Do We Create Our Own Nutrition?

[Pdohlen]

Hi,

I have been reading the blog of Oliver Leslie and find many of his points really interesting. Do we as humans really have to rely on a number of different foods in order to get the right amounts of vitamins, proteins etc? Or do we as the rest of the millions of species just need to get energy, and let the body do the rest?

Link to the blog:
IF BACON GREW ON TREES

 

[postman]

Hi,

I have been reading the blog of Oliver Leslie and find many of his points really interesting. Do we as humans really have to rely on a number of different foods in order to get the right amounts of vitamins, proteins etc? Or do we as the rest of the millions of species just need to get energy, and let the body do the rest?

Link to the blog:
IF BACON GREW ON TREES

???

 

[Pdohlen]

"
All grazing species eat just grass. Do you really think every type of protein or amino acid is in that blade of grass ready to refurbish or replace all the tens of thousands of different and specific types of proteins in a cow or deer etc.? Especially when half the world thinks grass and plant based proteins aren’t “complete”, “they don’t have all the right amino acids…”. No. They just want the carbs (grass is mostly water and sugar).

Why would grass or an acorn have those things, those specific proteins, that a deer or squirrel needs? The grass or acorn doesn’t have teeth, or blood, or bones or skin etc. thus providing oodles of collagen or keratin, or those proteins, opsins, involved with vision. The squirrel only seeks and needs the carbohydrates from the acorn – fuel/energy.

All species code for all its own amino acids and subsequent proteins – including the essential amino acids – which upon closer study are not at all essential (see ‘The Nature of Nutrients’ article). But there is no coding even, without a ribose molecule. And both DNA and RNA are sugar based molecules as we mentioned.



Herbivores consume plants to gain glucose (converted from starch and fructose) which is their source of food energy. They all know that their bodies, their genetics, takes care of everything else. As I mentioned, when a lion eats raw fresh meat they eat it for the various carbohydrates and saccharides that are in all animals.

Again, if you understand how carbohydrates work, the saccharides factor, and how they are omnipresent in every nook and cranny of all mammals (and hyper essential to all manner of biochemical process), you will realize just how much carbohydrate exists in a deer or turkey or chicken (or human). Or, we can just eat a slice of raw heart, lamb perhaps, and realize just how sweet that is. But don’t kill an animal just to find this out…

All of the numerous blood sucking species are also only seeking the sugar that is in the other species’ blood. Not the proteins. The mosquito already has its own unique proteins and vitamins specific to its biochemical workings.



Despite what the internet or the nature channel tells you, along with many academic writings, human’s proteins or amino acids and vitamins have no use or function in a mosquito – it’s the sugar they seek – fuel. The male mosquito don’t even need our blood – it’s the females who seek the sugar – the males just seek any sugary source. Any sugary source...."

From the article: A SINGLE BLADE OF GRASS

 

[X3CyO]

I can anecdotally say that you cant gain muscle on high carb low protein and fat. It can also make you go crazy.

Also, cows are amazing creatures. Ruminants: that utilize bacteria to ferment fibers into food for other bacteria that create vitamins as by product.

I think if we did live in a world where sugar was all that mattered, all animals would probably have the same digestive systems.

 

[Oliver]

I can anecdotally say that you cant gain muscle on high carb low protein and fat. It can also make you go crazy.

Also, cows are amazing creatures. Ruminants: that utilize bacteria to ferment fibers into food for other bacteria that create vitamins as by product.

I think if we did live in a world where sugar was all that mattered, all animals would probably have the same digestive systems.

You gain muscle - only by creating damage to muscle tissue - most commonly via resistance training with weights or high intensity calisthenics. In order to do lifting etc. you body needs fuel/energy - and this is where glucose comes in.

We humans also have bacteria that aid in the synthesizing of so many nutrients including vitamins and even the essential amino acids.

Sugar is not all that matters, sunlight, oxygen, water and minerals are also essential - they too are fuels. Minerals are not directly fuels but can trigger one biochemical reaction or another.

To say all animals would have the same digestive systems is incorrect. Oxygen is essential but various species use or process it differently, so too the suns energy and so too water. Species do so many things differently from others when it comes to physiology, from sex, to mating, breeding, feeding, pooping, bleeding, breathing, chewing, swallowing, hearing, seeing, sensing/feeling, GPS ing... - the list is long. As regards sugar as fuel - all species seek out sugar - even plants - photosynthesis is all about making sugar. As carbon is the supreme element - a ribose molecule is a most essential entity.

 

[jay123]

I get what you are saying about sugar, sunlight, and oxygen. But what minerals are you talking about. Are there specific ones or just all minerals? @Oliver

 

[LLight]

You gain muscle - only by creating damage to muscle tissue - most commonly via resistance training with weights or high intensity calisthenics. In order to do lifting etc. you body needs fuel/energy - and this is where glucose comes in.

We humans also have bacteria that aid in the synthesizing of so many nutrients including vitamins and even the essential amino acids.

Sugar is not all that matters, sunlight, oxygen, water and minerals are also essential - they too are fuels. Minerals are not directly fuels but can trigger one biochemical reaction or another.

To say all animals would have the same digestive systems is incorrect. Oxygen is essential but various species use or process it differently, so too the suns energy and so too water. Species do so many things differently from others when it comes to physiology, from sex, to mating, breeding, feeding, pooping, bleeding, breathing, chewing, swallowing, hearing, seeing, sensing/feeling, GPS ing... - the list is long. As regards sugar as fuel - all species seek out sugar - even plants - photosynthesis is all about making sugar. As carbon is the supreme element - a ribose molecule is a most essential entity.

Interesting ideas about proteins synthesis.

What about maternal milk that contains fat, what is the purpose?

 

[Oliver]

I get what you are saying about sugar, sunlight, and oxygen. But what minerals are you talking about. Are there specific ones or just all minerals? @Oliver

In general, potassium, iron, calcium, iodine, zinc, sodium, magnesium, copper, fluoride, chloride, copper, molybdenum, manganese, selenium, phosphorus, - all these are in raw whole foods (plants and animals) and can be found in water.

 

[schultz]

I am not completely understanding what this thread is about.... Do we need minerals? Yes. Do we need vitamins? Yes. Can our 'bodies' (bacteria) make certain vitamins? Yes. Is is optimal to rely on that? I doubt it.

Ruminant animals can make several vitamins. Bacteria synthesize them in the rumen. They can also get a certain amount of protein this way (rumen microbial protein). Yes they eat 'grass'. But they don't just eat a single type of grass, like Fescue or something. Fields are filled with dozens of types of grass, legume, etc. Sure you can do a monoculture pasture of alfalfa, clover or timothy or something, but it is better to have a variety, and natural. Usually animal feeds list the protein amount, like timothy is somewhere around 10% and alfalfa is more like 18% (these are dry). Grass tends to be lower in protein and legumes tend to be higher. Animals also eat leaves, bark, shoots, berries. I am under the impression that leaves can provide a very nice balance of amino acids. Ruminant animals eat a lot and are able to get enough protein from sheer volume. A cow can eat 150-200lbs of grass per day (not dry hay). Mow your lawn and weigh the grass and you will see how much that is. If that was 150lbs of spinach it would have 1,950 grams of protein.

Anyway, is this thread about if we can survive off of only sugar?...... I will say this: monkeys that don't have access to very much sodium will drink their own urine to obtain it. Sodium is a hot commodity (pun not intended) in areas far from the ocean.

What about maternal milk that contains fat, what is the purpose?

I would think it would at the very least 1) Aid digestion, 2) Help the infant put on fat (burn the sugar, store the fat kind of thing)

 

[Oliver]

I am not completely understanding what this thread is about.... Do we need minerals? Yes. Do we need vitamins? Yes. Can our 'bodies' (bacteria) make certain vitamins? Yes. Is is optimal to rely on that? I doubt it.

Ruminant animals can make several vitamins. Bacteria synthesize them in the rumen. They can also get a certain amount of protein this way (rumen microbial protein). Yes they eat 'grass'. But they don't just eat a single type of grass, like Fescue or something. Fields are filled with dozens of types of grass, legume, etc. Sure you can do a monoculture pasture of alfalfa, clover or timothy or something, but it is better to have a variety, and natural. Usually animal feeds list the protein amount, like timothy is somewhere around 10% and alfalfa is more like 18% (these are dry). Grass tends to be lower in protein and legumes tend to be higher. Animals also eat leaves, bark, shoots, berries. I am under the impression that leaves can provide a very nice balance of amino acids. Ruminant animals eat a lot and are able to get enough protein from sheer volume. A cow can eat 150-200lbs of grass per day (not dry hay). Mow your lawn and weigh the grass and you will see how much that is. If that was 150lbs of spinach it would have 1,950 grams of protein.

Anyway, is this thread about if we can survive off of only sugar?...... I will say this: monkeys that don't have access to very much sodium will drink their own urine to obtain it. Sodium is a hot commodity (pun not intended) in areas far from the ocean.



I would think it would at the very least 1) Aid digestion, 2) Help the infant put on fat (burn the sugar, store the fat kind of thing)

The thread is not really about sugar but more so fuel - and the main fuel for all species is water, things that convert to glucose (starch, fructose, lactose etc.), minerals, sunlight, oxygen. We humans, like all species, make our own proteins and vitamins - we even now know that we can and do synthesize our own essential amino acids. I am speaking to the findings in this century. Most science and especially nutrition science gets its cues from poor science study of the last century, eras long gone when we didn't have the tech to really know how atoms work.

200 years ago we didn't really know if ascorbic acid (vitamin C) cured or prevented scurvy - today, 2020, we know better about Citric acid as having antimicrobial properties - not ascorbic acid - which does other things.

To a cow, it doesn't matter what type of grass it is, nor if there is only one type available. If there are more types, the cow doesn't say oh great, a variety, today i'll this, or that. Each and every grass type will do the same thing - breakdown to glucose - fuel. All of this 'protein needs' stuff is a human construct and again all based on poor science study of yesteryear.

 

[LLight]

I would think it would at the very least 1) Aid digestion, 2) Help the infant put on fat (burn the sugar, store the fat kind of thing)

From what I understand of his theory (don't want to put words into Oliver's mouth, that's what I remember, please excuse me if I'm wrong), except minerals and glucose/sugars, nutrients generally do not withstand the digestion process.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

Interesting in that it is oversimplifying large swathes of information, studying, nutrients, health, physiology and etc. regarding the human potential, evolution, changeability and condition. If nutrients didn't matter in the form of vitamins and such then you can easily carry this over in to saying hormones and etc. do not matter either because they are "closed constructs" like everything else, i.e., you can't augment or alter them because they are operating in a limited sense of structure and means that is "fixed" (which would be bad news since most here would be wasting their time & money with thyroid, B-complex, caffeine, aspirin, testosterone, and so on).

The idea of Ray Peat is that most things really are changeable (that's how I see it at least) -- and that we and many other animals and etc. are more malleable than what the geneticist dogma would like you to think, suggesting everything from your choices in life to your mental state variations to your ultimate outcomes all being predetermined and unchangeable even given the knowledge and means of trying and do so with various processes. If the body does everything for us, and it is the role of our genes and "fixed systems" to handle everything, why take any supplement/hormone/etc.? Why eat any specific food vs. another? Just preference and nothing else? You could just argue that nothing you do matters since your "body system" is doing everything it can and nothing you try will make any difference in altering the structure of said system, hinting that things like cancer curing is pointless or impossible, along with attempts at fixing nutrient/hormonal insufficiencies and so on.

This really simplifies it (which isn't bad) but it also confines you to a state of rigid structure -- that your body is like a machine and cannot significantly alter or build up/break down various parts given different actions that can make (or break) you facet by facet. I mean the whole envisioning of it seems pretty helpless and depressing if you really look at it -- it suggests nothing you do really matters because everything is already "done" and you can't break the cycle you are stuck/born in to.

If you have mental issues, hormone issues, energy issues, sexual issues, abusive tendencies, etc. you can just say it's all intrinsic and a part of your essence -- i.e. your genes, physiology like permanent computer ROM, etc. I don't believe it, but I'm just saying that the approach to it is pretty anti-progressive from a biological and structural point of view. You also open the door to genetic excusing -- imagine if science strongly adopted this and in court cases you'll hear dismissals because "genetics were the reason I raped, killed, stole, burned and curb stomped that man." Remember that if you are structurally "one" with your being and it cannot be changed by any external methods/mechanisms you can argue that any action is the result of fixed circumstances. How can you blame me for committing a crime if my intrinsic DNA is what led me to, given the circumstances? If you build a society that is focused on the concepts of action and consequence (like with the justice system), and if evidence showed DNA correlating with tendencies to do things, wouldn't you get a really flawed society from this? Anything could be deduced or brought back to one blank slate correlation of ourselves and our intrinsic properties, arguing that our actions are the result of previous consequences up to the present, all of which we have no real control over. So wouldn't justice then be unfair? You can't have justice based on judging the actions of one while ignoring the concept of pre-determination in light of genetic determinism and determinism itself. Who is good and who is evil? A justice system becomes pointless and even humanly harmful then if you take that approach.

If we follow along these lines then there's no need for a justice system. How dare you punish a man/woman for doing what his/her DNA or physiology led them to do? It's not in our power to control our DNA/choices if our intrinsic properties like hormones, diet choices, psychological states and etc. are unchangeable. If all of these things are changeable then the law would presume DNA/mainstream genetic dogma is more false -- but in believing so it would then be questionable to punish someone for doing what they were always going to do. It makes no sense to pretend we are in control if we also believe we are the result of things we cannot control (in the same breath).

To also add, pre-determinism or genetic determinism and etc. also aligns with religion somewhat. If someone believes in pre-destiny/fixed circumstances they also strike me as religious in some ways because seeing things as fixed and "just so" makes me think they feel everything has its purpose ahead of time and there's no will to conscious change, growth, manipulation or novelty that shapes us and our surroundings (and vice-versa too). If everything "just is" then it seemingly might be more likely to take away one's sense of purpose rather than striving for change because then a new purpose and meaning is always born, searched for, or fulfilled.

"You have no purpose -- you just are." But if I have no purpose I have nothing to lose or nothing to gain one could argue. Everything is decided ahead -- even this writing now you could say. The ironic part is believing in genetic dogma while pushing for free will and good behavior. If we just are then you could let us all be and do as we please rather than instill authoritarian control over our less than obedient little pups in the kennel -- not punish us for doing "wrong" when right and wrong are not within our control. I know I'm just rambling on, but these are things people should probably consider when adopting or wanting to adopt a certain view of the world.

 

[CLASH]

You gain muscle - only by creating damage to muscle tissue - most commonly via resistance training with weights or high intensity calisthenics. In order to do lifting etc. you body needs fuel/energy - and this is where glucose comes in.

We humans also have bacteria that aid in the synthesizing of so many nutrients including vitamins and even the essential amino acids.

Sugar is not all that matters, sunlight, oxygen, water and minerals are also essential - they too are fuels. Minerals are not directly fuels but can trigger one biochemical reaction or another.

To say all animals would have the same digestive systems is incorrect. Oxygen is essential but various species use or process it differently, so too the suns energy and so too water. Species do so many things differently from others when it comes to physiology, from sex, to mating, breeding, feeding, pooping, bleeding, breathing, chewing, swallowing, hearing, seeing, sensing/feeling, GPS ing... - the list is long. As regards sugar as fuel - all species seek out sugar - even plants - photosynthesis is all about making sugar. As carbon is the supreme element - a ribose molecule is a most essential entity.

False.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Hi,

I have been reading the blog of Oliver Leslie and find many of his points really interesting. Do we as humans really have to rely on a number of different foods in order to get the right amounts of vitamins, proteins etc? Or do we as the rest of the millions of species just need to get energy, and let the body do the rest?

Link to the blog:
IF BACON GREW ON TREES

I believe the author of the blog has mental health issues,like dyslogia and such =]]
Probably from severe malnutrition,SAD and CAFETERIA diet is meant to make mad.
I enjoy his unhinged style!

 

[Oliver]

False.

"false" is only so - when you show how so.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

The thread is not really about sugar but more so fuel - and the main fuel for all species is water, things that convert to glucose (starch, fructose, lactose etc.), minerals, sunlight, oxygen. We humans, like all species, make our own proteins and vitamins - we even now know that we can and do synthesize our own essential amino acids. I am speaking to the findings in this century. Most science and especially nutrition science gets its cues from poor science study of the last century, eras long gone when we didn't have the tech to really know how atoms work.

200 years ago we didn't really know if ascorbic acid (vitamin C) cured or prevented scurvy - today, 2020, we know better about Citric acid as having antimicrobial properties - not ascorbic acid - which does other things.

To a cow, it doesn't matter what type of grass it is, nor if there is only one type available. If there are more types, the cow doesn't say oh great, a variety, today i'll this, or that. Each and every grass type will do the same thing - breakdown to glucose - fuel. All of this 'protein needs' stuff is a human construct and again all based on poor science study of yesteryear.

I dont know if this is satire in regard to RPs Focus on Glucose as cellular energy substrate,but as an honest example cows dont digest grasses themselves-'they' are chewing on it and separating different phases of this chew-saliva product onto seperate intestinal modules,were teh chewed product gets absorbed by microorganisms which are then producing Amino Acids,peptides,fatty acids from the pre-processed grasses,which get in turn absorbed by the host organism,the cow in this example.If you feed such animals large amounts of Antibiotics,they will starve,because grass is really a lot of nothing nutrition wise for complex animals.

 

[CLASH]

The thread is not really about sugar but more so fuel - and the main fuel for all species is water, things that convert to glucose (starch, fructose, lactose etc.), minerals, sunlight, oxygen. We humans, like all species, make our own proteins and vitamins - we even now know that we can and do synthesize our own essential amino acids. I am speaking to the findings in this century. Most science and especially nutrition science gets its cues from poor science study of the last century, eras long gone when we didn't have the tech to really know how atoms work.

200 years ago we didn't really know if ascorbic acid (vitamin C) cured or prevented scurvy - today, 2020, we know better about Citric acid as having antimicrobial properties - not ascorbic acid - which does other things.

To a cow, it doesn't matter what type of grass it is, nor if there is only one type available. If there are more types, the cow doesn't say oh great, a variety, today i'll this, or that. Each and every grass type will do the same thing - breakdown to glucose - fuel. All of this 'protein needs' stuff is a human construct and again all based on poor science study of yesteryear.

Fats are also a main fuel for many large mammal species, particularly cattle.. I'm not sure where your info is coming from.

As far as I understand, we dont synthesize many of the essential nutrients we need in adequate quantities, and the synthesis of these nutrients requires other nutrients as building blocks. So the argument is circular. Even if we synthesized all our essential nutrients, we still need components to synthesize them. I haven't seen any research to indicate the glucose, water and sunlight provide all of these components.

You sure the science of this century is so ideal? I've read quite a lot of BS and doctored research. There is rampant fraud being committed in research currently as well, as with almost every other modern institution.

Today we also think radiation, chemotherapy, ssri's, estrogen, etc. are therepeutic treatments and we think that polyunsaturated fats prevent heart disease.

Haha have you had this conversation with cattle personally? Each type of grass doesnt "do the same thing" lol. There are different nutrients in different grasses, different allergens, different protective compounds, different amounts of the macronutrients. Many animals are very selective in what they eat.

There is much sound protein research that is current and shows a definitive need. The only constructs I see are the questionable argument that past research is bunk and only the current stuff applies (especially considering the agendas behind much of the current research), the implication that we can build all of our essential nutrients, the implication that animals aren't selective in thier dietary choices, and the implication that all species main fuel is glucose.

 

[Oliver]

I believe the author of the blog has mental health issues,like dyslogia and such =]]
Probably from severe malnutrition,SAD and CAFETERIA diet is meant to make mad.
I enjoy his unhinged style!

And your issue is simply being stuck in the past. You and so many others think science is static - so what we knew about and learned about in the 1940s and the 1970's and the stuff from the pirate age and beyond - is gospel, lets set it in stone - and there is no more to learn, lets put a bow on it and go home - nothing more to see here. That's not how science works.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

And your issue is simply being stuck in the past. You and so many others think science is static - so what we knew about and learned about in the 1940s and the 1970's and the stuff from the pirate age and beyond - is gospel, lets set it in stone - and there is no more to learn, lets put a bow on it and go home - nothing more to see here. That's not how science works.

Would love to see what RP has to say to your theorization,maybe there is value in your Analysis?Can you give me an example what i should eat and drink in a day,maybe i will try it?

 

[CLASH]

"false" is only so - when you show how so.

Hormonal profile trumps resistance training. The theory of muscular damage has been brought into question many times.

Testosterone Replacement Increases Fat-Free Mass and Muscle Size in Hypogonadal Men *

"Body weight increased significantly from 79.2 ± 5.6 to 83.7± 5.7 kg after 10 weeks of testosterone replacement therapy (weight gain, 4.5 ± 0.6 kg; P = 0.0064). Fat-free mass, measured by underwater weighing, increased from 56.0 ± 2.5 to 60.9 ± 2.2 kg (change, +5.0 ± 0.7 kg; P = 0.0004), but percent fat did not significantly change. Similar increases in fat-free mass were observed with the deuterated water method. The cross-sectional area of the triceps arm muscle increased from 2421 ± 317 to 2721 ± 239 mm2 (P = 0.045), and that of the quadriceps leg muscle increased from 7173 ± 464 to 7720 ± 454 mm2 (P = 0.0427), measured by magnetic resonance imaging."


Body composition and muscle strength in healthy men receiving testosterone enanthate for contraception. - PubMed - NCBI

"To determine the effect of androgens on body composition and muscle strength, we measured fat-free mass (kg), fat mass (kg), and bone density (g/cm2) by dual x-ray absorptiometry, and muscle strength (Newton meters) by dynamometry in a controlled, prospective study involving 13 nonathletic men receiving testosterone enanthate 200 mg/week in for 6 months and 8 healthy controls. Biochemical markers of bone turnover were measured in the treated subjects at baseline and 6 months. In the treated subjects at 6 months, fat-free mass (mean +/- SEM) increased by 9.6 +/- 1.0% (P < or = 0.01) whereas fat mass decreased by 16.2 +/- 6.7% (P < or = 0.05). Changes in muscle strength ranged from -1.6-19.2%. Only hip adduction increased 19.2 +/- 9.5% (P < 0.05). Changes in bone density ranged from -1.3-5.2%, decreasing significantly at one site and increasing significantly at four of the nine sites measured (P < 0.05). Serum testosterone increased by 91.1 +/- 7.5% (P < 0.01), and testicular volume decreased by 24.0 +/- 3.2% (P < 0.01). Serum osteocalcin increased by 35.7 +/- 17.3% (P < 0.05), serum immunoreactive PTH (iPTH) increased by 41.4 +/- 15.1% (P < 0.05), serum calcium decreased by 2.3 +/- 1.0% (P < 0.05), and serum albumin decreased by 4.5 +/- 1.7% (P < 0.05). There were no detectable changes in fat-free mass, fat mass, muscle strength, or bone density in controls. The administration of testosterone enanthate in pharmacological doses for 6 months resulted in a modest reduction in fat mass and small increases in fat-free mass, muscle strength, and bone density. These changes do not support the use of androgens for enhancing athletic performance."


THERAPY OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Testosterone supplementation and body composition: results from a meta-analysis study. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS: Overall, 59 trials were included in the study enrolling 3029 and 2049 patients in TS and control groups respectively. TS was associated with any significant modification in body weight, waist circumference and BMI. Conversely, TS was associated with a significant reduction in fat and with an increase in lean mass as well as with a reduction of fasting glycaemia and insulin resistance. The effect on fasting glycaemia was even higher in younger individuals and in those with metabolic diseases. When only RCTs enrolling hypogonadal (total T <12  mol/l) subjects were considered, a reduction of total cholesterol as well as triglyceride (TGs) levels were also detected. Conversely, an improvement in HDL cholesterol levels as well as in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure was not observed.


Besides the above, if you are the author of the blog linked to by the OP I personally disagree with many of the underlying assumptions that precede and form the foundations of your logical trains of thought. I personally think you may want to take a look at your underlying preconceived notions and assumptions. For example:


"We are all, all species from the smallest microbes, to the largest whale and red wood tree, of a combustion dynamic."

Much more nuanced than this. The idea of combustion that underlies the theory behind calories and the analogy used to describe metabolism, is simply that; an analogy. The process of combustion in a car, is very different from the process of cell respiration when actually looking at the details.

"humans are similar to cars and the manufacturing of them"
Not really.

"we have a genetic blue print that sets about the game plan for making teeth, hair, semen, babies, skin, organs, synthesizing amino acids, fats, proteins and vitamins etc, and how they all work – and now we need fuel."
This is highly simplified and doesn't even come close to describing the entire picture. Genetic ideology has been coming under pressure over time.

"The primary essential fuels for all species are 2 or more of the following; water, sunlight, oxygen, anything that converts to glucose (starches, lactose, fructose, sucrose etc.)"
And fats....

"With these essential fuels, we can set about making and doing whatever it is we need to do."
Not true. For example B vitamins are required for using said glucose. Have you ever studied cell respiration?

"Humans’ first fuel source, was lactose, which we convert to glucose, some of which converts to fat for insulation to keep baby humans warm. So too all mammals."
Lactose also contains galactose which is used to form myelin for the brain. Not too mention the 100's to 1000's of other compounds present in milk besides lactose lol.

"This is the reason all other species need only one fuel source, one single food source – it will have sugar in it. Including those who eat meat. Meat is a carb loaded with all manner of sugars. Carnivorous animals go straight for the sugar rich organs."
Over simplified. The amino acids in meat are converted via gluconeogenesis in carnivores livers too glucose. Also the carnivores head straight for the fat stores. Most meat isn't "loaded with sugar". Speaking of carnivores, particular the feline variety, another example of a required nutrient (that isn't just sugar) is taurine...

"Excesses of sugar of course can kill us – more than anything else on earth. We are the only species that abuses this most essential molecule."
I'd like to see the evidence for this...

"Even DNA and RNA don’t exist without a sugar molecule – it’s in the name – ribonucleic. Ketones have their origins in a ribose molecule. ATP also has a sugar component. Fats don’t exist without a sugar molecule – and so too all proteins and amino acids."
Yes, sugars are important. No argument there.

"So, what I try to do, as I attempt to show and tell the online community and beyond how all we need are those 5 things (sunlight, minerals, oxygen, carbs, and water) which so few buy into, is to show them how other food molecules can’t work."
I hope no one takes you literally. These are important but not "all we need".

"When we realize, via pure chemistry and biology, which includes decay dynamics and even cooking, alchemy etc, that those so called dietary nutrients have zero way to be a viable molecule in your body but rather a molecule with no BV (biologic value), we begin to rethink what we thought we knew."
Alchemy?
There is clear evidence showing biological value, I think you may be the only person to "realize" this.

"It’s not so much a “leap of faith” to understand that we make our own nutrients and all we need to outsource are a few things"
Its not just a leap of faith, it is entirely faith. I dont know what fundamentals of chem and bio you've been studying...

"If anyone ever tells you that we get nutrients from dead plants and animals – ask them to explain to you how the molecule is spared decay dynamics. Start there, always start there, with the actual physical state of the molecules you think you are eating to provide nutrient value."
Refrigeration? Pasteurization? Preservatives?

"As dietary advice goes; allow only your body to synthesize and process glucose".
There is a lot wrong with this statement.

I can't go through the rest, its not worth it. For the sake of peoples health I hope they avoid these nonsensical arguments.