>it doesn't seem physically possible for most adult men to consume 13 pounds of potatoes a day. I'm a large man and I think I'd burst or vomit before choking down that much,
Presumably you aren't doing hard manual labor every day.
Not every day now, but I've done enough hard manual labor to know that it wouldn't allow me to eat 13 pounds of potatoes. Seriously no one was eating that much on as regular basis.
Once you spend every single day doing hard manual labor for years consuming potatoes for the majority of your calories then tell me 13 pounds is impossible.
Sure, its impossible for you now, but that's totally irrelevant. An equivalent statement would be "it's totally impossible for a human to throw a baseball at 90mph, I tried for a whole week once and I only threw 40mph."
If your diet is 90% potatoes and you do hard manual labor all day, you would absolutely need about 7 pounds of potatoes (2500 calories). I don’t think 13 pounds seems that crazy. I have sat down at a meal and eaten 3 pounds of potatoes before.
A Russian and American soldier meet during some peacekeeping mission/veteran fair and discuss which army is better.
They go through weapons, the American really likes AK-47. They talk about training. They discuss the distributed vs centralized command.
Finally the American says that they eat 5k calories per day. The Russian suddenly jumps up, points his finger at the American and starts yelling: "Liar! Nobody can eat that much potatoes!"
The problem is digesting that quantity of food, not the energy content. Elite athletes typically eat some potatoes but most of what they eat is more nutrient dense.
Seriously guys, get out your scale and weigh 13 pounds of potatoes. Could you really consume that much volume in a day without feeling sick? Let's do a reality check here.
About 6 weeks into a cross country bike tour, I spent a rest day eating all day. I think I ate 4 massive burgers and a large supreme pizza. Probably somewhere around 6000 calories.
A week prior, I ran out of food in the mountains. I finally got to a store, bought a loaf of bread, a pack of Oscar-Meyer bologna, a pack of cheese slices, two sodas, and a red bull. When I left the bench near the store, I had a few slices of bread left.
When you put out incredible amounts of energy, you can eat a fairly incredible amount of food. I don't understand where the food goes, it really doesn't feel like you should be able to eat that much volume but you can.
Those foods you ate are all more calorically dense than plain potatoes so my point still stands. It's not about the calories but the total volume of food that the human gut can process in a day. Have you seen 13 pounds of potatoes?
Potatoes are ~0.7kg/L, so that's ~8.4L of potato over the course of the day & 370 grams per waking hour, which is one big potato.
Yes my examples were somewhat high energy density but in the second example, I probably had 3L+ in my belly in just one meal. Honestly I think your body just gets used to it.
I'm not familiar with the 13 lb of potato claim, but it strikes me as a stretch (hah!) but not inherently implausible.
I had a HS friend who was a serious swimmer (not quite Olympic level but he won state championships) and watching him eat was insane. He would eat about 3x of what we all ate. Like literally down 3 sandwiches while we had one. I think he was on a 6000 calorie a day diet. I believe the potato thing. It sure sits outside what I think I could eat, but having seen others do similar, it seems realistic.
I do weightlifting and have gone through times where I do more weightlifting and less. The body just absorbs food when you do more work. Can't tell you the mechanics but it's way easier for me to digest more food when I do more weightlifting.
I thought human bodies adapt to strenuous effort and become more efficient over time. Meaning your average keyboard jockey might need 4000 calories per day if they become a manual laborer. But over time their body would adjust and they'd be able to get by on maybe 3000 calories.
Human bodies don't adapt much to become more metabolically efficient. Some endurance athletes will gain a few percent after extensive training but the effect is small.
For some activities there is a skill and technique aspect which impacts the amount of energy required. Like if a keyboard jockey literally doesn't know how to swing a pickaxe effectively then they're going to burn more calories digging a ditch compared to someone who's been doing it for years.
That's not what recent research indicates. The author has written a book about this as well.
It's the key evidence behind the idea that you can't outrun your fork. To lose weight diet is the only way. Exercise gives you a nicer-looking, stronger body but it can't do much to make you shed fat.
God, this is so ignorant, the hormonal changes (loss of estrogen) are the cause of increased risks for heart disease and osteoporosis and changes in metabolism post-menopause. Nothing to do with not physically losing blood, FFS.
There are likely multiple causal factors behind the health differences. Hormonal changes are one piece of the puzzle but so far no one has conclusively proved that physically losing blood has zero effect. The research just hasn't been done yet so we can't definitively say one way or the other.
>With that we can determine who above them is elected
"This country is for people like me, I want people not like me punished severely" is very much a mainstream opinion in the US. This is how people win elections, not lose them.
These days? Kissinger has always had public critics. In fact, in 1973 two members of the Nobel Committee resigned in protest.
Anyways, the first couple paragraphs of his Wikipedia is an introduction.
>Kissinger is also associated with controversial U.S. policies including its bombing of Cambodia, involvement in the 1971 Bolivian and 1973 Chilean coup d'états, and support for Argentina's military junta in its Dirty War, Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor, and Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Bangladesh genocide.[6] Considered by many American scholars to have been an effective secretary of state,[7] Kissinger was also accused by critics of war crimes for the civilian death toll of the policies he pursued and for his role in facilitating U.S. support for authoritarian regimes.[8][9]
With my husband (and probably most people who already already suffering with pain) the pain was too much to walk, and walking was very much counterproductive, so this is bad advise, especially the l "focus on resisting the urge to tell me why it can’t be done" part. It's not the type of pain that you can just power through. He said the pain caused his legs to physically stop working. He had to do PT exercises first and build up to walking.
Not GP but my husband suffered from absolutely debilitating back pain that limited his activities drastically. He went to PT. The fix was consistent exercise and stretching. The cause was muscle weakness and imbalance. He has to maintain it, otherwise the pain starts again.
Baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings. The two hour limit is the most important rule change that makes bananaball superior (but their other changes are also universally positive).
Pandering to the few diehards who can pay attention to more than 100 games a year on every day of the week including weekdays for 4+ hours at a time is not a sustainable way to build or maintain interest in your sport in newer generations.
The people who watch baseball and care about baseball don't like the Manfred runner. The people who complain that "baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings" aren't people who watch baseball and care about baseball. I don't care about the options baseball haters have about baseball rules.
You have no idea what you're talking about. RSNs (which ROOT was) are the reason for the blackouts. With ROOT Sports dissolving and MLB taking over distribution there's nothing to blackout for, so Mariners won't be subject to blackouts going forward.
>Cable subscribers will still be able to view games through a specific channel, and streamers will be able to watch through MLB.TV with no blackouts.
Mlb.tv is comparable to $20/month if not cheaper, but they sell by the season, not the month. Also, MLB has had an ongoing promotion with T-Mobile so one week every year every T-Mobile subscriber can sign up for a season of MLB.tv for free through the T-Mobile Tuesdays app. Non-baseball T-Mobile subscribers often sell their subscription for like $10 at that time on sites like Slickdeals. MLB also starts running 50% off deals starting around May (that's one month into the season).
We have a dollar bill