undeather

This study was sponsered by the Jeffrey Dahmer foundation.

Legumes, lentils, beans, seeds & oats are beyond the most health promoting foods out there. I dont know the context of the Leo-quote, but it's nonsense.

Those are very kind words! Thank you! I apprechiate your honesty and good faith nature - I also kind of get why you think what you think! Going through a personal health crisis and seeing how the current medical paradigm fails to adress the underlying cause while healing oneself through alternative approaches ignored by the orthodoxy, changes the way one thinks about this whole situation. And boy... am I jealous of that hairline! Cheers mate!

I saw this posted on twitter few weeks ago and reading through the comments brought me close to a stroke. It's the ultimate litmus test for being a gullible fool.

Yes - They need to get trapped in the subendothelium AND go through oxidation processes. That's true. The vast majority of lipoprotein oxidation happens IN the wall though! There is no credible evidence that ox-LDL is a strong predictor for CVD after controlling for total Apo-B. I know of one study who did that, and it was a highly flawed paper to begin with. If you have evidence for that claim (human data), please provide it! Having higher levels of circulating lipoproteins absolutely does cause heart disease. I would again, advice you to take the mendelian randomization papers into account. We find a dose-dependent relationship between ApoB and CHD across approximately two dozen genetic variants across many independent pathways (Graph below!). The study design of mendelian randomization does take oxidation status into account and we see the effect nontheless. Also, what you are describing here is the so called oxidative hypothesis of atherosclerosis. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidation is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and this alone provides a compelling argument that antioxidants should decrease the risk of atherothrombotic cardiovascular diseases. Yet, after 20+ years of clinical trials that studied the effect of supplemental antioxidants on incident cardiovascular disease, there is no overarching data to indicate that this intervention works. This is old science my friend! Increasing antioxidants and therefore lowering oxidation in your plasma does not protect you from heart disease. It's much, much, much mor ecomplex than that. Oxidation has it's part in the equation, but all the evidence suggests that there are more important targets than that. The reason why fruit and vegetables intake tracks favorably with heart disease outcomes is not (only) due to their antioxidative effect. There are many potential health effects due to secondary plant compounds, vitamins, minerals etc. - people who consume a lot of plants also tend to decrease total calorie consumption. But the #1 compound which is consistently associated with incredible health outcomes ...is: FIBER! Yes, and how do we know that? We see that effect REGARDLESS of fiber source and there are a variety of mechanisms that explain this change - foremost a change in total lipoprotein load! Ok the Budoff study - which has exactly the problem I mentioned in my previous post. You won't see many changes in someone's CTA after 1-2 years of high LDL, especially in young adults. The sensitivity of CTA-procedure is just not high enough to give you that data. If he shows me the same result after 10 years, I would be impressed. However, we do have longer term data from the Framingham trial, showing phenotypes involving high LDL, low TG, and high HDL are associated with poorer CHD outcomes compared to low LDL, low TG, and high HDL. The healthy user bias has been systematically ruled out by mendelian randomization studies. You can be very health concious ("living a low oxidation lifestyle") while still getting your arteries cloged up by genetrically high ApoB. The only thing that consistently stops atheroma-progression is lowering total lipoprotein load. And this has been shown again and again and again.... The pro-atherogenic effect of cigarette smoking is complex, not yet well understood and does not boil down to simply increased oxidative stress. Seed oils, which are chemically more prone to oxidation than saturated fat sources, consistently show a LOWER risk of cardiovascular disease - especially if you switch to them from saturated fat sources. We have had that discussion before Jason, and I have linked you at least 10 different studies (Epidemiology, RCT's & mechanisms, mendelian...) which consistently show this effect across all-age groups. We have decades of human data showing this effect - but all I hear from the other side are some rough mechanistical arguments, correlations where no causality can be inferred (seed oil consumption in the US vs. heart disease) and of course, anecdotes.

The lipid hypothesis of atherosclerosis is one of the most coherent and consistent theories in all medical science. Denying the causal role of apolipoproteins in plaque formation is a bit like denying germ theory or the globe earth. There is over 100 years of bullet proof research behind it. Will there be adaptions of this theory in the future? Sure! Just like Einstein adapted newtonian gravity, the same thing could happen to lipids. However, analogous to this physics example, the core axiom of lipoproteins & atherogenesis will remain true nontheless. The problem with Ox-LDL as a marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and we have talked about this Jason, is that it foods on a limited understanding of the atherogenic mechanism. When you measure your Ox-LDL in a lab, you ONLY get a picture of the minimally oxidized version that was in your bloodstream when the blood was drawn. However, we have known for at least 30-40 years now, that lipoprotein-oxidation happens for the most part IN the sub-endothelium (IN the walls of the artery), right after the lipoprotein entered the wall and reacted with the proteoglycan/lipoxygenase. You can NOT measure the ox-LDL in your endothelium. In fact, the assays used in most laboratories can only measure minimally oxidized LDL. You also can not infer that lower ox-LDL in blood equlas lower oxidation-rates in the sub-endothelium. And guess what, we do not have a single good study that shows substantially higher CVD-risk with ox-LDL WHILE sufficiently controlling for ApoB (+ good primaryendpoints). There is no reason to believe this would be true. Lean mass hyper responders (LMHR) are a poorly studied subject-group. Saying that those individuals don't develop early-life heart disease is problematic for many reasons. It takes years for atherogeneic plaques to show up on screening tools like CTA's. There are NO long term studies (I am aware of) that compare LMHR's with "normal LDL". There are case reports, subgroup analyses and one study including a web survey (lol) for data collection - which is horribly confounded & low quality in general of course. Look, I am open that we might learn something new about LMHR-phenotypes in the future - but you just can't make that point at the moment. Maybe the higher HDL often seen in those individuals actually protects some of them from ASCVD - who knows! But at the moment, there really is no good reason to believe that.

Nutrition is way overrated in individuals who already have a decent diet & general healthy lifestyle. Nutrition is way underrated in everyone else.

Health is more than LDL-C and even though it's proapbly the most important risk factor when it comes to cardiovascular disease progression, there is a lot to say about individual approaches and bio-phentypical proclivities. That said, it's pretty much a undeniable fact that a reduction in saturated fat and dietary cholesterol goes hand in hand with benificial effects on blood lipids and insulin-sensitivity - in MOST individuals. Since >90% of those ingredients are found in animal products, the results of the study make a lot of sense. I am not advocating for a vegan diet because of many reasons. There are downsides, especially if you don't know what you are doing - and since most people fall into that category, a healthy omivorous diet is the way to go. However, if you want to max out on potential longevity, then one should consider giving it a try and compare health parameters before/after. Since cardiovascular risk factors are cumulative, the potentially benificial effect will increase over time. There is some evidence looking at lifetime vegans vs meat eaters but those studies are usually heavily biased & confounded. If you would ask me personally, I would argue that it will propably give you 2-4 years of additional lifetime if you start early.

?

LDL-C down by 10%+ is an incredibly meaningfuly difference, especially if you take into account that the average LDL-C in the inverntion group was 114mg/dl. There is an about 20% reduction of cardiovascular disease risk per mmol/L(=38mg/dL) LDL-C lowering. Now, notice that the difference we observer is between two healthy diets - imagine the difference between the standard american diet and veganism. As I alerady mentioned multiple times, I don't care about the ethical reasons of a vegan diet - I personally love meat and cheese, but this is just a result we can't/shouold not ignore. When it comes to CVD-risk, the more plants - the better! If you would run that trial for 8+ years, you would propably see shocking differnces.

Might be the higher fiber content, but it's an intersting finding! I don't buy the TMAO - heart disease connection either! But Bart Kay, really?

Tasty. Healthy. Cheap.: Budget-Friendly Recipes with Exciting Flavors An amazing cookbook from the youtuber KWOOK, who specializes in making cheap, healthy and delicious meals for students! Check out his videos:

Not the kind of information I would usually share here since integral medicine requires quite an extended case history to begin with - but here are some things that might help you with yoru symptoms. Most of it is very benign and easy to purchase - I left out dosages by design. Supplements: -Vit D3, Very high dose initially if well tolerated -Zinc lozenges until symptoms gone -10,000mg vit c per day (split up) - Melatonin before bed, lots of sleep - Quercetin - Green tea extract, polyphenols - Lysine - SPM’s - Selenium - Collustrum, transfer factor, betaglucans - Glutathione, NAC - Manuka honey - BHT (Betahydroxytoulene) Herbs: - Licorice - Black cumin seed oil - Neem - Artemisia, Lomatium, St Johns Wort, Echinacea, Propolis, Olive Leaf, Garlic, etc.

While animal protein sources tend to have a more benificial amino acid profile and great bioavailability, it also has been consistently associated with increased all cause mortality, esepecially at higher intake. That said, I think you need to take that research with a grain of salt since the effect sizes are usually small if you start to control for confounders. My personal view is that it's more likely a trade-off function than anything else. Plant-protein sources like beans, legumes or quinoa are among the healthiest foods out there, whcih not only come with a good quality protein, but also a wide array of complex carbohydrates, fiber and secondary plant compounds. Again and again, those foods have shown a significant risk reduction over a wide array of diseases (cardiovascular, cancer, autoimmune..). It's just a no-brainer to center your diet around those kind of foods. Fish is like the best of both worlds - but the problem with fish nowadays is pollution. That said, it still seems that fish intake is assocuiated with lower risk of dying!

Very roughly ... - Start resistance training, increase lean muscle mass! - In general, move more! Take stairs instead of elevators, walk around a bit after work, implement an active lifestyle. - Center your meals around a wide variety of real, unprocessed & good quality ingredients - Learn about caloric metabolism - caloric deficit and the approximate energy density of everyday food products - Preperation of meals at home > Take away or delivery - focus on adequate protein intake - 1,5-2g/kg/day - Plants as the main source of protein - Protein intake should include fish and can include eggs, dairy & lean cuts of meat - Shift to a more complex carbohydrate profile - minimize short chain carbs and increase intake of whole wheat products & especially vegetables - Focus on plant-fats like nuts, seeds, avocados, extra virgin olive oil - go easy on saturated fat-sources - Minimize or cut out empty calories like soft drinks - sugar alternatives (zero products) are fine in moderation - Healthy snacking (fruits, dates, nuts...) - The best diet is the one you can follow for the rest of your life - so don't try to be "perfect". Good enough is good enough. There is flexibility in all this - the most important thing is to get into a calorie deficit and be physically active.

When there are 300 studies on a certain topic and you pick out the ones which fit your your inherent bias, than that's bullshit. And sadly, this is what most of these health influeccers tend to do nowadays. They play under the cover of being scientifically sound, but once you actually take a closer look at their claims, it becomes psychotic. Nobody is absolutely right und the scientific method is not perfect - but I hope we can agree that in order to get the the closest picture of how reality actually works is to incorporate as much high quality information as possible. And not leave out the stuff we don't agree with! I would not care if everything we know about nutrition is wrong and low-carb is actually the holy grail. In fact, that would be kinda cool because meat and cheese are freaking delicious. But I can assure you that Dr, Fung has a vested interest admitting the opposite. His whole business model is about denying and that alone should make you suspicious. I trust the people servicing the plane because there is an extreme, both personal and market driven incentive to not crash it.

And that right there is kind of the problem. How would you know if what Dr. Fung is saying isn't, at least to some degree, complete nonsense? At some point, you have two possitibilites - you either spend hundreds of hours learning about scientific epistemiology, the current state of resarch and his particular claims about nutrition & physiology - or you kind of have to BELIEVE him. It's really easy to shape someones worldview with a MD and some flashy diagrams - even if it's based on no substance at all. Fung is a cholesterol/sat.fat-denialist and this makes me particularly fuming, because it's one of my main areas of research.

I particularly recommend whole wheat as a health food because it is. There is a very solid mechanistical basis, we have tons of epidemiological reserach and the randomized controlled data also looks extremely positive. Is it maybe possible, and please don't take this as a shot because it isn't, that you fell for those anti-wheat/carb authors and their pop-sci books? Anyone can sell you their idea of things, which doesn't automatically make it true. The link between autoimmune disease and wheat consumption is complicated and not a black or white issue. That wheat and particularly whole grain prodcuts "act" like sugar in the body is wrong - diabetics can improve in their peripheral insulin sensitivity and glucose kinetics by increasing their whole grain consumption. The most addicting foods are based on high glycaemic load AND high fat/salt content. I doubt your girlfriend eats plain spaghetti when she gets depressed.

This sounds like telogen effluvium (TE), a form of diffuse, non-scarring alopecia with a sudden onset, characterized by increased hair loss or thinning hair. It's not uncommon to see this after a viral infection and recent studies have shown that it's even more common after Covid-19. I have never seen someone getting covid 15+ times (?), but if this is true - then TE could be a very logical explanation for your symptoms. The good news is that your hair is not lost and will regrow after a couple of months. After that, androgenic alopecia (genetic hair loss) is another possible explanation. You have said that you have always had thin hair, which could be a sign of DHT (Dihydrotestosterone) fucking up your hair roots. Genetic hair loss can take many different forms, depending on the underlying genotype you have inherited. Some people rapidly lose their hair, others consistently thin out over a long period of time before actually losing ground. You have mentioned that you think you are good genetic wise. While looking at your families scalp is usually a good indicator, genetics can be much more complex than that. I doubt it has anything to do with your lifestyle-habits. Anyway, this is just pure conjecture. There are questions which just can not get answered over the internet. Go visit a dermatologist and do some basic blood-work (especially thyroid function). Then you know what's up for sure.

Relative Risk of weight gain

Again, obesity and diabetes are complex phenomena and wheat products play a role in it. People usually don't get fat because they overeat on pasta or white-bread. They get fat because they overconsume meals which are combinations of simple carbohydrates, high fat, high salt and some form of modified protein (Burger, Kepab, Fried meats, Lasagna, Soft drinks, Pizza...) Whole grain wheat products actually lower obesity rates.

The complex pathogenesis of diabetes and obesity can not be boiled down to "eating bread and occasionally sugar". The increasing rates of obesity are mostly the product of a hypercaloric food environment that promotes overeating on low-quality, undersatiating & hyponutritious foods while living a mostly sedentary lifestyle. The increasing rates of diabetes and other metabolic diseases (i.e hyperlipoproteinemia, high blood pressure) are for a big part due to this energy-dysbalance.

I recently had a quite hefty dispute with Huberman on Twitter - it was on his episode about hormones, especially DHT, hairloss and the indications/risks of DHT-conversion-blocking agents like Finasteride. It became increasingly clear to me that Huberman, besides being the head of a neurosceince-department in Stanford, often operates on a pretty low level of scientific epistemiology. I have seen him completely misunderstanding simple implications of the research he is citing, referencing dogshit studies with underpowered design and no explanatory power and even get basic things about medicine/physiology completeöy wrong. This does not mean that the information he presents on his podcast is necessarily wrong or bad - in fact, I would even argue that in the great scheme of health infleuncers, he is one of the more sane and trustful voices (the bar is extremely low to begin with). I have made the same observations with Dr. Sincalir and his research about longevity - he became quite the laughing stock on med-twitter because of his opinions about Reservatol recently. He also was terribly wrong about Metformin as longevity agent. Here is a pretty decent episode about Huberman's failures: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/andrew-huberman-forest-bathing-in-negative-ions

The average person in Japan consumes over 200 fewer calories per day than the average American. Food prices are substantially higher in Japan, but the traditional Japanese dietary habits, although changing, are also healthier. The Japanese are also far more physically active than Americans, but not because they do more planned physical exercise. They walk more as part of their daily lives. They walk more because the cost of driving an automobile is far higher in Japan, whereas public transportation is typically very convenient, but normally requires more walking than the use of a car. Despite the obesity rate being low, data is showing that the prevalence of overweight (BMI > or = 25) was 30.4% in males and 21.1% in females, of which overweight in males has increased in recent 35 years almost twice from 15% to 30%. In general Japanese people get fatter now because they adapt western eating habits.