Comments by "Wellness Path For Me" (@wellnesspathforme6236) on "ZOE" channel.

  1. "In the end, it just comes down to calories." Yes and no. It is functionally wrong when stated out of context. The type of calories your eat play a huge role in whether one is satiated or starving. I'm being technical here because he was not talking about satiety, so I don't know his views on it, but so many are confused that this needs to be stated.
    2
  2.  @fontfroide1  Plants, or denutrified plants loaded with pesticides? Confucius said, "to call a thing by its proper name is the beginning of wisdom." Look to nature and not Empire biased and sanctioned "experts." Eat quality food and address physiological deficiencies like magnesium, retinol, and copper. Eat the whole animal like your ancestors did back to the beginning of humanity -- including the organs. No industrial processed foods... including factory farmed animal meat. Grass-fed and grazed animal meats. Search Morley Robbins, Dr. Chris Palmer, and Dr. Thomas Seyfried.
    1
  3. Look into Morley Robbins. It is all about the mitochondria. There are two processes to produce Mg-ATP -- the true energy currency of the cell (ATP alone is worthless for cellular energy). One burns glucose and one burns fat. If the toxic SAD diet damages the glucose process then legumes might become a problem as they provide glucose. The legumes aren't the problem, the damaged mitochondrial glucose energy pathway is the problem. The key is keeping the mitochondria nourished and healthy -- both the glucose and fat pathways.
    1
  4.  @BillMcHale  >>We are only lost if we only listen to the opinions and ignore the science.<< Don't underestimate tradition. If something was done for 5,000 years, it just might be OK, ya know? Keep in mind that Ancel Keys was 'the science' on saturated fat. Except he wasn't. His K-rations included 4 cigarettes per soldier in WWII. He promoted cigarettes while demonizing what humans had eaten for thousands of years -- and people fell for the appeal to authority logical fallacy. They thought it was science, but it was sophistic pysence.
    1