I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Paul Saladino
What do you think about this article?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X15304954
@david-3 I don't know how about plant vitamin A forms, but retinoic acid aka accutane makes you crazy sun sensitive. That's why first thing you hear from dermatologist that it is better take this stuff during he winter, because you can't be on summer sun at all.. During my worst I would be red and burn within 10 minutes on the sun and it is just sun in central europe(Czech Republic) let alone at some place with much stronger sun..
- I used to get sun "poisoning" every year. It would usually go away after the first few times in the sun in spring. I suppose the sun had to burn out some VA and then I was good? One of the strangest things was that it could even happen through clothing if I was out in the sun long enough. It was especially bad on my chest and my forearms. But it wouldn't happen on places that get sun all winter, such as the hands and face.
2. I don't believe the experts who say there isn't any use to sunning in winter (because of the deep angle of the sun). I think it is false. Animals sun themselves all year round.
3. Gosh what a nice jungle home Mr Tiny Salad has. Supplements are big business. Not surprising that he wouldn't want to turn off the gravy train (see what I did there?). Liver supplements have been very very good to his wallet at least.
Quote from David on March 19, 2025, 8:00 amWhat do you think about this article?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X15304954
First, the two in vivo experiments they did on mice and humans each had a sample size of three (3 subjects in the control group, 3 in experimental application groups), from which you cannot draw a meaningful statistical conclusion. To put that in context, I've heard statisticians say you should generally have a minimum of 60 subjects in each group to meet the requirements of a basic power analysis. This is the kind of weak study that is typically performed as a pilot study that leads to a full scale study if the results are promising. This is not something that should be published in a journal unless it's potentially a ground-breaking discovery, and this is not.
Second, the "control" was application of the "vehicle" that retinyl palmitate was delivered in, but I don't see them describe what the composition of that vehicle is. Was the vehicle actually innocuous, or did it have potential to have an effect in itself? We can't evaluate that without knowing what it is. In that article I linked the other day, they mention that the solvent diisopropyl adipate (used as a carrier in cosmetics containing retinyl palmitate) appears to be damaging to the skin in itself. Did this study use diisopropyl adipate as the "vehicle"? If so, that is not an appropriate control.
Third, were their metrics for determining outcomes useful, and did they observe outcomes for a sufficiently long period of time? Are thymine dimers a strong predictor of what will happen in the skin longterm? Are there other measures of tissue damage that should have been performed that would have found an even stronger effect in the opposite direction (undesired outcome) from decomposition of the retinyl palmitate?
Once you learn how to assess scientific articles, you realize they usually only lead to more questions rather than providing definitive answers.
Quote from Jiří on March 19, 2025, 1:07 amQuote from Retinoicon on March 18, 2025, 2:30 pmThe definitive commentary on Paul Saladino's bloodwork is this 90 minute video from last fall by Judy Cho. If you haven't watched it, you shouldn't be commenting on Saladino's health.
https://youtu.be/bDaIhHbnuWk?si=B2lUQlQWmtaKLUpL
This Judy Cho is clueless lady.. SHe obviously never did any serious physical activity or sports on some level. There is no way keto diet is ideal for very active people who are surfing 3 hours a day and sweating their ass the whole day in Costa Rica heat. Not to mention Paul in comment section is saying he would love to do podcast with her and discuss blood work with some long term keto/carnivore. No answer from her. Wonder why. Because she knows she knows nothing when it comes to diet of healthy very active people. It is easy to do keto/carnivore protocols for inactive obese people. Just do keto drop boy fat and you will be healthier. wow how many brain cells you need for that.. Not many..
This is another carnivore/keto quack. Talking to bunch of low carb sheeps who believe him. Meanwhile if he did this speech to real athletes and their trainers, sports doctors they would laugh so loudly that nobody would hear that quack speaking. Cyclists going faster and faster because they are ingesting more and more carbs/sugars per hour. Pushing up to 150-200g per hour or what you think is the diet of best marathon runners in the world from Africa? Nothing but carbs from corn, rice, potatoes, millet etc.. and of course gels loaded with maltodextrin during the race. Or what you think are eating NFL, NHL, soccer players etc.. They all are carbing up like crazy. Putting down gels or drinking carb mixes every time they can. Or show me one UFC fighter who goes into the cage fighting while in ketosis. SO from endurance to athletes like strongman, powerlifters nobody is in ketosis. You need muscles and liver loaded with glycogen and if the sport activity is longer than 1hour you need to keep replenishing sugars and keeping that blood sugar high. Meanwhile this quack will tell you that you don't need to eat anything. Because you have plenty of energy in fat cells etc.? Performance in sports = high intensity = the higher intensity you are doing the more glucose you are burning = you can't compete in any sports without enough glucose. If he would talk about slow walking next to your 90yo grandpa that I would agree that you can be in ketosis for that level of intensity LOL... I mean it is one thing to talk about how plants have toxins in them, how carnivore will help your autoimmune issues or whatever all that makes some sense, but to start talking about how diet deficient in glucose is even better for maximum human performance. I mean how stupid or ignorant you have to be to push this idea. Especially when you see what the best athletes are doing in each sport and they are doing the exact opposite of what he is saying.. The only explanation I have for this is that brain needs loads of glucose to work the best and he is lacking some glucose heh. How ironic.. Time will tell if this Dr. will preach this or if he will be alive at all in next 10-20 years. Same goes for Baker and all of them.. If I see old annoying Dr. speaking it is usually low fat vegan not bacon/egg eater again how ironic..
We've been down this road before and there doesn't seem to be anything that will change your mind, but you should listen to Tim Noakes discuss some of his latest research, like this article: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2023.1150265/full
At least a good number of people appear to maintain high glycogen stores on a low-carb diet at high output for extended periods of time. Moreover, they appear to replenish their glycogen stores faster than people on high carb diets. As I've said before, high carb consumption only seems to facilitate higher output than low carb consumption in the most extreme repeated high output scenarios, and in those scenarios the competitors have to essentially be on a glucose drip by taking in highly processed forms of sugar that are not naturally obtainable. Therefore, you could argue they are basically using sugar as a performance enhancing drug because what they are doing is not "natural". This stuff is also being handed to them while they are competing...if they had to carry all that shit with them, would it still provide a competitive advantage over a fat-adapted person carrying nothing?
Did this guy who ran 5 marathons in 5 days while fasted do it from his couch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsjcHX5mSms
@tricky dude what are you even talking about? You really want to argue with me that for best performance in most sports you want to be in ketosis? So why everyone is eating more and more sugar? You are showing me video about some guy who did marathons fasted so what? What he won??? Did he won Olympics against African runners or what? That would be really good argument and I would agree with you 100%. I mean it is like saying why would you drive a car when you can walk and what I am saying is that if you want to go fast you have to use a car(in our case sugar). Don't argue here about what is and what is not naturally obtained or whatever. We are talking about pushing the limits of human body to perform on highest level possible. You can't do that without consuming sugar and every single best athletes are showing that with what they eat. Show me one person who won Ironman while in ketosis. Show me one pro cyclist who won big pro race while in ketosis. Show me one pro marathon runner who won against the best African runners while in ketosis. You can't. Because they don't exist and arguments that eating so much sugar is not healthy or it is unnatural are irrelevant because we are not talking about what is healthy or what is natural. We are talking about he highest level of performance possible. The more you push your body the more glucose you are burning and no we can't synthesize enough glycogen while exercising like sled dogs can for example.. That's why you see cyclists ingesting more and more sugar.
Btw here you have great example of someone who won huge race and broke 18yo record time. Why he was able to do that? run faster than the other guy? It is simple he was simply running faster = higher intensity = higher glucose demand = had to ingest gels constantly and that was his main weapon so he had to train the body so he can ingest so much sugar while running. I mean I really can't give you better example..
Quote from Jiří on March 19, 2025, 1:51 pm@tricky dude what are you even talking about? You really want to argue with me that for best performance in most sports you want to be in ketosis? So why everyone is eating more and more sugar? You are showing me video about some guy who did marathons fasted so what? What he won??? Did he won Olympics against African runners or what? That would be really good argument and I would agree with you 100%. I mean it is like saying why would you drive a car when you can walk and what I am saying is that if you want to go fast you have to use a car(in our case sugar). Don't argue here about what is and what is not naturally obtained or whatever. We are talking about pushing the limits of human body to perform on highest level possible. You can't do that without consuming sugar and every single best athletes are showing that with what they eat. Show me one person who won Ironman while in ketosis. Show me one pro cyclist who won big pro race while in ketosis. Show me one pro marathon runner who won against the best African runners while in ketosis. You can't. Because they don't exist and arguments that eating so much sugar is not healthy or it is unnatural are irrelevant because we are not talking about what is healthy or what is natural. We are talking about he highest level of performance possible. The more you push your body the more glucose you are burning and no we can't synthesize enough glycogen while exercising like sled dogs can for example.. That's why you see cyclists ingesting more and more sugar.
Btw here you have great example of someone who won huge race and broke 18yo record time. Why he was able to do that? run faster than the other guy? It is simple he was simply running faster = higher intensity = higher glucose demand = had to ingest gels constantly and that was his main weapon so he had to train the body so he can ingest so much sugar while running. I mean I really can't give you better example..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F7GSk47fgU&t=5039s
You haven't just been talking about pushing the extreme limits of performance though. For example, you said "There is no way keto diet is ideal for very active people who are surfing 3 hours a day and sweating their ass the whole day in Costa Rica heat."
If you're doing this kind of activity but NOT doing it in organized competition where it is critical to push the absolute limits of physiology in order to win by the tiniest margin, then you are arguably going to be much healthier and still capable of doing quite extreme activities on a low-carb rather than a super high-carb diet (and you won't have to carry stupid gel packets around in your swim trunks lol).
If you look at what I wrote before, I did acknowledge that sugar can enable higher performance at the extreme limits of output: "high carb consumption only seems to facilitate higher output than low carb consumption in the most extreme repeated high output scenarios". But you only need to do that if you're competing at the highest echelons of sport for a living.
This level of sugar intake being "unnatural" and akin to a performance enhancing drug IS relevant because competitive sports organizations have banned numerous performance enhancing drugs for a reason. Partially in an attempt to keep things fair among competitors, partially to maintain the concept of sport and not have events devolve into drug-induced freakshows, and partially because taking these drugs is generally not healthy. If you're purely focused on pushing your body's limits, why aren't you taking meth with your gel packets?
There is also an obvious facet to this that you are completely missing: trying to do extreme things with the LEAST amount of supplemental food possible is arguably even more impressive than shooting yourself up with a bunch of unnatural shit to shave a fraction of a second off your race time. Personally, I am far more impressed by somebody doing 5 marathons back to back without eating anything than somebody averaging 1 mph faster in a bike race because they're chugging sugar that's being handed to them all day long.
Also AFAIK dogs are running on the same type of metabolism as humans when they aren't eating constantly. They're going in and out of ketosis, relying predominantly on fat for energy and using gluconeogenesis to meet the relatively small amount of glucose needed. Most larger bodied mammals use this same metabolic model because it is far more efficient to store potential energy as fat than glycogen, and having larger energy reserves means you have a larger buffer against starvation and don't have to constantly hunt (if you're a predator) or browse/graze and expose yourself to predation (if you're an herbivore).
Where dogs really differ from humans is their ability to survive longterm on high-protein low-fat low-carb diets because of an enhanced ability to convert protein to glucose. Note, this does not mean that a HP/LF/LC diet is healthiest for dogs, only that they are evolved to survive on such a diet when they can't get enough fat from prey, the same way that humans are evolved to survive on carbohydrates and protein in the absence of sufficient fat.
Quote from Tricky on March 19, 2025, 3:48 pmAlso AFAIK dogs are running on the same type of metabolism as humans when they aren't eating constantly. They're going in and out of ketosis, relying predominantly on fat for energy and using gluconeogenesis to meet the relatively small amount of glucose needed. Most larger bodied mammals use this same metabolic model because it is far more efficient to store potential energy as fat than glycogen, and having larger energy reserves means you have a larger buffer against starvation and don't have to constantly hunt (if you're a predator) or browse/graze and expose yourself to predation (if you're an herbivore).
Where dogs really differ from humans is their ability to survive longterm on high-protein low-fat low-carb diets because of an enhanced ability to convert protein to glucose. Note, this does not mean that a HP/LF/LC diet is healthiest for dogs, only that they are evolved to survive on such a diet when they can't get enough fat from prey, the same way that humans are evolved to survive on carbohydrates and protein in the absence of sufficient fat.
I suspect Amber O'Hearn would diagree with this characterization of dogs. She would think carnivorous animals other than humans are constantly relying on gluconeogenesis for energy and humans are unique in relying on dietary fat and having high levels of ketones.
Herbivorous animals, confusingly, use SCFAs formed in the digestive system from fibrous plants for energy.
@tricky "You haven't just been talking about pushing the extreme limits of performance though. For example, you said "There is no way keto diet is ideal for very active people who are surfing 3 hours a day and sweating their ass the whole day in Costa Rica heat.""
You are right I don't believe that no carb/keto/carnivore is optimal for healthy/active people. It is obvious to me. Just look around. Show me all those 90yo healthy and active people who were most of their life on carnivore/keto diet running around everywhere. You can't. Because they don't exist. All you have is bunch of young people or couple of people who were fat and unhealthy from SAD diet andn ow are doing better on low carb/no carb. But the wast majority of healthy/active old people are people who are eating somewhat balanced diet for sure not keto/no carb and on the other hand I see plenty of ald people doing great on more plant based low fat, low animal foods diet. (No I am not a vegan. I think it is a bad idea same as no carbers..) Let alone athletes which if you have even the most basic human physiology knowledge you know that for competing in anything you are constantly pushing the intensity and the more intense the activity is the more glucose your body is burning in comparison with fat. Therefore if it is longer than 60-90 minutes event(after you completely deplete liver and muscle glycogen) you need to start replenishing that glucose otherwise you just crash with hypoglycemia. Everyone who does some sport at least on some competitive level knows that. I ride bikes. So I know how laughable it is to think that I could push into pedals lets say 200 watts for 6 hours in ketosis. It is so ridiculous that I can't even believe that I really have to defend that.. and pls don't let me start about the dogs that they have the same physiology as humans lol...
It is obvious to me that you want to live in your world. That you don't want to see what is going on around you in real world. Which is ok, but you have to understand that if that's the case it is pointless to talk about it here..