BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control"
-
@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.
-
This post is deleted! -
Amazoniac, you have much more knowledge of chemistry than I do. I would be interested in knowing whether you might have an opinion regarding the use of sodium acetate as a means of lowering lactic acid as recommended by Hatch in the book?
-
@S-Holmes said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
@Amazoniac This is beginning to sound personal. What harm is there in trying Nathan's hacks? Are they dangerous? He uses food and a few low dose supplements. Pretty scary!
Re balding, he still has full, thick hair (unlike everyone's favorite low A "detective.") So he must be doing something right. How else would you expect him to prove his claim?
Perhaps you're one of those fortunate enough to have never suffered from metabolic syndrome. I, like Nathan have had it my entire life. I have been able to control it using various "unproven" methods (homeopathy is one) for 20 plus years.... until Covid. Like Nathan, I have suffered from many maladies, including Epstein Barr, chronic sinusitis, cancer, Meniere's...my body is not kind to me. Like Nathan, RP helped me survive, but sadly, we did not thrive. It appears Nathan is now thriving. If he has gone off the reservation...doesn't have "research" to support his claims... why should anyone care? If he makes said claims based on his own experiences, I'm happy to help test his theories.
Why must you constantly challenge my posts in this thread? Is it your intention to direct others away (who, like me and Nathan, have tried literally everything to little or no avail)? What if he can help them with his simple, cheap and self tested solutions? As a homeopath for more than 30 years (it has kept me alive and symptom free for MOST of my life...trust me, no small feat) I trust empirical evidence over 95% of the lab research available. Two of my sisters took their own lives, one in 2017 and the other in 2019, one overdosed and the other with a gun. They both had metabolic syndrome and just finally lost hope. What if Nathan's work can save others who have lost hope?
So in conclusion, I do not believe your heart is in the right place. Also...don't you have ANYTHING better to do?
If you go back to my first post in this thread, it was already clear that I find his experimentations valid, but the explanations and how they are communicated in ruling tone are an insult.
You post something and it's meant to be read. The challenge is to illustrate why it's worth to be wary of the concepts put forward by this author. I also wrote that helping others through shared experiences doesn't give the person a free pass to confuse them out of carelessness.
In addition, his articles aren't based on self-experimentation alone, it's an author who declared to also go by "scientific research" and to be well-read. He's making use of researchers' works, twisting them and not informing the origins, which would encourage verification.
Can't you tell the difference between these?
- What worked for me in reversing hair loss
- "THE CURE FOR BALDNESS"
How do I expect him to prove his claim? I would like to witness the savior to gather a group of 10-20 volunteers and deliver the promise.
The position of my heart doesn't invalidate criticisms, but I can tell you that it's in the right place for thoughtful authors.
-
@Amazoniac said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
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.
Appreciate the correction and public service. Horseradish may be harmless enough for most but this is a tiny example of where lack of verification can waste time and potentially get someone into trouble.
-
@vocedilegno said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
Amazoniac, you have much more knowledge of chemistry than I do. I would be interested in knowing whether you might have an opinion regarding the use of sodium acetate as a means of lowering lactic acid as recommended by Hatch in the book?
What I do: consult anesthesiology book , find all there and parrot))
Sodium acetate can be an effective substitute for baking soda, but it's chosen over the latter for secondary reasons: availability, stability, price and ease of production. Otherwise, baking soda would be preferred.
The primary purpose of such salts in conditions that tend to 'lactate acidosis' would be to counteract acidity rather than lactate. The metabolism of sodium acetate is complex relative to that of baking soda, that reaches the stomach, reacts with acid instantaneously, and from then onwards it behaves as dietary sodium chloride.
An incomplete comparison:
Baking soda Sodium acetate Speed of action x Tolerance x Predictability x Ease of metabolism x CO2 recovery x Gut modulation x I don't have clear how carbon dioxide produced after these salts would affect lactate. The principle seems to be based on the dissociation of oxygen from hemoglobin to tissues to promote oxidative metabolism, but we would have opposing factors:
- Additional carbon dioxide (↑CO2) increases oxygen dissociation (as if tissues could handle more of it)
- Alkalinization (↑pH) decreases oxygen dissociation
When baking soda is injected, extra hydrocarbonate ions would react with protons to produce carbon dioxide. This happens in the stomach, but part of the carbon dioxide is lost. So, with ingested baking soda, we might not be able to count on substantial amounts of extra carbon dioxide.
Alkalinization tends to increase the rate of glycolysis (glucose → pyruvate) and it may have an effect on cells that are already overproducing lactate from pyruvate. Acetate would have an edge in this regard for yielding CO2 locally. On the other hand, an elevation in the ratio of acetyl-CoA to CoA can further inhibit pyruvate oxidation, as suggested in this extreme version.
With the liver cells becoming acidic, they appear to shift from influx to efflux of lactate.
This could be an issue considering that the liver is a major site of lactate clearance. It would be a point in favor of ingested baking soda (alkalinization with less carbonic acid or carbon dioxide recovered). However, since acidification can slow down the rate of glycolysis and control lactate synthesis, sodium acetate would be advantageous because of the proton consumption and carbon dioxide production.
I don't remember how much L-lactate can be urinated intact, yet the additional sodium from either salt would help in this regard. But the body must try to conserve lactate to resynthesize glucose.
Sodium acetate has other applications. For example, prior to its popularization in weight loss circles, salts of organic have been extensively used by the livestock industry to shape the gut of animals.
Overall, when it comes to the burden of 'lactate acidosis', sodium acetate would add layers of potential complications to consider. Lowering the doses should also lower the concerns, yet doesn't eliminate them. The main target is acidity and I would favor baking soda to counteract it, while focusing on the more immediate measures that are known to help to deal with excess lactate (people's beloved thiamin, for example).
As a side note, different forms of lactate dehydrogenase occur in tissues:
It may seem counterintuitive for such forms to prevail in liver (as an important organ for lactate clearance), but it's also under the influence of the state of cells:
"Three conclusions with regard to electrophoretic separation of LDH isozymes in mitochondria and cytosol appear appropriate. First, differences in LDH patterns between mitochondria and surrounding cytosol suggest that LDH within mitochondrial preparations did not result from cytosolic contamination. Second, the greater abundance of LDH-1 (H4) in heart than liver is expected on the basis of the high oxidative capacity of cardiac tissue. However, like heart, liver is also a net lactate consumer. Thus, differences in mitochondrial LDH pattern in liver compared with heart may be more related to the gluconeogenic, as opposed to oxidative nature of liver. Third, the ability of mitochondria to convert lactate to pyruvate is governed by mitochondrial redox rather than LDH isoenzyme pattern. This latter conclusion is reached because of similar abilities of liver and cardiac mitochondria to oxidize exogenous lactate despite very different LDH isozyme patterns."
-
This post is deleted! -
I should add to the previous post that if the excess lactate is a consequence of cancer, it would bring more complicating factors to consider in supplementing sodium acetate. You can find therapeutic uses of acetate in this condition, but it can be tricky.
Unlike pyruvate-derived acetyl-CoA—that's formed in the mitochondria (ACSS1), added to form citrate and exported to the cytosol for lipid synthesis—dietary acetate can skip this process and form acetyl-CoA without involving the mitochondria (ACSS2), which would be useful for tumors.
"Intracellular acetate is quickly converted into acetyl-CoA by acetyl-CoA synthetase 2 (ACSS2; nucleocytosolic) or ACSS1 (mitochondrial)."
-
@S-Holmes said in BIOHACKING by Nathan Hatch, "F*** Portion Control":
Come on, Holmes. I suggested a few simple trials in his presence, for us to verify with little method some of the promises, and you send me a link with 5 unrelated cases, susceptible to selection and filled with additional dubious claims? I'm looking for quality, not volume. It's funny, we can sniff the aroma of uncredited Seneff and Gominak in passages just by the wording.
It's also funny that I got more interrogation so far than the individual who is pushing the absurds.
One important discovery in a field is enough for a researcher to be considered exceptional. This guy has declared to have the cure for cancer, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, thyroid disease, kidney disease, autism, baldness, acne, erectile dysfunction, depression, learned hopelessness, PTSD, anxiety, insomnia, addiction, gut dysbiosis, microbial overgrowth, varicose veins, oral disease, viral infections, weight issues, migraine, chronic pain, hyperphosphatemia, and so on.
What's the problem in putting the silver bullets to test in front of us? Anything that works in his moderated bubble should work outside of it too. Is demonstration with a group too much to ask from someone who has the cure for all major conditions?
People are lured to pay to unlock the access to the majority of them. From the recent example:
"Yes—I have figured out why hair loss happens and how it can be restored! But you'll have to buy the book for this one."
If he's confident about what he writes, why he doesn't offer refunds for his $36.. ebook?
"THERE ARE NO REFUNDS GIVEN ON EBOOKS."
Emphasis not mine. And it was underlined as well.
"There are no refunds on eBooks or opened/used books."
In other words, you also can't open the printed book to inspect; it has to remain sealed as your mitochondria under silicic acid. Wouldn't it be the norm for readers to overlook any vulgarity to keep a vitality masterpiece that saves everyone around? It's flamboyant authorship without ownership.
Last week or so I received a promotional email from a proficient author whose book I recommended before. Compare the message:
"If you’re unhappy with your purchase please contact me within 30 days and I’ll refund you in full."
A long time ago I shared a link to some other public book as a comment below one of his articles, something friendly like: 'For readers who want further information on the topic, check out the following material'. He approved comments containing links, but this one was barred. Your savior seems to prefer for his readers to not be directed to detailed information than to divide the spotlight. It only served to reinforce what I already knew about the guy.
A peek at his coaching page is enough to raise suspicion of priorities. The guy keeps a picture of him shirtless, lying down, trying to put a provocative face and sensualize—right beside the description of his advising program and the following words:
"Just like my book the focus of my insight and advice is not on physical appearance"
It's a strange way to show the physique. For $100, is he offering health coaching or prostitution services?
Every couple of months we have a new sensationalism released and an enthusiast to pick it up. You're not the first and won't be the last. Both of us are part of the publicity and this helps him to maintain his relevance. Just like the Garrettes, some people don't mind being treated as fools and will hop on board regardless. But if he respected and didn't underestimate the audience, he would moderate the discourse in each assumption and would at least bother reading the summary of the sole source to feature in his publication.
-
Additional material that suggests caution with acetate in cancer:
- Acetate Dependence of Tumors
- Acetate is a Bioenergetic Substrate for Human Glioblastoma and Brain Metastases
- Quantitative analysis of acetyl-CoA production in hypoxic cancer cells reveals substantial contribution from acetate
- Acetyl-CoA Synthetase 2 Promotes Acetate Utilization and Maintains Cancer Cell Growth under Metabolic Stress
I'm aware of Max's endorsement of acetate salts or the experiments with triacetin. However, if the main purpose is to counteract acidity associated with excess lactate, we return to the straightforward way of relying on baking soda (or the potassium equivalent).
By inhibiting lactate dehydrogenase A (⇈), it's possible to increase the respiration rate (measured through oxygen consumption) of some cancer cells, with a proportional rise in ATP production. If cells in these cases are doomed to reliance on glycolysis because of electron leakage from mitochondria and silicic acid is the missing factor, how to explain this phenomenon?
"Figure 4. Bioenergetic analysis of Neu4145 parental tumor cells, derived LDH-A-deficient L2-5 and L2-10 clones, and LDH-A-complemented L2-5.c15 clone
A) Total mitochondrial respiration consists of ATP turnover and proton leak.
B) ATP turnover represents the respiration that is sensitive to the inhibitor of the ATP synthase, oligomycin.
C) Proton leak represents the respiration that is insensitive to oligomycin.
D) Metabolic organization is the fraction of mitochondrial respiration that is used for ATP turnover (black bars) and proton leak (gray bars)."
