Good Read on Isagenix / Herbalife Lies

[cdmtdm]

The sad path health /diet / weightloss has taken ,,

Isagenix_and_Herbalife_by_Natasha_Longo.pdf

[h90]

Not so good read....

[cdmtdm]

Not so good read....

and that is why ?

[h90]

Not so good read....

and that is why ?

because they mix true things with complete nonsense.....Of course these companies stretches the facts so far that common sense would call it lying, but coming with other nonsense isn't helpful.

Synthetic Vitamin C...."It does not include the flavonoids and phytonutrients that make it work"

just as example

[cdmtdm]

give me natural over synthetic anyday ....

[h90]

give me natural over synthetic anyday ....

same molecule made by fermentation, if a plant makes it or a bacteria.....same molecule and it works same.

[cdmtdm]

give me natural over synthetic anyday ....

same molecule made by fermentation, if a plant makes it or a bacteria.....same molecule and it works same.

u really need to read more before posting silly replies..... http://www.sunwarrior.com/news/natural-vs-synthetic-vitamins/

[robblok]

give me natural over synthetic anyday ....

same molecule made by fermentation, if a plant makes it or a bacteria.....same molecule and it works same.

u really need to read more before posting silly replies..... http://www.sunwarrior.com/news/natural-vs-synthetic-vitamins/

*LOL* what do you expect on a bias website. Give me some peer reviewed scientific studies. This is absolutely meaningless.

[cdmtdm]

yea science knows lol ....Statins are good for you according to scientists , who funds scientists ? big pharma ......who runs pharma ? wall street .....what does wall st care about ? profit .... now read the quotes on the page i posted and put up an argument against whats stated...dont just read the web address and dismiss it

[robblok]

yea science knows lol ....Statins are good for you according to scientists , who funds scientists ? big pharma ......who runs pharma ? wall street .....what does wall st care about ? profit .... now read the quotes on the page i posted and put up an argument against whats stated...dont just read the web address and dismiss it

I see a site that sells natural vitamins, that means they are bias.

I ask for peer reviewed studies and get blown out of the water. You know there are peer reviewed studies on many things and they are not all funded by big pharma.

You come up with a website that claims a lot but shows no studies to back up what they are saying. I call that quacks.

Offers you a tinfoil hat.. have fun.

Meanwhile in the real world

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169506

Overall, a majority of animal studies have shown differences in the comparative bioavailability of synthetic versus natural vitamin C, although the results varied depending on the animal model, study design and body compartments measured. In contrast, all steady state comparative bioavailability studies in humans have shown no differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, regardless of the subject population, study design or intervention used. Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact. Study design issues and future research directions are discussed.

This blows what it says about vitamins on the site you go to out of the water.

[cdmtdm]

quote...

Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact. Study design issues and future research directions are discussed.

last part of your article sums up science .... the words LIKELY to have MINIMAL physiological impact ( for certain legal advice was given here) i would think that you understand how long it has taken humans to evolve to this point in time , it will take 1000 of years to see the real outcome of these science experiments over the last 50 years ...

i guess a better question to the more open minded would be , would you prefer to have a Vitamin C source from nature which is 100% natural with no additives, preservatives and in its original makeup as it has been for thousands of years ...or would you prefer a synthetic source of Vitamin C derived from a genetically modified plant , packed with sundry chemicals and preservatives .... in the first option your body will recognise the source as we evolved alongside each other over the last 10 to 40 thousand years , in the second option your body will treat it as a toxin , it will not recognise the source and so your medicine becomes your poison ....that is where science is has no idea on the longterm side effects of these synthetic vitamins and minerals.....

[cdmtdm]

by the way i dont go to that site , i put it up as a reference so that you may understand it a little more ,,,,it has nothing to with individual sites but more about the great science/industry cover up ....

[robblok]

quote...

Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact. Study design issues and future research directions are discussed.

last part of your article sums up science .... the words LIKELY to have MINIMAL physiological impact ( for certain legal advice was given here) i would think that you understand how long it has taken humans to evolve to this point in time , it will take 1000 of years to see the real outcome of these science experiments over the last 50 years ...

i guess a better question to the more open minded would be , would you prefer to have a Vitamin C source from nature which is 100% natural with no additives, preservatives and in its original makeup as it has been for thousands of years ...or would you prefer a synthetic source of Vitamin C derived from a genetically modified plant , packed with sundry chemicals and preservatives .... in the first option your body will recognise the source as we evolved alongside each other over the last 10 to 40 thousand years , in the second option your body will treat it as a toxin , it will not recognise the source and so your medicine becomes your poison ....that is where science is has no idea on the longterm side effects of these synthetic vitamins and minerals.....

I use quite a lot of supplements and if a natural vitamin is 10x as expensive and not 10x as effective I go for the one that has the most bang for the $ or Euro.

You don't have much knowledge about evolution, if you were to compare for instance carrots 10.000 years ago and now. You will see that through selective breeding (almost the same as genetic changes) the product is totally different. A carrot that grew 10.000 years ago is completely different from one produced not. This goes for many of the fruits and vegetables, by selective breeding we changed them. I don't see how that differs a lot from genetic modification (not that I am 100% pro I am more against it to be honest) However people seem to love to forget how we have modified all the fruits and veggies ourselves and cant compare those with those our ancestors ate long ago. So vitamins derived from natural products are not that natural as you might think.

Also it really depends on the process of modification. But in case of the vitamin C there is no reason to take natural one. Minimal is as good as none.

[robblok]

by the way i dont go to that site , i put it up as a reference so that you may understand it a little more ,,,,it has nothing to with individual sites but more about the great science/industry cover up ....

You put a site up that sells products they promote.. that gives off red flags. I go to a pubmed site and find info that conflicts with that site. Guess what I believe.

[cdmtdm]

give me natural over synthetic anyday ....

same molecule made by fermentation, if a plant makes it or a bacteria.....same molecule and it works same.

wrong

[cdmtdm]

quote...

Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact. Study design issues and future research directions are discussed.

last part of your article sums up science .... the words LIKELY to have MINIMAL physiological impact ( for certain legal advice was given here) i would think that you understand how long it has taken humans to evolve to this point in time , it will take 1000 of years to see the real outcome of these science experiments over the last 50 years ...

i guess a better question to the more open minded would be , would you prefer to have a Vitamin C source from nature which is 100% natural with no additives, preservatives and in its original makeup as it has been for thousands of years ...or would you prefer a synthetic source of Vitamin C derived from a genetically modified plant , packed with sundry chemicals and preservatives .... in the first option your body will recognise the source as we evolved alongside each other over the last 10 to 40 thousand years , in the second option your body will treat it as a toxin , it will not recognise the source and so your medicine becomes your poison ....that is where science is has no idea on the longterm side effects of these synthetic vitamins and minerals.....

I use quite a lot of supplements and if a natural vitamin is 10x as expensive and not 10x as effective I go for the one that has the most bang for the $ or Euro.

You don't have much knowledge about evolution, if you were to compare for instance carrots 10.000 years ago and now. You will see that through selective breeding (almost the same as genetic changes) the product is totally different. A carrot that grew 10.000 years ago is completely different from one produced not. This goes for many of the fruits and vegetables, by selective breeding we changed them. I don't see how that differs a lot from genetic modification (not that I am 100% pro I am more against it to be honest) However people seem to love to forget how we have modified all the fruits and veggies ourselves and cant compare those with those our ancestors ate long ago. So vitamins derived from natural products are not that natural as you might think.

Also it really depends on the process of modification. But in case of the vitamin C there is no reason to take natural one. Minimal is as good as none.

if nature allows it then our bodies will cope , if scientists modify it then its russian roulette .... as for Vit C ..the synthetic production uses GM corn ..still think its good for you ?

[cdmtdm]

by the way i dont go to that site , i put it up as a reference so that you may understand it a little more ,,,,it has nothing to with individual sites but more about the great science/industry cover up ....

You put a site up that sells products they promote.. that gives off red flags. I go to a pubmed site and find info that conflicts with that site. Guess what I believe.

TV the site we are on represents sellers from many areas , it does not turn me off , i directed you to the data not the products .... pubmed is a club and you will not find any individuals willing to test the boundaries for fear of attack ...i have an idea ..send 75% of the scientists to farm organically and produce natural medicine ..FOOD !! spend the billions of dollars being spent on research and put it too farming organically and educating our kids on what real food is ... what do these studies really reveal? evolution will prove science wrong in the longterm .. if your into supplements i would suggest you really do your research before taking some magic potion promoted on the web ... creatine , whey , aminos , igf etc etc ...

[robblok]

by the way i dont go to that site , i put it up as a reference so that you may understand it a little more ,,,,it has nothing to with individual sites but more about the great science/industry cover up ....

You put a site up that sells products they promote.. that gives off red flags. I go to a pubmed site and find info that conflicts with that site. Guess what I believe.

TV the site we are on represents sellers from many areas , it does not turn me off , i directed you to the data not the products .... pubmed is a club and you will not find any individuals willing to test the boundaries for fear of attack ...i have an idea ..send 75% of the scientists to farm organically and produce natural medicine ..FOOD !! spend the billions of dollars being spent on research and put it too farming organically and educating our kids on what real food is ... what do these studies really reveal? evolution will prove science wrong in the longterm .. if your into supplements i would suggest you really do your research before taking some magic potion promoted on the web ... creatine , whey , aminos , igf etc etc ...

I have read the research on whey and creatine. Its positive but of course the tinfoil brigade like you who disregards pubmed who are true researchers go for the quacks with NO scientific studies backing them.

[cdmtdm]

i dont disregard them ...i question the ethics of science today .... we all take responsibility for our own bodies ... its a personal choice and only time will tell if we made the right choice . I have used most supplements known to man over the last 25 years and honestly not one synthetically produced supplement is worth the money you pay ( not even considering the risk) the alternative is cheap and having discovered that, i have never been stronger , healthier , fitter and leaner in all my 53 years ...how did i do it ? education in understanding your body , once you have that knowledge nothing will stop you .

[robblok]

i dont disregard them ...i question the ethics of science today .... we all take responsibility for our own bodies ... its a personal choice and only time will tell if we made the right choice . I have used most supplements known to man over the last 25 years and honestly not one synthetically produced supplement is worth the money you pay ( not even considering the risk) the alternative is cheap and having discovered that, i have never been stronger , healthier , fitter and leaner in all my 53 years ...how did i do it ? education in understanding your body , once you have that knowledge nothing will stop you .

Same here never been leaner stronger as now.. and guess what with synthetic stuff like whey and vitamins. Of course combined with low carb and veggies and loads of proteins. Personally anyone expecting to even notice whey is crazy.. you don't really notice it just as I don't notice my natural proteins. Its a matter of convenience. Vitamins, i pay more for good quality but again I have never felt more energy from vitamins. Did feel more energy after juicing veggies for a while (cold pressed) but that could have been psychological. However there is quite a big risk here eating veggies. I doubt veggies in Thailand are safer as artificial vitamins.

I am 100% in agreement that its a personal choice, I do trust in pub-med and do look up the science behind supplements. You are right most are not worth the money. For me creating proven to work (for sure noticed it in my workouts) whey.. never noticed it but same goes for normal proteins. Vitamins never really noticed it. All of this of course combined with healthy diet and exercise.