Michael569

@Schizophonia im on phone so can't quote but what I meant is , you commented previously to something i wrote about processed food and you attached all those photos i including the photo of 3-bean chilli..right? So i assumed what you meant by that was something like "look at this dish, it's better than processed food, and then you posted Cronomer logo and a can of beans, which I assumed was meant reinforce that message? Or did i misunderstand that comment? Also to answer regarding needing to eat half a kilo of beans...this is just one food type of hundreds of possible things you can cook. Of course you wouldn't be eating the same thing all the time, i agree that's a bit boring. There are numerous ways to add more protein to your food even on a plant based diet

do you see how that defeats your previous argument? You're running around like a child who is rebelling against adults screaming "Beenz mage my tummy huuut, I dont uajk beenz ". Just because you can't tolerate it, doesn't mean that this is an unsustainable way of eating. And obviously that calculation was for one portion, not a whole day of eating...I thought that was pretty obvious. You're free to eat whatever you like, just be consistent with your own arguments

@integration journey It should almost be automatic. Think of your top values as an internal guiding compass, not as some form of searchlight. You should feel, deep down, when your values are being compromised. Feelings of anxiety, restlessness, anger or irritation are common when you've been compromising on one of your values. I also worked with a life coach years ago who suggested I condense mine to 5 but batch them in sets of 3s because a lot of my values were kinda hinting at similar things. And that works much better for me. If you don't feel it is automatic then journaling can help you unravel some of those blockages, maybe you're subconsciously resisting something. Because your values should almost be like your second brain, they should be automatically shaping your decisions, impacting what activities give you reward and which make you feel upset. Like when you look at something , for example you're in a meeting at work and people are discussing using this new supplier of temporary human resources that is known for cutting labour costs of their employees and while all your colleagues are excited due to cost savings to your company, you're looking at that and thinking "i don't really like that", that's usually your value systems speaking maybe because one of your values is justice or freedom or equality. Or like looking at a meal you've been given at a restaurant and thinking "I don't want to put this in my body" while everyone around you doesn't seem to care would be an indication that Health is a strong value of yours Make small observations how interactions and situations in your average day make you feel and make take note in your phone to have something to journal on later. Over time there will be hints on what sort of things seem to give you a boost and what sort of things irritate you - then you can re-form your values accordingly.

I recreated that dish posted above (Chilli non-Carne with kidney beans and red lentils) based roughly on how I'd make it and the ingredients I'd assume I'd be using. This doesn't include salt and spices / herbs. I think this is pretty decent complete essential amino acid profile 31g of protein (I could easily smash twice this many legumes so could make it up to 45g of protein in a single portion) which would tip the dish to about 920 calories I assume as you'd have to adjust for using one extra onion and more tomatoes and passata to thicken the sauce. 20g of fibre in a single dish is pretty f***ng epic almost no saturated fats this could be made without olive oil for anyone who dislikes those extra calories

Its one of those topics in nutrition that unfortunately gets way more attention than it should, mainly because of people like Dave (but also others), who despite their immense following fails to grasp some of the most basic ideas in nutritional sciences such as the hierarchy of evidence, the failure of mechanisms to translate in human outcome data and in general the risk of following fad trends for the sake of social media attention... Anyways... Back to antinutrients. The way to look at this is to ask yourself: "if indeed phytonutrients were such an issue, how would we know"? The obvious answer to that question would be that "people who consume the most of them would run into severe health problems". Right? Like, for example if the concern with phytic acid is that it , say, blocks the absorption of iron, zinc and calcium, would we expect to see that people who consume the most nuts and seeds have...what? the most osteoporosis? the most iron deficiency anaemia? The most immunosuppression due to severe zinc deficiency? General malnutrition issues? Yet when we take a step back from mechanisms (e.g. phytic acid blocks iron absorbtion) and look at the large population data (meaning what happens when we look at human studies in real living people, not in petri dish) we don't see any of that. In fact, people who tend to eat more of these foods that are rich in antinutrients (vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, legumes, greens) tend to have less osteoporosis and less osteopenia and, in general a better health, be it from the position of chronic disease (heart, cancer, diabetes etc) or be it from the position of nutrient status (deficiencies, malnutrition etc). This is a major critic of reductionist approach to nutrition in general that overfocussing on mechanisms and then inferring recommendations to public based on that is not just stupid but dangerous. Take an example of soy: Soy contains a bunch of phytochemicals like Genistein, Daidzenin or Formononetin. Someone like Dave Asprey or Mark Hyman would find a mechanistic study that sees that when you drop genistein on a testicle cell from a rat, something happens. And they would proclaim "aha! soy is bad because it gives you testicular cancer" But at the same time, these guys don't care that when we look at human outcome data (meaning mostly epidemiology) what we see is that people who regularly consume soy have - less prostate cancer, less bowel cancer, less lung cancer, better cardiovascular health and just tons of other improvements. This is why we have the hierarchy of evidence, because mechanisms are just so meaningless most of the time. And while sometimes mechanisms are interesting because they may incentivise new area of research in areas where evidence quality is poor, in topics where we already have robust human data, (such as benefits of nuts and seeds) mechanisms just aren't relevant anymore and all they do is confuse the hell out of everybody. So what Dave is doing in this case is propagating quackery, muddying water for people who don't need to be concerned about this and generally making money on creating confusion...which isn't very nice TLDNR Walnuts are fine, don't worry about phytic acid, it is looking at functional nutrition from the wrong end.

Next thing you'll know, Adderall enriched baby formulas are the new hit among genZ parents

@Schizophonia no disagreement there 🙂 that's what I'd call a perfect batch. Cook 10 times as much in a single portion and you'll basically ace veganism on budget

The argument was made for the sake of someone who is vegan, intends to remain vegan, has low level of nutritional knowledge (relatively common in vegan communities) but wants to remain reasonably healthy. The aim of the argument was not to try to convince you guys to eat processed food I agree with you that ideally if you're an omnivore you won't benefit from eating a plant based diet made out of mostly ultra processed food. I don't personally think veganism is unhealthy. Longitudinal studies show comparable results to Mediterranean diet which is sort of a gold standard of nutrition where longevity, chronic disease and all cause mortality is used as an end-line. There are just lots of nuances and it takes some research, practice and experience to get it right. The ethics of veganism is the ultimate argument and anyone who chooses to avoid harm should not be discouraged from the path but they need to be supported from the health perspective espcially if they are young or trying to get pregnant or already have an existing health condition. That was the core of my argument, sometimes UPF can help towards that endeavour but ofcourse it can also harm such as when vegans overeat fries, burgers and hypercaloric hyperpalatable vegan junk.

@integral I don't want to be telling you what to do man but that's such a HUGE set of red flags that I'd seriously be considering terminating that relationship. I am sorry for the health issues she is facing but we have a system in place to support chronic disease. But I doubt it's right that you are being asked to be the caretaker if you're not even married. Unless you feel this person is ultimately your soulmate and you know "she's the one" but I don't get that vibe from the way you describe her. People can change...but most don't, especially not those with a massive victim mentality and self entitlement issues. And you only have one life and your youth won't last forever.....

Important that the B vitamins are methylated as mentioned by Integral. Homocysteine could be increased due to other things than methylation cycle disruption as well so keep an eye on it. It may take some time (few months) for it to start coming down so be patient and work with someone who will help you explore this from a more holistic perspective, in case you don't see any results from supplementation. Something like this (link) is what I mean. It needs to say B9 as - 5-methyl-tetra-hydro-folate B12 as methyl-cobalamin B6 as P5P Betaine doesn't matter If it also contains a bit of Choline that might be a bonus None of this is a direct supplemental recommendation so work with someone who specialises in functional nutrition locally in France

@integral are they a relationship partner or a family? Could you say more about their direct relationship to you in the hierarchy of the whole family?

@Username hey, sorry for late response. Tests are looking fine except the cholesterol panel. Your Total and your LDL are higher than I would like for a 35 year old male. I'd try to get your LDL as close to 1.8 as possible. But other than that things are alright. How is your blood pressure? How are your anthropometrics? Have they checked your BMi? Weight? Height? From some experience working with c Long Covid and Fibro and what I found nearly always is that there is a reduced stress tolerance so one of the most important things is to plan your energy expenditure. Even like using some kind of numerical evaluation. This is a little bit intuitive and you kinda design it with regards to past onset of PEM but it would go something like this. Assume you have, in the day, 10 units of energy. And if you hit 0, you will experience PEM and severity of symptoms. So your goal is to kinda end your day with 2 or 3. And then you would rate activiities such as. exercise: -5 units walk: -3 units nap: + 3 units cooking session -3 units. And so on. Basically using your intuition by journalling on what activities drain you and sort of observing yourself on how depleted you get if you stack a walk + study session + exercise and how likely it is that you end up with symptoms the next day and then sort of working your way backwards from there. Gradually as you strengthen the body, you will find that you can tolerate more and , for example, exercise may go from 5 to 3 or a session of socialisation will drain 4 instead of 7 and so on. But ignore if this doesn't make sense Also, I didn't ask this but how is your diet? Are you eating a lot of red meat or things like bacon and butter ? Curious if that would explain the elevated cholesterol?

Not everything that is processed or ultra processed is inherently bad. You could make an argument that some ultra processed vegan foods, because they are fortified, is beneficial for people who would have otherwise run into deficiencies on a vegan diet which is quite common in the wholefood plant based communities. Take examples of iron, fibre & soy protein fortified vegan burgers. I'd argue that's a benefit protecting folks from anaemia and protein deficiency (those who are not very good at planning their diet) Also, someone once told me this and it stuck " not all vegans do it for health, some vegans just want to eat cruelty-free Western Style vegan Diet" , I think that's a major factor here. The ethics vs the health side. You could be an ethical 100% vegan, never touch an animal product in your life and be incredibly unhealthy and we've all seen those people

impressive! not everyone is familiar with this complex pathway @thierry maybe you could find a nutritionist locally or a functional medicine doctor who could run something like a methylation panel for you. This is by Genova Diagnostics Methylation panel basically testing all the cofactors

@Something Funny I don't think i have anything else to say. Hope you know what you're doing

🤨

Stepping on a piece of glass, rusted metal, needle or some leftover junk is the biggest concern. Obviously you shouldn't walk outdoors barefoot especially not in overgrown places etc. Beach and your own garden would be only exceptions. Other than that the risks far outweigh any questionable benefits. Definitely wouldn't recommend walking barefoot out in the nature, you may have good intentions but others who have walked there before you may have been smashing bottles, discarding junk like tin cans etc. over time any corrosive metal becomes a severe hazard. We've polluted the planet too much for it to be safe anymore

@Username Welcome back, haven't seen your mushroom avatar for a while I'm curious did you have CFS diagnosed? Did you match the diagnostic criteria for CFS and PEM? Or was it mostly assumption by the doc? Do you know how it was triggered? Seems that it could have been around the time when you had lots of stress with sorting out the storage and maybe that whole resale experience was a p[articularly stressful event. Also, have you had any major infection or covid recently? Long covid can be a trigger for these things as well. Other things I'd be curious to know more about: your iron status, your thyroid health, full blood count, vitamin D levels. I like the supplemental protocol btw, pretty neat combination for deep cellular support! Kuddos on putting that together yourself

If you think it is kidney related, that's best discussed with a professional. Low grade pyelonephritis could go unnoticed but you want to get that checked, there are urinary tests your MD/GP can run. Schedule an appointment with your GP and stress the urgency. As in for overall health improvement, there are many ways to go about that, have a look around this forum subsection, wen discuss lots of cool things and there are of course books you could look into or simply chat to AI how to start taking simple steps.

yeah, that has to be a professional, as this is a patient test interpretation. Weird that they put so much focus on Equol? That's kinda random since half the population of UK probably don't even eat soy.

I'm not loving the bifido/lacto ratio but it has to be taken in context to the rest of the report. Do you think you can post the whole thing in here Alex? Cut out personal details, just printscreens. I think @undeather is more qualified to interpret this than me tho

It took me a long time to truly recognise that some of the things we discuss on this forum and the amount of self development and internal work people around do is soooo out of place for many people in society that even something as simple as being able to sit in silence for 30 minutes a day is completely inconceivable for most. I am not being dismissive, this is result of countless observations and interactions. I think we tend to underestimate how much people struggle with things that we consider 'easily remediable', much of this isn't common knowledge unfortunately Most people in the society do little to no personal development, they don't read meaningful literature, they stop studying after finishing school, they don't have high quality hobbies and they don't devote their time to anything meaningful. It is almost NPC existence and I think that's one of the reasons why usage of social media is so rampant why it is so easy to brainwash and why someone like Trump could get into power. To a ship without a a destination, every wind is favourable.

For someone trying to escape the mechanistic way of thinking you seem to be falling into it over and over I only brought up the polyphenol topic because you hinted at that direction with speculating about mechanisms as to why chocolate is bad/good. I don't think discussing mechanisms (e.g. theobromin does this and that that to adenosin receptors) is a healthy way to talk about nutrition, in fact I think it is one of the worst ways to tackle the topic because people end up making stuff up to confirm their biases or assert a disagreement. Just look at whole Ray Pete forum for example, its like a rollercoaster for the owner's ego with almost no relevance to real life. Mechanistic debates about nutrition are complete garbage because we don't understand nutrition at such stage at all. We have no idea what these things really do. So it comes down to who can remember or google more cool things that have nothing to do with reality. Take seed oils as an example. Ray Pete would tell you they are bad because Linoleic Acid oxidises in vitro when you mix it with copper and he would say "look at this linolenic acid, it is killing you because oxidation has been linked to cancer in rats". Then you take a meta analysis of HUMAN studies and show "look, people who have more circulating linolenic acid in their blood actually do better and they are healthier". And you would present this to Pete and his acolytes and you know know what would happen? You'd get banned from his forum... because that's not how they play. Lol, I think you and I both know that consequences of fruitarian diet have nothing to do with polyphenols and everything with malnutrition, protein deprivation and multinutrient deficiencies. If you starve yourself a cocktail of polyphenols is not going to do anything for you. That's a cheap argument that you yourself don't even believe in more mechanistic speculation. But ok, let's entertain the idea that eating more dark chocolate leads to higher cortisol levels. What is the argument? That dark chocolate leads to....anxiety? bipolar disorder? schizophrenia? major depression? All of those conditions are associated with chronically elevated corstisol. Or let's make the same argument for coffee...that it is associated with, more anxiety and depression? It is interesting because we see the opposite. You feed 100 people cocoa powder in randomized trial where they don't know what they are getting and the group being fed cocoa feels better, has less anxiety and even their salivary cortisol gets better. You could say that science looks at a narrow area of life and you would be right yet if introducing just one thing works in one group and doesn't work in the other while, in general most other things remain the same, isn't that an indication of a positive effect. It is certainly more persuasive to me than saying "you shouldn't eat dark chocolate because in vitro theobromine have been shown to increase cortisol when dripped on a sample of cells from adrenal cortex" EDIT I hit submit a bit earlier than I wanted but I also wanted to address this: "If we really think about the whole picture it doesn't matter at all what you eat it matters more when you eat how often you eat and your overall strategy for health. What you eat is the least important factor." I agree with this argument to some extend. You overall lifestyle matters more than sum of its parts yet I don't agree that it doesn't mater what you eat at all. Every process in your body is dependant on building blocks and those are found only in your food. If you think about it, from the moment of conception, when you were one zygote cell that divided into 2 and then 4 through mitosis and then 8 and 16 and so on...everything has been dependant on receiving energy, nutrients and macronutrients. I agree that in most cases where nutrition is okay, it doesn't matter initially as long as you're eating enough. The nuances become apparent later in life or in cases of people with either genetic defects (for example a mutation of a gene that codes for certain enzyme could lead to issues if some particular molecule in diet is in excess - e.g. Coeliac disease or MTHFR mutation). Another way to look at it is that you could, during life be eating normally yet you always had a tendency to eat, for example a lot of high fat dairy because if was cultural and in your 58 you develop a prostate cancer while being otherwise healthy because you've been stimulating a certain pathway unnecessarily and maybe with more nuanced adaptation it could have been avoided. Or you lived in a culture where meat tends to be grilled a lot because it is hot outside and people tend to do more grilling and barbecuing and because of that you get diagnosed with colorectal adenoma in your 50s and maybe if you were paying a bit more attention to it, it could have been prevented. It is subtleties like this that show us that what you eat matters but the consequences do not always get apparent immediately and often when they do, they might be irreversible. It is also true that some people seem to be able to get away with anything. Personally I don't know many such folks because those who claimed, when they were younger, that they could do anything without consequences, usually end up with shit health. My partner's dad is one such example, my grandfather is another and I know personally a few others...anecdotes, I know but I always struggle to back these arguments up with real life stories. I think a lot of these cultural hearsays are completely made up. Go to a n oncology clinic for respiratory or hepatic diseases and ask "how many of you thought smoking / drinking would never catch up with you when you were young" Some people are incredibly gifted with genetics, they were blessed with powerful immune system, with strong livers, powerful detoxification capacities. Some people are naturally born with a pool of antioxidant that's twice or 3 times the potency of the average person in their region. Folks get born with ApoE mutations or cholesterol reabsorbtion mutations that make them practically immune to heart attacks. All these things matter. On the other side, some people are born with things that make them 10 times likely to experience first heart attack before 45, 13 times more likely to develop Alzheimer's, less likely to be able to absorb vitamin D, more likely to be diagnosed with autoimmune condition, more likely to form blood cloths in deep veins - and when these people follow a health advice of some quack on the internet they end up with terrible health problems. Nuances matter

@LastThursday yes, agreed. Thanks for introducing the nuances.

I have an alcoholic in a family and that's exactly what happened. This person would go above and beyond when sober and would give everything to others until they get drunk and destroy everything, trigger conflicts and basically alienate others from them. And this is a cycle that continues for over 15 years. I wouldn't say the alcohol is more important to them, it is that the addiction is such a strong driver that they have no willpower over it anymore. When you put a person with low level of personal development, low level of consciousness, no willpower and shit ton of trauma and put them in an environment where there is easy access to alcohol, they will always lose control. At this point I stopped making effort to change this person because I know I can't. My heart goes out to you and your family. Sometimes creating distance is the answer.