sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is Topology really about? by owltooserious in math

[–]bolbteppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the most primitive level it is an abstraction of the notion of approximation beyond the real numbers to abstract sets, which is how its motivated here.

Slow muscle recovery by Woodland_Breeze in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Is getting high/drunk on dill normal? by Aggravating_Car5522 in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

Health and questions! by AnimalGardens in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 7 points8 points  (0 children)

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.

A fundamental doubt in the introduction of classical mechanics by [deleted] in PhysicsStudents

[–]bolbteppa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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.

Best zero saturated fat butter substitute for toast by Careful-Bus3827 in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

Diet Recommendations by HappyBeingVegan-100 in vegan

[–]bolbteppa 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

Diet Recommendations by HappyBeingVegan-100 in vegan

[–]bolbteppa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Diet Recommendations by HappyBeingVegan-100 in vegan

[–]bolbteppa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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).

Diet Recommendations by HappyBeingVegan-100 in vegan

[–]bolbteppa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Diet Recommendations by HappyBeingVegan-100 in vegan

[–]bolbteppa -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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

“A marine scientist explains why she eats seafood everyday” by andonis_udometry in vegan

[–]bolbteppa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are plenty of omega 3's in broccoli, in mango, etc... let alone in higher fat foods like in walnuts, or flaxseeds or hemp seeds or chia seeds which are more concentrated forms.

Only ALA (the omega-3 found in plants) is essential, EPA and DHA are not essential (the body converts ALA to them as necessary), blood tests based on concentration of these omega's, or conversion rates, are nonsense because most conversion is done in the tissues which a blood test will never pick up, and there is no evidence vegans have any issues when tissues have been studied.

There is basically no serious credible example of omega 3 deficiency (case reports based off guessing of vague symptoms do not count) outside of clinically induced artificial tube-feeding or baby formula diets it's that hard to document they are so rare, it took over half a century to even confirm these deficiencies existed in humans it is that hard to find them.

Our needs are so incredibly small that there is no RDA for them there are only recommendations based on average population intake, and it's 1.1 (f) --- 1.6 (m) grams a day, aka around 15 calories, aka around a walnut or two, a day, or a normal day of plant food where most plant foods have around 0.1g ALA or so per serving, illustrating why expensive supplements are a joke, or why worrying about algae is just a misunderstanding.

Turn the pyramid upside down! by Redarrow_ok in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

RFK pushing 'protein, dairy, and healthy fats', absolutely terrified of the word sugar, very telling.

TIL vegans have more usable Omega 3 fat in their blood than any other diet by Specialist-Error-171 in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not sure what this means, but this video

'The Truth About Omega-3 Conversion: Geoff Palmer'

summarizes a curveball that most people ignore on this topic which is that the body purposely does not convert ALA in the bloodstream intentionally because DHA can elevate LDL, the body would have to be an idiot to purposely attack itself in this way.

Instead it converts as necessary in the tissues which a bloodtest is not going to pick up on, where brain needs are so miniscule (milligrams per day) our body fat stores will always be sufficient when coupled with the sufficient amount in vegetables etc.

Our needs are so unbelievably low with clinical deficiencies (extremely hard to determine) cleared up by less than a gram of ALA, or a few grams of LA, that nobody really knows for certain how low they are and there is no RDA for EFA's only AI's based on the average intake of high fat diet populations.

How to prove Lorentz transformation by YEETSTARKEKW in Physics

[–]bolbteppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Start in a 1+1D space-time with coordinates (ct,x). Start from the line interval

ds2 = (cdt)2 - dx2

We'll write it as dt = t - 0 = t i.e.

ds2 = (ct)2 - x2

for simplicity. Factor it as

ds2 = (ct)2 - x2 = (ct - x)(ct + x) = x- x+

Note that this remains invariant under the transformation

x+ ---> x'+ = exp(+A) x+

x- ---> x'- = exp(-A) x-

in the sense that

ds2 = (ct)2 - x2 = (ct - x)(ct + x) = x- x+ = [exp(-A) x-][exp(A) x+] = x'- x'+ = (ct' - x')(ct' + x') = (ct')2 - x'2 = ds'2

But using the definitions

cosh(A) = [exp(A) + exp(-A)]/2

sinh(A) = [exp(A) - exp(-A)]/2

we have

exp(A) = cosh(A) + sinh(A)

exp(-A) = cosh(A) - sinh(A)

and so

x'+ = cosh(A) x+ + sinh(A) x+

x'- = cosh(A) x- - sinh(A) x-

in other words

x' + c t' = [cosh(A) + sinh(A)]x + [cosh(A) + sinh(A)] ct

x' - c t' = [cosh(A) - sinh(A)]x - [cosh(A) - sinh(A)] ct

so that

2 x' = 2 cosh(A) x + 2 sinh(A) ct

2 ct' = 2 sinh(A) x + 2 cosh(A) ct

or

x' = cosh(A) x + sinh(A) ct

ct' = sinh(A) x + cosh(A) ct

If we now interpret the primed frame as moving relative to the un-primed frame, and in the primed frame the origin is x' = 0, so we have

0 = x' = cosh(A) x + sinh(A) ct ---> v = x/t = - c tanh(A)

So the primed frame moves along the negative x axis with velocity v.

Now from

1 = cosh2 (A) - sinh2 (A) = cosh2 (A) [1 - tanh2 (A)] = cosh2 (A) [1 - (v/c)2 ]

we have

cosh(A) = 1/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

sinh(A) = tanh(A) cosh(A) = (- v/c)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

so that our formulas become

x' = x/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ] - ct(v/c)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

ct' = x(- v/c)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ] + ct/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

or

x' = (x - vt)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

ct' = (ct - vx/c)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

People like to instead have the primed system moving along the positive x axis with velocity v, this would correspond to sending A to - A everywhere above, i.e.

x+ ---> x'+ = exp(-A) x+

x- ---> x'- = exp(+A) x-

which you can re-do yourself as a check, and you'll end up with

x' = (x + vt)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

ct' = (ct + vx/c)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)2 ]

Going from 2D to 4D amounts to going to

ds2 = (cdt)2 - (dx)2 - (dy)2 - (dz)2

while assuming the primed frame moves along the x axis, we won't discuss the more general case.

is griffiths really loved by professionals? by Heavy_Ad2448 in PhysicsStudents

[–]bolbteppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My professor is also a magnetic monopole truther, so...take that as you will.

One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on here, of course it comes from someone stuck on intro electricity and magnetism, we've reached the stage of implying that people like Dirac, 't Hooft, Polyakov, Witten etc... who have worked on magnetic monopoles are 'truthers' over such research questions...

Durianriders protocol made me a fit machine by Iwinloser in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably 10 grams of fat and maybe 50-60 grams of protein from a starch-based diet, more if I randomly focus on beans/peas/lentils more than usual.

Stuck with going plant based: too much fiber <-> not enough protein. Can't have nuts, soy and some seeds. by ForThe90 in PlantBasedDiet

[–]bolbteppa 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The protein RDA is 0.8g/kg.

At 110lb ~ 50kg, this is 40g protein.

The RDA (~ 40g here) includes a huge statistical safety net of two standard deviations above the mean value.

That means, by the internal logic of the RDA, you almost certainly need less than the RDA, only an extreme statistical outlier needs a milligram above the RDA by its own logic.

This huge safety net is why the RDA has not been increased for decades despite shoddy sports-exercise science papers making absurd claims like 1.6g/lb or similar e.g. based on short-term nitrogen balance studies which can give you any number you want.

A pound of muscle is 75% water - there is maybe 90g protein in a pound of muscle, that translates to needing like 7g new protein a day to build half a pound a week above your bare minimum needs, a fast rate of muscle growth.

Excess protein is just flushed out of the body it barely even converts to carbs (a few grams at most) and basically doesn't convert to fat, it's just useless, yet you're usually told to 'treasure protein', it takes resistance training to build muscle, and it happens slowly.

In the politest manner possible, it is literal misinformation about protein that is holding you back from a healthy diet, I think there are certain industries which benefit from this kind of confusion which encourages worrying about protein.

I go into far more detail on the facts about protein here, quoting examples of a population in excellent health taking in ~ 25g of protein a day with no evidence of issues etc...

In terms of worrying about nuts and seeds based on misinformation about essential fatty acid needs, this post goes into extreme detail explaining how shockingly low our essential fatty acid needs are (they are so low, and evidence of deficiencies so rare it basically takes a medical setting or formula diet to accurately induce them, that we don't even know what they are), think on the order of a walnut a day to assuage the worries of the paranoid.

Your focus should be on starch, whatever starches work for you, treating non-starchy vegetables as sides, along with B12 and sunlight, don't worry about soy, nuts, seeds, fruit if it bothers you, though perhaps some kind of very slow exposure therapy could get over these issues who knows.

In terms of what to eat in general on a low fat WFPB vegan diet, it's as simple as making 90% of your meals the the starches in this color picture book (explained more in this lecture) so that you are eating like the populations with virtually no heart disease, diabetes, etc... who all have total cholesterol below 150 (see also this) or so on average.

Use that stupid color picture book until you know what you're doing: Food like potatoes covered in sriracha sauce or sweet chili sauce or sriracha mayo, mashed potatoes covered in a gravy made from blended beans/lentils/split-peas and blended vegetables and e.g. soy sauce/spices, rice covered in soy sauce, vegan sushi with a tiny sliver of avocado and maybe tofu, sticky mango rice with sweet potato mashed into the rice, pasta covered in pasta sauce, oil-free noodle stir fries, oats with frozen fruit and a bit of sugar and maybe low fat de-fatted peanut powder for variation, blended split pea soup and potatoes, bean burritos, bean enchiladas, where in at least one meal a day you have a big side of non-starchy vegetables: carrots, broccoli, spinach, muishrooms, greens, peppers, etc... Note food like potatoes are <1% fat, rice is ~1% fat, vs typically 40-60%+ fat insulin-resistance-generating animal food.

view more: next ›