Michael569

There is literally no evidence of any plants causing autoimmune disease. This is just a flat out speculation and quackery in low carb community. Even for gluten, other than for coeliac patients which is a genetic disorder, gluten is not harmful for anyone. Dairy, might, potentially have proinflammatory potential buy it is mostly conditional on people with inborn lactase deficiency or an autoimmune destruction of the brush border enzyme surface. Might also be more prevalent in children who were not breast fed but that's just my speculation I guess when you say toxic you mean that they contain antinutrients? Those actually seem to be mostly beneficial unless overdosed for example making kale juices or cassava soups 3 times a day...same way a rational person will not overdose on anything. Foods that contain highest amounts of lectins, phytates (like beans and whole grains) and stuff like that actually seem to contribute to longevity. For people with plant intolerances who thrive on plant free diets, it is most likely they are just avoiding the issue of damaged microbiome or damaged intestinal liming. Once this os fixed, people can carefully and slowly reintroduce plants. I've seen this happen a few times. It can be done although it is not easy. But to each their own. I don't think we need to propagate myths of "toxic" plants which is clearly a bs. Open to persuasion with a convincing argument.

^ agreed. I think I've been in this state for the past 3 years because I only train solo. I feel like i stopped improving in terms of technique and now it is just cardio training. Definitely worth getting some practice, even if it is an occasional one-off with a coach.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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". 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.

@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.

I've spent about 4 months together in countries of South-East Asia , working remotely for a few weeks so maybe this will be helpful a bit. You can totally do it. Living in Thailand (outside of tourist hubs like Phuket, Samui, Ao Nang & Krabi) or even Vietnam, Kambodia, Philippines or Malaysia is totally doable, and you sustain yourself for years if you have enough money. A lot of Westerners, Aussies and Kiwis do it. The country is riddled with digital nomads who have figured out a way to make living while travelling. There are a few key points to make this work: you need to have some sort of income, it doesn't need to be a lot. If you are happy sharing hostels and eating local thai food, then you can live off 500-600 USD per month, maybe even less if you are very resourceful and creative If you don't have any income, you can always earn some money locally by teaching English, and working in tourism (they actually REALLY want foreigners who speak proper English to work in their tourism but don't expect to be paid US salary) this is more of a philosophical point, but you should make sure digital nomadism doesn't become your escapism from facing existential questions in your life (this is EXTREMELY common scenario) such as "what should I do with my life" because trust me, those questions will come back to bite you in the ass the moment you return back. But yah totally doable and in fact, if you have the drive and the resources, you should absolutely do it. You can use this time to develop your life purpose or even start a business. Many whites even choose to start a family, marrying a local Thai girl and having a pretty awesome life - if that's your thing, that could be done. Just don't waste all that time by partying & polluting as do many who go there to "re-discover themselves" and end up broke, depressed, with severely damaged health and no plans for future. Hope that helps

sounds like it was not a wasted time completely. That's a lot of self-reflection and growth right there ^^

Depends on for what purpose and how much you want to know. Also depends on if you value correct technique and have patience to learn each move properly or just want to know bits and pieces. For purpose of fitness, to do some bag work, burn some calories and tone up, you can learn solo. Get a skipping rope, some basic gear and pay for some online thingy to guide your workouts. For everything else including making sure you learn how to move and balance your weight before even learning how to punch, learning how to breathe before learning to roundhouse kick and to ensure you don't break your wrist or something like that, you may consider getting a coach or joining a club. As a personal story I practiced judo (14yrs), boxing (3 yrs) muay thai + kick box (3yrs) + many years of solo training. But I'd never assume to be proficient in any of those. Mainly because i only train solo since my mid 20s and that way the progress is the slowest compared to having a coach or being part of a club and actually getting beat up a bit. So I'd say, if you are serious get a few months with a professional, learn the basics and then carry on on your own. Without the solid base you'll risk learning incorrect technique and hurting yourself. The benefit is that you'll also learn how to drill, how to do proper conditioning to improve your speed and power during bag work.

@Ulax conditionally useful. Sometimes, for some people. As always, everything depends on the circumstances.

Congrats, that's a huge revelation. Things like these get SO underappreciated, especially on spirituality/mindfulness-based forums such as this one. It may not be the cause but it can be a significant contributor. I took a deep dive into depression & vitamin D research on my blog some time ago and while inconsistent, a lot of it does suggest that getting vitamin D level to optimal levels may be helpful where other approaches failed. Vitamin D receptors are literally found all over your brain, who knows how lack of receptor stimulation through lack of vit D molecule can affect all sorts of cognitive functions, other than mood. Some research even shows an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease in later life in states of chronic deficiency so best to get it fixed asap Let us know how you get on. @MarkKol some labs will send out a finger prick test to take at home and you'll send sample back. This method is fairly accurate but you need to make sure that the sample is sent out within the instructed time otherwise it may get rendered as unusable. Alternatively, your doctor can usually test for a small fee.

I see. Sounds like the above idea of batch cooking would help you fix this. Doesn't have to be boring; just learn some more recipes. You can batch cook Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Indonesian, soups, stews, porridge, meat dishes, fish etc - like pretty much anything. Just learn 5 more recipes and rotate. There are batch cook recipe books. For me electronic pressurised cooker has saved hundreds of hours over the years. Unless you are Gordon Ramsey, eventually you'll hit the repetitive pattern but everybody eats like that unless you have a private chef. Maybe there is another area of your life where you could also liberate some extra time. Not particularly. I've taken Vega once, years ago. These days I've removed nearly all supplements and powders with a few necessary exceptions. See what's available locally, go for something that bothers to invest in some sort of fair trade/organic certification if possible.

Theoretically you would probably be fine as long as you can get that fibre from elsewhere. People in hospital settings can survive on parental nutrition for years without touching proper food. Although there is a difference between surviving and thriving. The question is, why would you want to eliminate all vegetables from your diet. I don't know about you but for me, they make like 60% of all recipe volume so the remainder would be pretty dull. Why not complement the existing diet with the powder rather than replace? No that it is any of my concern but it seems hardly sustainable over a long period of time.

Hey, Try to look up the history. We've had many cookbooks and recipe resources shared over the months. Also there have been a few attempts of such mega thread. Look them up too

Of course, it does become easier. Living life with poor stamina, low physical strength and zero level of athleticism is actually quite difficult. That is as long as you don't spend most of your time sitting around. But those traits on their own are also proxy for more physical exercise, which usually means better health and lower chronic disease risk. So yes, life does get easier if you are fit as fuck

Congratulations! ?

Pretty sure you're one google search away from the answer

What's wrong with wearing socks in winter shoes? You don't put trousers on exposed genitals either. I'd be cautious about bacterial residue, dead skin residue, fungal contamination maybe even mould, but I guess if you disinfect them regularly, its fine.

Many experts, therapists, and coaches who could be masters in their field may not be 100% happy because, for example, their business might not be where they would like it to be. That doesn't mean they have nothing to teach you. In fact, if you go to someone who seems very successful, popular and probably happy, you may receive mediocre cookie-cutter service because they don't have time to go on a personal level and are more interested in growing their following than spending hours with each client/patient. Look beyond the most obvious and watch what their clients say about them and what changes their clients are receiving. But on the other hand, I agree that you shouldn't probably work with someone who just seems depressed. I had an assigned mentor back in school who was clearly depressed because her business was not doing well and she seemed extremely unhappy. And you could see that she was unfocused and always out there with her mind. So it is best to spend some time learning more about that person

I don't know anything about the particular training your friend recommends but in general, a functional training pattern is absolutely brilliant way to get way more out of your workouts. You can do a more CrossFit type of training where you go very high intensity for a short duration, you could do sprints, shadow boxing or bag work, you can do more primal type of training replicating wild animals and lizards, you can take a more parkour type of approach that includes a lot of rapid motion, changing direction, jumping etc. You can also do calisthenics and do a more pull/push training that includes mostly just your own bodyweight. I've been oscillating between weight training and a functional pattern and I've found my stamina and coordination has improved significantly compared to times when I only did bodybuilding. These days I really enjoy a session rope skipping, followed by shadow boxing with 1kg dumbells and then taking about 24 minutes of interval training with some jumping, burpees and that sort of stuff. I made a Youtube Video on this topic about a year ago. The quality is kinda shit but a few people I've shared that with found it quite helpful starting point. Very little investment into equipment required although not ideal at below 0 degree temperature

@Ayham @StarStruck thanks guys!

Interesting, I've heard some good things about this course. Do you think you can extract the basics from his book, or is the course necessary? Is there a software subscription involved or do you use your own thing?

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?

that's a complex question to answer on a forum let's break it apart on our next follow up

With regards to nutrition, the balance will be, the ability to delay the incidence of chronic disease for as long as possible. That, in fact, would be my definition of health from a high-altitude perspective. You can then go in and dissect that definition and talk about mood, energy, recovery, gut health etc etc but in the essence, the goal should be to be able to go through life and minimise the number of years reduced or compromised due to occurrence of chronic disease (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autoimmunity etc) - individual adjustments are ofcourse possible once you nail the baseline (many members of the public haven't - hence why public guidelines exist) Most people do not follow the guidelines diet, in fact many willingly try to discredit the model without dully taking time to investigate and assess its incredible benefits. The increasing global burden of disease is likely an effect of multiple variables, including (but not limited to): an increase in sedentary work, increased consumption of ultra-processed food driving weight gain, increase in obesity, reduced consumption of fibre (mainly fruits and veg), increased salt intake, reduced physical activity, increased stress levels, increased environmental toxicity and individual exposure but also increased survival of members of the population who would have previously died in early childhood (the survival of the fittest is no longer the case and so you have higher % of the population with weaker genetic makeup and weaker protection against disease who will skew your longevity statistics - this is called survivorship bias. You would have to assume that sugar, and sugar only is the cause of weight gain. It is not. The causes of weight gain are many. Whatever will lead to overconsumption and excess caloric intake will lead to weight gain provided that that energy is not being used up. You can get fatter on paleo, on vegan, on keto and even on a carnivore. Sugar is just one of many variables that have obesogenic potential but it does not immediately mean "sugar = weight gain". I assume when you say "sugar", based on below you are basically referring to carbohydrates? All carbohydrates for that matter? (legumes, fruits, vegetables, grains - both whole and refined, potatoes) Nobody ever said rice is problematic (all things being equal) I've spent about 3.5 months in Thailand, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore and about a month in Japan. From what I observed I can tell you that the average rice farmer (or cattle farmer) is underweight and borderline with malnourishment in these countries. For them eating more rice and gaining weight actually helps prevent malnutrition and so it will lead to better health. Actually, for these people even eating more beef will promote better health because it will reduce the risk of severe malnourishment. But rice is not bad. If you are referring to risk of type 2 diabetes with increased rice consumption than that's the incorrect way to look at it. T 2 Diabetes is an energy-status disease that develops once your body can no longer cope with the amount of body fat you carry. If your adipose tissue tolerance is low, you could be thin and get diabetes - in fact I've worked with a lady who went in and out of being pre-diabetic from one quarter to another because her fat tissue tolerance was extremely low and her natural constitution was extremely lean and thin. Like she would literally gain 2 kilos and her HbA1C went, within 3 months, from 34 to 39 - even up to low 40s. Once she lost it, her A1C got back to mid 30s. But this is not common in people who have the ability to "get fat" - basically their body storing huge amount of fat without having their blood glucose management system compromised. These people are naturally a bit bigger and bulky. Lot of people look at diabetes from the perspective of insulin sensitivity and sugar but that's the incorrect way. Insulin resistance is a consequence not the cause. The cause is basically becoming "too fat for your own body to handle"

Are you a raw foodie? Do you find that this quantity of food satisfies your energetic needs?

^ I'm seeing more and more of this. The need to go all the way to the edges because anything that is in between doesn't sell. If nutrition books were completely unbiased and presented the REAL information, in accordance with the hierarchy of evidence, they would be so boring that nobody would read them because they would all point to the same thing - basically health guidelines diet. Instead, we have dama, cherry-picking, mechanisms, pseudoscience and dogmatism to appeal to the audience