Which is what the app on my phone is based on already. I manage it most days easily by walking from the bus station to work and back, which is ~1 mile. And that doesn't include the time I'm actually at work, because I can't wear my smart watch actually in the office.
Or 7,000, or 6,000-8,000. If we’re going to nitpick there’s a lot of numbers tossed out in the article, but then somebody who reads it doesn’t really need to be saved a click.
the optimal number is probably closer to 6,000 steps per day, depending on your age.
In 2021, Paluch and her team published research based on a cohort of more than 2,000 middle-aged individuals living across the US. They found taking at least 7,000 steps a day reduced chances of premature death by 50 to 70 percent.
For adults aged 60 and older, this reduced risk topped out at around 6,000 to 8,000 steps a day. Pushing further might have other benefits, but a reduced chance of death isn’t one.
The study found that those who are younger could do well to walk a little more, but there wasn’t evidence that they’d necessarily live longer by walking more than 8,000 to 10,000 steps a day.
But if nothing else, setting our sights on at least 6,000 to 8,000 paces before bedtime could be a far easier step towards a longer life.
The "horrible thing" is fingernail loss, which mostly occurs after a prolonged spacewalk. It occurs more often in poorly-fitted gloves and in women, but can occur in well-fitted gloves and in men.
Those are basically all of the facts in the article.
Same talking points the CPSC used to run ZenMagnets out of business. Guns aren’t too dangerous to keep around kids, but magnets with the boxes absolutely *plastered * with warnings are. No joke, my zen magnets had over ten warnings on each box. All in bright red letters.
And if you go look at the actual evidence you’re gonna see that household chemicals cause way more damage and death than these magnets ever will. I have no clue who has it out for these magnets but they’re absolutely destroying a great stress reliever for what amounts to nothing.
The endoscopists at our childrens hospital also echoed that magnets are a super common foreign body ingestion, any two magnets swallowed is a huge hazard with a high potential for lifelong consequences. And the little balls are supposedly the worst as they have a small surface area in addition to being fairly strong, so they cause perforations quickly.
Also warnings on a magnet box or other toys will be ignored far more commonly that on household chemicals. I don’t know any people who keep bleach on their office desk, and even then it is in a childproof bottle. But many will have these little magnet balls on full display or somewhere a child can reasonably reach, some parents give these to inapropriately aged kids to play with even. Nobody gives a bottle of bleach for their kids to play with.
You don’t have to give a bottle of bleach. The point is that most household chemicals have hardly any warnings on them at all and the ones they do have are written in tiny text on the back. And no, most household chemicals do not have locking bottles. Sure things like bleach do, but you purposefully chose one to try and fit your narrative. Turns out, bleach was the number one household chemical to injure children in 2006! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20679298/
Let’s look at another report which states that ~50% of the magnet injuries come from products marketed to children, not these magnets made for adults. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125079/
It’s incredibly clear that the CPSC doesn’t actually care about the facts and someone in the magnet industry pissed them of else they’d be spending their time trying to fix the actual things that are killing children, like firearms.
Just to end this post; the zen magnet warnings covered every inch of the packaging, you opened the box and there were more warning, you opened the bag in the box and there were even more warnings. There were permanent warnings in bright red text that couldn’t be removed from the box. This was more warning than any other product on the market and yet zen magnets have been completely banned, while bleach is still sold at your local grocery store with no ID necessary. Here’s a picture of one of the warnings, sorry I couldn’t find a video showing all the warnings, it’s been lost to time.
Anyway, the CPSC clearly doesn’t care about actual child deaths and injuries, as it didn’t do anything to even slow the rate of injuries or deaths and yet completely banned an entire industry just for pissing them off. I’ve posted all the proof straight from the CPSC above if you don’t believe that statement.
I checked through the links, and what I did find, besides the childrens magnets is that 1/4 of the magnets were small magnet balls, so it is not like it is an uncommon thing. If magnets are ingested they can cause serious surgical emergencies, which will lead to having to cut out part of the intestines as well as potentially cause peritonitis, the surgery will have lifelong consequences, it is of course also possible to die from complications. And small powerful magnets cause the most damage.
Generally the only other foreign body that is as bad to ingest as small magnets are batteries.
Regarding the warnings - Ill say it again, noone really reads those , everyone I have known with the balls has had them on full display without safety. People for solid things like this just look at the warnings and go, well duh its a choking hazard. And then of course theres the classic reasoning of but my kid is smarter.
Is the CPSC right? I mean, their reason stands solid, their response maybe disproportionate. That said I think the idea that the magnet industry somehow wronged the CPSC is a bit conspiratorial.
Also I would not classify drugs as household chemicals, hence why I chose bleach as my example. The other really bad offender for household chemicals used to be 70% vinegar, but that one was banned in the EU, so now we can only buy 9% which will not cause more than an upset stomach generally, most other common household chemicals will not be as bad and many of them still have childproof locks.
The problem is growing leafy plants like lettuce and spinach in space can come with a side dish of bacteria, according to a new study from a team at the University of Delaware. In tests on plants grown in simulated microgravity, they were shown to actually be more susceptible than normal to the Salmonella enterica pathogen.
The ISS has a very strict cleaning regime. Essentially every work minute not spent on research or maintenance is for cleaning. I think to remember that they even have one day a week when all they do is clean.
Sounds like not a big problem at all. Seems like they'll just have to use appropriate cleaning methods. Even in the worst case scenario they would probably just have to use food irradiation.
Nah, you’re just talking out of your ass, look at the size of equipment and the regulations that go into irradiating food and you would see why it’s not feasible in/on the space station.
Also, looks at the list of acceptable foods that can be irradiated for astronauts, ifs also different than what the public has access too.
I’m pointing out it’s far more involved than you think.
Because the general population is dumb
Yes they are if they think it’s that simple to irradiate food properly and safely in the space station and it’s “trivial”. If it was, it would be being done already…
What does that prove about irradiating in the space station? Have you seen the regulations and equipment that go into it? I really don’t even know what you think that’s proving in this exchange.
If it was simple and trivial, why are they not doing it on the space station? Because it’s not simple… it’s not easy… and it’s just not feasible….
The link shows you that it can be done on any food, and that the only reason why it hasn't be accepted by the public is because of fear about the word.
To your additional objections, do a an image search of the machines and you'll see that the non-miniaturized versions that are made for industrial scale mass production products are like 4x4x2 feet for the actual functional machine part of it
It can be done on any food, but look at NASAs list for what is acceptable…. Different agencies are involved with different standards.
Just because it’s easy on earth doesn’t correlate to space… this exchange even started in a post of a an article about this exact thing….
You are right people are dumb yeesh.
Edit, read your own links….
At present, human spaceflight is confined to low Earth orbit but, in future, will again go to the Moon and, beyond, to Mars. The provision of food during these extended missions will need to meet the special nutritional and psychosocial needs of the crew. Terrestrially grown and processed food products, currently provided for consumption by astronauts/cosmonauts, have not yet been systematically optimised to maintain their nutritional integrity and reach the shelf-life necessary for extended space voyages. Notably, space food provisions for Mars exploration will be subject to extended exposure to galactic cosmic radiation and solar particle events, the impact of which is not fully understood. In this review, we provide a summary of the existing knowledge about current space food products, the impact of radiation and storage on food composition, the identification of radiolytic biomarkers and identify gaps in our knowledge that are specific in relation to the effect of the cosmic radiation on food in space.
It shows the challenges and the unknowns of doing it in space….
It’s to show you it’s not as simple as you are making it out to be…. But of course you’re not going to comprehend that as you’ve already established how stupid some people are.
2, Mice aren’t humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.
You don’t need to change your diet, and you certainly don’t need to replace it with sugar.
Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you’re wrong:
The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.
So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.
Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.
I’m baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, “hey, look at this study!”
The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren’t affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.
The size of the gene pool isn’t really an issue though because they can be bred however it’s required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.
Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.
Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don’t think they’d get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.
I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain’t in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.
Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.
Probably people who are a bit sketch about the “even natural sugars” bit, since that removes a TON of otherwise healthy food options. Minimize added sugar, sure.
Eh, IIRC there’s research that if you eat incredible amounts it’ll likely be bad for you. But it’s a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
Eh, IIRC there’s research that if you eat incredible amounts it’ll likely be bad for you. But it’s a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
I can’t tell what this is supposed to convey. They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.
Are you agreeing with the post you are replying to?
They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I’m agreeing with the post?
From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it’s clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:
Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.
The implication here is that aspartame is often used in products that have these sugars present. Chances that aspartame is in a product without sugars is exorbitantly lower.
I want to be super clear if anyone finds this and thinks maybe…
No, there is no evidence of artificial sweeteners causing harm. There is no conspiracy, and after many many studies over decades, nothing has been found. If there had been, then the artificial sweeteners would have been banned like the ones you’ve never heard of because we all banned them for causing problems.
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar. From everything we have learned over decades, it’s absolutely safe.
You’re using overly broad language. Multiple family members and myself get brutal headaches from aspartame. While that’s certainly not life threatening damage, it is fair to call that a harmful effect. I am not better off with many products switching to aspartame as a sweetener.
Yes, it is just an anecdote, but it’s enough to show that absolute statements don’t usually hold universally. Please stay open to the possibility of nuance.
Seemed fair to me, youre using strong words like “absolutely safe”, even though there are known reactions to various sweeteners and they arent “absolutely” safe, as per the link I cited above.
A few people are replying with links (of various relevance) but you are just saying “no” and claiming you’re being “super clear”. Some of the replies are directly contraindications of the claim:
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar.
Your counterpoint is saying they are “absolutely safe”. I don’t know whether you are right or wrong. It’s not anywhere near my field, but I can say I don’t find your rhetoric convincing.
Edit: I fucked up and pasted the wrong quote. I changed the quote to the one I meant.
You do not need to find my rhetoric “convincing.” One person posted one link, the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
I am being clear, I am not using confusing language, and I’m stating one thing, over and over. I’m doing this because other people are muddying the water with poor claims, and I do not want anyone reading this thread to come away with the idea that maybe the artificial sweeteners are bad. There is no evidence. Again, I’m being super clear. There is absolutely no evidence, and they are absolutely safe. There is no evidence that suggests they are not absolutely safe.
This place is full of nerds like you and me, and they like to be pandantic. I’m being clear, and using phrases like “absolutely safe” is the correct terminology when we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Again, artificial sweeteners are as far as we know, and we have studied them a lot, absolutely safe and you should consider replacing your sugar intake with them or reducing your sugar intake entirely if you can. Sugar is a large cause of health problems.
My point is that you are just some voice on the internet. When I say I don’t find your rhetoric convincing, I mean that the only evidence you offer is rhetoric. And that is not convincing regardless of how clear you are speaking.
the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
This is how the meta study concludes:
Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed associations are genuine or a result of reverse causation and/or residual confounding. Further research is also needed in children and pregnant women, the latter for which prospective cohort studies currently suggest possible unfavourable effects of NSS consumption on birthweight and adiposity in offspring later in life.
The scientists who produced the study seem a lot less convinced than you.
There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s just energy. If you intake more energy than you burn it’s getting stored for future use (you get fat). The same goes for almost anything “unhealthy”. Manage your energy intake and almost nothing is unhealthy.
You are correct, the caveat “added sugar” or added sweetener in this case is the important bit.
Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason and the sugar you eat in fruit and veg come with fiber which helps keep our blood sugar from spiking.
I was shocked to learn that dates, which are basically candy, have a pretty reasonable glycemic index.
Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason
That's because fructolysis has a slightly different pathway and fate as compared to glycolysis, which results in far lower efficiency of conversion. Meaning glucose gets converted into more calories than fructose does.
there’s little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation
fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.
then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)
but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that’s just simple science. body types, “nuance”, “bad metabolism”. none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.
all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control
self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.
but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.
I feel like you underestimate addiction. “Self control” is what’s needed to not start smoking; but it takes something stronger to quit smoking, I think – a more refined willpower than simple “self control”.
And sure, it’s something a person could cultivate and train on their own with time and focus. But so are most other things. “Why aren’t you good at drawing? All you need to do is practice every day! it’s simple.”
tl;dr - "The new findings suggest used coffee or tea could be a natural and sustainable way to improve the shelf life of baked goods, while at the same time infusing the products with added nutrients."
Pretty sure the caffeine extraction from most brewing processes is pretty complete, wouldn’t doubt for a second that chocolate has significantly more than used coffee grounds.
A hallmark of eukaryotic aging is a loss of epigenetic information, a process that can be reversed. We have previously shown that the ectopic induction of the Yamanaka factors OCT4, SOX2, and KLF4 (OSK) in mammals can restore youthful DNA methylation patterns, transcript profiles, and tissue function, without erasing cellular identity, a process that requires active DNA demethylation. To screen for molecules that reverse cellular aging and rejuvenate human cells without altering the genome, we developed high-throughput cell-based assays that distinguish young from old and senescent cells, including transcription-based aging clocks and a real-time nucleocytoplasmic compartmentalization (NCC) assay. We identify six chemical cocktails, which, in less than a week and without compromising cellular identity, restore a youthful genome-wide transcript profile and reverse transcriptomic age. Thus, rejuvenation by age reversal can be achieved, not only by genetic, but also chemical means.
Salad is good for you, generally speaking, so growing fresh greens in orbit seems like a winning way for space farers to stay healthy. New research suggests that as nutritious as space salad might be, it could pose something of a risk to astronauts.
The problem is growing leafy plants like lettuce and spinach in space can come with a side dish of bacteria, according to a new study from a team at the University of Delaware. In tests on plants grown in simulated microgravity, they were shown to actually be more susceptible than normal to the Salmonella enterica pathogen.
Sounds like not a big problem at all. Seems like they'll just have to use appropriate cleaning methods. Even in the worst case scenario they would probably just have to use food irradiation.
sciencealert.com
Hot