QED steambox is the PC version of McDonald’s in Rome or Vietnam
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: March 15th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
72·7 months agoI didn’t realize this was the onion. Jesus.
7·11 months agoSon of gold would be “goldson”. “Goldman” would be a moniker for someone who worked with gold (miner, jeweler, gilder) or possessed/wore a lot of it.
Some sort of rule about verification may help your cause, and I hope it runs well for you
Without strong and trusted mods, this will be interesting…
Content warnings seem to be useless or add stress
27·1 year agoI cannot tell if you are being serious or just having fun with buzzwords
Seriously, fuck off with the AI shit. At best it’s intelligent regex. And “intelligence” here means a specific thing.
5·2 years agoBored toddler.
Slouched forward shoulders, weight on my heels, head back with a pained expression and small crying sounds.
Same except opposite for me. Communication on the right, info on left
Fair enough. And I’ll give you the vs fat part. It was unfair for me to say anyway - what was in my head when I said it was that a pound of fat is considered worth 3500 kcal, which is more energy than most things in a body. It was a shit argument that mixed points.
Overall, I think my issue is just with the simple statement that “muscles are inefficient”.
The way I interpreted that statement is that “muscles waste energy”, since that’s all the context I could get from those words. I see muscles as super efficient, just like anything else in the body in that they do as little as possible compared to what is demanded. I view that type of laziness as ultimate efficiency.
Through the rest of the thread I got little additional context, so I kept on keeping on.
I still think the op of this thread didn’t get his point across very well
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980962/
Heart & kidneys > brain > liver > skeletal muscle > adipose muscle
Pound for pound. But they all are efficient, which still goes against the original thesis
Then muscles are as efficient as they can be. They use as little energy as they need. They require energy to do things, just like everything else in your body. But they will only be as big/strong as required, nothing more - which is, believe it or not - efficiency.
Aside from fat. Or the brain. Or other organs
So from what context are we using the word “efficiency”?
Because from a muscle’s view, it is as efficient as possible. It grows and atrophies based on what is required of it. This is my problem with the main post: muscles are inefficient.
They aren’t, full stop. A muscle will be as efficient as possible - be as small and use as little energy as possible - to handle the regular tasks given.
If you are speaking from a holistic view of a human who decides what goals to set, whether it is useful to simply have large muscles for aesthetic reasons, then sure. Yeah. Big muscles burn more energy and aren’t needed to survive. I’d still say that’s not what efficiency is, but I’d concede there.
Frank Zappa considered himself a classical conservative in the era of Reagan