d are more expensive to do. Obviously people suffering from heart disease and cancer don't have long life expectancies so they are easier to study. I think if they want to test that, then maybe they ought to try testing Eastern medicines and even American Indian medicines, for a change. From my understanding, esp American Indian medicine, researchers haven't thoroughly researched or they've suppressed any research done on them, which they've done since at least the 1800s.You sound like you have been reading a Kevin Trudeau book. No, claims are investigated. We have synthesized many drugs which were originally 'natural' cures, once they were found to be effective. By synthesizing the active ingredient, we can control the dosing strength and purity. It would be stupid to 'suppress' research on possibly helpful cures. No, I haven't read any of his books. I've never even heard of him even, until you mentioned him.
You are a strange man, VYAZMA.What makes you say that George, if you don't mind me asking? Because you are asking strange questions. I don't think macgyver could be any clearer. I know you are trying hard to find something wrong with what he's saying, but I think both of you, you and Mriana, are running out of questions. Duly noted George. Do you have the capacity to explain the strangeness you detect? Or no? I'm guessing no.
We've been through this before Vyazma. How can you claim that a diet is improved if it doesn't improve your health?You're not really a doctor are you? I'm serious. Is that a serious statement you're making there? :lol:
By the way MacGeyver, that’s as far as I got with your last post.
I don’t feel like reading a 10,000 word diatribe that consists of rehashed opinions.
Can’t you make your argument in 1-3 sentences?
Here’s mine again: Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body.
They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake.
See MacGeyver, that’s my argument! 2 simple sentences.
I bet you can’t reasonably dispute them, or offer any logical counter to my position.
Go ahead try again. Keep rambling! Keep bringing up cancer and “average diets”.
My long post was written to try and help you understand what is wrong with your reasoning but if its too much for you I will make it short and sweet.
A good diet is one that keeps you healthier than a not-good diet, otherwise the term good diet is meaningless. People can as you say use vitamins to supplement a diet that they believe to be deficient but there is no proof that this is beneficial or healthier and evidence exists that it may be harmful in some circumstances.
You keep reiterating your hypothesis of vitamins but continue to ignore the actual evidence mckenzie and I present to you which raise serious questions about that hypothesis. Someone who sticks with a line of reasoning after objective evidence repeatedly fails to support that idea is a believer not a scientist
We've been through this before Vyazma. How can you claim that a diet is improved if it doesn't improve your health?You're not really a doctor are you? I'm serious. Is that a serious statement you're making there? :lol: Perfectly serious. Is your question serious? How are you defining an "improved diet" if improved health isn't part of that definition?
Mriana,
Not only did I not insult your intelligence, I was actually agreeing with you in saying that the population one wishes to answer a question about has to be the same as that one studies in a research setting if the answer is to be valid. But you have so solidly closed your mind to anything MacGyver and I say on the subject at this point, you can turn even an attempt to extend your own point into a conflict. I didn’t pick the study to support my position, I picked it because it was exactly what YOU had suggested you were interested in! But without even reading it, and with no attempt to understand or evaluate its methodology, you reject it solely on the basis that it doesn’t agree with your preconceptions and that I presented it.
This thread has become a depressingly clear example of the imperviousness of cognitive dissonance to any information that might suggest reconsidering one’s own belief. As I said before, you and VYAZMA are demonstrating a closed-mindedness that equals any shown by the religious believers you are both so freely criticize for being closed-minded, though I know you will not be able to see the irony or hypocrisy in that.
You keep reiterating your hypothesis of vitamins but continue to ignore the actual evidence mckenzie and I present to you which raise serious questions about that hypothesis. Someone who sticks with a line of reasoning after objective evidence repeatedly fails to support that idea is a believer not a scientistThese statements are not hypotheses: Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body. They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake. I'm still waiting for you to refute them. You raise doubts and questions about health issues etc..."doubts and questions"! My two points above are not "doubts and questions" -they are fact.
This thread has become a depressingly clear example of the imperviousness of cognitive dissonance to any information that might suggest reconsidering one's own belief. As I said before, you and VYAZMA are demonstrating a closed-mindedness that equals any shown by the religious believers you are both so freely criticize for being closed-minded, though I know you will not be able to see the irony or hypocrisy in that.Right. When people don't agree with your own doctrine then they are the "zealots" right? Hey, you and MacGeyver are supposed to be the professionals...I think it's absolutely whacky that you guys keep coming back for more in this thread. In all seriousness, In my book, real professionals would have walked away from this argument awhile ago. What keeps you coming back? Nobody argues in circles with a position based on loose studies, 50% consensus in the scientific community, etc etc.. On the other hand if you are fervently arguing against a lifestyle, I can see the emotion and stubbornness that an argument like that would create. An argument based on ideology and personal opinions. Look at the Forum, nobody has 20 page fact based arguments! Only ideological or opinionated arguments go on for several pages usually.
Mriana, Not only did I not insult your intelligence, I was actually agreeing with you in saying that the population one wishes to answer a question about has to be the same as that one studies in a research setting if the answer is to be valid.I agree about the studies and the population.
I didn't pick the study to support my position, I picked it because it was exactly what YOU had suggested you were interested in! But without even reading it, and with no attempt to understand or evaluate its methodology, you reject it solely on the basis that it doesn't agree with your preconceptions and that I presented it.I did not suggest a study on children, who may or may not have an eating disorder and call themselves vegans. Those two issues need to be separate for a valid studied. Teens who call themselves vegans, eat a whole bag of potato chips because no animals were killed, and then puke up the chips, are not what I was interested in. I was interested in studies that R/O eating disorders for the individual's veganism OR studies done on persons who have an eating disorder- not potentially both in the same study.
This thread has become a depressingly clear example of the imperviousness of cognitive dissonance to any information that might suggest reconsidering one's own belief. As I said before, you and VYAZMA are demonstrating a closed-mindedness that equals any shown by the religious believers you are both so freely criticize for being closed-minded, though I know you will not be able to see the irony or hypocrisy in that.What I was wanting wasn't close-mindedness, but a valid studied. What you posted didn't say anything about R/O an eating disorder in the teens studied, which, if not R/O confounds the results. Anyone who's studied research and stats can figure this one out and realize it's not a valid studied if they didn't do that. Of course supplements won't have any benefits if they are bulimic. That's not close-mindedness, that's thinking about what needs to be R/O in order to make it a valid studied. Studying teens raised on a vegan diet for ethical reasons, R/O any eating disorders, noting both in the abstract, would be a better studied.
These statements are not hypotheses: Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body. They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake. I'm still waiting for you to refute them. You raise doubts and questions about health issues etc..."doubts and questions"! My two points above are not "doubts and questions" -they are fact.You do have a hypothesis whether you want to admit to it or not. Your hypothesis is that you will in some way benefit by taking vitamins. If that were not true then why would you take them? Are you in the habit of doing things just to tick a list that some government agency has published? If the FDA told you to turn East and blink your eyes four times a day for no good reason except that we think its a good idea, would you do it? Of course not. You are consuming vitamin supplements because you are operating on a hypothesis that by doing so you are doing something that might improve your health and well being in some way. You incorrectly believe as many others do, that you are buying insurance against the possibility that you are deficient in some nutrient and this will fill those holes in your diet and thereby reduce the chance of disease, improve your immune system, prolong your life, or improve your health and well being in some as yet undefined way. Once again, that hypothesis has never been shown to be true for the average American and that illusion of an insurance policy comes with the risk of actually causing some health problems. What sort of insurance policy provides no benefit and only risk? A very bad one.
You do have a hypothesis whether you want to admit to it or not. Your hypothesis is that you will in some way benefit by taking vitamins. If that were not true then why would you take them? Are you in the habit of doing things just to tick a list that some government agency has published? If the FDA told you to turn East and blink your eyes four times a day for no good reason except that we think its a good idea, would you do it? Of course not.Which of those statements is hypothesis MacGeyver? If you consider improving one's dietary intake a benefit then yes, I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people. Actually 100s of millions considering the vitamin fortification of staple foods.
You do have a hypothesis whether you want to admit to it or not. Your hypothesis is that you will in some way benefit by taking vitamins. If that were not true then why would you take them? Are you in the habit of doing things just to tick a list that some government agency has published? If the FDA told you to turn East and blink your eyes four times a day for no good reason except that we think its a good idea, would you do it? Of course not.Which of those statements is hypothesis MacGeyver? If you consider improving one's dietary intake a benefit then yes, I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people. Actually 100s of millions considering the vitamin fortification of staple foods. We are not talking about the fortification of foods in this thread. We are discussing the practice of adding to whatever is already in the foods that most people eat by taking additional vitamin supplements. Your hypothesis that doing so will have health benefits is incorrect and not supported by the evidence. As best we can tell, rather than helping millions the net benefit of this practice is zero and may in fact be a negative number.
We are not talking about the fortification of foods in this thread. We are discussing the practice of adding to whatever is already in the foods that most people eat by taking additional vitamin supplements. Your hypothesis that doing so will have health benefits is incorrect and not supported by the evidence. As best we can tell, rather than helping millions the net benefit of this practice is zero and may in fact be a negative number.Where do I state that taking a multi-vitamin will have health benefits? You keep going back to that MacGeyver, that's like the 20th time. Do you find it necessary to twist my statements around to continue participating in this thread? Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body. They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake. Which one of these statements is a hypothesis Macgeyver?
Where do I state that taking a multi-vitamin will have health benefits? You keep going back to that MacGeyver, that's like the 20th time. Do you find it necessary to twist my statements around to continue participating in this thread? Taking a vitamin supplement incorporates compounds into the body which are metabolized and put to use by the body. They can and are used to supplement diets that are lacking in the FDAs listed requirements for daily vitamin and mineral intake. Which one of these statements is a hypothesis Macgeyver?I NEVER said that was a hypothesis. It clearly is not, but you have an implied and faulty hypothesis as I have already described. To claim that you are not expecting health benefits by taking vitamin supplements is dishonest since you have already admitted as much ("I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people."). For the 20th time, why would anyone consume something if they didn't expect some sort of benefit from doing so? I don't know why we have to keep going over this basic and incredibly obvious point. Maybe I should reword that. Another way to state your hypothesis is that you may suffer health consequences if you did not take vitamins. Either way its the same thing, and the hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.
I NEVER said that was a hypothesis. It clearly is not, but you have an implied and faulty hypothesis as I have already described. To claim that you are not expecting health benefits by taking vitamin supplements is dishonest since you have already admitted as much ("I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people."). For the 20th time, why would anyone consume something if they didn't expect some sort of benefit from doing so? I don't know why we have to keep going over this basic and incredibly obvious point.No, improving one's diet is a benefit. That's implied through the word "improvement". Any improvement is a benefit. The US as well most industrialized nations have long worked on improving diet. That is fact. Today many people choose a diet and exercise program. That's what's called a lifestyle. How one wishes to pursue their lifestyle is their prerogative. People can make informed decisions and act accordingly. There's plenty of data out there that allows people to make lifestyle choices. A major part of many nations population including their governments encourage people to live a healthy lifestyle. Improving one's diet is one way to live a healthy lifestyle.
Maybe I should reword that. Another way to state your hypothesis is that you may suffer health consequences if you did not take vitamins. Either way its the same thing, and the hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.Wow, you are obtuse. Didn't I just comment on you changing my words around? I'm not misrepresenting what you say Macgeyver! Besides all that, I'm not making any hypothesis. Where is my hypothesis MacGeyver? I've asked you this 100 times.
Its hard to know whether to laugh or cry at how ridiculous this discussion is. How is a diet improved if it doesn’t improve your health?? By what measure is it an improved diet? If the only difference is that the diet includes some prescribed amount of various elements but does not result in better health then it is NOT an improved diet. Is this not painfully obvious to you?
In regards to your hypothesis, it is certainly implied from the position you are taking, but if that is not obvious enough you stated it clearly when you said “I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people." Interestingly you failed to describe exactly how you are benefiting.
In regards to your hypothesis, it is certainly implied from the position you are taking, but if that is not obvious enough you stated it clearly when you said “I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people." Interestingly you failed to describe exactly how you are benefiting.I'm benefiting by improving my diet. That's according to standards set forth by the FDA. Scientifically backed standards no doubt. I described that 20 times already. I don't see how you find any of this interesting. The FDA, countless doctors, scientists, health professionals, community leaders, insurance companies, etc all agree that a healthy lifestyle is important in maintaining a healthy body. One of the primary centerpoints of this thrust for a healthy lifestyle is Diet. There are numerous outlets that advocate for improving diet. So anybody who is improving their diet is benefiting. This could be through reducing certain foods, increasing other foods, or vitamin supplementation. Of course it usually means all three. Plus moderation in general consumption amounts. Anything else I can clear up for you? I hope none of that seemed like a hypothesis to you either. Because nothing there is a hypothesis. That's all fact.
At one time we thought trans fats, for example, were safe and frequently used them as an alternative to lard. Now we are hearing, “Oops! We were wrong” and trans fats are being removed from all our foods because it turns out they are actually bad for us and can cause, for example, heart problems. The food pyramid has been changed many times just in the 20th century. This is because of science constantly finding new information and learning from mistakes. It makes no sense to supplement milk with vitamin D (for example), and then turn around and say, vitamin supplements are bad, because you can get them from food, of which not everyone imbibes in all foods or have extremely poor diets even in an advance society that supplements many foods. There are people extremely stubborn about eating non-organic foods, with added substances and those who believe milk is only for babies, as well as other ideas surrounding food that people come up with, besides vegans, vegetarians, strict meat and potato people, etc etc., even lactose intolerant individuals. I think that is where Vyazma and I stand on this matter, which seems to confuse you two (McKenzie and macgyver) completely, even greatly, causing you to think it is a matter of close-mindedness and vice-versa, I might add.
All of that aside, let us propose that you and McKenzie are right, macgyver, about vitamin supplements in pill form and return to a question that was not actually answered on previous pages, in the hopes of a clear straight forward answer that actually makes sense, even if we or others do not agree with it. IF a person doesn’t/refuses to eat or drink dairy products, then they are not benefiting from the supplement vitamin D added to milk and are getting very little calcium, if any at all, depending if they ingest things like tofu, soy milk, and alike or not. They are probably vitamin D deficient, which even adults can be deficient in vitamin D, even in a society like ours and extremely few foods, if any, have vitamin D in them, esp naturally. That much I think we can all agree on without a doubt and now that the scenario is set up, let us also assume that blood tests and all were ran to satisfy the doctors involved needing proof that the subject/patient is indeed deficient in vitamin D. IF the person refuses to drink milk supplemented with vitamin D (a very difficult vitamin to find, esp in organic non-supplemented/fortified foods, for example), for whatever excuse they may have or are truly lactose intolerant, where do you suggest/propose they get vitamin D, besides hopelessly attempting to convince them they’d have better health and diet if they imbibed in milk fortified with vitamin D, esp during winter months when most people do not get as much sun? Or do you just give up on the person and allow them to suffer with a deficiency because they are lactose intolerant or they truly believe milk is for infants or are gungho on organic foods or are animal rights extremists or whatever other excuse there is out there for not drinking milk with vitamin D in it?
It is a reasonable question and could indeed occur, even in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Germany, and alike countries.
In regards to your hypothesis, it is certainly implied from the position you are taking, but if that is not obvious enough you stated it clearly when you said “I am benefiting from vitamin supplements along with millions of other people." Interestingly you failed to describe exactly how you are benefiting.I'm benefiting by improving my diet. That's according to standards set forth by the FDA. Scientifically backed standards no doubt. I described that 20 times already. I don't see how you find any of this interesting. The FDA, countless doctors, scientists, health professionals, community leaders, insurance companies, etc all agree that a healthy lifestyle is important in maintaining a healthy body. One of the primary centerpoints of this thrust for a healthy lifestyle is Diet. There are numerous outlets that advocate for improving diet. So anybody who is improving their diet is benefiting. This could be through reducing certain foods, increasing other foods, or vitamin supplementation. Of course it usually means all three. Plus moderation in general consumption amounts. Anything else I can clear up for you? I hope none of that seemed like a hypothesis to you either. Because nothing there is a hypothesis. That's all fact. OK so you agree that in order for it to be considered an improved, good, better diet it has to result in better health? That IS what we mean when we say someone is "benefiting" right? If it doesn't result in better health then there is no benefit. The same is true for taking vitamin supplements. If they don't result in better health compared to someone who does not take them then there is no benefit right?