Tracking down the mysterious cause of Dr. Paul Saladino's shockingly rapid aging
-
@Insomniac said in Tracking down the mysterious cause of Dr. Paul Saladino's shockingly rapid aging:
Not a single forehead wrinkle
What implies the lack of wrinkles in Haidut is low inflammation combined with a high level of subcutaneous fat. The fat fills the voids caused by aging. In thin individuals, age-related wrinkles tend to be excessively pronounced.
-
@Insomniac
Yeah, Haidut rocks.
I think the sun in DC is not as strong as in San Diego.
I would like to see haidut surfing in the Pacific so we can compare their physical fitness.
-
@Insomniac Just watching his videos he seems high cortisol and high adrenaline, both of which will take their toll in time
-
Saying a fat guy looks healthier than the other guy is mental illness lol. You're obsessed this 50 year old dude has some wrinkles. Get the fuck over it you weirdo.
-
Too much sun. The sun is great in the early morning and in the late afternoon, but direct sunlight in the peak hours is so damaging.
-
high protein = high mtor activation
high mtor=high aging -
@Sitaruim No it isn't. Sun is good for your skin. Sunscreen is what fucks peoples skin up.
-
@Hearthfire said in Tracking down the mysterious cause of Dr. Paul Saladino's shockingly rapid aging:
Sun is good for your skin.
Yes he's got you there @Sitaruim. The king of sunlight Jack Kruse has an enviable complexion. And in engerland we all look like worn leather.
-
Burning will damage your skin, but how much depends on the severity. You can completely heal from it.
Low Vitamin D and using sunscreen is what causes cancer and aged skin look.
-
Costa Rican prostitutes
-
My two cents says if we minimize stress, we would be producing energy efficiently and that energy would be used more productively. By that I mean that energy is not wasted on fighting small fires endlessly, and by avoiding such small fires we conserve our energy. Needless to say, large fires are even worse and use up our body stores of energy and nutrients and endogenous sources of helpful substances such as enzymes and hormones. But it is often the small fires that escape our attention as these constant small fires can be persistent and never go away and stay with us undetected throughout extended periods. If you added all the misspent energy our body has to allocate to keep defending itself from the wear and tear from these stresses, it would mean that our body would not have a net surplus of energy to use on non-essential improvements or appurtenances.
To be truly healthy we would have to bathe ourselves in the luxury of being nutritionally abundant through what we eat and breathe and drink and what energy the sun passes on to us. And then we have to convert and store and use this energy optimally through both oxidative and reductive forces.
Our understanding of bioenergetics should make us appreciate the wisdom of our body to know when and when not to use our oxidative potentials just as it knows when or when not to use reductive potentials, such that both potentials produce complementary sources that harmonize with each other. There is no other way I can describe this than by using the TCM concept of yin and yang. And Ray Peat would often cite the vitalism of Vernadsky et al who oppose the materialistic construct of modern medicine as based on the materialistic philosophical construct of Descartes, which forms very much a western christian divide distinct from the eastern christian approach of earlier Grecian philosophies.
Didn't we start off venturing into wholistic ideas based on the one-sided views of health where everything involving antioxidants is good and all that involves oxidation is bad? Such that when Ray talked of oxidative processes as good I was confused as hell in the beginning I encountered his ideas. It was hard to reconcile the idea that antioxidants can be just as bad as oxidants, and that they can each be as good as the other.
We are to learn that Linus Pauling and the field of orthomolecular medicine was rather incomplete in forming the initial concept of the benefits from antioxidants, in a Popeye and Brutus kindergarten view of antioxidants being all good and oxidants being all good. In the heyday of antioxidants being being king, when Pauling was alive, we were just beginning to form a rudimentary understanding of what is good and what is bad for the body.
If history serves me right, it was only in the 1970s that researchers started to find out about the beneficial role of oxidants to our health. And from then, the trickle would snowball into our current understanding of bioenergetics courtesy of Ray Peat sharing us his distillation and condensation of these ideas that made acceptance of oxidation as healthful and existential.
Not only that, we would later on learn of ROS - reactive oxygen species - and though they are the stuff that is misunderstood as "all evil," we would come to appreciate that our immune system uses these ROS in a way that benefits our health, by using them to fight pathogens and toxins.
Still, our understanding is not fully formed yet. And there are still many things we cannot agree on given that we are constantly being fed misrepresentations by so called experts from the mainstream school and from alternate channels, each with its own blend of sound and unsound ideas preying on gullible and impressionable minds. Worst of all, there are far too many experts who write books based on half-formed and wrong ideas, and become bestselling writers, based on the strength of book sales whose buyers can read but lack the ability to be critical enough who take wrong ideas hook line and sinker.
Still, as imperfect as all this is, we should still be able to get it right once we know the history of a patient, make theory into practice by really forming our ideas on Peat's research and writing, and make the dots connect.
If you begin to appreciate oxidative stress, and you also get to understand what reductive stress is, you would have come closer to untangling mysteries such as what this thread is about.
