Tumgik
max1461 · 22 minutes
Text
abu zuBIDEN
0 notes
max1461 · 1 hour
Text
I'm sorry, but this is not accurate. I want to clarify upfront that I support body-positivity and body-acceptance very vehemently. But this is an essentially moral position and not a scientific one: it is and should be every person's right to live in the sort of body they want to live in, and this right should be respected socially and interpersonally as well as (obviously) legally. This principle of bodily autonomy is also among the reasons that we should respect trans people and provide access to abortions and so on.
With that out of the way: the science you are presenting as settled is not settled, and some of it does not make sense. Nutrition science is a field notorious for dubious methodologies, small sample sizes, and studies that do not replicate. This applies just as much to the studies which support the body-positive position as it does to those that rebuke it. You should not let ideology shape your view of scientific fact—it is not a reliable guide.
In particular, calories-in calories-out is not a myth: it cannot be a myth, it is (essentially) thermodynamically impossible for you to not lose weight if you consume fewer calories than you burn (water weight can swing things a little, but proportionally not that much). There is no way around it. It works because the laws of physics say it must work, there is no nutritional study which could refute it. Anecdotally, I have cut my calorie intake in order to lose weight (without paying attention to any other macronutrients or changing anything else about my diet—I kept eating plenty of junk food!) several times in my life in order to lose weight, and every time it worked without fail. I did this to get the body I wanted.
Part of what it means to respect people's bodily autonomy is not to lie to them about how they can change their body if they so desire. Just as it's everyone's right to be fat, it's everyone's right to be skinny. It is a pernicious falsehood to say that weight loss is impossible. It is possible and people do it all the time. This does not mean there are no challenges, or that it is a pure matter of "willpower" and genetics don't come into play, or anything like that. Of course one cannot miraculously will oneself into a different weight. But this is a far cry from "no evidence based way to lose weight and keep it off". That claim is ideologically self-serving bullshit that hurts people, and @queeranarchism you should not peddle it so thoughtlessly.
You're right on a couple of points. To my knowledge, BMI and the "two liters of water a day" thing are not well evidenced. Vitamin supplements are also often bullshit with no proven health effects. But we actually can measure how many calories a human body burns, in a pretty unambiguous way, by measuring the amount of CO2 that gets breathed out. This is a biproduct of the chemical process of cellular respiration, and is produced by the body in proportion to the calories it burns. The amount of calories you burn are (unsurprisingly) related to your body size, muscle mass, and activity level, but for the average adult they absolutely are in (broadly speaking) the 2000-3000 calorie range. To get an estimate of your own daily calorie needs, you can calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) with a calculator like this one.
Burning food in a bomb colorimeter gives (again, for unavoidable thermodynamic reasons) an upper bound on how many calories your body can extract from that food. Not all the calories may be bioavailible, but it is physically impossible for your body to extract more energy than is chemically in the food.
What this means taken together is that if you accurately measure your calorie intake—e.g. by cooking your own meals and weighing the ingredients to get accurate numbers—and reduce your calories below the number you are burning daily, you will lose weight.
You are not obligated to lose weight. If you are fat and you like your body, stay fat. I support you absolutely and wholeheartedly. But if you are fat or overweight and you do not like your body, you can change it. The people who tell you that you cannot are either deeply misinformed or lying for ideological convenience. It requires time, effort, and consistency that not everyone has access to, for a variety of reasons. But if you do find yourself able to carve out that time and change your eating in a consistent manner and so on, you can loose weight and keep it off—unambiguously.
Just found out that the dietary calorie is still measured by burning food in a "bomb calorimeter" and then measuring the heat produced. There's no solid evidence that this method is at all equivalent to how our bodies process food (an entirely different chemical process from combustion), the accuracy of this system has been disputed for as long as it's existed, and there are no available alternatives
There are 4800 calories in a kilogram of dry sawdust even though wood is completely indigestible to humans, because calories don't measure nutritional value, just how well something burns
Nutritional "science" is pure bullshit
39K notes · View notes
max1461 · 2 hours
Text
the sjws covered isle delfino in this suspicious paint-like goop
9K notes · View notes
max1461 · 2 hours
Text
yeah, you could say I'm a supermariologist. I can get from any article on the super mario wiki to any other article just by clicking at most six hyperlinks
422 notes · View notes
max1461 · 4 hours
Text
I've always known there was something off and icky about @ kirtijoshi they just always seemed kind of gross to me but now i actually have enough receipts to write the callout so here you go
tdlr for those who dont want to click through (take it from me some of this stuff is pretty triggering) basically they
released a series of preprints whose content consists of a rough concatenation of various “fragments” of inter-universal Teichmüller theory that is nonetheless devoid of any substantive mathematical understanding
remind me of the “hallucinations” produced by artificial intelligence algorithms, such as ChatGPT, which are synthesized precisely by means of various mechanically searched contextual concatenations
possibly engaged in the production, or indeed mass production (!), of “pseudo-mathematical texts”
reaffirmed the assertions of the RCS, or “redundant copies school”, concerning the essential logical structure of inter-universal Teichmüller theory.
I think mochizuki is a tumblrina
5 notes · View notes
max1461 · 4 hours
Text
I think mochizuki is a tumblrina
5 notes · View notes
max1461 · 4 hours
Text
LIBERALISM has never landed ONE hot goth chick
12 notes · View notes
max1461 · 4 hours
Text
I think it's partly a saturation thing. People crave novelty, they don't want a bunch of the same. So they want some "classic style statues of gods and shit" and some "crazy modern statues of weird shit". But the old guys are already giving us our "classic style statues" fix, so we don't need any new ones. People working now have to get weirder.
I think part of the appeal is, of course, that the statues are old and historically important. But if you assume that Michelangelo and co. were already near the top of their craft, it could be like... people like these statues 90% for the artistry and 10% for the oldness, but that oldness boost always makes them strictly dominate newer instances of the same style in appeal.
I don't think the breakdown is 90/10. I would guess it's more like 50/50. But I think it could be 90/10.
presumably people are still doing sculpture in the style of the ancient greeks, or the renaissance. like the skill isnt lost. but my question is: does anyone give a shit? can you get an exhibition of it? i feel like probably not. unless youre doing something novel with it. which is a bit funny, if you think about it? like at least as much of what we value about this old art is that its old. and thats a sensible thing to value. but i feel like we...pretend, that its about the artistry? and its not NOT about the artistry. its important that its old *and* beautiful. but like. i think if you discovered a sculpture by michaelangelo, in some italian basement, but told people its was from this year, i mean... would the art world care? i dont think so!
96 notes · View notes
max1461 · 4 hours
Text
its kind of beyond fucked up that u don't even have to be born in the 90s to be in ur 20s anymore. like they're letting just fucking anyone be 20 now. u were born in 2004? sure yeah u can be 20 this year yeah no whatever man it's cool . what the heeellllllll
35K notes · View notes
max1461 · 5 hours
Text
Imagine if you locked Light and Patrick Bateman in a room together. They would be having the most generic conversation but you wouldn’t be able to hear it over the sound of their overlapping internal monologues. There would be a few seconds where their monologues both play in sync to say something misogynistic.
61K notes · View notes
max1461 · 5 hours
Text
55 notes · View notes
max1461 · 7 hours
Text
Have you seen the new show? It's on Tubu. It's literally on Heebee. It's on Poodee with ads. It's literally on Dippy. You can probably find it on Weeno. Dude it's on Gumpy. It's a Pheebo original. It's on Poob. You can watch it on Poob. You can go to Poob and watch it. Log onto Poob right now. Go to Poob. Dive into Poob. You can Poob it. It's on Poob. Poob has it for you. Poob has it for you.
50K notes · View notes
max1461 · 7 hours
Text
you're clearly an amateur. first of all, it's supermarioölogist,
yeah, you could say I'm a supermariologist. I can get from any article on the super mario wiki to any other article just by clicking at most six hyperlinks
422 notes · View notes
max1461 · 7 hours
Text
calling a work of fiction "saccharine and masturbatory" to indicate that it is awesome. just like sugar and cranking off
57K notes · View notes
max1461 · 8 hours
Note
Do you think that pastoral nomads would be into milking sexually?
100% yeah. I mean. Come on.
13 notes · View notes
max1461 · 13 hours
Text
I don't "care" about the "truth" when I "post". I merely speak what comes to me. Like a conduit.
Why don't we feel the acceleration of the Earth around the sun though? Or our acceleration around the center of the Earth? Like how come it looks like we're in an inertial reference frame for Earth-based experiments if we aren't?
51 notes · View notes
max1461 · 13 hours
Text
I'm pretty sure I still did it wrong because acceleration should be constant. Magnitude of acceleration should be constant. Uh. I think I still did it wrong.
Why don't we feel the acceleration of the Earth around the sun though? Or our acceleration around the center of the Earth? Like how come it looks like we're in an inertial reference frame for Earth-based experiments if we aren't?
51 notes · View notes