Good morning, everyone. I want to use today's functional group update to go over our OKRs. You can find the OKRs in the link in the calendar in-fight. And we are using a new structure, this quarter. The first quarter, we did OKRs via lattice. The second quarter, we kind of not did OKRs, which is pretty bad. And now we're doing the OKRs using GitLab. I imagine that. The idea is to use OKRs as a way to coordinate the company. And we found it was really hard to coordinate the company if it was hard to get an overview of the OKRs. So for this quarter, we're going to try having OKRs down to the director or team level and not have individual OKRs anymore. Your performance is broader than just OKRs.  So we're trying to have goals as a team instead of for individuals. And that means that there are way less OKRs. And we can put them on one page, or actually one page per objective. So it's about three pages now. But that makes it a lot easier to reason about them. And also, we can use GitLab virtual requests to send them and to suggest improvements. This page has gone about, I don't know, 20, 30 improvements already. It's almost the end of the month. So we're almost kind of slowing down the improvements. But I've been really excited about how much easy it was to collaborate. I want to go detail the OKRs a bit. And I hope that most of the time we spent with questions. I've now figured out how to open the chat window. So hopefully, I'll be able to pay attention to that in real time. We got three company objectives. And the first one is to grow incremental ACV according to plan. It's the most important thing. Make sure that we're on the revenue trajectory that we need. The second OKR is to build a popular next generation product. And there's two elements in this. It's got to be popular. Like, people actually have to use it. And it's got to be next generation. It's got to be a lot better than what is out there in the market to be. And the third and final company objective is to have a great team.  So we want to make sure we're doing pretty good on the processes. We want to make sure that we have the right people and that they're happy. So about growing the ACV, there's three key results for me. And the first one is to build an SQL pipeline that is big enough. And that we define, big enough, we define as three times as big as our plan. So we want to have a three-excoverage of SQL value to what we actually want to sell. And the second one is to understand and improve existing account growth. We used to have that existing customers would double in their spend here over a year. And now, instead of 200%, it went kind of down to 160. And I think we should strive to get it back up there. And so far, we've never done any customer success. We never looked into why that was. We never paid any attention. So I think with some attention, we should be able to do a lot better. And the third one is to increase the average sales price by 25%. And that's both a function of selling more seats per deal, but also selling a higher tier per deal. Now, I think I don't want to spend the rest of the meeting going through all the child goals. But I want to detail how it works. So there's my key result. Then for my reports, my key result is their objective. And they have their own key results. So these are the ones for the CML. These are one for the CFO, et cetera. And hopefully, it makes logical sense that the goals that are nested kind of relate to the objective that is above them. What we did before in Lettuce is repeat. There'd be an objective key result, and then an objective that related to the key result, and then again an objective. We kind of dropped that because it was too complex. So it's not always a perfect one-to-one mapping, but hopefully it's good enough. Any questions or suggestions about the first objective? Clement, it seems a lot better than how we did it before. Well, thank you very much. I do want to point your attention to the critical acclaim that this new process already got. And the best one was I've been working on a satirical blog post called Hot New Management Trend Alert, RGG's Leading Just Goals. This is basically that. Which it is, it is basically just goals. I think the advantage of OKRs is that you kind of cascade them. So you make sure that goals throughout the company is aligned, that the goals aren't like, this team goes there and the other team goes there. And that's as you grow, that becomes more important. I think we're still early. A company of our size can do without OKRs. But I think if we can get good at them now, that will pay its dividends when we need them. If you need them and you still have to train, that's worse. Jim, maybe we can follow the lead of Atlassian and raise our prices too. Yeah, there's an interesting trend going on. And Atlassian just raised their prices significantly. Which is good. And they raised them, I think, for JIRA mostly. And we heard that they're kind of giving away a bid bucket for free if you buy JIRA. So it's important for us to become a fully flashed JIRA competitor. And we're working on that with related issues, which we'll ship next month and other improvements. Raising our prices, you don't want to raise prices on our existing customers because that's not fair. But we are looking into an ultimate addition, which will be $100 per user per year. It's not in the OKRs. But I'm working with YOP, our VP of products, to identify what will be the best new feature. And right now, my thinking there is that portfolio management would be a nice one. Because it's important. Let me explain what portfolio management is. Portfolio management is where you already have issues. You kind of group them on the bigger themes and then see how those themes relate to what your company is doing. So it's kind of managing development processes at scale. And I think it's an existing market where people are shown to pay a lot of money and something we can do without a crazy amount of effort. So probably if people are interested, say so in the chat, and then someone should be able to provide a link there. Simon, what's the ongoing review process throughout the quarter? That's a good question and something we totally dropped the ball on. Maybe I'll stop sharing my screen for a while because the questions are flowing in, and I love it. So the ongoing review process, we did a really bad job in Q1. I did a really bad job in Q1. So for Q3, what I'm going to do is every one of my reports is about nine key results. I'm going to paste them at the top of our one-on-one agenda. And the idea is to have a weekly meeting with all of my reports, spend every other week to go over the key results, see how we're doing, see what we can do to make it go better. That's what I'm going to do. And I anticipate that some of my reports will copy that. Everyone's free to do it as they see fit, because it's not a proven method yet. If it's a proven method, we'll do it. We'll also try to link more of these to metrics. So Paul's working on building a data platform so that we can just see all the different metrics that we have in the company and just can link to, this is how we're doing on this key objective. So we have more of a, this is green, this is going well, this is orange, not going well, and this is red. It's going worse. But we're very far from that. I think the first goal is just to make sure that we pay attention to the OKRs in the managerial conversations every two weeks. Jacob Schatz says, is it similar to Apex? So this is related to the portfolio management. And I do think it's related to Apex. I'll put a link here in the chat. It's 2-3-2-9. Here you go. I think Apex is in there. I think there's a hierarchy of user Apex initiative goals. That's how I understood it. But we're still very early in understanding this. I think there's lots of people at GitLab that can help us with that. Mike phrased it good, avoid drowning in an ocean of issues. Yes. Cool. Any other questions or suggestions? Jim says he sold about nine deals of EES so far. Nobody even asked for a discount. Yeah, I think EES is a steal. It's a great value for money. I think what we should do is we should make sure that there's even more value in EEP so that people see the value there. And it takes a while. Like every time we make a new version, it takes a while to get the features in there because there's only so much we can release every month. But I think we're doing a good job of adding new features to EEP. I think we can do a better job of communicating the value of EEP. Marcia says maybe we could create an OKR group label for issues in MergePress. I'm not sure whether there will be a one-to-one mapping of OKRs and an issue. Maybe OKRs are more like an epic, and we need that portfolio management feature to do this. But Marcia, maybe you can give a bit more background of what your ideas is. I mean, just for us to be able to, anyone to see if that contribution that I'm making is reflecting in one OKR or not, you know what I mean? If an issue or a merge request is part of one of the OKRs. Yeah, that's an interesting idea. We're doing it now with performance, and we saw that only 3% of our issues that were closed every release were related to performance. Actually, it'd been exactly 19 issues for the last three releases. Which is crazy because I thought that increasing the performance of GitLab was a priority. It is a big priority, but apparently we're not putting our effort in it or forgetting to label them. So that might be interesting to keep us honest about how much things are really related to our OKRs. And so, great suggestion. I could say that Jop is afraid that almost everything should be contributing to the OKRs, and that's a bit of the risk. Like, hopefully everything we're doing is gathering more revenue. So it's a bit of how far do you stretch the criteria? You'll never find an OKR like support our customers or something like that. Like, there's lots of ongoing work we do. There's no part of the OKRs. The OKRs is kind of what's the quantifiable goal and also what are we going to do different this quarter than last quarter. Larry about portfolio management, I think, is how you handle an investment portfolio. So all the initiatives within the company are kind of rolled up into big, bad, small, bads. Baloo says there's already an OKR label. Wait, Jop is getting overloaded with people offering help with designing portfolio management. Thanks, everyone, for reaching out to Jop. He came crazy. Cool. Let's go back to screen sharing and go over the second OKR goal. So the second one is to be a popular next-generation product. There's three key results for me. I want GitLab to be ready for mission-critical tasks. And for sure, you should make sure that all users are that it feels fast. This is part of it. The second one is increased usage of idea-to-production. So I want to see 100% growth in all the different components of GitLab except for the version control. Lots of people are using version control right now, but not using the other parts of GitLab. So we want to make sure that we do better in-product messaging, make it easier, et cetera, to use all those other parts. The last one here is to ship a next-generation product. Hopefully by 8 o'clock, a tweet went out with our blog post about our market share and about auto DevOps. And it includes a video, which I encourage you to view, about what our vision is for auto DevOps and our first iteration. And we're going to try to ship that this quarter. And last, but not least, is a great team. And a great team means effective leadership. So we want to make sure that you have a good manager. We want to attract great people. Make sure that the talent coming in is great. And we want to retain great people. We want to make sure you're happy here. Yeah, Mark, thanks for sharing the what's next for GitLab CI, the auto DevOps. Super looking forward to making that a reality this quarter. And Emily is proving that the tweet indeed went out. Emily, thanks for all your help and all your flexibility in writing that article. I think it came out really well. And I look forward to a heck of news on this front page at last year's raising prices and GitLab is shipping awesome stuff. Any questions or suggestions? Well, in that case, thank you very much. Looking forward to the new OKR process. Let us know how it's let me know how it's going, whether I'm open to suggestions. It's the first time we're doing it in this format. And I hope it will make it a bit clear to everyone what we're working on and what the priorities are. Thanks. And if I don't see you anymore, have a good weekend.


You need to recognize that you can't cancel who God has called. If they didn't call you, they can't cancel you. If they didn't anoint you, they don't have the authority to remove you.   God is the one who imparted that anointing. People can't take that away. It's impossible. Why? Because God backs the ones He calls.


The chairman of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA Brigadier General Mohammed Marwa retired, has confirmed the arrest of 50,901 drug offenders including 46 barons and the conviction of 9,034. Marwa also said the seizure of over 7,561 tons of illicit substances in the past 38 months has sent the right message to drug cartels and their kingpins that Nigeria would not tolerate their criminal activities. He said that there is in Lagos while delivering his remarks at the commissioning and handing over ceremony of an operational facility built and donated to NDLEA by the British government. According to him, the British government had been of immense support to Nigeria in this fight against the use of illicit drugs. I must begin by expressing our deepest gratitude to the British government for their unwavering commitment and invaluable contributions course. From the onset of our collaboration, the UK has been a steadfast ally in our relentless pursuit to neutralize transnational organized criminal activities, particularly in the realm of illicit drug production and trafficking. The significance of this project cannot be overstated. It will serve as a vital hub for data analysis and strategic planning in our efforts to disrupt drug trafficking networks and apprehend those responsible. Speaking at the ceremony, British Deputy High Commissioners in Nigeria, Johnny Bexter assured of continued support to NDLEA and Nigeria. We are absolutely delighted to be supporting this office, but we're absolutely delighted to be continuing our support to the NDLEA and to the Nigerian government to tackle what is sadly a global industry. And a global industry needs a global response and needs governments and partners to work together.


The best of all the world are here, so we must learn with the best. Keynotes speech on Monday morning was very interesting. The gentleman that was presenting on the demography and the population growth and so on, very, very interesting, yes. And I truly hope that this Congress inspires everyone and inspire them to continue to be an inspiration for a song. And thank you so much for having me here. You don't get this information, you can read journals and so on, do online research, but it's really better to be here live and see it in person than to sit up late at night reading online publications. We think that when we, by the two years we have to get to Australia, are enough for us to now pursue the undertakings that will be made here. And I think it's, you know, I'm looking forward that by that time our cities will have made some progress. There is a lot of exposure to various aspects of the water sector regulation, like I've said, technical solutions that are being brought up, new innovations that other people are doing and, for instance, managing their assets. So there's just a lot to learn and anybody who can make it should make it to Brisbane, yes. So we have been talking about the mission and vision of IWA for the coming year, 2013. So everything has been strategically lined up for that. And then in two years' time I would like to see personally how young water professionals could contribute to achieving that together with IWA. So I think in Brisbane we would have like a solid foundation on what kind of contribution that the YWP could make to the water sector. We look forward to showcasing what we've done to the rest of the world and we also look forward to learning from the rest of the world. So I hope you all come and see us in Brisbane.


First of all, I would say to you if you did okay on the take-home quiz in other words If I can't remember what version of the quiz that I gave you, but if you can handle a projectile Launched horizontally from a cliff like a number one and you would feel comfortable finding anything Range or if you knew the range working way backwards and finding the height or finding the final impact velocity If you are comfortable with number two Which is at an angle, but starting on the ground key ideas is You know at the top at maximum your v y is zero you also know coming back down your v y final is the same as your v y initial But negative if you were okay with this one here the airplane with the crosswind and I think I added a projectile. I gave you a different version of the quiz I'm pretty sure there should be a quiz here called 2011. Yeah, there it is I Think I also then finished the quiz by putting a projectile and a cliff on there At an angle if you're okay with those you're good for about 80% of what's going on Okay, so if you were also able to handle this thing, okay Then you're in pretty good shape already if you want to look at the review that I gave you That was this bad boy right here. I double-paged it, but this thing I'm gonna tell you which questions I really didn't like Okay So number one is a great idea. I'm sorry number three hot number one number three here great idea of If I'm launching from the ground at an angle what I can ask you maximum height How fast it'll be traveling how fast will it be traveling when it's at its maximum height What will the Y component of the velocity be? zero That means it's traveling zero No fact the reason it's only two marks Look at the marks when you're doing these by the way reasons only two marks is it's the horizontal component That's your speed for a split second at the very very top and it's due sideways East or west or whatever Number three is good. I like number four Five is good. Okay Number seven. So here's an example of a using principles of physics I said five using principles of physics right to explain question This one says if I was answering this number seven I would probably heck mr. Do it why don't you find number seven in your actual notes? That would be clever. Hey, why don't you put number seven that would be really smart mr. Do it if I was answering number seven as a using principles of physics right to explain question If I was if they give me a using principles of physics right to explain question First of all if I was trying to answer this I would say I better mention those I'm not talking if not if somewhere in my answer I don't mention horizontal and vertical velocity components then I haven't answered their question and They want me to explain the behavior Here's probably what I would do It's up to you or you can just watch I can print this for you when you're done by the way if you stick around till the end They're talking about velocity. I would say something like this Vx, what can you tell me about the horizontal velocity of a projectile? How does it behave? Oh? What can you tell me about the vertical velocity? Now because this is worth four marks. I'd be a little suspicious if I just wrote changing You know what? I would probably say Changing I would write that down and then I would say Decreases zero at top increases But negative And the reason I might give them that why else did they give me that drawing? Maybe they want to be there. That's probably how I'd answer it four marks. He's cake Okay Eventually there's gonna be one of these on every one of your tests and eventually they'll get a bit more complicated But by that time you'll be far better Ellen question. Is that on the answer key to this? Yeah Looks like this as a matter of fact This is online So what number was that five or something seven oh there there's there's what I mentioned for four marks Now they were only wanting the velocity components. I probably didn't need to say the acceleration ones But I did an extra information. That's correct. Can't hurt Okay Other questions that I like so I was on my which questions. Do I like rent? I like number nine. So specifically I Like you to be able to handle for some reason I forgot to copy the letter B But this is part B you should be able to handle Finding a velocity by finding two components and adding them together tip to tail and doing the Pythagoras and the graphs And if you need me to I'll do one like that in a few minutes or I'll do this one. Let's just keep going through here Hopefully the bonus video game that I gave you has helped you remember what the graphs do you have until the day of the test So you have until tomorrow morning to still complete the bonus video game once you've written the test I will no longer take the bonus video game Okay Question Nicole you look a little stunned there Last yeah, and by the way those last couple are way tougher than I give you right, but great Number 13 something like this I'm gonna give you either a river question like from last year or an airplane with a crosswind question They're both the same question instead of a crosswind think current instead of an airplane think boat But there's gonna be one written question where I'm gonna ask you to apply some vector math 16 and again is from the ground to the ground It's asking you to find the range and find the total time of flight totally fair game as far as I'm concerned Yes What what what I mean by I like it I'm telling you right now on the written section There's gonna be a from the ground to the ground. I won't tell you exactly what I'm gonna ask But you better be able to handle it and be able to find out whatever I'm asking How long in the air for what's the range? Oh, how what's the maximum height? Oh, how long to get to the top? What's the velocity in magnitude and direction after whatever whatever seconds? Okay? 17 Just asking you do you understand what change in means what's changing anything? Final minus initial a little bit of vector subtraction there I think 20 I just don't like as a diagram that looks yucky But I might ask you to add two vectors together and find the resultant like on your quiz I think I gave you a force in one direction a force in another direction. That's it. What's the net force, right? Um I've already mentioned this Okay, so 25 here's again horizontally from a cliff So I totally like this one this one It's giving you the height of the cliff and it's sorry ah Nice twist here instead of giving you the height of the cliff. They're giving you the range Which is way easier horizontally actually you get a much nicer equation You can solve for t you'll solve for t horizontally And I'll bet you part b is find the height of the cliff you'll solve for d y vertically Oh, yeah, there it is how high as a cliff that'd be a nice horizontal off the cliff question isn't it Uh 29 absolutely you'd better be able to find the vertical and horizontal components I don't know if I'll ask that as a specific question, but I guarantee you'll be doing that about eight or nine times Hey, I'm off Is it the same one? No, I put it in the trash last time Oh, sorry for those of you at home. We had a little moth there. So absolutely Absolutely, I'll get it later. Oh, it's all right there Sorry folks at home. Um, so once again gotta be able to do components almost in your sleep. Okay Uh, let's see. What else do I like here? Okay, here's a great example number 31 Here's an example off of a cliff at an angle Although this one's a bit easier. They gave you time t which means that you didn't have to pull out the quadratic equation to find time t But told you like this question fascinating The scholarship one That one's a little overboard although I'd expect my top like if you're trying to get 100 in this course You should certainly try that one. Look at my answer key and see if you can figure it out So you're gonna notice on my big reviews towards the end. All of a sudden it'll say Section or scholarship questions. I'll put two or three if you're going for the 100 in my course They're worth trying because if you get those you'll find the test to walk in the park. You'll be like, really? That's what they're there for No, the all you do when you hand this in I give you 20 out of 20 for doing all the questions You know where you get the bonus marks you do better on the test I'm really trying in grade 12 like even the video game bonus marks I was uncomfortable doing that until they dropped the provincials now that they've dropped the provincials or made them optional Then I'll give you a couple of bonus marks. I want you in grade 12 to get used to doing things for the sake of Getting better at it. So you'll do better on the tests because in university Nicole that's where your grades gonna come from right and I'm assuming most you plan on going there next year or the year after I will say this though. I like number 35. I like number 35 number 35 That's a nice question. Okay So having said that Anything that you would like me to go over specifically and I'm freezing on this one Anticipating that maybe people would like me to do number 35, but I don't know. Yes Have you looked at my online solution key yet to try to figure it out for yourself? Okay, I'm gonna say I will I'm willing to but if you look at my online solution key and try and figure it out guys Can you whisper? I feel like I'm gonna talk over to you If you look at my online solution key and try and figure it out for yourself You will have learned it better. What I'm gonna do is do one very similar to this. Okay 25 40 35 degrees. Okay, so I'm gonna do Something like this Quick that wasn't where I wanted the screen flipping to go. Let's try that again Undo Click right there click Okay, this time put it somewhere nice like right down there. That's better so If you want to you can quickly sketch this on a scrap piece of paper or you can just watch and I'll print this up for you At the end. I'm gonna make the initial velocity 31 I'm gonna make the angle 32 degrees and I'm gonna make this distance here 42 Now the only risk is Brennan, Brennan, I'm not sure whether it's going to be on its way down when it hits the wall Or on its way up when it hits the wall So I may have botched the diagram by changing those numbers But we'll be able to tell whether it's on its way down or not depending on what we get for vy If vy is negative we'll know it's on its way down vy's positive will know it's on its way up Okay, so same question different numbers and that way you can still try that one there With what velocity magnitude and direction does the projectile hit the wall? I'm gonna just for the drawing And I'm gonna assume it's on its way down. I'm gonna assume the velocity is like that. That's what it hits the wall at What that really means to me Brennan is that I can break that velocity up into Vx which never changes And the final velocity vertically just before impact which is going to be changing the whole time In fact, you know what this question is really asking me to find vy final. That's what I'm going to spend the most time on Give me so far Are we being launched at an angle? components Vx is going to be 31 Cosine 32. Are you okay if I go that fast? and vy Is going to be 31 sign 32. Can somebody crunch those for me, please and actually give me your numbers I don't know what they are Don't I'll rush for your calculators at once or anything? Yeah 26.3 Okay, give me one second. I'm gonna write that down. Sorry. I'm just moping down some lunch meat that I didn't get to That was a little disgusting. Sorry. What's vx? vx is 26.3 Give me one more decimal place What's vy to four sig figs? Because this isn't my final answer. So I'll carry if you have two sig figs if I can 16.4 Okay You okay with our approach so far Is it Brendon or Brendon? Brendon with an e Right, so I have been saying it right. Okay. I was trying to slur it for a bit. They're kind of a brand And because I couldn't quite remember So and you're okay with with Brendon, you're okay with this conclusion here of me saying look if they want the impact velocity I can't find it directly, but I can find the components and then I'll add them tip to tail like I've drawn All right Vx we just figured out That's nice. I'm still going to go Horizontal and vertical I'm still right away going to say horizontally the acceleration is zero vertically the acceleration is negative 9.8 And I'm going to say the horizontal velocity was 26.29 And the vertical initial velocity is 16.43 and with only two pieces of information in each column I can't do anything else Let's go back and look at our question. Is there something else that they told me What Alex? They told me dx the range. You said dx. Yeah the range So that which tells me I'm going to solve part of this horizontally now. I know that dx is 42 why does that help me because I can find t Which almost always unless they tell you the time of flight That's almost always in any projectile your first goal You want to find out how long it's in the air for and then it falls apart from there Can you tell me an equation that has those in it again? Bring your formula sheets tomorrow. I have a few spares, but I don't have 30 spares. Yep You ever got one? I'll get you those before you go Okay That you know what why don't I do that right now because that will help your learning right now Hey, can you tell me an equation that has a v d and t in it? In fact, I'm pretty sure that the half at squared will cancel because a is zero In fact, I'm pretty sure we're just going to get this Scroll down a bit. Mr. Dewick Scroll down a bit. Come here. I'm pretty sure we're just going to get this d equals v xt In fact, I think time is going to be the distance divided by the velocity. It's going to be 42 divided by 26.29 Is that okay lia? Yeah 42 divided by 26.29 Time of flight before impact Is 1.598 and I'll carry a few extra sig figs because this is not my final answer either 1.598, but now I know over here 1.598 Why does that help me? Do you remember what I said this question was really asking me to find? I said, you know what? I'm going to spend far more time trying to find This that's what we've been doing so far if I now right underneath here v y final Can I find v y final from that information? Yeah v y final is going to be v initial plus At it's going to be 16.43 Plus negative 9.8 times 1.598 Boy, this is going to be really close to a velocity of zero and I think it's going to be positive. Is it someone crunch it for me? They almost I almost inadvertently fluked into having a dead horizontal when I hit the wall, which would have been really boring Someone else want to double check not that I don't trust alex, but I don't trust alex 16.43 plus negative 9.8 times 1.598 Grace you all slow folks You get that 0.77385 That's using the full value of time. So I'll go with that 0.77386 Is that what you guys got? No. Yes. No Yes, or no 0.76 Yeah, but did I type I might have typed it in wrong? Okay, I'll carry this one positive or negative meant to be obvious positive or negative My diagram's wrong, right? Really it should be and if I you'll have lots of room I generally on the written put one question per page of an entire page to do one question Because I've tried to tell you do your diagrams big so you'll have lots of room I'm going to Redraw this because I can erase really really actually no because I want the viewers at home to see this I'm going to go. Nope. It's not that it's actually as it turns out this 26.29 Plus this Which is 0.77 386 Here's my impact velocity Trevor by the way, this is really a bad scale diagram if this was 26 long This is 0.7 long really it's your triangle and I won't draw it that way, but really your triangle should look like That which would make it really awkward to find the theta so we're exaggerating now just to make it easier But I should point that out Is that okay Brendan are you okay from here on if I said to you find the velocity could you do the Pythagoras? Could you do the trig? You're okay with that that that's your final answer your final answer would be now do the Pythagoras and then Trig it's going to be tangent and it would be in this case above the horizontal as opposed to below the horizontal For your direction Is that all right? So that'll let you try walking through number 35 on your own We did one like it in our notes as well in lesson seven I think Any others from the review or specific situations that you're like, yeah, I'm not so Hots about Yeah Sure. The extra review is not bonus. You're not getting marks for doing it You just you'll get extra marks because you'll do better on the test. Yeah What number by the way June 85 June 87. That's the provincial exam that I wrote I got that one right I graduated in 87 Sorry, which one Alex? Number 16 nice Here's a good example of an airplane kind of a question I have a feeling this one's going to be sign law Cosign law which they used to emphasize more because we were smarter back then they've eased up on you guys a little bit They haven't done as much sign law cosine law. They've waved out. So let's try this one together I did say there is going to be some kind of an airplane traveling or river Current question But I said I'm pretty sure on your test. I kept it a little better I think I kept it at a nice 90 degree angle What you do need to know for an airplane is this equation And it's not one that's on your formula sheet. It's common sense. It seems to me The velocity in the air Plus the velocity from the wind That's what gives you the velocity On the ground that's what Whatever the engine is pointing in plus whatever the crosswind is blowing at that's what the radar detects Okay, you see what I mean by that's kind of a common sense equation. I think that kind of hopefully that makes sense to you as well Oh, yeah Engines plus the wind that's what the ground sees now. What's this question asking me to find alex It wants me to find this How would I get this by itself alex? How would I move this over? Ah, we're going to end up subtracting vectors here. We're going to get velocity Of the plane in the air is going to be velocity on the ground Minus velocity from the wind alex. How do I subtract vectors?  It really is that We don't subtract vectors. We add the opposite, right? Here's my equation Now i'm going to dump draw a little picture What's the ground velocity? Oh did they say directions? That was silly of me I should have put a compass rose on here a long time ago alex because god knows I've watched that many a time Ground velocity 65 degrees south of east Ground velocity There's east That's about 65 degrees South of east There's my ground velocity and how big is my ground velocity? 475 That's that part of the equation I'm going to add to it the opposite of the wind What's the wind what's but but's the wind what's the wind right now 45 direction East what's opposite What direction I'm going to add 45 to the west How am I going to add these two together draw them Tip to tail this is going to be a fairly challenging diagram This is going to be where your geometry 11 is going to come in really really really really handy With me so far though Joel we're good so far Okay Would you have said that no matter what? I figured so Joel how am I going to add these two vectors together draw them means it's going to look like this 475 plus And 45 would be pretty short compared to 475 Alex here's our resultant from the tip of the second one to the Hang on mr. Duick. I drew that backwards Here's our resultant from the tail of the first one to the tip of the second one Here is um, do you see a right angle here? It's not going to be so katoha It's going to be sine law cosine law, but do you see any angle in my drawing right now not yet Here's the only angle. They gave me Ready. I'm going to mark this up. Don't write this down How big is that angle Alex my friend? Let's do that again How big is that angle? Really you're going to make this vanish on me. Okay Sorry, something's vanishing that's 65 degree. Okay I Guess this dude. I'm using pen as pointer. I am this is 65 degrees right here. Can you see a zed? Okay Those will come in incredibly handy this year Absolutely, so Alex the real question is how big is that angle? 65 degrees That's the only angle you can't find we can't find that one because it's all yucky slanty In fact, you know what else I don't like about this? I don't think I did that diagram big enough there That's better Isn't that cool? Now what are you okay on the cosine law? Okay, you guys want me I can do the cosine law if you want me to or if you're yes, sure thing It's going to be v squared equals 475 squared plus 45 squared minus 2 475 45 cosine 65 It's on your formula sheet Brandon. See if you can spot it It's on the shrunk down part of the page. Yes, it's there somewhere.  So what do I remember to do when I'm done? No Just square root we don't plus or minus some physics because we're dealing with real life data So let's try this You get the velocity is 458 Kilometers per hour By the way, I misspoke you get the speed is 458. Yes. How do we turn that into a velocity? We need a direction And here's where this question is nasty and I'm going to go to my answer key The reason this one is nasty Really nasty is because unfortunately This side here isn't nice and vertical or horizontal I can't find this angle that will not help me find a direction What I'm going to do is I'm going to go and I'm going to find That angle right there that angle right there is east of south Okay problem Where the heck is that angle right there? Well Let's look at my answer key. I'll show you what I did Uh Old unit review answers. What number was this 16? I remember Doing this question years ago and going wow I was apparently pretty smart back in high school Okay, so I did the 65 65 I said that angle there theta I found it is 5.1. Oh And I know from my zed that that was 65 right there. So if I'm going to use this angle, I can use south of east 65 plus 5.1 and that's where The 70.1 came from 65 plus 5.1 So I'll say this again. Are you ready? I guarantee there's going to be a question like this on your test with some kind of an airplane crosswind thingy But I'll set the triangle up to be right angles. I'll make it artificial. I understand this is way more realistic Planes don't all fly at 90 degree angles to the wind But I'll it'll be a right angle track Okay, does that make sense any others So that was a great review of the Vector math portion How do they see you back there keep forgetting you're back there? You can you see okay? Okay Yeah You okay with south of east it's south of east it's heading That way right or you could also have gone 90 minus 70.1 you could have gone 19.9 degrees east of south if you had found that angle right there Which you can also find in a roundabout way Your other option alex for what it's worth would have been now that you've gotten this far Add a right angle if you find this These two add to 180 and once you know that you know that because that's 90 That's a lot of work Kara you have a question. Are you just stretching? I have an answer So specifically For a question like this when we're looking at it sideways Up is not north Right, I mean that's not north That's not south in real life So when you're looking at it sideways and we want to show That way Or that we can't say north or south instead. What we say is Above the horizontal, which is what this one would be here Or below the horizontal, which is what this one would have been if we had actually ended up heading downwards That's when we're looking at the side and projectiles. We are almost always looking at sideways Now what I said Kara was if you called up north, I wouldn't take marks off, but I think bad thoughts about you I'd probably put a little frowny face on the next to there on the test Maybe make a little frowny face try maybe But I wouldn't take marks off I double-checked that when I marked the provincials and they said, yeah We just kind of think though if they're silly for not really realizing that's not north If I got something in the marking session, the guy in charge That's not north Why are you giving the marks for that because we're nice You understand, right? That isn't north. That's uh Above the horizontal and that's below the horizontal Is that okay? Yes, yes any others Is that a handout? No Yeah, absolutely I'll make one up and I'll try and think of every possible thing that I could ask Okay, so Let's give it an angle of 38 degrees Let's give it an initial velocity of oh, let's put some speed on this thing 142 meters per second And let's suppose I told you the height because this is the toughest if they tell you the range Horizontally since a is zero everything's easier to solve for let's suppose. I gave you the height and I told you this cliff was 16 meters high What could I ask you I could ask you to find components, but I think you guys are all okay on that Okay, so let's assume that's a done deal What could I ask you one of the first questions I could ask you is Fine time are we at an angle? components So no matter what we're gonna have to do that anyways I would say vx and you said I was okay doing it this fast 142 cos 38 and vy was 142 sine 38 because you remember that vy is sine and that's your stupid way to remember it, right? So 142 sine 38 87.424 I figured that's good because there's a nine right there. So this is really close to a four That's a good place to round off to should be reasonably accurate 142 cos 38 Oh, this is nice 111.9 because that's a nine next to the eight and a seven next to the nine. That's pretty close So 111.9 By the way, can you tell me right now? I'm gonna be solving this horizontally or vertically and how do you know? I'm gonna be solving it vertically You know how I know Kara, you're right louder They gave me a vertical displacement a vertical distance Okay, so let's do our usual list Brett are you making fun of me? You were weren't you? Yes, but I have to otherwise I can't talk see if I don't do that you guys can't see pause Let's keep going. Oh and Brett I would automatically write this as well vx and vy initial vx is 111.9 vy initial was 87.424 And Kara you pointed out that I know dy what's dy careful Yes By the way, if you miss that you'll either get an error when you're doing the quadratic formula Or you might sometimes it all depends on the values that I pick You could get solutions that are completely nonsense And I'm gonna find t from here Now you guys like to use the quadratic formula or do you guys find v final and then use that to find t? You know what we're going to do that anyways because part c I'm going to ask you to find impact velocity in which case you'd need to know vy final anyways So let's find vy final vy final Is going to be vy initial plus at It's going to be 87.424 plus Negative nine point it hang on mr. Duk Try that again I can't I don't know t I can't use that one yet vy final squared is going to be vy initial squared Plus 2ad this one works because I know vi. I know a I know d I'll remember to take the square root when I'm done and here alex I will remember that the final velocity is negative because just more hits the ground. I'm pretty sure it's going downwards Okay It's going to be 87.424 squared plus 2 times negative 9.8 Times negative 16 87.424 squared Plus 2 times negative 9.8 times negative 16 square root I get a vy final of 89.2 But it's heading downwards negative negative Does that seem right to me 16 meters only 2 meters that well 16 meters isn't that high I haven't made a dumb math mistake have I I don't think I have Plus 2ad D It's vectors. It's vectors. It's vectors Yeah, I think I'm right Now that I know vy final now I can find t T is going to be vf minus vi Over a it's going to be negative 89.2 minus 87.424 all over negative 9.8 time equals Negative 89.2 minus 87.424 All divided by negative 9.8 brackets around the top And I get a time of flight of 18 Well, you know what since they want this as an answer. I'll go to two or three sig figs I'm going to say 18.0 up here I'll go 18.02 here Seconds units make sure in your final answers make sure before you hand in your test you always check for units And sig figs in your final answers So one of the things I can ask you from a cliff this time Okay, really quickly. I'm just going to cheat and check it on my quadratic solver to make sure I get the same answer doing So it's a quadratic I'm just a little suspicious why this velocity is so close to the initial But I'm just thinking maybe 16 meters isn't that big a height. It can't speed up very much in that short of time I don't know so bear with me for a moment can be d equals vi t because I have a t squared so No second function quit app Those of you at home bear with me Fully smoked. Yes, finally a root finder degree two. A is going to be negative 4.9 b is going to be 87.424 And c is going to be it's negative 16 on this side when I move it over it's positive 16 so Positive I don't put a plus sign there dick so 18.02 whoo, I am right Good b find the range Well the range is dx And it's equal to that You start drooling soon there kiddo Your head's turned over about a 45 the mouth actually started to drop open and you tried to close it And it just started dropping open right away I was waiting for one of your eyes to go down and one of your eyes to go up or something like that You're gonna make it Or I shall yell again if I need to I could shock you with the fly swatter Those hurt. Have you played with those at all? Then get your attention Brandon you okay with that? But I'm the range Equals whatever I could ask you to find max height If I say the word height Vertical or horizontal Okay, what do you know about the very very top of any projectile? We still know that a y is negative 9.8. We still know that v y initial is 87.424 87.424 But I know one more key piece of information that they're very very top vertically what? What's zero and that lets me solve for d fairly conveniently Vf squared it's gonna be that one So I think d is gonna be vf squared minus vi squared all over 2a It's gonna be zero minus 87.424 Squared all over 2 times negative 9.8 Now that'll tell you how high you go above the cliff To get the actual height since the clip itself is 16 meters high I'll add 16 to my final answer and that'll tell me how high above the ground 300 make sure I type that in right zero minus that squared all over 2 times negative 9.8 389.9 390 Meters above the cliff plus the original 16 meters I can add 16 in my head on a test. I'll use my calculator just to make sure I don't do a dumbest rake 406 meters is its maximum height. How long is it in the air for? Okay, so here would be an example of what I would consider an a minus level question d find v after 15 seconds At time 15 seconds, what's its velocity? Oh That says speed what's its velocity magnitude and direction? Well, is it on its way up or on its way down? What was the total time of flight? 18 seconds so after 15 seconds you think it's on its way up or on its way down I'm pretty sure now if it's ground to ground. I know it's exactly half of the time going down and half the time going up This is a cliff but the cliff is 16 meters and we just figured out that it goes 390 meters into the sky I think it's almost halfway. Anyway, I'm positive. It's on its way down. I think what they're asking me to find is I think what they're asking me to find Is that That's v What else do I know? What would you do with this to try and find it? Because I like this question. I like this question Ah, I would do this right away alex absolutely and I know vx. Don't I what was vx? I scrolled down I wrote it down way way back here 111 point 111.9 111.9 and vy is uh Now the most common mistake kids go. Oh, it's 87.424. It's not that's your initial vy But it's amazing how many kids do the pythagoras and you know what they get for their answer when they do the pythagoras?  I know vy initial was 87 point. I erased it. That was done four two four four two four I know a y is negative 9.8 Could I find vy final? And could I then plug it in right there? And could you then do the pythagoras to find v and could you then find the theta and cara? This would be a theta below the horizontal for your direction Okay, that would be a nice question nice twist instead of saying when it hits the ground Tell you how far along it's gone and find the velocity at a specific point hanging midair Pretty kind of nice What if vy final ended up being positive? What would that tell me? That's still on its way up I don't think it is in this question. But if you didn't know the whole question Okay, give her an elbow. I'm gonna give her an elbow Okay, and would you like my little nerf baseball bat? I can loan you that if you It's therapeutic and helpful Okay, what else can I find from a cliff? Well, it's the same question as in d But party find the velocity when it hits the ground the impact velocity Which would look like that vx would still be the same you'd find vy final when it hit the ground And you could either use t or a distance of negative 16 meters to find vy final and again pythagoras And again, uh, I think shift tangent is what most of the angles have been in this unit. I think that's it for off the cliff Don't think I can ask Anything else Okay, that was a great question Any others You know what I would do best way to study Do the review You'll have seen about 85 percent of the questions Read through the extra review that I emailed you guys and any question that you go because a lot of them Will be familiar by this point. You'll be going. Oh, yeah, I just did that with different numbers I just did that with different numbers anyone that seems unfamiliar Glance at my answer key that I gave you look at it. Oh, yeah, that's what I would do Then you're fine if you're still a bit Try it With my answer key in front of you and see if you can puzzle your way through it If you do that As far as I know, there's only one curve ball I'm specific multiple choice question Any other questions otherwise, I'll end but if there's any other questions, I'll still go Who would like a copy of these this print out here? Raise your hand if you want to copy one two three four five six seven Yes, I can solve it Can I take shortcuts? So the Pythagoras I would go like this. Well, first of all v final v final is going to be v initial plus a See it times t 15 because that's the time they gave me A v final is going to be negative 59.576 Which would go there so it's going to be 59.576 squared plus 111.9 squared Pythagoras says take the square root of that the magnitude would be 127 points That's 126.7 be 127 would be your magnitude meters per second at The angle would be a shift tan and it would be Shift tan of 59.576 over 111.9 the angle ends up being 28 degrees I'll print this up for you. Hang on Oh below the horizontal Is that okay? So seven copies you guys want? Okay, let me just pause the recording


Thank you, fellow colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I'd like to present further evidence in support of the hypothesis which holds that the seed oils, the vegetable oils, are the primary drivers of overweight, obesity, and virtually all of our diseases of civilization, all of our westernized diseases. Heart disease, hypertension, stroke, cancers, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, age-related macular degeneration, autoimmune disorders, the list goes on and on. Paracelsus dictum states that the dose makes the poison. And we're consuming these highly pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient-deficient seed oils in massive quantities, and consumption has spread all around the world. In fact, in the last 155 years, seed oil consumption has risen from zero to occupy more than half of our fat calories in many westernized populations. This is an infinite increase in consumption of the most highly processed, dangerous food on the planet. And I use the term food here loosely. And we're being told to eat more. In fact, we're being told to eat more by the Harvard School of Public Health, by Tufts University Nutrition Department, by Mayo Clinic's Nutrition Department, the American Heart Association, Penn Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, and this list could go on and on. In fact, even the World Health Organization, unfortunately, still telling us to consume less than 10% of our calories as saturated fat and consume more seed oils, more unsaturated fats. So the question of the day or maybe the question of the century nutrition might be, are these the healthy fats? These vegetable oils that are coming out of factories, really what many are calling factory fats, or are we just being misled? I mean, I think there's numerous reasons to question this, perhaps not the least of which is the fact that the United States is the most obese nation in the world, right? And we've held this dubious honor for decades. We may also be the most unhealthy country in the world. I believe, in fact, that we are. So, but are we just sheep being led off the cliff? Is this where we're being led with this advice from the diet dictocrats and Harvard and such? Well, so let's go back to this question. So why do the medical authorities and the diet dictocrats, Harvard, Tufts, why are they telling us to consume seed oils and not animal fats? And as far as I can tell, through all the research, it really comes down to one thing, they lower cholesterol. Well, guess what? So does arsenic. And, you know, we may think this is a joke and, but actually, incredibly, there's many parallels between arsenic and seed oils, not the least of which is the fact that arsenic is fantastically oxidative, pro-oxidative. And this is exactly how seed oils get us. They drive the oxidation, they're pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory and toxic, but of all of these, it is oxidation that is by far the worst. And this is what I want you to take notice of. Now, back in my 2019 AHS presentation, this conference, two years ago, I go through all the biochemistry, I don't have time to do that today, but if you happen to want to go back and look at that, you'll see about how oxidation works with seed oils. Now, I don't have to do this, not for CME, but I just want to disclose I'm a book author, researcher, and I'm the founder and president of Cure AMD Foundation. I do not accept compensation for any of these roles. I'm here just to try to figure out what is good nutrition and hopefully just to spread a message that would be of benefit.  And, but there's a single source for this, and it's processed foods. So if you flip this on its head, the processed foods are driving nutrient deficiency and toxicity, and I know this is a 50,000 foot view, but just to get to the big picture, and processed foods are defined by refined flowers, refined and added sugars, seed oils, and trans fats, as simple as that. Of course, there's mystery ingredients, engineered products, but primarily this is what processed foods are. And of course these foods, they line our grocery store aisles and they're made primarily out of those four things, right? But what's most important here today is that it's the high poof of the highly polyunsaturated fatty acid vegetable oils that are the fat of choice for these processed foods. That's what's in them, and they're in the restaurant foods, whether they be fast foods like you see there, or typical restaurant foods. Even the finest restaurants are using seed oils because they're about one sixth the cost of butter. Now, my charge to you today, seed oils are chronic biological poisons. They're not acute biological poisons, and this is how they've been able to remain in the food supply. So they were brought in slowly, beginning in the 1860s, and they were first used to adulterate lard and butter, and then gradually they were used to supplant and replace lard, butter, and beef tallow, and that's how they got away with this. And so we gradually became overweight and sick, and they've kept them in the food supply that way. Now they look nice and pretty like this, but all of the research tells us without question, they're pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, thrombogenic, clot producing, in other words, atherogenic, producing atherosclerosis, and obesogenic, they are poisons. And again, you can go back to 2019 AHS, my presentation there for all the biochemistry on that. Now I'm gonna walk you through 200 years of medical history here pretty quickly, and this is a review for some of you, so I apologize if you've seen this, but the world's getting heavier, and the United States leads the way, and what I've seen many times in recent, the past decade or two is this.  And so carbs are going up, we think there's a problem, and so now I think the pendulum has swung, and now we think we need low carb diets. I'm gonna disagree here, and I'm gonna say for the most part, macronutrient ratios do not matter. It's the fat composition that matters, and you'll see here throughout this whole talk that the fat composition is what's changing, we're continuing to replace and supplant animal fats with vegetable oils. Now very quickly, I've done this before, again I apologize if you've seen this, but I'll just say quickly, heart disease, extreme medical rarity in the 19th century, there was eight papers on it, first published, known heart attack in the US, 1912, James Herrick, then 1930s, heart disease became the leading cause of death, was virtually unknown 20 years before, by 2010, heart disease causes one out of three deaths, but a century before, practically unknown. All right, cancer deaths, Boston, 1811, cancer took one in 188 people, 1900 in the US, cancer took the lives of one in 17 people. In 2010, again it's almost one in three, 31.1%. So cancer in the last 200 years has increased 200 fold. How about diabetes? So we know diabetes was also a medical rarity in the 19th century, it was rising by 1935, 0.37%. This trend continues, all the way to 10.5% by 2020. This is an 80, I'm sorry, a 28 fold increase in diabetes in a period of 85 years. How about obesity? Now we know obesity was 1.2% in the 19th century. We know this from Scott Allen Carson's work. By 1960, obesity is 13%. This is when we thought we were lean and healthy, right? But obesity had already risen 11 fold. Well, this trend continues again, by 2015, we're at 39.8% obesity. This is a 33 fold increase in obesity in 115 years, and this trend continues upward. Metabolic syndrome was described in 1921, again in the 1940s and 50s. First called metabolic syndrome in 1981, and then Reven called it syndrome X in 1988. Let's look at the numbers though. Around 1990, 24% of US adults diagnosed with metabolic syndrome. Right around the turn of the century, 34.1%. 40% by 2006, and 88% of Americans cannot meet five criteria of metabolic health by about 2009 to 16. So what is it that's so ubiquitous, so pernicious in our food supply that 88% of us are metabolically sick? And I wanna show you today, it's seed oils, I believe. How about macular degeneration? Less than 50 cases in all the world's literature between 1851 and 1930 when it was first discoverable. Today, 196 million cases. So this increase is at least in the thousands. All right, again, it looks like this. Very quickly, knee osteoarthritis doubled in the 20th century. I'll just have to move quickly here, ladies and gentlemen. So here's the curve, as you can see. Fantastic increase in osteoarthritis as well. So let's talk about dietary history here quickly. And I believe this is a global human experiment for which no one gave consent. Nobody saw this coming. They wouldn't have signed up for it. But it's really those four foods again. So refined sugars, Seth and Guy and I showed that between 1822 and 1999 sugars went up 17-fold. Cottonseed oil introduced in 1866. And then that was followed by soybean oil in 1909. Then we got all the other oils. And then these just began to overtake and supplant the animal fats, lard, butter, and beef towel, essentially. We have roller mill technology, which gave us refined wheat in 1880. Then, Procter and Gamble introduced Crisco, trans fats, 1911. That's it. That's processed foods in a nutshell, right there. And so, Weston Price connected these food, these very foods, essentially, to physical degenerative disease, 1939. Nobody listened. 2009, our own USDA shows where 63% of the American diet is ultra-processed food, and 75% of the world's diet is now processed. Same as the US processed that much processed food. And chronic disease looks like that curve right there. And this is essentially from the USDA, except with the vegetable oil plugged in from our own published data, 32%. And I'll come back to that. But that's the, all the red there is the processed food. So we've got 29% of the diet made up of real whole food. And even that is coming from CAFO raised animals. So the vegetable oils just so we're on the same page, better termed seed oils, since they almost all come from seeds, and one of them soy beans from beans. But they have all these names, the latest, greatest of which is the so-called plant oils. I think another euphemism to make them sound really nice.  I think these are the worst of the worst for many reasons. You have to stick with big picture here. There are details here I wish we could get into, but we don't have time. These oils though, they're hidden fats. People tell us all the time, they're not pouring any of these oils into their foods. And yet they're getting boatloads of these because they're hidden in the food through the processed foods and the restaurant foods. So you don't have to spoon any of these into your foods to get 80 grams a day. This is also our published data. You can see seed oils introduced in 1866 in the American diet. By 2010, we're at 80 grams per person per day. 80 grams is 720 calories. It's 32% of US caloric intake. And I want you to notice in 1900, 99% of the added fats in the diet were animal fat, lard, butter, and beef towel. By 2005, 86% of added fats came from vegetable oils. This is all published. It's all scientifically published. Go back here to the dietary guidelines in 1980. Remember fats going down? But the vegetable oils continue to rise. They continue the ascent unabated. Now it didn't just happen in the US. Developed countries, vegetable oils, just between 1963 and 2003, they doubled. Developing countries, they tripled. Japan, for example, four and a half fold increase. China, about an eight fold increase. So what does this do to our omega-6? Well, all of this blue here from the fifth one down on these added fats, all this that I circled in red here, that's all the omega-6 we're getting from all these oils, essentially. Again, big picture. We don't have time to get through all the details. But if you transplant yourself back to 1865, this is primarily where our omega-6 would've come from. Clutter, lard, and beef tallow at three, two, and two percent respectively, because that's what the omega-6 linoleic acid would be in ancestrally raised animals. Now, CAFO raised animals completely different. CAFO raised pork could be 20-some percent omega-6, just like in humans, monogastric animals.  So where were we? 1865, 2.2 grams of omega-6 in our diet per day is what we've calculated. That's about 1% of calories or a little less. By 1909, we're at 2% of calories, or 4.84 grams linoleic acid per day. 1999, 18 grams a day, or 7% of calories. And 2008, an incredible 29 grams a day of linoleic acid alone, 11.8% of calories and climbing. This is a 12-fold increase in omega-6 in a period of about 150 years. So this is really all you need to know. This right here, this is what happened. You can look at it here, as you'll see, this is our published data, vegetable oils in the black versus heart disease deaths in the red.  No correlation at all to heart disease. No, people ask, well, why is heart disease going down? Coronary procedures, bypasses, and all that. Now, this is from Roger Horowitz, published data. This is total meat, red meat, and poultry consumption. You see the three curves there, and you can see that over the entire 19th century, meat consumption, including red meat, was going down, and it reached a nadir around 1930, but this is back in the period when coronary heart disease was virtually unknown. And then when we reached the nadir of meat consumption, is when coronary heart disease became the leading cause of death in the U.S. So there's all sorts of populations that we know don't really have any heart disease or any appreciable level of heart disease. I named 19th century Americans, as you've seen, the Chamania of Bolivia, the Achea of Paraguay, the Maasai of Kenyan, Tanzania, the Papua New Genians of Tukosenta, Tokolaons and Katavans. We'll look at three of these very quickly. Again, I've done this before, I'll make this very fast. This is the Maasai tribe of Kenyan, Tanzania. They were studied by George Mann and colleagues in 1972. Their diet is mostly milk, meat, and blood, especially the Muran cohort. Ages about 14 to 34. They can only consume milk, meat, and blood. There's about 3,000 calories a day, 66% animal fat, that's 33 to 45% saturated animal fat. It turns out to be 1.7% omega-6. Now I put this in red, omega-6 LA, linoleic acid only. Again, they had no heart disease. They had one possible silent MI in the group, again, but our American Heart Association continues to tell us to consume no more than five to 6% of our calories and saturated fat. All right, so again, 66% animal fat, but 1.7% omega-6 because they had no seed oils, right? Americans are consuming, on the lowest end, 24% and on the highest end, 32% of their calories is vegetable oils. What does that give them? 8% to 12% or higher omega-6, linoleic acid alone. So total omega-6 would be even a little bit higher. And remember that last day, it was 2008. It's higher than that today. So here's total allowance. Couple of pictures from many years gone by, but these are very healthy people, as you might witness here in these pictures. They were studied by priorin colleagues in the 1970s and published in the 80s. Their diet is very different. Coconut, starchy tubers, fish and fruit. It's, most of the calories come in from coconut oil. 53% fat, 48% saturated fat, published, all published. 2% of the diet is total poofa. So that's omega-6 and omega-3 together. That means that omega-6 is around 1%, maybe less. But 1982, none of them had any heart disease in this study and they noted virtually no diabetes or obesity. Fantastically healthy people. This study, Papua Noginians of Tucacenta, and the Highlanders, their sweet potatoes account for over 90% of their calories in this study by Synet White that came out in 1973. They would occasionally feast on pork and chicken. It has been argued that perhaps they didn't recognize that they were eating more pork and chicken than they did, but nevertheless it was ancestrally raised animals. Their diet in this paper, 94.6% carb, it turns out to be about 0.6% omega-6. There's that number again I want you to pay attention to. This is what Synet White said about them in their published study. Population was lean, physically fit, and in good nutritional state. Absence of obesity and hypertension, no diabetes or gout. Ischemic heart disease was rare if not absent and they had no macular degeneration. I think it was 340 people in this study. So if we look at these populations and you can look at all of the ancestrally living populations, what they don't have is refined sugar, refined wheat, processed foods, and of course they don't have vegetable oils. Those only come from big food manufacturing and these huge plants that produce these oils. So what about the omega-6 LA in these traditional populations? It is 0.6 to about 1.7%. I think they're all under 2% to the best of my knowledge, but where are westernized populations seven to 12% omega-6 linoleic acid alone? This, again, is the key takeaway point. So what happens to this omega-6? We accumulate it in our body fat. All monogastric animals do this. And this is from Stephen Guine's published research collating 37 studies between 1959 and 2008 of the omega-6 linoleic acid in the body fat of humans. And you can see we were at 9.1% LA in 1959, up to 21.5% LA by 2008. And you're gonna see here, this is where the tocalowans who are consuming all the 53% fat diet, but which is mostly saturated fat from coconut oil.  It's off the chart low, which is where it should be for an ancestral population.  You see there's a linear correlation. And here it is in relation to vegetable oils. So what approximately happens is that whatever the linoleic acid is in your diet, if it's 10%, you'll increase that in your body fat if you consume it for a long period of time to approximately double to two and a half.  This will set off the pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and of course, nutrient deficient cascade resulting in all of this harm. Now, if you think carbs are the problem in obesity, then you'll need to explain this also from Steph and GNA. Why is obesity going up still with carbs going down since the late 1990s? And if you think that it's about sugar, we have a similar situation. Since the late 1990s, sugar's going down, obesity's still on the rise, right? But of course, as I keep saying, seed oils continue the ascent. It hasn't stopped. And this is from my colleague, Kate Shanahan. You see seed oils here over the last century continuing to climb. And here's diabetes and pre-diabetes collectively on the same kind of vertical ascent. But notice the carbs down here are practically flat over the last century. Now, here I just put these two plots together. So you can see that sugar's falling while diabetes and pre-diabetes escalate. So if you think sugar's the cause of diabetes, you also need to explain this. I don't believe it is. I believe it's primarily seed oils. Now I'm not defending large amounts of sugar in the diet, or I'm just trying to put the perspective here. So let's look at this same question, high carb diets driving obesity and chronic disease in the case of Japan, because Japan may have once been the healthiest of all nations, it's home to the Okinawans, as you know, at least at once the longest lived people on the planet, they once had the lowest obesity in the world as you're gonna see here. It was, here's obesity in Japan 1976. Now this is when they called obesity BMI of 30, which they eventually changed in Asian since they're so much leaner than we are naturally. But back here obesity 1976, men 0.7% women, one and a half percent. And if we look at heart disease here, you're all gonna love Ancel Keys, me bringing that up here. I'm sure his sixth country study, 1953, but he didn't make up the data, all right? So, but you see Japan down here amongst the very lowest in degenerative heart disease. And in case you don't buy that, for any reason, Yer Shalmi and Hillibo republished the 22 countries study in 1957, as you all probably also know, and you can see, again, mortality in Japan from heart disease way down there. The only country that was at least appreciably lower was Mexico and that data was not determined to be very good. So Japan was very, very healthy by all accounts, I think. And then they had this decline in health. And I wanna show you this. You can see the increasing obesity. Again, this is still with BMI 30. So we'll come back and look at this as things have progressed. But let's look at their health too. So this is what we see between 1958 and 1999. You see their diastolic blood pressure climbing from 73.5 to 82.0. Hypertensive medications in this period went from 3% to 20%. Their body mass index went from 21.7 to 23.7. Two-fold BMI points increase between 1958 and 1999 and their smoking went from 68.5 to 45.2%. So the smoking went quite a ways down. This is a paper on diabetes in Japan. And the authors said this, in Japan in particular, the prevalence of diabetes has increased from 6.9 to 8.9 million between 1997 and 2007. So in that single decade alone, diabetes increased 61%. And then they went on to say the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Japanese population is not dramatically lower than that in Western population, like us. This is about diabetes in children and adolescents in Japan. And they say this, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Japanese primary school children in Tokyo increased 10-fold between 1976 and 1995 alone. And in junior high school children, incidence of type 2 diabetes almost doubled in approximately the same period. How about metabolic syndrome in Okinawa? Back in 2003 and 2004, this is what the authors said from this paper. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 30.2% in men and 10.3% in women in Okinawa, 2003 and 2004. And half of the men aged over 40 are obese in Okinawa, 2003 and 2004. They've lost their longevity as well. Their position as the number one in longevity, even in Japan. So with regard to cancer, here's what we see in Japan. Now there's been two cancers that went down, stomach cancer's down, presumably due to refrigeration and H. pylori treatment. Cervical cancer's down, presumably due to early detection. But cancers of the breast, colon, lung and rectum all markedly increased in this time frame. This is by year 2000. This is what these authors say, obesity has become a public health problem in Japan. Pre-obese, 24.5% of males, 17.8% of females. And then from this paper, this is overweight and obese men between 1980 and 2012. You can see all categories climbing in obesity. And here's the latest numbers in Japan. Over 32% of Japanese men and 22% of women now overweight. So since 1960, Japan's had marked increases in pre-obesity and obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, multiple cancers, age-related macular degeneration, which I'll get to momentarily. And even myopia, nearsightedness, and a number of other disorders we just don't have time to get to. But so let's look what happened to their food. Now from this paper, this is the most shocking thing, I think, to most of us. This is what they say, results. The total daily energy intake decreased from 2837 kilocalories in 1958 to 2202 kilocalories in 1999. And then quote, the carbohydrate intake and percentage of total daily energy intake decreased markedly from 84% in 1958 to 62% in 1999 in contrast to large increases during this period of protein intake from 11% to 18% and fat intake from 5% to 20%. So, and here you see the data from this paper. There's the energy from 2837 down to 2202. You see a progressive decrease in their energy. They had all the food they wanted to eat in 1958. It wasn't that way in 1950, so I didn't use any of that data. But here's the fat consumption, 5% in 1958 to 20% in 1999. And here's the carbs, 84% to 62%. And I want you to, in case you're wondering where all the carbs came from, look at the white rice. 593 grams in 1958. That's well over 2000 calories a day in white rice alone. And 1999, they're 236 grams. So they're white rice less than halved and yet their health is declining, right? This is calorie intake in Japanese man between 1997 and 2011 and I'll come back to that momentarily. And I just want to point out here because some people might say, well, what happened to the fruits and vegetables? You can see in the bottom curve there, the vegetables is practically flat during this period.  Fruits have gone up more than double in recent decades. Now, Okuyama and colleagues and these Japanese researchers, they get this medicines and vegetable oils as hidden causes of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. You'll see it from their graph here. You can see the total energy in the top and blue going down over all these decades and carbohydrates going way down but down in the green at the bottom, toward the bottom, look at the lipid energy. That's seed oils all going up, right? And look at the diabetes. It is through the roof. Now, I brought you back to this. This is Japanese overweight and obese man in Japan and I brought you back to this graph because I laid in here the exact calorie intake year for year, same years, and you'll see the calorie intake is going down as the obesity goes up year for year. Now, this is exactly what we see in the animal studies with on isochloric diets, animals more and more seed oils become more and more obese even given the same exact calories as other animals not given seed oils. Now, I'm gonna take you back to 1949, 1950 with this paper and this number right here. You see the, in Okinawa and Japan, they're only getting three grams of oils per day. All right, three grams a day. This is where Americans were in 1900. We were at 18 grams a day by 1949 and 80 grams a day by 2010, just for perspective. All right, so this is all the data kind of tabulated to put these numbers together. So carbs went from 84% to 56% between about 1960 and 2005-ish. Fat from five to 27%. Saturated fat still only 7%, one of the lowest in the world in developed nations. Seed oils though from three grams a day in 1950 to 39 grams a day by 2004. Omega-6, one and a half and 1% in 1950 and 60, up to 6.2% by 2004. That's the main problem right there. And all that Omega-6's coming from their seed oils, which you're gonna see right here. So this is sort of the big kahuna. This is our data, which will come out in our next paper. So between 1960 and 2004, in Japan, calories down 31%. Carbs down 28%. Fat is up 440%. Seed oils up 333%.  So back here in 1960, when the carbs were 80% plus Japan's healthy, but look where their seed oils were nine grams a day. Over here in about 2000, Japan's overweight and sick, but where's their seed oils approaching 39 grams a day. Now, this is macular degeneration. It was 0.2% in the 1970s, 2013, 16.37%. Okay, so this is an 82-fold increase in macular degeneration prevalence in response to a 13-fold increase in seed oil consumption. And in 1999, in Japan, seed oils provided 76% of the total fat calories.  This is the recipe for disaster. So with the increasingly lower carbs and higher fat, with up to 76% of that fat coming from seed oils, Japan has marked increases in pre-obesity and obesity, for major cancers, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, macular degeneration, and a reduction in longevity. So how can we conclude low-carb diets are necessary, either for health or for weight loss? Their carbs went way down.  It's the composition of the fat that matters. Not how much. So this is just a quiz question. So Japan's declining health is most likely due to, A, a 13-fold, 1200% increase in highly pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient-deficient seed oils, or B, an approximate doubling of fruit. I don't know, it's a tough call. I've been pondering this a long time. I'm leaning towards A, the seed oils. So we're asked the same question on a global scale. High-carb sugar diets, are they the cause of obesity and chronic disease? Let's look at this really quickly. Just so we've said it, we know, whole world's becoming more overweight, right? 1975, one in 20 people globally were obese. Today, almost one in seven, it's 13%. This is an increase in the chronic disease deaths, about 4.1% in 26 years. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's millions of additional deaths, all right? And that from this book, I just have to go quickly here. Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Disease rates from these conditions are accelerating globally, advancing across every region, and pervading all socioeconomic classes. Let's look at what happened with the whole world's carbohydrate nutrition. So this is the, let me go back here. Sorry, this is from the FAO, paper number 66. And this is their raw data, and that's too much to digest here quickly. So I've broken this down easily, but you can see in developed countries, between 1964 and 1994, where I've highlighted, carbs went down 8.9% in this 30-year period. In developing countries, same period of time, carbs went down 4.9% in the whole world. 1964 to 1994, carbs went down 3.1%. Now I want you to notice, 1964, when the world was really quite healthy, fantastically more healthy and less overweight than they were today, carbs were 66.3% of the diet. What about sugar? Same timeframe. Here's sweeteners, 12.9% in 1964 to 13.5% by 1994. So sugars went up 32 calories. That's 0.6% in 30 years. Now we've got data up to 2007 on carbs. Here's the numbers. 64.5% in 1964 to 63.1% in 2007. So in this period of time, carbs are down 1.4%. So this is vegetable oil production for the world. And we see back here in 1961, we were 15 and a half grams a day. By 1994, 33.6 grams per day. 2014, 65.4 grams per day. So while carbs went down, during this period, 1.4%, seed oils went up 322%. This is all oils, all right? There's some good ones in there, but this is the total. Now, I just scaled this graph down to show you this. If you walk back to 1865, seed oils would have been almost precisely zero. That's where we would have been. But this is where they've gone and where they're still going. Chronic diseases are following, all right? So by 2014, 173.26 million tons of production of seed oils. That works out to be about 382 billion pounds of oils in 2014 alone. It was about zero in 1865. So that's an infinite increase in seed oil consumption in about 155 years. What about global sugar consumption? It was 45.2 grams a day, 1966, 63.4 grams a day by 2014. Sugars are up 40.3%, nothing to sneeze at. I don't like this either, but it's really only 18.2 grams or about four teaspoons a day. So if we look at from 1961 to 2014, carbs went down 1.4%, sugars up 40.3%, seed oils up 322%. Let's put this into teaspoons. So this is what it is if you calculate it per capita per day. 11 teaspoons of sugar per day in the world, 1966, 15 teaspoons per day by 2014. So is the global obesity and chronic disease epidemic due to an increase of four teaspoons of sugar a day, 18.2 grams? I just don't think so. But would it be more likely this? Vest oil production 1961 was three and a half teaspoons a day per person, 2014 about 15 teaspoons per person per day. So I'm gonna go back to this. Is the US the most obese nation in the world? Absolutely, of course we are. So let's find out the seed oil consumption in relation to the rest of the world. Here we are. US has the highest seed oil consumption in 171 countries. There's only 24 countries left out because they didn't have any data for those. So half of us, it looks like we'll be obese by 2030, but what's still going up? As I said, seed oils. Vietnam has the lowest rate of adult obesity in the world. And here's the data, 2.1% obesity. So let's look at their vegetable oil consumption. Second lowest in 171 countries. It's a 7.5 grams per day. This is where the US was in about 1908. So is the United States the most unhealthy country in the world? I believe so. But what is the most healthy? And this is from a study they're just reviewing. They named Afghanistan, you may love it or not, but let's look at their seed oil consumption. Here it is. They're the eighth lowest in the world for where they have data. Nine and a half grams per person per day where we were precisely in 1909. All right, so hard to find an overweight or obese person in Afghanistan. But just today, I just wanna review quickly here. These are the populations we hit and their carb percentages, and their health, 17% carb, excellent health. Toko allowance, 24%, excellent health. Japan, 80% in 1960, health was excellent. Okinawans, 85%. Their health was excellent. And Tucacenta, 94.6%. You can argue that, but it's published data. Health was excellent. So I really believe that macronutrient ratio has played little, if any, role. Pretty much the same as what Western price found in the 1930s. Processed foods are the problem. And of those, I think, seed oils are the big, big drivers. So why do low-carb diets work? And I showed this once before. This is the food sources of linoleic acid in the American diet. I'm gonna highlight all of those that are high-carb. And I'll read them to you. Chicken mixed dishes, grain-based desserts, potato corn, other chips, pizza, yeast breads, fried white potatoes, pasta and pasta dishes, Mexican mixed dishes, quick breads, and popcorn. And the point of this, it's the high-carb foods that the seed oils run with. So when people are going low-carb, they're getting rid of a lot of seed oils, and they don't really know it. That's what they're doing. So I'll submit before I have about three minutes to go. Very quickly. Okay, so you can make the seed oils look pretty, but they're a lot like arsenic. They're driving oxidation. And I'll submit to you what's coming out of these refineries is poisons. 80% of the problem, I believe, is driven by vegetable oils. So how do we consume 1% omega-6? Again, you gotta get the seed oils out of your diet, the processed foods and the fast foods and all that. The Maasai warriors, their diet, 100% animal fat, essentially Americans, 86% of added fats, vegetable oils. And another way to look at this is, they're on a 0% vegetable oil diet in Maasai. If I could, I'll show you this video very quickly. New York City, 1911, some of the earliest video ever recorded in the US. And I just want you to notice, look at these people all over, and you can watch this for a long time, and you can hardly ever find an overweight or obese person. The point I want to make of this, though, is the fact that these people didn't know anything about nutrition. They didn't know, vitamins hadn't even been theorized until the next year after this was taken. 1912 by Casimir Funk, they didn't know a saturated fats or mono-insaturated or omega-6. They didn't know any of this. They just ate the food that was in the food supply, and they ate bacon and eggs and pancakes for breakfast and they ate lots of steak. It was a heavily meat-based diet. Refrigeration was not available until 1913 in homes, and so they didn't have a lot of fruits and vegetables, which is why they ate a lot of meat, potatoes, and bread. There's twice as much wheat consumption as we do today. But what didn't they have? For 45 years prior to this, they had no more than two grams of seed oils in their diets per day. And back to this, 86% added fats, vegetable oils, right? But these people are innocent victims. It's not their fault. They're doing what the diet dictocrats are telling them to do. We can't blame them.  And these are innocent victims. It's a tragedy and it's a travesty because it's preventable. These are all victims of this. And again, but I want to finish here on a high note.  You can look at hundreds, thousands of pictures of the Messiah and their videos, and this is what they look like.  And again, I'll end on this one with the 100% of their diet, their fat coming from animal fat. I represent Cure AMD Foundation. And I want to thank Dr. Aaron Blaisdale and the whole AHS team. And I want to thank all of you. It is an honor and a pleasure. Thank you. Oh, I know.