Depersonalization Support Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have anyone here tried the carnivore diet as a treatment for dp/dr? I have been struggling with dp/dr for many years now, about 9 months ago it got really bad and i became desperate, which lead me to try all kinds of weird alternative meds. I had already tried a bunch of conventional meds a few years before that but it only made it worse, so my way of dealing with it was to exercise like a madman an do nofap and cold showers that certainly helped to keep my head above water but it didn't fix the underlying issue. Last winter it got so bad that i just couldn't take it anymore, so i decided to try the carnivore diet. The first week i was feeling a lot more clear headed, but had less energy, so i added some fruit to the diet and then it got much better. There was definitely something positive happening to my psyche with this new diet, so i did a lot of research to try to figure out why. My conclusion was that vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, seed oils and all the rest of this crap that we have been told is healthy really isn't. It's full plant defence chemicals that goes in to your blood stream and then through your blood brain barrier and creates inflammation in the brain. Now that i have been on this diet for a while it only gets better by the day and i can function more and more like a proper human being.

I haven't been on this forum for a while now and really didn't want to, but i felt it was my duty to atleast leave a thread here so that it might help other people her. I will leave a few links so that people can look it up themselves.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Nutritional science just makes my head hurt more. Who the hell knows what to think? That said, I think diet definitely matters with respect to this thing, I’m just not sure what things are good and what things are bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
I agree there is a big problem with nutrition science and perhaps in general with scientific fields that have a direct impact on people's lives, like with sports or education. Because it affects the general public and they want to know how to improve their lifes, any new and disruptive idea can be very attractive just because it is new and disruptive. So it can become hard to tell the difference between a real discovery and something that people repeat just because they like the idea. My impression is that in these fields there are many ways to distort what science says and to come to far fetched conclusions, like extrapolating something that even the original authors thought was doubtful, or (and we see this all the time) repeating the conclusion of a new scientific study that has never been replicated yet (can be a big red flag depending on the topic), or citing the conclusion of an article that says A is true and omitting to talk about the four other articles on the same topic who concluded that A was false, or pretending that the article says what it doesn't say (eg "a massive dose of such chemical can cause death" --> conclusion : "such chemical is dangerous (but I will not say at which dosage - so even water or salt can be considered dangerous with this method)", or pretending there is solid evidence for something general, when that thing was barely proven and not even on humans). A lot of these distortions happen between the technical scientific article (written for scientists) and the dissemination article written by journalists. Or sometimes it can even just be hearsay (objection). And we can see a lot of gurus using these kinds of distortions to pretend that they have a disruptive idea that will change the deal and pretend it is solidly backed up by science. But when it comes to gurus, a lot of them actually don't even back up their main claims with scientific data, they just say "what I see most of the time with my patients is that..." without giving any rigorous information that could be checked by other people. Not that they necessarily are liars but they could be biased like any of us and not immune to methodological mistakes or mistakes in interpretation. And without giving their data they escape the more rigorous criticism that the rest of science subjects itself to when they publish their detailed methods and numbers.
Anyway, this is very frequent in topics like health, nutrition, sports or education when the general public is targetted. Not that it happens all the time but it makes claims in this topic much less trustworthy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
I agree there is a big problem with nutrition science and perhaps in general with scientific fields that have a direct impact on people's lives, like with sports or education. Because it affects the general public and they want to know how to improve their lifes, any new and disruptive idea can be very attractive just because it is new and disruptive. So it can become hard to tell the difference between a real discovery and something that people repeat just because they like the idea. My impression is that in these fields there are many ways to distort what science says and to come to far fetched conclusions, like extrapolating something that even the original authors thought was doubtful, or (and we see this all the time) repeating the conclusion of a new scientific study that has never been replicated yet (can be a big red flag depending on the topic), or citing the conclusion of an article that says A is true and omitting to talk about the four other articles on the same topic who concluded that A was false, or pretending that the article says what it doesn't say (eg "a massive dose of such chemical can cause death" --> conclusion : "such chemical is dangerous (but I will not say at which dosage - so even water or salt can be considered dangerous with this method)", or pretending there is solid evidence for something general, when that thing was barely proven and not even on humans). A lot of these distortions happen between the technical scientific article (written for scientists) and the dissemination article written by journalists. Or sometimes it can even just be hearsay (objection). And we can see a lot of gurus using these kinds of distortions to pretend that they have a disruptive idea that will change the deal and pretend it is solidly backed up by science. But when it comes to gurus, a lot of them actually don't even back up their main claims with scientific data, they just say "what I see most of the time with my patients is that..." without giving any rigorous information that could be checked by other people. Not that they necessarily are liars but they could be biased like any of us and not immune to methodological mistakes or mistakes in interpretation. And without giving their data they escape the more rigorous criticism that the rest of science subjects itself to when they publish their detailed methods and numbers.
Anyway, this is very frequent in topics like health, nutrition, sports or education when the general public is targetted. Not that it happens all the time but it makes claims in this topic much less trustworthy.
what I often find most troubling about the way we go about our understanding is we often talk in vague terms about “truth” or how this food is “backed by science” or how it is “healthy or unhealthy.” We rarely seem to consider the fact that we engage with the world seeking a certain outcome, and so instead of asking “is this action likely to achieve this outcome”. We just ask “is it scientific, is it true, is it healthy, etc.” For example, if my goal is to gain energy and stamina for some upcoming sports performance, a certain food might be helpful for achieving that desired outcome. But the same food might work against me if my goal is to maximize my life expectancy.

In other words, have there been any actual scientific studies whose goal it was to specifically test the relationship between a certain food or dietary regimen and DPDR experiences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
what I often find most troubling about the way we go about our understanding is we often talk in vague terms about “truth” or how this food is “backed by science” or how it is “healthy or unhealthy.” We rarely seem to consider the fact that we engage with the world seeking a certain outcome, and so instead of asking “is this action likely to achieve this outcome”. We just ask “is it scientific, is it true, is it healthy, etc.” For example, if my goal is to gain energy and stamina for some upcoming sports performance, a certain food might be helpful for achieving that desired outcome. But the same food might work against me if my goal is to maximize my life expectancy.

In other words, have there been any actual scientific studies whose goal it was to specifically test the relationship between a certain food or dietary regimen and DPDR experiences?
Oh yes! I mean, I don't have the answer to your question, but I agree that it is strange to say that such or such food is "healthy". Like you could say that iron is healthy because your body needs it. Lack of iron can cause weakness, so some people equate iron with strength (plus materials made of iron are strong!! so...), and I remember that this was definitely what was said when I was a child. Yet an excess of iron causes the exact same symptoms. So in no way one can say that iron is healthy in general, unless we all have iron deficiency (and we don't). Same for the things that are supposed to "boost your immune system". One's immune system needs to be balanced, not "as strong as possible" to the point you have auto-immune diseases (plus our immune system needs many things to work, and if it is not working you need to provide the specific thing it is lacking, not just zinc for everybody). But we can say that a certain food is unhealthy if we mean that the amount of it we need to get our calories from that food only would mean we would also eat an excess (or lack) of something specific.
But this can't apply to food supplements, where you get only one thing. It always puzzles me when people say that tried "supplements" and it helped them for example, without even saying which supplements they used. It reminds me of a friend who went to work in some remote village in Khazakstan and she was staying with a family for two months. At some point she realized that her contraceptive pills were disappearing one by one. She realized later that one guy living there was sick with a cough or something, and he thought "that westerner must have some of those medication things with her" and snuck in her room to take some. He thought "medication cures diseases, I have a disease, so medication will help me". I always remember this when someone says they took just "supplements".
But I acknowledge I am slightly off topic compared to the original post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Yes, it works! I've done carnivore for a week at a time but have been keto for the last 3 years. Diet is the number one thing that has helped me out the most with my dp/dr. Less anxiety, clearer thinking/vision, more energy, better sleep, the list goes on. I'm not trying to sell you anything, just try going keto for a couple weeks and you'll see what I'm talking about. The clarity from ketosis is insane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Yes, it works! I've done carnivore for a week at a time but have been keto for the last 3 years. Diet is the number one thing that has helped me out the most with my dp/dr. Less anxiety, clearer thinking/vision, more energy, better sleep, the list goes on. I'm not trying to sell you anything, just try going keto for a couple weeks and you'll see what I'm talking about. The clarity from ketosis is insane.
You have done a keto regimen only for three years or on and off? Have you read about the potential problems associated with this? I remember reading that it could be dangerous on the long term. What do people who are against it say?
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top