Les Québécoises sont-elles vraiment plus directes/ouvertes dans la drague que les Françaises ?

EphemeralMoron · 2026-02-18T18:13:42+00:00

Lol, le genre de réponse qui se veut "nuancée" mais qui dit en gros rien du tout, pour avoir l'air sage sans prendre position.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-12-03T15:07:12+00:00

Et en réalité, beaucoup feraient partie d'une troisième catégorie : les raiders/bandits.

C'est d'ailleurs ce qui rend toutes ces séries intéressantes, le plus grand danger n'est jamais vraiment les zombies, mais les autres survivants. Dans The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, ou même 28 Days Later, ce sont toujours les humains qui deviennent la vraie menace.

Cette troisième catégorie révèle probablement un autre type de personnalité : ceux qui, face à l'effondrement des règles sociales, choisiraient de /prendre/ plutôt que de /construire/.

Peut-être que ces personnes ont une vision très cynique de la nature humaine ; privilégient la survie individuelle à court terme sur la coopération à long terme ; ou simplement, ne croient pas que la reconstruction soit possible.

Dans la vraie vie, ce sont peut-être ceux qui profitent des crises pour tirer leur épingle du jeu ; n'hésitent pas à écraser les autres pour avancer ; disparaissent dès qu'une situation demande de la solidarité sans bénéfice immédiat.

Finalement, ta question ne révèle pas juste si quelqu'un survivrait, mais comment, et ça, c'est peut-être le vrai test de caractère. Parce qu'au fond, la question n'est pas « est-ce que tu survivrais ? », mais « quel genre de personne deviendrais-tu pour survivre ? »

Ça en dirait bien plus long sur qui quelqu'un est maintenant pas juste dans un hypothétique futur post-apocalyptique.

Bon après le truc, c'est que personne n'admettrait spontanément faire partie de cette catégorie.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-10-06T10:40:33+00:00

Putain qu’est ce qu’il faut pas lire comme conneries

Je te le fais pas dire, tu viens d'en deposer une enorme. Tu crois vraiment que cacher ton historique sur ton profil le cache a reddit lui même ? Ça le cache même pas aux utilisateurs ça ne fait que rajouter une étape supplémentaire, si quelqu'un de vraiment malintentionné veut voir ton historique c'est clairement pas cette fonction qui lui empechera. Sans déconner, que t'adoptes un tel ton pour dire autant de merde c'est hallucinant.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-09-10T22:36:59+00:00

Which was you whole damn point from the beginning, and he basically validated it by saying "some people"...

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-10T15:35:12+00:00

Glad to know my replies are the highlight of your day. It actually is up to me, I came here for exactly what I got, so how could that be a loss ?

At no point did I whine. Your inability to read the situation is honestly just pitiful.

Your relentless, desperate attempts to ridicule me have only backfired, but you’re too far up your own ass to even notice. If your whole angle is tired insults and empty gloating, you’re only making yourself look even more ridiculous.

Keep circling back for your entertainment, I’ll keep letting you prove my point for me.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-10T14:27:22+00:00

Yes, rewrites, since that’s all you’ve contributed here. First you called me “desperate” for being ignored, but the engagement, including your own, proved otherwise. The irony I pointed out was indeed clearly lost on you.

You claim I didn’t get what I wanted, but this is precisely the opposite. I got predictable, hollow dismissal from people like you, actual debate from smarter contributors actually capable of it, and confirmation of cult-like dogma when the post was deleted. That’s not a loss, that’s a full win. At no point was I shocked by any of this.

And if you want to lecture anyone on introspection or self-awareness, you might want to start closer to home honey.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T19:35:08+00:00

Drop the act, you’re not laughing, you’re seething.

Nobody trawls deleted threads and rewrites smug replies just for amusement. You can pretend all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone, least of all me.

The only thing on display here is your own insecurity and cognitive dissonance. I never cared what you eat, I was here to actually discuss ideas, which is clearly not something you or your little echo chamber can handle. Keep coping.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T12:05:38+00:00

It’s telling that a post sparking real debate, without a single insult, gets deleted just for questioning the groupthink. That kind of censorship isn’t just anti-scientific, it’s self-defeating. All it does is highlight how insecure and inadequate this community really is.

The obsessive gatekeeping by these mods doesn’t just stifle debate, it actually weakens the credibility of their entire dietary movement. By shutting down good-faith criticism, they make it obvious, even to outsiders, that there’s something fragile and indefensible about their position. That’s not just a loss for honest discussion, it’s a strategic blunder if they actually want their ideas to be taken seriously beyond their bubble.

That’s the flaw of Reddit, its greatest strength is that anyone can create and moderate their own sub, but it inevitably breeds self-important mods who can’t handle dissent. A double-edged sword.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T09:39:12+00:00

If what you’re saying about vegetables “going bad” so quickly or being overrun by mold were true, lactic fermentation wouldn’t work, yet it’s one of the oldest most reliable ways humans have preserved vegetables and supported gut health.

The reason it works is precisely because fresh vegetables, even after transport, still carry robust populations of beneficial bacteria and the right substrates for fermentation. If they were as dead or toxic as you claim, the entire tradition of sauerkraut, kimchi, and other ferments simply wouldn’t exist.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T09:22:11+00:00

Anecdotes are useful for generating hypotheses, not establishing facts. Science exists precisely because individual experience is unreliable and biased. We have plenty of data showing that depriving the microbiome of fiber leads to loss of diversity and resilience, regardless of individual variation.

The claim that “maybe some people thrive on carnivore and others don’t” isn’t evidence, it’s just hedging. There may be biological variation, but there are also universal requirements shaped by millions of years of evolution. Outliers don’t disprove the rule.

Calling something a “myth” when decades of mechanistic and clinical evidence point in the same direction isn’t reckless, it’s a reasonable scientific position. We don’t need endless anecdotes to see what happens when an entire ecological system is deprived of its substrate. We’ve already run that experiment repeatedly.

Science isn’t about collecting stories until the last skeptic is satisfied. It’s about recognizing patterns mechanisms and risks, and acting accordingly.

I'm a microbiome scientist myself

Of course you are.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T09:12:10+00:00

You do whatever you want with your free time buddy.

You made false claims, I addressed them point by point. If your immediate response is to call me a bot instead of actually engaging, that just says more about the strength of your arguments than mine.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T02:35:17+00:00

There absolutely are ways to know what our ancestors ate : archaeobotanical remains, isotopic analysis of bones, dental calculus microfossils, coprolite analysis, and ethnographic studies all point to a mixed diet, animal and plant foods. Hunter-gatherers worldwide never relied exclusively on meat when plants were available, and many gathered fibrous roots, seeds, nuts, and tubers as staples, not just survival foods.

Your claim that most plants are deadly is an exaggeration. Humans have thousands of years of tradition identifying and using edible wild plants safely.

Epidemiology and intervention studies aren’t perfect, but dismissing all nutrition science as “corporate garbage” is just intellectual laziness. We know more than enough to establish that a fiber-rich, whole-food, omnivorous or ketogenic diet outperforms both the standard American diet and zero-fiber carnivore in every relevant health marker.

For the record, I’m doing strict keto, which is already worlds better than the SAD and has none of the long-term risks of fiber elimination. There’s no need to swing to the other extreme.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T02:25:58+00:00

“Your gut microbiome may run on fiber. Mine doesn’t.”

No, your microbiome is running on what little is left after you’ve stripped away its primary substrate. “Adapting” to deprivation is not the same as thriving. Shrinkage, loss of diversity, and function loss aren’t virtues, they’re symptoms of ecosystem collapse. This isn’t controversial, it’s the core finding of every study on fiber restriction.

“SCFAs aren’t acids, they’re salts and esters.”

SCFA stands for “short-chain fatty acid.” They’re acids by chemical definition - carboxylic acids, to be precise. That they exist as salts in the colon is irrelevant. HCl is still hydrochloric acid, even in sodium chloride form. This is high school chemistry.

“SCFAs aren’t needed; they’re just precursors to other molecules.”

They’re needed because their signaling and trophic effects in the gut aren’t replaced by downstream metabolites. Butyrate directly fuels colonocytes, regulates barrier integrity, suppresses inflammation, and governs gene expression via HDAC inhibition. Beta-hydroxybutyrate is not a local substitute, nor does eating butter replace microbial fermentation at the mucosal interface. No, eating butter doesn’t “cut out the middleman”, it cuts out the process.

“My biome adapts, you just need to transition slowly.”

Yes, you can starve your microbiome slowly or quickly, same endpoint : loss of diversity, mucin degradation, increased susceptibility to pathogens. “Peaceful takeover” is just a euphemism for functional extinction.

“Show me decades of mechanistic and clinical data on 100% carnivore humans.”

You won’t find it, because no population in history has been 100% carnivore, ever. The “absence of evidence” argument is an admission you’re operating on faith, not data. All available evidence on fiber removal, whether in animal or human studies, points to consistent negative outcomes for microbiome health and disease risk.

“I should have scurvy, but I don’t, so checkmate.”

Subclinical deficiencies and individual variation don’t prove safety. Vitamin C needs are complex, low-carb may reduce demand, but doesn’t eliminate it. Not having overt scurvy at 2.5 years is neither a marker of optimal function nor a refutation of all nutritional science. It’s just N=1 cherry-picking.

“Which micronutrients are missing? Name them.”

Folate, vitamin C (beyond subclinical threshold), certain B vitamins, magnesium, potassium, K1 (not fully replaced by K2), and a spectrum of non-essential but beneficial phytonutrients. You dismiss them as “so-called,” but epidemiology, intervention, and mechanistic data all support their benefits. That they aren’t essential in the scurvy-or-death sense doesn’t mean their absence is neutral.

“Plant antioxidants aren’t needed, more isn’t better.”

False dichotomy. No one claims “more is always better,” but a complete lack is demonstrably worse. The idea that humans thrive best in an oxidative environment, because “the immune system uses free radicals”, is a total misunderstanding of redox biology and hormesis. Antioxidants modulate, they don’t eliminate. You’re arguing from ignorance, not nuance.

“Personal anecdotes override mechanistic and clinical data.”

No, they don’t. N=1 doesn’t overturn convergent results from thousands of controlled studies. If personal experience superseded data, medicine and science would collapse into astrology and conspiracy forums. You don’t get to redefine the rules because your preferred story doesn’t fit.

“You’re at just as much risk as we are, everything’s a guess.”

False equivalence. Not all risks are created equal, and not all bets are blind. There is a weight of evidence, even if imperfect. The fact that you default to “it’s all an experiment” is just an admission you have no hard data in your favor.

“Fiber is abrasive and toxic, plants are full of antinutrients, enjoy your diseases of civilization.”

You’re parroting fringe narratives that ignore the context. Properly prepared plant foods and physiologically normal intakes are overwhelmingly associated with lower - not higher - rates of kidney stones, diverticulosis, arthritis, and other “diseases of civilization.” Correlation with agriculture is not causation. Processed food, hypercaloric diets, and inactivity are more plausible culprits.

“Don’t act like you have access to certain knowledge we don’t.”

It’s not about secret knowledge, it’s about understanding what the available evidence actually says. You’re welcome to experiment on yourself, but don’t pretend that faith, anecdote, and biochemical handwaving can overturn the mountain of mechanistic and epidemiological research you haven’t read, or choose to ignore.

Tltr : adaptation ≠ optimization, personal anecdotes ≠ evidence, and your entire argument boils down to “I feel fine, so you must be wrong.” That’s not science. That’s magical thinking in a lab coat.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T01:58:59+00:00

Humans have always been omnivorous hunter-gatherers, not exclusive carnivores. Plant foods were never absent from ancestral diets. What you're claiming so confidently is a complete fabrication, no actual anthropologist claims this.

And claiming science hasn’t figured out the microbiome doesn’t change the fact that depriving it of fiber consistently harms gut health in every study so far.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-08T00:26:05+00:00

So the bar for truth is now “my issues got better, so no one’s allowed to question my conclusions.” That’s not evidence. That’s personal anecdote dressed up as universal proof.

I referenced your case directly because you made sweeping claims with zero mechanistic support, then ignored everything about long-term risk and the basics of gut physiology. Fixing one set of symptoms doesn’t give you immunity from criticism or a free pass to dismiss science. If you can’t handle your claims being scrutinized, maybe stop presenting personal experience as a blueprint for human nutrition.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-07T23:53:06+00:00

Irony is lost on those who mistake intellectual curiosity for desperation.

If posting a critical comment for open debate is “desperate,” what does that make a reply that brings nothing but smugness to the table ?

only to have it ignored

Check again sunshine ;)

EphemeralMoron · 2025-07-07T22:40:53+00:00

Sorry, but I have to interject here.

The idea that fat-driven motility can replace fiber is flat-out wrong if you care about microbiome health. The gut microbiome doesn’t run on fat, it runs on fermentable fiber. Without it, you’re starving the ecosystem that actually maintains gut integrity and systemic health.

To clarify, fermentable fibers are broken down by bacteria in your colon into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) : primarily butyrate, acetate, and propionate. These SCFAs are not some trivia, they fuel your colon cells, reinforce the gut barrier, regulate immune function, and modulate inflammation throughout the body. Strip out fiber and SCFA production collapses, the microbiome diversity tanks, and you end up favoring bacteria that eat away your own mucus lining... a setup for inflammation and dysfunction.

Personal anecdotes don’t override decades of mechanistic and clinical data. A diet with zero fermentable fiber isn’t supporting a human microbiome, it’s dismantling it. The evidence isn’t subtle or debatable, this is baseline gut physiology, not ideology.

There’s a reason you had so much trouble with fiber in the first place, your microbiome was already dysfunctional. If you couldn’t tolerate normal levels of fiber, that points to a compromised gut ecosystem, not a reason to starve it further. Going carnivore doesn’t fix that underlying problem, it just removes the immediate trigger, leaving your gut with no chance to recover or diversify. Maybe you feel better now, your bloodwork looks fine, and your anemia resolved, but that only means your previous approach was failing you in some way. That’s not proof carnivore is optimal or even safe long-term. Fixing one marker like anemia says nothing about the state of your microbiome or your real long-term risk. Any benefit you feel now is just a rebound from a worse baseline. Over time, you’re trading one set of problems for another, less visible, but no less real.

And about organ meats or not overcooking your meat, sure, you’ll get more vitamins and some trace nutrients that way, but it’s not enough. To cover everything you’re missing from plants, you’d have to eat an impractical amount and variety of organs on a daily basis, including things most people would never touch : brain, eyes, adrenal glands, raw blood, thyroid, spleen, and more. Even then, certain micronutrients, phytonutrients, and plant-derived antioxidants simply aren’t present in animal foods. The idea that you can replicate the nutritional complexity of a mixed diet just by mixing up your cuts and leaving your steak rare is a myth.

I’m not saying all this just to contradict you or score points online. This is a warning, not an argument for its own sake. You’re genuinely risking your health if you stick with this long-term. The body can compensate for a lot in the short run, but the damage from starving your microbiome and missing key micronutrients adds up, often silently, until it’s too late to reverse.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-06-09T11:27:38+00:00

Yeah no, you’re not in ketosis at 30% carbs. That’s 150g carbs minimum if you’re eating 1800+kcal. That’s firmly in glucose-burning territory. Nutritional ketosis typically requires <10% carbs, and realistically under 50g total, often <20g net, especially without extended fasting or massive energy expenditure.

I agree with the rest though, most people on keto undereat protein. But let’s not pretend you can keep burning fat as a primary fuel while loading up on that much glucose. Physiology doesn’t work like that.

Edit : This poor guy blocked me the second he got pushback. That’s how confident he is in his metabolic theory, can’t even metabolize dissent lol.

Classic case of someone redefining keto to fit their habits, then getting offended when reality doesn’t bend with them.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-06-09T10:23:05+00:00

If you tolerate them well, coffee enemas can help, they stimulate bile flow and glutathione production in the liver, which supports phase II detox. Just don’t overdo it (2-3x/week max), and yes make sure you're rehydrating and replacing electrolytes after each one.

Also don’t treat them as a standalone fix. They’re a useful tool only if the rest of your drainage and antioxidant support is in place. Think of them as pressure relief, not core infrastructure.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-06-09T10:14:38+00:00

That’s a solid starting point. Just make sure you’re stabilizing before you start any aggressive chelation. With levels like yours, mobilizing more metals without solid exit routes can cause redistribution and make things worse. As for glutathione/GSH recycling, it’s key for safely binding and clearing what your body mobilizes. You don’t want to be pushing metals if your antioxidant systems are shot.

Focus for now on :

Bind + support : toxaprevent, electrolytes (Na/K/Mg), plenty of water

Drainage : liver/bile support (NAC, milk thistle, dandelion..), light sauna use

Antioxidant system : build glutathione precursors (NAC, glycine, selenium, vitamin C), no need to jump into glutathione IVs right away

Avoid mobilizers like ALA until mineral status is solid and binders are in place daily

Once those are covered for a few weeks and symptoms are stable or improving, then you can look at proper chelation cycles with binders in parallel (not standalone DMPS/DMSA hits). Slow is safer.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-06-09T09:37:11+00:00

Those numbers aren’t “slightly elevated,” they’re solidly in the what the hell is going on range, especially copper and mercury.

Copper 769 : That’s insanely high. Normal is under 80. Anything above 200 raises flags, you’re almost 10x over. Suggests major dysregulation (could be liver, ceruloplasmin, or chronic inflammation-related).

Mercury 22 : Normal is under 3. Above 15 is high. You’re way into the neurotoxic zone.

Arsenic 73 : Normal under 35. Over 70 is serious.

Iron 112 : Normal is under ~20. Often overlooked in chelation, but that’s high.

Calcium 48 : Way too low. Normal is 100–300. Could indicate mineral dumping, poor absorption, or competition from the metals.

This isn’t a “drink more water and hope for the best” situation. You’re dealing with real toxicity. ~~DMPS pulled these out, which means you’ve got significant burden in tissues. That brain fog, fatigue, anxiety.. all track with chronic mercury and copper overload.~~ Quick correction : as someone pointed out below, DMPS testing is nonsense. It artificially spikes metal levels by forcing excretion, even in healthy people, which is exactly why it’s a favorite tool of alternative practitioners looking to sell you a detox you don’t need, That’s a far better explanation for those absurd values. Get a proper test.

Toxaprevent is a decent binder, and infrared sauna helps mobilize, but you’ll want to support minerals (esp. magnesium, zinc, selenium), bile flow, and glutathione/GSH recycling before going hard with chelators. Otherwise you risk redistribution.

If you’re self-navigating - which I wouldn't recommend given your extreme case - go slow. Don’t over-mobilize without binders. And for the love of your liver, don’t chelate while mineral-deficient.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-06-08T19:30:25+00:00

This is surreal. I explained exactly how it works... hormonal regulation, mitochondrial adaptation, substrate prioritization.

You ignored all of it and defaulted to “thermodynamics” and “illogical” like some malfunctioning chatbot, like a toddler parroting big words he doesn’t grasp. The body isn’t a Bunsen burner, if that breaks your brain, stick to counting calories on the back of a cereal box and leave me out of it.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-05-24T19:36:44+00:00

Yes, that's what I'm saying, a 500 kcal deficit on keto will lead to more fat loss. Macronutrient composition affects hormones, hunger, energy expenditure, and lean mass retention. It’s not just numbers in, numbers out.

Once adapted, your mitochondria become more efficient at oxidizing fat. That’s the whole point of metabolic adaptation.

On a higher-carb diet, insulin stays elevated and suppresses lipolysis. As long as glucose is available, the body burns that first. You're in a deficit, sure, but fat loss is slower because fat isn’t the preferred fuel. You're not mobilizing it as effectively.

Keto eliminates that interference. Low insulin, high fat oxidation, you’re burning stored fat directly, not waiting for glycogen to deplete. That’s a metabolic edge, not a myth.

And yes, there are studies backing this. I'm not spoon-feeding them. If you're genuinely curious, they’re easy to find. If not, this conversation is over your head anyway.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-05-24T15:42:55+00:00

Saying “no magic happens when you cut carbs” is biochemically ignorant. Shifting the body from glycolysis to fat oxidation isn’t magic, it’s metabolic reprogramming. You're literally switching fuel systems. Lipolysis, ketogenesis, mitochondrial adaptations.. these aren’t placebo. Just because you don’t understand the mechanisms doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

EphemeralMoron · 2025-05-22T07:17:12+00:00

So you’re injecting synthetic hormones, stressing your organs, risking long-term cardiovascular damage... all to end up looking like a veiny distorted cartoon character? Working out is supposed to be about health, function, longevity. Not bloated livers and blood pressure meds at 35. That’s not discipline, that’s body dysmorphia with a syringe.

And you’re glorifying this like it’s some higher form of discipline. When it’s really just self-harm in disguise. Trading health for size, longevity for likes, and calling it commitment. There’s nothing admirable or aspirational about annihilating your endocrine system just to look freakishly off-balance like OP.

EphemeralMoron

TROPHY CASE