Posts made by jjk_learning

@epstein-jeffery I've been reading up on it recently too. Similarly intrigued. There are some really good discourses on it on Grant Generoux's forum. Here's one example of someone bringing up their skepticism toward Low-A.
https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/why-i-dont-think-this-is-a-legit-theory-anymore/

And this article and super long comment thread on this post from 2018 is super long and pretty interesting.
https://180degreehealth.com/vitamin-vitamin-villain/

These are more specifically related to Vitamin A as toxin as opposed to explicitly "Toxic Bile Theory". But lots of good stuff to chew on through the conversations.

@ThinPicking I see a lot of those responses. It seems like those people (Goeddeke, Williford) are discussing what Bilbo is bringing up. Hard to tell for sure without his account/tweets active. But that seems like a decent legit discussion, which is good to see.

@ThinPicking Yeah it looks like he blocks a lot and often uses an offputting approach. I'm trying to get to the root of the disagreement though. Beyond all the back-and-forth vitriol, it is hard to find substantial discussions of the idea that Vitamin A is harmful/beneficial. It all goes ad hominem and never reaches actual discussion. BioEclectic mentioned that there are aspects that Smith can't/doesn't explain. I'm trying to hear what those are.

@BioEclectic What are some of the aspects he can't/won't explain?
I'm new to the low-A concepts. I'm more familiar with RP/bioenergetic ideas though I certainly don't have a full grasp

@S-Holmes I saw Fave's full video too, and thought it was good. Like you said, professional and not antagonistic. I enjoyed the video and was hopeful for some good conversation based on that. I didn't see Smith's response to the video so I can't comment on that.

Fave's Tweet (and his Twitter bio) is antagonistic though.

Hopefully at some point they can drop the hostilities and have a respectful conversation about these topics; I think it would be good for lurkers like me to learn from.

@S-Holmes

FWIW it doesn't show in the screenshot there but in the full Tweet, Fave was being snarky/antagonistic. He started it with by saying:
Hey "Detective"

Hence, the "Mike Fave" in quotation marks.

Shame because I'd like to see an actual productive conversation on Low-A vs. Bioenergetic perspectives on what both are seeing. Most of the conversation I see on it is antagonistic (going in both directions).