Leaderboard

So wealth is not really an illusion. Got it. So there is a need for government oversight and regulation of capitalism. I agree, because I am a rationalist, which also means I am a liberal.

A, C, K, K2, D, copper, selenium, zinc, and a few other essential nutrients, and you would be short on methionine. This is a terrible diet and would result in multiple deficiencies and eventually severe illness. About the only thing positive I could say is you've got your fiber covered. And subbing potatoes for wheat, while it would mitigate scurvy, would further reduce some of your B complex vitamins and be less of a complementary protein with the chickpeas. Starchy tubers are generally not nutrient-dense.

The reason is pretty obvious, isn't it? It has been a repeated talking point of anti-feminist sentiments for quite a while. It is pretty much the only example that folks could think of, by cherry picking data in a very myopic way. Meanwhile, the very same voices ignore the large literature demonstrating medical sexism against women (for an historic perspective see e.g. https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/ , but there is a lot of peer-reviewer lit out there, too).

It would be great if you didn't just make things up. The differences in lethality between breast and prostate cancer is well documented across various metrics. Take 5-year and 10-year survival rates for example. These are common measures to identify how long patients survive after diagnosis, which includes treatments. It is important to note that the survival rate does not necessarily mean that the patients actually died from the particular cancer. That being said, in the US using SEER data (you can find them on the NIH website) the 5 year relative survival rate for prostate cancer is 97% (or 3% die) whereas in breast cancer the 5-year survival rate is about 90% (10% die). So from there we can already see that that the death for breast cancer is about 3x higher for a 5 year period (funding is roughly 2x higher, so as @swansont pointed out, prostate cancer is actually overfunded relative to breast cancer, and both relative to other, deadlier cancer forms) . Looking at longer survival it is even worse. 10-yr prostate cancer survival rate is basically the same as 5 -yr (97%). As I mentioned before, more folks die with rather than of prostate cancer. In comparison, the 10-yr survival rate of breast cancer drops to 84%. So if we look at longer-term survival, the difference increases to ~5-fold. An interesting aspect is to look at untreated effects. While the data is a bit spotty, there some data for breast cancer suggesting a 5-yr survival rate of 19.8% and 10-yr survival of 3.7%. There were some interventions when symptoms presented, so not all patients were left entirely untreated, but it shows that breast cancer left untreated can have significant impact. (https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(200004)73:4<273::aid-jso15>3.0.co;2-h) In contrast, the 10-yr survival rate with untreated prostate cancer was 86%, showing that interventions in breast cancer are more important than for prostate cancer. Also just as an anecdote, way back we proposed to develop a simple urine-based diagnosis for prostate cancer and while there was some interest, ultimately it was canned as the attitudes were changing regarding prostate cancer. Physicians started to doubt that early diagnosis of most forms of prostate cancers would be beneficial to patients. The reasons is that most interventions would be more harmful than just let it be, unless they develop into some of the more rare aggressive cases. I.e. unless an assay is able to distinguish these forms, it can add to mental stress to the patients, whereas in breast cancer early diagnosis is more likely to save lives.

@Peterkin I didn't notice that nuts has that much carbohydrates : o I thank you very much for these information @TheVat I thank you for detailing that much @exchemist @Phi for All I try to do a recipe that contain all the recommended elements (without food from animals) (I would try to do several to avoid getting disgusted/tired) I imagine a bucket containing all the recommended elements (with precise quantities) for a day, and I would divide the bucket for each meals I have in the day. I don't try to follow trends, I love convenience and simplicity but my goal is really as I said above, I would do complicated and uncomfortable for efficiency and apparently this is the way to achieve my goal, I say that because I realize now that nutrition looks very complex... _________________________________ I was thinking that one food for carbohydrates, one for lipids and one for proteins could be "good" but of course it would have be too easy. I know that it is recommended to eat varied to improve chances to get everything needed, but I don't want to buy everything in the store and hope I will be great without too much of this or too few of this... I want to know as much as possible what I need precisely... So I will continue my researches, thank you all for helping me, information are still very welcomed.

No. A white surface reflects more incident radiation, but once the radiation has been absorbed by the black surface it is not transmitted through the material by radiation any more, but by intermolecular collisions, so colour is no longer relevant.

Again, you should read the link provided by Markus. You will find information such as "Although this way of calculating mass (known after its authors as “ADM mass”) has proved useful, it doesn’t allow physicists to quantify the mass within a finite region. Say, for instance, that they are studying two black holes that are in the process of merging, and they want to determine the mass of each individual black hole prior to the merger, as opposed to that of the system as a whole. The mass enclosed within any individual region — as measured from the surface of that region, where gravity and space-time curvature might be very strong — is called “quasilocal mass.”" Do you have an aversion to reading ?

It doesn't. But the papers it references might ( I haven't read them ). Due to gravity's non-linearity, mass cannot simply be weighed , as the gravitational 'field' is also a source of gravity, and the two are difficult to separate. Gravity gravitates, and the 'field' adds to the energy-momentum ( mass ). The article discusses methods for 'isolating' the mass from non-linear effects. And methods for using that isolated mass to determine angular momentum. Maybe you should read it ...

Today while Biden’s passing historic legislation on climate and healthcare, Trump’s passing FBI agents carrying boxes outside his shiny toilet. ———- "It's a sad day in America when a man whose only crime was breaking the law is treated as if he were some kind of criminal." - Paul Campos

Not going down the whataboutery road.

I wonder if this is a mis-read of the latest trend of meals with just a handful of ingredients. That's done for convenience and simplicity, NOT for nutrition.

Why are you doing this? It sounds bonkers.

That's a relatively low consideration, when you count in the carbohydrate content of legumes and nuts. Hazelnuts are pretty good from several points of view. Not as nutritious as almonds, but far more sustainable to cultivate, and doesn't take as long as walnuts, which are also pretty good. Better yet, peanuts - less tasty, but high in protein and fat, contain calcium, potassium, fibre; they're also cheap and less demanding of the environment than tree nuts. Good approach. There is a lot know. Be mindful that you will probably not always have the luxury of dietary experimentation. If you embark on an experiment, it's best to get your information lined up - not just from the physiological point of view, but all the other considerations: access, price, environmental impact, life-style changes, social implications. Don't forget to take and keep good notes!

Conservation of energy refers to any kind of energy, not just mechanical. Your knowledge of physics is corrupted. If you put a mathematical theory based on elements with no experimental reality (strings, LQG, MWI) then you should get a CAT scan. Or even better, you should go find some source of Common Sense, maybe a book about common sense, and read it.

I didn't bother doing that because only someone completely ignorant would be unaware that breast cancer is the most publicized form of cancer there is.