BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control"
-
@Amazoniac said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
Sate and Garrett are similarly immoderate and pushy. It's not my intention to sort charlatans here, rank us as you prefer, but it's difficult to discriminate which of us is worse.
That's fair, I didn't mean to imply Hatch should be softly scrutinized by comparison to others. In my opinion what makes him less dangerous is his ideas are, quite frankly, less popular with people. Charlatans become more dangerous when they start gaining a following.
-
This post is deleted! -
@S-Holmes Funny that he was "gaining weight rapidly" and admitted to overeating, but was angry at Ray Peat for giving him advice he deemed as irresponsible. Was it though? Or was it adivce he simply didn't want to hear?
I remembered he fired a coach he had because he gained like 10lbs in one week. Also I don't want to call him a liar, but losing weight on 6-9,000 calories? You can't nonchalantly make a statement like that when you were talking about rapidly gaining weight a few paragraphs earlier. Which is it? And is your intake 6,000 or 9,000?
There's a substantial discrepancy there. If he got obese on 9,000 calories then I guess he would lose some weight if he dropped it to 6,000 calories. And either way, he should've posted before/after pics when making bold statements like that (I would also be curious to know how much money this guy was spending on food, lol. Doesn't seem economically viable to me.).
No one needs 6,000 calories a day to lose weight. That's not a sign of an efficient metabolism. Efficient metabolism is when someone can eat normal amounts of food and have enough stored glycogen to last them for several hours between meals. When you can go 6, 8, 12, or even upwards of 24 hours without completely dipping into the cortisol driven beta-oxidation then you've got a good metabolism.
The under-eating type of "hypothyroidism" is actually transient, and will go away when you start eating more. It's not the main cause of hypothyroidism. It's not even really hypothyroidism at all. It's your metabolic rate realizing a substantial drop in caloric consumption so it slows everything down so you don't starve to death so quickly. Ray said that was why those hypothyroid women (he discussed in the interview) could eat like 700 calories and still not lose weight. You need to fix your thyroid before you do any extreme caloric reduction.
-
This post is deleted! -
@S-Holmes Well I don't believed I used the word unsuccessful, sorry if I made you insinuate that. I guess success needs to be put in relative terms to the goals at hand. All I was trying to get across is this dude applied the lack of portion control principle, said a big "F#$%k you" to CICO and the law of thermodynamics, and proceeded to swell up like a balloon. He did cite Nathan in numerous places, so he made it obvious he was greatly influenced by him. To what degree he applied those principles beyond a general lack of portion control is something I don't know. But you see this trend on several less established log entries on that forum over the years. People disregarding CICO, believe they need to eat more and more foods, then start complaining about weight gain. I don't know what degree Nathan's influence is personally responsible for this held belief, but undoubtedly it's influenced some of them. He was a presence on that forum for a stent of time.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Mulloch94 said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
@S-Holmes Well I don't believed I used the word unsuccessful, sorry if I made you insinuate that. I guess success needs to be put in relative terms to the goals at hand. All I was trying to get across is this dude applied the lack of portion control principle, said a big "F#$%k you" to CICO and the law of thermodynamics, and proceeded to swell up like a balloon. He did cite Nathan in numerous places, so he made it obvious he was greatly influenced by him. To what degree he applied those principles beyond a general lack of portion control is something I don't know. But you see this trend on several less established log entries on that forum over the years. People disregarding CICO, believe they need to eat more and more foods, then start complaining about weight gain. I don't know what degree Nathan's influence is personally responsible for this held belief, but undoubtedly it's influenced some of them. He was a presence on that forum for a stent of time.
I'm having issues accessing the forum lately, but found this example right on the first page of results in the searchable archive:
"I think Nathan Hatch makes some outlandish claims. He claims to have sat around all day at a computer while eating his high everything diet and all he did was gain muscle and lose fat. I call bull**** on this. I tried doing things his way for about 6 months several years ago and all I did was get fat and my fasting blood sugar went into the pre-diabetic range. I think his claims are ridiculous. My diet now is similar in some ways, but much lower in fat and protein. I'm at about 70 g of protein, as much sugar as I want, a little starch, and 80ish grams of fat. I have eaten this way for over a year now and have lost about 10 pounds rather than gaining weight and my metabolism has kicked it up a notch or two. I feel much younger and healthier than I have in 15 years. I did not feel this way at all trying Hatch's way of just eating everything ad libitum."
@Mulloch94 said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
@Amazoniac said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
Sate and Garrett are similarly immoderate and pushy. It's not my intention to sort charlatans here, rank us as you prefer, but it's difficult to discriminate which of us is worse.
That's fair, I didn't mean to imply Hatch should be softly scrutinized by comparison to others. In my opinion what makes him less dangerous is his ideas are, quite frankly, less popular with people. Charlatans become more dangerous when they start gaining a following.
I agree.
If anyone is looking for assistance, Mike Fave offers the same type of service. He's also familiar with Ray's work, but is competent, careful as a health communicator, and doesn't treat the audience as fools.
-
I support Amazoniac's criticism of Hatch's (or anyone's) exaggerated claims, which, as Amazonic pointed out, reveals Hatch's less-than-competent knowledge about underlying mechanisms regarding the multiple ways in which glucose oxidation and cellular respiration may become deranged. The writers I would trust the most would emulate Ray, acknowledging gaps in his/our knowledge about multiple mechanisms relevant to bioenergetics, etc. I also support S.Holmes's interest in self experimentation and openness to learning from writers whose style isn't necessarily our most preferred (emulating Ray). I see no conflict between these two positions of (i) holding Hatch and others to high critical standards while (ii) being open to benefiting from advice they have given that might work for some of us (depending, of course, on context) even though Hatch’s understanding of cellular respiration is obviously incomplete. Even those like S.Holmes who say they don’t care about understanding the underlying mechanism correctly will benefit from much higher-quality insights/coaching/advice generated from those of us who are interested. It’s reasonable to learn empirically (by induction or, in Hatch’s case, even by incorrectly understood theory) that something “works” without understanding the mechanism explaining why the advice has worked. My main point is that we are joint stakeholders (disliking Blackrock’s use of the word): (i) those who want to understand mechanisms, critiquing and vetting Hatch and others and (ii) those who just want to know where to find high-quality advice or even speculative hypotheses that could prompt useful self experimentation. The vetting and critiques by the Amnizoniacs of the world exert adaptive pressure that should improve the performance of and our curation of advice givers. This includes all of us posting on this board, generating potentially useful speculative hypotheses for us to consider experimenting on ourselves with. I am hoping that both rigorous vetting/critiquing and clear/honest reporting from self-experimentation flourish and multiply on this board.
-
This post is deleted! -
@S-Holmes I wasn't quoting him. Dude just had a hard time with weight control while he was doing his high calorie experiment. I can go back and find the post where he talked about gaining 10 pounds in one week, which ultimately led to him firing his coach. Might take me a while though because this was 3 years ago, I don't remember the exact thread he posted that on. I think it was the one titled "Journey to Optimal Health" or something like that.
-
@Amazoniac I think some people are having a hard time accessing the forum because Charlie is attempting to block VPN and Tor ip addresses, lol. But you can change servers and be viewing the site again without issue. Charlie doesn't realize we can bypass authoritarian censorship.
I've never understood why someone would want to try that "ad libitum" approach unless they're like anorexic and trying to gain weight. High carb, low fat, low protein results in weight loss because people are generally unaware just how many calories they've cut out. It's the lazy man's approach to calorie counting basically. Same thing with low carbers. All they realize is they've cut out 300 grams of sugar, they don't really consider the fact that's a 1,200 calorie reduction.
It ignores some of the more basic rudimentary principles about how adipose tissue is created in the first place. Fat is stored as such, eat too much you'll get fat. Glucose is burned and stored as glycogen until it's full, then it gets stored as fat. Protein will be used for repair and any extra will be converted to glucose and then fill glycogen until it's full, at which point it will be turned into fat, lol. Everything leads back to fat on your ass if you take in too much. I've never really considered this as controversial either. I don't think Ray did either. The only fringe takes I've seen disputing this type of stuff are the Gary Taubes's of the world who have these broscience opinions about insulin driving fat gain instead of simply eating too much.
Yeah I like Mike a lot, can't say I've watched many of his videos though. I saw the most recent one about vitamin A, and an older one where he and Danny was with like two other people and they were all talking and taking questions. Looked like a livestream thing or something. Kyle Mamounis was always my personal favorite, but he is quite elusive. Not making many posts. Usually a video like once a year, and here lately nothing at all really.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@BioEclectic
I'm doing something similar. How much baking soda do you put in? Of course depending on how much you make? -
This post is deleted! -
@happyhanneke
Using a gallon jug it's baking soda to taste. I don't measure it perfectly but a 1/3 to 1/2 somewhat level tsp. I have messed up by putting too much, it makes the punch mix a little dull tasting.A strong 8 or 10oz coffee gets approx 1/8 tsp, maybe less.
All in all i average between 5 to 8 drinks a day that contain it. I'll switch my routine when i do sodium acetate protocols however.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Mulloch94 said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
@Amazoniac I think some people are having a hard time accessing the forum because Charlie is attempting to block VPN and Tor ip addresses, lol. But you can change servers and be viewing the site again without issue. Charlie doesn't realize we can bypass authoritarian censorship.
I've never understood why someone would want to try that "ad libitum" approach unless they're like anorexic and trying to gain weight. High carb, low fat, low protein results in weight loss because people are generally unaware just how many calories they've cut out. It's the lazy man's approach to calorie counting basically. Same thing with low carbers. All they realize is they've cut out 300 grams of sugar, they don't really consider the fact that's a 1,200 calorie reduction.
It ignores some of the more basic rudimentary principles about how adipose tissue is created in the first place. Fat is stored as such, eat too much you'll get fat. Glucose is burned and stored as glycogen until it's full, then it gets stored as fat. Protein will be used for repair and any extra will be converted to glucose and then fill glycogen until it's full, at which point it will be turned into fat, lol. Everything leads back to fat on your ass if you take in too much. I've never really considered this as controversial either. I don't think Ray did either. The only fringe takes I've seen disputing this type of stuff are the Gary Taubes's of the world who have these broscience opinions about insulin driving fat gain instead of simply eating too much.
Yeah I like Mike a lot, can't say I've watched many of his videos though. I saw the most recent one about vitamin A, and an older one where he and Danny was with like two other people and they were all talking and taking questions. Looked like a livestream thing or something. Kyle Mamounis was always my personal favorite, but he is quite elusive. Not making many posts. Usually a video like once a year, and here lately nothing at all really.
The problematic combination for someone prone to gain weight would be the diet abundant in fats along with carbohydrates that's promoted.
Every nutrient deserves to be moderated if it's causing issues without signs of improvement, and the person can try to improve its tolerance indirectly in the meantime.
Stubborn weight gain after persisting on such diet? No puzzle, this guy determined that the cause is excess iron and cilantro to chelate it should solve.
-
@T-3 said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
I support Amazoniac's criticism of Hatch's (or anyone's) exaggerated claims, which, as Amazonic pointed out, reveals Hatch's less-than-competent knowledge about underlying mechanisms regarding the multiple ways in which glucose oxidation and cellular respiration may become deranged. The writers I would trust the most would emulate Ray, acknowledging gaps in his/our knowledge about multiple mechanisms relevant to bioenergetics, etc. I also support S.Holmes's interest in self experimentation and openness to learning from writers whose style isn't necessarily our most preferred (emulating Ray). I see no conflict between these two positions of (i) holding Hatch and others to high critical standards while (ii) being open to benefiting from advice they have given that might work for some of us (depending, of course, on context) even though Hatch’s understanding of cellular respiration is obviously incomplete. Even those like S.Holmes who say they don’t care about understanding the underlying mechanism correctly will benefit from much higher-quality insights/coaching/advice generated from those of us who are interested. It’s reasonable to learn empirically (by induction or, in Hatch’s case, even by incorrectly understood theory) that something “works” without understanding the mechanism explaining why the advice has worked. My main point is that we are joint stakeholders (disliking Blackrock’s use of the word): (i) those who want to understand mechanisms, critiquing and vetting Hatch and others and (ii) those who just want to know where to find high-quality advice or even speculative hypotheses that could prompt useful self experimentation. The vetting and critiques by the Amnizoniacs of the world exert adaptive pressure that should improve the performance of and our curation of advice givers. This includes all of us posting on this board, generating potentially useful speculative hypotheses for us to consider experimenting on ourselves with. I am hoping that both rigorous vetting/critiquing and clear/honest reporting from self-experimentation flourish and multiply on this board.
I have doubts if commentaries put any pressure on self-absorbed authors, they might play victims of persecution and believe that the world is not prepared for their brilliance yet.
What's cool about this kind of personality is that their lack of respect for any law makes them good a proposing new models, their creativity is allowed to flourish because nothing holds it back.
But if bombastic Nathan has found 'THE CURE FOR CANCER' through acidified silicic acid, what is he waiting to prove it? Get here and invite volunteers dealing with cancer to participate and document it.
- Group U: tartaric acid* in water
- Group S: tartaric acid* in water + silicic acid
U and S for 'unsealed' and 'sealed'. Both followed by a carbohydrate.
*It seems a better alternative to others acids to reduce confounders in acidification.
The Fate of Tartaric Acid in the Human Body
"The experiments demonstrate that tartaric acid (sodium tartrate) is not burned in the human body. When injected intramuscularly it reappears almost quantitatively in the urine within 10 hours, the major portion being excreted within the first 4 hours. Apparently the human body can neither oxidize nor otherwise transform this acid."
"When taken by mouth, only about 20 per cent of ingested tartrate is eliminated in the urine. At no time in the course of investigations have any traces of tartrate taken by mouth been demonstrated in the feces. It has long been known that tartaric acid is destroyed by fungi and by certain bacteria. Pasteur (11) in 1860, treated a mixture of d- and I-tartaric acid with the mold, Penicillium glaucum, and found that the d-tartaric acid was destroyed by this organism. Maassen (12) in 1896 found that twenty-three varieties of bacteria were able to destroy tartaric acid, among those being the Bacillus pyocyaneus, the Friedlander bacillus, the typhoid bacillus, the Bacterium enteritidis of Gaertner, and the Bacillus coli. Underhill et al. (10) found that tartaric acid is destroyed by fecal material. It is therefore probable that the portion of tartaric acid given by mouth which fails to appear in the urine (80 per cent) is destroyed in the intestinal tract by bacterial action. 20 per cent or less is absorbed before it is subjected to the destructive action of the intestinal bacteria, and is excreted in the urine. The experiments of Pickens and Hetler (13) are in accord with these results. They gave large quantities of grape juice to their subjects and found that the urine was acid and not alkaline as might be expected from feeding of malic or citric acid. The excretion in the urine of a part of the tartaric acid present in the grape juice may account for their findings."
"With the doses employed in our observations on human beings, renal damage did not occur, and it is therefore possible to recover practically all of the injected tartrate in the urine and to demonstrate that none of this fruit acid is utilized by human beings."
Rehashed Max and Ray's strategies can't serve as a crutch, we're after the contrast above.
It wouldn't be ethical to involve people with elevated serum lactate to track the expected normalization, but compared with not taking the sealer, we can anticipate non-advanced cancers being cured, and perhaps a change in expired carbon dioxide.
He should join us to show that's it's not one more addition to the record of charlatanry.
-
This post is deleted!
