Do We Create Our Own Nutrition?

[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?

Oh and the things you cite don't back up what you are attributing them to.

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.

You are a very good word twister, and fiction writer. I'll give you that. You can't cite 1 study for every one million claims you make, so stop with your "can't find the needle in a haystack study that a base my world off of you must be dumb ...duhh" crap.

The people I fear in "Science" are people like you, the illusionary progressives. You blindly follow your own whims with way too much confidence and will herald anything that points in the only direction your compass turns.

If you read carefully my gripe was with your self assurance, the way you speak goes against your own claim of questioning the rhetoric. You say that your claims are essentially timeless, yet use current science, but using your own logic you can not be present in our past, and observing other animals does not accurately represent the state of the human, who by all accounts is in a extremely different environment, self induced, sure, but different none the less.

These changes require different approaches and some of those approaches are not of the utopia you dream of.

Rays work is SPANNING 40 or more years not only 40 years old, clear indication you've done zero investigation into it, which I now see the excuse for since it seems you are new here. He not only cites old, but new studies also diving into the work of many other scientists who claimed to be ignored by a majority of the "science world."

But I've seen the likes of you many times, a blend of the natural hygienist movement with the raw vegan movement eclipsed by Jack Kruse and his sun worshipping ways calling everyone who believes in food an idiot.

Your blanket statements read like a world you created in which you want everyone to be present, but with conclusions you yourself are not convinced of, only the illusion of assurance exists.

Your work has some commonalities with Ray (I mean that with no insult to him), I highly suggest you read his articles.

Now why am I angry?

Your confidence, not as a person, but in what you write is what set me off. I'm very secure with establishing new ideas, even ones that question everything I know. But you are writing fiction and calling it fact, with not enough evidence to even span a paragraph.

 

[RealNeat]

And again u

yes it's me your worse nightmare lol I'm not going to let someone who claims eating iceberg lettuce with a couple fruits and nuts with water just float gently down the river of "ideal nutrition"

 

[RealNeat]

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.

Things Ray covers that you request I show can't happen you'll have to word search his articles, there's too much. I can however tell you some of what to look for:

water and it's DETRIMENT: in context, since you know... context is pretty much everything

vitamin C and it's presence in foods not usually accredited with having Vitamin C.

Sugar being of utmost importance, in all its forms, but especially sucrose

ease of digestion, meals that do not cause intestinal fermentation and discomfort, raw carrot salads, bamboo shoots and mushrooms for endotoxin

Limitation of endogenous and exogenous toxins: from endotoxin to plant toxins, pollution, nanoparticles etc

Antioxidants and cellular oxidation, plus the byproducts of respiration

The organizing value of proper cellular energy production to the whole organism and the part hormones play

The detriment of polyunsatured fats in the diet, or even in the tissues, FFA libration in response to stressors

stress, it's impacts AND WHAT TO DO TO ADAPT IN THE DIET, (we are humans with chronic stress as a major issue, much different than other animals)

Genetics and the cop out argument it encourages in the "health" realm

sunlight and its benefits/ harms: red light UV, lipid oxidation, lipofuscin etc..

minerals and their benefit/ detriment: like calcium/ phosphate ratios and the iron dilemma

Allergies: histamine, serotonin, vaccination, bacteria and gut health.

Processing food and it's benefit/ detriment: from mice faring better on canned food vs raw , to corn processed with lime to prevent pellagra in the past


Much much more, maybe you haven't come across an idea cohesive enough to explain what you observe to be true, hopefully Ray will have some beneficial input on your theories.

 

[Oliver]

Oh and the things you cite don't back up what you are attributing them to.


You are a very good word twister, and fiction writer. I'll give you that. You can't cite 1 study for every one million claims you make, so stop with your "can't find the needle in a haystack study that a base my world off of you must be dumb ...duhh" crap.

The people I fear in "Science" are people like you, the illusionary progressives. You blindly follow your own whims with way too much confidence and will herald anything that points in the only direction your compass turns.

If you read carefully my gripe was with your self assurance, the way you speak goes against your own claim of questioning the rhetoric. You say that your claims are essentially timeless, yet use current science, but using your own logic you can not be present in our past, and observing other animals does not accurately represent the state of the human, who by all accounts is in a extremely different environment, self induced, sure, but different none the less.

These changes require different approaches and some of those approaches are not of the utopia you dream of.

Rays work is SPANNING 40 or more years not only 40 years old, clear indication you've done zero investigation into it, which I now see the excuse for since it seems you are new here. He not only cites old, but new studies also diving into the work of many other scientists who claimed to be ignored by a majority of the "science world."

But I've seen the likes of you many times, a blend of the natural hygienist movement with the raw vegan movement eclipsed by Jack Kruse and his sun worshipping ways calling everyone who believes in food an idiot.

Your blanket statements read like a world you created in which you want everyone to be present, but with conclusions you yourself are not convinced of, only the illusion of assurance exists.

Your work has some commonalities with Ray (I mean that with no insult to him), I highly suggest you read his articles.

Now why am I angry?

Your confidence, not as a person, but in what you write is what set me off. I'm very secure with establishing new ideas, even ones that question everything I know. But you are writing fiction and calling it fact, with not enough evidence to even span a paragraph.

My replies in red...

You are a very good word twister, and fiction writer. I'll give you that. You can't cite 1 study for every one million claims you make, so stop with your "can't find the needle in a haystack study that a base my world off of you must be dumb ...duhh" crap.

--Ugh – there are numerous cites for what I speak to. And they are all in my articles – the links to all of these findings are in my articles on my blog site. Why is this so hard for u guys to grasp? There is no needle but rather a bunch of links to folks doing this lab work.

And to boot – not just one study – I link u to several separate labs where they have realized we can fix nitrogen or synthesize the essential amino acids etc. ???



The people I fear in "Science" are people like you, the illusionary progressives. You blindly follow your own whims with way too much confidence and will herald anything that points in the only direction your compass turns.

--What u fear is being wrong. You are not interested in getting the science right – you just wanna be right – and u ain’t blanche…



If you read carefully my gripe was with your self assurance, the way you speak goes against your own claim of questioning the rhetoric. You say that your claims are essentially timeless, yet use current science, but using your own logic you can not be present in our past, and observing other animals does not accurately represent the state of the human, who by all accounts is in a extremely different environment, self induced, sure, but different none the less.



These changes require different approaches and some of those approaches are not of the utopia you dream of.

--That was some rambling gibberish there…



Rays work is SPANNING 40 or more years not only 40 years old, clear indication you've done zero investigation into it, which I now see the excuse for since it seems you are new here. He not only cites old, but new studies also diving into the work of many other scientists who claimed to be ignored by a majority of the "science world."

--I don’t know ray, don’t know who he is or what he knows. I am here speaking to what I know. Perhaps u invite ray to shut down all these new science findings I am bringing to the table. ???

As well, for u to think all science is right and not to be questioned, challenged and many times changed (scrapped and changed) that’s naïve on your part. That we should not question science from 80 years ago, for example the essential amino acids by Dr Rose – is stupid. Rose, who started the entire essential amino acids idea – WAS WRONG! All kinds of wrong. The study was all kinds of brutish and revealed nothing – yet we ran with it as gospel lo these many decades.



But I've seen the likes of you many times, a blend of the natural hygienist movement with the raw vegan movement eclipsed by Jack Kruse and his sun worshipping ways calling everyone who believes in food an idiot.

--U haven’t seen the likes of me – not at all. Oh, and I love bacon…



Your blanket statements read like a world you created in which you want everyone to be present, but with conclusions you yourself are not convinced of, only the illusion of assurance exists.

--All you subscribe to as regards nutrition is based on blanket statements – that were based on crude assumptions of yesteryear.



Your work has some commonalities with Ray (I mean that with no insult to him), I highly suggest you read his articles.

--With all respect to this ray fellow, if he is saying something new, then show me, show me which article is cutting edge about what the body needs and doesn’t need. I’ll read that.

This is not my first rodeo – I am quite sure nothing on this forum is unfamiliar to me – but just more spin on similar ideas. With all due respect.



Now why am I angry?

Your confidence, not as a person, but in what you write is what set me off. I'm very secure with establishing new ideas, even ones that question everything I know. But you are writing fiction and calling it fact, with not enough evidence to even span a paragraph.

--I don’t care why your angry – your take on your anger. Why the hell would I give a dam about u or your feelings – you who don’t know how to engage in civil manner, you some forum hack who has nothing new or fresh to contribute to anything. Why, why do u think I give a fcuk about why u are angry.

How pedestrian of you to attempt to explain your feelings…

Get a life and fight to keep it. I would go on but my string and cup is ringing – got to answer it…

 

[RealNeat]

My replies in red...

You are a very good word twister, and fiction writer. I'll give you that. You can't cite 1 study for every one million claims you make, so stop with your "can't find the needle in a haystack study that a base my world off of you must be dumb ...duhh" crap.

--Ugh – there are numerous cites for what I speak to. And they are all in my articles – the links to all of these findings are in my articles on my blog site. Why is this so hard for u guys to grasp? There is no needle but rather a bunch of links to folks doing this lab work.

And to boot – not just one study – I link u to several separate labs where they have realized we can fix nitrogen or synthesize the essential amino acids etc. ???



The people I fear in "Science" are people like you, the illusionary progressives. You blindly follow your own whims with way too much confidence and will herald anything that points in the only direction your compass turns.

--What u fear is being wrong. You are not interested in getting the science right – you just wanna be right – and u ain’t blanche…



If you read carefully my gripe was with your self assurance, the way you speak goes against your own claim of questioning the rhetoric. You say that your claims are essentially timeless, yet use current science, but using your own logic you can not be present in our past, and observing other animals does not accurately represent the state of the human, who by all accounts is in a extremely different environment, self induced, sure, but different none the less.



These changes require different approaches and some of those approaches are not of the utopia you dream of.

--That was some rambling gibberish there…



Rays work is SPANNING 40 or more years not only 40 years old, clear indication you've done zero investigation into it, which I now see the excuse for since it seems you are new here. He not only cites old, but new studies also diving into the work of many other scientists who claimed to be ignored by a majority of the "science world."

--I don’t know ray, don’t know who he is or what he knows. I am here speaking to what I know. Perhaps u invite ray to shut down all these new science findings I am bringing to the table. ???

As well, for u to think all science is right and not to be questioned, challenged and many times changed (scrapped and changed) that’s naïve on your part. That we should not question science from 80 years ago, for example the essential amino acids by Dr Rose – is stupid. Rose, who started the entire essential amino acids idea – WAS WRONG! All kinds of wrong. The study was all kinds of brutish and revealed nothing – yet we ran with it as gospel lo these many decades.



But I've seen the likes of you many times, a blend of the natural hygienist movement with the raw vegan movement eclipsed by Jack Kruse and his sun worshipping ways calling everyone who believes in food an idiot.

--U haven’t seen the likes of me – not at all. Oh, and I love bacon…



Your blanket statements read like a world you created in which you want everyone to be present, but with conclusions you yourself are not convinced of, only the illusion of assurance exists.

--All you subscribe to as regards nutrition is based on blanket statements – that were based on crude assumptions of yesteryear.



Your work has some commonalities with Ray (I mean that with no insult to him), I highly suggest you read his articles.

--With all respect to this ray fellow, if he is saying something new, then show me, show me which article is cutting edge about what the body needs and doesn’t need. I’ll read that.

This is not my first rodeo – I am quite sure nothing on this forum is unfamiliar to me – but just more spin on similar ideas. With all due respect.



Now why am I angry?

Your confidence, not as a person, but in what you write is what set me off. I'm very secure with establishing new ideas, even ones that question everything I know. But you are writing fiction and calling it fact, with not enough evidence to even span a paragraph.

--I don’t care why your angry – your take on your anger. Why the hell would I give a dam about u or your feelings – you who don’t know how to engage in civil manner, you some forum hack who has nothing new or fresh to contribute to anything. Why, why do u think I give a fcuk about why u are angry.

How pedestrian of you to attempt to explain your feelings…

Get a life and fight to keep it. I would go on but my string and cup is ringing – got to answer it…

Responses full of empty words, just like your articles.

 

[Oliver]

Things Ray covers that you request I show can't happen you'll have to word search his articles, there's too much. I can however tell you some of what to look for:

water and it's DETRIMENT: in context, since you know... context is pretty much everything

vitamin C and it's presence in foods not usually accredited with having Vitamin C.

Sugar being of utmost importance, in all its forms, but especially sucrose

ease of digestion, meals that do not cause intestinal fermentation and discomfort, raw carrot salads, bamboo shoots and mushrooms for endotoxin

Limitation of endogenous and exogenous toxins: from endotoxin to plant toxins, pollution, nanoparticles etc

Antioxidants and cellular oxidation, plus the byproducts of respiration

The organizing value of proper cellular energy production to the whole organism and the part hormones play

The detriment of polyunsatured fats in the diet, or even in the tissues, FFA libration in response to stressors

stress, it's impacts AND WHAT TO DO TO ADAPT IN THE DIET, (we are humans with chronic stress as a major issue, much different than other animals)

Genetics and the cop out argument it encourages in the "health" realm

sunlight and its benefits/ harms: red light UV, lipid oxidation, lipofuscin etc..

minerals and their benefit/ detriment: like calcium/ phosphate ratios and the iron dilemma

Allergies: histamine, serotonin, vaccination, bacteria and gut health.

Processing food and it's benefit/ detriment: from mice faring better on canned food vs raw , to corn processed with lime to prevent pellagra in the past


Much much more, maybe you haven't come across an idea cohesive enough to explain what you observe to be true, hopefully Ray will have some beneficial input on your theories.

Me in red
Things Ray covers that you request I show can't happen you'll have to word search his articles, there's too much. I can however tell you some of what to look for:

water and it's DETRIMENT: in context, since you know... context is pretty much everything

--Nothing new there…

vitamin C and it's presence in foods not usually accredited with having Vitamin C.

--I am still looking for where he says we can make our own…Other wise – nothing new or radical here. Boring

Sugar being of utmost importance, in all its forms, but especially sucrose

--Hey we agree! So I’m not an idiot after all…

ease of digestion, meals that do not cause intestinal fermentation and discomfort, raw carrot salads, bamboo shoots and mushrooms for endotoxin

--Been there read those types of studies – not new, boring

Limitation of endogenous and exogenous toxins: from endotoxin to plant toxins, pollution, nanoparticles etc

--A few books out there on this – not new, boring (to me).

Antioxidants and cellular oxidation, plus the byproducts of respiration

--Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

The organizing value of proper cellular energy production to the whole organism and the part hormones play

--Tons of lit on this – not new nor news - boring

The detriment of polyunsatured fats in the diet, or even in the tissues, FFA libration in response to stressors

--Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

stress, it's impacts AND WHAT TO DO TO ADAPT IN THE DIET, (we are humans with chronic stress as a major issue, much different than other animals)

--Everyone writes about this - Tons of lit – not new - boring

Genetics and the cop out argument it encourages in the "health" realm

--I write about this – maybe I’m not an idiot after all…

sunlight and its benefits/ harms: red light UV, lipid oxidation, lipofuscin etc..

--Really? – ok - Tons of lit on this – not new, not news - boring

minerals and their benefit/ detriment: like calcium/ phosphate ratios and the iron dilemma

--Really? – ok - Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

Allergies: histamine, serotonin, vaccination, bacteria and gut health.

--I speak to all of these – not new to me –nor his take. Bacteria is not just in the gut – yet all still refer to gut flora – bacteria is everywhere in the body from the balls to the butt…

Processing food and it's benefit/ detriment: from mice faring better on canned food vs raw , to corn processed with lime to prevent pellagra in the past

--Generic stuff like this is all over the web – and to be sure peat got a lot from surfing the web. Many do that, they feel the need to keep providing content – but how vetted is so much of it?


Much much more, maybe you haven't come across an idea cohesive enough to explain what you observe to be true, hopefully Ray will have some beneficial input on your theories.

--Let’s hope – looking forward to hearing from Ray!

 

[Oliver]

Responses full of empty words, just like your articles.

Nice try - NOT!

 

[RealNeat]

Me in red
Things Ray covers that you request I show can't happen you'll have to word search his articles, there's too much. I can however tell you some of what to look for:

water and it's DETRIMENT: in context, since you know... context is pretty much everything

--Nothing new there…

vitamin C and it's presence in foods not usually accredited with having Vitamin C.

--I am still looking for where he says we can make our own…Other wise – nothing new or radical here. Boring

Sugar being of utmost importance, in all its forms, but especially sucrose

--Hey we agree! So I’m not an idiot after all…

ease of digestion, meals that do not cause intestinal fermentation and discomfort, raw carrot salads, bamboo shoots and mushrooms for endotoxin

--Been there read those types of studies – not new, boring

Limitation of endogenous and exogenous toxins: from endotoxin to plant toxins, pollution, nanoparticles etc

--A few books out there on this – not new, boring (to me).

Antioxidants and cellular oxidation, plus the byproducts of respiration

--Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

The organizing value of proper cellular energy production to the whole organism and the part hormones play

--Tons of lit on this – not new nor news - boring

The detriment of polyunsatured fats in the diet, or even in the tissues, FFA libration in response to stressors

--Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

stress, it's impacts AND WHAT TO DO TO ADAPT IN THE DIET, (we are humans with chronic stress as a major issue, much different than other animals)

--Everyone writes about this - Tons of lit – not new - boring

Genetics and the cop out argument it encourages in the "health" realm

--I write about this – maybe I’m not an idiot after all…

sunlight and its benefits/ harms: red light UV, lipid oxidation, lipofuscin etc..

--Really? – ok - Tons of lit on this – not new, not news - boring

minerals and their benefit/ detriment: like calcium/ phosphate ratios and the iron dilemma

--Really? – ok - Tons of lit on this – not new - boring

Allergies: histamine, serotonin, vaccination, bacteria and gut health.

--I speak to all of these – not new to me –nor his take. Bacteria is not just in the gut – yet all still refer to gut flora – bacteria is everywhere in the body from the balls to the butt…

Processing food and it's benefit/ detriment: from mice faring better on canned food vs raw , to corn processed with lime to prevent pellagra in the past

--Generic stuff like this is all over the web – and to be sure peat got a lot from surfing the web. Many do that, they feel the need to keep providing content – but how vetted is so much of it?


Much much more, maybe you haven't come across an idea cohesive enough to explain what you observe to be true, hopefully Ray will have some beneficial input on your theories.

--Let’s hope – looking forward to hearing from Ray!

You won't hear from Ray. He only writes articles and does interviews over the phone. He has no part in this forum.

Also I listed those things as commonality between what you speak of and some of what he goes over, not as new things, the devil is in the details and context, thought you would compare where things overlap.

We've all heard of "whatever", it's the principles behind those subjects that are important and how they come together.

It's funny how quickly your cockiness came out into the open.

 

[Oliver]

You won't hear from Ray. He only writes articles and does interviews over the phone. He has no part in this forum.

Also I listed those things as commonality between what you speak of and some of what he goes over, not as new things, the devil is in the details and context, thought you would compare where things overlap.

We've all heard of "whatever", it's the principles behind those subjects that are important and how they come together.

Dude, i came to this site and spoke to how we make our own nutrients. If ray has written about this then awesome - we are kinship. If he or anyone on this site knows about these new findings - then step forth. Otherwise i don't give a crap about any of you frekin useless hacks - With the exception of those few decent folk on this forum. The rest of you are an embarrassment to real science research and study - an absolute joke. If this was my site i would ban all of you who don't know how to engage to grow. Those who step to me with anger and vitriol yet have little to disprove - STFU!

The devil is in the details yet none of yall care to read the details - you just want headlines. I give you both. I too have forty years of work under my belt. I pit what i know against anyone.

Every field of science study has advanced - from cell phones to separating conjoined twins, agriculture, solar dynamics, desalination, Crispr work and much much more - BUT YALL THINK WE HAVE NOT LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT NUTRITION, that there are no new findings and advances...Stupid just frekin stupid!

 

[RealNeat]

Nice try -

Dude, i came to this site and spoke to how we make our own nutrients. If ray has written about this then awesome - we are kinship. If he or anyone on this site knows about these new findings - then step forth. Otherwise i don't give a crap about any of you frekin useless hacks - With the exception of those few decent folk on this forum. The rest of you are an embarrassment to real science research and study - an absolute joke. If this was my site i would ban all of you who don't know how to engage to grow. Those who step to me with anger and vitriol yet have little to disprove - STFU!

The devil is in the details yet none of yall care to read the details - you just want headlines. I give you both. I too have forty years of work under my belt. I pit what i know against anyone.

Every field of science study has advanced - from cell phones to separating conjoined twins, agriculture, solar dynamics, desalination, Crispr work and much much more - BUT YALL THINK WE HAVE NOT LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT NUTRITION, that there are no new findings and advances...Stupid just frekin stupid!

Yeah hurl insults at all the forum members! Good job! You are the best! You know all!

 

[Oliver]

Yeah hurl insults at all the forum members! Good job! You are the best! You know all!

Not all the forum members - some have been real nice, respectful, kind, ask decent questions. This thread started with a member who saw me on twitter - he provided the link in his op. He was not an angry puppy like some of you.

I don't know everything. I am always learning. I speak to only what i know about - everything else, i work hard, research long hours (6000 pages of notes...) and i ask questions to those who might know what i want to know. Yall should try that sometimes.

Don't start boohooing and licking your wounds about me now hurling insults - you and others started this.... As is clear in this thread, those who come at me decent - get treated in kind.

 

[schultz]

-- 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.

Some good points.

Animals are remarkably similar to each other with only minor differences for the most part.

People who study animals do make assumptions and mistakes. Naturally this is part of science, but I think most people these days assume that science is automatically fact, which is of course untrue.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Dude, i came to this site and spoke to how we make our own nutrients. If ray has written about this then awesome - we are kinship. If he or anyone on this site knows about these new findings - then step forth. Otherwise i don't give a crap about any of you frekin useless hacks - With the exception of those few decent folk on this forum. The rest of you are an embarrassment to real science research and study - an absolute joke. If this was my site i would ban all of you who don't know how to engage to grow. Those who step to me with anger and vitriol yet have little to disprove - STFU!

The devil is in the details yet none of yall care to read the details - you just want headlines. I give you both. I too have forty years of work under my belt. I pit what i know against anyone.

Every field of science study has advanced - from cell phones to separating conjoined twins, agriculture, solar dynamics, desalination, Crispr work and much much more - BUT YALL THINK WE HAVE NOT LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT NUTRITION, that there are no new findings and advances...Stupid just frekin stupid!

Its all a big nothing you are yelling here.Your ideas are simple not new,they are discarded' ideas for a lack of truthvalue,they have a deficiency in relationship with reality.

As other members already successfully analysed,you are falling into Suneater-Sungaze-Vegoonism-Movement nonsense,i can perceive in the style of writing of yours that you have a history or episode of altered mentation,consuments of recreational drugs like marihuana or cocaine or such have this type of perserverance and stereotypy,sing-sang kind of language.

But i do not wish to discard you on these superficial grounds,but for your ideaproduction',which is a big nonsense really.

A poster before already linked to your blog before,good for you,but pls,do not expect members to visit your small-time blog pls,i regret it,not much,but slightly so,for there its a huge nonsense in reality.
You should bring proof here to this Forum,and make your case,we,the judges,will treat you fairly.

 

[Oliver]

Some good points.

Animals are remarkably similar to each other with only minor differences for the most part.

People who study animals do make assumptions and mistakes. Naturally this is part of science, but I think most people these days assume that science is automatically fact, which is of course untrue.

One of the top 3 best books i ever read was Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". The book basically is an overview of all the science disciplines from geology on thru biology, chemistry, physics etc, how they began, their origins, and how they have evolved over millennia. What jumped off the pages the most to me was how so much error, mistake, miscalculation etc occurred in every strain of science study, research and understandings. So much was wrong, so many times there was an oops moment, and of course so much was re reviewed and either corrected or scraped altogether - this over the course of decades or centuries.

That we can do so much in this era, from flying to communicating with little plastic and metal devices (cell phones), land on the moon, separate conjoined twins - all of this didn't happen over night, and none of it happened all of a sudden. That we can deep dive in a tank for weeks, months on end in the case of a submarine, took maybe a hundred years of error, study, more study, better learnings and understandings - and so much combined sciences and science minds over the decades.

Bill bryson's Book is not at all about nutrition - no mention of it - except when he discusses the work on bacteria - he casually mentions "Bacteria make our vitamins..." - and he moves on to talk about more science evolution.

Nutrition science, all of it has it's origins in so much guess work and assumptions - of the last 3 centuries, from captain cook and thinking scurvy was prevented or cured by vitamin C, to the 1940's when Dr rose thought we needed certain amino acids in order to live and that we can only get them from our diet.

And it had to be assumptions and guess work - even educated guesses - pirates didn't have Mass spectrometry or were not able to do western blot analysis etc. Dr William C Rose in 1940 also didn't have the tech to see and know what was going on inside the human body, inside cells. He didn't have the ability to tag and track an exogenous molecule, a protein say, and see where it goes, where it went, what it did. All he had was ideas and assumptions from his predecessors - who had even less tech and science knowings - even cruder assumptions.

Yet all, as in all we know about nutrition, all we have learned, all we speak to and the foundation we have built up so much knowings on - was all from some quite erroneous paradigms. If i start out believing that 2 plus 2 equals 5 - and go from there, then there is a good chance that every equation with that as it's base principle understandings will be incorrect.

And for nutrition science to be the one discipline that doesn't "correct" itself strikes me as odd. And the reason why nutrition science in this day and age is stuck - is due to so many making a career of nutrition science - and not taking one single course in chemistry, biology or physics. At least 100 years ago this stuff was all relegated to just real science folk - those with advanced degrees in the hard sciences (chem, bio, physics). With Nutritionists, one can get a degree online, for a grand, inside of a year - with no hands on lab work...

This in part has allowed for "nutrition science" to remain static. This new onslaught of thousands of people becoming nutritionists as a career, enabled these horribly wrong understandings about how the body works as regards food and drink to calcify and be perpetuated as gospel and written in stone.

300 years ago, 90 years ago, 40 years ago (the linus pauling era),we were wrong about nutrition, wrong about how the body works, wrong about what we need to eat. Now we have the best tech, the latest tech, now we have made new discoveries, new findings, better understandings. They just happen to be the best kept secrets. And this is due to having to undo so much locked in science.

And of course the 800 pound gorrila in the room, the other reason nutrition science doesn't advance in the direction it should - is money. There are billions of dollars made in believing we need nutrients from cows, dairy, apples, vegetables, grains, beans, corn, fish (omega 3), nuts etc - all of them, including crappy cheerios promotes one nutrient or another. And supplements. The supplement world is huge - and those big pharma companies want no part of this idea that we can and do make our own nutrients. Big business doesn't want to hear that protein shakes are useless and end up in the toilet.

And because big money has giant coffers, these little findings, that are hard to find to begin with, don't have much of a chance of getting into mainstream science, never becomes front page news. And with the internet, all search engines fail miserably to the end of realizing these new studies and findings - due to being vastly outnumbered by all the wrong stuff - 2 million google searches would have to be sifted through before u can find the studies showing we make our own essential amino acids. But all just stop at the first ten searches which state the essential amino acids are so because we can't make them and they must be got from our diets, or supplements...

Have a great day. Sorry for the sunday rambling...

 

[Oliver]

Its all a big nothing you are yelling here.Your ideas are simple not new,they are discarded' ideas for a lack of truthvalue,they have a deficiency in relationship with reality.

As other members already successfully analysed,you are falling into Suneater-Sungaze-Vegoonism-Movement nonsense,i can perceive in the style of writing of yours that you have a history or episode of altered mentation,consuments of recreational drugs like marihuana or cocaine or such have this type of perserverance and stereotypy,sing-sang kind of language.

But i do not wish to discard you on these superficial grounds,but for your ideaproduction',which is a big nonsense really.

A poster before already linked to your blog before,good for you,but pls,do not expect members to visit your small-time blog pls,i regret it,not much,but slightly so,for there its a huge nonsense in reality.

You should bring proof here to this Forum,and make your case,we,the judges,will treat you fairly.

Actually, what really happened here, was so many of you, u included, failed miserably to "prove me wrong". Part of your failure was not addressing the links to these fine decent lab folk who are making these findings. Speak to them, they are real people in real labs. Ask them for yourselves if they are wrong, if there findings are bogus.

None of u idiot wannabee science folk did this. Instead u took the easy route and started in with name calling and the oh so cliche act of defending old dogma and paradigms - like yall are stuck, mired. Well stuck on stoopid is more the case.

You bumbling idiots keep asking for proof and the proof, the links, are provided. How frekin hard is it to access a link? But again, if u can't even do that why should i be surprised...

And then u have the audacity to say "we the judges"... Ha. How the fcuk can u all be judges when u don't know the subject at hand? You don't even know of these findings. None of u knew that we can now fix N2 - u didn't even know to ask the question 'how did we solve the N2 issue' when i said we can synthesize our own essential amino acids. None of u knew we can make vitamin C as well. None of you knew any of this, u did not know of any of these findings from this century - yet u want to frekin be a judge? Insane!

 

[CLASH]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub 0pubmed

"We randomly assigned 43 normal men to one of four groups: placebo with no exercise; testosterone with no exercise; placebo plus exercise; and testosterone plus exercise. The men received injections of 600 mg of testosterone enanthate or placebo weekly for 10 weeks. The men in the exercise groups performed standardized weight-lifting exercises three times weekly. Before and after the treatment period, fat-free mass was determined by underwater weighing, muscle size was measured by magnetic resonance imaging, and the strength of the arms and legs was assessed by bench-press and squatting exercises, respectively."

Please see the chart attached. The group receiving exogenous testosterone without exercising, gained more muscle mass than the group that exercised and did not take exogenous testosterone.

 

[jay123]

I have been reading things on your blog and here too and I have a couple of questions. Simple questions but I am curious.

1. I see you were eating beans. I am thinking you are referring to a kidney beans of some sort. I am guessing these would be good for mineral content (of course sugar too). Which is best for minerals, canned or dried?

2. Antibiotics. I guess I need more of an explanation of how this doesn't as opposed does work. Or should I think how I have been told it works. If you could give me some understanding to go down a new rabbit hole please.

3. Since you are finding in your research that vitamins do not make it through digestion then am I right to think that minerals and sugar are what is making it through digestion to fuel our bodies to make vitamins?

@Oliver

Thank you.

 

[CLASH]

These are your studies from your article:

Kwashiorkor in the United States

"Kwashiorkor is the edematous form of protein-energy malnutrition."

"Twelve children were diagnosed as having kwashiorkor in 7 tertiary referral centers throughout the United States. The diagnoses were based on the characteristic rash and the overall clinical presentation. The rash consisted of an erosive, crusting, desquamating dermatitis sometimes with classic "pasted-on" scale—the so-called flaky paint sign. Most cases were due to nutritional ignorance, perceived milk intolerance, or food faddism. Half of the cases were the result of a deliberate deviation to a protein-deficient diet because of a perceived intolerance of formula or milk. Financial and social stresses were a factor in only 2 cases, and in both cases social chaos was more of a factor than an absolute lack of financial resources. Misleading dietary histories and the presence of edema masking growth failure obscured the clinical picture in some cases."


Contributions of Intestinal Bacteria to Nutrition and Metabolism in the Critically Ill

"A series of experiments involving labeled inorganic nitrogen suggests that up to 20% of circulating lysine and threonine in nonruminant mammals, including adult humans, is synthesized by gut microbes [18, 19]. Similarly, Raj, et al. demonstrated that gut microbial synthesis of leucine in adult men was approximately 20% of the dietary amount [17]."

"Elevated urease expression in gut microbes results in metabolism of urea in the GI tract into ammonia and carbon dioxide. Some of the ammonia can be utilized for microbial synthesis of amino acids."

"By use of x-ray absorptiometry and epididymal fat pad weight analysis, it was demonstrated that wild-type (WT) animals contained 42% more total body fat than GF animals, despite a higher metabolic rate and a reduced daily consumption of standard chow [30]."

"By use of x-ray absorptiometry and epididymal fat pad weight analysis, it was demonstrated that wild-type (WT) animals contained 42% more total body fat than GF animals, despite a higher metabolic rate and a reduced daily consumption of standard chow [30]. To mechanistically evaluate this finding, the authors transferred the microbiota of WT animals to GF animals. A rapid increase (within 10 days) of total body fat content and epididymal fat weight was noted despite no significant difference in total body weight. Intriguingly, colonization of GF mice with just a single gut microbe (B. thetaiotaocmicron, discussed above) also yielded a significant increase in total body fat content, although the increase in fat content was less than that seen with transfer of the complete mouse microbiota."

"Further work in this model suggested that the microbiota stimulates increased hepatic triglyceride production and promotes storage of adipocyte triglycerides by suppressing the activity of a circulating inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase [30]."

"Most human diets provide a robust supply of vitamins, the essential human nutrients that must be obtained from exogenous sources. However, it has long been recognized that gut microbes also contribute to vitamin synthesis."

"that up to half of the daily Vitamin K requirement is provided by gut bacteria"

"Studies of energy balance in conventional and GF animals led to the hypothesis that the microbial ecology of the GI tract contributes to the pathogenesis of obesity"

Urea Nitrogen Salvage Mechanisms and Their Relevance to Ruminants, Non-Ruminants and Man - PubMed

"Studies of energy balance in conventional and GF animals led to the hypothesis that the microbial ecology of the GI tract contributes to the pathogenesis of obesity"

ammonia is a known toxin and combined with carbon dioxide to form urea as a waste product on purpose.....


The Presence of N2-fixing Bacteria in the Intestines of Man and Animals | Microbiology Society

"Best N2-fixation was by cultures provisionally identified as Klebsiella aerogenes, but other genera were also involved. All cultures fixed more N2 anaerobically than aerobically but some fixation occurred when 20% O2was present."

Klebsiella species are known pathogens. I'm pretty sure the gut O2 tension isn't at 20%.

Nitrogen fixation and nifH diversity in human gut microbiota
"Collectively, the human gut microbiota has a potential for nitrogen fixation, which may be attributable to Klebsiella and Clostridiales strains, although no evidence was found that the nitrogen-fixing activity substantially contributes to the host nitrogen balance."

Intestinal Microbial Contribution to Metabolic Leucine Input in Adult Men
"The contribution of the intestinal microbiota to body leucine input was estimated to be between 19 and 22% at the 1.25 EAR diet."


https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/...u_83RcBdVwdt8TFuOZjOYhWBcZafRIjSrBkdgSovwNh9g
"Protein intake was roughly double that of the RDA in both groups and remained unchanged across time with no differences detected between groups. Similar increases were observed between groups in leg-press 1RM (LEU: 19.0 ± 9.4% and PLA: 21.0 ± 10.4%, p=0.31) and mCSA (LEU: 8.0 ± 5.6% and PLA: 8.4 ± 5.1%, p=0.77)."

The protein intake was already 2x the RDA despite the leucine supplementation.


Can't speak to the random letter you posted that has no referenced articles to it.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Actually, what really happened here, was so many of you, u included, failed miserably to "prove me wrong". Part of your failure was not addressing the links to these fine decent lab folk who are making these findings. Speak to them, they are real people in real labs. Ask them for yourselves if they are wrong, if there findings are bogus.

None of u idiot wannabee science folk did this. Instead u took the easy route and started in with name calling and the oh so cliche act of defending old dogma and paradigms - like yall are stuck, mired. Well stuck on stoopid is more the case.

You bumbling idiots keep asking for proof and the proof, the links, are provided. How frekin hard is it to access a link? But again, if u can't even do that why should i be surprised...

And then u have the audacity to say "we the judges"... Ha. How the fcuk can u all be judges when u don't know the subject at hand? You don't even know of these findings. None of u knew that we can now fix N2 - u didn't even know to ask the question 'how did we solve the N2 issue' when i said we can synthesize our own essential amino acids. None of u knew we can make vitamin C as well. None of you knew any of this, u did not know of any of these findings from this century - yet u want to frekin be a judge? Insane!

False is False.The Provision of prooof is on you,you have to spoonfeed it to us if we shoud invest precious time in this trial.My admittedly narrow minded Ghost can see a nonsense in reality,mind you,you & your ramblings are such a bitter pill to consume.Everything we know is decades old % false?Thats a mouthful!!

 

[Tristan Loscha]

These are your studies from your article:

Kwashiorkor in the United States

"Kwashiorkor is the edematous form of protein-energy malnutrition."

"Twelve children were diagnosed as having kwashiorkor in 7 tertiary referral centers throughout the United States. The diagnoses were based on the characteristic rash and the overall clinical presentation. The rash consisted of an erosive, crusting, desquamating dermatitis sometimes with classic "pasted-on" scale—the so-called flaky paint sign. Most cases were due to nutritional ignorance, perceived milk intolerance, or food faddism. Half of the cases were the result of a deliberate deviation to a protein-deficient diet because of a perceived intolerance of formula or milk. Financial and social stresses were a factor in only 2 cases, and in both cases social chaos was more of a factor than an absolute lack of financial resources. Misleading dietary histories and the presence of edema masking growth failure obscured the clinical picture in some cases."


Contributions of Intestinal Bacteria to Nutrition and Metabolism in the Critically Ill

"A series of experiments involving labeled inorganic nitrogen suggests that up to 20% of circulating lysine and threonine in nonruminant mammals, including adult humans, is synthesized by gut microbes [18, 19]. Similarly, Raj, et al. demonstrated that gut microbial synthesis of leucine in adult men was approximately 20% of the dietary amount [17]."

"Elevated urease expression in gut microbes results in metabolism of urea in the GI tract into ammonia and carbon dioxide. Some of the ammonia can be utilized for microbial synthesis of amino acids."

"By use of x-ray absorptiometry and epididymal fat pad weight analysis, it was demonstrated that wild-type (WT) animals contained 42% more total body fat than GF animals, despite a higher metabolic rate and a reduced daily consumption of standard chow [30]."

"By use of x-ray absorptiometry and epididymal fat pad weight analysis, it was demonstrated that wild-type (WT) animals contained 42% more total body fat than GF animals, despite a higher metabolic rate and a reduced daily consumption of standard chow [30]. To mechanistically evaluate this finding, the authors transferred the microbiota of WT animals to GF animals. A rapid increase (within 10 days) of total body fat content and epididymal fat weight was noted despite no significant difference in total body weight. Intriguingly, colonization of GF mice with just a single gut microbe (B. thetaiotaocmicron, discussed above) also yielded a significant increase in total body fat content, although the increase in fat content was less than that seen with transfer of the complete mouse microbiota."

"Further work in this model suggested that the microbiota stimulates increased hepatic triglyceride production and promotes storage of adipocyte triglycerides by suppressing the activity of a circulating inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase [30]."

"Most human diets provide a robust supply of vitamins, the essential human nutrients that must be obtained from exogenous sources. However, it has long been recognized that gut microbes also contribute to vitamin synthesis."

"that up to half of the daily Vitamin K requirement is provided by gut bacteria"

"Studies of energy balance in conventional and GF animals led to the hypothesis that the microbial ecology of the GI tract contributes to the pathogenesis of obesity"

Urea Nitrogen Salvage Mechanisms and Their Relevance to Ruminants, Non-Ruminants and Man - PubMed

"Studies of energy balance in conventional and GF animals led to the hypothesis that the microbial ecology of the GI tract contributes to the pathogenesis of obesity"

ammonia is a known toxin and combined with carbon dioxide to form urea as a waste product on purpose.....


The Presence of N2-fixing Bacteria in the Intestines of Man and Animals | Microbiology Society

"Best N2-fixation was by cultures provisionally identified as Klebsiella aerogenes, but other genera were also involved. All cultures fixed more N2 anaerobically than aerobically but some fixation occurred when 20% O2was present."

Klebsiella species are known pathogens. I'm pretty sure the gut O2 tension isn't at 20%.

Nitrogen fixation and nifH diversity in human gut microbiota
"Collectively, the human gut microbiota has a potential for nitrogen fixation, which may be attributable to Klebsiella and Clostridiales strains, although no evidence was found that the nitrogen-fixing activity substantially contributes to the host nitrogen balance."

Intestinal Microbial Contribution to Metabolic Leucine Input in Adult Men
"The contribution of the intestinal microbiota to body leucine input was estimated to be between 19 and 22% at the 1.25 EAR diet."


Leucine Supplementation Has No Further Effect on... : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
"Protein intake was roughly double that of the RDA in both groups and remained unchanged across time with no differences detected between groups. Similar increases were observed between groups in leg-press 1RM (LEU: 19.0 ± 9.4% and PLA: 21.0 ± 10.4%, p=0.31) and mCSA (LEU: 8.0 ± 5.6% and PLA: 8.4 ± 5.1%, p=0.77)."

The protein intake was already 2x the RDA despite the leucine supplementation.


Can't speak to the random letter you posted that has no referenced articles to it.

indeed,something is fishy here.It just doesnt add up?..But what if we are wrong!