Vegan meat is a scam.

[Michael569]

@Nilsi right, gotcha.

First of all, I appreciate the criticism, it is certainly pointing some blind spots that I need to work on.

Yes, sure, full disclosure, everything I say here has a spin of my own bias - of course it does !!! You do the same and so does everyone around here. We all wear the filters of our own perspective and biases and those shape our perception of the world.

You should critically examine everything you read around here automatically. 

I try to actually be unbiased where I can which is why you see my advice changing  over time but sure, there is lot of it there still.

With health advice this is tricky. With philosophy (or political theories such as Marxism) for example you might be able to follow all sorts of rabbit holes, try them and then come back and try something new. No harm done.

With nutrition, going down wrong rabbit holes for couple years could mean irreversible damage to health and since we only got one of those i am perfectly happy to follow a consensus of the evidence because, well, it's the best we got. It's not perfect, there is lot of garbage there but you can train yourself to spot it. 

If you wanna put your health in hands of charlatans, by all means but if I have information based on 100s of thousands of people who went before me, and who got the things i would like to avoid, and I can see a certain mathematical probability of X happening if they do YZ, then why not? It would be silly not to.

I'm totally willing to put my ego aside in this, there is zero agenda in the type of health advice I share with folks which is probably why people consistently disagree with me, and that's totally cool. I'm always open to debate about this stuff. 

This is not just about sharing A study. I spend hundreds of hours dissecting this information, studying the methodology, potential biases in those studies. I don't pull stuff out of my ass. 

To give you an example, I used to be a huuuge seed oil and dairy denier. If you look up my past comments here, they were all against those things in a bit of a dogmatic fashion. But you know what? With more due diligence and more digging I came to realisation that they are not all that bad and a lot of what I share with folks has changed...this happens all the time.

This is not about finding clients, in fact i haven't actually acquired a client from around here for over 7 months so it's not like I'm making a buck saying these things. Sure, if someone likes this and need some help, I'm happy to do that but you will not see me agressively promoting business around here other than my signature - which you are free to do as well and so is everyone else.

I just really dislike people being told off what we clearly know are health promoting foods because of some made up chemical reaction and then pushed to following what is (probably) a health jeopardising diet. 

If you wanna call that "having a head in the sand"  that's up to you. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Michael569

[Nilsi]

9 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

@Nilsi right, gotcha.

First of all, I appreciate the criticism, it is certainly pointing some blind spots that I need to work on.

Yes, sure, full disclosure, everything I say here has a spin of my own bias - of course it does !!! You do the same and so does everyone around here. We all wear the filters of our own perspective and biases and those shape our perception of the world.

You should critically examine everything you read around here automatically. 

I try to actually be unbiased where I can which is why you see my advice changing  over time but sure, there is lot of it there still.

With health advice this is tricky. With philosophy (or political theories such as Marxism) for example you might be able to follow all sorts of rabbit holes, try them and then come back and try something new. No harm done.

With nutrition, going down wrong rabbit holes for couple years could mean irreversible damage to health and since we only got one of those i am perfectly happy to follow a consensus of the evidence because, well, it's the best we got. It's not perfect, there is lot of garbage there but you can train yourself to spot it. 

If you wanna put your health in hands of charlatans, by all means but if I have information based on 100s of thousands of people who went before me, and who got the things i would like to avoid, and I can see a certain mathematical probability of X happening if they do YZ, then why not? It would be silly not to.

I'm totally willing to put my ego aside in this, there is zero agenda in the type of health advice I share with folks which is probably why people consistently disagree with me, and that's totally cool. I'm always open to debate about this stuff. 

This is not just about sharing A study. I spend hundreds of hours dissecting this information, studying the methodology, potential biases in those studies. I don't pull stuff out of my ass. 

To give you an example, I used to be a huuuge seed oil and dairy denier. If you look up my past comments here, they were all against those things in a bit of a dogmatic fashion. But you know what? With more due diligence and more digging I came to realisation that they are not all that bad and a lot of what I share with folks has changed...this happens all the time.

This is not about finding clients, in fact i haven't actually acquired a client from around here for over 7 months so it's not like I'm making a buck saying these things. Sure, if someone likes this and need some help, I'm happy to do that but you will not see me agressively promoting business around here other than my signature - which you are free to do as well and so is everyone else.

I just really dislike people being told off what we clearly know are health promoting foods because of some made up chemical reaction and then pushed to following what is (probably) a health jeopardising diet. 

If you wanna call that "having a head in the sand"  that's up to you. 

Im only saying this to you, because its a good illustration of the fundamental problem with scientific consensus.

Of course you cant be free of biases. And since you are actually open enough to admit that, I have no problem with it.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The only reason this can fly, is because virtually no nutritionist is properly educated in epistemology to spot this malpractice. 

How can you talk about epistemology, when you say stupid shit like this ,as if this epitemic process would be more reliable than doing science:

On 2023. 03. 31. at 9:51 PM, Nilsi said:

Look at some carnivore and animal based guys and you will find the exact inverse.

 

[Nilsi]

39 minutes ago, zurew said:

How can you talk about epistemology, when you say stupid shit like this ,as if this epitemic process would be more reliable than doing science:

 

This is only an anecdote.

I never advocated for a carnivore diet based on any sound evidence.

[Schizophonia]

10 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Do you have any evidence for any of this?

I mean actual longitudinal evidence that shows vegans are more likely to be androgen deprived.

We can make mechanistic speculations all day long but has any of that actually been demonstrated in humans? Are cultures with highest green tea consumption more likely to have low testo levels? 

Any RCTs you can share where people are given green tea and their levels drop? Permanently or transiently?

I didn't say vegans have less testosterone.
I made it clear that a number of foods consumed in large portions by vegans decrease androgen sensitivity and/or the conversion of testosterone into stronger androgens.

You see the difference, don't you?

I don't have to bother dropping you pubmed studies that you can literally find in 10 seconds on google.

Quote

If green tea is so bad why is it consistently associated with lower incidents of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, prostate cancer, breast cancer and mental health disease? Even periodontal health is positively impacted by it. 

Did I deny this? I just said that green tea could have an anti-androgen action.

Quote

If anything, if something was shown to reduce DHT in adults that's a MAJOR benefit. You don't want high DHT post teenage years especially if you have history of prostate cancer in family

Yes, you want good amounts of DHT because it is a significant benefit for fertility and mental health.

DHT and its metabolites are much more effective allosteric positive regulators of GABA receptors than testosterone alone.
DHT is also needed to antagonize estrogen receptors.

 

I regularly play with my hormones and do blood tests, when my DHT is low I become depressed and passive aggressive.
When I pump my DHT through the roof with my DHEA + raw milk + caprylic acid + very strong coffee + creatine + sorghum "milkshake" solution I become extremely calm and sociable.
In this case testosterone does not change (around 800ng/dl) and neither does e2, but DHT is at literally double the other range. 

 

Quote

So If drinking more green tea will ensure i can skip a prostate cancer that men part 65 in my family are getting and the mechanism is DHT reduction (even at the cost of my strength at the gym going 10% down) then I'll say fuck yeah gimme more of that stuff.

Anything anti androgenic will theoretically limit prostate cancer.
Testosterone does that too, DHT is just stronger.

That's like saying goitrogens are anti-carcinogenic because they make you hypothyroid. 

Being hypothyroid will technically make you less prone to developing cancer by lowering the whole hormonal cascade, but you don't want that.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Schizophonia

[nuwu]

Could small aquatic animals from sustainable fishing be considered harm-reducing, therefor vegan? Most agricultural lands rely on fertilizers derived from livestock by-product, take over much scarce land water and space, and disrupt terrestrial lifeforms. Should we be concerned about heavy metals in small fishes? 

[Michael569]

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I don't have to bother dropping you pubmed studies that you can literally find in 10 seconds on google.

that's not how you're supposed to validate your claims with research that's pure cherrypicking. The best quality research actually requires specific filters to find, what you're likely to find through Google is stuff most commonly used by influencers and marketers or the ones that have the most fancy title. Once you stop googling studies and actually dedicating time to reading the high-quality ones, most mechanistic evidence (e.g. Ray Pete type of content) dies in the process and gets superseded by human outcome data./ 

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

DHT and its metabolites are much more effective allosteric positive regulators of GABA receptors than testosterone alone.
DHT is also needed to antagonize estrogen receptors.

That sounds to me like a regirgutation of mechanistic pathway you read somewhere. All these mechanisms interact with thousands of other pathways which is impossible to capture in in-vitro study (once again I'll  mentio the name of Ray Pete because I've seen you copy his content and I think that's where you are finding these - Ray Pete is not a good exmaple of objective researchers - he is extremely biased into mechanisms that sound cool but may not be the most accurate representation of the impact on the human health. In-vitro studies and lab animal studies are prone to the most biases and errors in conclusions which is why they sit so low at the hierarchy of evidence. 

  Give me a practical implication of this for human health staying away of mechanisms (e.g.l that receptors and that neurotransmitter etc).

How is more DHT better than less DHT all things being equal?

My argument is that high DHT is a risk factor for prostate cancer that 1/8 men get and if they had lower DHT they would survive longer. What would you say is the strongest argument against that where high DHT is beneficial and the benefit is worth the risk of PC? 

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Anything anti androgenic will theoretically limit prostate cancer.
Testosterone does that too, DHT is just stronger.

those are two contradictory statements. Can you unwrap this for me pls? 

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I regularly play with my hormones and do blood tests, when my DHT is low I become depressed and passive aggressive.
When I pump my DHT through the roof with my DHEA + raw milk + caprylic acid + very strong coffee + creatine + sorghum "milkshake" solution I become extremely calm and sociable.

That's cool, I'm glad that is working for you. Maybe the effect on your depression could be achieved through other means too? Maybe one of those supplements is also targeting multiple other pathways.

I would still be cautious with widely recommending to people online such protocol due to the above cancer risk. It's the carnivore argument all over again - eating more beef makes people's digestion better but it also increases their APoB. What is bigger risk - IBS or heart disease?  

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

hat's like saying goitrogens are anti-carcinogenic because they make you hypothyroid. 

How do you know that? Most people eating those foods do not end up with hypothyroidism. In fact the only evidence of this phenomenon has been observed in rats - This was very well discussed in Alex Leaf & Paul Saladino debate - both being subjct to their own biases ofcourse. 

But let's assume eating brassicas (most likely goitrogens) does increase the risk of hypothyroidism by say 10%. Considering that massively reduce the risk of cancer of the reproductive system & lungs, would that be a tradeoff worth making? I'd argue that it is. 

Also goitrogenic substances get deactivated by cooking so as long as you're not juicing ounces of kale you should theoretically be fine if you get those from cooked food. 

And finally, statistically speaking, people with goitrogen will test deficient on iodine tests so maybe goitre development has nothing to do with goitrogenic substance and is a pure sign of major deficiency. 

22 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Being hypothyroid will technically make you less prone to developing cancer by lowering the whole hormonal cascade, but you don't want that.

that is intereting, I've never thought about that. Migth be true. But then it increases the odds of atherosclerosis which isn't ideal. 

In the end all these things can be managed with medication so you are able to get treatment for anything that occurs, the question is what is worth the ultimate risk? If being stronger is worth the risk of early coronary obstruction then people should go for it. 

I guess getting benefits from DHT modulation for depression might be worth for you if you're happy to accept the other risk factors. It's always a balancing act. 

People need to be given all the information when making these choices rather than being exposed to marketing and cherrypicking which I have a personal grievance with. I'm just trying to present the dark side to you that you might not have considered That's all 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Michael569

[Schizophonia]

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

that's not how you're supposed to validate your claims with research that's pure cherrypicking. The best quality research actually requires specific filters to find, what you're likely to find through Google is stuff most commonly used by influencers and marketers or the ones that have the most fancy title. Once you stop googling studies and actually dedicating time to reading the high-quality ones, most mechanistic evidence (e.g. Ray Pete type of content) dies in the process and gets superseded by human outcome data./ 

Ok

I haven't posted any studies yet and I don't even know which of my claims you are talking about that you refute what I MIGHT say.
In addition, you justify this by saying that the results found on google (perhaps you are arrogantly assuming that I am too stupid to check the sources.) will not be reliable anyway because they are too mainstrem, but you go on to saying that, on the other hand, basing myself on more marginal sources like ray peat is cherrypicking.

At such a level, why bother writing all this rather than simply "shut up, I'm right"?

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

That sounds to me like a regirgutation of mechanistic pathway you read somewhere. All these mechanisms interact with thousands of other pathways which is impossible to capture in in-vitro study (once again I'll  mentio the name of Ray Pete because I've seen you copy his content and I think that's where you are finding these - Ray Pete is not a good exmaple of objective researchers - he is extremely biased into mechanisms that sound cool but may not be the most accurate representation of the impact on the human health. In-vitro studies and lab animal studies are prone to the most biases and errors in conclusions which is why they sit so low at the hierarchy of evidence. 

I don't even know if Peat mentioned DHT, the action of DHT on GABA signaling is universally recognized.

Incidentally, as studies on the links between hormones and neurotransmitters are still rather vague, nothing is written in stone and I allow myself to take the lead in issuing hypotheses.
The point is that given the greater affinity of DHT and its metabolics for androgen receptors in the brain compared to testosterone, the lack of aromatase from DHT in the pituitary, and anyway sensations felt by many users of transdermal DHT users on meso rx / RPF, I say (maybe wrongly, eh) that DHT is more GABAeric than testosterone.

Ditto

All you did is not read and rushed to your keyboard to write in a watered-down way that I'm a jerk who has to read only nonsense anyway, and that you're right anyway without even having to check anything or think about anything because you are smarter and more reasonable than anyone else..

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

  Give me a practical implication of this for human health staying away of mechanisms (e.g.l that receptors and that neurotransmitter etc).

What is the point of this question? Better Signaling GABA has an anxiolithic and pro-social action to some extent.
I may have misunderstood, I am not an English speaker

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

How is more DHT better than less DHT all things being equal?

All I did was say that vegans probably have less DHT/androsterone/androstenedione and maybe more estrogen and that could potentially be feminizing.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

My argument is that high DHT is a risk factor for prostate cancer that 1/8 men get and if they had lower DHT they would survive longer. What would you say is the strongest argument against that where high DHT is beneficial and the benefit is worth the risk of PC? 

those are two contradictory statements. Can you unwrap this for me pls? 

Even with 0 DHT having a lot of testosterone will increase the risk of prostate cancer.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

That's cool, I'm glad that is working for you. Maybe the effect on your depression could be achieved through other means too? Maybe one of those supplements is also targeting multiple other pathways.

No unless you take benzodiazepines or dissociatives daily, which is obviously dangerous.
Zinc, magnesium etc will never be as effective and over-consuming them in an effort to increase gaba signaling can cause mineral imbalances.

Besides, I'm not depressed, and the gaba/glutamate axis is not at the heart of depression.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

I would still be cautious with widely recommending to people online such protocol due to the above cancer risk. It's the carnivore argument all over again - eating more beef makes people's digestion better but it also increases their APoB. What is bigger risk - IBS or heart disease?  

This is just personal experience, I never said it was good to be exposed to huge levels of DHT all the time.
My only assertion is that proper levels of DHT are good for mental health, male fertility, libido, estrogen control etc.
That's all.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

How do you know that? Most people eating those foods do not end up with hypothyroidism. In fact the only evidence of this phenomenon has been observed in rats - This was very well discussed in Alex Leaf & Paul Saladino debate - both being subjct to their own biases ofcourse. 

Don't pretend not to understand what I wanted to explain in my "metaphor".
I didn't say "eating goitrogenic foods makes you hypothyroid".

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

But let's assume eating brassicas (most likely goitrogens) does increase the risk of hypothyroidism by say 10%. Considering that massively reduce the risk of cancer of the reproductive system & lungs, would that be a tradeoff worth making? I'd argue that it is. 

Brassicas do not create a "massive" decrease in cancer risk because they decrease thyroid function.
They are associated with such a reduction because they are complete foods, natural, and therefore rich in polyphenols / vitamins / minerals that are the source of this quality.
So it's off topic.

 

Besides, I was wrong! It's black tea that's anti androgenic, green tea is actually associated (in studies I've seen) with increased blood levels of testosterone AND DHT, despite a decrease in the weight of cancer cells in the prostate. (in a mouse study that you will quickly understand).
Or maybe, on the contrary, the increase was due to a decrease in the absorption of androgens in the cytosol (hence the increase in androgens in the blood when fasting)???
Anyway, black and green tea had the same anti-cancer property, so it's more complicated than a story of androgens.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

Also goitrogenic substances get deactivated by cooking so as long as you're not juicing ounces of kale you should theoretically be fine if you get those from cooked food. 

And finally, statistically speaking, people with goitrogen will test deficient on iodine tests so maybe goitre development has nothing to do with goitrogenic substance and is a pure sign of major deficiency. 

I'm not against goitrogenic foods, it was just a metaphor to explain my point, I don't know why you insist on it.

On 03/04/2023 at 6:37 PM, Michael569 said:

that is intereting, I've never thought about that. Migth be true. But then it increases the odds of atherosclerosis which isn't ideal. 

In the end all these things can be managed with medication so you are able to get treatment for anything that occurs, the question is what is worth the ultimate risk? If being stronger is worth the risk of early coronary obstruction then people should go for it. 

I guess getting benefits from DHT modulation for depression might be worth for you if you're happy to accept the other risk factors. It's always a balancing act. 

People need to be given all the information when making these choices rather than being exposed to marketing and cherrypicking which I have a personal grievance with. I'm just trying to present the dark side to you that you might not have considered That's all 

That's true, but again I didn't say having huge levels of DHT was good.
I return the question to you, do you have concrete proof that depriving yourself of a normal/slightly high level of DHT and the various advantages is worth the cost.
I don't believe it will decrease my risk of prostate cancer by 3000% and improve my life expectancy by several years, joking aside I don't believe it's significant.
But as I don't take you for an idiot, I'm ready to read if you have sources, I also care about my health 

 

[Bobby_2021]

Bread is also highly processed and have harmful chemicals in them.

I am going to stop eating bread on a regular basis. Occassionally eating them is fine.

Generally speaking, food is meant to be consumed by 90 min after you cook it. In order to make it last long they add harmful chemicals and process it. It's a good rule of thumb to stay away from processed foods. 

[Eyowey]

Cooking in general is a scam. The only thing of value that you're eating with cooking is your free time. Raw foods are cheaper and healthier.

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Eyowey said:

Cooking in general is a scam. The only thing of value that you're eating with cooking is your free time. Raw foods are cheaper and healthier.

?

[Intraplanetary]

On 13/03/2023 at 6:04 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

https://youtu.be/CTJj6Gjw7YU

So yeah you would want to stay away from this horrible poison. Also, avoid seed oils and processed foods. 

 

 

Society is full of shit. I want to puke watching these greedy companies and brainless celebrities promoting these chemicals to people. 

[Intraplanetary]

On 13/03/2023 at 7:40 AM, Michael569 said:

• plant-based meats are not poisonous - in fact we have a few preliminary RCTs (look up Christopher Gardner's studies) that show compared to beef they help reduce cholesterol and triglycerides as early as in 4 weeks 
• vegetable oils are not poison either, they don't cause cancer or heart disease or none of that - this is a a low-carb nonsense once again based on mechanistic speculation. Compared to high saturate fats like beef fat, tallow and butter they are highly beneficial in the human outcome data - let's stop spreading nonsense

never believe in mainstream studies on food and nutrition. It's all lobbied and corrupted. 

[Intraplanetary]

 

[Schizophonia]

On 09/04/2023 at 1:27 PM, Eyowey said:

Cooking in general is a scam. The only thing of value that you're eating with cooking is your free time. Raw foods are cheaper and healthier.

why ?

[Michael569]

On 4/10/2023 at 4:18 PM, Intraplanetary said:

It's all lobbied and corrupted. 

 these types of absolute statements always make me laugh. Not everyone out there is trying to get you and scam you of your money. 

Have some faith in the good of the humanity for fuck's sake. There are lot of scumbags and thieves out there  but most folks are fairly honest and kind....

Edited April 12, 2023 by Michael569

[Schizophonia]

@Michael569 looking back I think my response was too aggressive, mea culpa

[Michael569]

@Schizophonia no you're good.

I liked your response but I never got around to reply properly and didn't want to half -arse it. I appreciate reasonable feedback but what I really hate are the types of responses i was commenting on (e.g. " all science is corrupted" "nothing can be trusted" ) 

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Not everyone out there is trying to get you and scam you of your money

No one is intentionally crafting plans with the sole purpose of making you sick. But they do have a solid intention to make money, and that happens to come at the cost of your health most of the time.

The more people are worried about such things the more pressure on governments to enforce tighter regulations on big corporations.

You can check the example of the quality of coca cola in France and India. Coca cola has to abide by tighter health standards in France and make lesser sugar and other toxic ingredients while in India they don't care as much. It's mainly because people in India are not as diet conscious as they are in France. 

[Intraplanetary]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

@Schizophonia no you're good.

I liked your response but I never got around to reply properly and didn't want to half -arse it. I appreciate reasonable feedback but what I really hate are the types of responses i was commenting on (e.g. " all science is corrupted" "nothing can be trusted" ) 

noway mainstream science can be trusted. all full of shit.