BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control"
-
@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! -
Now it's time to credit everyone else. For an author that prides himself on being well-read, why it doesn't show in his writings? He admitted somewhere to not care about referencing and (when asked) refuses in bitter tone to provide the sources behind his opinions and trials. I take that he's fine with people doing the same to him.
In his case in specific, readers should feel free to share with others experiments found in his materials without mentioning the source, as he would be in a complicated position to complain.
-
This post is deleted! -
When readers object the needless sexuality featured on every opportunity, he's being targeted by puritanical homophobes. An overproud homosexual is just as annoying as a bragging heterosexual, and neither of them need to praise their orientation in a health book.
The extravagance manifests on the cover too:
Stacked in phallus shape, with a peculiar opening on top, some stuff dripping of it, two elements on each side of the base, surrounded by a red color and next to 'F*CK'? Where is the editor?
I know that some of the experiments in his writings are valuable, if only they weren't accompanied by the distorted explanations in ruling tone. Readers shouldn't worry about extracting them; he can't mind. More so because a lot of protocols are borrowed from others. "I do it all the time, yet you're not allowed"? Sharing only the experiments through paraphrasing would expose people to the good while sparing them of the bad. We're dealing with an exceptional case.
A reader:
"Some of these claims are pretty out there and while I'm not wholly doubting you I consider myself an honest skeptic. Is there any chance you can share some of the resources that lead you to these conclusions so I can read myself?"
Bombastic Nathan:
"No I am not going to take time from my busy day to provide you with references. If you want to know any additional or supporting/contradictory information you can do that yourself. It's a good practice to get into anyway, if your aim is really to be healthy."
Since we can't have access to the consulting material, to help understand what leads to outrageous conclusions, we need demonstration.
Why content with curing cancers in front of us?
Invite hyperphosphatemics to show that it's nothing but an oleic acid deficiency and cure the condition with olive oil, or preferably the purified fatty acid. What about those with stubborn weight gain? I bet that they would be into trying cilantro to chelate the causative excess iron.
He decided that yogurts are a "SHIT THAT GAVE YOU THE CANCER FROM WHICH YOU DIE IN 15 YEARS". If this earnest phrasing was all that I had available, I wouldn't need much more to form an opinion about the author.
And how difficult is it to do the basic?
"Summarising earlier cohort studies, we found an inverse association between yogurt consumption and risk of all-cause and CVD mortality; however, there was no significant association between yogurt consumption and risk of cancer mortality."
This guy tells people to avoid creatine supplements under the argument that it's a source of phosphate, that will cause premature aging. He then realized that creatine monohydrate doesn't contain phosphate, proceeding to claim that it should be avoided because it raises its intracelullar level.
Consider these two options to form ATP:
- ADP + Phosphocreatine ⇄ ATP + Creatine
- ADP + Pi + H+ ⇄ ATP + H2O
A typical use of ATP (↵) will release phosphate (Pi).
If ATP is regenerated from ADP with a phosphate group from phosphocreatine (↱), we're left with plain, dephosphorylated creatine.
What returns a phosphate to creatine is the reverse reaction on top (↰), yielding also ADP. To derive considerable amounts of ATP for this creatine phosphorylation, free phosphate is put to use in the habitual reaction with ADP (↳).
In other words, doing and undoing something gets you back to the starting place. With a stable concentration of creatine in cells, free phosphate must eventually be consumed. Otherwise, what will phosphorylate considerable amounts of creatine? I think that the main source of ATP would be what's produced in the respiratory complexes in mitochondria rather than the portion that's formed from incorporating the phosphate from other molecules (without involving free phosphate).
Creatine increases the capacity of regeneration. Even if free phosphate wasn't consumed at one point, what would be better, its temporary increase or a shortage of ATP? Ask athletes their opinion.
Also, request these athletes to list their favorite supplements and I bet that creatine will often be mentioned. They know from practice that it's safe and effective at maintaining tissues energized in times of stress, with applications in disease: possibly the audience that this individual speaks to. Here's the intestine of someone being aged by creatine:
Or he thinks that the skin doesn't age along with the intestines?
It's years of stumbling upon opinionated content.
He established that coconut fat is not optimal because of its uniqueness: it depletes poison A from the body. The dude has the Garrey Smeat Forum membership eager to volunteer for this one.
I think that it's about time for him to get practical to substantiate the fantastic claims, and we have a series of them in every curative article.
'It's a charlatan, but at least credits Ray.' In response to a perception that mentioning Ray somehow excuses quackery, it's the opposite: it degrades an author to be associated with charlatans.
And before he plays the oppressed victim, he's welcome to arrive here and elaborate on why I'm glad to recommend authors in reach, such as Alex Yartsev, Medicosis, Travis, Terma, and others—in this thread alone we had Brianna and Mike—but not a handful that include him and professor Garrett. Is it because of his skin color? Yet, we also have white and privileged in the respectable group. Sexual preferences? But Terma told us once that he's a "gigantic faggot". Religion? Most of us are devoted to Raypeatism. What differentiates one group from the other?
I've made my points. It's up to his readers to approach and promote the content as they prefer.
-
This post is deleted! -
Have you ever seen one of those videos where a dog barks at something and the companion brushes it off, as if it was an overreaction to nothing? These authors are good storytellers and have a luring speech, making them prone to influence. Once you realize how they operate, the pattern becomes obvious and it's natural to be compelled to alert others, pointing out why it's worth being watchful with them. It's somewhat revolting to spot the same people, employing similar methods, fooling over and over again.
Either way, if you would like to help, consider placing junk in the Junkyard next time. It warns readers while reminding them that they can eventually find valuable stuff.
Otherwise, you can lead by example and ignore my posts. I've been making this easier in no longer tagging or quoting you, as it can be the case that the message won't resonate while you continue to admit that false information is not much of a concern.
-
This post is deleted! -
I think that it's advantageous for the forum to keep material containing unproven miraculous cures and baseless rules in the Junkyard, so that visitors aren't caught off-guard. But it's my opinion, and it's simple to disconsider.
-
This post is deleted! -
The horseradish peroxidase used in the only backup material linked was for assisting in the detection and measurement—Polymyxin B (derived from gram-positive bacteria) is the actual endotoxin binder and inactivator of these experiments. The researchers even wrote that "horseradish peroxidase alone [..] did not bind to lipid A" and made explicit its function as a "reporter enzyme." He's misattributing the effects of Polymyxin B to horseradish (peroxidase).
I insist: be watchful with the interpretations of this author.
On the practical aspect, lots of promises and not enough demonstration. Is there any health problem that he hasn't found the cure yet? As an example, he has "THE CURE FOR BALDNESS".
"Yes—I have figured out why hair loss happens and how it can be restored!"
Then, why not show us in practice here? Imagine how many guys around the world would be willing to discontinue finasteride for what he has to offer and document the restoration for others.
