Jump to content

Txzen

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Txzen

  1. Txzen

    No mo' peanuts on SWA

    Everything is different when it's your kid.
  2. Txzen

    No mo' peanuts on SWA

    I'm an immunologist by training (not MD) so I have some strong feelings on the matter as the biology is pretty clear to me. Also you mean approval by the FDA (not CDC). There are clinical trials published an ongoing, and trust me that none of those get started without heavy scrutiny by the FDA, particularly when children are on the trial. The cutoff on many of those trials is age 4. About 20% seem unable to tolerate the OIT from the published work Aimmune is shooting for 2018 approval in the US, 2019 abroad : https://www.ft.com/content/17cd58b0-165d-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640
  3. Txzen

    No mo' peanuts on SWA

    Goddamn right. But if you look at the people who are really debilitated by this, they are often reactive to something as small as 1/6000th of a peanut. That said, there's some published work out there with therapy a handful of nuts is tolerable.
  4. Txzen

    No mo' peanuts on SWA

    The peanut allergy situation is indeed starting to get out of hand for two reasons. One, there are many people with claimed food allergies or intolerance which is completely lacking in medical facts. Case in point : gluten. A lot of self-diagnosis out there. That said, while I believe there is a particular hysteria with nut allergy, it is indeed on the rise. There's a body of evidence that it's been a bit fueled by long-time medical advice to not 'challenge' young children or infants with things such as peanuts or even milk or eggs, let alone shellfish, soy or wheat. If there is genetic evidence in the family then, sure, introduce with caution. But the number of people with actual predilection for food allergies is very small. It turns out that depriving children of these food allergens during a crucial time when their immune system is defining what are 'good' and 'bad' allergens may cause more problems than it tried to fix. There a really great study from Israel which showed that early introduction of these allergens had a great impact on reducing the likelihood of developing the allergy. There's a ton of immune cells in your gut, which is an area bathed in helpful and harmful bacteria, as well as being constantly exposed to proteins which might prompt an immune response. If you only get exposed to peanuts later in life, the thought is that there's a greater likelihood you'll develop an allergy since your immune system never learned it's just part of the normal diet. Some cool clinical trials where they are purifying these proteins and trying to desensitize people, with a few biotechs working on this. The studies are trying to help people whose goal is not to eat a Snickers some day, but just not go into anaphylaxis in case they ingest a minuscule accidental amount.
  5. I didn't realize anyone said this other than the fat orange guy. Good to know. Not sure why you'd say something so easily and demonstrably false (and this is coming from someone who just criticized their coverage). I count 20 articles for a three week tour (five by Ian Austen, the rest by the AP). So, you know, more than two I think. https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/tour-de-france
  6. There was a NYT piece recently lamenting at the lack of American riders at the Tour, and the decline of the sport (road cycling) in the US, while gravel and MTB have had an upswing. That said, the focus always seems to be about winning. The French haven't had a winner in 30 years. There are plenty of good, gritty Americans in the Tour and the pro peloton doing their job. It's not all about the podium, which is what Lawson demonstrated. It was amazing to watch him battle on.
  7. Lance is a poster boy for the effect of oxygen vector doping - either by blood transfusions or drugs to boost the hematocrit. He started as a junior under Eddie Borsewicz, who is at the genesis of blood doping in US cycling. Armstrong has a lower than normal hematocrit (<40) and as such, the benefit for him in raising it to the maximum allowed (50%) is far, far greater than someone who is normally at a higher value. Talented cyclist? Sure. But he became a monster cyclist through oxygen vector doping - and the complexity of his program is something he has never ever really come clean about. The lactate threshold is something he himself floated, ostensibly as a cover for his use of performance enhancing drugs. Maybe part of his performance, but it was not remotely at the root of his success.
  8. I don't understand your confusion. It's clear he punched the crap out of that car.
  9. The Soulor/Aubisque from the way they are coming tomorrow is just great. It's an epic, but doable climb which takes you from quaint small villages with beautiful old churches past the treeline into a beautiful, vivd green alpine environment. From where I've stayed near Argeles-Gazost, it's a 40mi out and back, with 6500' in climbing. Max elevation is about 5600'. Crossing from the Soulor to the start of the Aubisque is the Cirque du Litor, a road barely two lanes wide carved into the mountainside with a few absolute sheer drops and no protection. For those with a fear of heights (me) sticking to the outside 'lane' is really hard. There are a few tunnels as well, one which is just long enough to plunge a cyclist in complete darkness for a second longer than you'd like. The tunnels are wet and riddled with potholes. It being France, naturally there are delightful places to stop roadside at the top of both climbs and have a meal, or a glass of rose on a hot day. It's not really hard enough, I think, for a major GC shake-up tomorrow, unless someone decides to fly on the descent. But is sure pretty to watch.
  10. FFS...yes, Pantani was doped to the gills. He was also one of the most natural climbers and bike handlers in his generation, with a penchant for climbing in the drops - everyone else looks like a fool doing it but Alaphilippe pulls it off, and descends as well as Il Falco. Hence the comparison This really is the No Joy In Cycling Thread.
  11. Or, dumb luck if your team gives you the wrong tires for the cobbles. Forgot to give Bardet the special tires.
  12. Alaphilippe is the real deal. Haven’t seen someone look so good climbing in the drops since Pantani. Chapeau. Phil Gil’s crash was sickening - did not expect him to walk out of that.
  13. No disagreement. Between the National Parks of Banff, Yoho, Kootenay and Jasper, Jasper was my favorite (as well as the town itself). Maligne Canyon, Edith Cavell meadows, Sunwapta Falls...
  14. Fly into Calgary and drive to Banff. Easy. Not sure what you'll face weather wise there in October. I've been in summer and we had days of 70s and then a front came through with a dusting a snow at elevation. The winters are pretty tough there, but the plus is that the ski season is very long - we just skiied there in late April and it was fantastic. Their ski season is 178 days and is often perfectly skiable into May. The Banff Springs Hotel is one a kind, and worth a visit/drink. The rooms are pricey and small, from what I hear. Banff is pretty, but it's a ski town so there's 'stuff'. If you want to get away from it, best keep driving. Lake Louise gets all the praise, and rightfully so as it's beautiful. The Fairmont has a great location, but with its stucco facade feels more modern than the Banff Springs. Expensive, but good food (particularly the Walliser Stube). Just down the road, Deer Lodge is a rung or two below but maybe has more rustic charm. I've stayed at the Emerald Lake Lodge, and the location is tops as it's harder to get to - they limit the number of cars that can drive up that way. The hiking around and above either Lake Louise or Emerald Lake is just incredible. Highly recommended to hike to one of the backcountry 'Tea Huts' for lunch or a mid-day break. The entire area is an outdoor playground, and there are so many beautiful places to hike to - Bow Lake, Plain of Six Glaciers are two which stand out for me. The Kootenay Park has more geothermal activity which is an interesting visit. The Columbia Ice fields are also worth a visit, and even continuing up all the way to Jasper brings you to a different terrain and town vibe. The Grizzly activity is no joke. You will see one. Know how to handle yourself in the backcountry and you'll be fine. Frankly, the moose and elk are probably more dangerous, but...
  15. I guess as someone who got into cycling watching Greg Lemond compete and win at the TdF, I bristle that the 'Lemond/Armstrong feud took down US cycling'. Armstrong was the aggressor and basically cost Greg his position within Trek because he dared to say the emperor had no clothes - early, consistently, and loudly. Lance poured so much energy into discrediting him personally, in business, and psychologically to quiet him so he could continue with the greatest sporting fraud in the history of the sport. Lance fucked an entire generation of riders, and we still don't know the extent his corruption within the establishment which I have no doubt is still in play given the recent Froome debacle. I don't think the dearth of top-caliber US athletes is completely due to Lance, but it certainly is not due at all to a 'Lemond/Armstrong feud'. Frankly, there seems to be few top-caliber athletes capable of challenging Sky these days. I have a feeling that Doumoulin is having a very Cadel Evans-like career - constantly second to guys who seem extraterrestrial.
  16. If we are going to keep repeating things, can we get back to how this is all Tim Beck's fault? Thanks.
  17. Van Garderen is not having a great Tour, but he has struggled to find what really suits him. A change of teams may be a good thing. Phinney is a rouleur, whose job is to bodyguard Rigo. His best results are in TT or on the cobbles. He's doing just fine. Not so much for Rigo.
  18. It doesn't look like anyone really has legs to attack, or at least attack over the pace of the Sky train - which is as dull and predictable as 'Le Train Bleu'. It's either tomorrow on Alpe d'Huez or maybe stage 17 - those are the only two mountain top finishes where I would think the opportunity to crack Geraint and/or distance Froome would occur. I could see someone taking time on the Portillion and descent on stage 16. There won't be any shakeups on stage 19, unless there's a crack on the Tourmalet. The Soulor/Aubisque isn't hard enough and there's too much descending to be decisive. Geraint might not survive that long, but Froome will have no problem keeping with his rivals. Now or never, Movistar.
  19. Nice write up of the stage (which was the Etape, this year) : Link And the memorial : Maquis des Glières
  20. Not a motor. Please don't start this, it's asinine. Utter carnage, but it made a great spectacle. I'm always amazed how some people (and teams, frankly) just fare better at the cobbles with respect to flats and mechanicals. While it seems like so many are on similar equipment (at least on the rubber side of things) there's clearly some dark magic with the mechanics, as well as the fact that the guys who grew up racing that stuff just know how to guide the bike better so that they have less chance of it. Bardet, not so much. Haven't seen a train wreck like that since Rasmussen's time trial fiasco in 2007. TVG seems like a nice kid, and let me say that he's 100x tougher than I am. But he doesn't have 'it' and I struggle to see where he would be most competitive. Good TTer, good climber but only on steady grades with no attacks, and always seems to fade physically or mentally in a 3-week race. Porte must be one of the least lucky cyclists ever, and while I wasn't sure he'd really challenge the podium this year, it sucks to see him leave so early. And from a rest day, they go straight to an epic mountain stage. All of the climbs tomorrow are nasty, but I don't know Gileres...and with 6km at 11.2%, I plan to keep it that way.
×
×
  • Create New...