InSteady

Many strains out there are below 0.05% CBD, but you can find much higher if you look for it. In my legal state every cannabis dispensary has at least one 1:1 or 2:1 CBD to THC strain, often several. It's not that hard to find.

Worst case, you can order hemp flower (very high CBD with trace amounts of THC) legally in many places and just combine that with a high THC strain at whatever ratio you desire. You can pretty easily make edibles yourself this way with an online guide, it's basically just following a recipe.

Weirdly, since I started using low doses of THC + CBD flower before bed it has increased my dreaming (or at least recall of it) substantially. For many many years now I would always wake up in the middle of the night out of breath, sweaty and sore whenever I'd have intense dreams, possibly due to trauma. Now I stay asleep through the most vivid and intense dreams, and wake up reasonably relaxed and well rested at normal times. Has been going on for several months now ever since I started using tiny amounts of cannabis intermittently again (no more than 4x per week, often less, and below 0.05g per "dose").

The oversimplified answer is that there are potential toxins in foraged mushrooms that your liver needs to sort out, which is going to be even more problematic if it is busy dealing with acetaldehyde from the ethanol breakdown.

Pure lay speculation, but based on the fact that humans have been deliberately ingesting lots of alcohol for millennia (and mammals have been doing intermittently for untold millions of years), the liver may preferentially break down ethanol and then acetaldehyde even when substances that are problematic/deadly in lower concentrations are present. Alcohol metabolism has been optimized for.

Interesting anecdote, methanol causes intoxication similar to alcohol and is harmful but not deadly in and of itself. However, methanol ingestion can cause blindness and death specifically because the liver breaks it down quickly into formic acid, which then circulates throughout the bloodstream. In cases of methanol poisoning, the antidote is to drink alcohol (ethanol) in sufficient quantities, since the liver preferentially breaks down the alcohol, allowing the methanol to be broken down much slower to the point that it is no longer deadly (half-life goes from 2-3 hours to 90+ hours when ethanol is present).

>the initiative system is, quite frankly, a terrible way to govern and pass complex policies.

On the one hand, I agree, but on the flip side decriminalization is not something I would expect from our elected officials at any point this decade. The voters are able to push the envelope in ways that risk-averse career politicians simply will not.

We may finally see substantive election finance reform in Oregon (we lag dramatically behind most of the rest of the nation) come November due to our initiative system. IIRC, Cannabis legalization was another one that the citizens of Oregon pushed through and only then did the legislature get it's butt in gear and write comprehensive legislation. Same with decriminalized and medicalized psychedelics.

If we didn't have such dysfunction at the state level due to republican state reps continued antics protesting and not showing up to deny a quorum, it's entirely possible that the issues with measure 110 could have been sorted out at the capital before public opinion had time to do the full 180 on decrim.

It's a shame, but as an Oregonian with a drug felony from over a decade ago, I'm happy with the progress of making possession of personal amounts of hard drugs a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Two steps forward and one step back is still progress.

As an equally sad counterpoint, if we had 7 billion people out there foraging the countryside would be stripped bare, wild animals driven further from human inhabited areas, and untold habitats would be degraded from all the wandering and poking around.

Don't get me wrong it's a great hobby, but this isn't something that would heal all social ills if we somehow got everybody or near everybody out doing it.

Regarding the nutritional value of mushrooms, a few counterpoints. Firstly, you are only looking at a single variety of mushroom (cremini).

Second, 7% manganese, 17% phosphorus, 15% potassium, and 12% zinc per 3.5oz serving representing 22 calories (or ~1/100 of your daily caloric intake) is nothing to sneeze at.

Go check out 100g servings of various other veggies to get a baseline. It is also likely that these nutrients are far more bioavailable in mushrooms than they are in, for instance, brassica veggies, due to lack of phytates and other uptake inhibiting molecules (so called "anti-nutrients").

FYI, 3.5oz of mushrooms will cook down into less than 1/4 cup, so if you desire, you can eat substantially more than this incorporated into a dish without it necessarily overpowering flavor or texture.

Finally, mushrooms are chock full of other hugely beneficial (but under-studied) dietary compounds such as beta-glycans, triterpenoids, ergosterol, and all manner of immune-modulating tryptophan metabolites such as indole-3-proprionic acid.

Your first two examples are for severely abnormal GI function. The latter of the two, EEN, is also a short-term diet that is intended to induce remission of symptoms, at which point presumably whole foods are reintroduced.

Finally, the low FODMAP diet is not intended to eliminate FODMAPs nor is it intended to be used long term. From the inventors of the low FODMAP diet:

"Given the adverse changes in gut microbial populations associated with long-term adherence to a low FODMAP diet, we always encourage people to enter a re-challenge phase and under the guidance of a dietitian, find an acceptable balance between the occasional inclusion of moderate and high FODMAP foods (naturally rich in healthy prebiotics) and adequate symptom control. In the long-term, we advocate people follow the least restrictive diet necessary. Further research into the rechallenge and long-term maintenance phases of the diet is warranted."

https://www.monashfodmap.com/blog/low-fodmap-diet-provides-b...

Fiber is essential fuel for all kinds of microbes that produce immune-modulating molecules and neurotransmitter precursors for us.

>However, fiber also takes up valuable minerals, prohibiting their uptake. I do not think that the situation is as clear cut as you present it.

If this were actually a concern, it would be beneficial to extract all nutrients from whole foods and consume them as a pill (vitamin) instead of eating our nutrition. This has not borne out in extensive research despite billions of dollars invested into developing and marketing nutrient supplements.

I wasn't aware of this (and neither were local lawmakers), but ironically it is actually illegal in Oregon as of 1971 for any local government body to pass a law targeting the public consumption of alcohol and drugs. This threw a major wrench in plans to control the rampant public use of fentanyl and meth around Oregon cities, and this likely contributed to us to rolling back small time possession to a misdemeanor.

Although there were exceptions for limiting public alcohol use in proximity to schools and such, there were no such exceptions for hard drugs (since they were already illegal).

microbursts are a thing. It's entirely possible much of your city was dry despite the cloud cover. Also possible they just done goofed.

The hummus with score of 1 has only 28 calories per 100g vs 214 calories per 100g for the "ultra processed." Almost no fat (0.9g) in a food comprised mostly of chickpeas and tahini, both of which are high fat foods. There has to be an error here.

Guar gum is definitely an ultra-processed ingredient from what I can tell. It goes through multiple stages of industrial processing, and is used in everything from food products to cosmetics to hydraulic fracking.

It is also associated with esophageal and gastro-intestinal swelling, including to the point of causing obstruction. It is high in galactose and mannose, and subtly alters composition of the microbiome. People with GI disorders are very often advised to avoid it (note that although partially hydrolyzed guar gum was previously recommended for IBS to increase motility, in more recent years experts are increasingly saying to avoid it). It is categorized as "generally recognize safe" food additive in the US and EU.

CBD on the other hand in "mid range" doses decreases REM sleep latency and (any dose?) also decreases REM sleep suppression related to anxiety. This is something that I imagine needs more study, as there is a huge variability in THC to CBD ratios in legally available cannabis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8116407

Although most recreational cannabis is high THC : low CBD, there is ever-growing demand for more balanced strains. There's no telling what the average looks like in black and grey markets (although high THC is certainly the default assumption given its intoxicating effects). Before we make blanket statements about the impact of cannabis on sleep, we should probably seek to answer questions like, what is the overall impact on REM sleep with cannabis that has a 4:1 ratio of THC to CBD or lower?

It's pretty well established that using cannabis while the brain is still developing has a negative impact on brain development. Additionally, from what I've observed among a few dozen people I've known over the years, people who start smoking in high school and continue without any substantial breaks through to adulthood tend to have a less healthy relationship with cannabis. They have a stronger tendency to fall into the pattern of using all day every day, and tend use much larger amounts than people who started using as adults or have taken substantial breaks (year +) from cannabis consumption as adults.

I agree completely. It doesn't even require you to believe you have the right answer, or that the experimenter knows this. All it has to be is some niggling feeling that there is some trickery going on here. Something along the lines of, "why are they contriving to make me choose and then immediately trying to 'make me' change my decision with no other information or incentives offered?" Then, in the next iterations when more money is offered, the suspicion changes to, "why are they trying to make me change my decision by offering me more money?"

If, as the researchers propose, people experience more regret by changing their decision with "no additional information," they will experience significantly more regret still if they feel as though they have been tricked into giving up on their instinctive choice.

I put no information in quotes because even though the article puts it this way, there actually is some additional information: that the researchers want participants to have the option to change their choice, but only to be aware of that after making their first choice. Although cryptic, this does give some additional information into the real nature of their experiment, and to a random study participant certainly could be suggestive of some trickery going on.

Good call. The author of this book is a marketer and "media strategist," with an obvious focus on social media. He was great at plastering subtle ads all over relevant threads and subs over on reddit. Nice to know that he too has figure out reddit has gone to shit and is also looking for greener pastures..

In some places they may in fact be high school dropouts. Just like naturopaths, it's important to be aware of the laws and certifying bodies in your state / country when seeking health and medical advice.

My state at least requires a 4 year education in an area approved by the state board of dieticians to call oneself a nutritionist... but that's a far cry from the 8 year education requirements plus board certification and testing required to become a registered dietician here. IIRC they are even developing something akin to residency requirements going forward.

But in some states there are literally no legal protections on the title of nutritionist. I wonder if any aspiring dietary health bloggers (who perhaps became experts in nutrition via facebook posts) have moved residence to capitalize on this situation...

Good lord, there has got to be a better way to phrase all of this.

Well said. Additionally, even if we reduce all foods down to calorie counts, some "calories" (foods) are more pro-inflammatory, while other "calories" are anti-inflammatory. I'll let the reader guess which group highly processed foods vs whole foods tend to land in. On the balance, no mater how many calories you are taking in, if your body is experiencing inflammation from the foods you eat (while also lacking all kinds of anti-inflammatory compounds, both directly from the whole foods and as a result of bacterial metabolism of these foods)... you are not going to have as much energy to move your body around. Not to mention many other detrimental effects to your wellbeing and experience of energy levels.

And this ignores all manner of more complex interactions between the foods we eat and host and microbial metabolism. See my nearby comment for one such example.

Furthermore, "a calorie is a calorie" ignores the incredibly complex relationships in our microbiome between bacteria, fungi, and yes even viruses (which apparently can and do absorb nutrients when they are in a host cell), that constitute a significant portion of the metabolism going on in our bodies. Dietary changes can alter the microbiome dramatically in relatively short periods of time, with some studies showing measurable microbiome composition shifts in as little as 3 weeks! [0] (note that while most of the examples in this review are on mice, there are human studies included further down that also demonstrate this rapid shift)

Processed carbs, and especially refined sugar, is rapidly absorbed in the upper GI, bypassing most of the beneficial microbes that 'preprocess' much of our raw food intake (especially complex carbs, like the prebiotic fibers and such) into more beneficial metabolites. Including bacterial metabolites that are essential to health and cellular energy.

Consider processed fructose vs fructose from a fruit, eaten whole. The former starts entering the bloodstream directly upon consumption, where it then must be processed by our own liver at some metabolic expense. Some people refer to fructose as "toxic" for reasons such as this:

>fructose induces a number of proinflammatory, fibrogenic, and oncogenic signaling pathways that explain its deleterious effects in the body, especially in the liver. [1]

Furthermore, when there is excess free fructose in the upper intestines, more than the body can rapidly absorb, it is also metabolically expensive simply to clear it from the gut to get it into the liver. This process can lead to ATP depletion in the GI tract. [1] Thus it robs us of that magical substance that powers all of our cellular activity, from muscle firing to nerve impulse activation (both of which are critical to optimum digestive function) and beyond.

On the other hand, when fructose is bound up in in complex carbs (fruit), it gets farther down into the intestines where fructose loving bacteria such as F. prausnitzi can ferment it for us. [2] In addition to sparing our ATP reserves in the gut and sparing our liver the trouble of processing fructose, F. prausnitzi produces an incredibly beneficial nutrient, butyrate, in the process. Butyrate has protective effects on the gut and intestinal barrier, and it is also a key building block of that lovely neurotransmitter GABA, that helps keep all of our other neurotransmitters in check (which is why it is called the "calming neurotransmitter").

Finally, on a hunch, I went ahead and googled "butyrate and satiety" which immediately returned this:

> Fermentation of fiber in the gut generates short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), such as butyrate, which decrease food intake and promote weight loss in rodent models. SCFA have been shown to enhance secretion of the gut satiety hormone peptide YY (PYY). [3]

Further investigation shows that this peptide is also active in humans, reducing hunger signals in the brain. [4]

All of this is to say, while the popular phrase "a calorie is a calorie" can help people to understand diet and weight loss in terms of an energy budget, the reality is far, far more complex than that. And we have truly only scratched the surface of all the complexity going on in the microbiome as it relates to diet and cellular functions throughout the body. Especially our immune system, which appears to borrow many critical metabolites from bacterial activity on the foods we choose to eat. It will be exciting to see how far down this rabbit hole we get in the coming years. For now, whenever we hear "a calorie is a calorie," it is useful to remember that things are not nearly so simple, and this sometimes helpful simplification can lead us astray quickly if we are not judicious in how we apply it.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8398149/

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267750/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7697676/

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818935/

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516703

This is such a no brainer. The article states he has official records of 134 vaccinations.

They wont just keep stamping the same card endlessly until it is completely covered. How else is he going to accomplish this absurd undertaking but to have access to a bunch of official vaccination documents?

It's not outside the realm of possibility that he was also selling them, but I feel like Occam and Hanlon both agree that unless there is direct evidence, he's probably not some criminal mastermind getting rich. He's just a random person with either a fetish or something to prove.

Can we please as a rule avoid reposting reddit reposts of 4chan shitposts? This is not why I come to HN. It would sadden me if this ever became normalized.

>This is how allergy treatments work.

But allergens are not pathogens, we are looking at substantially different immune pathways and function (allergens have no lifecycle, let alone one involving host cells).

>Apparently some infections (at least dengue) are worse the second time.

There is some compelling evidence to suggest it is specifically having a low, but not zero, level of antibodies that paradoxically increases the chance of severe infection in dengue fever specifically. Possibly by enhancing dengue's ability to infiltrate cells when it is only slightly coated with antibodies [1]. So even in this rather unusual case, it is not seeing dengue a lot, but rather seeing it exactly once and then seeing it again after several years without any contact that appears to cause this issue.

[1] - https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/02/dengue-second-infection/

It also forces the next generation of scientists to repeat the same mistakes instead of learning from the past.

Of course it would be easier still to learn from mistakes if academic research allowed for more honesty about negative or undecipherable results, but that's another issue.

It's still orders of magnitude easier to do some in-depth analysis on a paper in your chosen field to see if it looks like a load of BS than to get funding and conduct a study yourself to see if a hypothesis pans out with some kind of meaningful result.

We shall henceforth refer to this as Wepple's paradox.

I assume viewing a PDF in browser is generally safe everywhere as long as you aren't downloading to HD or cloud? Or is even this activity realistically dangerous without a VPN in some places?

That wasn't the point of my latest comment. Oh well.

And let's not be obtuse and ignore the fact that you replied to GP's claim that Lou did not intend to glamourize addiction with "Heroin was his most famous song. What the hell are you talking about already?" You haven't outright stated much of anything of substance, but your argumentative tone has invited discussion anyway so here we are.

A recent documentary has many people around him, including his sister who he was close with, stating that he was very much motivated by and obsessed with fame. He desperately wanted to be much bigger than he ever got.

This is part of the tension that lead to Lou kicking John Cale out (experimental rhythms and screeching viola were never going to take them to the heights of rock and roll stardom) and eventual breakup of the band.

If anything, I could see Bowie and Warhol dragging Lou into the smoky, off-color limelight of the underground and alternative arts scene, away from the pop stardom he was fixated on. He certainly left Warhol behind abruptly and unceremoniously when he felt he was being pinned down. Immediately after was when the Underground produced their most poppy, mass appeal songs like Rock and Roll, Sweet Jane, Who Loves the Sun, and Oh! Sweet Nothin' (some of my personal favorites).

I'll admit that I haven't read any official biographies or anything, but I have picked up from several authentic (seeming) sources over the years that Lou was just not all that into heroin after some early experimentation. He was a massive alcoholic, and liked to inject speed for much of his career, but was never very big on downers.

He wrote Perfect Day as a solo artist, so this would have been long after his experimentations with heroin, based on what I've gathered 2nd and 3rd hand. I think the association is so strong due to it playing through the iconic overdose scene in Trainspotting. Lou actually wrote a lot of genuine love songs in his later days with the Underground as well as in his solo career.

It is a melancholy, bittersweet love song, but that's just Lou, not necessarily anything (directly) to do with drugs. IMO there's no reason to assume he was thinking of heroin while writing this song. The fact that it is evocative of heroin use is perhaps coincidence, perhaps something more.

By this interpretation, do we then have to take any subject that rock and roll touches as glamorization? The sound of Heroin is dirty and gritty, the lyrics ugly and honest. The few positive notes in the song "It's my life, and it's my wife," "And I feel just like Jesus' son," "And now I'm better off than dead" are hardly glamorous. They just underscore the theme of the song: allure of self-annihilation in order to escape all the ugliness around us.

People will glamorize anything that someone famous or iconic (both in Lou's case) put out into the world. That doesn't mean the artists themselves have glamorized the subject.. This would be like accusing Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk of glamorizing incel culture and alt-right violence, when he was in fact intending to do the opposite.

Have you listened closely to the lyrics? The song most definitely does not glamorize heroin use. And by all accounts, Lou and the Underground were rather bemused when the media would imply that it did. Also, little known fact, Lou didn't particularly like heroin and didn't use it much at all. He was mostly a speed freak and alcoholic.

I won't claim to know what the rest of GPs point is though :)