Century-long metabolic decline, not less exercise and/or more eating, causing the obesity epidemic

[CoconutEffect]

According to the latest studies, women in that same age "consume" almost as much porn as males, even though a lot fewer of them are celibate. Not to mention the now completely normalized and ubiquitous possession/usage of female "sex toys" like vibrators, mechanical dild*s, and various other...tools. Most men would still be laughed out of the room if they mentioned in a social gathering they bought/have something like...a flesh-light. So, whatever is happening is affecting both sexes, just as obesity is.

50% women regularly watch porn (and 40% admit making their own!)

Over half of women (55 per cent) watch pornographic content on their own at least once a month – with 40 per cent watching weekly.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Devastating. I thought it was only literary pornography that women prefer. @haidut Have you had any interest studying low dose Salvia Divinorum (quidding appears to be far more gentle than smoking) for the resetting of reward pathways via (KOPr) agonism? Salvinorin A, a kappa-opioid receptor agonist hallucinogen: pharmacology and potential template for novel pharmacotherapeutic agents in neuropsychiatric disorders

I have to think that what we are up against as a species can only be addressed by the promise of psychedelic medicine, which would make sense given their ancient use as religious sacraments.

 

[A-Tim]

I don't know if you saw this video from Brad Marshall, but he apparently had a little exchange with the lead author of the study, John Speakman, on Twitter-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNxE-K06KA


Brad's been doing some interesting research and personal experiments lately, and he has even featured some studies that suggest that MUFA might even be more fattening than PUFA. This would make pretty much all fat (except dairy, coconut, and cacao) problematic in any weight loss diet, as all other fat (even beef fat) is going to be mostly unsaturated (adding MUFA and PUFA together). Dairy fat (and cacao) is between 60-70% saturated, meaning you could probably get away with a little more, and Coconut Oil (or cream) might be beneficial to just add to the saturation, especially if you get hydrogenated. Otherwise, maybe opt for the leanest protein possible (chicken and turkey breast, tilapia, scallops, cod, gelatin powder), along with low fat milk and dairy (1% tastes light years better than skim, and it will be a mostly saturated fat). And for everything else, it's sugar ahoy!

Brad did also mention this study in one of his videos, where an ad libitum low-fat diet led to unexpected weight loss (and clinically significant weight loss) in many subjects. And they weren't trying to get the subjects to lose weight- One-year experience with a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet in patients with coronary heart disease

@haidut, might be a great time to do another podcast with Brad Marshall, if you can. He also did a day where he ate 800 grams of carbohydrate. He's been focusing on starch, as he thinks that fructose activate some of the desaturase enzymes, but I think the evidence he has pointed to in support of that is a bit weak. Like the Sterculia Oil study where they fed some of the experimental rats pure fructose in drinking water. Yes, the rats on the High Fructose diet did weigh more (though I think even the researchers said it wasn't statistically significant), but the high fructose rats were eating almost double the calories of the control rats, and getting more than 50% of total calories from pure fructose. Even then, those rats had low PUFA stores, but did have higher MUFA stores. Anyway, it'd be great to hear you two do another podcast about these topics (metabolic decline, NAD+/NADH, carbs in general, and fructose and sugar specifically).

Glad to see you back. I've enjoyed reading many of your posts, especially those on iron.

I've been listening to Brad's claims about mufa too. It seems like most of the people who I follow on diet/health seem to think mufa is neutral or bad. No-one really claims it's needed. Until the dust settle I'm choosing to avoid it where possible. Interestingly, I've settled more or less on what you described above. Low fat dairy and two or three teaspoons of coconut oil a day. Along with butter on my french fries. A man's gotta have a guilty pleasure.

 

[Ismail]

View attachment 50164

Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide - Scientific Reports

The impairment of liver function by low environmentally relevant doses of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) is still a debatable and unresolved matter. Previously we have shown that rats administered for 2 years with 0.1 ppb (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent dilution; 4 ng/kg body weight/day daily...

www.nature.com

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[AlaskaJono]

I did a few posts years ago on the alarming findings that the youngest generations are among the most physically active, consume the least amount of calories, yet are the most obese (on average) compared to previous generations going back to at least the 1950s. Those studies did not look at specific reasons, but opined that since the trend also matches the decline in IQ scores, testosterone levels, fertility, lifespan, etc the cause is likely something profoundly systemic that affects all of these variables. One of those studies suggested that it is a decline in metabolism that may be to blame, listing in support the much higher caloric intake recorded among both children and adults in the 1950s.

Opine time: I have always taken note of my older client's (diet and lifestyle) history, as well as older folks I meet in the course of my life. Most of them have (or had) some physical aspect of their daily life that was completely different from 20 year olds at the time. Whether it be farming, homesteading or semi-homesteading, Old guys in India with seemingly not enough nutrition but completely vibrant (and not gaunt), etc.. . Most kids these days do not have any kind of similar activity levels as folks 100 years ago.

I personally think that the older generations had more 'OOMPH' to start with in their life, and especially my parent's generation (1935) they (possibly) had cleaner soil conditions with less pollutants and more minerals... and their mothers' (when pregnant) were not filled with estrogen mimickers/hormone disrupters as new mothers are today. I consider the entire gestation period AND first formative years paramount in the health of the next generation. This is TOP PRIORITY for the overall survivability of the species, imho. Mental + emotional stress are part of that "Health Picture" which includes metabolism.

People used to walk or hike dozens of miles a week, as well as full days or half days of physical activity. This cannot be substituted by jogging 3 times a week, or bike riding, with some gym time or pilates class to boot. As a kid I would skateboard 12 miles to go visit a friend. And then hike a few miles behind his house to go caving. Etc.. Just saying that the movement or activity (and the Freedom to do so) for us is also a factor of 'metabolism'. And having a personal history of moving miles gives one confidence and energy to be able to do what needs to do. (Like walk 10 miles in a snowstorm to get some petrol when no one will pick you up on Christmas Eve.Yes, this happened). AND that one's history of a movement/activity/work metabolism is the best indicator of future metabolism.

About 20 years ago I read a study that correlated childhood respiratory fitness via general sports/activities and the ability to regain this fitness in adulthood easily, compared to adults who never had run around as kids. (I did a quick search and couldn't find it now.) This combo of NOT much activity combined with hormonal disruptors (EDC or Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals) leads to a complete destruction of Progesterone production and thereby increase in Estrogen levels. High Estrogen leads to Chubby syndrome.... and more cancers than one can shake a stick at.

 

[Highserotonin90]

@CoconutEffect Did you elaborate on anything related to eugenol and its probable mechanism of "resetting" dopamine receptors?

 

[Highserotonin90]

According to the latest studies, women in that same age "consume" almost as much porn as males, even though a lot fewer of them are celibate. Not to mention the now completely normalized and ubiquitous possession/usage of female "sex toys" like vibrators, mechanical dild*s, and various other...tools. Most men would still be laughed out of the room if they mentioned in a social gathering they bought/have something like...a flesh-light. So, whatever is happening is affecting both sexes, just as obesity is.

50% women regularly watch porn (and 40% admit making their own!)

Over half of women (55 per cent) watch pornographic content on their own at least once a month – with 40 per cent watching weekly.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I have my personal idea that even if there is female ejaculation there is never a refractory period as in men and therefore leads the woman to always seek new experiences ... furthermore they have a higher Progesterone with consequent greater drainage of neurotransmitters (high COMT / MAO). Could it be a valid theory?

 

[Highserotonin90]

@tankasnowgod However, dairy is more insulinogenic and pro-igf1

 

[CoconutEffect]

@CoconutEffect Did you elaborate on anything related to eugenol and its probable mechanism of "resetting" dopamine receptors?

Eugenol for resetting dopamine? News to me I'll check it out.

 

[area51puy]

@haidut what effects does emf have on metabolism? The first radio signals started in 1920’s And in that video Brad marshal talks about metabolism decreases in the 1990’s and around then we see the introduction of cell phone towers. Could that also have contributed to decrease in metabolism?

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure and restraint stress induce changes on the brain lipid profile of Wistar rats

Exposure to electromagnetic fields can affect human health, damaging tissues and cell homeostasis. Stress modulates neuronal responses and composition of brain lipids. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of chronic extremely low frequency ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Nick]

@haidut what effects does emf have on metabolism? The first radio signals started in 1920’s And in that video Brad marshal talks about metabolism decreases in the 1990’s and around then we see the introduction of cell phone towers. Could that also have contributed to decrease in metabolism?

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure and restraint stress induce changes on the brain lipid profile of Wistar rats

Exposure to electromagnetic fields can affect human health, damaging tissues and cell homeostasis. Stress modulates neuronal responses and composition of brain lipids. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of chronic extremely low frequency ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From "The Invisible Rainbow":

"Scientists that included Yury Dumanskiy, Mikhail Shandala, and Lyudmila Tomashevskaya, working in Kiev, and F. A. Kolodub, N. P. Zalyubovskaya and R. I. Kiselev, working in Kharkov, proved that the activity of the electron transport chain--the mitochondrial enzymes that extract energy from our food--is diminished not only in animals that are exposed to radio waves, but in animals exposed to magnetic fields from ordinary electric power lines."

 

[DMF]

Here on the Chicago Lakefront, there are MORE runners/joggers then EVER before, and so many are damned good!
So,
there is an epidemic of obesity, alongside an epidemic of fitness.

 

[Runenight201]

Maybe I'm reading into it too much but by just looking at how people in general walk it feels like we are much less capable as a species. It might be cultural to some extent. Not looking on a phone all the time, different shoes, more freedom to "be you" etc. But I wonder how much of it is just general degeneration of our physiology - low metablic rate, endotoxin etc. Even though it might not look like we're complete Quasimodos, looking closely at how people walk you see things like jerky hip swaying, assymetrical swaying of the arms, hunched forward, uneven shoulders etc. When looking at the 1930's people at first they all look like they have some sort of long lost cultural integrity, a base of confidence in their presence. Looking closer at how they actually move there is a lot more uniformity between persons; relaxed shoulders and less lateral sway of the hips.

New York 2021:

View: https://youtu.be/yhkbg8p2Gts?t=228


New York 1930's:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePH--widhXk

Fascinating videos. In general you hardly see an overweight person in the 1930s video, and most of the men had a full head of healthy hair. There were some exceptions, but it was hardly the norm like it is nowadays.

Unlike it currently is, the people back then most likely ate food cooked with saturated fats. They weren't saturated with fast food/restaurant options that fried their food in vegetable oil, so there was a lot more culturally integrity when it came to eating food. Nowadays, it takes a real extra effort to ensure quality nutrition, whereas back then it was the norm. In general, humans are losing sight of first principles that are degenerating us further as a species. Things such as quality nutrition, movement, sunlight, and connection are not being practiced constantly and daily, and the consequences are the declining health status of the average human. Western medicine is not focusing on what makes for a resilient, healthy, well-functioning human and instead treats symptoms as they arise. Imagine if gene therapies, or hormonal therapies, or nutraceutical interventions where the norm whenever a human goes for the yearly checkup. The ordinary run of the mill bloodwork does not tell the full story, and it is obvious that many people "appear" healthy on medical tests but have various levels of pathologies running through there physiology. This is all further exacerbated by a relentless socioeconomic structure that cripples the average person as a wage slave and prevents them from having the energy and time to properly take care of oneself. It is not a sustainable model and if not corrected will result in more and more ill people who are going to be unable to function and carry on the reigns of societal human organization.

 

[Jonk]

Nowadays, it takes a real extra effort to ensure quality nutrition, whereas back then it was the norm.

Yes but I think one of the saddest aspects is that the extra effort people put in often leads to even worse health outcomes. If you're health conscious you're probably ingesting a lot of fish oil and fasting, plus eating a low-carb diet. I can almost get mad just thinking about it, people wanting what's best for their families and children - and for that they pay with with worse health and suffering.

 

[Atman]

Yes but I think one of the saddest aspects is that the extra effort people put in often leads to even worse health outcomes. If you're health conscious you're probably ingesting a lot of fish oil and fasting, plus eating a low-carb diet. I can almost get mad just thinking about it, people wanting what's best for their families and children - and for that they pay with with worse health and suffering.

I completely agree. I would say today, for the average joes, it is better for them to follow their instincts and to disregard the external influences on their rationality.

 

[Runenight201]

Yes but I think one of the saddest aspects is that the extra effort people put in often leads to even worse health outcomes. If you're health conscious you're probably ingesting a lot of fish oil and fasting, plus eating a low-carb diet. I can almost get mad just thinking about it, people wanting what's best for their families and children - and for that they pay with with worse health and suffering.

It’s quite the paradox isn’t it. We’re the most health conscious we’ve ever been but sicker than ever. I do believe that science will prevail tho, and it will take people with sound principles and blueprints for living to be the role models that other people follow.

 

[scoobydoo]

According to the latest studies, women in that same age "consume" almost as much porn as males, even though a lot fewer of them are celibate. Not to mention the now completely normalized and ubiquitous possession/usage of female "sex toys" like vibrators, mechanical dild*s, and various other...tools. Most men would still be laughed out of the room if they mentioned in a social gathering they bought/have something like...a flesh-light. So, whatever is happening is affecting both sexes, just as obesity is.

50% women regularly watch porn (and 40% admit making their own!)

Over half of women (55 per cent) watch pornographic content on their own at least once a month – with 40 per cent watching weekly.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Is there anything inherently wrong with the use of toys?

 

[area51puy]

Is there anything inherently wrong with the use of toys?

I wouldn’t say there isn’t anything wrong with them. But when masturbation was taboo I think women are more likely to not go against societal norms. So if woman didn’t masturbate because they would go to hell or whatever reason they thought. When they had sex with a man and they got that dopamine and oxytocin burst it would create a stronger connection with the man they had sex with and they would associate those feelings with that guy and that guy only.

So with toys and multiple sex partners not being a social taboo anymore, that connections they get with a man is not as strong as what it once was back in the day.

So in one sense it give women a clearer picture of a man and his values as a partner because the halo that man would get in that women eyes as the only one that gives those great feelings from sex.

And as women where able to date around without the stigma. but masturbation was still taboo. A man that gave them the orgasm vs a guy they had sex without a orgasm. The one that gave them a orgasm would create that strong connection even though as a partner overall wasn’t the best for her.

Now with masturbation with toys giving women great orgasms, the connection women have isn’t as strong with a man. If a orgasm is as easy as turning on a switch. A guy giving you a orgasm isn’t what it used to be.

So it has effected the stability of relationships, but also has given the women the ability to look at men overall as a mate with out the halo of this person as the only person I can go to, to get those great feelings from sex.

So women nowadays tend to weigh other factors of a man career, status, look’s personality etc.

 

[Normal Human]

I did a few posts years ago on the alarming findings that the youngest generations are among the most physically active, consume the least amount of calories, yet are the most obese (on average) compared to previous generations going back to at least the 1950s. Those studies did not look at specific reasons, but opined that since the trend also matches the decline in IQ scores, testosterone levels, fertility, lifespan, etc the cause is likely something profoundly systemic that affects all of these variables. One of those studies suggested that it is a decline in metabolism that may be to blame, listing in support the much higher caloric intake recorded among both children and adults in the 1950s. The study even listed commercials from that time period showing medical advertisements to mothers suggesting children eat 4-5 meals daily with plenty of sugar-sweetened soda, ice cream, pastry, etc. The study below supports that hypothesis by demonstrating that adjusted basal metabolic rates (BMR) have declined by double digits over the last three (3) decades and that this is a trend that goes back at least a century. It does not take much acumen to realize that with double digit declines over a 3-decade period, by now our BMR is probably only half of the BMR of people who lived at the turn of the 20th century. What makes the situation worse is that if BMR has declined so much, the current guidelines for "optimal" health - reduced caloric intake and plenty of exercise - are virtually guaranteed to make the situation worse since they will invariably further lower the BMR. If this vicious cycle is not broken, I think the W.H.O. projection that half of adults will be obese/diabetic by 2050 is actually quite optimistic. Oh, and last but not least - what could be causing these declines in BMR? Well, chronic stress aside, that decline in BMR mirrors almost perfectly the curves of PUFA consumption rates in the general population. Namely, as the BMR curve has steadily declined over the last 100 years the PUFA consumption rate curve has steadily moved upwards over time. Unless this trend of ever-increasing PUFA consumption is interrupted, I don't see the decline of BMR flattening (let alone reversing) any time soon.

Total daily energy expenditure has declined over the past three decades due to declining basal expenditure, not reduced activity expenditure - Nature Metabolism
Obesity Epidemic Linked to Unexpected Factor: New Study

"...A new study published in Nature Metabolism (pdf) has revealed that the basal metabolic rate (BMR) in people in the United States and Europe has decreased over the past three decades, potentially contributing to the growing obesity epidemic in both regions. Basal metabolic rate, or basal energy expenditure, refers to the energy required per unit of time for the body to maintain vital functions such as breathing, blood circulation, and maintaining body temperature. Put simply, BMR is the number of calories the body burns while at rest. BMR is one component in the body’s total energy expenditure. The other is activity expenditure, the number of calories burned during physical activity, such as running or walking. According to the study, which analyzed data from the present day back to the late 1980s from nearly 4,800 adults in Europe and the United States, the adjusted total daily energy expenditure has decreased significantly since the 1990s. The data indicated a decline of approximately 7.7 percent in men and 5.6 percent in women. In terms of adjusted basal energy expenditure, men experienced a drop of 14.7 percent over time, while women’s decline was 2 percent and not deemed significant. However, the authors noted that a larger dataset of BMR measurements of nearly 10,000 adults across 163 studies going back 100 years confirms the decline in both men and women. “The surprising conclusion is we spend less energy when resting now than individuals did 30-40 years ago!” John Speakman, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shenzhen, China, and a lead author of the study, wrote on Twitter. “The magnitude of the effect is sufficient to explain the obesity epidemic.” Speakman addressed the lack of significance of the basal energy expenditure drop in women, attributing it to the inclusion of data from just one study. “If data from that single study was removed the trend was also highly significant in females.”

"...The BMR plays a crucial role, accounting for around 60 to 75 percent of an individual’s total daily energy expenditure, particularly for those with sedentary jobs. This rate directly impacts the rate at which a person burns calories and ultimately influences whether a person maintains, gains, or loses weight. It is generally believed that the obesity epidemic has been primarily caused by decreased physical activity levels and increased food intake. However, the study revealed that physical activity levels have actually increased in both men and women, but the total energy expenditure has significantly decreased, alongside a corresponding decline in basal energy expenditure. One possible explanation is that increased physical activity during leisure time—such as jogging or swimming—is offsetting the progressive rise in sedentary behavior."

This coincides with the findings of several other of the Giants in Peat-Land, namely Broda Barnes and K.P. Buteyko. As many of you probably know, both Barnes and Buteyko had their own ways of measuring a person's overall level of health which was objective, replicable, and would change in response to improvements in health. This allowed both of them to make empirical findings that were missed by many others. Furthermore, their measurements were were very "concrete" rather than being "abstract"/theoretical and overly-reliant on technology or theories, and in my eyes this gives them even greater utility.

Broda Barnes measured body temperature as a key indicator of overall metabolic health, and when it was low (despite "normal" thyroid function tests), he would give dessicated thyroid to correct it.

Barnes found that more and more people were becoming hypothyroid (i.e. hypometabolic). His main theory for why this was is that people with hypothyroidism are more susceptible to tuberculosis than the average population. Prior to the advent of antibiotics, most people who got tuberculosis would die before they could reproduce. With the advent of antibiotics, hypothyroid individuals who would have died young could grow up to reproduce, except a lot of times they would still have hypothyroidism. As we know from both the work of Ray and Barnes, hypothyroid mothers tend to have hypothyroid offspring, and it would appear that the trend is additive from one generation to the next, such that know we have studies clearly demonstrating a decrease in average body temperature as well as BMR. I think that this congenital aspect is in addition to the increase in PUFAs that Ray and B. Marshall talk about.

Buteyko used a person's Control Pause (CP) as an indicator of overall metabolic health, as this measurement tells us how well they're retaining CO2. He found that chronic illness generally could not occur with a CP below 40 seconds.. Most people he worked with with chronic illness had CPs in the low-20s and below, going even into the teens and single digits.

Importantly, Buteyko also found that mothers and fathers with low CP gave birth to offspring with even lower CP, and so on. By the time he passed away he had seen that the CP of every generation was usually lower on average than the one before. He also said that essentially civilization could not survive if the average CP of its population fell below 10 seconds. I must say I'm still not convinced I know the exact mechanism behind lowered CO2. I would wonder if there is a relationship between hyperventilation (the main physical way CO2 becomes too low) and EMF, but I have yet to find good evidence of that.

As Ray would say, higher amounts of CO2 lead to better metabolism, which would coincide with improved thyroid function and body temperature. Another example of how all these issues are inter-related.

 

[TheSir]

I must say I'm still not convinced I know the exact mechanism behind lowered CO2

I think the simplest explanation is that anything that stresses the body or excites the nervous system has the potential to lower one's CP by increasing sympathetic activity, which always includes an increase in minute ventilation volume. Due to this, great leaps in CP can be made just by relaxing and grounding yourself more, before you even need to introduce hypoventilation into the practice. I recall how either Buteyko or Rakimov wrote that people who only meditate would eventually get to the optimal CP too, it would just take much longer.

This explanation would complement Peat's stress theory of disease nicely. Another interesting complementary dimension is added by Lawrence Wilson's idea of directional energy, in which downward energy flow corresponds with parasympathetic activity and upward flow with sympathetic activity. Indeed, it seems that pulling energy down to the feet and hands so that they begin to tingle, as well as relaxing the body and slowing down the breathing combine into a powerful self-reinforcing trinity. Doing them all together calms the body and feels very pleasurable. A 30 minute session of this often leaves me feeling incredibly sane, joyful and calmly focused, moreso than doing any of them separately.

 

[Normal Human]

I think the simplest explanation is that anything that stresses the body or excites the nervous system has the potential to lower one's CP by increasing sympathetic activity, which always includes an increase in minute ventilation volume. Due to this, great leaps in CP can be made just by relaxing and grounding yourself more, before you even need to introduce hypoventilation into the practice. I recall how either Buteyko or Rakimov wrote that people who only meditate would eventually get to the optimal CP too, it would just take much longer.

This explanation would complement Peat's stress theory of disease nicely. Another interesting complementary dimension is added by Lawrence Wilson's idea of directional energy, in which downward energy flow corresponds with parasympathetic activity and upward flow with sympathetic activity. Indeed, it seems that pulling energy down to the feet and hands so that they begin to tingle, as well as relaxing the body and slowing down the breathing combine into a powerful self-reinforcing trinity. Doing them all together calms the body and feels very pleasurable. A 30 minute session of this often leaves me feeling incredibly sane, joyful and calmly focused, moreso than doing any of them separately.

I think those are all good thoughts. I was a big fan of Wilson's work back in the day (like 8 years ago) but he's kind of gone off the deep-end lately. However, a lot of his ideas have some degree of merit. With the "pulling energy down" technique being so helpful I've felt all kinds of positive benefits from grounding, Dan Tien-type exercises, etc. I think we have such an intellectual/theorizing type culture now that, combined with screen exposure, TV, etc. causes most of us in the West to walk around with too much energy in our heads.

I doubt Buteyko said that, it sounds more like something Rakimov would say (as I understand that Buteyko tried all sorts of things to get people's CP up but nothing worked consistently except hypoventilation). By the way, have you worked with him to try to raise your own CP? I came across him years ago and have heard mixed reviews about his approach and claims as to "holding the lineage" (so to speak) of Buteyko's work.