Diabetes Drug Metformin Reduces All-Cause Mortality and Diseases of Aging (2017)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Our study, performed in C. elegans and human primary fibroblasts shows that there is an age-related decrease in metformin tolerance, which in later life leads to toxicity of all metformin doses tested. This shows possible safety risks of late life administration of metformin to individuals without diabetes,"
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-age-decisive-positive...
By taking metformin, it means I have a personal stake in the developoment of anti-aging medicines and have a reason to evaluate any newer options that appear (since there may be a reason to switch metformin to another treatment) I feel like taking metformin makes me less biased when it comes to evaluating treatments in the field, even if I think the efficacy of metformin is still an open question.
In terms of side effects, I have noted mild gastric upset (I actually wonder if this is part of its mechanism of action, making you less hungry in this way) but little impact on exercise (I take it even on days that I exercise, and I have a fairly heavy exercise routine)
When they infused electrolytes, it swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, and she suffered wild swings in blood levels of potassium, etc. Eventually her kidneys and liver failed at the same time, multiple organ failure, usually for someone in their 60s is not survival. I watched her die slowly over a few days as everything came crashing down.
Afterwards, I tried to get the hospital to conduct an autopsy to show overdose of colchicine levels, but the pathology department somehow "wasn't set up for that" and they said I'd have to send her body to some specialist lab. I didn't want to cause anymore pain with the family, so I opted to just bury her. But I definitely see this as medical malpractice.
And it's a clear warning to not ignore FDA contraindication warnings, even if your doctor apparently doesn't read up on the latest research or alerts.
https://peterattiamd.com/metformin-and-exercise/
If you're healthy enough to exercise, that's probably more effective. Apparently (I haven't tested myself, and I don't know how thorough the literature is) metformin lowers your lactic threshold, which reduces the total amount of work you can do in that state.
Do cardio, sleep enough, avoid refined sugar and fats that are solid at room temperature. More than that... godspeed
This leaves, what, protein and starch? And cooking oil, I suppose, but all forms of meat contain solid fats.
Edit: apparently coconut oil is supposed to be solid at room temp. I should get an air conditioner
Can you explain, in what capacity oils aren't "good for you" ?
Dr. Chris Knobbe - 'Diseases of Civilization: Are Seed Oil Excesses the Unifying Mechanism?' [1]
If you're short on time, you can skip directly to the trials data section [2]
So we're deriving that an entire class of foods aren't "good for you", because of a specific outcome in a study conducted on rats?
edit
Also, the effect produced on the rats was weight gain. Is all weight gain bad? Oils aren't "good for you" because "weight gain"? So, if a person's goal was to gain weight, would oils be "good for them"? And if yes, isn't this just way too broad a statement ("oils aren't good for you") to have any value?
In the rest of the video he discusses how it affects human health, along with the data to support that assertion.
It's seed/vegetable and hydrogenated oils that are bad for you and are correlated with obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Coconut oil, olive oil and butter are fine.
From my understanding of the available evidence, these fats are supposed to be more healthy than other animal fats / butter (saturated fat). [2] Whether saturated fats are bad or not depends on what you compare them to - they seem less healthy than say, olive oil, but might win out over refined carbs. And the most clearly bad one is trans fat which has the strongest evidence against it.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2012/06/21/ask-...
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
I wouldn't personally consider rolled oats, rolled barley, or rolled rye to be refined sugars, nor are they quite in the white rice, potato, corn, flour starch category, despite flattening a "grass seed/fruit" being a type of "processing."
Furthermore, oversimplifying food advice tends to leave out conversation of how food breaks down. The main ways are time, grinding, heat, fermentation. Fermentation gets a bit of an asterisk at the end of hard rules lists. They may say no dairy but then exempt fermented dairy. Lactofermentation of oats will be less starchy than uncooked oats.
On the contrary, it's the liquid fats that are more often harmful, especially linoleic acid (aka omega-6).
Why?
I ended up with small doses of simple natural (don't hit me, I know everything is natural in some way) stuff.
Side note: your social context is also hugely influential. A nice job can amplify every good dimension of ones life without you even trying ..
take care
Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy, eggs are really unhealthy, eggs are healthy, eggs are really healthy.
I had trained medical professionals tell me twenty years ago that I was going to ruin my kidneys with my low-carb dieting. Twenty years later, I'm still keeping the weight off and medical science has started to catch up to what I knew just by experimenting on myself with moonshot claims.
The biggest problem with medical science (just look at how COVID issues were butchered by politics and celebrity), is that they refuse to just say, "We don't really know." Because all too often, they have no clue. But they are trained to come up with answers and sound confident about it.
That is what OP says.
What we open see is that "we don't know" is often equated with "does not work".
(I guess that also very frequently how it works out)
Regarding the "we really don't know" part: one can observe that people here are basing their own shamanic medicine on what they read in scientific papers, suddenly pretending that those papers can be trusted while they'll disparage the theories of clinical practitioners as being old-fashioned and manipulative. Well, it happens that many of those theories are based upon lots and lots of research and certainly more so that the "fad of the day" is. And yes, those theories are often refuted after years of clinical application, which does not bode well for experiments based on "few papers shamanic medicine".
1. people use their own "shamanic" medicine based on published scientific papers,
2. people disparage clinical practioners' theories which are based on research and which are later often refuted,
3. you conclude that the "many of those theories" of (2) are "based on lots of research" but often flawed,
4. which "does not bode well for" experiments based on the papers of (1).
What does (2) have to do with (1), unless the content of the papers and "experiments" in each are closely related?
Perhaps you could clarify what you were trying to say here.
2. They then proceed to ask their doc for metformin, since it's a prescription drug. Unless the doc wants to commit career-seppuku or the patient has a reason for taking metformin according to current guidelines based on years of clinical use and research, the doc will refuse even when presented said Pubmed evidence.
Conclusion: people who want to take metformin will look into alternate sources, because they built a preconceived belief and nothing a sensible professional says will change their mind. People then proceed with metformin and if a change in indication occurs in the future that agrees with their belief, they will feel vindicated while in fact they are just lucky fools.
However, individual experiments are not studies in the academic sense. Especially if they are not formally reported so that the experience is not lost in time.
Which is why officially, people have a choice in participating to research studies but aren't allowed free access to whatever drug they want to take. This opinion is also supported by current medical ethics and practitioners have a duty to make their patients clearly understand that.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, american patients have a lot of trouble in understanding that last point.
Derek Lowe talks about the negative effects of metformin on healthy people:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/06/24/me...
Peter Attia talks about the same, and some interesting other considerations:
Metformin forms the base plank of novel metabolic cancer regimens too.
For which you'll likely have to lie to or find an alternative oncologist who's willing to tolerate adjuvant therapies that aren't 'standard of care'.
There are organizations that are developing protocols that include metformin along with statins, anthelmintics and even some antibiotics that are showing promise across a variety of research and even some clinical trials to help fight cancer through a number of mechanisms. Independently they are not likely sufficient to beat cancer but may slow its roll through the body of the patient.
What really sealed the deal was this one professor. Attractive lady whom spoke like she was addressing the United Nations. I still remember the time she told me to show the class my Coccyx. I was relieve I had good underware on.
Back to the most rediculious statement from the red lipstick mouth of a PhD. (I comment on her appearance because she was cute. So--please don't take it any other way. I know there are people waiting to pounce.)
She stated,
"We have over 15 upper cervical techniques, and they All work equally well." Studies, and Placebo Effect are conviently never talked about at that school."
That said, I feel most modern medicine is not much better.
Placebo rules in every healing art.
The kid in front of me, at Chiro school, was the spitting image of health. I was actually jealous. He was getting weekly adjustments. He was getting something called a Rotary Adjustment.
He was biking with his wife, and father in-law on a sunny Saturday. He stopped peddling, and fell over. Died of a massive stroke, at 25.
While I'm here. Sharon Stone was a big Chiro fanatic. Out of the blue she developed bilateral aneurisms, or tears?, in her neck. A world renowned vascular surgeon happened to be giving a talk at UCSF. The hospital asked him to perform the delicate surgery. It was obviously successful.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5839379/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31405774/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954752/ https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287273/
But as you said, you can do your own research, so I'll leave things where they stand. You just sound more like someone who's annoyed by pop-science more than someone who actually has strong opinions about the article or Metformin.
As for the rest no, I'm all for pop-science because it's what stimulates the interest of the masses. The problem in my eyes is more that academic medical studies available to the wider public are akin to a very sharp saw, and people will get cut if they don't know what they're doing.
How do you get "years and years of widespread clinical practice" if no one will let people try it?
I think that much was pretty clear already.
"Emerging wastewater contaminant metformin causes intersex and reduced fecundity in fish."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351...