You must log in or # to comment.
My body is an engine that turns food into lifting a hundred pounds of machinery. I dead lifted a generator about a week ago, yet it was the tree I felled a month ago that fucked up my shoulder.
alot of people buy into the “flouride-free” gluten free, and inflammation, lysine diet apparently.
When I read “nutritional hexes” I assumed this would be honeycomb related.
my boss does a “cleanse” once a month. IDK what she takes but she also believes ivermectin cures cancer, sooooo…
Its no coincidence that she is one of the sickest “healthy” people ive met. She has no health conditions or chronic illnesses. Shes in good physical shape and doesn’t smoke or drink. Exercises most days, etc. Yet, she “cant get out of bed” or has some mystery stomach flu or something like that about once a month. Funny how that seems to line up just after her cleanses. I suggested once that she was making it worse with the cleanses but she just doubled down.
Willfully ignorant and proud.as soon as you hear (X) cures cancer you know shes deep into pseudoscience, its one of the “gateway” into pseudoscience. those cleanses are likely messing up her gut microbiome causing “diarrhea, GI problems”. when i took antibiotics once he caused watery runs, and it never was the same.
i wonder if shes getting antibiotics from a shady ass doctor, i know if you take too much you will have chronic GI problems. there something called chronic lyme, where its usually midwestern woman believes its chronic so they go to a MD that is “specialized in Lyme” to be prescribed on antbiotics for months on end, and to convince themselves they have it, they take another shady test for lyme.
Firehouse in the USA: “right leaning straight white guys that watch FOX news” is over represented. We work 24 hour shifts and thus cook two meals a day at the station. Inevitably that means I get to experience whatever dumb-ass dietary advice the manosphere/RFK Jr. is pushing: keto, carnivore, MORE PROTEIN, etc.
They get hilariously defensive when I tell them “I don’t do fad diets”.
…I don’t think I’ve ever met a man in real life that ate a fad diet. They eat hamburger helper and take out.
Oh how I hate the whole idea of detox and clean as it relates to nutrition. I worked at a health food store when I was young and while there was good nutritious food there, plenty of good people, the whole idea of ‘clean’ comes from a very dark place. I remember the raw foods guys and the idea of breathetarians. Like the less physical and embodied you were, the better person you were, enlightened. The idea of the physical world being unclean and something you should try to be free of, I hate it.
It really is more of a religious idea than anything to do with physical health. I think you have to enjoy being embodied, love the physical plane of existence, to have a healthy body. Not perfect.
ETA: OMG another comment reminded me. Also the colonics people trying to get literally clean inside, horrified at the stuff that came out of them, convinced it was toxic. I’m sure they are all dead by now.
I read a thing recently that argued that “purity” is one of the most distinctive thematic motifs in fascistic thinking, and examined how that is a means by which people can slide into right wing ideologies from an initially left wing position.
It was striking because it made it clock for me why there seems to be a “crunchy eco-leftist turns right wing” pipeline. To attempt to summarise some of the article and my own thoughts following it: A purity oriented framework of health situates “toxins” and the like as the Big Bad Other. Many of us are aware of how dangerous the notion of a Big Bad Other is if we’re thinking about people, but it can creep up with us in contexts like this because it doesn’t seem harmful initially. However, by thinking about health in this way, we train ourselves to think in terms of the Big Bad Other, and condition ourselves towards thinking about things in a black and white manner.
I worked at a vitamin store chain owned by the parents of a college friend of mine (who is now worth $34 million lol - that chain has turned into a miniature Whole Foods) for a few months. I remember one customer came in because she was going through a divorce, and the cashier said “oh, you need St. John’s Wort for that”. Nobody there thought this was unusual in any way.
Also knew a guy in college who claimed to be a Breathitarian. We caught him at the Ponderosa steak house in the next town over one night.
I remember one customer came in because she was going through a divorce, and the cashier said “oh, you need St. John’s Wort for that”.
Capitalist witch woman gives antidepressants
Also: Replace “super” (as in “superfood”) with “sacred” and it works just as well.
I’m a personal trainer with certifications in fitness nutrition (I’m not a dietitian, those are actual licensed medical practitioners you go to see about dietary needs. I can legally provide guidelines, but I can’t prescribe meal plans.)
Our body is great at getting rid of toxins and waste products. It’s almost as if we’ve evolved ways of dealing with such things. Anyone talking about “toxins” and “waste products” as if they’re ‘stuck’ in your body is either very ignorant, or trying to sell you snake oil. Probably both. I’ve seen a lot of it, especially in my profession. People making up bullshit to sound knowledgeable and sell you something you don’t need. And yeah, a lot of trainers are just as ignorant and just trying to sell you something you don’t need.
EDIT: In case anyone wants to sink their teeth into the topic, there’s a very good book I read as part of my course work, called “Nutrition, 6th Edition” by Dr. Paul Insel; Don Ross; Kimberley McMahon; Melissa Bernstein. It’s all very well sourced and kept up to date as modern science catches up. Available on AA if you don’t want to buy it.
Wouldn’t the only really possible “cleanse” be something like water fasting or similar since you wouldn’t be taking in more of the so-called “toxins” (well I guess it does technically exist like alcohol but that gets metabolized)?
Unless, those are microplastics, which are probably something that will always be there for us.
They’ve detected microplastics in breast milk. You know what that means? It’s time to start living up to our name as mammals.
We hormonally induce lactation for everyone. All the time. Just leech out those microplastics. Nips into 3d printers.
That is not what I wanted those used for.
I walked into my break room at work a couple of years ago and overheard some of my female coworkers complaining about the formula shortage. I asked if they’d ever thought about breastfeeding and they looked at me like I’d just grown a second head. I get that some women here and there might need a supplement for this, but the idea that feeding babies canned formula should be the norm is completely insane.
Breast feeding is a huge amount of work, asking a person to do that and have a job is a big deal. Pumping breastmilk is incompatible with lots of jobs. If they have already stopped breastfeeding they may not be able to restart.
It would be great to live in a society where breastfeeding was normal and easy. Society is crazy and women shouldn’t be criticised for trying to exist within it.
We’re school bus drivers lol. We work four hours a day.
Hey son, just don’t eat for 4 hours…
It’s not that simple, like at all. There are loads of other things to take into account too.
Sadly, the energy cost of making all that milk would require us to eat more, taking in more plastics.
I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?
The hucow revolution awaits!
Potential downside: For a while the world is gonna smell like curdled milk.
When life hands you curdled milk it’s time to make cheese
Microplaatic cheese
Yeah the dude is really wrong.
Your body is good at filtering out hydrophilic toxins. But for just about every other toxin… Not so much. Most hydrophobic toxins and other toxins, like heavy metals, VOCs, pesticides, micro plastics, etc., are man made and your body hasn’t had millions of years to evolve natural filters.
Yeah, valerian root ain’t getting rid of your microplastics buildup.
Don’t forget the heavy metals!
Those are also worth taking into account. Mercury in seafood, for example. Some can be excreted by the human body, others can’t.
Anyone talking about “toxins” and “waste products” as if they’re ‘stuck’ in your body is either very ignorant, or trying to sell you snake oil.
Some can be excreted by the human body, others can’t.
You contradicted yourself. The latter quote is true.
Heavy metal is good for you. Gets you moving and can be cathartic. I prefer stoner, doom, or deathcore myself though. Load my body up with those types of metal.
Heavy metal is good for you.
Eh, the Moebius stuff was great but a lot of the material just pandered to adolescent boys.
Moebius and Giger and Jodorowsky!
Yeah, what do people mean “toxins are pseudoscience”?
What are microplastics, heavy metals, and PTFAs, then???
You should to regularly
letdonate blood to expell thebad humorsmicroplastics.That’s right, pass those microplastics along to the cancer babies! (Seriously though, DONATE BLOOD.)
In serious, most ways to loose blood and need blood infusions will loose the plastics too, so the donated blood just maintains the concentrations, the samw way it does for the other components.
Everyone has plastics in their blood.But then if you donate frequently your blood will have lower concentrations due to all the previous donations, so don’t just donate, donate often.
AFAIK, still no conclusive studies that show microplastics having an overly adverse affect on the human body. I’ve seen one linking it to lower sperm counts, but that’s not particularly bad to me. We don’t need more people.
The big scare with microplastics is that they are everywhere and that certainly isn’t good; and I think we’re all just waiting for the shoe to drop and some study to come out that shows something majorly negative with them. But for now, there’s nothing obvious sticking out that shows an immediate concern. Which makes sense. We use plastic for so much because it tends not to react to stuff.
Because they are so ubiquitous that it is impossible to find a control group. Quite literally every single person on the planet has micro plastics in them.
AFAIK, still no conclusive studies that show microplastics having an overly adverse affect on the human body
The problem is that we’ll never know because there’s no control group. Everybody has them, even fetuses still in the womb. You would have to build bunkers with perfect air filtering, and then go through, like, four generations of humans to breed microplastics-free specimen, which you could then use a the control group for the rest… Only them never leaving the bunker would already invalidate the tests… So, yeah…
If micro plastics were a problem then we should expect to see rapid increases in cancers in younger adults.
Handed a note
Huh. No shit.
Though even that is complicated by 50 or so years of nuclear weapons testing, which likely also increased cancer rates. Not to mention all that lead everywhere. Produce gradually losing nutrients because farming mostly just focuses on the big three with fertilizer and the others are being mined out of the ground and sent to landfills, septic tanks, waste processing facilities, cemetaries, and crematoriums also doesn’t help (though I’m not sure waste processing and crematoriums remove those nutrients from the cycle like the others, since the one could produce fertilizer and the other might be sending it out into the atmosphere where it could eventually end up back in the soil).
There’s so much chaos that it’s hard to isolate causes, which then makes all the causes kinda “hide in plain sight” because they can perpetually blame the others and shit only gets worse over time.
We haven’t noticed much in the way of short term effects, but there’s no way to know what long term effects there will be except to wait.
In the meantime, since the effects are… unlikely to be beneficial, the best thing to do is reduce exposure as much as possible.
Good point, those exist. I don’t think we know yet what all of the consequences are, but they’re obviously not good for us.
There are bio-accumulative toxins that really do get stuck in your body. Lead is a good example. Not that the supposed cures being peddled by these people can actually do anything about those.
Also, for the normal kind of toxin, the biggest factor keeping the levels in your body high is continued intake. Reducing that totally makes sense. However, you need to first have a real, based on science, understanding of what those toxins are in the first place and not just randomly blame junk food or 5G radiation, and it needs to be a permanent life style change. A two week “cleanse” does nothing. A juice will not detoxify you. (Depending on the juice, especially how filtered and how sugary it is, it may be healthy for other reasons. Standard orange juice is not, it’s way too sugary.)
There are bioaccumulative toxins, but nothing over the counter sold in a plastic tub by some guy in a tank top will get rid of them. And some, like lead, have symptoms that are not reversible. Lead poisoning is a lifelong condition. So a magical “detoxifying” shoe insole or smoothie additive isn’t going to do much. I think @nightshade@piefed.social 's point remains that any toxins that stay in the body are either gone for good after a short time, or there to stay.
Chelators are sold over the counter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-way-to-detox-from-heavy-metals/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
You put it better than I did. Thanks.
You make good points. I guess what I really wanted to say is that 90% of the time when people talk about toxins and try to offer up a solution, they don’t even know what they’re trying to talk about. There certainly are substances that bio-accumulate. And as you say, understanding what is actually there, what can be measured, what is problematic, and then reducing intake should be key in solving the issue.
Another thing I think is important to understand is that the science is continually evolving. I’ve encountered plenty of doctors who insist you should eliminate saturated fat from your diet as much as you can, and that’s key to reducing your odds of heart disease. This is the old hypothetical model of heart disease. Modern studies tend not to agree. But people are still being told the same old things.
Bro you ever try to make money selling horse radish extract? You gotta find creative ways to convince people to buy your product. 100% a marketing scheme.
Speaking of marketing scheme, I still have a laugh when people think the air fryer is the greatest kitchen equipment ever and so healthy because there’s no oil used.
It’s a bench top conventional oven.
It’s a bench top conventional oven.
With a fan!
Bro clearly isn’t getting enough protein.
Nah bro I’m a Paleolithic human so I eat my burger without a bun.
You still cooking your patties? Amateur. 🥱
The funny thing, the truly funny thing, Is that many people reading this will assume their assumptions about nutrition are fact based and everybody else’s is pseudoscience. Examining the data on your own biases is critical for any standing in science.
what’s a common assumption about nutrition that’s not true?
I agree, and I’d add that it’s important to realize that what was considered fact 20 years ago might not be the same today. So we should be going based off what appears relevant today.
Pseudo-dermatology is also not very far away. The gap between what dermatologists and influencers say would be hilarious if gullible teenagers weren’t spending ridiculous amounts of money ruining their own skin.
The one that had me cry-laughing was the “sun your genitals” fad that lasted what, a week?
I lost a ton of weight and that gave me the courage to go to the nude beach. That day I got exactly 30 seconds of sun on my cock and that was enough to sunburn my knob. Itch/burn for days. There’s a reason it’s known as *where the sun don’t shine". Can’t imagine what it was like for the dopes that gave themselves 15 minutes under the Cali sun.
A lot of people go to nude beaches often and don’t have that problem. Did you use sunscreen?
No I’m saying it was the 1st time my cock had seen direct sun.
I mean come on… Try to read and understand
All over the place, we’re dealing with people who Do Not Get science, because they don’t really inhabit an objective reality. They’re doing the same woo-woo nonsense humanity has always done. It’s all just stories and belief. The signifiers just changed from headdresses to lab coats, and the jargon has a bit more Latin.
Shout out to “alkaline water”.
I loved it when Gwyneth Paltrow said she drinks alkaline water for the health benefits… with a slice of lemon.
With a squeeze of lemon!
The number of people that don’t believe that taking in fewer calories than you put out will cause you to lose weight still astounds me. Your body isn’t some magic device that doesn’t have to obey the laws of physics.
What do you think about keto?
Basically it’s “ditch all sugar”, and the idea is that when you eat sugar, as it’s toxic, the body tries to use up the energy from sugar, storing the rest for later. And vice versa, if you have no fastburning sugar, the bidy have to start to rely on breaking down that stored fat.
Of course, you cannot overcome physics, but it’s not like we don’t store everything we eat either (the body is fantastic but not like 100% efficient).
Some say you just eat less, and it’s true that it’s harder to cook without potatoes, rice, pasta… And sugar makes you want to eat more.
It’s fascinating because we don’t know more than around 10-15% of how metabolism works.
++ Keto works because its keeps insulin levels from going high, when insulin is high the body simply cannot metabolize stored fat (at all).
Doing low calorie works by itself, but its hard mode, eating a bunch of insulin spiking meals throughout the day makes it much harder to burn through that sugar, lower the insulin, and eventually metabolize stored fat.
Whilst this is true; your body does have some pretty neat tricks to maintain homeostasis; it can shift the energy budget around quite a bit to where it is needed.
Your body will down regulate some systems to try to keep your total energy balance within what is “normal” for each person.
Digestion uses quite a bit of energy; this is why sometimes you feel sleepy after eating; your brain has been down regulated to enable digestion.
Another common example is when runners get into “the zone”; this is your brain prioritising the required processes and reducing the energy of other parts, putting you into a semi trance…this is so your body can maintain an energy balance.
It is also why we sometimes feel sick if exercising hard and then eat quickly afterward; your gut is not ready for that job.
High energy process that can be “switched off” or at least significantly reduced:
- Brain processes (up to 25% of your energy budget)
- Immune system (~20% when fighting infection)
- Digestion (dependent on food 3[sugar] - 30[protein]% of food energy)
Just because you have done some exercise; doesn’t mean you have used more total energy that day…it seems counter intuitive; but your body likely shifted energy from one thing (immune system, brain) to muscles, for the time your were exercising.
In saying that exercising is so good for other things; physical and mental health are enhanced by exercise, there are so many good things about exercise, just don’t rely on it for weight loss.
As the old saying goes “you can’t out run a bad diet”; you are correct, if over the long term you eat fewer calories than your body requires, you will see an effect. But your body is a tricksy beast, it will do all it can to prevent this; it is why dieting is so hard in an age of abundant food.
Also people tend to focus too much on the “losing weight” part, as in getting the numbers down. Muscle weights more than fat, and having more muscles uses more energy; if you diet the wrong way and don’t exercise, it’s possible you lose weight but you also lose muscle mass, making it even harder to lose more weight and possibly making yourself unhealthier. Getting “thinner” and/or “healthier” might mean you don’t actually lose that much weight, or even gain some
I try to focus on outcomes.
E.g. it takes me 28 minutes to bike too work, next month I want it to be around 25…in a few months it would need nice to be at 20 minutes.
if people are so concerned , they should have thier routine blood test from the doctor every year. usually its covered as a preventative. tryglycerides, LDL/HDL, cholesterol, HBA1C, glucose average. also thyroid.
Some people mistake healthier with less calories.
I switched from a box of Little Debbie’s a day to a bag of trail mix! Why can’t I lose weight?
That olive oil you’re using is good for you, sure, but it’s not a freebee. It has calories. Things like this are often not even noticed or counted.
Tracking calories accurately is a balance between good data and time investment.
I didn’t usually count oils and fats when I made food because I use so little. But I also wouldn’t worry much about very low calorie vegetables either.
To be fair though my goal was to gain weight and meet macros, not to lose weight.
But either way at the end of the day even with really good apps making counting calories way easier than it used to be, there’s still a line that needs to be drawn somewhere as to what your time is worth. If you’re in the ballpark you’re good unless you have very explicit needs to get more detailed data.
Tracking calories accurately is a balance between good data and time investment.
Absolutely true, and getting good data is really, really hard. In fact, the nutritional content on food labels (in the USA) is allowed to be over by as much as 20% by the FDA.
In addition to that the processes and formulas used to calculate those numbers are also far from precise .
The most accurate method to measure energy and calories in food is called a bomb calorimeter, Li said. The process works on the theory that when one thing releases heat — in this case, food — it’s absorbed by another, in this case whoever is digesting that food, as energy.
To make this calculation, food scientists seal a piece of food in a pressurized, oxygen-filled steel container — the “bomb.” That container is encased in an insulated box filled with water.
The scientists light the food on fire and let it burn completely. Then, they take the temperature of the water. They use an equation to tell them how much energy — and therefore calories — are in that piece of food, based on how much the burning piece of food raised the temperature of the water surrounding it.
However, this is only an estimate because not everything that burns and releases energy to heat the water can be digested by a person eating it. Fiber, for example, burns in the calorimeter but will just pass through your digestive system without giving up its energy.
Many food companies don’t even test food like this. They simply estimate the calorie content based on the number of grams of fat, carbs, and proteins in the food. Still, unless and until someone comes up with a better way to determine the calories in a given measure of food, it’s the best system we’ve got.
I’d also be willing to bet that the actual amount of calories someone gets from different kinds of food is dependent on their gut biome, and thus variable between people. Ime you really need to experiment on yourself to get a good idea of what will make you lose weight. Same probably applies if you’re underweight and trying to gain.
I’ll just keep repeating this, but your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is not scientifically set in stone.
While it’s accurate for I would say 90% of the population, rough estimate, there are many things that can cause your BMR to not be accurate, like thyroid issues or lack of musculature due to sedentary lifestyle or due to hormone imbalances or any number of myriad things.
I went and had mine tested and it cost me I believe $70 at a sports medicine place, and I burn approximately 200 calories less than my BMR chart says that I should.
So if I wanted to maintain my weight, and I ate the calories the internet says that I should every day, I would actually gain almost 20 lbs a year (a nice rough estimate is every 10 calories a day you cut from your diet you lose one pound a year).
And as I am working on losing weight, and I’m eating 500 calories under my BMR, I’m actually only eating 300 calories under my true BMR, which means my weight loss is incredibly slow.
So yes, while calories and calories out is true, there are external factors that make it difficult to get accurate numbers to compare against.
Therefore calories in calories out is much simpler to say than it is to do for some percentage of the population.
Not only is it not set in stone, it appears that your BMR is affected by what you do. If not provided with sufficient nutrition, the body seems to adapt and lowers BMR.
Getting the numbers in practice can be difficult but that’s not the same as saying that CI/CO is bullshit, as many people do who don’t understand that it’s simple thermodynamics. If your fire isn’t producing enough heat, you add more wood. You don’t start to doubt that burning is exothermic.
The body isn’t a fire and food isn’t wood, so the analogy isn’t a very good one.
And even if it was, wood in a fire pit does not burn uniformly.
The type of wood, the quality of the wood, the contents of the wood all affect how fast it burns and how hot it burns.
Very dry pine wood burns incredibly hot and very fast, whereas damp maple may self-extinguish. It may not be capable of maintaining its own fire due to its moisture content and the density of the fibers in the wood.
And while you can look at the whole and say this amount of wood emitted this many BTUs of heat energy, you can’t say “this amount of wood being burned should emit this amount of heat in this period of time” when you’re not taking into consideration the type of wood, the quality of wood, and even how the logs are arranged.
Science is about controlling variables, and when you have too many variables that are not being taken account of, you cannot get an accurate scientific measurement of the results of your experiment.
And that’s not even taking into consideration the fact that the raw nutritional quality of foods grown in the western world at least has dropped precipitously, inducing people to eat more food to get the raw nutrition they need that’s not just calories.
We know that calories are comprised of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, and we can generally account for those, but the nutrition, the selenium, the zinc, the iron, the calcium, the phosphates, the everything else that makes up the food that we eat. If it’s not there in sufficient qualities to meet what our bodies are calling for, then it’s natural for us to overeat to attempt to fill in those nutritional deficiencies.
And when your brain has been fucked by not getting the nutrition it needs, and your body has been fucked by not getting the nutrition it needs, and your food has been fucked by not delivering the nutrition you need, then once you’re in that situation, it’s not as simple as, oh, just don’t eat that Twinkie.
So calories in, calories out is the truth.
Just like gravity is the truth.
But knowing the math, 9.8 meters a second squared, is not enough to go to the moon.
We literally burn sugar as fuel. Fires are just fast oxidation.
Yet, cico works.
You have completely missed the point of my entire rant.
Cico works, but “o” is a variable that can vary wildly from person to person, day to day based on environmental, genetic, and nutritional factors.
Yes. And you can carefully select the value for your case.
The only way to find it is to eat less and less until you lose weight tbh. Cico is vacuously true.
Cico is vacuously true.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vacuously
Showing a lack of thought or intelligence; vacant.
Surprisingly, I agree with you! CICO is lacking in thought and intelligence when applied to human metabolism.
The second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, humans are famously open what with their breathing, eating, pooping, and peeing.
CICO is like saying cars without fuel don’t move, so if overfill the tank you should park your car. It misses the point, and that is the hormonal drivers in human fat mobilization.
Sugar/Carbs drive blood glucose, which drives blood insulin, which shuts down fat mobilization. Yes, you can lose weight eating only sugar, but it’s making the entire process more difficult then it needs to be. For more details please see The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity - Beyond “Calories In, Calories Out” - 2018
Eating a tapeworm also makes you lose weight, doesn’t mean it’s healthy. Not everyone can starve themselves thin in a healthy way.
You don’t need to “starve” yourself. That journey can be milder (though longer).
This is what you’re not getting. Some people do. Just getting to the point of not feeling like they’re starving puts them over their calories out.
I can’t digest pork well (it runs right through me and frequently causes vomiting), so I don’t l eat it, but if I were to follow a diet with 500 calories of pork in it, I might get 100 from it. On the other hand, I digest beans and lentils incredibly well, with no noticeable gas. I can imagine that I might actually get 110 calories from a “100 calorie serving.” It is possible to determine your caloric intake despite this variation, but because people aren’t well educated about it, they see a mismatch in the math and reality and think it’s pointless to calculate it at all instead of realizing they need to adjust it for their specific digestive system.
