Did Gbolduev Have Any Evidence To Back Up His Claims About PH?

[theLaw]

The work you talk about can be very misleading. One could put in lots of study, learn all there is to learn and still be imbecilic to reality. Doctors nowadays are as trustable as the fox escorting a scorpion across the river. Putting in the work! Has absolutely nothing to do with insight or hypothesis. I find most people looking for citations etc. But the research nowadays is about as valuable as a cent. Words that mean nothing! Correlations that give no indication of actual cures for disease . Basically BS. Mavericks change the world. No researcher or Pharma has ever cured any disease in the past 100 years. No Pharma has ever devised a vaccine that works and the reason is they assume too much! Human and animal organisms function on a molecular level and not one of these so called experts have come up with anything at all. The greatest physiological chemist and genius in modern history has though.. Dr. William Frederick Koch. There are no equals to this brilliant man. All the rest are BS.

Not sure if you agree or disagree with me, but thanks for the stream-of-consciousness post!

 

[Amazoniac]

Its rare becuse of that effort.

The moral of story with what you said is that a proper environment/life style may lessen those efforts the body needs to keep it in correct range.

The moral of the story is that you can't trust the system, maan. But also that you have to consider the whole picture, not just pH.

 

[paymanz]

The moral of the story is that you can't trust the system, maan. But also that you have to consider the whole picture, not just pH.

 

[Orion]

Do you have any estimation of calorie, macro,micro nutrients your getting?

Google Biotta Breuss juice, that will so the calorie/nutrient profile. 180cals, ~2g K, 3g protein...

 

[paymanz]

Google Biotta Breuss juice, that will so the calorie/nutrient profile. 180cals, ~2g K, 3g protein...

One bottle a day?

 

[Orion]

One bottle a day?

Yep one 500ml bottle per day, I do 250ml in morning and 250ml at night.

 

[paymanz]

Yep one 500ml bottle per day, I do 250ml in morning and 250ml at night.

Lol sorry to asking again.

Im qurious , is it ok if you drink more or its prohibited in the protocol?

 

[Orion]

Lol sorry to asking again.

Im qurious , is it ok if you drink more or its prohibited in the protocol?

I drink the recommended tea combos (sage, nettle, lemon balm and grass, peppermint, johns wort, horsetail), use decaf coffee once in awhile, and spring water.

 

[sladerunner69]

It up-regulates all your hormonal receptors since your body isn't taking anything in, in order to compensate, which starts to make you sensitive to hormones again, hence the T spike and improved insulin sensitivity post fast.

Improved insulin sensitivity? Is that just an observation from your personal experience? Are you still experiencing benefits from the water fast? Namely reduced anxiety?

My anxiety is still too high. Maybe too much caffiene.

The upregulation of receptors sounds beneficial. Then again all of the beneficial hormones will be at lower levels. So under normal circumstance I don't believe that fasting would offer any "net" benefit, and would in fact harm the metabolism and be damaging. However, in the context of the severe dysregulation, the fast can probably serve to "reset" the receptors and the hormonal axis in a much quicker way then would occur during a normal diet. That's just my thoughts on the matter, I haven't actually a tried a fast yet. I'm too concerned about ruining my metabolism although I could use that finally boost to take me from 75-100% libido. My energy, concentration etc are all practically recoverred or better though.

 

[sladerunner69]

Yeah. I agree. Most psychotic people might tend to become a bit less so after a few days . . . after a brief period of food‐withdrawal psychosis!

Have you sufferred through many fasts? I thought you ate dozens of mangos per day.

 

[sladerunner69]

Really? I haven't read many success stories. On the hackstasis forum, all I see is people constantly trying the newest version of his protocol over and over again. He claimed that he recovered from PFS within a few days. If his understanding of biochemical interactions is as profound as he claims, and his protocoll as sound, I would expect to see a few people recovering. I actually think most of his rudimentary knowledge comes from Peat, but then he gets stuck because all his thoughts are based on the Bronsted-Lowry scheme, and he doesn't understand Lewis acids. It is this simplictic thinking that leads to concepts like "resetting receptors" or "increasing pCO2 will make bicarbonate go up"

Interesting but Im not familiar (or all the interested) in biochemistry/nutrition at that level. I've read a few success stories, at least "alleged" success stories. The guys taking RU seem to be doing better as well, albeit they have adrenaline dumps now but overall their libido has improved. With PFS, the low libido is really a damn drag. I remember by libido being miserably low for years, it was terribly depressing.

 

[sladerunner69]

Perhaps the PFS people truly do qualify as "sick" which could potentially explain why food could be too much for their bodies to handle. Hypothyroid sufferers are also on the sicker end of the spectrum which is why Peat actually has lower protein recommendations for us until our health is further restored. The body can only handle so many toxins that inevitably come with the food supply, so perhaps the sicker the organism the less food can be tolerated. For instance when you're sick with the flu, food is actually intolerable. Of course you still try to force down fluids because no one believes a living organism can survive long without fluids. Perhaps what's really going on is that you're eliminating all toxins by not eating, and although you're liberating stored PUFA, it's actually less harmful than taking on more toxins from the food supply. Have you tried eating only foods or milk or juice that is truly as toxin free as possible?

I haven't specifically made "toxinless" the primary goal of my dieting. Although that sounds fairly subejctive. What qualifies as a toxin is different to so many people, in fact that could be the defining pare of any various nutritional plan. For example PEat says toxins include PUFA, iron, etc which are to be the focus. However for RAW paleos the toxins are pesticides, dairy, cooked foods. Totally different fundamentals.

 

[vulture]

The low-IQ circle jerk has moved here: Hack Stasis - Index page

 

[cyclops]

Damn I was just reading through the Gbold stuff and he is very convincing to someone like me who is not on that level of understanding. Guy really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and like its almost too easy for him. Is there any place where someone goes into detail about exactly where and why Gbold is wrong? Like the same way Gbold does with Peat? He seems to be very detailed about why and where he thinks Peat is wrong.

 

[noodle]

Damn I was just reading through the Gbold stuff and he is very convincing to someone like me who is not on that level of understanding. Guy really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and like its almost too easy for him. Is there any place where someone goes into detail about exactly where and why Gbold is wrong? Like the same way Gbold does with Peat? He seems to be very detailed about why and where he thinks Peat is wrong.

Who said that he is wrong? I actually never saw anyone proving him wrong.

Yes he got banned for being disrespectful. But not for being wrong.
He just got different views and ideas.

 

[Kartoffel]

Damn I was just reading through the Gbold stuff and he is very convincing to someone like me who is not on that level of understanding. Guy really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and like its almost too easy for him. Is there any place where someone goes into detail about exactly where and why Gbold is wrong? Like the same way Gbold does with Peat? He seems to be very detailed about why and where he thinks Peat is wrong.

Before you start looking for evidence where he is wrong I would go looking for evidence where he is right. Almost everything he says can't be disproved because it's based on "knowledge" from anesthesiology textbooks (he never says which ones) and his own observations. In short, it's made up. For example, he constantly says that people with PFS have high progesterone. Apparently that's based on his observations/ work with clients. I think in reality it's based on a few hormone tests he read on the internet, because real studies show that PFS guys have low levels of progesterone and it's protective metabolites.

Neuroactive steroid levels and psychiatric and andrological features in post-finasteride patients. - PubMed - NCBI
Patients treated for male pattern hair with finasteride show, after discontinuation of the drug, altered levels of neuroactive steroids in cerebros... - PubMed - NCBI

It's virtually impossible to criticize any of his points because a) they change all the time b) he doesn't have any evidence/references for them c) he rejects any evidence that you may cite because c1) studies are rubbish and c2) only he can understand studies because he has a matrix.

I can understand how his style appeals to the ignorant and desperate, and there is the occasional truth hidden in his gibberish, but at the end of the day you should ask yourself whether you really want to believe a guy that refuses any objective evidence and claims that he cured his cancer and voluntarily took finasteride just to cure PFS within a few days, and who had several fake accounts here to praise and support himself.

 

[cyclops]

Before you start looking for evidence where he is wrong I would go looking for evidence where he is right. Almost everything he says can't be disproved because it's based on "knowledge" from anesthesiology textbooks (he never says which ones) and his own observations. In short, it's made up. For example, he constantly says that people with PFS have high progesterone. Apparently that's based on his observations/ work with clients. I think in reality it's based on a few hormone tests he read on the internet, because real studies shows that PFS guys have low levels of progesterone and it's protective metabolites.

Neuroactive steroid levels and psychiatric and andrological features in post-finasteride patients. - PubMed - NCBI
Patients treated for male pattern hair with finasteride show, after discontinuation of the drug, altered levels of neuroactive steroids in cerebros... - PubMed - NCBI

It's virtually impossible to criticize any of his points because a) they change all the time b) he doesn't have any evidence/references for them c) he rejects any evidence that you may cite because c1) studies are rubbish and c2) only he can understand studies because he has a matrix.

I can understand how his style appeals to the ignorant and desperate, and there is the occasional truth hidden in his gibberish, but at the end of the day you should ask yourself whether you really want to believe a guy that refuses any objective evidence and claims that he cured his cancer and voluntarily took finasteride just to cure PFS within a few days, and who had several fake accounts here to praise and support himself.

This is helpful. What do you think his deal is then? Does he have an issue with narcissism or authoritarianism or something? Or do you think he really believes everything he says? Or is he just not really as smart as he may appear to some?

 

[Kartoffel]

This is helpful. What do you think his deal is then? Does he have an issue with narcissism or authoritarianism or something? Or do you think he really believes everything he says? Or is he just not really as smart as he may appear to some?

I have no idea what his deal his. I don't think it's just narcissism. He seems to be a very disturbed person with complex mental issues. I am not saying this to insult him or anybody else, that's just how it appears to me.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Damn I was just reading through the Gbold stuff and he is very convincing to someone like me who is not on that level of understanding. Guy really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and like its almost too easy for him. Is there any place where someone goes into detail about exactly where and why Gbold is wrong? Like the same way Gbold does with Peat? He seems to be very detailed about why and where he thinks Peat is wrong.

Don't be so gullible. You don't have to be on some "level." It's just slick talk. You have to become your own master. Take bits and pieces from people and build your own thoughts together. He thinks a diet of mostly seafood is healthy and claims that the warnings of mercury and other toxins are false. His glutathione is up after eating so much toxic seafood and he thinks that's a good thing. It's not. He says sugar is bad but eats rice which converts to pure sugar very quickly. He contradicts himself. But the biggest red flag with him is his comments on aging. He has a really woo-woo view on aging. He doesn't understand normal aging in the normal human organism and is trying appeal to peoples emotions about aging because people are desperate to find ways to "anti" age themselves. I couldn't care less if he is rude and insults Peat or whoever. I don't agree with Peat on everything (ah yes, the currently common used sentence now, because if you say you like someone you then quickly have to hold up both hands and say "but I don't agree with everything they say," that should be common sense). But you also have to be able to see internet trolls for what they are. He said "My father looks so much younger than Peat it is not even funny.." that's something a troll says. Look at his trolling on other forums and you can see what he is. A broken clock is right twice a day. Just because a net troll can write in slick talk doesn't mean you should blindly follow him, but then again maybe it does for people who are genetically susceptible to follow such people so it's just evolution doing what it does.

 

[TubZy]

Damn I was just reading through the Gbold stuff and he is very convincing to someone like me who is not on that level of understanding. Guy really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and like its almost too easy for him. Is there any place where someone goes into detail about exactly where and why Gbold is wrong? Like the same way Gbold does with Peat? He seems to be very detailed about why and where he thinks Peat is wrong.

Right, x2 what noodle says. He never was actually proven wrong he got banned because people complained saying he was too "mean" in his responses so he had no chance to respond further. It baffles me how many people here discredited him immediately and wanted him banned (like the OP of this post) but still want to understand his "theories" like by creating this thread. It is fine if you don't believe him but don't try to discredit him then still want to act interested in his work.