Lifting and hypercholesterolemia

[Matthew_888]

Long and boringly written, but comprehensive and by (one of the two) pioneering figures: "Thinking slow, thinking fast".

Crisper: "Predictibly irrational."

Academic: "Decision-making", "behavioral economics", "cognitive biases", "heuristics".

For the lunch break: Videos, for example TED Talk, Ariely on "control of our decisions".

@Rip: One variation you havent tried yet is "Merengue".

May I suggest that once you finished with Kahneman and Ariely, you continue with Taleb.
It's enough to understand that we are all mostly sleepwalking, not only at an individual level
(Kahneman, Ariely) but also as a collective (Taleb). The next question has good chances to be:
"So, how do we wake up?" Alan Kay has wonderful conferences on YouTube that gently answer
this question by defining what science is about. A short answer would be given by Jim Simons:
"avoiding over/underfitting data". It leads to a question: "what fits the data?" Stephen Wolfram,
in his book "A New Kind of Science" will tell that it is anything that does and is not limited to
traditional tools: calculous, algebra, etc. Actually, Poincaré and Jacques Hadamard would agree:
there is an intuition of what is out there, this something else that may be fitted by math, but not only.
A good way to stop idolising maths as a goto tool is to check Doron Zielberger and Norman Wilderberger.
As with anything else, do the work until it's crystal clear and confirmed by some kind of experiments.
Contradictory debate are precious if you can find honest people.

Don't you ever give up (Seneca) or impressed: 95% of college graduates don't even know how the seasons work
while at the same time giving crap theories that do not match why you have winter and summer simultaneously
on the glob. Ask them to explain to you why the moon has phases for fun.

[Kiril]

The Fast and Slow has already been dropped to my kindle, thanks to your advice. I think, Nassim Taleb would match the list. Talking about the Black Swan.

[Marenghi]

Ive read Taleb and I like his style - but too much philosophizing and theoretizing with too little data - some therefore have pointed out several points of him that evidence shows otherwise. But each to his own.

[Kiril]

Ive read Taleb and I like his style - but too much philosophizing and theoretizing with too little data - some therefore have pointed out several points of him that evidence shows otherwise. But each to his own.

Then I'll stick with the two jewmericans, for awhile.

Let's try this one: Maharanji. Something hindi - sanskritian.

[mike_g]

Non-physician Type 1 diabetic speaking here:

With regard to fasting blood glucose vs. A1C, etc: According to a common estimation tool, A1C of 5.7 equates to an average BG of 117 mg/dL. This doesn't yet make one "diabetic", but studies show rates of diabetic complications increase starting somewhere around A1C of 5.5. I suspect many complications occur thru years of mildly elevated blood sugars prior to finally crossing into "Type 2 diabetic" territory. If I had a 5.7 A1C as a non-diabetic, I'd endeavor to reduce A1C to <5.5 thru dietary changes.

Also, I'm told Oral Glucose Tolerance Testing is more useful for diagnosing diabetes and pre-diabetes than A1C and/or fasting glucose. I'd do this test if fasting numbers are mildly elevated: it would give you an idea if you should make dietary changes. You could do the test at home for less than $20 with walmart blood glucose monitors.

[Culican]

Non-physician Type 1 diabetic speaking here:

With regard to fasting blood glucose vs. A1C, etc: According to a common estimation tool, A1C of 5.7 equates to an average BG of 117 mg/dL. This doesn't yet make one "diabetic", but studies show rates of diabetic complications increase starting somewhere around A1C of 5.5. I suspect many complications occur thru years of mildly elevated blood sugars prior to finally crossing into "Type 2 diabetic" territory. If I had a 5.7 A1C as a non-diabetic, I'd endeavor to reduce A1C to <5.5 thru dietary changes.

Mine was 5.3 with a range given for: Pre-diabetes: 5.7 - 6.4, Diabetes: >6.4 on the lab report. I also got a fasting glucose of 110mg/dL from the same blood draw.

Dr says not to worry. As we all know though, doctors don't always know what they are talking about. Then again, sometimes they do.

I don't eat a lot of carbohydrates as it is (~200g/day).

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

It's certainly plausible that this occurs, but I'm not as confident that this is a rampant problem resulting in "many" unnecessary statin prescriptions. If you input a hypothetical patient who would otherwise seem to be low risk into the ASCVD calculator and hold all variables constant but manipulate the blood pressure, say, from 135 to 145 to 155, you'll notice that BP is a rather minor factor in the output calculation in that situation.

This is a linear way of thinking about the scale. What I'd be interested in knowing is if/how BP interacts with the other factors. In other words, does a delta BP amplify the effects of any of the other factors (allowing these factors to fluctuate with BP changes, not to be held constant).