In general, when science is done, recruitment requirements force the experimenters to bucket the participants. One thing that often happens is an open bucket, say 35+.
The resulting science is then reported as “When you cross 35, your chances of being pregnant immediately drop” or “The brain stops developing at 18” and so on.
Almost nothing in the body is really like this, though. You can quit smoking later in life and it will help. You can eat better later and it will help. You can exercise and it will help. Very few things are “the damage is done”.
The only constraints are that the later you start the more risks you face. E.g. if you first deadlift in your 50s and you decide to follow Starting Strength you’re going to have trouble.
If you start exercising in your 20s, and never stop, it will be so much easier to maintain fitness in 40s 50s etc. The challenge is that the benefits are not yet visible in your 20s (when you’ll probably be healthy and at a proper weight regardless). Gotta lay that foundation for older age though!
EDIT - I misread the comment. It’s never too late to start, just be careful for injuries as that will block your ability to exercise.
In a real sense, you've spent decades likely increasing your risk unnecessarily when taking action early would have given you the greatest leverage to lower your lifetime risk.
But you can't change the past. If you didn't plant a tree 20 years ago, plant it today and you'll still get some benefit, minimizing any future increase in risk and maybe even lowering it.
You could realistically have almost half your life left before you, and you can still end up being fitter and healthier than you've ever been in your life if you adopt healthy habits around diet, strength training, and endurance training.
I just bought a bag from Trader Joe's and it was absolutely disgusting. Completely mealy and flavorless. My family agrees and will probably never trust my apple picking skills again.
Why would you do that though? Were you told to do this by the owner? If not, then that's on you and you should have treated him no differently than any other paying customer.
Oh that sounds odd. Same experience with another browser or just safari? If you can recall anything else around that time that might help with reproducing the issue, let me know.
At first, I thought the same thing too, but, to be fair, this is a site that clearly caters to people who are familiar with acronym and the associated activity. As such, it might not be a good candidate for posting here, and there is no reason why every site should be. In this case, the free sample issue of the magazine, linked to elsewhere in these comments by somethingsaid, would seem to be a better introduction.
In my experience here, people sometimes appreciate a bit of a puzzle and the opportunity for discovery, the results of which they then post in the comments. What topic fits that better than this form of blurry photography, where even the name is ambiguous?
Nitpick: he mentions LDL-C but the test results don't mention that at all. Only later do I see that is "LDL Cholesterol".