Ron Put

According to Cronometer (NCCDB), taking 4g of cumin powder supplies about 33% of your iron RDA. I mentioned cumin, because I noticed that it is usually high on the list. But thyme, spearmint and marjoram are right up there, too. Are you tracking nutrients with Cronometer? What are your ferritin levels? Are you are questioning your doctor's advice because you think you have anemia, or simply because you are largely plant-based eater? If the latter, I wouldn't worry too much. I am effectively vegan, yet here is my Cronometer list of iron intake and sources for today (the disclaimers about absorption notwithstanding):

A few months ago I tested with the now bankrupt Ubiome and while it claimed that I have a highly diverse microbiome, it made me think about gut bacteria more. I have been drinking kombucha for years now, since I like the taste, but wanted to diversify. So I bought a few bottles of goat milk kefir, but I am trying to stay vegan as much as I can, plus milk kefir is rather calorie-rich. So, I tried a bottle of "Aqua Kefir" by GT's and given it's minimal calories, I decided to read up on it. Long story short, I've ordered some water kefir grains and now I make my own water kefir (it's incredibly easy and it takes only a day or two). In another topic, I was wondering about supplements, including possibly supplementing with biotin, since according to Cronometer, it is the one vitamin I don't get enough of from food. I understand that biotin is synthesized by bacteria, so it's possible that I don't have to supplement, but I am not sure how much is produced, or how bioavailable it is. There isn't a lot of specific information about the nutrient content of water kefir, which is understandable, given the variability of the product. Here is the best site I have found with kefir information (including water kefir): http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefirpage.html#alternativekefir Is anyone else here using kefir or water kefir?

The Office of Generic Drugs follows a rigorous review process to make sure that, compared to the brand-name (or innovator) medications, the proposed generic medications: Contain the same active/key ingredient; Have the same strength; Use the same dosage form (for instance, a tablet, capsule, or liquid); and Use the same route of administration (for instance, oral, topical, or injectable). FDA's review process ensures that generic medications perform the same way in the human body and have the same intended use as the name brand medication. Health care professionals and consumers can be assured that FDA-approved generic drug products have met the same rigid standards as the innovator drug. All generic drugs approved by FDA have the same high quality, strength, purity, and stability as brand-name drugs. In addition, FDA inspects facilities to make certain the generic manufacturing, packaging, and testing sites pass the same quality standards as those of brand-name drugs. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/generic-drugs/overview-basics If we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg and only "several big lawsuits," it would indicate potentially huge windfall opportunities for law firms specializing in such litigation, and such untapped opportunities would certainly attract others. I just don't see this....

RHR seems to be largely hereditary, although it can certainly be lowered to a point with exercise. This may be of interest: Resting heart rate is a heritable trait correlated with life span. Little is known about the genetic contribution to resting heart rate and its relationship with mortality. We performed a genome-wide association discovery and replication analysis starting with 19.9 million genetic variants and studying up to 265,046 individuals to identify 64 loci associated with resting heart rate (P < 5 × 10−8); 46 of these were novel. We then used the genetic variants identified to study the association between resting heart rate and all-cause mortality. We observed that a genetically predicted resting heart rate increase of 5 beats per minute was associated with a 20% increase in mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.28, P = 8.20 × 10−7) translating to a reduction in life expectancy of 2.9 years for males and 2.6 years for females. Our findings provide evidence for shared genetic predictors of resting heart rate and all-cause mortality. https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3708

All good and informative points. Thanks. As to Dean's comment about iron intake, my numbers are within the "normal" range, if on the low end: Ferritin: 30 ng/mL (22-415) HGB: 14.7 g.dL (14.0-18.0) Iron: 127 ug/dL (35-168) I guess absorption really matters, since according to Cronometer I am averaging 300% of dietary Iron RDA, yet my results are relatively low.

This is very interesting, Tom. Great point. Natto seems to also reduce the incidence of CVD, so its osteoarthritis impact may be offset by it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27927636 Or, OA may simply correlate with something else which provides a protective effect, such as lower calcium intake?

Thanks, Dean. Good point on the calcium. I will add it. I do eat natto on periodically, when I buy a fresh batch. The stuff has a lot of protein though and I am already having trouble keeping mine low. I eat 2-3 sheets of nori almost every day, good for iodine (100%+ of RDA), among other things. I am a vegetarian (mostly vegan). For me, it seems easy to get enough iron, see the attached grab from Cronometer. Strontium, hm? I never thought of it. It seems to be found in leafy vegetables, but perhaps not in sufficient amounts. Any drawbacks of taking it as a supplement? I started taking glucosamine again recently, because of studies like this one: https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1628 Similarly for melatonin: https://academic.oup.com/ehjcvp/article/2/4/258/2197075 And Q-10: http://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/horizons-coq10-what-are-the-heart-health-benefits/ I take MSM and milk thistle kind of as liver insurance, and MSM supposedly helps with skin elasticity. I may reconsider MSM, since it may increase methionine production.

I've been thinking about supplements. While I try to get most of my nutrients from foods (non-fortified), I also look at my daily pill assortment and think, "Wow! It's a lot of stuff!" Here is what I take: Curcumin (CurcuWIN 46x absorption): 2 caps Lycopene: 15mg Milk Thistle (30:1 extract): 2 cap Glucosamine HCI: 1500mg MSM: 1500mg Vitamin B12: 1000mg Vitamin D3: 2000 Vitamin K2 (MK-4) Vitamin K2 (MK-7) Alpha GPC: 150mg Coenzyme Q-10: 200mg Melatonin: 3mg Resveratrol (Japanese Knotweed): 1450mg I am thinking of stopping the vitamin K supplementation, since I seem to hit RDA every day now just from food. I am also considering Biotin, since I seem to have trouble getting RDA according to Cronometer (but who knows how accurate it is, since for instance Almonds are not listed as containing any, but they do, as well as most nuts). I am trying to decide on Calcium. I may follow Dean's example and add 250mg per day, since it's not easy to get RDA. BTW, baking soda seems to be especially rich in calcium, I wonder if it has any advantages over a pill? Finally, I periodically go through a bottle of NMN, with maybe 2 month gaps between each bottle. Anything wrong with the above?

Someone close to me, who has been practiced yoga for a couple of decades went to aerial yoga sessions after an injury. My understanding, from listening to conversations among relatively hardcore yoga practitioners, is that is considerably less demanding than regular yoga, so it may be suitable for those for whom regular yoga is too challenging. It looks rather beautiful, however.

I am a vegetarian (90% vegan), so I need to supplement with B12, as I am not sure that at my age sun exposure and sun-exposed mushrooms provide enough daily B12. I also take vitamin D, since my blood levels were at the low end before I started supplementing. As we age, our bodies become much less efficient at providing vitamin D from sunlight -- a 70 year old's vitamin D production efficiency is approximately 25% of a 20 year old's efficiency. As to calcium, dandelion greens, spinach or tofu are probably better (at least for most here) than pizza or ice cream :) Plus, calcium absorption in obese people can be reduced as much as 50%....

Not sure if calcium+vitamin D supplementation has been discussed here, but therre have been some studies which indicate that higher doses can increase arteriosclerosis and the risk of stroke. I take vitamin D (2000 per day) and my OH-25 vitamin D is about 45 ng/mL. I also take calcium occasionally, usually about 1g per day, but skip a month or two between bottles. Now I am thinking of dropping calcium supplementation altogether. Here are a couple of articles on the subject and it appears that high doses (over 1g) of calcium may be the culprit (but also, other studies show that high doses of vitamin D are detrimental). "Recent studies of the effect of calcium supplementation on the risks of heart attack and stroke have reached conflicting conclusions, so the researchers used three different scenarios based on results from previous studies. The high-risk model predicted that more than 10 000 heart attacks and strokes would be caused by supplemental calcium and vitamin D in a group of 100 000 65 year old women, whereas the medium-risk model predicted about 5000. Both models showed that the number of years of high-quality life lost by taking calcium was higher than the number of years of high-quality life saved by preventing broken bones." But other studies seem to indicate that the culprit is high doses of supplements. https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/05/calcium-supplements-can-increase-risk-of-heart-attack-stroke/ This one seems to blame calcium alone: Risk of Ischemic Stroke Associated With Calcium Supplements With or Without Vitamin D: A Nested Case‐Control Study Background There is controversy surrounding the risk of ischemic stroke associated with the use of calcium supplements either in monotherapy or in combination with vitamin D. Methods and Results A nested case‐control study was performed with patients aged 40 to 89 years old, among whom a total of 2690 patients had a first episode of nonfatal ischemic stroke and for which 19 538 controls were randomly selected from the source population and frequency‐matched with cases for age, sex, and calendar year. Logistic regression provided the odds ratios while adjusting for confounding factors. A sensitivity analysis was performed by restricting to patients who were new users of calcium supplements as either monotherapy or with vitamin D. Calcium supplementation with vitamin D was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.08) in the population as a whole or under any of the conditions examined (dose, duration, background cardiovascular risk, sex, or age). Calcium supplement monotherapy was not associated with an increased risk in the population as a whole (odds ratio 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–1.61), although a significant increased risk at high doses (≥1000 mg/day: odds ratio 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–3.49; <1000 mg: odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–1.26) compared with nonuse was observed. The sensitivity analysis did not affect the inferences, with similar results observed among new users as to the overall study population. Conclusions This study suggests that calcium supplements given as monotherapy at high doses may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, whereas their combination with vitamin D seems to offset this hazard.

For someone born today, buying a large swath of land in Siberia may be better than a bond, at less than US$10 per acre. Flip it to a Chinese housing development in a decade or two :D

Yep, thanks for that. It makes sense. An appetite suppressant would appear to be a miracle pleiotropic drug for those who are overweight and are experiencing weight-related issues. Not so much so for the majority who lurk here.

I thought Aquinas had settled the question -- it depends on how pointy the needle is. Since angels can't occupy the same space, when the needle's point gets crowded, the newcomers would have to bump some angels off the point of the needle. I wonder if those bumped off fall up or down? Would Sibiriak's cats think a fallen angel is worth less than the bumper?

Hm, it should in fact be free. If successful, it would be tremendously profitable for the service provider. I personally wouldn't do it if free, as I don't believe it is likely to be beneficial. But others may have different take and priorities. But the million dollars price tag makes it look less like a study and more like physhing for suckers....

I'd try to get iron from food, rather than supplements (learn to like cumin :) If you don't have significant symptoms, such as shortness of breath, heart palpitations, etc., I would go with your doctor says and not worry.

Thanks for the study, Sibiriak. Interesting. As to "living in the Antarctic year round versus keeping the thermostat at home low," my guess is that their cold exposure, even in the Antarctic, was less significant than wearing a cold vest for hours each day. What is the surface temperature of the cold vest? “Given the small number of participants, the results of our study should be viewed with caution,” explains Alexander Stahn, adding: “They do, however, provide important information, namely – and this is supported by initial findings in mice – that extreme environmental conditions can have an adverse effect on the brain and, in particular, the production of new nerve cells in the hippocampal dentate gyrus.”

Humans are just another animal (as a somewhat related aside, I highly recommend "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari, if you haven't read it) and it doesn't make evolutionary sense that value-judgments are exclusive to us. My dog makes value judgments every day. But as I noted above, the ability to construct complex value systems is not needed - prokaryotic cells may not be capable of value judgments (as we are using the term here), but will still defend their life by reacting to irritants and by aggregating into colonies to increase their chance of survival.

Who said anything about "human" values? And technically, life is a prerequisite for all values....

For the majority of living things, life is a good in itself, as it is the entire world. Those for whom it is not, have the power to end it (and thus their world). Or they can, while alive and sentient, conjure up a substitute good.

pot

Yep, except i wouldn't use the term "anthropic." The world, as one knows it, is born and dies with one's sentience. The world (according to Ron) was born when I first perceived it, and it will die when I stop perceiving it. The same for the world of my dog. Or, the world of every other sentient being. Which is why I try to not participate in the destruction of other worlds (a.k.a. "vegetarian"). I am certainly not a theist, and based on the above, I don't see the need for theism. Technically, theism conflicts with sentience, as each sentient being is "The Creator." The meaning of life is life itself. And the continuous understanding thereof.

Yes, very interesting. For those interested, here is the full text of the Nature article, courtesy of Springer Nature Sharedit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0673-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=KNoV30mwVcJt6caMhLFJBNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MI3Y1S6inq9eI1Y5GonWP6JFlmolgaRSsCpoEwhbJBYMH7Psy1aPzylwS8ZZ6F4MusemkSmr6GNez365YT4LlwlMDiaH6S2jbZy3StYDOYe-K6Q_Zf1oetyeePsgjBibL1Z51rQPflLfE7LI_mThA_CMTHd6G7l4QDcPo7BNOG2mqi9f11mecGTk4yg7m6km5nj7Gge3sH_w_ZVyhrU4VQ9pwctqxtQHTVmNmKN2iQTPSy15_BusAmqap6Jct5oOXojCdItaWghzW-MCiO8y1Mbjyk4VUnAD95IB0Lwrs7PA%3D%3D&amp;tracking_referrer=www.npr.org

Another day, another Tom conspiracy theory: now the uber-rich are out to make America homeless.... I am somewhat familiar with some of the issues involved and often stay in Downtown LA. DTLA's homeless problem is worse than NY's ever was, and probably even worse than in SF. Unfortunately, the images here are commonplace. But, the fact is that on an average night, LA shelters have between 50%-70% occupancy. VA shelters traditionally have 50%-60% or less occupancy. Which tells you that for many, homelessness has little to do with available housing or housing prices. It has more to do with mental illness, addiction and to some extent, a choice. Shelters and city housing have policies governing behavior and alcohol and drug use, and many prefer to stay on the street, rather than abide by the rules. Many may not be able to make a rational choice, but in most jurisdictions they cannot be compelled into shelters or rehabilitation programs. In addition to those with mental health or addiction problems (60%-70%), there are former inmates and vagrants who travel around, engaging in mostly petty crime -- many of those you find begging at stop lights are there to sell drugs -- which is why you see the same relatively able-bodied men, often "working" in shifts. Most such corners, as well as most blocks on Skid Row, are run by gangs. And of course, we have a whole cottage industry of "non-profits," which relies on the ever increasing budgets allocated to homelessness ($2.5bn just in the City ofLA, if I recall). Which brings me to loitering laws: Your accusation of "evil vicious laws... feeding the industrial prison system" can be applied to any law you don't like, and be just as meaningless. The point of such laws is so I should not be able to invite a few friends to get drunk or shoot up at the entrance to your store, and then defecate on the sidewalk in front of it. And then do it again tomorrow, and the day after.... My guess is, you don't live in an urban environment, so you never have to deal with it. Anyway, I wasn't going to engage further, since it does no good in this case, but here I am.... And that's the last I'll write on the subject here. Cheers.

I guess I agree with Dean, again.... And I guess I disagree with the logic of Tom's argument, again: Budget cuts cannot be the main reason homelessness has become ubiquitous in major American cities today. The fact is, welfare spending as a percent of GDP has increased dramatically since the 1960s. What is far more likely to be the cause can be traced to Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s which declared most vagrancy and loitering laws unconstitutional, and to the ACLUs mid-1970s win which resulted in the closing of a large portion of state-run mental facilities over the next couple of decades. Add to this the nonsensical drug policies of the latter half of the 20th century, which criminalize addiction. Add to it the screwy and expensive healthcare system in the US, which is still the main cause for personal bankruptcies. And yes, shifting the main tax burden to the middle class has not helped, either. Government policies and charities have for decades worked to effectively encourage the robust procreation of those least capable of taking care of themselves or their children, mostly without a thought about effective family planning and without a plan for what to do with the resulting exploding population. Which is, in fact, the main cause of the environmental crisis we are all facing. As the old adage goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."