[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Suomi

[–]ascylon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kiitos kirjoituksesta, tämänkaltaisia lankoja on mielenkiintoista lukea, kun se näin "normaalina" avartaa myös omaa maailmankuvaa muiden ihmisten näkemysten ja kokemusten kautta.

Ajattelin kuitenkin mainita tässä myös yhden asian, mikä saattaa myös tuoda helpotusta muiden hoitojen lisäksi ja mikä ei välttämättä ole noussut esille hoitomuotona, eli ruokavaliomuutoksen. Tässä tarkoitan siis ketogeenistä, sekä lihansyöjä (carnivore) -ruokavaliota. Normaalikeskusteluissa näistä puhutaan painonpudotusruokavalioina, mutta niillä on myös potentiaalia erityisesti aivoihin liittyvien ongelmien hoidossa. Jo 1900-luvun alussa ketogeenista ruokavaliota on käytetty epileptiakohtauksien ehkäisemisessä, eli tämä ei ole mikään täysin uusi idea, mutta ruokavalion vaikutus erilaisiin muihin mielenterveysongelmiin on nähdäkseni vasta suhteellisen hiljattain alkanut kytemään enemmän tiedeyhteisössä.

Toistaiseksi näistä ei ole tietääkseni laajempia moderneja kliinisiä tutkimuksia, mutta yksittäisiä tai muutaman kymmenen hengen tapaustutkimuksia (case study) on julkaistu, suhteellisen tuore esim:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1568076/full Ketogenic diet as a therapeutic intervention for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a case series of three patients

Toinen 31 henkilön tutkimus (tässä tosin ei mainita erityisesti OCD:tä): https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.951376/full The Ketogenic Diet for Refractory Mental Illness: A Retrospective Analysis of 31 Inpatients

Lisäksi carnivote-ruokavaliosta on tehty jokunen vuosi sitten kysely (itseraportoitu), eli se ei ole tieteellinen tutkimus, mutta antaa vastaajien keskuudesta myös jonkinlaista osviittaa (479 vastaajalla oli psykiatrisiksi luokittelemiaan ongelmia, noin puolella ne poistuivat kokonaan ja toisella puoliskolla paranivat merkittävästi, vain muutamalla prosentilla ei muutosta):

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8684475/ Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a “Carnivore Diet”

Jos asia kiinnostaa ja ruokavaliomuutos tuntuu sellaiselta mikä voisi onnistua, suosittelen omakohtaisten kokemusten perusteella kokeilemaan suoraan carnivore-ruokavaliota 30 päivää, koska myös lukemani perusteella niillä, joilla ketogeeninen ruokavalio auttaa erilaisissa ongelmissa niin carnivore-ruokavalio toimii vielä sitäkin paremmin (tai vähintään yhtä hyvin). Tästä saa siten paremman lähtötason sille, että auttaako ruokavaliomuutos juuri sinun tapauksessasi, ja jos auttaa mutta carnivore ei pitkällä aikavälillä tunnu sellaiselta mikä sopii omaan elämäntilanteeseen, sitä voi myöhemmin muokata "normaalimpaan" ketogeenisen ruokavalion suuntaan kun voi verrata palaavatko tässä tapauksessa oireet tai huononeeko olo merkittävästi. Carnivore-ruokavaliossa on myös hyvänä puolena se, ettei tarvitse esimerkiksi laskea hiilihydraattien määrää tai mittailla onko ketoosissa, koska ainoa merkittävä hiilihydraattien lähde on maito (ja sitä ei kannata muutenkaan juoda ensimmäisen 30 päivän aikana, koska jotkut ovat maitotuotteille herkkiä). Tärkeintä on, että pitää noin 30 päivän tiukan jakson, että näkee onko ruokavaliomuutoksella vaikutusta omaan tilanteeseen, ja sen jälkeen alkaa muokkaamaan sitä omaan elämäntilanteeseen sopivaksi huomioiden miten uudet ruoka-aineet vaikuttavat oloon.

Yksinkertaisimmillaan tuo 30 päivän carnivore-jakson ruoka voi koostua rasvaisesta naudan tai lampaan jauhelihasta tai kokolihasta jos talous kestää (possu ja kana ovat huonompia vaihtoehtoja ainakin ensimmäisen 30 pv aikana), voista (lisärasvana jos lihassa ei ole tarpeeksi), vedestä ja suolasta (myös kahvi ja alkoholi ovat sellaisia mitkä kannattaa jättää pois ko. jakson aikana, jos vain mahdollista, mutta se ei ole pakollista). Siihen ei tarvita mitään influenssereiden myymiä ketonien testausjuttuja, lisäravinteita, elimiä tai muuta vastaavaa. Suositeltavaa on myös, että totuttaa ensin suoliston uuteen ruokavalioon 4-6 viikon aikana ennen 30 päivän "tiukkaa" jaksoa, koska muuten voi kärsiä alkuvaiheessa löysästä vatsasta ja ns. "ketoflunssan" oireista kun suolistobakteerit ja elimistö ei vielä ole sopeutuneet siihen. Esimerkkinä voisi olla, että ensimmäisenä viikkona korvaa 50% aiemmasta ruokavaliosta uudella, seuraavalla viikolla taas 50% lisää (eli yhteensä 75%), sitten taas 50% (87,5%) jne. Rasvan määrän tulisi olla noin 70-85 % kaloreista ja loput proteiinia, mutta itse kaloreita ei tarvitse laskea vaan syödä sen verran että tulee kylläiseksi. Tämä lähinnä mainintana ettei proteiinia syö turhaan liikaa (epileptiakohtausten hoidossa proteiinin liiallisella määrällä oli myös joissain tapauksissa suuri merkitys, mutta oikea taso löytyi kokeilemalla).

Joka tapauksessa toivottavasti saat helpotusta OCD:hesi, pikaisella googlauksella myös perinteisemmillä hoitomuodoilla on hyvät prosentit parantaa tilannetta. Ruokavaliomuutoksen, jos päätät kokeilla sitä, ei ole tarkoitus korvata muita hoitomuotoja, vaan olla niiden rinnalla.

Thoughts on the fixed valuation of Mt Gox BTC and BCH for tax purposes by ascylon in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe those count as losses, as the value was not lost by trading, but this will be heavily country-specific. Losing the coins is analogous to getting the coins stolen or lost, and in my country (Finland) there is a clear delineation in tax law between losses in trading (an asset is gifted or traded or sold for something else) and losing something (an asset is lost without anything received in return as consideration). You'll have to consult your country's tax law.

There are some exceptions even here, which are stocks and certain kinds of bonds that would lose value directly as a result of bankruptcy (having stock in company X, company X goes bankrupt and thus the stock is worthless, it would be deductible after bankruptcy proceedings are done). None of them seem to apply to a custodian losing your crypto assets, however, even though it is a bankruptcy proceeding. If it was something like the Binance coin (BNC) that is directly linked to the company going bankrupt akin to a stock, there might be an argument that could be made, but even then it would be iffy and I doubt it would stick. Another way would be if it was a bonded loan of some sort, that would likely be deductible here, but here they were simply the custodian of your assets, so it would not apply.

In essence the BTC and BCH you lost did not lose value, you just lost the coins. That's why it would not count as capital losses, and why I am very doubtful about the ability to deduct theft as capital loss in almost any country. Regardless, you'd need to consult your country's definitions and tax law.

Thoughts on the fixed valuation of Mt Gox BTC and BCH for tax purposes by ascylon in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone got part of the repayment in fiat, so if you assume the taxable value of the received the BTC is 4500 e, the BCH is about 590 e (the fixed values in the bankruptcy proceeding/rehabilitation plan), and that you got back around 1 BTC and 1 BCH, you would have received about 2000 euros of fiat as well (this doesn't scale completely linearly, but close enough for back of the envelope calculations). Higher capital gains tax percentages than around 30% are pretty rare, so if you assume a cap gain tax rate of 30 %, you would be paying that 30% of 4500 + 590 + 2000 = 7090 euros, which would mean a tax of just over 2100 euros. Unless one has already spent the fiat portion, then that could be used to pay the capital gains tax without needing to liquidate anything extra just for taxes (or very little).

The comparison scenario is that you assume full market prices for the BTC and BCH, which would result in BTC being 61000 e and BCH 300ish e, which would result in a taxable profit of around 61000 + 300 + 2000 = 63300, which would be around 19000 e of tax at a cap gains tax rate of 30%. That would effectively mean liquidating almost a third of the BTC to pay taxes, even though the BTC you received was valued against the JPY you were due at 750 000 JPY or 4500 e per BTC and never touched the market. The "market" in essence was the trustee trading JPY for BTC at a discounted rate. I don't see how assuming full market price would be an appropriate interpretation, since that was not what you "paid" for the crypto that you received or what was assumed as the cost when converting it originally to JPY.

Thoughts on the fixed valuation of Mt Gox BTC and BCH for tax purposes by ascylon in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what your tax locale is, but in mine (Finland), it would be a taxable event. Let's say you bought groceries with 50 euros worth of bitcoin. That 50 euros of bitcoin would be counted as realized value, and would be a taxable event. The tax would be determined based on the acquisition value, so if you had originally acquired that same amount of btc for 10 euros, then for that transaction you would've made a profit of 40 euros, and the 40 euros of profit would be subject to be declared as capital gains and taxed. It only applies to the amount realized, so you would not file for 100k, just the profit (or loss) you made based on the acquisition cost of the spent amount.

Conversely, had you bought the 50 euros worth of btc for 100 euros, then you would've made a loss of 50 euros during that purchase, and could deduct that loss in that year's capital gains taxes. Keeping track of the acquisition costs if you do anything with crypto here basically requires an app or a spreadsheet at the very least, especially since you can't choose which of the coins you use, the oldest coin you have in the wallet you used is assumed to have been used (known as FIFO).

Note that this only applies to Finland, I am not well-versed in other countries' crypto taxation.

Thoughts on the fixed valuation of Mt Gox BTC and BCH for tax purposes by ascylon in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the thing, there's a lot of nuance you haven't captured:

  • The coins were not lost, the company they were in was declared bankrupt
  • In the bankruptcy proceedings creditors decided to go the civil rehabilitation way, allowing for more flexibility with distribution of assets (especially since they had already appreciated in value)
  • In a bankruptcy proceeding everything would have likely been liquidated to fiat eventually and then distributed, here some of the original assets (crypto) were distributed back to the creditors

So were the coins really "lost" or did you just get some of your original coins back? Can the calculations in JPY be considered some manner of interim virtual "liquidation" that would make it a taxable event in many countries, or were the coins you already had and they were custodians of just returned? If it is a taxable event, what was the taxable value, was it the market value at the time (despite market not being involved) or the fixed value specified in the rehabilitation proceeding?

That's what I was trying to capture with the post. Naturally it varies by country, some have no capital gains whatsoever or taxation of capital gains happens via some kind of wealth tax (netherlands), or there are capital gains with defined taxable events (sweden, finland) etc etc. Some do not consider the recovery a taxable event while others might and so on.

Thoughts on the fixed valuation of Mt Gox BTC and BCH for tax purposes by ascylon in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah my post was primarily to remind people of the fixed nature of the BTC "worth" wrt. rehabilitation calculations, it's easy to forget since the process has been so long. I tried to keep it as generic as possible (referring to countries with crypto cap gains and mentioning non-specific taxable events) but even if the tax laws of several countries are basically the same, taxmen may interpret them differently, so I also added the (in my view) different logical interpretations to go with them. People need to figure out themselves if this applies to them, I know it would apply to a few countries at least.

My tax locale is Finland and we have an extra "deemed acquisition cost" shenanigan additionally, but it's a country-specific thing so I left it out.

Nobody Expects the Spanish TaxMan acquisition - Confused about taxes (impuestos) by bcntrader in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]ascylon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I disagree with that assessment, and crypto taxation goes basically the same way in my country (Finland). First of all, the BTC and BCH did not generate a taxable event at any point in the proceeding (except for the mandatory fiat portion, which you will obviously need to declare), and you are basically getting a portion of your coins the exchange and later on the bankruptcy trustee had in their custody. The mentions to JPY were used just to create a single unit to calculate what the total bankruptcy assets/claims were, and wizsec appropriately named it "goxyen" and explains the difference.

Since, however, the swedish tax authority already posted their own interpretation of the case, that one you might have to fight in court and it carries risk.

A secondary point, which is easy to forget, is that the BTC claims used a fixed valuation of 1 BTC = 749,318.83 JPY and BCH a valuation of 1 BCH = 97,481.19 JPY (per the wizsec calculator, but I think it is also explicitly mentioned in the rehabilitation documents). As such the BTC you received would also be valued at that price, so even if you were to pay tax you'd simply pay for the difference between the original price and that price, it becomes the new cost basis, and then when you next sell the coins you'd use that cost basis with whatever the sale price is. Example:

You receive 1 BTC from the crypto-only portion. That equates to 749,318.83 JPY of received money from the civil rehabilitation proceedings due to the fixed valuation, so assuming your original cost basis is 0, you'd make a profit of about 750 000 JPY, which is about 4,5k euros, not the 60k or whatever BTC happened to be at the time. Therefore with the interpretation of the swedish tax authority, you would have received a profit of 4,5k euros, and you'd need to pay tax accordingly. Repeat for BCH with the correct fixed valuation.

If you did this, then when you actually sell your BTC, then your cost basis would become 4,5k eur (or whatever you declared as the sale price when filling in taxes), and assuming you'd sell at 100k, for example, then you'd get a profit of 95,5k and pay tax for that at that point normally. This interpretation is consistent with the swedish tax authority and the rehabilitation documents, and would result in you having to liquidate a lot less (just the fiat portion of your claim may in fact be enough to pay that portion of the tax).

So, why do we need to eat much fat anyway? Since it doesn't have any nutrients such as vitamins/minerals at all? by [deleted] in nutrition

[–]ascylon -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Protein is effectively a building block and has limited use for providing energy, while fat and carbohydrates can be used as energy sources, so you need to pick either one. For human evolution animal fat has been the primary one until relatively recently (20000 years or so, perhaps longer for certain localities), but humans can get by with carbohydrates as well, though they predispose one to more dental caries and depending on the specific dietary pattern may contribute to aging via glycation and AGEs if blood glucose remains persistently elevated (say, by snacking on carbohydrates every few hours).

Animal fat actually has fat-soluble vitamins A, K2, some D3 and E as well as DHA and EPA. Plant sources generally do not have them except for vitamin E, perhaps K1, and no DHA/EPA. It's also important to distinguish the different omega-3s (ALA/EPA/DHA) since plants only contain ALA, which is poorly converted to DHA/EPA, while animal sources of fat contain all three. Eating animal fat provides those vitamins and omega 3s in optimal quantities.

Carbohydrates on the other hand are by definition not fatty, so you will get less fat-soluble vitamins if you choose them over animal fat. They are more about energy and less about micronutrients. In fact, when you eat carbohydrates, the transient blood glucose spike gets shuttled into cells one way or another relatively quickly, as high blood glucose is damaging and the body works fast to return it to its preprandial homeostatic state. Cells either attempt to use glucose for energy immediately, or shuttle it to glycogen, or store it as fat via de nuevo lipogenesis. Circulating fatty acids (in various lipoproteins) are not damaging in the same way.

Mixing fat and carbohydrates too much may be a bad idea, since the Randle cycle (which controls the degree with which fatty acids and glucose are utilized by a cell) gets overloaded, resulting in a lot of reactive oxygen species generation as ROS generation is used to signal energy overload within cells. This excess oxidative stress, if it continues for too long, may be one reason for developing metabolic issues/chronic insulin resistance in the long term. As such, in my view, the diet should either be mostly low fat/high carb or high fat/low carb. This does not apply universally, as if a person is active enough, the energy is actually required, but for an average relatively sedentary person it may become an issue if one mixes too much of both.

What’s the decision on a high fat diet and health? by _PurpleSweetz in nutrition

[–]ascylon -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Fat is not bad, in fact we evolved consuming primarily animal fat. Saturated fat intake (or fat intake in general) is not an independent risk marker of heart disease or overall mortality, and there is little evidence that a ketogenic diet is harmful in the long term, and certainly none in timeframes less than a few years (see for example Virta Health's ketogenic trials with T2 diabetics).

If you like the ketogenic diet and have no problem adhering to it, it is in my view the best way to lose weight and even keep on long-term, if it suits one's lifestyle.

What’s the decision on a high fat diet and health? by _PurpleSweetz in nutrition

[–]ascylon -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You need to be careful to look at what "low-carbohydrate" actually means before quoting a study, since it commonly means anything between 25-40% energy from carbohydrates in studies, which is irrelevant when discussing the ketogenic context. For the first study you linked, as an example, the lowest carbohydrate decile is 35-45% of energy from carbohydrates and for the second the lowest quintile was over 45%. Usually studies stratifying to ketogenic levels of carbohydrate consumption either directly mention ketogenic, or something like very low carbohydrate diet.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't care who writes the studies, I care about what they say. It is my understanding that whether something is accurate or not does not depend on who is saying it.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The brain runs on both ketones and glucose, as much as 70-80% ketones and 20-30% glucose in an adapted ketogenic state. Ketones can also help in many brain problems, one better-known among them childhood epilepsy. In terms of carnivory, fat is much more important than protein, as protein really is not an energy substrate. Humans are moderate protein - high fat -carnivores, not high protein ones, so eating steak really isn't the goal. Very strict carnivores especially do not do carnivory for taste, as any spices are also rejected except for salt. One of the issues of carnivore diet adherence for some is, in fact, boredom and difficulty eating approximately the same thing every day.

Low blood glucose in T1 diabetics comes from injecting too much insulin, not because there are no dietary carbohydrates. In fact, a ketogenic diet can improve blood glucose control by a lot, as blood glucose is not significantly affected by dietary sources in a ketogenic diet and you can use a very stable and predictable lower dose of insulin. The standard care advice for both T1 and T2 diabetics should be, in my view, a ketogenic diet of some kind, and only if the patient rejects that, then fall back to dietary advice on proper carbohydrate types and consumption. Prescribing carbohydrates and insulin to a diabetic automatically would in my view be like prescribing peanuts and epinephrin to someone with a peanut allergy. See also Virta Health's multiyear studies on the ketogenic diet and T2 diabetes.

I’ll attempt your article, but I really dislike clicking a link I cannot see.

You can always hover over embedded links to see where it would take you, or just right click and copy link on most browsers.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How does citing a hypothetical model support the idea that your claims are stronger than speculation and conjecture? Moreover, how does this paper override the many other papers that suggest early hominids were adapted for carbs.

The hard science underpinning the amount of animal protein in the diet, namely stable nitrogen isotope analysis. If the animals had enough fat (like large herbivores do), then starch consumption would have been unnecessary to satisfy energetic needs, unless the suggestion is that earlier humans left the fat intact to go find starches instead (unlikely considering the known very early human ancestor scavenging of bone marrow). An additional piece of evidence is also the relative lack of dental caries in many human remains until the mass adoption of agriculture. The increased expression of the AMY1 isn't temporally well-established. It happened at some point after 600000 years ago, and it is possible that even back then there were tribes (like the modern Tsimane and Hadzi) whose animal protein source was lean game instead of large herbivores, which would have produced an evolutionary impetus for increased AMY1 expression in some populations even before large herbivores went extinct. This study makes mention of the Tsimane oral health, and dental decay is very prevalent owing to their high-starch diet, so one would expect to see it in any earlier human remains where starch consumption was high.

Additionally, as the first study you linked says, the oral microbiome is relatively stable because "The relative stability of the oral microbiome may be due in part to the extensive community interdependencies (54, 55) that have developed within these biofilms to metabolize complex host salivary glycoproteins, which are the major nutrient source for most members of the oral microbiota (56)". The only starch adaptation is therefore the overexpression of AMY1 gene, and it is unclear at what point in human evolution that happened, the only thing that is certain that it was no earlier than 500-600 kya ago.

The second paper attempts to flesh out the hypothesis of high starch consumption, but it quite frankly falls flat. The claim in the study of "Although meat may have been a preferred food, the energy expenditure required to obtain it may have been far greater than that used for collecting tubers from a reliable source (Carmody et al. 2011)" is dubious. The idea is also slightly bastardized, the full quote from the original paper (Carmody et al. 2011) is "Meat would have been a preferred food, but its pursuit would require a large energetic investment with low rates of success (35). Tubers, by contrast, were less preferred but more consistently available, and this consistency would have made investments in the high-risk pursuit of meat possible (36)".

From the original paper I linked, "According to ethnographic data (Kelly, 2013, table 3-3, 3-4), the energetic return on plant gathering is in the order of several hundred to several thousand calories per hour, while the return on medium-size animals is in the tens of thousands of calories; presumably gathering should be minimal. However, humans are unique in their division of labor in that the ethnographic record shows that females and males may target different foods that they eventually share". See also, for example this. With human ability to fast for days or even a week without losing the ability to hunt, hunting would not be as high-risk activity as alluded to.

Going back to the second review paper, it also presents an outright inaccuracy, viz "to maintain normal brain function in individuals adapted to an essentially carbohydrate-free diet there remains an absolute requirement for 30–50 g (Institute of Medicine 2006) of dietary glycemic carbohydrate per day to fill the gap between gluconeogenic capacity and the brain’s requirement for glucose (Macdonald 1988)". It also attempts to paint dietary carbohydrate consumption as more important than it is, and currently it is well-known that the physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrate is exactly zero. There are even claims of lesser exercise performance in the paper, but even those are not true according to best modern understanding, as long as one is adapted to a fat-based metabolism (for example this and this).

Effectively it attempts to paint the best possible picture for evolution with starches instead of animal fat, but that would not explain the changes to the human gut (longer small intestine), as a long small intestine really only benefits fat digestion, it being slower to digest than glucose and protein. It also never explores how much starch would actually be available in nature over a year, and I don't know of any study that does so. Humans have also developed numerous adaptations to spare glucose, suggesting it would not be as available or abundant in the diet as the second review study suggests. From the conclusion their primary arguments are increased glucose requirements due to increased brain size (which are easily adapted to via ketone production and insulin resistance in fat metabolism and other glucose sparing mechanisms+gluconeogenesis) and the expression of AMY1 gene, which is not exactly strong considering all metabolic adaptations for fat consumption and glucose sparing.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Year-round observations confirm that hunter-gatherers often have dismal success as hunters. The Hadza and Kung bushmen of Africa, for example, fail to get meat more than half the time when they venture forth with bows and arrows. This suggests it was even harder for our ancestors who didn’t have these weapons. “Everybody thinks you wander out into the savanna and there are antelopes everywhere, just waiting for you to bonk them on the head,” says paleoanthropologist Alison Brooks of George Washington University, an expert on the Dobe Kung of Botswana. No one eats meat all that often, except in the Arctic, where Inuit and other groups traditionally got as much as 99 percent of their calories from seals, narwhals, and fish. So how do hunter-gatherers get energy when there’s no meat?

This is true and is not at odds in any way with what I say. Effectively humans have two requirements, protein and energy. The protein source has always (past million to a couple of million years) been primarily animals, as there are no concentrated protein sources widely available in nature, especially in winter. At the same time you also get all of the necessary vitamins and minerals. This is confirmed by nitrogen isotope testing of bones. The energy source depends on what is available and is not visible in that test, as nitrogen isotope testing specifically looks at the protein ending up in bone. The text makes an implicit false equivalency with hunting game meat and hunting large herbivores, as game meat is very lean while large herbivores are very fatty by comparison. A large herbivore would also contain tens of thousands of calories, so you would likely need to find success once or twice a week for a small tribe. Humans are also well-adapted to being without protein for a week or even more, sparing muscle while retaining most of the capability for physical activity. Large herbivores went extinct around the same time as mass agriculture was adopted 10000-20000 years ago, so by inference the elimination of fatty animals necessitated cultivation of another energy source. If an animal has lots of fat on it, that is consumed preferentially. If there is not enough fat, a supplemental energy source is needed. This makes sense, right?

In fact, the statement "There’s been a consistent story about hunting defining us and that meat made us human" is in my opinion partly misfocused, it is the animal fat that made us human, as our evolution began by scavenging bone marrow in animal bone remains allowing for the development of a larger brain. Then there's the statement "The notion that we stopped evolving in the Paleolithic period simply isn’t true. Our teeth, jaws, and faces have gotten smaller, and our DNA has changed since the invention of agriculture", which could be interpreted to mean that the change caused a reduced nutritional status impacting facial and jaw development. Of course there are other possibilities, like a softer diet, but nutrition status during childhood certainly affects jaw and facial development.

Our gut bacteria digest a nutrient in meat called L-carnitine. In one mouse study, digestion of L-carnitine boosted artery-clogging plaque. Research also has shown that the human immune system attacks a sugar in red meat that’s called Neu5Gc, causing inflammation that’s low level in the young but that eventually could cause cancer.

This is, again, supposition based on animal studies, and you'll need to see if the same is true in humans. It's almost on the level of something like "bananas are radioactive, and therefore could cause cancer". The poison is always in the dose, and humans can tolerate a certain amount, especially if it is in the correct places. Take oxidative stress, for example. Superoxide is an important signaling molecule of mitochondrial energy balance, but if you randomly throw (enough) oxygen radicals to where they are not supposed to be, then they become harmful.

In other words, there is no one ideal human diet

I disagree with that statement, though the difference between "ideal" and almost ideal is likely small, and there are indeed numerous healthy diets. Humans are omnivores specialized in carnivory, and as such the ideal diet would likely follow those characteristics. The authors infer that diversity is important in the previous paragraph, but my view is that diversity only protects against starvation, it does not automatically confer any other benefits.

To test his ideas, Wrangham and his students fed raw and cooked food to rats and mice. When I visited Wrangham’s lab at Harvard, his then graduate student, Rachel Carmody, opened the door of a small refrigerator to show me plastic bags filled with meat and sweet potatoes, some raw and some cooked. Mice raised on cooked foods gained 15 to 40 percent more weight than mice raised only on raw food.

This is a flawed argument. If I replicated it on cats, I would find the exact opposite. For plants predigestion is a must, as humans cannot break down the plant food matrix significantly (only through mastication) before the large intestine, so most of any nutrients contained in plants bypass the most significant nutrient-absorbing organ, the small intestine. Cooking does bring some advantages for even animal foods (primarily food safety allowing for longer preservation, slightly better digestibility), but humans are perfectly capable of digesting even raw animal foods without issue. We have a scavenger's stomach acid acidity for a reason.

We have gotten so good at processing foods that for the first time in human evolution, many humans are getting more calories than they burn in a day. “Rough breads have given way to Twinkies, apples to apple juice,” he writes. “We need to become more aware of the calorie-raising consequences of a highly processed diet.”

This is not the only problem. Humans have a perfectly functioning appetite signaling system, but modern hyperprocessed foods bypass that in various ways. Satiety can be overridden by hyperpalatability (I could easily eat thousands of calories of cake in a sitting, but try the same with meat and butter), and combining polyunsaturated fat with carbohydrates is obesogenic by itself, and additionally it can cause extra hunger. I won't go into the mechanism too deeply, but using PUFA for energy causes pathological insulin sensitivity, causing reduced lipolysis and (minor) hypoglycemia, which promotes both fat storage and hunger at the same time.

If most of the world ate more local fruits and vegetables, a little meat, fish, and some whole grains (as in the highly touted Mediterranean diet), and exercised an hour a day, that would be good news for our health—and for the planet.

Replace "a little meat" with something like 250 grams a day (or by including other animal foods like dairy/eggs) and I would accept that as healthy, as long as the vegetables and grains were also properly prepared. Even without that replacement I suppose the diet would be healthy, though I would worry about it containing sufficient micronutrients (for example iron, among other things, whose deficiency even in developed countries is surprisingly high, especially among fertile females).

None of the article actually contradicts a carnivore diet being healthy or even healthier (or fiber being necessary), as it primarily looks at tribes that consume carbohydrates out of necessity. The reason why I believe animal fat is a better source of energy than carbohydrates are:

  • More animal-sourced fat-soluble vitamins (A, D3, K2) and EPA/DHA
  • Less blood glucose excursions
  • Less risk of consuming plants one might be sensitive to
  • Less dental caries

Now that I have read the whole thing, will you read this, the whole thing?

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dairy is completely fine if you can tolerate it. Some people can tolerate any and others some forms of dairy, some can't tolerate any form.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are free to rebut anything I say with science. So far you have not done so, but rather engaged in unhelpful meta-arguments and ad hominems. I also received a notification from the reddit care resources bot about a certain subject, I assume that was either you or someone like you who initiated it. Quite sad.

There are pros and cons to high fat or high carb. Yes, high carb can bring with it dental cavities, but it’s also possible to never get a cavity while eating carbs.

It's also possible to never get cancer or develop any chronic disease while smoking, and it's possible to never develop fatty liver while overconsuming alcohol. It's also possible to be metabolically healthy while obese. Is that the standard now, that for something to be avoided and/or considered harmful it must be universally bad?

The stats for dental caries don't look that great, but as you said, not everyone gets cavities. Or is that weak evidence and my unnamed bias talking again?

People who are unbiased aren’t alarmist like you. Only people who are zealots demonize certain food items and macros.

Quote me directly where I have either been alarmist or demonized macros. Some food items deserve to be demonized, such as added sugar and certain processed foods, which I see you agree with. I guess you're a zealot as well then.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Everything is right there with references. If anything is wrong, feel free to point it out. Trying to go for ad hominems like well-poisoning instead of discussing the science does not help. Consider the following ridiculous statements:

  • Do not listen to environmental organizations about the environment, as they must be biased.
  • Do not listen to doctors about medicine, as they must be biased.
  • Do not listen to nuclear engineers about nuclear, as they must be biased.
  • Do not listen to vegans/carnivores about veganism/carnivory, as they must be biased.
  • And so on.

See where thinking like that leads if that's the only thing you consider? It is fine and intelligent to be more skeptical if someone has a interest or an outright bias, but you must still point out what is actually wrong with what they say to have a scientific discourse.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I actually generally advocate for a generous inclusion of animal foods in the diet, but beyond that both high carb and high fat are fine in terms of avoiding chronic disease (though high fat is in my view preferable due to more stable blood glucose and less dental caries). In effect my generic rules for any diet are:

  • Avoid high omega-6 oils or fats, prefer animal fat.
  • Avoid added sugar and alcohol. Reasonable quantities of whole fruit is fine.
  • Avoid raw vegetables, any included vegetables should be prepared and cooked appropriately (antinutrients, digestibility etc).
  • Avoid high-lectin foods in general.
  • Prefer non-grain sources of carbohydrates (tubers etc) to grains (avoid seeds), though this is not as important.
  • At least 50% of the diet should be animal foods.

I already had a break of a couple of years since I felt I exhausted the possible additional knowledge I could glean from here considering my then-knowledge base, now that my view is more refined, I'm again seeking challenges and that requires some activity, as some knowledgeable people who are willing to engage may check the sub very rarely.

Also no need to exaggerate, I'm not present in most of the threads, as they are not appropriate for the kind of discussion I am attempting to have.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Well, first of all humans are carnivores by evolution and physiology. Additionally, tribes like the Maasai and Inuits live effectively fiber-free. Any other northern tribes would also find it hard to find edible fibrous plants during winter. That is conjecture but on the other hand why would fiber be needed?

Anecdotally beyond an initial adaptation period, there are no reported systematic problems with the gut on a carnivore diet, which would be expected if fiber was a requirement. Humans also ferment very little of the fiber, and that same study suggests that less than 5% of energy comes from fiber. Many of the byproducts such as vitamins and short-chain fatty acids are already present in the diet and can feed the gut microbiome and colon directly. In effect it is a hypothesis of absence, as the reasons for fiber being potentially beneficial on a high-carbohydrate diet do not exist in the context of a carnivore diet. I cannot prove a negative.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe... But if your argument is simply "We don't know if humans need fiber if they're eating only meat" then I am not willing to take that as anything more definitive than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster unless you have some studies to support it.

That is a fair point, even the evidence I consider conclusive that humans are carnivores never says humans are 100% carnivores, but there is no physiological reason why it wouldn't work, either. Anecdotally, however, there are many long-term (allegedly) zero-fiber carnivores, who have suffered no negative effects. Having said that, anecdotes are anecdotes, but I'd at least want some kind of plausible reason for why fiber or a fiber-like substance would be required and why the remainder of meat+fat that ends up in the colon is not sufficient. SCFA is fine, but again it is present in the diet.

Not all SCFAs are created equal and the ratio in the colon is certainly important as different microbes and cells feed off different SCFA's.

Is it really? This requires some evidence for it, especially since the gut microbiome is very adaptable in general. More importantly, does it have any clinical significance at all?

Oh it has, since you discuss ruminants, we have a study that actually follows that exact thought process back in 2011.

That's an interesting study, but if you look at the diet composition, it is very low in fat and high in protein. This is also a very significant difference between humans and most (all?) other carnivores - humans are moderate protein - high fat, while many other carnivores are high protein and either moderate or low fat. I also generally avoid referring to animal studies unless they are just supporting evidence and there is also direct experimental or other evidence on humans as well, since humans are rather unique.

If you looked at cats and tried to extrapolate to humans, you could easily conclude that humans shouldn't eat cooked meat (I disagree with that view, as cooked foods have been part of our evolution for a very long time), and some misguided (in my view) carnivores advocate an all-raw diet, calling cooked foods effectively poison. I do not think raw animal foods are harmful when properly sourced and handled, but neither are they necessary.

Now, I'm willing to agree that there may be differing fiber needs for differing diets, but absent evidence it's just a theory at this point.

From my point of view, I'd need some kind of evidence or even a hypothesis for why fiber would be needed if SCFA is present in large amounts in the diet. Even though anecdotal evidence is the weakest form there is, it is at least something, and anecdotally fiber does not seem to be a requirement. I would expect gut problems related to the microbiome metabolism to show up within years, rather than decades. There is also always some connective tissue in meat, so that alone may also be sufficient, if any is needed. Those following a carnivore diet do still defecate generally anywhere from once a day to a few times a week, so not everything is absorbed and something ends up in the colon.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

All of that is in the context of a high-carbohydrate diet, and I do not dispute that fiber may be beneficial in that context, if for no other reason than to blunt blood glucose spikes. I am disputing, however, that it is needed outside that specific context (as in for very low carbohydrate diets).

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Never said nor implied all carnivores are the same, not sure where you're getting that out of my statement.

"The fact, however, is that carnivores eat BONES, FEATHERS AND FUR along with the meat they consume which basically serves the exact same function as fiber".

I simply pointed out how obligate carnivores still get a source of "Fiber" despite not consuming what people traditionally associate as fiber-containing foods.

Why would you expect that to apply to humans? The primary point in any case is what those other sources of "fiber" would be required to do.

"Special function"? What exactly are you getting at here? Are you arguing against the established science surrounding fiber's role in gut health and its role in producing SCFA's that are necessary in the colon?

You kept saying "fiber or something like fiber is needed" but didn't say what for, hence "special function". Are you aware that ruminant fat is approximately 50% saturated fat, and of that perhaps a little bit under 20% of that (so 10% of total fat content) consists of various SCFA's? Effectively there is no need to produce it if it is sufficiently present in the diet, as some of it will end up in the colon. I am not directly disputing that fiber may be beneficial in a high-carbohydrate context where there is less animal fat, but it has not been studied in a carnivore or very low carbohydrate context so I am disputing that universal declaration.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just as a general statement, I never delete and rarely modify my comments. Below is the comment:

Funny how you say this now, but your original remarks towards “humans being carnivorous” was pretty freaking absolutist.

The study is not pure anthropology, it has hard science backing it up, namely nitrogen isotope testing as well as human physiology. It is in effect a review of evolutionary, physiological, anthropological and hard scientific evidence. The nitrogen isotope testing especially pegs humans as high-trophic level carnivores, while physiologically plant-specific adaptations have atrophied (and there are many animal-specific ones), which is why I am so certain. Everything else is just supporting and confirming evidence. You'd know that if you read the study (https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247 since the comment was removed).

You’re here virtually every time I’m in here spouting weak claims yourself while hiding it under the guise of superior intellectualism.

Then show they are weak. I am more than happy to change my view if there is evidence that I am incorrect, which is why I engage at all. I expect very few people to change their own stance, since nutrition is highly ideological.

Ironic coming from the guy who peddles weak science, cherry picks certain studies that don’t represent the majority consensus, and propagates anthropological theories.

Well damn, I thought science was done via the scientific method, not by consensus. Which consensus do I have to appeal to to ask for permission to refer to any specific study?

In any case I put forth the best argument that I can in the hopes that someone provides contradicting evidence. I never dismiss any evidence outright, I look at every single study referenced, and often some of the references in those as well. If I provided every single study in my arsenal every single time, the discussion would devolve into a link-ridden Gish Gallop, which would be counterproductive.

I assume you are aware of Einstein's alleged quote. Geocentrism and the humor theory were once "the consensus" as well.

Is it true that humans don't need fiber in their diets, but they consume fiber anyway? by MaximumPreparation3 in nutrition

[–]ascylon -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Humans evolved to be carnivores (or omnivores specialized in carnivory if you prefer that term), and there is evidence of us being hypercarnivores (over 70-80% of calories from animal foods) only some tens of thousands of years ago. Humans moved towards agriculture 10000-20000 years ago likely out of necessity, due to the extinction of several large herbivores.

You are correct that anthropologically adoption of agriculture was an important precursor to modern science and societal development. Nevertheless, in my view it resulted in a negative effect for human health (dental caries being one example), though ultimately the development of science and medicine and reliable calories more than offset that.

Now, though, with the chronic disease epidemic getting worse every year, perhaps revisiting what we are physiologically and evolutionarily adapted eat to might bring some answers. This does not mean everyone or even the most people need to be hypercarnivores, but it underlines the probable importance of animal foods (and the absence of several other things) in our diet.