Hi there
I want to try out bulletproof coffee before a game of football (is this even a good idea??) but my blender is broken. Is it fine to use a blender bottle? The specific one in question is this one
Posted 30 June 2014 - 08:50 PM
Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:41 PM
Please tell me this is satire. Please!
Posted 01 July 2014 - 08:10 AM
lol I know it sounds stupid because plastic and hot liquids and all that, but I'd obviously allow the coffee to cool down first, and the bottle is BPA free. I'm only asking, anyway.Please tell me this is satire. Please!
Posted 02 July 2014 - 06:05 PM
I think what Timar wanted to say is that "Bulletproof coffee" (sigh...) AS SUCH is one of the most retarded ideas ever, based on a fundamental lack of understanding of physiology, biological plausibility and basic intellectual honesty.
Posted 02 July 2014 - 06:42 PM
Hahaha thanks for that!
Posted 02 July 2014 - 11:37 PM
Dolph - can you explain more, or point me to a previous thread?
I am not a bulletproof devotee but I have been drinking bulletproof coffee periodically for a year and think it gives me a consistent amount of energy through most of the day. I'm open to criticism of the idea but it's worked great for me so far.
Tazzz - that blender bottle will leave an oil slick like film on top of your coffee after a few minutes. If you shake it a lot you'll have 30 seconds or so to drink some before it starts to separate and you get a gross sip of pure oil. Any real blender works great. In a pinch a magic bullet or a milk frother work adequately.
Posted 03 July 2014 - 10:53 AM
Actually, I think Dave Asprey is a genius.
He is a genius in marketing fancy BS to audiences who are particulary susceptible to fancy BS with an aura of sciencyness - like IT nerds, bodybuilders and Paleo dieters. His claims regarding the dubious "bulletproof process" that is supposed to guarantee that his grossly overpriced coffee is the only one on the market that is completely free from mycotoxins is absolutely ridiculous as every quality coffee is processed in a way that degrades mycotoxins. "Intellectual dishonesty" is actually a way to put it nicely. Even Joe Rogan called him out on that:
That said, I think it is just gross to mix your coffee with MCT oil. MCTs may have benefits for some people under certain circumstances (like fasting), but with all the claims related to it I can't help but think that MCT oil is the new snake oil. How about some good old cream if you absolutely must have some fat in your coffee? No trouble with mixing!
Edited by timar, 03 July 2014 - 11:04 AM.
Posted 04 July 2014 - 06:49 PM
Posted 05 July 2014 - 02:10 PM
Is there any reason to think BPC has any negative health effects? I understand something becoming quickly popular can be off-putting and it may be an acquired taste, but is there any data to suggest one shouldn't be drinking it?
It makes me feel good and I think it's delicious when fully blended but if there's a genuine reason to think it's hurting me I'd happily stop.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:39 AM
I'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with coffee + organic grass-fed butter + MCT oil/coconut oil. I think the only place that gets a little quacky is the myco-toxin free coffee beans.
We know coconut oil has it's health benefits, as does grass-fed butter, and even coffee. For those who like to do intermittent fasting or something similar where they skip breakfast, "bulletproof coffee" is viable option. I personally enjoy it, using either plain-jane starbucks coffee or a good pu-erh tea, along with a drop or two of vitamin D/K2. I think as long as the coconut oil and butter are coming from good sources its perfectly fine, if the rest of your diet and lifestyle is in check.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 10:07 AM
Is there any reason to think BPC has any negative health effects? I understand something becoming quickly popular can be off-putting and it may be an acquired taste, but is there any data to suggest one shouldn't be drinking it?
Well, I wouldn't buy the BPC brand because it is an overpriced rip-off based on fraudulent marketing.
When in comes to BPC as a synonym for coffee blended with fat, it depends. I wrote extensively about coconut oil here. I'm suspicious of the whole coconut oil craze and I am not convinced of its purported safety and salubrity as there is too much high-quality conflicting evidence showing adverse effects of fats rich in saturated fatty acids. The same is true for butter. I like both for their taste in certain dishes and I think that both butter and virgin coconut oil, both having an interesting composition of fatty acids, may indeed have some beneficial effects if consumed in moderation. I enjoy their taste in traditional dishes which require them, but I would not consume unnecessary large amouts of them by putting them into my coffee. MCT oil is free from atherogenic long-chain saturated fatty acids, but on the other hand it is a highly refined, processed oil and I would not advice anyone to consume such a refined food in quantities unless there is very compelling evidence that it has beneficial effects.
Edited by timar, 06 July 2014 - 10:12 AM.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 10:16 AM
Please... Never ever drink butter melted in coffee (*blech* by the way...) and think of it as health food! It's just that easy. I can't believe anybody could get convinced of that kind of BS.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:06 PM
MCT oil is free from atherogenic long-chain saturated fatty acids, but on the other hand it is a highly refined, processed oil and I would not advice anyone to consume such a refined food in quantities unless there is very compelling evidence that it has beneficial effects.
Interestingly, pure MCT gives me diarrhea wheareas similar amounts embedded in EVCO are just fine with my stomach.
Having said that, BPC is a load of bunk. The mycotoxin stuff is a scam and the idea that it makes a difference if you eat the fat inside the coffee (where it does not emulsify to begin with) or separately is frankly ludicrous.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:36 PM
I am guessing the conflicting data on fat and health has a bit to due with the genetic diversity of different sub-populations of humans.
Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:40 PM
Hmmm, well, maybe, but so please name ONE singele subpopulation that has ever been proven to be "bulletproof against heart disease" or even only having a reduced risk of CVD because if its increased consumption of SFAs. There is exactly none...
Posted 09 July 2014 - 12:01 AM
I'm new here but my favorite thing about this forum is that it is often a place for very well supported ideas and information.
If we take for granted that eating butter/MCT in coffee is no different than eating butter/MCT and separately drinking coffee and that some people might not like the way it tastes, is there any actual reason not to?
It seems to me that the link between high fat diets and CHD or any other health issue is unsound. It also seems that there are at least some positives to eating "healthy fats" such as grass fed butter and MCT. (vitamin K, butyrate, and some omega-3 are the only ones that spring to mind immediately)
I'm not asking if people approve of the marketing or suggesting that anyone else should be eating more fat but I also haven't read any actual reasons to be opposed to BPC on the tread so far. The possible exception being that some sub-populations may be genetically predisposed to not digest fat well but this suggests that some sub-populations may be genetically predisposed to digest fat very well.
If I'm just wrong in imaging Longecity as a bastion of reason and intelligence amongst the sea of trolls and this is just another forum where people echo their predetermined beliefs to each other please let me know.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:32 PM
Jesus, i never realizied the extent of Timar and Dolph's trolling on all things Paleo. Well said Space50.
First thing's first, try it out, don't be an armchairist (I'll bet my life neither of the 2 have been in ketosis). the important thing is to do it properly for 3-4 weeks. Then notice the difference. Then never look back. The hardest part is dealing with the Timar's and Dolph's at lunch. As I've already posted, just because everyone else is doing it (even in spite of logic) does not mean its correct.
Hmmm, well, maybe, but so please name ONE singele subpopulation that has ever been proven to be "bulletproof against heart disease" or even only having a reduced risk of CVD because if its increased consumption of SFAs. There is exactly none...
But there is one. The paleos. Ever heard of them?
You may not even be suited to a HFLC carb diet, who knows?? As for using it for sport I'm not entirely sure, I know Peter Atilla uses carbs while remaining in ketosis somehow. There is ZERO reason to not use BP cofffee, its amazing. The mycotoxins has not been fully concluded, Joe Rogan did a test for 2 types of mycos and found none for a small sample set. Meanwhile the Timars grabbed their pitchforks and swiftly got to work dishing out damning condemnations. Over-coming prejudice from the close-minded is the biggest obstacle in the health industry.
Edited by oneshot2shots, 10 July 2014 - 08:34 PM.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:35 PM
Jesus, i never realizied the extent of Timar and Dolph's trolling on all things Paleo.
Edited by Dolph, 10 July 2014 - 08:36 PM.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:38 PM
Hmmm, well, maybe, but so please name ONE singele subpopulation that has ever been proven to be "bulletproof against heart disease" or even only having a reduced risk of CVD because if its increased consumption of SFAs. There is exactly none...
But there is one. The paleos. Ever heard of them?
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:39 PM
Dairy and meat are sources of saturated fats.
There were none of the carbs we get today, however. They most certainly didn't go around eating carrots all year long.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:40 PM
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:41 PM
Hmmm, well, maybe, but so please name ONE singele subpopulation that has ever been proven to be "bulletproof against heart disease" or even only having a reduced risk of CVD because if its increased consumption of SFAs. There is exactly none...
But there is one. The paleos. Ever heard of them?
True, because the average paleolithic man lived to roughly the age of 30 years. If this is you goal you might just go on. Your risk suffering a CVD event at this age is indeed miniscule anyways.
Really?? He died of old age at 30?? His skin wrinkled as he hobbles around on his walking stick?
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:42 PM
Really?? He died of old age at 30?? His skin wrinkled as he hobbles around on his walking stick?
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:48 PM
Really?? He died of old age at 30?? His skin wrinkled as he hobbles around on his walking stick?
Are you drunk? Or just terribly uneducated? I really don't know.
I'm sorry, i thought you were intelligent enough to understand the iimplications of what i said. I was mistaken.
The average life expectancy of a Paleo was 30. Times were tougher back then. to put it bluntly. More died lowering the average life expectancy.
Or do you actually think most Paleos died at age 30 ? I really don't know.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:54 PM
Edited by Dolph, 10 July 2014 - 08:58 PM.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 09:01 PM
Its not known, but some estimates say that if a Paleo survived past 15 years the average age was 72.
There is no way way you can argue intellectually that the levels of cardiovascular diseases diabetes, alzheimers, Parkinsons etc occured to a fraction of what we are seeing today. Even the middle ages we did not have these types of diseases.
I'm guessing they found fat, which travels in HDL and LDL cholesterol, which shows up after inflammation to try and repair the damage?
Posted 10 July 2014 - 09:19 PM
Its not known, but some estimates say that if a Paleo survived past 15 years the average age was 72.
There is no way way you can argue intellectually that the levels of cardiovascular diseases diabetes, alzheimers, Parkinsons etc occured to a fraction of what we are seeing today. Even the middle ages we did not have these types of diseases.
I'm guessing they found fat, which travels in HDL and LDL cholesterol, which shows up after inflammation to try and repair the damage?
Edited by Dolph, 10 July 2014 - 09:21 PM.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 09:33 PM
Its not known, but some estimates say that if a Paleo survived past 15 years the average age was 72.
I've never seen such an estimate in the scientific literature. Can you provide the source? (I guess not). The most authoritative estimate of the avarage life expectancy in the upper paleolithic is 39 years at age 15, yielding a total life expectancy of 54 years if one survived into adolescence.
I recently wrote about that subject in another topic, so I quote it here:
It is generally agreed upon that there must have been strong ecological pressures for developing agriculture, which alone could provide enough explanation for declining health in the late mesolithic/early neolithic age. Moreover, in that period the yield and nutritional value of the earliest crops, before cultivation techniques had been developed, was generally low, and crucial genetic adaptions to the new environment (including infectous diseases brought about by animal husbandry and increased population density) had yet to occur - in summary it was a transitional period of (catastropic?) environmental changes cultural and genetic adaptions had to catch up with, which did not occur until the copper age. See this very interesting paper on the significance of the genetic adaptations evolved during the neolithic age for our contemporary life expectancy.
The authors of the linked paper make the intriguing point that the genetic adaptions evolved in response to new evolutionary pressures of the neolithic age (e.g. infectious diseases) may have resulted in a significant increase in human life span. This is supported by the fact that the earlier people of a certain ethnicity developed agriculture, the higher is the life expectancy of their contemporary offspring, even after comprehensively adjusting for socioeconomical factors. People who's ancestors have been hunters and gatherers until relatively recently are more susceptible to certain diseases and generally have a lower life expectancy.
Edited by timar, 10 July 2014 - 09:39 PM.
Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:14 PM
As someone who may fast soon - I know MCTs are metabolised into ketones (beta-hydroxybutyrate) by the liver, but is there any data on the use of MCTs during prolonged fasting?
Actually, I think Dave Asprey is a genius.
He is a genius in marketing fancy BS to audiences who are particulary susceptible to fancy BS with an aura of sciencyness - like IT nerds, bodybuilders and Paleo dieters. His claims regarding the dubious "bulletproof process" that is supposed to guarantee that his grossly overpriced coffee is the only one on the market that is completely free from mycotoxins is absolutely ridiculous as every quality coffee is processed in a way that degrades mycotoxins. "Intellectual dishonesty" is actually a way to put it nicely. Even Joe Rogan called him out on that:
That said, I think it is just gross to mix your coffee with MCT oil. MCTs may have benefits for some people under certain circumstances (like fasting), but with all the claims related to it I can't help but think that MCT oil is the new snake oil. How about some good old cream if you absolutely must have some fat in your coffee? No trouble with mixing!
Edited by LexLux, 10 July 2014 - 11:16 PM.
Posted 11 July 2014 - 12:07 AM
There should be no distinction in the metabolism of MCT whether you're fasting or not. It's worth noting that MCT is still just a fat so if you're eating a reasonable amount of it it becomes arguable if you're "fasting."
If you're not eating anything other than MCT, (or other fats) you'll end up producing a significant amount of BOHB (beta-hydroxybutyrate) simply by burning a large quantity of fat.
Just a side note, but some people crap themselves have GI distress when they start eating MCT or increase their dosage.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users