Best products from r/fakehistoryporn

I'll drop a few links to science that I think are quite compelling. To get a complete run-down I'd recommend just reading a book like Nina Teicholz's Big Fat Surprise. She really gets into the history of where the mainstream recommendations came from.

Please keep in mind that nutrition science is a mess. For every study I link that concludes fat is fine you can find some that conclude the opposite. Locking people in a cage and feeding them an exact diet until they die is really hard to do these days so 'hard proof' about nutrition is rare. But they did it a few times, as summarised here:

The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

One high profile example is the Minnesota Coronary Experiment. Ancel Keys, the guy who first blamed fat, was a leading contributor but the results were not what they expected and the data was buried. The data was recently dug up and published. Replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat successfully lowered cholesterol but resulted in much higher rates of death. Critics say that's because it was probably confounded by transfats in the unsaturated group... but that would admit that advice to reduce saturated fat directly contributed to harm... and also that cholesterol is an unreliable risk marker.

Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)

People with a low cholesterol still get heart disease. Look at table 2 in the following paper, the group with the lowest representation was people with high HDL. Unfortunately the authors conclude that "I guess we just need to lower cholesterol even more".

Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease

>In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD, almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL

Evidence from epidemiology (observation studies of various populations, shows correlations) is quite mixed. Some studies show that cholesterol is even a positive thing.

Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study.

>Our aim was to document the strength and validity of total cholesterol as a risk factor for mortality in a well-defined, general Norwegian population without known CVD at baseline... If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the 'dangers' of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.

Figure 1, figure 2 and Figure 3 from that paper are good to look at.

Ten-Year Survival in 75-Year-Old Men and Women: Predictive Ability of Total Cholesterol, HDL-C, and LDL-C

>Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were not significantly related to prognosis in either sex. HDL-C was associated with dismal prognosis in men but not in women. Elderly men with HDL-C <40mg/dL deserve particular attention for cardiovascular prevention.

Cholesterol, lipoproteins, and coronary heart disease in women.

>LDL did not prove to be powerful in predicting cardiovascular disease in women.

Women have naturally higher HDL than men and high HDL basically always wipes out the risk of LDL in these epidemiological studies. Having a high HDL basically indicates that you're healthy in general and have a well-functioning lipid sysem. HDL particles generally do cleanup, but they also happen to indicate that your LDL particles are working better. LDL particles that are larger are better and cleaner, when LDL particles shrink they're much more likely to get damaged, oxidised and stickier.

When your LDL is measured in a blood test, they measure the total mass. It doesn't tell you how many particles there are or how big and healthy they are. 2 people with the same LDL might have wildly different particles counts and health status.

LDL Particle Number and Risk of Future Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study - Implications for LDL Management.

Small Dense Low-Density Lipoprotein as Biomarker for Atherosclerotic Diseases.

And how do we increase our HDL and the healthfulness of our LDL particles? Eat a high-fat diet. It makes sense right? You're burning the cholesterol as energy, meaning you have a high turnover of particles and you're keeping them fresh. People with high LDL and low HDL (diabetics) are basically having an energy crisis between fat and sugar and letting their particles get damaged and stagnant, and that's when you really have risk.

There are many trials comparing low-carb to low-fat diets and low-carb always wins. This is mainly because people tend to spontaneously eat less because they're more satiated. They also demand less insulin from your liver so they're better at reversing the damage of diabetes. These diets consistently raise HDL and LDL particle size. Total cholesterol usually goes down because the subjects were fat and diabetic to start with, but they tend to ultimately have a higher cholesterol than other diets. That's because the particles are bigger and healthier, not because there's more of them.

Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing
Low-Carb Diets Of Less Than 130g Carbohydrate Per Day
To Low-Fat Diets Of Less Than 35% Fat Of Total Calories

Note that they're still eating up to 30% of carbs, i.e. you don't need to go full keto to see benefits.

The conclusion of all this is that Low-HDL-and-High-LDL is bad because it indicates you have diabetes and have a sick metabolism. It's not because LDL itself is bad. This means you could just ignore cholesterol numbers and directly test for diabetes. Markers of insulin resistance are powerfully stronger predictors of heart disease than anything to do with cholesterol.

Comparison of two surrogate estimates of insulin resistance to predict cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy individuals

Added sugars drive coronary heart disease via insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia: a new paradigm

I think I'll leave it at that. Sorry for the word bomb. Let me know if I can clear anything up!

I've talked to some pediatricians and read some books from pediatricians. Those would be the doctors I would trust on the subject since they are the ones that have the imperative duty to ensure that what they are doing is safe. I've found nurses and doctors outside of the Pediatric field are usually ignorant on the subject yet confidently speak on diatribes they, themselves, have not researched. Even in the pediatric field, Doctors are simply doing what they're told based on CDC's recommendations and can only discuss brochure level subjects. They work 12 hours a day - they aren't researching vaccines, especially with so much support from the anti-anti-vaxxer movement. They don't have to defend their regimen.

After reading The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, it's all pretty clear to me. I'd suggest you and your parents read it to gain some perspective.

I read the book and was planning on doing a spaced out vaccine schedule still within the CDC guidelines. There are no drawbacks to this healthwise. Our 1st Pediatrician said they he was against it and to not listen to the Jenny McCarthy's of the world. He also did not know why people had an issue with vaccines or why they wanted to space them out.

So here we have the largest network of Pediatricians in a capital city, who have a vaccine policy STRICTER than the CDC. This Dr was one of the main proponents of the policy affecting 10's of thousands of babies. Not only did he now know about the contents of the vaccines, he didn't even know WHY people have an issue with them.

Luckily my next pediatrician was much more open minded and reasonable. He was very honest saying he got his 3 children vaccinated on the schedule but has had patients that showed distinct changes after them, developing autism. He said "Was it the vaccines? No way to really know..." and went on to support our decision with spacing them out, guilt-free.

One of the first fidget things I found that I loved were sold on Amazon for like 5 bucks. They're two keyrings held together by what looked like a small bikechain link. It's small, so I think it might work with your hand size.

[Edit: here's a link. ](
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01MAYBTA0/)

Augustus by Anthony Everrit is a great place to start for the life of Augustus.

Tom Holland's Dynasty is amazing as well and covers all of the Julio Claudian dynasty.

For original source material, Plutarch's Lives and The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius.

It's already been mentioned here, but I'll mention it again: The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is an easy way to digest this stuff. The production quality in the beginning is very poor, but that gets so much better as it goes on.

He published a book last year called The Storm Before The Storm, which is about how the Republic got to the point where men like Julius Caesar were able to come onto the stage and do what they did. There are some really disturbing parallels to our own times. While it's always a bit silly to compare America to Rome, the similarities are fairly stark. The paper back comes out later this month.

Duncan is also currently producing a podcast called Revolutions, in which he does narrative histories of the English, American, French, Haitian, South American, and Mexican revolutions, as well as the French Revolution of 1830, the pan-European revolutions of 1848, and the Paris Commune. I know this is off topic, but Duncan really is amazing and I never miss a chance to plug his work.

Edit: here are the two episodes of The History of Rome that deal with Augustus's style of rule. Caesar Augustus and Reigning Supreme.

it can't be both?

you can't test your two different style of bombs to compare results and show an overwhelming show of force to Japan?

Do I have a linkable source or recording of somebody saying "man that one was great, let's see what the next one does"? no.

But I have read "making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes and from the information there, I myself came to the conclusion that there was a desire to test both designs.
it's a good book. I highly recommend it:
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-25th-Anniversary/dp/1451677618

Here is a great book that goes into the benefits and major drawbacks of German military tactics. https://www.amazon.com/German-Way-War-Thirty-Studies/dp/0700616241/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2J0JQ0ZNDN2U3&keywords=german+way+of+war&qid=1551199580&s=gateway&sprefix=german+way+of+%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1

Let me recommend a couple easy reads:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1101980133/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1521695583&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=blockchain+revolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51lLEMPAulL&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250114578/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521695671&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=truth+machine&dpPl=1&dpID=51xZeWw5q5L&ref=plSrch

America is going to have a hard time doing it again, honestly. It definitely can't do whatever it wants. Those days are over and there's even a book about that.

https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Power-American-Exceptionalism-Project/dp/0805090169

You'd be hard pressed to find an Ethicist who agrees with you. You know - someone who's philosophy major was in ethics?

Here's a good book to read - maybe you should consider taking an ethics course.

I've just started on a keto (or banting, or Low Carbs High Fat) diet, and I recommend this book if you are interested: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Meal-Revolution-Sustainable-Approach/dp/1472135695/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524301330&sr=8-1&keywords=banting+diet

I loved him in Goldfinger . I thought the daleks would defeat him for sure.

They don't make them like they used to.

Reckless: Henry Kissinger and the tragedy of Vietnam tells a pretty disturbing look behind the peace negotiations and Kissinger's role in mucking things up, his failure in Vietnam earned him a nobel peace prize and he managed to walk away scott-free.

No that was mindflex released in 2009. Same game different controlls. The Harry Potter version I remember playing in kindergarten so maybe late 2001, early 2002, used knobs and levers so it was a lot easier

Link to the action figures.


Figma makes some quality stuff, so trust that they’re worth the price tag.

I read Knights of Spain - Warriors of the Sun, and the spanish did not give a fuck about natives. Oftentimes they view native encounters merely as a means to get more food and to capture at least a handful to act as guides and porters. De Soto landed in Florida with a group of 600 people. 600 people traversed the south east. Granted their numbers dwindled over the sojourn.

After some time on their journey, the spanish wrote about encountering abandoned villages with barbacoa filled with corn. Word must have spread of the Spanish's ferocity and the native people would up and leave.

I strongly recommend that book. It's an incredible read and very accessible. It doesn't bog you down with historical jargon.

https://www.amazon.com/Popular-Mechanics-Amazing-Weapons-Never/dp/158816862X

Rex Electi