undeather

This is the one I guess? Richard Purdy - YouTube Quick feedback: 1) You need to invest in better audio/video equipment.The audio in particular is absolutely terrible. There is so much self-help content out there - if you really want to grow your channel, this is an absolute must have. 2) You have zero on-screen charisma. Nobody will watch your videos and think: "Damn, that's how I want to be. Let's follow this guys advice, he sounds legit.". You need to work on the basics: Presentation skills, story-telling, body-language, tonality etc.. That's nothing unusual - I remember my first attempts in recording self-help content and it looked very similar! You can do it!

No, that would not be dangerous. Dont' worry about minor stuff like that. Kinda but not exactly. If you keep breathing with a normal pace, your CO2 will slowly come up towards your "normal" level and equalize at that point. If you do a breathhold, the same process will happen faster (since there is no gas exchange at all) and at some point it will tip over into a hypercapnic state (higher CO2 than usual) and a measureable decrease in blood O2. Again, this is not dangerous per se but might actually trigger benificial physiolgoical adaptions like reduced inflammation. Thats why I suggested doing it with breathholds! If you practice it in a safe environment (i.e not in your bathtub) and don't suffer from a severe cardiovascular condition (heart-condition or out of whack blood pressure etc.) - then I don't think this will be very dangerous. Listen to your body and do it under your own responsibility. As you mentioned, it Can be very healing.

@Leo Gura My offer to work with you on your health issues for free is still standing by the way. Complex cases like yours are extremely interesting to me. I know you are not keen sharing private information with strangers, which is of course understandable. But if you ever change your mind, just let me know.

Yes, that's very simplified but you could put it that way! Difficult to tell if it's necessary. Personally, I would include the breathhold - it's just the way the exercise is set up in the first place. Maybe a complete breathhold is necessary to induce certain physiological changes - I don't know that. Maybe try it out and notice any subjective differences.

From what I have seen/learned so far, he won't get anything close to 10-20 years. The charges are legit but the baseline for juridical evidence in any EU country is pretty tough all things considered. This is especially true for a high-tier case with a lot of public attention. Most of the evidence brought forward against the Tates leave a lot of wiggle-room to create the illusion of plausible deniability. You can bet that he will spend crazy $$$ on the best criminal defence available. Also, I can assure you that there will be numerous voices testifying in favor of Tate. At the end of the day, I fear that it will end up in a scenario where it's claims vs claims with high quantity but low quality evidence. What most likely follows is a settlement (like leaving Romania) + some sort of financial penalty or a short jail sentence under mitigating circumstances. That's where my money is on currently!

No, Tate won't flee from Romania because that would be a super dumb idea - and he knows that. Romania is part of the EU - so fleeing the country would trigger a EU wide arrest warrant. He would basically deny himself any chance of traveling to any EU country every egain. Not to mention what would happen to his properties. That's why they removed the house arrest - they KNOW he wont flee.

Oh my sweet summer child

You mention 4 spiritual popstars and even those would not agree with each other frequently. Broaden your horizon. The spiritual beef about who is actually "right" has been going on since the old sages of the Indus-valley were dissing each other in sacred texts. Take one master out of each buddhist traditon (theravada, mahayana, zen, tibethan..) and it would end with a lot of bloody noses...

Ralston could be the slightly autistic twinbrother of Jed McKenna. Both follow a very similar, hyper rational, cut through the "bullshit" teaching style. But of course, this comes at a cost. In my opinion, Ralston lacks an integral component in his framework. His heuristic does not leave room for psychodelics. A overreliance on contemplation is what ultimately limits any further breakthroughs. That said, I think he is an impeccable teacher. If you are new or an intermediate and want to make progress fast, he is propably one of the best ones out there.

I am a PhD holder and I find this thread offensive

When you do your deep & fast breaths, the arteries in your head will constrict (=vasoconstriction), which is a normal physiological response. Now imagine we put your head in a f-MRI machine and measure the blood volume in your brain while you are doing the exercise. We would notice that the amount of total blood volume is actually not decreasing as much as the increase in vasoconstriction would indicate - that's only possible if the blood flow slows down in general and this has some very important impact on oxygenation. As your arteries narrow, your ICP (intracranial pressure aka the pressure in your skull) goes down - we know that a sudden decrease in ICP can cause symptoms like light-headedness and even euphoria. This is pretty advanced physiology - most doctors would have no clue about it. It's not important to understand,really Your body doesn't need concious control. All vital, vegetative functions like breathing, digesting, even urination etc. work completely on their own and don't need any kind of deliberate interference. Most of the day, breathing just happens in the background and you dont even notice it for the most part. However, self-conciousness allows some top-down control: Let's imagine you could hold your breath until you pass out. That would be a "concious overwrite" over the mostly unconcious drive to breathe. The body would send you signals like air hunger - but you could definitely fight against those. At some point however, you will shut down and go unconcious - as soon as this happens, automatic vegetative functions will regain control and your body will breathe at exactly the speed & intensity it needs. If you would not faint, you could pontentially hold your breath until you suddenly drop dead. That wouldn't be very smart, right? So in that context, fainting is a safety mechanism that keeps "you" from killing yourself! Equalizing gravitational forces means that your heart always has to pump blood UP your brain, which is at the highest point of your body. So it needs to pump hard enough so it can overcame gravitational forces which exert a downwards pull. When you pass out, you usually end up flat on the floor. This means that there are no more gravitational forces to overcome and it's easier for your body to distribute blood. Let's imagine you visit a BJJ-class and the beautiful female instructor puts you in a chokehold and starts to squeeze really hard. This would cut off the main blood supply from your brain and result in an abrupt decrease in blood pressure above the choking point. In your brain & throat there are sensors that would register such drop in blood pressure and activate the saftey mechanism: which is you pass out! Your brain doesn't know you are getting chocked. It registers a "low blood"-situation and wants equalize as fast as possible. This does not mean however, that you are lacking oxygen - the lack of oxygen is not the cause for you going unconcious.

Altered states of conciousness during breathwork are not uncommon. Stan Grof, the psychodelic pioneer, wrote a great book about this, called "Holotropic breathwork". What actually causes these kind of experiences remains up to speculation. I am not a materialist, so any "hallucinating brain"-explanation is pure nonsense in my opnion. There have been several studies which indicate that DMT is endogenously produced in various tissues across the body of mammals (like the pineal gland). Maybe certain breathwork-techiques release some DMT-storage in specific individuals? Maybe. Another possible explanation could be the inhibiting effect on certain brain regions. Like most psychodelics, breathwork seems to decrease activity in default mode network - associated brain regions. If we would take conciousness as the fundamental "thing" of reality and the brain as some reducing-valve, then this would be a pretty coherent hypothesis imo. Anyway, this is all speculation! But those are my thoughts!

Kids, I think it's time to go outside and touch some grass - maybe leave that spiritual stuff behind for some time.

I would generally consider myself on the "less meat is better" side. However, there are important caveats to make: 1) Does-response: I don't see any good-quality evidence (except ethical reasons) against low meat consumption (1-2x/week). 2) What kind of meat & cooking method you are using is pivotal 3) Some meats show health promoting effects (especially fish) 4) I have seen enough anecdotes to conclude that some people just do better on some form of meat-intake (whatever the mechanism might be is unclear, could be psychological as well) 5) Showing that chemical X found in meat is somewhat associated with all kinds of negative health consquences is interesting but insufficient. It's like the carnivore bro's on youtube telling us that antinutrients like phytic acid will kill your baby. 6) Fermented milk products like some cheeses or yoghurt are associated with reduced mortality

Now it will get complicated What this guy says is half true and kinda deceiving: Hyperventilation (and the subsequent drop in CO2) ALSO leads to vasoconstriction, which ends up in a relative reduction of blood flow to your brain. This is one of the reasons why you might feel lightheaded/dizzy during the inhale/exhale-part of the exercise. However, the decrease in total cebreal blood volume is not concordant, indicating a decrease in blood-stream velocity. This is important. Also, your intracranial pressure goes down during that phase, which also adds to the symptoms you experience. This DOES not mean that your brain suddenly "lacks oxygen" - that's a nonsense conclusion as I have already stated. A real lack of oxygen would lead to a breakdown of the mitochondrial respiratory chain and finally the demise of the affected cells. Your body has safety mechanisms in place so that this exact thing does not happen as long as blood is actively circulating. Fainting is one of those safety mechanisms because it immedieatly stops any concious overwrite (like deliberate deep/long breaths) of put's you flat on the floor (equalizing gravitational forces throughout the body). Also, as your breathing exercise intensifies - you will release increasing levels of nitrous oxide, which mechnistacally counteract the constriction. When somebody puts you in choke-hold - you pass out. Is the underlying cause a "lack of oxygen"? - No! It's an automated mechanism due to a neurologically induced drop in blood pressure and/or a decrease in heart rate. This phenomenon is called reflex/vasovagal-syncope. You could argue that this is an relative decrease in oxygen but not an absolute - however, absolute lack is what counts! Also, the feeling in your extremities (the "tingling") is not caused by a lack of oxygen, but by increased blood pH (Respiratory alkalosis), which causes a decrease in free ionized calcium (which binds to albumin in a higher pH-environment). The lowered extracellular concentration of free Ca2+ ions increases the excitability of muscle cells as a result -> which is what you feel. TL;DR: Don't worry - breathe motherfucker!

Deep breathing exercises do not make you "lack oxygen", that's nonsense. Typically, the Wim-Hof method is a centered around alternating phases of deep/fast breaths & a subsequent breathhold. During the hyperventilation phase (deep/fast breaths), you will offload a lot of CO2 (carbon-dioxide) and hypersaturate the blood with O2 (oxygen). Low CO2 will slightly increase the pH level of your blood. This increases the binding affinity("strength") between your blood's hemoglobin and the oxygen-molecules (the so called Bohr-effect). This means that your blood is now on full fuel-efficiency mode: There is more than enough oxygen for your tissues, so it hold's onto it more tightly- you dont wan't to overwork your cells with too much oxygen! When you start your breathhold - the exact opposite will happen! Your CO2 slowly raises - the pH drops to a more acidic state. This lowers the binding affinity and makes your oxygen diffuse more easily into cells/tissues. If you hold your breath for a very long time, your measureable oxygen level will decrease, but so does the binding affinity (how strong the blood holds onto the oxygen) - that means it will give away it's oxygen wayy easier! Your end-consumer of oxygen (your cells!) are never in real danger of suffocating. This is a bit simplified, but it answers the question. Fun fact: The urge to breathe after a long hold is not caused by a "lack of oxygen" but an increase in CO2. (You have CO2-sensors in your brainstem!). You would have enough oxygen to survive for much longer. You can train yourself to increase CO2-tolerance. TL;DR: Your body is smart and keeps an oxygen equilibrium for your cells, no matter what. If you feel the Wim Hof method helps you in any way or form, keep practicing! You won't damage your body and it seems to come with some health effects. Nitrous oxide levels shoot trough the roof during the breathhold, which is good! Only do it in safe conditions though!

lol, Ralston is not a materialist of course. Conciousness as absolute truth is the main tenet of his teaching. He is at worst a dual-aspect monist. "Psychodelics working on brain chemistry" is just the conveyance of a proposition which could potentially work under any ontology.

The sodium component of NaCl is the one influencing the fluid regulatory system and negatively impacts blood pressure & kidney function. What makes salt so potent is that a large quantity of elemental sodium is freed up anionically once soluted in a liquid (Na+ & Cl-). Most whole foods usually contain a diverse elemental-matrix with a strong potassium component, which acts as an antagaonist for sodium. Therefore, salt is by far the most potent sodium contributor. The pathophysiology of Na+ & K+ in hypertension is interesting but very complex. I dont have time to go deeper at the moment, but let me know if you are intersted. What exactly is not clear when it comes to the CVD risk mitigation? There are dozens of studies which looked at salt intake & CVD mortality. It's built on an extremely solid mechanistical understanding and the evidence is pretty uniform. There has been a discussion about U- or J-shaped relations between low salt intake and ASCVD. However, in my opinion, if you control for underlying illness and malnutrition, this relation pretty much diasppear. Yes, there are strong deviations if you don't use gold standard measurements with 24h urine collection. However, you just gotta weigh their epistemic impact accordingly, if you know what I mean. Yep, that's true. Seed/vegetable oils are in generally pretty amazing if you use them as a substitute for more high sat.fat-sources. Yes, some LDL-outcomes surpass olive oil. However, we have so much data surrounding the health benefits of high quality olive oil which go beyond LDL. We have so much more hard endpoints to work with - like CVD-mortality, which is what actually counts if you think about. I am just a huge simp for so many reasons but I gotta go now - maybe we can discuss this deeper another time

You have to understand that there are layers to this approach. "Healthiest possible" implies a diet which is perfectly matched to your individual metabaolome. This means that in theory, there is an essential combination of macro and micronutrients that correlate 1:1 with our specific metabolic capacities and energy utilization phenotypes. I don't have to tell you that this approach is not only completely orwellian, but also practically impossible from our current scientfic standpoint. So let's move away from this insular notion towards the following question: What are healthy eating patterns? If you could break down all nutrition science into a few simple rules, then this is what that would look like: 1) Eat real foods (as minimally processed as possible) 2) Mostly plants (plant based > animal based) 3) Variety (greater > lower) 4) Not too much (energy balance) Focus on: Beans, fruits, berries, legumes, vegetables, greens, nuts & seeds, whole grains, herbs/spices If everyone on this planet would mostly adhere to those 4 simple rules, we would wipe out 1/3 of all chronic diseases in 1 year. Notice that we do not exclude any big food groups. If you want to eat some meat, go eat some meat, If you want to go vegan, go vegan. If you want to eat to that Snickers, you can occasionally do that as well. Now, you might say: Well, this is nice - but I want to go further! I am a health nut! I want specific advice and max out on my health. Alright, we can go further down: 1) For makros, aim for at least 1g-1,5g/kg protein-intake a day, primarily from plant sources. 2) Lower salt intake to ~2g a day (Go for salt replacements like potassium-chloride-salts) 3) Lower saturated fat intake, especially from animal sources, to as low as possible 4) Prefer high quality, organic, locally grown products - aim for in season products in particular. 5) Only use highest quality vegetable/see oils - especially extra virgin olive oil - generally avoid butter/ghee 6) Limit egg intake to ~1egg a day or below 7) Largely exchange meat for fatty fish or vegan options 8) Exchange simple carbs with complex carbs 9) Obtain a major part of your fat-intake from fatty plant sources like avocado, nuts, seeds.. 10) Fermented animal products like natural yoghurt or even cheese (in moderation) are okay Again- I am not telling which food you should eat or strictly avoid. I am showing you what a pattern of healthy eating looks like. Let's say you follow those suggestions for 80% of the time, then you will already be in the 95th percentile of healthy eaters. You will be fine! It's your decision if you want to go all the way or if you give yourself a treat occassionally. Personally, I really enjoy social-eating. My simple rule is to cook really healthy at home and when out with friends, I tend to feast with them. As Michael already said, your values decide what approach is the right or you. Nobody here can take that process away from you. However, if you want to take it to the absolute maximum - I can respect that. Bryan Johnson gives a pretty decent example of a "perfect diet" could look like: Cheers

I am not gonna respond to everything you said in your statement above, but let me give you some feedback right there. Generally, I am not a big fan of epidemiological data either. That said, this is not because the thing in itself is somehow "unvalid" - it's because a huge junk of epi-studies out there are just outright methodologically faulty. I think you fell down a specific rabbit hole that led you to the conclusion that epidemiology=little or no value per se. Luckily enough, one of the best papers on nutritional epistemology got published recently. It's a difficult read, but since you are a pretty smart guy, I think you can handle it. It's in my opinion the to date best description of the role of epidemiology in nutrition science. There you go: https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2023/07/13/bmjnph-2023-000650?fbclid=PAAabVUkHIq4dJzGWITtrZzUcnXyJhoIPKx7dM4Fra3_nMcGCHScotRPvglQc Then, lets quickly discuss Crohn's. The fact of the matter is that there is a pretty clear association between benificial outcomes (i.e flare up frequency and intesity) and fiber intake. It's largely based on epidemiological data, yes - but it's also in complete concordance with my and my colleagues experience as clinicians. Let me tell you that there are no 2 Crohn's patients who are the same. Everyone has a highly specific and sometimes confusingly complex underlying etiology - generally based on genetics and myriads of enviromental unfluences. I have seen patients who got significantly better after tripling their fiber intake. Contrary I can remember others who really could not handle beans and legumes well - so cutting out fiberous products was the way to go for them. Generally though, most IBD patients tend to do better on a higher fiber intake. It's all about how your specific microbiome and inflammatory mucosal response-pathophysiology responds to certain nutrients. In reality, it's a really poorly understood topic. There is a nagetice association with certain types of fiber (like Unfermented β-fructan Fibers), but we need further research to really make individual treatment decisions.

High cortisol due to stress/anxiety can cause Hb-elevation. Since all other important markers are normal, that's the most likely explanation. Either that and/or some genetic predisposition. Check it again in 3 months if you are worried.

What about the other questions?

First of all, 18mg/dL is still in the high-normal range for males, which in itself doesn't really say anything. The thing you have to understand about those those reference ranges for blood markers is how they come to exist in the first place. Most of these numbers are based on a set of values 95 percent of the normal population fall within. Meaning, if you drew random blood samples from 100 male individuals, 95 of them would have a hemoglobin between 14-18g/dL. Above and below that - you will find outliers and people with actual underlying conditions. Even if your hemoglobin was 18.5 or even 19, then this would not necessarily mean it's caused by a serious disease. Your body is in a constant flux - everything influences everythign else - a complex system unparallaled in the universe. That's why you always need to see these numbers in relation to other markers, symptoms and convergent medical findings. Questions for you: Any symptoms? What led you to the blood-screening? Any of those tested as well? - Plasma volume - RBC (Red blood cells) count - Hematocrit - MCHC/MCV - Reticulocytes - Erythropoietin - pO2 - Iron-panel Do you life in high altitude? Any big stresses/strains in your life? __________ Cupping evidence is extremely weak and mostly anecdotal - which doesn't mean it's bad. If you think it might have a benfiicial effect on you and you have the money, go for it!

Was that you driving ahead of me recently ?

Oh my sweet, sweet summer child.