light I had before to get ready for sleep.
devit | 2 years ago
jackschultz | 2 years ago
theodric | 2 years ago