Jump to content

Txzen

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Txzen

  1. 20 hours ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

     For this reason, people who are allergic to peanuts also can be allergic to tree nuts, such as almonds, Brazil nuts, walnuts, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pistachios, pecans, and cashews.

    31RjVDw.gif

     

  2. 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. 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. 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. 13 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

    The failing NY Times wrote two pieces about the Tour.

    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

    • Like 1
  6. 3 hours ago, Bojack said:

    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. 17 hours ago, Napoleon said:

    Interesting discussion on doping, cycling/swimming, and stuff from April of 2018.

    Joe Rogan talking to Peter Attia (https://peterattiamd.com/about/😞
     

    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.

    • Like 1
  8. 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. 

    Spoiler

    Gf356CDg_o.jpg

    atPMoKDJ_o.jpg

    4uR92fpM_o.jpg

     

     

  9. 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...

  10. 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. 

     

  11. 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. 

×
×
  • Create New...