Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:40:37 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Is he your dietician? Does he pass out two-pound servings of loaves
and fishes?

He remains my Lord and Savior :-)

Thank you for your interest.

This is typical misc.fitness.weights banter. Mostly tongue-in-cheek
horse**** and John Williams is one of the leaders of BS.

But then, Williams wife divorced him over his illicit involvement
(adultery) with one Elzi Volk who, if you can believe this, was Lyle
McDonald's girlfriend before she swapped MFW idiots. She is sort of
the Usenet prostitute and is now serving a five year suspension for
using illegal drugs in athletic performance.

And guess who she was "dating" when she got those drugs?

http://www.rustyiron.net/

Yep, Mr. Williams.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

John M. Williams wrote:

DZ wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Seth Breidbart wrote:

So how did you make your determination that "Christ lives"? What was
his pulse when you measured it?

You are welcome to visit me to confirm that you are alive. When you do,
you'll also have the answers to your questions.

Somehow, this sounds rather threatening...

Actually, it sounds like Jesus hangs out at his office.

He does, except on Wednesdays. It is golf day. You should see him walk
across the water hazards.

Lift clubs, walk bag, extra balls, eat 19th hole

In article ,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
DZ wrote:
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
So how did you make your determination that "Christ lives"? What was
his pulse when you measured it?

You are welcome to visit me to confirm that you are alive. When you do,
you'll also have the answers to your questions.

Somehow, this sounds rather threatening...

Actually, it sounds like Jesus hangs out at his office.

He does :-)

So measure his pulse already.

Sheesh.

Seth
--
When I'm telling you to get a life, it's time to consider suicide very
seriously. -- Lyle McDonald

Proton Soup wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:06:08 -0400, Bob Pastorio
wrote:

Anthropomorphism is a "language" and only on the surface of religion.

Anthropomorphism is a "language..." What could that mean?
Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to non-humans.
It is utterly central to religions. If god couldn't hear and see
people, there would be no point in the existence. If god didn't
exhibit human characteristics like mercy and compassion, there's no
point to the belief.

But what is the term for the reverse phenomenon? Deomorphism?

Genesis starts off with God creating man in his image, not the other
way 'round.

Yes, it does. and the stuff of theological discourse ever since. What
does that "image" actually include? Certainly not appearance since god
is incorporeal. Certainly not breadth of intellect since we have clear
limits, with more being uncovered daily as research into mind-brain
relationships probe ever more deeply. Free will? Hardly, as more
instincts and hard-wired behaviors are detailed. Tendency to goodness?
Look at human history. So exactly what components of god are we made
in the image of? Hard question. Depending on which orthodox sect you
ask, it will range from "pure spiritual essence" to "the soul." Your call.

But there are older creation stories that feature much the same
notion. The myths (as Joseph Campbell used the word) that form the
beginning of the old testament are hardly recorded there for the first
time. Older civilizations than the Jewish one of 2500BC had already
written their legends and myths that ended up being incorporated into
the old books. Look he

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

to build comprehensive ethical systems.

What makes you obey rules of such a system?

Intelligent self-interest. If we all adhere to an ethical system that
promises no undue harm, it's in our best interests to support it.
Given that there are bad people in the world, the system has to
include what to do with the ones who refuse to deal gently with the
rest. And it should be done ethically as well.

There are no objective ethics, but if I had to choose a system to live
under, I'd go with Ayn Rand's.

But, of course, her system was just as subject as all others. You're
right, there is no objective ethical system, nor is there any other
objective verity when the subject is human action.

The problem I have with her approach, Objectivism, is that it's too
close to a solipsistic view of the universe. It permits no weakness or
infirmity. It fosters no charity or altruism. It's too cold and
solitary for me. It promotes rationalism to the point of unemotional
frigidity. A bit too restrained for me. Howard Roark is a swell guy,
just not somebody I want for a friend or co-worker.

Pastorio

"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...
"William A. Noyes" wrote:


And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

Chung said, "they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs."

Anti-androgen does not equal anti-testosterone, does it?
Reducing 5-alpha reductase activity reduces conversion to
DHT, thus increasing circulating T, right? That was my
point. You might also want to review recent studies that
indicate that finasteride, while good for BPH, may not be
good for prostate cancer.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........

The link between DHT in prostate tissues and BPH is
pretty strong. They are currently discovering that the
positive effect of DHT reduction on BPH doesn't
necessarily carry over to prostate cancer, and it may
even by counterproductive.

My point is that Chung's concept of reducing
testosterone to treat prostate cancer is a very
"old school" approach and may be contrary to
what the patient needs. It's not quite on the
level of stone-tool trepanation, but for him to
make such a statement backed by the "I'm a
physician" bit is good reason to tell him to stick
to cardiology and not dip into urology and
endocrinology.



Thank John. I still getting myself
up to speed on the topic. In short,
I agree with your comments
to extent I understand the topic.
Note please that I have other
comments is this discussion.
I even suggested the book Chung
needs to read. The book is "Anabolic
Therapy in Modern Medicine" by
William N. Taylor, M.D.
Given his speciality, he should read the
Part 4 chapter 18 entitled "Rationale for
Anabolic Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
and Cardiac Rehabilitation":-)

A good book, a warm fire, and a sleeping
hound............................................. ........
................................William A. Noyes

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...
Tim Tyler wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
wrote or quoted:
DRS wrote:

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that
masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Are you assuming testosterone is the *only* risk factor?


Is that what I have written?


That is unlikely to be the case.


Correct. However, we do treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs
that achieve chemical castration.

The action buys the patient some time but it isn't a cure.

Moreover, prostate cancer is virtually unheard of in castrated males.

This is a non-sequiter for a non-castrated males as this view
over-simplifies the situation. The result of this view
that many physicians refuse to use testosterone therapy to
improve the patient's quality life and quanitity of life.














However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's
disease ;-)


I know it isn't, writing as a physician.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

"William A. Noyes" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"William A. Noyes" wrote:
And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

Chung said, "they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs."

Anti-androgen does not equal anti-testosterone, does it?
Reducing 5-alpha reductase activity reduces conversion to
DHT, thus increasing circulating T, right? That was my
point. You might also want to review recent studies that
indicate that finasteride, while good for BPH, may not be
good for prostate cancer.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........

The link between DHT in prostate tissues and BPH is
pretty strong. They are currently discovering that the
positive effect of DHT reduction on BPH doesn't
necessarily carry over to prostate cancer, and it may
even by counterproductive.

My point is that Chung's concept of reducing
testosterone to treat prostate cancer is a very
"old school" approach and may be contrary to
what the patient needs. It's not quite on the
level of stone-tool trepanation, but for him to
make such a statement backed by the "I'm a
physician" bit is good reason to tell him to stick
to cardiology and not dip into urology and
endocrinology.

Thank John. I still getting myself
up to speed on the topic. In short,
I agree with your comments
to extent I understand the topic.
Note please that I have other
comments is this discussion.
I even suggested the book Chung
needs to read. The book is "Anabolic
Therapy in Modern Medicine" by
William N. Taylor, M.D.
Given his speciality, he should read the
Part 4 chapter 18 entitled "Rationale for
Anabolic Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
and Cardiac Rehabilitation":-)

I would take Taylor with a grain of salt. He likes to pat himself on
the back for sidestepping the recommendations of the AMA and leading
the anti-steroid witch hunt which resulted in the Anabolic Steroid Act
of 1990, the law that criminalized anabolic-androgenic steroids.
Check out the article I wrote for Mesomorphosis a few years ago, and
note the multiple footnote references to his writings:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...teroids-01.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/qyln)

Bob Pastorio wrote:
DZ wrote:
So my FUNDAMENTAL desire may result in punishment and isolation? NOT
good enough, John. What about the needed sense of comfort, integrity,
and lack of contradiction.

Not your fundamental desire, your specific actions. If you break the
social covenant, you are punished. If you uphold it, you are
generally rewarded with a more pleasant life free to seek your other
desires. Integrity and lack of contradiction? You find this in your
religious teachings?

What my religious teachings?

Hominoid spesies are cannibalistic, violent, banging on the chest,
sneaky, lying, racist, hating animals - put in a place where we can't
be what we really are. In addition to that, hypertrophy of the human
brain makes it susceptible to extreme variety of ferocious
overwhelming desires (that includes sucking on the mammary gland AND
MORE), and brings it awarenes of suffering, death etc.

Countries like USSR with nearly 100% of the population educated and
taught atheistic concepts, starting elementary school or earlier,
totally failed to produce religion-free societies.

Why do you think this this so?

DZ

As long as there are honest people with opposing views and needs,
there can be neither. Integrity means oneness. Religion and
religious belief is based on desire for these things, but nowhere
are they externally delivered. We each choose that portion that
pleases us. The bible is replete with contradiction and mutually
exclusive conditions.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

Pastorio



--
Wheel discovery department

DZ wrote:
Countries like USSR with nearly 100% of the population educated and
taught atheistic concepts, starting elementary school or earlier,
totally failed to produce religion-free societies.

Why do you think this this so?

Because there are questions science can't answer. Religions
provide those answers, albeit not verifiable ones.

martin

--
Clark for President
http://www.clark04.com/

Martin Smith

DZ wrote:

Bob Pastorio wrote:

DZ wrote:

So my FUNDAMENTAL desire may result in punishment and isolation? NOT
good enough, John. What about the needed sense of comfort, integrity,
and lack of contradiction.

Not your fundamental desire, your specific actions. If you break the
social covenant, you are punished. If you uphold it, you are
generally rewarded with a more pleasant life free to seek your other
desires. Integrity and lack of contradiction? You find this in your
religious teachings?

What my religious teachings?

The question above, expanded, is "Do you find integrity and lack of
contradiction in your religious instruction?" The religious
information you have been taught. Is there integrity, whatever that
means here. Is there lack of contradiction? I say that no organized
religion offers either. All the sacred books have internal contradictions.

Hominoid spesies are cannibalistic, violent, banging on the chest,
sneaky, lying, racist, hating animals - put in a place where we can't
be what we really are.

You could have made this more emotional, I just can't imagine how.

We behave just like all other predators with the solitary exception of
having the tool-using capacity well-developed. Tools for manipulation
with our opposable thumb and tools for manipulation like language.

The charged descriptors you've used to characterize human behavior are
all elements of primitive self-preservation imperatives. We eat to
survive. We kill to eat. We practice stealth just like all predators.
We deceive to conquer and, so, to live another day. We're wary of
people who aren't like us because they might be unsuspected hazards;
not members of our family/tribe/clan/village/town/city/state/country.
All pro-survival characteristics in a less technological setting. The
problem is that we've altered our environment so much that we've
outstripped our evolutionary capacity. We've changed our world faster
than we could change. So we still bear that brainstem that governs our
primitive functions and we temper it with our civilizing influences.
But both still exist and both are still strong.

We are what we are all day, every day. It's just that we express it
differently now that we live in cities and have essentially unlimited
electric, mechanical and electronic power.

In addition to that, hypertrophy of the human
brain makes it susceptible to extreme variety of ferocious
overwhelming desires (that includes sucking on the mammary gland AND
MORE), and brings it awarenes of suffering, death etc.

Please. This one-sided view serves no one well. Our relatively large
brain isn't some homogeneous mass created yesterday. It has all the
layers of animal development since there were brains. Much of our
behavior is instinctual, hard-wired into place. Our "lizard" brain is
that primitive, wary, violent, self-preserving contributor. Our
developed forebrain creates technology, literature and society. And
amplifies the unique characteristics we all have and lets us express
them through language of all sorts.

It isn't like our brains are one commonly-operating thing.

Countries like USSR with nearly 100% of the population educated and
taught atheistic concepts, starting elementary school or earlier,
totally failed to produce religion-free societies.

Why do you think this this so?

You won't like my answers.

Every society we know anything about has appealed to invisible forces
to deal with things they didn't understand or couldn't control. So
Aztecs cut hearts out of millions of conquered enemies to make it rain
or make the sun shine. Shamans pour mineral salts into fires and take
credit for green fire. Clergy, by whatever name, all through human
history have been a caste apart. They say mass or preach from pulpits
or dip people into water or cut off their foreskins. They've
identified themselves with these invisible forces and asserted that
only they can communicate with them. It more demonstrates that while
100 is the average IQ, it probably isn't enough.

So all that lying and conniving you decry above is brought sharply
into focus by the organizers and designers of religions. All the
ritual, all the special clothing, all the restrictions, all the
special privilege, all the gold and silver - are all there to exploit
the superstitious fears of the common people and benefit the
clergy-caste from that exploitation. It's all about power, money and
sex. What else is there?

Back to the basic question you raise. Why are so many people
believers? Because it's too scary not to. Because there are so many
things not fully understood that some comforting superbeing offers
seeming rationality in an infinite and, therefore, incomprehensible
universe. Because most people don't understand the reality of
coincidence; of mathematics, of probability. Because most people would
rather ascribe events to a plan or a design rather than the
impersonality of the laws of physics. Because we're all primarily
concerned with our own survival and minimizing hazard and maximizing
benefit, as all living things are.

So, not because there's any evidence for divinity; just because the
universe is reduced to a more human scale if there's a daddy
supervising it all.

Pastorio


As long as there are honest people with opposing views and needs,
there can be neither. Integrity means oneness. Religion and
religious belief is based on desire for these things, but nowhere
are they externally delivered. We each choose that portion that
pleases us. The bible is replete with contradiction and mutually
exclusive conditions.



http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

Pastorio