If you’re referring to the shiny pieces in soil you buy from a garden shop, that’s actually perlite - a natural volcanic glass that’s added to improve soil drainage.
Counterpoint- I have three children (one still not biking in his own) and have exclusively used a cargo bike to cart them to school since Kinder unless it was exceptionally icy roads.
That said, I live in a very bike friendly city now, close to their school, can afford a cargo bike, etc.
Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets is the big exception. If the dollar rises, those debts become more expensive to repay, regardless of the emerging market's underlying economy. That's why Ukraine, Argentina, Turkey and Brazil have seen the recent volatility.
The question is whether these problems are limited to those countries with high dollar debt or whether it could cause a regional capital outflow that reduces economic growth in neighboring countries or trade partners.
Or the market's reaction following the announcement. I would imagine that they have to have two draft titles ready for every piece written about earnings announcements.
Not far off. On big announcements for economic releases and earnings reports there are multiple pieces written and when the reporter gets the numbers (sometimes under embargo) they choose the piece, fill in the blanks, make some finishing touches, and send it out.
The market reactions however are driven by automated systems that get machine digestible metrics and reactions are programmed in ahead of time. The market literally adjusts at the speed of light.
I think it's important to look beyond hypertension before completely ending the war on salt.
Very high salt intake may influence the risk of H. pylori infection - the main cause of stomach cancer. It increases the risk of atrophic gastritis (chronic inflammation of the stomach), which makes the stomach more prone to infection, and increases the susceptibility of mucosa to neoplastic change once an infection occurs.
If you think nobody consumes this level of salt, the Chinese and Japanese had extremely high levels of stomach cancer decades ago before reducing their salt intake and preservative consumption. To some extent, these problems persist to this day. Completely ignoring salt (especially in convenience foods) could reignite the issue.
I think this is the key. Most salty processed foods have enormous amounts of salt that you'd never add if you were cooking it yourself. Same with sugar in sweet snacks.
> Another paradox is why the media always seems to portray meta studies (correlation) as fact (causation).
correlation vs. causation is a completely different axis of differentiation from meta-study vs. (direct) study, which is a completely different axis of variation from (something that isn't fact) to fact.
So, you've conflated at least three different distinctions there.
It would be interesting to see some more detailed N=1 studies posted regarding Soylent. In particular, I'd be very interested in seeing a blood lipid profile, blood pressure readings, and blood glucose readings before and after to see its effects on key markers for metabolic syndrome.
I'm not opposed to the idea of engineered food (it would certainly be convenient), but I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. My other big concern is that there's potential harm in the lack of diversity - e.g. "unknown unknowns" so to speak.
Unfortunately, the field of nutrition is not very WELL studied despite the high NUMBER of studies published, so I won't pretend that I have a better answer than Soylent to the problem with nutrition in society. It's good to see that people are at least working on the problem in creative ways, so long as they aren't harming anyone.
"I'm not convinced that the same macronutrient profile is ideal for everyone. "
Yeah, this is my big problem with all of this. In fact, given the known differences in gut fauna that localized cultures/diets have, it's pretty much a fact. Different people process different foods differently.
I agree with your assertion that quantity of nutrition "studies" doesn't provide quality. Most nutrition studies seem to be done with the goal of proving X diet is better than Y, sponsored and paid for by X.
if People can take a massive range of macronutrients. Seriously, if soylent was going to be a problem, then people would have to be FAR more careful about what they eat then they are now.
It all reminds me of the perfect is the enemy of good arguments.
Is soylent perfect? Most likely not, is it better then the vast majority of people are eating? that wouldn't be a high bar to jump, and I think it jumps it easily.
More recent studies seam to lean towards once you get a minimum level of protein in your diet, the rest of it is just calories... though ketosis vs carb burning is another difference. That said, most people are not on a keto based diet. So, get your protein in (1/3 to 1/2 your lean weight in pounds as grams of protein), and from there have whatever you want to hit your caloric needs.
Even when trying to lose wieght, making sure you hit your minimum protein requirements is important... my only suggestion to someone taking a reduced amount of soylent is that they really should supplement extra protein into their diet. Especially if exercising as they are likely losing a lot of muscle with the fat loss, which is probably not the desired result.
I have an interesting anecdote related to ketosis: I was in nutritional ketosis for three months to test its effects on my body. My ketones were consistent with being in the ketotic state, but my LDL-P and triglycerides skyrocketed with no meaningful improvement in HDL. It's debatable whether this is "bad" for you without inflammation (atherosclerosis relies on both), but I certainly wasn't comfortable with the elevated levels and went out of ketosis.
Saturated fat sensitivity seems to have been my issue (VERY difficult to be on that diet without high levels of saturated fat) and I'm now on a low-carb monounsaturated fat diet that has dramatically improved my blood lipids.
So, for me at least, I would have to disagree with "the rest is just calories" statement. I think too many people are trying to simplify nutrition with a single book, diet, or pill, when in reality, it's a complex system that might very well be impossible to predict.
You own a company that's trading with a P/E of 100x. Investors expect a lofty growth rate to justify that multiple and organic growth only lasts for so long as a market leader. In finance, price-earnings to growth ("PEG") ratios tend to be 1.0 at fair value, meaning a 100x P/E means investor expect 100% annual growth. Your high valuation makes acquisitions easier (assuming your overvalued now, you are buying assets at a discount). And, those acquisitions are perhaps the only way to achieve/maintain those lofty growth rates over the long-term. So, what's stopping you from making those acquisitions when others are in the same boat?
