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.

Messages - Sam

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 201
Has anyone discussed the future of this site with Curt’s passing.   Is it possible we could honor his memory by finding a way for it to live on?

Hey old friends.     I just saw this post.   Thousands of miles separate us and most of us only know each other through internet handles but we all shared the struggles of authentic manhood with Curt.   Our stories didn’t just cover low t.  Over the years we celebrated victories and dug deep into research with PeakT and each other  to find ways to be better men, fathers and friends,  His commitment to his fellow man and a passion for science and health was remarkable.   I can’t tell you how many emails I sent him with ideas on how he could monetize this site more and he never really cared much.   He just cared about the quest.  Peak..  I can’t wait to see you in heaven brother!!!    You gave me my life back through your site and counsel.  Maybe when I get there  we can sit down together and eat a nice big plate of red meat and broccoli together, but I got a feeling you’ll still be pushing the plant base diet.   Much love to you Curt,  to your family and all my friends who know journeys we have been on together with PeakT.

I disagree.   I was actually thinking this isn't the PeakT I remember, but ok.  :-(. 

The simple fact is politics and global warming science are inextricably linked.   To think any differently is like saying there is only one way to eat or TRT causes heart disease.  You can find science that supports either perspective but if you subscribe to one philosophy so strongly you shut down your ability to be objective you lose the ability to grow.

I'll stop posting on the subject.

I think this is very well written.


But the piece did include some very interesting analysis from Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. The YPCCC, which “conducts research on public climate knowledge” has grouped Americans’ sentiments about global warming into six categories, ranging from “The Alarmed” to “The Dismissives.” Even though I am properly suspicious of anything Yale has to say about global warming, I think Mr. Leiserowitz makes some interesting points. His analysis puts into vivid relief that one group is missing from the spectrum of debate on climate change. There should be an additional category called something like “The Prudent Rationals.” There should be, but there is not — and it is the liberals’ fault.

“The Prudent Rationals” would be comprised of those whose attitudes comport with something like the following: They are generally respectful of the scientific community and are eager to listen to mainstream scientists and researchers. They want to hear from legitimate experts who acknowledge the variables, the uncertainties and, importantly, the mistakes and errors of climate science so far. This group could support a prudent plan to produce measurable benefits, but only if the plan were truly global in scope and the cost seemed to be proportional to the outcome. The “Prudent Rationals” believe it is reasonable to accept that there are consequences for continually pumping gases into the atmosphere. And it seems right that one generation should leave the planet better than they found it for the next generation. But we need to be realistic about technical science and political science. If we can’t act globally to limit these gases, we should be focusing on local pollution, not on plans that unilaterally wreck our economy and impoverish millions – if not billions – for nothing.

The “alarmists” and the “deniers” aren’t really the problem. The problem is that many reasonable voters find it hard to know whom to believe. They are turned off by the hypocrisy of Al Gore and the Learjet liberals, the money-grabbing tactics of the third-world-victim industry and the members of the traditional American left who want to raise everyone’s power bill to enforce a lifestyle they find acceptable, all in exchange for nothing. You don’t have to buy into the suspiciously precise claim by the Democrats that “there is a 97 percent consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming” blah blah blah to believe there is sufficient cause for the world to take prudent collective action in an effort to avoid pollution-induced problems.

Regrettably, this option doesn’t exist because of the actions of hypocrites like President Obama and Al Gore, the shrill phonies from academia and the pious usual suspects on the left.  I blame the liberal political elite, not the scientists, for where we are. Our politicians have not made the case for a practical, beneficial, cost-effective, global plan that would address climate change efficiently and effectively. Oh by the way, President Obama and the Democrats can’t even finalize a trade deal with Asia or Europe, much less come to a global environmental/economic agreement. And it is a scientific fact that unilateral measures by the United States would be insufficient to meet the goals that liberals say must be met in order to avoid global disaster.

There is zero chance that thinking people will capitulate to the Obama/Gore climate change agenda. And why would they? The president and his allies have been wrong about almost everything else.  It will be a cold day … everywhere before Republicans and other fair-minded voters are cowed into submission by the liberal bluster about climate change.

The Democrats’ global-warming “solutions” fit a little too nicely into their tiresome political agenda of class warfare, anti-business regulations and the big government controls they want to force on us. In the meantime, the “Prudent Rationals” have nowhere to go.

What about this argument?


It doesn't deny the science,  only the way it is being interpreted by omitting important statistical analyses.

My opinion on this is somewhat contrarian.   Post ejaculation I would expect T levels to drop a little as the Sertoli cells sequester more T as part of the spermatogenesis process.    The release of dopamine and other feel good chemicals serve multiple purposes and is is enhance through physical touch with your mate and IMHO one reason why excessive masturbation can be really bad for you.

Tucker Carlson and Bill Nye interview on a Fox News.   I am not a fan of Tucker and find his style annoying but this is actually one of the best examples of the fundamental problems with this debate.   It's hard to watch Bill Nye not be able to acknowledge what Tucker is saying cannot be disputed because it hasn't been specifically studied.  Climate change proponents have no interest n taking the research further because the current state supports the conclusion they want.

Towards the end Tucker says to Bill that he is making a political comment and not a science comment and also acknowledges that he believes in the science.     I'm not trying to stoke the fire here but in the spirit of this forum discuss the gap that exists between these and the question if there is room for more science.


That's a policy statement.  Maybe time will prove you right. At one point chemo was the only way to treat cancer also.

I wasn't directing my comment at you at all.   I was just referring to the guy who I recall was a stalker and you kicked him then he came back. etc etc.    Your lucky to have only had 1 or 2 bad eggs on this forum.

As for your passion etc.   I think it's great and I agree with you.   I just think our academic institutions and political systems have gone too far to ever get back to the point where I trust them to provide scientifically sound/well-vetted, unbiased perspectives.   I think the analytical sciences still do and the pure sciences certainly but the applied sciences have been perverted by lots of people who couldn't pass college level chemistry courses and now they are advising our politicians on public policy.     Many of these individuals never learned to appreciate the purity of the core sciences and are really just Wall Street Persona's in lab coats.   Looking to make a name for themselves and leverage it for a cush job or consulting gig making big bucks.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to sift through garbage science to figure out what the real risks are and what science should be advising and doing in a proactive meaningful way.


Lipid testing plays a major role in cardiovascular risk stratification and the assessment of responses to clinical interventions. Historically, it has been recommended that blood samples for lipid testing should be obtained after an 8- to 12-hour fast. Despite that we spend the vast majority of our time in nonfasting conditions, fasting samples have been the standard for measurement of triglycerides and cholesterol because measuring lipids in the fasting state is believed to reduce variability and allow for a more accurate derivation of the commonly used Friedewald-calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. However, if postprandial effects do not substantially alter lipid levels or their association with cardiovascular risk, then a nonfasting blood draw has many practical advantages.1 Indeed, recent studies suggest that postprandial effects do not weaken, and even may strengthen, the risk associations of lipids with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Re: Were We Born to Run?
« on: February 26, 2017, 01:51:39 pm »
Admit it you missed me:-)   

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Re: Were We Born to Run?
« on: February 26, 2017, 01:41:57 pm »
I'm not confusing the two nor anti-capitalism.   I am just highlighting the insanity of our society as we all vie for our little hills to perch on top of as Rome crumbles all around us.

While I wouldn't send in the National Guard to shut down McDonalds I would support food standards backed by science to prevent obesity and the cascade of costs associated with the medical problems that follow.   Sucralose is a good example.   We should be able to pretty simply determine if that artificial sweetener is actually harmful to gut bacteria or not.  If it is then it shouldn't be given GRAS status.

This should be done taking into account the genetic difference which in the past 10 years we have unparalleled insight into.     The problem is the moment you start doing that kind of research special interest groups get their claws into the policy makers and unbiased research goes out the window.

Peak,  I purposefully packaged it that way to foster thought on the subject.

Testosterone, Hormones and General Men's Health / Re: Were We Born to Run?
« on: February 26, 2017, 09:25:28 am »
Without question, but I'm just like the canary the coal mine.  I got the unlucky ability to rapidly store fat in my liver when I consume large amounts of carbs.   I was having lunch with a Japanese buddy of mine the other day and while he was powering down a big bowl of rice we talked about how healthy he is and how much rice him and his family eat.   Put me on that diet and even with the cycling I'd be 300lbs, triglycerides over 300 and feeling like shit.

NASH and NAFLD are so prevalent today and no one even talks about it.     I'm conservative and believe in capitalism but McDonalds and other crap food places need to be shut down or a new dietary standard needs to be set.  The problem is this debate would become as politicized as global warming.   Instead of truly addressing the issue and accepting a multi pronged solution you would end up with the Vegan group fighting with the Paleo group.  The Vegan group,would say everything the Paleo group says I'd funded by the Koch brothers and the Paleo group would say the Vegans are fruitcake, treehuggers.

Sometimes I think that asteroid can't come soon enough.

Not headed anywhere,  just have to get back into the way we communicate here I guess.  I'm too social media right now:-).   There was a guy years ago who was causing trouble that would demean people.   I'll get more serious from now on.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 201