evasive_chimpanzee @ evasive_chimpanzee @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

515

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are a few levels of accuracy. Simplest is just using your max heart rate according to the equation (or trying to actually see how high you can get your heart rate), and basing percentages off of that.

Slightly better than that, most heart rate monitors/apps have some analytics built in that can factor in stuff like speed to approximate metabolic cost, and predict your lactate threshold. That's the heart rate that corresponds to the workload at which your body can't keep up with processing lactic acid (a byproduct of anaerobic metabolism). It's an important threshold cause you want some of your workouts to be definitely below that limit, and some to be definitely above.

There are ways to actually test that limit, often involving finger pricks to get blood samples while running on a treadmill.

The most accurate way (and what elite athletes will do), is a full metabolic test involving running on a treadmill with a heart rate monitor and a mask to measure oxygen consumption/co2 expiration.

For most people who just want to be healthy, and maybe get a little faster, it's not that important to be super accurate. The main thing is that in order to improve cardiovascularly, you basically need to activate the signaling pathways in your body that signify that you can't take in and process as much oxygen as you'd like to be able to. That involves high intensity work that is really hard on your body (muscles, joints, cardiovascular system) and it can take a few days to recover.

If you do most of your work in that low intensity zone, you give your body time to recover from high intensity while keeping overall volume up.

If you try to go too hard every time, you never recover, and never adapt.

The worst is building something perfectly square, and then realizing the space you need to put it into is very not square.

I'd say consider where things are growing, too. If you are foraging near roadsides, pipelines, powerlines, houses, or old dump sites, there are things to consider. If you are in somewhere like Appalachia, it's shocking how common "artisanal " mining sites are when you can recognize them.

Herbicides are often used to keep growth down in those places.

Old houses often have lead paint falling into soil, and leaded gas polluted a lot of roadsides. You don't want to eat roots/tubers or low growing leafy veggies in those places. Luckily, plants apparently don't accumulate lead.

There's been a lot of back and forth on that. At this point, it's probably not possible to prove, but it seems like he was eating something that wouldn't be harmful as part of a normal diet, but was harmful to him as a large part of his diet while he was already malnourished.

Lots are LED since it's way more energy efficient.

It's not like they are unskippable ads, so i don't think it's as bad as YouTube or Hulu or whatever.

It's an engineering disaster podcast with slides, so it's on YouTube. It's a good one to listen to while doing chores where you can occasionally glance at your screen to see what they are talking about.

I don't think he himself is necessarily doing it as part of a strategy; i think it's really the people around him. He's basically a loose cannon with a bunch of idiots dancing around with matches trying to light the fuse while it's pointed where they want to hit.

Plenty of federal facilities have garbage reception. I think it's probably due to the bureaucracy involved in telecoms installing their hardware on sensitive property. The White House in particular probably has lots of thick walls/armor attenuating signals, too.

War and Peace was written primarily in Russian, but a lot of the dialog was written in French since much of the aristocracy at the time in Russia spoke French. I read a version that translated the Russian to English, but left the French as is, which was strange.

That's just something you might need to keep in mind when figuring out which version to read.

I use Feeder, but even with filters to try and remove as much stuff as I'm not interested in, there's still too much for me to keep up with. I imported all my feeds to Nunti to filter things down more. Nunti allows you to either upvote or downvote articles, and that information is used by the app with a transparent, relatively simple algorithm to try to predict what type of things you want to see vs don't want to see. It doesn't give much priority to breaking news, and it doesn't have the article snippets or built in reader mode like Feeder does, so i still use Feeder.

It's not really confusing. His whole strategy, as we saw during his first term, is to do and say so much outrageous stuff that no particular scandal can stick with him. He also thinks being a bully is being a good businessman.

I doubt he would actually want to annex anywhere, but it's easy ragebait that he can keep bringing up to keep news on that and off of his crimes.

If you are talking about simulated trading (no real money), it's called "paper trading".

I read up on it for a while a few years back, but I never tried it cause I like chewing and variety.

It's important if you are talking about soylent as in the brand, soylent as in a soy and lentil based beverage, or soylent as a generic term for meal replacement beverages.

Some of these meal replacements are designed to just replace 1 meal a day, or 2 meals a day, etc, so you could develop a deficiency after a little bit. There's a DIY community to share recipes along with "nutritional completeness".

https://www.completefoods.co/

Everyone has different dietary needs, so even if a shake technically has all the nutrients you need, it might not have enough of everything unless you eat way more calories worth than you need. Humans are pretty adaptable, though.

I think the definition is a food product made from a combination of soy and lentils. Some variations are "nutritionally complete" others are not.

https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/Pitch_sketch_final.png?w=2000

This is the best resource I've seen to show things relatively simply.

The TL;DR is that a whole "Y" chromosome isn't exactly responsible for "maleness", the SRY gene is. It's normally on the Y chromosome, but mutations can occur placing that gene onto the X chromosome. Inversely, someone could inherit a Y chromosome without that gene, in which case they would develop with female traits.

It's not considered trans because someone with 46XX plus the SRY gene would develop male genitalia, be identified as male at birth, and likely identify themselves as male. For some types of these conditions, there are plenty of people walking around with no clue that their chromosomes don't match their gender.

Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist, so i could have explained something a little off.

Dostoevsky is amazing. I'm not sure I could have followed his writing over audiobook, though. Tolstoy is an obvious add if you like Russian lit.

I haven't read any of it in a while, but I loved anything by Jules Verne when I was a kid. Frankenstein is arguably one of the first science fiction books, but Verne really made it a genre.

Not to be too much of a "the book is better than the movie"-person, but Les Miserables is really good and has a lot deeper meaning than the play or movie based on the play. The Count of Monte Cristo is also worth a read.

For a disease to be prevented from spreading, you need a certain percentage of people to be immune. It's different from disease to disease and also depends on the vaccine itself. Some diseases like Covid can still be spread to people who are vaccinated (though obviously the worst of the symptoms are mitigated).

For the sake of example, let's say you need 90% immunity for a disease to not spread. Maybe 5% of the population cannot be vaccinated due to immune conditions, being too young, etc. That gives 5% of wiggle room.

Then there are acolytes of the fraudster, Andrew Wakefield, who faked data to get a flashy headline to get published in a prestigious journal. That includes RFK jr., Jenny Mccarthy, mayim bialik, etc. Clinging to their views for so long makes them unable to change them even if you show them proof that they are wrong. That might be another 1% of people.

There are a very small percentage of people who shun vaccines for lets say "true" religious reasons. Most of the people who try to claim religious reasoning for refusing vaccines are members of religions that are completely fine with vaccines. They are usually just really stupid people who are scared of needles and/or don't think it's that big of a deal with modern medicine. That's probably another 1% of people.

Then there are people that are homeless or otherwise outside of the system. Vaccines are one of the most cost effective methods to improve health of a country, so despite the nightmare that is our healthcare system, you typically should never have to pay for a vaccine. It may be a bit more work than someone who is homeless and/or has substance abuse or mental health problems can prioritize. That might be another 1%.

All together, that would put us at 92%, above the threshold for a widespread epidemic, but all of those categories of people who don't get vaccinated tend to be in communities, and so we can have outbreaks in those communities.

They weren't intentionally infected, they were just deliberately not given the cure. It doesn't make a difference at the end of the day, but it is important to distinguish because that is probably part of how those involved in the study justified their actions.

E.g.,

"I didn't give them the disease, so I'm not responsible for what happens to them"

I know some people with a similar house. I guess the bright news is that when a house gets that old, but it's still standing, you probably have some time, lol.