PSA: your microbiome does not feed on carbohydrates or alcohol
Your microbiome is located in your colon at the end of your digestive tract, at this point your three essential macronutrients have been absorbed and only fiber remains as an energy source
When your diet contains low/no fiber your microbiome loses strain diversity and begins to seek out other food sources, this occurs in two ways
1. bacteria begin to consume the mucus lining separating them from the intestinal wall, as mucus is made up primarily of polysaccharides
2. bacteria/yeast may begin to grow further up your digestive tract into the small intestine where they are able to consume some amount of your dietary carbs/sugars before they can be absorbed
Some researchers believe that gut inflammation and autoimmunity may occur as a result of bacteria encroaching on the stomach lining causing an increase in immune system activation
Others have found similar issues with overgrowth of different pathogens in the upper GI system
I go so far as to argue that if ample fiber were provided we would see little to no malignant overgrowth of the small intestine, and would have no need for elaborate candida/SIBO cleanses
Many hunter-gatherer groups actually consume a higher % of their overall calories from carbs than the SAD, yet show exceptional gut health and 2-3x the microbiome diversity of the average American
The difference? they consume 100+ grams of fiber daily compared to our ~15g/day
This is an excellent lecture comparing microbiome diversity with high and low fiber intake:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The addictiveness of a substance is directly proportional to how quickly and potently it increases dopamine in the brain
For example: crack and cocaine have exactly the same chemical structure and pharmacological activity, but crack reaches the brain in as little as ~5 seconds when smoked, while powdered cocaine takes a few minutes to reach full effect
The same goes for nicotine gum vs. tobacco/vape, and smoked/injected opiates vs. oral pain pills
Generally addictiveness increases something like this: smoking > IV/IM injection > insufflation > sublingual > topical/oral
For many of those suffering from depression, SSRIs don't provide any benefit just by increasing serotonin, but rather through the downstream effects of serotonin receptor activation
Only a subset of depression patients actually present low serotonin
Other issues like reduced neurogenesis factors, elevated neuroinflammation, skewed GABA/glutamate ratios, etc, are present in the majority of cases
Activation of 5HT1A and 5HT2A receptors seems to be responsible for much of these effects
Research suggests they mediate changes in inflammation and BDNF levels long term
SSRIs have even been shown to provide analgesic effects, likely through their effects on endorphin levels
As I understand it babies crying constantly is a fairly modern phenomenon
In previous generations when a baby's cry would have been a safety liability, mothers would use techniques like holding the babies nose to train them not to cry at a very young age
And even into the late 19th and early 20th century it was very common to give babies alcohol and/or opium preparations to calm them
Let me expand since some of you are responding without actually reading this:
The key word here is constantly
Of course babies have been crying since the beginning of time, but historically cultures have minimized this in different ways that aren't employed today
Cravings are almost universally associated with a combination of low dopamine, low GABA, and elevated glutamate and cortisol
The endopioid system seems to play a role as well, unifying both dopamine and GABA in brain regions associated with pain perception and positive reinforcement
Managing cravings at the deepest level means understanding this well enough to correct any inbalance necessary
For example: managing stress, avoiding alcohol, avoiding activities like watching porn that desensitize dopamine/opioid receptors, avoiding hyper-palatable foods, etc
Asking a dermatologist if you should get daily sunlight exposure is like asking an atheist if you should go to church every week
In dermatology, one of the worst things that could possibly happen to you is skin cancer
In medicine in general, skin cancer is not common compared to other cancers or metabolic issues, and not very fatal, especially if caught early (even melanoma survival rate is 98+%)
On the other hand, daily sun exposure actually reduces risk for many other types of cancer, heart disease, and many other health issues
Skin cancer risk is increased by sunburn, NOT sun exposure, so as long as you don't burn your risk of skin cancer is not increased
The idea that cultures that use entheogens for the purpose of religious experience or enlightenment are not practicing "real spirituality" couldn't be further from the truth
All religion has roots in shamanism, it's only in more recent history that other religions have replaced shamanism with non-psychoactive sacraments
This is an excellent lecture that expands on this point:
There's nothing wrong with any religion, with or without the use of substances, all can provide genuine religious experience
The issue we're seeing in Western society is that because the experience of shamanism isn't available, it has been co-opted out as a tourist attraction