Butter!

[integral]

Butter has improved my brain function, im not sure why it could be its a form of fat im able to digest better then others. It also creates a nice relaxing effect with the bonus of improved flow to naturally arise.  

Has anyone else experienced this? If not its likely just a thing this body experiences as it struggles with health issues. 

[Osaid]

Ketones.

Proteins and fats in general tend to provide a very stable, long-lasting and grounded energy (not all are created equal, though, the simple ones are fine for the most part). And they get converted to a different fuel than glucose called ketones. You can prime your body to become better at generating ketones by fasting or changing your diet in a certain way which makes you adapt to using fat as fuel (low carb, for example).

Try ghee or coconut oil as well. If you combine fat with coffee, it will seriously increase ketone levels and thus amplify the fat-based energy even more. Any fuel source you combine with coffee will be digested much more efficiently. If you don't like coffee, you can combine it with tea instead of coffee, or any other similar hot beverages (you don't even have to combine, just simply consuming alongside it works, it all goes to your stomach anyways). You will feel a similar energy boost. Any similar hot beverage should increase your digestive capabilities, but coffee in particular is something I've found to be very potent. The energy benefits of coffee aren't JUST from caffeine, it's from amplified ketone levels as well, among other mechanisms probably. I have a particular body which is mostly immune to the effects of caffeine, so I would know. 

Test it all for yourself.

[Schizophonia]

Some saturated fats are good for the intestines.
Once I ate two whole bars of white chocolate and I've never been so relaxed with such a deep voice.
Even at the sexual level, I tend to have a little destructive fantasies (won't say more about it) but I've never been so vanilla ah ah.

Intestinal inflammation (and endotoxins from overgrowth can create big serotonin surges such that you fall chronically into a state of emotional and psychic torpor (brain fog, antipathy, low libido and (self)destructive fantasies, autism).

At the same time, eliminating gluten, lactose and a number of fibrous plants, especially legumes, should help.

[Michael569]

52 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

At the same time, eliminating gluten, lactose and a number of fibrous plants, especially legumes, should help.

I promised myself I won't be doing this....... but seriously - what's your evidence for saying this? 

How do legumes, dairy and fibrous plants (meaning all fruits, vegetables, legumes, wholegrains, nuts and seeds?) cause intestinal inflammation, production of lipopolysaccharides, bacterial overgrowth and serotonin surges.

If we take the extreme case of intestinal inflammation - say Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis - what's the evidence that folks who eat more legumes are at higher risk? 

What if the opposite is true? How would we know? For example, dairy and legumes both are associated with protective effect against bowel cancer. Do you know what is one of the leading hallmarks of bowel cancer risk? Intestinal inflammation. So if the above was true - we wouldn't see this. 

 

But let's say an average guy with little nutritional knowledge is reading this. And trust me many do. He goes "oh man, i better start eliminating all of it" - is that going to improve his health if he starts eating butter, eggs and meat? (because that's basically what he is left with). Is this type of recommendation going to produce a sustainable long term health strategy that is safe? 

Are you gonna be responsible for outcomes that may come as a result of that? 

Most people who are digging into nutrition to fix their health already have a degree of eating disorder. All that replies such as the above do is nuke everything these people are holding on to and put them back into perpetual information chaos.

From there folks end up depressed, with messed up health, messed up gut, increasing cholesterol levels and endless amount of confusion. Not to mention falling prey to online quacks

This is no criticism - I just wish you guys would think deeper about some of the stuff you are recommending where it is absolutely clear to me that you haven't bothered to fact check any of your claims with any form of human data. 

Actual people are reading these comments. Behind each avatar is a real man or a woman who may take this information and apply it in their own health journey and it may mess them up

Edited July 21, 2023 by Michael569

[Rigel]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Some saturated fats are good for the intestines.
Once I ate two whole bars of white chocolate and I've never been so relaxed with such a deep voice.
Even at the sexual level, I tend to have a little destructive fantasies (won't say more about it) but I've never been so vanilla ah ah.

Intestinal inflammation (and endotoxins from overgrowth can create big serotonin surges such that you fall chronically into a state of emotional and psychic torpor (brain fog, antipathy, low libido and (self)destructive fantasies, autism).

At the same time, eliminating gluten, lactose and a number of fibrous plants, especially legumes, should help.

fibrous plants make me feel like I am super-human?

[Rigel]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

I promised myself I won't be doing this....... but seriously - what's your evidence for saying this? 

How do legumes, dairy and fibrous plants (meaning all fruits, vegetables, legumes, wholegrains, nuts and seeds?) cause intestinal inflammation, production of lipopolysaccharides, bacterial overgrowth and serotonin surges.

If we take the extreme case of intestinal inflammation - say Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis - what's the evidence that folks who eat more legumes are at higher risk? 

What if the opposite is true? How would we know? For example, dairy and legumes both are associated with protective effect against bowel cancer. Do you know what is one of the leading hallmarks of bowel cancer risk? Intestinal inflammation. So if the above was true - we wouldn't see this. 

 

But let's say an average guy with little nutritional knowledge is reading this. And trust me many do. He goes "oh man, i better start eliminating all of it" - is that going to improve his health if he starts eating butter, eggs and meat? (because that's basically what he is left with). Is this type of recommendation going to produce a sustainable long term health strategy that is safe? 

Are you gonna be responsible for outcomes that may come as a result of that? 

Most people who are digging into nutrition to fix their health already have a degree of eating disorder. All that replies such as the above do is nuke everything these people are holding on to and put them back into perpetual information chaos.

From there folks end up depressed, with messed up health, messed up gut, increasing cholesterol levels and endless amount of confusion. Not to mention falling prey to online quacks

This is no criticism - I just wish you guys would think deeper about some of the stuff you are recommending where it is absolutely clear to me that you haven't bothered to fact check any of your claims with any form of human data. 

Actual people are reading these comments. Behind each avatar is a real man or a woman who may take this information and apply it in their own health journey and it may mess them up

You are doing a great job moderating the health section Michael. Thank You  

[Michael569]

@Rigel it's not about moderation. He didn't violates any forum guidelines. i think it's about being responsible and accurate at least where giving health advice to others.

This goes across the entire forum. And like, none of us are immune to this. If i read some of my posts around here from 4 years ago i would have to hide my head in the sand with the amount of jibberish and cringe...

[toasty7718]

@Michael569 thank you for being a lifebuoy of reason in the sea of irrationality

[Rigel]

11 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

@Rigel it's not about moderation. He didn't violates any forum guidelines. i think it's about being responsible and accurate at least where giving health advice to others.

This goes across the entire forum. And like, none of us are immune to this. If i read some of my posts around here from 4 years ago i would have to hide my head in the sand with the amount of jibberish and cringe...

Quit being humble ?

[undeather]

On 14.7.2023 at 3:47 AM, integral said:

Butter has improved my brain function, im not sure why it could be its a form of fat im able to digest better then others. It also creates a nice relaxing effect with the bonus of improved flow to naturally arise.  

Has anyone else experienced this? If not its likely just a thing this body experiences as it struggles with health issues. 

Was that you driving ahead of me recently ?

[Michael569]

@undeather

[Schizophonia]

On 21/07/2023 at 6:16 PM, Michael569 said:

I promised myself I won't be doing this....... but seriously - what's your evidence for saying this? 

How do legumes

Directly by intestinal inflammation (especially since the polysaccharide chains are long insoluble), sometimes by SIBO.

Quote

dairy

Lactose is even worse than fiber if you don't digest it.

But I did not say that dairy products create intestinal inflammation, I said that they participated in well-being problems.
Casomorphine is a powerful contributor depending on the amount of casein ingested and intestinal permeability.

Quote

and fibrous plants (meaning all fruits, vegetables, legumes, wholegrains, nuts and seeds?) cause intestinal inflammation,

As I said above it depends on the type of fiber and starch.

Plants also contain exorphins and proteins capable of increasing intestinal permeability (gluten includes both characteristics, which makes wheat and the poaceae which contain it one of the most immunogenic foods available)

Quote

production of lipopolysaccharides,

Bacteria, especially gram negative, reacquire LPS especially when they die.

Quote

bacterial overgrowth

Fiber feeds these bacteria.

Quote

and serotonin surges.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169303

+Serotonin is a part of the problem, I talked about it to show off ah ah.

More seriously the problem is systemic inflammation.

https://jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12974-019-1564-7#:~:text=Endotoxin causes inflammatory activation mainly,4%2C 17%2C 18].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4879184/

Quote

If we take the extreme case of intestinal inflammation - say Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis - what's the evidence that folks who eat more legumes are at higher risk? 

 

The fact that decreasing fiber suppresses chron's disease?

Chron disease associated with pathogenic bacteria, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_avium_subsp._paratuberculosis

There is not too much scientific literature on it apart from epidemiological studies of little or no value. (I could explain when I'm not lazy).
Lots of people on reddit (among others) or the RPF have managed to get rid of chron's disease by drastically reducing fiber, myself I had this problem (not exactly the same thing, rather colopathy attacks, as well as constipation, brain fog...) when I ate a lot of beans and whole grains.

Quote

What if the opposite is true? How would we know? For example, dairy

Dairy products don't mean anything.
Butter perhaps, milk is much less certain (lactose).
And obviously from an epidemiological point of view (again), there are biases such as the fact that lactose intolerant people do not consume milk.

There are plenty of biases in fact, including sociological ones.

If I tell you that meat is globally associated with a greater life expectancy and that Hong Kong, which is one of the biggest meat-consuming countries, is also the country with the greatest life expectancy in the world: what are you going to tell me?

Quote

and legumes both are associated with protective effect against bowel cancer.

Ditto

Quote

But let's say an average guy with little nutritional knowledge is reading this. And trust me many do. He goes "oh man, i better start eliminating all of it" - is that going to improve his health if he starts eating butter, eggs and meat? (because that's basically what he is left with). Is this type of recommendation going to produce a sustainable long term health strategy that is safe? 

He will see it for himself.

Still, I don't even recommend a carnivorous diet, that's a dishonest extrapolation.

Btw, i turn the question back to you: have you been interested in what serious carnivorous figures had to say, have you tried this diet directly while waiting for additional dAtaS, where are you content to look at nutritionfact.org, cowardly letting your way of eating be dictated by a certain group of ideological public figures and by extension taking people who do not agree with you for idiots?

Quote

Are you gonna be responsible for outcomes that may come as a result of that? 

No, you are always responsible for your own decisions.

This applies to myself.

Quote

Most people who are digging into nutrition to fix their health already have a degree of eating disorder. All that replies such as the above do is nuke everything these people are holding on to and put them back into perpetual information chaos.

From there folks end up depressed, with messed up health, messed up gut, increasing cholesterol levels and endless amount of confusion. Not to mention falling prey to online quacks

It's the same for any subject, I will not hesitate to share my opinion and recommendations because some people suffer from mental illnesses and will turn my recommendations into dogma and more generally into additional food stress.

All I'm suggesting is trying things out, in this case it's not even a strict diet plan but just trying to cut out certain types of foods, just to see.

Quote

This is no criticism - I just wish you guys would think deeper about some of the stuff you are recommending where it is absolutely clear to me that you haven't bothered to fact check any of your claims with any form of human data. 

What data ? 

All you do is suggest epidemiological studies and evacuate any biases in favor of your own agenda.

If eliminating certain foods improves certain chronic health problems, you are not going to deprive yourself of doing so because according to x epidemiological study has shown a positive correlation, in a certain context, between the consumption of this group of foods and the improvement of any health marker.

Quote

Actual people are reading these comments. Behind each avatar is a real man or a woman who may take this information and apply it in their own health journey and it may mess them up

Why cutting out legumes and dairy products will spoil someone?

You don't care what I say or try to say and it looks like you're just trying to make me look like some jerk spreading broscience and pushing radical diets , with a hypocritically measured lexical field.

All I see is that despite the errors I may say, you are not open to going down the rabbit hole of ideas that would go against your food dogmas, and in general to empirical observation.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Michael569]

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You don't care what I say or try to say and it looks like you're just trying to make me look like some jerk spreading broscience and pushing radical diets , with a hypocritically measured lexical field.

I'll start here. No, that's not true. I don't enjoy humiliating people, and this is not about belittling you in any way. My honest opinion is that I think you're a smart guy, and you care about this stuff. You could probably even become a health practitioner, or expert of you desired so. You certainly know more than most people do. 

If I was harsh in the first comment - i apologise. Perhaps a few things I said came up as too personal - that was not the intention.

The problem is that you are easily seduced by mechanisms - which you then bridge over to human outcomes without evidence. I get it - they sound cool m, use fancy terms and are not as boring as epidemiology. I'm dyign of boredom when reading epidemiology sometimes - but that doesn't entitle me to ignore it and go down mechanistic pathways.  That's a definition of bad science. It's not your fault; you've been exposing yourself to communities like RP, which do that and get rewarded by it from other members who don't know better either. Its a groupthink. 

You told me this yourself. That RP forum is corrupt af. People get kicked for voicing their opinions - we had this conversation. Why is that happening? Because it is based on paper legs and they know it. Nobody who is intellectually honest is afraid of being challenged They welcome challenges because they are always looking to correct their worldview. 

Notice I'm challenging YOU on YOUR  epistemic standards. If you are going to be using science to support your claim, you need to do so objectively. Finding A study that shows A mechanism is not good enough. You need to apply certain research method - there is a reason why those exist. 

Because you are not a health professional I can't hold you to the same standards as if you were one but I think you should potentially consider becoming one -you would have what it takes. I mean that. 

 And should you ever wish to practice you will have to make a decision that all health professionals do at one point or another - Are you a professional who practices safely with respect to the evidence? Or are you a quack? 

Many health professionals become quacks and they practice quackery and eventually, they stop seeing clients and start doing social media like Paul. Because practising quackery causes you to lose respect of other professionals and your clients. But folks on social love it, and it earns well. However, it costs you integrity and soul. 

That said, let's go into this ↓

 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Directly by intestinal inflammation (especially since the polysaccharide chains are long insoluble), sometimes by SIBO.

SIBO is not about intestinal inflammation. Now you're bridging topics. I asked you about "showing me evidence that legumes cause intestinal inflammation" - I am trying to pin you down on the causative language. We don't know what causes SIBO, it is a multifactorial condition based on bacterial proliferation in small intestine, not inflammation, although inflammation might be present as an immune response to food. 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Lactose is even worse than fiber if you don't digest it.

IF you don't digest. IF!!! it.

For a person with coeliac disease eating gluten raises the risk of bowel cancer and IBD. So? 

For a healthy person, it doesn't. What's your point? Lactose intolerance is a specific condition as well. That line of thinking does not apply to everyone. You can't cherrypick like that. 

 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Casomorphine is a powerful contributor depending on the amount of casein ingested and intestinal permeability.

Maybe - what does that mean to a person? Does dairy cause ....? Cancer? If indeed dairy causes small intestinal permeability - what is the evidence that it translates to health outcomes? 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

lants also contain exorphins and proteins capable of increasing intestinal permeability (gluten includes both characteristics, which makes wheat and the poaceae which contain it one of the most immunogenic foods available)

another mechanism - what does this mean to a human? How does eating more wheat wreck my gut? If I am healthy guy or a girl and I like to eat Wheat grains with barley  for breakfast and greek yoghurt - what't the evidence that I'll end up with cancer, SIBO or IBD as a result of that? Please share. 

Every food is immunologic - every food triggers an immune reaction in the gut. Every bacteria, everything you eat and swallow. 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

The fact that decreasing fiber suppresses chron's disease?

during a flare-up!! That's different. During a flare everything triggers Crohn's/ I am interested in healthy person. Do legumes increase risk of IBD? For a healthy person. Please share the evidence. 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

More seriously the problem is systemic inflammation.

https://jneuroinflammation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12974-019-1564-7#:~:text=Endotoxin causes inflammatory activation mainly,4%2C 17%2C 18].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4879184/

The first study is hypothesis about the endotoxin role in neurodegeneration. Notice the word "hypothesis" - would you be interested to see the evidence that high-fibre diet (rich in everything you deem bad) protects from Alzheimer's? 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Lots of people on reddit (among others) or the RPF have managed to get rid of chron's disease by drastically reducing fiber, myself I had this problem (not exactly the same thing, rather colopathy attacks, as well as constipation, brain fog...) when I ate a lot of beans and whole grains.

To be honest I don't know enough about IBD to take an expert role - @undeather would have to comment on the aetiology. I'd even say you might be right. I think once someone has been pushed down that path and has had years of flare ups and autoimmune response maybe they can't do fibre in the diet anymore...maybe. Maybe the gut is so wrecked and the microbiome so messed up that it can't be fixed again, only food needs t to be eliminated. It is a very specific situation that requires very specific therapeutics. I only worked with one person with IBD - it was a hard case and she did seem to benefit from a Specific Carbohydrate Diet tho but her case was relatively stable to others. 

But let's say I even grant you this" more legumes during Crohn's flare up is likely to be bad" - sure, granted.

It's like saying "wearing regular shoes if you have diabetic foot ulceration, is painful which is why wearing shoes causes diabetes" That's what you are doing here with these mechanisms. In fact, we are taking it further saying "Shoes cause disease in people and people should not be wearing shoes

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Btw, i turn the question back to you: have you been interested in what serious carnivorous figures had to say, have you tried this diet directly while waiting for additional dAtaS

I haven't no. Never had a reason to. Have worked with a few people who did and they all came with bad health. Whether it was consequence of carni or not I can't say. Carni is a good elimination diet, it can work for extreme conditions - it is likely to be a poor long term strategy and given the potential risks I won't even entertain that - call that close-mindedness if you will. 

If you know drinking from a septic tank might be bad and someone says "I drank from it a bit and I'm fine" - does it mean it is safe?  

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What data ? 

All you do is suggest epidemiological studies and evacuate any biases in favor of your own agenda.

If eliminating certain foods improves certain chronic health problems, you are not going to deprive yourself of doing so because according to x epidemiological study has shown a positive correlation, in a certain context, between the consumption of this group of foods and the improvement of any health marke

Let me ask you - what's your problem with epidemiology? Or what is your critical concept based on?

I know a lot of people criticise it but the criticism I've seen is based on highly uneducated standards. Many who criticise epidemiology don't understand it, don't read it and all they know is what someone said on podcast. 

What's your take? Genuinely curious 

Btw so that you know, A LOT about what we know in nutrition is based on clinical data, non-epidemiology. For example the whole weight loss side, low carb high carb keto diets. We have shit tons of clinical data. Even for seed oils we have clnical trials. 

 

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

All I see is that despite the errors I may say, you are not open to going down the rabbit hole of ideas that would go against your food dogmas, and in general to empirical observation.

what food dogma? I am not emotionally attached to food lol! If you read my comments from here even 2 years ago you'd see that its always been changing because my standards and knowledge has been changing. 

I try to be intellectually honest if I can. If I am convinced that a position I previously held was wrong, I am happy to reconsider it. 

Let me give you an example : 

• I used to believe dairy is toxic, mucous-causing, bone-breaking and cancer-causing. And you would find me saying these things even on the forum - I don't think so anymore and other than butter, ghee and high-fat dairy I would say dairy is mostly neutral even beneficial for people. My research standards have changed a lot
• Soy - I used to believe is emasculating hormone-altering food. Now I love it, and I believe it is good for me. If I get convinced that it is actually not good with new previously unknown evidence coming up - the tofu will go. I have no relationship with it. I prefer eating tofu to eating beef for my protein that's for sure  
• Same for legumes - for the first 25 years of my life, I would not touch them because they made me fart. That changed after I learned more - now I love them. 
• 5 years ago I went down a vegan rabbit hole and I eliminated all animal foods believing they caused cancer after reading Michael Greger's book. Now I don't believe in what he says anymore and stopped consuming nutritionfactsorg altogether. I no longer believe most animal foods cause cancer although I choose to still go mostly plant-based for personal ethics....that's a personal choice that I do not push onto my clients. 

 

Again, nothing here is a personal attack. Like I said I don't think you are stupid or deliberately spread broscience. You are young and have not had as much exposure and experience. Considering you're like (based on photo) 24-26? your knowledge is far superior to what I had in your age, I'm 33. Awesome, continue that journey. 

Just be responsible with it. Treat the knowledge like a Jedi would treat the Force. Spread it for the good of the world and strengthen your standards for what information you take on and what you ignore. Be ruthless with people who spread nonsense and cut them out. Don't spread it to show off. Jedi master does not wield his lightsaber for the amusement of the crowd. Don't spread it to masturbate your ego. Be more rigorous with yourself. 

Its a journey. Just continue walking it and don't settle so easily for mechanisms. Keep learning, reading and exploring. 

I think a path of a health professional would suit very well for you. Perhaps a holistic psychiatrist who uses nutrition and lifestyle to support clients? maybe going to school to get a proper health education would work well for you. Just a suggestion.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Michael569

[Schizophonia]

@Michael569 I will take time to answer when I have time and especially when I have finally slept well, I am currently too angry and stupid to do so.

+ And I just turned 20 

[undeather]

Quote

 

The fact that decreasing fiber suppresses chron's disease?

Chron disease associated with pathogenic bacteria, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_avium_subsp._paratuberculosis

There is not too much scientific literature on it apart from epidemiological studies of little or no value. (I could explain when I'm not lazy).
Lots of people on reddit (among others) or the RPF have managed to get rid of chron's disease by drastically reducing fiber, myself I had this problem (not exactly the same thing, rather colopathy attacks, as well as constipation, brain fog...) when I ate a lot of beans and whole

 

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. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by undeather