you> Dysentery has nothing to do with salt nor does diarrhea. Another spectacularly stupid statement that can get you killed. See oral rehydration salts.
What kind of inverted logic and strawmaning is that? One loses salts and electrolytes through diarrhea of course and lack of salt is dangerous. But it doesn't follow that lack of salts leads to diarrhea. You can't switch cause for effect like that, it's nonsensical. Diarrhea is not a symptom of a salt deficient diet.
So it's half, I was looking at cooked macros before. Still, with 70g of shrimp you get 0.7g of fats from it and together with the rice that's like 1g of fat per day. Even with the best quality and nutritional value you can't get much higher. Again, an adult needs more than 10 times that. This is not sustainable.
The cause of dysentery is usually the bacteria from genus Shigella, in which case it is known as shigellosis, or the amoeba Entamoeba histolytica; then it is called amoebiasis.[1] Other causes may include certain chemicals, other bacteria, other protozoa, or parasitic worms.[2] It may spread between people.[4] Risk factors include contamination of food and water with feces due to poor sanitation.[5]
– Dysentery | Wikipedia
So it's half
No, more than.
Again, an adult needs more than 10 times that. This is not sustainable.
Another naked assertion, conveniently without any specific falsifiable prediction. Because you know you don't know what you're talking about.
You're so bad faith it's not even worth it. So what is it - did they die because of the dysentery outbreak (which is bacterial) or because of rabbit starvation or because they lacked salt? If it was just dysentery and salt why is it in an article about rabbit starvation?
No, more than.
Not according to the source I provided. You just cherry picked the source you like better. Unless you measure the exact amount of fats in the shrimp you consume you can't know which one is closer.
Another naked assertion, conveniently without any specific falsifiable prediction. Because you know you don't know what you're talking about.
As if one cannot cross check this. Here are a couple of papers, that took 1min of research:
So if you're following a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, your target range for total fat is 44 to 78 grams a day. Of that, saturated fat should make up no more than 22 grams.
%E refers to the percentage of energy, based on the total daily energy recommendations, coming from a specific macronutrient (fat, carbohydrate or protein). For a normal-weight woman/man, with respective daily energy recommendations of 2,000/2,500 kcal, a recommendation of 35%E coming from total fat is equivalent to an intake of approximately 78 g/97 g of fat.
So yeah, I lowballed it - you'd need much more than 10 times the fats you get now. It's hilarious you didn't even bother to research this. I don't care much for WHO or FDA recommendations too but what did you base your austere diet on and how do you determine if you get all the nutrients required off of it?
What kind of inverted logic and strawmaning is that? One loses salts and electrolytes through diarrhea of course and lack of salt is dangerous. But it doesn't follow that lack of salts leads to diarrhea. You can't switch cause for effect like that, it's nonsensical. Diarrhea is not a symptom of a salt deficient diet.
Raw scallops: 0.5g/100g https://www.nutritionix.com/food/raw-scallops
Raw shrimp: 1g/100g https://www.nutritionix.com/food/raw-shrimp
So it's half, I was looking at cooked macros before. Still, with 70g of shrimp you get 0.7g of fats from it and together with the rice that's like 1g of fat per day. Even with the best quality and nutritional value you can't get much higher. Again, an adult needs more than 10 times that. This is not sustainable.
you> But it doesn't follow that lack of salts leads to diarrhea. You can't switch cause for effect like that, it's nonsensical.
Sieges cause dysentery, moron.
No, more than.
Another naked assertion, conveniently without any specific falsifiable prediction. Because you know you don't know what you're talking about.
You're so bad faith it's not even worth it. So what is it - did they die because of the dysentery outbreak (which is bacterial) or because of rabbit starvation or because they lacked salt? If it was just dysentery and salt why is it in an article about rabbit starvation?
Not according to the source I provided. You just cherry picked the source you like better. Unless you measure the exact amount of fats in the shrimp you consume you can't know which one is closer.
As if one cannot cross check this. Here are a couple of papers, that took 1min of research:
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/fat-grams-how-to-track-fat-in-your-diet/
https://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/facts-on-fats-dietary-fats-and-health
So yeah, I lowballed it - you'd need much more than 10 times the fats you get now. It's hilarious you didn't even bother to research this. I don't care much for WHO or FDA recommendations too but what did you base your austere diet on and how do you determine if you get all the nutrients required off of it?