Slashdot Mirror

You seem pretty bewildered. It is clear that you don't know very much about what makes a diet healthy. That puts you in the at-risk category.

How do you respond to this new knowledge? Do you reject it because it doesn't agree with your forgone conclusions or your preferences? Do you reject it because you one example disagrees with the statistics gathered from huge numbers of examples?

Or do you think, "huh, maybe I should study up on this whole diet thing?"

Yes, red meat is unhealthy, and here is some information about that.

The article didn't say "Wheat", it said "whole grains," which would of course include rice. But even so, the current fad to think wheat is bad is just that, a fad. Humans have been subsisting on wheat since before the dawn of recorded history! Read all about it!

You really do need a clue.

jenningsthecat pointed out:

Another risk in laser eye surgery is extreme dryness. My eyes are already on the dry side - damned if I'm going to gamble on having to depend on drops for the rest of my life, in addition to the posibility of poor night vision, or worse if the procedure goes sideways.

I can't even wear contacts - even when I ignore the irritation, all the ones I've tried cause my eyes to get gummy and blurry. I've resigned myself to wearing glasses, (and getting hosed because of it), for the rest of my life.

There's a very common procedure that Lasik surgeons perform on their patients (at extra cost, of course) where they install lachrimal plugs in the tear duct drainage channels. They keep the surface of the patient's eyes moist by preventing both natural and artificial tears from draining into the sinuses.

If you are uncertain whether you want to live with such an implant, you could have the collagen-based punctal variety installed. They work exactly the same as the permanent, silicone-based ones, except that the collagen dissolves in a few weeks. If you liked the results you obtained with them, you could opt to have silicone punctal plugs installed (as a separate procedure, at additional cost, of course), or try intracanalicular plugs, which are inserted more deeply into the drainage duct (and are thus less likely to fall out), but which can, in rare cases, cause nasty complications.

Since you already suffer from dry eyes, you're probably wise to pass on Lasik itself, but lachrimal plugs may help alleviate the dryness, and any Lasik-qualified surgeon will have lots of experience in installing them ...

Then go swim in a pool without it. Survival of the fitness

The fittest amoeba? There's a reason pools are treated with sordid chemicals.

Naegleria fowleri

The article gets it wrong too, but HIV is not the same as AIDS. Both patients were 'cured' of HIV (not AIDS). https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids...

I wondered how far we'd get into t6his before someone pulled the "I have an anecdote that refutes your scientific survey" bullshit.

I wondere how far we'd get into this until a coward showed up strutting like a cock-a-whoop, thinking he'd scored the game winning touchdown.

Anecdotes? If you were capable of googling you could find that it's real.

https://www.webmd.com/balance/...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-worry/201805/espresso-stress-o-coffee-anxiety-and-panic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... Not an anecdote in the bunch. Caffeine is a psychoactive substance, and excessive consumption can be a real problem. Deal with it.

While you're at it, care to refute climate change with a picture of snow on your lawn?

Nope, because the relationship between the composition of an atmosphere and the atmosphere's energy retention characteristics is irrefutable.

Claims that there is no relationship between caffeine consumption and panic attacks, well now that's the anti-science viewpoint, my dear coward.

Sounds like your friend had a preexisting heart condition.

Nope, she's fine, just had to cut way back on the coffee.

https://www.webmd.com/balance/... [webmd.com] The causation of panic attacks and their symptoms and coffee abuse has been known for a long time.

It is odd that so many people are apologists for coffee. It is a true psychoactive drug. It can be abused. It is abused. Four grams of pure caffeine will kill an adult. As a coffee addict, I understand this well.

I always caution people who like coffee not to get on too high of a horse about cigarettes and especially vaping. As G.W. Bush said to Saddam Hussein, "You're next!"

Remember when smoking was socially acceptable and even considered healthy? You're next!

In moderation though

Nearly all caffeine users have little difficulty keeping their use in the "good" range. But for nicotine, there is no "good" range, and it is far more addictive.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-h...

Perhaps I work in the wrong crowds. Nearly everyone I have ever worked with has been told to cut back on their caffiene use, and most have suffered withdrawal symptoms. Several, including me, have hit the 10 cups per day mark that is considered too damn much.

As well, the puritans who are shitting their pants because the tobacco users have found a loophole in vaping

Nonsense. We are only shitting our pants over kids getting ahold of vaping devices. Adults can do what they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Perhaps we might keep the children out of the bars, if we only care about them, and have no intention of impeding adult use. I mean - bar bans if we are interested in keeping vaping devices out of the hands of kids, thry must be hanging out in bars.

Do you really think that putting a highly addictive and harmful product into the hands of kids is acceptable? They are too stupid and naive to understand the consequences.

I think that there are some fairly simple ways to attempt to keep them out of the hands of those who have not achieved the age of majority. But if I might cite my own and my friend's experience. I and most of my friends started smoking when we were in 7th grade, which for me was 13. Why? Forbidden fruit. Smoking was something "adults" did. So we were playing adults. We had no trouble getting cigarettes or tobacco. Teenagers are indeed capable of taking stupid risks, but they can also be very very capable. Some of us were pretty good at shoplifting tobacco, who didn't have parents that smoked.

Today? Tobacco is harder to get, but I assume I would be as precocious now if I was in junior high. I'd simply make my vapor device. Probably something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Mine would be a lot better, but its simple, and my homebrew version would make me look even more adult to my silly friends.

In other news, this story was posted today:
https://www.webmd.com/smoking-...

I haven't read further to see if they controlled for latent effects of prior smoking (which would presumably explain most of the increased risk for the subset of vapers who had switched from smoking to vaping), but researchers recently found that people who vape (but don't smoke) had a 71% higher risk of stroke, 59% higher risk of heart attack or angina, and 40 percent higher risk of heart disease.

The sample size is impressive: "The researchers included nearly 66,800 people who said they had ever regularly used e-cigarettes, comparing them with about 344,000 people who'd never tried the devices."

And they controlled for some major factors: "The increased health risks linked to e-cigarette use held strong even after Ndunda and his colleagues accounted for other potential risk factors, such as age, excess weight, diabetes and smoking."

But this study would be far more compelling if it compared people who vape but have not smoked to people who do neither. I hope you found it interesting anyway.

Dementia certainly not. But Narcissism? Definitely. Histrionic even maybe.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility. I'm not a doctor and evidently neither are you. It's entirely plausible that he is suffering from some amount of dementia and we simply don't have the data or expertise to confirm or deny it conclusively. It certainly would explain at least some amount of his behavior and he's certainly of the age were that is a significant concern. Yes he plainly is a narcissist but that doesn't explain everything about him or his erratic behavior. And you don't need the "maybe" about histrionic. I think that is almost a given.

Right now, he's acting like a child in the terrible twos that doesn't get the toy he wants and holds his breath 'til he gets what he wants.

Yes he is, though he's hardly the only republican to do that. Since 1990 there have been I think 5 government shutdowns and literally every one of them has been republicans throwing a hissy fit over something rather than working out a deal like adults.

Along the same lines PACs (Premature atril contractions) and PVCs (Premature ventricular contractions) indicate coronary misfires. Skipped beats. I've been told it's pretty common. Depending on diet (aka caffeine) and how much sleep I get, I can have 0 - 5 PVCs a minute. I've been checked with 24 hr & 30 day Holter monitors and cardiologist concluded it ain't a problem. I've gotten where I can feel it when it happens. I don't need a watch to tell me. However, if the watch could detect and warn of a more serious condition like AFIB, I'd listen. A friend (with experience) explained to me that I'd know it's a heart attack by the elephant sitting on my chest.

Except that you can't find a study that points to sugar rush actually being a thing. Even if what you said had actually occurred (and you have zero evidence that it did), other testing has occurred by scientists who were not funded by the candy industry.

There is no such thing as a sugar rush. There's plenty more evidence where this came from...

https://www.webmd.com/parentin...
http://www.yalescientific.org/...
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/s...
http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...

And coal is made from plants. So what!

Coal tar is also a treatment for dandruff.

Saccharin is one of the few artificial sweeteners that I don't have a reaction to, with Aspartame triggering the most severe reaction. But saccharin does taste rather bitter so I tend to avoid it just on flavor alone.

Heart Disease and Electrocardiograms

Seems you're the "stupid idiot." You might do at least 10 seconds of research next time before making yourself look like a fucking moron.

That's a crock of shit. Doctors are so afraid of prescribing opiates, that the pain clinic I goto is now shutting down. The wait for a new pain clinic another 85km away(the one I went to was 30km away), the waiting list for the 1st appointment is now 17 months. That left me in one hell of a spot, because my neurologist handed my pain treatment off to them while she continued to monitor my spine damage(broke my back in two spots about a decade back now). Let me make it clear, testicular torsion rated at a 7 out of 10 on the pain scale in my book when I was a teen. That's when my nut swelled up to the size of an apple. The two shattered vertebra that sliced into my spine, is a 9 or 10 out of 10 nearly all the time. The damage is bad enough I have a baclofen pump to reduce the muscle spasms, cramps, and loss of motor control. Luckily my neurologist had no problems picking up the prescriptions I was on, or replacing the ampules every 2-3 months.

I'm not alone in this. It's absolutely rife in Canada and the US over junkies causing those of us with long-term pain control use problems. The whole "opioid epidemic" is hurting those of us the most, who need pain management. The ONLY way I function is by having something that will suppress the pain enough that I can work(even then I take a long term pill, and a short-term pill for breakthrough pain), and I'd rather work then not even being able to get out of bed, being on welfare/disability and other forms of social assistance. Read this article. Chronic pain patients are the ones being most fucked over by all the hand wringing of habitual drug abusers popping themselves off with illicit drugs, laced with heavier drugs.

The people I know who have serious chronic pain? The ones that are using opiates so they can just function day-to-day? There's an awful lot of "well if they cut me off, what's the easiest way to commit suicide" going around. Those are people who suffer from chronic migraines(I have those too), to the people who've had serious spine injuries, or other issues related to diseases or complications like diabetics that have severe nerve damage to their feet/hands due to poor blood circulation. Again, read that article. The people who are saying "you don't need those drugs" are the ones who don't know what constant, unbearable pain is like. They simply think "you'll get over it."

in Asia - 766 cases were reported, almost all in China

So ask the countries that weren't China for their samples.

How about the rest of your silly claims
It's the main flu virus for the year...and it's 40% fatal. Lets check here . 5-20% of Americans get the flu each year. Lets assume its the same for China. so 5-20% of Chinese people get it and it's 40% fatal. So 2% - 8% of the population, 28 million to 112 million Chinese people, died from flu just this year, and the government kept it a secret?
Half that number again infected who didn't die, many of them travelling the world and you couldn't get a sample?

This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema.

That's not what the research indicates.

What's weird about it is that, while the studies of cannabis smoke itself - like the one in your link - show that it should have serious negative health effects, studies on the health of users find no such effects. This suggests that either there is something in cannabis that counteracts such negative effects, or that the way or amount in which it is consumed is different enough to mitigate them.

If you "don't follow up" you can not blame the surgery.

And still a 1% failure rate is absurd. I could imagine that if the spermatic duct is only blocked with a clip. But usually it is cut, the ends are "wrapped around" and then stitched together, I mean the wrapped parts, not the original connection.

Doing a quick search now lists different rates: "less than 1%"; "1 in 2,000". WebMD reports that "Researchers estimated that around one in 100 vasectomies would fail within one to five years of surgery. They say those failure rates are similar to those reported in two prior studies on vasectomy failure."

I think you missed the part about Rickets. "Without enough of it, bones can become thin, brittle and misshapen, causing a condition called rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults" Rickets in children has been and continues to be a problem, especially amongst the poor in America. When you see very bowlegged or bandy legged children, most likely you are seeing children who suffer from rickets. http://articles.latimes.com/20... https://www.medscape.com/viewa... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/... https://www.webmd.com/children...

I'm not finding the article I'm thinking of at the moment, but I've read that sauna use is particularly helpful for people who may be too obese or injured to comfortably exercise in other ways (though if this applies to you, I suggest trying swimming / pool exercises) or who are sedentary and not used to more-than-brief cardiovascular challenge. At a minimum, sauna use causes short-term cardiovascular changes that the body has to adapt to, and a major way it adapts is by increasing blood vessel elasticity and blood flow to the skin like exercise does. It sounds similar to healthy stretching that many people do for their muscles but for blood vessels (which also contain muscle) instead. Side note: saunas are also a great place to do stretches or massage since muscle and connective tissue elasticity increases as well. Be a little cautious with doing those if you have an injury resulting in joint looseness though!

From another article:
"On average, the study found, sauna users' blood pressure dropped by seven points and their arteries became more "elastic" (based on non-invasive tests).
In addition, their heart rate rose from an average of 65 beats per minute before the sauna session to 81 beats afterward."
https://www.webmd.com/heart/ne...

- A Doctor of Physical Therapy

The result showing decaf might have a similar effect is possibly the most interesting point in the study. It suggests that the effect is from something other than caffeine, which would mean there's more interesting chemicals in coffee.

Coffee is extremely complex chemically. There is a lot to coffee besides just the caffeine.

This. And I don't it's news that coffee can be good for you. An excerpt from this page:

Coffee is a rich source of disease-fighting antioxidants. And studies have shown that it may reduce cavities, boost athletic performance, improve moods, and stop headaches -- not to mention reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, colon cancer, liver cancer, gall stones, cirrhosis of the liver, and Parkinson's diseases.

I'm a long ways from a germophobe but a very significant part of their job is working with people with all sorts of infections and diseases, there could be anything on those things... I'd rather not get a staff infection because a nurse brushed up against me while I was waiting in line for a sandwich at lunch time.

Why worry about that when you can worry about every fourth person around you? Your staff has staph, their staff has staph, the lunch staff has staph...

I know but if scrubs were able to "prevent bugs being passed around" I'd feel a little better standing by these people.

Yes, because "everything must be sterile" has worked so well for public health so far.

Indeed, this is idiotic.

There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.

  http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer...

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity

Yep, this is an example of someone who is successful in one field, in this case legalities, who gets an ego and thinks that they are experts in another field without study. This judge has scant evidence and is jumping to the conclusion that this coffee is carcinogenic without any kind of corroborating evidence to support that conclusion. This is actually scary, you would expect a Judge to have a high standard for evidence, but not in this case.

I am forced to wonder what is leveraging this decision, because it certainly isn't evidence or a careful weighing of facts, rather I wonder who has dirt on him that wants to hurt the coffee industry or short coffee futures and make a quick buck.. something fishy going on here. Stay tuned, I am willing to bet more to the story is going on here along the lines of lobbying by the coke corporation and funding of junk science and FUD about their sugar water actually being healthy (and funding quack doctors like Michael Greggor to say that high sugar diets are actually healthy.. when the facts completely disagree over mountains of evidence and an exploding diabetes epidemic..) Never underestimate the level of evil and public harm that can be caused by lobbyists when they get in attack mode!

TLDR; There is not sufficient evidence to state that Coffee causes cancer, if it does it is such a small effect that it is far below statistical significance and therefore not able to be proved by research done on the topic thus far. This judge is playing a scientist and is a text book example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

as potentially lowering some cancers risks? https://www.webmd.com/cancer/n... Thing is, apart from known classified poisons, nothing is either completely black or white. And in retrospective, it looks like almost any man-made food processing has potentially deleterious effects on human health, cooking/heating being the most common. Then again, cooking and otherwise transforming food is part of what made us evolve into humans.

Indeed, this is idiotic.

There is ample evidence showing that coffee is surprisingly good for you. Saying it has to be labelled a "carcinogen" is doing nothing to help anybody's health, but is contributing to people ignoring warning labels, which is not a good thing. California's laws are stupid and counterproductive.

  http://time.com/4116129/coffee-longer-life/

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimer...

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/this-is-your-brain-on-coffee/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/11/16/456191657/drink-to-your-health-study-links-daily-coffee-habit-to-longevity

You don't know the difference between your opinion and evidence?

https://www.webmd.com/diet/fea...

Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, and Sodium Benzoate are safe:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Azodicarbonamide is safe:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Aspartame is safe:
https://jamanetwork.com/journa...

No evidence that organic based foods are safer than regular foods (a review of 240 studies)
http://annals.org/aim/article-...

No evidence that GMOs pose health risks:
https://www.csicop.org/si/show...

What is actually going on here:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.o...

The first part of the finding, that Kratom acts similarly to an opioid, is a reasonable, scientific discovery. The next step, stating that it is not useful in treating any medical conditions, is complete bullshit. From WebMD: "Advocates say the herb kratom offers relief from pain, depression, and anxiety. Scientists say it may hold the key to treating chronic pain and may even be a tool to combat addiction to opioid medications." https://www.webmd.com/mental-h...

The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful. If the FDA were reasonably interested in promoting the general health and welfare of the population, the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation, investigate anecdotal accounts of medicinal properties, and then if warranted perform voluntary double blind clinical trials to validate or refute the historical and anecdotal evidence. I have never heard of this herb, let alone taken it, but many naturally occurring plant components have medicinal properties.

All drugs have side effects, all drugs can be dangerous. To pull a medicinal herb without any plans to properly study it while giving blanket statements condemning its use is dishonest and fuels the antivaxers and alternative medicine movements that have been steadily growing in the US.

Once it was clear that Jobs had the rare islet-cell pancreatic cancer, there was an excellent chance of a cure. According to Cleveland Clinic gastroenterologist Maged Rizk, MD, there’s an overall 80% to 90% chance of 5-year survival. In the world of cancer survival, that’s a huge milestone.

https://blogs.webmd.com/breaki...

People are actually quite good at making judgements of people based on very little information, https://www.webmd.com/balance/..., it makes sense really, in the real world we have very little actual information about someone.

Nothing's perfect. Birth control pills are only "up to" 99.9% effective:

Women take the pill by mouth to prevent pregnancy, and, when taken correctly, it is up to 99.9% effective.

Or, more realistically, 91% to 99% effective:

When used perfectly, the pill is 99% effective. But when it comes to real life, the pill is about 91% effective because it can be hard to be perfect. So in reality, 9 out of 100 pill users get pregnant each year.

Not exactly a peer-reviewed article, but here's one

The FDA doesn't have legal authority to regulate or certify supplements

And the supplement industry spends lots of money to ensure it stays that way. I wonder why?

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm153239.htm
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0261-dietary-supplements#supplementssafe?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dietary-supplements-a-37-billion-a-year-boondoggle-2016-01-22
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements#1

Now of course I'm not saying all dietary supplements are fraudulent. I'm just saying its not always easy to tell which ones are fraudulent and which ones are not since they aren't regulated by anything beyond the amount of dollars they can convince you to spend.

And of course that's not even considering that many of the not-technically-fraudulent ones may simply be doing little or nothing for you and are effectively just an expensive placebo.

And even then many of the ones that might be theoretically useful are only beneficial if you have a bad diet to start with and actually need to supplement whatever chemicals your body isn't getting enough of -- but you claim to be eating well so that also shouldn't apply to you. For example if you're getting sufficient vitamin C and you take a vitamin C tablet.. its basically just going to go straight from your mouth to your bladder and out again without doing you any good whatsoever (but also no real bad in that case.. too much of some vitamins and minerals are as bad or worse than not enough so even more things to be careful of!)

Maybe different rates for the preexisting condition, black?

Rod Serling had to smoke on camera as product placement because the Twilight Zone -- like many other popular TV shows -- was sponsored by the Chesterfeld cigarette company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Liggett & Myers [who produced Chesterfeld cigarettes] sponsored Dragnet, both on radio and on TV, during the 1950s. The 1954 theatrical version of Dragnet also had Chesterfield product placements, such as advertisements in scenes taking place at drug stores and news counters, or cigarette vending machines. Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday was seen smoking Chesterfields in the movie and TV series. Also in the 1950s, Gunsmoke on both radio and TV was similarly sponsored primarily by Chesterfields and L&Ms. At the end of The Twilight Zone, for several seasons Rod Serling frequently smoked and promoted Chesterfields. In the 1940s and 1950s Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Perry Como, and Arthur Godfrey were among Chesterfield's official spokesmen; Chesterfield being one of the primary sponsors of the radio and TV programs of these stars during that time."

Sad how then and now so much evil addiction is foisted on the world in order to make a buck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.paulgraham.com/addi...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Smoking may have contributed to Sterling's tragic early death of heart attack at age 50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"On May 3, 1975, Serling had a minor heart attack and was hospitalized. He spent two weeks at Tompkins County Community Hospital before being released.[66] A second heart attack two weeks later forced doctors to agree that open-heart surgery, though considered risky at the time, was in order.[67][68] The ten-hour-long procedure was carried out on June 26, but Serling had a third heart attack on the operating table and died two days later at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New York.[69] He was 50 years old.[63] His funeral took place on July 2."

https://www.webmd.com/heart-di...
"About 20% of deaths from heart disease in the U.S. are directly related to smoking."

Was promoting smoking in order to make the Twilight Zone was in a way Serling's own deal with the devil? Was it a good deal? I enjoyed the show and learned some important thought-provoking moral lessons from it. I admire Stirling for making it. But the deal perhaps took decades away from his life and the lives of many viewers. It's perhaps yet another cautionary tale from ... the Twilight Zone.

Vaping by itself is completely harmless with nicotine being on par with caffeine in terms of harm and effects.

Wrong. Last I checked, caffeine was suspected to cause hardening of your arteries like nicotine is.

No it's not a mental illness. No more than being gay by definition.

The vast majority of those 400k deaths weren't from people trying cigarettes for the first time, they were the end result of people who had been smoking for decades. There is an ongoing stream of them which is why you keep seeing the same smoker death rate year after year. E-cigs haven't been around long enough for the nicotine to build up in any barely 20-something hipster faggot, but I am 100% certain that after a few decades of sucking on that pipe, they'll start dropping at the same rate as the cigarette smokers have been.

Even nicotine PATCHES and GUM are bad for health. Never-smokers are advised never to try them and those who do start getting some of the same negative effects as smokers, and you can even overdose on them.

It has been KNOWN as an absolute FACT for decades that nicotine is BAD. Who the fuck missed that? Oh right... the latest crop of 20-something know-it-alls. Too fucking smug to shut the fuck up and listen to people who can actually PROVE things.

But by all means, show us how much smarter you are than webmd.

Studies on children and fairness are abundant. http://www.webmd.com/children/... link to the first hit on duckduckgo.

Here's some discussion likely about the "studies" funded by tobacco companies you're basing your statement on. Most studies since 1980 not funded by tobacco companies do find links to increased cancer risk. Does it actually cause cancer? We know the toxins in even second hand smoke, given in high enough doses over a long enough time will cause cancer or outright kill cells. Draw your own conclusions.

One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.

TFA doesn't mention testosterone being down.

Ol Olsoc does. https://www.healio.com/endocri...

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d...

A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.

Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.

And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :

"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.

And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used

So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.

One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.

TFA doesn't mention testosterone being down.

Ol Olsoc does. https://www.healio.com/endocri...

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d...

A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.

Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.

And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :

"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.

And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used

So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.

It isn't bullt for lardasses who gorge on all-you-can-eat buffets like yourself. You'll break the axle just by getting in.

creimer's 'single' plate of food.
'Gorging' skinny person's plate.

creimer's 'single' plate.
skinny person's 'gorging' plate.

creimer's "single plate"
Skinny persons three plates

If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.

The flaw in that argument is that since we, as a species, have achieved an expected lifespan long enough to consistently make it to 45 years of age, no significant biological evolution has occurred.

Right, but it isn't my argument. Spending fully half of our lives being fertile (or not) doesn't make much evolutionary sense for a species with a long juvenile existence. We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.

A couple that starts their family at 45 will be at around retirement age when their first child reaches 21 years of age. If their first child delays fertility until 45, they will be 90 years old when they become grandparents. Then maybe 115 when their first grandchild graduates college.

Let us not forget that life expectancy in the US has gone down. http://www.webmd.com/healthy-a...

http://www.webmd.com/digestive...

chromium is a required mineral... and 23ppb is *a lot* lower than the recommended intake, even if you would drink 10 liters of water a day. For an adult the minimum recommended intake is between 20 and 35 mcg/day depending on if you are female or male and what age-group you are in. Upper limit is 1000 mcg/day according to some.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/supp...

http://www.webmd.com/digestive...

chromium is a required mineral... and 23ppb is *a lot* lower than the recommended intake, even if you would drink 10 liters of water a day. For an adult the minimum recommended intake is between 20 and 35 mcg/day depending on if you are female or male and what age-group you are in. Upper limit is 1000 mcg/day according to some.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/supp...

There might be something to be said for therapeutic touch, strectching, pain induced pain relief (one of the theories about how acupuncture works) but the notion of subluxation theory was put to rest decades ago. (Mayo Trained M.D.)

Who said it was safe ? No one said it was safe, as far as I can tell. Obviously, it's not safe. Air (with its pollutants) is not safe as well.

You can find some info here about the base components of the vaping fluid:

https://www.drugs.com/inactive...
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-...

Alvie

The 5mm Hg error isn't...too terribly bad, but 10mm Hg error or higher is unconscionable.

I don't think looking at it as 4% error is the most useful comparison. It might be better to compare the error with the distance between different blood pressure categories, which is generally a 20 mm Hg jump for systolic, or 10 for diastolic.

Someone with hypertension problems (i.e. the kind of person that might have a blood pressure cuff at home) would care quite a bit about an error of 10 mm Hg.