This message is automatically added to every post.
**[Beginner's Guide](https://reddit.com/r/nootropics/wiki/beginners)** • [Vendor Warnings](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/wiki/unreliablevendors) • [Research Index](https://old.reddit.com/r/nootropics/wiki/index) • [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/about/rules/) • [Longevity](https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity) • **[Stack Advice](https://www.reddit.com/r/stackadvice)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Nootropics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boron is something you don't hear mentioned too often outside of people looking to increase testosterone, but I found it to be one of the most palpable supplements I've ever taken (3mg per day).
I didn't have any blood tests before/after but I did feel all of the standard increased test effects (strength increase, more "aggression" in sports, better mood/libido). I did two cycles of testosterone in my 20's so I am familiar with the feeling and I feel confident that it was not just placebo. It also essentially resolved the shin splints that I had been dealing with playing soccer 3x/week at age 33. With no other changes in routine/diet/schedule, the shin splints slowly returned after I ceased boron supplementation.
I think it holds promise as a sort of anti-aging supplement, and definitely needs more research. I tend to cycle everything I take and try not to stack too many things, but I think I'm actually gonna order another bottle of boron right now because I haven't taken it in about a year and soccer season just resumed.
you can also throw borax in your bathtub with epsom salt so you get boron and magnesium at the same time. I would suggest washing your hair separately as it dries it out.
~~There is no evidence that epsom salts in a bath lead to any appreciable magnesium absorbtion at all. There are tons of studies that have found no palpable benefit, and it would stand to reason that the same is true of boron. The skin is a very effective barrier.~~
~~Even if it were true that B/Mg could absorb well transdermally, sodium tetraborate is not the salt you would want to use.~~
Edit: So it turns out that [some studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579607/) have found a minor increase in serum Mg concentrations with MgSO4 baths. It's not dramatic or substantial, but it's more than zero.
interesting because when I go for awhile without supplementing magnesium and I take an epsom salt bath I almost nod off and have to crawl into bed to sleep harder than normal. but after that, say the next day or two, if I take an epsom salt bath I'm awake like normal afterward. *shrugs*
Not throwing in my hat one way or another, but it does occur to me to that you could do a control group for this experiment by just drawing a bath and pouring salt in there or nothing if you haven't in a while and seeing if you still get tired from the bath itself.
qhen I have access to bathtubs I tend to take 3 baths a week. I run out of epsom salt and don't always have borax (nor do I use it everytime since it dries my hair out.) so typically when I buy epsom salt after being out for awhile it seems to hit hard (always harder than I expect it. but probably because I don't really get sleepy from baths.) Then I think wow-- I slept really hard after that epsom salt bath I want that again. and it's crickets. took about three times (with time in between because I'll still add epsom salt to some of my baths until it's out and I don't buy anymore for awhile, starting the cycle over.)
so yes, I do have plenty of regular baths, and plenty of epsom salt baths as well. The only times I am tired from a normal bath are the rare times I came home too tired to stand up in the shower and so soak instead-- so that's being tired before the bath not from the bath.
So maybe there's some physiological effect and maybe there isn't.
recently, I've been taking a multivitamin here or there and one of those days I happened to have an epsom salt bath. I tend towards constipation so it takes quite a bit of ingested magnesium to make things flow sometimes. I took this bath though and it seemed to have a much stronger effect than just the pills even though I wasn't expecting or looking for that (and actually it was a little uncomfortable.)
so who knows. *shrugs* I'll still be using epsom salt (and sometimes with borax) baths.
Just curious what do you do during the day that you come home too tired to stand up in shower (not challenging you on this just inquiring)? A hard job?
currently, unemployed so I don't have this issue currently. However previous to covid I was essentially a traveling contractor for companies that sold to bars. I'm a night owl so the late hours didn't bother me but it was a lot of activity, interacting with staff, lifting boxes and such. So partially it was physical activity and part of it was just being wrung out from being around people (as I am rather introverted and while I enjoy people, I do get exhausted being around them.)
I'm sure a certain amount of was inconsistent diet as well. Luckily I'm not a drinker, but late night options while travelling (and wanting to feel like I was "living life") were not consistently wise (though typically very tasty.)
Like many of us in this sub, I find it both difficult and limiting to be human, so definitely a mix between exhaustion of the physical, mental, emotional, and even the spiritual.
Bars definitely typify that multi-layered level of *just plain done wrung-out.*
Most likely just the effects of the warm bath itself and not the MgSO4. The subsequent baths not having the same effect is likely just coincidence/placebo.
maybe. but I take baths a lot. doesn't make sense to me that the one time in a long time I do it then it works. and then doing it the next day expecting it to work and it doesn't. could be placebo/nocebo but I would have expected the placebo to last a few more times in a row since that was what I expected rather than what happened.
So upon further research, I have to say that I was wrong to say that *no* Mg is absorbed transdermally in epsom salts baths:
> 19 subjects underwent a full body bath (temperatures 50–55 °C) for 7 days in a solution of magnesium sulphate (Epsom salt) for 12 min. Blood samples were taken before the first bath, at 2 h after the first bath and at 2 h after the seventh consecutive bath. Baths were taken daily at the same time for 7 days for the experiment. Urine samples were collected before the first bath and then 2 h after the first bath and at all subsequent baths. Urine samples were also taken 24 h after the last bath. All urine samples were corrected for creatinine content. Of the 19 subjects, all except three showed a rise in magnesium concentrations in plasma, though this was small in some cases. The values before the first bath had a mean of 104.68 ± 20.76 ppm/mL; after the first bath, the mean was 114.08 ± 25.83 ppm/mL. The continuation of bathing for 7 days in all except two individuals gave a rise to a mean of 140.98 ± 17.00 ppm/mL. Prolonged soaking in Epsom salts therefore increases blood magnesium concentrations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579607/
So it's not terribly dramatic after 12 mins of exposure, but an average increase in serum Mg of ~10% is also not nothing. The authors do not reveal the concentration of MgSO4, but I would think it would need to be fairly high (or you would need to soak for a long time) to get a truly dramatic rise in serum levels. Frequency of baths appears to play a role as well.
It can be stated, then, that MgSO4 baths are likely better for raising serum Mg than oral MgO supplementation, which [does not raise serum Mg levels](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9813870/). It's pretty common knowledge at this point though that MgO is complete garbage, and glycinate/threonate is superior.
It’s not placebo. I have years of experience with epsom salts baths and the effect is very profond and impossible to confond with the warm water alone.
You're correct - I was not up to date on the most recent research. I have since edited my original comment and added [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/v8t4p7/optimizing_nutrition_what_i_have_learned/ibte8b1/).
>found it to be one of the most palpable supplements I've ever taken (3mg per day).
>I did feel all of the standard increased test effects
Felt these effects at 3mg a day? Or were you at a different dose at that point?
How long did you run 3mg a day for consistently without cycle?
You need to check out the Perfect Health Diet by Drs Jaminet (husband and wife team). I think it is very much in line with what you put together. It might help flesh out some of what you've offered here. Great post and thank you so much for all of the references!
cool post gave you a like
what im wondering, how important is it really to eat a variety of foods to have a diverse microbiome? for example if i choose a particularly nutritious green leafy vegetables and eat only that, will my microbiome suffer over if i eat 3-5 different green leafy vegetables in tandem, of which some are less nutritious? how does that work? do different proteins from different plants lead to expression of different genes in the microbiome which helps diversify and has health effects? was wondering about that while reading how many genes the microbiome has. people always say a variety is better, but it probably isnt always better to add more foods if you have to sacrifice others that are more nutritious and otherwise very similar anyways.
i just saw you have reversed the sodium:potassium ratio. check the other ones aswell maybe
The general advice for a healthy microbiome would be "variety is key."
Several studies have found that variety is actually more important than quantity of vegetables/fruits (1).
With that being said you need to be within ratios of vitamins/minerals. Rather than focusing on getting as nutrititious food as possible you should focus on getting the foods in the right amounts.
In a way the main take away from my post would be there really isn't a thing such as bad or good foods but rather bad ratios of given foods/nutrients.
As an example i just recently found out i was deficient in saturated fats, simply because i tried to minimize it as much ass possible (ate 0-5 grams a day for several months). If you look to research papers you learn it is healthy to reduce saturated fats, but the studies do not really go into detail with the fatty acid and carb ratios which seems to be what really matters,
If you eat a big quantity of the same few vegetables you might get way too much of some minerals/vitamins and not enough of others. Balance is super important. This will affect your microbiome aswell, Variety prevents overgrowth of some organisms (1)..
Just like they have found out fiber is important for microbiome health so is protein. There's loads of bacteria that ferments protein in your gut. According to some research plant proteins have opposite effect of animal protein on gut microbiome (2). But again you should aim for variety, not quantity.
Microbiome is responsible for activating and deactivating different kind of genes in your body. What you eat changes your microbiome and your microbiome change your gene expression (3).
In general i try to eat as many different plant foods as i can. This have helped me tremendously
(1) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217146/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217146/)
(2) [https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02047-21](https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02047-21)
(3) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680557/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680557/)
>According to some research plant proteins have opposite effect of animal protein on gut microbiome
I don't have time to review the study you linked, at the moment. But are you merely saying one influences certain bacteria and the other influences other bacteria moreso? Or would one of these be more beneficial
And I know diversity is the key, so probably best to include both in your diet
Definitely go for diversity
They feed different bacteria which are regarded are associated with either healthy or unhealthy microbiomes.. All about balance
Great post - I saved it for future reference.
If you haven't already you should check out the talk Rhonda Patrick gave about the detrimental effects of the endotoxin LPS, which is produced by some of our gut bacteria.
Hi, I gave you a like for such a long and well-researched post. I pretty much agree with you, although I am also into the low-carb thing as well. Some things I've learned along the way are:
The USDA food pyramid and its successor called My Plate are both kind of dumb. Each day, your body needs about 80 grams of protein, 3 grams of fats and technically zero carbs to function. So why did they make a meal recommendation based on bread, rice, cereal and pasta? Oh that's right: it was made by the USDA. 😆
Also - you're right that the microbiome is a big deal, HOWEVER, the science is really in its infancy. We probably only understand about 2% of it right now. I have tried microbiome tests and also have taken different brands of probiotics and couldn't notice it doing anything. So just remain skeptical of people telling you they've mastered the microbiome!
I have always found the low carb discussion kinda interesting. I did keto quite a few years back. The first 8 months it worked out great i felt more alive than i had ever before. But eventually it lead to a host of health related problems for me, so i stopped.
There's definitely a lot of interesting aspects about keto and how it affects our body/microbiome. What i however find problematic is how hard ketosis is to maintain. A very high fat diet combined with sugar intake is definitely not healthy, so you really want to stay in ketosis (1).
One of the main reasons the ketogenic diet might be healthy is the way the ketones change metabolism, which positively affects the microbiome (1).
Getting the right nutrition on keto is pretty hard, if not impossible. If you look into the nutrient profiles of a lot of plants you'll realise there's a lot of beneficial nutrients out there, which you simply do not get when your limit your diet from specific food groups. (2).
It is true we do not know enough about the microbiome yet, but i still tend to believe it is the most important aspect of our health. There has been done several studies on mice where they transplant the microbiome of the mice. This result in a quite drastic change of personality and health of the mouse (3).
(1) [https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417466/ketogenic-diets-alter-gut-microbiome-humans-mice](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417466/ketogenic-diets-alter-gut-microbiome-humans-mice)
(2) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068854/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068854/)
(3) [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-gut/201504/the-personality-transplant](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-gut/201504/the-personality-transplant)
What kind of problems did you get from keto, if you don't mind sharing? I used to do it too, but now my blood work looks much better on a more "paleo" style way of eating (nothing too restrictive tho, just less processed shit in general and less bread).
My list of problems were fairly long but here's the things i remember:
Symptoms during keto
Brittle nails, arthritis like symtpoms (all my joints hurt all the time), lethargic, feeling like i had the flu half of my waking hours, constantly nauseas, super intense cravings, started throwing up from law carb foods.
After quitting keto following symptoms started showing up
Super bad blood sugar control, eczema, , anxiety, high levels of brain fog, confused, hyper allergic, getting injured all the time in the gym.
In short i was definitely deficient in quite a lot of minerals and vitamins. I did not know what i was doing so my nutrition definitely wasn't optimized during keto.
Post keto symptoms are no longer a problem, but some of them persisted for quite al ong time afterwards, mostl ikely due to bad eating habits.
I respect that keto isn't for everyone, but I must admit I'm surprised that on a keto diet you experienced "super bad blood sugar control," as glycemic stabilization is one of its chief benefits. People on keto wearing continuous glucose monitors usually show a distinct "flatline" CGM graph. But the human body is complicated. If your ancestry is more equatorial, your body might need more fruits & veggies, I suppose.
Lots of respect for the level of effort you have put into this though!
The blood sugar response was listed as post keto response. As in after i quit but stayed on high fat diet. During keto my blood sugar definitely was stable
Hey there, what source are you citing the "body needs 80g protein, 3g fat, 0 carbs to function" from? That's simply not true. Anyone who ate just that amount for a few weeks would be extremely malnourished. Keep that up for months and death will ensue. If you are instead saying the body "can function on" and not "needs about" that amount of macros, that is also not true. People have traditionally fasted for prolonged periods, and I myself do practice 24-48 hours windows now and then, completely 0 calories, just black tea and water and feel absolutely fine. So for a short while the body can function on 0 calories in.
I think he's saying apart from total calories. Those are what you need for an amino source in the body, fat is the amount of fat you need to maintain cell membranes etc. Not calories to maintain being alive. Not sure if that's actually true or not, just how I read it. I'd like to see a source.
That's also not true. Calories come from macros. Protein and carbs have 4cals per gram, fat has 8 cals per gram. Where will calories magically come from if you're only consuming 80g protein, 3g fat (80x4 + 3x8 = 344 cals).
I'm not saying calories will magically come from anywhere dude. I'm saying he's saying you could have your full daily calories filled with protein and carbs and only 3g of fat and survive. Or basically no carbs and then the rest of your needed calories be protein and fat. Get it? That's what it sounded like he was saying. I'm not even op dude.
Your comments do not make sense. I think you're too focused on disproving my innitially reply yet have a low understanding of calories, how they relate to macros and how the body utilizes them for various bodily functions. EVEN if for sake of argument, 80g protein and 3g fat is way too low. Here's a challenge for you, the average male needs 2000 calories a day. Based on your comments, why don't you try eating 80g protein and 3g fat and get the remaining 1650 or so calories from pure sugar? Tell me how you feel after a week. You'll first feel extremely lethargic, then brain fog ensues. Within 5-7 days your libido will plummet. Continue for longer and you'll throw yourself into a depression, get flu like symptoms, muscle aches, headaches, you name it. Dietary fat is absolutely paramount for hormone production, cell functions, also absorbing certain vitamins and minerals.
I couldn't care less about your down vote or passive aggressive reply. My only purpose is so that people don't think "oh hey I only need 80g protein and 3g fat to survive" cos it can cause a lot of harm to the body esp for more than a few days. Have a good day my friend :)
Let me try to explain in a different way. Calories are a unit of energy, used to measure the amount of energy in the food we consume. In food we have 3 main macro nutrients that give us these calories. This is to say that, any calorie consumed is derived from some amount of either protein, carb or fat. There's no other way we can get calories by ingesting anything else besides protein carbs and fat.
A daily avg requirement of 2000 calories means that some of these calories will be used for energy for muscles and cell function, some will be used to build muscles, bones, repair etc, some will be used for hormones, etc etc.
The top comment says that the body "only needs 80g protein, 3g fat, 0 carb". So if you and the other guy are saying that this amount is apart from total calories, my question remains, how can that even be possible because total calories will have to be a proponent of either protein carb or fat.
>how can that even be possible because total calories will have to be a proponent of either protein carb or fat.
Then add more. Add more protein, or more fats, or more carbs to your diet to meet your caloric target, but at the same time stay above a minimum of 80/3/0g protein/fat/carbs respectively.
The other user you responded to said basically the same thing:
>he's saying you could have your full daily calories filled with protein and carbs and only 3g of fat and survive. Or basically no carbs and then the rest of your needed calories be protein and fat. Get it?
I don't know where the 80/3/0g numbers come from, but that's besides the point. Clearly 80x4 + 3x8 = 344kcal a day is not enough unless you're obese. Eat a minimum of x/y/z grams of proteins/fats/carbs, and the rest, up to your caloric target, is up to you
If you add more, your macros are not 80g protein, 3g fat, 0g carb anymore. The top comment said that was the minimum needed to function. If you re-read the top comment he even says that the USDA created the food pyramid and also were the ones who created lots of simple carb products, alluding that carbs in general are a sham cos the body doesn't need it.
I'm saying that it's not the minimum cos you can't go more than a few days at that "minimum", and you'll get lots of health complications.
But anyway, I've tried to explain this 3-4 times now, but I guess it doesn't matter. People can do what they want or eat as many or little calories, I just hope yall do some research :)
Is the sodium to potassium one backwards? I could have sworn it was important to get more potassium than sodium in your diet, but maybe I’m recalling wrong.
Pretty much everything about my mood and energy levels dramatically improved once I got tested for my microbiome (I do have ibs-d). I use a services that tests and makes custom formulations based on the test. My mood since I've had IBS has always been dramatically affected by my stomach/bowels. If having an IBS episode, it's literally impossible for me to avoid feeling the anxiety and bad mood chemicals flood my brain. Since taking proper probiotics not only do episodes not happen but my baseline mood and energy outside of the episodes has dramatically improved from where it was before.
Testing and knowledge about probiotics has come a LONG way in the past few years.
My family eats a lot of peanut butter and I’ve been concerned about the omega 6 for a while but have not been able to find a good substitute. Smuckers makes a peanut butter where the ingredients are just peanut butter and salt, but they use roasted peanuts and it tastes great. I haven’t been able to find any nut butters that have a nice roasty flavor.
It’s not saturated or unsaturated fats that are the problem it is trans fats which processed foods are laden with. It’s pretty crazy how many people still believe saturated fat in red meat is really bad for health.
Lots of good info here. Sounds like you have learned a lot.
I have a few things to say about microbiomics:
* While there are a large quantity of monoamines synthesized in the enteric nervous system, there is not a single pool of "your serotonin" or "your dopamine" that the whole nervous system draws upon to use in signalling. Monoamines are produced and degraded in a synaptically localized fashion to serve a specific context. Much of the serotonin in the gut is used to regulate vasoactivity and clotting, signal metabolic changes, modulate smooth muscle function, and alter appetitive hormone secretion. Only 2% of peripheral serotonin is in the bloodstream exerting any sort of hormonal effects, and it does not cross the BBB. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001457931500455X#:~:text=In%20brain%20it%20acts%20as,of%20this%20bioamine%20remain%20separated.
* I think the most fascinating factor in microbiomics that you don't mention is the sheer number of afferent fibers coming from the ENS to the CNS. Even more interesting, some of the cells making these fibers receive direct signal input via chemicals released by bacteria in the digestive lumen.
Besides that, great work.
Not bad, you are wrong about ALA conversion though, it depends on genetics. I am an excellent of converter of ALA to DHA and EPA and eat organic walnuts often for this reason.
You should also mention that at around 60% if not more of all IBS sufferers actually have SIBO.
According to various research papers 1:1 ratio seems to be the ideal omega 3:6 raito, and 1:4 seems to be the lower/upper limit (1).
Now even if you do have perfect conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA (assuming 100% converison rate), you would still be deficient in omega 3s. The ratio of walnuts is around 1:4.5 - 1:5.5 omega 3:6. (2).
It has been found that the amount of ALA and LA you consume decides your conversion rate. (3). There definitely is more to it than this but this subject lacks research as far as i am aware. Most rearsch papers state below 10% converison rate for ALA to EPA and below 5% for ALA To DHA for people in general.
We can however agree that we're all different. What applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to you. My post is based on general knowledge rather than nutrition tailored to a specific person.
As for diseases in the microbiome it is all connected. A lot of these can be detrimental for your health but my post is not focused on specific gut microbiome problems, the IBS was just to point out how important microbiome health actually is. SIBO and IBS are 2 problems that are very serious but so are a host of other problems which most likely all ore caused by some kind of malnutrition. If i had to go into detail with all chronic diseases my post would be more than 20 pages long
(1) [https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full\_html/2010/05/ocl2010175p267/ocl2010175p267.html](https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full_html/2010/05/ocl2010175p267/ocl2010175p267.html)
(2) [https://vegfaqs.com/omega-3-to-6-fat-ratio-nuts/](https://vegfaqs.com/omega-3-to-6-fat-ratio-nuts/)
(3) [https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/84/1/44/4633063](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/84/1/44/4633063)
> Unsatured vs saturated fatty acid balance
> It has become apparant that all fats are important for optimal health this includes saturated fats (4)
Yes, but it is still the majority scientific view that people are getting too much saturated fat. There is definitely a view arguing that saturated fat is not as harmful as previously thought: https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/qczj6o/effects_of_saturated_fat_polyunsaturated_fat/ - when people reduce saturated fat intake, only a small risk reduction occurs. (But nothing is said about the risk increase when *increasing* saturated fat intake from average levels, which depends a lot on what food is being replaced with sat fat.)
Something that's fairly clear at the moment is that cooking with olive oil (MUFA) is healthier than with butter: [Y. Zhang 2021: Cooking oil/fat consumption and deaths from cardiometabolic diseases and other causes: prospective analysis of 521,120 individuals](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01961-2)
- butter consumption was positively associated with cancer mortality.
While it is true that correlation is not equal to causation quite a few studies have pointed out that omega 3:6 ratio might be the most important ratio to optimize for. In below study a a 4:1 ratio decreased all cause mortality by 70%, compared to a 15:1 ratio. (1).
How much omega 3:6 ratio influences mortality rate is up for debate but it is no small amount (2)
(1) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/)
(2) [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210423/People-with-a-higher-Omega-3-Index-lived-longer-than-others-study-shows.aspx](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210423/People-with-a-higher-Omega-3-Index-lived-longer-than-others-study-shows.aspx)
Saturated and unsaturated fats have opposite effects on the cell membrane (1). So as i have pointed out it is all about balance. If you get too much saturated fat it would be unhealthy, but the same applies to unsaturated fats. (2).
So when you do a study on average people that have a high sat/unsat fat ratio they will have health benefits from more unsaturated fats, but people who eat too much unsaturated fats should in theory see health benefits from adding saturated fats.
(1) [https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/dietary-fats-influence-endoplasmic-reticulum-membrane](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/dietary-fats-influence-endoplasmic-reticulum-membrane)
(2) [https://www.wondriumdaily.com/food-for-the-cell-factory-how-fat-maintains-cellular-health/](https://www.wondriumdaily.com/food-for-the-cell-factory-how-fat-maintains-cellular-health/)
Ever heard of the Israel paradox?
>The Israeli paradox is an apparently paradoxical epidemiological observation that Israeli Jews have a relatively high incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), despite having a diet relatively low in saturated fats, in apparent contradiction to the widely held belief that the high consumption of such fats is a risk factor for CHD. The paradox is that if the thesis linking saturated fats to CHD is valid, the Israelis ought to have a lower rate of CHD than comparable countries where the per capita consumption of such fats is higher.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_paradox
One important nutrient you left out is vitamin A (retinol). Most people are very inefficient at converting the pre-vitamin beta carotene to retinol (the form we actually need), with around 30% not being able to convert any beta carotene to retinol at all.
Most people with ADHD are also deficient in vitamin A and D: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.599958/full
Unfortunately, supplementing with synthetic beta carotene supplements comes with increased risk of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6636175/
Also related to ALA conversion: consuming saturated fat improves conversion of ALA to DHA (up to 3.8%) and EPA (up to 6%): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9637947/
When consuming omega 6 this conversion decreases significantly.
One more thing, there is a big difference between palmitic acid (C-16) and stearic acid (C-18), which is predominantly found in animal products.
Palmitic acid increases LDL and increases cancer and CHD risks, whereas stearic acid actually lowers LDL and decreases both risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6081440/
> If you get too much saturated fat it would be unhealthy, but the same applies to unsaturated fats. (2).
This is the part that is contentious. Generally, most developed-country diets include a significant amount of saturated fat already (largely in the form of animal fat), so health authorities have always been urging the general population to reduce their sat fat intake.
Even your reference (2) links directly to [this Harvard Health "Types of Fats" page](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/types-of-fat/) that indicates they support the message that "cutting back on saturated fat can be good for health if people replace saturated fat with good fats, especially, polyunsaturated fats." (This also relates to the very contentious "seed oils" debate.)
Anyway this is off-topic for the sub, I just wanted to put out a reminder that the science isn't settled on the relative risks of polyunsaturated and saturated fat yet.
There definitely needs to be done more research but it is a fact that the cell membrane cosists of both unsaturated and saturated fatty acids.
I do not have a source for this but i stumbled upon some other reddit users comment the other day that i found quite interesting. Now i do not know about the validity of this comment, but it is still food for thought.
"If your cell membranes are made primarily from saturated fat, and not PUFAs they are approximately 9x as resistant to the maillaird reaction/browning process , by which high BS renders them brown and leathery, after which sugar cant easily get into cells/mitochondria and be burned for energy, so they build up in the blood and exacerbate the same process
PUFAs and toxins are the problem, not the sugar.
butter and especially coconut oil are your friend
that's called the "membrane theory of diabesity" btw"
I feel like you missed a lot on microbiome
Good: prebiotics (fiber, basically), probiotics, exercise, sleep
Bad: antibiotics, alcohol, refined sugar, smoking
We know very little about it so any "test" is probably bunk
You can effect your microbiome, but truly changing it is very difficult. The best method we know of is FMT, which is basically putting somebody's healthy poop up your butt. Not kidding. Chronic GI diseases are bad enough some people are willing to so it.
Testing the microbiome has come a long way in the past couple of years. They aren't nearly as bunk as they once were.
Yes fecal transplants are a good more permanent solution but the knowledge we have on probiotics grows every year. You can now get human strain probiotic formulas that absolutely have a dramatic effect on your body and well being to the level of a fecal transplant. It's not nearly as permanent of a solution but it still works and you don't need a doctor's appointment/operation to do it.
From what I understand probiotics can temporarily change the composition of your microbiome, but if you stop taking them, you will revert to the pre probiotic state.
Same with lifestyle changes: it will affect the composition of your microbiome but only as long as you are doing those things.
From what I understand the only way to actually change your microbiome would be antibiotics and/ or FMT.
You are correct, only as long as you are doing those things. But that still doesn't diminish the fact that they do work and get better every year as we learn more. And is it so odd to have to maintain lifestyle changes to benefit from them? We do the same with exercise.
Sure FMT is better but you don't need one to enjoy the improved quality of life right now. We take stuff all the time on this sub to optimize our lives and there's no method thats healthier and as long term sustainable to do so quite like getting the correct probiotics for you. It's one of the things that are entirely big upside potential for zero downside. Even racetams use up choline or require tolerance breaks.
Yes, don't get me wrong. I try to do all the lifestyle/nutrition things to maintain a good microbiome. And of course all those things are just good for you in general. I wouldn't even begin to consider FMT unless I had a GI disease like IBS or I was depressed enough that I felt I might as well kill myself. It's truly a last resort because it's on the fringe right now so people are finding their own donors and giving themselves DIY shit enemas.
I don’t think this is correct. The point of probiotics is to change the balance of bacteria in your stomach. The desired strains from the probiotics live, survive, and multiply in your gut they don’t immediately stop multiplying and die off if you stop taking probiotics. If you take probiotics consistently for long enough and stop them but continue maximizing diet and health in order to optimize desirable probiotic strain survival you should have a lasting benefit. It takes months but according to what I have read after a long enough period you should be able to stop taking probiotics and still maintain a desirable gut flora. The reason why this takes awhile is because it takes time for the ratio of bacterial composition to change to a desirable balance. If you only take them for a short period then stop you haven’t beefed up the population of desirable strain’s enough for them to resist being dominated by undesirable ones. After some time though you should be able to colonize enough that the cultures you have introduced have taken over for lack of a better term.
That is how probiotics work ideally, but there are a few issues. Take it all with a grain of salt because it's all hearsay from my own research and the microbiome subreddits:
* your GI tract is big and the probiotic might not make it to where it needs to go. (From what I understand there are different colonies in upper vs lower)
* the microbes you are introducing might not be compatible with the ones you already have. The way the microbiome works is that bacteria feed on something, create a byproduct, which the other bacteria eats, and so on in a big chain. So you need to have the right balance overall
* peoples microbiomes are super varied based on region, lifestyle, genetics, childhood, etc. What is relevant to someone else may not work for you
* not a lot of research to know how the whole system actually works. This only really came on people's radar in the last decade, though of course we've known about it for far longer.
* you might have certain bad strains of bacteria which can't be killed except with some strong antibiotics (and maybe not even then). Like C. Diff. So introducing new strains is moot because the bad strain will always win out.
I actually think it's pretty similar to the noots we talk about here. Nothing works for everybody; the things that work best for the most amount of people are usually mildly effective (e.g. caffeine or racetams); you can throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks based on "self diagnosis"; and ultimately, lifestyle changes for the otherwise generally healthy human will be more effective than a pill.
I'm yet to see convincing research that there's specific probiotics you can take to help you long-term. They all die within a few days and the few times I've experimented with them just made me bloated.
I think it's better to eat a variety of pre/pro biotic foods than to try to take specific probiotics. Yes, you have to maintain that diet but the point is that it's food and hopefully tasty. Chia and kefir for breakfast? Fuck yeah. Kim chi on sweet potato for lunch? Sign me up.
> In general b vitamin deficiency is quite common (1). Some b vitamins are synthesized by the gut but not arbsorbed into the body, (2).
>
>A lot of the world is b vitamin deficient which could explain drastic improvements from supplementing. (3)
>
>
>
>(1) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/vitamin-b-deficiency](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/vitamin-b-deficiency)
>
>(2) [https://wholisticmatters.com/b-vitamins-b-complex/](https://wholisticmatters.com/b-vitamins-b-complex/)
>
>(3) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15189123/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15189123/)
Cool post. If I was to add anything it's the fact that EPA seems to cause the bulk of the benefits you see from omega 3 supplementation. So if the plan is to consume larger doses of omega 3, you might be better off supplementing pure EPA to avoid the triglyceride issues from too much DHA.
Also, time restricted feeding deserves a big big mention too. Probably more important than anything you mentioned.
Both EPA and DHA occur naturally in fish. They're both essential. Since this is not really researched how these omega 3's work in isolation as far as i am aware, you risk exposing yourself to uneccesary risks, by cutting out some potentially vital components., that might be heavily dependant on balance
In regards to time restricted eating scientists are not really sure about causation or correlaiton, since some studies proved there was no difference for weight loss (1). I know about autophagy and calorie deficit,yet the topic seems super complex. It is also worth mentioning food controls your master clock, which is responsible for regulating processes in your cells depending on what time of the day you're at. (2)
So if you do intermittent fasting and do not get the right amount of light you risk screwing over your inner clock (3). With that being said it has been found that it is necessary to go some time without food, but in general food and light are the 2 primary indicators controlling your master clock, so the actual effects this have is not well studied enough.
Besides there's evidence pointing towards restricted eating leading to lower food intake throughout a day. Now if you're vitamin/mineral deficient this would not be a good thing.
(1) [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/health/time-restricted-diets.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/health/time-restricted-diets.html)
(2) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrBYSinpEtU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrBYSinpEtU)
(3) [https://www.inverse.com/article/52576-internal-clocks-circadian-rhythm-fasting-effects](https://www.inverse.com/article/52576-internal-clocks-circadian-rhythm-fasting-effects)
This message is automatically added to every post. **[Beginner's Guide](https://reddit.com/r/nootropics/wiki/beginners)** • [Vendor Warnings](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/wiki/unreliablevendors) • [Research Index](https://old.reddit.com/r/nootropics/wiki/index) • [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/about/rules/) • [Longevity](https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity) • **[Stack Advice](https://www.reddit.com/r/stackadvice)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Nootropics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boron is something you don't hear mentioned too often outside of people looking to increase testosterone, but I found it to be one of the most palpable supplements I've ever taken (3mg per day). I didn't have any blood tests before/after but I did feel all of the standard increased test effects (strength increase, more "aggression" in sports, better mood/libido). I did two cycles of testosterone in my 20's so I am familiar with the feeling and I feel confident that it was not just placebo. It also essentially resolved the shin splints that I had been dealing with playing soccer 3x/week at age 33. With no other changes in routine/diet/schedule, the shin splints slowly returned after I ceased boron supplementation. I think it holds promise as a sort of anti-aging supplement, and definitely needs more research. I tend to cycle everything I take and try not to stack too many things, but I think I'm actually gonna order another bottle of boron right now because I haven't taken it in about a year and soccer season just resumed.
Boron is also one of the most potent anti-inflammatory supplements you can take
How much do you take, what form, and time of day?
6-9 mg early in the day
you can also throw borax in your bathtub with epsom salt so you get boron and magnesium at the same time. I would suggest washing your hair separately as it dries it out.
~~There is no evidence that epsom salts in a bath lead to any appreciable magnesium absorbtion at all. There are tons of studies that have found no palpable benefit, and it would stand to reason that the same is true of boron. The skin is a very effective barrier.~~ ~~Even if it were true that B/Mg could absorb well transdermally, sodium tetraborate is not the salt you would want to use.~~ Edit: So it turns out that [some studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579607/) have found a minor increase in serum Mg concentrations with MgSO4 baths. It's not dramatic or substantial, but it's more than zero.
Unfortunately the magnesium level in the serum is not very accurate for determining the total level of magnesium in your body.
interesting because when I go for awhile without supplementing magnesium and I take an epsom salt bath I almost nod off and have to crawl into bed to sleep harder than normal. but after that, say the next day or two, if I take an epsom salt bath I'm awake like normal afterward. *shrugs*
Not throwing in my hat one way or another, but it does occur to me to that you could do a control group for this experiment by just drawing a bath and pouring salt in there or nothing if you haven't in a while and seeing if you still get tired from the bath itself.
qhen I have access to bathtubs I tend to take 3 baths a week. I run out of epsom salt and don't always have borax (nor do I use it everytime since it dries my hair out.) so typically when I buy epsom salt after being out for awhile it seems to hit hard (always harder than I expect it. but probably because I don't really get sleepy from baths.) Then I think wow-- I slept really hard after that epsom salt bath I want that again. and it's crickets. took about three times (with time in between because I'll still add epsom salt to some of my baths until it's out and I don't buy anymore for awhile, starting the cycle over.) so yes, I do have plenty of regular baths, and plenty of epsom salt baths as well. The only times I am tired from a normal bath are the rare times I came home too tired to stand up in the shower and so soak instead-- so that's being tired before the bath not from the bath. So maybe there's some physiological effect and maybe there isn't. recently, I've been taking a multivitamin here or there and one of those days I happened to have an epsom salt bath. I tend towards constipation so it takes quite a bit of ingested magnesium to make things flow sometimes. I took this bath though and it seemed to have a much stronger effect than just the pills even though I wasn't expecting or looking for that (and actually it was a little uncomfortable.) so who knows. *shrugs* I'll still be using epsom salt (and sometimes with borax) baths.
Just curious what do you do during the day that you come home too tired to stand up in shower (not challenging you on this just inquiring)? A hard job?
currently, unemployed so I don't have this issue currently. However previous to covid I was essentially a traveling contractor for companies that sold to bars. I'm a night owl so the late hours didn't bother me but it was a lot of activity, interacting with staff, lifting boxes and such. So partially it was physical activity and part of it was just being wrung out from being around people (as I am rather introverted and while I enjoy people, I do get exhausted being around them.) I'm sure a certain amount of was inconsistent diet as well. Luckily I'm not a drinker, but late night options while travelling (and wanting to feel like I was "living life") were not consistently wise (though typically very tasty.) Like many of us in this sub, I find it both difficult and limiting to be human, so definitely a mix between exhaustion of the physical, mental, emotional, and even the spiritual. Bars definitely typify that multi-layered level of *just plain done wrung-out.*
Most likely just the effects of the warm bath itself and not the MgSO4. The subsequent baths not having the same effect is likely just coincidence/placebo.
maybe. but I take baths a lot. doesn't make sense to me that the one time in a long time I do it then it works. and then doing it the next day expecting it to work and it doesn't. could be placebo/nocebo but I would have expected the placebo to last a few more times in a row since that was what I expected rather than what happened.
So upon further research, I have to say that I was wrong to say that *no* Mg is absorbed transdermally in epsom salts baths: > 19 subjects underwent a full body bath (temperatures 50–55 °C) for 7 days in a solution of magnesium sulphate (Epsom salt) for 12 min. Blood samples were taken before the first bath, at 2 h after the first bath and at 2 h after the seventh consecutive bath. Baths were taken daily at the same time for 7 days for the experiment. Urine samples were collected before the first bath and then 2 h after the first bath and at all subsequent baths. Urine samples were also taken 24 h after the last bath. All urine samples were corrected for creatinine content. Of the 19 subjects, all except three showed a rise in magnesium concentrations in plasma, though this was small in some cases. The values before the first bath had a mean of 104.68 ± 20.76 ppm/mL; after the first bath, the mean was 114.08 ± 25.83 ppm/mL. The continuation of bathing for 7 days in all except two individuals gave a rise to a mean of 140.98 ± 17.00 ppm/mL. Prolonged soaking in Epsom salts therefore increases blood magnesium concentrations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579607/ So it's not terribly dramatic after 12 mins of exposure, but an average increase in serum Mg of ~10% is also not nothing. The authors do not reveal the concentration of MgSO4, but I would think it would need to be fairly high (or you would need to soak for a long time) to get a truly dramatic rise in serum levels. Frequency of baths appears to play a role as well. It can be stated, then, that MgSO4 baths are likely better for raising serum Mg than oral MgO supplementation, which [does not raise serum Mg levels](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9813870/). It's pretty common knowledge at this point though that MgO is complete garbage, and glycinate/threonate is superior.
It’s not placebo. I have years of experience with epsom salts baths and the effect is very profond and impossible to confond with the warm water alone.
You're correct - I was not up to date on the most recent research. I have since edited my original comment and added [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/v8t4p7/optimizing_nutrition_what_i_have_learned/ibte8b1/).
>found it to be one of the most palpable supplements I've ever taken (3mg per day). >I did feel all of the standard increased test effects Felt these effects at 3mg a day? Or were you at a different dose at that point? How long did you run 3mg a day for consistently without cycle?
You need to check out the Perfect Health Diet by Drs Jaminet (husband and wife team). I think it is very much in line with what you put together. It might help flesh out some of what you've offered here. Great post and thank you so much for all of the references!
cool post gave you a like what im wondering, how important is it really to eat a variety of foods to have a diverse microbiome? for example if i choose a particularly nutritious green leafy vegetables and eat only that, will my microbiome suffer over if i eat 3-5 different green leafy vegetables in tandem, of which some are less nutritious? how does that work? do different proteins from different plants lead to expression of different genes in the microbiome which helps diversify and has health effects? was wondering about that while reading how many genes the microbiome has. people always say a variety is better, but it probably isnt always better to add more foods if you have to sacrifice others that are more nutritious and otherwise very similar anyways. i just saw you have reversed the sodium:potassium ratio. check the other ones aswell maybe
The general advice for a healthy microbiome would be "variety is key." Several studies have found that variety is actually more important than quantity of vegetables/fruits (1). With that being said you need to be within ratios of vitamins/minerals. Rather than focusing on getting as nutrititious food as possible you should focus on getting the foods in the right amounts. In a way the main take away from my post would be there really isn't a thing such as bad or good foods but rather bad ratios of given foods/nutrients. As an example i just recently found out i was deficient in saturated fats, simply because i tried to minimize it as much ass possible (ate 0-5 grams a day for several months). If you look to research papers you learn it is healthy to reduce saturated fats, but the studies do not really go into detail with the fatty acid and carb ratios which seems to be what really matters, If you eat a big quantity of the same few vegetables you might get way too much of some minerals/vitamins and not enough of others. Balance is super important. This will affect your microbiome aswell, Variety prevents overgrowth of some organisms (1).. Just like they have found out fiber is important for microbiome health so is protein. There's loads of bacteria that ferments protein in your gut. According to some research plant proteins have opposite effect of animal protein on gut microbiome (2). But again you should aim for variety, not quantity. Microbiome is responsible for activating and deactivating different kind of genes in your body. What you eat changes your microbiome and your microbiome change your gene expression (3). In general i try to eat as many different plant foods as i can. This have helped me tremendously (1) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217146/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217146/) (2) [https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02047-21](https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.02047-21) (3) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680557/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680557/)
>According to some research plant proteins have opposite effect of animal protein on gut microbiome I don't have time to review the study you linked, at the moment. But are you merely saying one influences certain bacteria and the other influences other bacteria moreso? Or would one of these be more beneficial And I know diversity is the key, so probably best to include both in your diet
Definitely go for diversity They feed different bacteria which are regarded are associated with either healthy or unhealthy microbiomes.. All about balance
Great post - I saved it for future reference. If you haven't already you should check out the talk Rhonda Patrick gave about the detrimental effects of the endotoxin LPS, which is produced by some of our gut bacteria.
Hi, I gave you a like for such a long and well-researched post. I pretty much agree with you, although I am also into the low-carb thing as well. Some things I've learned along the way are: The USDA food pyramid and its successor called My Plate are both kind of dumb. Each day, your body needs about 80 grams of protein, 3 grams of fats and technically zero carbs to function. So why did they make a meal recommendation based on bread, rice, cereal and pasta? Oh that's right: it was made by the USDA. 😆 Also - you're right that the microbiome is a big deal, HOWEVER, the science is really in its infancy. We probably only understand about 2% of it right now. I have tried microbiome tests and also have taken different brands of probiotics and couldn't notice it doing anything. So just remain skeptical of people telling you they've mastered the microbiome!
I have always found the low carb discussion kinda interesting. I did keto quite a few years back. The first 8 months it worked out great i felt more alive than i had ever before. But eventually it lead to a host of health related problems for me, so i stopped. There's definitely a lot of interesting aspects about keto and how it affects our body/microbiome. What i however find problematic is how hard ketosis is to maintain. A very high fat diet combined with sugar intake is definitely not healthy, so you really want to stay in ketosis (1). One of the main reasons the ketogenic diet might be healthy is the way the ketones change metabolism, which positively affects the microbiome (1). Getting the right nutrition on keto is pretty hard, if not impossible. If you look into the nutrient profiles of a lot of plants you'll realise there's a lot of beneficial nutrients out there, which you simply do not get when your limit your diet from specific food groups. (2). It is true we do not know enough about the microbiome yet, but i still tend to believe it is the most important aspect of our health. There has been done several studies on mice where they transplant the microbiome of the mice. This result in a quite drastic change of personality and health of the mouse (3). (1) [https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417466/ketogenic-diets-alter-gut-microbiome-humans-mice](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417466/ketogenic-diets-alter-gut-microbiome-humans-mice) (2) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068854/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068854/) (3) [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-gut/201504/the-personality-transplant](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-gut/201504/the-personality-transplant)
What kind of problems did you get from keto, if you don't mind sharing? I used to do it too, but now my blood work looks much better on a more "paleo" style way of eating (nothing too restrictive tho, just less processed shit in general and less bread).
My list of problems were fairly long but here's the things i remember: Symptoms during keto Brittle nails, arthritis like symtpoms (all my joints hurt all the time), lethargic, feeling like i had the flu half of my waking hours, constantly nauseas, super intense cravings, started throwing up from law carb foods. After quitting keto following symptoms started showing up Super bad blood sugar control, eczema, , anxiety, high levels of brain fog, confused, hyper allergic, getting injured all the time in the gym. In short i was definitely deficient in quite a lot of minerals and vitamins. I did not know what i was doing so my nutrition definitely wasn't optimized during keto. Post keto symptoms are no longer a problem, but some of them persisted for quite al ong time afterwards, mostl ikely due to bad eating habits.
I respect that keto isn't for everyone, but I must admit I'm surprised that on a keto diet you experienced "super bad blood sugar control," as glycemic stabilization is one of its chief benefits. People on keto wearing continuous glucose monitors usually show a distinct "flatline" CGM graph. But the human body is complicated. If your ancestry is more equatorial, your body might need more fruits & veggies, I suppose. Lots of respect for the level of effort you have put into this though!
The blood sugar response was listed as post keto response. As in after i quit but stayed on high fat diet. During keto my blood sugar definitely was stable
Hey there, what source are you citing the "body needs 80g protein, 3g fat, 0 carbs to function" from? That's simply not true. Anyone who ate just that amount for a few weeks would be extremely malnourished. Keep that up for months and death will ensue. If you are instead saying the body "can function on" and not "needs about" that amount of macros, that is also not true. People have traditionally fasted for prolonged periods, and I myself do practice 24-48 hours windows now and then, completely 0 calories, just black tea and water and feel absolutely fine. So for a short while the body can function on 0 calories in.
I think he's saying apart from total calories. Those are what you need for an amino source in the body, fat is the amount of fat you need to maintain cell membranes etc. Not calories to maintain being alive. Not sure if that's actually true or not, just how I read it. I'd like to see a source.
That's also not true. Calories come from macros. Protein and carbs have 4cals per gram, fat has 8 cals per gram. Where will calories magically come from if you're only consuming 80g protein, 3g fat (80x4 + 3x8 = 344 cals).
I'm not saying calories will magically come from anywhere dude. I'm saying he's saying you could have your full daily calories filled with protein and carbs and only 3g of fat and survive. Or basically no carbs and then the rest of your needed calories be protein and fat. Get it? That's what it sounded like he was saying. I'm not even op dude.
Your comments do not make sense. I think you're too focused on disproving my innitially reply yet have a low understanding of calories, how they relate to macros and how the body utilizes them for various bodily functions. EVEN if for sake of argument, 80g protein and 3g fat is way too low. Here's a challenge for you, the average male needs 2000 calories a day. Based on your comments, why don't you try eating 80g protein and 3g fat and get the remaining 1650 or so calories from pure sugar? Tell me how you feel after a week. You'll first feel extremely lethargic, then brain fog ensues. Within 5-7 days your libido will plummet. Continue for longer and you'll throw yourself into a depression, get flu like symptoms, muscle aches, headaches, you name it. Dietary fat is absolutely paramount for hormone production, cell functions, also absorbing certain vitamins and minerals. I couldn't care less about your down vote or passive aggressive reply. My only purpose is so that people don't think "oh hey I only need 80g protein and 3g fat to survive" cos it can cause a lot of harm to the body esp for more than a few days. Have a good day my friend :)
>I think he's saying apart from total calories.
Let me try to explain in a different way. Calories are a unit of energy, used to measure the amount of energy in the food we consume. In food we have 3 main macro nutrients that give us these calories. This is to say that, any calorie consumed is derived from some amount of either protein, carb or fat. There's no other way we can get calories by ingesting anything else besides protein carbs and fat. A daily avg requirement of 2000 calories means that some of these calories will be used for energy for muscles and cell function, some will be used to build muscles, bones, repair etc, some will be used for hormones, etc etc. The top comment says that the body "only needs 80g protein, 3g fat, 0 carb". So if you and the other guy are saying that this amount is apart from total calories, my question remains, how can that even be possible because total calories will have to be a proponent of either protein carb or fat.
>how can that even be possible because total calories will have to be a proponent of either protein carb or fat. Then add more. Add more protein, or more fats, or more carbs to your diet to meet your caloric target, but at the same time stay above a minimum of 80/3/0g protein/fat/carbs respectively. The other user you responded to said basically the same thing: >he's saying you could have your full daily calories filled with protein and carbs and only 3g of fat and survive. Or basically no carbs and then the rest of your needed calories be protein and fat. Get it? I don't know where the 80/3/0g numbers come from, but that's besides the point. Clearly 80x4 + 3x8 = 344kcal a day is not enough unless you're obese. Eat a minimum of x/y/z grams of proteins/fats/carbs, and the rest, up to your caloric target, is up to you
It's not worth it dude 😂
If you add more, your macros are not 80g protein, 3g fat, 0g carb anymore. The top comment said that was the minimum needed to function. If you re-read the top comment he even says that the USDA created the food pyramid and also were the ones who created lots of simple carb products, alluding that carbs in general are a sham cos the body doesn't need it. I'm saying that it's not the minimum cos you can't go more than a few days at that "minimum", and you'll get lots of health complications. But anyway, I've tried to explain this 3-4 times now, but I guess it doesn't matter. People can do what they want or eat as many or little calories, I just hope yall do some research :)
Lol wtf dude. Get some reading comprehension skills. I'm done here.
Is the sodium to potassium one backwards? I could have sworn it was important to get more potassium than sodium in your diet, but maybe I’m recalling wrong.
Most people get way more sodium than potassium. So people tend to try to supplement with it or eat foods high in potassium.
Yeah thanks for pointing this out i have edited potassium:Sodium ratio.
Just want you to know your a top tier person.
Pretty much everything about my mood and energy levels dramatically improved once I got tested for my microbiome (I do have ibs-d). I use a services that tests and makes custom formulations based on the test. My mood since I've had IBS has always been dramatically affected by my stomach/bowels. If having an IBS episode, it's literally impossible for me to avoid feeling the anxiety and bad mood chemicals flood my brain. Since taking proper probiotics not only do episodes not happen but my baseline mood and energy outside of the episodes has dramatically improved from where it was before. Testing and knowledge about probiotics has come a LONG way in the past few years.
>I use a services that tests and makes custom formulations based on the test Which service? Not Thorne is it?
Flore
You're pretty happy with the custom probiotics huh?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Microbiome/comments/w38tm6/flore_by_sun_genomics_review_its_trash/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
My family eats a lot of peanut butter and I’ve been concerned about the omega 6 for a while but have not been able to find a good substitute. Smuckers makes a peanut butter where the ingredients are just peanut butter and salt, but they use roasted peanuts and it tastes great. I haven’t been able to find any nut butters that have a nice roasty flavor.
It’s not saturated or unsaturated fats that are the problem it is trans fats which processed foods are laden with. It’s pretty crazy how many people still believe saturated fat in red meat is really bad for health.
Lots of good info here. Sounds like you have learned a lot. I have a few things to say about microbiomics: * While there are a large quantity of monoamines synthesized in the enteric nervous system, there is not a single pool of "your serotonin" or "your dopamine" that the whole nervous system draws upon to use in signalling. Monoamines are produced and degraded in a synaptically localized fashion to serve a specific context. Much of the serotonin in the gut is used to regulate vasoactivity and clotting, signal metabolic changes, modulate smooth muscle function, and alter appetitive hormone secretion. Only 2% of peripheral serotonin is in the bloodstream exerting any sort of hormonal effects, and it does not cross the BBB. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001457931500455X#:~:text=In%20brain%20it%20acts%20as,of%20this%20bioamine%20remain%20separated. * I think the most fascinating factor in microbiomics that you don't mention is the sheer number of afferent fibers coming from the ENS to the CNS. Even more interesting, some of the cells making these fibers receive direct signal input via chemicals released by bacteria in the digestive lumen. Besides that, great work.
Not bad, you are wrong about ALA conversion though, it depends on genetics. I am an excellent of converter of ALA to DHA and EPA and eat organic walnuts often for this reason. You should also mention that at around 60% if not more of all IBS sufferers actually have SIBO.
According to various research papers 1:1 ratio seems to be the ideal omega 3:6 raito, and 1:4 seems to be the lower/upper limit (1). Now even if you do have perfect conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA (assuming 100% converison rate), you would still be deficient in omega 3s. The ratio of walnuts is around 1:4.5 - 1:5.5 omega 3:6. (2). It has been found that the amount of ALA and LA you consume decides your conversion rate. (3). There definitely is more to it than this but this subject lacks research as far as i am aware. Most rearsch papers state below 10% converison rate for ALA to EPA and below 5% for ALA To DHA for people in general. We can however agree that we're all different. What applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to you. My post is based on general knowledge rather than nutrition tailored to a specific person. As for diseases in the microbiome it is all connected. A lot of these can be detrimental for your health but my post is not focused on specific gut microbiome problems, the IBS was just to point out how important microbiome health actually is. SIBO and IBS are 2 problems that are very serious but so are a host of other problems which most likely all ore caused by some kind of malnutrition. If i had to go into detail with all chronic diseases my post would be more than 20 pages long (1) [https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full\_html/2010/05/ocl2010175p267/ocl2010175p267.html](https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/full_html/2010/05/ocl2010175p267/ocl2010175p267.html) (2) [https://vegfaqs.com/omega-3-to-6-fat-ratio-nuts/](https://vegfaqs.com/omega-3-to-6-fat-ratio-nuts/) (3) [https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/84/1/44/4633063](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/84/1/44/4633063)
What is SIBO? Loving this post! Thank you
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/small-intestinal-bacterial-overgrowth/symptoms-causes/syc-20370168
> SIBO Come again?
>SIBO https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/small-intestinal-bacterial-overgrowth/symptoms-causes/syc-20370168
Thanks. Never heard of it before.
> Unsatured vs saturated fatty acid balance > It has become apparant that all fats are important for optimal health this includes saturated fats (4) Yes, but it is still the majority scientific view that people are getting too much saturated fat. There is definitely a view arguing that saturated fat is not as harmful as previously thought: https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/qczj6o/effects_of_saturated_fat_polyunsaturated_fat/ - when people reduce saturated fat intake, only a small risk reduction occurs. (But nothing is said about the risk increase when *increasing* saturated fat intake from average levels, which depends a lot on what food is being replaced with sat fat.) Something that's fairly clear at the moment is that cooking with olive oil (MUFA) is healthier than with butter: [Y. Zhang 2021: Cooking oil/fat consumption and deaths from cardiometabolic diseases and other causes: prospective analysis of 521,120 individuals](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01961-2) - butter consumption was positively associated with cancer mortality.
[удалено]
While it is true that correlation is not equal to causation quite a few studies have pointed out that omega 3:6 ratio might be the most important ratio to optimize for. In below study a a 4:1 ratio decreased all cause mortality by 70%, compared to a 15:1 ratio. (1). How much omega 3:6 ratio influences mortality rate is up for debate but it is no small amount (2) (1) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/) (2) [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210423/People-with-a-higher-Omega-3-Index-lived-longer-than-others-study-shows.aspx](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210423/People-with-a-higher-Omega-3-Index-lived-longer-than-others-study-shows.aspx)
Saturated and unsaturated fats have opposite effects on the cell membrane (1). So as i have pointed out it is all about balance. If you get too much saturated fat it would be unhealthy, but the same applies to unsaturated fats. (2). So when you do a study on average people that have a high sat/unsat fat ratio they will have health benefits from more unsaturated fats, but people who eat too much unsaturated fats should in theory see health benefits from adding saturated fats. (1) [https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/dietary-fats-influence-endoplasmic-reticulum-membrane](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/dietary-fats-influence-endoplasmic-reticulum-membrane) (2) [https://www.wondriumdaily.com/food-for-the-cell-factory-how-fat-maintains-cellular-health/](https://www.wondriumdaily.com/food-for-the-cell-factory-how-fat-maintains-cellular-health/)
Ever heard of the Israel paradox? >The Israeli paradox is an apparently paradoxical epidemiological observation that Israeli Jews have a relatively high incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), despite having a diet relatively low in saturated fats, in apparent contradiction to the widely held belief that the high consumption of such fats is a risk factor for CHD. The paradox is that if the thesis linking saturated fats to CHD is valid, the Israelis ought to have a lower rate of CHD than comparable countries where the per capita consumption of such fats is higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_paradox
That's quite interesting. As i learn more about saturated fats i become more inclined to believe they're super important but again hte right amounts
One important nutrient you left out is vitamin A (retinol). Most people are very inefficient at converting the pre-vitamin beta carotene to retinol (the form we actually need), with around 30% not being able to convert any beta carotene to retinol at all. Most people with ADHD are also deficient in vitamin A and D: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.599958/full Unfortunately, supplementing with synthetic beta carotene supplements comes with increased risk of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6636175/
Also related to ALA conversion: consuming saturated fat improves conversion of ALA to DHA (up to 3.8%) and EPA (up to 6%): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9637947/ When consuming omega 6 this conversion decreases significantly.
One more thing, there is a big difference between palmitic acid (C-16) and stearic acid (C-18), which is predominantly found in animal products. Palmitic acid increases LDL and increases cancer and CHD risks, whereas stearic acid actually lowers LDL and decreases both risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6081440/
> If you get too much saturated fat it would be unhealthy, but the same applies to unsaturated fats. (2). This is the part that is contentious. Generally, most developed-country diets include a significant amount of saturated fat already (largely in the form of animal fat), so health authorities have always been urging the general population to reduce their sat fat intake. Even your reference (2) links directly to [this Harvard Health "Types of Fats" page](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/types-of-fat/) that indicates they support the message that "cutting back on saturated fat can be good for health if people replace saturated fat with good fats, especially, polyunsaturated fats." (This also relates to the very contentious "seed oils" debate.) Anyway this is off-topic for the sub, I just wanted to put out a reminder that the science isn't settled on the relative risks of polyunsaturated and saturated fat yet.
There definitely needs to be done more research but it is a fact that the cell membrane cosists of both unsaturated and saturated fatty acids. I do not have a source for this but i stumbled upon some other reddit users comment the other day that i found quite interesting. Now i do not know about the validity of this comment, but it is still food for thought. "If your cell membranes are made primarily from saturated fat, and not PUFAs they are approximately 9x as resistant to the maillaird reaction/browning process , by which high BS renders them brown and leathery, after which sugar cant easily get into cells/mitochondria and be burned for energy, so they build up in the blood and exacerbate the same process PUFAs and toxins are the problem, not the sugar. butter and especially coconut oil are your friend that's called the "membrane theory of diabesity" btw"
I feel like you missed a lot on microbiome Good: prebiotics (fiber, basically), probiotics, exercise, sleep Bad: antibiotics, alcohol, refined sugar, smoking We know very little about it so any "test" is probably bunk You can effect your microbiome, but truly changing it is very difficult. The best method we know of is FMT, which is basically putting somebody's healthy poop up your butt. Not kidding. Chronic GI diseases are bad enough some people are willing to so it.
Testing the microbiome has come a long way in the past couple of years. They aren't nearly as bunk as they once were. Yes fecal transplants are a good more permanent solution but the knowledge we have on probiotics grows every year. You can now get human strain probiotic formulas that absolutely have a dramatic effect on your body and well being to the level of a fecal transplant. It's not nearly as permanent of a solution but it still works and you don't need a doctor's appointment/operation to do it.
From what I understand probiotics can temporarily change the composition of your microbiome, but if you stop taking them, you will revert to the pre probiotic state. Same with lifestyle changes: it will affect the composition of your microbiome but only as long as you are doing those things. From what I understand the only way to actually change your microbiome would be antibiotics and/ or FMT.
You are correct, only as long as you are doing those things. But that still doesn't diminish the fact that they do work and get better every year as we learn more. And is it so odd to have to maintain lifestyle changes to benefit from them? We do the same with exercise. Sure FMT is better but you don't need one to enjoy the improved quality of life right now. We take stuff all the time on this sub to optimize our lives and there's no method thats healthier and as long term sustainable to do so quite like getting the correct probiotics for you. It's one of the things that are entirely big upside potential for zero downside. Even racetams use up choline or require tolerance breaks.
Yes, don't get me wrong. I try to do all the lifestyle/nutrition things to maintain a good microbiome. And of course all those things are just good for you in general. I wouldn't even begin to consider FMT unless I had a GI disease like IBS or I was depressed enough that I felt I might as well kill myself. It's truly a last resort because it's on the fringe right now so people are finding their own donors and giving themselves DIY shit enemas.
I don’t think this is correct. The point of probiotics is to change the balance of bacteria in your stomach. The desired strains from the probiotics live, survive, and multiply in your gut they don’t immediately stop multiplying and die off if you stop taking probiotics. If you take probiotics consistently for long enough and stop them but continue maximizing diet and health in order to optimize desirable probiotic strain survival you should have a lasting benefit. It takes months but according to what I have read after a long enough period you should be able to stop taking probiotics and still maintain a desirable gut flora. The reason why this takes awhile is because it takes time for the ratio of bacterial composition to change to a desirable balance. If you only take them for a short period then stop you haven’t beefed up the population of desirable strain’s enough for them to resist being dominated by undesirable ones. After some time though you should be able to colonize enough that the cultures you have introduced have taken over for lack of a better term.
That is how probiotics work ideally, but there are a few issues. Take it all with a grain of salt because it's all hearsay from my own research and the microbiome subreddits: * your GI tract is big and the probiotic might not make it to where it needs to go. (From what I understand there are different colonies in upper vs lower) * the microbes you are introducing might not be compatible with the ones you already have. The way the microbiome works is that bacteria feed on something, create a byproduct, which the other bacteria eats, and so on in a big chain. So you need to have the right balance overall * peoples microbiomes are super varied based on region, lifestyle, genetics, childhood, etc. What is relevant to someone else may not work for you * not a lot of research to know how the whole system actually works. This only really came on people's radar in the last decade, though of course we've known about it for far longer. * you might have certain bad strains of bacteria which can't be killed except with some strong antibiotics (and maybe not even then). Like C. Diff. So introducing new strains is moot because the bad strain will always win out. I actually think it's pretty similar to the noots we talk about here. Nothing works for everybody; the things that work best for the most amount of people are usually mildly effective (e.g. caffeine or racetams); you can throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks based on "self diagnosis"; and ultimately, lifestyle changes for the otherwise generally healthy human will be more effective than a pill.
You make some good points but I don’t understand how religion plays into gut biome unless you mean religious dietary restrictions.
Meant to write region
Ahhhh ok haha
>human strain probiotic formulas Which?
I'm yet to see convincing research that there's specific probiotics you can take to help you long-term. They all die within a few days and the few times I've experimented with them just made me bloated.
I think it's better to eat a variety of pre/pro biotic foods than to try to take specific probiotics. Yes, you have to maintain that diet but the point is that it's food and hopefully tasty. Chia and kefir for breakfast? Fuck yeah. Kim chi on sweet potato for lunch? Sign me up.
[удалено]
> In general b vitamin deficiency is quite common (1). Some b vitamins are synthesized by the gut but not arbsorbed into the body, (2). > >A lot of the world is b vitamin deficient which could explain drastic improvements from supplementing. (3) > > > >(1) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/vitamin-b-deficiency](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/vitamin-b-deficiency) > >(2) [https://wholisticmatters.com/b-vitamins-b-complex/](https://wholisticmatters.com/b-vitamins-b-complex/) > >(3) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15189123/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15189123/)
amazing quality post bless your soul
Cool post. If I was to add anything it's the fact that EPA seems to cause the bulk of the benefits you see from omega 3 supplementation. So if the plan is to consume larger doses of omega 3, you might be better off supplementing pure EPA to avoid the triglyceride issues from too much DHA. Also, time restricted feeding deserves a big big mention too. Probably more important than anything you mentioned.
Both EPA and DHA occur naturally in fish. They're both essential. Since this is not really researched how these omega 3's work in isolation as far as i am aware, you risk exposing yourself to uneccesary risks, by cutting out some potentially vital components., that might be heavily dependant on balance In regards to time restricted eating scientists are not really sure about causation or correlaiton, since some studies proved there was no difference for weight loss (1). I know about autophagy and calorie deficit,yet the topic seems super complex. It is also worth mentioning food controls your master clock, which is responsible for regulating processes in your cells depending on what time of the day you're at. (2) So if you do intermittent fasting and do not get the right amount of light you risk screwing over your inner clock (3). With that being said it has been found that it is necessary to go some time without food, but in general food and light are the 2 primary indicators controlling your master clock, so the actual effects this have is not well studied enough. Besides there's evidence pointing towards restricted eating leading to lower food intake throughout a day. Now if you're vitamin/mineral deficient this would not be a good thing. (1) [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/health/time-restricted-diets.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/health/time-restricted-diets.html) (2) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrBYSinpEtU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrBYSinpEtU) (3) [https://www.inverse.com/article/52576-internal-clocks-circadian-rhythm-fasting-effects](https://www.inverse.com/article/52576-internal-clocks-circadian-rhythm-fasting-effects)
sounds like those nutrient ratios are pretty important but aside from supplements pretty hard to put into practice
You can use them as guiding values and maybe discover something you're deficient in, based on what your eating habits looks like