All Things Permanent Health

[Maddy]

You really should be able to make great compost anywhere. Everything rots eventually, so you have the forces of nature on your side! The basic formula is 1 part green (e.g., grass clippings) to one part brown (e.g., fallen leaves, straw, or wood shavings--but not cedar). Layer the brown and green so that no layer is more than 4-6 inches high. Keep the pile uniformly moist throughout--about like a wrung-out sponge. Turn it with a pitchfork every couple of weeks to keep things cooking aerobically. Don't get discouraged! Things won't get moving until your pile is of sufficient size to generate and hold heat--about 1 cubic yard.

If you're religious about doing the above, your pile should heat up nicely and should yield a rich, black humus chock full of worms by the end of the summer. (I'm assuming you start the pile in the spring, when grass clippings become plentiful.) But if you really want fast results, you can kick-start your pile with the addition of fresh chicken manure. Composted manure from the store won't work--it has to be straight from the chicken house. Or, if you're not squeamish about these things, pee in the compost pile morning, noon and night. I've got a little neighbor boy who BEGS to pee in my compost. But since I've gone commercial, that's no longer possible. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt anything--under most circumstances urine is sterile, but customers would understandably flip out.

Usually slow compost is the result of (1) too little oxygen (i.e., not turning the pile frequently enough, (2) not enough watering, or (3) an imbalance in the ratio of nitrogen (green) to carbon (brown).

[MachineGhost]

Is cedar really that deadly? I used thin cedar wood shavings for hamsters as a mulch cover near the end of last season and then mixed that into the soil before planting this season (I use panda film now). Could that be why I stunted the growth instead of the heat?

[Maddy]

The problem with cedar in compost is that it rots VERY slowly, which is why it has some good applications in landscaping. It also contains oils that are toxic to other plants. That's why you don't see much growing underneath cedar trees. So yes, it could very well be your culprit.

I'm not aware of cedar residue being harmful to ingest, although it's very common for people who work with cedar day in and day out to develop serious allergic reactions that go full-blown analphylactic. I recall that there is some debate about the advisability of using cedar around small animals.

[l82start]

The problem with cedar in compost is that it rots VERY slowly, which is why it has some good applications in landscaping. It also contains oils that are toxic to other plants. That's why you don't see much growing underneath cedar trees. So yes, it could very well be your culprit.

I'm not aware of cedar residue being harmful to ingest, although it's very common for people who work with cedar day in and day out to develop serious allergic reactions that go full-blown analphylactic. I recall that there is some debate about the advisability of using cedar around small animals.

i know from time spent working as a roofer any splinter from a cedar shingle is a near guaranteed infection, i am not sure why exactly, maybe the oils or maybe some bacteria that live in them, but even with removal disinfection and proper care, even the smallest splinters leave red sore wounds, (i still have a small nodule floating around in my arm from a large deep splinter 15+ years later)

[MachineGhost]

Great, I'm not sure I'm up for replacing all of the soil and mixing up another batch given the sunk costs I've accumulated already (near $1K) and nothing to show for it. Third try's the charm?

Considering the patch of in ground land that isn't growing very well either (which I also covered with cedar wood shavings for mulch), I do think its highly probable that is factor.

Such an idiot.

[Maddy]

If you could elaborate a little more on what you've got, maybe I could come up with some ideas. I'm sort of an expert at coming up with solutions on a shoestring. Meet me at the Permanent Garden thread?

[MachineGhost]

I sure wish we can have our "Berlin Wall" moment soon.

Dear Idiots at the FDA,

When I saw that the FDA is proposing an update to its definition of "healthy," I thought that the agency might rely on the most current science to support any such changes. I was disappointed to learn this was not the case.

The agency is harmonizing its healthy definition with the new Dietary Guidelines. But just look at what the Dietary Guidelines say about saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol. Briefly put, the guidelines advise reducing or limiting all three, despite good evidence to the contrary, some of it even now acknowledged by the government. For example, the government otherwise now admits that dietary cholesterol is not an issue. So why should it be reduced or limited? Not only is dietary cholesterol not an issue -- many people taking statin drugs end up with too little cholesterol, which is the basic building block for all of our hormones. We will die if we don't have enough of what the government calls "bad cholesterol."

If the FDA looked further, the agency would see the most recent evidence showing that saturated fat is not linked to heart disease, and that too little sodium intake can pose many health hazards. And one cannot advise on the amount of sodium without considering the balance with potassium. The FDA notes that many people are low in potassium, but again it is balance that is crucial -- yet the recommendation for potassium remains unchanged.

The new Dietary Guidelines no longer recommend a low-fat diet, so the total fat component of the "healthy" definition is relaxed. Foods made up predominately of mono- and polyunsaturated fats will be able to be labeled "healthy" under certain conditions. It seems obvious to me that the FDA simply does not have the expertise to sort out these fats. The limits on saturated fat remain.

The second change pertains to the lower limits for nutrients. The specific nutrients listed above were included in the definition of "healthy" because they were identified as nutrients "of public health concern." The new Dietary Guidelines identify potassium and vitamin D as nutrients of public health concern, so now if foods contain at least a certain percentage of these nutrients, they can use the "healthy" label. This is of course ridiculous. Take unhealthy food and add some "nutrient of public concern" and now it is healthy?

It is interesting that the Dietary Guidelines identify specific nutrients of concern, but fail to recognize any role for dietary supplements in achieving recommended nutrient levels. In our official comments in response to the guidelines, we noted that the status of the American food supply is such that food, even if eaten properly, cannot supply all of the nutrients needed for healthy living.

Vitamins D and K are examples: there just isn't enough in food, even if you have the best diet and find the best food grown on great soil. Calling a food "healthy" which has only 10% of the vitamin D the government recommends you eat each day (a recommendation which is already pitifully low) is hardly going to address the nutrient deficiencies experienced by millions of Americans nor optimize the health of other Americans. As for vitamin K, the government does not yet appear to understand the essential role it plays, especially in making calcium available to our bones.

Notice that no limitations were placed on the amount of sugar or added sugar contained in the current definition of "healthy," which boggles the mind. So on the one hand, we have a completely phony definition of what "healthy" is, and on the other hand the agency is severely restricting companies' ability to communicate the real health benefits of their products.

In the final guidance document, I urge you to consult the most up to date science on these topics, as the Dietary Guidelines are woefully inadequate.

[MachineGhost]

Latest gut analysis:







I give up. The only thing I can conclude at this point is something in my supplement regime must be acting as an antibiotic. Hey Reub, when are you gonna post yours?

[MachineGhost]

[WiseOne]

Cool chart, MG. Where did you find it?

[MachineGhost]

[MachineGhost]

One word: awesome! I'm gonna use this soon, for sure. WiseOne & Benko, you guys gotta sign up as Medical Detectives and earn some points and moolah (and all around good karma). This is definitely the next level of medicine before AI takes over.

I was inspired to start CrowdMed after watching my little sister suffer for three miserable years with undiagnosed medical condition. As she bounced from doctor to doctor, I witnessed how ill-equipped our medical system is to help people with complex illnesses, thanks to a perfect storm of over-specialization, lack of care coordination, redundant testing, over-medication, misaligned incentives, and more.

Since launching our site in 2013, I’ve read thousands of CrowdMed patient stories eerily similar to my sister’s, and was shocked to learn than 1 out of 3 American families have experienced an unresolved medical issue after seeing multiple physicians. This is why CrowdMed must exist.

The problem is that outside of a few expensive interdisciplinary hospitals, medicine remains an individual sport. CrowdMed is making it a team sport, harnessing the collective intelligence of a global medical community rather than requiring a patient to see one doctor at a time. After resolving 1,500+ real-world medical mysteries to date with dramatic, validated improvements in cost, time, and clinical outcomes, we’ve proven that our approach works much better.

While our company is proud to be backed by some of the top venture capital firms in Silicon Valley, we decided to raise this financing round the same way that we solve patient cases -- by crowdsourcing! This way anyone who supports CrowdMed’s mission and believes in our business model can own a piece of our success, and nothing pleases us more.

Jared Heyman
Founder & CEO

https://wefunder.com/crowdmed

[MachineGhost]

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... rs/502967/

If there's been no increase in healthspan since the early 90's that would point the finger at obesity or GMOs. Uh oh!

That Vigj guy sounds uninformed about what exactly life extension is about, but in fairness so are 95% of people. Supplements/drugs, optimal lifestyles, etc. are simply "age deceleration" until fundamental structural approaches are available. The best way to think of it is like a car, but there's a couple of more areas than just an "oil change" at play to get rid of all of the accumulated gunk. There is no built-in age limit, just a cumulative breakdown. There's animals that live a lot longer than humans and those that do have upregulated antioxidant defense or stem cell repair capability.

[MachineGhost]

[Benko]

Thanks MG. Could you post the source for that chart?

[MachineGhost]

Thanks MG. Could you post the source for that chart?

http://expirebox.com/download/635e77f6f ... 8d7e3.html

[MachineGhost]

Make sure to read about the zinc carnosine and NCGS studies as they may be relevant to your SIBO. ZC is one of the things I've never tried since its a bit pricey for the dose required.

[Benko]

Thanks much.

I guess it is time to subscribe to examine's monthly updates.

[MachineGhost]

Thanks much.

I guess it is time to subscribe to examine's monthly updates.

Yeah, it's surprisingly high quality. Tempted myself since I wasn't aware of NCGS until just now.

[MachineGhost]

40% off: http://examine.com/store/erd/

Still at bit too much for me.

[MachineGhost]

Watson offers a cognitive computing approach to diagnosis, whereas CrowdMed harnesses the collective intelligence of actual humans. AI and machine learning-based systems like Watson cannot yet interact with patients or make sense of the type of medical case data that our human Medical Detectives can. That said, we're in ongoing partnership discussions with Watson with the goal of combining the complimentary strengths of "man and machine" to bring CrowdMed patients the best of both worlds.

And in other news, uBiome is now offering a clinical-grade SmartGut kit which will check for dysbiosis, infections, etc. besides sequencing your gut microbiome. It requires a doctor to sign off on it, but it looks like they will do the dirty work of contacting the physician to get permission before they mail you the kit (and insurance will cover the cost). Very exciting to be able to virtually bypass the stifling bureaucracy and ignorance!

[Maddy]

Re the butter chart:

Maybe last night's $500 migraine made me stupid (they tend to do that), but I can't make heads or tails of that chart. What is it telling us?