Hello friends. Greetings from Montecito. Where it is still pouring rain and cold. I won’t bore you with another weather rant. But I might hit the weather a bit. But we'll connect it to climate change. Later on, we'll get to a crazy paper on how much carbon dioxide is released to make 5 ounces of a ketogenic diet. Finally, we'll finish up with the Warburg effect and the video of the week.
Loved this edition of The Arrow - I so enjoy your style of writing Mike, whether you're writing about the rains in SB or complicated chemical reactions in the cells of the body. I didn't notice any typos either! Bit puzzled about this sentence though: "Those readers smarter than I can inform me in the comments." Is that grammatically correct ? Should there be an "am" after "I" ?
Well, I have now just wondered if it might be okay to write "Those readers smarter than I can inform me in the comments.” in American English but not British English so I used several grammar checkers online. Some say there are no errors but others say there are and that the error is that “I” should be “me”, ie "Those readers smarter than me can inform me in the comments.” - I thought of that originally but thought it clumsy to have two me’s in the sentence.
Here are four grammar checkers, all do American English and British English - two say the “I” should be “me” and two say the sentence is correct as it stands !
You can scrape up as many grammar sites as there are, but I can tell you for sure that the sentence is correct as it stands. The sentence could correctly read "Those readers smarter than I am can inform me..." So, the "am" is implied. You would never write "Those readers smarter than me am can inform me..."
Yes, as I wrote, I initially thought but did not say it might be "me" but felt that to write ""Those readers smarter than me can inform me in the comments.” would be very clumsy with the two me's ! I have learned something about grammar from this latest Arrow !
Wow, I am in Nirvana. I have found 2 people in this world, not English teachers and not patent attorneys, who actually ponder the rules of grammar. How rare this is in an age where more and more we have to ask "Is that one they, or two theys?" I trust you will never confuse us with popular pronoun use. I have a few examiners signing their letters with their pronouns and I have seen it all- they/them, she/they, zee/they, we/them...I worry about the republic.
I grew up in Canada but I work as a patent attorney in the US. I have found many differences in grammar between British and American English. Both uses are correct. You are just used to one way over the other. English is a difficult language to learn because there are so many alternative rules. I often know I have yet again stumbled on a British vs American grammar rule when I am going at it with the patent examiners lol.
Great, thank you. please use the link below to book in on a day and time that suits you.
The interview will be approximately 45 minutes long, for YouTube and an audio podcast version will be produced, and we will cover specific topics and questions relating to nutrition.
Hi Dr Eades, this is a bit out of left field but I am rereading the 6 Week Cure and the discussion of leucine in issues #111/112 reminded me of something I think I read on your blog years ago - would replacing the shakes with 2 more meat weeks work on the diet? I thought you wrote at some point you were going to prescribe 4 meat weeks but expected the average reader would want more variety.
Yes, you could do a couple more meat weeks, but now there are some shakes on the market that have plenty of leucine. Whey is a great source of leucine, so anything that has enough whey to provide ~2.5-3 g of leucine should do the trick.
Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry to be cheeky here but I run a small but rapidly growing carnivore YouTube channel in the UK and I'd be keen to have you on as a guest. I've spoken to Dr Ovadia, Shawn Baker, Bart Kay, Dr Lisa Wiedeman, Dr Kiltz and others. My 'thing' is physiology (I have an honours degree in health sciences) I'd enjoy talking about incretin hormones and some often under discussed 'stuff'
Hi, thanks for the weekly arrows, so good. If you'd be happy to come on please use the link supplied to book. I'm hoping to get you and amber ohearn on this month. To be honest, that would be my dream team!
That's great, please use the link below to book in on a day and time that suits you. I will 100% work around what's best for you.
The interview will be approximately 45 minutes long, for YouTube and an audio podcast version will be produced, and we will cover specific topics and questions relating to nutrition.
I switched to Substack on #97. The 96 before that are in a different format that I am trying to get converted. Some formats convert to Substack easily and some don't. I have the misfortune to have used on that doesn't. But I'm working on a solution.
Your comments on the Warburg effect recapitulate the history of Biochemistry. I sometimes give as a problem to students: you are in the health food business and among other things you want to sell yeast extract (smashed up yeast cells) but it happens to be 1890 and you don’t have a refrigerator because not so common and inconvenient. How can you preserve the extract? Students suggest salt which might but no good if to be ingested product. One way was to add a lot of sugar. When you do that you are astounded to see the extract bubbling and giving off what turns out to be CO2 and you have carried fermentation without a living organism (no yeast cells in your prep) and that was a surprise in 1890. This was the beginning of biochemistry and discovery of enzymes which means (Greek?) in yeast. Now when Krebs or somebody got an aerobic microorganism and made and extract and add succinate or other substrates from the Krebs cycle, nothing happened. Why? The answer is, as you point out, aerobic metabolism requires structure (the mitochondria) and, as you say, membranes. BTW, as you undoubtedly know, the Warburg effect is not absolute, even beyond glutamine, there is a spectrum of the extent to which cancer cell prefer glycolysis to respiration.
Yep, I understand the Warburg effect is not absolute. More's the pity. I'll discuss all that in future editions. I did not realize the Warburg effect recapitulates the history of biochemistry, however. Fascinating stuff.
About to start a discussion with Anssi Manninen about mass balance thing. Since I am not sure what either of you guys are talking about, I suggested you join in. He is up for it, if you are. What do you think?
Would love to join in. Right now I'm finishing a project with Eric Westman's group that has kept me nose to the grindstone. I haven't had the chance to do much other than scan Anssi's paper. I'll get it read more in depth in the next few days and will be ready to add something intelligent (I hope) to the conversation.
Once again, loved it all, Mike - especially the boat stuff, although having crossed the Atlantic on an oceanographic vessel that was 276 feet long, so quite a bit bigger than your boat, I can't imagine traveling the Atlantic in a storm on yours.
About that line: "to facilitate linages with self-selected individual diets" - lineages are "the number of lines in printed or written matter, especially when used to calculate payment" which, to my mind, makes the whole concept even less comprehensible. Given the total nonsense otherwise in that section, that may well have been the purpose.
Just loved the video - so glad you've linked to it - wonder if he'll ever get his audience back - with any luck and lots of people such as your good self promoting him, he will.
So here's what I found this week:
In response to Anne's question, no, there doesn't have to be an 'am' after the I - but I do think that Max must have been able to free dive with goggles - I'll bet autocorrect changed it to googles.
" . . . took a live aboard course with two of our sons"
I'm just not sure what an "aboard" course is
" . . .our bare boat charter "
According to the internet, it should be bareboat charter, but the internet could be wrong.
" . . .there was this great worry one that New Year’s eve that the world was going '
Perhaps - " . . . worry that on New Year's Eve the world was going . . . ."
" . . .sold the boat to make the down payment on it, and moved it."
Moved the boat or moved to the condo? Not sure which you meant here
". . . .thinking more about the planet that our own health"
about the planet than our own health
" . . .one side of the membrane creates and electro-chemical gradient"
Thanks as always. Everything fixed that needed fixing. Live aboard is boating lingo meaning living on a boat while you're doing something. In this case, while we were taking the sailing course. We lived on a boat (or aboard) instead of staying in a hotel. Aboard just means on a ship or boat. As in all aboard.
I agree re the am in Anne's question. The am is implied.
Loved this edition of The Arrow - I so enjoy your style of writing Mike, whether you're writing about the rains in SB or complicated chemical reactions in the cells of the body. I didn't notice any typos either! Bit puzzled about this sentence though: "Those readers smarter than I can inform me in the comments." Is that grammatically correct ? Should there be an "am" after "I" ?
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. As I commented above, the "am" is implied.
The sentence is correct. It's just a bit unusual because am is usually used. This is like the use of the word that. You can omit because it's implied.
Well, I have now just wondered if it might be okay to write "Those readers smarter than I can inform me in the comments.” in American English but not British English so I used several grammar checkers online. Some say there are no errors but others say there are and that the error is that “I” should be “me”, ie "Those readers smarter than me can inform me in the comments.” - I thought of that originally but thought it clumsy to have two me’s in the sentence.
Here are four grammar checkers, all do American English and British English - two say the “I” should be “me” and two say the sentence is correct as it stands !
https://quillbot.com/grammar-check
https://writer.com/grammar-checker/
https://www.scribbr.com/grammar-checker/
https://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck
You can scrape up as many grammar sites as there are, but I can tell you for sure that the sentence is correct as it stands. The sentence could correctly read "Those readers smarter than I am can inform me..." So, the "am" is implied. You would never write "Those readers smarter than me am can inform me..."
That's my two cents worth on it.
Yes, as I wrote, I initially thought but did not say it might be "me" but felt that to write ""Those readers smarter than me can inform me in the comments.” would be very clumsy with the two me's ! I have learned something about grammar from this latest Arrow !
Wow, I am in Nirvana. I have found 2 people in this world, not English teachers and not patent attorneys, who actually ponder the rules of grammar. How rare this is in an age where more and more we have to ask "Is that one they, or two theys?" I trust you will never confuse us with popular pronoun use. I have a few examiners signing their letters with their pronouns and I have seen it all- they/them, she/they, zee/they, we/them...I worry about the republic.
I grew up in Canada but I work as a patent attorney in the US. I have found many differences in grammar between British and American English. Both uses are correct. You are just used to one way over the other. English is a difficult language to learn because there are so many alternative rules. I often know I have yet again stumbled on a British vs American grammar rule when I am going at it with the patent examiners lol.
One of the BEST videos you have ever posted! Keep them coming, but you will have a hard time topping that one!
Great, thank you. please use the link below to book in on a day and time that suits you.
The interview will be approximately 45 minutes long, for YouTube and an audio podcast version will be produced, and we will cover specific topics and questions relating to nutrition.
Best regards,
https://www.theukcarnivore.com/interview
Hi Dr Eades, this is a bit out of left field but I am rereading the 6 Week Cure and the discussion of leucine in issues #111/112 reminded me of something I think I read on your blog years ago - would replacing the shakes with 2 more meat weeks work on the diet? I thought you wrote at some point you were going to prescribe 4 meat weeks but expected the average reader would want more variety.
Yes, you could do a couple more meat weeks, but now there are some shakes on the market that have plenty of leucine. Whey is a great source of leucine, so anything that has enough whey to provide ~2.5-3 g of leucine should do the trick.
Thanks! I will look for those. Now if I could find a good savory protein shake...drinking sweet stuff 3 times a day can get old.
Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry to be cheeky here but I run a small but rapidly growing carnivore YouTube channel in the UK and I'd be keen to have you on as a guest. I've spoken to Dr Ovadia, Shawn Baker, Bart Kay, Dr Lisa Wiedeman, Dr Kiltz and others. My 'thing' is physiology (I have an honours degree in health sciences) I'd enjoy talking about incretin hormones and some often under discussed 'stuff'
Sure. Be happy to.
Hi, thanks for the weekly arrows, so good. If you'd be happy to come on please use the link supplied to book. I'm hoping to get you and amber ohearn on this month. To be honest, that would be my dream team!
That's great, please use the link below to book in on a day and time that suits you. I will 100% work around what's best for you.
The interview will be approximately 45 minutes long, for YouTube and an audio podcast version will be produced, and we will cover specific topics and questions relating to nutrition.
Best regards,
https://www.theukcarnivore.com/interview
I am new to the arrow and I am confused that I can only go back to episode 97?
I switched to Substack on #97. The 96 before that are in a different format that I am trying to get converted. Some formats convert to Substack easily and some don't. I have the misfortune to have used on that doesn't. But I'm working on a solution.
Your comments on the Warburg effect recapitulate the history of Biochemistry. I sometimes give as a problem to students: you are in the health food business and among other things you want to sell yeast extract (smashed up yeast cells) but it happens to be 1890 and you don’t have a refrigerator because not so common and inconvenient. How can you preserve the extract? Students suggest salt which might but no good if to be ingested product. One way was to add a lot of sugar. When you do that you are astounded to see the extract bubbling and giving off what turns out to be CO2 and you have carried fermentation without a living organism (no yeast cells in your prep) and that was a surprise in 1890. This was the beginning of biochemistry and discovery of enzymes which means (Greek?) in yeast. Now when Krebs or somebody got an aerobic microorganism and made and extract and add succinate or other substrates from the Krebs cycle, nothing happened. Why? The answer is, as you point out, aerobic metabolism requires structure (the mitochondria) and, as you say, membranes. BTW, as you undoubtedly know, the Warburg effect is not absolute, even beyond glutamine, there is a spectrum of the extent to which cancer cell prefer glycolysis to respiration.
Yep, I understand the Warburg effect is not absolute. More's the pity. I'll discuss all that in future editions. I did not realize the Warburg effect recapitulates the history of biochemistry, however. Fascinating stuff.
About to start a discussion with Anssi Manninen about mass balance thing. Since I am not sure what either of you guys are talking about, I suggested you join in. He is up for it, if you are. What do you think?
Would love to join in. Right now I'm finishing a project with Eric Westman's group that has kept me nose to the grindstone. I haven't had the chance to do much other than scan Anssi's paper. I'll get it read more in depth in the next few days and will be ready to add something intelligent (I hope) to the conversation.
Once again, loved it all, Mike - especially the boat stuff, although having crossed the Atlantic on an oceanographic vessel that was 276 feet long, so quite a bit bigger than your boat, I can't imagine traveling the Atlantic in a storm on yours.
About that line: "to facilitate linages with self-selected individual diets" - lineages are "the number of lines in printed or written matter, especially when used to calculate payment" which, to my mind, makes the whole concept even less comprehensible. Given the total nonsense otherwise in that section, that may well have been the purpose.
Just loved the video - so glad you've linked to it - wonder if he'll ever get his audience back - with any luck and lots of people such as your good self promoting him, he will.
So here's what I found this week:
In response to Anne's question, no, there doesn't have to be an 'am' after the I - but I do think that Max must have been able to free dive with goggles - I'll bet autocorrect changed it to googles.
" . . . took a live aboard course with two of our sons"
I'm just not sure what an "aboard" course is
" . . .our bare boat charter "
According to the internet, it should be bareboat charter, but the internet could be wrong.
" . . .there was this great worry one that New Year’s eve that the world was going '
Perhaps - " . . . worry that on New Year's Eve the world was going . . . ."
" . . .sold the boat to make the down payment on it, and moved it."
Moved the boat or moved to the condo? Not sure which you meant here
". . . .thinking more about the planet that our own health"
about the planet than our own health
" . . .one side of the membrane creates and electro-chemical gradient"
should be "an electro-chemical gradient"
Thanks as always. Everything fixed that needed fixing. Live aboard is boating lingo meaning living on a boat while you're doing something. In this case, while we were taking the sailing course. We lived on a boat (or aboard) instead of staying in a hotel. Aboard just means on a ship or boat. As in all aboard.
I agree re the am in Anne's question. The am is implied.