Top products from r/fakehistoryporn

We found 21 product mentions on r/fakehistoryporn. We ranked the 30 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/fakehistoryporn:

u/thatool · 2 pointsr/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!

u/HankESpank · 2 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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.

u/robotfoodab · 3 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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.

u/WrestlingWoo · 1 pointr/fakehistoryporn

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

u/Sksjdbdbdjjfn · 6 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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

u/NadyaNayme · 6 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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.

u/Sahelanthropus- · 9 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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.

u/KushMaster5000 · 3 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

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.

u/Yeazelicious · 2 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

Nope. Atheist here. And I just provided you with a 1168 page acclaimed biography from an acclaimed historian of Hitler's life and the Third Reich which goes extremely into depth on his suicide and the circumstances surrounding it. I'm not triggered by this. I just realize that I won't make any progress here because I'm dealing with a simpleton.

But I'm sure if I were Jewish, you'd call me a kike and say you want to gas me or something. I dunno. You're probably like the neo-Nazi other neo-Nazis look down on because at least they're not basement-dwelling losers. They're just regular losers.

Here's the link to purchase it if you actually want to look into it. I'm sure you don't, though.

u/DailyEsportz · 28 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

Well no... the British won the war.

American war aims were two things, invading Canada and ending impressment.

Two outcomes: the failure to invade Canada, and nothing in the Treaty of Ghent mentioning impressment because Madison knew he had absolutely no power to make those demands because the British had won.

Out of all the theartres of the war the British dominated 2 and the Americans none.

The pride of the US Navy was humiliated time and time again, mainly by Charles Napier on Eurylas and Brooke on HMS Shannon.

In fact the British reminded America who won the war of 1812 when their next decades of fiscal defence spending was on putting stone forts in every harbour on the east coast, as they could not afford to be blockaded by the Royal Navy ever again.

In short; Blockaded to bankruptcy, unable to invade Canada, loss of Navy, public buildings of Washington burnt down. Pretty big L.

Calling it a draw is like the Nazis trying and failing to take Moscow and being like it's a draw guys! no one really won this!

Americans are utterly unable to accept they were defeated.

https://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/british-perspective/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Britain-Won-War-1812/dp/1843836653

u/PC_Master-Race · 5 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

Holy shit. If you're going to invoke the name of Darwin, maybe pick up an actual book instead of reading (can you even properly read?) nut job websites and watching YouTube videos. Fucking idiot.

u/Casiphoner · 1 pointr/fakehistoryporn

Poor James Garfield. Anyone interested in reading more about him and his unfortunate assassination should read Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard.

u/GloriousWires · 42 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

The trouble with Germany circa that time is that the Nazis weren't tremendously Out There.

There's a book about this with a very relevant title that I think you should read, or borrow from a library, or something - "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland". The youth of Germany are slightly less responsible for their actions due to years of intense Nazi brainwashing; the elders, not so much. The elders were the 'ordinary men', and even they were happy to line up a few thousand jews and throw the corpses in a ditch.

Wehrmacht soldiers were indisputably Nazis. "Nazi", you see, does not merely cover direct, sworn, card-holding members of The Party: it also describes those fellow-travelers who share the Party's views or further its interests.

Being a member of the German military circa that time involved swearing an oath of personal fealty to Adolph "I don't know which of these untermenschen I hate the most, so just go kill people and I'll tell you when to stop" Hitler, participating in blatant wars of aggression, and witnessing, if not cheerfully indulging in, all sorts of atrocities, with official opinions ranging from tacit approval to outright carte-blanche "slavs aren't people so it's legal to do whatever you want to them".

^^^^^^^^^^.

The Good Book says, in a different context, "ye shall know them by their fruits" - the Nazis had no fruits. Apart from a certain kind, as some of their officials were... peculiar.

Just about everything the Nazis made was garbage. Their vaunted ethics-less science was shit; they falsified reports to fit their politics, did idiot archaeological digs looking for evidence for their falsified aryan history, their concentration camp experiments were nothing but creative torture, and they ignored the whole concept of nuclear physics as "Jewish Physics" and for obvious reasons didn't contribute jack or shit to that field of endeavour.

And as for "but Hitler fixed the economy", wew fucking lad; their economy was a paper tiger based on lies, debt, scams, war booty, and slave labour, 'fixed' by printing money and propping it up with stolen goods, and if he hadn't gone on a war spree and looted Germany's neighbors of gold and goods, he would have been remembered as the architect of the worst catastrophe to hit the German economy since the 30 Years' War.

After The War, no-one who had any real choice in the matter used Nazi equipment; no-one could use all those horses Nazi logistics (which sneers at notions of efficiency) relied upon, because the starving soldiers had eaten them all; the Czechs threw away the Me262 once the Soviets got around to giving them MiGs; the Israelis only used the Bf109 until they could get something better and dumped it at the first opportunity; the Syrians only used the Panzer IV because no-one would give them real tanks; and the French only used the Panther because their own arms industry was munted, on paper it has good stats, and the Nazis left lots of them broken down by the roadside. For a reason, as it turned out. A heavy tank with a medium tank's drivetrain isn't exactly a recipe for success. But hey, it had a badass name and it was pretty good as long as you parked it on a flat surface and didn't try to drive anywhere, so it's been talked up as the best thing since the FT17.

The only thing the Nazis accomplished was to make a huge mess and get a lot of people killed for nothing. Killing people was their plan all along, and the "ordinary men" of Germany were more than happy to go out and shoot some untermenschen. While units like the einsatzgruppen and Dirlewanger Brigade catch a lot of flak for obvious reasons, the Nazi military in general had an atrocious reputation for all sorts of shittery ranging from looting and rape to indiscriminate massacres in 'reprisal' against imagined or real partisan activity- justified partisan activity, given that they were resisting unlawful occupation, when they existed at all, because "oops we just "accidentally" burned down another village, let's say these dead people were partisans" -bombing civilians just about everywhere they went, murdering prisoners, and all manner of things that would be classed in court as "aiding and abetting", including loaning troops and providing logistical support to the SS and einsatzgruppen.

The Wehrmacht only got out of being declared a criminal organisation, after the war, because they were too disorganised to qualify. And when you're talking about Nazi Germany, 'disorganised' is the normal state of affairs: too disorganised to be an organisation was one Hell of an accomplishment.

^^^^^^^^^^.

People like to talk about Mein Opa who bravely defended the Fatherland ^in ^^the ^^^motherland, and who Never Did Anything Wrong; really, it's amazing how many people had nothing to do with the Nazis and were just quietly doing their jobs and never 'employed' a slave labourer or noticed a camp that received a constant stream of jews, gypsies and Soviet POWs, yet somehow never had to build more barracks to hold them.

There is a marked tendency among Nazis, Neo- and otherwise, and sympathisers for such, to try and argue that occasional war-criming on the part of the Allies was as equally immoral as chronic war-criming on the part of the Axis, and that wars are inherently bloody things in which, occasionally, Mistakes Are Made; that it isn't right to pay too much attention to a few thousand dead Frenchmen here or a few thousand dead Poles over there, much less millions of 'missing' Jews and Russians, or to imply that a man in a Stahlhelm might not have been doing the Right Thing by Fighting For His Country.

Both sides did war-crimes. The Nazis treated them as a good day's work.

The usual excuse, once "the Wehrmacht didn't do war crimes" has been blown out of the water like the Bismarck, is that they did war-crime, but only because they'd be shot or sent to the Eastern Front or a concentration camp if they refused.

That wasn't usually a problem; if you didn't have the stomach for it, they'd just move you somewhere else. There was no shortage of young Hitlerites eager to murder some untermenschen, so if you were the one guy in a hundred who thought "Hang on, maybe this is a bit much," they'd get you to help dig the graves, or post you up the road to keep witnesses from getting underfoot, blacklist you from being promoted, or move you to an actual combat unit. After laughing at you and calling you a pussy, of course, because what kind of lily-livered moron gets weepy over a bunch of dead Jews/Gypsies/Russians?

Comparing any army to the Wehrmacht basically means implying that the soldiers in it are a pack of bloodthirsty bandits only held back from a rape-murder-and-pillage spree by fear of being caught.

^^^^^^^^^^.

This shit goes right back to the very end of WW2; The Cold War kicked off right after WW2 finished, and the Allies were willing to overlook quite a bit to try and get the remnants of the Wehrmacht to help out against the Soviets, so a lot of things, especially regarding the Eastern Front, got quietly brushed under the carpet if it'd get some shitbag with an Iron Cross to play ball.

^^^^^^^^^^.

And for a final bonus, "the propaganda" to "demonise the opposing soldiers"? Otto Carius complained about that in his memoir. He wrote of the angry glares of Allied prison camp guards who he felt were disapproving of him purely because of 'atrocity propaganda' and had no justification at all for looking down upon a heroic tank ace who just happened to habitually enjoy the cordial company of SS officers.

He was, after all, just fighting against Judeo-Bolshevism, and never did anything wrong.

The 'atrocity propaganda'. Riight. There's three kinds of propaganda - absolute bullshit, stuff that's mostly true, and truths that the enemy don't want people to hear about. When it came to the behaviour of the Nazi military, there was no need to make things up because everywhere they went, they behaved like the literal nazis they were. Rotterdam, Warsaw, Guernica, Warsaw (again), half-a-hundred other places...