Would it, though? What matters is glycemic index, and that depends on the overall composition of the food, not just on levels of simple carbohydrates. Focusing purely on one nutrient or on total caloric content is hopelessly reductionist.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
I believe sugar is added to sliced bread primarily as a preservative and to retain moisture. When fresh I've never noticed much of a difference between "no sugar added" and comparable sliced bread with corn syrup or honey, but the former goes stale more quickly.
The economic pressures are at odds because as people eat less bread shelf stability, both at the grocery store and at home, becomes increasingly important to maintaining a desirable yet competitively priced product. People don't want added sugar and are more carb conscious generally, but what they dislike even more, without realizing it, is stale bread. So you get a positive feedback loop that turns people off of bread, I think.
Couldn't agree more. I see this a lot here in Norway too. So much talk of "ultra-processed" food and its dangers, and recommendations to avoid it but the category is so wide as to include even things like baked beans, because they may have some salt, sugar and modified starch added; or peanut butter because it may have some sugar added to help it stay emulsified and some saturated fat added to make it less runny.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
Modified starch seems like a prime candidate for an ultra-processed ingredient. I don't know which one is used in baked beans, but there's a whole list of enzymes, acids and alkalis used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
It's by far the most sold one. I just checked, and it's not palm oil(which I would be opposed to for environmental reasons), but sunflower oil(probably high-stearic, though it doesn't say), diglycerides and monoglycerides, salt and glucose. probably most of the additive is the sunflower oil.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter, that's my point. the 89% peanuts gives me lots of protein, fibre and healthy fats, which is making it easier for me to diet and lose weight, thereby improving my health. That almost certainly outweighs any potential risks from the 11%. The 11% honestly helps in that it makes the whole thing palatable. I can't overstate how much I hate pure peanut butter; just thinking about it makes me gag.
I mean, adding stuff to food to make it more appealing or longer-lasting is what humans do. It's what we've always done. Just concluding that it's bad and shouldn't be done is silly. I'm much more interested in specifics.
You can even make a health-positive argument for preservatives. Preservatives prolong shelf life -> means I can keep more diverse food around with less time expenditure(not going to the store every day) and with less waste because there's only so much food I can eat in a given time -> means I can follow a more varied diet in practice -> better health outcomes.
Now, if there's a specific problem with one preservative or other additive, fine. replace it with something else.
Not to mention that "speculation", better known as theory, is a fundamental and crucial part of science. Some of the most celebrated scientists in history are celebrated for their theoretical work. Newton, Einstein, Charles Darwin(sure, Darwin did a lot of observation as did most biologists of that era, but his theory of natural selection, though inspired by his observational work, is clearly a theoretical idea, not an empirical result).
And of course, skimming over the actual paper in question, it's not even theory/speculation really. It's more like a review of the existing literature and empirical data on soda lakes, the different types of them, and their plausibility for abiogenesis based on their ability to maintain P concentrations despite significant biological activity.
This is actually someone testing a previously theorised idea against the best available data and affirming it as plausible.
Speculation is part of the process by which we formulate a *hypothesis*. We then run experiments to test and validate this hypothesis. If it is found to be correct then it gets promoted to a *theory*.
I was gonna reply to this earlier but forgot. I think there is a difference between a theory of ongoing dynamics and laws compared to a theory about what happened once upon a time. The former is easier and more valuable. But the latter has some value too.
I've heard that Singapore manages to do it. Copy whatever they do. It doesn't need to be 100% effective, because it's easy to rip the caps off the new bottles making them not 100% effective either.
This is not true. You will not get caned for littering in Singapore. You might get a fine, or be sentenced to clean a public area while wearing a bright uniform (so that everyone can see that you're being punished). See: https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/nea-increases-v...
I mean, bath salts are certainly illegal in most countries now, but when they were new, they really weren't. Since most laws back then were(and still are, in many places) largely just giant lists of chemicals, plants and fungi.
The not for human consumption stuff was just a facile attempt to avoid liability for any consequences.
>"hey, maybe if you'd invest more in hobbies, social relationships and a healthy lifestyle you would feel better"
"Just saying" the above is not what CBT is, though. I've had a lot of CBT and other kinds of therapy, and I've never had a therapist just tell me "so don't do that", or "do more x".
It's about analysing your own thinking(cognitive) and actions/habits(behavioral) in cases where those are keeping you stuck in a miserable situation, and identifying what you can do to change them.
Sure, if you put the most inanely over-abstracted construction on it like "just live healthier and you'll feel better", it sounds meaningless, but the implicit assumption there is that's something you can just decide to do, and succeed in. That's not the case for many people, and those people can benefit from CBT.
i used to be quite pessimistic in my thinking without ever having a realisation of that thought process but as i got older i realised i am pretty miserable and CBT in a way helped me change that thought process and my overall thinking. therapy didn’t really work for me but CBT certainly did.
How do you define "a LOT"? the only estimate I can find says there's 210mcg/L of beta-carbolines. Mainly harman and norharman, which have a binding affinity for MAO-A of 220nM and 2200nM respectively(lower is more potent). Not earth-shatteringly potent. These compounds have a fairly short half-life and they're reversible.
Doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the potency of MAO inhibition used in psychiatric or entheogenic contexts. I'd be reluctant to attribute too many noticable effects to them.
Note that 210 mcg/L is 210 ng/milliliter. The molecular weight of norharman is 168.2 g/mol, so the concentration is about 1250 nM/L.
Coupled with frequency of coffee intake and accounting for storage in adipose tissue, levels in vivo could easily exceed binding affinities after just days or weeks of coffee use.
It is known they have a significant effect when consumed together with a weak stimulant, like caffeine or nicotine. Tobacco smoke is another significant source in the human diet.
Interesting. Do you have a source on this? I can't seem to find any detailed data on this. Only some suggestions that since they're lipophilic, and are found in higher concentrations in brain tissue, they might accumulate there. I can't find any research analyzing whether they do accumulate in brain tissue and how long they stay there.
It seems unlikely to me that TSMC is both going to spend 100B on their own US operations and however many billions it would cost to acquire Intel's foundry division and set it up for TSMCs process. Though those rumours never made sense to me in the first place.
Seems more likely that the Trump admin was pressuring them to possibly invest in Intel, acquisition was briefly considered and instead this compromise of expanding their own US operations was chosen.
I expect INTC to retract back towards $18-19 from this news. Recent rally was largely based on hopium surrounding either TSMC investment/partnership or Broadcom/TSMC breakup and acquisition. Probably this kills the Broadcom deal as well. If I were Intel, I wouldn't wanna sell off the more successful chip design division if I couldn't also sell off the floundering foundry.
I've tried almost every class of hallucinogen there is. Psychedelics, dissociatives, cannabinoids. Never did get my hands on salvia, but these days I don't think I'm very interested in trying it either. I have the most experience with psychedelics and cannabinoids in terms of having tried many different members of the class. And I've messed around with some strange ones that don't quite fit into any of the classes, like zopiclone(the sleeping med). I've also experienced stimulant/sleep deprivation psychosis
Psychedelics for me usually involve complex geometric patterns, colours, and objects "breathing" and morphing. More distortions and extreme pareidolia than actual hallucination(defined as perception in the absence of stimuli). They also involve what feels like "enhanced" hearing, where you're able to focus on everything you're hearing with exactly equal attention(I honestly don't know if that description makes any sense), which makes music sound very different, especially music that's tailored for listening while on psychedelics, like Shpongle.
The cognitive effects are also hard to describe, but there's a a tendency towards tangential thinking while retaining the ability to navigate the complex tree of tangents, a feeling of profoundness attached to even the simplest deduction, and a perceived ease of handling highly abstract ideas. There's also a sort of tearing down of deeply ingrained biases and rationalisations which in my view is how psychedelics are potentially very powerful accelerants of psychotherapy and personal change.
I never liked dissociatives very much. Their effects on memory make it hard for me to even remember the experiences, and mostly what I remember from doing ketamine and MXE is that everything looks strange. Angles are weird. Headspace is more confused than profound and certainly less productive. I might just have an atypical reaction to dissociatives, idk.
Cannabinoids are very unique drugs in that they provoke some combination of stimulant, sedative, psychedelic, dissociative and deliriant effects. Many people report that after combining cannabis with psychedelics multiple times, their experience with cannabis becomes more psychedelic. This certainly happened to me. I used to frequently combine 2C-B with hash several years ago. Ever since then if I smoke some hash with no tolerance essentially have a psychedelic trip for 3 hours. I quite like it. I get to take a short trip into a psychedelic mindspace without the usual hassle, longer duration, bodily side effects and sleep disturbances of taking a conventional psychedelics. Right now I'm doing it once every 4 weeks, since I'm trying to cure my addiction to hash by teaching myself moderation, and it's been working fine. Although part of me misses just the simple feeling of being stoned, giggling at children's cartoons and eating peanut butter with a spoon. I suppose I might never get that back.
Synthetic cannabinoids are horrible drugs I wouldn't recommend to anyone. Their sheer potency leads to a domination of dissociative and deliriant effects. Psychosis is a likely outcome. Complete dissociation like forgetting who you are, anterograde amnesia, severe anxiety and paranoia. They're also quite hard on the body. Stay away.
Zopiclone is a strange one. It's primary mode of action is the same as benzos, but it also has some interesting interactions with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which I suspect is what causes the hallucination. It's the only drug that's given me tactile hallucinations, which is a strange sensation. If I had to classify it, I'd put it in the deliriant class, but it has some dissociative properties too. It's strongly synergises with cannabinoids but also with psychedelics. For me, the recommended dose of 7.5mg usually caused some very mild hallucination, but 15 was the dose I usually took. I don't recommend zopiclone though, as it can cause strange episodes of anterograde amnesia the day after. Even when used as a hypnotic. The Z-drugs were originally touted as being like benzos without the addiction potential. It's since been learned that they're exactly like benzos, addiction and all, just with more side effects. Boggles the mind that they're still prescribed at all.
I have some serious doubts about these rumours. TSMC wants to buy Intel's fab why, exactly? Even assuming it isn't shut down for antitrust reasons, what are they gaining? A fab that is struggling to compete with the ones they already have? Lithography equipment they can just buy from ASML or whomever?
Not to mention the fact that the rumours themselves caused a rally in INTC price that makes acquisition far less attractive.
The US wants Taiwan to transfer even more technology to the US (thus actively undermining Taiwan's Silicon Shield defence strategy) and also revitalise Intel's operations under pain of 100% tariffs, which Trump has repeatedly threatened.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.