Schizophonia

[lol] It's so obvious that humans are carnivores.

127 posts in this topic

There's an agenda for people to eat meat as far as I can tell. Children eat fruit shaped candy made from pork fat instead of actual fruit. They are made to be so sweet that actual fruit seems boring in comparison. Only the devil would invent something like this.


I left this forum because a moderator has a problem with me talking positively about myself and giving advice. This reflects the forum as a whole. This place is negative, bitter, hateful and anti success. If you don't notice this that's because you're one of them. I hope some of you benefited from my posts. Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What is the pharmacodynamic life of a single shot before you need another one? 

What do you mean with pharmacodynamic life? Half life? Pharmakokinetics? Dose-response?
 

Quote

 I understand that where evidence goes we have Total Cholesterol, LDL C and HDL-C at the top, ApoB probably one step lower and Lp(a) kinda somewhere underneath not being as significant but still interesting. 

We are slowly but surely entering the ApoB-era, leaving the other markers behind.
As you know, ApoB particle quality & quantity is the single most important factor in atherogenesis from a lipid-perspective. It comes with all the benefits of a surrogate marker like LDL-C and doesn't have the same downfalls (LDL-C measurement can sometimes be inaccurate in patients with DM or high triglycerides etc.). The reason we still use the "old ones" is because we are simply used to it. Cheap and effective assessments are ubiquitously available. Maybe there is an argument to be made about all our lipid-drug-reserach reserach in the last 50 years using LDL-C as the endpoint, but we do know for a fact that the real culprit is ApoB - so there is that. HDL-C becomes less and less relevant by the minute. Ratios are overrated if you have ApoB. 
 

Quote

Also regarding Lp(a) - where does it stand among full lipid panel and ApoB in terms of its relevance for CVD risk? 

Lp(a) expression is mostly genetic - in fact, its the most prevalent genetic lipid abnormality and also mostly overlooked.
Almost 20% run around with high Lp(a) and dont know it. Its super atherogenic and increases CVD risk substentially. 
If I got a patient with high ApoB & high Lp(a), then I know its time to agressively lower his ApoB burden. 
Lp(a) lowering is difficult - Statins won't do it - PCSK9-inhibitors will do it by about 25%. New drugs which look promising are in development. 
Lp(a) doesn't respond to diet, but ApoB does - people with high Lp(a) just need to look at their other risk factors more clearly. 
 

Edited by undeather

MD. Internal medicine/gastroenterology - Evidence based integral health approaches

"Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Basman said:

Mad.

Never said I hated them tf. I was a vegan once.

Speaking of projection.

I don't deny you never said that. I read it between the lines and I don't deny it's possible that was just my own projection. It's very possible you don't have any aversion towards vegans, they are just people trying to do the right thing after all and you can relate to that probably even more because you were once one yourself. But that you have an aversion against vegan food or veganism seems possible to me still. That you were a vegan once doesn't matter much in that case, it's a common thing that people try a certain thing and over time it turns out that thing wasn't for them/didn't work out for them and then they grow aversion towards that certain thing as a result. I have experienced that myself first hand with weed for example.

It's possible you were just sharing an objective observation, although your judgement that the people in the vegan restaurant were miserable & grumpy is your subjective interpretation of the situation and could be colored by unconscious motives. The reason for you sharing your observation seems to me to be to discredit veganism as an unhealthy way of eating that sucks the joy out of life, so that seems to indicate that you do value atleast vegan food or veganism negatively.

There were many possible reasons for why the people in the restaurant looked grumpy that had nothing to do with vegan food. Perhaps the food was just poorly cooked and tasted bad, perhaps people were stressed out from work or forced to go there because their vegan friend doesn't eat steak which was their real preference, perhaps it was cause they're stressed out from working low wage jobs. There are many possible reasons why people could appear miserable and grumpy yet you seemed to come to the conclusion that it was because of veganism/vegan food and that indicated to me that you could have some kind of aversion towards vegans, veganism or vegan food. But it would be interesting to hear more about your story with being a vegan and how things really are. It's impossible to get any meaning out of your comment without some degree of projection because your comment is an observation with an implicit meaning that leaves things up for intepretation but it seemed pretty likely to me that it tried to paint veganism in a bad light whichever way I tried to interpret it.

Edited by Asayake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Basman said:

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

giphy.gif

This thread lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You are right, by meat I also meant fish.
In fact, I saw a pharmacist doctor on a forum explain that humans were hunters of fish, shellfish and small game (thus white meat, low in heme iron...).
Probably true, I didn't do more research.

This is precisely the problem :ph34r:

Why is supplementation bad? I agree with you that its not natural but if it works physiologically where is the problem?

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I didn't know, maybe.
Do you have a link ?

Quick google search will do.

Or here: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-Consumer/

ALA is essential

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It is not Vitamin A but beta-carotene, which is only a precursor.

You need at least double the amount of beta carotene to get the same plasma retinol boost.
You must be careful to consume plants particularly rich in BC (which do not exist in nature, such as carrots or sweet potatoes) on a daily basis or almost daily, assuming that you do not have genetics that drastically reduce your ability to conversion, which is recurrent (BCO1 Gene)

https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/beta-carotene-conversion-vitamin-a/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096837/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353293/

oh okay. So it is possible vegan but it's not easy. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Do you have proof or do you draw this example from the opinion of certain doctors or vegan speakers on ideological documentaries?
The recommended amount of B12 is 2/3 mcg per day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak per day, assuming full bioavailability.
How do you expect to have the equivalent by eating wild plants (which by the way? most edible plants contain little cobalt, and it is accused of being carcinogenic), where perhaps bacteria have consumed and metabolized a little of cobalt in b12?

As a reminder, the most recognized theories are simply that B12 passes through the food chain from insects to larger carnivorous/omnivorous animals, and that large herbivores and especially ruminants obtain theirs by fermenting large amounts (several kilos per day of raw greens ) quantities of plants more or less rich in cobalt in their digestive system.

I heard the theory multiple times when I did some research years ago. 

There are some cases of vegans getting enough b12 without supplementation although they are the vast minority. 

Do you think by eating insects we could get enough b12? That's what I meant that we would have accidentally or not accidentally eaten some insects alongside the plants. No herbivore is 100% because they always eat some insects alongside. 

If that doesn't work you could supplement of course. Which is not natural but I don't see a problem with it especially if it's a small percentage of the vitamins that are supplemented. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Before releasing the arguments of certain marginal vegan personalities remember that Game Changer, WhatTheHealth and other documentaries were produced by screenwriters of cinemas, that their speakers are controversial compared to the rest of the members of the medical system, and that their diffusion is allowed and protected by the legislation of a country so liberal (partly rightly) that it allows the presence of a lot of sects on its territory.

These films are trash.

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

So the only important and easily accessible sources remain animals.
You may not be deficient by consuming certain algae, my point is that this is not proof that humans are fundamentally adapted to a herbivorous diet.

That's not what I said that humans are adapted to herbivorous diet and I didn't see it as that important. But I get your reasoning now. Your whole argumentation about what is natural or not is so important to you because that's what you think matters 100% to good health. Natural = Health.

Yes I would agree that humans are not perfectly adapted to a herbivorous diet. I would say that they are adapted to a cooked omnivore diet. So IF your point Natural = Health is true then I would agree that herbivorous diets are unhealthy. You haven't convinced that we are carnivores though. 

Anyways I got a few arguments against "Natural = Health":

This was an argument I already made. Even if you are adapted to diet A, these adaptions could accidentally also be usable for diet B. Like a sprinter is adapted for sprinting but is also a great jogger. 

If physiologically certain unnatural things like supplementation work well or physiologically some things don't work so well like to much colestoral on tons of meat then isnt that more believable then our background story?

Just because we survived on some things in the past doesn't mean we thrived on it or that it was the best diet for us it just means it was enough to get by and reproduce. 

Our biology is long and complicated. The human phase wasn't all our past. There are probably still even some adaptions we got from our biological mouse phase. So it's not really clear to say what we perfectly are adapted to. 

Although it doesn't make up a huge time span relatively speaking there are still some adaptations we got in the last few thousand years ago. When your diet changes radically I think you can make very fast adjustments. For example in the scientific literature a dog is literally considered an omnivore just because we fed dogs so much veggies over the years because meat was to valuable that dogs became omnivores with almost as good veggie digesting capabilities as pigs. Of course not as great but pretty good. And given that humans were not straight carnivores like pigs we probably developed a lot further because our starting point was more in the direction of plant eater in the first point. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

looks like a nightmare :S

I mean you have a few options like nut and seed bread with avocado or more nut butter, salads with olives, roasted veggies with oil, tahini dressings, scrambled tofu stuff, soy yoghurt. It's not great but also not a nightmare I think. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I target personalities like McDougall who insist that protein or calcium deficiency "does not exist" as if that argument were enough, avoiding applying the same logic to carbohydrates.

yeah that is dumb af, please take examples of educated people from the vegan community. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's not that you'll be technically deficient, it's mainly partially orally available peptides/proteins, the consumption of which has additional benefits.

Do you have a link?

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What animals? The most intelligent animals do not exceed the cognitive capacities of a 6-year-old homo sapiens child, and they are all at least omnivorous (pig, dog, dolphins, etc.)

great apes, elephants, parrots, .. 

and some carnivores are some of the dumbest animals on the planet like crocodiles. 

If there is a survival benefit to intelligence animals become more intelligent no matter what their diet is and if not they stay dumb no matter what their diet is. At least that's my observation. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Vegetables, even cooked and well prepared, can be unpleasant/irritating to the intestines, cause gas, etc. even cooked, they also have an unattractive taste.

I like the taste of veggies and there is nothing wrong with causing gas actually. Animals in nature fart all the time. The gas becomes unpleasant and irritating if we don't allow ourselves to get it out by farting which is the real problem. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

No civilization eats beans or whole grains unless they are very well prepared (fermentation, soaking, robust cooking...).
Humans produce a lot of amylase, but it may simply be an epigenetic modification (due to the consumption of starches), or an adaptation to the digestion of animal muscle glycogen, short polysaccharides (sucrose ) or simply easy plant starches

Yeah but what's the problem? Humans naturally cook things.

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's true, and precisely that doesn't pose a problem for him.
Now can you eat several pounds of vegetables or just pounds of cooked starches a day for your 2000 to 3000 calories a day as a human? :ph34r:

I tried to go on a HCLF diet at 3000 calories a day, the most unpleasant diet I have ever done in my life.

With only veggies it's unrealistic but with grains included no problem. Why LF though? 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Not necessarily, maybe even the opposite if your meat is lean.
There is also more "unnecessary" calorie loss with amino acids than with glucose.

It's more or less equivalent after all

Yes with lean meat but fatty meat wins. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

+I bought tamari a few weeks ago, it's quite boring to peel and it's not very dense in terms of calories, yet it's much more appealing than biting into an avocado or raw starches. -> why not cooked?
So this argument does not seem so obvious that !a.

Isnt tamari like soy sauce. I don't understand. 

I wonder how things are if we would be really really hungry. Like if I eat a bunch of chocolate I love the taste of some natural veggie soup but if I am really hungry that really isnt doing anything for me I just want calories and cooked grains would be very appealing to me. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

South West of France

oh okay

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Organ meats can taste relatively good (example: raw fresh beef liver), but it is much less attractive than muscle meat, and this is more of a problem (muscle meat is rich in zinc, but organs such as the liver are too rich in copper, can also create an excess of vitamin A and can be other problems).

I believe that the majority of large predators including humans are adapted and prefer muscle meat, and that other smaller predators in the food chain are scavengers and eat organs etc down to microorganisms that devour bones , part of the cartilages etc.

I don't know if it's true, but I seem to have seen somewhere that white people had higher ferritin because of the progressive adaptation to a higher consumption of dairy products and therefore of calcium compared to the meat (calcium blocks the absorption of iron).
To be taken with tweezers.

I asked chatgpt in which cases carnivores leave some of their loot and its either because they can't eat it all at once, they can't digest it all, some parts are toxic for the animal or certain tactical behavior. 

I don't think it would be either one of these reasons for humans because they could eat it all together in a tribe and by cooking the meat most parts should loose their toxicity. 

I am no specialist but it doesn't seem to me that it is one of the other reasons. 

So yeah weird that humans don't like the taste of organ meats if they are well adapted to it -_-

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Agree.

anything that allows more calories would have helped brain development, I just wanted to say that the consumption of fish rich in certain fatty acids was necessary for its structural evolution.

Given the fact that we couldn't get EPA and DHA I would agree with you there. 

How much fish was really needed isnt clear though, it could have been relatively little. 

 

.. damn took me more then an hour to answer all that. I hope you don't make any good points anymore xD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2023 at 5:45 PM, ZenAlex said:

Don't expect me to provide a detailed response if you've literally just googled "Why not to be vegan" and just copied and pasted a crappy response like this.

I've been vegan for 7 years. I've got blood tests. I'm not deficient in anything. Veganism is not a nutritionally deficient diet, and world health organisations have recognised it as a nutritionally sufficient diet. You can get everything you need from plants.

Why do you need to justify your food choices based on what you can theoretically do without - Because eating animal products and contributing the exploitation of animals without a very good reason is immoral and also bad for the environment. 

The fact that you have to ask why a Vegan would typically go vegan makes me think you've not really researched this subject, if that wasn't already obvious by your cut and paste crap above about what you supposedly cannot get as a vegan.


Why do you have this slave mentality? Wtf are you talking about? Also I don't get any cravings.

+1 

8 years here, blood tests verified by Michael here. 

Perfectly healthy, train 5 days a week, work an active job & have zero issues. 

Don't see myself ever going back

 


'One is always in the absolute state, knowingly or unknowingly for that is all there is.' Francis Lucille. 

'Peace and Happiness are inherent in Consciousness.' Rupert Spira 

“Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world.” Ramana Maharshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, undeather said:

What do you mean with pharmacodynamic life? Half life? Pharmakokinetics? Dose-response?

sorry, I meant half-life 

16 hours ago, undeather said:

As you know, ApoB particle quality & quantity is the single most important factor in atherogenesis from a lipid-perspective.

Yes, I'm slowly beginning to realise this. if a patient comes to you with elevated LDL -C and elevated non-HDL, cholesterol, how do you tell if they would benefit from ApoB testing as well? Age? Ethnicity? Other risk factors? (alcohol, smoking) 

16 hours ago, undeather said:

Lp(a) expression is mostly genetic - in fact, its the most prevalent genetic lipid abnormality and also mostly overlooked.
Almost 20% run around with high Lp(a) and dont know it. Its super atherogenic and increases CVD risk substentially. 
If I got a patient with high ApoB & high Lp(a), then I know its time to agressively lower his ApoB burden. 
Lp(a) lowering is difficult - Statins won't do it - PCSK9-inhibitors will do it by about 25%. New drugs which look promising are in development. 
Lp(a) doesn't respond to diet, but ApoB does - people with high Lp(a) just need to look at their other risk factors more clearly. 

does LP(a) change over lifetime or is it moslty set like APoE4, if you have it, you have higher odds of ending up really fucked if you are not careful. 


“If you find yourself acting to impress others, or avoiding action out of fear of what they might think, you have left the path.” ― Epictetus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Eyowey said:

There's an agenda for people to eat meat as far as I can tell. Children eat fruit shaped candy made from pork fat instead of actual fruit. They are made to be so sweet that actual fruit seems boring in comparison. Only the devil would invent something like this.

Its ridiculous right, but this is why there are two types of people. Those under the spell and those freed from it. Cannot control free-thinkers.


As above so below, as within so without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

8 years here, blood tests verified by Michael here. 

Perfectly healthy, train 5 days a week, work an active job & have zero issues. 

Don't see myself ever going back

9_9


“If you find yourself acting to impress others, or avoiding action out of fear of what they might think, you have left the path.” ― Epictetus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, I'm slowly beginning to realise this. if a patient comes to you with elevated LDL -C and elevated non-HDL, cholesterol, how do you tell if they would benefit from ApoB testing as well? Age? Ethnicity? Other risk factors? (alcohol, smoking) 

LDL-C and non-HDL-C are (in general) perfectly fine indicators for cardiovascular disease risk, especially in "the average" population.
LDL-C can be determined directly using enzymatic methods or calculated from the other parameters using the Friedewald formula:
LDL-C = Total-C – HDL-C – (TG/2,2) in mmol/L

If you have a very sick patient with a high metabolic burden (high triglycerides, diabetes, obesity..), then the Fridewald formula should not be used to determine LDL-C because the result might be inaccurate. Enzymatic methods are better but also not perfect in that regard.
-> Most physicians don't know this!

Non-HDL-C is a very good marker which is also used in out best risk stratification tools like SCORE-2. 
In most patients, Non-HDL-C will present a very accurate picture of individual risk.

The reason why ApoB is superior is because at the end of the day, LDL-C & non-HDL-C are surrogate markers.
There is also evidence thgat an additional ApoB measurement as an extension of the standard profile can also detect increased particle counts, which often cannot be identified on the basis of LDL-C or even non-HDL-C alone.
-> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23068583/

In most patients, this is not an issues - especially if you do a rough lipid screening which usually doesn't end in a different therapeutic decision. However, if you really want to go full health nerd, then ApoB is the way to go! 

 

Quote

does LP(a) change over lifetime or is it moslty set like APoE4, if you have it, you have higher odds of ending up really fucked if you are not careful. 

As far as I know, its pretty much set for life. It's important to point out that there is some disconcordance in the data - some individuakls with high Lp(a) dont seem to get the the same level of fucked upness. I have seen people getting stressed out over high Lp(a) values and frame it as the unavoidable death sentence, which it isn't. 

Nevertheless, high Lp(a) individuals should be treated more agressively - just in case! 

Edited by undeather

MD. Internal medicine/gastroenterology - Evidence based integral health approaches

"Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

It takes years - sometimes even decades for measureable atherosclerotic plaques to form. 
Most modalities, especially vascular-ultrasound are very crude measurement techniques with very low specificity.
MRI-angiography would be a gold standard but is expensive and sometimes difficult to interpret.
Calcium-scores are useful, but it comes with a shitload of limitations: Calcification is a late-stage process of atherogenesis, soft plaques are much

agree

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

more common in young people, there are a shitton of heart attacks in young people with CAC=0.

do you have sources? I'm interested

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:



Funfact: Statins tend to increase CAC-Scores but decrease the rate of heart attacks. Funnily enough, more calcified plaques tend to rapture less frequently - which makes sense if you think about it. 

Statins are a last resort

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:



hs-CRP and other acute phase proteins CAN correlate with atherogenesis but it's a terrible proxy because it's regulated by all sorts of processes. If somebody sneezes in front of you, your CRP will go up - good luck decoupling this from tiny changes in plaque formation.

I wasn't saying that in relation to atherosclerosis, I wanted to know if with the same lifestyle (difficult to qualify), a "carnivorous" diet would decrease or increase the markers of inflammation.
The testimonies that I have seen here and there are contradictory.


If you dont understand, you're not twisted enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loss my erections on veganism's and determined the cause was a issue with fat absorption so I need to eat foods high in cholesterol like eggs to get it up. 


How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, integral said:

I loss my erections on veganism's and determined the cause was a issue with fat absorption so I need to eat foods high in cholesterol like eggs to get it up. 

Are you serious? This sounds like a meme but if you're serious I think it's highly unlikely it was because of low cholesterol, that sounds more like carnivore propaganda in my ears rather than scientifically sound. Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense and eating too little could increase your cortisol levels and perhaps mess with your erections.

Edited by Asayake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense

agreed with this, sounds like a half-arsed vegan diet @integral bro :D I don't think you tried hard enough. 

I am no longer vegan but when I was for 4 years, the first few months until I figured out how to do it properly I was like Walking Dead, then my energy came back and afterwards everything was as it was previously, digestive regularity was definitely better. 

Edited by Michael569

“If you find yourself acting to impress others, or avoiding action out of fear of what they might think, you have left the path.” ― Epictetus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

agreed with this, sounds like a half-arsed vegan diet @integral bro :D I don't think you tried hard enough. 

I am no longer vegan but when I was for 4 years, the first few months until I figured out how to do it properly I was like Walking Dead, then my energy came back and afterwards everything was as it was previously, digestive regularity was definitely better. 

28 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Are you serious? This sounds like a meme but if you're serious I think it's highly unlikely it was because of low cholesterol, that sounds more like carnivore propaganda in my ears rather than scientifically sound. Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense and eating too little could increase your cortisol levels and perhaps mess with your erections.

Lmaoo, its possible yes, could be undereating and high cortisol. it doesn't fully explain why 1 egg is enough to get the erection back and stamina even If im still undereating. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

do you have sources? I'm interested

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014310
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529050/
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(20)30378-6/fulltext
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045026
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2785586
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795671
 

Quote


Statins are a last resort

Statins are second instance right after lifestyle changes.
I am all for avoiding drugs until it's just absolutely necessary - but sometimes that's the way to go. 
Especially older folks experience difficulty getting into a acceptable ApoB-ranges just with exercise & diet alone. 
Also, let me tell you this with years of experience practicing internal medicine, most people just don't give a shit and prefer the drug over lifestyle.

Contrary to the opinion of youtube & twitter university doctors, Statins are incredible safe. 
I remember being very uncertain about Statins because of all the online hysteria I came in contact with. 
But once you start reading into it rationally and actually have your hands on patients (and I have propably perscribed hundreds of not thousands doses of Statins so far), you will realise that most of them tolerate Statins really well and there is nothing to worry about. 
I think the worst side effect i have ever encountered was a significant rise in liver enzymes, which went away after discontinouing the drug, 

 

Quote

I wasn't saying that in relation to atherosclerosis, I wanted to know if with the same lifestyle (difficult to qualify), a "carnivorous" diet would decrease or increase the markers of inflammation.
The testimonies that I have seen here and there are contradictory.

There will a huge interindividual difference with almost no pre-test predictibility. 
Welcome to complex systems. But again, most inflammatory markers are not eligible for suchpurpose - a more accurate assessment would be through Ig-specification after eating a consuming a certain meal. 

If you believe Jordan Peterson's story (which I tend to do), then he propably reduced his inflammatory response by cutting out most food groups. 
Personally, I feel best on a mixed, whole food diet with a strong emphasis on plants and some high quality pieces of meat & fish. But then, I also like to enjoy life and indulge in some junk food as well ;)

Edited by undeather

MD. Internal medicine/gastroenterology - Evidence based integral health approaches

"Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@undeather There's another dimension, yes if your old and its absolutely nessisariy statins have purpose but because of the availability of statins they are 99.9% of the time used when not nessisariy. Making statins a drug that is better off not existing and we can extend this to the majority of drugs that exist, the benefits of there existence is outweigh by there drawbacks. We are better off if guns where never invented and nukes, just like we would be better off if the majority of drugs where never invented. More options is not always better. From the big picture perspective anti-biotics and pain killers are the very few drugs whos benefits outweigh drawbacks. Its crewl but the majority of people that genuinely need these other drugs should just not have access to them, just like the people who genuinely need a gun should not have access to them because the whole outweighs that one circumstance. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, integral said:

@undeather There's another dimension, yes if your old and its absolutely nessisariy statins have purpose but because of the availability of statins they are 99.9% of the time used when not nessisariy. Making statins a drug that is better off not existing and we can extend this to the majority of drugs that exist, the benefits of there existence is outweigh by there drawbacks. We are better off if guns where never invented and nukes, just like we would be better off if the majority of drugs where never invented. More options is not always better. From the big picture perspective anti-biotics and pain killers are the very few drugs whos benefits outweigh drawbacks. Its crewl but the majority of people that genuinely need these other drugs should just not have access to them, just like the people who genuinely need a gun should not have access to them because the whole outweighs that one circumstance. 

With all due respect, but this is in an insanely short-sighted, reductive and plain out stupid take.
I am outright shocked to read such words from a moderator.
 


MD. Internal medicine/gastroenterology - Evidence based integral health approaches

"Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, undeather said:

With all due respect, but this is in an insanely short-sighted, reductive and plain out stupid take.
I am outright shocked to read such words from a moderator.

I'm not seeing why, lets pick a random invention whos introduction into our society did more harm then good. Some people genuinely benefit form that invention but at the same time it hurt the majority. We can say that Its better if it was never introduced to begin with. 

What we are disagreeing on is how bad the health care industry is screwing up. From your perspective these drugs are more beneficial then harmful. I think if we remove the majority of these drugs from the system overall health will improve. 1 out of 10 prescription of statins distributed everyday was the right decision. The entire situation is barbarique. While your world view is that 7/10 times it was the correct choice or something along does lines.

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Another study based on data from IQVIA, a health information company, reported that atorvastatin (sold under brand Lipitor) was the most prescribed drug in the United States in 2019, with 24.5 million prescriptions or 7.5% of the population4. It was one of many statin medications listed, which are used to prevent cardiovascular disease and treat abnormal lipid levels4.

 


How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now