undeather

Mind telling us the amino acids which you can't get through plants?

That's such an ill-considered argument. Moral relativism is exactly why vegans are able to ground their propositions on such a robust, ethical baseline. The same heuristic that applies to our fundamental code of conduct (don't kill/steal/rape - i.e reduce suffering) can be exteneded to include non-human animals as well. By saying "ethics is an abstract and realtive concept in your head" you are saying absolutely nothing by being technically right. I mean, the nazis thought they were doing their world a favor by killing all those jews. Now, even though there is no absolute ethical framework, would you not agree that killing all those innocent people was a terrible thing to do? Thought so. Millions of people lead healthy and happy lives under zero percent animal product consumption. I was a semi-professional tennis player for years, eating an almost 100% vegan diet - and I felt great. Refering to ones intuition is fine with me, but thinking that "my intuition" is somewhat of a proxy of what other people should or should not eat is a bit of a schizo-take. Because it's delicious. Unhealthy food can be fucking delicious. What does that even mean..... If your definition of an "optimal" diet is one which doesn't require any form of supplementation, then yes - it's not not an "optimal" diet. If you want to talk about health outcomes, then a diet with high amounts of animal products is not "optimal". The need for supplementation is mainly a byproduct of our food-ecosystem and not the diet itself. A diet of purely white sugar + all supplements (macros + micros) will make you feel miserable and if you disagree with that, you need to take a basic course in physiology. Outside of certain oils, the vast majority of SFA-sources are animal based. Lol. That's like saying that meat consumption is not natural because it makes you prone to overeating - and that's why so many americans are fat. That's obviously a complete strawman and non-sequitor. Over and underconsumption of calories is a complex phenomenon with a whole host of interacting, bio-psycho-social factors. Eating disorders are found in any dietary pattern. I (obviously) used the example to point out an unhealthy user bias in that sample. Can you see what you are doing here? You are taking the worst of the worst example from a study design perspective and therefore declare the whole field of epidemiology as inadequate. Does that mean that randomized controlled trials are useless if I find you a shitty one? Look, there is good reason to shittalk epidemiology and I have done so multiple times in the past. However, the truth is that there are extremely well designed epi-studies out there. The art of the good and honest scientist is to find out which data is reliable and which is not. Some epi-studies are so well designed, that the data quality is even superior to some RCT's. Black and white thinking will lead you nowhere. I agree that those kind of studies are SOMETIMES used to serve a political or corporal agenda. However, its a logical fallacy to think that now ALL epi-studies are bad. That's just not the case....and if you really think that, you need to learn more about the subject. Do you even know what the science says about veganism? I doubt that. I agree with you that some vegan groups use "SCIENCE®" to promote absurd health claims and fuel their propaganda pieces. I would include the Game Changer documentary, some of the ARTE stuff and Dr. Michael Greger/Neil Bernard in that category. But then to come out saying stuff like "linking veganism to science is false" is such a painfully stupid argument. I mean we have an abundance of data looking at all the different diets under very controlled conditions. And the truth is that vegan diets, if done properly, can be extremely healthy. In terms of some hard outcomes it still get's outperformed by mediterranian patterns, but that's it, really. There is surprisingly little discussion about what a healthy diet looks like within circles of professionals who know the data. I am not even advocating for vegan diets - I usually place emphasis on plant based, but never vegan. There is also a reason why some food-socieities dont reccommend veganism to pregnant women or children - and that's very simple. Because people are usually very bad at adherence when it comes to restrictive diet patterns. Ok, I have spent way too much time on this. Anyway, just wanted to clarify some stuff.

From an ethical standpoint, there is really no good argument to justify eating meat - or even broader, any animal product at all. I have listened to many debates about this topic since it's a question I have been intellectually wrestling with for years. In the end, if you are truly honest, veganism just trumps any proposition with the superior arguments. That said, I will still keep eating some animal products because I just enjoy the shit out of them. I do eat primarily plant based (and have been vegan before), but life without parmesan cheese, eggs or some good steak here and there just takes so much of lifes zest away for me personally. I will keep living with the cognitive dissonance and that's it. Lab grown animal products will solve this dilemma in the future. From a health perspective, things become a little bit more difficult in my opinion. The vast majority of individuals will do extremely well on a proper, whole food oriented, vegan diet. You can also argue that by cutting out most sources of saturated fat, the diet is inherently anti-atherogenic. However, there are many, many, many case reports of people reporting feeling shit after cutting out animal products. The usual counter-argument from the vegan side is that those individuals usually eat too little calories, don't supplement properly (B12, D3) or follow a ridicolous FAD-diet pattern (like raw-veganism, fruitarians etc.). I am not at all conviced by those arguments - they will explain some but not all cases. There will always be outliers who just won't fit the bellcurve. While general patterns are true (a more plant based lifestyle is health promoting), the complexities of the human body will always leave room for if's/and's/or's. We are complex biopsychosocial contructs after all. I think @Jason Actualization's case is pretty interesting. Even though I fundamentally disagree with his approach (which is inherently unscientific), one just can't ignore the effect his lifestyle-change had on his health (if he is telling the truth, which I think he does). Anyway, enough blabber from my side.

After reading through some of OPs previous posts, I second this. This sounds oddly psychosomatic, even psychotic to some degree. I would really advice OP to seek help in real life. Problems like these need to be adressed properly and through the hands of a professional. Online health advice culture is not suited for these kinds of problems.

The propensity of your hair follicles to get fucked by DHT is genetically set. Everyone has DHT, but only a few unlucky individuals start losing their 20s/30s. This is not a binary question either - your genetic blueprint kinda sets a "timer"for that kind of thing. Some will still have a full head of hair in their 70s, while most people will have to deal with thinning through the later stages of their lifes. If you have the genotype for "DHT fucks hair follucle", anything androgenic (i.e steroids) will increase the absoluite amount of androgenic substrate and the total amount of DHT - therefore it will speed up hair loss as well. Note that not every bodybuilder suffers from hair loss. Some of them still have a full head of hair after years of substace abuse. (Jay Cuttler for example) E2 is basically the antagonist to any androgenic hormone. Note that the body is a complex system, so even if you use an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane in male bodybuilders, it could come to paradox side effects which would indicate a loss of male virility. Equillibria between sex hormones seem to be as important as total numbers!

Testosterone (even at a very high levels) does NOT (in the vast majority of cases) lead to hair follicle miniaturization outside the mechanism of DHT conversion through increased substrate resourcing. The receptor site at the hair follicle is only a lose fit for the testosterone-molecule, while the paracrine DHT with the it's additional hydrogen-bond glues itself to it. The slight difference in chemical structures increases DHT's affinity for the androgen receptor two-fold and decreases the rate of dissociation five-fold relatiove to testosterone. This also leads to major differences in protein-synthesis down the line. If you block out at least 60% or more of the DHT conversion through Finasteride/Dutasteride (5-AR-inhibitors), you will stop hairloss in 80-90% of patients, regardless of their T-levels. I also dont agree with your point that one should "ignore" their test-levels when there is abundant evidence that there is a collective decline of testosterone levels in the general population, while we also know that there are various benefits of keeping it in a high-normal to high range through all stages of life.

That was a painful watch. Bernardo had tougher debates than someone saying "this was stupid" to his face. Not the best performance of my man.

Physicalism vs. Panpsychism In my humble opinion, both ontologies are clearly inferior to idealism - but still an interesting showcase of the respective blindspots. Enjoy.

Where did I say it‘s a SSRI? Not all antidepressants are of this specific group. Mirtazapine is a tetracyclic antidepressant okay, in that case I would say it’s propably just a random fluctuation

What do you mean with "increased slightly"? How high was your testosterone in previous measurements? It is evident that most antidepressants can influence testosterone and estrogen level - but a random fluctiation might be more likely.

Enlightened Neo-advaitans & theravada-buddhists when the barbarians have invaded and burnt down their village and captured their wife and enslaved their children:

It's calories, period. People overconsume calorie dense products - if you control for calories and on average eat less than you spend - you will lose bodymass. That's just basic thermodynamics right there. In the literature, there are countless examples of individuals losing weight under a calorie-deficient "Twinkie" or "McDonalds" diet. The reason why most diets fail is because of physiological/psychological factors (satiety, cravings, emotional eating, lack of willpower..).There are some other factors like hormonal influences, but it's secondary to the total fuel you put in (obviously). I dont know where your intuition comes from that 2000/2500 calories is "a lot of food". Maybe you are just a sparse eater. Most people would have no problem eating a whole pizza as dinner and thats at least 1000 calories right there. Add softdrinks, snacks and 2 more whole meals to that and you are way above that limit. Processed, calorie dense foods are usually based on simple carbohydrates abd trenched in hypercaloric oils. Calories add up really fast that way. That's why eating whole foods is such a great way to cut calories. You gonna get way more "mass" for much fewer calories.

lol

Currently 6feet2" (187cm), around 87kg and I would guess around 15% body fat As I mentioned, I havent been on a vegan diet for 5+ yeras, but I was way leaner back than because I took training and calorie intake much more seriously

It's definitely not "necessary" to eat meat for optimal health. There is an individual component to it, meaning some people seem to do better with some form of animal product in their diet - but there are plenty of vegans and vegetarians who are doing great. There are a shitload of plant based athletes nowadays. I know many buffed vegans, including myself when I went vegan for a year. However, I enjoy eating meat too much

TJ went down the deep end after his YT-channel. (which was called Deathproof) He had some really good content on there because he was pretty intelligent and also highly charismatic. I remember that he started websites called deathproofuniversity (a paid program) and deathproof-solutions (a forum basically) in like 2018/2019.I was part of it at the beginning, but holy moly - that was a conspiracy cesspool like you haven't seen before. Everything was a conspiracy. EVERY. THING! He believed literally every nonsense out there - from chemtrails to flathearth to zionistic holocaust denialism to Bill Gates wants to kill us all with his vaccine. I once questioned some of the stuff he said (because he literally taught "question everything"), which led him to ban me indefinitely. He became increasingly mean towards other figures I respected, like Leo. I remember his video where he was "analyzing" Leo's 5-MeO-content and calling him the nastiest names for like 90 minutes straight. He deleted his facebook recently, I have been friends with him on that for quite a long time. He married his conspiracy partner in crime and they have have a daughter. Without a doubt a smart but propably highly narcissistic and conspiratorial mind.

"t should be noted that the ecstatic phenomenon is not consistently obtained by stimulating the dorsal AIC, as such an effect has not been reproduced in 5 of our other pharmacoresistant patients who were tested in similar conditions. In the past, this phenomenon was induced in a few patients already suffering from ecstatic seizures,"

This is true. Some genetic impacts can be influenced or even turned around through meticulous life-style changes, others are just penetrating to a degree where they won't respond to anything you do. A particular family we used to treat comes to my mind - The father had a heart attack in his mid 40's despite being a low-risk lifestyle (very fit, pretty healthy diet). Turned out he had a severe case of familial hypercholesterolemia, a genetic lipid disorder which made his LDL go up to 400-500 (Healthy levels are below 100). In fact, a family history unveiled that almost every family member on his side had at least one cardiovascular event before the age of 50. We screened his children and other close relatives - around 3/4 of them had the same disorder with extremely high lipid-parametres. The 20 year old son alerady had severe atherosclerotic plaque build up in his carotid arteries. The scary thing is that it was almost impossible to lower through any lifestyle changes whatsoever. They have tried an absurd number of different diets and alternative practices. Some of them made the problem even worse. Even statins did not seem to help. What finally changed the game was an agressive therapy with PSCK-9 inhibitors, a relatively new class of drug which mimics the genetic component in a positive way.

A beloved fever-reducing intervention from naturopathy are so called leg wraps. Recommended are wraps made of three layers. For each layer, you should use natural fabrics, as synthetic fibers do not allow air or moisture to pass through. Here's how to proceed: 1. For the first layer, soak two thin linen or cotton cloths (such as kitchen towels) in cool water, gently wring them out, and wrap one cloth tightly around each calf. 2. For the second layer, you can, for example, place two dry cotton towels over the damp wraps. 3. The final layer should be a warming one. For this, scarves or wool blankets, for instance, are suitable." 4. Lie down and repeat the process every 30 minutes until the fever goes down. However, if your fever is approaching 40°C - take the medication and don't play around. Ibuprofen, aspirin or paracetamol are perfectly safe medications if you use them for a short period of time.

Besides some very penetrating conditions (OP mentioned Huntington) we know next to nothing about the true weight of nature vs. nurture in most health problems. We do have ideas, trends and sometimes even educated guesses, but most of what we call "genetic" is based on a hypercomplex, combinatorially explosive set of influences. On the other side, I can totally relate with @Leo Gura. I also suffer from a very annoying health issue and after consulting a shitton of medical practitioners (orthodox and alternative) while also being a MD myself I find myself in position where it just feels like a genetic cause.

It's pretty easy to find out. The water we have here in Austria, especially in my hometown has equal or lower concetrantions of nitrades, pesticides, drug-residues & other chemicals than most bottled versions. This has been proven by numerous independent tests.

NNT is propably one of the most misunderstood concepts in medicine. Because it highly depends on the underlying studying design and follow up period. I will explain this in detail once I find a time window

I dont know - I do have some friends who work with alternative approaches to bipolar disorders and they get pretty decent results with it. However, I am not a psychiatrist - so I am the wrong person to ask that question

I think you are a tragic case of someone who thinks he is "beyond" science but actually regressed into a pre-rational state. Going beyond the scientific echochamber (which exists) is possible, but requires a deep & specific expertise thereof. In every discussion we have had so far, you have not only shown a complete lack of knowledge relating to the basic epistemologlical processes of science and medical data interpretation, but also a willful ignorance towards fact that you are clueless. Science can be corrupt, scientists can be dogmatic assholes and scientism will lead you astray - but if you can't grasp the absolute necessity of the scientific method and good data approximating real world phenomena, then you are just another dude who has lost the plot in a complex world. It's tragic, because I have read some pretty smart things from you and I still think you are a smart guy.

Water