Genes Do Not Matter (again) - Individuality Is An Inevitable And Unpredictable Result Of Development

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,433
Location
USA / Europe
I posted quite a few studies showing that genes do not matter much when it comes to determining the "fate" of the organism, be that health, personality or intelligence. This new study went a step further and examined the development of genetically identical organisms under the same environmental conditions. So, this perfect alignment of "genetics and epigenetics" as modern medicine likes to call its failed intellectual attempts, should have produced identical or very similar phenotypes. However, this was not the case, and the study points to individuality and phenotypic variance as fundamental properties of biological development rather than being dependent on genes of even environment. If that is the case, it makes very little sense to talk about "personalized medicine" based on genes, which we are told are the next wave of medical revolutions. Another interesting observation from the study was that the amount of social interactions/experience were NOT a significant factor in the development of individuality, and actually tended to decrease individuality.

Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite near-identical rearing conditions : Nature Communications

"...Behavioural individuality is thought to be caused by differences in genes and/or environmental conditions. Therefore, if these sources of variation are removed, individuals are predicted to develop similar phenotypes lacking repeatable individual variation. Moreover, even among genetically identical individuals, direct social interactions are predicted to be a powerful factor shaping the development of individuality. We use tightly controlled ontogenetic experiments with clonal fish, the Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa), to test whether near-identical rearing conditions and lack of social contact dampen individuality. In sharp contrast to our predictions, we find that (i) substantial individual variation in behaviour emerges among genetically identical individuals isolated directly after birth into highly standardized environments and (ii) increasing levels of social experience during ontogeny do not affect levels of individual behavioural variation. In contrast to the current research paradigm, which focuses on genes and/or environmental drivers, our findings suggest that individuality might be an inevitable and potentially unpredictable outcome of development."

"...Moreover, we found no evidence that increasing levels of social experience influenced the magnitude of behavioural individuality compared to the baseline 0-day treatment (Table 1 and Fig. 2). In our 7-day and 28-day treatments, as in our 0-day treatment, we observed the emergence of substantial among-individual differences in behaviour that are repeatable (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Neither the level of among-individual variation, nor the amount of total behavioural variation differed between our three treatments (Table 1). Indeed, the model containing treatment-specific variance estimates was not better supported than a model where individual variance was constrained to be the same across all three treatments (ΔDIC=+0.667), indicating that levels of repeatable among-individual variation are similar regardless of social experience. Additionally, the inclusion of mother identity as a random effect was not well supported (ΔDIC=−0.445) and including individual random slopes did not improve model fit (Supplementary Table 1). If anything, individuals in the treatments with the most social experience tended to exhibit lower among-individual and within-individual variation (Table 1). Furthermore, there were no differences in overall activity levels (treatment estimates in Table 1) or in average body size (0-day: 22.89 mm, 95% confidence interval: (21.75, 24.12); 7-day: 22.34 mm (21.11, 23.51); 28-day: 22.70 mm (21.52, 23.90)). We note that the absolute levels of behavioural variation exhibited by these clonal individuals closely resemble that which we have seen in non-clonal fish measured in a similar way (in the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana, one of the parental species of P. formosa)32."

"...Over the last decades, substantial research effort has been spent investigating the causes of behavioural individuality and much of this research has aimed to explain and predict behavioural individuality with differences in genes and/or environmental conditions. Regardless of the exact causes of individuality in our experiments, our findings suggest that individuality may be a more general phenomenon and potentially an inevitable and inherently unpredictable outcome of the development of complex phenotypes."
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
6,683
Location
Manila
This variability in phenotype pertains to the behavior of the cloned mollies. I wonder if there was variation in the physical phenotype. It must go without saying that as clones they all look alike, but without saying so it is assumed. Is this study not much different in nature to studying identical twins raised in the same home having different personalities?
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,433
Location
USA / Europe
Is this study not much different in nature to studying identical twins raised in the same home having different personalities?

Yes, but all those studies on raising twins were observational so did not have as much weight. Overall, the message we have seen so far is consistent - individuality/uniqueness is inherent in this world. I have been wondering for a long time what the real purpose/role of genes may be?? They are obviously not the drivers of health or most major phenotypes as we are led to believe.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
6,683
Location
Manila
The role genes play is certainly exaggerated. There is individuality for sure. Who will lead a school of fish? Which fish is more friendly? Why does my dad have a favorite daughter? Why does my sister always win a door prize in a raffle and I don't? :)
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
*Nearly identical circumstances in fish.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

We run in different circles. Most things I read point to a high heritability for personality traits, intelligence, and life outcomes, and this increases with age into early adulthood. It seems like the more we learn about genetics, the more things point in that direction. This make sense since traits tend to be polygenic, and finding the associations takes time and computing power.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,433
Location
USA / Europe
*Nearly identical circumstances in fish.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

We run in different circles. Most things I read point to a high heritability for personality traits, intelligence, and life outcomes, and this increases with age into early adulthood. It seems like the more we learn about genetics, the more things point in that direction. This make sense since traits tend to be polygenic, and finding the associations takes time and computing power.

Then why such variability in effectiveness in drugs administered based on genetic profile? Yes, we do not have the map for all the genes yet but the results so far of personalized treatments point to an effect no better than if treatment was randomly selected form the list of available ones. I think failed personalized breast cancer treatments based on BRCA1 expression have been hitting the news lately as it was supposed to be the most genetically personalizable disease treatment known so far.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Then why such variability in effectiveness in drugs administered based on genetic profile? Yes, we do not have the map for all the genes yet but the results so far of personalized treatments point to an effect no better than if treatment was randomly selected form the list of available ones. I think failed personalized breast cancer treatments based on BRCA1 expression have been hitting the news lately as it was supposed to be the most genetically personalizable disease treatment known so far.

To your question, I have no idea, but isn't "this ***t's complex" a pretty good explainer here? Everyone has a unique genome and unique environment that leads to their present condition.

Similarly I could ask why do twins who grow up in different households attain similar life outcomes and have similar personality traits? Why does more data pour in every year in favor of genetics being heritable for traits?
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,955
To your question, I have no idea, but isn't "this ***t's complex" a pretty good explainer here? Everyone has a unique genome and unique environment that leads to their present condition.

Similarly I could ask why do twins who grow up in different households attain similar life outcomes and have similar personality traits? Why does more data pour in every year in favor of genetics being heritable for traits?

It doesn't pour out every year,the semantics around it are as corrupt as it gets,and where it pours from is the same source that has being sounding the same hype machine every time something comes out about heritability only to be found out to be hilariously flawed. This pattern is going on for decades.
The latest is rigging Google search for this tripe to turn up with any questions that way inclined.

You could also ask about the twin studies you are quoting where the twins were still in touch with each other up until 8 years of age and in some cases 20 years of age,on top of the obvious similar broader cultural environment.
To take data from the above is flawed and corrupt,even without the flaws the data sets still contradicts itself in a hilarious manner,the most recent "programme" is also contradicting itself,this was the programme to answer all until it got found out.
The usual argument then from the pro heritability brigade arises,people can't take the "uncomfortable truth" etc,this emotional argument is making money for those in social psychology and other areas purporting to be against or pro heritability of intelligence etc it's one big topic for making money based on an illusory war between 2 sides many who happen to be in "social psychology", when anyone worth their salt in biochem/cell physiology gets involved we start to see the level of delusion in all of this,unfortunately we have plenty of angry failed at capitalism males studying "genetics" with racial agendas,their behaviour is identical to how a cult forms.

The information you are following is creating its own definitions,this is their fallacy,it's a lazy interpretation kept going by those looking to maintain tenure in particular "social psychologists".
The claim of more data to get through and it will prove it is going in years,decades,it's keeps the "cult" going.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,955
I posted quite a few studies showing that genes do not matter much when it comes to determining the "fate" of the organism, be that health, personality or intelligence. This new study went a step further and examined the development of genetically identical organisms under the same environmental conditions. So, this perfect alignment of "genetics and epigenetics" as modern medicine likes to call its failed intellectual attempts, should have produced identical or very similar phenotypes. However, this was not the case, and the study points to individuality and phenotypic variance as fundamental properties of biological development rather than being dependent on genes of even environment. If that is the case, it makes very little sense to talk about "personalized medicine" based on genes, which we are told are the next wave of medical revolutions. Another interesting observation from the study was that the amount of social interactions/experience were NOT a significant factor in the development of individuality, and actually tended to decrease individuality.

Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite near-identical rearing conditions : Nature Communications

"...Behavioural individuality is thought to be caused by differences in genes and/or environmental conditions. Therefore, if these sources of variation are removed, individuals are predicted to develop similar phenotypes lacking repeatable individual variation. Moreover, even among genetically identical individuals, direct social interactions are predicted to be a powerful factor shaping the development of individuality. We use tightly controlled ontogenetic experiments with clonal fish, the Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa), to test whether near-identical rearing conditions and lack of social contact dampen individuality. In sharp contrast to our predictions, we find that (i) substantial individual variation in behaviour emerges among genetically identical individuals isolated directly after birth into highly standardized environments and (ii) increasing levels of social experience during ontogeny do not affect levels of individual behavioural variation. In contrast to the current research paradigm, which focuses on genes and/or environmental drivers, our findings suggest that individuality might be an inevitable and potentially unpredictable outcome of development."

"...Moreover, we found no evidence that increasing levels of social experience influenced the magnitude of behavioural individuality compared to the baseline 0-day treatment (Table 1 and Fig. 2). In our 7-day and 28-day treatments, as in our 0-day treatment, we observed the emergence of substantial among-individual differences in behaviour that are repeatable (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Neither the level of among-individual variation, nor the amount of total behavioural variation differed between our three treatments (Table 1). Indeed, the model containing treatment-specific variance estimates was not better supported than a model where individual variance was constrained to be the same across all three treatments (ΔDIC=+0.667), indicating that levels of repeatable among-individual variation are similar regardless of social experience. Additionally, the inclusion of mother identity as a random effect was not well supported (ΔDIC=−0.445) and including individual random slopes did not improve model fit (Supplementary Table 1). If anything, individuals in the treatments with the most social experience tended to exhibit lower among-individual and within-individual variation (Table 1). Furthermore, there were no differences in overall activity levels (treatment estimates in Table 1) or in average body size (0-day: 22.89 mm, 95% confidence interval: (21.75, 24.12); 7-day: 22.34 mm (21.11, 23.51); 28-day: 22.70 mm (21.52, 23.90)). We note that the absolute levels of behavioural variation exhibited by these clonal individuals closely resemble that which we have seen in non-clonal fish measured in a similar way (in the Atlantic molly, Poecilia mexicana, one of the parental species of P. formosa)32."

"...Over the last decades, substantial research effort has been spent investigating the causes of behavioural individuality and much of this research has aimed to explain and predict behavioural individuality with differences in genes and/or environmental conditions. Regardless of the exact causes of individuality in our experiments, our findings suggest that individuality may be a more general phenomenon and potentially an inevitable and inherently unpredictable outcome of the development of complex phenotypes."

What this also points to is SOMATIC MOSAICISM, not sure if they mention that,it's is predominant in the brain.

Can you believe still to this day they ignore non Dna/epigentics when forming heritability theories,mainstream concur on this yet these idiots in heritability estimates(data miners) ignore it.
Somatic mosaicism for copy number variation in differentiated human tissues

"Two major types of genetic variation are known: single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and a more recently discovered structural variation, involving changes in copy number (CNVs) of kilobase- to megabase-sized chromosomal segments. It is unknown whether CNVs arise in somatic cells, but it is, however, generally assumed that normal cells are genetically identical. We tested 34 tissue samples from three subjects and, having analyzed for each tissue ≤10–6 of all cells expected in an adult human, we observed at least six CNVs, affecting a single organ or one or more tissues of the same subject. The CNVs ranged from 82 to 176 kb, often encompassing known genes, potentially affecting gene function. Our results indicate that humans are commonly affected by somatic mosaicism for stochastic CNVs, which occur in a substantial fraction of cells. The majority of described CNVs were previously shown to be polymorphic between unrelated subjects, suggesting that some CNVs previously reported as germline might represent somatic events, since in most studies of this kind, only one tissue is typically examined and analysis of parents for the studied subjects is not routinely performed. A considerable number of human phenotypes are a consequence of a somatic process. Thus, our conclusions will be important for the delineation of genetic factors behind these phenotypes. Consequently, biobanks should consider sampling multiple tissues to better address mosaicism in the studies of somatic disorders"
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
502
It doesn't really matter whether it's genes that shape us or the environment we grow and live in; regardless, we are being shaped by something which is out of our control.

People don't like the genetic doctrine because it makes life seem predetermined.

Also this study was done on fish, not humans (extremely misleading). It is obvious genes are extremely important. Just look at identical twins. Sure, there might be a tiny difference in their features, but it is plainly obvious genes has a large impact (and early development).

Genes are the program that gives order to the energy.

Do we want to believe in ideas that feel good, or do we want to fix our health? That is a question everyone must answer for themselves.
 
Last edited:

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,433
Location
USA / Europe
What this also points to is SOMATIC MOSAICISM, not sure if they mention that,it's is predominant in the brain.

Can you believe still to this day they ignore non Dna/epigentics when forming heritability theories,mainstream concur on this yet these idiots in heritability estimates(data miners) ignore it.
Somatic mosaicism for copy number variation in differentiated human tissues

"Two major types of genetic variation are known: single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and a more recently discovered structural variation, involving changes in copy number (CNVs) of kilobase- to megabase-sized chromosomal segments. It is unknown whether CNVs arise in somatic cells, but it is, however, generally assumed that normal cells are genetically identical. We tested 34 tissue samples from three subjects and, having analyzed for each tissue ≤10–6 of all cells expected in an adult human, we observed at least six CNVs, affecting a single organ or one or more tissues of the same subject. The CNVs ranged from 82 to 176 kb, often encompassing known genes, potentially affecting gene function. Our results indicate that humans are commonly affected by somatic mosaicism for stochastic CNVs, which occur in a substantial fraction of cells. The majority of described CNVs were previously shown to be polymorphic between unrelated subjects, suggesting that some CNVs previously reported as germline might represent somatic events, since in most studies of this kind, only one tissue is typically examined and analysis of parents for the studied subjects is not routinely performed. A considerable number of human phenotypes are a consequence of a somatic process. Thus, our conclusions will be important for the delineation of genetic factors behind these phenotypes. Consequently, biobanks should consider sampling multiple tissues to better address mosaicism in the studies of somatic disorders"

Hundreds of thousands of careers depend on it, so I can see why the idea is so deeply entrenched. But lately I have been noticing more and more people going into science simply believing the dogma while the older generation usually go with something like "ssshhh, we are getting paid. why rock the boat?" when I question their dogmatism. I know people who do this for a living at NIH and you can clearly see the generational divide. Somehow the younger ones drank the KoolAid. Have you seen this thread I posted some time ago?
Electrical Fields, Not Dna, May Shape The Look Of An Organism
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,955
It doesn't really matter whether it's genes that shape us or the environment we grow and live in; threadless, we are being shaped by something which is out of our control.

People don't like the genetic doctrine because it makes life seem predetermined.

Also this study was done on fish. It is obvious genes are extremely important. Just look at identical twins. Sure, there might be a tiny difference in their features, but it is plainly obvious genes has a large impact (and early development).

Genes are the program that gives order to the energy.

Do we want to believe in ideas that feel good, or do we want to fix our health? That is a question everyone must answer for themselves.

Is your idea here not to make you feel good? the current understanding of reality implies we can believe what we want such is the vastness of reality or more the lame comprehension of it humans currently have.

There is no such things as identical twins anymore,they are not identical in mitochondrial DNA ,there is also no "genes" ,semantics are an issue here,the meanings are being changed almost every year now based on differing factions interpretations.
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,955
Hundreds of thousands of careers depend on it, so I can see why the idea is so deeply entrenched. But lately I have been noticing more and more people going into science simply believing the dogma while the older generation usually go with something like "ssshhh, we are getting paid. why rock the boat?" when I question their dogmatism. I know people who do this for a living at NIH and you can clearly see the generational divide. Somehow the younger ones drank the KoolAid.

Hilariously the heritability cult of amateurs online claim they are suppressed,the research is not getting done they say when it's the opposite.
James Flynn is another one playing the argument to make money ,he must be worth a small fortune form book sales and appearances/talks. Flynn effect made him a good living,helping keep the argument drawn out did also,people forget/don't know he is a psychologist and not in biochem/cell physiology.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,481
Well I guess we can toss out Huxley's 'Bokanovsky's Process' giving us any real stability. Shoot.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Hundreds of thousands of careers depend on it, so I can see why the idea is so deeply entrenched. But lately I have been noticing more and more people going into science simply believing the dogma while the older generation usually go with something like "ssshhh, we are getting paid. why rock the boat?" when I question their dogmatism. I know people who do this for a living at NIH and you can clearly see the generational divide. Somehow the younger ones drank the KoolAid. Have you seen this thread I posted some time ago?
Electrical Fields, Not Dna, May Shape The Look Of An Organism

That's pretty cool. I don't deny an environmental effect.

So what are genes doing? How are all these complex clusters becoming associated with a varity of different phenotypes and traits? Why is it ramping up as our tech and ability to analyze this stuff increases?

I generally wary of the idea of the entrenched idea conspiracy when we're dealing with a field like this where stuff is so quantifiable and the data set so large. Social sciences with fuzzy models that are difficult to use to make predictions and measure? Sure. Happens all the time. Something like genetics with some of the best minds in the world measuring real, quantifiable, data? I doubt it. It's a large field and smart people could make a great name for themselves by disproving the obvious. It seems very likely that would have happened by now.
 

Soren

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,145
Fascinating study.

To me this suggests that there is something innate about nature that gives rise to its endless diversity, a sort of built in spontaneous order that seeks to create ordered structures and organisms in a never ending unique and different way, a sort of never ending creation. You can see this spontaneous order in other man made systems. For example, when you have free human interaction and cooperation individuals pursuing their own interests can mutually benefit each-other without there being a central planner controlling things. The economist Adam Smith talked about this concept of Spontaneous Order in his work the wealth of nations. I was so profound that he commented that it almost seemed that there was an invisible hand guiding things.

Perhaps our genes are simply a foundation for each new generation to build upon, a rough guide that we are not obliged to take but is used as a reference to get us started and to help guide the future.

One final thought is studies such as this suggest to me that true individuality is something innate in us that we strive towards, when you have a healthy functioning system this individuality can be realised to its fullest, when it is suffering and under physical or psychological stress it reverts back to a more base less evolved state one that strives for conformity rather than individuality.

Or maybe i'm just really jet lagged and this is all the nonsense haha :laughing:
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
3,184
Location
Chicago
Fascinating study.

To me this suggests that there is something innate about nature that gives rise to its endless diversity, a sort of built in spontaneous order that seeks to create ordered structures and organisms in a never ending unique and different way, a sort of never ending creation. You can see this spontaneous order in other man made systems. For example, when you have free human interaction and cooperation individuals pursuing their own interests can mutually benefit each-other without there being a central planner controlling things. The economist Adam Smith talked about this concept of Spontaneous Order in his work the wealth of nations. I was so profound that he commented that it almost seemed that there was an invisible hand guiding things.

Perhaps our genes are simply a foundation for each new generation to build upon, a rough guide that we are not obliged to take but is used as a reference to get us started and to help guide the future.

One final thought is studies such as this suggest to me that true individuality is something innate in us that we strive towards, when you have a healthy functioning system this individuality can be realised to its fullest, when it is suffering and under physical or psychological stress it reverts back to a more base less evolved state one that strives for conformity rather than individuality.

Or maybe i'm just really jet lagged and this is all the nonsense haha :laughing:
Out of the mouth of the jet-lagged comes truth. :)
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
6,683
Location
Manila
Out of the mouth of the jet-lagged comes truth. :)
I'm getting sleepy now. Does that count? ;) Seems like nature wants diversity but civilization wants conformity and predictability.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
It doesn't pour out every year,the semantics around it are as corrupt as it gets,and where it pours from is the same source that has being sounding the same hype machine every time something comes out about heritability only to be found out to be hilariously flawed. This pattern is going on for decades.
The latest is rigging Google search for this tripe to turn up with any questions that way inclined.

You could also ask about the twin studies you are quoting where the twins were still in touch with each other up until 8 years of age and in some cases 20 years of age,on top of the obvious similar broader cultural environment.
To take data from the above is flawed and corrupt,even without the flaws the data sets still contradicts itself in a hilarious manner,the most recent "programme" is also contradicting itself,this was the programme to answer all until it got found out.
The usual argument then from the pro heritability brigade arises,people can't take the "uncomfortable truth" etc,this emotional argument is making money for those in social psychology and other areas purporting to be against or pro heritability of intelligence etc it's one big topic for making money based on an illusory war between 2 sides many who happen to be in "social psychology", when anyone worth their salt in biochem/cell physiology gets involved we start to see the level of delusion in all of this,unfortunately we have plenty of angry failed at capitalism males studying "genetics" with racial agendas,their behaviour is identical to how a cult forms.

The information you are following is creating its own definitions,this is their fallacy,it's a lazy interpretation kept going by those looking to maintain tenure in particular "social psychologists".
The claim of more data to get through and it will prove it is going in years,decades,it's keeps the "cult" going.

This sounds like the ravings of a conspiracy theorist.

Lots of people in on a grand deception - even though competing interests would sink that quick.

There's money in it so it would happen - even though there's money in everything.

This mode of thinking can be used to "explain" any position.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Hundreds of thousands of careers depend on it, so I can see why the idea is so deeply entrenched. But lately I have been noticing more and more people going into science simply believing the dogma while the older generation usually go with something like "ssshhh, we are getting paid. why rock the boat?" when I question their dogmatism. I know people who do this for a living at NIH and you can clearly see the generational divide. Somehow the younger ones drank the KoolAid. Have you seen this thread I posted some time ago?
Electrical Fields, Not Dna, May Shape The Look Of An Organism
I'm really passionate about this subject, whatever it is, and I would like to go back to school to study it. What major or field of study would best encompass the esoterica we discuss on this forum

edit: I posted a thread about how mitosis not only passes on genetic material, it also passes on cellular electric field. I think the thread also showed that the lipid bilayer acts like an insulator that turns the cell into an capacitor (component that stores electric charge).

I think you or @Such_Saturation posted a thread that shows that the voltage strength across a cellular membrane was comparable to lightning.
 
Last edited:
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
haidut Genes Do NOT Matter (much) Genes, Radiation 47
F Genes, Blood Type Tied To Risk Of Severe COVID-19 Vaccines 0
R How Much Do Genes/environment Affect How Well We Handle Carbohydrates? Diet 1
haidut Lactate Is An Oncometabolite (promotes Cancer), No Genes/mutations Needed Scientific Studies 0
haidut In Most Cases, Genes Have Less Than 5% Contribution To Disease Risk Scientific Studies 4
Mito Do You Have Low Thyroid Hormones Because Of Your Genes? (DIO1) Thyroid and Hormones 3
J I Have One Of The Hemochromatosis Genes Minerals 2
L Controversial US Bill Would Lift Supreme Court Ban On Patenting Human Genes Articles & Scientific Studies 2
L After 20 Years And Untold $ Studying Serotonin-linked Genes, No Actual Depression Link Articles & Scientific Studies 0
haidut Height Is Dependent On Diet Quality, Not Genes Scientific Studies 86
haidut Longevity Is NOT In Your Genes, It's In Your Choices Of Lifestyle And People Scientific Studies 16
cinderella Genes And Diet Diet 1
lvysaur Homocysteine And Choline-related Genes And/or SNPs? Health 3
haidut Familial Breast Cancer Is Mainly Driven By Methylation, Not Genes Scientific Studies 33
Westside PUFAs Beat Your Genes: An Evolutionary Psychology Podcast The Ray Peat Forum Lounge 2
haidut Protein Quality, Not Genes, Determine Male Height Scientific Studies 52
Luann The Desaturase Genes Scientific Studies 12
lvysaur Genes And PUFA Genes, Radiation 34
Parsifal Genes And Nutrigenetics Genes, Radiation 0
L Fructose Alters Brain Genes Negatively. How To Counter This From Peat Perspective? Scientific Studies 43
haidut Circadian Clock Obeys Metabolism/sugar, Not Light/genes Scientific Studies 37
J DNP Downregulates Genes For Diabetes and Fatty Liver in Mice Articles & Scientific Studies 0
haidut Microbiome Composition Depends Mostly On Diet, Not Genes Scientific Studies 2
haidut Complete Genes May Pass From Food To Human Blood Scientific Studies 5
haidut There Is No Universal (linguistic) Grammar Encoded In Genes Science 1
Peata Effects of Chronic Stress Can be Traced to Your Genes Genes, Radiation 1
charlie Genes, Carbon Dioxide And Adaptation Articles & Newsletters 0
ursidae >70 g of PUFA a day | Does diet even matter? Diet 72
tankasnowgod Milk, OJ, Cottage Cheese, Yogurt..... Does Temperature of these foods matter? Digestion 29
A Coffee Completely Reversing Flu Symptoms In A Matter Of Minutes? Coffee 5
Vileplume Sometimes, Is It Just A Matter Of Time? Metabolism 9
J Effect Of Mushrooms On Fecal Matter Weight - After Raw Carrots Didn't Do It Anymore Digestion 11
T White And Gray Matter Ask For Help or Advice 0
Tristan Loscha Deiodinase & RT3:Seldom Mentioned Diagnostic Edge Cases That Matter Blood Work, Labs 4
J Anti-Peat Bart Kay On Why Extra CO2 Doesn't Matter Debate - Anti-Peat 26
N Dark Matter Questioned Scientific Studies 1
B Are K1 And MK7 Safe To Use Along With MK4? Does Source Matter? K 12
haidut Is Matter Conscious? Scientific Studies 42
haidut The Earth May Be Creating New Matter, Which Breaks The Standard Model Scientific Studies 23
D CICO. Does It Really Matter In A Low-fat/VLF Diet. Weigh In With Your Opinion Metabolism 6
yerrag Does Heart Rate Matter As Much As Temperature? Heart, Heart Rate, Blood Pressure 12
Mito Low-fat Vs Low-carb? Major Study Concludes: It Doesn’t Matter For Weight Loss Articles & Scientific Studies 11
nullredvector Which Isomer Is Kuinone And Does It Matter? IdeaLabs 9
haidut Estrogen Or Anti-androgen Therapy Shrinks Brain And Destroys Grey Matter Scientific Studies 3
haidut The Physics Of Life (active Matter) Science 38
natedawggh Do Beverage Temperatures Matter? Beverages, Fruits, Sugars 9
Y Liquid Calories VS Solid Calories - Doesnt it matter? Diet 25
Velve921 Explain Phosphorus Physiology: Why Does Ca : P Ratio Matter? Minerals 3
Y Does Pulp Free OJ Really Matter? Fruit Juice 4
haidut Beyond Energy, Matter, Time And Space Mind, Sleep, Stress 46

Similar threads

Top