Health Supplements

The exercises & techniques to keep your body healthy for footbag.
User avatar
zachatree
Happy Hippy Hoffa
Posts: 2026
Joined: 07 Jul 2004 11:59
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Health Supplements

Post by zachatree » 03 Aug 2010 10:09

during my 3 year break of Footbag i started going to a gym. I became fairly well educated in health supplements to help in recovering faster an to make more gains.
I have been going threw some awful pains an have been experiencing a very slow recovery rate in my leg muscles an joints, mostly my knees since my long break. I have been thinking about utilizing what i learned at the gym an threw bodybuilding.com in aspects to my lower body, as it was before mostly for my upper body to get the same befits. For examples, glucosamine sulfate for joint health, enzyme activated multi vitamins, ZMA witch is a zinc, magnesium an b6 vitamin pill that increases muscle strength an recovery when used in conjunction with intense weight training, an whey protein before an after work out/shred to help with recovery an circulation.

the point of my post is to see if anyone else has tried to utilize health supplements for benefits towards the extrema work out an strains that shreding causes.

User avatar
PegLegHolly
Swashbuckler
Posts: 2475
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Post by PegLegHolly » 03 Aug 2010 22:06

ive been taking "ultra mega vitamins" for about a month now (yeah... sounds like a joke. but they all do)... and ive been drinking protein shakes for the past week. im usually accident and pain prone... with my back and my knees in particular. ive noticed a definite change not only in my mood and my practice, but also in weight gain (my goal), energy, and pain resilience.
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 06 Aug 2010 21:55

Lots of this stuff has no evidence to suggest it works.

Here's a really good visualisation giving you some idea of the benefits, but if I were you I'd look for the medical science information directly before trying any.

Vitamin supplements only show any change in people's health if they are genuinely deficient in that vitamin (which is unlikely, and you'd notice because you have symptoms like your teeth falling out). There's some evidence to suggest taking vitamin supplements is actually bad for your health. I'm not sure what "enzyme activated vitamins" would be, but it sounds like rubbish to me, because I'm guessing you swallow the pill rather than take it as suppository.

Glucosamine probably doesn't work at all.

Protein definitely works for weight gain and recovery.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/p ... pplements/

There's also a fantastic book by Michael Pollan (whose work Food Inc is also based on) called In Defence Of Food. I would highly recommend it.

landon palmer
Shredalicious
Posts: 81
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 09:11
Location: arlington texas

Post by landon palmer » 12 Aug 2010 16:57

Ive heard from a gym trainer cousin of mine that it is much healthier to take in these vitamins in your regular diet. and that these vitamins don't necessarily help to recover, rather stretching after wards is the key. and as for protein shake i would drop those and start eating tuna i thinks its about a third more protein in a can as compared to "whey"

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 16 Aug 2010 16:59

There are a bunch of massive studies into vitamins (I've just read about this) that have all found that taking vitamin supplements on any measure (except vitamin D), and in fact that one study of something like 160,000 people over 18 years (off the top of my head, but I can dig up the reference if you like) found that people who take multivitamin supplements were twice as likely to get cancer as those who don't.

Studies also show that antioxidants like vitamin C and E reduce the benefits of exercise.

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 17 Aug 2010 07:49

I have been in the nutritional supplement field all my life ( family business, brother & mother are naturopathic doctors ).

There was a special report on ABC that said Vitamin E causes cancer. But that doesn't mean it's true. It does open a rather large can of worms that I'll leave alone for the time being.

I would be very interested in you posting your sources, Jeremy.

The fact is that too much of ANYTHING can be dangerous. Saying something like "multivitamins can cause cancer" is a dangerously generic statement. The depth & variety of accessible multivitamins is staggering.

What if someone is sensitive to iron & their multivitamin is enriched with iron? Well, in that case, that person's risk of heart disease & stroke goes up. That doesn't mean the multi is bad, it means that specific person should not have taken that specific multi.

That is one of the dangers with "multivitamins", in that the company who produces the multi takes charge of your supplemental dosing for you. But so long as you know what you need, you can usually find a formula to fulfill that.

Glucosamine does work. It is a maintenance supplement, however, & does not provide instant relief. I have found Glucosamine to work strongest in conjunction with Chondroitin & MSM to support joint health. I can personally attest to this formula working very well.

An anti-inflammatory will work much more quickly to provide relief, such as Curcumin. ( ibuprofen & aspirin are also anti-inflammatories ) The danger with anti-inflammatories, especially with athletes, is that they take the pain away but they do not correct the injury. So often athletes will destroy their bodies further by dosing anti-inflammatories & playing through the pain.

Saying that supplementation is bad is like saying that food is bad. SOME food is bad for SOME people. Above all else, always pay attention to bioindividuality. Every person's needs are unique & constructing a supportive health regime is just as unique a process.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

drillbit
Shredalicious
Posts: 97
Joined: 12 Apr 2010 15:45

Post by drillbit » 17 Aug 2010 15:43

why cant one get what they need through a healthy diet?
i understand folks whose body is a commodity and the need to essentially be abnormal because it is your bread and butter, but what about "normal" folks. Cant one just eat right and exercise for health?

User avatar
Sergey
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1138
Joined: 14 Dec 2002 10:48
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by Sergey » 17 Aug 2010 16:25

I really like fish-oil.
Sergey Pikalov

Pattycakes
Hack Fiend
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 08:44
Location: Somerville, NJ

Post by Pattycakes » 17 Aug 2010 17:34

After doing a research paper of dietary supplements and the negative and positive effects on the body I found that a lot of my sources were biased. I wrote a good paper regardless of the sources but i saw in each article, essay and study that depending on whoever funded the research and what tools were given to the researchers largely depended on the outcome of the study.

I'm sure that multivitamins don't really give you cancer and your just quoting a study and i don't know the truth of it but sometimes you have to look at the information being fed to you and question it, its not good to accept every bit of information given to you because it doesnt make you smart it makes you ignorant.....thats at least what i learned from writing that paper...thought id share hah :)

Regarding supplements in general, I usually just take some whey protein and eat meat and alot of whole grains (oatmeal, grain cereal etc.) as well as alot of fruit and veggies. Fish is a huge source of Omega 3's which help lubricate your joints and keep your eyes functioning well, i love fish. Supplements in general are obsolete in my opinion, i would just recommend eating well and working out, its not that hard once you start to do it.
Pat McGurran

User avatar
PegLegHolly
Swashbuckler
Posts: 2475
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Post by PegLegHolly » 17 Aug 2010 17:39

Jeremy wrote:There are a bunch of massive studies into vitamins (I've just read about this) that have all found that taking vitamin supplements on any measure (except vitamin D), and in fact that one study of something like 160,000 people over 18 years (off the top of my head, but I can dig up the reference if you like) found that people who take multivitamin supplements were twice as likely to get cancer as those who don't.

Studies also show that antioxidants like vitamin C and E reduce the benefits of exercise.
I'd love to see the source for this and the types of cancer you're supposedly more likely to get for taking vitamins for a long amount of time.

Also, it's very possible to have a vitamin deficiency without having dramatic symptoms such as teeth falling out. I have a vitamin K deficiency and the symptoms are not dramatic... just bags under the eyes, easy bruising, etc.

Then again, I've been taking vitamins since I was in elementary school and I have cancer. I'm interested in that source, Jeremy. Thanks in advance.
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 17 Aug 2010 18:08

abstract wrote: There was a special report on ABC that said Vitamin E causes cancer. But that doesn't mean it's true. It does open a rather large can of worms that I'll leave alone for the time being.
Why will you leave it alone? You're in an industry and selling things to people where studies have shown buying the pills you're selling them gives them cancer. Doesn't this concern you? You're making money killing people. If it turned out that there was evidence that I was doing that, I'd be incredibly concerned, and I'd want to know as much as I can about it.
I would be very interested in you posting your sources, Jeremy.
In posting my sources, I expect you to do the same thing. If you don't, I will assume that's because your statements aren't based on any actual evidence and you're either deluded, or you're deliberately lying to people in order to sell them things and make money. Certainly if you're selling pills and medical treatments to people and can't provide any evidence that what you're selling actually works then you're exploiting people's ignorance and I'd consider that to be very immoral.

Neuhouser, M. L., et al., (2009). Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the women's health initiative cohorts. Archive of Internal Medicine Vol 169(3), pp 294-304

Followed 161,808 women for 16 years with detailed data collected on their supplement use and their cases of breast cancer, colon/rectem cancer, endometrium cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, ovary cancer, lung cancer, heart disease and overall morality. Found that supplements offered no protection against cancer.

Mahabir, S., et al., (2010) Mineral intake and lung cancer risk in the NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Vol 19(8), pp1976-1983

Examined the diet and medical records of 482,875 subjects over 7 years. Found that mineral supplements offered no protection against lung cancer.

Stanner, S. A., et al., (2004). A review of the epidemiological evidence for the antioxidant hypothesis.' Public Health Nutrition 7, pp 407-422.

Studied all the literature on the benefits of antioxidants. Found that; "primary and secondary intervention trials have failed to show any consistent benefit from the use of antioxidant supplements on cardiovascular disease or cancer risk, with some trials even suggesting possible harm in certain subgroups."

Bjelakovic, G., et al., (2007). Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association 297, pp 842-857

Searched for all randomized trials involving beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium up to October 2005. Found 68 trials totalling 232,606 people. Concluded that beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E increase mortality and that vitamin C and selenium have no impact on mortality.
The fact is that too much of ANYTHING can be dangerous. Saying something like "multivitamins can cause cancer" is a dangerously generic statement. The depth & variety of accessible multivitamins is staggering.
Regardless of whether they cause cancer, where is the evidence that they work for anything? Can you provide any examples of randomised double blind studies of any multivitamins that shows a health benefit in the group taking the multivitamin compared with the group not taking it? This is a strawman argument. What you say could be true, and yet multivitamins could still be bad for your health, and not effective at all.
What if someone is sensitive to iron & their multivitamin is enriched with iron? Well, in that case, that person's risk of heart disease & stroke goes up. That doesn't mean the multi is bad, it means that specific person should not have taken that specific multi.
But it doesn't mean that multivitamins are good either. This is a strawman argument. What you say could be true, and yet multivitamins could still be bad for your health, and not effective at all.

That is one of the dangers with "multivitamins", in that the company who produces the multi takes charge of your supplemental dosing for you. But so long as you know what you need, you can usually find a formula to fulfill that.
Another strawman. You're not providing any kind of argument that what I've said is untrue, or that multivitamins are actually good for anything, other than making money for the people who sell them.
Glucosamine does work. It is a maintenance supplement, however, & does not provide instant relief. I have found Glucosamine to work strongest in conjunction with Chondroitin & MSM to support joint health. I can personally attest to this formula working very well.
You have found? In some kind of double blind study, or are you just providing an anecdote? How do you know that it was the glucosamine having an effect, rather than your diet, lifestyle, or just your body naturally repairing itself? How do you know that your joints would be any different if you weren't taking it? There are some studies that shows that it does work for repairing joints, but there are conflicting studies that show that it doesn't work, including a meta-analysis of all the studies. To claim that it does work, based just on your own experience, when there are clearly so many other variables that could be influencing your joints, and the complete speculation that your joint health would be different if you didnt' take it is ridiculous.
An anti-inflammatory will work much more quickly to provide relief, such as Curcumin. ( ibuprofen & aspirin are also anti-inflammatories ) The danger with anti-inflammatories, especially with athletes, is that they take the pain away but they do not correct the injury. So often athletes will destroy their bodies further by dosing anti-inflammatories & playing through the pain.
What is your evidence for the effectiveness of curcumin?
Saying that supplementation is bad is like saying that food is bad. SOME food is bad for SOME people. Above all else, always pay attention to bioindividuality. Every person's needs are unique & constructing a supportive health regime is just as unique a process.
Another strawman. Not providing any evidence that supplements work for anything. Not contradicting anything I've said. You're also trying to explain away why supplements might not work for everybody without providing any evidence that what you say is true and without providing any reasons why that would be the case. It is true that different people react differently to different medicines, but it's also true that some things just don't help at all for everybody. There's a clear distinction between those two positions.

Real medicines are all based on natural products. Scientists and doctors notice some kind natural effect, study it, find out what's causing it and then find the best way of giving it to patients. This means, of course, that there are plenty of natural products that have some kind of health benefit. So if you're going to take supplements then you should go to google scholar, do a search for the specific supplement and see what actual evidence there is for it. This is why I said in my first post; "if I were you I'd look for the medical science information directly before trying any. "
drillbit wrote:why cant one get what they need through a healthy diet?
i understand folks whose body is a commodity and the need to essentially be abnormal because it is your bread and butter, but what about "normal" folks. Cant one just eat right and exercise for health?
Having a healthy diet and enough exercise are by far the strongest predictors of health, cancer prevention, heart disease prevention and even mental health. Even when we look at the supplements that do have some kind of demonstrated benefit, the difference between control groups and the people taking the supplements tends to tiny. On the other hand, people who regularly exercise (regardless of diet) have a 40% lower chance of heart disease. Eat whole foods (unprocessed), mainly plants (and mainly leaves), exercise regularly. Don't take supplements, unless you have a specific condition.

Pattycakes
Hack Fiend
Posts: 51
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 08:44
Location: Somerville, NJ

Post by Pattycakes » 17 Aug 2010 19:12

everyone just got pwned
Pat McGurran

drillbit
Shredalicious
Posts: 97
Joined: 12 Apr 2010 15:45

Post by drillbit » 18 Aug 2010 19:31

not sure i am seeing that supplements cause cancer...dont prevent it for sure.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 19 Aug 2010 06:48

Ah sorry, Specter doesn't give the specific reference to the study relating to cancer and hasn't put it on his website yet (it says "footnotes coming soon"). He does give some details about it, but I couldn't find it. However one of those studies that I referenced, the first one, did find that some of those supplements increased cancer risk, and also I think the last one also found higher cancer rates in supplement takers (and hence the higher mortality).

It's important to realise though that cancer is a relatively unlikely disease to suffer from despite public perception and that cancer risk is much better viewed in real risk figures, rather than relative risk figures. Lots of things increase your cancer risk, even doubling and tripling it, but far less things actually give you a meaningful chance of getting cancer. Cancer is an "old person's disease" and the reality is that everybody has to die from something. I think it's reasonable to discount causes of death that effect people from about the age of 75 and upwards, and if you go do a google image search for cancer age graphs, you'll see that age is a massive predictor in your risk of getting cancer. Even with this, your real lifetime risk is about 1 in 100. That's not too serious - your risk of being in a car accident is something like 1 in 3 (not necessarily a fatal car accident, but cancer isn't necessarily fatal either).

Cancer statistics are often incredibly misleading, and that really makes me angry because people somewhere are constructing these meaningless statistics in order to trick people into being more afraid about cancer and giving money to cancer research when it's a disease that only affects rich and affluent Westerners who have the privilege of living old enough to get it. You'll see statistics like "In Australia one in 12 people will develop bowel cancer by the time they reach 85."

That sounds terrible, but consider how that statistic is calculated. It's the total number of people in Australia diagnosed with bowel cancer divided by the total number of people who reach the age of 85. Those are two completely different numbers. Everybody who is under the age of 85 and not diagnosed with bowel cancer is excluded. Everybody who dies before the age of 85 without getting bowel cancer is excluded (which is the majority of people, since our life expectancy is 82). Everybody who gets bowel cancer is included regardless of their age.

So what it's saying is that if you live to the age of 85 or you get bowel cancer before that, then you have a 1 in 12 chance of getting bowel cancer. Completely meaningless - "if you get bowel cancer then you have a 1 in 12 chance of getting bowel cancer." It's a bullshit statistic.

Cancer is not a concern. It's sad that people get it, and it's very likely that we'll all know somebody who does (since we know more than 100 people), but 27000 children die every day of easily preventable diseases. Lets worry about that before we worry about old people in rich countries getting sick.

drillbit
Shredalicious
Posts: 97
Joined: 12 Apr 2010 15:45

Post by drillbit » 19 Aug 2010 09:12

cool - that makes better sense.

i can see how a "supplement" could have carcinogenic components....

i.e...............as a broad generalized example..........
Although cancer-causing substances are often thought by the general public to be synthetic, there are numerous carcinogens that occur in nature, and in food plants. (Concon,1988)

For example, tannins occur widely in plant foods and we ingest them daily in tea, coffee, and cocoa. Tannic acid has caused liver tumors in experimental animals, and may be linked to esophageal cancer in humans.

Cycad plants are important food sources in tropical regions. Cycads contain cycasin and related azoxyglycosides that were found to cause liver and kidney tumors when fed to rats.

Safrole, which is a liver carcinogen in rats, is found in sassafras tea, cinnamin, cocoa (trace), nutmeg, and other herbs and spices.

Black pepper was found to be carcinogenic to experimental mice. Pyperadine and alpha-Methylpyrroline are secondary amines in black pepper which can be nitrosated to N-nitrosopiperadine, a strong carcinogen.

Although not of plant origin, heterocyclic amines in cooked meats have been associated with stomach and other cancer formation.

Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin A are natural toxins made by fungal food contaminants that also cause cancer in animals and humans.

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 19 Aug 2010 10:28

thanks for your replies, jeremy.

i will respond properly to your post in the next few days.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 19 Aug 2010 16:36

Looking forward to it.

@Drillbit The thing about those things that give you cancer and the argument about "everything gives you cancer," is that what really matters is the probability. Eating black pepper or plutonium may both increase your cancer risk, but one does so a great deal more than the other. In fact nothing definitely gives you cancer so the statement that "everything gives you cancer" is false. Different things give you different likelihoods of developing cancer and we should consider the actual risk in real terms to determine whether we think it's worth the risk or not (real terms as in - what's my actual chance of developing cancer if I consume this product? - as opposed to how much will it change? Your risk of developing cancer is very low. It can be increased by a fair bit and still be unlikely enough that it's not a concern).

drillbit
Shredalicious
Posts: 97
Joined: 12 Apr 2010 15:45

Post by drillbit » 20 Aug 2010 12:40

i got ya....and i agree with you

the argument is really more of why would you need supplements if you can get everything you need from whole foods.
are they better? probably not
are they easier? maybe yes and maybe no
are they more efficient? all things being equal i would say no assuming you have healthy eating skills.

sure i have to plan a bit what i eat and when, but lack of planning when taking supplements (i would fear) could be eually has bad for my health and poor dietary planning.

(on the "gives you cancer" bit -- i may be ignorant - but i thought we all had the potential to get cancer depending upon many many factors. Also cancer is not something that you get, like the flu, it is an abnormality in the cells that can be caused, again, by many factors. so in sense you and i have no idea when the cells will out live their destined course and begin their process of uncontrolled growth. you could be a 50yr smoker and that carcinogen many never cause this behavior in your cells, on the other hand i may be perfectly perfect in all things and my cells could go cancerous for one reason or another or even simply luck.)

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 31 Aug 2010 07:20

firstly, sorry for the delay in responding. life has been busy. secondly, long post inc.
Why will you leave it alone? You're in an industry and selling things to people where studies have shown buying the pills you're selling them gives them cancer. Doesn't this concern you? You're making money killing people. If it turned out that there was evidence that I was doing that, I'd be incredibly concerned, and I'd want to know as much as I can about it.
the reason why i left this alone is because this would take the discussion more into the realm of politics & dissemination of false information in support of corporate agendas as opposed to actually discussing our health. we could talk for a very long time about the war that has been waged for over 50 years between the pharmaceutical industry & the natural health industry.

the political discussion of the relationship of these two industries could form a completely different topic.

but so as to not leave this area completely untouched, here is a US Gov't Report that was first published in 1977, entitled "Dietary Goals for the United States". notice the differences between the forwards of the first edition & the second edition.

http://zerodisease.com/archive/Dietary_ ... States.pdf

also, to touch on this statement again:
where studies have shown buying the pills you're selling them gives them cancer
&
one study of something like 160,000 people over 18 years (off the top of my head, but I can dig up the reference if you like) found that people who take multivitamin supplements were twice as likely to get cancer as those who don't
every study which you posted in no way indicates that intake of those supplements actually increases cancer risk, all they say is that they do not offer protection from cancer. please be very careful with the words that you choose to use, as not protecting from cancer & causing cancer are two completely different animals.

cancer has always been a disease that is proliferated by poor lifestyle & diet choices. the previous "Dietary Goals" article gives some detail as to what kind of lifestyle choices those are. taking a supplement to cure cancer is a ludicrous idea, just as much as taking a pharmaceutical pill & expecting the same. even if you experience short term success, if you do not correct your lifestyle, the cancer will come back.
Regardless of whether they cause cancer, where is the evidence that they work for anything? Can you provide any examples of randomised double blind studies of any multivitamins that shows a health benefit in the group taking the multivitamin compared with the group not taking it? This is a strawman argument. What you say could be true, and yet multivitamins could still be bad for your health, and not effective at all.
http://www.wholefoodsmagazineonline.com ... erformance

here is a series of studies with multivitamins. you will see that some studies showed multis are helpful, others they were not--specifically certain types of cancer. hopefully this can shed a bit of light on how something can be beneficial to your body, but not be a cure-all supplement, which a lot of ppl presume multivitamins to be.

http://www.personalpowertraining.net/ar ... tudies.htm
How do you know that it was the glucosamine having an effect, rather than your diet, lifestyle, or just your body naturally repairing itself? How do you know that your joints would be any different if you weren't taking it? There are some studies that shows that it does work for repairing joints, but there are conflicting studies that show that it doesn't work, including a meta-analysis of all the studies. To claim that it does work, based just on your own experience, when there are clearly so many other variables that could be influencing your joints, and the complete speculation that your joint health would be different if you didnt' take it is ridiculous.
while i don't properly document my dietary & supplemental regimen, i am extremely consistent with what i put into my body. years ago i decided that the only way to really know if some of these things work is to learn from personal experience. i have gone for periods where i eat the identical meals for several weeks with a consistent training program--two weeks with a particular supplement, & two weeks without. feeling the day-to-day differences in training & relief lets me understand on a personal level whether these things will work for me.

now, i will say that glucosamine is not the greatest thing in the world. i am not surprised that some people do not receive benefit from it. while i have perceived benefit from it, it is probably the weakest joint support nutrient i have used. making sure you have plenty of calcium, magnesium & silica is far more powerful & supportive to rebuilding your body than glucosamine.
What is your evidence for the effectiveness of curcumin?
above & beyond that, i have done again my own regimented testing with curcumin, & i have tested this with John Bagi as well, who works construction ( aka, a consistent, physical schedule ) & noticed a difference taking it as well, as opposed to not having it.
Another strawman.
Bioindividuality is not a strawman. Are you trying to tell me that you have the identical nutritional needs as a 60 year old man? Or a 12 year old? Or a sedentary individual vs an athlete? Lifestyle has a huge impact on the nutritional needs of your body. Michael Colgan goes into great detail about bioindividuality in his teachings, & this man is responsible for training Olympic level athletes. I highly recommend looking him up for any sports-related training.
Real medicines are all based on natural products. Scientists and doctors notice some kind natural effect, study it, find out what's causing it and then find the best way of giving it to patients. This means, of course, that there are plenty of natural products that have some kind of health benefit. So if you're going to take supplements then you should go to google scholar, do a search for the specific supplement and see what actual evidence there is for it. This is why I said in my first post; "if I were you I'd look for the medical science information directly before trying any. "
I absolutely agree. And the information is there to see. I wonder why you are so aggressive against natural health when this paragraph actually supports natural health to a tremendous degree.
Having a healthy diet and enough exercise are by far the strongest predictors of health, cancer prevention, heart disease prevention and even mental health. Even when we look at the supplements that do have some kind of demonstrated benefit, the difference between control groups and the people taking the supplements tends to tiny. On the other hand, people who regularly exercise (regardless of diet) have a 40% lower chance of heart disease. Eat whole foods (unprocessed), mainly plants (and mainly leaves), exercise regularly. Don't take supplements, unless you have a specific condition.
This paragraph is great, right up till the last sentence. I 100% agree that whole foods are the best source of nutrition & your points on exercise are great. In a perfect world, everybody would be in perfect health. But not everybody is in a position to make that a reality for themselves.

Let's look at the nutritional content of the broccoli flower:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2816/2

Notice:

The good: This food is low in Saturated Fat, and very low in Cholesterol. It is also a good source of Protein, Thiamin, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Calcium, Iron and Selenium, and a very good source of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium and Manganese.

Broccoli is loaded with vitamins & minerals. Almost like a...multivitamin?

The majority of natural supplements are actually the nutrient contents of raw, whole foods which are isolated to help deal with imbalances in one's lifestyle. Yes, eating the broccoli flower would be the strongest approach. And like I said in my first post, multivitamins are not my favourite type of supplement. They are the most easily replacable supplement through a healthy diet. But there are other types of natural products that are refined from natural sources, but are not readily available to eat in raw form.

One example I will leave you with is the plant, Mangosteen, which only grows in Indonesia.

http://livingbyheart.tripod.com/sitebui ... en_pdf.pdf

again, thank you for the replies, jeremy. i admire your diligence to scientific standards.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 04 Sep 2010 17:28

Some quick points;


1. A strawman is when you put forward an argument that your opponent doesn't disagree with, but you pretend that they do, and attack it - making your argument look stronger, but in reality not addressing the actual disagreement between the two sides. So all the things I labelled as "strawmen" weren't things I disagreed (or necessarily agreed) with, they were arguments that weren't contradicting what I'd said, and whether they are actually true or not has no bearing on the strength of my argument.

2. I don't accept website reports on studies as meaningful. You'll see that I took the time to give the full peer reviewed journal references to my claims. I hope that you can do the same, but if not, I guess I'll have to try and find them myself. A study being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean that it's a good study, but it means we can read the details of how it's conducted for ourselves, and make a conclusion. I also note that many websites, especially those pushing a particular agenda misinterpret studies, as do most media reports on studies. For example recently there were reports in media across the world that chameleon's don't change colour as camouflage. It turned out this claim was based on a single study of a single species of chameleon, and that many other studies showed that other species of chameleon do. Relying on media and websites as a source of information is unconvincing.

3. There are a number of studies about the increased cancer risk of vitamen e. Because I thought you'd conceded that point I didn't post any, but I would be happy to if you don't think it's the case. There was another big study mentioned in the book I mentioned in my first (or one of my first) posts that I can't find the actual study to, but I expect Michael Specter will update his website soon, and include the reference. If not, you have my apologies for making a claim that I can't back up with evidence, but given the recency of both the study and the book, I suspect that's not the case.

Post Reply