I am not quite sure what this word soup means in the context of my statement.
It doesn’t, it was meant for another reply but I was trying to reply via email and it went to a reply to your comment.
Genius and 140 IQ are different. I’m not claiming to be a genius… But that does put my IQ in the top 2% and means I can recognize patterns well.
Any scientific argument or point you want to actually bring up?
You and I have very different notions of what this means, so no. You’re a bullshit artist, not a scientist. You can be king of your bullshit kingdom if you want, but you should really think twice about the ethics of trying to sell your bullshit to people who might mistake it for expertise.
1 Like
You aren’t in the top 1% of IQs in the world. Get the fuck out of here with that non-sense.
“I’m not a genius, I’m just more intelligent than 98% of the global population.”
This thread will deliver forever.
1 Like
This was covered extensively, you don’t have the scientific or academic chops to interpret other people’s research to then sell to unsuspecting people. It’s fucked up.
You just had to bump it, huh.
But on the brightside, we got the new tagline for every Health Satori book in the future:
1 Like
You took a hit from an ignorant stick repeatedly didn’t you?
Got to love how you are qualifying lack of scientific merit by refusing to mention anything actually scientific. Pure argument by authority… I bet you make trolls proud…
1 Like
Except you haven’t mentioned anything in the book you think is non-scientific. Odds are you didn’t read the book and are just trolling. So cool… Whatever makes your day go by…
You’re right. I’m sorry. Let’s start over with two simple questions.
Where was your researched published?
How many citations has it received?
Yes I have tons of theories… I guess we could stop that trend and just call the world flat though…
You still didn’t mention anything from the book…
Are you saying you can’t do research without it being published?
Lol, you ran an all potato diet and then an all raw meat diet, “for science”, without normalizing between and I’m the troll. The fuck outta here.
Like your n=1 “experiments” mean shit.
If your research was so great, why didn’t you submit it for peer-review so it can be published?
Because he just mooches off other people’s research for his own monetary gain.
That’s not actually the order that I did them, but the “normalization” period was the duration of the diet because it was my goal to find out how long it takes for the body to stabilize from a given diet. Drastic changes in diets take about 4 - 6 weeks.
I validated this period will cholesterol stabilization tests. I have six measurements from various times on a banana diet showing a stabilized cholesterol of 142 mg/dL ± 3%. Stabilization was verified by subsequent measurements at a one week interval. As soon as two measurements where in the tolerance I considered it verified. It also validates major effects of prior diets on blood work is short lived. It’s how my cholesterol dropped 204 mg/dL in only 23 days.
I used cholesterol because many of the other blood work numbers are even more volatile. Cholesterol seemed to be the slowest changing.
So when I wanted to see what blood work effects came from a diet, the only way to do it is to just continue that same diet and do a draw when it’s stabilized.
Still didn’t mention anything in the book.
My premise in the book is to try to make sense of other studies and “conflicting” results between them, then test via experimentation.
Fasting glucose for example… Studies show that protein only diets will raise fasting glucose via gluconeogenesis over carbohydrate based diets. Carb diets may cause blood sugar spikes, but after 8+ hours it drops. Modern nutritional thought such as “don’t eat too much fruit” is BS. You can also look at glucose levels of fruitarians. But then you have to look at glucose studies too which have plenty of holes…
So if this is correct I should be able to see these results in my own blood work, which I validated… Two carb diets and two protein/fat diets.
This is utterly ludicrous.
You’re wrong:
“An epigenetic trait is a stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence.”
Heritable.