Optimizing IQ and EQ through nutrient intake

[LePatron7]

Hello everyone.  The purpose of this post is to discuss ways to increase IQ (intelligence quotient) and EQ (emotional quotient, the ability to cope with life and excel).

This link - https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country - shows the average IQ's of various nations.  There are some similarities between people with low IQ's, and those with higher IQ's.

You'll notice that many, in fact most of the nations with low IQ's are equatorial nations.  They live near the equator, and get LOTS of sun (likely very little Vitamin A too).  You'll also notice that toward the top of the list are Asian countries, and Northern countries (Europe, Canada, etc.).

I hypothesize that it is partially due to their A:D ratios.  That the lower someone's A:D ratio gets from 4:1 (ie. 3:1 - 1:2) the lower someone's IQ becomes.

Iceland ranks #6 on the list, and according to this website ( https://knoema.com/atlas/Iceland/topics/Food-Security/Diet-Composition-Micronutrients/Share-of-retinol ) and the conversion info from this website ( http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/convert-ui-to-mcg.php ) they get on average from animal foods about 25,000 IU Vitamin A per day (likely as retinol due to it being of animal origin).

This study ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509593 ) claimed to have found a link between omega 3's and IQ in children, however the researchers didn't consider that though both corn oil and cod liver oil both had the same amounts of Vitamin A, corn oil has beta carotene (which must be converted by the body, and is usually not efficient) and cod liver oil has formed Vitamin A (retinol).

According to this study ( https://thyroidresearchjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-6614-4-14 ) the Japanese ingests approximately 2-3 mg of iodine/iodide per day.  Other sources ( http://www.optimox.com/iodine-study-12 ) have found they might ingest significantly more, more than about 13 mg daily.

Iodine/iodide has been found to boost IQ ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706 ).

In Japan they  have also been found to have high salt intake ( http://www.businessinsider.com/people-in-japan-eat-more-salt-than-in-the-us-but-most-people-eat-too-much-in-both-countries-2015-7 ), which has also been found to have intelligence boosting effects.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization (WHO) discourages both formed and high amounts (relative to current recommendations) of Vitamin A intake and iodine intake (again, relative to current intakes) similar to theirs.  They also promote low salt intake.  Conspiracy?  Probably not, mistakes happen.  And with medical professionals having such big heads (you know, they're never wrong!), it's likely not conspiracy.  Heck any of you hear about Dr. Semmelweis?  The guy pioneered hand washing, got fired, and then 150 years later hand washing became mainstream (epic fail!).

Another very, very, very interesting thing about that WHO epic fail is that in the U.S. they practice the WHO's recommendations to the tee - average American gets less than 2 teaspoons of salt per day, ingests less than 200 mcg of iodine/iodide per day, and gets 5,000 IU A or less per day (I didn't mention Vitamin D intake, but they're low in that too).  Here's a list of health ranking by nation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 and http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/ ), you'll notice that the order is very similar to the IQ chart.

Essentially the healthiest countries are also the smartest, and they all contradict the WHO's recommendations (they don't circumcise, they get lots of Vitamin A, lots of iodine, lots of salt [not to say circumsision lowers IQ, just another WHO recommendation with no benefits]).  You'll also notice that The U.S. ranks 37th on one list and 31st on another list.

Smell fishy?


---------

And finally, the interesting part, how you can modify your ratios and amounts.

The goal is to have a Vitamin A:Vitamin D ratio of 4:1-8:1 including all sources (foods, supplements, FCLO, sun, etc.).

You can use Dr. Holick's book "The Vitamin D Solution" which has recommendations for getting sun in different parts of the world based on skin color and location to calculate the amount of Vitamin D you get from sun, or the phone app "D Minder."  Remember sun Vitamin D counts as 2x more Vitamin D than supplements or food.

Then calculate how much Vitamin A you need to get from diet to have a 4:1-8:1 ratio, then eat that much liver and/or take that much FCLO.

You can use supplements, however it's not necessary.  You can eat Vitamin D rich foods, get sun, and eat Vitamin A rich foods - and simply calculate your ratio and eat the appropriate amounts.

Iodine/iodide can be gotten from seaweed (kelp has the highest amounts, other seaweeds have generous amounts too, but kelp has the most). 

Salt, while I know it's frowned upon overall (most RPDF members abstaining), unrefined salt for those interested is a good source.



----

Salt: not linked to heart disease?

Weston Price article debunking the benefits of reduced salt intake - http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/salt-and-our-health/


Iodine, toxic in high amounts, or lots of benefits?

Dr. Brownstein on iodine - http://www.drbrownstein.com/Iodine-Why-You-Need-It-p/iodine.htm


Vitamin A, super nutrient?

Article from Weston Price - http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/vitamin-a-saga/

[TylerDurden]

EQ(emotional intelligence) is a contradiction in terms. The emotional part of the brain is found in the more primitive limbic system part. Real human-level intelligence is found  in the cerebrum part of the brain, a far more advanced part.

IQs can vary between regions for other reasons unrelated to diet. For example, there is the matter of inbreeding in numerous ethnic groups  which causes much lower IQs.

Looking at the IQs of the really intelligent such as Tesla, I don't note any particular dietary differences that made them more intelligent than the rest.....

[JeuneKoq]

IQ levels also vary depending on how much a person needs and uses intelligence, and can be exercised like a muscle. Perhaps people living in cold and seasonal regions have in average higher IQs because they had to anticipate periods of scarcity in winter, and find ways to deal with the harsh climate and contrasted environment in order to survive.

Someone recently told me Africans from the tropical forest area (Congo etc) had a harder time with concepts like anticipation and projecting themselves in the future, because they evolved in an environment with food so abundant, and climate so constant that those concepts were useless. Some of those ethnies don't even have a word for "tomorrow". This might explain in part the lower average IQ of some of these ethnies.

Since junkfood is linked to decrease in intelligence and "fogging" of the mind, it makes sense that good diet leads to higher IQ, since a clearer mind enables faster learning and better memory.

I'm quite interested in this topic.

[TylerDurden]

There is a (slightly flawed) theory called the cold climate theory of intelligence, which suggests that cold-adaptation led to higher intelligence, with East Asians therefore being viewed by the theory as being at the top of average human IQ:-

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/paid2012.pdf


 If I recall correctly, Eskimos have the highest average skull-size(well, other than palaeo-era Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals) but not a very high average IQ(only 91). Plus, the most awkward fact re skull-size issues is that women have, overall,  the same mean rough average IQ as men do despite having lower average brain-sizes( that is, female IQs range  more in the middle, and  less so on the left and right of the IQ curve).

I can see a superior diet improving one's ability to concentrate, one's alertness, or even one's memory or speed in learning, but  IQ seems to me to be predetermined genetically in the womb, almost wholly., with the environment in the 1st 5 years of life perhaps only influencing 0 to 1 % of one's IQ at best. But intelligence is difficult to measure. I view the ability to use one's  intelligence effectively  at least as important as general intelligence.

[Projectile Vomit]

It doesn't surprise me at all that IQ varies as described. It is measured in a way that privileges people of European and Asian descent, due to the way schools in these regions teach.

[TylerDurden]

The above claim re "privilege"/Cultural bias  has, however,  long been debunked , given the weight of the evidence against it:-

"…The book presents several arguments that IQ tests are not biased. African Americans’ lower average performance on IQ tests cannot be because of differences in vocabulary, because African Americans have slightly better performance on verbal tests than on nonverbal tests. The IQ difference also cannot be because the tests depend on White culture, or that Whites inevitably do better on tests designed by Whites. In fact, Blacks perform better on tests that are culturally loaded than they do on tests designed to not include cultural references unfamiliar to Blacks, and Japanese children tend to outscore White children by an average of six points. Nor can the difference be a reflection of socioeconomic status, because when Black and White children are tested who are at the same socioeconomic level, the difference between their average IQs is still twelve points.[2]

The book also presents evidence that IQ tests work the same way for all English-speaking Americans born in the United States, regardless of race. One is that IQ tests have been very successful in predicting performance for all Americans in school, work, and the armed forces. Another is that the race and sex of the person administering a test does not significantly affect how African Americans perform on it. The ranking in difficulty of test items on IQ tests is the same for both groups, and so is the overall shape of the graph showing the number of people achieving each score, except that the curve is centered slightly lower for Blacks than it is for Whites.[2]" taken from:-

http://greyenlightenment.com/iq-tests-are-not-culturally-biased/


I will concede that IQ tests have something to do with education. That is, a person of low IQ who constantly studies is likely to get somewhat higher iq scores over time. And doing more IQ tests will make one also better at IQ tests over time, as most IQ tests contain similiar patterns. And being good at education means nothing re IQ  if all one does is parrot  back what the teacher says.

[Projectile Vomit]

Geoff, did you even read the article you just quoted from? The section you pasted seems to support my statement more than it refutes it, especially regarding the last paragraph.

[TylerDurden]

Obviously. The 1st paragraph shows :-
eg:- "

The IQ difference also cannot be because the tests depend on White culture, or that Whites inevitably do better on tests designed by Whites"

The 2nd paragraph  states that the  IQ tests are not biased towards any race, and are extremely good at predicting future performance in later life , and that the testers' race or gender played no role in IQ determination, according to statistics, oh and the difficulty re ranking was the same for both groups. So, about the only environmental issue would be if the relevant students were  foreign-language speakers and did not know relatively basic English  at all and were  only doing the IQ tests in English. Even in Europe, I  was automatically given the opportunity to do IQ tests in my  1st language...

Whatever the case, education should not determine IQ test evaluation, so such figures should really depend on tests done by children before attending school, say age 5ish.

[dariorpl]

It's not the diet during a person's lifetime, nor the climate during a person's lifetime that determines IQ. It's their genetics. Twin studies have consistently shown that identical twins reared apart, in different countries, or by adoptive parents of different races and socioeconomic status, when they grow up, have the same IQ as their identical twin sibling. What's more, studies on adopted children show that, no matter the country, climate or race or socioeconomic status of the parents that adopted a child, their IQ by adulthood is on average the same as that of the average IQ for their race (the race of their biological parents, or an average between them if they're of different races)

IQ can be improved by education only during early childhood, but by the time the person reaches adulthood, those benefits with respect to their peers are gone. IQ can be reduced with severe malnutrition, and I'm sure you could improve a few points with a healthy diet. But under normal circumstances, diet makes little difference.

Genetics are molded by evolution (or by creation if that's what you believe). Different races of people have average morphological differences in every bone, muscle and organ in their bodies. That's also true for the brain.

And this idea that IQ tests are biased in favor of whites or asians is (mostly) wrong. As IQ also predicts financial and academic success and likelihood to commit crime far more than any other variables such as economic status that someone grew up in. What could be true is that IQ is biased in favor of those skills which are most useful in modern, civilized life.

Actually, one of the first famous people to claim that IQ tests were biased was Adolf Hitler, who called them "jewish" (meaning worthless and fraudulent), if perhaps for no other reason than because IQ tests showed that his aryan race was not as superior as he thought when it came to intelligence. In fact it's ashkenazi jews who rank on the top of IQ for all races.

This is not to say that IQ is equal to intelligence, it's not. IQ only measures a tiny part of what intelligence as a whole is. However, people who have a higher IQ, will on average also have higher intelligence. It's like if you measured height by measuring only the lenght of one of the bones in the body. In and of itself, it wouldn't tell you much about height, but on average it would. That's why IQ tests really are only relevant when applied to large groups of people.

[dariorpl]

Whatever the case, education should not determine IQ test evaluation, so such figures should really depend on tests done by children before attending school, say age 5ish.

But a 5 year old child is not a fully developed human and thus their IQ will change (a LOT) as they grow up. Another thing is, children don't all develop the same way. For example, girls develop faster than boys, blacks faster than whites, whites faster than east asians, etc. So in fact an average 7 year old black is likely to outperform an average 7 year old white, but that reverses by the time they're 18.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm,, I would agree that IQ tests are vaguely capable of testing intelligence, in that  larger differences can be distinguished from the mainstream, but hardly . However, people who do IQ tests regularly will spot similiar gimmicks in the various, different tests and therefore do better than otherwise, after some practice. Also, IQ tests are defined primarily  by what the tester thinks is intelligence-related. As for the ashkenazi jew studies, for example,  there have been valid criticisms that the studies were poorly conducted and selectively biased(as regards selecting mainly people from educated professions) and  that they were far too small as studies(for example, one study only included 65 people). Also, the average IQ of Israel is only 95, which is more realistic, given the  high level of historical inbreeding practised within the worldwide Jewish  community.Plus, some Ashkenazi genetic  traits were cited as being positive, such as Tay-Sachs Disease etc., which are quite clearly negative, overall.

At any rate,to get back to the original subject,  the current studies show only a 1 or 2 iq benefit improvement for changing from a processed,  junk-food diet to a so-called "healthy, cooked" diet. Perhaps a raw, palaeolithic diet or RVAF general diet might lead to a 5 point increase in IQ, but other than improving concentration/alertness/memory et al, I don't see any larger improvement to IQ, except perhaps epigenetically.

Oh, I should point out that many ethnic groups and indiviudals have outperformed in life despite being designated as having relatively low IQ on average. Take the Southern Italian Diaspora, which has done very well as a result of the various Mafias and other corrupt activities. That is the main trouble with human society since the Neolithic. There is no genuine selection  for intelligence any more, only for the better-educated, the highest or lowest class, or the stupid or the wealthy or the various freeloaders in society. Also, having intelligence is not enough. A slight imbecile who actually uses  his rational faculties in a creative, individualistic  way  is, technically/effectively, way  more intelligent, imo,  than a person of slightly above average intelligence  who just blindly repeats what his teachers/employers/family etc. want him to say.