Doc Sulo

@ScottAppliedSci Yes, so the key is to find the method where you can eat less and not be hungry all the time. Satiety is the key. That's ONE of the main reasons carnivore (real carnivore aka Zero Carb) works so well for many. It also has many other positive side effects - mental and physical

Eating less the bulk of what makes you metabolically healthy! And Ozempic vindicates CICO. Go figure.

@ted_ryce This is a misrepresentation. It's a "mostly fat" diet, not an "all protein diet."

I tried the “all protein” diet (similar to carnivore) years ago. Works short-term. You lose weight, symptoms clear up, you feel good. But over time, it backfires. Your gut loses adaptability. You become the guy who can’t even handle a normal meal in France without disaster. If your diet makes you weaker in the real world…less able to travel, eat, and live fully…it’s not sustainable. Health isn’t about eating perfectly in a strict diet bubble. It’s about being able to step into any environment and thrive.

@drjamesdinic Find out what they mean by carnivore. With a little digging you'll usually find it wasn't just meat and fat. Stefansson has an anecdote about this in one of his books-- one of the crew members was sneaking biscuits and got scurvy.

Yes you can get scurvy on the carnivore diet.

@ScottAppliedSci @LowcarbLiberty Instead of being condescendingly cryptic, why not just say what you think the mechanism is and more importantly how someone can apply it?

@LowcarbLiberty You are not a counter example. When you can see why, that’ll be progress.

Carbs show us who has type 2 diabetes. But they don’t cause it. If they did, people who consume a diet with a higher % of carbs would be at increased risk. They’re not. Hypothesis discarded.

@ScottAppliedSci Both work. But one is easier to sustain. It's not that difficult to understand if your goal is understanding.

What stops someone who believes in keto carbs/insulin magic from seeing examples of remission in high-carb dieters as a reason to rethink their beliefs?

@ScottAppliedSci It could be the solution to diabetes. It depends... Just like most things.

If you think fatty ribeye is the solution to diabetes, you might need a nutrition refresher.

@ArndtSmart @drterrysimpson You don't test observations in the scientific method. You test explanations (hypotheses) of the observations.

@docsulo @drterrysimpson Observation without measurement is just storytelling. Science is what happens when you actually test those observations. Why respond with an argument that’s anecdotal in itself 🤷🏼‍♂️

“Intense exercise reverses atherosclerosis.” No — it improves fitness. It lowers event risk. It stabilizes plaque. But arteries are not butter in a hot pan. If sprinting erased plaque, Tour de France cyclists would have coronary arteries like newborns. Some don’t. In fact, high-endurance athletes can have more coronary calcium — often more stable, yes — but present nonetheless. You are confusing risk modification with anatomical reversal. Exercise is powerful. It improves endothelial function, insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, survival. But it does not magically vacuum LDL out of the arterial wall because someone did hill repeats. This is the recurring problem with nutritional absolutists: They take one good thing — exercise — and inflate it into a cure-all cosmology. Cardiovascular disease is biology, not ideology. Plaque biology responds to lipid levels, inflammation, time, and genetics — not to gym mythology. If you want fewer heart attacks, exercise. If you want plaque regression, lower ApoB. Romanticism is not a treatment plan.

@ArndtSmart @drterrysimpson The scientific method is used to test an explanation, not to debate what is observed. People often get healthier eating just meat. Focusing on specific markers doesn't prove or disprove much -- it's more observation, not explanation.

@drterrysimpson Ahhh Shawn Baker- defending his rigorous exercise and carnivore diet to the grave still I see… Isn’t the point of proving a point (scientific method) is to find data to fight against your ideology rather than lift it to the rafters with meaty sunshine? ☀️

@JamieSmartCom Exactly.

Psychotherapy is like aeronautics before the Wright brothers. There's an ever-growing marketplace of competing psychotherapies because the underlying principles behind human psychology are still a mystery to the field, like Physics before Newton or Medicine before Semmelweis.

@r0ck3t23 Scarce things will still be scarce. Land, resources, etc. There is no magic way to make actual scarce resources not scarce. You can be more efficient, sure. You can pack people into smaller places, sure. You can make people eat cheaper foods, sure. But scarcity still there

Elon Musk just said saving for retirement becomes pointless in 10 to 20 years. Not speculation. Math. Musk: “Don’t worry about squirreling money away for retirement in like ten or 20 years. It won’t matter.” We passed the event horizon. Retirement savings assumes scarcity persists. It won’t. AI and robotics collapse labor costs to zero. Living costs follow. You’re not saving for security. You’re saving for a world that stops existing. Musk: “If any of the things that we’ve said are true, saving for retirement will be irrelevant.” Age of Abundance isn’t vision. It’s physics. Economic laws executing whether you believe them or not. 5,000 days. Fourteen years. Global GDP uncaps. Production approaches infinite. Net worth as concept dies. Only scarcity left is meaning. Money stops being the constraint. Timeline is shorter than your brain accepts. Fourteen years. We transition from survival work to Universal High Income in that window. Event horizon isn’t coming. You’re in it. Operating under old rules while ground disappears beneath you means you already lost. Production costs hit zero through automation. Everything priced on human labor reprices instantly. Housing. Food. Goods. Services. All reset when scarcity evaporates. Traditional planning assumes structure persists. Save for decades. Retire on capital returns in scarcity markets. That model shatters when abundance becomes baseline. You’re optimizing for a world vanishing while the replacement materializes. Your strategy becomes obsolete before you finish executing it. The retirement you’re building toward assumes costs stay high. They collapse. And your savings designed for expensive scarcity become irrelevant in cheap abundance. Every dollar you put away for future scarcity is a bet against the transformation already happening. And that bet loses the moment production costs hit zero and the economy you planned for stops functioning. You’re not preparing for the future. You’re clinging to a past that’s ending whether you accept it or not. And fourteen years from now, the question won’t be whether you saved enough. It’ll be why you wasted time saving for conditions that don’t exist anymore.

@JMGreerWriter What's your forecast for this year?

I wasted quite a few hours of my life in the runup to the internet stock crash of 1999-2000 trying to warn friends that they were buying into an absolutely classic market bubble. All I succeeded in doing was terminating several friendships; once I turned out to be right, they never spoke to me again.

@askslim If history repeats, bear ends in November 2026. If we have a recession or depression or stock market crash it might go longer.

I’ve got some bad news for holders of bitcoin & all the cryptocurrencies. This bear market just started! Yes of course there will be bear market rallies. However, long-term pattern suggests this decline goes into 2027. Become an askslim.com member to learn more.

@StoicTA You're early. See you in November.

The last time Bitcoin was this "dead" → 2014: "it's over" → 2018: "it's over" → 2020: "it's over" → 2022: "it's over" All recovered. All made new highs. The only people who lost money? Those who sold at the bottom

@StoicTA I don't know. November is the more likely bottom. Why would you think things would be different this time? (I'm genuinely curious)

Bitcoin isn't crashing it's filtering weak hands emotional traders paper portfolios All getting flushed before the real move $128K doesn't come easy You have to survive the shakeout first

@PeterDiamandis @elonmusk Historically (and right up to the present moment) the majority of gains in productivity are siphoned off and given to an elite few. How and why would that be different with robots?

A PROPOSAL FOR UNIVERSAL HIGH INCOME (UHI): During my recent Moonshots podcast with @elonmusk, we dove into his notion of Universal High Income (UHI) – Elon’s proposal that an AI and Robotics will enable a world of sustainable abundance for all... a life beyond basic income, towards high income and standards of living. When I asked him how this might work, he said: “You know, this is my intuition but I don’t know how to do it. I welcome ideas.” That single statement has been ringing in my head ever since. Here’s why: the economics of scarcity are flipping to the economics of Abundance. I do believe that AI and humanoid robots can produce nearly anything we need—goods, services, healthcare, education—at costs approaching zero. But there’s a gap between that vision and getting there. How do we actually fund and distribute Abundance to everyone? Today, I’m excited to share one compelling answer. I’ve been talking to Daniel Schreiber, CEO of Lemonade (the AI-insurance company that just launched 50% off premiums for Tesla FSD drivers), about a framework called the MOSAIC Model: a concrete proposal for how governments could implement Universal High Income without raising taxes on workers or businesses. (See the components of MOSAIC in my P.S. below.) Here’s the core insight that makes the math work: 1/ THE AUTOMATION PARADOX: AI Unemployment ≠ Traditional Unemployment When most people hear “mass job displacement,” they picture economic collapse: bread lines, depression, social chaos. That’s because they’re thinking about traditional unemployment, where workers disappear and nothing replaces them. AI unemployment is fundamentally different. Think of it this way: imagine sending a digital twin to work in your place. It performs your tasks faster, cheaper, and better. The company’s output increases. GDP grows. The resources exist – they just need to be redistributed. This is the Automation Paradox: AI can raise productivity while displacing labor. When workers are replaced by more productive capital, GDP rises even as fewer humans work. The challenge is not affordability. It’s capture and distribution. 2/ “AI DIVIDEND”: Where the Money Actually Comes From Daniel’s framework identifies two places the AI surplus shows up, and how to capture it without disrupting consumers or raising statutory tax rates: Channel 1: Dynamic VAT (The Deflation Dividend) AI is deflationary. When AI cuts the cost of producing something by 30%, that value creation can either flow entirely to shareholders – or be partially recaptured for society. Dynamic VAT works like this: as AI drives quality-adjusted price declines in goods and services, the VAT rate adjusts upward by exactly enough to keep consumer prices stable. Consumers pay the same. But the government captures part of the deflation dividend. It’s frictionless redistribution. Prices don’t rise. No one feels it. Channel 2: Over-Trend Profit Ring-Fencing AI is generating windfall profits for companies at the frontier. Rather than raising corporate tax rates (which drives capital flight), the MOSAIC Model proposes ring-fencing only the above-trend portion of capital income tax receipts. Baseline profits? Untouched. Normal corporate taxes? Unchanged. But what about the incremental surge in profits attributable to AI? A portion gets earmarked for the “Universal High Income” fund. Statutory rates stay the same. Companies keep most of their windfall. But society captures enough to fund a universal floor. 3/ WHAT THIS MEANS FOR FAMILIES: Here’s where it gets real. Under the MOSAIC Model’s basic implementation (before any additional policy choices), a household with two non-working parents and two children would receive income equivalent to today’s fourth decile: roughly the 30-40th percentile of current household income. To be clear, that’s not survival-level subsistence. It’s lower-middle-class security. For doing nothing. This creates a Universal Basic Floor – funded entirely by the two low-friction channels above. But this is just the starting line, not the finish line. If society chooses to capture more of the AI dividend through additional mechanisms (windfall levies, land-value capture, AI-services taxation), the floor could rise to what Daniel calls the “the UHI Benchmark”: approximately 120% of median wages. Upper-middle-class income. Universal. The surplus exists. The question is: how much do we collectively choose to redistribute? 4/ WHY TIMING IS EVERYTHING: Here’s what keeps both Daniel and me up at night: the political window for implementing this is closing. The MOSAIC Model’s political economy analysis shows something counterintuitive: feasibility is highest early in the AI transition – before capital consolidates opposition, before tech incumbents organize billion-dollar lobbying efforts, before the status quo hardens. Wait until mass displacement is undeniable? By then, it may be too late to pass anything. Act early or not at all. A good system passed in 2026 beats a perfect system proposed in 2030 that fails. 5/ THE INVITATION: Elon said he welcomes ideas. This is one. The MOSAIC Model isn’t the only answer, but it’s a rigorous, economically grounded starting point. It demonstrates that Universal High Income is not utopian dreaming. It’s an engineering problem with identifiable solutions. The AI dividend is real. The fiscal math works. The question is whether we have the collective will to build the capture mechanisms before the window closes. The full MOSAIC Model is available today at mosaic.org.il/model for policymakers, economists, and fellow entrepreneurs to critique, improve, and implement. Read the full plan, verify the math, and let’s debate this. Because this is not a matter of any single country or company getting it right. It’s about humanity navigating the biggest economic transition in history. When AI takes our jobs, it should also pay our wages. Let’s make that happen. Peter Diamandis (in collaboration with Daniel Schreiber, @daschreiber, CEO of Lemonade and Chair of the MOSAIC AI Policy Institute) P.S. The detailed components of MOSAIC that make the model affordable: M – Multi-channel / Mechanism (Implied): The core philosophy that no single tax can fund UHI alone; it requires a “mosaic” of multiple bases. O – Over-trend Ring-fencing: Earmarking 85% of the “windfall” capital-income tax receipts (profits and capital gains) that exceed historical trends. S – Savings (Government Automation Dividend - GAD): capturing the cost savings from automating government bureaucracy (e.g., using AI for back-office admin). A – AI-linked Deflation (Captured via Dynamic VAT): The largest tile. As AI drives prices down, the VAT rate adjusts upward to capture the “deflation gap,” keeping prices stable for consumers while generating revenue. I – Income (Negative Income Tax): The distribution mechanism itself, ensuring work always pays. C – Consolidation: Rolling existing, overlapping welfare transfers into the new single payment to avoid double-spending. In short: The MOSAIC is the Fiscal Architecture. It argues that while one tax (like a “wealth tax”) is politically impossible or insufficient, a mosaic of VAT + Windfall Profits + Efficiency Savings + Legacy Consolidation creates a robust funding base for a poverty-ending income floor.

@PeterDiamandis @elonmusk Resources will still be scarce so how do you account for that in this vision of the future?

@AltstreetBet @darilaji If it's this year, how does your chart work when it's yearly?

@darilaji this year

$Gold is moving on Log scale, based on current projection this should take gold to 8000$.

Plenty of long-term carnivores do pork as majority of their calories. The guy who created Zeroing in On Health (Charles Washington) moved to entirely pork for a decade and is just fine. Chicken is fine too but as you suggest it's not usually satisfying to most longer term carnivores. Eat the meat you like and can afford - make it fatty or add fat if it's too lean.

Pork and chicken are significantly inferior to beef and lamb. Not awful. Just not optimal. Here's why: Nutrient density: - Beef: High in B12, iron, zinc, creatine, carnosine - Lamb: Similar to beef, plus higher omega-3 and CLA - Pork: Lower in most nutrients, higher in omega-6 - Chicken: Lowest nutrient density, especially breast meat Omega-6 content: - Beef: 3-5% omega-6 in fat - Lamb: 2-4% - Pork: 15-20% - Chicken: 20-25% Omega-6 is inflammatory. You want to minimise it. Red meat does this. Pork and poultry don't. "But I can't afford beef!" Ground beef is £5/kg. Cheaper than chicken breast per gram of actual nutrition. If budget is the issue, ground beef > chicken thighs every time. Chicken is fine occasionally. Pork is fine occasionally. But building your diet around them is suboptimal. Red meat should be 80%+ of your intake if you want optimal results. The animals our ancestors hunted: Bison, mammoth, caribou, elk. Red meat. Not chickens. Not pigs. Red meat with high saturated fat content. Your body knows the difference. Choose accordingly.

@diegorey101 @SamaHoole When they introduced insulin people started dying from blood sugar being too low. So they compensate by having people eat lots of carbs and snacks and dosing up. They found it was either to keep people compliant doing that than it was having them restrict their diet.

@docsulo @SamaHoole Please explain

1950s: Executives at DuPont were getting fat. The company hired Dr. Alfred Pennington to fix it. His solution: "Stop eating carbohydrates. Eat unlimited meat and fat." The DuPont executives thought he was insane. But they tried it anyway. Results: They lost weight. Effortlessly. While eating as much meat and fat as they wanted. Pennington published his findings in medical journals. "Obesity is a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism, not a caloric imbalance." He showed that restricting carbs while eating unlimited fat led to weight loss without hunger. The medical establishment was intrigued. For about 5 years, Pennington's approach was discussed seriously in medical literature. Then Ancel Keys published his fat hypothesis. Sugar industry funded anti-fat research. Pennington's work was quietly forgotten. By the 1960s, doctors were prescribing low-calorie, low-fat diets instead. The DuPont executives who lost weight on unlimited meat? Their success was written out of medical history. Pennington died in 1964. His papers archived. His findings ignored. He proved carbs were the problem in 1950. We're still pretending he didn't.