- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lipitor side effects
Posted on 8/10/18 at 6:53 pm to Salamander_Wilson
Posted on 8/10/18 at 6:53 pm to Salamander_Wilson
I've heard this statin in drinking water thing before; scary shite if they could influence the right people. I'd like to think it's impossible, but we have fluoride added for a (potential) benefit that isn't life or death...
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 6:54 pm
1
Posted on 8/13/18 at 12:26 am to LSUfan20005
I just came across this. Peter Attia has a more elegant write up about what I was getting at. I am terrible at putting my thoughts into coherent meaning.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 3:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:This is a preposterously unsupported claim. If you're a doctor, please stop repeating it.
The reality is that the "healthiest" diet is a near vegetarian diet that limits any meat intake to seafood and skinless chicken on occasion
quote:Saturated fats DO NOT cause inflammation and insulin resistance. Please stop repeating this nonsense.
Both simple carbohydrates and trans/saturated fats are very pro-inflammatory, increase insulin resistance/obesity, lower HDL, etc.
quote:
This is just nonsense. Most of the 2000-3000 year old mummies examined from Egypt had some degree of CVD, many severe. It's what killed Ramsis II. Our closest common ancestors among the apes get CAD, albeit at lower rates.
Heart disease has likely been the #1 non-infectious, non-traumatic cause of death for all of human history.
Americans prior to 1900 ate a diet that was almost all animal meat, fat and dairy. Fruits and vegetables were scarcely consumed. And yet, heart disease was vanishingly rare - virtually undocumented until 1915 or so (around the time margarine was pushed on the population.)
Leon Michaels did extensive research around the prevalence of chest pain in history and found but fleeting mention of it over the course of 2000 years. He further postulates that angina didn't even become a thing until Britain of the 1700s (which he believe was caused by the Enclosure Acts' effects on the Ag Revolution.)
quote:
Not one thing I've posted is nonsense however.
Red meat being bad for you is complete nonsense. It should be considered a first-order health food.
Posted on 8/13/18 at 4:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Although I prefer to have grass-fed, farm-raised cows, almost all of this stuff is overstated - particularly anything having to do with "hormones".
A big component is the treatments we given our livestock to prevent disease and improve yield. Cattle bred for meat specifically are drowned in chemical modifiers prior to slaughter.
quote:
Red meat tends to promote constipation
This is false. Red meat is nearly completely absorbed by your body - so it doesn't need to be excreted. This can sometimes be confused with "constipation". (And by the same token, vegetables - which are 85% indigestible - are associated with causing bowel movements. Well - duh. You can't absorb it.)
quote:Absolutely false.
Saturated fats are inherently pro-inflammatory.
quote:Nope.
Red meat has the strongest correlation with elevated high-sensitivity CRP of any single genre of food
quote:
It promotes insulin resistance (to the same degree brown rice does surprisingly)
Nope.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 6:15 am to Big Scrub TX
There’s absolutely no point in continuing this discussion with someone who refutes technical, in depth responses with “nope” over and over.
Fir others reading this thread, take note of his responses. Even more importantly, note that the only things he responds to at all are the concepts lay people can reasonably grasp. He completely ignores the in depth biochemical and medical parts of the posts. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
Have a good day
Fir others reading this thread, take note of his responses. Even more importantly, note that the only things he responds to at all are the concepts lay people can reasonably grasp. He completely ignores the in depth biochemical and medical parts of the posts. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
Have a good day
Posted on 8/15/18 at 11:54 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Because your shite is unsubstantiated and I'm not wasting the time. Can you point to a single CLINICAL study of unprocessed red meat which suggests negative health impacts of eating it?
There’s absolutely no point in continuing this discussion with someone who refutes technical, in depth responses with “nope” over and over.
Fir others reading this thread, take note of his responses. Even more importantly, note that the only things he responds to at all are the concepts lay people can reasonably grasp. He completely ignores the in depth biochemical and medical parts of the posts. You can draw your own conclusions from there.
Have a good day
Posted on 8/15/18 at 12:39 pm to Big Scrub TX
There are a ton, but here is a very large and relatively recent one. I’ll even post the summarized NIH article to make things easy:
LINK
120,000 person sample size with almost 30 years of data.
LINK
120,000 person sample size with almost 30 years of data.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 12:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Since this was an observational study in which people reported their own food intake, it's possible that the associations seen may be due to other factors.
Fail. Try again.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 12:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
Do you have a link to the actual study? I would like to see how they accounted for healthy user bias. I am not saying it’s untrue, but this study also showed a link between diabetes and red meat consumption. I don’t know how eating red meat could cause insulin resistance or diabetes. And I’m not trying to gang up on you, I enjoyed your responses throughout this thread. This is purely in the interest of getting to the truth about red meat consumption.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 3:32 pm to LSUTiger1026
quote:
Do you have a link to the actual study?
Here it is.
quote:
We prospectively followed 37698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2008) and 83644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1980-2008), who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by validated food-frequency questionnaires and updated every four years.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:36 pm to Big Scrub TX
It was a massive prospective study. You asked for a clinical study and I provided one (of many) with a very high power.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
clinical study and I provided one (of many) with a very high power
quote:
Questionnaires were administered biennially to collect and update medical, lifestyle and other health-related information, and the follow-up rates exceed 90% in each 2-year cycle for both cohorts.
It was a observational study based on food questionnaires done twice a year. The weakest of studies that can be called science.
This post was edited on 8/15/18 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 8/15/18 at 5:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It was a massive prospective study. You asked for a clinical study and I provided one (of many) with a very high power.
I asked you for a clinical study. You provided me with an observational study. The fact that you don't know the difference only underscores your continued ignorance.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 8:47 pm to Junky
Thanks. This is what I was worried about. Not only was it observational, but it did not adjust for healthy user bias. It even noted that those who consumed red meat were less likely to partake in other habits that are thought to be healthy.
Due to these reasons, the associations are most likely unreliable. Like I said, what stood out to me is the “association” between diabetes and red meat consumption. This just does not make sense as we know one does not cause the other. However, if those people that are less health conscious in other areas of life also eat more red meat, there may be an association. But it doesn’t prove causation.
quote:
Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active, and more likely to be current smokers, drink alcohol and have higher BMI (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy, but lower intakes of whole grain, fruit and vegetables.
Due to these reasons, the associations are most likely unreliable. Like I said, what stood out to me is the “association” between diabetes and red meat consumption. This just does not make sense as we know one does not cause the other. However, if those people that are less health conscious in other areas of life also eat more red meat, there may be an association. But it doesn’t prove causation.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 6:19 am to LSUTiger1026
Several of the studies I've seen against red meat also make no effort to exclude the rest of the meal - a participant goes to McDonald's and gets a meal with a burger, fries, and soda- and meat gets the blame for any of their health issues.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 11:12 am to LSUfan20005
quote:This is particularly frustrating when you see, e.g., an article about how bad a burger supposedly is for you, with no delineation between the meat and the bun. I can see how regular Americans are confused by all of this nonsense.
Several of the studies I've seen against red meat also make no effort to exclude the rest of the meal - a participant goes to McDonald's and gets a meal with a burger, fries, and soda- and meat gets the blame for any of their health issues.
Another trope I frequently see is when an article is written about "fatty foods" being bad for you, and they'll use a donut as an example. It's ridiculous, since most donuts have 3-4X the carbs as they do fat. (Ditto many "protein" bars, which have way more carbs than they do protein. Why not call them "carb bars"?)
Or you'll see articles like this one from earlier this week, talking about how Thai monks are getting obese. There will be vague claims about "sugar and fat" being the culprit...but somehow, there never seems to be much support for the "fat" part. Extremely lazy/misleading.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 12:53 pm to Big Scrub TX
I’ve started listening to the Peter Attia podcast with Ron Krause, I’m about 20m in, hopefully retain some good stuff.
I am interested to know about the canivory studies and low carb studies? I watched a lecture from a cardiologist, Nadir Ali. LINK he debunks myth after myth and he is pleading with his colleges to consider his ideas of low carb. They have a really good back forth QA in the end and they ask him where are the studies to prove his theory. He says there are none, and they ask him how he can put his patients on a diet like this? He says he used to hate being in clinic, because he never felt like he helped his patients, now he can see how much an improvement this diet makes in their life.
I am interested to know about the canivory studies and low carb studies? I watched a lecture from a cardiologist, Nadir Ali. LINK he debunks myth after myth and he is pleading with his colleges to consider his ideas of low carb. They have a really good back forth QA in the end and they ask him where are the studies to prove his theory. He says there are none, and they ask him how he can put his patients on a diet like this? He says he used to hate being in clinic, because he never felt like he helped his patients, now he can see how much an improvement this diet makes in their life.
This post was edited on 8/16/18 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 8/16/18 at 1:00 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:For carnivory, I'm not sure there are any. That's sort of the point - there's been a circular reasoning over the years: meat is bad for you a priori, therefore, it's unethical to run high-meat experiments.
Where are the canivory studies and low carb studies?
For low carb, there is a growing body of clinical work. Virta is a $100M start up focused on using low carb to reverse Type II Diabetes and CVD. Here's a link to their page of clinical results.
quote:
they ask him how he can put his patients on a diet like this?
My answer to this is we know how the American population ate prior to the 1900s...it was mostly meat, eggs, animal fat and dairy. We also know that those Americans did not suffer from hardly any of this crap that seemingly everyone has now (diabetes, CVD, etc.) Further, we know that the vast changes in the American diet have been: vegetable oils, sugar, fruits and vegetables. I don't know that I need a study to tell me it's OK to eat what my body was designed to eat.
But in any event, it will all be different 10 years from now. Essentially none of the major studies done over the years on the diet-heart hypothesis confirm the diet-heart hypothesis. Cholesterol in particular has already shown to be the improper focus.
Posted on 8/16/18 at 1:06 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:I just watched the Q and A. That one doc that spoke for awhile was good: "cholesterol is the biggest boondoggle the world has seen".
I watched a lecture from a cardiologist, Nadir Ali
Posted on 8/16/18 at 5:56 pm to Big Scrub TX
Your local drug dealing physician is the one killing you. I would be highly suspicious of anything they claim as “truth.” Between them and the pharmaceutical companies there is a huge incentive for you to be drugged out of your GD mind on drugs that are exponentially harmful for your health and they need you to stay addicted like a GD drug addict to carbs / sugar so they can keep their money train rolling.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News