Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. TomBAvoider

    In situ bioprinting

    And until it's actually in use, it remains science fiction. If I had a dollar for every invention announced with great fanfare, which subsequently went absolutely nowhere, I'd be wealthier than Jeff Bezos. Also... this is in China, LOL - 'nuff said about anything coming out of China, best to dismiss including the vast majority of fraudulent "scientific studies" outta that place. Until it's in use, it's HYPE, hype, and nothing more than hype. The clue is in the title "offers promise" - and we all know about "promises", that and $2.50 will get you a coffee at your local starbucks.
  3. mccoy

    basic blood tests

    New bloodwork after 2 years, and some of the results have been a little unexpected. fasting blood sugar is 89 mg/dL, and that's all right since I'm eating more sugars, especially simple ones since the previous analyses. AbA1C is 6.1%, a little on the high range. Must start to check my carbs intake in a while. The lipid panel is discussed in another thread, but it reflects my increase in SAFAs from dairy products. Ferritin is 64 ng/ml, twice the lower bound of the lab range: 30-350 Blood Iron is weird: 231ug/dl, above the upper bound of the lab range of 65-175. I really wonder why since I was expecting a low value, since I'm eating dairy products with no iron, less spinach and green vegetables than the previous time, less iron overall. Maybe the answer is iron from cacao powder? I really don't know, although it may be some sort of a spike. Total PSA is good at 0.9 ng/dl, no prostate problems, I had a urological examination a few months ago and the only part left was the PSA. Good. WBC is slightly lower than the lower bound of the lab range: 3.9 L10^3/uL. RBC is 4.9 and all other relevant parameters are good. Testosterone is normal-high: 21800 nmol/L, compared to the lab range for >50 years; 6680-25700. IGF-1 is unexpected. Since I'm eating lots of methionine ingesting abundant yogurt, I was fearing some high values with a concomitant possible higher cancer hazard. Nothing like that, my IGF-1 is normal- low ar 91 uU/ml. In theory, it should have been higher. This shows how individual situations may vary. Also, my IGF-1 is lower than the 140 value suggested by Valter Longo for all ages. I already eat enough protein and exercise, so I'm not sure I'm going to go for a higher value. Last my homocysteine at 15.2 umol/L is still a little higher than the upper bound of the lab range: 14.5, the issue noticed in my previous labs is persisting.
  4. mccoy

    Cholesterol paradox

    Had a standard blood panel again after 2 years. This time the results are a little worse: Trigs=89 Total cholesterol=196 LD colesterol=111 HDL colesterol=67 Still reasonable numbers, but higher up than the previous analyses. I'm eating more saturated fats from dairy products and that may of course be an explanation. My other results in the recent thread on basic blood tests
  5. corybroo

    In situ bioprinting

    This sounds like science fiction. New microrobot with in situ, in vivo bioprinting offers promise for gastric wounds Bioprinting—delivering new cells directly to the wound site to repair the tissue—offers a potentially very useful way to treat the problem. "The difficulty is that current bioprinting technology focuses on external sites. Bioprinters are normally quite large, and cannot be applied to inner tissue repair without invasive surgery to give enough room for the printing operation. To overcome this, we developed a microrobot that enters the body via an endoscope to carry out tissue repair inside the body." The bioprinting platform … is a Delta robot composed of a fixed base, moving platform and three identical kinematic chains. To be as minimally-invasive as possible, it can fold itself down when entering the patients' body, then unfold before beginning the bioprinting operation. A 10-day cell culture showed that printed cells remained at a high viability and a steady proliferation, which indicated good biological function of the cells in printed tissue scaffolds.
  6. Can you comment on my cronometer results from the last fortnight and any tweaks I should make? I am 35 male... 186cm... 88kg... BMI 25.7, with the aim of losing weight (eventually get BMI < 20) and living longer and healthier. My recommended calories are are about 2400 by conventional measures and I have been aiming for <2000 recently. Over the last 10 years I have been vegetarian for while, then vegan (not especially healthy though), but this year I incorporated bivalves (mussels/scallops/oysters) and more recently fish into my diet to diversify my food sources and get essential nutrients from food in preference to supplements. So I am "pesca-vegan"... which is not actually really a real thing in reality..... but still manages to outrage the True(c) vegan community....... with whom I still share the same ethical motivation towards animals. For the last fortnight I have logged my intake religiously on cronometer, apart from from zero calorie liquids - water, tea and black coffee. The results are mostly good but there are a few imbalances I would like feedback on. There were many categories I overshot the target quite significantly: - Overshot "net carbs" by 54% - Overshot fat by 20% - Overshot Vitamins and Minerals almost across the board by 20-1000% Does this overshooting imply a) any problems (no red zones from cronometer...); \ or b) that I could usefully reduce my daily calorie intake even further through portion size, without nutritional deficiency? After all the bad press about "carbs" is 54% a bad overshoot, if it's from good sources? Vitamin D & Calcium I failed to meet the target (this is average over 2 weeks so not a daily blip!), causing many "Nutritent scores" to be <100%. Vitamin D I have supplemented and increased sunlight exposure, but Calcium I have not. I have struggled to find a stronger source of calcium within this diet. I have already been eating sardines (but turns out they have fairly low RDA% and I don't want to eat every day...), loads of leafy greens, but it turns out my biggest source is blackstrap molasses (about 1 tbsp each morning - 13% of total calcium) followed by enriched rice milk (9% of total calcium), which don't seem like very natural sources to rely on. Does this suggest I should start supplementing Calcium too or is their some magic food within the "pesca-vegan" diet I should investigate? My ratios are good apart from Zinc:Copper. my plan is to eat fresh oysters once per week to try and correct this since they are absurdly high in zinc. Does anyone else have this ratio problem and how have you addressed it? I am disturbingly low on "Lycopene" hitting 3% on average (under Antioxidants). I don't much about this and a quick search suggests it is not essential, but has various positive health effects... but I can't find any great ways of approaching 100% other than eating colossal amounts of of cooked tomatoes and pasta source... which seems like the tail wagging the dog. Should I bother trying to meet this target? Thanks for all your feedback. -Brendan
  7. brendanhill

    Debugging my Vitamin A excess? Does it matter?

    Ron Put that is an impressive over-shoot of Vitamin A!
  8. Evidence is growing, but what will it take to prove masks slow the spread of COVID-19?
  9. Yesterday
  10. mccoy

    Nutritionally complete meal?

    For those who wish to lose weight, undoubtedly so. I too read his book 'the hungry brain' on the neurological aspects of hunger and nutrition.
  11. TomBAvoider

    Hit or miss: the new cholesterol targets

    Doesn't it all come down to - yet again - individual effects? Perhaps statins are helpful for individual X, but not Y, and the criteria by which we group people are too broad to show the effects of individual variation. After all, even something as profound in its effects as tobacco smoking has variable outcomes - there are those who have smoked all their lives and go on to live to be centenarians - although of course, those will be rare exceptions. The criteria provided above for statin use: patients who have already sustained a cardiovascular event, adult diabetic patients, individuals with low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels ≥190 mg/dL and individuals with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk ≥7.5%. I don't fit a single of those criteria. And yet, I am on a statin (10mg atorvastatin daily). This was something my PC suggested, because of my consistently elevated LDL (never below 128 mg/dL or so, and frequently going as high as 148). My HDL has been all over the place - the very lowest 60 (one occasion) the highest 101 (one occasion) and usually in the 70's (the latest 79). My triglicerides have always been reasonable (latest: 57), though not spectacular like some on here where their trigs are in the 30's. Not high BP. I exercise and have a heart-friendly diet. And yet, those pesky LDL numbers worried my PC for years, until finally he suggested a statin, which I'm now taking. The statin has not affected my HDL or triglicerides, but my LDL is now down to 73 mg/dL. Now, does the statin do nothing for my healthspan or lifespan, does it harm it, does it benefit? No way to tell. It's a total gamble. But the statin may have a different effect depending on your age group. There is conflicting info - some studies suggest that it's a negative or neutral at best in the over 75, the subpar study recently discussed saw a benefit. But there is nothing definitive. Yet, there can be profound differences in different age groups. Same as aspirin. There's been a lot of noise about aspirin being a cancer suppresant and if not that, at least preventing/slowing down metastasis. Well. Al Pater has just posted a study that turns those results on its head when it comes to the elderly. It transpires that a daily low dose aspirin not only does not prevent cancer, it may increase it, and it very strongly suggests that it accellerates metastasis - the exact opposite of what was suggested previously - thank you, Al Pater! - : Effect of aspirin on cancer incidence and mortality in older adults. McNeil JJ, Gibbs P, Orchard SG, Lockery JE, Bernstein WB, Cao Y, Ford L, Haydon A, Kirpach B, Macrae F, McLean C, Millar J, Murray AM, Nelson MR, Polekhina G, Reid CM, Richmond E, Rodríguez LM, Shah RC, Tie J, Umar A, van Londen GJ, Ronaldson K, Wolfe R, Woods RL, Zalcberg J, Chan AT; ASPREE Investigator Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11:djaa114. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32778876 Abstract Background: ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE), a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) in older adults, showed an increase in all-cause mortality, primarily due to cancer. In contrast prior RCTs, mainly involving younger individuals, demonstrated a delayed cancer benefit with aspirin. We now report a detailed analysis of cancer incidence and mortality. Methods: 19,114 Australian and U.S. community-dwelling participants aged 70+ years (U.S. minorities 65+ years) without cardiovascular disease, dementia or physical disability were randomized and followed for a median of 4.7 years. Fatal and non-fatal cancer events, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were adjudicated based on clinical records. Results: 981 cancer events occurred in the aspirin and 952 in the placebo groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for all incident cancers (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.14), hematological cancer (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.30), or all solid cancers (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.15), including by specific tumor type. However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of incident cancer that had metastasized (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.43) or was stage 4 at diagnosis (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.45), and with higher risk of death for cancers that presented at stages 3 (HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 4.33) or 4 (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.64). Conclusions: In older adults, aspirin treatment had an adverse effect on later stages of cancer evolution. These findings suggest that in older persons, aspirin may accelerate the progression of cancer and thus, suggest caution with its use in this age group.[my bold TA] So the bottom line is, pay extreme attention to the age group - what may be beneficial in younger cohorts may be deadly for the elderly. This surely applies not only to medication, but to supplements, diet, exercise and other lifestyle factors. So often we tout various supplements and interventions, but we don't look to see if it's good for us specifically, given our individual physiology and situation including age.
  12. elatedsquirrel

    Nutritionally complete meal?

    I was reading Stephan Guyenet recently, and he seems to reckon that high palatability is a big part of the obesity epidemic. So "little taste left to pleasure" could be an advantage!
  13. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e007118 and another study not very encouraging for cholesterol lowering I am not going to dig it up. But there is extensive research and data showing people with familial hypercholesteremia die in their 30s 40s and fifties. My father and his brother, cousin and his father all died in their mid forties from very high cholesterol. 350-400. Now here is my take on all of this and I have dug into it extensively. The fact that very high is very bad leads to over treatment possibly. For instance my mom is 91 and totally without any chronic illness nor signs of dementia. Her lifetime cholesterol levels have been mid 200s. Doctor wanted her to take statins years ago and she refused. This is not at all uncommon in the general population. cholesterol is manufactured for good reason. It’s not a silly mistake of nature. OTOH we have an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, terrible junk food addictions, smoking, lack of exercise etc. it’s complex iows. If the system is overwhelmed with cholesterol and cannot handle it then it’s bad news. But how far do we go to lower it. Very low ldl levels are definitely associated with less heart disease, but there tends to be higher cancer rates and again if the levels were higher and all the lifestyle conditions were favorable we just might see a disadvantage to very low levels. But that’s a guess. So it appears from Todd’s post and the one posted above and many more that we still just do not know if lowering cholesterol beyond very high levels has any benefit especially in those with relatively decent lifestyle like my Mom.
  14. Grain and dietary fiber intake and bladder cancer risk: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. Yu EYW, Wesselius A, Mehrkanoon S, Brinkman M, van den Brandt P, White E, Weiderpass E, Le Calvez-Kelm F, Gunter M, Huybrechts I, Liedberg F, Skeie G, Tjonneland A, Riboli E, Giles GG, Milne RL, Zeegers MP. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Aug 10:nqaa215. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa215. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32778880 Abstract Background: Higher intakes of whole grains and dietary fiber have been associated with lower risk of insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and inflammation, which are known predisposing factors for cancer. Objectives: Because the evidence of association with bladder cancer (BC) is limited, we aimed to assess associations with BC risk for intakes of whole grains, refined grains, and dietary fiber. Methods: We pooled individual data from 574,726 participants in 13 cohort studies, 3214 of whom developed incident BC. HRs, with corresponding 95% CIs, were estimated using Cox regression models stratified on cohort. Dose-response relations were examined using fractional polynomial regression models. Results: We found that higher intake of total whole grain was associated with lower risk of BC (comparing highest with lowest intake tertile: HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.98; HR per 1-SD increment: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.91, 0.99; P for trend: 0.023). No association was observed for intake of total refined grain. Intake of total dietary fiber was also inversely associated with BC risk (comparing highest with lowest intake tertile: HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.98; HR per 1-SD increment: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.98; P for trend: 0.021). In addition, dose-response analyses gave estimated HRs of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.99) for intake of total whole grain and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98) for intake of total dietary fiber per 5-g daily increment. When considered jointly, highest intake of whole grains with the highest intake of dietary fiber showed 28% reduced risk (95% CI: 0.54, 0.93; P for trend: 0.031) of BC compared with the lowest intakes, suggesting potential synergism. Conclusions: Higher intakes of total whole grain and total dietary fiber are associated with reduced risk of BC individually and jointly. Further studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms for these findings. Keywords: bladder cancer; cohort study; dietary fiber; dose-response analysis; grain. Effect of aspirin on cancer incidence and mortality in older adults. McNeil JJ, Gibbs P, Orchard SG, Lockery JE, Bernstein WB, Cao Y, Ford L, Haydon A, Kirpach B, Macrae F, McLean C, Millar J, Murray AM, Nelson MR, Polekhina G, Reid CM, Richmond E, Rodríguez LM, Shah RC, Tie J, Umar A, van Londen GJ, Ronaldson K, Wolfe R, Woods RL, Zalcberg J, Chan AT; ASPREE Investigator Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11:djaa114. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32778876 Abstract Background: ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE), a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) in older adults, showed an increase in all-cause mortality, primarily due to cancer. In contrast prior RCTs, mainly involving younger individuals, demonstrated a delayed cancer benefit with aspirin. We now report a detailed analysis of cancer incidence and mortality. Methods: 19,114 Australian and U.S. community-dwelling participants aged 70+ years (U.S. minorities 65+ years) without cardiovascular disease, dementia or physical disability were randomized and followed for a median of 4.7 years. Fatal and non-fatal cancer events, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were adjudicated based on clinical records. Results: 981 cancer events occurred in the aspirin and 952 in the placebo groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for all incident cancers (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.14), hematological cancer (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.30), or all solid cancers (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.15), including by specific tumor type. However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of incident cancer that had metastasized (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.43) or was stage 4 at diagnosis (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.45), and with higher risk of death for cancers that presented at stages 3 (HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 4.33) or 4 (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.64). Conclusions: In older adults, aspirin treatment had an adverse effect on later stages of cancer evolution. These findings suggest that in older persons, aspirin may accelerate the progression of cancer and thus, suggest caution with its use in this age group. Association Between Coffee Consumption and Functional Disability in the U.S. Older Adults. Wang T, Wu Y, Wang W, Zhang D. Br J Nutr. 2020 Aug 11:1-19. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520003153. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32778181 Abstract The effect of coffee consumption on functional disability has been scarcely investigated. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association between coffee consumption and functional disability in older American adults. Participants (≥ 60 years old, N = 7,704) were from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2016. Coffee consumption was assessed through two 24-h dietary recall interviews. Five domains of functional disability including lower-extremity mobility (LEM), general physical activity (GPA), leisure and social activities (LSA), activities of daily living (ADL), and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were self-reported. Aged and multivariate adjusted logistic regression models and restricted cubic splines analyses were used. Total coffee consumption was inversely associated with LEM, GPA, LSA, and IADL disability. Compared with non-drinkers of total coffee, those who consumed ≥2 cups/day total coffee had lower odds of reporting disability of LEM (OR:0.67, 95%CI: 0.50-0.91), GPA (OR:0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.88), LSA (OR:0.61, 95%CI: 0.45-0.83) and IADL (OR:0.59, 95%CI: 0.44-0.78). These relationships were confirmed by the dose-response analyses. Intake of ≥2 cups/day caffeinated coffee was also inversely linked to the disability of GPA (OR: 0.67, 95%CI: 0.48-0.92), LSA (OR: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.46-0.93) and IADL (OR: 0.57, 95%CI:0.43-0.75,). While the inverse association of 2+ cups/day decaffeinated coffee was only on LEM (OR:0.43, 95%CI:0.23-0.81) and LSA (OR:0.39, 95%CI:0.16-0.94) disability. The present study suggested that coffee consumption was inversely associated with functional disability in older American adults. Those associations of diverse coffee types differed across domains of functional disability. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings. Keywords: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; coffee consumption; cross-sectional study; functional disability Insufficient maternal iodine intake is associated with subfecundity, reduced foetal growth, and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study. Abel MH, Caspersen IH, Sengpiel V, Jacobsson B, Meltzer HM, Magnus P, Alexander J, Brantsæter AL. BMC Med. 2020 Aug 11;18(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01676-w. PMID: 32778101 Abstract Background: Severe iodine deficiency impacts fertility and reproductive outcomes. The potential effects of mild-to-moderate iodine deficiency are not well known. The aim of this study was to examine whether iodine intake was associated with subfecundity (i.e. > 12 months trying to get pregnant), foetal growth, and adverse pregnancy outcomes in a mild-to-moderately iodine-deficient population. Methods: We used the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) and included 78,318 pregnancies with data on iodine intake and pregnancy outcomes. Iodine intake was calculated using an extensive food frequency questionnaire in mid-pregnancy. In addition, urinary iodine concentration was available in a subsample of 2795 pregnancies. Associations were modelled continuously by multivariable regression controlling for a range of confounding factors. Results: The median iodine intake from food was 121 μg/day and the median urinary iodine was 69 μg/L, confirming mild-to-moderate iodine deficiency. In non-users of iodine supplements (n = 49,187), low iodine intake (< 100-150 μg/day) was associated with increased risk of preeclampsia (aOR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08, 1.22) at 75 vs. 100 μg/day, p overall < 0.001), preterm delivery before gestational week 37 (aOR = 1.10 (1.04, 1.16) at 75 vs. 100 μg/day, p overall = 0.003), and reduced foetal growth (- 0.08 SD (- 0.10, - 0.06) difference in birth weight z-score at 75 vs. 150 μg/day, p overall < 0.001), but not with early preterm delivery or intrauterine death. In planned pregnancies (n = 56,416), having an iodine intake lower than ~ 100 μg/day was associated with increased prevalence of subfecundity (aOR = 1.05 (1.01, 1.09) at 75 μg/day vs. 100 μg/day, p overall = 0.005). Long-term iodine supplement use (initiated before pregnancy) was associated with increased foetal growth (+ 0.05 SD (0.03, 0.07) on birth weight z-score, p < 0.001) and reduced risk of preeclampsia (aOR 0.85 (0.74, 0.98), p = 0.022), but not with the other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Urinary iodine concentration was not associated with any of the dichotomous outcomes, but positively associated with foetal growth (n = 2795, p overall = 0.017). Conclusions: This study shows that a low iodine intake was associated with restricted foetal growth and a higher prevalence of preeclampsia in these mild-to-moderately iodine-deficient women. Results also indicated increased risk of subfecundity and preterm delivery. Initiating iodine supplement use in pregnancy may be too late. eywords: Foetal growth; Iodine intake; Iodine supplement; Mild-to-moderate iodine deficiency; Preeclampsia; Pregnancy cohort; Preterm delivery; Subfecundity; The Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa).
  15. AlPater

    Al's CR updates

    Extent of food restriction affects probability but not delay-based decision-making. Tapp DN, Zerkle HL, McMurray MS. J Exp Anal Behav. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1002/jeab.624. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32776567 Abstract Rodent studies on decision-making often use food rewards and food-restrict subjects in order to motivate performance. However, food restriction has widespread effects on brain and behavior, which depend on factors including extent of restriction and feeding schedule. These factors are well recognized for their effects on motivation, but may also cause effects on decision-making independent of motivation. We examined how the degree of weight-based food restriction in rats influenced decision-making on the probability and delay discounting tasks. Additionally, we examined how the method of food restriction (consistent amount vs. time constrained feeding schedule) influenced decision-making. Our results showed that the degree of weight-based food restriction significantly altered probability, but not delay discounting, and that these effects were not entirely explainable by differences in motivation. Additionally, the method of food restriction did not significantly influence discounting when animals were within the same range of weight-based restriction. Together, our findings suggest that the degree of food restriction may modulate the neural circuitry responsible for selective aspects of decision-making related to probability. Further, these data support the need for tight control and reporting of weight and feeding in studies relying on food restriction, and suggest that the effects of food restriction may be broader than previously considered. Keywords: body weight; delay discounting; food restriction; probability discounting; rat; time constrained feeding schedule. Does nutrition for cancer patients feed the tumour? A clinical perspective. Bozzetti F, Stanga Z. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020 Jul 12;153:103061. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103061. Online ahead of print. PMID: 32777729 Review. Abstract This review aims to answer to two basic questions: a) Which substrates does a tumour utilize and is there a regimen that might potentially favour the host over the tumour? and b) Does nutritional intervention disproportionally affect tumour growth? Literature to date focuses on humans; although some references to molecular mechanisms regulating cancer cells metabolism derive from studies on experimental tumours and cell biology. Literature shows that some tumours, especially those of the brain and head/neck and lung, are glucose-dependent, and patients with these tumours could benefit from a normocaloric ketogenic diet provided these tumours exhibit high fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) captation. A high fat-protein, low carbohydrate diet appears to better fulfil the nutritional requirements of the cancer patient. Current evidence shows no improvement in tumoral response after restricting patients' caloric intake; whereas malnutrition is acknowledged as an important negative predictive and prognostic factor in all cancer patients. Keywords: Calorie restricted diet; Calorie restriction; Cancer cell metabolism; Ketogenic diet; Nutrition and tumour growth; Nutrition of cancer patients; Nutritive substrates of the cancer cell.
  16. InquilineKea

    Blood Panel

    https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2020/08/a-type-of-phosphorylated-tau-in-blood-samples-indicates-amyloid-%ce%b2-aggregation-prior-to-symptoms/
  17. Ron, it may be the case (extremely unlikely) that both N95 respirators and medical masks are completely ineffective in preventing "laboratory-confirmed influenza among [healthcare workers] routinely exposed to respiratory illnesses", but that study certainly does not show that. It only looks at the question of whether N95 respirators are more effective than medical masks. It does not compare mask wearing with no mask wearing. Would you advise healthcare workers routinely exposed to respiratory illnesses to NOT bother wearing any kind of mask or respirator as recommended in current evidence-based clinical practice? Seriously? In any case, that study deals only with hospital/healthcare settings and tells us almost nothing about population-wide mask wearing (facial coverings) during this Covid-19 pandemic. I actually think a lot of that mask-wearing IS entirely ineffective, if not worse. Personally, if I have to go into a situation were social distancing is impossible, I wear a properly fitted and handled single-use N95 type mask. Based on all the evidence I've looked at, I am convinced that will provide me with at least some degree of protection, combined with hand washing etc., as well as some protection to others if I were to have contracted the virus. But I see a lot of other people wearing surgical masks or flimsy face coverings in highly problematic ways-- reusing them over and over, taking them on and off with out any care to how they are touching them etc. (Maybe it's better in the US.)
  18. Dozens of public health officials across the U.S. have resigned or been fired amid COVID-19 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-health-officials-quit-fired-coronavirus-outbreak-1.5681040
  19. Last week
  20. Vanderbilt has released a report comparing hospitalizations by county in Tennessee. Masking Requirements and Hospitalizations in Tennessee
  21. Al it was a 7 day lookback delta (to match "day of week" reporting anomalies), and you can clearly see the same trend (decine in new cases) on worldometer: In other news, there was some really interesting thoughts in today's Medcram vid regarding antibodies and asymptomatic cases: He talks about antibodies vs. T Cell Immunity. He also mentions that it is possible that asymptomatic cases are sharply rising possibly due to mask wearing (related to viral load upon exposure). There is some evidence to back up this idea. He also cites 3 studies that showed >80% of infected being asymptomatic, and compares cruise ship data where no masks were given vs. masks for all.
  22. Because they may hurt people's feelings.... We must not judge and must "love all bodies" (except all the "anorexic" models, of course) and even some high fashion is going Rubenesque as the demographics and the market change. And what politician is going to risk their career by offending close to 70% of the population?
  23. The lab which did mine this time is Westpac Labs (I was testing amylase isoenzymes and they do it, so I tested MPV too). Their range is 7.4-11.9. My doctor said to ignore it, it is not significant in my case. But I do wonder if CR or intermittent fasting increases it in healthy people?
  24. Speaking of death rates, there is a new article in The Nation about Cuomo's forcing nursing homes to accept Covid-19 patients, which likely greatly contributed to the NY death toll among the elderly, as well as about the nonsensical counting of certain deaths in NY: Cuomo’s Administration Faces Questioning Over Its Handling of Nursing Home Covid Deaths "Cuomo has demanded privately that the Centers for Disease Control not report New York City’s probable count and use the state government’s confirmed tally instead, according to a state source familiar with the situation. Currently, the CDC does not list either a statewide “probable” or “confirmed” tally on its website for New York and many other states, including Texas, Florida, and California. Accurate case and death counts matter because they can be used to examine whether state policy played a role in exacerbating the crisis—and Cuomo’s directive, issued in a time of extreme distress, warrants examination, given how nursing homes have been ravaged during the pandemic. Such examination could help New York respond better in a second wave. On March 25, the New York State Department of Health ordered homes and facilities to readmit residents who had tested positive for the coronavirus, in part to ensure that hospitals had enough capacity for new patients. Cuomo reversed course in May and rescinded the directive, which some have blamed for contributing to the spread of the virus in nursing homes." The article doesn't address the dramatically lower (40% or so) number of heart attack, stroke, and cancer deaths among those who died at home, which likely skews the death tally significantly, although not so much among nursing home residents.
  25. Folic acid can be harmful, indeed. But it is different than the folate you get from food, which is beneficial even in high doses, based on my research. It's easy to get folate from stuff okra or non-fortified nutritional yeast.
  26. Ron Put

    Natto is the way to go!

    Just to remind everyone that the standard styrofoam natto package contains between 47 and 50 grams of the stuff. This means that you need to eat two packages to get the 100g dose most of the cited articles mention. I personally consume 5-6 single packages per week.
  1. Load more activity
×