If DeSantis wins

[Gergar12]

I keep seeing high school protests on Tik Tok in Flordia. They won't work. higher schoolers have no power and no money. They can't buy a gun or vote. I actually think there is one thing they could do, and that's riots which everyone says doesn't work, but look at StoneWall, look at the civil rights protests after MLK died. They work, and the elite wants to gas light you on this.

 

[Ag3ma]

I think the real answer here is drink enough chlorophyll to start metabolizing sunlight.

If that's your bag, a fun read for you:

By Light Alone

In a world where we have been genetically engineered so that we can photosynthesise sunlight with our hair, hunger is a thing of the past, food an indulgence...

www.gollancz.co.uk

 

[Cheetodust]

Generic explanation incoming.

Sugar means lots of things. Monosaccharides (single sugar molecules: chiefly glucose, fructose, galactose), then there are disaccharides which are combinations of two monosaccharides (e.g. lactose, sucrose, maltose). Polysaccharides are lots of linked monosaccharides, such as starch (in plants) and glycogen (in animals) for glucose storage. And plenty more sugars, but let's skip all that. Disaccharides are broken down into monosaccharides in the gut, which are then absorbed in the gastrointestinal system.

Table sugar (typical refined sugar) is sucrose, which is glucose + fructose. Fruit has mostly fructose. Milk mostly lactose, which is glucose + galactose.

Glucose is the basic form of sugar which biological organisms tend to use for energy metabolism. As a result, it is taken up by all cell types in the body for their energy, and this also why it's important in blood supply: thus blood glucose, glycaemic index, control via insulin (and glucagon) and relevance for diabetes. Fructose and galactose, however, are not metabolised across the body, but in the liver, where they are mostly converted into glucose, glycogen, or fats which can then be transported and used by other cells in the body. Glucose therefore has a much higher glycaemic index than fructose and galactose, obviously so, because glycaemic index represents blood glucose and absorbed glucose goes straight into the blood. Fructose and galactose only result in limited glucose production and release.

However, there are some major issues not really being covered here. High levels of monosaccharides are not good for the body, because sugars do other things too. For instance, they bind to other molecules in the body such as proteins (this is the source of the HbA1c test for diabetes, which measures glucose binding to haemoglobin), which is often not a good thing as they can impair their function. We're relatively well adapted to glucose, but much less so to fructose and galactose: they tend to be even worse than glucose in this regard of binding to molecules we'd be better off them not binding to. There's another problem that fructose and galactose: being metabolised in the liver into fats can contribute heavily to fat accumulation, particularly in the liver itself with risk of liver impairment, plus significant production of waste metabolites that may also be problematic.

So yes, the metabolism of various sugars is different. However, the long and short of it is that whilst you might argue that fructose and galactose are better for humans with respect to glycaemic index and diabetes risk, studies suggest that they're associated with outcomes equivalent to, potentially even worse, than glucose in terms of overall population health (although there may be varied advantages and disadvantages at the level of individuals).

So, my basic suggestion would be to be mindful of sugar consumption from any source whatsoever, and I would be extremely cautious of advice suggesting fructose is somehow "safer" than sucrose.

So what your saying is fruit is killing my gains?!

 

[Ag3ma]

So what your saying is fruit is killing my gains?!

Not necessarily

 

[Cheetodust]

Not necessarily

Too late. I'm going full Paul Saladino. (If you don't already know who he is, prepare to get real annoyed at a scumbag lying grifter)

 

[Chimpzy]

Too late. I'm going full Paul Saladino. (If you don't already know who he is, prepare to get real annoyed at a scumbag lying grifter)

Ah, one of those carnivore diet blokes. Oh well, at least he's an MD. Granted, of psychiatry and 'functional medicine', but that still counts, I think. Buy his books tho! Does he have supplements? If so, buy those too.

 

[Baffle]

If that's your bag, a fun read for you:

By Light Alone

In a world where we have been genetically engineered so that we can photosynthesise sunlight with our hair, hunger is a thing of the past, food an indulgence...

www.gollancz.co.uk

I would be a king in this world! No, wait, I'd be bald and poor, which seems fairly familiar ...

 

[Ag3ma]

Too late. I'm going full Paul Saladino. (If you don't already know who he is, prepare to get real annoyed at a scumbag lying grifter)

Paul Saladino? Seriously???

"I'm much more interested in optimal health than in dogmatic adherence to a mainstream narrative."

Oh, fuck off, you chancer. Anyone starting off with that sort of maverick-posing PR is not trustworthy.

Ah, one of those carnivore diet blokes. Oh well, at least he's an MD. Granted, of psychiatry and 'functional medicine', but that still counts, I think. Buy his books tho! Does he have supplements? If so, buy those too.

In a way, a "carnivore diet" has some logic behind it - if the intent is to remove carbohydrates. But really, why go to those extremes? At face value, this looks like a really stupid diet.

 

[Chimpzy]

In a way, a "carnivore diet" has some logic behind it - if the intent is to remove carbohydrates. But really, why go to those extremes? At face value, this looks like a really stupid diet.

Probably. Diets that espouse eating only [insert food here] are always suspect as best. Especially from blokes selling books about it.

 

[Cheetodust]

In a way, a "carnivore diet" has some logic behind it - if the intent is to remove carbohydrates. But really, why go to those extremes? At face value, this looks like a really stupid diet.

And most people are really bad at maintaining a healthy balanced diet without cutting out an entire macronutrient. You're just begging for some kind of deficiency if you don't actually plan where you're going to get your micronutrients in.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ah, but perhaps this salad man is actually a number of cats underneath a coat? Then a strange diet would make more sense.

 

[Chimpzy]

Ah, but perhaps this salad man is actually a number of cats underneath a coat? Then a strange diet would make more sense.

Nonsense. The clue is in his name. Sentient lettuce trying to prevent the culling of his kind in preparation for the green revolution. Mark my words.

 

[Ag3ma]

And most people are really bad at maintaining a healthy balanced diet without cutting out an entire macronutrient. You're just begging for some kind of deficiency if you don't actually plan where you're going to get your micronutrients in.

Not just that, it's environmentally ruinous. Creating 1kg of edible meat requires anywhere from around 5-20kg of plant dry matter depending on animal. Admittedly, that arguably looks worse than it is (because animals can to some extent be left to eat plants in fields that are not suitable for crops) but nevertheless it takes much more resources to create meat. Plus methane emissions from plant digestion, and general pollution due to transport of animal feed and animal waste, destruction of natural habitats and forests for grazing, etc. Much of this is also why meat is so damn expensive compared to cereals, fruit and veg.

Thus the carnivore diet is an elitist diet for wealthy people and unsustainable beyond a very small percentage of the population (unless there's heavy global depopulation).

I suspect it's also going to make going to the toilet a relatively unpleasant experience, and even cause significant long-term bowel problems.

 

[Chimpzy]

I suspect it's also going to make going to the toilet a relatively unpleasant experience, and even cause significant long-term bowel problems.

Explains why that dude is full of it tho

 

[Cheetodust]

Not just that, it's environmentally ruinous. Creating 1kg of edible meat requires anywhere from around 5-20kg of plant dry matter depending on animal. Admittedly, that arguably looks worse than it is (because animals can to some extent be left to eat plants in fields that are not suitable for crops) but nevertheless it takes much more resources to create meat. Plus methane emissions from plant digestion, and general pollution due to transport of animal feed and animal waste, destruction of natural habitats and forests for grazing, etc. Much of this is also why meat is so damn expensive compared to cereals, fruit and veg.

Thus the carnivore diet is an elitist diet for wealthy people and unsustainable beyond a very small percentage of the population (unless there's heavy global depopulation).

I suspect it's also going to make going to the toilet a relatively unpleasant experience, and even cause significant long-term bowel problems.

I've also noticed that the carnivore diet is particularly popular among the right. Partially for this reason. It's easy for right wing grifters to market it because it ticks a lot of boxes, appeals to toxic masculinity, sticks it to vegans and environmentalists and goes against conventional understanding and guidelines of diet so you get to frame it as something "they" aren't telling you. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding it is similar to other conspiracy theories. Vegan place near me was vandalised with "veganism is an NWO plot to make you weak". Another carnivore diet pusher I saw said essentially the same thing, that plant based diets are a deep state plot to feminise men

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If that's your bag, a fun read for you:

By Light Alone

In a world where we have been genetically engineered so that we can photosynthesise sunlight with our hair, hunger is a thing of the past, food an indulgence...

www.gollancz.co.uk

That's... not how photosynthesis even works. There's a reason plants have roots, and it's not just to hold them down!

 

[Chimpzy]

That's... not how photosynthesis even works. There's a reason plants have roots, and it's not just to hold them down!

Remember science fiction is fiction first, science second. Or third. Or one-hundred-and-fifty-fourth.

 

[Ag3ma]

That's... not how photosynthesis even works. There's a reason plants have roots, and it's not just to hold them down!

Yes, and also no.

Plants get certain stuff from their roots, but much of the carbon, as the core building block of organic molecules, comes from carbon dioxide used in photosynthesis, which is converted into more complex carbohydrates (like glucose). The roots are mostly pulling up other nutrients, such as water and nitogen-containing compounds. (It's worth pointing out that this lower stratum of humans in the book drink and can/do also eat a small amount of food they can scavenge or grow e.g. insects; even still, they are generally malnourished and have heavily stunted growth.)

Also, bearing I mind I can't remember the book precisely, it may be photosynthesis in a more general term of using light and CO2 to generate carbohydrates and so on, but a form adapted for humans rather than the exact same way plants do it.

 

[davidmc1158]

Not just that, it's environmentally ruinous. Creating 1kg of edible meat requires anywhere from around 5-20kg of plant dry matter depending on animal. Admittedly, that arguably looks worse than it is (because animals can to some extent be left to eat plants in fields that are not suitable for crops) but nevertheless it takes much more resources to create meat. Plus methane emissions from plant digestion, and general pollution due to transport of animal feed and animal waste, destruction of natural habitats and forests for grazing, etc. Much of this is also why meat is so damn expensive compared to cereals, fruit and veg.

Thus the carnivore diet is an elitist diet for wealthy people and unsustainable beyond a very small percentage of the population (unless there's heavy global depopulation).

I suspect it's also going to make going to the toilet a relatively unpleasant experience, and even cause significant long-term bowel problems.

This is why I advocate for the only truly ethically harvested meat: free-range long pig.

 

[Chimpzy]

This is why I advocate for the only truly ethically harvested meat: free-range long pig.

Aw, I was so sure you were going to say man-flesh.