People Are A Lot Less Resilient To Stress Than Originally Thought

[tara]

I want to say... I mean I have some personal experience with this... save them while they're young...

So do I ... if only I wasn't so tired and sick and overworked, I'd be doing more ...
I think this may be one of the key functions of the school system. Train and discourage people to get them to tolerate boredom once they get to be adults and have a little more power.

 

[Such_Saturation]

So do I ... if only I wasn't so tired and sick and overworked, I'd be doing more ...
I think this may be one of the key functions of the school system. Train and discourage people to get them to tolerate boredom once they get to be adults and have a little more power.

But also at the same time I think being separated from "common folk" would be even worse... maybe the best thing is to agree that doing nothing isn't acceptable but acknowledging that doing "just enough" is a respectable decision if they choose it. The problem with this is that in the United States the career starts in kindergarten... just don't end up like these guys (I think I did a couple times):

 

[tara]

But also at the same time I think being separated from "common folk" would be even worse...

Yes. Not thinking I'd take them out of school even if I could - lots of potential playmates there. But more that it'd be good to have more energy and time to play with them and offer them interesting experiences and challenges at other times.

I don't think I've been pushing them too hard academically, but I suspect more support from me for their basic skills would actually make school more interesting.

 

[Rafe]

It is reported (I think in some of the Waldorf/Steiner School lit) that parents who switch their kids from mainstream US public schools into the Waldorf environment face a period of adjustment especially re: play. Apparently, until the children become accustomed to using their imaginations on the materials they get for play (fabrics, boxes, I don't know but materials they can build things and stories with) it's typical for kids who've had a lot of screen time or consumer culture (who hasn't?) to complain that they are bored. Same thing with lessons whether they are young or young adults. Ray reports this about teaching students to write. It must be a big challenge to get the motions started. But relief from the stress of dullness & boredom must be great. These have got to be stressful especially for a growing brain. This can't be easy for parents. Down regulate to meet the environment? I'd say yes.

 

[thegiantess]

In reference to the original article, it amazes me that there is a mainstream delusion that stresses of daily life do not affect us. Does anyone really believe that? Like all people, I've traveled a long road and made a lot of stupid decisions that affected my health i.e., veganism and heavy drinking in my early 20s, but nothing destroyed my health like the emotional stress of being the sole caretaker for a close family member with end stage cancer. I came out of that a year later with an absolute inability to handle any kind of normal stress. I had body aches,
I got shingles at 27, I would feel like I was going to pass out when I was driving. It was bananas. I finally went to see my GP who was a very wise woman and she told me I essentially had PTSD. It wasn't until I acknowledged what I had been through that I could heal. It took a few years, but before she told me what was going on and I woke up to the fact, no supplement or diet tweak in the world could help me... I tried them all.

 

[GAF]

My client told me last week that when she sends her 10 and 12 year old kids to Bulgaria for two months in the summer, they come home acting like children again - love to explore, play, and make things. We live in North Dallas.

 

[jaguar43]

Hey, Lysenko sure as hell failed to teach grains to grow better, but I don't know enough about that.

According to Ray Peat Lysenko ideas actually works. remember he went to the soviet union to talk to Lysenko about this.

 

[jaguar43]

There is no epigenetics vs genetics question...they are both factors that exist simultaneously. Epigenetics is real but it hasn't in practice been shown to overpower genetics on the aggregate and a lot of assumptions about environmental conditioning do not match reality.

See below, IQ heritability INCREASES with age. This is entirely opposite to what one would expect if environmental factors are the primary factors in shaping what people become.

I.E. a lot of "epigenetics" is just gene expression increasing with age and regression towards the mean. For example, a stock might be undervalued or overvalued but over time the price will move towards its true value.

Another thing with gene expression, the factors that drive getting those genes expressed tend to have genetic factors as well...which lines up with the data showing heritability increasing with age. For example, if someone has a lower dopamine setpoint they will not on average achieve the things necessary to express other genes ideally.

The fact that you are comparing biology as a stocks(finance) shows what type of framework you are using.

Marian Diamonds work showed that given an enriched environment with stimulation those rats could "catch up" to those who had the advantage of having the stimulation before; regarding their brain size. We have diseases and developmental malformations that have never been document before, how does "genes" explain that ?

But here is an interesting question ? If you believe in genetic determinism, then why bother with Ray Peats recommendation ? why try to improve your health when it is all predetermined. Since you hormones and biology is determined by "genes" as you say why bother to change them. By you being on this forum and using that argument it shows your hypocrisy. Here is a quote from Mind and Tissue.

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence.

Mind and tissue page 165

 

[bobbybobbob]

According to Ray Peat Lysenko ideas actually works. remember he went to the soviet union to talk to Lysenko about this.

There are literally billions of dollars at stake with this stuff. Google about the Chinese thefts of Monsanto corn and wheat strains. Staggering amounts of money are spent breeding and analyzing grains. Monsanto et al invest tens of millions on breeding programs.

Like I said, the proof is in the pudding. If a Lysenkoist approach is a valid but overlooked means of achieving superior yields, you can become very, very wealthy. Score the VC, prove the methods, and get your patents.

I'm not scoffing. It's entirely possible this is truly an overlooked approach. But I'll not take it too seriously without the kind of proof that produces millions in revenue.

 

[jaguar43]

There are literally billions of dollars at stake with this stuff. Google about the Chinese thefts of Monsanto corn and wheat strains. Staggering amounts of money are spent breeding and analyzing grains. Monsanto et al invest tens of millions on breeding programs.

Like I said, the proof is in the pudding. If a Lysenkoist approach is a valid but overlooked means of achieving superior yields, you can become very, very wealthy. Score the VC, prove the methods, and get your patents.

I'm not scoffing. It's entirely possible this is truly an overlooked approach. But I'll not take it too seriously without the kind of proof that produces millions in revenue.

Why does it have to produce millions in revenue to be proven. Luther Burbank who pretty much develop the russet potato used similar techniques to Lysenko sold the patent to someone else . I think Burbank invented the potato because of the famine in Ireland. I think the money is made on who has the patent. But I don't Monsanto are working on similar problems like Burbank. If they were they would have gotten out of the business long ago.

 

[michael94]

The fact that you are comparing biology as a stocks(finance) shows what type of framework you are using.

Marian Diamonds work showed that given an enriched environment with stimulation those rats could "catch up" to those who had the advantage of having the stimulation before; regarding their brain size. We have diseases and developmental malformations that have never been document before, how does "genes" explain that ?

But here is an interesting question ? If you believe in genetic determinism, then why bother with Ray Peats recommendation ? why try to improve your health when it is all predetermined. Since you hormones and biology is determined by "genes" as you say why bother to change them. By you being on this forum and using that argument it shows your hypocrisy. Here is a quote from Mind and Tissue.

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence.

Mind and tissue page 165

I just said the data shows strong evidence for genetics playing a large and sometimes dominant role in certain factors. I never claim every trait was 100% heritable or immutable.

Environment plays a factor but gene expression also increases with age. A lot of the "strong" environmental impacts are transient and tend to go away as one gets older. Not all of them just some. The heritability of all traits at age 50 is greater than at age 2 based on twin studies. This is supportive of that line of reasoning.

Heritability does not describe a hard and fast rule. All heritability describes is the proportion of the variance among a population that is attributable to genotype. If the environment changes heritability can change. Also it cannot describe a single person by definition because it can only work off of the variance over a group of people.

There is nothing about a .8 heritability that says an individual can't have that certain trait very strongly affected by environment. It's just that ON THE AGGREGATE the environments in that particular data set are only contributing to 20% of the variance...

Example:

- Take a random group of 1000 people living normal lives and find the heritability for metabolic syndrome. Let's say it's .3 ( making this up I'm not sure what it is ).

- Take another random group of 1000 people but lock them in a ward force feeding corn oil and corn starch with no access to sunlight. Now find the heritability for metabolic syndrome...It will be much lower, close to 0 ( since everyone will develop metabolic syndrome on that diet ).

So just changing the environment can change the heritability but for people living in the Western World in the last 50 years the twin heritability data is what it is. The heritability will probably resemble something close to that going forward and of course it can go down.

But here is an interesting question ? If you believe in genetic determinism, then why bother with Ray Peats recommendation ? why try to improve your health when it is all predetermined. Since you hormones and biology is determined by "genes" as you say why bother to change them. By you being on this forum and using that argument it shows your hypocrisy.

You are misunderstanding what heritability means. see above

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence.

Great quote! Poignant.

 

[jaguar43]

I just said the data shows strong evidence for genetics playing a large and sometimes dominant role in certain factors. I never claim every trait was 100% heritable or immutable.


Environment plays a factor but gene expression also increases with age. A lot of the "strong" environmental impacts are transient and tend to go away as one gets older. Not all of them just some. The heritability of all traits at age 50 is greater than at age 2 based on twin studies. This is supportive of that line of reasoning.

Heritability does not describe a hard and fast rule. All heritability describes is the proportion of the variance among a population that is attributable to genotype. If the environment changes heritability can change. Also it cannot describe a single person by definition because it can only work off of the variance over a group of people.

There is nothing about a .8 heritability that says an individual can't have that certain trait very strongly affected by environment. It's just that ON THE AGGREGATE the environments in that particular data set are only contributing to 20% of the variance...

Example:

- Take a random group of 1000 people living normal lives and find the heritability for metabolic syndrome. Let's say it's .3 ( making this up I'm not sure what it is ).

- Take another random group of 1000 people but lock them in a ward force feeding corn oil and corn starch with no access to sunlight. Now find the heritability for metabolic syndrome...It will be much lower, close to 0 ( since everyone will develop metabolic syndrome on that diet ).

So just changing the environment can change the heritability but for people living in the Western World in the last 50 years the twin heritability data is what it is. The heritability will probably resemble something close to that going forward and of course it can go down.



You are misunderstanding what heritability means. see above

The twin studies you cite( and anyone who uses them for data) have been proven to be mostly fraudulent. Ray Peat quotes Oliver Gillie in one of his articles.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it........

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

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.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

You say that as you get older your environmental impacts reduce as you age. That sounds like the quote that your brain stop growing when you reach a certain threshold. But with food and stimulation peoples brains can continue to grow up until old age. Ray Peat talks about this in generative energy.

The whole issue with your argument is that you take a mathematical and statistically approach to biology. I guess if something sounds complex then people assume it is right without really understanding development and growth in biology.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Damn jag, you're on point

 

[honeybee]

I don't buy the bored kids issue. It's a non-issue. It's a free education- do what I did and make the most of it and read-a lot. Libraries are still free. The school system sucks but it is what it is-it's free at least -try to change it through voting and legislation. And as a parent don't feel guilty if you are doing the best you can.
If you want to see kids experiencing real problems, drive your family over the border to Mexico and see how the kids live there. Selling chicles, drugs and begging to make money for food for their families. Living in a shanty town with no running water or electricity.
Or better yet, drive through Cali and see the many undocumented, unpaid farm labor children in the US. The ones no one ever talks about who can't make it through school because their families move so much. The reason why we have affordable produce.
Friends took their spoiled American kids to the Philippines to visit relatives. The American kids came back with adjusted attitudes- none of their cousins had phones ,electronics, gameboys whatever. Those kids were lucky to have new clothes and shoes.

 

[Such_Saturation]

There's enough time to both be thankful and make more progress for which to give thanks for.

 

[michael94]

The twin studies you cite( and anyone who uses them for data) have been proven to be mostly fraudulent. Ray Peat quotes Oliver Gillie in one of his articles.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it........

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

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.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

You say that as you get older your environmental impacts reduce as you age. That sounds like the quote that your brain stop growing when you reach a certain threshold. But with food and stimulation peoples brains can continue to grow up until old age. Ray Peat talks about this in generative energy.

The whole issue with your argument is that you take a mathematical and statistically approach to biology. I guess if something sounds complex then people assume it is right without really understanding development and growth in biology.

It is true that womb environment plays a role and can contribute to overestimating heritability, but all it is is just that. Twin studies can UNDERestimate heritability too. 1. Twins are not as bio-identical as previously thought. 2. One twin could have to pee or have diarea on the day of the test which may be attributed to non-transient environmental effects in the analysis. So because womb environment can overestimate heritability doesn't make twin studies unuseful and definitely not a fraud. They have strong predictive power and are offer an elegant explanation that has not been shown with only environmental explanations. If environment was accumulating then you would see the heritability highest at birth and lowest at death but the opposite is true. This is plainly obvious.


Moreover, how an organism responds to stresses IS genetic. It literally has to be, where else could it be? And since genes vary then response to environmental stresses will vary. This doesn't mean environment doesn't matter it just means you cannot full separate environment and genetics in the way some people would like. That's why I said a page back, there is no "Epigenetics vs Genetics". You cannot say genes stop mattering because environment affects people.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't buy the bored kids issue. It's a non-issue. It's a free education- do what I did and make the most of it and read-a lot. Libraries are still free. The school system sucks but it is what it is-it's free at least -try to change it through voting and legislation. And as a parent don't feel guilty if you are doing the best you can.
If you want to see kids experiencing real problems, drive your family over the border to Mexico and see how the kids live there. Selling chicles, drugs and begging to make money for food for their families. Living in a shanty town with no running water or electricity.
Or better yet, drive through Cali and see the many undocumented, unpaid farm labor children in the US. The ones no one ever talks about who can't make it through school because their families move so much. The reason why we have affordable produce.
Friends took their spoiled American kids to the Philippines to visit relatives. The American kids came back with adjusted attitudes- none of their cousins had phones ,electronics, gameboys whatever. Those kids were lucky to have new clothes and shoes.

If I had kids my biggest worry would be charter schools and the privatization of the education. Then soon no one will be able to afford an education.

 

[Drareg]

The twin studies you cite( and anyone who uses them for data) have been proven to be mostly fraudulent. Ray Peat quotes Oliver Gillie in one of his articles.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it........

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

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.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

You say that as you get older your environmental impacts reduce as you age. That sounds like the quote that your brain stop growing when you reach a certain threshold. But with food and stimulation peoples brains can continue to grow up until old age. Ray Peat talks about this in generative energy.

The whole issue with your argument is that you take a mathematical and statistically approach to biology. I guess if something sounds complex then people assume it is right without really understanding development and growth in biology.

Tim Spector in his book," identically different", bastardises these twin studies on top of them already being poor studies ,he regularly uses pop culture anecdotes on depression mixed with questionable statistics.
Great PR and marketing behind his book, I should have known.....

 

[thebigpeatowski]

I want to say... I mean I have some personal experience with this... save them while they're young...

This is precisely why I homeschooled my kids. My youngest is a mechanical genius, he was a busy wiggly kinesthetic learner who took apart everything in my house to see how it worked. He would have been destroyed being forced to sit still and listen in a dull environment.

 

[thebigpeatowski]

So do I ... if only I wasn't so tired and sick and overworked, I'd be doing more ...
I think this may be one of the key functions of the school system. Train and discourage people to get them to tolerate boredom once they get to be adults and have a little more power.

The public school system here is a giant babysitting institution, a power stealing place to park kids while they get indoctrinated into "proper" thinking....just my opinion.