A socio-spiritual take on caffeine

[Filosofy]

Never thought of caffeine as a symptom masker of post-industrial chronic symptom.

Amazing listen, though please take the tone and perspective with a grain of salt and see how it all sits with you.



View: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1U2Wkd2X125A8bEgPelRwS?si=fb9760b3bf54430e

 

[mosaic01]

Yeah, it is. Caffeine use was non-existent before 1800. It was a driver of industrialization, revolutions and modernism itself. A man on caffeine always wants to go somewhere, he can't rest in the present moment.

 

[Filosofy]

Yeah, it is. Caffeine use was non-existent before 1800. It was a driver of industrialization, revolutions and modernism itself. A man on caffeine always wants to go somewhere, he can't rest in the present moment.

All too true. Just the fact alone that most people will defend it is highly sus in itself xD

I think it has contributed to the overall vibe of autism in today's society. Every morning half a billion people have the same thought at pretty much the same time: I need to yob the java, or else!


Just curious why Peaters are so adamant about coffee, and would they be if collective addiction was not so rampant already?

 

[mattmm24]

All too true. Just the fact alone that most people will defend it is highly sus in itself xD

I think it has contributed to the overall vibe of autism in today's society. Every morning half a billion people have the same thought at pretty much the same time: I need to yob the java, or else!


Just curious why Peaters are so adamant about coffee, and would they be if collective addiction was not so rampant already?

The way a lot of people use it is obviously not healthy. But a cup a day isn’t a big deal at all. The biggest concern is the quality of the coffee. A lot of low quality coffee has mold and other chemical toxins. As long as it’s high quality and you aren’t over doing it, it’s completely fine.

 

[lamassu]

Yeah, it is. Caffeine use was non-existent before 1800. It was a driver of industrialization, revolutions and modernism itself. A man on caffeine always wants to go somewhere, he can't rest in the present moment.

This is completely wrong. Tea drinking alone has been in practice for millennia

 

[food fortunato]

The way a lot of people use it is obviously not healthy. But a cup a day isn’t a big deal at all. The biggest concern is the quality of the coffee. A lot of low quality coffee has mold and other chemical toxins. As long as it’s high quality and you aren’t over doing it, it’s completely fine.

Completely agree. I only drink a cup a day at most. I have no problem not drinking it every day. I had completely quit caffeine about 10 years ago. Looking back, that’s when my metabolism started to subsequently become worse (all of a sudden I started getting nasty hangovers from just 1-2 beers. I don’t drink alcohol at all anymore btw)

 

[mosaic01]

This is completely wrong. Tea drinking alone has been in practice for millennia

I meant to write "coffee", not "caffeine".

 

[lamassu]

I meant to write "coffee", not "caffeine".

History of coffee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lilrawhoney]

No way could I sit through even 5 minutes of this sociopaths awful voice. It’s hard to take health advice seriously from someone who claims to receive it from some sort of demonic entity.

 

[mosaic01]

History of coffee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you can see from the data in the following post, coffee consumption was negligible before 1850 to the point that it was basically culturally irrelevant: Low Toxin Testimonials - I was skeptical at first too, but the changes really are astounding...

"In 1780, Britain imported around 200 tons of coffee. Today, Britain imports 190,000 tons every year. Coffee consumption in Britain increased 250 times in just 200 years if you take into account the population growth."

 

[lamassu]

As you can see from the data in the following post, coffee consumption was negligible before 1850 to the point that it was basically culturally irrelevant: Low Toxin Testimonials - I was skeptical at first too, but the changes really are astounding...

"In 1780, Britain imported around 200 tons of coffee. Today, Britain imports 190,000 tons every year. Coffee consumption in Britain increased 250 times in just 200 years if you take into account the population growth."

Thanks. That makes some more sense, at least for the UK. Although they were also likely drinking tea for caffeine before then. It seems that this a function of the industrial revolution bringing commodities to the masses that were once just for the wealthy. Do you think caffeine is not healthy for those that tolerate it?

 

[mosaic01]

Thanks. That makes some more sense, at least for the UK. Although they were also likely drinking tea for caffeine before then. It seems that this a function of the industrial revolution bringing commodities to the masses that were once just for the wealthy. Do you think caffeine is not healthy for those that tolerate it?

I don't think the biggest problem is necessarily the caffeine itself. Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, which is a problem, but tea, especially green tea, seems to have a calming effect via theanine as well. It is coffee itself that has the most addicting effect, probably not only due to caffeine itself.

There's a reason everyone is drinking coffee today instead of tea, it is way more stimulating, and the bitter components also stimulate the digestive system and liver which makes it possible to consume large amounts of unhealthy foods and live an unhealthy lifestyle.

The problem with nervous system stimulants is that they require a strong nervous system. But in times of EMF assaults, pesticides, household toxins, vaccines, toxic food, toxic air and water, the nervous system is under constant stress and can't easily deal with a nervous system stimulant on top of it.

By the way, green and black tea consumption in the west is also not a very old thing:

"In response to the new demand, the East India Company began to import tea to Britain, placing its first order in 1664. However, high taxes on black and green tea meant that social tea drinking could only be afforded by the wealthier classes. A cup of tea became an activity associated with luxury.

By the 18th Century, the popularity of tea had grown so much that people of all backgrounds wanted some. The only downside: it was still too expensive for ordinary customers. But the population wasn’t going to give up that easily. Their love for this hot drink was so strong that smugglers began bringing it into the country illegally. It was in such demand that the amount smuggled in yearly was significantly more than what was imported legally."

How tea conquered Britain - BBC Bitesize

We in the UK love a cup of tea, but how did it get so popular? Read our tea-rrific article to find out.

www.bbc.co.uk

So we are looking at the last 250 years of reguar caffeine use in the west.

Tea use in Asia was coupled with strict rituals and customs, while this drug in the west started to be used as a lifestyle-drug and crutch for daily activities by the masses to support the industrial revolution.

 

[youngsinatra]

I’d like to drink more tea. Black tea lowers cortisol by 40-50% iirc in one human study. But the high fluoride level concerns me.

 

[mosaic01]

I’d like to drink more tea. Black tea lowers cortisol by 40-50% iirc in one human study. But the high fluoride level concerns me.

Do you still drink Gerolsteiner with 0.4mg fluoride per liter? I love the taste of it but I wonder whether that's too much.

 

[lilrawhoney]

Do you still drink Gerolsteiner with 0.4mg fluoride per liter? I love the taste of it but I wonder whether that's too much.

I used to drink a lot of Gerolsteiner in the past. I’ve cut it temporarily as I’m trying to keep things pretty simple right now. From my understanding though the fluoride contained in Gerolsteiner is a naturally occurring mineral, while the fluoride we see in city water and toothpaste, etc is a toxic waste byproduct. Do you think that would make a difference? Or would one be just slightly worse than the other? That was my thought process in the past, but obviously I’m more skeptical now, because I used to believe the same about synthetic versus natural vitamin A.

 

[mosaic01]

I used to drink a lot of Gerolsteiner in the past. I’ve cut it temporarily as I’m trying to keep things pretty simple right now. From my understanding though the fluoride contained in Gerolsteiner is a naturally occurring mineral, while the fluoride we see in city water and toothpaste, etc is a toxic waste byproduct. Do you think that would make a difference? Or would one be just slightly worse than the other? That was my thought process in the past, but obviously I’m more skeptical now, because I used to believe the same about synthetic versus natural vitamin A.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, no matter the source. But the artificial fluoridation could introduce other toxic byproducts, which I don't know much about. It may not be 100% pure fluoride. I remember someone talking about this, I think it was Dr. Levy. He forced some city or state to use actual 100% fluoride instead of the toxic waste stuff that wasn't even pure fluoride.

Edit: Dr. Thomas E Levy

"The HFSA undergoes NO pharmaceutical purification after it is removed from the smokestack scrubbers. In fact, assays of the HFSA consistently show the presence of arsenic, lead, mercury, and chromium. These are toxic metals that are generally regarded as cumulative in nature, meaning that it is a scientifically ill-founded argument to assert that the amounts of these toxins are too small to be of concern.

Presently, over 91% of the artificially fluoridated water in the United States is treated with either hydrofluosilicic acid or a related compound, sodium silicofluoride. Together, these two agents are termed the silicofluorides. Masters et al. (2000) found that water treated with silicofluorides was consistently associated with the elevation of the heavy metal lead in the blood of the many children tested who drank this water. The mechanisms by which silicofluorides elevate blood lead levels is in some dispute, but the fact that the blood lead levels do nevertheless increase is not. Drinking water fluoridated with HFSA clearly results in the elevation of blood lead for many children.

Less than 10% of the fluoridated water in the United States is treated with sodium fluoride rather than HFSA. It is this agent, not HFSA, which underwent extensive animal testing for safety. It seems that HFSA has never been subjected to any human or animal safety studies. And, certainly, there is no information available that can even begin to support the notion that the ingestion of HFSA-fluoridated water for decades is harmless."

 

[lilrawhoney]

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, no matter the source. But the artificial fluoridation could introduce other toxic byproducts, which I don't know much about. It may not be 100% pure fluoride. I remember someone talking about this, I think it was Dr. Levy. He forced some city or state to use actual 100% fluoride instead of the toxic waste stuff that wasn't even pure fluoride.

Edit: Dr. Thomas E Levy

"The HFSA undergoes NO pharmaceutical purification after it is removed from the smokestack scrubbers. In fact, assays of the HFSA consistently show the presence of arsenic, lead, mercury, and chromium. These are toxic metals that are generally regarded as cumulative in nature, meaning that it is a scientifically ill-founded argument to assert that the amounts of these toxins are too small to be of concern.

Presently, over 91% of the artificially fluoridated water in the United States is treated with either hydrofluosilicic acid or a related compound, sodium silicofluoride. Together, these two agents are termed the silicofluorides. Masters et al. (2000) found that water treated with silicofluorides was consistently associated with the elevation of the heavy metal lead in the blood of the many children tested who drank this water. The mechanisms by which silicofluorides elevate blood lead levels is in some dispute, but the fact that the blood lead levels do nevertheless increase is not. Drinking water fluoridated with HFSA clearly results in the elevation of blood lead for many children.

Less than 10% of the fluoridated water in the United States is treated with sodium fluoride rather than HFSA. It is this agent, not HFSA, which underwent extensive animal testing for safety. It seems that HFSA has never been subjected to any human or animal safety studies. And, certainly, there is no information available that can even begin to support the notion that the ingestion of HFSA-fluoridated water for decades is harmless."

Thank you for sharing! I guess my thought process is, is naturally occurring fluoride truly harmful in small amounts or has most of what we know about “fluoride” been based off studies using an incredibly toxic waste product full of other poisons?

 

[mosaic01]

Thank you for sharing! I guess my thought process is, is naturally occurring fluoride truly harmful in small amounts or has most of what we know about “fluoride” been based off studies using an incredibly toxic waste product full of other poisons?

Yeah, good question.

"Fluorine occurs naturally as the negatively charged ion, fluoride (F-). Fluoride is considered a trace element because only small amounts are present in the body (about 2.6 grams in adults), and because the daily requirement for maintaining dental health is only a few milligrams a day. About 95% of the total body fluoride is found in bones and teeth (1). Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life (2). However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element (3)."

Fluoride

Contents Summary Function Nutrient interactions Deficiency The AI Disease Prevention Dental caries (cavities and tooth decay) Dental erosion (tooth wear) Osteoporosis Disease Trea

lpi.oregonstate.edu

I am surprised there's 2.6 grams (!) of fluoride in the human body, while at the same time there's no known physiological role for it (beyond questionable teeth stuff). The diet contains around 0.5mg per day.

Interesting wording:

"A significant amount of fluoride is cleared from blood by deposition into mineralized tissues. In animals and humans, approximately 99% of the body burden of fluoride is in bones and teeth (Hamilton 1992; Kaminsky et al. 1990). Fluoride is incorporated into the crystal lattice structure of mineralized tissues in the form of partially fluoridated hydroxyapatite (WHO 1994)."

Pharmacokinetics and Concentrations of Fluoride Measured in Tissue, Blood, Urine, or Bone - NTP Research Report on Systematic Literature Review on the Effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies - NCBI Bookshelf

According to some people like Dr. Mark Sircus, the only effective way to detox from fluoride or other halides is with iodine, itself a halogen, and the heaviest, thus it displaces the others (as observed by Dr. Guy Abraham, etc.)

 

[Healthseeker]

One time i heard a cool NPR broadcast that was about caffeine

 

[lilrawhoney]

Yeah, good question.

"Fluorine occurs naturally as the negatively charged ion, fluoride (F-). Fluoride is considered a trace element because only small amounts are present in the body (about 2.6 grams in adults), and because the daily requirement for maintaining dental health is only a few milligrams a day. About 95% of the total body fluoride is found in bones and teeth (1). Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life (2). However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element (3)."

Fluoride

Contents Summary Function Nutrient interactions Deficiency The AI Disease Prevention Dental caries (cavities and tooth decay) Dental erosion (tooth wear) Osteoporosis Disease Trea

lpi.oregonstate.edu

I am surprised there's 2.6 grams (!) of fluoride in the human body, while at the same time there's no known physiological role for it (beyond questionable teeth stuff). The diet contains around 0.5mg per day.

Interesting wording:

"A significant amount of fluoride is cleared from blood by deposition into mineralized tissues. In animals and humans, approximately 99% of the body burden of fluoride is in bones and teeth (Hamilton 1992; Kaminsky et al. 1990). Fluoride is incorporated into the crystal lattice structure of mineralized tissues in the form of partially fluoridated hydroxyapatite (WHO 1994)."

Pharmacokinetics and Concentrations of Fluoride Measured in Tissue, Blood, Urine, or Bone - NTP Research Report on Systematic Literature Review on the Effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies - NCBI Bookshelf

According to some people like Dr. Mark Sircus, the only effective way to detox from fluoride or other halides is with iodine, itself a halogen, and the heaviest, thus it displaces the others (as observed by Dr. Guy Abraham, etc.)

Thank you! Very interesting! My anecdotal experience is that my parents were extremely anti fluoride. We never had it in toothpaste, I grew up on well water, and I rarely even saw a dentist growing up. I’ve never had a cavity in my life and my teeth grew in perfectly straight with no braces. Obviously, I’m sure there is a genetic component to that, but if fluoride is at all essential for tooth health it must be in very tiny amounts.