|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 16, 2023 17:41:30 GMT
or you could get a 100 day supply of capsules for 7-10 dollars. but then, by everything I've absorbed of how the body works, you would lose efficiency in the uptake of vitamin K2 from natural sources. I developed the theory decades ago, just from casual observation, that the body tends to adapt to the environment to have just enough health to get by. - which means that a body will become dependent on supplements, lotions, etc, if the person habitually uses them. of course, there may also be other factors that cause a predisposition to needing a supplement or lotion, as well. but, for example, if you have two equally healthy people, and one takes iron supplements, and both eat a healthy diet with adequate iron content; both will have around the same iron levels; while the one that takes supplements will experience a drop in iron levels if they discontinue the supplements, despite having adequate iron in their diet. I agree. Just taking supplements for the sake of taking supplements is a bad idea. Now if you know for a fact that you are deficient in something, then supplement away, but otherwise I'd avoid taking anything you don't absolutely need. And if you are deficient in something, it would be a good idea to see if you can figure out why your body isn't getting that on it's own before just overloading on supplements. I'm also concerned of picking up supplements that are basically just sawdust. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 16, 2023 17:48:53 GMT
After the heart surgery, I have tried to change my eating habits. But it's more what I'm not eating than what I am. That and Crestor have brought my cholesterol levels well within what's considered normal. Before the surgery, my cholesterol levels were very high which, I'm sure, was part of the reason I ended up in the ER. Any hardening of arteries or "clogged arteries" has a component of calcification, according to the definitions I've seen. Calcification is the body's way of trying to shield itself from further damage. It's a bit akin to having your immune system turn on itself. Just to be utterly safe, ask your doctor if calcification played any roll in your condition. Then ask if the doctor has heard any of the buzz about D3, K1 and, now K2. I'm curious what your doctor says. And, well, furthermore, I'm passing along what I've discovered because it seems to be finally helping me out with this damned cerebral small vessel disease of the left hemisphere of my brain. You CAN actually feel yourself, or your mind at least, slipping away when arteries are jacked in the brain. So, maybe, in a way, I'm lookin out for ya... so you don't experience THIS particular hell. Maybe, more trying to help ya look out for yourself. You know. That sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2023 18:12:05 GMT
I agree. Just taking supplements for the sake of taking supplements is a bad idea. Now if you know for a fact that you are deficient in something, then supplement away, but otherwise I'd avoid taking anything you don't absolutely need. And if you are deficient in something, it would be a good idea to see if you can figure out why your body isn't getting that on it's own before just overloading on supplements. I'm also concerned of picking up supplements that are basically just sawdust. and that's particularly something to watch out for in supplements imported from countries with less regulation than the US. actually any pharmacological stuff from some of the unregulated countries. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 16, 2023 18:27:21 GMT
After the heart surgery, I have tried to change my eating habits. But it's more what I'm not eating than what I am. That and Crestor have brought my cholesterol levels well within what's considered normal. Before the surgery, my cholesterol levels were very high which, I'm sure, was part of the reason I ended up in the ER. Any hardening of arteries or "clogged arteries" has a component of calcification, according to the definitions I've seen. Calcification is the body's way of trying to shield itself from further damage. It's a bit akin to having your immune system turn on itself. Just to be utterly safe, ask your doctor if calcification played any roll in your condition. Then ask if the doctor has heard any of the buzz about D3, K1 and, now K2. I'm curious what your doctor says. And, well, furthermore, I'm passing along what I've discovered because it seems to be finally helping me out with this damned cerebral small vessel disease of the left hemisphere of my brain. You CAN actually feel yourself, or your mind at least, slipping away when arteries are jacked in the brain. So, maybe, in a way, I'm lookin out for ya... so you don't experience THIS particular hell. Maybe, more trying to help ya look out for yourself. You know. That sort of thing. After the surgery, they checked all my arteries for peripheral flow including the carotid arteries. Over all, they said my arteries were in pretty good shape for someone my age. (I hate when they say that.) The only ones showing sign of blockage were on the right side of my heart. One of them had 93% blockage which is what caused the heart attack. The left side arteries were OK. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 19, 2023 8:16:52 GMT
or you could get a 100 day supply of capsules for 7-10 dollars. but then, by everything I've absorbed of how the body works, you would lose efficiency in the uptake of vitamin K2 from natural sources. I developed the theory decades ago, just from casual observation, that the body tends to adapt to the environment to have just enough health to get by. - which means that a body will become dependent on supplements, lotions, etc, if the person habitually uses them. of course, there may also be other factors that cause a predisposition to needing a supplement or lotion, as well. but, for example, if you have two equally healthy people, and one takes iron supplements, and both eat a healthy diet with adequate iron content; both will have around the same iron levels; while the one that takes supplements will experience a drop in iron levels if they discontinue the supplements, despite having adequate iron in their diet. I agree. Just taking supplements for the sake of taking supplements is a bad idea. Now if you know for a fact that you are deficient in something, then supplement away, but otherwise I'd avoid taking anything you don't absolutely need. And if you are deficient in something, it would be a good idea to see if you can figure out why your body isn't getting that on it's own before just overloading on supplements. And, thinking again, I FURTHER agree supplements MAY be a bad idea with regard to anything that "adjusts" more-or-less artificially, things like calcium, one of the essential ELECTROLYTES. For instance, should I adopt a plan to rid myself of salt in my diet, that's, on the whole, generally a good premise. But, sodium chloride is yet another essential ELECTROLYTE. Should I take my salt dumping program to its extreme and actually somehow rid my blood of all salt, or make my blood low enough in salt content, my heart will have something quite bad to say about that. It would beat in irregular ways and probably stop beating normally altogether. The same can be true for lowering calcium levels. If you find some sort of K2 supplement that is able to remove enough calcium from the blood, your heart will again talk to you in ways you'd rather it not. Now, the likelihood of finding a K2 supplement that strong is, I think, unlikely. Also, few have ever stated that vitamin K2 "overdose" was a thing. But, calcium is an electrolyte. I think diet is probably the safest way to make calcium "adjustments". But, that's merely a screwy guess on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2023 14:25:40 GMT
I think in the case of doctors who aren't selling pills on the side, most of them agree that adjusting your diet is a better way to get vitamins and minerals than taking pills.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 19, 2023 16:03:52 GMT
I think in the case of doctors who aren't selling pills on the side, most of them agree that adjusting your diet is a better way to get vitamins and minerals than taking pills. After my open heart surgery, my cardiologist said I should not take any supplements without checking with him first. He said supplements can sometimes have unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 22, 2023 9:09:20 GMT
Any hardening of arteries or "clogged arteries" has a component of calcification, according to the definitions I've seen. Calcification is the body's way of trying to shield itself from further damage. It's a bit akin to having your immune system turn on itself. Just to be utterly safe, ask your doctor if calcification played any roll in your condition. Then ask if the doctor has heard any of the buzz about D3, K1 and, now K2. I'm curious what your doctor says. And, well, furthermore, I'm passing along what I've discovered because it seems to be finally helping me out with this damned cerebral small vessel disease of the left hemisphere of my brain. You CAN actually feel yourself, or your mind at least, slipping away when arteries are jacked in the brain. So, maybe, in a way, I'm lookin out for ya... so you don't experience THIS particular hell. Maybe, more trying to help ya look out for yourself. You know. That sort of thing. After the surgery, they checked all my arteries for peripheral flow including the carotid arteries. Over all, they said my arteries were in pretty good shape for someone my age. (I hate when they say that.) The only ones showing sign of blockage were on the right side of my heart. One of them had 93% blockage which is what caused the heart attack. The left side arteries were OK. Abruptly comparing an individual to some scale based upon some sort of vague public average is, I think, an almost useless endeavor without having a viable baseline for said individual first. Medical professionals declaring you this amount or that amount either on or off the average for "your age" says nothing really, to me. For instance, while going through engineering courses at college, I had myself tested several ways for "I.Q." to see if I was up for the course load. Those tests are generally suspect, so I did get tested several times. My scores always ranged between 110 to 115. So, I figured the only way that many different I.Q. tests could have such similar outcomes was because they were actually doing a fair job of determining my I.Q. No idea if that's right or anything, but I went with that. The trouble is engineering is generally thought to require at least an I.Q. of 120. Or, most good engineers are said to have approximately 120 I.Q. or higher. I'd hoped to make up any difference that might actually be there with a lot of extra study. Meanwhile, I'd been undiagnosed for sleep apnea and mistakenly diagnosed for nocturnal panic attacks instead, and was on a benzodiazepine called Lorazepam. Long story short, not treating the sleep apnea appropriately while using Lorazepam instead, (not only using it, but using it in a manner that clearly denotes misuse of it... coupled with an eventual "cold turkey" withdrawal off of it, basically) was really degrading my mind. And, quite abruptly too. Like, suddenly February 2016. Ultimately the VA decided to test my memory with a kind of "psych eval" based upon my many concerns and repeated complaints of cognitive impairment. But, their not accepting that I had a good baseline of where I had been previously with regard to my individual memory and whatnot, only caused them to state that I was within the average range... "for - my - age". In fact, they falsified results, stating one part of the test where I did poorly, I thought, they stated I did above average (the memory portion, of course). Furthermore, they also outright avoided my previous I.Q. test results at EVERY turn as "unqualified". They further declared there were no problems regarding my concerns over a potential "benzo withdrawl syndrome" other than my potentially having mental issues (an attempt to discredit my claims stating I'm just "mental" while also covering my losses in memory too perhaps?) And, they stated I could clearly do the basic functions of daily living. In short, no problems. I'm an individual having an average cognitive capacity, other than possibly requiring some mental health care. So, I'm average, and mental. Okay, that's an I.Q. of 100, supposedly. Previously, I was said to have an I.Q. of 113. Therefore, a basically sudden 13 point loss is "no issue"!? Just the result of usual aging, is it? Think of it using an extreme example: if, say Einstein went through this and ultimately "passed" such eval as "Average memory. A cognition level within the expected range for his age, coupled with a degree of mental issues." would that set off any alarm bells for anyone other than Einstein himself!? ... "Oh, Einstein can tie his shoes... he's ok. Good boy. Good Einstein." (Not saying I'm like Einstein. Just needed an extreme example to make clear my point) Anyway, my point is without YOUR previous baseline, they have no business making statements like, "you're doing pretty good for... sOmEoNe YouR Age..." AARGH!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 22, 2023 14:46:15 GMT
I don’t think IQ is what it’s cracked up to be. I have a friend that has a very high IQ. In fact, he’s a member of Mensa, which he points out quite frequently. On at least two occasions, he has taken the train home from work, forgetting that he drove that day. On one of those occasions, he actually took the wrong train, ending up 40 miles away from home in the wrong direction before he realized it. Fortunately, for him, his wife was able to retrieve him. I’m not sure why.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2023 14:48:34 GMT
After the surgery, they checked all my arteries for peripheral flow including the carotid arteries. Over all, they said my arteries were in pretty good shape for someone my age. (I hate when they say that.) The only ones showing sign of blockage were on the right side of my heart. One of them had 93% blockage which is what caused the heart attack. The left side arteries were OK. Abruptly comparing an individual to some scale based upon some sort of vague public average is, I think, an almost useless endeavor without having a viable baseline for said individual first. Medical professionals declaring you this amount or that amount either on or off the average for "your age" says nothing really, to me. For instance, while going through engineering courses at college, I had myself tested several ways for "I.Q." to see if I was up for the course load. Those tests are generally suspect, so I did get tested several times. My scores always ranged between 110 to 115. So, I figured the only way that many different I.Q. tests could have such similar outcomes was because they were actually doing a fair job of determining my I.Q. No idea if that's right or anything, but I went with that. The trouble is engineering is generally thought to require at least an I.Q. of 120. Or, most good engineers are said to have approximately 120 I.Q. or higher. I'd hoped to make up any difference that might actually be there with a lot of extra study. Meanwhile, I'd been undiagnosed for sleep apnea and mistakenly diagnosed for nocturnal panic attacks instead, and was on a benzodiazepine called Lorazepam. Long story short, not treating the sleep apnea appropriately while using Lorazepam instead, (not only using it, but using it in a manner that clearly denotes misuse of it... coupled with an eventual "cold turkey" withdrawal off of it, basically) was really degrading my mind. And, quite abruptly too. Like, suddenly February 2016. Ultimately the VA decided to test my memory with a kind of "psych eval" based upon my many concerns and repeated complaints of cognitive impairment. But, their not accepting that I had a good baseline of where I had been previously with regard to my individual memory and whatnot, only caused them to state that I was within the average range... "for - my - age". In fact, they falsified results, stating one part of the test where I did poorly, I thought, they stated I did above average (the memory portion, of course). Furthermore, they also outright avoided my previous I.Q. test results at EVERY turn as "unqualified". They further declared there were no problems regarding my concerns over a potential "benzo withdrawl syndrome" other than my potentially having mental issues (an attempt to discredit my claims stating I'm just "mental" while also covering my losses in memory too perhaps?) And, they stated I could clearly do the basic functions of daily living. In short, no problems. I'm an individual having an average cognitive capacity, other than possibly requiring some mental health care. So, I'm average, and mental. Okay, that's an I.Q. of 100, supposedly. Previously, I was said to have an I.Q. of 113. Therefore, a basically sudden 13 point loss is "no issue"!? Just the result of usual aging, is it? Think of it using an extreme example: if, say Einstein went through this and ultimately "passed" such eval as "Average memory. A cognition level within the expected range for his age, coupled with a degree of mental issues." would that set off any alarm bells for anyone other than Einstein himself!? ... "Oh, Einstein can tie his shoes... he's ok. Good boy. Good Einstein." (Not saying I'm like Einstein. Just needed an extreme example to make clear my point) Anyway, my point is without YOUR previous baseline, they have no business making statements like, "you're doing pretty good for... sOmEoNe YouR Age..." AARGH!!!!! cognition pretty much needs to be referenced from an existing baseline, unless there has been an injury that causes a significant change. in which case, there soemtimes needs to be a new post-injury baseline established. I cite Gary Busey as an example. his motorcycle crash caused a TBI, and that has changed his cognition. however, physical condition needs to combine a personal baseline, with a "normal" baseline, because otherwise, health problems will be normalized. unless people are actively declining in health, they will all be considered healthy. to cite an example, Patrick Stewart has the same amount of air as he has had since the 90s, therefore he has a full head of hair; is a pretty obvious failure in assessment. similarly, Greg's cardiovascular health has to be compared to an average baseline for his age bracket, because without that, they can only assume he is in perfect health, unless it is actively declining. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 22, 2023 16:23:05 GMT
I don’t think IQ is what it’s cracked up to be. I have a friend that has a very high IQ. In fact, he’s a member of Mensa, which he points out quite frequently. On at least two occasions, he has taken the train home from work, forgetting that he drove that day. On one of those occasions, he actually took the wrong train, ending up 40 miles away from home in the wrong direction before he realized it. Fortunately, for him, his wife was able to retrieve him. I’m not sure why. Intelligence is a separate thing from cognition and common sense. Hence the bit I mentioned before about how the two most bigoted and willfully ignorant people I'd ever encountered had doctorates in their chosen professions. They were intelligent and dedicated enough to get their degrees, but were so arrogant that they assumed their degrees represented a shield and so never bothered to properly research out their own arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 22, 2023 17:27:25 GMT
Intelligence is a separate thing from cognition and common sense. Yeah, I've noticed. A common mistake I make is assuming intelligent people have common sense. In many cases, they do not. Just as a side note, after all this IQ talk, I asked Alexa (she runs the house, you know) what her IQ was. She said that she never had her IQ tested but she always considered herself to be very intelligent, even if it is artificial. She may not be intelligent, but she does have a sense of humor. Even if it is artificial. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 23, 2023 8:27:53 GMT
Okay. If I.Q. tests are unreliable, as several sources do claim this, it's not everybody who claims this, but some do, then from my personal experience, I'd say memory tests done by psychologists can be unreliable too.
I personally know that in 2016 it was like a lightning bolt hit me. A seizure of some sort during the worst of the benzo withdrawal. After that, my memory became obviously changed for me. My memory might match that of an average person now. But, I know my memory was much, much stronger before all that happened. It certainly wasn't "aging" slowly sneaking up on me as the VA now claims.
And as to me being "mental" I think that part is in play primarily to make my claims seem far less likely. I leave it to you to decide if you're going to believe the VA or not on that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 23, 2023 13:44:09 GMT
Okay. If I.Q. tests are unreliable, as several sources do claim this, it's not everybody who claims this, but some do, then from my personal experience, I'd say memory tests done by psychologists can be unreliable too. I personally know that in 2016 it was like a lightning bolt hit me. A seizure of some sort during the worst of the benzo withdrawal. After that, my memory became obviously changed for me. My memory might match that of an average person now. But, I know my memory was much, much stronger before all that happened. It certainly wasn't "aging" slowly sneaking up on me as the VA now claims. And as to me being "mental" I think that part is in play primarily to make my claims seem far less likely. I leave it to you to decide if you're going to believe the VA or not on that one. I have a hard time believing anyone whose title ends in -ist |
|
