The biological basis for sex differences in autoimmune diseases

My recollection is that the inference that men should donate blood to protect their heart health is based at least in part on the fact that women see an increase in heart disease around the time they stop menstruating:

Once women reach the age of 50, about the age of natural menopause, their risk for heart disease increases dramatically.

https://www.webmd.com/menopause/guide/menopause-heart-diseas...

Aside from the obvious (meat, nuts), fortification of processed foods is more common in the US than other countires, and the FDA has some mandatory fortification rules. Breakfast cereals and flour are required to be fortified with iron, amongst other things.

The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked. Laughing at people really puts a dent in that, sadly.

Depends how they laugh. You can laugh in a good natured way at what should be a logical step but weirdly isn’t because of a non-obvious component of a system. They are funny in a similar way to how a joke is- something about the sudden change in perspective but with an flaw in the logic. But you are right that you need to make it clear you aren’t laughing at them to avoid such confusion.

I see what you mean, but I probably would have laughed at that because it's a really clever solution, not out of scorn. I am guessing a doctor that has spent decade hearing about various blood pressure medications and treatment would have an instant of "That's funny, why can't we just empty them a bit?"

when doctors laugh at me (I ask a lot of questions like this) I typically show them the underlying scientific article that supports it, and ask them if they've read it.

They stop laughing after that.

Not exactly my field, but IIRC blood pressure is not a passive result of how much blood is present, but rather is regulated by the body through a series of control networks. Removing blood does not reduce blood pressure (the body recognizes the dip and will adjust, plus more blood is made again quickly) because the problem is not that there is too much blood, but rather that the pressure setpoint is wrong.

Things like atherosclerosis reduce the space available for blood and increase the pressure without the body realizing the setpoint needs to change, thus why pressure increases.

It's a completely reasonable question. Blood pressure is a function of many variables, including vascular resistance, compliance, heart function, and --yes-- blood volume. In fact, one of the treatments for blood pressure, though rarely a first line, is to use a diuretic to reduce fluid volume. As other posters have commented, the body will compensate this to some degree, and it is not a very lasting or well-controlled effect, so the doctor is correct that bloodletting is not the standard of care for hypertension. But a mental experiment on the extreme margins can help address the question intuitively as well: suppose you removed all the blood, or else suppose you 100x-ed the blood supply. Would pressure fall and rise respectively? Of course it would.

Blood pressure is more of a function of resistance to flow than volume (ignoring things like trauma induced hypovolemic shock - aka bleeding out) - which can be from many causes, including vasodilation/constriction, plaque buildup, compartment syndrome, heart issues (bad rhythm, valve issues, etc.), shock, or regulatory dysfunctions indirectly impacting those areas.

Volume issues, especially difficulty processing waste/removing excess fluid (renal failure or disfunction), can pop up, but reducing volume as a solution is kind of like taking gas out of your gas tank because your throttle keeps getting stuck and you don't want to run anyone over.

Yeah, it can kinda help maybe (and if you're desperate you should do it), but it isn't really addressing the underlying issue. Sometimes you don't have time or the ability to address the underlying issue, but it shouldn't be the first thing to go to.

Not ridiculous that say excess iron or blood volume could be an issue or help if addressed - just not a high odds thing to be tackling usually.

I doubt it was a "ha-ha you're a stupid idiot" laugh but more of the sort of laugh you'd do when a toddler does something that makes perfect common sense, but violates social norms (like discussing their bowel movements with strangers).

I have used this method to determine all the foods I am only mildly sensitive to as I have gotten older (30s).

It’s so random finding out that popcorn activates cold sores, pizza without a large (high pH) salad causes indigestion, etc.

This is correct advice.

An elimination diet is critical to under standing ones sensitivities.

I once spent a month eating nothing but sweet potatoes . Best I ever felt. Afterwards I could quickly tell what was an issue. Which was most everything not on strict AIP diet.

The Auto immune protocol diet is an excellent place to start. Focuses on inflammation.

The problem is the oppression of gendered expectations towards men is much more abstract because it is framed as empowerment.

Men aren't supposed to cry or show emotions other than anger except in extreme situations (e.g. birth of a child or death of a close relative or romantic partner) but stoicism is seen as a demonstration of strength and rationality.

Social attitudes for men embrace self-destruction but because men are taught adherence to these ideals is the only valid way to seek affirmation, giving them up feels even more damaging because you have nothing else left. This is why positive role models are important but in order to be effective they need to function as role models in the traditional expectations as well.

I think a good example is Terry Crews, who fits the traditional masculine role model of being an accomplished athlete, actor and father, but also broke the silence on sexual assault against men, as well as being an activist against sexism and expressing emotional depth in his characters. Role models aren't enough but they help normalizing non-conforming gender expressions, reducing the resistance faced by people in the real world.

We won't get rid of archaic gender roles overnight, but fighting sexism, homophobia and transphobia (and racism, but that's a story for another time) goes a long way towards allowing men to express themselves differently without having to fear being told they are "unmanly" because being told your behavior is "girly" or "gay" no longer works as an insult if you don't see these adjectives as signaling something "lesser" than how you want to be seen.

In short, women's liberation was easier because sexism meant women were seen as inferior and demanding to be able to do "things men do" was empowering. Men's liberation is more difficult because we didn't overcome sexism and thus men behaving "like women" is still seen as inferior rather than empowering. A good demonstration is how women rejecting their "empowerment" by embracing femininity are recuperated by conservatism.

Yep. Automatic, autonomous, all are from auto (self), automatic being "doing by itself", autonomous being "governing itself" (or "self-sufficient"), etc.