Posted 24 March 2017 - 12:30 AM
I am interested in taking cholesterol as a supplement. It doesn't cause heart disease, anyone with any bit of knowledge will know that (it's lipoprotein(a) that does it). I am a bit curious whether I would at all be able to notice a difference from taking it as the body produces huge amounts of it.
Has anyone tried it?
Posted 24 March 2017 - 11:53 AM
Think the endogenic production of cholesterol is too tightly regulated and dependent on other factors like inflammation, for making too much of a difference.
I am a bit curious whether I would at all be able to notice a difference from taking it as the body produces huge amounts of it.
I did in fact go from a almost zero-cholesterol diet to a zero-sugar diet with above 300 mg/d cholesterol. And along with supplementation (everything else but cholesterol) my cholesterol improved in average 40% (HDL up, LDL and trigs down) during years. What worsens my serum cholesterols predictably is even only slightly elevated liver enzymes.
But I don't think drinking too much to elevate liver enzymes - and with it serum cholesterol - would be a good idea. 
PS: I've been deficient in dhea and testosterone. Took a long time to bring it up with supplementation. Along with higher serum levels my lp(a) halved. And as soon as I stop supplementing dhea lp(a) jumps up again.
Edited by pamojja, 24 March 2017 - 12:04 PM.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 01:39 PM
Think the endogenic production of cholesterol is too tightly regulated and dependent on other factors like inflammation, for making too much of a difference.
I did in fact go from a almost zero-cholesterol diet to a zero-sugar diet with above 300 mg/d cholesterol. And along with supplementation (everything else but cholesterol) my cholesterol improved in average 40% (HDL up, LDL and trigs down) during years. What worsens my serum cholesterols predictably is even only slightly elevated liver enzymes.
But I don't think drinking too much to elevate liver enzymes - and with it serum cholesterol - would be a good idea.
PS: I've been deficient in dhea and testosterone. Took a long time to bring it up with supplementation. Along with higher serum levels my lp(a) halved. And as soon as I stop supplementing dhea lp(a) jumps up again.
The only thing I would worry about is the lp(a), everything else is not actually bad (in terms of arterial plaque), been proven time and time again. Nicotinic acid will solve all of those issues anyway and prevent atherosclerosis.
For people with cholesterol synthesis disorders supplementing cholesterol does supposedly make a difference. It's even been suggested for the treatment of autism.
What I'm more after is cholesterol sulfate, which is what causes us to feel good from sun exposure (it's not vitamin D, tested it again and again). Can you supplement cholesterol sulfate? Where would you buy it?
Posted 24 March 2017 - 01:52 PM
The only thing I would worry about is the lp(a), everything else is not actually bad (in terms of arterial plaque), been proven time and time again. Nicotinic acid will solve all of those issues anyway and prevent atherosclerosis.
Higher cholesterol for me is associated with inflammation and liver troubles. Though not the cause but rather the bodies healing response. Still, nothing to feel glad about it's neccesary in the first place. Also taking high dose nicotinic acid possibly confounds my liver difficulties.
For people with cholesterol synthesis disorders supplementing cholesterol does supposedly make a difference. It's even been suggested for the treatment of autism.
What indication you've got you're suffering from cholesterol synthesis disorder?
What I'm more after is cholesterol sulfate, which is what causes us to feel good from sun exposure (it's not vitamin D, tested it again and again). Can you supplement cholesterol sulfate? Where would you buy it?
Without a cholesterol synthesis disorder, I would make sure not to be deficient in sulfur, which is available for supplementation everywhere.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 02:11 PM
Higher cholesterol for me is associated with inflammation and liver troubles. Though not the cause but rather the bodies healing response. Still, nothing to feel glad about it's neccesary in the first place. Also taking high dose nicotinic acid possibly confounds my liver difficulties.
What indication you've got you're suffering from cholesterol synthesis disorder?
Without a cholesterol synthesis disorder, I would make sure not to be deficient in sulfur, which is available for supplementation everywhere.
Nicotinic acid is antiinflammatory in multiple tissues so chances are it might help you. The liver issue is overstated intentionally as a part of the anti-supplement garbage you'll find on the Internet about every supplement except the patented ones.
I think you missed my point on cholesterol's efficacy in certain people. Obviously I don't have a cholesterol deficiency, that's obviously not the point. The point is that cholesterol ingestion is claimed to have no effect on serum cholesterol or on any of the body's processes, but the fact that supplementation works at least in some people seems to negate that idea.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 02:22 PM
Why?
Because I have a UV-B lamp (no opioid interaction like with UV-A) and it makes me feel good, great energy, great libido, great boost in testosterone and estrogen. I thought about what could cause this and I narrowed it down to two possible explanations:
1. Increased vitamin D synthesis.
2. Increased cholesterol sulfate (or whatever cholesterol it is) synthesis.
Very high doses of vitamin D can hardly be felt and when it can be felt it feels nothing whatsoever like my UV-B lamp does.
So... drum roll please... I think it's the cholesterol sulfate.
Now, UV-B radiation causes dna damage and I've gotten a nasty sunburn from using this expensive machine before, so I'd rather just supplement the cholesterol sulfate itself than damage my dna and increase my risk of skin cancer. There's no way to mitigate this risk as far as I know without decreasing the efficacy of the lamp (like sunscreen, melanotan-2, etc.) because even if you take antioxidants or increase dna repair somehow, you will still have an increased amount of dna damage occurring.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:06 PM
Nicotinic acid is antiinflammatory in multiple tissues so chances are it might help you. The liver issue is overstated intentionally as a part of the anti-supplement garbage you'll find on the Internet about every supplement except the patented ones.
I used in average 3 g/d of nicotinic acid since more than 8 years, if it had an anti-inflammatory action in multiple tissues I don't know. However, I did track inflammation with many lab-marker during this time and didn't show. I don't simply repeat anti-supplement garbage, but it's my own experience that when I started niacin also the first time liver enzymes got elevated (slightly, not of real concern in my case). Taking breaks helps to bring them down.
I think you missed my point on cholesterol's efficacy in certain people. Obviously I don't have a cholesterol deficiency, that's obviously not the point. The point is that cholesterol ingestion is claimed to have no effect on serum cholesterol or on any of the body's processes, but the fact that supplementation works at least in some people seems to negate that idea.
Didn't miss the point about it's possibly efficacy in certain people, but that this for you was only a theoretical question not applying to yourself.
Now, UV-B radiation causes dna damage and I've gotten a nasty sunburn from using this expensive machine before, so I'd rather just supplement the cholesterol sulfate itself than damage my dna and increase my risk of skin cancer. There's no way to mitigate this risk as far as I know without decreasing the efficacy of the lamp (like sunscreen, melanotan-2, etc.) because even if you take antioxidants or increase dna repair somehow, you will still have an increased amount of dna damage occurring.
Have you found data that with sufficient antioxidants there will be still dna damage occurring?
Haven't yet found such a study applicable to my own situation, where after starting a comprehensive supplementation regime 8 years ago didn't get any sunburns anymore. And I tested it under very adverse condition, by going for 6 weeks to an Indian beach in the middle of each winter and laying in the sun for at least 2 hours from the first day. Only very gradually get a tan. Don't use any suncream.
Edited by pamojja, 24 March 2017 - 08:11 PM.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:24 PM
"The cells of the old mice were indistinguishable from the young mice, after just one week of treatment," said lead author Professor David SinclairI used in average 3 g/d of nicotinic acid since more than 8 years, if it had an anti-inflammatory action in multiple tissues I don't know. However, I did track inflammation with many lab-marker during this time and didn't show. I don't simply repeat anti-supplement garbage, but it's my own experience that when I started niacin also the first time liver enzymes got elevated (slightly, not of real concern in my case). Taking breaks helps to bring them down.
Read more at: https://medicalxpres...-aging.html#jCp
Have you found data that with sufficient antioxidants there will be still dna damage occurring?
Haven't yet found such a study applicable to my own situation, where after starting a comprehensive supplementation regime 8 years ago didn't get any sunburns anymore. And I tested it under very adverse condition, by going for 6 weeks to an Indian beach in the middle of each winter and laying in the sun for at least 2 hours from the first day. Only very gradually get a tan. Don't use any suncream.
You've used such a dose of niacin for 8 years straight? Wow! I would love to know your experiences since I have an idea in my head that niacin has anti-aging properties. Surely you've got stories to tell.
As far as its anti-inflammatory properties are concerned, they're definitely real but only some tissues like so many of its other effects. Brain, endothelial, some other cells. And how strong are these effects?`That's also another thing.
I do believe someone said that niacin is pro-inflammatory while also anti-inflammatory, depending on tissue and other factors.
As for UV radiation induced dna damage, I was going by pure assumption. I don't understand why we're supposed to produce melanin (and that other chemical) to protect us from the sun, which melanin is very efficient at, if melanin also prevents vitamin D production. Surely the body could produce strong antioxidants in the skin cells. This way our skin would be light and we would be able to actually absorb the radiation and produce vitamin D while having almost no chance of skin cancer (like with the very dark-skinned people of Africa, their chance of skin cancer is very low).
Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:51 PM
You've used such a dose of niacin for 8 years straight? Wow! I would love to know your experiences since I have an idea in my head that niacin has anti-aging properties. Surely you've got stories to tell.
Nothing special about vitamin B3 (http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=606279). But I anyway had more believe in the synergies of all vitamins, minerals, amino aids and phyto-nutrients balanced, along with good diet and many more factors.
The only spectacular I could tell is that I could reverse a 60% disability due to PAD from a 80% stenosis at my abdomal aorta with such a comprehensive approach. Still some more to do in respect to remaining CFS symptoms.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:14 PM
Nothing special about vitamin B3 (http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=606279). But I anyway had more believe in the synergies of all vitamins, minerals, amino aids and phyto-nutrients balanced, along with good diet and many more factors.
The only spectacular I could tell is that I could reverse a 60% disability due to PAD from a 80% stenosis at my abdomal aorta with such a comprehensive approach. Still some more to do in respect to remaining CFS symptoms.
Sorry, am I understanding you correctly, you're saying that you reversed pulmonary artery disease? In other words, niacin has anti-atherosclerotic effects -- which I do believe.
I am not sure if I've asked you before, my name recall has always been exceptionally poor, what is your age (like 20-30s, 40-50s)?
You seem to know a deal so I am not sure if I can help you but as for CFS, assuming you're thinking of chronic fatigue syndrome, I've come to understand it as a problem of excessive serotonin (in myself), 5ht2a receptor.
Edited by PeaceAndProsperity, 24 March 2017 - 09:16 PM.
Posted 24 March 2017 - 10:14 PM
Nothing special about vitamin B3 (http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=606279). But I anyway had more believe in the synergies of all vitamins, minerals, amino aids and phyto-nutrients balanced, along with good diet and many more factors.
The only spectacular I could tell is that I could reverse a 60% disability due to PAD from a 80% stenosis at my abdomal aorta with such a comprehensive approach. Still some more to do in respect to remaining CFS symptoms.
Sorry, am I understanding you correctly, you're saying that you reversed pulmonary artery disease? In other words, niacin has anti-atherosclerotic effects -- which I do believe.
I am not sure if I've asked you before, my name recall has always been exceptionally poor, what is your age (like 20-30s, 40-50s)?
You seem to know a deal so I am not sure if I can help you but as for CFS, assuming you're thinking of chronic fatigue syndrome, I've come to understand it as a problem of excessive serotonin (in myself), 5ht2a receptor.
PAD = peripheral arterial disease. Personally think the high vitamin C and lysine combo ala Linus Pauling had more effects than niacin could ever had, beside the already mentioned synergies (though I do believe in high dose, it has to be balanced with all other involved nutrients. Otherwise worse imbalances might result). At least that's my impression from punctually discontinuing supplements for some time, and the respective return of symptoms.
Also not so sure of the anti-atherosclerotic effect. Definitely my whole regime stopped it from growing, considering that arterial plaque grows at 30% annually in average (even with statins). However, funnily my 80% blockage remained exactly the same. So I rather subscribe an angiogenetic effect and vast revascularisation to the recovery from disability due to intermittent claudication.
CFS seems to be a diagnosis of exclusion. If the fatigue and post-exertional malaise can be explained by organic damage, it wouldn't even classify as that. Even if I didn't have a badly damaged aorta, I don't think science has really settled on a singe cause for classical CFS/ME. Certainly doesn't means that a particular receptor couldn't be involved in a particular individual. Did you find something which helped you?
Edited by pamojja, 24 March 2017 - 10:18 PM.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 11:45 AM
You've used such a dose of niacin for 8 years straight? Wow! I would love to know your experiences since I have an idea in my head that niacin has anti-aging properties.
I used 3 grams a day for about 25 years, and had no problem with it other than the acidity and the occasional flushing that had people asking me if I had a sunburn. I wasn't aging much at all until someone convinced me that it caused liver damage. So I stopped, and began to age rapidly as a result (which I only saw in retrospect). Today I take a gram of nicotinamide and a few grams of ribose once a week. This is far better than niacin as an anti-aging NAD+ precursor, and better than NR as well as NR has to be broken down to nicotinamide and ribose to be absorbed, a process that takes several hours.
As for cholesterol, the hysterical fear of this important substance has been whipped up by the drug industry, which has created a modern version of bloodletting. High cholesterol is a very minor risk factor for younger people, and for older people, it appears to be protective, especially if one doesn't smoke and has systolic pressure under 140. For women, it's not a problem at all. For men, there is a best cholesterol level, but it's in what's normally considered a high range.
See these large scale studies--
From a New Haven study with 1000 participants--
Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years.
A Japanese study with more than 3,500 participants, ages 71-93--
Relative risks for mortality were 0.72, 0.60, and 0.65, in the second, third, and fourth quartiles, respectively, with quartile 1 as reference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...holesterol 2001
And the Norwegian HUNT 2 study was the largest of all, with 52,000 participants who were followed for ten years. They concluded—
If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 March 2017 - 12:10 PM.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 01:43 PM
I used 3 grams a day for about 25 years, and had no problem with it other than the acidity and the occasional flushing that had people asking me if I had a sunburn. I wasn't aging much at all until someone convinced me that it caused liver damage. So I stopped, and began to age rapidly as a result (which I only saw in retrospect). Today I take a gram of nicotinamide and a few grams of ribose once a week. This is far better than niacin as an anti-aging NAD+ precursor, and better than NR as well as NR has to be broken down to nicotinamide and ribose to be absorbed, a process that takes several hours.
As for cholesterol, the hysterical fear of this important substance has been whipped up by the drug industry, which has created a modern version of bloodletting. High cholesterol is a very minor risk factor for younger people, and for older people, it appears to be protective, especially if one doesn't smoke and has systolic pressure under 140. For women, it's not a problem at all. For men, there is a best cholesterol level, but it's in what's normally considered a high range.
See these large scale studies--
From a New Haven study with 1000 participants--
Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years.
A Japanese study with more than 3,500 participants, ages 71-93--
Relative risks for mortality were 0.72, 0.60, and 0.65, in the second, third, and fourth quartiles, respectively, with quartile 1 as reference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...holesterol 2001
And the Norwegian HUNT 2 study was the largest of all, with 52,000 participants who were followed for ten years. They concluded—
If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
So if higher cholesterol is good for people past a certain age, then the question asked in the OP is a good one. Should it be taken as a supplement by certain people, and what is the best source of it? Certainly there is a lot of cholesterol being recycled, but how much is being made by the liver and how much is consumed? I see one source saying 1-2 g are produced daily, but doesn't give a reference.
Good post.
Interesting with the nicotinamide and riboside. Is it cheaper to take each on its own instead of as the patented drug? Would be rather amusing..
Now you really make me want to try cholesterol powder. According to google there is about 375mg of cholesterol pr 100gram of boiled eggs. Two eggs make a little over 100g so you'd need to eat around 6 eggs to get 1g of cholesterol. Somehow this doesn't make sense to me, otherwise eating so much eggs would make a noticeable difference on hormone production. I think that either the cholesterol isn't boiavailable or it's absorbed but somehow made useless in the body.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 02:37 PM
Now you really make me want to try cholesterol powder. According to google there is about 375mg of cholesterol pr 100gram of boiled eggs. Two eggs make a little over 100g so you'd need to eat around 6 eggs to get 1g of cholesterol. Somehow this doesn't make sense to me, otherwise eating so much eggs would make a noticeable difference on hormone production. I think that either the cholesterol isn't boiavailable or it's absorbed but somehow made useless in the body.
Even increasing to eating 2 eggs per day only did significantly lower my endogenous cholesterol production. Please report back once you tested it yourself and at what dose.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:11 PM
Interesting with the nicotinamide and riboside. Is it cheaper to take each on its own instead of as the patented drug? Would be rather amusing..
I doubt there is anything but use patents on NR, as it has been long known. And it is certainly cheaper to take the components. One gram of nicotinamide with an excess of ribose would be equivalent to more than two grams of NR.
2 grams of Niagen NR--$4.40
vs
1 gram of nicotinamide--$0.15
4 grams of ribose--$0.15
So taking the predigested components with ribose in stoichiometric excess will cost 30 cents, while the equivalent amount of NR (based on the nicotinamide content) costs nearly 15 times as much. Another advantage to using the components is they are absorbed quickly, while NR has to be broken apart by enzymes, which can take hours.
Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 March 2017 - 03:17 PM.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:41 PM
I doubt there is anything but use patents on NR, as it has been long known. And it is certainly cheaper to take the components. One gram of nicotinamide with an excess of ribose would be equivalent to more than two grams of NR.
I wonder what all the shills for NR will have to say about this.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:53 PM
I doubt there is anything but use patents on NR, as it has been long known. And it is certainly cheaper to take the components. One gram of nicotinamide with an excess of ribose would be equivalent to more than two grams of NR.I wonder what all the shills for NR will have to say about this.
Turnbuckle and you are probably right about NR.
Nicotinamide (2g ed) had pretty good effect on my efforts to lean out. I will start taking it with ribose, to see if it amplifies the effects of nicotinamide.
Edited by SearchHorizon, 25 March 2017 - 04:06 PM.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 04:06 PM
As for the OP - I have read some posts claiming positive effects of taking additional cholesterol.
However, I am skeptical - there are many pathways from cholesterol production to other biochemicals. Increasing any of those would have very different effects on one's body. I don't see how increasing cholesterol intake would preferentially drive the ratios of these chemicals toward more healthful state.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 04:35 PM
Even increasing to eating 2 eggs per day only did significantly lower my endogenous cholesterol production. Please report back once you tested it yourself and at what dose.
So eating eggs is superior to statins? LOL.
Anyway, I am willing to buy the cholesterol powder but I can only find alibaba as a supplier. The issue is that I've bought what my gov. stupidly considers "steroids" before and they were seized in customs and I have yet to have the case closed with the gov. so buying bulk cholesterol powder would probably look suspicious in their stupid minds, they'd probably think I was trying to create steroids from the bulk cholesterol (can you even do that?)...stupid liberal governments... Although I contacted my gov. and was assured it's legal to import so long as it's in amounts to be used for personal use (how the hell would they determine this?)..
So, bulk is probably out of the option, especially if it is from China as most things from China tend to have customs inspections.
But have anyone bought from Alibaba before? Do they tell customs what the package contains? Is their packaging discreet or not?
If anyone could help me find a supplier for Europe (prefer within Europe but not necessary) I would appreciate it. The issue with finding a supplier is that the anti-cholesterol supps are everywhere so searching simply for cholesterol on any search engine will not yield any relevant results.
I found a guy or company selling cholesterol to treat disorders of cholesterol metabolism including autism but I can't figure out what that website was..
Posted 26 March 2017 - 01:06 AM
Edited by Rocket, 26 March 2017 - 01:10 AM.
Posted 26 March 2017 - 11:59 AM
Why not go for a natural cholesterol route, like a couple of raw eggs a day? I usually have 2 a day and my lipids always come back as very good. I also supplement with large doses of niacin so maybe that helps my lipids. I would stay away from overseas cholesterol powder when eggs are so available and cheap. What evidence is there that egg cholesterol isn't bioavailable? Its as all natural as possible. I purposely eat them raw for the cholesterol in a natural state without being changed by cooking.
Unfortunately I have a poultry allergy or intolerance. Oddly it's on and off, sometimes I can eat it pretty fine and other times my body (somewhere farther down than my throat) produces huge amounts of a thick saliva that blocks my breathing and causes serious annoyances. With raw eggs my tongue burns and gets a bit swollen.
Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:38 PM
What I'm more after is cholesterol sulfate, which is what causes us to feel good from sun exposure (it's not vitamin D, tested it again and again). Can you supplement cholesterol sulfate? Where would you buy it?
Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:51 PM
I used 3 grams a day for about 25 years, and had no problem with it other than the acidity and the occasional flushing that had people asking me if I had a sunburn. I wasn't aging much at all until someone convinced me that it caused liver damage. So I stopped, and began to age rapidly as a result (which I only saw in retrospect). Today I take a gram of nicotinamide and a few grams of ribose once a week. This is far better than niacin as an anti-aging NAD+ precursor, and better than NR as well as NR has to be broken down to nicotinamide and ribose to be absorbed, a process that takes several hours.
Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:54 PM
Now you really make me want to try cholesterol powder. According to google there is about 375mg of cholesterol pr 100gram of boiled eggs. Two eggs make a little over 100g so you'd need to eat around 6 eggs to get 1g of cholesterol. Somehow this doesn't make sense to me, otherwise eating so much eggs would make a noticeable difference on hormone production. I think that either the cholesterol isn't boiavailable or it's absorbed but somehow made useless in the body.
Even increasing to eating 2 eggs per day only did significantly lower my endogenous cholesterol production. Please report back once you tested it yourself and at what dose.
Edited by ironfistx, 27 March 2017 - 07:56 PM.
Posted 27 March 2017 - 08:02 PM
I used 3 grams a day for about 25 years, and had no problem with it other than the acidity and the occasional flushing that had people asking me if I had a sunburn. I wasn't aging much at all until someone convinced me that it caused liver damage. So I stopped, and began to age rapidly as a result (which I only saw in retrospect). Today I take a gram of nicotinamide and a few grams of ribose once a week. This is far better than niacin as an anti-aging NAD+ precursor, and better than NR as well as NR has to be broken down to nicotinamide and ribose to be absorbed, a process that takes several hours.
Here, I thought niacinimide was worse than niacin because it inactivated SIRT-1 or had a behavior like that. I don't recall which young gene it was.
Nicotinamide + a stoichiometric excess of ribose should be more like NR than NR itself, since NR must be broken down to be absorbed, and likely some ribose is lost and not recombined. NR is said to increase Sirt-1 expression.
Posted 27 March 2017 - 08:26 PM
I think that either the cholesterol isn't boiavailable or it's absorbed but somehow made useless in the body.
Even increasing to eating 2 eggs per day only did significantly lower my endogenous cholesterol production.
Is this post suggesting if you get external cholesterol your body stops making it?
I think it would be impossible to survive without endogenous cholesterol production. In some individuals it might be defective to some degree only, and with exogenous it doesn't have to be synthesized that much.
Still, if one is after cholesterol sulfate the part which can't be produced endogenously and has to be provided is enough sulfur (and sun).
Posted 27 March 2017 - 09:27 PM
Anyone want to help me find a source for cholesterol sulfate? I wanna try it badly. It seems it has a ton of benefits on hormone production, or at least my UV-B lamp does.
Too bad you have a poultry allergy, as eggs would seem the ideal source as they are rich in both cholesterol and sulfur containing cysteine. And the newly crowned oldest person alive attributes her longevity to consuming 3 raw eggs/day.
Edited by Turnbuckle, 27 March 2017 - 09:27 PM.
Posted 27 March 2017 - 10:27 PM
Anyone want to help me find a source for cholesterol sulfate? I wanna try it badly. It seems it has a ton of benefits on hormone production, or at least my UV-B lamp does.
Too bad you have a poultry allergy, as eggs would seem the ideal source as they are rich in both cholesterol and sulfur containing cysteine. And the newly crowned oldest person alive attributes her longevity to consuming 3 raw eggs/day.
But isn't uv radiation absolutely necessary to make the cholesterol sulfate? Otherwise I don't get it.. because eating eggs feels nothing like a uv-b lamp. And I've eaten a lot of eggs (again, it may be egg intolerance, not sure)
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
