Michael569

I took a deep dive into that topic on my blog about a year ago. Basically the "feminising effects of soy" are just a mechanistic myth. Never been proven to happen. We have hundreds of thousands of people worth longitudinal data spanning across decades and most of them show only favourable (or neutral) effects of soy consumption. Even when testosterone levels are looked into in regular soy consumers, there just isn't difference. If anything DHT levels are lower which is beneficial as a protection from prostate cancer. Maybe. But phytoestrogens are not the same as oestrogens. They don't behave the same way. They don't dock as readily to oestrogen receptors as readily. And even if they do, they un-dock much quicker. In Japanese populations, soy consumption is often proxy for high sodium intake (e.g. eating soy sauce, miso and natto) that's the real issue here. Not the soy itself but the fact that people just eat too many of these fermented hypersalted foods. This is the same concern with pickles and pickled olives. There is an epidemic of stomach cancer in there. Japan has the highest rates o stomach cancer in the world (at least they did, maybe they are not number one anymore). That's probably more severe. I believe in terms of heart disease, salt alone is not sufficient to cause it. In western diet salt is proxy for things like red meat , processed meat and hyper-palatable diets which is the real issue. Japanese tend to be more pescetarian in nature so maybe their high DHA and relatively low caloric intake is protecting them despite the salt intake. But I have to admit I am not familiar with the Japanese epidemiology research when it comes to CVD.

Embrace the training, you may learn something new and stop whining about it Be grateful that you got the job. Plenty of people are struggling to find jobs for months (even years) and we are talking about qualified people. If shit like that is what it takes to keep an income then you do that until you've figured out how to be the sole provider of your own income without needing to be an employee. It's what all of us have to go through who are employed by large companies. Most stage orange companies don't really care about your professional growth other than to make you a more efficient money maker or money saver. They don't care about your personal level of development, although they may seem like they do. Individual growth is an individual responsibility that happens behind the scenes. It all comes down to "how to make employees better cogs to make us more $$$" Btw you'd be surprised how many people don't know how to use Outlook for anything other than sending and reading emails.

@StarStruck watch that video I linked above. I think he makes a decent case. Single study can't spit in the face of larger and more robust evidence that we already have.

Great example. I agree with everything you said there. It is very likely that the same compound that makes nuts so healthy is the same compound we blame in oils as "toxic" , linolenic acid. There might be other polyphenolic compounds but who's to say they are not in seed oils either? Yes, maybe they do. Let's agree that they do. But then you gotta ask "what is the concern with oxidation?" Is it a higher cancer risk? - PUFAs reduce cancer risk Is it a higher heart disease risk? - PUFAs reduce heart disease risk And you have to assume that in those studied where food frequency questionnaires are taken, they account for the fact that most people use PUFAs for cooking and frying so the oxidative factor is already involved. And yet they still come on top of saturates. Does not change the outcomes we discussed. Despite all of that, these oils do promote better health outcomes for people. Regardless of the mechanism. Regardess of the processing. Also, how do you know these methods make them unhealthier? Maybe they stabilise them in a way. Maybe they trigger internal antioxidant response to a degree that they actually benefit us. Like a hormetic effect. All foods do this. In order for an organism to thrive, it needs to be frequently put under the stress of adaptation. .....maybe all that oxidation actually somehow benefits us. Who knows. Either way, it does not seem to matter. But let's take another perspective. How much oil does an average person eat a day? A tablespoon? Maybe 2? It is a tiny proportion of calories. Now compare that to the number of saturated fats people eat and how much foods like steak, dairy and eggs take up from their caloric volume. Lot of these foods are still made on oils. Yes olive oil but if I am being honest, I don't think there is much difference between EVOO and safflower or rapeseed oil. It has just been marketed way more and tastes slightly better. Maybe the vit E content is also slightly higher which is definitely beneficial. But I don't assume to know the full scope yet. This is a very difficult topic to get into because it requires a high level of understanding of statistics and research methods as well as the knowledge of cardiology. This is a topic where I don't quite like the "see how you feel" approach because you don't "feel" plaque building up inside your arteries. We just have too much evidence pointing the way towards saturated fats being harmful for us to just discount it and rely on carnivore quacks on the internet and their mechanistic speculative theories. I think in here, we need to actually rely on empirical data and learn from the stories of those who went before us. And so far, the stories are mostly pointing towards one way. But hey, to each their own. In the end we are all masters of our own fate.

I gotta ask, why not just sign up with the gym? Especially since it sems like you are trying to replicate many exercises that would be much easier to do in there. You can still do bodyweight now you can then enrich your routine with few complex moves to stimulate more hypertrophy. But maybe that's not desirable so ignore this if not. Either way, I admire your dedication. Hope you'll achieve your goals whatever they may be

Are you healthy? If the answer is yes, then you don't need any tests and all that'll cause are just unnecessary anxieties. Doctors won't waste insurance claims on you if you don't experience any symptoms. Unless you go private which is always on-step into woo woo land if one is not careful. It is important not to test just for the sake of testing. Remember many tests are not accurate representation of long-term health homeostasis anyway. Focus on your diet & lifestyle with priority and you won't need to be tested.

I am yet to take a proper deep dive into the topic myself, it is planned for early next year as a part of my social media strategy so I'll know more then. But as of today I don't believe they are harmful, in fact they are probably health-promoting. Low intake of Omega 3 appears to be a much bigger issue than high intake of Omega 6. People with highest consumption of Linolenic Acid (main Omega 6 in oils) consistently show better health outcomes for heart disease, Alzheimer's & dementia, cancer and diabetes. I no longer think the ratio is important. Sufficient intake of Omega 3 is more important. Not something I'm concerned with anymore. If the oxidization was harmful, we would again see people who consume the highest amounts of seed oils have the worst health.....and we'll they don't. Once you start replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, people get better (statistically speaking). We keep hearing about non-oxidising saturated fats yet highest consumption of saturated fats is associated with poorer health outcomes...I wonder why that is/ why is that a bad thing? half of the stuff we eat these days is processed but that does not make it bad either. Tofu is processed, dark chocolate is processed, canned mackerel is processed, and nutritional yeast is processed. I wouldn't say any of those are particularly unhealthy. Processing doe snot necessarily make foods worse. In fact, sometimes it makes certain nutrients more bioavailable and allows for a higher concentration of other components. It is overindulgence on sugar-loaded process foods or those that contain trans fats that I see as the real issue. Fibre deficiency as well perhaps. But I am not yet as confident on this topic as I'd like to be. I would suggest you watch some of "The Nutrivore"'s content if you want to learn more from someone who has gone down this rabbit hole.

yeah if you read my comments from 5 years ago, lot of it would seem like someone else was writing that What made me change my mind was just becoming more comfortable interpreting the longitudinal data and also relaxing lot of my previous anxieties about foods, food groups, toxins etc. I feel like in many things I've come back full circle. I've generally taken a step back from many things and have been taking a more chilled approach. Mentally speaking I feel much better not obsessing as much anymore. I believe such approach is also better for my clients so that I can offer less biased perspective. My diet is still about 95% plant-based I would say but I'm not giving myself hard time for occasional deviations anymore. Also, with cheese generally, unless people are loading 200grams of it on pizza each day or eating a block of cheddar I don't think it will lead to negative health outcomes (for non-allergic people). Cheese can actually often be proxy for healthy diet when used in a sort of Mediterranean type of eating (as pointed out by @Yarco above) People in traditional MeDi environment would eat cheese with lots of vegetables, oily fish, olive oil, legumes and on wholemeal products. In such combinations, more cheese often meant more fibre and more polyphenols so it would turn out to be beneficial, even tho (maybe) the positive health outcomes actually have nothing to do with the cheese itself and everything to do with it being a proxy for other healthy foods....maybe. If having more cheese allows you to have a bigger portion of vegetables, then go for it. I have a huge issue with modern nutritional reductionism such as "all seeds oils are bad bro" or "it is the gluten bro" "keto is the best bro, carbs are evil". I think we need to take a step back and look at the overall constitution of the diet rather than bickering over individual groups. Certain groups should still be treated with caution (red meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, trans fats, very high-fat dairy consumed in very high amounts etc) but overall I am kinda gradually leaning towards food guidelines model (with slight modification) as I see that the most realistic way to make members of general public who are not health nerds to eat healthily and not become a victim of premature loss of human life due to poor dietary choices. Unless there are existing ethical concerns, for example about not wanting to eat animal produce. Such a decision supersedes the above. Hope that makes sense

Cheese might be one of the foods where the benefits might outweigh the potential negative outcomes. (when eaten in moderation) When eaten in moderation, cheese consumption can offer an additional protection from colorectal cancer and has, I believe even been shown to mediate levels of LDL cholesterol. Small amounts mean around 25 grams a day which is very little if you weight it up. Go for high quality and avoid any form of highly processed shit cheese. Pay for premium. Use it as a taste additive and enjoy it when you have it Ofcourse this argument does not account for ethics. I was talking purely about health implications.

This is a mechanistic theory that started in the 90s when phytoestrogens were discovered and a biological resemblance to mammalian oestrogens was observed. Since then, multiple studies have taken a dive into trying to keep it regular soy consumers have lower testosterone levels, and they don't. There are several reasons (mechanistically speaking) why phytoestrogens don't behave the same way oestrogens do: biological hormones are tightly regulated system by the so-called HPO-Axis (Hypothalamus-pituitary-gonads), and while some foods may have a negligible and temporary effects on them, overall, this is a closed loop and tightly regulated, although synthetic hormones (e.g. oral contraceptive pills or HRT/TRT) can interact to a significant degree The docking of phytoestrogens to Oestrogen Receptors is short-lived (about 1/1000th of the duration of Oestrogen docking) Phytoestrogen preferentially docks to Oestrogen Receptor Beta (ERβ), which is associated with cancer prevention. In contrast, excessive docking to Oestrogen Alpha Receptor may be associated with breast cancer, prostate cancer and ovarian cancer (it is more complex than that). Having too much natural biological oestrogen produced by the body or having oestrogen being recycled before being eliminated (extreme concern on low fibre diets) or just having a health condition that leads to this - can be a driving mechanism for oestrogen-driven cancers Phytoestrogens are also found in legumes, mushrooms and even some fruits and vegetables - would you say those make men feminine? I would argue they don't. People who consume less soy tend to consume more things like beef, which has been associated with increased colorectal cancer risk across epidemiological research. Maybe soy is just a proxy for a healthier lifestyle rather than having any impact; that is certainly a possibility. People eating more soy will tend to (probably) eat more vegetables, fruits, oily fish and less meat and saturated fat. Men who eat more soy are more protected from cancer of all kinds, especially prostate, lung and gastrointestinal systems. If soy were driving the feminisation of men, you would see a high amount of gynaecomastia (man boobs) in populations like Japanese and well..you don't. At least not until we started feeding them Mcdonald's and beef burgers. I would argue that the feminisation of men is caused by obesity, excessive calories and a shit diet. (soz for the long technicla post, but I hope that helps clear it out) - if you want to see some references, I wrote an entire in-depth two-part series on this here and here.

ah I remember the first time I tried Brendan's pizza I was like "wtf is this shit" but with good processor it can be made into an amazing meal. Good book

Good list overall but I'd remove soy from the negative list. Soy is an extremely health promoting food and all the fearmongering about phytoestrogens needs to die. Soy actually increases levels of SHBG-bound testosterone and normalises levels of DHT (both are protecting you from benign prostatic hyperplasia. Not sure about fish, eggs and garlic - I don't think either has been proven but maybe through their zinc content? It is possible. Perhaps mor like "normalise" rather than increase. For men who are already at healthy levels and have no symptoms of hypogonadism excessive stimulation via artificial means could be asking for trouble.

Sweet. One pot cooking rules

Short term usage is safe but long term can cause issues. Obviously for a fever that is extremely high (above 39 degrees) they may help but for milder colds and flus, usually not needed. They may even slow down the healing. There are herbs that have comparable efficacy for mild to moderate colds such as elderflower and echinacea. Short periods of sickeness are totally normal and usually don't require meds. Just take it easy, drink a lot of liquids, rest and it'll go away. As already said above by Eric and others, chronic overuse of this stuff can be extremely toxic and problematic. If you are having to use painkillers daily make every attempt to identify and eliminate the root cause driving the pain/inflammation rather than use this stuff to mask it up

This stuff is mostly hit & miss. I've been very disappointed with how overhyped these things are being, considering the real evidential basis is extremely low. The price tags some companies put on mushrooms are just outrageous, considering one is often buying overpriced polysaccharides grown in a warehouse on haystack, not in woodlands. If you want to cognitively optimise, take cold showers, optimise sleep, and daylight exposure, practice regular mindfulness, avoid using social media early in the morning and clean up your diet. Supplements are less than 1%

You know these are all great points and it makes a lot of sense to, for some people, do it that way. If you have a very high-stress tolerance and can cope with a massive amount of pressure without burning up, then this is probably a good strategy. I wouldn't be able to handle that sort of lifestyle not even for a year because my stress threshold is generally lower so a lower stress environment with a good work-life balance is preferable and I'm willing to take a pay cut any day to protect my mental health. But then I know people who thrive in that sort of environment for years without any consequences so it is very much individual. If that works for you then go for it

I feel ya. I'm in the same boat at the moment. Working in corporate finance on useless projects that seem as relevant as collecting cigarette butts from the streets and decorating my house with them. It is hard, especially when you try to build a conscious business that does not get corrupted or seduced by get-rich-quick schemes, marketing or poor salesmanship. Sometimes the first step is not necessarily leaving your 9-5 tho. It is about finding a more chilled 9-5 where you can focus on the work that matters even if it means taking a pay cut. I could have been paid twice the amount I have right now and could have had a managerial role years ago but I reject all offers because my current job still offers a degree of freedom and some time to work on my business. That's worth more than working 11 hours for more money and having no freedom. I don't think there is an easy way to make this transition other than grind year after year and just aim to get a little bit better each month.

Your lungs can deal with an acute short-term offence. Just make sure to wear protective clothing and high-quality respirator the next time you do something like that I worked with a guy from construction industry once who told me that for over 20 years he has never been told to wear respirators and that he believes that was contributing to his severe ADHD & anxiety attacks through all that inhaled toxicity. It was definitely a possibility. But in your case, you'll be fine. You can take some NAC for a short time to boost your glutathione production and toxin removal. Lungs can take a lot of impact before becoming diseased. Just think how long most smokers inhale before first problems occur. although we could say that through our evolutionary history we are more adapted to detoxifying combustible particles than synthetic chemicals.

or maybe it is the evolution of the societies, cruelty, liberation from oppression and the unsustainability of endless territorial expansion on the expense of other free populations that made once large empires like Roman or Ottoman crumble. Most of the descendants of once great civilisations are still around tho Pretty sure chlorella had nothing to do with it

damn, imagine trying to have a normal life following all that advice. Sounds like a recipe for endless health anxiety and phobia If you are otherwise healthy, I would burn that book. If not, pick the stuff that other books have also talked about, be sceptical about the rest. Always important to expose yourself to many sources and then balance it out. Also note that one of the easiest ways to make money in health industry is to "rock the boat" harder than everyone before you, offer an "extraordinary solution" and convinced enough people to believe you. Pretty sure people who get better on medical medium do so because they switch from shit diet to somewhat of a high fibre diet, raw diet and for a short term that works for everyone. You don't hear from all of those who fail on it.

You might have been misdiagnosed the first time since nothing showed up in the consecutive years. OA is rarely diagnosed in people below 50. Yes you definitely want MRi, not X-ray for something like that. Your nutrition definitely did not cause that, especially not at 26. OA takes decades to develop even in the most predisposed individuals and once you have it, you need a surgical replacement because the worn-out cartilage cannot be regrown or repaired. It is either a misdiagnosis or something completely different. Joints can be painful for many reasons. Get a second opinion.

fasting is rarely the cure to long-term bloating. With severe restrictions, that fatigue may become even more profound and causes of bloating could be many or few, usually related to microbiome balance, the nutritional composition of your food, stress, heavy use of antibiotics in the past, long-term low fibre diet being replaced for high fibre diet etc. Still, worth experimentation just caution is always advised to not restrict your calories severely and for too long as it may impact the menstrual cycle, mood and sleep.

Maybe you could just read a good nutrition book. Courses are good if you want to be a therapist or a coach otherwise the cost might be hard to justify. For self-calibration, some books are pretty good.

When it comes to blue -green and green algae, majority claims are either made up completely or mechanistic speculations from in vitro studies are being exaggerated and extrapolated to human biology. I would be highly cautious with supplementing high amounts of this stuff since we very little clinical data on dosages, long term safety and it really being more than just an expensive green poo. And the heavy metal detoxication has never been verified properly in humans either, it is just something that naturopaths are spreading without a spec of evidence. You actually want high quality research and clinical safety data when embarking on something as aggressive as detoxication of heavy metals. Half assing can cause more damage than benefit

Don't make the mistake of thinking she will always want to be lead tho. Sometimes women like to take charge too. One of the traits of toxic masculinity is the need to always be the one that is in charge. There is a fine balance there