On 3/7/2023 at 11:12 AM, drewab said:

This just seems bizarre to me - I think something else has got to be at play here but I’m not sure what the explanation would be. Anyone care to speculate? 

I don't necessarily find it bizarre at all. My guess will be that a larger proportion of those who cram their exercise early or late in the day may be more cedentary during the rest of the day, for instance those who work at an office and sit for long periods during the workday.

This may also be exacerbated by lumping the very early and the very late exercisers with morning and evening groups, as they may do their exercise so early or late because they work long (sedentary) hours, or perhaps because they have sleep disorders.

I am also wondering if the right side of the U-shape curve is somewhat affected by riskier behaviors by those who are fitter. Or alternatively, depending on the length of the study, some obese subjects may simply be pushing themselves because they've experienced a health-related event and are trying to compensate a lifetime of bad habits.

And I would definitely disregard ChatGPT's take for now, as it simply scoops up info from the more popular sources of related information, which may or may not be accurate. Garbage in, garbage out.

9 hours ago, corybroo said:

Did they explain how they determined Sweden's succes?

Yes, they did. Before I posted the article, I actually went to the OECD site and checked, to make sure that it made sense. I didn't total it, but it sure looks like it supports the Australian article.

The nonsense you posted from the Economist makes no particular sense though, at least when you go to the sources. Here are screenshots of the OECD data for 2022 (I was able to capture only the top portion since it'll get too large, but you can follow the link and review, as well as switch years).

Notice that overall for most weeks of 2022 Sweden has negative or single digit percentage deviations from the average excess mortality, while Australia, New Zealand and even Sweden's neighbors veer well into the positive double digits.

The story is also similar for 2021.

So yes, based on OECD data, Sweden did do a lot better than those that locked down their population, no matter how the left tries to spin it.

Here is a link to the data set for 2022, you can change years of course:

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676

 

Remember Sweden's state epidemiologist Nils Anders Tegnell? Remember how he was attacked by the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC and CNN, and called a murderer by the left?

Remember him asking us to judge his decisions in a couple of years? Well, it's about time to judge him:

Sweden has the lowest excess mortality rate after the pandemic, despite refusing to lock down

"Serious holes have been poked in the world’s response to the pandemic, with Sweden emerging atop a telling list of nations least affected by Covid-19.

I like twins studies for a number of obvious reasons and I don't find this study's results all that strange.

These are generally healthy subjects in their 70s. I'l try to extrapolate based on my personal experience.

I am just about 60 and generally healthy. I am vegan, consuming between 100-110% protein per day, mostly from legumes and nutritional yeast (it surprised me), according to Cronometer. Since I am vegan, the protein is presumably less absorbable than "high quality" animal protein. I am lean (11.7-13% body fat according to yearly DEX scans and tracked daily by a Withings scale which measures consistency about 1.5% lower.Bone density is still good at 0.5 T-score, especially for my pretty lean body (fat people often have higher bone density). Muscle mass is between 85-86%.

Now about muscle mass. Most men my age I know consume far more protein than I do, often in the form of "high quality protein." While most are shorter than my 6.1 height, most are also beefier. Some stil go to the gym, but my guess is that I am stronger than at least half, and most if measured pound per pound. These days I can do just over 50 decent push-up continuously in about 75 seconds. I don't reay do weight-lifting, just push-ups and pull-ups mostly, and relatively steep hiking on most days.

My long-winded point is that I am at just a tad over RDA for protein intake, but since it's all pant-based protein, it's not al absorbed (my fiber intake is rather robust, often about the same as my protein intake). Yet my muscle mass is steady, without heavy weight workouts. Genes undoubtedly play some role, but that's why I like twins studies.

One other point. Many of the protein studies are sponsored by entities with vested interests selling supplements or by the meat and dairy industry. This does not automatically mean that they are bad studies, but methodology matters, as does reporting of negative or inconclusive outcomes. Over the last few years I have become far more cautious about accepting headlines, and even studies, at face value.

Internal review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s Alzheimer’s research, colleagues allege

While perusing the forum, I came across a post by BrianA about a potential cause of inflammation in the brain and corresponding immune responses that may lead to the damage found in Alzheimer's disease.
 

On 8/11/2022 at 8:40 AM, BrianA said:

"In this study, the researchers detail the pathway of BF-LPS from the gut to the brain and its mechanisms of action once there. BF-LPS leaks out of the GI tract, crosses the blood brain barrier via the circulatory system, and accesses brain compartments. Then it increases inflammation in brain cells and inhibits neuron-specific neurofilament light (NF-L,) a protein that supports cell integrity. A deficit of this protein leads to progressive neuronal cell atrophy, and ultimately cell death, as is observed in AD-affected neurons. They also report that adequate intake of dietary fiber can head off the process."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220809141235.htm

What was interesting to me was that elsewhere in the article there was a mention of the bacteria that is likely the source of the neurotoxin responsible, Bacteroides fragilis.

"The researchers found evidence that a molecule containing a very potent microbial-generated neurotoxin (lipopolysaccharide or LPS) derived from the Gram-negative bacteria Bacteroides fragilis in the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract generates a neurotoxin known as BF-LPS."

When you take a look at how diet affects the abundance of Bacteroides fragilis, it appears that plant and non-carnivore diets reduce it:

"A majority of the studies have noted that protein consumption correlates positively with microbial diversity (54). However, animal and plant-proteins influence the gut microbiota in different ways. For instance, individuals consuming a high animal protein diet, from beef which is also high in fat, displayed lower abundances of bacteria, such as Roseburia, Eubacterium rectale, and Ruminococcus bromii, that metabolize dietary plant polysaccharides (51). Populations of bacteria that increase in response to a high animal protein diet when compared to subjects consuming a meatless diet are typically bile-tolerant microorganisms, such as Bacteroides and Clostridia (64). Additionally, a high-protein diet typically limits carbohydrate intake, which may lead to a decrease in butyrate-producing bacteria, and thereby to a proinflammatory state and an increased risk of colorectal cancer (65).

Individuals consuming pea protein exhibit increases in beneficial Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus and decreases in pathogenic Bacteroides fragilis and Clostridium perfringens and, consequently increases in intestinal SCFA levels (54). Likewise, plant-derived proteins have been associated with lower mortality than animal-derived proteins (54)."

On 7/29/2022 at 10:25 AM, Todd Allen said:

Longevity in the blue zones could be due to genetics and living conditions remaining in alignment.  In addition to staying closer to their traditional diets people in these areas tend to have many other factors such as family structure, work and other activities closer to their traditional forms.  These zones provide evidence that it is possible to live a long and healthy life with modest intake of animal based foods but they don't much speak to whether red meat is an inflammatory food and a risk factor for dementia.

I am not certain that this is necessarily the case, as changes in lifestyle and diet do have a significant impact on the studies populations. When Okinawans gained better access to more calorie-dense foods previously rare, such as meet, fish and progressively more processed food, their life expectancy went from being the highest in Japan to one of the lowest, and nowadays they have among the highest rates of CVD in Japan.

6 hours ago, BrianA said:

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

The headline is rather misleading... The reduction is overwhelming among those with significant comorbidities, such as prior MACE. This makes sense and it is in line the Barrington Declaration's call to protect the vulnerable, that resulted in censoring the signatories, personal attacks and bans.


"Created in 2020, the National Institutes of Health’s National COVID Cohort Collaborative is billed as being among the largest collections of secured and deidentified clinical data in the US for COVID-19 research.3 Through a search of the database for patients aged 18-90 years infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020 and February 1, 2022, investigators identified 1,934,294 patients for inclusion in their analyses. Of note, the follow-up period for the study was up to 180 days after infection.1

The overall cohort had a mean age of 45.2 years, 55.9% were women, 81.3% were White, 15.5% were Black, 2.4% were Asian, and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Of the 1,934,294 patients identified for inclusion, 10.1% (n=195,136) were fully vaccinated, 1.2% (n=22,707) were partially vaccinated, and 88.7% (n=1,716,451) were not vaccinated. For the purpose of analysis, fully vaccinated was defined as having received 2 or mRNA vaccines or 1 Johnson and Johnson vaccine 14 days before SARS-CoV-2 infection and partially vaccinated was defined as having received only 1 mRNA vaccine or their second mRNA or 1 Johnson and Johnson vaccine within 14 days of infection.1

Upon analysis, a diagnosis of MACE occurred among 0.7% (n=13,948) of patients included in the study, with MACE occurring among 0.7% (n=12,733) of non-vaccinated patients, 0.7% (n=160) of partially vaccinated patients (0.7%), and 0.5% (n=1055) of fully vaccinated patients. The median time to MACE among the cohort was 17 (Interquartile Range [IQR], 3-67) days, with 3175 patients dying following MACE. Initial analysis demonstrated significant differences in comorbidities among those with MACE compared to their counterparts without previous MACE, including previous MACE (29.1% vs 0.9%; P <.001), type 2 diabetes (33.9% vs 7.5%; P <.001), hyperlipidemia (50.7% vs 14.4%; P <.001), ischemic heart disease (40.6% vs 3.9%; P <.001), liver disease (4.0% vs 0.8%; P <.001), and obesity (29.4% vs 16.4%; P <.001).1

In adjusted models, results indicated both full (Adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.55-0.63]; P <.001) and partial (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.89]; P=.001) were associated with a reduced risk of MACE relative to their counterparts with no vaccination. Further analysis suggested an increased risk of MACE was observed for male sex (aHR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.41-1.51]; P <.001), increasing age, and comorbidities, particularly previous MACE (aHR, 8.16 [95% CI, 7.79-8.55]; P <.001).1"
 

I'd also be curious about the adjustments, as the small number of vaccinated may imply a strong self-selection for those with generally better access to top=notch medical care who are then compared to a group without such access. Not necessarily disputing the study, just pointing out that there are questions.

Hi Alan, you seem to miss the point: You are again attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument they are making on the merits.

Here is the argument Ladapo makes in the letter:

"As Florida's Surgeon General, it was in the public's best interest to issue guidance for using mRNA COVlD-19 vaccines in children and in young men based on the absence of a health benefit in clinical trials. This guidance followed preliminary data analyses by the Florida Department of Health. We continue to refine and expand these findings, including addressing methodological issues inherent to evaluating vaccine safety and efficacy.

In addition to Florida's analysis of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, academic researchers throughout our country and around the globe have seen troubling safety signals of adverse events surrounding this vaccine. Their concerns are corroborated by the substantial increase in VAERS reports from Florida, including life-threatening conditions. We have never seen this type of response following previous mass vaccination efforts pushed by the federal government. Even the HI NI vaccine did not trigger this sort of response. In Florida alone, we saw a 1,700% increase in reports after the release of the COVID-I9 vaccine, compared to an increase of 400% in vaccine administration for the same period. The reporting of lifethreatening conditions increased 4,400%."

All Ladapo is asking is that the Federal government reviews its guidance as it applies to "children and in young men" based on evidence for minimal potential benefit and considerable potential harm. Did you even read and try to understand the argument?

What exactly is your objection to this?

It is pretty well accepted by many experts that there are real potential issues with vaccinating children and young males and it is not unreasonable to to exercise caution and balance the potential benefits and harms. The current guidance in the US out of step with many European countries, who also rely on experts and have often faired better than the US in managing the pandemic.

While you may disagree with what is becoming the prevailing opinion, my question remains: Why do you feel you must attack Ladapo personally, by posting links to what is clearly a biased entry, based to a large extent on select politically-motivated sources?
 

5 hours ago, Guest said:

b) 2 major studies (one of them the largest on metformin that exist) had a censoring problem, i.e. people who took metformin, but had to transition to another drug - because their condition worsened - were counted as "not taking metformin to begin with"; so you're really looking only at the best performing diabetes patients, who because of changes in diet, exercise and metformin did not progress in the disease

Thank you for pointing this out. I have to read those at some point.

A pretty good discussion by a good panel here:
 

The politicization (currently by the Left) of public health and other hereto non-political spheres (such as science, finance and corporate governance) should be opposed by any rational, thinking person.

57 minutes ago, Todd Allen said:

New John Ioannidis study finds COVID-19 was a negligible threat especially for healthy people.

Thanks, Todd!

Interesting study that makes sense in light of what we know, and what we knew fairly early on.

I don't expect to see it mentioned in the NYT or MSNBC, or even most mainstream popular science publications. But I do expect more character assassination attacks against Ioannidis...

Hope it works out, Soul.

Cuban's is an interesting and promising concept, but because of the insurance structure, not as disruptive as I first thought. Still the US badly needs a change:

Mark Cuban’s Online Pharmacy Projected To Disrupt The Prescription Drug Market, But There Are A Few Caveats [Update] (forbes.com)

Two of my dog's heart medications are available, and I am switching, as the savings are close to $100 compared to local pharmacies.

I guess it may not totally disrupt the industry yet other than for generics and for those with high deductibles, but if the word spreads it will disrupt the pet drug industry 🙂

32 minutes ago, Saul said:

I think that they're uncomfortable sending a prescription to Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drug Company.

  --  Saul

That's just weird... do they have relationships with or a stake at the pharmacy they prescribe?

Then I would try Teladoc, see the link I posted above.

Thanks, Mike. I was doing dried parsly for a while (I like the taste and it's easy to travel with), I guess I should buy anothet couple of pounds.

I also do about 150-200g mushrooms a day, usually shiitakes, oyster or portobellos. Lately I have developped a real taste for woodear mushrooms (black fungus), love the crunchy texture -- I get them fresh from Asian stores or dried from Amazon. And I just discovered white fungus, this suff is delicious! But I'll have to eat close to a pound a day to move up my B-3.  Any thoughts on supplementing B-3? Cons especially (other than flushing).

On 2/18/2023 at 2:00 AM, AlanPater said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ladapo

Alan, I appreciate many of your posts, but you have a nasty habit of attacking the person making the argument, rather that the argument itself. It's unbecoming.

What are you trying to imply by the link  thatyou posted? That you don't think doctors from Nigeria should be taken seriously, even if they have their degrees from Harvard?

To boot, woke zealots have been squatting on politically charged topics and have ruined wikipedia, especially over the last few tumultuous years, which is a real pity. But I guess it serves the purpose of facilitating character assassinations by the righteous when they cannot defend their positions on the merits.
 

Wow, Mike, your K is 2000! Impressive, what drives it up there. I'll have to eat something like a dozen Romania lettuce heads to get even close...

An what drives your B-3 intake? My main source is non-fortified nutritional yeast, I am comfortably above RDA but have been wondering if I should try supplementation in between my next blood tests and see what happens.

Finally, I am curious, are you testing lipoprotein (a) and Apo B? If not, why not?

Saul, like Dean above, I am also puzzled why your doctor would not prescribe it -- from reading your posts over the last few years, you sound perfectly reasonable and of sounder judgment than many, and you bring up a valid off-label purpose.

Unless there is a counter-indication or a significant potential of harm that cause your doctor's reluctance, I'd look into something like Teladoc. I've never used them, but they seem to get good reviews.

Otherwise, I'd be really surprised if someone here writes a prescription without establishing a proper professional relationship, as otherwise I could see potential regulatory, as well as significant legal issues.

Well, most people naturally veer toward whatever their confirmation bias may lead them to. If one wants to believe that large amounts of animal protein are good for their health and longevity, there are plenty of "expert" opinion to reassure them. From what I have seen however, and irrespective of my current moral stance, animal protein is generally harmful in the long run compared to whole food plant protein. 

Again, the correlation between muscle mass in an 80 or 90 years old to life expectancy is most likely due to genetics and the ability to maintain muscle mass at such age, rather than looking like Norton at 30.

As often the case with Attia and Patrick, guests may have something to push, Norton is no exception (he pushes supplements and protein shakes).

But I had read an interesting paper discussing "stout" males a while back that sort of made sense, and just found it:

This approach allowed us to eliminate confounding effects of birth cohort, race and place of draft registration on survival. It was found that the ‘stout’ body build (being in the heaviest 15% of population) was negatively associated with survival to age 100 years. Both farming and having large number of children (4+) at age 30 significantly increased the chances of exceptional longevity by 100-200%. The effects of immigration status, marital status, and body height on longevity were less important, 1 and they were statistically insignificant in the studied data set. This study provides the first estimates of height, body build and other vital characteristics for the future centenarians at their young adult ages, and shows that detrimental effects of obesity may have an exceptionally long time range, and that obesity at young adult age (30 years) is predictive for almost three times lower chances of survival to age 100 years.

As the mini-Xis in NY finally stopped forcing hapless travelers to mask in JFK and LaGuardia, and as the Great Leaders of LA were derailed from their attempt to force another mask mandate in Los Angeles, saner voices are again allowed to be heard on YouTube, discussing saner studies:
 

4 hours ago, Gordo said:

Aspergillus is a type of fungus commonly found in soil and decaying organic matter.

More than 15 million people supposedly die annually around the world from causes related to fungal infections and they are found in close to 10 percent of postmortem examinations, if my memory serves me.

I've wondered why there isn't more noise about it, if these numbers are accurate. Although I guess finding a fungal infection doesn't meant it caused the death. In any case, pneumonia pales next to it, with 2-3 million global deaths annually.

7 hours ago, BrianA said:

This company just raised a further $100 million to scale up their upper-room UVC and direct far-UVC room disinfection products.

I guess there always ways to make money when you instill fear in people.

Most of the scary "discoveries" you keep posting about Covid apply to many other viral and/or respiratory infections, including influenza.

But Covid has become a cottage industry and still a sure way to get published. And to sell stuff. and to get funding, often from the hapless taxpayers, including the ones who have emerged from hiding under their beds and moved on.

Interesting, I didn't know that ceramides reduce muscle function, too.

But I don't know if the headline is all that accurate, as increased ceramides are a known potential marker for CVD and all sorts of metabolic problems, including diabetes.

Exercise is known to be quite effective at reducing them and their impact, and so is apparently CR.

So, it seems that Omega-3 supplementation, does increase cholesterol:

Despite their excellent ability to reduce triglycerides naturally, EPA and DHA actually increase LDL cholesterol, concerning some doctors and medical researchers.[4] All types of EPA/DHA seem to have this LDL-increasing effect, including prescription-based fish oil (Lovaza), over-the-counter fish oil supplements, and EPA/DHA supplements made from algae instead of fish.

The purported benefits of such increase being of the "large and fluffy" variety are at least debatable. And at this point I am also dubious about the patented Omega-3 Index test I have paid for a couple of times, as the more I look into it, the less it makes sense except as a supplement-pushing scheme.

It's quite quite telling that it's not easy to find such info about Omega-3s, as virtually all headlines fail to mention this, even when referring to studies that find such an LDL-C increase, despite the "fluffy" qualifications.

@Saul, I am still curious if you are on statins and what is "excellent" as it seems it may be pertinent to one's decision to supplement with Omega-3s.

I'll reserve final judgment for myself until I test again in three months or so, but I have become far more leery of medical headlines, and even many studies lately.

8 minutes ago, mccoy said:

Ron, I may have missed that, but, from what you report, it's lucky that there is one thing (glycine) which doesn't bump up your cholesterol! 

 

Just did a very quick search, so only rats and general info came up:

Glycine:

Internet Scientific Publications (ispub.com)

TMG:

Betaine Information | Mount Sinai - New York