41–50 of 86 posts
It certainly is a powerful pharmaceutical. It can impact aquatic life that live in treated waste water effluent. "Emerging wastewater contaminant metformin causes intersex and reduced fecundity in fish." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351...
human life > fish life
The only miracle drugs that I know of are sleep, water, and exercise. Even those have dose-related toxicities! https://peterattiamd.com/metformin-and-exercise/ If you're healthy enough to exercise, that's probably more effective. Apparently (I haven't tested myself, and I don't know how thorough the literature is) metformin lowers your lactic threshold, which reduces the total amount of work you can do in that state.…
> avoid refined sugar and fats that are solid at room temperature. This leaves, what, protein and starch? And cooking oil, I suppose, but all forms of meat contain solid fats.
From my understanding of the available evidence, these fats are supposed to be more healthy than other animal fats / butter (saturated fat). [2] Whether saturated fats are bad or not depends on what you compare them to - they seem less healthy than say, olive oil, but might win out over refined carbs. And the most clearly bad one is trans fat which has the strongest evidence against it.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2012/06/21/ask-...
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
This whole comment section is totally delusional regarding the reliability of medical statistics and preliminary data in life science. It's funny (and sad) to see people easily disparaging "state-of-the-art treatments" be so prone to experiment on themselves with moonshot claims.
For decades, we were told that the food pyramid was the ideal healthy diet and that dietary fat was the enemy. It was all bullshit. Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy, eggs are really unhealthy, eggs are healthy, eggs are really healthy. I had trained medical professionals tell me twenty years ago that I was going to ruin my kidneys with my low-carb dieting. Twenty years later, I'm still keeping the weight off and…
That is what OP says.
What we open see is that "we don't know" is often equated with "does not work".
(I guess that also very frequently how it works out)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These articles always bring up a lot of comments that use the phrase "good for you" or "healthy", but in my experience most of the time a person saying "___ is good for you", they pretty much never quantify how or why. Can you explain, in what capacity oils aren't "good for you" ?
I think the best talk of the health dangers of seed oils is in the following video: Dr. Chris Knobbe - 'Diseases of Civilization: Are Seed Oil Excesses the Unifying Mechanism?' [1] If you're short on time, you can skip directly to the trials data section [2] 1. https://youtu.be/7kGnfXXIKZM 2. https://youtu.be/7kGnfXXIKZM?t=2020
So we're deriving that an entire class of foods aren't "good for you", because of a specific outcome in a study conducted on rats?
edit
Also, the effect produced on the rats was weight gain. Is all weight gain bad? Oils aren't "good for you" because "weight gain"? So, if a person's goal was to gain weight, would oils be "good for them"? And if yes, isn't this just way too broad a statement ("oils aren't good for you") to have any value?
This whole comment section is totally delusional regarding the reliability of medical statistics and preliminary data in life science. It's funny (and sad) to see people easily disparaging "state-of-the-art treatments" be so prone to experiment on themselves with moonshot claims.
When they infused electrolytes, it swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, and she suffered wild swings in blood levels of potassium, etc. Eventually her kidneys and liver failed at the same time, multiple organ failure, usually for someone in their 60s is not survival. I watched her die slowly over a few days as everything came crashing down.
Afterwards, I tried to get the hospital to conduct an autopsy to show overdose of colchicine levels, but the pathology department somehow "wasn't set up for that" and they said I'd have to send her body to some specialist lab. I didn't want to cause anymore pain with the family, so I opted to just bury her. But I definitely see this as medical malpractice.
And it's a clear warning to not ignore FDA contraindication warnings, even if your doctor apparently doesn't read up on the latest research or alerts.
This whole comment section is totally delusional regarding the reliability of medical statistics and preliminary data in life science. It's funny (and sad) to see people easily disparaging "state-of-the-art treatments" be so prone to experiment on themselves with moonshot claims.
For decades, we were told that the food pyramid was the ideal healthy diet and that dietary fat was the enemy. It was all bullshit. Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy, eggs are really unhealthy, eggs are healthy, eggs are really healthy. I had trained medical professionals tell me twenty years ago that I was going to ruin my kidneys with my low-carb dieting. Twenty years later, I'm still keeping the weight off and…
Regarding the "we really don't know" part: one can observe that people here are basing their own shamanic medicine on what they read in scientific papers, suddenly pretending that those papers can be trusted while they'll disparage the theories of clinical practitioners as being old-fashioned and manipulative. Well, it happens that many of those theories are based upon lots and lots of research and certainly more so that the "fad of the day" is. And yes, those theories are often refuted after years of clinical application, which does not bode well for experiments based on "few papers shamanic medicine".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And rightfully so given the state of the evidence.
What would you consider satisfying evidence? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5839379/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31405774/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954752/ https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287273/
This whole comment section is totally delusional regarding the reliability of medical statistics and preliminary data in life science. It's funny (and sad) to see people easily disparaging "state-of-the-art treatments" be so prone to experiment on themselves with moonshot claims.