@happyhanneke my experience exactly.

just stay cool, keep working on it. Send proof again. Be patient. I think it will be okay.

also, higher TSH correlates with longer life as one gets older.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/10/3806/2835801

Context:
Longevity is associated with changes in circulating levels of thyroid hormone (TH) and/or TSH in animals and humans, but underlying mechanisms remain elusive.

Objective:
We explored in 38 offspring of nonagenarian participants from the Leiden Longevity Study, who are enriched for longevity and in their partners, ultradian and circadian rhythmicity of TSH, temporal relationship, and feedback and forward interplay between TSH and TH.

Methods:
We collected blood samples every 10 minutes for 24 hours for TSH and TH profiles. We used a deconvolution analysis to estimate basal (nonpulsatile), pulsatile, and other secretion parameters to characterize ultradian rhythmicity and locally weighted polynomial regression of TSH to assess circadian rhythmicity. A cross-correlation analysis was used to investigate the temporal relationship between TSH and TH and cross-approximate entropy to assess feedback and forward interplay between TSH and TH.

Results:
Compared with partners, offspring displayed higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) basal TSH secretion (34.3 [95% CI 27.2–43.1] mU/L per 24 hours vs 18.5 [95% CI 14.4–23.7] mU/L per 24 hours, P = .001) but no differences in ultradian or circadian properties of TSH. The temporal relationship between TSH and free T3 at zero delay was higher in offspring (0.48 ± 0.2) compared with partners (0.26 ± 0.4) (P = .05), but the feedback and forward interplay between TSH and TH did not differ.

Conclusions:
Familial longevity is associated with increased basal TSH secretion and a strong temporal relationship between TSH and free T3 but not with differences in ultradian or circadian TSH rhythmicity or feedback and forward interplay between TSH and TH.

@jamezb46 eating shea butter doesn't appeal to me. Does it to you?

PUFA depletion works because in the background, fats are continually being burned "in place", in cells. When you don't eat fat, the fat continues to burn and over time, the PUFA is burned off without being dumped into the bloodstream at all.

Romijn, J. A., Coyle, E. F., Sidossis, L. S., Gastaldelli, A., Horowitz, J. F., Endert, E., & Wolfe, R. R. (1993). Regulation of endogenous fat and carbohydrate metabolism in relation to exercise intensity and duration. American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism, 265(3), E380–E391

glucose and insulin lower entry of fatty acids into the mitochondria. Of course, this is predicted by the Randle Cycle idea. But the point is, fat is not mobilized when you eat a lot of carbs.

Background fat burning is 100g - 150g per day regardless, though. So if you've eaten a typical high PUFA diet, that will be the rate that this fat is burned assuming you have very low dietary fat consumption.

@dapose When someone says they are triggered, to me it's a case of "well, then, why don't you tune out or go away from what is bothering you." Just because "you" never heard of THC helping or enemas helping. So it must be false. You haven't heard of it. But then again, maybe you weren't listening because you got triggered.

Me, I want to be triggered. I want to hear what someone has to say. Even if I don't like it. Especially so.

And you give me a sideways criticism too. I'll mind mind my own business, and post what I want to post.

@peatlegal it does seem that supplementing does not have the advantages that eating real foods does. Eggshell powder is a supplement. It's not a normal part of anyone's diet. It is primarily calcium carbonate.

Boiling greens and drinking the water, or dairy, are far preferable. A bit of supplementation is fine for calcium if diet can't go far enough, but to get most calcium from supplementing is not healthy.

I'll include this study. Not the kind I really like, but it is one of several concluding what I've said above.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1568523
Importance Calcium intake has been promoted because of its proposed benefit on bone health, particularly among the older population. However, concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effect of high calcium intake on cardiovascular health.

Objective To investigate whether intake of dietary and supplemental calcium is associated with mortality from total cardiovascular disease (CVD), heart disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Design and Setting Prospective study from 1995 through 1996 in California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania and the 2 metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Georgia, and Detroit, Michigan.

Participants A total of 388 229 men and women aged 50 to 71 years from the National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study.

Main Outcome Measures Dietary and supplemental calcium intake was assessed at baseline (1995-1996). Supplemental calcium intake included calcium from multivitamins and individual calcium supplements. Cardiovascular disease deaths were ascertained using the National Death Index. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary variables were used to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs.

Results During a mean of 12 years of follow-up, 7904 and 3874 CVD deaths in men and women, respectively, were identified. Supplements containing calcium were used by 51% of men and 70% of women. In men, supplemental calcium intake was associated with an elevated risk of CVD death (RR>1000 vs 0 mg/d, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36), more specifically with heart disease death (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37) but not significantly with cerebrovascular disease death (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.81-1.61). In women, supplemental calcium intake was not associated with CVD death (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96-1.18), heart disease death (1.05; 0.93-1.18), or cerebrovascular disease death (1.08; 0.87-1.33). Dietary calcium intake was unrelated to CVD death in either men or women.

Conclusions and Relevance Our findings suggest that high intake of supplemental calcium is associated with an excess risk of CVD death in men but not in women. Additional studies are needed to investigate the effect of supplemental calcium use beyond bone health.

In Western countries, great emphasis has been put on calcium intake because of its proposed benefit for bone health. Calcium supplementation has become widely used, especially among the elderly population. A recent study1 reported that more than 50% of older men and almost 70% of older women in the United States use supplemental calcium. However, beyond calcium's established role in prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, its health effect on nonskeletal outcomes, including cardiovascular health, remains largely unknown and has become increasingly contentious.2,3

Despite some earlier observational and interventional studies4-6 that suggested a protective role of calcium against cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) by linking supplemental calcium intake with improved blood pressure or serum lipid profiles, recent analyses of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found an increased risk of various cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular deaths, in the intervention arm with calcium supplementation.7-9 Likewise, the effects of dietary calcium intake on various cardiovascular outcomes also remain controversial, with most of the observational studies revealing inverse10,11 or null associations.12-14 The heterogeneity of the aforementioned studies and inconsistency in their results warrant further investigation into the relation between calcium intake and cardiovascular health. Therefore, in a large cohort of US men and women, we investigated whether intake of dietary and supplemental calcium is associated with mortality from total CVD, heart disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

@dapose I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a moderator of any forum. I think you are totally wrong. I'm a close friend with people on these forums, and I am a huge follower of Dr. Peat's ideas. I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

I do have my own ideas about a lot of things. I think Dr. Peat was wrong about eccentric exercise, for instance. And he didn't study cannabis enough to have good opinions. So many things. But he was right on many core issues and he was a thinker and didn't follow the bros. My regret is never meeting him in person, although I do have many email correspondences and am lucky to have had a lot of communication with him via email when he was alive.

supplementing doesn't hold a candle to eating foods rich in calcium.

@LetTheRedeemed yeah that's what I thought.

@LetTheRedeemed said in Reclaiming our foreskins:

Does this increase nerve growth in the new foreskin or just increased sensitivity of the glans?

are you asking me?