All of EternallyBlissful's Comments + Replies

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this comment! It feels really good to read this! :))
You might want to check out my other mental health posts as well!

Have a positive experience

Here is what I've written down in my H.E.A.L summary re. positive experiences. Maybe helpful for some:

A positive experience could be anything that feels pleasant, it is useful, and that you want to cultivate in your mind.
Some examples:
feeling good about yourself
being proud of something you've achieved
feelings of being liked, loved, loving, grateful
feeling safe, calm, relaxed, joyful
getting a hug, compliment, etc.


A positive experience could be:
intellectual understandings, Intentions, Skills, Moods, Abilities, Attitudes, Feelings
The... (read more)

I've done 5 10 day long retreats and just eye-balling how many people were still there at the end, I'd say at least 95% managed to stay till the end.

I also know two people with ADHD who say they struggle a lot with discipline, yet they both managed to meditate 6+ hours everyday on said retreats.

My only data is personal anecdotes like this.

No it's NOT simulated danger! The danger of permanently and seriously reprogramming yourself in a bad way during bad trips is real. It does sometimes happen. It's not guaranteed that psychedelics change you to the better. If bad trips were only extremely unpleasant and maybe very destabilizing for a few weeks or months, I wouldn't be afraid of bad trips. But this is not how it is.

Well, obviously the idea is to only sleep-deprive yourself right AFTER (and only IF) the bad has already happened. So instead of going to sleep after being completely sober again after the trip, you would take some uppers instead and keep yourself awake for as long as possible

6bvbvbvbvbvbvbvbvbvbvbv
That would most certainly cause a bad trip at night. As taking uppers to stay awake for long will also increase anxiety, which will not be helped by the residual hallucinations from the earlier hallucinogenic.

Yeah, I agree that this is one (I feel a little bit too harsh) way to put it. But I feel that in a certain important sense it still is a bet.
Also, saying I "charge" 3+ months of people's time seems a bit missleading, like saying a restaurant charges their customers' time when they eat at that restaurant.

Anyway, I see lots of down votes, so apparently quite a few people are annoyed by my way of putting it!?
 

5Viliam
I agree that although it costs the customer 3 months, saying that you "charge" them 3 months doesn't sound fair. It's not like you get those 3 months somehow. But it sounds also fair to tell the potential customer explicitly that even if it doesn't work, it will still cost them 3 months and €1500. And if it does, then it will cost them €3500.

It's all about creating the right conditions! For example, almost everyone can meditate 5+ hours a day in a silent meditation retreat centre. Yet very few can do it outside such a setting. 

2Matt Goldenberg
People frequently drop out of silent retreats, and they're already a self-selected group. Curious where you're getting you're data that almost everyone adheres in a silent retreat.
4Ape in the coat
Correction: almost everyone from a preselected group of people who  1) are interested in meditation enough to try going to a retreat where they are supposed to meditate for 5+ hours. and  2) can afford it.

Yes. I agree. Yet, there is this: 
I've spent the last 3 years averaging around 3 hours of meditation a day. I've had many months with 6+ hours meditation a day. I had times when the boundary between formal practice in daily life was indeed very thin - in other words, it was relatively easy/automatic to be mindful more or less 24/7.
Yet, in these rare times when I did not meditate at all for, say, 2 weeks (mostly because of health issues), I very quickly lose that ability to automatically be mindful throughout the day. I would guess that if I stopped meditating for a year and would not bother trying to be mindful throughout the day, my "mindfulness throughout the day" level would go back to basically zero.

But the question remains: Did these new traits persist even years after these people have stopped meditating or reduced their meditation to less than 30 minutes a day?

2Kaj_Sotala
That's a fair question, I would guess that most of the people responding to those studies would still be in the habit of meditation. On the other hand, I think that once people start hitting that intermediate range, they get to the point where meditative practices become automatic enough to happen in the middle of daily life. I myself only do a pretty limited amount of formally sitting down for a dedicated meditation session - my meditation app reports an average of 15 minutes per day over the last year - but I do feel like I do quite a bit of it at the same time as doing other things like walking or cooking, and that helps maintain some of the benefits as well (even if not as effectively as a more dedicated formal practice might). A lot of the time it's also so automatic as to be effortless. So eventually it becomes possible to maintain more of it with less of an explicit time investment, IME.

Fascinating! Really cool stuff! Thanks for sharing.
Okay, I concede! Amassing many hours of just meditation on and off retreats over many years is definitely not "useless". Some effects definitely persist! That is actually also my experience with 5000+ hours of meditation and many retreats. I guess my key point is that those changes are overrated - especially given how much effort they take, and that in general there are far more effective ways to reach very similar goals! But there are some important exceptions to this. If you for example do manage to get ... (read more)

3EternallyBlissful
But the question remains: Did these new traits persist even years after these people have stopped meditating or reduced their meditation to less than 30 minutes a day?

I've read that in multiple sources, e.g. the book "The Gut Health Protocol". The general recommendation is to not eat 4 hours before going to sleep.

4Elizabeth
I'm looking for much finer gears on this. Some examples would be: 1. what does "not good for your microbiome" mean? What, specifically, is it hurting? is it encouraging bad bacteria? putting potentially-good bacteria in a bad state? 2. What are the consequences of whatever it is doing to your microbiome? discomfort? worse nutrient absorption?  3. how noticeable are those consequences? 4. why four hours? what's the curve on eating closer to bed? People need this information in order to weigh the costs and benefits. It's true I didn't include any math on why sleep is good in my post. But the benefits of sleep are extremely well established, and huge, and people are typically competent to assess their own sleep quality (although there are traps from things that are locally helpful and long term harmful). The benefits of a good gut biome are... probably numerous, but vague, and hard to measure.  It's cruxy for me that I only suggest this for people who are actively experiencing the problem, at the moment they experience it. If I was saying "eat before bed for nebulous sleep improvements", the math comparing costs and benefits would be much harder.

Eating at night/before sleep is supposedly not good for your microbiome, so I'm unsure whether this is a good solution.

2Elizabeth
Can you say more about this?

These are all excellent questions! Unfortunately, I don't have definite answers. I've read somewhere that the idea is to tax the working memory as much as possible such that you can just barely hold an emotional felt sense at the same time as well.
I'd be very interested if someone does some more reading and research on this!
What I personally do: The more intensive the felt sense feels, the harder I focus on the EMDR "distractions", and vice-versa. 

I've started doing self-administered EMDR about 6 months ago, and I've been using it very regularly since then, maybe 4 times a week. About half of the time that I do it it feels like it does "something", and maybe every 1 in 10 times it feels like a bigger breakthrough. I've noticed big changes in my behaviour and emotional life over the last 6 months. However, I've been combining a lot of therapeutic stuff, not just EMDR.

That's true. However, it's hard to know in advance how severe a trauma is. 

2ChristianKl
I think the cases that motivate the advice to worry about retraumatization are mostly cases where it's very clear that there's severe trauma.

Nice review! Deserves more karma than it currently has!

Re. your first question: Not really known, but you can make educated guesses after reading Human Microbes FMT wiki.

Second question: There is a pretty active FMT online community. E.g. there are several facebook groups. Ppl have been doing this privately for a while now.

No. First of all we don't know which microbes and in which quantities we want. We have more or less no clue what constitutes a good microbiome. Bacteriophages also seem to play an important role that we know even less about. That's the beauty of FMT - we don't need to know!

Second, most microbes in the gut are anaerobic and thus cannot be grown easily. There is not a single anaerobic probiotic available at this point. That's why probiotics don't come even close to replacing something like FMT, which is done suh that bacteriophages and anaerobic microbes survive.

The problem of "growing artificial poop in the lab" for e.g. FMT pills, is similarly difficult/impossible at this point like growing ordinary "dirt".

One trick helpful to me: Do this in your native language. Many aren't native English speakers, but because so much they read about emotional growth and many of their "emotional growth conversations" are in English (bc most EA/LW meetups are in English, even e.g. here in Germany), it can be tempting to do Focusing in English as well. In my experience, this is a mistake.

I'm confused. Human Microbes is already being done with hardly any money? Michael Harrop is basically a complete amateur, and he's been doing it for a while now.

What do you mean with Human Microbiome. What project are you talking about?

Sure, the things you mention need FDA approval and are super expensive.

3ChristianKl
Of sorry, I got the name wrong. I wanted to say that the thing that Michael Harrop does is possible to do with little money because even the FDA seems to understand that it would be crazy to require clinical tests for approving individual donors.  On the other hand, if you would start a project for synthetic FMT capsules, I doubt that it could be done at that funding level in the current regulatory environment. 
1[comment deleted]

Wow, that would be fantastic if you forwarded this article to those folks! Thank you :)

Well, if you have money, the best option IMHO is Human Microbes:  https://www.humanmicrobes.org/recipients . They currently charge $1000/stool, and you likely need several ones for more complex gut issues. It's probably the best value per buck you get commercially. You can get it cheaper from them ("them" really being just one person, Michael Harrop) if you "significantly contribute to the HM project, e.g. help them find super donors). 

Another option is finding a super donor yourself. Someone who gives you multiple stools for free/cheaper. That's... (read more)

You are right, that wasn't smart. You want "Type 3" stool on the Bristol scala. That's dry, firm stool. I edited the post accordingly.

1Michael Harrop
Please see my response to the person you're replying to. 

Nobody is saying that only athletes are super donors. They are not. But beign a top athlete is a good proxy for being "exceptionally healthy", and there are some studies supporting the claim that athletes are good donors. 

 

That person you are describing sounds like a potential super donor! Can I get in touch with him? Can he reach out to Human Microbes?

2tutor vals
Right, we probably largely agree with each other. I don't dispute looking for super donors amongst top athletes, as that way you can do a unilateral search (ie. you find a list of top athletes and start asking). In the context of directly asking for recommendations, you gain the possibility of listing any criteria, that can be far more personal and less searchable, and you'll gain access to populations you can't through search. For example, if the criteria is "seems to never fall ill, recovers extremely quickly from illness or injury, highly active and motivated", you can't search for that but I can recommend the top people of my network that meet this criteria, and then you could interview them and get their recommendations along those criteria, and you move up those links to finding more and more healthy people.  I skimmed the one study on top athletes being better than less top athletes (the one with traditional martial arts ie. not martial arts but actually gymnastics) and was not particularly convinced it was a good basis (because of don't trust one study, and because the critera for being a top athlete in an art+gymnastics competition might not be so objective as to strongly relate to gut microbia. I would have been more reassured if it was on powerlifting with a continuously rising correlation between weight lifted and 'gut health'. For the specific person I gave as example, he'll be approaching mid thirties by now so though I strongly feel he'd be a very strong candidate at 25 (also the peak  of his athletic performance), he seems less particularly appropriate now due to age and not practising sports as much in the last few years.  I don't want to be a dead end either, I can forward this article to folks in that engineering school currently (who'll be around 25) and see if there's anyone interested enough that I could give you their contact details to continue from.

Sure, "the reason it doesn't work better is because we need better donors" sounds like a nice excuse. But it is at least suggestive that this is indeed the case. The better the donor criteria, the better the study outcomes. If we extrapolate this to even higher criteria...  

Btw. poor donors are not the only (avoidable!) reason FMTs often show poor results. See the post.

My understanding is that as of now we know waaay too little about the gut microbiome to make this "direct search in microbiome composition" viable. For example, we basically have no clue about bacteriophages in the gut. Yet they probably play an important role in gut health, and in the efficacy of FMTs. 

Also, even if we knew exactly what composition we wanted, we aren't very good yet to "synthesize it"/grow it in the lab.