Dandruff or scalp irritation? Try BLOO.

Categories

  • Place to discuss the work of Ray Peat, Otto Warburg, Albert Szent-Györgyi and the interdependence of energy and structure

    4k Topics
    36k Posts
    LucHL
    Several studies indicate that a dietary intake consisting of 60% fat is “detrimental” to health. Levels above 40% are often harmful. The ideal intake is between 20% and 30%. Here is an important distinction: a ketogenic diet is generally a therapeutic or goal-specific tool, not a maintenance eating pattern. That changes how the “60% fat” figure should be judged. I’ve asked AI (Claude) to find a study. Not found. Here is the answer. Goals where it is best supported • Drug-resistant epilepsy: the strongest indication, used for about a century, especially in children. • Short- and medium-term weight loss: effective, but its advantage over other diets tends to fade after 6 to 12 months. • Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: improved blood sugar and HbA1c, often with reduced medication, under medical supervision. • Other areas (migraine, polycystic ovary syndrome, some neurological conditions): results are still preliminary. What this means for assessing risk • The question becomes expected benefit versus risk, as with a treatment, rather than comparison with an ideal balanced diet. • Risk depends on duration: a few weeks or months is very different from several years, for which data are scarce. • The known side effects to monitor are raised LDL cholesterol in some people, deficiencies (fiber, magnesium, certain vitamins), digestive problems, kidney stones, and the “keto flu” at the start. • Monitoring (lipid profile, kidney and liver function) is recommended, and some people should avoid it (pancreatitis, liver failure, certain fat-metabolism disorders, pregnancy without medical advice). Studies that find harm often follow general populations over long periods. They don’t answer the question “is it useful and acceptable for reaching a given goal over a given period?” The two kinds of evidence don’t contradict each other, because they answer different questions. Comment (LucH): So 2 points going in the same direction: inflammation and glucose intolerance when eating high fat for several days. A result in mice, not in human beings. But whenever my body reacts heavily to a high fat meal, I take lipase enzymes… I don’t wait to see if …
  • Discussion of individual human or animal cases. "There is no foreseeable limit to the qualitative development of the economy." - Ray Peat, Generative Energy

    245 Topics
    3k Posts
    sunsunsunS
    @wester130 my performance is way better so Idk how lowered metabolism jives with that.
  • 198 Topics
    4k Posts
    D
    @engineer My favorite part were the minigames. There were also a few good rip off games of this concept, where you manipulate a marble instead of a monkey in a ball. Interesting about the bananas. I like adding half of a really ripe banana to a milkshake.
  • Conversations about Bioenergetic Forum

    87 Topics
    1k Posts
    K
    @lobotomize Good framework, though the evidence-grade weighting in the default sort might bury solid animal/mechanistic work under mediocre human studies. Letting people re-weight it themselves could help. Bigger gap: how do contested claims get handled? If a newer RCT contradicts an older one, does the old card get flagged/archived, or do they just sit side by side? That seems like the whole point of avoiding rediscovery. Also worth adding a required sample size field to the submission template — two "Evidence B" studies can carry very different weight depending on n, and that gets lost if it's folded into the letter grade alone. Export for meta-analysis is a nice touch though.
  • Off-topic or unclear threads sent here. But dig around and you might find some gems.

    525 Topics
    15k Posts
    ThinPickingT
    @Hando-Jin said: ever wondered why no other country has repeated this supposed feat, 56 years later? Landing a rocket on a moon probably wasn't difficult in the summer of 69 hando-chop.