What is causing all the Metabolic Dysfunction?

nostr:npub14am887cf6kvwkce89nt7dsw3v9qrrn0uppxyvr6a2jd7xdwuwccqwnudp2 thinks it is linoleic acid in the mitochondria. If linoleic acid is a problem, then the following foods are bad for you: wheat, corn, walnuts, soy, sesame seeds, pumkin seeds, rice, pistachios, almonds, canoia oil, commercial chickens, peanuts, ... all of which the fat portion has >20% LA. Even egg yolks are 16%. It is hard for me to believe that the natural foods in that list are causing the metabolic problem.

My hypothesis is that humanity's romance with chemistry has produced thousands of variations of endocrine disruptors which are now all throughout or food, water and soil, and especially in plastics. People know about BPA, but all those "BPA-free" plastics just have different endocrine disruptors, possibly much worse ones. You can improve by sticking to natural and organic foods and using glass containers. But you can't eliminate your exposure.

Of cousre these are both just hypotheses with no good evidence behind them.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I’m no expert but isn’t the oxidized version that’s mostly the problem?

oxidative stress, but not all oxidation reduction reactions are terrible. :)

So natural LA shouldn’t be all that terrible 🤷‍♂️

I’d like to see what research people point to when making their claims …

A lot of NIH research and FASEB research I've seen in the past has been questionable, science especially compromised when you look at who is sponsoring the poster. And then there's the whole editors at journals like Science and Nature that have been compromised, with giant paywalls and lot of good research that just went suppressed. There's some really good stuff in alternative and ancient eastern medicine, but its not mainstream popular so *shrug*

They were cooking with oil in ancient eastern times?

i was just generalizing when you said "research" i kinda got triggered, lol sorry

Oh ok

I agree the bias can be questionable. But everything we do is based on verifiable science. We have all to thank scientific method. We can’t just throw it away simply because there may be bias and influence involved.

Is it verifiable? There are a lot of papers that have published results that aren't. I'm not saying "throw it away", but the trend since peer review came into existing has caused a lot of areas to stagnate into an echo chamber or compromised by big pharma. I'm not the only one who thinks so, lemme find a link

If I’m not mistaken science by definition must be verifiable. If you can’t replicate the results in other studies then you should question that study.

It’s all compromised by big pharma sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory, the likes of which are sadly prevalent among government distrusting people.

Source of funds alone is not enough to say it’s junk science. People still have individual integrity. Can it be influenced? Absolutely. Always? Meh, I’d say no.

What does this tell me? Did the studies get replicated? That’s all I really care about. There are thousands of studies coming out all the time. Many will be shit. Should not be surprising.

This sounds like a fluff piece tbh.

We don’t point to studies and say “look, told you so”. We treat them as data points to inform decision making.

yes, do your own research. get your own lab if you can afford it, but few can.

It costs ~500k -1 million starters to set up a decent lab and that doesn't even begin to stack up the raw material costs.

great if you can afford to verify the papers, i'd like to see more independently funded labs do it. but most have foundations or universities that back them, and then all the politicking that comes into play.

Dropping links to one thing claiming wide disfunction doesn’t prove anything. It’s probably just one shitty opinion among the shit opinions drawn from stupid observations.

Not saying it is for sure but anyone can say anything. That piece you linked is full of probably

of course, that's making the assumption you think I don't really know anything about the research industry.

I’m not making any assumptions about you personally.

i know, just giving you a hard time *hug*

I’m just chatting ;)

Stop being friendly! I've got my popcorn ready, I want to see a fight!

Says the guy who once said he doesn't like conflict 😂

'cause I know it's not real

I would encourage you to lean about logical fallacies and then apply that lense to everything you read. Or just use existing tools that can highlight them for you. LLMs are great at this

There's a lot of shit, yep :D

Also consider the cost to verify lab science. Its easy to verify stuff in software. but is insanely expensive to verify a lot in some sectors of material sci/eng, biochem/biophys. Throwing up a lab independent of who is funding it is next to impossible for the avg citizen. Plus one can't control the raw materials in the same way

This is a major crux of the problem, affording the equipment that standardizes the process. One could even make an argument that there is emphasis on requiring these machines to already make reproducibility difficult. Then you throw into the mix the incentives against reproducing in favor for novel research (you're not going to get funding to reproduce other's work), and the bias against publishing negative results.

100%

Peer Review has created a back scratching culture. those who speak about it often get punished for it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ

https://podcastnotes.org/portal-with-eric-weinstein/bret-eric-weinstein-portal-lab-mice-telomeres/

CDC/FDA/Big Pharma/NIH/Grant funded research all in bed with each other. You wanna keep your job in research? bend the knee. Unless you are independently wealthy and go fund your own thing, and they'll probably try to murder you along the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6BuSjwP4o

@Elvesier

Paywall bitch.

Spike protein. From the intervention, planting mrna anywhere in the body, including long lived immune cells.

The rise in metabolic dysfunction long predated MRNA interventions.

plastics, microplastics yes possible

CO2 goes up, but temperature lags. SO2 reduces temperature, but levels decline. Something new is moderating global temperature, and there must be a lot of it. ✈️

As an aside, I have two other interesting medical hypotheses.

First, I do not believe that metabolic syndrome (defined as a cluster of 5 symptoms) is caused by blood sugar issues. The reason is that back when I was 30, doctors were certain I was about to become diabetic. 25 years later that still has not happened and my blood sugar levels are still great (hba1c around 5%). I have ALL of the OTHER metabolic syndrome features though: low HDLs, high triglycerides, large waist circumference, and hypertension. That is why they were so sure I was going diabetic. Anyhow, my theory is that obesity eventually causes pancreatic dysfunction, and that eventually causes blood sugar issues and diabetes. But the weight where this trips is highly individually variable. And that the other metabolic syndrome features are independently caused by obesity and also other things... for example, low HDL can be genetic, as can large waist circumference, as can high cholesterol. I had hypertention since I was 9 years old and thin just like every other kid, so that can be caused by something else too. So the causation path is not that the cluster of symptoms causes diabetes, but just that it is associated. Most people with that cluster of symptoms got there by overeating which leads to diabetes, but you can have those symptoms for other reasons.

My second hypothesis is that methionine restriction extends life. This happens because methionine is the start codon. All transcription is gated by it. And so if it is in short supply, all transcription slow down in equal proportion, which essentially means slower aging. The evidence for this is that vegans live longer, and vegans don't eat high methionine foods (for example: cheese, fish). It is a simple and elegant hypothesis, but I have no way to test it, and this isn't my field of expertise. Contrary evidence would be that pescetarians apparently live longer than vegans.

no comment on your second theory but your first theory is not exactly groundbreaking.

every person has a set point weight beyond which they do not gain weight even if they do not diet or exercise - this is simply the maximum amount of fat your body can hold. when you are at that point ( which varies by individual ) your body cannot regulate anything because to regulate it must have ability to increase and decrease fat stores as needed but when it's at max it can't increse and can't regulate - so it begins to take damage.

metabolic syndrome is simply an umbrella term for all sorts of bad shit associated with this downward spiral. metabolic syndrome doesn't imply what causes what - only that things like hypertension, large waist, high blood sugar and heart disease cluster together.

overeating is the cause. it causes the large waist. and that causes everything else.

that doesn't mean you can't be born with high blood pressure that is just there for no reason.

in MY case i only have high blood pressure when i am overweight - and it drops when i diet.

essentially to be healthy you should be:

- hungry most of the time

- often physically tired from activity

- rarely sleep deprived and never for more than 2 days in a row

nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c

Yes

actually i will comment on your second theory as well.

the reason vegans live longer is HEALTHY USER BIAS.

that is vegans are HEALTH CONSCIOUS and in general WATCH WHAT THEY EAT whereas the average person DOES NOT.

i dated a vegan girl - she read the ingredients list from start to finish on every single food item she purchased. her brother ate mostly chicken breasts but they were both equally thin because they both took their diets seriously. the average American is fat.

the reason vegans live longer is because they are thin.

the reason they are thin is because they watch their diet.

the reason pescatarians live longer than vegans is because they also watch what they eat, but additionally they aren't vegan.

and besides, extending life shouldn't be the goal.

the goal should be to live better, and life extension should only come as a side effect of living better.

i literally DO NOT CARE if something extends life or not. i only care if it improves it.

no point in trying to stave off the inevitable. just make the best of time you have.

nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c nostr:npub1xy60n57p02ugl743zfag2ljftxh4s0ufpzu0wsmhdvng7hj5c0vqvx8w7v

Why not both? Long and good life is better than just-as-good but shorter life

naturallaw IZ LOVEflow*****i try2stay true* ./\/o judgement just/\/\E/E* relay*/*

imho

'both' IZ a good word/win++win

because generally they are mutually exclusive. in other words things that improve your life ( like steroids ) generally also make it shorter and things that extend your life ( like severe calorie restriction ) make you miserable.

the mistake most people make is they live lives that are both short AND miserable. for example if you eat junk food until full you will be miserable AND die early.

if you focus on living your best life by eating clean, staying active etc. you will feel good, enjoy respect of your peers and live a reasonably long life - probably 95% as long as what you could have had by being miserable using some kind of life extension hack.

i don't recommend taking steroids by the way, unless you have body dysmorphia. if you literally can't stand to see yourself in the mirror then take them, otherwise don't. chase happiness not years.

nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c

"If linoleic acid is a problem, then the following foods are bad for you: wheat, corn, walnuts, soy, sesame seeds, pumkin seeds, rice, pistachios, almonds, canoia oil, commercial chickens, peanuts, ... all of which the fat portion has >20% LA. Even egg yolks are 16%. It is hard for me to believe that the natural foods in that list are causing the metabolic problem."

let's take it one by one.

wheat - mechanically harvested, not "natural" food.

corn - GMO, mechanically harvested

walnuts - seasonal ( fatty acids remain in the body for months )

soy - mechanically harvested

sesame seeds - what percentage of fat do you think your ancestors got from sesame seeds ? i am going to go with zero.

pumpkin seeds - see sesame seeds.

rice - i don't know anybody who worries about fat content of rice.

pistachios - seasonal

almonds - seasonal

canola oil - GMO, mechanically harvested, mechanically processed

commercial chickens - fed a vegetarian grain diet instead of bugs and worms chickens are supposed to eat

peanuts - grow underground. i wonder how many people would dig into the ground to find them.

egg yolks - see chickens

all of your "natural foods" combined would represent maybe 10% of total fat intake in the diet of your ancestors. probably less.

most fat intake in human diet was from grass fed ( wild ) animals.

also THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON

it isn't that eating a walnut will kill you. it's that in a traditional human diet you would have 90% of fat from grass fed animals and maybe 1% from seeds. and in SAD ( standard american diet ) it's 90% from seeds and 1% from grass fed animals.

it's not really controversial.

f0db184eb8e1fb9812e1f324abee0852711a4541482e417cb07c2dad2d5bed49

Recall that arsenic can be used as a pesticide in organic farming and the produce still certified as organic and that in California organic kale has a much higher thallium level than “regular” kale.

This is not a criticism of “organic” produce but it is a reminder that life is often more complex than described.