Started By
Message

re: Bio hacking?

Posted on 12/23/18 at 5:57 pm to
Posted by tiggerthetooth
Big Momma's House
Member since Oct 2010
64334 posts
Posted on 12/23/18 at 5:57 pm to
I let other people doing the bio hacking as test dummies.
Posted by LSUfan20005
Member since Sep 2012
9220 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 9:11 am to
Naiman and D'Agostino are pretty mainstream and make data-backed recommendations.

I consider "biohackers" crazy people like Dave Asprey and Ben Greenfield.
Posted by OleWarSkuleAlum
Huntsville, AL
Member since Dec 2013
10293 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 9:17 am to
quote:

I consider "biohackers" crazy people like Dave Asprey and Ben Greenfield.


Is greenfield the dude who does shrooms and DMT at the same time for the psychogenic effects and longevity?
Posted by Junky
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2005
9215 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 10:18 am to
Ben has his roots in triathlons and body building before that in college. He participated in Volek's UCONN FASTER study. He is a very smart individual and has great guests on his podcast. He's won many awards and actually walks the walk, completing the Spartan Delta which is tough as shite.

My only issue is he promotes a ton of shite that just isn't necessary. Supplements and equipment that one doesn't really need for health. I use to listen to his podcast regularly, then only the guests that interested me, now I hardly listen at all. I give him credit because some random reddit user linked his podcast on a sub that started my journey. I know he has dabbled in DMT and the like, however I am not sure he promotes it.
Posted by lsu777
Lake Charles
Member since Jan 2004
37910 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 11:19 am to
Some of you just like to make stuff up just like the people you follow. Science be damned.
This post was edited on 12/24/18 at 11:20 am
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
35290 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 11:51 am to
quote:

just like the people you follow


who dat? A long list of MDs and PhDs who are experts in their fields?

This is why i dropped off this board. It's the same dumb "debate" all the time.

you're going to tell me "there's no thermogenic benefit to ketosis," "just like the people you follow," and I'm going to ask you to tell me what that means, and you're going to say a calorie is a calorie and i'm going to say, sure but BANANA. it's also 4184 Joules.

so exhausting.

in addition to a long list of "secondary" reasons why a calorie isn't a calorie, from metabolic dysregulation caused by things like high fructose corn syrup, to vagus nerve dysfunction, to NAFLD (it's a little hard to burn calories without vital organs)--the substance of the calories you eat very much affect the efficiency of your body in turning food into energy.

(And I'm skipping satiety and such here.)

Then there's this recent Harvard study published in BMJ:
Effects of a low carbohydrate diet on energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance: randomized trial

quote:

Results Total energy expenditure differed by diet in the intention-to-treat analysis (n=162, P=0.002), with a linear trend of 52 kcal/d (95% confidence interval 23 to 82) for every 10% decrease in the contribution of carbohydrate to total energy intake (1 kcal=4.18 kJ=0.00418 MJ). Change in total energy expenditure was 91 kcal/d (95% confidence interval -29 to 210) greater in participants assigned to the moderate carbohydrate diet and 209 kcal/d (91 to 326) greater in those assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with the high carbohydrate diet. In the per protocol analysis (n=120, P<0.001), the respective differences were 131 kcal/d (-6 to 267) and 278 kcal/d (144 to 411). Among participants in the highest third of pre-weight loss insulin secretion, the difference between the low and high carbohydrate diet was 308 kcal/d in the intention-to-treat analysis and 478 kcal/d in the per protocol analysis (P<0.004). Ghrelin was significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with those assigned to the high carbohydrate diet (both analyses). Leptin was also significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet (per protocol). Conclusions Consistent with the carbohydrate-insulin model, lowering dietary carbohydrate increased energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance. This metabolic effect may improve the success of obesity treatment, especially among those with high insulin secretion.


I think you know I'm not a dogmatic keto proponent. But I can't believe we're even still having the CICO debate.

eta: i think the easiest way to settle what i believe to be a non-debate over terminology is for me to acknowledge that the "O" in CICO accounts for all of this. Consider it done and debate over. (But the common use of the term "CICO" isn't that nuanced.)

This post was edited on 12/24/18 at 12:00 pm
Posted by Andychapman13
Member since Jun 2016
2728 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

Some of you just like to make stuff up just like the people you follow. Science be damned.

I guess we could be like you and follow the advice of a 60 year fat doctor who graduated Med School in the 80’s, offers no advice on diet whatsoever, and watch cooking shows with the wife instead of educating ourselves on new age nutrition and exercise science.
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 1:13 pm to
quote:

I guess we could be like you and follow the advice of a 60 year fat doctor who graduated Med School in the 80’s, offers no advice on diet whatsoever, and watch cooking shows with the wife instead of educating ourselves on new age nutrition and exercise science.


Is the option that vs following a relatively big boned YouTuber who advocates drinking your own urine?

I say it a lot, if keto works for you, go for it. Good for you. That doesn't mean you have to attack all other means and argue your way is the only scientifically valid one.

777 is clearly one of, if not the, most educated guys in fitness and nutrition on this board. I'd take his takes over someone parroting a keto doc. The "my doc is better than yojr doc" argument is silly.
Posted by Andychapman13
Member since Jun 2016
2728 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 2:17 pm to
I’m not a Keto guy, don’t find it to really be a healthy long term option. And I’m not into the Ben Greenfield drink your own urine extreme either, but I do find intermittent fasting, eating a heavily alkaline based diet, and meditation to accompany the triathlon training I’m doing a WAYYYY better option than relying on the modern healthcare industry in America to point me in the right direction. The scientists that advocate for this stuff and explain positions on YouTube or wherever it be, at least give people an option to educate themselves. I don’t know 777, I come from a world where we use real names, like Andy Chapman, but why bash a discussion about what works for you?
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 2:43 pm to
I'm not bashing discussion, I don't see the point in criticizing 777 because he disagrees with some of the premises in this thread.

Maybe it's a bigger issue in other threads than these, but there's a lot of criticism on this board of so called "mainstream" ideas among keto advocates, etc. Approaches like calories in vs calories expended have plenty of research too.

In terms of the basic discussion, I'm not trying to bash people who want to explore roads less traveled. I just don't see the point in criticizing 777 for pointing to some roads more traveled.

I have a lot of respect for 777 because he gives away a ton of free info on this site. The greyskull thread, etc., there's a ton info people would pay good money for he's giving away. He regularly cites scientific backup for training and nutrition. I don't know him except as a name on this board, but that name puts out great info.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
35290 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

 is clearly one of, if not the, most educated guys in fitness and nutrition on this board. I'd take his takes over someone parroting a keto doc. The "my doc is better than yojr doc" argument is silly


Who is parroting what "keto doc"?

And you're sort of doing exactly what you are deriding here.

Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 3:49 pm to
quote:

Who is parroting what "keto doc"? 

And you're sort of doing exactly what you are deriding here. 


On p. 1, Olewarskule has a post that says "Dr. Fung disagrees with you" a link to Dr. Fung and nothing else. I'd say that's parroting.

I've tried to take pains to say that I'm not attacking any style, just that I'm not a fan of a lack of openness to other styles. I am personally not a keto fan, but if it works for others, great. If that's not enough for people to feel like I'm not attacking their personal favorite, I don't know what else I can do.

If something has a decent scientific basis and you can stick to it, there's no issue.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
35290 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

If something has a decent scientific basis and you can stick to it, there's no issue.


Gotcha. I agree.
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 5:05 pm to
That's something I've pushed a ton. There are a variety of ideas that have scientific backing. They only work if you stick to them.

Which one of the methods you use matters less than compliance with it. For me, calorie restriction works fine and I can do it for a while. I even cycle carbs for a little extra effect.

I'm not trying to shoot down other valid means, just when 777 talks about calories in/out, I have had success with that and I'm not a huge fan of pushing it aside.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
35290 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 6:07 pm to
My problem w CICO as a focus for people writ large (pardon pun), is it doesn't help w the how. Clearly we need something more than "eat less; move more."

As a general rule, yes, most everyone has the physical ability to count caloric intake and expenditure. But I think this fails as a cure for our obesity and metabolic public health crises.

Also, as I mentioned, CICO doesn't address things like nafld, which while not directly a weight loss issue, obviously is a metabolic issue and if you study the trends especially w children, it is no bueno.

So I just think CICO is a meh metric overall. But yes I understand Newton's first.
Posted by Hulkklogan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2010
43482 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 7:18 pm to
I think that's a fair point, but it all boils does to CICO, issues or not. The body is not a closed system and can vary widely from one person to the next, so CICO is not a perfect science, nor is it meant to be. It's a tool, just like any other dietary strategy. Most of the dietary ailments we see are significantly improved or eliminated solely by being in a caloric deficit.

If someone's got issues that slows the out portion, then they need help from medical professionals (which may in fact restrict the diet)

I'm reading Layne Norton's new book about fat loss and it is awesome. They nerd out in the science, going as far as demonstrating the actual chemical processes that occur. It goes a bit above my head with that but it's interesting all the same.
This post was edited on 12/24/18 at 7:24 pm
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/24/18 at 8:08 pm to
I don't disagree there are strategies to make calories in/out more efficient.

My experience has just been that a ton of people fail that basic step. They consistently eat more than they burn and then don't get results. I've seen a lot of people who really don't know how many calories they're getting per day, period.

Nailing down those baselines helps you be ready for that next step, optimizing calories in and out. That's where timing of meals, carbs vs fat vs protein, etc kicks in heavily.

It's why I've talked about diets like keto achieving weight loss not only by being keto but restricting overall calories because it's hard to eat that much meat. There are usually a number of mechanisms in play in most weight loss strategies.
Posted by lsu777
Lake Charles
Member since Jan 2004
37910 posts
Posted on 12/25/18 at 12:52 pm to
quote:


I guess we could be like you and follow the advice of a 60 year fat doctor who graduated Med School in the 80’s, offers no advice on diet whatsoever, and watch cooking shows with the wife instead of educating ourselves on new age nutrition and exercise science.


Yea that's what I am doing. There is no new age nutrition and keto/low carb has been arpund since the 70s. A macro is still a macro, a calorie is still a calorie despite what some might want you to believe (talk about moving the goal post, we can't prove what we preach so we will just say you are measuring it wrong )

Intermittent fasting doesn't offer much of the cell turnover benefits until minimum of 72 hours so you aren't getting a ton of the benefits from IF. It is an effective tool to control calories though.

But continue spouting off about this or that when over 80% of health benefits come from strictly losing the weight loss(this is on average).

I have posted all of these studies and meta analysis plenty of times.

Hell the person that literally wrote the book on the ketogenic diet, Lyle McDonald, says the exact same thing as me. It's a tool.

You have approximately the same adherence rates between keto and iso-caloric diets.

The only advantage to keto is long term people tend to inadvertently lower calorie consumption over time on keto.

And before any of y'all spout off, learn to understand diet induced thermogensis and the thermal effect of protein and understand when these are accounted for, there is no thermic advantage that we know of with keto.

With all that said I personally use keto and IF. I usually recommend min of 50% protein and to keep DIT high. I usually recommend carbs only after working out. I can't prove carb cycling works nor at this time can I prove 16 hours of fasting burns more calories. I can prove a small thermo bump for carbs after working out but in the end it doesn't matter.

Like so many fail to understand that even my way is not the right way. There is no right way. The right way is what ever allows people to be consistent. Stop spouting bullshite

Now there are some small health benefits even to 16 hour fast but not a ton. There are some small health benefits from keto and some get more benefits then others. But again it's all about consistency more than others.

But hey continue to assume I don't know what I talking about while listening to hacks like Dr Fung.
Posted by lsu777
Lake Charles
Member since Jan 2004
37910 posts
Posted on 12/25/18 at 1:12 pm to
Btw merry Christmas to everyone and I mean that. No matter what our differences are on diets, that is trival to all that is important in life. We are all trying to achieve the second thing just through different paths. I hope everyone of you is touched in some way and has a very special holiday season.
Posted by Andychapman13
Member since Jun 2016
2728 posts
Posted on 12/25/18 at 1:13 pm to
I didn’t say you don’t know what you’re talking about, but I hav no idea who the frick you really are as a real person in real life. My name is Andy Chapman, google “Andrew Chapman Powershack” and you can see what I actually looked like when I was winning building body building competitions. Google a little more and you can see I had a professional mixed martial arts career, won a national championship in Jiu-Jitsu, and held the record for the most pin in the history of LA HS wrestling. Who the frick are you in real life?!?! Now I compete in Half Ironmans and Full Ironmans and the intermittent fasting helps both my endurance, my rest and recovery, and keeps my weight down. I’ve dealt with multiple injuries over the years and can testify to the benefits TB500 and BPC157 have on recovery. I don’t knock “whatever the frick it is LSU777 does”, I’m just saying don’t call all anything out of the mainstream as bullshite. OleWarSchool can talk about his experience with Keto Diet bc he’s done it for a while. We don’t come here to read someone repeating some bullshite science, which seem to believe hasn’t evolved over the past 40 years, we come to share our experiences with new health and diet methods.
This post was edited on 12/25/18 at 2:05 pm
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram