Explain to me like I am 5: How is coffee bad for you?

[Carl-Richard]

On 16.12.2022 at 1:04 AM, RendHeaven said:

I find it fascinating when people suggest that eating red meat "is good for elimination diet but not for longevity" this assumes that the least inflammatory food right now is somehow inflammatory... later on? I don't intuitively see why the best food NOW and the best food 10 years from now would be different things.

Cancer and heart disease.

[Tyler Robinson]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Boom spike, boom crash. Sleepy sleepy time.

Boom, nuke. My new phrase. boom boom. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[Rob06]

I read the book "Caffeine Blues". The author did a meta-analysis of all research studies about caffeine and found that no study concludes that it is healthy. He also goes into how to best cut caffeine. 

I'm a coffee junk at the moment. In the last couple of months I did a couple of attempts to stop, which worked. When I'm not drinking coffee, my energy level is more stable during the day, and I sleep better. I'm going to build off coffee again next year.

When you do psychedelics, caffeine can have a negative effect with certain psychedelics.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Rob06

[Tyler Robinson]

18 minutes ago, Rob06 said:

I read the book "Caffeine Blues". The author did a meta-analysis of all research studies about caffeine and found that no study concludes that it is healthy. He also goes into how to best cut caffeine. 

I'm a coffee junk at the moment. In the last couple of months I did a couple of attempts to stop, which worked. When I'm not drinking coffee, my energy level is more stable during the day, and I sleep better. I'm going to build off coffee again next year.

When you do psychedelics, caffeine can have a negative effect with certain psychedelics.

Actually caffeine helped me during my worst times in life. Boom boom. It made me cope with dissociation because I have a mental illness in which I suffer dissociation 

I suffered the most intense level of dissociation where I had to be literally held while walking to the bathroom because I wasn't able to understand that that's where the bathroom was. It was spatial. Lack of awareness of space. Feeling like nothing is real. Brain fog. Lots of severe brain fog 

Then I took loads of caffeine for 3 days and the fog disappeared slowly. 

Although it raised my heart beat and it's not healthy at all, but it was necessary for me to stop my dissociation attacks. 

It saved my life when those days I could hv fallen off the stairs. 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[Tyler Robinson]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Cancer and heart disease.

Caffeine is unusual. It causes both insomnia and sleepiness. Haha. 

[LfcCharlie4]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Cancer and heart disease.

 

This is my thoughts from what the data show. 

I am not saying Meat / Red Meat doesn't count Macros / Micros we need hence why our ancestors ate it, but if we now know there's ways to get those nutrients without the long term risks red meat pose, why not do that? 

[Michael569]

On 16/12/2022 at 7:50 PM, RendHeaven said:

eah if you don't feel like it would be productive, that's totally understandable, but just wanna let you know that personally I'm happy to hear your contentions, just to get a fuller picture, even if we don't necessarily change our minds.

Especially around that point I made about polyfats, linoleic acid, and oxidation

Hey, I wanted to get back to you on this but did not have access to computer to look into this properly. 

So the argument goes that "because polyunsaturated fatty acids (such as linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid) have double bonds which makes them more prone to oxidation, they wreak havoc in the body." Would that sum up your position? 

Would you also argue that because LA oxidised it causes......cancer? heart disease? Diabetes? 

So then would it be fair to say that people with the highest serum (blood) levels of LA would be experiencing these diseases the most? 

Final question: Would you take the position that Omega 3s (ALA, EPA and DHA) are healthy? 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Michael569

[Display_Name]

It's not. Case closed.

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Rob06 said:

I read the book "Caffeine Blues". The author did a meta-analysis of all research studies about caffeine and found that no study concludes that it is healthy. He also goes into how to best cut caffeine. 

I'm a coffee junk at the moment. In the last couple of months I did a couple of attempts to stop, which worked. When I'm not drinking coffee, my energy level is more stable during the day, and I sleep better. I'm going to build off coffee again next year.

When you do psychedelics, caffeine can have a negative effect with certain psychedelics.

Caffeine isn't a food, coffee is. 

It's made from beans, after all.

It's similar to comparing vitamin c vs oranges. A supplement won't be metabolized the same way as a whole food.

[UnbornTao]

20 minutes ago, Display_Name said:

It's not. Case closed.

Pretty much, generally speaking.

Some may abstain from coffee but drink soda and other crap unhealthy drinks, which doesn't make much sense to me.

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Cancer and heart disease.

was going to mention that. 

Isn't excessive red meat consumption in the long-term associated with illnesses like those?

Here, that seems to be considered common knowledge where we generally follow the mediterranean diet.

not to demonize meat. I just bought beef and chicken for the holidays!

[integral]

If your drinking it instead of eating your likely going to put your body in a high cortisol catabolic state.

[RendHeaven]

On 12/20/2022 at 3:19 AM, Michael569 said:

1) So the argument goes that "because polyunsaturated fatty acids (such as linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid) have double bonds which makes them more prone to oxidation, they wreak havoc in the body." Would that sum up your position? 

2) Would you also argue that because LA oxidised it causes......cancer? heart disease? Diabetes? 

3) So then would it be fair to say that people with the highest serum (blood) levels of LA would be experiencing these diseases the most? 

4) Final question: Would you take the position that Omega 3s (ALA, EPA and DHA) are healthy? 

@Michael569

1) Yes!

2) Mostly yes. LA oxidized in excess likely is one of the main drivers of cancer and heart disease. Diabetes is a little different, as it has more to do with fructose intake and (lack of) activity. We also know that diabetes in turn spikes your susceptibility to heart disease so it's not purely LA which is the culprit, but a hoard of environmental toxins converging upon the body at once, causing a web of dysfunctions in tandem - excess LA, excess fructose, pesticides, heavy metals, microplastics, etc.

3) Excess LA is obviously increasing risk but doesn't necessary equate strictly to more disease in a particular individual since their antioxidant status and other lifestyle factors have to be taken into account. Someone with a high polyfat intake can somewhat offset their risk of disease with massive fruit and vegetable intake, such that from the outside they appear healthy. It's also important to note that serum levels are unreliable markers of LA accumulation in the body. I've learned that testing adipose tissue is a better metric.

4) Omega 3 is of course necessary as is omega 6. At the end of the day, polyfats, LA, and even oxidation are necessary. The problem is not polyfats per se, the problem is polyfats IN EXCESS. Omega 3 fatty acids in excess would actually be more damaging than LA because they contain more double bonds. But most of us do not encounter this problem because our food supply is not contaminated with excess omega 3 (it is, however, most certainly contaminated with excess omega 6!)

According to my mentor: "Here's the problem with these studies... What do they do? Compare people with high LA intake to low LA intake. But the problem is that the "low LA intake" is actually people consuming more poly fat than that found in nature... So, all you are doing is comparing two groups of people, both with excess LA in their adipose tissue, and the difference being that the people with even more LA are also people who have been doing other "healthy, correct" things like exercising and eating fruits and veggies which actually do help in their own right. In other words, all of these studies were done in people who lived during a time that polyfats were promoted, and even though that is erroneous, the other healthy habits that were being promoted were actually not in fact erroneous. This is how people are getting lost in the weeds on nutritional science. If they studied people who live and eat like us (that is, an unprocessed, high saturated fat diet), this would be game over and these vegetable oil promoters would not be able to sleep at night. Their paradigm would collapse. But people who eat this way are anomalous in the 21st century and don't get studied." 

Edited January 4, 2023 by RendHeaven

[Michael569]

@RendHeaven Here is a response video to Joseph Everet's content. This I someone I would consider an expert in the field even tho he is neither researcher nor academic. I would consider sharing this with your mentor too. I'd love to watch their debate actually. Nick (guy in this vid) does debates as far as I know. His knowledge far exceeds where I'm at currently and the level at which I can argue around this topic. 

I'm going to be spending more time looking into seed oils, saturate fats, red meat and PUFA studies this year as I am not quite where I'd like to be with this topic and I feel I need to first read all that stuff to really make up my mind about it. I think I've often been arguing from a place of not having 100% of the knowledge I assumed to have. 

Doesn't mean concession of your points  Just putting the discussion on halt until I've had the opportunity to catch up on the evidence. Btw I'd suggest you do the same, perhaps by even looking at the actual sources of the information rather than hearsay. I urge you to look beyond "all studies are confounded by healthy user bias" type of reasoning. 

In the end it's your health you are gambling with here. That goes for both of us. 

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I could find online articles saying the opposite. "leading experts" could mean anything. It's a marketing statement. I am sure there is plenty of people who are real experts in the field of nutritional science who are not on their check  Just because AN organisation drafted A letter, it does not mean, the current level of evidence will be dismissed. This happens all the time. 

Have you ever looked at the mountain of research backing up the current dietary guidelines? The 1000+ pages of references and studies? I think it is stored somewhere at the the US Department of Health Website but is super difficult to find, I've been looking for it recently. It is there but they don't make it easy to access which does not help to back their argument, I have to admit. 

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

f they studied people who live and eat like us (that is, an unprocessed, high saturated fat diet), this would be game over and these vegetable oil promoters would not be able to sleep at night.

btw this is such an arrogant statement that it makes me wanna vomit on my shoes. The absolute self- righteousness and complete lack of self-reflection on that is quite something  Worst part is, it is without even bothering to crack open a single study and analyse it but just flat out dismissing all the evidence as confounded by "healthy user bias".  Absolutely ridiculous. And he id confidently doing it all by regurgitating Paul Saladino's words (nothing he says is new here, every carnivore you listen to is saying the same words exactly which makes it clear that none of them bother to investigate and they just regurgitate the same stuff over and over) 

This is a Kruger Dunning masterclass. I think your mentor, I'm sure he is a smart, experienced and knowledgable person, needs to learn some humility and leave a "maybe I'm not always right" back door open occasionally. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Michael569

[RendHeaven]

@Michael569 I'm fairly familiar with Mr. nutrivore. My understanding is that he has an enormous vegan bias, which, to be fair, is perhaps a reasonable counterweight to my current animal-based bias, but nonetheless let's not forget that of course he is against saturated fat as a default position. He has a horse in this race prior to truthseeking.

It's in his attitude too. His content is rife with ad-hominem attacks and insults flung at those that he disagrees with. I watched just 1 minute of that video you linked, and he already abrasively dismisses the history of seed oils as "fucking cute" and "irrelevant" because he is so hypnotized by the allure of "human outcome studies," which, as I just outlined earlier, have potential fundamental flaws in their question-begging conception. I will watch the whole video later, this is just my initial impressions.

Side note: of course I am not saying to dismiss all studies. They can be useful. However, I just don't understand why anybody would hinge all of their faith in studies given their fallible nature. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but human beings have been consuming animal fats for millennia without a trace of chronic disease. On a common sense level this historical fact should be ringing alarm bells when modern medical experts declare through "studies" that animal fats are the cause of modern disease. It just makes no sense.

Also as far as I know, Nick has never actually tried carnivore himself. If anything, it is actually his paradigm which is speculative and hearsay. At least Paul Saladino has actually been a vegan and a carnivore. Paul has personally wrestled with the limitations of both nutritional extremes, and has now settled for a mix of red meat and fruit. Likewise, my mentor, and in turn my mentor's mentor, have been living and breathing the high-saturated fat diet for YEARS, even multiple decades in the case of my mentor's mentor. I trust them because their blood tests are flawless, their physical excellence is off the charts (seriously, they are both in the top 0.1 percentile of strength to weight ratio), and they are even spiritually enlightened as a cherry on top, lol. So yeah they know a thing or two about not-knowing  Consider that their self-righteousness is not Dunning-Krueger, but rather DECADES of existing as an optimally performing superhuman. 

I agree with you though that we can all spend more time exposing ourselves to more knowledge. I am by no means done with my nutrition journey, I am happy to admit that. But this doesn't mean that I ought to bite my tongue at all times. Perhaps there is room in public discourse for me to exonerate saturated fat. If it ever turns out that I, and the people I trust in, were dead wrong - I am happy to admit as such. And if it turns out that we were indeed wrong, we will be the first to endure the physical consequences of our error, since we live as we preach. It may seem to you that I am playing with people's lives by telling them that beef is safe, but don't forget that my own life is under the guillotine too.

Thanks again for your time and replies, even if it seems we're getting nowhere this means a lot. You help keep me in check. Even though my belief in a high-saturated fat diet persists, it's good to stay on my toes remain humble.

Edited January 4, 2023 by RendHeaven

[Michael569]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

t's in his attitude too. His content is rife with ad-hominem attacks and insults flung at those that he disagrees with

Agreed, I was just editing my previous comment. I wish he would stay away from this part of his content. He has so much to offer but without use of profanity and endless drama, he would attract much more people. I really hate that and it is what made me stop being his Patreon. 

Still, that put aside, his content is certainly more persuasive that anything else I have seen out there. Maybe the NutritionMadeEasy guy is another exception. 

I'd say you have as much aversion to watching his content as I do to watching Paul's content. The inherent biases are hard to get over. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

. I watched just 1 minute of that video you linked, and he already abrasively dismisses the history of seed oils as "irrelevant" because he is so hypnotized by the allure of "human outcome studies," which, as I just outlined earlier, have potential fundamental flaws in their question-begging conception.

No studies are perfect. But we should be looking at the data that is close to us. Let's say there are some flaws in human epidemiology, ok. Granted. Maybe Food Frequency Questionnaires are 85% accurate rather than 100%. Maybe epidemiology can only show associations and not causations. But what else do we go? Rat studies? How relevant are those to humans? If we are dismissing human evidence then what's even the point of looking at something else? It is certainly interesting, when nothing else is available but just to dismiss it all.  

We do the best we can with what we have. It is not perfect, ofcourse. But it's what we got from the generations that have gone before us. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but human beings have been consuming animal fats for millennia without a trace of chronic disease

How do you know humans in the past did no suffer from chronic disease?

Marcus Aurelius is suggested to have suffered from gastric cancer, his chronic digestive pains are well documented.

King Alfred The Great was said to have suffered with IBD (chronic autoimmune disease of bowels). This is also well documented in the medieval English archives although, ofcourse, we have no biopsy

Mumified bodies with atherosclerosis have been found and dates thousands of years old - there is a lot of evidence for this actually. 

Why would even something like Traditional Chinese Medicine evolve a thousand years ago if humans were always healthy? Some traditional medicines go way before the birth of Christ. 

I don't buy this argument that humans were never ill before. We did not have diagnostic tools. Medicine was in its infancy. Humans lived shorter lives and fell prey to infectious diseases more than to heart disease and we don't have as much information about public health from hundreds of years ago as we would have now. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

n a common sense level this historical fact should be ringing alarm bells when modern medical experts declare through "studies" that animal fats are the cause of modern disease.

they don't say it is the only cause of disease. There are numerous causes of disease, one of them being simply the fact that we live longer. The longer you live, the more prone you are to becoming chronically ill due to simple wear & tear of biological tissue. If most people die in their 30s-40s (as our ancestors did), they don't get to develop heart disease naturally. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Also as far as I know, Nick has never actually tried carnivore himself. If anything, it is actually his paradigm which is speculative and hearsay

You can actually find his old videos when he was still a keto guy and fought hard to defend it He says he stopped being keto because he could not defend himself anymore. I'd consider that intellectual honesty. Layne Norton has gone through something similar over the past few years. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

At least Paul Saladino has actually been a vegan and a carnivore. Paul has personally wrestled with the limitations of both nutritional extremes, and has now settled for a mix of red meat and fruit.

You know, I find this fascinating, considering he keeps selling carnivore-related content and associated himself with people like the Liver King in a joint venture selling ancestral supplements despite no longer being pure carnivore.  To be honest, I don't believe it, deep inside, Paul believes carnivore or even semi carnivore is healthy, but he has gone too far and become too popular to go back. It would cost him a chunk of his audience, and medical Twitter would stump him - he is very aware of this. This happened to John Venus, this happened to Rawvana, this happened to Vegetable Police and a few other ex-vegans who spit in the face of their audience. It is actually a real threat once you become a health influencer. 

I wouldn't be surprised if,in the middle of the night, Paul is experiencing panic attacks because of all this cognitive dissonance. Obviously we wouldn't know. 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Likewise, my mentor, and in turn my mentor's mentor, have been living and breathing the high-saturated fat diet for YEARS, even multiple decades in the case of my mentor's mentor.

Just curious, your mentor is the gentleman whose videos you shared on your journal? (no stalking, just curiosity :D) 

Let me turn your former argument the other way here:

" how do you know that he and his menthor are not protected by leading this superhuman lifestyle from the effects of "toxic" saturate fats? How do we know that for carnivores who are not so athletic and learn and active, this is not going to be an extreme problem? And how do we know that if we took people like him and found that they are super healthy that we are not looking at a biased sample of a few superhumans who exercise twice a day, bath in ice etc.

What about the rest of population who don't do that but have now become convinced that eating the godless amount of beef (without doing the other bits) is good for them? Are we about to see the greatest rise in heart disease on the expense of a few super-fit individuals who cracked the code? 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

EARS, even multiple decades in the case of my mentor's mentor. I trust them because their blood tests are flawless, their physical excellence is off the charts (seriously, they are both in the top 0.1 percentile of strength to weight ratio

See this is the issue? How do you know they are not a completely biased sample? Maybe being like that protects you from all the negatives and potential damage of a carnivore diet. It is definitely possible. But again, how many people can do that? Could your parents be that way? Most of your friends? Mine certainly couldn't. Most people will always choose the easiest thing which in this case is "eat a lot of saturated fat and you'll be healthy". 

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

I agree with you though that we can all spend more time exposing ourselves to more knowledge. I am by no means done with my nutrition journey, I am happy to admit that. But this doesn't mean that I ought to bite my tongue at all times. Perhaps there is room in public discourse for me to exonerate saturated fat. If it ever turns out that I, and the people I trust in, were dead wrong - I am happy to admit as such. And if it turns out that we were indeed wrong, we will be the first to endure the physical consequences of our error, since we live as we preach. It may seem to you that I am playing with people's lives by telling them that beef is safe, but don't forget that my own life is under the guillotine too.

I guess everything has been said then. 

Anyways, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate being forced to stretch the limits of my open-mindedness!  Likewise if I gather enough evidence that I was wrong, I will admit it. 

I have been spewing a lot of nonsense on this forum in the past that I no longer believe. I'd like to believe it is all a personal evolution of some sort. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Michael569

[Devin]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

@RendHeaven Here is a response video to Joseph Everet's content. This I someone I would consider an expert in the field even tho he is neither researcher nor academic. I would consider sharing this with your mentor too. I'd love to watch their debate actually. Nick (guy in this vid) does debates as far as I know. His knowledge far exceeds where I'm at currently and the level at which I can argue around this topic. 

I'm going to be spending more time looking into seed oils, saturate fats, red meat and PUFA studies this year as I am not quite where I'd like to be with this topic and I feel I need to first read all that stuff to really make up my mind about it. I think I've often been arguing from a place of not having 100% of the knowledge I assumed to have. 

Doesn't mean concession of your points  Just putting the discussion on halt until I've had the opportunity to catch up on the evidence. Btw I'd suggest you do the same, perhaps by even looking at the actual sources of the information rather than hearsay. I urge you to look beyond "all studies are confounded by healthy user bias" type of reasoning. 

In the end it's your health you are gambling with here. That goes for both of us. 

I could find online articles saying the opposite. "leading experts" could mean anything. It's a marketing statement. I am sure there is plenty of people who are real experts in the field of nutritional science who are not on their check  Just because AN organisation drafted A letter, it does not mean, the current level of evidence will be dismissed. This happens all the time. 

Have you ever looked at the mountain of research backing up the current dietary guidelines? The 1000+ pages of references and studies? I think it is stored somewhere at the the US Department of Health Website but is super difficult to find, I've been looking for it recently. It is there but they don't make it easy to access which does not help to back their argument, I have to admit. 

btw this is such an arrogant statement that it makes me wanna vomit on my shoes. The absolute self- righteousness and complete lack of self-reflection on that is quite something  Worst part is, it is without even bothering to crack open a single study and analyse it but just flat out dismissing all the evidence as confounded by "healthy user bias".  Absolutely ridiculous. And he id confidently doing it all by regurgitating Paul Saladino's words (nothing he says is new here, every carnivore you listen to is saying the same words exactly which makes it clear that none of them bother to investigate and they just regurgitate the same stuff over and over) 

This is a Kruger Dunning masterclass. I think your mentor, I'm sure he is a smart, experienced and knowledgable person, needs to learn some humility and leave a "maybe I'm not always right" back door open occasionally. 

Thank you for the reaction video, I saw the original video as well and it was quite convincing to me, I got duped!

[LfcCharlie4]

@RendHeaven  Just to confirm is this the guy you're saying is in the top 0.1% of humans in terms of strength? 

 

 

Also, only thing I would say is we can all provide antidotes to support diet choices-

I could just post videos of Brian Turner, Nimai, Rich Roll, Venus Williams, Lewis Hamilton blah blah blah 

There's a reason Anecdotes are at the bottom of the trusted scientific data Pyramid and Meta Analysis / RCTs are at the top...

Edited January 4, 2023 by LfcCharlie4