Youtube comments of What I\x27ve Learned (@WhatIveLearned).

  1. 17000
  2. 9900
  3. 8200
  4. 7600
  5. 7300
  6. 4300
  7. 3100
  8. 2900
  9. 2800
  10. EDIT: Points discussed in this video: [1] We improve our language skills only when we acquire language through understanding what is being said (According to Krashen). [2] Your brain is a massive pattern recognition device that can piece out vocabulary and grammar rules IF it gets the meaning. [3] Dictionaries may help you "learn" words, but they do not help you improve your language skills (though it may indirectly help you "acquire" language which would improve your language skill) [4] Input of content in the target language is so important because it rapidly exposes you to a wide variety of vocabulary, grammar and contextual clues for how the language works. [5] NO SUBTITLES IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE. You can kiss any language gains goodbye if you use them. Though, subtitles in the target language can even have you learn quicker. [6] Speaking is NOT necessary for acquiring language. (Though it is surely necessary for pronunciation and being able to speak fluidly) As per Krashen "It means talking out loud to yourself in the car in Spanish will NOT help your Spanish ability." However, speaking can indirectly improve your language because you can use it to elicit more speech from speakers of your target language. [7] Use shadowing to improve your listening and pronunciation. Extra tips: RECOMMENDED BOOKS to get started in developing a productive approach to learning a language: ・Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition by Stephen Krashen ・Fluent forever by Gabriel Wyner ・Fluent in 3 months by Benny Lewis ◆I don't agree with everything said in these books. For example, Benny Lewis has some great approaches to language, but I don't agree with "Use the Language from Day 1" unless you are entirely comfortable embarrassing yourself in front of strangers. As per Krashen's Input Theory, The affective filter hypothesis states that learners' ability to acquire language is constrained if they are experiencing negative emotions such as fear or embarrassment. I totally agree with this based on my experience and think this is why "classroom language teaching" does not work. You are risking embarrassment every time the teacher calls on you and may be in fear of failing as you study the language. ◆Also, I do not think techniques for "memorizing" words are a good use of your time, unless you are taking a language test. If your aim is to learn the language to where you can understand media in that language and have enjoyable conversations, then mnemonics are not helpful. This is because they facilitate "learning" of the language and not "acquisition." For example, if someone says "Do you know what taberu means?" You can access your mnemonic of "I eat on a table [TABEru means eat!]," but if someone says to you "issho ni gohan tabenai?" you probably won't be able to rapidly comprehend this phrase and respond in a natural way. ◆The distinction between acquisition and learning is tricky, but very important to keep in mind while you develop methods to acquiring your target language in an efficient manner. ・Beginner Vocabulary: Try and find the "Core 100" words of your target language. After you get those down, move on to the next 100 and so on. The "core" is the most commonly used words (make sure the list you get distinguishes between the 100 most commonly used spoken words and written words) Relevant resource: https://fluent-forever.com/the-method/vocabulary/base-vocabulary-list/ ・Beginner Grammar: I recommend Tim Ferriss's "13 Sentences for introducing yourself to the Grammar. https://youtu.be/dxqo47eGOLs?t=178 SHADOWING ・Shadowing is simply finding a clip of a native speaker speaking and mimicking everything about their speech - pacing, intonation, cadence, and most importantly of course: pronunciation ・Try and shadow with video clips that show the speakers mouth so you can copy their mouth positioning. ・Especially if you're a beginner, do not attempt to shadow everything. For example a beginner shadowing session of an English sentence like "Hey bro I was thinking we should go grab some steak at that place around the corner when we finish work." would be like "Hey bro .... grab some... around the corner.... work." In short, you don't want to rush yourself to try and copy everything because you will mumble and that is not a good habit ・Be attentive of your frustration level. Shadowing is super hard and challenging. Let your goal be to slowly increase the amount of time you can sit in frustration. For example, one day you start shadowing, get super frustrated because you feel like you can't get more than 3 syllables right at a time and give up in 10 minutes. No problem. See if you can sit in that frustration for 11 minutes the next day. Don't overload yourself and turn language learning into a chore or you'll become more and more averse to doing language acquisition and shoot yourself in the foot. ・BEGINNERS may be especially frustrated, but even a little bit of shadowing will be very helpful. Work your way up from just 5 minutes or so. ・Keep in mind certain types of clips will be more useful to shadow than others. For example, since most people in Japan don't speak much like a newscaster or anime character at all, that's not a really good shadowing target. ・Get apps like "Video Speed Controller" for chrome so you can quickly adjust the video's speed on the fly. (Being able to quickly adjust the speed is especially helpful if you have one character in a TV show who mumbles and other characters who speak really clearly) ・RECORD yourself. This is a tip from @Dogen, and I wish I implemented this more often when I was learning Japanese, it adds more time to your practice, but really does reveal where your pronunciation is lacking. JAPANESE ・If you're trying to improve your Japanese skills, particularly pronunciation, I recommend checking out @Dogen . He's got a funny youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/Dogen But if you're interested in specifics on how to step up your Japanese, check out https://www.patreon.com/dogen ・JLPT - If you're aiming to pass the JLPT, don't waste any time on WRITING Kanji. It's 100% not necessary for the test (As of 2012). Which, honestly I think is a good thing, because I can get everything I want to done in Japan without being able to write a lick of Kanji. To clarify: I would say I am fluent in written Japanese, I can read newspapers, books and can type and read most Kanji. However, I can hardly write Kanji. Then again, I don't need to. The only time I do is when I have to fill something out on a tax form or address a letter - but there's no rules against referring to your phone when filling forms in. Just make sure you know the stroke order behind Kanji.
    2300
  11. 2300
  12. 2300
  13. 2100
  14. 2000
  15. 1900
  16. 1900
  17. 1800
  18. 1700
  19. 1600
  20. 1500
  21. 1500
  22. 1100
  23. 986
  24. 972
  25. 971
  26. 940
  27. 888
  28. 879
  29. 871
  30. 849
  31. MOUTH TAPING & Stuffed Noses Some points about the mouth taping to be careful. For the most part taping the mouth isn't dangerous unless you have a nasal obstruction. If you can't breathe with the tape on then you wouldn't fall asleep in the first place. However it is possible that in the middle of the night you could roll into some position that makes it hard to breathe through the nose, which should just cause you to roll over again or you'd just wake up. However, just in case: ■Make the tape easy to take off: You can pat the piece of tape on the back of your hand to remove some of the adhesive before putting it on. Fold it at both ends to make a tab you can pull on to take it off ■Don't tape your mouth after drinking alcohol (or drugs) and it's better not to wear it if you've eaten dinner soon before bed. Patrick McKeown recommends to finish dinner at least 2 hours before sleeping ■If it makes you anxious, try just wearing the tape while awake until you're comfortable with it. If you really don't like the idea of taping your mouth, you can get an anti-snoring chin strap instead which will keep your mouth closed. [Stuffed Nose] Patrick McKeown addresses this in the book, here's one of the nose unblocking techniques: -Sit in a chair -After a gentle exhalation, close your mouth and pinch your nostrils -Gently nod your head back and forth until you feel the urge to breathe. -Keep your mouth closed but attempt to gently inhale through the nose -Unless you simply cannot breathe through the nose at this point, continue to breathe lightly in and out through your nose. -If the nose is still stuffed, repeat the exercise. (Repeat up to 4 times in one sitting though)
    839
  32. 835
  33. 776
  34. 702
  35. 683
  36. 681
  37. 661
  38. 640
  39. 613
  40. 601
  41. 593
  42. 561
  43. 551
  44. 550
  45. 535
  46. 529
  47. 527
  48. 498
  49. 485
  50. 460
  51. 444
  52. 440
  53. 432
  54. 430
  55. 415
  56. 396
  57. 390
  58. 387
  59. 375
  60. 373
  61. 361
  62. 359
  63. Hey everyone, Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to say that everyone should just go on line and stock your pantry with Naltrexone as if it were a turmeric supplement or something. If this sounds like something you might be able to benefit from, I encourage you to do your research before taking any action - look into possible side effects, make sure you understand precisely when you're supposed to take this, what is an appropriate dose for you and so on. Again, I'm not a doctor - this video is meant to inform, not to make medical recommendations. Some things to keep in mind while reading about this: -The Sinclair Method, stated simply is this: Take 50mg of Naltrexone 1 hour before drinking. Do not take it when you are not drinking. Try to avoid doing naturally rewarding things while the medication is still in your system. Remember, other activities like exercise, hugging people, and eating food are felt to be pleasurable and are reinforced through the opioid system. Some of Naltrexone's potential for other addictions (food, gambling, opiates) is discussed in the Roy Eskapa book. ★"Low Dose Naltrexone," the administration of from 1.5mg to 5mg (one tenth of the Sinclair method dosing), has shown promise for conditions like Crohn's disease and multiple sclerosis and works through different mechanisms having a different spectrum of physiological effects. This video doesn't comment on this approach. On that note, I'm not sure what dosing the implant mentioned around 5:30 was delivering and didn't mean to say Low Dose Naltrexone is not effective. Happy New Year!!
    349
  64. 349
  65. ■Edit: Some people seem to think I am advocating "blood letting" despite flashing on screen in all caps "I'm not saying people should 'bleed' themselves" and that any benefit experienced by people in the past probably had something to do with placebo effect as well. So, no, I'm not advocating old school "blood letting." ■Edit#2: There's a response video to this video by a youtuber that a couple people have asked me to comment on. That youtuber essentially explains why they think this video is inaccurate. ( TLDR : Youtuber makes a video saying I've misrepresented a study - says my words don't match the study I referenced. He was looking at the wrong study.) At 11:22 of the video response he says "This is where things get really bad and I think he needs to correct this in some way..." and brings up the part of my video where I said "Unfortunately, it looks like iron supplements don't cut it for pregnant women. Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal." He goes on to say that he looked forever at this study that I referenced, only to find that this 58% figure was no where in the study and that I was blatantly misrepresenting the study. Moreover, he says "Worst of all, this [study] actually undermines his whole video on heme iron, because all 19 of those women were given heme iron throughout their pregnancy..." That is, he's suggesting that if there is a 58% of women who had low levels of iron despite supplementing with iron, these women were actually supplementing with heme iron and therefore heme iron is not effective for maintaining iron levels in pregnant women. Ironically, this is a misinterpretation on his part. The reason he couldn't find that 58% figure in that particular paper of mine he was looking at was because it was the wrong study. The source for the statement "Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal" is NOT the study he was looking at - "Maternal hepcidin is associated with placental transfer of iron derived from dietary heme and nonheme sources." The source for the 58% figure is "Maternal prenatal iron status and tissue organization in the neonatal brain."
    338
  66. Many of you asked about another video criticizing this one. ◼︎(Full response here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/32265637 ) Flaws with that video at a glance: -Skips over some very complicated science presented by a Pharmacology & Physiology PhD with ad hominem logic. -Misinterprets me as saying ‘nitrosamines cannot be formed in the body,’ I didn’t say this. -Confuses red meat with processed meat. -Uses studies that are looking at “apparent total nitrosamines” rather than specific nitrosamines in meat. This is important because there are several types of nitrosamines with different severity of effects on the body. -His data for endogenous formation of NDMA is based on ​in vitro​ studies ​looking not at red meat,​ but fish, and in specific, a type of fish that has the specific precursor to NDMA (DMA) in its muscle. Meat does not typically have this precursor. The study even found no NDMA formation from grilled meat. -He confuses ​"total endogenously formed NDMA"​ with ​"NDMA formed endogenously as the result of eating red meat/processed meat."​ (The study he references makes no mention of endogenous NDMA formation ​via meat consumption​.) -While I did not mean to suggest “sodium nitrite added to bacon makes it good for the arteries” in my video, he does not present sufficient evidence to claim nitrate/nitrite from the plants is good whereas nitrite from bacon is bad. (Fun fact: 93% of the total ingestion of nitrite is derived from saliva)
    334
  67. 327
  68. 326
  69. 323
  70. 321
  71. 316
  72. 314
  73. 310
  74. 310
  75. 292
  76. 284
  77. 283
  78. I'm working on it when I have time. There are very simple assumptions and statements that actually need a lot of explaining to understand why they are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant. Here's an example↓↓↓ ・I had multiple people try to disregard livestock’s contribution to the food system by saying “those 43 billion kg of organic matter that are currently fed to livestock could just be composted instead.” Key word: could
 -Keep in mind what we are already doing. We are already feeding 43 million tonnes of organic matter to livestock. The infrastructure is in place, the economic incentives that allow this to happen are already there, the transportation of the solids to livestock is already happening. 
 -Composting 43 million tonnes of organic matter is not happening. So the question is: what would it take to make it happen? and what happens when this starts happening?
 -There are at least 5,000 composting operations in the United States, diverting around 5,000 tonnes of organic matter to composting for a total of over 25 million tonnes of organic matter being composted. 
-So we would need another 8,600 composting operations. -Now think about this: What are the emissions associated with building these 8,600 facilities, establishing the infrastructure to get the organic matter to and from the facilities, the emissions associated with driving the large vehicles to transport the compost and the feedstocks, the emissions from poor handling of the compost, the labor and so on and so on?
 -Now remember that in the U.S. we waste 40% of our food. Does it seem like we have our shit together enough to seamlessly whip up over 8000 composting facilities, run them efficiently and manage the compost piles in a way that they emit minimal methane and nitrous oxide? (Hey wait a minute… now it’s starting to make sense why Hall and White went ahead and assumed the byproducts would be incinerated in their simulation.)
 -We should be careful with “could” reasoning. Of course “could” s are great, they’re very useful and interesting, but require investigation. 
-Everyone in the U.S. could just stop drinking so much soda, eating so much processed food and seed oils which would drastically cut down on the economic cost of obesity and diabetes which would reduce reliance on the pharmaceutical industry and reduce the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s not happening. Reality often gets in the way of things. 
 -We could trap the methane emitted from manure lagoons and use that biofuel for running vehicles … Oh wait, actually, we do do that. How easily will it scale is yet to be seen, but if we’re going to go by “coulds” I could just say “Well we could just trap all the methane from manure lagoons so the methane emissions from lagoons is effectively zero,” but that’s a bit silly.
    282
  79. 264
  80. 254
  81. 252
  82. 245
  83. 243
  84. 243
  85. 241
  86. 241
  87. 229
  88. 224
  89. 221
  90. 217
  91. 215
  92. 212
  93. 212
  94. 211
  95. 206
  96. 205
  97. 200
  98. 198
  99. |||SOURCES: For sources on some of the information Amber mentioned (plus timestamps to questions)||| ◆1:19 - What is plants' role in our evolution? [1:20] She's referring to Richard Wrangham, author of "Catching Fire: How cooking made us human" ◆2:20 - Can you comment on the significance of babies' fuel metabolism? [2:36] Early man's gut shrank as the brain grew in size. | Miki-Ben Dor's paper "Man the fat hunter" https://bit.ly/2DhE91W and Aiello & Wheeler's paper "The expensive tissue hypothesis" https://bit.ly/2DgbWJ1 talk more about this. [2:40] Regarding how the ability to ferment fiber for fat energy was something lost for humans, see "The Western Lowland Gorilla Diet Has Implications for the Health of Humans and Other Hominoids" https://bit.ly/2CtpQWm "...the human colon may contribute as little as 2-9% to total energy compared with possibly 30-60% for the gorilla." ◆4:06 - What is the state of a baby's metabolism? [4:20] Babies are in ketosis: ・George Cahill's "Fuel Metabolism in Starvation" https://bit.ly/2DhDn4Q (behind a paywall, but the relevant snippet is shown here: https://youtu.be/yooNuOKsa1Q?t=465) ・See "Ketone Body Transport in the Human Neonate and Infant" - https://bit.ly/2CxPNnE [4:45] The fetus is living on ketones from the start of pregnancy. | This is from a Dr. Muneta Tetsuo's book (in Japanese: ケトン体は人類を救う) That portion of the book is featured here: https://youtu.be/yooNuOKsa1Q?t=519 [5:20] More on ketone bodies crossing the blood brain barrier (via Mark Brandt PhD) - https://bit.ly/2FHw5sN ◆5:55 - Do babies being in Ketosis have anything to do with gestational diabetes? ◆7:00 - What are some nutrients/foods necessary for building the brain? [7:22] For more on the importance of Arachadonic acid, see "The Essentiality of Arachidonic Acid in Infant Development" https://bit.ly/2CqXrjO [8:45] For a primer on the inhibitory factors that make it hard to absorb nutrients in plants, see this presentation by Maelán Fontes PhD https://bit.ly/2SWeGR3 ◆10:00 Do you think there's a perfect balance between plant and animal foods that could be struck to enhance longevity? [11:38] For more on the antioxidant properties of a ketogenic diet, see "Anti-Oxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Ketogenic Diet: New Perspectives for Neuroprotection in Alzheimer’s Disease" https://bit.ly/2W0m7bN "The ketogenic diet (KD) stimulates the cellular endogenous antioxidant system with the activation of nuclear factor erythroid-derived 2 (NF-E2)-related factor 2 (Nrf2), the major inducer of detoxification genes." [11:50] A bit about why Amber may be referring to phytonutrients as "phytotoxins" is shown here: https://youtu.be/isIw2AN_-XU?t=659 ◆12:15 - What do you think of plants as medicine? ◆13:16 - Could fermented meat have any significance to our evolution? [Link to paper mentioned: https://bit.ly/2FeGzQJ]
    192
  100. 191
  101. 190
  102. 187
  103. 187
  104. 186
  105. 182
  106. +esotericsean Hey mate, Glad the videos have helped. That's awesome of you to help your father liked that, good to hear on the success with keto. I'm not really "qualified" to give any specific advice, but I'll share a couple things: In researching this topic, there is a lot of information detailing how low salt can impair kidney function in specific. In essence, the kidney has to work harder to compensate for insufficient sodium. The "sodium pump" uses 70% of the basal energy of the kidneys, meaning reabsorption of sodium uses up a lot of ATP. Renin, of the renin-angiotension-aldosterone system (system whose main function is preserving salt and is stimulated in response to low salt), is released by the kidneys. Specifically, by increasing angiotensin-II and aldosterone, low salt diets can cause kidney overgrowth (impairing function). It's common for diabetics to have poorly working kidneys, and insulin seems to be one of the key culprits. As this study (done on sand rats - https://goo.gl/Q9qt8Z ) says: "This study shows that serum insulin levels have an important role in the development of experimental diabetic nephropathy" This dude Giampetro and his colleagues figured that the sodium pump of the kidney actually becomes insulin resistant. Essentially, low salt & high insulin seem pretty bad for the kidneys... The paper I quoted that said "an abundant sodium intake may improve glucose tolerance and insulin resistance, especially in diabetic, salt-sensitive, or medicated essential hypertensive subjects" had the diabetics on 6000mg of sodium I tried asking someone more qualified in this area and he said: "The swelling in feet is somewhat concerning and can be caused by several factors. Generally more salt is needed to help loop diuretics(used to treat swelling) work better so they can get rid of the overretention of water. It really depends on the clinical situation. Is the person overretaining water vs salt? what's the underlying cause of the feet swelling? etc. are they on salt depleting meds? What's their serum sodium? Are their kidneys spilling or overretaining salt? There are so many factors that I couldn't possibly give you actionable advice. I think it comes down to making the doc answer those above questions so your friends dad can be more informed. I've honestly never met someone who is benefited by consciously restricting their salt intake but I can't say for sure without knowing more. I hope this helps."
    178
  107. 176
  108. 175
  109. 173
  110. 171
  111. 170
  112. 169
  113. 167
  114. 167
  115. 166
  116. 165
  117. 165
  118. 165
  119. 162
  120. 156
  121. 153
  122. 152
  123. 151
  124. 147
  125. 146
  126. 145
  127. 145
  128. 143
  129. 141
  130. 140
  131. 139
  132. 137
  133. 136
  134. 134
  135. 134
  136. 125
  137. 125
  138. 125
  139. 124
  140. 124
  141. 124
  142. 123
  143. 121
  144. 121
  145. 119
  146. 118
  147. 118
  148. 114
  149. 114
  150. 114
  151. 111
  152. 110
  153. 109
  154. 108
  155. 107
  156. 107
  157. 106
  158. 105
  159. 105
  160. 104
  161. 103
  162. 103
  163. 102
  164. 101
  165. 100
  166. 99
  167. How many of you are familiar with these concepts? Marginal Land vs. Arable Land Many people ask why not use the land to grow food for humans?" Because you can't. -Around 30% of land on the earth is agricultural land (useable for the purpose of making food, the rest is junk). -Take 66% of that 30% of land. That is "marginal land." - Marginal land is not suitable for growing crops due to soil quality or not enough water etc. So what can you do with it? -You can have cows graze on the cellulose on this land (again, this land is not suitable for growing edible crops), and turn that cellulose into protein and various nutrients humans need. Ruminant Upcycling -33% of that agricultural land mentioned above can be used for crops. (Nice.) This is called "arable land." -Though, for every 100lbs of human food produced from crops on this land, roughly 37 lbs of inedible plant byproduct is produced. -Cows can eat this inedible plant matter and turn it into protein. -Worthless cellulose + Cow = Human Food Biogenic Carbon Cycle in a nutshell: -Methane has stronger warming potential than CO2 so cow burp is bad, right? Well... -Plants capture carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis -Cows eat the plant, take the carbon. -Cows burp out the carbon in the form of methane (remember methane is CH4 - Carbon, 4 Hydrogens) -12 yeas later, Methane is broken down back into carbon dioxide via hydroxyl oxidation. *These carbon molecules are the same molecules that were in the plant the Cow ate. It's a natural cycle. (By the way, the carbon dioxide added to the environment by burning fossil fuels (not part of any life cycle) stays in the atmosphere for 200 〜 1000 years)
    95
  168. 95
  169. 94
  170. 94
  171. 93
  172. 92
  173. 92
  174. 91
  175. 89
  176. 89
  177. 88
  178. 87
  179. 86
  180. 86
  181. 84
  182. 83
  183. 83
  184. 83
  185. 82
  186. 81
  187. 80
  188. 80
  189. 80
  190. 79
  191. 78
  192. [NAVIGATION] 0:43 - Why language started with Homo Erectus - 1.5M years earlier than we thought. 2:47 - If Homo Erectus had tools, they must have had language. 3:35 - Homo Erectus was a sailor 7:20 - How communication evolved (Sign Progression Theory) 11:54 - Why would Noam Chomsky assume language is innate? 16:42 - The Piraha language of the Amazon lacks "recursion" in the grammar. What is recursion, why is that a big deal and why would their language lack it? 10:11 - The recursion controversy. What is recursion? Why is it a big deal that Pirahã lacks it? 21:30 - Is the way babies learn a language relevant to the evolution of the first language? 23:20 - How Dan learned Portuguese 31:23 - Can we apply any of what we learned from Dan's Book "How Language Began" to our own language learning? ("That's why you still don't speak Piraha - we don't eat leaves.") 34:08 - Other people are trying to do research on the Piraha and make claims about the lanugage ...but without learning the Piraha language or even getting an interpreter who can speak Piraha properly. 38:30 - Other languages don't have recursion - why was it controversial and why did Dan get so much heat for pointing out Piraha lacks recursion? 39:28 - Noam Chomsky claimed in 2002 that all languages must have recursion. Dan found that the Piraha language doesn't have recursion. Chomsky dismisses this but does not provide sufficient counter arguments. 41:34 - Dan talking about Charles Sanders Peirce 44:33 - Dan's son Caleb Everett is also a linguist who wrote a book about numbers as a cognitive tool. 46:36 - Dan speaking in Piraha
    78
  193. 77
  194. 77
  195. 77
  196. 76
  197. 76
  198. 76
  199. 75
  200. 75
  201. 73
  202. 72
  203. 72
  204. 72
  205. 72
  206. 71
  207. ​ @alexrogers777  Creationist rhetoric to say what? He actually said "humans haven't had a significant effect on the environment? I'm mostly exposed to his academic work so am not entirely educated on why certain people seem to hate him. Often labels are used to criticize him but so far in this comment section I haven't seen anyone quote him as in "Look at this quote of a thing Jordan Peterson said: ' ... ... ...' - isn't that terrible?" It's always he's a this, he's a that, he's bad, he's untrustworthy et cetera. At least in the paper I referenced, his points are very well cited and thorough so I included him in the video. I'm curious about comments like these so happy to continue the discussion. Creationist rhetoric - He's said something along the lines of 'the bible is a gateway to understanding the psyche of the culture that valued it' which seems reasonable enough. For example we might be able to make some assumptions about Americans by seeing what films (stories) are popular in America as we may understand the Japanese or wherever psyche a little bit by understanding their films. The bible is a collection of stories, maybe we could learn something about the people who valued such stories by reading them. Not sure what you're referring to though. Climate change - So he's actually said something to the effect of "I do not think humans have a significant effect on the climate" ? I wasn't aware of his views on this, so I did a quick search and found a video of him saying climate change is a tough problem without obvious solutions and it's hard to say whether it is the most important issue to solve right now instead of say widespread child malnutrition. Quote: "You know, maybe if you increase childhood nutrition enough and you produce another, I don't know, 10 million geniuses as a consequence of that, maybe one of them will figure out what to do about global warming." He said nothing to the effect of "humans don't have an effect the climate," at least in that video. Maybe you could link me to whatever you're referring to.
    71
  208. 70
  209. 70
  210. 70
  211. 69
  212. 69
  213. 68
  214. 67
  215. Considering you provided zero specifics, your comment in short is: "some guy didn't like WIL's other video, so this video must be bad." Right? (1) I'm not sure what the vegan cook Niko Rittenau has said since I don't speak German, but I'm quite sure his concerns with my "Eating less meat won't save the planet" video are covered here in this 50 page document I made a several months ago expanding on this topic: https://www.patreon.com/posts/response-to-eds-51285771 In short, the other youtubers who have attempted to "debunk" my video are not seeing many important parts of the big picture (as explained in this document). (2) You say WIL didn't look at all the science. How do you know what I did or didn’t look at? If this video included all the research I did, it would be at least 2 hours long. You also say that many of the papers in my script don't "contribute to the argument itself," but... you didn't say what the "argument" is. First, your comment is so unspecific it could be applied to any video anyone disagrees with. "This video about apricots is clearly wrong. This guy didn't look at all the science and his papers don't contribute to the argument." Second, you don't just count up citations to determine whether a video is correct or not. That's not how it works. You have to actually look at the papers cited. I could make an entire video about Biochemistry with a single citation: Lehninger's principles of biochemistry, 8th edition. Third, Re: "referring only to methods that do not contribute to the argument itself." I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but either the citations provided at the end of the sentences in my transcript substantiate that sentence or they don't. If you actually look at the papers, you'll find that each paper indeed substantiates what I wrote. So, if you actually wanted to make a criticism, you could [a] offer up a paper that challenges something I've said, or [b] offer up an instance where one of the sources I provided did not substantiate what was said.
    67
  216. 66
  217. 65
  218. 65
  219. 65
  220. 64
  221. 64
  222. 64
  223. 64
  224. 64
  225. 64
  226. 64
  227. 63
  228. 63
  229. 63
  230. 62
  231. 62
  232. Hey Hugo, Thanks for the well thought out comment, it was interesting to read and I'm glad you liked the other videos! My comments: -Fat in combination with other high glycemic foods can quickly lead to obesity, of course. -Do you mean fat or the lipoproteins carrying the fat cause insulin receptors to be "covered"? How fat and insulin act in either other's presence aside, by that logic couldn't you just choose not to raise your blood sugar when you eat fat? Sure your body can process glycogen more efficiently if it doesn't have to metabolise fat at the same time, but what you're saying just explains that fat in combination with high glycemic foods is bad. If that's what you're trying to say, then yes I would agree. -Not sure what you're trying to say about milk and/or cholesterol. I didn't recommend drinking milk in the video? -What's wrong with our body being able to store fat as energy efficiently? The fat you eat is the fat you wear, if you are in a constant state of glucose metabolism. If you are dipping into ketosis by limiting intake of high glycemic foods, then fat gets used for energy quite rapidly. This is why people have had such success with low carb diets and losing weight. -Sure, trans fats are terrible - 100% agree. Our bodies can run on glucose, they don't have to. -The importance of eating a diet that doesn't cause inflammation was a big point I highlighted. (Did you see that part?) Maybe you've misinterpreted my message as "Eat more fat, period." ? This wasn't what I was trying to communicate. If I had to put in one phrase it would be "Don't go out of your way to replace the healthy fats in your diet with processed foods." I've read a lot of Dr. McDougall's work and seen some of this lectures, seen a couple of Dr. Greger's videos too. Mic the Vegan seems like a nice guy, but those channels don't appeal to me because they inherently biased. For example, if my channel was called "Tesla- the best car ever" , you couldn't trust me to present unbiased information on which cars are best. When I make these videos I make sure to take into account all types of useful information whether it supports my initial thesis or not. So while I might start with one conclusion in mind, I find that halfway through the process that I've modified the conclusion a couple times based on what I've learned about the topic. Cheers for the comment, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to disagree with you- I think we're just arguing different points.
    61
  233. 61
  234. 61
  235. 60
  236. 60
  237. 60
  238. 59
  239. 58
  240. 55
  241. 55
  242. 55
  243. 55
  244. 55
  245. 54
  246. 54
  247. 53
  248. 52
  249. 52
  250. 52
  251. 51
  252. 51
  253. 51
  254. 51
  255. 51
  256. 50
  257. 50
  258. 50
  259. 50
  260. 49
  261. 48
  262. 48
  263. 47
  264. 46
  265. 46
  266. 45
  267. 45
  268. 44
  269. 44
  270. 43
  271. 43
  272. 43
  273. 43
  274. 42
  275. 42
  276. 42
  277. 42
  278. 42
  279. 42
  280. 42
  281. 42
  282. 41
  283. 41
  284. 41
  285. 41
  286. 41
  287. 41
  288. 41
  289. 40
  290. 40
  291. 39
  292. 39
  293. 39
  294. 39
  295. 39
  296. 38
  297. 38
  298. 37
  299. 37
  300. 37
  301. 37
  302. 36
  303. 36
  304. 36
  305. 36
  306. 36
  307. 36
  308. 35
  309. 35
  310. 34
  311. 34
  312. 34
  313. 33
  314. 33
  315. 33
  316. 33
  317. 33
  318. 33
  319. 33
  320. 33
  321. 33
  322. 32
  323. 32
  324. 32
  325. 32
  326. +Cid I agree, but (for me at least) it depends on the game. For example, Super Mario Odyssey is very fun and engaging, but it doesn't require uninterrupted engagement. Tetris on the other hand, when you're on a very high level and the pieces are falling rapidly, you really have to maintain focus to not die. Other examples could be playing Smash Bros with friends and you're on your last life with 200%. I could see someone saying they enter flow in games like these, and probably the simpler the game, the more likely you are to get into flow. Simpler games usually have clearer goals, and more immediate feedback. (i.e. I'd say Megaman 2 is probably better for flow than an MMO, but I don't doubt people playing something like a competitive FPS, LoL or DotA get into flow) I used to play Dance Dance Revolution in High School, and I'm pretty sure I entered flow on the more difficult songs because any lapse in concentration would result in failure. The arcade was pretty far away and dance pads were irritatingly unreliable on harder songs so I started playing Stepmania - (Basically a DDR emulator, but you play with the keyboard ). Fingers can press buttons way faster than feet... so you end up playing far faster songs (13 - 15 taps per second - https://goo.gl/2XwQTL [Video is not me, but those were the kinds of songs I played]). Stepmania surely gave me the "strongest" flow state. It easily meets all the criteria: https://goo.gl/Ab1UFb ■Clear Goal: Pass the song/ AA it, whatever you're shooting for ■Feedback: There's various kinds of immediate feedback: (1) It will tell you how accurately you've just hit the arrow (Perfect, Great, Good, Miss) (2) HP Meter telling you if you're about to fail or if you're doing well (3) There's a combo meter telling you how many arrows you've hit in succession ■Difficulty matches ability: This was easy to achieve because there were so many songs you could download, so I had 100+ songs to choose from to find the one that is matched with my ability enough to keep me under the anxiety zone and above the boredom zone - https://goo.gl/jNBSK6 A good rule of thumb for whether a video game is sufficient for flow is how well you can hold a conversation while doing it. Friends would see me play and ask me "What point of the screen do you look at?" and I'd say "Like right next to the... uhh... Arrows... Wait. Hold up." None of this is to say that because you're in Flow, the activity is necessarily good for you (or necessarily bad for that matter). So, like Herp Derp said, maybe I liked playing Stepmania when I was in HS because it was an "escape from the real world and an escape from responsibility," but I am positive that one reason I enjoyed Stepmania was because it was an autotelic activity. No one I knew played it or talked about it, it wasn't bringing me any bragging rights (the opposite if anything), and rapidly tapping my index fingers on a keyboard isn't really a skill that carries over into other tasks. TLDR: Agreed.
    32
  327. 32
  328. 32
  329. 32
  330. 32
  331. 31
  332. 31
  333. 31
  334. 31
  335. 30
  336. 30
  337. 30
  338. 30
  339. 30
  340. 29
  341. 29
  342. 29
  343. 29
  344. 29
  345. 29
  346. 28
  347. 28
  348. 28
  349. 28
  350. 28
  351. 28
  352. 27
  353. 27
  354. 27
  355. 27
  356. 26
  357. 26
  358. 26
  359. 26
  360. 26
  361. 26
  362. 25
  363. 25
  364. 25
  365. 25
  366. 25
  367. 25
  368. 24
  369. 24
  370. 24
  371. 24
  372. 24
  373. 24
  374. 24
  375. 24
  376. 23
  377. 23
  378. 23
  379. 23
  380. 22
  381. 22
  382. 22
  383. 22
  384. 22
  385. 22
  386. 22
  387. 22
  388. 22
  389. 21
  390. 21
  391. 21
  392. 21
  393. 21
  394. 21
  395. 21
  396. 21
  397. 21
  398. 21
  399. 21
  400. 20
  401. 20
  402. 20
  403. 20
  404. 20
  405. 20
  406. 20
  407. 19
  408. 19
  409. 19
  410. 19
  411. 19
  412. 19
  413. 19
  414. 19
  415. 19
  416. 19
  417. 19
  418. 19
  419. 19
  420. 18
  421. 18
  422. 18
  423. 18
  424. 18
  425. 18
  426. 18
  427. 18
  428. 17
  429. 17
  430. 17
  431. +warmaxx You might be able to pull off eating a bunch of junk if you set your body up to be able to handle it beforehand . The idea is to increase the amount of healthy mitochondria in your system. (1) You'll want to exclude sugar(fructose): Fructose goes straight to the mitochondria, forming excess Acetyl CoA, exceeding the mitochondria's ability to metabolize it. This overloads and damages the mitochondria and excess Acetyl CoA gets metabolized into fat. (2) Go on a high fat, low carbohydrate (with carbohydrate intake met by equivalent or more fiber intake) diet. OR a high carbohydrate high fiber, low fat diet. [Personally I feel better on the higher fat diet] You want your body to be able to focus on beta oxidation of fatty acids OR glycolysis of carbohydrates. High fat & high carb overloads both sides of your metabolic pathways and in turn your mitochondria. (This situation is worsened if you're not getting much fiber) (3) You'll want to increase your mitochondria in the form of increased muscle mass. (Exercise a lot, preferably high intensity exercise) ■After a while when you're confident you've developed a very healthy metabolic system and have built a lot of muscle, you can probably eat a bunch of crap without gaining too much weight. This is why Michael Phelps can eat all that garbage and stay ripped. While there is probably some genetic factor to it, all that muscle means plenty of mitochondria to handle all the junk without getting overloaded & his resting energy expenditure is also very high due to the muscle. (While he works very hard, he's not burning 12,000 calories just from daily exercise)
    17
  432. 17
  433. 17
  434. 17
  435. 17
  436. 17
  437. 17
  438. 16
  439. 16
  440. 16
  441. 16
  442. 16
  443. 16
  444. 16
  445. 16
  446. 15
  447. 15
  448. 15
  449. 15
  450. 15
  451. 15
  452. 15
  453. 15
  454. 15
  455. 15
  456. 15
  457. 15
  458. 15
  459. 15
  460. 15
  461. 15
  462. 15
  463. 14
  464. 14
  465. 14
  466. 14
  467. 14
  468. 14
  469. 14
  470. 14
  471. 14
  472. 14
  473. 14
  474. 14
  475. 14
  476. 14
  477. 14
  478. 14
  479. 14
  480. 14
  481. 13
  482. 13
  483. 13
  484. 13
  485. 13
  486. 13
  487. 13
  488. 13
  489. 13
  490. 13
  491. 13
  492. 13
  493. 13
  494. 13
  495. 13
  496. 13
  497. 13
  498. 13
  499. 13
  500. 12
  501. 12
  502. 12
  503. 12
  504. 12
  505. 12
  506. 12
  507. 12
  508. 12
  509. 12
  510. 12
  511. 12
  512. 12
  513. 12
  514. 12
  515. 12
  516. 12
  517. 12
  518. 12
  519. 12
  520. 12
  521. 11
  522. 11
  523. 11
  524. 11
  525. 11
  526. 11
  527. 11
  528. 11
  529. 11
  530. 11
  531. 11
  532. 11
  533. 11
  534. 11
  535. 11
  536. 11
  537. 11
  538. 11
  539. 11
  540. 11
  541. 11
  542. 11
  543. 10
  544. 10
  545. 10
  546. 10
  547. 10
  548. 10
  549. 10
  550. 10
  551. 10
  552. 10
  553. 10
  554. 10
  555. 10
  556. 10
  557. 10
  558. 10
  559. 10
  560. 10
  561. 10
  562. 10
  563. 10
  564. 10
  565. 10
  566. 10
  567. 10
  568. 9
  569. 9
  570. 9
  571. 9
  572. 9
  573. 9
  574. 9
  575. 9
  576. 9
  577. 9
  578. 9
  579. 9
  580. 9
  581. 9
  582. 9
  583. 9
  584. 9
  585. 9
  586. 9
  587. 9
  588. 8
  589. 8
  590. 8
  591. 8
  592. 8
  593. 8
  594. 8
  595. 8
  596. 8
  597. 8
  598. 8
  599. 8
  600. 8
  601. 8
  602. 8
  603. 8
  604. 8
  605. 8
  606. 8
  607. 8
  608. 8
  609. 8
  610. 8
  611. 8
  612. 8
  613. 8
  614. 8
  615. 8
  616. 8
  617. 8
  618. 8
  619. 8
  620. 8
  621. 7
  622. 7
  623. 7
  624. 7
  625. 7
  626. 7
  627. 7
  628. 7
  629. 7
  630. 7
  631. 7
  632. 7
  633. 7
  634. 7
  635. 7
  636. 7
  637. 7
  638. 7
  639. 7
  640. People keep linking this without saying anything specific about it. The people from John Hopkins didn't like that Dr. Mitloehner referenced the EPA's 4.2% figure because it wasn't derived via LCA. ...but they don't propose a number themselves. Why? Because an LCA that estimates livestock's contribution as a percentage of all U.S. emissions hasn't been done. Why? Because you would then have to have a complete life cycle assessment done for every single industry to see what percentage of emissions livestock then make up. This is some powerful goal post moving because this is a very intensive research endeavor (the first ever LCA done on livestock took 650 pages to document ...but they unfortunately compared livestock to transportation ...without doing an LCA for transportation.) So, the EPA number is completely reasonable to cite for the purposes of Mitloehner's white paper. The other thing is the deck keeps getting weirdly stacked against livestock's - saying we need to factor in eeeeeeverything that could be considered related to livestock's emissions. OK, then how about the reduction in emissions achieved thanks to livestock upcycling byproducts that would otherwise have to be disposed of (or processed so it could be used as fertilizer, then the transportation of this plant-based mulch and so on...), or the carbon sequestration that ruminants help achieve by enhancing the soil health, or the carbon sequestered in leather, or the fact that we can forgo using the incredibly energy intensive haber bosch process to create chemical fertilizer because we have animal manure and so on and so on.
    7
  641. 7
  642. 7
  643. 7
  644. 7
  645. 7
  646. 7
  647. 7
  648. 7
  649. 7
  650. 7
  651. 7
  652. 7
  653. 7
  654. 7
  655. 7
  656. 7
  657. 7
  658. 7
  659. 7
  660. 7
  661. 7
  662. 7
  663. 7
  664. 7
  665. 7
  666. 7
  667. 6
  668. 6
  669. 6
  670. 6
  671. 6
  672. 6
  673. 6
  674. 6
  675. 6
  676. 6
  677. 6
  678. 6
  679. 6
  680. 6
  681. 6
  682. 6
  683. 6
  684. 6
  685. 6
  686. 6
  687. 6
  688. 6
  689. 6
  690. 6
  691. 6
  692. 6
  693. 6
  694. 6
  695. 6
  696. 6
  697. 6
  698. 6
  699. 6
  700. 6
  701. 6
  702. 6
  703. 6
  704. 6
  705. 6
  706. 6
  707. 6
  708. 6
  709. 6
  710. 6
  711. 6
  712. 6
  713. 6
  714. 6
  715. 6
  716. 6
  717. 6
  718. 6
  719. 6
  720. 6
  721. 6
  722. 6
  723. 6
  724. 6
  725. 6
  726. 6
  727. 6
  728. 6
  729. 6
  730. 6
  731. 6
  732. 5
  733. 5
  734. 5
  735. 5
  736. 5
  737. 5
  738. 5
  739. 5
  740. 5
  741. 5
  742. 5
  743. 5
  744. 5
  745. 5
  746. 5
  747. 5
  748. 5
  749. 5
  750. 5
  751. 5
  752. 5
  753. 5
  754. 5
  755. 5
  756. 5
  757. 5
  758. 5
  759. 5
  760. 5
  761. 5
  762. 5
  763. 5
  764. 5
  765. 5
  766. 5
  767. 5
  768. 5
  769. 5
  770. 5
  771. 5
  772. 5
  773. 5
  774. 5
  775. 5
  776. 5
  777. 5
  778. 5
  779. 5
  780. 5
  781. 5
  782. 5
  783. 5
  784. Read the John Hopkins paper with the same critical lens you're using on my video. Notice how they offer no alternative number to the 4.2% in that number. They just say 4.2% is an inappropriate number, so what's the right number? 5%? 6%? 7.3%? -A lifecycle assessment for just the United States deducing livestock's contribution to U.S. emissions as a percentage has not been done. -Also this lifecycle argument circles back to the whole Livestock's Long Shadow mess from 2006 - the authors of that paper compared livestock to transportation, which was completely apples to oranges. Why was it apples to oranges? Because they conducted a lifecycle assessment for livestock, but not for transportation. For transportation they only counted tailpipe emissions, not all the emissions produced when creating cars, trucks, planes, boats etc or all the roads and infrastructure that made that possible. -So then to hit the ridiculously high bar these John Hopkins people are setting, a lifecycle assessment needs to be done for every sector to accurately assess what percentage of total emissions livestock is. -So the bar is set super high for livestock, but none of the following are discussed: The fact that emissions from non-livestock agriculture would be higher without livestock because byproducts otherwise fed to livestock would need to be disposed of or transported to a place where they can be decomposed by mushrooms or something, fertilizer (manure) produced by livestock saves crop agriculture the large emissions from haber bosch process to create synthetic fertilizer ...or the fact that cows beneficial effects on the soil allows for more carbon sequestration or the fact that carbon is sequestered in leather and so on and so on. So sure, a paper exists that critiques a single number from the EPA that Dr. Mitloehner cited, only saying "We demand a better number!" and then you've used this and only this to attempt an ad hominem. Speaking of ad hominem, notice how the John Hopkins paper says that "He" (Dr. Mitloehner) excludes certain information. It's not Dr. Mitloehner's data... it's the EPA's. The 4.2% is indeed from the EPA's data. Yet they're acting like Mitloehner intentionally mischaracterized something. You also wrote "Among other things that he gets wrong" Like what? Feel free to be specific.
    5
  785. 5
  786. 5
  787. 5
  788. 5
  789. 5
  790. 5
  791. 5
  792. 5
  793. 5
  794. 5
  795. 5
  796. 5
  797. 5
  798. 5
  799. 5
  800. 5
  801. 4
  802. 4
  803. 4
  804. 4
  805. 4
  806. 4
  807. 4
  808. 4
  809. 4
  810. 4
  811. 4
  812. 4
  813. 4
  814. 4
  815. 4
  816. 4
  817. 4
  818. 4
  819. 4
  820. 4
  821. 4
  822. 4
  823. 4
  824. 4
  825. 4
  826. 4
  827. 4
  828. 4
  829. 4
  830. 4
  831. 4
  832. 4
  833. 4
  834. 4
  835. 4
  836. 4
  837. 4
  838. 4
  839. 4
  840. 4
  841. 4
  842. 4
  843. 4
  844. 4
  845. 4
  846. 4
  847. 4
  848. 4
  849. 4
  850. 4
  851. 4
  852. 4
  853. 4
  854. 4
  855. 4
  856. 4
  857. 4
  858. 4
  859. 4
  860. 4
  861. 4
  862. 4
  863. 4
  864. 4
  865. 4
  866. 4
  867. 4
  868. 4
  869. 4
  870. 4
  871. 4
  872. 4
  873. 4
  874. 4
  875. 4
  876. 4
  877. 4
  878. 4
  879. 4
  880. 4
  881. 4
  882. 4
  883. 4
  884. 4
  885. 4
  886. 4
  887. 4
  888. 4
  889. 4
  890. 4
  891. 4
  892. 4
  893. 4
  894. 4
  895. 4
  896. 4
  897. 4
  898. 4
  899. 3
  900. John, Thanks for the comment! I wish I could make my comment shorter, but here we go: I am regretting not making a note in the video about how fantastic fiber (which a plant based diet is obviously high in) is in keeping your blood glucose nice and stable, so you are very unlikely to have those complications I spoke about. Plant based diets can be great if done properly. For me personally it's a lot of maintenance to do it right and it would be hard to dip into Ketosis to get the benefits Mark Mattson spoke about. (I actually used to be vegetarian about 10 years back) Dr. Greger spoke about too much protein causing complications and I don't disagree. This is why a lot of people will get frustrated with Paleo diets because their weight will drop a bunch at the start and the suddenly slow down or stop, usually due to overconsumption of protein. While intriguing, Dr. Greger's video is misleading. It's no surprise that the body has a harder time processing glucose after/while consuming primarily fat & It's no surprise that Saturated Fat and Glucose TOGETHER can cause insulin resistance. However, Fat will not cause insulin resistance by itself. I could only see the abstract online, but one of the studies in his video says "Recent muscle biopsy studies have shown a relation between intramuscular lipid content and insulin resistance." What most likely happened here is the Insulin Resistance AND Fat Accumulation were a cause of too much glucose intake/frequently elevated blood sugar. Eating fat ALONG with Glucose could exacerbate the situation but doesn't mean fat was the causer.
    3
  901. 3
  902. 3
  903. 3
  904. 3
  905. 3
  906. 3
  907. 3
  908. 3
  909. 3
  910. 3
  911. 3
  912. 3
  913. 3
  914. 3
  915. 3
  916. 3
  917. 3
  918. 3
  919. 3
  920. 3
  921. 3
  922. 3
  923. 3
  924. 3
  925. 3
  926. 3
  927. 3
  928. 3
  929. 3
  930. 3
  931. 3
  932. 3
  933. 3
  934. 3
  935. 3
  936. 3
  937. 3
  938. 3
  939. 3
  940. 3
  941. 3
  942. 3
  943. 3
  944. 3
  945. 3
  946. 3
  947. 3
  948. 3
  949. 3
  950. 3
  951. 3
  952. 3
  953. 3
  954. 3
  955. 3
  956. 3
  957. 3
  958. 3
  959. 3
  960. 3
  961. 3
  962. 3
  963. 3
  964. 3
  965. 3
  966. 3
  967. 3
  968. 3
  969. 3
  970. 3
  971. 3
  972. 3
  973. 3
  974. 3
  975. 3
  976. 3
  977. 3
  978. 3
  979. 3
  980. 3
  981. 3
  982. 3
  983. 3
  984. 3
  985. 3
  986. 3
  987. 3
  988. 3
  989. 3
  990. 3
  991. 3
  992. 3
  993. 3
  994. 3
  995. 3
  996. 3
  997. 3
  998. 3
  999. 3
  1000. 3
  1001. 3
  1002. 3
  1003. 3
  1004. 3
  1005. 3
  1006. 3
  1007. 3
  1008. 3
  1009. 3
  1010. 3
  1011. 3
  1012. 3
  1013. 3
  1014. 3
  1015. 3
  1016. 3
  1017. 3
  1018. 3
  1019. 3
  1020. 3
  1021. 3
  1022. 3
  1023. 3
  1024. 3
  1025. 3
  1026. 3
  1027. 3
  1028. 3
  1029. 3
  1030. 3
  1031. 3
  1032. 3
  1033. 3
  1034. 3
  1035. 3
  1036. 3
  1037. 3
  1038. 3
  1039. 3
  1040. 3
  1041. 3
  1042. 3
  1043. 3
  1044. 3
  1045. 3
  1046. 3
  1047. 3
  1048. 3
  1049. 3
  1050. 3
  1051. 3
  1052. 3
  1053. 3
  1054. 3
  1055. 3
  1056. 3
  1057. 3
  1058. 3
  1059. 3
  1060. 3
  1061. 3
  1062. 3
  1063. 3
  1064. 3
  1065. 3
  1066. 3
  1067. 3
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. I appreciate the careful analysis, but the point is to show how exercise can enhance brain function, not that exercise establishes brain health & overall intelligence. Exercising can mean you'll have better control over your emotions and can happily put up with your toddlers day in and day out, it can give you the patience to calmly wait in line, or it can give you the focus to study difficult material. Better brain function doesn't always manifest itself as remarkably clever insights into difficult topics. Exercise can help your memory, concentration and learning capacity but if you're not interested in "intelligent" topics (like physics), you're never going to make a name for yourself as an intellectual. I'd say the thing with Stephen Hawking and Einstein is that they had a passion for physics, they didn't need exercise. A high schooler who couldn't care less about quantum effects near the event horizon of black holes could use exercise to help them focus, but Hawking didn't need it. (Kind of in the same way I could focus on Age of Empires 2 for hours at a time despite being virtually motionless) I didn't mean to say exercise is the only way to enhance brain function or that you must exercise to become an intelligent individual. Einstein and Hawking are all the more impressive considering they accomplished so much despite the lack of exercise. (Actually, I think Einstein got at least moderate exercise - taking walks, rowing his boat, riding his bicycle. Though I wouldn't use it as an example to argue my point.)
    2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. Hey thanks for the comment! I think that's a good point and many people were probably left wondering: so is he saying we should eat more meat ...? To be fair, I kinda glossed over that. However, I do talk about it extensively in multiple other videos on the channel. When dieticians talk about meat or other animal products they don't often talk about the benefits to be gained from it (highly nutrient dense, high protein and low calorie, animal protein is easily absorbed and assimilated - look into "protein digestibility corrected amino acid score"), rather they focus on theoretical negatives. Saturated fat raising cholesterol and then raising risk for a heart attack is an idea initially promulgated by Ancel Keys. The idea's starting point was his "Seven Countries Study," where he straight up excluded data from countries that didn't show "fat = bad," and presented only the countries that did. (Heard of the "French Paradox" ? Well there's also the Austrian Paradox, Finnish Paradox, Belgian Paradox, the Dutch Paradox and more.) Anyhow if you're interested in that, there's a good book "Fat and Cholesterol Don't Cause Heart Attacks and Statins are Not The Solution" (Despite the title being almost clickbait level blatant, it's very thorough, written by 6 PhD's and two MD's) "The Great Cholesterol Myth" is easier reading. Also the work of Dave Feldman is very helpful in understanding what cholesterol actually does and why it's not just a boogeyman - look into his "Lipid Energy Model." One hint that we shouldn't expect cholesterol to be bad for us is it's in all our cells - it's necessary for the rigidity of the cell membrane and has several other functions. Pregnant mothers' cholesterol levels actually shoot up during gestation ...they are after all creating a lovely mass of cells, meaning plenty of cell membranes. Also it's needed for hormones. Just one example: While we don't like stress hormones, they're of course something our body needs to use. Research found that when college students went into exams week, their cholesterol levels shot up and this was thought to be because their bodies simply needed more cholesterol to cope with the stresses ahead. TMAO is the hot new theoretical substance used to jab at red meat as it's thought to raise heart disease risk. ...But pretty much any doctor will agree that fish is good for heart health and fish raises TMAO orders of magnitude higher than other animal products. TMAO seems to be more indicative of a dysfunctional gut microbiome. I covered this in the breakdown of Kahn vs. Kresser on Joe Rogan here: https://youtu.be/-eefgRVi7Ko?t=1013 (starts at 16:54)
    2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. Hey Apple Jacks, The great thing about the HCLF vegan diet is that you get so much good fiber, enzymes and so many good nutrients. Can you lose weight on it? Sure. Can you be healthy on it? Of course, many people are fantastically healthy on a HCLF when done right. However, the ability to be healthy on a HCLF vegan diet is a very recent luxury. I won't get too into it in detail but 2 things: -It's a biologically inefficient diet. Our bodies evolved to have a big brain, and to compensate for the energy price of the brain, our metabolically expensive digestive tract shrunk. Processing fibrous foods takes more energy than processing fats and you don't even get as much energy in the end (only 4 calories from carbs vs. 9 from fat). Actually processing too much animal protein is inefficient as well. -DHA ▶︎ This is the fatty acid that caused us to evolve into intelligent humans. Shortages of DHA have been linked to depression, cognitive impediment and onset of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Babies whose mothers weren't getting enough DHA were shown to perform comparatively poorly on cognitive tests. So, I definitely want to eat a lot of fish and get as much of this as I can. Of course vegan supplements are available but I'd like to get it straight from the source :) Again, a vegan lifestyle if done properly can be wonderfully healthy - I'm not trying to knock it down. However, please make sure you are supplementing properly. Nutrient deficiencies can be difficult to notice but very inconvenient.
    1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. +Genos This is a fascinating paper showing the disadvantages of the brain using glucose for fuel and the advantages of using ketones for fuel . It's hard to tell if they are suggesting that fatty acids > glucose or vice versa, but it's clear that ketones are favored by the brain (ketones being derived from fatty acids in the liver.) A little long, but check out these two paragraphs: "Finally, it should be also stressed that the use of ketone bodies as energy substrates is not accompanied by side effects, which have been described for long-chain fatty acids. Thus, ketone body oxidation does not generate reduced flavin adenine dinucleotide (FADH2) (except the FADH2 during degradation of acetyl-CoA within the citric acid cycle) and, in addition, enhanced ROS generation due to the oxidation of FADH2 by the electron transfer flavoprotein-ubiquinone oxidoreductase does not exist. Furthermore, ketone bodies have no protonophoric activity. Therefore, they are unable to de-energize mitochondria due to uncoupling." "it should be taken into consideration that the use of glucose as the main hydrogen source for mitochondrial oxPhos has possible disadvantages. First, the energy content of glucose (17 kJ/g) is only about one-half of that of long-chain saturated fatty acids (39 kJ/g). Second, glucose oxidation imposes an extra demand for thiamine pyrophosphate, the coenzyme for the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. This enzyme connects the glycolytic pyruvate production with the system of mitochondrial pyruvate oxidation."
    1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1