"Shock" testosterone therapy reverses prostate cancer in a new study

Original_Dankster · 2016-12-04T04:00:21+00:00

Background: In my 40s, and the doctor has started checking my prostate. Not fun, but necessary. When you're in your 40s, you're going to...

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You've got 10 years on me.

The aging process is quite a thing. Lost a lot of my hearing from unsuppressed gunfire, but I've always had incredibly sharp eyes. Now I notice that my visual acuity isn't what it was. Mind and reflexes are sharper than my teens- but that is the result of effort and discipline.

Nature (and her love of that 2nd thermodynamic law) is an unforgiving cunt...but I suppose we lose our senses and health- including that prostate thing- for evolutionary reasons, too. Once we pass reproductive peak, our DNA begins to stop repairing itself (including reproductive stuff)- we're not as useful. Perhaps she intended for us, in a primitive world, to become the first of our little hominid group to get eaten by something we didn't see, hear or were too old to run from.

Running is for faggots, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joSPPrR1l34

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio15 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Good point. The other fact to keep in mind is that the vast majority of us died before thirty.

We mated and reproduced in our early teens to early twenties. And we were dead from disease, injury, infection or war by the time we were 30.

40 was considered old age. For women too: Women died in child birth all the fucking time.

Biologically, evolution didn't provide a whole lot of natural selection past the age of 30 for humans, because it didn't matter much for either gender at that point.

There's good evidence that our roles past 30 (for the few of us that we're left), were to be housebound educators, surrogate child rearers, decision makers and to pass knowledge to the "doers" of the next generation. Being housebound was a likely result of injury and disease anyway.

It's also why we find women to be attractive from teens to early twenties. We're not designed to find old women attractive. And "old" and 30 are synonymous in historical / evolutionary terms.

Likewise, our prostate glands were built with a 'warranty' of about 40 years for humans that typically lived around 30. 'Seemed like plenty of time not long ago. Now we're trying to squeeze an extra 40-50 years out of our prostates. They were never built for that.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mckallidon10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scrodzilla8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

also for the benefit of any men who read this, here is the real deal about IGF-1 and cancer and meat.

http://www.saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/

the TLDR is, this hormone isn't bad for you, and low levels cause many health problems. BUT if you already have cancer, it might make SOME cancers grow faster. basically its the same as testosterone, T isn't bad by any means, and many of us want as much of it as we can produce, but it can make SOME cancers grow fast.

The guy im replying too is basically lying by saying meat "causes" cancer by raising IGF-1. IGF-1 doesn't cause it, it makes some grow faster. Therefore it makes no sense to blame meat on having more cancer than india, since IGF-1 doesn't cause it in the first place.

The guy in other posts talks about cancer "feeding " of methionine, well that isn't causing cancer either... some cancers also feed on iron, are we going to claim iron "causes" cancer? cancers feed on sugar mostly anyway, i dont know why he is ignoring that fact.

TLDR of it all is, no , cancer isn't caused by meat, some nutrients in meat are things cancer feeds off, but cancer also feeds off sugar (present in fruit and many plants), and iron (present in many plants too), and a hormone that meat raises may make some cancers grow faster, just like testosterone, but no one considers low amounts of testosterone "good", same with IGF-1. please look into things before believing random vegan fanatics like this guy and vegan gains, who outright exaggerate things and lie to make meat sound like the devil himself.

PS: this is the for the benefit of men reading the bullshit you posted, its not a reply to you, you vegan nutjob.

[–]Mr_Annette 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Browsing the article was interesting, the comments less so. As a reader in cardiovascular biochemistry please stop trying to spread misinformation like this..

'Cancer isn't caused by meat, some nutrients in meat are things cancer feeds off' my word.. I could task a 9 year old to read to me the Wikipedia definition of cancer and they would already have a higher understanding of it versus you.

'Cancer also feeds off sugar (present in fruit and many plant)' do you know how many sugars there are? There's sugar to some extent in everything you complete ape.

You're comparing IGF-1 to testosterone on the loose basis that they are both hormones, and a low level of a hormone = bad. Good fucking god give this man his doctorate and get him researching the drugs for us.

I'm not vegan, I eat chicken every week. But as someone who is well versed in the area you're rambling incoherently about, this is cringe worthy. Please, do not speak about biochemistry, metabolism, cancer nor even basic fucking hormones as if you're teaching something. I don't know what country you're from but the way your comment is phrased as if you know what you're talking about and how op is a 'vegan nutjob', coupled with the shit show in pace of any understanding of the topic, really makes me wonder what the education system has tried to attempt.

If you'd like a lesson (or 8), so that you could actually be of some use, come down to London sometime and hmu. Literally can't believe the amount of bs I've read in one comment, from a guy acting like he knows what he's talking about, talking as if the other guy is spreading misinformation.

Also just reading it again and fucking hell hahahahaha another piece of gold comment: 'cancers feed on sugar mostly anyway'. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, THAT UNCONTROLLED GROWTHS OF CELLS FEED ON... SUGARS?! THE MAIN METABOLITE OF THE HUMAN BODY?!!! YOURE TELLING ME CELLS WHICH REPLICATE UNCONTROLLABLY THEREFORE REQUIRING A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF METABOLITE WILL USE... SUGAR?! YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THE FACT THAT THEY REPLICATE UNCONTROLLABLY HAS NO EFFECT ON THEIR CHOICE OF METABOLITE?! But seriously it's a joke, you talk about cancer cells like they're some kind of fucking alien matter in the body, foreign entity's like bacteria which will metabolise with special requirements (you talked about 'cancers feeding on iron as if cancer patients have some tapeworm-esq creature inside of them waiting to chow down on all the glorious iron we eat). Well here's the big news bud, cancer isn't some malignant pathogen like a virus, the disease is characterised by the uncontrollable divisions of cells (these form tumors). And guess what, much like other body cells, they will metabolise in similar ways.

Barely ever leave comments this long. Your comment was a spit in the face to the area I research in. Spread unintelligent and half-assed 'truths' in some other area. Even showed your comment to my colleagues, Christ almighty the quotes get funnier every time..

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_Annette 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any sources for that or are you just pulling it out of your ass? The largest population studies to date have found a significant correlation between animal products and mortality and we even know the mechanisms as to why.

Animal protein has numerous mechanisms by which it promotes cancer in humans. It isn't so much about "diet curing cancer", your immune system is naturally suppose to be able to deal with cancer, but the foods we eat today make our blood incredibly nutritious for cancer. IGF-1 is a well known hormone that is produced by our liver when we ingest animal protein, and it raises your risk of cancer promotion massively. We also are aware most forms of cancer feed off methionine, a sulfur-containing amino acid that is found in the highest quantities in animal protein (dairy, meat, mainly found in fish and eggs). We ALSO know that animal protein activates the mTOR pathway which causes cell reproduction and aging, furthering your risk for cancer.

We have data backing all of this up now. And I'd love to hear about what countries eat ten times more meat and have less cancer, because as far as I know Australia eats the most meat and surprise surprise, Coronary Heart Disease and Colorectal Cancer are some of their leading causes of death.

Again, people thinking diet is "the cure" just shows how little you know about cancer. It isn't about magically killing the cancer, your body will do that on its own. It's about taking away the growth hormones and amino acids that cancer feeds off of, that are so high in our westernized diets.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

there are more factors in cancer than just eating meat, its pretty hard to link cancer to one cause by studying country vs country, those kinds of studies are almost useless. people in western countries do 1000 unhealthy things, like not exercising and eating shit tons of sugar, how can you blame it 100% on meat? makes no sense. everyone knows about the Inuits and the masai, who have extremely low cancer rates. there are also places in tibet and china that consume meat regular and do just fine. you can spam all the cherry picked links you want, there are studies that contradict every one of them. also the colon cancer is PROCESSED MEAT, not normal meat. most studies don't separate processed from regular red meat, which fucks up the study. australians eat the most processed meat. people in western countries eat JUNK FOOD, not 100% healthy organic lean red meat.

there is no point posting "sources" on reddit, we aren't scientists and no one else but us is going to care what we post, im not willing to get into a link war, i just don't care. you can have your little victory and claim you won because im too lazy or w/e. idgaf. i know im not going to turn you anti- vegan by posting studies that contradict yours, you've already made up your mind and you'll only pay attention to studies that prove your point, and ignore ones that contradict it, science is never as clear and unified in proving something as you are pretending it is, there are literally hundreds of studies that show no correlation between sat fat and heart disease, or meat and health problems. i've been in too many of these arguments with vegans and its draining. im putting no effort in this time.

the rest of your post is dangerous alternative medicine nonsense that has killed people, and you seem like a nutjob. there was some famous aussie blogger who believed the same nonsense you do, she went on that "gerson" diet bullshit, and so did her mother. all raw vegan food etc etc same nonsense you are spouting, about how it should "allow her body to cure the cancer", and guess what? her and her fucking mother died from CANCER, which they could have gotten treated for by doctors. also steve jobs died by trying to cure cancer with vegan bullshit. my gf's dad also recently died from cancer, and he did all the same diet stuff you talk about. sorry but you're a fucking retard. why would i take you seriously enough to hunt down studies lol.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

there are more factors in cancer than just eating meat

Diet plays a hugely significant role in cancer progression. This only makes sense. Again, animal protein (not just meat) introduces a large amount of methionine into your blood, as well as activates the mTOR pathway, and stimulates a lot of IGF-1 production, which all feed cancer cells significantly. I'm not just targeting meat here. Soy protein isolate will have a similar IGF-1 effect, making it also unhealthy.

its pretty hard to link cancer to one cause by studying country vs country

The point of the population studies isn't to point out one specific cause, it's to further evaluate whether the existing mechanisms we know have an effect in real life. And according to the largest population studies to date, our diets are in fact a big problem, because populations who eat a more whole-foods centric diet have much lower rates of cancer and almost no cardiovascular disease.

how can you blame it 100% on meat?

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply saying animal products (not just meat) are a large contributor to the problem, due to the mechanisms I've already stated.

people in western countries do 1000 unhealthy things, like not exercising

Strenuous hour-long a day exercise helps, but only about half as much as a plant-based diet with mild exercise. meaning exercise in itself is not nearly as helpful as eating whole-foods.

people in western countries eat JUNK FOOD, not 100% healthy organic lean red meat.

Sure. Any animal products, regardless of whether they're raw/organic or not, still contribute to all the mechanisms I've listed before. It's a problem with the amino acid profile, not anything to do with the processing. Regardless, animal products still also contain cholesterol and saturated fat.

you've already made up your mind and you'll only pay attention to studies that prove your point, and ignore ones that contradict it, science is never as clear and unified in proving something as you are pretending it is, there are literally hundreds of studies that show no correlation between sat fat and heart disease, or meat and health problems.

You're going full retard. It's important to check the actual studies and how they're performed/who funds them. Yeah you can find a shit ton of studies that contradict mine, but it's about QUALITY not quantity. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies is way more valuable than any study funded by the National Egg Board lol. I think maybe you just have a very layman understanding of nutrition because yeah, it is hard to get into.

the rest of your post is dangerous alternative medicine nonsense that has killed people, and you seem like a nutjob.

Wow fantastic ad hominem. And then you go on to give anecdotal evidence.. Do you realize how ridiculous your entire reply was? If you aren't going to "put in effort" then don't comment back because you sound like a dumbass. Whole-foods plant-based diets have been shown time and time again to reverse our number one killer (heart disease). It also prevents type 2 diabetes (which is caused by toxic byproducts of saturated fat), and prevents Alzheimer's (which is caused by atherosclerosis in the brain). I'm not going to kill anybody by telling them to not eat animal products, humans aren't suppose to consume dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. Our lipid metabolism clearly demonstrates this.

And I'm not saying that if you have cancer you can "cure" it by going plant-based, but it is MUCH more likely that you will be able to reverse it. This makes sense if you put two and two together and realize "oh, animal protein is really good for feeding cancer and antioxidants (which only come from plants) are bad for cancer... hmm. it's almost like eating plants is better than eating animals!"

The American Dietetics Association has stated a vegan diet is healthy for anybody at any stage of life, even during pregnancy. There is no reason to not go vegan, especially when you know the effects animal products have on us.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

the massive market for statins

And what do you think the statin industry wants? You think they want people to eat healthy and not need their statins? You have to realize how silly that sounds.

The study you cited brings up a really good question. Why do people who are within the "safe" range of LDL cholesterol suffer heart attacks? The answer is probably going to make you feel pretty depressed.

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70mg/dl according to this META-ANALYSIS of RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS. The people in your study who were within the "safe" range of cholesterol.. weren't. The UCLA even states in your study "Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit,"

The problem isn't that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, the problem is that our current guidelines are way too high and it tricks people into thinking they won't have a heart attack if they stay around 100mg/dl. The reason? Animal products is a big industry my friend.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

i pretty much knew you would reply with that nonsense. "we need to lower cholesterol even LOWER because its obviously not low enough !". no, low cholesterol to that extreme promotes health problems. you do know we need cholosterol to actually function right? the logical conclusion is that cholesterol isn't as important in predicting heart attacks as we think. extremely low cholesterol is a huge predictor of early mortality, its important in cell and brain and hormone function.

once again you blame the conspiracy of the meat industry. you know i do believe vegan diets are pretty much healthy, as long as you make sure to get the things people would normally get from meat, but i don't believe its NECESSARY to cut out meat for health. i dont know why you guys have to make up insane conspiracy theories and twist logic and facts like this.

also i linked you another study that showed that lower cholesterol in heart attack patients predicted HIGHER MORTALITY, which shits all over you stupid theory about needing to lower it to even more insane amounts. lower cholesterol to the extremes you recommend = early death.

also the study you linked used primates as an example and compared it to humans. "because monkeys have cholesterol around this level, humans should too ".

also to be frank, literally all of this ignores the fact that many people believe its not cholesterol, but oxidation that is the problem. in the west we are fuckign obsessed with lowering cholesterol to insanely lower and lower and lower amounts, instead of adressing the problem that our shitty diets (including tons of sugar) cause tons of inflammation and oxidation which is probably why the fat clogs our arteries in the first place. its the oxidation of the cholesterol, not the cholesterol itself that is the problem. cholesterol is one factor in heart disease. the main reason we are obsessed with lowering it that much, is that doctors treat things with drugs, not complex dietary approaches. if lowering cholesterol doesn't work, they just use MORE DRUGS to lower it EVEN MORE. they never think to take a look at the complexities of diet and realise it might be combination factors and not just cholesterol itself. go google some of the cultures in the world that eat tons of meat and have less heart attacks, its not hard to find. guess what? these people dont eat processed food and sugar....

[–]kruxofthemimed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

low cholesterol to that extreme promotes health problems.

Source?

you do know we need cholosterol to actually function right?

That's why we produce our own cholesterol dumb dumb.

also the study you linked used primates as an example and compared it to humans. "because monkeys have cholesterol around this level, humans should too ".

That's not at all what the study had said. It was a compilation of evidence that paleolithic humans had lower cholesterol (leaner meat, a lot more fiber, more omega 3s, generally a much healthier diet) and that's why they didn't suffer from atherosclerosis in the way that we do now. I'm glad you were excited to respond to me but next time you should take the time to actually look through my evidence rather than reading the first sentence and giving me a kneejerk reaction.

also i linked you another study that showed that lower cholesterol in heart attack patients predicted HIGHER MORTALITY

The study you linked was comparing patients who were low-Killip and high-Killip. Now, I'm sure you didn't take the time to look up what that actually means, but the Killip scale is designed to measure how bad somebody's heart attack was. The study you cited also doesn't give any information on whether the patients were on statins or not, but regardless, it was comparing people who had minor heart attacks and high blood cholesterol to people who had already had severe heart attacks and happened to have "low" blood cholesterol at the time of the analysis. Not to mention the high-Killip patients had blood cholesterol just under 110mg/dl, which is still high as fuck, and considering they had an incredibly severe heart attack it isn't surprising they died. Mortality rate in people who are rated 4 on the Killip scale is 81% as compared to those rated 2 at 6%.

This is very likely a study that was designed to mislead you, and that further proves my point that this is an incredibly powerful industry.

literally all of this ignores the fact that many people believe its not cholesterol, but oxidation that is the problem

HMM wow antioxidants sound pretty good right now huh? Heme-iron (iron from animal products) increases oxidative stress btw.

Do us both a favor and read this. there are literally pictures showing plaque formation completely disappearing after 3 weeks of a plant-based diet. Dr. Esselstyn has a Ted Talk about this that you should watch. Yes, oxidation causes inflammation that bursts the endothelial wall, but plaque build up is the reason it is even able to burst in the first place.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

they would have no idea what levels cavemen had, they were just guessing. it was a theory that humans should have much lower levels they couldn't prove it.

That's why we produce our own cholesterol dumb dumb.

ummm, in the study you linked they were advocating lowering levels to that low, with statin drugs, not diet. i could cry conspiracy and say "ohh look the statin industry strikes again !" like you keep doing with the meat industry boogey man, but i wont. i dont think anywhere in that article it said that there are humans with levels that low from diet. hence why they talked about apes, and made up stuff about cavemen. no regular humans in society even have levels that low.

I'm not posting links, just google some of the studies related to people taking statins and higher level of health problems in the elderly, you'll find a bunch. one confirmed thing is lower memory in people with lower cholesterol (the brain is made of it).

it could technically be true that lower cholesterol lowers risk of heart disease but RAISES risks of other problems as well. frankly lots of things in the body are like that, its a complex thing, there is no magic bullet diet. one certain healthy diet will increase risk of certain disease but lower risk of other disease.

lots of minerals from plants and meat increase oxidation. so does glucose in general, so does breathing fucking oxygen lol. this is a bit of a moot point. all you can do is not eat absurd amounts of things that you dont need to eat that raise oxidation.

anyway this could go on all day. any study that goes against what you say is "a misleading study, ohh look, the meat industry again !". what is the point of arguing with you? honestly you have no hope of remotely listening to anything that doesn't circle jerk your own conclusions. just call it a day friendo.

also fuck ted talks, there are ted talks on any nonsense you can imagine. there are ted talks that state watching porn messes up your brain like meth. i could probably find a ted talk that says eating buckets of saturated fat all day will make you immortal.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

ummm, in the study you linked they were advocating lowering levels to that low, with statin drugs, not diet.

"The mega-trials using statin therapy have demonstrated remarkable reductions in CHD events and in all-cause mortality among patients with baseline LDL levels generally from 120 to 180 mg/dl and on-treatment values between 100 and 140 mg/dl 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Whereas cardiovascular events were reduced by 25% in these studies, approximately three out of four CHD events occurred despite the statin therapy. This 25% reduction in LDL represents only partial treatment, and more robust reductions appear to provide more impressive improvements in prognosis (12)."

Did you read it? They don't advocate for use, they just note that it statistically lowers your risk for a cardiovascular event, which it does. Diet just happens to do it better.

it could technically be true that lower cholesterol lowers risk of heart disease but RAISES risks of other problems as well.

You're making conjecture now because you kinda want to admit you were wrong but you don't want to do it without pointing out an imaginary problem with my argument. The thing with eating a whole-foods plant-based diet.. If you do it correctly, there are no side effects. Humans are biologically herbivores. The only reason this is even debated is because we were intelligent enough to eat meat to avoid famine of any sort. A human's optimal diet is herbivorous.

what is the point of arguing with you? honestly you have no hope of remotely listening to anything that doesn't circle jerk your own conclusions.

You seriously need to reflect on this. Is it possible that you might be the one who is sticking to their bias here?

lots of minerals from plants and meat increase oxidation.

Plants have antioxidants dumbass. They don't increase oxidative stress. That would be completely retarded because they sit in the sun all day. As a whole food the net effect is an antioxidant effect.

there are ted talks that state watching porn messes up your brain like meth.

I don't know about meth and I agree with your point that Ted Talks can be misleading, but porn does have very addictive effects comparable to other highly stimulating things like cocaine, which I'm sure in the long term can fuck with your brain development as any other type of intensively-pleasurable addiction can. I personally have been trying to stop watching porn for over a year now, and I'm still struggling, which should go to show what kind of effects it can have on people. It's the same as if somebody had an intense gaming addiction (like many people do).

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

provide me sources of diet that lowers it that low. the average is considered over 100 so you'll have to prove that claim. they were talking about and promoting using statins, you linked it to prove stuff about vegan diet, so provide additional resources. in a doctors office they would tell me im fine with like 120 or someshit, indicating most of the population has this. you are pushing for levels about half of average which is insane, and only achievable with drugs (unless you provide sources where vegans all have this level).

And i am making conjecture, its a theory, it is possible that raises risk of other health problems. and no im not admitting that i'm wrong at all, i researched all this long before my shitty argument with you, nothing you posted really changed my mind. go look at the article i just linked that has like 11 studies about violent tendencies and depression being common in people with lower than average cholesterol, turns out i was correct. i will be amused to see how you hamster that one.

don't know about meth and I agree with your point that Ted Talks can be misleading, but porn does have very addictive effects comparable to other highly stimulating things like cocaine, which I'm sure in the long term can fuck with your brain development as any other type of intensively-pleasurable addiction can. I personally have been trying to stop watching porn for over a year now, and I'm still struggling, which should go to show what kind of effects it can have on people. It's the same as if somebody had an intense gaming addiction (like many people do).

LOL.......

"Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels were significantly lower in high-Killip (III+IV) patients compared with low-Killip (I+II) patients and in those who died compared with those who survived beyond 30 days"

you misquoted the study. what it said was, that high-killip patients all had very low cholesterol....and low-killip all had higher. you magically made up some bullshit about they pre-selected people with high-killip and low cholesterol and low-killip and high cholesterol. hamstering like a 16 year old girl with an extra dose of hormones.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

provide me sources of diet that lowers it that low.

The China Study had found two groups of 25 women that had cholesterol levels around 80mg/dl although point taken, I looked into it and it looks like going whole-foods plant-based in itself doesn't guarantee a sub 100 rating. It looks partially genetic, based on exercise, as well as how much fiber/protein you eat. I exercise daily and I eat a ridiculous amount of fiber every day on top of avoiding saturated fat so hopefully I'm around 90 at least, but I'm somewhat disappointed that my expectations were so high.

you misquoted the study. what it said was, that high-killip patients all had very low cholesterol....and low-killip all had higher.

"Low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low triglycerides, and high Killip severity were associated with significantly higher 30-day in-hospital mortality"

No it didn't tardass. It said that low LDL and high-Killip scores were associated with higher mortality in their 30-day stay in the hospital. It is saying that the people with "low" cholesterol (which they defined as less than 110mg/dl, which is not that low) who had suffered scale 3-4 Killip heart attacks had a higher mortality rate. No shit they did, they were associating the "low" LDL with higher mortality but the higher mortality was definitely from the fact that their heart attacks were so severe, and their LDL levels weren't that low.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

well you see you're adding your own definition of what is low to make the study suit you. they decide what is low, and its based on overall consensus. that is low according to most doctors, so you can't just change the rules when you want to, at least be honest. either way the point still remains they fucking died more often if their cholesterol was that low. they didn't pre-select people to prove their point like you claimed they did.

its like with the other study how 75% of people had the doctor recomended amount of cholesterol, still had heart attacks, and you responded with a study that recommended lowering it to dangerous levels with statins. and you now admit it can't even go as low as 50-70 with a vegan diet. then you ignored the studies i linked where lowering it to levels not even near that dangerously low causes mental problems. i'm having alot of fun.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i eat fish with low mercury, sardines mostly since they accumulate it less, not much tuna. i only eat 1 egg a day, and not everyday. i also do intermittent fasting and just miss meals constantly on purpose. idk about never eating fish, i need the omega 3, i know you can get it from plants but its the kind your body has to convert and you have to eat tremendously larger amounts of more expensive seeds and nuts, sardines are cheap af. there is a thing about methionine and tryptophan being associated with longevity if you restrict it, but you can get the same results from just small fasting periods from my research. i also try to replace meals with nuts or beans so not 100% of it comes from meat. i feel meat is ok as long as its done safely with some common sense and awareness of the dangers.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

provide me sources of diet that lowers it that low.

Oh btw I didn't do a good amount of digging in reply to your comment but I googled "vegan cholesterol" and this was one of the first studies to come up, showing the average LDL level in a random group of vegans was 69 +- 29 mg/dl. If I did more digging I'm sure I'd find similar results elsewhere too, but apparently it can lower your LDL levels very low naturally. Also just found this study on African-American vegans, their LDL levels were on average around 78 mg/dl

Apologies for not doing proper research the other night, think I was worn down from replying to all the comments and I got lazy. I feel a lot of responsibility in trying to be as correct as possible especially when it comes to diet so I definitely hope you didn't get turned off to the vegan thing because of that

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

thanks. my problem with these kinda studies is that, vegetarians and vegans are almost always eating a pretty damn good diet in general. "meat eaters" or "omnivores" can just be literally anyone else in western society, 90% of whom don't exercise, eat junk in general, eat processed meat, and regular meat and tons of sugar. they eat meat cause it tastes good, everyone unhealthy person who doesn't give two shits about diet or health, will eat meat, because, most of the worlds tastiest foods are meat lol.

so you aren't really comparing a fit, health conscious omnivore with a fit health conscious vegan/vegetarian, all you need to qualify as an omnivore is to eat meat, but vegan/vegetarianism, often goes hand in hand with an overal healthy "lifestyle". since sugar also raises cholesterol, and non exercise, its hard to know how that influences things.

believe it or not people on the paleo diet don't come up too bad for cholesterol markers, but not as low as vegans. paleo bans sugar, processed meat, dairy, and high carb grains, and all junk food and processed food, and they generally have much better markers than average westerners.

i just got done reading this:

https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

people on low carb diets had much better cholesterol markers than low fat diets, which shows that cutting out all the sugar and huge amounts of carbs has more of a dramatic effect than fat lowering. i think the fact that sugar intake is pretty high in western society, and that vegans/vegetarions are likely to eat less sugar and be more health conscious overall, sort of skews the results of "comparison" studies like this.

however you did prove your point that vegan diets get cholesterol this low, and its probably the most effective thing for lowering that low overall. also note that the studies in the article that i linked are not vegan vs omnivore, they are just low fat (probably still eating meat) vs low carb (eating more fat and less carbs, and most likely eat more meat than the low fat group), so veganism still wins over all for cholesterol lowering.

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

ps: let me apologize for being a douche bag in previous discussions, if we keep talking id like it to be civil. we essentially agree on most things, besides the need to eliminate meat entire from diet.

i've decided to keep eating meat (especially fish) because i want omega 3 in my diet (for heart and brain health, and various specific needs i have), and because its an easier cheaper sources of things like selenium and zinc (which i want for testosterone production, and other needs i have). i could get it all from plants, but its more expensive and im generally a broke student. i'm also trying to build muscle and its just easier and less expensive to get higher protein from meat at the moment.

i generally agree with vegans that shit loads of vegetables is good, and absurd amounts of meat and sat fat is bad. i just try to mitigate the health effects of meat rather than eliminate it, as a strategic decision.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

water under the bridge my friend.

If you want your omega 3's I'd heavily recommend flax seeds. You only need two tablespoons a day, you can grind it up and or chew it very thoroughly before you swallow. You can add it to smoothies as well for easy ingestion. The ALA conversion rate in non-fish eaters actually rises to be able to have similar amounts of EPA/DHA in the blood, and flax seeds have a lot of fiber and lignans which are really good for ya. I honestly enjoy chewing on flax seeds for some reason, and they're very very cheap.

As for zinc, here is a video with Dr. Michael Greger explaining where to get your zinc as a vegan and why men need more of it.

As for selenium you can get it by eating a variety of dark leafy greens and beans throughout the day. You can also eat brazil nuts which are high af in selenium but don't eat more than four a day if you do, and you probably don't even need that much if you are eating a healthy diet, as they are so high in selenium they can cause toxicity problems by going over the tolerable upper limit of 400mcg/day

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PM_YOUR_BUNGHOLE1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I could go through and probably refute all of the studies that aren't behind a paywall, but I could also just tell you that I've been vegan for two years which means my cholesterol is around 50-70mg/dl and I've literally never felt better in my life.

wow i expected way better hamstering than that. basically you just said "no im going to ignore it all". lol wow. also how do you know your cholesterol is that low? did a doctor tell you or did you just assume it is because you're vegan? also you just used a stupid, anecdotal example about yourself, which i believe you told me was wrong to do before? so you just used an anecdote about yourself to collectively ignore 12 studies i posted. i really hope someone else reads this because its classic vegan cultist behavior lol. you use arguments that you tell me not to use, and you just ignore everything you don't wanna hear. fucking classic.

and no, im not reading your studies because you didn't read mine. a one sided argument where i have to read your shit and you collectively ignore mine isn't really fair.

[–]kruxofthemimed1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't get to link some shitty psychologytoday article with 12 studies and expect me to look through all of them, especially when the first one is already fuckin retarded. You're essentially grasping at straws. I've provided you with very clear cut quality studies, and you're literally just throwing an article at me. There's no possible way you could have looked through all of the studies you sent me, so you would have no idea if they were BS or not, you just think that "winning a debate with them retarded vegans" is throwing as many biased studies as you can at them until they just say dude how the fuck am I suppose to read all of that? If you want to support a specific claim, give me a quote from a specific study that isn't retarded and then maybe I'll consider appeasing you with a response.

[–]WhorehouseVet2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1Original_Dankster[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lordoffunk2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	"Shock" testosterone therapy reverses prostate cancer in a new study
Author	Original_Dankster
Upvotes	17
Comments	44
Date	December 4, 2016 4:00 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/5gdnf3/shock_testosterone_therapy_reverses_prostate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/shock-testosterone-therapy-reverses-prostate.65036 https://theredarchive.com/post/65036

Comments