exasperation

But my French toast slaps now.

Let other people enjoy their preferences. Some people get very particular about console/IDE fonts, keyboard switches, T-shirt fabric blends, fork shape, guitar string material, etc. Others like fashion and style. Some like architecture and interior design. Let people enjoy things, and get deep in the weeds on minute differences if they want to.

There's always the Japanese method, where the protege being groomed as the CEO's replacement goes through the effort and legal process of being adopted as the CEO's son and taking the company name as his own legal last name.

Suzuki has done it 4 times in a row, even bypassing biological sons.

Not yet. Reading Wendler's stuff posted throughout the internet, some old reddit posts discussing different concepts and issues talking about the basic framework, gives me some ideas of how I'll approach it. I suspect it won't be a big change in what exercises I'm actually doing, but will mainly be a shift in how much weight and reps I'm going for on any given day.

But I'll figure it out this weekend, enter next week with a plan.

For the last 2 months, I've been doing a 3-day split, focused on each of the 3 main powerlifting exercises (bench, deadlift, squat) and related accessories, aiming at 3x5 of what my 5 rep max is.

From some discussions I had here last week, I've decided this will be my last week doing that, and switching over to a 5/3/1. But I was able to hit 5 reps of each of the following:

Bench: 180 lbs
Squat: 335 lbs
Deadlift: 385 lbs

I'll use this snapshot of where I am now, to plan out how I'll do 5/3/1 over the next two or three cycles, and see how I feel about the program after.

I've set up workarounds in my own life. Elsewhere in this thread there's people talking about forgetting to pay bills, versus bill pay. That's what I've done (and in some instances, have reminders on my phone set up to periodically remind me to do the things that can't be automated).

I've also steered my social relationships and my career to be more accommodating of my brain. I'm with a wife who doesn't mind (and in some ways finds it endearing), and can help me fill in some gaps. I have a career where jumping around from topic to topic helps me seem well rounded, and where occasionally showing how I've done a deep dive into something persuades my colleagues that I've got great attention to detail (I do, but only on some things).

My ADHD might be the same as it's always been, but my life has been set up so that it's all low consequences. The guardrails and safety nets are in place, and I can just be.

This particular linked study, that is the basis for this thread, limited itself to only unprocessed red meat.

There's three metrics to think about:

• Actual number of years reduced/increased
• Actual probability of that change in lifespan
• Statistical certainty that the trend we observe is actually linked to the variable we're studying.

Russian roulette (traditional 1 round in 6 chambers) in a hospice ward (where everyone has been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live) would be a very high certainty of shaving months off the life of 1/6 of the studied population. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a very high risk. But at the same time, we can look at it and say "yes, shooting oneself with a revolver is very bad for health." Putting a more or less deadly round in the chamber is probably not going to be a hugely significant change in outcomes, even if we can objectively say that one is better or worse for the person's health than the other.

Almost all dietary/nutrition studies involve much smaller swings in lifespan or health conditions, probabilistically over a smaller portion of the population, with less statistical certainty in the observations. But the science is still worth doing, and analyzing, because that all adds up.

This study shows inflammatory markers are increased on a ketogenic diet: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6922028/

This rat study shows increased senescence in heart and kidneys in long term ketosis: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado1463

However, Cholesterol is not a disease - its essential for life - the concern has never been cholesterol but atherosclerosis - if someone has elevated LDL, undamanged and unglycated (as on keto) and they are concerned they should get a CAC score so they can see their actual plaque burden.

What you're asking for is being studied. Here's a meta study from 2013:

However, one established risk factor of CVD, i.e. LDL-cholesterol, still turned out to be harmfully affected by the VLC regimen, most probably attributable to the larger amounts of saturated fat in the diet(Reference Bueno, de Melo and de Oliveira1). In their discussion, the authors stated that future meta-analyses should investigate the impact of low carbohydrates (LC) v. LF on other important pathological markers, e.g. endothelial function, in order to further assess the safety of LC dietary therapies.

This is reasonable, since evidence from prospective cohort studies has shown that endothelial dysfunction represents an independent risk factor for the development of many CVD including atherosclerosis(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2). We, therefore, carried out a meta-analysis to compare the effects of LC and LF regimens on flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). FMD of the brachial artery is a non-invasive measure of endothelial function, furthermore reflecting the local bioavailability of endothelium-derived vasodilators, especially NO. Inflammation of the endothelium is regarded to play a major role in the destabilisation of atherosclerotic lesions, therefore paving the way for future CVD events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2).

Their results:

In our meta-analysis, LC dietary protocols were associated with a significant decrease in FMD when compared with their LF counterparts. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies including a sample size of 5·547 subjects has observed that a 1 % decrease in FMD is associated with a 13 % increase in the risk of future cardiovascular events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2)

Along the same lines, here's another study with arterial measurements that shows reduced blood flow and arterial function for those who stuck with a high protein diet: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000331970005101003

Look, none of these studies are, standing alone, enough to really change things. But it seems to me, from the outside that you're cherry picking your own results to justify carnivore diet.

The high carb versus low carb discussion is complicated and has a lot of factors at play. But the evidence for animal versus plant based low carb suggests that animal product diets are more harmful than plant product diets of similar macronutrient profiles.

Moreover, the overall trends show that those who eat a lot of whole grains (which are, by their nature, high carb plant based foods) have lower mortality than those who don't. The same is true of those who eat a lot of fruit (again, high carb plant based food).

Trying to tease out which of a million variables is truly responsible for cardiovascular health isn't easy, but a lot of the overall trends can be seen:

• Whole grains good
• Whole fruit good
• Red meat bad
• Cured meat really bad
• Seafood good
• Legumes good

Now, you can quibble with confounding variables, but at a certain point trying to argue that minutiae starts looking like religious apologetics, really cherry picking examples in favor while ignoring examples against. Coming up with a coherent theory of "fiber not important" or "the foods our genetic ancestors ate are somehow bad for us now" is an uphill battle, and I'm not convinced that the carnivore diet is anything more than a scam designed to sell books.

The injections work by causing your brain to want to do the things that you're describing. Adherence to a plan is the hard part, and the drugs tend to make people naturally want to stick with that plan, by literally making it more desirable than not sticking with it.

If somebody wants to eliminate even more, they could try out a low carb, or even a ketogenic diet or even a zero carb diet.

Most recent studies of long term ketosis show accelerated aging markers, and some potentially harmful increases in LDL and VLDL cholesterol. Some propose periodic resets out of ketosis to avoid some of the accumulated long term issues, while taking advantage of some of the short term benefits for overall insulin sensitivity and obesity.

The human body has many, many ways to meet its nutritional needs. We're omnivores and we have lots of anthropological history of different cultures surviving primarily on carbs, primarily on animal products, and all sorts of in between.

There are plenty of issues with people on carnivore diets, too, so I would caution against trying to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I've never seen anything suggesting that there's a statistically significant delta between a high carb whole foods diet and a low carb whole foods diet. And even within those frameworks, it's entirely possible that the qualitative differences between one whole food still makes a difference compared to another whole food, like the observed studies regarding red meat being bad, fatty fish being good, legumes being good, fermented vegetables being good, etc.

Nutrition science is pretty incomplete. We're only recently learning bits and pieces about the role of the microbiome, and haven't even finished accumulating the information we started learning in recent decades about endocrine feedback loops in nutrition and metabolism. It'll take a lot of data and analysis to have confidence in what people are saying, and I personally take it all in with interest but skepticism.

People who bought things in bulk (also known as buying in gross) to subdivide and sell in smaller portions, became known as grossers, and eventually grocers. Eventually, the word "grocery" came to mean the actual goods sold by grocers.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/grocery-store-word-origin