在这一集中，雷皮博士介绍： ➡️雌激素疗法真的有助于预防心脏病吗？还是有其他方法可以帮助女性长寿，减少心脏病？ ➡️黄体酮对衰老和长寿的影响 ➡️雌激素对衰老、流产、癌症和其他疾病的影响 ➡️黄体酮中断的重要性。 ➡️雌激素行业的历史及其对医学院、医学期刊和医生的影响 ➡️雌激素对骨骼的影响 ➡️为什么老鼠从来都不是雌激素治疗研究的理想对象 ➡️铁对心脏病的影响 ➡️黄体酮对雌激素解毒的影响 ➡️雌激素对甲状腺的影响 ➡️雌激素对胆固醇的影响 ➡️雌激素对阿尔茨海默氏症的影响 ➡️雌激素对说话速度的影响 ➡️青春期提前对乳腺癌的影响 ➡️雌激素对潮热的影响 ➡️牛奶摄入，糖和骨质疏松症的关系 ➡️糖会影响钙的吸收 ➡️二氧化碳会影响骨钙 ➡️没有足够的膳食钙，VD对骨骼的影响 ➡️为什么身体组织会摄取过多的钙 ➡️糖尿病、乳酸和骨质流失 ➡️了解原因 2/3世界人口中有乳糖不耐症 ➡️牛奶不耐受的其他因素 ➡️动物凝乳酶与植物“凝乳酶” ➡️牛奶激素–需要担心吗？ ➡️牛奶脂肪和粉刺 ➡️牛奶对 IGF 的影响 ➡️牛奶外的其他钙源
链接 https://stevekirsch.substack.com
文字版：
Participant #1:
So all of the mechanisms suggest that estrogen imbalance relative to progesterone, is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that block the metabolism of estrogen, and that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis. Okay, but nitric oxide will increase estrogen, though. Don't they kind of all work together? So it's just that the overabundance can inhibit it. Can you kind of go over that one more time? It tends to be a vicious circle. But estrogen is one of the estrogen, and stress and hypoglycemia will all activate nitric oxide, and progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism, maintaining body temperature. A lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen.
Participant #1:
Welcome to the Weight Loss for Women podcast, a place where we share everything you need to know about restoring your metabolism so you can eat more, train less, and lose weight in a healthy and sustainable way. I'm Katie Blinkfield, co founder of New Strength and Saturated, creator of probatabolic food supplements and seriously saturated skin care. And today I'm really excited to have Dr. Ray Pete and Kate Deering back on the podcast. So we've done quite a few podcasts with both of them, so I highly recommend you go back and listen to those. But today we wanted to get Ray back on to talk more about estrogen replacement therapy. And we also dive into some of the myths around milk and calcium. So if you're anything like I once was, you probably thought milk and dairy products caused inflammation and cancer, and I thought they were too high in sugar. So I cut them all out of my diet. And I was actually diagnosed with lactose intolerance at age twelve. So my mom put me on bloody soy milk and all those disgusting cheeses nondairy cheeses. But when I met Emma, I realized that I couldn't digest dairy because I had a stress digestive system. So once I improved that and improved all my metabolic markers, I was able to tolerate dairy again. And calcium has so many benefits and is needed by the body for so many different things, which we cover in this podcast. So it is jam packed with information. So I highly recommend you grab a pen and paper and take notes. And as always, please rate and review the podcast at the podcast episodes. If you've rated and reviewed it before, you can do it as many times as you like. And each month I actually pick a winner from those that share. So if you'd like to win a tub of saturated premium Collagen, all you need to do is take a screenshot of the review or the podcast episode and share it on Instagram Stories and tag me at Kittyblomfild. And like I said, each month I just pick a winner. Pick someone from those that have shared and they get a tub of saturated premium collagen. So, look, I hope you learn as much as I did in this episode. Let's get into it. Super excited to welcome back to the podcast Dr. Ray Pete and Kate Deering. Hi, guys. Welcome back. Hello, Miss Kitty. How are you today? All good? Yeah, all good here? Yeah, sure, too. Okay, great. So this is, I think, probably maybe the fifth time we've had Dr. Pete on the podcast. We've had Kate Deering on the podcast probably ten plus times. And the last podcast we had, there was quite a lot of questions around escalating replacement therapy, so we thought we'd start this podcast. Kate just wanted to ask Dr. Pete some questions around that, and then we wanted to dive into myths around calcium and milk. So, Kate, I'll hand over to you. Okay. So, yeah, a lot of what we talked about last time was certainly estrogen in the industry of estrogen, which went down a lot of trails of the estrogen replacement therapy, because obviously when women intermenopause, it seems to be somewhere that they're driven to because it can make them feel better. And so during the course of this, I was actually referred to a book, if people want to look it up, called Estrogen Matters by Dr. Avram blumming and Carol Tavris. And so I thought we would talk about some of the things that he says in there because he's certainly a pro estrogen therapy doctor. So in this book, he definitely talks about that estrogen therapy has some good reasons to take it, especially for women there's good and bad. But one of his things, he says that estrogen therapy can help with heart disease. And so I thought Dr. Peep could maybe elaborate on some of these claims that the estrogen industry is saying about what it's doing to help benefit women. I have been writing newsletters on that topic, in particular many years ago, showing the contrary research that women do have a better outcome for heart health at the end of their lives. But progesterone is the heart protective factor. For decades, I've been saying that the research shows that estrogen increases, plotting many kinds of inflammation and other factors relating to Platformation, arterial spasms and so on. Progesterone has many life extending properties, especially against heart disease, but against all of the degenerative tissue processes demonstrated. First, Rabid studies showed very clearly that the higher their progesterone exposure relative to estrogen, the longer they lived and the younger all of their tissues were at a given age. And then that was supported by population studies in humans over the course of their life. For example, having more babies leaves their body more able to produce progesterone and regulate downward estrogen. So the facts are historically very clear against estrogen's protective effect, though you have to start out with the fact that beginning in after several years of research showing that Estherton caused infertility was in a border patient and had many dangerous properties, including blood clotting. This was established starting in the mid 1930s. And the carcinogenic effects were clearly shown in animal studies all through that period, culminating in a book by Alexander Lipschuz, for example, showing that estrogen was carcinogenic to every tissue in the body, not just breast, uterus, brain and so on, but lungs, kidneys, all the other organs, if it isn't interrupted regularly by progesterone. One of the main functions of progesterone is to knock out estrogen. Protects against stresses such as estrogen. So in 1942, the drug industry managed to convince the FDA that it was alright to use estrogen to treat menopause, including infertility symptoms exactly opposite of what the facts were showing. For several years, using their financial power, they convinced the FDA to approve it for all of these illogical uses. And they use that market power to finance research, to practically force the deeds of medical schools to oversee the research done in their schools, to make sure their medical school would keep getting generous financing for research purposes. And the same thing with journals. They let it be known that they were buying advertising that would enrich the journals. And if there weren't advertisements in the journals, the journals would sell them Reprints of their articles, sometimes for huge amounts of money, which were essentially bribes to the journals to publish things regardless of their truth. And that same power went directly to influencing doctors, giving them kickbacks for prescribing Estherton, and finally, to direct advertising to the public. So, starting right in 1942, the estrogen industry profoundly corrupted science, changed the whole nature of how the public thinks about it. And as people grew up in a culture in which Estherton was said to cure hundreds of different conditions, contrary to the facts, the people growing up in that generalized culture of estrogen worship, when they got to medical school, that was still their framework. And so when they found that doing research that would support the estrogen industry, that was all that was going to be financed, the background belief that was absorbed from the culture, just the socalled common knowledge that was reinforced by the knowledge that their career could thrive if they came up with results that favored the estrogen industry. And the result was that hundreds of diseases promoted by estrogen were, according to articles in medical journals, claimed to cure or prevent exactly that same disease caused. For example, it was widely known that estrogen caused abortions. But they found professors at Harvard who would say that it's a female hormone and people who are infertile must be less female. And so if you give them estrogen, it will make them more feminine and therefore fertile. So they using diethyl stilbastrol. They prescribed estrogen ultimately to millions of women, damaging their babies and their own health, causing generations of uterine cancer, various deformities, and so on. So the most outrageous falsehood about what estrogen does took years and years to be reversed. And in the first studies of estrogen in humans, they saw no benefit at all to the bones and skeleton. If anything, the estrogen was causing soft tissues to bind calcium, not the bones. So they did animal studies. The first research animal they used was the Beagle dog. And it happened that eserton very distinctly damaged and weakened their bones. Apparently, people understanding that nocturnal rodents react almost oppositely to steroid hormones to human beings. They settled on rats as their proof that estrogen would prevent or cure osteoporosis. Again, the history of it is based on obvious fraud and the same with heart disease, for example. They were so convinced, convinced the regulators that estrogen with white women didn't have so much heart disease, but they started giving estrogen to men. And it didn't take long before the men were having more heart problems, heart attacks in particular? Yeah, I think that is an assumption with kind of go over a little bit about heart disease and women. And I think it's believed that since women have estrogen because they do have less heart disease, pre menopausal. And I've always heard it's usually because women have a cycle and they have a way of dumping out iron. And would you say that might be the reason why women have less heart disease? It's just because they can get rid of things, toxic metals like iron, definitely. When they stop menstruating, their iron level goes up sharply. But progesterone does many other things Besides allow menstruation. The first missed menstruation, the beginning of menopause. When you measure the hormones, estrogen hasn't changed at all and won't for a few months. But estrogen is what fails when menstruation stops again, another evidence that progesterone is a protective factor. And in the absence of progesterone, beginning with menopause, you have unopposed estrogen for the first few months around the age of 38 is generally the peak of estrogen production. And then shortly after that, you get progressive failure of progesterone production. So the unopposed estrogen is astronomically high in that period from age 38 up until menopause, whenever that is right. And when you would say unopposed, because it seems that a lot of women during that age will get their hormones check and they'll come back and say, well, my estradiol is low. So they're being told to get on estrogen therapy even before Esther Dial is an oil loving substance. And the way that it's eliminated is to add either sulfuric acid or gluconic acid to the estrogen molecule that makes it water soluble. So it's circulating in the blood. When it's being eliminated from the body, progesterone in at least half a dozen ways activates and inactivates the enzymes regulating the attachment of the acid or the removal of the acid. So in the absence of progesterone, the soluble form of estrogen circulating the blood is decrease. But that means the oil soluble form stays within cells and within cells it activates various things, including aromatase. So in the absence of progesterone, you're increasing aromatase and you're blocking the enzymes that excrete it. So as it falls, the level falls in the blood. The actual intracellular form is increasing. Okay. So kind of to summarize that when you release progesterone, certainly during your cycle, that's also going to increase the estrogen in the blood because it's there to be excreted. So no progesterone. There's always going to be less estrogen in the blood because the progesterone is needed to activate estrogen to release. Is that correct? Right. Okay. And something I've also heard, too, about women that have been on estrogen therapy. And I think this is another theory, is when they're on and they get off estrogen therapy, they're told, well, your cholesterol levels have elevated. And so they're like, well, and then they're being told, well, because estrogen is protective for your heart, can estrogen have an effect on the liver that would affect cholesterol numbers? Because obviously, just because your cholesterol is up or down doesn't mean technically that you have any more chances of heart disease. Yeah. The reason women have about ten times higher incidence of thyroid deficiency and rheumatoid autoimmune diseases is because estrogen knocks out the detoxifying process in the liver that removes estrogen. So the more estrogen circulating and produce, the more your liver suffers. Your thyroid is suppressed and the liver slows down all of its metabolism, especially the glucose and the sulfur transferase enzymes that would detoxify estrogen. So the defensive processes produce more progesterone. But if your thyroid is less active because of the estrogen blockage, then you're needing something to increase the protective progesterone. And it happens that if you can increase cholesterol in circulation, it directly supports the production of steroids in the brain as well as in the ovaries and adrenals. So rising cholesterol compensates for excess estrogen and the resulting hypothyroidism. If you isolate an ovary, measure how much progesterone is coming out of the ovary, and then you increase the cholesterol circulating in the blood, you directly increase the production of pro chastol. There's a way to misinterpret everything. That's what I'm always finding. So you're saying that if you get on estrogen because like I said, people say when they get off estrogen therapy, my cholesterol levels elevated. And you're saying that is happening because maybe of the damage to the liver, or am I getting that the opposite? Well, the liver and intestine are major sources that every cell can make cholesterol. So when you're under stress of any sort, you'll increase your cholesterol production, potentially increasing for Chasterone. So would it make sense that taking estrogen therapy would elevate cholesterol or lower cholesterol? They saw that for years with birth control pills. That was the only acknowledged effect of estrogen, that it was lower in cholesterol levels. No, that would increase them. Oh, that it would increase them. Okay, so birth control would. So you're saying that estrogen will elevate cholesterol levels? Yeah, that's one of its potentially fixed. Okay, so I actually knew someone that said she got off of her estrogen therapy and then her cholesterol elevated, and her explanation from her doctor was, well, estrogen is protective to your heart, meaning they were saying, so it has this effect, and that's why her cholesterol elevated post getting off the estrogen therapy. So I don't know if there was another mechanism going on there, but that was something that I have heard anecdotally is there any explanation for that?
Participant #1:
Hello? Was that a question? Yeah, there was a question. Would there ever be a reason where estrogen therapy would have a cholesterol lowering effect?
Participant #1:
I'm sure there are situations where that can happen. Okay. Not normally. If you poison the liver adequately, it can't make okay poofa, for example, very, very high level of proof will lower your ability to make cholesterol. Yes. And the same person had a lot of stress going on at this period of time, too. So that could have just been another variable that created the elevation and cholesterol. So can we just say a little bit about obviously, there's lots of talk that being on estrogen therapy can be protective against Alzheimer's. It can be helpful for the brain, which I always have assumed that would be the opposite. Can you explain maybe why they're getting some of these results, that people on estrogen therapy have less chances of Alzheimer's? All through the 1990s, the data came out clearly showing that women have two or three times the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. And naturally the doctor said, oh, that's because they're deficient in the estrogen. But after the Women's Health Initiative showed that in this huge number of people in the research, dementia and Alzheimer's disease were clearly elevated when they took estrogen. So that very strongly suggests that a woman's history of estrogen exposure is why women have about three times as much risk of Alzheimer's disease. And doesn't estrogen have an effect, like immediately on the brain? Because some people will say, I take my estrogen, there my estrogen, and I can feel like my brain is working better. So doesn't it have a slight excitatory effect on the brain? It is excitatory. Kathleen adulton in the 1940s and 50s, was doing good studies on treating her patients for premature birth, toxinia and especially premenstrual syndrome by giving them progesterone. One of the main things she saw was that in the progesterone deficiency, anytime they were experiencing a progesterone deficiency, their ability to pass a test in school was severely impaired. And there have been studies of why women speak faster, use more words per minute than men, and estrogen will accelerate the verbalization of women. The number of words per minute simply is faster. In general, in women, that's the excitatory effect. But when you compare the information transmitted by fast talkers and slow talkers, the information per word is much higher. In the slow talkers, they allow the context and more complex significance to accumulate as they formulate their sentences. But if you talk very fast, you're talking mostly in cliches, not letting the information come through in an enriched form. So essentially what you're saying is estrogen on the brain is like cocaine on the brain, very similar. And in animal studies, in the example, they would train an animal so that every trial over a period of an hour maybe would get better and better and finally reach 100% performance. If they would give a little extra estrogen to the animal, it erased their learning. There was no gain from experience because the estrogen was simply erasing memory.
Participant #1:
Okay. So that's good to know that it's not sugar that we should equate to cocaine. It is estrogen more likely creating that excitatory manner. So another interesting part. Yeah. Cocaine increases all of the stress processes, blocking good nerve function. Glucose is one of the protected things against stress necessary for good relaxed brain functioning. There we have it. One thing that I noticed in this book is I went through all the references and the resources and the things that they said is that a lot of the studies were anywhere from four to ten years. When they talk about maybe some of these benefits or that they found that taking estrogen therapy didn't increase some sorts of cancer. And I know you've always said that it can take a lot longer. If someone taking estrogen therapy for decades, could it take a lot time for them really to see the negative effects of their estrogen therapy? Yeah. It's pretty similar to the effects of radiation. If you look at a woman's peak estrogen production around age 38, 20 years later, a little more than about 20 years, you see the age specific rate of breast cancer takes a sudden increase in the late fifty s, twenty years later. And if you look at the effect of an early puberty and in the US, puberty is starting as early as age. The younger age of puberty is decreasing the youngest age specific breast cancer rate. Now, women in their twenty s and thirty s have had a recent sharp rise in breast cancer risk and occurrence. And if you look at 50 years, for example, after that peak, at the age of 38, the absolute highest age specific cancer mortality is around age 85 to 89. So it takes in that case from 20 to 50 years for the estrogen to have full effect. Pretty much the same with radiation. Wow. Interesting. So I think it's just good when even looking at some of the research, when we look at estrogen therapy, I feel like after the Women's Health Initiative, because they did show at that point in time that HRT was creating a somewhat increase in breast cancer in women. Obviously, that's where they stopped it. But since then, it seems that they've been fighting that. And a lot of researchers, even the professors at Stanford who were involved in designing the WH size study, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars of the public money when the results came out, even though they had participated in designing the study, it didn't suit their expectations, and so they rejected it, said there must be something wrong, even though they approved to the study in advance. And the Stanford people were just the most outrageous cases. But the whole medical profession was under the financing of the estrogen industry they were churning out, especially in the when the actual science was putting the industry at risk by showing what Estherton is actually doing, the industry got busy and placed phony articles in the most influential journals through the. So everywhere you looked, there was an article saying that estrogen therapy prevented osteoporosis, dementia, heart disease. Another one. Yeah. And extended longevity. Yes. 2014 paper published in Archives of Internal Medicine. They said estrogen therapy improves the quality of life. Women didn't like to have hot flashes, but unfortunately, it shortened their longevity. So there were studies looking at the actual facts that didn't suit the established view of the medical profession. So the professors and doctors and Journal Editors all hated the outcome of the Women's Health Initiative. But there were hundreds of times bigger database for that study. They prefer the publications with maybe 100 or 200 cases and so on. Right. Just before the Women's Health Initiative, since the National Cancer Institute had been keeping data on almost half of the total United States population called the Sear Study, the surveillance epidemiology. And the end result is what it should for. But, for example, their data covered 350,000 cases of breast cancer. And then you have the one like the recent Japanese study of 164 cases. And people like Blooming and Tavis go with the results based on 164 cases in Japan rather than 3500 cases in the US, which strongly supported even more so than the Women's Health Initiative. The design of the Whi helped you make it look like there was less risk than the actual National Cancer Institute data. So that's an interesting place to look. I haven't even heard of that in the Sears study. Probably the biggest, most obvious disprove of people like
Participant #1:
mentioned is that in 2002, when the data from the study were published, there's a tremendous drop off in use filling prescriptions for estrogen and even fewer doctors writing prescriptions. And the sales by wife of Premarine dropped so sharply in just one year, it was almost a billion dollars of sales loss. And that continued over several years. And when they were using much less estrogen, there was a historically huge decrease in mortality from breast cancer starting almost immediately. And the immediate results are going to be amplified 20, 30, 40 years later. But in the first few years, it was already evident about a 10% decrease in breast cancer. And that amounts to thousands of women not dying from breast cancer because they stopped taking their hormone replacement. Yeah, I think that's definitely some data showing that it definitely had an effect. One thing I wanted to kind of go back on real quick because obviously a lot of women take hormone replacement because they have horrible hot flashes, and it obviously works. They can take it and they're hot flashes. Can you explain maybe the mechanism of why estrogen helps to get rid of hot flashes?
Participant #1:
Blood sugar and nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is what lowers your body temperature during a hot flash by letting the heat come to the surface and nitric oxide. It happens that estrogen is a great activator of nitric oxide, but a falling blood glucose or ability to use the glucose will increase your nitric oxide and cause a hot flash. So things that interfere with glucose use are going to increase your hot flashes. And you can clearly stop night sweats and hot flashes by just taking something like a concentrated slurry of cornstarch. Some way of keeping your blood sugar up steadily will stop the hot flashes. Progesterone is the normal way to turn off nitric oxide. Keep your body temperature higher while estrogen causes you to lower your temperature. The natural tendency of estrogen to increase nitrogen oxide leads to the vasodilation and reducing body temperature. So people using estrogen have a lower body temperature. People using progesterone have a higher body temperature. When your progesterone fails, the acidilation lets the blood circulate to the surface, so you feel flesh, sweaty, and hot as your temperature falls. So all of the mechanisms suggest that estrogen, imbalance relative to progesterone, is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that block the metabolism of estrogen, and that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis.
Participant #1:
Oxide will increase estrogen, though. Don't they kind of all work together? So it's just that the overabundance can inhibit it. Can you kind of go over that one more time? It tends to be a vicious circle, but estrogen is one of the estrogen and stress and hypoglycemia will all activate nitric oxide. And progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism, maintaining body temperature. But a lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen. Right. But you would think that would actually increase the hot flash, not decrease it. Yeah. The known mechanisms of acid dilation are strongly in that direction, but you can override those things by surges of stress hormones. Adrenaline shrink sugar blood vessels. Serotonin shrink the blood vessels as well as reducing heat production. So the stress hormones activated by an overdose, gigantic overdose of estrogen turning on adrenaline, cortisol, and serotonin, that can block the nitric oxide effects on the blood vessels. Okay, so essentially I think that anybody is on estrogen therapy. I think it's probably important to check your body temperature and pulse and see how your body is actually regulating to see if you're actually getting a proper response from the hormones you're taking. Yeah. And looking at the research of the role of carbohydrate, just taking a big bowl of oatmeal before bedtime, for example, will help to keep your blood sugar up longer and prevent eye sweats and hot flashes. Yeah. And I know you've always said and I've seen it work with women, that some of the best mechanisms for really helping with hot flashes without estrogen or egg, regulating your blood sugar, utilizing a high carbohydrate drink or food and that can help. And also using progesterone is always both really effective for helping with hot flashes. Is there anything else that you can think of that would help with hot flashes? Yeah. Watching your thyroid function closely, without that, your estrogen progesterone balance goes wrong. Right. So then that would be also then supporting your detoxification methods, because obviously as women get older, there's going to be an imbalance of the estrogen progesterone and then just detoxifying that excess estrogen supporting the thyroid function. There are things like getting enough calcium and vitamin D in your diet to keep your metabolic rate up in the same direction as the thyroid function, which is just the perfect part of just to kind of streamline into our next topic, which we are going to talk about dairy and milk and calcium and how it's all very important to us because obviously dairy is important to our bone health and it obviously plays a role in us preventing from osteoporosis. Can you kind of talk about because obviously people go back and forth with milk and dairy and you hear these studies where, hey, if they have more dairy, they actually have increases chances of osteoporosis. Can you maybe explain why that could happen and the importance of milk in bone health? If you select your data very well, look at certain countries, you can find populations that have that particular correlation, but not if you look at everything else they're doing. Anti milk cult has many dimensions. Some of it is just outright neurotic fear. For example, they think there's something unnatural about breastfeeding in itself and to drink cow's milk
Participant #1:
against God's plan and all sorts of things. But I think there's something Freudian and psychiatric behind much of the antimilk cult. When you look at animal experiments, milk and sugar happen to be very clearly protecting the bone strength as well as bone mineralization. Bone strength is the important thing.
Participant #1:
Right. Is there a preference? Because obviously dairy is important. Can someone just take calcium supplements and get the same effects? For some reason, for various reasons, medical prescriptions have usually favored calcium, citrate, sometimes gluconate, but the gluconate tablet is somewhat less effective. The situate doesn't work. Simply the extra citric acid in itself disturbs your physiology. They think of it as neutral because Orange juice, for example, has lots of it. And they think of Orange juice as necessarily being beneficial. But taking in citric acid from the outside is very different from the citric acid produced in our own metabolism. And it tends getting into the wrong compartment. It can even change our resistance to cancer. So the closest to physiological would be calcium carbonate. Even that fails to be absorbed as well, because in milk, you have the especially lactose. But any sugar, glucose from ordinary sugar works almost as well as lactose for stimulating calcium absorption. So if you're going to try to get it from calcium carbonate, for example, you should make sure you're taking it with adequate carbohydrates. So essentially, if somebody isn't able to have milk or dairy for one reason, one thing they can do is take calcium carbonate, which is also eggshell, calcium that you can make on your own. And having it with something like Orange juice would help facilitate a better absorption. Is that right? Yeah. Except even in Orange juice, the citric acid isn't an official thing. The best Orange juice has almost no citric acid. I'm saying. Yeah. Consuming calcium carbonate with the Orange juice, with the sugar would help facilitate increasing. Yeah. The sugar is a really important thing. Okay. So that would be a decent option for someone because there's a lot of talk about what happens to the body under stress, and that when we're under stress, we take in too much calcium and we take in too much calcium. That calcium goes and state goes to our tissue. Is that what's happening? Can we take in too much calcium or where is the calcium coming? That is basically in someone's tissue. The parathyroid hormone, which takes calcium out of your bones, does it by increasing fermentation, by producing lactic acid in the bone and in the presence of carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, calcium goes into your bone. But parathyroid hormone reverses that process, decreasing CO2 and increasing lactic acid, getting the calcium out of your bone, putting it into your bloodstream, and also shifting the balance, generally, of lactic acid, causing the calcium to accumulate in soft tissues at the same time that it comes out of bones where it belongs. And if you don't eat enough calcium and have adequate vitamin D, your parathyroid hormone rises. So you have less calcium in your bones, more in your soft tissues. So people who don't consume enough calcium will get calcified, arteries and calcified, nerves and other tissues. So you have to think about what happens when you get adequate calcium and vitamin D, that you inhibit the parathyroid hormone and also inhibit the conversion of 25 hydroxy vitamin D into 125 hydroxy vitamin D, which is called the active vitamin D. But actually, it's a stress related factor that goes with all of the toxic effects of excess calcium. Okay. So I'm going to go back a little bit here because I think we need to chat a little bit about a few of these things. I think the first thing you said is if you consumed vitamin D or you had adequate vitamin D but did not consume enough calcium, your parathyroid hormone would elevate pulling the calcium from the bones and that would pull it into the tissue, is that correct? Yeah. Presence of D without calcium. I'm only saying that because obviously there's people out there taking lots of vitamin D right now and maybe not consuming enough calcium. And so with that person, they could be creating hyper calciumia or calcium in the tissue, is that correct? Yeah. The combination of vitamin D in the Dioder from sunlight plus adequate calcium and magnesium is necessary to keep parathyroid hormone down and the active 125 hydroxy vitamin D down. Okay. So I just want people to understand that because there's a lot of D controversy and I don't if I want to talk about in depth in this conversation, but taking D without calcium and some of the other mechanisms like magnesium, can create an atmosphere that isn't very good for you, which could create calcium getting into the tissue, which is what you do not want, correct? Yeah. And taking 400 units vitamin daily, which a lot of doctors claim is adequate, is essentially nothing. You see publications saying that vitamin D is absolutely ineffective at preventing heart disease and hardening of the arteries and so on. But that's because they prescribed only 400 mg units per day or to effectively raise the circulating vitamin D to the point that it corrects things takes usually around four or 5000 units of vitamin D. Yes. So is there any evidence? Because obviously as people age, they get calcifications of the tissue and the calcium is going in the wrong places. Would that just happen from people ingesting too much calcium, or is it more likely coming from a stressed system which isn't balanced, probably isn't getting enough calcium or isn't able to absorb it, and now the body is elevating the parathyroid hormone and now it's pulling it from the bones. Yeah. Anything that cuts your energy metabolism or that over stimulates cells, they amount to the same thing. When you overstimulate a cell, it doesn't have adequate energy. And the excitotoxic amino acids, for example, will overstimulate a cell, cause it to take up calcium improperly, which can lead to calcification and cancerization. And blocking adequate energy production also causes cells to take up calcium, keeping them in the excited, de energized state. Got you. And something you said a little bit ago, you were referencing the importance of carbon dioxide and calcium metabolism. Can you kind of talk about that again about why it's so important to have enough carbon dioxide? Because obviously we know that carbon dioxide is produced highly in a glucose metabolism over any other type of macronutrient metabolism. So how it is really important to be metabolizing sugars because obviously that produces the most carbon dioxide. And why is that important in calcium metabolism? Most people have now at least heard of the so called Drangled cycle, in which oxidizing fat blocks the oxidation of glucose, and vice versa oxidizing glucose helps you not to oxidize fat, but to dispose of it in safer ways. And CO2, once it's produced and keeping your fat oxidation low, the CO2 directly turns off lactic acid production and has a directly quieting effect on cells. And as it's produced continuously in an active cell,
Participant #1:
acid as that streams continuously out of the cell, it takes calcium with it. So metabolizing glucose facilitates the anti excitatory pro energy function of the glucose oxidation by this antiexcitatory effect of the carbon dioxide. So what I'm hearing is it is the increased amount of lactic acid that could be greatly increasing the chance of the calcium going into the tissue. Is that correct? Because I definitely see that in diabetics and they start losing a lot of bone density. Can you explain why they can't oxidize their glucose? But what they can do is turn it into lactic acid. And even if it doesn't reach the point of deadly lactic acidosis, it's always there, tending to raise their free fatty acids. And the raised blood level fatty acids is constantly interfering with the ability to oxidize glucose. So the essence of diabetes is in the actions of lactate and free fatty acids, they create a vicious circle. Got it. Interesting. Okay, so I think that's an important factor to discuss because obviously, calcium metabolism needs carbon dioxide. And in a body that is using fat as fuel, carbon dioxide is going to greatly decrease. So for some of those people, they're not going to be metabolizing calcium properly because of that state. Is that correct? Yeah, the circulating lactate should be at the very minimum. Got you. Okay, so I want to just kind of skip down to going back to milk, because, again, milk is getting off on the calcium tangent. But I do want to talk about some of the myths about milk, and maybe we'll go over these and one of those is the lactose intolerant. Everyone thinks that there's obviously two thirds of the population of this world can't tolerate milk because they're lactose intolerant. Is there a reason for that? Why can't they tolerate milk? Is it genetic or is it maybe because once it's just their culture and they stopped being fed milk at a young age and now they can't tolerate it. There have been studies on the Chinese who are among the so called genetically lactose intolerant people. And in experiments, they simply had them add, starting with half a glass of milk with a meal which didn't cause any disturbance. But if they keep that up for a few weeks, the presence of the lactose gradually reinduces or restores the production of the lactase enzyme, which every baby has and which is turned off when they stop drinking Belt. And so if you don't stop drinking Belt, you don't become lactose intolerant. But like the Chinese, if you chronically re expose them to lactose, they can develop the enzymes. I think that's a myth that can be debunked because there's definitely an argument in the antimilk community that milk isn't that great because so much of the world's population can't consume it, but ultimately they could they could bring it back into their diet very slowly and they could start producing the enzyme because like all things in the human body, if we don't drink milk, our body stops producing enzyme. Essentially correct. Isn't that what happens? Right. About 30 or 40 years ago, the US government was giving foreign aid, some of it in the form of powdered milk. But the people who wanted them to buy waste from the fish industry, powdered fish, for example, promoted the idea that giving a powdered milk to famine areas was bad for the people. You should give them fish powder. But it was really a market influence, pressure on the government that helps amplify the doctrine that most of the world is electroly intolerant. Got you. So for people that later in life say, hey, I used to be able to tolerate milk, but now I can't tolerate milk. What would be some factors that may give somebody a lactose intolerance later in life? Well, often it's something else about the milk. A lot of people just are determined to have raw organic milk. And there have been two big dairies that I've tried to drink the organic milk from. The milk tastes bad. In one of the cases I looked on the map, and there's a factory on I Five, I think it was called Wang that produced a toxic metal for the government military and the odor permeates miles around it. And this dairy, organic dairy was very close to the factory downwind summit. And so their cows were constantly breathing that horrible sink, and it showed up in the milk, even though technically it was organic and the milk was making me sick. That happened with two or three brands of organic milk. And I simply found that the most common reason was that they allowed their cows to graze on weeds rather than known grass or Clover. And many weeds are very bad tasting. Many of them are allergenic. Breastfeeding women often have the experience that if they eat certain foods, the baby becomes constipated or develops related symptoms because the allergens go right into the milk. So if the cow places on allergenic weeds, the milk is allergenic. So good tasting milk, whether it's organic or not, is a good bet that is less allergenic and also highly pasteurized as milk kills some of the bacteria that people are sensitive to. So it's a matter of finding the milk that agrees with you. And none of that has to do with lactose. Right? I'm going to touch on that. But can stress be a factor in producing the lactose enzyme so that that would affect someone? What I certainly see is people under severe amount of stress don't tolerate hypothyroidism, and low progesterone interfere with the production of lactate synthetic. Yeah. So could just improving thyroid function and getting on a stress improve someone's ability to tolerate milk very often. That's all it takes. Yeah, right. And then also then kind of going off what you just said. I think it's important to understand that it's important to find what milk works for you. And for some people, it is a raw milk works best for them and they feel great on that. And then for others, it's ultra pasteurized or it could be pasteurized for other reasons, and that might be why they tolerate. So it's important to not just try one that if you're trying to bring milk back into your life to try a variety of different milks and to try to find one that works for you, getting on that, and I'm going to jump into another thought that people have is a casein allergy. Is this a true allergy, or what else could it be if somebody feels they have a casein issue with dairy, with the what issue casein, the other protein, Besides the way people say they have a casein allergy. Yeah. Some of the studies are based on chemical breakdown of cacine and then even chemically hydrolyzing it, which is not the same as detesting it in your stomach and intestine. They test the toxicity of the broken down Casin, for example, by inspecting it into a mouse brain. Absolutely nothing to do with the way milk is used under chest. There's a lot of extreme illogical propaganda attached to the idea that one kind of casing is better than another. Right. I think that some people will consume something like cheese and think because it doesn't have a lot of lactose, because everyone's either lactose or casing and go, well, I don't do well on that. So I must have a casing issue or casing intolerance or casing allergy. Could it be maybe something else in that cheese about? I guess it's been more than ten years ago. There were several brands of American cheese imitating traditional European brands. And I was eating a particular good kind. I think it was from Vermont. And I noticed suddenly it had an unfamiliar soft waste texture. And then after eating it for a few days, I started getting bowel inflammation symptoms. And so I checked the labels and they had suddenly changed from animal rennet to so called vegetable rennet, which means in most cases, genetically engineered microbial enzyme producers, which always carry allergens from the microbe. So I changed to another American cheese that was traditional. And in a short time, the texture of that became softer, white for slightly different taste. And then I got sick. That happened with free American brands before I investigated in detail and found out that by that time, two thirds of all cheese in the world was no longer made with animal granite. But with these genetically modified microorganisms producing only usually one single enzyme, rather than the natural complex of enzymes occurring ran it. So the industry of genetically engineered enzyme has almost completely taken over world cheese production. So you have to very carefully read the labels and interpret labels that they're using the language more and more slightly so that people will not dig too deeply and find the genetic modified organisms in their food. Are they allowed to put these because I see them all the time. It's vegetable rennet. It seems to be prevalent in so much cheese. Can they put that in an organic cheese? Cheese in an organic. So if it says organic cheese, the cheese makers have pretty much damaged the idea of what really is organic. So that's allowed to put in a vegetable rennet that's been engineered. Yeah. There is no rent other than made by a cow's stomach or a cat stomach. Right. But some of these cheeses are putting in this vegetable rennet. So is that allowed? That's a total dishonesty. There is no such thing as vegetables in it. It's like saying the butter made from cotton seed oil. I see. So it's just their terminology, but it isn't really that. Yeah. Or soy milk. Milk. Well, we have soy milk isn't anything. It's just man. It removes the man from people. Yeah. But to use the word milk in such a situation, one of the worst foods gets the name of one of the best foods. Yes. Okay. So basically food manufacturers are using certain terminologies to make you think you're getting something. I think they use that because everybody's so plant based right now, they think they're getting something better when in fact, they're absolutely not getting something. Okay. So what about people talk about the hormones in milk. They're like, I'm afraid of milk because it has all this estrogen or progesterone in it or whatever. Is this affecting people's health? Is it something to worry about? The amounts are barely measurable. They probably don't have any effect.
Participant #1:
Progesterone will tend to concentrate in the butter, so it's much larger than the presence of other hormones. But all of the animals hormones will show up in the milk, and progesterone is a major one, especially concentrated in the butter. And it's beneficial, but the quantity is very low and most of the hormones would be present in the fat, too. I guess that's why it's more prevalent in butter. So if somebody consumed a lower fat milk, the hormones would be greatly decreased. Correct? Yeah. Okay. So if someone has an issue, I've had people say that literally they've had cancer and so they won't drink milk. And I find that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's the premise that they think that the hormones are going to affect them. Yeah. I think it's one of the tricks of the anti milk cultures. Yes. They are out in full force these days. What about people who drink milk and they say milk is giving me acne. What would you say is going on there? Milk does what gives them acne. They start to get acne on their skin.
Participant #1:
Yeah. Maybe they're drinking too much fat with it. Any kind of fat in excess will disturb your skin energy production. And for any cell, it functions decrease under the influence of other than sugar. So if someone thinks that they're drinking milk and they're getting acne, then maybe consuming a lower fat milk would be to their benefit? I think so. Okay. And what about milks linked to increasing insulin growth factor. So that's a conversation as well. They think it's having an effect on this growth factor. What would you comment on? That it has benefits as well as risks, but the idea that it becomes a danger of accelerated aging and cancer and so on, I don't think there's valid evidence that those changes are harmful. Okay. So you just see some studies that say that milk is going to increase the insulin growth factor, and that's going to have a negative effect on certain aspects of people's health. And essentially you're just saying at this point we don't have enough evidence that it's going to do anything long term. Yeah. Like with vitamin. Lots of publications over the years showing immense benefits from vitamin E. But when the industry had something else they wanted to sell, they decided to emphasize that vitamin E could be a risk. So they took the very papers that had been published showing changes, implying that those changes were in the direction of benefit. But anytime they had a publication that says vitamin E changes or something, they said introduced a change, that means vitamin E is harmful. Everything you do causes almost an infinite number of changes. And you have to evaluate whether the weight of the changes in one direction are more effective than waiting the other direction. You can't argue anything from one or two factors. That's a propaganda tool. Use all the way anything physiological or biochemical, where you have a million influences, they find two or three that could be harmful, and therefore you shouldn't do something because it causes those changes. But they're ignoring the almost a million other events that could be all beneficial. Well, that sounds like what they did with the estrogen therapy. They found some things that they liked, and then they focused on those and forgot all the other things it was doing negatively. Exactly. That's why you have hundreds of thousands of estrogen papers, almost all of them saying how wonderful Estherton is. So you have to read each one carefully and consider the relatively few publications that show contrary effects, harmful effects. And it always turns out that they've carefully selected things that could be beneficial from Estherton, not things that are known to be beneficial. And I think this is just a good understanding of why having a big picture look at the metabolism and how everything works and looking at everything, not just singularly, maybe a single nutrient or a single hormone, because if you just single focus, I tend to miss the big picture about how it all works together. And I think that's why, in fact, that's the essence of science. Beginning in the 20th century, such a narrow focus, mechanistic determinism, whether it's in atomic physics or genetics and physiology. If you narrow your attention, you can always become blind to the surrounding benefits, pick out only what you want or simply the nature of reductive thinking. Yeah. Well, it's seems to use it in a lot of different ways in today's world when they just want to push an agenda, they can just focus on one or two things and forget all the other things. It seems to be a popular way to approach science or whatever you want to call these days. Okay. We got a few more questions about milk, just to kind of round it up. I just probably said what type of milk is best? And I think you answered it by the one that works best for you and how important the quality of the animals are being treated and what they're eating. And that is a pretty important part. So in your view, is it that important if the milk is raw or pasteurized or ultra pasteurized or even if it has additives in it? It's just basically finding which one works for the individual. Correct. Okay. So even if a milk has certain additives, because obviously in most areas there's nutrients added to milk that are low fat. But as long as someone can tolerate those and seems to do okay, then that is okay. Yeah. Okay. Now what other sources if someone doesn't tolerate milk, where else can they get their calcium sources from? Cooked Greens have a very high ratio of calcium de, phosphorus. And the ratio is of major importance because too much phosphate turns on the parathyroid hormone, turns off useful energy production and so on. So the excitatory effect of inorganic phosphate is a real danger, and that has rebalanced by the calcium. So cooked Greens are a very safe source if you can digest them. Okay. And can you just explain maybe some of the foods that are high in phosphorus so people can understand why maybe some diets out there aren't beneficial because they might be high in that nutrient. Yeah. The meat and fish, because they have a very low calcium content. If the animal is healthy, their soft tissues exclude calcium. So the phosphate in the ATP, for example, it gives them a very high ratio of phosphate, calcium, nuts, grains, in general, the reproductive tissues. The phosphate is present so that the storage material can be turned into growth material. So when something has a great potential for growth, that means it has to have stored phosphate in excess. And that makes beans, nuts and grains among the worst foods for calcium. Okay. So essentially a diet that's high in dairy or cooked Greens and then balancing that with the meat and maybe minimizing the grains and the beans and the nuts would be advantageous. Yeah. What about just because I'm obsessed with this lately, masaharina, is that a decent source of calcium? Yeah, because they add the boil it in calcium hydroxide for overnight. So it soaks up a lot of calcium. My dentist in Mexico says in her area where people eat no bread but lots of tortillas, even people in their 80s who insist they want a Truthful. She says sometimes it takes her all afternoon to get a molar out because their jaws and teeth are so well constructed from a clinically good ratio of calcium to phosphate. So the Masa Harina doesn't have a lot of phosphate in it, not compared to the calcium. Okay, so everybody gets some Masa Harina makes them your own tortillas. It's very good for you. I can't think of anything else. Kitty, I don't know. You've been sitting there. Is there any other questions you'd like to ask, Grace? I don't think so. I've just been listening intently, learning so much. It's amazing. This is a really good episode. And it was really clear the sound this time. Yeah. Well, yeah. Ray, thank you. So I mean, this cleared up a lot. I actually feel like it pulled a lot of things together and some deep understandings about the estrogen therapy and also just about calcium and calcium metabolism and important aspects of sugar and carbon dioxide in that I think those are very key points that I certainly got from this. Did you have anything else to share, Ray? Did I mention Steve Kersha's website? He's an MIT graduate who has been exposing science fraud, exposing the absolute disregard for science from the great institutions like Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Absolutely not caring to discuss the scientific issues. His website just on the issue of the disappearance of science from our culture, it's very important for everyone to think about. His last name is spelled K-I-R-S. Yes. And he looks like he has a substance. I'm just Googling him right now. You kind of touched on him. And we were discussing the estrogen therapy and how science has changed so much and what they're doing with these days and why we're just getting all this, I guess, fake news because of how they're deciding on what is real and what is not. So that's what Steve Kirsh, K-I-R-S-C-H. Correct. Yeah. So he's worth looking into if anybody is interested in going down that rabbit hole. But I'm good. Ray, do you want to just mention your newsletter real quick? Oh, yeah. It's now going to be quarterly rather than bimonthly, and overall the price is roughly the same. And you can get information at [email protected]. Yes. I'll pop up in the show notes, too. I'll put that email. Yeah. So does that mean they're going to get the same number, Ray, or are they still only going to get two years worth? Yeah. The subscription is still for twelve issues, which means three years instead of two years because they'll be only four per year. I have no idea how you keep up with all that but God bless you. I go when people things expire after three years. Maybe it is amazing. Well, thank you again, both. Kate, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Ray. Thanks. Kate and I know Kate we'll have you on again, Ray. I know Kate has got a few others topics that she wants to dive into. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Dr. Pete. Always a pleasure. Bye.
Unknown Speaker 0:00
So all of the mechanisms are suggests that estrogen imbalance relative to progesterone is what is causing the hot flashes. The fact that you can stop a hot flash with estrogen is probably because estrogen activates cortisol and other stress hormones that have blocked the metabolism of estrogen. And that has the potential to inhibit nitric oxide synthesis.
Unknown Speaker 0:31
Okay, so, so that nitric oxide will increase estrogen though don't they kind of all work together. So it's just the overabundance can inhibit it can you kind of go over that one more time,
Unknown Speaker 0:43
it tends to be a vicious circle. But estrogen is one of the estrogen in stress and hyperglycemia will all activate nitric oxide and progesterone inhibits it partly by keeping a steady sugar metabolism. Maintaining body temperature, a lower body temperature creates a vicious circle, including the production of more estrogen.
Unknown Speaker 1:16
Welcome to the weight loss for women podcast, a place that we share everything you need to know about restoring your metabolism, so you can eat more, train less and lose weight in a healthy and sustainable way.
Unknown Speaker 1:28
I'm Kenny Bloomfield, a co founder of new strength and saturate creator of pre metabolic food supplements and seriously saturated skincare. And today I'm really excited to have Dr. apt and Kate Dearing back on the podcast. So we've done quite a few podcasts with both of them. So highly recommend you go back and listen to those. But today I wanted to get Ray back on to talk more about estrogen replacement therapy. And we also dive into some of the myths around milk and calcium. So if you're anything like I once was, you know, you probably thought milk and dairy products caused inflammation and cancer and you know, I thought they were too high in sugar. So I cut them all out of my diet. And I was actually diagnosed with lactose intolerance at age 12. So my mum put me on Bloody soy milk and all those disgusting cheeses you know non dairy cheeses. But when I met Mr. I realized that I couldn't digest dairy because I had a stressed digestive system. So you know, once I improved that and improved all my metabolic markers, I was able to tolerate dairy again. And you know, calcium has so many benefits and is needed by the body for so many different things which we cover in this podcast so it is jam packed with information. So I highly recommend you grab a pen and paper and take notes. And as always, please rate and review the podcast. So if you add the podcast episodes if you've read it and reviewed us before you can do it as many times as you like. And each month I actually pick a winner from those that share. So if you'd like to win a tub of saturated premium college and all you need to do is take a screenshot of the review or the podcast episode and share it on Instagram stories and tag me at Kitty Biello MFI LD and like I said each month I just pick a winner pick someone from those that have shared and they get a tub of statuary premium collagen. So look, I hope you learn as much as I did in this episode, let's get into it. Super, super excited to welcome back to the podcast, Dr. apt and Kate Dearing. Hi guys, welcome back.
Unknown Speaker 3:55
Hello, Miss Kitty.
Unknown Speaker 3:58
How are you today? Oh, good.
Unknown Speaker 4:02
Yeah, all good here. Yep,
Unknown Speaker 4:04
you're sure to.
Unknown Speaker 4:05
Okay, great. So this is I think probably maybe the fifth time we've had Dr. Pete on the podcast. We've had Kate Dearing on the podcast probably 10 plus times. And the last podcast we had, there was quite a lot of questions around estrogen replacement therapy. So we thought we'd start this podcast. Kate just wanted to ask Dr. Pete some questions around that. And then we wanted to dive into myths around calcium and milk. So Kate, I'll hand over to you.
Unknown Speaker 4:37
Okay, um, so yeah, a lot of what we talked about last time was certainly estrogen and the industry of estrogen, which went down a lot of trails of estrogen replacement therapy, because obviously when women enter menopause, it seems to be a somewhere that they're driven to because it can make them feel better. And so during the course of this, I was actually referred to a book if people want to look it up. estrogen matters by Dr. adverum, bluffing and Carol Tamaris. And so I thought we would talk about some of the things that he says in there because he's certainly a pro estrogen therapy doctor. So in in this book, he definitely talks about that. estrogen therapy has some good reasons to take it, especially for women. There's good and bad, but one of one of his things he says that estrogen therapy can help with heart disease. And so I thought Dr. Pete could maybe elaborate on some of these claims that the estrogen industry is saying about what it's doing to help benefit women.
Unknown Speaker 5:41
I have been writing newsletters on that topic in particular, many years ago, showing the contrary research that women do have a better outcome for heart health at the end of their lives. But progesterone is the heart protected factor for decades have been saying that the research shows that estrogen increases clotting, many kinds of inflammation, and other factors relating to plaque formation, arterial spasms, and so on. Progesterone has many life extending properties, especially against heart disease, but against all of the degenerative tissue processes demonstrated. First, rabbit studies showed very clearly that the higher their progesterone exposure, relative to estrogen, the longer they lived, and the younger all of their tissues were at a given age. And then that was supported by population studies in humans over the course of their life. For example, having more babies leaves their body more able to produce progesterone and regulate downward estrogen. So the facts are historically very clear against estrogens protective effect, though, you'd have to start out with the fact that beginning in 1942, after several years of research, showing that estrogen caused infertility was an Borger patient had many dangerous properties, including blood clotting, this was established starting in the mid 1930s. And the carcinogenic effects were clearly shown in animal studies, all through that period, are culminating in the 1950 book by Alexander Lipschitz, for example, showing that estrogen was carcinogenic to every tissue in the body, not just breast, uterus, brain, and so on. But his kidneys, all the other organs. If it isn't interrupted, regularly. Buy progesterone. One of the main functions of progesterone is to knock out estrogen protects against stressors such as estrogen, estrogen. So in 1942, the drug industry managed to convince the FDA that it was alright, to use estrogen to treat menopause, including infertility symptoms that are exactly opposite of what the facts were showing for several years. They using their financial power, they convinced the FDA to approve it for all of these illogical uses. And they use that market power to finance research to practically force the use of medical schools to oversee the research done in their schools to make sure their medical school would keep getting generous. financing for research purposes. And the same thing with journals. They let it be known that they were buying advertising, that would enrich the journals. And if there weren't advertisements in the journals, the journals would sell them reprints of their articles, sometimes for huge amounts of money, which were essentially bribes to the journals to publish things regardless of their truth.
Unknown Speaker 10:36
That's that same power went directly to influencing doctors, giving them kickbacks for prescribing estrogen, and finally, to direct advertising to the public. So starting right, in 1942, the estrogen industry profoundly corrupted science changed the whole nature of how the public thinks about it. And as people grew up in a culture in which estrogen was said, The Cure hundreds of different conditions, contrary to the fact that people growing up in that generalized culture of estrogen worship, when they got to medical school, that was still their framework. And so when they found that doing research that would support the estrogen industry, that that was all it was going to be financed the background belief that was observed from the culture, just the so called common knowledge that was reinforced by the knowledge that their career could thrive if they came up with results that favored the estrogen industry. And the result was hundreds of diseases promoted by estrogen were according to articles and medical journals claimed to cure or prevent exactly that same disease caused, for example, the it was widely known that estrogen causes abortions, but they found professors at Harvard, who would say that it's a female hormone, and people who are infertile, must be less female. And so if you give him estrogen, it will make them more feminine, and therefore more fertile. So they, using diacetyl Silvis trial, they prescribed estrogen, ultimately to millions of women, damaging their babies, and their own health, causing generations of uterine cancer at various deformities, and so on. So, the most outrageous false hood about what estrogen does took years and years to be reversed. And in the first studies of estrogen in humans, they saw no benefit at all to the bones and skeleton. If anything, the estrogen was causing soft tissues to bind to calcium, not to vote. And so they did animal studies. The first research animal they use was the Beagle dog. And it happens at estrogen very distinctly damaged and weakened their bones. And apparently, people understanding that nocturnal rodents react almost oppositely at to steroid hormones to human beings. They settled on rats as their proof that estrogen would prevent or cure osteoporosis. Again, the history of it is based on obvious fraud. And the same with heart disease, for example. They were so convinced and convinced the regulators that estrogen was white women didn't have so much heart disease. But they started giving estrogen to man. That didn't take long before the men were having more heart problems. Heart attacks in particular.
Unknown Speaker 15:12
Yeah, I think that is an assumption with a little bit little she's kind of kind of go over a little bit about heart disease in women. And I think it's believed that since women have estrogen, because they do have less heart disease pre menopausal. And you're and I've always heard, it's usually because women have a cycle, and they have a way of dumping out iron. And would you say that might be the reason why women have less heart disease, it's just because they can get rid of things toxic metals like iron.
Unknown Speaker 15:40
Definitely. When when they stopped menstruating, their iron level goes up sharply. But progesterone does many other things. Besides allow menstruation. The first missed menstruation, the beginning of menopause. When you measure the hormones, estrogen hasn't changed at all and won't for a few months. But as certain is hot fails, when menstruation stops. Again, another evidence that progesterone is a protective factor. And in the absence of progesterone, beginning with menopause, you have unopposed estrogen for the first few months, or around the age of 38 is generally the peak of estrogen production. And then shortly after that, you get prescribed progressive failure of progesterone production. So the unopposed estrogen is astronomically high in that period from age 38. Up until menopause whenever that is,
Unknown Speaker 17:01
right. And when you would say unopposed, because it seems that a lot of women during that age will get their hormones checked, and they'll come back and say, Well, my estradiol is low. So they're being told to get on estrogen therapy even before
Unknown Speaker 17:16
estradiol doesn't oil loving substance. And the way that it's eliminated is to add either sulfuric acid, or glucuronic acid to the estrogen molecule that makes it water soluble. And so it's circulating in the blood, when when it's being eliminated from the body. Progesterone in at least half a dozen ways, activates and interaksi in activates, the enzyme is regulating the attachment of the acid or the removal of the acid. So in the absence of progesterone, the soluble form of estrogen circulating in the blood is decrease. But that means the oil soluble form stays within cells and within cells, that activates a various things including aromatase. So in the absence of progesterone, you're increasing aromatase, and you're blocking the enzyme was that excreted? So as it follows the level follows in the blood, the actual intracellular form is increasing.
Unknown Speaker 18:55
Okay, so kind of to summarize that, when you release progesterone, certainly during your cycle, that's also going to increase the, the estrogen in the blood because it's there to be excreted. So no progesterone, there's always going to be less estrogen in the blood because it's the progesterone is needed to activate estrogen to release, is that correct? And something I've also heard too, about women that have been on estrogen therapy, and I think this is another theory is when they're on and they get off estrogen therapy that they're told, Well, your cholesterol levels have elevated and so they're like, well, and then they're being told well, because estrogen is protective for your heart can does can estrogen have an effect on the liver that would affect cholesterol numbers? Because obviously, just because your cholesterol is up or down doesn't mean technically that you have any more chances of heart disease.
Unknown Speaker 19:48
Yeah, the reason women have about 10 times higher incidence of thyroid deficiency and rheumatoid autoimmune diseases It is because estrogen knocks out the detoxifying process in the liver that removes estrogen. So the more estrogen circulating and produce, the more your liver suffers, and your thyroid is suppressed, and the liver slows down all of its metabolism, especially the glucuronidation. And sulfur transferase. Enzymes would detoxify estrogen, so the defensive processes produce more progesterone. But if your thyroid is less active because of the estrogen blockage, then you're needing something to increase the protective progesterone. And it happens that if you can increase cholesterol in circulation, it directly supports the production of steroids in the brain, as well as in the ovaries and adrenals. So rising cholesterol compensates for excess estrogen and the resulting hypothyroidism. If you isolate and over measure how much progesterone is coming out of the ovary, and then you increase the cholesterol circulating in the blood, you directly increase their production of progesterone. So there's a way to misinterpret everything.
Unknown Speaker 21:56
Well, that that's what I'm always finding. So you're saying that if you get on estrogen, because what, like I said, people say when they get off estrogen therapy, my cholesterol levels elevated. And you're saying that is happening? Because of maybe the damage to the liver? Or am I getting that the opposite?
Unknown Speaker 22:19
Well, the liver and intestine are major sources at every, every cell can make cholesterol. So when you're under stress of any sort, you'll increase your cholesterol production, potentially increasing progesterone.
Unknown Speaker 22:39
So when it makes sense that taking estrogen therapy would elevate cholesterol or lower class.
Unknown Speaker 22:44
They saw that for years with birth control pills. That was the only acknowledged effect of estrogen.
Unknown Speaker 22:54
And it was lowering cholesterol levels.
Unknown Speaker 22:58
I don't know that would increase them. Oh, that it would increase
Unknown Speaker 23:00
them. Okay. So birth control would. So you're saying that estrogen will elevate cholesterol levels?
Unknown Speaker 23:09
Yeah, that's one of its potential effects.
Unknown Speaker 23:11
Okay, so I'm so I actually knew someone that said she got off of her estrogen therapy, and then her cholesterol elevated and her explanation from her doctor was, well, estrogen is protective to your heart, meaning, you know, they were saying so it has this effect. And that's why her cholesterol elevated post getting off the estrogen therapy. So I don't know if there was another mechanism going on there. But that was something that I have heard anecdotally. Is there any explanation for that?
Unknown Speaker 23:47
Hello, oh, was was had a question.
Unknown Speaker 23:51
Yeah. Yeah. There was a question would there would there ever be a reason where estrogen therapy would have a cholesterol lowering effect?
Unknown Speaker 24:02
I'm sure there are situations where that can happen. Okay. Not normally, if you poison the liver, adequately, it can't make for cholesterol. proofer proofer, for example, a very, very high level of PUFA will lower your ability to make cholesterol.
Unknown Speaker 24:28
Yes, yeah. Well, and the same person had a lot of stress going on at this period of time, too. So that could have just been another variable that created the elevation cholesterol. So can we just say a little bit about? Obviously, there's lots of talk that being on estrogen therapy can be protective against Alzheimer's, it can be helpful for the brain, which I always assumed that would be the opposite. Can you explain maybe why they're getting some of these results that people on estrogen therapy have less chances of Alzheimer's?
Unknown Speaker 24:57
Oh through the 1990s The data came out clearly showing that women have two or three times the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. And naturally, the doctors said, Oh, that's because they're deficient in the estrogen. But after the Women's Health Initiative showed that, in this huge number of people in the research, their dementia and Alzheimer's disease were clearly elevated when they took estrogen. So that very strongly suggests that women's history of estrogen exposure is why women have about three times as much risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Unknown Speaker 25:58
And doesn't estrogen have an effect like immediately on the brain, because some people will say, I take my estrogen therapy, my estrogen and I can feel like that my brain is working better. So doesn't it have a slight excitatory effect on the brain?
Unknown Speaker 26:13
It is excitatory, Catherine Middleton, in the 1940s. And 50s, was doing good studies on treating her patients for premature birth toxemia especially premenstrual syndrome by giving them progesterone. She, one of the main things she saw was that in the progesterone deficiency, they tend to anytime they were experiencing a progesterone deficiency, their ability to pass a test in school was severely impaired. There have been studies of why women speak faster, use more words per minute than men. And estrogen will accelerate the verbalization of wisdom. The number of words per minute simply, is faster in general in mainland, that's the excitatory effect. But when you compare the information transmitted by fast talkers, and slow talkers, the information per word is much higher. In the slow talkers. They allow the context and more complex significance to accumulate as they formulate their sentences. But if you talk very fast, you're talking mostly in cliches not letting the information come through in an enriched form.
Unknown Speaker 28:21
So essentially, what you're saying is estrogen on the brain is like cocaine on the brain.
Unknown Speaker 28:28
However, very, very, very similar. And in animal studies in the 1950s, and 60s, for example, they would train an animal so that every trial over a period of an hour maybe would get better and better. And finally, reach 100% performance, if they would give a little extra estrogen to the animal eraser learning. There was no gain from experience, because the estrogen was simply your racing memory.
Unknown Speaker 29:12
Okay, so that's good to know that it's not sugar that we should equate to cocaine it is estrogen, more likely that creating that excitatory manner. So another interesting part?
Unknown Speaker 29:24
Yeah, cocaine increases all of this fast processes, right? Blocking good nerve function, or glucose is one of the protective things against stress necessary for good, relaxed brain functioning.
Unknown Speaker 29:44
Let's see there we have it. One thing that I noticed in this book because I went through all the references and the resources and the things that they said that is that a lot of the studies were anywhere from four to 10 years when they talk about maybe some of these benefits or that They found that estrogen taking estrogen therapy didn't increase some, some sorts of cancer. And I know you've always said that it can take a lot longer. I mean, what if someone taking estrogen therapy for decades, you know, could it take a lot time for them really to see the negative effects of their, their estrogen therapy?
所有的机制都表明，雌激素相对于黄体酮的失衡是导致潮热的原因。使用雌激素可以阻止潮热的事实可能是因为雌激素会激活皮质醇和其他阻碍雌激素代谢的压力激素，并有可能抑制一氧化氮的合成。但是一氧化氮会增加雌激素。不都是一起产生作用的吗？所以只是过剩可以抑制它。这往往是一个恶性循环。但雌激素是其中之一，压力和低血糖都会激活一氧化氮，而黄体酮通过保持稳定的糖代谢，维持体温来抑制它。较低的体温会造成恶性循环。
欢迎来到女性减肥播客，我们在这里分享您需要了解的有关恢复代谢的所有信息，这样您就可以多吃少动，以健康和可持续的方式减肥。
今天，我真的很高兴雷皮博士和 凯特·迪林 重返播客。 今天我们想让雷皮重新谈论更多关于雌激素替代疗法的话题。我们还深入探讨了一些关于牛奶和钙的迷思。如果你和我以前一样，你可能认为牛奶和奶制品会引起炎症和癌症，我认为其中糖分太高了。所以都从我的饮食中剔除。实际上，我在十二岁时被诊断出患有乳糖不耐症。所以我妈让我喝该死的豆浆和所有那些令人作呕的非乳制品奶酪。但是当我遇到艾玛时，我意识到我无法消化乳制品，因为我有一个压力消化系统。因此，一旦我改善了这一点，并改善了我所有的代谢指标，我就能够再次耐受乳制品。钙有很多好处，身体需要很多不同的东西，我们在这个播客中介绍，所以本节目充满了信息。所以我强烈建议拿起笔和纸做笔记。
让我们开始吧。非常高兴欢迎雷皮博士和 凯特·迪林博士。
我想，这可能是第五次让雷皮博士出现在我们播客上。我们已经让 凯特·迪林上播客十多次。我们上一个播客，关于升级替代疗法有很多问题，所以应该开始这个播客。凯特只是想问雷皮博士一些关于这的问题，然后我们想深入探讨关于钙和牛奶的迷思。
我们上次谈论的很多内容肯定是雌激素行业中的雌激素，这在雌激素替代疗法方面走下了很多路，因为很明显，当女性绝经期时，似乎在某个地方被驱使，因为可以让她们感觉更好。所以在这个过程中，我实际上被提到了一本书，如果人们想查的话，Avram blumming 博士和 Carol Tavris 写的《 Estrogen Matters》。所以我想我们会谈谈其中所说的一些东西，因为作者是一位雌激素治疗医生。所以在该书中，他肯定地谈到了雌激素疗法有一些很好的理由来接受，尤其是对女性来说，有好有坏。但他的一件事是，他说雌激素疗法可以帮助治疗心脏病。所以我认为 雷皮博士也许可以详细说明雌激素行业正在谈论做什么来帮助女性受益的一些说法。
多年前，我一直在撰写有关该主题的时事通讯，相反的研究表明，雌激素在绝经时对心脏健康确实有更好的结果。但黄体酮是心脏保护因子。几十年来，我一直在说研究表明雌激素增加，导致多种炎症和其他与。。平台化、动脉痉挛等相关的因素。黄体酮具有许多延长寿命的特性，特别是对抗心脏病，但对抗所有已证实的退化组织过程。首先，。。研究非常清楚地表明，与雌激素相比，孕酮暴露量越高，寿命就越长，而且的所有组织到给定年龄时就越年轻。然后，这一点得到了人类一生研究的支持。例如，生更多的婴儿会使身体更有能力产生黄体酮并调节向下的雌激素。所以历史上反对雌激素的保护作用的事实是非常清楚的，尽管必须从这样一个事实开始，经过几年的研究表明，雌激素导致不孕症发生在。。患者身上，并具有许多危险特性，包括凝血。
这是从 1930 年代中期开始建立的。那时整个时期的动物研究都清楚地表明了致癌作用，例如，在亚历山大·利普舒兹的一本书中达到高峰，表明雌激素对身体的每个组织都有致癌作用，不仅是乳房、子宫、大脑等，还有肺，肾，所有其他器官，如果没有被黄体酮定期中断的话。黄体酮的主要功能之一是对抗雌激素，防止压力，如雌激素。所以在 1942 年，制药业成功地说服了 FDA 使用雌激素治疗更年期是可以的，包括与事实完全相反的不孕症状。几年来，利用他们的财力，他们说服 FDA 批准雌激素用于所有这些不合逻辑的用途。他们利用市场力量为研究提供资金，实际上迫使医学院的行为监督学校所做的研究，以确保医学院能够继续为研究目的获得慷慨的资金。期刊也是如此。他们让人们知道他们正在购买可以大量期刊的广告。如果期刊上没有广告，期刊就会向出售文章的重印本，有时是为了巨额金钱，这本质上是贿赂期刊，让他们不顾真实情况发表文章。同样的权力直接影响了医生，给他们开雌激素处方的回扣，最后，直接向公众投放广告。因此，从 1942 年开始，雌激素行业严重腐蚀科学，改变了公众对雌激素的看法。当人们在一种据说雌激素可以治愈数百种不同疾病的文化中长大，与事实相反，在这种普遍的雌激素崇拜文化中长大的人们，当他们进入医学院时，仍然是他们的框架。所以当他们发现做支持雌激素产业的研究时，这就是所有的资金来源，从文化中吸收的背景信念，只是所谓的常识，如果他们想出有利于雌激素行业的结果，他们的职业生涯就会蓬勃发展。结果是，根据医学期刊上的文章，由雌激素促进的数百种疾病声称可以治愈或预防完全相同的疾病。例如，众所周知，雌激素会导致流产。但他们发现哈佛的教授会说这是一种女性激素，不育的人一定没有雌激素。因此，如果给予雌激素，会更女性化，因此更有生育能力。所以他们使用己烯雌酚，最终为数百万妇女开了雌激素，损害了她们的婴儿和她们自己的健康，导致了一代又一代的子宫癌，各种畸形等等。因此，关于雌激素作用的最离谱的谎言需要数年时间才能被扭转。
在对人类雌激素的首次研究中，他们发现骨骼根本没有任何好处。如果有的话，雌激素导致软组织结合钙，而不是骨骼。所以他们做了动物研究。他们使用的第一个研究动物是比格犬。碰巧的是，雌激素非常明显地损害和削弱骨骼。显然，人们理解夜间活动的啮齿动物对类固醇激素的反应几乎与人类相反。他们选择小鼠作为雌激素可以预防或治愈骨质疏松症的证据。同样，雌激素历史是基于明显的欺诈行为，例如心脏病也是如此。他们非常确信，让监管机构相信白人女性的雌激素不会有那么多心脏病，但开始给男性服用雌激素。没过多久，男人们就出现了更多的心脏问题，尤其是心脏病发作，我认为这是一个关于心脏病和雌激素的假设。而且人们认为，由于女性在绝经前患心脏病的几率较低，因此她们服用了雌激素。而且我一直听说这通常是因为女性有月经周期而有排铁的方式。你会说这可能是女性心脏病较少的原因吗？只是因为可以排出一些东西，绝对是铁等有毒金属。当她们停止月经时，她们身体的铁含量会急剧上升。但是黄体酮除了有助月经之外还有很多其他的作用，第一次来月经，更年期的开始。
当测量激素时，雌激素根本没有变化，几个月内也不会变化。但是当月经再次停止时，雌激素会失效，这是黄体酮是一种保护因素的另一个证据。而在没有黄体酮的情况下，从更年期开始，在 38 岁左右的头几个月里没有雌激素对抗，这通常是雌激素产生的高峰期。然后不久之后，会逐渐失去孕激素的产生。因此，从 38 岁到更年期的这段时间里，没有对抗的雌激素是天文数字的高，只要这是正确的。当说不反对时，因为看起来很多女性在那个年龄会检查身体的激素，她们会回来说，嗯，我的雌二醇很低。所以甚至在雌激素成为一种喜油物质之前，就被告知要接受雌激素治疗。解决的方法是向雌激素分子中添加硫酸或葡萄糖酸，使其可溶于水，所以在血液中循环。当从体内排出时，黄体酮至少以六种方式激活和灭活调节酸附着或去除酸的酶。因此，在没有黄体酮的情况下，循环血液中的可溶性雌激素会减少。但这意味着以油溶性形式会留在细胞内，并在细胞内激活各种物质，包括芳香酶。因此，在没有黄体酮的情况下，会增加芳香酶，阻止分泌的酶。所以当雌激素下降时，水平下降到血液中，实际的细胞内形式正在增加。
总结一下，当释放黄体酮时，当然在月经期中，这也会增加血液中的雌激素，因为会被排出体外。所以没有孕激素。血液中的雌激素总是会减少，因为需要黄体酮来激活雌激素来释放。
我也听说过一些关于接受雌激素治疗的女性。我认为这是另一种理论，当服用雌激素治疗后，被告知，胆固醇水平升高了。所以就像，然后被告知，因为雌激素可以保护心脏，雌激素会对肝脏产生影响，从而影响胆固醇量吗？因为很明显，仅仅因为胆固醇升高或降低，从技术上讲，并不意味着有更多患心脏病的机会。
女性甲减症和类风湿性自身免疫性疾病的发病率大约高出十倍的原因是，雌激素会破坏肝脏中去除雌激素的解毒过程。因此，循环和产生的雌激素越多，肝脏就越受累。甲状腺受到抑制，肝脏会减慢其所有代谢，尤其是可以使雌激素解毒的葡萄糖和硫转移酶。所以防御过程会产生更多的黄体酮。但是如果甲状腺因为雌激素阻塞而变得不那么活跃，那么需要一些东西来增加保护性黄体酮。碰巧的是，如果可以增加循环中的胆固醇，会直接支持大脑以及卵巢和肾上腺中类固醇的产生。因此，胆固醇升高可以补偿过量的雌激素和由此导致的甲减。如果分离出卵巢，测量有多少黄体酮从卵巢中流出，然后增加血液中循环的胆固醇，会直接增加前列腺素的产生。
有一种方法可以误解。这就是我一直在寻找的。所以说如果服用雌激素，因为就像我说的，人们说当停止雌激素治疗时，胆固醇水平会升高。你说这是因为可能是肝脏受损，还是得到相反的结果？
嗯，肝脏和肠道每个细胞都能制造胆固醇的主要来源。所以当处于任何压力之下时，会增加胆固醇产生，可能会增加胆固醇。。那么服用雌激素治疗会升高胆固醇或降低胆固醇是否有意义？多年来，他们用避孕药看到了这一点。这是雌激素唯一公认的作用，即胆固醇水平较低。
不，那会增加胆固醇。
哦，会增加胆固醇。好的，所以节育会。所以你是说雌激素会提高胆固醇水平？
是的，这是它可能修复的问题之一。
好的，所以我实际上知道有人说停止了雌激素治疗，然后她的胆固醇升高了，她的医生的解释是，嗯，雌激素对心脏有保护作用，意思是他们说，所以它有这种作用，这就是为什么她的胆固醇在停止雌激素治疗后升高的原因。所以我不知道那里是否有另一种机制，但这是我听说的轶事，有什么解释吗？雌激素治疗是否有降低胆固醇的作用？
我确信在某些情况下可能会发生这种情况。不正常的。如果充分地毒害肝脏胆固醇，就不能制造好，例如，非常非常高水平的普发会降低制造胆固醇的能力。一个人在这段时间也承受着很大的压力。所以这可能只是另一个造成。。和胆固醇的变量。
所以我们可以说一点，很明显，有很多人说接受雌激素治疗可以预防阿尔茨海默氏症，对大脑有帮助，我一直认为这会适得其反。你能解释一下为什么他们会得到这些结果，即接受雌激素治疗的人患阿尔茨海默氏症的机会更少吗？
整个 1990 年代出来的数据清楚地表明，女性患阿尔茨海默病的几率是男性的两到三倍。医生自然会说，哦，那是因为缺乏雌激素。但在女性健康倡议表明，在研究中的大量人群中，当服用雌激素时，痴呆症和阿尔茨海默病明显升高。所以这非常强烈地表明，女性的雌激素暴露史才是导致女性患阿尔茨海默病风险的三倍。
雌激素不会立即对大脑产生影响吗？因为有些人会说，我服用我的雌激素，那里有我的雌激素，我感觉我的大脑工作得更好了。那么雌激素对大脑没有轻微的兴奋作用吗？这是令人兴奋的。
1940 年代和 50 年代的凯瑟琳·阿顿，通过给予黄体酮治疗她的患者早产、中毒尤其是经前期综合征，她进行了很好的研究。她看到的主要事情之一是，在黄体酮缺乏症中，每当遇到黄体酮缺乏症时，患者在学校通过考试的能力都会受到严重损害。并且已经研究了为什么女性说话速度更快，每分钟使用的单词比男性多，雌激素会加速女性的语言表达。每分钟用字数更快。一般来说，在女性中，这就是兴奋效应。但是当比较快说者和慢说者传递的信息时，每个单词的信息要高得多。在说话慢的人中，在制定句子时允许积累上下文和更复杂的意义。但如果说得很快，说的大多是陈词滥调，而不是让信息以丰富的形式传播。所以本质上所谓大脑中的雌激素就像大脑中的可卡因，两者非常相似。在动物研究中，例如，有人会训练动物，以便在一个小时内的每次试验可能会越来越好，最终达到 100% 的表现。如果给动物一点额外的雌激素，就会抹杀动物的学习。没有从经验中获益，因为雌激素只是在抹去记忆。
所以很高兴知道我们应该把雌激素等同于可卡因。雌激素更有可能产生这种兴奋的方式。所以是另一个有趣的部分。
可卡因会增加所有的压力过程，阻碍良好的神经功能。葡萄糖是良好的放松大脑功能所必需的抗压力的受保护物质之一。
我们有。我在这本书中注意到的一件事是我浏览了所有的参考资料和资源，他们说的是很多研究都是四到十年的时间。当他们谈论其中一些好处时，或者他们发现服用雌激素治疗并没有增加某些癌症时。我知道你总是说这可能需要更长的时间。如果有人接受了几十年的雌激素治疗，真的需要很长时间才能看到雌激素治疗的负面影响吗？
是的。这与辐射的影响非常相似。如果查看女性在 38 岁左右、及20 年后（大约 20 年多一点）左右的雌激素产生高峰，会发现乳腺癌的年龄特异性发病率在 20 年后的 50 岁后期突然增加。如果看看青春期提前的影响，在美国，青春期很早就开始了。青春期的提前正在降低最低年龄特异性乳腺癌发病率。现在，20 多岁和 30 多岁的女性最近患乳腺癌的风险和发病率急剧上升。例如，如果看 50 岁，在38 岁那个高峰之后，绝对最高的特定年龄癌症死亡率在 85 至 89 岁左右。因此，在这种情况下，雌激素需要 20 到 50 年才能完全发挥作用。辐射也差不多。
所以我认为即使看一些研究也很好，当看雌激素治疗时，我觉得在女性健康倡议之后，因为确实在那个时间点表明 HRT 导致乳腺癌发病率有所增加。显然，这就是停止HRT的地方。但从那以后，他们似乎一直在与之抗争。而很多研究人员，甚至是斯坦福大学的教授们参与设计了WHO大小研究，结果出来时花费了数亿美元的公共资金，即使他们参与了研究的设计，也没有不符合他们的期望，所以他们拒绝了，说肯定有问题，即使他们事先批准了研究。而斯坦福只是最离谱的案例。但是整个医学界都在他们大量生产的雌激素行业的资助下，特别是当实际的科学通过展示雌激素实际作用来使该行业处于危险之中时，该行业变得忙碌，最常发布虚假文章在有影响力的期刊。所以无论看哪里，都有一篇文章说雌激素疗法可以预防骨质疏松症、痴呆症、心脏病，还有并延长寿命。
2014 年发表在《内科医学档案》上的论文。他们说雌激素疗法可以提高生活质量。女性不喜欢潮热，但不幸的是，缩短了她们的寿命。因此，有些研究着眼于不符合医学界既定观点的实际事实。所以教授、医生和期刊编辑都讨厌妇女健康倡议的结果。但是该研究有数百倍的数据库。他们更喜欢可能有 100 或 200 个案例的出版物等等。
就在妇女健康倡议之前，由于国家癌症研究所一直在保存美国总人口近一半的数据，称为 西尔斯Sear 研究，即监测流行病学。最终结果是它应该做的。但是，例如，他们的数据涵盖了 35万例乳腺癌病例。然后就是最近日本对 164 个案例的研究。Blooming 和 Tavis 等人根据日本的 164 例而不是美国的 35万例得出的结果，这比妇女健康倡议更强烈支持。WHO的设计帮助其看起来比实际的国家癌症研究所数据的风险更小。所以这是一个有趣的地方。我甚至在西尔斯研究中都没有听说过，可能是对喜欢那些研究的人最大、最明显的反驳提到的是，在 2002 年，当研究数据公布时，使用雌激素处方的人数大幅下降，开处方的医生更少。而Premarine。。的销售额在短短一年内就急剧下降，几乎是十亿美元的销售额损失。这种情况持续了几年。当使用更少的雌激素时，几乎立即开始，乳腺癌死亡率在历史上大幅下降。直接的结果将在 20、30、40 年后被放大。但在最初的几年里，乳腺癌的发病率已经明显下降了 10%。这相当于成千上万的女性没有死于乳腺癌，因为她们停止服用激素替代品。
我认为肯定有一些数据表明它肯定有效果。我想快速恢复，因为很明显很多女性服用激素替代品，因为她们有可怕的潮热，而且它显然有效，也可以接受，你能解释一下为什么雌激素有助于摆脱潮热的机制吗？
血糖和一氧化氮。一氧化氮是通过让热量到达表面，一氧化氮来降低潮热期间体温的原因。恰好雌激素是一氧化氮的重要激活剂，但血糖下降或使用葡萄糖的能力会增加一氧化氮并引起潮热。所以干扰葡萄糖使用的东西会增加潮热。只需服用浓缩玉米淀粉浆之类的东西，就可以清楚地停止盗汗和潮热。一些保持血糖稳定上升的方法可以阻止潮热。黄体酮是关闭一氧化氮的正常方式。保持体温较高，而雌激素会降低体温。雌激素增加氮氧化物的自然趋势导致血管舒张和降低体温。所以使用雌激素的人体温较低。使用黄体酮的人体温较高。当身体的黄体酮失效时，酸化让血液循环到表面，所以当体温下降时，会感到肉感、出汗和热。所以所有的机制都表明雌激素，相对于黄体酮的不平衡，是导致潮热的原因。使用雌激素可以阻止潮热的事实可能是因为雌激素会激活皮质醇和其他阻碍雌激素代谢的压力激素，并有可能抑制一氧化氮的合成。
不过，氧化物会增加雌激素。这些不都是一起工作的吗？所以只是过剩可以抑制它。能再过一遍吗？
这往往是一个恶性循环，但雌激素是雌激素之一，压力和低血糖都会激活一氧化氮。黄体酮通过保持稳定的糖代谢，维持体温来部分抑制它。但较低的体温会造成恶性循环，包括产生更多的雌激素。
但你会认为这实际上会增加潮热，而不是减少。
酸扩张的已知机制强烈地朝着这个方向发展，但可以通过压力激素的激增来覆盖这些东西。肾上腺素收缩血管。血清素收缩血管以及减少热量产生。因此，由过量、大量过量的雌激素激活的压力激素会激活肾上腺素、皮质醇和血清素，从而阻止一氧化氮对血管的影响。
所以基本上我认为，任何在接受雌激素治疗的人，检查体温和脉搏可能很重要，看看身体实际上是如何调节的，看看你是否真的从你服用的激素中得到了适当的反应。
再看看碳水化合物的作用研究，例如，睡前吃一大碗燕麦片，有助于让血糖保持更长的时间，防止出汗和潮热。
我知道你一直提到，我已经看到它对女性有效，在没有雌激素或卵子的情况下，一些真正帮助潮热的最佳机制，调节血糖，使用高碳水化合物的饮料或食物，这会有所帮助。而且使用黄体酮对于帮助治疗潮热总是非常有效。还有什么能想到的对潮热有帮助的吗？
密切观察甲状腺功能，否则雌激素和孕激素平衡就会出错。
因此，这也将支持身体的排毒方法，因为显然随着女性年龄的增长，雌激素、孕酮会失衡，然后仅对支持甲状腺功能的过量雌激素进行解毒。有一些东西，比如在饮食中摄入足够的钙和VD，以保持代谢率与甲状腺功能保持一致，这是简化我们下一个主题的完美部分，我们将讨论乳制品、牛奶和钙，以及其对我们的重要性，显然乳制品对骨骼健康很重要，而且在预防骨质疏松症中的作用很明显。你能谈谈吗，因为很明显人们来回喝牛奶和奶制品，听到这些研究说，嘿，如果有更多的奶制品，实际上会增加患骨质疏松症的机会。你能解释一下为什么会发生这种情况，以及牛奶对骨骼健康的重要性吗？
如果选择得非常好，查看某些国家/地区，可以找到具有特定相关性的人口，但如果查看他们正在做的，则不会这么说。反牛奶崇拜有很多维度。其中一些只是彻底的神经质恐惧。例如，他们认为母乳喂养本身和喝牛奶有些不自然，是违背上帝的计划和其他各种各样的东西。但我认为大部分反牛奶邪教背后都有弗洛伊德和精神病学的东西。当查看动物实验时，牛奶和糖恰好可以非常明显地保护骨骼强度以及骨骼矿化。骨强度是最重要的。
有什么偏好吗？因为显然乳制品很重要。有人可以服用钙补剂并获得相同的效果吗？
出于某种原因，由于各种原因，医学处方通常偏爱钙、柠檬酸盐，有时也偏爱葡萄糖酸盐，但葡萄糖酸盐片剂的效果稍差。状况不行。只是额外的柠檬酸本身会扰乱身体的生理机能。他们认为它是中性的，因为例如橙汁就含有很多。他们认为橙汁必然是有益的。但从外部摄取柠檬酸，与我们自身代谢产生的柠檬酸有很大不同。往往会进入错误的隔间。甚至可以改变我们对癌症的抵抗力。所以最接近生理的应该是碳酸钙。即使那样也不能很好被吸收，因为在牛奶中，有特别的乳糖。但是任何糖，普通糖中的葡萄糖几乎和乳糖一样可以刺激钙的吸收。因此，例如，如果要尝试从碳酸钙中获取钙，应该确保服用足够的碳水化合物。
所以本质上，如果有人因为某个原因不能喝牛奶或奶制品，可以做的一件事就是服用碳酸钙，也是蛋壳，可以自己制造钙。将其与橙汁之类的东西一起食用将有助于更好地吸收。
除了在橙汁中，柠檬酸也不是正式的东西。最好的橙汁几乎不含柠檬酸。
用橙汁和糖一起食用碳酸钙有助于促进增加。
糖是非常重要的东西。
所以这对某人来说是一个不错的选择，因为有很多关于压力下身体会发生什么的讨论，当我们处于压力下时，我们摄入了太多的钙， 钙进入我们的组织。是这样吗？我们可以摄入过多的钙吗？或者钙从哪里来？
那基本上是在某人的组织中。甲状旁腺激素将钙从骨骼中带出，通过增加发酵、在骨骼中产生乳酸以及在二氧化碳和碳酸存在的情况下，钙进入骨骼。但甲状旁腺激素会逆转这一过程，减少二氧化碳并增加乳酸，将钙从骨骼中排出，将其放入血液中，通常还会改变乳酸的平衡，导致钙在软组织中积累，同时从所属的骨骼中排出。如果没有摄入足够的钙和足够的VD，甲状旁腺激素就会升高。因此，骨骼中的钙含量较低，而软组织中的钙含量较高。所以没有摄入足够钙的人会钙化，动脉钙化，神经和其他组织钙化。所以必须考虑当你获得足够的钙和VD 时会发生什么，会抑制甲状旁腺激素，也会抑制骨化二醇转化为骨化三醇，即活性VD。但实际上，这是一个与压力相关的因素，与过量钙的所有毒性作用有关。
我认为需要就其中一些事情聊一聊。我想你说的第一件事是如果摄入了VD，或者有足够的VD ，但没有摄入足够的钙，甲状旁腺激素会升高，将钙从骨骼中拉出，然后将其拉入组织，对吗？
是的。
没有钙的 VD 的存在。我之所以这么说，是因为很明显，有些人现在服用了大量的VD，但可能没有摄入足够的钙。所以对于那个人，可能会在组织中产生高钙质，对吗？
是的。来自阳光的VD 加上足够的钙和镁的组合，是保持甲状旁腺激素和活性VD 下降所必需的。
好的。所以我只是想让人们明白，因为有很多关于 VD 的争议，如果我想在这次谈话中深入讨论，我不会，但是服用不含钙和其他一些机制（如镁）的 VD，可以营造一种不是很好的情况，这可能会导致钙进入组织，这是不想要的，对吗？
是的。每天服用 400 单位的VD，很多医生声称就足够了，但实际上根本不算什么。你看到出版物说VD在预防心脏病和动脉硬化等方面绝对无效。但那是因为他们每天只开出 400 单位的处方，或者为了有效地将循环中的VD 提高到可以纠正问题的程度，通常需要大约 4 或 5000 单位的VD。
那么有证据吗？
因为很明显，随着人们年龄的增长，身体的组织会钙化，钙会流向错误的地方。这只是因为人们摄入了过多的钙，还是更有可能来自一个不平衡的压力系统，可能没有得到足够的钙，或是无法吸收钙，身体正在提升甲状旁腺激素，现在把钙从骨头里拉出来。
任何会降低能量代谢或过度刺激细胞的东西，都是一样的。当过度刺激一个细胞时，就没有足够的能量。例如，兴奋性毒性氨基酸会过度刺激细胞，导致细胞不正确地吸收钙，从而导致钙化和癌化。阻止足够的能量产生也会导致细胞吸收钙，使其保持在兴奋、失去能量的状态。
你刚才说过，你提到了二氧化碳和钙代谢的重要性。你能再谈谈为什么拥有足够的二氧化碳如此重要吗？因为很明显，我们知道在葡萄糖代谢中产生的二氧化碳比任何其他类型的宏量营养素代谢都要高。因此，糖代谢是多么重要，因为显然这会产生最多的二氧化碳。为什么这对钙代谢很重要？
大多数人现在至少听说过所谓兰德尔循环，其中氧化脂肪会阻止葡萄糖的氧化，反之亦然，氧化葡萄糖可以帮助不氧化脂肪，而是以更安全的方式来处理。而二氧化碳一旦产生并保持低脂肪氧化，二氧化碳会直接关闭乳酸的产生，直接对细胞产生镇静作用。由于它在一个活跃的细胞中不断产生，乳酸不断从细胞中流出，会带走钙。因此，代谢葡萄糖通过二氧化碳的这种抗兴奋作用促进了葡萄糖氧化的抗兴奋性前能量功能。所以我听到的是乳酸含量的增加可能会大大增加钙进入组织的机会。
那是对的吗？因为我肯定在糖尿病患者身上看到了这一点，开始失去很多骨密度。你能解释为什么他们不能氧化葡萄糖吗？
但他们能做的就是把它变成乳酸。即使没有达到致命的乳酸酸中毒的程度，它也一直存在，倾向于提高它们的游离脂肪酸。升高的血液脂肪酸水平不断干扰氧化葡萄糖的能力。所以糖尿病的本质在于乳酸和游离脂肪酸的作用，造成了恶性循环。
所以我认为这是一个需要讨论的重要因素，因为很明显，钙代谢需要二氧化碳。在以脂肪为燃料的身体中，二氧化碳将大大减少。因此，对于其中一些人来说，由于这种状态，他们不会正确代谢钙。那是对的吗？
是的，循环乳酸应该是最低限度的。
好的，所以我想回到牛奶，因为，再一次，牛奶在钙话题走开了。
但我确实想谈谈关于牛奶的一些迷思，也许我们会讨论这些，其中之一就是乳糖不耐症。每个人都认为自己有，很明显，这个世界上三分之二的人口不能忍受牛奶，因为他们不耐乳糖。这是有什么原因吗？为什么他们不能忍受牛奶？是遗传还是因为曾经只是他们的传统，他们从小就停止喝牛奶，现在他们不能忍受了。
已经对属于所谓的遗传性乳糖不耐症人群的中国人进行了研究。在实验中，只是让人逐步添加奶，从半杯牛奶开始，一次不会引起任何干扰。但如果保持这种状态数周，乳糖的存在会逐渐重新诱导或恢复乳糖酶的产生，每个婴儿都有这种酶，当他们停止喝奶时，这种酶就会关闭。所以如果不停止喝奶，就不会变得乳糖不耐症。但就像中国人一样，如果长期让他们重新接触乳糖，他们就会产生酶。我认为这是一个可以被揭穿的迷思，因为在反牛奶圈子中肯定有一个论点，即牛奶不是那么好，因为世界上有很多人不能喝，但最终他们可以把奶带回饮食中，可以非常缓慢地开始产生酶，因为就像人体中的所有东西一样，如果我们不喝牛奶，我们的身体就会停止产生酶。
大约 30 或 40 年前，美国政府对外提供援助，其中一些以奶粉的形式提供。但是那些希望从渔业行业购买废料的人，例如鱼粉，宣称向饥荒地区提供奶粉对人民不利的想法，应该给他们鱼粉。但这确实是一种市场影响力，对政府的压力，有助于扩大世界大部分地区对奶不耐受的学说。
所以对于后来的人来说，嘿，我以前可以忍受牛奶，但现在我不能忍受牛奶。哪些因素可能会导致某人在以后的生活中出现乳糖不耐症？
嗯，通常是关于牛奶的其他东西。很多人只是下定决心要生有机牛奶。我曾尝试从两家大型乳制品厂喝有机牛奶。牛奶味道不好。在其中一个案例中，我查看了地图，有一家工厂，被称为王，为政府军队生产了一种有毒金属，气味弥漫在周围数英里处。而这种乳制品，有机乳制品非常接近工厂的顺风。所以他们的奶牛一直在呼吸那个可怕的水汽，出现在牛奶中，尽管从技术上讲是有机的，但那牛奶让我恶心。这发生在两三个品牌的有机牛奶上。我只是发现最常见的原因是，让奶牛吃杂草而不是已知的草或三叶草。许多杂草味道很差。其中许多是过敏性的。母乳喂养的妇女经常有这样的经验，如果她们吃某些食物，婴儿会便秘或出现相关症状，因为过敏原会直接进入母乳。所以如果奶牛吃致敏性杂草上，牛奶是致过敏的。如此美味的牛奶，无论是否是有机的，都是一个不错的选择，致敏性较低，而且经过高度巴氏杀菌，因为牛奶会杀死一些人们敏感的细菌。因此，找到适合自己的牛奶是一个问题。这些都与乳糖无关。
我将谈到这一点。但是压力会成为产生乳糖酶的一个因素，从而影响某人吗？我当然看到的是，处于严重压力下的人不能忍受甲减，低孕酮会干扰合成乳酸的产生。
因此，仅仅改善甲状腺功能和承受压力就可以提高人们日常耐受牛奶的能力。这就是所需要的。
然后也有点像你刚才所说的那样。我认为重要的是要了解找到适合自己的牛奶很重要。对一些人来说，生牛奶最适合他们，他们对此感觉很好。然后对于其他人来说，是超级巴氏杀菌的，或者可能出于其他原因进行巴氏杀菌，这可能就是他们可以耐受的原因。所以重要的是不要只尝试一种，如果你想把牛奶带回你的生活，去尝试各种不同的牛奶，尝试找到一种适合你的牛奶，坚持下去。
另一种人认为是对酪蛋白过敏。这是一个真正的过敏，或者如果有人觉得对乳制品有酪蛋白问题，除了人们说对酪蛋白过敏的方式之外，还有什么问题，酪蛋白是另一种蛋白质。
一些研究基于酪蛋白的化学分解，然后甚至对其进行化学水解，这与在胃肠中消化不同。他们测试了分解的酪蛋白的毒性，例如，通过检查它进入小鼠的大脑。绝对与使用牛奶的方式无关。对于一种外壳比另一种更好的想法，有很多极端不合逻辑的宣传。
我认为有些人会食用奶酪之类的东西，并认为因为它没有很多乳糖，因为每个人要么是乳糖，要么是酪蛋白，然后去吃，我在这方面做得不好。所以我一定有什么问题或不耐受或过敏。会不会是奶酪里的其他东西？
我想这已经是十多年前的事了。有几个品牌的美国奶酪模仿传统的欧洲品牌。我正在吃一种特别好的，我想它来自佛蒙特州。我突然注意到它有一种不熟悉的柔软质地。然后吃了几天后，我开始出现肠道炎症症状。所以我检查了标签，它突然从动物凝乳酶变成了所谓的植物凝乳酶，这在大多数情况下意味着基因工程微生物酶生产商，总是携带来自微生物的过敏原。所以我换了另一种传统的美国奶酪。而在不长的时间里，它的质地变得更加柔软，白色的味道略有不同。然后我生病了。在我详细调查并发现到那时，美国品牌发生了这种情况，世界上三分之二的奶酪不再是用动物凝乳酶制成的。但是这些转基因微生物通常只产生一种酶，而不是产生的酶的天然复合物运行。因此，基因工程酶产业几乎完全接管了世界奶酪生产。所以必须非常仔细地阅读标签，越来越轻微地解释他们使用这种语言的标签，这样人们就不会挖掘得太深，在他们的食物中发现转基因生物。他们是否允许放这些，因为我经常看到的是植物凝乳酶，似乎在如此多的奶酪中很普遍。
能把它放在有机奶酪里吗？有机奶酪。所以如果说是有机奶酪，奶酪制造商几乎破坏了真正有机的观念。因此可以放入经过设计的植物凝乳酶。
除了牛的肚子或猫的肚子，没有其他的酶。
但其中一些奶酪加入了这种植物凝乳酶。那么这是允许的吗？这完全是不诚实的，说里面没有植物之类的东西。这就像说用棉籽油制成的黄油。
所以这只是他们的术语，但事实并非如此。
就像豆奶。好吧，我们有豆奶什么的。这只是给男人。将男人从人们中移除。
但是在这种情况下使用奶这个词，最糟糕的食物之一得到了最好的食物之一的名字。
所以基本上食品制造商正在使用某些术语来让人认为得到了一些东西。我认为他们使用是因为现在每个人都以植物为基础，他们认为人们得到了更好的东西，而事实上，人们绝对没有得到任何东西。
那么人们谈论牛奶中的激素呢？就像，我害怕牛奶，因为含有所有这些雌激素或黄体酮或其他任何东西。这会影响人们的健康吗？有什么好担心的吗？
数量几乎无法衡量。可能没有任何作用。黄体酮倾向于集中在黄油中，因此比其他激素的存在要大得多。但是所有的动物激素都会出现在牛奶中，而黄体酮是主要的激素，尤其集中在黄油中。这是有益的，但数量非常少，而且大部分激素也会存在于脂肪中。我想这就是为什么在黄油中更普遍的原因。
所以如果有人喝了低脂牛奶，激素就会大大减少。所以如果有人有问题，人们说确实得了癌症，所以不会喝牛奶。
我发现这没有多大意义，但我认为这是他们认为激素会影响他们的前提。我认为这是反牛奶文化的诡计之一。现在他们在全力以赴。
喝牛奶的人怎么办，他们说牛奶长痘痘。你会说里面发生了什么？牛奶可以让他们长粉刺。他们开始在皮肤上长痘痘。
是的。也许他们喝了太多的脂肪。任何一种脂肪过多都会干扰皮肤能量产生。而对于任何细胞，它的功能都会在糖以外的影响下下降。
因此，如果有人认为喝牛奶长了粉刺，那么食用低脂牛奶可能对他们有益？认同。
那么与增加胰岛素生长因子有关的牛奶呢？所以这也是个说法。他们认为牛奶对这种生长因子有影响。你会怎么评论？
它有好处也有风险，但它成为加速衰老和癌症等危险的想法，我认为没有有效的证据表明这些变化是有害的。
所以只是看到一些研究说牛奶会增加胰岛素生长因子，这将对人们健康的某些方面产生负面影响。从本质上讲，您只是说在这一点上我们没有足够的证据表明它会长期发挥作用。
和VE一样。多年来，许多出版物都显示了VE的巨大好处。但是，当该行业有其他想要销售的东西时，他们决定强调VE可能是一种风险。所以他们拿了那些已经发表的论文来显示变化，暗示这些变化是朝着有益的方向发展的。但每当他们有出版物说VE发生变化或其他什么时，他们说引入了变化，这意味着VE是有害的。你所做的每一件事都会导致几乎无限的变化。而且你必须评估一个方向变化的权重是否比等待另一个方向更有效。你不能从一两个因素争论任何事情。那是一种宣传工具。一直使用任何生理或生化的东西，如果有一百万个影响，他们会发现两三个可能是有害的，因此不应该做某事，因为会导致这些变化。但他们忽略了几乎一百万个可能有益的其他东西。
这听起来就像他们对雌激素疗法所做的那样。他们发现了一些他们喜欢的东西，然后他们专注于这些东西，而忘记了正在做的所有其他负面东西。确切地。这就是为什么有成千上万的雌激素论文，几乎所有的论文都在说 雌激素有多棒。因此，您必须仔细阅读每一篇文章，并考虑显示相反效果、有害影响的相对较少的出版物。事实证明，他们精心挑选了可能对雌激素有益的东西，而不是已知有益的东西。而且我认为这很好地理解了为什么要全面了解代谢以及一切如何运作并着眼于一切，而不仅仅是单一的，也许是单一的营养素或单一的激素，因为如果只关注单一的焦点，我倾向于会错过关于这一切如何协同工作的大局。我认为这就是为什么，事实上，这就是科学的本质。从 20 世纪开始，如此狭隘的焦点，机械决定论，无论是在原子物理学还是遗传学和生理学。如果你缩小你的注意力，你总是可以对周围的好处视而不见，只挑选你想要的，或者简单地选择还原论思维的本质。
在当今世界，当他们只想推动议程时，似乎以很多不同的方式使用，他们可以只专注于一两个东西，而忘记所有其他东西。这似乎是一种流行的方式来接近科学，或任何你想称之为现代科学的。
我们还有一些关于牛奶的问题，只是为了总结一下。我可能只是说哪种牛奶最好？而且我认为您回答了最适合的问题，以及正在接受治疗的动物的质量以及它们所吃的食物的重要性。这是一个非常重要的部分。所以在你看来，如果牛奶是生的、巴氏杀菌的或超巴氏杀菌的，或者即使含有添加剂，那么重要吗？
基本上只是找到适合个人的。
因此，即使牛奶含有某些添加剂，因为显然在大多数地区，牛奶中添加了低脂肪的营养物质。但只要有人可以容忍这些并且似乎喝得很好，那就可以了。
如果有人不耐受牛奶，还有哪些其他来源，还能从哪里获得钙源？
熟蔬菜中钙、磷的比例非常高。这个比例非常重要，因为过多的磷酸盐会打开甲状旁腺激素，关闭有用的能量产生等等。所以无机磷酸盐的兴奋作用是一个真正的危险，要被钙重新平衡。所以煮熟的蔬菜是一种非常安全的来源，如果能消化的话。
你能解释一下一些磷含量高的食物，这样人们就可以理解为什么有些饮食可能没有益处，因为可能富含磷。
肉类和鱼类，因为钙含量非常低。如果动物健康，软组织会排除钙。因此，例如 ATP 中的磷酸盐，为它们提供了非常高比例的磷酸盐，还有坚果、谷物，通常是生殖组织。磷酸盐的存在使得储存材料可以变成生长材料。因此，当某物具有巨大的增长潜力时，这意味着必须储存过量的磷酸盐。这使得豆类、坚果和谷物成为钙含量最差的食物之一。
所以本质上是这样一种饮食， 富含乳制品或煮熟的蔬菜，然后将其与肉类平衡，可能尽量减少谷物、豆类和坚果的摄入量，这将是有利的。因为我最近对玛莎粉很着迷，那是一个不错的钙来源吗？
是的，因为在氢氧化钙中加入煮沸过夜。所以它会吸收大量的钙。我在墨西哥的牙医说，在她所在的地区，人们不吃面包而是吃很多玉米饼，即使是 80 多岁的人也坚持想要吃。她说有时她需要整个下午才能拔出一颗臼齿，因为他们的下巴和牙齿是由临床上良好的钙与磷酸盐比例构成的。因此，与钙相比，玛莎粉不含大量磷酸盐。
所以每个人都会得到一些玛莎粉做的玉米饼。对你很好。我想不出别的了。还有什么要分享的吗？
我提到史蒂夫·科什的网站了吗？他是麻省理工学院的毕业生，一直在揭露科学欺诈，暴露了麻省理工学院等伟大机构对科学的绝对漠视。完全不关心讨论科学问题。他的网站只是关于科学从我们的文化中消失的问题，这对每个人来说都是非常重要的思考。 他看起来像是有实质的东西。我现在只是在谷歌上搜索他。 我们正在讨论雌激素疗法以及科学如何发生了如此大的变化以及这些天他们在做什么以及为什么我们只是得到这一切， 假新闻，因为他们如何决定什么是真实的和什么不是。所以这就是史蒂夫·科什（Steve Kirsh）， 因此，如果有人有兴趣进入那个兔子洞，他值得研究。
很好。谢谢雷皮博士。总是一种享受。再见。
