Truth Discussion Time - Page 7

I'm not sure I'm agreeing with you guys now. From what I'm now reading about 'genius classification', IQ is indeed an important metric, but it's more of a prerequisite for being a genius, it's not sufficient in itself. Like Richard Feynman would certainly fit my definition of a genius - but according to tests, his iq was 'only' 125. (That is still high of course, but only 97% percentile or so, below mensa admission criteria, and I would assume that quite some LP posters have higher scores).

Kinda fits into what I've read about it before also, where basically, an IQ of 130 is sufficient for virtually anything, once you're up there, drive/motivation, being in the right place at the right time, having right mentors, 'other brain peculiarities' (like synesthesia), are just as important factors in 'determining likelihood of genius accomplishments' or whatever. If you're gonna classify it as like, pure natural talent, then where do you make the cutoff? IQs over 160 are very difficult to measure with any type of accuracy(although to be fair, 159 might well be what you define as naturally gifted to the extreme).

I've also met people with IQs in the 130s whom I thought were just.. not particularly smart at all.

On August 13 2016 15:33 RiKD wrote: More nutrition discussion!!! : Cholesterol: So, I recently had my cholesterol checked: Overall: 273 HDL: 47 LDL: 201 Triglycerides: 124 Doctor's Orders: Watch fried and greasy food consumption (Will check it again in 3 months and likely suggest statins if no improvement) The paleo guys like to talk about Cholesterol markers as not telling the whole story. They speak of harmless light and fluffy cholesterol and the real danger is the small and dense cholesterol that gets stuck in the arteries and causes divots. Overall, a better marker of cholesterol would be an ultrasound of the arteries. Thoughts on above position? Thoughts on nature vs nurture in regards to cholesterol? Thoughts on drugs in regards to cholesterol? What's the deal with cholesterol?

Overall: 273 - too high
HDL: 47 - low
LDL: 201 - too high
Triglycerides: 124 - no opinion

Get to grips with "good" and "bad" types of fat and where you get them from. Most sweets are hydrogenated fat and sugar, the oil they use and don't ever change at restaurants isn't good for you. Fish, butter, eggs and even some bacon are okay. I suggest you cook your own meals for a month, if you already aren't. You are going to eat for the rest of your life, pretty important you learn how to cook. Debatable but you should be getting your daily calories from 40% carbs 30% protein and 30% fat. The change doesn't come fast, rather think of improving your diet / exercise as forming a habit that will make you healthy through the years.

On August 15 2016 10:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm not sure I'm agreeing with you guys now. From what I'm now reading about 'genius classification', IQ is indeed an important metric, but it's more of a prerequisite for being a genius, it's not sufficient in itself. Like Richard Feynman would certainly fit my definition of a genius - but according to tests, his iq was 'only' 125. (That is still high of course, but only 97% percentile or so, below mensa admission criteria, and I would assume that quite some LP posters have higher scores). Kinda fits into what I've read about it before also, where basically, an IQ of 130 is sufficient for virtually anything, once you're up there, drive/motivation, being in the right place at the right time, having right mentors, 'other brain peculiarities' (like synesthesia), are just as important factors in 'determining likelihood of genius accomplishments' or whatever. If you're gonna classify it as like, pure natural talent, then where do you make the cutoff? IQs over 160 are very difficult to measure with any type of accuracy(although to be fair, 159 might well be what you define as naturally gifted to the extreme). I've also met people with IQs in the 130s whom I thought were just.. not particularly smart at all.

Agreed it isnt just an IQ requirement, but I would consider Feynman as a genius but not Steve Jobs, I think the difference is pretty clear

What is the deal with probiotics?

Happy gut, happy mind.

We have colonies of aliens living in our stomaches urging us to do things. Demon possession.

Is kombucha and the like marketed bullshit or are all these l. bacillliiaaa et al vital to our health and feeling good?

On August 02 2016 11:05 Loco wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Show nested quote + On August 01 2016 03:10 jeremy5408 wrote: this is prob 1 of 2 videos that i think are worthwhile when exploring nutrition and obesity. It's amazing to me that in that presentation he admits that sugar consumption isn't the leading cause of obesity (it's the third) and yet in other places he talks so confidently as if it's the case, and he makes the case that all our woes are caused by sugar as well. It's ridiculous. To put things into context, Lustig is not a reputable expert in the field of nutrition. The fact that his talks have exploded in popularity recently doesn't change that fact. He is committed to following in the footsteps of his hero, John Yudkin, whose scientific studies were discredited at the time and with good reason. Yudkin simply failed to account for many confounding factors in his studies. I've touched on this earlier in the thread, but Lustig, Taubes and co. are essentially conspiracy theorists. They have this neat little story that says that Yudkin was "right all along" and Ancel Keys was the one who did shoddy science, and it paints them as some ingenious detectives who have seen what every scientist has missed in the past six decades. It's clear how comforting this idea is to them in the face of all the complex issues at play in this field, but I think they are mostly committed to it because it's an idea that sells. If Robert Atkins taught us anything, it's that a diet that makes people sick can sell really damn well if there's a neat story to go alongside with it. Now I'm not saying that nothing he says has value. Just that his narrow-minded focus and his conclusion are misguided. And I think it's a big distraction. People don't learn what human beings are supposed to be eating. They only hear about what they already know. I mean, does anyone in his right mind advises that people eat processed junk and refined sugar? Obviously not. Yet this is all they want to talk about, and they draw the ridiculous conclusion that we should eat a low carb diet as a result. It's that non sequitur that I have the biggest problem with. Here's some good stuff on these low carb guys and why they shouldn't be trusted. The first 5 minutes of the first video are probably enough to discredit Lustig, but it's worth watching it all: + Show Spoiler +

thanks for taking the time to post those videos. i watched the videos and am confused as ever with diet and nutrition. i was eating a very faulty diet and there wasn't much conscious thought with food choices. eating was really automatic. as faulty and specious as lustig may or may not be, i can't deny his video (especially the first half dealing with choice/systems/gluttony/sloth) helped me become generally more empathetic and less prejudice against overweight people and helped me move towards eating an actual food diet.

On August 14 2016 15:57 RiKD wrote: This was google's first definition of genius: + Show Spoiler + 1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. I think Musk would fall under other natural ability. I do not even know the definition of intellectual. Intellectual, pseudo-intellectual... those words get thrown around a lot and I do not even know the definitions. intellectual 1. of or relating to the intellect. intellect the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. That seems to very much deal with the sciences. I think classic genius is Albert Einstein, Jon Von Neumann, Alan Turing. There are autistics with natural abilities that dwarf someone who excels in maths, theoretical physics, problem solving. Someone can be exceptional in anything. What is interesting is that it uses the words natural ability. I would say Nabokov is a genius of literature but he did study from a very early age. He did have the best education available on the planet Earth. He was completely obsessed with reading and writing his entire life. Sometimes I am insecure about pseudo-intellectuality: a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status. adjective. 3. of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly: a pseudointellectual book. My hope is that our threads on here are avoiding the above definition. The fact that we post with anonymous names with, at least for me, an honest curiosity is a plus. Maybe we lack the use of extensive scholarly evidence. I do not know if I identify completely as an intellectual because I am more of an autodidact than someone engrossed in academia. I was just thinking about some of your points. Every idea needs marketing. In the Steve Jobs example I would say he was a genius in vision and marketing. Woz (Steve Wozniak) was the classic genius in computing. Ideas need to spread like a virus for them to take hold. That is why marketing of the status quo is frustrating. Many facets of the education in any state school are frustrating. Current politics are definitely frustrating. I am thinking with most if not all products and marketing there has to be an aspect of beauty and aesthetic. If the early adopters and taste makers like it and say it is cool and beautiful the idea spreads. So, I am postulating that in any idea there is likely a classic genius in the science or art and some others who are brilliant in connection, collaboration, communication, vision, marketing. If it connects with the masses that is where change and progress comes from. I am thinking of Jiro Dreams of Sushi. It is known as perhaps the "best sushi place" in the world. It is cool. It is unique. One goes in there and Jiro stares the customers down like a border collie. "You will like this sushi or I will bite you." So, I do not necessarily think it is the masses in anything. Follow the rules or get in trouble. Make sure the police have some standard patrol routes to let everyone know they are watching. You want to get a nice job and stay out of trouble don't you? I get hypnotized by music, art, and strippers. I think if an unblinking beautiful women is staring someone down in an advertisement it plays on the subconscious. I submit ok? Maybe if I buy that product I can be better, be happier, get closer to her, get closer to God. I think a lot of people do not want to think. They think enough at their day job. I know many nights when I was on a daily job grind I just wanted release. I just wanted relief. Politics was just like a bullshit topic. Something to pass the time. No depth whatsoever. Sports, same thing. It is easier to get by and do my best to pursue happiness than be more educated and fight for change. I was doing enough fighting on a day to day basis in the field. What if the masses and the ethical super geniuses teamed up? Now that is what I am talking about. Anonymous posted something on facebook about how 1 bee does not scare most people. What about a swarm of 1 million bees? 10 million bees following their ethical Queen Bee? Revolution locally. Revolution in USA/Mexico/Canada. Global Revolution. (Fuck NAFTA) Education is important. Leadership is important. The masses really have the power to make the changes but that change is typically inspired by a handful of people that branches out.

I enjoyed this post. I hope I don't come across assuming or argumentative but it is difficult to talk about so many topics at once through forum communication. I think focusing on a few topics at a time and going "deeper" will yield more productive discussion than such an array of topics.

Yeah, I agree. I just wanted to see things discussed more in a roundtable socratic method format to get closer to the truth. So, no opinions. No random shit. Straight facts and evidence and critical thinking. It would be cool to have a subset of this thread with individual topics but that might be unrealistic. I like LP and the people here so probably best to just start new topics in general discussion. We could even just post "Truth Discussion - (Topic)" as the topic. I was hoping people from all over would start topics and discussion and people could jump in at their leisure.

On August 13 2016 15:33 RiKD wrote: More nutrition discussion!!! So, I recently had my cholesterol checked...

Here's my two cents. I think that just like you wouldn't come to liquidpoker if you needed medical attention, you shouldn't come here for nutrition advice. Liked I discussed earlier, there are few subjects that people are more confused about than nutrition. And tragically, there's also fewer subjects where people think they are qualified to give advice about. There's just no point in having these discussions with people when they aren't providing a source for their claims. No one here as far as I know is an expert, and the advice you'll get will most likely vary from extremely awful (e.g. ''bacon is okay'') to just somewhat bad (e.g. ''fish is really healthy''). Your blood tests are not good. You should be taking this very seriously. I've posted enough resources in this thread for you to get an answer to those questions from actual experts, and you should just go look for that. Dr. John McDougall uploads content regularly still. He has been fighting the fight against nutrition misinformation for well over 50 years. He has answered your questions hundreds of times and has the research on his website for you to look at at any time. He and others like Dr. Dean Ornish have accomplished great things over the years and it's time you lend them an ear.

I think you've said you also read the Omnivore's Dilemma and said you felt that the conclusion from Pollan was correct, so it's just a matter of applying it to your life now. If it helps you, just think of it as an experiment. Lots of people in your situation start imagining that they will have to be depriving themselves of things they love forever and it prevents them from starting on a healthier path. If you think of it as just a short term experiment, say for a month, you won't stress out about it and will probably end up feeling great and your blood tests will show improvements. I believe that's really important and underappreciated advice because you've gently tricked yourself and reprogrammed your eating habits after about 3 weeks to a month and made it become quite effortless to eat healthier as a result.

Does that McDougall character really know what he's talking about? He's saying it's almost impossible to gain fat by eating sugar. He also says "the fat you eat is the fat you wear". You don't hear nutritionists recommending less than 20% of your calories coming from healthy fats.

On August 22 2016 13:42 spugru wrote: Does that McDougall character really know what he's talking about? He's saying it's almost impossible to gain fat by eating sugar. He also says "the fat you eat is the fat you wear". You don't hear nutritionists recommending less than 20% of your calories coming from healthy fats.

Yes, he does. Everything he says is backed up by solid science on his website. But my word that he is trustworthy is meaningless to you and you need to research this for yourself. To answer your question about sugar (carbs), Dr. Garth Davis wrote a post about it on Facebook a few days ago so it will save me some time.

I always tell people that it is very difficult to turn carbs to fat, a process called De Novo Lipogenesis (DNL). This is in fact true. In your average person if you eat bread, for instance, your body will store it as glycogen in your muscle or utilize it for energy. There is a very important exception to this rule. If you are insulin resistant, then your body will greatly increase conversion of carbs to fat (DNL). So if you are very overweight (my patient population) then you are likely insulin resistant, and therefore, carbs can make you fat. Now that does NOT mean you should not eat fruit or carbs. What it means is that you need to address the cause of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance seems to be due to 2 main issues. First, our cells thrive on sugar. cellular metabolism is driven by glucose. Now, to get sugar into the cells, you need insulin receptors. Problem is that certain amino acids and fats cause fat to enter the cell and disrupt the ability of the cell to make insulin receptors. Without insulin receptors the sugar cannot get in the cell to be utilized as fuel. The body will start pushing out more and more insulin in an attempt to get the sugar in the cells. The high insulin suppresses the cells ability to release fat, and more fat is stored in the cells creating a vicious cycle. Secondly, the fat that enters the cells creates a problem with storing glucose as glycogen. Fat basically competes for utilization in the cell with glucose. If glucose cannot be stored or transported into cell then you get hyperglycemia and the resulting hyperinsulinemia creates hypertriglyceridemia. Top that off with the fact that the cells aren't getting their usual fuel and will need t get fuel from fat. Hence there is increase in conversion of carbs to fat. This can easily be cured. Exercise greatly improves glucose utilization and insulin receptor production in the cell. Weight loss, obviously, reduces intramyocellular and intrahepatic fat, and thereby increases insulin sensitivity. When it comes to diet for insulin resistance there are 2 diets that seem to work. All fat or really low fat. This may sound contradictory, but think about it. If you are eating nothing but fat your odd will run out of glycogen and turn to utilizing fat for fuel. Without eating any carbs, minimal insulin will be secreted. You may still be insulin resistant but if you are not eating carbs, and mainly eating fat, you won't exhibit high insulin and high sugar. As you know, this is not my preferred method of treatment because I find it limits many nutrient dense foods (fruits), may have negative effect as far as cancer, cardiac disease, and inflammation. The opposite, a high carb/low fat plant based diet, is my treatment of choice. Basically, by eating a high fiber diet you get slow release of sugar into the body and the foods are low in calories so you tend to lose weight. You also are not getting the high amounts of fatty acids and amino acids that enter the cell and interfere with insulin receptor production and glycogen formation. Interestingly, it appears, if you are insulin resistant, the answer is in the extremes. You cannot really do some of both. Fat by itself, if not in ketosis, is harmful. Likewise, excessive carbs, in a diet that contains saturated fat, is harmful. The magic seems to be in the extremes.

If you still think that sugar is the leading cause of obesity or whatever, look at the data. It's pretty clear that it's not. Even "sugar guy" Robert Lustig admits so in the video that was posted here reviewing said data. Also look at Dr. Walter Kempner's work, and you will never see sugar the same again.

The reason you don't hear most nutritionists recommend less than 20% calories from fat is because they aren't basing their advice on science. They are basing their advice on the government dietary guidelines and the food guide, which isn't evidence-based and unbiased, as you probably know already. It is and will always be a compromise between science and the influence of the big food industries. The reason my government advises that I drink skim milk every day isn't because milk does a body good. And the reason they advise I eat half of my grain products from whole grains isn't for me either, and it isn't science based. They just want people to keep buying the milk and the processed grain products. They also recommend false equivalents, for instance they put beef and beans as equivalents which is obviously not science-based.

"The fat you eat is the fat you wear". This is just a mantra that he encourages people keep in mind to help those with weight issues. It's not absolutely true but it's easy to remember and it's functionally true: you can tell precisely which foods (which fats) people are eating by performing a liposuction and analyzing the fat. Fat is easily stored as fat in the body, it doesn't even need to be converted. It also contains 9 calories per gram compared to 4 from carbs and protein, so it's easy to get into a caloric surplus when the fat content of the diet is higher, especially when you consider the fact that it doesn't fill the stomach efficiently and therefore isn't satiating on its own. If you don't have starchy and fibrous foods to take up volume in the stomach, you're going to eat a lot more calories than you need just to feel like you've eaten enough due to the stretch receptors of the stomach not signaling your brain that you've eaten enough food (that's not the whole process but that's one crucial part of it).

On August 21 2016 19:00 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2016 15:33 RiKD wrote: More nutrition discussion!!! So, I recently had my cholesterol checked... Here's my two cents. I think that just like you wouldn't come to liquidpoker if you needed medical attention, you shouldn't come here for nutrition advice. Liked I discussed earlier, there are few subjects that people are more confused about than nutrition. And tragically, there's also fewer subjects where people think they are qualified to give advice about. There's just no point in having these discussions with people when they aren't providing a source for their claims. No one here as far as I know is an expert, and the advice you'll get will most likely vary from extremely awful (e.g. ''bacon is okay'') to just somewhat bad (e.g. ''fish is really healthy''). Your blood tests are not good. You should be taking this very seriously. I've posted enough resources in this thread for you to get an answer to those questions from actual experts, and you should just go look for that. Dr. John McDougall uploads content regularly still. He has been fighting the fight against nutrition misinformation for well over 50 years. He has answered your questions hundreds of times and has the research on his website for you to look at at any time. He and others like Dr. Dean Ornish have accomplished great things over the years and it's time you lend them an ear. I think you've said you also read the Omnivore's Dilemma and said you felt that the conclusion from Pollan was correct, so it's just a matter of applying it to your life now. If it helps you, just think of it as an experiment. Lots of people in your situation start imagining that they will have to be depriving themselves of things they love forever and it prevents them from starting on a healthier path. If you think of it as just a short term experiment, say for a month, you won't stress out about it and will probably end up feeling great and your blood tests will show improvements. I believe that's really important and underappreciated advice because you've gently tricked yourself and reprogrammed your eating habits after about 3 weeks to a month and made it become quite effortless to eat healthier as a result.

Thank you for the sources of information.

I read "In Defense of Food" by Pollan and it had a profound effect on my life. I just got "Omnivore's Dilemna" and look forward to reading it. Thank you. You know I had some conversations with people recently going through the macho meat eater things and how our teeth are designed to eat meat. I laughed and said look at a lion's teeth and then look at ours. They did not like that. Then the other night I was eating a steak cooked just about perfect medium rare. I am sitting there chewing this stuff and then chewing some broccoli and was like wow. All the resources and violence that go into producing something that is not all that easy to eat or digest and causes illness, wow. Broccoli is magical even if paleolithic man likely ate 0 broccoli ever. Fact.

I am at the point where I feel Paleo gets a lot of things right but it also has things wrong. Pseudoscience is abound in Paleo. I like the overall Paleo movement though. Paleo diet, intermittent fasting, and movement allowed me to lose 30 unneeded pounds. I feel better than ever. The Paleo guys market the cholesterol as not a big deal. There is light and fluffy cholesterol and hard and dense cholesterol. The numbers do not accurately tell the whole story they say. One question I have for my doctor is why not do an ultrasound of the arteries? Another aspect is that I am on an anti-psychotic (risperidone) which tends to raise cholesterol and blood sugar levels and I started on it after my last blood test a year ago which that blood test was good. I really would like to avoid jumping on the drug train. I have to for my mental illnesses but limit it as much as possible. It would just suck to have to take a drug because of a drug which will cause a side effect that I need another drug for ad infinitum.

Losing weight is great, but like your blood tests show, it's not the whole story. I could love Twinkies and go on a Twinkies diet like some professor did and lose a bunch of weight and thank the "Twinkies guys" for helping me. But diet is really about long-term health and weighing the pros and cons of the way we eat. The cons of the "Paleo" way of eating are numerous; especially if you aren't extremely well informed and conscious of what Paleo humans did and how best to replicate it in our modern world (note: that's very hard, if at all possible). It's quite obvious to me that a real Paleo diet looks a lot more like something Denise Minger is doing, which puzzles many ill-informed Paleo people.

I haven't read "In Defense of Food" but I think I can recall a friend telling me that it took an anti-reductionist approach, which is exactly what I've come to adopt as a position. It's a great place to start and there is much to explore once we've adopted this way of looking at nutrition. Another source of information for you: the Rich Roll podcast. He has some good interviews about nutrition with various experts. The latest one with Dr. Neal Barnard is good stuff. I'd highly recommend this one as well (lots of cholesterol talk in this one).

I just watched this:



Pleasure Trap Ted Talk
Above Ted Talk
Debunking Paleo Ted Talk

That is a pretty powerful combo. Sonic Boom.

It comes down to a handful of guys that have some science background and decided to write books and make paleo a source of income vs. Doctors and actual scientists who have spent their life in study and experience. I am still not convinced a diet should be completely starch, or completely plants though. I will be trialing a no farmed red meat or pig diet. Perhaps I will include farmed chicken, turkey, etc. in the no eat list but that would be a difficult goal for me right now. Actually, fuck it, I will do my best to limit. That will be a learning experience as well. I will be eating more rice, corn, and potatoes (which was at zero). Unlike many of the paleo guys since going back to rice, corn, and potatoes I would say I have felt better. None of the crazy side effects that the paleo guys proclaim and warn about. Especially when training a lot or learning a lot I could feel run down and/or just not as sharp with out any starches or fruit in there. I also never had celiac's disease, or irritable bowel syndrome, or many of those experiences. This is like a cool morphing thread. We are cooking in the kitchen. It is smelling good. I can report back in 3 months or whenever my next blood work is to see if it makes a difference.

good luck! i'm interested in hearing your progress! dieting is interesting there are so many factors and variables going on simultaneously. what is making you feel better? was it the subtraction of foods? addition of others? a combination of both?

Really?

26 min?

Some shirtless guy in the forest has better evidence than a guy practicing medicine for 40+ years with the benefits of experience with a large sample size of patients?

I am going to need a reason to watch this.

Dr. John McDougall bringing some facts supported by evidence to the sugar debate:



No opinions. No pseudoscience. No quackery. Facts supported by evidence.

I am going to need some evidence from Dr. John McDougall, Loco, or anyone else that supports that humans are herbivores and not omnivores. That is an outlandish statement from one of his cholesterol webinars I am watching.

On August 29 2016 01:58 RiKD wrote: Really? 26 min? Some shirtless guy in the forest has better evidence than a guy practicing medicine for 40+ years with the benefits of experience with a large sample size of patients? I am going to need a reason to watch this.

to be open minded and a critical thinker, one must be able to argue the other side better than their supporters.