Do We Create Our Own Nutrition?

[Oliver]

@Oliver what is your occupational background like?You seem to say that you have rather groundbreaking insights to share to the scientific community,are you a PhD,a professor or such?

I will have a book out next year - covid permitting - and some additional social media accounts, complete with videos of me rambling... And as well explaining who i am and my background in chem and bio.

Yes, a lot of these findings - that others have done, are game changers. None of what i post about is some secret, no area 51 here, it's just that these findings do not make front page news anywhere and what is left for consumption is old studies or new studies based on old, poor science understandings of decades and centuries past. I will do my part, do what i can to make this better understanding front page news.

 

[Oliver]

@Oliver what is your occupational background like?You seem to say that you have rather groundbreaking insights to share to the scientific community,are you a PhD,a professor or such?

I don't mean to sound or seem cryptic, it's just my team feels it best to not offer complete disclosure at this point. As well, i wish not to compromise many i know personally in science, in private labs and colleges and universities. Many of their hands are tied and i choose to respect that.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

I will have a book out next year - covid permitting - and some additional social media accounts, complete with videos of me rambling... And as well explaining who i am and my background in chem and bio.

Yes, a lot of these findings - that others have done, are game changers. None of what i post about is some secret, no area 51 here, it's just that these findings do not make front page news anywhere and what is left for consumption is old studies or new studies based on old, poor science understandings of decades and centuries past. I will do my part, do what i can to make this better understanding front page news.

My bet is that you dont have a background in anything and have a manic episode and try to mooch off the impressionable?I can take a joke or two,but you shouldnt publish any of it tbqh,its highly misleading.I read a couple of your ramblings and it is unhinged and funny,but health advice isnt to be taken lightly.

 

[Oliver]

My bet is that you dont have a background in anything and have a manic episode and try to mooch off the impressionable?I can take a joke or two,but you shouldnt publish any of it tbqh,its highly misleading.I read a couple of your ramblings and it is unhinged and funny,but health advice isnt to be taken lightly.

Tristan -did u know that we can synthesize our own amino acids, including the essential ones, Leucine etc? Did u know we can synthesize vitamin C? Not rhetorical questions - did u know tristan, of the findings?

 

[Oliver]

My bet is that you dont have a background in anything and have a manic episode and try to mooch off the impressionable?I can take a joke or two,but you shouldnt publish any of it tbqh,its highly misleading.I read a couple of your ramblings and it is unhinged and funny,but health advice isnt to be taken lightly.

Still waiting for your answer tristan loca...Did u know we can synthesize the essential amino acids? As well vitamin C? Did u know we can fix N2? We are waiting for your answer - a yes or no is not hard to type - or are you DESPERATELY googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling, and googling, and googling and googling, and googling,and googling, and googling and googling, and googling,and googling, and googling and googling, and googling,and googling, and googling and googling, and googling...

 

[schultz]

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.

I see. So it includes minerals as well. When I say 'sugar' I am referring to all mono and disaccharides, as well as starch. I should use clearer language.

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.

Sort of. Cows will leave certain plants they don't like in a paddock though. You'll see paddocks that are completely barren but have little patches of one or two types of plants that the cows don't like and refuse to eat even if they are hungry.

Goats and deer are browsers and are picky about what they eat. They are not grazers like cows and sheep. So they will do exactly what you said and go to one spot and eat a little of this and then move to another spot and eat a little of that.

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.

Thanks. I didn't make an effort to read the source material. I probably should have since I am participating in the discussion.

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 know this is correct. Cows main energy source is fatty acids, and specifically short chain "VFA's" as far as I remember.

I don't define cows as ruminant - they eat, they digest, they process they poop - all animals do this. We all have some digestive dynamic, some synthesis dynamic and a waste dynamic.

Monkeys have plenty of access to sodium

I don't understand what you mean. Humans don't have the same digestive system as ruminant animals. That's why there is a distinction. I just slaughtered a goat last week. It is definitely not the same as a pig or a human (granted I've never slaughtered a human.... yet )

It is rare, but some monkeys do not have plenty access to sodium. Particular areas in the amazon come to mind. So these monkey will eat bark or drink urine if they cannot find a salt lick or something. Are you saying this isn't true?

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Tristan -did u know that we can synthesize our own amino acids, including the essential ones, Leucine etc? Did u know we can synthesize vitamin C? Not rhetorical questions - did u know tristan, of the findings?

No,i did not know that,but i still believe Humans cant synthesize Vitamin C de novo,so that is a no from me.I do not know about leucine,but i would guess again that de novo pathing is not possible,some type of recycling surely,but not from scratch,maybe leucine can be catabolized from another Amino?

 

[Oliver]

No,i did not know that,but i still believe Humans cant synthesize Vitamin C de novo,so that is a no from me.I do not know about leucine,but i would guess again that de novo pathing is not possible,some type of recycling surely,but not from scratch,maybe leucine can be catabolized from another Amino?

As i said before, i can't post links yet here - but the op has posted a link to my site - see the article about the study of an amino acids study. Then check out the article "the short version". Both of those have links in the articles to all of these findings - from converting N2, to essential amino acids - from scratch not recycled, and vitamin c also from scratch not recycled - and so much more that the lay folk is unaware of. The article "The nature of nutrients doesn't have links but a brilliant bit of writing (iidssm) that speaks to proteins and vitamin C and gene expression - Gulo genes turning off etc.

 

[TheSir]

Yeah, that and tantric sex should work for u as well...

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you are insinuating.

 

[TheSir]

And no - we only think injecting androgen grows muscles without working out - not so. If that were the case who would work out...? Filed under duh...

I think you are misunderstanding. The assertion was not that injecting hormones is equally effective to working out, rather it is a counterargument to your claim that only working out can increase muscle mass. In reality your base muscle mass is determined by the overall hormonal equilibrium of the body. Injecting androgens is a way of impacting this equilibrium.

 

[Oliver]

I think you are misunderstanding. The assertion was not that injecting hormones is equally effective to working out, rather it is a counterargument to your claim that only working out can increase muscle mass. In reality your base muscle mass is determined by the overall hormonal equilibrium of the body. Injecting androgens is a way of impacting this equilibrium.

I understood u the first time - hormonal equlibrium is a thing - and fine - but zero muscle growth (body building muscle growth) if there is no resistance training. Only working out can increase muscle mass.

 

[TheSir]

I understood u the first time - hormonal equlibrium is a thing - and fine - but zero muscle growth (body building muscle growth) if there is no resistance training. Only working out can increase muscle mass.

My bad, I seemed to remember wrong. Visualization was found to increase strength, rather than muscle mass.

However, testosterone injections leading to muscle gains without resistance training is a real phenomenon:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

 

[Oliver]

I see. So it includes minerals as well. When I say 'sugar' I am referring to all mono and disaccharides, as well as starch. I should use clearer language.



Sort of. Cows will leave certain plants they don't like in a paddock though. You'll see paddocks that are completely barren but have little patches of one or two types of plants that the cows don't like and refuse to eat even if they are hungry.

Goats and deer are browsers and are picky about what they eat. They are not grazers like cows and sheep. So they will do exactly what you said and go to one spot and eat a little of this and then move to another spot and eat a little of that.



Thanks. I didn't make an effort to read the source material. I probably should have since I am participating in the discussion.



As far as I know this is correct. Cows main energy source is fatty acids, and specifically short chain "VFA's" as far as I remember.



I don't understand what you mean. Humans don't have the same digestive system as ruminant animals. That's why there is a distinction. I just slaughtered a goat last week. It is definitely not the same as a pig or a human (granted I've never slaughtered a human.... yet )

It is rare, but some monkeys do not have plenty access to sodium. Particular areas in the amazon come to mind. So these monkey will eat bark or drink urine if they cannot find a salt lick or something. Are you saying this isn't true?

-- Yes, sugars means all types - mono, di, poly - and starch which is glucose essentially (long vs short).

--Cats are finicky too - but what nature shows on tv fail to mention, is that so many animals use the sniff test - this is the finicky dynamic manifesting - they are sniffing for levels of toxins, sugar/nectar/blood glucose in the case of mosquitoes, - and Pheromones - whose marking the territory and why.

-- What i meant by 'same digestive system' was all species need fuel - period. How we process fuel will vary greatly but at the core there is a process wherein some exogenous source is consumed and processed to be fuel. Humans are "different" from fish and birds - yet we need to all digest/process what we consume.

--When we speak to 'energy sources' an consider fat - so few realize that fats comes from a ribose. The origins of fats are in sugars. And then, as a fuel component - fats are converted back to a ribose molecule - ATP, the final stage in the fuel/energy dynamic - is ribose based. So yes, we can argue fats are fuel - but so is a protein or amino acid - or a piece of fruit - they all can be converted to a ribose.

-- as for monkey pee - again, these zoologists and or biologists get things wrong as they observe things. So much is assumed. There is not one plant, fruit, animal, tree, whatever, in the wild, the jungle, new jersey - that does not contain sodium - and certainly rivers, streams and oceans. Especially in the Amazon region. It is quite an abundant element - top ten even.

 

[RealNeat]

-- Yes, sugars means all types - mono, di, poly - and starch which is glucose essentially (long vs short).

--Cats are finicky too - but what nature shows on tv fail to mention, is that so many animals use the sniff test - this is the finicky dynamic manifesting - they are sniffing for levels of toxins, sugar/nectar/blood glucose in the case of mosquitoes, - and Pheromones - whose marking the territory and why.

-- What i meant by 'same digestive system' was all species need fuel - period. How we process fuel will vary greatly but at the core there is a process wherein some exogenous source is consumed and processed to be fuel. Humans are "different" from fish and birds - yet we need to all digest/process what we consume.

--When we speak to 'energy sources' an consider fat - so few realize that fats comes from a ribose. The origins of fats are in sugars. And then, as a fuel component - fats are converted back to a ribose molecule - ATP, the final stage in the fuel/energy dynamic - is ribose based. So yes, we can argue fats are fuel - but so is a protein or amino acid - or a piece of fruit - they all can be converted to a ribose.

-- as for monkey pee - again, these zoologists and or biologists get things wrong as they observe things. So much is assumed. There is not one plant, fruit, animal, tree, whatever, in the wild, the jungle, new jersey - that does not contain sodium - and certainly rivers, streams and oceans. Especially in the Amazon region. It is quite an abundant element - top ten even.

Why is anyone giving you the time of day when you have yet to site anything to back your claims? Or rather, the claims you are perpetuating.

 

[Oliver]

My bad, I seemed to remember wrong. Visualization was found to increase strength, rather than muscle mass.

However, testosterone injections leading to muscle gains without resistance training is a real phenomenon:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

On my site there is the first article which is called "Tag you're it - the study of an amino acids study' - these "studies are all over the place and the math never adds up - as well the science. See the article.

 

[Oliver]

Why is anyone giving you the time of day when you have yet to site anything to back your claims? Or rather, the claims you are perpetuating.

They're giving me the time of day because they are either curious, intrigued or, or, wait for it - they have seen and read the links i provided which speaks to everything i have posted about - actual science study, lab based science study.... duh and duhmer....

Whose next?

 

[Tristan Loscha]

They're giving me the time of day because they are either curious, intrigued or, or, wait for it - they have seen and read the links i provided which speaks to everything i have posted about - actual science study, lab based science study.... duh and duhmer....

Whose next?

let me be the nexxt one please.Your fuelidea is you at your height of intellectual achievement,but i concluded that it is sadly a nonsense,i concluded that we need crude water to pee out all of your precious stored ribose,bc its quite toxic in the reality.Hope this helps?
If some monkey or such is drinkin' his own pee,that is showing just that he takes his sweet time,his good care, to take care of low traceable residual ribose in his peesystem,so he tastes it,the real good dogtors of the past actually drank your pee for you,just like some monkey in my example,no kiddin',to determine if you had diabetes,such monkeys in the animal kingdom drinking there own pee to see whats what!

-Lo Ribose=Success-,-Hi Ribose=Failure-.

 

[RealNeat]

They're giving me the time of day because they are either curious, intrigued or, or, wait for it - they have seen and read the links i provided which speaks to everything i have posted about - actual science study, lab based science study.... duh and duhmer....

Whose next?

I read your long babbling articles, have you taken the time to read the fully cited and intricate work of Ray Peat theres 40+ years of experience and research to go through. the very work of the person this forum is based off of?

Everything you touch upon and have opinions on is covered, but wait for it... with actual evidence.

You are misleading people with your follies. You take a half decent idea and then butcher it with a series of misguided opinions based on your understanding of what it means to be a human, ignoring all the complexities we house that many other animals don't.

Your understanding of adaptation limits the work you are trying to do and push down people's throats while mocking them for not knowing the latest science that you don't cite to support the ideas you make up.

This sounds harsh, but your self assurance is fabricated.

 

[Oliver]

I read your long babbling articles, have you taken the time to read the fully cited and intricate work of Ray Peat theres 40+ years of experience and research to go through. the very work of the person this forum is based off of?

Everything you touch upon and have opinions on is covered, but wait for it... with actual evidence.

You are misleading people with your follies. You take a half decent idea and then butcher it with a series of misguided opinions based on your understanding of what it means to be a human, ignoring all the complexities we house that many other animals don't.

Your understanding of adaptation limits the work you are trying to do and push down people's throats while mocking them for not knowing the latest science that you don't cite to support the ideas you make up.

This sounds harsh, but your self assurance is fabricated.

And again u

I read your long babbling articles, have you taken the time to read the fully cited and intricate work of Ray Peat theres 40+ years of experience and research to go through. the very work of the person this forum is based off of?

Everything you touch upon and have opinions on is covered, but wait for it... with actual evidence.

You are misleading people with your follies. You take a half decent idea and then butcher it with a series of misguided opinions based on your understanding of what it means to be a human, ignoring all the complexities we house that many other animals don't.

Your understanding of adaptation limits the work you are trying to do and push down people's throats while mocking them for not knowing the latest science that you don't cite to support the ideas you make up.

This sounds harsh, but your self assurance is fabricated.

 

[Oliver]

I read your long babbling articles, have you taken the time to read the fully cited and intricate work of Ray Peat theres 40+ years of experience and research to go through. the very work of the person this forum is based off of?

--Ah yes, a clear indication that u have not grasped one big point I am trying to convey. 40 years of work is great – but it was 40 years ago – or 50, 60. These are new findings, the latest findings. If u wish to cling to science data of 70 years ago then fine.

But in this century, this decade, we now know we can convert, N2, we have bacteria that contributes to the essential amino acids pool, we can synthesize vitamin C.

Science is not static. What good is 40 years of study if it doesn’t keep up with the most current understanding of the field?

That’s like being in audio engineering and not knowing we have smart phones….



Everything you touch upon and have opinions on is covered, but wait for it... with actual evidence.

--Chemistry is not opinion based – it can be agenda based and all manner of skulduggery can ensue – but that we now know we can fix nitrogen, and make our own essential amino acids, and make vitamin C – these are not opinions.

Yet and still – show me where he addresses these particular things.



You are misleading people with your follies. You take a half decent idea and then butcher it with a series of misguided opinions based on your understanding of what it means to be a human, ignoring all the complexities we house that many other animals don't.

U, are extrapolating not me – we are not different from the other species as regards requiring fuel. We are, all species, variations on a few bacterial themes. We are, all species of plant and animals, made of the same elemental components (sulfur, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.) and we all, all species have carbs, proteins, fats, vitamins etc, that we make ourselves. And again, we all need fuel – and the fuel sources are but a few – water, oxygen, sunlight, things that convert to glucose, and minerals.



Your understanding of adaptation limits the work you are trying to do and push down people's throats while mocking them for not knowing the latest science that you don't cite to support the ideas you make up.

I only mock bumbling idiots, angry puppies like yourself who for some reason feel threatened by this new science, this new understanding of how the body works as regards food and drink. And that u still don’t see where I cite sources is a you problem…



This sounds harsh, but your self assurance is fabricated.

My self-assurance is assuredly confident – that u think it’s fabricated is a reflection of your own ignorance and insecurities.