Sorry, unfortunately nutrition is more complex than what you can sum up in a few sentences. To answer that though:

• Chicken isn’t categorically “unhealthy” in the same way double stuf oreos cooked in lard are - I said in another comment that it’s the ultimate neutral food, and if you look at its profile I think that’s a fair statement. It’s not completely devoid of nutrients, it has a couple of things in significant quantities - phosphorus, selenium, and B3 for example - but overall it’s not very nutrient dense. It doesn’t have a ton of huge negatives either - a bit of saturated fat, but nothing to write home about. If you’re looking at a “Hitler-Hanks” spectrum where the lard oreos are on one end and a spinach chia seed broccoli whatever salad on the other, then chicken is probably right in the middle somewhere. Its D&D alignment is True Neutral. The point I was making in my earlier comment was that “protein” doesn’t make a food healthy, and that there’s a lot more to it than that, and if people use that mental shortcut they might end up making misinformed decisions.

• The nutritional profile of chicken would be a lot to type out, but you can look at the NCCDB or Cronometer Gold (which uses NCCDB among others) for an elaborate breakdown. Just keep in mind that it doesn’t capture everything - it’s an amazing tool, but it won’t cover the catechins in your tea, for example.

Ultimately though, if you’re reading this, let me take this opportunity to encourage you to GO SEE A REGISTERED DIETITIAN. Your insurance will often cover 80+% of your first appointment, but even if they don’t it’s an amazing investment. You’ll live longer, probably spend less on food, and spend a lot less on hospital bills after your first heart attack.

Lean protein =/= healthy. Like, at all. This is a myth from the freaking 1980s. Nutritional profile is a breakdown of the micronutrients that a food has, and it determines whether a food is “nutritious” and therefore, in general terms, “healthy”.

Please, oh please, don’t go around telling people that food is healthy if it is a lean protein. I’m sure it’s well intended, but it’s also misinformed. If you want to learn about how to assess whether a food is healthy, go make an appointment with a dietitian - your insurance will often cover the first appointment.

Macronutrients are not what makes a food healthy. In particular, high-protein does not make a food healthy. By that reasoning a lot of fast food could be considered insanely healthy, but it’s not. That’s just our downright shitty levels of education surrounding nutrition.

What actually makes a food healthy depends on a lot of different factors, but a common one and relatively reliable standard bearer is whether it is “nutritious”. When a food is nutritious or nutrient dense, it is micronutrient dense. This includes things like spinach and beans and seeds and broccoli and all of the other foods that your parents made you eat. Micronutrient poor foods are ones that have relatively few micronutrients, but usually are relatively calorie rich. This includes things like mozzarella sticks, wonderbread, fruit gushers, heavy cream, twinkies, and so on. We do need macronutrients, but virtually anyone who gets enough energy (calories) from food also gets enough of them, except in specific cases like being a professional athlete. The athlete wouldn’t die of protein deprivation if they didn’t pay attention to their intake, but it would make it harder for them to perform well.

So no, chicken is not, by any standard, “really nutritious and healthy”. It’s not completely devoid of nutrients - it’s relatively rich in phosphorus and selenium if you eat it on its own, for example, but it’s far from what anyone would consider nutritious. It’s somewhere in between fried mars bars and spinach.

Everyone is going to like different things, but tofu is a bit like wonderbread. It also tastes bland, but you get addicted to it anyway. I can’t explain why, but at this point I just put thick slices of tofu into the air fryer for 5 minutes and eat it as-is. You’re right, it doesn’t taste like much, but nevertheless it’s hard to stop eating it after you’re hooked.

Some things you can try:

• Try smoked, extra firm tofu. You can eat it as a snack straight out of the pack, and the taste is somewhat stronger. It’s brown and kind of leathery.

• GRILL your tofu. Get some good char on there. It tastes absolutely heavenly and smoky.

• Put soft tofu into your smoothie. It thickens it a bit but won’t change the taste.

• Tofu tastes good in a lot of salty, carby dishes. For example, one of my 5-minute meals is chow mein noodles and canned mixed vegetables (beans sprouts, corn, and carrot) sauteed with sesame oil. It sucks some of the moisture out of the tofu, allows it to absorb flavor, and offers a firm, meaty contrast to the other components of the dish.

• You can put tofu into any “soup” - chili, curry, etc. and this is another pretty standard use.

• There are troves of marinades and dry rubs out there. A good way to start is to go to a restaurant and try bowls with tofu to get an idea of what you like, and then to use that as a template.

If it’s all the same to you a higher ratio of quinoa is preferable.

Ramen is NOT healthy though my dude. Ramen with an egg on top is empty carbs in a bath of salt water and cholesterol, with very little nutritional integrity to speak of.

Chicken has been heavily, heavily marketed as a health food, and while it’s not the worst thing you could eat, if you actually look at its nutritional profile it’s not particularly nutritious or “healthy”. That’s just Tyson Foods & co working their magic. It’s more like the ultimate neutral food - nothing terrifying, nothing great.

Eh, just fry it.

BEANS

Addictive carbs and salt, dirt cheap, and healthy as shit. Also convenient and compatible with most dietary/ethical restrictions.

If you learn to like beans when you’re 20 and throw it into an index fund, you’ll have a modest retirement fund just on the money you saved (yes, I calculated it based on money saved and growth of the S&P).

I don’t know if this is the case everywhere, but here a lot of chains are switching to doordash partnerships, which is just gross. At this point I’ll stop ordering delivery/takeout from any chain that does this because I’m just that disgusted by Doordash and Uber.

On the bright side, if you’re in a city, usually there are more than enough delivery co-ops or in-house delivery services available that it’s not too painful to ditch delivery apps.

A matter of perspective, you see.

Not really, otherwise every underwater vehicle would have one. It can just as easily put the vessel in peril. Subs don’t just go straight down into an empty ocean - they typically drift substantially, maneuver, and run into “traffic”.

I mean everyone says “omg they’re crazy”, but it’s so easy to say that, and all of us have at least a few things that we’d be willing to do that an onlooker could point to and say “lol why do that when you might die”.

There’s nothing wrong with taking an informed risk, and it’s really up to you what kind of risk you’re comfortable taking. Most of these people seem to have a consistently high risk tolerance, and three of them were very experienced, so I don’t think it’s fair to call them “stupid” or “idiots” just because your risk/reward assessment doesn’t line up with theirs. If that was their idea of living the best life possible, then that’s good for them.

I’m not familiar with the mechanics of this sub obviously, but I’m given to understand that an emergency ascent should have been initiated by this point if everything was fully functional. That probably points to a design flaw - you should always keep those systems as independent of each other as possible so that if one fails, you can fall back on the other. Of course it’s possible that they’ve since ascended and haven’t been found, or got stuck, but assuming they haven’t that could imply that the sub experienced an insurmountable failure and they’re looking for people who are either gone or near-unrescuable.

I would also say that I don’t think people SHOULD be risking their lives at this point. We’re looking at a case of people who took an informed risk and understood that there was danger associated with the recreational activity they were undertaking. These people either had vast monetary resources and could have consulted the best experts in the world, or had significant prior experience and knowledge. While obviously withholding information interferes with informed consent, and that may or may not have played a role, I don’t think this is morally equivalent to rescuing someone from a burning building. There’s also simple probability - the odds of rescuing them alive and well aren’t good, and to put someone else’s life at risk for the off chance that they succeed would be unethical in my opinion.