Of all these studies, of which many contradict eachother with there being so many variables which are in need of balancing in order to generate an outcome that could be deemed universal… there is however one thing that’s popping up regularly and I can conclude this as universal: this is a case by case issue and everyone is different. Heart disease unfortunately is also the leading killer of all humanity and has been for some time, which is more than a spanner in the works as some say. I think bro science really has it’s place on these subjects … I really do. And blood work and regular check ups are paramount… 1200 a week for the last 8 months has been a no no and I put that down to a combination of being driven and /or showing signs of addictive nature for the benefits whilst brushing health under the carpet. I’ve since changed my tune and always knew it wasn’t any where near sustainable anyway … I’ve now engaged in some serious reading up and have now seen a doctor who was uber supportive and wants to help. I’ve got tests coming up and I’m down to an agreed 200 a week whilst my body comes back into homeostasis. Starting to feel better already… ps I didn’t “pluck out” the only quote from
The study in any other way other than that it was the most conclusive statement made in the document. Everything else was not as definitive. It was the most crunching conclusion made : there’s no link made in the study whatsoever. Basically
If you’re not great with word salads, you can be fooled By the opening headings and provisional statements Made in those papers … but I read it through word for word and I have this thing for word salads … I can read through and decipher the stand out points without being sidetracked by intellectual and or clinical waffle. So unfortunately for you perhaps I just read the document rather than assuming your superiority as the leading t-nation authority on cardiovascular health? Possibly.