Sakiro wrote:

Well, any pointers of how can i start?

If you're a newbie I'd start with food experiments. Changing your diet enables you to find out which foods boost your cognitive abilities the most. That's how I discovered walnuts.
Vitamin B foods are particularly good for memory in most people. Omega 3 seems to be universally useful and I've never heard of side effects.

Street-bought drugs are always a gamble unless you have testing equipment because nutters will sell anything disguised as anything for money, and some of the substitutes are more dangerous than the real thing.

It looks like small amounts of caffeine, like small amounts of red wine, are healthier than none. Green tea in particular is full of antioxidants, and black tea (with milk) has a fair few.
If you approach a doctor and ask for modafinil to cram for exams or because you need to work nights, it's usually forthcoming. You do of course have to pay for it.

Nicotine patches are safer than gum, but more people get allergic response on the skin where it's applied. Electronic cigarettes are probably the safest form of nicotine. All the absorption is through the mouth with gum, as nicotine won't pass through the stomach wall.

Vitamins (chelated, liquid form), and supplements like gingko biloba give some people a real IQ boost. Gingko gives me a headache  :  )  One of the best nootropics for me is loads of berry fruits and walnuts.

Can nootropics be a way to accelerate the progress in our NH journey?

The more you know about yourself and your current status of development, the more informed will be your use of nootropics. You also have to consider what it is you want to improve; some things are better for memory and some for IQ and some for emotional stability.

or the changes are only very subtle?

Importantly, everyone is different. We all have different genomes and express different genes.  One dude's nootropic is another dude's poison. You need to know YOU and how you personally respond to different kinds of things.
Probably the most addictive substance on the market is sugar, but its not a nootropic although doing without it does improve mental health quite a lot.
Latest research in on nootropics:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 … ement.html

"A chemical to make brain cells grow: Mental decline thwarted in aging rats." July 8th, 2010. www.physorg.com/news197793408.html
Synaptine™ is a proprietary blend of piracetam and choline bitartrate in an approximate 3:2 ratio.
Synaptine Elite is coming out shortly for more experienced Nootropic users combining Aniracetam and Alpha GPC (a more effective but more expensive acetylcholine precursor)
http://www.cerebralhealth.com

Snorting a Brain Chemical Could Replace Sleep
http://www.wired.com/print/science/disc … eprivation

Polysaccharides from Wolfberry Prevents Corticosterone-Induced Inhibition of Sexual Behavior and Increases Neurogenesis
Benson Wui-Man Lau, Jada Chia-Di Lee, Yue Li, Sophia Man-Yuk Fung, Yan-Hua Sang, Jiangang Shen, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang, Kwok-Fai So
"Neuroscientists discover key protein responsible for controlling nerve cell protection." April 22nd, 2012. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-n … nerve.html

Brain Boosters: Some nutritional supplements provide real food for thought
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature … n_Boosters

JDTic, the world's first orally active selective kappa opioid antagonist

weak partial mu agonist tramadol (Ultram)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01 … index.html

Rise and shine: Wake up to an enhanced life
http://accelerating.org/articles/curcumin.html

http://www.technolo gyreview. com/printer_ friendly_ article.aspx? id=20845& c
hannel=biotech& section=
Compounds that trigger the growth of new brain cells might help treat
depression.

nootropics & spirituality:
http://brainstimulant.blogspot.com/2009 … -pill.html

Enjoy  :  )
AR

Hi dude,

Cereal products & sugar turn on fat storing genes. Low GI turns off the genes that store fat (which are only turned on in the first place by our body thinking there's a famine (since its not getting enough fruit veg & protein).

Your metabolism actually gets slower. your temperature & BP slightly lower than 'normal' Excess calories are simply passed through your system without incident (this is why once these genes are turned off, you can eat whatever you like and only digest the good bits).

Start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcaRTDsLmiA

http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/2/341.full

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3893S.full

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grai … s-1a.shtml

You may well gain weight on low GI but it will be the weight of increased muscle mass (muscle weighs more than fat). Muscle tissue is built from proteins, which presumably you'll be eating more of. But the main thing is, excess fat will pass right through your system (ie, you won't STORE those calories) That's why the bathroom is the 'rest room' -you digest what you need and you leave the rest  :  )

When your genome knows you're getting adequate nutrition it has no need to turn on genes that store fat -so they don't turn on (and if they are already on, they'll turn off.)

I have loads of info on this so have been selective. If you need more gene-specific info or other, let me know.
Enjoy!
AR

!PS I have since edited the list above as the first youtube video has moved. This link should get you there, please tell me if it doesn't as degrasse-tyson's video is a very important item.

Sakiro Wrote:
I was a little surprised


Never be surprised when professionals don't know stuff. They are taught by professionals who don't know stuff, such as the AMA  :  )
One very famous english biologist believes humans die after 3 months on only raw food (despite the rather obvious fact that 80% of the world's infants get only raw food for the first 6 months)*
Consider the basics such as:
muscle weighs more than fat
there is no correlation between weight and size/shape and weight alone cannot predict likelihood of health or disease.
most people need to stop storing fat, rather than lose fat. With metabolism in the green zone, weight automatically adjusts itself as fat is eliminated and muscle gained.

*And the obvious fact that I'm not dead (2 years on raw food)  :  )

Sakiro Wrote:
i notice that in the last months i was feeling like too much "N5 stucked" and trying to look for scientific evidence for almost everything i hear/read ...

We're all born searching for the truth about reality. If we're very lucky and have fantastic parents we keep that innate curiosity, if we're not so fortunate we get the habit knocked out of us at school. I managed to hold on to mine by avoiding school a lot of the time.

We also go through a phase of 'verification' as soon as we realize just how all-pervasive societal bullshit really is. The entire history of scientific discovery has been an uphill battle to convince societies that they were wrong about reality, and all the way there the discoverers were ridiculed, tortured, burned and locked up. Think about that. Technology & science are where they are today DESPITE societies who would rather burn them as witches or exile them as political embarrassments. The truth destroys bullshit, that's why bullshitters hate it so much.

For a while, everything everyone says to us is scrutinized for its veracity, and that teaches us that most people just repeat whatever they hear and apparently believe it regardless of source.
It's a vital scientific skill and it correlates with judgment and decision abilities, so certainly it uses N5, but this is correct use; building up the skills N5 should have and using them for the right things -seeing what's reality and what isn't. To me you are describing a perfect bit of development & augmentation LOL  :  )

The only kind of 'degrees' that can affect this natural process are the body temperature kind : )
When you first start a network off doing something it's supposed to, it does go a bit obsessive for a while. It's like, when you get a new interest or a new relationship or when you first learn a new skill like bike-riding, you can't keep your hands off it for a while. So discipline is applicable if you catch your mind trying to do it all the time, but remember when its learning it will want to practice.

I'll get back to your articles when time permits,
Best,
AR

Re: Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1662 … d_RVDocSum

I can only find the abstract too -anyone have clues as to where to read whole paper, or updates since 2006?

The mechanism of weight/fat storage control via epigenetics was not known in 2006. I'm not surprised that  they conclude the hypothesis is false because it is; they were right; this is not the mechanism of weight loss with low GI. This is good science, and part of the way we find out how things don't happen. Low GI doesn't change fat oxidation or fuel partitioning.

All that consistent low GI (or CR, or paleo) diets do is (after approximately 6 months) switch off "AGOUTI" genes.

Other stuff discovered in the last 2 years helps explain this, such as the need for regular consistent low GI input over at least 6 months, to alter gene expression; and consideration of glycemic load as well as index).

AGOUTI genes signal the body to store fat. Long-term low GI diets turn off AGOUTI genes. It really does appear to be that simple.

The whole issue is covered simply and beautifully here by Neil Degrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcaRTDsLmiA
Where you can see for yourself the results of the diet/gene transcription experiment. Try not to laugh at the fat mouse  :  )

After viewing this short vid, tell me whether you agree with their conclusions about diet & epigenetics.
Best,
AR

Hi dude,
Had a bit more time to look at this; here's some more:

First of all there is contention about what constitutes a "low GI" diet, so I'm going to call our particular example the "Hunter/gatherer" diet (HGD). Also none of these things (AGOUTI, leptin, ghrelin etc) are single control factors; all are part of a great chemical 'dance'.

Whenever you're looking at gene function, you're looking at ongoing cascades of chemical and environmental interactions, and there are many related 'pointer' changes at all stages (such as the 'coat color' change in those huge mice). But the point is there are dozens of chemicals involved. It's a real adventure  :  )

And you're right; without the details it's not clear; it's hard to do a jigsaw puzzle without the overall picture, including of course human examples. An excellent paper for understanding the complexity of nutrition & metabolism in humans and other mammals is here:

http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/31/1/1.full


The big picture:
We know AGOUTI, SIRT1, leptin, ghrelin and neuropeptide Y are regulated by environmental transcription factors affecting circadian rhythms, and we know the effect that feeding differences AND timing of feeding have on these rhythms:

So you see we have a combination of input factors (natural feeding rhythms, natural sleep/wake cycle, natural nutrition, background hormonal balance, anxiety levels)


Other bits of jigsaw:

We know leptin and ghrelin strongly affect feedback mechanisms in metabolism:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1577.long

We know ghrelin is affected by chronic stress (anxiety) hormones:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijpep/2011/898450/

We know that HGD achieves sustained reductions in postprandial (after-eating) glucose and CRP (C-reactive protein): 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175744

...And we know that C-reactive protein levels are high in obese adults displaying metabolic syndrome:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp … eid=192183


Have fun; nutrition is possibly the second most complex thing humans do! If you want more, tell me what direction you want to pursue; I'm sitting on heaps of research here (not literally, well not since we went digital anyway  :  )  )

Another way to explore it is to try the experiment and see what changes HGD achieves in your own system. Remember that eating when you're hungry and sleeping naturally are part of the input requirements too!

Best,
AR
PS Happy Solstice Tomorrow!

Hi dude, glad you share your experience about this topic.

Right now i'm a little "stand by" in this discussion because i need to digest the links that alex shared more slowly that i thought (because of language and expertise).

i'm still not shure if the composition of the diet (carbs, fats, protein) gives a noticeable "metabolic advantage" to totally discard the "calories in vs calories out" equation.

One of the stuff that a lot of people make a mistake is not knowing that when you eat less carbs that you do before you lose a lot of water and glucogen in the muscle (even in a caloric superplus), and that translate in a loss in weight in the balance.

And people says "See see! i eat the same calories and lose weight, carbs make you fat!"

Then you have the difference in the thermic effect of food, where proteins takes more fuel to digest than the carbs and fats so you get some bonus there of course (plus it helps you to retain muscle in a diet)

That examples, and the reason that for a lot of people is a lot easier to not get hungry so fast with low carbs than high carbs (a lot of this depend of insulin sensitivty i think) are the main reason wich i think people reduce the carbs or select low gi carbs when trying to lose weight.

But except for anecdotal reports (who i think most fall in the example cited above) i still don't see evidence that you can eat far away of your "metabolic burn" and don't gain "weight", or viceversa losing weight in a superplus ... i'm not aware of any good study who proved that? (of course far away of reading everything in the literature to be 100% sure)

But it seems that the ones who claim that are cherry picked study with very flawed methods, for example self-report calories, and not "metabolic ward" ones.

I see a pattern where people who "can't gain weight" eat a lot less calories which they think they do, and viceversa fat people who "can't lose weight" eat a lot more calories that they think.

I want to make the emphasis in the "calories" part, because a lot of people think they eat little but that little food can be very calorie dense (processed food, high fat content, etc)

So i'm not sure if i provide anything new or useful to this topic ... probably not.

I know that alex has another opinion than me (based in his interpretation of the research + his experiment eating low gi for 6 months) , and in part, that is what i'm genuinly curious in wich part we are disagreeing andf why, because he is a smart guy evidence-based. And probably reading your post you too, and i still i'm open minded to new evidence about this .. i only want the truth and nothing more.

And i'm aware that maybe alex's conclusion is more like taking a jig-saw puzzle together (similar like this site) i mean, maybe i'm looking for something that is not mainstream and you should see it in a more "holystic" view (hope this thought makes sense?)

Maybe some researches should do the experiment of low gi food for 6 months and see what happend to the expression of the genes and put the particpants in a high calorie diet (above maintenance) calculated by laboratory and not an "estimate" equation like Harris-Benedict who only gives you a roughly estimate, and if this people not gain weight after a reasonable period of time, i have no other option to change my opinion about the subject, will be hard proof evidence.

But correct me if i'm wrong, that kind of study doesn't exist ... ??

People tends to go to the extremes .. and if i only have to choose to focus in one option, i see more change to succeed to lose weight when people focus in the calories of his diet than the foods he choose to eat ..

Is funny when i read certain books related to the topic (carbs make you fat is not calories) and when they told you the diet you need to eat to lose weight they force you to eat a looot of less calories than an standard american diet, you end eating something like 1500-1600 calories per day or less.

Something like:   you normally eat A + B + C

Then they said ...  C is bad bad .. C makes you fat not eat it.

So now you only eat A + B.

Magic you lose weight!

... because you doesn't eat C ..?

No! because you are eating less than before! (A + B and not A + B + C)

It can surprise you how much people doesn't see something as simple like that.

I know that there is something more than "just calories" related to weight loss, i mean, the same nutrients have different impact in hormones and all that stuff (besided health topic) but it doesn't seem that changes impact in such a way to overcompensate and lose sight about the calories you are eating.

Because i know that for example, short period of overfeeding increase, leptin, (leptin seems high sensitivy to carbs) so in that moment you should boost your metabolism to some degree (and burn more calories because of that).

Well i wrote so much, sorry if it doesn't make sense in some part, and i'm glad you share your experience, i will still have an open eye about this subject and see the evidence that i still need to read and the new coming ..

You wrote:

"In the course of the next few months I also lost 40 pounds and several nasty health problems.  I remain mostly on the diet to this day, although I've found now that my health has stabilized I can occasionally take a "flier" without doing damage.  I usually treat myself to a small dessert; it's not worth risking my health to eat french fries. "

If you are 100% shure that you weren't in a energy defict without knowing .. this is great .. but it still is a N=1 "experiment" .. but can be a signal to know that something more of what i know right now is going on .. but i still don't see how the theorical mechanism behind this could work .. and like i said before i didn't found any study who can replicate lose weight in an enviroment of a high calorie diet where the metabolism and the diet given is controlled with rigurosity.

Cheers

Hi dude, again =)

This topic started from an article in the site were suggest a epigenetic change from eating LOW GI foods for about 6 months, and after that you could eating more calories that you use along the day and don't store it as fat.

So i asked alex to some research about that, but like i thought initially, there are only "pieces" of the whole picture ( i mean, i was hoping for some good study who could replicate alex's finding )

And here we are =)

So there is no problem per se, just "hunting the truth" mode ON here.

Cheers