Well I hope she’s wrong about glyphosate. She really hates it. I hope she’s right about cholesterol. Also it would be good to find out whether vaccines improve all cause mortality. Big controversy there.

I admit I didn’t do even the quick check you guys did to find out her specialty. I was too busy trying to decide whether it makes sense that electrical charge pulls the blood. It may be true, but seems a crazy method because the charge has to be brought back eventually. Nothing is free.

1 Like

Bicep, if even Trump is on rosuvastatin what makes you so convinced that your alternative source is right?

I don’t think politicians necessarily tell the truth about their medical treatment, I wouldn’t go by anybody in politics (on either side) when deciding what I should do. Trump supposedly took the jab. Did I take the jab? They do things that support the positions that they take for the people. There may be honest politicians but I’m not capable of telling the difference.

For me I go more by mechanistic arguments even though our understanding of the biology is not sufficient. I know these arguments are just stories about what certain people think. They’re constantly being revised. I can’t help it, I love the stories and for me they’re persuasive.

It has always seemed to me that if you need a million or a hundred thousand people in a study to figure out what difference a drug makes then it’s not much of a difference. People argue about whether P should be .01 or .0001. To me the statistics , which should clarify, really could be used to obfuscate. And when big expensive studies are done, the company paying is able to move people and things around to cheat. So to me it’s not gospel, it’s more like the word on the street in the stock market. And if you keep betting on the word on the street you can lose all your money. Gotta use your own brain even if it’s not so good.

But 60% of Republicans or so are completely opposed to taking the vaccine and I remember Trump being booed for that in the past in one of his rallies.

People argue about whether P should be .01 or .0001. To me the statistics

Having a clear cutoff makes sense as otherwise any minor deviation by chance could be interpreted as a result.

Just curious @Bicep what would be required to convince you to start taking a statin or bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor? What evidence would you need?

Like, you’re looking at a pack of bempedoic acid + ezetimibe, and another package of PCKS9 inhibitors. What goes into your mind “these will help me”, or “these won’t”? How do you determine which category they are in? What is required for “these will help me” category?

1 Like

I tried a statin and PCSK9. Did not like the statin and could not afford the PCSK9. Insurance wouldn’t cover it. I did recently buy enough Bempedoic acid to go about a year and my doc obviously wants me to do something, especially that. I have not taken a pill yet. I don’t think it will improve my ACM.

Honestly I have no bad symptoms. My times are still pretty good on the 2 mile run, this morning the temp here was 10F, so obviously a little slower than summer, but still ok. I trust Michael Eades, knowing he is not talking directly to me and just about statistical things and his medical opinion. I read his first book and have followed him for probably 35 years. He says if you have not had a heart attack by 65 a statin won’t help. I turn 64 in 4 hours. My only symptom is a series of bad CAC’s slowly inching up. According to the study he found, you calculate the density and if it’s in the safe area, then you are probably safe. I’m probably safe.

Since my last CAC I’ve gone through 4 boxes of Beta cyclodextrin and done extensive chelation with some EDTA, quite a lot of DMSA and finally I’ve done a couple months of Pectasol plus glyphodetox which is an alginate. Supposed to also clear out glyphosate and molds. My next CAC will be any time soon, I usually do it around my birthday. I’ll call them and see what works on Monday. If it’s a disappointment then I might give BA a try. Even though I know the calcium doesn’t actually hurt anything, still it shows I’m doing something wrong.

1 Like

Arterisol by Calroy and Endocalyx Pro are both aimed at vascular health - maybe worth looking into

2 Likes

Thanks! I had looked at this when talked about on here before and had started taking some of the ingredients separately and kind of forgot about it. Now I see this:

Fucoidan sulfate is validated as a hybrid of heparan
sulfate and chondroitin sulfate

and this:

A high dose of glucosamine sulfate

Now armed with the sulfate talk from the above, I see how this could possibly be worth the very high price. I’ve always taken glucosamine chondroiten and MSM, but still this seems like it could be good.

I’ll take another look, thanks,

I bet you’ll have higher returns by purchasing Dr Alo’s cholesterol book: ($140) than anything else really. At least you’ll know whether what you’re doing is nonsense or not, and that’s worth it’s weight in gold.

Good luck either way.

2 Likes

In fact you are not. I mean you are really potentially in a very bad place.
Forget about statistics here, as we are all individuals, so here is my case which is somewhat similar to yours:
Last year I was training to do a marathon in a Boston Qualifying time, so insanely fast for my age group (60-64). A few weeks before the event I decided to check everything was OK with my heart because my CAC was 161 (Not very high but not 0 obviously). As my PCP was not interested, I went to the Cardiovascular Performance Program at MGH in Boston where they do know that you can be fit but might have asymptomatic heart issues and they sent me to get a CTA.
The next day, just after I finished a very hard hill sprints workout, the cardiologist called me and sounded very worried, asking several times if I was really OK, and to stop right away any strenuous activity.
Turned out that I had 2 blockages at 90+% on 2 coronaries plus a few less spectacular other ones. Those blockages were made of almost all soft and unstable plaque with very few calcium in them which is the most dangerous situation and shows that the CAC is not that useful at the individual level.
I ended up going to the Cath Lab in high priority to get 1 stent (*) on the LAD. They could not stent the other blockage because of where it was. After that they let me run only in zone 2 for 6 months before I could resume a normal training. As I had absolutely no symptoms, I was running again (in zone 2) the week after the stent and now I’m back training for the BQ time marathon.

Conclusion: You can have a low or even 0 CAC, be super fit with a VO2 max of 50 at 61, have absolutely no symptoms, even when training for a hard marathon, and still have 90+% coronary blockages made of soft and unstable plaque.

Conclusion 2: I had other tests like echo cardiography, stress PET scans, etc. that showed that even with those blockages the heart perfusion was 100% normal with 0% ischemia. They think that the endurance training created lots of capillaries and other small blood vessel than allows the heart to get all the blood it needs. Which BTW is exactly the point of that thread!

(*) Interestingly, that stent was coated in rapamycin.

10 Likes

You do know that the number one symptom that people with atherosclerosis first experience is heart attack and death, don’t you?

See the peter attia podcast on atherosclerosis - see this video, queued up to the exact point of the relevant discussion:

Screen Shot 2024-12-23 at 3.24.38 PM

6 Likes

Be sure to measure soft plaque. CCTA. Then you’ll know if you must be aggressive or if you are succeeding in removing the plaque buildup. This is potentially life threatening, and there is no need to guess or use statistics or other people’s results. Look and see. Good luck.

3 Likes

Let’s be real here. You can’t remove plaque build up (except maybe a little by crushing LDL/apoB). But you can reduce event rate by using FDA approved drugs designed for that purpose.

Optimizing event rate is what matters at the end of the day. Whether someone gets a heart attack or stroke, and so on…

1 Like

There is information that many over breath and push out too much CO2. The body needs a good balance of O and CO2 for the most effective delivery of O through out the body.

In real life a person often must choose between being right and being effective.

3 Likes

Can you share the most compelling information / data in this area? I’ve never heard anything about this before.

1 Like

Here’s a paper from Dr Dallam on nasal breathing during exercise. The nasal breathing benefit is the other side of the coin to overbreathing causes too much CO2 loss (with consequences including sympathetic activation and poor oxygen delivery to tissues)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338558548_The_Effect_of_Nasal_Breathing_Versus_Oral_and_Oronasal_Breathing_During_Exercise_A_Review

I’ve done two interviews with Dr Dallam. Super smart academic and elite endurance athlete.

4 Likes

I have to say I was pretty skeptical when I read to Nestor’s Breath and Oxygen Method but the arguments and science were pretty compelling.

Evolutionary creating and maintaining a nose is very energy intensive and unless it provided a definite survival advantage we wouldn’t have it.

I tried mouth taping at night and focus on nasal breathing through the day, even during exercise - except for heavy weight lifting, I still have to Valsalva grunt thru my mouth.
I tried nasal breathing for intervals and can maintain nasal breathing for up to 90% maximal heart rate. I was pretty stoked.

Seem like my nose is clearer now and I am bit more calm.

3 Likes

@Dr.Bart Congratulations. You are ahead of me despite me working on nasal breathing for 3 years. I have learned to sleep nasal breathing without tape (I used tape for a long time). And I am aware of breathing through my nose almost all the time. I nasal breathe during weight lifting; which reveals a strange delay in my increased “air hunger” from effort …never during a set but always afterwards. But I just cannot nasal breathe at high heart rates during exercise. My nasal passages just betray me … I’ll keep at it.

I agree that noses are an evolutionary advantage. Expense to build but oh so useful: filtering dust and microorganisms, adding NO, adding moisture to protect the lungs, creasing a back-pressure to force using the diaphragm to pull air past turbinates. When using the diaphragm we breathe deeply and more slowly which results in less CO2 loss resulting in better oxygen exchange (delivery of O2 to tissues) and less sympathetic activation (stress, anxiety, etc). I believe higher co2 means we also have higher bicarbonate to combat acidification from anaerobic exercise (can tolerate higher lactate).

3 Likes

Guys, I do nose breathing too, and believe in some benefits, but I don’t believe that’s what the nose evolved for. Note, that nasal pasages appear in a huge variety of animals, mammals, birds, reptiles amphibians, fish and so on. The anatomy/morphology of these passages is quite different across the animal kingdom, which tells you that most of these “reasons” listed are unlikely to be the key drivers of evolution, as they don’t appear consistently in all these animals, while nasal passages do. The connection between lungs and nose is not at all the key here - after all, there are no “lungs” as such in fish, yet fish have nasal passages and the nose therefore functions quite differently in that connection. What appears consistently is something extremely obvious yet not mentioned: the sense of smell. I think that’s probably like 90% of the reason for the persistence of a nose through evolutionary history. A fish, like a shark, can detect the presence of blood in the water in extreme dilution at great distances. It’s the sense of smell, detecting airborne or waterborne molecules that are the fundamental reason for the existance of the nose and nasal passages. Things like moisture, filtration and temperture control are certainly factors, especially in mammals, but the sense of smell is going to be the real driver. A dog in the wild, a cat, an antelope and so on, all need their sense of smell for their very survival - all the other things mentioned, like the use of diaphragm, are far, far, far down the hierarchy of function, if they are even factors at all.

That said, to me the biggest factor in nose breathing is the restriction of airflow - in exercise, it likely has a very good training function for the cardio-pulmonary system and the use of oxygen, especially in hypoxia. Athletes sometimes even use devices to restrict their breathing, which intentionally put a strain on their lungs, diaphragm muscles etc. At night, you need to breathe through the nose so that you cut down on the danger of dry mouth, because dry mouth leads to a host of dental problems (methmouth is equal parts teeth grinding and dry mouth), when teeth and the gingiva are not bathed in saliva, nasty bacteria proliferate. So I’m there for all the advantages of nose breathing, but let’s not lose sight of the key reason for the nose: the sense of smell and moisture retention in the mouth (much more than moisture in the lungs). I have not read any books about nose breathing, but listened to a podcast (I think it may have been on Attia’s podcast?), and there does seem to be science behind it, so I was happy to adopt it. Regardless, it seems that many people experience benefits, and that’s all that matters!

1 Like