• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 10 votes

Duke's 2009 Health Summary


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:43 PM

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.


Yes I know... MD don't know anything, we're all so much brigther than they are right? It's much better to listen to someone on a forum over the internet than to have a doctor (who usually has a solid understanding of biochemistry and biopathology) following you with test in an adequate clinical setting. MD are all idiots that know nothing about health else than what Pharma is telling 'em.

It's scary to see that this "internet easy-information-acess" phenomenom has gotten people to think they know much better than an MD. Yes, some are pretty bad, like in any profession, hence why i've added (good) doctor. But to say that the person who knows the least on this board probably know much than most doctor... lol...

#122 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 13 January 2010 - 03:26 PM

Arguments from authority shouldn't be convincing from either side. One either has a solid argument that passes muster, or not.

#123 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 13 January 2010 - 09:24 PM

You say that there is no proof whatsoever that 8000iu is safe?? Bull


Re-read. I've never said that. I just said that someone might not need 8000 UI to achieve an optimal level.


You re-read it. Your quote: "This so that anyone who comes here just don't read that taking 8000UI of vitamin D is safe... with no proof whatso ever that it is"

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#124 Jay

  • Guest
  • 406 posts
  • 22
  • Location:New York

Posted 13 January 2010 - 10:00 PM

Mustard, 2500IU per day was sufficient to get me to 50ng/ml. Melamed's study provides evidence that 8000IU might not be safe. It's not perfect evidence and it might indeed turn out to be incorrect (residual confounding?) but it is the best evidence we have right now. Also, doesn't the body naturally stop making vit D at levels around 60ng/ml? If so, isn't that more evidence that 8000IU is not safe long-term?

Edited by Jay, 13 January 2010 - 10:03 PM.


#125 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:36 AM

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.


Yes I know... MD don't know anything, we're all so much brigther than they are right? It's much better to listen to someone on a forum over the internet than to have a doctor (who usually has a solid understanding of biochemistry and biopathology) following you with test in an adequate clinical setting. MD are all idiots that know nothing about health else than what Pharma is telling 'em.

It's scary to see that this "internet easy-information-acess" phenomenom has gotten people to think they know much better than an MD. Yes, some are pretty bad, like in any profession, hence why i've added (good) doctor. But to say that the person who knows the least on this board probably know much than most doctor... lol...


I strongly disagree with this. It is not about any one doc being bad, its about the MD being a generalist, having to know all the basics on such a vastly deep subject. I would put this forums resources, with the ability to search, and probably more importantly ask questions, above 999/1000 doctors advice. But this forum (and more specifically this subforum) is dedicated to a very narrow slice of what comprises all of medical knowledge. So taking into consideration the gargantuan amount of information available pertaining to just this slice of ours, it is not arrogant to believe this will be a more current and up to date resource than an MD who learnt about it at university years prior. There is also something major to be said for many self-taught experts, who often have unique perspectives due to not going through the regular system to obtain their knowledge (low fat anyone?).

Case in point: In the "What blood tests should I do?" thread currently going there around 10 or so tests available that everyone seems to agree are the best blood tests for checking your overall health. Now if you had to chose between the hypothetical top 99.999% 1 out of 1000 doctor I stated above interpreting your results or a thread on ImmInst where a discussion took place and a few of the 'heavy weights' chimed in, which would you chose? For me its no choice :)

#126 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 14 January 2010 - 11:46 AM

Arguments from authority shouldn't be convincing from either side. One either has a solid argument that passes muster, or not.


This is a great point, my disregard for MDs is an authority issue. How do I know they are right? How do I know they are utilising the most up to date information? I can't, so I need to check what they are saying is right. So to deal with this informational asymmetry, you need to find a knowledge resource that has at least as much information as your doctor. Then when you find a resource such as this forum, you end up recreating the asymmetry however this time the weights on your side!

#127 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:04 PM

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.


Yes I know... MD don't know anything, we're all so much brigther than they are right? It's much better to listen to someone on a forum over the internet than to have a doctor (who usually has a solid understanding of biochemistry and biopathology) following you with test in an adequate clinical setting. MD are all idiots that know nothing about health else than what Pharma is telling 'em.

It's scary to see that this "internet easy-information-acess" phenomenom has gotten people to think they know much better than an MD. Yes, some are pretty bad, like in any profession, hence why i've added (good) doctor. But to say that the person who knows the least on this board probably know much than most doctor... lol...


I strongly disagree with this. It is not about any one doc being bad, its about the MD being a generalist, having to know all the basics on such a vastly deep subject. I would put this forums resources, with the ability to search, and probably more importantly ask questions, above 999/1000 doctors advice. But this forum (and more specifically this subforum) is dedicated to a very narrow slice of what comprises all of medical knowledge. So taking into consideration the gargantuan amount of information available pertaining to just this slice of ours, it is not arrogant to believe this will be a more current and up to date resource than an MD who learnt about it at university years prior. There is also something major to be said for many self-taught experts, who often have unique perspectives due to not going through the regular system to obtain their knowledge (low fat anyone?).

Case in point: In the "What blood tests should I do?" thread currently going there around 10 or so tests available that everyone seems to agree are the best blood tests for checking your overall health. Now if you had to chose between the hypothetical top 99.999% 1 out of 1000 doctor I stated above interpreting your results or a thread on ImmInst where a discussion took place and a few of the 'heavy weights' chimed in, which would you chose? For me its no choice :)


I agree with many things you say, i'll just make sure that my stance is clear. MD have a very solid understanding of the human body (neurology, immunology, musulo-squelletal, biochemistry, biopathology, etc, etc.) As such, they know many more whys than someone like me, who has a very limited knowledge about the human body. Also, they are much more easily able to undertand a specific information since they have a solid understanding of the basic, something I cannot easily do. Usually when I learned something specific (such as what is discussed on forum like this) I've got to dig back to the basic to understand why it is like this. Also, they are more likely to make links between different phenomenom much more easily than again, someone like me. They can understand the mechanistic behind something much more easily than I can.

When you want to have yourself a new house, do you start reading on house building and then feel like you could teach the contractor how to do his job? If you need a lawyer do you start studying law and feel like you could represent yourself in a court? It's all good to be an autodidacte, but it's foolish to think that MD don't know much and that simply by reading you can overcome a universitary degree, that is well planned and programmed to make sure you learn everything that you need to do your job.

Yes, they have a lot to learn, and no they cannot learn everything, but assuming that they don't know much and are all retarted is... well I don't know, foolish probably.

Personnally, I think humility is a good things, and i'm not gonna start feeling superior to someone who has a degree in medecine because I read blogs, forums, and few studies here and there.

My basic understand of the human being is far from being equivalent to what a MD has, and I know they understand much more than I do, even if it's not as specific as what I sometime get.

#128 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:10 PM

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.

Wow, that's scary. You do realize the average age of this forum is probably in the early-mid 20s? Probably not even post-college. It is scary to think you would consider someone with probably no knowledge of anatomy, organic chemistry, or pharmacological interactions as a credible source to dispense medical advice.

Personally, I think humility is a good things, and i'm not gonna start feeling superior to someone who has a degree in medecine because I read blogs, forums, and few studies here and there.

My basic understand of the human being is far from being equivalent to what a MD has, and I know they understand much more than I do, even if it's not as specific as what I sometime get.

Exactly, I couldn't agree more.

Edited by Skotkonung, 14 January 2010 - 05:21 PM.


#129 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:20 PM

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.


Yes I know... MD don't know anything, we're all so much brigther than they are right? It's much better to listen to someone on a forum over the internet than to have a doctor (who usually has a solid understanding of biochemistry and biopathology) following you with test in an adequate clinical setting. MD are all idiots that know nothing about health else than what Pharma is telling 'em.

It's scary to see that this "internet easy-information-acess" phenomenom has gotten people to think they know much better than an MD. Yes, some are pretty bad, like in any profession, hence why i've added (good) doctor. But to say that the person who knows the least on this board probably know much than most doctor... lol...


I strongly disagree with this. It is not about any one doc being bad, its about the MD being a generalist, having to know all the basics on such a vastly deep subject. I would put this forums resources, with the ability to search, and probably more importantly ask questions, above 999/1000 doctors advice. But this forum (and more specifically this subforum) is dedicated to a very narrow slice of what comprises all of medical knowledge. So taking into consideration the gargantuan amount of information available pertaining to just this slice of ours, it is not arrogant to believe this will be a more current and up to date resource than an MD who learnt about it at university years prior. There is also something major to be said for many self-taught experts, who often have unique perspectives due to not going through the regular system to obtain their knowledge (low fat anyone?).

Case in point: In the "What blood tests should I do?" thread currently going there around 10 or so tests available that everyone seems to agree are the best blood tests for checking your overall health. Now if you had to chose between the hypothetical top 99.999% 1 out of 1000 doctor I stated above interpreting your results or a thread on ImmInst where a discussion took place and a few of the 'heavy weights' chimed in, which would you chose? For me its no choice :)

This forum should not be a place to receive direct medical advice. General practitioners may be generalists, but they still have more specific knowledge on human anatomy and function than most forum members here. ImmInst should be a place to discuss current research and educate oneself before consulting a doctor / specialist. It is not intended as a substitute for genuine medical advice and consultation.

As for the low-fat regimen, what you are saying is a false dichotomy. Low-fat dietary advice may be out-dated, but it is still safe information to dispense especially in the context of whole foods consumption (not the processed grains and vegetable oils). After all, how many high-fat civilizations boast extreme longevity and low disease rates? Just look at Jack LaLanne, he consumes a low-fat Mediterranean style diet and is still active and exercising daily (2hrs) at age 96. I'm not arguig for low-fat diets, but I do believe they aren't distinctly harmful when processed fat substitutes are removed.

#130 NeverSayDie

  • Guest
  • 135 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC area

Posted 14 January 2010 - 08:52 PM

o Statins do not work, and should be avoided because they give false hope, and have numerous side effects. Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events. (Diet helps, too!)


Couldn't agree more. I said the same thing on another thread and I got bashed.

Although MOST cardiologist disagree (due to unforgivable ignorance), heart disease CAN be reversed in most cases, and dramatically so. But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints. Many cardiologists ARE reversing heart disease.


"But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints."

Ooooh. That is sure to anger some pro-pharma imminst users.

Sure, Dr. Dean Ornish has proven that heart disease can be reversed though diet, excercise, and stress reduction techniques. Zero drugs/ zero surgery.

http://www.hsc.wvu.e...sh/default.aspx

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.


The only problem is that grains and sugar and so ubiquitous that is nearly impossible to avoid them unless you live on an isolated commune and grow all of your own food. You would have to essentially never go out to eat with friends and you certainly would never be able to travel. Eschewing all grains and nearly all fructose would essentially kill your social life, and as we all know, sociability is strong factor in longevity.

Convincing yourself that all grains and nearly all fructose need to be avoided will cause undue dietary stress. I learned this when I was a very strict vegan years ago. I was a fanatic about checking labels, I rarely (if ever) went out to eat with friends because there was nothing I could eat. The stress that this lifestyle gave me far outweighed any benefit that I was receiving from my eating habits. I think that the same applies here.

#131 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 94
  • Location:California

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:18 AM

o Statins do not work, and should be avoided because they give false hope, and have numerous side effects. Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events. (Diet helps, too!)


Couldn't agree more. I said the same thing on another thread and I got bashed.

Although MOST cardiologist disagree (due to unforgivable ignorance), heart disease CAN be reversed in most cases, and dramatically so. But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints. Many cardiologists ARE reversing heart disease.


"But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints."

Ooooh. That is sure to anger some pro-pharma imminst users.

Sure, Dr. Dean Ornish has proven that heart disease can be reversed though diet, excercise, and stress reduction techniques. Zero drugs/ zero surgery.

http://www.hsc.wvu.e...sh/default.aspx

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.


The only problem is that grains and sugar and so ubiquitous that is nearly impossible to avoid them unless you live on an isolated commune and grow all of your own food. You would have to essentially never go out to eat with friends and you certainly would never be able to travel. Eschewing all grains and nearly all fructose would essentially kill your social life, and as we all know, sociability is strong factor in longevity.

Convincing yourself that all grains and nearly all fructose need to be avoided will cause undue dietary stress. I learned this when I was a very strict vegan years ago. I was a fanatic about checking labels, I rarely (if ever) went out to eat with friends because there was nothing I could eat. The stress that this lifestyle gave me far outweighed any benefit that I was receiving from my eating habits. I think that the same applies here.


Agreed. One should have a strict diet 95% of the time. The other 5% just enjoy your time with your friends / family / time out of town / etc. A healthy life needs to be enjoyed, not filled with neurosis.

#132 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 January 2010 - 02:20 AM

o Statins do not work, and should be avoided because they give false hope, and have numerous side effects. Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events. (Diet helps, too!)


Couldn't agree more. I said the same thing on another thread and I got bashed.

Although MOST cardiologist disagree (due to unforgivable ignorance), heart disease CAN be reversed in most cases, and dramatically so. But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints. Many cardiologists ARE reversing heart disease.


"But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints."

Ooooh. That is sure to anger some pro-pharma imminst users.

Sure, Dr. Dean Ornish has proven that heart disease can be reversed though diet, excercise, and stress reduction techniques. Zero drugs/ zero surgery.

http://www.hsc.wvu.e...sh/default.aspx

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.


The only problem is that grains and sugar and so ubiquitous that is nearly impossible to avoid them unless you live on an isolated commune and grow all of your own food. You would have to essentially never go out to eat with friends and you certainly would never be able to travel. Eschewing all grains and nearly all fructose would essentially kill your social life, and as we all know, sociability is strong factor in longevity.

Convincing yourself that all grains and nearly all fructose need to be avoided will cause undue dietary stress. I learned this when I was a very strict vegan years ago. I was a fanatic about checking labels, I rarely (if ever) went out to eat with friends because there was nothing I could eat. The stress that this lifestyle gave me far outweighed any benefit that I was receiving from my eating habits. I think that the same applies here.


Agreed. One should have a strict diet 95% of the time. The other 5% just enjoy your time with your friends / family / time out of town / etc. A healthy life needs to be enjoyed, not filled with neurosis.


Exactly, i allow for 1 day a week to do the friends/family and out on the town type things without worry on what i eat, but every other day, i like to keep it strict:D

#133 gregandbeaker

  • Guest
  • 184 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 16 January 2010 - 06:41 PM

Kurt Harris over at the PaNu Blog has a different take on the 5%

http://www.paleonu.c...cigarettes.html

If you are a vector for cultural change, which way is the arrow pointing?

Wear your Real Food Uniform.

Active Duty.

Fly your freak-flag high.

Say no to the cake.


Personally I can't remember a time where I was peer-pressured into eating something. "I'm not hungry" has always worked for me. You only end up with the wacko-health-freak moniker and start losing friends when you waste your time proselytizing to people that aren't interested.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users