/fit/ - Fitness, Health, and Feels

>>116677

Am I eating sugar now? More than I have in probably at least 8-10 years. I have some form of sugar with every single meal now. I'm not going to tell you sugar is the cure for cancer, but in the limited context of my current diet, fruit and fruit juice with every meal high in protein is very important for keeping my thyroid going. The carbs are necessary to help digest protein without a stress-induced crash, and the fact that it's sugar instead of another kind of carb means its fuel gets to work fast before you fall into a crash. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Not all sugar is equal. If you follow a Ray Peat diet, that doesn't mean high fructose corn syrup is good. That stuff is contaminated with mercury. Cane sugar can be relatively pure, but you don't get all the nutrients of an orange for example. When I finish a big meal now, I actually rise up ready to conquer the day instead of feeling sleepy. Meals that produce crashes before bedtime are done wrong. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

Ray Peat has a lot of other ideas, and one in particular that is very controversial: All polyunsaturated fats are unhealthy. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml You don't have to take my word for it, as he has numerous cited references in his articles that I encourage you to critically examine. However, I suspect if you are already a fatty or diabetic, and you don't follow Ray Peat's other main dietary points such as avoiding polyunsaturated fats, the sugar may just, well, make you fat. I suspect it's working for me, because while my metabolism was going to hell, I was still young, and the things I was doing wrong were heavily biased towards low sodium, zero sugar, and excess fat/excess polyunsaturated fat intake. I think sugar works when your metabolism works. If you are fat or underweight, your metabolism is not fucking working. Also, you may not see the results I got if you don't have vitamin and mineral intake like I did. One thing that happens when your metabolism increases is an increased requirement for vitamins and minerals. They simply get used up faster. Don't have enough? You'll get a short burst of metabolic activity, and then it will shut back down when the vitamins and minerals run out.

Instead of just telling a story and merely directing you all to read lengthy articles that may require a long time spent researching to verify, I'll condense some of what I've learned into a 10 step plan:

1. Jump start the thyroid and metabolism in general with iodized salt in portions of anywhere from 1/8 to 1/4 teaspoon per meal in the beginning. (You may need more or less if you are extra big or extra small or if your current sodium intake is much less or much greater than mine was.) The iodine is important for the production of thyroid hormones.

2. Pay attention to your body temperature. High body temperature = fast metabolism. You are coldest when you wake up, and temperature should rise after breakfast. Nobody stays at 98.6 F all the time. Some Ray Peat followers have experienced fever level temperatures during short periods of metabolic highs. If you are always cold and never sweat, your thyroid is dying.

3. Reduce polyunsaturated fat as much as practical. Replace with saturated fats such as butter or coconut oil. (This means no tree nuts, fatty fish, and almost any cooking oil that isn't coconut oil. Olive oil is okay in moderation.)

4. If you need less body fat fast, remove all or most dietary fats, or make coconut oil your only source, while only allowing meals of mainly protein and carbs (as in sugar), and not too many starches. Do not go without dietary fat for long or you will create a gallstone, guaranteed.

5. Incorporate coconut oil in your meals somehow even if it means your fat intake is a little higher than normal. This stuff seriously helps the thyroid and metabolism. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/coconut-oil.shtml

6. Get some fucking orange juice right now, and throw out the corn syrup soda. It's really convenient when you've got to hurry or forgot to buy a bag of fruit.

7. Stop allowing crashes from meals before bedtime. Never fail to pair that protein with fruit or fruit juice. If you crash anyways, maybe fat intake was too high.

8. Take 5000 IU D3 with vitamin K. Get vitamin K from once or twice weekly chicken livers and/or frequent cheese Gouda especially made with animal rennet instead of "enzymes".

9. Take 200 mg magnesium twice daily, and make sure you get zinc and selenium either from a multivitamin or separately.

10. Either take a B vitamin supplement or take a multivitamin that gives all the B vitamins.

>>116678

Ray Peat has a much more nuanced idea regarding a healthy diet than I have outlined, particularly with the kinds of protein an adult should eat, but this is a good start. This isn't a masochism diet. Butter and saturated fat in general tastes better than nasty canola oil or soybean oil. You get to have steak, make things salty, and satisfy a sweet tooth with fruit. These are sins against all the wisdom of mainstream health media. They'll try to scaremonger you into thinking dietary saturated fat and cholesterol gives heart attacks, salt gives hypertension, and sugar, no matter the dietary context, is going to turn you into a diabetic. I'll just add one more thing regarding fruit: It seems very natural to me that humans need fruit as a significant part of their diets. We share a lot of DNA with primates who eat fruit as a major part of their omnivorous diets. It's so major that they acquired a genetic mutation that means their bodies can't produce vitamin C unlike nearly every other organism. Humans, various primates, and fruitivores are some of the very few animals that get vitamin C from diet alone. This is all a sign that human metabolism probably depends quite heavily on fruit/dietary sugar to function optimally even if the only extremely obvious necessity is the vitamin C.

>>116679

Btw, guys, since I've changed my diet in this way. I started gaining muscle and strength, and I'm not even lifting right now. I was always a hard gainer. My body fat distribution is also becoming more, and more aesthetic. All my proportions seem to be magically falling into place, but this might be the foundation that I previously built with my history of lifting soaking up this new metabolic energy for regrowth. I figure /fit/ would want to be aware of this detail.

>>116677

You expect me to read all that shit your wrote?

>>>/livejournal/

>>116685

>>116699

lol you guys must like having a dead board. If you want to survive having a low board population, you want posters to make longer posts so you have something to read. This is the best type of posting you'll ever get here, and you don't even have the attention span to read it. What's wrong? It didn't talk about roids and masochism-inspired dieting and exercise enough?

>http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

>"Since the first doctor noticed, hundreds of years ago, that the urine of a diabetic patient tasted sweet…"

>the urine TASTED sweet

>tasted

>patient's urine

>ugh. doctors.

This is interesting, thanks for the links, but I'm still in the beginning stage and "taking it with a grain of salt" haha, I see what I did there This guy is a total heretic, not that that's a BAD thing. I know at least half of the info we get from the MSM is wrong, and the other half is doubtful at best. It's so messed up that I'm trying to use philosophy to find my way– for example, I lean toward the paleo idea that "we should eat what's naturally available historically"–Twinkies don't appear in nature, so they probably won't really do good for your body, and they probably do bad just by their artificial nature. They're farther removed from nature so they've probably lost nutrition in the process and been adulterated to the point where they're seen as a foreign invader by our guts. The way we eat now is an aberration–grocery stores are unnatural, so we're no longer limited in what we eat or how we eat. We can eat sugar at every meal in concentrated forms and nothing else if the whim hits us. We can eat nothing but meat, which is not likely to happen in nature unless we're supreme hunters (in which case we're balancing it with lots of exercise from the hunt). We need to think about a more natural situation because our current situation is limited only by our whims and wealth, which is why we give into temptation and drink pop or coffee all day and wash it down with unnatural junk. So I'm trying to figure out the philosophy of Peat's ideas. The bit on polyunsaturated fats is interesting–corn oil, soybean oil, etc are all fairly unnatural in that you're not going to run into these compressed forms of nutrition in nature–eating a piece of corn might be natural, but drinking the blood of 500 heads of corn in one sitting is surely unnatural. The fatty fish are ones that we probably couldn't catch regularly, so they wouldn't make up a huge part of a caveman's natural diet. I see paleo as 90% vegetables and 10% meat basically (unless the hunt was good and you splurge) and it seems to be in line with Peat's ideas.

Also, your vitamin recommendations seem solid and on track with everything I've read or heard from my health food store buddies.

Can you give us an example of your diet for a day? I'm definitely interested.

>>116889

>I can't say I agree with everything, particularly the avoidance of polyunsaturated fats. Fatty fish and nuts would be hard for me to cut out.

It seems very strange doesn't it? I've been doing some thinking about why this might be the case. It's not proof though, just a theory. If you want something closer to scientific evidence, seek the references Ray Peat cites in his articles and pay attention to his arguments.

Basically, my theory is that most things in nature are have not evolved, or have been designed if you prefer, for the purpose of being eaten. It seems more likely that a random given thing is engineered to not be eaten actually. Plants have chemical defenses which poison predators that eat them. A plant gains no reproductive fitness by allowing its seeds to be eaten. Much of nature is actually quite unfriendly, but many fruit trees are an exception. They employ local fruit eaters to spread their seeds, so their reproductive fitness is improved by maintaining a good relationship with the animals it feeds. Counterintuitively, many so called healthy vegetables, such as greens, may actually be somewhat unhealthy to eat and frequently contain estrogens, because they get nothing in return for being eaten. The rare exception might be when a plant is allowed to grow for thousands of years or more without enduring much predation so that it is allowed to be defenseless. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

The reason many animals are safe to eat is because they are frequently similar enough to humans, especially in the case of mammals, that in order for them to poison their predators would mean for them to poison their own bodies. (And some of them, specifically the less healthy ones, such as pigs, could be argued to be doing just that but not really for the purpose of stopping predation.) Fish are ectothermic, or cold-blooded, so they rely more on environmental heat than mammals. I suspect, but do not know, that they can have more polyunsaturated fats in their flesh, because their colder internal temperatures allow it to safely reside in their bodies with less harm than in the case of a warm-blooded animal.

It's true though that people eat fish, tree nuts, seeds, vegetables, vegetable oils, etc and nobody falls over dead immediately. You have to ask yourself why so many different foods have entered the various food cultures of the world. The answer seems obvious to me: Over the course of human history, people have learned to eat what allows them to survive until the next generation, not necessarily to eat what is most optimal. Food scarcity happened many times, and eating tree nuts was always the lesser evil compared to starving. The human relationship to starches and many vegetables seems artificial. We probably don't have very specialized digestive systems to completely handle starches. Instead humans adapted by cooking them. Same goes for many vegetables. We don't have four stomachs like a cow. How could we survive for long on greens? But we made do with what we had by innovating primitive chemistry, or cooking, for our purposes.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, it does not seem to matter. We are still similar enough, such as being unable to synthesize vitamin C within ourselves, to some primates to infer that we should probably eat like them: that is by much fruit and meat or milk when we can get it. Thankfully, in the human case we can thrive better than mere primates because much more meat and milk is available to us on a regular basis.

>>116923

A small note I should add is that animals frequently lack overt poisons as a defense compared to plants probably because movement, hiding, and fighting are the preferred methods of animals, so animals tend to select for better movement, hiding, or fighting skills.

>>116882

>I lean toward the paleo idea that "we should eat what's naturally available historically"

In my opinion, this line of reasoning is dangerous if you have any intent to enable optimal health instead of mere survival. Do not think of your ancestors as geniuses who only ate perfect food. Frequently it was the case that what was available was simply what would keep you from starving to death until good food was found. This probably happened so many times that food cultures began to adopt all manner of things into diets that didn't necessarily match the human digestive system all that well. It's a double edged sword. Eating anything and everything allows humans to reproduce well and to spread to all corners of the world. Surely during all that time some people obtained a few genes here and there that allowed them to handle things like starches and greens a little better, but the thought of being only half evolved to properly digest something should give one pause. The main adaptation to "exotic" foods that human use should be considered to be cooking. It's not at all clear that cooking does the job completely, just that it makes weird foods safer.

>We need to think about a more natural situation because our current situation is limited only by our whims and wealth,

Perhaps you fundamentally misunderstand what is natural. Eating according to our whims, or cravings, and eating whatever wealth allows us to indulge in seems exceptionally natural to me. Why would we crave something that is bad unless it is food which masquerades as good? And why should we restrict ourselves to the food of peasants if we have become rich? If one was merely going by taste, Peat's diet is precisely what an informed person would do to achieve greatest taste. Pass the salt. Give me butter or coconut oil instead of nasty vegetable oil. Pour some sugar on me. Fuck your kale. Let me get plenty of protein too, but not always muscle meats. That gets boring, so liver, gelatin, milk, and cheese too.

>I see paleo as 90% vegetables and 10% meat basically (unless the hunt was good and you splurge) and it seems to be in line with Peat's ideas.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

Then you haven't read Peat. Humans are very clever compared to mere primates, and this has enabled survival strategies that would be otherwise impossible. Perhaps in this age of abundance, we are too clever for our own good, and we would have more optimal health with a more specialized diet consisting primarily of protein, saturated fat, and sugar just like those stupid apes stuck in the jungle.

>Can you give us an example of your diet for a day? I'm definitely interested.

I'm not at all a good example to follow as I still eat some junk, because I need to get some new cookware, and I still haven't found proper replacements for some of my habitual meals. Nonetheless, I still improved my metabolic rate incorporating some basic strategies: adding lots of iodized salt, eating dairy and mandarins/orange juice, and never having protein without some form of sugar, avoiding excess polyunsaturated fats, and recently avoiding excess starches. Fructose is the preferred form of sugar as most people have impaired glucose metabolism from long term polyunsaturated fat intake. If you want examples to follow, you should probably lurk these forums: https://raypeatforum.com/

>>116925

>It's not at all clear that cooking does the job completely, just that it makes weird foods safer.

Forgot to mention that this doesn't help with polyunsaturated fats. Perhaps it even makes it worse.

>>116926

Also, frequently high fructose corn syrup secretly has starches in it, so don't try to get your fructose from it.

>>116925

>http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

>we would have more optimal health with a more specialized diet consisting primarily of protein, saturated fat, and sugar just like those stupid apes stuck in the jungle.

Vegetables are unhealthy now too? Yikes! Peat is literally the opposite of what everyone else in the scientific world is saying. "Up your sugar, eat more red meats, up your saturated fats, eat more salt, don't eat your veggies." That's a really hard sell. Some experts are saying a keto diet is okay but I'm not sure a long term diet of mostly saturated fats and sugars is going to work for humanity. Peat needs to have some serious statistics to back this up, it's really an extraordinary claim. It's way out of my comfort zone but I'll read the forum and see what the people there are saying.

>>116926

Read that article carefully and understand that it isn't a blanket ban on all veggies or that you should never have any of the veggies that aren't so great. I can imagine certain apes eating leaves some of the time for things like vitamin K1, but if they had a whole animal on hand which they just killed, they would thrive more if they got K2 from liver instead. In other words, many veggies are simply lower quality substitutes that if made the main event of diet, will frequently result in temporary survival but suboptimal health. If you have access to the kind of meat which gives the nutrition you need, it's almost always better than veggies. A vegetable-centric diet is a great way to submit yourself to various phytochemicals of unknown worth, and if protein is lacking estrogen will accumulate. Also, vegetables are a somewhat ambiguous group of plants. Nearly everything is worth putting under a lens to see its actual merits.

It's hard to tease apart what is maximally healthy when people have a history of labeling things as most healthy because it allowed them to survive. What has the greatest potential is not usually taken into consideration.

>>116987

>>116986

>>116987

I can see that meat, if available, would be the first thing apes or our ancestors would reach for, and veggies would be secondary. That makes sense.

I am wondering about vegetables giving off toxins as a defense mechanism when we're harvesting them–wouldn't fruit do the same thing?

>>116996

Almost certainly some fruits do possess toxic defenses. However, understand that this is mitigated heavily by the need of many fruit trees to have their seeds spread by animals who eat their fruit and subsequently crap or drop their seeds somewhere. If such fruit trees lean too heavily towards poisoning their friends, they lose reproductive fitness, so in the context of these types of fruit bearing plants, natural selection tends to favor nutritionally helping the types of animals which are likely to spread seeds.

Plants normally cannot move, interact physically, or talk, so they frequently tell other organisms to fuck off or stick around with chemicals, colors, smells, flavors, etc. One example of a defense mechanism is that of chili peppers. Birds are less sensitive to their spiciness than mammals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper#Evolutionary_advantages

Another example of a defense mechanism is solanine in nightshades such as potatoes and tomatoes. Sweet potatoes are not nightshades btw. This is a natural pesticide produced by the plant itself. It is possible to become sick or even die from too much solanine, but this is rare in that it usually requires eating either leaves of a nightshade plant or, more realistically, a "green" potato. (Looks vary from brown to red potatoes.) And in the case of green potatoes, vomiting and diarrhea are much more likely unless the victim is quite malnourished or weak. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1597169/?page=1 Worryingly though, it seems farmers are accidentally selectively breeding potato crops other nightshades too? to produce more solanine, as they tend to plant crops which are resistant to pests. Solanine is present in all potatoes, but normally it isn't much unless the potato "greens" from light exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine

I'm not saying you should never have potatoes again no matter the context, but considering that solanine is present in small amounts, one could easily imagine that if it is not enough to make one immediately sick, it could be contributing to the aging process, or more relevant to /fit/, stressful enough to combat optimal muscle growth. When putting potatoes under this lens, it becomes obvious that if a similar or better nutrition package is practically accessible, then it makes sense to take that opportunity. Even when no good alternative to a given food item is presently known, it also makes sense to search for or innovate a better choice. If food choices become scarce, we can always fall back on the humble potato, but complacency does not sit well with me.

Ray Peat is not a diet guru. He is not an advocate of dietary dogma and masochistic restrictions but rather a scientist giving knowledge to allow you to make informed decisions. Some people read his work and come away with this attitude that they cannot eat almost anything anymore, because everything is imperfect. And they end up failing to make a change for the better, because it seems too hard. Other people learn to follow his example and research, question, and seek better opportunities, and they tend to make incremental changes and receive practical results.

>>116923

Not true. The whole point of berries is to be eaten and pooped out so their seeds spread.

>>118674

>Somebody bumped the thread.

Did you actually read what I said? I said a "random given thing", so if you have a single exception to that statement, such as tree fruits and berries, it is not a contradiction. My point was to convey that it seems few things are designed for the purpose of being eaten. Most organisms strive to live and reproduce after all. Why should they care if their predators get tummy aches?

Anyways, coincidentally, before reading your reply tonight I was wondering just how close human digestion is to other primates. It's not enough to say they are pretty similar. That doesn't let us take advantage of uniquely human traits. So here's what I'm contemplating now: https://deniseminger.com/2010/03/18/what-is-the-optimal-diet-for-humans-part-2/

So it seems humans have adopted small colons and large, small intestines.

>In simple terms, a big colon is good for handling “low-quality” foods like tough leaves, stems, and fibrous fruits—things that require a lot of digestive work to break down. Primates that eat boatloads of greens, like gorillas, have a whole army of microbes in their colon that digest cellulose and convert it into an energy source. That’s a process called “hind-gut fermentation.” Humans aren’t so lucky; we can digest some forms of fiber, but much of it passes right through us without delivering nutritional value. Our colons aren’t big enough to host enough little organisms to ferment things as effectively as other primates do.

>On the flip side, a big small intestine (is that an oxymoron?) is perfect for digesting high-quality foods that are dense, smaller in volume, and easy to break down. That includes soft fruits, animal foods, cooked foods, tender leaves, and perhaps items that have been pre-processed through chopping or grinding. Even our modern-day blended and juiced foods make our small intestines happy, because that pre-processing translates to less digestive work.

>In other words, humans are adapted to a softer, more compact diet than other primates. Our bodies have moved away from extremely high-fiber cuisines and are better suited for foods that require less digestive effort.

This isn't really surprising that fiber is of lesser importance. At this stage of my understanding, I don't think it contradicts what I've been saying about fruit, just that with the human digestive system in mind, perhaps there should be a bit more emphasis on juicing or other types of processing for that fruit or the selection of particularly palatable fruit. It appears to be a digestive system which has changed to mirror an increase in intelligence that allows more sophisticated food preparation and discovery. If we go by the example set by existing hunter-gatherer groups, [1] we might imagine that some of these changes towards bigger small intestines, may have been partially triggered by primates who were intelligent enough to find and seek out honey and to do so while developing strategies to counter being stung by bees. It is a very dense source of nutrition with no fiber (trace amounts?). It is like a highly processed, modern food found in the wild that requires very little digestive work. Also, honey might have been the major contributor that allowed greater intelligence via greater brain size by increasing the basal metabolic rate. Basal metabolic rate seems to be related to brain size. [2][3]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24746602

>Hadza men and women both rank honey as their favorite food.

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1834002/

>With the availability of a wealth of new data on basal metabolic rate (BMR) and brain size and with the aid of reliable techniques of comparative analysis, we are able to show that in fact energetics is an issue in the maintenance of a relatively large brain, and that brain size is positively correlated with the BMR in mammals, controlling for body size effects. We conclude that attempts to explain brain size variation in different taxa must consider the ability to sustain the energy costs alongside cognitive benefits.

[3] http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/04/29/metabolism-brain-size-and-lifespan-in-mammals/

>>116677

>>116678

>>116679

Thank you.

Ray Poop is an ebook shilling moron. He takes studies out of context and interprets his own meaning into them to fit his agenda.

If you are white then low carb (not necessarily keto) is the diet you will thrive on. If you're a shitskin it's different but I don't care about you in that case anyway.

it a vegan diet? i not going to read wall of text just to find it another numale diet.

>>116677

Anyone still on the diet?

>>123430

lol, I didn't think I was going to get another bump. I thought I'd just make another thread eventually, but since you want to know, I, the OP, am still on the diet and I'm getting great results. I eat sugar everyday from multiple sources, mainly orange juice and milk, but I also have ice cream every night and even add table sugar or honey to meals and drinks. The core of the diet is avoiding polyunsaturated fats and getting plentiful carbs, especially sugar in my opinion. Now, I never have plain, isolated sugar by itself, but I do maintain frequent intake via "whole" foods such as orange juice and milk.

In spite of all the sweets, there are no signs of me getting fat, and my body composition and strength levels still gradually improve even though I am still taking a break from lifting. One thing I notice is I don't get easily winded anymore, and my mental clarity is so much more consistent. If I get a depressive episode, I don't wallow in it all day like before, and I'm a much happier person in general. If I encounter a stressful situation, I am much better equipped to defend myself and recover from it, and worries don't eat away my sanity in the back of my mind.

Now if all there was to this whole diet business was avoiding polyunsaturated fats and eating sugar, there wouldn't be much to talk about, but I've been reading and learning constantly since December on how to improve my health. I'll be honest: it can be complicated, and I don't expect anyone to get good results if they aren't willing to learn about this subject. So here's what I did: I started by skimming over a few eye catching articles on raypeat.com (I still read his articles, especially when searching for a specific thing.), because that's all my attention span would allow. And eventually I picked up a habit of reading the headlines on raypeatforum.com (not owned or affiliated with Ray Peat himself) on a daily basis as they frequently discuss new and old scientific studies. I could not have digested all the information in a single day. I kept reading tidbit after tidbit day after day, and putting "ray peat this" "ray peat that" queries into search engines and eventually started piecing things together over a period of months. /fit/ is about hacking your muscles and aesthetics. Ray Peat forum is about hacking your body, brain, and way of life.

I'm getting very involved with supplementing various uncommon foods and substances in my diet now. Here is an incomplete list of things I work with now:

coconut oil. Great stuff. I try to consume at least 1 tablespoon a day and always add it to restaurant food to make it safer to consume. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/coconut-oil.shtml

salt + iodized salt. I liberally salt everything. It's never too much unless it tastes bad, and I get 1 dose a day of the iodized version just in case. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/salt.shtml

hydrolyzed bovine collagen (gelatin). http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gelatin.shtml

creatine monohydrate. It's very cheap, used by the whole body, reverses non-alcoholic fatty liver, and increases DHT. https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/creatine-increases-dht-without-lowering-testosterone.16145/

horseradish. It may block endotoxin. https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/horseradish-inactivates-bacterial-endotoxin.17437/

methylene blue

vitamins A (not beta carotene), D3, K2 (MK-4), and E. Seriously consider this, especially the K2. I think it changed my jawline. https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/12/09/the-ultimate-vitamin-k2-resource/

aspirin

caffeine. I just ordered 200 mg pills tonight and may work up to 600 mg a day temporarily in order to clear out any lingering fatty liver issues. espressos seem healthier though, and I may get a machine to make them.

taurine. Reverses non-alcoholic fatty liver and increases conversion of T4 to T3. You can try drinking Red Bulls for caffeine + taurine if you're lazy.

Some things I'm considering:

BCAAs, tyrosine, cyproheptadine, theanine, lithium, and red light lamps.

I don't think Ray Peat advocates huge supplement stacks, but I'm just feeding off ideas from that forum. They have a community that likes to experiment and discuss their results. It's very tempting to devise a complicated supplement plan when you get to read in depth the research and experiences with those substances. I broke through a metabolic wall in the beginning of the year, and I'm looking forward to reaching the next level in my health and mentality. I'm getting excited, because there are just so many things to try now and I think I can soon break free from the mental blocks that have kept me stuck in a rut for so long. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/dark-side-of-stress-learned-helplessness.shtml

>>123531

I think one thing I realize more now is how connected every little thing you eat and do is to everything else. Many of the supplements and strategies I listed are weak by themselves and may only work for a short while if you don't understand how they work, but if you keep adding more building blocks to your routine it all starts to add up to something very significant that is not normally achievable. It may even seem overwhelming taking a plunge into something that seems complicated on the surface, but what I've found is that as my health improves my mind deals with complexity more easily and I actually enjoy the challenge of making it even more sophisticated.

>>123532

so basically it's just a "use good sense" and don't go over board diet

i don't know why he needed to go all the way as to call his name diet, or why people need some Ted talk guy to follow diet

but okay, I'd agree, don't get why people would go so far with extreme diets

but I've guess it makes sense since culturally I've grown up with a balanced and healthy diet

point is, I've started tracking my macros, aiming for high protein and matching up the remaining calorie between fats and carbs

the goal is, 26% protein (140g), 33% fat and 41% carbs

I tend to miss between fat and carbs, depending on day, but usually with decent variety of stuff

I've come up with very good bulky receipts that are extremely tasty

and still go every day to restaurant for lunch (for variety as well)

taking omega 3 and creatine, btw from the forums, how much creatine is recommended?

>>123666

1.

Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise.

>Preexercise T was significantly positively correlated with percent energy fat, SFA (g ⋅ 1,000 kcal−1 ⋅ day−1), and MUFA (g ⋅ 1,000 kcal−1 ⋅ day−1) and was significantly negatively correlated with the percent energy protein, the PUFA/SFA ratio, and the protein-to-carbohydrate ratio (Fig. 2) [pic related]

http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.long#F2

Diet-hormone interactions: protein/carbohydrate ratio alters reciprocally the plasma levels of testosterone and cortisol and their respective binding globulins in man.

>The aim of this study was to determine if a change in protein/carbohydrate ratio influences plasma steroid hormone concentrations. […] Testosterone concentrations in seven normal men were consistently higher after ten days on a high carbohydrate diet (468 +/- 34 ng/dl, mean +/- S.E.) than during a high protein diet (371 +/- 23 ng/dl, p less than 0.05) and were accompanied by parallel changes in sex hormone binding globulin (32.5 +/- 2.8 nmol/l vs. 23.4 +/- 1.6 nmol/l respectively, p less than 0.01). By contrast, cortisol concentrations were consistently lower during the high carbohydrate diet than during the high protein diet (7.74 +/- 0.71 micrograms/dl vs. 10.6 +/- 0.4 micrograms/dl respectively, p less than 0.05), and there were parallel changes in corticosteroid binding globulin concentrations (635 +/- 60 nmol/l vs. 754 +/- 31 nmol/l respectively, p less than 0.05).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573976

Influence of dietary carbohydrate intake on the free testosterone: cortisol ratio responses to short-term intensive exercise training.

>This study examined the effect of dietary carbohydrate (CHO) consumption on the free testosterone to cortisol (fTC) ratio […] The ratio was studied in two groups, control-CHO (approximately 60% of daily intake, n = 12) and low-CHO (approximately 30% of daily intake, n = 8), of male subjects […] Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) revealed the fTC ratio decreased significantly (p < 0.01) from pre-study resting measurement (Pre 1) to the final post-study resting measurement (Rest) in the low-CHO group (-43%), but no change occurred (p > 0.05) in the control-CHO group (-3%).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091182

2.

Cancer Res 1998 Aug 1;58(15):3312-9. Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids promote colon carcinoma metastasis in rat liver.

Clin Exp Metastasis 2000;18(5):371-7. Promotion of colon cancer metastases in rat liver by fish oil diet is not due to reduced stroma formation.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fats-degeneration3.shtml

Higher Omega-3/omega-6 Ratio May Damage The Brain Irreversibly

>Many nutrition gurus nowadays advocate higher omega-3/omega-6 ratios and claim that while omega-6 may be bad for us, omega-3 is not. Well, this study says otherwise.

https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/higher-omega-3-omega-6-ratio-may-damage-the-brain-irreversibly.6760/

Fish oil (omega-3) damages liver, saturated fat protects it

>Fish oil diet resulted in higher liver TBARS value while beef tallow diet showed lower values compared to the control diet. Vitamin E supplementation reduced liver TBARS as well as serum GSH, and raised serum TAS for all diets.

https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/fish-oil-omega-3-damages-liver-saturated-fat-protects-it.6757/

3.

Muscle creatine loading in men.

>In conclusion, a rapid way to "creatine load" human skeletal muscle is to ingest 20 g of creatine for 6 days. This elevated tissue concentration can then be maintained by ingestion of 2 g/day thereafter. The ingestion of 3 g creatine/day is in the long term likely to be as effective at raising tissue levels as this higher dose.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8828669

<my diet?

burgers lmao

get it, because im american xDDDDDDDDDDD

>>123666

>omega 3

I'm not eating fat entirely out of fish oils, I'm taking supplements 1 or 2 grams per day

and that's because I live in a place with nearly no fish dishes

in actually I'm taking something that's called omega 369, and has a mix of fish and but oils

it might not be good if it's the ONLY thing you're eating, but it's bad if you don't take them as well

>creatine

well I'm taking 3 grams only which is the recommended on the bottle

>>123667

whats the optimal protein/carbs/fat ratio?

>>123699

It's hard to come up with a definitive answer, but research tends to show good results for higher carbohydrate diets. In this study for example, the group with as little as 10% calories from protein and 70% calories from carbs had higher testosterone and lower cortisol than the group with 44% calories from protein and 35% calories from carbs: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Rosner/publication/19587902_Diet-Hormone_interactions_ProteinCarbohydrate_ratio_alters_reciprocally_the_plasma_levels_of_testosterone_and_cortisol_and_their_respective_binding_globulins_in_man/links/544ff61b0cf24e8f7374ac73/Diet-Hormone-interactions-Protein-Carbohydrate-ratio-alters-reciprocally-the-plasma-levels-of-testosterone-and-cortisol-and-their-respective-binding-globulins-in-man.pdf

That would seem to justify all the common wisdom among athletes regarding carb loading, but even longevity research favors higher carbohydrate diets. [1] Calories from fat percentage should vary based on your goals. If you want to burn body fat, lower fat diets appear to be optimal [2] but going extremely low long term may not be ideal as it interfers with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins and will make it more difficult to meet caloric needs when very physically active (or even cause hormone levels to crash?).

1.

The impact of low-protein high-carbohydrate diets on aging and lifespan.

>Geometric Framework studies on insects and mice have revealed that diets low in protein and high in carbohydrates generate longest lifespans in ad libitum-fed animals while low total energy intake (caloric restriction by dietary dilution) has minimal effect. These conclusions are supported indirectly by observational studies in humans and a heterogeneous group of other types of interventional studies in insects and rodents.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26718486

Dietary Protein to Carbohydrate Ratio and Caloric Restriction: Comparing Metabolic Outcomes in Mice.

>Both caloric restriction (CR) and low-protein, high-carbohydrate (LPHC) ad-libitum-fed diets increase lifespan and improve metabolic parameters such as insulin, glucose, and blood lipids. […] Ad libitum LPHC diets delivered similar benefits to CR in terms of levels of insulin, glucose, lipids, and HOMA, despite increased energy intake. CR on LPHC diets did not provide additional benefits relative to ad libitum LPHC. We show that LPHC diets under ad-libitum-fed conditions generate the metabolic benefits of CR without a 40% reduction in total caloric intake.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26027933

High carbohydrate-low protein consumption maximizes Drosophila lifespan.

>We show that optimal lifespan requires both high carbohydrate and low protein consumption, but neither nutrient by itself entirely predicts lifespan.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403040

The Okinawan Diet: Health Implications of a Low-Calorie, Nutrient-Dense, Antioxidant-Rich Dietary Pattern Low in Glycemic Load

>Northeast-to-Southwest gradient in longevity, whereby the longest lived of the Japanese are those that inhabit the southernmost islands, known as the Ryukyu Islands (or Okinawa prefecture). […] and the healthy Okinawan diet, which is low in fat and high in carbohydrates

http://www.healtheiron.com/Websites/healtheiron/images/The_Okinawan_diethealth_implications_of_a_low-calorienutrient-dense__antioxidant-rich_dietary_pattern_low_in_glycemic_load.pdf

Blue Zones: What the Longest-Lived People Eat (Hint: It’s Not Steak Dinners)

>“At the end of the day,” Buettner said in a phone call, "I’m not trying to take a scientific stance on whether fat or protein or carbs are better. I will tell you though, that the longest-lived people ate a high complex-carb diet with medium levels of fat and medium-to-low levels of protein. My stance is simply: 'Here’s what the longest-lived people ate over the last century on average, and if you’re interested in health outcomes similar to theirs, you might pay attention to this.'”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/blue-zones-what-the-longest-lived-people-eat-hint-it-8217-s-not-steak-dinners/

2.

Dietary composition, substrate balances and body fat in subjects with a predisposition to obesity.

>Ecological, cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal studies show that obesity is positively associated with dietary fat energy percentage and negatively with carbohydrate energy percentage. The relationships are concordant with the concept of separately regulated macronutrient balances and the higher satiating effect of carbohydrate than of fat. Dietary records have suggested that obese subjects tend to consume a diet with a higher fat content than normal weight controls.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8124398

>>123710

>broken link

http://www.healtheiron.com/Websites/healtheiron/images/The_Okinawan_diet__health_implications_of_a_low-calorie__nutrient-dense__antioxidant-rich_dietary_pattern_low_in_glycemic_load.pdf