does a good diet actually cure depression?【Phase-Connect】 

Seafood and grains is a psyop. Those get pushed because grain is cheap and seafood spoils fast. Seafood is okay as a meat but it really doesn't offer much that you can't find in red meat. Omega-3 is still pure cholesterol. "Good" cholesterol is a blood test psyop to make it look like the "bad" cholesterol isn't so bad. Seafood being super healthy is a myth born of the fucking Mediterranean Diet, which is a whole other can of worms. Seed oils and grains are what's killing you. Trans fats were the fall guy for seed oils and sugars, they're fine. Salt is good but you need to up your potassium intake if you wanna go wild on salt. Carbs are what make you fat. Even more than sugar. Sugar is just pure calories, but the body can't easily break down carbs, so they get locked away in body fat.

​@@NotAGoodUsername360My brother in christ, pretty much all of this is wrong. For example, what the f do you mean carbs don't make you as fat as sugar..? Sugar is a carbohydrate. Try to get some basic education. Normally I would think this shit is meant as a joke, but it's not funny in the least.

I think what some people and Pippa didn't get during first half of stream is calorie density. "Regular" milk already has some sugar and fats in it. Pippa's beloved choccy milk needs extra sugar to offset the bitter taste of cocoa powder. While all carbs are sugar, even fiber is sugar, densely packed simple carbs are pretty bad if you're not going to burn them as fast as you're consuming, so they get processed internally as fats for later consumption. Unprocessed food makes you more satiated while having a lower density of calories. You chew more, which adds to that and it also takes up more space inside the stomach compared to drinking melted sugar crystals in a coke bottle. Higher concentration of sugar, salt and fat triggers taste receptors harder than unprocessed foods can. Fat makes things taste more, but it doesn't taste like anything by itself, so fatty food ends up being even higher in sugar and salt. We also tend to prefer eating soft food that requires less chewing, making us eat more in the process. Humans have developed weaker teeth and jaws over generations because of it. Carbon is the second most common element in the human body. All known life forms so far are carbon based. Even pure carnivores consume carbs from the contents of their prey. As long as you're getting your fats, proteins and micronutrients, carbs are good for you within the proper amount. You can overhydrate or strain your liver with excessive protein. There's nothing that isn't toxic in excess. Even lead and arsenic are essential in some organisms in extremely small quantity. There is no diet in the world that can save someone's VO2Max from plummeting to that of a morbidly obese man if they don't exercise, even if they're 5ft tall and weigh 95 pounds.

@@namingthingsishard8604 ketovores would like to have a word with you

I like how useful the original post is, and the first response is information so bad it's either a deliberate troll, or proof we're still two fly hairs away from being chimps once again. The keystone to nutrition is to know where your food is coming from and what's in it. When you buy something, the ingredient list shouldn't be a CVS receipt in length. As stupid as it is, a bottle of water that says 'ingredients: water' is the water you should drink. Your tomato should be a tomato. Your bread should be yeast, flour, water, sugar, and salt to taste. Milk should be coming from an udder; if it comes from soaked, pressed, and strained nuts or beans, it really isn't milk, and unless you have weird genetics, probably shouldn't be consumed, at least in the quantities most do. The best food you can get is the food you grow yourself. It can be a pain, but when you get groceries, save your produce seeds. Keep lettuce crowns to regrow (you'll have to fertilize to get a second decent harvest out of them before they bolt). Save onion roots to grow green onions/scapes. Plant your carrot tops to get greens, and then by year two they'll go to seed. Toss old spuds in the dirt if they get sprouts from the eyes and get new taters in a couple months. Not to mention, recycle gardening like this gets you outside, and to be properly healthy, you need some amount of sunlight and fresh air daily. That's why you see many perma-NEETs developing odd conditions and being perpetually sick; your body does not work without Vitamin D, and you cannot supplement it unless you want to eat an ocean of kelp. The great paradox of modern society and being healthy is that we get inundated with health trends and fad diets and 'new research', which usually just turns out to be some plant being pounded into the shape of meat, but the things that societies older (and better) than us did that worked, i.e. hard work, toil, some amount of suffering, being outside, etc. aren't comfy like sitting on our beds and facing bags of Doritos on the hour. However, that tougher effort is the crux of good health and nutrition, but it is certainly a lot of effort to get off the couch, figuratively and literally, to achieve that. As a sidebar, the chatter who said they drink 4-6 cans of pop a day is nuts. As much as the beetus is kind of a meme of a disease, don't mainline soda, especially big brand soda. Forget all the stuff about your tooth enamel, or pancreas, or sugar spikes; the stuff obliterates your liver very similarly to alcoholism, and your liver is the most important organ in the body. Switch to seltzer, or learn how to make your own flavor syrups (or buy not garbage ones) and flavor your own seltzers accordingly. It's way better.

True and real.

Yup. the Foody Pyramid is a giant scam. Always was, always will be. What people actually need is to increase meat consumption and cut back on carbs and grains.

(white) bread and cereal are 100% starch to begin with, which breaks down into sugar just from getting into contact with saliva...

This is true in Europe too, and it depends extremely on the type of Cereals, and half the time parents and teachers don't care what kind of cereals it is. because "cereal is cereal".

@@melfice999 Honestly the packaging of food all around the world is misleading. The body turns all carbs into sugar, they should just label the carbs as sugar on food packaging. Only if sugar, salt, fat and protein is correctly labled on the packaging can an overconsumption be prevented.

I've worked in a factory that makes bread. Wholesale bread everywhere in the world is sugary. The US just supersizes that like everything else. We didn't use all purpose flour for example. That's higher in protein and slightly tougher. People want soft, sweet bread, which is why flour that's used for cakes is used instead. It breaks down into simpler sugars more and faster than all purpose does. There's also the problem with how making good tasting bread works. Unless you're buying artisan made bread, there's no other way to make it not taste like you're chewing on air. The dough needs a slower rise and time for the enzymes inside to work their magic before the yeast takes over. Industrial bread is all about simple production and fast delivery. You're not going to get good taste out of a fast rise without dumping sugar in it and using low protein content grain. What's worse is probably that "healthy" whole wheat is never whole wheat. More than half of dark bread's composition is actually just the same sugary soft white flour mixed in with a small amount of whole wheat and some roasted malt powder, which is definitely not there for the coloring effect instead of "enzyme boosting activity".

Hey its difficult for americans to remember what a boiling point is when water boils at like 321.32423244565 degree toenail

@@TuriGamer You think that's bad, ask the British how they do anything. They drift from Imperial to Metric like a metronome.

1:19:51 p:"it boils more!" | 1:20:57 p:"this dude's insane" | 1:22:17 easy lunches? | 1:23:03 p:"I'm not at this point of brush your teeth without even thinking" | 1:24:02 p:"it is like pulling off a bandaid every single time" | 1:24:48 p:"this is a candybar inside a bowl of macadamia nuts" | 1:25:51 skipping sponsor | 1:26:49 p:"these are the kinds of recipes I like, though" | 1:28:13 p:"no baking" | 1:28:50 p:"yes, I have a skill issue. it's called I do not naturally want to live" | 1:30:04 p:"when you stack a whole bunch of things up, it's too overwhelming and you just give up" | 1:30:53 hello fresh too much work | 1:31:41 p:"I will just go to bed hungry" | 1:32:19 p:"I can't do it! It's too much!" | 1:33:00 enjoys making ramen | 1:33:43 p:"I can be in the kitchen for an hour if I'm making ramen" | 1:34:38 jalapeno and cheese | 1:35:37 slowcooker recipes | 1:36:05 p:"it's the flavor culmination!" | 1:37:57 p:"slow cooker's so much easier" | 1:38:52 1 pot meals | 1:39:19 p:"I want to say this doesn't look particularly healthy" | 1:40:06 p:"this is not healthy!" | 1:40:38 p:"it looks yummy, but it doesn't look healthy" | 1:41:55 cut back on soda | 1:42:04 p:"I will not eat enough if I don't get my snacks" | 1:42:34 p:"ingredients go bad so quickly" | 1:44:02 p:"I don't like freezing stuff. it makes stuff taste weird" | 1:44:27 snacking not bad | 1:45:04 healthier snacking | 1:46:16 p:"it's not just something leafy and green. celery is nothing" | 1:47:12 vitaramen | 1:49:19 p:"wouldn't it be better to use actual thyme and actual garlic than just the powder?" | 1:50:14 p:"whole, actual foods seem healthier, but dehydrated stuff lasts longer" | 1:51:14 lemon garlic chicken (p:"this looks like it would be healthy") | 1:52:00 olive oil not a seed oil | 1:52:54 p:"THIS IS TOO MANY BOWLS!" | 1:54:33 p:"who is like 'should I buy an air fryer or an instantpot'?" | 1:55:30 p:"you can get a lot more utility out of instant pots" | 1:56:46 p:"twenty-five grams of added sugar. is that a lot?" | 1:57:38 p:"where do I see where the corn syrup is?" 1:58:16 soda | 1:58:40 pipsniff | 1:58:47 p:"it tastes a little bit sour" | 2:00:23 p:"it looks so good. does this guy have more stuff?" | 2:01:07 p:"throwing whatever that green stuff is on there makes it look so much healthier" | 2:01:53 p:"is the fat not good?" | 2:02:26 canned chicken | 2:03:12 p:"what is canned chicken? like canned tuna but canned chicken" | 2:04:26 p:"the ramen gives me an inspiration buff" | 2:05:02 p:"these are not potatoes!" (colored potatoes) | 2:05:46 p:"the nice thing about canned chicken is that it goes on sale pretty frequently" | 2:06:49 phone notifications but nothing new | 2:08:07 p:"the man hasn't even cooked the chicken yet and it's been six minutes" | 2:08:39 chicken dropped | 2:09:17 p:"it's just the floor. it's fine" | 2:09:46 p:"put it in there!" | 2:10:34 p:"personal chefs are not worth it" | 2:11:38 washing dropped chicken | 2:12:40 p:"I don't want to say it. I don't want to say the name of this instapot" | 2:13:38 balsamic vinnegar | 2:13:59 p:"this would be ten times worse if it were steak instead" | 2:14:31 MiG-15 | 2:15:04 p:"chat, count the chicken!" | 2:15:25 p:"he absolutely snuck that fourth one in" | 2:16:14 stews | 2:16:59 p:"is this really all done in a slow cooker?" | 2:19:01 p:"" | 2:19:53 p:"I'm gonna save this guy's channel" | 2:20:12 rima evenstar raid | 2:21:05 adapting recipes | 2:21:47 p:"this does look easy" | 2:22:17 ASMR cooking | 2:22:51 pumpkin custard pudding | 2:23:40 japanese bread unhealthy? | 2:24:31 p:"I ate so much pudding in japan" | 2:24:57 gigapudding | 2:25:27 flan | 2:26:41 p:"like if jello and pudding had a baby" | 2:27:16 p:"I don't like these noises" | 2:28:27 hungarian food | 2:29:03 p:"that sounds like the most sane advice" | 2:29:41 missed supa list | 2:30:05 large range of "normal food" | 2:31:19 bagel example | 2:32:00 p:"that's how you say 'bagel'" | 2:32:43 how grams an okay amount of sugar? | 2:33:21 p:"that's a normal breakfast" | 2:34:03 shiina cooking stream | 2:34:14 p:"CELERY IS LEAFY I TOLD YOU GUYS!" | 2:34:19 alienmixture raid 2:35:47 p:"I will do a full-on twelve hours every day if I don't stop myself" | 2:36:29 p:"people are so anti-microwave!" | 2:37:50 p:"if you're depressed, get into weightlifting" | 2:38:21 MIT nutrition courses online | 2:38:55 p:"I don't understand how people eat so much" | 2:39:33 p:"if you're not ordering the biggest serving size, it feels like you're getting ripped off" | 2:40:47 banana unhealthy? | 2:41:31 p:"I feel like I'm getting mixed information" | 2:44:07 p:"the food on screen looks so good" | 2:47:33 improving diet gradually | 2:50:45 boiling supas | 2:51:27 rolling boil | 2:52:44 slow cooker meals good for buying in bulk | 2:54:03 flexible meals | 2:56:11 p:"we had a positive superchat, now we have to have a blackpill" | 2:56:49 dollar store steak and slower cooker | 2:57:19 potato stew | 2:58:42 p:"every time I try cooking I feel miserable" | 3:00:25 speculation before pippa's handcam debut | 3:04:07 summer roll | 3:04:55 battle royale | 3:06:04 p:"this stuff actually looks good" | 3:07:00 husband lunchboxes | 3:07:37 p:"how are you even stirring anything in here?" | 3:09:10 raiding aoi moi | 3:09:11 ~fluffles away~ ~fluffles away~

Thank you.

Soups and stews are the pinnacle of cooking, both from a flavor standpoint, and just being the most efficient way to get the most amount of nutrients in you as possible. Chili, too. Bonus points if you make your own stock.

Your explanation is really well done, never know the lore of metric system based on water

+ESL1984 A very 'um actually' moment on my behalf, but the effect isn't unique to water. It's caused by the Latent Heat of Vaporisation, which is much greater in water than most other substances due to its chemical properties, but is still present. If you were to boil a pot of pure ethanol, it would boil twice as fast than water would (at the same burner setting), due to the lower Heat of Vaporisation, but it would remain at ~78 degrees C regardless of how much energy you threw at it until it was all converted into alcohol fumes, though I suppose that would probably present both a fire and health hazard.

Old fashioned watercooled machineguns also demonstrate this well, the barrels are thin, but encased in a 'jacket' filled with water. As long as you keep filling in more water to replace what evaporates (including recondensing and recycling resulting steam), then the barrel of the gun will never get hotter than the boiling point of water, which for a firearm is fairly cool. You can shoot, shoot, and shoot for as long as you have ammunition and water, each barrel lasting about 10000 rounds before wearing out.

@@callumunga5253 correct, when I said "unique" I was referring to the temperature of the transition itself. Also it's helpful to the metric system because water is everywhere.

sadly thats most people. i had been led to believe in the 90s that 100% pure natural orangejuice was super healthy and avoid fats at all costs. turns out its the opposite. most juice might as well be koolaid. better off eating a stick of butter

@@iamnotyu5548 I grew up listening to my mom’s advice. As long as you eat a good variety you’ll get your nutrition covered. It’s served me well. I also try to avoid processed foods. Was told as a kid that it was not healthy but my parents weren’t strict on it. Probably because my mom cooked 2 to 3 meals a day.

The vast majority of foods are ultra-processed poison. People complain about China, but America is literally eating tons of poison taken right off the shelves.

We learned how hot water can get on the stove at least lol

Well, there is a connection between gut bacteria and mental health. Also, working out affects your hormone levels. Both of these can be contributing factors for depression and so being healthy actually can cure some kinds of depression. It’s no different than telling somebody who is depressed to go outside. If their depression comes from low levels of vitamin d, sunlight can cure it.

Nothing "cures" depression, it's not an infection where you take antibiotics for a week and be done with it. It's something you manage and work on.

i usually do my curry with onions and apples. fry the chicken for a minute then pick them out. then fry the onions and apples. when the onion get soft i re add the chicken with curry powder and a chicken stock cube with water. when it's cooked i add some cream.

hell yeah :D glad it's working out for you

Same, i looked it up, saw the insane amount of research done over the past 70 years and switched. Been almost 8 years now, never felt better.

@@PipkinPippa Hm, odd. Where did my reply go?

@@AkiRa22084 RU-vid often hides, and sometimes outright deletes completely innocuous comments. It's seldom 100% clear why, but if something has an aggressive tone, or touches on controversial subjects, it's often hidden or even deleted. I once had RU-vid automatically delete and warn me for quoting some Tupac lyrics, in a conversation about Tupac, on a Tupac song upload, so it's not a very smart filter.

@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine Usually in that case (when the tone is aggressive), the comment becomes invisible. You see it, but no one else does (you can check with incognito mode) and you can still find it in your comment history. But in this case, a completely innocent comment is totally gone. Even from history. It happened to me a few times in the last two months.

Patience is a skill

Fascinating.

o7

Same. Though now I cook because I find it fun, I still don't do it when I'm hungry. easier to just pop in a frozen dinner. I even find it hard to meal prep because by the time I AM hungry, I won't be hungry for what I previously made😂

@@MrOnepiece14 Indeed, that's why I think it's best when you're cooking for someone else, or something else. I cook for my dog, but it's generally ramen or air fryer food for me these days.

It won't kill your apatite if you cook things well. That's something that can always be fixed, it really doesn't take much to learn how to cook delicious food. And if you just find it hard to get up from your chair and devote some time to it (been there), then that's just something you need to overcome yourself. Once it becomes a normal part of your life you won't have those problems anymore, the hardest part is starting a habit.

Unless you are twisting a chicken's neck IDK how cooking can kill your appetite. the smell alone should make you hungry IMO.

@@RiskOfBaer The appetite loss isn't because the food is unappetizing, it's because the effort is distracting and mentally tiring. I'm quite confident in my cooking ability, just not my mental and emotional reserves for hassle. Like with Pippa and brushing her teeth, whether it has become routine or not has nothing to do with how it drains your mental reserves, that is a myth.

And that's the reason why people in this country is obease

Yeah, the bits that I've heard are insane

You held good dialogue here, Pippa. You let yourself be exposed to a large variety of knowledge. That's not common in this industry. That's something to be proud of. About how water boils only at one temperature: Another commenter gave an explanation. But I think it's hard for it to actually stick without another explanation. To better visualize the previous explanation, and before I really mechanistically explain things: There's a common at-home experiment you can do. Take some ice, and heat it to melting, then heat it to boiling. Throughout this process, take its temperature. Chart its temperature over time. You'll end up with a graph that is very much like what you see if you put "time-temperature graph" into google image search. The ice begins below freezing, and heats up over time. The ice will reach its melting point, 0 C, and then the temperature increase over time suddenly flattens. The heat going into the ice is only just turning the ice into water, and that newly-thawed water is at 0 C. (Ideally) only when all the ice is melted does the heat added start to increase the temperature of the thawed water above 0 C. The temperature therefore stays at 0 C until all the ice is thawed and the transition to liquid water is complete. This phenomena is a general property of "Phase transitions" across all materials. Non-ideal behavior will occur with uneven heating, like if the ice gets insulated from the heat source by a layer of melted water, causing that pocket of melted water to heat above 0 C before the ice melts. But, if you have an ice and water mixture that is well-mixed throughout the heating, and the heating isn't so absurd to outpace the mixing, the ideal phenomenon holds. This happens again at the boiling point: At the phase transition from water to steam (which is actually invisible, 'visible' steam is steam condensing back into liquid while in the air due to cooling), this happens again. The water reaches 100 C, and then the temperature no longer increases. Added heat simply turns portions of that water into steam, causing boiling. More heat means more rapid phase transition, which is then more vigorous boiling. The water will not increase in temperature again until all of it becomes steam. Note, when you have a "mild" boil, it could be that the water is near 100C at the bottom of the pot at the heat source, and hasn't mixed enough to make all the water at 100C. E.g. the water further away from the bottom could still be 98 C. Or, it could also be that all the water is 100C, but you're only putting in a small amount of heat so the boiling isn't rapid. To explain why chat was so shocked at you, this demonstration is widely known and is taught in middle school in the United States. I'm not trying to shame you, we all have surprising gaps in our knowledge, this is to warn you that it's common knowledge so don't use it as interesting trivia in conversation and get embarrassed. Actually, I take that back. It's rare knowledge, share it on stream with your friends. Do it for the content...

That demonstration of phase transitions doesn't answer a big "WHY" for why phase transitions act that way, and so the knowledge may not stick or feel satisfying. I will give you an explanation that was first taught to me in high school (but my high school chemistry curriculum was generally above-average). Temperature is the "average energy" of the component molecules of a substance. That means the molecules are all at various kinetic energies, bouncing off of each other and exchanging energy, and that you can get an average. That means that the molecules are at a spectrum of energies around their average (the "temperature"). As you might expect, this does form more or less a bell curve around that average. This is called the "Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution". If you google it, you'll find charts of those bell-curves. The x-axis is energy (or velocities, close enough) of individual molecules within a substance, and the y-axis is how many are at that energy. In particular, google-image "Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution different temperatures". This shows the distribution of energies of molecules at different temperatures - Each curve is the distribution of all the molecules of a substance at a single temperature. Keep one of those images on hand, it'll be useful. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is extremely helpful and informative. For a long time, people didn't understand heat or the energetics of atoms or other particles of a substance, and this explained it. It explains nearly every historical thermodynamic problem of classical mechanics. The boundary between classic mechanics and quantum mechanics is actually when the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution actually failed to explain something (the distribution of light emitted by a heated material), a historical event called the "ultraviolet catastrophe." It broke everybody's minds. That's how important it was, and still is. As a minor technical note: The peak of the bell curve within a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution actually isn't the average, it's just the most frequent energy level. The actual average is close but further to the right of it. One explanation is that molecules can go arbitrarily fast, but can only get so cold (absolute zero), so this puts a bias on the average, pulling it away from the peak and to the right. On a graph of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, kinetic energy is on the x (horizontal) axis. The number of molecules at that energy is the y axis. The average energy of the drawn curve is a little to the right of the peak of the bell. Whatever graph of the distribution we're looking at right now, let's do the following thought experiment: Let's say that the graph you're looking at is representing the molecules of water at 50 C (The real graph for this will look similar enough, so just go with it). Temperature is just average energy. As noted, an arbitrary point a little to the right of the peak of the bell curve is our average (or just choose the peak, close enough). We can say this point is the single-molecule energy-equivalent of 50 C. Let's draw a vertical line through this point to drive home the fact that we can represent 50 C as a certain point on the x-axis. If we can put 50 C, our average energy, our temperature, on a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution graph, how about a point equivalent to 100 C, the boiling point? Even though 100 C isn't our current average energy, that energy level still exists on our x-axis! Choose an arbitrary point to the right of our average. Imagine (or draw) it as another vertical line. That's our 100 C line. This is valid! And surprisingly, it says that in our 50 C water, we have some water molecules with so much energy, that they're above what would be the average energy level for our boiling point. What gives?

Let's go into a detour about why molecules of a liquid (or solid) stick together to begin with and don't just all fly away. Molecules are sticky, for various reasons. They like to stick together, even as they all bounce around at different speeds within a substance. We can say that each molecule is "bonded" to the molecules around it. Of course, these bonds aren't absolute or permanent. If they were permanent, you'd have a solid you could never melt (or sublimate). In real life, these bonds can only withstand so much energy before they break! If the molecules don't have enough kinetic energy to break them at all, the molecules vibrate in place but otherwise stay in a geometric grid, and you get a "solid" (gross simplification). For a liquid, there's enough energy for the molecules to defy the absoluteness of their bonds (compared to a solid) and slip and slide past each other. For a gas, there's so much kinetic energy that the molecules are dissociated from each other completely. This implies that any individual molecule, if it acquires enough energy, can break free from its peers. And the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution implies that, just due to random collisions, some few molecules will acquire a lot of energy, represented on the graph by the far-right of a given curve. So even in 50 C water, can there be some water molecules that vaporize and escape from the water? Boiling without reaching boiling? As it turns out, yes! This is called "vapor pressure", and is responsible for fumes of volatile liquids (like gasoline fumes), but exists for all liquids, and even all solids. As you might think, all molecules in our 50 C water graph to the right of our 100 C vertical line will actually become gas. So why do we have a distinct boiling point? And why doesn't our 50 C water just evaporate away? (That does technically happen, but not always) First, the off-gassed molecules from our 50 C water are constantly falling back into the liquid, getting re-captured. This hints that there's an equilibrium between simultaneous off-gassing and recondensation of our 50 C water. Second, when a water molecule gets enough energy from random collisions to move to the right of the distribution curve, it's necessarily taking away energy from other molecules - the kinetic energy is borrowed from other molecules in the liquid, and the rest of the molecules are "colder" as a result. If that molecule escapes, the remaining liquid is colder, and it's less likely to shoot more hot individual molecules out. That's simple conservation of energy, and it prevents run-away evaporation of an otherwise stable liquid, like our 50 C water. This is actually the basis of evaporative cooling, like our sweating: The hottest molecules within a liquid are those that evaporate first, leaving only colder molecules, lowering the temperature. If there's a breeze that prevents the off-gassed molecules from bouncing and returning to the liquid with all their energetic glory, the liquid stays cold, and a net decrease in temperature occurs over time! And to complete why our 50 C liquid doesn't just boil away: You know when I said that you could draw that 100 C vertical line on our 50 C graph, and some molecules would be above 100 C, and that's completely valid? I lied. Those graphs you're looking at are actually Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions of GASSES. A liquid Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution graph looks similar, but with an important difference: The right side of our bell curve of our 50 C water plunges to the baseline and terminates at the 100 C point, much like how it terminates on the left of the curve (I haven't found any clear graphs of liquids on google, sorry). Molecules DO get lucky in their collisions and get enough energy to go beyond the 100 C point: But if they're near the surface of the water, they instantly off-gas and are no longer part of the liquid! This constantly culls molecules above the 100 C point, making those molecules within the liquid itself very rare, justifying the averaging-out of their frequency level as "zero" at the 100 C point. But of course, off-gassing does occur. And as you heat up a liquid, as you push it closer to its boiling point, as you push its average farther to the right, you get more off-gassing and that vapor pressure will increase. The bell curve is pushed to the right, morphed and tortured, resembling the right-pushed and squashed curves of the multi-curve graphs you found by searching "Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution different temperatures". Though there's the important difference that for a liquid, the curve can't go beyond the boiling point, so instead of the bell curve being slid right and squashed downwards uniformly like those gas curves you're looking at, as a liquid is heated its curve is crushed against the boiling point that it must plunge to zero and terminate at! But, as long as the overall temperature is below the boiling point, there's still liquid left, and with every addition of heat to the liquid, you can measure its temperature increase.

Eventually, you'll get the temperature very, very close to the boiling temperature. Our peak and average temperature are pushed right against our boiling point line, but technically can't overlap. This arbitrary, even variable proximity to the boiling temperature is our "boiling point." This may look like we're just saying "good enough", since the average can't be drawn beyond 100 C (well we could and that could be valid but not as a generalization) but there's some justification. Your heat source will be giving energy to the liquid at a certain rate, determined by what that heat source is and the various material properties involved. Before the boiling point, what was happening is that heat energy was transferred to some molecules in the liquid. This would result in some increased off-gassing, represented by higher vapor pressures. But also, some colder molecules, closer to the left side of the distribution curve, would also get kinetic energy from the heating, but not so much to off-gas. The result is that not all the heat energy is transferred to off-gassing molecules, and you get a hotter liquid - The temperature increases for every amount of heat added to your liquid. But, once you get close enough to the boiling temperature, there are very few molecules cold enough to both receive energy from your heat source and remain liquid - They instantly off-gas. It BOILS. To be more accurate, even at boiling there should still be some very cold molecules under the distribution curve that aren't so close to the 100 C energy point - But with so much energetic chaos around these few cold molecules, the bonds around them simply aren't there to dampen the blow when heat is introduced to them, so they might as well float free with minimal impetus! So a liquid boils and stays at its boiling point (or a substance stays at any phase transition temperature) because any addition of energy from heat is lost to pushing a (theoretically) perfectly-corresponding amount of already-hot material out of the liquid (or solid). Caveats below: I conjecture that since energy seems to be transferred only in quantums, aka discrete amounts (a la basics of quantum physics, yes it is intuitively absurd, no the original quantum physicists never got over it), this further facilitates how a heat source for a boiling liquid only transfers energy in big enough "packets" to effectively vaporize all molecules that receive that energy and not push the average up any more. I don't have the math or skills to back that up, though. You could also argue that as your heat source gets hotter and more efficiently transfers heat, it can freely kick out molecules from a liquid with a curve even further away from the boiling point, thus a boiling point is lower for a better heat source. This non-ideal scenario is probably valid and does occur, but in real scenarios, boiling water remains close to 100 C, and deviations where it's noticeably below 100 C seem to be best-attributed to convection issues. And THAT's why boiling water is always at 100 C. There's scenarios where this conclusion is completely invalid, however. First is when you change the atmospheric pressure. In a vacuum, water will slowly evaporate until it freezes or has nothing left. For high-pressure, look up specifically "superheated water" on wikipedia, and also "phase diagram" on wikipedia. Second, the intermolecular bonds of water can be so stable that, if not disturbed, water can be heated above 100 C without boiling. There's no disturbance available for "nucleation" of bubble sites. Look up "superheating" on wikipedia for this. It's responsible for a lot of variance in boiling temperature that you might see in a lab, where you're working with very clean equipment and chemical liquids. It can also cause sudden boiling-over of a beverage that you microwaved, causing burns (it's super freaky).

There's a lot of incomplete and wrong scientific information given by chat. I think the best thing to do is to get a cheap nutrition textbook and cross-check it for basic mechanisms and facts. Of course there are things being actively learned. Very important is to also understand how nutritional science is and has been done. The first part of nutrition is simply biochemistry, the study of how molecules are metabolized by cells, and molecular biology, largely how proteins and molecular communicators work within cells. The second is the more messy study of diets and actual people. Especially biochemistry is old-ish knowledge and has a lot of "settled knowledge", as an insane amount of work was done to understand things like glycolysis in the mid 20th century. Things are still being found now, but others are close to settled fact, like the mechanisms of glycolysis and lipid metabolism. For example, a certain superchatter claims that alcohol and fructose share the same metabolism and that metabolic pathway leads to fatty livers. While both are in fact risk factors for fatty livers, their metabolic pathways are different, and this is not disputed knowledge. Like all energy metabolism, their metabolism converges at a certain point, but their overlap with each other isn't unique at all - Their convergence is at the same junk drawer of intermediates as most other foods. The broader reason why fructose and alcohol lead to fat generation at the liver is because they're both preferentially digested by the liver, and the liver generates most of our fat from excess food, so "hypernutrition" of those two energy sources are more prone to fat generation. Then there's molecular biology. It's an absurdly wide field (bloated in its scope, really) that covers genetics, proteins function and generation, studies of cells, cellular import and export, hormones, etc. You can consider it the study of the "mechanisms of how our cells do things", aside from the literal chemical reactions (biochemistry). There's more rapid change in knowledge here, but findings here are also generally rigorous and valid. Like if a study finds certain nutrient or hormone is associated with a certain stress response in cells, it's probably valid and reproducible. What's less valid about molecular biology is whether those valid associations end up being meaningful or significant within an actual person (the classic in-vitro vs in-vivo conundrum). And then there's the more problematic other side of nutrition science: Finding meaningful associations within living humans. It's been very hard to find useful conclusions from these. You can have epidemiological studies, which look at populations after living their natural lives and try to make sense of it. But finding true correlations is really hard like this, in part due to reporting inaccuracies, but I suspect that "risk compensation" is the biggest confounder (like why masking fails to reduce disease rates in many epidemiological studies even though it has a clear mechanism for working - People and communities wash out the benefit with riskier behavior!). And then you can have experimental studies, where a small test group of people is given something and they try to find changes. But there's very little precision of the molecular biology done in very controlled cell or (good) animal models, it's harder to directly test for a certain molecule when you need to get it from a living person, and even harder to tell if it actually matters. This sense of futility might also have a side-effect of lowering standards: I've read a study on matcha and cognition where they gave matcha to people, and then claimed it increased cognition. But I tried to replicate their calculations from their reported data, and I couldn't! Goddamn frauds! Thankfully, the study was low-impact (little-cited), the last I checked. This isn't to invalidate the findings of nutritional science as a whole. There are still settled facts (especially for micronutrient deficiencies and biochemical pathways). For less settled-science, mainstream guidelines generally do represent our best guesses at the moment. But I want you to take away that current conclusions about certain diets are often tentative and provisional. When guidelines inevitably change, don't claim conspiracy (there are some, but don't overestimate) and swear off the entire field like I've seen some people do (and then they would hypocritically flip-flop with their trust later). Be ready to change and embrace it.

aw sweet

A description of addiction

It's also fun.

It actually happened lmao

you just desctibed most mental health 'professionals' bubch of quacks. yes inproved physical health and diet will often if not most times improve peoples mental health.

”EXTEND YOUR LIFE WITH 50+ YEARS WITH THIS SIMPLE TRICK!” ”eat food”

Bro clipped this 😭

Eggs from healthy chickens are nutrionally complete, and the best food in the world. Their only shortcoming is a lack of undigestable carbs (fiber).

Eggs are very good food, great protein. An omelette for breakfast gives me lots of energy.

@@Jacks_Suffocating_Nihilism well also lacking omega3 and some vitamins, but yes eggs is the best food you can eat. yet im not supposed to eat as many as i do cuz of too much cholesterol, yet not problem lol

Sounds accurate, the food pyramid exists primarily for marketing reasons.

Dаmn that's a lot of complete keto-cult bs right here

@@duhotatoday3277 It's bs until you're living with heart disease. How about you shove off.

A diet too high in carbs isn't any good, and most seed oils are pretty bad for your stomach, but carbs aren't inherently just poison either. Potatoes have lots of nutrients.

​@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine I didn't say eliminate carbs, I said avoid carbs in general. A sweet potato has more nutrients and a lower Glycemic Index than a potato. Bread has a higher glycemic index than soda. People are slamming their pancreas with things that weren't part of the human diet 20+ thousand years ago and when wheat did become a food staple it had nowhere near the gluten it has today. I look in the shopping carts of obese people waddling through stores and it's no wonder they can barely walk. It's nothing but carbs.

@@duhotatoday3277 You add nothing to this conversation, get lost.

Cats should really not eat much fruits or vegetables. Dogs can eat some.

Not all fruits and vegetables are the same. For example, apples are nutritionally empty compared to other fruits, and are mostly fructose. "Apple a day keeps the doctor away" is a lie.