toasty7718

I will say this again Jason. I won't believe what you say until you provide better evidence than "it makes me feel good." the people on this forum are also smarter than that.

I'd be considered an adult if I was Jewish

@Princess Arabia absolutely. that's why nuance is such an important thing in the realm of data-analyzation

Okay, From what it seems to me, you're very passionate about your beliefs and you seem to be dead-set in your personal anecdotes for the diet you're preaching. That's fine. What I'm mostly worried about is you preaching this diet to the people on the forum and saying that it is the way to best way to eat and that this will reverse their chronic diseases. I understand why you're coming from this place given your own experience, but based on the evidence done on MILLIONS of people, the epidemiology of this diet seems to result in unfavorable health outcomes. Not to mention it demonizes many food groups and will most likely lead to an eating disorder for most people. For someone who isn't very well versed in nutrition, they might see your posts and start eating in a way that will, worst case scenario, have their risk of CVD and cancer increase drastically. Or, they could see the short-term benefits that you've seen, I'm not denying that. But do remember, misinformation kills people. Let's start with your claims: If everyone told you that smoking cigarettes was highly addictive and hazardous to your health yet when you smoked a pack a day you felt happier, more clear, more energized, and well-rounded, would you still continue smoking cigarettes despite what the evidence says? This is wrong on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin. First off, this is just a blatant appeal to nature fallacy. Might I remind you of a little thing called Antagonistic Pleiotropy? This is the biological phenomenon wherein an individual's genes will favor and select for traits that prioritize short-term survival and reproductive success over long-term survival. As you know, genetics are a tricky and counter-intuitive thing. Many things effect whether genes are turned on and turned off, so you can't just boil things down to genetics, enviornment and diet play a huge part in it. It's very individualized. Each one of us has a unique biology - even identical twins! Identical twins who grew up in a different environments will have different genetics. With that in mind, this is the reason behind how eating an ancestral diet will result in long-term detrimental health outcomes. TLDR: we shouldn't look to the amount of polyunsaturated fat our ancestors ate, we need something more robust. This is where human outcome data comes into the mix of things I'll link here some meta-analysis studies done regarding polyunsaturated fat intake and oxidation / chronic disease. I'm well aware that me and your views differ drastically when it comes to the hierarchy of evidence, but I'm mostly doing this in case others want to see it for themselves. On one hand we have close to half a million participants health outcome data (more on that later), and then we have you and your anecdotal experience. I'm not dismissing your own experience by any means, what I'm trying to get across is the fact that the epidemiology of what your preaching seems to be in direct contradiction. This is also blatantly wrong on so many levels. Here are the two studies that many people who share your beliefs about saturated fat might cite. It's also why the Time Magazine Issue titled "Eat Butter" came out an generated a media firestorm. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/ These studies looked at people who eating varying amounts of saturated fat and they found they had similar rates of CVD. It's hard to see through this type of study because of many confounding factors (the people on the low saturated fat group may have been eating other things that contributed to that outcome). Here's a study done to clarify the findings of the previous one. Harvard researchers told people to limit their SFA intake and replace it with PUFAs and MUFAs from nuts and seeds, and what they found was that they had lower rates of CHD risk. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593072/ "Higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and carbohydrates from whole grains were significantly associated with lower risk of CHD" They also had a group that ate refined grains and what they found is that their risk remained the same. So, we can conclude that the previous two studies linked above weren't robust enough and when SFA is replaced with healthier forms of fat, risk of CVD goes down. But that's CVD risk, what about oxidative stress? I'd assume by oxidative stress you're also inferring that this leads to atherosclerosis like you said in previous posts, but there simply isn't enough evidence to say with absolute certainty that this is the case yet. What we need is a multitude of repeated RCTs and human outcome data before we can say something like that for sure. The best metric we have currently is ApoB, which I will cover later. Anyways, here are the effects of high polyunsaturated fat diets and CVD risk: This epidemiological study analyzed 521,120 individuals and here were their findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33853582/ "Consumption of butter and margarine was associated with higher total and cardiometabolic mortality. Replacing butter and margarine with canola oil, corn oil, or olive oil was related to lower total and cardiometabolic mortality. Our findings support shifting the intake from solid fats to non-hydrogenated vegetable oils for cardiometabolic health and longevity." Finally, a Cochrane systematic review, a HIGHLY respected medicine journal that pooled together all available randomized clinical trials done on this topic. It had to meet certain criteria of course, like having to be compared with a higher saturated fat intake, intending to reduce SFA intake or include MUFAs or PUFAs, lasting at least 2 years. Here were their results. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/full "Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events." But this is epidemiology. Isn't this inaccurate? No. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34308960/ "Comparing both bodies of evidence from Cohort Studies, the difference in the results was also small (RRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.96). Our findings suggest that bodies of evidence from randomized control trials and cohort studies are often quantitatively concordant. Prospective systematic reviews in nutrition research should include, whenever possible, bodies of evidence from randomized control trials and cohort studies on dietary intake and biomarkers of intake to provide the whole picture for an investigated diet-disease association." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/8803500/bin/nmab095fig1.jpg What about ApoB as a metric for CVD? What is ApoB? ApoB is a marker of atherogenic lipoprotein particles in our bloodstream. Here's a study from the lancet that shows high levels of ApoB increases risk for CVD and life-span. They got their data from the UK Biobank and it has approximately 500,000 participants. To verify their hypothesis, they replicated the estimates from the UK Biobank using mendelian-randomization (a type of study that analyzes the genetic predisposition of participants). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(21)00086-6/fulltext "In conclusion, our evaluation of apoB using outcomes in first-degree relatives identified that higher apoB is detrimental to lifespan and increases the risk of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle and pharmacological approaches to lowering apoB should have widespread beneficial effects, including preventing common diseases and prolonging life." So how do PUFAs and MUFAs contribute to the lowering of APoB? This is a review done on eighty-seven studies. Here is what they found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27821191/ "Replacement of carbohydrate by MUFA, not SFA, decreased plasma apoB. Moreover, dietary enriching with n-3 fatty acids [PUFAS] (FA) (from fish: 1·1-1·7 g/d or supplementation: 3·2-3·4 g/d EPA/DHA or 4 g/d EPA), psyllium (about 8-20 g/d), phytosterols (about 2-4 g/d) or nuts (30-75 g/d) also decreased plasma apoB, mostly in hyperlipidaemic subjects" I'll leave you with some of principles regarding SFA: - It's a dose-dependent response, dose matters, there's a threshold effect associated with it - What you replace it with also matters - Source matters. Fish, dark chocolate, olive oil are high in SFA and the health outcomes are overwhelmingly positive. The same can't be said for something like margarine or butter. But even that's not to mention saturated fat is surface level. We want to analyze the health effects of foods over the macros and micro. My goal here is to give others on this forum a more evidentially-based approach to their health that will, in all likelihoods, result in favorable health outcomes based on the evidence that we have. This brings us back to your anecdote. I have no doubts about how you feel healthier and happier after removing PUFAs from your diet, but how exactly would you know that that was the ONE and ONLY thing that caused you to reverse your eosinophilic esophagitis? What if you have a microbiome that doesn't respond well to fiber, for example? Point is, the way you're presenting your argument for everyone changing their diet because you got individual gains in a way that can have a multitude of confounding factors and goes against what the overwhelming majority of the studies say is ignorant at best and fatal at worst. I really think you should approach this topic with more nuance and less absolute certainty. I'll state again: misinformation kills people my friend. What you're doing isn't a favor, it's a disservice.

I have my issues with the psychiatric system mostly due to the fact that I personally know many people who were fucked over by anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. That's a topic for another time though.

Can you provide a proposition to this statement and clarify it?

I watched the same interview. Great video, Martin ball is an amazing teacher

Offer me your evidence and explain why it's superior to mine

I set it to ignore his posts at this point. I agree with you all the way on this.

Be careful - this dries out your hair if you don't dilute it.

For the love of god, start giving us evidence for your bullshit propositions then we'll start to take you seriously.

@Ayham weigh in on this

This is amazing. Thank you so much!

Someone needs to lock this thread

Supplementing on Vitamin B and Vitamin B12 isn't a heroic effort lol some vegans may need to take more, like DHA, but generally all other nutrients are adequate from it.

Masculine energy is directed, looking to solve problems, warrior based & journeyed & competitive when added with more masculine energy. Feminine energy is beautiful, always in motion, with no straight lines (the essence of nature itself) and expanding when added with more feminine energy My belief is that these different types of archetypal energies respond in their own unique ways to states of consciousness that have massive energetic flows and releases (psychedelics, deep meditation, yoga, etc.) Most religious traditions are also patriarchal and created by men for men. With the releasing into the energy of psychedelics some women recount how it became highly sexual, where surrender allowed them to release into the divine energy of God. When it comes to sex, feminine energies usually release, open themselves up, and surrender, whereas masculine energies try to maintain energetic control and poise.

Say, hypothetically, we do a similar thing but with much more complexity to it in a way that simulates reality. What are your thoughts on that? Would those neurons be conscious?

"Just go to the gym bro trust me." His situation is a lot more complex and nuanced than you may think it is.

Damn, you beat me to it Not only is kombucha a fermented tea with no added sugars (usually it's sweetened with fruit juices), it's also loaded with tons of beneficial gut bacteria.

There are just sooo many complex rules when it comes to texting, especially when it's with a member of the opposite sex. You may be wondering things like "is it okay to double text? Triple text? Respond instantly? Take 15 minutes to respond?" But the thing to remember here is that nobody plays by the same rulebook when texting! Fundamentally - communication is the act of sending and receiving signals, which goes both ways. Instead of worrying too much about how you should respond to the text or what you should send, try to read the text instead. Analyze what they say critically. If they say something that upsets you, then take a step back and ask yourself what they really meant by sending this. Think for just a moment, analyze it critically, and try to give them the charitable interpretation. Trying to upset you may not have been their intention at all. Texting lacks tone, body language, sarcasm, emotions, etc. it's why emojis were invented in the first place. What if they don't respond to your messages instantly? Realize that texting is solely about convenience. The point of a text is to send a message anytime that can be read or responded to at anytime. if you want an instant response, then call them, don't use texting. What if they ghost you? Well, what's the length of time that is considered "ghosting?" One week, one month? Something may have happened in their life and they didn't remember to text you back. Try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Here's the main insight I'm trying to get at: you can't control anyone else's behavior. This is a futile effort that will lead to frustration, among other things. Try to stop the habit of texting to try to illicit a certain type of response. People have all sorts of rules that are geared towards getting a certain type of response from the other person, like not double texting and so forth. The goal of communication is to accommodate the other person but to also represent yourself and what you want. It's not about a certain outcome, it's about communication with another human being.

This looks like a philosopher from the mid 20th century, someone like Alan Watts

I think that when the US legalizes weed and psychedelics at the federal level, the rest of the world will follow suit, aside from places like the Middle East and Asia. The US was and still is one of the world's superpowers. When they started the war on drugs, most other countries also jumped on board with it as well.

@Leo Guradid he reply?

@Michael569 This is why you have some of the most respect here on this forum my friend

Literally replace that with "Sri Ramakrishna after laying down once" and it would still make sense