Weight Loss: Starch And Trytophan Are What Are Stopping You

[outtherebrother]

Cirion you're absolutely delusional. It is simple thermodynamics, if you eat less you will lose weight. Go on a calorie deficit and stop complaining about your obesity while on a diet of 5000 calories a day. How else do you think you will lose weight?

 

['peataphysique]

The premise that the world is chaotic is the basis from which every religious or authoritarian discipline springs from.

I once emailed peat about alpha males and he had an interesting reply.

I think it’s a projection of the social darwinist ideology of capitalism. As the religious justification for poverty was fading, middle of the 19th century, the hierarchic world view began seeing itself in animals, and then that became the “scientific basis” for justifying social stratification. The schools have been important for indoctrinating the ideology. The idea of a “pecking order” in chickens was similar to the idea of an alpha male in apes, and—disregarding the actual studies—became “common knowledge” by the middle of the last century. The pecking order develops in domestic chickens only under certain circumstances in flocks of a certain size, and in ape families the dominant male role is much more flexible, subtle, and situational than the genetic determinists have trained people to believe. When I was in the biology department at the U. of Oregon, 1968-72, professors were using Desmond Morris’s book The Naked Apeas a text book—a projection of Tory social ethics/militarism onto archeologic samples, and then an argument from that to “human nature.” It was as if Ayn Rand’s books were being used in sociology and philosophy courses.

Interesting!, thanks a lot!

 

[Cirion]

Cirion you're absolutely delusional. It is simple thermodynamics, if you eat less you will lose weight. Go on a calorie deficit and stop complaining about your obesity while on a diet of 5000 calories a day. How else do you think you will lose weight?

No, it isn't. Many here have lost weight on extraordinary caloric intakes. Nathan hatch, kelj and a few other forum members whose name escapes me at the moment. I know theLaw used a very high caloric intake at least for a few days of refeeding before things turned around for him health wise too. From what I gathered from kelj, she had a few days of probably like 10,000 calorie intake. Then there's billy craig who lost weight on 6,000 a day.

Posts like yours irritate me but they also inspire me to prove people wrong so thank you (seriously, because the motivation you literally just gave me is a lot--and I was getting lazy and apathetic lately). Just so you know I'm very good at proving people wrong. In fact you've only convinced me even more to do so =) Now that I'm tracking data, more than ever before, I'll be armed with more than enough information to do just that. My motivation comes from people telling me its impossible, can't be done, and so forth, so, really you truly did give me the kick in my pants I needed to really go forth and conquer. I LOVE doing the "impossible". I will mark your quotes and others, and reference them later once I'm healthy

Looking at weight loss purely in the lens of calorie intake is a completely ignorant viewpoint that ignores the cascade of hormones and has no business on a forum such as this. I used to ascribe to that when I first started out my health journey almost a decade ago, so I can't fault you for thinking this way, as it's EXTREMELY prevalent. Will calorie deficit make you lose weight? Possibly (not even guaranteed), but even if it does, all you've done is trashed your metabolism. Trust me, if it were that simple I'd have done this ages ago. In fact, I probably have half a decade more experience than you with calorie deficits. That's in fact how I stayed lean most my life. But it never made me healthy not once. Also my latest calorie deficit was in fact, what ruined my health. So, no, I won't be doing that ever again. I already proved to myself years ago that weight does not equal health. So weight loss for weight loss sake is pointless.

What you want to do to achieve weight loss is a "Stress" deficit if you will. Anything that increases stress is not wise, and caloric deficit is one of many possible stressors. Reading any of Ray Peat's articles will explain why this is true.

 

[Alpha]

I assume by the last comment, you mean that you don't actually have a source yourself.

Yeah, egg whites are fairly high in tryptophan, 280mg per 22.7g of protein- Egg, white, dried Nutrition Facts & Calories

Still no where near milk protein itself, which is almost double that at 529mg for the same amount of protein itself- Milk, whole, 3.25% milkfat Nutrition Facts & Calories

The Trp/LNAA ratio in egg whites is double that of milk. The hydrolised egg white protein is quadruple that of milk. Saying "Tryptophan is higher % of protein in milk than egg whites" is both irrelevant, and probably incorrect.

 

[DaveFoster]

No, it isn't. Many here have lost weight on extraordinary caloric intakes. Nathan hatch, kelj and a few other forum members whose name escapes me at the moment. I know theLaw used a very high caloric intake at least for a few days of refeeding before things turned around for him health wise too. From what I gathered from kelj, she had a few days of probably like 10,000 calorie intake. Then there's billy craig who lost weight on 6,000 a day.

Posts like yours irritate me but they also inspire me to prove people wrong so thank you (seriously, because the motivation you literally just gave me is a lot--and I was getting lazy and apathetic lately). Just so you know I'm very good at proving people wrong. In fact you've only convinced me even more to do so =) Now that I'm tracking data, more than ever before, I'll be armed with more than enough information to do just that. My motivation comes from people telling me its impossible, can't be done, and so forth, so, really you truly did give me the kick in my pants I needed to really go forth and conquer. I LOVE doing the "impossible". I will mark your quotes and others, and reference them later once I'm healthy

Looking at weight loss purely in the lens of calorie intake is a completely ignorant viewpoint that ignores the cascade of hormones and has no business on a forum such as this. I used to ascribe to that when I first started out my health journey almost a decade ago, so I can't fault you for thinking this way, as it's EXTREMELY prevalent. Will calorie deficit make you lose weight? Possibly (not even guaranteed), but even if it does, all you've done is trashed your metabolism. Trust me, if it were that simple I'd have done this ages ago. In fact, I probably have half a decade more experience than you with calorie deficits. That's in fact how I stayed lean most my life. But it never made me healthy not once. Also my latest calorie deficit was in fact, what ruined my health. So, no, I won't be doing that ever again. I already proved to myself years ago that weight does not equal health. So weight loss for weight loss sake is pointless.

What you want to do to achieve weight loss is a "Stress" deficit if you will. Anything that increases stress is not wise, and caloric deficit is one of many possible stressors. Reading any of Ray Peat's articles will explain why this is true.

Being overweight leads to depression, though. Who wants to be fat? You have poor self-image, girls pretend you don't exist, men make fun of you, your family gossips about you: no good!

What's your height, weight and estimated body fat percentage?

Recall that Ray said before he started using thyroid he could eat like 4000+ calories a day and not gain weight and that when he started using thyroid he could go longer without eating not get a stress reaction. The point of having a high metabolism isn't consume a super high calorie diet, and a super high calorie diet doesn't necessarily improve metabolism.

If you tested your thyroid function; body temps and pulse before and after eating, Achilles reflex test, and fluid consumption: urine output and they are optimal, and your blood test for things like vitamin D and PTH look good, then it might be best to consider that there is some kind of bacterial issue causing the issues your having with food. If a persons thyroid function is terrible then even a perfect diet may find them wanting in the health department.

It seems like your focusing on body composition while there are more serious issues that it might be helpful to consider first. What kind of negative reactions are you getting from the food you're eating?

4,000 kcal daily is on the high-end but not unheard of for a young, active male. 3,000 is common.

 

[Cirion]

Being overweight leads to depression, though. Who wants to be fat? You have poor self-image, girls pretend you don't exist, men make fun of you, your family gossips about you: no good!

What's your height, weight and estimated body fat percentage?

Yeah being overweight absolutely can bring its own issues. But weirdly enough, my depression is almost non-existant currently despite being the heaviest in my life. At my lowest weight (160) I had severe depression, almost suicidal. At my highest weight, I actually have a lot more confidence with girls than I did at my lowest. I'm not currently dating, but it's not because of body image issues actually, it's because I have no energy and need to sleep all the time, and my libido could be better so that motivation is also lacking. Funny, I had the most body image issues when I was skinny and even when I was at like 3% body fat from extreme calorie restriction and exercise.

Currently I hover around the 280 lb range, 6 foot, and I am sure very high body fat %, who knows, maybe 30-35%, but I do also have loads of muscle (probably from my heavy powerlifting days) with 29" legs and such.

My first look at actual data (I admit I need more data, so I won't say it's final but...) is that RP is right on *almost* everything. PUFA, low carb/protein ratio, low SFA/pufa ratio, high starch:sugar ratio, high fiber, high tryptophan, high fernstrom ratio, ALL cause weight gain (for me). The only part that RP may be wrong on, is calcium:phosphorus ratio. Note I say *may* be wrong on (need more data). But so far, high Ca:P ratio results in weight gain for me, not weight loss. But, I don't blame calcium for it just yet. I think this result is confounded because most high calcium foods are also high in tryptophan. But, what this does suggest, is that avoiding tryptophan seemingly matters more than obtaining calcium.

 

[meatbag]

Yeah being overweight absolutely can bring its own issues. But weirdly enough, my depression is almost non-existant currently despite being the heaviest in my life. At my lowest weight (160) I had severe depression, almost suicidal. At my highest weight, I actually have a lot more confidence with girls than I did at my lowest. I'm not currently dating, but it's not because of body image issues actually, it's because I have no energy and need to sleep all the time, and my libido could be better so that motivation is also lacking. Funny, I had the most body image issues when I was skinny and even when I was at like 3% body fat from extreme calorie restriction and exercise.

Currently I hover around the 280 lb range, 6 foot, and I am sure very high body fat %, who knows, maybe 30-35%, but I do also have loads of muscle (probably from my heavy powerlifting days) with 29" legs and such.

My first look at actual data (I admit I need more data, so I won't say it's final but...) is that RP is right on *almost* everything. PUFA, low carb/protein ratio, low SFA/pufa ratio, high starch:sugar ratio, high fiber, high tryptophan, high fernstrom ratio, ALL cause weight gain (for me). The only part that RP may be wrong on, is calcium:phosphorus ratio. Note I say *may* be wrong on (need more data). But so far, high Ca:P ratio results in weight gain for me, not weight loss. But, I don't blame calcium for it just yet. I think this result is confounded because most high calcium foods are also high in tryptophan.

But weren't you eating tons of icecream? I don't think he ever claimed that if a person ate that much icecream they wouldn't gain weight?

"nt: So back to the ideal diet…
So if you wanted to lose weight there isn’t much room for anything else if you only burn 700 calories a day?

RP: If you use one percent butter fat milk that’s only 400 calories per quart, where whole milk would be almost twice that much and one of the tricks of orange juice is that there are some good chemicals in it which are anti-estrogenic and some of the tropical fruits are anti-estrogen. They are very important for the metabolism as well as the minerals and type of sugars and such.

Int: So there are compounds in the orange juice that are anti estrogenic

RP: And with milk it’s not just the protein but the calcium is very important as an anti inflammatory, anti stress, anti depressant and so on. People who eat the same calories without milk are much more likely to be fat compared to regular milk drinkers.
"
​

 

[lampofred]

I think the way to lose weight without trying, in other words by lowering your weight setpoint, is to increase your GABA to glutamate ratio.

But I can't think of how to do that aside from moving to a high altitude and getting ample sunlight daily. Maybe replacing sleep with no thought meditation would help (because REM sleep is a massive energy drain that is not necessary for life). I don't think even cutting out PUFA from your diet or taking thyroid would help that much once you're at a certain point.

 

[DaveFoster]

Yeah being overweight absolutely can bring its own issues. But weirdly enough, my depression is almost non-existant currently despite being the heaviest in my life. At my lowest weight (160) I had severe depression, almost suicidal. At my highest weight, I actually have a lot more confidence with girls than I did at my lowest. I'm not currently dating, but it's not because of body image issues actually, it's because I have no energy and need to sleep all the time, and my libido could be better so that motivation is also lacking. Funny, I had the most body image issues when I was skinny and even when I was at like 3% body fat from extreme calorie restriction and exercise.

Currently I hover around the 280 lb range, 6 foot, and I am sure very high body fat %, who knows, maybe 30-35%, but I do also have loads of muscle (probably from my heavy powerlifting days) with 29" legs and such.

My first look at actual data (I admit I need more data, so I won't say it's final but...) is that RP is right on *almost* everything. PUFA, low carb/protein ratio, low SFA/pufa ratio, high starch:sugar ratio, high fiber, high tryptophan, high fernstrom ratio, ALL cause weight gain (for me). The only part that RP may be wrong on, is calcium:phosphorus ratio. Note I say *may* be wrong on (need more data). But so far, high Ca:P ratio results in weight gain for me, not weight loss. But, I don't blame calcium for it just yet. I think this result is confounded because most high calcium foods are also high in tryptophan. But, what this does suggest, is that avoiding tryptophan seemingly matters more than obtaining calcium.

Try eating 4,000 kcal of plain potatoes. You'd throw up.

If you're a 6' powerlifter, then 280 lbs probably doesn't make you obese but definitely overweight.

 

[Cirion]

But weren't you eating tons of icecream? I don't think he ever claimed that if a person ate that much icecream they wouldn't gain weight?

This is true. I haven't yet input data from back then however. This is more recent and from de-fatted cheese. Unfortunately, I have somewhat of a lack of weight change data relative to when I was drinking low-fat milk but I'll continue to dig through old chronometer logs for sure. Like I say, I say "MIGHT" be wrong

I think the way to lose weight without trying, in other words by lowering your weight setpoint, is to increase your GABA to glutamate ratio.

But I can't think of how to do that aside from moving to a high altitude and getting ample sunlight daily. Maybe replacing sleep with no thought meditation would help (because REM sleep is a massive energy drain that is not necessary for life). I don't think even cutting out PUFA from your diet or taking thyroid would help that much once you're at a certain point.

It just seems like the rougher shape you're in, the more militant you have to be to follow all of RP's tenants perfectly and a single slip up seemingly has disasterous results.

Try eating 4,000 kcal of plain potatoes. You'd throw up.

LOL yeah please don't do this. And my results seem to be showing high starch:sugar ratio causes weight gain anyway, so don't be going all McDougall...

Funny, because this is literally what the OP (Amarsh) also is saying - avoid starch and tryptophan.

If you are curious of a #, the crossover point appears to be roughly 1:2 starch/sugar ratio (For me at least, your mileage may vary as they say).

 

[sladerunner69]

The premise that the world is chaotic is the basis from which every religious or authoritarian discipline springs from.

I once emailed peat about alpha males and he had an interesting reply.

I think it’s a projection of the social darwinist ideology of capitalism. As the religious justification for poverty was fading, middle of the 19th century, the hierarchic world view began seeing itself in animals, and then that became the “scientific basis” for justifying social stratification. The schools have been important for indoctrinating the ideology. The idea of a “pecking order” in chickens was similar to the idea of an alpha male in apes, and—disregarding the actual studies—became “common knowledge” by the middle of the last century. The pecking order develops in domestic chickens only under certain circumstances in flocks of a certain size, and in ape families the dominant male role is much more flexible, subtle, and situational than the genetic determinists have trained people to believe. When I was in the biology department at the U. of Oregon, 1968-72, professors were using Desmond Morris’s book The Naked Apeas a text book—a projection of Tory social ethics/militarism onto archeologic samples, and then an argument from that to “human nature.” It was as if Ayn Rand’s books were being used in sociology and philosophy courses.

I disagree with most of your points.

The world is chaotic, that is simple physics. In fact, that is as fundamental as the second law of thermodynamics which establishes that entropy is always increasing in every system. Therefore, in every organization, manmade or otherwise, there is perpetual instability. Yes I would agree that authoritarians have often taken advantage of the times that were more chaotic than others. In fact, the worst offenders of this case or the communists, Marxists and socialists. Those whose fundamental ideology was to abolish the natural hierarchy, abolish religion, and impose equality upon all, were the worse of the authoritarians. For some reason, Peat seems to fail to ascertain this fact of history and promotes socialism as a solution to modern capitalism woes. In my view, all of capitalisms problems and shortcomings can be addressed by individuals and ingenuity, which have been the chief drivers of humanity's progress through the centuries.

Social Darwinism is often conflated with capitalism, but are fundamentally distinct. Capitalism is an economic system rooted in entrepreneurship and merit, where as social Darwinism is a political ideology encompassing a view that some persons are born and bred to be more successful, intelligent, and morale than others. Capatalism doesn't purport that any class or strata of individual is qualitatively superior to another- life for all is level, with equal opprotunities (this is why the US has the highest class mobility of any country present or past). On the contrary, social Darwinism seeks to actively justify the superiority of the upper and ruling classes.

Thus, the authoritarians would be more likely to support social Darwinism. Not all religions are authoritarian, and many have a due purpose. Reformist Christianity, for instance, has been decentralized for centuries. Lutheranism, my preferred religion, is based around a local community of worshippers, and the family. There is no authoritarian government oversight prescribed in the bible, at least not how it is interpreted by protestants.

The protestant church never justified poverty beyond acknowledging that it was an indelible part of existence, which is accurate. The economies of those ages could not provide for the masses of poors to live like the wealthy. Besides, the rebellion against the obscene wealth and vanity of European aristocrats was the basis of America, wasn't it?

Peat probably doesn't ascertain, or choose to recognize this important distinction. As I have learned however, he is not much of a social scientist because he is disconnected from the reality of civilization, and has ostensibly never read much history or western philosophy. He admits himself that he was never interested with reading the authors, politics, or history taught to him in university. Instead he spent his time reading biology- which I will say he is miraculous at.

 

[Cirion]

Also, what I have so far for Fernstrom ratio:

 

[LUH 3417]

I disagree with most of your points.

The world is chaotic, that is simple physics. In fact, that is as fundamental as the second law of thermodynamics which establishes that entropy is always increasing in every system. Therefore, in every organization, manmade or otherwise, there is perpetual instability. Yes I would agree that authoritarians have often taken advantage of the times that were more chaotic than others. In fact, the worst offenders of this case or the communists, Marxists and socialists. Those whose fundamental ideology was to abolish the natural hierarchy, abolish religion, and impose equality upon all, were the worse of the authoritarians. For some reason, Peat seems to fail to ascertain this fact of history and promotes socialism as a solution to modern capitalism woes. In my view, all of capitalisms problems and shortcomings can be addressed by individuals and ingenuity, which have been the chief drivers of humanity's progress through the centuries.

Social Darwinism is often conflated with capitalism, but are fundamentally distinct. Capitalism is an economic system rooted in entrepreneurship and merit, where as social Darwinism is a political ideology encompassing a view that some persons are born and bred to be more successful, intelligent, and morale than others. Capatalism doesn't purport that any class or strata of individual is qualitatively superior to another- life for all is level, with equal opprotunities (this is why the US has the highest class mobility of any country present or past). On the contrary, social Darwinism seeks to actively justify the superiority of the upper and ruling classes.

Thus, the authoritarians would be more likely to support social Darwinism. Not all religions are authoritarian, and many have a due purpose. Reformist Christianity, for instance, has been decentralized for centuries. Lutheranism, my preferred religion, is based around a local community of worshippers, and the family. There is no authoritarian government oversight prescribed in the bible, at least not how it is interpreted by protestants.

The protestant church never justified poverty beyond acknowledging that it was an indelible part of existence, which is accurate. The economies of those ages could not provide for the masses of poors to live like the wealthy. Besides, the rebellion against the obscene wealth and vanity of European aristocrats was the basis of America, wasn't it?

Peat probably doesn't ascertain, or choose to recognize this important distinction. As I have learned however, he is not much of a social scientist because he is disconnected from the reality of civilization, and has ostensibly never read much history or western philosophy. He admits himself that he was never interested with reading the authors, politics, or history taught to him in university. Instead he spent his time reading biology- which I will say he is miraculous at.

Isn’t there a Jordan Peterson forum somewhere out there waiting for you?

Entropy is NOT always increasing in every system, only isolated systems.

 

[lampofred]

I disagree with most of your points.

The world is chaotic, that is simple physics. In fact, that is as fundamental as the second law of thermodynamics which establishes that entropy is always increasing in every system. Therefore, in every organization, manmade or otherwise, there is perpetual instability. Yes I would agree that authoritarians have often taken advantage of the times that were more chaotic than others. In fact, the worst offenders of this case or the communists, Marxists and socialists. Those whose fundamental ideology was to abolish the natural hierarchy, abolish religion, and impose equality upon all, were the worse of the authoritarians. For some reason, Peat seems to fail to ascertain this fact of history and promotes socialism as a solution to modern capitalism woes. In my view, all of capitalisms problems and shortcomings can be addressed by individuals and ingenuity, which have been the chief drivers of humanity's progress through the centuries.

Social Darwinism is often conflated with capitalism, but are fundamentally distinct. Capitalism is an economic system rooted in entrepreneurship and merit, where as social Darwinism is a political ideology encompassing a view that some persons are born and bred to be more successful, intelligent, and morale than others. Capatalism doesn't purport that any class or strata of individual is qualitatively superior to another- life for all is level, with equal opprotunities (this is why the US has the highest class mobility of any country present or past). On the contrary, social Darwinism seeks to actively justify the superiority of the upper and ruling classes.

Thus, the authoritarians would be more likely to support social Darwinism. Not all religions are authoritarian, and many have a due purpose. Reformist Christianity, for instance, has been decentralized for centuries. Lutheranism, my preferred religion, is based around a local community of worshippers, and the family. There is no authoritarian government oversight prescribed in the bible, at least not how it is interpreted by protestants.

The protestant church never justified poverty beyond acknowledging that it was an indelible part of existence, which is accurate. The economies of those ages could not provide for the masses of poors to live like the wealthy. Besides, the rebellion against the obscene wealth and vanity of European aristocrats was the basis of America, wasn't it?

Peat probably doesn't ascertain, or choose to recognize this important distinction. As I have learned however, he is not much of a social scientist because he is disconnected from the reality of civilization, and has ostensibly never read much history or western philosophy. He admits himself that he was never interested with reading the authors, politics, or history taught to him in university. Instead he spent his time reading biology- which I will say he is miraculous at.

But capitalism is Darwinist at its core... The fittest companies survive, and the ones that aren't able to adapt die. This Darwinist mindset is great for economic success and for corporations, but not so great for people. Corporations are not people. People say capitalism has proved itself to be most effective system for the happiness of a country's citizens, but they only compare it to dysfunctional corrupt European feudalism and authoritarian Soviet communism, completely ignoring that ancient Egyptian, Greek, etc. civilizations had no concept of corporations or "every man for himself" or "greed is good" or the idea that self-interest leads to universal well-being, and these non-capitalistic societies have made contributions to art, literature, and basically every field known to man aside from computers that are still being studied thousands of years later, and more importantly, as a measure of the effectiveness of the organization of their societies, had a much smaller percentage of citizens suffer from chronic stress illnesses like cancer.

 

[Alpha]

I disagree with most of your points.

The world is chaotic, that is simple physics. In fact, that is as fundamental as the second law of thermodynamics which establishes that entropy is always increasing in every system. Therefore, in every organization, manmade or otherwise, there is perpetual instability. Yes I would agree that authoritarians have often taken advantage of the times that were more chaotic than others. In fact, the worst offenders of this case or the communists, Marxists and socialists. Those whose fundamental ideology was to abolish the natural hierarchy, abolish religion, and impose equality upon all, were the worse of the authoritarians. For some reason, Peat seems to fail to ascertain this fact of history and promotes socialism as a solution to modern capitalism woes. In my view, all of capitalisms problems and shortcomings can be addressed by individuals and ingenuity, which have been the chief drivers of humanity's progress through the centuries.

Social Darwinism is often conflated with capitalism, but are fundamentally distinct. Capitalism is an economic system rooted in entrepreneurship and merit, where as social Darwinism is a political ideology encompassing a view that some persons are born and bred to be more successful, intelligent, and morale than others. Capatalism doesn't purport that any class or strata of individual is qualitatively superior to another- life for all is level, with equal opprotunities (this is why the US has the highest class mobility of any country present or past). On the contrary, social Darwinism seeks to actively justify the superiority of the upper and ruling classes.

Thus, the authoritarians would be more likely to support social Darwinism. Not all religions are authoritarian, and many have a due purpose. Reformist Christianity, for instance, has been decentralized for centuries. Lutheranism, my preferred religion, is based around a local community of worshippers, and the family. There is no authoritarian government oversight prescribed in the bible, at least not how it is interpreted by protestants.

The protestant church never justified poverty beyond acknowledging that it was an indelible part of existence, which is accurate. The economies of those ages could not provide for the masses of poors to live like the wealthy. Besides, the rebellion against the obscene wealth and vanity of European aristocrats was the basis of America, wasn't it?

Peat probably doesn't ascertain, or choose to recognize this important distinction. As I have learned however, he is not much of a social scientist because he is disconnected from the reality of civilization, and has ostensibly never read much history or western philosophy. He admits himself that he was never interested with reading the authors, politics, or history taught to him in university. Instead he spent his time reading biology- which I will say he is miraculous at.

This is derailing the thread, but it is not only rational, but efficient to expect significant socioeconomic stratification and hierarchical structures in every possible social environment. Humans are not different than animals in that regard, and although we have the capacity to adopt Marxist ideology in practice, we are still way, way behind in terms of scientific achievement and the eradication of scarcity that plagues our world. The hope is that one day, we won't need capitalism, or even democracy anymore, since both go hand in hand, and we can transcend our initial conditions and live in a utopian socialist world.

 

[sladerunner69]

Isn’t there a Jordan Peterson forum somewhere out there waiting for you

Yes I'm sure there is. Interestingly, Jordan Peterson views serotonin as a broadly beneficial hormone. He is a clinical psychologist with a degree in neurochemistry, if that means anything to you. However, he is a bit dire and grim in his prose, for my taste. I read 12 rules for life over the course of a year because I found it dull.

 

[sladerunner69]

But capitalism is Darwinist at its core... The fittest companies survive, and the ones that aren't able to adapt die. This Darwinist mindset is great for economic success and for corporations, but not so great for people. Corporations are not people. People say capitalism has proved itself to be most effective system for the happiness of a country's citizens, but they only compare it to dysfunctional corrupt European feudalism and authoritarian Soviet communism, completely ignoring that ancient Egyptian, Greek, etc. civilizations had no concept of corporations or "every man for himself" or "greed is good" or the idea that self-interest leads to universal well-being, and these non-capitalistic societies have made contributions to art, literature, and basically every field known to man aside from computers that are still being studied thousands of years later, and more importantly, as a measure of the effectiveness of the organization of their societies, had a much smaller percentage of citizens suffer from chronic stress illnesses like cancer.

Yes the ancient societies you point to has fewer instances of cancer and heart disease (probably) but still had a much lower life expectancy according to anthropoligists. That the greeks had less disease is an artifact of time with cleaner air, uncontaminated food and water, less stress etc.

I am a fan of the Greeks, to be sure, and agree on contributions Athens (less so the other city states) provided to modern civilization. However I will remind you, lest we forget, that the Athenians were far from perfect. It seems people often look back on them with rose-tinted glasses, as if theirs was somehow a society more equitable and fruitful than America. Athens was very much a class based society. Athens condoned slavery. Athens considered women to be objectively inferior to men in every way from temperament to intellect. Athens only allowed white land owning men to take part it civic council and vote. Their direct democracy was highly experimental at the time, and became a problem in the city-states stability, leading their demise and loss of independence in wars with Sparta. And let us not forget the culture of homosexuality, particularly between aged men and teenage youth of the lower class.

These other civilizations you brought up, the Egyptians and "etc" (Whom, the Babylonians, the visigoths, the assyrians?) They are each at least as brutal and primitive as the last. I would not care to live in any of these societies, which held slaves, torture, and death in high regard, and regularly practiced the complete extermination of their enemies in wartime (enemies = neighbors).

I also believe that this criticism of capitalism, that it promotes a "Greed is good" mentality, is nonsense. That idea comes only from the 1987 film "Wall Street" and has never been said by any self-respecting capitalist. The proper role of those who have found success in the free market is "stewardship for the neighbor" as clearly stated in the bible and to "shepherd goodwill"for those less fortunate. That is why, long before the tax burden and the federal government became so imposing and overbearing, when this country was more Christian, it was much more common the donate to charities such as the red cross or food services. Only in recent decades, as America has undergone an atheistic bent, have pernicious welfare programs supplanted charities as some sort of societal obligation to those less fortunate.

Again, social Darwinism has little to do with economics, if you read the source literature. It has very much to do with the European dominance over less competent races. The Social Darwinists in the late 19th century used Darwin's evolutionary theory to explain their supposed duties to colonize and rule over the rest of the world. Social Darwinism was never popular in America, even when we tried to colonize the Philippines.

 

[sladerunner69]

This is derailing the thread, but it is not only rational, but efficient to expect significant socioeconomic stratification and hierarchical structures in every possible social environment. Humans are not different than animals in that regard, and although we have the capacity to adopt Marxist ideology in practice, we are still way, way behind in terms of scientific achievement and the eradication of scarcity that plagues our world. The hope is that one day, we won't need capitalism, or even democracy anymore, since both go hand in hand, and we can transcend our initial conditions and live in a utopian socialist world.

That hope, in my view, has a basis not in history nor empirical literature, and therefore remains an idealistic vision of some far future. I for one doubt a socialist society could ever allocate resources more efficiently and widely than a free market one. This is a matter of "Basic Economics" as written by the great Thomas Sowell.

 

[Cirion]

But capitalism is Darwinist at its core... The fittest companies survive, and the ones that aren't able to adapt die. This Darwinist mindset is great for economic success and for corporations, but not so great for people. Corporations are not people. People say capitalism has proved itself to be most effective system for the happiness of a country's citizens, but they only compare it to dysfunctional corrupt European feudalism and authoritarian Soviet communism, completely ignoring that ancient Egyptian, Greek, etc. civilizations had no concept of corporations or "every man for himself" or "greed is good" or the idea that self-interest leads to universal well-being, and these non-capitalistic societies have made contributions to art, literature, and basically every field known to man aside from computers that are still being studied thousands of years later, and more importantly, as a measure of the effectiveness of the organization of their societies, had a much smaller percentage of citizens suffer from chronic stress illnesses like cancer.

My opinion of the ideal society is one in which there is little to no tax burden and virtually all assistance to your neighbor is exclusively through VOLUNTARY donations of time and money. Both pure capitalism and pure socialism are failures in this regards. Pure capitalism often is selfish, and pure socialism is also selfish. Even most "mixed" societies (like heavy tax burden "capitalist" countries) aren't close to ideal. Because by definition you can't force people to VOLUNTARILY give money and time away, it's literally impossible to make a perfect society and thus all you can do is make the "least bad", which generally is capitalism because only in capitalism is there motivation to succeed and create quality products. And BTW--the whole idea of things like income tax to try to balance things out... they only hurts poor and middle class. Rich people don't even pay income tax, they pay capital gains taxes. If people really wanted to flip things in favor of poor and middle class, they'd either eliminate or drastically reduce the income tax and raise the capital gains tax/flip them (make income tax cap at 15%, and capital gains cap at 35%). Yet every time when people parade "tax the rich" all that actually happens is INCOME TAX goes up which screws over poor and middle class only and yet this tired tirade of "Tax the rich" is endless. (I dislike all taxes, so I'm not in favor of ANY tax going up, but for ALL taxes to go down, but I digress)

However, since I'm done complaining about this discrepancy, I plan to exploit it - start buying properties and rent them out, and only deal with capital gains (15% or less) and no income tax =) Same with retirement funds. Get a roth ira. zero tax on the gains, don't even have to pay capital gains tax. This was a hot tip an older coworker just gave me. Income tax is only for the poor fools (like myself for the past 7 yrs) working a 9-5 desk job and giving away 30%+ to the government. I also have health savings account which means zero taxes entirely. "Go for 0%" as they say.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The Trp/LNAA ratio in egg whites is double that of milk. The hydrolised egg white protein is quadruple that of milk. Saying "Tryptophan is higher % of protein in milk than egg whites" is both irrelevant, and probably incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? And don't say "Bro, you could look it up on your own." I'm genuinely curious if you have a source for this.

Also, I don't believe the that the Trp/LNAA ratio in eggs is double that of milk. The amount of BCAAs, Tyrosine, Phenylananine, and Lysine is about the same in milk as eggs whites, according to the database I looked at. Which, of course, means that my point about Tryptophan to protein was very relevant. Please list your source, or I will just assume that you are the one that's incorrect.