Cheaper ways to protect your body.

Call it regulatory capture.
There is a clear (admitted) bias in Western nutrition science. Willet et al. are known for P hacking and curve fitting the same datasets over and over to find ideologically supportive correlations. This one only has an HR of 1.7 even after the data is parsed supportively.

I agree that science and academic/intellectual circles are sometimes biased due to other influences and economic incentives. A quick search on the said Dr revealed he is quite active in bashing some studies while promoting his own ideas (biases).
 
Thanks for putting this up. Looks like this was not a double blind placebo study run and more data gathering and statistical analysis. Doesn't mean its wrong but I was going to say were all fucked since most of us eat a lot of eggs and the yolks are full of choline which is generally thought to be healthy. I use phosphatidyl choline so no idea if that makes a difference.

Everything in moderation. Being in my 40's, I have learned what is good for you today may not be in 10 years or the reverse. Medical info changes constantly. Regardless, thanks for posting this.
I am in the same age group and really enjoy my meats and eggs. My usual breakfast is 2-3 boiled eggs and scrambled on the weekends so this study really caught my eye!

Since then I have balanced things out a little more by adding salad dinners couple times a week and using salmon instead on chicken or red meat. Thanks for sharing the list!
 
I agree that science and academic/intellectual circles are sometimes biased due to other influences and economic incentives. A quick search on the said Dr revealed he is quite active in bashing some studies while promoting his own ideas (biases).
to save time, cochrane.org does an honest job of applying evidence based standards and weighting to metastudies.

Hank over at Science2.0 has an article on some of the tactics and biases of the True Health Initiative group.
I found it a good read.


Regardless, no observational study can demonstrate causation.
Mathematically, statistics showing anything less than an HR of 3 is noise, with about a 50/50 chance of actually being 'right/good/bad'
 
Last edited:
I have about half of those on my daily.

Melatonin is one I started taking about six months ago before bed. It helps with sleep but I’ve also noticed my eye sight is better. 🤷‍♂️

I can't find the study I saved but oral melatonin did better than topical steroids for eye issues in a few studies. I healed one of my dog's eyes with melatonin. The ophthalmologist said this is the first time in her career she saw Pannus regress. It always gets worse and is degenerative.
A quick search and you can find a lot of info on health benefits of melatonin - assume due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

No idea if this is why but it fits.
 

I can't find the study I saved but oral melatonin did better than topical steroids for eye issues in a few studies. I healed one of my dog's eyes with melatonin. The ophthalmologist said this is the first time in her career she saw Pannus regress. It always gets worse and is degenerative.
A quick search and you can find a lot of info on health benefits of melatonin - assume due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

No idea if this is why but it fits.
I was always afraid of using it too often and it would lose effect. No issue.

The vision improvement is a bonus.
 
Really it helped with your eyesight? I’ll need to try that. I hate getting old, lol.
I take melatonin too but I've just read recent research about its potential risks, I hate all this science now a days there's literally polar opposite findings in almost everything studied. ..

 
I take melatonin too but I've just read recent research about its potential risks, I hate all this science now a days there's literally polar opposite findings in almost everything studied. ..

Sounds like people get issues when they abuse high doses, like what happens when someone abuses high doses of anything.
Not doubting the article, but I have a very hard time believing anything MSM publishes. They have jaded me, lol.

Check out pub med for info, likely a better place.
 
agree - its number 6 on my list above. When not taking curcumin I often mix a couple tablespoons with a tablespoon or two of olive oil and a bunch of peppercorns to increase the bioavailability.
Awesome. It's funny you mention olive oil use. I love the taste of virgin olive oil and take 2 swigs every morning as it has numerous as well for the body... especially digestion. I am hardly ever irregular once I started using olive oil.
 
... I hate all this science now a days there's literally polar opposite findings in almost everything studied. ..

...

I hear what your saying but I disagree. I've found the data on most topics to be amazingly consistent if you take a few steps to get to it.

1 - Get your eyes on the actual full study, articles or papers are very often biased or complete shit from the underinformed.
2 - Eliminate any studies from consideration if they have any conflict of interest attached. Things like who funded it and who would benefit from certain "conclusions".

That probably will leave you with about 3-10% of the studies that are done. Then you could look into the previous studies that those have cited and eliminate about half when you find that the cited studies have little to no relevance to why they were pointed at.

Next important thing is to have a study backed up by being repeated by a different group, this is absolutely essential to confirm results and eliminating errors that may have influenced them. Care to guess how many studies are repeated? I've heard approximately 3% from more than one academic.

That doesn't leave a lot of stuff to find conflicts within LOL.

Don't get me wrong as I buy into what a lot of them say that don't pass this scrutiny but bias, usually motivated by money, makes it all a crapshoot. It's pretty hard to buy into anything 100% these days even when you experience it yourself.

Oh yeah, ur link no worky for me
 
Yea your totally right @gondar1 if you have the means and time to verify the studies then yea some can definitely be credible. I like Harvard studys because I don't think there should be any conflict of interest in who pays for the research as it's funded by the university and not sponsors like American beef funding a study on red meat not being unhealthy for the heart. I just meant over all in general there's so much corruption and bullshit now a days that I almost don't believe anything that I read 100%. Mainly what I haven't verified lately is fish oil and only recently I've read that it can actually lead to arterial fibrillation. Now my trt doc says take x amount every day but my family doc, another e.r. doc that I'm friends with and a relative who is a registered nurse has all said avoid them. That's just what pisses me off so much conflicting information. Unless your a brilliant person (like I kind of think you are, based on your research methods), the average Joe has no idea what's what. Like a coffee study for example has said 3 to 4 cups a day is not only not bad for health but its proven to be good for overall health and especially good for heart health. How so when it's horrible for cholesterol and temporarily hard on blood pressure. Your right though I'm just ranting a bit. You need all the variables of the research to know. Thank you for your input I think sometimes I just throw my own complaints into threads without putting a full effort in ill try to watch out for that next time. I am a victim of following studies and finding negative results that they never mentioned. Example liver stress I got from a heart healthy red wine regiment, or b12 and magnesium deficiency as well as high cholesterol from following the 3 to 4 cups of coffee a day for good health.
 
Yea your totally right @gondar1 if you have the means and time to verify the studies then yea some can definitely be credible. I like Harvard studys because I don't think there should be any conflict of interest in who pays for the research as it's funded by the university and not sponsors like American beef funding a study on red meat not being unhealthy for the heart. I just meant over all in general there's so much corruption and bullshit now a days that I almost don't believe anything that I read 100%. Mainly what I haven't verified lately is fish oil and only recently I've read that it can actually lead to arterial fibrillation. Now my trt doc says take x amount every day but my family doc, another e.r. doc that I'm friends with and a relative who is a registered nurse has all said avoid them. That's just what pisses me off so much conflicting information. Unless your a brilliant person (like I kind of think you are, based on your research methods), the average Joe has no idea what's what. Like a coffee study for example has said 3 to 4 cups a day is not only not bad for health but its proven to be good for overall health and especially good for heart health. How so when it's horrible for cholesterol and temporarily hard on blood pressure. Your right though I'm just ranting a bit. You need all the variables of the research to know. Thank you for your input I think sometimes I just throw my own complaints into threads without putting a full effort in ill try to watch out for that next time. I am a victim of following studies and finding negative results that they never mentioned. Example liver stress I got from a heart healthy red wine regiment, or b12 and magnesium deficiency as well as high cholesterol from following the 3 to 4 cups of coffee a day for good health.
Huh, didn't know that it was that way at Harvard. Either way though I can't think of a subject or a person that isn't subject to bias. Your brain doesn't give equal amounts of energy to all decisions because it has had experience. So somethings in your mind are a given to varying extents, you already know that X is better than Y so you don't re assess everytime you have to make a choice. That's gonna influence your thoughts and actions.

Rant away though that's what great about places like this, none of us are gonna know every thing and sometimes all it takes is another set of eyes to open things up. Can save tons of time. Man I've learned a bunch of things over the years with this group alone that were "Holy Fuck why didn't I think of that?" or "Everybody but me has know this for like 40 years?"
 
Awesome. It's funny you mention olive oil use. I love the taste of virgin olive oil and take 2 swigs every morning as it has numerous as well for the body... especially digestion. I am hardly ever irregular once I started using olive oil.
@ironwill just posted a study about half a tablespoon a day reducing cardiac arrest by 20% as well. It is a great health addition and good way to get your calories up with healthy fats. On low carb days - nut butter and olive oil is a must for energy (for me at least).
 
My son is a research scientist at a major Canadian University. Even hard science with objective outcomes that he does is vulnerable to ideological persuasion due to the way funding is granted.
Want funding, then the grant proposal has to be politically palatable.
Want another one, then the conclusions of the previous one better be too.
 
I hear what your saying but I disagree. I've found the data on most topics to be amazingly consistent if you take a few steps to get to it.

1 - Get your eyes on the actual full study, articles or papers are very often biased or complete shit from the underinformed.
2 - Eliminate any studies from consideration if they have any conflict of interest attached. Things like who funded it and who would benefit from certain "conclusions".

That probably will leave you with about 3-10% of the studies that are done. Then you could look into the previous studies that those have cited and eliminate about half when you find that the cited studies have little to no relevance to why they were pointed at.

Next important thing is to have a study backed up by being repeated by a different group, this is absolutely essential to confirm results and eliminating errors that may have influenced them. Care to guess how many studies are repeated? I've heard approximately 3% from more than one academic.

That doesn't leave a lot of stuff to find conflicts within LOL.

Don't get me wrong as I buy into what a lot of them say that don't pass this scrutiny but bias, usually motivated by money, makes it all a crapshoot. It's pretty hard to buy into anything 100% these days even when you experience it yourself.

Oh yeah, ur link no worky for me
Money is root of all evil. If the research money is backing a predetermined outcome that this what it will produce. A lot of all research is performed this way as corporate research wil want to support the goodness of their products... government research will support what government wants to pedal... look at covid ... didn't need science cause or studies as dr Fauci was science. You really have to filter out the good and the bad and eliminate studies that have any conflict of interest to get reasonable results
 
Niacin is so crazy. I swear my entire body flushes everytime I'm a beat right now at work lol I must never get used to it
 
My son is a research scientist at a major Canadian University. Even hard science with objective outcomes that he does is vulnerable to ideological persuasion due to the way funding is granted.
Want funding, then the grant proposal has to be politically palatable.
Want another one, then the conclusions of the previous one better be too.
This point was reinforced when I was watching a interview with Dyson Freeman after he had retired, about CO2. And the person interviewing him asked why what he is saying is against what the studies are showing, and he stated, I do not need to get grant money anymore.
 
Top