You are answering different, irrelevant problem. "Why is an individual obese and how to fix it?" is different from "why is the population obese and how to fix it?".
655 karma · joined June 18, 2012
Sugar contains a lot of energy so it's not fooling you when it's tasting great.
Can you say which specific animal is alive eating food without much caloric content (and which specific vegetable are they eating)?
The body can create fat from carbs and protein via fatty acid synthesis. Does this mean fat in diet is unnecessary? Of course not. Similarly, there existing a pathway for creating carbohydrate from fat and protein doesn't by itself prove that carbohydrate is unnecessary.
That doesn't refute his argument.
> yeah, those carnivores consume so much carbohydrates!
Fresh raw meat actually has a good amount of carbs. The muscle glycogen (animal equivalent of plant starch) starts to turn into lactic acid after death, but it's there for a carnivore that immediately starts eating after the kill. Also carnivores have jacked up gluconeogenesis. Carbohydrates are vital for carnivores who need to use anaerobic energy system to catch prey. They might not be vital for coach potato ketoers.
People usually claim that Inuits somehow survive without carbs but that's not true at all. Inuits are eating 15-20% of their calories as carbs in the form of muscle glycogen: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/25/8/737/4733245
In the wild where the immediate pressure is on getting enough calories and macronutrients while lack of micronutrients only cause problems in the long term, any human wasting energy collecting and digesting food that doesn't have calories and macronutrients (vegetables) would be quickly weeded out.
Look at the nutritional information of any vegetable for yourself. Fruits, nuts, legumes, grains, potatoes etc all come with the fiber, vitamins and minerals that misinformed people think can only come from vegetables while also being loaded with calories, protein and essential fatty acids all which are pretty much completely lacking in vegetables.
Sugars generally digest faster than starches but this is not always true. Oranges (as in the whole fruit with its structure and fiber intact) raise blood glucose more slowly than potatoes, even though oranges are mostly sugar and potatoes are mostly starch.
This also means that slowly eaten sugar is healthier than quickly devoured complex carbs (if dental health is ignored). E.g. eating 50g carbs worth of candy steadily over 4 hours will result in stabler blood glucose than devouring 50g carbs worth of rice in 5 mins.
If it takes 100ms CPU time to process 10 promises and 1 request involves creating 10 promises, the server can then only handle 100 requests per second at theoretical max.
IO time doesn't matter as much (for throughput) because IO is asynchronous so the server is free to process other requests while waiting for it. But CPU time is only being used for 1 thing at at time.
So to get e.g. 10k rps out of a node server, handling 100000 promises must take well under a second of CPU time. Looking at the benchmark results you can see how many implementations will bottleneck this.
Nobody who realized the fragility of async/callbacks and understanding what it takes with them to make at least a passably robust program would stay with async, they would quickly switch to promises/fibers/equivalent or stop using node. Although I have seen projects on github that use try-catch blocks properly with callbacks/async and I have to wonder what made them think that there isn't a better way.
And again, async does not catch any errors, it only forwards error callbacks based on some very loose convention which isn't even honored in core node apis. Just because most node (or rather callback/async) users are clueless about error handling doesn't make the examples equivalent.
And why is this itself a bad thing?