[Herodotus38]

Sure, I am just very skeptical of a lot medical research involving vitamins and your first link didn't work on my mobile and the second wasn't results, so I was hoping to see some legitimate studies.

I have firsthand seen several major shifts in vitamins and nutrition in medicine. For example, vitamin D was heavily promoted in the early 2000s for a lot of indications that appeared back by research that in the end was fraud (see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/researcher-center-ep...).

Vitamin C also was heavily promoted by Linus Pauling but ended up being flat, although now we are seeing a resurgence in the belief that it plus thiamine and steroids can help with septic shock (look up https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(16)62564-3/f...). This is being heavily debated right now.

I looked at three papers in the first link but none showed actual results, just hypothetical improvements.

I'm happy it appears to be helping you CAC, how often are you getting CACs?

[LinuxBender]

I can only do the test once per year without the insurance company pushing back. Yes the vitamin C studies were quite flawed, especially since they were using ascorbic acid and not real vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is just the outer layer and is missing many components. I would love to see the tests done using the real deal.

I too am a skeptic about many things. I've had no choice but to get into self research and self improvements, or I would be stuck right where I was, in the middle of a failed medical system. If it were up to them, I would just be taking BP meds for the rest of my life. The doctors back them expected me to last another five years. That was several years ago. I refuse to play that game. It would take an hour to explain all the things I am doing. People that have known me for a long time are seeing the results. I look and feel 20 years younger. I have started educating some of the doctors at Stanford about nutrition and a few of them are actually very open to learning new things.

[Herodotus38]

I just wonder sometimes about the rationale behind some of these tests like coronary artery calcium scoring, where it is relatively new and we don't as much data about how useful it is to measure year to year results as an accurate prognosis indicator. We do have data that it can be used for risk stratification for heart attack and stroke, but as far as I know there is a lot less data on getting serial examinations in a way that ends up being more useful than the initial one, but maybe that research is being done.

I found one commentary on a paper evaluating it: https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/139983-utility-of-seria...

It probably doesn't matter, but getting a CAC does involve a little extra radiation each year, so I kind of worry about what benefit you are getting: ie hypothetical benefit of monitoring risk vs hypothetical risk of radiation exposure.

[LinuxBender]

The radiation does concern me as well, especially since the vit-d and bpc-157 are proangiogenic. That said, I have completely removed sugar and carbs from my dietary intake and I use AGE+curcumin to break down biofilm from senescent cells and use Sulforaphane plus Myrosinase to up-regulate NRF2 which in turn increases cellular autophagy and apoptosis of senescent cells. I suppose time will tell if my actions are beneficial.

[Herodotus38]

Sounds like you’ve done way more research on this and could teach me arching or two. I hope you record your results to benefit other people!

[bigmit37]

Do you have a blog? I would love to read more about what you are doing and gain some knowledge as well.