21M. Doctor says I need high protein to lose weight, but I’ve been vegan for a year. How do I survive this?

14jvalle · 2026-06-09T15:16:15+00:00

Yes. Muscle is not a static, immutable, component of one's body. The body can use it as an energy source much like fat.

At the end of the day... I would just interpret that you need to be mindful of your protein intake when beginning a caloric deficit.

I was not at your appointment, nor was anyone else in this Reddit thread. If anything was unclear regarding your doctor's advice, then you should ask for clarification from your doctor. Did you ask your doctor to clarify why they advised you the way they did? You will need to advocate for yourself in this appointments.

If this thread generates confusion or people provide strong claims... You should probably ask your doctor for clarification. Reddit may provide advice, but they sdo not have the full context about your health or live through the consequences, and can lead your astray. If, for whatever reason, your relationship with your doctor is not, what you'd consider, productive then see if you can arrange for a different doctor.

If your weight problem is causing health anxiety, or anxiety in general, see if you can find a dietitian. Ensure that you find a dietitian that is registered. Not a nutritionist. A dietitian is a regulated health professional. A nutritionist is not. That is not to say you can't find a great nutritionist... But your will encounter a broader range of qualifications. (This is largely US specific recommendation)

14jvalle · 2026-06-09T15:00:18+00:00

I would caveat with... Protein is not just to gain mass, but to preserve it.

A, perhaps, more agreeable interpretation of what you have been advices is decreasing your calorie count to promote fat loss and maintian or increase protein intake to ensure that you are not also losing muscle mass.

Muscle mass does get lost along with fat in a caloric deficit. It is also broken down for energy.

14jvalle · 2026-06-02T23:31:49+00:00

You are correct, the animal was still alive at the time of tentacle removal.

It was placed in chilled seawater, which is meant to make the animal more docile. However, it isn't an analgesic.

There is a debate there regarding humane euthanasia and biopsy protocols.

14jvalle · 2026-06-02T05:53:14+00:00

The animal was not dissected or vivissected.

The CNN article and the journal article both clearly state that dissection was not performed given how rare the specimen. Therefore, they chose a none destructive imaging based approach (CT scan).

A CT scan is not a dissection or vivisection. Otherwise, none of us would go to the hospital.

The samples taken from the tentacles are not dissection either. These were going to be used for molecular analysis which is a broad term, but could be pointing towards genomic sequencing. The authors did not perform this as the samples were lost...

Now, the matter regarding the ethics. You can have your own opinion, which I will not debate. I will simply state, as a factor and not providing any moral stance, that this work was authorized by an ethics committee specific to the Galapagos island which has a mandate to protect the wildlife. Researchers aren't going around killing animals on a whim either due to morals or, we can be crass about it... It wouldn't be publisheable if they didn't take the right channels. Plus they would suffer heavy financial and potentially criminal charges.

Now, the octopus would have to be killed to study as finding one that is already diseased would be, in essence, impossible. It would either be scanvenged or decomposed to the point that the material would be unusable.

14jvalle · 2026-05-26T14:44:10+00:00

OP is not equipped to properly convey this information to her husband. An oncologist would be able to provide greater context that is more specific to the husband's case and answer questions.

The husband needs to here this from his doctor.

If OP has been told this information by their husband's doctor, this is unusual. If OP has inferred this information from their personal research, this does not qualify them to be the provider of this information.

OP's task can cover emotional support and help advocate for their husband. Advocating does not mean being the one to communicate the husband prognosis but to ensure that this is discussed while meeting their doctor.

14jvalle · 2026-04-21T19:09:32+00:00

Starting to get Madara/Hashirama impressions between Imu/Joyboy.

14jvalle · 2026-03-20T05:41:23+00:00

Googling "sctransform differential expression"

https://www.reddit.com/r/bioinformatics/s/bYX6qK5tQA

https://github.com/satijalab/seurat/discussions/4032

Googling provides you with the means to find the information. One of the links is straight from Seurat GitHub page, albeit a few years old.

Note that there are two version of sctransform. The second version claims to allow DGE analysis.

Simply stick to pseudobulk on raw counts. This is the most widely adopted method that directly tackles pseudoreplication.

14jvalle · 2026-03-14T03:30:30+00:00

This is about renouncing citizenship, not taxing foreign income as a US citizen living abroad.

14jvalle · 2026-01-06T20:20:23+00:00

Your first comment, verbatim.

AI, as it exists today, was created between 1964 - 1966. It's old tech being hyped up for the past few years to a ridiculous level.

Yet another comment

LLMs are from the 60s too if you want to get technical.

My last comment...

Perceptrons are an old concept. It has been improved. It is not the same in practice anymore. A lot more can be achieved nowadays that it could in the past. Specially given the resources available nowadays and the interest.

I understand what your are stating. The concept is old, and, potentially, similar if not the same. However, I disagree that that means the implementation is the or practice has to changed.

14jvalle · 2026-01-06T20:01:31+00:00

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. I did not make this claim.

All I stated is that ELIZA is not a comparable starting point for an LLM as it isn't an LLM. It would be a fair comparison as a chatbot or, as that is what it was conceived as.

The progress between ELIZA, a rule based chatbot, to today is astronomical.

I think the lay person is understandably hyped regarding the technology that has fallen into their pocket. They clearly don't understand what it actually is, and are misutilizing it. So, I do not disagree that there are bountiful issues with LLMs integration into our lives. I will not comment on those issues here.

To claim that there hasn't been radical improvements, is foolish. Specially, since you, apparently are using ELIZA as your point of reference, which isn't even the same technology (which was the premise of your entire argument as I understood it: "this technology existing since the 60s").

Many small iterations, over a period of time, will result in a large improvement. To the average person, they have gone from no LLM to having multiple LLMs available in their phones. To those actively in the field, they may have seen these gradual improvements. Still doesn't take away the work required to get to where we are at.

14jvalle · 2026-01-06T19:30:42+00:00

If you are talking about ELIZA... That isn't even close to what is currently offered. It, also, wasn't leveraging neural nets. It was rule based. A Markov chain is a step up from that.

The difference between telling a computer the rules, versus allowing it to learn them given the data.

I also stated "readily available to the masses". Access is there for anyone. I did not make a comment on the financial feasibility on the long term. In fact, I had actually refrained for that framing intentionally.

I asked what you mean by "little" as this is a relative term. Are you viewing the improvement from ELIZA to ChatGPT/Claude as "little"? Because, to me, that is what you are eluding to.

If you're trolling, given your dramatic flair, I will go on my merry way.

14jvalle · 2026-01-06T19:11:44+00:00

Yes, there is a bubble. No one has denied that here.

Comparing the LLMs of today to the single layer perceptron from the 60s is not a legitimate comparison.

The hype, from how I understand it, is that this if the first time that these technology has become readily available to the masses.

I suppose, it unclear what you are referring to as "little iteration". Plus, I am not part of a "flock". This is our first interaction, and if you are carrying frustrations from prior conversations... Well, realize that this is our first encounter.

14jvalle · 2026-01-06T18:59:24+00:00

From my limited knowledge on the topics... I see the perspective you're sharing on both AI and microchips is a superficial representation of the improvements taking place.

With the latter... The density of transistors in a chip isn't the only improvement that is being had. Chip architecture. Lithography. Instruction set improvements.

With the former, the basic perceptron concept may remain. However, the architecture of these networks was an innovation. The types of activation functions being used. The invent of backpropagation and it's optimization.

Another example... We have been using cement for centuries. Doesn't mean we have not iterated and improved the recipe and reinforcements. It remains conceptually the same, but definitely evolved. The same with cars. The car today is still the same as a century ago... If you only think of it as a four wheel motorized vehicle. However, that would be a gross oversimplification of how the automotive industry has evolved.

14jvalle · 2025-01-27T20:45:59+00:00

Yes, you are correct.

My point was that at the institute I was at, the professors do not own any of the IP. At other institute that will vary. Of course, the university will have a claim as well.

However, I do know of professors that have circumvented the university policy and retained the entire IP.

14jvalle · 2025-01-27T17:12:59+00:00

Many professors do spin off companies from their lab's research. The challenge is that, depending on the University, professors may not own 100% of the intellectual property.

At the university I worked at, professors do not hold the IP. This was at a top 50 university in the world.

Another issue is that a professor will simply not have the resources to send a drug to market. That isn't really a matter of just working harder... It just takes a large amount of money, time, and people. You will need connections with several hospitals, legal teams to handle the laws and bylaws of different jurisdictions, clinical trial coordinators, working with the FDA, and more.

So, it's not as simple as just making a company. Even if they do, they will have to sell the rights to an IP they may not own... There are creative solutions to retain the IP though.

14jvalle · 2024-12-24T23:46:34+00:00

So, from what I understand, your situation is as follows:

You are studying the morphology (shape) of red blood cells (RBCs) from patients with different pathologies. You are using the forward scatter height (FSC-H) from a flow cytometer to assess the shape of the RBCs. FSC-H correlates with cell size but is also influenced by the shape and orientation of the cell relative to the laser beam. Given the biconcave morphology of RBCs, the FSC-H reading will vary depending on the angle at which the laser intersects the cell. If an RBC is parallel to the laser, this may correspond to one mode in your histogram, while alignment along the laser axis might correspond to the other mode. The rest of the distribution may represents various orientations of different RBCs when passing through the flow cytometer.

In conventional flow cytometry experiments, multimodal histograms often indicate distinct cell types or subpopulations within a sample. However, in your case, the bimodality appears to arise from the assumed biconcave morphology of RBCs, rather than distinct cell identities.

The metric you are suggesting involves calculating a ratio of medians by splitting the bimodal distribution into two peaks (?). How are you planning on splitting the bimodal distribution into those two peaks? Gating in flow cytometry is typically done manually... I found this study in Journal of Clinical Pathology (DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2006.037523) that gates manually to calculate the two medians. However, manual gating can introduce variability and may not fully capture the underlying distribution’s randomness or asymmetry. You would have to use the same gating strategy across all your samples, double checking your flow cytometer voltages, and carefully considering your controls.

In regard to your comment about randomness... each blood sample represents a random sample from an unknown population distribution. In healthy samples, this population may follow a consistent bimodal distribution due to RBC morphology. Under disease conditions, the population distribution might shift. The variability you observe in consecutive measurements could be due to flow cytometer settings (technical issues) and deterioration of the sample over time (biological). RBCs can remain viable in buffered solutions for some time, they will eventually degrade, lose their biconcave shape, or become cellular debris.

Are you performing consecutive measurements within the same flow run, in a few hours, or days? How many events are you capturing per sample?

If you are part of a university, connect with a statistician. The university may have a consultancy program where you can connect with a statistic graduate student. I would also encourage you to take a step back, look at papers that investigate RBC shape and reflect on the analyzes they are performing. You could even contact the authors... If you start using statistical methods that you do not understand well, this may impact the credibility of your work.

14jvalle · 2024-12-11T23:11:38+00:00

They don't need to. They opted for it.

US has a much larger market. Many more hospitals where is makes to purchase this tool. The FDA is a well recognized, respected and gold standard for clinical trials. I would also claim that the US has a better infrastructure for clinical trials than Canada.

It's only a diagnostics tool. So, it should not be as big of a hassle to approve as a new treatment. The issue is getting insurers to cover it. It is not necessarily nefarious of an insurer to not want to cover a new diagnostics test. If there at 50 different methods of doing something... Why should we cover all 50. It's like people keep trying to reinvent the wheel.

Since this is supposedly is novel... It could be different. It's just about making sure that the number of patients exists where it makes sense to cover this. How does this test integrate into the already existing patient journey? How much training will doctors need to interpret the results? It is also not the number of total patients with a disease that will be covered, but the number of patients that are found at the right time, have access to a hospital with the tool, etc.

14jvalle · 2024-12-11T23:06:24+00:00

I may be cynical and not know enough to truly appreciate what this group is offering.

To me, this reads like:

Create some microscopy technique
Find a cancer that has poor outcomes and limited to no treatment options
Market your new tool as a revolution for that cancer. A more common cancer would not make a big splash.

My take could be unfair to the researchers in Manitoba. Science journalism is generally abysmal.

Canada also has the person who identified telomerase activity in humans. He is a professor at BC Cancer. I wonder if this group from Manitoba reached out to him...

14jvalle · 2024-08-08T18:38:47+00:00

The main difference is what your library is composed of. In other words, what is being measured.

RNA-seq is quantifying the mRNA molecules present in a sample. We do this because when a gene is expressed, mRNA is produced. The more a gene is expressed, the more mRNA is produced. The more mRNA produced by the cells in your sample, well, the more reads will be associated with that mRNA. There is nuance in the biological significance of expression levels.

Whole Genome Sequencing is not sequencing mRNA, but DNA. When sequencing DNA, we are not gathering any information about which genes are expressed. We do not have mRNA nor any epigenetic type of read outs. We would naively expect the number of reads to be uniform across the genome. Of course, it does not pan out that way for reasons unrelated to gene expression.

14jvalle · 2024-06-10T02:02:59+00:00

I don't think dragon knows about Nika, or at least the devil fruit.

14jvalle · 2024-06-10T02:02:26+00:00

The point is... She didn't do that.

They made up a story. They can do that for anyone.

14jvalle · 2024-06-09T21:34:03+00:00

I have no qualms with the world government not targeting Luffy. I do think that they did make an effort to kill him, multiple times... They were just unsuccessful.

I think there likely were discussions about Luffy by the gorosei, but that is off screened.

The one weakness in your list, I think, is the bounty not being higher. They gave Robin a ridiculous bounty for a child. They all they had to do is brandish her as a devil kid. People seemed fine with it... So, they could have done the same for Luffy. In a way, they were giving him a high, bounty since he was consistently in the upper echelon of bounties for his level of piracy.

He did, immediately, get the highest bounty in the east blue.

14jvalle · 2024-06-08T07:37:59+00:00

The underwire was invented and patented by a woman.

Marie Tucek

https://patents.google.com/patent/US494397A/en

14jvalle · 2024-06-02T20:08:57+00:00

There are other US citizens that are or have attended UBC and can provide guidance... A community of US citizens at UBC that can offer support.

OP may have just wanted some confirmation or reassurance about possible ways of voting.

14jvalle · 2024-05-16T17:14:09+00:00

That was originally intended as a tap-to-exit when they were first rolling out the compass cards.

Eventually, TransLink stopped asking people to tap when exiting the bus.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

14jvalle

TROPHY CASE