Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - JackAndy

Pages: [1] 2 3
FYI, this is just about building muscle. It's probably something you'll either love or hate.


To sum it up:

Within the normal physiological ranges for testosterone, an increase in testosterone won't equal an increase in muscle mass. Below the physiological range, you would absolutely lose muscle mass. Above it, in the supraphysiological range, you would gain muscle mass. But within the physiological range, you won't gain more muscle mass.

Transient increases in hormones during training mean absolutely nothing for building muscle mass (@11:15). This is addressing the articles that say that if you squat you get x percent greater testosterone and so we should train this way to get bigger arms.

I'm just summing up what Layne Norton's video was about to get you interested. Please, please watch the video before you respond with any criticism. He likes to video blog and not write so this is what we get. It's pretty refreshing how Layne Norton brings some sense into the giant intellectual mush of people randomly pulling conclusions from studies that are regurgitated on various fitness and health websites.

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Lower back injuries
« on: April 30, 2014, 04:20:08 am »
Hey PeakT

What did you do to your back exactly? I think I hurt mine working out. I've been having lower back pains just on one side for about two weeks. It hurts more if I put pressure on it like working out. The doctor did an xray and the space between the lumbar vertebrae are OK but he said he can't rule out a damaged disc. I tried to go running and I got some pain down the back of my legs and I didn't know if that was muscular or my back so I just stop and I'm grounded on working out now except situps. Any advice would be helpful from anyone!

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Free blood tests
« on: January 23, 2014, 09:45:48 am »
I just donated blood and they gave me a free blood test with that including hemocrit, RBC, LDL, HDL, hemoglobin etc. No hormones of course but that's not bad right?


Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.

As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.

Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.

Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

That's still pretty expensive to me but it does look like an improvement. I'd like to see a better overall analysis like how it would affect certain groups, or how people from certain healthcare providers would be affected. It's pretty complicated stuff but it can't be as complicated as the tax code can it?

Dang you're mature!

No, you're exactly right.  The practical truth is that a person can probably just walk around the park or the mall for the same time that they are  in the gym and have basically the same health outcomes.  In fact, possibly better if we find that all the protein and some of the common supplements are hard on the body, which I think is likely.  I'm not sure I'm quite as mature as you are though!

Would you call bodybuilding unhealthy?

I would scream this from the mountain tops to anyone who has minor arthritis or joint stiffness in general.  I'm glad to hear you have similar results using it.  I use the organic Swansons tart cherry extract.  Which do you use?  Have you tried just eating tart cherries?  Costco has some in the freezer section that I bought recently.

How about golfer's elbow? I haven't been able to lift weights in months because of it, except for squats.

I'm going to start drinking bottled water instead of tap water to lower my estradiol, and start eating broccoli at least 2x instead of 1x each week.

How does bottled water instead of tap water lower estradiol?

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Do We Need Doctors?
« on: July 15, 2013, 08:20:51 am »
If you want my real opinion, I dislike doctors and I don't trust them. They're pretty much useless now and most people just see doctors, especially GP's, as a barrier to getting the treatment that they need. I can spend 30 minutes on the Internet and learn more about my issue than a doctor learned in med school because in med school you learn surprisingly little! Nobody can know everything so we don't expect that either. The days where few people could read are long gone. Back then, you really had to just trust your doctor because you were incapable of getting any other knowledge on the topic. We have too many doctors, their salaries are too high and it's basically just a barrier to healthcare.

The other thing is prescription medications. If a medicine requires a prescription because a person can't be trusted to just take it on their own, then once a doctor writes the prescription, the responsibility should be on the doctor right? Nope. If that medication does any damage, it's the same as if you just bought it off the Internet and took it. There's no responsibility anywhere. What do we need prescriptions for then? If the doctor is just recommending medicines to us, but there is no sort of responsibility on him or her to ensure this is the correct medicine, what's the use? We can all get a Drug Handbook or just look it up on the Internet. Why do we need another middle man?

That's how I see doctors, middle men. I don't like them. So you ask me why we have all these unofficial official professional society's, well they are already struggling to hold onto legitimacy. A surgeon, a biochemist or an ER doctor are people we have a real need for in society. The rest of them are just there because we can't get our medicines without going through them.

This is a very interesting video


I still don't understand the benefits of undenatured or the differences in the process used to make them. The claims are quite fantastic though aren't they?

I found a method for testing the amount of undenatured protein in milk.
Essentially you add some acid to the milk, put it in a beaker and spin in it a centrifuge to separate it out. The amount of whey protein nitrogen contained is an indicator of how much undenatured protein is contained in the sample with an R value of .97 which is a very strong correlation meaning it's a good test.

The above test was designed for powdered milk, not powdered whey protein but the test is measuring whey protein so I wonder if it would still work?

The problem with this test is that you would need a baseline to work off of and the only way to get a perfect baseline for the test would be to create your own whey protein from raw milk. I think it would be a better experiment if you used ordinal values to measure the dependent variable or in simple terms, it would be better to just compare a bunch of different protein powders and see how they rank against eachother.

I think the idea is that we are separating the "milk fat solids" from the "whey protein nitrogens" so we'd end up with two things in the test tube, what is undenatured and what is denatured.
Anyway I don't have a centrifuge. If someone did have access to one, this is a fairly simple experiment but you could really piss off some supplement manufacturers if you published it! They'd certainly rip you to shreds asking where you got your samples from and if they were authorized etc.

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Cancer cupboard
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:22:18 pm »

What does your cupboard look like?

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Sexual relations
« on: July 07, 2013, 01:15:16 pm »
Bit of a disclaimer: If you aren't into having sexual relationships, this probably isn't for you.

I've been hearing from a lot of guys on the forum that they are disappointed with their sexual encounters. I'm not an expert on sexual relationships either and nobody would put me into the category of guru. I have noticed in my own experience however that the most satisfying sex comes from partners whom I have built a sexual relationship with. Sex with strangers, like one night stands or hookers, generally is dissatisfying to me. It's usually pretty bad. I don't know if all men are like that, I get the impression that many men are genuinely just so horny that anything with a pulse will do. But for me, it just feels really awkward and I'm really not into it most of the time although I can still do it. The best sex comes with a partner whom I care about. At first it usually isn't great, we might have some miscommunications or issues, but later it gets better because we care about eachother's pleasure and we learn the skills of lovemaking. Everybody has their little buttons, like biting the ear lobe, pulling hair, scratching the belly whatever. When there's that emotional connection too, it leads to satisfying sex. I don't think that's possible with a hooker or a one night stand or someone whom you don't have a decent relationship with outside of the bedroom. Obviously that means thinking about them and being considerate of their feelings in all things.

Also a lot of guys are having issues with ED. Not all sex involves a penis. How do you think lesbians get on? There are plenty of people who engage in BDSM "scenes" without ever taking their clothes off. Foot fetishists (I'm sure there's a couple on this site at least) don't need anything but the site of a woman's foot! There was even a survey about gay men and it was found that 20% of them don't participate in anal sex, they only use oral or manual sex. The point is you don't need an erection to have sex.
If you're a man and a woman that you're attracted to asked you if it'd be alright if she just gave you a blowjob you'd be crazy not to accept wouldn't you? So why should you feel that penis in vagina penetrative sex is the pinnacle, end-all-be-all of sex? You can have sex in other ways and still please your partner. There was another survey that I heard about that boasted that women who are in relationships with men who have small penises are more likely to report higher levels of sexual satisfaction. The explanation is that men with small penis's try harder to please their partners.
Even if you can't get an erection and your partner really needs the in and out, there is something called the strap-on! You can have an instant hard dick. Why not use it? If you knew you had this problem and got into the sack with your partner anyway, you weren't really expecting an orgasm were you? So why make your partner suffer? There are plenty of women who can't experience an orgasm from vaginal sex and yet they still do it so I think men can make that sacrifice too.

If you don't know how to enter into a sexual relationship and how to disclose these problems, the golden rule in any first encounter is that people are looking for good judgement. It's very bad judgement to disclose something like "I can't maintain an erection" on the first date. If you say that, it will reflect negatively on your judgement and make you less attractive. But is it dishonest to lead someone on? Well you should come clean about it eventually so that there aren't any misunderstanding or false expectations in the bedroom. So if this is someone you're connecting with for a casual sexual relationship, maybe by the second date or when it's time to get into bed together you can say "I've had a bit of erectile dysfunction lately so is it ok if we just roll around a bit and maybe throw in some oral or manual sex?" That way you've made disclosure so she won't be thinking that she isn't turning you on when you don't get an erection, you've set the expectation so nobody will be disappointed, and you can both still have fun. But whatever you do, say it positively as if you're unwrapping a present for her that she gets to have oral sex with you etc. Don't make it like a cancer diagnosis.
If she really needs a man who can do the in and out, then don't feel bad. You're just not the man for her. Out of 100 women there's only going to be 1 who you might be compatible with anyway. Don't pout and say "Well we're perfect for eachother in every way except for sex!" That's kind of discrediting sex. Sex is a very important part of a relationship and if that isn't there, it's just not going to work.

If you're trying to setup an encounter or a profile on one of those Internet dating sites or casual encounters sex websites, this is a place where you can make more of a full disclosure right away. You can just say in your profile "I prefer oral and manual sex..." or something along those lines to set the expectation. Then if someone reads that and they really just love vaginal sex only, they probably won't respond.

Most of all just be normal. It's so strange to me how guys get this idea that it has to be a game like hunting or you have to trick the woman into liking you or say something special. Just treat the woman as a normal human being and forget that she has a vagina. Just talk to her like normal! Don't try to be overly macho and prove how manly you are. I know there are quite a few "gurus" out there spreading this idea that you have to be "alpha" but that's only going to attract a certain category of women because people tend to divide themselves into categories like that. There are also a lot of women out there who are interested in a kinder, gentler man especially since the 2008 financial crisis and the recession since has hit women harder than men. There's a lot of interest in guys who are less threatening so don't play into these jokes about violence towards women "next time don't get pregnant", "barefoot, naked and pregnant in the kitchen", "make me a sandwich", etc jokes if that really isn't you. Like I said, first encounters are all about showing good judgement. So if she asks you your hobby and you say that you like UFC cage fighting, she might be a bit scared, but if you say skiing, well that's quite normal isn't it? It's just like talking with one of your other friends. Just learn to carry on with someone, be personable, engaging, funny and interesting.

Peak can you explain to me what multiple linear regression is?

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / My Last Cigarette
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:01:13 pm »
I just smoked my last cigarette. I'll never smoke another cigarette or take any tobacco. I'm glad to be rid of the little tobacco monster. I had quit for about a year, but I never got rid of the brainwashing and I started again. One moment of weakness was all it took to get hooked again and I was back to smoking. The reason was that I was still fooling myself that I enjoyed cigarettes, that they reduced stress and made meals and social occasions better. Now I realize that you can't enjoy tobacco any more than you can enjoy drinking a glass of gasoline. The only thing you do when you smoke is relieve the craving for nicotine, that deprived empty feeling. But that feeling is created by the nicotine itself.

What helped me was Allen Carr's "The Easyway to Quit Smoking"

It was first published in 1982 and has been a best seller in Britain every year since. It's helped thousands of people quit and it helped me to realize just how easy and enjoyable quitting can be. I'm not giving anything up. I'm taking back my life, health and my money. I was just more stressed and miserable when I smoked. Now I can enjoy more blood flow, unblock my arteries and have more oxygen and nutrients go to every part of my body. So I'm sure that I'm a non-smoker now and I'm sure that I don't want to smoke and I'll never smoke again.
I've been ashamed of it because I workout and do all these healthy things, yet I do the one thing which has killed more people than all the wars of history combined. It's foolish and ridiculous and that's how I felt but I was addicted. Fortunately it's all just in your head and once you get rid of the brainwashing and associations to tobacco, you're free. True I may get cravings because the association to have a smoke with a drink or a meal is there, but it'll go away because I am aware of it now.


Another side effect which is more common is dizziness, headache, and I believe I started to see it yesterday, after about 1 week on Clomid.  I am wondering if anyone else felt it, and is this a reason to discontinue the drug.

Any thoughts?

There is an alternative to clomid! Actually there are several SERMS, but there is one with similar effects as clomid but supposedly reduced side effects. We've mentioned it a few times. I can't remember the name off of the top of my head though. But just know that you do have many options still.

For those int'd, Google on Pauling Therapy.

Dr. Pauling was also a victim of the Red Scare and was forced to explain himself before an internal security Senate committee. We remember him as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century now, but back then he couldn't even get a passport!


He's like a 20th century Benjamin Franklin. His achievements go way beyond just nutrition. Check out some of his quotes:

Obviously I'm a big fan and I pay attention to everything he said. I trust his ability and his intentions.

One of the things he said about vitamin c supplementation was that contrary to the popular belief that there is a maximum amount of vitamin c that we can take because it's water soluble, we can still take mega-doses. He noted that in a clinical trial, although vitamin c excretion rates increased as the dose increased, some of it still stayed in the body. There wasn't a wall where suddenly 100% of it was excreted. He was taking up to 18 grams per day in the end and recommended that people take as much as they can handle before it upset their stomach or caused diarrhea. He also noted that when you're sick, you can handle 3 times more vitamin c.

What I take from that is that although I could easily go as high as 8 grams of vitamin c per day, more of it is wasted. So if you're looking for more value, I suppose just take a gram or two per day is ok too. Personally, I take 3 grams per day although I might try increasing that. 

Pages: [1] 2 3