@zack-vegas
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That’s awesome that the Strong Sistas brought Firebrand Meats. I like both them and Brad Marshall. Long term ownership of Firebrand seems like it would be in good hands with the Armstrongs, and I think Brad wants to focus on other things, he certainly had a lot going on. I need to try that pork out. I’ve wanted to for a while, and now that I’m in Arizona in a better situation, it probably time to put in an order.
It’s going great. I did actually buy a newer generator off Aliexpress (which is the Hacenor brand, and probably the same core unit as Higher Peak’s Mag-30). The volume of air the new machine puts out is much larger than the older one, in a similar time frame. It can also go to a much lower percentage of oxygen on the highest setting, about 8.5%, which is the equivalent of 6,700 meters, or 22,000 feet.
I also purchased an oxygen sensor. At the setting I’m currently at, it’s lowering to 15% oxygen in the tent overnight, which is equivalent to about 2700 meters or 9000 feet. Pulse Oxymeter ratings can vary, but I’ve seen them dip into the 80s often, usually higher 80s. One time, I got a reading in the 70s. However, I can vary from finger to finger, and I’ve seen ratings vary by 5-10% in the span within a minute, so not sure how accurate those things are. But, the trend in the tent is always lower than regular air.
The altitude is supposed to be added to your current altitude, so that suggests I am sleeping at an equivalent of 11,500 feet (since I live at about 2400 feet elevation), almost La Paz. They suggest sleeping at no more than 4000 meters (13,000 feet), as most people start to have sleep disrupted a lot going higher than that. I have tried to go higher than my current setting, but I did have some issues sleeping through the night, so figured I might need to wait a bit longer before trying to go higher.
One interesting thing, I’ve noticed that the lower oxygen/higher nitrogen air smells somewhat sweet. That’s the best way to describe it. Certainly pleasant, and fresh as well.
Cari- The smooth skin happened when I was doing really low fat (most days below 10 grams), along with lots of gelatin/glycine. I had ramped up the gelatin/glycine a month and and a half prior to the super low fat period (I was aiming for 25-30 grams of glycine a day). Not sure if it would have happened with the glycine intake at that level after a few months regardless, or if it was the super low fat period that triggered it.
Haidut is now mentioning the CO2 article on his blog-
Study: CO2 may be “bad” for the climate, but is beneficial for humans
Lollipop, were you the reader that alerted him?
Oh, and in regards to the RFK Jr. nomination, I think there is a very good (like 80 plus percent) chance he is confirmed by the Senate. There is a Republican majority, and the party is much less establishment at this point, and the lockstep D opposition is no more, with some prominent D senators saying they will vote for some of his picks already. Plus, Trump has a history of standing by his nominees, even when it seems all hell is breaking loose, with Kavanaugh being the best example.
And even in the potential worst case scenario, where he somehow isn’t confirmed, the nomination itself has already spread a massive spotlight on the issues of vaccines and seed oils, raising the awareness of problems of these for those who were totally ignorant of the dangers. A drawn out fight in the senate would only serve to highlight those and other issues more, and RFK would be free to continue his fight as a private citizen, this time with even more support and awareness.
For men who want to bear children, here is your homework assignment- Eat a pound of sugar every day.
Eating 1 lb of sugar daily has strikingly positive effects on (male) fertility
The study examined 15 normal, non-smoking young men, who followed a diet in which they were given all food from the scientists for two weeks. The diet was based on the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations for healthy eating with one exception: during the second week, the researchers added sugar, corresponding to around 3.5 litres of fizzy drinks, or 450 grammes of confectionery, every day. The sperm quality and other indicators of the participants’ health were investigated at the start of the study, after the first week (during which they ate a healthy diet), and after the second week (when the participants had additionally consumed large amounts of sugar). One third had poor sperm motility at the beginning of the test. Motility is one of several factors influencing the quality of sperms, and that of the general population was the proportion of people with low sperm motility studied. The authors were surprised to learn that the motility of sperm of all participants during the research had become natural. “The study shows that sperm motility can be changed in a short period, and seems to be closely coupled to diet.
Based on some old testimonial threads from RPF, it seems like it can also improve libido and, um, other related functions.
When I was eating more starch and less protein, I tended to feel more sluggish, less energy, and maybe more bloated. It seems like starch is really the main food that just seems to sit in your stomach.
Intuitively, I just sort of want to give No Starch a second go, that’s the biggest reason. I enjoyed putting a very low fat diet to the test earlier this year (with high glycine and gelatin content), and while it did good things for weight and was okay with energy, I was most surprised at how the rough skin on my elbows and heels got really smooth.
As far as benefits I am looking for that others have mentioned, those would include weight loss, elimination of excess water weight, better energy, digestion and transit time. Plus, it just seems like it would be “fun.” I was re-reading some of the benefits of fructose in particular, and was wanting to experiment with things like pure fructose powder and agave nectar, along with all the other sugary foods.
One other thing, I’ve been dealing with the sort of “wheat belly” since I was about 8 years old. Have never been “lean” for pretty much as long as I can remember. I think there are probably several factors that contribute to this, including visceral fat, excess water/inflammation, fatty liver, and an inflamed intestine. One of the big contributors to all of those, I suspect, is excess bacteria in the gut, which would lead to excess amounts of endotoxin, serotonin, lactate and such. I’ve been thinking about a protocol that would lower the bacterial load would include antimicrobial foods (like carrot and coconut oil), better digestive enzymes and stomach acid, use of activated charcoal, biofilm disruptors, flowers of sulphur, raising metabolism overall and standard antibiotics. Going No Starch and opting for more sugar would help a couple of those things, plus it should cut back on the food for bacteria. sugars (mono and disaccharides) are much easier to break apart and digest than starches (which are long chains of glucose), plus starchy foods tend to have other problematic substances which could feed bacteria and/or lower metabolism.
“Almost all biologists think of the organism as a machine, regulated by information according to innate programs. When it comes down to the details, their explanations sometimes make Rube Goldbergs imaginary contraptions seem elegant. At their best, they usually rely on some mysterious things called ionic pumps, that perform active transport, powered by little motors, under instructions from molecules that act on their specific receptors. When things get unmanageable, the biologists speak of paradoxes.”
– Ray Peat
Nice find, Lollipop. Certainly reminded me of that quote from Ray Peat, how biologists would rather start throwing around the term “paradox,” rather than consider that their hypothesis is partly or completely wrong.
“It might be wrecking the climate, but carbon dioxide is actually good for your cells”
So, how exactly, would Carbon Dioxide be “wrecking” the environment, then? Pretty much everyone knows that CO2 is essential for plant life, and it’s well known that when levels rise to almost triple the atmospheric amount (1000 ppm), those levels are highly beneficial to plant growth.
So now that they are admitting that higher levels of CO2 are beneficial to human and animal life, what, exactly, is “wrecking” the environment? Life itself? Is their goal a fully dead planet, with no green areas, just brown dirt?
“But there’s a catch. In the presence of carbon dioxide — that pesky gas disrupting global climate systems — our cells gain a secret weapon in the form of bicarbonate which helps keep pH levels balanced.”
“So many diseases, so many conditions have oxidative stress as a component of disease. That would include many cancers, effectively all age-related diseases, a lot of neurological diseases,” Burrows said. “We’re trying to understand cells’ fundamental chemistry under oxidative stress. We have learned something about the protective effect of CO₂ that I think is really profound.”
Yeah, such a “pesky gas” that’s keeping all plants alive, and has the potential to cure/eliminate cancer and most other age related diseases, and greatly extend the life and health span of all living humans and animals. Guess it’s time to coin and start speaking of “The Carbon Dioxide Paradox.”
The article does bring up one excellent point about In Vitro experiments. These experiments frequently show effects that either don’t show up within an organism when the same sort of challenge is presented. CO2 concentration is obviously a big one that they are pointing out, but there could be thousands of other unidentified factors altering such experiments. That’s why all In Vitro experiments should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Author
