u/bolbteppa

This 'food' is lacerating you and the numbers reflect that.

The question is: is there a state at which the benefits I gain from plants are so great that I can risk tolerating my 'food' (which used to smile) attacking me here and there.

Here are a few talks on plant based diets and pregnancy/first-two-years etc that might be insightful in ways reddit can't be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh0IECU1iig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxT_e6tpp0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG9H3eqspmg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vF8P76YU-M

Yeah, if you think about it as the more carbs you eat, the more unconscious/subclinical energy your body has because you're finally feeding it its primary energy source, literally on a cellular level, you're not running largely on inefficient backup forms of energy (fat) or the extremely inefficient and minor backup of converting protein. This is to say nothing about the psychological benefits of carbs increasing serotonin in the brain etc... An increase in carbs will likely accidentally spontaneously increase daily activity on average without forcing it.

To tap into body fat we need a total energy deficit, more exercise and more satiety (from carbs) make this easier to achieve with consistency, you can do that even sedentary, but basic activity makes it a lot easier/healthier.

If you are say a sedentary female, it could be the case you need 1600 calories to maintain that: 300 grams of carbs (1200 calories), 50g protein (200 calories), and say 20 grams of fat (roughly 200 calories), this is twice the upper limit you're currently giving yourself, still just at maintenance. If you eat that and do more exercise burning say 2500 calories a day, compared to now you have still doubled your primary energy source intake, and that is a fast rate of weight loss. 400g carbs, 50g protein, 20g fat, is 2000 calories, with a 500 calorie deficit if every day you are active.

One of the main benefits of a plant based diet is that it forces sugar-phobic people, in a society endlessly scared about carbs with lies, to finally get the bodies primary energy source (carbs) in sufficient amounts. A low carb plant based diet not only eschews the main benefits but it is likely mainly an incredibly restrictive tofu, tempeh, nut, seed and processed food (toxic oils) diet. Even broccoli (a high protein food at 27% protein) is a high carb food at 65%, potatoes and rice are 90% carbs, fruit is often 94+% carbs. The extra protein above the RDA of 0.8g/kg is needless.

Thank you, yes you are right about EPA/DHA, I go into it in similar detail to the above post here (through to here) going through what the IOM says etc.

You can read a century of original research directly linked to, and summarized by, them here, or you can read the work of Pritikin on diabetes (e.g. summarized here or here), or you can listen to McDougall's lectures or Barnard.

That's not mold that's blood sweat and tears from a solid textbook, discounted...

The spirit of what you're saying is right, here is a reason you are not being general enough.

For a relativistic particle parametrized by proper time tau, the Schrodinger equation is

iℏ∂Ψ/∂(tau) = ĤΨ

where

Ĥ = p² - m²

i.e. we've gone beyond t to tau, t now separately lives in Ĥ = Ĥ(t,x,y,z), but because this is a constrained system, the Schrodinger equation is not enough, we also need to impose the constraints as operator equations on the wave function, the constraints are p² - m² = 0, so it just so happens that the above must be supplemented by

ĤΨ = 0

which is just Klein-Gordon.

Even the non-rel Schrodinger equation you wrote can be written in a similar weird form like this by making the non-rel point particle action parametrization independent.

Here we see energy is generating proper time translations, which are in fact trivial because the parameter is fictitious/just-an-irrelevant-label.

Hence why Klein-Gordon seems so weird.

You make money for a company owned by people who eat meat, enabling all your meat eating colleagues to continue eating meat, your work directly funds their fork and spoon getting into animal products, yet you choose to remain there to enable them.

You support the GDP of a country full of meat eaters, yet you choose to remain in said country.

You are part of a family of meat eaters, extended cousins etc, yet you choose to enable your family and support them to continue eating meat.

This kind of behavior doesn't make any sense, is incredibly counter-productive, and you will be the one who pays for it.

Thanks a lot, hope things go well.

Have a read of this thread

You are not eating enough carbs, carbs fill your muscles with glycogen and replenish backup energy reserves, it is a tale as old as time that athletes find a new spring when they realize the increase in recovery time that increased carbs gives.

Mango Sticky Rice

Pad Thai

Som Tum

oil-free pineapple rice

ugali

frozen stuffed dates

three sisters stew

West African Peanut Soup With Tofu, etc

sweet potato sushi

Without commenting on the main topic, get rid of the toxic eggs and oils.

If you are having problems with energy, you are almost certainly not eating enough carb calories leading to chronically low glycogen stores leading to low immediate energy reserves, try 1.5-ing or doubling your portions for a while and see what happens then adjust. The calorie density (calories per volume) of this food is lower than your previous diet so one can guess a drop in calories is very likely.

Is Oil Healthy?

When Friends Ask: Why Do You Avoid Adding Vegetable Oils?

NO OIL! Really, NO oil!

The Truth About Olive Oil

If you organized it legibly, or found a few drafts which summarized most of the ideas, you could (in fact probably should) submit that to vixra.org, which is where independent researchers publish their work, you wont have to worry about peer review etc it just needs to pass basic stuff like looking vaguely like a science paper as you can see on the site yourself.

Clearly if he had drafts written up he wanted to convey his ideas, presumably there is a draft or two or more summarizing the ideas in his notes that he intented to publish, so you would focus on putting out the drafts not the hand-written notes which the drafts summarize.

Putting it on vixra is what that place was intended for, and this is likely what he would have been forced to do if he was going to do it himself anyway.

As for determining what drafts summarize what notes and what's important, and whether the drafts do convey what he was doing, you are talking about probably offering say a graduate student a job to do that work which will likely be very messy if the stuff is not clear, and its a gamble as to whether you get someone competent or not.

Why Peter Attia's Response Missed the Point - crisis & reputation strategist

The minus sign is a convention just like the minus sign in F = - ∇V is a convention (they are ultimately the same convention and must match up as follows).

Start from F = ma, view this as a local description of a particle over a path that holds only along the true path.

We thus want to treat this as the result of studying a function of all possible paths. To try and turn F - ma = 0 into something defined over the whole path, form (F - ma)•δr where δr is an infinitesimal variation of the path. We can now say that (F - ma)•δr = 0 holding at all times is the condition for a particle to follow the path predicted by F = ma.

Integrating this over time, we see ∫(F - ma)•δr dt = 0 holding at all times are the conditions for F = ma to describe the path. So this means we should be treating different paths as the variable in the integrand (this is calculus of variations as opposed to calculus).

Now you can work backwards, e.g. if F = - ∇V then ∫F•dr dt = - ∫∇V•dr dt = - ∫dVdt = d∫(-V)dt. Similarly ∫(- ma)•δr dt = ∫(- m(dv/dt))•δr dt = ∫(m v•δv) dt = δ ∫(m v² / 2) dt up to a total derivative. So you now have 0 = ∫(F - ma)•δr dt = δ ∫(m v² / 2 - V) dt = δ∫(T-V)dt = δ ∫ L dt.

Corn butter (1, 2, 3, 4), can use something like masa harina flour and a bit of water and salt in a pan cooking for like 30 seconds to make it super fast then store it for days in the fridge.

I have no idea by what you mean with "when it comes to calories".

A potato roughly has 70-80 calorier per 100g of potato. A carrot roughly has 40 calories per 100g carrot. Broccoli roughly has 34 calories per 100g broccoli. 90% of the calories in that 100g of potato are sugar, just as 87% of the calories in that 100g of carrot are sugar, just as 65% of the calories in that 100g of broccoli are sugar. You will need more than twice the amount of broccoli than potatoes to get the same calories, you need calories for energy not volume, so it is understood focusing on anything other than calories is a distraction when comparing the main/macro impact of different foods (especially because people always get distracted into thinking high volume non-starchy vegetables are not high carb because they are low calorie per volume), which is why I said 'when it comes to calories'

A chain of things is not the same as the thing.

Your body does not use the whole chain of things for energy, it breaks up the chain of things into the single thing you're so terrified of - that's called digestion.

Your body only uses the scary unhealthy individual pieces that make up the chain, it doesn't use the non-scary chain of things, which is why basic food science treats starch and simple sugar as the same thing

The term "carbohydrate" has many synonyms and the definition can depend on context. Terms associated with carbohydrate include "sugar", "saccharide", "glucan",[5] and "glucide".[6] In food science the term "carbohydrate" often means any food that is rich in starch (such as cereals, bread and pasta) or simple carbohydrates, or fairly simple sugars such as sucrose (found in candy, jams, and desserts). Carbohydrates can also refer to dietary fiber, like cellulose.[7][8]

Just because wikipedia and RFK tell you to ignore such basic obvious facts to soothe your socially manufactured worries so you can keep blaming the very very scary unhealthy thing called a simple sugar, your body doesn't care about your ideology it just goes and breaks up the non-scary chain of unhealthy things into the individual scary unhealthy things so it can actually get energy.

The fact that you think the basic logic of digestion for the bodies primary/preferred energy source is something a keto cultist would say is very telling, there is no point continuing.

Right, I'd say nobody here has ever tried to eat from a straight bag of sugar to test this, the 'carbs' they are blaming are 40% fat donuts or fast food, even just a test with say 200g of those vegan sugar-laced 0% fat sugar strands, if someone isn't to scared to finish them they will likely be full for hours from 200g carbs (which might be the current daily carb intake even of people in here...). If that's just too scary, go try 8-10 bananas or 300g dates, in one meal...

People just don't understand what it means to say e.g. broccoli is full of sugar:

• 65% of the calories in broccoli are complex carbohydrate;

• Biochemically, complex carbohydrates are just chains of simple carbohydrates;

• Digestion is literally the process of breaking up 'healthy' complex carbohydrates into 'health destroying' simple scary sugar;

• The bodies cells only recognizes 'health destroying' simple sugars as an energy source, the primary/preferred energy currency for virtually every cell in the human body.

When it comes to calories, starches literally are basically sugar, a potato is 90% sugar, a sweet potato is 92% sugar, taro is 93% sugar, while fruit like apples are 95% and dates up to 97% sugar.

When it comes to raw building material, a house is basically 90%+ brick, the rest is nothing compared to the impact the bricks have in terms of building material.

Just because extra things like protein and nutrients, or carpets and shelves etc, come along with starches or modern houses, doesn't change the pure fact that at their core starches are just long chains of the exact same biochemical simple sugars found in apples and dates and table sugar (up to differences in fructose vs glucose ratios, irrelevant to the point here), you have to deny the basic biochemistry of sugar to believe otherwise.

(ignoring the minor difference between fructose and glucose, which will of course invite more low carb misunderstandings that normal people blindly accept without checking or worse poorly checking that leads to people bashing fructose while extolling fruit).

The sugar in carrots and chickpeas and broccoli and spinach is just long chains of scary simple sugar.

This is the exact same simple sugar that one finds in the 'whole food' known as maple syrup.

The body breaks those long chains of scary simple sugar down into their constituent simple sugars.

The only form of sugar that the body recognizes for energy is the scary simple sugar consituents, and that is the bodies primary/preferred energy source that every cell in the body primarily relies on and prefers.

The exact same scary simple sugar that the guidelines are scaring you about is the number one calorie source in broccoli.

When a human being is performing at peak capacity such as in a marathon race, the runner is not guzzling broccoli for immediate peak energy need, they are guzzling straight sugar water, even dates or bananas are not good enough pure sugar water is needed for those who want to stay at the front, the only difference is that in already being in simple form the cells absord their primary/preferred energy source faster so they can perform at peak function continuously, this is an unhealthy terrible thing of course, or that it's only healthy when you want to perform at peak physical output, otherwise it's absolutely terrible of course.

You have to believe that the most essential and preferred form of energy that the human body preferentially goes for is bad to believe this nonsense, whether it comes from RFK or normal people who at least pasteurize the cholesterol filled milk they stole from another species while telling you it builds strong bones and is safe.

Plants are sugar-based food, e.g. in terms of calories an apple is 95% sugar, a potato is 90% sugar, a carrot is 87% sugar, pasta is 80% sugar, chickpeas are 65% sugar