undeather

I recently came across an older video that left me truly fascinated. It depicts a remarkable encounter between members of the Indian military and a Sadhu during a high-altitude exercise in the Himalayas. If the footage is indeed authentic and not staged in any way, it serves as an extraordinary testament to the profound capabilities that dedicated yogic practices can unlock. The Himalayas have long been shrouded in myths and legends about shakti-filled yogis—masters of consciousness who endure the region’s brutal, life-threatening conditions with seemingly supernatural resilience. While an ordinary person would succumb to the cold within minutes, these ascetics appear to transcend the limits of the physical body, sustaining themselves in ways that defy conventional understanding.

Book a meeting with @Michael569 (link in his bio) for a closer assessment. He is one of the few people who is able to help you on this forum. Cheers

Every few months, a fresh wave of eager, young health enthusiasts floods this forum, passionately determined to "save" the beleaguered bald man from his declining health. Their intentions, for the most part, seem well-meaning (or at least, they appear to come from a place of genuine care). Occasionally, they offer a nugget of valuable insight or a moment of clear, practical thinking amidst the flood of advice. However, much of it tends to echo regurgitated soundbites from their favorite health influencers, more style than substance. What stands out most, though, is the almost childlike naivety they bring to the table—a certain lack of nuance and perspective that often stems from having little to no real-world experience working with truly unwell individuals over extended periods. Their zeal is undeniable, but it often reveals a disconnect from the complex realities of chronic illness and long-term care. It’s a reminder that good intentions, while admirable, rarely compensate for wisdom earned through experience. Not trying to point any fingers here - it has just been the reocurring pattern for the last 10 years or so

Very good point! I tend to rely on a few simple heuristics when evaluating materials and their potential impact. Generally, I consider materials derived from organic chemistry to be less problematic than their inorganic counterparts. One key question I ask is whether the material is an intrinsic part of the natural environment—interwoven with the evolutionary processes of a given species—or if it is a novel creation of advanced chemistry, developed within the past century. Another important consideration is the material’s absorption properties—its molecular size, the surfaces it interacts with, and how it behaves upon exposure. Equally crucial is the body's ability to process it: Are there established metabolic pathways to break it down? Or does it pose a risk of bioaccumulation over time? Of course, there are countless exceptions to each of these points, but they provide a useful framework for initial assessment.

Yes, this includes bathroom sprays. I use them only when absolutely necessary, but I prefer to leave the room and wait until the scent has dissipated. I'm not overly obsessive about such things; I simply aim to minimize exposure whenever possible. Personally, I'm not particularly drawn to fragrances, bu there are many potential room scents, such as those based on essential oils.

The mainstream perspective holds that there is no clear evidence suggesting that the aluminum in deodorants poses a significant health risk. This conclusion is based on data from several epidemiological studies. However, these studies come with significant limitations, and it would be misleading to claim that they definitively prove aluminum’s safety. On the other hand, the alternative viewpoint asserts that aluminum in deodorants greatly increases the risk of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s. Yet, this position is also based on an overinterpretation of inconclusive research and lacks solid proof. The reality lies somewhere in between: we simply do not know the full extent to which aluminum in deodorants may impact our health. Given this uncertainty, the wisest approach is to minimize exposure whenever possible as a precautionary measure. By the way, the golden rule for any product that uses the nebulization process (deodorants, hairsprays) is to avoid inhalation at all cost! I personally tend to hold my breath when I apply those products.

That's a very legit and smart argument. That said, I think that when comes to beer consumption in particular - we also see a huge amount liquid going through the kidney/ureter (through the sheer volume of the drink and the diuretic effects of alcohol), which is exactly what counteracts the build up of kidney stones. Even if that is followed up by a period of relative dehydration in the circulation, the urinary ducts are relatively well flushed most of the time. Let's not forget that the buildup of kidney takes weeks to several months at least - so any "negative" effect of the period would be compensated for by the sheer volume of liquid.

Beer does not cause kidney stones.

"Some beers with the boys" - if done responsibly, meaning not regularly (every day) and in reasonable quantites will most likely not damage your liver, even if that behaviour lasts for a lifetime. There is a tiny percentage of people with extreme genetic predispositions for pancreatitis, liver-fibrosis or cancer (Aldehyde Dehydrogenase Deficiency) - but those are thankfully extremely rare. Zero alcohol is, of course, always the healthier choice - but most people overestimate the dangers of low volume alcohol consumption (See picture - data from a recent meta analysis). Alcohol related diseases and especially alcohol-addiction ARE big problems in our society - but I am always a big fan of honest education and understanding than making a certain subtance the devil.

I grew up in a country where social drinking is part of the culture... and what can I say...I love getting some beers with the boys!

This is a good example of what Leo calls "lower perspective" in his latest video. Not how it works buddy

I guess it depends on the country/university you go to - but yes, in general it's really bad. I can't even remember learning anything about nutrition in med school. You might want to look into this https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033214#:~:text=The Mediterranean diet produced a,the number of carotid plaques.

I am giving you a shortcut version of the scientific consensus across different expert associations - nothing controversial really. I am also a practicing MD (internal medicine), PhD with a focus on lipidology/gastroenterology - so I have done quite my due dilligence Sure, I could post landmark studies like PREDIMED or adherence reviews looking at the mediterranian diet. I could also post studies which - on a superficial level - debunk what I say. Or post a meta analysis - propably the highest quality one ever done this issue: What I want to hint at here is that nutrtion science is complex and you can't prove/disprove a proposition simply by posting "a study". We look back a almost 100 years of important nutrition studies and the evidence builds up towards a certain conclusion which is most likely true. You also need to look a methodology and important limitations - which brings us to Essestyn: Some of his claims just don't really hold up under scrutiny - without going into too much detail myself, here is a video from 2 vegans looking at his "reverse CAD" claims:

It is not accurate to rely on a single study to declare one dietary approach superior, as both plant-based and other diets can appear favorable when selectively cherry picked. However, when examining the broader body of evidence—particularly secondary metrics such as adherence to dietary patterns and hard endpoint data like cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality—the most health-promoting dietary pattern emerges as one that is plant-based, incorporates adequate protein intake, and emphasizes high-quality fats. This includes extra virgin olive oil (EVOO), fish, nuts, seeds, and avocados. This is not to diminish the health benefits of low-fat vegan diets, which are excellent choices for those who prefer them. However, there is no compelling scientific justification to exclude oils, yogurt, or other sources of unsaturated fats when calorie intake is appropriately managed. Ultimately, the focus should be on adopting a balanced and sustainable dietary pattern tailored to individual needs and preferences. While you could argue that nuts, seeds, and avocados might offer a slight edge in terms of health benefits, the evidence supporting this distinction is not particularly robust. That said, this is not a matter worth stressing over. Incorporating both types of healthy fats in reasonable quantities ensures you are well-covered from a dietary perspective. Balance and moderation remain the key to a well-rounded, health-promoting diet.

Extra virgin olive oil is propably the best studied source of dietary fat and throughoutly correlated with positive health outcomes. Low-fat, vegan dietary patterns, like the one proposed by Dr. Fuhrman, perform WORSE when compared to a plant based diet with healthy fat sources (EVOO/nuts/seeds/avocados,fish...). Fat, especially unsaturated fat, is not your enemy - it's your friend.