that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Untrue. Little is 'all genetic' except basic traits like your eye color. They've mapped our genome and discovered there is no where near enough genes to account for everything that happens in your body. Enzyme switches turn on and off and what makes them do that is the environment and the things you do to yourself, i.e. your diet. It's called your phenotype & your epigenome. Google those words and stop believing & spouting last century's theories that have been disproven.
I don't know anything about Bryan except that he was fanatical about supplements (which doesn't necessarily lead to improved health) and had some pretty controversial opinions. I don't recall him discussing much diet or healthy holistic lifestyle habits. And I don't know what his lifestyle was before he came here, how bad his health was before he began his supplement fanaticism, what kind of stress he lived with, how he slept or anything else.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Untrue. Little is 'all genetic' except basic traits like your eye color. They've mapped our genome and discovered there is no where near enough genes to account for everything that happens in your body. Enzyme switches turn on and off and what makes them do that is the environment and the things you do to yourself, i.e. your diet. It's called your phenotype & your epigenome. Google those words and stop believing & spouting last century's theories that have been disproven.
I don't know anything about Bryan except that he was fanatical about supplements (which doesn't necessarily lead to improved health) and had some pretty controversial opinions. I don't recall him discussing much diet or healthy holistic lifestyle habits. And I don't know what his lifestyle was before he came here, how bad his health was before he began his supplement fanaticism, what kind of stress he lived with, how he slept or anything else.
Oh I agree. Supplements can be dangerous and unhealthy! It's so much better to get nutrition from a healthy well rounded diet instead of synthetic pills.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Genetics pull strong but they are not definite (unless we're talking Huntington's disease ect.).
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Untrue. Little is 'all genetic' except basic traits like your eye color. They've mapped our genome and discovered there is no where near enough genes to account for everything that happens in your body. Enzyme switches turn on and off and what makes them do that is the environment and the things you do to yourself, i.e. your diet. It's called your phenotype & your epigenome. Google those words and stop believing & spouting last century's theories that have been disproven.
I don't know anything about Bryan except that he was fanatical about supplements (which doesn't necessarily lead to improved health) and had some pretty controversial opinions. I don't recall him discussing much diet or healthy holistic lifestyle habits. And I don't know what his lifestyle was before he came here, how bad his health was before he began his supplement fanaticism, what kind of stress he lived with, how he slept or anything else.
It's funny that his opinions were considered "controversial" when he backed all of them up with actual studies in scientific journals. That kind of underscores the mindset of many of the people on forums like this.
Tell me something: When people with unhealthy lifestyles - people who smoke and eat diets you'd cringe at - live into their 90s, how is that not genetic?
That's a shame, he really did a lot of research and had some great insights from actual scientific literature.
I, for one, appreciate people like him. Without lots of thinkers like him we can't ever hope to tackle problems like acne or hair loss. It may all be genetic, but if we don't find the causes, what you're really saying is kill off anyone with acne or at least don't let them have children. I'd like to think we can stretch beyond that fatalistic notion.
If anyone is curious, more details are:
and
and
Thanks for posting. Bryan has been active in hair loss forums since the very early days at alt.baldspot (Usenet). He was a very knowledgeable man, and extremely respected in all the hairloss forums. RIP, Bryan.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Untrue. Little is 'all genetic' except basic traits like your eye color. They've mapped our genome and discovered there is no where near enough genes to account for everything that happens in your body. Enzyme switches turn on and off and what makes them do that is the environment and the things you do to yourself, i.e. your diet. It's called your phenotype & your epigenome. Google those words and stop believing & spouting last century's theories that have been disproven.
I don't know anything about Bryan except that he was fanatical about supplements (which doesn't necessarily lead to improved health) and had some pretty controversial opinions. I don't recall him discussing much diet or healthy holistic lifestyle habits. And I don't know what his lifestyle was before he came here, how bad his health was before he began his supplement fanaticism, what kind of stress he lived with, how he slept or anything else.
It's funny that his opinions were considered "controversial" when he backed all of them up with actual studies in scientific journals. That kind of underscores the mindset of many of the people on forums like this.
Tell me something: When people with unhealthy lifestyles - people who smoke and eat diets you'd cringe at - live into their 90s, how is that not genetic?
Of course it's genetic, but not every smoker has those genetics do they? the majority fall ill eventually after persistent lifestyle abuse. It's only a few fish in the pond that get away with these types of behaviors without it catching up to them.
That's a shame, he really did a lot of research and had some great insights from actual scientific literature.
I, for one, appreciate people like him. Without lots of thinkers like him we can't ever hope to tackle problems like acne or hair loss. It may all be genetic, but if we don't find the causes, what you're really saying is kill off anyone with acne or at least don't let them have children. I'd like to think we can stretch beyond that fatalistic notion.
If anyone is curious, more details are:
and
and
Thanks for posting. Bryan has been active in hair loss forums since the very early days at alt.baldspot (Usenet). He was a very knowledgeable man, and extremely respected in all the hairloss forums. RIP, Bryan.
>I was surprised to learn that Bryan had no college education. Even more impressive, Bryan tended to do a lot of his research at libraries. I suppose it is not surprising, considering that he grew up in an era without the internet. When a journal article could not be found online, Bryan would find it at a library.
I think it just ties into natural selection. People with serious acne oftentimes won't reproduce because they won't find a mate. No need to kill us off.
Sucks that Bryan's gone, though, as he was one of the few around here who would stand up to the anti-dairy folks. His thread debunking the "feedback theory" with sebaceous glands should be pinned to the top of one of the forums here.
That's a shame, he really did a lot of research and had some great insights from actual scientific literature.
I, for one, appreciate people like him. Without lots of thinkers like him we can't ever hope to tackle problems like acne or hair loss. It may all be genetic, but if we don't find the causes, what you're really saying is kill off anyone with acne or at least don't let them have children. I'd like to think we can stretch beyond that fatalistic notion.
If anyone is curious, more details are:
and
and
Thanks for posting. Bryan has been active in hair loss forums since the very early days at alt.baldspot (Usenet). He was a very knowledgeable man, and extremely respected in all the hairloss forums. RIP, Bryan.
>
;I was surprised to learn that Bryan had no college education. Even more impressive, Bryan tended to do a lot of his research at libraries. I suppose it is not surprising, considering that he grew up in an era without the internet. When a journal article could not be found online, Bryan would find it at a library.</span>lockquote>
I think it just ties into natural selection. People with serious acne oftentimes won't reproduce because they won't find a mate. No need to kill us off.
Sucks that Bryan's gone, though, as he was one of the few around here who would stand up to the anti-dairy folks. His thread debunking the "feedback theory" with sebaceous glands should be pinned to the top of one of the forums here.
I agree the really severely affected ones will probably never find anyone. this is actually a good thing I'm sorry to say, who wants more people with this type of acne crawling around the earth
Some of our health struggles are genetically determined whereas others are epigenetically influenced. Unfortunately, at this point it can be very difficult to pinpoint the etiology of one's specific problems, in terms of differentiating between the two. Bryan's CVD issues (mini strokes) may have been genetically determined and therefore unaffected by diet, lifestyle, and/or supplementation. Another person's CVD (cardiovascular disease) may be due to lifestyle factors and therefore ameliorated by the alteration of such factors. Unfortunately, if one does possess the genetics for a particular disease, there is as far as we know, little or nothing that can be done to alter the course.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
Untrue. Little is 'all genetic' except basic traits like your eye color. They've mapped our genome and discovered there is no where near enough genes to account for everything that happens in your body. Enzyme switches turn on and off and what makes them do that is the environment and the things you do to yourself, i.e. your diet. It's called your phenotype & your epigenome. Google those words and stop believing & spouting last century's theories that have been disproven.
I don't know anything about Bryan except that he was fanatical about supplements (which doesn't necessarily lead to improved health) and had some pretty controversial opinions. I don't recall him discussing much diet or healthy holistic lifestyle habits. And I don't know what his lifestyle was before he came here, how bad his health was before he began his supplement fanaticism, what kind of stress he lived with, how he slept or anything else.
It's funny that his opinions were considered "controversial" when he backed all of them up with actual studies in scientific journals. That kind of underscores the mindset of many of the people on forums like this.
Tell me something: When people with unhealthy lifestyles - people who smoke and eat diets you'd cringe at - live into their 90s, how is that not genetic?
First, note that I said 'some' controversial opinions. He mostly took supplements that are well known and excepted as beneficial to acne.
Also, There are lots of studies. Everything I say is backed up by studies in peer reviewed scientific journals as well. (Except the things where I clearly say it's my belief based on anecdotal evidence such as my suspicion that cysts and nodules tend to be food intolerance reactions & not true acne.)
When people with bad lifestyles live until their 90s, it may partly be genetic. Most often it's a lot of drug interventions. And they usually are miserable decrepit old people. You don't want to emulate them. You want to emulate the societies where many people live to be healthy, active centenarians. Google Blue Zones for quick access to a list of such societies. They live healthy active lifestyles and their food doesn't come out of boxes and bags.
Sucks that Bryan's gone, though, as he was one of the few around here who would stand up to the anti-dairy folks. His thread debunking the "feedback theory" with sebaceous glands should be pinned to the top of one of the forums here.
What thread is that? Visiting the link to the profile provided above by Green Gables, I only find one topic ever by that person.
http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/314527-does-sebum-help-moisturize-the-skin/#entry3235534 Citing a paper saying that 'no correlation was found between sebaceous gland activity and the presence or severity of dry skin.'
I do recall he frequently joined in those 'Caveman' regimen threads saying that nothing you do topically affects sebum production,. While much of what those Caveman fanatics tell each other in those threads is baseless and even goofy (no water touching face, dead skin masks, etc), I have found much evidence that topical treatment does affect your sebaceous glands & their production. And that sebum has many vital roles in skin barrier function. Posted in my thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/314390-acne-prone-skinsebum-deficient-in-linoleic-acid-possible-topical-solution/
There's nothing wrong with attempting to eat healthy as long as it contributes to the overall wellbeing of the person. (both physical and mental)
However, if a person becomes overly obsessed with "perfect" nutrition to the point that it's negatively impacting other parts of their life, then it's time to rethink some priorities.
The same goes for someone who chooses NOT to eat healthy, which is something the "nutritional police" should keep in mind. I don't eat particularly healthy compared to some on these forums, and yet I look great, feel great, and most importantly, should die tomorrow, I'll have no regrets about today.
Sucks that Bryan's gone, though, as he was one of the few around here who would stand up to the anti-dairy folks. His thread debunking the "feedback theory" with sebaceous glands should be pinned to the top of one of the forums here.
What thread is that? Visiting the link to the profile provided above by Green Gables, I only find one topic ever by that person.
http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/314527-does-sebum-help-moisturize-the-skin/#entry3235534 Citing a paper saying that 'no correlation was found between sebaceous gland activity and the presence or severity of dry skin.'
I do recall he frequently joined in those 'Caveman' regimen threads saying that nothing you do topically affects sebum production,. While much of what those Caveman fanatics tell each other in those threads is baseless and even goofy (no water touching face, dead skin masks, etc), I have found much evidence that topical treatment does affect your sebaceous glands & their production. And that sebum has many vital roles in skin barrier function. Posted in my thread: http://www.acne.org/messageboard/topic/314390-acne-prone-skinsebum-deficient-in-linoleic-acid-possible-topical-solution/
There's nothing wrong with attempting to eat healthy as long as it contributes to the overall wellbeing of the person. (both physical and mental)
However, if a person becomes overly obsessed with "perfect" nutrition to the point that it's negatively impacting other parts of their life, then it's time to rethink some priorities.
The same goes for someone who chooses NOT to eat healthy, which is something the "nutritional police" should keep in mind.
Taking a myriad of artificial vitamins on a daily basis is NOT healthy. Healthy is sensible eating and adequate nutrition for a strong healthy body that functions properly. Healthy is not extremely restrictive eating or overdosing on supplements. So many people seem to go about the healthy lifestyle the wrong way and just end up developing eating disorder (likely Orthorexia).
There's nothing wrong with attempting to eat healthy as long as it contributes to the overall wellbeing of the person. (both physical and mental)
However, if a person becomes overly obsessed with "perfect" nutrition to the point that it's negatively impacting other parts of their life, then it's time to rethink some priorities.
The same goes for someone who chooses NOT to eat healthy, which is something the "nutritional police" should keep in mind.
Taking a myriad of artificial vitamins on a daily basis is NOT healthy. Healthy is sensible eating and adequate nutrition for a strong healthy body that functions properly. Healthy is not extremely restrictive eating or overdosing on supplements. So many people seem to go about the healthy lifestyle the wrong way and just end up developing eating disorder (likely Orthorexia).
Nutrition should come from food not supplements don't get me wrong some supplements are good actually like D3 in the winter months when there is little sun , ginseng , oil of oregano , nettle tea those are actually not supplements but herbs but you are what you eat. It's a yin yang kind of thing moderation in everything in life is key overdosing on supplements is certainly NOT the way to go.
If your feeling under the weather then yeah take some vitamin C , garlic sure that's very good stuff but I mean you eat too much you become obese you eat too little the opposite applies anorexia and junk food is not food lol... even junk food can be eaten once in a while but certainly not everyday it's best to have a good mixture of all kinds of foods and herbs and yes even some supplements.
There's nothing wrong with attempting to eat healthy as long as it contributes to the overall wellbeing of the person. (both physical and mental)
However, if a person becomes overly obsessed with "perfect" nutrition to the point that it's negatively impacting other parts of their life, then it's time to rethink some priorities.
The same goes for someone who chooses NOT to eat healthy, which is something the "nutritional police" should keep in mind.
Taking a myriad of artificial vitamins on a daily basis is NOT healthy. Healthy is sensible eating and adequate nutrition for a strong healthy body that functions properly. Healthy is not extremely restrictive eating or overdosing on supplements. So many people seem to go about the healthy lifestyle the wrong way and just end up developing eating disorder (likely Orthorexia).
Nutrition should come from food not supplements don't get me wrong some supplements are good actually like D3 in the winter months when there is little sun , ginseng , oil of oregano , nettle tea those are actually not supplements but herbs but you are what you eat. It's a yin yang kind of thing moderation in everything in life is key overdosing on supplements is certainly NOT the way to go.
If your feeling under the weather then yeah take some vitamin C , garlic sure that's very good stuff but I mean you eat too much you become obese you eat too little the opposite applies anorexia and junk food is not food lol... even junk food can be eaten once in a while but certainly not everyday it's best to have a good mixture of all kinds of foods and herbs and yes even some supplements.
Meh I like getting my nutrition from food but I suppose a few vitamins a day for someone else isn't that bad, it's just sometimes unnecessary when the person is already well nourished. People need to learn to cook well rounded meals.
The lifestyle changes he made were probably too little too late. He probably already had cardiovascular disease.
Allen Carr, the author of easy way to stop smoking - he died of lung cancer, because the damage had already been done. But what he did has and still does help many people. Comparing this to what you said in the original post; does that mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?
Eating healthily can only be beneficial to a persons life, but it doesn't mean that you're going to live forever. Nobody ever claimed that.
His research was over the top and deserves alot of credit for his findings and many posts. What he does not need post humus is some person going off about how it was all for nothing because "its all genetics; none of it mattered"
Acne is not a single color or small array of colors. Its a a rainbow of every color imaginable. Therefore to treat it in each and everyone person makes it nearly impossible because not everyone is the same nor responds the same. There are many variables in this equation. Genetics is apart but not the smoking gun. It takes a multidimensional approach to treat acne let alone recovery from its long term affects.
I read some of bryan's work. The man was very dedicated and for this I thank him.
He died younger than expected. We will never know why. It could be related to his family history, predisposition to strokes, life style habits, eating habits, medications, or a combination of all. Lay it to rest.
that diet and nutritional supplements probably don't do much good. This was a guy who did a countless amount of research on diet and nutrition (and other health-related issues) through pubmed literature and the like, and he died at just 63 years of age from a series of mini-strokes. He was a big advocate for using BHT to protect unsaturated fats from oxidation damage and for chewing nutritional supplements to make sure the body absorbs them. He also advocated focusing on having a diet that takes in plenty of nutrients. And yet, he died at a younger age than the average life span for a man in the United States.
It's all genetic, folks. You're only going to live as long as your genes allow you to (barring any events/accidents in life, I mean). All this holistic health stuff is a waste of time.
That's some brilliant research, what with your singular anecdotal evidence and all. My Grandmother is still alive at the age of 73 despite smoking her entire adult life, yet a friend of mine's father who ate well and excercised daily died from a massive heart attack in his early 50's. Scientific proof that smoking doesn't affect lifespan, amirite?
Outliers should not represent a population. You will always have a paragon of health that will die at 50, or a pariah of unhealth that will live till 90. One cannot simply look at these two individuals and conclude that lifespan for the entire human population has no correlation with lifestyle.
Secondly, we don't know everything about health and the human body. In fact, we often make premature assumptions - see heart disease, for example. We thought heart disease was caused by eating too many eggs. How wrong we were. The fact that science has not yet accounted for everything makes people dubious of current recommendations, and drives people towards more logical and less empirical movements such as the paleo diet. Which I, being a scientist, wholly endorse.