Hey My Dudes [PUFA, Ketosis, Insulin Resistance]

[BigYellowLemon]

Hey guys. I have been reading Ray's work lately and it has been a paradigm shift for me. Haidut, ytw, Peter/Hyperlipid, and EdwardJEdmonds have all been huge resources for intellectual growth as well. I don't agree with everything Peat says, but the ideas I do agree with are numerous.

If you surf the reddit nootropics sub, you might know me as BigYellowLemon. I made a thread about Ashkenazi intelligence and you guys linked it in a thread here about metabolism and intelligence. Many of your ideas were pretty creative and I'm ready to learn as well as bring valuable information to this forum.

Peace and happiness to all beings...

P.S. Hey Charlie, can you change my name to "BigYellowLemon"? Thanks if you can. Sorry for the extra work.

 

[DaveFoster]

Edward J Edmonds is quite interesting. Hyperlipid as well. They tend to agree that PUFA's are harmful, but the former two demonize sugar to my knowledge.

For Ashkenazi IQ, that's an example of what extreme selective pressures can do in a relatively short timespan (900 years or so.)

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Edward J Edmonds is quite interesting. Hyperlipid as well. They tend to agree that PUFA's are harmful, but the former two demonize sugar to my knowledge.

For Ashkenazi IQ, that's an example of what extreme selective pressures can do in a relatively short timespan (900 years or so.)

I read a very convincing blog post from Edward about one reason why he doesn't like sugar. It's a very broad concept he's proposing and it reminds me of Peat (hopefully I'm not coming off as a fanboy). Edward's reasoning is basically that sugar is a very primitive way of feeding your cells, akin to bathing them in a fluid of carbohydrate, versus fat metabolism, which has specialized forms of energetic substrates available to different tissues depending on their needs and preferences. However, sugar can be helpful if your body is so damaged that metabolizing fat is inefficient. I'm not sure if that can actually happen but I've heard it can.

Edward has said that he also prefers high fat low-ish carbs because rather than have your blood sugar spiking and falling constantly, with no center or balance (high carb), your body is stable and steady (fat oxidation).

I also like fat because it helps close tight junctions, which is critical I suppose for a person like me with leaky veins (aneurysm is common in family).

Hyperlipid explains well why high fat is better, just start digging in if you haven't. Most of our body loves beta-oxidation, except the brain, because neurons need minimal oxidative stress. Oxidative stress in the body has the possibility of being good because it can trigger mitochondrial biogenesis via superoxide pulses. Neurons don't like that. Superoxide also has the possibility of outright killing the cell, and with a non-replaceable (and by that I mean, if the neuron dies, all of it's information dies with it. I am familiar with neurogenesis.) specialized cell type, like the neuron, the body can't risk them dying.

When you're in ketosis, your blood sugar is supposed to be very high. Whilst your body is being mostly fatty acids, your glial cells are absorbing glucose, and converting it into lactate for the neurons (this is supposed to happen. I think this forum however disagrees with the lactate shuttle theory). The lactate comes predigested and ready for use in the mitochondria. Lactate is very benign in terms of superoxide pulses, which the neurons like. The neurons don't only use lactate, they use ketones and glucose too, but they don't like it nearly as much as lactate.

I hope I got most of that right. I haven't slept in over 24 hours and am slightly high (weed). Also on a lot of L-theanine (lol).

The Ashkenazi are absolutely fascinating to me. I hope to recreate (safely) many of the mutations they possess.

Also I want to be clear that I'm not spouting dissent or trying to start an argument. I just thought you might find some of these ideas interesting, and I hope they are of some use to you my friend.

EDIT: Thanks Charlie!!!

 

[DaveFoster]

@BigYellowLemon

I used to be ketogenic. Here you go: Effect of low-carbohydrate-ketogenic diet on metabolic and hormonal responses to graded exercise in men. - PubMed - NCBI

The elevations in FFA are enough to deter me. If a predominantly (overwhelmingly predominant) saturated source of fat is consumed, then I can see why one would endorse such an energy pathway. Peat has cited an increased production of CO2 from carbohydrate compared fat oxidation.

Lactate is implicated in various cancers. Haidut (an avid forum member) is particularly regular on posts of the negative affects of excess lactate (particularly in cancer metabolism.) Ray Peat has gone so far as to avoid yogurt for the lactic acid content, and probiotics, etc.

Also, we can debate about the circadian cycle, and the accompanying appropriation of abundant fruit in the summer months. Near the close of the summer, humans would consume large amounts of carbohydrate and animal fat to store calories for the winter months. Again, there is no surity here; these are only postulations. It may be so that a high-fat diet provides the necessary insurance for the latter half per annum, and this could come with negative metabolic consequences of a raised body fat percentage. Again, all I have is speculation.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you hope to recreate the mutations of the Ashkenazi. Maybe you can get a primer by reading Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. He started off sympathetic to their cultural placement, but the aforementioned book focuses on Jewish psychology and social structure. It's been a while since I've read it, but it's incredibly interesting. It's the only book I read in one sitting. Here's a PDF: THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE - PDF Drive

 

[BigYellowLemon]

@DaveFoster

Were you low PUFA with the keto (I assume you were)? And how many carbs were you allowing? Edward and Peter both seem to think that higher carbs are better than close to no carbs. They both seem to prefer light ketosis, and think ketosis is besides the point. I could be misunderstanding them however. I think Peter mentioned cortisol becomes a problem in deep ketosis.

FFA's aren't so bad. The insulin resistance they cause is beneficial for their metabolism, if that's what you're worried about. And yes I am talking primarily about burning saturated fats. Beta-oxidation requires less oxygen and vitamins/minerals to work, so the less CO2 seems to not be such a big deal (though I am a very big fan of CO2).

I'm not sure how I feel about lactate. I see it as a marker of stress, not the stress itself. Do you know of any good information on the effects of lactate itself on cells, as in lactate added, not caused by glycolysis? Haha I like yogurt very much and feel that it does my body good.

That's an interesting idea. The saturated fat + carbs would prob lead to weight gain, which is what we see nowadays it seems. However, I don't feel too comfortable speculating what our ancestors would done. Many of us don't share the same ancestors, and besides, the earth's climate and biosphere has changed so much so drastically over and over again throughout the past, that it's not really productive to base our diet on what we think they did. I say we look at what works now... And it seems many diets seem to work.
I found this blog post interesting.

Also I want to be clear that I don't think diet is a one-size-fits-all. I'm sure you'd agree with me here.

By recreate the Ashkenazi mutations, I mean mimic some of the beneficial ones with supplements. For instance, Canavan's disease, where the homozygote organism experiences extremely high levels of n-acetylaspartate (NAA), but in heterozygotes of the disease they merely have enhanced levels of NAA, leading (presumably) to better functioning brains. I could mimic Canavan's disease by taking lithium or lions mane mushrooms or green tea. Of course, as haidut said, it's better to increase these beneficial compounds through enhancing metabolism rather than bluntly increasing, which could lead to neuronal death.

Will read.

 

[High_Prob]

@DaveFoster

Were you low PUFA with the keto (I assume you were)? And how many carbs were you allowing? Edward and Peter both seem to think that higher carbs are better than close to no carbs. They both seem to prefer light ketosis, and think ketosis is besides the point. I could be misunderstanding them however. I think Peter mentioned cortisol becomes a problem in deep ketosis.

FFA's aren't so bad. The insulin resistance they cause is beneficial for their metabolism, if that's what you're worried about. And yes I am talking primarily about burning saturated fats. Beta-oxidation requires less oxygen and vitamins/minerals to work, so the less CO2 seems to not be such a big deal (though I am a very big fan of CO2).

I'm not sure how I feel about lactate. I see it as a marker of stress, not the stress itself. Do you know of any good information on the effects of lactate itself on cells, as in lactate added, not caused by glycolysis? Haha I like yogurt very much and feel that it does my body good.

That's an interesting idea. The saturated fat + carbs would prob lead to weight gain, which is what we see nowadays it seems. However, I don't feel too comfortable speculating what our ancestors would done. Many of us don't share the same ancestors, and besides, the earth's climate and biosphere has changed so much so drastically over and over again throughout the past, that it's not really productive to base our diet on what we think they did. I say we look at what works now... And it seems many diets seem to work.
I found this blog post interesting.

Also I want to be clear that I don't think diet is a one-size-fits-all. I'm sure you'd agree with me here.

By recreate the Ashkenazi mutations, I mean mimic some of the beneficial ones with supplements. For instance, Canavan's disease, where the homozygote organism experiences extremely high levels of n-acetylaspartate (NAA), but in heterozygotes of the disease they merely have enhanced levels of NAA, leading (presumably) to better functioning brains. I could mimic Canavan's disease by taking lithium or lions mane mushrooms or green tea. Of course, as haidut said, it's better to increase these beneficial compounds through enhancing metabolism rather than bluntly increasing, which could lead to neuronal death.

Will read.

Hi BigYellowLemon,

I know the connection between Lithium and Canavan's (through NAA) but what is the connection between Canavan's and Lions Mane (and green tea for that matter). Do Green Tea and Lion's Mane increase NAA as well? Do you have references? I am genuinely interested...

 

[High_Prob]

Hi BigYellowLemon,

I know the connection between Lithium and Canavan's (through NAA) but what is the connection between Canavan's and Lions Mane (and green tea for that matter). Do Green Tea and Lion's Mane increase NAA as well? Do you have references? I am genuinely interested...

Actually, I see the connection now: Myelin

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Hi BigYellowLemon,

I know the connection between Lithium and Canavan's (through NAA) but what is the connection between Canavan's and Lions Mane (and green tea for that matter). Do Green Tea and Lion's Mane increase NAA as well? Do you have references? I am genuinely interested...

Green tea increasing NAA

I remembered lions mane increasing NAA, but I couldn't find anything conclusive. My bad. However, it does seem to increase myelin.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Green tea increasing NAA

I remembered lions mane increasing NAA, but I couldn't find anything conclusive. My bad. However, it does seem to increase myelin.

Hmm very interesting: "Abnormally high levels of brain N-acetylaspartate in children with sickle cell disease."

Probably a reason why sickle cell disease is so common, despite it's harm.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Actually, I see the connection now: Myelin

Spot on. There's other benefits too, however.

 

[jaguar43]

Hey guys. I have been reading Ray's work lately and it has been a paradigm shift for me. Haidut, ytw, Peter/Hyperlipid, and EdwardJEdmonds have all been huge resources for intellectual growth as well. I don't agree with everything Peat says, but the ideas I do agree with are numerous.

If you surf the reddit nootropics sub, you might know me as BigYellowLemon. I made a thread about Ashkenazi intelligence and you guys linked it in a thread here about metabolism and intelligence. Many of your ideas were pretty creative and I'm ready to learn as well as bring valuable information to this forum.

Peace and happiness to all beings...

P.S. Hey Charlie, can you change my name to "BigYellowLemon"? Thanks if you can. Sorry for the extra work.

Hello Bigyellowlemon,

I have skimmed through your post in reddit regarding intelligence of Ashkenazi jews. It seems as though you put emphasis on the genetic theory of intelligence. However Ray Peat has written about issues associating "genes" and "mutations" with specific characteristics. I am not sure if you have read his articles on intelligence.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Hello Bigyellowlemon,

I have skimmed through your post in reddit regarding intelligence of Ashkenazi jews. It seems as though you put emphasis on the genetic theory of intelligence. However Ray Peat has written about issues associating "genes" and "mutations" with specific characteristics. I am not sure if you have read his articles on intelligence.

Hahah yeah. Like I mentioned in my intro post, I have recently experienced an entire paradigm shift in my thinking. I don't agree entirely with how my line of thinking used to be. Nor do I agree entirely with Peat.

I remember listening to Danny Roddy's podcast with haidut, where they were talking about neo-lamarckism. At first I was extremely critical of the ideas they talked about, but after opening myself up to the possibility and listening more and more it, started to make sense.

The podcast actually made me extremely excited and got me thinking, it was extremely stimulating to my mind.

Here's some ideas I jotted down on google drive right after listening. I might listen to the podcast again and write more down.

I was going to use the ideas as a template for a blog post but thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys think of my "theories". Many of these are just re-hashing what Danny and haidut said, which was also probably re-hashing what Peat said. The chain continues.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Hahah yeah. Like I mentioned in my intro post, I have recently experienced an entire paradigm shift in my thinking. I don't agree entirely with how my line of thinking used to be. Nor do I agree entirely with Peat.

I remember listening to Danny Roddy's podcast with haidut, where they were talking about neo-lamarckism. At first I was extremely critical of the ideas they talked about, but after opening myself up to the possibility and listening more and more it, started to make sense.

The podcast actually made me extremely excited and got me thinking, it was extremely stimulating to my mind.

Here's some ideas I jotted down on google drive right after listening. I might listen to the podcast again and write more down.

I was going to use the ideas as a template for a blog post but thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys think of my "theories". Many of these are just re-hashing what Danny and haidut said, which was also probably re-hashing what Peat said. The chain continues.

So yes, I don't entirely agree with the currently held belief in the "scientific" community, that "genes control everything and nothing else matters, evolution is a fact and you're stupid if you don't trust in it blindly".

It is a pretty silly idea that it doesn't matter what your environment was/is, or that your ancestors lives have no effect on you, besides their hard-wired genes.

Epigenetics is becoming in vogue, so that's good I guess.

However, I feel as though people blindly follow the Lamarckian theory because it gives them hope. People often like ideas that give them hope, they get easily attached. The Lamarckian theory is perfect for those who are sick, because it lets them believe that genes don't matter, and that they can get better.

Though to be clear, I do believe that most people can get better. I also am leaning towards Lamarckism, rather than Darwinism.

I just don't like it when a scientific theory is based on emotions, especially hope, which is one of the most blinding to critical thought. I know this from experience.

Sorry if my ideas seem stupid. I drank some chamomile for the apigenin, and it is surprisingly powerful. I don't like the coumadin though.

 

[jaguar43]

So yes, I don't entirely agree with the currently held belief in the "scientific" community, that "genes control everything and nothing else matters, evolution is a fact and you're stupid if you don't trust in it blindly".

It is a pretty silly idea that it doesn't matter what your environment was/is, or that your ancestors lives have no effect on you, besides their hard-wired genes.

Epigenetics is becoming in vogue, so that's good I guess.

However, I feel as though people blindly follow the Lamarckian theory because it gives them hope. People often like ideas that give them hope, they get easily attached. The Lamarckian theory is perfect for those who are sick, because it lets them believe that genes don't matter, and that they can get better.

Though to be clear, I do believe that most people can get better. I also am leaning towards Lamarckism, rather than Darwinism.

I just don't like it when a scientific theory is based on emotions, especially hope, which is one of the most blinding to critical thought. I know this from experience.

Sorry if my ideas seem stupid. I drank some chamomile for the apigenin, and it is surprisingly powerful. I don't like the coumadin though.

I don't think your ideas are stupid. I think your trying to be objective with your ideas, not give way to emotion or dogma.

I think Lamarckism has been associated with a false image from the scientific community. To discredit Lamarck, they to a certain degree, had to change it's meaning. Ray Peat talks about how Weismann cut the tails off hundreds of rats and when they had offspring with tails, somehow that proved Lamarck was wrong in their image. Even though he never made those specific claims, it kinda gave way to a new definition of lamarckism.

It will be interesting to see how epigenetic will change the scientific community though. It seemed like it will open doors for new trends and such.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I don't think your ideas are stupid. I think your trying to be objective with your ideas, not give way to emotion or dogma.

I think Lamarckism has been associated with a false image from the scientific community. To discredit Lamarck, they to a certain degree, had to change it's meaning. Ray Peat talks about how Weismann cut the tails off hundreds of rats and when they had offspring with tails, somehow that proved Lamarck was wrong in their image. Even though he never made those specific claims, it kinda gave way to a new definition of lamarckism.

It will be interesting to see how epigenetic will change the scientific community though. It seemed like it will open doors for new trends and such.

Well thank you.

A great way to discredit or "win" on argument is to frame the counter-argument in an inaccurate way. Authorities love to do this. That's how you get cultural memes like "conspiracy theorist", which has a lot of negative connotations (crazy, misguided, anti-patriotic, evil), or racist (bigot, stupid, evil, ignorant). To be clear, I could be considered a "conspiracy theorist", but I am not racist. It was just an example.

Framing arguments, twisting the counter-argument, or making the counter-arguments proposer look crazy/stupid/misguided/ect, is a surefire way to change the publics opinion. The government loves to do this. Various governmental entities love to do this. Scientific/artistic/religious authorities love to do this.

I distinctly remember learning about Lamarkism in middle school. I remember how I felt as though Lamarck was stupid and primitive, and how Darwin was sophisticated and intelligent. The subtle ways "science" books/teachers, really modern "education" as a whole, can twist your mind, is scary.

 

[DaveFoster]

Racist? You mean you don't think race correlates with intelligence/behavior? Have at these statistics!




http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/iqmap.gif

https://analyseeconomique.files.wor...ze-and-iq-jensen-and-johnson-1994-table-7.png



Races aren't better or worse, but they are adapted to different environments.

I wouldn't expect a wolf to be domesticated, or a dog to hunt. Either could do both, but they're specialized.

As for biological determinism, I'd say it has some merit. Genetically, probably not in the absolute sense. It's an interaction of genes with the environment. This doesn't mean genes don't matter.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Racist? You mean you don't think race correlates with intelligence/behavior? Have at these statistics!




http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/iqmap.gif

https://analyseeconomique.files.wor...ze-and-iq-jensen-and-johnson-1994-table-7.png

haha that's not what I meant. I'm not racist in the sense of hating a group of people for their appearance, or at least I don't consider myself to be racist. However I wholly agree that race and intelligence are closely related, which is why I made that Ashkenazi thread on reddit. I don't judge anybody for anything though, err, I don't try to, so though I see differences in races, I don't consider myself racist because I try not to have negative feelings about any person or any group of people.

But yes back to the main point of this reply, race and intelligence are closely related, but of course that doesn't set the limit, it just shifts the bell curve.

This guy's blog is pretty good. He talks about the Ashkenazi. He talks about race and IQ and genetics a lot. He has some interesting articles about how to improve human intelligence. "Get Smart" is a good post of his.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Racist? You mean you don't think race correlates with intelligence/behavior? Have at these statistics!




http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/iqmap.gif

https://analyseeconomique.files.wor...ze-and-iq-jensen-and-johnson-1994-table-7.png



Races aren't better or worse, but they are adapted to different environments.

I wouldn't expect a wolf to be domesticated, or a dog to hunt. Either could do both, but they're specialized.

As for biological determinism, I'd say it has some merit. Genetically, probably not in the absolute sense. It's an interaction of genes with the environment. This doesn't mean genes don't matter.

Speaking of unpopular ideas on intelligence that I hold, you should look at the distribution of intelligence for men vs women. Women are concentrated around the center of the bell curve, so their curve is short but goes really high in the middle. Men's bell curve is wider and less tall. Men seem to not only be smarter, but dumber as well. Women tend to be around average. This explains a lot for me. Most women I know seem pretty normal and neither stupid nor smart, though I of course know a few stupid and a few intelligent. Men are ******* wildcards. They can be smart as f*ck and blow your mind or they can be incredibly simple (from my point of view).

This also explains why we see less women in jail and less women known for science or art. More men do dumb things and more men do smart things.

I have to say, I have really never met a women who I perceived to be smarter than me. I have met some men who are much smarter than me. Maybe I'm a bad judgment of intelligence. Anyhow, I like both men and women the same.

 

[DaveFoster]

Your blog reminds me a lot of this guy: (no title)

He's famous for popularizing the r-K reproductive theory with regard to politics. Liberals are the r, while conservatives are the K. K is enforced by limits on energy, while r's predominate in resource-abundant environments. Obviously these aren't cut-and-dry distinctions.

For your second post, watch this:

Note this doesn't reflect my views on women in the sense of their value. The differences in intelligence aggregations of which you speak was due to careful selection on behalf of the researchers with likely political agendas. Men are "smarter" than women (IQ) due to larger brain volumes and a higher proportion of gray matter to white matter. This doesn't mean men are superior; women are well-adapted to their evolutionary role as reproductive guardians, while men have the specialized task of ensuring resource availability to their families. Also, male brains consume more calories (not just total calories, but proportionally more for their brains.) If you're seeking equality, then this would place women as superior if they housed the same IQ, as they have a lower evolutionary investment; not to mention, men would be incredibly inefficient at a deficit of about 20% or so, and natural selection would have destroyed such a ludicrous lack in energy metabolism over generations of selective pressures.

If you live in a Western society, and I suspect you do, your experiences are likely due to the feminization of our current society. The cultural emphasis on risk-aversion disincentivizes creativity; (play it safe, go to college, get a degree, get a good-paying job, retirement, pension, etc.) This doesn't mean it's "women's" fault; from a Peat perspective, if there was such a thing, the degeneration of the male is due to the excessive estrogenic effect of metabolic inflammation brought on by stress, poor nutrition, inflammatory substances, drugs, the medical establishment, and the list goes on. Regardless, the "man" no longer exists, or if he does he's an enigma. We have a generation of man-children, of which I am one. This has nothing to do with being "macho," it has to do with risk. Risking security for potential and passion.

Going to jail isn't dumb; I'd argue crime in itself just underscores a cultural incompatability. The fact that men commit more crime, and have SIGNIFICANTLY higher suicide rates, just offers that our society does not integrate the male gender. http://www.bcmj.org/sites/default/files/BCMJ_53Vol10_suicide_fig1.JPG

In the same way, it doesn't respect the female gender as well, as women have significantly higher depression rates:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/51-100/db76_fig3.gif

Now, would you say that people who commit suicide are more stupid than people who live their life in misery?

Would you say that people who commit crime are more stupid than people who go to their day-job and cry in their off-time?

I think you have a systemic problem here, and the people who break from the mould and try to encapsulate some semblance of self-control and power over their lives are known as criminals. What do you do when the system breaks you? You try to lash out and break the system.

You can see this with black people and higher crimes rates in structured society (cultural incompatability). Asians feature the inverse. Let me ask you something; when you think of an Asian, do you think of an aggressive criminal who's daring and willing to risk anything for the chance at freedom, or do you think of a scientist, bookworm, scholar of sorts, or engineer? These are stereotypes, yes, but they're useful. Our society favors the bookworm, not the warrior.

I think when you look at women, you're looking for the wrong things. It's like looking on a basketball team for good hockey players; you might find a person who's good at both, but why don't you look for something that women tend to be better at; namely integrating knowledge into an application that benefits the community, their friends, and most importantly, their families. The wisdom of mothers is something that is no longer respected except by the conservative right.

 

[jaguar43]

Racist? You mean you don't think race correlates with intelligence/behavior? Have at these statistics!




http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/iqmap.gif

https://analyseeconomique.files.wor...ze-and-iq-jensen-and-johnson-1994-table-7.png



Races aren't better or worse, but they are adapted to different environments.

I wouldn't expect a wolf to be domesticated, or a dog to hunt. Either could do both, but they're specialized.

As for biological determinism, I'd say it has some merit. Genetically, probably not in the absolute sense. It's an interaction of genes with the environment. This doesn't mean genes don't matter.

Unfortunately, not one those references are applicable to reality. The chart of head circumference correlating to IQ isn't wrong on the surface, but once you dig deeper. One can see that head circumference is associated with prenatal stress, nutrition and birth weight. It has nothing to do with being "black". Ray Peat has explicitly stated this fact, why don't people bother to read Read Peat ?


It was taught that if "the genes" are really bad, the defective baby can make the mother sick, and she contributed to the baby's bad genes. The idea isn't completely illogical, but it isn't based on reality, and it is demonstrably false. (Race, age and parity have no effect on incidence of cerebral palsy; low birth weight and complications of pregnancy are associated with it: J. F. Eastman, "Obstetrical background of 753 cases of cerebral palsy," Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 17, 459-497, 1962.)

Some authors, observing the high incidence of eclampsia in the deep South, among Blacks and on American Indian reservations, have suggested that it is a genetic disease because it "runs in families." If poverty and malnutrition are also seen to "run in families," some of these authors have argued that the bad genes which cause birth defects also cause eclampsia and poverty. (L. C. Chesley, et al., "The familial factor in toxemia of pregnancy," Obstet. Gynec. 32, 303-311, 1968, reported that women whose mothers suffered eclampsia during their gestation were likely to have eclampsia themselves. Some "researchers" have concluded that eclampsia is good, because many of the babies die, eliminating the "genes" for eclampsia and poverty.)* Any sensible farmer knows that pregnant animals must have good food if they are to successfully bear healthy young, but of course those farmers don't have a sophisticated knowledge of genetics.

Eclampsia in the Real Organism: A Paradigm of General Distress Applicable in Infants, Adults, Etc.

Schizophrenia is one outcome of stress, both cumulative and acute. Prenatal stress commonly predisposes a person to develop schizophrenia at a later age....

Defects of the brain, head, face, and even hands and fingerprints are seen more frequently in the genetically identical twin who later develops schizophrenia than the twin who doesn’t develop schizophrenia. Of the twins, it is the baby with the lower birth weight and head size that is at a greater risk of developing schizophrenia....

Prenatal malnutriton or hormonal stress or other stresses are known to damage the brain, and especially its most highly evolved and metabolically active frontal lobes, and to reduce its growth, relative to the rest of the body....

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease


Charles Murray is a political scientist who knows nothing about science. Why is it so hard to see that he obviously has a political agenda with his propaganda. And yet when Ray Peat cites good scientist like Robert Sapolsky or Marian Diamond contradicting the racial theory of intelligence (Genetic Determinism), it is some how missed completely by those defending those specific theories ?