>considering natural levels of testosterone vary considerably between humans, couldn't it be considered fairer to allow steroid use provided total levels are below a particular level?
People have varying natural levels of testosterone. What might be low for some might be normal for others. Just making all the numbers match won't equalize the way everyone's unique bodies work
At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.
> At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.
Sure, there isn't "nothing to lose", but let's not kid ourselves- if you're past retirement age and in a position to essentially be on TRT for the rest of your life, hypogonadism isn't a big deal unless for some crazy reason TRT becomes unavailable. As for gynecomastia, it's very easily managed with an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane or anastrozole.
I'm not saying there aren't risks or possible side effects, but exogenous testosterone shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of the FUD surrounding steroids. If you haven't seen the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster", I highly recommend it.
Part of the reason they've gotten so much heat is because of cases of underage girls selling photos on that site for some time before they're caught. I don't know if they've found a solution to that problem or just come to some agreement with their payment processors
Sorry to hear that, hopefully this can be some consolation
>LB1's height is estimated to have been 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in). The height of a second skeleton, LB8, has been estimated at 1.09 m (3 ft 7 in) based on tibial length.[4] These estimates are outside the range of normal modern human height and considerably shorter than the average adult height of even the smallest modern humans, such as the Mbenga and Mbuti at 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)
Interesting. There are already a few studies about caffeine and the brain-- while drinking caffeine can decrease the chances of dementia, this effect reverses if you drink too much(over 6 cups day)
>In the CAIDE study, coffee drinking of 3-5 cups per day at midlife was associated with a decreased risk of dementia/AD by about 65% at late-life. In conclusion, coffee drinking may be associated with a decreased risk of dementia/AD.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20182054/
>Conducted at UniSA's Australian Centre for Precision Health at SAHMRI and a team of international researchers*, the study assessed the effects of coffee on the brain among 17,702 UK Biobank participants (aged 37-73), finding that those who drank more than six cups of coffee a day had a 53 per cent increased risk of dementia
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/527517
Death meditations are common in a lot of faiths. In Islam it's mentioned in hadith, Christianity has the practice of memento mori. And even in Time there was a tradition that during a Triumph, a large parade for a successful military commander and one of the greatest honors that could be bestowed on a person, a slave would be tasked to sit by the commanders ear during the celebration and whisper "remember you will die". I think it's naturally something a lot of people could gain from
>Micro plastics are a significant concern but their extreme surface area to volume ratio is associated with a short individual lifespan
Isn't the whole issue that they DON'T break down? Yes they can wear into smaller pieces of plastic, but chemically they're still plastic. And when they get to a certain size, they become small enough to easily absorb into the body.
More that the don’t break down fast enough. Most individual plastic molecules on their own doesn’t last that long. Polyethylene the most common plastic is simply a very long chain of carbon and hydrogen it’s a ready food sources for many different kinds of bacteria and is broken down by sunlight etc.
There are of course more and less chemically stable plastics, but they all last much longer in a landfill than the vastly more harsh aquatic environment.
There have been numerous cases of finding plastic waste in some fish, and because it doesn't decay organically it can form blockages in their digestive tracts. Whatever they're using in 300 years, they'll still be finding plastic in oceans and rivers(absent a massive clean up program)
> A bit of plastic — to a fish gut - is no different than a pebble, chunk of coral, bit of bone, etc.
There's reasonable empirical evidence that plastic accumulation in fish causes them to reproduce less than they otherwise would[1]. The prevailing theory is that most plastics leach at least some of their chemicals in seawater.
Don’t worry, the only people saying that are the scientists who are studying it.
“When Browne experimented with blue mussels back in 2008, many researchers thought animals would just excrete any microplastics they ate, like “unnatural fiber,” as Browne called it—but he wasn’t so sure. He tested the idea by placing mussels in water tanks spiked with fluorescent-tagged microplastic particles smaller than a human red blood cell, then moved them into clean water. For six weeks he harvested the shellfish to see if they had cleared the microplastics. “We actually ran out of mussels,” Browne says. The particles “were still in them at the end of those trials.”
The mere presence of microplastics in fish, earthworms and other species is unsettling, but the real harm is done if microplastics linger—especially if they move out of the gut and into the bloodstream and other organs. Scientists including Browne have observed signs of physical damage, such as inflammation, caused by particles jabbing and rubbing against organ walls. Researchers have also found signs ingested microplastics can leach hazardous chemicals, both those added to polymers during production and environmental pollutants like pesticides that are attracted to the surface of plastic, leading to health effects such as liver damage. Marco Vighi, an ecotoxicologist at the IMDEA Water Institute in Spain, is one of several researchers running tests to see what types of pollutants different polymers pick up and whether they are released into the freshwater and terrestrial animals that eat them. The amount of microplastics in lakes and soils could rival the more than 15 trillion tons of particles thought to be floating in the ocean’s surface alone.”
It’s from the article (and study cited therein) cited in the post I responded to.
Apparently few actually read the ‘evidence’ they knee-jerk cite to.
Specifically, the Brown study examined mussels who were kept in containers with 0.51 g/L of micro particles of plastic. And, surprise surprise, some of the micro particles found their way into the mussels. Shocker. That density of particles is nonexistent in nature. But, as long as you get the grant money...
The same Scientific America article also makes this claim:
“In a surprising study published in March, not only did fish exposed to microplastics reproduce less but their offspring, who weren’t directly exposed to plastic particles, also had fewer young, suggesting the effects can linger into subsequent generations.”
But, if you read the study it (a) has nothing to do with fish, but rather plankton, and (b) the exposure to micro plastics INCREASED the number of offspring!
People should read the studies. But, it’s easier to smugly downvote.
Well, rather they shouldn't pick a profession dedicated to not doing that thing. Even if they were straight, I believe relationships wouldn't be allowed for them.
