PsychedelicEagle

Yep, by design, since the committee defining the new guidelines is heavily biased with individuals tied to beef and dairy industries.

This makes sense, especially when eating raw food. Meat tastes good with elaborate cooking methods, spices, oils, salt — but for the vast majority (time scale) of our evolution we were eating without salt, and wild animals' flesh used to have lower levels of body fat than modern cattle — so it makes sense to assume we'd prefer other sources. That said, fruits did not used to have the same amount of sugar as they do today either, so who knows. I guess we have to spend some days in the savanna hunting vs collecting to see what tastes best LOL Thanks, I'll try taking a look sometime soon. I've read similar books from the raw food and frugivore movement, but I have to say they mention a lot of things without solid evidence, so I take this with a grain of salt. Besides avoiding overly cooking and frying foods to prevent the formation of acrylamides, AGEs, and other sources, I don't see compelling evidence that even boiled or lightly cook food would be detrimental (disconsidering nutrient leakage through water, which one can compensate by eating a bit more or simply not throwing the water out). This of course thinking of a super optimized routine — day-to-day one doesn't need to overworry about each tiny detail.

Also, very interestingly: Fruit typically makes up 60% to 80% of a wild chimpanzee's diet.

I fully agree with this. So we can't say we are NOT adapted to eat meat, but we can say we are adapted to eating mostly plants; predominantly fruits

You are right here, tho "significantly" is relative and depends on context. The lowest the intake and the highest the need, the more bioavailability matters. Above a certain threshold it does not really matter. This is false, but also depends on context. Given someone eats enough protein, plant protein has been associated with better health outcomes. But they're definitely not more bioavailable. The context is that nowawadays most people, especially non-athletes, get enough protein. And there can be such a thing as too much protein, apparently. Too-frequent and too-intense IGF-1 and mTOR stimuli may be bad for longevity (despite good for performance). Watch this masterclass from Prof. Luc van Loon:

There's a lot of evidence associating high salt intake with hypertension and organ damage. There's a reason why most health organizations (WHO, CDC, AHA) recommend limiting sodium to less than 2300 mg/day. There's also the evidence on indigenous populations, see images attached. Wisdom => SOS-free diet.

Late to the party, but I've posted about the device I've been using quite reliably for a long time in the post below. Very easy to vaporize and inhale a breakthrough dose of DMT or 5-MeO-DMT (pure chemical, freebase) in one shot. For DMT: - Sapphire heating unit (sold separately, better heat conductivity) - Turquoise temperature (lower) - 40 second heating time (party mode) - to inhale smoothly at lower temp For 5-MeO-DMT: - Regular heating unit (no need to use the sapphire for 5meo) - Orange temperature (higher) - 20 second heating time (It ships to europe @Chakra Lion)

How do you weigh/measure such small quantities of chemical? I have a mg scale and it's already unreliable for 5-MeO-DMT doses (anyway, I always make sure to weigh it regardless, for safety reasons, in addition to volumetric measurements).

LOL - I do sauna on a regular basis; after BJ started recommending this I cold shower the boyz before/after hoping it alleviates some of heat. At the gym I go to here in Switzerland, sauna is completely naked, so one cannot wear an ice bag

Interesting. I'm interested in doing more genetic testing this year.

Nice, let me know if you have any questions.

Essentia foundation is my guess 👀 Wishing good luck & thanks for the service 🤞

Very cool video indeed. Even got me watching how to make sourdough, despite my rarely eating/making bread myself.

Agreed; to add to it there is also the short vs long-term caveat. What you're eating now may make you feel good for the upcoming days, months, and even years, but it may be detrimental over decades for example (as it's the case for cardiovascular disease, as I edited above — and pretty much all chronic diseases).

Sounds like an OK approach, but how do you know you're optimizing for cardiovascular health (a silent killer that builds over decades)? I would suggest adding legumes to your diet if possible. Against most of the scientific evidence, including the largest meta-analyses. Again, I invite you to be open-minded and look at research that goes against your currently-held beliefs. For your own benefit. If you have evidence in favor of what you propose I'm happy to see it. I would recommend anyone interested tracking at least for a brief period. It builds great awareness on what you actually consume. Don't be afraid to take a peek at some point Butter is processed milk, not a whole food in my book. Same for cheese. If you wanna argue for eating meat and milk OK (I'd still suggest limiting their consumption if possible), but at least try to avoid butter. Replace it by nuts and seeds — or, peanut butter, tahini (still somewhat processed but at least unsaturated fats sources) — would be much healthier according to the scientific evidence. Always double-check the sources you see and look if they are being rigorous enough. There's a lot of noise nowadays on social media from facts that seem appealing (like the idea of "honoring your body signals") that are not corroborated by the epidemiological and experimental evidence. This is in a way excusing yourself to eat something that you enjoy (also fine, as long as you don't back-rationalize that it's healthier).

I would argue people are pooing too few times a day.

In 2021 a technical review studied 417 studies concluding that isoflavones cause no alteration and therefore cannot be classified as endocrine disruptors. I've also had this concern myself years ago, but I've now incorporated soy back into the approach and quite satisfied with it.

+1

My point is fiber is not emphasized enough. If you think in terms of food volume, the majority of a healthy diet should be composed of fiber-containing foods. From this POV, fiber-rich foods would dominate the base.

@freddyteisen Saturated fats are not essential; our bodies are highly efficient at synthesizing their own saturated fat from carbohydrates and proteins (lipogenesis). The fats that are essential are the Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids — both polyunsaturated. What you feed the cow modifies their body composition, but at meaningful doses? See this study for example, ratios between Sat-fat and Unsat-fat are roughly the same. The total fat content changes, but overall you're still ingesting more saturates than not. You must therefore limit saturated sources and increase polyunsaturated sources to achieve a better ratio for metabolic health. Even the new guidelines themselves advise to keep Sat-fat below 10% of caloric intake (and some sources would even argue <5-6%) — try tracking all your food intake with the Cronometer app and see how much of these foods you can consume without surpassing it. The guidelines are self-contradictory in this regard. This is a common narrative in the carnivore space. I invite you to take a peek outside and look for contrary evidence, with a serious open mind.

On the sub-thread of genetics, this guy provides an interesting perspective:

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I guess humanity has officially entered the phase of "artificial kidneys". We've polluted the world so much that we need artificial blood filtration

I would suggesting measuring before starting any supplementation, if possible. Then you can assess your baseline and whether supplementing is even necessary. After you start supplementing, you keep tracking to see if the dose is adequate. --- If you feel 'too-wired' with B vitamins, you could be sensitive to methyl donors. There are supplements that target this type of individual variability, such as: https://www.sunday.de/en/bioactive-b-complex-sensitive.html

Quite controversial to write "healthy fats" next to pretty much all major sources of saturated fat; goes against scientific evidence, which favors poly- and monounsaturated fats. Encouraging "whole foods" and disencouraging refined grains and carbohydrates is obviously positive. Btw, are butter, cheese, and yogurt "whole foods", really? They are all refined versions of milk IMHO. Also, emphasizing protein does not really address the major public health issues nowadays which are chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, obesity, etc. Emphasizing fiber would be more positive IMO.