Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,157 profile views
  1. I agree Mike. We know extremely little about lipids and the whole story of atherosclerosis, CVD and so on. And TMAO is a poster child for how we actually know next to nothing - isolated effects, and no big picture. Re: Peter Attia, in general he's very good wrt. lipids and CVD, with super illuminating podcasts, especially with Tom Dayspring.
  2. The TMAO story continues to be confusing, and this video does not shed as much light on it as may seem on the surface. The problem is that the kidney angle does not explain the fish paradox at all. In fact, I was disappointed to see such poor followup. If kidney function declines with age (which it does), and past about 40 it declines below the magical cutoff of EGFR 90, then you would expect the advantages of fish consumption to decline past 40 with the massive TMAO spike. It raises the questions: is there evidence that consuming animal protein dramatically raises TMAO related morbidities past the age of 40? And importantly to the fish paradox, is there evidence that consuming fish past 40 raises those morbidities dramatically in tandem with the dramatic impact of TMAO from fish? I am unaware of any research that shows fish consumption to be dramatically worse for you than meat/eggs past age 40. In other words, this whole thing doesn’t hold water. This video does NOT explain or account for the fish paradox in the TMAO story. I recommend going back to the drawing board.
  3. TomBAvoider

    Hello from a new member

    Welcome! The best advice I can give you is to do a ton of research before you adopt any course of action, and hold all your beliefs lightly. I’ve been on this health nut kick for over twenty years now, and I still am regularly compelled to change my opinion about pretty major things. Best of luck! Oh, also: read the various threads here as far back as you can, and see how the tides of opinion change... very educational and humbling. Again, hold all your convictions lightly. YMMV.
  4. TomBAvoider

    EVOO production site

    Same here. I'm curious about eating olives, but again, I have only been able to eat the brine-derived green ones. The other thing, is to note the difference in processing between black and green olives and the impact on polyphenol count and generally nutritional profile. Many people also prefer the taste of kalamata olive oil, but I suppose at that point they're less interested in the health benefits aspect of it, just going purely for taste. I personally love the peppery taste of high-polyphenol count EVOO, but I once offered a bottle of super-high poly count EVOO I bought from Veronica Foods, to a friend who is a big fan of Italy and Italian food and travels there all the time. He tasted it with a bit of bread and said it was too much for him - too spicy!! I was blown away. I couldn't believe it. But there you have it. Anyhow, I wonder what the different ways of preparing olives are and which ones preserve the most micronutrients.
  5. TomBAvoider

    CORONA vs CRONie ... are bugs more scared of us?

    Welcome back - to posting - Bob! Also, you used to have employees, I'm sad to see you working by yourself. I remember the anecdote you told about employees. You said that you had a very good employee once, and you encouraged him and helped him branch out on his own so that he would have his own company or work on his own and no longer have to be your employee. However, that employee, while excellent in your employ, completely failed as a self-operator. From that you concluded that the reality is that it takes a special set of characteristics to be your own boss and that not everyone is suited and some people are better suited to be employees (even excellent employees) working for someone else. I bring it up, because you mentioned that you now work on your own, so that came back to me. Clearly you are very active as a result of your work. What's interesting, is that research seems to say that LEISURE time physical activity is health-promoting while WORK time physical activity is the opposite. Nice to see you defy those results. I think you are competing with Saul for optimal health in later years. It's amazing to think that you started at 53. I remember those years like it was yesterday, mere 19-20 years ago, when CR was the hot new thing. Time flies. In another 20, you'll be in your 90's - maybe you'll go back to having employees in your landscaping company :)
  6. Something is not adding up here. Dairy seems protective against colon cancer in most studies, so I don't know why they say a "dairy diet" would be especially bad for colocrectal cancers.
  7. TomBAvoider

    Reaching optimal health

    Well, maybe it is too late, I don't know. But I do know it won't be my problem, because by the time when the ish really hits the fan, I'll be long dead. As will be my wife and anyone else I care about. I'm not happy about it, I wish civilization would last, since there is so much beauty and glory in the human being, but in the end nature will take its course. Admittedly, I'm an optimist, so I reckon somehow things will work themselves out. I'm not saying the situation isn't dire, but perhaps I have too much faith in human inventiveness.
  8. TomBAvoider

    Reaching optimal health

    Actually, I think that a longer lifespan would promote more ecological awareness and general rationality. If you are to live longer, you have more incentives to take care of the environment. And if you have a longer lifespan you would take better care of yourself too, as you don't want to linger on in poor health. All in all, I can see almost no downsides to a longer lifespan. YMMV.
  9. TomBAvoider

    Reaching optimal health

    This is the chitchat section, so a bit of diversion. How do you know you've reached optimal health? Is it even a particular state? After all, your body is in constant flux. Perhaps your liver has become as healthy as it can get (100%), but your lungs are at 70% or your kidneys get better and your joints get worse. So how can you give a global rating of a single descriptive like "optimal health" overall? While one thing might improve another might deteriorate, so how can you say "overall"? Be that as it may, I'm sure you've heard the following - a 50 year old man starts exercising or changes their diet to a healthy one, or stops smoking/drinking/drugging etc., and proclaims "I'm in the best shape of my life, my health is the best and I feel better than I felt when I was 25". Perhaps it's even true - perhaps his health is at 50 IS better than at 25 and you can say that *for him* he has reached his optimal health at 50. Now, someone who has been living healthily since their teens, has had optimal health at what, 20? before the natural aging process starts a steady deterioration? Everything else being equal, you're closer to death at 30 than at 20, so you have to say that your health - the quality of your organs etc. - is not as good at 30 as it is at 20. Of course there is the "weakest link" model. Say, you have a bad liver and you fix it. Or a bad heart and you fix it. Or you have ANY bad condition and you manage to fix it. Whatever the age, after you've fixed it, and assuming nothing else has gotten bad in the meanwhile, you've reached optimal health, say at 40, or 50, or whatnot, because the weakest link - a bad heart or bad liver or whatnot - would've killed you otherwise, so fixing it gets you to your best health. For many on this list, it's a complicated question. We try to fix all our problems - muscles, teeth, joints, CV health etc. and then engage in optimal exercise and diet. But then the aging process represents a steady overall deterioration. If you fixed your "weakest link" that might have killed you early, what's left is aging. So you've reached Optimal Health once you have no morbidities - from then on, you age and that represents continuing deterioration, so maybe you've reached optimal health at 30 and then it's all downhill from there. Subjectively, even at this late age (technically late middle age) I personally feel as if every year I'm getting healthier - obviously, that's an illusion, since getting older means getting closer to death. Although I suppose you could model a "square the curve" - you're healthy as can be until you suddenly drop dead from old age. Now, I - as I'm sure most here - am constantly optimizing and fiddling with my diet, exercise, supplement regimes and so on in an effort to keep improving... although the truth is that at best it's fiddling at the margins and makes 0.0001% change or it's useless or even making things worse. But all this fiddling gives me a subjective feeling as if NOW I'm at optimal health. I'm fully aware it's an illusion. Anyhow, all this was brought on by my having some dental work done - since dental health is super important to the overall health, I felt as if NOW I've reached optimal health, having fixed all my niggling little issues. It's an illusion. But that still leaves the question - is there such a thing as having "optimal health"? Is it a specific point in time? Or is it a confused and pointless concept? If it's useless, why do we pursue it?
  10. From the start of this pandemic, Sweden took a different approach, and everyone (including myself) wondered how that would turn out. The pandemic is (obviously) not over yet, but increasingly, it seems a consensus if forming that ultimately Sweden's approach has been a failure. Here is an article that pulls together the case for "failure" - again, it ain't over until it's over, but it's hard to see how Sweden can pull out a win from this all things considered: The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
  11. TomBAvoider

    Genetic testing - Promethease ??

    Yes, many times over the years. No more or less reliable than any other. However the key issue is how seriously you should take these results. The answer is: not very. With rare exceptions disease does not result from a single genetic variant. Instead, a *very* large number of factors determine the outcome, including environmental variables. Mostly this should be treated as entertainment. YMMV.
  12. I want to know what the end game is. I have always been extrememly sceptical of a vaccine for a plethora of reasons - first and foremost, because it seems like whatever immunity you acquire from having gone through COVID-19 is very short lived, ranging from 0-3 months to 11 months depending on what study you read. I've even seen articles about folks who had the virus, recovered, and then got re-infected and did WORSE the second time around... not good! Second, it seems it'll suffer from all the faults of fast evolving viruses like the flu, where you will need to keep devoloping new vaccines as the strains evolve. Third, nobody knows how effective the vaccine will be even if it is effective at all - a 20% effectivenss rate is going to be underwhelming. Fourth, it seems the approaches so far have a lot of pretty unacceptable side effects. And so on. Plus, as I've always maintained, the media is overoptimistic about how fast any vaccine will be brought to market at all - not to mention the number of hucksters and frauds we'll have to wade through. This is all to say that we are not going to conquer this virus like the polio or the like through a vaccine. Herd immunity seems to be a mirage. A consensus is slowly developing that Sweden's approach is a bust. That leaves medication to deal with the disease - oh boy. The amount of controversy and the number of hucksters and frauds and snakeoil is going to make this a tough sale as a global solution. Not to mention that this disease seems extremely broad in the effects it has and whom it strikes - every patient seems to have their own disease. It'll be very hard to assure people that we have the medications to deal with this. So what to do? Avoid getting infected as much as possible, I suppose. That means masks and social distancing. But for how long? Europe seems a pretty discouraging object lesson what with the second wave and bizarre patterns like the Czech Republic having suddenly more victims than Germany at a fraction of the population. What is to be done? It's not sustainable to have unemployment at these levels. And the moment all the stimulus checks are seen to be definitively ending, you'll have mass bankruptcies and businesses that hung on by their fingernails collapse with no hope in sight. That will have knock-on effects on the rest of the economy. And then what are you going to do as more and more people are out of work and there is no money to support them, and nobody is willing to finance more debt? You can't just keep printing money - and there's a limit to buying your own debt, and without international capital willing to finance this - and China is dropping out of the U.S. treasuries market - what happens next? You'll finally get your hyperinflation, and that's the end, hello 1920's Germany. The economy has already sustained damage that'll be long term and will take decades to recover from. How much longer do you expect to keep this up? We got a few more months with the upcoming election and Jan 20, but then what? People are going to go crazy if things don't start moving in a good direction. So again, the question is what is the end game here? More of the same for the indefinite future? Not sustainable.
  13. "Wisdom of the crowds" - is the principle behind betting sites giving odds on various events such as f.ex. presidential elections etc. Often such can be in opposition to "expert opinion" and it's fascinating when the "wisdom of the crowds" proves to be the correct bet. The other way this is referenced in real life is "put your money where you mouth is", i.e. your willingness to bet something valuable is a more accurate reflection of your true feelings/opinions compared to mere assertions without the bet. In life we have to operate - most of the time - on insufficient information, and so how we actually act is a reflection of our innermost convictions. There is no proof that CR works in humans, that this supplement or that health practice is a net benefit - yet we all pick and choose what we'll involve ourselves in, despite having no "proof" most of the time. What do you believe about the danger of COVID-19, inherently itself or compared to the flu? Place your bets. What you do, reflects what you believe most deeply. Personally I don't pretend to know how the danger of COVID-19 compares to any other infectious disease. Nonetheless, I take measures not to catch it. Greater measures than I take with the flu. I read about the long term effects of COVID-19 sickness, neurological and other challenges even in highly fit and young athletes, and well, what can I make of it? I place my bets. My bet is to try to avoid it as much as possible and take all precautionary measures. That's my bet, but may not be yours. YMMV.
  14. Remember when a daily baby aspirin was touted as a cancer preventative agent back in the day not too long ago? Well, now they're saying the very opposite - a daily aspirin accelerates cancer. And so it goes with drugs, supplements and various dietary recommendations. Supplemental vitamins and minerals were a fountain of health and youth and then one by one were found to be the opposite - and then back to good and then bad again. Wait long enough and it'll flip flop to any position you wish. Here we go again: Daily aspirin may up growth, spread of cancers in older adults