Manuscript / The Book Version 1.6 is here.
This is going to be a smaller series of changes due to the previous (and prior to that even larger) volume of changes – I feel as though now it is becoming increasingly easier to make amends.
*Cough* *Cough* of course – “easier” is an overstatement. Nobody but my own self to thank for having done the massive leg work 4 month plus worth of work on the Version 1.4…
…Plus Version 1.5’s update on motion graphics works on a failing (that’s right) – remotely failing external hard drive.
Much of the work herein this revision actually went back just after completing the Version 1.5 in April; as I compiled more notes on what to include and revise, all separately away from the main document. The actual major work and implementation from such notes to the main document however, did not commence until May.
Added question on Protein intakes / reflection on current studies.
The most prominent change would be an overview and examination on Protein intakes.
However let us begin clearly with this disclaimer – This Book only reconciles and reminds all possible nutritional principles. Much less about dogmatic or idealistic – Gospels.
Thus, almost everything you read here remains whollistically up to your own interpretation. Either inaction or action. You will not see any blanket “generally safe” amount to say that this is “good” or that is “bad”. An issue that remains here is contextual sufficiency; which I increasingly suspect as impossible to confidently determine from one physiological and overall-living circumstance to the next. Beyond minute (but cumulative), responses to exogenous / varying environmental stressors, fitness / meritocratic expectations, etc.
Every single human physiology in this planet thus must willingly explore their own interpretation of what “Science” is.
A person may indeed fall under an “average” range; as dictated in form of bottom line “conclusion” easily found in journals, meta-analysis, epidemiology, etc. But even then – all of that – is a grossly averaged assumption that your contexts of living and interacting with other micro-nutritional, sociological or physiological interventions – remains yet to be accounted altogether to and for your’s own and truly your’s – biological making. Then again – what sort of “average” are we talking about here? Are we happy thus conforming to any specific “average”? This quickly becomes a tiring battle of moral political correctness which I will never have the time to dwell nor making this book any more confusing than pragmatically necessary.
As a result – instead, I have bundled together a series of studies and share with them to the readers the two current sides of study positioning – one (1) – studies that investigate higher protein intakes bearing minimal, adverse effects or no change at all, and the other (2) – studies investigating lower protein intakes and their purportedly effects on endocrinology.
…And let the readers decided at their own explorative – individuality and authenticity. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So, let me repeat. This is not a meta-analysis upon meta-analysis. There is still no conclusion. Period. Take away from all there is to read at your own biological interpretation.
After all remember, ask yourself this question: are you happy conforming to a STATISTICAL follower? Or a self-abiding – AUTHENTIC explorer?
General Readability Revisions.
Once again – periodical grammar gimmickry-reductions.
I have said this before numerous times as a disclaimer and I shall say it again – I am not an academically accomplished writer by any stretchable means of an imagination nor am I ever thus far endorsed by journalism or literature institutions. Pedestrian stigma of me for being “voluntarily-lazy” however; remains my applauding fame.
It takes not just months, but technically years – for anyone to actually adopt, adapt, reflect towards establishing their very own – nuanced perspective of expressions through writing.
No wonder I have been indeed – by the judgment/s and wisdom of every academia institution – a college “failure”.
I am prepared to say that I am person full of cognitive entanglement. Involuntarily still by forces outside my capacitive consent to live resiliently thus so.
Hence, “writing” to me is a lot more comfortable method of communication. Not just because I prefer it far more than verbal communication in my line of work – but also as means of golden evidence of transaction for signifying ALL exchanged events of communication. That so and so said exactly “such and such”. Thus – their concrete evidence remains firmly imprinted in digital form. Crystal clear. All flaws and intents.
The only drawback? as always – I am a slug. A donkey. It takes anywhere between a week or two weeks after spending at least month on average to publish and refine a blog article. That is long after it has been published. I know, I am pathetic.
But who the f*** cares at the end of the day? The similarity between a donkey and a horse is they both live and die – through life’s “race” as odds and challenges. Just at different speeds.
(STILL WORK IN PROGRESS) – Clickable Text anchors on citations
I have single-handedly (and manually) added each and every one of the 70+ references so that all discerning readers can further read and relocate their sources for further reading.
Should anyone can offer me guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. But as of now – the “work” is already done manually anyway. More to index. And more to complete.