Love it!
The point is to intake the exactly correct amount.
https://videosift.com/video/Drunken-Fighting-Jackie-Chan
https://videosift.com/video/Mitchell-and-Webb-Slightly-Pissed

Here's the study he's talking about in the video: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311889?query=featured_home&#Results=&t=articleBackground

It looks like a legitimate study, but being correlational it should be taken with a grain of salt *snare drum, splash cymbal* As corrolation cannot show causation.

They seem to control for various factors like age, cholesterol level and previous hypertension too, so they don't appear to be fudging any results.

Perhaps I could argue they aren't measuring salt intake, but rather sodium excretion, and estimating intake based on urine samples. So there is potentially a huge difference in diet - a lot of the participants were from Asia, where they don't tend to use table salt (they use soy sauce instead) And even though it's still high in sodium, soy sauce could be going through a different process inside the body. (Similar to how sugar doesn't cause an insulin spike when it's in fruit form, but does when it's refined form). It's possible that the salt from soy could be passing through the body rather than settling in the blood stream. I'm just speculating. Or perhaps they are also eating other foods which are protective against moderate salt intake, allowing more of it to be excreted than absorbed.

Either way it's very interesting to me :-)

What I would like to see is a study on foods, rather than ingredients to get a better picture. Because humans don't usually eat individual minerals, and combinations of minerals seem to act differently in the body.


I guess what it's all saying though is if you are healthy, then 3-6g of salt is fine, but once you are at risk of CVD you need to back off in order to reverse the damage. But CVD is of course not the only disease people need to be careful about (although it is the #1 we should be worrying about), but salt also feeds various cancers etc.

can we stick with measuring either sodium or salt intake please.

Chicken and cheese are two very salty foods.

Depending on the cheese it's 25-50% RDI of salt.

Chicken is often injected with saline solution to plump it up, and also as a cheap way to make it weigh more. When you cook it the water is boiled out, but the salt remains.

It's worth getting used to unsalted peanut butter too (the 100% peanuts is the one to go for). You can sweeten it to your liking later with jam or maple syrup.

If you can keep your salt intake down to 1500mg your blood pressure returns to that of a child! (you also have to eat plenty of greens to create nictric oxide which prevents things sticking to the arterial walls.)

Blood pressing increasing as you age doesn't need to happen at all.

Eat more whole foods, and less processed foods essentially, and you need never have hypertension or erectile dysfunction.

To play devils advocate... the average calorie intake for an adult is between 2000-3500 depending on age, gender and activity level. Let's take the low bound of 2000.

So 4 calories is 0.2% of your recommended daily calorie intake. In other words, you'd need to eat 500 packets of splenda a day to maintain your body weight (sidenote: REALLY don't do this).

Basically, when a meal is 6-800 calories, the difference between 4 and 0 is almost meaningless.

That said, saying it has ZERO calories implies that you can have as many servings as you like, which is obviously not a good idea.

In conclusion, drink your fucking coffee black. Anything else is just being a pansy.

Though I'm sure the same happens with every language everywhere. It's only ever profitable to limit the intellectual intake of our own populations. Luckily, there are the various functions of globalization which as much as people want to point out its obvious flaws, allows the common people to bypass their shitty countries and their shitty censors.

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

How stupid, if that guy was thinking he could have thrown his shoe into the turbine intake and really fucked that helicopter up. He was as good as caught anyway.

At 1:43 the conclusion made from the graph is "5lbs at most" when the graph shows a different story. Those blue shadows on either side of the line show some kind of uncertainty whether it be best case and worst case scenarios or margin for errors.

I know that sounds like nitpicking, but it'd be like someone saying they love cars and know all about them, but when you ask what their favourite type of car is they say "red ones". It presents itself as scientific but then makes a high school level scientific mistake that just scratches at the surface of credibility.

[calories in] - [calories out] = [net calories absorbed or lost]

Calories are directly proportional to mass or weight. If you burn more than you ingest then you lose weight, it is unavoidable. The "best" way to lose weight is to be negative in the above sum, either by increasing your energy expenditure (exercise) or decreasing your energy intake (food). And of course the body needs essential vitamins and whatnot to function and remain healthy.

I have a friend who took tablets to increase his resting metabolism. He lost weight, but also sweated profusely, had a high heart rate that worried him and regained the weight straight after coming off them.

Genetics and intake? Who the fuck knew.

Neither really applies here. The motorcyclist simply couldn't have heard / seen the ambulance in time. When you have a full face helmet on, your sound intake is muted. Not silent, but with the ears being covered and wind around you.. it's basically like being deaf to anything not in your immediate vicinity.

This is the EXACT reason that almost all emergency vehicles (at least locally) even with lights and siren blaring will slow right down at an intersection to make sure they aren't going to get clobbered.

Definitely don't try this at home. He has a snorkel so his engine won't ingest water and hydrolock, cracking the cylinders and ruining the engine. A normal car would be done in that much water. Some sports cars with a low cold air intake pipe can't even drive through puddles.

REDUCE their meat intake, not eradicate it.
Plant BASED is not vegan.

That moment when you are glad your supercar has a rear air intake.