The ‘psychobiome': the gut bacteria that may alter how you think, feel, act
science.org
science.org
I imagine this is such a perfect use case for large-scale data analytics. Maybe with the next (or n+2 or n+10) generation of wearables we may be able to track some of the macro effects of diet, exercise, air quality, sleep, etc. at such a big scale that we can determine how individual factors can affect mood and behaviour.
Ignoring the privacy and political concerns aside, it seems like such a cool problem space.
I've even gone to the ER once for something I couldn't describe as pain but rather as "intense horror" which seemed to just confuse them.
You've had a very happy life!
Edit: removed a double word
It can be potentially an allergy also, also can induce impending doom, and BP variation could be within the norm, and even sometimes hypertensive instead of hypotension.
endocrine-related IBS? how so?
I've suffered clinical depression so am quite familiar with strong mood swings. It's never been bad enough that I would be hospitalized or anything. But some of the moods have been really bad. Had I followed my worst "gut feels" I would likley be alchoholic, divorced, unemployed and homeless.
So I have parts of me sending these literally gut wrenching emotions that direct me to lash out, do stupid things - anything for the make the immediate psychic pain to stop.
And at that point I have the option to either follow these feelings, or say no. I will do this other thing instead which I really hate doing right now but I know will make me feel better in a while. I would characterize this as an example of free will in action.
I cannot control these emotions. But I can choose how to react to them. And I can choose behaviours that lead to better outcomes (exercise, sleep, etc) even though I don't find them emotionally rewarding (except after the fact when I notice a better mood, being happier in my body).
The higher control is of course still some statistical or deterministic outcome of my current neurological state.
But I am 100% I am at least not directly driven by my strongest gut feelings as far as I perceive them.
I have trouble following and sometimes following my gut too closely.
I think there’s a reason “follow your gut” is a cliche in our nomenclature. There’s something there!
Mood swings are really nasty in the sense they degrade ones trust in the negative "gut feelings" which generally may give beneficial signals.
It's still hard to do. I have to think in language instead of reflex. And it doesn't always work--or I refuse to let it work--in other contexts.
Still a work in progress, I guess.
[0] Sears, Melanie. Humanizing Health Care. 1st, PuddleDancer Press, 2010.
I would say it isn't because you certainly can change the degree of it. One can develop ability and habit to observe and control their mood and behaviour in some significant extent. A thing has to exist to be changeable.
I think it confirms a sci-fi theory that I have: if you want to "upload" a human to a computer, it's not enough to copy the brain. You basically have to copy and simulate the whole body.
Simulating the entire organism would likely predict behaviors but would not qualify as an "upload" as the original copy still exists in reality. There is no transfer of awareness
My best-case scenario is that the movie does not exist, and my memories of watching it are simply my brain's dying hallucinations, patching together memories of The Matrix, Johnny Mnemonic When I Was 13, and Silicon Valley Seasons 1-3.
[1]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026010608700500...
I see no reason to downvote this... weren't LGBTQ people arguing for the longest time that there is a biological causation? They may have finally found it, though it is not genetic like they hoped for. Either way it is interesting.
Unfortunately it's not all too uncommon these days to simply assume (project?) bigotry and treat innocent people like crap over that assumption.
It's only studied in rats, so we basically don't know. I cannot access the original paper so I can't discern exactly how much fungus these rats were fed. Given what usually happens with such papers, it's probably an extreme amount. I wouldn't put too much credence into it.
No doubt that eating clean, working out, etc seem to make you feel more masculine as a guy.
So you’d have to consume non-heat-treated raw infected grains, and ignore the other symptoms of mycotoxin poisoning, as it’s not the only toxin Fusarium moulds produce.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5411236/
"Finally, Suhr and colleagues examined 16 [fecal] samples from 15 vegetarians, while Hallen-Adams et al. used the same methodology in the same laboratory to isolate and sequence fungal DNA from 69 samples from 45 people on a conventional Western diet.22,23 The distribution of fungi differed considerably between the 2 groups (Table 2). Plant pathogenic Fusarium was detected in all but 2 samples from vegetarians (14 samples; 88%), while it was only detected in 2 samples from participants on conventional diets (3%). Malassezia and (presumed) foodborne Penicillium and Aspergillus were also present in more than 50% of vegetarian samples but much rarer in conventional diet samples. "
Sauce: https://www.statista.com/statistics/719674/american-adults-w...
The percentage of people who are genetically, intrinsically, unchangeably bound to a particular identity will reveal itself over time so long as culture remains tolerant. To correct for fads and fashion, we'll probably need a few centuries.
Absent sufficient data, confounding factors will make any assertions about external factors affecting sexuality impossible to falsify.
We'll have reverse engineered the brain, and genetic influence on behavior and personality, long before we've collected enough data to empirically correlate sexuality accurately enough to validate hypotheses like "mold is making people hay."
So the numbers could have risen, fallen, been the same.
One thing I will say, stating it's always been the same over all human history seems flawed. Even if it's genetic, genes change in populations over time.
(cf the leaded gasoline and criminality hypothesis, which sounds pretty speculative but gets more plausible when people start modelling data on regional levels and controlling for other causal factors)
And even if there weren't, if the back-of-the-envelope evidence points in the opposite direction (if there's any correlation at all between homosexuality and fungi in foods, it's that we're observing more people declare themselves to be homosexual in populations eating commercially produced and processed food screened for zearalenone which is the opposite of the expected result if zearalenone is the causal factor, and "outbreaks" of homosexuality amongst groups with shared diets simply aren't observed) it's not a theory with much in its favour.
There's several anecdotal reports on YouTube of people doing gut cleanses and then losing their homosexual urges[1]. They said it was worms or parasites doing it, but I couldn't find any evidence for a possible casual link. I started digging around in pubmed for something else related and found these citations and started connecting dots. While replying in this thread, I just discovered the one about the vegetarians having more fusarium in their gut than standard diet eaters. There are a couple of random threads on internet forums asking why the LGBTQ people are more likely to be vegetarian. The rabbit hole grows! My guess would be the heavily processed food in standard diets probably has a lot more anti-mold preservatives in it or something like that.
Absolutely nobody who values their career will ever follow up on this hypothesis, so I just throw it out there for open discussion when it's on topic. Btw, I do some independent alt health research, but I have no credentials so I'm not worried that I'm never going to get a grant again for even coming up with this idea. I couldn't get one in the first place.
You will forgive me for suggesting that searching for citations to support a YouTube video in which an individual whose description of his "homosexual urges" is straight out of a Jack Chick tract shills for the parasite cleanse services of a naturopath who not only "cured" him of his homosexuality but discovered the medical profession had misdiagnosed his friend with Stage IV lung and bowel cancer when actually she just had "demonic" parasites too may not be a fruitful use of your time for reasons other than lack of grant availability.
Because I am a nobody hobbyist I can come up with whatever theory I want and look for evidence for it in the medical literature.
Sure this guy is a religious guy, but he's just reporting a personal experience. No credentials needed for that really.
Trust me, it's entirely possible to get funding for research into post natal causes of homosexuality and the last high profile study on genetics reached the rather unfashionable conclusion that the most obvious candidate "gay genes" not only had little explanatory power but were more to do with sexual openness in general than homosexuality per se in a blaze of publicity with no career-limiting consequences whatsoever. Please don't mistake professionals' lack of faith in the veracity of stuff like Jennifer Daniels' patient testimony for rigid adherence to their own dogmas.
You are of course free to use your time how you want, and there's value in pursuing unconventional theories, but the ability to screen out palpable nonsense is pretty fundamental to that.
Is there a word for this? It's like the label of something has taken on more importance in their minds than the meaning behind it.
"wheat flour"
"Since fungi are well-known as producers of mycotoxins, it has been reasonable to attribute these changes to. the increased growth of fungi. In an earlier study the authors were able to show that blueberries from artificially fertilized forest land make hens infertile in that after eating these berries they laid eggs without shells or with defective shells. In large doses the blueberries were so toxic that all the hens died."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusarium
"General description 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol is a trichothecene mycotoxin, secreted by Fusarium species. It stimulates the activation of c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)/ p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases and prevents protein synthesis. 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol is a weak inducer of apoptosis. Application 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol has been used in a study to compare the ability of two fungi to improve wheat growth, decrease root colonization of Fusarium, and withstand mycotoxins. 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol has also been used to induce and study anorexia in mice."
wheat - again, anorexia
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/sigma/a6166
did someone say this stuff is used in packaging?
search: 'estrogen mimetic foods' @DDG : <https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q='estrogen mimetic foods'>
If so, will you kindly explain 'gay Penguins'
search: 'gay penguins' @DDG : <https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q='gay penguins'>
No that’s not their premise and that’s not what’s being said.
>a potent estrogen mimetic which was linked to homosexual behavior<
Did you read this?
They didn't claim that the mycotoxin is the sole cause of homosexuality, just that it may be a cause. There can be a myriad other causes, and this particular link is also not certain.
Was in reply to 'narrator' : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31106210
The context tree has been changed by the Mods, moving my first post to : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31107427
No 'Twisting' on my part.
The first study, the one which _narrator_ attempts to use to 'suggest ... linkage', between this fungus and 'homosexual behaviour' seems embarrassingly unworthy of being brought to people's attention. Is this comment intentionally made in bad faith?
The linked abstract fails to acknowledge the study covered 12 male and 8 female rabbits, or let on that the article itself is roughly a page and a half of prose nearly completely devoid of data and analysis.
Your SageHub link only provides the abstract, but does say two of the authors only ever authored one other article, which they again share, and the third author has only ever authored this one article.
Google Scholar[0] has both a link to the article[1] which is from 1987(!) and labels it as having only 3(!) citations.
Of the 3 citations, two are in German and so I am unable to speak on their contents, but each only have 1(!) subsequent citation.
The third[2] has 29 citations, which is a 300 page survey of "Advances in Rabbit Sciences", and only briefly references the effects of infertility on the female rabbits, completely ignoring the 'homesexuality linkage' claims, and uses the very soft language of 'possibly':
> Feeding female rabbits with mycelium from Fusarium roseum produces infertility, possibly due to contamination with the mycotoxin zearalenon, which has effects similar to those of estrogen (Nilsson et al., 1987).
[0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C7&q=The+...
[1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.96...
[2] https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/688722/1344505/Cos...
For example, I know of trans women who maintain a pregnancy level of oestradiol, others who maintain themselves at post menopausal levels and some who do not take oestradiol at all.
Having an analytic mind and access to a huge population, I am always on the lookout for patterns. This is anecdotal but I have not noticed any pattern or relationship between sex hormone level and sexuality.
What I did notice is a relationship between libido and sex hormone levels. To me, that's what this study noticed in animals. I doubt this applies in humans. Contrary to animals, having a high libido will not mean that you will start sexual intercourse with every single mammal you can reach. There is a difference between animals having same sex intercourse and homosexuality in humans.
Zager and Evans in their well known oral presentation on likely future directions and developments of humanity didn't have that happening for another 1500 years.