PsychedelicEagle

Sorry, but this is utterly absurd. Humans are much closer to frugivores than carnivores. Just look at the mirror. Look at your dental and facial structure - compare that to frugivores vs carnivores. Look at your eyes, tongue, digestive tract, pancreas, gut, enzymes, hands. It's not rocket science. PS: Frugivore != fructarian. Frugivores can eat meat, occasionally. PS2: Try to eat raw meat in nature or even cooked meat without salt and spices and see how much you like it, compared to a banana. Or do you think early humans were going to the sea, collecting water, evaporating it and crystallizing it, carrying with them crystallized salt for when they were able to eventually kill an animal? Also, if you don't have a pan, how do you season it?

Sure, you don't just believe GPT, you read the studies it will mention. The highest level of scientific evidence are meta-analyses or, even better, umbrella meta-analysis (research studies systematically collecting and evaluating multiple meta-analyses). I dare you to find any type of such studies showing that fiber is more harmful than good. If you suddenly introduce fiber into a gut that's not used to having it yes, you suffer. It's like going to the gym and trying to deadlift 300kg first time. One has to work their way up. Considering they don't have conditions that prevent the microbiota from being modulated. Not everything that makes you feel good in the short term is good for the long term. Fiber is one of such things. What's funny about what you say is that if you eat most of calories from (non-dried) fruits and vegetables, you almost don't need to drink water. So it's rather the opposite. Again, rather the opposite. One has to be strongly disconnected from the body to not eat fiber. Or, perhaps they had their microbiota harmed so much (by our modern ways of living -- with antibiotics (e.g., contained in meat) and other artificial foods) that they don't tolarate fiber anymore. In this case it's not a problem of being disconnected from their bodies, but that their bodies were disconnected from ancestral ways of living. I eat 0% fiber supplements -- see below the breakdown for the corresponding date. I just want to show it is possible to eat a significant amount of fiber, 100% from natural sources, and feel good. Plus, I never had such a good intestinal transit as for when I changed my diet.

The ones you just mentioned above. Just post what you wrote on GPT and ask it to critique it. It will come up with loads of evidence against it -- supporting the idea that fiber improves gut health.

Unclear; for sure >25g/day. There is no evidence justifying eating as much as I eat, besides evolutionary evidence, but one could conjecture that going beyond 25g/day is beneficial. Especially since fiber-containing foods also have a phletora of other nutrients. I'm not saying you need more fiber than protein. I'm saying fiber is the macronutrient (if you allow me to call it so) that is the most underconsumed nowadays. There is way more people having fiber deficiency than protein deficiency.

Where are the studies justifying this mechanism? Plus, notice that one can come up with mechanisms for everything. I can easily mention several mechanisms doing exactly the opposite. Just google "fiber intake and lps" and you will see most results against what you propose.

I deliberately limit my protein intake to stay on medium/lower side of methionine and BCAAs, and I still think I could reduce it further. Consider that your overprioritization of protein is what could be backwards. As I mentioned, overconsuming protein accelerates aging. You don't need more than 0.8g/kg of bodyweight -- and this already has a safety margin to it. Eating way beyond that would only justify if you are extremely active or an older adult (and even here some longevity researchers would disagree). If we are not discussing longevity then it could also justify eating more protein, but realize there's a tradeoff.

Told you that fiber is an essential macronutrient

This is the kind of thinking that leads people to consume loads of protein powder (empty calories, lacking micronutrients) and not real foods.

Btw, this is my Cronometer entry for today -- a normal day.

This mostly happens in dysbiotic, leaky guts or in those with SIBO, when fiber is introduced too fast. The flipside: fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria (e.g., Bifidobacteria, Akkermansia) that outcompete LPS-producing Gram-negative bacteria. Eating fiber is like going to the gym -- consistency over the long-term sets you up for success.

What I mean is, animal protein has significantly more EAAs than plants, so we end up over upregulating IGF-1. I know the general message nowadays, especially on mainstream venues, is to focus on protein intake and build as much muscle mass as possible to avoid sarcopenia. But this perspective lacks the understanding that upregulating anabolism too much leads to faster aging. As with everything, there's a balance, and my point is that we are far beyond the equilibrium point as a society. People are not dying because they are underactivating mTOR; rather the opposite. EAAs play a role in metabolic syndrome -- it's not only sugar as many like to think. Overconsuming EAAs by eating either animal or plant-based diets hurts longevity; it just happens that it's way easier to overconsume it in animal diets.

This is false. In the same way that Sunlight is not that essential either. Sometimes you WANT to down regulate mTOR. You cannot just be in an anabolic state all the time.

Protein myth. Everyone's worried about protein, when actually the macronutrient people are the most defficient nowadays is fiber. The less protein you eat -- as long as it's not so low to make you defficient -- the better for longevity. Valter Longo for example suggests the 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight target for young adults, which for someone of 80kg would be 64g/day. This you easily get on a whole-food plant-based diet if you're not on a significant caloric deficit. Plus, "essential aminoacids" found in higher concentrations in animal protein are the ones that upregulate IGF-1 via mTOR the most -- metabolic pathways linked to faster aging and insulin resistance. So, the "protein bioavailability" of animal sources is more detrimental than good. Of course, if you are in a state of malnutrition then better to have them, but that's almost no one nowadays. Micronutrients. Instead of worrying about protein, IMO it's more fundamental to take a closer look at other micronutrients such as Zinc, Calcium, B12, Omega 3, etc.

Read the IVU guide. It will cover the most important micronutrients under a solid medical foundation.

Same here. I just use it once a day; other times I brush it raw. Also good to floss frequently; I do it 2-3x/day. If I got on a date then I may brush before with toothpaste to increase my chances of mating. I eat a lot of fructose (from fruits). Never had tooth cavities in my life so probably good microbiome to start with. @Carl-Richard I use the one from Ben&Anna

Social proof is a strong lever, indeed. You shouldn't interpret this personally, as if "she was doing something to you". She's just acting based on how she feels like. If the chick is attractive she's used to guys acting dopey and getting distracted by her maneuvers. That's why sticking to what you want (leading towards a date) is so crucial. It shows masculinity in that you are strong in sticking to your goals and desires. This is beta move because it shows you're not certain whether she likes you. While that is true, and a normal and healthy way to interpret the situation, the way you convey yourself should never make this transparent because it can only lower her interest. You act as if you know she likes you, and if she makes clear she doesn't it's not a big deal. No. The phone is for setting dates. +1 As far as rapport, you don't need much, often 5 minutes talking in person is enough. Attraction is not a choice, if someone is attracted to you they will accept your invitation to go out. When you ask someone for a date, you're not asking them to go have sex with you. The date itself will be the continuation of the rapport. +1 Communicate your intentions clearly (going out on a date), and let them reply. If they don't, move on.

Indeed good signs she's interested; evidence of higher interest level. She could be a bit structured, but we should interpret this as evidence of lower interest lever (of course, balancing it with the previous evidences of higher interest level). Great, the phone is for setting dates. However, you could simply have asked when she would be free or how's her schedule like, not pinning it to particular days (weekend). This way, your ask is more robust in that she can't just say "I can't on the weekend". Evidence of lower interest level. Evidence of interest level. Evidence of lower interest level. It's not about doing something to get her to do something else in the future, that's reactivity. When she's cold it just means she's not interested at that time, girls do what they feel like. Your role is to just communicate your intentions clearly and directly (as you did in asking her out). At this point there's nothing more to be done from your side - just go about your business. If she's warm again, you ask her out. If she keeps dodging, just go about your business. Your goal is to keep guiding the interaction to where you want it to go - a date, and ultimately ending up inside of her. The more she likes you, the more she helps you, and the more fun she is (~Corey Wayne). Dating is a game of tennis. You hit the ball over the net, and you wait for her to hit it back. It's not "to make her see" anything. It's for you to see how interested she is. It's how a conversation goes, you ask someone something, and you wait for them to reply. If they don't reply what you asked, that tells you something about her interest level. Again, the more she likes you, the easier she makes it. --- From reading just your first post, I would say she has some level of interest, a 5-6 on a 0-10 scale, where <5 means she's not interested at all. My judgement is based on the fact that she's dodgy when you ask her out; if she had higher interest (say, a 6-7 and above), she would likely make definitive plans. It doesn't mean you don't have a chance, but it means you have way less room for error (meaning, you cannot afford to display unattractive behavior, because doing so may lower her interest below the critical 5 threshold). You should keep being direct and steering the interaction to making a date, which can lead to further seduction. Avoid the phone as much as possible, and only use it to make dates.

True, only the 50 trillion bacteria in our gut can. Fiber is arguably the most overlooked macronutrient of our times.

I haven't watched the episode yet, but be careful with this "Diary of a CEO" show. It focuses on clicks, featuring "experts" who say provocative or triggering things to provoke reactions and increase views.

Use the Cronometer app and track all your food intake. Use a food scale to weigh everything you cook and everything you ingest. Weight yourself constantly and adjust accordingly. Favor fiber over protein. We only need 0.8 g of protein/kg of bodyweight (see Valter Longo's research). Individuals who aren't physically active, in particular, should remain closer to the 0.8 g target. The more you exercise the more protein you can include. Be aware that protein sources in nature are often coupled with high amounts of fat (e.g., nuts, as you mentioned, but also meat, eggs, and dairy). The exception are legumes (and grains, although these contain more carbs). Natural carbohydrates are our best friends for losing weight. Whole foods naturally high in carbs are basically fruits, which are low in fat and high in fiber, therefore having a low caloric density. E.g., strawberries, watermelon, etc. Just some ideas -- I'm saying this because people often try to avoid carbs as much as possible when in fact the other macros (protein and fat) are also significantly if not most prominently contributing to weight gain.

You could also consider not drinking coffee at all. Sometimes complete abstinence is easier than moderate intake.

Sparkling water is my go-to drink whenever I eat out (very rarely).

Yes, my most recent tests were: 2024-01 (higher fat diet, ~110g/day, rich in mono and higher in saturates) 2025-01 (moderate fat, ~70g/day, but low saturated fat) 2025-05 (low fat diet, ~45g/day) These are estimates since I'd have to get all the data from Cronometer to tell you the exact amounts. The reduction in cholesterol has been consistent, but testosterone also decreased. I will test again in two months (2025-07), and for this test I will bump fat up to ~80g/day, with a slightly higher intake of mono (20-30g/day) and saturated fats (15-20g/day), keeping Omega-6 low. Note that still keeps saturated fat very low compared to a regular diet; I'm aiming for an average of 15-20g/day of saturates, which is already higher than both the 2025-01 and 2025-05 tests where I had around 8-12g/day. PS: My maintenance caloric intake is around the 2850 kcal/day mark, so the 20g of saturates is still less than 7% of total calories, which seems optimal (according to some sources) to reduce cardiovascular disease risk long-term.

@toasty7718, have you checked your testo levels? Asking cause it can drop when chol is too low (reduced fat intake). I significantly reduced my fat intake for the last two months and my testo dropped. I'm now bumping it up again (especially mono and saturated fats, with moderation -- I was eating almost no saturated fat before). Wondering if you've noticed something similar.

That's indeed a great idea. This will reset your paladar such that you will be disgusted to eat the crappy stuff they sell in restaurants. At least that's how it works for me now lol